RCC-THESIS

STATE OF THE ART IN ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE (RCC) DAMS: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY SERDAR SÖĞÜT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING FEBRUARY 2014 Approval of the thesis: STATE OF THE ART IN ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE (RCC) DAMS: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION submitted by SERDAR SÖĞÜT in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University by, Prof. Dr. Canan Özgen ________________ Dean, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Prof. Dr. Ahmet Cevdet Yalçıner Head of Department, Civil Engineering _________________ Assoc.Prof. Dr. Yalın Arıcı Supervisor, Civil Engineering Dept., METU _________________ Prof. Dr. BarıĢ Binici Co-Supervisor, Civil Engineering Dept., METU _________________ Examining Committee Members: Prof. Dr. Melih Yanmaz Civil Engineering Dept., METU _________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yalın Arıcı Civil Engineering Dept., METU ________________ Prof. Dr. BarıĢ Binici Civil Engineering Dept., METU _________________ Prof. Dr. Ġsmail Özgür Yaman Civil Engineering Dept., METU _________________ Altuğ Akman, M. Sc. ES Project Engineering and Consultancy _________________ Date: 05.02.2014 I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name : SERDAR SÖĞÜT Signature : iv Keywords: roller compacted concrete. Dr..Prof. Serdar M. highways and the rehabilitation of existing dams. the analyses methods for the structural design and evaluation of RCC dams are investigated. BarıĢ Binici February 2014. v . Finally.Sc. including the construction of new dams. thermal crack. seismic analysis of RCC dam. strength of RCC. Dr. the text also includes some information on the performance of a range of RCC dams around the world and the accompanying recommendations for good performance. Department of Civil Engineering Supervisor: Assoc. RCC became very popular rapidly all over the world due to its low cost and fast deployment and is used for various purposes. mixture design. pavements. 210 pages Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) appeared as a feasible new type of construction material for concrete gravity dams. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate wide range of practice in RCC dam construction with a focus on the material properties. Yalın Arıcı Co-Supervisor: Prof. As a secondary note. The material properties of a range of RCC dams around the world are documented with the goal of determining the factors affecting critical design attributes of RCC dams. The current literature on the evaluation of these dams was surveyed given.ABSTRACT STATE OF THE ART IN ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE (RCC) DAMS: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Söğüt. SSB barajın sismik analizi. bu örneklerden yararlanarak bu sistemlerde beklenen performansın elde edilmesi için gerekli öneriler sunulmaktadır. 210 sayfa Silindirle SıkıĢtırılmıĢ Beton (SSB) son zamanlarda beton ağırlık barajlar için uygulanabilir yeni bir yapım malzemesi olarak ortaya çıkmıĢtır. termal çatlama. vi . bu tezde çeĢitli SSB barajların performansı üzerine bilgi verilmekte. BarıĢ Binici ġubat 2014. Son olarak. karıĢım tasarımı. ĠnĢaat Mühendisliği Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. DeğiĢik Ģartlarda yapılan barajlarda elde edilmiĢ olan malzeme özellikleri tasarım kriterlerini etkileyen parametrelerin belirlenmesi amacı ile sunulmuĢtur. Anahtar kelimeler: silindirle sıkıĢtırılmıĢ beton. Dr. Bu tezin ikincil amacı ise SSB barajların yapısal açıdan tahkiki için kullanılan analiz metodlarının incelenmesidir. yeni barajların yapımı. SSB barajların tahkiki için kullanılan analiz teknikleri araĢtırılmıĢtır. eski barajların rehabilitasyonu ve yol yapımı gibi çeĢitli alanlarda kullanılmaktadır.ÖZ SĠLĠNDĠRLE SIKIġTIRILMIġ BETON (SSB) BARAJLAR ÜZERĠNE EN SON TEKNOLOJĠK GELĠġMELER: DĠZAYN VE YAPIM Söğüt. Bu çalıĢmada öncelikli olarak dünyadaki geniĢ SSB baraj pratiğinin malzeme özelliklerine odaklı olarak incelenmesi hedeflenmiĢtir. SSB dayanımı. Yalın Arıcı Ortak Tez Yöneticisi: Prof. Dr. Serdar Yüksek lisans. SSB düĢük maliyeti ve hızlı yerleĢtirilmesi sebebiyle tüm dünyada popüler olmuĢ olup. Yalın Arıcı and co-supervisor Prof.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my special thanks to my thesis supervisor Assoc. my father Ayhan and my brother Gürbey Söğüt for their eternal love and support. Finally. vii . encouragement and assistance throughout the research. Sadun TanıĢer. I would like to express my gratitude to my friends Alp Yılmaz. BarıĢ Binici for their invaluable guidance. Dr. Ali Rıza Yücel and Ahmet Fatih Koç for sharing my feelings. Prof. I would like to thank my lovely wife Elif Söğüt for her endless love and support. Dr. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my mother Gülseren. I was glad to work with them. To My Dear Family viii . ...............................................1 Definition and Background. v ÖZ ....................... 3 1.............................................................................................. 4 1....... INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................2..................................................................................................................................................................................... vii TABLE OF CONTENTS .........3 Equipment and Material ...............................TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................. xv CHAPTERS 1...................................................... 5 ix ................................................. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................1 Cost ................................................................... xiii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................3 Construction Sequence .2........................................... 3 1................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES ..................2...................................................... 1 1..........2 Speed of Construction ......... 1 1.... 5 1.................2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Roller Compacted Concrete .................................... ..............1........... 6 1.......... 11 2............ 8 2.........2 Thermal Analysis ..................2 Methods of Analysis .......................... 35 3....................................3.2 Analysis Methods .................................................4 Compaction ....1 Design Considerations ....................................2......... 5 1.......... MIX........................................3 Transporting and Placing .......... PROPORTIONING AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES .........................................................................................................................2....1.......................2.....3 Temperature and Crack Control Measures .................................................................1 Linear Elastic Analysis ................... 21 2................................. 31 2.......................3 Level 3 Thermal Analysis .....................................2................. 33 3......................................1 Mixture Content .................1 General . 23 2......................2 Level 2 Thermal Analysis .................................... 17 2........................................... 35 3......................................2.............2................1............. 7 1.............5 Scope of the Thesis ........................... 31 2......................................1...........................2..... 13 2.............................................3. 21 2.................................. 23 2..................................................... LITERATURE SURVEY ON DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE DAMS .......................4 Thermal Cracking in RCC Dams ...................... 13 2.................................................1...............................2..................................2..........................1 Aggregate Production and Concrete Plant Location ................................. 8 1....1 Seismic Analysis .................................2.........................3....................................................4 Purpose and Limitations .1 Level 1 Thermal Analysis .... 35 x ..............................3......2 Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis..............2.............................................. 25 2.......1 Cement .........2 Mixing .........1.............. 11 2....2..... 11 2.................................................................................. 6 1.... ......................................................... 41 3...............................2 Strength vs................. 45 3............................3 W/C Ratio ..............3.........1...................1.........1.3 Effect of Shape ..2 Mixture Proportioning and Design ....................1 General ..............3 Aggregate .2...................................1........3......................................................................................................1....................2 Mixture Consistency .............................3 Material Properties..........2............................................6 Use of Fine Particles....................... 47 3............................. 56 3..................1..........................1 Compressive Strength ............2.1......3.................... 46 3...........2 Replacement Ratio .... 39 3....................................5 Cementitious Material Content .2..................1......................1 Strength vs........................................... 44 3.................. 38 3................1.........3.......................................... 61 3.2..................... Pozzolan Type ... 49 3................................................. 55 3...........................2................ W/C Ratio.........................................................................................................3................2...............................1.......... 40 3.....................................4 Mixture Proportioning Methods........................ 37 3.......... Pozzolan/Cement Ratio .............. 36 3.........3................................................ 36 3.................................... 41 3..........2.......................3 Strength vs..3........ 39 3.....2.....................7 Effect of Gradation .................................... 62 3..............1 General .......1.......3...............................................1............3................................................................................... 42 3.........2 Effect of Quality .............................3....................4 Effect of Aggregate Crushing..5 Effect of Size .............................. 45 3.............1....1....................3 Use of Fly Ash and Limestone Powder .........1.................2 Pozzolan ............1...1 General .........3............................................. Cementitious Content ...................3.. 52 3...................................3..............4 Strength vs. 51 3................................ 43 3. 55 3.. 68 xi ......6 Mix Design .... ................ 89 3......3.................................... Aggregate ............................ Fine Content ....... 82 3..............2....................................3.........6.............................. TABLES OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF RCC DAMS .....1... 90 3...............3 Modulus of Elasticity ................... TABLES OF RCC DAMS......3....1................. 72 3.................... 71 3......4 Thermal Expansion Coefficient ......3............................7 Strength vs.......3 Tensile Strength of RCC Lift Joints ......2 Tensile Strength to Compressive Strength .........................2 Tensile Strength .........................6 Strength vs.....................................3.3...3.................................2......... 87 3................. 70 3...................5 Creep ...... 91 3..........3........................... 92 4......... 93 REFERENCES .......................3...............................3..... Curing .........................................1 Tensile Strength vs Cementitious Content .....6 Durability ................ 72 3.............................. 77 3...................................... 91 3...................................... 167 xii .......................... MIX CONTENT AND DESIGN ......3....1 Freeze and Thaw Resistance ..8 Strength vs.........5 Strength vs.......... 97 APPENDICES A... 119 B..............3.3........................................2............................... 74 3..2 Abrasion and Erosion Resistance ............. 85 3..................1....6...... Compaction ....................1............................................3..3................................ CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ .................................................................................................. 48 Figure 3-6 Compressive strength versus w/c and equivalent cement content (USACE..................... 42 Figure 3-2 Vebe time versus time [15] .................................................... pozzolan percentage for mix design ........................................... 44 Figure 3-3 Aggregate gradation curve for some RCC dams [2] ..............LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES Figure 1-1 Two RCC Dams in Turkey [114] .......................................... 45 Figure 3-4 Surface damage caused by truck tires on wet-mix RCC [2]........ 2 Figure 1-2 RCC Placement and Compaction in Menge Dam .................................. 58 Figure 3-10 Compressive strength versus cementitious content for RCC Dams (90 days) ........................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 3-7 Total cost of trial mixes vs...... 56 Figure 3-9 Compressive strength versus cementitious content for RCC Dams (28 days) ....................................... 62 Figure 3-14 Variation in compressive strength with (metakaolin/cement) % [7] 63 xiii .......................... 59 Figure 3-11 Compressive strength efficiency versus cementitious content for RCC Dams..................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-3 Mass Gradient and Surface Gradient Strip Models for 1D FE Model 27 Figure 3-1 Variation in compressive and tensile strength with W/C ratio and aggregate crushing[7] ................................................... 61 Figure 3-13 Compressive strength with fly ash replacement ratio [9] ............. 47 Figure 3-5 Compressive strength versus w/c ratio for RCC Dams ............. 19 Figure 2-2 The crack profiles of the dam loading (a) isotropic behavior (b) orthotropic behavior for RCC [113] ... 54 Figure 3-8 Compressive strength values for RCC dams ............................................................................ 7 Figure 2-1 The location of cracking for lean RCC dam (a) hardening model (b) smeared crack approach [112] ............................................................................... 60 Figure 3-12 Compressive strength versus w/c ratio for RCC Dams .......................................................... 1992) ................................................................. ............................................ compressive strength for RCC Dams ......... 88 Figure 3-31 Modulus of elasticity vs............................................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 3-20 Effect of fines on strength......................... 74 Figure 3-22 Direct Tensile Strength of RCC Dams .. 79 Figure 3-26 Splitting tensile strength with fly ash replacement ratio [9] ............ 76 Figure 3-23 Indirect Tensile Strength of RCC Dams ............................................................................................................. 80 Figure 3-27 Split tensile strength of RCC [8] .............. Willow Creek RCC Dam [2] . 64 Figure 3-16 Compressive strength versus pozzolan percentage for RCC Dams (28days) ..................... 70 Figure 3-21 Variation in compressive strength with W/C ratio for 7 and 28 days [7] ............................ 83 Figure 3-30 Modulus of elasticity values of RCC Dams ............................................. 89 xiv ........................................................ 77 Figure 3-24 Split tensile strength test results [31] ....Figure 3-15 Result of compressive strength test .... 67 Figure 3-19 Compressive strength of RCC [8]................................................... percent fly ash [2] ..... 81 Figure 3-28 Indirect Tensile Strength vs Cementitious Content for RCC Dams .. 66 Figure 3-18 Compressive strength efficiency versus pozzolan percentage for RCC Dams ....................................... 78 Figure 3-25 Split tension vs.. 65 Figure 3-17 Compressive strength versus pozzolan percentage for RCC Dams (90 days) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 82 Figure 3-29 Indirect Tensile Strength vs Compressive Strength for RCC Dams ..................... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1D One Dimensional 2D Two Dimensional 3D Three Dimensional ACI American Concrete Institute ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CMC Conventional Mass Concrete CVC Conventional Vibrated Concrete FEM Finite Element Method ICOLD International Commission of Large Dams NMSA Nominal Maximum Size of Aggregate PCA Portland Cement Association PGA Peak Ground Acceleration RCC Roller Compacted Concrete RCD Roller Compacted Dam USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers xv . . Physically.CHAPTER 1 1. RCC is a concrete which is compacted by vibratory roller and is able to sustain loads during compaction process. 1 . rehabilitation of existing dams. INTRODUCTION 1. RCC dams emerged with efforts of both structural and materials engineers. On the other hand. RCC is used for various areas of construction like new dams. durability and placing methods of RCC show parallel behavior with earth and rock fill materials. RCC can be seen as combination of earth material and CVC when its mechanical properties are investigated. performance and elastic properties. RCC became very popular rapidly all over the world due to its low cost and fast deployment during dam construction.1 Definition and Background Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) appeared as a feasible type of concrete four decades ago. pavements and highways. permeability. It resembles CVC due to its strength gain. From 1950s to 1980s. Having zero slump distinguishes RCC from conventionally vibrated concrete (CVC). it seems like asphalt mixture. popularity of gravity concrete dams declined because of the fact that they were costly to be constructed in wide valley sites. In 1974. Dams with cementitious content more than 150 kg/m3 cementitious material are called hard paste RCC dams. some laboratory tests and field demonstrations were conducted using RCC. repairing of the diversion tunnel and rehabilitation of the auxiliary and service spillways of Tarbela Dam was done using RCC showing fast placement characteristic of the material (American Concrete Institute (ACI) 207. hardfill dams) have less than 100 kg/m3 cementitious material in their mix design.5R-99) These studies led to the construction of the first RCC dams.1981 in Japan. In terms of the amount of the cementitious material used in construction. a)Menge Dam b)Cine Dam Figure 1-1 Two RCC Dams in Turkey [114] 2 . Willow Creek Dam. In 1960s.In these years. despite their economical advantages.e. During the 1970s. RCC dams can be classified in 3 categories: Lean RCC dams (i. embankment dams were more prone to damage and failure. Construction of these two dams held light to new RCC dams which gained wide acceptance around the world. embankment dams were preferred to concrete gravity dams due to their low cost [2][3]. However. Figure 1-1 shows the Menge and Çine RCC Dams constructed in Turkey.1982 in the United States and Shimajigawa Dam. structural and materials engineers tried to combine advantages of concrete gravity dam and embankment dam to handle safety and financial problems. The mixture content of the medium paste RCC dams include between 100-149 kg/m3 of cementitious material. the lack of quantity and availability of aggregate and pozzolan near project site is the major drawback for RCC dams against embankment dams [1]. 1. RCC dam may be more costly than the conventional mass concrete (CMC) or the embankment dam.2. It is very difficult to generalize design. mixture and construction method for all projects.1 Cost The main advantage of RCC dams is the cost savings. When the conditions allow consideration of a RCC dam alternative. Construction cost histories of RCC and CMC show that the unit cost per cubic meter of RCC is considerably less than CMC. To achieve 3 . the following points can be a plus. On the other hand. A big advantage of RCC dams compared to the embankment dams comes from constructing the spillway into the dam body rather than having separate excavation and structure.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Roller Compacted Concrete There are many advantages of RCC dams in concrete technology. Therefore each project should be evaluated on its own. flexible ratio of the mixture contents and high construction speed make RCC dams a valuable alternative for different dam projects. the reduced cementitious content and the ease of placement and compaction leads RCC dams to be built in more economical way. Given a wrong decision in an aspect of the project.A short summary of the advantages of RCC construction and the construction procedure is presented below. 1. what is advantageous for one project may not be the same for another. However. Low unit price of RCC materials. Moreover. The percentage of saving with RCC depends on availability and cost of the cement and aggregate and the total quantity of concrete. It results in three main advantages. However. RCC should be placed as quickly as possible More than one design mixtures should be avoided if possible that tend to slow production Design should not have extraordinary construction procedures that breaks continuity in construction Comparison between the cost of RCC dam projects is the other issue. mobilization. galleries.2 Speed of Construction The next advantage of the RCC dams is the speed of construction. 1.2. reduced risk of flooding and the corresponding minimized requirements for the diversion structures and cofferdams [4]. facing.maximum saving against CMC and embankment dams. when a project is completed before the estimated schedule. engineering. The extra profit from earlier completion and water storage can be a big income especially for large RCC projects. interest payments for financial credit can also be great. the work and materials included in the costs can be exclusive (e. spillway. foundation) so that only very basic costs of RCC production are usually included in the analysis. namely. it is not actually very simple to determine final actual cost data for making comparison between the costs of RCC dam projects because. 4 . Besides that.g. RCC dams should be constructed considering following points. diversion. early operation of the facility. joints. 1. 1. work can not progress properly in any problem. Materials used in RCC design mixture can easily be obtained dependent on the site conditions: proximity of well-quality gravel is extremely important for low-cost construction. the original mix design for the Conception. For this reason. Preparation and transportation of the material and bedding mortar.2. trucks.3 Equipment and Material The equipment required for an RCC project is usually mixers. given the poor quality aggregates near the site. formwork. Mujib Dam and the Burnett River Dams had to be changed in order to maintain the mixture strength [2].3 Construction Sequence RCC placement should be as fast and continuous as possible in order to maintain structural integrity and high joint quality.1 Aggregate Production and Concrete Plant Location Aggregate stockpiles location is very important for RCC dam construction. Generally. 5 . Since there are no alternative monolith blocks to continue the placement of RCC. By doing this. For example. massive stockpiles are provided before starting RCC placement. treatment of the lift surface and assembly of embedded parts should be integrable to the RCC placement rate [4]. huge amount of aggregate is produced during the winter and they are stockpiled cold for use during hot seasons. any problem faced in the placing area should be solved promptly. compacters and vibratory rollers. conveyors.3.1. fueling. 1. While 25 mm NMSA is allowable for drum mixers. temperature rise within the dam monolith can be kept low after RCC placement.3. conveyors or a combination of both are used for transporting the RCC from mixing plant to the placement area [1][5]. 6 . without increasing segregation or reducing workability. Adequate loaders or conveyor systems may be equipped to load aggregate efficiently and safely. The concrete plant location should be chosen to minimize transportation cost and save time.3 Transporting and Placing Dump trucks.Therefore. The RCC transportation equipments should be capable of transporting the material quickly.2 Mixing Mixing is the key process to achieve the desired RCC quality and consistency. Location of the plant should be kept close to the dam body and in high elevation to minimize distance for conveying or hauling concrete and take the waste material and wash water drain away of the construction area. NMSA of up to 100 mm can be used for continuous mixers.3. 1. The allowable time between the start of mixing and completion of compaction should be within 45 minutes. Drum mixers and continuous mixers are used to produce RCC. Drum mixers are generally used for small projects because the RCC production rate is low and requires less power than continuous mixers but it is inadequate for mass concrete placements. Continuous mixers are advantageous for large scale projects since their production rate is relatively high and they may contain higher nominal maximum size of aggregates (NMSA). Figure 1-2 shows placement and compaction of RCC from Menge Dam in Turkey. Delays in compaction cause loss of strength and consistency. Compaction of RCC should be started after the placement and finished within 15 minutes.4 Compaction The compaction of RCC is done by vibratory steel drum rollers. Rubber-tire rollers are also used as a final pass to remove surface cracks and tears and provide smooth surface. Generally four to six passes of a dual drum 10-ton vibratory roller achieves the desired density of 98% for RCC lifts between 150 and 300 mm [1] [2]. The appearance of fully compacted concrete is dependent on the mixture content. access to the placement area and design parameters play an important role in selecting the transportation method. Each RCC mixture has its own characteristic behavior for compaction depending on the environmental conditions and material types. The volume of the material to be placed in a cycle.For windy weather and low humidity conditions.3. 7 . a)placement of RCC b)compaction of RCC Figure 1-2 RCC Placement and Compaction in Menge Dam 1. this time is reduced. Given the specific problems of RCC dam construction and performance. construction techniques.4 Purpose and Limitations The primary purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of the mechanical properties of the RCC material and the affecting factors based on a wide literature survey on the RCC construction around the world.1. mass concrete gravity dams. Chapter 1 gives an introduction. some overlap in the analyses method sections is inevitable. The focus of this thesis is limited to RCC dams. 8 . the use of different materials. Two types of analysis. 1. Some other analysis methods applied to the design or assessment of structural or any case specific problems for RCC dams are also presented in the survey. namely. a literature survey about the design and analysis methods of RCC dams are presented. Therefore. purpose and limitations and finally the scope of the thesis. in addition to the abovementioned study.5 Scope of the Thesis This thesis is composed of four chapters. the foundation of the structural analyses for these systems is common: therefore. In Chapter 2. However. construction types and project specific practices lead to a wide range of properties for RCC materials. the literature survey was not intended to cover the mechanical properties or analyses methods for conventional. a literature survey on the stress and thermal analysis of RCC dams are conducted in order to understand the design philosophy of RCC dams clearly. then states the advantages and disadvantages of RCC. In contrast to CMC dams. the seismic and thermal analysis are primarily covered.1. The list of RCC dams including information about them is given in Appendix A Table A. The chapter includes a compilation of a wide-range data from dam projects all over the world.In Chapter 3. Influence of the mixture proportioning as well as the specific mixture ingredients on the mechanical properties are investigated. the conclusions and recommendations for future studies are given in Chapter 4. a literature survey on the mechanical properties of the RCC dams is presented. showing the wide-range of experience with the RCC material and a mix design study. Finally. 9 . 10 . 1 Design Considerations RCC dams are classified within the gravity type of dams and their seismic behavior can be investigated in a similar fashion to CMC systems. as these systems are comprised of very thin lift joints that have less tensile strength than the parent concrete. In CMC dams. lift joints are spaced at two to three meters and may not necessarily be horizontal due to staggered construction of concrete blocks so that the joint discontinuity can lead inclined cracks from the upstream to downstream face of a dam.CHAPTER 2 2. 11 . horizontal cracking along the lift joints is the major seismic design concern.1 Seismic Analysis 2. For a RCC dam. However. [105][106]. LITERATURE SURVEY ON DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE DAMS 2. Both sliding and overturning stability problems may be seen.1. the concerns in the seismic design of the RCC dams differ from the CMC systems because of the particular construction method for RCC dams. There are several factors that affect the dynamic response of RCC dams significantly. load pattern and the radiation damping. 2) Damping ratio due to reservoir-dam interaction and especially the damfoundation interaction affects the seismic demand on the structure significantly. affecting the modal frequencies. shapes and the damping ratio for varying reservoir levels. The dynamic loads are the inertial loading due to the ground motion acceleration. The dynamic properties of the system are changed due to the interaction between the reservoir and the dam body. 5) Reservoir bottom absorption plays a role in response of the dam due to absorption of the hydrodynamic pressure waves at the reservoir bottom. 1) Ground Motion Characteristics directly affects the dynamic analysis because the exceedance of stress limits as well as the duration of this exceedance are deemed critical for such massive concrete structures. hydrodynamic loads from the reservoir-dam-foundation interaction. 3) Foundation modulus leads to significant changes in the dam stresses. Effective viscous damping ratio combining the viscous damping ratio with the material and radiation sources is proposed by Chopra and Fenves [107]. backfill and silt active pressures and the weight of the dam.The static initial loads considered in the earthquake analysis are reservoir and tail water hydrostatic force. and the dynamic loads to the silt or other backfills. 4) Hydrodynamic load affects the dynamic response by causing damreservoir interaction. 12 . 2.1 Linear Elastic Analysis The linear elastic analysis is the simplest tool to evaluate the seismic behavior of RCC dams. 2. such as the formulation given in Chopra and Fenves [107]. Nonlinear analyses tools would require time history data. However. The stresses observed on the structure are compared to the selected design limits in order to determine the performance of the structure.1.2 Methods of Analysis The assessment and design of RCC dams for seismic loading can be performed using linear elastic and non-linear analyses tools. The analyses methodologies commonly used for the design and assessment of RCC dams will be explained in the following sections in more detail.1. The common analyses method for dams have been linear 2D analyses due to the robust tools developed for the consideration of the soil-structure-reservoir interaction effects in 2D frequency domain. Linear analyses tools include simplified analyses (as given in Chopra [107]) using response spectrum methods and linear time history analyses. and the required material properties which are considerably harder to obtain compared to linear analyses. as well as the geometry of the structure and seismicity of the project site should be considered before choosing the analysis methodology. 13 .It is expressed by wave reflection coefficient. regardless of the past experience or the computational tools available. it should not be forgotten that the project requirements. 2. the general purpose FE codes do not contain the specific formulation for the modeling of soil-structure-reservoir interaction exactly in the frequency domain. The maximum tensile stress should not exceed the dynamic tensile strength of the lift joints and the parent concrete. The time history analysis method is used when further evaluation into the seismic behavior beyond that provided by the response spectrum analysis is needed. The methodology for solving the problem exactly. as provided in (Chopra and Fenves [107]). However. Only minor cracking is acceptable for this performance level. For the MDE level event. It provides the information on the duration of the exceedance of stresses above the allowable limits in contrast to the response spectrum analysis. The method given in USACE-EM-1110-2-6051 [117] uses the duration of these stress excursions to calculate the demand-capacity ratio (DCR). the cumulative duration versus DCR curve is plotted and compared with the limits. The nonlinear time history analysis is required if the demand on the system is above the prescribed limit. General purpose finite element analysis software are usually preferred for the dynamic analyses of dams. The system should be able to operate without any interruption in its functions. The seismic hazard at a site is usually defined by a design response spectra scaled to peak ground acceleration (PGA) for “Operation Based Earthquake (OBE)” and “Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)” design earthquakes. Then. cracks may occur on the system and the dam may not be functional anymore due to deformations at the joints and cracking. the dam should not go through any serious damage.The response spectrum method and the time history analysis are used in linear elastic earthquake analysis. The dynamic analyses of an RCC dam using EAGD-84 is presented by Monteiro and Barros [108]. However. is implemented in the code EAGD-84 specifically prepared for the analyses and evaluation of gravity dams in a 2D setting. 14 . In the OBE event. the stability of dam must be ensured. the radiation damping of infinite foundation (modeled using springs and dampers) influences the vibration energy reduction of the system. In contrast to the use of a finite foundation boundary. Yıldız and Gurdil [134] indicate that the maximum tensile stresses occur on the heel and the location of the upstream slope change for the Pervari RCC dam using 2D linear elastic time-history analysis with FLAC2D. The consideration of the infinite foundation effects with the radiation damping was determined to reduce the dynamic response by 20 to 30 %. Similarly. The tensile stress capacity of the elements are exceeded instantaneously only four times within the ground motion leading the authors to conclude that any instability or failure of the dam is not expected but localized damages can be seen. The assessment of accurate soil mechanical properties was determined to have a great effect on the stresses. the slope on the bottom of any face of a dam supposed to be different from the major slope at that face) on the seismic performance of the Tannur RCC Dam using SAP90. The effect of foundation properties on dynamic analysis is presented in the following paragraph. Nonlinear analyses is suggested for the assessment of the possible damage on the system.e.5g.The 52 m high gravity dam in Portugal is analyzed with the design earthquake having a return period of 1000 years and a peak acceleration of 0. Bakarat. Similarly. and negligible within the dam body. but did not affect the maximum tensile stresses. Malla and Guimond [121] studied the effect of different foundation elastic moduli on the dynamic response of Nam Theun RCC arch dam. 15 . Maximum compressive and tensile stresses are observed at the toes and heels as expected. Wieland. The Nongling RCC dam was assessed in a 2D configuration using time history analysis in ANSYS by Yong and Xuhua [110]. This effect was limited to the foundation only. Increasing the slope of the upstream batter reduced the extent of the tensile stress zone at the foundation. Malkawi and Omar [115] investigated the effect of the foundation properties and variations in the batter slope (i. Therefore. 16 . 3D effects should be taken into account to estimate the real performance of RCC dams constructed on curved. the geometry of the dam and topograghy of the site play an important role in resulting stresses and possible cracks. Building RCC arch dams on soft foundation was determined to be more desirable such as the Shimenzi RCC arch dam. aprons and flexible bands in the arch tensile area. narrow valleys or without transverse joints in long valleys [119][120]. when the computation accuracy of analysis conducted with 2D and 3D models are compared. Lower dam/foundation moduli ratio (Ec/Ef) value decreases the risk of damage since the flexibility of foundation enables the structure to dissipate energy better with higher deformation capacity. as mentioned before. Penghui. Milder slopes for the downstream side was also determined to reduce the level of damage. 3D linear elastic analyses of RCC dams are scarce. “Seismic Design Provisions for Roller Compacted Concrete Dams”[19].The softer foundation stiffnesses were determined to result in lower dynamic stresses on dam body but the reduction was not in high levels. Lei and Zhenzhong [111] analyzed the Madushan RCC Dam using a 3D FEM model by ANSYS. The monoliths with irregular transverse cross section across the width also may not be analyzed by 2D methods. On the other hand. The fragility analyses of several RCC dam cross sections conducted by Restrepo-Velez and Velez [126] using EAGD-84 support this thesis. Guangting.Yu and Fengqi [122] also suggest that soft foundations with lower stiffness lead to higher deformation capacity for RCC arch dams while the tensile stresses would be distributed through abutments strengthened with concrete sidewalls. According to USACE-EP-1110-2-12. varying of the foundation stiffness influenced the crest acceleration and deformation of the dam with an inverse relation. 2D models do not represent the actual distribution of stresses and locations of cracks on a curved axis due to transferring of stresses into the abutments. Because of the required input to such analyses in terms of the material models. 2. Cracking in concrete dams is usually modeled using the “discrete crack” or the “smeared crack” approach.2 Nonlinear Inelastic Analysis Exceedance of the allowable tensile stresses indicates expected cracking on the dam which can be assessed using nonlinear inelastic analyses (in time domain). On the other hand. The crack propagates using these softened elements in the original mesh. The model is not much preferred due to its incremental nature as well as the computational cost in using adaptive meshing strategies. For the full reservoir case. in the smeared crack model.1. The relative horizontal displacements and principal stresses increased. the cracks in the elements are represented by softening of the stress-strain curve and the resulting modified stiffness matrix. this approach is considerably harder and more time consuming compared to linear elastic analyses. allowing the consideration of many different crack locations simultaneously. Smeared cracking is much less costly. approaching from the middle to the side blocks of dam body.The maximum tensile stress occurs at the heel of the dam similar to the results from the 3D linear elastic FEM analysis on the Cine Dam by Kartal using ANSYS [114]. 17 . the maximum principal stress components increased in the vertical direction with increasing reservoir level. generalizable and easier to apply for dam structures. Cracking models are usually preferred to general plasticity models in the modeling of the concrete for dam systems. The modeling of the crack propagation in this fashion requires staged analyses and updating of the finite element mesh for the simulation of the crack propagation.2. Discrete crack modeling involves prescribing the location of the crack in the analyses. the secondary hardening stage starts up to ultimate resistance instead of softening behavior observed in conventional concrete dams.As the crack openings are not physically represented by element seperations in the FEM. For comparison. Ghaemian and Noorzad [112]. The 2D nonlinear inelastic dynamic analysis of the Pine Flat Dam was conducted by Bagheri. 18 . the failure to incorporate the water penetration to the models was noted [127][128]. The second hardening stage in lean RCC dam enabled the redistribution of stresses from high stress regions such as upstream face and heel of the dam to lower regions of stress and therefore peak stresses and cracking reduced (Figure 2-1). Lean RCC mixes typically have different stress-strain curve from high cementitious RCC material such that after linear elastic behavior up to nonlinear stage. the results of same model using the smeared crack model is given which also represents the softening behavior of RCC. Cracks propagated through the dam body at two regions located around the slope changes of upstream and downstream faces as seen in [116]. 19 . Moreover. Ghaemian and Noorzad [113]). any discontinuity at upstream and downstream slopes caused extensive cracking due to stress concentrations at these regions. Consideration of the orthotropic behavior of the RCC layers led to an extensive zone near the dam’s neck suffering damage. compared to limited damage for the isotropic model (Figure 2-2).(a) (b) Figure 2-1 The location of cracking for lean RCC dam (a) hardening model (b) smeared crack approach [112] 2D nonlinear dynamic analysis of the Jahgin RCC Dam was conducted by utilizing smeared crack model in order to investigate the effect of the isotropic and orthotropic behavior of layers on the seismic performance (Mazloumi. Du and Hong [132]. According to Jiang. In Jinanqiao RCC dam. the use of steel reinforcement decreases the sliding displacement and joint opening of the system. reinforcement was used on both the upstream and downstream sides on abrupt slope changes at the heel and neck as a result of 3D analyses [123][125].(a) (b) Figure 2-2 The crack profiles of the dam loading (a) isotropic behavior (b) orthotropic behavior for RCC [113] The Kinta RCC Dam was analyzed with 2D nonlinear dynamic analysis with elasto-plastic deformation model in order to investigate the effects of the sediments on the seismic behavior of the dam. RCC dam-bedding rock foundation was modeled by thin layer interface. 20 . There was a redistribution of the stresses at thin layer interface with reduced stresses as a result of energy dissipation through deformation in this region [133]. A similar cracking (at the dam-foundation interface propagating towards downstream) was observed during the 3D nonlinear analysis of the Guandi RCC Dam which does not affect the safety of dam [116]. 25 to 0. the crack at the heel was determined to increase from 2m to 16m modeling the incremental rise of the reservoir in a staged analysis with discrete crack model.2 Thermal Analysis 2. (Jinsheng. Cuiying and Xinyu [124]) Additional measures to prevent cracking at the heel may be required for such dams. The heat generation resulting from the cementitious reaction causes temperature rise in the 21 . Jiang and Xie [[136] to compare the monitored earthquake response of the dam from the site with the results of analysis. It was hit by the Wenchuan earthquake with a magnitude of 8.50g compared to the design acceleration of 0.0. Shapai RCC arch dam is the first RCC dam that experienced a strong earthquake. They concluded that the size of the openings along the joints are comparable with the monitored data. For a 285 m high RCC dam.2.1 General Thermal analysis plays an important role in the structural design. 2.1375g. The body of dam was undamaged after earthquake [135]. The PGA at the site is predicted to be between 0. Very high RCC dams was determined to be prone to the so-called hydraulic fracture effect due to the considerably large reservoir head and pressure acting on the dam. The propagation of cracks on the dams may occur for reasons other than seismic loading. The nonlinear dynamic FE analysis was conducted by Li.3D nonlinear analysis for the Cine Dam with the kinematic hardening material model and 2D nonlinear analysis with the discrete crack model for the Pervari Dams in Turkey are presented in ( Kartal [114] and Gurdil and Yildiz [134] ). respectively. Thermal analyses provide guidelines for optimizing the mixture content. Heat gain and loss is more critical for RCC. This temperature reaches a peak value in several weeks after placement. In some cases. otherwise the tensile stresses which is higher than lift joint tensile strength may deteriorate the stability and durability of dam [71] The exposed surface area of RCC dams are larger than that in CMC since it is placed as thin layers while CMC is poured with a mass concrete lifts. Besides. and the consideration of site conditions [2]. thermal considerations need significant attention while designing a RCC dam. mass gradient cracks develop from the vertical temperature differences within the dam body. Dangerous horizontal cracks may be induced especially if the dam is restrained by rigid boundaries such as rock foundations. Mix with high flyash / cementitious content ratio leads lower heat of hydration in early ages which is critical to prevent thermal stresses. The cementitious content of a mix directly affects the thermal behavior of RCC dams. implementing the necessary construction requirements such as RCC placement rate and temperature. These stresses can be significant and may lead to thermally induced cracks which may threaten the durability of the structure [70]. This type of crack should be prevented. Thus. They are generally minor cracks occurring on the dam surface and do not jeopardize the safety of dam. thermal stresses are developed due to restraints and temperature differentials within the dam body. However. Additionally. followed by a slow reduction to some degree. During this process.RCC dam body during and after construction. The cracks observed on mass concrete structures like RCC dams are usually categorized as “surface gradient cracking” and “mass gradient cracking”. the placement time interval and speed can be more important for RCC because of the solar heat absorption. Surface gradient cracks are induced as a result of the faster cooling of the dam surface with respect to dam body. this process takes months and even years to finish completely. 22 . 2.2. adiabatic temperature rise. The average monthly temperature of site. type and the function of the structure. The use of Level 2 and Level 3 thermal analyses were deemed to be crucial for high RCC gravity and arch dams [72]. 2. There is no laboratory or site testing required for calculations. For the temperature analysis. elasticity modulus and the tensile strain capacity of concrete are the required parameters.mixes with high cementitious content cause temperature increase in dam body in the long term which results in mass gradient cracks.2. size. the peak concrete temperature and the final stable 23 . thermal expansion coefficient. The required parameters are well-known and easy to obtain. concrete placement temperature (which can be taken as the average monthly temperature of site or making assumption based on the placement season).1 Level 1 Thermal Analysis This method (also known as Simplified Thermal Analysis) is described in [72] as the simplest tool for calculating the vertical contraction joint spacing of mass concrete structures. Small RCC weirs can be analyzed with Level 1 thermal analysis while the ones with massive sizes require more detailed and complex analyses like the ones prescribed in Level 2 and Level 3. “Thermal Studies of Mass Concrete Structures”). 2. Each one of these analyses is used frequently based on the complexity.2 Analysis Methods Analyses to investigate the thermal performance of RCC dams were categorized into three main formulations in the USACE (ETL 1110-2-542. It was used in temperature analysis of the Cindere Dam.1) where. An admissible crack width is assumed. these strains are then compared to the tensile strain capacity of the concrete in order to evaluate the possibility of cracking. the estimated crack spacing is computed by dividing the width of dam to the number of cracks. and the number of cracks forming on the dam body is determined by dividing the total width of cracking to the admissible crack width (can be taken 0. The mass gradient cracking analysis is done calculating the mass gradient strains. The difference is then used as the parameter for cracking analysis. Level 1 Thermal Analysis is generally used for smaller mass concrete structures and weirs. Lastly. = coefficient of thermal expansion = temperature differential = structure restraint factor = foundation restraint factor Finally.002 mm for stiff foundations and up to 5 mm for flexible or yielding foundations). The total crack width along the length of the dam body is obtained by multiplying the cracking strain with the length of the dam body. the cracking strain is determined by taking the difference of the total strain expected and the tensile strain capacity of concrete.concrete temperature are calculated. The mass gradient strains are calculated with the following formula: (2. as the dam 24 . nonuniform thermal gradients on both the mass and surface of the dam body are calculated in any location of the dam separately by considering the temperature difference between horizontal or vertical elevations of the dam section. The finite element (FE) method is widely used in computer aided thermal analyses. Instead of computing a single generalized thermal mass strain and crack spacing as in Level 1. In this process. During the dissipation of this heat. Similarly.2 Level 2 Thermal Analysis This analysis method includes a more comprehensive study in many ways compared to the Level 1 analysis. If these stresses possess a risk for the durability. 2.2.was a hard fill type with low cementitious content in which low heat of hydration generation was expected [56]. significant temperature differences are observed in different parts of RCC dams which causes thermal stresses in the structure. many additional variables are used in order to increase the accuracy of the final thermal strain and stresses found from the thermal loads. The heat of hydration of RCC mix during and after construction leads temperature rise inside dam body with the effect of fast placement. Level 2 is generally used for determining the thermal stresses and possible cracks that a mass concrete structure may develop after the construction and cooling processes.2. loss of function or the stability of dam. Level 2 analysis can be conducted either using 1D strip FE and/or 2D&3D FE analyses. then Level 2 analysis is necessary even for the feasibility study of high RCC gravity and arch dams or in the detailed study of medium to high RCC gravity and low-head RCC arch dams. in the design of the RCC portion of the Saluda Dam remediation project. this method was applied [73]. 25 . Cervera and Goltz [75] used a modified FE code to predict the long term behavior of temperature in the core of Rialb RCC Dam. Oliver and Prato [74] faced this problem while evaluating the Urugua-i RCC Dam for thermal strains. the 2D&3D analyses represent the phenomenon more accurately. This enables the user to have a better insight about thermal gradients on any point on the body. They concluded that 1D model can be used for a time period between the start and the end of the construction. Cervera. With the advance of computational power. The results are compared with the data obtained from the installed thermometers during construction showing good correlation. 1D model underestimates the temperature differences between vertical meshes due to the its failure to consider the horizontal heat flux through the surface of the dam. but for analyses focused on the long term temperature effects.These models are both capable of calculating the mass and surface gradients within a system. In more detail. there are some studies conducted in order to enhance the long term temperature gradient prediction of 1D strip models. A typical 1D strip model for thermal analysis is presented in Figure 2-3. On the other hand. 1D strip models lack the capability of computing the horizontal heat flux in a mass gradient analysis. however 2D&3D models are more preferable because they lead to the determination of the thermal gradient on a “section” of a body rather than “strip”. the use and validity of 1D strip models are not widespread. This method is usually utilized for preliminary thermal analysis of RCC dams. 26 . so that after the construction is finished and the core concrete starts to cool down. wind velocity. However. The methodology of thermal analyses using 2D&3D models is almost the same with simplified method and 1D Strip models.Figure 2-3 Mass Gradient and Surface Gradient Strip Models for 1D FE Model The 2D&3D method results can give more accurate information about the thermal design of RCC dams such as the construction schedule. solar radiation etc. The parameters that must be known before starting the analysis are listed as below: 1) Site parameters: average monthly temperatures. more input parameters are needed for this detailed procedure. 27 . placing temperatures and the contraction joint spacing especially for those systems having massive sizes and high elevations. The procedure for Level 2 analysis is summarized below: 1) Determine the site. Step by step integration method or FE models may be used.1) to determine thermally induced strains. time interval between consecutive lifts. 4) Conduct surface and mass gradient crack analysis with using temperature distribution obtained before. rate of placement etc. material and construction parameters. adiabatic temperature rise of the mixture(s).2) Material parameters: modulus of elasticity of the RCC mix and the foundation. thickness and initial temperature of lifts. 3) Construction parameters: concrete placement temperature. 2) Prepare temperature model. 5) Use Equation (2. 3) Compute temperature histories. construction start date. foundation rock temperature. specific heat etc. thermal conductivity. coefficient of thermal expansion. Tabulate temperature data as temperaturetime histories and temperature distribution to obtain visual results. The expected outputs from the 2D&3D thermal analysis of RCC dams are as follows [82]: 1) The determination of distribution of temperature field and its evolution with time 2) The determination of stress field during and after construction 3) The determination of appropriate joint spacing to prevent cracking 28 . convert it to stress and compare with the tensile strength capacity. leading to similar results. Moreover. Again. Badovli Dam. It was observed that the thermal properties of the mixture affects the thermal gradients significantly so that hydration heat and adiabatic temperature rise test should be done carefully before the construction starts. for mass gradient analysis. Thermal behavior of RCC dams is very complex. Real construction process of the dam was simulated in the model and the temperature field inside the dam body at any point was successfully calculated.Urugua-i RCC Dam [74][81] was modeled with a 2D FE mesh. initial tensile stress increase due to heat of hydration of cement within the first days was observed [79][80]. In conclusion.The computation accuracy of 2D&3D thermal analysis is mainly dependent on the assumed or computed input parameters. it was determined that significant increase in the modulus of elasticity during the initial hydration process led to high tensile stresses at the beginning of construction. During the thermal simulation of Kinta Dam. tensile strain capacity of RCC should be tested to evaluate cracking properly [72]. very low air temperatures increase the risk of surface cracks which can lead to increased seepage through the dam body. Platanovryssi Dam [88] was modeled with both 2D&3D FE analyses. The bottom part of the dam was observed to be exposed to the highest tensile stresses due to the high temperature field and the restraint of the foundation. Investigating the effect of temperature change on the elastic and creep parameters. the zones near the foundation appear to be more critical in nature. 29 . For surface gradient analysis. reaching maximum tensile strains in dam section due to strong restraint of the foundation rock. which is mostly due to the large uncertainties in the used parameters rather than the methods and computation procedures [76]. and the surface and mass gradient analyses were conducted [77]. it was underlined that the bottom part of the dam near the foundation reaches the highest temperatures in the dam body due to massive volume and this zone possessed the highest risk for the cracking due to high tensile stresses especially at the heel. built in a cold region was modeled by ANSYS using a 2D model. A technique called “relocating mesh method” was also used by various authors [86][91][92][93][94] reducing the computation time significantly. if the computation accuracy of the 2D and 3D FEM analyses are compared relative to real measured data from dam sites. The temperature of the dam increased rapidly in the first days due to heat of hydration and reached a maximum value. the mesh layers of thin lifts are merged into the larger lift and the number of nodes and elements are decreased significantly. the surface cooled down more rapidly than the core that led the surface to attain compressive stresses while the core was exposed to tensile stresses as in [83][84]. Finally. The temperature difference between inner and outer zones of the dam causes surface cracks [86] [87]. As a precaution. respectively. 30 . In this method. After the cooling stage began. Anzhi. with the aging of the concrete. in the 3D thermal analysis of Jiangya RCC Dam. 2D analysis takes the advantage of saving time during the computation [84][88][82]. Surface cracks are very dependent on the ambient temperature: increase or decrease of the air temperature leads to compressive or tensile stresses. Yong and Qingwen [78] analyzed the Longtan RCC Dam with ANSYS. both of them are seen as adequate and yield results in good agreement with the actual thermal measurements. the tensile stresses transferred from the surface to the core of the dam. Su and Shahrour [90] introducing the so-called “composite element method (CEM)” principally based on FEM. The discontinuity of the temperature field at the lift joints were considered by Chen. the cooling of the aggregates before placement was suggested [77]. Hydrostatic pressure on the upstream of the dam was determined to reduce the tensile stresses induced by the temperature field. In other words. it was concluded that very hot air in summer time also triggers the surface gradient cracks in RCC dams [85].In addition. Chao. During this period the surface attained high tensile stresses due to temperature difference with the core. The temperature discontinuity between old and new lifts of RCC can be computed with this method helping to predict earlyage concrete cracks better. 2. stress-strain relationship and material nonlinearity into account to predict maximum possible crack lengths that a structure may be exposed.3 Level 3 Thermal Analysis This level can be regarded as the most comprehensive approach for thermal analysis of RCC dams and named as “Nonlinear Incremental Structural Analysis”. The maximum temperature of concrete in large RCC dams can rise to very high values especially if construction is commenced in hot seasons. NISA calculates both mechanical and thermal loading effects simultaneously. On the contrary. 31 .2.The temperature difference across the lift joint between the new and old concrete can be higher than 10oC in daytime.2. The detailed procedure and an example of this level of calculations are given in [95][96]. Very high gravity and arch dams can be put into this category [72]. some measures should be kept in mind. Elimination of cracking is not the objective of this method.2. 2. Level 3 (NISA) is used generally for very critical structures subjected to extreme loads where cracking threats the integrity of structure significantly. Overdesign of critical structures can be prevented in this fashion. taking the temperature vs. In order to control the temperature fields and crack propagation within the RCC dam during and after construction.3 Temperature and Crack Control Measures The control of temperature increase and variation in a RCC dam is essential to prevent undesirable high stresses and possible cracks. The starting season of placement is the key factor for controlling the final temperature of RCC. thermocouples. In addition. Finally. the placement of RCC should not be started in hot seasons [98] [100] [89]. use of ice or chilly water in the mixture. was insulated using impervious upstream PVC geomembrane facing in order to protect concrete from extremely low temperatures [109]. the RCC mixtures having lower cementitious content tend to release lower heat of hydration so that they reduce the rate the temperature rise [2][71][86][88][89][97]. cementitious content amount. layer placement break. Thinner lifts have better heat conductivity than thicker ones so that the heat dissipation occurs more easily. but distributed fiber optic cables were used more recently to monitor the temperature changes in RCC dams. Taishir Dam. vibrating wires and thermistors permit the spot measurement for controlling the temperature rise and variation in RCC dams. Moreover. low temperature placement and surface insulation are the other important precautions to reduce heat evolution in RCC. aggregate pre-cooling. The temperature of pouring concrete should be kept low as possible as to reduce final temperature. In order to prevent high tensile stresses and mass gradient cracks at the restrained zone near the foundation. Pipe cooling can also be used for large dams constructed in hot seasons but it is not recommended practically since pipes can be damaged during the compaction of RCC layers [99] [100] [101] [102]. Furthermore. placement temperature influence the maximum temperature that the RCC can reach. The placement of RCC was prescribed to start at April for the Aladerecam RCC Dam using the 2D FEM models [37] to compare placement start dates. built under high seasonal temperature differences varying between 50oC and 40oC.The lift thickness. The placement temperature of concrete also influence the temperature rise significantly. 32 . the breaks between pouring of adjacent lifts or sections enable the bottom lift to cool down before the next lift is poured. the Upper Stillwater Dam. Stress meters.4 Thermal Cracking in RCC Dams Cracking was observed at various RCC dams due to thermal reasons.The biggest advantage of these are the collection of the data from a line of fiber optic cable. distributed temperature and strain sensing are the other instrumentations used for temperature monitoring [103][104]. RCC placement in summer time with high placement temperature caused thermal cracks at the middle blocks of the dam. A geomembrane system was assembled to repair the cracks underwater [24][137][138]. cracks near the upper gallery were treated in same way with two holes drilled from top of the dam. to a depth of 28m. The structure’s durability was not affected [24]. 33 . modulus of elasticity and less creep relaxation in the long term. Seven of these cracks were sealed with poly-urethane grout. Similarly.5m near the face and poly-urethane was injected. one of the earliest RCC dams with a significant amount of monitoring. For example. 2. Additionally.[41][131]. experienced several thermally induced vertical cracks due to very high cementitious content which leads to increased stiffness.2. the Platanovryssi Dam was exposed to long term thermally induced cracks. Crack treatments reduced but did not completely stop the seepage through the dam body and the seepage inspections are continued. For the cracks at the downstream face near foundation. vertical holes were drilled 1. The cracks near the upstream face were treated with fitting a seal and expansion joint. which enables the user to observe temperature variations within a dam more conveniently. At Salto Caxias Dam [129]. Three of the widest cracks were treated with corrugated stainless steel internal membrane. not a spot. while drains were installed in several others to divert the seeping water and relieve the water pressure. Deep Creek. At Galesville. near abutments where there is closer restraint and a reduction in section sizing [131]. near ends of spillway notch. New Victoria and Pangue RCC dams. The transverse joints should be placed at locations such as the gallery entrances. Elk Creek. The locations of cracks tended to be at structural irregularity locations where stress concentrations occurred. The Puding RCC arch dam [130] suffered nine cracks due to placement in high temperature seasons and the strong restraint provided by the rock foundation at the bottom and valley sides. The two of cracks were treated with chemical grouting where leakage was inspected.The safety of the dam was not affected. 34 . Hudson River. thermally induced cracks were observed after completion of constructions due to same reasons as above. 1 Mixture Content 3. Type IP (portland-pozzolan cement).CHAPTER 3 3. heat generation should be controlled carefully. According to ASTM standards. the Portland cement types which have low heat of hydration are preferred for thermal consideration. For this purpose. PROPORTIONING AND MATERIAL PROPERTIES 3. However.1. The Portland cement and a suitable pozzolan is used to constitute cementitious paste for RCC. Type IV Portland cement is not generally used in RCC dam construction because of its rare production in USA. since no cooling is used in RCC construction. Type IS (portland blastfurnace slag cement) and Type IV (low-heat) cement. MIX. In addition to this. Type III Portland cement is not usually selected since is shortens the time available for compaction and increases heat generation at early ages [6]. 35 . they are Type II Portland cement (moderate heat cement).1 Cement The cementitious material requirement for RCC are not different from used in CMC. the temperature rise within the dam body of RCC dams having massive concrete mass is relatively high than in small-size RCC dams so that using the cement with low heat of hydration is especially important for massive structures. the engineer should determine the early and long-term strength requirements of design mixture. “ Class C. blast furnace slag and natural pozzolans are more commonly used because they generate less heat of hydration and have greater sulfate resistance. the availability of any cement type near an RCC dam site is very important criteria in decision making [1].2 Pozzolan 3. the last but not least.2.1 General Pozzolan is used in high contents in the application of RCC.2. The use of pozzolan is directly related to design mixture requirement as well as thermal considerations.1. The cement types with low heat generation tends to produce design mixtures with slow rate of strength development when compared to Type I Portland cement but. Pozzolan is used in RCC mixtures for the following purposes: [6] 36 . in the long term these types of cement produce higher ultimate strength values when compared to Type I. The mixture content of some RCC dams from literature is given in Appendix A Table A.Before selecting the type of cement to be used in RCC. cost and the availability of material for each project.1. Class F flyash and Class N natural pozzolans have been used in various RCC projects. Besides this. Class F and Class N type of fly ash. 3. Finally. Among these. 1. the cohesion of the mixture increases due to increase in the fines content which reduces segregation and it occupy void space leading increased workability and impermeability [5]. partial cement replacement by pozzolans causes reduction in compressive strength at early ages.[54] 2) To reduce cost: Partial replacement for cement to reduce cost 3) To improve mixture workability: Additive to provide supplemental fines for mixture workability 4) To improve impermeability and minimize the alkali-aggregate reaction.1) To reduce heat generation: Partial replacement for cement [13]. The price ratio of cement to pozzolan is a key factor in order to benefit from replacing cement with pozzolan. 37 .2.2 Replacement Ratio The rate of replacement may change from 0 to 80 %. using pozzolan improves long-term strength of the mix since there is sufficient amount of calcium hydroxide released from the Portland cement for a pozzolanic reaction and vice versa [4]. 3. for design mixes with high content of Portland cement. The permeability of RCC is improved in the presence of admixtures due to filler and pozzolanic action. according to Hamzah and Al-Shadeedi [7]. Good results can be obtained after 90 days and more. Design mixes with high content of cementitious material usually use high percentage of pozzolan to reduce adiabatic temperature rise. Some factors such as availability of pozzolan near project site. However. by mass. quality and quantity of pozzolan affect the price ratio of cement to pozzolan. Furthermore. In addition. fly ash and natural pozzolan concretes. According to Park. With blast furnace slag.1. unreasonable use of pozzolans is not welcome because the adequate content of pozzolan is determined by its pozzolanic activity with the cement. 3. the compressive. metakaolin. it provides long-term improvements in strength due to pozzolanic reaction which leads to consumption of free limes into stable hydrates by pozzolanic reaction. Yoon. low permeability and absorption and higher compressive strengths. A similar study was carried out by Atis [10]. silica fume and ricehusk ash are satisfactory for RCC of about 10-10 m/s.The values obtained with powdered aggregate. He investigated the relationship between the mechanical properties of the RCC and the replacement ratio of cement to fly ash with focus on strength of very high volume fly ash mixtures with very low and optimal W/C (water/(cement+pozzolan)) ratio. Kim and Won [9]. According to Andriolo [6].2. The fly ash and blast furnace slag have especially superior results in terms of a denser microstructure. Finally. it is very important that each design mixture of each RCC project requires different amount and percentages of pozzolan to meet conditions. the permeability is much lower around 10 -11 m/s. 38 . Although fly ash reduces early age strength of RCC mixes because of the slowing down concrete set.3 Use of Fly Ash and Limestone Powder The use of fly ash is particularly effective in RCC mixes which provide additional fines for easy compaction. Fly ash also minimizes the effect of alkaliaggregate reaction. tensile and shear strengths of the RCC mixture without fly ash were greater than those of the RCC mixtures with fly ash at early age. a good paste/aggregate adherence. but the mixtures with fly ash were more effective than those without fly ash in terms of long-term strength. permeability and freeze-thaw performance well. They concluded that the compressive strength decreased slightly with the fly ash replacement by limestone which consists more than 20% stone powder content.This study underlined that very high fly ash replacement ratios may not be feasible and technically appropriate for using in mass RCC applications. the design can be made for high volume of high quality fly ash content. 39 . Chen.1.1.1 General The aggregate is a very critical part of the RCC mixture content. Ji. The influence of limestone powder replacing the fly ash to use as admixture affected workability. Jiang. On the other hand.3 Aggregate 3. Pan and Jiang [11] investigated the effects of limestone powder as a pozzolan with replacement to fly ash content.3. the adiabatic temperature rise value lowered. Traditional aggregates used in CVC can be used in RCC. The study by Kaitao and Yun [12] supports the results of the above study. Stone powder has no significant pozzolanic activity and had no contribution to the strength development in the later ages. but mechanical properties of RCC reduced with increasing limestone powder content. 3. The selection of aggregate. the Chinese RCC experience show that when the quantity of high quality fly ash is abundant near the dam site. Approximately 75 to 80 % of the mixture volume is possessed by the aggregate. and setting time of concrete shortened. Due to increase in the popularity of the high quality fly ash in concrete industry. control of the aggregate properties and grading are important factors affecting the quality and uniformity of RCC mixture. In addition.The aggregates meeting the “ASTM C 33 Standard Specification of Concrete Aggregates” are generally used for RCC production. Core strengths were obtained to be 35 % lower than the sample laboratory strengths[15]. 40 .2 Effect of Quality Economy. With the crucial washing and screening process. In combination with high creep.1. Aggregate selection affects the mechanical properties significantly.3. Wyaralong Dam and Koudiat Acerdoune Dam. such as in the Concepcion Dam [2]. low modulus of elasticity matched with the foundation characteristics. the poor quality sandstone at the Wyaralong Dam site [14] allowed the reduction of thermal stresses providing the oppurtunity for placing with no cooling. A redesign of the dam section such as for the Middle Fork Dam can be done in accordance with the chosen aggregate material [2]. Middlefork Dam. minimum period of stockpiling and careful transportation to minimise further breakage. marginal aggregates that do not meet traditional standards have also been used in many RCC dam construction successfully [1]. the design considerations should be revised if any other type of aggregate is used in construction instead of pre-selected one [4]. availability and distance to site are the important factors that should be checked before selecting the aggregate. weak alluvial aggregates were used at the Koudiat Acerdoune Dam achieving the desired design strength values. The use of low quality aggregate can be tolerated in mass concrete applications. 3. However. Field test shows that flat and elongated particles cause no serious problem for RCC application [6] [4]. The contractor implemented Slope Layer Method to reduce effects of these problems.1. in the Koudiat Acerdoune RCC dam. thus decreases density and needs more W/C ratio (Figure 3-1). This improves horizontal lift joint strength and impermeability [15].1. uncrushed aggregate increases the void space.3. the real dam applications can experience different results than the usual point of view. Hamzah and Al-Shadeedi [7] showed that using crushed aggregate increases the interlocking between particles of aggregate and gives better mechanical properties than with uncrushed aggregate. The flaky and elongated aggregates may decrease the density of RCC mixture and increase cement and water demand.3. Furthermore.4 Effect of Aggregate Crushing The use of crushed and uncrushed aggregates directly affects the mechanical properties of RCC mixtures. flaky and elongated aggregates affect the mixture uniformity. For example. the rounded shape of the alluvial aggregate made lift surfaces preparation difficult and time consuming. Slope Layer Method is a method which enables each layer of RCC to be placed within the initial set time of the previous layer. 41 . 3.3. On the other hand.3 Effect of Shape For RCC. segregation and strength much less than the one for CVC as the vibratory compaction equipment gives more energy than traditional methods and the higher mortar content in RCC separates coarse aggregate particles [6]. the use of rounded and flaky aggregates in Yeywa Dam resulted in high water demand and low strength than expected [53]. [57]. 3.1. The mixture with both adequate paste and minimum cementitious content was formed. On the other hand. By using a well graded aggregate with the largest maximum size.5 Effect of Size The main purpose in mixture proportioning is to incorporate the maximum amount of aggregate and minimum amount of water into the mixture. Figure 3-1 Variation in compressive and tensile strength with W/C ratio and aggregate crushing[7] 3. this purpose is accomplished. thus reducing the cementitious material quantity and reducing the potential volume change of the concrete. 42 . potential segragation and difficulty in compaction of the concrete have to be considered while selecting maximum size of aggregate to be used in mixture.These conclusions are supported by the experience in Yeywa Dam: the use of crushed instead of rounded and flaky aggregates improved the compressive strength significantly [53]. 5 to 0.3. Fine aggregate percentages of 34% and 35% were used in Upper Stillwater and Beni Haroun Dam [55].8% of cement weight) to compensate for this effect. fine particles are used in order to improve consistency of the mix and workability during compaction [38]. spaces.In the past. Plastic fines are not acceptable as the workability of the mixture is reduced considerably. increasing lift-joint quality and reducing compaction equipment maintenance.075 mm are crucial for paste requirement and compactability of RCC. The maximum density of the RCC mixtures is generally optimised by proportion of fine aggregates in the mixture. Fine particles increases water but decreases cementitious material demand. 43 . 75 mm (3 in.) is more widely used which is less prone to segregation. This percentage can be higher if aggregates with high NMSA are used with large volume in the mixture [4]. increases compactibility with filling voids and thus decreases the passing number of vibratory rollers to fully compact the RCC lifts [44][1].) NMSA was used in the US but nowadays 50 mm (2 in. In Hiyoshi and Tomisato Dams. The weakness of marl and shale particles included in the aggregates with plastic and clayey fines increased the Vebe time rapidly with time and RCC progressively lost its workability [15]. 32% of fine aggregate was used to obtain maximum density [51]. At Olivenhain Dam. A set retarder was introduced into the mix (0. Most RCC mixtures uses 3 to 8 % of fine particles in the total aggregate volume.1.6 Use of Fine Particles Fine aggregates whose diameter is less than #200-0. 3. In order to avoid possible segregation. three or four aggregate sizes are used in RCC dams [4][6].3. three sizes of aggregates(two coarse and one fine) were used to obtain required aggregate gradation curve [51][55][56].3. They all exhibit good workability except Willow Creek Dam [2].1. Figure 3-2 Vebe time versus time [15] 44 .Upper Stillwater. At Olivenhain.Cindere and Beni Haroun Dam. slightly finer aggregate than actually needed can be stockpiled [30]. the aggregate variability in each stockpile should be minimum as possible as in order to avoid segregation in stockpile. Figure 3-3 shows some sample aggregate gradations for RCC Dams. Moreover. The construction of stockpile and delivery of aggregates from stockpile to construction area are very important factors affecting the gradation and leading segregation.7 Effect of Gradation Generally. 45 . workability and consistency as with CVC construction [4]. In light of the data collected from the RCC dams around the world.38 MPa at an age of 90 days to 1 year.2. RCC projects have used cement between 30 and 300 kg/m3.63 and 25.Figure 3-3 Aggregate gradation curve for some RCC dams [2] 3. While evaluating the content ratio of materials to be used in the design mixture. pozzolans and cooling proedures for the materials are taken into consideration. the largest NMSA. the cementitious material content (cement+pozzolan) for RCC dams varies over a broad range from 59 kg/m3 to 380 kg/m3.2 Mixture Proportioning and Design 3. strength. minimum amount of cementitious material.1 General The primary considerations for mixture proportioning are durability. pozzolan from zero to 230 kg/m3 and produced an average compressive strength between 19. Low cementitious contents generally require more fines to fill aggregate voids for consistent mixture. The paste consists of water. Regardless of the material specifications chosen. Typically. dense concrete mixture.2. 46 . According to Ancieta and Ongalla [22]. dry consistency mixtures are at or near optimum moisture.2 Mixture Consistency RCC mixtures should be dry enough to fully support vibratory roller and not to cause water waving under compacter due to excess water more than needed for filling aggregate voids [2]. the testing and evaluation of laboratory trial mix batches are crucial to verify the fresh and hardened properties of the concrete [1]. The paste consistency is very important for strength and watertightness at horizontal lift joints. 3. all the ingredients of RCC mixture except coarse and fine aggregates. availability and quality of materials. located in Gabon. It should fill aggregate voids and produce compactable.Site-specific requirements play an important role such as location and size of the dam. They generally have modified Vebe times in excess of 30 sec when that test is used for workability. The consistency of RCC mix is measured as the time required or a given concrete to be consolidated by external vibration in a cylindrical mold. This time is so called “Vebe time”. Grand Poubara RCC Dam. performance of dam foundation. was designed based on the vertical tensile strength among each layer required due to the high seismic activity in the region. pozzolan and fines in other words. The important elements in the proportioning of RCC for dams is the amount of aggregates and paste. climate. The gradation of aggregates and batching is also essential to obtain a uniform and compactable mixture having almost the same mechanical properties in every section of the concrete mass. cement. The consistency of mixture indicates the appearance. Rutting of the lift surface at Elk Creek and Upper Stillwater dams was observed to be as much as 50 to 76 mm deep. not the actual water content being low or high [2]. The optimum moisture content is governed by the aggregates so that it is not rational to change aggregates ratio when adjusting the optimum W/C 47 . Figure 3-4 Surface damage caused by truck tires on wet-mix RCC [2] 3. They have insufficient strength between initial and final set to support truck loads.3 W/C Ratio W/C (water / (cement+pozzolan)) ratio plays an important role in mixture proportioning.2. the paste tend to go above the lift surface due to wet consistency and presented deep roller marks and ruts from tires in Saluda Dam [30]. The problem can be apparent at times due to cracking at the lift surface next to tire ruts as shown in Figure 3-4. On the other hand. wet consisteny mixtures have modified Vebe times of about 10 to 15 sec and they are much wetter than optimum moisture content. Similarly.These mixtures are affected very little from deformation under truck and tire traffic after compaction. For obtaining low cementitious mixture.ratio.6. It can only be accomplished by increasing or decreasing the cementitious material content. The use of very low W/C ratio in RCC as in the CVC only causes to very high cementitious content which leads to higher costs and increased thermal stresses. Figure 3-5 Compressive strength versus w/c ratio for RCC Dams 48 . Attempts to change the W/C ratio by changing the water content have only minor effects on the W/C ratio.4 to 0. it detoriorates the mixture consistency and cause deviations from optimum moisture content and compactability.0 to 2. The RCC compressive strength as a function of W/C ratio is plotted in Figure 3-5 with the collected data from sites of various RCC dams around the world. This is the major difference of RCC from CVC which has W/C values of on the order of 0. High W/C ratio does not imply low quality concrete for RCC [2].0. On the contrary. W/C ratio must be high and on the order of 1. 49 . The reason for this is that most RCC mixing plants require mixture ingredients be so identified for input to the plant control system.3. pozzolan and water for unit volume of mixture as given in Figure 3-6. RCC mixture proportions are determined by mass of each ingredient contained in a compacted unit volume of the mixture based on saturated surface dry (SSD) aggregate condition. After the mass and volume of each ingredients are calculated.2. Fine aggregate and fine content is based on percentage of total aggregates and NMSA used. water / cementitious material approach with the mixture determined by solid volume and cemented-aggregate approach with the mixture determined by either solid volume or moisture-density relationship. a comparison of the mortar content to recommended values can be made to check the proportions [3]. The US Army Corps of Engineers use W/C ratio and strength relationship to obtain mass quantities of cement. The approximate W/C ratio can be determined by NMSA and desired modified Vebe time.4 Mixture Proportioning Methods The mixture proportioning methods generally uses two major principles namely. coarse and fine aggregate quantities are determined by trial batches [4]. incorporating the use of consistency meter. In Japan. a method similar to proportioning CVC (in accordance with ACI) is used for RCC as well. The W/C and fly ash / cement ratios are determined in this method for desired strength level. 1992) U.S Bureau of Reclamation used the high paste method for the design of Upper Stillwater Dam.Figure 3-6 Compressive strength versus w/c and equivalent cement content (USACE. The resulting mixtures from this method generally have high proportions of cementitious material. high pozzolan and high workability yielding good lift joint strength and low joint permeability by providing sufficient cementitious material. This method is not used widely outside of Japan due to requirement to provide consistency test equipment [1]. Vebe tests are done to obtain 10 to 30 sec Vebe time for conducted to obtain consistency requirement and the optimum water. 50 . 3. medium and high cementitious content mixtures are as below: 1) Lean (low cementitious content) RCC mixture : Having less than 99 kg/m3 cementitious material 2) Medium-paste RCC mixture : Having cementitious material between 100149 kg/m3 3) High-paste (high cementitious content) RCC mixture: Having more than 150 kg/m3 cementitious material 51 . The desired water content is determined by moisture-density relationship of compacted specimens. facing methods. Use of different mix designs in a project are also possible.5 Cementitious Material Content RCC mixture design can be affected by many different conditions. Abdo [16] states that due to sliding concerns during extreme loading conditions. climate.Finally optimum moisture and water content can be used to determine the mix proportioning of RCC samples. Method D. The designation for low. the degree of reliable inspection expected. The selected mixture design for a specific dam site can totally be misleading for another dam site. thermal issues. one in the foundation cutoff key and the other in the key. Strength testing is then carried out at each cementitious materials content [1]. foundation quality. the maximum density and optimum water content are determined from a plot of density-water content of the compacted specimens of each mixture. using ASTM D 1557. cooling process.2. availability and quality of materials with their cost. The decision should be based on realistic information related to dam size and height. Using various RCC mixtures having different cementitious material and water contents. two mixture designs were used in the dam. 2) given in Section 3. low cementitious content mixture was used which led more mass and conservative dam cross section but provide flexibility in aggregate selection and proportions [16]. Conrad.3. Hung. On the other hand.2. The splitting tensile strength values were calculated by the formula (3. the compressive strength values of mixes were taken from the literature.Dams built with high cementitious content mixes may have less volume but typically have a much higher unit cost and more effective cooling and quality control requirements. 3.2.2. High cementitious content mixtures results good cement efficiencies (strength per unit of cementitious material) when compared to CVC but lower cementitious content mixtures have even greater efficiencies along with better thermal handing such as in the Mujib Dam [21] and the Nordlingaalda Dam [58].1) which is also given in Section 3. On the other hand. Son La RCC dam in Vietman and Yeywa RCC dam in Myanmar were constructed within very tight schedule and high cementitious content to benefit early start of power generation and minimising river diversion costs.6 Mix Design In this section. Lower cementitious content mixtures have lower unit cost but may require more mass. Kyaw. a batch of mixes from various RCC dams was examined in order to determine the effect of cementitious content amount and pozzolan / cementitious content ratio on the target direct tensile strength value for 28 and 90 days. The direct tensile strength values of mixes were calculated by the formula (3. according to Thang.3. They also require special attention about good watertightness along lift joints. In the Pine Brook Dam.2. 52 .Steiger and Dunstan [17].2. The values of splitting tensile and direct tensile strengths of mixes correlates well with the ratios of splitting tensile to compressive strength and direct tensile to splitting tensile strength given in Section 3.3.2.2. The table of compressive, split and direct tensile strength values of mixes and the ratios of split tensile to compressive & direct to split tensile strengths are given in Appendix A, Table A.3 and Table A.4, respectively. Target direct tensile strengths were assumed as 1.0 MPa and 1.3 MPa for 28 and 90 days, respectively. Results within 10% of the these levels were accepted as satisfactory in the calculations. A cost analysis was performed to see how mix design and the corresponding cost of the RCC is affected from pozzolan / cementitious content ratio. Flyash was chosen as the pozzolan used in this experiment. In cost analysis, it is assumed that the other constituents (aggregate, water and fines) of different mixes remain the same for unit cubic meter of the mixes. The costs of cement and the flyash were calculated with the 2013 year current prices of the Ministry of Public Works ( 109 TL/ton for cement and 16.9 TL/ton for flyash). The cost analysis table showing the cementitious content within the mix and the costs of mixtures is given in Appendix A Table A.5. Seventeen different mixtures satisfy the target tensile strength at 28 and 90 days as given in the Appendix. These mixes have flyash percentages between 0.40 and 0.70 in the mixture. In addition, there are 4 mixes satisfying the design criteria without the use of fly ash. Cementitious material content of the mixtures reaching the target strength with flyash addition ranged from 192 to 240 kg/m3. For mixtures without flyash the cement content was between 105 to 150 kg/m3. These results indicate that there are two groups of mixes satisfying the target strengths. This situation is commonly observed in mix design studies. From this point on, the selection of flyash percentage for mix design is directly related with the actual cost of the design mixture, early age and long-term strength requirements and the heat generation concerns for safety of system. 53 When the costs of the mixes are compared, it is indicated that mixes having no flyash were observed to cost at least the same level as the other mixes since the unit price of cement is nearly seven times higher than the flyash (Figure 3-7). The use of trial mixes without flyash seem to be irrational because the flyash pushes the total cost of mix to downward. The slope of cost curve becomes negative after the inclusion of nearly 30~40% percentage of flyash. Three Gorges Dam trial mix no.18 assumed to have a total cost of 6.84 TL*(kg/m3) is an outlier in this study. The cost of trial mixes decrease as the flyash ratio increases, as expected. Hovewer, design mixes with high flyash ratio generally results in reduction in strength efficiency after 50~60%. Furthermore, for the design mixes that need higher target direct tensile strength value, high flyash ratios may not be suitable since pozzolans generally slow the strength development in early ages. In conclusion, the mix design for this target levels may easily include flyash material as 40~60% of the cementitious content. Figure 3-7 Total cost of trial mixes vs. pozzolan percentage for mix design 54 3.3 Material Properties 3.3.1 Compressive Strength Compressive strength is a basic material property of RCC for design load requirements as in CVC. Almost every RCC dam project requires certain limit of compressive strength value to handle some gravity loads. However, the reason for the provision of compressive strength for RCC mixes is usually the prescription of a quality requirement (i.e. in order to reach a certain tensile strength level) as in CVC. Compressive strength is used as a measure of the durability and long term performance of RCC dams, but it is usually not a primary parameter for design: tensile strength is generally the most important and governing material property for the design of RCC dams [6]. As in CVC, the compressive strength of an RCC mixture depends primarily on the cementitious content on the mix, along with the quality and the grading of aggregates, the mixture proportion (ratio of aggregate to cementitious material), the degree of compaction and W/C ratio [2]. Compressive strength increases with increasing the amount of cementitious material within the mixture, decreasing the W/C ratio, better compaction and an increasing NMSA within the mixture. Efficiency of mixture is an important issue, for higher cementitious content RCC mixes an increase in the cement content does not lead to as much increase in the strength. Good compaction is a must, aggregates having NMSA of more than 75mm are not recommended due to segregation problems [35] [36]. Compressive strength tests are often performed at the site laboratories to design mixture proportions and determine the ratio of cementitious material and aggregates. These tests can be conducted with laboratory test cylinders or specimens cored from test fills. The compressive strength results of control cylinders from the sites of 62 dams around the world is given in Figure 3-8. 55 The mean compressive strengths are 8.0, 13.9, 19.7, 20.6 and 25.4 MPa and the medians for the for 7, 28, 90 ,180 and 365 days are 7.0, 12.9, 18.4, 19.0 and 25.0 MPa, respectively. Figure 3-8 Compressive strength values for RCC dams 3.3.1.1 Strength vs. Cementitious Content The compressive strength increases parallel to increase in cementitious content in the RCC mixture [7,31]. Hamzah and Al-Shadeedi [7] carried out a study to investigate this relation. Cementitious content can include cement replacement material like pozzolans, fly ash, blast furnace slag, etc… A study conducted by Canale, Ozen and Eroglu [37] for Aladerecam Dam shows an increase in the 90 day compressive strength from 9.4 to 10.2 MPa for an increase of trass from 70 to 75 kg/m3 in the mixture. 56 143. 51. 28. 21. 53. A detailed summary of the data shown in the figure is given in Appendix B Table B. 68].1 [30. The water content of different mixtures are identical within each dam. 41. 40. As high as 45 MPa compressive strength was obtained for the Nordlingaalda Dam for roughly 200-210 kg/m3 cementitious material content.The variation of the compressive strength at 28 and 90 days are shown in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 with respect to the cementitious material content in the mixture for a range of dam sites around the world. Only 8 MPa was obtained for the Upper Stillwater Dam with slightly higher cementitious material content. 26. 146. 141. 58. the large variation (as compared to CVC) in the compressive strengths obtained for similar cementitious content is notable. 39. 140. 142. 145. An increasing trend in the compressive strength with respect to cementitious content amount in the mixture is easily discernible. However. 144. 139. 57 . 57. Figure 3-9 Compressive strength versus cementitious content for RCC Dams (28 days) 58 . The most efficient mixes had lower cement contents and lower pozzolan or no pozzolan. The quality of pozzolan used in the mixture may even lead worse situation in terms of strength efficiency [21]. For the Mujib Dam. the quality of the pozzolan was not sufficient for the high cementitious content mixture.Figure 3-10 Compressive strength versus cementitious content for RCC Dams (90 days) RCC mixtures usually gain strength with increasing cementitious content but there seems to be a reduction of efficiency (MPa/(kg/m3) of cement) with increasing cementitious content. 59 . In other words. less strength is gained per kg of cementitious material as more cement is added to the mix. 05 to 0. It shows that the average efficiency is about 0. There appears to be some reduction in efficiency for mixtures with cementitious content higher than 200 kg/m3.10 with a variation between 0.20. Figure 3-11 Compressive strength efficiency versus cementitious content for RCC Dams 60 .The Figure 3-11 shows the compressive strength efficiency versus cementitious content (cement and pozzolan) values of RCC dams for 28 and 90 days from the collected data.2. The table of data is shown in Appendix B Table B. 39. 28. 145.3. W/C Ratio The compressive strength increases with decreasing w/c ratio if proper compaction is done. 58. 40.1. 57. 140. 143. 68]. The function of w/c ratio is similar to what happens for CVC. 144. Figure 3-12 Compressive strength versus w/c ratio for RCC Dams 61 . 142. 51.3.2 Strength vs. 139. 53. 141. The table of data is shown in Appendix B Table B. 26. Figure 3-12 illustrates this situation for 28 day compressive strength development of some RCC dams [30.3. 146. 21. 41. Cement content can be replaced by as much as 70% by fly ash.3. most studies show that there is an optimal replacement ratio for which the maximum strength with replacement could be obtained [36. Figure 3-13 Compressive strength with fly ash replacement ratio [9] 62 . The cement content could be replaced by fly ash conveniently for RCC material provided that short term strength is not a major design variable. There are many studies investigating the optimum ratio of fly ash replacement ratio in the RCC mixture to have the desired design strength in a most economical way.10]. Figure 3-14 shows the results of another study in which the compressive strength at optimum value of metakaolin/cement is consistently higher from other mixes at even 7 days [7]. Pozzolan/Cement Ratio Pozzolan replacement ratio in the RCC mixture play an important role on the compressive strength gain within the time. 9. However. 7. These optimal ratios were obtained to be 30% [9]. Fly ash is one of the most efficient types of pozzolan in terms of strength development. As given in the figure. 20% [7] and 50% [10] fly ash replacement. for the long term strength 30% fly ash replacement is optimal[9].1. 28 and 91 days is given in Figure 3-13 for different mix designs [9].3 Strength vs.3. The variation in the strength for 7. While only long term strength was optimal in [9]. the compressive strength of the mixture with 35% fly ash goes up of the mixture without fly ash. in the long term pozzolan increases RCC ultimate strength seriously. within first 28 days the compressive strength reached only 30% of the 1 year value. In the Upper Still Water Dam which consists of 70% fly ash in the design mix.38] but. 63 .Figure 3-14 Variation in compressive strength with (metakaolin/cement) % [7] The increase in the ratio of fly ash to cement delays strength development of RCC in the short term. A typical example of strength gain in mixtures can be seen in Hino. Jotatsu and Hara [38]. According to Dolen [41]. Higher fly ash content decreases early strength [9. As shown in Figure 3-15. until 28 days the strength gain of the mixture containing 35% fly ash has lower rate than the one without fly ash inclusion. this is because of the fact that fly ash is quite reactive in the long term strength gain. After 180 days. However. after 28 days the rate of increase of compressive strength of mixture with 35% fly ash content gets steeper while the rate of increase of mixture without fly ash goes down gradually. The figures show that the compressive strength of RCC mixtures decreases with the increasing percentage of pozzolan in the mixture. The percentages of 30~40% are generally seem to be ideal for optimum compressive strength. 64 .Figure 3-15 Result of compressive strength test Figure 3-16 and Figure 3-17 show the compressive strength variation for RCC mixtures with different pozzolan percentages for the same total cementitious content values of RCC dams for 28 and 90 days from the collected data. Figure 3-16 Compressive strength versus pozzolan percentage for RCC Dams (28days) 65 . The figures show that the efficiency of RCC mixtures decreases with the increasing percentage of pozzolan in the mixture. 66 . The percentages of less than ~50% pozzolan have greater efficiency values than the ones having more than 50%.Figure 3-17 Compressive strength versus pozzolan percentage for RCC Dams (90 days) The Figure 3-18 shows the compressive strength efficiency of RCC dam mixtures with different pozzolan percentages for 28 and 90 days from the collected data. Figure 3-18 Compressive strength efficiency versus pozzolan percentage for RCC Dams 67 . Design mixture of containing 220 kg/m3 cementitious content with a 60% fly ash replacement is economical and satisfactory in terms of strength requirements [40]. Some projects may handle the design strengths achieved by design mixtures having high percentages of fly ash content.A. Liduario. metakaolin.It should be kept in mind that each project may require a different design strength value depending on design age. Pozzolan Type The type of pozzolan used in the mixture affects the development of compressive strength significantly. Hasparyk. powdered aggregate. As a consequence. geometry of the dam. Farias. the designer could be able to use 75% of fly ash replacement in the design mixture which meets the design compressive strength [39]. site conditions and seismicity of the location.4 Strength vs. In the Willow Creek Dam.1. it should be mentioned that there are exceptions to the general trend of long term strength gain for mixtures with high fly ash replacement.3. blast furnace slag and silica fume. the Pedrogoa RCC Dam required 12 MPa design compressive strength after choosing high quality aggregate instead of low quality aggregate in the design mixture and changing the design age of 90 day with 1 year. 3. Therefore.P Andrade [8] carried out a study using different types of pozzolans with different amounts to evaluate the changes in RCC mixture properties and obtain a durable mixture. Finally. natural pozzolan. one should keep in mind that the quality of pozzolan may play an important role in the long term strength development. rice-husk ash. Similarly. Andrade. 68 . in Ghatghar RCC Dams the design compressive strength of 15 MPa at 90 days is required. adding fly ash to the test mixture did not yield any strength gain in the long term [2]. M. Bittencourt and W. The types of pozzolanic material used were fly ash. For example.S. It is shown that adding pozzolans to RCC mixture improves the compressive strength significantly. Fly ash and blast furnace slab appear to be the most effective additives for increasing the compressive strength of the mixture. Fly ash was shown to be more effective compared to natural pozzolan in yielding higher compressive strength in later ages due to its higher silica content increasing the pozzolanic reaction between the cement and fly ash. A similar study was conducted by Malkawi. 100 kg/m3 of Type II Brazilian portland cement was used along with 155 kg/m3 water. The results of compressive strength for 90 days is shown in Figure 3-19. RCC mixtures with phosphorus slag have lower early strength but higher long term strength.For all the mixtures. Mutasher and Aridah [31] to in order to compare the contribution of fly ash and natural pozzolan to compressive strength of RCC mixtures. Shaia. The contribution of phosphorus slag replacement was investigated by Guangwei [42] leading to the conclusion that in comparison with the fly ash replacement. Figure 3-19 Compressive strength of RCC [8] 69 . The pulverized or powdered aggregates may reduce the strength development of RCC mixture very slightly or the strength develops almost the same while improving the workability of the mixture by filling effect [43][44]. Figure 3-20 shows the effect of fines on strength increase of Willow Creek Dam mixture: Figure 3-20 Effect of fines on strength. Willow Creek RCC Dam [2] 70 .3. some type of fines may increase the strength of low cementitious content mixtures. Fine Content The natural or manmade fines are very important for low cementitious RCC mixes to provide adequate paste and fill the void spaces for better compaction but there is no evidence that the fine content has positive effect on strength.5 Strength vs. according to Schrader [2].1.3. the limestone powder has no pozzolanic activity so that does not increase strength but workability and compactibility are improved significantly. However. According to Gaixin and Xiangzhi [45]. 71 . A well compacted RCC mix should not have more than 1. a void content higher than 4% lowers the compressive strength although it improves the workability. Prezeau and Robitaille [50]. Houehanou. According to Gagne. In order to elongate the work time of RCC.5 % air void. Lupien. For in-situ situation. the core samples taken from the lower parts of the horizontal lifts exhibited lower strength than the ones from near surface of the lift due to insufficient compaction caused by the depth. 5% of air void due to poor compaction was shown to result in a 30 % of strength loss in [3][46][49]. compaction of RCC should be started after placement and finished within 15 minutes. In the field. Generally four to six passes of a dual drum 10-ton vibratory roller achieves the desired density of 98% for RCC lifts between 150 and 300 mm [1][2]. if not strength will not rise to the required level due to high void content. On the other hand. However. enough energy should be transferred to specimen to achieve full compaction. Tsukada [48] states that in Ueno RCC Dam. the lower parts of the lifts should be passed by roller as much as possible during spreading to compensate the reduced effect of compaction due to increasing thickness of the lift. Therefore.3. Compaction The degree of compaction has a great influence on the compressive strength of RCC in both laboratory and in core samples from in-situ construction. compaction is more affordable than CVC. the sufficient number of passes should be performed by vibratory roller to achieve the desired strength. they concluded that a 1% to 4% void ratio can decrease the amount of total cementitious content needed without penalizing the workability or strength. Mixtures having wetter consistency causes visible pressure waves in front of the roller. The appearance of fully compacted concrete is dependent on mixture content. Since RCC has dry consistency.6 Strength vs.1. For laboratory specimens.3. the low cementitious content mixtures or different pozzolan types can be selected [47]. Aggregate The compressive strength is directly influenced by the quality of aggregate.3. 3. it reduces with the air-drying of the specimen especially on the surface of RCC. In the past.7 Strength vs. A laboratory test carried out by Nanni [52] to investigate the effect of air-drying and moist-curing on the RCC specimens’ compressive strength development shows that while the compressive strength increases with the exposure time and number of curing cycles.1.3. In Wyaralong Dam.1.8 Strength vs. on-site poor quality sandstone is used because of the low strength need [14]. elastic moduli and tensile strain capacity. Iin the Koudiat Acerdoune RCC dam Bouyge and Forbes [15].3.the desired design strength was achieved with weak alluvial aggregates in the absence of other better and economical options. However. . 72 . the W/C ratio of RCC is low in general so that no free water is available in the mix. if not low strengths are observed [46]. The curing of laboratory specimens (in an oven) to obtain an accelerated strength gain was investigated by Pauletto. Dunstan and Ortega [51] leading to a method to extrapolate strength of cured mixes from early age RCC specimens. The high quality aggregate should be procured if it is not available on site when high strength is desired. After spreading and compaction of the RCC lift. the use of low quality aggregate can be tolerated in mass concrete applications if strength is not the principal concern within dam body. some dams constructed with low strength aggregates showed good creep rates. drying should be prevented in the first seven days. Curing Curing is a very important process for RCC mixtures because. The use of crushed and uncrushed aggregates directly affects the mechanical properties of RCC mixtures. Hamzah and Al-Shadeedi [7] carried out an experimental work to study the effect of aggregate type on mechanical properties of RCC mixtures. Using crushed aggregate increased the interlocking between particles of aggregate and gave better compressive strength than with uncrushed aggregate. led to a greater compressive strength in the mix design. 73 . The water demand of the RCC mixtures increase when the aggregates are more rounded and flaky than usual. which enabled a better gradation curve filling the grading gaps. Figure 3-21 shows the compressive strength developments of two aggregates types. The use of rounded and flaky aggregates in Yeywa Dam resulted in low strength than expected [53].The shape and size of the aggregate affects the compressive strength as well. The shape of crushed aggregates has been found to influence the water demand and as a result compressive strength significantly. A better gradation of aggregates leads to a greater compressive strength in the RCC. The effect of the aggregates on the compressive strength was observed in three full scale trial mixtures of Yeywa RCC Dam. The optimum percentage of coarse and fine aggregates should be chosen in order to balance W/C ratio. In the Pedrogao RCC Dam (Ortega. Bastos and Alves [39]) washing and increasing the number of sizes of aggregates from two types to four types. Fine aggregate and fine particle contents prevent the strength loss due to high water demand because of aggregate voids. Production of good shape and well graded aggregates lowers the water demand and increases the compressive strength [53]. Additionally. 74 . bond characteristics.3. Direct tensile strength means that the load is applied to the specimen directly: the speciment is subject to pure uniaxial tension. aggregate quality. the condition of the lift surface. The tensile strength is affected by several factors.(a) uncrushed aggregate (b) crushed aggregate Figure 3-21 Variation in compressive strength with W/C ratio for 7 and 28 days [7] 3. W/C ratio and air voids within the RCC matrix.bond between paste and aggregate.grading.2 Tensile Strength Tensile strength is arguably the most important mechanical property of RCC since it is very important for acceptable behavior during seismic and thermal loading-unloading of RCC dams. There are two major type of tensile strength : direct tensile strength and indirect (split) tensile strength.namely. Direct tensile strength tests tend to produce higher variability test results when compared to split tension tests. cementitious material content in the mixture. treatment and test methods are other factors influencing the tensile strength of RCC [6]. Direct tensile strength tests results may be assumed to represent the minimum tensile properties of the concrete. These tests are difficult to conduct for concrete since they are affected by drying and microcracking of specimens as well as test setup and procedures. Olivares. Zhang W. Capanda and La Brena II Dams [65][66][41][37][21][67][68][28][26][69]. Cana Brava and Upper Stillwater . and Yang [25] conducted a direct tensile test on core specimens extracted from a practical RCC dam.Willow Creek.Direct tensile strength is about 65 to 75 percent of the splitting strength [3]. 75 . Besides that. Olivenhain. Tensile strength values as low as 0. 28.00 MPa value was obtained for the 17 project at 90 days. The core testing study was done at Elk Creek. Malkawi and Mutasher [27] made a test setup to predict the direct tensile strength of RCC dams. Direct tensile strength approaching 3. Similarly. Beni Haroun. Zhang F. Direct tension test is also used to evaluate the tensile strength of lift joint. Aladerecam.3 MPa is also observed. The results showed that the direct tensile strength of RCC matrix is a function of the maximum size of aggregate to the characteristic dimension of the specimen. Navarro and Ausin [29] used a modified test setup and realized that the failure of the specimen near one of its ends is an indicator of poor direct tensile strength testing.90 and even 360 days. the anisotrophy of the RCC mixture due to alignment of coarse aggregate inside affects the tensile strength taken from vertical and horizontal cores [19]. Li. It can easily be said that an average of 1. In order to solve these problems related to direct tensile testing.. Lift joint direct tensile strength tests should be done on cast specimens and/or cores from test placement sections to provide results for final design [19]. 180 and 365 days from different projects are presented in Figure 3-22. 90. Tests with these type of failures underpredicts the direct tensile strength of RCC specimens. A summary of the attained direct tensile strength values at 7. Porce II. It is difficult to apply uniaxial tensile force to the full circular cross section without any torsion or bending. Mujib.5MPa of direct tensile strength is obtained for both 28. 90.Figure 3-22 Direct Tensile Strength of RCC Dams Split tensile strength test is usually the preferred tensile strength testing methodology due to relatively simple test setup and consistency in test results. and therefore should be adjusted by a strength reduction factor to reflect results that would be obtained from direct tensile tests. Detailed list of the projects and the corresponding tensile strength values are given in Appendix B Table B. split tensile test usually overpredicts the tensile strength. The split tensile strength values (indirect tensile strength) obtained for different RCC dams projects around the world are given for 7. As mentioned before. 180 and 365 days in Figure 3-23.7. 28. Details of split tensile strength testing is not provided here as it is the conventional procedure with which CVC is usually tested. 76 . 3. even with a low cementitos content.Figure 3-23 Indirect Tensile Strength of RCC Dams 3. cores with 80 kg/m3 cementitious content had 1.66 MPa in 365 days whereas. For the Capanda RCC Dam.89 MPa [26]. it is possible to obtain decent tensile strengths from RCC material in the long term. A definite increase of the final strength of the material with increasing cement content is seen. cores made with 70 kg/m3 cementitious content had tensile strength of 1. However. A typical example of the increase of the split tensile strength with more cement content is given in Figure 3-24 [31].2. 77 .1 Tensile Strength vs Cementitious Content Cementitious material content in RCC is comprised of cement and fly ash. It is well known that the amount of cementitious material content affects the strength of the material directly: Low cementitious material content leads to low tensile strength for an RCC mix. while a significant increasing trend in the strength for mixtures with flyash content is clearly evident. This well known effect is also evident for the tests conducted for the Big Haynes RCC dam as shown in Figure 3-25. from 90 days onwards. increasing cement content directly affects the tensile strength. A mix design with no fly ash content leads to the plateau of design strength near 90 days. the strength “catches up” in the long term. Figure 3-24 Split tensile strength test results [31] 78 . a significant increase in the tensile strength was not seen. a greater increase in the strength is shown with a greater fly ash content.Notably. Although the initial strength of a mix with significant flyash replacement is much lower than a mix with %100 cement. Moreover. Use of fly ash on the other hand leads to a significant increase in the strength with the aging of the material. 30. Kim and Won [9].Figure 3-25 Split tension vs. 40 and 50% replacement ratios of cement with fly ash were prepared and tested for tensile strength at 7. A 50% difference in the final strength could be seen between the mixtures with 30 and 50% fly ash replacement in this case. percent fly ash [2] While a replacement of cementitous material with flyash content is advantegous for long term gains in the strength. 79 . showed that an optimal flyash content may be an issue to reach the highest tensile strength for a design mix design. Five mixtures with 0. the study conducted for the Big Haynes RCC dam as shown in Figure 3-25 should not be interpreted to point out that a similar cementitious material amount leads to a similar strength in the long term regardless of the percentage of flyash replacement. A study conducted by Park. 20. Yoon. 28 and 91 days. with more flyash replacement leading to lesser of the strength values as shown in Figure 3-26. however. Liduario. Another test done by Malkawi. Farias.P Andrade [8] carried out a study using different types of pozzolanic material in this regard to evaluate the changes in RCC mixture properties. Mutasher and Aridah [31] to investigate the comparison of the contribution of fly ash and natural pozzolan to split tensile strength of RCC mixture supports the data from this study. Shaia.A. other choices was less than satisfactory. Andrade. Bittencourt and W. M. metakaolic. pozzolan and blast furnace slag was used along with flyash in this study.S. Blast furnace slag and perhaps pozzolanic replacement yielded comparable strengths with flyash replacement in the RCC material. The fly ash and blast furnace slag have especially superior results in terms of split tensile strength due to their dense microstructure and high pozzolanic activity characteristics [8]. silica fumes. 80 .Figure 3-26 Splitting tensile strength with fly ash replacement ratio [9] Use of other cementitous materials instead of fly ash has also been tried given the recent high costs for obtaining flyash material either due to scarcity near the site or transportation logistics. Powdered aggregates. The split tensile strength values for these mixes are shown in Figure 3-27. rice-husk ash. Hasparyk. 53. 26. For the Ralco and Three Gorges Dams. 51. 41. 144. 145.5 MPa was obtained using a cementitious content of 150-200kg per cubic meter of RCC. 40. 68] show that the split tensile strength is directly affected by the cementitious content as expected. 81 . 58. 21. 28. 39. The table of data is shown in Appendix B Table B. However. strength values in excess of 2. A similar strength could be obtained for the Nordlingaalda Dam using only 100kg of cementitious material.8. 139. Results from [30. cementitious material content are presented in Figure 3-28 for a range of projects around the world.s.The mixtures with fly ash has higher split tensile strength than mixtures with natural pozzolan in later ages. El Zapotillo Dam [139] presents a clear outlier on the data: very high cementitious content did lead to only a meager tensile strength. Figure 3-27 Split tensile strength of RCC [8] A general summary of the split tensile strengths obtained v. 146. 57. 141. 140. 142. the large variance in the obtained tensile strength for a chosen cement content (in different projects) is also evident. 143. 10 to 12% for Miel I.7 to 12% for Nordlingaalda.2 Tensile Strength to Compressive Strength Correlation of the tensile strength to compressive strength is an important relation for RCC for practical reasons as the compressive strength of control cylinders or extracted cores from dams usually used for quality control during construction [28]. The split tensile strength of mixtures with higher cementitious material contents and higher compressive strengths is typically a lower percentage of the compressive strength compared to mixes with lower cementitious content.Figure 3-28 Indirect Tensile Strength vs Cementitious Content for RCC Dams 3. 10% for 82 .3. 14% for Mujib. Some examples of the ratio of split tension to compressive strength for various mixes at different projects according to collected data are 6. The split tensile strength of RCC mixtures are usually 5-15% of the compressive strength.2.4 to 10% for Three Gorges. 7. 3% for El Zapotillo.8% for Shapai.9. Storey and Delatte [18]. 8. The split tensile strength and the square root of compressive strength was also shown to be correlated well in Amer.1) 83 . 13. The indirect tensile strength of various mixes are compared to the compressive strength of the material in Figure 3-29 for some RCC dams for 90 days old specimens. The table of data is given in Appendix B Table B. Figure 3-29 Indirect Tensile Strength vs Compressive Strength for RCC Dams The best fit to the data yields the split tensile strength the compressive strength as a radical function of as given in (3. (3. in [4].08 and 0. and 9. The ratio between and was given to be between 0.14.1).8 to 14. similar to CVC.3 to 10% for Zhaolaihe. The split tensile strength values from all mixes fall in the range of 12-15 % of the compressive strength in Saluda RCC Dam as given in [30].El Esparragal. Zhang W.The correlation between direct tensile strength and the compressive strength is also studied. As outlined above.3.2) Li. Malkawi and Mutasher [27] built a test setup to predict the correlation between the direct tensile strength and the compressive strength of RCC. This relation implies a higher direct tensile strength compared to the split tensile strength with an increasing compressive strength of the RCC material [23] [24].2). A sound relation to use appears to be obtaining the tensile strength of the material as a linear function of the square root of its compressive strength as given in (3. (3.2. and Yang [25] conducted a direct tensile test on core specimens extracted from a practical RCC dam.1) or (3. Zhang F. Similarly. The results showed that the direct tensile strength of RCC material is a function of the square root of its nominal compressive strength similar to the correlation for the split tensile strength. The direct tensile strength was obtained to be about 7 to 9% of the compressive strength. The results from various projects show that the direct tensile strength should be between 5-10% of the compressive strength. As given in section 3.. direct tensile strength is usually on the order of 65-75% of the split tensile strength. with the factor relating the split and direct tensile strengths expressed in terms of compressive strength expressed in metric units of mega-pascals. The relation between the direct and split tensile strengths is further quantified in Schrader [2] as given in (2). the correlation and the relation obtained between the split/direct tensile strength and the compressive strength of the material can vary slightly for individual projects. 84 . The statistical methods can be applied to determine the design lift joint strength with the selected mixtures based on the probability of achieving joint strength 85 . Tensile strength of lift joints are considerably less than the parent RCC due to bonding issues between sequential lifts. is usually the critical parameter determining the strength of the RCC material. However. Besides these. the time elapsed between placing of consecutive horizontal lifts (lift maturity) and the size and grading of the aggregate [32] [34] [3]. [65]. The lift joint tensile strength is affected by the cementitious content of the mix. the use of a bedding mix. the selection of thick lift depth decreases the compaction efficiency and accordingly density at the bottom of lift so that the lift joint tensile strength drops at this situation. it is necessary to study whether the principal stress or the tensile stress normal to the lift joint is higher to determine critical tensile stress [19]. The tensile strength in the lift joints in the direction normal to the joint surface is critical near the upstream face of the dam as the direction of the principal tensile stress near the upstream face is very nearly normal to the joint surface. The core tests from Elk Creek and Willow Creek Dams showed the importance of workable concrete. Moreover.2. the workability of the mixture has good effect on the lift joint tensile strength due to increased density of the next layer with the depth and becoming maximum at the surface of bottom lift [63]. the contribution of bedding mix to lift joint tensile strength may not be seen if the mixture with workable high cementitious content is chosen [28]. formed during the sequential laying and compression of RCC lifts.3. However.3. various factors can affect this relation.thus.3 Tensile Strength of RCC Lift Joints Tensile strength of the lift joints. the direction of the principal stress is almost parallel to the face: the parent concrete material at the maximum stress orientation has higher tensile strength compared to that of the lift joint. the cleaning and curing of the joint surface. For the downstream face. Zhang W.. 86 . The lift joint tensile strength is calculated based on workability. aggregate type and size and lift joint preparation. a significant reduction in the lift joint tensile strength was observed and the placement was forced to be stopped [24]. Lift joint tensile strength was shown to decrease gradually with increasing exposure time of lower lift in Ribeiro. The lower lift must be cured well before the next lift is placed. due to insufficient curing and very hot weather. the larger aggregate causes surface roughness and leading voids in mixture so that use of it decreases the lift joint strength if the bedding mix of mortar or concrete is not used [64]. The tensile strength of parent concrete is equivalent to the direct tensile strength or maximum of 75% of splitting tensile strengths [3] [4] [19]. Low-strength aggregate and unbedded lift joints results in low lift joint direct tensile strength while crushed aggregates and bedded lifts does the opposite. Cascon and Gonçalves [33]. Similarly.with parameters of construction type and whether application of bedding mortar or concrete to the surface. and Yang [25]. the next lift should be placed before the initial setting time of the previos lift however. The 5% of the compressive strength or 70% of the tensile strength of parent concrete can be assumed as the lift joint tensile strength when a detailed cast specimen or core testing is missed. In order to minimize the loss in the tensile strength. it is necessary to cover the lift for two to three hours until the concrete attained initial set [62]. point out to the importance of the size of aggregates in determining the lift joint strength as in [3]. Schrader [24] and Saucier [61] state that the lift joint tensile strength increases with increase in cementitious content of RCC mixture while Li. Zhang F. They state that the RCC interface is not related to the square root of its nominal compressive strength but the maximum size of aggregate to the characteristic dimension of the specimen. The effects of poor bonding in the lift joints were seen in the Platanovryssi Dam. under the conditions of rapid surface drying. 7. low modulus tends to decrease the potential for cracking [58].90. W/C ratio. Aggregate type is another factor that influences the modulus: aggregates such as quartzite and argillite produce high modulus values. in some cases. aggregate type and cementitous material content. The modulus of elasticity is an important input parameter for the stress analysis of RCC dams.180 and 365 days may be considered for the determination of modulus. Modulus of elasticity significantly affects the fundamental properties for a dynamic analyses as well as changing the strain demand for thermal analyses. whereas.” or CRD-C 166. Lean mixes have lower moduli. sandstone or similar aggregates reduce the value of elastic modulus. There are various factors that affect the modulus of elasticity of RCC such as age. The modulus increases with age up to maximum value that correspond to the maximum that could be reached by the mortar or the aggregate (which is lesser).3 Modulus of Elasticity The modulus of elasticity “E” is defined as the ratio of the normal stress to its corresponding strain for compressive and tensile stresses below the proportional elastic limit of the material. because. “Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity in Tension.3.3. Properly proportioned RCC should have a modulus equal or greater than that of CMC of equal compressive strength [6]. A high water to cement ratio results in low modulus of elasticity [3]. The modulus of elasticity is usually determined according to ASTM C 469 (CRD-C 19) “Standard Test Method For Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression. Test ages of 1.28. The differences between the methods are usually small. lean RCC mixtures are used to obtain low modulus.” which are both procedures for a chord modulus [3]. The alternative methods for determining the modulus of elasticity use secant or tangent stiffness from the force-displacement curve. 87 .3. Figure 3-30 shows the modulus of elasticity values of RCC dams for 7. 180 and 365 days. The table of data is given in Appendix B Table B. compressive strength plot for 90 days from the collected data of some RCC dams which correlates with the ACI formula given above.11. used as an estimate with the compressive strength and can be expressed in MPa and GPa. 28. For planning purposes only. Figure 3-30 Modulus of elasticity values of RCC Dams 88 . 90. Figure 3-31 shows the modulus of elasticity vs. Many RCC tests indicated elastic modulus values higher than the ACI formula predicts. respectively.American Concrete Institute (ACI) formulas for the determination of elastic modulus are not based on mass concrete mixtures and generally does not estimate mass concrete elastic modulus. Extensive range of aggregates used in RCC mixtures lead to a wide range of the coefficient of thermal expansion for RCC.Figure 3-31 Modulus of elasticity vs. it is slightly higher than the thermal expansion coefficient of the aggregate and slightly less than that for the conventional concrete made with the same aggregate but more cement paste. The table of data is given in Appendix B Table B. For this reason testing with the full mixture is recommended.10. A value of 9 millionths per Celcius can be used for preliminary RCC design works [2]. For RCC. 89 . Typically.3. the coefficient of thermal expansion for RCC varies between 7 and 14 millionths per degree Celcius. compressive strength for RCC Dams 3.4 Thermal Expansion Coefficient The coefficient of thermal expansion is defined as the change in the linear dimension per unit length divided by the temperature change. Creep is represented by the following formula. Creep starts just after the load is applied and continues at a decreasing rate as long as the load remains. Concrete with high aggregate and concrete modulus of elasticity generally has low creep property. Mixtures with high cementitious content have a more solid cementing matrix and lower creep so they tend to produce higher thermal stress.3. in days. and the second part represents the long term effects of creep after loading: (3. The first part. The method suggests five ages of loading between 2 days and a year to determine creep behaviour appropriately. the ability to dissipate thermal stress is proportional to the relief of the sustained stress.5 to 29 millionths per MPa with the higher numbers corresponding to lower compressive strength mixtures [3]. or total strain per stress.” Sealed specimens are used in tests to avoid drying shrinkage effects. the static the rate of creep and. For mass concrete.5 Creep Creep is the time dependent deformation of concrete due to sustained load. modulus of elasticity. .3) Where represents the specific creep. 90 . the time elapsed after loading values for RCC have ranged from 1. higher creep properties are desired to relieve thermally induced stress and strains in mass concrete structures [6]. “Standard Test Method For Creep of Concrete in Compression.3. Thus. Creep is affected by the aggregate and concrete modulus of elasticity and compressive strength of the concrete. represents the initial elastic strain loading. Creep of the concrete is measured according to ASTM C 512. Nickajack. Test results show that non air entrained RCC mixtures behave poorly against freeze-thaw cycles. According to Schrader [2]. Cementitious content without pozzolan is adviced for RCC surfaces where the surface is exposed to early freeze-thaw cycles while wet since high early strength is needed under these cases [6][50][41]. According to Zhengbin. Winchester. Furthermore. This action occurs more common in leaner mixtures which infiltrate water inside easier. the capillary water transport in RCC increase the vulnerability of mixture to take damage from freeze-thaw cycles. Monksville and Middle Ford Dams which have unformed and 91 . Santa Cruz and Lake Robertson Dams and others [1]. there are various examples of great freeze-thaw resistance of non air entrained RCC in the construction field.3.5 – 6. impermeability and air entrainment capability. [60] Since RCC mixture has dry consistency.3. Jinrong and Xiaoyan [20].6 Durability 3. Air entrainment was incorporated in RCC mixtures for Zintel Canyon. air containing should be controlled at 4. air entrained admixtures content should be increased. it is not practical to entrain air in mixture. in order to increase the freeze-thaw durability of RCC mixtures. Willow Creek.55 in cold regions. On the other hand. Laboratory specimens of non air entrained RCC mixtures are tested according to ASTM “Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing” (C 666).1 Freeze and Thaw Resistance The freeze-thaw resistance of the RCC mixture directly depends on its strength. laboratory specimens with air entraining admixtures demonstrates good freeze-thaw durability. Nonetheless.0 %. fly ash content should be no more than 40 % to high air-containing concrete and the water-colloid ratio of RCC should be under 0.3.6. the spillway of the North Folk of the Toutle River Dam.2 Abrasion and Erosion Resistance The abrasion-erosion resistance of RCC is highly dependent on RCC compressive strength and grading. Therefore. at Galesville Dam in 1996 and 1997 flooding resulted in a irregular hydraulic flow surface that jumped off the spillway face in some locations. Erosion tests show good erosion resistance behaviour for RCC. According to tests done by U. On the other hand. Army Corps of Engineers (1981). quality and the maximum size of the aggregate. It is determined that abrasion resistance of RCC increases with increasing compressive strength and maximum aggregate size. the spillways at both Willow Creek and Galesville Dams have exposed RCC flow surfaces. comprehensive laboratory test for the spillway surfaces that can be prone to high velocity flows across spillway should be conducted.6. Some RCC dam overflow spillways are made with RCC and show good resistance against high velocity and discharges. Test results show that an erosion rate of 0. 92 . Spillways subjected to frequent high velocity flows are still faced with conventional concrete [4]. ASTM Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete is used to evaluate abrasion performance of RCC.002 lb/ft2/hr for rolled surface and 0.but. Abrasionerosion resistance performance of RCC have been studied on many projects. Salto Caxias Dam.05 lb/ft2/hr for rough surface have been obtained and confirmed as reasonable. Kerrville Ponding Dam and Detroit Dam have shown good abrasion-erosion resistance [6]. The spillway surfaces may not constructed with conventional concrete line based on cost and infrequent use.3.S. 3. cavitation and erosion rates for RCC spillway surfaces are developed. the spillway rehabilitation of Tarbela Dam.uncompacted downstream face exposed to almost daily freeze-thaw cycles during winters. all of these dams exhibited good freeze-thaw durability. but. The following conclusions were drawn from the first part of the study: The method of analysis directly affects the results of seismic and thermal analyses.CHAPTER 4 4. the seismic and thermal analyses of RCC dams were investigated. As the ratio of modulus of elasticity of concrete to modulus of elasticity of foundation increases. This selection should be done by considering the size and geometry of dam. Useful information from seismic and thermal performance of existing dams was compiled in order to determine recommendations for the evaluation of such systems. geological and environmental conditions of the site and the purpose of the analysis. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this study. first. The principal tensile stresses are directly related with elastic modulus of foundation. the principal stresses decrease. reservoir bottom absorption and viscous damping combined with foundation radiation affect the seismic demand significantly. Dam-reservoir-foundation interaction should be taken into account when analyzing the seismic response of a RCC dam. Reservoir hydrodynamic load effect. 93 . use of ice or chilly water and surface insulation using geomembranes are the key precautions to prevent thermal cracks. The factors affecting these attributes were underlined. The material property and mixture content data such as compressive strength. Slope discontinuity especially at the heel and neck causes stress concentration at these locations so that the upstream and downstream slopes should be kept constant if the design permits. Concrete placement in hot seasons should be avoided. mixture design. The conclusions of these studies can be summarized as followings: The use of fly ash in RCC mixtures leads to long term strength contribution and reduction of heat of hydration which is very important for thermal issues.Soft foundation leads lower stresses on the dam body while increasing the deformation capacity of dam. Aggregate pre-cooling. cementitious content. were surveyed from the literature. The mixture content. The proper material selection criterias for mixture design were addressed. concrete placement temperature and the starting season of placement are the most important factors for affecting thermal cracking on RCC dams. Percentages around 30~40% generally seem to be ideal 94 . The effect of types of pozzolans and aggregates on mixture design and strength gain was presented. W/C ratio etc. The cementitious material content. proportioning and material properties of RCC were studied in the second part of this work. Reinforcement bars can be placed at the stress concentration location which reduces crack propagation resisting against sliding in the cracked region. The mixtures with low or no pozzolan should be chosen for the protection of RCC surfaces against freeze-thaw cycles since high early strength is needed. angular shapes influence the strength development in a positive manner. crushed.for obtaining the optimum compressive strength with respect to the volume of the material used. Aggregate type directly affects the modulus of elasticity of mixture. the use of fine particles reduce the need for the use of water by filling the voids in mixture thus improving the strength. Moreover. The strength of concrete increases as the W/C ratio of mixture decreases. The aggregates having characteristics of good gradation. Aggregates such as quartzite and argillite produce high modulus while sandstone and similar types reduce the value of elastic modulus. It also increases with the increase of cementitious content in a mixture but is exposed to a reduction of strength efficiency. 95 . high quality. 96 . NUCEJ Spatial ISSUE vol. pp. 2975. [2] 2008 [3] EM 1110-2-2006..11..S. pp.P. 2008 [8] Farias L. “Materials and RCC Quality Requirement”.. Pakistan Engineering Congress 64th Annual Issue.. The 1st Regional [7] Conference of Eng. Hasparyk N. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. [4] 1999 [5] Zaidi. 2003 97 .K. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Liduario A. Vol. “Roller Compacted Concrete”.1992 [6] Andriolo F.. Madrid. 2006 Schrader E. “Concrete Construction Engineering Handbook”. Bittencourt R. Dr.B.S. 2003 Hamzah A.P.R. 61-78. 753-763.M & Andrade W. Andrade M. W..2. 366-373. pp. Spain.REFERENCES Adaska. Spain. “Influence of mineral and pozzolanic admixtures on Roller Compacted Concrete”.A.A. US Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army. “Roller-Compacted Mass Concrete”. No...5R-99.3.1. Vol. Portland [1] Cement Association. Sci. PCA R&D Serial No. Al-Shadeedi M. Madrid.. “Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC)“. 2000 ACI Committee 207.A. 2003 [12] Kaitao X. Guiyang... 33-41. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. pp.. Schwartz E. 2007 [13] Atis C. pp. Cement and Concrete Research 32. Guiyang.... California. No. pp. 2011 [15] Bouyge B.Park C..Y. 21st Century Dam Design-Advances and Adaptations.. pp. Yun D. Pan L. 2007 [10] Atis C. 723-729.1. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. Yoon J.. Forbes B. 2005 [11] Chen G.. China. Montalvo R.2.. 467-475.. Madrid. Cement and Concrete Research 35. “Study on the Influence of Limestone Powder on Roller Compacted Concrete Performance and Action Mechanism”. “Mechanical and [9] Durability Performance of Roller-Compacted Concrete with Fly Ash for Dam Applications”.A. Schrader E. China. Jiang F..W. Herweynen R. Won J. 57-61. “Strength Properties of high-volume fly ash roller compacted and workable concrete. “Heat evolution of high-volume fly ash concrete”.D.D.P. Kim W.1. 2007 98 .... 2002 [14] Stratford C. 31st Annual USSD Conference San Diego. Spain. Ji G. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials Vol.. “Wyaralong RCC Dam Summary & The Impact of “Low” Quality Aggregate on Design”. Vol. “Research on the optimization of RCC paste system incorporating high-volume fly ash”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “A High RCC Dam with Low Grade Aggregates”.. and influence of curing condition”. & Jiang R. . “Seismic Design Provisions for Roller Compacted Concrete Dams”.. Springer.. Vol. Portland Cement Association R&D Serial No..T. Hung D. 2007 [18] Amer N..2. 2008 [17] Thang N.. 859-864. pp. Aridah M.R.. Madrid. 1995 [20] Zhengbin Z. Spain..H.M. China. “Mix Design and Properties of RCC at Mujib Dam – high and low cementitious content”. Ongalla P. pp.Y. 437-441. Xiaoyan T. “RCC Trends in Early 21st Century Medium-Size Dams “ Portland Cement Association. “Effect of Density on Mechanical Properties and Durability of Roller Compacted Concrete”. Delatte N. HydroVision Paper No.F.A. 2008 [19] EP 1110-2-12. US Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army.. “Application Researches on High Frost-resistant Durability RCC in Severe Cold Region”. Q..W. Jr..[16] Abdo F. Jinrong H.. “Advantages of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Gravity Dams. 2011 99 . Kyaw U. International Water Power and Dam Construction. Conrad M.J. 240... Guiyang. 2003 [22] Ancieta C..Two Examples in Southeast Asia”... Storey C. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Steiger K.Y “Construction Analysis of Grand Poubara RCC Dam”. 2940. Lopez J. Dunstan M.. 2007 [21] Schrader E. pp. Andriolo F. Madrid.. 2003 [27] Malkawi A.F.1. Yang L. “Fracture and Tension Properties of Roller Compacted Concrete Cores in Uniaxial Tension” ... Spain. 2003 [28] Dunstan M. 645-649. 2003 [25] Li Q.A. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Strain. 1193-1204. Navarro J. 2002 [26] Tavares M.F.. “Performance of roller compacted concrete (RCC) dams: an honest assessment”. pp..2. 1995b. and failure described by an ultimate modulus. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “Quality control in RCC dams using the direct tensile test on jointed cores”.A. Vol.H. Fontoura J.. Spain.. Proceedings of the Second CANMET/ACI International Symposium on Advances in Concrete Technology.[23] Schrader. Madrid. “Development of a direct tensile strength test procedure for Roller Compacted Concrete 100 ..R. 2003 [29] Olivares J. Vol. Spain. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. 943-950.H and Mutasher S.... Madrid. Pacelli W.K. Zhang F. pp.A. Madrid. Ausin V. Origa M. Vol.R. 91-102.. “A direct tensile strength for Roller Compacted (RCC) gravity dams”. Holanda E. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams..2.2..L. pp. E..Las Vegas [24] Schrader E. Ibanez de Aldecoa R. “Capanda RCC Dam-12 years quality control data”. cracking.T. Vol. June 11– 14.I. Zhang W...R. Spain. pp. Gonçalves A. “Roller compacted concrete-tensile strength of horizontal joints”. 2001 [34] Kline R. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “Tensile Strength of Roller Compacted Concrete”. Vol.B.I.P.. “Design Guidelines for Roller Compacted Concrete lift joints”. 1021-1027... “A comparative study of mechanical properties of RCC trial mix using two different cementitious materials (fly ash and natural pozzolan)”. Madrid. Spain. 475-484. Gaekel L.. Vol.2.C.C.C. 2003 [31] Malkawi A..F. 809-815. pp. “Saluda Dam mix design program”. 2003 101 .. 2003 [30] Rizzo P. Madrid.R. Spain. Cascon J.characterization”. pp. Spain. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. 177-186. Osterle J.P. Vol..2. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.H. pp.. Vol. Vol. 2003 [32] EP 1110-2-12 Appendix E. Shaia H. Spain. 1995 [33] Ribeiro A.. Rugh M. Mutasher S. 2003 [35] Bennett B.. US Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army. “Controlling RCC mix workability for Olivenhain dam construction”.L. Schrader E. Madrid. 923-932..1. pp. Madrid.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.1. Stiady J..K. Madrid. Spain..2.D.A. Aridah M. Narkhede C. 289-300. Madrid. Damani R.P. Vol. Spain.1.. USA”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams..L. “RCC Construction Quality Indicators and Influencing Factors Analysis”. Madrid.. 2003 [39] Ortega F. Zaragoza. Utah.. Spain. Jotatsu T. 2003 [41] Dolen T...L. “Joint Vision By Designer and Contractor For The Design Of The Aladereçam RCC Dam”.. pp. “Pedrogao dam: first RCC experience in Portugal”. 839848. 319-328.L.. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. pp. Yi W... China..2.. Bastos C. 2003 [40] Pendse V. 2007 [37] Canale L. Ozen O. “Characteristics of dam-concrete applied to concrete dams constructed by the Water Resources Development Public Corporation (WARDEC)-mix design and quality control”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams... “Mix design of Roller Compacted Concrete for Ghatghar pumped storage scheme in India”... Guiyang. 2012 [38] Hino K. Spain. “Long-term performance of Roller Compacted Concrete at Upper Stillwater dam. 761-766. Spain. pp. Proceedings of the Fourth 102 . Hara T. Vol. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Eroglu E.N.[36] Their Peng G. Madrid. Jun Z. pp. pp.1... Kshirsagar S. Alves P. Vol. Madrid. 345-350. Vol. Xiangzhi K. Andrade W. pp.. “Optimization of the compaction time with the effects of different pozzolans (type and dosage) on the mechanical properties of RCC”. 309-313. China.1. Vol.. Chonggang S. 2003 [47] Ghavary M.1. pp. “Experimental Study of Prevent Dehiscence Characteristic of Hydrotechnic Roller Compacted Concrete Using Phosphorus Slag as Addition”. 2003 [42] Guangwei L. 2003 [46] Bass R. “The use of pulverized aggregates for concrete production”. 2007 [43] Dr.. Madrid.P. pp. “Limestone powder. 1117-1126. Madrid. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Spain.A new type of supplementary mineral fines for Roller Compacted Concrete”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Bittencourt R. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. pp..G. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller 103 . Madrid. Vol..2. Guiyang.International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.L. Spain. “RCC construction-acceptable means and methods”. 2003 [44] Graça N. Vol. Spain.P. 2003 [45] Gaixin C. Spain. “RCC Dams in China”. Madrid. pp.. pp.. 433-437.M.. Spain. Batista E...1. 15-25. 215-222. .2. San U.2.. 329-338. 2003 [50] Gagne R.2.H. 2003 [52] Nanni A. 763-768. Houehanou E. Vol.R. China. USA”. “Effect of air entrainment on the workability and strength of Roller Compacted Concrete for dam construction”.Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “Trial mix programme and full-scale trials for Olivenhain RCC dam. Madrid. pp. 1037-1044. pp. Robitaille F. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams... Madrid.. Vol. Ortega F. 325-332. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.K... Myanmar”.1. 2003 [51] Pauletto M. Madrid. Prezeau A. 2007 104 .W. 2003 [49] Schrader E. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.R. pp. 865-875. pp.. Spain. Dunstan M. Vol.H..Z. Eng. Spain. Spain. “Studies on the quality of Roller Compacted Concrete with low cement content on Ueno dam”.. “Trial Mix Programmes and Full-scale Trials for Yeywa Hydropower Project. Lupien R. “Appropriate laboratory compaction methods for different types of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC)”.. Madrid. 1988 [53] Kyi U. Madrid. Guiyang. Spain.2. 2003 [48] Tsukada T. Lat U. “Curing of Roller Compacted Concrete: Strength Development” J. Transp.. Vol.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Spain.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. pp... 769-775.M. Dunstan M. pp. Vol. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. China.. Guiyang.. Vol. 2007 [58] Schrader E. Qavami K.H. 355-362. Haifeng W.I. pp.. Spain. pp. 2007 [55] Dolen T.1. Madrid. 127-137..1. Aufleger M. pp. Madrid. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. 2003 [57] Araghian H. pp. pp. “Design and mix studies with high and low cementitious content RCC for Nordlingaalda dam in Iceland”.H. “Cindere Dam-107 m high Roller Compacted Hardfill Dam(RCHD)”. Sveinbjornsson.1.. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Eharz J.L. Ibanez R. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.[54] Dingyan W. 729-733. Malkawi A. Vol. Kristjansdottir. Dunstan M. 121126. 2003 105 . Vol... 2003 [56] Batmaz S. Spain.R. Madrid.P. Guiyang.. pp.. 2003 [59] Conrad M. “Mixture Proportioning of Badovli RCC Dam”. 393-398. 381-385.. “Successful large RCC Dams-what are the common features?”.. Spain. Vol.1. Skulason. Spain.. China. Madrid. “Investigations on the modulus of elasticity of young RCC”. “Effect of Phosphorus Slag on the Performance of Roller Compacted Concrete”.. ... Traboulsi M.ASCE. “Core testing program at the Olivenhain Dam”. “Investigation of No-Slump Roller Compacted [61] Concrete (RCC) for Use in Mass Concrete Construction. Madrid.. International CIRIA Conference. 2011 Saucier K. 1990. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.L.. Strength and Freeze-Thaw Resistance”. Boney Falls Dam RCC Spillway. 506-513. 50-58. Spain. Spain. ACI Concrete International.Hazaree C. “Full Scale Trials for RCC”. Vol 2. 1990 [66] Andrade M.L. pp. ACI Journal.A. 1974 [64] Cannon.S. pp. Cannon “Data on tensile strengths from Willow Creek and Elk Creek”. Gopalakrishnan K.C.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. 2003 106 .. Vol 2. Bittencourt R. Wang K. 9-1 to 9-14. 891-897.. “Design Considerations for Roller Compacted Concrete and Rollcrete in Dams”. Roller Concrete for Dams. [63] Cannon.P. 1985 [65] Ralph S. Stiady J. “Capillary [60] Transport in RCC: Water to Cement Ratio. 913-923. Andrade W. Evaluation Cores. Ceylan H.. 2003 [67] Bennett B. Robert W. Madrid. “Compaction of Mass Concrete with Vibratory Roller”. Robert W. Robert W.A.. pp. pp.. 1981 [62] of Cannon.M.. pp. Communication transmitted to Barr Engineering of Minneapolis.. Madrid.. 2003 [69] Romero F..H. Massey K..M. 2003 [72] ETL 1110-2-542. pp. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities..S..C.S. Bair J. Argentieri W. pp. Aldecoa R.H. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Spain. Mutasher S.. U. Oliver J. M. ASCE. Aldecoa R. “Plans for the Construction of La Brena II Dam in Spain”. Noriega G.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. I: Temperature and Aging”.. “Design of The RCC Portion of the Saluda Dam Remediation Project”.. 1997 [73] Rizzo P. Qui T..J. China. Jordan University of Science and Technology. Moxley H. Journal of Structural Engineering. 2000 107 .. 2007 [70] Shatnawi E.. Vol 2.I. Prato T. Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army. “Simulation of Construction of RCC Dams.R.. 935-943. Guiyang. Sandoval A... 2004 [71] Malkawi A. “Benefits of the full scale trial performed for Beni Haroun dam (Algeria)”. 2002 [74] Cervera M.. USSD Annual Meeting. “Thermal Studies of Mass Concrete Structures”. “Determination of Temperature Distributions and Thermal Stresses for RCC Dams Using Two Different Finite Element Codes (Comparative Study).. “Thermal-Structural Modeling and Temperature Control of Roller Compacted Gravity Dam.. Thesis.[68] Dunstan M. 699-711.A.S.. 2000 108 . pp.. China.A. Noorzaei J. Goltz M. 2003 [77] Araghian H.H. Anzhi S.. IEEE. 2007 [78] Chao J. Journal of Structural Engineering. Madrid.... Vol 2. Khanehzaei P..S.[75] Cervera M. Oliver J. . Noorzaei J. “A Modified 1-D Strip Model for Thermo- Mechanical Analysis of RCC Dams”. SL vol. 2006 [81] Cervera M. II: Stress and Damage”. 2003 [76] Amberg F.. pp. Qingwen R.. ”A Spatial FEM Model of Thermal and Mechanical Action in RCC Dam”.. Bayagoob K.. Prato T.. 2010 [79] Jaafar M. 2011 [80] Jaafar M. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “Thermal Analysis of a RCC Dam During Construction”.A. 579-588.... Science Direct...3 pp.A. “Thermal and Stress Analysis of Kinta RCC Dam”... “Analyses of thermal stress field of high concrete dams during the process of construction”. Mohammed T. Guiyang. Spain.Tech Science Press.5 no. Engineering Structures 28. 7th ICOLD Benchmark Workshop on Numerical Analysis of Dams. Yong L. “Simulation of Construction of RCC Dams. Abdulrazeg A. 615-620.. “Badovli Dam Thermal Analysis” Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams..S. Thanoon W.147-155. “Simulation Analysis of Thermal Stress of RCC Dams Using 3-D Finite Element Relocating Mesh Method”.S.. Habil. Shatnawi E. Elsevier.. Wu Y. 2010 109 . Zhinong H.. 2011 [84] Malkawi A.. Advances in Engineering Software.H. NRC Research Press. “Simulation of Temperature ans Stress Fields During RCC Dam Construction”. 2004 [85] Luna R.H... 2011 [88] Kuzmanovic V.Civ. Aufleger M... Wang C. ASCE. Geo Jordan. Li S.. “Thermal and Structural Analysis of RCC Dams by Finite Element Code”..I. 2001 [87] Fujun C.. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. “ Temperature Distribution in Roller Compacted Concrete Dam Using Two Different Finite Element Codes.. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences.J..A. Mohammad R.Eng. “Temperature Distribution in Al-Mujib Roller Compacted Concrete Gravity Dam”. Savic L. “Simulation Analysis of Crack Cause of Concrete Overflow Dam for Hadashan Project by 3-D FEM”. 2004 [83] Noorzaei J.I. The 2nd International Conference on Complexity Science&Information Engineering. Elsevier. Wang R. He J. Stefanakos J..... Xiaogang M. International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering. Rahimi A.. 2000 [86] Chen Y..[82] Malkawi A. J. Guohua F.... “Long-term Thermal Two and Three Dimensional Analysis of Roller Compacted Concrete Dams Supported by Monitoring Devices”. Aufleger M. Can.. Li S.. “Development of Finite Element Computer Code for Thermal Analysis of Roller Compacted Concrete Dams”. Shahrour I. Li S. Bayagoob K...F. 1994 110 .3 No. pp....3 No.[89] Jaafar M.. “Nonlinear. Vol. Chai J. “3D Finite Element Relocating Mesh Method Analysis on Overflow Section of Roller Compacted Concrete Dam”. 2009 [92] Zhang X. 2011 [91] Zhang X.S. 637-642. Chen Y... 2007 [95] ETL 1110-2-365.S.M. Li S.H. Noorzaei J. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design. China.3. “Study on the Computation Method of Temperature Field of RCC Dam”. Chen Y. Thanoon W... Yu M. 2009 [94] Zhang J.. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering.... Elsevier... Vol. “Discussion and Study on Contraction Joints for RCC Gravity Dam”. Chen Y. “The Development and Verification of Relocating Mesh Method for the Computation of Temperature Field of RCC Dam”..A. Zhang M.3. Xu Y.. Zhao L. Guiyang. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Elsevier. U.H. Elsevier. Su P.. Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army. Li S. Advances in Engineering Software. 2007 [90] Chen S. Journal of Energy and Power Engineering.. Incremental Structural Analysis of Massive Concrete Structures”. “Composite Element Algorithm for the Thermal Analysis of Mass Concrete: Simulation of Lift Joint”.. Advances in Engineering Software. 2009 [93] Zhang X.. Guiyang. Amini R.R. Ghafouri H.. pp.[96] ETL 1110-2-536. “ Simulation of Temperature Control and Crack Prevention of Longtan RCC Gravity Dam”... “Nonlinear.. 2007 [100] HuPing. Andrade M. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams... Gangwei C. 2007 111 .. “Thermal Analysis of Roller Compacted Concrete”. 1994 [97] Aquino E. Botassi S. Guiyang.. Madrid.R. pp. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Incremental Structural Analysis of Zintel Canyon Dam”. Andriolo F. Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “ Research on Thermal Stress and Temperature Control of Roller Compacted Concrete Dam”. Spain. pp.S...S.R. Bittencurt M. “Studies on the Construction Technology under High Temperature Condition and Its Application in Longtan Dam”. YangPing. Spain.P. U. pp. Andrade W. 517-523. China. Guoxin Z. Vol 2.. 669-674. 2007 [101] Bo D. 687-690. 541-548. China.A. “Investigation of Influence of Placement Schedule on the Thermal Stresses of RCC Dams. 547-553. Vol 2. Guiyang. 2003 [98] Noorzaei J. China. 2003 [99] Guoxin Z. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Using Finite Element Analysis”.. pp. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Madrid.. 267-269.. Guiyang. Calif. 2007 [103] Aufleger M.. “ Innovative Monitoring Devices for an Integral Observation of Thermal Stress Behaviour of Large RCC Dams” Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.[102] Read T..3399. Ankara.. 1st National Symposium and Exposition on Dam Safety. 2007 [107] Fenves G. Goltz M.1986 [108] Monteiro G. Hoepffner R. 2007 [104] Conrad M.. pp.. “Earthquake Safety of Dams and The Importance of Emergency Planning”.... pp. Aufleger M. Brenner R. “Simplified Analysis for Earthquake Resistant Design of Concrete Gravity dams” Report No. “Control of RCC Temperature”.. Berkeley.Paper No... University of California.K. Conrad M. China. 2004 [106] Wieland M.. Barros R. 75-80. Chopra A. China. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.C.. Guiyang.a Comparative Alternative for Temperature Monitoring in Large RCC Dams” Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. pp. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. China.P. UCB/EERC85/10. 2007 [105] Wieland M. 2008 112 .. Guiyang. “Distributed Fibre Optic Temperature Measurements. 777-784. “Earthquake Aspects of Roller Compacted Concrete and Concrete-Face Rockfill Dams”. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. “Seismic Analysis of a Roller Compacted Concrete Gravity Dam in Portugal”. . Geotechnical and Geological Engineering. China. “Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Lean RCC Dams”. Noorzad A.. “Three-dimensional earthquake analysis of roller- compacted concrete dams”.. International Symposium on Dams for a Changing World”. pp.. 589-593. Xuhua R.H.... International Symposium on Dams for a Changing World”. “Dynamic Characteristics Analysis and Seismic Safety Evaluation for Madushan Gravity Dam”. Vaschetti G.. pp.Y.. “ Dynamic Analysis on Nongling RCC Gravity Dam by Considering the Effect of Infinite Foundation Radiation Damping”. Ghaemian M.. 2012 [113] Mazloumi A. Proceedings of the Fifth 113 . China.[109] Scuero A. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams... 2007 [111] Lei G. Japan. “3-D Nonlinear Finite Element Dynamic Analysis on Guandi RCC Gravity Dam”. 2012 [115] Barakat S.E. Noorzad A. Guiyang. “Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of RCC Dam Considering Orthotropic Behavior of Layers”. Zhenzhong S. Omar M.A.. Guiyang. Japan. IEEE. Ghaemian M.. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. Lu L. Malkawi A.I.... 2005 [116] Xiutong C. 145-148. “Parametric study using FEM for the stability of the RCC Tannur dam”. “Taishir RCC Dam in Mongolia”. 2011 [112] Bagheri S. 2012 [114] Kartal M. 2007 [110] Yong S. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences. . 2003 [118] BK. US Army Corps of Engineers Department of The Army. Guiyang. pp. p. 535-539.International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Fengqi C. Binici B. Guiyang... Beton Barajlar Tasarım Ġlkeleri Rehberi. 2007 [117] EM 1110-2-6051. Binici B. Lisboa. 53-59. Ankara. Structure and Infrasturcture Engineering . Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. 2012 [120] Arıcı Y. Barajlar Kongresi. 2007 114 . “Simulation Design and New Structure of RCC Arch Dam”. 2012 [119] Arıcı Y. 1. 155-162.... 1-11. Malla S.. “Seismic Design and Performance of an High RCC Dam” The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Guiyang. “Time-History Dynamic Analysis of Concrete Hydraulic Structures”.. Aldemir A. China.. China. pp. China. Penghui L. Guimond R. “Comparison of The Expected Damage Patterns From Two and Three Dimensional Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses of a Roller Compacted Concrete Dam”. Akpınar U. pp. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. Yu H.... 2012 [121] Wieland M. DSI.. “ Effect of Foundation Condition on Static and Dynamic Behavior of Proposed Nam Theun 1 RCC Arch-Gravity Dam in Laos”. Aldemir A. 2007 [122] Guangting L. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. 81-86. “Major Technical Problems in Jinanqiao Hydropower Project”. Cuiying Z. Guiyang. Guiyang. 565-570. 2007 115 . 2007 [127] Attarnejad R. Shou-Yan J.F. Guiyang. China. Guiyang.. pp. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. China.. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction. “The Comparative Study of Discrete Crack and Smeared Crack Methods in Concrete Gravity Dams”. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. “Safety of RCC Gravity Dams Over 200m Considering Hydraulic Fracturing”.[123] Yongwen H. pp. China.F. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Cheng-Bin D. 2007 [128] Attarnejad R. pp. 2011 [126] Restrepo-Velez L. 2007 [125] Yongwen H.R. 229-233. China. Lohrasbi A. Guiyang. Velez A. ASCE.. Liangjun D... 131134... pp. 2007 [124] Jinsheng J.R.. 525-528. “Crack Propagation Analysis in Concrete Gravity Dams by Discrete Crack Method”... Lohrasbi A. pp. Xinyu L.. China. “Innovative Design and Construction of a High RCC Gravity Dam in High Seismic Intensity Region”. “A Fragility Curve Model for RCC Gravity Dams”. Noorzaei J.[129] Soares M. Vol 2. Engineering Failure Analysis. “Failure Analysis of a Cracked Concrete Gravity Dam Under Earthquake”. Ferreira E.M.W.S.. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Jaafar M. Pertanika J. Waleed A.&Technol. Terres J.. But Not Stirred- Earthquake Performance of Concrete Dams”.S.D. 32nd Annual USSD Conference. “Modelling the Effects of Sediment on the Seismic Behavior of Kinta Roller Compacted Concrete Dam”.. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. “Seepage and treatment of cracks in Salto Caxias dam”. 2010 [134] Yıldız E.. “Thermal Induced Cracking Performance of RCC Dams”. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. 2003 [131] Hansen K. Du C.. Gürdil A. Levis P. Jiaxiu Y. “Shaken. 2013 [133] Huda A. Mohammed T. “Review on Seismic Design of Concrete Gravity or RCC Dams with Design Examples” The 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2012 116 . Forbes B.. “The First Built Roller Compacted Concrete Arch Dam-Puding Dam”..F.F.K. 1205-1210. Zaragoza.. Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction for Sustainable Water Management.. Hansen K. pp. Madrid. Vol...... Spain. Madrid. Matsumoto N. Spain..A. Sci.A.. Spain.18(1). Vol 2. 2012 [132] Jiang S.. 1185-1192.A. 2012 [135] Nuss L..D. Seara R. Yongwen H.. pp. Lisboa... 2003 [130] Zhixiong Y. Elsevier. Omran M.. Dunstan M. pp.. “Trial mix programme for Jahgin Dam-the first major RCC dam in Iran”. Science Press and Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment. Spain. Jiang H.. Vol 1. pp. Madrid... pp. “Laboratory Mixture Proportions and Preliminary Design for Zapotillo Gravity Dam. 373-380. 2007 [140] Gaikwad V. Spain. Guiyang. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams. Shelke V. Spain. Hong-qiang X.G. pp. 2003 [141] Ghafuri A. 2002 [139] Garduno A.. Madrid..[136] Li Z. 2013 [137] Scuero A. 247-253.H.E. Madrid.C.. “Seepage Evolution and Underwater Repairs at Platanovryssi”. A Reliable Cost Effective Way to Stop Leakage”. Vol 1. “Synthetic Geomembranes in RCC Dam: Since 1984. 253-262... Vol 1. Vaschetti G. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “Seismic Deformation and Seismic Resistance Analysis of Shapai Roller Compacted Arch Dam Based on Field Monitoring and Dynamic Finite Element Method”. China. 9. 519-529.. Mexico”. 2003 117 . Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Issue 6. 2003 [138] Papadopoulos D. “Three RCC Dams for Ghatghar project-an Indian experience”. Sanchez S..V.R. Vol. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams.. CAS and SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg. . Spain...J. Madrid. Kogan E.F. Madrid.. pp.E.M. Vol 2..E. “Study on properties of RCC for Cofferdam III of the Three Gorges Project”..E. Pascual E.A. Madrid.B.G.. “Design. Manueco M... 1149-1159... Chen Y.T. Xiao H... Spain. Gil A. 969-977. Madrid. 2003 [146] Martin J. Ortega F. pp. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. “ Quality control RCC of Dona Francisca dam”. pp. Spain.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Tomaz F. 2003 [145] Wang Y.D... pp. Paulo A..[142] Fedosov V. Almeida M. Britto C.G. “Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. Vol 2. Spain. “RCC Esparragal small dam construction (Sevilla-Spain). Steffen R.F. Vol 2.P. Vol 2. Yang H. 951-958. 2003 118 . Mussi J. 1085-1088.. Madrid.. 2003 [144] Moser D. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams..F. 1013-1019. Li J. Spain. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) Dams. construction and operation of Cenza dam (Spain)”. 2003 [143] Casalini M. Vol 2. pp... Sanchez J. 7 0.65 Slope Downstream Facings APPENDIX A A.8 0.8 1 1 V & 0.W Australia Australia Australia Copperfield Craigbourne Wright’s Basin 119 GI W P F W F W Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Australia Belize Bolivia Brazil Kroombit Burton Gorge Lower Molonglo Bypass Storage Loyalty Road flood retarding basin Cadiangullong Paradise (Burnett River) Meander North Para Wyaralong Enlarged Cotter Chalillo La Cañada Saco de Nova Olinda H I FIW W IW FI W F IW Australia New Victoria H H IW IW Algeria Algeria Algeria Angola Argentina Beni Haroun Koudiat Acerdoune Boussiaba Capanda Urugua-i Purpose Country Dam/Project Macal Comarapa Gravata Cotter Teviot Brook North Para Meander Burnett Cadiangullong Creek Darling Mills Creek Unnamed creek Isaac Kroombit Creek Munday Brook Point Hut Creek Coal Copperfield El Kebir Wadi Isser Boussiaba Kwanza Urugua-i River 10 95 78 1 43 300 4 - 1 20 13 10 1 13 20 963 800 120 4795 1175 45 52 56 82 48 33 47 50 43 30 32 26 26 52 18 25 40 118 121 51 110 77 380 154 230 350 464 206 180 940 356 111 120 285 250 285 86 247 340 714 500 310 1203 687 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 140 72 132 0 173 50 85 400 114 20 22 64 84 121 9 22 140 1690 1650 160 757 590 0 77 143 400 0 50 85 400 123 22 27 68 110 135 9 24 156 1900 1850 190 1154 626 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume V V V V V V V V V V&1 V V V V V V 0.8 0.325 & 0.7 0.75 0.22 & 0.75 0.8 & 1 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams .7 0.8 0. TABLES OF RCC DAMS.8 0.8 0.9 0.75 0. MIX CONTENT AND DESIGN Table A.65 V V V Slope Upstream 0. 1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .8 Slope Downstream 0.Country Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Dam/Project Caraibas Gameleira Pelo Sinal Acauã Varzea Grande Cova da Mandioca Trairas Canoas Jordão Belo Jardim Rio do Peixe Salto Caxias Val de Serra Jucazinho Guilman.1 V V 0.Amorin Bertarello Rosal Ponto Novo Santa Cruz do Apodi Tucuruί .75 0.2nd Phase Dona Francisca Umari Pedras Altas Pirapana Cana Brava Castanhão FI FIRW W FIW W I W W H IW H H W FIRW H W H W FIRW H H FIRW FIRW W H FIRW Purpose 120 335 293 800 Tocantins Congonhas 39 600 10 2 76 247 21 126 49 69 110 37 2 3600 24 286 12 6 Caraibas Gameleira Taperobá Paraíba Picuí Cova da Mandioca Seridó Saõ Gonçalo Jordão Ipojuca Do Peixe Iguaçu Ibicui-Mirim Capiibaribe Piracicaba Arroio Burati Itabapoana Itapicuru-açu Apodi Tocantins Jacuí do Carmo River 26 29 34 46 31 32 25 51 95 43 20 67 37 63 41 29 37 32 58 78 63 42 24 42 71 60 160 150 296 375 135 360 440 116 550 420 300 1083 675 442 143 210 212 266 1660 1541 670 2308 1090 300 510 668 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) Total 18 27 69 674 27 71 27 87 570 81 20 912 69 472 23 60 45 90 1070 76 485 644 172 87 400 890 22 29 80 0 28 75 28 93 647 93 34 1438 95 500 72 70 75 105 0 8800 665 658 192 137 620 1030 (m3x103) (m3x103) RCC Volume 0.75 0.8 0.8 0.1 V Slope Upstream Facings Table A.75 V V V V V 0.74 0. 75 0.8 0.8 0.75 0.Lower dam Suoshai Jinjiang Puding Shuidong Daguangba 121 H FH HIW HN HIW H H H H H H H H FIRW H H H H HW FHI HIW FHIN FH FHN FHI FHIN H Purpose Sancha Jinjianghe Sanchahe Youxi Changhuajiang 431 Jordão Tocantins Ha! Ha! Exploits Bio-Bio Bio-Bio Youxi Dulanghe Dazhangxi Daduhe Nanpanjiang Hongshuihe Mingjiang Gangjiang Liuxihe 420 189 920 108 1710 587 175 1200 27 19 53 200 116 3380 2340 2216 28 129 João Leite Tocantins River 75 68 75 63 57 34 80 55 49 53 44 20 67 69 40 15 113 155 57 53 58 88 61 110 101 68 44 196 229 196 197 827 2100 326 380 445 311 210 320 588 540 124 180 410 360 123 136 150 284 470 525 791 1104 127 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 0 182 103 126 485 210 600 270 180 236 75 75 438 0 28 7 670 1596 43 61 71 407 143 626 600 156 32 88 267 145 184 857 1330 700 290 210 356 85 87 504 0 35 11 740 1640 62 74 93 855 284 905 1710 1480 57 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume V V V V V V V V V V V&0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .67 0.8 0.40 V&0.7 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.75 0.Jordão Estreito Lac Robertson Grand Falls spillway Pangue Ralco Kengkou Rongdi Longmentan Nº1 Tongjiezi (with Niurixigou Tianshenqiao Nº2 Yantan Shuikou Wan’an Guangzhou PSS .75 0.75 0.35 0.80 0.75 V&0.Country Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Brazil Canada Canada Chile Chile China China China China China China China China China China China China China China Dam/Project Lajeado Serra do Facão João Leite Fundão Candonga Pindobaçu Bandeira de Malo Santa Clara .75 0.73 0.3 V V V V V V Slope Upstream 0.75 0. 8 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.65 0.73 0.2 V V&0.18 0.7 0.20 0.5 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .75 0.65 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.142 V&0.10 V V V V V&0.15 V 0.8 0.08 V&0.21 V&0.20 V V V&0.75 V V&-0.8 0.74 0.1 Slope Upstream Facings Table A.75 0.7 0.10 V&0.2 V V V&0.122 FIW HIN HI FHIW FHIW HR FHIRW FHW H HW FHW FHINW FHIRW FHIW W FHN FHIW FIW FH China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China Shapai Shimenzi Longshou N°1 H HIW H FHIW FHIW HW FHIW China China China China Shanzai Wenquanpu Xibingxi Guanyinge (Kwan-inTemple) Shimantan Bailongtan Mantaicheng Wanyao Shuangxi Shibanshui Taolinkou Yongxi N°3 Huatan Changshun Fenhe N°2 Jiangya Songyue (1st Stage) Baishi Hongpo Gaobazhou Yanwangbizi Yushi Shankou N°3 Purpose Country Dam/Project Gunhe Hongshuihe Gayahe Dahexi Meixihe Longxihe Qinglonghe Dazhangxi Yunhe Yujiang Fenhe Loushui Hailanhe Dalinghe Qinggoushui Qingjiang Dalinghe Biliuhe Du’anshui (Chengjiang) Caopohe Taxihe Heihe Aojiang Tanghe Longshanxi Taizihe River 18 80 13 120 340 10 223 91 105 859 68 82 68 130 1741 21 1645 3 536 217 89 48 167 7 9 2168 132 109 80 40 34 37 83 52 85 75 87 85 69 87 131 31 50 55 57 35 50 57 66 48 64 82 250 176 258 675 247 337 390 221 445 501 198 173 279 350 370 271 523 244 440 383 267 179 274 188 93 1040 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) Total 365 188 187 272 62 78 320 113 335 585 170 240 170 362 1100 44 111 71 210 87 0 90 180 55 25 1240 392 211 210 351 80 100 458 172 564 1350 255 290 200 448 1386 77 503 77 940 224 233 119 272 63 33 1815 (m3x103) (m3x103) RCC Volume 0.78 0.73 0.7 Slope Downstream V V V V&0. 7 0.25 V&0.7 0.8 0.25 V&0.Upper Dam Jing Hong Pengshui Huanghuazhai Longtan Guangzhao Gelantan Silin Jin’anqiao Purpose Country Dam/Project Youshui Lanhe Muyangxi Duhe Hanjiang Kido/Liuguanghe Xieshui Wan'anxi Mabianhe Lixiangjiang Yojiang Qingshuihe Manshuihe Xiaojinhe Lancanjiang Chongqing Getu Hongshuihe Beipanjiang Lixianjiang Wujiang Jinishajiang Lancangjiang Dingjiang Hailanhe Xiaoyangxi River 378 147 47 70 229 18 1440 199 202 78 5660 277 453 32 1139 409 1748 27270 3245 409 1593 847 111 940 30 15 65 100 73 107 62 122 88 75 73 59 130 135 104 57 108 117 110 217 201 120 117 156 111 113 30 45 238 311 206 206 346 165 351 172 172 300 734 306 348 168 433 326 275 849 412 466 316 640 460 302 244 118 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 141 229 159 166 194 421 450 211 229 255 1995 550 485 84 848 608 280 4952 820 903 825 2400 757 500 43 47 375 293 199 254 631 739 930 239 405 570 2672 650 560 93 1140 1330 0 7458 2870 1200 1100 3920 1287 615 89 49 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume 0.75 V&0.8 0.25 V&0.20 V V 0.75 curve 0.75 0.7 0.8 curve 0.7 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) 123 .75 0.20 V V V Slope Upstream Facings Table A.FH FHNW HRW W HN HI H H FHN FHINW FHNW FH FH H FHINW H FHIW H FHR H H FHNW H H FHIN HNR China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China China Dachaoshan Mianhuatan Helong Xiao Yangxi (and saddle dam) Wanmipo Linhekou Zhouning Zhaolaihe Xihe Suofengying Zaoshi Baisha Zhouba Tukahe Baise Dahuashui Bailianya Huizhou PSS .75 Slope Downstream V curve V curve V&0.7 0.335 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.7 0.72 curve 0.25 V V V curve V V V V V&0. 80 0.00 0.8 0.075 0.75 0.80 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.50 0.10 V V V V V V V 0.5 0.8 0.72 0.80 0.67 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.8 0.75 V&0.5 0.8 V V 0.1 0.75 0.75&1.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .5 0.15 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.75 0.35&0.75 0.75 0.50 0.1 V V 0.6 0.75 0.124 IW IW HI IW I IW I W W Greece Honduras Honduras Marathia Ano Mera Platanovryssi Steno Lithaios Koris Yefiri (Maiden’s Bridge) Valsamiotis Concepción Nacaome Toker Gibe III Les Olivettes Riou Choldocogagna Villaunur Sep La Touche Poupard Petit Saut Panalito W H F HIR W F I I H H FHNRW FHIW H H H H FHI China China Colombia Colombia Costa Rica Costa Rica Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Eritrea Ethiopia France France France France France France French Guyana Greece Greece Greece Greece Greece Greece Longkaikou Wudu Porce II Miel I Peñas Blancas Pirris Contraembalse de Monción Purpose Country Dam/Project Valsamiotis Concepción Rio Grande Nacaome Marathia Ano Mera Nestos Steno Lithaios Partheni Toker Omo La Peyne Riou Lessarte Le Cantache Sep Chambon Sinnamary Tireo Jinshajiang Fu Porce La Miel Peñas Blancas Pirris Mao River 35 42 3 3 1 84 1 14 14690 4 1 1 7 5 15 3500 4 657 594 211 565 2 36 8 65 68 54 28 32 95 32 32 42 73 246 36 26 36 16 46 36 48 52 119 123 123 188 48 113 20 330 694 320 265 170 305 170 526 221 263 610 255 308 100 147 145 200 740 210 768 637 425 345 211 265 254 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) Total 640 270 250 31 49 420 69 160 170 187 0 80 41 19 11 49 34 250 73 2840 1151 1305 1669 120 695 130 820 290 300 48 64 440 70 220 190 210 5700 85 46 23 15 58 46 410 100 3853 1580 1445 1730 170 755 155 (m3x103) (m3x103) RCC Volume 0.33 0.5 0.70 Slope Upstream 0. 90 V&0.76 0.76 0.141 Slope Upstream Facings Table A.80 0.15 V V 0.80 0.75 0.75 0.Country Iceland India India India India Indonesia Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran Italy Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Dam/Project Nordlingaalda Ghatghar (Upper dam) Ghatghar (Lower dam) Krishna Weir (Srisailam) Middle Vaitarna Balambano Pie Pol Jahgin Zirdan Javeh Badovli Sa Stria Shimajigawa Tamagawa Mano Shiromizugawa Asahi Ogawa Nunome Pirika Dodairagawa Asari Kamuro Sakaigawa Sabigawa (lower dam) Ryumon Tsugawa 125 FW FW FW FHIW H FIW FHW H H H H W H FH FIW IW FI I I FIW FHIW FHW FI FH FW FHI Purpose Upper-Thjorsa Pravara Shahi Nallah Krishna Vaitarna Larona Karkeh Jahgin Kajoo Javeh Roud Ag-Su Monte Nieddu Shimaji Tama Mano Shiromizu Ogawa Nunome Shirobeshitoshibetsu Kabura Asari Kaneyama Sakai Kosabi Sakoma Kamo River 5 9 7 60 11 42 6 21 254 36 5 5 17 18 202 31 29 300 207 175 34.60 V V V&0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .782 Slope Downstream 0.75 0.33 V&0.60 V&0.81 0.60 0.30 V&0.78 0.85 V&0.90 V&0.30 V&0.73 6 3 70 74 61 115 104 100 76 21 15 86 40 103 95 15 78 65 95 99 84 89 100 69 55 84 72 40 300 390 257 298 273 378 228 285 503 447 305 550 351 300 220 350 330 234 345 240 441 239 367 260 322 755 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 167 259 136 373 400 521 222 35 638 42 1200 528 130 232 265 700 350 500 165 772 104 142 268 110 163 350 517 307 718 590 836 342 40 646 72 1400 534 270 382 465 816 410 500 317 1150 219 314 361 330 360 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume 0.20 V&0.40 V&0.8 0.30 V&0.8 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.1 V&0.75 1.8 0.80 0.40 V&0.8 0.8 0.30 0.8 0. 84 0.70 V&0.8 0.40 1.80 V Slope Upstream 0.83 0.75 0.20 V 0.30 V&0.2&0.25 V&0.78 0.78 1.80 V 0.82 0.8 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.60 V V&0.8 0.20 0.20 V&0.625 0.6 V&0.79 0.50 V&0.1&0.65 V&0.76 0.76 0.60 V V V&0.77 0.8 0.8 0.06 V&0.8 0.8 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .78 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.8 0.Country Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Dam/Project Miyatoko Kodama Hinata Miyagase Yoshida Chiya Ohmatsukawa Satsunaigawa Shiokawa Urayama Shimagawa Hiyoshi Tomisato Takisato Kazunogawa Hayachine Gassan Kubusugawa Nagashima sediment dam Ohnagami Origawa Shinmiyagawa Ueno Chubetu Fukuchiyama Kutani Koyama 126 FIW FN I H FHIW FNPW FW FIW FW FW F FHW FW FHW FHW FHIW FIW FHW FW FHW FIW FHIW H FHIW FHIW FHIW Purpose Miyatoko Kodama Kasshi Nakatsu Yoshida Takahashi Matsu Satsunai Shio Urayama Shima Katsura Dozan Sorachi Tuchimuro Hienuki Bonji Kubusu Ohi Sutu Ori Miya Jinryu Chubetu Fukuti Daishoji Ohkita River 5 14 6 19 2 28 12 54 12 58 9 66 53 108 12 17 65 10 1 19 15 10 19 93 3 25 17 48 102 57 156 75 98 65 114 79 156 90 70 111 50 105 74 123 95 33 72 114 69 120 86 65 76 65 256 280 290 400 218 259 296 300 225 372 330 438 250 445 264 333 393 253 127 334 331 325 350 290 255 280 462 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) Total 172 358 113 1537 193 396 141 536 299 1294 390 440 409 327 428 141 731 364 23 284 673 393 269 523 115 188 270 280 570 232 2060 304 670 294 770 388 1750 516 670 510 455 622 333 1160 469 55 362 742 480 720 1007 201 360 531 (m3x103) (m3x103) RCC Volume 0.20 V V&0.8 0.76 0.80 V V&0.10 V&0.77 0.4 0.70 0. FNW FW FINW FNW FIW FINW FHIW I G IW I W FH HI H H W W W F I FI FGW FH I F Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Japan Jordan Jordan Jordan Jordan Jordan/Syria Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Laos Laos Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico Takizawa Hattabara Kido Nagai Toppu Kasegawa Yubari Syuparo Tannur Wala Mujib Sama El-Serhan Al Wehdah Buchtarma Tashkumyr Nakai, part of Nam Theun 2 HPP Nam Gnouang (Theum Hinboun Expansion) Kinta Batu Hampar Bengoh La Manzanilla Trigomil Vindramas San Lazaro San Rafael Las Blancas Rompepicos at Corral des Palmas Purpose Country Dam/Project 127 Kinta Batu Hampar Sungai Bengoh Ibarrilla Ayuguila El Bledal San Lazaro Santiago Álomo & Soso Nam Gnouang Yarmouk Irtysh Naryn Nam Theun Nakatu Ashida Kido Okitamano Toppu Kase Yubari Wadi al Hasa Wala Mujib River 30 3 144 1 324 102 11 13 124 100 110 31000 140 3530 63 60 19 51 36 71 427 17 9 35 78 75 63 36 100 50 38 48 28 109 70 140 85 94 126 78 97 111 60 52 67 10 103 90 75 39 700 236 267 150 250 807 176 168 2795 250 470 424 325 350 381 309 455 390 270 300 490 120 485 450 320 436 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 952 200 130 20 362 117 35 85 221 380 383 1426 587 100 155 810 228 291 703 280 862 440 250 240 654 975 203 172 30 681 184 53 110 316 400 0 1478 988 1300 200 1670 500 501 1200 530 965 940 250 260 694 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume 0.80 0.80 V&0.75 V&0.80 0.8 0.8 0,66&0.80 V&0.75 V&0.75 V V&0.25 V&0.24 V V&0.20 V V V&0.25 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.78 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.73 0.8 0.75 0.82 0.80 0.70 0.80 Slope Downstream V V V&0.60 V V 0.15&0.70 V&0.20 V&0.10 V&0.50 V&0.80 V&0.60 V&0.80 V&1.00 0.3 0.1 Slope Upstream Facings Table A.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) 128 FHI Pakistan Panama Peru Portugal Romania Changuinola 1 Capillucas Pedrógão Vadeni H H FHI H I W I IW FHI W GI IW IW IW W W FIW FW IW FIW F IW H H W IW Mexico Mexico Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Morocco Myanmar Myanmar Oman Pakistan Amata El Zapotillo Ain al Koreima Rouidat Amont (Rwedat) Aoulouz Joumoua Imin el Kheng Sahla Enjil Bouhouda Bab Louta Ahl Souss (Ait M’Zal) Hassan II (Sidi Said) Oued R’Mel Sidi Yahya (Ain Kwachia) Sehb el Merga El Maleh Ait Mouley Ahmed Yeywa Upper Paung Laung Wadi Dayqah Mangla Emergency Spillway Control Weir Gomal Zam Purpose Country Dam/Project Changuinola Canete Guadiana Jiu Gomal San Lorenzo Verde Akreuch Rwedat O. Souss Joumoua Oueld Berhil Sahla Taghoucht Sraa Bousebaa Izig Moulouya R’Mel Oued Khellata Sehb el merga El Maleh Ain Leuh Myitinge Paung Laung Wadi Dayqah Jhelum River 347 5 106 5 St.1:1065, St.2:1424 14 910 1 3 110 7 12 62 12 56 37 5 400 25 11 7 35 2 2600 1300 100 6500 105 34 43 25 133 30 132 26 24 79 57 41 55 43 55 55 41 122 79 25 40 49 29 135 103 75 17 595 60 448 55 231 218 271 124 125 480 297 170 160 80 174 110 222 577 250 213 480 174 136 680 530 410 370 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 884 75 149 14 390 53 1100 17 25 680 150 109 130 45 165 63 49 590 230 60 70 100 18 2473 950 590 54 910 75 354 17 474 60 1200 20 27 830 200 118 160 57 187 77 76 690 243 65 92 140 20 2843 1100 650 79 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume V&0.33 0.375 V V V V 0.2 0.4 V 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 V 0.2 V V 0.2 V 0.2 V V V V V&0.30 Slope Upstream 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.60 1 0.83 0.2&0.75 0.4 0.85 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.75 0.8 0.6 0.75 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.75 V&0.70 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) Country Romania Russia South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa South Africa Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Dam/Project Tirgu Jiu Bureiskaya De Mist Kraal Arabie Zaaihoek Knellpoort Spitskop Wolwedans Wriggleswade Glen Melville Thornlea Taung Paxton Qedusizi (Mount Pleasant) Inyaka Nandoni (formerly Mutoti) Bramhoek De Hoop Castilblanco de los Arroyos Los Morales Santa Eugenia Los Canchales Maroño Hervás Burguillo del Cerro La Puebla de Cazalla Belén-Cagüela 129 I F H FH IW IW W W I W W W I IW I F W IW H W W W H FW W W W Purpose Jiu Bureya Little Fish Olifants Slang Rietspruit Harts Great Brak Kubusie Ecca Mlazi Harts Tsorwo Klip Marite Luvuvhu Braamhoekspruit Steelpoort Cala Morales Xallas Lácara Izoria and Idas Hervás Ribera de los Montes Corbones Belén River 74 1 2 21000 4 104 190 137 61 24 94 7 3 66 1 128 123 164 27 347 1 2 17 15 2 1 3 71 31 24 136 30 36 47 50 15 70 34 32 17 50 17 28 53 47 37 85 25 28 84 32 53 33 24 220 160 61 714 300 455 527 200 100 268 737 380 135 320 70 490 350 392 330 1015 124 200 290 240 182 210 167 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 205 24 13 1200 35 101 97 45 17 180 134 66 16 132 3 78 160 150 90 880 14 22 225 25 80 24 25 220 29 26 3500 65 142 134 59 36 210 165 114 17 153 3 156 327 316 98 950 20 26 254 54 91 43 33 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume V&0.20 0.05 V V V V V V V V V V V V&0.50 V V V V V V V 0.05 V 0.05 0.15 V Slope Upstream 0.8 0.75 V&0.75 0.75 0.75&0.35 0,5&0.80 V&0.75 0.7 0,13&0.60 0.70 0.6 0,5&0.75 V&0.62 0.6 0.7 0.5 V&0.62 V&0.75 0.9 V&0.75 V&0.50 V&0.70 0.68 0.75 0.67 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Thailand Thailand Thailand Thailand Tunisia Tunisia Turkey Turkey Turkey Turkey Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Spain Belén-Gato Caballar I Amatisteros III Belén-Flores Urdalur Arriarán Cenza Sierra Brava Boqueron Queiles y Val Atance Rialb El Esparragal La Breña II El Puente de Santolea Pak Mun Mae Suai Tha Dan Ma Dua R’mil Moula Sucati Çindere Beydag Feke II Country Dam/Project 130 H I I FI I W H HI I H I F I IW F F F F W W H I F Purpose Belén Belán Belén Belén Alzania Arriarán Cenza Pizarroso Rambla del Boqueron Val Salado Segre Viar Guadiato Guadalope Mun Mae Suai Nakhon Nayok Khlong Ma Dua R’mil Bou Terfess Güredin Creek Buyuk Menderes Kucukmenderes Göksu River 25 35 402 5 823 18 225 73 224 85 44 26 9 85 248 63 1 1 1 1 5 3 43 232 13 82 45 99 21 119 44 26 59 95 92 18 84 36 107 96 70 34 16 19 28 58 58 49 54 58 375 184 630 383 685 183 323 340 2600 537 260 324 192 280 800 236 158 98 75 87 396 206 609 835 290 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) Total 480 65 980 62 1441 52 48 300 4900 900 64 400 55 1500 2350 232 36 6 4 10 159 110 200 277 137 160 422 60 1680 2650 0 520 75 1016 89 1600 61 50 350 5400 41 7 5 12 208 113 225 340 145 (m3x103) (m3x103) RCC Volume V 0.15 V&0.40 V&0.2 V V V 0.7 0.35 0.07 V&0.33 V 0,15&0.35 0.3 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 V 0.05 V 0.05 0.05 Slope Upstream 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 V&0.80 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.90 0.8 0.8 0,4&0.65 0.9 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.7 0.122&0.75 0.75 0.73 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) 00 0. Siegrist Zintel Canyon H FHI H FH GI GI FR FW W Turkey Turkey Turkey Turkey UAE UAE USA USA USA Burç Çine Simak Camlica III Safad Showkah Willow Creek Middle Fork Winchester (now Carroll E.spillway (now S.831 0. Ecton) Galesville Grindstone Canyon Monksville Lower Chase Creek Upper Stillwater Elk Creek (as halted) Stagecoach Stacy .85 0.8 1.78 0.10 V V V 0. Freese) Quail Creek South Freeman diversion Nickajack Auxillary Spillway Cuchillo Negro Victoria replacement Alan Henry Spillway Purpose Country Dam/Project Mill Zintel Quail Creek Santa Clara Tennessee Cuchillo Negro West branch Double Mountain Fork Town Wash Willow Creek Middle Fork Upper Howard Creek Cow Creek Grindstone Wanaque Lower Chase Creek Rock Creek Elk Creek Yampa Colorado Göksu Çine Robozik Deresi Kucukmenderes River 4 3 - 50 311 13 140 52 2 27 1 37 125 42 700 1 1 1 17 1 2 27 350 40 39 18 42 17 17 50 37 25 50 42 48 20 91 35 46 31 47 137 67 52 19 24 52 38 23 213 158 264 610 366 427 186 100 84 290 432 670 122 815 365 116 173 153 300 198 800 100 105 543 125 363 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 69 54 43 130 101 79 75 36 22 161 88 219 14 1125 266 34 89 49 1560 245 153 9 18 331 42 24 70 55 45 150 110 79 82 40 23 171 96 232 22 1281 348 39 158 68 1650 265 219 10 20 331 43 27 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume V V V V V 0.85 1.8 V&1.8 0.25 V V V V V V V V V V V 0.7 V 0.75 V&0.1 0.8 0.9 0.85 Slope Downstream Facings Table A.8 0.131 F W F USA USA W G H F H W USA USA USA USA USA USA USA FIRW W W F IW F HIRW W USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA Town Wash (now Jim Wilson) Detention C.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.32&0.W.7 0.20 Slope Upstream 0.1&0.60 0.E.5 V&0.8 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .7 0. 75 0.6 V V V 0.8 0.8 1 0.replacement Purpose Country Dam/Project Tygart Tributory Hickory Log Creek Water source .8 0.5 V&0.8 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .8 0.75 0.8 0.8 0.31 10 48 65 283 7 3 74 69 223 28 7 8 34 (m3x103) (m3x103) RCC Volume 0.6 0.8 0.64 Slope Downstream V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V Slope Upstream Facings Table A.8 0.8 0.W F F W IR F FRW USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA Spring Hollow Hudson River N°11 Rocky Gulch New Peterson Lake Big Haynes Tie Hack Penn Forest Bullard Creek Barnard Creek Canyon Debris Dam Pickle Jar Trout Creek Pajarito Canyon North Fork Hughes River Hunting Run Randleman Lake Olivenhain Saluda dam remediation Pine Brook Elkwater Fork Hickory Log Creek Taum Sauk 132 W RW W H W W W H W W W W P W R USA Elmer Thomas .8 0.East Fork of Black River Trout Creek Pajarito North Fork Hughes River Hunting Run Deep Escondido Creek Saluda Little Medicine Creek off-stream Mountain Creek Rocky Gulch Tributary of Cache La Poudre Big Haynes Creek South Fork Clear Creek Wild Creek Bullard Creek Barnard Creek River 2 84 30 1970 1 3 1 6 1 1 8 1480 2 1 - 3 12 3 10 25 31 97 65 26 39 55 49 16 31 36 26 49 16 18 27 41 74 21 18 21 34 720 280 788 2439 170 204 290 2060 57 38 112 200 610 110 46 427 170 302 168 55 70 128 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) Total 105 70 1070 1004 27 106 165 2100 3.75 0.31 9 48 65 283 7 3 72 62 222 26 6 7 29 105 76 1140 1410 30 113 0 2300 3.8 0. 8 0.8 V 0.8 0.35 0.1 General Description of RCC Dams (continued) .75 0.85 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.Country USA USA USA USA Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Dam/Project Deep Creek N°5D Thornton Gap (Tollway) San Vicente Dam Raise Portugues Pleikrong A Vuong Dinh Binh Se San 4 Son La Ban Ve Dong Nai 3 Ban Chat Dong Nai 4 Nuoc Trong Dong Nai 2 Song Tranh 2 Dak Drinh Dak Mi 4 Song Bung 4 Trung Son Huong Dien Song Bung 2 133 H FH H H HI H H H H H H H H FW F W F H H FHIW H FH Purpose Portugues Po Ko Vugia Thubon Kon Poko Sond Da (Black River) Ca Dong Nai Nam Mu Dong Nai Tra Kluc Dong Nai Song Tranh Dak Drinh Dak Mi Bung Ma Bo Bung Deep Creek River 511 349 1500 1690 2138 337 290 281 721 249 15 1 299 12 1048 340 226 173 9600 136 108 130 128 69 80 97 100 90 114 88 83 95 22 35 67 67 71 83 55 74 139 480 594 425 481 454 429 640 466 0 367 353 0 0 226 69 474 375 495 240 571 834 900 Dimensions Reservoir Capacity Height Length (m3x106) (m) (m) 3 3 Total 3 1520 1138 1200 1305 450 786 1030 788 720 764 810 260 0 39 25 0 270 326 260 183 753 2700 1750 1235 1600 1370 600 1025 1315 0 0 954 916 400 0 45 25 0 279 450 350 430 1300 4800 (m x10 ) (m x10 ) 3 RCC Volume 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.75 0.8 0.30 V V V V V V V V V V V V V Slope Upstream Facings Table A.8 Slope Downstream V&0.35 0.8 0. 46 1. 5 Urugua-i Copperfield Craigbourne Wright’s Basin New Victoria Kroombit Burton Gorge Lower Molonglo Bypass Storage Loyalty Road flood retarding basin Cadiangullong Paradise (Burnett River) Meander North Para Wyaralong Enlarged Cotter Chalillo La Cañada Saco de Nova Olinda Caraibas 82 77 112 70 80 70 80 70 75 60 80 70 145 79 82 85 96 143 87 28 100 F F F M 80 0 S 90 63 90 F 70 60 85 70 80 140 55 58 160 85 120 25 100 15 16 F F F N N N N Gameleira Pelo Sinal Acauã 65 100 56 0 0 14 N 0 30 60 73 160 107 0 64 F F F F F F 134 101 0.45 102 102 115 120 120 100 1.71 1.28 1.60 1. 3 Capanda Mix.Table A.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams Dam/Project Water / Cement Pozzolan Pozzolan Water (Cement+Pozzolan) Type (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) Ratio (w/c) Beni Haroun Koudiat Acerdoune Boussiaba Capanda Capanda Mix.44 1. 4 Capanda Mix. 1 Capanda Mix. 2 Capanda Mix.67 . 00 1.Table A.56 1.7 62 Dona Francisca Mix.59 1.1 55 Dona Francisca Mix.40 1.Amorin 80 Bertarello 72 Rosal 45 Ponto Novo 72 Santa Cruz do Apodi 80 Tucuruί .2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Varzea Grande 56 Cova da Mandioca 80 Trairas 80 Canoas 64 Jordão 65 Belo Jardim 58 Rio do Peixe 120&90 Salto Caxias 80 Val de Serra 60 Jucazinho 64 Guilman.45 135 140 146 140 160 180 180 1.6 58 Dona Francisca Mix.2 55 Dona Francisca Mix.59 1.53 1.7 70 80 90 45 85 30 70 100 120 140 160 180 180 14 0 0 16 10 15 0 20 30 16 20 18 55 18 0 30 30 30 32 32 35 32 32 32 32 35 N N N N F F N N N S N N F F F F F F F F F F 0 0 0 55 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 135 140 135 136 148 149 149 144 145 1.1 Lajeado Mix No.2 Lajeado Mix No.9 62 Dona Francisca Mix.64 1.10 65 Umari Pedras Altas Pirapana Cana Brava Castanhão Lajeado Lajeado Mix No.3 58 Dona Francisca Mix.22 1.6 Lajeado Mix No.59 1.65 1.00 S S 135 .4 Lajeado Mix No.00 1.00 1.5 Lajeado Mix No.5 65 Dona Francisca Mix.2nd Phase 70 Dona Francisca Mix.50 1.8 62 Dona Francisca Mix.36 1.3 Lajeado Mix No.4 58 Dona Francisca Mix.93 1. 2 Three Gorges Mix.No.74 1.1 Ralco Lab.No.4 Kengkou Kengkou Rongdi Rongdi Longmentan Nº1 Longmentan Nº1 Tianshengqio Tongjiezi (with Niurixigou saddle dam) Tongjiezi (with Niurixigou saddle dam) Tianshenqiao Nº2 Yantan Shuikou Shuikou Wan’an Guangzhou PSS Lower dam Suoshai Three Gorges Mix. Mix.45 0.88 90 0.07 0.45 . Mix.3 90 80 90 70 70 60 64 85 130 80 137 95 116 95 102 116 123 60 60 90 69 72 54 55 79 0 0 0 0 0 30 16 85 75 100 58 40 49 40 43 49 52 120 80 140 111 82 86 85 79 F N F F N N N N N N N N F F F F F F F F 82 83 F 79 55 60 70 65 62 79 104 110 90 105 108 F F F F F F 119 98 77 79 98 116 F F F 136 145 145 145 0.3 Ralco Lab.Jordão Estreito Lac Robertson Grand Falls spillway Pangue Ralco Ralco Ralco Ralco Lab. Mix.2 Ralco Lab.1 Three Gorges Mix.No.Table A.45 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Serra do Facão Fundão Candonga Pindobaçu Bandeira de Malo Santa Clara .57 89 88 87 0.No. Mix. 45 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.11 Three Gorges Mix.10 Three Gorges Mix.55 0.18 Jinjiang Puding Puding Shuidong Daguangba Shanzai Shanzai Wenquanpu Wenquanpu Xibingxi Xibingxi Guanyinge (Kwan-inTemple) Guanyinge (Kwan-inTemple) Shimantan Shimantan Bailongtan Bailongtan Mantaicheng Wanyao Wanyao Shuangxi Shuangxi Shibanshui Shibanshui Shibanshui 107 88 70 97 80 63 96 79 62 86 71 56 79 65 51 70 85 54 50 55 65 55 110 69 80 79 91 71 88 104 65 80 95 64 79 93 58 71 84 52 65 76 80 103 99 90 96 125 95 68 85 120 105 39 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 112 48 F 98 51 73 99 60 64 60 90 55 126 60 50 98 107 110 60 120 96 90 110 105 84 90 100 F F F F F F F F F F F F 137 89 88 87 89 88 87 72 71 70 72 71 70 72 71 70 0.17 Three Gorges Mix.15 Three Gorges Mix.45 0.16 Three Gorges Mix.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Three Gorges Mix.50 0.8 Three Gorges Mix.55 0.13 Three Gorges Mix.4 Three Gorges Mix.55 .Table A.9 Three Gorges Mix.55 0.7 Three Gorges Mix.50 0.55 0.50 0.6 Three Gorges Mix.50 0.14 Three Gorges Mix.55 0.5 Three Gorges Mix.12 Three Gorges Mix. 2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Taolinkou Taolinkou Yongxi N°3 Yongxi N°3 Huatan Huatan Changshun Changshun Fenhe N°2 Fenhe N°2 Jiangya Jiangya Jiangya Songyue (1st Stage) Baishi Hongpo Gaobazhou Gaobazhou Yanwangbizi Yushi Shankou N°3 Shankou N°3 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Shimenzi Mix 1 Shimenzi Mix 2 Longshou N°1 Longshou N°1 Dachaoshan Dachaoshan Mianhuatan Mix 1 Mianhuatan Mix 2 Mianhuatan Mix 3 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.Table A.1 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.2 135 70 115 80 78 74 134 72 127 60 87 64 46 80 72 54 123 86 64 70 105 63 115 91 93 62 96 58 94 67 82 59 48 100 70 85 95 90 95 90 89 48 84 93 107 96 107 100 58 99 100 86 118 70 86 80 77 91 110 110 109 113 94 101 100 88 88 180 150 180 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F N N F F F 138 . 5 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.Upper Dam Jing Hong Jing Hong 200 180 200 90 250 90 300 28 113 138 113 113 F F 60 90 F 86 68 74 66 67 50 84 126 95 110 103 83 111 106 100 92 126 103 57 58 F F F F F F F F F F 64 53 83 95 99 102 F F F 110 66 65 93 80 50 81 94 72 56 64 73 66 110 113 132 110 81 94 108 84 125 F F S S F F F F F F F 64 93 93 93 S S 139 87 81 0.47 .6 Helong Xiao Yangxi (and saddle dam) Xiao Yangxi (and saddle dam) Wanmipo Wanmipo Linhekou Linhekou Zhouning Zhouning Zhaolaihe Zhaolaihe Wenquangpu Wenquangpu Xihe Suofengying Zaoshi Zaoshi Baisha Zhouba Zhouba Tukahe Tukahe Baise Baise Dahuashui Dahuashui Bailianya Bailianya Huizhou PSS .4 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.47 0.3 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.Table A. 2 Miel I Mix.Mix No.42 90 101 F 80 0.Table A.2 Miel I Mix.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Pengshui Pengshui Huanghuazhai Longtan Longtan Longtan Trial Mix 1 with retarding superplasticizer Longtan Trial Mix 2 with air entering agent Longtan Trial Mix 3 with retarding superplasticizer Longtan Trial Mix 4 with air entering agent Guangzhao Guangzhao Gelantan Silin Silin Jin’anqiao Jin’anqiao Longkaikou Longkaikou Porce II Porce II Porce III Lab.1 Miel I Mix.1 Porce III Lab.50 61 77 77 66 89 72 96 83 60 132 120 85 125 150 125 100 85 90 100 80 72~88 91 87 77 100 109 108 117 101 90 88 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 100 80 0 F F S F F F F F F N N N N N 140 .3 Miel I Mix.50 56 104 F 80 0.Mix No.4 Peñas Blancas Pirris Pirris Contraembalse de Monción 64 81 52 99 86 90 96 121 96 121 109 101 F F F F F F 80 0.42 56 104 F 80 0. 65 54 126 F 117 0.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.4 Ghatghar (Upper dam) 98 90 110 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 55 50 55 50 50 8 M 85 48 130 120 110 90 120 115 120 15 15 225 5 10 10 60 90 64 80 105 133 213 88 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 132 Ghatghar (Lower dam) 75 150 F Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.03 134 136 135 138 1.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Panalito Villarpando Toker Gibe III Les Olivettes Riou Choldocogagna Villaunur Sep La Touche Poupard Petit Saut Marathia Ano Mera Platanovryssi Steno Lithaios Koris Yefiri (Maiden’s Bridge) Valsamiotis Concepción Nacaome Nordlingaalda Mix.Table A.4 108 72 90 105 1.3 Nordlingaalda Mix.65 F S R R R R R R R N N C N N N N F 141 .65 F 117 0.1 Nordlingaalda Mix.02 0.3 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.65 90 F 117 0.30 1.17 93 1.68 1.65 72 108 F 117 0. 72 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 70 125 N N Khash natural pozzolan 142 .48 120 120 F 114 0.7 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.16 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.12 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.11 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.13 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.15 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.58 60 140 F 116 0.48 72 168 F 114 0.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.58 154 66 F 115 0.52 110 110 F 115 0.48 75 75 F 75 81 130 105 160 135 54 0 90 90 F F 140 0.8 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.17 Krishna Weir (Srisailam) Middle Vaitarna Balambano Pie Pol Jahgin Jahgin 120 80 F 116 0.58 80 120 F 116 0.52 88 132 F 115 0.52 66 154 F 115 0.58 100 100 F 116 0.52 144 96 F 114 0.48 96 144 F 114 0.Table A.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.52 132 88 F 115 0.14 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No. 72 140 0.67 130 0.67 130 0.72 140 0.58 130 0.72 140 0.74 130 0.58 130 0.59 .Table A.67 130 0.72 140 0.58 130 0.59 130 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 2 95 100 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 3 120 75 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 4 145 50 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 5 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 6 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-2 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-3 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-2 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-3 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Low-Lime Flyash Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-2 with Low-Lime Flyash 170 190 25 0 150 75 165 60 180 45 90 105 105 90 120 95 110 75 125 110 Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan Khash natural pozzolan LowLime Flyash LowLime Flyash 143 140 0. 72 139 123 140 124 140 140 142 133 129 124 124 0.67 130 0.73 .13 92 Shimajigawa Tamagawa 84 91 LowLime Flyash LowLime Flyash LowLime Flyash LowLime Flyash N 38 34 135 N N F 39 106 41 105 43 95 44 93 54 77 72 40 148 138 126 58 101 66 83 75 63 36 39 N F N F N F N F N F N F N N N N L N L N L F F 144 130 0.11 82 92 104 71 Sa Stria Mix.10 Sa Stria Mix.1 98 160 87 58 42 Sa Stria Mix.88 0.67 115 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-3 with Low-Lime Flyash 125 95 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 with Low-Lime Flyash 70 125 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-2 with Low-Lime Flyash 85 110 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-3 with Low-Lime Flyash 100 95 Zirdan Badovli Javeh Sa Stria Mix.2 67 Sa Stria Mix.3 69 Sa Stria Mix.Table A.12 81 Sa Stria Mix.9 Sa Stria Mix.67 130 0.58 0.54 120 117 105 95 0.59 130 0.7 122 Sa Stria Mix.5 75 Sa Stria Mix.4 72 Sa Stria Mix.6 92 Sa Stria Mix.56 0.8 Sa Stria Mix. 64 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Mano Shiromizugawa Asahi Ogawa Nunome Nunome Mix 1 Nunome Mix 2 Nunome Mix 3 Nunome Mix 4 Pirika Dodairagawa Asari Kamuro Sakaigawa Sabigawa (lower dam) 96 96 96 78 140 98 91 84 84 96 96 96 84 91 24 24 24 42 0 42 49 56 36 24 24 24 36 39 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 103 102 94 95 117 113 111 107 90 102 103 103 103 95 0.86 0.83 0.Table A.79 0.2 Takisato Kazunogawa Hayachine Gassan Kubusugawa Nagashima sediment dam Ohnagami Origawa Shinmiyagawa 91 96 96 91 84 91 84 91 91 78 96 91 84 84 84 72 84 84 84 91 84 40 39 24 24 36 36 39 36 39 39 42 24 39 36 36 36 48 36 36 36 39 36 50 F F F S F F F F F S F F F F F F F F F F F S 83 100 98 102 100 95 95 103 105 83 100 85 100 83 90 90 88 90 97 87 97 0.72 0.1 Tomisato No.83 0.73 0.86 0.75 0.65 0.76 0.81 84 91 91 36 39 39 F F F 103 93 95 0.80 0.73 0.67 0.73 145 .69 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.78 0.79 0.85 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.75 0.81 0.84 0.69 0.83 0.75 0.85 0.82 0.73 Ryumon Tsugawa Miyatoko Kodama Hinata Miyagase Yoshida Chiya Ohmatsukawa Satsunaigawa Shiokawa Urayama Shimagawa Hiyoshi Tomisato No. part of Nam Theun 2 HPP Nam Gnouang (Theum Hinboun Expansion) Kinta Batu Hampar Bengoh La Manzanilla Trigomil Vindramas San Lazaro San Lazaro San Rafael Las Blancas 77 70 84 84 84 84 84 72 84 84 91 84 84 91 125 120 120 110 85 96 70 60 135 90 100 33 30 36 36 36 36 36 48 36 36 39 36 36 39 75 50 0 0 0 85 60 60 80 30 100 F F F F F S F F F F F F F F N N 90 100 C 100 65 65 135 148 100 100 90 90 100 100 120 125 135 47 100 220 220 18 100 F F F N F M M M N F N F F F N F 146 89 0.83 0.77 0.75 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Ueno Ueno Chubetu Fukuchiyama Kutani Koyama Takizawa Takizawa Hattabara Kido Nagai Toppu Kasegawa Yubari Syuparo Tannur Mix 1 Tannur Mix 2 Wala Wala Mujib Sama El-Serhan Al Wehdah Al Wehdah Buchtarma Tashkumyr Nakai.71 0.81 76 90 105 100 85 85 90 103 100 86 99 85 0.75 0.Table A.88 0.63 0.86 0.50 .72 0.83 0.65 140 90 1.65 0.71 0. 26 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Rompepicos at Corral des Palmas Amata El Zapotillo El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Ain al Koreima Ain al Koreima Rouidat Amont (Rwedat) Aoulouz Aoulouz Joumoua Imin el Kheng Imin el Kheng Sahla Sahla Enjil Enjil Bouhouda Bouhouda Bab Louta Bab Louta Ahl Souss (Ait M’Zal) Ahl Souss (Ait M’Zal) Hassan II (Sidi Said) Hassan II (Sidi Said) Oued R’Mel Sidi Yahya (Ain Kwachia) Sehb el Merga El Maleh Ait Mouley Ahmed Yeywa Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 1 65 35 F 120 50~70 110 130 150 70 140 100 0 60~80 221 220 218 30 60 15 L L L S S N 120 90 105 100 110 85 125 110 150 100 120 65 80 80 100 65 80 100 105 0 0 45 20 20 15 25 0 0 0 0 15 20 0 0 15 20 0 0 M M N N N N N N N N N N N 70 120 70 75 70 30 0 30 145 140 N N N P1-4 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 2 70 140 P2-5 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 3 70 140 P2-7 N N 147 86 87 87 0.24 .Table A.25 0. 60 0.Table A.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 4 70 140 P2-9 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 5 70 140 P1-9 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 6 Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 Upper Paung Laung Wadi Dayqah Wadi Dayqah Mangla Emergency Spillway Control Weir 70 90 90 110 130 150 55 60 65 70 75 85 126 112 60 140 130 130 110 90 70 165 160 155 150 145 145 54 48 120 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 P1-9 N M M S Gomal Zam Changuinola 1 Changuinola 1 Capillucas Pedrógão Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 2 Pedrógão Mix 3 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Vadeni Tirgu Jiu Bureiskaya De Mist Kraal Arabie Zaaihoek Knellpoort Spitskop 91 70 65 65 55 70 70 70 50 40 125 125 95~110 58 36 36 61 91 91 145 150 90 165 130 130 130 130 120 0 0 25~30 58 74 84 142 92 F F F N F F F F F F 148 N F S S F F 120 130 130 130 120 0.75 .72 0.65 0.65 0. 54 108 98 100 90 105 100 100 98 95 85 113 127 115 110 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.49 0.48 0.64 0.44 0.50 0.60 105 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Wolwedans Wriggleswade Glen Melville Thornlea Taung Paxton Qedusizi (Mount Pleasant) Inyaka Nandoni (formerly Mutoti) Bramhoek De Hoop Castilblanco de los Arroyos Los Morales Los Morales Santa Eugenia Santa Eugenia Los Canchales Los Canchales Maroño Maroño Hervás Burguillo del Cerro La Puebla de Cazalla La Puebla de Cazalla Erizana Belén-Cagüela Belén-Gato Caballar I Amatisteros I Belén-Flores Urdalur Urdalur Arriarán Cenza Sierra Brava 58 44 65 38 44 70 46 136 66 65 87 66 100 108 F F F S F F S 60 54 120 129 F F 70 62 102 95 145 86 F F F 80 74 88 72 84 70 80 65 80 80 80 85 90 75 73 73 73 73 53 72 85 70 80 140 128 152 145 156 145 170 160 155 135 130 137 90 109 109 109 109 109 123 108 135 130 140 F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F 149 102 0.Table A.47 0.45 0.57 0.54 0.44 0.42 0.49 0.43 .58 90 100 95 95 0.41 0. 57 0.81 0.45 0.41 1. Ecton) 58 80 90 50 100 120 50 50 60 60 60 65 85 75 95 88 90 90 82 104 104 187 47 76 66 104 124 90 100 150 0 0 100 20 30 60 50 50 105 95 F F F F 119 137 115 120 0.61 0.56 0.Table A.54 0.1 El Esparragal Mix.56 Pak Mun Mae Suai Tha Dan Ma Dua R’mil Moula Sucati Çindere Beydag Feke II Feke II Burç Çine Çine Simak Camlica III Safad Showkah Camp Dyer Willow Creek Mix 1 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 New Big Cherry Middle Fork Winchester (now Carroll E.48 0.3 La Breña II El Puente de Santolea 60 55 80 57 70 68 56 79 225 69 65 125 130 100 133 130 157 169 146 0 115&46 153 F F F F F F F F F F F 100 94 100 109 95 112.51 0.86 1.44 S F F F F F F F F F 150 .65 0.50 0.5 101 112.60 37 0 0 81 0 47 80 19 76 0 0 F 90 110 110 109 107 130 95 0.06 0.73 0.2 El Esparragal Mix.55 1.50 0.62 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Guadalemar Rambla Queiles y Val Atance Rialb El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.5 126 0. 57 1.01 0.W.E. Freese) Quail Creek South Freeman diversion Nickajack Auxillary Spillway Cuchillo Negro Victoria replacement Alan Henry Spillway Town Wash (now Jim Wilson) Detention C.85 F F 89 0.95 0.Table A. Siegrist Mix 3 Zintel Canyon Mix 1 Zintel Canyon Mix 2 Zintel Canyon Mix 3 Zintel Canyon Mix 4 Zintel Canyon Mix 5 Elmer Thomas replacement Spring Hollow 70 56 67 71 125 33 23 17 77 62 F F F F C 138 154 0.37 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 108 125 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 72 160 Elk Creek Mix 1 Elk Creek Mix 2 Elk Creek Mix 3 Stagecoach Stacy .E. Siegrist Mix 2 C.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Grindstone Canyon Monksville Lower Chase Creek Upper Stillwater Mix 1 53 65 76 64 64 94 51 68 0 0 40 207 F F 113 113 1.93 0.82 80 125 85 53 83 119 F F F 77 67 119 107 59 67 59 71 F C F F 135 107 0.09 0.51 53 53 F F 151 .36 1.02 1.99 0.80 47 53 59 178 74 74 59 119 89 47 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 89 F F F 96 96 96 101 101 112 1.spillway (now S.E.30 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 93 206 F 100 0. Siegrist Mix 1 C.33 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 79 173 F 99 0.39 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 79 173 F 94 0. 91 104 89 F 160 0.56 80 98 F 133 0.3 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 1 Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.68 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Hudson River N°11 Rocky Gulch New Peterson Lake Big Haynes Tie Hack Penn Forest Bullard Creek Barnard Creek Canyon Debris Dam Pickle Jar Trout Creek Pajarito Canyon North Fork Hughes River North Fork Hughes River Hunting Run Randleman Lake Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.75 74 104 76 75 F 101 0.63 0.1 Olivenhain Mix.2 119 184 145 42 89 58 148 108 84 0 48 42 83 41 44 84 F 90 163 148 59 0 0 0 59 107 65 74 89 74 74 74 74 74 37 104 121 121 121 121 89 F F F F F F F 124 118 123 132 149 0.90 0.61 0.Table A.70 0.67 F F F F F 152 .64 0.87 95 107 59 62 F F 139 0.2 Olivenhain Mix.00 Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 1 Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 3 Santa Cruz 59 74 89 89 110 89 F F 103 103 0.83 89 89 F 154 0. Table A.45 0.49 .2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Taum Sauk Deep Creek N°5D Thornton Gap (Tollway) San Vicente Dam Raise Portugues Pleikrong A Vuong Dinh Binh Dinh Binh Se San 4 Son La Son La Stage I Mix 0 Son La Stage I Mix 1 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage I Mix 3 Son La Stage I Mix 4 Son La Stage I Mix 5 Son La Stage II Mix 1 Son La Stage II Mix 2 Son La Stage II Mix 3 Ban Ve Dong Nai 3 Ban Chat Dong Nai 4 Nuoc Trong Nuoc Trong Dong Nai 2 Dong Nai 2 Song Tranh 2 Song Tranh 2 59 89 48 59 89 79 F F F 86 127 F 121 80 90 70 126 80 60 45 60 85 110 135 160 45 60 75 80 75 60 85 125 80 80 90 70 60 55 210 150 175 141 160 160 180 170 145 120 95 70 155 140 125 120 0 160 95 218 230 120 110 110 115 F N N F F N F F F F F F F F F F N F N N N N N N N 153 110 132 0. 71 0.63 0.83 0.64 .60 0.Table A.84 0.2 Mixture Content of RCC Dams (continued) Dak Drinh Dak Mi 4 Song Bung 4 Song Bung 4 Trung Son Trung Son Huong Dien Song Bung 2 Song Bung 2 Cindere Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 Gökkaya 80 95 80 60 80 70 90 80 60 50 125 150 175 200 100 120 140 160 50 115 125 120 140 140 150 100 120 140 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 N N N N N N N N N F 105 105 105 105 100 100 100 100 67 154 0.53 1.00 0.70 0. 45 1.30 1.24 0.70 24.80 18.00 21.69 FALSE FALSE 301 17.96 1.51 0.50 1.10 11.64 1.47 0.19 1.66 0.45 0.60 17.99 1.66 0.83 0.27 1.56 1.89 1.80 1.50 30.73 0.95 1.09 1.75 1.50 0.70 24.22 0.08 FALSE FALSE 104 12.90 1.09 1.48 1.09 1.66 FALSE FALSE 233 12.63 0.05 1.99 1.40 1.08 1.66 FALSE FALSE 133 5.90 1.66 2.09 1.06 1.08 FALSE 232 8.50 FALSE FALSE 299 23.37 155 .5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.19 0.05 2.05 FALSE 267 23.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.30 1.94 FALSE FALSE 180 11.30 7.96 1.46 1.10 1.36 0.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.80 1.40 21.70 1.80 2.60 29.20 1.98 1.08 FALSE 240 15.21 1.70 24.00 MPa 1.37 1.46 1.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 104 4.08 1.90 FALSE 74 4.80 2.37 252 14.50 1.60 1.80 FALSE FALSE 178 11.Table A. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes Dam Name Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Zintel Canyon Mix 1 Zintel Canyon Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Willow Creek Mix 1 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.72 FALSE FALSE 66 8.90 1.00 2.40 21.70 9.96 1.00 7.20 27.09 1.36 220 14.22 252 15.04 2.08 0.60 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 1.57 0.24 151 14.05 FALSE FALSE 200 14.20 1.06 1.40 1.14 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.07 1.63 2.20 14.00 0.00 14.98 1.23 0.69 1.66 2.47 1.29 1.81 0.3 The Compressive.40 14.67 1.55 1.93 1.24 1.31 1.37 FALSE 1.11 1.36 1. 10 FALSE 180 8.00 FALSE 200 15. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Miel I Mix.00 2.74 3.00 1.79 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.80 2.25 0.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.90 21. 1 Capanda Mix.00 1.84 FALSE FALSE 70 7.41 1.24 12.35 1. 2 Three Gorges Mix.80 8. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 150 125 100 85 1.96 1.05 1.50 2.26 0.09 1.16 1.18 1.3 Miel I Mix.02 0.50 8.29 1.00 16.00 1.Table A.05 2.6 Nordlingaalda Mix.37 0.1 Miel I Mix.20 2.90 1.76 0.4 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.50 1.70 0.5 Sa Stria Mix.98 1.46 0.81 0.10 19.00 1.67 0.50 31.31 1.05 1.37 80 9.73 FALSE FALSE 213 45.31 1.75 0.48 1.96 1.63 1.31 0.24 1.60 9.1 Nordlingaalda Mix.29 1.41 1.90 FALSE FALSE 178 23.36 1.1 Three Gorges Mix.10 1.31 1.4 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Lajeado Mix No.37 1.3 90 4.39 1.4 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Capanda Mix.2 Lajeado Mix No.67 1.71 FALSE FALSE 178 7.39 133 22.60 32.19 2.50 0.10 1.26 0.40 10.72 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.05 2.76 FALSE FALSE 212 223 12.61 1.18 FALSE FALSE FALSE 163 4.79 1.97 FALSE FALSE 100 8.90 FALSE FALSE 140 13.57 1.67 0.38 0.60 36.72 FALSE FALSE 160 7.10 1.71 FALSE FALSE 80 8.40 0.53 1.52 FALSE FALSE Sa Stria Mix.68 1.26 1.3 The Compressive.09 FALSE FALSE 105 15.46 1.60 1.60 1.1 85 4.00 1.80 1.40 11.54 0.40 1.00 13.51 0.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 17.50 57.21 1.20 2.47 0.30 14.00 2.80 1.90 1.70 7.96 1.01 1.72 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.00 22.50 9.00 MPa 1.25 0.00 1.09 1.4 156 .3 Nordlingaalda Mix.2 Miel I Mix.96 0.77 1.00 1.83 FALSE FALSE 198 27.75 0.75 1.31 7.20 15. 98 1.10 1.80 1.00 2.69 1.98 1.00 MPa 1.89 1.19 1.08 1.56 FALSE FALSE 205 25.50 1.57 0.10 11.22 0.10 8.4 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.91 1.00 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 1.48 1.23 0.66 1.66 2.46 1.08 FALSE 252 15.90 1. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Longtan Trial Mix 1 Longtan Trial Mix 3 Longshou Mix 1 Longshou Mix 2 Camp Dyer Middle Fork Stacy Spillway Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.82 1.50 1.35 1.37 1.63 0.46 1.13 2.42 1.50 FALSE FALSE 299 23.66 FALSE FALSE 252 14.40 21.40 1.74 2.94 2.65 0.96 0.2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.96 1.80 18.00 12.37 301 17.08 FALSE FALSE 180 11.80 1.00 14.3 The Compressive.24 1.80 34.60 17.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 191 27.16 1.43 0.40 26.66 0.75 1.55 1.11 1.48 1.60 2.98 FALSE FALSE 180 6.70 24.Table A.32 1.77 1.19 2.07 1.37 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.60 2.81 0.15 1.05 2.05 FALSE FALSE 180 9.40 1.54 1.37 233 12.10 FALSE FALSE 160 16.60 FALSE FALSE 163 66 187 10.80 27.30 42.22 232 8.84 FALSE FALSE 171 20.00 FALSE FALSE 180 9.40 2.80 2.33 1.70 24.80 10.18 1.3 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 13.21 1.40 1.37 FALSE 1.40 14.09 1.60 29.87 FALSE FALSE 157 .29 1.20 1.78 0.84 0.70 1.55 0.40 1.40 21.82 1. 75 1. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.03 1.08 FALSE 220 11.20 21.49 1.00 1.90 1.10 8.70 1.42 240 11.Table A.88 0.20 1.16 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.14 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.37 1.92 1.09 1.94 1.09 1.50 18.29 0.08 1.21 1.42 FALSE 1.95 1.10 15.96 1.12 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.20 1.80 1.40 1.35 1.47 1.17 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.36 1.73 0.7 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.70 24.26 0.20 11.97 FALSE FALSE 220 14.77 2.13 FALSE FALSE 220 5.32 0.25 220 7.64 1.28 1.00 MPa 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 1.30 15.67 1.92 1.40 1.30 12.18 1.26 240 8.80 1.71 0.06 1.60 1.48 0.90 19.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.20 1.91 FALSE FALSE 158 .3 The Compressive.01 1.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 200 14.36 220 8.36 0.83 0.90 1.30 1.40 21.60 18.95 0.06 1.00 22.8 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.11 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.53 0.68 0.54 0.29 200 9.50 1.77 FALSE FALSE 240 15.09 1.40 1.13 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.15 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 1.80 1.66 2.25 FALSE 1.00 21.67 1.51 1.50 1.94 1.50 1.09 FALSE FALSE 200 7.36 200 11.85 0.37 240 17.67 0.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No. 48 1.24 1.62 2.00 1.50 14.46 0.00 1.00 MPa 1.00 31.02 1.72 1.30 180 24. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.70 181 19.60 1.49 1.44 1.00 1.72 1.63 0.99 11.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 152 10.16 1.80 1.50 4.3 The Compressive.50 0.29 1.00 16.00 1.36 60 195 4.02 1.7 Nunome Urayama Hiyoshi Tomisato No.23 FALSE 1.02 FALSE FALSE FALSE 200 180 8.4 Lajeado Mix No.86 1.08 2.10 1.62 0.04 1.31 2.18 FALSE 1.57 1.17 1.76 9.13 1.1 Lajeado Mix No.5 Lajeado Mix No.40 11.50 33.26 0.00 FALSE 160 15.59 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.77 0.10 1.89 1.00 2.00 1.80 FALSE FALSE 120 130 120 7.90 19.50 1.57 1.00 2.27 1.00 27.92 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 225 13.86 FALSE FALSE 184 17.23 220 9.20 29.34 1.68 1.80 1.17 0.10 FALSE 200 13.38 1.00 1.11 100 8.6 Lajeado Mix No.18 0.00 1.43 FALSE FALSE 120 23.94 1.49 0.34 1.19 FALSE 1.23 1.1 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 2 Pedrógão Mix 3 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 1.36 1.42 0.81 1.86 FALSE FALSE 148 10.71 FALSE FALSE 159 .15 1.3 Lajeado Mix No.00 19.50 1.2 Lajeado Mix No.00 1.52 0.42 0.19 1.69 1.80 1.10 1.02 200 15.30 0.75 1.72 FALSE FALSE 160 7.90 FALSE FALSE 120 10.14 6.89 1.78 1.66 FALSE FALSE 180 24.30 FALSE 1.07 2. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) New Big Cherry Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama ElSerhan Marathia Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Low-Lime Flyash Lajeado Mix No.27 195 16.00 1.30 FALSE 1.00 18.25 0.14 1.73 1.81 1.59 FALSE FALSE 70 6.00 2.24 1.04 FALSE FALSE 140 13.88 1.50 17.70 14.00 1.75 0.46 0.80 FALSE FALSE 170 16.40 1.Table A. 00 2.90 1.45 0.30 23.35 1.91 1.50 33.90 30.80 20.18 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.00 1.93 FALSE FALSE 158 25.60 2.00 1.32 FALSE 1.11 2.16 Three Gorges Mix.40 1.20 1.00 2.39 1.90 0.91 FALSE FALSE 160 .10 18.00 2.02 1.31 Dona Francisca Mix.00 25.1 Three Gorges Mix.05 2.79 FALSE FALSE 176 21.81 FALSE FALSE 142 21.84 1.5 100 5.12 Three Gorges Mix.41 1.40 1.72 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.60 1.49 1.06 2.70 23.52 1.6 Three Gorges Mix.21 1.97 1.07 1.32 0.40 8.50 1.25 160 29.50 1.20 2.11 Three Gorges Mix.11 1.47 FALSE FALSE 127 12.98 1.48 0.7 Three Gorges Mix.60 36.70 7.84 0.4 90 4.06 1.17 Three Gorges Mix.40 2.38 1.48 1.63 FALSE FALSE 160 12.00 1.50 28.72 2.90 1.99 1.30 1.98 2.2 Three Gorges Mix.62 FALSE FALSE 174 15.90 20.90 31.22 1.51 FALSE FALSE 144 24.21 1.31 0. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Three Gorges Mix.39 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 1.5 Three Gorges Mix.20 33.78 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.87 2.Table A.00 MPa 1.55 2.04 0.61 1.50 28.80 8.80 FALSE FALSE 155 21.20 2.56 0.45 FALSE FALSE 178 23.00 1.50 11.01 1.47 1.13 1.77 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.69 2.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 198 27.25 FALSE 1.94 2.10 37.80 9.60 1.71 1.51 0.50 0.33 1.96 2.80 2.48 0.13 1.04 1.10 1.14 Three Gorges Mix.3 90 4.8 Three Gorges Mix.32 131 22.31 0.75 FALSE FALSE 193 19.40 24.46 1.15 Three Gorges Mix.08 2.99 1.10 28.00 2.2 85 4.28 1.90 FALSE FALSE 196 23.90 22.00 1.28 1.10 1.28 1.86 2.66 1.26 0.1 85 4.80 0.3 The Compressive.43 FALSE FALSE 162 19.4 Three Gorges Mix.40 1.25 2.37 1.13 Three Gorges Mix.9 Three Gorges Mix.10 Three Gorges Mix.70 FALSE FALSE 140 15.51 0.62 FALSE FALSE 130 15.3 Three Gorges Mix.01 1.37 1.60 32.76 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.56 1.00 1.98 FALSE 158 10.33 0. 38 1.78 1.00 6.86 1.06 1.88 FALSE FALSE 195 8.50 1.64 0.93 35.9 94 5.06 1.94 2.89 0.00 MPa 1.95 FALSE FALSE 160 9.98 1.21 0.78 0.50 20.00 14.80 FALSE FALSE 200 9.7 94 4.44 17.86 1.33 1.00 0.35 1.19 17.28 1.25 1.47 1.50 1.00 2.3 Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.58 12.50 1.02 1.40 7.00 11.51 FALSE FALSE 230 21.75 2.50 19.46 1.14 FALSE FALSE 200 15.72 0.16 1.49 0.20 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.23 0.70 1.46 1.76 FALSE FALSE 230 27.40 1.89 1.31 1.60 1.00 32.82 10.59 1.02 1.00 1.97 1.70 0.66 1.2 Olivenhain Mix.35 1.72 1.50 25.42 1.79 1.65 0.74 1.Table A.00 20.54 0.97 1.52 0.35 18.00 1.72 0.30 1.29 1.69 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.00 1.00 14.48 0.3 Badovli Son La Stage I Mix 0 Son La Stage I Mix 1 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage I Mix 3 Son La Stage I Mix 4 Son La Stage I Mix 5 Son La Stage II Mix 1 Son La Stage II Mix 2 Son La Stage II Mix 3 161 .90 1.30 230 13.64 2.32 0.1 Olivenhain Mix.42 2.6 90 4.75 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.00 33.20 225 9.00 1.00 8.1 El Esparragal Mix.00 16.30 0.50 0.75 1.76 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 1.34 1.13 FALSE FALSE 195 10.00 1.08 FALSE FALSE 195 7.47 0.80 1.68 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.07 FALSE FALSE 230 8.30 FALSE 1.17 1.26 0.50 8.92 FALSE FALSE 225 7.53 0.79 1.3 The Compressive.09 1.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days Dona Francisca Mix.62 0.23 1.52 0.10 1.82 1.02 1.66 0.2 El Esparragal Mix.18 1.17 2.49 0.67 1.33 1.00 8.06 1.09 1.64 1.65 0.04 FALSE FALSE 200 11.48 0.14 0.19 225 14.41 1.25 225 31.31 1.40 7.8 94 4.76 12.72 FALSE FALSE Dona Francisca Mix.75 1.06 1.77 FALSE FALSE 225 85 225 16.17 1.31 230 16.30 0.31 Beni Haroun Mujib El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.27 15.19 FALSE 1.83 1.19 1.40 24.97 FALSE FALSE 195 6.10 8.84 1.78 0.00 14.90 1.34 2.10 100 5.00 1. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.03 1. 18 0.89 1.40 1.94 1.00 FALSE FALSE 220 11.42 0.04 FALSE 220 12.77 0.40 6. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 210 1.23 1.90 1.31 0.00 FALSE FALSE 210 11.00 1.84 1. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Yeywa Stage IA Mix 1 Yeywa Stage IA Mix 2 Yeywa Stage IA Mix 3 Yeywa Stage IA Mix 4 Yeywa Stage IA Mix 5 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 1 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 2 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 3 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 4 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 5 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 6 Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 Camp Dyer Concepcion Elk Creek Middle Fork Santa Cruz Stacy spillway Stagecoach Urugua-i Cana Brava New Big Cherry Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.51 1.42 0.24 1.09 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 187 18.57 0.89 152 10.00 26.32 1.14 1.86 0.00 1.86 FALSE FALSE 162 .46 1.51 0.04 FALSE FALSE 210 12.74 1.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 12.00 21.97 1.00 20.18 220 14.80 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.00 MPa 1.27 0.14 1.77 220 9.10 9.00 1.00 13.82 1.00 17.00 1.00 1.42 0.00 1.34 1.37 FALSE 1.00 1.94 FALSE 1.43 FALSE FALSE 220 21.2 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.62 0.40 0.94 1.09 0.3 The Compressive.70 0.55 FALSE FALSE 220 11.67 0.67 1.40 7.94 1.50 10.21 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.54 1.00 1.84 0.36 0.50 19.33 1.00 14.00 1.31 220 16.18 1.00 15.00 23.34 1.60 9.40 15.00 1.27 220 18.20 8.00 1.91 1.14 1.94 FALSE FALSE 210 10.50 3.35 163 90 84 66 151 10.77 1.89 1.00 11.51 1.40 1.40 0.90 7.72 0.10 5.23 1.00 1.Table A.62 0.09 1.96 1.34 1.80 8.35 1.00 8.78 0.33 1.36 1.00 17.94 1.46 1.04 1.00 1.86 FALSE FALSE 154 10.31 1.77 0.86 FALSE FALSE 169 10.00 1.18 220 15.27 1.37 148 60 100 2.18 210 17.84 FALSE FALSE 220 12.56 0.10 21.81 0.07 0.00 1.14 FALSE FALSE 220 13.35 FALSE 1.18 FALSE 1.00 1.09 1.94 2.73 0.78 0.81 2.97 1.46 0.36 0.82 1.40 1.62 1.72 1.57 1.48 1.67 0.67 0.00 16. 42 0.33 1.99 1.86 1.00 20.54 0.33 FALSE 1.00 1.97 1.00 1.14 1.49 1.24 1.3 The Compressive.15 1.00 16.23 1.68 1.03 FALSE FALSE 148 10.77 0.50 4.00 14.19 1.66 1.78 0.00 1.00 1.04 FALSE FALSE Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-2 with Khash Natural Pozzolan 195 7.62 1.62 0.50 1.20 1.79 0.06 1.00 1.34 1.70 181 19.63 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.72 0.25 1.19 1.62 1.27 1.00 13.76 9.89 1.14 11.04 1.31 195 16.17 1.69 1.54 1.66 1.97 FALSE FALSE 195 13.27 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-2 with Khash Natural Pozzolan 225 14.26 1.80 1. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama ElSerhan Villarpando Marathia Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 2 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 3 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 4 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 5 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 6 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.72 1.60 0.49 0.84 FALSE FALSE Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan 195 7.62 0.31 1.30 0.70 15.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days 178 13.50 14.00 12.10 FALSE FALSE Nunome Mix 3 140 7.21 Nunome Mix 2 140 7.00 10.14 1.00 MPa 1.32 0.00 1.50 1.57 1.00 16.04 1.50 24.61 1.78 1.40 0.00 20.90 1.79 1.50 17.19 FALSE 1.21 0.02 0.72 1.80 FALSE FALSE 170 16.33 190 18.24 1.00 FALSE 195 14.46 0.52 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 195 6.97 1.40 1.85 4.50 11.00 1.00 19.30 FALSE 1.14 1.50 1.Table A.92 FALSE FALSE 195 9.57 1.70 1.68 0.84 2.04 FALSE FALSE Nunome Mix 1 140 12.20 1.21 1.05 FALSE FALSE 163 .36 90 70 8.47 FALSE FALSE Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan 225 13.19 1.92 1.86 FALSE FALSE 184 17.94 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.92 0.04 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 1.63 0.02 FALSE FALSE Nunome 120 7.50 1.04 FALSE Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-3 with Khash Natural Pozzolan 225 8.30 14. 50 24.00 2.55 20.22 1.23 1.08 FALSE FALSE 195 7.14 0.17 1.3 The Compressive.13 FALSE FALSE 1.31 2.62 1.Table A.18 FALSE 1.00 8.72 0.35 2.80 15.07 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.00 14.62 0.91 2.53 15.00 1.80 15.00 1.00 1.40 16.00 1.00 8.42 1.75 1.80 0.70 22.58 FALSE FALSE 172 18.47 0.77 1.04 FALSE FALSE 350 12.72 1.23 1.76 12.04 1.90 21.1 El Esparragal Mix.23 1.30 1.10 1.17 1.28 1.29 1.00 1.12 1.59 1.19 FALSE FALSE Mean 1.00 1.64 2.88 1.27 35.08 1.58 12.51 1.02 1.25 1.00 6.34 2.20 24.04 1.69 1.23 1.82 10.40 18.2 120 17.18 1.49 1.18 Cenza Beni Haroun Mujib El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.92 1.00 1.46 1.54 0.04 17.57 1.25 1.32 1.88 FALSE FALSE 19.92 1.51 1.85 2.72 1.88 1.19 225 14.15 2.76 1.16 1.23 185 18. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dam Mixes (continued) Dam Name Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozzolan.97 FALSE FALSE 195 6.81 1.24 2.21 1.00 26.35 18.64 0.01 1.99 2.74 1.66 0.28 1.37 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.22 1.98 1.94 FALSE 368 13.78 0.92 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.66 1.19 17.28 164 1.10 28.10 18.50 13.11 1.19 FALSE 1.89 1.10 14.96 2.64 1.10 FALSE FALSE 0.23 1.90 11.68 1.06 1.99 1.50 17.45 1.59 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Tomisato No.73 1.34 1.00 MPa 1.86 1.07 1.06 1.65 0.64 1.19 26.70 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.2 El Esparragal Mix.43 FALSE FALSE Tomisato No.06 1.33 1.00 17.20 28.41 1.90 17.30 0.44 17.77 1.70 9.19 1.47 1.78 2.30 MPa Splitting Splitting Direct Direct Target Target tensile tensile tensile tensile Direct Direct strength strength strength strength Tensile Tensile (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for (MPa) for Strength Strength 28 days 90 days 28 days 90 days for 28 for 90 days days Nunome Mix 4 140 14.49 1.04 1.00 13.25 1.53 1.84 1.70 1.18 192 192 14.46 29.68 .00 10.54 1.83 1.08 2.04 FALSE FALSE Urayama Hiyoshi 130 120 31.40 29.00 21.42 2.97 1.79 1.39 0.3 Porce II Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.1 120 23.40 1.37 1.95 FALSE FALSE 331 11.82 1.00 27.40 FALSE FALSE 1.01 1.65 2.81 1.18 1.57 1.65 0.46 1.57 1.94 1.90 29.49 1.72 1.17 1.00 14.62 0.46 31.00 1.25 225 31.02 1.57 1.21 1. (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days kg/m3) 7.20 225 9.06 1.62 1.78 0.77 1.40 1.79 1.30 1.10 2.40 1.80 1.70 11.89 1.60 13.86 1.33 1.19 24.29 1.00 16.90 22.30 18.20 19.23 1.75 1.25 2.40 32.22 1.49 1.70 1.83 1.90 25.27 1.3 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Zhaolaihe Zhaolaihe Wenquanbao Wenquanbao Puding Bailianya Badovli Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 200 225 85 225 19.89 1.67 1.14 0.52 FALSE FALSE 210 229 195 173 188 180 160 125 150 175 200 100 120 140 160 13.81 1.52 0.2 Olivenhain Mix.1 Olivenhain Mix.14 0.81 2.00 1.20 FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE 1.30 FALSE 195 10.00 24.93 220 195 16.30 1. 68 230 13.10 0.90 21.2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 0.00 0.65 0.67 220 15.63 0.90 19.11 0.00 0.70 240 15.67 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Naras Mix 2 192 192 150 14.11 0.6 Nordlingaalda Mix.65 0.11 0.63 0.10 0.10 0.14 Sa Stria Mix.63 0.00 17.69 200 15.09 0.90 0.00 0.11 0.50 17.kg/m3) Direct tensile Direct tensile Splitting tensile Splitting tensile strength / strength / strength / strength / Splitting Splitting Compresssive Compresssive tensile tensile strength ratio strength ratio strength ratio strength ratio for 28 days for 90 days for 28 days for 90 days 233 12.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.5 Sa Stria Mix.00 21.13 0.67 165 .12 0.50 19.10 0.50 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.70 240 15.11 0.20 0.65 0.10 0.50 0.10 19.70 212 223 12.12 0.18 El Esparragal Mix.11 0.80 18.70 200 11.14 Three Gorges Mix.64 0.90 20.10 0.12 0.30 0.12 0.30 15.00 0.09 0.68 104 12.11 0.13 0.40 21.09 0.40 0.65 0.69 225 14.65 0. Splitting Tensile and Direct Tensile Strength Values of RCC Dams Trial Mixes Dam Name Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 0.69 220 11.61 0.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.68 Mean 0.00 13.13 0.68 0.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.09 0.69 Nunome Mix 1 140 12.20 0.50 0.12 0.62 0.65 0.35 18.12 0.20 21.10 0.00 0.10 0.62 0.60 17.10 0.12 0.69 220 12.68 220 13.11 0.68 0.2 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage IB Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Cementitious Compressive Compressive content strength strength (Cement+Pozz (MPa) for 28 (MPa) for 90 days days olan.64 0.10 0.63 0.00 22.50 0.09 0.11 0.00 21.10 18.00 0.64 0.12 0.68 200 14.12 0.64 0.00 20.70 127 12.09 0.4 The Correlations Between Compressive.90 0.40 18.10 0.65 0.69 0.50 20.00 17.12 0.00 20.42 0.65 0.Table A.63 0.70 105 15.10 0.30 14.10 0.12 0. 36 14.29 10.25 12.31 9.00 15.5 Sa Stria Mix.2 Three Gorges Mix.01 1.94 1.10 1.65 1.45 11.00 0.97 1.29 220 60 160 0.54 0.00 16.18 7.19 2.45 0.88 Willow Creek Mix 1 104 104 0 0.00 MPa 1.72 200 75 125 0.60 9.6 Nordlingaal da Mix.00 1.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.18 2.69 12.32 240 96 144 0.73 0.96 1.34 0.46 1.09 1.14 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.06 1.68 1.34 200 120 80 0.99 1.31 5.09 150 150 0 0.70 1.29 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.50 0.00 11.21 12.08 1.05 1.45 127 51 76 0.31 8.63 1.11 10.30 13.37 15.35 Mean 1.09 1.60 0.59 1.90 1.84 192 96 96 0.60 0.70 9.70 1.43 200 100 100 0.25 8.22 16.46 2.90 1.37 10.59 220 132 88 0.39 11.27 2.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.00 0.26 10.23 10.67 2.80 220 70.39 1.54 1.35 14.18 2.30 MPa Cost of Target Cost of Total Cost Target Direct Pozzolan Direct 3 Cement Tensile 3 (TL*(kg/m ) Tensile (TL*(kg/m ) Strength for (TL*(kg/m3)) ) Strength for ) 90 days 28 days Upper Stillwater Mix 3 233 108 125 0.4 149.27 6.18 El Esparragal Mix.24 11.00 1.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.98 1.09 1.02 1.03 2.49 15.62 12.62 17.35 0.Table A.84 225 79 146 0.99 1.61 2.40 1.26 192 115 77 0.11 13.32 10.28 6.43 12.00 11.02 1.20 140 140 0 0.92 1.97 1.54 2.77 2.40 1.22 11.08 230 85 145 0.49 223 92 131 0.24 220 66 154 0.00 1.2 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Nunome Mix 1 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Naras Mix 2 166 .40 1.21 15.04 1.63 1.kg/m3) Pozzolan / Fly ash (kg/m3) Cementitious content Ratio 1.40 0.36 13.56 1.24 105 105 0 0.65 0.06 1.47 11.6 0.53 10.50 1.26 0.31 8.90 212 75 137 0.09 1.16 Sa Stria Mix.88 240 144 96 0.31 7.5 The Cost Analysis for RCC Mix Design Cementitious content Dam Name (Cement+Pozz Cement (kg/m3) olan. 30 7.90 232 104 151 267 66 167 .00 5.70 24.10 11.70 4.20 27.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 104 133 178 74 301 299 233 252 252 4.70 7.40 21.60 17.90 15. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams Dam Name Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Zintel Canyon Mix 1 Zintel Canyon Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Willow Creek Mix 1 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.20 8.30 14.80 18.40 14.80 8.30 23.1 Compressive Strength vs.APPENDIX B B. TABLES OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF RCC DAMS Table B.00 12.60 29.80 12.40 11.00 9.40 14.70 24.50 17.80 23.50 30.20 14. 76 200 220 240 Miel I Mix.60 15.1 Dona Francisca Mix.3 100 140 200 180 160 80 70 8.90 4.00 21.00 7.20 23.50 17.40 21. 2 Three Gorges Mix.60 36.80 8.Table B.31 7.4 Dona Francisca Mix.80 4.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.00 13.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 180 11.10 14.80 8.10 16.70 7.00 15.3 Miel I Mix.40 13.2 Miel I Mix.24 12.40 7.60 11. 1 Capanda Mix.50 8.10 8.41 Lajeado Mix No.00 9.80 .50 27.00 4.70 24.1 Three Gorges Mix.14 Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.1 Compressive Strength vs.00 14.2 Lajeado Mix No.50 9.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.1 Miel I Mix.4 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 150 125 100 85 178 7. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.4 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Capanda Mix.60 32.20 14.60 163 198 178 85 90 168 10. 10 5.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 212 223 80 12.00 22.40 6.60 16.20 15.80 20.30 14.00 15.10 9.34 184 17.60 9.10 2.00 21.40 9.40 27.20 26.00 45.40 34.50 3.40 8.2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.00 11.34 178 13.1 Nordlingaalda Mix. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Sa Stria Mix.50 31.00 8.50 27.40 25.24 169 .00 22.50 105 133 213 191 160 205 171 163 90 84 66 151 187 148 60 100 152 154 169 7.80 10.34 10.30 42.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.34 10.5 Sa Stria Mix.40 7.50 57.90 18.6 Nordlingaalda Mix.10 19.1 Compressive Strength vs.spillway Stagecoach Urugua-i Cana Brava New Big Cherry Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.79 148 10.80 8.3 Nordlingaalda Mix.90 21.4 Longtan Trial Mix 1 Longtan Trial Mix 3 Longshou Mix 1 Longshou Mix 2 Camp Dyer Concepcion Elk Creek Middle Fork Santa Cruz Stacy .Table B.40 15.40 10. 1 Compressive Strength vs.00 7.00 10.00 13.00 19.50 4.85 4.Table B.00 16.70 195 195 195 195 195 190 8.50 9.00 14.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 170 181 90 70 16.14 19.00 20.00 20.00 12.00 8.50 24.00 16.00 7.40 11.99 6.50 13.00 13.50 225 225 225 195 195 170 .50 11.00 14. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Tannur Mix 2 Sama El-Serhan Villarpando Marathia Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 2 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 3 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 4 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 5 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 6 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-2 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-3 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-2 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.80 9.00 16.00 14.50 18. 86 14.3 Porce II Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.17 14.00 7.2 Olivenhain Mix.00 17.00 27.00 16.50 15.82 12.70 7.00 29.1 Tomisato No.3 Son La Stage II Mix 2 with Reduced Carbon Flyash Son La Stage II Mix 3 with Reduced Carbon Flyash Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.00 18.00 24.42 31.82 10.1 Compressive Strength vs. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Nunome Nunome Mix 1 Nunome Mix 2 Nunome Mix 3 Nunome Mix 4 Urayama Hiyoshi Tomisato No.50 12.40 16.41 12.19 17.30 225 225 225 220 195 195 195 195 19.06 9.50 7.30 7.27 10.1 Olivenhain Mix.20 14.35 18.00 6.2 Cenza Beni Haroun Mujib El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.1 El Esparragal Mix.00 17.00 200 200 171 .00 8.Table B.20 14.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 120 140 140 140 140 130 120 120 120 200 225 85 225 7.76 35.80 15.50 11.2 El Esparragal Mix.47 9.93 16.40 14.64 19.00 23.44 17.00 8.00 31.58 6. 00 210 12.00 33.Table B.50 8.70 13.00 210 220 220 9.50 25.1 Compressive Strength vs.00 220 220 220 172 12.00 23.50 10.00 13.00 26.00 21.00 210 17.50 19.00 14.00 11. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Son La Stage I Mix 0 Son La Stage I Mix 1 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage I Mix 3 Son La Stage I Mix 4 Son La Stage I Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 6 Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.00 21.00 12.00 12.50 19.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 225 230 230 230 230 230 7.00 15.00 17.00 16.00 27.00 18.50 20.00 32.00 .00 14.00 210 210 210 10.00 14. 00 14.00 15.19 26.00 18.00 13.00 21.40 18.00 18.90 17.54 .00 13.04 17.kg/ strength (MPa) strength (MPa) for 28 days for 90 days m3) 220 11.1 Compressive Strength vs.46 31.00 16.10 14.00 17. Cementitious Content for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Zhaolaihe Mix 1 Zhaolaihe Mix 2 Wenquanbao Mix 1 Wenquanbao Mix 2 Puding Bailianya Badovli Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 Cementitious content Compressive Compressive (Cement+Pozzolan.20 19.90 11.80 15.50 21.00 16.50 29.20 24.90 17.20 28.00 13.46 21.30 18.60 13.70 11.Table B.00 14.53 15.90 22.40 32.00 20.55 20.19 24.10 28.00 16.50 13.30 29.00 220 220 220 220 331 350 368 192 192 185 172 210 229 195 173 188 180 160 125 150 175 200 100 120 140 160 173 11.90 13.10 18.70 9.00 12.90 24.00 11.70 22.00 10.00 26.00 17.70 25. 08 0.04 0.50 0.18 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.3 Sa Stria Mix.07 0.11 0.90 21.80 11.11 0.06 301 17.10 174 Str.10 14.09 0.80 0.50 8.11 0.31 7.08 0.06 0.06 0.4 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Lajeado Mix No.80 7.40 13.00 7.70 24.06 299 23.08 0.12 0.76 178 7.09 0.11 0.60 4.80 12.60 19.20 14.05 0.07 0.60 27.24 100 140 200 180 160 80 70 198 178 85 90 212 223 8.50 17.40 21.06 232 104 151 267 66 180 200 220 240 8.07 0.10 0.08 0.6 Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str.00 0.18 0.07 0.kg/m3) 104 4.50 8.05 252 15.20 23.00 150 125 100 85 163 0.80 8.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.11 0.10 0.80 14.09 0.13 0.00 7.70 9. Efficiency content strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.90 0.06 0.06 0.04 178 11.70 0.20 0.14 0.04 0.18 0.00 21.70 24.00 14.11 0.06 252 14.00 13.07 11.40 0.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 0.50 9.09 0.10 14.00 0.50 0.20 14.30 30. 2 Three Gorges Mix.80 36.40 12.10 16.30 27.90 8.2 Miel I Mix.60 29.12 4.08 0.40 7.1 Miel I Mix.1 Three Gorges Mix.03 0.12 0.2 Lajeado Mix No.70 4.05 12.40 0.80 18. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams Dam Name Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Zintel Canyon Mix 1 Zintel Canyon Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Willow Creek Mix 1 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 15.5 Sa Stria Mix.12 0.4 Dona Francisca Mix.04 133 5.60 17.18 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.08 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 10.30 7. 1 Capanda Mix.10 0.60 23.40 21.10 8.41 0.30 14.4 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Capanda Mix.09 0.06 0.70 24.00 15.Table B.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.90 11.13 0.20 32.3 Miel I Mix.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.04 0.05 0.08 233 12.10 .06 74 4.14 Miel I Mix.10 0.1 Dona Francisca Mix.00 9.40 0.18 0. 80 0.06 0.06 220 14.40 0.10 0.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.17 213 45.50 18.14 160 16.11 220 11.60 29.10 200 9.07 220 5.21 191 27.50 0.40 21.4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.06 0.Table B.50 57.17 0.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.20 0. Efficiency content strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.30 12.70 24.30 15.2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 17.10 301 17.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.80 10.08 9.08 0.07 180 6.08 252 14.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.06 233 12.00 0.08 200 7.90 0.40 14.80 34.08 0.50 0.06 200 14.40 0.10 0.80 0.70 24.05 0.10 21.07 0.11 200 11.07 0.4 Longtan Trial Mix 1 Longtan Trial Mix 3 Longshou Mix 1 Longshou Mix 2 Camp Dyer Middle Fork Stacy Spillway Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.70 24.05 0.10 0.00 180 175 .9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.3 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.50 0.17 0.70 0.00 0.13 187 18.11 0.90 19.14 133 22.03 0.08 220 7. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.20 15.8 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.40 0.80 11.10 0.40 0.50 0.00 12.16 0.40 0.kg/m3) 80 9.04 8.12 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Nordlingaalda Mix.05 232 Str.40 21.40 26.10 15.06 252 15.11 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.7 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.13 Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str.04 0.00 0.40 0.60 0.04 0.07 180 9.3 Nordlingaalda Mix.00 0.27 0.12 105 15.00 0.10 8.06 14.00 22.21 0.80 27.10 220 8.80 180 11.60 13.12 163 10.06 299 23.20 21.17 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.13 171 20.04 0.60 0.05 0.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.05 0.10 205 25.1 Nordlingaalda Mix.06 66 8.22 0.04 0.00 0.30 42.40 0.23 0.50 31.19 0.80 0.20 0. 15 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 13.04 0.12 0.17 New Big Cherry Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama El-Serhan Marathia Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Low-Lime Flyash Lajeado Mix No.13 0.16 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.4 Three Gorges Mix.12 0.04 0.00 0.80 27.40 10.30 23.05 16.09 16.5 Lajeado Mix No.00 15.70 0.03 0.13 0.07 0.00 22.50 0.Table B.08 0.60 23.14 6.08 0.24 19.90 24.60 0.34 10.05 0.70 0.12 0.34 17.00 14.14 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.40 0.00 27.08 240 8.3 Three Gorges Mix.2 Lajeado Mix No.50 0.50 17.00 0.09 0. Efficiency content strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.40 4.10 14.06 15.7 Nunome Urayama Hiyoshi Tomisato No.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.50 0.12 0. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 18.00 31.00 21.18 0.50 7.00 23.09 240 11.06 0.05 0.10 0.18 0.99 11.00 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.23 0.4 Lajeado Mix No.12 0.05 0.00 18.3 Lajeado Mix No.80 28.20 11.50 10.08 0.70 13.06 0.11 0.19 0.5 Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str.00 16.10 4.80 9.14 0.08 0.50 0.16 0.09 0.12 176 36.00 9.1 Lajeado Mix No.00 19.2 Three Gorges Mix.50 19.60 23.08 13.90 19.60 21.07 8.00 7.09 240 17.07 0.16 .24 0.16 0.08 152 148 184 170 181 60 195 225 195 220 70 100 120 140 160 180 180 120 130 120 120 200 200 200 180 160 198 196 193 178 176 8.20 24.09 0.06 0.kg/m3) Str.40 32.00 11.1 Three Gorges Mix.00 6.18 0.10 0.20 31.12 0.6 Lajeado Mix No.14 0.50 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 240 15.80 29.00 33.1 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 2 Pedrógão Mix 3 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Three Gorges Mix.07 0. 11 0.03 Badovli 160 9.50 19.11 Three Gorges Mix.09 0.00 25.08 177 Str.11 0.00 0.00 14.23 0.07 Mujib 85 6.09 Son La Stage I Mix 5 230 27.2 85 4.06 El Esparragal Mix.00 0.04 Olivenhain Mix.05 El Esparragal Mix.05 Dona Francisca Mix.06 Son La Stage I Mix 0 225 7.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.90 0.21 0. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str.20 0.00 0.05 Dona Francisca Mix.10 Dona Francisca Mix.12 Three Gorges Mix.90 20.08 0.00 33.47 0.18 Three Gorges Mix.50 0.50 0.11 0. Efficiency content Dam Name strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.14 Olivenhain 195 8.16 0.14 0.3 90 4.00 0.10 .3 225 31.00 0.08 0.00 0.90 22.60 0.14 142 21.10 8.00 32.07 Son La Stage I Mix 4 230 21.70 0.40 17.1 85 4.58 12.1 225 9.5 100 5.80 9.16 Three Gorges Mix.09 0.50 0.30 0.05 Olivenhain Mix.00 14.44 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.70 7.9 158 10.19 17.00 0.00 24.05 Dona Francisca Mix.64 0.06 Dona Francisca Mix.06 0.6 174 15.82 8.10 28.76 12.09 0.12 Son La Stage II Mix 1 200 9.86 0.50 25.80 8.10 18.21 0.00 0.8 94 4.17 0.80 20.05 Dona Francisca Mix.60 0.70 23.27 15.13 144 24.30 0.kg/m3) Three Gorges Mix.08 0.10 160 29.08 0.50 0.9 94 5.Table B.00 0.13 0.14 Three Gorges Mix.06 0.10 0.04 El Esparragal Mix.8 160 12.00 0.18 127 12.05 Dona Francisca Mix.1 195 10.18 0.17 Three Gorges Mix.7 94 4.00 16.15 0.41 0.4 90 4.16 0.35 18.06 Three Gorges Mix.93 35.20 33.07 0.15 Three Gorges Mix.17 130 15.2 195 7.10 0.05 Dona Francisca Mix.08 0.05 Beni Haroun 225 16.09 0.03 Son La Stage I Mix 1 230 8.08 0.08 El Esparragal 225 10.21 0.00 0.3 195 6.16 131 22.10 37.50 8.00 0.50 0.00 0.12 155 21.7 162 19.00 0.16 0.6 90 4.90 0.80 0.00 0.80 0.06 0.14 0.04 Olivenhain Mix.50 11.90 30.15 140 15.40 8. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.50 28.40 0.40 7.08 0.00 0.09 0.10 100 5.50 20.10 0.00 11.11 158 25.10 0.05 Dona Francisca Mix.06 Son La Stage II Mix 3 200 15.06 Son La Stage I Mix 3 230 16.23 0.09 0.40 24.04 Son La Stage I Mix 2 230 13.42 0.82 0.50 33.05 Son La Stage II Mix 2 200 11.10 0.00 20.06 Dona Francisca Mix.08 Three Gorges Mix.12 0.40 0.17 Three Gorges Mix.09 Three Gorges Mix.12 Three Gorges Mix.17 0.07 0.00 14.40 7.2 225 14.00 8. 00 0.06 210 17.05 220 14.08 0.00 0.10 148 2.00 220 9. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 6 Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 Camp Dyer Concepcion Elk Creek Middle Fork Santa Cruz Stacy .00 26.50 0.00 16.07 0.90 15.00 23.09 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.50 19.07 163 10.00 0.50 10.00 0.10 220 11.00 0.06 220 15.02 60 6.00 0.07 0.12 0.00 15.00 0.07 0.50 7.40 90 8.40 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.40 0.34 184 17.00 14.00 21.79 148 10.40 0.00 9.11 0.70 19.06 84 3.80 11.00 17.60 0.06 187 18.09 0.10 0.00 17.20 9.05 0.10 21.17 0.07 0.08 0.kg/m3) 210 12.10 178 Str.34 178 13.05 220 11.08 0.13 151 8. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.40 8.Table B.00 0.00 0.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.08 0.spillway Stagecoach Urugua-i Cana Brava New Big Cherry Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.06 220 18.00 0.00 13.00 210 10.07 0.05 210 12.10 0.00 0.14 0.85 11.05 210 11.34 169 10.07 152 10.09 0.13 .09 0.08 220 21.08 0.05 220 13.06 220 12.04 220 12.06 0.11 0.10 0.80 0.40 0.04 66 8.00 0.34 154 10.2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama El-Serhan Villarpando Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str. Efficiency content strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.11 100 7.24 170 16.07 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.06 90 5.10 181 9.12 0.07 220 16.06 0. 09 0.00 0.07 0.50 19.10 0.00 9.06 0.10 0.34 184 17.07 0.00 210 10.00 0.05 210 12.40 0.00 17.06 195 6.00 0.50 0. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-A Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 1 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 2 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 3 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 4 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 5 Yeywa Stage I-B Mix 6 Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 Camp Dyer Concepcion Elk Creek Middle Fork Santa Cruz Stacy .10 0.10 179 Str.70 19.07 220 16.00 23.40 0.80 0.79 148 10.00 0.00 12.05 0.06 210 17.08 0.kg/m3) 210 12.06 90 5.09 0.99 0.10 70 4.50 10.00 21.00 0.05 0.10 220 11.13 .00 0.10 148 2.40 0.00 16.00 13.34 178 13.Table B. Efficiency content strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.50 24.00 0.50 0.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.08 190 18.09 0.10 0.60 0.13 151 8.06 220 15.2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama El-Serhan Villarpando Marathia Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 2 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 3 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 4 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 5 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 6 Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str.00 0.06 0.14 4.50 11.07 0.spillway Stagecoach Urugua-i Cana Brava New Big Cherry Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.07 0.00 20.06 187 18.06 0.14 0.06 220 18.05 210 11.04 66 8.07 195 14.11 0.07 0.08 0.00 20.05 220 13.50 0.24 170 16.50 7.09 0.20 9.06 84 3.11 0.10 181 9.06 0.00 220 9.90 15.00 20.00 0.34 154 10.07 163 10.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 195 13.40 8.00 14.08 0.05 220 11.40 0.00 0.07 195 16.10 0.00 15.12 0.00 0.07 0.34 169 10.05 220 14. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.50 0.06 0.00 0.85 11.08 0.13 0.80 11.08 220 21.08 0.00 26.00 0.12 0.40 90 8.10 21.07 152 10.10 0.07 0.06 220 12.02 60 6.03 195 9.00 17.00 0.08 0.00 0.11 100 7.11 0.00 16.04 220 12.00 0. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str.2 225 14. Efficiency content Dam Name strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.82 8.80 0.00 24.kg/m3) Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 225 with Khash Natural 0.35 18.00 Hiyoshi 120 27.00 19.64 0.04 Pozzolan 7.50 Nunome 120 7.42 0.20 0.05 Nunome Mix 4 140 7.20 0.2 120 17.70 15.00 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.08 0.17 0.04 El Esparragal Mix.00 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-3 225 with Khash Natural 0.10 0.1 225 9.16 0.00 0.30 14.47 0.06 El Esparragal Mix.93 35.19 17.11 0.00 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-2 225 with Khash Natural 0.13 0.04 Pozzolan 8.11 0.50 0.06 Pozzolan 13.14 0.40 29.40 17.10 Beni Haroun 225 16.30 14.08 0.00 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-1 195 with Khash Natural 0.05 Urayama 130 31.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.12 0.07 0.15 0.3 225 31.08 0.06 Nunome Mix 3 140 7.04 0.10 0.07 Mujib 85 6.09 .00 19.06 Pozzolan 14.04 Pozzolan 7.19 0.00 Cenza 200 19.10 0.08 0.00 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 2-2 195 with Khash Natural 0.00 Tomisato No.00 13.08 El Esparragal 225 10.00 16.00 10.1 120 23.14 Porce II 220 16.00 14.09 Nunome Mix 2 140 7.00 Tomisato No.23 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.07 0.50 14.24 0.50 17.05 El Esparragal Mix.Table B.07 180 Str.06 Nunome Mix 1 140 12. kg/m3) 195 8.30 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.17 0.80 13.12 120 15.03 350 12.13 173 17.2 Olivenhain Mix.06 0.Table B.07 192 13.3 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Zhaolaihe Zhaolaihe Wenquanbao Wenquanbao Puding Bailianya Badovli Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 Cementitious Compressive Compressive Str. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.53 13.00 26. Cementitious Content of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.10 17.70 0.16 0.00 17.82 0.11 160 9.09 150 15.46 0.12 180 19.15 0.40 0.30 18.70 21.11 0.11 0.00 0.17 181 Str.41 0.90 0.55 17.06 0.04 192 14.70 28.14 0.10 200 21.20 0.00 0.06 229 14.90 0.00 18.06 125 10.06 0.13 0.05 195 7.17 0.00 22.04 195 10.04 0.10 0.07 0.20 0.14 0.90 0.12 0.08 0.10 172 18.00 14.60 0.54 0.04 0.13 0.10 175 18. Efficiency content strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (MPa/kg) 28 (Cement+Pozz for 28 days for 90 days days olan.58 12.05 0.14 0.00 16.12 0.06 195 24.11 100 11.76 12.90 28.00 14.04 195 6.07 185 18.10 29.27 15.40 0.50 24.50 29.14 160 26.70 0.03 331 11.19 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.1 Olivenhain Mix.13 140 20.00 11.10 0.10 188 22.2 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.20 32.20 .19 24.05 0.15 0.86 0.90 25.03 368 13.50 0.11 210 13.46 31. 70 24.36 301 299 233 252 104 151 267 66 180 200 220 240 89 0.70 4.30 23.3 Compressive Strength vs.40 12.70 154 0.76 7.10 11.34 17.52 114 0.00 21.60 17.37 110 1.33 99 0. W/C Ratio of RCC Dams Dam Name Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Zintel Canyon Mix 1 Zintel Canyon Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Willow Creek Mix 1 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 14.85 178 101 0.30 14.90 15.31 7.62 117 7.00 5.41 .50 30.42 94 0.80 8.60 29.70 184 103 0.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.40 21.80 23.00 14.24 4.40 21.73 109 0.24 12.00 12.60 15.20 27.50 0.41 107 1.30 7.90 11.57 74 101 1.65 116 0.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.20 14.06 110 0.40 11.80 18.91 178 4.87 182 10.56 163 149 0.48 148 103 0.14 Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Cementitious content (Cement+Pozzolan.09 0.Table B.30 100 0.00 9.20 14.50 17.70 24.58 115 0.kg/ Water content (kg/m3) 3) m Compressive Compressive Water/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (w/c) Ratio for 28 days for 90 days 104 133 113 113 1.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No. 28 1.00 22.1 Dona Francisca Mix.4 140 140 Lajeado Mix No.40 17.3 Nordlingaalda Mix.80 4.50 7.00 16.40 7.10 8.90 19.40 7. 2 Dona Francisca Mix.67 15.3 120 146 Lajeado Mix No.44 1. 2 Capanda Mix.4 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Cementitious content (Cement+Pozzolan.00 9.60 8. 5 Urugua-i Lajeado Mix No.00 16.76 12.00 183 6.50 15.00 15.00 16.1 Nordlingaalda Mix.kg/ Water content (kg/m3) m3) 200 180 160 80 70 85 85 195 195 195 195 120 130 120 102 102 140 0.80 .58 12.64 0.80 9.40 11.27 8.63 132 136 133 135 213 138 368 1.80 15.Table B.45 1.1 Olivenhain Mix.3 Compressive Strength vs.24 0.80 8.60 8.40 1.10 1.3 Nordlingaalda Mix. 1 Capanda Mix.00 9.00 14. 1 Capanda Mix.00 24.65 86 0.70 14.00 22.30 1.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.5 160 160 Compressive Compressive Water/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (w/c) Ratio for 28 days for 90 days 0.00 8.10 10.2 Olivenhain Mix.02 0.82 7.50 57.00 7.00 12.00 45.25 87 Beni Haroun Capanda Mix.40 6.70 7.72 0.65 124 118 134 331 0.59 123 105 350 1.2 100 140 Lajeado Mix No.61 0.00 1.86 10.26 87 0.50 31.00 5.00 8.60 8.2 Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix. W/C Ratio of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Capanda Mix.28 1.68 1.46 1.1 225 80 70 80 70 75 60 70 101 102 102 115 120 120 100 135 Lajeado Mix No.41 6.60 1.68 1.40 8. 3 Capanda Mix.46 135 80 0.20 15.60 0.93 1.60 10.00 13.80 6.50 11.06 9.00 14.00 13.90 4. 4 Capanda Mix.75 1.00 10.22 1.71 1. 10 28.17 Three Gorges Mix.47 0.00 25.30 42.60 19.55 0.70 25.00 24.50 28.45 0.60 36.40 21.45 0.40 23.40 24.00 12.00 21.55 0.Table B.00 15.55 0.55 0.20 33.50 40.10 15.55 0.15 Three Gorges Mix.90 31.90 18.90 19.06 0.6 180 180 Lajeado Mix No.45 0.50 33.14 Three Gorges Mix.42 80 0.50 28.80 20.42 184 .45 0.00 18.47 24.13 Three Gorges Mix.50 33.00 24.70 23.00 26.90 22.60 32.45 0.4 Three Gorges Mix.10 Three Gorges Mix.2 Three Gorges Mix.00 0.10 18.8 Three Gorges Mix.12 Three Gorges Mix.10 37.45 0.20 22.16 Three Gorges Mix.50 0.18 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Longtan Trial Mix 1 with retarding superplasticizer 198 89 196 88 193 87 178 89 176 88 174 87 162 89 160 88 158 87 160 72 158 71 155 70 144 72 142 71 140 70 131 72 130 71 127 70 185 172 191 87 81 80 Longtan Trial Mix 2 with air entering agent 191 Compressive Compressive Water/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (w/c) Ratio for 28 days for 90 days 1.50 0.3 Compressive Strength vs.50 0.90 30.00 27.80 21.6 Three Gorges Mix.30 27.50 0.30 12.20 29.50 10.1 Three Gorges Mix.90 20.50 0.7 Three Gorges Mix.3 Three Gorges Mix.50 0.00 25.00 15.00 1.30 23.5 Three Gorges Mix.20 23.9 Three Gorges Mix.11 Three Gorges Mix.55 0. W/C Ratio of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Cementitious content (Cement+Pozzolan.kg/ Water content (kg/m3) 3) m Lajeado Mix No.7 180 180 Three Gorges Mix.60 29.60 27. 03 0.72 0.90 19.50 7.50 90 90 195 105 93 140 225 130 1.66 0.58 0.90 7.50 13.3 Compressive Strength vs.50 11.17 1.59 0.50 18.56 0.40 17.9 Sa Stria Mix.63 0.52 0.30 13.7 Sa Stria Mix. W/C Ratio of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Cementitious content (Cement+Pozzolan.50 16.10 21.50 12.60 11.70 80 0.61 0.50 15.2 Sa Stria Mix.50 19.00 9.Table B.40 24.30 12.65 0.70 16.5 Sa Stria Mix.40 10.00 11.60 8.40 20.3 Sa Stria Mix.00 11.72 0.12 Sa Stria Mix.51 185 .10 Sa Stria Mix.54 0.40 18.50 11.85 5.1 Sa Stria Mix.kg/ Water content (kg/m3) m3) Longtan Trial Mix 3 with retarding superplasticizer 160 Longtan Trial Mix 4 with air entering agent Villarpando Concepción Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 2 RCC 1-1 with Khash Natural Pozzolan Badovli Sa Stria Mix.61 0.58 0.90 21.90 17.90 8.00 19.60 6.00 9.70 8.30 14.60 12.30 10.11 Sa Stria Mix.8 Sa Stria Mix.4 Sa Stria Mix.58 160 227 212 215 210 212 223 234 230 230 230 230 230 230 115 139 123 140 124 140 140 142 133 129 124 124 120 117 0.40 26.50 28.00 11.13 160 Compressive Compressive Water/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (w/c) Ratio for 28 days for 90 days 80 0.6 Sa Stria Mix.10 9.54 0. 44 1.42 31.19 17.00 16.79 0.1 El Esparragal Mix.83 0.93 0.40 10.20 14.00 13.10 2.90 11.70 18.63 186 7.50 12.84 0.00 9.00 7.00 5.71 0.45 0.24 0.84 0.40 17.3 Middle Fork Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Stacy .56 1.55 20.60 0.50 7.53 1. W/C Ratio of RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Cementitious content (Cement+Pozzolan.50 0.Table B.spillway Stagecoach Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 200 180 160 225 225 120 130 120 112.70 0.81 0.00 11.25 0.30 14.17 14.60 0.50 0.30 7.19 26.80 15.53 15.80 4.82 0.00 0.79 0.00 15.72 0.50 15.kg/ Water content (kg/m3) m3) Nunome Nunome Mix 1 Nunome Mix 2 Nunome Mix 3 Nunome Mix 4 El Zapotillo Mix 1 120 140 140 140 140 331 95 117 113 111 107 86 El Zapotillo Mix 2 350 87 El Zapotillo Mix 3 368 87 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.47 .75 0.70 7.35 18.2 El Esparragal Mix.00 14.00 21.80 10.00 17.10 18.10 8.09 0.64 17.46 35.85 0.76 0.26 0.00 12.3 Compressive Strength vs.5 101 225 112.20 14.93 8.5 225 126 66 104 133 187 148 125 150 175 200 100 120 140 160 95 113 113 154 138 105 105 105 105 100 100 100 100 Compressive Compressive Water/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) (w/c) Ratio for 28 days for 90 days 0. 10 27.30 23. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams Dam Name Three Gorges Mix.1 Three Gorges Mix.90 19.8 Sa Stria Mix.55 0.3 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.50 11.13 16.20 21.00 195 0.50 18.70 24.50 195 0.20 23.40 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.9 Total Cementitious Compressive Compressive Pozzolan/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) Content Ratio for 28 days for 90 days Content (kg/m3) 198 0.60 220 0.60 220 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.40 0.13 220 0.30 14.50 8.00 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 2 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 3 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 4 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 5 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 6 Sa Stria Mix.00 20.90 31.20 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.30 7.50 8.40 18.00 16.50 190 0.90 12.50 7.40 196 0.60 36.4 Compressive Strength vs.80 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.64 6.9 Sa Stria Mix.50 17.70 7.50 193 0.38 13.26 14.60 0.60 19.80 195 0.10 8.12 220 0.10 15.00 12.35 0.10 Nunome Mix 1 Nunome Mix 2 Nunome Mix 3 Nunome Mix 4 187 .50 15.64 0.00 12.00 195 0.50 195 0.20 14.00 0.Table B.60 7.2 Three Gorges Mix.00 20.20 14.11 220 0.30 10.30 0.90 17.51 9.40 11.70 5.60 12.30 24.00 230 230 230 140 140 140 140 0. 00 220 0.50 8.00 20. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 Son La Stage I Mix 0 Son La Stage I Mix 1 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage I Mix 3 Son La Stage I Mix 4 Son La Stage I Mix 5 Beni Haroun Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Total Cementitious Compressive Compressive Pozzolan/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) Content Ratio for 28 days for 90 days Content (kg/m3) 220 0.Table B.41 230 0.74 230 0.00 7.00 13.00 21.69 301 11.00 4.70 33.63 0.70 13.20 8.70 220 220 225 230 16.69 188 .52 230 0.75 11.00 7.00 21.40 14.69 233 0.80 23.54 232 0.30 225 104 133 0.69 252 0.00 16.00 9.00 16.60 29.51 0.00 299 0.4 Compressive Strength vs.00 14.70 24.40 14.63 230 0.00 17.69 252 0.40 17.50 19.70 24.66 0.80 0.50 25.00 16.00 27.73 220 0.00 5.60 17.90 15.00 12.00 15.50 20.00 24.40 21.49 0.80 0.00 32.68 0. 10 26.99 31.Table B.65 205 171 163 187 152 0.53 0.1 El Esparragal Total Cementitious Compressive Compressive Pozzolan/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) Content Ratio for 28 days for 90 days Content (kg/m3) 151 0.00 27.30 42.90 4.10 11.80 8.47 0.31 267 0.70 7.3 Longtan Trial Mix 1 Longtan Trial Mix 3 Longshou Mix 1 Longshou Mix 2 Camp Dyer Stacy Spillway New Big Cherry Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama El-Serhan Marathia Urayama Hiyoshi Tomisato No.20 27.34 10.75 85 0.5 0.24 15.00 7.40 4.5 200 180 160 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Pedrógão Mix 1 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Dona Francisca Mix.14 10.40 25.72 0.00 23.70 4.10 8.80 9.29 0.31 7.29 163 0.10 18.00 17.47 .34 16.80 12.6 184 0.70 189 14.36 191 0.24 19.30 23.35 90 0.40 27.80 10.60 16.66 0.5 148 0.53 160 0.40 10.40 34.21 0.76 7.55 178 0.3 0.41 4.6 170 181 60 130 120 120 225 0.4 Compressive Strength vs.33 0.60 27.80 8.80 20.40 17.3 0.1 Dona Francisca Mix.30 66 0.90 4.50 21.3 0.65 0.50 30. 00 8.00 14.00 13.52 0.50 17.63 0.65 0.55 0.00 12.00 13.00 16.17 14.90 29.40 32.1 Olivenhain Mix.42 9.40 10.20 19.34 19.90 13.40 16.65 0.70 13.40 7.62 0.37 178 0.90 21.2 Olivenhain Mix.35 3.65 0.5 0.19 17.00 15.6 0.49 0.55 0.00 19.10 28.6 190 9.58 6.00 26.38 169 0.55 200 220 195 195 195 195 331 350 368 192 192 185 172 210 229 195 173 188 180 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name El Esparragal Mix.67 0.2 Elk Creek Santa Cruz Stagecoach Cana Brava Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.70 22.79 29.90 2.50 24.10 14.00 18.20 24.45 0.00 8.4 Compressive Strength vs.50 0.4 0.00 18.41 12.62 0.82 12.80 15.2 0.76 11.70 25.27 10.06 14.00 7.20 18.59 0.Table B.00 9.70 .75 225 0.3 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Zhaolaihe Zhaolaihe Wenquanbao Wenquanbao Puding Bailianya Total Cementitious Compressive Compressive Pozzolan/Cementitious strength (MPa) strength (MPa) Content Ratio for 28 days for 90 days Content (kg/m3) 225 0.40 0.00 17.34 10.62 0.40 18.62 0.30 18.2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Cenza Porce II Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.1 El Esparragal Mix.65 84 151 148 100 154 0.45 0.86 14.30 29. 40 0.10 14.06 0.02 0.30 7.07 0.05 0.60 12.05 0.50 11.08 0.70 0.73 0.00 195 0.10 220 220 0.35 0.8 Sa Stria Mix.03 0.30 20.Table B.20 14.50 195 0.00 195 0.11 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.40 0.20 14.14 0.9 Sa Stria Mix.06 0.06 0.00 16.00 16.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 0.10 Nunome Mix 2 Nunome Mix 3 Nunome Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 1 Yeywa Stage II Mix 2 Yeywa Stage II Mix 3 Yeywa Stage II Mix 4 Yeywa Stage II Mix 5 Total Cementitious Pozzolan/Cementit Str.64 0.50 12.13 0.00 220 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 198 0.38 0.50 0.10 0.12 0.00 16.90 17.5 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.05 0.03 0.40 220 Compressive Compressive strength strength (MPa) (MPa) for 28 for 90 days days 27.05 11.50 0.00 17.06 6.2 Three Gorges Mix.10 16.55 0.30 0.07 0.80 195 0.10 8.75 0.11 0.16 193 0.50 195 0.04 0.10 11.26 0.64 0.40 0.00 12.10 15.04 5.07 220 0.50 15.60 0.08 13.50 18.90 31.08 0.30 23.00 21.60 0.1 Three Gorges Mix.11 230 230 230 140 140 140 0.08 0.05 0.06 9.07 0.60 19.51 0.07 7.68 0.00 20.00 .05 0.60 0.00 13.00 20.20 21.66 191 11.08 0.18 196 0.30 10.30 0.06 0.00 8.00 15.07 0.07 220 0.20 23. Efficiency Content ious Content Ratio (MPa/kg) 28 days (kg/m3) Str.08 8.00 220 0.40 220 0.90 7.09 0.90 19.12 220 0.11 14.20 0.12 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.3 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 36.80 220 0.04 0.05 0.60 0.70 24.70 7.13 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 1 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 2 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 3 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 4 Jahgin Stage 1 Mix 5 Sa Stria Mix.70 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams Dam Name Three Gorges Mix. 10 11.00 4.69 0.07 9.04 0.00 16.06 0.70 13.2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.40 21.06 0.31 0.04 0.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.05 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.60 0.70 192 .00 21.Table B.12 66 0.00 5.80 23.06 Compressive Compressive strength strength (MPa) (MPa) for 28 for 90 days days 9.00 27.60 13.30 0.06 0.50 19.04 0.90 8.75 0.52 0.00 14.08 232 0.06 0.14 104 133 0.20 15.5 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.09 230 0.69 0.40 0.07 9.05 0.30 23.50 30.49 0.09 0.50 0.00 14.00 14.35 18.08 299 0.04 0.06 0.65 0.06 0.60 29.90 151 0.00 12.14 230 0.08 233 0.80 0.41 0.54 0.08 0.30 0.70 33.07 301 0.2 Son La Stage I Mix 0 Son La Stage I Mix 1 Son La Stage I Mix 2 Son La Stage I Mix 3 Son La Stage I Mix 4 Son La Stage I Mix 5 Galesville Mix 1 Galesville Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 1 Upper Stillwater Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Willow Creek Mix 4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.50 8.00 7. Efficiency Content ious Content Ratio (MPa/kg) 28 days (kg/m3) 225 225 225 230 0.80 14.74 Str.05 0.19 17.80 8.00 9.70 24.1 El Esparragal Mix.06 0.07 0.3 Total Cementitious Pozzolan/Cementit Str.60 17.29 0.50 25.09 0.08 11.42 7.63 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 0.12 0.10 252 0.11 230 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name El Esparragal Mix.50 20.04 0.00 32.40 17.09 230 0.10 180 0.17 14.70 24.69 0.03 0.51 0.20 27.40 12.07 0.18 267 0.40 14.10 252 0.18 180 0.69 0.69 0.08 0.00 180 0. 60 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days Compressive Compressive strength strength (MPa) (MPa) for 28 for 90 days days 180 0.60 18.21 0.55 0.50 200 0.09 17.05 0.05 0.24 4.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 9.70 7.09 85 0.11 14.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.36 0.04 0.00 200 0.16 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.90 4.50 200 0.Table B.99 4.07 0.76 7.09 15.36 0.00 22.50 240 0.40 8.08 11.06 7.00 178 0.04 0.10 90 0.03 0.06 6.40 0.07 0.30 15.70 0.06 0.05 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.14 4.04 0.17 Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Marathia Ano Mera Dona Francisca Mix.15 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.60 240 0.7 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.05 4.08 9.14 4.2 Dona Francisca Mix.60 4.8 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.31 7.06 0.07 85 0.00 21.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.70 0.40 163 0.05 8.80 4.60 0.35 0.40 0.80 8.05 0.10 11.10 90 0.41 4.3 Dona Francisca Mix.10 193 .21 0.06 0.05 0.70 240 0.20 200 0.30 12. Efficiency Content ious Content Ratio (MPa/kg) 28 days (kg/m3) Str.06 0.20 11.1 Dona Francisca Mix.99 12.35 0.40 21.06 0.40 240 0.70 0.4 Total Cementitious Pozzolan/Cementit Str.5 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.07 0.03 0.80 10.14 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.90 19.4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.07 70 70 0. 00 23.03 0.Table B.00 27.10 191 0.34 16.3 Longtan Trial Mix 1 Longtan Trial Mix 3 Longshou Mix 1 Longshou Mix 2 194 Compressive Compressive strength strength (MPa) (MPa) for 28 for 90 days days 5.50 8.00 0.29 0.10 0.05 178 0.80 34.19 Pedrógão Mix 4 Pedrógão Mix 5 Dona Francisca Mix.3 0.35 0.30 4.1 60 130 120 120 0.53 0.13 0.5 0.76 7.70 7.11 163 0.50 21.04 160 0.40 10.09 100 0.17 171 0.30 42.06 0.1 Dona Francisca Mix.09 90 0.3 0.10 18.80 8.04 200 0.11 90 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.60 16.06 0.00 .12 181 0.35 0.10 0.05 0.00 5.7 Dona Francisca Mix.11 0.80 4.34 0.50 11.47 0.07 184 0.24 19.34 0.9 Dona Francisca Mix.80 24.53 0.07 0.07 148 0.65 0.5 Dona Francisca Mix.3 0.07 0.41 0.5 0.50 4.05 0.31 7.09 94 0.40 25.40 4.66 0.55 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Dona Francisca Mix.08 94 0.05 0.00 16.08 94 0.10 8.00 0.6 0.40 7.6 Dona Francisca Mix.00 8.36 0.00 4.75 0.14 17.09 225 0.24 12.99 31. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 100 0.72 0.35 0.12 0.16 Camp Dyer Stacy Spillway New Big Cherry Elkwater Fork Mix 1 Elkwater Fork Mix 2 Tannur Mix 2 Sama El-Serhan 163 187 152 0.06 0.10 27.36 0.63 0.6 0.80 10.70 4.08 0.5 0.33 0.23 0.17 205 0.10 Beni Haroun Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Pedrógão Mix 1 Total Cementitious Pozzolan/Cementit Str.05 0.80 9.8 Dona Francisca Mix.5 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.40 20.10 0.21 0.40 7.65 0.90 4.09 170 0.00 0.05 0.40 4.05 Marathia Urayama Hiyoshi Tomisato No.50 5.22 160 0.60 27.08 180 0.34 0.07 15.40 26.05 85 0.00 7.05 0. Efficiency Content ious Content Ratio (MPa/kg) 28 days (kg/m3) Str.34 10.10 8.24 0. 06 331 0.5 0.49 0.07 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.1 El Esparragal Mix.6 0.37 178 0.80 15.03 0.17 14.06 10.14 0.50 17.38 0.00 12.00 13.00 0.30 18.47 9.07 169 0.00 14.07 0.11 0.04 350 0.90 13.2 Hickory Log Creek Mix 2 Cenza Porce II Olivenhain Olivenhain Mix.10 0.70 0.67 0.04 0.30 29.10 0.12 0.17 0.40 18.00 0.15 0.05 0.62 0.41 6.00 14.15 0.40 7.08 195 9.86 10.70 22.16 Compressive Compressive strength strength (MPa) (MPa) for 28 for 90 days days 10.35 3.40 17.62 0.00 18.50 0.90 29.40 16.08 225 0.65 0.11 0.00 8.70 25.6 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.08 195 0.09 0. Efficiency (MPa/kg) 90 days 225 0.13 0.00 14.40 32.45 0.08 195 0.12 0.34 19.63 0.10 28.05 0.11 0.10 0.65 0.42 9.70 17.11 0.00 19.15 0.52 0.09 0.06 0.19 17.40 10.4 0.79 29.Table B.59 0.05 192 192 185 172 210 229 195 173 188 180 0.65 0.07 0.20 18.34 0.03 0.62 0.90 21.75 0.1 Olivenhain Mix.58 12.06 11.55 200 220 195 0. Pozzolan Percentage for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.00 26.06 0.09 0.10 14.2 Olivenhain Mix.00 8.50 24.5 Compressive Strength Efficiency vs.00 16.00 18.08 84 151 148 100 154 0.10 0. Efficiency Content ious Content Ratio (MPa/kg) 28 days (kg/m3) Str.20 19.3 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Zhaolaihe Zhaolaihe Wenquanbao Wenquanbao Puding Bailianya Total Cementitious Pozzolan/Cementit Str.08 225 0.76 12.2 0.45 0.05 368 0.27 13.00 15.62 0.90 2.20 24.55 0.55 0.65 0.04 0.06 0.2 Elk Creek Santa Cruz Stagecoach Cana Brava Pine Brook Genesee Dam No.10 0.03 0.70 .82 7.40 0.06 195 0.00 13. 47 2.41 1.98 .14 Cana Brava Dam Mix 8.44 0.91 1.80 1.5 Three Gorges Mix.9 Cana Brava Dam Mix 8.29 1.45 2.3 Three Gorges Mix.2.77 1.33 1.Table B.Mix No.00 0.54 1.4 Three Gorges Mix.34 0.2.80 2.19 2.25 Capanda Mix.54 0.15 Lajeado Mix No.60 0.40 2.2 1.00 1.28 1.26 2.30 2.73 Porce III Lab.6 Three Gorges Mix.66 1.Mix No.10 0.3 Three Gorges Mix.2.16 196 2.09 1.10 Cana Brava Dam Mix 8.34 1.76 1.2.40 1.1 Three Gorges Mix.60 1.52 1.89 1.61 2.4 Capanda Mix.40 Porce III Lab.58 0.40 0.70 1.8 at 365 day 1.01 0.40 2.54 1.1 Miel I Mix 1 Miel I Mix 2 Miel I Mix 3 Miel I Mix 4 at 7 day at 28 day at 90 day at 180 day 1.84 2.1 0.05 1.15 2.2 Three Gorges Mix.40 1.91 1.00 1.62 2.80 0.7 Three Gorges Mix.46 0.89 2.6 Direct Tensile Strength of RCC Dams (MPa) Dam/Project Beni Haroun Porce II Shapai Mix 1 Platanovryssi Olivenhain Upper Stillwater Mix 3 Mianhuatan Mix 1 Cana Brava Dam Mix 8.81 1. 3 Olivenhain Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 0.69 1.49 2.16 Three Gorges Mix.18 Mujib El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.39 2.95 2.00 2.67 0.46 0.50 at 180 day at 365 day 0.52 1.30 1.23 2.30 2.75 2.65 2.61 1.89 1.31 0.36 0.13 Three Gorges Mix.11 Three Gorges Mix.9 Three Gorges Mix.10 Three Gorges Mix.70 0.92 1.12 Three Gorges Mix.15 Three Gorges Mix.21 2.00 197 1.64 0.19 1.71 1.25 1.1 El Esparragal Mix.10 1.20 1.95 1.69 2.6 Direct Tensile Strength of RCC Dams (MPa) (continued) Dam/Project at 7 day at 28 day at 90 day Three Gorges Mix.14 Three Gorges Mix.73 2.19 1.95 0.42 1.2 El Esparragal Mix.58 .80 1.Table B.17 Three Gorges Mix.60 2.61 2.95 2.49 2.46 1.97 1. 2 El Esparragal Mix.23 2.44 0.82 2.4 Mujib El Esparragal El Esparragal Mix.10 2.86 0.14 Three Gorges Mix.64 1.1 Ralco Lab.4 Three Gorges Mix.17 1.80 0.6 Three Gorges Mix.20 1.52 1.90 1.16 2.55 1.3 Miel I Mix.24 2.70 0.25 2.92 1. Mix.43 2.45 1. Mix.18 Miel I Mix.09 1.12 Three Gorges Mix.17 2.81 1.No.00 1.43 1.23 1.53 0.80 1.14 0.61 2.73 0.89-0.00 0.2 Miel I Mix.7 Three Gorges Mix.34 1.63 0.49 2.45 1.72 0.90 0.76 1.79 0.06 0.48 0.70 0.45 0.25 2.30 2.10 1.Mix No.2 Ralco Lab.78 3.No.11 Three Gorges Mix.00 2.45 1.75 1.2 Ralco Lab.73 1. Mix.49 1.1 Three Gorges Mix.81 2.02 2.61 0.12 1.1 El Esparragal Mix.46 0.24 1.08 1.40 1.33 1.50 0.28 1.62 0.76 1.3 Three Gorges Mix.16 Three Gorges Mix.62 0.10 2.Mix No.18 2.71 0.30 1.3 Ralco Lab.83 0.No.10 1.90 1.15 2.87 2.60 1.8 Three Gorges Mix.78 2.81(core) 0.42 1. Mix.72 2.40 2.05 1.09 2.10 Three Gorges Mix.24 2.79 0.00 1.21 2.41 1.35 1.15 Three Gorges Mix.00 0.58 1.59 2.04 1.51 1.61 0.3 at 7 day at 14 day at 28 day at 56 day at 90 day at 180 day at 365 day 1.86 1.23 2.19 1.9 Three Gorges Mix.44 2.02 1.19 2.5 Three Gorges Mix.90 1.34 1.57 1.4 Sama El-Serhan Saluda dam remediation primary Saluda dam remediation Mix 2 Cenza Three Gorges Mix.84 1.13 Three Gorges Mix.76 1.1 Miel I Mix.55 1.73 198 2.72 0.00 0.74 .72 2.13 2.1 Porce III Lab.2 Three Gorges Mix.10 0.54 1.7 Indirect Tensile Strength of RCC Dams (MPa) Dam/Project Porce III Lab.No.17 Three Gorges Mix.45 1.Table B.10 1.66 3.86 1.90 1. 3 Nordlingaalda Mix.80 3.7 Indirect Tensile Strength of RCC Dams (MPa) (continued) Dam/Project Sa Stria Mix.1 Nordlingaalda Mix.66 2.56 1.8 Sa Stria Mix.30 1.81 1.4 Sa Stria Mix.40 1.33 2.50 1.13 Nordlingaalda Mix.46 2.84 3.11 Sa Stria Mix.15 2.90 2.67 2.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.70 1.30 1.60 2.80 3.13 1.60 2.9 Sa Stria Mix.72 1.30 1.97 2.65 2.80 2.43 3.25 1.45 2.70 3.87 1.55 3.76 1.70 2.41 2.54 199 at 180 day at 365 day .20 1.2 Sa Stria Mix.12 Sa Stria Mix.00 2.62 1.58 2.30 1.Table B.4 Longtan Trial Mix 1 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 1 Lay Interval Time = 6 hr Longtan Trial Mix 1 Lay Interval Time = 12 hr Longtan Trial Mix 1 Lay Interval Time = 24 hr Longtan Trial Mix 1 Lay Interval Time = 48 hr Longtan Trial Mix 2 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 2 Lay Interval Time = 6 hr Longtan Trial Mix 2 Lay Interval Time = 12 hr Longtan Trial Mix 2 Lay Interval Time = 24 hr Longtan Trial Mix 2 Lay Interval Time = 48 hr Longtan Trial Mix 3 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 3 Lay Interval Time = 6 hr Longtan Trial Mix 3 Lay Interval Time = 12 hr at 7 day at 14 day at 28 day at 56 day at 90 day 0.40 5.50 2.05 1.10 Sa Stria Mix.99 2.34 1.00 1.90 1. 58 1.35 2.80 1.70 0.45 0.20 0.66 0.40 3.01 2.53 1.78 2.04 0.71 1.Table B.63 1.70 3.13 at 365 day .64 2.60 1.00 2.7 Indirect Tensile Strength of RCC Dams (MPa) (continued) Dam/Project Longtan Trial Mix 3 Lay Interval Time = 24 hr Longtan Trial Mix 3 Lay Interval Time = 48 hr Longtan Trial Mix 4 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 4 Lay Interval Time = 6 hr Longtan Trial Mix 4 Lay Interval Time = 12 hr Longtan Trial Mix 4 Lay Interval Time = 24 hr Longtan Trial Mix 4 Lay Interval Time = 48 hr El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Yantan Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Shapai Mix 3 Linhekou Mix 1 Zhaolaihe Mix 1 Zhaolaihe Mix 2 Longshou Mix 1 Wenquanbao Mix 1 Wenquanbao Mix 2 Wenquanbao Mix 3 Puding Bailianya Cindere Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 at 7 day at 14 day at 28 day at 56 day at 90 day 0.97 1.20 1.70 1.15 1.26 1.20 1.83 1.44 at 180 day 2.90 2.90 2.99 2.41 2.93 1.90 1.20 2.76 2.61 1.60 2.66 0.68 2.55 3.10 2.10 3.66 200 1.68 1.85 1.30 2.00 1.49 2.22 1.90 1.60 2.02 4.56 2.30 1.56 2.11 1.92 2.80 1.90 2.12 2.80 0.28 2.50 2.00 1.50 4.45 2.36 2.52 3.80 0.83 3.50 1.70 2.22 2.10 1.20 0.34 1.50 1.35 2.40 1.71 2.71 2.93 0.28 2.72 1.78 1.91 2.40 1.41 2.09 1.95 0. 13 144 2.15 140 2.59 158 2.17 Three Gorges Mix.00 162 1.2 Miel I Mix.13 Three Gorges Mix.1 Ralco Lab.18 176 2.Table B.30 85 1.75 100 1.3 Ralco Lab.43 160 2. Mix. Mix.7 Three Gorges Mix.14 Three Gorges Mix.No.90 130 1. Mix.1 Cementitious content Indirect tensile (Cement+Pozzolan.18 Miel I Mix.No.55 127 1.57 158 1.44 175 2.12 Three Gorges Mix.3 Three Gorges Mix.02 178 2.8 Three Gorges Mix.10 85 1.76 80 1.4 Saluda Dam primary Saluda Dam Mix no 2 Three Gorges Mix. strength (MPa) kg/m3) 135 2.24 155 2.3 Miel I Mix.9 Three Gorges Mix.2 Ralco Lab.21 165 2.72 198 2.5 Three Gorges Mix.1 Three Gorges Mix.49 150 1.78 163 1.11 Three Gorges Mix.4 Three Gorges Mix.19 225 1.No.16 Three Gorges Mix.09 145 2.4 Mujib El Esparragal Nordlingaalda Mix. Mix.05 131 1.10 Three Gorges Mix.10 174 2.61 196 2.1 Miel I Mix.No.8 Indirect Tensile Strength vs.6 Three Gorges Mix. Cementitious Content Dam Name Ralco Lab.2 Three Gorges Mix.45 178 1.40 142 2.15 Three Gorges Mix.81 160 1.80 201 .90 125 1.25 193 2. Table B.8 Indirect Tensile Strength vs. Cementitious Content (continued) Dam Name Nordlingaalda Mix.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.3 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Yantan Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Zhaolaihe Mix 1 Zhaolaihe Mix 2 Wenquangpu Mix 1 Wenquangpu Mix 2 Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 Sa Stria Mix.2 Sa Stria Mix.4 Sa Stria Mix.8 Longtan Trial Mix 1 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 2 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 3 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Longtan Trial Mix 4 Lay Interval Time = 0 hr Puding Bailianya Cementitious content Indirect tensile (Cement+Pozzolan, strength (MPa) kg/m3) 105 2.60 133 2.40 331 2.00 350 2.20 368 2.35 159 2.71 192 1.61 182 1.53 185 2.45 210 2.71 229 2.55 152 2.71 168 2.76 125 1.90 150 2.40 175 3.10 200 3.60 100 1.30 120 2.36 140 2.52 160 3.44 212 2.00 210 2.90 230 1.50 191 191 160 160 188 180 202 3.58 3.41 2.56 2.72 2.85 1.97 Table B.9 Indirect Tensile Strength to Compressive Strength Ratio for RCC Dams Dam Name Indirect tensile strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa) Saluda Dam primary Saluda Dam Mix no 2 Three Gorges Mix.1 Three Gorges Mix.2 Three Gorges Mix.3 Three Gorges Mix.4 Three Gorges Mix.5 Three Gorges Mix.6 Three Gorges Mix.7 Three Gorges Mix.8 Three Gorges Mix.9 Three Gorges Mix.10 Three Gorges Mix.11 Three Gorges Mix.12 Three Gorges Mix.13 Three Gorges Mix.14 Three Gorges Mix.15 Three Gorges Mix.16 Three Gorges Mix.17 Three Gorges Mix.18 Miel I Mix.1 Miel I Mix.2 Miel I Mix.3 Miel I Mix.4 1.45 1.72 2.61 2.25 2.02 2.18 2.10 2.00 1.81 1.57 1.43 2.59 2.24 2.13 2.40 2.15 2.05 1.90 1.55 1.49 1.90 1.75 1.30 1.10 7.76 12.41 36.20 31.60 23.40 32.80 28.00 22.90 28.30 23.50 18.60 37.00 33.00 25.00 33.40 30.10 20.20 28.00 24.00 20.00 17.70 15.30 12.00 10.30 203 Indirect Tensile / Compressive Ratio 0.187 0.139 0.072 0.071 0.086 0.066 0.075 0.087 0.064 0.067 0.077 0.070 0.068 0.085 0.072 0.071 0.101 0.068 0.065 0.075 0.107 0.114 0.108 0.107 Table B.9 Indirect Tensile Strength to Compressive Strength Ratio for RCC Dams (continued) Dam Name Indirect tensile strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa) Mujib El Esparragal Nordlingaalda Mix.1 Nordlingaalda Mix.2 Nordlingaalda Mix.3 El Zapotillo Mix 1 El Zapotillo Mix 2 El Zapotillo Mix 3 Yantan Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Linhekou Zhaolaihe Mix 1 Zhaolaihe Mix 2 Wenquangpu Mix 1 Wenquangpu Mix 2 Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 AVERAGE 1.19 1.76 1.80 2.60 2.40 2.00 2.20 2.35 2.71 1.61 1.53 2.45 2.71 2.55 2.71 2.76 1.90 2.40 3.10 3.60 1.30 2.36 2.52 3.44 2.12 8.44 17.47 15.00 22.00 31.00 14.00 16.00 17.00 27.10 18.40 18.00 26.70 29.20 24.90 21.40 29.90 13.90 17.90 22.20 28.60 13.04 17.19 24.46 31.54 22.43 204 Indirect Tensile / Compressive Ratio 0.141 0.101 0.120 0.118 0.077 0.143 0.138 0.138 0.100 0.088 0.085 0.092 0.093 0.102 0.127 0.092 0.137 0.134 0.140 0.126 0.100 0.137 0.103 0.109 0.101 Table B.10 Thermal Expansion Coefficients of Some RCC Dams Modulus of Thermal Dam/Project Expansion (E6 /deg C) Concepcion 3.40 Milltown Hill 1.80 Santa Cruz 1.70 Elk Creek Mix 2 2.20 Upper Stillwater Mix 4 2.70 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 2.70 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 2.20 Willow Creek Mix 1 2.20 Willow Creek Mix 2 2.20 Willow Creek Mix 3 2.20 Willow Creek Mix 4 2.20 Zintel Canyon Mix 4 2.30 Zintel Canyon Mix 5 2.40 Tannur 6.50 Miel I 7.00 Mianhuatan Lab Mix 5.60 No.1 Mianhuatan Lab Mix 6.60 No.2 Mianhuatan Lab Mix 7.30 No.3 Mianhuatan Lab Mix 7.80 No.4 Mianhuatan Lab Mix 7.90 No.5 Mianhuatan Lab Mix 8.20 No.6 Salto Caxias 7.07 Hinata 10.00 Rialb 7.80 Cana Brava 11.70 Wolwedans 10.00 Zhaolaihe 7.00 Badovli 8.80 Wudu 8.42 Yujianhe 6.48 Dahuashui 6.50 Platanovryssi 11.50 Urugua-i RCC60 7.40 Urugua-i RCC90 8.33 Al-Mujib 8.10 205 Table B.11 Modulus of Elasticity of Some RCC Dams (GPa) at 180 day at 365 day Dam/Project at 7 day at 28 day at 90 day Concepcion Mix 2 Santa Cruz Mix 2 Upper Stillwater Mix 5 Upper Stillwater Mix 6 Upper Stillwater Mix 7 Urugua-i Willow Creek Mix 1 Willow Creek Mix 2 Willow Creek Mix 3 Zintel Canyon Mix 1 Zintel Canyon Mix 2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.1 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.2 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.3 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.4 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.5 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.6 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.7 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.8 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.9 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.10 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.11 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.12 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.13 7.58 12.41 7.10 5.65 6.34 15.51 18.41 20.06 10.96 10.62 16.48 13.17 15.58 9.10 12.50 11.50 0.00 18.20 19.20 22.90 15.60 15.90 24.40 13.30 10.70 25.00 22.00 24.10 24.00 21.00 21.00 9.60 17.60 21.80 6.00 8.40 23.10 29.00 40.80 42.10 21.00 35.50 40.90 31.00 26.90 42.20 20.00 27.70 45.50 27.20 50.10 9.38 15.17 16.55 8.27 4.69 10.62 206 21.51 19.17 22.41 13.17 14.82 17.03 22.82 22.34 11.79 10.96 12.14 24.82 17.72 22.62 Table B.11 Modulus of Elasticity of Some RCC Dams (GPa) (continued) Dam/Project Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.14 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.15 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.16 Ghatghar pumped storage Mix No.17 Lajeado Mix No.1 Kinta Dam Tannur Dam Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.1 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.2 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.3 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.4 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.5 Mianhuatan Lab Mix No.6 Miel I Mix 1 Miel I Mix 2 Miel I Mix 3 Miel I Mix 4 Porce III Lab.Mix No.1 Porce III Lab.Mix No.2 Sama El-Serhan Capanda Mix.1 Cenza Three Gorges Mix.1 Three Gorges Mix.2 Three Gorges Mix.3 Three Gorges Mix.4 Three Gorges Mix.5 at 7 day at 28 day at 90 day at 180 day at 365 day 19.00 19.80 19.10 35.00 40.00 33.30 14.80 25.60 21.70 20.20 15.00 16.70 21.30 18.20 18.00 17.20 22.40 26.70 22.20 26.60 29.30 23.60 27.70 31.50 16.30 22.50 28.80 18.60 25.20 23.70 31.20 14.50 14.00 7.00 6.00 33.00 32.00 25.00 21.00 42.00 36.00 29.00 26.00 6.90 11.40 6.00 10.20 21.50 16.90 14.90 17.40 16.90 5.45-4.90 (core) 25.00 15.10 19.10 26.00 40.00 22.80 35.30 19.20 32.10 25.10 38.40 24.00 35.20 207 Table B.11 Modulus of Elasticity of Some RCC Dams (GPa) (continued) Dam/Project Three Gorges Mix.6 Three Gorges Mix.7 Three Gorges Mix.8 Three Gorges Mix.9 Three Gorges Mix.10 Three Gorges Mix.11 Three Gorges Mix.12 Three Gorges Mix.13 Three Gorges Mix.14 Three Gorges Mix.15 Three Gorges Mix.16 Three Gorges Mix.17 Three Gorges Mix.18 Miel I Mix.1 Miel I Mix.2 Miel I Mix.3 Miel I Mix.4 Mujib @25% Ultimate Load Mujib @50% Ultimate Load Mujib @75% Ultimate Load Mujib @100% Ultimate Load Yantan at 7 day at 28 day at 90 day at 180 day at 365 day 14.40 15.10 13.00 12.20 22.00 16.50 15.00 18.50 15.50 15.00 15.00 13.50 12.30 12.00 11.00 9.00 7.50 21.30 25.90 22.40 18.00 25.20 23.10 19.20 27.40 25.70 23.70 26.20 23.10 19.00 19.00 18.00 14.00 12.00 31.50 36.40 33.30 24.90 38.90 36.00 33.30 35.60 34.30 28.20 36.20 33.20 25.00 24.50 23.00 19.00 16.50 26.30 25.50 22.00 20.60 28.00 27.00 25.50 24.00 8.00 19.00 21.60 26.20 29.00 4.60 11.60 12.80 17.00 20.80 2.60 6.80 7.80 11.00 14.60 0.80 1.60 1.80 2.40 4.40 15.10 26.40 30.00 208 00 19.20 8.80 1.20 31.90 33.00 29.60 26.80 7.00 21.70 31.60 6.60 12.00 20.60 30.40 4.80 2.20 15.00 4.11 Modulus of Elasticity of Some RCC Dams (GPa) (continued) Dam/Project at 7 day at 28 day at 90 day Shapai Mix 1 Shapai Mix 2 Shapai Mix 3 Linhekou Mix 1 Linhekou Mix 2 Zhaolaihe Mix 1 Zhaolaihe Mix 2 Longshou Mix 1 Longshou Mix 2 Wenquanbao Mix 1 Wenquanbao Mix 2 Wenquanbao Mix 3 Puding Bailianya Naras Mix 1 Naras Mix 2 Naras Mix 3 Naras Mix 4 Silopi Mix 1 Silopi Mix 2 Silopi Mix 3 Nordlingaalda @25% Ultimate Load Nordlingaalda @50% Ultimate Load Nordlingaalda @75% Ultimate Load Nordlingaalda @100% Ultimate Load 15.90 38.00 28.50 38.60 1.80 20.80 33.10 19.00 27.80 35.20 29.00 14.40 209 .20 27.20 32.80 2.20 39.20 29.50 29.50 38.30 34.60 39.50 32.80 17.10 at 180 day at 365 day 19.Table B.00 34.60 0.40 15.80 11.60 11.20 21.30 24. 6 1.18 2.75 9.075 0.5 19 25 37 50 67 75 100 Willow Creek Upper Christian Zintel Stagecoach Concepcion Elk Creek Stillwater Siegrist Canyon 5 7 9 13 17 23 30 42 0 2 10 17 21 26 35 45 5 6 10 14 23 38 49 60 9 11 12 15 18 25 39 50 5 8 10 15 25 32 40 52 6 9 15 19 25 33 43 56 7 10 15 21 31 34 41 51 54 62 80 90 66 91 99 100 70 77 91 98 100 69 82 95 100 72 80 90 94 58 64 76 86 96 100 95 100 100 99 100 210 .Table B.15 0.36 4.3 0.5 12.12 Aggregate Gradation Curve of Some RCC Dams Sieve Size (mm) 0.