BELO MONTE HPP: PLANING AND EXECUTION OF

TECHNOLOGIC CONTROL
F Newton Goulart Graça *, José Flauzino Moreira *, Hugo Savio Moreira † Bruno Cesar
de Oliveira Carleto ‡, Adones Thimoteo dos Santos (in memorian)§
*
Andrade Gutierrez Engenharia (AGE)

Rua Dr Geraldo Campos Moreira, 375-11º Andar, Cidade Monções – São Paulo – SP - Brazil
e-mail: newton.graca@agnet.com.br, webpage: www.andradegutierrez.com

Keywords: Dams, Concrete, Geotechnical, Tests, Software

Abstract. The Belo Monte HPP was the largest engineering project executed in the
Amazon and was considered a great challenge in both logistics and execution due to the
large volumes involved in construction and the short period to execute them. the number
of sites was extremely high. As well as the structures construction, the technological
control has also been object of a detailed planning.
In terms of the laboratory, a central laboratory was built at the Belo Monte site, which
was named Walton Pacelli de Andrade, in honor of this great Brazilian expert consultant
of international renown and where tests of cement, steel, aggregates and concrete and
geotechnical tests of compaction and complete characterization of soils, sands, drains,
transitions and rockfill. Three more large laboratories in the sites of Pimental, which
was named Ricardo Muzzi Guimarães, the first superintendent of Belo Monte
Hydroelectric Plant, and at Derivation Channels and Dikes. In addition, advanced labs
have been set up at Dikes 6C, 8A, 13, 14C, 19B and 28 and at road Travessão 27, to
control the pavement. It stands out in Belo Monte the implantation of AUTOLAB,
technological tool developed for the Technological Control.
In addition to the extensive laboratory team mobilized, a team of 80 inspectors, 90% of
which was hired directly from the Federal Institute of Pará, Altamira, where they
recruited mid-level technicians, did the field control, formed by that institute.
The Technological Control Management also included the installation and monitoring of
more than 2,000 instruments and the execution of 23,000m of drilling for the
development of the Executive Design.

1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is to present the Technical Control that carried out for the Belo
Monte HPP during its construction. The Belo Monte HPP is the largest hydroelectrical
power plant built at amazon region at Xingu River. The installed capacity of power

* Andrade Gutierrez Engenharia

†
Arkade - Soluções Inteligentes para TI
‡
Consórcio Construtor Belo Monte
§
Norte Energia S.A.

1
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

generation will be 11,233MW when completed. A more detailed Belo Monte HPP
description is presented in other papers in this Conference.
Table 1.1 shows the main quantities of civil works.

Overburden Excavation (incl. borrow areas) m3 185,000,000

Rock Excavation (incl. quarry) m3 54,200,000

Trench Excavation m3 3,600,000

Fill (soil) m3 70,300,000

Rock Fill m3 2,200,000

Filters and transitions m3 7,200,000

Concrete (conventional and RCC) m3 3,570,000

Steel Reinforcement ton 128,000

Access Roads km 135

Table 1 – Main Quantities of Civil Works.

The Peak Monthly Production Achieved in Belo Monte Construction Works were:
• Conventional Concrete
o 110,000 m³ in September/14
o 72,000 m³ in March/15 only in Belo Monte site ( CVC )
o 120,000 m³ overall concrete (including RCC)

• Overburden Excavation
o 6,600,000 m³c in July/2015

• Rock Excavation
o 2,500,000 m³c in July/2015
o 1,600,000 m³c in July/2015 only in Channel Site

• Earth fill
o 6,280,000 m³a in July/2015

2
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

The peak of manpower reached 38,000 of labors and more than 450 for Quality
Control. Other highlight point was the use of AUTOLAB for the technical control, a very
innovative tool that will be detailed in this paper.

2 QUALITY CONTROL STRUCTURE

The physical structure was formed by several laboratories. In the central laboratory
built at the Belo Monte site, were performed testes of cement, steel, aggregates and
concrete, as well as, geotechnical tests of compaction and complete characterization of
soils, sands, drains, transitions and rockfill.
Three more large laboratories in the sites of Pimental, and at Derivation Channels
and Dikes were built. In addition, advanced labs were set up at Dikes 6C, 8A, 13, 14C,
19B and 28 and at road Travessão 27, to control the pavement. The physical structure
involved 4 additional buildings for the instrumentation team, 2 for the survey team, and
rooms in each site for the inspectors in charge of the Quality Assurance.
Thirty-four (34) vehicles were mobilized to support the inspection, laboratories,
instrumentation and quality assurance activities.
The total team involved in these activities reached 460 people including engineers,
chiefs, and technicians and labors, distributed in more than investigations 22 teams.

3 QUALITY RESULTS
Table 2 shows the results of the concrete mixes with a placed volume of more than
10,000m³. The complete results of all concrete tests including cementitious materials,
aggregates, admixtures, water and all used materials (waterstop, steel, etc) are available in the
Belo Monte databooks. Figures 1 to 9 shows some results of the laboratory tests performed in
earthfill 34 dams and dykes.

3
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos
fck
Coarse Coarse Coarse fck
water/ Natural Artifitial Number Standard Variation estimated Cumulative
Control Age Finennes Water Cement Silica Fume /Pozolan Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Average fc at following
Mix fck (MPa) t-Student cemen Sand Sand of Deviation Coefficien at the Volume (m³)
(Days) Modulus (kg/m³) (kg/m³) /Fly Ash (kg/m³) 25mm 9,5mm 50mm (MPa) age
t (kg/m³) (kg/m³) Samples (MPa) t (%) control age
(Kg/m³) (kg/m³) (kg/m³) (MPa)
(MPa)
9.5.F.4.4 30 28 1,645 4,328 184 408 52 Fly Ash 0,384 366 423 - 885 - 660 38,9 4,84 12,44 31,0 40,9 14.989,3
25.A.4.1 9 90 0,842 4,838 173 123 41 Fly Ash 0,963 307 726 944 - - 383 11,2 2,11 18,77 9,4 11,4 49.181,0
25.A.4.2 9 90 0,842 4,838 170 115 39 Fly Ash 1,007 310 732 952 - - 123 11,4 2,44 21,51 9,3 10,8 11.658,0
25.B.4.1 15 90 0,842 4,794 167 168 56 Fly Ash 0,681 293 676 966 - - 62 23,1 3,54 15,33 20,1 22,2 15.770,8
25.B.4.2 15 90 0,842 4,797 153 154 51 Fly Ash 0,727 303 699 999 - - 132 18,5 4,94 26,74 14,3 17,0 31.193,8
25.B.4.3 15 90 0,842 4,797 153 144 48 Fly Ash 0,727 303 699 999 - - 61 15,6 3,06 19,66 13,0 15,4 15.009,8
25.B.4.4 15 90 0,842 5,003 185 165 55 Fly Ash 0,768 - 939 963 - - 213 17,7 3,10 17,50 15,1 17,7 39.845,3
25.B.6.1 15 90 0,842 4,797 174 134 74 Fly Ash 0,730 302 686 956 - - 71 17,3 2,69 15,55 15,0 19,0 16.071,8
25.C.4.1 20 90 1,282 5,108 150 185 62 Fly Ash 0,554 286 678 1008 - - 76 28,8 3,35 11,63 24,5 26,7 20.388,0
25.C.4.2 20 90 1,282 5,108 147 181 60 Fly Ash 0,557 287 685 1018 - - 44 28,6 4,33 15,15 23,0 25,3 10.520,6
25.C.4.3 20 90 1,282 5,108 147 168 56 Fly Ash 0,599 289 691 1026 - - 159 20,9 3,49 16,70 16,4 20,3 38.897,5
25.C.4.4 20 90 1,282 5,020 175 189 63 Fly Ash 0,634 - 947 922 - - 128 24,0 3,61 15,03 19,4 21,4 30.860,0
25.C.4.5 20 90 1,282 5,020 175 189 63 Fly Ash 0,634 - 922 964 - - 819 24,9 2,61 10,48 21,6 24,6 165.735,4
25.C.4.6 20 90 1,282 4,756 163 178 60 Fly Ash 0,625 291 646 992 - - 221 25,7 2,48 9,66 22,5 25,3 44.257,0
25.C.4.8 20 90 1,282 4,756 160 170 57 Fly Ash 0,643 381 578 988 - - 633 25,5 2,87 11,26 21,8 24,8 131.980,0
25.C.4.9 20 90 1,282 4,832 160 170 57 Fly Ash 0,643 258 606 1075 - - 126 25,4 3,12 12,29 21,4 23,3 23.256,5
25.C.6.1 20 90 1,282 5,108 160 150 83 Fly Ash 0,599 286 672 1008 - - 80 23,4 3,34 14,29 19,1 22,3 19.575,0
25.C.6.2 20 90 1,282 4,835 176 165 91 Fly Ash 0,600 - 923 947 - - 126 26,6 3,49 13,12 22,1 26,9 27.388,8
25.D.4.5 20 28 1,645 5,177 183 257 86 Fly Ash 0,487 - 850 916 - - 535 27,5 3,16 11,52 22,3 30,5 63.080,5
25.D.4.6 20 28 1,645 4,783 170 243 81 Fly Ash 0,479 270 611 935 - - 105 29,3 2,89 9,87 24,6 33,1 11.341,0
25.D.4.7 20 28 1,645 4,783 155 205 69 Fly Ash 0,516 388 542 959 - - 594 28,7 3,33 11,60 23,2 30,6 73.763,7
25.E.4.3 25 28 1,645 5,274 175 267 89 Fly Ash 0,449 202 564 1045 - - 483 28,5 3,95 13,87 22,0 30,2 17.394,9
25.E.4.5 25 28 1,645 4,905 170 243 81 Fly Ash 0,479 358 542 927 - - 115 32,1 3,59 11,18 26,2 34,4 11.365,0
25.F.4.4 30 28 1,645 5,372 170 319 106 Fly Ash 0,365 356 358 1026 - - 845 35,6 4,99 14,03 27,4 36,7 29.729,5
25.G.4.1 25 90 1,645 5,152 165 220 73 Fly Ash 0,514 268 629 978 - - 136 30,4 4,74 15,61 22,6 26,8 32.603,5
25.G.4.2 25 90 1,645 5,077 185 233 78 Fly Ash 0,543 - 893 925 - - 199 30,1 4,13 13,71 23,3 26,1 44.646,3
25.G.4.3 25 90 1,645 4,990 170 228 76 Fly Ash 0,511 - 914 924 - - 763 34,4 3,45 10,03 28,7 33,4 163.071,8
25.G.4.4 25 90 1,645 4,758 165 212 71 Fly Ash 0,532 268 665 947 - - 277 34,9 3,54 10,14 29,1 33,3 63.256,5
25.G.6.1 25 90 1,645 5,152 165 194 106 Fly Ash 0,480 312 578 971 - - 40 30,9 3,80 12,30 24,7 28,3 10.222,0
25.G.6.2 25 90 1,645 4,928 181 212 117 Fly Ash 0,480 - 793 995 - - 56 34,6 3,58 10,35 28,7 31,4 12.761,3
25.G.6.3 25 90 1,645 5,058 185 222 122 Fly Ash 0,469 - 873 886 - - 101 37,6 4,61 12,24 30,0 37,9 21.780,5
25.H.4.1 30 90 1,645 5,350 174 265 88 Fly Ash 0,450 215 508 1056 - - 75 39,1 5,38 13,76 30,3 34,8 17.686,2
25.H.4.2 30 90 1,645 5,350 170 247 82 Fly Ash 0,472 219 518 1076 - - 80 33,1 4,92 14,87 25,0 30,4 17.866,5
25.H.4.3 30 90 1,645 5,080 165 264 88 Fly Ash 0,428 170 651 962 - - 222 41,7 3,90 9,37 35,2 40,2 40.479,3
25.H.4.4 30 90 1,645 4,835 160 235 79 Fly Ash 0,465 261 615 977 - - 175 40,5 4,80 11,86 32,6 37,7 31.344,5
50.A.1.2 9 90 0,842 5,550 135 116 11 Silica Fume 1,025 833 - 508 - 751 49 11,5 3,28 28,37 8,8 10,0 14.398,0
50.A.1.3 9 90 0,842 5,946 122 120 51 Pozolan 0,687 777 - 624 - 677 45 18,2 4,19 23,00 14,7 15,1 11.885,0
50.A.3.1 9 90 0,842 6,090 145 99 33 Fly Ash 1,003 - 723 573 - 786 307 9,7 1,48 15,32 8,5 9,9 63.200,8
50.B.3.2 15 90 0,842 5,736 110 136 45 Fly Ash 0,555 757 - 660 - 715 51 20,3 3,39 16,66 17,5 18,8 12.033,0
50.C.3.2 20 90 1,282 5,631 130 151 50 Fly Ash 0,591 781 - 605 - 654 99 22,2 3,72 16,79 17,4 20,0 26.786,5
50.C.3.3 20 90 1,282 6,090 145 175 58 Fly Ash 0,568 - 683 532 - 760 67 24,8 2,99 12,05 21,0 23,6 14.047,5
CCR-1.3 8 180 0,842 5,274 110 84 36 Pozolan 0,866 - 1075 634 - 478 48 16,8 3,22 19,21 14,1 - 24.445,8
CCR-1.4 8 180 0,842 5,546 110 84 36 Pozolan 0,866 418 710 654 - 404 163 16,2 2,76 17,00 13,9 - 87.103,9
CCR-1.5 8 180 0,842 5,546 85 61 24 Pozolan 0,908 - 1092 667 - 510 68 15,3 2,52 16,52 13,1 - 36.697,0
CCR-1.6 8 180 0,842 5,195 110 84 36 Pozolan 0,883 - 1075 634 - 478 22 19,7 1,63 8,26 18,3 - 12.054,2
CCR-1.7 8 180 0,842 5,274 110 87 29 Fly Ash 0,866 418 710 654 - 404 106 18,2 3,13 17,22 15,6 - 55.418,9
CCR-1.9 8 180 0,842 5,274 85 65 22 Fly Ash 0,891 438 732 675 - 426 303 11,9 2,17 18,18 10,1 - 160.358,6
CCR-1.12 8 180 0,842 5,274 80 62 20 Fly Ash 0,893 442 738 681 - 430 357 9,9 2,69 27,20 7,6 8,3 192.713,4
CCR-1.13 8 180 0,842 5,274 90 65 22 Fly Ash 0,960 205 955 663 - 438 24 11,1 3,14 28,25 8,5 - 12.258,4
CCR-1.14 8 180 0,842 5,274 95 51 28 Fly Ash 1,049 442 736 703 - 451 55 9,8 1,99 20,25 8,2 10,9 29.523,3
15336 2.458.543,2

Table 2 – Concrete Results with most commonly applied mixes (fck – Compressive Strength).

4
Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

100% 30%
Relative Freq. - Cumulative
90% 27%
Cumul. Rel .Freq. - Cumulative
80% 24%
Cumulative Relative Frequency

Cumulative
Average = 99,6%
70% SD = 1,9% 21%

Relative Frequency
CV= 0,019
60% N = 30817 18%

50% 15%

40% 12%

30% 9%

20% 6%

10% 3%

0% 0%
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
Compaction Degree (%)

Figure 1: Compaction Degree Results of Normal Layers

100% 30%
Relative Freq. - Cumulative
90% 27%
Cumul. Rel. Freq. - Cumulative
80% 24%
Cumulative Relative Frequency

Cumulative
70% Average = 0,0% 21%
SD = 1,3%
N = 30817

Relative Frequency
60% 18%

50% 15%

40% 12%

30% 9%

20% 6%

10% 3%

0% 0%
-3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
Moisture Deviation (hop-h) (%)

Figure 2: Moisture Content of Normal Layers

5
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

100%

90%

80%
Cumulative Relative Frequency

70%

60%

50%

40%

Hilf Hilf/Proctor
30% Average = 0,0% 0,1%
SD = 1,3% 1,2%
20% N= 30817 30817

Hilf - Cumulative
10%
Hilf/Proctor - Cumulative
0%
-4,0 -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0 5,5
Moisture Deviation (hop-h) (%)

Figure 3: Comparison Hif x Hilf/Proctor of Moisture Deviation – Normal Layers

Figures 4 and 7 shows the results of the tests performed at the top and base of the core
layers and Figures 8 and 9 a comparison with top and base.

100% 30%
Relative Frequeny - Cumulative - TOP
90% 27%
Cumul. Rel. Freq. - Cumul. - TOP
80% 24%
Cumulative Relative Freqüency

Cumulative
Average = 99,8%
70% SD = 1,9% 21% Relative Freqüency
CV= 0,019
N = 6204
60% 18%

50% 15%

40% 12%

30% 9%

20% 6%

10% 3%

0% 0%
94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109
Compacion Degree (%)

Figure 4: Compaction Degree – Top of Layers

6
Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

100% 30%
Relative Freq. - Cumulative - TOP
90% 27%
Cumul. Rel. Freq. - Cumulative - TOP

80% Cumulative 24%

Cumulative Relative Freqüency

Average = 0,02%
SD = 1,3%
70% N = 6204 21%

Relative Freqüency
60% 18%

50% 15%

40% 12%

30% 9%

20% 6%

10% 3%

0% 0%
-4,5 -3,5 -2,5 -1,5 -0,5 0,5 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5
Moisture Deviation (%)

Figure 5: Moisture Deviation – Top of Layers

100% 30%
Relative Freq. - Cumulative - BASE
90% 27%
Cumul. Rel. Freq. - Cumulative - BASE

80% Cumulative 24%

Cumulative Relative Freqüency

Average = 98,7%
SD = 1,8%
70% CV= 0,018 21%
Relative Freqüency

N = 6204
60% 18%

50% 15%

40% 12%

30% 9%

20% 6%

10% 3%

0% 0%
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100101102103104105106107
Compaction Degree (%)

Figure 6: Compaction Degree – Base of Layers

7
Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

100% 30%
Relative Freq. - Cumulative - BASE
90% 27%
Cumul. Rel. Freq. - Cumulative - BASE
80% 24%
Cumulative
Cumulative Relative Frequency

Average = 0,1%
70% SD = 1,3% 21%

Relative Frequency
N = 6203

60% 18%

50% 15%

40% 12%

30% 9%

20% 6%

10% 3%

0% 0%
-4,5 -3,5 -2,5 -1,5 -0,5 0,5 1,5 2,5 3,5 4,5 5,5
Moisture Deviation (hop-h) (%)

Figure 7: Moisture Deviation – Base of Layers

100%
Gradient - Comp Degree - Cumul.
Total Number of tests: 6203
90%
Values < 2%: 4863
Values > 2%: 1339
80% Average: 1,1%
Cumulative Realtive Frequency

70%

60%

50%

40% Cumulative
Comp Deg (Hilf) TOP BASE
30% Average 99,8% 98,7%
Standard Deviation 1,9% 1,8%
CV 0,019 0,018
20% N 6204 6204

10% Cumul. Rel. Freq. - TOP

Cumul. Rel. Freq. - BASE
0%
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
Compaction Degree (%)

Figure 8: Compaction Degree Gradient – Top x Base of layers

8
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

Figure 9: Moisture Deviation – Top and Base of layers

Tests with filters, transitions, drains and rockfills of the dikes and dams were
performed, and the complete results are available in the Belo Monte databooks.

4 RESULTS OF INSPECTIONS

The team of inspection was involved with geotechnical and concrete works.
Concerning geotechnical works, the inspection controlled the foundation excavations, the
borrow areas, quarries, the fill of cores, filters, transitions and rockfill.
Related to concrete works, the inspection activities included cleaning of foundations,
construction joint treatment, steel reinforcement, forms, concrete placement and curing.
All site inspectors filled sheets created to standardize the inspection. Monthly reports
were issued and non-conformities were opened and treated in case of any fault.

5 INSTRUMENTATION
More than 2,000 instruments were installed at the Belo Monte structures including
piezometers, thermometers, inclinometers, flowmeter, extensometers, benchmarks,
magnetic upset meters and total pressure cells. The results of instrumentation are not a
aim of this paper but they are available at Norte Energia S.A.

9
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

6 AUTOLAB
AUTOLAB is a web-based system developed with the purpose of an integrated
management and technological control in the areas of Concrete and Geotechnical (Figure 10).
It uses centralized management of all information from laboratory testing, production of
concrete and consumption/stock of materials to enable real-time traceability of quality
control.
Through direct interaction with the concrete plants, it allows monitoring the quantities of
each material of the concrete production process, as well as automatic correction of the
mixes.

Figure 10: Hilf / Proctor test performed with AutoLab

10
 Newton Goulart Graça, José Flauzino Moreira, Hugo Savio Moreira, Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto,
Adones Thimoteo dos Santos

Figure 11: Concrete production monitoring panel

7 CONCLUSIONS
Despite the gigantism of the Belo Monte HPP, this paper points out the importance to
plan and implement, prior to begin the construction activities, a careful quality control
plan in order to achieve good results in terms of conformity and durability of the
constructed structures.
In addition, hard training of all the involved technicians as well as the logistics aspects
should be considered as fundamental to reach the expected results.

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thanks to Norte Energia S.A. and Consorcio Construtor Belo Monte to
permit publish this paper.
The authors also thanks to the engineers Bruno Cesar de Oliveira Carleto, Helio
Marcio Rodrigues de Figueiredo, Solange Cristine Kusaba, Marcos Cabral Guimarães,
Lediana Maria Rampão, Rayana Morena Sales, André Luiz Pereira Junior, Evelyn Kaori
Tatsuda, Joiane Ariadne Pereira da Silva, Tec Agnaldo Soares de Oliveira and
Matusalém de Oliveira and all chiefs, laboratory foreman’s, technicians and all team who
worked hard to perform the Quality Control. We also thanks the engineers Marco Tulio
Pinto and Cecílio Abrão Junior for the adequate support to realize the Quality Control .

11