3.8 Article

Effect of engineering geological properties on dam type selection of the Qadis Khordak Dam, Afghanistan

期刊

SOILS AND ROCKS
卷 45, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

BRAZILIAN ASSOC SOIL MECH & GEOTECH ENGN, PORTUGUESE GEOTECH SOC
DOI: 10.28927/SR.2022.070621

关键词

Engineering geology; Dam type selection; Lugeon; RQD; Permeability; Joint study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the engineering geological properties of Qadis Khordak dam site in Northwest Afghanistan. The study includes on-site and laboratory tests, surveying of surface discontinuity, drilled borehole tests, and permeability tests of the dam foundation. The aim is to evaluate the geotechnical characteristics of rock masses and alluvium at the dam site. The study also considers structural geological factors for the stability and safety of the dam. The presence of faults, high permeability zones, and alluvium thickness are key engineering geological issues affecting the selection of dam type.
This paper deals with engineering geological properties of Qadis Khordak dam site in Northwest Afghanistan. This study is based on on-site and laboratory tests, surface discontinuity surveying, drilled borehole and permeability test of dam foundation. The engineering geological properties at the dam site were studied in order to evaluate geotechnical characteristics of rock masses at dam foundation, geotechnical properties of alluvium at dam axis, reservoir and borrow materials. The structural geological studies also carried out due to stability and safety of dam on their abutments reservoir and seismicity. Existence of a fault, high permeable zone at dam foundation and the thickness of alluvium at dam axis, are the most engineering geological issues that cause change on dam type selection. In the feasibility phase, the dam type was chosen as the concrete face rock-fill dam, because of state of engineering geological properties of dam site. However, in the design phase dam type has been changed as a rock-fill with a clay core.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据