WATER PRESSURE TESTS FOR DAM FOUNDATIONS

Yoshikazu YAMAGUCHI1, Hiroyuki SATOH1 and Takuji ARAIE2 Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan 2 NEWJEC Inc., Osaka, Japan (e-mail of corresponding author: h-sato@pwri.go.jp)
1

Recently, Japan has felt the need to reduce the cost of dam foundation grouting. We have endeavored to establish an effective and economical dam foundation grouting. In this paper, we will introduce an investigation into cost reduction in water pressure tests, which are performed to evaluate rock permeability and thus determine grouting specifications. The water pressure test, in its conventional form, is conducted in increasing and decreasing pressure steps, i.e. with a stepwise pressurization. A new form for a water pressure test, which is conducted without pressure steps, i.e. a monotonous pressurization, has been proposed. We will introduce case histories of water pressure tests with monotonous pressurization in order to verify the accuracy and cost performance thereof. In addition, we will perform a saturated-unsaturated seepage analysis to simulate water pressure tests with monotonous pressurization in an unsaturated area above the groundwater table. Based on the results of case histories and numerical simulation, we will summarize our remarks on the performance and evaluation results of water pressure tests with monotonous pressurization. Keywords: Dam foundation grouting; Water pressure test; Saturated-unsaturated seepage analysis; Unsteady seepage.

1. Introduction Grouting is a procedure to improve the strength of dam rock foundations and/or to improve watertightness by injecting cement-based grouts. Recently in Japan, geological conditions at dam sites have become more complicated and there are often difficulties with dam foundation grouting. Besides, we should construct dams at lower cost and with less impact on the environment than in the past, because we are faced with strong demand to lower the cost of public works projects and to protect and conserve the natural environment. Therefore, we are required to reduce the cost of dam foundation grouting. We have been trying to establish an effective and economical dam foundation grouting. Many efforts have been successful in rationalizing grouting application, such as rationalization of the mixing and transportation of grouts with the centralized plant method and computerization of the grouting operation, but almost no effective ways of rationalizing the grouting work itself have been proposed. Under these circumstances, Japanese dam engineers have studied methods that reduce the cost of dam foundation grouting, by adopting a water pressure test with monotonous pressurization (MPT-MP), which can reduce the time required for permeability evaluation during grouting application (Nagayama et al. (2001) Kawaji et al. (2006), PWRI (2006)). This paper introduces case studies of the MPT-MP and verifies its precision and cost reduction effects. When the MPT-MP is conducted in an unsaturated region, permeability might be over-estimated, mainly because of the effects of unsteady seepage (Yamaguchi et al. (1987)). Therefore, saturated-unsaturated seepage analysis using the finite element method was performed to study the impact of unsteady seepage of a water pressure test (WPT) in an unsaturated region. Based on these results, precautions necessary to perform appropriate dam foundation permeability evaluations using WPT are discussed. 2. WPT-MP In the case of dam foundation grouting, a WPT is performed before the injection of a cement-

based grout, in order to ascertain the permeability and critical pressure of the foundation at each stage. This information is utilized to calculate water-tightness and to set the injection specifications. The conventional WPT is done by setting the pressure at several steps and measuring the quantity injected, to confirm that the injected quantity during each pressure step is in a stabilized state (PWRI (1999), JICE (2003)). So in Japan, WPT-MP, a method of measuring the quantity injected while continuously raising the pressure without setting the injection pressure in steps, was studied in order to lower the cost of grouting by shortening the time required for WPTs, a process that has been partly introduced at several dams. Figure 1 shows outlines of the increase in water pressure in the conventional WPT, done by setting pressure steps (referred to below as a water pressure test with stepwise pressurization (WPT-SP)) and the WPT-MP. The WPT-SP calculates Lugeon values from the relationship Time (T) Water injection rate (Q) T Q between the effective injection Water pressure test with stepwise pressure and the quantity injected, pressurization (WPT-SP) which is constant at a certain set pressure step. In the case of a WPT MP, the quantity injected changes as the pressure rises and is measured Shortening of continuously to calculate the Lugeon water pressure time value, based on the relationship between the effective injection Water injection rate (Q) T Q Time (T) pressure and quantity injected. Water pressure test with monotonous Therefore, WPT-MP is likely to pressurization (WPT-MP) reduce the cost of dam foundation grouting.
Effective injection pressure (P) P Effective injection pressure (P) P

Fig. 1. Outline of water pressure tests

3. Case studies of WPT-MP At the Otaki Dam, the WPT-MP was finally adopted after comparative testing with the WPT-SP to verify its suitability (Nagayama et al. (2001)). The test examined 229 stages of 34 holes in curtain grouting in the right bank. The geology at the comparative test site consists of alternating layers of sandstone and slate in the Mesozoic Era and the test site has relatively low permeability of less than 10Lu, even in the shallow foundation. The test was done by comparing the Lugeon Correlation coefficient value obtained at each stage of the WPT-MP and that =0.995 of the WPT-SP, verifying two patterns: a pattern that anticipates the WPT-MP and a pattern that anticipates the WPT-SP. The critical pressure occurred approximately at the 10% stages. At this stage it is impossible to compare Lugeon values accurately, so these were omitted from the evaluation. The results of the comparative test do not show any significant difference between results obtained from the two test procedures, but revealed that in both Lu value by WPT -SP cases, there is a high correlation between the Lugeon Fig. 2. Lu values by WPT-SP values obtained by the WPT-MP and the Lugeon vs. Lu values by WPT-MP values obtained by the WPT-SP, as shown in Figure 2.
Lu value by WPT-MP

Effective injection pressure (P) P

Effective injection pressure (P) P

Strictly speaking, the Lugeon values from the WPT-MP were slightly higher than those from the WPT-SP, but this evaluation is on the safe side. Examining data near the improvement target value of 2Lu in the comparative test revealed that at 2.2%, the Lugeon value from the WPT-SP was below the improvement target value of 2Lu, but it was above 2Lu from the WPT-MP and conversely, that at 3.7%, the Lugeon value from the WPT-MP was below 2Lu, but the Lugeon value from the WPT-SP was above 2Lu, both being small values. Furthermore, the test results show that 5.9% of the data were above 5Lu and these included data showing larger gaps between Lugeon values. But, in the case of grouting, if precision in the permeability evaluation near the improvement target value is ensured, a slight decline of measurement precision in the range of permeability far higher than the improvement target value is not a serious problem. From the above results, the WPT-MP was evaluated as being ready for practical application as a replacement test for the conventional WPT-SP. Next, Figure 3 compares the execution times required for the WPT-SP and the WPT-MP at the Otaki Dam. The test times in the figure are the average times for one stage. The results show that the average execution time for the 50 WPT-MP was 22 minutes, which is a 43 reduction by 1/2, of the 43 minutes 40 necessary for the WPT-SP. This has been evaluated as a cost reduction of 30 22 about 18% per stage of the overall cost of WPT. 20 The same comparative tests were 10 conducted at O Dam and T Dam. The geology at the O Dam site was 0 composed of granite and that of the T WPT-SP WPT-MP Dam was of mixed layer of chert, slate Fig. 3. Execution time for WPTs at Otaki Dam and diabase tuff. Figure 4 shows the results of the comparison of average 60 54 50 WPT -SP execution times obtained from these 50 tests. The figure shows that at the O WPT -MP Dam, the average execution time of the 40 WPT-SP was 54 minutes, but only 18 30 minutes for the WPT-MP, and that at 20 18 the T Dam, it was 50 minutes for the 20 WPT-SP, but only 20 minutes for the 10 WPT-MP: greater execution time 0 reductions than those obtained at the Otaki Dam. It was concluded that O Dam T Dam adopting the WPT-MP would lower the Fig. 4. Execution time for WPTs at O Dam and T Dam cost of WPT by 18% at the O Dam and by 28% at the T Dam. 4. Evaluation of permeability in unsaturated region 4.1 Outline In a case where the groundwater level in the foundation is low and a WPT is done in an unsaturated region above the groundwater level, the pressure is increased while the water flow from the test section is unsteady, thus making it possible for the permeability of the foundation to be overestimated. In the case of the WPT-SP, the constant state of the quantity injected at each pressure stage
Execution time (min)

Execution time (min)

was confirmed and the quantity injected was generally measured for five minutes. But, because the WPT-MP was performed by continuously raising the pressure without setting pressure steps, the impact of unsteady seepage was larger. As a result there is strong possibility that the permeability of the foundation might be over-evaluated, requiring additional grouting that will drive up the overall cost. A quantitative study of the impact of unsteady seepage during the WPTMP in the unsaturated region was made by performing saturated-unsaturated seepage analyses, using the finite element method. 4.2 Analysis model and conditions The saturated-unsaturated seepage analyses were performed using the axially symmetric model shown in Figure 5. The foundation was hypothesized to be a soft rock foundation with relatively high permeability: the coefficient of permeability in the saturated condition was 1.010-4 cm/s (equivalent to 10Lu), and it was hypothesized that the permeability was isotropic. Input physical properties, including the unsaturated seepage characteristics such as the relationship between the relative permeability Kr /, the suction head and the volumetric water content , were set as shown in Table 1 and Figure 6, assuming a soft rock foundation with a saturated permeability of 10Lu (Yamaguchi et al. (1987), Yamaguchi et al. (2006)). The test section was 5m long and the radius of the test hole was 0.033m. The groundwater level was assumed to be G.L.-20m assuming that the top edge of the model is the ground surface (G.L.) as shown in Figure 5. Boundary conditions were set with the foundation below the groundwater level on the far side, at a location 15m from the axis of the model as the constant head boundary, the region above the groundwater level as the seepage boundary and the others as the impermeable boundaries.
C L
r = 0.033m Impervious boundary G.L.

Table 1. Input physical properties for seepage analysis

Porosity Minimum volumetric water content Volumetric water content at saturation
10m

n r e Ss (cm-1 )

0.2 0 0.2 1.010-7

1

Specific storage
20

Seepage boundary

Suction head Relative permeability Kr 0.8 Relative permeability Kr

Test section 5m

25m

5m

15 Suction head (m) 0.6 10 0.4 5

Constant head boundary 5m

5m

0.2

Impervious boundary 15m

0 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2 Volumetric water content

Fig. 5. Analytical model

Fig. 6. Unsaturated seepage characteristics

The pressure increase processes in the WPT-SP and WPT-MP were set as shown in Figure 7. Hypothesizing that the test is done in a soft rock foundation, the maximum effective injection pressure was set at 0.20MPa, with five pressure steps of 0.04MPa, 0.08MPa, 0.12MPa, 0.16MPa, and 0.20MPa and at each pressure step in the WPT-SP, a constant pressure period of 5 minutes was set. The WPT-MP was done by increasing the pressure continuously up to the maximum effective injection pressure. The rate of increase of the injection pressure was set at 0.10MPa/min with both test methods.
0.20 Effective injection pressure (MPa) 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.04 0.00 0 10 T ime (min) 20 30

WPT-MP

WPT-SP

0.4min 5min

Fig. 7. Pressure increase processes in WPTs

4.3 Analysis results Figure 8 shows the P-Q curve which represents the relationship of the effective injection pressure P with the quantity injected Q that was obtained as a result of the seepage analysis. In addition to the analysis of the WPT-SP and the WPT-MP, unsteady analysis was done under constant effective injection pressure conditions at each step set for the WPT-SP, obtaining the quantity injected at an elapsed time of 1107s after injection, as the finally stable quantity injected. Figure 8 shows that under the effects of the unsteady seepage in the unsaturated region, the quantity injected in the WPT-MP was larger than the quantity injected in the WPT-SP and the permeability was over-evaluated and the lower the injection pressure, the greater the difference between the quantity injected by the WPT-SP and the quantity injected by the WPT-MP. The values of the quantity injected, corresponding to each effective injection pressure set for the WPTSP, are summarized in Table 2. The figures in parentheses in the table represent the ratio of the quantity injected in the WPT-MP to the quantity injected in the WPT-SP. The table shows that when the maximum effective injection pressure is 0.20MPa, the final ratio of the quantities injected in the WPT-MP and the WPT-SP is 1.72. Next the Lugeon value was calculated as the quantity injected (L/min/m) at the effective injection pressure of 0.98MPa, based on linear similarity using 5 data (symbols in the figure) for effective injection pressure and the quantity injected at each pressure step, shown on the P-Q curve. The Lugeon value from the WPT-MP is higher than the Lugeon value from the WPT-SP and the ratio is 1.54 (=21.48/13.92). The above results show that when the test section is an unsaturated region, there is a large difference between the injected quantities in the WPT-MP and the WPT-SP, that there is a difference of several ten percentage points between the Lugeon values, and that unsteady seepage has a marked effect on the evaluation of permeability.

0 0.20

Quantity (L/min/m) 2 3 4 5

Effective injection pressure (MPa)

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.04

WPT-SP WPT-M P Finally stable quantity

0.00 0 100 200 300

3

400

500

600

Quantity (cm /s)

Fig. 8. P-Q curves Table 2. Calculated quantities at each effective injection pressure

Effective injection WPT-SP WPT-MP Pressure (cm3/s) (MPa) (cm3/s) 0.04 113.04 ( 1 ) 222.16 (1.97) 0.08 165.96 ( 1 ) 338.26 (2.04) 0.12 212.74 ( 1 ) 403.90 (1.90) 0.16 255.98 ( 1 ) 468.10 (1.83) 0.20 293.88 ( 1 ) 505.43 (1.72) ( )=(Quantity)/(Quantity in WPT-SP)

Finally stable quantity (cm3/s) 42.79 73.88 104.05 133.79 163.22

5. Precautions against evaluation of permeability by WPT In consideration of the results obtained from this research, precautions that should be taken to appropriately evaluate permeability with a WPT test were discussed. The results of a comparison of the WPT-MP and the WPT-SP, based on unsteady seepage analysis, have shown that in cases where a test section is in the unsaturated region above the groundwater level, the Lugeon value from the WPT-MP is higher than the Lugeon value from the WPT-SP, a result of the effects of unsteady seepage. Previous field test cases and numerical analysis results show that a WPT-MP may evaluate the permeability a little higher than a WPT-SP, so it is possible that permeability may be overevaluated in the grouting work, resulting in the need for additional hole execution. So, in a case where it is predicted that permeability close to the improvement target value will be obtained at an early stage of the WPT-MP, when executing a design final order hole or additional hole, that requires a decision to execute additional holes, it is replaced with the WPT-SP to clarify an accurate Lugeon value. Applying the WPT-MP only to design holes other than the design final order holes is also studied.

In Japan, the application of the WPT-MP has been studied at several dams, but in all cases, it was executed in relatively hard rock foundation and in most of these cases, the permeability was low and the critical pressure was rarely reached. But in the case of a foundation such as soft rock, where the critical pressure is low, it is important to obtain an accurate Lugeon value below the critical pressure level. If a WPT-MP is applied to such a foundation, further study must be done to establish methods of evaluating accurate permeability and critical pressure. 6. Conclusions This paper introduced case studies of the WPT-MP in dam foundation grouting in Japan and verified its precision and cost reduction effects. The results have shown that the WPT-MP is fully applicable as a replacement test for the conventional WPT-SP. The results also show that adoption of the WPT-MP reduces the cost of WPT by between 20% and 30%. Saturated-unsaturated seepage analysis performed by the finite element method quantitatively clarified that in a case where the test section of the WPT-MP is located in an unsaturated region, the permeability is over-evaluated because of the effects of unsteady seepage. Based on these research results, precautions to be taken to accurately evaluate permeability with a water pressure test have been proposed. References Japan Institute of Construction Engineering (JICE) (2003). Guidelines for Dam Foundation Grouting, Taisei Publishing Co., Ltd. (In Japanese) Kawaji, S. et al. (2006). Rationalization of Curtain Grouting in Tokuyama Dam, Engineering for Dams, No. 233, 51-65. (In Japanese) Matsumoto, N., Yamaguchi, Y. and Hirosue, F. (1987). Accuracy and Interpretation of Results of Lugeon Water Tests, Technical Memorandum of PWRI, No. 2518. (In Japanese) Nagayama, I. et al. (2001). Rationalization of Water Pressure Tests in Dam Foundation Grouting, Engineering for Dams, No. 176, 3-12. (In Japanese) Public Works Research Institute (PWRI) (1999). Method of Water Pressure Tests in Dam Foundation Grouting, Engineering for Dams, No. 152, 80-82. (In Japanese) Public Works Research Institute (PWRI) (2006). Precautions against Permeability Evaluation with Water Pressure Tests with Monotonous Pressurization, Engineering for Dams, No. 234, 78-82. (In Japanese) Yamaguchi, Y., Nakamura, Y. and Araie, T. (2006). Permeability Evaluation with Water Pressure Tests in Unsaturated Foundation, Proc. 30th Annual Meeting of Kanto Chapter, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, CD-Rom 6-31. (In Japanese)