CE466.

3
Modeling of Earth Structures
Earth Dams
Part One

Contents
Historic developments
Components of an earth dam
Main design considerations
Foundation design considerations
Control of seepage through earth dams

Historic developments
One of the earliest earth dams
The scale of work at Padavil dam
was constructed at Sadd-Elwas not exceeded until modern
Katara in Egypt (circa 4800
times and until the birth of soil
BC). It was 12 m high and had
mechanics in the early 20th
two rubble walls 36 m apart and
century, the design of earth dams
24 m thick at the base with the
remained empirical.
space in between filled with
Due to a lack of clear
random materials.
understanding of their behaviour,
There are thousands of ancient
earth dams were kept to modest
earth dams in central and
southern India, most of them
heights. It was not until 1925 that
centuries old and still in use.
the US Bureau of Reclamation
Some of the ancient earth dams
constructed an earth dam
were huge. For example, the
exceeding 40 m in height.
Padavil dam completed in Sri
At present, earth dams as high as
Lanka in 504 BC was 18.5 km
335 m are being constructed and
long, 21.4 m high with a crest
some of these magnificent earth
width of 8 m and base width of
structures are resting on rather
61 m. It used 13 million m3 of
poor foundations.
earthwork.

Highest earth dams

(Statistics compiled in 1995)

Project Name

Max. Height
(m)

Status

Rogun, Russia

335

Under construction

Boruca, Costa Rica

302

Under planning

Nurek, Russia

300

Completed

Watana, USA

270

Under planning

Chicoasen, Mexico

262

Completed

Mica, Canada

262

Completed

Tehri, India

261

Under construction

Guavio, Colombia

240

Under construction

Chivor, Colombia

237

Completed

Oroville, USA

236

Completed

Earth dam Main components

Foundation
supports the dam
and restricts
seepage.
Cutoffs reduce
seepage through
the foundation.
Blanket used in
place of cutoff if
the foundation
layer is very deep.
Core controls
seepage through
the dam.
Filters prevent particle migration
and subsequent piping.
Shells provide gravity fill and
structural support.

Freeboard prevents overtopping

and provides storage
Rip-rap prevents wave and water
erosion.
Crest provides access to the dam
and increases stability.

Earth dam vs. other types of dams

When compared with other types of
dams such as a concrete gravity dam
or a rockfill dam, earth dam turns
out to be the most economical.
This can be seen from the table on
top right showing the construction
costs for the three types of dams.
Clearly, earth dam is the cheapest to
construct.
The volume of construction material
required for an earth dam is the
greatest but despite this, it is
cheaper to construct an earth dam
as shown in the table on bottom
right comparing the material costs
per unit volume for the three types
of dams.
A rockfill dam can be an attractive
option if an abundant source of
rockfill (e.g. a quarry) is located
nearby.

Construction costs (unit price/m)

Year

Earth
dam

Concrete
dam

Rockfill
dam

1900

$0.50

$8.5

$2.00

1955

$0.60

$20-30

$2.50

1962

$0.80

$20-30

$3.00

2000

$2-3

$100

$5-10

Type of
dam

Volume

Cost per
unit
volume

Total
Cost

Concrete

0.4H2

$20

8H2

Rockfill

1.85H2

$2

3.7H2

Earthfill

3.0H2

$1

3H2

Note: The volume is proportional to the

base width of the dam.

Earth dams Main design considerations

The earth dam must be water
tight to a reasonable extent.
This requirement depends on the
value of water that is being
retained in the reservoir
compared with the cost of
improving the water tightness of
the earth dam.

The earth dam should have

adequate stability against failure
for its entire lifespan.
This requirement depends on the
quality of site investigation prior
to design and on the quality
control exercised during the
construction of the earth dam.
In an increasingly competitive
construction market, this
requirement is becoming hard to
implement.

The earth dam must be

economical to build.
A cost vs. benefits study is
undertaken prior to the design of
the earth dam to make sure that it
is worth constructing an earth dam
at the chosen site.
Successful implementation of this
requirement depends mainly on
the availability of good-quality
construction materials near the site
of the dam.

The damage to the environment

and the ecosystem present at the
site of the earth dam should be
minimal.
This requirement is probably the
toughest to implement and
increasingly, more and more dam
projects are scrapped because this
requirement cannot be fulfilled.

Main causes of earth dam failures

The table on the right shows the
various causes of dam failures
compiled in 1953 by Middlebrooks.
It is worth noting that a large
percentage of dams in
Middlebrooks list were constructed
before rational design procedures
were established.
Despite this, overtopping due to
insufficient spillway capacity was
the main cause of failure. Slope
slides accounted for only 15
percent of the failures.
Criteria for safe design of an earth
dam should cover all possible
causes of failure.

Cause of failure

Percent

Overtopping

30

Seepage effects,
piping, sloughing

25

Slope slides

15

Conduit leakage

13

Damage to slope
paving

Miscellaneous

Unknown

[after Middlebrooks, 1953]

Criteria for safe design of earth dams

3. The possibility of piping through
1. There should be no risk of
the embankment or its foundation
overtopping of the dam section.
should be minimum. Piping is
The most important aspect of this
caused by removal of soil particles by
criterion is the estimation of the
fast-flowing water. Excessive piping
design flood and the provision of
may lead to the formation of conduits
sufficient freeboard to protect the
within the dam and subsequent
dam crest against wave splash.
failure. Carefully designed filters help
Two key parameters are the
in reducing the seepage forces and
maximum probable flood and
prevent piping.
the maximum settlement of the
embankment.
4. There should be no free flow of
water from the upstream to the
2. Seepage line should be well
downstream face. Free flow implies
within the downstream face of
water flowing under pressure from
the dam section. Seepage
cracks or passages or conduits and
occurring at the downstream face
not seepage flow through pores. Once
will result in sloughing or softening
a concentrated leak starts, it enlarges
of the downstream face and
rapidly and is almost impossible to
subsequent failure. It can be
plug. Good compaction control and
controlled by providing drainage
minimizing differential settlements
blankets or by intercepting seepage
can minimize occurrence of free flow.
within the dam using, for example,
chimney drains.
Continues on the next page

Criteria for safe design (continued)

5. The upstream and the downstream faces of the earth dam
should be safe against sliding under the most critical
conditions to which they might be subjected. These conditions
include excess pore pressures at the end of construction, rapid
draw-down of the reservoir, earthquake loading.
6. Foundation shearing stresses should be less than the shear
strength of the foundation. In other words, the foundation
should be of adequate bearing capacity. This can be established by
conducting a stress analysis (we did this using SIGMA/W).
Foundation must be improved prior to the construction of the earth
dam if it has insufficient bearing capacity.
7. The upstream and the downstream faces must be protected
from erosion. The upstream face will be subject to hydrodynamic
wave loading from the reservoir and therefore, it should be
protected using rock riprap or stone pitching. The downstream face
may also experience erosion due to heavy rainfall and adequate
measures should be taken to prevent its erosion.

Foundation design considerations

The foundation of an earth dam must
satisfy two contradicting criteria
support the dam and control the
underseepage.
A fractured rock would provide
adequate support but would not be
watertight and contribute to uplift
pressures on the base of the dam.
Most rocks and cohesionless soils
(sands and gravels) are excellent in
providing support.
For cohesionless soils, the safety
factor of embankment can be
estimated as:

F = N B 4 H
where B and H are the base width
and height, respectively and N is a
bearing capacity factor related to
angle of internal friction .

N varies from about 10 to 100 for

granular materials of different
densities. Since B must be greater
than 2H from the consideration of
slope stability, F is usually greater
than 5.
The only cohesionless soils that are
not suitable as foundation material
are loose, saturated sands and silts
under artesian pressures or which,
under dynamic loading (e.g.
earthquake) may suddenly liquefy.
Weak rocks such as Cretaceous
shales are also not suitable because
of the presence of swelling minerals
(e.g. smectite). These rocks can
absorb large quantities of water and
undergo considerable softening,
causing progressive lateral
movements.

Foundation design (continued)

Cohesive soils, on the other hand,
are usually troublesome and often
will only support embankments of
modest height.
The factor of safety of an
embankment on a cohesive soil is
estimated as:

F = 5su H
where su is the undrained shear
strength of the cohesive soil and is
the unit weight of the embankment.
Even a stiff clay with an average su
of 100 kPa would have a limiting
capacity of about 25 m of
embankment height.

Earth dam
Berm

Cohesive soil

Stabilizing berms can be used to

extend the limiting height of the
embankment as shown above.
An extra meter of embankment
height can be achieved for each
meter height of the berm.

Seepage control measures

Control of seepage through an
earth dam as well as through its
foundation can be implemented
in two ways.
The first way is preventive
while the second way is
curative. These two
approaches are generally
combined when constructing an
earth dam.
The first approach involves
keeping the water out as far
as possible (or reduction in
quantity of seepage).
The second approach is aimed
at providing a safe outlet to
water which has entered the soil
in spite of the measures taken
in the first approach.

In the first approach, an

impervious zone (core) or an
impervious membrane is
provided in the embankment.
For foundations, commonly used
preventive measures are cut-off
trenches, grout curtains,
concrete diaphragm walls, sheet
piles and impermeable upstream
blankets.
The requirement in the second
approach is a drainage system
such that seepage forces will not
be able to cause soil migration
and their magnitude and
direction will be such that they
cannot cause embankment
sliding or sloughing or
foundation blowout.

The impervious core

The core is an impervious barrier
built within an earth dam and is
surrounded by the shell material that
provides overall stability to the dam.
It may consist of natural
unprocessed materials in a wide
range of particle sizes as long as
sufficient fines are present to keep
the permeability low.
From the selection of core material,
important properties to be
considered are:

Permeability
Compacted density
Shear strength
Compressibility
Overall structural flexibility

Low values of permeability can be

obtained using materials with
sufficient clay and silt content.

High compacted density is desirable

since it improves shear strength of
the core material, reduces its
permeability and improves its
erosion resistance.
Soils of high compressibility should
be avoided as excessive settlements
and cracking of the core can occur.
Also, highly compressible materials
generate large excess pore pressures
during compaction.
A flexible material is less likely to
crack when deformed. Granular
materials do not retain open crack
when deformed but they are too
permeable to be used as core. Finegrained soils of low plasticity are too
prone to cracking. Flexibility
improves with plasticity for a clayey
soil.

Flexibility of the core

Although flexibility improves with
increasing plasticity, so does the
compressibility. Therefore, a
balance has to be struck.
The placement moisture content
(PMC) during compaction plays an
important role in balancing the
flexibility and compressibility.
Rajcevic (1970) has suggested the
use of three different PMC values
depending on the location of the
core material within the dam.
His recommendations are shown
graphically in the figure on top
right.
He recommends high plasticity in
the foundation cover (zone 1) with
PMC 10% above the plastic limit
for the material. This portion of
core must never crack as the
pressure heads are quite high in
this zone.

2
3

1
Core Plasticity

Rajcevics recommendations

Near the crest, close to the two

abutments, he recommends PMC 3
to 6% above the plastic limit. This is
the portion of the core that is most
likely to crack (zone 2).
For the rest of the core, he
recommends PMC close to the plastic
limit (zone 3).

Other core materials

Although soil by far is the most
commonly used core material,
Wave wall
other materials have also been
used for the construction of core.
Grouted
rockfill
Asphalt, not very different from
Riprap
core
the one used for the construction
of road pavements, has been
used as a core material in France.
Here, the hot asphalt mix is
Rockfill
Grouting
poured into a steel formwork
gallery
sandwiched between the shell
material. As the height of the dam
increases, the formwork is raised,
leaving the asphalt core in place.
Another type of core, consisting
Here, the rockfill can be placed as the
of no-fines rockfill with voids filled
construction of the embankment
by a foam grout has also been
progresses and grout injections can be
tried in France. The foam grout
made at a time convenient to the
includes cement, silicate of soda
construction schedule from a grouting
and detergent.
gallery as shown in the figure above.

Location of core in dam section

The core can be located in one of
the three positions within the
dam section (see figure on the
right):
Central
Moderately slanting
Slanting

Provision of a slanting core

results in faster rate of
construction and a much steeper
downstream face of the dam.
However, the upstream face has
to be much flatter for a slanting
core and there are potential
stability problems in case of a
rapid draw-down.

(a) Central core

Stable
slope
Advance
rockfill

(b) Moderately slanting core

Stable
slope
Advance
rockfill

(c) Slanting core

Drainage provisions in an earth dam

Drainage of an earth dam,
Downstream free-draining shell is
however odd it sounds, is
useful only when its permeability is
necessary since whatever water 100 to 1000 times greater than the
enters should get a safe exit
permeability of the core material.
without the built up of excess
Rock toe protects the most critical
pore water pressures in the
section of the dam in terms of
dam.
seepage instability by providing
While allowing the safe exit to
controlled outlet to the seeping
water, care should be taken to
water. Usual arrangement of the
make sure that soil particles are rock toe is shown below.
not dislodged and removed by
the seeping water.
Downstream face
of the dam
Drainage of an earth dam can be
Filter
accomplished by:
Downstream free-draining shell
Rock toe
Horizontal drainage blanket
Chimney drain (vertical or
slanted)

Coarse drain

Rock toe

Horizontal drains

Horizontal drain

A horizontal drain, due to its

high permeability, offers
incentive to the phreatic line to
pass through it rather than the
downstream slope of the earth
dam as shown in the figure
above.
Horizontal drains are normally
used for homogenous earth
dams of low to moderate height.

However, if the horizontal

permeability of the dam material
is much higher than the vertical
permeability, the incentive for
the phreatic line to pass through
horizontal drain is diminished
because water can easily flow in
horizontal direction. In such
situations, fairly long horizontal
drains are required.

Chimney drains
Chimney
drain

Pervious
shell

Chimney
drain

Impervious
shell

Chimney drain in a homogenous earth dam

Pervious
shell

Chimney drain next to a slanting core

Chimney
drain

Chimney drain next to impervious central core

Chimney drains intercept all

layers of the dam section and
thus prevent seepage on the
downstream slope even for the
case of higher horizontal
permeability.
Typical configurations of
chimney drains are shown in the
figure above.

Pervious
shell

Chimney
drain

Cut-off
trench

Chimney drain next to a cut-off trench

Chimney drains also help reduce

draw-down effects and excess
pore pressures during the
construction of the dam.
Chimney drains should be
protected on both sides by
filters.

Design of transition filters

The design of filters has to satisfy
two contradicting requirements:
The soil particles from the protected
zone must not pass through the
pores of the filter. This limits the
maximum size of the filter material.
The filter should be that much more
permeable than the protected
material as to provide effective
relief to hydraulic pressure inside
that zone. This limits the minimum
size of the filter material.

D15 size particles

of the filter
Soil protected
by filter

Filter

Design criteria proposed by

Nominal boundary
stabilization under seepage
Terzaghi has been found to be
suitable for the design of transition
filters in earth dams.
(D15 )FILTER
(D15 )FILTER
&
<
> 4 to 5
4
to
5
Terzaghis criteria:
(D85 )PROTECTED ZONE
(D15 )PROTECTED ZONE
After the commissioning of the dam, a finer fraction will penetrate a
small thickness of the filter layer as shown in the figure above but
subsequently, the coarser fraction of the protected soil itself will
prevent further migration.