Construction of Ralco Dam in Southern Chile

Brian A Forbes BSc.(Civil Eng), C.P.Eng., MIE Aust., F.A.S.C.E.* Manager, Dams Engineering, GHD Pty Ltd., Brisbane, Australia.

ABSTRACT The 155m high Ralco Dam is part of a US $540 million 570MW hydro electric project currently under construction on the Bio Bio river. It is located some 20km upstream of the Pangue Dam completed by ENDESA in 1996. Despite delays in project initiation due to environmental issues and a breaching failure of the 50m high main coffer dam due to 20 year floods in May 2001, the dam is now well positioned to meet its programmed completion date in late 2003. With approx. 350,000m3 RCC in place since placing commenced in early February 2002, the dam in mid August is now 35m above its lowest foundation. This has been largely due to the concentrated effort made in finishing the foundation excavations following re-diversion and better than expected placing rates during the wet and freezing winter period May-August. Use of grout enriched RCC (GE-RCC) is being used extensively for upstream and downstream facing and RCC connection to the abutments. RCC is being delivered to the works area by a conveyor system involving the first use of a 45 downslope sandwich belt conveyor which has a rated capacity of 600m3/hour. Bedding mortar is being used on all RCC lift joints to provide continuity across joints and meet required RCC characteristic direct tensile strengths of up to 18.5kgf/cm2. INTRODUCTION The Ralco Dam and hydro power project is located some 600km south of Santiago in a narrow canyon at the foothills of the Andes on the Bio Bio River, one of Chiles larger rivers, which enters the Pacific ocean at the city of Conception some 200km from the dam site. The Pangue Dam, an RCC gravity structure 120m high, was completed on the same river in 1996; its headwaters are about 10km downstream of Ralco (Forbes et al 1992). Ralco and Pangue are two of a possible seven hydro power dams which could ultimately be constructed on the Bio Bio River to maximise its hydro potential. The Ralco Dam is a gravity dam 155m high which will provide water for a 570MW underground hydro power station through a 7km long 9.2m diameter headrace tunnel at a head of 175m generating 3,100GWh/year. The dam and power station are due to be completed in November 2003. The project is owned by Empresa National de Electricidad S.A.(ENDESA) of Chile, an affiliate of the Enersis Group. The project designer and construction inspector is Ingendesa S.A. and the contractor for the construction of the RCC dam is Concorcio FEBRAG, a joint venture of two Chilean construction contractors, Fe Grande and Brotec, with technical input on RCC issues provided to it by ASI RCC from the U.S.A.
* email: bforbes@ghd.com.au phone: 617-3316-3601

The final planning and design of Ralco commenced towards the end of the construction phase of Pangue. Environmental approvals were granted in 1997 (HP&D 1997), with construction expected to commence in 1998 and project commissioning five years later in 2002. However delays were incurred mainly as a result of objections raised by a small minority of a group of some 400 Pehuenche Indians (part of the Mapuche tribe of Chile) whose ancestral lands would be affected by the 3467 hectare reservoir, despite the relocation facilities and new lands offered and agreed to by the majority. Finally, following an Appeals Court ruling in favour of the project in late 1999, ENDESA was given approval to proceed with the project (WP & DC 1999). The current estimated project cost is US$540million and, as earlier reported (Zwalen et al 1998), includes for environmental works, relocation of the affected people and their new houses and facilities and the 27m3/s bottom outlet required to provide for environmental river flows in the 10km between the dam and the power station tailrace outlet. The weather conditions at Ralco are severe and consequently have an affect on RCC construction progress. Annual rainfall is 3,000mm, 80% of which occurs in the six months April September. Temperatures can range from -12C to +39C and snowfalls are a common occurrence in the June August period. Some 20km downstream at Pangue Dam, by contrast, snowfalls are rare (although 2 significant falls occurred during its construction) but rainfall is higher ~ 3,800mm/year. The minimum flow in the Bio Bio river at the site is about 90m3/s whilst the highest flood recorded in 39 years is 3,390m3/s. DESIGN DETAILS When completed in 2003 Ralco Dam at a height of 155m will be ranked as the worlds 2nd highest RCC dam, following Miel 1 completed in 2002 in Colombia which is 191m high. It is also located in one of the worlds significant earthquake zones requiring the structural design to be based on peak ground accelerations of OBE 0.18g and MCE 0.28g. The dam is a straight axis gravity structure with a vertical upstream face and a uniform downstream face sloping at 0.8h:1.0v from the crest. It will contain 1.6 million m3 of RCC. The spillway is incorporated on the dam structure close to its central axis, and comprises 3 radial gates (18.9m high x 13.2m wide) and reinforced concrete lined chute and ski jump located 67m below the spillway ogee crest structure. The dam includes 3 near-horizontal drainage/grouting galleries set 8-13m downstream of the upstream face and which extend, as concrete lined adits, into the rock abutments for distances of 35-60m. At Pangue these adits were left unlined, which later proved to be the cause of a significant portion of the total seepage entering the gallery system. The dam structure is divided into 18 monoliths by full length transverse contraction joints spaced typically at 20m centres. Two PVC waterstops provide the seal between adjacent monoliths with a 150mm diameter formed drain positioned downstream of the second waterstop and which connects to the drainage gallery system. Each are at 500mm spacing, with the first waterstop being positioned 500mm downstream of the upstream face.

Fig 1 Ralco Dam cross section

Other principle features and statistics of Ralco Dam are tabulated below: Maximum height Crest length Crest width Max. reservoir level Reservoir surface area Reservoir volume Max. reservoir regulated volume Spillway design flood Diversion tunnel diameter Cofferdam height Diversion capacity 155m 360m 8.5m EL 725m 3,467ha 1,200x106m3 800x106m3 6,550m3/s 13.5m 50m 1,400m3/s
3

The upstream face is constructed in grout enriched RCC (GE-RCC) with a nominal thickness of 0.75m, being widened out at each transverse joint to incorporate the waterstop-drainhole arrangement. The downstream face, which has been designed to be constructed in 0.6m high steps, is also faced with GE-RCC. The dam structure is bonded into the abutment rock with a GE-RCC transition zone, nominally 0.5m thick. The drainages galleries comprise precast concrete roof slabs laid on formed walls also constructed in GE-RCC. The structural analysis was performed using ANSYS 5.4 (2-D and 3-D) taking account of all static, thermal and dynamic loads. A monolith width of 20m was determined on the basis of not cooling the RCC and a one-year direct static tensile RCC characteristic strength of 18.5kgf/cm2 being achieved at the face of the dam. This strength being based on the 90-percentile value of individual peak stresses while allowing for a 50% over strength of RCC in dynamic loading with factors of safety of 3.0, 2.0, 1.5 for the static and thermal usual, unusual, extreme load cases and 1.0 for dynamic load conditions. Based on 80% of the tested samples equally or exceeding the characteristic strength of 18.5kgf/cm2 and a test sample coefficient of variation of 15%, a target average direct static tensile strength of 21.0kgf/cm2 is required for the test samples. To achieve an overall cement reduction it is intended to construct the bulk of the dam using 3 grades of RCC placed in zones to meet characteristic tensile strengths of 18.5, 16.5 and 12.0kgf/cm2. Essentially the upper part and the faces of the dam will be higher grade RCC with the other 2 grades being interior zones in the lower and central parts of the dam respectively. To ensure tensile strength continuity across the 300mm thick RCC lift joints, all RCC lift joints older than the initial set of the RCC (2 hrs approx, or 100C hours where temperature is the average ambient recorded during the exposure time +10C) are bonded using a 10mm thick layer of bedding mortar. The mortar has a strength 25% higher than the RCC and, when covered by the RCC, has a slump of about 260280mm. RCC laboratory trial mixes, using processed available natural gravels and sands (MSA 50mm) obtained from alluvial deposits 12km upstream of the dam site and a locally produced blended cement of 71% Portland cement and 29% natural pozzolan, have shown that 180kg/m3 of the blended cement is required to achieve a characteristic direct static tensile strength of 18.5kgf/cm2 The alluvial sands are typically deficient in fines (minus 0.075mm sizes). The aggregate is generally poor quality, with a significant portion being weak/weathered rock with considerable voids typical of volcanic escoria rock. Absorption ratios of 2-4.5% are typical. To enhance the tensile strength and bonding of the cement paste to aggregate surfaces, the aggregate process includes washing. Aggregates are produced in four sizes, 50-20mm, 20-5mm, coarse sand and fine sand and to make up for lack of natural fines, a ground filler material, manufactured on site in a ball mill, is added to the RCC mix so that the total blended cement plus filler is 250kg/m3. The filler has a Blaine fineness of approximately 3000cm2/gm and is prepared from the washed aggregate sand, which is non-cementious. The deposit of pozzolanic sand close to the Pangue Dam, which is cementitious, is now no longer accessible due to environmental restrictions.

CONSTRUCTION Commencement and Diversion As previously done for Pangue Dam, a preliminary contract was let for the construction of the diversion tunnel, stripping and preparing the dam foundations on the abutments at Ralco whilst bids for the main contract were being called. A total of 13 contracting groups were pre-qualified in 1998 out of which 9 submitted 11 offers when tenders closed that December. The construction contract for Ralco Dam was awarded to Concorcio FEBRAG in the latter half of 2000. By December 2000 Febrag had diverted the river and commenced construction of the main upstream coffer dam, an earth-rockfill embankment approximately 50m high designed for Febrag by the Chilean design consultants, EDIC Ingenieros Ltde. RCC placing was programmed to commence in September-October 2001. The crest of the coffer dam is EL 635.0m and flood estimates show the coffer dam could be overtopped whilst diverting the 1 in 1 year flood, estimated to occur from mid May onwards through winter. Prior to mid May the coffer dam will divert floods up to the 1 in 15 year flood. Hence the design of the coffer dam included a 2m thick layer of rockfill cladding on the downstream face, which is retained by welded grid of 20mm diameter reinforcing bars at 0.6m spacing. The reinforcing grid is anchored at regular intervals back into the embankment fill with12m long bars.

Fig 2 Main coffer dam and right abutment

Fig 3 Main coffer dam after breaching

On 26/27 May 2001 the partly completed coffer dam was overtopped and breached (HP & D 2001). Final crest level of the embankment had been reached over most of the dam except for a short section at the extreme left bank where the crest was about 2m low. The layer of anchored rockfill was incomplete and had generally reached a point about 6-8m below final crest level of the dam; i.e. the construction was about one month behind intended completion date. The breach washed out the top 35m of the dam over about 1/3 of its length, commencing from the left abutment. The downstream coffer dam, crest level EL 605m, was also lost including a timber access bridge. Fortunately the flood from the coffer dam reservoir was able to be held in Pangue Dam downstream, its reservoir had been dropped by opening the spillway gates the previous day in anticipation of a breach failure. The 2500m3/s flood entering the coffer dam had an estimated return period of 1 in 20 years for the period from mid May. It was the result of continuous rain in the preceding week, with the site receiving over 1000mm of rainfall, 500mm of which fell in the preceding 3 days, with almost half of this the day before the breach occurred.

The estimated consequent delay in the program of 6-9 months was reduced to approximately 4 months by a concerted effort. The first of the 6000m3 of levelling concrete was placed in the dam foundation at river bed level of EL 577m on 13 January 2002; by mid March a total of 50,000m3 of RCC and levelling concrete had been placed to reach EL 587m. The contractors original program was to stop RCC placing for two months during the worst part of the winter period, which usually occurs June August. However, in view of the delay incurred by the coffer dam failure, it was decided that RCC placing would continue through both winters, albeit at lower placing rates. Completion of RCC as planned originally for September 2003 is still targeted. Some 2 months of float (till November 2003) are available within the current overall project target commissioning date due to some difficulties and resulting delays which have occurred in the headrace tunnelling works. Re-construction of the main coffer dam incorporated a re-design with the breached section being rebuilt in RCC. The RCC was founded on the remaining coffer dam fill at about EL602m and designed as a hardfill type dam with a crest of EL 620m i.e. 15m below the remaining earthfill crest. This would permit floods in excess of the diversion capacity of the tunnel to pass over the new RCC section. Soon after commencing RCC placement to the coffer dam a further flood occurred which overtopped the RCC without damage but further delaying progress. Two 5m high reinforced concrete training walls provide the expected flood freeboard and retain the fill of the remainder of the coffer dam, the upper 10m being trimmed back and the surface shotcreted. The rock cladding on the remaining fill below EL 602m with its reinforcing and anchor system was repaired and strengthened with a strips of concrete tying the rocks and reinforcing together. It was expected the tunnel would carry all the coming dry season flows until May 2003, then the RCC section would be required to assist in passing the 1 in 1 year flood. However by mid August 2002, as a result of an unusually dry winter, spillage over the RCC has not yet occurred. RCC Mixing and Conveyor System The RCC mixing plant is located on the upper right abutment on a platform of fill constructed within a narrow gully. The terrain around the dam site and its immediate surrounds is very steep, hence suitable plant and aggregate stockpile sites required considerable effort for their establishment. A number of aggregate stockpile areas with a total capacity of 250,000m3 have been established in the area of the processing plants and dam site. A third aggregate processing plant is being installed to meet the high RCC placement demand of 100,000-150,000m3/month in the coming 2002/3 dry season. The RCC materials are weigh batched and mixed in 3 x 9m3 Johnson Ross tilting drum mixers (similar to those used in Pangue Dam). Rated sustained output of 700m3/hour has yet to be achieved; so far output has been limited to about 400m3/hour. Problems were encountered with RCC building up on the vanes and walls of the mixer drums which require the mixer to shutdown every few hours for the build up to be removed with a jack hammer; re-configuration of the mixer vanes has eased this early problem but problems with feed of the filler and cement due to moist ambient conditions continue to create a significant reduction in output. Auger feeders are to be installed to solve this problem. It is anticipated that the mixing plant will then be able to meet the target RCC rate of 6,000m3/day.

RCC is delivered to the dam by a ROTEC high speed conveyor system. Access to the dam placement area from the mixing plant is via a 80m long 3m diameter tunnel, constructed though a spur of rock immediately upstream of the dam axis, to reach a point just above the final crest of the dam, as shown in Fig. 4. The conveyor up to this point is 200m long and has a belt width of 760mm, it is generally on level grade. Delivery from this point is by a 910mm wide conveyor running directly down the 46 right abutment of the dam. This is the first time a conveyor has been used for delivering RCC down such an incline; previously the limiting downslope for RCC was taken as 23 - 25. ROTEC have designed the conveyor as a double layer 5m/s belt, the top cover belt pressing down on top of the RCC, as a sandwich, restraining the RCC from sliding down or spilling off the sides of the belt. The rated maximum capacity of 600m3/hour is now close to being achieved following considerable modifications made to the installed system. Initially an installation less than 200m3/hour was achievable.

Fig 4 Downslope conveyor and re-constructed coffer dam

Fig 5 Top conveyor belt arrangement to to restrain RCC

On reaching the placement area the inclined belt feeds onto a horizontal belt, mounted on jackposts, to run the length of the dam about 8m downstream of the upstream face. A tripper conveyor lifts the RCC off the belt to feed it on to a crawler placer unit with an extending conveyor to feed directly to the point of placement, as adopted on many of the larger RCC dams to date in S. America (eg. Pangue Porce II, Miel 1) and elsewhere. The installation of the jackpost-mounted belt has been held back until the risk of coffer dam overtopping is past, it is expected to come into use in September 2002. RCC up to now has been fed from the inclined conveyor to the crawler placer through a short connecting link and trucks have largely been used to transport RCC from the crawler placer to points of placement beyond the limited reach of the crawler placer. In the event of the coffer dam being overtopped the crawler placer and link belt could be removed from the placing area in 7 minutes. RCC Placing and Progress A full scale trial embankment 50m long x 8m wide containing 580m3 in 5 lifts of RCC each 300mm thick, was constructed on a prepared site about 0.5km upstream of the dam site in the middle of October 2001. The trial tested mixes with varying contents of the blended cement, Vebe times and sand contents. GE-RCC vertical and stepped facings were trialed with different grout contents and grout thicknesses, including the use of superplasticers to reduce the viscosity of the thicker grouts. Two
7

different formwork designs were tried out. Bedding mortar mixes were also trialed as were different standards of lift joint preparation. Two different types of vibrating drum rollers were used to compact the RCC lifts and the required number of passes determined. The contractors site staff, plant operators and construction labour, as well as the engineers inspectors and testers, were able to experience and learn, many for the first time, the correct procedures for RCC construction. Later a series of 150mm diameter cores were drilled and strength tested to enable a full assessment to be made to determine the best plant, RCC mixes, and procedures to be adopted for the commencement of RCC construction which took place in early February 2002. By the end of March the lower gallery level of 596.5m had been reached with approximately 96,000m3 placed and RCC was about 50,000m3 behind the revised program determined following the coffer dam breach. With only 6 weeks remaining to mid May, from when it was considered highly probable that the coffer dam could overtop, flood out the works and breach the downstream coffer dam, which then would allow water diverted by the tunnel to inundate the works once the overtopping ceased, consideration was given to: raising the upstream portion of the dam to EL 635m, or higher if time permitted, as an internal cofferdam, or raising the downstream portion of the dam to EL 603.7m, i.e. the tailwater level for the 1 in 1 year tunnel diversion flood.

The latter was selected in preference to an upstream raising. The main reasons being that the volume of the RCC associated with an upstream internal coffer dam was significant, placing would be complicated by the gallery construction and it was undesirable to incorporate a significant longitudinal cold joint within the body of the dam in the upstream zone, notwithstanding that such an internal coffer dam had been an arrangement adopted earlier at the Beni Haroun RCC dam in Algeria. The downstream section of the dam was therefore raised some 7m to secure the works against tailwater flowing back into the works when the existing downstream earthfill coffer dam breached due to the main coffer dam being overtopped. By the end of July 2002 a total of 322,000m3 of RCC had been placed and a level of EL613m reached, i.e. approximately 35m above river bed. Highest monthly placement occurred in July when 67,600m3 was placed. The highest daily placement of 4,800m3 occurred in May. As expected freezing conditions and wet weather in May, June and July have limited monthly placement rates although progress has been better than programmed due to somewhat drier conditions than usual, as the table below indicates. RCC (m3) Month May June July Programmed 62,500 27,500 29,900 Placed 50,000 58,200 67,600 Rainfall (mm) 59-year Average 505 550 525 Received in 2002 348 524 365

Overall the program anticipated 359,000m3 in place by the end of July, i.e. at this stage the volume of RCC placed is 90% of the quantity programmed. A further 49,000m3 is programmed for August, which will see through the first wet season placement.

Up to mid August all floods have all been diverted through the diversion tunnel and RCC placing has now progressed to EL614.6m with a total of 345,000m3 RCC placed. Cold and Wet Weather RCC Placing Procedures Wet weather placing at Ralco, as experienced during Pangue dam construction, has again shown that RCC cannot be properly placed when rainfall intensities exceed 3mm/hour. By reducing the moisture content of the mixed RCC from a Vebe time of 15-18 seconds, as used in dry conditions, to 20-25 seconds and by limiting the spreading of bedding mortar to 6m or less in advance of the RCC and reducing its moisture content slightly, RCC placing can continue up to 3mm/hour. When intensities exceed this RCC placing should cease and any uncompacted RCC must covered by PVC sheeting until compaction can commence. In accordance with normal practice to date, RCC lifts were specified to be placed with a crossfall towards the upstream face. However, during rainfall conditions and cold lift joint preparation, pressure washing etc., the accumulation of pools of water along the upstream face, held back by the formwork, creates a major drainage and cleanup problem before the covering lift can be placed and, more importantly, results in lower quality RCC and lift joint bond exactly in the location where highest quality is required! Accordingly the upstream crossfall has been changed to a downstream crossfall, 1 on 100 (1.0%) is currently in use. A similar approach was adopted at Miel 1 Dam in Colombia where 1 on 100 was also used to obvious advantage. The effective reduction in shearing resistance along the lift joint, assuming cohesion is zero and the friction angle is 45, amounts to 2.0% when compared to horizontally placed lifts the usual basis for analysing the resistance to failing by sliding along RCC lifts, the small of the upstream crossfall is usually ignored in the analysis. This reduction is negligible, especially when the friction angle cannot be defined much closer than 5, and in addition the significant improvement obtained in lift joint condition and bonding provides for enhanced joint cohesion, far outweighing the reduction in the effective friction angle due to a downstream crossfall. Extended periods of cold weather have been experienced at Ralco during June-July. The 28-year record of monthly average daily minimum temperatures and those recorded on site in 2002 are shown below. Month May June July August September Average Monthly Minimum Temperature (C) Average of 28 years 3.0 1.4 0.8 1.0 2.2 Average for 2002 3.1 -0.6 -0.1 N/A N/A

The minimum recorded temperature over the 28 years of record is 13.5C, that recorded in 2002 up to mid August is 5.9C. Laboratory testing by the contractor of various forms of thermal blankets made up on site comprising PVC sheet and geofabric confirmed the most effective as being a 3 layer blanket consisting of a single layer of 300gm/m2 grey-coloured BIDUM geofabric stitched between a lower layer of black PVC sheeting and an upper layer of clear PVC sheeting. In the laboratory test this sustained a 5.4C thermal gradient across it for the 23 hour test duration. The contractor had 12,000m2 manufactured to
9

this design for use during freezing conditions to lay over exposed RCC lift surfaces younger than 3 days. By extending the thermal blanket up over the adjacent 2-3m of rock abutment, the heat held under the blanket generated by the hydration process of the cement in the RCC also heats up the abutment rock, against which the GE-RCC transition zone will later be placed. Upstream forms and the downstream stepped forms are timber panelled, which provides better thermal insulation to lift faces than steel. Other procedures adopted at Ralco for placing RCC in cold and freezing conditions is the use of 60C heated mix water and a finer grind cement (5000gm/cm2 Blaine) for the grout used in the GE-RCC, to accelerate the hydration process. It has been shown that with the blanket and placed RCC temperatures of at least 5.5C at the time of placement, which is high enough to initiate hydration of the cement, the hydration/heat generation process will be sustained until the RCC lift is blanketed by the next layer of RCC. By this means RCC placing has been maintained at Ralco during ambient temperatures below freezing, in fact reaching as low as 5.9C. All measurements of surface RCC temperatures to date have confirmed that with the blanket in place temperatures have always been above zeroC, but where the blanket is not in place sub-zero temperatures have been recorded.

Fig. 6 Raised downstream zone, placing RCC in difficult wet conditions

Fig 7 Thermal blankets in place during freezing conditions

Overall it has been found that during rainfall conditions RCC placing requires far more attention and placing rates are significantly reduced, compared to placing during dry, cold to freezing conditions. It has also been found that during cold conditions the hydration of the cement is slowed, whereas in hot, dry summer conditions the RCC stiffens and workability quickly drops off following mixing giving less time to place and compact the RCC and GE-RCC. RCC Mix, GE-RCC and Bedding Mortar The RCC mix proportions used to date have contained 180kg/m3 and 160kg/m3 of the blended cement (29% pozzolan) plus the site manufactured filler to provide a total of 250kg/m3, i.e. 70 and 90kg/m3 of filler respectively. Total fines content (minus 0.075mm size), which includes aggregate fines, is about 12-13%. Sand content (minus 4.75mm) in the total aggregate is 38-40% and the weight of coarse aggregate (plus 4.75mm) is about 1200kg/m3. Theoretical air free density is approximately 2400kg/m3 and the mix has a Vebe time of 15-18 seconds when placed. The water:blended cement ratio is about 0.80 0.82.

10

The GE-RCC is manufactured by pouring a cement water grout over the spread lift of loose RCC and consolidating it once it has soaked down through the voids in the loose RCC using hand held poker vibrators. The grout water:cement ratio is 0.78 and a superplasticiser is added at the rate of 2% of cement content to achieve a Marsh Cone viscosity of 33-36 seconds to aid in its percolation through the loose RCC. The slump of the GE-RCC (sampled after consolidation) is 60-80 mm. The bedding mortar which is spread over all lift surfaces older than the time of initial set of the RCC lift contains 400kg/m3 blended cement, approximately 1500kg/m3 of sand, with 30% of it being fine sand (minus 2.36mm). It has a water:blended cement ratio of 0.8 so that the slump at time of covering by the RCC is about 260-280mm. Spreading of bedding mortar is generally carried out by a small tractor towing a spreader device set up to approximately 10mm to apply an even thickness of mortar. Hand spreading is carried out in small confined areas. Quality Assurance and Test Results The contractor undertakes all testing except for RCC sample strength testing which is carried out by the Inspector (Ingendesa) in the existing site laboratory at Pangue Dam, 20 km downstream. Processed aggregate testing includes gradings, density, moisture content, absorption and fineness modulus. Gradings and Blaine fineness are carried out on the manufactured filler. RCC tests include gradings, Vebe workability (at plant and again at the dam prior to compaction), Vebe density after 2 minutes vibration, kango hammer density (cylinder mould), and compacted density and moisture content by nuclear densimeter. Nuclear density is reported on a % of theoretical air free density as calculated for the RCC mix. Nine tests per lift are carried out, each at 4 depths. Individual results of the 9 tests (being the average of the 4 depths measured), the minimum value, average of the 9, and the moving average of the last 20 averages are reported. Specified minimum density is 99% TAF, typically averages are close to 100% TAF for the 6-8 passes of the 10 tonne double steel drum vibrating rollers used. RCC strength tests are carried out on 150 x 300mm cylinder samples manufactured by kango hammer. Testing is done at 7, 28, 56, 90, 180 and 365 days for compression and indirect (splitting) tensile strengths. Initially, because of shortage of curing tanks at the contractors site laboratory, samples were left un-cured on site for the first 3-4 days, until strong enough to be trucked down to the Inspectors laboratory at Pangue Dam for storage in controlled temperature water baths until tested. The coefficient of variation for the RCC and GE-RCC compressive strengths being 45% for 7, 28 day RCC samples and reducing to 30-40% for the older 56-90 day samples, whereas the GE-RCC samples have a coefficient of variation of 15-20% for all ages. The characteristic (80%) indirect tensile 90-day strengths available to date for RCC and GE-RCC are as follows: RCC (180kg/m3 mix) RCC (160kg/m3 mix) GE RCC (mix of 180 and 160kg/m3 RCC) - 22kgf/cm2 - 15kgf/cm2 - 19kgf/cm2

The required 1 year direct tensile strengths should easily be attained, and it is expected, when more consistent and longer term test results become available, that cementitious contents will be able to be adjusted down.
11

Bedding mortar sample testing has confirmed its strength is 20-25% greater than that of the RCC, which is satisfactory. A program of extracting cores from 5 locations (within galleries, off spillway chute/flip platforms and from final crest) will be carried out and cores tested to provide final confirmation of placed RCC and GE-RCC strengths, lift joint cohesion and shear strengths. CONCLUSIONS Despite early delays in satisfying environmental issues, the loss of the main coffer dam and some initial problems in RCC production/delivery rates, Ralco Dam is progressing well. Placing rates have doubled those expected and programmed for the wet winter months, due partly to the drier than usual winter experienced in Chile. The concerns of placing during freezing winter conditions have been overcome by use of simple cheap thermal blankets, heating mix water and using a finer ground cement in the GE-RCC grout. RCC strength testing shows that the required tensile strengths will be achieved with current mixes and the likelihood of being able to reduce cement contents appears evident from early results. The dam is now set to achieve placing rates of 100,000 150,000m3/month during the coming summer months to place the outstanding 1.25 million m3 of RCC and meet the programmed completion date of end of October 2003. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks ENDESA for the opportunity to prepare this paper, Ingendesa S.A. for their assistance in providing technical data and responding to queries from the author, and GHD Pty Ltd for the assistance provided in its actual preparation. REFERENCES Forbes, B.A., Croquevielle, D. and Zabaletta, H., (1992). Design and proposed construction techniques for Pangue Dam. Proc. of the International Conference of Roller Compacted Concrete III, San Diego, USA, February 1992, 47-62. Pinilla, L., (1995). Pangue Dam construction. Proc. of the International Synmposium on Roller Compacted Dams, Santander, Spain, October 1995, 815-823. HP & D article, (1997). Environmental Commission approves Ralco dam in Chile. International Journal on Hydropower and Dams, Issue 3, 1997, p3. Zwalen, R. and Duran, P., (1998). Greening Ralco. International Water Power & Dam Construction, April 1998, 22-23. WP &DC article, (1999). Ralco agreement for Endesa Conaldi. International Water Power & Dam Construction, March 1999, p2. HP&D article, (2001). Ralco suffers setback as cofferdam is damaged in flooding. International Journal on Hydropower and Dams, Volume 8, Issue 3, 2001, p3. Uribe, L. and Bosshart D., (2002). Challenging RCC dam construction on the Ralco project in Chile. International Journal on Hydropower and Dams, Volume 9, Issue 4, 2002, (awaiting publication).

12