1 / 38

Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project Village of Ruidoso

Explore history, construction, and challenges of the Ruidoso Dam seepage project. Learn about site investigations, design options, and progress at the 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop.

dugger
Download Presentation

Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project Village of Ruidoso

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grindstone Seepage Mitigation ProjectVillage of Ruidoso Ed Toms 2105 NMWDOC Spring Workshop May 12, 2015

  2. Overview • History • Site Investigations • Construction Contracting • Design • Closing and Questions 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  3. Project History

  4. History • 139-foot high gravity Roller Compacted Concrete Dam • 1,300-foot long section • Built in 1986 • Water supply to the Village of Ruidoso 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  5. History - Plan View 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  6. History - Sections 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  7. History - Facing Elements 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  8. History - Issues • High seepage issues since first filling in 1988 • Repairs in 1989, 1996, 2002, and 2009 • Seasonal trends • Winter higher seepage rates • Interviews with Original construction personnel - • Poorly zones of partially cemented aggregates • Transverse thermal cracks 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  9. History - Issues • High seepage issues since first filling in 1988 • Repairs in 1989, 1996, 2002, and 2009 • Seasonal trends • Winter higher seepage rates • Interviews with Original construction personnel - • Poorly zones of partially cemented aggregates • Transverse thermal cracks 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  10. Site Investigations Phase

  11. Site Investigations • Reservoir at El. 6874. El 6860, where lower seal would be installed, was below water. • Cored 3 vertical rustication joints – Joints 44, 46, & 50. • Excavated a test pit at Joint 49 – confirmed foundation contact likely as indicated on record drawings. • Concrete facing was cracked through at all joint locations cored. • Segregated, poorly consolidated RCC encountered at concrete/RCC interface is a potential seepage pathway behind liner. • Sealant in many of the vertical joints was randomly separated from the sides of the joint. 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  12. Investigations – Vertical Joints 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  13. Investigations – Vertical Joints 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  14. Investigations – Vertical Joints 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  15. Investigations – Vertical Joints 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  16. Construction Contracting

  17. Construction Contracting Method • Design/Bid/Build • Construction Manager at Risk (C-MAR) • Construction Manager/General Construction (CM/GC) • Design/Build • Project schedule defined delivery method – CM/GC • CARPI Liner and Contractor • Worked closely with AECOM during the design • Priced the project based on unit measures • Issued a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) • $3.5 million 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  18. Design Phase

  19. Partial Lining Option • Advantages • Lower impact on VOR water operations • Less expensive • Disadvantages • Lower probability to improve stability and mitigate seepage • Sealing facing at 6860 against all pathways may be difficult and costly • Remobilization costs if sealing does not mitigate seepage effectively or if stability is in question 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  20. Complete Lining Option • Advantages • Higher probability to improve stability and mitigate seepage • Double seal and grouted cutoff costs not needed and put towards liner • No remobilization costs • Disadvantages • Higher impact on VOR water operations • More expensive, 27,500 SF more compared to lining to dam bottom above 6860 • Requires additional excavation and dewatering 27-foot dead pool below intake invert 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  21. Design Elements 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  22. Design Elements 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  23. Design Elements 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  24. Design Elements 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  25. Design Elements 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  26. Construction Phase

  27. Foundation Excavation 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  28. Dry Pack Mortar 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  29. Liner and Internal Profile Material 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  30. Anchor System 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  31. Curtain Holes Urethane Grout Injection 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  32. Construction Coring of Face Element 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  33. Chemical Grout 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  34. Vertical Joint Low-Modulus Epoxy 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  35. Progress – Water Installation 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  36. Installed Tension Profile 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  37. Final Installation Example 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

  38. Questions? Ed Toms ed.toms@aecom.com 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

More Related