United States Society on Dams

Guidance for Surface Preparation of

Dam Foundations

DRAFT - April 2018

1
2
 United States Society on Dams

Guidance for Surface

Preparation of Dam
Foundations

DRAFT - April 2018

Prepared by the USSD Committee on Foundations

3
 U.S. Society on Dams
Vision

To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of

dams for the benefit of society.

Mission — USSD is dedicated to:

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

The information contained in this 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.

Copyright © 2018 U. S. Society on Dams

Printed in the United States of America
ISBN 978-1-884575-49-5
Library of Congress Control Number 2009942447

U.S. Society on Dams

1616 Seventeenth Street, #483
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-628-5430
Fax: 303-628-5431
E-mail:
Internet: www.ussdams.org

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.

This is a publication developed by the USSD Foundation Committee based on work

started by Norm Tilford prior to his tragic death in 1997. The authors of this publication
wish to acknowledge Norm for his work on this subject and the philosophical guidelines
he laid out in his original 1993 draft. While trying to preserve Norm's writing style and
philosophy we have built on these ideas to present these as guidelines. Norm spent a
great deal of his professional career working on dams and constantly emphasized the
importance of the foundation. He said that while you see the embankment, it is the
unseen dam foundation that comprises 75 percent of the dam.

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.

Finally, we acknowledge the leadership of Norman R. Tilford in preparing an early draft

on the subject of foundation preparation. Norm's career was cut short by an aircraft
accident on November 13, 1997. During his career he worked on dams all over the world
while working for such notable organizations as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

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

Notable quotes that help guide this white paper:

“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

2.0 GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF DAM FOUNDATION PREPARATION

2.1 Purpose of Dam Foundation Preparation
2.1.1 Objectives of Foundation Cleaning
2.1.2 Variations in Dam Type
2.1.3 Variations in Dam Height
2.2 Problems Associated With Foundation Preparation
2.3 Other Considerations

3.0 PREPARATION OF FOUNDATIONS FOR EMBANKMENT DAMS

3.1 General
3.2 Treatment of Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams
3.2.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Rock Foundations
3.2.2 Initial Cleaning for Inspection and Geologic Mapping
3.2.3 Shaping Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams
3.2.4 General Grout Cap Provisions
3.2.5 The Use of Dental Concrete for Embankment Dam Foundations
3.2.6 The Use of Slush Grout for Embankment Dam Foundations
3.2.7 The Use of Shotcrete for Embankment Dam Foundations
3.2.8 Final Cleaning of Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams
3.2.9 Compaction of Fill against Rock Foundations
3.3 Preparation of Soil Foundations for Embankment Dams
3.3.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Soil Foundations
3.3.2 Compaction of Soil Foundations for Embankment Dams

4.0 PREPARATION OF FOUNDATIONS FOR CONCRETE DAMS

4.1 Treatment of Foundations for Concrete Gravity Dams
4.1.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Gravity Dams
4.1.2 Shaping of Foundations for Gravity Dams
4.1.3 Dental Treatment of Foundations for Gravity Dams
4.1.4 Protection against Internal/Erosion Piping in Concrete Dam
Foundations
4.1.5 Cleaning of Gravity Dam Foundations
4.2 Treatment of Foundations for Concrete Arch Dams
4.2.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Arch Dams
4.2.2 Shaping of Foundations for Arch Dams
4.2.3 Dental Treatment of Foundations for Arch Dams
4.2.4 Backfill Concrete to Protect against Piping in Arch Dam
Foundations

iii
 4.2.5 Cleaning of Arch Dam Foundations

5.0 EXAMPLES OF FOUNDATION TREATMENT

5.1 Shaping of Rock Foundations beneath Embankment Dams
5.2 Dental Concrete
5.2.1 General
5.2.2 Dental Treatment of Foundations

6.0 FOUNDATION MAPPING, EVALAUTION, AND APPROVAL

6.1 General
6.2 Mapping/Documentation
6.3 Evaluation
6.4 Approval

7.0 REFERENCES

iv
 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

This document presents a philosophy of foundation surface preparation and treatment of

dam foundations and discusses various preparation methods. The document discusses
surface preparation of rock and soil foundation materials for placement of embankment
and surface preparation of rock foundations for placement of concrete or roller-
compacted concrete (RCC). Foundation preparation methods are presented including
excavation; shaping the rock foundation surface with dental concrete or shotcrete; filling
rock surface irregularities and defects with slush grout or dental concrete; treating fault,
shear, or weak zones; and cleaning. Special compaction requirements for the first several
layers of earthfill placed on the foundation of embankment dams are also presented.

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.

Chapter 2 presents a discussion on the general purpose of foundation preparation and

some general problems typically encountered in foundation work. Chapters 3 and 4
present specific foundation preparation issues for embankment and concrete dams,
respectively; and Chapter 5 presents some examples of foundation preparation methods.
Chapter 6 provides some important considerations on mapping and documentation of the
foundation; evaluation of the significance of foundation features, and foundation
approval. Chapter 7 includes references and additional sources of information on
foundation surface treatment.

1.2 Definitions

Core Materials – low permeability materials within an embankment placed to reduce

seepage and water loss.

Dental Concrete – conventional concrete used to shape foundation surfaces, fill

irregularities, and protect the rock from deterioration.

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

Shotcrete – concrete mortar that is sprayed on to the foundation

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.

2.1.1 Objectives of Foundation Cleaning

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:

• Removing "loose" material

• Reshaping by removing or adding material
• Backfilling open fractures
• Excavating and replacing weak or unsuitable materials (e.g., shear zones)
• Protecting temporarily to avoid damage or deterioration due to exposure to the
elements or to other construction activities
• Scarifying
• Moisture conditioning
• Proof rolling

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:

• Relative settlement, deformation, or reduced contact pressure between the dam

mass and the foundation.
• Transient loading conditions that the dam and foundation may be subjected to
must be anticipated (e.g., earthquake loading).
• The effects of water chemistry acting on the dam and foundation.
• Changes in saturation resulting in drying and cracking.
• Changes in permeability related to loading (e.g., Malpasset Dam) or movement of
fines in gap-graded alluvial foundations.

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.

2.1.2 Variations in Dam Type

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.

2.1.3 Variations in Dam Height

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.

2.2 Problems Associated with Foundation Preparation

"We assume the pre-construction foundation investigation to be adequate.

It rarely is."
Don Babbitt

Why do we still have foundation cleaning problems?

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:

1. lack of complete knowledge of the extent or importance of potentially adverse

conditions (this can be a result of poor communication between the designer and
the field construction staff);
2. the timing of discovery or recognition of these conditions;
3. poorly written specifications that do not allow time (or sufficient time) for
foundation mapping and decisions for treatment;
4. problems in foundation cleaning and treatment often result from contractors
underbidding the cleaning process; and
5. materials that are difficult to treat (e.g. slaking shale).

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.”

Providing adequate time to address foundation issues is important. When potentially

unsatisfactory conditions are discovered far in advance of construction activity, time is
available for investigation, resolution, treatment, alternative siting, or alternative designs,
providing that the condition is actually understood and appreciated. If the dam
foundation is exposed well in advance of the remaining dam construction activities, the
likelihood of interfering with the timing and sequencing of dam construction is reduced.
Conversely, when a potentially unsatisfactory condition is discovered shortly before
placement of dam construction materials and after foundation treatment is considered
complete, interference with the planned progress of construction can create large
schedule delays and cost problems. This point cannot be overemphasized. Initial
foundation preparation operations are pressure-packed and are nearly always on the
critical path for geologic and design interpretation and can result in delays to the
contractor’s high cost labor and equipment operations. This requires thoughtful
consideration in the preparation of technical specifications, contracts, bids, and
construction management so that these construction risks can be reduced and possibly
anticipated. Including representatives of the field construction staff in the development
and/or review of the contract specifications can help communicate design considerations,
assure appropriate language is included to facilitate the field engineer’s role, and help
reduce the impact of unforeseen foundation conditions.

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.

Contractors may underappreciate the importance and effort required to produce an

acceptable foundation and this may be reflected in the associated bid price. When the
contractor discovers that labor intensive cleaning and remediation costs are required and
are not covered properly by the budget, contract disputes may arise to address changed or
undisclosed conditions. Preparing carefully worded contract documents that emphasize
the variations and uncertainties of the natural materials and specific foundation
preparation requirements cannot be overstated. The use of experienced dam designers
and contractors continues to be a defensible approach to reduce overall costs and increase
dam performance.

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.

2.3 Other Considerations

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.

Prior to discussing foundation preparation it is worth mentioning a couple of items

related to unwatering and dewatering needs and special considerations. Water control
methods used in connection with excavating cutoff trenches or stabilizing the foundations
should ensure that fine material is not washed out of the foundation because of improper
screening of wells and that the water level is far enough below the foundation surface to
permit construction "in the dry". Whenever possible, well points and sumps should be
located outside the area to be excavated to avoid loosening soil or creating a "quick"
bottom caused by the upward flow of water or equipment vibration. Similarly, locating
sumps and associated drainage trenches within the impervious zone should be avoided
because of the difficulty in properly grouting them after fill placement, and the danger of
damaging the impervious zone/foundation contact.

3.2 Treatment of Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams

3.2.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Rock Foundations

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.

• Provide a defense against erosion of embankment materials into or along the

foundation. Filling or covering surface cracks in the foundation, blanket grouting,
using protective filters, and using less erosion-prone embankment materials
(natural or manufactured) at the foundation contact are examples.

• Remove erodible, weak, unstable, compressible, loose, or pervious materials to

ensure a foundation of adequate strength and appropriate permeability. If the

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.

• Remove large irregularities in the foundation. Fractures and resultant seepage

problems in embankment dams may be caused by irregularities in the foundation
surface such as stepped surfaces, abrupt changes in slope, and excessively steep or
overhanging surfaces. Differential settlement may occur in embankment zones
above and adjacent to these areas, resulting in cracks. Arching occurs near
stepped surfaces with a zone of low horizontal stress adjacent to the steep surface.
These areas are susceptible to hydraulic fracturing. The foundation surface
should be shaped by excavation or by concrete placement to obtain a smooth,
continuous, surface that minimizes crack potential and that allows for adequate
compactive effort to be applied normal to the foundation surface. Where the
foundation is not excavated to bedrock, it is important to consider the possible
existence of undiscovered steep rock surface or “buried cliffs” beneath the soil
overburden. These can also be areas of low horizontal stress. Knowledge of the
bedrock characteristics and/or lithology can help anticipate these problems and
help guide appropriate exploration.

The minimum treatment of any foundation consists of stripping or removal of organic

material such as roots and stumps, sod, topsoil, wood, trash or other foreign material, or
other soft or unsuitable materials. Cobbles and boulders may also require removal
depending on the type of embankment material to be placed.

3.2.2 Initial Cleaning for Inspection and Geologic Mapping

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.

3.2.3 Shaping Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams

Foundation rock should be shaped to remove overhangs, steep surfaces, and sharp
irregularities, as shown on Figure 2, 3, and 4.

Figure 2. Excavation Shaping to Reduce Differential Settlement and Cracking

of the Earthfill Core (Fell, et. al., 1992)

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.

Generally, the foundation surface can be shaped adequately by conventional excavation

or smooth blasting. When smoothing irregularities requires excessively large quantities
of excavation or requires blasting that may damage the foundation, shaping with dental
concrete may be appropriate.

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.

3.2.4 General Grout Cap Provisions

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.

• A highly weathered zone can be grouted effectively by temporarily leaving

several feet of the unsuitable foundation material above the final foundation
surface to provide confining pressure for the grout and extending standpipes
through the unsuitable material. Excavation to the final foundation grade is
performed after grouting. In poor rock, long standpipes may be necessary. In
hard, sound rock, neither a grout cap nor a high foundation is necessary.

3.2.5 The Use of Dental Concrete for Embankment Dam Foundations

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.

Figure 9. Dental Concrete Being Placed in a Foundation Defect.

(Mudan Dam, Taiwan, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)

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.

3.2.6 The Use of Slush Grout for Embankment Dam Foundations

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)

Figure 11. Placement of Slush Grout in an Open Discontinuity.

(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.

Figure 12. Shotcrete application (photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)

3.2.8 Final Cleaning of Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams

Prior to placement of embankment materials, all loose or objectionable material, such is

shown on Figure 13, should be removed by handwork, barring, picking, brooming, water
jetting, air jetting, or vacuuming, as shown on Figures 14 and 15. Accumulated water
from washing operations must be removed. When the rock surface softens or slakes by
water washing, compressed-air jetting or jetting with a small amount of water should be
used. Loose or unsuitable material in cavities, shear zones, cracks, or seams should be
removed or treated.

22
 Figure 13. Example of Foundation Rock Surface Prior to Cleaning.
(Ridges Basin Dam, Colorado, photograph courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)

Figure 14. Example of Initial Rock Surface Cleaning.

(photograph courtesy RJH Consultants)

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.

3.2.9 Compaction of Fill against Rock Foundations

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.

If non-dispersive material is available, the material should be used instead of dispersive

material, at least in critical locations such as along the core-foundation contact. In
deposits that contain dispersive material, the dispersion potential generally varies greatly
over short distances. Selectively excavating non-dispersive material from a deposit
containing dispersive materials is frequently difficult and unreliable. Lime can be added
to dispersive materials to reduce or convert the soil to a non-dispersive material. The
amount of lime required to treat the dispersive soil should be established by performing
dispersivity tests on samples of dispersive soils treated with varying percentages of lime.
Addition of lime to a soil results in a reduction of plasticity and a more brittle soil. The
lime content should be the minimum possible required to treat the soil. Testing should be
performed using production processes. Natural, low plasticity material should not be
lime treated if possible.

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.

A hand tamper may be used to compact earthfill in or against irregular surfaces, in

potholes and depressions and against structures not accessible by heavy compaction
equipment, but its use should be limited. Hand-tamped, specially compacted earthfill is
typically placed in 4-inch maximum compacted lifts with scarification between lifts.
Care must be exercised when special compaction is used to ensure that suitable bonds are
created between successive layers of material. This may require light scarification
between lifts of compacted material. Site-specific conditions determine whether hand-
compacted earthfill or filling with dental concrete is the best solution. Specially
compacted fill should be carefully controlled and only used in limited areas.

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)

3.3 Preparation of Soil Foundations for Embankment Dams

3.3.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Soil Foundations

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.

All irregularities, ruts, and washouts should be removed to provide a satisfactory

foundation. Cut slopes should be flat enough to prevent sloughing, and not steeper than
1: 1. Material that has been loosened to a depth of less than six inches may be treated by
compaction. Loosened material deeper than six inches cannot be adequately compacted
and should be removed.

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.

3.3.2 Compaction of Soil Foundations for Embankment Dams

Fine-grained foundation materials should be compacted with a tamping-foot or sheeps-

foot roller. If the surface of the foundation is too dense for the tamping feet to penetrate,
the foundation surface should be disced to a depth of six inches and moisture conditioned
prior to compaction. Smooth surfaces created by construction traffic on a previously
compacted foundation surface should be disced to a depth to adequately remove the
smooth surface and laminations. A minimum depth of two inches is usually adequate.

Coarse-grained foundations should be compacted by rubber-tired or vibratory rollers.

Vibratory compactors create a more uniform surface for placement of the first earthfill
and are the preferred method of compaction.

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

4.1.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for 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).

4.1.2 Shaping of Foundations for Gravity Dams

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.

Generally, a foundation surface should be relatively horizontal in the transverse

(upstream-downstream) direction, as shown on Figure 19. However, depending on
geologic conditions, where increased resistance to sliding is desired the surface can be
sloped upward from heel to toe (upstream-downstream) of the dam. Natural roughness
and roughness resulting from blasting can be beneficial for increasing the shear strength
at the foundation contact. Very smooth surfaces trending upstream to downstream, such
as shale beds, can result in lower shear strength and should be considered in the design.
In such cases, the use of shear keys may be required. Attention must be given to the local
geology to understand the likely conditions below the foundation. Interbedded shale or
other soft zones can form potential sliding surfaces deeper in the foundation, below the
ground surface. Geologists must use subsurface exploration and estimate what adverse
conditions could reasonably be expected in this environment. Simply observing the
surface conditions may be inadequate. This is discussed further in Section 6.0.

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)

4.1.3 Dental Treatment of Foundations for Gravity Dams

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.).

4.1.4 Protection against Internal Erosion/Piping in Concrete Dam Foundation

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.

4.1.5 Cleaning of Gravity Dam Foundations

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).

Foundations should be cleaned by removing material missed by machine stripping.

Foundations of weak rock can be cleaned by placing a steel plate across the teeth of a
backhoe or hydraulic excavator and "shaving" or "peeling" unsuitable material off the
surface leaving a clean foundation requiring very little hand cleaning.

Foundation cleaning is labor intensive and costly so is too often minimized resulting in
questionable foundations. Rock foundations should be cleaned by:

1. Barring and prying all drummy rock loose,

2. Using an air/water jet to remove all loose material and fluff possible, and
3. Hand and vacuum trucks, where applicable, as shown in Figures 23, 24,
and 25.

Water in small quantities can be removed by vacuuming (with a shop vacuum)

immediately before concrete placement. Seeps in concrete dam foundations can be
isolated and gravel sumps constructed and subsequently grouted or if the seeps are not
too large, the concrete can be used to displace the water out of the foundation as it is
placed. The quantity of water being displaced should not lead to washing the cement out
of the concrete and result in a zone of concrete that may not have the desired properties.
Anti-wash additives should be considered in these situations.

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.

Figure 23. Cleaning of Foundation Rock Surface prior to Concrete Placement.

Top Photo Shows Rock Surface Prior to Cleaning. Bottom Photo Shows Surface after
Cleaning and Prior to Removal and Cleaning of Low and Wet Areas.
(Upper Stillwater Dam, Utah, photographs courtesy Bureau of Reclamation)

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

4.2.1 Basic Treatment Objectives for Arch Dams

The entire footprint of an arch dam should be excavated to material capable of

withstanding the loads imposed by the dam, reservoir, and appurtenant structures.
Blasting operations must not damage the rock foundation. All excavations should
conform to the lines and dimensions shown on the construction drawings where practical
but it may be necessary to vary dimensions or excavation slopes due to local conditions.

Foundations containing seams of shale, siltstone, chalk, or mudstone may require

protection against air and water slaking, or in some environments against freezing.
Excavations can be protected by leaving a temporary cover of unexcavated material, by
immediately covering the exposed surfaces with a minimum of 4 inches of concrete, or
by any other method that will prevent damage to the foundation.

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.

4.2.2 Shaping of Foundations for Arch Dams

Although not essential, a symmetrical or nearly symmetrical profile is desirable for an

arch dam for stress distribution. The asymmetry may introduce stress problems, but these
can be overcome by proper design. Abutment pads between the dam and foundation may
be used to overcome some of the detrimental effects of asymmetry, foundation
irregularities, or large variations in foundation modulus. Thrust blocks are sometimes
used at asymmetrical sites. The primary use of a thrust block is not to provide symmetry,
but to establish an artificial abutment where an adequate natural one does not exist.
Over-excavation of a site to achieve symmetry is not always necessary. The foundation
should be excavated to eliminate sharp breaks in the excavated profile, since these may
cause stress concentrations in both the foundation rock and the dam. The foundation
should also be excavated to about radial or part radial lines. Attention should also be
paid to the rock mass modulus in each abutment and its spatial variation.

4.2.3 Dental Treatment of Foundations for Arch Dams

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.).

Typically exploratory drilling or final excavation uncovers faults, seams, or shattered or

inferior rock extending to depths that are impracticable to remove. Geologic
discontinuities can affect both the stability and the deformation modulus of the
foundation. The deformation modulus of weak zones can be improved by removing
sheared material, gouge, and/or inferior rock and replacing the material with backfill
concrete. Pads can be incorporated into the design to spread the load over a wider area.

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.

4.2.4 Backfill Concrete to Protect Against Internal Erosion/Piping in Arch Dam

Foundations

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.

4.2.5 Cleaning of Arch Dam Foundations

Cleaning of arch dam foundations is similar to gravity dam foundations described in

Section 4.1.5.

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).

5.1 Shaping of Rock Foundations beneath Embankment Dams

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.

Abutment slopes should be 0.5:1 or flatter, depending on the fill material.

5.2 Dental Concrete

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.

Concrete mix proportions should provide a minimum 28-day compressive strength of

3,000 lb/in2. The maximum aggregate size should not be larger than one-third the depth
of slabs or one-fifth the narrowest dimension between the side of a form and the rock
surface.

5.2.2 Dental Treatment of Foundations

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:

d = 0.002bH + 5 for H > 150 feet

d = 0.3b + 5 for H < 150 feet

where:

H = height of dam above general foundation level in feet,

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.

General rules for treatment of smaller features:

• 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

A critical and often overlooked element of foundation treatment is the documentation,

evaluation, and approval of the treatment prior to placing embankment or concrete over
the foundation. Such information can be invaluable in addressing possible post
construction performance issues with the dam. Once buried, it may be nearly impossible
or cost prohibitive to remove the placed materials to observe the adequacy of the
treatment measures. Any defective work will most likely manifest itself with time,
constituting one or more potential failure modes.

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.

Photographs of the foundation should be taken with special emphasis on geologic

features. The photographs should be annotated to identify special features exposed at the
foundation surface and the location. The location of each photo should be clearly marked
on the geologic map. Examples are shown on Figure 28. The annotations shown on
Figure 28 were not made during construction but were added later following months of
tedious study. Geologists working on foundations today must label their photos carefully
to help provide permanent records of the foundation. No amount of future drilling, at any
cost, could ever provide the level of detail and understanding obtained from this one
photograph. These records must be protected and preserved for the life of the structure.

With the advent of rapidly improving digital photography technology and

photogrammetric processing software, photogrammetry methods have become an
important tool at the disposal of engineering geologists for use in characterizing geologic
features. These technologies, especially photogrammetry combined with aerial drones
facilitates the rapid development of 3D models and the measurement of joint orientations.
Steep abutments, usually requiring rope access, can now be mapped in great detail by a
single camera on a drone in a matter of hours. With today's available technology,
consideration should be given for major projects to conduct laser scanning of each
section of cleaned foundation at the time of mapping. Afterward, the 3D point cloud
model of the foundation can be developed for base maps and other uses, as appropriate.
Any major dam being constructed today should consider the advantages of these
technologies in order to obtain complete photo coverage of the foundation faster than
other methods. This could save valuable time during construction. The models have also

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.

For concrete dam foundations, mapping should also be performed downstream

specifically looking for upstream dipping features that could form potential sliding
planes. Any deeper excavations, such as spillway or stilling basin cuts, should be
carefully evaluated, looking specifically for major discontinuities (shears, joints, bedding
planes, foliation or faults) that project under the foundation. The foundation should be
evaluated in three dimensions and major features should be correlated with boreholes,
adits or other exposures as necessary to understand and depict the subsurface geometry.

Geologists performing the mapping should be knowledgeable of and specifically looking

for potential foundation blocks that may be kinematically removable. At some concrete
dams, very detailed foundation mapping was performed, only to completely miss hidden,
shallow horizontal sand layers that control sliding stability. The geologist must think
46
about and understand the subsurface structure and not just focus on the surface exposure.
It is important to realize that the fault and foliation planes that led to the failure of
Malpasset Dam in southern France did not intersect the foundation footprint and were not
noted by any level of mapping confined to the footprint only. This is why knowledge of
past dam incidents and failures is critical for any geologist mapping the foundation.

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.

A final geologic construction report should be prepared. At a minimum, the report

should include:

• 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.

A redundant foundation review process that includes “fresh experienced eyes” is

essential.

6.4 Approval

Foundations should not be approved for treatment, concrete or fill placement until the
following is verified:

1. The foundation is mapped and photographed and the significance of

mapped features is clearly and completely understood,

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, Engineering Geology Field Manual, Government Printing Office,

Washington D.C., Volume 2, Chapter 21, 2001.

Bureau of Reclamation, “Foundation Surface Treatment”, Chapter 3, Design Standards

No. 13, Embankment Dams, Denver, CO, 2012.

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.

Fell, R., P. MacGregor, and D. Stapledon, Geotechnical Engineering of Embankment

Dams, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1992.

Fraser, W.A., “Engineering Geology Considerations for Specifying Dam Foundation

Objectives”, California Division of Safety of Dams, 2001.

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.

OTHER REFERENCES RELATED TO THIS WHITE PAPER

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