Chapter-2

EARTHFILL DAM ESIGN &ANALYSIS

Embankment dam
➢ Any dam constructed of excavated materials placed without addition of binding
material other than those inherent in the natural material
EMBANKMENT DAMS
- Earthfill
- Rockfill
- Earth-rockfill
Earthfill Dam
➢ An embankment dam, constructed primarily of compacted earth materials, either
homogeneous or zoned, and containing more than 50% of earth granular
materials (0.001 ≤ d ≤ 100 mm) . compacted soils account for over 50% of the placed volume of
material
Rockfill Dam
➢ An embankment dam constructed of natural rock materials, usually broken down to
smaller fragments (0.1 ≤ d ≤ 1000 mm).
Earthfill-Rockfill Dam
➢ An embankment dam where large quantities of both granular materials (earth) and
rock fragments are used (over 50% of the fill material may be classified as rockfill)
(Source : A M S , D A M F O U N D A T I O N S , A N D R E S E R V O I R S by
ERNEST E. WAHLSTROM)
 TYPE OF EARTHFILL DAMS
composed entirely of a
i. Homogenous earthfill dam
single type of material

Zone 1 : earthfill (core) – controls seepage through the dam.

Zone 4 : rip rap – controls erosion of u/s slope by wave action.
Zone 2C: filter – controls erosion of zone 1 through rip rap.

Zone 2A: fine filter – controls erosion of zone 1 and dam foundation.
- controls build up of pore pressure in d/s face.
Zone 2B: coarse filter – discharges seepage water collected in vertical or horizontal drain
ii. Zoned Embankment Dam
➢ The horizontal width of the impervious zone at any elevation equals or exceeds the
height of embankment above that elevation in the dam and is at least 10 feet (USBR)

Zone 3A: earthfill/rockfill – provides stability, commonly free drainage to

allow discharge . Prevents erosion of 2B into 3B.
Zone 3B: coarse rockfill – provides stability, commonly free drainage to allow
discharge
 If the diaphragm material is earth, the horizontal
iii. Diaphragm type thickness of the diaphragm at any elevation is less
than 10 feet or the height of the embankment
above the corresponding elevation of the dam (W ≤
h and W ≤ 10 ft.)
A thin core dam becomes more economical for
reasons as:
central vertical core ➢ Unit cost of placing impervious materials
may be more than the unit cost of placing
pervious materials.
➢ The amount of embankment volume can be
reduced in a thin core dam more effectively
➢ The construction time available and
A diaphragm earthfill dam with inclined core weather conditions may not permit the use
The inclined core is adopted instead of the of an impervious core of large thickness.
center core where: The minimum thickness of core depends on a
– a blanket zone is provided in the pervious number of factors on:
foundation to be connected with the ➢ the tolerable seepage loss;
impervious core zone. ➢ minimum width which will allow proper
– different construction processes are construction (machinery considerations);
available for the placement of core and ➢ type of materials chosen for the core and
rockfill materials. shoulders;
– the site is a high seismic area ➢ design of proposed filter layers;
➢ past experience of similar projects.
 Factors for dam type selection
Topography:

-A narrow V-shaped valley with sound rock in abutments would favor

a concrete arch dam.
-A relatively narrow valley with rocky walls would suggest a rock fill
or concrete gravity dam (or roller-compacted concrete dam).
-A wide valley with deep overburden would suggest an earth dam.
-Topography may also influence the selection of appurtenant
structures Eg Natural saddles may provide a spillway location

Geology and foundation conditions

-Competent rock foundations with relatively high shear strength and

resistance to erosion can be used for all types of dams.
-Gravel foundations, if well compacted, are suitable for earth or rock-fill dams with
provisions for adequate seepage control.
-Silt or fine sand foundations can be used for low concrete (or RCC) and earth-fill dams
but are not suitable for rock-fill dams.
-Non-dispersive clay foundations may be used for earth dams but require flat
embankment slopes.
 Materials available :
-If suitable soils for an earth-fill dam can be found in nearby borrow pits, an earth dam
may prove to be more economical.
-The availability of suitable rock may favor a rock-fill dam.
-The availability of suitable sand and gravel for concrete at a reasonable cost locally or
onsite is favorable to use for a concrete (or RCC) dam
Spillway:
-The size, type, and restrictions on location of the spillway are often
controlling factors in the choice of the type of dam.
-When a large spillway is to be constructed, it may be desirable to combine the spillway and
dam into one structure, indicating a concrete overflow dam.
-In some cases where required excavation from the spillway channel can be utilized in the
dam embankment, an earth or rock-fill dam may be advantageous
Climate:
-The construction difficulty with earthfill during wet weather should be taken into
consideration.
Economic:
-The final selection of the type of dam should be made only after careful analysis and
comparison of possible alternatives, and after thorough economic analyses that include costs
of all appurtenant structures, power and control structures, and foundation treatment.
Environmental:
-The need to consider protection of the environment affects the type of dam, its dimensions,
and location of the spillway and appurtenant facilities.
Geotechnical Investigations
Two types of questions in dam projects
Engineering questions, which relate essentially to the design, construction and
operation of any structure of the type proposed, and
Geological questions, which arise from understanding of the site geological
environment and its likely influence on the design, construction and operation of
the project
Most dam failures occurred due to failure to fully understand & define the right
geotechnical questions

Checklist of Geotechnical questions for dam projects:

[Link] of Materials?
2. Reservoir?

3. Dam?
4. Appurtenant Structures?

5. Seismicity of the Region?

MCE - The largest earthquake that appears capable of occurring

under the known tectonic framework for a specific fault or
seismic source, as based on geologic and seismologic data
Comment on the effects of first filling of
a water supply dam in an arid region, in
a steep sided valley underlain by a very
weak sandstone.
 ❑significant raising of the water table
❑solution of water soluble mineral with resulting
weakening and possible increase in permeability of the
foundations, and
❑possible instability in the storage area sides

specific geological questions to be answered during

investigations of this site would include the following:
– What are the cementing agents in the sandstone?
– How much reduction in strength and stiffness will occur in the
sandstone when saturated for long periods?
– Could solution effects during dam operations result in increase
in permeability of the foundation?
– Could solution/strength reduction or water table rise result in
instability in (a) the foundation or (b) the reservoir sides?
Checklist for engineering questions (design, construction and operation ) of dam
projects
 Site Investigation Techniques.
- Topographic Maping & Survey
- Satellite Images & Arial Photographs
- Geological & Geotechnical Maps
- Geophysical Methods
- Test Pits & Trenches
- Drill Holes
- Sampling
- In Situ Tests (permeability, grouting, bearing capacity, compressibility)
Fill Materials
Check the required quality and quantity of materials
– Geological survey (stratum, volume)
– Laboratory testing (shear strength, compressibility, compaction, permeability,...
– In‐situ testing (compaction, density log, field permeability, sampling)
 Topographic Mapping & Survey

❖ Accurate location and level of all relevant data

❖ Topographic maps at several scales are required
➢ Regional maps, 1:250 000 with 20–50 m contours to 1:25 000 with 10 m contours;
➢ Catchment area, 1:25 000 with 10 m contours to 1:2000 with 2 m contours;
➢ Project area, 1:1000 with 2 m contours to 1:200 with 1 m contours;
➢ Individual engineering structures, 1:500 with 1 m contours to 1:200 with 0.5 m
contours

Satellite Images & Arial Photographs

➢ thematic map production by using GIS (for computing the plan area, surface area, and
volume of the reservoir)
➢ For investigations of existing dams, photographs taken during construction are an
invaluable aid to assessing the geology and construction of the dam
➢ provides an indication of relationships between the regional geology and landforms,
drainage, soils, vegetation and land-use

GEOMORPHOLOGICAL MAPPING
➢ can provide an indication of the distribution of subsurface materials, their structure
and areas of possible mass movement, e.g. landslides.
Geomorphology of lake Tana basin (Ethiopia)

See for details

[Link]
i/abs/10.1080/17445647.2013.
801000
GEOTECHNICAL MAPPING

➢ involves the location and plotting on suitable scales of all data which assists in
understanding the geotechnical conditions at that site
➢ Regional mapping
▪ able to provide the regional geological understanding required for a dam project
➢ Geotechnical mapping at and near the sites
The maps show the following
▪ ground surface contours;
▪ geomorphic features, e.g. slope changes, areas of hummocky ground;
▪ geological surface features, e.g. areas of rock outcrops, boulders and soil;
▪ features of in situ rock, e.g. rock types and their boundaries, the nature, location and
orientation of important geological defects such as sheared or crushed zones;
▪ groundwater features, e.g. springs, seepage, areas of swamp and vegetation indicating
moist or wet ground;
▪ the location of tracks, roads, test pits and trenches, with summary logs of the soils and
rocks exposed;
▪ the position of drill holes and geophysical traverse lines;
▪ the proposed works in outline including the full supply level of the proposed storage
(regional geology)
GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Example
The advantages of the use of geophysical Resistivity Profiling or Imaging
methods include: • Based on generation of an artificial
▪ They are non-invasive and can be carried electric field in the earth by
out from the surface or from existing introduction of current through
metal electrodes
boreholes;
▪ They can provide information on site
conditions between data points e.g.
boreholes;
▪ They may be able to identify local areas of
concern which have no surface expression
e.g. cavities;
▪ The surveys can usually be performed
quickly and cover a relatively large area;
▪ Recent development of computer analysis
and presentation of results (tomography)
has assisted interpretation
Areas of investigation where the correct use of geophysical methods
have provided valuable information include:
▪ Delineation of boundaries between the underlying in situ rock and
transported materials such as alluvium, colluvium, glacial debris and
landslide debris;
▪ Delineation of boundaries between residual soil, weathered rock
and fresh rock;
▪ Delineation of boundaries between sandy and clayey soils;
▪ Location of anomalous foundation features e.g. igneous dykes,
cavities, deeply weathered zones, fault zones, buried river channels;
▪ Assessment of rippability, depth of foundation excavation, depth of
cutoff excavation,
▪ liquefaction potential;
▪ Location in existing structures of seepage paths, low density zones,
cavities

Reading Assignment ---Different geophysical methods

TEST PITS AND TRENCHES
➢ are effective in providing information on subsurface conditions in dam foundations or
existing dams, for the following reasons:
▪ They are relatively cheap and quick;
▪ The subsurface profile is clearly visible and can be logged and photographed;
▪ Material types, the nature and shape of their boundaries and structure can be observed
and recorded in three dimensions;
▪ The absence or presence of groundwater is indicated and the sources of inflows can
usually be observed and their flow rates recorded;
▪ Undisturbed samples can be collected;
▪ In situ tests can be carried out;
▪ The resistance to excavation provides some indication of excavation conditions likely to
be met during construction.
DRILL/BORE HOLES
The main objectives of drilling are to extend the knowledge obtained from surface
mapping, test pits and trenches below the depth limitations of these methods and to:

▪ provide control for the interpretation of any geophysical investigations;

▪ provide samples from these greater depths;
▪ provide access for test equipment e.g. for measurement of water levels, pore pressures
and permeability etc.
Borehole logging techniques
Important points to consider when conducting subsurface
EXPLORATION of Foundations of dams
 CATEGORIES AND CAUSES FOR
FAILURE OF EARTH DAMS
SEEPAGE FAILURE STRUCTURAL FAILURE
• Slip of embankment
⚫ Piping through
• Wave action
dam body • Foundation slides
⚫ Piping through • Faulty construction
foundation • Defective materials
⚫ Sloughing of d/s • Improper maintenance
toe • Earthquakes
• Liquefaction of foundations
⚫ High pore • Shear slides
pressure • Failure of slope protection
• Burrowing animals
• Faulty operation
 CAUSES OF FAILURE
Foundation Failure (mainly piping) 40%
Inadequate spillway (overtopping) 23%
Poor construction 12%
Uneven settlement 10%
High pore pressure 5%
Acts of war 3%
Embankment slips 2%
Defective materials 2%
Incorrect operation 2%
Earthquake 1%
Total 100%
30
Potential locations at risk in a dam system
 FOUNDATION DESIGN/PREPARATION

Foundation: includes both the valley floor and the abutments.

Essential requirements:
❖ Provide stable support for the embankment under all conditions of
saturation and loading, and
❖ Provide sufficient resistance to seepage to prevent excessive loss of
water.
“ No structure is better than its foundation”

▪Foundation parts:
General Foundation: is the foundation beneath the bulk of
the embankment.
Cutoff Foundation: is the foundation under the earthfill core
of an earth and rockfill dam, or the plinth of a concrete face
rockfill dam.
 Safe design of dam
Requires:

❖Ample knowledge of the weak geologic features present at site

( position, orientation and properties )
❖Adequate analysis of their potential effect on dam performance
(using soil mechanics, rock mechanics and structural analysis)
❖ Adequate design with adequate foundation treatment
(properly constructed)
 Three main classes of foundation according to their predominant characteristics:
I. Foundations of rock
II. Foundations of coarse-grained material (sand and gravel)
[Link] of fine-grained material (silt and clay)

Rock Foundations

➢ Generally considered to be the more competent type of foundation and usually

do not present any problem for small dams

Various types of weak geological features/defects that can be encountered

are:

1. Weathered rock profile 5. Folds

2. Faults 6. Buried Channels
3. Thin Shear Zones 7. Jointing pattern of the rock mass
4. Shattered/Highly jointed 8. Caverns/Cavities or Karstic limestone
rock- Master joints 9. Springs etc.
Generalized profile of weathering

Subdivisions of Zone I
Subdivisions of Zone II

Difficult Zone

Most appropriate
Fault
 Joints/cracks, folds and thin shear bedding
❖ Tensional “gash joints” and tight compressed “shear joints” have developed
along a fault

Rough surfaced tension joints

Joints/cracks

fold

Smooth surfaced, intersecting

shear joints

Bedding
Caverns/Cavities or Karstic limestone
Methods of Treating Rock Foundations
➢ Removal and replacement of upper fractured rock
➢ Grouting
➢ Impervious upstream blanket

Factors affecting degree of foundation treatment:

- type of dam
- height of dam
- topography of the dam site
- erodibility, strength, permeability, compressibility of the foundation material
- groundwater inflows to excavations
- climate and river flows
Foundation Grouting
- The foundation of dams more than 15 m high built on rock, are treated by grouting.
- Grouting consists of drilling a line or lines of holes from the cutoff level of the dam into the
dam foundation, and forcing cement slurry or chemicals under pressure into the rock
defects

The grouting is carried out to:

▪ Reduce leakage through the dam foundation, i.e. through the defects;
▪ Reduce seepage erosion potential;
▪ Reduce uplift pressures (under concrete gravity dams when used in
conjunction with drain holes);
▪ Reduce settlements in the foundation (for concrete gravity, buttress and arch
dams).
Investigation methods
• Drilling and direct inspection to accurately locate and
determine local conditions;
• Taking coring samples for laboratory tests;
• Drilling with drilling data recording to locate fissured zones,
voids and the interface between structure and surrounding
ground;
• Borehole logging
• Non-destructive geophysical investigations (seismic
resistivity);
• Water testing (constant head or falling head tests
conducted in borehole;
• Underground flow & temperature measurements;
• Pumping test to assessment of initial hydraulic conditions
Equipment for grouting
 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)

WATER TESTING IN GROUT HOLES (Lugeon or packer test)

➢ Enable decisions about the grouting
➢ The Lugeon unit of permeability is the most popular and relevant unit for
grouting purposes
➢ A Lugeon is a unit devised to quantify the water permeability of bedrock and the
hydraulic conductivity resulting from fractures (1 Lugeon = approx. 10-7 m/s)
1 lugeon unit = 1 litre of water taken per meter of test length, per
minute, at 10 bars pressure (150 psi approx)
To give a sense of proportion for the unit
➢ 1 lugeon unit is the type of permeability where grouting is hardly
necessary.
➢ 10 lugeons warrants grouting for most seepage reduction jobs.
➢ 100 lugeons is the type of permeability met in heavily jointed sites
with relatively open joints or in sparsely cracked foundations where
joints are very wide open.
Tests at Other Pressures
Lugeon units = litres/metre/minute x 10 (bars) /actual pressure (bars)
Lugeon or packer test
 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)
- Foundation Grouting takes two forms:
-Curtain Grouting.
-Consolidation Grouting (Blanket grouting)
- Curtain Grouting: is designed to create a narrow barrier (or curtain) through an area of
high permeability. It usually consists of a single row of grout holes which are drilled and
grouted to the base of the impermeable rock, or to such depths that acceptable hydraulic
gradient are achieved.

- Consolidation or Blanket Grouting: for embankment dams, it is designed to give

intensive grouting of the upper layer of more fractured rock in the vicinity of the dam
core. It is usually restricted to the upper 5 to 15 m.
Foundation Grouting (ctd.)
Grouting Scheme Design
i. Grouting material
▪ Most foundation grouting uses cement grout: Portland cement
mixed with water in a high speed mixer to a water-cement ratio
(mass water/mass cement) of between 0.5 and 5 to form a slurry
▪ Chemicals tend to be more expensive so are only used where
cement grout would not be successful
▪ Single grout mix throughout

Effect of water content on grout properties

• An important requirement for the selection of a grout is
that its particles be substantially smaller than the voids to
be filled.
• This is determined by the groutability ratio, N , expressed
by the equation
w he r e D15 is t he 15 percent finer grain size o f the
medium to be grouted and
D 85 is the 85 percent finer grain size of the grout

• N generally should be greater than 25 but in some cases may

be as low as 15, depending upon physical properties of the
grout materials
Figure : a graphic interpretation of the above equation. It shows (a) typical grainsize
curves for Portland cement, Boston blue clay, ordinary asphalt emulsion, and special
Shellperm asphalt emulsion, and (b) the lower limits (D15) of sand groutable by the
above-described grout materials
Recommended water cement ratios:
• Starting Mix:
▪ 2:1 most sites
▪ 3:1 for rock <5 Lugeons
▪ 1:1 for rock >30 Lugeons
▪ 0.8:1 for very high losses
• Thicken the mix::
▪ to deal with severe leaks;
▪ after 1.5 hours on the one mix with continued take (except
for 1:1 and thicker mixes);
▪ if hole is taking grout fast, e.g. > 500 liters in 15 minutes.
 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)

ii. Depth:

- According to ICOLD, a typical grout curtain varies in depth

from 0.35 to 0.75H. (where H is the height of the reservoir

above the top of the grout curtain in a specific location).

- In addition to this recommendation, grouting should be carried

up to the rock mass of relatively low permeability

Foundation Grouting (ctd.)

iii. Grouting Pattern and Grout Hole Spacing:

-Grout moves more rapidly into larger joints, frequently leaving the
smaller ones almost unfilled. Consequently, grouting along a single
row often can not be depended on to ensure an effective cutoff of
seepage
- To ensure a highly efficient cutoff, a multiple row approach should
be used. A three-row pattern seems to give generally good results
(Janson, 1988).

- common practice to drill all grout holes perpendicular to the average

slope of the ground surface
 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)
▪ The spacing of the initial (primary) holes in a grout curtain ordinarily is based on
an assessment or assumption that grout injected in any one of them is unlikely to
penetrate to the nearest one on either side.
▪ In general, a primary spacing on the order of 6 to 12 m in each curtain row is
selected. Grouting specifications sometimes provide for drilling widely spaced,
cored primary holes for exploration and commonly provide for a maximum
spacing of grout holes of about 3m.

The principles of “closure”

• successive halving of
hole spacing from
primary to secondary
to tertiary holes etc.
 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)

Washing of the grout hole before grouting is essential to remove

cuttings which have clogged the fractures

Grout hole washing bit

Grout Caps and Cutoff Walls
The grout cap or cutoff wall will serve two purposes
▪ It will form a positive cutoff in a shallow zone
▪ It will provide a firm anchorage for grout nipples or grout packers
or both
▪ prevents excessive leakage to the surface and generally
facilitates grouting.
▪ It also prevents damage to the cutoff surface by construction
equipment during the grouting operation
 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)
iv. Staging of grouting

▪ Commonly grout stages will be 5m

to 8m but may be increased in
length lower in the foundation

After Houlsby (1977)

 Foundation Grouting (ctd.)
V. Distance grout will penetrate
The distance to which the grout will penetrate is dependent on the fracture width, grout
pressure and viscosity and the time taken in grouting. If grouting continues for sufficient time,
the limit of penetration is determined by the yield point stress. Lombardi (1985) showed that

Approximate penetration from the borehole of cement grout in fractures (m)

vi. Grout pressures
➢ the maximum pressures at the base of the stage being grouted
are given by:

Grouting
pressure
according to
practice in
Sweden and
the USA
(Weaver 1991).
 Salient features
Foundation Grouting (ctd.) Type of Dam--------Zoned earth fill dam
Example : Tendaho Dam Crest Length -------421m
[Link] at the deepest section----53m
Volume of fill material----1.37mil.
Reservoir capacity --------1.86bm3
Reservoir area ---17,000ha.
Foundation Grouting (ctd.)

Proposed Grouting profile for Tendaho dam

Foundation Grouting (ctd.)
Leakage in Tendaho Dam
 Cut off
The cut off is required,
➢ To reduce loss of stored water through foundations and
abutments
➢ To prevent sub-surface erosion by piping.
Various types of cut off
❖Cut-off trench
❖Sheet piling
❖Cement-bound or jet-grouted curtain cutoff
❖Slurry trench
❖Alluvial grouting
❖Concrete cutoff wall
 Cut-off Trench
➢ can be accomplished by excavating a trench and backfilling with
compacted earth which is in effect part of the embankment core
➢ In most cases the economic depth is likely to be less than 10 meters. Beyond
this depth slurry trench and other wall cutoffs are likely to be more economic

Types of cut off Trenches

i. Positive Cut-off Trench

ii. Partial cut-off trench

Positive Cut-off Trench

Partial cut off trench is effective in stratified foundation by intersecting more

impervious layer in the foundation and by increasing the vertical path of seepage
Guidelines for design of cut off trench
➢ Position : The cut off shall be located such that its center line should be within the
base of impervious core. The positive cut off should be keyed at least to a depth of
0.4 meter into continuous impervious sub stratum or inerodable rock formation.
➢ A minimum bottom width of 4.0 meter is recommended.

➢ Side slopes of at least 1:1 or flatter may be provided in case of over burden while
1/2:1 and 1/4:1 may be provided in soft rock and hard rock respectively.
➢ The back fill material for cut off trench shall have same properties as those
specified for impervious core.
➢ The cut off in the flanks on either side should normally extend up to the top of
impervious core.
➢ Cut off trench on weathered rock : If cut off trench is terminated in rock
formation which is weathered or have cracks, joints and crevices and if percolation
test exhibit a lugeon value of more than 10 , then rock foundation below the bed of
cut off trench should be grouted.
 Sheet Piling Cutoffs
Steel sheet pile may be driven into soft alluvium
➢ Depth to bed rock
➢ Used in combination with partial cutoff to seal lower horizons
➢ limited to use in foundations of silt, sand, and fine gravel
( not convenient for cobbles or boulders)
➢ Not suitable for cobbles/boulders as these formations cause
misalignment/ open joints, interlock liable to tear-off, making
an ineffective barrier.
➢ Twin steel sections may be used with interior filled with
cement grout
➢ Not completely water tight
➢ 80-90% effective if good work
➢ Poor workmanship, efficiency less than 50%
 Horizontal U/s Impervious Blanket

➢ constructed of impervious material extending u/s of the dam face and

connected with impervious core of the dam embankment
➢ used in conjunction with partial cutoff
➢ Blanket is generally used for a stream channel or valley floor of sand and
gravel
➢ Blanket thickness 10% of dam height (minimum 10 feet) at dam face to
minimum 3 ft at outer end
➢ Blanket protected from erosion by 2-3 ft thick riprap over gravel bedding
➢ Length of blanket governed by desired reduction in seepage flow
➢ Blanket may not eliminate piping in naturally stratified soils as high
pressures may exist in one or more strata at d/s toe of the dam
Horizontal d/s impervious blanket
➢ impermeable horizontal blanket may also be provided at d/s of
dam to lengthen seepage path and reduce seepage

➢ must be designed to resist uplift pressure. This is done by

providing berm of random fill material to add weight over the
impermeable layer
 Sand Gravel Foundations
➢ Gravel/sand foundation has enough bearing/shear strength to
support small to medium earthfill and rockfill dams
➢ However, these foundations are very conducive to
seepage and need suitable treatment for seepage and uplift
pressure control

The design criteria require control of seepage flow through the

foundation and abutments
The pervious foundation may be either exposed or covered at the
surface.
 Case I: Exposed Foundation
a. Shallow Foundation ( a depth approximately equal to or less than the height of the
dam, but should not exceed about 50 feet).
➢ Provide a positive (complete) cutoff to bedrock.
➢ Grouting of bedrock, if needed.
➢ Horizontal drainage blanket not necessary if shallow pervious foundation can
act as filter and provide adequate drainage.

➢ If rockfill at d/s portion of dam, provide DB from d/s slope to the impervious
zone/core.
➢ If positive cutoff not practical due to lack of materials, short construction
season, wet climate, high dewatering cost, then other methods of cutoff be
used.
b) Intermediate Depth Foundation (the distance to the impervious layer is too great for a
cutoff trench, but can be economically reached by another type of positive cutoff)

• Positive cutoff trench may be less economical

• Provide other methods of cutoff (sheet pile, slurry trench etc).
• Provide minimum impervious zone/core B (1½:1 u/s slope and 1:1 d/s slope)
• Provide drainage blanket of filter grade if i) overlying zone is impervious or ii)
overlying zone is rockfill, iii) piping potential is present
• Provide key trench
C: Deep Depth Foundation
• Foundation too deep for a positive cutoff
• Provide u/s impermeable blanket in continuation of impermeable core.
• Minimum core B
• Provide key trench
• At d/s of embankment, provide adequate thickness of previous or impervious (random
fill) materials (berm) to improve stability against high uplift pressures.

▪ Provide toe drains

• For foundations of high K, which cause extensive seepage, ponding and sand boils, then
provide drainage trenches, pressure relief wells, extension of d/s toe of dam or blanket on
d/s area.
• For deep stratified layers, provide partial cutoff and u/s blanket
• Some seepage inadvertent
Case 2: Covered Pervious Foundations
• the type of treatment depends on the thickness and imperviousness of the layer
covering the pervious zone and on the permeability of the underlying pervious
layer
▪ If the overlaying layer is equal to or less than a few feet thick (say 3 ft), ignore
this and consider conditions for case 1(exposed pervious foundation)
▪ If the overlaying layer is greater than 3 feet and less than the hydraulic head
➢ Assess the suitability of the upstream covering(the thickness, continuity, impervious
qualities, and upstream distance of the natural deposit) and decide to use it or ignore
➢ Provisions should be made to relieve uplift pressures at the downstream toe and to
remove the seepage When the dam embankment is homogeneous
or when the downstream zone has
questionable permeability, a horizontal
drainage blanket is constructed

Fig Overlying impervious layer penetrated by drainage

ditch
 Silt and Clay Foundations
Characteristics
➢ Foundation of fine grained soil (silt, clay) are sufficiently impermeable and
thus no danger of under seepage and piping
➢ Main problem is stability against consolidation and shear failure due
to low bearing/shear strength
➢ Characteristics depend on location of water table, and compactness of soil
➢ Weak soils need to be treated for improving strength
Relatively Dry Foundations
➢ These soils exhibit large strength at its present dryness
➢ The relative density of the material indicates the potential/danger of
soil on compression
➢ Many soils will undergo quick and sudden volume reduction on
wetting/saturating on reservoir filling
➢ Dense soils which will undergo small compaction on loading and wetting
may be used as foundation for dams.
➢ Pre-wetting of soil before loading improves its strength on loading.
➢ Large compaction and could cause serious rupture/weak section for dam
core materials and consequent dam failure
➢ Drainage must be assured by an underlying pervious layer or by a
vertical drainage.
 Treatments
1) Pre-consolidation
2) Densification of cohesionless soils (Vibration)
3) Dynamic compaction
The shear strength can be increased by
I. Removing the soil of low shear strength
II. Providing drainage of foundation to permit settlement on drainage and
increase of strength during construction.
• Vertical drains may be provided to facilitate consolidation.
• practical for low embankments
III. Reducing the magnitude of the average shear stress along the potential surface
of sliding by flattening the slopes of the embankment
Design of embankment dams to withstand earthquakes
EFFECT OF EARTHQUAKE ON EMBANKMENT DAMS
Earthquakes can affect embankment dams by causing any of the following:
➢ Settlement and cracking of the embankment
➢ Instability of the upstream and downstream slopes of the dam;
➢ Reduction of freeboard due to settlement or instability which may, in the
worst case, result in overtopping of the dam;
➢ Differential movement between the embankment, abutments and
spillway structures leading to cracks;
➢ Internal erosion and piping which may develop in cracks;
➢ Liquefaction or loss of shear strength due to increase in pore pressures
induced by the earthquake in the embankment and its foundations;
➢ Overtopping of the dam by waves due to earthquake induced landslides
into the reservoir from the valley sides;
➢ Damage to outlet works passing through the embankment leading to
leakage and potential piping erosion of the embankment.
Four main issues to consider

➢ The general (or “defensive”) design of the dam

• Provision of filters
• Provision of zones with good drainage capacity (e.g. free draining rockfill);
➢ The stability of the embankment during and immediately after the earthquake;
➢ Deformations induced by the earthquake (settlement, cracking) and dam
freeboard;
➢ The potential for liquefaction of saturated sandy and silty soils and some gravels
with a sand and silt matrix in the foundation, and possibly in the embankment,
and how this affects stability and deformations during and immediately after the
earthquake.

LIQUEFACTION OF DAM EMBANKMENTS AND FOUNDATIONS

“Liquefaction”
All phenomena giving rise to a reduction in shearing resistance and stiffness, and
development of large strains as a result of increase in pore pressure under cyclic or
monotonic (static) loading of contractive soils
➢ Occurs when the effective stress of a soil is reduced to essentially zero, which
corresponds to a complete loss of shear strength
 ➢ Soil starting at A and subject to cyclic
loading, which would otherwise have
ended at B, will in fact have stresses
represented by C where total stress σo is
taken by σf’ and Δu’. The pore pressures
must increase to maintain equilibrium in
this undrained condition.
➢ The pore pressures build up gradually
with the number of cycles of loading and
only if the pore pressures build up to
equal the total stress, does the “initial
liquefaction” (effective stress 0)
condition occur.
Schematic illustration of mechanism of pore pressure generation during cyclic loading
Soils susceptible to liquefaction
➢ Saturated sands, silty sands, and gravelly sands are susceptible to liquefaction.

Limits in the particle size gradation curves separating liquefiable and unliquefiable soils
The resistance of the cohesionless soil to liquefaction will depend on the density of the
soil, confining stresses, soil structure (fabric, age and cementation), the magnitude and
duration of the cyclic loading, and the extent to which shear stress reversal occurs
SEISMIC STABILITY ANALYSIS OF EMBANKMENTS

The methods of analysis currently used in practice to evaluate seismic stability of

embankment dams vary widely, ranging from simple limit equilibrium type
analyses to highly sophisticated numerical modeling techniques. These include:
➢ Pseudo-static analysis
➢ Simplified methods of deformation analysis
➢ Numerical modelling techniques
▪ total stress
▪ effective stress.

Pseudo-static analysis
➢ was the standard method of stability assessment for embankment dams under
earthquake loading.
➢ The approach involved a conventional limit equilibrium stability analysis,
incorporating a horizontal inertia force to represent the effects of earthquake
loading.
➢ The inertia force was often expressed as a product of a seismic coefficient “k”
and the weight of the sliding mass W
Numerical methods
• Numerical modelling techniques such as the finite element method were
first applied to the dynamic analysis of embankment dams by Clough and
Chopra (1966).
• In this approach the dam is idealized as a two-dimensional plane strain or
plane-stress finite element system, the reservoir being regarded as a
continuum. The foundation zone is generally idealized as a finite element
system equivalent to a viscoelastic half-space.
• The dynamic numerical codes used in practice may be divided into two main
categories:
➢ total stress codes, and
➢ effective stress codes (Zienkiewicz et al., 1986; Finn, 1993).
 Simplified methods of deformation analysis for dams where
liquefaction and significant strain weakening do not occur

• There are a number of approaches for estimating the

deformations of a dam which may occur during an
earthquake. These include:
(a) Empirical methods based on recorded deformations,
dam geometry and earthquake loading e.g. Swaisgood
(1998), Pells and Fell (2002, 2003) extended this to include an
empirical method to assess whether cracking would occur;
(b) Integration of the displacements which occur when the
earthquake loading exceeds the available strength e.g.
Newmark (1965) and developments of that approach using
simplified numerical analyses programs such as SHAKE;
(c) Developments of the Newmark (1965) approach to allow
for dynamic response of the embankment e.g. Makdisi and
Seed (1978).
• Here we will discuss only the first approach and you may further
read the next approaches from the text book.
• Swaisgood (1998) recommended the following equations to
predict settlement:
CS = SEF x RF
• where CS is the vertical crest settlement expressed as a
percentage of the dam height plus the alluvium thickness. SEF is
the seismic energy factor and RF is the resonance factor.
• These factors are calculated from:
SEF= e(0.72M+6.28 PGA–9.1)
• in which M is the magnitude of the earthquake, and PGA is the
peak horizontal ground acceleration at the dam site as a fraction
of the acceleration due to gravity
• RF = 2.0 D0.35 for earthfill dams
= 8.0 D0.35 for hydraulic fill dams
= 0.12 D0.61 for rockfill embankments
– in which D is the distance between seismic energy
source and dam, in kilometres
Pells and Fell empirical method for estimating
settlement, damage and cracking
• Pells and Fell (2002, 2003) gathered data from 305
dams, 95 of which reported cracking, and
classified these for damage according to the
system shown in Table next slide.
• Figures shown in the following slides (Fell et.
2005) show plots of damage contours versus
earthquake magnitude and peak ground
acceleration for earthfill and earth and rockfill
dams
 DEFENSIVE DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR EMBANKMENT DAMS
❖ Apply logical, commonsense measures to the design of the dam, to take
account of the cracking, settlement and displacements which may occur as the
result of an earthquake.
❖ As important (probably more so) as attempting to calculate accurately the
stability during earthquake or the likely deformations.

The most important measures which can be taken are:

➢ Provide ample freeboard to allow for settlement

➢ Use well designed and constructed filters downstream of the earthfill core to
control erosion if the core (or face) being cracked in the earthquake. Filters
should be taken up to the dam crest level, so they will be effective in the event
of large crest settlements, which are likely to be associated with transverse
cracking. For larger dams, full width filters (2.5 m to 3 m) might be adopted
instead of narrower (1.5m say) filters placed by spreader boxes.
➢ Provide ample drainage zones to allow for discharge of flow through possible
cracks in the core
➢ Avoid, densify, drain (to be non-saturated) or remove potentially liquefiable
materials in the foundation or in the embankment
➢ The foundation under the core should be shaped to avoid sharp changes in
profile across the valley. These are likely to make the core more susceptible
to cracking due to differential settlement under earthquake (and normal)
loading.
➢ Use a well-graded filter zone upstream of the core to act as a crack stopper,
possibly only to be applied in the upper part of the dam
➢ Locate the core to minimize the degree of saturation of materials (e.g. use
sloping upstream core).
➢ Stabilize slopes around the reservoir rim (and appurtenant structures such
as spillways) to prevent slides into the reservoir or onto the structures
 Elements of Dam Design
▪ The preliminary dam section design will mainly comprises dam height, dam
zoning, crest size and fixing the side slopes of the dam.
▪ For fixing the height of the dam it is necessary to determine the normal storage
level and of course the free board.
▪ The normal storage level or also called maximum storage level or normal pool
level is basically fixed after detailed analysis of the hydrologic study.
▪ The dam zoning are done in terms of imperviousness requirement and slope
stability demands.
▪ The dam crest is a function of several factor such as stability, seepage length and
road requirements.
▪ The side slopes are basically determined by stability requirements in terms of
the material used for construction and also the height of the dam.
General Design Criteria Of Earthfill Dams

➢ Stability
➢ Control of Seepage
➢ Overtopping and Free Board
➢ Maximum Flood Evacuation
➢ Upstream Slope Protection
➢ Outlet and Ancillary Works
 i. Dam Height Determination
a. Axis Alignment
- Axes of embankment dams are usually made straight or of the most
economical alignment fitting the topography and foundation conditions
- Thin abutment ridges should be avoided as much as possible.

b. Freeboard Computation

Freeboard: is the vertical distance between the crest of the embankment (without
camber) and the reservoir water surface.

Normal Freeboard: vertical distance between the crest of the embankment and the
Normal Water Level.

Minimum Freeboard: vertical distance between the crest of the embankment and the
Maximum Water Level.
Freeboard Design Considerations
✓ Wind-generated wave action, wind setup, and wave runup;
✓ Earthquake and/or landslide-generated waves and runup;
✓ Post-construction settlement of embankment dams and foundations;
✓ Provision for malfunction of spillways (especially gated structures) and outlet
works, and
✓ Site-specific uncertainties including flood hydrology
First Approximations for Freeboard Requirements

i. USBR Detailed Studies (Wave based calculations- Minimum free board)

The computations are based on significant wave height

 Definition of Terms for Design Wave Parameters

Where L is the deep water wave length in feet and T in seconds

Significant wave height (Hs, in feet) and wave period (T) are first computed from the design
wind and effective fetch (Fe) using design charts, L is also in feet
Wave run-up (R) is defined as the vertical height above still-
water level (SWL) to which water from an incident wave will
run up the face of the dam

For embankment dams with smooth upstream faces, the computed run-up is increased by a
factor of 1.5.
Source: US Army Corps of
Wind setup (S in feet) is computed as follows Engineers (USACE 1989)

Where Uf is the design wind velocity over water (mile/hour), and D = average water
depth along the fetch (feet) and F is the fetch in feet (normally equals 2 Fe.)
Freeboard (minimum) required = R + S
Fig for Wave periods (T)
Fig Wave heights and minimum duration wind (Saville et al., 1962; USBR, 1981). Note 1
mile per hour= 1.6 km per hour
The effective fetch at a given station can be computed by Saville's Method
in which αi= angle (in degree) between the central radial and
radial I and Xi = length of projection of radial i on the central
radial

➢ Fetch lengths are usually drawn as straight

lines from the center of the point of interest,
here from the dam face to the opposite bank
➢ A trial and error approach should be used to
select the critical position on the dam and
direction of the central radial to give the
maximum effective fetch.
➢ The radials spanning 45° on each side of the
central radial should be used to compute the
effective fetch.
ii. The Molitor Stevenson formula

Fb = Hs + R + S
For F < 32 km

For F > 32 km Hs = 0.032 V .F

Example
An ogee spillway of crest length 12m has been provided to pass a
routed flood of 31.4m3/s for an earth dam. The dam is located in
an area where the wind velocity data shows that the maximum
recorded velocity is 80km/h, and from the topographic surveys
and reservoir planning studies, the following data are available.
• Minimum river bed level is 2522m asl
• Full reservoir water level is 2541.5m asl
• Fetch length at maximum reservoir level is 0.8km
Calculate the free board for the earth dam using the Molitor
Stevenson formula.
 Crest Design
In designing the dam crest of a small earthfill dam the following items
should be considered
✓ Width
✓ Drainage
✓ Camber
✓ Surfacing
✓ Safety requirements

Crest width W
The width W of the crest is governed by
➢ height of dam,
➢ importance of structure,
➢ width of highway,
➢ construction procedure,
➢ access required either during construction or as a
permanent feature
The crest width is, as a rule, determined empirically and largely by precedent experience.

1. According to the Bureau of Reclamation

w = H/5 + 10
where: w = width of crest in feet
H = height of dam, in feet, above the streambed

Crest width recommended for small dams – Bureau of Reclamation

2. Japanese code

W (m) = 3.6 H1/3– 3

3. empirical formula (Lewis, 2002)

Crest width (m) = H0.5 + 1

Camber
➢ The crest elevation is increased towards center of the dam by an amount equal to
future consolidation of dam foundation and embankment after completion of the
construction.
➢ Selection of amount of camber is somewhat arbitrary
➢ The camber is provided by increasing the u/s and d/s slopes near the crest of the
dam
➢ For non-compressible foundations, camber of about 1% of dam height is provided.
Surface Drainage

Surface drainage of crust be provided by a crown of at least 3”,

or by sloping towards the upstream floor. For wider crest 2%
slope is adequate.

Surfacing

➢ Crest surface should be protected against damage from

wave splash, rainfall, wind, frost and traffic wear
➢ A layer of fine rock or gravely material of 4 inches minimum
thickness be provided
➢ If a highway is carried across the dam, then crest width and
surfacing must conform to highway codes.
Safety Requirements
➢ providing metallic or concrete guard rails on both shoulders
of the crest
 Embankment Slopes and zoning
Embankment slopes are designed to ensure
➢ strength,
➢ stability and economy of construction: Flat slopes, more cost, more stability/strength;
Steeper, lower costs, stability or strength.
Embankment slopes
➢ may be continuous or discontinuous/berms
➢ may have a single slope over whole height, or multiple slopes
➢ The u/s and d/s slopes of the embankment and core are selected from general
guidelines, experiences in the light of foundation materials and materials
available for construction.
➢ The seepage analysis and stability of the selected dam section is carried out and
dam section may be acceptable if factor of safety for the dam under different
construction and operation conditions are found satisfactory
➢ Stability of the shape is analyzed under static loads as well as under seismic
conditions.
 The slope depends on
➢ materials available,
➢ foundation condition,
➢ dam height
➢ Coarser free draining materials allow steeper slopes, and finer materials
require flatter slope
➢ on the type of the dam and on the nature of materials for construction.

Zoned embankment
➢ All zoning schemes are based on the estimated quantities of required excavation and of
borrow area materials available.
➢ zoning scheme may divide the dam into two or more zones, depending on the range of
variation in the character and gradation of the materials available for construction.
➢ In general, the permeability of each zone should increase toward the outer slopes
Recommended slopes for small zoned earthfill dams on stable foundations

Type Shell material Core material No rapid Rapid

drawdown drawdown

U/s D/s U/s D/s

Min core A Rock, GW, GP, GC, GM, SC, SM, CL,
ML, CH, MH 2:1 2:1
SW, SP, gravely

Max core Rock, GW, GP, GC, GM 2:1 2:1 2½:1 2¼:1
SW, SP gravely
SC, SM 2¼:1 2¼:1 2½:1 2¼:1

CL, ML 2½:1 2½:1 3:1 2½:1

CH, MH 3:1 3:1 3½:1 3:1

 Shell materials
• Properties of shell materials according to Unified
Classification
Proctor compaction Compressibility, Shearing
Soil % strength
Optimum Permeability ,k
S.N Classification Max Dry
Moisture 10-6 cm/sec At 1.4 At 3.5
Group Density (t/m3) Tanɸ
Content (%) kg/cm2 kg/cm2
1. GM >1.82 <14.5 >0.3 < 1.2 <3.0 >0.67
2. GP >1.76 <12.4 (0.031 – 0.09) < 0.8 (.) >0.74
3. GM >1.82 <14.5 >0.3 < 1.2 <3.0 >0.67
4. GM >1.82 <14.5 >0.3 < 1.2 <3.0 >0.67
5. GM >1.82 <14.5 >0.3 < 1.2 <3.0 >0.67
6. GP >1.76 <12.4 (0.031 – 0.09) < 0.8 (.) >0.74
7. GP >1.76 <12.4 (0.031 – 0.09) < 0.8 (.) >0.74
8. GM >1.82 <14.5 >0.3 < 1.2 <3.0 >0.67
9. GP >1.76 <12.4 (0.031 – 0.09) < 0.8 (.) >0.74
10. GP >1.76 <12.4 (0.031 – 0.09) < 0.8 (.) >0.74
Design of Impervious Core
The core of a dam is built within the embankment to form the impermeable barrier, the
shell and other part of the dam being provided to ensure stability.
-The core is usually designed by use of natural materials such as clay, sandy clay, clayey
sand, clayey gravel, silty sand, etc.
 Size range of impervious core for zoned embankment

Impervious Core
➢ Pervious or impervious foundation with positive cut off - provide minimum core A
(top width 10ft, base = Z, symmetric)
➢ Exposed pervious foundations or covered pervious foundation (cover < 3 ft). No
positive cutoff-minimum core B
➢ For core greater than maximum core, outer shells become ineffective in stabilizing
the dam and embankment may be considered as homogenous for stability analysis.
➢ Core smaller than minimum core – dam as diaphragm type.
➢ Impervious cover over foundation more than 3feet- select between core A and
core B depending on extent and effectiveness of the core.
➢ Top of the core kept 3-5 ft below crest to safeguard against weathering
 Impervious Core Thickness
There is no definite rule for determining the safe thickness of the core. It is governed by
different factors such as:
-Tolerable seepage loss.
-Minimum width for proper construction.
-Type of material available.
-Design of the proposed filter layer

- Sherard et al. (1963) suggested the following criteria:

1) Cores with a width of 30% to 50% of the water head have proved
satisfactory for any soil type and dam height
2) Cores with a width of 15% to 20% of the water head are considered thin but
with adequately designed and constructed filter layers, they are satisfactory
under most circumstances
3) Cores with widths of much less than 10% of the water head have not been
used widely.
Thomas (1976) suggested that a common value for the core thickness is about
one-half of the dam height at that particular section – with a minimum above
reservoir flood level
Control of Seepage, Internal erosion & piping for embankment dams
Design Objective:
- the objective is to ensure that the dam has adequate measures to control seepage
and potential internal erosion so that:
A)Pore pressures in the dam and foundation are such that there is an adequate margin
of safety against slope stability.
B)Internal erosion, which might progress to form a pipe and breach the dam, will not
occur
These Objectives are achieved by zoning of the dam, provision of filters and high
seepage discharge capacity zones and other embankment design and foundation
treatment measures. The design features are
❖ Impervious core
❖ Cutoff trench
❖ Chimney filter drain
❖ Grouting
❖ Shell zones
❖ Horizontal filter drain
❖ D/S Weighing berm
❖ Upstream blanket
- Seepageoccurs through all embankment dams & foundation.
-The permeability of most compacted earthfill core materials is

-By comparison, virtually all rock foundations

have rock mass
permeability greater than 1 Lugeon (approximately 1x10-7 m/s.)
And most rocks have greater than 5 Lu.
-Foundations of
alluvial or deeply weathered and lateritised rock,
may have mass permeability as high as 10-3 – 10-5 m/s.

Most of the seepage is through the foundation, not

embankment
Details of some measures for pore pressure and seepage flow control
Horizontal and vertical drains
❖ Seepage beneath a dam on a permeable soil (or permeable weathered rock)
foundation should be allowed to exit in a controlled manner into a horizontal
drain.
❖ The horizontal drain should have sufficient capacity

Fig Earth dam with internal drains of sufficient capacity

Earth dam with internal drains of inadequate capacity
 Filter Design and Construction
❖ Filters in embankment dams and their foundations are required to perform two
basic functions:
A)Prevent erosion of soil particles from the soil they are protecting.
B)Allow drainage of seepage water.
❖ Filters are usually identified in terms of their particle size distribution.
❖ They are required to be sufficiently fine, relative to the particle size they are
protecting (the “base soil”), to achieve function A, while being sufficiently
coarse to achieve function B.
a) Filter Design Criteria
❖ Filter design practice have basically evolved from the concepts of Terzhagi
(1926), who proposed that:
D15 is the size at which 15 percent
of the total soil particles are
smaller; the percentage is by
weight as determined by
mechanical analysis
Several filter design methods are currently available that are based on
extensive laboratory test results (eg. by USBR and USACE).
USBR Method
- The USBR method was widely used for design
The original USBR method (1977) is:
Currently widely USBR method (1987) is:
(Recommended Method)
Filter design steps ( based on Sherard’s research, FEMA, and other studies)
Step 1: Plot the gradation curve (grain-size distribution) of the base soil material
➢ Use enough samples to define the range of grain sizes for the base soil or soils.
Step 2: Proceed to step 4 if the base soil contains no gravel (material larger than No. 4
sieve).
Step 3: Prepare adjusted gradation curves for base soils that have particles larger than the
No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve.
Step 4: Place the base soil in a category determined by the percent passing the No. 200
(0.075 mm) sieve from the regraded gradation curve data according to table 26–1.
Step 5: To satisfy filtration requirements, determine the maximum allowable D15 size for
the filter in accordance with the table 26–2.
Label the maximum D15 size Control point 1
Step 6: If permeability is a requirement, determine the minimum allowable D15 in
accordance with table 26–3. Note: The permeability requirement is determined
from the d15 size of the base soil gradation before regrading.
Label the minimum D15 size Control point 2.

Step 7: The width of the allowable filter design band must be kept relatively narrow to
prevent the use of possibly gap-graded filters. Adjust the maximum and
minimum D15 sizes for the filter band determined in steps 5 and 6 so that the
ratio is 5 or less at any given percentage passing of 60 or less. Criteria are
summarized in table 26–4.
Step 8: The designed filter band must not have an extremely broad range of
particle sizes to prevent the use of possibly gap-graded filters. Adjust
the limits of the design filter band so that the coarse and fine sides
have a coefficient of uniformity of 6 or less. The width of the
filter band should be such that the ratio of maximum to minimum
diameters is less than or equal to 5 for all percent passing values of 60
or less.
Calculate a maximum D10 value equal to the maximum
D15 size divided by 1.2. (This factor of 1.2 is based on the
assumption that the slope of the line connecting D15 and
D10 should be on a coefficient of uniformity of about 6)

➢ Calculate the maximum permissible D60 size by multiplying the

maximum D10 value by 6. Label this Control point 3

➢ Determine the minimum allowable D60 size for the fine side of
the band by dividing the determined maximum D60 size by 5.
Label this Control point 4.
Step 9: Determine the minimum D5 and maximum D100 sizes of the filter according
to table 26–5.
Label as Control points 5 and 6, respectively
Step 10: To minimize segregation during construction, the relationship between the
maximum D90 and the minimum D10 of the filter is important.
Calculate a preliminary minimum D10 size by dividing the minimum D15 size by 1.2
Determine the maximum D90 using table 26–6. Label this as Control point 7.

Step 11: Connect Control points 4, 2, and 5 to form a partial design for the fine side of the
filter band. Connect Control points 6, 7, 3, and 1 to form a design for the coarse
side of the filter band. This results in a preliminary design for a filter band.
Complete the design by extrapolating the coarse and fine curves to the 100
percent finer value.

Step 12: Design filters adjacent to perforated pipe to have a D85 size no smaller than shown
in table 26–7.
Example for filter design
Given the following base soil data, determine filter gradation limits for the
base soil.
The most important function of the filter is to act as a filter.

Sieve size % passing

No 10 100
No 200 90
0.05mm 80
0.02mm 60
0.005mm 40
0.002mm 32
Solution
Step 1.
Plot the gradation curve of the base soil
Use excel for this.
Step 2
Check if base soil contains no gravel (>No 4 sieve size or 4.75mm
size)
Given base soil has 100% finer than No 4 sieve size.
No need to re-grade (Proceed to step 4)
Step 4
Identify the category of the base soil based on the % passing No
200 (0.075mm) sieve and Table 26-1
The given soil has 90% finer than No 200 sieve size and from table
26-1
Soil is in category 1.
 Step 5
Determine maximum allowable D15 size for the filter (Table 26-2)
Max D15 filter <=9D85 of base soil but not less than 0.2mm
<=9*0.06=0.54mm (not <0.2mm)
Take this as control point 1

Step 6
Determine minimum D15 of filter (permeability requirement and Table
26-3)
Minimum D15 of filter>=4*D15 base soil, bot not less than 0.1mm
The given base soil doesn’t have a meaningful D15 size. The data show
that the base soil has 32% finer than 0.002mm, the smallest particle
size. Therefore, use the default value of 0.1mm for the minimum D15
of the filter.
(control point 2)
Therefore, preliminary minimum D15 filter= 0.1mm (control point
2)
Step 7
Preventing the use of possibly gap graded filter
i.e (Max. D15 size/ Min. D15 size) <=5 (Table 26-4)

In this case, 0.54/0.1= 5.4 (slightly greater than 5)

A slight adjustment is needed. The minimum D15 is the control
because filtering is stated as the most important purpose (
prevention of migration of fine materials)
Hence, adjust max D15 size.
Adjusted max D15 size of filter = 0.1*5= 0.5mm
This is the final control point 1.
Step 8
Uniformity coefficient criteria
D60
Cu = 6
D10
Determine max. D60 size of the filter. To do this, divide max.D15
size of filter by 1.2 (the factor 1.2 is based on the assumption that
the slope of the line connecting D15 and D10 should be on a
coefficient of uniformity of about 6.
Max. D10=Max.D15/1.2= 0.42mm
Max. D60 size = 0.42*6=2.5mm
This is control point 3.
Determine min. D60 size of the filter (table 26-4)
(Max D60/Min.D60)<=5 (The width of the designed filter band
should be such that the ratio of the max. diameter to the min.
diameter at any given % passing value <=60% is <=5)
Hence, min. D60= 2.5/5=0.5mm
This is control point 4.
Step 9
determine min. D5 and max. D100 sizes of the filter (Table 26-5)
Min. D5 value = 0.075mm
This is control point 5
Max. D100 size of filter = 3 inch or 75mm
This is control point 6

Step 10
Determine max. D90 of filter (Minimize segregation during
construction (Table 26-6)
To do this, determine min. D10 size bydividing the minimum D15
size by 1.2.
Minimum D10 size= min. D15 size/1.2= 0.1/1.2= 0.083mm
From Table 26-6, since min. D10<0.5mm, Max D90 size= 20mm
This is control point 7
Step 11
Connect control points 4,2 and 5 for the fine side of the filter band
Connect control points 6,7,3 and 1 for the coarse side of the filter
band.

Step 12
For this design the filter will not be used around a perforated pipe
(this step is not applicable)

See the graph on the next slide

 100
6
90
7
Base soil
80

70
Filter
Finer side Filter
60
4 3 Coarse side
% passing

50

40

30

20

10
2 1
0
0.001 0.01
5 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size
FOR THE EXAMPLE
Slope Protection
Upstream slope protection
❖ The upstream slopes of earthfill and earth & rockfill dams need protection from
erosion by wave action on the reservoir.

Methods of protecting upstream slopes include:

❖ dumped riprap
❖ precast and cast-in-place concrete pavements
❖ soil cement and shotcrete, etc.

Modern dams are generally protected by dumped rock, known as

dumped rip-rap or simply rip-rap.
u/s slope protection by angular rock riprap

Typical rip-rap layer for the protection of the

upstream slope (Lewis, 2002).
Upstream slope protection (ctd.)
General requirements:
Rip-rap comprises quarried blocks of rock which have to be:
 Design of riprap
Placement
Dumping
➢ The riprap is dumped from hauling trucks onto the prepared
surface
Hand Packed rock Riprap
➢ Laid by hand in a more or less definite pattern with minimum
amount of voids and with top surface relatively smooth.
Sizing and layer thickness
- The sizing of rock needed for rip-rap and the layer thickness
required are determined from the size of the waves expected.

I. Rip-Rap layer recommended by U.S. Corps of Engineers

 ii. Using equations (Rip-Rap layer) by Davis

iii. By Novak
M = 103 x Hs 3 where M=mass of stone required (kg), and Hs =significant
wave height (m).
The size of riprap is estimated as: D = [7 W / 5 γ]1/3 where D =
stone size (ft), W = stone weight (lbs), γ = bulk unit weight
(lbs/cft).
iv) Dimensions of upstream rip-rap (French Guidelines on Small Dams)

Design of filters under rip-rap

There are two requirements for filters under rip-rap:
❖ That they are coarse enough not to wash out of the rip-rap
❖ That they are fine enough to prevent erosion of the soil beneath
the filter.
 Upstream slope protection (ctd.)
-Generally, design of filter under rip-rap is not as critical as for
ordinary Zone 2A filters. Thus, it is fairly common to use more
relaxed filter criteria.
-If there is a reasonably well-graded sandy gravel /gravely sand, from 0.075
mm to 50 mm or 75 mm available, this should be satisfactory in most cases
 Downstream slope protection
General requirements

- Berms should be provided at no greater than 10 m vertical intervals

Seepage Through Dams
➢ The two dimensional flow of fluid through porous soil can be
expressed by Laplace’s equation
For most practical geotechnical
problems, it is simpler to solve this
equation graphically by drawing flow
nets.
 Flow Nets
➢ A flow net consists of two sets of curves – equipotentials and flow lines – that
intersect each other at 90°.
➢ Along an equipotential, the total head is constant.
➢ A pair of adjacent flow lines define a flow channel through which the rate of
flow of pore fluid is constant.
➢ The loss of head between two successive equipotentials is called the
equipotential drop.

Typical Flow Nets

 Flow Rate Calculation using a Flow Net
• Consider groundwater flow through a single flow element shown
in the figure
• The flow rate through this element, q, is given by:

[k – permeability of soil]

• If the element is a curvilinear

square, i.e. b = l, the above equation
reduces to:

For NF number of flow channels, NH number of equipotential drops

and an overall head drop of H:

Therefore, the expression for flow rate per

unit length, qT, can be obtained as:
• The total flow rate, QT, is given
by:
L is the length perpendicular to
the 2-D seepage plane
Entrances and Exits
The lines defining the area where water enters or leaves the pervious soil
mass are known as entrances or exits, respectively
Entrances and exits are also called reservoir boundaries
Surface of Seepage
The saturated pervious soil mass may have a boundary exposed to the
atmosphere and allow water to escape along this boundary, line GE, figure
below. Pressure along this surface is atmospheric. The surface of seepage may
also be called a seepage face

Examples of boundary conditions

Line of Seepage
➢ Known also as the free surface, this boundary is located within the pervious soil
where water is at atmospheric pressure, line DG, figure above
Entrance and exit conditions for a line of seepage (phreatic line)
Definition of Unknown Seepage Boundaries and Calculation of Flow
per Unit Length of Embankment, q
a. Homogeneous Earth Dam on Impervious Foundation
➢ It is desired to define the flow and pressure distribution within the
embankment and total flow through the embankment
➢ first step is determination of the upper flow line (which is the line of seepage
boundary) and the length of the seepage exit face on the downstream slope of
the earth dam.

➢ A parabola, shown by the dashed line, is the basic geometric member used to
define the location and extent of the two boundaries.
Determination of line of seepage and seepage exit face for embankments on
impervious foundations

➢ Embankment geometry and head water elevation provide values for h , m and
α which allow location of points A and B and determination of distance, d.
 i. α< 30º Schaffernak-Van Iterson
Construction of basic parabola

D is d/s end
of dam and
focus of
parabola
F is vertex of
parabola

➢ Direct determination of a and q

➢ Locate point A
➢ Locate d and yo by scribing an arc, with radius DA through point E. Also locate F
➢ Line AG, parallel to the embankment base and horizontal axis of the parabola, is drawn
and divided into an equal number of segments (6 in this case)
➢ Line GF, the vertical tangent to the parabola, located at yo/2 from the downstream toe of
the embankment is divided into the same number of equal segments as line AG. The
points dividing line AG into segments are connected with point F. The intersection of
these lines with their counterpart lines drawn from the points on line GF define the
parabola. Thus the basic parabola, dashed line A-F, is defined
ii. α = 180° Kozeny ( With horizontal drainage filter)

➢ Locate point B0 on the water surface at a distance 0.3 L from B.

➢ The basic parabola has to pass through B0 and have its focus at F which is the starting
point of the horizontal drainage.
➢ With centre B0 and radius B0F, draw an arc to meet the water line at C. Draw the
vertical line CD which is the directrix. Let FD, the focal distance = yo. Bisect the
distance FD to get the point E, the vertex of the parabola.

➢ if (x y) is one point on the parabola,

 Horizontal filter (Blanket) length
• The horizontal filter extends from the toe (d/s
end) of the dam, inward, up to a distance
varying from 25% to 100% of the distance of
the toe from the center line of the dam.
• Generally a length equal to three times the
height of the dam is sufficient.
iii. With inclined discharge face (α between 30o to 180o )

➢ Construct the basic parabola

➢ Determine the point, Co , as shown in figure, where the basic parabola intercepts the
downstream slope
➢ Measure the distance a +Δa or calculate from

➢ Knowing α , c can be found in next figure and Δa calculated

 iv. With rock toe (Rock toe drain)

➢ For a rock toe, an appropriate value of α, measured clockwise from the horizontal base
should be taken and the value of
read from the curve given

➢ The parabola is corrected at the egress point.

• Discuss how to draw the parabola to determine the upper
line of seepage for an earth Dam with Vertical or near
Vertical and Horizontal Drains on Impervious Foundation
(shown below)
• Show an indicative position of the parabola
v. Earth Dam with Vertical or near Vertical Horizontal Drains on Impervious
Foundation.

➢ The method recommended by A. Casagrande for drawing the parabola to

determine the upper line of seepage can be used.
➢ The interface of the core and inclined drain is used as the downstream slope
for the seepage face since the drain has a much higher permeability than the
core material.
➢ Provision must be made in sizing the drain to pass all the water coming out of
the core without building up a tailwater on the downstream slope of the core.
• Discuss how to draw the parabola to determine the
upper line of seepage for an earth dam with a zoned
section shown.
• Show an indicative position of the parabola
vi. Phreatic line for a zoned section

❖ The effect of the outer zone can be neglected altogether

❖ Focus of base parabola located on d/s toe of core
❖ The phreatic line can then be drawn as usual (previous discussions)
Slope Stability
General Considerations
- Stability analyses are conducted with the following aims:
I. To determine the factor of safety for various slip surfaces of upstream and
downstream slopes under steady state seepage condition with or without
earthquake.
-Usually done for the long-term stability assessment.
-Based on the reservoir at Full Supply Level.
-In reality it may take many years to reach steady state condition in the dam core.

ii. To determine the factor of safety for various slip surfaces of upstream slope under
sudden drawdown condition.
-performed for conditions occurring when the water level adjacent to the
slope is lowered rapidly.
-Stabilizing influence of the water pressure on upstream slope is lost.
-Water level dropped rapidly that the pore pressure in the slope do not
have time to reach equilibrium. For analysis purpose, no drainage
occurs in materials with low permeability.
- Rapid drawdown: Drawdown rates of 6 inches or more per day after
prolonged storage at high reservoir levels (USBR, Design of Small Dams).

iii. To determine the factor of safety for various slip surfaces of upstream and
downstream slopes during and end of construction condition
-Performed using drained strengths in free-draining materials and
undrained strengths in materials that drain slowly.
 Stability Analysis and Design Procedure
Slope stability involves the following chain of events
➢ Explore and sample foundation and borrow sources
➢ Characterize the soil strength
➢ Establish the 2-D idealization of the cross section, including the surface geometry
and the subsurface boundaries between the various materials of the dam
➢ Establish the seepage (pore water pressures) and groundwater conditions in the
cross section as measured or as predicted for the design load conditions
➢ Select loading conditions for analysis
➢ *Select trial slip surfaces and compute factors of safety using appropriate
method
➢ Repeat step * above until the “critical” slip surface has been located
➢ Compare the computed factor of safety with experienced-based criteria
Loading Conditions for Analysis
Loading conditions vary from the commencement of construction of the embankment until
the time when the embankment has been completed and has a full reservoir pool behind it.
Prominent loading conditions are
• End of Construction
• Sudden drawdown
• Steady seepage, normal pool
• Earthquake
Seismic Design

Pseudostatic Analysis
➢ Use of the pseudostatic method of stability analysis is
recommended for reasonably well-built dams on stable soil or rock
foundations, if estimated peak ground accelerations are less than
0.2g.
➢ A pseudostatic analysis represents the effects of earthquake
shaking by accelerations that create inertial forces.

The forces are defined as:

➢ The horizontal & vertical coefficient of acceleration (αh & αv ) can

be determined from the acceleration contours based on a design
base earthquake (DBE).
Figure: Seismic hazard map of Ethiopia and its Northern & Eastern neighboring countries
(for a probability of exceedance of 0.0033 or return period of 300 years)
Method of Slope Stability
- Stability Analysis of dams is usually carried out using Limit Equilibrium Methods.
- All limit equilibrium methods employ the same definition of the factor of safety
-Therefore, assumptions are made to make the problem statically determinate.
-The various limit equilibrium methods use different assumptions to make the number of
equations equal to the number of unknowns. They also differ with regard to which
equilibrium equations are satisfied.
Various methods of stability analysis
➢ The Ordinary, or Fellenius method
➢ Simplified Bishop (1955)
➢ Janbu (1957)
➢ Spencer (1967)
➢ Morgenstern and Price (1965)
➢ Corps of Engineers
The differences between the methods are depending on: what equations of statics are included
and satisfied and which interslice forces are included and what is the assumed relationship
between the interslice shear and normal forces?
 Ordinary or Fellenius Method (also Swedish method of slices )

➢ First method of slices developed

➢ All interslice forces are ignored
➢ The normal force on the base of the slice is calculated by summing forces in a
direction perpendicular to the bottom of the slice.
➢ Once the normal force is calculated, moments are summed about the center of
the circle to compute the factor of safety
➢ The factor of safety is computed from the equation

where
c' and φ' = shear strength parameters for the center of the base of the slice
W = weight of the slice, α = inclination of the bottom of the slice
u = pore water pressure at the center of the base of the slice
Δl = length of the bottom of the slice
Limitations
➢ Neglecting the forces on the sides of the slice
➢ Does not satisfy equilibrium of forces in either the vertical or horizontal directions
➢ Moment equilibrium is satisfied for the entire soil mass above the slip surface,
but not for individual slices
 Dam stability analysis by method of slices
Normal component of W force acting on bottom of slice: N = W cos α
Tangential component of weight: T = W sin α
 The Simplified Bishop Method
➢ is based on the assumption that the interslice forces are horizontal, as shown
in Figure below (i.e also ignores the interslice shear forces).
➢ The normal force on the base of the slice is perpendicular to the bottom of
the slice (similar to the ordinary method)
➢ A circular slip surface is also assumed in the Simplified Bishop Method.
➢ A simple form of the Bishop’s Simplified factor of safety equation in the
absence of any pore-water pressure is

where β is slice base length, and mα is defined by the following equation

α = inclination of the bottom of the slice

In summary, the Bishop’s Simplified method,

➢ considers horizontal interslice forces, but ignores
interslice shear forces, and
➢ satisfies over all moment equilibrium, but not overall
horizontal force equilibrium
 Morgenstern-Price method
The Morgenstern-Price method:
• Considers both shear and normal interslice forces,
• Satisfies both moment and force equilibrium, and
• Allows for a variety of user-selected interslice force function

Assumptions: Recall that

The Ordinary, or Fellenius method: Interslice forces completely ignored
(both magnitude and direction)
The Simplified Bishop Method: Considered interslice normal forces and
assumed to act horizontally

The method put out by Morgenstern and Price is considered to be the

most general limiting equilibrium method to date. What they proposed
is as follows,
1. Consider a different angle for each resultant force on each interface:
Let x be a horizontal axis starts from the toe toward the slope, this
assumption can be written as,
 where, Xi, Ei are the vertical and horizontal components of the side force
acting on interface i that has a coordinate of xi. f(x) is an arbitrary
function which should be specified in advance. f(x) can take any
shape.
2. Assume all these angles are related through an unknown scale factor, λ–
one additional unknown. In equation form, this becomes,

Spencer has simplified the Morgenstern and Price's method by assuming

that f(x) is a constant. In other words, Spencer poses the equation as,

That is, the angles of all resultant interslice forces are the same that have
to be solved.
 Example: half sine function (fig below)

• f(x) can take any

shape
• Assume all these
angles are related
through an unknown
scale factor, λ
 Interslice force function : How the interslice shear forces are handled and computed
General interslice shear forces are handled with an equation proposed by Morgenstern
and Price (1965). The equation is:
X = Eλ f (x)

where, f(x) is a function, λ is the percentage (in decimal form) of the function used, E is
the interslice normal force and X is the interslice shear force

W - slice weight
E - horizontal (normal) forces on the sides of
the slice
X - vertical (shear) forces between slices
N - normal force on the bottom of the slice
S - shear force on the bottom of the slice
Within the framework of Spencer's solution, the simplified Bishop method can be viewed as a
partial solution in that (1) the angle of the inter-slice force is assumed beforehand a fixed
number, tanθ=0 that is; and (2) only moment equilibrium is satisfied. Spencer has shown that
the factor of safety from moment equilibrium is not very sensitive to the angle of the inter-
slice force when a constant value is used. Thus Bishop was able to obtain a reasonable
solution.
Moment and Force Factors of Safety as a Function of the
Interslice Shear Force

By definition, lambda value is

determined where the two Factor of
Safety equations become equal
(Fƒ = Fm).
 Case histories of typical dam failures

i. Failure due to Overtopping

The South Fork Dam
The dam was located in western Pennsylvania, about 70 miles east of Pittsburgh(USA)
❖ The 72-foot high dam was an earthfill embankment, with the original construction
completed in 1852

❖ The reconstructed dam failed on May 31, 1889, due to overtopping failure during a
large flood.
❖ Over 2200 people were killed.
Several factors contributed to the dam failure, including:
➢ settlement of the dam resulted in lowering the dam crest at the maximum section
by about 6 inches (Frank, 1988)
➢ the lowering of the dam crest reduced surcharge capacity in the reservoir and
correspondingly reduced the spillway capacity;
➢ the bridge piers and the screens across the piers, in combination with debris that
was caught on the screens reduced the spillway capacity; and
ii. Failure due to inadequate investigation and design on the dam site and reservoir area
Baldwin Hills Dam in Los Angeles, California
❖ Designed as a homogeneous earth fill, the dam was 71 meters high and 198 meters long
On December 14, 1963, at about 11: 15 A.M., an unprecedented flow of water was heard
in the spillway pipe. The water came from drains under the reservoir lining
Geologic Setting

❖ Composed of sedimentary formations, principally of marine origin, overlying crystalline

schist at depths of 3050 to 3660 meters
❖ Several minor, steeply dipping faults were mapped in the Baldwin Hills during
construction
❖ The reservoir foundation consisted of sediments that were susceptible to densification
and erosion. During construction the formations were seen to be intensely jointed. Most
of the joints were tight, but a few had gaps of as much as 6 mm.
Design and Construction

❖ Construction began on January 13, 1947, and was completed on April 18, 1951
❖ The embankment was constructed of materials excavated from the reservoir bowl
❖ The design incorporated under drain systems and a reservoir lining
Fig. Baldwin Hills Reservoir lining
Surveillance
❖ Flows of the reservoir underdrains were measured at weirs in the inspection chamber
before discharge into a 24- in. (61-cm) outfall line, which connected to the spillway pipe.
❖ Flows in the embankment foundation drains were measured monthly. Throughout the
project operation no flows were observed in the drains for the embankments on the east,
west, and south sides.
❖ Periodic inspections were made of observation wells at the reservoir perimeter.
Reportedly there was never any water in these wells
History of Operation
In the early years of operation following the initial remedial work in 1951, the underdrains
required much maintenance
❖ Calcium carbonate deposits developed in the drains, requiring frequent cleaning. Clogging,
and possibly displacement of the drain tile, caused a reduction in the total seepage
entering the inspection chamber
❖ A crack was discovered in the drainage inspection chamber near Fault I
❖ the concrete encasement (for drains entering the inspection chamber) was found to be
cracked approximately 3.7 meters from the discharge end of the west toe drain
❖ Inspectors found some cracking in the thin cement coating on the asphaltic pavement
when the reservoir was emptied, and the lining cleaned and checked
❖ In the weeks immediately preceding failure an apparent uplift developed in the inlet
tunnel, the gate tower, and the part of the inspection chamber east of Fault I.
❖ In the final year of operation, the flows from discharging horizontal drains under the main
dam varied rapidly, followed by continued fluctuations
Post failure Conditions
After the failure,
❖ about 2 in. (5 cm) of fine silt and clay covered the reservoir floor.
❖ There was a continuous crack
❖ Vertical displacement averaged about 2 in. (5 cm), but was as much as 7 in. (18 cm)
❖ cavities were discovered beneath the gravel drain in some of the excavations
Analysis of Failure
Several investigators have offered premises about the cause and mechanism of the reservoir
failure.
❖ Hamilton and Meehan concluded in 1971 that fluid injection caused shear displacements
along Fault I, and that rupture propagating to the surface sheared the earth lining
❖ Casagrande et al believed differential settlement occurred and could be explained by the
greater compressibility of fractured and loosened material
In summary,
❖ the reservoir and its immediate environs were subjected to many adverse forces,
including horizontal and vertical displacement due to subsidence;
❖ Local breaking of the weak foundation; some erosion at the faults;
❖ rebound effects due to oil field repressurization,
❖ reservoir loading and unloading in 1951 and 1957, and the
❖ final inrush of water into the Fault zones at time of failure
 Lessons Learned

i. Foundations in erodible rocks must be thoroughly explored to disclose any preexisting

cavities/defects.
ii. The total prevention of leakage into a reservoir foundation over the lifetime of the facility may be
unattainable under usual circumstances.
iii. Associated faults that lie in close proximity and subparallel to an active fault should be regarded as
susceptible to movement in a seismic event.
iv. The possibility of differential fault movement unrelated to tectonic activity must be considered.
v. Potential effects of ground subsidence must be recognized in designing dams and reservoirs.
vi. External causes and effects of subsidence must be closely monitored.
vii. Foundation discontinuities should be given special treatment in construction.
viii. Rigid buried elements such as cemented drains should not be incorporated into designs where
differential settlement is a possibility.
ix. Drains should be amply sized and provided with access, where possible, to facilitate maintenance.
x. Application of sprayed asphalt as a reservoir seal must be questioned as to its long-term
effectiveness.
xi. Earth linings preferably should have appreciable plasticity.
xii. Erodible embankment and foundation elements must have adequate filter protection.
xiii. Structures placed across faults should be conservatively designed to accommodate predictable
movements.
xiv. The use of heavy construction equipment must be carefully controlled to avoid damage of critical
reservoir features on soft foundations.
xv. Surveillance of a reservoir must be extended to its environs and to the consequences of adjacent
developments and physical changes.