WRDB SWHISA Embankment Dam Design Guideline

AMHARA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE
WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BUREAU
Sustainable Water Harvesting and Institutional

Strengthening in Amhara (SWHISA) Project
EMBANKMENT DAM DESIGN TECHNIQUES &

PRACTICES
Prepared by: Hadush Seged (Ph.D.)
January 2008
Bahirdar
Amhara National Regional State, Water Resources Development Bureau, SWHISA Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................2
1 DAM...............................................................................................................................3
1.1 Basic Requirements.....................................................................................................3
1.2 Selection of Dam Type................................................................................................3
1.3 Axis Alignment............................................................................................................5
1.4 Abutments....................................................................................................................5
1.5 Freeboard.....................................................................................................................6
1.6 Crest Width................................................................................................................10
1.7 Embankment Zoning.................................................................................................10
1.8 Impervious Core........................................................................................................10
1.9 Shoulder (or shell) of the Dam..................................................................................12
1.10 Filter Design...........................................................................................................12
1.11 Slope Protection.........................................................................................................15
1.12 Compaction Requirements.....................................................................................16
2 DAM SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS.......................................................................18
2.1 General Considerations..............................................................................................18
2.2 Loading Conditions...................................................................................................18
2.3 Method of Stability Analysis.....................................................................................18
2.4 Shape of Slip Surface.................................................................................................19
2.5 Seismic Design..........................................................................................................19
3 DAM FOUNDATION...................................................................................................20
3.1 Basic Requirements...................................................................................................20
3.2 Seepage Control.........................................................................................................21
Embankment Dam Design Techniques & Practices Prepared by: Hadush Seged (Dr.) 1
INTRODUCTION
This guideline for the design of embankment dams was prepared in association with the
short term training held from 18th to 21st January, 2008 at the Amhara Regional State, Water
Resources Development Bureau, Bahirdar.
Ethiopia does not have its own established design standards and guidelines for the design
of dams. Hence, this document has been prepared based on widely used international
practices as well as similar design criteria prepared by the author for other projects in the
country1.
In most cases the design guidelines are adopted from the recommendations by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or by the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR), two American Government agencies with vast practical experiences
on design of dam projects.
In some cases, where it was not possible to find design recommendations by USACE and
the USBR, other international standards and publications are considered. Previous design
practices and experiences in Ethiopia are also taken into account.
1
For example, the author has prepared major part of the Design Criteria for the currently ongoing Design of
Four Dams in Lake Tana Subbasin Project (Ribb, Megech, Gilgel Abay and Jema dams).
1 DAM
2.1 Basic Requirements
The following criteria must be met to ensure satisfactory earth and rock-fill structures:
a) Under all conditions, of construction, reservoir operation, and seismic activity, the
embankment, foundation, and abutments shall remain stable.
b) Seepage through the embankment, foundation, and abutments should be properly

controlled and collected to prevent excessive uplift pressures, piping, sloughing
and removal of material by solution, or erosion of material by loss into cracks,
joints, and cavities. The design shall consider seepage control measures such as
foundation cutoffs, adequate and non-brittle impervious zones, transition zones,
drainage blankets, upstream impervious blankets, and relief wells.
c) Sufficient freeboard should be provided in order to prevent overtopping by waves.

The freeboard should also include an allowance for the normal settlement of the
foundation and embankment as well as for seismic effects where applicable.
d) Spillway and outlets of sufficient capacity shall be designed to prevent overtopping

of the embankment.
1.2 Selection of Dam Type
The following major factors shall be considered to reach the most viable type of dam:
a) Topography: Topography, to a large measure, can dictates the first choice of

type of dam. A narrow V-shaped valley with sound rock in the abutments
would favor an arch dam. A relatively narrow valley with high, rocky walls
would suggest a rock fill or concrete dam (or roller-compacted concrete).
Conversely, a wide valley with thick overburden would suggest an earth dam.
Irregular valleys might suggest a composite structure, partly earth and partly
concrete. Composite sections might also be used to provide a concrete
spillway while the rest of the dam is constructed as an embankment section.
Topography may also influence the selection of appurtenant structures. Natural
saddles may provide a spillway location if conditions in the adjacent
watershed permit. If the reservoir rim is high and unbroken, a chute or tunnel
spillway may be necessary.
b) Geology and foundation conditions: The geology and foundation conditions

at the dam site may dictate the type of dam suitable for that site. Competent
rock foundations with relatively high shear strength and resistance to erosion
and percolation offer few restrictions as to the type of dam that can be built at
the site. Gravel foundations, if well compacted, are suitable for earth or rock-
fill dams. Special precautions must be taken to provide adequate seepage
control and/or effective water cutoffs or seals. Silt or fine sand foundations can
be used for low concrete (or roller-compacted concrete) and earth-fill dams but
are not suitable for rock-fill dams. The main problems include settlement,
prevention of piping, excessive percolation losses, and protection of the
foundation at the downstream embankment toe from erosion. Non-dispersive
clay foundations may be used for earth dams but require moderate
embankment slopes, because of relatively low foundation shear strength.
Because of low bearing capacity and tendency for significant settlements, clay
foundations are generally not suitable for concrete (or roller-compacted
concrete) or rock-fill dams.
c) Materials availability: An economical type of dam will often be the one for
which building materials can be found within a reasonable haul distance from
the site, including material which must be excavated for the dam foundation,
spillway, outlet works, powerhouses, and other appurtenant structures.
Materials, which may be available near or on the reservoir site include soils
for embankments, rock for embankments and riprap, and concrete aggregate
(sand, gravel, and crushed stone). Construction scheduling, allowing direct use
of such materials might prove cost saving. When nearby suitable building
material is unavailable, the hauling distance will cause costs to rise.
d) Spillway: The size, type, and restrictions on location of the spillway are often
important factors in the choice of the type of dam. When a large spillway is to
be constructed, it may be desirable to combine the spillway and dam into one
structure, indicating a concrete overflow dam. In some cases where required
excavation from the spillway structure can be utilized in the dam embankment,
an earth or rock-fill dam may be advantageous.
e) Environmental: Recently environmental considerations have become very
important in the design of dams and can have a major influence on the type of
dam selected. The principal influence of environmental concerns on selection
of a specific type of dam is the need to consider protection of the environment,
which can affect the type of dam, its dimensions, and location of the spillway
and appurtenant facilities.
f) Economic: The selection of the type of dam should be made only after careful
analysis and comparison of possible alternatives, and after thorough economic
analyses that include costs of spillway, power and control structures, and
foundation treatment.
g) Climate: Construction of earthfill dam during wet weather will raise

difficulties which should be taken into consideration. The use of sloping
upstream core construction and concrete faced rockfill can be considered for
better efficiency or shorter construction time, if long and persistent wet
weather prevails.
h) Time available for construction: This can be an important factor, especially if

there is time restriction/shortage. This factor should be seen coupled with
climate. In a climate of well defined rainy seasons, it may be practicable to
construct an earth and rockfill dam over two seasons. A concrete face rockfill
dam may be time saving as it enables to place the rockfill in both seasons.
i) Need for staged construction: This consideration is important, if the need

arises as in cases of dams for water supply and mining.
1.3 Axis Alignment
Axes of embankments that are long with respect to their heights may be straight or of the
most economical alignment fitting the topography and foundation conditions. Thin
abutment ridges should be avoided. Sharp changes in alignment should be avoided.
1.4 Abutments
a) Alignments: The final alignment shall be adjusted to avoid tying into

narrow ridges, or into abutments that diverge in the downstream direction.
Zones of structurally weak materials in abutments, such as weathered
overburden and talus deposits, can only be anticipated at this stage of the
projects and shall be taken into account. It may be more economical to
flatten embankment slopes to attain the desired stability than to excavate

such and similar weak materials to a firm foundation.
b) Abutment slopes: Where abutment slopes are steep, the core, filter, and
transition zones of an embankment shall be widened at locations of
possible tension zones resulting from different settlements.
The possibility of changing abutments, steep slope to more moderate ones

shall also be considered.
c) Settlement: Large differential settlement near abutments may result in

transverse cracking within the embankment, considerations shall be made
to use higher placement water contents combined with flared sections.
1.5 Freeboard
Freeboard is provided to protect the embankment from overtopping caused by wind

induced tides and waves. It should also include an allowance for settlement of the
foundation and embankment.
Normal freeboard is the difference in elevation between the crest of the dam and the
normal reservoir water level (N.W.L.). Minimum freeboard is the difference in elevation
between the crest of the dam and the maximum reservoir water surface (M.W.L.) due to
design flood. The difference between normal and minimum freeboard represents the
surcharge head. The freeboard shall be established taking several factors into consideration
such as wave action, wind set up of the water surface, seiche effects and run-up of waves
on the dam.
The most widely used method for freeboard computation is based on Saville’s (1962)
method. Using this method, both the normal freeboard and the minimum freeboard should
be computed and the freeboard that results in the highest top-of-dam elevation should be
adopted. The step by step freeboard computation based on Saville’s method is summarized
below. Note that the units of measurements indicated below should be used.
Effective fetch length (Fe, km)

In reservoirs, fetches are limited by the land surrounding the body of water. The shorelines
are irregular and an effective fetch is calculated from:
i  420
R i  cos 2  i
i  42 0
Fe  i  420
(1.1)
 cos  i
i  420
where Ri = length of radial i and i = angle between the central radial from the dam and
radial i. A trial and error approach should be used to select the critical position on the dam
and direction of the central radial to give the maximum effective fetch. The radials
spanning 450 on each side of the central radial should be used to compute the effective
fetch as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Calculation of effective fetch.

Wind Speed (V, km/h)
Basic wind speed corresponding to a 25 year return period for the specific site should be
used if data is available. However, USBR recommends that normal freeboard should be
based on a minimum wind speed of 100 mi/hr (161 km/h); and for the minimum freeboard
the wind speed is taken as half to two third of the full wind velocity used in calculating the
normal freeboard.
Wind speeds are greater over water than the measured over land. The normal ratio between
wind speeds over water and over land is shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Ratio between wind speeds over water and over land
Effective fetch, km 1 2 4 8 12
over water
Windspeed 1.1 1.16 1.23 1.29 1.31
over land
Significant wave height (Hs, m)

The significant wave height is calculated by the following relationship.
0.47
g  Hs  g  Fe 
2
 0.0026   2  (1.2)
V  V 
Wave period (Ts, s)

The wave period is calculated by the following relationship.
0.28
g  Ts  g  Fe 
 0.45   2  (1.3)
V  V 
Wave length (Ls, m)

The wave length is calculated by the following equation.
Ls  1.56  Ts2 (1.4)
Design wave height (H0, m)

The design wave height is calculated by the following equation.
H 0  1.67  H s (1.5)
Steepness ratio
The steepness ratio is calculated by the following equation.
H0
Steepness ratio = (1.6)
Ls
Relative run-up (R/H0)
Figure 1.2 below is used to determine the relative run-up R/H0, whose value depends on the
upstream slope of the dam.
Wave run-up (R, m)

The wave run-up is calculated by the following equation.
R
R  H0 (1.7)
H0
Average depth of reservoir (D, m)
The river bed level (RBL), normal reservoir level (NWL) and maximum reservoir level
(MWL) elevations are used to calculate the average depth of reservoir. Hence, the average
depth of reservoir is:
NWL  RBL
At normal reservoir level: D  (1.8)
2
MWL  RBL
At maximum reservoir level: D  (1.9)
2
Figure 1.2: Graph showing relative wave run-up.
Wind set up (S, m)

The wind set up is calculated by the following equation.
V2 F
S (1.10)
62000  D
Freeboard required (m)

Freeboard  R  S (1.11)
Camber (Settlement Allowance, m)
An allowance of 1 to 2% of the height of the dam should be provided for settlement in the
foundation and the embankment.
A complete example of Freeboard computation (for Megech dam) is given in Appendix A.
USBR recommendations for feasibility and preliminary design

For feasibility and preliminary design studies and for small dams, USBR recommends the
freeboard requirements as tabulated in Table 1.2. In these recommendations, the effect of
wind setup is ignored. For rip-rapped slopes the freeboard requirements as tabulated in
Table 1.2 can be used but for dams with a smooth pavement or soil cement upstream slope,
depending on the smoothness of the surface, freeboard of up to 1.5 times those shown in
Table 1.2 should be used.
Table 1.2: Freeboard requirements for preliminary studies (USBR, 1977).
Largest fetch (km) Normal freeboard (m) Minimum freeboard (m)
Less than 1.6 1.2 0.9
1.6 1.5 1.2
4 1.8 1.5
8 2.4 1.8
16 3.0 2.1
1.6 Crest Width
The top width of an earth or rock-fill dam within conventional limits has little effect on
stability. The crest width is often governed by construction procedure and the access
required. USBR suggested the following formula for the determination of crest width for
small dams:
z
w  10 (1.12a)
5
where w = crest width in feet and z = height of dam in feet above the stream bed. The
author has converted Eqn. (1.12a) into SI unit system as follows:
z
w  3.405 (1.12b)
5
where both w and z are in meters. Similarly, depending upon the height of the dam, the
minimum top width, according to USACE, is between 25 and 40 ft (about 7.5 and 12.0 m).
Other methods such as the Japanese code 1957 specifies crest width (w, m) in terms of dam
height (H, m) as follows:
w  3.6  3 H  3 (1.13)
1.7 Embankment Zoning
Embankment dams should as much as possible be zoned to provide an adequate

impervious zone, transition zones between the core and the shells, adequate filters for
seepage control, and earth or rockfill shells for stability. The embankment zoning should
use as much material as possible from required excavation and from borrow areas with the
shortest haul distances and the least waste, first considering the flooded area for borrow
areas. Gradation of the materials in the transition zones should meet well established filter
criteria requirements.
1.8 Impervious Core
The core of a dam is built within the embankment to form the impermeable barrier, the
shell and other part of the dam being provided to ensure stability. There is no definite rule
for determining the safe thickness of the core. The width of a central impervious core shall
be established using seepage and piping considerations, types of material available for the
core and shells, the filter design, and seismic considerations.
According to common practice, a core width at the base, or cutoff, should be at least 25 to
50% of the difference between the maximum water level in the reservoir and the minimum
tailwater elevation. Core thickness of about one-half of the dam height, (at that particular
section), is also widely accepted. A core top width of about 3 m is the minimum for
construction purposes. The permeability of the compacted core material shall not exceed
10-5 cm/s. The top level of the impervious core is generally fixed at 0.5 to 1 m above the
MWL.
The following are some general requirements for earthfill materials to be used as
impervious core:
1) Most soils can be used for earth-fill or core construction as long as they are
impermeable, insoluble, non reactive to the water chemical composition and
substantially inorganic. Rock flours and clays with liquid limits above 80% shall
be avoided. The lower bound of the plasticity index shall be 5 to 10 %. In
practice, it is common to specify an allowable range of liquid limit and plasticity
index by relating to the "A" line on the plasticity chart. Figure 1.3 shows an
example of allowable range of liquid limit and plasticity for earthfill material to
be used as impervious core.
Figure 1.3: An example of specification of Atterberg limits for earthfill core.
2) Fine-grained soil shall be used for embankment or core construction only with
water contents suitable for compaction and for operation of construction
equipment.
3) Well-graded soils are preferable to soils having relatively uniform particle sizes.
Embankment soils that undergo considerable shrinkage upon drying shall be
protected by adequate thicknesses of non-shrinking fine-grained soils to reduce
evaporation.
4) If fine-grained material is in short supply, resulting in a thin core, it should have a
very low permeability.
1.9 Shoulder (or shell) of the Dam
In a common type of earth fill or earth and rock fill embankment, a central impervious core
is flanked by more pervious shells that support the core. The upstream shell should be
designed to provide stability against during & end of construction, rapid drawdown,
earthquake, and other loading conditions, and protected against waves. The downstream
shell acts as a drain that controls the seepage and provides stability under high reservoir
levels, against during & end of construction conditions, and during earthquakes. Control of
seepage through the embankment shall be provided by internal drains.
1.10 　Filter Design
Filter Criteria
The filter design for the drainage layers and internal zoning of a dam is a critical part of the
embankment design. It is essential that the individual particles in the foundation and
embankment/core are held in place and do not move as a result of seepage/erosion forces.
The zones of material shall meet “filter criteria” with respect to adjacent materials. These
criteria are satisfactory for use with filters of either natural sand and gravel or crushed rock
and for filter gradations that are either uniform or graded. The types of material to be
protected by filters are:
Category % finer than #200 sieve

1 > 85
2 40-85
3 15-39
4 < 15
The filter criteria can be calculated for the 4 categories according to USBR: Design
Standard No. 13: Embankment Dams. Chap. 5: Protective Filters, as well as the publication
by USACE: EM 1110-2-2300 App. B. The method proposed by Sherard and Dunnigan
(1985, 1989) which was better detailed in USBR (1987) is the most widely recommended
method for filter criteria design. The details of this method are shown in Appendix B.
Filter Thickness
The thickness of the filter layer should be determined considering:
 Filter thickness required for fine particles retaining.
 Drainage layer required for draining the water to relieve pore pressure.
 Minimum thickness required for compaction.
 Earthquake effects.
Horizontal drain: Cedergren (1972) gives a design method for estimating the discharge
capacity of a horizontal drain based on the following equation and Figure 1.4:
k1 h 2
q (1.14)
2L1
Where k1 = permeability of drain material (m/s), h = vertical thickness of drain (m), L1=
length of the drain (m), q = discharge capacity of drain per meter width of drain (m3/s/m).
Figure 1.4: Design of drain dimensions for discharging capacity.
Vertical drain: the capacity of the vertical drain is seldom a critical issue, because the
quantity of seepage through the earthfill is small and the vertical drain width is dictated by
construction factors. However, its capacity should be checked by:
k h w
q  2 2 (1.15)
L2
Where k2 = permeability of drain material (m/s), h2, L2: are as shown in Figure 1.4 (m), w =
width of the drain (m), q = discharge capacity of drain per meter width of drain (m3/s/m).
Examples of filter thickness computations are shown in Appendix B1 and B2.
In most dam projects the cost of filters is high and there is a need to keep widths to a
practical minimum. The following can be used as a guide to practical minimum widths:
a) Filters upstream or downstream of an earth core, when constructed by end-

dumping off a truck should be at least 2.5 m wide.
b) If a spreader box such as that shown in Figure 1.5 is used, a minimum width of 1.5
m is practicable. The filter material is dumped off the truck into the spreader box,
which spreads the filter out of its base as it is pulled along by a small bulldozer.
Figure 1.5: Typical spreader box (Fell et al, 2005).
c) If filter materials are very scarce or high cost, formwork can be used to contain
bands of filters as narrow as 1 m. Sherard et al. (1963) show an example of such
placement. This is very unusual and would only be contemplated in exceptional
circumstances.
d) For homogeneous or zoned earthfill dams with a vertical chimney, a relatively
narrow filter (as narrow as 0.75 m or 1.0 m) can be constructed by placing the
earthfill for up to 2 m over the filter layer, and then excavating through the
earthfill with a backhoe or excavator to expose the filter, as shown in Figure 1.6.
Careful cleanup of the surface of the exposed filter is necessary and the filter is
compacted with small vibrating sleds or other compaction equipment. The depth h
is best limited to say 1.5 m to reduce the risk of collapsing of the trench and allow
access of men into the trench.
Figure 1.6: Construction of vertical drain by excavation through earthfill (Fell et al, 2005).
e) For smaller dams, an inclined chimney drain can be constructed by dumping the
filter on the trimmed downstream slope of the earthfill core as shown in Figure
1.7. The filter can be compacted by rolling up the slope or by running rubber tyred
equipment up against the slope. The downstream earthfill (or rockfil1) is then
placed in layers adjacent to the filter. In this way thin layers of filter (say as thin as
0.3 m normal to the slope, 0.5 m horizontal) can be placed.
Figure 1.7 Construction of inclined chimney drain by placement on downstream slope of

earthfill (Fell et al, 2005)..
1.11 　Slope Protection
Adequate slope protection must be provided for all earth and rock-fill dams to protect
against wind and wave erosion. Methods of protecting slopes (upstream & downstream)
include dumped riprap, hand placed rip-rap, precast and cast-in-place concrete pavements,
soil cement, bituminous soil stabilization, sodding, and planting.
Upstream slope: Dumped riprap is the preferred type of upstream slope protection. Stones
in the upstream slope protection must consist of sound rocks with sufficient weight to
withstand the action of waves. In the calculation of stone weights, the wave height Hs (Eqn.
1.2) is taken into account. The required riprap stone sizes, gradation and thickness can be
computed following USBR, Design standard 13, Chapter 7 (1987) for which the details of
the computations and an example are shown in Appendix B.
Downstream slope: The downstream slopes of earth-rock fill and rockfill dams are formed
by rockfill. For these dams erosion of the face is not an issue and the requirement usually is
simply to provide a uniform surface within the tolerance specified.
For earthfill dams, the downstream face is potentially erodible and considerable care needs
to be taken to prevent erosion. This is done by:
 Covering the surface with a layer of rockfill or by establishing grass cover;

 Providing berms to limit the vertical distance over which runoff can concentrate;
berms should be provided at no greater than 10 m vertical intervals.
 Providing lined drains on the berms to catch the runoff and carry it to the
abutments.
The type of grass to be used is dependent on local conditions, particularly the climate and
soil, and advice should be sought from local authorities. It is common procedure to provide
a layer of topsoil and then to seed the slope.
Where there is an ample supply of rockfill and/or climatic conditions preclude the use of
grass, quarry run rockfill, placed directly on to the earthfill is usually a satisfactory way of
controlling erosion on the downstream slope. USBR (1977) indicate that 0.3 m of rockfill
usually is adequate although 0.6 m is usually easier to place.
1.12 Compaction Requirements
Earthfill
The compacted density ratio for earthfill should not be less than 98% of the standard
maximum dry density, with a water content between OWC – 1% and OWC + 1% or
between OWC and OWC + 2%, where OWC is the standard compaction optimum water
content. Standard Proctor procedures not modified should be used, in order to ensure moist
compaction which leads to low permeability, flexible fills. For soils which are difficult to
compact, the compaction requirement may be relaxed to as low as 95% density ratio, under
controlled laboratory tests (of contractor performance), provided that compaction is carried
out above optimum water content. The layer thickness after compaction shall be 200 to 250
mm, provided that the density and water content requirements are satisfied throughout the
layer.
Earthfill can be placed by dumping truck and scrapers and spreading with a grader or
bulldozer. Oversized materials shall be removed before compaction. The surface of the
previously compacted layer shall be scarified prior to placing the next layer of fill to ensure
good bond. Addition of a small amount of water to the scarified surface shall be considered
prior to placing the next fill.
Water content adjustments shall be carried out at the borrow area, with only minor
adjustments allowed on the embankment. Soils in the borrow area which are dry or wet of
the required water content shall be conditioned for some days before use in the
embankment. Failure to do this is common cause of difficulty in achieving specified
compaction requirements.
Rockfill
Procedures to be used in compacting rock-fill materials, especially where rocks are soft,
shall be selected on the basis of test fills, in which lift thicknesses, numbers of passes, and
types of compaction equipment (i.e., different vibratory rollers) are investigated. USACE
recommends that rock-fill shall not be placed in layers thicker than 60 cm, unless the
results of test fills show that adequate compaction can be obtained using thicker lifts. As
the maximum particle size of rockfill decreases, the lift thickness shall be decreased. The
maximum particle size shall not exceed 90% of the lift thickness. Smooth-wheeled
vibratory rollers having static weights of 10 to 15 tons, the type of which shall be decided
according to the results of the test fills, are effective in achieving high densities for hard
durable rock if the speed, cycles per minute, amplitude, and number of passes are correct.
Quarry-run rock having an excess of fines can be passed over a grizzly, and the fines
placed next to the core. Fine rock zones should be placed in 30 to 45 cm lift thicknesses.
There is no need to scarify the surfaces of compacted lifts of hard rock-fill.
Filters
Filters shall preferably be placed ahead of earthfill or rockfill as shown in Figure 1.5 in
order to reduce risk of contamination of filter zone and allow good control of the filter
width. Excessive breakdown of the filter materials by the compaction equipment should be
avoided
Figure 1.5: Filter zone placement ahead of other zones.
2 DAM SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

The stability of an embankment depends on the characteristics of foundation and fill
materials and also on the geometry of the embankment section, and additional factors such
as presence of water, loading conditions, etc.
2.1 General Considerations
The stability of the proposed dams shall be analyzed using state of the art software –
Slope/W from Geo-Slope International Ltd of Canada. The stability analyses shall be
conducted with the following aims:
 To determine the factor of safety for various slip surfaces of upstream and
downstream slopes under steady state seepage condition with or without
earthquake.
 To determine the factor of safety for various slip surfaces of upstream slope
under sudden drawdown condition.
 To determine the factor of safety for various slip surfaces of upstream and
downstream slopes during and end of construction conditions.
2.2 Loading Conditions
Table 2 below summarizes the loading conditions and corresponding minimum factor of
safety requirements proposed by the USACE and used worldwide. The design shall meet
these requirements.
Table 1.1: Various load cases and minimum required factor of safety.
Case Loading Condition Critical Slope FOSmin
I End of construction Upstream 1.3
Downstream 1.3
II End Construction Upstream 1.3
Downstream 1.3
III Sudden drawdown Upstream 1.3
IV Steady state seepage Upstream 1.5
Downstream 1.5
V Steady state seepage with earthquake Upstream 1.1
Downstream 1.1
2.3 Method of Stability Analysis
The slope stability investigation of the proposed dam can be carried out using the Slope/W
computer program (from Geoslope international of Canada) based on the limit equilibrium
method. The limit equilibrium methods, which satisfy both force and moment equilibrium
conditions should be used in the analysis. Both Spencer and Morgenstern-Price methods
satisfy both force and moment equilibrium conditions and can be used to obtain the factors
of safety.
The pore pressures that would develop within the body of the dam and in the foundation
under steady state seepage shall be initially estimated with the help of the SEEP/W
software (based on the Finite Element Method). These pore pressures in terms of head
shall then be incorporated in the slope stability analysis using Slope/W.
2.4 Shape of Slip Surface
Circular slip surfaces are common and reasonable for earthfill dams, the sliding surfaces
may take other forms in rockfill dams. For zoned rockfill dams with distinct zones of
different properties, multi linear sliding planes shall be studied. This is also called “sliding
block” method can be carried out in Slope/W with several fully specified slip surfaces.
2.5 Seismic Design
Seismic activities in Ethiopia are generally said to be confined to Afar and the main
Ethiopian rift valley. However, taking into account the expected long life period of
embankment dams and not ruling out the chance of the dam site being hit by a damaging
earthquake which may originate in the rift valley, adequate seismic design considerations
should be taken.
Figure 2.2 shows the hazard map of Ethiopia prepared by the Institute of Geophysical
Observatory at Addis Ababa University for a Design Base Earthquake (DBE) with a return
period of 300 years. This hazard map has been used to estimate the DBE for the seismic
design of many embankment dams in Ethiopia including such dams as Koga dam, Megech
dam, Ribb dam, all in Lake Tana sub-basin.
Figure 2.1: Seismic hazard map of Ethiopia. The hazard map is for a probability of
exceedance of 0.0033 (return period of 300 years). Contours indicate peak ground
accelerations as a fraction of g.
3 DAM FOUNDATION
3.1 Basic Requirements
The essential requirements of a foundation for an embankment dam are:

 The foundation should provide stable support for the embankment under all
conditions of saturation and loading. If the natural foundation at the site is
incapable of supporting an embankment with economical slopes, the deficient
material must be removed or improved.
 It should provide sufficient resistance to seepage to prevent excessive loss of water
and the exit gradient should be low enough not to cause piping problems.
 Differential settlements due to varying compressibility characteristics in different
sections of the dam foundation should be restricted in order to minimize the
possibility of cracks in the embankment which can lead to undesirable seepage
conditions.
3.2 Seepage Control
1) Cutoff Trench. Seepage through an embankment is controlled most effectively by a

cutoff into an impervious foundation. This can be accomplished by excavating a trench
and backfilling with compacted impervious earth, which is in effect part of the
embankment core. Such a cutoff shall be sufficiently wide to ensure an acceptably low
seepage gradient. The excavated slopes should be flat enough to avoid excessive stress
concentrations. If there is a possibility of piping of the backfilled material, the design
will consider placing a filter layer on the downstream face of the trench. If the cutoff
trench would have to be extended to an uneconomical depth, a slurry trench might be
considered as a feasible alternative, or other means.
2) Upstream Impervious Blankets. When a complete cutoff is not required or is too
costly, an upstream impervious blanket tied into the impervious core of the dam will be
considered to minimize under-seepage. It will be observed that upstream impervious
blankets are not used when the reservoir head exceeds 200 ft (61 m), because the
hydraulic gradient acting across the blanket may result in piping and serious leakage.
3) Grouting. For rock foundations with joints and cracks, grouting is effective to control
seepage through the discontinuities. The water tightness of rock is measured in Lugeon
units. Both grout curtain and consolidation grouting shall be considered. Grout curtain
is formed by injecting grout mixes through closely spaced deep grout holes drilled as
lines (main curtain plus auxiliary ones). Consolidation grouting is carried out through a
number of closely spaced, shallow holes on a grid pattern in order to make the upper
portion of the bedrock less pervious.

WRDB SWHISA Embankment Dam Design Guideline

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WRDB SWHISA Embankment Dam Design Guideline

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMHARA NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE

WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BUREAU

Sustainable Water Harvesting and Institutional

EMBANKMENT DAM DESIGN TECHNIQUES &

Prepared by: Hadush Seged (Ph.D.)

2.1 Basic Requirements

b) Seepage through the embankment, foundation, and abutments should be properly

c) Sufficient freeboard should be provided in order to prevent overtopping by waves.

d) Spillway and outlets of sufficient capacity shall be designed to prevent overtopping

1.2 Selection of Dam Type

a) Topography: Topography, to a large measure, can dictates the first choice of

b) Geology and foundation conditions: The geology and foundation conditions

e) Environmental: Recently environmental considerations have become very

g) Climate: Construction of earthfill dam during wet weather will raise

h) Time available for construction: This can be an important factor, especially if

i) Need for staged construction: This consideration is important, if the need

1.3 Axis Alignment

a) Alignments: The final alignment shall be adjusted to avoid tying into

flatten embankment slopes to attain the desired stability than to excavate

The possibility of changing abutments, steep slope to more moderate ones

c) Settlement: Large differential settlement near abutments may result in

Freeboard is provided to protect the embankment from overtopping caused by wind

Effective fetch length (Fe, km)

Figure 1.1: Calculation of effective fetch.

Significant wave height (Hs, m)

Wave period (Ts, s)

Wave length (Ls, m)

Design wave height (H0, m)

Wave run-up (R, m)

Figure 1.2: Graph showing relative wave run-up.

Wind set up (S, m)

Freeboard required (m)

A complete example of Freeboard computation (for Megech dam) is given in Appendix A.

USBR recommendations for feasibility and preliminary design

1.6 Crest Width

1.7 Embankment Zoning

Embankment dams should as much as possible be zoned to provide an adequate

1.8 Impervious Core

Figure 1.3: An example of specification of Atterberg limits for earthfill core.

1.9 Shoulder (or shell) of the Dam

1.10 Filter Design

Category % finer than #200 sieve

Figure 1.4: Design of drain dimensions for discharging capacity.

a) Filters upstream or downstream of an earth core, when constructed by end-

Figure 1.5: Typical spreader box (Fell et al, 2005).

Figure 1.7 Construction of inclined chimney drain by placement on downstream slope of

1.11 Slope Protection

 Covering the surface with a layer of rockfill or by establishing grass cover;

1.12 Compaction Requirements

Figure 1.5: Filter zone placement ahead of other zones.

2 DAM SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

2.1 General Considerations

2.2 Loading Conditions

2.3 Method of Stability Analysis

2.4 Shape of Slip Surface

2.5 Seismic Design

3.1 Basic Requirements

The essential requirements of a foundation for an embankment dam are:

3.2 Seepage Control

1) Cutoff Trench. Seepage through an embankment is controlled most effectively by a

You might also like

1.10 　Filter Design

1.11 　Slope Protection