15.3 Conditions from Inception to the Date of Analysis …
227
• Geomechanical tests were numerous and distributed.
• A significant number of residual strength, oedometer and triaxial tests were performed.
Analyses and documentation:
• The project is deemed to be of good quality by a competent engineering firm and
a skilled team.
• The “as built” plans display no significant imperfections and variations.
• The alteration plans have also been regularly updated.
Stability analyses:
• As shown in Table 15.4, effective and pseudostatic stability analyses were performed by the engineers.
• Settlement analyses were performed.
• Liquefaction was dismissed by the engineers and we agreed.
• Internal erosion analysis was estimated by engineers as not being a problem.
Operations and monitoring:
• Pore pressure is measured with numerous vibrating wire piezometers.
• Deformations are monitored by topographic observations and inclinometers.
• There is an active Independent Geotechnical Review Board (IGRB).
• There is an annual inspection run by a reputable third party.
Maintenance and repairs:
• Repairs are carried out in a timely manner when damages are identified during the
inspection.
15.3.2 Dam 2
Construction:
• As described above, this is a water retention centerline dam built in one raise with
selected materials.
• Non-erodable by assumed extreme meteorological conditions.
• No pipeline at crest.
• Supervision of the dam was mediocre in terms of both frequency and the skills of
the supervisor.
• Some locally significant geometric divergences have been noted between the plans
and the actual structures and minor intermittent seepage is monitored at one location at the toe.
• There are no known errors or omissions in this project, which has been third-party
reviewed by competent independent reviewers.
227
• Geomechanical tests were numerous and distributed.
• A significant number of residual strength, oedometer and triaxial tests were performed.
Analyses and documentation:
• The project is deemed to be of good quality by a competent engineering firm and
a skilled team.
• The “as built” plans display no significant imperfections and variations.
• The alteration plans have also been regularly updated.
Stability analyses:
• As shown in Table 15.4, effective and pseudostatic stability analyses were performed by the engineers.
• Settlement analyses were performed.
• Liquefaction was dismissed by the engineers and we agreed.
• Internal erosion analysis was estimated by engineers as not being a problem.
Operations and monitoring:
• Pore pressure is measured with numerous vibrating wire piezometers.
• Deformations are monitored by topographic observations and inclinometers.
• There is an active Independent Geotechnical Review Board (IGRB).
• There is an annual inspection run by a reputable third party.
Maintenance and repairs:
• Repairs are carried out in a timely manner when damages are identified during the
inspection.
15.3.2 Dam 2
Construction:
• As described above, this is a water retention centerline dam built in one raise with
selected materials.
• Non-erodable by assumed extreme meteorological conditions.
• No pipeline at crest.
• Supervision of the dam was mediocre in terms of both frequency and the skills of
the supervisor.
• Some locally significant geometric divergences have been noted between the plans
and the actual structures and minor intermittent seepage is monitored at one location at the toe.
• There are no known errors or omissions in this project, which has been third-party
reviewed by competent independent reviewers.