Seepage Control Cutoffs

for Dams and Levees

USACE
Engineering Manual
Dave Paul, P.E.
Lead Civil Engineer
Risk Management Center
US Army Corps of Engineers
June 27, 2013

Beginning of Dam Safety in the U.S.

June 5, 1976

USACE State of Infrastructure

Dams and Levees

Portfolio Stats:
Very Large
Aging (+50 years)
Relatively untested

704 Dams
Infrastructure follows Floods,
People Follow Infrastructure

+2,500 Levee Systems

Corps of Engineer Dams

Corps owns 704 dams nationwide

embankment = 86 %
concrete
= 7%
combination = 7 %

Project purposes include: flood control,

navigation, hydropower, water supply,
fish & wildlife conservation, recreation
Mean height: 112 feet
Average age:
53 years
High Hazard dams: 77 %
Total storage capacity: 331 Million Ac-ft

Concerns; karst foundation with

active piping, voids in foundation,
an emergency, doesnt meet
Tolerable Risk Guidelines
Concerns; stilling basin scour,
Structural instability, PMF
deficiency, doesnt meet
Tolerable Risk Guidelines
Concerns; no current PMF,
inadequate stilling capability,
surging in tailrace, landslide
Concerns; minor seepage in
foundation, spillway erosion.
Likely meets tolerable risk,
but not engineering standards
Slide 5

USACE Dam Safety Action

Classification
Dam Portfolio Distribution
DSAC I, 19

Count as of Jan. 2013 is

704 dams at 556 projects

DSAC chart is for all dams.

Does not include one newly
constructed dam that does not
have a DSAC value.

Portfolio Investment
Needs are Large but not
Evenly Distributed
Timing and Justification
for Improved Delivery of
Dam Safety Modifications
is Strong

Dam Safety
Issues

Improved
Delivery
of Dam Safety
Modifications

Dam Safety
Prioritization

Dam Safety Design &

Construction- Bottom Line Up
Front

Corps of Engineers
Risk Management Process

Instrumentation

Routine
Inspections

Risk
Reclassified?

Periodic
Inspections

Rehab
Construction

Modification
Report

Periodic
Assessments

Remedial
Action?

Routine &
On-Going

Issue
Evaluation
And IRRM

Non-Routine
Activities are
Centrally
Managed

Safety
Concern?

Priorities
Queues
Staging
Investments

for all dam

safety studies,
designs, and
construction

Incident or
Special
Event

Increasing Likelihood of Poor Performance

DSAC BINNING CHART FOR FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION DAMS AND

APPURTENANT STRUCTURES

DSAC I

Focus is Immediate
Rehab Construction

DSAC II

Focus is Further
Study via Issue
Evaluation Studies

DSAC III

Focus is Improved Mapping

And Risk Communication

DSAC IV

Increasing Life Loss Consequence

DSAC I

DSAC II

DSAC III

DSAC IV
Slide 9

Investment Cost by DSAC

National Levee Database Public

View
https://nld.usace.army.mil

>2,774 Segments and >2,105

systems
About 14,650 miles

Levee Safety Action Classification

II

Urgent and
Compelling
(Unsafe)
Urgent
(Unsafe or
Potentially Unsafe)

III

High Priority
(Potentially
Unsafe)

IV

Priority
(Marginally Safe)

Normal
(Adequately Safe)

Characteristics Actions
Actions recommended for each
class and urgency.

Urgency

Probability of inundation and

consequences characterizing each
class.

Class

12

USACE Dam and Levee Safety

Community of Practice

HQ

IWR
Steering
Committee

Steve Stockton, Chief, Civil Works

James Dalton, Chief, Engineering & Construction
Eric Halpin, Special Assistant for Dam Safety
Barb Schuelke, National Dam Safety Program Manager
Tammy Conforti, National Levee Safety Program Manager

Senior
Oversight

Risk
Management
Center

Policy &
Proc.

Consequence
Production

RRDX

Risk
Cadres

MSC

DISTRICT

MSC

DISTRICT

MSC

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

DISTRICT

Dam Safety Officer and Dam Safety Program Manager at every

organizational level

13

Support HQUSACE efforts to corporately manage

infrastructure risk
Support HQUSACE strategic planning efforts for
risk management
Lead efforts to support consistent decisionmaking for dams and levees
Lead efforts to support consistent dam and levee
engineering practice
Serve as a technical center of expertise for
infrastructure (dam and levee) risk management
and dam and levee engineering
Lead development and maintenance of USACE
technical competency

Vision for the RMC

14

FY 2013 Dam Safety Budget

Summary
DS IRRM in O&M
11%

2%
1%

DS Construction
DS Wedge (Construction)
DS Program Management
(O&M)
Budget

86%

% of Dam Safety
Budget

DS IRRM in O&M

$2,947,000

0.7%

DS Construction

$362,550,000

85.6%

DS Wedge (Construction)

$47,750,000

11.3%

DS Program Management (O&MRI)

$10,000,000

2.4%

Dam Safety Budget Total

$423,247,000

Dam Safety Investment Plan

Duration of Interim Risk Reduction Measures!

~ $26 Billion Investment to Repair 319 DSAC I, II

& III Dams
Funding Scenarios to Complete Investment:
$500M / year 55 years (current)
$25 Billion/year in Benefits
Population at Risk is > 15 Million
Avoids $236 Billion in Direct Damages

Organizational Competency
Adjustments:
National Centers
Headquarters
Leadership

Risk Management
Center

Denver
Pittsburgh
Louisville

Mandatory Center
of Expertise in
Huntington

Regional
Production Centers
at
Districts

Divisions and
Districts

Sacramento
Vicksburg
Omaha
Mobile/Jacksonville
New England/Baltimore
Huntington
Tulsa

Modifications to Existing Dams

DO NO HARM

USACE Workshop on Seepage Control

Practices for Protection of Dams and
Levees

December 6-7, 2011

USACE currently has over $1.5 Billion of cutoff

walls under design and construction
Seepage and piping are the most significant dam
safety issue
USACE does NOT have an existing EM specifically
dedicated to seepage barriers
USBR has a Standard, 1986
ICOLD is publishing a Bulletin on Cutoff Walls
There is an European Standard for Cutoff Walls
DFI has several standards on different wall types
EM is focused to USACE Design Teams

Seepage Control Barriers

Engineering Manual

10

Peer Review by DFI

DRAFT EM was peer reviewed by
DFI
DRAFT Final will again be reviewed
by DFI
Quality of document greatly
enhanced by DFI Review

Chapter 1
Introduction

11

Chapter 2
Dam Safety
Considerations

Seepage and Piping failure modes are

predominant in USACE dam inventory
Cutoffs are the most effective engineering
solution to stop continuation and progression
Types of cutoffs
EM covers VERTICAL cutoffs

Probable Failure Mode Analysis

12

Life Safety Risk - Prior to Overtopping

Potential Failure Modes
Floodwall Stab., 4%
Floodwall
Underseepage, 7%

Closure Systems,
6%

Embankment
Erosion, 3%
Embankment
Stability, 3%

Embankment
Seepage and Piping,
77%

Flaw exists (28 typical mechanisms)

Initiation (erosion begins)
Continuation (unfiltered or inadequately
filtered exit)
Progression (enlargement and flow
increase)
Roof forms to support a pipe
Upstream zone fails to fill crack
Upstream zone fails to limit flows
Intervention fails (routine, nonroutine, or heroic)
Dam breaches (4 typical
mechanisms)

Seepage and Piping Event tree

26

13

Chapter 3
Geologic Considerations

Geologic conditions characterization

Ground water investigations
Specialized survey and remote sensing
Material property investigations
Rock hardness/abrasiveness
Investigations for construction materials
Instrumentation

Focused on Cutoff Walls

14

Chapter 4
Engineering
Considerations

Replaces

portions of Chapter 9 of EM
1110-2-1901
The EM does not cover grouting
USACE has completed major revision
to Grouting Manual EM-1110-23506
EM focuses on VERTICAL cutoff walls

Vertical Seepage Barriers

15

Chapter 5
Continuous Trench Cutoff
Walls

Salient

Features

Slurry Supported
Excavation
No Backfill
Restrictions
No Backfill Joints
Non Structural
Low Permeability

Typical

Backfills

Soil-Bentonite (SB)
Cement Bentonite
(CB)
Soil-CementBentonite or Plastic
Concrete (SCB)
Composite Walls

Continuous Cut-off Wall"

32

16

 Long

Boom/Long Stick Excavator

Clamshell / Grab
Trencher (with slurry)
Hydrofraise (?)

Excavators
33

Bulldozer and Excavator

Mixing Box
CB Mix Plant
No end stops
No tremie

(except for great depths)

Backfill Equipment
34

17

BASIC TECHNIQUES

Applications

Backfilling
Materials

Applicable
Ground
Conditions

LBLS Excavator

Clamshell

Cut-off walls

Composite Walls

Soil-Bentonite

Cement-Bentonite

Soil-Cement-Bentonite

Alluvial

X(SPT< 100 or
chiseling/pre-drilling)

X(SPT< 100 or chiseling/predrilling or Hydrofraise)

NA

Hydrofraise

85 ft

180 ft
(450 ft w/ HF)

Soft/weathered rock

Sound rock

Max. Depth

Continuous Wall" Construction

Thickness

Minimum Maximum

Verticality
Permeability
SB < 1E-7 cm/sec

2 to 5 ft

2 to 5 ft

Not an issue

<1% normal

CB < 5 E-6 cm/sec PC

CB < 1 E-7 cm/sec
BFS

SCB < 5 E-7 m/sec35

Aquitard, key, and depth (and alignment)

Work Platform / Groundwater head (3 ft

minimum)

Gradient (thickness)
Groundwater Modification

(containment,

diversion, mounding, etc.)

Earth Forces (slopes, modulus compatibility, etc.)

Design Mix / Compatibility (contractor design)

Continuous Wall" Design

36

18

 Dams

& Levees
Dewatering
Landfills (containment/dewatering)
Environmental Remediation
(containment)
Mining / Industrial Processes

Typical Applications

Low

cost
Rapid Construction
Guaranteed Continuity
Very low permeability
Applicable to most soil types
Flexibility: big and small, shallow
and deep

Continuous Wall Benefits

38

19

Typical procedures

Marsh Funnel Viscosity

Contractor

Mud Balance Density

Contractor

Filtrate & Sand Content

Contractor

Slump & Density

Contractor

pH

Contractor

Material Certifications

Contractor

Water Quality

Contractor

Grain size

Contractor

Permeability

Specific items to be
examined in depth

Contractor

Key and Depth

Engineer/Contractor

Continuity

Engineer/Contractor

Continuous Wall QA/QC

39

QC/QA
40

20

AV Watkins Dam
Cement Bentonite Wall

A.V. Watkins Dam

Impounds

Willard
Reservoir
Dam is 14 miles long
Earthfill Structure
Maximum Ht. = 36 ft
(approx. 20 ft in incident
area)
November 13, 2006;
active piping was noticed
at approx. sta. 639+00
Intervention was
successful in preventing
failure

21

Emergency Repairs Prevented Failure

22

Erosion Into South Drain

Cutoff Wall Excavation

23

24

25

Chapter 6
Soil Mix Cutoff Walls

SoilMixCutoffWalls
Deepmixingwallscanbe

installedalongthelongitudinal
directionoftheembankment
forthecontrolofwater
flowingthroughthe
embankmentsectionand
foundationtopreventthe
seepageinducederosion,
pipingorinstability.

26

Soil Mixed Walls

53

CDSM (aka DSM, DMM) is a soil mixing

method for improving soil properties by
mixing in situ soils with cement grout or
other slurries using multiple shaft mixing
tools consisting of cutting heads and
mixing paddles attached to the shafts.
Other methods utilize wheels on
horizontal axis or trenching techniques.

Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM)

27

RSW (triple auger)

Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM)

28

Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM)

57

TRD Method
(Trench Cutting Remixing
Deep Wall Method)

29

TRDWallConstruction HerbertHooverDike

TRD

Grout Batch Plant

TopofExposedTRDWall HerbertHooverDike

Top of Wall

30

SideofExposedTRDWall HerbertHooverDike

Side of Wall

Chapter 7
Element Cutoff Walls

31

Wolf Creek Dam Kentucky (270)

Beaver Dam Dam Arkansas
Mud Mountain Dam Washington
(420)
Eastside Reservoir/West Dam
California
Saluda Dam South Carolinas
Walter F. George Dam Alabama
(210)
Navajo Dam- New Mexico (400)
West Hill Dam (80)
St-Stephen Dam (120)
Fontenelle Dam (180)
East Branch Dam
Bolivar Dam
Herbert Hoover Dike
Center Hill Dam

Projects

64

32

65

66

33

Cable-Clam Bucket

67

Hydro Mill (Fraise) (Cutter)

34

69

Mississinewa Dam
Wabash River Indiana

Constructed Mid
to Late 1960s

35

Mississinewa Dam - Problem

Solution
feature on left
abutment side
of conduit
excavation

View of solution
channel, located at
dam station 51+00,
on left abutment
side
of conduit
excavation

Mississinewa Dam - Problem

36

Mill Fest

Mississinewa Dam - Indiana

Final Wall Profile

Critical
Areas

Cutoff Wall

Bottom Elev.
567

37

Beaver Dam
Arkansas
Corp of Engineers
Little Rock District

38

39

Navajo Dam -New Mexico

40

Navajo Dam - Problem

Leaking
Formation

Navajo Dam
Construction Technique
Drainage Tunnel

Cutoff Wall

41

Drainage
Tunnel and
Grout
Curtain

Drainage Tunnel

Navajo Dam - Solution

Drainage
Tunnel

Navajo Dam

42

Twin Buttes Dam - Texas

Twin Buttes Dam

Soil-Cement-Bentonite Mix
Well Graded
100% passing 40mm
10-20 % passing .075 mm
Select soils from borrow area
6-8% cement by weight
4-5% bentonite by weight mixed and
added in slurry for hydration
18-25 cm slump

43

Twin Buttes Dam

Walter F. George Dam

Corp of Engineers
South Carolina

44

CUTOFF WALL ELEVATION

Bridge
EL. 208.08
Normal Pool EL.
185.00

Tanter Gate
EL. 181.00

EL. 125.00

Concrete Cap
Earthy
Limestone
EL. 60.00

EL. 60.00

Shell Limestone
Sandy Limestone
EL. 0.00

Providence Sand

Sequence of Execution
Installation of casings

45

46

47

New Waddell Dam - Arizona

New Waddell Dam - Arizona

48

New Waddell Dam

New Waddell Dam

Blast Hole Drill

Template for
Busting Boulders

49

Plastic concrete mix

80-100-1500 kg/cm squared at 28 days
6% bentonite slurry added by weight
Intent was to match modulus of alluvium
Resistant to high gradients

New Waddell Dam

Mix Design

Cutoff wall
mbedded
in Zone
New Waddell
1 8 meters

Dam

50

Quality Control

Bentonite Testing
Panel Embedment & Continuity
Panel Verticality
Concrete Testing
Verification Drilling
Dam Instrumentation

101

Koden Verticality Machine

102

51

Koden Plot
Koden

E
X
C
A
V
A
T
I
O
N

103

Tremie Procedures
Go-Devil utilized
Tremie Pipe Embedment
Chart tremie progress
and quantities

(in real time)

Count tremie pipe lengths

104

52

Concrete Quality Testing

During Placement- Slump
Air Content
Temperature

105

Both QA and QC representatives closely

watching the concrete quality during
pouring of each load into the element.

QA/QC - Barrier Wall Concreting

106

53

Verification Drilling

Purposes:

Techniques:

Concrete Quality
Panel Contact/Joint
Quality
Cutoff-Wall---Rock
Bottom Contact
4 inch core for
Panels
6 inch core for
Panel Joints
107

Panel-Rock Contact

108

54

It is not always the quality of the wall, it

is the quality of the coring!
What is the appropriate verification
drilling equipment-method system?

Destroyed core

Very good core recovery!

QA/QC Challenges During

Verification Drilling
109

Low compressive strength material needs to be

drilled completely different compared to high
compressive strength material
Maximum material aggregate/grain size requires
adequate drilling/coring diameter
In-Situ quality vs. core quality?
Accept Borehole Viewing to overcome
deficiencies during verification drilling (destroyed
cores)
Is it possible to do a meaningful verification drill
within a joint between panels?

Impacts of Verification Drilling

110

55

Cut-off walls

Requirements causing
issues

Specific sections to be
examined in depth

Slurry characteristics

Concrete characteristics
(permeability, strength)

verticality

Thickness, joints & overlap

Tolerances

Sequence of elements
installation

Slurry composition

Slurry treatment

Concrete mix design

Data management

Accuracy of instrumentation

Element Wall Specifications

111

Chapter 8
Jet Grouting and Other
Methods

56

The Jet-Grouting process consists of the disaggregating

the soil or weak rock and mixing it with, and partial
replacement by, a cementing agent; the disaggregation is
achieved by means of high pressure jets of fluid which
can be the cementing agent itself

(European standard EN 12716)

Process Description

Suitable in a wide range of soils and applications

Columns with diameter ranging from 60 up to 250

cm and more, by using small size drilled holes.

Capability to overpass pre-existing masonry,

boulders, rocky layers and obstructions

Use of light weighting and small sized drilling rigs

able to operate even in small working areas.

Main Features

57

The jet grouting is a soil

improvement.

The jet grouted soil is not a structure

The jet grouted soil can work in

compression and shear, not in
tension

It can be reinforced, but it is not a

concrete structure

Definitions

Jet grouting elements are

generally either columns or
panels, obtained by retrieving
the jetting monitor and
simultaneous rotation or with
no rotation, respectively.

Main shapes

58

1. Drilling

2. Jetting from bottom-up

Working sequence

3. Columns completed

Jet-Grouting techniques are world-wide classified into three

categories, according to the number of injected fluids:

SINGLE FLUID System: cement grout is used as disaggregating

and consolidating fluid (T1) standard diameter achieveable 40100 cm

DOUBLE FLUID System: cement grout plus air are used as

disaggregating and consolidating fluid (T1/S) standard diameter
achieveable 80-250 cm

TRIPLE FLUID System: water plus air are used as disaggregating

fluid, while cement grout is used as consolidating fluid (T2)
standard diameter achieveable 120-300 cm

GROUT
0-500 bar

59

Diavik Mine, NWT, Canada - 2006

A Soilmec SM-405/8 was employed in the

shallow part of the cut-off and during the
winter, working under domes.
Winter operations were carried out under
shelters, with outside temperatures as low as
30 C and wind speeds up to 100 km/h.

Winter Operations

60

907 working columns (including 13 preliminary test columns)

16 additional columns to close a defective area

1.7 m column

As-built drawing

Dewatering operations started on 4th September 2006, on schedule.

Thanks to the good performance of the cut-off, the water level was
lowered at a rate of 60 cm/day, with respect to the 40 cm/day
originally scheduled.

Dewatering operations

61

Reach 11 Dikes
Biopolymer Slurry

Reach 11 Dike

Synthetic Slurry for Trench

Support

62

Reach 11Dikes
Arizona

Synthetic Slurry
For Trench Support

Steel Frame
for placing
geomembrane

Geomembrane

Soil mixing cutoffs

Grouting admixtures-long term effects
Pressure sensing grout packer
Bio-Polymer trenching/sand filters
Jet grouting verification
Cracking/Erosion of backfill mixes
Long term performance
Mix design
QA/QC/Insitu verification

Areas of Interest
126

63

What is Plastic Concrete according to EN

1538

Specification Challenges Plastic

Concrete
127

Definition: Design according to workability and

stability and deformability and strength
Parameter

Slurry

Plastic
Concrete

Structural
Concrete

w/c ratio

>4

> 1.5

< 0.6

UCS [MPa]
[PSI]

< 1 MPa
< 145 PSI

1-5 MPa
145 725
PSI

> 20 MPa
> 2900 PSI

E-modulus (Youngs
modulus) from CCS
[MPa]

< 200

< 1,000

> 20,000

Strain at failure u
[%]

> 1%

0.5 1 %

< 0.5 %

Specification Challenges Plastic

Concrete
128

64

Evaluating erosion rates of various

backfill mix designs
Varying gradients
Varying crack widths
Also evaluating erosion (scour) at
foundation contacts
Develop a standard
Future efforts include defining plastic
concrete

Research by Dr. John Rice Utah

State University

2011 USACE-DFI Workshop

Deerfield Beach, FL
Seepage control Practices for Protection of Dams and
Levees

State-of-the-Art Presentations
Design and Research Issues
Current Contracting and Procurement Vehicles
Innovative Contracting and Procurement
Methods
Goals and Ways to Achieve Goals
Group Workshop
Group Workshop Reports
Resolution and Plans for the Future

65

2014 DFI Workshop

February 12-14, 2014, Miami, FL, USA

2-day workshop
USACE and industry practitioners
State-of-the-practice and advancements
Seepage barriers and ground improvement
Dams, levees and coastal rehabilitation
Plenary presentations and group discussion
Follow up to 2011 Deerfield Beach
workshop

2015 DFI International

Conference

June 2015, New York City, NY, USA

State-of-the-practice/state-of-the-art
Seepage barriers and ground improvement
International dam and levee community
New construction and rehabilitation
Technical sessions and panel discussions
Keynote lecturers from around the world
Call for papers to be issued

66

Contact Details
Dave Paul, P.E., Lead Civil Engineer, USACE
David.B.Paul@usace.army.mil
Gianfranco DiCicco, DFI Trustee (Global Initiatives)
GDCons05@aol.com
Mary Ellen Bruce, P.E., D.GE, DFI Technical Activities Manager
mebruce@dfi.org
Theresa Rappaport, DFI Executive Director
trappaport@dfi.org

67