ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553


   กก
     ก   กก  


Slope Stability of Srinagarind Dam Subjected to Fault Movement in Dam Foundation

89  :  (Chinoros THONGTHAMCHART)1

9G:ก H  I (Suttisak SORALUMP)2

1
ก    ก   ก ก   ! "ก# 
2
 $   ก   ก ก   ! "ก# 

N
 O : )*+   ,)- )*+ ./01. ) 23. $+ )0'4 1 2 1  ก  
 ก54 1 2 *)*+ )- 56 7ก 1 23)0  ก ),ก0 * )*+ 7
01$%ก * )*+  ก57ก4 1 2 )  4ก7กก)+  *)+ .89 )*+
2 0 67521818  *88 .   218 5)0 ก75 )*+ ) +)+ )+  )$+ 70   *
 )*+ 7กก2:; 4 * 54 ก 4ก ),)06'$*1)*+  0   1'*1
)*+ 1 )$ 52:; * 54 ก * )ก17กก)+  *)+ 0 *;

ABSTRACT : Srinagarind dam is the largest dam in Thailand. It located in the moderately seismic hazard area. The seismic
performance of the dam always is the question of many spectators. Pervious dynamics response analyses of the dam reassessed gave
the dynamic behavior of dam body during and after the modeled seismic forces, not effect of fault movement. This paper presents a
simulation of dam when fault beneath the dam moved in both of seepage analyses. Results from slope stability analyses shows factor
of safety of downstream slope decreases because of seepage through the modeled transverse crack caused by movement of the fault.

KEYWORDS : Seismic performance, Fault movement

1. NX +2  ก ),ก2:; )06'$*1)*+ 

) +7ก)*+    ,3 $+    )0  75  )*+  7กก)+  *)+ .8 9 
ก)ก14 1 2 1ก 7;)- 00 )*+   )*+ 7;15) ก)$+ 70)06'$*1)*+
   ก5  7ก4 1 2 218 ก)$  .1 ก
),ก0 * )*+ 7ก4 1 2 [1] 2185 2. กZ   

.8 ) *8  .7$% ก * )*+     ก)ก14 1 2 )*+    , ) - )*+     ก 1 )   03  140
2ก^  1'* )*+ ก)+ .89 )*+ )   0 )*+ ก 8   15 )   610 )   * 1  7
)+  )- 56 ก ),*88 2  6; 17,745 8 3ก ก,)  ก   5 ./  )*+ 3 .
 8 2 $ก9 .89 )*+ )+  $ 0 01b 7.ก/7  .8 016 )*+ 12.1 8 3ก ก,) 
 ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553

ก 08  1ก2ccd ef 4) 2 g $. .   ,18 ก$ )ก&ก 3 1* *
2519 6;$. . 2521 218) กก)ก^ 5g $. . 2520 )$+ )*+ 1 271;ก0101. 1[I 1
1 Impervious clay core

2 Filter

3 Transition

4 Rockfill (small size)

5 Rockfill (large size)

[I 1  81)*+ ;ก01*)*+   ,

2.1   ก& '"&() 
 9   ก) *+  0 .  /   ก  18     
(Calcareous Sandstone)   ,2:, (Quartzite)  3
ก0ก 1 1 (Limestone with Calcareous Shales
Interbedded) 1  ,2:,ก7 3) n18  
ก4$ 8ก   ก7 3. ) n$+  
15ก  0 ) n8 5   ก18  
 1 1  3  ก4$03 18 5;ก
2 n 10 ) 
08*  ก1 8 (Folding)  . 
 ) +6;  ก)o) +  )ก+*  ก    5
./  ก ก  5ก 
(Anticline and Synclinal Axis)  n 5 )  . ) n9
ก)*+    $ )+   ก 3  :;  ก7ก 3
) ners:8)*+   ) n8 5 ) ners* 
ก 1 ) &   318  1  Liquid Limit .
 ก08 .   25 w 50 %   PI   10 w
25% 7กก10ก11 1  OMC   12 w 17
%         1.7 - 1.9  3ก ก,) 
[3] 1 ก )*+ 2187กก)7 )$+1)+ + 1
ก.8 )*+ ก  30 g  Liquid Limit   28 w
30 %  PI   9 w 10 % ) ^11  * 1)1 
 n 8ก  50 % 0 675 ก1 )- )' SC 
. 0  218100 0b  :; 5*1 ) 
ก )*+ 18   Constant Head $  1 )  ก )*+ 
0 0b  :; 5 .   10-4 w 10-6 : ./  1 
กก7*0 0b  :; 51[I 2
0.6 ก
0.5 กก ก!"

*9 ก)*+ 1 )+ ) n8 5$ 

 

0.4
0.3
ก 1) )ก17ก)+ (Fault Breccia)   ก 8 0.2
 n 10 )  0 )+ + u $   ก 8 n 0.1
1 )  [2] 0

2.2 *& '+,

1.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.00E-03


   (./   )
1 ก )*+  (Impervious Core Material) 0 ./
ก18 1  1 )  (Clayey Sand, SC) 1  [I 2 410 Permeability Test *1 ก ก)*+
 ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553

)*+ ก)+  *)+ 1ก )- 4.8 81ก

4ก10 Pinhole (ASTM D4647) )$+ 52) 1 )   01ก1 2 )    1 5.  )*+
$% ก ก2:; 4  ก*ก*1 7ก4ก ),ก2:; 2 ก)  (Transient
ก ก)*+ $ 1 ก ก)*+ 1กก7 analysis) 5  2 ),    *1 )*+  1
31 ND1 ก5   1.8 ก5      )o+  *  1) +  )ก 1
01ก (Filter Material) ก18  3 2187กก 4 1 2 1  )01 '. 18 20 [5] :;.
)1 89 ก)*+ 7ก) + 3 1) ^1 01 * 1   ก5  1.8  )0  1 '. 17ก 39  )- 31
)^กก  15 ): )  * 1* 016 )*+ 01. [I  
 3
 6 )*+ (Rockfill) )-  3 0))*8 - )15 )-  1 กn ;ก&ก2:; 4  )*+ 7กก)+  *
 )^ก ก 1 )  d ก  . )+ .89 )*+
ก
G9N
`aX ก
    
) + 4ก10. 0  $ r77  6  
]ก ^  
  2.3 - 2.5  / .3  0 0b   :; 5 .  
(`./)
1×10-1 : ./  1 5×10-5 2 )ก1*; 5.8 81)*+ 
2 1×10-4 2 )ก1*; 5.8 81)*+ 
3 5×10-5 )ก1*; 5.8 81)*+ 
2 ) 
4 1×10-4 )ก1*; 5.8 81)*+ 
2 ) 

3.1 ",. & '+ กก+"/ "() ' กก 0 /1

)08   1 5 *ก2. กn )*+ 2 ) +  
 *  . กn 1  2 .842 ก . [I 4 01
[I 3 * 1* 016 )*+ [3]
6;1 5.  )*+ 2 03 ก. )  48    8 
3. ]NNX I ก
Z^ก_^ ` ก 1 )      :; 5 03*; 1 Hydraulic Gradient
) n18 8 5 )ก 0.5 :;5ก )กn‚, ก% (ic = 1)
0 9 *ก ), ก2:; 7กก)+ 
05    กn  )*+  )+    *  +  กn  3  4
*)+ $7n7ก)+ ก€) n ก
$  1 5 03*;  ก)ก1*;  48   7ก
1กn, )+ .89 )*+ )- )+ * )*8 
)*+  7)+   )ก 1ก *  (Transverse [I 5 1 5.  )*+ 703*;  1)^ .  ก
Crack) 1  n0   :; 5*ก 1 )  7)$ )08 1 571) +) 4 2 26   ) n18
03*; :;.   0  .8   0 0 b  :;   )- 5 8 5$   Hydraulic Gradient )ก 0.55 :;5ก 
 10 ) *n 0    :; 5 )- 3 )1 (10-5 : ./ )กn‚, ก% 7;   1'ก)ก1 Boiling
)  1 01กn ;ก&4ก7กก)+ 
*)+ .89 )*+ 1$7n. กn )*+ 2 
)ก1ก)+    * )ก1ก)+   1 )  :; 
ICOLD [4]   5.8$7n4ก5*)+ .89
 ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553

200

150
Elevation [mMSL]

100

50

-50

-100
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance [m]
[I 4 )08 1 57กก2:; . ก&n )*+ 2 )ก1ก)+   * 

200

150
Elevation [mMSL]

24
100 48 1
2
4 2 8
1 0
50

-50

-100
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance [m]
[I 5 )08 1 57กก2:; . ก&n )*+ )ก1ก)+   * 

2ก^  8  Hydraulic Gradient . ก 1 )  7 *ก  87  ก)ก1*;  ) + 7ก1 ) 

 5 3. )กn‚, 1'     1 5 2 187กก ก )*+ 71)- 1 2 ก7 +2 )$ ก0ก*
),ก2:;  52:; 4 ก775.8. *ก :;218 707กก10 Pinhole Test
) nก ก2rs f (Turbulent Flow) :;7
)ก1กก1):*; 218 7;2185ก) ก$„ *ก
ก 1 ):'. 7กก ) ก 1*; .  )*+  18   
ก ;ก& Fell et al. [6] $7nr77. )n'$   2 ก) r77 4ก$1$ 016 )*+  ,
)ก *8กกก1):'. 1)- 2 r77 + (1)  * Fell et al [6]
r 7 7   0  4  ก* *ก 218  ก Hydraulic efก   9[IIN   8 ก9 ก
I I
gradient 4 ก 1 )   1*1 010 *) ^11
18 ก**ก (Pipe enlargement)
)    )- 1 ก7 Percent Compaction  n
Hydraulic gradient 4 ก ก  ก
511 1  18  5  (2) r7775ก1ก2 1 ) 
218ก ก1ก. ก 1 )  ก1ก ก2*  1*1 ก )*+ PI > 15 8
0118 ) + 5  2 2180r77 4ก$1$  n1 )  High clay 8
*)*+   , Pinhole dispersion test ND1 8
ก7ก  7ก4ก10$ 1 ก )*+ 2  r77 %Compaction ~95%  ก
704*ก ก +ก 1 )  2 )ก1ก* Water content 18 )gก 8
 ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553

Saturation Saturated 8 ก* *ก 1 * Fell et al [6] $ 2  

18 ก1ก2 (Limitation of flow) r77.1)$ ก0*ก$1$ ก + ก 1 )  
ก1ก7ก 0118   ก     1  1 8 nก&n2 *ก ก  01ก * 11
) + 5 18 ) + 5
)$$dก กก1):'. 218 )*+ 2*กก
ก1ก ก2* 01   :; 5     ก
18 ) + 5 ก6;03
01ก [7] 5.8 75ก1ก24 ก)ก1*; 218

ก75ก1ก24  )*+ .  ก)- กก 3.2 ",. & ' +"&()  'ก "() & ' 
  ; :;)+ 2** 01ก (Filter Criterion) * "() 2$  ก
NAFAC [7] * 1) ^11 * ก * 1*) ^11
ก )*+ 1   +"&() +$ !$ 34
1. D > 415 Drainage requirement   1'* )*+ 7กก2:; )ก1*; )ก1
d 15
ก * 7กก54 1 2 +ก)+ 
2. D15
<5 Piping requirement *)+ .89 )*+ *; 3ก0   1'*
d 85
3. D50
< 25 Piping requirement 1 18  8   5  1   7;  218 $ 7n  0  
d 50
1'  *1 n )   u :; $     0  
4. D15
< 20 Piping requirement
d15 1' )ก 1.1 .   24  ก  1* 5
.  )*+ 03*; 101 4 [I 6 01 ก
 3 218 5* 1) ^11 *)*18  18  $       0   1'   5   0 1 :;  )ก 1*; n 26
*1 ก )*+ ก 01ก  )+ 2*กก :;4  ก)+ * )*+ 0   1'
ก 70$ ) ^11 * 1 d15  d50  8 7  n 1.1
63ก$1$2218 1  )ก14 1 2 )ก1ก
* 7;  70  * * 52ก7ก )*+
 4 04ก ),   *1)*+ 18 8 5 กn
 )*+ )+   * 
ก Hydraulic 9O
e [      aX^ 
 3 04ก 70)+ 2** 01ก  gradient ก ก_^ `  8I
 _ Upper bound Lower bound Result 1 2 4 8 12 24 48
grain size grain size 1 0.51 1.373 1.373 1.372 1.371 1.371 1.369 1.367
1. D 15
4 = 88.9 0.35 = 11.7 Acceptable 2 0.51 1.373 1.373 1.372 1.371 1.371 1.369 1.368
d15 0.045 0.03
2. D15 4 = 0.07 0.35 = 0.02 Acceptable 3 0.55 1.358 1.349 1.316 1.258 1.199 1.106 1.124
d85 55 15 4 0.55 1.358 1.349 1.316 1.253 1.197 1.104 1.123
3. D50 35 = 4.7 11 = 73.3 Unacceptable on
d 50 7.5 0.15
lower bound
 +"&() +$ " ( 34
4. D15 4 = 88.9 0.35 = 11.7 Unacceptable on
d15 0.045 0.03
upper bound . กn8ก11 5.   (Rapid Drawdown)
)$+ก1  )0ก$*1)*+ 18 8 5 4
4ก) ก0ก)ก1กก1):'. *)*+ ก ),)06'$7กก11 51ก $ 2 218
ก)+ *)+ .89 ก0218  ก) 04   *1)*+ 18 ) + 5218 0
 ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553

  1'  *1)*+  18  ) +  5  . 0'  Rapid

Drawdown 03ก )กn‚,กก (FS > 1.20)

1.101

200

150
Elevation [mMSL]

100

50

-50

-100
-600 -500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Distance [m]

[I 6 ก$. กn )*+ )+   *  n )  26  

4. 9Ge
'ก)ก14 1 2 04ก )*+ 
)ก18 .  * ก0 )*+ +)ก1ก)+  *
)+ .89 ก 4ก ),$  572:; 4
ก  7 2  ) ก1 Boiling  8  )*+  72   ก 
* *ก2 )ก1 Piping 7ก  7ก) 4
2 26   1 518)*+ 703*; 5.80
  1'*18)*+ 1)ก 1.10 1  . 
€7; 1 Observation Well 18 18)*+ )$+
 70$%ก ก2:; )ก14 1 2 )
กก1ก2:; 2
5. กกeZก
** n ก  1'  )*+  ef  5     ก& 
ก2ccd  ef 4) 2  3 , 7 $„ 
ก 9$9 ก  )ก& 0,05
*8 305ก ), 
6. NGก
[1] Soralump, S. and Tansupo, K., (2008). Safety analyses of Srinagarind
dam induced by earthquakes using dynamic response analysis
method. International Conference on Performance-Based Design in
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, JGS, Tsukuba, JAPAN, June
15-18, 2009.
[2] ก2ccdef4) 2, 2550. ก ),   
*)*+ SNR ก54 1 2 .
[3] Champa, S. and Mahatharodol, B., (1982). Construction of
Srinagarind Dam. 14th ICOLD Congress, Vol. 1, Q55-R15, (1982),
pp. 255-278.
[4] ICOLD (2001). Bulletin 120 Guideline on Design Features of Dam to
Resist Seismic Ground Motion.
[5] Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B., (1978). Simplified procedure for
estimating dam and embankment earthquake-induced deformations.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No.
GT7, pp. 849-867
[6] Fell, R., Wan, C.F., Cyganiewicz, J. and Foster, M., (2003). Time for
development of internal erosion and piping in embankment dams.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
129, No. 4, pp. 307-314.
[7] NAFAC, (1971). Design manual - Soil mechanics, foundations, and
earth structures.
ก ก ก  15    12-14 $%&' 2553