Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project - Presentation

55K - views

Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project

Village of Ruidoso. Ed . Toms. 2105 NMWDOC Spring Workshop. May 12, . 2015. Overview. History. Site Investigations. Construction Contracting. Design. Closing and Questions. 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop.

Embed :
Presentation Download Link

Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project






Presentation on theme: "Grindstone Seepage Mitigation Project"— Presentation transcript:

Slide1

Grindstone Seepage Mitigation ProjectVillage of Ruidoso

Ed Toms2105 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

May 12, 2015Slide2

OverviewHistorySite Investigations

Construction ContractingDesignClosing and Questions2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 2Slide3

Project HistorySlide4

History139-foot high gravity Roller Compacted Concrete Dam

1,300-foot long sectionBuilt in 1986Water supply to the Village of Ruidoso2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

4Slide5

History - Plan View

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 5Slide6

History - Sections

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 6Slide7

History - Facing Elements

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 7Slide8

History - IssuesHigh seepage issues since first filling in 1988Repairs in 1989, 1996, 2002, and 2009

Seasonal trendsWinter higher seepage ratesInterviews with Original construction personnel -Poorly zones of partially cemented aggregatesTransverse thermal cracks

Page 8

2015 NMWDOC Spring WorkshopSlide9

History - IssuesHigh seepage issues since first filling in 1988Repairs in 1989, 1996, 2002, and 2009

Seasonal trendsWinter higher seepage ratesInterviews with Original construction personnel -Poorly zones of partially cemented aggregatesTransverse thermal cracks

Page

9

2015 NMWDOC Spring WorkshopSlide10

Site Investigations PhaseSlide11

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

Page

11Slide12

Investigations – Vertical Joints

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

12Slide13

Investigations – Vertical Joints

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

13Slide14

Investigations – Vertical Joints

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

14Slide15

Investigations – Vertical Joints

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 15Slide16

Construction ContractingSlide17

Construction Contracting MethodDesign/Bid/Build

Construction Manager at Risk (C-MAR)Construction Manager/General Construction (CM/GC)Design/BuildProject schedule defined delivery

method – CM/GCCARPI Liner and ContractorWorked closely with AECOM during the designPriced the project based on unit measures

Issued a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)

$3.5 million

Page

17

2015 NMWDOC Spring WorkshopSlide18

Design PhaseSlide19

Partial Lining Option

AdvantagesLower impact on VOR water operationsLess expensive

DisadvantagesLower 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

Page

19Slide20

Complete Lining Option

AdvantagesHigher probability to improve stability and mitigate seepageDouble

seal and grouted cutoff costs not needed and put towards linerNo 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

Page

20Slide21

Design Elements

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

21Slide22

Design Elements2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 22Slide23

Design Elements2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 23Slide24

Design Elements2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 24Slide25

Design Elements2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 25Slide26

Construction PhaseSlide27

Foundation Excavation2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 27Slide28

Dry Pack Mortar2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 28Slide29

Liner and Internal Profile Material2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 29Slide30

Anchor System2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 30Slide31

Curtain Holes Urethane Grout Injection 2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 31Slide32

Construction Coring of Face Element

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

32Slide33

Chemical Grout

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

33Slide34

Vertical Joint Low-Modulus Epoxy2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page 34Slide35

Progress – Water Installation

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop

Page

35Slide36

Installed Tension Profile

Page 36

2015 NMWDOC Spring WorkshopSlide37

Final Installation Example

Page

37

2015 NMWDOC Spring WorkshopSlide38

Questions?Ed Tomsed.toms@aecom.com

2015 NMWDOC Spring Workshop