1743-1758

8/11/2019 1743-1758

1/18

Hosted by

Black & Veatch Corporation

GEI Consultants, Inc.

Kleinfelder, Inc.

MWH Americas, Inc.

Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.

URS Corporation

21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference

San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

8/11/2019 1743-1758

2/18

On the CoverArtist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide

a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions

imported water supplies.The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117

feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the

United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for

advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or

from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made

or the opinions expressed in this publication.

Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5

U.S. Society on Dams

1616 Seventeenth Street, #483

Denver, CO 80202

Telephone: 303-628-5430

Fax: 303-628-5431

E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: www.ussdams.org

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision

To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams

for the benefit of society.

MissionUSSD is dedicated to:

Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,

performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;

Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water

resources systems;

Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water

resources;

Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and

Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission onLarge Dams (ICOLD).

8/11/2019 1743-1758

3/18

San Vicente Geotechnical Basis of Design 1743

GEOTECHNICAL BASIS OF DESIGN FOR THE SAN VICENTE DAM RAISE

Leo D. Handfelt1

Kelly C. Giesing2

Melissa Cox3

Jim Zhou

4

ABSTRACT

The San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) is undertaking a raise of the

existing San Vicente Dam to provide both emergency and carryover storage to increase

local reservoir supplies in San Diego County, California. This paper presents thegeotechnical basis of the dam raise design that includes a thorough site characterization

based on extensive subsurface explorations and laboratory testing results. The rock mass

properties (modulus of elasticity, modulus of deformation, Poissons ratio, strength), rockdiscontinuity properties (frequency, roughness, infilling, strength), and rock hydraulic

conductivity were investigated and formulated based on the results of the sitecharacterization.

Geotechnical design considerations included foundation preparation, response, grouting,

and drainage. The foundation preparation included the required depth of excavation for

the dam to be founded on slightly weathered or fresh rock, excavation stability, andsurface treatments. The foundation response evaluation included the bearing capacity of

the rock, base sliding along discontinuities in the rock, and foundation deformations due

to the weight of additional concrete from the raised dam. Seepage analyses wereperformed to determine the foundation grouting and drainage requirements.

INTRODUCTION

The existing San Vicente Dam is a 220 foot high concrete gravity dam completed in1943 with 90,063 acre-feet of storage. The raised San Vicente Dam will be about 337

feet high, creating an approximately 247,000 acre-foot reservoir. The dam raise is being

constructed using the roller compacted concrete (RCC) method. A saddle dam will also

be built using RCC, and will be located about 700 feet west of the main dam. The saddledam will be approximately 660 feet long and have a maximum height of about 45 feet

above the foundation.

This paper presents the geotechnical basis of design for the raised dam. Geotechnical

considerations for the raised and saddle dam design included foundation preparation,

foundation response, and foundation grouting and drainage. The rock mass properties(modulus of elasticity, modulus of deformation, Poissons ratio, strength), rock

discontinuity properties (frequency, roughness, infilling, strength), and rock hydraulic

1Principal Geotechnical Engineer, URS Corporation, San Diego, CA, [email protected] Geotechnical Engineer, URS Corporation, San Diego, CA, [email protected]/Geotechnical Engineer, URS Corporation, San Diego, CA, [email protected] Design Manager, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego, CA, [email protected]

8/11/2019 1743-1758

4/18

1744 21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

conductivity were formulated based on the results of a thorough site characterization.

The basis of the seismic design is described in Handfelt et al. (2011).

SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Site Geology

The site characterization included extensive subsurface exploration and laboratory testing

(Schug et al., 2011). The dam site is located on the western flank of the PeninsularRanges physiographic province of southern California and lies within a broad contact

zone between the Tertiary-age sedimentary rock formations and the Cretaceous-age

intrusive batholith. The contact zone includes north-northwest trending belts of olderrocks, including Jurassic-age metavolcanic rocks and igneous plutonic bedrock from the

Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous. Inactive faults had been mapped at both the right and left

abutments of the raised dam. A geologic map of the raised dam is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Site Geology

The saddle dam and right abutment of the raised dam are located in pre-batholithic

gneissic (foliated) granodiorite. The granitic rock texture is mostly fine-grained and

contains a steeply dipping foliation pattern evident in the rock core. The depth to slightlyweathered rock in the granodiorite in this area ranges from about 5 to 20 feet.

The left abutment and valley floor at the raised dam are underlain by metavolcanic rock.The metavolcanic rock is a dark, very fine-grained, foliated rock containing

predominantly meta-dacite, and some meta-andesite and meta-rhyolite. The depth toslightly weathered rock in the metavolcanic rock is between about 5 to 30 feet. Fracture

patterns within the metavolcanic rock are more variable than the granodiorite, and exhibit

8/11/2019 1743-1758

5/18


varying trends over the lower and upper portions of the left abutment.

The geologic contact between the metavolcanic and granitic rock units is near the bottom

of the right abutment. Based on the explorations performed during the design, the contact

dips steeply to the east below the dam with a contact that is a tight, welded interface.

The dam foundation excavation work has confirmed this feature. Packer tests performedduring the design investigations indicated the geologic contact does not appreciably

affect the hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass.

Geotechnical Parameter Characterization

Seismic Velocity: Seismic refraction surveys were performed to obtain primary (P-wave)velocity data of the soil and rock along the traverse lines. P-wave velocities in the slightly

weathered to fresh rock were found to be typically between 10,000 and 14,000 feet/sec.

Significant differences in P-wave velocity between the granodiorites and metavolcanicswere not observed at this site.

Unconfined Strength: Laboratory unconfined compressive tests performed on samples of

rock cores indicate strengths typically (mean + one standard deviation) range from about17,000 to 37,000 pounds per square inch (psi) for the granodiorite and about 19,000 to

45,000 psi for the metavolcanics.

Rock Mass: Testing indicated that the wet unit weight of both granodiorite and

metavolcanics ranges between 161 and 169 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), with an average

of 165 pcf. The average Rock Quality Designation (RQD) for both granodiorite andmetavolcanics ranged from 62 to 94 percent, which describes the quality of the rock as

fair to excellent.

Shear Strength: The shear strength of the intact rock and joints within the rock mass was

determined using data from the rock cores and results of laboratory testing. The frictionangles along the concrete/rock contact and along rock joints below the dam were

evaluated using a method developed by Barton and Choubey (1977) for shear strength

along rock discontinuities (Hoek, 2007). For this method, the total friction angle () is

equal to the residual friction angle (r) plus a roughness component (based on visualobservations of the rock), as represented by the following equation:

= r+ (JRC)log10(JCS/n) (1)

where JRC = Joint Roughness Coefficient, JCS = Joint wall Compressive Strength (in

psi), and n= normal stress (in psf). The results of this evaluation are summarized inTable 1. As shown in Table 1, joints within the rock, rather than the concrete-rock

interface, control the foundation design.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

6/18

8/11/2019 1743-1758

7/18


failure (Terzaghi, 1943) and general shear failure (Das, 1999). The ultimate bearing

capacity was calculated for these two failure modes using bearing capacity equations andthe various foundation interface friction angles discussed above. A factor of safety of 3

was used to calculate the allowable bearing capacity. The bearing capacity is a function

of the dam width; therefore, allowable bearing capacity was calculated at various stations

along the dam. Table 2 summarizes the results of the bearing capacity evaluations. Theestimated allowable bearing pressures are sufficient to support the planned dam loads.

Table 2. Allowable Bearing Capacity of Foundation Rock

Granodiorite

FoundationMetavolcanic Foundation

Parameter

Sta 5+50 Sta 7+50 Sta 9+50

Dam Width (feet) 182 245 148

Friction Angle (degrees) 57 45 45

Allowable Bearing Capacity for General Shear (psi) 16,000 7,900 4,800

Allowable Bearing Capacity for Local Shear (psi) 1,300 800 500

Foundation Rock Sliding Stability

The potential for the raised dam to slide along joints in the foundation rock was evaluated

using the SLOPE/W computer program (Geo-Slope, 2003a). Two-dimensional analyseswere performed along 3 transverse cross sections to represent various dam geometrics

and rock discontinuity characteristics. Wedge type sliding blocks were assumed to form

along the apparent dips of the predominant joint patterns that have been mapped in thefoundation rock. The joint shear strengths presented in Table 1 were used in the

analyses. The uplift pressures were assumed to be equal to the reservoir head at the heelof the dam, one-third of that head at the foundation drain location, and equal to thetailwater at the toe of the dam. Each cross section was analyzed for the following load

cases as generally defined by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE, 1994):

Usual (assumes a normal reservoir level).

Unusual (assumes a Probable Maximum Flood reservoir level).

Extreme (assumes a normal reservoir level and the design earthquake).

Table 3. Results of Foundation Rock Sliding Stability Analyses

Calculated Minimum

Factor of Safety

Load Case Required Factorof Safety

Sta 4+50 Sta 7+50 Sta 9+50

Usual 2.0 3.4 4.4 3.8

Unusual 1.7 3.3 4.2 3.7

Extreme 1.3 2.3 2.8 2.6

8/11/2019 1743-1758

8/18


Other assumptions used for the analyses included the amount of sedimentation behind the

dam and the tailwater level in front of the dam. The pseudo-static analysis for theextreme load case used a Horizontal Peak Ground Acceleration (HPGA) of 0.27 g and

Vertical Peak Ground Acceleration (VPGA) of 0.24 g, representative of the 3,000 year

return period earthquake (Handfelt, et al., 2011). These accelerations are conservative for

a pseudo-static analysis as they are not sustained accelerations. The results of the two-dimensional foundation rock stability analyses are summarized in Table 3, indicating that

a sufficient factor of safety is present. Figure 2 presents graphical results for one of the

three analyzed cross sections under the extreme load case (the vertical lines in Figure 3represent the slices that were used in the stability computations).

Deformations

Analytical models utilized in predicting deformations of rock foundations are typically

based upon the theory of elasticity. This assumption yields an idealized dam foundationthat is homogeneous, isotropic and elastic. The modulus of elasticity and Poissons ratio

(ratio of radial to axial strain) are required to characterize the foundation material in themodel. Realistically, dam foundations are heterogeneous, anisotropic and inelastic. To

better account for the inelastic properties of rock, a modulus of deformation (ratio of theapplied stress to the sum of the inelastic and elastic strains) is used to characterize the

dam foundation. Several methods were used to evaluate the modulus of elasticity,

modulus of deformation, and Poissons ratio as discussed below.

Laboratory Test Methods: Uniaxial compression tests with stress-strain measurements

were performed in the laboratory to evaluate the behavior of small, intact rock samples.Several different moduli can be calculated using different portions of the laboratory

stress-strain curve (USACOE, 1994). The modulus of elasticity was interpreted to be theslope of first unload-reload cycle of the test and the modulus of deformation was

estimated using the slope of the secant line between the start of the test and the maximum

load applied during the test. The Poissons ratio corresponding to the modulus ofdeformation was also calculated.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

9/18


Figure 2. Sliding Stability Analysis

Empirical Correlations with In-Situ Data: Several rock mass classification systems are

available that provide a quantitative index representing the observed quality of rock.These include the Rock Quality Designation (RQD), Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Q-

system, and Geological Strength Index (GSI). These indices were calculated for selected

borings completed at the dam site at depths where unconfined compressive tests were

also performed. Empirical correlations developed by Deere et al. (1969), Barton (1983),Serafim and Periara (1983), Nicholson and Bieniawski (1990), and Hoek and Diederichs

(2006), and based on the in-situ indices, were used to evaluate the rock modulus of

deformation.

Geophysical Measurements: Dynamic elastic modulus and Poissons ratio were estimated

using compressional (P-wave) and shear (S-wave) wave velocity data from downhole

geophysical surveys. Because of the test method, the resulting dynamic modulus valuesare often high and were used only as a relative comparison with other methods

(USACOE, 1994). Correlations cited in Grant and West (1965) were used.

Summary: The moduli and Poissons ratios resulting from the evaluation methods

discussed above were reviewed to select final design values for both the granodiorite and

metavolcanics. The laboratory test results were considered to provide an upper bound ofthe modulus of deformation, because the intact samples tested did not contain joints.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

10/18


Further, due to the relatively high compressive strength of the rock compared with the

pressures imposed by the dam, the loading range over which the modulus and Poissonsratio were calculated (using laboratory results) was typically significantly higher than any

load expected due to static or seismic loading. Some of the empirical correlations were

considered to provide a realistic range of in-situ properties. Based on the data, it was

concluded that the metavolcanic rock may have a slightly higher modulus of deformationthan the granodiorite at the raised dam. The saddle dam has a slightly lower modulus of

elasticity than the raised dam because the foundation excavation there will only extend to

the top of moderately to slightly weathered rock.

The values used in the final design are provided in Table 4. The maximum and minimum

values were determined approximately as plus or minus one standard deviation and wereused in sensitivity analyses of the dam foundation response.

Table 4. Foundation Parameters for Final Design

Modulus of Elasticity

(x10

6

psi)

Modulus of Deformation

(x10

6

psi)Location Poisson'sRatio

Design

Value

Max.

Value

Min.

Value

Design

Value

Max.

Value

Min.

Value

Raised Dam

(Slightly Weathered

Granodiorite)

0.25 10 12 8 4 5 3

Raised Dam

(Slightly Weathered

Metavolcanics)

0.25 11 14 9 4.5 6 3

Saddle Dam

(Mod. WeatheredGranodiorite)

0.25 9 13 4 4 5 3

DAM FOUNDATION GROUTING AND DRAINAGE

During construction of the existing dam, a grout curtain was installed along the axis to

control seepage. The grout curtain was originally constructed for an ultimate dam height

of 310 feet, nearly the height of the raised dam. The primary grout holes are up to 163feet deep below the base of the dam, and spaced at 25 feet. The secondary holes were

split spaced between the primary holes and are only 25 feet deep, much shallower and

wider spaced than modern criteria would dictate. Furthermore, tertiary holes were notused, and the grout holes were drilled vertically and therefore, may not have had

optimum effectiveness to intersect the pervasive near vertical joints of the foundationrock. Leakage through the existing dam foundation is collected in foundation drains;

seepage through the existing dam is collected in dam drains. The measured flow rates

from these drains have been relatively low over the approximately 65 years since the damwas put into operation.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

11/18


Additional seepage expected due to the raised reservoir level was modeled with seepage

analyses. The design of the proposed grouting program beneath the raised and saddledams was based on results of the field testing and the seepage analyses.

Seepage Analyses

The control of seepage through and beneath the raised dam is critical for maintaining

reservoir levels and for long-term dam performance and stability. The program SEEP/W,

Version 5.17 (Geo-Slope, 2003b) was used to predict seepage rates, uplift pressuresunder the dam, and hydraulic flow patterns for various sections below both the existing

and raised dam. Seepage analyses were not performed for the saddle dam due to the low

hydraulic head that will be imposed.

Methodology: The existing and planned grout curtain and dam and foundation drains

were modeled at Stations 7+50 (the maximum section) and 11+50 (near the leftabutments inactive fault zone). For the two-dimensional modeling, the grout curtains

and drains were assumed to be continuous along the axis of the dam, rather than presentat discrete locations. The drains were modelled as sinks and therefore were assumed to

be free flowing and vented to the elevation of the gallery which is present within theexisting dam. Flux sections were established for the foundation drain (below the gallery)

and dam drain (above the gallery) to evaluate the seepage rate into these two drains. The

dam drains do not extend to the crest of the raised dam; instead, a geomembrane andgeocomposite drains will be installed on the upstream side of the raised dam to provide

drainage. The geocomposite drains and seepage through the raised dam were not

modelled because seepage through a well-installed geomembrane system would bepractically negligible.

Material Parameters: Each element in the finite element mesh was assigned a material

type with a specific hydraulic conductivity. Material properties were developed based on

the results of field exploration, experience with similar materials, and literature review.The selected hydraulic conductivities were refined by first performing calibration

analyses discussed below. A summary of the hydraulic conductivities used in the

analyses is presented in Table 5.

The permeability of the raised dam was not modelled because it was assumed that the

geomembrane and geocomposite drains will minimize seepage through the RCC based on

the performance of similar installations.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

12/18


Table 5. Summary of Hydraulic Conductivities for SEEP/W Analyses

Hydraulic Conductivity, kMaterial

(feet/sec) (cm/sec)

Grout Curtain, kGrout 3.28E-11 1.0E-09

Existing Dam, kDam 3.28E-11 1.0E-09

Alluvium, kSoil 3.28E-05 1.0E-03

Rock-Top, kRock-Topa 3.28E-07 1.0E-05

Rock-Bottom, kRock-Botb 3.28E-08 1.0E-06

Notes:

a. Rock within 100 feet of the bottom of the dam.

b Rock deeper than 100 feet from the bottom of the dam.

Calibration Analyses: The finite element model of the existing dam was calibrated in an

attempt to match 1) the measured piezometric head in the existing piezometers at Station

7+50, and 2) historical seepage measurements. Final parameters were selected thatproduced the best match between the modelled and measured piezometric heads and

seepage quantities. Figure 3 presents the measured piezometric heads in the main gallery

adit (Station 7+50) with those modelled using the final parameters in SEEP/W. Themodelled heads are about 10 feet higher than the measured heads.

The measured leakage/seepage includes flow collected from both the dam and foundationdrains that exits the dam through the main adit. The typical seepage between 1980 and

2007 was about 160 gallons per day (gpd) during periods when the reservoir elevation

was approximately 625 feet NGVD 29 (1 foot). This total measured seepage was

normalized to provide an equivalent leakage rate for a one foot wide section of the dam

that would be comparable to the output from the finite element model. There is not arigorous numerical method to reduce the three dimensional seepage value to a two-

dimensional value. A comparable seepage was normalized from the total seepage bydividing by a dam length that, when multiplied by the height at the maximum section,

gave the upstream face area contributing to the seepage. The normalized measured

seepage rate at Station 7+50 was 0.33 gpd as compared to the seepage rate of 0.50 gpdpredicted by SEEP/W with only minor adjustments made to the hydraulic conductivity of

the grout curtain.

Raised Dam Analyses: Following completion of the calibration analyses, the selectedhydraulic conductivities were used to evaluate seepage and leakage rates, percentage of

flow through the foundation and dam drains, and uplift pressures on the raised dam withthe existing grout curtain and the raised reservoir. Flow nets with vectors representingthe direction and relative magnitude of flow, and equipotential lines under the dam, are

presented for the existing and raised dam conditions at Station 7+50 on Figure 4. Figure

3 indicates that the maximum piezometric head predicted for a raised reservoir at thespillway level of 766 feet NGVD 29 is about 477 feet NGVD 29, which is only about 10

feet higher than the elevation predicted for the existing reservoir level of 625 feet NGVD

29. Both the calibration and predictive analyses assumed the uplift pressures were

8/11/2019 1743-1758

13/18


limited to the elevation of the foundation drain at the section modelled. The total seepage

rate through the drains is predicted to be about 2.2 gpd (at Station 7+50) or 350% higherfor the raised dam as compared with the existing dam. While the increase in seepage rate

is substantial at this location, the total seepage volume through the foundation is still

expected to be small relative to other concrete dams.

Figure 3. Calibration of Seepage Analyses

In summary, the results of the seepage analyses indicate that the grout curtain is effective

in reducing pressure below the dam. The predicted uplift pressures are substantially lessthan those used for the dam stability analyses (full reservoir head at the heel, tailwater at

the toe, and one third of the difference at the foundation drains). However, it was decided

to assure closure of the existing grout curtain by implementing a check groutingprogram. The grout curtain will also be extended up the raised abutments (and in the

saddle dam) with a two-row grout curtain.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

14/18


Figure 4. Flow Net and Velocity Vectors (Station 7+50)

Grouting Program

The proposed grouting program includes check grouting, a two-row grout curtain, tunnel

ring grouting, consolidation grouting, and stitch grouting.

Check Grouting: The curtain grouting program under the existing dam has been designed

as a check hole program at specific locations where high grout takes were recorded

during original construction. Check holes are intended to split the spacing of the originalprimary grout holes at those locations, and additional check holes will be performed to

encompass the entire length of the existing curtain. The check grout holes will be drilled

from within the existing gallery and from the crest of the existing dam for holes outsidethe termination of the gallery. The check holes will go to the depth of the original curtain

and be maintained as a single-row curtain.

Curtain Grouting: For the raised dam, a two-row grout curtain will be installed to extend

the existing curtain along the dam axis laterally up the raised dam abutments. These

grout holes will be inclined in opposite directions at an angle of 15 degrees from vertical,to intersect the pervasive high angle joints. Primary holes will be spaced at 20 feet apart

and hole depths will vary, with the grout curtain extending about 80 feet vertically below

the foundation level. This depth is about 75% of the maximum reservoir head at the

raised portion of the dam. The curtain grouting will be performed primarily from thedam foundation excavation level (except three primary holes on the upstream curtain will

8/11/2019 1743-1758

15/18


be drilled from the crest of the existing dam). The grout curtain for the saddle dam will

also be a two-row curtain with grout holes inclined in opposite directions typically at anangle of 15 degrees from vertical. These grout holes will typically extend 35 to 45 feet

below the saddle dam.

Tunnel Ring Grouting: A ring of grout holes is planned from within the upper outlettunnel at the location of the curtain grout holes . The purpose of this grouting is to seal

any fractures or fissures that may have opened in the curtain grouting after the tunnel

blasting and excavation.

Stitch Grouting: Stitch grouting will be used to treat specific features (e.g., shears, fault

zones or other foundation rock defects of significant width and/or continuity) within thefoundation. The process will entail drilling one or more rows of holes oriented in a line

normal to the strike of the defect and at angles from the vertical, such that they intersect

the defect at about 20-foot intervals as measured along the dip of the defect. Maximumprimary spacing along the strike will be 10 feet.

Consolidation Grouting: Consolidation grouting beneath the raised dam will be

performed to strengthen rock mass properties and reduce the potential for differentialsettlement resulting from closure of open joints during and after RCC placement. During

the initial stages of design, the consolidation grouting was planned to be confined to the

valley bottom. However, during the foundation excavation, open joints were observed inthe metavolcanic rock in the lower part of the left abutment. There were also numerous

rock joint surfaces within the foundation excavation that contained cement grout,

evidently pumped into open joints during the foundation grouting from the initialconstruction. The consolidation grouting program has now been expanded up into the

left abutment in a 20-foot grid pattern and ends at about Station 11+75.

Dam and Foundation Drainage

The seepage analyses discussed above were also used to evaluate the need for deepening

the existing dam foundation drains. These analyses, along with the low seepage flows

measured from the existing drains, indicate that the existing drains do not need to be

deepened. However, there was a concern that the planned new foundation groutingprogram may impair the effectiveness of the existing drains by plugging their current

seepage paths. Therefore new foundation drains will be installed from both the existing

and new galleries to depths compatible with modern practice criteria for foundationdrains. All of the existing dam drains will be cleaned of calcium build-up to restore their

flow capacities.

The existing drainage gallery will be extended into the abutments of the raised dam. New

foundation drains will be located downstream of the grout curtain and will terminate

within the gallery. The foundation drains will be inclined near the ends of the gallery toprovide drainage to areas beyond the gallery. No foundation drains are planned for the

saddle dam as most of the saddle dam will be dry under normal operations.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

16/18


REFERENCES

Barton, N. (1983). Application of Q-System and Index Tests to Estimate Shear Strength

and Deformability of Rock Masses. Proceedings, International Symposium on

Engineering Geology and Underground Construction, Laboratorio Nacional de

Engenharia Civil, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. II, pp. II.51-II.70.

Barton, N.R. and Choubey, V. (1977). The Shear Strength of Rock Joints in Theory and

Practice. Rock Mechanics, Vol. 10, No. 1-2, pp. 1-54.

Das, B.M. (1999). Principles of Foundation Engineering. 4th Edition, Brooks/Cole

Publishing Co., Pacific Grove, CA

Deere, D.U., Merritt, A.H., and Coon, R.F. (1969). Engineering Classification of In-

Situ Rock. Technical Report No. AFWL-TR-67-144, Kirtland Air Force Base, NewMexico, pp. 220.

Geo-Slope International, Ltd. (2003a). SLOPE/W, A Computer Program for Slope

Stability Analyses, Version 5.17.

Geo-Slope International, Ltd. (2003b). SEEP/W, A Computer Program for Seepage

Analyses, Version 5.17.

Grant, F.S., and West, G.F. (1965). Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Handfelt, L. D., Wong, I., and Kavanagh, N. (2011). Seismic Hazard Evaluation forDesign of San Vicente Dam Raise, 31

stUnited States Society on Dams Annual Meeting

and Conference, San Diego, CA., 2011.

Hoek, E., and Diederichs, M.S. (2006). Empirical Estimation of Rock Mass Modulus,

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 43, pp. 203-215.

Hoek, E. (2007). Practical Rock Engineering, Chapter 3 Rock Mass Classification.http://www.rocscience.com/hoek/PracticalRockEngineering.asp.

Mclean, F.G. and Pierce, J.S. (1998). Comparison of Joint Shear Strengths forConventional and Roller Compacted Concrete. Proceedings, Roller Compacted

Concrete II Conference, ASCE, New York. Pp. 151-169.

Nicholson, G.A. and Bieniawski, Z.T. (1990). A Nonlinear Deformation Modulus

Based on Rock Mass Classification. International Journal of Min Geol Eng., Vol. 8, pp.

181-202.

Schug, D. L., Higgins, M., and Kavanagh, N. (2011). Geologic Characterizations of San

Vicente Dam Raise, 31stUnited States Society on Dams Annual Meeting and

8/11/2019 1743-1758

17/18


Conference, San Diego, CA., 2011.

Serafim, J.L. and Pereira, J.P. (1983). Considerations of the Geomechanics

Classification of Bieniawski. Proceedings, International Symposium on Engineering

Geology and Underground Construction, LNEC, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, pp. II.33-II.42.

Terzaghi, K. (1943). Theoretical Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New

York.

USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) (1994). EM 1110-1-2908, Rock

Foundations, 30 November.

8/11/2019 1743-1758

18/18

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vhgaitan
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

1743-1758

Documents