The Republic of the Sudan

Presidency of the Republic

Dams Implementation Unit (DIU)

Merowe Dam Project

Report No. 7

By

PANEL OF EXPERTS

Prof. Dr. Dafalla Abdalla Al-Turabi, Chairman

Prof. Dr. Norbert R. Morgenstern
Mr. Bayardo Materon
Dr. Ahmed El-Tayeb Ahmed, Convenor

To

Dams Implementation Unit

September 2007
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Engineers response to report No. 6 5
3. Project Status 6
4. ECRD 8
4.1 Status 8
4.2 Materials 8
4.3 Quality Control 10
4.4 Design and Construction Details 10
5. Dykes 11
5.1 Status 11
5.2 Design Modifications 11
6. Plastic Concrete Cut-Off Wall 12
6.1 Status 12
6.2 Quality Control 12
6.3 Filter Cake and Joints 13
6.4 Cushion Material 14
7. CFRD 18
7.1 Status 18
7.2 Quality Control 19
7.3 Construction Issues 20
7.4 Leakage 22
7.5 Parapet Wall 23
7.6 Performance 24

i
8. Concrete Structure 25
8.1 Status 26
8.2 Construction Schedule 28
8.3 Powerhouse Uplift 28
8.4 Blasting 29
8.5 Concrete Materials 30
9. Instrumentation 31
9.1 Status 31
9.2 Review of Data 32
9.3 Analysis of Data 32
9.4 Impoundment Monitoring Plan 33
9.5 Long-term Monitoring and Systems 35
10. Health, Safety and Environment 36
11. Diversion and Spillway Closure 37
11.1 Sequence 37
11.2 Design Issues 38
11.3 Construction Issues 39
12. Risk Management Plan 40
12.1 Risk Analysis 40
12.2 Risk Management Strategy 42
Appendices A
Appendices B
Appendices C

ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 7th Panel of Experts (the Panel) meeting for the Merowe Dam Project

(the Project) was convened at the dam site between September 2 to

September 7, 2007. The composition of the Panel is a follows:

Prof. Dr. Dafalla Abdalla Al-Turabi, Chairman

Mr. Bayardo Materon

Prof. Dr. Norbert R. Morgenstern

Dr. Ahmed El-Tayeb Ahmed, Convener and Resident Engineer (the RE)

Lahmeyer International (the Engineer) are consultants for final design and

construction. The construction contract for the civil works has been

awarded to CCMD (the Contractor).

Since the last visit of the Panel, the plastic concrete Cut-Off Wall has been

completed allowing the further raising of the ECRD. The spiral case

installation for Units 1 to 4 were finished and further installations for the

additional units has been advanced. Considerable effort was expended on

spillway construction and the piers are nearly finished.

1
The bridge deck is progressing. The spillway weir body in Bay 8 was

finished and concreting to final shape will start shortly. At the time of the

last meeting it was evident that first power production would be delayed by

about one year. The current plan now anticipates first power from Units 1

and 2 in the fall of 2008.

The purpose of this 7th meeting of the Panel was to inspect the progress of

the works and to advice on a variety of design and construction issues

related to the dams. However the closure of the spillway bays will continue

through 2008 and it involves control of the 2008 flood by means of the

spillway which will be partially completed at the time. This raises a number

of technical and schedule-related issues that bear on the risk associated with

the Contractor's proposed diversion plan which departs from the contractual

river diversion concept. The assessment of this risk and its management

received considerable attention at this meeting.

The general agenda for the meeting is included as Attachment A.

Attachment B is a list of documents presented to the Panel. Finally,

Attachment C is a list of those attending the meeting, either completely or in

part.

2
Panelists Materon and Morgenstern arrived in Khartoum on the evening of

September 1 and the Panel traveled to the site the next morning. The

meeting started on September 2 with the first day devoted to a site

inspection. The delay in several parts of the project was apparent. On the

following three days, presentations were made to the Panel and discussions

followed. The subjects covered are described in Attachment A. During these

three days the Panel returned to the field to inspect fill placement procedures

and to assess the trimming of downstream slopes in the rockfill of the CFRD

structures.

The Panel began preparation of this report on the afternoon of September 5

and submitted a draft copy for review on the morning of September 7. the

report was finalized that day and the Panel departed for Khartoum. The

Panel left Khartoum in the morning of September 8.

The Panel wishes to express their appreciation to the staff of DIU,

particularly the Resident Engineer, and to the staff of the Engineer. All have

contributed in assisting the Panel in meeting its objectives.

3
It has been agreed that the next meeting of the Panel will be convened on

site between January 27 and February 1, 2008, with departure from

Khartoum on the morning of February 1. According to the current schedule,

this would be an optimal time to make the final assessment with respect to

the risk associated with the spillway closure scheme, as presently conceived.

4
2.0 ENGINEER'S RESPONSE TO REPORT NO. 6

The Panel had recommended that the Engineer develop an action plan in

response to recommendations made in Panel reports and therefore was

pleased to receive the action plan arising from Panel Report No. 6. The

action plan is complete and entirely responsive to the recommendations of

the Panel. All substantive issues have been addressed in a comprehensive

manner.

The Panel was particularly pleased to receive written technical memorandum

on a number of items, namely:

Amount of soluble material in Zone 13L.

A record of the history of the construction and operation of the relief

wells.

A report on the treatment of abutment joint leakage at RW

5/PI5/ECRD.

Shrinkage tests for Zone 1B

Use of plasticizer in face slab construction.

The Panel wishes to state that it does not agree with the position of the

Contractor regarding the use of plasticizer.

5
3.0 PROJECT STATUS:

The Panel received a comprehensive report on project status prepared by the

Engineer. Key events noted since the last visit of the panel are:

Spiral case Unit 1 completed May 25, 2007

Cut-Off Wall completed end July, 2007

Spillway Weir Body 8 concrete April September 2007

Non-Overflow Block 2 completed August, 2007

A detailed analysis of the status of completion of the major structures leads

to a quantification of the delay of the project related to the original schedule.

This assessment results in the following summary of overall progress:

Left Bank Works 7-9 months delay.

Concrete Dam and Powerhouse 16-18 months delay.

Right Bank Works 18-20 months delay.

Overall (based on critical path) 17 months delay.

Of particular concern to the Panel is the growing shortfall even in recent

work for both concrete and embankment construction, indicating that the

Contractor, even at this late stage of construction, displays a chronic lack of

capacity to meet his required production rates. This will have to change in a

demonstrable manner if the planned spillway closure and river diversion are

6
to proceed in a reliable manner. This is discussed in more detail in Section

12 below. There is, for all practical purposes, no float time planned in a

number of critical path activities, as identified by the Engineer, who has

noted a number of critical concerns. Early completion of the COW in the

ECRD provided an opportunity to accelerate placement of Zone 22. This

opportunity was not taken by the Contractor.

As before, the Engineer has identified severe limitations associated with the

resources available to the Contractor, his construction management skills

and his inadequacies in workmanship.

Time is running out to effect change. The requirements of the project need to

be relayed to the Contractor, with specifics, at the highest level as discussed

in Section 12.

7
4.0 ECRD

4.1 Status

Limited portions of Zone 1 material could be placed since the last meeting of

the Panel in March, 2007 due to construction of the plastic concrete COW,

which was completed at the end of July, 2007. late construction of RW6 was

also a contributing factor. Placement of Zone 22 material has only begun at

the time of this Panel visit.

However, rockfill was placed in the ECRD during this last period and is now

on average at Elv. 267 (higher on the left side). About 73% of ECRD filling

is complete.

During this visit, the Panel observed the resumption of placement of core

and filter materials. All was proceeding in an orderly manner.

4.2 Materials

The Panel was advised that sufficient Marwa sand has been stockpiled to

meet the needs of the ECRD and Dykes and that the dredging operation has

been terminated.

8
The Panel received a summary of material characterization data for Zone 1B

(Formerly Zone 13L) supporting the conclusion that the material is suitable

for use in the upper part of core construction.

A comprehensive investigation into the characteristics and control of Borrow

Area L had been initiated by the Engineer to ensure that sufficient volume of

material for Zones 1, 1.1, and 1B will be available in a timely manner. At the

time of the last Panel meeting preliminary projections were promising in that

adequate supplies of Zone 1 material appeared to be available. The Panel

requested better resolution of this matter to be presented at this meeting.

Building on the geological model of Borrow Area L that had been

established and with a careful assessment of fill volume bulking from in-situ

to as-compacted, the Engineer has confirmed that Borrow Area L is

adequate to satisfy the material needs of the project. Vertical face mixing in

the borrow pit is producing a fill of excellent homogeneity that contributes

to the quality of the construction. This must continue. Stockpiles have been

established as required to meet future needs and the Engineer will continue

to monitor their adequacy. The Panel encourages the Engineer to maintain

9
the careful monitoring of borrow area L activities in the manner conducted

to date.

The studies conducted in Borrow Area L provide highly positive results and

the Panel commends the study team for the quality of this undertaking.

4.3 Quality Control

All materials are consistently meeting requirements.

4.4 Design and Construction Details

Final detailing of the dam crest incorporating Zone 1B and modifications of

the filter layout were presented. The Panel agrees with the proposal of the

Engineer.

Discussion was held on procedures adopted for contact zone compaction and

for managing temporary, access roads. The Panel supports the design and

practices developed by the Engineer and adopted by the Contractor. In the

future gypsum at contact zones can be restricted to only the outer 2m thick

zones.

10
5.0 DYKES

5.1 Status

Fill placement on the left bank dyke is about 25% complete. Some

foundation preparation remains to be done. No fill has been placed for the

right bank structure although the foundation area has been prepared. The

right bank is not critical and the ability to complete the left bank in a timely

manner is not restricted except by parallel ECRD activities. Filling of the

right bank is expected to start in November, 2007.

5.2 Design Modifications

Studies have been undertaken to determine the relation between shrinkage of

Zone 1B material and placement moisture content. Control criteria for

placing Zone 1B have been proposed and the Panel agrees with them.

In addition to utilizing Zone 1B material instead of Zone 1, above Elv. 295,

as shown in the current IFC drawing, a number of design changes have been

made to the sections for both left and right banks to improve

constructability. The Panel agrees with these changes.

11
6.0 PLASTIC CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL

6.1 Status

The excavation of the trial panel began on April 4, 2007. The COW

excavation began on April 7 and the COW was completed on July 8. It

involved 15,310m2 of wall area including 2006m2 of rock cutting. That it

was completed ahead of schedule, with no serious mishaps, while subject to

a high level of scrutiny and quality control is a significant achievement. The

Panel congratulates all involved. The project was fortunate to have secured a

rock cutter that was so well-suited to its needs.

During excavation some weak zones were encountered in the rock and its

depth was extended in the event that these weak zones might be

hydraulically conductive. Other than this, no adverse geological conditions

that might affect the performance of the wall were encountered.

6.2 Quality Control

An extensive quality control program was developed prior to construction

and it was executed as intended. Geometrical conditions of the guide walls,

the cutter verticality and the trench walls after excavations were monitored.

Plastic concrete properties were measured in a comprehensive control testing

12
program. It was generally shown to behave as expected, in conformance

with the specifications and the design requirements. Detailed reports on wall

panel construction have been made for each panel.

The Panel is satisfied that construction has been to a high standard and that

this is supported by the results from the extensive quality control program.

6.3 Filter Cake and Joints

Prior to the construction of the COW a section of trial panels upstream of the

COW was constructed. Subsequent inspection of the top portion of the joints

in the trial panels discovered filter cakes of slurry between the primary and

secondary panels. The thickness was about 1cm. Similar joint filling was

also present in the top portion of the main COW where it had already been

installed.

Following this discovery, the Engineer initiated a program of evaluation of

the likely origin of the filter cake, changes in construction practice to

minimize its occurrence and assessment whether the filter cake can

potentially pipe into adjacent material. These studies resulted in a number of

conclusions such as.

13
 The depth of significant joint filling is limited to about 6m.

It likely arises due to delays in replacing slurry and due to higher than

necessary slurry density.

The development of joint filling can be reduced significantly by

modified slurry management and by using brushes to clean out filter

cake.

In any case the filter cake material cannot pipe into any adjacent

material.

Changes in construction practice resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of

joint infilling. The infilled joints that have already been created are encased

in the core. The Engineer has concluded that the remnant infilled joints left

in the wall will not affect it in an adverse manner.

The Panel agrees.

6.4 Cushion Material

A cushion material (Zone 22) is introduced on top of the COW to protect the

core of the dam from cracking as it settles over the plastic concrete wall.

This material is intended to be plastic and deformable but trafficable.

14
The Engineer has approved a mixture consisting of Nile silt and 20%

bentonite that is impervious and potentially suitable for use in Zone 22. It

has a small organic content. Procedures have been developed for blending

this material to a homogeneous state and storing it in stockpiles for future

use. Laboratory tests indicate that the material is ductile and studies have

been undertaken to establish a range of density and moisture content wet of

optimum that would provide suitable material for placement. Trial

placement and compaction tests were performed to assess the suitability of

the material. The proposal acceptance criteria are:

PI 50%

Moisture Content + 3% of Moisture Content at 92.5% of Standard

Proctor Density on the wet side.

Dry Density = 90% - 95% of Maximum Density (on wet side)

As a result of the trial test a sequence of placing and compacting in layers

has been developed and are embraced in the method statement of the

Contractor.

15
From a practical perspective, the Panel is content that a suitable material has

been developed and appropriate methods of placement and quality control

are being utilized.

However the project specifications required that the Zone 22 material have a

modulus of elasticity ranging from 3 to 5 times lower than modulus of the

core material. This condition was not satisfied by laboratory measurements.

In Report No. 6 the Panel recommended that the stiffness ratio requirement

be abandoned in favour of demonstrating acceptance based on numerical

modeling.

Building on previous modeling conducted by the Engineer to design the

COW, the model was extended to focus on the cushion connection to

demonstrate that the introduction of Zone 22 shields the core from potential

cracking. An appropriate constitutive formulation for Zone 22 material was

introduced into the model and the potential for local slip between the core

and the COW was also considered. The modeling was conducted with a high

degree of skill.

16
As an aside, the model prediction of foundation settlement predicts the trend

of observed settlement remarkably well, increasing confidence in the

reliability of the model. The model also illustrates how yielding and any

potential for cracking are reduced by the presence of the cushion material as

a result of its enhanced ductility. The Engineer concludes that the Zone 22

material is fit for purpose and the Panel agrees with this conclusion. Careful

control in the stockpile and as-placed in the dam will have to be maintained.

The Engineer also noted that instrumentation at and near the top of the COW

would provide interesting information about soil-wall interaction. While the

Panel agrees, it is reluctant to add more instrumentation in the core of the

dam unless it contributes directly to safety assessment.

17
7. CFRD

7.1 Status

Very low progress has been reported for rock fill placing at the left

abutment. Only 200,000 m3 were placed since the past Panel visit in March,

totaling 1,400,000 m3 which represents 77% of the total volume.

At the right bank 600,000 m3 were placed for a total of 3 million. m3.

However, the low progress in the construction of the irrigation structures in

both banks has affected the placing of rockfill, since the inclined ramping to

access these structures limits the completion of the fill.

The irrigation structures at the left bank is 55% complete and in the right

bank is almost complete but no activity was observed during the field

inspection.

Construction of the Face slab is 40% complete at the left bank and 75% at

the right bank. An analysis presented by the Engineer indicates that the

CFRD is becoming on the critical path due to the very low progress during

the past 8 months The Panel recommends again to analyze the progress of

18
these structures with the Contractor aiming to speed up the works in the

CFRD, and in the irrigation structures.

7.2 Quality Control

Quality of the rockfill is very well controlled and the results presented

indicate excellent properties of the compacted rockfill.

The main rockfill, 3B, has the following physical characteristics:

Left Bank Right Bank

Density 2.12 t/m3 2.16 t/m3

Void ratio 23% 20%

Los Angeles abrasion

(500 rev.) 14% 11%

(1000 rev.) 25% 19%

UCS 119 MPa 119 MPa

The Panel is pleased with the quality control and results for the CFRD

materials.

19
7.3 Construction Issues

The down stream slope of the CFRD is unfinished presenting segregation

and concentration of fines in areas where temporary access were located.

An inspection of the downstream slope was carried out on September 4th,

observing that trimming and reposition of coarse material has to be re-built

as follows:

Left Bank:

Trim and compose the fill close to the transition wall located at 6+217

approximately.

Trim and replace fine fockfill where the temporary access was placed.

Complete rockfill between 6+350 to 6+450.

Repair zone close to 7+807 where a temporary access was located in area

IV.

Build the rockfill at each side of the IOL (7+324) with rockfill giving similar

appearance to the trimmed areas.

Trim remainder of downstream slopes.

Right Bank:

Area VI/VII. Trim and repair rockfill between 4+500 to 4+800.

20
IOL structure 3+150 approximately, build and repair the slope of areas IV

and V which are badly segregated.

Trim the remainder of the fill which has been completed to El. 300.8

The specifications for the outer zone materials differ between the ECRD and

the CFRD. Accordingly, the Engineer has developed guidelines for the slope

finish requirement in accordance with the specification for the outer zones.

The Panel agrees with these guidelines.

Although this work has not high priority the Panel would like to see positive

results at the next visit.

During the technical presentations it was indicated the intention to raise

partially the rockfill at the right abutment, against the spillway wall located

at 4+814 approximately.

This is technically feasible and will help to give access to build the face slab

in this zone. The Panel has no objection to this procedure, providing that all

material is well compacted to integrate lake with the downstream fill.

21
It is common practice to inspect the face slab recording cracks or retraction

fissures before impoundment. Since the face slab is very long it is wise to

start inspecting the face recording areas where the fissures exceeds 0.3mm.

Generally fissures wider than 0.3mm are treated with epoxy or non-

shrinkage mortar prior to impounding.

7.4 Leakage

There are some points at the right abutment where piezometers have been

installed to monitor the position of the water level downstream of the face

slab.

Readings at 4+220 and 4+390 indicate some potential pressure over the

slab, when the slab is built. The Panel recommends continuing monitoring

these piezometers to register the position of the water table. During the

construction of the slab, it is recommended to make some holes in the slab to

release any potential back pressure, which may affect the behaviour of the

slab.

22
The number of holes will be duly registered and plugged before applying

Zone 4A which will counter-weight the back pressure.

The Panel recommends that hydraulic conductivity testing be added to the

plinth concrete investigation program as additional delineation of possible

leakage zones.

7.5 Parapet Wall

Drawing 340040-4203 related to typical section and details of the concrete

face rockfill dam, shows the alternative of building the parapet wall with the

vertical element as a pre-cast piece.

Pre-cast parapets have been built in other dams to speed up construction and

release the Contractor to place concrete at the end of the job when

demobilization of the batching plants takes place.

The Contractor has proposed to cast the vertical piece of the parapet wall

insitu. Vertical anchorages to integrate this piece to the foundation already

placed will be provided.

23
The Panel has no objection to this procedure although it visualizes that this

pour will be time consuming due to the length of the CFRD in both

abutments. Therefore, it would prudent to start this construction early in

order to develop procedures.

7.6 Performance

During this meeting records were presented of the settlement plates located

in the instruments with results as follows:

Settlement plates are stable, showing very low creep of the rockfill for a

constant load.

Modulus of compressibility for the rockfill of areas VI, VII of the right bank,

ranges between 50-100MPa, which are representative of the compacted fill

with void ratios of 0.20.

Modulus of compressibility for the rockfill of area II, of left bank are giving

erratic very high values, but those located at 6+650 are ranging between 50-

150MPa.

24
In general the appearance of the face slab is very good with low presence of

cracks and fissures. Nevertheless, it is recommended to make a careful

inspection as commented in item 7.3.

The Panel is pleased with the performance of the fill from the view point of

deformability and density.

25
8. CONCRETE STRUCTURES

8.1 Status

The concrete structures of the project are:

Power Intake.

Power House.

Non-overflow Dam.

Spillway.

Irrigation Outlet structures

Transition structure and

Retaining Walls.

Reported progress is summarized as follows:

Power Intake:

Concrete has been raised up to Elv. 278/281 upstream and Elv. 269/281

downstream.

Power House

Work has progressed in all 10 units. Concreting of spiral case of units 1

2 was progressing well. Installation of spiral cases of Units 3 and 4 was

completed and concrete progressed from Elv. 227 (March) to Elv. 239 in

all units.

26
 Non-Overflow Dam

The last pour in Block 1 remains to be done.

Spillway:

Good progress was reached in the construction of the piers. Construction

of the bridge deck is progressing, to be completed in early October.

Irrigation Outlet Structures:

Irrigation outlet structure in the right bank is almost complete; however

no activities were observed during the inspection visit.

The irrigation outlet at the left bank was 55% complete. Progress has

been slow.

Transition Structure:

The structure between the ECRD and left bank CFRD remains to be

completed.

Retaining Walls:

All retaining walls were almost complete.

In general, progress of concrete works has improved. A total of 1.4 million

m3 have been completed which represents more than 75% of the total

volume.

27
8.2 Construction Schedule

Evaluation of the actual progress with respect to the original program

indicates a delay of approximately 17 months. However, when the actual

progress is compared with the revised Baseline Schedule (Nov. 06) some

delays are also registered as follows:

Concrete works 2-4 months.

Embankments 3 months.

8.3 Powerhouse Uplift

During the technical discussions the Engineer presented a report about

"Additional Stability Analysis" Powerhouse Blocks 4 and 5. Factors of

safety were computed against the uplift for different stages of construction

when the upstream water level is around 300m.a.s.l.

Factors of safety computed are in general larger than 1, indicating that

Blocks 4 and 5 are stable against uplift.

The critical situation appears when the stability is checked for overturning.

For some load cases the resultant force migrates out of the middle third of

the foundation which implies a limited zone of tension.

28
The Panel observed the theoretical criteria applied for computing the uplift

pressure and believes that the efficiency of the drainage and grouting could

be bigger than the theoretical reduction shown in Figures A l.17 to A l.20.

It is essential to monitor the uplift pressures to evaluate the real efficiency of

the grout curtain and the drainage gallery, during the construction of Blocks

4 and 5.

The reservoir level of 285 should be investigated as well as Elv. 290. If the

reduction in uplift forces are not enough to meet the requirements of stability

against overturning an alternative solution is to pump water out to reduce the

uplift pressure. The hydrogeological characteristics of the rock are

sufficiently well defined that the contribution of pumping can be modeled to

assess efficiency of additional uplift reduction. Drain holes should be

extended in preparation of pumping and the pumping requirements

evaluated.

8.4 Blasting

A careful method statement for removal the cofferdam and rock excavation

downstream of Units 9 and 10, is required due to the proximity of the

29
concrete structures. Particle velocities should be well defined according to

the age of the concrete and the distance of the required blasting. The Panel

understands that sufficient measures have been already effected to define a

safe particle velocity, for the removal of this rock close to the concrete

structures. The Panel recommends that small blasts be used at the outset to

confirm control.

8.5 Concrete Materials

A report about concrete quality control was presented to the Panel during the

development of the technical discussions.

Cement, Fly Ash, Admixtures, aggregates, water, reinforcement as well as

control of the batching plants have continued and the records indicate good

quality of the materials. However one complete shipment of cement was

rejected (20,000t) due to exposure to dampness hydrating the cement. Also,

pre-stressed steel anchors were not accepted by the Engineer due to failure

in tension caused by spilling of welding material causing damage to the

composition of the bars.

30
9.0 INSTRUMENTATION

9.1 Status

An extensive program of instrumentation is being installed to monitor the

piezometric and mechanical response of all of the dam structures in the

project. A dedicated team under the guidance of the Engineer is devoted to

providing technical review and quality control over these installations.

The Panel was advised on the status of the installation and its quality.

Generally, the installation is proceeding in a timely manner. Most

instruments supplied and installed have been of acceptable quality.

A careful audit procedure reviews all steps in the installation process. There

is an evaluation of installation problems and efforts are taken to repair or

replace faulty instruments wherever possible. At this time, few instrument

locations that are faulty are beyond repair.

The Panel is particularly interested to restore the faulty piezometers in the

2B grouting gallery and recommends that they be given high priority.

As-built documentation of all installations is comprehensive.

31
9.2 Review of Data

At this time measurements are usually made once every 10 days by the

Contractor following procedures approved by the Engineer. This is

satisfactory. In due course many instruments will be automated. The

Engineer has identified the main problems associated with taking the

measurements. They are mainly associated with inadequate experience and

lack of checking by the Contractor. Ongoing supervision and quality control

by the Engineer will be necessary.

The Contractor submits a monthly report containing the results of the

measurements. The Panel was pleased to learn that all data/observations are

checked by the Engineer prior to forwarding for evaluation.

9.3 Analysis of Data

For the embankment dams, the Engineer is comparing measured data with

expected values in an on-going manner. So far this involves settlements,

modulus values, water levels and pore water pressures. The Panel

recommends that these be packaged with a brief assessment in monthly

performance reports.

32
The Panel is concerned that observation on the efficiency of the COW

cannot be made and evaluated due to interference from pumping wells. The

Panel recommends that a strategy be developed to overcome this omission,

hopefully during the current flood season.

For the concrete structures, the Panel has been advised that the Engineer will

evaluate performance, particularly with respect to uplift and drainage

discharge, after the 2007 summer flow. The Panel looks forward to receiving

a copy of this evaluation which will include comments on leakage in the

galleries.

9.4 Impoundment Monitoring Plan

The project recognizes that a special monitoring effort will be needed

following spillway closure and the 2008 summer flow, when the structures

are exposed to levels never experienced before. The expected rise in

reservoir level from May 1, 2008 to about September 1, 2008 is

approximately 30m occurring over a structure many kilometers long.

33
A 20m rise will occur between July and September. This is a challenging

monitoring task as recognized by the draft Impoundment Monitoring Plan

put forward by the Engineer.

The draft Plan is well-conceived and the Panel commends the effort made by

the Engineer. The following comments are presented to guide the revision of

the draft:

i) A greater emphasis on visual observation (cracks, seepage

deformation, etc.) is needed.

ii) There is a need to consider consequences of observations in more

detail; what observations trigger a response and what is the

appropriate response?

iii) There is a need to ensure and to monitor public safety upstream of

the dam as first flooding occurs.

iv) There is a need to consider public safety downstream of the dam in

the event that an emergency occurs; while there does not appear to

be an Emergency Preparedness Plan as yet, some equivalent will

have to be created in the short term. A dam break analysis will be

of assistance.

34
9.5 Long-term Monitoring and Systems

The long-term monitoring at Merowe will be assisted by automated data

acquisition and processing. However, it will remain a substantial task that

must be accomplished with high quality to ensure the long-term safety and

operability of the project. Moreover, experience reveals that dam safety is

seldom assured based on the results of instrumentation alone.

The Panel wishes to be advised of the organizational structure planned for

operations at Merowe and the provisions being made within it to assure dam

safety.

35
10. HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT

A progress report on Health, Safety and Environmental issues was presented

to the Panel during the technical sessions.

The Engineer has introduced the NCR (Non-Conformance Reporting) to

control and request provisions to improve Health, occupational safety and

control of aspects contaminating the ambient.

Five NCR were issued related with better accommodation, system of water

supply, safety and handling of sewage, wastes, and impoundment areas.

These NCR were sent to the Contractor indicating the target date to

implement these measures.

The Panel is pleased to register the positive action from DIU and the

Engineer to request these actions which benefit the execution of the contract.

36
11. DIVERSION AND SPILLWAY CLOSURE

11.1 Sequence

A sequence of construction of the spillway and handling of the river was

discussed during the Panel meeting. The sequence follows the spillway

closure concept as proposed by the Contractor with the revision B dated

June, 2007. It is considered in the Risk Management Plan prepared by the

Engineer.

The drawings show clearly the position of the stop logs to allow the

construction of the weirs, during the remaining months of 2007 and the

beginning of 2008.

The situation becomes critical in May 2008 when the water level jumps from

about Elv. 260 to about Elv. 271 over passing the stop logs placed in weir

No. 1 to guarantee the minimum flow required downstream ( 500 m3/s)

During the increase of flow in the river it is foreseen that additional stop logs

will be placed to control the minimum discharge downstream and as a result

a head of about 30m will develop over the stop log closure. The Panel has

been advised that the spillway closure concept as proposed by the Contractor

37
has not been approved by the Engineer pending receipt of further

information.

11.2 Design Issues

To the knowledge of the Panel, managing such high flows over the stop logs

about 30m high is without precedent. This requires a hydraulic model to

assess aeration and to evaluate the effects of energy dissipation which can be

in the order of 180-200 MW. Additional analysis in support of the design are

needed. The Engineer should approve both the technical design of the model

and the methods of analysis.

Since the handling of the river through the partially completed spillway,

over the stop logs is an important and critical issue, the Panel recommends

that a specialist third party be consulted after receiving the construction

methods proposed by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer. This is

regarded as an additional to the Panel for the particular purpose.

38
11.3 Construction Issues

The construction of the Ogee profile of each weir has been proposed by slip

forming. This method has been used in other projects with success. An early

start is recommended.

39
12. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN

12.1 Risk Analysis

The spillway closure diversion involves both technical risk and schedule

risk. Technical risk arises from the extreme case of passing large floods over

a high stop log closure in Bay 1, as discussed in Section 11 above. It must be

eliminated by means of additional analysis to demonstrate that the

configuration is acceptable or by modified design. This section of the report

is concerned with schedule risk.

Schedule risk has been of concern to the project and the Panel for some time.

The Engineer has developed a comprehensive simulation to evaluate the

implication of schedule on the spillway closure diversion concept. For

example, excessive delay in the Power Intake as the ECRD could result in

risk of overtopping which would be unacceptable. If this were the case it

would likely be necessary to delay the diversion which would result in a

further year delay of power production. Hence, every effort must be made to

avoid these circumstances.

The Engineer has updated the risk management plan associated with the

river diversion to be consistent with the diversion plan proposed by the

40
Contractor in Method Statement No. 82, Revision B. There has been no

change in the simulation model and the hydrological data inputs previously

reviewed by the Panel.

Based on the new risk analysis and the construction progress forecast by the

Contractor for all structures, the 2008 milestones if honoured, the risk

associated with the diversion plan is acceptably small. However, delay in

any of the structures could alter this perspective and therefore it is necessary

to monitor construction progress on all fronts and advise the Contractor of

the implications of excessive delay. At this time the Panel is not optimistic

that the forecast production schedule will be met, based on experience to

date. The Engineer has identified the requirements needed to improve

productivity.

Hence, the project may face the prospect of aborting the diversion plan for

reasons of safety. An ongoing risk evaluation process should be put in place.

41
12.2 Risk Management Strategy

The Panel envisages the following elements of a risk management strategy:

i) advise Contractor at the highest level of the criticality of meeting

construction forecasts and milestones and potential of aborting

diversion leading to an additional year of delay based on safety

considerations which are paramount.

ii) Maintain detailed construction records for all fronts with emphasis

on production rates.

iii) Advise Contractor on a periodic basis of performance related to

target, with observations on practice that appear to have reduced

productivity.

iv) If delays accumulate and safe diversion is threatened, convene a

meeting to assess risks and advise the Owner of possible ways

forward.

The Panel notes that many Stakeholders are involved in such a risk related

decision but the ultimate responsibility for accepting risk following a critical

evaluation by the Engineer resides with the Owner.

42
Respectfully submitted,

Prof. Dr. Dafalla Abdalla Al Turabi, Chairman

Prof. Dr. Norbert R. Morgenstern

Mr. Bayardo Materon

43
 Presidency of the Republic
DAMS IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
KHARTOUM, SUDAN

MEROWE DAM PROJECT

PANEL OF EXPERTS MEETING No. 7

September 2nd to 7th, 2007

Merowe Dam Township

AGENDA

September 2007

0
 Republic of the Sudan
Presidency of the Republic
DAMS IMPLEMINTATION UNIT

PANEL OF EXPERT MEETING (7)

(Merowe Dam Site Employers Township)
2nd to 7th September 2007

AGENDA
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
Day 1 Sunday 02.09.07
Arrival of participants at 7:00
Merowe Airport

1 (OPENING CEREMONY) 8:30 - 8:45

2 SITE TOUR (1) 9:00 - 13:00 Embankment Dams including quarries,

borrow areas, Gaps of the Embankment
Irrigation outlets and instrumentation

3 REVIEW OF THE 14:30 - 17:00 Finalization of the Agenda (contents and

AGENDA sequence)

4 SITE TOUR (2) 17:00 - 19:00 Concrete Dam including galleries /

instrumentation

Page 1 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
Day 2 Monday 03.09.07
Actions of Panel (6) 8:30 9:00
Meetings
5 PROJECT STATUS 9:00 10:30

5.1 General Overview

5.2 Health and Safety

5.3 Concrete Dam

5.4 ECRD Schedule vs progress, key issues

5.5 CFRD's and Irrigation outlets Schedule vs progress, gaps/key issues

5.6 Spillway and power house

5.7 Dykes Schedule vs progress, key issues

6 DYKES 10:30 11:30

6.1 Design

6.2 Materials

6.3 Constructability issues

Page 2 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter

6.4 Core Material issues

6.5 Schedule and resources

7 ECRD 11:30 - 13:00

7.1 Design Details Previous and current designs, Core above

Elv. 293, As-Built Drawings and
documentation e.g. 13L, 13A, 3A, 15 Filter
Drain etc

7.2 Borrow Area L Control & (Mapping and Modelling, Balance of

Management materials, complete investigations Report of
the borrow area L and possible extensions (if
needed), Excavation and Mixing in Borrow
Area to ensure at least vertical mixing is
adopted, Dry Stockpiling, processed
stockpiling, Management of stockpiles for
various core materials (Zones 1, 1.1, 1B and
22)

7.3 Soil Batching Plants Productivity, reliability of operation and

maintenance of the system for the coming
peak and tight program.

Page 3 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
7.4 Filters materials, stockpiles, construction aspects

7.5 QC

7.6 Documentation of Dates of placing and testing, special events,

Construction of ECRD materials, etc.
layers

7.7 Schedule and Resources Assessment of the composition of the P3

Schedule; Evaluation of resources and
materials in light of parallel construction
activities; Assurance of achieving the
requirements of spillway closure mentioned
in cl 7.2.1

7.8 Relief Wells Documentation of construction and

operation details, e.g. location, discharges,
water levels, dates, Analysis of water levels,
observations, any other relevant remarks,
future use and/or closing of wells

7.9 Leakages Incident Reports by the Contractor,

Treatment, Verification, documentation

Page 4 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter

7.10 Construction of core in

steep-sloped layers

7.11 Assessment of core in

contact zones with concrete
structures

7.12 Assessment final

embankmentslope building
and trimming

7.13 Long-term construction Necessity; adverse effects; measures,

access roads over finished alternatives if needed
core and filters

8 PC WALL 14:30 - 17:00

8.1 Trial Panels Report Trial panels findings and application to real
construction

8.2 Assessment of methods of Bentonite filter cake);

cleaning

Page 5 of 13
Item Topic
8.3 Analysis and Comparison of
Bedrock as detected by the
Cutter and that obtained
from the previous geological
investigations.
Time Details Presenter
As-Built record, volume of concrete in panel
Vs. apparent volume of excavation; KODEN
results week rock zones; incidents of steep
bedrock profiles, depths of rock penetration

8.4 Filter cake in joints First reported occurrence of the cake in

joints; Contractors proposal for
investigation of occurrence of joints,
Documentation of occurrence in various
joints cake. Measures proposed by the
Contractor to minimize and/or to rectify
joints, hazards of presence of cake in joints
below the investigated depths
8.5 Permeability Of in-situ Wall material, of joint material

8.6 Review of construction Preparatory works, Equipment and plant,

Aspects experience of staff, Materials, methods of
cleaning and switching between Batching
plants, productivity, Documentation

8.8 QC Material sources, storage, acceptance tests,

regular tests, tests during construction

Page 6 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
8.9 Review of effects of sharing Effects of waiting times:
batching plant Between excavation and concreting;
During concreting;
Between casting primary and
secondary panels

8.10 Overall Assessment

8.11 Zone 22 Compaction trial, MS, test results, effects of

high organic content, elastic modulus, QC.

8.12 Results of Non-linear FEA 17:00 19:00 Using the actual parameters, including
cushion on top of the wall, modeling of
joints and cake

Day 3 Tuesday 04.09.07

9 CFRD 8:30 - 11:30

9.1 Materials (Zones 3B, 3C, 3A, 2, etc. Stockpiling,

productivity

9.2 Extruded curb Productivity, status of equipment (in view of

the tight program for remaining works)

Page 7 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
9.3 D/S Slope Trimming and adjustment, method of
construction, materials appearance, further
treatment.

9.4 Recorded performance settlement, seepage, etc.

9.5 QC

9.6 Gaps Construction timing, rates of productivity,

relation to water rise, any other adverse
effects due to construction method

9.7 Partial filling Effects of construction interfaces in integrity

of the fill and interlocking feature e.g. in
Gaps, uncompleted slopes, in partial filling
such as near spillway, etc.

9.8 Filling on top of the plinth Timing and sequence in relation to water
rise

9.9 Parapet wall Precast alternative, present option of in-situ

construction, Method statement, schedule,
proposed modification of the cast foundation
for precast option

9.10 Crest Design and details

Page 8 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter

10 INSTRUMENTATION 11:30 - 13:00

10.1 Status of installation and

program

10.2 Defects and errors Input and guidance from manufactures,

defects in supplied instruments, damaged
instrumentation, missed initial readings,
discrepancies, suggested remedies, cable
joints quality, sealing, protection etc.

10.3 Review of Data collected

and Verification

10.4 Analyses of data

10.5 Impounding monitoring plan

10.6 Long-term monitoring

criteria and systems

10.7 Automatic Monitoring

system

Page 9 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
11 HEALTH SAFETY AND 14:30 15:30
ENVIRONMENTAL
11.1 Safety Issues
11.2 Environment Issues
11.3 Plans for Improvements

12 CONCRETE 15:30 - 19:00

STRUCTURES

12.1 Issues of power house

foundation uplift

12.2 Construction Schedule in

relation to water Rise

12.3 Grouting Possible effects on grouting under Concrete

structures as a results of blasting operations
e.g. in removing separation cofferdam

Page 10 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter

Day 4 Wednesday 05.09.07

13 SPILLWAY CLOSURE 8:30 10:30

13.1 Co incise briefing and

Sequence of closure
13.2 Amount and complexity of Including preparation, quantities, batching &
works involved in major placing capacities, and other resources
steps of closure
13.3 Water Rise with Time (u/s)
13.4 Properties of d/s Flow Assurance that at all times there is sufficient
conditions flow for the d/s reaches

14 RISK MANAGEMENT 10:30 - 13:00

PLAN
14.1 General Presentation Impounding simulation
14.2 Construction progress

14.2.1 ECRD

Page 11 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter
14.2 Gaps of Left IO
14.2.3 Gap of CFRD
near transition structure
14.2.4 Power Intake gates
14.2.5 Spillway Gates

14.2.6 Tail race of PH

14.2.7 Left and right bank
Dyke
14.3 Risk Management and possible measures and resources needed to
decision Process achieve the required targets, identification of
key controls and targets

RISK MANAGEMENT 14:30 19:00

PLAN (Contd)

Page 12 of 13
Item Topic Time Details Presenter

Day 5 Thursday 06.09.07

Report Writing 8:30 18:00

Day 6 Friday 07.09.07

Presentation of the Findings 11:30 12:30

Departures from Merowe Airport 17:00

Page 13 of 13
 MD Interim Report on Plastic Concrete QC, Cover Page.doc
CCMD MS and Report on Zone 22 Embankment Trial, Cover
Page.doc
CCMD PoE Handouts Content List TE.doc
CCMD QC Interim Report on Plastic Concrete, 15 Aug.2007,
Cover page.doc
CCMD Report on Zone 1B (13L), Cover Page.doc
CCMD Report on Zone 22 Embankment Trial, Cover Page.doc
Joints in the COW, Prof. Brauns' Report, Cover Page.doc
PPP COW Construction,Handout TE.ppt
PPP COW Lab QC, Handout.ppt
PPP Zone 13 Solubility.ppt
PPP Zone 1B Air Shrinkage, TE.ppt
PPP Zone 22 Cushion Material for PoE No.7, Sept.2007,
Handout.ppt
QC Plastic concrete monthly interim report(15 Aug. 2007).doc
Solubility Zone 13L, Cover Page.doc
Technical Memorandium Solubility.TIF
Zone 13L PoE No. 6, CVI D-35 Test report(Add air voids
added).doc
Zone 1B Air Shrinkage CVI D-56 Test report(draft-add air
voids).doc
30-08-07 fe-report_fd.pdf
handout - ecrd progress.pdf
Concrete Graph Aug07.jpg
Concrete Graph Aug07.pdf
Concrete Graph Aug07.xls
Excavation Graph Aug07.xls
 Filling Graph Aug07.xls
Intake Bar chart.jpg
Intake Bar chart.pdf
Plan_vs_Actual_Aug07.xls
Powerhouse and Intake Bar chart.pdf
Powerhouse and Intake Bar chart.xls
Powerhouse Bar chart.jpg
Powerhouse Bar chart.pdf
Presentation POE7 with revised page.ppt
Progress comparison BS vs Actual - Aug07 - Concrete.jpg
Progress comparison BS vs Actual - Aug07 - Concrete.pdf
Progress comparison BS vs Actual - Aug07 - Filling.jpg
Progress comparison BS vs Actual - Aug07 - Filling.pdf
Progress comparison BS vs Actual - Aug07.pdf
Progress comparison BS vs Actual - Aug07.xls
Spillway Closure Bar chart.jpg
Spillway Closure Bar chart.pdf
Spillway Closure Bar chart.xls
Summary Quantities - Progress status End Aug07.xls
Spillway Closure Scheme - MS82 Rev B
Project Status
Presentation Spillway closure.ppt
updated_risk_management_plan_gwjm070902.ppt
Updated_Risk_Management_Plan_
 Attendees of the Panel of Expert No. 7

No. Name Organization

1. Prof. Dr. Dafalla Abdalla Al-Turabi Chairman of PoE
2. Prof. Norbert R. Morgenstern Panelist
3. Mr. Bayardo Materon Panelist
4. Dr. Ahmed El-Tayeb Ahmed Convenor -DIU
5. Dr. A. Karim Mohamed. Zain BRRI
6. Dr. Mohamed Ahmed Osman BRRI
7. Dr. Nour Allah al Tilib
8. Eng. Tag El-Sir Ahmed Mohamed DIU
9. Eng. Ahmed El-Fatih Saad DIU
10. Eng. Saghayroun Elzein Saghayroun DIU
11. Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Shareef DIU
12. Eng. Mohamed Hassan A. Alhadri DIU
13. Eng. Osman Ahmed Abd El-Karim DIU
14. Eng. Abd El-Rhman Abu El-Maali DIU
15. Prof. El-Nima Ibrahim El-Nima DIU
16. Mr. Mutaz Musa Abdalla Salim DIU
17. Eng. Mahgoub Eisa
18. Eng. Diyaa El-Din M. El-Gadir DIU
19. Mr. Egon Failer LI Project Director
20. Mr. Rudolf Ross LI Project Manager
21. Mr. Alan White LI
22. Mr. Rosen Kranz LI
23. Dr. Scheid LI
24. Mr. Thomas Richter LI
25. Mr. Thomas Ehrahrdt LI
26. Eng. Mukesh Kumar Gupta LI
27. Eng. Ammar Hamed LI
28. Eng. Khider Mohamed Gasm Elseed DIU
29. Eng. Ahmed Abd Allah Dafa Allah DIU

Page 1 of 2
30. Eng. Ali Mohammed Ali DIU
31. Eng. Saif Eldin Mohamed Elmahi DIU
32. Eng. Yasir Elmahi Hassan DIU
33. Eng. Musab Mokhtar DIU
34. Eng. Abd Elrahman Saghayroun DIU

Page 2 of 2