Post on 13-Jan-2016
Kav 2002-05-16
IMPACT
WP2.1
Breach Formation - Large Scale Embankment Failure
HMK-02
Kjetil Arne Vaskinn Statkraft Grøner AS
Kav 2002-05-16
IMPACT
HMK-02
Norwegian national project:Stability and Breaching of
Rockfill dams
Kav 2002-05-16
WP2.1 Breach Formation - Large Scale Embankment Failure
The objective of this work package is to undertake controlled failure of large scale embankments in order to monitor and record the failure process and mechanisms in detail.
This will provide valuable data to assist in understanding the fundamental failure process, for developing predictive models and for assessing the validity of smaller scale laboratory testing.
Kav 2002-05-16
D Deliverables Date
D2.1.1 Initial Laboratory Modeling anddevelopment of monitoring instruments
Mn5
D2.1.2 Preparation of field test site Mn6
D2.1.3 First failure test program Mn11
D2.1.4 Further laboratory modeling anddevelopment of second test program
Mn16
D2.1.5 Second failure test program Mn 23
Deliverables
Kav 2002-05-16
M Milestones and Expected Results Date
M2.1.1 Completion of initial 3 embankmentfailure & provision of field data
Mn13
M2.1.2 Completion of further 2 embankmentfailure & provision of field data
Mn25
Milestones and Expected Results
Kav 2002-05-16
Lysaker/Oslo
Tromsø
Trondheim
Large scale test-site
Arctic circle
Large-scale field test
Kav 2002-05-16
Large-scale field test
Damsite
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test
Test-site
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test
Kav 2002-05-16
Test of drainage capacity of the dam toe 2001
Dam-toe
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Large Scale Field Test 2001
Kav 2002-05-16
Field tests 1:2002
Homogeneous (maximum cohesive) dam of silty clay (25% clay, >65% silt, <10% sand )Failure by overtopping
Optimal water content ~ 15%, 0.15 m layers, compaction by dozer 2 layers of pore pressure gauges
2 m
2,0
1H = 6 m
Kav 2002-05-16
Field tests 2a:2002
Homogeneous (minimum cohesive) dam. Gravel 0-60 mm, fines (0,074mm)<5%, 4 mm<d50<10 mm, dmax<60 mm
A. Optional slope protection test with rockfill (0-500mm). B. Failure by overtopping – no protective layer.
0.5 m layers, compaction by 4 ton vibrator roller, 2 layer with pore-pressure sensors 2 m
1,7
1H=5m
0,9 m
Kav 2002-05-16
Field tests 2b:2002
Homogeneous (minimum cohesive) dam. Gravel 0-60 mm, fines (0,074mm)<5%, 4 mm<d50<10 mm, dmax<60 mm
Failure by overtopping – no protective layer.
0.5 m layers, compaction by 4 ton vibrator roller, 2 layer with pore-pressure sensors
2 m
1,7
1H=5m
Kav 2002-05-16
Composite rockfill dam. Failure by overtopping.
Central moraine core (Fines (0,074 mm)>25%; dmax < 60 mm)Rockfill support: A. 0-500 mm, d10 > 10 mm in downstream fill
B. 300-400 mm in upstream fill1 m layer, 4 ton vibrator roller. 2 layer with 2 pore-pressure sensors in the core, 3 sensors at the foundation in the supporting fill.
Field tests 3:2002
H=6m1
1,5
B = 2,5m
1
4
H=5,5m
B = 1m
AB
Kav 2002-05-16
Toe stability. Rockfill support 300-400 mm
Construction: 2- 3 layers (2 m)
Instrument: 6 pore-pressure sensors at the foundation
Field tests 4:2002
H = 4-6m
1,5
1
2 m
Kav 2002-05-16
1. Preparing the site for the test dam• Building of transport road to the riverbed.• Prepare the foundation of the test-dams.• Preparing the side-slopes
2. Selection and transport of the of the materials for dam-building.
3. Building of test-dam #1
4. Test #1
5. Cleaning up at dam-site and preparing for test #2. Step 2-5 will be repeated for each test.
THE PLAN FOR THE FIELD TEST OUTLINE
Kav 2002-05-16
Data Requirements
• Breach formation geometry
• Water levels
• Discharge into the reservoir upstream of the test-dam
• Flow/velocity
• Sediment movement
• Material properties
Kav 2002-05-16
Breach formation geometry
3D surface of breach at any time
Photo, Video, Photogrammerty
Sonar upstream
Some points within the body either through wires or 'balls'.
Kav 2002-05-16
Breach formation geometryFrom the Chinese- Finnish research work
Kav 2002-05-16
Breach formation geometryFrom the Chinese- Finnish research work
Kav 2002-05-16
Aerial video/photo will require some form of structure to support camera
Photogrammetry offers a possible method for identifying movement of embankment material. Requires at least two cameras, firing simultaneously, at a fixed spacing.
Paint a grid across whole of embankment - including crest and upstream face to aid video and photography
Video to be taken from: Downstream: 3 camera stations (2001-2) Above: 1 camera (?)
Upstream: 1 camera
Still camera shots Downstream 3 camera or from video footageQuality is high enough.(Morten Strand F&W)
Breach formation geometryPhoto/video
Kav 2002-05-16
Photopoints
Kav 2002-05-16
Wires
Kav 2002-05-16
Movement sensors
Use of movement sensors - floating balls etc.
A possible solution is to bury sensors within the dam that are released as erosion occurs.
These sensors need to be uniquely identifiable, unrestricted by cables, traceable or disposable.
Kav 2002-05-16
Stored data together with the sensor ID will be downloaded to a PC after collecting the sensors downstream.
Sensor will be housed in watertight (IP68) enclosure. Floating element will ease location of the sensors after the
dambreak. Sensor size approx. 10x10x10 cm.
”Dambreak” Sensor
Sensor housing
Floating element
Sensor contains tilt switch which will trigger when the sensor moves.
A number of sensors will be built into the dam. The number of sensors will determine the resolution. Need to position all sensors by survey.
Processor with built-in timer will log and store time for movement.
(To be followed up)
Kav 2002-05-16
Offers a possible means of monitoring breach growth underwater.
Not appropriate for downstream conditions, but will be placed underwater upstream to show growth of breach through upstream face.
Sonar
Kav 2002-05-16
Sonar - Example
Kav 2002-05-16
Water level - automatic recording (pressure sensors)
– upstream of the test-dam (2)
– downstream (several along the river to monitor the flood wave)
Water levels in the river and reservoir
Kav 2002-05-16
Pressure sensors in the dam
Kav 2002-05-16
• Gate opening every minute
• Water level in the reservoir
Discharge through the gates at Røssvassdammen = inflow to the reservoir upstream of the testdam
Inflow Rate to the test-reservoir
Kav 2002-05-16
Stage/waterlevel: Discharge from calibrated stage-discharge relationship
automatic sampling of water pressure/water level + manual readings
Discharges
Kav 2002-05-16
Water-velocity recordings - automatic recording by use of ADCP:
1) Floating on the surface2) Mounted at the bottom
Discharges from water velocity
Kav 2002-05-16
Discharge/leakage through the test-dam(before failure)
1. Direct measurement Gauge readingsADCP (EasyQ )
2. Indirect by simulation/calculation
Kav 2002-05-16
EasyQ velocity data
Kav 2002-05-16
Discharge during the faillure
1. Direct measurement ADCP (Aquadopp Profiler - bottom
mounted)
Gauge readingsProblem with gauges downstream due to sediment/debris flow.
2. Indirect by simulation/calculation
Kav 2002-05-16
Aquadopp Profiler
Kav 2002-05-16
By survey / calculation of bed surface changes
Sediment movement
Kav 2002-05-16
By survey / calculation of bed surface changes
Sediment movement
Kav 2002-05-16
Particle size distributionLiquid / plastic limitType of clayCompactionRock properties (interlocking effect)
Clay will require further tests – chemistry
Should we be undertaking pre and post failure tests on samples?
Material properties