Hosted by

San Antonio River Authority

The Role of Dams in the
21st Century
26th Annual USSD Conference
San Antonio, Texas, May 1-6, 2006
On the Cover
Salado Flood Retention Dam 15R, in San Antonio's McAllisterPark, was completed in October 2004. It was the final
in a series of 14 flood control dams along the Salado Creek watershed. The dam has a detention capacity of about
3,500 acre-feet, and allows slower release of accumulated rainfall, lessening the potential for erosion and flooding
on the city's east side. It is a Natural Resources Conservation Services-assisted dam constructed through the Bexar
Regional Watershed Management partnership, which includes the San Antonio River Authority, City of San
Antonio, Bexar County and 20 suburban cities in Bexar County.
The information contained in this report regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2006 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2006924170
ISBN ISBN 1-884575-39-0
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org
U.S. Society on Dams
Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

Seepage Barriers in Dams 151
A STUDY OF THE LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE
OF SEEPAGE BARRIERS IN DAMS

John D. Rice, P.E.
1
J. Michael Duncan, Ph.D.,P.E.
2

Matthew Sleep
3
Richard R. Davidson, PE
4


ABSTRACT

It has usually been assumed that the installation of cutoff barriers (slurry walls, concrete
walls, secant pile walls, jet grouted walls, deep soil mixed walls, and sheetpile walls)
results in permanent mitigation of seepage problems through embankment dams and
foundations. Over the past year, we have collected long-term performance data from a
large number of dams that have had seepage barriers in place for over 10 years. While
most of these dams appear to be performing as expected, some have not. The most
extreme example of unsatisfactory performance we have seen so far is Wolf Creek Dam
in Kentucky, where a concrete diaphragm wall was installed between 1975 and 1979.
Seepage problems at Wolf Creek Dam have redeveloped over the past 25 years to levels
equal to or exceeding those observed prior to installation of the wall. Most of the
seepage at Wolf Creek Dam appears to have developed beneath and around the wall and
is thought to be the result of increased hydraulic gradients in these areas.

The mechanisms leading to unsatisfactory long-term performance of earth dam seepage
barriers can generally be attributed to the buildup of water pressure behind the wall and
the associated increase in hydraulic gradient beneath, around and through the wall. The
increased gradient can lead to internal erosion and piping in the dam and foundation.

This paper will include a description of the study, a brief summary of the performance of
the seepage barriers we have studied, and a description of the Wolf Creek Dam case.

INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a summary of a research project currently being conducted in the
Department of Civil Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
investigating the long-term performance of seepage barriers in dams. The inspiration for
this study was the recurrence of seepage problems that developed at Wolf Creek Dam in
Kentucky roughly two decades after a concrete diaphragm seepage barrier was
constructed. A literature search on the topic of long-term performance of seepage
barriers through the embankment and into the foundation revealed that, with a few

1
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 19
Patton Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061; jdrice@vt.edu
2
University Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, 104 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
3
Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
20 Patton Hall, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
4
Senior Principal and Vice President, URS Corporation, 8181 E Tufts Ave., Denver Colorado 80237

152 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
exceptions (Marsal and Resendiz 1971; Foster et al. 2000; Foster et al. 2000), little has
been written regarding the long-term performance of seepage barriers. Thus, with the
continued seepage at Wolf Creek and the lack of a comprehensive study of the long-term
performance of seepage barriers, the need for this study was apparent.

Research Plan

We are presently collecting data on a large number of dams that have had seepage
barriers in service for over 10 years. This information includes original dam design and
construction documentation, reports of seepage incidents, design basis or justification for
the seepage barrier, seepage barrier design and construction information, and most
importantly, long term performance data.

The collected data is being reviewed and analyzed to identify situations in which seepage
barriers are not performing as expected and also those cases where seepage barriers are
performing well. We also plan to perform analyses to further our understanding of the
mechanisms that lead to distress or unsatisfactory performance. The analyses will be
designed to provide understanding of the conditions that can lead to deterioration of
performance over time. It is our eventual objective to develop guidelines for the design
and assessment of seepage barriers, and for monitoring and instrumentation programs for
dams with seepage barriers.

BACKGROUND

Over the last century seepage barriers have been constructed in association with dams to
impede seepage through the dams and their foundations. As far back as 1910, concrete
seepage barriers were being constructed in dams and dam foundations in California and
other parts of the U.S., the U.K. and Australia. These early concrete cutoff walls
extended to depths as deep as 50 feet, were hand excavated, and were shored with
wooden supports and lagging (Leventon 1930). In the 1930s steel sheet piling began to
be used for seepage barrier construction in new dam construction, and for mitigation of
seepage problems in existing dams.

The use of deep cutoffs constructed using secant pile techniques began in the early
1960s and was followed by more advanced methods of constructing barriers using
vertical elements (Ressi di Cervia 1992). One of these advanced methods, consisting of
primary drilled elements with bi-concave secondary elements filling in the windows
between the primary elements, was used in construction of the seepage barrier in Wolf
Creek Dam (Couch 1977; USACE 2005), as discussed later in this paper.

Soil-bentonite and cement-bentonite slurry wall construction techniques were developed
mainly under the auspices of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Ressi di Cervia
1992). What is likely the first soil-bentonite slurry wall in a dam was constructed in 1952

Seepage Barriers in Dams 153
in McNary Dam on the Columbia River in Washington (USACE 1986). Development of
these techniques continued through the 1960s and 1970s.

In more recent years, additional techniques have been developed such as deep soil
mixing, hydrofraise-type cutters, and jet grouting, which allow for deeper barriers and
more difficult construction conditions. These techniques have been used extensively
from the 1980s to present day to construct seepage barriers for both new dam
construction and mitigation of seepage problems in existing dams.

MECHANISMS LEADING TO DISTRESS

When studying the performance of seepage barriers it is helpful to look at the
mechanisms that act to affect the performance of the seepage barrier and the performance
of the entire dam. The mechanisms that we have identified can all be tied to a single
basic factor, the buildup of hydraulic pressure behind the barrier and the resulting
increase in hydraulic gradient across and around the barrier. All seepage barriers, by
design, are intended to impede the seepage flows through, beneath or around dams. That
impedance will lead to an increase of head upstream of the barrier and a general decrease
in head downstream, thus increasing the hydraulic gradient across the barrier.

The potential for differential water pressure forces to develop across a seepage barrier is
illustrated schematically on Figure 1. For simplicity and ease of discussion, we have
assumed a dam/seepage barrier system where the seepage barrier is 100 percent effective.
Thus, the hydraulic pressure distributions on the upstream and downstream sides of the
seepage barrier are equal to the hydrostatic pressure distributions resulting from the full
head of the reservoir level and the full head of the tailwater level, respectively, as shown
in Figure 1a. The differential water pressure acting on the seepage barrier is a uniform
pressure distribution with a magnitude equal to the difference in elevation of the reservoir
level and the tailrace multiplied by the unit weight of water, shown in Figure 1b. Thus,
for a 100 percent effective dam/seepage barrier system, the hypothetical differential
pressure across the seepage barrier is over 6,000 psf for every 100 feet of elevation
difference between the reservoir pool and the tailwater level. Of course, no dam/seepage
barrier system is 100 percent effective because of their finite hydraulic conductivity,
joints and inherent defects. However, this hypothetical system does illustrate the
potential for large differential pressures across a seepage barrier.

A flow chart is presented in Figure 2 that illustrates how various modes of seepage flow
can develop due to hydraulic pressure buildup. The increased hydraulic gradient affects
the performance of the dam/barrier system by way of three general mechanisms
differentiated by location of the seepage flow: through the foundation, at the edges of the
barrier, or through the barrier.

The first mechanism is flow through the foundation soils or bedrock below or around the
barrier. This seepage pathway is not dependant on the behavior of the barrier itself but is
154 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
affected by the vertical and lateral extent of the barrier, foundation geometry and the flow
characteristics of the foundation materials.

Figure 1. Differential Water Pressure Forces on an Ideal (100 percent effective) Seepage
Barrier

The second mechanism is seepage through construction defects at the boundaries of the
seepage barrier. Such defects could be the result of uneven bedrock interfaces at the base
and sides of the barrier or difficult tie-ins with concrete structures.

The third mechanism is seepage through defects within theactual barrier. Within this
category there are two modes of development of the defects: those caused by construction
defects and those caused by barrier deterioration. Construction-related defects in the
barrier may consist of poorly constructed joints or voids due to concrete segregation or
soil intrusion. The severity of such defects may later be exacerbated by backfill
deterioration, hydraulic fracturing, or wall deformations caused by high differential water
pressure.

A major design issue for soil bentonite cutoff walls is the significant differential
settlement of the compressible wall backfill relative to the surrounding embankment fill
or foundation material. The settling backfill tends to hang up on the adjacent soils
creating lower vertical total stresses then would develop in a fully consolidated condition.
This phenomenon of arching of the wall backfill can then lead to hydraulic fracturing
under reservoir hydraulic loading. This was central to the design of the Manasquan Dam
cutoff wall described by Khoury et al (1992). Another key issue is the erodibility of the
wall backfill material under the hydraulic loads. Erosion testing as described by Davidson
et al (1992) provides the basis to select the appropriate backfill for the dam seepage
conditions.

It seems plausible that where a seepage barrier penetrates a soil layer that is significantly
more compressible than the surrounding soil, high stresses can be imposed on the barrier
due to differential lateral compression resulting in cracking of the wall. Another location
where high bending stresses may be imposed on a barrier is where the barrier is
embedded into bedrock or a firm base materialthat is very dense compared to the
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
.
F
l
o
w
C
h
a
r
t
I
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
o
f
S
e
e
p
a
g
e
D
i
s
t
r
e
s
s

156 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
overlying material. Cracks through the wall would be acted upon by the third
mechanism, the high gradient across the wall. It is worth noting that both high bending
stress locations noted above also have the potential to be locations with high
susceptibility for internal erosion.

All of the above seepage pathways upon which the elevated gradient could act have the
potential to develop into excessive seepage, provided the conditions exist for developing
internal erosion and piping. The general conditions required for internal erosion and
piping to occur are: (1) there must be adequate seepage velocity to dislodge and transport
soil particles and (2) there must be a seepage pathway that is capable of allowing passage
of the dislodged or suspended soil particles. If, however, a filter is present and there is
adequate capacity downstream of the wall through drainage or a pervious shell, then
piping will not develop. The increased seepage velocity is a direct result of increased
gradient. Therefore, the critical factor regarding development of internal erosion and
piping is the potential for a seepage pathway capable of carrying soil particles. We have
hypothesized several potential mechanisms by which these seepage pathways can
develop. These mechanisms are presented on the right side of Figure 2 and are discussed
below.

In dams that are constructed on foundations of jointed bedrock, the combination of
increased hydraulic pressures and high hydraulic gradients may work together to develop
a seepage pathway through previously tight or filled joints if the infill is erodable. In
locations where the overburden pressure of the reservoir water is not present (i.e. in the
downstream portion of the dam) increased hydraulic pressure will result in a decrease in
the effective stress acting on joint planes. Increased water pressure in joints can result in
dilation of the joint which will increase the hydraulic conductance of the joint.
Furthermore, if the joint has infilling and the conductance increase is sufficient to
develop velocities sufficient to initiate erosion of the infill material, the joint conductance
will tend to further increase as presented on Figure 3. In such a manner seepage
pathways may be developed through what was previously a low conductivity bedrock
foundation.

Dam/seepage barrier systems constructed on karstic limestone foundations may be
susceptible to developing seepage pathways sufficient for removal of soil particles.
Solution cavities are generally interconnected and often infilled with soil. Because the
weight of the overburden is supported by the rock the infill material may consists of low-
density material deposited by water flow in the cavities. As a result the infill may be
susceptible to erosion when the velocity of water flow increases due to the increase in
gradient imposed by construction of the seepage barrier as presented schematically in
Figures 4(a) and 4(b). Grouting in solutioned limestone is often ineffective in the long
term due to soil infilling in the solution cavities that precludes grout from completely
penetrating the voids. As shown in Figures 4(c) and 4(d), pressure will tend to build up
upstream of the grout curtain imposing a high gradient across the remaining soil in the
cavity. This gradient may eventually result in a reopening of the void.
Seepage Barriers in Dams 157
Figure 3. Development of Seepage Pathway in Jointed Bedrock with Infilling
Grout Grout
(a) Initial conditions deposition of soil at low
flow velocity
(b) Post barrier construction soil infill erodes
due to increased hydraulic gradient and velocity
(c) Post grouting upstream pressure develops
resulting in high gradient across infill
(d) Post grouting pre-grouting conductance is
restored due to erosion of infill
High Exit
Gradient
Soil Infill
Soil Infill
Soil Infill
Soil Infill
Solution Cavity
Solution Cavity
Figure 4. Development of Seepage Pathway in Limestone Bedrock with Solution Voids

158 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
Internal erosion can also develop within a soil mass due to loss of internal stability. We
have identified two ways in which this may occur due to the imposing of a gradient: (1) a
degradation of the natural filtering ability of a soil and (2) through the process of
suffusion (or reorganization of soil particles). A seepage pathway can be developed by
degradation of the natural or man-made filtering capacity of the soil adjacent to the
eroding soil. Tomlinson and Vaid (2000) performed experiments using uniform glass
spheres to model soils and filters that indicate that when the ratio of the D
15
of the
filtering spheres is between 8 and 12 times D
85
of the spheres representing the soil, the
soil was effectively filtered at relatively low gradients but the effectiveness of the filter
degraded with higher gradients. Similar research on the effect of gradient on filtering
ability of soil has been performed by others (Silveira 1965; Sherard and Dunnigan 1985;
Aberg 1993; Indraratna and Vafai 1997). While the filtering behavior of natural soils
may differ from the limits described above, the results of these experiments represent
potential susceptibility of previously stable soils to be eroded when subjected to the very
high gradients often associated with seepage barriers.

The process of suffusion or lack of internal stability of the soil may also lead to the
development of internal erosion. Suffusion is an internal reorganization of soil particles
whereby fine soil particles are redeposited in open graded layers or lenses within the soil
deposit (Fell, Wan et al. 2003). If sufficient capacity is available in the open or gap
graded layers, soil can be redistributed and a seepage pathway capable of removing soil
particles developed.

There are documented cases of slurry trench construction inducing hydraulic fractures in
soil embankments (Bell and Sisley 1992; Davidson, Levallois et al. 1992; Erwin and
Glenn 1992; Eckerlin 1993; Bravo Guillen 1995). Depending on the erodability of the
soil surrounding the fracture, such fractures may provide the seepage pathway for erosion
of soil particles.

Some of these mechanisms have been observed in long-term performance of dams that
have been investigated as part of this study, while others are only hypothesized by the
authors of this paper or others. In the course of this study we will attempt to analyze and,
in some cases, model these mechanisms in order to gain further understanding of the
geotechnical processes and factors that affect their development.

RESULTS OF DATA COLLECTION AND REVIEW

At the time of this writing, long-term performance data has been collected from 26 dams
having seepage barriers in place for over 10 years. The long-term performance of each
dam based on the information reviewed is briefly summarized in Table 1. It is apparent
from Table 1 that, while many of the dams are performing well, there are some where the
performance does not fully meet the design intent. A specific discussion on the
performance of Wolf Creek Dam and how it relates to the mechanisms previously
discussed in this paper is presented in the following section.



Table 1. Summary of Seepage Barrier Performance

Dam Year
Completed
Dam Type Foundation Conditions Pre Seepage
Barrier Distress
Indicators
Seepage Barrier
Type and Year
Completed
Other Seepage
Mitigation Measures
Post Seepage Barrier Distress
Indicators
Beaver
- 1966
Homogeneous earth embankment -
Weathered limestone and calcareous
chert
Seepage exits,
muddy flows
Secant pile wall
- 1990, 1994
None None apparent
Cherry Flat -
1932
Zoned earth embankment - Alluvium
over various bedrock types (Franciscan
Complex)
None original
construction
Hand excavated
concrete wall
- 1932
None None apparent
Clemson
Upper
-1961
Homogeneous rolled fill with chimney
and blanket drain
Alluvium over Granite/Gneiss
Excessive toe
seepage, boils
Concrete cutoff
wall (panel)
-1983
Relief wells, sand berm,
interceptor trench
None apparent
Clemson
Lower
-1961
Homogeneous rolled fill with chimney
and blanket drain
Alluvium over Granite/Gneiss
Excessive toe
seepage, boils
Concrete cutoff
wall (panel)
-1982
Relief wells, sand berm,
grout curtain
None apparent
Comanche
Dike
-1964
Zoned earth embankment -Alluvium
with silty, clayey sands, and gravels
Seepage flows onto
private lands
After initial
filling slurry
trench wall
None None apparent
Crane Valley
- 1910
Combination rock fill and hydraulic fill
unknown
None original
construction
Formed concrete
core wall - 1910
None Displacement and cracking of
seepage barrier
El Capitan
1932
Hydraulic Fill
Cemented gravel over decomposed
granite
None original
construction
Hand excavated
concrete wall -
1932
None None apparent
Fontenelle
- 1964
Zoned earth and rock fill Jointed
sanstone/siltstone/shale
Rapid piezometer
level rise, High
seepage rates
Concrete Slurry
Wall
- 1986
Grouting Piezometers indicate small
amount of leakage through
wall
Jackson Lake
- 1916
Zoned earth with concrete gravity
structure - Welded volcanic tuff
deposits overlain by gravels, sands, and
silts
Seismic upgrade Deep soil mixing
columns
-1988
None None apparent

Table 1. Summary of Seepage Barrier Performance

Dam Year
Completed
Dam Type Foundation Conditions Pre Seepage
Barrier Distress
Indicators
Seepage Barrier
Type and Year
Completed
Other Seepage
Mitigation Measures
Post Seepage Barrier Distress
Indicators
Lake Wolford
1895, 1924
Combination rock fill and hydraulic fill
Granite bedrock
Through seepage in
dam
Sheet piles
-1931
None None apparent
Lower
Franklin
- 1922
Zoned earth embankment - Alluvium
over shale
None original
construction
Hand excavated
concrete wall
-1922
None None apparent, dam bypassed
in 1976
Manasquan
- 1989
Homogenous earth embankment Silty
Sand
None original
construction
Soil Bentonite
Slurry Wall
-1989
None None apparent
Meeks Cabin
- 1966,1977
Zoned earth with impervious core -
Glacial outwash gravels and glacial tills
Seepage exits
downstream and
upstream sinkholes
Plastic concrete
wall
- 1993, 1995
50 horizontal drains -
1984
None apparent
Mill Creek
- 1941
Homogeneous embankment (silt) -
Interbedded conglomerate and silt over
basalt
Reservoir leakage,
downstream
seepage, sinkholes
in reservoir
Concrete cutoff
wall
-1981
Grouting interior drain,
blanket of reservoir
area, relief wells,
grouting -2001,2002
Increased pressures and
velocities around end of dam,
continued seepage, continued
erosion
Mud Mountain
- 1941
Zoned earth and rock fill - Andesitic
volcanic agglomerate
Core deterioration
due to erosion into
rock joints
Concrete cutoff
wall
-1990
Gravity grouting,
recompression grouting
None apparent
Navajo
- 1958,1963
Zoned earth with impervious core -
Massive, flat-lying sandstone with
interbedded shale and siltstone
Seepage
approximately 600
GPM
Concrete cutoff
wall
-1987
None except to
investigate seepage
None apparent
New Waddel
- 1987,1992
Zoned earth embankment with
impervious core - Alluvial materials of
loose sand, gravels, cobbles, and
boulders with silty fines
None Original
Construction
Concrete cutoff
wall
- 1987,1992
None except to
investigate seepage
None apparent in areas of
cutoff walls
Private #1
- 1952
Zoned compacted earth and rock fill -
Glacial till on lacustrine on granitic
gneiss
Sand boils, sink
holes
Concrete cutoff
wall
-1991
Seepage blanket (1984)
and relief wells (1998)
Sand boils, slight but steady
head increase in localized
areas downstream

Table 1. Summary of Seepage Barrier Performance

Dam Year
Completed
Dam Type Foundation Conditions Pre Seepage
Barrier Distress
Indicators
Seepage Barrier
Type and Year
Completed
Other Seepage
Mitigation Measures
Post Seepage Barrier Distress
Indicators
Saylorville
- 1970
Zoned earth embankment Glacial
sands and gravels over shale
None original
construction
Cement
Bentonite Slurry
Wall
- 1970
None None apparent
St. Stephen
- 1984
Zoned earth embankment
Shale/limestone/sand
None original
construction
Concrete slurry
wall
- 1984
None None apparent
Sulpher Creek
- 1990
Zoned earth embankment None original
construction
Cement
bentonite slurry
Wall
-1990
None None apparent
Twin Buttes
- 1963
Zoned earth - Sandstone overlain by
fluvial gravels and wind-blown clay
Heavy seepage Soil-cement-
bentonite wall
-1996, 1999
Surface drains, relief
wells, grouting (1974)
Dam has not filled since wall
construction.
Virginia Smith
(Calamus)
- 1980, 1985
Zoned earth dam - Fine-grained
sandstone overlain by surficial deposits
of fine sands and silts
Constructed as part
of original design
Slurry trench
wall
- Original
construction
Toe drains and relief
wells (1985)
None apparent
Walter F.
George
- 1968
Zoned earth embankment
Limestone
Sinkholes, boils
high seepage rates,
Erosion
Concrete
diaphragm
-1981, 1985
Relief Wells 1963,
Bedrock Grouting
Increased erosion around
initial barriers. Second barrier
installed in 2002
Wister
- 1949
Homogeneous earth embankment-Clay
and silt overburden overlying
Interbedded shale, sandstone and
siltstone
Embankment
piping (dispersive
soils)
Concrete cutoff
wall
-1991
Grouting, relief wells Constant gradual increase in
seepage flows since barrier
construction
Wolf Creek
- 1952
Homogeneous earth embankment and
concrete gravity - Alluvium on karstic
limestone
Sink holes,
wet areas,
muddy flows
Concrete
diaphragm
-1975, 1979
Grouting of bedrock,
alluvium and
embankment
High piezometric levels,
muddy discharge, sink holes,
settlement, wet areas,
apparent wall leakage

162 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
Wolf Creek Dam

Dam Seepage History

Construction of Wolf Creek Dam in Kentucky was completed in 1952. The dam is a
5,736 foot-long combination homogenous earth fill embankment and concrete gravity
structure (USACE 2005; Zoccola 2006). A cross section through the earth fill
embankment is shown in Figure 5. The foundation conditions at the dam site consist of
an approximately 40-foot thick alluvial deposit that primarily rests on top of limestone of
the Liepers and Catheys formations. The Liepers formation is approximately 100 feet
thick and contains an extensive interconnected system of solution cavities. The Catheys
formation underlies the Liepers formation and has experienced a much lower degree of
solutioning activity.

Foundation preparation for the earth embankment portion of the dam was minimal
(USACE 2005; Zoccola 2006). Most of the alluvium remains in place. A minimal cutoff
trench was constructed beneath the upstream slope of the dam (see Figure 5) primarily by
removing soil from a large solution feature and backfilling with compacted earth fill.
Construction techniques in the cutoff trench were such that poorly compacted fill was
placed on both sides of a narrow central zone of compacted soil, and large caves and
solution voids branching off from the cutoff were left untreated. The concrete gravity
portion of the dam is founded on bedrock near the contact between the Catheys and
Liepers formations.

In 1967 and 1968 the dam began exhibiting signs of seepage related distress (USACE
2005; Zoccola 2006). Wet areas in the downstream toe area and muddy flows into the
tailrace were observed in addition to three sinkholes extending from the ground surface to
the top of bedrock 40 feet below. An extensive grout curtain was installed in 1968 as an
emergency measure to control the seepage.


Figure 5. Cross Section of Earth Embankment Portion of Wolf Creek Dam (after
USACE 2005)

Seepage Barriers in Dams 163
Because the grouting was viewed as only a temporary fix of the seepage problems, a
seepage barrier was installed between 1975 and 1979, extending from the dam crest into
the bedrock for a length of 2,239 feet. Limits of the barrier are shown on Figure 6. The
barrier was constructed in a two-phase process using steel-encased drilled pier primary
elements that were connected with secondary bi-concave elements excavated using a
clam shell excavator guided by the steel casing of the primary elements (USACE 2005 ;
Zoccola 2006).


Figure 6. Limits of Wolf Creek Dam Seepage Barrier

Although the board of consultants for the dam recommended the barrier be constructed
through the Leipers formation and embed into the top of the Catheys formation for the
full width of the earth embankment, only two small portions of the barrier, where the
solutioning was the worst, were constructed to this level. Furthermore, the barrier
extended from the concrete gravity portion of the dam to a point about two-thirds of the
way to the right abutment, leaving the rightmost third of the dam having been treated
only by grouting. The portion of the barrier not extended to the Catheys formation was
terminated in the upper portion of the Leipers formation. The remaining depth of the
Leipers formation beneath the barrier was treated by the 1968 emergency grouting
supplemented by constructing a single line grout curtain by drilling from the base of each
of the primary elements.

Performance of Seepage Barrier

Over 300 piezometers have been installed in and around the dam since the late 1960s and
over 150 of these piezometers are still being monitored (AMEC 2004; USACE 2005).
Piezometers downstream of the seepage barrier immediately after construction indicated
that, although the seepage through the dam was decreased, the piezometric levels were
still elevated above the tailrace elevations. In the time period from construction to
present, many piezometers have shown a steady increase in head, with several
piezometers showing acceleration in the rate of increase since the year 2000. A survey of
the water temperature in piezometers indicates several zones where anomalously low
temperatures exist, likely indicating a high conductance seepage pathway from the
reservoir (AMEC 2004). Two embankment piezometers near the contact between the
embankment and concrete gravity portions of the dam have elevated levels indicating
possible leakage of the wall and possible hydrofracturing of the embankment.


164 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
Following construction of the seepage barrier, approximately 10 percent of the secondary
elements of the wall were cored. A recent review of the logs of these cores performed by
AMEC (2004) revealed several construction defects in the wall. In several of the cores
honeycombing of the concrete was observed and in a few of the cores, several feet of
crushed rock was observed at the base of the wall. Additional review of construction
records indicates that a high percentage of the 1-foot-diameter wooden chase balls used
in the concrete tremmie pipe were unaccounted for and probably remain embedded in the
secondary elements. These defects represent potential windows for seepage through the
barrier.

Sixteen inclinometers installed along the downsteam side of the seepage barrier have
been monitored since construction of the wall. These inclinometers indicate downstream
deflection of the wall has occurred (USACE 2005). Such deflection has the potential to
crack the wall as well as to create voids along construction joints and to enlarge existing
construction defects.

In addition to the above distress indicators, the following observations were also noted:
Seepage areas downstream of the dam have increased in number and size from
eight seepage areas in 1968 to 37 seepage areas in 2004.
Settlement of the dam crest has been monitored from1981 to 2004. In this time
period the area adjacent to the concrete gravity structure has settled 0.3 feet,
which does not seem to be an exceptionally large amount of settlement.
Six out of twelve recently drilled borings encountered zones of soft soil up to 16
feet thick in the embankment fill and alluvium. Many of these zones were located
directly above the bedrock interface in areas where high pieziometric levels were
recorded. The thickest of these zones was located close to where the maximum
crest settlements were recorded.
The cable tunnel located near the downstream toe of the embankment has
experienced seepage and cracking since the mid 1980s.
Observations indicate that the amount of seepage has increased from the
riverbank downstream of the dam and the bank is experiencing slope instability.

Assessment of Mechanisms Leading to Distress at Wolf Creek Dam

It seems clear from the discussion above that the seepage barrier and bedrock grouting
program are not performing as anticipated. Based on an assessment of the performance
indicators presented above, the deterioration of the seepage barrier performance over the
last 20 years is likely due to a combination of several mechanisms acting at a number of
locations. The USACE (2005) has stated that the seepage is likely from a combination of
three sources: seepage under the barrier, seepage around the barrier, and seepage through
the barrier.

In the second column of Figure 2 there are three areas where elevated hydraulic gradients
can act: through the foundation, at the barrier boundaries, and across the barrier. There is
strong evidence, in the form of high piezometer levels, wet areas downstream, and low

Seepage Barriers in Dams 165
water temperatures in piezometers, that there is increased seepage through the foundation
bedrock both under the barrier and around the end of the barrier.

There is also evidence of defects along the barrier boundaries that provide the
opportunity for development of seepage distress. As noted above, rock fragments were
detected at the base of some of the secondary barrier elements. It is also noted that the
tie-in of the barrier with the concrete gravity structure was difficult due to the steeply
sloping interface between the concrete structure and the fill. Thus this area also
represents a potential location of construction related windows.

Finally, there are several potential seepage pathways across the barrier that could be acted
upon by the elevated hydraulic gradient. First, inclinometers have indicated deformation
of the wall. This deformation could act to crack portions of the secondary elements of
the barrier that are not cased in steel and could act to open or widen the construction
joints between the primary and secondary elements. Also, as mentioned above, voids and
honeycombing of concrete were detected in cores of the secondary elements.

Based on the above discussion, it appears that there may be numerous mechanisms acting
to deteriorate the performance of the seepage barrier system at Wolf Creek Dam. For this
reason, it is difficult to quantify the effects of any one mechanism or to assess the risk
that each of the mechanisms would alone represent. However, it is the opinion of the
authors that, the preponderance of seepage is occurring beneath and around the wall
though areas not treated by seepage barrier construction.

SUMMARY

Seepage barriers have been used for years as part of the original design of dams or, in
more recent years, as a means of mitigating seepage problems in existing dams. While in
the past seepage barriers have been assumed to provide a permanent mitigation of
seepage problems, recent observations at Wolf Creek Dam and other dams presently
being studied indicate that, in certain situations, seepage barriers may be susceptible to
deteriorating performance in the long term. It is the identification and understanding of
these situations that is the goal of our research.

In this paper we identified several mechanisms that could lead to increased seepage
through or around seepage barriers. All of the mechanisms can be attributed to a single
basic factor that is characteristic of seepage barriers - the development of high hydraulic
gradients in the soil and bedrock around and across seepage barriers.

The case study of Wolf Creek Dam has been examined in detail. It was concluded that
there is evidence of numerous seepage distress mechanisms acting concurrently. The
mechanisms thought to contribute the most to the renewed seepage are believed to be
related to seepage around and below the existing seepage barrier.

166 The Role of Dams in the 21st Century
REFERENCES

Aberg, B. (1993). "Washout of grains from filtered sand and gravel materials." Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 119(1 Jan): 36-53.
AMEC (2004). Seepage Analysis Wolf Creek Dam, Cumberland River, Jamestown,
Kentucky, AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee.
Bell, R. A. and J. L. Sisley (1992). "Quality control of slurry cutoff wall installations."
ASTM Special Technical Publication. Publ by ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA. n 1129:
225-234.
Bravo Guillen, G. (1995). "Hydraulic fracturing in embankment dams on first filling of
the reservoir." International Journal on Hydropower & Dams 2(4 Jul): 71-73.
Couch, F. B. (1977). Foundation Seepage Problems at Wolf Creek Dam. Ohio River
Valley Soils Seminar, Louisville, KY.
Davidson, R. R., J. Levallois, et al. (1992). "Seepage cutoff wall for Mud Mountain
Dam." ASTM Special Technical Publication. Publ by ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA. n
1129: 309-323.
Davidson, R. R,, Denise G., Findlay, B. and Robertson, R. (1992) "Design and
Construction of a Plastic Concrete Cutoff Wall for the Island Copper Mine," ASTM
Special Technical Publication. Publ by ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA. n 1129: 271 - 288
Eckerlin, R. D. (1993). Mud Mountain Dam concrete cutoff wall. Proceedings of
Geotechnical Practice in Dam Rehabilitation, Raleigh, NC, USA. , Publ by ASCE, New
York, NY, USA.
Erwin, E. D. and J. M. Glenn (1992). "Plastic concrete slurry wall for Wister Dam."
ASTM Special Technical Publication. Publ by ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA. n 1129:
251-267.
Fell, R., C. F. Wan, et al. (2003). "Time for development of internal erosion and piping in
embankment dams." Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 129(4
April): 307-314.
Foster, M., R. Fell, Spannagle, M. (2000). "Method for assessing the relative likelihood
of failure of embankment dams by piping." Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37(5 Oct):
1025-1061.
Foster, M., R. Fell, Spannagle, M. (2000). "Statistics of embankment dam failures and
accidents." Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37(5 Oct): 1000-1024.
Indraratna, B. and F. Vafai (1997). "Analytical model for particle migration within base
soil-filter system." Journal of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Engineering 123(2
Feb): 100-108.
Seepage Barriers in Dams 167
Khoury, M. A., Fayad, P., Ladd, R.(1992) "Design, construction and Performance of Soil
Bentonite Cutoff Wall Constructed in Two Stages", ASTM Special Technical
Publication. Publ by ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA. n 1129:289 - 308
Leventon, H. L. (1930). Inspection Construction Inspection Memorandum, Lower
Franklin Dam No. 6-14, . Los Angeles, CA.
Marsal, R. J. and D. Resendiz (1971). Effectiveness of cutoffs in earth foundations and
abutments of dams. ASCE Proc 4th Panamerican Conf on Soil Mech Found Eng. State-
of-the-Art-Pap, , San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Ressi di Cervia, A. L. (1992). "History of slurry wall construction." ASTM Special
Technical Publication. Publ by ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA. n 1129: 3-15.
Sherard, J. L. and L. P. Dunnigan (1985). Filters and Leakage Control in Embankment
Dams. Proceedings, Symposium on Seepage and Leakage from Dams and
Impoundments, Publ by ASCE, New York, NY, USA.
Silveira, A. (1965). An Analysis of Washing Through in Protective Filters. Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Montreal, University of Toronto Press.
USACE (1986). Engineering Manual EM1110-1901, Seepage Analysis and Control for
Dams, United States Army Corps of Engineers.
USACE (2005). Wolf Creek Dam, Jamestown, Kentucky, Seepage Control, Major
Rehabilitation Evaluation Final Report, United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Nashville District.
Zoccola, M. F., Haskins, Tommy A., Jackson, Daphne M. (2006). The problem is the
solution: a history of seepage, piping, and remediation in a karst foundation at Wolf
Creek Dam. in Proceedings 26th USSD Conference The Roll of Dams in the 21st
Century, San Antonio, TX.