Professional Documents
Culture Documents
USSD April 2018 - Guidance For Surface Preparation of Dam Foundations - Draft
USSD April 2018 - Guidance For Surface Preparation of Dam Foundations - Draft
1
2
United States Society on Dams
3
U.S. Society on Dams
Vision
The information contained in this report regarding commercial products or firms may not be used for advertising
or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the United
States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made or the opinions expressed in
this publication.
4
FOREWORD
Dams have been constructed for thousands of years, but in the past one-hundred years the
size of projects has increased dramatically from those in previous centuries. While many
good reference books exist regarding general dam construction, the guidelines presented
here focus specifically on foundation preparation.
The contents of this publication are technical guidelines and not criteria or regulations.
The geologic and geotechnical diversity encountered in dam foundations around the
world make it impossible to "cookbook” any approach to preparing dam foundations.
We attempt to describe good practice, but it is up to the professional geologist and
engineer to recognize when to apply these tools. Guidelines cannot replace technical
judgment, but if used properly, guidelines enhance judgment. Judgment requires a sound
understanding of precedents, including past dam incidents and failures.
The lead authors for this White Paper were Peter T. Shaffner (U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, retired), Kerry D. Cato (Cato Geoscience,
Inc.), and Mark McKeown (Consultant, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, retired).
The lead reviewers for the USSD Committee on Foundations were Douglas Boyer
(Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) and Edwin Friend (RJH Consultants, Inc.).
Over the years, the following individuals reviewed drafts and provided insightful
comments that improved this paper immensely: Don Babbitt, John Ballegeer, Doug
Boyer, Steve Brown, Donald Bruce, Robert Cannon, Jerry Dodd, Rick Ehat, John France,
Ed Friend, Peggy Harding, Rich Humphries, Dan Johnson, Richard Millet, Paul Rizzo,
Gregg Scott, Brian Simpson, and Chris Slaven.
The Publication Review Committee was headed by USSD Board Member Robert
Cannon, with members xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxx, and xxxxxxxxxxx.
The work of these individuals and that of the other Committee members who provided
input regarding this paper is acknowledged and appreciated.
i
Harza Engineering Company, Ebasco Services Inc., and Texas A&M University. Norm
recognized the importance that foundations play in the performance of dams and so do
we.
Norm R. Tilford
1934-1997
“Dams must stand. Not all of them do, and there are all degrees of uncertainty about
them. Reservoirs must hold water. Not all of them do, and there are many ways by which
water may be lost. The work must be done safely as a construction job. Not all of them
are, and there are many sources of danger. The whole structure must be permanent and
the work has a right to be done within the original estimates. Not all of them are, and
there are many reasons for their failure of excess cost, most of them geologic or of
geologic dependence.”
Charles P. Berkey (1929)
“To pass judgment on the quality of a dam foundation is one of the most difficult and
responsible tasks. It requires both careful consideration of the geological conditions and
the capacity for evaluating the hydraulic importance of the geological facts ...”
Karl Terzaghi (1929)
“If a modern dam fails, it does so either because the significance of known conditions has
been misjudged, or because unknown and perhaps unsuspected defects, usually in the
foundation or abutments, are critical.”
Ralph Peck (1980)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Definitions
iii
4.2.5 Cleaning of Arch Dam Foundations
7.0 REFERENCES
iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
This paper does not address the important issues of dewatering, foundation grouting,
foundation drainage, or foundation improvement because these are broad topics of their
own and have been addressed in separate publications. Dewatering requires careful
consideration since fill or concrete cannot be adequately placed in flowing or standing
water. Grouting, cutoff techniques, and drainage are equally important to help assure
total foundation treatment from the dam contact to an appropriate depth. Foundation
improvement is often necessary to densify and strengthen materials (soil or rock) that
remain in the foundation. Also, this paper does not specifically address foundation
surface preparation and treatment for other appurtenant structures such as spillways,
outlet works, and other features; however, many of the discussions and provisions
discussed in this document are applicable to these structures.
1.2 Definitions
Slush Grout – neat cement grout or sand cement slurry that is applied to cracks in the
foundation.
1
Specially Compacted Earth Fill – earth fill that requires compaction with hand
equipment, pneumatic equipment, or rubber tired equipment to prevent damage to the
underlying foundation. Specially compacted earth fill is generally placed in small,
localized areas or special areas.
Foundation – surface of bedrock or soil that has been adequately exposed, mapped,
evaluated, prepared, documented and approved for overlying fill or concrete placement
2
2.0 GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF DAM FOUNDATION
PREPARATION
2.1 Purpose of Dam Foundation Preparation
Dams are designed to retain water. To successfully retain water, part or all of the dam
body, part or all of the interface between the dam and its foundation material, and some
zone within the foundation, must be rendered relatively impervious to the passage of
water. The designer/builder must ensure that the relatively impervious components
perform their function for the design life of the dam. There are many reasons that the
performance of dam foundations can differ from the design objectives, and all must be
anticipated in the design and construction process. Fraser (2001) and Boyer (2006)
provide some engineering geology considerations for identifying dam foundation
objectives and potential failure modes. The dam should be safe from sliding; uplift or
overturning; seepage and piping; seismic cracking; liquefaction; and many other adverse
conditions. In preparing specifications and drawings to govern the construction of the
project, the designer must attempt to foresee all the conditions to be encountered during
construction, and provide procedures and methods to deal with these conditions while
optimizing economic efficiency. This is complicated by the almost infinite variability of
geologic conditions that have been historically encountered, and will be encountered in
future dam foundations. It is imperative that design assumptions regarding the
foundation are verified once the foundation is exposed. The design should not be
considered complete and must continue until the construction is completed and the dam
and foundation are adequately tested.
There are a range of choices for preparing a foundation, from cleaning to a "ready-to-eat-
on" condition at one extreme to placing concrete or soil over soft or saturated materials
with organics at the other extreme. Similarly, there are many choices at the design and
construction levels for treating potentially adverse conditions. There is a difference
between foundation design and foundation treatment. Excavation is one of the most
frequently used foundation-improvement methods, (i.e., exposing acceptable foundation
materials). It is the dam designer who establishes the characteristics and properties at
what point an adequate foundation for the dam is reached. After an acceptable
foundation has been exposed, what remains is the treatment, preparation and cleaning of
the foundation surface for the placement of concrete or embankment. Sometimes the
distinction between design and treatment may be unclear. For instance, when is the
removal of shear zone material (including fault zones) a design matter or a cleaning
problem? What are the desired characteristics of a dam foundation? These are critical
issues to consider in advance of construction and communicate clearly with construction
field personnel so that expectations can be understood and managed.
Foundations are cleaned to provide acceptable contact surface conditions between the
dam body and its foundation, and to provide for observation and documentation of details
of foundation conditions at that interface. Cleaning to expose potentially adverse
3
conditions provides the opportunity for corrective action. Cleaning the foundation
enables the necessary observations to determine when additional treatment is required.
The following are some examples of foundation surface treatment:
The primary function of a dam is to retain water; therefore, large seepage or leakage
through the foundation of the dam is generally not acceptable for many reasons, such as
the potential for foundation deterioration or internal erosion of the foundation or
overlying embankment materials. A wide range of foundation conditions, loading
conditions, and operating conditions can occur that can lead to poor seepage performance
and all need to be fully understood to eliminate unanticipated inadequacies relative to
support of the dam and seepage control. Foundation cleaning and observation provides a
key opportunity to reconsider the design loading and operating conditions relative to the
exposed foundation conditions. Many of these conditions can change over time and
potentially compound the effects of one another. Some examples of these conditions are:
The manner and degree of foundation cleaning for any water retaining embankment or
concrete dam may vary within the limits of good practice depending on a number of
factors. These include dam type, height, foundation characteristics (geology),
construction materials, project setting, climate, construction method (i.e., labor intensive
or equipment intensive), project purpose, hazard classification/risk, and the project design
life. For example, the approach to foundation cleaning may only need to address gross-
scale issues for construction of an earthfill cofferdam with a planned life of several
months in an equipment-intensive, labor-poor environment such as the Arctic North at a
site where the near and downstream environments are uninhabited. In contrast, the
foundation cleaning will need to address both fine- and gross-scale issues for construction
of an 800-foot-high concrete arch dam for primary municipal water supply in a labor-
rich, equipment-poor location that has large populations at risk. Foundation cleaning
4
requirements must consider carefully the large number of variables effecting foundation
cleaning choices.
Finally, the cost of foundation preparation and treatment may vary widely from that
expected by all parties, perhaps more than in any other portions of the work. The reasons
for this potential are described therein; however, when considering together dam safety,
structural integrity, and cost, there should be no error on the chance side. Designers
should prepare budgets and associated contingencies with this in mind and clearly
communicate this early to project sponsors who typically do not have intimate knowledge
and experience of what is at stake.
Each type of dam has special foundation requirements. Figure 1 shows some of the basic
dam types in cross section including arch dams, gravity dams, and zoned earthfill and
rockfill dams.
Figure 1. Valley Shapes and Dam Cross Sections for Common Dam Types,
from Moler, 1998
5
Arch dams are often constructed in mountainous terrain where streams have high
gradients. Arch dams are typically built on hard rock foundations in V-shaped canyons
with limited access, using cableways or cranes to deliver construction materials. Arch
dam foundations are relatively narrow and must be capable of bearing high loads without
settlement or deflection. Arch dams, due to their narrow width and concentrated loads,
can also be more sensitive to potentially removable foundation blocks formed by the
intersection of discontinuities in the rock mass, especially within the abutments.
Variation in the foundation modulus related to the foundation geology can be an
important design consideration. The foundation exploration and excavation is often labor
intensive because of access limitations. The dam and foundation must control high
seepage pressures. Designers and builders generally plan for more work per unit area of
foundation to provide a competent and water tight foundation.
Gravity dams, including roller-compacted concrete (RCC) gravity dams, have a broader
base than arch dams as shown on Figure 1. Gravity dams are typically constructed in
wider valleys that provide greater access to the foundation area, which can make it
practical to use large equipment in the initial preparation of foundations. Gravity dams
may be founded on hard, competent rock, or on slightly poorer materials. Gravity dams
are designed to resist external forces, including sliding and uplift forces, and differential
settlement, via the weight and strength of the massive concrete structure. Consequently,
gravity dam foundations must respond to the loading conditions in a relatively
homogeneous manor and considerable foundation treatment may be necessary to obtain
adequate foundation conditions. Similar to arch dams, the preparation of gravity dam
foundations require a lot of attention. These foundations are commonly cleaned very
carefully and treated to obtain a highly competent bond with the overlying concrete.
Zoned earthfill and rockfill dams, as shown on Figure 1, are commonly constructed in
broad sites where large quantities of earth and rock construction materials are locally
available and where economies of scale in construction equipment and scheduling may be
realized. Their foundations cover large areas and are massive construction operations
involving close scheduling and control. Embankment dams tend to be somewhat
forgiving if some foundation and embankment settlement occurs, and are often
constructed on foundations that would be marginal or unacceptable for the higher contact
pressures and reduced settlement requirements of concrete dams.
Some specific foundation requirements are erosion resistance and bearing capacity. For
example, concrete dams are less subject to rapid erosion due to the flow of water along
the contact between the base of the structure and its supporting rock material than are
earth fill structures. Concrete dams are more sensitive to differences in bearing capacity
of supporting rock materials, and potentially more susceptible to sliding and uplift forces.
Higher and more uniform bearing capacity is required in arch dam foundations than in
foundations for other dam types to obtain uniform stress levels in the concrete. High
seepage gradients under tall arch dams may erode gouge, weathered rock, or joint filling
that is not removed or treated.
6
Rockfill dams with membranes made of concrete, asphalt or a thin earth lining have
seepage gradients similar to arch dams. Unlike arch dams, movement of foundation
materials for rockfill dams can go undetected because material can erode into the large
voids in the rock fill.
The designer and the constructor must recognize that the most important goal is to
construct the dam so that material from the low permeability barrier is not lost (eroded),
displaced, or cracked. Significant failures and distress of earthfill dams often involve
loss of integrity of the low permeability barrier (core). The contact between the low
permeability barrier of the dam and its foundation must be watertight and undergo
negligible to small displacement. Achieving this under construction conditions, and
within cost considerations, requires knowledge, foresight, experience, and considerable
judgment. Obviously, the foundation approval is one of the designer's and engineering
geologist's most important roles. Lastly, it is necessary to recognize that the properties of
concrete and earth materials are different, that the means of their placement and
protection are different, and that differing methods of construction may have significant
impacts on foundation treatment and cleaning. Cleaning and inspection must be an
integral part of the specification paragraphs so contractors can anticipate in advance the
potential impacts on schedules and costs.
Any water retaining embankment or concrete dam must have adequate foundation
treatment. That said, economic and other factors have important considerations as to the
degree of treatment options and robustness of the treatment. The foundations of low
dams that present a low risk potential and have a small design/construction budget may
not need the meticulous care and inspection during foundation cleaning that is usually
associated with larger structures. It is important to identify and evaluate the potential
risks (failure likelihood and consequences). Low dams that have a high risk potential,
such as for containing toxic wastes, must receive a high level of attention to design and
construction detail to assure proper function through time. Downstream development is a
consequence that can increase over time and can occur well after a dam is constructed.
There are numerous 50- to 100-year-old dams that were originally constructed in rural
settings that are now located in, or above, major metropolitan areas.
Dams have been built for thousands of years. The experience base from the last nearly
100 years of constructing large dams should have eliminated, or significantly reduced,
foundation preparation problems.
7
Primary problems in foundation cleaning come from different sources:
The issues can often be related to the adequacy of pre-construction site investigations.
An inadequate investigation, either in scope or implementation, is the most frequent
reason that foundations are improperly characterized. However, unforeseen conditions
can sometimes be unavoidable until the foundation is exposed and evaluated. While the
adverse impact of undiscovered conditions is a problem, incorrect assumptions about
foundation conditions may generate larger problems for the construction phase.
Remember the Will Rogers quote:
“It's not what we don't know that hurts us, but rather what we know that
ain't so.”
Dam failures and incidences related to foundation treatment are often related to
inadequate training and experience of the geologists and inadequate communications
8
between the design engineer and geologist in the field. Some of the most significant dam
failures have occurred for the following reasons:
• Design engineers failed to alert field geologists of potential issues to look for in
the field prior to construction observation and foundation mapping.
• Geologists didn’t understand the significance of geologic features in the
foundation, their location, and/or orientation of those features in the foundation.
• Geologists didn’t adequately inform design engineers of potential foundation
issues, and/or they did not have or exercise adequate authority to make the design
engineers aware of their concerns.
• Design engineers did not visit the field enough times during construction and/or
did not spend time with the geologist to review his findings and concerns.
• Field geologists were not adequately experienced or trained for this role, or did
not have a full understanding of the possible Potential Failure Modes.
• Field geologists were not adequately trained about the causes of past dam failures.
• Field geologists observed issues, but did not act forcefully enough to get the
design engineers full attention.
When a dam incident or failure occurs from causes related to inadequate foundation
assessment and treatment, both the design engineer and geologist failed to do their jobs
adequately.
Because high levels of judgment are needed in such cases, it is very important that the
designer retain responsibility for overseeing and/or approving the foundation cleaning
and treatment. The designer must be experienced in the work, grounded in dam design
and construction precedents, and understand the site being developed. Specific problems
have the habit of recurring at a particular site, and once appropriate responses have been
thought through and developed, consistent responses are possible. A Board or Panel of
Consultants can be used to help develop appropriate procedures or provide an
independent review of the procedures.
What some have found helpful to address this issue is to develop a means to pay the
contractor for their effort by some unit price or crew/square yard means that includes
prescribed down times to allow for mapping, testing, inspection, and other owner-
prescribed activities. This provides a “baseline” for the owner and contractor to work
from should issues arise that require more time, labor, and/or equipment, which can be
9
measured. This work should be unit price-based and not lump sum. A lump sum basis
almost always results in higher, and perhaps significantly higher, costs to the owner in the
end. An open and collaborative approach should be established with all parties prior to
initiating this work so that everyone involved is prepared and understands the process of
how to quickly deal with potential changed conditions should they occur.
Regardless of all the attention to these details of foundation treatment and understanding,
one must always consider the possibility of anomalies or minor geologic details that can
result in problems. The observational approach is paramount (Peck 1969, 2003). Most
importantly, one must have a plan to deal with problems that should be considered in
advance, using the knowledge of the geology and imagining possibilities that may not
have been discovered during the exploration.
Many dams failed that had good foundation treatment and good foundation mapping;
however, all the potential failure modes were not imagined:
• In evaluating the failure of Malpasset Dam, Andre Coyne said nobody "could
imagine" the full water pressure at that depth in the foundation that altered the
resultant vector to drive the block upwards.
• After the failure of Teton Dam, people said nobody "imagined" that an
embankment dam could erode and fail that fast.
• Nobody "imagined" how fast and large the slide at Vaiont Dam could be.
• At Fontenelle Dam the construction staff never "imagined" how a little erosion
could progress to near failure and be nearly unstoppable.
• For Baldwin Hills Dam nobody "imagined" that pumping of waste and drilling
activities could possibly cause ground rupture of existing inactive faults leading to
the failure of the dam.
One needs to work on developing an imagination and be able to think critically. This is
done by studying these and other case histories in detail.
Dr. Ralph Peck wrote about being able to visualize and imagine problems beyond what is
normally considered (i.e., the oddballs) (Peck, 1962, 1980, 1998).
10
3.0 PREPARATION OF FOUNDATIONS FOR EMBANKMENT
DAMS
3.1 General
The weak points in modern embankment dams are generally within the foundation and
especially at the contact of the foundation with the embankment. Foundation seepage
control and stability features must be carefully supervised by inspection personnel during
construction to ensure conformance with the design, specifications, and good practice.
The basic objectives of foundation surface treatment at the contact with the impervious
core are:
• Establish an intimate interface between the impervious core materials and the
foundation. The foundation surface must be shaped by excavation or concrete
placement to provide a surface suitable for earthfill compaction. Compaction
techniques used for initial earthfill placement should result in adequately
compacted embankment material in intimate contact with and tightly bonded to
the foundation, without damaging the foundation during placement of the first
lifts. A plastic material is preferred next to the foundation and special
requirements on the plasticity, gradation, and moisture content are commonly
specified.
11
material cannot be removed, treat as necessary. In rock foundations, defects such
as faults, fractures, erosion channels, or solution cavities or channels sometimes
cannot be completely removed. Material defects in the rock mass include fault
gouge- rock fragments, soft or pervious soil, or solutioned rock. These materials
require removal to an adequate depth and replacement with slush grout, dental
concrete or specially compacted earthfill.
After sufficient excavation is accomplished so that the excavation is nearing the final
lines and grades, the foundation should be cleaned to allow inspection by the designer,
construction engineer, construction inspector, and geologist to observe and document the
details of foundation conditions exposed at the surface. Exposure of potentially adverse
conditions during initial cleanup provides the opportunity to take appropriate remedial
action. The initial foundation cleaning should be sufficient to allow observation and
possibly sampling to determine if unsuitable materials or conditions (such as open
fractures, shears, faults, overhangs, problematic soils, etc.) exist in the foundation. The
potentially adverse foundation features must be identified, documented, and evaluated to
determine where and what type of treatment is required.
It is also important to think three dimensionally and consider materials below the exposed
surface. Sometimes the foundation in nearby deeper excavations (for example a stilling
basin) along with available exploration drill hole logs can provide insight into conditions
beneath the dam foundation. The team discussions during the foundation inspection are a
12
valuable opportunity to consider all potential foundation performance issues, and not just
the exposed surface.
Foundation rock should be shaped to remove overhangs, steep surfaces, and sharp
irregularities, as shown on Figure 2, 3, and 4.
High rock surfaces must be stable during construction and should be shaped to maintain a
smooth continuous profile to minimize differential settlement, arching, and stress
concentrations within the embankment, as shown in Figure 5. Shaping requirements have
been hindered at some dam sites when the spillway was constructed first and was placed
too close to the embankment. These types of considerations must be evaluated during the
design phase.
Treatment of the exposed rock surface after removal of unsuitable overlying materials
will depend on the type of rock and the irregularities. Construction activities such as
using tracked equipment on soft rock surfaces, using rippers near foundation grade, or
nearby blasting may loosen rock or open joints in originally satisfactory rock. This type
of potential damage should be identified in the specifications and avoided to minimize
the need of over-excavation and additional cleaning. The configuration of exposed hard
rock surfaces is controlled largely by lithology, bedding, joints, and other discontinuities,
and excavation methods. Depending on discontinuity orientations, these features can
result in vertical surfaces, benches, overhangs, or saw teeth. Features such as potholes,
buried river channels, solution cavities, or shear zones can create additional irregularities
requiring treatment, as shown on Figures 6 and 7. Unsuitable material must be removed
from the irregularities and the foundation surface must be shaped to provide a sufficiently
regular surface so that earthfill can be placed without differential settlement or creating
areas of low stress, as shown on Figure 8. If the irregularities are small enough and
discontinuous both horizontally and vertically, over-excavation can be appropriate.
13
Figure 3. Foundation Shaping and Treatment Beneath an Embankment Core Zone
(from Bureau of Reclamation, 2012)
Figure 4. Typical Core Abutment Excavation Requirements for Bennett Dam, British
Columbia (Pratt et. al., 1972, reproduced in Fell, et. al., 1992)
14
Figure 5. Drilling Blast Holes to Facilitate Removal of a Rock Overhang at Teton Dam.
(Bureau of Reclamation)
Figure 6. Example of a Shear Zone in Foundation that Requires Cleaning and Dental
Concrete (photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
15
Figure 7. Example of Foundation Surface Treatment of a Small Shear Zone using Dental
Concrete. Excavation and Cleaning of the Feature Shown on the Top Photograph.
Backfilling with Dental Concrete Shown on the Bottom Photograph.
(Ridges Basin Dam, Colorado, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
16
Figure 8. Extensive use of dental concrete used to fill potholes, grooves, and channels to
level rock surface. (Photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
A smoothed rock surface can also be helpful for providing access to the drilling and
grouting equipment.
All rock overhangs at the foundation interface for earthfill dams and beneath transitions
and filters of rockfill dams must be removed. When an inclined core is used in a rockfill
dam, the core derives support from the underlying filter and transition material. The zone
beneath the filter and transition should be shaped using core contact criteria. Beneath the
outer shells of rock fill dams, nearly vertical abutment contact slopes have been permitted
in high, steep walled canyons. Overhangs should be trimmed or the undercut below the
overhang filled with concrete.
Foundation outside the core contact must be shaped to facilitate placement and
compaction operations and unsuitable weak or compressible materials must be removed.
Impervious materials beneath drainage features which would prevent the drainage feature
from properly functioning must also be removed. Shell materials may pipe into the
foundation and erodible foundation materials may pipe into the embankment.
Appropriately graded filters between the shell and foundation may be necessary.
Proper blasting procedures are essential to ensure that the permeability or strength of the
rock is not adversely affected and that the rock can stand on the slopes and handle the
17
imposed loads. Existing fractures and joints in a rock mass as well as poor blasting often
result in unacceptable excavated surfaces. Prior competent review, approval, and
enforcement of the contractor's blasting plan, control of blasting details, requirements on
the acceptability of the excavated surface, and control of vibration levels can help obtain
the desired excavation surface. In the case that over-blasting damages the foundation
rock and produces radiating fractures, then this damage must be removed or repaired
prior to embankment placement.
Foundation grouting is beyond the scope of this paper; however, the following are a few
general provisions regarding foundation considerations for construction of near-surface
concrete walls and grout caps:
• Barrier walls (cutoff walls) or concrete grout caps should be founded in relatively
undamaged rock. Blasting for the excavation of these structures should be
prohibited or strictly controlled to avoid damaging the foundation. Care should
be used during all blasting. Smooth blasting techniques, such as line drilling and
strict limits on pounds/delay or peak particle velocity, should be used.
• If the material cannot be excavated with a hydraulic excavator with a rock bucket,
a grout cap or cutoff wall is probably not needed and eliminates the concern of
uplift of the cap during grouting. Standpipes can be set directly in the foundation.
Dental concrete is used to fill or shape holes, grooves, extensive areas of vertical and
overhanging surfaces, and saw teeth created by bedding planes, joints, and other
irregularities such as previously cleaned out shear zones, large joints, or buried channels,
as shown on Figure 9. Formed dental concrete can be used to shape steep slopes and
steps and fill overhangs. Placing a concrete mat over a zone of closely spaced
irregularities may be necessary. Dental concrete shaping can be used instead of shaping
by excavation when excavation by blasting or when excessive amounts of excavation is
required.
Even if it is not initially anticipated that dental concrete will be needed for a project, it
may be prudent to include provisions for the use of dental concrete in the project
specifications and cost estimate in the event that dental concrete is needed to treat the
exposed foundation surface.
18
Slabs of dental concrete should have a minimum thickness of six inches if the foundation
is weak enough to allow cracking of the concrete under load. Thin areas of dental
concrete over rock projections on a jagged rock surface are likely places for concrete
cracking and should be avoided by using a sufficient thickness of dental concrete or by
avoiding continuous slabs of concrete over areas containing numerous irregularities on
weak foundations. Feathering at the end of concrete slabs on weak foundations should
not be permitted, and the edges of slabs should be sloped at approximately 45 degrees.
Formed dental concrete should not be placed on slopes greater than 0.5:1 (H:V). When
dental concrete fillets are placed against vertical or nearly vertical surfaces in weak rock,
feathering should not be permitted and a beveled surface with a minimum thickness of six
inches is required at the top of the fillet, as shown on Figure 3.
Cement type will depend on the concentration of sulfates in the foundation materials and
ground water. Low-alkali cement is required for alkali-reactive aggregates or appropriate
fly ash or other additives added to mitigate alkali-reactive aggregates. The cement type
should be the same as used in structural concrete on the job. Aggregate and water quality
should be equal to that required in structural concrete.
The rock surface should be thoroughly cleaned as described below and moistened prior to
concrete placement to obtain a good bond between the concrete and the rock surface.
When overhangs are filled with dental concrete, the concrete must be well bonded to the
upper surface of the overhang. The overhang should be shaped to allow air to escape
during concrete placement to prevent air pockets between the concrete and the upper
19
surface of the overhang. The concrete must be formed and placed so that the head of the
concrete is higher than the upper surface of the overhang. If this is impractical, grout
pipes should be installed in the dental concrete for later filling of the air voids. If
grouting through dental concrete is done, grout pressures and volumes should be closely
controlled to prevent jacking the concrete or fracturing the fill.
Finished horizontal dental concrete slabs can be roughened with a broomed finish to help
bond the fill to the concrete surface. Dental concrete should be cured by water or an
approved curing compound for seven days or until covered by earthfill.
Earthfill operations may not be permitted over dental concrete for a minimum of 72 hours
or more after concrete placement to allow the concrete time to develop sufficient strength
to withstand the stress caused by earthfill placement and compaction operations.
Inadequate curing may result in the concrete cracking.
Slush grout is a neat cement grout (generally for cracks less than ½-inch-wide) or a sand-
cement slurry (generally for cracks greater than ½-inch-wide) that is applied to cracks in
the foundation. To ensure adequate penetration of the crack, the maximum particle size
in the slush grout mixture should be no greater than one-third the crack width. If a
colloidal grout mix is used, this is generally not a problem since the D 95 of the Type I-II
cement is over 100µ. The water to cement ratio of the grout should be kept as low as
possible to reduce shrinkage, but still be workable to flow and conform to the shape of
the void. The consistency of the slush grout mix may vary from a very thin mix to mortar
as required to penetrate and seal the crack.
Cement type will depend on the concentration of sulfates in the foundation materials and
ground water. Low-alkali cement is required for alkali sensitive aggregates. The cement
type should be the same as used in structural concrete on the job. Sand and water quality
should be equal to that required for structural concrete. The grout should preferably be
mixed with a high-speed, colloidal mixer and the grout should be used within 30 minutes
after mixing.
Generally, slush grout should be used to fill narrow surface cracks and not used to cover
large areas of the foundation, although, slush grout may be applied by brooming over
small areas containing closely spaced cracks. Cracks should be cleaned out using hand
tools, air jets, or vacuum systems, as shown on Figure 10. All cracks should be wetted
prior to placement of slush grout. Cracks or joints are filled with grout by troweling,
pouring, rodding, or funneling into individual cracks, as shown in Figure 11.
Slush grout in discontinuities in hard rock can be placed any time before fill placement,
including immediately before the initial fill placement. Slush grout in discontinuities in
soft rock and slush grout broomed onto the foundation surface should be placed
immediately before the initial lift of fill placement to prevent cracking of the grout.
20
Figure 10. Example of Discontinuities Being Cleaned using Hand Tools.
(Ridges Basin Dam, Colorado, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
Similar to the dental concrete provisions discussed above, even if it is not initially
anticipated that slush grout will be needed for a project, it may be prudent to include
provisions for the use of slush grout in the project specifications and cost estimate in the
event that slush grout is needed to treat the exposed foundation surface.
21
3.2.7 The Use of Shotcrete for Embankment Dam Foundations
Shotcrete is concrete or mortar that is sprayed in place, as shown on Figure 12. The
quality of shotcrete is highly dependent on the skill and experience of the crew,
particularly in the amount of rebound, thickness, feather edges, and adequate thickness
over protrusions in irregular surfaces. Untreated areas can be inadvertently covered
because of the ease and rapidness of placement. If the circumstances are drastic enough
to allow the use of shotcrete, operators (nozzleman) should be pre-qualified using test
panels and cores should be performed to assure no voids are created at the foundation
contact. Shotcrete should be used beneath impervious zones (core contact area) only
when use of dental concrete cannot be justified by site conditions. Rebound must be
removed to prevent highly pervious zones of poor shotcrete at the fill/foundation contact.
If shotcrete is used, close inspection and caution is necessary. Shotcrete can be an
acceptable alternative to dental concrete outside of the core contact area. Always place
the shotcrete from the lowest elevation, moving upwards.
22
Figure 13. Example of Foundation Rock Surface Prior to Cleaning.
(Ridges Basin Dam, Colorado, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
23
Figure 15. Top Photo – Initial Cleaning of Foundation Rock Surface Using Air Jets.
Bottom Photo – Final Cleaning of Foundation Rock Surface Using Vacuum Truck.
(Ridges Basin Dam, Colorado, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
Special cleaning procedures are required for foundation materials which deteriorate when
exposed to air or water (slake). The foundation must be kept moist if deterioration is
caused by exposure to air and kept dry if deterioration is caused by exposure to water.
Spray coating with material (similar to concrete curing compound) designed to reduce
water loss and slaking may not provide an effective coating. A lean concrete "mud slab"
approximately four inches thick may provide an effective coating. Usually removing the
last few inches of material and doing final cleaning just before first placement of fill is
adequate. A maximum time interval may also be specified between the time of exposure
of the final grade and the time that the foundation is protected with earthfill or a suitable
protective coating.
24
Cleaning outside the core is often less critical than beneath the core; however this is not
always the case. Loose materials should be removed so that the embankment is in direct
contact with suitable rock in areas where scour (piping), settlement, liquefaction, or
stability of these materials may adversely impact the performance of the structure. If
defects are contained within the foundation area of the shell materials, they may not
require removal and refill. Defects that cross the entire foundation area may require
cleaning similar to the foundation beneath the core.
Small quantities of accumulated water on the surface of the foundation can be removed
by vacuuming (with a shop vacuum or vacuum truck) just before fill placement, as shown
on Figure 15. Seeps can be isolated with berms and gravel sumps constructed and
subsequently grouted.
The first few lifts of fill placed against rock foundations need to be placed to ensure an
acceptable bond between the fill and foundation and to not damage the foundation during
placement. Rock foundation surfaces should be moistened, but no standing water should
be permitted when the first lift is placed to avoid changing the water content, either up or
down, at the contact, as shown on Figure 16. This is often referred to as, ‘saturated
surface dry’ condition. Unit weight and moisture of the fill materials should be carefully
monitored in the foundation contact zone, and placing and compacting operations should
be carefully inspected.
Methods for preventing erosion of embankment materials into the foundation below the
embankment core zone include sealing of cracks in the foundation with slush grout and
dental concrete. Sealing of cracks is not totally reliable because concrete and mortar can
crack due to shrinkage or loading, and placing natural (or lime-stabilized) more erosion
resistant material for the first several lifts of embankment along the core foundation
contact is good practice. Core materials which are erodible include low plasticity or non-
plastic silt materials and dispersive clays.
25
Figure 16. Top Photo - Moistening of the Foundation Rock Surface Prior to Fill
Placement. Middle Photo - Spreading of Initial Lift of Fill on Moistened Foundation
Surface. Bottom Photo – Compaction of Initial Lift of Fill with a Rubber-tired Loader
(Ridges Basin Dam, Colorado, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
26
Earthfill placed against irregular surfaces should be plastic and deformable so that the
material is forced into all irregularities on the foundation surface by compaction or
subsequent loading. Select material with a required plasticity range is commonly
specified. A plasticity index range from 16 to 30 is good although a lower limit (8 to 12)
may be acceptable. Placement moisture contents should range from zero to two or three
percent wet of optimum (depending on the plasticity of the earthfill material). The use of
very wet soil for the first lift against the foundation should generally be avoided.
The fill compaction method used depends upon the steepness of the surface compacted
against, the nature of the irregularities in the foundation surface, and the soil material.
Where the foundations surfaces permit, a rubber-tired roller or rubber-tired loader with a
full bucket should be used to compact the first few lifts above the foundation surface with
scarification between lifts, as shown on Figure 16. Earthfill specially compacted by
pneumatic-tired equipment is typically placed in six-inch maximum compacted lifts. To
prevent possible damage to the foundation, tracked equipment and tamping-foot or
sheeps-foot rollers should not be used within the first few lifts above the foundation
surface. The use of tamping-foot and sheeps-foot rollers can begin when the fill is
sufficiently thick (at least two to three times the length of the feet) to protect the
foundation from the tamping feet.
Placement of horizontal lifts against mildly sloping rock surfaces can result in feathering
of the earthfill lift near the rock contact. The feather edges of the fill should be covered
with burlap and kept moist to avoid desiccation drying. Placement of the initial lift
parallel to the foundation surface (as opposed to a horizontal lift) for foundation surfaces
flatter than 10:1 (H:V) is acceptable if the compaction equipment climbing up the slope
does not loosen or disturb the previously compacted earthfill.
Earthfill eight to ten feet from a steep surface should be ramped toward the steep surface
at a slope of 6:1 to 10:1 so that a component of the compaction force acts toward the
steep surface, as shown on Figure 17. The surfaces of structures should be sloped
(battered) at about 1:10 to facilitate compaction.
27
Figure 17. Placement and Compaction of Initial Lift of Fill against Foundation Rock.
Notice Ramping of Fill against Abutment Rock.
(Batu Dam, Malaysia, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
When the foundation is soil and contains soft, collapsible, organic, or other unsuitable
materials, such as stumps, brush, sod, and large roots, it should be stripped and wasted.
Also, as applicable, frozen soil should not be allowed in the foundation. Stripping should
be performed carefully to ensure the removal of all material that may be, or may become,
unstable because of saturation, shaking, settlement, or decomposition. Earth material that
may interfere with a proper bond between the foundation and the embankment must be
removed. Also pockets of soil that are significantly more compressible than the average
foundation material should be over-excavated and removed. Material that does not meet
the strength and permeability properties anticipated in the design should be removed.
Stripping and removal of pervious materials under the pervious or semi-pervious zones of
an embankment should be limited to the removal of surface debris and grass roots unless
earth material removal is required for seismic stability or filter requirements. Test pits
should be excavated to define the depth of excavation if the stripping operations indicate
the presence of unstable or otherwise unsuitable material.
Before placing the first layer of embankment on a soil foundation, moisture condition and
compact the surface of the earth foundation by rolling with a tamping roller in order to
28
obtain proper bond. Sometimes an earth foundation surface requires scarification by
discs or harrows to ensure proper bonding. No additional scarification is usually
necessary if the material is penetrated by tamping rollers.
Attention should be paid to the possible existence of steep rock surfaces that may be
present beneath the soil cover, especially on the abutments. These buried features, such
as cliff faces and other surfaces can potentially lead to problems associated with low
stress and potential cracking, seepage, and piping.
Cemented and highly over-consolidated soils that break into hard clods should not be
reworked or disced to mix foundation and core material. The first lift of embankment
material should be placed similar to that required for rock foundations as described
above.
Soil foundation compaction requirements beneath filter and shell zones should be the
same as those outlined above, except that bonding the overlying fill to the foundation is
not required.
The moisture content of the upper six inches of a fine-grained soil foundation below the
embankment core zone should be within two percent dry and one percent wet of the
Proctor optimum moisture content for adequate compaction for silty foundation materials
and between zero and two percent wet of the Proctor optimum moisture content for
adequate compaction for clayey foundations materials. Coarse-grained foundation
materials should be wet enough to permit compaction to the specified relative density, but
saturation is not permitted. Dry materials must be disced and moisture conditioned to
provide homogeneous moisture content within the specified limits in the upper six inches
of the foundation. Wet materials must be dried by discing so the upper six inches of
29
foundation material is within the specified moisture content limits. Wet foundations
should be unwatered or dewatered sufficiently to prevent saturation of the upper six
inches of foundation material due to capillary rise or pumping caused by construction
equipment travel.
All embankment materials should be protected from losing fine particles into coarser soil
strata in the foundation by constructing transitions that satisfy filter criteria. Transition
zones on the downstream face of the cutoff trench and beneath the downstream shell
should prevent movement of fine material in the foundation into the embankment.
Dispersive embankment materials must be protected from internal erosion (piping) into
coarse material in the foundation by placing select zones of natural non-dispersive
material, or lime-treated earthfill for the first several lifts of fill material or the use of
designed filters. Except for areas where an impervious seal between the embankment and
foundation is required, filter zone(s) are the preferred alternative for preventing migration
or erosion of fine particles.
30
4.0 PREPARATION OF FOUNDATIONS FOR CONCRETE DAMS
4.1 Treatment of Foundations for Concrete Gravity Dams
Gravity dams generally impose a high pressure on the foundation materials. The entire
base area of the structure should be excavated to material capable of withstanding the
anticipated design loads imposed by the dam, reservoir, and appurtenant structures.
Blasting should not shatter, loosen, or otherwise adversely affect the suitability of the
foundation rock.
Foundations such as shale, chalk, mudstone, and siltstone may require protection against
air and water slaking, or in some environments, against freezing. Methods to protect
these excavations include leaving a temporary cover of unexcavated material, or
immediately applying a minimum of 4 inches of concrete to the exposed surfaces (mud
slab).
If the canyon profile for a dam site is relatively narrow with steep sloping walls, each
vertical section of the dam from the center towards the abutments is shorter in height than
the preceding one. Consequently sections closer to the abutments will be deflected less
by the reservoir load and sections toward the center of the canyon will be deflected more.
Most gravity dams are keyed at the contraction joints, which results in a torsional effect
in the dam that is transmitted to the foundation rock.
A sharp break in the excavated profile of the canyon will result in an abrupt change in the
height of the dam. The effect of the irregularity of the foundation rock causes a marked
change in stresses in both the dam and foundation, and in stability factors. Because of
this, the foundation should be shaped so that a uniformly varying profile is obtained free
of sharp offsets or breaks, as shown on Figure 18.
31
Figure 18. Foundation Excavation Profile Shaped to Remove Foundation Irregularities
that Could Lead to Cracking of the Dam. (Olivenhain Dam, California)
32
Figure 19. Foundation Excavation for the Raised Concrete Dam.
(San Vicente Dam, California, photograph courtesy MWH and
San Diego County Water Authority)
Faults, seams, shattered, or inferior rock too deep to remove completely require special
dental treatment consisting of removing as much weak material as possible and
backfilling the resulting excavations with dental concrete, as shown on Figures 20, 21
and 22.
The effect of differences in rock mass properties complicated by large zones of faulting
on the overall strength and stability of the foundation may require extensive analysis.
Data required for analysis are: dimensions and composition of the lithologic bodies and
geologic discontinuities, deformation moduli for each of the elements incorporated into
the study, and the loading pattern imposed on the foundation by the dam and reservoir.
33
Figure 20. Large Dental Concrete Placement.
(San Vicente Dam, California, photograph courtesy MWH and
San Diego County Water Authority)
Figure 21. Removal of Weak Material in Foundation. (Taum Sauk Dam, Missouri,
photograph courtesy Rizzo and Associates)
34
Figure 22. Leveling and Dental Concrete. (Taum Sauk Dam, Missouri, photograph
courtesy Rizzo and Associates)
Dental concrete may also be required to improve the stability of rock masses. The
stability of the rock mass is a function of the shear strength of the discontinuities (faults,
shears, joints, etc.), intact rock, pore water pressures induced by the reservoir and/or
groundwater, the weight of the rock mass, the driving force induced by the dam and
reservoir, and any other applied loads (seismic, etc.).
The approximate and analytical methods discussed above will satisfy the stress,
deformation, and stability requirements for a foundation, but they may not provide
suitable protection against internal erosion (piping). If faults and seams contain erodible
material, cutoffs may be required in each fault or seam and backfilled with concrete. The
cutoff should be keyed one foot into sound rock. The cutoff dimension parallel with the
seam should be at least one-half of the shaft width. A minimum dimension of five feet
each way provides working space. The depth of cutoff may be computed by constructing
flow nets and computing the cutoff depths required to eliminate internal erosion (piping)
concerns, or by simply interpreting the depth of potentially erodible material.
Other adverse foundation conditions may be due to horizontally bedded clay and shale
seams, caverns, or springs. Procedures for treating these conditions will vary and will
depend upon field studies of the characteristics of the particular condition to be remedied.
Although analyses and designs assume relatively uniform foundation and abutment
excavations, the final excavation may vary widely from that assumed in the design.
35
Faults or crush zones are often uncovered during excavation and the excavation of the
unsound rock often leaves depressions or holes which must be filled with concrete.
Unless this backfill concrete has undergone most of its volumetric shrinkage at the time
overlying concrete is placed, cracks can occur in the overlying concrete near the
boundaries of the backfill concrete as loss of support occurs due to continuing shrinkage
of the backfill concrete. Where dental work is extensive, the backfill concrete should be
placed and cured appropriately before additional concrete is placed over the area.
Also of note, at breaks in slope, cracks often develop because of the differential
movement which takes place between the concrete held in place by rock and the concrete
held in place by previously placed concrete which has not undergone its full volumetric
shrinkage. A forced cooling of the concrete adjacent to and below the break in slope and
a delay in placement of concrete over the break in slope can be employed to minimize
cracking at these locations. The elimination of these points of high stress concentration is
desirable. Cracks in lifts near the abutments very often develop leakage and lead to
spalling and deterioration of the concrete.
Proper cleaning and water control on a foundation before placing concrete allows the
structure and rock contact to perform as designed. Good cleaning allows the contact area
to have the compressive and shear strength and the permeability anticipated in the design.
Poor cleaning reduces the compressive and shear strength at the contact forming a weak
zone under the structure and can provide a high permeability path for seepage and
potential internal erosion (piping).
Foundation cleaning is labor intensive and costly so is too often minimized resulting in
questionable foundations. Rock foundations should be cleaned by:
36
Immediately prior to placement of concrete, the rock surface should be lightly wetted
with water to facilitate bonding of the concrete to the rock surface.
37
Figure 24. Cleaning Operations Using Shovels, Picks, and Bars.
(San Vicente Dam, California, photograph courtesy MWH and
San Diego County Water Authority)
Figure 25. Foundation Cleaning (Saluda Dam, South Carolina, photograph courtesy
Rizzo and Associates)
38
4.2 Preparation of Foundations for Concrete Arch Dams
During the inspection, mapping and treatment of the cleaned foundation, it is critical that
geologists work to verify design assumptions, particularly regarding the presence of
potential existing or load-induced sliding planes. This is further discussed in Section 6.0.
Dental treatment consists of placing backfill concrete in faults, shears, and zones of weak
rock. Data required for analyses are: dimensions and composition of the lithologic bodies
and geologic discontinuities, deformation moduli for each of the elements, and the
loading pattern imposed by the dam and reservoir.
Dental concrete may also be required to improve the stability of rock masses. The
stability of the rock mass is a function of the shear strength of the discontinuities (faults,
shears, joints, etc.), intact rock, pore water pressures induced by the reservoir and/or
39
groundwater, the weight of the rock mass, the driving force induced by the dam and
reservoir, and any other applied loads (seismic, etc.).
Analysis methods can provide a way to combine the physical properties of different rock
types and geologic discontinuities such as faults, shears, and joint sets to estimate
foundation modulus. Stress and deformation in a given segment of the foundation can
then be analyzed.
The approximate and analytical methods discussed above will satisfy the stress,
deformation, and stability requirements for a foundation, but they may not provide
suitable protection against internal erosion (piping) considering the high seepage
gradients in arch dam foundations. Faults and seams may contain erodible material, and
cutoffs may be required in each fault or seam and backfilled with concrete. The cutoff
should be keyed one foot into sound rock. The cutoff dimension parallel with the seam
should be at least one-half of the cutoff width. A minimum cutoff dimension of five feet
each way provides working space. The depth of cutoff may be computed by constructing
flow nets. Other adverse foundation conditions may be due to horizontally bedded clay
and shale layers, caverns, or springs. Procedures for treating these conditions will vary
and will depend on the characteristics of the particular condition to be remedied.
Although analyses and designs assume relatively uniform foundation and abutment
excavations, the final excavation may vary widely from that assumed in the design.
Faults or crush zones are often uncovered during excavation, and the excavation of the
unsound rock leaves depressions or holes which must be filled with concrete. Unless this
backfill concrete has undergone most of its volumetric shrinkage at the time overlying
concrete is placed, cracks can occur in the overlying 'concrete near the boundaries of the
backfill concrete as loss of support occurs due to continuing shrinkage of the backfill
concrete. Where dental work is extensive, the backfill concrete should be placed and
cured appropriately before additional concrete is placed over the area.
40
5.0 EXAMPLES OF FOUNDATION TREATMENT
This section provides examples from the Bureau of Reclamation guidelines for
foundation treatment decisions (Bureau of Reclamation, 2012).
Slopes should be 0.5: 1 (H:V) or flatter. Beneath the impervious zone, all overhangs
should be removed, stepped surfaces steeper than 0.5:1 and higher than 0.5 foot should be
excavated or treated with dental concrete to a slope of 0.5:1 or flatter. Stepped surfaces
up to 1 foot are allowed if proper compaction is demonstrated. Outside the impervious
zone, all overhangs should be removed, and stepped surfaces steeper than 0.5:1 and
higher than 5 feet should be excavated or treated with dental concrete to a slope of 0.5:1
or flatter.
5.2.1 General
Slabs of dental concrete should have a minimum thickness of 6 inches if the foundation is
weak enough to allow cracking of the concrete under load. The edges of slabs should be
sloped at approximately 45 degrees. Formed dental concrete should not be placed on
slopes steeper than 0.5:1 (H:V).
A beveled surface with a minimum thickness of 6 inches is required at the top of a fillet.
General rules for how deep transverse seams should be excavated have been formulated
based upon foundation conditions and stresses at Shasta and Friant Dams. Approximate
‘rules of thumb’ formulae for determining the depth of dental treatment are:
where:
41
b = width of weak zone in feet, and
d = depth of excavation of weak zone below the surface of adjoining
sound rock in feet. (In clay gouge seams, d should not be less than 0.1 H.)
These rules provide guidance for how much should be excavated, but final judgment
must be exercised in the field during actual excavation operations.
• Openings narrower than 2 inches should be cleaned to a depth of three times the
width of the opening.
• Openings wider than 2 inches and narrower than 5 feet should be cleaned to a
depth of three times the width of the opening or to a depth where the opening is
0.5 inch wide or less, but not to a depth exceeding 5 feet.
• Openings wider than 5 feet are a special case where the required depth of cleaning
is generally three times the width of the opening or as determined in the field.
Although the preceding ‘rules of thumb’ are suitable for foundations with a relatively
homogeneous rock foundation with nominal faulting, some dam sites may have several
distinct rock types interspersed with numerous faults and shears and require detailed
analysis, but final decisions must be made in the field during actual excavation operation.
42
6.0 FOUNDATION MAPPING, EVALUATION, AND APPROVAL
6.1 General
6.2 Mapping/Documentation
Mapping of the foundation features and materials exposed at the surface is extremely
important. This mapping must be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who
understand the geologic features as well as the engineering significance of the features.
Geologic maps, like those shown on Figures 26 and 27, should be created at appropriate
scales to show the detail of the features exposed at the foundation surface. Adequate
cleaning of the foundation surface, including the removal of loose debris, water, and
other substances that could obscure the foundation surface, must be completed prior to
mapping.
43
proven useful for measuring borrow and excavation quantities. See Bureau of
Reclamation/US Army Corps of Engineers (2017) for examples of the use of
photogrammetric methods for geologic characterization.
Figure 26. Example Level of Detail Required for Geologic Foundation Map. (Morrow
Point Dam, Colorado, courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
44
Figure 27. Example Level of Detail Required for Geologic Foundation Map. (Hungry
Horse Dam, Montana, courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
45
Figure 28. Example Construction Photographs Annotated Showing Pertinent Geologic
Features (Hungry Horse Dam, Montana, courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)
The locations, extent, and types of foundation treatment measures should be included on
final foundation maps.
Designers should have an active role in assuring the foundation mapping and evaluation
adequately confirms design assumptions. Foundation mapping should be integrated with
geologic cross sections to depict the geologic structure as part of the permanent records.
Though the mapping is generally performed piecemeal as access allows, the final product
should be an integrated map of the entire footprint, not individual maps of dam
monoliths. Preparation of these maps must also reflect what is known of the site from
regional geological sources and the site-specific drilling program conducted in advance.
A robust quality assurance program is required to assure careful, timely checking and
reviews.
Draft maps must be produced quickly and shared with designers in order to confirm
design assumptions. To avoid pitfalls and prevent disasters, communications between the
geologist and design engineers while the foundation is exposed is essential, and is the
responsibility of both the design engineers and geologists.
On many projects, the dam foundation will not be approved until adequate geologic
mapping and photographic records are verified and signed. This puts the geologic
mapping process on the critical path, requiring careful planning, adequate staffing, and
specifications that specifically describe the process. The contractor must plan for
providing safe mapping access for geologists and understand and incorporate any
ramifications to the construction schedule. It may also be important for providing
contract provisions to make mechanical equipment and laborers available to the
geologist. The owner must understand the level of effort and support required for this
essential documentation.
• site conditions
• foundation geology
• geologic plan and section drawing depicting all essential data
• geotechnical considerations
• foundation treatment required or accomplished
• locations of and special requirements for approval
• photographs
6.3 Evaluation
Many dam foundations have been mapped in very fine detail only to discover the most
significant features were missed or not understood by the geologist and engineer.
47
Evaluation of the dam foundation geology is an art requiring experience and a broad
understanding of potential failure modes and the design intent and assumptions, as well
as regional geology and the site investigation that integrates information from all sources.
Figures depicting historical foundation maps of existing dams are provided on Figures 26
and 27. It is important to note that both of these projects (Morrow Point and Hungry
Horse Dam) required extensive additional investigations and analysis over 50 years after
their construction to further evaluate foundation stability concerns based on potential
failure modes that were not considered at the time of construction. Both of these dams
were constructed on foundations with kinematically removable foundation blocks and
were constructed before the knowledge of the Malpasset Dam failure was published and
incorporated into standard practices.
This is an important lesson because: 1) it reinforces the need for very detailed mapping
since we don’t know what analysis or data may be required many decades in the future,
and 2) geologists should approach foundation mapping activities differently today with a
full understanding of potential failure modes so that key features can be highlighted.
Such features related to foundation rock blocks or wedges would include clearly
identifying potential sliding planes, potential side planes, potential release planes, and
other structurally significant materials or discontinuities. This clarification would save
future investigators a great amount of effort since these types of maps can be very
difficult to study and understand by themselves. An experienced engineering geologist
can help interpret the geology and emphasize those features of most importance.
Also, missing from both of these examples are clear identifications of photo locations,
which today would be an important addition since the photos can be even more important
than the maps. The value of the photograph shown on Figure 28 cannot be over-
estimated. Having these photographs allowed for the development of a three dimensional
physical model and a finite element model that would not have been otherwise possible.
Each dam will have its own specific evaluation requirements since the design
assumptions and geologic conditions vary. Geologists must collaborate closely with the
designers throughout the design excavation, mapping, verification and documentation
processes so expectations are clear.
6.4 Approval
Foundations should not be approved for treatment, concrete or fill placement until the
following is verified:
48
2. The quality and quantity of foundation geologic records are confirmed,
and
3. An experienced engineering geologist has reviewed and provided
technical approval of geologic records.
For large dam foundations, foundation review and approval is typically performed on
smaller areas to allow construction activities to continue.
49
7.0 REFERENCES
Berkey, C.P., “Geology and Engineering for Dams and Reservoirs”, American Institute
of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Technical Publication, New York, 1929.
Boyer, D.D., “Geologic Factors Influencing Dam Failure Modes”, 26th USSD Annual
Meeting, San Antonio, TX, 2006.
Bureau of Reclamation/US Army Corps of Engineers, Best Practices in Dam and Levee
Risk Analyses, Chapter A-2-11, Geologic and Geotechnical Information Required for
Risk, Denver, CO, 2017.
Moler, W., “Site Selection and Foundations for RCC Dams”, presentation at Portland
Cement Association Roller-Compacted Concrete Seminar, Denver, CO, 1998.
Peck, R., “Art and Science in Subsurface Engineering”,. Géotechnique, vol. 12, pp. 60-
66, March 1962.
Peck, R., “Advantages and Limitations of the Observational Method in Applied Soil
Mechanics”, Ninth Rankine Lecture, Géotechnique, vol. 19, pp. 171-187, June 1969.
Peck, R., “Where has All the Judgment Gone?” Laurits Bjerrum Minneforedrag No. 5,
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, 5 p., 1980; Also: Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Vol 17, No.4, pp. 584-590, 1980; and Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Publ.
134, pp. 1-5, 1980.
Peck, R., “Beware the Oddball”, Urban Geotechnology and Rehabilitation, Seminar
ASCE Metropolitan Section, Geotechnical Group, New York, 7 p., 1998.
Peck, R., “The Power of Observation”, Geotechnical News, vol. 21, No.4, pp. 29-30,
2003.
Pratt, H.K., R.C. McMordie, and R.M. Dundas, “Foundations and Abutments - Bennett
and Mica Dams”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings
50
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October 1972, pp. 1053-
1072.
Terzaghi, K., “Effect of Minor Geologic Details on the Safety of Dams”, American
Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers, Technical Publication, New York, 1929.
Acker, R.C. and J.C. Jones, “Foundation and Abutment Treatment for Rockfill Dams”,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October 1972, pp. 995 - 1016.
Barron, R.A., “Abutment and Foundation Treatment for High Embankment Dams on
Rock”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October 1972, pp. 1017 -1032.
Burke, H.H., C.S. Content, and R.L. Kulesza, “Current Practice in Abutment and
Foundation Treatment”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October
1972, pp. 1033-1052.
Fetzer, C.A., W.F. Swiger, and R.W. Kramer, “Earthfill Dam Construction and
Foundation Treatment”, in Advanced Dam Engineering for Design, Construction, and
Rehabilitation, edited by R.B. Jansen, Springer Science, 1989.
International Commission on Large Dams, Dam Foundations, Bulletin 129, Paris, France,
2005.
International Commission on Large Dams, Rock Foundations for Dams, Bulletin 88,
Paris, France, 1993.
Schrader, E.K. and W.F. Swiger, “Concrete Dam Construction and Foundation
Treatment”, in Advanced Dam Engineering for Design, Construction, and Rehabilitation,
edited by R.B. Jansen, Springer Science, 1989.
Sherard, J.L., R.J. Woodward, S.F. Gizienski, and W.A. Clevenger, Earth and Earth-Rock
Dams, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1963.
Stroppini, E.W., D.H. Babbitt, and H.E. Struckmeyer, “Foundation Treatment for
Embankment Dams on Rock”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October
1972, pp. 1073-1080.
51
Swiger, W.F., “Preparation of Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams”, in
Embankment Dam Engineering, Eds. R.C. Hirschfeld and S.J. Poulos, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 355-363, 1973.
Wallace, B.J., and J.I. Hilton, “Foundation Practices for Talbingo Dam, Australia”,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October 1972, pp. 1081-1098.
Walker, F.C. and R.W. Bock, “Treatment of High Embankment Dam Foundations”,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, October 1972, pp. 1099-1113.
Weaver, K.D., and D.A. Bruce, Dam Foundation Grouting, ASCE Press, 2007.
52