It is about importance of Dam Foundation Drains_and_Grout_curtain design_for concrete

gravity dams”

I have noted in recent years a growing awareness that a grout curtain consisting of a single
line of holes may be very unreliable. Leading engineers have expressed to me such views
privately, but they seem to be reluctant to state so publicly. It seems as if they were afraid
of attacking something that is believed by a majority in the profession almost like a religious
dogma. Others cloak their doubts in statements such as: “We consider the grout curtain good
insurance; but in our design we rely only on the drainage.”

In most publications primary stress is placed on the discussion of the HW grout curtain. By
comparison, discussion of the drain holes is usually very brief. When considering, in
addition, that the drain holes are always spaced much farther apart than the grout holes, and
that their depth is generally only about one-half of the depth of the grout curtain,
I get the impression that the drain holes are treated like a step-child.

The most frequent statement one finds in publications, and on which there seems to be some
measure of agreement, is that the purpose of grouting is to control the rate of seepage
beneath the dam and the purpose of drainage is to relieve uplift.

However, I cannot see how these two effects can be separated in this simple manner. Any
substantial reduction in seepage by means of a grout curtain must also reduce the uplift
pressures downstream of the grout , curtain. If the piezometric surface be tween the heel and
the drain holes is practically a straight line then the grout curtain is obviously not doing
much good, while the drainage is doing an excellent job in controlling the uplift pressures
in the area between the line of drains and the downstream toe.

The location of the drain closest to the heel gives, of course, the largest reduction in uplift;
but even for that case the reduction is far less and of different shape than the majority of
actual uplift observations on concrete dams.

One can readily see from this picture that the drainage wells should be effective in
controlling uplift downstream from the line of wells, provided of course that the wells are
deep enough to really penetrate the pervious zone.

We are principally interested in the shape of the piezometric surface downstream of the line
of drains and in the relative water levels in the drain holes

Well diameter (drain hole diameter) only influences the shape of the drawdown surface close
to the well and the water level in the well.

In the Table in Fig. 3 are listed numerical results for a 400-ft-high concrete dam, for the
line of wells arranged 50 ft from the heel, and computed for two cases of well-spacings,
namely 10 ft and 5 ft, and for well diameters of 3 in., 6 in., and 12 in. For a well-spacing
of 10 ft and well diameter of 3 in.-which is probably the most common combination for
concrete dams in the United States-the water level in the drain holes must be kept
about 8% of h, below
tailwater level in order to eliminate all excess uplift downstream of the line of drains.
However, if for the same well diameter we reduce the well-spacing to 5 ft, then the water
level in the drain holes needs to be only about 3% of h, below tailwater level. If we maintain
the l0-ft spacing, but increase the well diameter from 3 in. to 12 in., the water level in the
drains has to be depressed about 4%. In other words, the 3-in. drain holes at 5ft spacing
are not only cheaper but somewhat more efficient than the l2in.-dia. drain holes at 10-
ft spacing. I
If the drainage gallery is located at the elevation of tailwater, the magnitude of the
uplift downstream of the wells is still very modest.

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING EFFICIENCY OF A

SINGLE-LINE GROUT CURTAIN

A theoretical analysis of the hydraulic efficiency of a single line of grout holes in rock
would require so many assumptions that the results would be of little value.However,
the preceding analysis is useful to make plausible the reasons why single lines of grout
cut-offs have proved inefficient in the majority of cases for which reliable observations
are available.

Based on a review of instances where reliable observations of the

piezometric surface were made both sides of a single-line of grout holes in
rock and not supplemented by additional grouting after filling of the
reservoir, I have come to the conclusion that a 30% efficiency has rarely
been exceeded in the past for most conditions. Could then a designer dare
to rely on a single-line grout curtain, when analysing the safety of the dam?
And when he considers seepage losses, the cases when a reduction of seepage
by the order of 30% would warrant the high cost of a grout curtain would
be a small minority. To achieve the same result in the case of a concrete dam
with a wide base, one could simply move the line of drains farther
downstream by one-third of its distance from the heel of the dam; e.g.
instead of arranging the drains 30 ft from the heel, this distance could be
made 40 ft, which would achieve the desired reduction in seepage in a more
positive manner, and merely at the expense of a small increase in uplift. Or,
one could provide an impervious zone or blanket upstream of the dam, as
discussed later.

Before proceeding to a presentation of a number of uplift measurements on concrete dams,

it will be helpful to consider in Fig. 9 hypothetical uplift diagrams for different assumptions
concerning the grout curtain, the line of drains, and the geologic conditions.
(a) A perfect grout cut-off through the pervious zone would result in full head upstream
of the cut-off, then, at the cut-off line a sharp drop to the elevation of tailwater, and from
the cut-off a horizontal line extending to the downstream toe.
(b) A reasonably effective grout cut-off through the pervious zone,
but without drainage, would be reflected by an uplift diagram such
as shown in (b). It is what I would hope to achieve under the most
favourable conditions from a single line of grout holes. But it is not
really “reasonably effective” from the standpoint of reduction in
seepage, because with the slopes as shown in this sketch, the
reduction of seepage would be only about 50%, and that I consider
not good enough to justify the high cost of a grout curtain.
(c) If we add to (b) also a line of drain holes, then we obtain an uplift diagram which still
shows a well-defined drop in head along the grout cut-off.
In Fig. 9 (d) and (e) are repeated the uplift diagrams for a line of drain holes of appropriate
depth, but without a grout curtain. We are already familiar with these patterns from the
preceding discussion, namely in (d) with water level in holes below tailwater, and in (e)
above tailwater. The majority of the observed uplift diagrams show, in fact, good similarity
with these two patterns. Patterns (c), (d), and (e) are based on the
assumption that the drain holes extend through the pervious rock
stratum, and that there are no unusual geological complications. It
is a surprising fact that the shallow drain holes which have been
used on most dams are quite effective, as will be shown later. It
indicates that at the majority of sites the pervious foundation zone is
relatively shallow. This may not be true for abutments for which
unfortunately very few observations are available. In Fig. 9 (f), (g), and (h) are
shown three examples of the deviations from the ideal pattern that one may encounter.
In (f) the drain holes are assumed to penetrate only partially into
the pervious zone. That would cause a large bulge in uplift
pressures downstream of the drains, In (g) stratified rock is
assumed dipping upstream, with a pervious layer sandwiched
between impervious strata, with the single-line grout curtain
extending through the pervious layer, but the drain holes stopping
short of it.
As in the other cases, we also assume that entrance of water is gained just upstream of the
dam by means of joints that open up under the effect of the hydrostatic pressure acting
against the dam; and that the pervious layer meets the base of the dam in such a manner that
drainage is prevented. Such a combination may cause an uplift diagram which shows
beneath a downstream zone of the dam uplift pressures almost equal to reservoir level. If
uplift measurements are made at a sufficient number of points in a cross-section, we might
be warned in time of the development of this dangerous condition. We could lower the
reservoir, investigate the cause, and then extend the drain holes through the pervious layer.
We might also drill supplementary drainage holes near the downstream toe through the dam
into the pervious stratum.
In (h) we assume a somewhat similar geological situation, except that the pervious layer
does not come to the surface, and that downstream of the dam it is cut off by an impervious
fault. The drain holes will control the uplift along the base of the dam at approximately
tailwater, particularly if a slightly more pervious surface zone should exist. But such uplift
observations along the base would create a false sense of security.
Actually, there exist dangerously high uplift pressures in the pervious stratum not far
below the base of the dam, and which extend downstream of the dam. Here again,
drilling the drain holes much deeper could readily eliminate all danger. Effective relief
of the dangerous pressures could also be achieved by drainage wells drilled along the
downstream toe of the dam through the pervious stratum. To discover such conditions
we would need not only uplift measurements along the base of the dam, but numerous
piezometers extending to various depths into the rock. A similar example was
discussed by Terzaghi in the paper which he presented in 1929 before the American
Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers.13

From these hypothetical examples we may draw the following

conclusions:
(I) Considering the low cost of drain holes, it seems logical that they
should be drilled to a depth at least half the height of the dam,
instead of 40 or 50 ft, as was used for most concrete dams in the
past. Local geologic conditions may indicate the need for still
greater depths.
(2) Where the geologic conditions create the slightest doubt as to
the control of hydrostatic pressures in various rock zones below the
dam and in the abutments, not only uplift measurements along the
base, but piezometer observations at many locations in the rock are
needed.
UPLIFT OBSERVATIONS FOR TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DAMS

In Fig.10 are plotted the average uplift measurements for four T.V.A. dams (Fontana
480 ft, Hiawassee 307 ft, Cherokee 202 ft, and Douglas 175 ft). Upstream of the drains the
mean of the averages drops off from reservoir level in form of a slightly concave curve, with
no indication of the location of the grout curtains. The average water level in the drains is
approximately at tailwater level. The average uplift downstream from the drains is about
10% of a linear theoretical drop for the condition without drains. This is certainly very safe
when compared with the original design assumptions for these dams.
However, it also indicates that the depth of the drainage holes (a
modest 40-50 ft) has not been quite deep enough, and that even
better control could have been achieved easily and economically by
carrying the drainage holes deeper.
Uplift diagrams on most of T.V.A.‘s concrete dams are published in separate reports on
each project. From the report on the Fontana Dam, published in 1953,s are reproduced the
two diagrams in Fig. 11. The Fontana Dam is T.V.A.‘s highest concrete dam. The
foundation rock consists chiefly of intensely jointed quartzite. When I first saw the diagram
in Fig. 11 (a), I thought that I had at last discovered one clear-cut case of evidence for an
effective grout curtain. From the heel to the first line of observation at A, the uplift along
the base of the dam is almost equal to the full reservoir head. Then it drops abruptly to about
onefourth a short distance away, at point B; from there a further drop to the line of drains;
and downstream of the drains a small rise which might indicate that the drains were not deep
enough for fully effective control of uplift downstream of the drains. When examining this
uplift diagram more carefully, I noticed that the grout curtain, which was carried out from
the foundation gallery angling slightly in upstream direction, intersects the base of the dam
in such a manner that observation points A and B are both located upstream of the grout
curtain, and that between points B and C, where the grout curtain intersects the base, there
is only a small drop in head. Therefore, the grout curtain can hardly be responsible for the
sharp drop between A and B, but rather some local irregularity at the concrete-rock interface.
In the uplift diagram in Fig. 11(b), for another section of Fontana Dam, one can see a
different pattern for two of the three observation dates. There is a sharp drop from the
heel to point A, a very small drop from point A to point B, both points being located
upstream of the grout curtain. However, for one set of observations there is a large
continuous drop from the heel to point B, a small drop from B to C, and then a fairly large
drop to the line of drains.

Fig. 12 is a plot reproduced from the Paper by Keener,9 which summarizes the averages of
all measured uplift pressures for eight Bureau dams. The heavy line is the mean of all these
averages and shows downstream of the drains about 25% of the theoretical straight-line
uplift. This relatively high average is due to the high uplift pressures at Hoover Dam and
one other dam before corrective measures were undertaken. When allowing for these
changes (compare Fig. 14 (a) and (b)) th e average uplift downstream of the drains reduces
to the order of lo%, which is comparable to the average for the T.V.A. dams shown in Fig.
10. In Fig. 13, reproduced from “Design criteria for gravity and arch dams “, 1 typical
uplift measurements at Grand Coulee and Shasta dams are compared with the original
uplift design assumption for these dams and other design assumptions used more recently
by the Bureau. At the Grand CouIee Dam the drainage gahery is about 50 ft below tailwater.
Thus there is actually a negative uplift on the base of this dam, and some of the seepage
pumped from the drainage gallery is being pulled through the foundation from downstream.
(This case could also be investigated theoretically in a similar manner as shown in Fig. 5.)
At the Shasta Dam there is practically no uplift downstream of the drains and this case may
be considered a good example for the theoretical analysis presented in Figs 3 and 4.
The observed uplift upstream of the drains shows no indication that the grout curtain
has an important effect.

In Fig. 14, reproduced from Keener’s Paper,9 are shown the measured uplift pressures
for the 726-ft-high Hoover Dam before (1938), and after (1947) extensive additional
drainage and grouting operations were carried out. The original grout curtain with
holes on 5-ft centres, went to a maximum depth of 150 ft, sloping from the drainage
gallery 15” from the vertical in upstream direction. The drain holes were drilled
vertical from the same gallery to a maximum depth of about 100 ft. After the large
uplift pressures developed, the following supplementary work was carried out. A new
grout curtain was made in the vertical plane of the drain holes, using and extending
the existing drain holes to 400 ft deep. A new line of drain holes was drilled from the
gallery, sloping downstream at an angle of 15” to an average depth of 200 ft, with a
spacing in part of 5 ft and in part of 10 ft. Drain holes were
also drilled in the powerhouse area.
From a comparison of the measured uplift pressures before and after the supplementary
treatment, Fig. 14(a) and (b), one can see that the corrective measures have been fully
successful.
Simondsrr credits this to both the new grout curtain and the new lines of drains. From
the published details it is not possible to determine how the credit should be divided. The
low point of the pressures in Fig. 14 (b) seems to lie between observation pipes 1 and ‘2
which is located just about in a vertical plane placed through the lower ends of the new
drainage holes. The uplift observations just upstream and downstream of the new grout
curtain, which lies in the vertical plane of the drainage gallery, show no significant effect of
the grout curtain. On the other hand, Simonds also gives data on seepage measurements
which would indicate that the new grout curtain has helped to reduce the rate of seepage.
From additional data supplied to the Author by the Bureau, the following information was
extracted. For approximately equal reservoir elevations (El. 1180), the rate of foundation
seepage from the drainage gallery in 1938 was about 200 gal/min. Starting late in 1938 and
extending to 1944, the programme of supplementary work was carried out intermittently.
During a few months in 1939, the rate of seepage increased sharply to about 2,000 gal/min
and then dropped just as sharply to about 600 gal/min at the beginning of 1940. Much of
this additional flow entered through new, deep grout holes. Inflows of 200-300 gal/min were
encountered in a number of holes. Grouting against such inflow proved difficult and was
finally accomplished by means of a new type of packer. From early 1940 to early 1944 the
discharge diminished steadily when it reached about 200 gal/min. From 1944 to 1948 (when
measurements were discontinued) the rate of discharge increased steadily to about 400
gal/min. The decrease in rate of flow between 1940 and 1944 was the result of the extensive
additional grouting operations. The steady increase in flow since 1944 is not explained. It
might be loss in efficiency of the grout due to leaching caused by hot alkaline waters which
were frequently encountered in the drilling operations.

The foundation conditions at the site for the Hoover Dam were exceptionally
unfavourable from the standpoint of control of seepage. Experience on this
dam showed that with sufficiently deep drain holes the uplift can be controlled
satisfactorily even for such conditions. But control of rate of seepage required
much more extensive grouting than the equivalent of a single row of grout
holes.

MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ON GROUT CUT-OFFS

My overall impression from the data presented herein, and many similar cases of which I
had included a number in my oral presentation, is that for the great majority of dam sites,
wise and pound-foolish” by spending much money on grouting and then little
or nothing on the kind of observations which would clearly establish whether
the grout curtain is effective. He said that if one observes small seepage,
grouting is automatically given credit, whereas, in fact, one does not know
whether the same flow would have occurred also without grouting, and one
does not know whether one has wasted money for grouting. But when one
observes excessive flow, then one knows that one has wasted one’s money.
Therefore, seepage observations are not sufficient to determine the
effectiveness of a grout cut-off. He then described five projects for which he
had insisted on accurate piezometer observations and which showed in each
case that the grout curtain had little or no effect. Terzaghi emphasized that
the first requirement is to engage the most experienced and reliable grouting
contractor one can find; but that one must not let him work alone. He must
be constantly and closely supervised by a competent and independent
engineer who also has a broad experience in grouting operations. Terzaghi
pointed out that the trouble with grouting contractors, and often also
engineers, is that they believe that the success of grouting can be measured
by the amount of grout, or cement, that one succeeds in injecting, and he
suggested that this reasoning is just as logical as when people believe that a
medicine must be good because it tastes so awful. He expressed the opinion
that even if all conditions are fulfilled for a satisfactory grouting job, one can
still not be certain that the grouting will accomplish the intended purpose.
Finally, he stated that on every project for which he had recommended
grouting, the safety of the project did not hinge on the success of the grouting.
He recommended grouting merely for the purpose of trying to reduce seepage
losses; and he admitted that in every case it was a gamble and that some of
these failed to accomplish the purpose. In his lectures, Terzaghi discussed
among a number of examples the following four cases:
Case I.---In 1932, in connexion with his investigations for the Bou Hanifia Dam
in North Africa, Terzaghi wanted to demonstrate the necessity for designing
the dam such that it would be safe in case a proposed grout curtain in rock
should prove ineffective. He performed laboratory tests with a diaphragm
containing openings equal to 5% of the area. This diaphragm
caused only very little reduction in flow and very little drop in head. Upon
Terzaghi’s suggestion, Dachler supplemented this investigation by a
theoretical analysis7 which is used in Fig. 8.
Case 2.-In connexion with his association with the Sasumua Dam in Africa,
Terzaghi proposed to replace a grout curtain in volcanic rocks by a row of
drainage wells. This suggestion was adopted, and after filling of the reservoir
the total rate of seepage from the drainage wells was insignificant.*
Case 3.-The original design of an earth clam in South America included a grout
curtain in jointed gneiss. Grouting tests, performed during the early
construction stage, showed that the total quantity of grout which would be
needed would be prohibitive in cost and time. Since loss of water by seepage
would have been of relatively small importance, Terzaghi replaced the
proposed grout curtain by a row of drainage wells. The total measured
discharge from these wells is a small fraction of a cubic foot per second.
Case 4.-On another dam in South America, seepage developed through jointed
gneiss, causing slides in downstream abutment slopes. In an effort to stop the
seepage, 55 tons of cement were injected into more than 3,000 m of grout
holes; but the effect of these grouting operations on the discharge of the
springs was negligible. Later, when Terzaghi became connected with this
project, he relied exclusively on drainage in order to cure the slide conditions.
One instructive case with which I am familiar is the lOO-ft-high earth dam
shown in Fig. 15.
* Karl Terzaghi, “Design and performance of the Sasumua Dam”. Proc. Instn
civ. Engrs, vol. 9 (Apr. 195S), p. 369.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) The effects of seepage through rock foundations and abutments on the
safety for most types of dams can be controlled reliably and economically by
means of comprehensive drainage measures. For most concrete gravity and
arch-gravity dams, even the usual relatively shallow line of drain holes has
been reasonably effective for controlling uplift pressures. This control could
be improved and made more positive, also for very unfavourable geologic
conditions, by using much deeper drain holes. The effect of a deep line of drain
holes on the uplift can be predicted with reasonable accuracy by means of
formulas.
(2) Probably a great majority of the single-line grout curtains in rock
foundations and abutments of dams that were carried out in the past were
relatively ineffective in reducing seepage losses, and they could not be relied
upon for purposes of stability analysis. There is an urgent need for
comprehensive observations on the effectiveness of such grout curtains.
Some of the existing concrete dams would offer an opportunity to carry out
such investigations at relatively small cost, by installing numerous
piezometers between the heel of the dam and the line of drain holes, both sides
of the grout curtain, along the base of the dam, and in the rock at various
depths below the base.
(3) There is a need for more reliable methods to determine in advance whether
and where grouting is needed. The usual geological investigations and “water
tests” in drill holes may be actually misleading. They are of value only in
conjunction with comprehensive testing for mass permeability of the rock by
pumping from or feeding water into a series of drill holes and by observing the
effects in numerous observation wells. For concrete gravity and arch gravity
dams one should test in this manner systematically the upstream third of the
foundation area, and to a depth at least equal to one-half the height of the
dam. Excessively pervious zones for which grouting will be considered
necessary or desirable, may require three rows of closely spaced grout holes,
or equivalent clusters of grout holes, in order to create the necessary width of
grouted rock mass. (Note: Depending on their location, all exploratory holes
should also be utilized either as permanent observation wells, as drainage
holes, or as grout holes.)
(4) On some projects the rate of seepage could be effectively reduced by more
economical means than by grout curtains. For a concrete dam with a
reasonably wide base and for abutments with gentle slopes, one could
construct an impervious earth fill against the lower portion of the upstream
face of the dam. To prevent opening up of a crack between earth and concrete,
it would be helpful to slope the lower part of the upstream face of the dam
such as, for example, at Shasta Dam, Fig. 13(b). If the dam is already in
operation, one could try blanketing an area adjacent to the dam by hydraulic
dispersion of suitable soils in the reservoir just upstream of the dam. Another
possibility is to move the line of drainage holes further downstream. It is
customary to locate the drains approximately 10% of the base width from the
upstream face of the dam. This distance could readily be doubled. When the
depth and spacing of the drain holes is so selected that the uplift will be
positively controlled, the designer would be justified in reducing his
assumptions for design uplift pressures below those currently assumed, so
that moving the drains further downstream would not require an increase in
volume of the dam.
(5) In contrast to gravity and arch-gravity dams, it is an extremely difficult
problem to develop seepage control measures in steep abutments for a thin-
arch dam which will ensure the safety of such a structure for the worst
conceivable combination of geologic details. Of those dam sites which would
be entirely satisfactory for a high gravity or arch-gravity dam, only a small
percentage could be developed with the same assurance of safety for a
modern thin-arch dam. The treatment of steep abutments poses special
difficulties also because blasting and grouting operations can easily cause
more harm than good. Even a comprehensive drainage system may provide
insufficient protection against development of dangerous hydrostatic
pressures in the rock downstream of a thin-arch dam.