1

Mitigation Measures
Evaluation for Concrete
Faced Rockfill Dams
Juan E. Quiroz
Mehdi Modares
REC Conference - IIT
INTRODUCTION 2

 Dams for water impoundment can be:

 Gravity
 Arch
 Masonry
 Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC)
 Embankment
 Earthfill
 Rockfill Concrete Faced Rockfill Dams or CFRD
CONCRETE FACED ROCKFILL DAMS 3
(CFRD’s)
CONCRETE FACED ROCKFILL DAMS 4
(CFRD’s)

 Zones 1A and 1B protect the upstream concrete faces - usually cohesionless silt or fine sand.
 Zone 2 support the concrete faces - processed granular materials.
 Zones 3, 4, etc. are quarry rockfill zones.
 Zone 3A limits the void size.
 Zone 3B resists water pressure and controls face deflection.
 Zone 3C is composed by larger rocks.
CFRD’s & FAILURES 5

 The most attractive option for the designers

 Straightforward to construct
 Economical
 Adaptable to terrain geometry
 Materials in close proximity

 CFRD’s with larger heights have increased tremendously

 Face slab damage was unprecedented until 2005

 Failures usually occurred during the last few meters of filling

 CFRD FAILURES 6
CFRD ISSUE CAUSE
Aguamilpa
Concrete facing cracking Rockfill deformability
h=187m
Barra Grande
Concrete facing cracking Joint failures
h=185m
Campos Novos
Concrete facing cracking Rockfill defformability
h=202m
Itá
Slabs cracking Rockfill deformability
h=125m
Itapebi
Cracks parallel to the plinth Foundation geometry
h=120m
Mohale
Compression joint rupture Rockfill deformability
h=145m
Tianshengqiao 1
Horizontal cracking Construction sequence
h=178m
Xingó Sharp geometry of the left abutment
Slabs cracking
h=150m and material deformability
 (Ma and Cao 2007)
CAMPOS NOVOS CFRD FAILURE 7
MOHALE CFRD FAILURE 8
BARRA GRANDE CFRD FAILURE 9
TSQ1 CFRD FAILURE 10
CFRD’s FAILURE CAUSES 11

 Highly deformable rockfill  cracking

 Concrete slabs follow rockfill deformation  excessive stresses
 During impoundment, pressure increases  additional stresses
BEHAVIOR 12
 13

CURRENT PRACTICE
CURRENT PRACTICE 14

 Designs are mostly based on common practice rather than

rigorous analysis procedures.
Head of Water Face Slab Thickness
 Face Slab thickness (h) (T)
> 100m 0.3m + 0.002h to 0.3m + 0.004h
50m to 100m 0.3m
< 50m 0.25m
CURRENT PRACTICE 16
 Vertical modulus of deformation, Ev, is obtained from vertical settlements
(Fitzpatrick, et al. 1985)

 Transverse modulus of deformation, Et, is obtained from face slab deformation

CURRENT PRACTICE 17

 Empirical approaches relate the ratio Et/Ev with valley shape factor A/h2
(Pinto and Marquez 1998).
CURRENT PRACTICE 18

 Face slab deflection as a function of Ev and valley shape factor A/h2

(Pinto and Marquez 1998).
SUMMARY 19

 Designs are mostly based on common practice.

 Due to the experienced structural failures of CFRD’s, a more comprehensive

methodology for analysis and design is needed.

 Numerous design changes and mitigation measures are required while

construction is in progress to prevent failures.

  Structural analyses for estimating and comparing the slab stresses and the
effectiveness of mitigation measures.
 20

METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY 21

 Analysis framework for CFRD’s

 A comprehensive non-linear finite element analysis scheme for CFRD’s that

includes:
 Construction sequence
 Contact interactions
 Impounding of the reservoir
 Design changes evaluations
 Understand behavior
 METHODOLOGY 22
Previous designs evaluation Previous designs evaluation

Precedent cases & experience

Precedent cases & experience

Foundation stiffness
No Yes
significantly larger than
rockfill

No foundation required

Foundation Include foundation block

Perform mesh sensitivity
No
Foundation
Interface
required?
Yes

No stiffness Yes
significantly larger
Define base boundary conditions
Define interface properties
(e.g. Fixed, rollers, springs)
& rigid surface

than rockfill Setup 3D FE model

No foundation required Incorporate costruction plan

Implement stage sequence on FE model

Evaluate material zones & properties

Include foundation block Foundation

Run analysis without slabs

No Yes

Material Calibration
Perform mesh sensitivity Interface YES

New CFRD design?

required? NO (during construction)

NO Validation:
Settlements from model YES
match measurements

Define base boundary conditions Define interface properties

Evaluate results & behavior for:
Arching effect
Valley geometry - Shape factor

(e.g. Fixed, rollers, springs)

Compare with previous dams

& rigid surface

Include concrete facing stages &
Contact interfaces in model

Behavior Improvements
Setup 3D FE model
Define slab thickness, joint locations & contact Consider mitigation measures and
behavior improvements to design:

- Material properties stiffening

- Zoning modifications
- Contraction joints
- Interfaces
- Slabs thickness & detailing
- Construction staging improvements
Run FE model with slabs to EOC & FSL

Slab stresses and

Yes No

Incorporate costruction plan

behavior
acceptable?

Final review and compare with previous

CFRD's

END
METHODOLOGY 23
Implement stage sequence on FE Previous designs evaluation

model
Precedent cases & experience

Foundation stiffness
No Yes
significantly larger than
rockfill

Evaluate material zones & No foundation required

properties Include foundation block

Perform mesh sensitivity Foundation
No Interface Yes
required?

Define base boundary conditions

Define interface properties
(e.g. Fixed, rollers, springs)
& rigid surface

Run analysis without slabs

Material Calibration

Setup 3D FE model

Incorporate costruction plan

Implement stage sequence on FE model

New CFRD YES Evaluate material zones & properties

design? Run analysis without slabs

Material Calibration
NO (during construction) New CFRD design?
YES

NO (during construction)

NO Validation:
Settlements from model YES
match measurements

Validation:
NO
Evaluate results & behavior for:

Settlements from YES

Arching effect
Valley geometry - Shape factor
Compare with previous dams

model match
measurements
Include concrete facing stages &
Contact interfaces in model

Evaluate results & behavior for:

Behavior Improvements
Define slab thickness, joint locations & contact Consider mitigation measures and
behavior improvements to design:

Arching effect - Material properties stiffening

- Zoning modifications
- Contraction joints
- Interfaces

Valley geometry
- Slabs thickness & detailing
- Construction staging improvements
Run FE model with slabs to EOC & FSL

Shape factor Slab stresses and

Compare with previous dams

Yes No
behavior
acceptable?

Final review and compare with previous

CFRD's

END
 METHODOLOGY 24
Previous designs evaluation
Precedent cases & experience

Include concrete facing stages & No

Foundation stiffness
significantly larger than
Yes

Contact interfaces in model

rockfill

No foundation required

Consider mitigation measures

Behavior Improvements
Include foundation block
Perform mesh sensitivity Foundation
No Interface Yes

and improvements to design:

required?

Define slab thickness, joint locations & Define base boundary conditions
(e.g. Fixed, rollers, springs)
Define interface properties
& rigid surface

contact behavior - Material properties stiffening Setup 3D FE model

- Zoning modifications Incorporate costruction plan

- Contraction joints Implement stage sequence on FE model

- Interfaces
Run FE model with slabs to EOC & FSL
Evaluate material zones & properties

- Slabs thickness & detailing

- Construction staging
Run analysis without slabs

Material Calibration
improvements New CFRD design?
YES

NO (during construction)

Slab stresses
NO Validation:
Settlements from model YES

Yes No
match measurements

and behavior Evaluate results & behavior for:

Arching effect
Valley geometry - Shape factor

acceptable?
Compare with previous dams

Include concrete facing stages &

Contact interfaces in model

Behavior Improvements
Define slab thickness, joint locations & contact Consider mitigation measures and
behavior improvements to design:

Final review and compare

- Material properties stiffening
- Zoning modifications
- Contraction joints
- Interfaces
- Slabs thickness & detailing
- Construction staging improvements

with previous CFRD's

Run FE model with slabs to EOC & FSL

Slab stresses and

Yes No
behavior
acceptable?

Final review and compare with previous

END
CFRD's

END
ADVANTAGES 25

 The ability to investigate different scenarios, for new designs and during–
construction dams.

 Optimum scenarios are evaluated to make decisions at the design stage

and to propose changes during construction.
 26

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
KÁRAHNJÚKAR CFRD 27
LOCATION

Iceland
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE 28

 The Kárahnjúkar CFRD (Iceland) is the

tallest in Europe
 Height = 198m
 Length = 730m
 Installed capacity of 690MW
 Basalt bedrock foundation
 Full Supply Level (FSL) = 625m
DAM DURING CONSTRUCTION 29
ROCKFILL SEQUENCE 30
(MAX SECTION)
FACING SEQUENCE 31
3D VIEW 32
3D VIEW 33
 34
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 35
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 36
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 37
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 38
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 39
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 40
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
 41
STAGING

Rendering FE Model
FINAL CONFIGURATION 42

Rendering FE Model
DURING CONSTRUCTION DETAIL 43
CONTACT FORMULATION 44

 Behavior is defined on the two main directions

 Normal behavior
 Pressure-overclosure relationship for normal stress transfer
 Pressure as a function of clearance or opening
 Tangential behavior
 Based on classical Coulomb friction
 Shear stress at the interface is proportional to the normal stress
FILLER AT VERTICAL JOINTS 45

 15mm bituminous filler material installed mostly on central joints

FILLER AT VERTICAL JOINTS 46

 Behavior based on data from compression test

MATERIAL PROPERTIES 47
MATERIAL PROPERTIES 48
CALIBRATION 49

 Measurements from instrumentation to determine material properties.

 Initial calibration performed to correlate measured settlements with analysis results.

 Settlement measured along three sections. Main section B  maximum height.

 Slab stresses compared with incremental changes during impoundment.

INSTRUMENTATION 50

The instrumentation installed on the dam consisted of:

 Settlement Gauges:
Hydraulic settlement gauges were installed for monitoring settlement of the
embankment fill and face slabs. The settlement gauges measure vertical
settlement of the fill below the installation elevation.

 Strain Meters:
Strain meters were installed to monitor stresses and strains in the concrete face
slabs of the CFRD.
CALIBRATION 51
 52

RESULTS
ROCKFILL SETTLEMENTS 53
SETTLEMENT 54
MEASURED vs COMPUTED
ARCHING STRESSES 55
INCREMENTAL SETTLEMENT 56
DURING IMPOUNDMENT
Face Slab Deflection 57
DEFORMED SLAB MAGNIFIED x80 58
INCREMENTAL STRESSES 59

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

MITIGATION MEASURES 60

 Reduction of lift thickness in order to stiffen the crest.

 Addition of a horizontal contraction joint.

 Consideration of a wider fiber spacer between vertical slab joints.

 Addition of an asphalt layer material to partially reduce the friction between slabs
and rockfill.

 Increase of central slab thicknesses by 10cm at the central portion of the slabs.
MITIGATION MEASURES 61

 Section 2 total horizontal stresses with and without mitigation measures

 63

THANK YOU