21st Century Dam Design

Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference

San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by
Black & Veatch Corporation
GEI Consultants, Inc.
Kleinfelder, Inc.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc.
URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide
a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions
imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117
feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the
United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision
To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams
for the benefit of society.
Mission USSD is dedicated to:
Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation,
performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety;
Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water
resources systems;
Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water
resources;
Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and
Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on
Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for
advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or
from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made
or the opinions expressed in this publication.
Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673
ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5
U.S. Society on Dams
1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org
Internet: www.ussdams.org

CEMENT BENTONITE SLURRY WALL STRENGTH TUTTLE CREEK

DAM SEISMIC REMEDIATION
Amod K. Koirala, Ph.D.1
Glen M. Bellew, P.E.2
John C. Dillon, P.E.3
David L. Mathews, P.E.4
ABSTRACT
Cement bentonite (CB) slurry walls were constructed as a seismic remediation to stabilize
the downstream slope of Tuttle Creek Dam in Manhattan, Kansas. A full-scale test
program was conducted to evaluate various slurry mixes and construction techniques
prior to main construction. Grout mixes with cement/water (c/w) ratios of 0.3, 0.4, 0.45,
and 0.5 were used. Construction equipment in the test program included long-reach and
clamshell excavators. Sampling and testing were performed on wet grab samples and
core samples. Wet grab samples were obtained from freshly constructed slurry walls and
cured in a laboratory. Core samples were obtained from cured walls. Evaluation of the
test section results led to the selection of a c/w ratio of 0.5 and the use of a clamshell
excavator for seismic stabilization construction. The required peak unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) of the cured wall was 300 psi based on stability and
deformation modeling. Observations showed UCS of core samples were less than wet
grab samples. UCS generally increased with specific gravity and c/w ratio.
INTRODUCTION
The Corps of Engineers-Kansas City District conducted extensive seismic evaluations for
Tuttle Creek Dam located in Manhattan, Kansas. These evaluations concluded that an
earthquake with a magnitude of 5.7 or greater would cause liquefaction of the foundation
sand and result in large deformations of the embankment. The maximum credible
earthquake (MCE) from the nearby Humboldt Fault Zone is a magnitude 6.6 earthquake.
Fast Langrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) modeling demonstrated that downstream
slope and toe deformations would exceed acceptable limits during the MCE. Limit
equilibrium slope stability analysis confirmed these findings. To reduce the risk of
deformation and slope instability during and after the MCE, cement bentonite (CB) slurry
walls were constructed in the foundation sands through the downstream portion of the
embankment. The first phase of wall construction was a full-scale production test section.
The purpose of the Production Test was to refine materials and methods for use in the
remainder of construction (Stage One Stabilization and Main Construction Option).
1

Civil Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, 601 E 12th St. Kansas City, MO 64106,
amod.k.koirala@usace.army.mil
2
Geotechnical Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, 601 E 12th St. Kansas City, MO 64106 ,
glen.m.bellew@usace.army.mil
3
Project Manager, US Army Corps of Engineers, 601 E 12th St. Kansas City, MO 64106,
john.c.dillon@usace.army.mil
4
Chief, Geotechnical Branch, US Army Corps of Engineers, 601 E 12th St. Kansas City, MO 64106,
david.l.mathews@usace.army.mil

Cement Bentonite Slurry Wall Strength

653

Additional work was completed as part of the overall dam remediation, including
construction of a buried collector system to fill in a collector ditch at the downstream toe
of the dam, upstream riprap overlays, and emergency spillway gate modifications. The
Tuttle Creek Dam modification plan with all construction stages is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Plan view of Tuttle Creek Dam Downstream Seismic Stabilization

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The soil in the alluvial foundation of Tuttle Creek Dam consists of 8 to 27 ft of silt and
low plasticity clay underlain by sand, silty sand, and gravelly sand. The sand deposits
vary in thickness from about 25 to 60 ft and can be separated into two distinct zones. The
upper zone consists of a 15 to 20-ft-thick layer of loose fine to medium sand (SM, SP and
SW) and the lower zone consists of a 25 to 30-ft-thick layer of dense coarse to gravelly
sand that increases in grain size with depth (SP, SW, GP and GW). Due to the alluvial
nature of the foundation deposits, multiple lenses of cohesive soil exist within the coarsegrained layers. The upper sand zone was determined to be potentially liquefiable during
large earthquake motions. The upper silts and clays were also expected to suffer
significant strength loss due to large strains caused by liquefaction of the underlying
sand. Bedrock consists of alternating layers of shale and limestone. The silt and clay
form a natural cohesive soil blanket over the more-permeable sands. This natural
cohesive blanket is an important component of underseepage control. Underseepage
pressures are controlled by a line of pressure relief wells along the downstream toe.
METHODS AND MATERIALS OF CONSTRUCTION
In order to install the walls, a working platform was constructed on the downstream slope
of the dam. The working platform was constructed of predominantly sand with an
654

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

aggregate surface. The equipment used in the production test section to install walls
consisted of a Liebherr HS855DH Crane with a clamshell excavator and a Koehring
1466 long-reach excavator. Figure 2 shows a plan view of a clamshell-constructed wall.
Walls constructed with the clamshell excavator were 4 feet wide and were constructed in
a series of bites. The clamshell excavator was approximately 15 feet long. Each
clamshell wall was constructed in 5 bites: three primary bites (PU, PM, PD) and two
secondary bites (SU, SD). Bites were nearly vertical, and the final wall cross section was
approximately a rectangle. A steel frame (guide wall) was used to guide the clamshell
into the wall excavation. Figure 3 shows wall construction with the long-reach
excavator. Walls constructed with the long-reach excavator were 3 feet wide and
constructed in one continuous excavation. Due to the operational range of the long-reach
excavator, walls were not rectangular in cross section. The bottom corners of long-reach
excavator constructed walls were not square due to the reach of the excavator. All walls
were constructed with the clamshell excavator after the production test section.

Figure 2. Plan View of Liebherr HS855DH Crane with a clamshell excavation. Figure
from TreviIcos South (2007)
The grout mix used in wall construction was mixed at an onsite batch plant. The cement
used was Lafarge MaxChem consisting of a 50/50 mixture of Portland cement and
ground granulated blast furnace slag (slag). Cement water ratios (by weight) of trial
mixes in the test program were 0.3, 0.4, 0.45, and 0.5. Additionally, a 25/75 Portland
cement to slag cement mix-ratio was used in a small number of walls in the test program.
Bentonite was typically added at a rate of 5% by weight of cement and was Wyo-Ben
Hydrogel. The additive Lamsperse-HS was used as a retarder and bentonite
antiflocculant to maintain workability of the mix for a minimum of 24 hours. Water was
obtained from a well screened in the foundation sands at the downstream toe of the dam.

Cement Bentonite Slurry Wall Strength

655

Figure 3. Operational reach of Koehring 1466 long-reach excavator digging CB wall.

Figure from TreviIcos South (2007)
Walls were constructed by excavating and simultaneously placing self hardening cement
bentonite slurry in the trenches. By continuously placing slurry into the excavation, the
trench would remain open during construction of the wall. Walls were oriented
transverse to the axis of the dam. Walls were typically 3 or 4 feet wide, 45 feet long, and
approximately 65 feet deep. Walls were spaced with 10 feet of clear space between
adjacent walls. The walls extended through the upper foundation sand at least 12 feet
into the deeper coarse sand. This was done to allow for stress transfer to stronger
materials during shaking.
The slurry level in the walls was observed to drop during cure. The observed drop was a
combination of slurry permeation into the adjacent soil and slurry bleed during curing.
The walls were topped off with fresh slurry daily to account for drop during curing. Total
slurry drop was typically 10% of wall depth.
SAMPLING AND TESTING
Sampling and testing was performed at the on-site batch plant, on the fluid slurry in the
excavations via wet-grab samples, and on the hardened slurry via core drilling. Wet grab
sampling was conducted on each wall at equally spaced depths. Wet grab samples were
cast in 3-in by 6-in cylinders. The samples were originally stored in a 100-percent
humidity curing room until being tested for unconfined compressive strength (UCS).
656

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

After it became apparent the samples were dessicating in the wet room, all samples were
stored submerged under water until UCS testing. Coring was conducted on 92% of walls
in the test section, and approximately 40% of walls in the remainder of construction.
Initially, coring was conducted with a Geobore system (double-barrel wireline) producing
4-in-diameter samples. Walls were typically cored between 60 and 90 days after
construction, but some were cored as early as 28 days and as late as 200 days to observe
strength changes with time. Due to significant strength discrepancies between wet-grab
and core sample strengths, the coring operation was changed to a triple-barrel coring
device in an effort to reduce sample disturbance and micro-fracturing. However, the
change in coring operation did not have a significant effect on cores sample UCS. The
specific gravity of most wet grab and core samples was obtained was also. Soil content
was calculated from the difference in the specific gravity of slurry at the plant and cured
wet grab or core samples.
CB WALL PROPERTIES PRODUCTION TEST SECTION
The results of laboratory testing from the production test section were analyzed to
determine the appropriate slurry mix to be used in the remainder of stabilization. Table 1
shows a summary of wall properties with various c/w ratios, slag content, and
construction equipment. Thirty eight walls were constructed during the production test,
approximately 4 walls per mix and method shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Summary of cement bentonite wall properties - production test section
Equipment

Cement/Water
Ratio+

Sample
Type

Age
(days)

Average
UCS (psi)

Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Long-Reach
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell

0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.30
.40 (75% slag)
.40 (75% slag)
.30 (75% slag)
.30 (75% slag)

Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core

62
134
47
161
54
150
49
131
49
100
49
125
49
174
49
191
45
45
45
45

568
387
414
341
285
284
130
129
626
310
436
286
273
246
115
78
713
356
300
239

Ave.
Specific
Gravity
1.65
1.50
1.65
1.64
1.62
1.63
1.58
1.49
1.57
1.59
1.54
1.57
1.51
1.52
1.43
1.49
-

Average
Soil
Content (%)
24
12
24
26
25
26
25
20
18
20
17
19
16
17
14
18
-

cement content was 50/50 Portland cement to slag ratio unless otherwise stated

In general, wall strength and specific gravity increased with increasing cement water
ratio. Walls constructed with 75% slag content exhibited significantly higher strength

Cement Bentonite Slurry Wall Strength

657

than walls of the same c/w ratio constructed with 50% slag content. Wet grab UCS was
higher than core UCS. On average, core UCS was 78% of wet grab UCS for all walls
constructed in the production test. The difference in wet grab and core UCS is attributed
to sample disturbance and differences in curing environment. Due to the discrepancy
between core and wet grab UCS, core samples were used to ensure in situ wall strength
requirements were met.
Figure 4 shows core UCS for various c/w ratios and construction equipment. Walls
constructed utilizing the long-reach excavator had slightly higher core UCS than walls
constructed with the clamshell. This is thought to be due to construction duration and
method. The long-reach excavator was slightly faster than the clam shell at constructing
walls. Walls constructed with the clamshell generally extended into a second day which
required slurry agitation over a longer duration. The additional agitation time may have
caused some loss of early cement bonding resulting in higher core UCS of long-reach
constructed walls. Higher wet grab UCS was not observed in long-reach constructed
walls. The specific gravity of long-reach walls was higher than clamshell walls. This is
thought to be caused by more soil being mixed in to the slurry during construction with
the long-reach excavator. Specific gravity and strength were found to be generally
directly proportional, so the higher specific gravity (soil content) in long-reach walls is at
least partially responsible for their higher strength.

Figure 4. Core sample UCS variation with cement/water ratio and construction technique,
50% slag walls (Figure from Axtell, Stark, Dillon (2009))
All of the c/w mixes appeared to achieve the majority of their strength between ages of
30 and 45 days. Figure 5 shows the variation in UCS with time for various c/w ratio
658

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

mixes. Some samples indicated a decreasing UCS with time after the peak. This is likely
caused by testing errors and minor desiccation of samples not stored under water prior to
testing.

Figure 5. Wet grab and core sample UCS variation with cement/water ratio and age
In the production test walls, cores from the bottom of the wall generally had higher
strengths from cores in the middle or top of the wall. The UCS increase with depth is
likely the result of increased specific gravity, or soil content, in the lower portion of the
wall due to soil particle settlement and slurry consolidation.
Materials and equipment for the remainder of construction were selected upon
completion of the production test section. A minimum 0.5 cement/water ratio with a
50/50 Portland cement to slag was required in the specifications, and the Contractor
elected to use the clamshell excavator on the remainder of construction. The selected
materials and method were proven in the production test section as being able to provide
a core peak UCS of 300 psi, which was required in the specifications.
WALL PROPERTIES STAGE ONE AND MAIN CONSTRUCTION OPTION
The remainder of wall construction provided a large data set of walls constructed with the
same slurry mix and construction method, as well as a smaller data set of higher c/w ratio
(0.55 and 0.60) walls constructed at the Contractors option. The higher c/w ratio walls
were constructed so the Contractor could gain information regarding stronger mixes and
to ensure the last portion of construction would meet strength requirements and
equipment could be demobilized. The results of laboratory testing from the remainder of

Cement Bentonite Slurry Wall Strength

659

wall construction, the Stage One and Main Construction Option phases, were analyzed to
determine trends in wall properties.
Table 2 shows a summary of wall properties from the remainder of wall construction.
Typically the Main Construction Option (MCO) exhibited slightly higher strengths than
the Stage One Stabilization (S1S). This is likely due to differences in the subsurface
conditions between the two reaches. The thickness of the silty clay blanket is
significantly greater in the S1S area than in the MCO area. The aggregate qualities of the
fine-grained particles are not as good as those of coarse-grained sand particles and likely
produce lower strengths. The walls with higher c/w ratios generally had higher wet grab
and core UCS. The 0.55 c/w ratio mix core samples are the exception, but this may be
due to small sample size or early age of core testing.
As was observed in the production test section, wet grab samples exhibited higher
strengths than core samples. Core samples exhibited between 38% and 66% of the UCS
of wet grab samples for mixes used in the S1S and MCO phases of construction.
Table 2. Summary of remainder of 0.5 c/w ratio wall construction, Main Construction
Option
Phase of
Construction
Stage One
Stabilization

Number of
c/w
Walls
Ratio
Constructed
62
235

Main Construction
Option

12
4

0.5

0.5
0.55
0.60

Sample
Type

Age
(Days)

Avg. UCS
(PSI)

Avg.
Specific
Gravity

Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core
Wet Grab
Core

34
120
63
95
63
50
63
67

506
333
658
356
851
319
1057
604

1.59
1.59
1.52
1.65
1.57
1.60
1.70
1.71

Wall UCS and specific gravity with normalized depth for all 0.5 c/w mix walls
constructed during the MCO are shown in Figure 6. The middle portion of the walls
exhibited a relatively constant UCS and a slightly increasing specific gravity with depth.
Research has shown that overburden stresses are transferred to the trench sides and the
slurry does not cure under an increasing confining stress with depth (Evans and Ryan,
2005). This explains why there is generally no increase in strength with depth in the
middle of the wall. In the upper portion of the wall, there is an inversely proportional
relationship between strength and specific gravity - the upper portion of the walls
exhibited high strength and low specific gravity. This is likely due to slurry drop and
subsequent top off that occurred while the wall was curing. Adding slurry during curing
increased the confining stress in this zone leading to higher UCS. The specific gravity
was lower because soil particles in the upper portion of the wall settled toward the bottom
during cure. The lower portion of the walls exhibited higher strength and specific gravity
with depth. This is likely due to the accumulation of settling sand particles at the bottom

660

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

of the wall and consolidation of the slurry mix during curing. The higher density and soil
content of the lower wall causes higher strengths than less-dense-lower-soil-contentslurry in the upper and middle portions of the wall.

Figure 6. UCS and specific gravity with normalized sample depth for 0.5 c/w mix walls
constructed during the Main Construction Option.
CONCLUSIONS
A full-scale production test program at Tuttle Creek Dam was conducted to evaluate
various slurry mixes and construction techniques for construction of cement bentonite
walls to improve seismic stability. The production test indicated slurry with a c/w of 0.5
would produce the required peak core UCS of 300 psi at Tuttle Creek Dam. Walls
constructed with a long-reach excavator produced walls with a higher strength than walls
constructed with a clamshell. Walls constructed with higher c/w ratios had higher
specific gravities and strengths. Wet grab samples obtained from freshly constructed
walls and cured in a laboratory exhibited higher strengths than core samples from cured
walls. Because of the discrepancy between wet grab and core sample strength for high
strength walls, core sample strength was used to ensure in situ wall strengths were
achieved. Strength generally increased with increasing specific gravity, with a trend
deviation in the upper portion of the wall likely due to slurry drop and subsequent slurry
Cement Bentonite Slurry Wall Strength

661

top off. Construction of high strength cement bentonite walls at Tuttle Creek Dam
proved to be an effective and constructable method to provide seismic stabilization.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors acknowledge the support provided by the U.S Army Corps of EngineersKansas City District, specifically Joe Topi and Geoff Henggeler, and the expertise of the
contractor, Treviicos South.
REFERENCES
Axtell P.J, Stark, T. D. and Dillon J.C. (2009). Strength Difference Between Clamshell
and Long reach Excavator Constructed Cement-Bentonite Self Hardening Slurry
Walls.ASCE International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo. pp 297-304
Evans, J. and Ryan, C. (2005) Time-Dependent Strength Behavior of Soil-Bentonite
Slurry Wall Backfill, GSP-142 Waste Contamination and Remediation.
TreviIcos South (2007). Downstream Production Test Modification Final Report.

662

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations