Blasting A Diversion Tunnel Through The Abutment of A "Meta-Stable" Dam

Blasting a Diversion Tunnel through the Abutment
of a Meta-Stable Dam

Donald J. Berger, P.E. Rock Solid Solutions
&
Jennifer Williams, P.E. URS Corporation

Abstract
Originally built between 1913 and 1916, the Ashton Dam & Hydroelectric Facility has experienced
various seepage and piping incidents since completion. Ashton Dam is located within 15 miles (24 km)
of the historical Teton Dam failure site and about 2.3 miles (3.7 km) west of Ashton, Idaho. Numerous
repairs conducted over the years ranged from filling sinkholes on the crest of the dam to placement of
rockfill on the upstream slope to improve seismic stability. In addition, the existing low level outlet
works was grouted full and abandoned in 1991 due to significant vibrations induced on the dam during
its operation.

The selected alternative to rehabilitate Ashton Dam consisted of removing the upstream portion of the
embankment and reconstructing with modern zoned granular filters and compacted earth fill core. This
required re-establishing a low-level diversion tunnel in the basalt bedrock of the right abutment to lower
the reservoir and to serve as a river diversion during dam re-construction. The relatively short length
(260 ft (79 m)) and small size (230 ft
2
(21.4 m
2
) face area) of the tunnel made conventional drill blast
excavation techniques more applicable than mechanical excavation methods. The deteriorated upstream
silt core was a concern due to the potential for blast induced vibrations that could further weaken the
core, exacerbate seepage, and potentially cause internal erosion of the dam. Due to the sensitivity of the
earth and rockfill dam structure to vibrations, stringent blasting vibration controls were placed upon the
contractor to excavate the diversion shaft, tunnel, and lake tap using conventional drill and blast
methods. This paper provides the approach to the project, the site specific vibration attenuation
observed, the monitoring system employed, and discusses how the construction team safely and
productively advanced the excavation with confidence during construction.

Copyright 2014 International Society of Explosives Engineers
2014G - Blasting a Diversion Tunnel through the Abutment of a "Meta-Stable" Dam 1 of 11
Blast Vibration Anal yses and Design Criteria
Originally built between 1913 and 1916, the Ashton Dam & Hydroelectric Facility has experienced
various seepage and piping incidents since completion. Ashton Dam is located within 15 miles (24 km)
of the historical Teton Dam failure site and about 2.3 miles (3.7 km) west of Ashton, Idaho. Numerous
repairs conducted over the years ranged from filling sinkholes on the crest of the dam to placement of
rockfill on the upstream slope to improve seismic stability. In addition, the existing low level outlet
works was grouted full and abandoned in 1991 due to significant vibrations induced on the dam during
its operation.

Information gathered during geotechnical investigations at the dam and reviews of the past performance
of the structure further validated concerns that the embankment dams core was in a deteriorated
condition. This conclusion prompted the designer to take necessary precautions to limit the potential for
inducing strength reductions in the silt core as a result of seismic or blast induced vibrations.

Rehabilitation alternatives were evaluated using a quantitative risk analysis, which allowed the designer,
owner, and regulator to make a risk-informed decision regarding the selection of the preferred
alternative. This process resulted in the preferred rehabilitation alternative that consisted of removing
the upstream portion of the embankment and reconstructing with modern zoned granular filters and
compacted earth fill core. This alternative required re-establishing a low-level diversion tunnel for the
project. The diversion tunnel was to be constructed in the basalt bedrock of the right abutment and
provide a means to lower the reservoir and to serve as a river diversion during dam re-construction. A
relatively short length (260 ft (79 m)) and small size (230 ft
2
face area (21.4 m
2
)) tunnel and hard basalt
bedrock made conventional drill blast excavation techniques more applicable than mechanical
excavation methods. The deteriorated upstream silt core was a concern due to the potential for blast
induced vibrations that could further weaken the core, exacerbate seepage and potentially cause internal
erosion of the dam.

Due to the sensitivity of the earth and rockfill dam structure to vibrations, stringent blasting vibration
controls were placed upon the contractor to excavate the diversion shaft, tunnel, and lake tap using
conventional drill and blast methods. The Owner and its Engineering team evaluated a Potential Failure
Mode (PFM) that could be triggered due to blasting operations and assessed what could be done to
minimize the impact of blast vibration to the dam.

Blast Design Principles
Most people assume that blasting vibrations are synonymous with seismic or earthquake vibrations.
However, to assess the impact of blast vibrations on the Ashton Dam embankment, it was important to
understand the difference in characteristics of ground vibration generated by a large regional earthquake
and those generated by construction blasting. An earthquake will generate vibrations with very low
frequencies (0.1 Hz to almost always less than 1 Hz) and displacements over a relatively long duration
(minutes). Construction blasting generally produces vibrations that are at higher frequencies (20 to 100
Hz) with small displacements and short durations (seconds). An example of blasting vibrations
compared to an earthquake is shown on Figure 1 (Dowding, 1985).

Figure 1. Blast Vibrations Compared to Earthquake Vibrations, Dowding 1985

Table 1 provides vibration parameters (particle velocity, displacement, and wavelength) for different
frequencies all with the same acceleration of 0.12g (Oriard, 2003). Large earthquake displacements
generate large strains and shear stress within an embankment. The long earthquake waves
simultaneously shake the dam throughout as a unit. The small charges associated with blasting will not
generate this type of motion. Instead, blasting sends a transient wave through the earth, which
attenuates rapidly resulting in short wavelengths. The short wavelengths of the induced blast are not in
phase with the natural low frequency (long wavelength) of the embankment. This results in a lower
potential for blast-induced strength reductions in the embankment. Understanding these different
vibration properties clarifies the potential impacts due to blasting at the project.

Table 1. Oriard 2003

The Bureau of Mines & Office of Surface Mining (OSM) have conducted numerous studies of blast
vibrations and prepared guidelines that have been incorporated into a number of state codes, regulations,
ordinances, and project specifications. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is the standard measurement for
blasting operations and provides a better estimate of potential damage over using the peak ground
acceleration. The OSM guidelines recommend a PPV limit of 2.0 inches per second (ips) (50.8 mm/s)
for residences near blasting with frequencies above 30 Hz. A graph of the OSM guidelines is attached
as Figure 2 (ISEE, 1998). The guidelines have been widely accepted as the upper limit of vibration
where no damage has been observed in residential structures exposed to repeated blast vibrations. OSM
has taken this effort a step further to develop a very conservative Scaled Distance equation:

=
50

2
[Eqn. 1]

Where W =weight of charge (pounds)
D =Distance in feet (applicable to D less than 300 ft)

When a blaster utilizes the Scaled Distance formula in design, monitoring for vibrations during blasting
are not required according to the OSM guidelines.

Figure 2. OSM Guidelines, ISEE Blasters Handbook 1998

Feasibility Level Blast Design
The past performance of Ashton Dam indicated the upstream silt core could potentially be sensitive to
construction related activity (pad building, drilling, etc.). Therefore, concerns were warranted in
requiring limits to the blasting operations. As a result, the design Engineer evaluated the vibrations
required for blasting and assessed the ability to conduct the work within restricted levels of PPV. The
design Engineer selected an upper limit PPV of 1.0 ips (25.4 mm/s) for the upstream area of the
embankment, which is essentially one-half that of the OSM guidelines as a conservative value for
design.
The embankment adjacent to the powerhouse was identified as the critical location where blast
vibrations needed to be limited during construction of the Tunnel Diversion System. Since vibrations
decay with distance, this point represented the location on the embankment where the highest vibration
condition should occur. All other locations in the embankment should have lower and transient
vibrations. The distance from the blasting operations ranged from 180 ft (54.9 m) to 230 ft (70.1 m)
along the diversion alignment as seen in Figure 3. Using the conservative OSM Scaled Distance
Method (Eqn. 1) the allowable charge weight would be only 2 pounds per delay, an impractically low
charge weight. The spacing to burden ratio would be extremely close for the blast to be effective. This
small of a charge weight would not even be effective to fracture soft weakened rock, let alone the
massive basalt of the abutment. Therefore our team took further steps to establish a higher allowable
charge that still remains within safe vibration tolerances. The steps that were taken are described in more
detail below.

Figure 3. Range of Distances

When blasting within restricted limits, it is standard to conduct test blasting with small charges at safe
distances to develop a regression analysis. The regression analysis then characterizes the site specific
vibration response to specific charges and distances. Oriard (1970, 1992) has developed a typical bound
of PPV versus Scaled Distance for ground vibrations from blasting as seen in Figure 4.
Equations for the typical (range) bounds provide a starting point to estimate the ground vibrations at a
new site for various charges and distances. The equation is linear and the data is bound by a low and
high line with a different constant (24 to 242) based upon the range of data accumulated over the years.
= 24
0.5

1.6
Lower Bound Response Line [Eqn. 2]
= 242
0.5

1.6
Upper Bound Response Line (conservative) [Eqn. 3]
Where PPV =Peak Particle Velocity in inches per second (ips)
To develop an estimate of what charge could be used at the Ashton Dam Project, a maximum PPV of
1.0 ips (25.4 mm/s) and an upper bound (resulting in lower charge weight) constant of 242 was used in
the evaluation. The downstream portal of the tunnel was the closest to the critical location at 180 ft
(54.9 m) away. Using Oriards upper bound equation and the distance of 180 ft (54.9 m), a charge
weight of 34 pounds (15.4 kg) per delay was computed. This charge weight was considered feasible for
the project requirements in comparison to the 2 pounds per charge estimated using the OSM method
described above.

Figure 4. Typical Range of PPV vs- Scaled Distance

The tunnel blast plan and shaft blast plan were evaluated using 34 pounds/delay (15.4 kg/delay) to
assess constructability. An Engineers blast plan for the tunnel was developed assuming a full face
heading and perimeter blasting to control back break. The tunnel blast plan developed appeared to be
well within the standard of the practice for drill blast tunneling. The shaft posed more of a challenge
due to the size of the shaft and the desire to pull a full 20-ft (6.1-m) depth per round for constructability.
The Engineers shaft blast plan required the use of decked holes so that blast energy vibrations could be
controlled while still providing enough movement to fragment the rock mass.

Attenuation Study
Test blasting and regression analyses, otherwise known as an Attenuation Study, should be part of any
project where vibration sensitivity is a concern. The attenuation study should be a part of the project
requirements and specifications for close-in (within 500 ft (152 m)) blasting. The study will confirm the
Engineers assumptions as well as allow the construction management team to assess the blasting
contractor at a safe distance from the dam. The regression analyses (Attenuation Study) will likely
reduce the conservatism associated with the prediction constant (242) to the site specific constant, in
turn allowing for a higher, more efficient charge weight per delay without compromising the allowable
vibration limits at the critical location on the dam (PPV=1.0 ips).

The attenuation study was designed to evaluate the site specific vibration response to production
blasting. Results of the attenuation study were used to design production blasts used during
construction. A ten-hole, 5 monitoring-point plan (Figure 5) was included as part of the construction
documents to provide a statistical basis for developing the vibration response curves. Three test blast
areas were also incorporated into the attenuation study at select locations on the project including: 1)
Shaft development area; 2) Tunnel heading and portal area; and 3) Top of the shaft excavation.

Clarifying Notes: TMP #1 Temporary Seismograph Location for the Attenuation Study.
MP#10 Project Dedicated Seismograph Location
Figure 5. Plan View, Attenuation Line and Seismograph Monitoring Locations

The attenuation study and test blasts were smaller than production blasting and were intended to allow
the blaster and design construction team to evaluate the blast vibrations response, drill pattern, loading
configuration, and fragmentation results in a controlled and systematic process. Production blasting was
designed to stay within the specified vibration limits developed through the attenuation study. Results
of the attenuation study are presented in Figure 6. The attenuation study results shown in Figure 6
almost exactly match Oriards upper bound.

Figure 6. Results of Regression Analyses

Correlation Coefficient R
2
= 0.896

95% Confidence Equation PPV = 242.79 x (SD)
-1.670

[Eqn. 4]

50% Confidence Equation PPV = 130 x (SD)
-1.670

[Eqn. 5]

Monitoring System and Vibration Limits
Ten seismographs were required for each production blast. The transducers were placed at designated
locations or structures, as shown on Figure 5. Monitoring was required at vibration sensitive locations
per the project specifications. A blast vibration monitoring system was established to monitor and
document the contractors performance on a shot by shot basis. An automated data transfer system was
provided by the contractors blasting consultant that reported the triggered seismograph readings to all
designated parties (i.e. contractor, engineer, owner, construction management team, etc.) within a few
minutes of initiation. The contractor was required to predict what the PPV would be at each instrument
prior to each blast. The predicted value was compared to the actual reading and the design construction
team made adjustments to the next blast plan to stay within the specified limits.

Peak particle velocity measured in any component on the ground surface adjacent to the structure was
not allowed to exceed the values in Table 2.
Table 2. Maximum Peak Particle Velocity Permitted

Structure Type
Vibration frequencies
(cycles/second)
Maximumallowable peak
particle velocity
(inches/second)
MP#1 west end of the downstreamright abutment concrete
retaining wall, at grade
Below 40
Above 40
6.0
8.0
MP#2 west end of upstreamright abutment concrete
retaining wall, at grade
Below 40
Above 40
6.0
8.0
MP#3 Southwest Corner of Powerhouse, at grade Below 40
Above 40
1.0
2.0
MP#4 Northwest Corner of Powerhouse, at grade Below 40
Above 40
1.0
2.0
MP#5 Crest of Damearthen embankment adjacent to the
powerhouse, at grade
Below 40
Above 40
0.5
1.0
MP#6 Foundation of Substation Structure Below 40
Above 40
2.0
4.0
MP#7 Irrigation Pump House Foundation Below 40
Above 40
1.0
2.0
MP#8 Crest of Damearthen embankment adjacent to the
Spillway, at grade
Below 40
Above 40
0.5
1.0
MP#9 Service Spillway Pier Below 40
Above 40
0.5
1.0
MP#10 Gate Control Structure Top of the Bulkhead Wall
(Lake Tap Blasting Only)
Below 40
Above 40
6.0
8.0

It is important to note that most of the PPV values prescribed in Table 2 are about half of the
conventional OSM values and therefore, allowed the design team to further assess blast design
modifications well within conventional standards of the industry.
These PPV were established based upon the approximate location of the instrument from the blasting as
well as the sensitivity of the structure to ground vibrations. The sensitivity of the embankment to
geotechnical activities, historic seismic activity, constructability, the systematic evaluation of the
contractors blasting practices to achieve the limits, as well as the ability of the design construction team
to adjust limits if required were the basis for the permitted vibration limits on the project. Another key
monitoring point was to visually observe the downstream tailrace area during and after blasting to assess
if debris pluming occurred. If pluming occurred due to blast vibrations, modification to further blasting
activities would have been required.

Construction Acti vi ties
Tunnel and shaft test blasting was conducted on J uly 26, 2010. The contractor elected to advance the
15-ft (4.6-m) horseshoe shaped tunnel in a top heading and bench method. This approach kept the
operation 4 ft (1.2 m) above the tail water pool elevation and provided a platform for installation of
initial ground support. The shaft and tunnel were advanced 60 ft (18.3 m) deep and 260 ft (79.2 m) long
in 165 blasts. By Sept 29, 2010 (56 days) the tunnel and shaft had been connected and permanent lining
was being installed. Blasting progressed at 2 to 5 shots per 24 hour period, advancing the tunnel and
shaft concurrently. Each blast was designed by the contractor, submitted for review, evaluated for
anticipated seismic response and returned to the contractor for loading the pattern. The blast pattern was
loaded in accordance with the reviewed plans and the loading was documented by the Engineer. The
downstream pool of the dam was visually monitored during each shot by the Engineer that documented
the loading and tie-in operation.

In general, the dam and ground seismic response was as predicted. Several of the initial blasts created
some intermittent pluming from the tail water drains downstream of the dam. It was the opinion of the
construction team that this was silt material already contained within the drains that was being cleaned
out given that the plume dissipated within several minutes. Later blasts did not show signs of the
cloudy discharge from the toe drains. On one occasion, the tunnel face area was reduced due to bad
ground conditions. The tunneling crew drilled out a slightly modified pattern to account for the reduced
heading face round, however, the holes ended up being too close to each other and a sympathetic
detonation of the entire round resulted. The seismic limit was slightly exceeded (i.e. 1.23 ips (31.2
mm/s) at 39 Hz, whereas the specification was 1.0 ips (25.4 mm/s) below 4 Hz and 2.0 ips (50.8 mm/s)
above 40 Hz). This required the project team to reassess the mining operation, retreat to enhance ground
control measures, and re-evaluate the blast plan prior to advancing the tunnel further.

Summary of Design/Construction Process
Design of the project required significant effort by the Owner and their Engineers to develop a safe and
cost effective way to reconstruct the dam. Construction of a diversion tunnel, shaft, and lake tap channel
using drill/blast methods was a very challenging yet calculated risk, using techniques to advance the
tunnel and shaft concurrently. The contractors approach to minimize the tunnel heading face areas and
to segment and deck the shaft blasting allowed the excavation to progress in a safe and systematic
manner. The combination of engineering to reduce the risk in conjunction with the contractors smaller
is better approach to advancing the tunnel and shaft was successful in completing the diversion system
(Figure 7) with minimal impact to the dam and structures from blast induced vibrations.

Figure 7. Completed Tunnel and Lake Tap System

By reducing the tunnel face heading, the team successfully eluded a potential problem when the
sympathetic detonation occurred. The heading size essentially reduced the total load by half to one-
quarter of what could have happened given a full face tunnel excavation process.

Blasting operations produce vibrations that are significantly different than vibrations caused by an
earthquake. Peak particle velocity is the appropriate measure for damage control in blasting operations.
The combined efforts of the team on this project ensured that the peak particle velocities did not exceed
target values and lead to a successful project completion.

It should be noted that during the construction process, earthquake (seismic) events were recorded by the
automated seismograph monitoring system. On August 4, 2010 an earthquake triggered the
seismographs on the embankment of the dam. It recorded 0.050 ips (1.27 mm/s) at 2.9 Hz, and the pulse
lasted for over seven seconds. A second earthquake was recorded at the site that registered 0.065 ips
(1.65 mm/s) at 2.7 Hz and lasted over 12 seconds. No signs of damage to the dam and/or facilities were
observed during post-earthquake visual inspections, however, the signature of each event compared to
the blasting signatures was well documented.

References

Dowding, C. (1985). Blast Vibration Monitoring and Control. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs,
New J ersey
FHWAHI-92-001 (1991) Rock Blasting and Overbreak Control, National Highway Institute, US
Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration, NHI Course No. 13211
Hoek & Brown (1980) Underground Excavations in Rock, The institution of Mining & Metallurgy,
London.
ISEE (1998) Blasters Handbook, 17
th
Edition, The International Society of Explosives Engineer.
Cleveland: ISEE
Langefors and Kihlstrom (1978) The Modern Technique of Rock Blasting, Third Edition, John Wiley &
Sons, New York
Oriard (2003) Explosives Engineering, Construction Vibrations and Geotechnology, Chapter 13, Large
Energy Source, (1970) Chapter 12, Mine Roof Drop in an Urban Area, (1992) The International
Society of Explosives Engineer. Cleveland: ISEE


Blasting A Diversion Tunnel Through The Abutment of A "Meta-Stable" Dam

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Blasting A Diversion Tunnel Through The Abutment of A "Meta-Stable" Dam

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Blasting a Diversion Tunnel through the Abutment

Você também pode gostar