Effect of Drainage Properties on Seepage Behavior of Earth-Fill

Dams

M. Çalamak1, A. N. Bingöl2, A. M. Yanmaz3

1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, TED University, Ankara, Turkey, melih.calamak@tedu.edu.tr
2
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, ahsen.bingol@metu.edu.tr
3
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey, myanz@metu.edu.tr

Abstract
Earth-fill dams should be designed in such a way that excessive pore water pressures and seepage are controlled
for attaining the desired safety level. This type of dams can be supplemented by some drainage facilities, such as
blanket and chimney drains, which are commonly composed of graded soils. The key issue in designing a
drainage facility is to promote the effectiveness of the system in reducing the pore water pressures and the
seepage quantity. The performance of the drainage facility is based on its geometrical and material properties.
This study investigates the suitability and the effectiveness of blanket and chimney drains in earth-fill dams for
various properties of the drainage system. The steady-state seepage analyses are conducted for a homogeneous
dam with a blanket drain. In the analyses, the thickness and the length of the blanket drain are varied to assess
the performance of the facility. The pore water pressures at the critical points of the dam body and the seepage
rates are obtained for various cases. The results showed that the length of the blanket drain affect the
performance of the system and the seepage behavior of the dam. Also, recommendations are made on assessing
the performance of chimney drains.

Keywords: Earth-fill dam, seepage, pore water pressure, drainage system, performance.

1 Introduction
Excessive seepage through an earth-fill dam body may initiate piping or result in a seepage face at the
downstream face. Besides, excessive pore water pressures may cause increased uplift pressures at both sides that
might trigger slope instabilities. A statistical study showed that most of the earth-fill dam failures were
originated from seepage related problems (Foster et al. 2000). Therefore, it is crucial to take precautions to
control the seepage during the design stage of the dam.

1
ACE2016

The design standards recommend the downstream side of the dam to remain unsaturated to support the central
part of it (USBR 2011a). To prevent the downstream side from saturation and excessive pore water pressures, the
elevation of the phreatic line should be reduced (Justin 1932). The seepage and pore water pressures through an
earth-fill dam can be reduced with preventive or remedial measures (Singh and Varshney 1995). The preventive
approach aims at reducing the quantity of the flow. This commonly requires an impervious zone in the dam. The
remedial measures provide a safe route for seepage through the dam body by means of specific drainage
structures. This approach is recommended in an earth-fill dam even a core exists (Singh and Varshney 1995).

Various drainage facilities are proposed for simple homogenous and zoned earth-fill dams. Common drainage
structures can be defined as blanket, chimney and toe drains. Blanket drains are placed at the downstream of the
dam horizontally to keep the phreatic line of the seepage within the body. A chimney drain is a zone that carries
away seepage coming from the upstream and delivers it to the blanket drain. These drains are placed vertically or
as an inclined layer. On the other hand, toe drains are located at the toe of the dam to prevent the seepage face at
the downstream side. The scope of this study is limited with the investigation of effectiveness of blanket and
chimney drains.

The drainage structures are mainly designed according to the cross-sectional layout of the dam. The design of a
drain is composed of determination the material type, its gradation and the drain dimensions. The determination
of the material type, which is commonly composed of gravel or sand and gravel mixture, is considered to be
crucial defined in design standards (FEMA 2011). Also, the geometric characteristics of a drain affects the
seepage behavior of the dam. Therefore, it can be said that the effectiveness of a drain is related with its material
and geometric properties.

The studies on blanket and chimney drains were conducted by several researchers using both experimental and
numerical models. The effects of length of the horizontal drain on seepage are numerically investigated by
Chahar (2004) who proposed a dimensionless equation for determination of the horizontal drain length for a
given dam cross section. A similar study was conducted by Mansuri and Salmasi (2013) and it was resulted that
when the length of the blanket drain increases, the seepage rate and the hydraulic gradients increase. Malekpour
et al. (2012) conducted laboratory experiments to assess the effects of both the thickness and length of the
horizontal drain on seepage and stability of the slopes. It was shown that increased thickness of the horizontal
drain prevents the occurrence of piping. The findings of the experimental studies on chimney drains were
presented in Djehiche et al. (2014) and Djehiche et al. (2012). It was found that the position of the chimney drain
depends on the maximum head of water, the slope of the upstream side and the critical hydraulic gradient of the
dam material. Maslia and Aral (1982) evaluated the design criteria of chimney drains. According to their results
the flow rate increases with increasing hydraulic conductivity of the drain material. Furthermore, it is found that
the performance of the chimney drain is based on the reservoir level.

Although there are research studies about drainage facilities in earth-fill dams, the literature lacks performance
and effectiveness evaluation of different drain facilities for their various properties. This study is aimed at
evaluation of the performance and effectiveness of blanket and chimney drain facilities in homogeneous and
simple zoned earth-fill dams. The steady state seepage analyses are conducted numerically for a homogeneous
earth-fill dam with SEEP/W (Geo-Slope Int Ltd 2013). This software utilizes finite element method (FEM) to
solve the governing equations of seepage flow. The effects of length and thickness of the blanket drain in a
homogeneous dam are investigated.

2 Seepage Modelling in Earth-fill Dams

The flow in a porous medium is considered to follow Darcy’s law. The governing differential equation of the
seepage through a two-dimensional domain can be expressed with the following equation (Richards, 1931;
Papagianakis & Fredlund, 1984; Geo-Slope Int Ltd, 2013).

  H    H  
 Kx    Ky   Q 
x  x  y  y  t
(1)

where H is the total head, Kx and Ky are the hydraulic conductivities in x and y direction, respectively, Q' is the
boundary flux, θ is the volumetric water content and t is the time. The current study analyzes the seepage in
earth-fill dams for steady-state conditions. The steady-state analyses of flow quantities, gradients and pore water
pressures are stated to be appropriate for an earth-fill dam under normal operation conditions (USBR 2011a). For

2
 M. Çalamak, A. N. Bingöl, A. M. Yanmaz

steady-state flow conditions, the storage of the soil does not change with time and the right hand side of Eq. (1)
reduces to zero. Also, when the soil is assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous, K becomes independent of x
and y directions. The simplified version of Eq. (1) is called as Laplace equation and it is provided below.

2H 2H
 0
x 2 y 2
(2)

Eq. (2) can be solved by FEM to yield the total heads through the embankment body, and seepage rates at
desired sections. This study utilized SEEP/W software which solves the governing equation of the seepage flow
(Eq. (2)) with FEM. The comprehensive explanations about the software and the solution technique are provided
in Geo-Slope Int Ltd, (2013) and GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. (2016).

3 The Geometry and Material Properties of Drainage Facilities

3.1 Blanket Drain

The blanket drain design considered in this study is presented in Figure 1. This figure highlights the effect of
length of blanket drainage (L) on phreatic surface. Blanket drains are commonly used in moderate height
homogeneous dams having a height up to 50 m (Singh and Varshney 1995; USBR 1987). This drain should have
sufficient length and thickness to convey the water from the dam body safely. The thickness of the drain is
recommended to be greater than 1 m (USBR 1987). For the length of the drain, an upper limit is defined in
USBR (1987). According to the limitation, the distance between the centerline of the dam and the upstream end
of the blanket drain should not be less than Hd + 1.55 m, where Hd is the height of the dam, measured from
thalweg. Also, the drain should be located such that the capillary rise above the phreatic line should not be
observed on the downstream sloping face (Mishra and Singh 2005). Blanket drains are commonly made of
uniformly graded gravel material (USBR 2011a; b).

Figure 1. The blanket drain and the phreatic surfaces for various lengths of the drain (B= Base width).

3.2 Chimney Drain

Figure 2 presents an inclined chimney drain to be applicable in a simple zoned earth-fill dam having the same
geometrical characteristics as those of Figure 1. In some special cases, due to the stratified formation of the
earth-fill dam body, preferential horizontal seepage paths may occur. This may result the flow to bypass the
blanket drain. Therefore, to collect the seepage, a chimney drain might be needed (USACE 1994). Although the
chimney drain is applicable in both homogenous and simple zoned earth-fill dams, in view of the ease of
construction, they are commonly preferred in zoned earth-fill dams. The height of a chimney drain is determined
by the height of the dam body or the core section. However, its thickness and the hydraulic conductivity are
determined in the design. Similar to the blanket drain, an effective chimney drain should have a sufficient

3
ACE2016

thickness and hydraulic conductivity to convey the water safely. The height of the dam and therefore the height
of the chimney drain are determined according to the maximum reservoir level. The minimum chimney drain
thickness is recommended to be between 1.20 m and 1.50 m (FEMA 2011). The minimum hydraulic
conductivity of the drain should be approximately 16 to 25 times of that of the core material (Maslia and Aral
1982). Similar to the blanket drain, chimney drains are composed of uniformly graded gravel-sized particles in
order to provide a sufficient permeability (USBR 1987, 2011b). Detailed information for the design of both
blanket and chimney drains are provided in USACE (1994), USBR (1987, 2011a; b).

Figure 2. Zoned earth-fill dam cross-section with chimney drain.

4 Application Problems and Analyses

A hypothetical earth-fill dam geometry is selected from Chahar (2004) with impervious foundation assumption
as the application problem in the study. The dam height, Hd and reservoir level, Hres are 33 m and 30 m,
respectively. At the downstream of the dam there is no tailwater. The upstream and downstream side slopes are
1V:3H and 1V:2.5H, respectively. It should be noted that the recommended slopes for the upstream varies
between 1V:2H and 1V:4H, and for the downstream slope varies between 1V:2.5H and 1V:2H (USBR 1987).
The crest width is 6 m and it is also in between the recommended limits which are 6 m and 12 m (Singh and
Varshney 1995). The base width, B, is 187.50 m. This defined geometry is considered to be the geometries of a
homogenous (see Figure 1) and a simple zoned (see Figure 2) type of dams. The upstream and downstream
slopes of the central core are taken as 1V:0.5H as recommended in the study of (Bilgi 1990). The fill material of
the homogeneous dam is selected as the sandy clay. The shell of the simple zoned dam is made of medium
grained sand, whereas the core is composed of clay. The material of both the blanket and chimney drains are
selected as well graded gravel as suggested in USBR (2011a; b). The saturated, θs, and residual, θr, water
contents of both sandy clay and clay are determined from Rawls et al. (1982), whereas their hydraulic
conductivities are obtained from USBR (2011a). The hydraulic properties of the medium grained sand and the
gravel materials are chosen from Tayfur et al. (2005) and USBR (1987, 2011a), respectively. The properties of
the earth-fill dam materials are summerized in Table 1.

Table 1. The properties of the earth-fill dam materials.

K θs θr
Material
(m/sec) (cm3/cm3) (cm3/cm3)
Sandy clay (SC) 1.0×10-8 0.430 0.1090
Medium grained
2.0×10-5 0.364 0.0012
sand (MS)
-9
Clay (C) 1.0×10 0.475 0.0900
Gravel (GW) 1.0×10-4 0.100 0.0020

As indicated before, the performance of a drain is based on its geometric features. In the scope of the study, for
both blanket and chimney drains, the reference dimensions are determined from the related literature. Then these
dimensions are varied around the reference dimension to investigate the effects of the drain geometry on
seepage. The reference thickness and the length of the blanket drain is chosen as 1 m and 30 m, respectively,
whereas the reference thickness and the side slopes of the chimney drain is determined as 1.5 m and 1V:0.5H,
respectively.

4
 M. Çalamak, A. N. Bingöl, A. M. Yanmaz

Afterwards, various analyses are conducted to determine the performance of the blanket drain by changing its
length and thickness. While keeping t as 1 m, L is varied between 20 m and 40 m in 5 m increment. On the
contrary, while keeping the length, L, as 30 m, the thickness, t, of the blanket drain is varied between 0.5 m and
2.0 m in 0.5 m increment. Then, the effects of these variations on the phreatic line, pore water pressures at six
different points and the seepage rate at the centerline position are investigated. The points are chosen from the
various locations in order to represent the pore water pressure variations throughout the body for different
geometries of the blanket drain. The locations of the points and their ordinates are given in Figure 3 and Table 3,
respectively.

y (m)

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3

Point 4 Point 5 Point 6

x (m)

Figure 3. The pressure reading points.

For the chimney drain, since the height of the drain and its horizontal length are determined by the geometry of
the dam, its thickness and hydraulic conductivity are planned to be varied. While keeping the hydraulic
conductivity at its reference value, 1.0×10-4 m/s, the drain thickness can be taken to be 1 m, 1.5 m and 2 m. Also,
the hydraulic conductivity can also be varied while keeping the thickness at 1.5 m. The variation of the hydraulic
conductivity may arise from a change in the gradation properties of the drain material. The relationship between
the grain size distribution properties and the hydraulic conductivity for uniformly to moderately graded sand and
gravel drains and filters can be estimated by using the following empirical equation USBR (2011a).

K  0.35D15 2 (3)

where, K is the hydraulic conductivity of the drain and is in cm/s, and D15 is the particle size of the drain in mm
for which 15% of the material is finer than that size. The hydraulic conductivity of the chimney drain can be
varied between 5.0×10-5 m/s and 2.0×10-4 m/s, which correspond to D15 particle sizes of 0.12 mm and 0.24 mm,
respectively. In the related design standards of drains and filters, the upper limit of D15 is given as 1.98 mm
(USBR 2011b), whereas the lower limit is defined as 0.10 mm (USDA 1994).

5 Results and Discussions

In the first part of the analyses, the thickness of the blanket drain is kept at 1 m and its length is varied from 30 m
to 20 m, 25 m, 35 m and 40 m. For these varying lengths, the corresponding phreatic lines, pore water pressures
at the aforementioned points and the seepage rate at the centerline of the dam is obtained. The phreatic lines and
the pore water pressures are presented in Figure 1 and Table 3, respectively. The change of pore water pressures
at points with respect to L/B ratio which is the ratio of the drain length to the base width of the dam are provided
in Figure 4(a). Also, the seepage rates at the centerline of the dam for varying drain lengths are shown in
Figure 4(b). According to the results, when the length of the blanket drain increases, the phreatic line meets the
drain within a shorter distance (see Figure 1). This results in a decrease in the elevations of the phreatic surface.
When the elevation of the phreatic surface decreases, the pore water pressures throughout the body decreases
except for Points 1 and 4 (see Table 3 and Figure 4(a)). These points are located at just near to the upstream
boundary of the dam and they are not much affected by any change in the downstream part of the phreatic
surface. However, the increase in the length of the drain results in an increase in the seepage rates passing
through the dam centerline (see Figure 4(b)). This is mainly due to the increased hydraulic gradients throughout
the body. When the phreatic line is shifted to the upstream with the increase of the drain length, the hydraulic
gradients increases and this result in an increased seepage rate through the body. Within the scope of the study,

5
ACE2016

also the relationship between the discharge at the centerline and the ratio of the length of the blanket drain to the
dam base width is investigated. For the given dam height, boundary and material conditions, it is seen that the
seepage rate is exponentially related with L/B ratio. The relationship is given with the following equation.

  L 
Q  288.68 exp  2.154   
  B 
(3)

Table 3. The Pore water pressures at specified points for various lengths of the blanket drain.

x y L= 20 m L= 25 m L= 30 m L= 35 m L= 40 m
Points
(m) (m) L/B= 0.107 L/B= 0.133 L/B= 0.160 L/B= 0.187 L/B= 0.213
1 73 20 92.6 92.4 92.2 91.9 91.6
2 101 20 63.9 55.7 48.3 50.0 43.0
3 131 20 -8.2 -14.7 -22.8 -31.7 -42.2
4 73 6 225.2 224.5 223.8 223.0 222.0
5 101 6 190.3 187.3 183.9 180.0 175.3
6 131 6 125.7 117.0 106.9 94.7 79.8
Note: The pore water pressure values are in kPa.

250 0.30
(a) (b)
200
Pore water pressure (kPa)

0.25
Flux at centerline (l/h)

150
0.20
100
Q = 288.68 exp(2.154 (L/B))
0.15
50 R² = 0.99

0 0.10

-50 0.05

-100 0.00
0.09 0.14 L/B 0.19 0.24 0.09 0.14 0.19 0.24
L/B
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Point 4 Point 5 Point 6

Figure 4. (a) The change of pore water pressures with respect to L/B; (b) The seepage at the centerline with
respect to L/B.

In the second part of the analyses, the thickness of the drain is varied between 0.5 m and 2.0 m in 0.5 m
increment under a constant drain length of 30 m. For the changing thicknesses, the resulting phreatic surfaces
and the pore water pressures are determined and presented in Figure 6 and Table 4, respectively. The variation of
pore water pressures at specified points with respect to t/Hd ratio which is the ratio of the drain thickness to the
dam height are provided in Figure 7(a). Besides, the discharges passing through the centerline of the dam for
varying drain thickness are given in Figure 7(b). The result of the analyses showed that when the thickness of the
drain changes, the position of the phreatic surface does not considerably change. Even the thickness of the drain
is doubled, only slight changes are observed in the pore water pressures. This resulted in minor changes in the
elevations of the phreatic surface just above the blanket drain. The changes are observed in the pore water
pressures of Points 3 and 6 which are located at the downstream part of the dam body. Similar findings were also
presented in an experimental study conducted by Malekpour et al. (2012). The relationship between the seepage
rate and the ratio of the thickness of the blanket drain to the dam height is shown in Figure 7(b). It is found that,
up to a certain increase in the drain thickness, the seepage rate through the body is not affected. However, when
the thickness is doubled (when t= 2 m) the seepage rate is observed to decrease only by 5%.

6
 M. Çalamak, A. N. Bingöl, A. M. Yanmaz

Figure 6. The blanket drain and the phreatic surfaces for various thicknesses of the blanket drain.

Table 4. The Pore water pressures at specified points for various thicknesses of the blanket drain.

t= 0.5 m t= 1.0 m t= 1.5 m t= 2.0 m

Points
t/Hd= 0.015 t/Hd= 0.030 t/Hd= 0.045 t/Hd= 0.061
1 92.2 92.2 92.2 92.4
2 46.9 48.3 46.5 48.3
3 -22.7 -22.8 -23.1 -15.5
4 223.9 223.8 223.8 224.5
5 184.0 183.9 183.8 187.0
6 107.4 106.9 106.6 114.5
Note: The pore water pressure values are in kPa.

250 0.30
(a) (b)
Pore water pressure (kPa)

200
Flux at centerline (l/h)

0.25
150

100 0.20

50
0.15
0

-50 0.10
0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
t/Hd
t/Hd
Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Point 4 Point 5 Point 6

Figure 7. (a) The change of pore water pressures with respect to t/Hd; (b) the seepage at the centerline with
respect to t/Hd.

6 Conclusions
This study investigates the effects of blanket drain geometry on the seepage characteristics of homogeneous
earth-fill dams. To this end, a homogeneous earth-fill dam having a common cross-section is analyzed for the
steady state seepage for various lengths and thicknesses of the blanket drain. The results of the study showed
that, when the length of the drain increases, the pore water pressures through the body decreases; however, the
hydraulic gradients and the seepage rate passing through the body increases. Therefore, it can be said that the
length of the blanket drain should be determined by an optimization study. Because, the decreased pore water
pressures in the body will result in higher stabilities at side slopes. At the same time, the increased hydraulic
gradients through the body may initiate piping if the critical hydraulic gradients of the dam material are
exceeded. Therefore, a blanket drain length which gives the minimum pore water pressures with the limited
seepage rates and limited hydraulic gradients should be determined. It is also found that the effect of the

7
ACE2016

thickness of the blanket drain on the pore water pressures and the seepage rate through the dam is negligible, if
the thickness of the drain is above a certain limit. This limit is defined as 1 m in USBR (1987) and it can be
concluded that the determination of the length of the blanket drain is more important than the determination of
its thickness. In the scope of the present study, also basic guidelines for the design of chimney drains are given
and some recommendations are made on how to assess their performance in view of their seepage
characteristics.

References
Bilgi, V. (1990). Design Criteria for Embankment Dams. State Hydraulic Works (DSI), Ankara, Turkey (in
Turkish).
Chahar, B. R. (2004). “Determination of Length of a Horizontal Drain in Homogeneous Earth Dams.” Journal of
Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, 130(6), 530–536.
Djehiche, A., Amieur, R., and Gafsi, M. (2012). “Seepage through Earth Dams with Chimney Drain on Pervious
Foundation.” Advanced Materials Research, 452(1), 538.
Djehiche, A., Amieur, R., and Gafsi, M. (2014). “The Seepage through the Earth Dams with a Vertical Drain : an
Experimental Study.” Journal of Environmental Research And Development, 8(3), 471–476.
FEMA. (2011). “Filters for Embankment Dams.” October, (October).
Foster, M., Fell, R., and Spannagle, M. (2000). “The statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, NRC Research Press, 37(5), 1000–1024.
Geo-Slope Int Ltd. (2013). Seepage Modeling with SEEP/W. Geo-Slope International Ltd., Calgary.
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. (2016). “Geotechnical Engineering Software - GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.”
Justin, J. D. W. (1932). Earth dam projects. New York : J. Wiley & Sons, Inc. ; [c1932,1947].
Malekpour, A., Farsadizadeh, D., Hosseinzadeh Dalir, A., and Sadrekarimi, J. (2012). “Effect of Hrizontal Drain
Size on the Stability of an Embankment Dam in Steady and Transient Seepage Conditions.” Turkish
Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 36(2), 139–152.
Mansuri, B., and Salmasi, F. (2013). “Effect of Horizontal Drain Length and Cutoff Wall on Seepage and Uplift
Pressure in Heterogeneous Earth Dam with Numerical Simulation.” Science Line Publication, 2013.
Maslia, M. L., and Aral, M. M. (1982). “Evaluation of a Chimney Drain Design in an Earthfill Dam.” Ground
Water, 20(1), 22–31.
Mishra, G. C., and Singh, A. K. (2005). “Seepage through a Levee.” International Journal of Geomechanics,
5(1), 74–79.
Papagianakis, A. T., and Fredlund, D. G. (1984). “A steady state model for flow in saturated–unsaturated soils.”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, NRC Research Press, 21(3), 419–430.
Rawls, W. J., Brakensiek, C. L., and Saxton, K. E. (1982). “Estimation of soil water properties.” Transactions -
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 25(5), 1316–1320,1328.
Richards, L. A. (1931). “Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums.” Journal of Applied Physics,
1(5), 318–333.
Singh, B., and Varshney, R. S. (1995). Engineering for embankment dams. Brookfield, VT : A.A. Balkema
Publishers, 1995.
Tayfur, G., Swiatek, D., Wita, A., and Singh, V. P. (2005). “Case Study: Finite Element Method and Artificial
Neural Network Models for Flow through Jeziorsko Earthfill Dam in Poland.” Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 131(6), 431–440.
USACE. (1994). “Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, EM-1110-2-1901.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
USBR. (1987). Design of Small Dams. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
USBR. (2011a). “Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams Chapter 8: Seepage Phase 4 (Final).” U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
USBR. (2011b). “Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams Chapter 5: Protective Filters Phase 4 (Final).”
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 254.
USDA. (1994). “Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters.” National Engineering Handbook, United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington, D.C.