The Design of Foundation Treatment Measures For Dams On Karst Foundations
The Design of Foundation Treatment Measures For Dams On Karst Foundations
The Design of Foundation Treatment Measures For Dams On Karst Foundations
net/publication/261363225
CITATIONS READS
7 6,110
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by C. Richard Donnelly on 15 May 2014.
ABSTRACT
Well planned foundation treatment measures for dams constructed on karst foundations are
essential. To be effective, these measures must be tailored to the specific problems of the
individual dam site. At the Kavar Dam, an unusual combination of a surface membrane,
coupled with a gypsum surcharge and other seepage control measures are planned to seal a
highly karstic foundation.
Introduction
1
Acres International Limited. 4342 Queen St., Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6W1 ([email protected])
2
Dezab Consulting Engineers, Farvardin Avenue, Golestan Road, Ahwaz, Iran
In the years following the construction of the Hales bar dam the effects of solutioning
have had adverse impacts on both reservoir water tightness and the structural integrity
of many dams. Although there are few documented structural failures attributed to
sinkhole collapse in karst terrain, there are numerous examples of problems associated
with reservoir filling. For example, at the Lar dam in Iran (Uromeihy, 2000) it was not
possible to impound to full supply level due to foundation leakage that reached two-
thirds of the total river flow. A remedial grouting program, performed between 1985 and
1990, was only partially successful in reducing seepage and, to date, the reservoir
remains partially filled. In the case of the Anchor Dam constructed in 1960, (Fig. 1), an
extensive system of sinkholes and faults have prevented any permanent storage of
water, despite numerous remedial sealing attempts. (www.usbr.gov/cdams/dams)
As a result of experience gained from such dams, techniques have been developed to
successfully treat even seriously karstic foundations. This paper describes current
practice for the design of dams on karst terrain as well as some unique seepage control
measures that are planned to mitigate risks associated with a highly karstic limestone
foundation in Iran. These measures include the use of an engineered soluble fill and a
surficial shotcrete membrane to seal the foundation surface.
Current Practice
Improving Deformability
Commonly applied techniques for improving the deformability and stability of karst
foundation rocks include excavation/mucking of solution cavities followed by filling with
a sand and gravel slurry, concrete and/or compaction grouting. For example, at the 21
dams that the Tenessee Valley Authority (TVA) has constructed on carbonate
foundations, Soderberg (1988) notes that foundation treatment typically includes
consolidation grouting to ensure adequate bearing strength and to minimize
settlements. Solutioned areas, in otherwise sound rock, are then mucked or excavated
and filled with concrete.
More recenty, compaction grouting has been used to treat karst features. This
technique involves the injection of low-slump soil/cement grout to displace and/or
compress the surrounding soils for greater strength (Fischer and Fischer, 1995). This
typically results in hydraulic fracturing, extrusion and consolidation of clayey fillings
within the sinkholes increasing strength, and resistance to seepage stresses. Welsh
(1988) and Zuomei and Pinshou (1988) describe the use of compaction grouting to
rectify sinkholes and caves filled with clay fillings and to build a seepage resistant
barrier in Karst terrain for the Wujiangdu Hydroelectric Project in China.
600
Median post Impoundment
500
Seepage (l/sec)
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4
N u m b e r o f G ro u t L in e s
It is also clear from Table 1 that a significant factor governing the performance of grout
curtains in karst foundations is whether or not the curtain is “anchored” into an
impervious base. For example, at the 11.5m high Hales Bar dam, post construction
seepage reached 48 m3 per second through the hanging curtain. Similarly, at the
Francisco Zaro Dam, seepage flows in the order of 1000 L/sec through the hanging
curtain were measured, despite the fact that a triple line grout curtain had been used.
It is usually necessary to extend the grout curtain some distance along the dam axis
into the abutments to reduce risks associated with end run seepage. The amount of
extension required can be somewhat subjective, and is dependent on geological
conditions such as the existence of an impervious boundary. However, for dams
founded on a moderately permeable karstic foundation, a review of precedent would
suggest that the amount of extension required to minimize risk varies logarithmically as
a function of the hydraulic head (Figure 3).
Asphalt Grouting
When remedial grouting is required after impounding, the TVA and others have
reported good results using hot asphalt grouting. In this technique, asphalt is melted
Table 1 Precedent Examples of Some Dams Built on Karstic Foundations
Project Dam Type Head Geology No. of Seepage Remedial
and Date (m) Grout Work
Lines
Stewartville Dam Concrete gravity/ 41 Crystalline limestone open 1 370 l/s Yes. 3
Canada Earthfill seams at depth
Completed 1948
Sklope Dam Rockfill 80 Limestone, advanced karst, 1-2 500 l/s None
Yugoslavia caverns
Hales Bar Dam Earthfill/Concrete 11.5 Limestone, solution jts., 1 Max. 48 Yes. 6
U.S.A. 1905-1913 5 cavities, caverns m3/s
Normandy Dam Concrete gravity/ 17 Limestone with shale, clay 1 -2 Negligible None
U.S.A. Earthfill solution cavities
1972-76
3
Asphalt grouting in 1985 reduced leakage by up to 33 l/s
4
Grout curtain extended in left abutment in 1974
5
Demolished 1960
6
Extensive in 1944
7
Cement and asphalt grouting performed
Project Dam Type Head Geology No. of Seepage Remedial
and Date (m) Grout Work
Lines
Pueblo Viejo Dam Rockfill 92 Limestone & dolomite, 1-2 25 l/s None
Guatemala 1977-83 advanced artesian karst
La Angostura Dam Rockfill/Concrete 89 Limestone, clay seams and 2 100 l/s None
Mexico 1971-75 solutioned jts
and pumped through heated pipes into open cavities. On contact with the water, the
asphalt cools and assumes a globular form that progressively blocks the solution
channels. On various projects, the TVA has adopted a "wait and see" approach to the
issue of reservoir watertightness using asphalt grouting for spot treatment after
impoundment often followed by a program of cement grouting to ensure the long term
stability of the seal.
16
Ratio of Grout Curtain Extention into
14
12
Abutments to Hydraulic Head
10
Open symbol indicates that
8 remedial work or excessive
seepage (>300 L/s) was reported.
6
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Slightly Karstic (grout take 0 to 50 kh/m) Karstic (grout take 50 to 400 kg/m)
Highly Karstid (grout take > 400 kg/m) Grout take not reported
The Kavar site is situated in a mountainous region about 70 km south of Shiraz, Iran, in
the Kavar valley. To provide irrigation water, a 60m high concrete faced rockfill dam is
planned to impound the Qareh Aghaj River.
Site Conditions
As indicated on Figure 4, the project site can be characterized by two distinct regions, a
broad upper reservoir and a lower reservoir. The lower reservoir is contained within a
relativelly steep sided canyon where the dam is located. The elevated margins in the
upper reservoir, and the steeply dipping right abutment of the lower reservoir at the dam
site are composed of a strong, moderately to highly karstic limestone known as the Asmari
formation. Weaker Razak marls are present, locally, within the base of both the upper and
lower reservoirs and form the relatively shallow dipping left bank of the lower reservoir.
Bedrock Geology
The Asmari Limestone is highly permeable to great depths throughout the site area due
to the existence of solutioned channels that formed along and across bedding planes. This
has created an unpredictable system of interconnected flow channels and a rock mass
permeability in the order of 100 Lugeons and higher. The characteristics of the Razak
formation vary across the site. At the dam site, the Razak formation is highly deformed
as a result of the intense folding that was responsible for the creation of the canyon itself.
The geologic environment has produced gypsum formations along bedding planes as well
increased hydraulic conductivities in the range of 10 to 50 Lugeons. In the upper reservoir,
the Razak is generally undeformed and was found to be essentially impervious.
Overburden Conditions
In the upper reservoir, overburden consists of a broad, deep deposit of lacustrine materials
flanked on the margins by slopewash. Both the slopewash and lacustrine materials were
found to be of relatively low permeability. In the immediate area of the river channel,
coarse grained, pervious, river alluvium is present. However, it is completely surrounded
by the relatively impervious slopewash or lacustrine materials. This distribution of
overburden materials forms a natural impervious blanket, effectively isolating the pervious
Asmari limestone formation from the future reservoir. At the dam site, there are no
lacustrine deposits and the river alluvium can come in contact with, or be very close to,
highly pervious bedrock. In addition, slopewash materials were found to be significantly
more permeable than in the upper reservoir area due to the fact that these materials
originated as a result of the mass movement of considerably steeper rock slopes, thereby
producing a coarser material.
Groundwater Conditions
In the lower reservoir valley, groundwater levels were found to be about 10m below the
river level, confirming the pervious nature of the bedrock and the need to seal the reservoir.
Figure 4 Kavar Reservoir and Dam Site.
Reservoir Treatment
On the basis of the explorations undertaken at the site, a clear picture of the nature of the
foundation conditions, and the problems that they presented, was developed. In the upper
reservoir area most of the leakage would be forced, under a moderate head, through the
impervious lacustrine materials and/or the low permeability slopewash that blanket the
bedrock side slopes before reaching the pervious Asmari bedrock. Therefore, provided
that local treatment of exposed Asmari outcrops in the upper reservoir was undertaken,
losses would generally be minimal. On the other hand, in the lower reservoir area, leakage
will occur under relatively high head through relatively pervious slopewash into the
immediately adjacent pervious Razak bedrock and/or directly into the right abutment highly
pervious Asmari formation. Limiting seepage losses to manageable levels in this area,
therefore, required a comprehensive treatment plan to sealed the entire flooded canyon.
Originally, it had been planned to use of a complex grouting scheme to tie the highly
pervious Asmari into, what was assumed to be, impervious Razak bedrock using a
technique similar to one that had been successfully employed at the El Cajun project.
However, as the exploration program evolved, it became apparent that both the upper
portion of the Razak, and the overlying slopewash materials, were significantly more
permeable than had been previously assumed. To reduce concerns regarding subsurface
unknowns, and the reliance on grouting to great depths to adequately seal the foundation,
an alternative watertightness treatment using a surficial impervious surface membrane was
developed as shown conceptually in Figure 5. On the relatively steep right bank where the
Asmari outcrops, the membrane consists of a 120 mm thick, silica fume reinforced
shotcrete membrane anchored into the slope. In the valley bottom, and over the left bank
where relatively flat slopes exist due to the presence of the Razak formation, an
overburden blanket, consisting of compacted impervious and erosion protection fills is
planned. This treatment will cover the entire lower reservoir area, extending approximately
700-800 m upstream of the dam site to the upper reservoir where it will be connected into
the natural impervious materials that exist there. Although unusual, as shown on Table 2,
the use of shotcrete for sealing a dam or reservoir is not unprecedented.
Table 2 Summary of Examples of Shotcrete Used as for Water Tightness Treatment
Project Country Date Structure Description Length Height
(m) (m)
La Joie Canada 1955 Timber faced Gunite used to seal deteriorated 440 60.0
rockfill dam. timber faced dam.
Leichhardt Australia 1957 Rockfill dam Reinforced gunite used as sole 260 26.5
River impervious element for rockfill dam
Corella Australia 1957 Rockfill dam Reinforced gunite used as the sole 146 23
impervious element
Hammam Austria 1987 Concrete Shotcrete and clay blanket used to 50 36.0
Grouz gravity dam seal karstic limestone reservoir slopes
Tranavka Czech 1988 Earth dam Shotcrete and plastic membrame used ------ 20.0
for sealing
Jordan Canada 1989 Amberson Shotcrete used for sealing ------- 29.0
River buttres dam
Eastside USA 1998 Blasted rock Shotcrete used for sealing the 250 50.0
Reservoir Slopes reservoir
To further reduce the likelihood of any future problems associated with progressive
dissolution of the gypsum beds known to exist above a depth of 50 m in the Razak
formation at the dam site, a plastic concrete cut-off wall is planned. This will be
supplemented by a double line grout curtain to reduce seepage gradients across the
cutoff, and to further reduce the bedrock permeability. Details of the treatment measures
planned at the dam site are shown on Figure 6.
CONCRETE
FACING
EL. 1671 m
EL. 1665 m (RESERVOIR LEVEL)
IMPERVIOUS FILL
5
4A
UPSTREAM SEMI-PERVIOUS FILL EL. 1640 m DOWNSTREAM
COFFERDAM COFFERDAM
EL. 1626 m
ROCK FILL
MIN. 5 METERS
1
1 EL. 1605 m
PLASTIC CONCRETE
CUTOFF WALL
CONCEPTUAL LOCATION OF
GYPSUM BED
EL. 1535 m
GROUT CURTAIN
Another unique feature of the treatment measures used at the Kavar site is a gypsum
surcharge that is to be installed immediately upstream of the dam. The purpose of the
surcharge fill is to cause water seeping through the fill to become saturated with dissolved
gypsum at a concentration as close as possible to the solubility limit, similar to a concept
reported by Pokrovskii, 1994 in which salt solutions are injected into the foundation of
dams constructed on rocks containing water-soluble salts (halite).
To assess the gypsum requirements for the dam, the approach of James and Lupton for
particulate forms of gypsum and anhydrite was used. Key parameters in the analysis
included the density, D, of gypsum 2300 kg/m3, the initial linear particle size lo, the particle
volume coefficient b (vol. =bl3), the particle area coefficient a (area= al2), the solubility
rate constant K, and the solubility limit cs of gypsum. As a first step, flow nets were
constructed to estimate the hydraulic flux through the gypsum surcharge. The thickness
of the gypsum bed could then be designed by assuming advective transport only (i.e.,
neglecting diffusion). In this way, the dissolved mass of gypsum leaving the surcharge per
unit area could be approximated by the product of the gypsum concentration and seepage
flux per unit area of surcharge. The calculated flow rate through the gypsum surcharge
was found to vary from 2.0x10-6 to 9.5x10-5cm/sec. Based on an assumed porosity of 0.3,
seepage velocities through the gypsum bed were estimated to vary between 6.7x10-
6
cm/sec and 3x10-4 cm/sec.
The size of surcharge required is based on the design life of the project and the amount
of time required to ensure that the seepage water flowing through the gypsum surcharge
area is fully saturated with gypsum. To achieve the required contact time with a
reasonable sized surcharge fill, a number of alternatives were considered, including:
increasing the surcharge thickness, reducing the hydraulic conductivity of the impervious
blanket within 100 meters of the upstream plinth and reducing the particle size of the
gypsum. The most effective means of enhancing contact time was found to be reducing
the particle size. For example, as shown on Figure 7, as gypsum particle size is reduced
from 0.5 mm to 0.1 mm, minimum contact times reduced from 200 to 40 days.
On this basis, the Kavar surcharge was designed as a 5 m thick mixture of 40% (by
weight) ground gypsum, with a maximum particle size in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 mm,
thoroughly mixed with fine a grained soil. This produces an engineered fill with a dry unit
mass of 1900 kg/m3 and a permeability in the desired range of 10-4 to 10-5 cm/sec.
As indicated in Figure 8, for this design, the annual mass removal rate is expected to vary
between 2 kg to 70 kg per square meter of surcharge. For the 3,800 kg Kavar surcharge,
this will result in a service life of at least 50 years.
1.0
Saturation
0.1m m PARTICLE
0.8 SIZE
0.5m m PARTICLE
SIZE
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Figure 7 The Effect of Gypsum Particle size on the Contact Time Required for Saturartion
800
720
Mass of Gypsum Removed per Unit
640
560
Surcharge Area (kg/sq. m)
480
400
320
240
160
80
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 8 Estimated Mass Removal Rates for the Gypsum Surcharge at the Kavar Dam
Conclusions
Techniques exist to treat even highly karstic foundations. However, for treatment
measures to be effective, a thorough understanding of the site conditions is essential.
At the Kavar Dam, an unusual combination of a surface membrane, in combination
with a gupsum surcharge and other seepage control measures, is planned to deal with
the complex foundation problems that had been identified.
References
Fischer, J.A. and Fischer, J.J., 1995. Karst site remediation grouting. Karst GeoHazards:
Proc. 5th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental
Impacts of Karst.Balkema, Roterdam, pp. 363-369.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. , 1979. Groundwater, Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey., pp. 383-462.
James, A.N. and Kirkpatrick, I.M., 1988. Design of foundations of dams containing soluble
rocks and soils. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, Vol. 13, pp. 189-198.
James A.N., and Lupton, A.R. 1978, Gypsum and anhydrite in foundations of hydraulic
structures. Geotechnique, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 249-272.
Soderberg, A.D., 1988. Foundation treatment of karstic features under TVA dams.
Geotechnical Aspects of Karst Terrain, ASTM Geotechnical Special Publication No. 14, pp.
149-165.
Zuomei, Z. and Pinshou, H., 1988. Grouting of the karstic caves with clay fillings.
Geotechnical Aspects of Karst Terrain, ASTM Geotechnical Special Publication No. 14, pp.
92-104.
Fookes, P. G., and Hawkings, A. B., 1988. Limestone weathering: its engineering
significance and a proposed classification system. Quarterly Journal of Engineering
Geology, London, Vol. 21, pp. 7-31.