Overtopping Protection Alternatives

Riprap, Flow-Through Rockfill, and Reinforced Rockfill

FEMA Workshop
February 20, 2013

Tony L. Wahl
Hydraulics Laboratory
Denver, Colorado
Manual Chapters
• Chapter 7: Flow-through rockfill and
reinforced rockfill
– Lead author: Bob Dewey
Embankment dam design
• Chapter 8: Riprap
– Lead author: Tony Wahl
Hydraulics laboratory
Rockfill Caveats
• Reinforcement is common for rockfill dams
• Reinforced rockfill is used to stabilize concrete structures
• There are no examples of using reinforced rockfill to protect an
embankment dam against overtopping flow or through-flow
• There are no examples of reinforcement being added to
earthfills with existing downstream shells considered to be
rockfill
• There is too much chance of dam failure to consider such a
system in the design phase of a new or modified high or
significant hazard earthfill embankment dam.
Simplifications
• Existing equations do not take into account the non-
homogeneous and anisotropic nature of a rockfill placement
• Rockfill placed in lifts often has variable gradation and density,
even within one lift
• Vibratory compaction produces a thin, fine-grained layer at top
of each lift
• Rock materials tend to break down the closer they are to the
compaction machinery
• Vertical permeability is less than horizontal, often much less
• Some rockfills, particularly the shells of embankments dams
that are called rockfill, have layers or entire zones with
excessive small stones that cause earthfill-type behavior
Design & Analysis – Rockfill
Dam
• Flow Over
• Flow Through
• Mass Stability
• Filter Compatibility
Design of Rockfill
• Size of rock and slope of fill will be limited by
either:
– Flow Through
– Flow Over
• Hard to know which will control, so both
should be analyzed
– If more than 30% smaller than 1-inch, then it
behaves more like earthfill and Flow Over will
probably control
Leps (1973)
• Key design reference is Leps (1973)
– Leps, Thomas M., “Flow Through Rockfill,” pp. 87-107 of
Embankment Engineering – Casagrande Volume, edited by
Hirschfeld, Ronald C. and Poulos, Steve J., Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1973.
• Parameters such as the average velocity of water in
the voids, height of seepage exit on the downstream
slope and unit flow rate are solved for iteratively
beginning with assumed values of rockfill
permeability, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic radius,
void ratio, rock size and slope of the downstream
face
Allowable Through-Flow
Downstream Slope Dominant size of Permissible Flow Through Rockfill (cfs/ft)
(H:V) rock in slope
(in.) Loose Dense
1.5:1 24 4 10
1.5:1 48 15 40
1.5:1 60 20 55
5:1 12 5 15
5:1 24 20 15
5:1 36 35 95
5:1 48 55 150
5:1 60 75 200
10:1 12 15 40
10:1 24 45 120
10:1 36 80 220
10:1 48 120 330
10:1 60 170 470
Allowable overflow

• Hartung &
Scheuerlein (1970)
• Max q versus
downstream slope
for three rock sizes
Mass Slope Stability
• Mass or global slope stability must be considered
• A slope stability analysis of deep seated failure surfaces is
necessary
• Seepage forces must be included in static slope stability
analysis to evaluate stability of a flow-through rockfill
embankment
• Overtopping flow forces should be added to a slope stability
model
• Most computer stability tools are set up to solve these types of
problems, but the challenge to the analyst is to accurately
estimate the seepage forces for turbulent flow
– Flow nets from a laminar seepage analysis are not applicable
– More research is needed on forces induced by turbulent flow
Effect of Reinforcement on
Global Slope Stability
• Most reinforcement is intended to protect
only the surface of the downstream slope
– Unless reinforcement is designed for a dual
purpose, it is advised to conservatively ignore
reinforcement during slope stability analysis
Filter Compatibility
• Filter compatibility is required between the
outer layers of a rockfill zone, (the armor
protection), and the inner zones of an
embankment dam
• Filter compatibility must be satisfied by all
materials in the embankment
• This may require multiple layers of gradually
smaller particles from outside to inside
• e.g. D15,coarse < 5*D85,finer
Reinforcement
• Rocks kept in place on slope with a steel reinforcement mesh
on the surface.
• Mesh size related to smallest rock that could be dislodged from
the downstream outer face of the embankment slope
• The mesh should have sufficient strength to resist the tractive
and seepage forces acting on the surface particles
• If overtopping occurs, the mesh needs to also withstand the
impact forces of debris carried by the overflow
• Materials:
– Usually steel reinforcement bars tied together (no. 7 bars or larger)
– Chain link fencing and welded wire are weaker alternatives,
vulnerable to debris impacts
Reinforcement
• To best prevent debris from catching on mesh
during overtopping, horizontal bars are placed
against the fill and the vertical bars are attached
above the horizontal steel
• Large rockfill reduces the cost of reinforcement by
allowing more widely spaced bars
• Equal horizontal and vertical spacing not needed
– Example is Pit 7 afterbay where no. 7 bars were spaced at 10-foot
centers on the horizontal and at 1-foot centers on the vertical
• Horizontal bars connected to vertical bars where
they cross with clamps or other devices to maintain
the shape of the mesh
Anchor Bars

• Reinforcing mesh is attached to embankment slope

with anchor bars
• Anchor bars are embedded into the embankment
beyond the critical shear surface to a depth
sufficient to transfer the design loads in the bars to
the surrounding rockfill and eliminate the possibility
of premature pullout
• Parkin suggested an “unsafe” zone between the face
of the downstream slope and a line parallel to that
slope at a distance back into the fill of 2/3 of the
embankment height
Anchor Bars
• Alternatives to embed the anchors into the rockfill
include crank-shaped anchors, anchors fixed to
grouted dowels in the fill and inclined anchors
• Vertical spacing of anchor bars is not an exact
science
• Spacing should be close enough to prevent critical
shear surfaces from exiting between the layers of
reinforcement
• Along edges, connect reinforcement system to
foundation and abutments with rock bolts or other
solid means
Anchorage Options
Reinforcement - Extent
• To resist through-flow, reinforcement should extend
well above the height of the seepage exit elevation
• To resist flow over an embankment, the
reinforcement should extend over the entire
downstream face, abutment to abutment
• Designs should also ensure crest stability during
overtopping
• Rockfill is largest and reinforcement would be
heaviest at the downstream toe of an embankment
subject to overtopping
Reinforcement References
• Many uncertainties mentioned already mean that methodology
for the design of rockfill reinforcement is rather empirical
• Designs are copied from previous successful dams performing
similar functions
• Good source of info is 1982 report prepared by the Australian
National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD)
– 50 reinforced rockfill dams and cofferdams
– 18 overtopped and 5 failed
• Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD),
“Report on Mesh Protection of Rockfill Dams and Coffer
Dams,” March 1982.
Corrosion
• Corrosion shortens the life of steel reinforcement
• Carbonaceous rockfill materials should be avoided
due to their galvanic effect and because of their high
electrical conductivity
• If reinforcement becomes buried by saturated soils,
corrosion will be influenced by the quality and pH of
the water, soluble salt content of the overlying soil
and aeration
Fighting Corrosion
• Substitute nonmetals for metal reinforcement
• Use corrosion resistant metal alloys
• Protective coatings
• Corrosion monitoring systems
• Cathodic protection
Fighting Corrosion - Coatings
• First line of defense
• Zinc, (galvanized coatings), has a limited
life…sacrifices itself to protect the steel
• Zinc is conductive and would require more electrical
energy if cathodic protection were ever added to the
protection scheme
• Epoxy has small discontinuities that leave some
small areas exposed to corrosion
• A corrosion monitoring system can tell when
cathodic protection might be necessary if all other
types of protection do not work.
Vulnerabilities and Risk
• There is no evidence in the literature of rockfill being
used as a veneer of armor to protect an existing
significant hazard or high hazard embankment dam
from overtopping or through flow
• The introduction of reinforcement into rockfill
increases safety and compensates, to some degree,
for analysis uncertainties
• Unreinforced rockfill for such a function is not
advised
• If reinforced rockfill is to be used for protection of an
existing dam, it should be rather massive
Vulnerabilities and Risk
• Groins and areas of flow concentration
should be most heavily protected
• Ensuring stability of the dam crest should
not be forgotten
• Reinforcement can degrade over time
• Surface meshes can be damaged by rocks
and logs in overtopping flows
• Chemical attack can corrode steel
reinforcement
Examples
• The reinforcement of rockfill dams is
ordinarily designed empirically, by copying
designs of older dams performing
successfully
• Two examples that have successfully
withstood overtopping many times:
– Pit 7
– Des Arc Bayou Site No. 3.
Pit 7
Pit 7 Afterbay Dam – Calif.
• Early design for a rockfill with reinforcement
that has been used as a basis of many
subsequent dams (Leps 1973)
• Afterbay for Pacific Gas & Electric’s Pit No. 7
Powerhouse
• Subjected to continuous through-flow and
frequent overflow, with normal flows ranging
from 2,000 to 6,650 cfs and maximum flows
up to an estimated 85,000 cfs
Pit 7
• 36-ft-high rockfill, about 555 ft long
• Crest width is 20 ft
• Upstream slope 2:1
• Downstream slope 2¼:1
• Toe berm of reinforced rock about 20 ft wide
• Downstream slope reinforced with a surface grid of No. 7 and
No. 8 steel bars, tied back at 3-ft vertical intervals with hooked,
37-ft-long, No. 7 bars
• Pullout resistance is mobilized along the entire 37-ft-long
anchor bars to hold the surface mesh in place. All rock within 4
feet of the surface is at least 12 inches in size and the rock in
the toe-berm has a minimum size of 24 in.
Pit 7 - Performance
• Leps (1973) - “After a little over 3½ years of
successful operation of the dam, there was some
wear and dislocation of the bars, and about 1400 yd3
of rock had been washed away from the downstream
face. In addition, there was a slight bulging of the
lower part of the downstream slope and some
sagging of the upper part, neither of which had
exceeded 3 ft. The lost rock was replaced in 1968,
and additional No. 8 bars were incorporated in the
grid on the downstream face to inhibit further loss of
rock.”
Des Arc Bayou No. 3
• NRCS – Arkansas
• Rockfill dam with central clay core
• Note the short and uniform anchor lengths
compared to the height of the dam indicating
that the reinforcement is primarily there to
hold the surface mesh, not to enhance global
slope stability
Des Arc Bayou Site No. 3.
Des Arc Bayou - Details
Des Arc Bayou – Construction Sequence
Riprap
• Subject of Chapter 8
• Riprap added as a protective layer over an
existing embankment
Riprap – How and Why
• Riprap prevents erosion during overtopping flow by
conveying overflow through and above the riprap
layer, reducing velocities and shear stresses against
the underlying embankment
• Often cheaper than other alternatives if rock is
available nearby
• Commonly used in arid zones and on steep slopes
where vegetation is difficult to maintain
• May not be cheaper for steep slopes or high flow
rates, where very large rock sizes may be needed
Recent Research
• Most has focused on sizing rock and
determining allowable flow rates
• Some research on the hydraulic roughness
and energy dissipation produced by flow
down a riprap slope
• General trend has been for riprap testing to
move from flatter to steeper slopes over time
What Type of Rock?
• Granite or limestone
• Angular
• Uniformly sized rock
– Gap graded and well graded mixes fail at lower
flow rates
Sizing of Rock
• Manual gives design guidance based on
three research studies
• Abt and Johnson (1991)
– Slopes of 2% to 10%
• Robinson et al. (1998)
– Slopes of 17% to 40%
• Frizell et al. (1998)
– Slopes of 40% to 50%
Design Guidance
• Similarities
– Angular riprap
– D50 < 24 inches (limits of testing)
– Riprap layer thickness 2*D50 or greater
– Bedding material satisfying filter criteria
• Differences
– Abt and Robinson relate qallowable to D50 and slope
– Frizell method incorporates variable specific
gravity, porosity, and coefficient of uniformity
(D60/D10)
Basic Design Concept
• Much of the overtopping discharge is
conveyed through the riprap layer –
interstitial flow
• On slopes flatter than 25%, some flow above
the rock may be tolerable
• On steep slopes, all flow is interstitial
Example: Fixed D50
D50 = 1.5 ft
1000

Abt & Johnson (1991)
Robinson (1998)

100 Frizell, design eqn

qa, cfs/ft

10

1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Slope
Example: 4.5
q = 30 cfs/ft

Fixed qallowable 4 Abt & Johnson (1991)

Robinson (1998)
3.5
Frizell, design eqn

2.5

D50 (ft)
2

1.5

0.5

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Slope
• Upper Stoneville
Reservoir Dam –
Auburn MA

• Riprap overtopping
protection detailed in
2002 ASDSO paper
“Throwing Rocks at
the ½-PMF” by
Wooten and Wood
(GEI Consultants)

• High hazard
(downstream homes,
roads)
 20-ft high, 400-ft long
Upper Stoneville 2:1 downstream slope
Qovtop = 14 cfs/ft
D50=1.5 ft
Thickness= 4*D50
$650,000
Questions?