1 Introduction
2 Case Background
2.1 Dam Description and Initial Conditions
2.2 A Dramatic Event Complicating the Project
2.3 Improved Grouting Methodology for Local Leakage Under Pier 2
3 Observational Method and the Real Case in Comparison
“When prediction of geotechnical behaviour is difficult, it can be appropriate to apply the approach known as ‘the observational method’, in which the design is reviewed during construction.” (European Committee for Standardization 2004)
3.1 Hydraulic Jacking: The Main Reason to Apply the Observational Method
3.2 Additional Reasons to Apply the Observational Method
4 Preparations During the Design Stage
4.1 Acceptable Limits of Behaviour
“The following requirements shall be met before construction is started:
acceptable limits of behaviour shall be established.”
-
make it possible to establish a limit of behaviour that is linked to a predicted behaviour of the structure,
-
be measurable with acceptable precision, and
-
be of epistemic nature (as discussed by Stille and Holmberg 2010), which implies that the related uncertainty is because of a lack of knowledge rather than because of intrinsic randomness of a phenomenon (see e.g. Der Kiureghian and Ditlevsen 2009; Baecher 2016). Having epistemic uncertainties, the measurements in the construction stage will decrease the uncertainties of the assumptions made in the design stage.
4.1.1 Discussion of the Acceptable Limit for Average Uplift Pressure
Assumed \(\bar{u}_{joint}\) (kPa) | Safety factor |
---|---|
40 | 1.09 |
50 | 1.06 |
60 | 1.03 |
70 | 1.00 |
Load case | Piezometric pressure (kPa) |
SF without drawdowna
| Required drawdown (m) for constant risk level |
SF after drawdowna
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Constant uplift pressure | 50 | 1.06 | 0 | 1.06 |
Large uplift pressure increase | 90 | 0.93 | −1.5 | 1.21 |
4.1.2 Discussion of the Maximum Acceptable Deformation
4.2 Design for Actual Behaviour Within the Acceptable Limits
“the range of possible behaviour shall be assessed and it shall be shown that there is an acceptable probability that the actual behaviour will be within the acceptable limits.”
4.2.1 Discussion of the Subjective Probability Judgments
4.3 On the Monitoring Plan
“a plan of monitoring shall be devised, which will reveal whether the actual behaviour lies within the acceptable limits. The monitoring shall make this clear at a sufficiently early stage, and with sufficiently short intervals to allow contingency actions to be undertaken successfully.”
“the response time of the instruments and the procedures for analysing the results shall be sufficiently rapid in relation to the possible evolution of the system.”
4.4 On the Contingency Action Plan
“a plan of contingency actions shall be devised, which may be adopted if the monitoring reveals behaviour outside acceptable limits.”
-
If \(\bar{u}_{joint,lim}\) were exceeded, equipment was ready to either open up boreholes (that had been temporarily sealed in advance to prevent grout from escaping) or quickly drill additional relief wells.
-
If hydraulic jacking occurred owing to an overly large grouting pressure, the grouting pressure was to be reduced immediately until the displacement fell below δ lim again. If hydraulic jacking occurred owing to an overly large piezometric water pressure, measures were to be taken to reduce this pressure in the same manner as if \(\bar{u}_{piez,lim}\) was exceeded.
-
If a visible amount of infilling material was washed out from any borehole, drilling was to be stopped immediately. To avoid any additional washout, the rock mass around the washout was then to be grouted to stabilize the loose material before drilling continued.
5 The Execution Stage
“During construction, the monitoring shall be carried out as planned.”
“The results of the monitoring shall be assessed at appropriate stages and the planned contingency actions shall be put into operation if the limits of behaviour are exceeded.”
“Monitoring equipment shall either be replaced or extended if it fails to supply reliable data of appropriate type or in sufficient quantity.”
Grout property | Method | Average value |
---|---|---|
Density | Mud balancea
| 1.60 g/cm3
|
Marsh funnel time | Marsh funnelb
| 32.8 s |
Bleed | Cylinderc
| 1.5 % |
Penetrability | Filter pumpd
| 280 ml |
Round (date) | W/c ratio | Grout injected (kg) | |
---|---|---|---|
1 (2 April) | 53–58 | 0.55 | 639 |
2 (11 April) | 31, 32, 37, 38, 51, 52, 53, 55, 58 | 0.55 or 0.6b
| 209 |
3 (16 April) | 32, 52, 53, 61, 63–68 | 0.55 | 231 |
4 (26 April) | 63–65 | 0.6 or 0.8b
| 244 |
5 (4 May) | 65, 69 | 0.8 | 109 |
6 (9 May) | 5, RW12a, RW34a, G2, G4 | 0.8 | 1322 |
Boreholea
| Lugeon value (L/min m MPa) | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 April | 11 April | 15 April | |
12 | 48.3 | 54.5 | 19.3 |
31 | 64.0 | 72.3 | 0 |
32 | 63.6 | 70.9 | 10.4 |
34 | 59.4 | 73.7 | – |
37 | 38.3 | 9.7 | 0 |
38 | 37.9 | 14.5 | 0 |
51 | 48.0 | 152.7 | 0 |
52 | 47.4 | 53.4 | 16.7 |
53 | 48.0 | 51.1 | 34.3 |
56 | 38.4 | 0 | 0 |
57 | 38.9 | 0 | 0 |
58 | 36.9 | 0 | 0 |
61 | – | – | 27.8 |
63 | – | – | 52.0 |
64 | – | – | 50.2 |
65 | – | – | 40.2 |
66 | – | – | 0.7 |
67 | – | – | 29.1 |
68 | – | – | 29.2 |