6

TH
INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE (RCC) DAMS
Zaragoza, 23 25 October 2012



RCC DAM WATER-PROOFING BY MEANS OF HIGH PRESSUER POLYMER
INJECTIONS COMPARED TO WATER-PROOF MEMBRANES

Alberto GONZALO
Dr.Civil Engineer. Managing Director HCC, S.A. SPAIN




SUMMARY


The large number of layers and, therefore, of discontinuities, in RCC dams
form a potential source of leakage. Installing a waterproof membrane before the
first filling is considered in some project designs. These membranes are possibly
an unnecessary preventive measure but, in any event, extraordinarily costly and
may give doubts as to their performance over time.
It seems far more logical to wait for the reservoir to be filled and should
leaks occur, act accordingly on them. This treatment would be corrective not
preventive, localized not generalised treatment and, therefore, notably less
expensive. The resin injection solution is between four and five times less costly
than generalised water-proofing. And these injections could and should be done
with a full reservoir.

Nevertheless, why are extremely costly membranes included in the design?

There are various reasons and, perhaps, the first is the fact that the
existence of sufficiently contrasted large leak sealing techniques, using high
pressure resin injection without any need to empty the dam, is not widely known.
The second is more psychological in nature: prevention, even though it involves
enormous extra costs to the developer, does not entail risks either for the designer
nor the contractor. However, to take corrective measures on a recently constructed
dam, although being a major saving for the developer, may involve a loss of
prestige for the designer-contractor duo.
In this paper, we defend the consideration that localized treatment of
possible leaks, should be taken into consideration in the design, not as corrective
measures but as water-proofing supplements. It is feasible for a perfectly
defined leak sealing section, to be included in the project design as regards
specifications, unit prices and quantity estimates. In addition, we offer details of
estimated cost for both solutions, which highlight the large saving, provided by the
resin injection solution as compared to geomembranes.



1. BACKGROUND


Since Willow Creek dam was built in 1982 in the United States, RCC
technology has spread very quickly throughout the world. With approximately 400
of this type of dam built, some of which reach 200 metres in height, RCC is a
mature technique displaying the great advantage of rapid construction.

It is precisely this competitive advantage, speed in execution and the many
layers generated, where its Achilles heel lies. Many possible weak planes
combined with the pressure of a rapid advance in the work may, in some cases,
lead to problems in the structures water-proofing.

Some authors state that leak-proof RCC dams can be designed and built. A
suitable joint design together with correct, careful execution of lift joints, leads
inexorably to success. We observe this congress after congress.

However, it cannot be denied that many RCC dams have leakage problems,
some even extraordinarily large. Unfortunately, some technicians, whether from
the engineering consultant, the contractor or the owner of the dam, deny the
evidence, and structures with major water leaks into their galleries, appear in the
literature as paradigms of leak-tightness. From our point of view, an inability to
accept that, under constant development and increasingly faced with greater
challenges, this construction technology may need to supplement its
imperviousness, is leading to erroneous approaches.

In fact, on the opposite side are authors assuring that there are serious
possibilities of substantial leaks and, therefore, it is reasonable to separate
structural functions assigned to low cement content concrete, from those of
water-proofing, entrusted to a generalized geomembrane placed on the upstream
facing.

In some case, a concrete face has been used, but this is not usual, nor does
it one hundred percent ensure the works leak-tightness, as we have had the
opportunity to observe. In most cases, a membrane is fitted lining the upstream
facing of the whole dam. We know of three types:

In situ executed with polymers
Covered geomembrane
Exposed geomembrane

We only know one case of the first type where we had to intervene to solve
major leaks occurring in galleries. Although references can be found stating that
leaks were solved with microcement, the truth is that the problem was solved with
a full reservoir, by injecting highly viscous polymers at a high pressure.

In the light of sometimes erroneous bibliographic references, the question to

be asked is whether notice is to be taken of the body of doctrine, assuring that
leak-tight RCC dams can be built, or whether those who directly include
generalised water-proofing in the project design, are to be listened to.



2. SOME QUESTIONS


The Project Design must obviously contain all those indications which lead
to achieving a reasonably or the most leak-proof possible dam. It is not easy to
accept that, if it were reasonably possible to also achieve the structures
absolute leak-tightness, both as to execution times and costs, by means of a
different technology, there are engineers designing generalised face
water-proofing, with the extremely high costs this operation involves.

The question that would have to be asked is: is it so difficult, or do execution
times and costs increase so much, in order to achieve correct water-proofing of
this type of dam? The answer must undoubtedly be yes. Otherwise, the fact that
generalised water-proofing is being included as from the project design stage
cannot be understood.

A further question arises, which is: are there no other alternatives than a
geomembrane, as prevention, to line the whole of the surface area when, should
leak-proofing problems arise, they are not going to be generalised? The answer is
also yes. Certainly there are alternatives which seal any leak, with a full reservoir
level, and these are high pressure polymer injections just in the areas where leaks
occur in the dams body.

Conceptually, it seems far more reasonable to reinforce leak-tightness in
those areas or weak points requiring such, rather than to do so in a generalised,
preventive fashion. The only problem is to find out beforehand where these weak
points are. We do not have an answer to this question but we do have one for
solving subsequent leaks, i.e., when they manifest with the first filling.

The next question we may ask is: if leaks are very substantial, will we be
able to seal them too? The answer is also yes. We have widely proven technology
enabling gallery leaks of thousands of litres per second to be permanently sealed
and at reasonable costs with no need of divers.

Naturally, it seems that to treat only those areas allowing water to flow
through would appear much less expensive than carrying out generalised
treatment. Is this right? And the answer is yes. It is much less costly to just
reinforce water-proofing, only at those points where strictly necessary, to the
extent the size of the leaks calls for.

The next to last question falls under its own weight: how is the fact explained

that, generalised preventive water-proofing, is preferred to subsequent localized
intervention? The answer here is more complex.

Firstly, although the technology presented in this paper has been used on
more than a hundred dams and several thousands of tonnes of resins have been
injected, it is not yet sufficiently known. But there is also a psychological problem.

In fact, having to intervene once a dam has been built, to seal leaks
detected during the first filling may be considered a failure, both for the designer
and the contractor. However, to provide a geomembrane in the project design,
which involves taking for granted that there will be heavy leaks, is not deemed to
be a failure, and as will be seen later, this solution is less reliable and several
times more costly than resin injection.

The last question is: would it not be more logical in the Project design to
provide for point treatment of possible leaks? Knowing that a dams total
leak-tightness can be achieved at much lower cost than the generalised solution,
the answer is obviously yes.



3. SEALING LEAKAGE WITH A FULL RESERVOIR


We have detected four different ways in which leaks manifest in RCC dams:
Through cracks or vertical joints (Fig.1)
Through lift joints.
Through singular points, such as prefabricated item joints with the
RCC.
Through diffuse areas















Fig. 1
Typical leaks in a RCC dam through a fissure or vertical joint.

In all cases, the system is similar and is formed by the following steps:

Locate the leak.
Drill until intersecting the leak area.
Fit an injector capable of withstanding high pressures.
Inject a polymer.
Monitor.

Figure 2 shows the procedure during the injection phase in schematic form.














Fig.2
Injection procedure scheme

Injection material has to fulfil the following requirements:
Cannot be washed away by water, even though the leak is substantial.
Does not pollute the water.
Polymerises and hardens under water.
Does not shrink.
Adheres to concrete.
Achieves high mechanical properties.

Very high visco-thixotropy epoxy resins were expressly formulated to meet
these conditioning factors. The viscosity of these resins may exceed 200,000 cP.
It should be recalled that water has 1 cP and very thick honey approximately
10,000 cP.

Obviously, pumps also had to be designed and built in order to inject these
polymers, sometimes to tens of metres. Their main features are to be robust,
easily transported inside galleries and capable of pumping resins up to 600 atm.




4. COMPARATIVE COSTS


Impervious prefabricated membranes are one of the most popular
water-tightness solutions. Figure 3 shows several phases of a geomembrane
placement.















Fig.3
Various phases of geomembrane placing in Spain.

Various supplementary jobs are requiref for correct subsequent operation
amongst which the following are usual:

Metal supporto fitting.
Executing drains.
Fitting aeration elements.
Placing an anti-puncture separation layer.
Placing the geomembrane.
Constructing a plinth or element where to finish off the geomembrane.
Injections under the plinth.

Obviously, so many operations and the major auxiliary equipment required
lead to high costs which, according to various sources consulted, may be between
150 and 200 euros per square metre of upstream facing.

As pointed out earlier, the localised injectioin solution does not call for
substantial resources, and is performed at highly specific points. In our
experience, work costs for achieving full water-proofing vary between 10 and 40
euros per square metre of upstream facing.

Of course, a generalisatioin cannot be made and each case has to be studied

on its own merits, but in a reasonable approximation it may be claimed that, a
RCC dam with serious imperviousness problems, will cost some five times less to
leave it dry by means of high pressure resin injections, than what it would cost to
fit a drained geomembrane, as a preventive measure, over the whole of the
upstream facing.



5. ADVANTAGES OF INJECTIOINS


5.1. COST

The first advantage of localized injections as against generalized
water-proofing, as we have seen, the cost, is at least five times less per unit area
of the dams upstream facing. Injections are clearly made to measure and only
those areas so requiring are treated, whilst avoiding the effort, both economic and
in time, of linning the whole surface area.

5.2. AGING

The second advantage is stability over time. Although the bibliography
defends the useful life of membranes as being tens of years, it must be
acknowledged that they are made of synthetic materials exposed to potentially
highly aggressive elements such as the sun, extreme temperatures, natural
mechanical aggressions and vandalism.

On the other hand, injected resins remain permanently immersed in an
environment extraordinarily protected from aggressive agents. The first epoxy
injections in dams date from more than forty years ago and they have performed
excellently.

5.3. REAL TIME SEALING

Generalised water-proofing is carried out with an empty reservoir.
Therefore, even though controls are extremely tight during execution, the result of
the water-proofing operation cannot be known until the dam is filled, and with a full
reservoir, sealing any leaks that might appear proves undoubtedly complicated.
On being a non adhered system, the main problem is to locate the outside leak.

On the other hand, with the injection system, on being carried out under a
head of water, its effectiveness is being real time observed. Work is not taken as
concluded until all leaks have been totally sealed. Therefore, if the injection has
been made with the maximum head of water, and when joints or fissures are as
open as possible, leaks can be guaranteed never to appear again.

5.4. REPAIRABILITY

Should localised failure in the membrane occur, whether in the first filling
or during operation, the only solution is to empty the reservoir or make the repair
with divers. In many cases, emptying may be unapproachable for environmental,
economic, social or political reasons, and repairs with divers are not always
possible and even so, their costs are extraordinarily high.

As pointed out earlier, localised resin injection sealing should be carried
out with the reservoir at maximum level and fissures wide open. Not having
followed this rule, for reasons of urgency for example, does not automatically
imply that leaks will reappear through the areas already treated, but even though
they do occur, their intensity is much less and they are easily and economically
repairable. In fact, resins used perfectly adhere on top of each other. Figure 4
shows how, in a core sample extracted from a re-injected area, the second, green
resin, has penetrated and adhered perfectly onto the concrete and onto the
transparent one














Fig.4
Core sample from an area injected on two occasions, the first with colourless resin
and the second, green.



6. CONCLUSIONS


The conclusions would seem fairly obvious. There exists a technology,
developed and proven in more than one hundred dams, with thousands of tones
injected, capable of sealing major leaks with a full reservoir, whilst at the same time
notably improving structural monolithism. Applied to RCC dams, this technology
enables water-proofing to be fine tuned during filling.

The solution is more reliable, more stable and, above all, several times less costly
than generalised water-proofing. It does not have to be taken as a failure in

execution or in design but as a supplement that may have to be performed and
that has to be defined and assessed in the project design phase.

Keywords: RCC dams, leakage, resins, injection, water-tightness, geomembranes