Topic 01 Introduction Peru May 2015

1
Geotechnical Design of Earth and Tailings Dams
Topic #1: Introduction to Dams & Failure Modes
TIMOTHY D. STARK, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS at URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
tstark@illinois.edu
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©
May 18, 2015 - Course Agenda

TIME PRESENTATION TOPIC SPEAKER(S)
8:00–8:10 am Welcome (Landivar)

Topic 01 - Introduction to Earth Dams
8:10–9:00 Introduction and Failure Modes (Stark)
9:00–9:50 Types and Comparison of Dams (Stark)
9:50–10:00 Break/Networking/Discussion
10:00–10:30 Design Cross-Section (Stark)

10:30–11:00 Dam Construction (Stark)
11:00–12:00 Case Histories (Stark)
12:00–2:00 pm Lunch and Networking

Topic 02 - Introduction to Tailings Dams
2:00–2:45 Types of Tailings Dams - Design & Construction (Stark)
2:45–15:15 Beach Location and Stability Concerns (Stark)
15:15–15:50 Liner Systems and Leachate Collection (Stark)
Topic 03 - Other Types of Dams

16:00–17:00 Concrete Face Rockfill Dams (Marulanda)
17:00–17:30 Earth Core and Asphalt Core Dams (Marulanda)
17:30–18:00 Instrumentation and Monitoring of Dams (Marulanda)
1
May 19, 2015 - Course Agenda
TIME PRESENTATION TOPIC SPEAKER(S)
Topic 04 - Saturated and Unsaturated Seepage

8:00–8:30 am Seepage through dams and levees/case histories (Stark)
8:30–9:00 Filter Requirements (Stark)
9:00–9:20 Seepage Computer Example – San Luis Dam (Stark)
9:20–9:50 Seepage Control Measures (Stark)
Topic 05 - Shear Strength & 2D Slope Stability

10:00–10:30 Locating Critical Cross-Section & Critical Slip Surface (Stark)
10:30–11:30 Shear Strength Modeling (Stark)
11:30–12:00 2D Slope Stability Methods and Factor of Safety (Stark)
12:00–2:00 Lunch and Networking

Topic 06 - 3D Slope Stability & Computer Example
2:00–3:00 Rapid Drawdown & 3D Slope Stability (Stark)
3:00–3:50 Slope Stability Computer Example – San Luis Dam (Stark)
Topic 07 - Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

16:00–16:30 Soil Liquefaction (Stark)
16:30–17:30 Post-Liquefaction Shear Softening Shear Strength & Clays (Stark)
17:30–18:00 Liquefaction Case History – Tuttle Creek Dam (Stark)
Course Topics
• Types of Dams & Dam Components
• Seepage
• Slope Stability
• Earthquake Engineering
2
5
Importance
3
7
4
9
Types of Dams
• Earth Dams/Embankment Dams
• Gravity Dams
• Buttress Dams
• Arch Dams
10
Les Harder – DWR

230 m
5
11
Photos from U.S.B.R.
12
6
13
14
Types of Dams
• Concrete Gravity Dams – Tygart Dam, Pennsylvania

• Concrete Buttress Dams
• Concrete Arch Dams
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/rec/lakes/tygartla.htm
7
15
Elephant Butte Dam
http://www.usbr.gov/projects/Facility.jsp?f
ac_Name=Elephant%20Butte%20Dam
http://en.wikipedia.org/w
92 m high iki/Elephant_Butte_Dam
16
Elephant Butte Dam – Gravity Dam
• Truth or Consequences, New Mexico
http://www.usbr.gov/projects
• Rio Grande River - irrigation dam
/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Elep
• 301 ft = 92 m high
hant+Butte+Dam&groupNa
• Crest Length = 1674 feet = 511 m
me=Dimensions
• Base Length = 1246 feet = 380 m
• Thickness at base = 228 feet = 69.5 m
• Thickness at top = 18 feet = 5.5 m
• Concrete Volume = 618,785 yd3 = 16,707,195 ft3
• Constructed 1910 – 1916
• 2.1 million acre-feet
• 28.5 kW-hours/year
• Elephant Butte=volcanic core shaped like elephant in
reservoir (Devils Tower)
• Lombardi Coefficient = C = [(1674’+1246’)(301’)/2]2 = 0.0001
16,707,195 ft3(301’)
8
17
CONCRETE DAMS
Lombardi Coefficient
F 
2
C
V *H
F=arch surface area
V=vol. of concrete
H=dam height
Huge precedence
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © Skip Hendron (1994)
18
• Lombardi Coefficient = C
• Elephant Butte Dam
• Not on Lombardi Chart
2
 Crest Length + Base Length 
 *H 
C 
2
Concrete Volume * H
2
 (1,674 ft + 1,246 ft 
 *301 ft 
C   0.0001
2
(16,707,195 ft 3 *301 ft )
9
19
Shasta Dam – Gravity Arch
http://aquaf
ornia.com
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © Gravity Arch Dam - 602’ high
20
Shasta Dam – Global Warming

1982
2013
10
21
Shasta Dam – Gravity Arch
22
Shasta Dam
• Redding, California
• Sacramento River - power, irrigation, flood
• 2nd largest concrete dam in U.S. by volume
• 602 ft = 184 m high
• Crest Length = 3,460 feet = 1,055 m http://www.usbr.gov/projects
• Base Length = 1,632 feet = 498 m /Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Sha
• Thickness at base = 543 feet = 166 m sta+Dam
• Thickness at top = 30 feet = 9.2 m
• Concrete Volume = 6,541,000 yd3 = 176,607,000 ft3
• Hoover Dam = 3,250,000 yd3
• 11 million acre-feet
• 48.2 kW-hours/year
• Raising Shasta Dam – 20 to 200 ft– designed to be 800 ft but WWII
2
 (3,460 ft + 1,632 ft 
Lombardi Coefficient =  *602 ft 
C   22.1
2
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © (176,607,000 ft 3 *602 ft )
11
23
CONCRETE DAMS
F 
2
C
V *H
F=arch surface area
V=vol. of concrete
H=dam height
Huge precedence
24
Shasta Dam
12
25
Shasta Dam
26
Types of Dams

• Concrete Buttress Dams – Anyox Dam, British Columbia
• Concrete Arch Dams
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © 362281
13
27
28
Types of Dams

• Concrete Buttress Dams – Anyox Dam, British Columbia
• Concrete Arch Dams – Hoover, Nevada (3.2 M cu. yds.)
U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
14
29
www.likecool.com/
honestholly.com
30
Hoover Dam/Boulder Dam
• Boulder City, Nevada – Boulder Canyon – near Las Vegas, Nevada
• Colorado River
• 726 feet = 221 m high
• Crest Length = 1244 feet = 415 yds
• Base Length = 100 feet = 33 yds
http://www.usbr.gov/lc/ho
• Thickness at base = 660 feet
overdam/
• Thickness at top = 45 feet
• 4.4 million yd3 = 118,800,000 ft3 of concrete
• 29.8 million acre-feet = largest in USA
• 4.1 billion kW-hours/year – 17 turbine generators
• Volcanic Rock abutments
• Lombardi Coefficient = C = 2.7 = 1st Concrete Arch by USBR
2
 (1,224 ft + 100 ft 
 *726 ft 
C  2   2.7
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © (118,800,000 ft 3 *726 ft )
15
31
CONCRETE DAMS
F 
2
C
V *H
F=arch surface area
V=vol. of concrete
H=dam height
Huge precedence
32
Types of Dams Quiz
16
33
Dams Built
• Earth Dams/Embankment Dams = 58%
• Gravity Dams = 26%
• Arch Dams = 10%
• Buttress Dams = 6%
34
Failed Dams in % of Dams Built
• Earth Dams/Embankment Dams = 1.2%

• Concrete Gravity Dams = 0.3%
• Concrete Buttress Dams = 2.6%
• Concrete Arch Dams = 0.7%
17
35
Focus on Earth/Embankment Dams
36
Embankment Geometries
Wilson & Marsal (1979)
18
37
Foundation
Geometries
Sherard et al. (1963)
38
Other Applications
• Mining/Tailings Dams
• Waste Containment Facilities
• Residential Development
19
39
Kingston Fossil Plant, TVA-2008
www.reenergizetexas.org
en.wikipedia.org/
Fox.news
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © wsmv.com
40
WASTE CONTAINMENT
20
41
CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS
GeoSyntec
Consultants
42
CURRENT DESIGN TRENDS
GeoSyntec Consultants
21
43
Landfills
44
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
22
45
Course Outline
• Types of Dams & Components of Dams
• Seepage
• Slope Stability
46
Teton Dam
• Teton River Chadwick et al. - Independent Panel Report (1976)
•1st Filling – 240’ of water

• June 5, 1976
• 11 deaths & 13,000 cattle
• $100M to construct
• $300M in claims
• Total damage = $3B
• 305’ high
23
47
USBR
Gradient=?
48
USBR
24
49
Chadwick et al. - Independent

Panel Report (1976)
• Rhyolitic
ash-flow tuff
50
Chadwick et al. -
Independent Panel Report
(1976)
25
51

Panel Report (1976)
52

Panel Report (1976)
26
53

Panel Report (1976)
54

Panel Report (1976)
27
55

Panel Report (1976)
56
Chadwick et al. -
Independent Panel Report
(1976)
28
57
Chadwick et al. -
Independent
Panel Report
(1976)
58

Panel Report (1976)
29
59

Panel Report (1976)
60
J.M. Duncan
30
61
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/
about/Teton.html
62
Course Outline
• Seepage
• Slope Stability
31
63
USBR
Engineering
News Record
64
Les Harder –
CA DWR
32
65
USBR
66
USBR
33
67
Course Outline
• Seepage
• Slope Stability
34
69
Les Harder
– CA DWR
70
Les Harder
– CA DWR
35
71
Les Harder
– CA DWR
72
Outlet Structures
36
73
Les Harder
– CA DWR
74
Les Harder
– CA DWR
37
75
Les Harder
– CA DWR
76
Les Harder
– CA DWR
Seed et al.
(1973)
38
Les Harder 77
– CA DWR
78
39
79
Earth Dam Design

tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
80
Earth Dam Design and Components

• Elements
• Types
• Comparison of Dams
40
81
EARTH DAM DESIGN
• BACKGROUND
‐ Soil mechanics‐rock mechanics
a) shear strength
b) permeability
c) compressibility
d) filter criteria
‐ GEOLOGY CONCEPTS
a) abutment and foundation, e.g., volcanics ~ high K
‐ PRECEDENCE –
‐ Determine difference b/t your site & precedence
a) dam slopes
b) core width
c) drains, filters
d) outlet structures
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - ©
82
Earth Dam Precedence
CORE
RESERVIOR LEVEL
2 to 2.5H:1V
2.5 to 3H:1V
Hw
Core Width = 0.3-0.6*Hw
41
83
ELEMENTS OF EMBANKMENT DAM
• CORE ‐ retains water, low permeability (10‐5 – 10‐6 cm/sec)
• SHELLS – shear strength required to maintain slope stability
• FILTERS
Prevent erosion and piping
a) width geometry
b) grain size distribution
c) strict measures‐water will find its way
• DRAINS
a) controls lines of seepage not exiting on downstream face
b) uplift pressure
c) slope inclinations
• CUTOFFS
for pervious foundation material
84
ELEMENTS OF EMBANKMENT DAM
• RIP RAP
a) Protects against erosion ‐downstream slope
b) Protection against wave action‐ upstream slope
• OUTLET STRUCTURE
a) one or two
• SPILLWAY
a Maintains reservoir level
b) Different geometry for different dams
42
85
news.bbc.co.uk
Dvice.com
86
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © Hungry Horse & Lake Berryesa
43
87
TYPES OF EARTH DAMS
• HOMOGENEOUS DAM
• HYDRAULIC FILL
• ROLLED EARTH‐ZONED DAMS
• ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE
• ROCKFILL
 Tarbela Dam
 Indus River, Pakistan
 485 feet (148 m) high
 9,000 ft length
 Tarbela Reservoir - 250-square-kilometre (97 sq mi)
 1974
88
HOMOGENEOUS DAMS
• CONSTRUCTED PRIMARILY OUT OF ONE MATERIAL
• INTERNAL DRAINAGE IS DIFFERENT MATERIAL
• MOST ARE OF LOW TO MODERATE HEIGHT
• COMPOSED OF IMPERVIOUS OR SEMIPERVIOUS MATERIAL
• UPSTREAM SLOPE PROTECTION
• HEIGHT OF DAM
‐ 20 ‐ 40 ft ‐use a downstream toe drain and filter.
‐ 40 – 100 ft ‐use a horizontal blanket filter and drain
‐ > 100 ft ‐use a chimney filter and drain
44
89
Toe Drain for Homogeneous Dams
90
Horizontal Drain for Homogeneous Dams
45
91
Chimney Drain for Homogeneous Dams
92
HYDRAULIC FILL DAMS
• Not built in USA since 1935
• Liquefaction Potential – LSF Dam
• Transport soil in suspension to site
• 40 dam built in California from 1850‐1940
• Dr~50%
• Ft. Peck
• Sheffield
• LSF
46
93
HYDRAULIC FILL CONSTRUCTION
COARSE---------- FINE CLAY SHELL
HYDRAULIC
FILL DAMS
94
Calaveras Dam
• Slope Failure During Construction – 1918
• Alameda, California
• 215 feet high = 66 m high
• Hydraulic Fill Dam
• S.F. P.U.C.
• Highest Earth-Fill Dam in World
• Impounded 31.6 billion gallons of Water
• Lower portion = Hydraulic Fill &
Upper Part Rolled Earth
• Dam is 1,200 feet long and 1,500 feet wide at Base
47
95
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety
/docs/Calaveras.pdf
96
• Too much fine

material – core
couldn’t drain &
increase strength
http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/
docs/Calaveras.pdf
48
97
98
ROLLED EARTH‐ZONED DAMS
• Any embankment where soil is imported and
compacted in lifts
• KEYS ‐ controlling water content and
compactive effort (proper roller)
• REVIEW COMPACTION THEORY
‐ Dry of Optimum – Flocculate ‐ Strength
‐ Wet of Optimum – Disperse – K =>
Deformations – Otter Brook Dam
49
99
FOUR TYPES OF ROLLED EARTH DAMS
1. THIN CORE
‐ scarce impervious material
‐ conditions where it is difficult to place clay‐wet environments
‐ width –past precedence and constructability
‐ width – 30‐60% of head
‐ thin cores –width =20‐30% of head
‐ thick filter
2. INCLINED CORES OR SLOPING CORES
‐ weak element further upstream =flatter upstream slope
‐ less vulnerable to cracking
‐ good for wet climate
‐ place downstream during rainy season
‐ core and upstream during dry season
‐ thinner filters – thicker core
‐ slope stability
100
TYPES OF ROLLED EARTH DAMS
3. CENTRAL CORE
‐ width – 30‐60% of head
‐ large pressure on the foundation =good seal
‐ thicker core of same material with sloping core
4. ZONED EARTHFILL
‐full advantage of native soil via zones
‐ U.S.B.R.
50
101
ROLLER COMPACTED CONCRETE
• Cost effective
• Near vertical slopes
• Seismic stability
Stan
Boyle
102
Upper Stillwater Dam Facts
• 201 foot high RCC Gravity Dam
• Near Duchesne, Utah
• Rock Creek
U.S.B.R.
51
103
Stan Boyle
104
Stan Boyle
52
105
Stan Boyle
Stan Boyle 106
53
107
Stan Boyle
108
Portuguese Dam ‐ PR
54
109
ROCKFILL DAMS
• POPULAR IN EARLY 1900’s (began in California)
• ROCK PARTICLES => ½”‐24” diameter, non‐cohesive
• >30‐35% Fines in Earth Fill Dam
110
Mohale Dam
• Lesotho, South Africa
• Senqunyane River – 145 m high
galenfrysinger.com
trc.org.ls
55
111
ROCKFILL DAMS
• ADVANTAGES
‐ no seepage problem
‐ not erodible if gradient (i) < 1.5
‐ spillway not needed
‐ steeper slopes – 1H:1.5 to 2.0H
‐ can be placed under water
• DISADVANTAGES
‐ Darcy’s law is not valid
‐ limited burrow source
‐ need membrane/facing
‐ not as much performance data as earth fill dams
‐ need good and stable foundations because of higher , steeper
slopes, and height.
112
ROCKFILL DAM FAILURE MODES
• EROSION OF DOWNSTREAM SLOPE –Tie Back or Anchors
• DEEP SEATED FAILURES –USUALLY WITH LARGE THROUGH FLOWS
56
113
EARTH DAM DESIGN
• Must be Stable
• Reasonably watertight
• Economical
• Oroville Dam – 750 ft
• South Fork Dam
Johnstown Flood
31 May 1889
2,209 died
Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes

-©
114
South Fork Dam Facts
• Earthfill
• Johnstown, PA
• Lake Conemaugh
• ~ 72 ft high
• 931 ft long
• Originally 10 ft wide at crest
• Width at base – 270 ft
• Spillway ~ 70 ft wide
• Freeboard initially 10 ft
• Freeboard reduced to ~ 7 ft
• Dam crest 450 ft higher than Johnstown ~ 14 miles away
57
115
South Fork Dam
• 1840‐1841 – Construction begins
• 1847 – Dam half complete & fails
• 1853 – Dam & reservoir operational
• 1862 – Dam fails again – heavy rainfall
• 1875 – U.S. Congressman John Reilly buys dam
‐ removes five sluice pipes at base
‐ causes crest to settle ~ 2 ft
• 1879 – South Fork Fishing & Hunting Club buys dam
‐ Club doesn’t patch holes from 1862 break well
‐ doesn’t replace sluice pipes
‐ lowers top of dam 3 ft to widen crest for two carriages
‐ installs fish screen in front of spillway
• 1889 – May 30 and 31 – heavy rainfall – spillway clogged
• 1889 – May 31 at 3:09 pm dam fails
‐ 2,209 died
‐ 1,600 homes
‐ $17M in property damage
116
South Fork Dam
1. Leaks poorly repaired
2. Spillway obstructed
3. Outlet tower burned
4. Outlet removed
5. Dam lowered to widen road
6. Dan settled in middle at
breach repair – no trees
www.nps.gov
58
117
South Fork Dam
118
South Fork Dam
59
119
South Fork Dam
120
South Fork Dam
60
121
South Fork Dam
122
South Fork Dam Lessons
• Overdesign spillway
• Outlet => min = 1; 2 is better
• Overlift at max settlement
• Do not lower to widen crest
• Monitor & maintain crest height or
freeboard
• Inspection
• Maintenance - debris
61
123
CAUSES OF EARTH DAM FAILURES
124
CONDUIT LEAKAGE
• PIPES PASSING THROUGH DAM
‐ water seeps along pipe eroding soil
‐ Water Bouldin Dam
‐ no failures in past 30 yrs = ?
‐ seepage collars, increased compaction, and filters
Timothy D Stark Course Notes ©
62
125
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
126
CONDUIT LEAKAGE
63
127
CONDUIT LEAKAGE
128
CONDUIT LEAKAGE
64
129
CONDUIT LEAKAGE
130
EARTHQUAKE FAILURE MODES
• Disruption of dam by fault movement
• Loss of freeboard due to differential tectonic ground
movement
• Slope failures due to ground motions
• Loss of freeboard due to slope failure or soil compaction
• Sliding of dam on weak foundation layers
• Piping failure through cracks induced by ground motion
• Overtopping by seiches in reservoir
• Overtopping by slides in reservoirs
• Failure of spillway or outlet works
• Seed (1979)
65
131
COMPARISON OF DAMS
• TYPES OF DAMS
‐concrete vs. rock fill vs. earth dams
• DECISION PROCESS
‐suitability of site
‐concrete dams ‐ rock foundation and suitable abutments
‐earth dams can be built anywhere
• STABILITY
132
COMPARISON OF DAMS
• ECONOMICS
‐ next to stability economics is overriding
‐ factors in choosing a type of dam
• COST
decreasing cost
‐ concrete rockfill earth fill
increase aesthetics/quality?
• INPLACE COST
‐ slopes of earth and rockfill dams ~ fixed by precedence
‐ CONCRETE $ 80/yd3 TOTAL=> ½*0.8H*H*$80 = $32 H2/ft
‐ ROCKFILL DAMS $ 7/yd3 TOTAL=> ½*3.7H*H*$7 = $13 H2/ft
‐ EARTHFILL DAMS $ 4/yd3 TOTAL=> ½*6H*H*$4 = $12 H2/ft
66
133
COMPARISON OF DAMS
1V:2H 1 V :1.7 H
H
.8 H 3.7 H
CONCRETE
GRAVITY ROCK FILL DAM
134
COMPARISON OF DAMS
67
135
SUMMARY
• CONCRETE DAMS ARE ALWAYS MORE
EXPENSIVE
• ROCKFILL DAMS AND EARTHFILL DAMS ARE
APPROXIMATELY THE SAME COST
• EARTH FILL DAMS ARE MORE POPULAR AND
WELL UNDERSTOOD
QUIZ 136
Quiz
Ririe Dam - 253 ft, Idaho – USACE Photo

Almendra Dam – 202m, Spain
68
137
Earth Dam Construction

tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
138
Jordanelle Dam – Zoned Earthfill
• Heber City, Utah
http://www.usbr.gov/projects
• Provo River – storage, recreation
/Facility.jsp?fac_Name=Jord
• 391 ft = 119 m high
anelle+Dam
• Sloping Core, Zoned Earthfill Dam
• M = 7.5 on Wasatch Fault (19 miles west) & 6.5 directly below
• Crest Length = 3,700 feet = 1,128 m
• Crest Width = 40 ft = 12 m
• Base Width = 1,000 feet = 305 m
• Earth Volume = 14,500,000 yd3 = 391,500,000 ft3
• 363,354 acre-feet
• ?? kW-hours/year
• $114 M for dam
69
Jordanelle Dam – Heber City 139
Jordanelle Dam – Heber City 140
• Earth and Concrete-Lined

Channel with Fuse Plug
Embankment
70
Jordanelle Dam ‐ Stan Boyle 141
•USBR
•Utah

•305 ft high
Jordanelle Dam ‐ Stan Boyle 142
• USBR
• Utah
• 93 m high
71
143
Stan Boyle
144
Stan Boyle
72
145
Stan Boyle
Zone 4 – as excavated
– Upstream Shell
146
Zone 3 - drain
Zone 2 - filter
Stan Boyle
73
147
Shaker – gradation test

for Zone 3 and 4 material
Zone 5 –
downslope
protection
Stan Boyle
148
Downstream
Removing
weathered
abutment rock –
left abutment
Stan Boyle
74
149
Shear Zone
Stan Boyle
150
Stan Boyle
75
151
Stan Boyle
152
Stan Boyle
76
153
Stan Boyle
154
Stan Boyle
77
155
1st Zone 1 lift

onZone 1 - core
foundation
Stan Boyle
156
Rubber tire
loaders to push
Zone 1 into
joints
Stan Boyle
78
157
Rubber tire
compactor to
seal Zone 1
before rain
Stan Boyle
158
Stan Boyle
79
159
Stan Boyle
160
Earth Dam Case Histories

tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
80
161
Case Histories
• Mission Dam
• Lower Notch Dam
• Peribonka Dam
• Mactaquac Dam
162
Mission Dam Facts
• 180 foot high earth embankment
• Zoned embankment
• Near Whistler, B.C. Canada
• Bridge River
• Diversion Dam for hydro‐power complex = 3 dams and 4 generating stations –
uses water 3 times ~8% of B.C.’s power ‐ Lajoie Dam & Seton Dam
• 1200 foot head drop
• Carpenter Lake
• Name changed to Terzaghi Dam in 1965 – huge effort
• Upstream slope is 3.8H:1V
• Downstream slope is 1.5H:1V
• Crest elevation of 2148 feet
• Crest width of 30 feet
• Crest length of 650 feet long
• Bottom width of 1060 feet
81
163
Photos from
Google Earth
164
Photos from
Ralph B. Peck
• Used local materials with

absolute minimum of
processing
• Drainage blanket and chimney
filter only materials processed
• Simple grizzly to remove
boulders > 8 inch diameter.
• No processing to make a
graded material with no more
than 5% passing the 200 sieve!
82
165
Figure from Taylor (1979)

166
Differential Settlement = 15 – 20 ft
83
167
Sheet Pile through

Diversion Dam
Pervious Alluvium
Soletache – 1st
North American
Project

168

84
169
Design
structure
around local
materials
Photo from
Ralph B. Peck
170
Case Histories
• Mission Dam
• Lower Notch Dam
• Peribonka Dam
• Mactaquac Dam
85
171
Lower Notch Dam Facts
• 246 ft deep buried channel/gorge
• Zoned embankment ‐ 1969
• In Ontario, Canada
• Montreal River
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © Ralph B. Peck
172
fhwa.dot.gov
86
173
Ralph B. Peck
174
Ralph B. Peck
87
175
Ralph B. Peck
176
Ralph B. Peck
88
177
Ralph B. Peck
178
Ralph B. Peck
89
179
Ralph B. Peck
180
Ralph B. Peck
90
181
Ralph B. Peck
182
Ralph B. Peck
91
183
Ralph B. Peck
184
Ralph B. Peck
92
185
Ralph B. Peck
186
Ralph B. Peck
93
187
Ralph B. Peck
188
Ralph B. Peck
94
189
Ralph B. Peck
190
Case Histories
• Mission Dam
• Lower Notch Dam
• Peribonka Dam
• Mactaquac Dam
95
191
Peribonka Dam Facts
• Near Saguenay in Quebec, Canada
• Peribonka River
• Construction Started in 2006
• Zoned Earth Dam with Central Core
• Buried Valley – 410 ft (125 m) deep – fine sand at top (30
m) & cobbles at bottom
• Plastic Concrete
• Cutoff under Central Core
• Crest width of 30 feet (10 m)
• Crest length of 2,530 feet (773 m) long
• Powerplant – 385 MW
Peribonka Dam Facts
Phuong and Don (2005)

96
Peribonka Dam Facts
Phuong and Don (2005)
Bauer Dam Contractors
Peribonka Cutoff Wall Facts
0.5% verticality
Balian and Adnan (2010)
97
Peribonka Dam Facts
Peribonka Dam Facts
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © Balian and Adnan (2010)
98
Peribonka Cutoff Wall
Bauer Trench Cutter/Hydromill - largest
Beckhaus et al. (2011)

Peribonka Cutoff Wall Facts
Table 1 ‐ Dimensions of the executed cut‐off walls
Cut‐off‐wall Area (m2) COW‐Thickness (m) COW‐Length (m) Average Depth (m) Max. Depth (m)
Main Dam 12000 1.2 and 1.5 330 39 116
Dyke A 15500 0.8 450 36 50
Source : Bauer Foundations

99
199
Case Histories
• Mission Dam
• Lower Notch Dam
• Peribonka Dam
• Mactaquac Dam
200
Mactaquac Dam Facts
• 120 foot high arched earth embankment
• Near Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
• St. John River
• Upper roller‐compacted concrete (RCC) upstream face –
0.83H:1V
• Below RCC facing, upstream soil slope is 2.5H:1V
• Downstream soil slope is 2.5H:1V
• emergency spillway channel
• crest elevation of 970 feet
• crest width of 30 feet
• Crest length of 1,400 feet long
• Central clay core with 10 feet thick bottom ash (sand like)
material as chimney drain
100
201
T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
202
agora.virtualmuseum.ca
nanookofthenashwaak.com
reference.findtarget.com
101
203
Mactaquac Dam Geology
AL Soft CL
AR BT
Tawil and Harriman (2001)
Legend
AR-Artesian Layer GT-Grey Till CL-Soft Silty Clay
BT-Brown Till DFS-Dredge Surface AL-Alluvium
- Excavate Soft CL until Su > 2000 psf
204
Mactaquac Dam Piezometers
• Before dam –
aquifer pressure
head > river level
Tawil and
Harriman
(2001)
102
205
Mactaquac Dam Piezometers
• Before dam –
aquifer > river level
• After dam –
29 m rise = 11 m
PZ rise
• Not connected
Tawil and
Harriman (2001)
206
Mactaquac Dam Design
Relief Well System to
depressurize aquifer while
excavating Soft CL to
reduce heave
BT
AR
Tawil and Harriman (2001)
103
207
Questions and Comments

tstark@illinois.edu

Lima, Peru
May 25-27, 2015
104

Topic 01 Introduction Peru May 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic 01 Introduction Peru May 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Geotechnical Design of Earth and Tailings Dams

Topic #1: Introduction to Dams & Failure Modes

TIMOTHY D. STARK, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE

Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

May 18, 2015 - Course Agenda

8:00–8:10 am Welcome (Landivar)

10:00–10:30 Design Cross-Section (Stark)

12:00–2:00 pm Lunch and Networking

Topic 03 - Other Types of Dams

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Topic 04 - Saturated and Unsaturated Seepage

Topic 05 - Shear Strength & 2D Slope Stability

12:00–2:00 Lunch and Networking

Topic 07 - Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Les Harder – DWR

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Photos from U.S.B.R.

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Earth Dams/Embankment Dams

• Concrete Gravity Dams – Tygart Dam, Pennsylvania

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © http://www.lrp.usace.army.mil/rec/lakes/tygartla.htm

Elephant Butte Dam

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © Skip Hendron (1994)

Shasta Dam – Gravity Arch

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © Gravity Arch Dam - 602’ high

Shasta Dam – Global Warming

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Shasta Dam – Gravity Arch

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © Skip Hendron (1994)

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Concrete Gravity Dams – Tygart Dam, Pennsylvania

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Concrete Gravity Dams – Tygart Dam, Pennsylvania

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Timothy D. Stark - Course Notes - © Skip Hendron (1994)

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

• Earth Dams/Embankment Dams = 1.2%

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Wilson & Marsal (1979)

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

Sherard et al. (1963)

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - © wsmv.com

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©

T.D. Stark - Course Notes - ©