Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adopt Vietnamese code if any, but it is possible to use all available codes or guidelines (USA, Canada, GB, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, India, etc). No code is better or worse than the others! All these codes are coherent and adopt the same general principles (which are a simplification of the reality). They differ mainly by the presentation and lead to very comparable results! The most important is to adopt homogeneous parameters and criteria (global safety factors and partial safety factors for friction, cohesion and max tensile strength). Dont mix these codes and dont retain, for safety reason, the most unfavourable results! Application with good judgment by experimented engineers is more important than the origine of the code !
The conception of a RCC dam must be adapted to the particularities of the RCC technique (Basic principles)
If useful, the design can separate the mechanical and the watertight functions.
Perhaps the most notable development in recent RCC gravity dams in U.S.A in the design is: Increasing the dam size in order to reduce the required RCC strength provided an opportunity to use marginal on-site aggregates. Designing the dam to resist full hydrostatic uplift pressure eliminated the need for foundation drains and drainage gallery (for low and medium-sized dam). Eliminating the construction of a stilling basin. The purpose of the next slides is to illustrate these recommendations by some examples of recent RCC dams worldwide.
Very good aspect of the downstream face with the GEV-RCC method and an intact core 15 m long in the dam.
LONGTAN DAM A good example of separation between the dam and the powerhouse. This implementation allows a separation between the CVC and the RCC placements, a continuous regular placement of the RCC and a commissionnig of the 3 first units before the end of construction of the dam (shorter delay than for the powerhouse).
V = 1 400 000 m3
A good example of a very high dam with cement contents adjusted to the stresses and without fly ash.
Large crest width to increase the dam volume and lower the max stress.
132
120
Number of dams
100 80
RCC advent
98
60
40 20 9 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 13 20 27
67
1990
2000
2010
2020
Year
AOULOUZ DAM
RCC with 100 kg cement/m3 and clayey fines, no flyash. R365 =10 MPa
Examples of unconfined compressive strengths for 3 Moroccan RCC dams with additional fines
With100 kg cement/m3 and additional fines (clayey for Aoulouz, limestone for Sidi Sad and high quality limestone for Rmel), no flyash.
25 20
25 20
UCS (MPa)
UCS (MPa)
15 10 5 0 0
15 10 5 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Aoulouz Days 300 350 Said 400 Sidi
Aoulouz
Sidi Said
Rmel
Rmel
50
100
150
200 Days
250
300
350
400
Low cement content (100 kg/m3), no flyash and no leakage on the downstream face !
Production of the inert filler and grading curves of filler and sands
The RCC (100 kg cement/m3, no fly
ash, 7% of inert filler) is placed by the sloped layer method
Rizzanse dam
Spreading the RCC (100 kg of cement/m3 without F.A) on the bedding mix (mortar)
Cementitious content
1996
High paste
(> 150 kg/m3 cementitious material)
2006
Comments 53.4 %
Increase of High paste RCC is due mainly Chinese RCC dams (China has a lot of coal fired thermoplants with low cost of fly ash). Increase of Lean RCC is due mainly to Brazilian RCC dams (The Brazilian RCC dams are far from thermoplants). High increase of the proportion of Hardfill dams (they are not numerous, although very interesting on weathered foundation). Relative decrease of RCD (higher cost, only adopted in Japan). These values reflect the particularities of the site and the conception of the dam but not the proof of the superiority of one technique on the others !
43.3 %
Medium paste
(100 < CM < 145)
21.7 %
16.9 %
Lean RCC
(CM< 99 kg/m3)
12.7 %
0.6 % 18.5 % 3.2 %
13.3 %
2.9 % 12.8 % 0.8 %
Hardfill RCD
(Japan)
Unknown
1996
Cement + low-lime FA Cement + highlime FA Cement + ground granulated slag Combination of pozzolans (no cement) Cement + natural pozzolans Cement + manufactured pozzolans Portland cement alone Unknown 66.2 % 1.3 % 4.5 % 4.5 %
2006
60.8 %
Cementitious materials
Comments
0.9 % 5.1 % 2.1 % Increase of the use of (cement + natural pozzolans), due to the expansion of RCC dams to regions where fly ash (and slag) are not available. Increase of the use of (Portland cement alone), due to the expansion of RCC dams to regions where fly ash (and slag) are not available. Decrease of the use of (cement + lowlime FA), which remains however the large majority of cases.
7.6 % 2.5 %
15.3 % 1.2 %
10.2 % 3.2 %
14.7 %
High or low paste content ? All recent RCC materials are in reality High paste content, it is more exact to replace in this classification : paste by cementitious. The cementitious content The cementitious materials include cement and slag but also all the materials that present a pozzolanic reactivity (fly ash, natural or artificial pozzolan, some natural fines and rock powder, etc). The use of powdered aggregates
More and more used everywhere fly ash or pozzolan are too costly.
The use of admixtures in RCC More and more used as they can lengthen the setting time of the RCC (to improve the bonding between the layers) and reduce the water content and consequently the cementitious content.
Use of admixtures
Without admixture
VB (s) Density VB (kg/m3) Mix efficiency at 180 days (MPa)/(kg/m3) Cementitious content in (kg/m3) Retarding admixtures Cost savings (cement) 67 2 540
With admixture
23 2 565 -
Comments
Use of a plasticizerretarder admixture (0.8 to 1.12 kg/m3). There is a reduction of VB time up to 40% for the same water content, or a reduction of circa 10% of water content for the same VB time. There is an increase of VB density. There is an increase of the mix efficiency. For the same consistency and compressive strength, the cementitious content can be reduced (15 to 30% ).
The cooling of RCC: for low and medium high dams (<100 m) : use of low heat
cement and fly ash if not too expensive, pre-cooling of the aggregates by air, water spraying of the layers, induced intermediate vertical joints (see photo of the upstream face of Nam Theun 2 dam) to prevent crack extension,For high dams (>100 m) : same precautions, plus an ice cooling plant and an internal cooling of the dam, if necessary. The use of geomembrane: can be an interesting solution when the function of watertightness is separated from the mechanics and the stability functions. For example for the low paste RCC (without fly ash) gravity dams, or for FSHD and CSG dams with very low cement contents. Some designers prefer to adopt a gemembrane protected by precast concrete panels for the upstream face of the dam.
For the Balambano dam the total leakage through the dam is virtually zero (some seepage appeared through the foundation and the abutments) : the geomembrane was thus very efficient for the dam watertightness.
Initially 6 m high earth dam First earth dam in USA to receive RCC overtopping protection (1984) Initial Flood = 74 m3/s Revised Flood (PMF)= 330 m3/s Overtopped 6 times since its construction with no damage Volume of RCC = 1 070 m3 placed in 2 days 1/3 of the cost for increasing spillway capacity by traditional method
Son LA HPP
Cementitious content of RCC (per m3) Cement (kg) Fly Ash (kg) Sand (kg) A .0.5x2 (kg) A.2x4 (kg) A.4x6 (kg) Water (l) TM-20 (l) P-96 (l)
Cat
70 126
175 141
772 746
531 852
219 468
605 0
110 132
1.47 1.6
0.42
Cement Materials
CONCRETE MIX
1x2, OK6-8M150, coarse aggregate M150, coarse aggregate 2x4, OK6-8 m3 296 251 600
Flyash
kg/m3 VND
Total
VND
Units
kg/m3 VND
488 095
m3
281
238 850
457 698
m3
266
226 100
426 709
RCC MIX
RCC MIX , M200 RCC MIX, M150 m3 m3 126 70 110 754 61 530 141 175 97 572 121 100 440 953 408 342
The RCC material costs (2007) are almost the same than the conventional concrete material costs due to : the high percentage of cementitious materials, the similar treatment of aggregates.
High fly ash cost: use fly ash only if there is a thermal powerplant near the site. Too high content of cementitious materials : avoid to normalize a minimum RCC
strength (for example RCC150 or RCC200), as for the CVC! Adjust this minimum value according to the results of each optimization (materials/analysis) of the design. The strengths of the RCC are too large compared to the required strengths. The watertightness of the dam and its durability can be obtained by other cheaper alternatives. The cost of the cementitious material must be lower than 30% of the total cost of the RCC material, it is here almost equal to 50%!
Low rate of construction: improve the organization of the works, adopt as much as
possible a continuous placement.
Poor construction equipment: for dams with large volume (> 1 to 2 millions of m3),
select the RCC transportation by conveyor belt.
Son La Dam
Mix Proportions per m3 : Cement PCB 40 = 60 kg/ m3, Pulverized Fly Ash = 160 kg/ m3 Comment:
The required high tensile strength to resist to the design earthquake loadings is linked to the shape of the cross section of the dam.
Volume, m3
10000 10500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 500 0
Accumulated Volume
The placement of the RCC is very discontinuous with peak near 10 000 m3/day (costly construction equipment) and many weeks without placement .
Date
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000
11-Jan-08 25-Jan-08 8-Feb-08 22-Feb-08 7-Mar-08 21-Mar-08 4-Apr-08 18-Apr-08 2-May-08 16-May-08 30-May-08 13-Jun-08 27-Jun-08 11-Jul-08 25-Jul-08 8-Aug-08 22-Aug-08 5-Sep-08 19-Sep-08 3-Oct-08 17-Oct-08 31-Oct-08 14-Nov-08 28-Nov-08 12-Dec-08 26-Dec-08 9-Jan-09 23-Jan-09 6-Feb-09 20-Feb-09 6-Mar-09 20-Mar-09 3-Apr-09 17-Apr-09 1-May-09 15-May-09 29-May-09 12-Jun-09 26-Jun-09 10-Jul-09 24-Jul-09 7-Aug-09 21-Aug-09 4-Sep-09 18-Sep-09 2-Oct-09 16-Oct-09 30-Oct-09 13-Nov-09 27-Nov-09 10-Dec-09 24-Dec-09 7-Jan-10 21-Jan-10 4-Feb-10 18-Feb-10 4-Mar-10 18-Mar-10 1-Apr-10 15-Apr-10 29-Apr-10
18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000
Too much paste and water in the RCC. Sufficient water content is required for good bond between the layers but too much water (bleeding and laitance) is detrimental.
Avoid as much as possible the use of trucks on the RCC layers. Use as possible conveyor belt and swinger.
Son La
Volume of the dam : 4.6 hm3 First concrete placement : April 2007 End of concrete placement : August 2010 Duration of construction : 40 months (115 000 m3/month) Commission of the first unit : December 2010 Delay between the concrete dam dam placement and commission of the first unit : 3 years
First concrete placement : November 2003 End of concrete placement : November 2007
Delay between the concrete dam placement and commission of the 3 first units : 3.5 years
The volume of the dam will be a little higher but, as the unit cost of the RCC is lower, the total cost of the dam will certainly decrease. To improve the watertightness, the upstream face of the dam could be enriched in cement and fly ash by the GEV-RCC method or by CVC. A light reinforcement mesh can be put, if necessary. Even with 130 kg of cement per m3, the cooling of the RCC will not pose more problems than the present situation, provided the vertical joints are correctly implemented.
The studies of the RCC materials should be carried out before the design and the analysis of the structure (and not the opposite as in many Vietnamese projects!), as they depend on the most available and economical materials which can be obtained on the site.
The most economical solution is not always the minimum dam volume with a large amount of fly ash whenever this material is not available near the site. The conception of a RCC dam must be flexible and must be optimized among all the possible RCC alternatives (different cross section, RCC composition, RCC zoning, separation of mechanical and watertight functions, etc). Dont adopt the same cross section and the same RCC for all the sites!
A particular type of RCC dam: The Face Symmetrical Hardfill Dam (FSHD) and Cofferdam A new shape : fit with
incompetent or low resistance foundation
= 24 kN / m 3
P G
1 C r itical r esultant For ear thquake 0.2 g
40 30
100 m
0 .8
A = 0.63
20
27
4 2 3 2
D u l 1F B 2 E m p ty 2 (M P a ) (M P a )
1 C
1 0 0 0 .4 0 1 .0 U p l i f t A = 0 . 8 4 B = 1 . 5 6 C = 2 . 4 0 D = 0 .0 0 F S H D
20 22 14 18
= 23 kN / m 3
100 m
0.7 1
0 .7
= 0.36 Full
10 1
1 C A 2
0.40 U plift
1.0
A B C D
= = = =
Some examples of FSHD and FSH cofferdams: - Cidere and Oyuk FSHD in Turkey
- Koudiat Acerdoune FSHD in Algeria
- Saf Saf FSHD and FSH cofferdam in Algeria
Sommaire Summary
H = 107 m L = 280.60 m V = 1 680 000 m3 (RCC = 1 500 000 m3 , CVC = 180 000 m3 ) Q (Peak Flood) = 3 600 m3 /s Foundation : Micaschist Es = 2.75 to 3.70 GPa Rcs = 3.3 to 15.3 MPa Seismicity OBE = 0.20g MCE = 0.40g RCC cementitious materials : 50 kg/ m3 P.C + 20 kg/ m3 F.A Rc = 6 MPa (180 days) Covered geomembrane upstream
H = 100 m L = 212 m Q (Peak Flood 1/10 000) = 530 m3/s Foundation : Gneiss and micaschist Seismicity : OBE = 0.24g MCE = 0.40g Cementitious materials : 50 kg/m3 P.C + 100 kg/m3 F.A Rc = 6 MPa (90 days)
Final design
1 515 000 m3 140 kg/m3 0 150 kg/m3 11 MPa at 90 days 25C
Choice of a FSHD cross-section to adapt the design to the very low quality of the foundation and of the aggregates, with a reduction of Rc. Replacement of the costly fly ash by a limestone filler ground in situ.
The Q10-yearflood = 890 m3/s, but the capacity of the diversion canal is only 150 m3/s (annual flood).
2.
3.