TREATING EXCESSIVE FOUNDATION SEEPAGE

AT A DAM SITE IN THE LOWER HIMALAYAS

Joseph R. Kovacich, PE1

Hafiz M. Kashif Mahmood2

ABSTRACT

The Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project in Pakistan has been constructed within a
geologically complex region. A potentially active thrust fault exists within the dam
footprint that is associated with the highly disturbed foundation. Grout curtains and
drainage curtains are fundamental elements to achieve stability and long-term dam and
foundation performance, but the challenging foundation conditions made achieving this
difficult.

After curtain grouting was completed, foundation drain holes were drilled and
immediately encountered higher than expected seepage, and many drain holes collapsed
before reaching their full depth. Although the seepage water was clear, if left untreated,
pore pressures and seepage gradients at full reservoir operating levels would be much
greater, which could lead to progressive internal erosion of weaker foundation materials.
High seepage also means greater uplift pressures at the dam-foundation interface, which
reduces dam stability safety factors. Finally, in the event of a pump failure, excessive
seepage from drains could quickly overwhelm the dam dewatering system and flood the
dam internal galleries.

To address seepage-related concerns, targeted supplemental grouting programs were

executed at the two areas in the spillway where seepage was greatest. New grout holes
were better oriented than the initial curtain to intercept steeply dipping sandstone bedding
and joints, believed responsible for most seepage. New grout mixes with reduced setting
times were developed to reduce washout. Finally, while a departure from conventional
practice that uses stages, to improve program efficiency, groups of holes were drilled to
full depth and grouted in a single-stage, systematically moving from one hole to the next
over a sustained injection period.

After the supplemental grouting program was completed the reservoir was partially filled,
the foundation response was monitored, and grouting effectiveness was assessed. The
first program proved partially effective, so a second program was performed to further
improve the foundation.

INTRODUCTION

The Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project (NJHP), located near Muzaffarabad in the
state of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in northeastern Pakistan, was developed by the Water
& Power Development Authority (WAPDA) of Pakistan. The project location, shown on

1
Stantec, Principal Geological Engineer Washington DC, joseph.kovacich@stantec.com.
2
NESPAK, Senior Engineering Geologist Lahore, Pakistan, hmkashifbajwa@gmail.com.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 1

Figure 1, utilizes a gross hydraulic head of approximately 430 m by diverting water from
the Neelum River using a dam and intake works at Nauseri to the lower branch of the
Jhelum River through a 32-km-long tunnel system and underground powerhouse complex
with installed generating capacity of 969 MW.

The project is divided into three construction lots. Lot C2 includes the headrace tunnel,
and Lot C3 covers the surge shaft, penstocks, powerhouse complex, and tailrace tunnel.
Lot C1, which is the focus of this paper, includes the headworks and the initial section of
the headrace tunnel. Shown on Figure 2, Lot C1 includes a central 58-m high concrete
gravity dam with a concrete debris channel and rockfill dam forming the right abutment.
The orifice-gated spillway leads to a 100-m-long stilling basin. The dam diverts water
through the intake at the left bank and then through a 300-m-long by 76-m-wide triple-
bay sedimentation basin. The water is combined in the collecting canal and then flows
into the headrace tunnel.

Figure 1 - Location map of Neelum Jhelum Hydroelectric Project

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 2

 Figure 2 - Lot C1 site layout

EXCESSIVE FOUNDATION SEEPAGE

Curtain grouting below the spillway was completed on 26 April 2017 from the gallery at
El. 965.1. The grout curtain holes extend to depth equivalent to approximately 60
percent of the reservoir head and are oriented 15 degrees upstream. During grouting the
upstream river level fluctuated between El. 974 and El. 976 and flowed through the
spillway. Since the gallery invert is set below the upstream river level as well as the
tailwater level (approximately El. 970), the grout holes generally encountered artesian
flows. Stages were grouted typically using net refusal pressure of at least 0.2 kg/cm2 per
meter of rock (approximately 0.9 psi per foot of rock) and with grout take closure criteria
of less than 0.5 L/min for three consecutive minutes. In some of the deepest individual
stages, which were nearly 100 meters below completed spillway crest (El. 1019), net
refusal pressures up to 25 kg/cm2 were achieved.

After grouting was completed, vertical foundation drain holes were started downstream
of the grout curtain (see Figure 3). Drains extend as much as 24.5 meters into rock
(approximately 2/3 of the grout curtain depth), are 90 mm diameter, and are spaced 3
meters. Drilling started at drain hole D49 when the river level was between El. 976 and
El. 978 and was flowing through the open spillway. After drilling reached approximately
3 meters into rock D49 was producing approximately 3 m3/hr (50 L/min) of seepage, and
the hole collapsed. Without casing available, the Contractor moved to D50 located 3
meters toward the right abutment and encountered similar seepage rates, although
seepage from D49 reduced slightly, indicating an interconnection. D50 collapsed when it
was 10 meters into rock. D51 and D52 were started, and both collapsed. The total

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 3

seepage from the four holes was approximately 7.5 m3/hr (125 L/min). Due to schedule
constraints, the Contractor elected to continue advancing new holes, without casing, as
deep as possible with the intent of completing the drains to full depth when casing
arrived.

On 12 July 2017 the Contractor advanced drain hole D37 located at the left side of the
spillway to a depth of 20.5 meters into rock when 19 m3/hr (320 L/min) was encountered
over a 50 cm interval, which brought the seepage from all open drains to nearly 40 m3/hr
(Figure 4). On 20 July 2017 approximately 34 m3/hr of seepage was measured with the
river level at El. 978 (water head above the gallery floor is approximately 13 meters) and
only 35 percent of the drain hole drilling completed. To give the grouting team time to
assess the potential impacts of this seepage on the spillway, the drills were moved to the
intake drains (D1 to D24) at El. 984 and to the drains along the stairs (D25 to D34).

Since the drainage gallery at El. 965.1 is below both the river level (El. 978) and the
stilling basin tailwater (El. 970), it was possible the grout curtain was tight, but seepage
could be flowing upstream from the tailwater to the deeper drains. Another theory was
that a deep groundwater aquifer within the high mountains on river banks was penetrated
by the drains. To understand the source, water samples from the drains, river, and
mountain springs were sent to the laboratory for analysis. The water chemistry strongly
indicated the water was from the river, it just wasn’t known if the seepage was from
upstream or from the tailwater. However, the engineering team believed that water was
either flowing through, or under, the grout curtain, which meant additional grouting was
required to reinforce the existing grout curtain.

To assess the magnitude of the potential seepage from spillway drains under normal
operating conditions the interim conditions on 20 July 2017 were extrapolated to the final
operating conditions using Eq. 1.
௅೑ ு೑
ܳ௙ ൌ ܳ௜ (1)
௅೔ ு೔

Where:
Qf = Final (extrapolated) seepage at full reservoir level (m3/hr)
Qi = Interim seepage, 34 m3/hr
Lf = Final drilled length, 100 percent
Li = Interim drilled length, 35 percent
Hf = Final operating head, 50 m (El. 1015 to 965.1)
Hi = Interim head, 12.9 m (El. 978 to El. 965.1)

Assuming laminar flow conditions, the linear extrapolations assumed in Eq. 1 indicate the
seepage at the end of construction from just the spillway drains (D35 to D57) would be
370 m3/hr. That rate greatly surpasses the permanent dewatering system pumping criteria
of 150 m3/hr. More importantly, seepage at the interim and higher rates could actually be
turbulent and increase the potential that weaker foundation materials or joint infillings to
be eroded. Finally, although the spillway was still expected to be stable, greater seepage
would translate into greater uplift pressure on the dam foundation and reduce the stability

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 4

safety factors. To counter these negative impacts, a supplemental grouting program was
initiated by first reviewing the seepage and grouting criteria and the available
construction information.

Figure 3 – Spillway typical section with grout and drainage curtains

SEEPAGE CRITERIA

The dam design did not include specific criteria for foundation seepage. Grout curtains
and foundation drains are often designed based on experience in terms of hole size,
spacing and depth. The spillway drains are 90 mm diameter, are spaced 3 meters and are
drilled 24 meters into rock (2/3 of grout curtain depth). Assuming the grout curtain can
be closed using the split-spacing method to less than approximately 50 kg cement/meter
of hole, foundation seepage would be laminar such that the residual seepage and
gradients would be low enough that internal erosion would not occur. In this particular

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 5

case, the seepage from the drains was clear (free of sediment); however, the risk
remained that internal erosion could develop in weaker materials over time under higher
reservoir levels and higher gradients.

The permanent dewatering system consists of three pumps each with pumping capacity of
150 m3/hr (total of 450 m3/hr). One pump is a redundant backup; thus, the normal
available pumping capacity is 300 m3/hr if two pumps are operating continuously. If two
pumps each operate 50 percent of the time, the pumping capacity would be 150 m3/hr.
To avoid operating the pumps more than 50 percent of the time, a threshold of 150 m3/hr
was adopted for total drain seepage.

Figure 4 - Spillway drainage curtain progress per 20 July 2017 (view downstream). Green
represents completed drain curtain and measured seepage. Red lines represent remaining
drain drilling.

REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS

The Northwestern Himalaya orogeny introduces a series of thrust-and-fold mountain

belts in the region. On a regional scale, the development of the Hazara–Kashmir
Syntaxis, a tight to isoclinal anticline that bends the orogenic trends sharply from NNW
in its eastern flank near Lot C1 to NNE in its western flank near Islamabad, located
approximately 100 km south-southwest, dominates the deformation observed in the
project area (Burg et al., 2005). The stress regime is transpressional with a predominantly

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 6

SW–oriented compressional thrusting and minor EW–trending strike-slip faulting.
Miocene-age mollassic sedimentary rocks form the central portion of the syntaxis and
include the highly deformed bedrock of the project, the Murree Formation (Raptis and
Kovacich, 2017).

The Murree formation, which comprises the strata below the spillway consists of a
monotonous series of steeply dipping sandstone and undifferentiated mudstone and
siltstone (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). The sandstone is strong and brittle, and its
permeability is controlled by open joints and fractures. The siltstone and mudstone beds
are weaker and more ductile, are less fractured, and have lower permeability. In the
project excavations of Lot C1, Lot C2, and Lot C3, greater seepage was associated with
sandstone; thus, the same condition was suspected in the dam foundation. In addition,
the spillway is adjacent to the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) fault, which crosses through
the debris channel foundation (see Figure 5). Figure 5 and Figure 6 also indicate the
strata dip steeply (more than 70 degrees) to the east (right abutment) and strike generally
in the upstream-downstream direction; meaning the sandstone beds are likely acting as
natural seepage conduits under the dam. This theory is supported by observations that
the greatest grout takes and drain seepage was from areas of highly fractured sandstone.

Grouting records indicate a greater concentrations of grout holes and fifth order holes
(quinary) in the vicinity of the drain holes D35 to D41 (left side of the Spillway) and near
D49 to D54 (right side of the Spillway) and lower order holes in the central portion of the
spillway between D42 to D48. In addition, near the bottom of the grout curtain holes
near D35 and D41 moderate grout takes were observed in higher order holes. Moderate
grout takes at depth suggested that deeper windows in the curtain could have remained or
seepage flows under the completed grout curtain but was intercepted by the drains, or a
combination of the two. Even though refusal was reached in grout holes, closure criteria
was not always met at satisfied at the greater depths. Therefore, in drains with high
seepage, the subsurface flows may have been so great that grout was simply washed out
before it could set, possibly leaving these residual seepage pathways.

Records indicate that drains D35, D36, and D37 are drilled predominantly within a
sandstone bed that exhibited notable fracturing and artesian seepage during foundation
preparation (see Figure 6). D49 through D54 are also drilled predominantly in sandstone,
and Figure 6 indicates increased fracture frequency there as well. In contrast, holes D38
to D42 are located mostly within an area of siltstone-mudstone where less seepage was
observed. Also, although D43 through D48 are drilled in sandstone, the rock was less
fractured. In summary, the grouting records and drain hole seepage correlate with the
foundation geology. With this general understanding a more targeted supplemental
grouting was developed.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 7

 Figure 5 – Generalized geologic profile with nearly drains (pink)

GROUT MIX REDESIGN

The setting time of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) grout used at Site C1 generally
ranged from 8 to 10 hours. Grout with a long setting time is susceptible to washout when
subjected to significant gradient and flowing groundwater. Sodium silicate is commonly
added to grout to increase the viscosity and to accelerate grout setting. However, the
concentration of the sodium silicate available in Pakistan varies, so basic characteristics
were tested in the laboratory to determine proper dosages to achieve desirable grout
characteristics while taking precautions to avoid accidental flash set that could plug the
equipment or prematurely block the hole.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 8

 Figure 6 – Dam foundation geology map

The fluid density of each drum was measured as a general indicator of supply consistency
and ranged from 1.40 to 1.48 g/cm3 from two different batches of eight, 150 L drums,
which was deemed acceptable. Lab mixing tests were performed using different ratios of
sodium silicate diluted with water and grout to assess viscosity and workability and to
measure the setting time and bleed. Diluting the sodium silicate using 50 percent water
by volume and dosing the grout with 2 to 3 percent by weight gave the most desirable
properties with respect to viscosity and workability, bleed (few percent), and reduced the
setting time to between 4 and 5 hours. Testing showed that dosages rates up to 10
percent could reduce the setting time to as little as 1 to 2 hours, but this increased the risk
that the equipment or holes could be prematurely blocked if grouting was interrupted due
to equipment breakdowns, which were frequent.

After developing grouts in the laboratory using 2 to 3 percent sodium silicate, the
admixture pumps had to be manually calibrated to control dosing and field tested. Due to
poor condition of the admixture pumps dosing was controlled manually based on the
OPC grout pumping rate, which was also controlled manually with valves. Field trials
were conducted by setting the OPC grout pumping rate to a steady pre-set flow rate. The
admixture pump was then started using a pre-determined throttle position that
corresponded to the OPC grout pump rate and desired dosage rate. The grout and sodium
silicate were mixed using a field-fabricated mixing nozzle. Samples taken of the gel-like
grout confirmed that 2 to 3 percent of sodium silicate (by volume) could achieve a setting
time of 4 to 5 hours with little bleed.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 9

 SUPPLEMENTAL GROUTING PROGRAM NO. 1

Based on foundation geology supplemental grout holes were oriented 15 degrees

upstream to be in the same plane as the original curtain but were battered toward the left
bank 15 degrees to more efficiently intercept strata that dipped toward the right bank.
The holes were drilled to as deep as 45 meters into rock. At the left side group of holes,
second line consisting of four grout holes was drilled between the main grout curtain line
and the drain holes to increase the effective width of the curtain.

After a few initial holes were drilled and grouted employing down-stage method, there
was little observed effect on seepage and productivity was low. Most of the time was
spent drilling, waiting for grout to set, and re-drilling through grout, achieving a couple
of meters per day per drill. Consideration was also given to observed seepage rates and
maximum grout injection rates. Seepage from drain hole D37 was approximately 19
m3/hr, and the maximum grout injection capacity was about 4.5 m3/hr. Since the
subsurface seepage was so much greater than the injection rate, it was believed the grout
would be easily diluted or quickly washed out. Therefore, an unconventional approach
was taken with the idea of perforating a large volume of permeable rock using several
holes and to inject grout at great enough pressure and for a long enough time that grout
would begin to set before it could be washed away. Grout holes were thus drilled to their
full design depth, fitted with packers at the hole collar, and left open to flow, which
relieved the seepage pressures during grouting. When all holes were drilled, grouting at
the group of holes started at one hole and progressed to the next until refusal was reached
in each or the hole grouted closed via communication. This approach greatly increased
productivity in this schedule critical program since crews only needed to focus on
drilling.

In this manner, supplemental grouting program No. 1 at the right side holes between D49
and D55 included five grout holes spaced 6 meters apart and totaling 189 meters of holes.
Eleven holes were drilled at the left side between D35 and D40 totaling 468.5 meters.
Three drills worked from 15 July 2017 to 21 September 2017, each averaging
approximately 3.4 meters per day.

Baseline seepage measurements on 24 September 2017 from D49, D50, D51, D52, D53,
and D55 totaled 10.2 m3/hr (169 L/min) before grouting. Approximately 8,000 kg of
cement and 75 L of diluted sodium silicate at up to 3 percent dosage was injected into the
four grout holes. Grouting was completed in approximately 4 hours, and approximately
45 minutes after grouting was completed, the post-grouting flow from D49 to D55 was
approximately 154 L/min, a reduction of just 9 percent.

The pre-grouting baseline seepage from drains D34 to D40 on 24 September 2017 was
approximately 19.4 m3/hr (320 L/min). Since most flow was from D37, two pumps were
used to simultaneously inject grouting into two holes for this group. In addition, the
decision was made to grout drains if grout communicated strongly to them. Grout holes
SP-3, SS-4, SS-1, F-1R, F-2, SS-2, F-3, and SS-3 were grouted to refusal, as were drains

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 10

D35, D36, and D37 (see Figure 7). After initial strong communication and high flows,
equipment breakdowns and leaking packers led to premature refusal in these drain holes.
When the drains D35 and D36 were being grouted, seepage also increased in D33 and
D34, and grout weakly communicated there as well. Approximately 26,000 kg of cement
was injected into the left side holes and drains and 100 L of diluted sodium silicate was
consumed in holes SP-3, SS-4, SS-1, and F1R during the 12 hour grouting program. Due
to admixture pump failures, some holes were grouted only using plain cement grout.

Since D35 to D37 were grouted, they were redrilled at adjacent positions, and the post-
grouting seepage from D34 to D40 on 8 October 2017 was 12.8 m3/hr (213 L/min), a
reduction of 33 percent, but the reduced seepage still exceeded the seepage criteria.

The project schedule demanded the reservoir filling begin on 17 October 2017, even
though seepage had not been controlled and some foundation drains had not been
completed. Although this departed from conventional engineering practice, piezometer
readings indicated the dam would be stable at the proposed partially filled reservoir level
(El. 990). The partial filling provided the team an opportunity to assess the correlations
between the reservoir head and seepage rates, which had been assumed to be linear.
Drain hole drilling continued from 17 October to 23 October 2017 as the reservoir was
raised from El. 976 to El. 990. As the reservoir was raised at a steady rate of 3 meters per
day, seepage from the drains increased following a nearly linear correlation. Using the
post-grouting measurements as the interim conditions, with the reservoir at El. 990,
seepage from spillway drains (D35 to D57) plus D34 seepage was projected to be 48
m3/hr using Eq. 1, and the measured seepage was 54 m3/hr. Extrapolating the measured
seepage to the final operating conditions would yield 170 m3/hr for drains D34 to D57
only, which exceeded the criteria of 150 m3/hr for all drains (D1 to D57).

The partial reservoir filling also confirmed the seepage was from the reservoir side and
not the tailwater, which confirmed that more grouting was needed to control seepage.

SUPPLEMENTAL GROUTING PROGRAM NO. 2

Supplemental grouting program No. 2 was initiated in the right and left side of the
spillway similar to the first program. Supplemental grout holes on the right side were
located approximately 3 meters apart and oriented 8 degrees upstream and 15 degrees to
the left bank in a pattern that created a secondary grout curtain between the original grout
curtain and the drain holes D49 to D55. Nine holes were drilled to depths typically
between 30 and 41 meters and totaling 272 meters. Thirteen holes, extending as much as
40 meters into rock, were drilled at the left side totaling 455 meters of drilling. From 31
October 2017 to 10 December 2017, 727 meters of drilling was completed by three drills,
each averaging nearly 6 meters per day.

Using information from redrilled drain holes D35R1, D36R1, and D37R1, new grout
holes were oriented to target specific locations and depth depending on what the
preceding hole encountered. D35R1 and D36R1 produced very low seepage, while
D37R1 and new vibrating wire piezometer hole VW-16 produced very high flows, and

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 11

D34 showed increased flows. The observations suggested the first program split the
seepage path on the left side into two branches (see Figure 7). Group 1 holes targeted the
branch around D33 and D34, while Group 2 holes targeted the branch around D37R1 and
VW-16. Figure 7 shows the grout holes and the sections in each hole where high seepage
was encountered, an indication it connected to the seepage path. D37R1 and VW-16
were also drilled 10 meters deeper than their design depths so they could be grouted and
then redrilled to their original design depths and set within well-grouted rock.

Group 2 Area
Group 1
Area VW16
D33 D34 D35 D36 D37 D38 D39 D40 D41

ST-06 ST-07
0
Distance Upstream of Gallery (m)

2
ST-08
ST-09
4 ST-10

F-1R
6 F-3 SS-4
F-2

ST-05
8
ST-11
ST-04
10 ST-03
SP-3
SS-3 SS-2 SS-1

SS-1 (1st Supp. program)

ST-03 (2nd Supp. program) Approx. Limit of
High Seepage Zone Sandstone Band

Grouted Zone During 1st Supp. Program

Figure 7 - Drainage gallery plan view with inclined holes projected to plan

Pre-grouting seepage from drains D47 to D55 (excluding D54) was approximately 22
m3/hr (370 L/min) on 12 December 2017 with the reservoir at El. 990.4 m. The next day,
each hole was grouted in a full-length, single-stage effort with a packer set at the hole
collar. Refusal pressure of 20 to 25 kg/cm2 were reached in each hole including drains
D52 and D53, which saw strong grout communication. Approximately 14,800 kg of
cement was injected using up to 3 percent diluted sodium silicate admixture over 5 hours
of sustained grouting.

Pre-grouting seepage from left side drain holes D33 to D40 was 34.2 m3/hr (570 L/min)
on 12 December 2017. Grouting Group 1 left side holes was performed on 13 December
2017 by first injecting grout into drain hole D34, which consumed 8,900 kg of cement
and communicated to D33, ST-8, and ST-9 before D34 reached refusal. D33 consumed
an additional 3,700 kg cement before refusal. Holes ST-9 and ST-8 were grouted by
communication, although another 460 kg of cement was injected into ST-8. In total,

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 12

13,100 kg of cement was injected into the Group 1 left side holes over 9.5 hours of
sustained grouting.

Grouting of the Group 2 left side holes was performed on 14 December 2017 by injecting
first in holes D37R1 and VW-16 simultaneously using two separate grout systems. The
intent was to create a grout barrier at the downstream end of the seepage path and push
the grout progressively upstream by moving to successive holes in the upstream direction
as refusal was reached. Approximately 18,800 kg and 14,900 kg of cement were injected
into holes D37R1 and VW-16, respectively, over approximately 5 hours of continuous
injection. Hole ST-6, located a few meters upstream of D37R1 reached refusal by
communication, so injection moved progressively to ST-7, to ST-5, to ST-4, to ST-10,
and to ST-11 until all holes reached refusal. In total, 41,500 kg of cement was injected
into the Group 2 left side holes over 8.5 hours of grouting.

After supplemental grouting program No. 2 was complete, the Contractor redrilled the
grouted drains; completed all remaining drain holes to their required depths; and installed
the remaining spillway piezometers by 3 January 2018.

After conditions appeared to stabilize, seepage measured on 3 February 2018 from D33
to D40 was 8.1 m3/hr (135 L/min) with the reservoir at El. 990.0, a 76 percent reduction
from the pre-grouting measurement. Post-grouting seepage from drains D47 to D55
(now including D54) was 22.5 m3/hr (375 L/min), which was again less effective than
hoped. The total seepage from all holes at the intake, stairs, and spillway drains was
approximately 49 m3/hr. When linearly extrapolated to the full reservoir head, the total
seepage would be 115 m3/hr. The second supplemental grouting programs had reduced
seepage to an acceptable level.

From 5 February 2018 to 20 February 2018 the reservoir was raised from El. 990 to El.
1002 and held until mid-April 2018. Increasing the reservoir 12 meters increased the
total seepage to approximately 84 m3/hr. Using this rate, the linearly extrapolated
seepage for full reservoir would be 120 m3/hr, which was still acceptable.

By October 2018 the reservoir had been raised to El. 1011 and reduced back to El. 1008.
Between April to October 2018 the total seepage increased but the measured seepage
started dropping below extrapolated values. The 9 October 2018 seepage measurement
of 76.4 m3/hr with reservoir at El. 1007.1, is linearly extrapolated to 95 m3/hr at full
reservoir level. Three months later, on 10 January 2019, the measured seepage had
further reduced to 87 m3/hr with the nearly full reservoir at El. 1014.5. The decreasing
seepage appears attributed to clogging of open joints by sediments deposited on the
reservoir floor, a phenomenon common to many dams and reservoirs. Presently, the
seepage remains clear and free of sediment indicating the foundation is at less risk of
progressive internal erosion. Seepage may reduce over time as joints become further
clogged.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 13

 DAM INSTRUMENTATION

Seven vibrating wire piezometers are installed along the spillway-foundation interface to
monitor uplift pressures, and seepage from drains are routinely measured. With the
reservoir at El. 1014.6 on 9 January 2019 the total piezometric head measured by
piezometers VW-19 and VW-20 was El. 981.5 and El. 976.8, respectively (see Figure 8).
The readings were near the design threshold level, which assumes 33 drain efficiency.
VW-21, VW-22, VW-23, VW-24, and VW-25 installed at the concrete-rock interface
read between El. 965.3 and El. 968.7. The spillway is constructed as a monolithic
structure to improve seismic stability, so the average piezometric level needs to be
considered when evaluating the conditions. The piezometers indicate the drains are
relieving pressures along the foundation interface, and the spillway is stable.

Figure 8 - Spillway piezometer levels on 9 January 2019

Piezometer VW-16, set below the drains, is still relatively elevated and indicate a deeper
seepage path may still exist below the grout and drain curtains. Figure 6 indicates the
sandstone bed responsible for the seepage in D34 to D37 and high readings in VW-16
extends downstream and forms the foundation and slope of the stilling basin left wall.
The stilling basin left wall is designed considering piezometric pressure of El. 986

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 14

(Kovacich et. al., 2015). To monitor pore pressures behind the stilling basin left wall,
standpipe piezometers PS-15 and PS-16 were installed. On 9 January 2019 the total
piezometric head in PS-15 was El. 981.8. PS-16 is set approximately 5 meters into
adjacent siltstone bed and measured El. 976.2. The readings in these two piezometers
indicate the piezometric readings are less than design assumptions, and the left wall
continues to perform as expected. Survey monuments area also installed there to monitor
movement. Readings fluctuate but show less than 4 mm of movement of the wall toward
the stilling basin.

FUTURE PLANS

With the reservoir at El. 1014.5 on 10 January 2019, seepage from D44 and D54 was
approximately 12.5 m3/hr (210 L/min) and 20 m3/hr (340 L/min), respectively, totaling
32.5 m3/hr (550 L/min). The seepage from all drains was 87 m3/hr (1,450 L/min)
indicating 38 percent of total seepage is from just two of the 57 drains.

Earlier, in March and April 2018 when the reservoir was at El. 1002 a test was done in
which drains D44 and D54 were fitted with mechanical packers to determine the effects
that blocking these drains had on seepage in adjacent drains and on piezometric levels.
The test showed that total seepage from the spillway drains (D35 to D57) at that time
reduced from 55 m3/hr to 40 m3/hr. Due to joint interconnections some seepage was
diverted to the adjacent drains, while some simply flowed under the dam. Total head in
VW-21 to VW-25 increased between 1 and 4 meters, which was notable, but the average
elevated readings were still far below the threshold limits.

The test indicated that seepage could be reduced and the potential for internal erosion
near these drains could be reduced by abandoning these drains by grouting with a
relatively minor increase in foundation interface pressures. Plans are being implemented
to grout these drains.

REFERENCES

Burg, Jean-Pierre, Bernard Celerier, Nawaz M. Chaudhry, Munir Ghazanfar, Felix Gnehm,
Michael Schnellman. 2005. “Fault analysis and paleostress evolution in large strain
regions: methodological and geological discussion of the southeastern Himalayan fold-
and-thrust belt in Pakistan.” Journal of Asian Earth Sciences. 24(4): 445–467.

Kovacich, Joseph, Richard Barrie, Luling Yang. 2015. “Evaluating Foundation-Structure

Behavior Using a Jointed Material Model.” Proceedings of Symposium of Amer. Rock
Mechanics Assoc.

Raptis, Georgios, Joseph Kovacich. 2017. “Rock Slope Reconstruction at the Neelum
Jhelum Hydroelectric Project, Kashmir, Pakistan.” Proceedings of Symposium of Amer.
Rock Mechanics Assoc.

Copyright © 2019 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 15