RCC MIX DESIGN AND TESTING PROGRAM RE-BUILD OF

THE NEW UPPER RESERVOIR TAUM SAUK PUMP

STORAGE PROJECT
P. Rizzo, L. Gaekel, S. Nichols, C. Rizzo

Abstract: The rockfill dike, constructed in 1963 to form the

Upper Reservoir at the Taum Sauk Pump Storage Project near
Lesterville, MO, failed abruptly on December 14, 2005. The
Upper Reservoir is presently being rebuilt as a 2.6 million CY
RCC Dam in compliance with FERC Regulations and Missouri
environmental permitting regulations. The Dam is the largest
RCC project constructed in the USA and it has a symmetrical
cross-section with relatively low strength RCC. Detailed mix
design studies using various cement, fly ash and moisture
contents have been performed to determine the RCC mix
proportions and two full scale test sections have been placed.
The available construction materials are challenging in nature,
the source of aggregates has a high fines content and the rock
has propensity to ASR. Despite these challenges, the right mix
has been determined and the RCC placed in the dam so far
exceeds design requirements. This paper presents the overall
mix design, the testing process and test pads construction prior
to dam construction, and available results from samples
extracted during construction.

1 Introduction
After careful consideration of public safety concerns, regulatory agency requirements
and evaluation of different remediation options, Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.
(RIZZO) proposed an RCC alternative for a complete rebuild of the dam. The initial
proposal contemplated using a conventional gravity dam section with vertical
upstream face and a steep downstream face, which contemplated a relatively high
strength RCC and fairly clean aggregate. As preliminary studies [1] revealed
significant presence of fines in the existing rockfill dike, it was realized that washing
aggregates would demand a costly, difficult operation due to the water treatment
equipment required to keep the operation self-contained and in compliance with
stringent environmental regulations applicable to the project. It was concluded that a
dam section consistent with the difficult foundation conditions and a RCC mix using

available aggregate in the rockfill dike as-is, would be the most appropriate solution
for the project.
In 1992, Londe and Lino proposed the adoption of symmetrical section RCC dams for
weak foundation conditions, particularly in areas subject to strong earthquake motion
[2]. Additionally, because of its increased mass and more uniform load distribution
on the foundation, combined with water and silt loads on the upstream face, a
symmetrical section is more stable and less highly stressed than the conventional
gravity dam section for the same load condition. As such, a high strength RCC is not
required for the symmetrical section. Londe and Lino suggested the name hardfill
for their weak-mix RCC [1]. Based on the hardfill concept and successful RCC
experiences in dams using RCC mixes with challenging materials [2], RIZZO finalized
a proposal comprising a symmetrical section but using a more refined RCC mix, with
a more controlled gradation than typically used in hardfill dam mixes. The RCC
design strength was set at 1500 PSI.
Detailed mix design studies using various cement, fly ash and moisture contents
were carried out to determine the appropriate RCC proportions. Aggregate extracted
from accessible locations in the existing dike were crushed and used to produce
usable aggregate for lab trial mixes. Concurrently to the lab trial batches, a
comprehensive mortar bar expansion test program involving fly ashes of different
sources and qualities was performed to find options to mitigate Alkali-Silice Reaction
(ASR) in the potentially reactive rhyolite. Based on initial lab results, a baseline
cementitious content of 200 Lbs/CY at 50% ash content was selected for full scale
trials.
Two full-scale test sections of about 1500 cy each were placed prior to dam
construction. The first test section was placed in December 2006 while the second
was built in August 2007. The test sections pursued a variety of objectives related
not only to mix design but also to RCC production and construction, such as
aggregate crushing, lift joint treatments, bedding mix type and facing systems. Both
test sections provided valuable lessons, which helped to refine the mix proportions,
improve dam design and make the construction process more efficient. Based on
acceptable results, dam construction started in October 2007 using mix 100+100
(C+FA). Available test results indicate that RCC placed in the dam complies with
design requirements.

2 Aggregates
The original construction of Taum Sauk Upper Reservoir was accomplished by
flattening the top of Proffit Mountain (Reynolds County, MO), using the broken
rhyolite and excavated residual soil to construct the existing dike. As stated in the

Forensic Investigation Report, little or no effort was used to segregate the soil fines
from the rock. The construction resulted in a dike with a gradation not typical of
concrete-faced rockfill dams. Significant quantities of residual fines were mixed with
the rock, and the rock itself has a wide range of particle sizes, ranging from gravel
sizes to as large as four or five feet in diameter [1]. Figure 1 shows the gradation of
truckload size samples extracted from accessible places in the rockfill dike scalped at
3 inches.
Figure 1. Gradation of Existing Rockfill Scalped at 3-inches
Concrete Aggregate Gradation
Combined Minus 3"
24"

12"

4" 3"

2"11/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2"3/8"

#4

#8

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

100
90
80

Load #1
Load #3
Load #5
Load #7
Load #9
Load #11
Load #13
Load #15

Percent (Passing)

70
60
50

Load #2
Load #4
Load #6
Load #8
Load #10
Load #12
Load #14
Load #16

40
30
20
10
0
1000

100

10

0.1

0.01

Size (mm)

Aggregate for the initial lab work was produced at a commercial crusher, which
consisted of a primary jaw crusher and a cone crusher as a secondary crushing
stage. Figure 2 depicts the rockfill material before crushing. At the crushing plant,
aggregate was separated in two aggregate groups (1 1/2 to 1/2 and <1/2) and
additional screening was necessary at the lab in the coarse fraction to achieve an
acceptable gradation. Figure 3 shows a close-up of the two products obtained at the
crushing plant.
Figure 2. Rockfill Samples Before Test Crushing

Figure 3 Coarse and Fine Aggregate Crushed for Lab Mixes

Originally, the crushing scheme for dam construction used a basic, two-stage
crushing plant. However, after the crushing during the construction of the Test
Section I, it became evident that a tertiary crusher was required to get an acceptable
gradation. On this basis, tertiary crusher was included as required equipment in the
specifications.
As frequently seen in projects using mixes similar to the type used in Taum Sauk,
preliminary specs considered achieving the combined RCC gradation by using a
combination of only two aggregate groups (11/2 to and < ). Based on the
acceptable results obtained during the Test Section I, the two aggregate groups
approach remained in the specifications. The typical curve produced during the first
test section is depicted in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Typical Gradation Curve Produced during Test Pad 1
Concrete Aggregate Gradation
3"

2" 11/2"

1" 3/4"

1/2" 3/8"

#4

#8

#16

#30

#50

#100

#200

100.0

90.0

Calc. Combined Gradation

TS Specs Lower Limit

80.0
TS Specs Upper Limit
Actual Gradation Dec2-06

Percent (Passing)

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
100

10

Size (mm)

0.1

0.01

3 ASR & Fly Ash

In addition to the high fines content in the existing dike, the rhyolite available on site
has a propensity to Alkali-Silice Reaction (ASR). To confirm ASR potential, a series
of mortar bar expansion tests were conducted. Figure 5 depicts the results of ASTM
C1260 mortar bar expansion tests indicating potentially deleterious behavior of the
rhyolite.
Figure 5. Expansion Test (ASTM C1260) for Taum Sauk Rhyolite

The test program included tests with Class C Fly Ash and Class F Fly Ash. Figure 6
shows that Class C fly ash was not effective mitigating ASR and showed a
pessimum effect at 30% ash; that is, this amount of ash actually increased
expansion. Conversely as depicted in Figure 7, class F ash was very effective at
controlling ASR. At about 25% ash, the expansion is almost completely suppressed.
Figure 6. Mortar Bar Expansion vs. Class C Fly Ash Replacement
0.30
Class C Fly Ash (Rush Island)

Expansion (%)

0.25
5

0.20

10

Threshold indicative of Deleterious Behavior

14 days

14

0.15

Series4

0.10
Threshold indicative of Innocuos Behavior

10 days

0.05
5 days

0.00
0

10

20

30

40

Fly Ash Replacement (% by Weight)

50

60

Figure 7. Mortar Bar Expansion vs. Class F Ash Replacement

0.30
Class F Fly Ash (Indiana)

0.25
Expansion (%)

14 days (End of Std. Test)

0.20

Threshold indicative of Deleterious Behavior

5
10

0.15

14

0.10
Threshold indicative of Innocuos Behavior

10 days

0.05
5 days

0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fly Ash Replacement (% by Weight)

Commercial fly ash is available in the project area, however, the Owner operates
Meramec Plant, a coal fired power station located about 90 miles from the project.
Some years ago Meramec plant produced class F ash, which was sluiced and stored
in a pond near the power plant. RIZZOs experience producing RCC with similar ash
for use in the Saluda Dam led to a proposal for using the sluiced pond ash. Field
investigations revealed that the ash quantity was enough to cover project needs and
that the quality complied with ASTM C 618 requirements. Once lab testing confirmed
acceptable physical and chemical properties, additional lab mixes using Meramec fly
ash were prepared to evaluate ash performance in the actual RCC mix.
Extraction and handling of the Meramec pond ash was tried full-scale during
construction of Test Section I. The original ash processing plan contemplated wet
screening to break lumps and remove impurities and a hydraulic classifying system
was used (Econosizer) to separate particle sizes by decantation to produce fine high
quality ash (Figure 8). After processing, the ash was deposited in a sedimentation
pond, to be later excavated and placed on the ground for further dewatering. One
problem encountered was that the ash retained water longer than expected. Initially
it was foreseen that in 24 hours ash water content would be at a level where ash
could be easily handled; however, in reality it took several days for the ash to be
ready for hauling and handling. At the jobsite, additional handling and spreading was
required to bring moisture to a point where it could be accurately fed to a continuous
mixing plant. It was found that plowing the ash with a Rototiller or agricultural disc
was one effective way to bring moisture to manageable levels. The valuable lessons
learned during the test pad helped to modify the overall approach to ash exploitation
and helped to develop systems to feed the ash to the RCC plants accurately.
Although extraction costs increased, utilizing Meramec ash still proved feasible
because of the benefits to the environment and the additional ash storage capacity
opened for use at the power station in the years to come.

Figure 8. Meramec Ash Processing Plant Wet Screen and Econosizer

Note: Ash Being Sluiced to Sedimentation Pond

4 Laboratory Mixes
The initial set of mixes prepared in early 2006, are presented in Table 1, this matrix
included mixes with different cementitious contents, different ash types and cement
only mixes. Also, diferent water contents were investigated and, based on test
results, workability, and mix appearance, a water content of 200 lbs/cy was selected
as the baseline value. In general, Vebe times for these mixes were above 30
seconds. Based on accelerated compressive and indirect tensile strength results
(Figure 9 ) and the fact that mixes with 50% ash showed acceptable workability
performance, a cementitious content of 200 lbs/cy using that ash content was
selected as baseline. Thus, the preliminary mix selection resulted in the following
proportions: 100+100+200 Lbs/CY (Cement+Ash+Water).
Table 1. Mix Matrix Used for the Initial Lab Mix Design
Total
C+F

0%

100

100+0

150

150+0

200

200+0

250
300

30%
Class F
Class C
105+45

105+45

50%
Class F
Class C
50+50

50+50

75+75

75+75

100+100 100+100
125+125
150+150

70%
Class C
45+105

Figure 9. Compressive Strength vs. Cementitious Content for Mixes - with 50% Fly
Ash Includes Accelerated Curing Results
4500
7 days 50% Ash
Series4
Linear (28 days)

4000

14 days Accel.
28 days
Linear (14 days Accel.)

Compressive Strength (psi)

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

Cementitious (lbs/CY)

In August 2006, three additional mixes with constant cementitious content (200
lbs/cy) but different cement/ash ratio were added. The purpose of these mixes was
to evaluate performance of Meramec Class F ash available at an economical
distance from the jobsite. This additional set included the following proportions:
80+120, 90+110 and 100+100 (C+FA). As shown in Figure 10 strength gain over
time for all mixes with Meramec Ash complied with design requirements and, based
on these results, mixes 80+120 and 100+100 were selected for full-scale trial in the
Test Sections.
Figure 10. Compressive Strength vs. Age - Mixes with Meramec Ash
Paul C. Rizzo Associates

Taum Sauk Upper Reservoir RCC Testing

Compressive Strength vrs Age
3500
Meramec Fly Ash
Constant Moisture

3000

TS-203PA 80+120

Compressive Strength (psi)

TS-201.3PA 100+100

2500

100+100

TS-202PA 90+110

90+110

2000
80+120

1500 psi

1500

1000

500

0
1

10

100
Age (Days)

1000

5 Test Sections
Two RCC test sections were built for the Taum Sauk Upper Reservoir Project. While
the focus of Test Section I was mainly on materials and RCC design issues, the Test
Section 2 (Production Test Section) also intended to demonstrate and test means
and methods proposed by the Contractor for dam construction. A brief description
follows:
Test Section I (Design Test Section)
The primary goal of Test Section I was to demonstrate that an acceptable, designconforming mix could be produced using the challenging RCC components available
for the project. Another critical objective was to demonstrate that Meramec pond ash
could be extracted, processed and accurately fed to the mixing plant. Besides these
relevant objectives, the test section also pursued objectives typical of RCC test
sections, such as lift joint quality evaluation, bedding mix type selection (mortar vs.
concrete bedding mix), and facing system evaluation. This full-scale RCC placement
used crushing, mixing and RCC placing equipment typical of small to medium sized
RCC projects.
Figure 11. Test Pad 1 Aggregate Bin Feeder (left) and Placement of Base Pad
(right)

In early December 2006, about 1500 CY of RCC was placed using mixes 80+120
and 100+100. Figure 11 shows RCC placement during Test Section I. Both mixes
showed acceptable fresh mix properties, and mechanical properties resulted well
above design requirements (Figure 12). On this basis, mix 80+120 was selected for
the next phase.
Two types of bedding mix were evaluated during construction of Test Pad I: sand
mortar and MSA concrete mix. Both mixes performed well and produced wellbonded RCC lift joints. Also, observations made during placement showed that
mortar sand was a more user-friendly product than concrete; however, the

consensus after visual evaluation was that the concrete bedding mix produced a
superior joint. Figure 13 shows close-ups of wire cuts for both types of bedding.
Figure 12. Compressive Strength vs. Age Mixes 100+100 and 80+120 Test Pad 1
Taum Sauk Plant RCC Mix Design Program
Compressive Strength vrs Age
4500
Note: Mix 80+120 does not include lifts #11 & #12

Mix 100+100 TEST PAD

4000
Mix 80+120 TEST PAD
Mix 80+120 Test Pad
Accel.Curing
Mix 100+100 Test Pad Accel.

3500

Compressive Strength (psi)

100+100 smooth
80+120 Smooth

3000

Accelerated
Curing

2500
100+100
TEST PAD

2000

1500

1500

1000

500

80+120
TEST PAD

(*) Accel. Curing assumed to represent 180

d.

0
1

10

100

1000

Age (Days)

At the time Test Section I was built, the facing system for the dam was concrete
curbs. For that reason, one face of the test section was built with this method;
however, cracking experienced during in the curb face and schedule concerns
related to long waiting times for the curb to be able to receive RCC prompted a
design modification to formwork. Figure 14 shows placement of concrete curbs
during the test section.
Figure 13. Mortar Bedding Mix (left) vs. Concrete Bedding Mix (right)

Figure 14. Placement of Concrete Curb During Construction of Test Section

Test Section 2 (Production Test Section)

The primary goal of the production test section was to demonstrate mix performance
with available materials produced, crushed, transported and delivered with the
equipment deployed by the Contractor for Dam Construction. Another critical
objective was to demonstrate the capability to produce an acceptable upstream face
with concrete placed against inclined formwork achieving an intimate contact with the
RCC mix. As mentioned above, the facing system of the dam was changed from
concrete curbs to conventional concrete placed against forms (Figure 15). The start
of the RCC placement on the dam was contingent to the quality achieved during this
test section.
Figure 15. Conventional Facing Concrete Against Formwork - Test Section II

Placement in the test section started mid-August 2007, using mostly mix 80+120
(C+FA); however, advantage was taken of the initial lifts to try mixes with increased
ash content (80+140). The work plan contemplated the placement of 12 lifts of RCC;
this section height allowed to make one formwork jump, which was a required test for
approval of the formwork system proposed by the Contractor.
Figure 16 depicts wire cuts of RCC with bedding mix (left) and without bedding mix
(right). In general, the cuts revealed a well compacted RCC mix with a good particle
distribution throughout the mass and very little segregation. On the non-bedding wire
cut, segregation along high maturity lift joint lines was more pronounced, but overall
quality was acceptable. Interface between RCC and conventional facing concrete at
the w/bedding side, which represents the standard case on the dam, was considered
good. Based on these results, clearance for placement on the dam was received
early October 2007. Placement started on October, 10, 2007 using mix 100+100 and
as Figures 17, 18 and 19 depict, field densities, gradation, and compressive strength
of the RCC placed on the dam thus far comply with project specifications and design
requirements.
Figure 16. Wire Cuts in Production Test Section With Bedding Mix (left) and NoBedding (right)

Figure 17. RCC Nuclear Field Densities

NUCLEAR DENSITY
158
156
154
152
150
148
146
144
142
140

PCF

Field Density

N o v - 0 7 -0 7

N o v - 0 6 -0 7

N o v - 0 5 -0 7

N o v - 0 3 -0 7

N o v - 0 2 -0 7

N o v - 0 2 -0 7

N o v - 0 2 -0 7

N o v - 0 2 -0 7

O c t - 3 1 -0 7

N o v - 0 1 -0 7

O c t - 2 9 -0 7

O c t - 2 7 -0 7

O c t - 2 2 -0 7

O c t - 1 7 -0 7

O c t - 1 0 -0 7

10 per. Mov.
Avg. (Field
Density)

25.4

38.1

1"

1 1/2 "

50,8

12.7

19.1
3/4 "

9.51
3/8 "

1/2 "

4.76
N 4

2.38

1.19

0.595

0.297

0.149

100

0.075

Figure 18. Average Combined RCC Aggregate Gradation

Lower Limit
90
A verage From Aug 14, 2007 to Dec 1, 2007

PERCENT P AS S I NG

80
70
60
50
40
30
20

2"

N 8

N 16

N 30

N 50

N100

N200

10

Figure 19. Average RCC Compressive Strength vs. Age

p

3000
Mix 100+100
Meramec Fly Ash

Production Ave. 100+100

Compressive Strength (psi)

2500

Ave. Accel. Curing 14 days

January 9, 2008

2000

14 day Accel. Ave

Assumed@ 180 d.

1500
Production Ave.
1500 psi

1000

500

0
1

10

100

1000

Age (Days)

6 Summary
An extensive lab and field testing has been performed to define the Taum Sauk
Upper Reservoir RCC mix design and related construction details. The work
included not only lab mixes but also two full-scale RCC test sections. Among
relevant objectives achieved during the process are the following:
Definition of the most appropriate RCC mix for available materials;

 Determination that a tertiary crusher was necessary for the aggregate crushing
plant;
Tested and modified the means and methods to extract Meramec Pond Ash;
and
Selected and tested the appropriate facing system (Curb vs. formwork).
All these accomplishments entailed arduous efforts for the involved parties and also
significant expenditure to the Owner; however, lessons learned and experiences
gained in the process have been critical to correct the course and improve project
design.
References
[1] Forensic Investigation and Root Cause Analysis, Dec. 14, 2005 Incident. Paul C.
Rizzo Associates. Feb 2006.
[2] The Faced Symmetrical Hardfill Dam: A New concept for RCC. Londe, P. & Lino,
M. International Water Power Dam Construction, Feb. 1992, 1924.
[3] The Safest Dam. M. Stevens, J. Linard. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering/ Vol.
128/ February 2002.
[4] RCC Mixes and Properties Using Poor Quality Materials Concepcion Dam. L.
Gaekel and E. Schrader, Roller Compacted Concrete III. ASCE, 1992.

Please include also a short CV of the authors at this section

Mr. Gaekel is a Civil Engineer Specialist in Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC). His
background includes experience in mix design, production and placing of both, Lean
and High Paste RCC. Mr. Gaekel has produced and placed structural and mass
conventional concrete. He has performed Quality Control and lab testing of RCC,
concrete, soils and asphalt. He also has experience with slurry walls and jet-grouting
mixes, dam and underground works instrumentation monitoring. He has participated
in the construction of six large RCC dams and two conventional concrete dams in
USA, Bolivia, Indonesia, Colombia and Honduras. The combined volume of concrete
placed in these projects exceeds 4 millions cubic yards. Mr. Gaekel has a Master
Degree in Civil Engineering / Infrastructure Planning.

Dr. Rizzo has more than 40 years of experience on a wide variety of dam projects,
including embankment dams, gravity dams, Ambursen dams, arch dams, and timber
crib dams. He has served as Principal-in-Charge for all of the firms dam projects,
located in the U.S. and overseas. He has lectured on a variety of civil and
geotechnical topics, and served on consulting boards dealing with various issues in
dams, seismic design, and geotechnical engineering. Dr. Rizzo has extensive
experience related to the civil engineering aspects of nuclear power plants, thermal
plants, hydro plants, and earth and rockfill dams. He has actively participated in the
industry, dealing with regulations, criteria, and professional practice in his areas of
expertise. He is highly recognized for his contributions in earthquake engineering
and foundation design of major structures. He has served as a Consultant to the
utility, steel, petroleum, and mining industries. Dr. Rizzos professional and academic
experience is reflected in his more than 100 publications in areas of his expertise.