ສກ

ຶ ສາສມທຽບໂຄງສ
ົ າ້ ງເຂ່ ອນເບຕ
ື ງອ
ົ ດແຫນ
ັ ນ ້ ຍເຄ່ ອງຈ
້ ດວ ື ກັ
ແລະ ເຂ່ ອນຫ
ື ີນ
ຶ ສາ: ໂຄງການເຂື່ອນນາງຽບ
ກໍລະນີສກ ໍ້ 1 ,ເມືອງ ບໍລຄ
ິ ັນ ແຂວງ ບໍລຄຳ
ິ ໄຊ
A Comparison Study of RCC Dam and Concrete Face Rock fill
dam Structure
Case Study: Numngiep1 Hydropower , Bolikhan District
Bolikhamxay Province
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE

ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere respect and appreciation to my advisor: Dr. Khamhou
SAPHOUVONG for support and generous guidance during conducting this thesis, special
thanks to thesis committee and other members for providing useful and valuable suggestions
and discussions.
Together with persons mentioned above, I would like to thank all the staff members
in Graduation Division particularly Master of Hydraulic Engineering Program, Faculty of
Engineering, National University of Laos, for their generous assistance. As well as fully
support and advice from Deputy Head of Graduation Division: Assoc. Prof. Khamfeuane
SIOUDOM, PhD. and Dean of Faculty of Engineering: Prof. Boualinh SOYSOUVANH,
PhD.
Finally, thanks to staff on namngiep1 Hydropower project they are support me the
document of the dam and give me came to site visit and special my family ,friends for their
kindly support, patience and understanding throughout my master program almost 3 years.
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE

ABSTRACT
Laos is a landlocked nation in Southeast Asia covers 236,800 square kilometres. About 70
percent of Laos geographic area is mountain ranges, highland and river cut through which
appropriate for many hydropower constructions. In the decade, there are many types of dams
built in Laos but some of them still not suitable for environment and geography of Laos. Most
project was built by their owner’s budget which cause of many problems. So, these studies
focus on estimation of Roller Compacted Crete Dam (RCCD) and Concrete Face Rock Fill
Dam (CFRD) to gather and provide information in order to compare both types of dam which
can be used to be the data base for the next future project.

These research base on Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower where located in Bolikhamxai

Province as the case study. In these studies, there were estimating of stability of both types
Roller Compacted Crete Dam (RCCD) and Concrete Face Rock Fill Dam (CFRD) by using
data corrected such as Geotechnical, Hydrological, material and Design load. After that, there
were the estimation of dam cost in order to compare its total cost of dam structure and debility
of dam structure to optimizing the both dams. These purposes were to understand the
appropriateness of selecting the structure suitable for Laos environment and the terrain.
Moreover, these analyses can reduce the risk damaging of dam structure and be useful for
dam site to avoid the disasters of dams in long term. The design tool used in this research is
the widely used program like Microsoft Excel to estimate the data.
From the result of these estimation can found that the RCCD need smaller space of
foundation and it appropriate to build in the place that terrain with many mountains. So,
RCCD structure is better than CFRD structure in shape of dam’s structure. For the stability of
dam’s structure, when used factor of safety (FS) of overturning equal 3.25 found that RCCD
structure had more factor of safety than CFRD structure and moreover the CFRD structure
have to check more parameters than RCCD Structure. In the part of cost estimate found that
CFRD structure has the lowest costs if the distance of transport of stone less than 31 km and
expensive than RCCD if the distance of transport of stone more than 31 km

Key words: Shape of dam structure, Roller Compacted Concrete Dam, Concrete face Rockfill
Dam , Aggregate, Cost, Density, Materials Properties, Stability of dam structure.
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE

ບ ົດຄ ັດຫຍໍ້ (LAO ABSTRACT)

ປະເທດລາວເປັນປະເທດອອມ ້ ຮອບດວ ້ ຍພູເຂົາບໍ່ ມີທາງອອກສູທະເລມີພື້ນທີ່ 236,800 ຕາລາງ
ກິໂລແມັດໂດຍພືນທີ່ ສວ ້ ່ ນໃຫຍ ່ 70% ຂອງພື້ນທີ່ ເປັນພູເຂົາ ແລະ ມີຄວາມສູງກວ ່ ົ ຫນາ້ ນາທະເລຫລາຍ
ໍ້
ຈື່ ງເປັນປັດໃຈທີ່ ເອືອ ້ ອຳນວຍຕໍ່ ການຜະລິດພະລ ັງງານໄຟຟ້າດວ ້ ຍພະລ ັງນາໂດຍການກໍ່ ໍ້ ສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນແມນ ່
ແບງ່ ອອກເປັນຫລາຍຮູບແບບຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງແຕໂ່ ດຍທົ່ ວໄປແລວ ້ ໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນຂະຫນາດໃຫຍທ ່ ່ ີນິຍ ົມ
ສາ້ ງໃນຍຸກປັດຈຸບ ັນແລວ ້ ມກຈະເປັ ັ ນໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນທີ່ ເຮັດດວຍ ້ ເຂື່ ອນ ຄອນກຣິດອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ດວ ້ ຍ
ເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ ( RCCD ) ແລະ ໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນທີ່ ເຮັດດວ ້ ຍຫີ ນ ເທທັ ບ ຫນ າດ
້ ້ ວ ຍເບຕ ົງ ( CFRD)
ສ ໍາຫລ ັບຂອບເຂດການສຶກສາຂອງບ ົດນິພນ ົ ສະບ ັບນີແ ້ ມນຈະໄດ ່ ຍ
້ ົກເອົ າເຂື່ ອນ 2 ປະເພດຄືເຂື່ ອນ
ຄອນກຣິດອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ດວ ້ ຍເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ ( RCCD ) ແລະ ໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນທີ່ ເຮັດດວ ້ ຍຫີນເທທັບຫນາ້ ດວ ້ ຍເບ
ຕ ົງ ( CFRD) ມາສຶກສາເຖິງຂໍດ ້ ແີ ລະຂໍດ ້ ອຍ ້ ຂອງໂຄງສ າ
້ ງແຕ ລ
່ ະປະເພດໂດຍອິ ງ ໃສ ເ
່ ປົ ້ າ ຫມາຍຄື :
ຮູບຮາ່ ງລ ັກສະນະຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງທີ່ ມີຜ ົນຕໍ່ ຄວາມສະຖຽນລະພາບຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງ,ຄວາມສະຖຽນລະພາບ
ຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງໂດຍອິງໃສພ ່ ມ ຸ ມິສ ັນຖານອ ັນດຽວກ ັນ,ເສດຖະກິດ ແລະ ໄລຍະເວລາການກໍ່ ສາ້ ງ
ສ ໍາຫລ ັບໂຄງການທີ່ນ ໍາມາສຶກສາແມນໂຄງການເຂື່ ່ ນນາງຽບ ໍ້ 1 ເຊີ່ ງຕງຢູ ັ ້ ເ່ ມືອງບໍລິຄ ັນ ແຂວງບໍລິຄ ໍາ
ໄຊ ເປັນໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນ ຄອນກຣິດອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ດວ ້ ຍເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ ( RCCD ) ເຊີ່ ງຈະໄດເ້ ອົ າຂໍມ ້ ນ
ູ ຕາ່ ງໆ
ເຊັ່ ນ:ຂໍມນ ້ ູ ທາງດາ້ ນປະລິມານນາ,ຂໍ ້
ໍ ມນ ້ ູ ທໍລະນີວທ ິ ະຍາ ແລະ ການການ ໍ ົດຄຸນນະສ ົມບ ັດຂອງວ ັດສະ
ດຸ,ນາຫນ ໍ້ ັກທີ່ກະທ ໍາຕໍ່ໂຄງສາ້ ງຂອງເຂື່ ອນເພື່ ອນໍາມາອອກແບບຄືນທັງໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນທັງ 2 ປະເພດ
ແລວ ້ ນຳມາສ ົມທຽບຕາມຈຸດປະສ ົງທີ່ໄດກ ້ າ່ ວມາຂາ້ ງເທີງນນ. ັ້
ຜົນຂອງການສຶກສາຄນຄ ້ົ ວແມ ້ົ ນສາມາດສະຫລູ
່ ບ ໄດ ໂ
້ ດຍຫຍໍ ້ :ື ທາງດາ້ ນຮູບຮາ່ ງຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງຈະ
ຄ
ເຫັ ນໄດວ ້ າ່ ໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນຄອນກຣິດອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ດວ ້ ຍເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ ( RCCD) ມີຈດ ຸ ດີກວ ່ ົ ເນື່ ອງຈາກ
ຕອ ້ ງການພື ້ ນ ທີ່ ຫນ ອ
້ ຍກ ່
ວ ົ ເຊີ່ ງຈະແທດເຫມາະກ ັບພູ ມ ມີ
ສ ັນຖານທີ ່ ເປັ ນ ພູເ ຂົ າແລະມີ ກ ານປຽນເປງລະດ ັບ
ຂອງແມນ ໍ້
່ າໃນລະດ ັບສູງ,ດາ້ ນຄວາມສະຖຽນລະພາບຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງສາມາດເວົ້າໄດວ ້ າ່ ໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນ
ຄອນກຣິດອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ້ ດ ວ ຍເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ ( RCCD )ມີ່ ຄາ ຕ
່ ້ າ ນທານຫລາຍກ ່
ວ ົ ແລະ ມີວທ ິ ີການກວດເຊັ ກ
ຄວາມສະຖຽນລະພາບນອ ້ ຍກວ ່ ົ ປະເພດເຂື່ ອນຫີນເຊີ່ ງສະແດງໃຫເ້ ຫັ ນຄື:ເມື່ ອມີການກວດເຊັ ກຫນອ ້ ຍ
ກວ ່ ົ ກໍ່ ຈະລຸດຜອ ່ ນໂອກາດຈະຜິດຜາດໄດດ ້ ກີ ວ ່ ົ ,ດາ້ ນລາຄາການກໍ່ ສາ້ ງສາມາດເວົ້າໄດວ ້ າ່ ໂຄງສາ້ ງເຂື່ ອນ
ຫີນຈະມີລາຄາຕາ່ ໍ ກວ ່ ົ ເມື່ ອແຫລງ່ ສະຫນອງຫີນຢູໃ່ ນບໍລເິ ວັນ 31 ກິໂລແມັດ ແລະ ໂຄງສາ້ ງຄອນກຣິດ
ອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ດວ ້ ຍເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ ( RCCD ) ຈະດີກວ ່ ົ ເມື່ ອແຫລງ່ ວ ັດສະດຸຫີນໄກກວ ່ ົ 31 ກິໂລແມັດ.

ຄ ໍາສ ັບທີ່ກຽ່ ວຂອ

້ ງປະກອບມີ: ຄອນກຣິດອ ັດແຫນນ ້ ດວ
້ ຍເຄື່ ອງຈ ັກ, ເຂື່ ອນຫີນ,ກາລ
ໍ ັງຮ ັບແຮງ
ອ ັດ,ຮູບຮາ່ ງຂອງເຂື່ ອນ,ອ ັດຕາສວ່ ນ, ວ ັດສະດຸ, ຄຸນສ ົມບ ັດທາງດາ້ ນວິສະວະກຳ,ຄວາມສະຖຽນລະ
ພາບຂອງໂຄງສາ້ ງ.
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE

TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS........................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................3

LIST OF FIGURE...................................................................................................................8
LIST OF TABLE....................................................................................................................9
Glossary................................................................................................................................10
ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................1

1.1 Problem........................................................................................................................2
1.2 Purpose..............................................................................................................................2
1.3 Research Objective...........................................................................................................2
1.4 The Research Questions....................................................................................................2
1.5 Scope of work...............................................................................................................2
1.6 Case study Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project............................................................3
1.6.1 Location....................................................................................................................3
1.6.2 Topography Nam Ngiep River.................................................................................4
1.6.3 Geology, Landforms and Seismology......................................................................5
1.6.3.1 Soils.......................................................................................................................5
1.6.3.2 Erosion and Sedimentation....................................................................................5
1.6.4 Hydrogeology and Environmental Flows.................................................................6
1.6.5 Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company.................................................................................7
1.6.6 Technical information of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydro power.............................................8
1.7 Expected Outcomes........................................................................................................11
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................12

2.1 Shape of Dam structure..............................................................................................12

2.1.1 Shape of Roller Compacting Concrete dam...........................................................13
1. Top Width of RCCD...................................................................................................13
2. Upstream slopes RCCD...............................................................................................13
3. Downstream Slope RCCD...........................................................................................13
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE
4. Free Board RCCD.......................................................................................................14
2.1.2 Shape of Concrete Face Rock fill dam (earth fill dams)........................................14
1. Top Width of CFRD....................................................................................................14
3. Upstream slopes CFRD...............................................................................................15
3. Downstream Slope.......................................................................................................15
4. Free Board CFRD........................................................................................................15
2.2.1.1 History Roller-Compacted Concrete Dam......................................................16
2.2.1.2 Concrete gravity dam and apparent structures- basic layout...............................18
2.2.1.3 Rock foundation layout...................................................................................19
2.2.1.4 Design of concrete gravity Dam......................................................................19
2.2.1.5 Loadings for concrete Gravity Dams..................................................................22
1.) Dead load...................................................................................................................22
2.) Water pressure on dam...............................................................................................22
3.) Uplift pressures..........................................................................................................23
4.) Silt pressure................................................................................................................26
5.) Earthquake (seismic) forces.......................................................................................26
6.)Wave pressure.............................................................................................................27
7.) Load reduction factor.............................................................................................28
2.2.1.6 Loading combinations.........................................................................................29
2.3.5 Stability conditions.................................................................................................29
2.2.1.7 Design stability of RCCD....................................................................................30
2.2.2 Stability of Concrete-face rock fill dam.................................................................33
2.2.2.1 History of Concrete-face rock fill dam................................................................33
2.2.2 Design Criteria of CFRD dam structural................................................................35
2.2.2.1 Dam zoning, materials and embankment specifications....................................35
2.2.2.2 Concrete face slab................................................................................................36
2.2.2.3 Concrete plinth....................................................................................................36
2.2.2.4 Joints and water stop...........................................................................................37
2.2.2.5 Load combination................................................................................................37
2.2.3 Stability condition of Concrete Face Rock fill dam...............................................38
1. Slope Stability Analysis.........................................................................................38
2. stability against sliding:.........................................................................................38
3. Stability against overturning:......................................................................................38
4.Concrete Face slab........................................................................................................39
5.) Shear Strength of Rock..........................................................................................39
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE
6.) Bearing capacity.........................................................................................................40
7.) Concrete stress...........................................................................................................40
2.2.3 Earthquake Data in Lao PDR..................................................................................42
(a) Historical earthquake data..........................................................................................42
(b) Operating Basis Earthquake data...............................................................................42
(c) Maximum Credible Earthquake.................................................................................43
2.3 Cost estimate for dam body............................................................................................44
2.3.1 Quantities................................................................................................................44
2.3.2 Unit Prices..............................................................................................................44
2.3.3 Direct cost for Dam body.......................................................................................45
2.3.3.1 Labor cost............................................................................................................45
2.3.3.2 Equipment costs...................................................................................................45
2.3.3.3 Materials cost.......................................................................................................46
2.3.4 Summary Cost estimate..........................................................................................46
2.3.5 Standard Classification for Cost Estimate Classification.......................................46
2.6 Relate literature review...................................................................................................48
CHAPTER III: PROPOSED METHODOLOGY.....................................................................52

3.1 Research design Shape of dam...................................................................................52

3.1.1 Shape of RCC dam.................................................................................................52
3.1.2 Shape of CFRD dam...............................................................................................52
3.2 Research design of Stability: follow the Master flow chart at bellow.......................54
3.2.1 Stability analysis methode ( RCCD)......................................................................55
3.2.2 Stability analysis methode ( CFRD).......................................................................56
 Design Process Simulation.....................................................................................57
1.) Layout of main dam facilities................................................................................57
2.) Type of Main dam..................................................................................................57
3.) Effective condition for design work.......................................................................58
3.3 Cost Estimate methode..............................................................................................62
3.4 Research instrument...................................................................................................62
CHAPTER IV: RESULT AND DISCUSSION........................................................................63

4.1 Shape of dam structure...............................................................................................63

4.1.1 Roller compacting concrete....................................................................................63
4.2 Stability Analysis………………………………………………………………………67
4.2.1.1 Design Calculate sheet of RCC Dam body ( Operate flood water level case ) 67
4.2.1.2 Design Calculate sheet of RCC Dam body ( Overflow water level case ) 69
4.2.1.3 Design Calculate sheet of RCC Dam body ( None flood water level case ) 72
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE
4.2.1.4 Design Calculate sheet of CFRD Dam body ( Operate flood water level case )76
4.2.1.5 Design Calculate sheet of CFRD Dam body( Overflow water level case ) 80
4.2.1.6 Design Calculate sheet of CFRD Dam body( None flood water level case ) 85
4.2.2 Summary Calculation report for stability analysis................................................88
4.2.2.1 Summary design report for Roller Compacting Concrete Dam..........................88
4.3.2.2 Summary design report for Concrete Face Rock fill Dam..................................88
4.2.2.3 Comparative of dam structure.............................................................................89
4.3 Cost estimate of RCCD and CFRD Dam body...............................................................90
4.3.1 Unit price for structural of dam body.....................................................................91
4.3.1.1 Unit price of Roller compacting concrete dam....................................................91
4.3.2.1 Unit price of Concrete face rock fill dam............................................................93
4.3.2 Cost estimate for RCCD and CFRD dam body.....................................................98
4.3.2.1 Cost estimate for RCCD......................................................................................98
4.3.2.2 Cost estimate for CFRD......................................................................................98
4.3.3.1 Comparative Cost between RCCD and CFRD..................................................101
4.4 Construction ability.......................................................................................................102
1. Roller Compacting Concrete Construction Capacity...........................................102
1. Concrete Face Rockfill Dam Construction Capacity...........................................102
2. Comparison of time for construction between RCCD and CFRD.......................103
4.5 Finding and discussion..................................................................................................104
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.............................................105

5.1 General Conclusion.......................................................................................................105

REFERENCE..........................................................................................................................106
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE
LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 1 Site location of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower..................................................................3

Figure 2: CRFD Dam ( Num ngum2 hydro power Project )....................................................34
Figure 3 Cross section of NN2 Hydro power Project...............................................................34
Figure 4: Concrete Gravity dam section a) Basic triangular shape b) Modified shape............18
Figure 5:Figure .. Layout of bock for concrete Gravity dam....................................................18
Figure 6: Elevation of concrete dam gravity foundation..........................................................19
Figure 7: Different forces acting on concrete gravity dam.......................................................21
Figure 8: Different forces acting on concrete gravity dam.......................................................23
Figure 9: Uplift pressure on concrete gravity dam...................................................................24
Figure 10: Uplift pressure considering presence of drainage holes..........................................25
Figure 11: Uplift pressure considering horizontal crack of any plane flat the base.................25
Figure 12: Combination of earthquake force acting under reservoir........................................26
Figure 13: Zoning of CFRD......................................................................................................35
Figure 14: earthquake map in Lao PDR...................................................................................42
Figure 15: SEISMIC HAZARD MAP......................................................................................43
Figure 16:Flowchart of research methodology.........................................................................54
Figure 17: Layout of main dam................................................................................................57
Figure 18: Rock information profile.........................................................................................58
Figure 19 : Symbols..................................................................................................................58
Figure 20: shows the geological profile along the main dam axis............................................59
Figure 21: Determination of dam crest elevation.....................................................................60
Figure 22: Calculation of wave height by wind........................................................................60
Figure 23: Typical section of RCCD........................................................................................63
Figure 24: Typical section of CFRD.........................................................................................64
Figure 25 : chart for comparative between RCCD & CFRD..................................................101
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE
LIST OF TABLE

Table 1: Material property for dam...........................................................................................28

Table 2: Load combination for design dam body.....................................................................29
Table 3: Table of Bearing Capacity..........................................................................................32
Table 4 : Load combination......................................................................................................37
Table 5 AACE Accuracy Matrix for Estimating Classes.........................................................47
Table 6 : Report for factor of safety of Roller Compacting Concrete Dam.............................88
Table 7: Report for factor of safety of Roller Compacting Concrete Dam..............................88
Table 8: Comparative stability of dam structure.......................................................................89
Table 9: Category cost of hydro power cost estimate...............................................................90
Table 10: Unit price of Roller compacting concrete.................................................................91
Table 11: Unit price for PCVC concrete...................................................................................92
Table 12: Unit price of stone 10 km transport..........................................................................93
Table 13:Unit price of stone 20 km transport...........................................................................94
Table 14: Unit price of stone 30 km transport..........................................................................94
Table 15: Unit price of stone 40 km transport..........................................................................95
Table 16: Unit price of stone 50 km transport..........................................................................96
Table 17: Summary price for 10,20,30,40,50 km for transport stone.......................................97
Table 18: Cost estimate for RCC am........................................................................................98
Table 19: Cost estimate of Concrete face rock fill dam / 1ml ( 10 km from stone batching
plant to Dam site ).....................................................................................................................98
Table 20: Cost estimate of Concrete face rock fill dam / 1ml ( 20 km from stone batching
plant to Dam site ).....................................................................................................................99
Table 21: Cost estimate of Concrete face rock fill dam / 1ml ( 30 km from stone batching
plant to Dam site ).....................................................................................................................99
Table 22: Cost estimate of Concrete face rock fill dam / 1ml ( 40 km from stone batching
plant to Dam site )...................................................................................................................100
Table 23: Cost estimate of Concrete face rock fill dam / 1ml ( 40 km from stone batching
plant to Dam site )...................................................................................................................101
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE

Glossary

1.) RCCD = Roller-compacted concrete (RCC) continues to gain recognition as a

competitive material for building new and rehabilitating existing dams. Over the past
two decades, many design details and construction methods have been adapted to
enhance the final product while maintaining the speed of construction that provides
RCC its competitive edge.
2.) CFRD = concrete-face rock-fill dam (CFRD) is a rock-fill dam with concrete slabs on
its upstream face. This design offers the concrete slab as an impervious wall to
prevent leakage and also a structure without concern for uplift pressure. In
addition, the CFRD design is flexible for topography, faster to construct and less
costly than earth-fill dams.
3.) FRD = The rock fill dams have a relatively narrow, impermeable earth or clay core
inside the dam but most of the dam is constructed of permeable rock fill which,
by itself, would be incapable of retaining water. The impermeable membrane in these
dams is the clay core.
4.) OBE = Operating Basis Earthquake In this current study, the dam stability on
earthquake is considered under Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Maximum
Credible Earthquake (MCE). OBE is defined as the serviceability of the dam remains
without larger damage after earthquake
5.) PGA = Peak Ground Acceleration Peak which follows the hypocenter modeling, is
required to estimate the maximum acceleration at NNP1 site using the attenuation
relationship. As the attenuation relationship of NNP1 site,
6.) NNP1 = Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project

7.) USBR = United States Bureau of Reclamation

 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE

ABBREVIATIONS
1. Limit states design with partial factors
γ 0 factor of structure importance;
φ - factor of design situation;
S ( ·) - function of action effect;
R (·) - function of structural resistance;
S5(.) - function of combination for short-term action effects;
S1(.) - function of combination for long-term action effects;
G k - characteristic value of permanent action;
γ G - partial factor of permanent action;
Q K - characteristic value of variable action;
γ Q - partial factor of variable action;
A K - representative value of accidental action;
α K – c haracteristic value of geometric parameters;
f K - characteristic value of material property;
γ m- partial factor of material property;
γ d 1 - structural factor of fundamental combination under ultimate limit states;
γ d 2 - structural factor of accidental combination under ultimate limit states;
C1 - structural function limit value of short-term combination under serviceability
limit states;
C2 - structural function limit value of long-term combination under serviceability
limit states;
ρ-coefficient of long-term combination for variable action.
2. Geometric characteristics
T - length in upstream and downstream direction of calculated dam cross-
section (TR and Tc are the lengths of dam foundation plane and the calculated plane,
respectively);
m1 - upstream dam slope;
mi - downstream dam slope;
A - calculated horizontal section area of dam body (AR and Ac are the area of dam
foundation plane and the calculated plane, respectively);
J - inertia moment of the cross section to the cantered axis (JR and le are that of
dam foundation plane and the calculated plane);
B - net width of overflow weir;
D - height of openings;
Ak - area of opening exit;
R - radius of ogee section;
h - height of placement blocks;
l - length of longer side of placement blocks.
 MA proposal by: Maita XAIYAPHONE
3 Material properties
E R- deformation modulus of foundation rock;
Ec - elastic modulus of concrete;
µ - poison’s ratio of concrete;
γ r - unit weight of rock;
γ W - unit weight of water;
γ c - unit weight of concrete;
c c specific heat of concrete;
c w specific heat of water;
E - ultimate elongation of concrete;
Ac - thermal conductivity of concrete;
α c-thermal diffusivity of concrete;
β c-heat evolution coefficient of concrete surface;
α - thermal expansion co efficient of concrete;
c - symbol of concrete strength class;
f c- design value of concrete compressive strength;
f ' R - friction coefficient against shear fracture at the contact surface between dam
concrete and foundation rock;
f ' c - friction coefficient against shear fracture between the lift surfaces of dam
concrete;
f ' d - friction coefficient against shear fracture between the structural planes of dam
foundation rock;
c 'd - cohesive force against shear fracture at the contact surface between dam concrete
and foundation rock;
c ' c - cohesive force against shear fracture between the lifts surface of dam
concrete;
c ' R - cohesive force against shear fracture between the structural planes of
foundation rock.

4. Action and action effect

∑ W - sum of all normal actions on the calculated cross section;
G - normal action on the foundation rock;
∑ P - sum of all tangential actions on the calculated cross section;
∑ M sum of force moment of all actions (including normal and tangential) on the
calculated cross section to the cantered axis of the section;
σ x −¿orizontal normal stress;
σ y −¿vertical normal stress;
γ - hear stress;
σ 1 , σ 2- principal stress;
P1, P2 - water pressure acted on the upstream and downstream faces of
calculated section;
U- uplift.
 CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION
In Laos have many power stations have been built during the last decades.
Thus there is very little experience of dams built with RCC and CFR technique.
Internationally, CFRDs and RCCDs are common and in many parts of the world there is
a large potential for new water power stations.
The new technology is adopted for the construction of gravity dam and the
technology is known as roller compacted concrete (RCC). Reference [1] stated that
RCC has been rapidly developing over the past 40 years and now is commonly used for
gravity dam application. Recently, Malaysia started adopting RCC technology to the
gravity dam construction. With the fact that the construction of RCC dam is still new in
Malaysia, the understanding on such construction is very limited among local
construction industry player. The first RCC dam in Malaysia is Kinta dam which is
situated in Ipoh and constructed by Japanese contractor (Hazama Corporation). It was
completed in 2007. In 2008, the construction of Batu Hampar dam is started which is
the second RCC dam project in Malaysia. Dekon Sdn. Bhd, the local contractor who
had no previous experience of RCC dams was selected to construct the dam. The
government intention
The concrete face rockfill dam, CFRD, had its origin in the mining region of the
Sierra Nevada in California in the 1850s. Experience up to 1960 using dumped rockfill,
demonstrated the CFRD to be a safe and economical type of dam, but subject to
concrete face damage and leakage caused by the high compressibility of the segregated
dumped rockfill. As a result, the CFRD became unpopular. With the advent of
vibratory-roller-compacted rockfill in the 1950s, the development of the CFRD
resumed. Although design is largely based on precedent, there has been
continuous progress in design aspects and in construction methods (ICOLD,
Nov.2014). In recent years, concrete face rockfill dams have been a major dam
type as a result of their good performance and low cost compared to earthfill
dams. However design of CFRDs is still based on experiences and engineering
judgement (Cooke, 1984- 1997; Nunez 2007b).

1
1.1Problem
1. Material cost is one of the major factor in the design and construction of warries
structure.
2. The process of selecting the structure for hydropower plant is according to the
developer’s initial budget which eventually cuases a problem in structure.

1.2 Purpose
Generally the overall cost of dam structure is very high , the optimization
method are suitable tool for safe economic of dam structure incase study and compare
between Roller compacting concrete and Concrete face rock fill dam.

1.3 Research Objective

 Study and compare the main difference between Roller Compacted Concrete and
Concrete Face Rock fill Dam
1. Study and compare Shape of dam body.
2. Study and compare Stability of dam structure.
3. Study and Compare Economy in regard of construction, materials and time for
construction.

1.4 The Research Questions

The main research question is therefore as follows:

1. How to find the optimization shape of dam structure?

2. How to difference stability between RCCD and CFRD?
3. What type of dam structure is suitable for economic between RCCD and CFRD?

1.5 Scope of work

- The scope of research study the appropriateness of dam shape that what kind of dam is
suitable for the real Geological and environment. Finally, do a conclusion.
- The scope of study in the part of dam stability designed and researched specifically in
the dam structure by focused in 1 meter length of structure where located in the deepest
of river to design. Then the stability was recalculation by using geology data, hydrology
and the loading that were reported by (KANSAI 2013) that informed to Lao PDR
government after got the result of analysis and designing the RCC, CRFD dam
structure. After that the result of redesign and stability were used to compared.
- The scope of study in the part of cost and time construction was studied according to
the data obtained from actual field inquiries and the material data form the Paksan

2
quarry. The unit price data of RCCD structure form SONDA 9 subcontract company
was given. And ability for construction base on report of Namngum2 hydropower by
CH.K Lao for CFRD and KANSAI Report of Namngiep1 hydropower Then the data
was calculate and compare in the cost of dam structure.

1.6Case study Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project

1.6.1 Location
Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project is located at Ngiep River in Bolikhamxay district in
the middle of Lao PDR, 145 kilometers away to the Northeast of the capital city;
Vientiane
The main facility of the Project will be located in Xaysomboun, Bolikhamxay
Province, although the reservoir will also cover parts of, Vientiane and Xieng Khouang
provinces. The reservoir will have a surface area of 66.9 km² when at full supply level
of EL 320 m. The reservoir will have an effective storage capacity of 1,192 million m³,
and is designed to drop around 130 m to a power station downstream from the main
dam. Water discharged from the power station will flow into a re-regulating pond some
5km downstream, then be discharged downstream daily through the 20 m high re-
regulation dam. [ EIA NN1 2009 ]

Project is located at Ngiep River in

Bolikhamxay Province in the middle
of Lao PDR, 145 kilometers away to
the Northeast of the capital city;
Vientiane

Figure 1 Site location of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower

Sources: Environmental Impact Assessment Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower

3
1.6.2 Topography Nam Ngiep River

Relief along the Nam Ngiep River differs in each part of the stream; though it can be
clearly divided into two main segments, based on physical conditions,upstream and
downstream from the main dam.
Upstream of Main Dam - High Mountains (EL. 180 m. MSL.) can be found on both
sides of the Nam Ngiep, notably Phu Xao at 2,590 meters and Phu Khe at 2,125 meters
MSL. These are sources of tributaries to the Nam Ngiep, providing continuous supplies
of large amounts of water throughout the year. Upstream of the dam is a deeply incised
gorge with small fluvial deposits from major confluences. About the FSL, the Nam
Ngiep flows from various tributaries with upstream deep pools and adjoining rapids.
Immediately above FSL, the river flows through a mainly through a depositional
landscape. (Kansai Electric, 2007).
Downstream of Main Dam - Most of the river downstream from the main dam has an
elevation of less than 180 meters. The downstream section of the river is characterized
by gently meandering river stretches and large open floodplains as the river flows into
the Mekong River some 47.9km away. A reregulation dam will divide the downstream
into two parts, one between the two dams about 5km apart and the other downstream of
the re-regulation dam. (Kansai Electric, 2007).

NNP1

Figure 2: Location of NNG1 Dam

4
1.6.3 Geology, Landforms and Seismology
Seismic events in the Project area have been historically rare. The area where the dam
and reservoir are located are classified as being of only moderate risk (level VI) on the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (Figure 0.12). Geological structures in the region
seem to indicate joints and fractures of rock formations, which suggest seismic activity
in the past. Therefore, detailed mapping and coring explorations have been carried out
prior to detailed design and dam construction (Kansai Electric, 2007).

1.6.3.1 Soils
Soil surveys found that the soils around the proposed construction sites and camps are
prone to wind and water erosion. Soils near the reservoir are generally acidic, low in
nutrients, and also susceptible to erosion. Soil surveys in the proposed resettlement
areas found that the soils generally had low to medium levels of nutrients.

Figure 3: Geology of foundation and rock profile data

1.6.3.2 Erosion and Sedimentation

The Western and Northern edges of the basin form a vast cirque with very steep sides
due to headword erosion, while only outliners remain of the eastern rim which separates
this basin from that of the Nam Xan River. The maximum altitude of the ridge
separating the two basins is 2,819 m, in the middle of the western edge of the Nam
Ngiep watershed area. Some spoil erosion from surrounding landuses exists within the
watershed, particularly from forestry and agriculture.

5
1.6.4 Hydrogeology and Environmental Flows
Nam Ngiep basin has a watershed area of about 4,533 sq. km., and is divided into 33
sub-basins. Most of the sub-basins are rather small, and only 3 sub basin shave a
watershed area of more than 10% of the total watershed area.
For most of its 160 km length, the Nam Ngiep flows through mountainous regions in a
south to southeastern direction. After a turn to the east, it passes through a narrow gorge
of some 7 km between Mt. Huasua (elevation 1,538m) to the northeast and Mt. Katha
(elevation 2,071 m to the southwest). The mouth of the gorge lies 7.7 km west-
southwest of the main settlement of Ban Hat Gniun. From there the river runs through
hilly terrain to the Mekong River.

Figure 4: Catchment Area of NN1

6
About 2.9 km from the end of the gorge, the Nam Katha joins the Nam Ngiep. This last
segment of the gorge has a river gradient as steep as 1/100. The planned dam site is
located in this segment of the gorge, about 1.2 km downstream from the confluence of
the Nam Katha River. The entire basin for the dam has an area of about 3,700 km 2.
Based on the 14-year actual measurement of discharge at the Moung Mai station and the
measured discharge at Ban Hat Gniun (September 1998December 2002), the difference
Between measured discharge and calculated discharge was minimized through trial-and-
error method. The result of the dam site low flow analysis by Tank Model method
showed the
Annual average discharge (1971 to 2000) of 148.4 m /s

The model was calibrated and verified against the actual results of river flow discharges
over a two year period – wet and dry season 1998-2000. Actual river discharge data is
plotted – in red dots – over the model for calibration. The results show that actual river
discharge are closely aligned with the model, indicative of the accuracy.

1.6.5 Nam Ngiep 1 Power Company

NNP1 is owned by Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc. (Kansai Electric); the Electricity
Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) International Co. Ltd; and Lao Holding State
Enterprise. The Company is headquarter d in Vientiane, Lao PDR. The owners of
NNP1 have extensive experience in the design, construction and operation of large-scale
hydroelectric power projects.

7
1.6.6 Technical information of Nam Ngiep 1 Hydro power

Table 1: Namngiep 1 Hydropower information data

Facility Items Unit Specifications

Main Power Station
Flood water level EL. m 320
Normal water level EL. m 320
Rated water level EL. m 312
Minimum operating level EL. m 296
Available depth m 24
Main Reservoir
Reservoir surface area km2 66.9
Effective storage capacity 106 m3 1,192
Watershed area km2 3,700
m3/s 148.4
Average annual inflow
106 m3 4,680
Concrete gravity dam
Type -
(Roller-Compacted Concrete)
Dam height m 148
Main Dam
Crest length m 530
Dam volume 103 m3 2,034
Crest level EL. m 322
Gate type - Radial gate
Spillway Number of gates - 4
Design flood m3/s 5,210 (1,000-year)
Type - Bell-mouth
Intake Number - 2
Discharge capacity m3/s 230
Type - Embedded and concrete-lined
Number - 2
Penstock
Length m 185.81
Diameter m 5.2
Type - Semi-underground
Length m 25
Powerhouse
Width m 62.5
Height m 47.2
Maximum plant discharge m3/s 230
Maximum plant discharge (for simulation) m3/s 34.5
Gross head m 132.7
Turbine and Effective head m 130.9
Generator Type of turbine - Francis x 2
Rated output MW 272 (at Substation)
Annual power generation GWh 1,546 (at Substation)
Peak operation hour hrs 16 (Monday to Saturday)

8
9
Table 2: Namngiep 1 Hydropower information data

Facility Items Unit Specifications

Voltage kV 230
Distance km 125
Transmission Line Connecting point - Nabong S/S
Width of right of way m 80 (40 m each side of CL)
Number of towers - 262
Re-Regulation Power Station
Flood water level EL. m 185.9
Normal water level EL. m 179
Rated water level EL. m 179
Minimum operating level EL. m 174
Re-Regulation
Available depth m 5
Reservoir
Reservoir surface area km2 1.27 at NWL
106m
Effective storage capacity 4.6
3
Watershed area km2 3,725
Type - Concrete Gravity dam

Dam height m 20.6

Re- Regulation Dam Crest length m 90
103
Dam volume 23.9
m3
Crest level EL. m 187.0 (non-overflow section)
Type - Fixed wheel gate
Re-Regulation Gate Number - 1
Discharge capacity m3/s 5,210 (1,000-year)
RCC associate with rockfill
Type -
dam
Saddle Dam
Crest length m 507.1
Dam height m 14.6
Ungated spillway (Labryrinth
Gate type -
Spillway type)
Design flood m3/s 5,210 (1,000-year)
Type - Open
Intake Number - 1
Discharge capacity m3/s 160
Type - Semi-underground
Length m 46.4
Powerhouse
Width m 22.05
Height m 49.1
Maximum plant discharge m3/s 160

Maximum plant discharge

m3/s 40
(for simulation)
Turbine and Gross head m 13.1
Generator Effective head m 12.7
Type of water turbine - Bulb x 2
Rated output MW 18 (at Substation)
Annual power generation GWh 105 (at Substation)
Peak operation hour hrs 24 (Monday to Sunday)
Voltage kV 115
Distance km 40
Transmission Line* Connecting point - Pakxan S/S
Width of right of way m 50 (25 m each side of CL)
Number of towers - 110

10
Table 3:Namngiep 1 Hydropower information data

Facility Items Unit Specifications

Supporting Facilities
Length m 653
Inside diameter m 10
Diversion Tunnel
Number - 1
Velocity m3/s 11.5
Vientiane – “Friendship
Bridge” – Pakxan km 161.7
Distance
Width m 6
Number of bridge - 2
Type of road - Asphalt paved
Type of bridge - Pre- casted
Pakxan – Ban
km 19.9
Nonsomboun Distance
Access Road Width m 6
Number of bridge - 1
Type of road - Asphalt paved
Type of bridge - Pre- casted
Ban Nonsomboun – Ban
km 21.2
Hat Gniun Distance
Width m 5.7
Ban Hat Gniun – Dam Site
km 11.2
Distance
Width m 3.7-13.5
No.1 permanent road Sta.
m3 151,000
29+400 Capacity
Expected disposal volume m3 130,000
No.2 permanent road Sta.
m3 810,000
28+100 Capacity
Expected disposal volume m3 88,000
No.3 permanent road Sta.
m3 42,000
27+700 Capacity
Expected disposal volume m3 N/A
No.4 permanent road Sta. m3 12,000
Spoil Disposal Area
26+400 Capacity
Expected disposal volume m3 N/A
No.5 permanent road Sta.
25+800 m3 20,000
Capacity
Expected disposal volume m3 N/A
No.6 right bang soil
disposal road m3 2,400,000
Capacity
Expected disposal volume m3 2,100,000
Right bank of main dam
Location -
Quarry downstream 1000 m.
Area ha 46
Source: Technical Report on Nam Ngiep 1 Hydropower Project Kansai, 2013.

11
1.7 Expected Outcomes

The advantage of research results ” Study the optimization of the Dam structure base on
type and Construction Material ” are :
1. Understand the appropriateness of selecting the structure of the structure to suit the
environment and the terrain.
2. Reducing the risk of damaging the structure of the dam would be beneficial to the
people at the dam site to bear the burden and risk of the disasters of the dam.
3. The structure of the dam has a long life and is worth investing in the project
developers.

12
 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Many documents provide knowledge about stability analysis of the Dam structure
especially RCC Dam and CRF Dam here are some related knowledge and step to
Design of dam structure, Cost Estimate application.

2.1 Shape of Dam structure

Dam types can be classified in different categories according to the material used in
construction and how they withstand the thrust of water:
Embankment Dams
• Homogeneous earthfill dam
• Earthfill with toe drain dam
• Zoned earthfill dam
• Earthfill with horizontal drain dam
• Earthfill with vertical and horizontal drains dam
• Earth and rockfill, central core dam (CCRD)
• Earth and sand-gravel, central core dam
• Earth and rockfill, inclined core dam (ICRD)
• Concrete face rockfill dam (CFRD)
• Bituminous concrete face earth and rockfill dam
• Steel face rockfill dam
• Thin membrane face earth and rockfill dam).
Concrete Gravity Dams
• Lean roller compacted concrete (RCC) dam
• Medium-paste RCC dam
• High-paste content RCC dam
• The faced symmetrical hardfill dam (FSHD)
• Roller compacted dam (RCD)
• Conventional concrete gravity dam (CCD)
• Prestressed dam
Arch Dams
• Thin arch dam
• Conventional concrete arch gravity dam
• RCC arch gravity dam

13
• Cupola (double-curvature arch) dam
Buttressed Dams
• Flat slab buttress dam
• Round-head buttress dam
• Diamond head buttress dam
• Decked buttress dam
• Multiple arch dam (Tosho Hirose.2008 )

Note: for Thesis are focus only Roller Compacting Concrete Dam ( RCC ) and
Concrete Face Rock fill Dam ( CFRD)

2.1.1 Shape of Roller Compacting Concrete dam

In general, the structure of RCCD Dam has various model which referring to the
analysis and design of project engineering that will be suitable with geography and the
environment as it has been shown as following:

this dam model is the dam which is wide structure along

the river which has the specialization as it must have
enough weight to be capable to anti the gravity which
occurred from above, the gravity of ground or other that
can make the dam over lap

Figure 5 : Type A

This model will be different from Type A as the bas

ground will be deeper digging from class of rock that will
have enough weight can anti the gravity from above,
ground gravity and structure slide or the enormous
overlapping which cause from the water gravity.

Figure 6: Type B

This base will have the different from two types above as
the center of the base will be digged from the class of
base which do not leak of water, structure slide or the
enormous overlapping which cause from the water
gravity.

This model has a spin on top and bottom of dam that will
not let any leaking of water and structure slide. The most
Figure 7: Type D
types of this character will be found in case of the level
of base dam do not locate in the rock class that will have
14 the as will be clay or in the geography
enough strength
has the highest level of leaking.
 Figure 8: Type D

When the comparison of various above types, it is said that types B is the most suitable
because Nam Ngiep Dam is the dam which has the most heightens and the water gravity
will have a lot and it located on rock which will have the risk of structure slide.

The geometry characteristic of dam structure

1. Top Width of RCCD
The similar CFRD are following formula can be used for calculating the width of dam
as per height
H
W= +3 (for very low dam)
5
W=√ H +0.2H (for dam lesser than 30 m height)
1
W=1.65(H+1.5) (for dam height than 30 m height)
3
In which, H is the height of dam. According to the Indian Standard recommendation the
top width of dam should be at least 6 m. (USBR 2003). 

2. Upstream slopes RCCD

Flattening upstream dam slope uniformly or in variable batter, to make use of
water weight for stability . However, since too flat slope may induce upstream tensile
stress, it is advisable to limit the upstream slope within a range of 1:0.1 – 1:0.2. or o %
of slope (USBR 2003). 

3. Downstream Slope RCCD

The downstream slope is 1:0.1 – 1:1.4 for high-quality rockfill shells. More flat
downstream slopes such as 1:1.5–1:1.6 are sometimes adopted, if the dam shell is
composed of gravel sediment or the dam high is over 100 m. Slope of central diaphragm
dams may be estimated similarly as foregoing, and the identical up- and downstream
slopes may be employed; (USBR 2003). 

15
Berms spaced at 10 –30 m apart along altitude are installed on the downstream slope to
house ditches necessary for removing rainfall water. The minimum width of berms is
1.5 –2.0 m. Berms on the downstream slope can also be used for the installation of
service roads, railroads, pipelines, sometimes even for monitoring, and canals. Berms on
upstream slope are provided to make a stop at the end of the revetment. (USBR 2003). 

4. Free Board RCCD

An emergency spillway is usually positioned in a saddle or depression along the
reservoir rim or by excavating a channel through abutment/ridge. Because an
emergency spillway is not needed to function under normal reservoir operations, its
crest is placed at or slightly above the design maximum reservoir level. Thus, an
encroachment on the minimum free board is usually permitted for the design of an
emergency spillway. The emergency spillway is washed out as soon as the water level
in the reservoir reaches a

2.1.2 Shape of Concrete Face Rock fill dam (earth fill dams)
The preliminary design of an earthen dam is done on the basis of past experiences on
similar types of dam regarding their performance and life. An earthen dam consists of
the following parameters for design:

1. Top Width of CFRD

The top width of earthen dam to be used is decided on the following points:
i. Nature of the fill materials used for construction, and minimum allowable percolation
limit through the embankment at normal reservoir level.

16
ii. Height and importance of the dam.
iii. Practicability of the dam.
iv. Protection against earthquake shocks and wave action.
A minimum top width should be such that, it can provide a safe percolation gradient at
the condition of full reservoir. The following formula can be used for calculating the
width of dam as per height
H
W= +3 (for very low dam)
5
W=√ H +0.2H (for dam lesser than 30 m height)
1
W=1.65(H+1.5) (for dam height than 30 m height)
3
In which, H is the height of dam. According to the Indian Standard recommendation the
top width of dam should be at least 6 m. (USBR 2003). 

3. Upstream slopes CFRD

The upstream slope of earth dam is mainly protected against wave action caused by the
water in the reservoir. However, sometimes a provision is also made against burrowing
animals for preventing the failure due to damage caused by their burrowing action.
The upstream slopes of most of the earth dams in actual practice usually vary from 2.0
(horizontal):1 (vertical) to 4:1  (USBR 2003). 

3. Downstream Slope
The downstream slope of earthen dam is protected against erosive action of water’s
wave from tail water depth. The protection method to be used, is the same to the
upstream slope protection work.
The downstream slopes are generally between from 2.0 (horizontal):1 (vertical) to 3:1
(USBR 2003). 

4. Free Board CFRD

It is the vertical distance between the top of the dam and the design water level in the
reservoir.
The minimum free board is the difference in elevation between the top of the dam and
the maximum water level in the reservoir. The difference between normal and minimum
free boards is known as surcharge head.
Sufficient free board must be given to the height of dam to avoid the chances of
overtopping. The recommended values of free board, depending on the nature of
spillway and height of the dam.

17
predetermined elevation. The breaching section is sometimes called as “fuse plug.”
Although it may take many months to restore the fuse plug and channel after an
emergency operation, the total damage and cost to repair is less than if the main water-
retaining structures had been overtopped.

18