STABLITIY OF SLOPE AND SEEPAGE ANALYSIS IN EARTH FILL

DAMS USING NUMERICAL MODEL: ACASE STUDY OF DORA

EMBANKMENT DAM, TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA

MSC THESIS

ASSEFA KIDANE ABERA

MAY, 2016
ARBAMINCH, ETHIOPIA
STABLITIY OF SLOPE AND SEEPAGE ANALYSIS IN EARTH FILL

DAMS USING NUMERICAL MODEL: A CASE STUDY OF DORA

EMBANKMENT DAM TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA

ASSEFA KIDANE

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

HYDRAULIC AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVESITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN

IN HYDRAULIC AND HYDRO POWER ENGINEERING

MAY, 2016
ARBA MINCH

i
 DECLARATIONS
I hereby declare that this MSc thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a
degree in any other university, and all sources of material used for this thesis have been duly
acknowledged.

Name: Assefa Kidane

Signature: ___________________

Date: _______________________

ii
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

ADVISORS’ THESIS SUBMISSION APPROVAL SHEET

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “ Stability of Slope and Seepage Analysis in Earth Fill
Dams Using Numerical Model: ACase study of Dora Earth Fill Dam , Tigray Region,
Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master‟s
with specialization in Hydraulic and Hydro Power Engineering, the Graduate Program of the
Department/School of Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering, and has been carried out
by Assefa Kidane Id. No KpMsc/002/04, under my supervision. Therefore, I recommend that
the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the

iii
 APPROVAL PAGE
This thesis entitled with “Stability of Slope and Seepage Analysis in Earth Fill Dams
Using Numerical Model: A Case study of Dora Earth Fill Dam, Tigray Region,
Ethiopia” has been approved by the research advisors, examiners, SGS coordination and
department head for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Hydraulic and Hydro Power Engineering.

___________________________ _______________ ____________

Name of the chairperson Signature Date

_________________________ ______________ _____________

Name of Principal advisor Signature Date

_________________________ ______________ ______________

Name of Co-advisor Signature Date

___________________________ ______________ ____________

Name of internal Examiner Signature Date

_________________________ ______________ _____________

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

_________________________ ______________ ______________

SGS Approval Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final four
copies of the thesis to the department of the candidate on the satisfaction of the advisor.

Stamp of Department Date: ____________

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
For most the glory goes to the ALMIGHTY GOD for all his blessings; through him all
things is possible .In him, I put my trust for protection and guidance.

I wish to express my utmost gratitude to Dr.-Adane Abebe, for his precious advice,
encouragement and decisive comment during the research period. His critical comments and
valuable advices helped me to take this research in the right direction.

Mr. Gebresslasie Berhe senior engineer of relief society of tigray owner process of water
resource is to be appreciated in giving constructive comments and sharing his experience in
the study area and providing required data.And Mr.Habtom Abrha general water works
contractor is also to be appreciated in giving his excavator machine and cover all the expence
during the dam investigated by excavation.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the kiflom abadi, chief administration of
Atsbi womberta woreda who gave me advice, moral, financial support and a chance to learn
post graduate in Arbaminch University.

Last but not least I would like to thank to my mother, my sisters and my friends who have
been always encouraging my academic understanding with prayer, moral inspiration and in
several ways for the realization of the thesis work.

v
 ACRONYMS
as = side length of square
a = perpendicular distance from the resultant external water force to the centre of rotation or
to the centre of moments.
a.m.s.l = above mean sea level
A = the resultant external water forces
A d = average area under seepage line through d/s shell
ASCE =American Society of Civil Engineering
c = apparent cohesion
c‟ = effective cohesion
CD = Consolidated Drained
C‟e = cohesion reduction factor
CEATI = Centre for Energy Advancement through Technological Innovation
Cf = factored cohesion (C)
CH = Constant head
Cm = mobilized shear strength
Cu = Undrained shear strength
CU = Consolidated Undraiend
d = perpendicular distance from a line load to the centre of rotation or to the centre of
moments
d10 = grain size of base soil for which 10% finer by weight than the grain size of base soil
d60 = grain size of the filter for which 60% finer by weight than the grain size of filter
d15B = the core particle size for which 15% of particle size are finer
d85B = the core particle size of filter for which 85% of particle size are finer
d15F = filter particle size for which 15% of particles are finer
D = external load line
2D = two dimension
DA = Development agent
DEM = Digital Elevation Model
D/S = Dawn Stream
DSIG = Dam Safety Interest Group

vi
e = vertical distance from the centre of each slice to the centre of rotation or to the centre of
moments
ele = elevation
E = horizontal inter slice normal forces
EBCS = Ethiopian based coefficient seismic
EL = Horizontal interslice normal force in the left direction
ER = Horizontal interslice normal force in the right direction
f = the perpendicular off set the normal force from the center of rotation
F = safety factor against sliding
Fe = inertial force
FEM = Finite Element Methods
Ff = factor of safety with respect to horizontal force equilibrium
FH = Falling Head
Fm = factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium
Fm = moment equilibrium factor of safety
F.S = factor of safety
FOS = Factor of Safety
g = gravitational acceleration
GLE = General limit equilibrium method
GPS = Geographic Positioning System
GIS = Geographic Information System
h = thickness of drain layer
h‟ = difference in elevation of seepage line through d/s shell
Ht = total hydraulic head
Hf = field variable head
H = Horizontal force
ΔH = is the energy drop between the two equipotential lines
is = hydraulic gradient flow through shell
It =gradient of total hydraulic head
I = a factor depending upon the importance of the structure
I.S = Indian standard

vii
k’ = effective permeability
kc = coefficient of permeability of core
Ks = coefficient of permeability shell
km = measured saturated conductivity
kw = calculated conductivity for a specified water content or negative pore water pressure
kx = hydraulic conductivity in the x-direction
ky = hydraulic conductivity in the y-direction
l= length of path flow through d/s shell
Li = initial length
Ld = Length of drain
L = curve length of each slide
Ls = length of path flow through d/s shell
LEM = limit equilibrium method
LSD = land surface datum
MD = driving moment
Mv = meter volt
MR = resisting moment
N = normal force
NF = Flow net
NTH = Norway technical university
NWL = Normal water level
PA = active force
PDE = Partial Differential Equation
PP = passive force
Q = Applied Boundary Flux
q = Specific Discharge
R = Radius of circular surface
REST = Relief Society of Tigray
ru = coefficient of pore water pressure
Sc = sum of cohesion
Sd = un drained shear stress

viii
SHANSEP = Stress History and Normalized Soil Engineering Parameters
Sm = the mobilized shear force on the base of each slice
SMFE = Soil mechanics and foundation engineering
SN = Sum of all normal component
SP = Self Potential
SRF = Strength Reduction Factor
ST = sum of tangential component
Su = drained shear strength
SWCC = Soil-Water Characteristic Curve
T = tangential force
T = Driving Force
TBoWR = Tigray bureau of water resource
𝜏𝑓 = Available Shear Strength
𝜏𝑚 = Shear Strength
U = pore water pressure
USA = united state of America
USACE = United States Army Corps of Engineers
USBR = United State Bauru of Reclamation
U/S = Up stream
UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator
V = vertical force
Wd = width of drain
W = total weight of the slice
x = the horizontal distance from the centre line of each slice to the centre of rotation
or to the centre of moments
X = the interslice shear force
Δx = is horizontal distance between the flow line
Xu = pore water pressure
Δy = is Vertical distance between the equipotential lines
α = angle between the tangent to the centre of the base of each slice and the horizontal
αo = basic seismic coefficient applicable for the area

ix
αg = effective peak ground acceleration
αh = horizontal seismic
αv = vertical seismic
Ø = apparent angle of shear resistance
Ø‟ = effective friction angle
Ø‟e = effective friction angle reduction factor
Øf = factorized friction angle
ɣ = unit weight
ɣ‟ = effective unit weight
σ = normal stress
σ‟ = effective normal stress
β = base length of each slice
β = coefficient depending on the soil foundation
τ = shear strength at failure
τ‟ = effective shear strength at failure
λ = the percentage (in decimal form) of the function used
β, R, x, f, d, ω = geometric parameters

x
 Table of Content
DECLARATIONS ................................................................................................................. ii
ADVISORS‟ THESIS SUBMISSION APPROVAL SHEET ................................................. iii
APPROVAL PAGE .............................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ........................................................................................................ v
ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ vi
Table of Content .................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ xiv
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... xv
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Back ground ................................................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................4
1.3 Research Objective .......................................................................................................5
1.3.1 Main objective ....................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Specific Objective .................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Scope of the study ........................................................................................................5
1.5 Significant of the study ...............................................................................................6
2. LITERATURE REVEIW ................................................................................................... 7
2.1 General earth fills dam .................................................................................................7
2.1.1 Requirement for Embankment dam construction .................................................... 7
2.1.2 Soil Properties and Shear Strengths ...................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Embankment dams failure and design practices ................................................. 14
2.1.4 Seepage Control in Earth Dams............................................................................ 16
2.1.5 Remedial measures of Seepage ........................................................................... 17
2.1.6 Some of dam Incidents and failures with remedial measure .................................. 18
2.2 Review of Seepage analysis in Embankment Dam ...................................................... 21
2.2.1Estimation of Seepage ........................................................................................... 22
2.3 Slope Stability Analysis Methods and Theories .......................................................... 26
2.3.1 Limit Equilibrium Method .................................................................................... 26
2.3.2 Finite Element Method ......................................................................................... 32
2.3.3 Seismic Slope Stability ......................................................................................... 34
2.3.4 Loading Conditions for Embankment Dams ........................................................ 35

xi
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ................................................................................... 36
3.1 Description of the study area ...................................................................................... 36
3.1.1. Location .............................................................................................................. 36
3.1.2 Topography .......................................................................................................... 37
3.1.3 Land use and land cover ...................................................................................... 38
3.1.4 Climate ................................................................................................................ 38
3.1.5 Site Geology ........................................................................................................ 38
3.2. Data Collection ......................................................................................................... 39
3.2.1. Data collection methods ...................................................................................... 39
3.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 42
3.3.1 Seepage analysis .................................................................................................. 43
3.3.2 Stability Analysis using SLOPE/W ...................................................................... 46
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 61
4.1. Seepage calculation ................................................................................................... 61
4.1.1. For case 1(Stable Seepage Flow at Normal Pool Level based on design
document) ........................................................................................................................... 61
4.1.2. Case 2 (Current reservoir level condition based on site boundary) ....................... 62
4.1.3 Case 3(Seepage at normal pool level using case 2 soil parameters) ....................... 63
4.1.4 Discussion the result of analyzed seepage obtained by seep/w soft ware ............... 64
4.2 Calculation results of slope stability ........................................................................... 68
4.2.1. Stability Analysis at NPL condition ..................................................................... 68
4.2.2 Slope stability during current condition based on site boundary ............................ 74
4.2.3 Discussion of result slope stability ........................................................................ 76
4.3 calculation result of mitigation measure Analysis ....................................................... 80
4.3.1 Horizontal and vertical drains design .................................................................... 80
5. CONCLUSITON A N D RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. 86
5.1 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 86
5.2 Recommendation........................................................................................................ 88
5.3 Remedial measure ...................................................................................................... 88
5.4 Lesson learnt .............................................................................................................. 89
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... 91

xii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2. 1 : Classifications of Soils Based on Particle Size(B.S.1377, 1975)……………......8
Table 2. 2: Methods of Slides Comparisons(:Fredlund and Krahn, 1977 Corps of
Engineers, 2003)…………………………………………………………………….30
Table 2. 1: Loading conditions of embankment dam……………………………………….35
Tabel 3. 1: Salient Features of Dam …………………………………………………...........37
Tabel 3. 2:Values of Hydraulic Conductivity Properties…………………………………….455
Tabel 3. 3:Characteristics of Materials properties Dora Dam ……………………………….57
Tabel 3. 4 :Seismic zoning coefficient valueEBCS 8,95.(Table1.1)………………………..60
Table 4. 1: Values of hydraulic conductivity ……………………........................................ 62
Table 4. 2: Hydraulic Conductivity Value Using Site Boundary Condition according to
USBR data…………………………………………………………………………...62
Table4.2:Summary of computed seepage flux using Seep/w……………………………… 63
Table4.3:Summary Result of FOS Slope Stability under Static Conditions…………….. 798
Table4.4: Hydraulic conductivity of material used for Mitigation analysis……………… 83

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES
Fig: 2. 1 Causes of Dam Failure Mechanism (Novak et al, 2003 )…………………………..15
Fig: 2. 2Zoned dam cross - section and Dawn stream shell ………………………………....25
Fig: 2. 1Definitions of Factor of Safety ( Abramson et al., 20027)………………………….27
Fig: .2. 4 Sliding Block Analysis (Abramson et al., 2002)……………………………..........28
Fig: 2. 5Infinite slope failure in dry sand (Abramson et al., 2002)…………………………..28
Fig: 2. 6Planar Failure Surface (Abramson et al., 2002) …………………………………….29
Fig: 2. 7The Method of Slices (Craig, 2004)……………………………………………….. 29
Fig: 2. 8Terms in Finite difference grid Analysis (Hammouri et al., 2008)……………….. 32
Fig: 3. 1 Location Map of Dora Dam ……………………………………………………......36
Fig: 3. 2Flow Chart Methodology……………………………………………………………39
Fig: 3.3 Defects of Dora Embankment Dam ………………………………………………...42
Fig: 3. 4Typical Cross section and FEM formation of Dora Dam…………………………...46
Fig: 3. 5Discrete slice and forces on a slice (GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.,2010b) ………..51
Fig: 3. 6 Forces acting on a slice overlying a circular slip surface.........................................54
Fig: 4. 1Steady State Seepage Analysis During Normal Lool Condition…………………....61
Fig: 4. 2Seepage Analysis During Current Reservoir Level Condition……………………..62
Fig: 4. 3Total Seepage Analysis During Normal Reservoir Level…………………………...63
Fig: 4. 4Investigation of downstream toe by excavator………………………………………65
Fig: 4. 5Unfavorable Slip Plane on the Upstream Dam Slope ……………………………....69
Fig: 4. 6Unfavorable Slip Plane on the Dawn Stream Dam Slope …………………………..70
Fig: 4. 7Unfavorable Slip Planes on the Upstream Dam Slope………………………………71
Fig: 4. 8Unfavorable Slip Planes During Completion Period ………………………………..72
Fig: 4. 9Unfavorable Slip Planes on the Upstream Drawdown………………………………73
Fig: 4. 10UN favorable Slip Plane Upstream Slope Current Level………………………… 74
Fig: 4. 11Unfavorable Slip Plane on the Dawn Stream Dam………………………………...75
Fig: 4. 42Cross-Sections of Earth Dam Internal Drain and
Vertical/Horizontal Chain ……………………………………………………………….80
Fig: 4. 13Steady State Seepage Analysis Using Site Boundary at NPL……………………...82
Fig: 4.14.The New Mitigation Measure of Design Dawn Stream Shoulder ………………...82
Fig: 4. 55 New Design Typical Integral Model of Dora Dam………………………………..83
Fig: 4. 66Seepage Analysis after the Recommended Mitigation…………………………….84
Fig: 4. 77 Dawn Stream Sope Analysis after Recommended Mitigation …………………….84

xiv
 ABSTRACT
To attain the primary objective of seepage and slope stability analysis, the study has been
carried out based on primary and secondary data of Dora earth fill dam. The causes of
seepage problem have been identified using geophysical investigation report data of the
embankment and foundation, design document, site investigation and construction history of
the dam. Geo studio software is one of geotechnical program that is based on the finite
element and can consider analysis like stress-strain, seepage, slope stability, dynamic
analysis and also fast water drop in reservoir by assuming different mesh size. In this
research Geo studiosoftware has been used to calculate seepage and slope stability of
Dora earth fill dam. In this study seepage analysis has been done by seep/w software model
to evaluate the total flow rate through the dam cross section using three cases of seepage
analysis conditions. And case three or seepage analysis at normal pool level based on the
rearranged soil hydraulic conductivity material is selected for further analysis and to put some
mitigation measure and the result show that average flow rate of leakage under the case
using different mesh size including foundation seepage is equal to 0.079m3/s for the entire
length of the dam. This value is compared with the quantity of seepage estimated
practically at the down stream that is 0.072m3/s. Therefore, the practical measurement
almost has some uncertanity of quantifying the expected quantity of seepage. To this end,
problem of seepage at the downstream face of the dam which are threatening the dam
stability are expected to result from geology where the dams are located and the method
of investigation coupled with lack of experience in data collection and analysis and also
considering the construction history are the major factors attributed to this problem. And
Slope/W software is also used under different conditions to evaluate slope stability
calculation for each state and each slope with Bishop, Janbu, ordinary method of slides
and GLE methods is calculated and compared with the minimum acceptable safety factor
provided from United States army of Corps in each of these methods, beconsidered as a
safety factor of slope stability. To alleviate the seepage problem, upstream impervious
blanketing, downstream berming and Provision additional shoulder at the dawn stream
dam surface with clayey gravel soil construction are the proposed remedial measures.

Key words: finite element method,factor of safety,seepage,stability,seep/w and slope/W

xv
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Back ground
A dam is a hydraulic structure constructed across a stream, river, or waterway for the purpose
of confining and controlling the flow of water. Dams are built for specific functions such as
for water supply, irrigation, and flood control and also to generate hydroelectric power
(Novak et al, 2001). There are two types of modern dam namely embankment dam and
concrete dam. Embankment dam is a water impounding structure constructed from fragmental
natural materials excavated or obtained close to the dam site. The natural fill materials are
placed and compacted without the addition of any binding agent, using high capacity
mechanical plant. They rely on their weight to resist the flow of water, just like concrete
gravity dams.

Among various engineering projects, dams construction and their industry involves major
challenges. Since 1980 construction of earth and rock fill dams are more common than other
type of dams. The reasons for this common usage are: the method of construction based on
ordinary technology with utilization of cheap raw soil materials, subsurface materials and
does not depend on particular valley shape. Also, geometric design of embankment dams
depends on barrowed soil materials, subsurface conditions and type of construction
consequently feasible design can cause significant reduction on construction time, materials
and costs (Panthulu et al, 2001).

All dams are designed and constructed to meet specific criteria such as a dam should be built
from locally available materials wherever possible. The dam must remain stable under all
conditions, during construction, and ultimately in operation, both at the normal reservoir
operating level and under all flood and drought conditions. The dam and foundation must be
sufficiently watertight to control seepage and maintain the desired reservoir level. The dam
materials and foundation must be strong to resist load, it must have sufficient spillway, and
outlet works capacity and freeboard to prevent floodwater from overtopping the dam crest
(Ratnayaka et al, 2009).

To make sure the safe designs of embankment dam, criteria‟s are 1) the slopes of the
embankment must be stable during construction and under all conditions of reservoir
operation. 2) Seepage flow through the embankment, foundation, and abutments must be

1
controlled so that no internal erosion takes place. 3) The upstream slope must be
protected against erosion by wave action and the crest and downstream slope must
be protected against erosion due to wind and rain. 4) The embankment scheme of
zoning of the dam must guarantee the dam‟s safety with respect to stability, seepage and
cracking. 5) The adequate free board must be provided above Normal Pull Level (NPL)
to guard against overtopping by wave action. 6) The selection is made with regard to the
availability of materials and their most economic handling. 7) The dam shell and core shells
have to exhibit sufficient strength, minimum reduction of strength parameters as strain
progress, quantified settlement, and sufficient effective stress to prevent hydraulic
fracturing. (U.S Army Corps of Engineers, 1993).

Duncan and Wright (2005) found that slope stability is influenced by many factors related
to soil properties, soil behavior, slope geometry and other parameters, such as shear
strength, unit weight, hydraulic conductivity, rainfall intensity, surface cracks,
geographical details, degree of saturation and even vegetative cover. Although
significant research has been conducted on some of these issues, the effects of all those
factors are still not well understood.

One of the main important factors for the failure of earth dam is seepage in their body and
foundation. In order to prevent the dam failure, it is essential to control the leakage in the
dam. Leakage in dams caused the water waste and, the decline of dam stability. Therefore,
the water leakage analysis in dam is the first effective step and one of the main important
issues that has been considered for the related experts. Panthulu et al, (2001) studied the
utilization of electrical methods for delineation of seepage zones at two of the four Saddle
dams of the Som-Kamla-Amba project, Rajasthan state India Electrical resistivity method
was used to delineate zones favorable for seepage, whereas, self-potential (SP) method was
used to delineate the seepage paths. SP of 10-20 mv in amplitude, indicating low seepage,
coinciding with the seepage measurements made by the project authorities. Taghavi et al,
(2004) investigated geo technical parameter effects of embankment dam analysis and design.
Variation of strength parameters are discussed when soil is sheared in different situations and
stress- strain level. Results have indicated that the method of analysis and the type of
software were highly reliant on strength parameters.

2
Zomorodian and Abodollahzadeh (2010) investigated the effect of horizontal drains on
upstream slope of earth fill dams during rapid drawdown using finite elements method
(FEM) and limit equilibrium methods (LEM). Changing of pore water pressure, outpouring
seepage flow and factor of safety are inspected.

Ensuring the stability of dam against slope and seepage failure are essential components for
the design of earth fill dam in order to perform the intended function throughout the service
life, hence in this study Numerical Model were employed to analyze the failure of earth fill
dam using limit equilibrium method(LEM) for slope stability analysis using the slope/w
model and finite element method(FEM) for water leakage and seepage analysis using seep/w
model to analysis the effectiveness of the design of Dora earth fill dam under main critical
stability conditions. The analysis also carried out from the design document and site
boundary condition of the study area.

3
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Generally, a micro-dam for irrigation projects and most of the components of small
scale projects are constructed using locally available earth, and is prone to failure unless
constructed under the strictest possible supervision and quality control. Once the project
is commissioned, the operation, management and periodic maintenance are equally
important for attaining the intended purpose and a sustainable project.

According to reservoir level and water volume records collected in the years 2001-2005, more
than 50% of the surveyed 29 dams can only store less than 50% of their storage capacity in
Tigray region.Mohammed, A. (2009). The problems encountered in the micro-dam irrigation
projects in Tigray region can be grouped broadly into agriculture & agronomical, geological,
hydrological, hydraulic, and geotechnical. The magnitude of the problems differs from one
project to another. Meanwhile, the prominent technical problems observed in many of
irrigation projects are insufficient inflow towards reservoirs, excessive seepage from
reservoirs, reservoir early sedimentation, poor irrigation water management application,
structural and dam stability, and social and institutional related problems.

Generally there is no sufficient water for long period of time & during the visiting time in the
reservoir of the study area but there is seepage in the downstream toe of the dam. That means,
it will be expected there is excessive seepage. So, the dam is not providing the expected
purpose from it. Also the slope angles of the dam were chosen by experience, without
using any standards or precise calculations of slope stability analysis (slope stability
analysis were not performed) analysis and most of them are likely to be too steep. These
slopes may stand stably at the present but since there is excessive seepage and weathering
processes still have influence on the slopes material, failures can happen at any time.
Therefore a study must be done for a clearly understanding about the seepage problem as
well as the stability problem of slopes in the study area based on soft ware model.

4
1.3 Research Objective
1.3.1 Main objective

The main objective of the thesis work is to analyze Dora embankment dam regarding to slope
stability, and seepage, identify problems and recommend possible mitigation measures for the
identified slope stability, seepage integrity problems.

1.3.2 Specific Objective

 To determine total seepage flow rate through the dam cross section using seep/w
model analysis.
 To identify the causes of seepage problem.
 To evaluate the dam performance under main critical conditions by determining the
factor of safety (FOS) of the dam using slope/w model analysis.
 To propose remedial measure based on output value to solve the problem identified by
the study.
 To identify related issues for further research.

1.4 Scope of the study

The scope of this research spotlights 1) only 2D seepage and stability analysis is conducted to
analyze Dora embankment dam related to stability of slope and seepage of the dam and giving
some mitigation measure for the problem identified based on the analysis performed and
literature review.

2) In this study analysis of earth quake (seismic) slope stability is based on simple limit
equilibrium pseudo-static method and the analysis is performed based on EBCS-8 of the
country depending on the seismic zones of the local hazard coefficient.

3) The study is not including analysis of gate failure, over toping instability and earth
quake (dynamic stability analysis of inertia hydro dynamic, deformation and liquefaction).

4) The analysis of seepage is during steady state condition and it is based on the design
document of the study and measured site boundary condition and evaluation is performed
with measured seepage under similar condition using seep/w soft ware model. And slope
stability analysis is under static condition and evaluation is performed based on standard
criteria.

5
5) The mitigation measure given in this study is not including design of gradation curve filter
or drain and embankment construction methods.

1.5 Significant of the study

As we can understand from history of the dam, the basic factor for the ability of today‟s
people to construct the relativity stable dams of the present time is their ability of learning
from the former failures.

So it is always essential to study cause, observations before and after constructions are
essential. Accordingly this study is significant in searching the seepage and slope failure on
the study area and will bring significant mitigation methods that prevent the future dams
from failing because of related causes would be studied now.

This research intends to contribute : 1)To addressing, investigating and analyzing slope
stability and seepage problems and implies to lead to failure in the future of Dora earth fill
dam: is believed to contribute a good function for irrigation purpose, sanitation and for
animal water supply of the rural communities.

2) Produced a significant out comes to the body of knowledge on geo technical engineering
and public safety on providing more accurate representative natural phenomena of the slope
and seepage failure analysis of the dam using numerical model than the traditional graphical
analysis method.

3)The final result of this thesis is expected to be used as a guide in planning, designing new
similar projects and redesign and maintenance of failed and existing projects, it is also
helpful for research development as guide lines for other dams that have similar causes of
failure.

4) The other and may be the main significance is the safe guarding of safety of the dam,
and thus protecting the downstream settlements, towns and lower lying potential
irrigation developments from potential flooding.

6
 2. LITERATURE REVEIW
2.1 General earth fills dam
Earth fill dams are simple structures which stand on their self-weight to prevent the sliding
and overturning (Jansen et al. 1988). These dams are the most common type of dams known
in the world. At the earlier time the earth fill dams are constructed to divert massive water
body and protect the community. Later it was structurally improved and used to construct the
reservoirs. Small earth fill dams contain a variety of advantages in both technically and
economically.
They are (Stephenes, 2010).
1. Construction materials are easily available
2. Simple design criteria
3. Less foundation preparation required when compared with other dams
4. Quiet flexible than other rigid dam structures and suitable for seismic sensitive regions
On the other hand, there are some disadvantages when compared with other dam types
(Stephenes, 2010).
1. Higher possibility to damage or slide than other dam types
2. Lack of compaction of material leads to increased seepage
3. Continuous monitoring and assessment needed to prevent the slope erosion, abnormal
seepage condition and growing plants.

2.1.1 Requirement for Embankment dam construction

2.1.1.1 Selection of fill material

Purely coarse or fine material is not suitable for construction of water retaining structures.
Because coarse materials are subjected to excessive seepage loss and that of fine materials are
poor in drainage and will be subjected to swelling which will be followed by cracking
problem. Good combination of as Terzaghi recommendation, silt, sand and clay may be 7:2:1.

7
Table :2. 1Descripition and Classification of Soils Based on Their Particle Size

Boulders >200mm
Very coarse soils Cobbles 60-20mm
Coarse 20-60mm
Gravel Medium 6-20mm
Fine 2-6mm
Coarse soils Coarse 0.6-2mm
Sand Medium 0.2-0.6mm
Fine 0.06-0.2mm
Coarse 0.02-0.06mm
Medium 0.006-0.02mm
Fine soils Silt Fine 0.002-0.006mm
Clay < 0.002mm

Source: Leslie and Sarah (2009).

2.1.1.2 Arrangement of fill material

Whenever seepage crosses boundary from finer to coarser material, the potential exists for
some particles to migrate out of finer material. This may cause internal erosion which is the
most prevalent cause of catastrophic failure of earth and rock fill dams. The migration can be
prevented by covering the surface of the finer material, across which the seepage emerges
,with filter consisting of suitably graded coarser material having voids small enough to block
the passage of the fine materials through the filter but large enough not to impede the seepage
water.

Terzaghi (1922) concluded that particles of materials to be protected do not pass through the
filter if the D15 size of the filter is not greater than four times the D85 size of the base
material, where as the permeability of the filter is adequate if D15 size of the filter is at least
four times the D15 size of the coarser base material and subsequent studies show that
D15/D85 =5 is adequate.

8
2.1.1.3 Drainage of the Dam

To prevent the instability and damages of the downstream dam body by seepage water a filter
layer should be provided to intercept seepage water in a controlled safe way from the
downstream face. The downstream toe of a dam should be protected in respect of seepage
instability, as the entire seepage tends to concentrate at this point. Therefore a rock toe and a
horizontal drainage filter drain are provided to lower the seepage line and keep it well within
the slope.

A general descripition of geometrically closed filter, which satisfies the following criteria,
should be provided (Schiereck, Gerrit J., 2004).
d15F
Tocheck for stablity, <5
d85B
d15F
To check for permeability, >5
d15B
d60
To check for internal stablity < 10
d10

The first rule prevent movement of the larger grains from the base layer, together with the
second rule guaranties the stability of all grains of the base layer. The third rule prevents
pressure buildup and guarantees the stability of the filter layer as a whole.

2.1.1.4 Compaction

Compaction is defined as the process of densifying soil and reducing air voids by applying
mechanical energy.Compaction increases the strength, lowers the compressibility and reduces
the permeability of a soil by rearranging its fabric. The soil fabric is forced into a denser
configuration by the mechanical effort used in compaction. Compaction is known to be the
most popular technique of improving soils.
¡) Compaction test:
The test is used to determine the maximum dry density of the given soil from which the so-
called optimum moisture content of the soil can be obtained. The material compacted on the
fill under construction is considered acceptable if the density is 90 or 95 % of the maximum
density in the libratory. But the percentage depends on the contract agreement (Liu, etal,
1998).

9
In loose state, the soil consists of soil particles, air and water. Compaction of the soil usually
reduces the air voids with the aim of:
 controlling subsequent moisture content changes
 achieving a state of increased unit weight
 increasing the shear strength of soil
 reducing the permeability of the soil
 making the soil less susceptible to settlement under load

To achieve any of these when constructing dams, retaining walls, roads and other structures,
strict control of the construction method is required. Obviously there is an optimum quantity
of water, for particular soil being compacted in a particular manner, at which there is a
maximum mass of solid matter per volume while a minimum quantity of air is maintained.
The advantage of the laboratory compaction test is to determine this optimum quantity of
water and corresponding unit weight of the given soil. This optimum amount of water
required for the compaction purpose and it is called optimum moisture content.

2.1.2 Soil Properties and Shear Strengths

Soil properties including strength and seepage parameters to be used as input data for
stabilit y analyses should be realistic and representative of the range and variation that
exist in the foundation, abutment, and embankment materials. The selection of the proper
input parameters and their correct use in a stability analysis are generally of greater
importance than the method of stability analysis used.

Depending on the loading conditions and the permeability of the fill material within
the embankment, it could be considered drained or undrained conditions, or both (in the
case of a free-draining shell material and impervious core material), in the analysis of the
stability of an embankment dam.

Drained is the condition under which water is able to flow into or out of a mass of soil in the
length of time that the soil is subjected to some change in load. Under drained
conditions, changes in the loads on the soil do not cause changes in the water pressure in the
voids in the soil, because the water can move in or out of the soil freely when the volume
of voids increases or decreases in response to the changing loads.

10
Undrained is the condition under which there is no flow of water into or out of amasses of
soil in the length of time that the soil is subjected to some change in load. Changes in the
loads on the soil cause changes in the water pressure in the voids, because the water cannot
move in or out in response to the tendency for the volume of voids to change. The shear
strength of a soil is a function of the cohesion of the soil (c), the internal angle of
friction of the soil (Φ), and the normal stress (σ). The shear stress at failure (S) is expressed
by the Mohr-Coulomb failure law as:
S u = c + σ tan Φ for a total stress analysis -------------------------------2.1
S d = c‟ + σ‟ tan Φ‟ for a effective stress analysis -----------------------2.2
Where c and c‟ are the cohesion intercepts and Φ and Φ‟ are the friction angles for the total
and effective stress shear strength envelopes, respectively.
 Total stress (σ) is the sum of all forces, including those transmitted through inters particle
contacts and those transmitted through water pressures, divided by the total area. Total
area includes both the area of voids and the area of solid.
 Effective stress (σ‟) includes only the forces that are transmitted through particle
contacts. It is equal to the total stress minus the water pressure (u) and the equation
for effective stress is given as:
σ‟ = σ – u …………………………….2.3
2.1.2.1 Long and short term conditions

Slope stability analyses may be conducted using either total stresses or effective stresses. The
use of total stress as opposed to effective stress analyses and the various ways in which
design shear strengths can be selected can produce a wide range of safety factors. Bishop and
Bjerrum (1960) set the following basic guidelines on the specification of shear strength for
use in limit equilibrium slope stability analyses.

1. Effective stress analysis is a generally valid method for analyzing any stability problem and
is particularly valuable in revealing trends in stability which would not be apparent from
total stress methods. Its application in practice is limited to cases where the pore pressures
are measured or can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, such as long-term stability
where the pore pressure is controlled either by the static water table or by a steady-state flow
pattern.

11
2.Where a saturated clay is loaded or unloaded at such a rate that there is no significant
dissipation of the excess pore pressures set up, the stability can be determined by the υ = 0
analysis, using the un drained strength obtained in the laboratory or from in-situ tests.
This is essentially an end of construction method, and in the majority of foundation problems,
where the factor of safety increases with time; it provides a sufficient check on stability. For
cuts, on the other hand, where the factor of safety generally decreases with time, the long term
stability must be calculated by the effective stress method.

3. "For saturated soils the values of c' and υ' are obtained from drained [tri-axial] tests or
consolidated undrained tests with pore pressure measurements, carried out on undisturbed
samples. The range in stresses at failure should be chosen to correspond to those in the field
.Values measured in the laboratory appear to be in satisfactory agreement with field records
with two exceptions. In stiff fissured clays the field value of c' is lower than the value given
by standard laboratory tests; in some very sensitive clays the field value of υ ' is lower than
the laboratory value."

These 1960 guidelines are still generally valid but scientific advancements are going on.
These developments are in soil testing in laboratory or in-situ. Especially undrained
strengths, since that time now allow us to do more accurate analyses even if at the expense of
some difficulty (Anon, 2007b). Experiment techniques have being developed or improved
like recompression technique or the SHANSEP technique (Duncan and Wright, 2005). Due to
low permeability, a saturated or partially saturated soil undergoes a change in stress, pore
pressure change will develop. By the time, the out-of-balance or excess pore pressure
redistribute until an equilibrium state is reached. The final stage is called as long-term
condition. Drained loading conditions observed at the stage (Anon, 2007b).

a) Analyses of stability during construction and end of construction (Undrained

condition)

The most common short-term stability problem is the end-of-construction condition for
materials dissipating excess pore pressures slowly when compared with the rate of
construction. Sands and gravels which are more permeable soils, the period of pore pressure
redistribution is very short and except some special considerations, stability problems
typically will fall into the long-term category.

12
Clays, on the other hand, dissipate excess pore pressures slowly. Thus the period of pore
pressure redistribution continues for months or years after the completion of construction
(Anon, 2007b).

Consolidation analyses can be used to determine for analyzing degree of drainage may
develop during the construction period. As a rough guideline, materials having the values
of permeability greater than 10 -4 cm/sec usually accepted as fully drained throughout
construction. The values of permeability less than 10-7 cm/sec usually accepted as essentially
undrained at the end of construction. For undrained conditions, pore pressures are related to
several factors, like the degree of saturation of the soil, the density of the soil, and the loads
exerted on it. Results of laboratory tests or various empirical rules enable engineer to
estimate the pore pressures for undrained conditions.

In fact it is not possible to estimate the pore pressures accurately for undrained conditions.
This is the reason that undrained conditions are usually analyzed using total stress procedures
rather than effective stress procedures (Anon 2003a).

b) Long-term stability problems (Drained condition)

There are several cases for drained conditions. The pore pressures may be equal to zero and
the effective stress strength parameters, c' and υ', should be used. Consolidated-drained (CD)
tests should be performed to determine c' and υ'. Other case; partially submerged slope may
be taken into consideration. In this case, the water table is stabilized and in equilibrium and
the pore pressures can easily be determined by taking the depth below phreatic surface and
multiplying by the unit weight of water. Effective stress strength parameters should be used
as determined by CD or consolidated-un drained (CU) tests with pore pressure measurements.
This problem may be solved two ways:
 Use total unit weights throughout, apply the boundary water pressure and specify the
pore pressures in the slope.
 Use buoyant unit weight below the water table and neglect the boundary water
pressure and pore pressures. The common long-term stability problem is the steady
state seepage condition. Pore pressures should be determined by drawing a flow net
or by field measurement or by finite element analysis. Apply boundary water
pressures on upstream and downstream slopes where applicable (Anon, 2007b).

13
2.1.3 Embankment dams failure and design practices

Earth fill embankments may be damaged by distortions at critical points.Differential

settlement may be severe at steep abutments and at structural interfaces where effective
compaction is difficult to obtain. At these locations, deformation of the fill may open
dangerous paths of seepage. For this reason, there have been many failures along outlet
conduits. Although properly constructed embankments are able to accommodate substantial
movement, they have relatively poor resistance to overflow; so their freeboard and associated
spillway capacity must be determined conservatively (Foster et al., 2000).

In contrast, most concrete dams can withstand overtopping for at least several hours. The key
to their safety may be the resistance of the foundation to impact of the spill. Essential criteria
governing the structural competence of concrete dams are the margin of safety against overall
structural stability (this includes safety against rotation and tipping of the dam; and
translation and sliding of the dam body and natural rock foundation) in relation to all probable
conditions of loading including empty reservoir condition. Moreover, there should not be
overstress and material failure in the dam concrete and the rock foundation (Brown, 2004).

14
/

Fig: 2.1: Causes of Dam Failure Mechanism (Novak et al., 2003).

15
2.1.4 Seepage Control in Earth Dams
The primary object of any dam is to impound water behind it and will change the natural
balance of conditions at its site, as water is brought into storage ,a new seepage pattern will
develop in the barrier that confine the reservoir. This water if seeps through the
embankment, abutment or through the dam foundation in excessive quantity may damage the
dam partially or fully. Therefore, it is very important to control the seepage through
embankment dam.

Controlling the quantity of seepage that occurs after construction is difficult and quite
expensive and it is not usually attempted unless drawdown of the pool level has occurred or
the seepage is endangering the embankment or appurtenant structures. The control of
seepage through and under the embankment must be as complete as possible to ensure
stability and resistance to piping (Novak, 2001).

To ensure safety of dam, it is very important to handle the seepage water in the dam so as to
maintain the original practices of soils in their place. As with other engineering works, earth
dams and their foundation can be protected from seepage by two fundamental
processes:-

Those which keep the water out or reduce the seepage quantities,
Cutoff trenches
Grout curtains
Sheet-pile walls and other thin cutoffs
Impermeable upstream
Those which use drainage methods to control that enters
Embankment zoning
Longitudinal drain and blankets
Chimney drains extending upward into embankments
Partially penetrating toe drains
Relief well

16
2.1.5 Remedial measures of Seepage
Seepage control measure may form a complicated structure through which seepage
occurs at the embankment and its foundation. This can make precise detection and
remedial control difficult. Remedial action may range from continued or additional
monitoring to rebuilding or abandonment of the dam. Choice of remedial methods will
depend on several factors, which include;
• Geotechnical environment
• Risk
• Degree of correction required
• Cost
Several factors, including consequences of continued detrimental seepage, the
geotechnical environment (embankment, foundation, abutment), seepage, will determine the
type and degree of remedial seepage control. Some of the more critical consequences
include:

 Breaching of the embankment or loss of support to structural members due to piping

 Breaching of the embankment from slope instability induced by loss of material and/or
strength due to seepage.
 Loss of significant amounts of reservoir water
 Maintenance problems or loss of useful areas due to seepage on the downstream slope or
areas d/s of the embankment .
The remedial designer must also consider the interplay of the remedial measure with
other dam elements .For example;
 Effect of excavation for drains, cutoff trenches, slurry trenches… etc, on embankment
stability.
 Difficulty of tying remedial measure to existing seepage control elements.
 Possibility of hydraulic fracturing when grouting.
The efficient use of remedial measures is very dependent upon geotechnical characteristics of
the particular sites as built configuration, reservoir uses, and pool history.
 Storage restriction
 Grouting

17
  Upstream impervious blanket
 Dawn stream berm
 Slurry trench cut off
 Relief walls
 Drainage of dawn stream slopes

2.1.6 Some of dam Incidents and failures with remedial measure

To better ensure the future safety of dams worldwide, past experience must not be forgotten
and lessons learned must be captured for future generations. There are a lot of dams exposed
to seepage and slope failures in this real world. And some of these dams are listed below:

2.1.6.1 Lower San Fernanado dam

Lower San Fernando dam was part of the Lower Van Norman complex and Los Angeles
aqueduct system in the US. The dam was an earth embankment approximately 43m high at its
maximum section. It was constructed by the hydraulic fill method in 1912.The foundation in
the channel section and lower portions of the abutment rests on alluvium consisting of stiff
clay with lenses of sand and gravel. The alluvium has a maximum thickness of about 11m.
Underlying this and forming the upper parts of the abutments are shales, siltstones and
sandstones.

On 9 February 1971 an earthquake of magnitude 6.6 on the Richter scale caused a major
slide on the upstream slope of the dam. The dam did not fail or release the contents of the
reservoir, which was immediately drawn down. The downstream population of 80,000 people
was evacuated to a safe elevation over a period of four days.

The possible occurrence of the slide 25 seconds after shaking had stopped led to multiple
interpretations of the possible cause of failure. Field investigations found a highly disturbed
zone of hydraulic fill in the lower 6m of the dam that liquefied and sheared. The dam above
this zone remained largely intact moving in large undisturbed blocks.

One explanation has suggested the increase in pore pressure in the hydraulic fill
corresponded to a loss of strength in those soils. As a result, stronger zones accumulated the
stresses the weaker zones were carrying, eventually exceeding their strengths at which point
failure occurs.

18
The timing has been suggested to relate to the flow of water that occurs due to the excess
pore pressure and the associated hydraulic gradient. It was hypothesised that the flow of
water caused a progressive loosening and loss of strength in the initially stronger but dilative
starter dikes leading to the failure.

Other explanations of the delayed failure mechanism have suggested the possibility of a
progressive failure where a lower block fails leading to an increase in driving stresses on the
remaining in-tact slope and a subsequent failure of the next up-slope block.

The experience at Lower San Fernando is a critical case history on dams and liquefaction, and
forms the basis of understanding residual strengths of soils subjected to liquefaction. Loose
material within foundations or embankments will not perform well during earthquakes. Dams
with potentially liquefiable material and subject to earthquake shaking need careful
evaluation.The dam and reservoir were abandoned. Other facilities were constructed in the
complex to replace the storage facility. CEATI and DSIG ,(2009)

2.1.6.2 Lower Baker Dam

Lower Baker Dam is a thick arch dam of 87m height. Shortly after its completion in 1924,
seepage through the abutments was noticed. This increased in time, and the abutments were
grouted using asphalt in 1934. By 1960 seepage flow had again increased to undesirable
amounts about 1.7 m3/sec. Asphalt grouting followed by portland cement grouting in 1960
reduced leakage to 0.11 m3/sec. Studies were made before grouting on possible means of
reducing flow, such as blanketing or blocking entries with gravel. These studies were
inconclusive. Leakage again increased with time, and by 1982 was about3.4 m3/sec. The
abutments were again grouted in late 1982 and early 1983. The work was competed using
asphalt, reducing total leakage to about 0.28 to 0.34 m3/sec, a 90% reduction (Advanced Dam
Engineering, 1988).

2.1.6.3 Steinaker dam

Located in Utah, US the 49m high Steinaker dam was completed in 1961. In November 1962,
a sinkhole area, approximately 3m in diameter and 2m deep, appeared on the downstream
face of the dam, 47m downstream from the crest centreline.

19
The engineers who examined the sinkhole concluded that saturation collapse had occurred.
The supposedly benign sinkhole was filled. Additional depressions were reported in this area
in June and October of 1963. The sinkhole was again backfilled. No further subsidence was
reported at this location.

In August 1965 a second sinkhole was reported, approximately 6m in diameter and 1.5m
deep, 45m downstream from the centreline. An engineer examining the site judged that the
dam was in no danger of failing, but recommended a remedial grouting programme which
was carried out on the left abutment between December 1965 and April 1966.

In 1992, US Bureau of Reclamation decided to modify Steinaker dam to rectify a seismic

stability issue. It was also recommended that investigations were carried out to assure that the
core‟s integrity had not been compromised by the internal erosion. Three lines of three
boreholes were drilled in the vicinity of the sinkholes, and cross-hole tomography was
performed from the boreholes in an attempt to locate and determine the size of any voids that
might remain. The tomography results were inconclusive, but borehole completions prior to
testing did provide some indication that voids might still be present.

The sinkholes are believed to have formed by the following mechanism:

 Seepage travelled through left abutment bedrock fractures and flowed through pervious
alluvial foundation materials, through Zone 3 shell material, and through the gravel
envelope surrounding the toe drain.
 Voids in the gravel envelope and between cobbles in the Zone 3 were large enough to
provide an unfiltered exit for the fine-grained foundation alluvial material, and were
extensive enough to store some of the eroded material.
 A large tear in the toe drain also provided an unfiltered exit point and a means to
remove foundation alluvial material.
 The constant seepage flow carried the alluvial material with it, eventually forming a
large void beneath the Zone 3 material.
The sinkhole mechanism by itself was unlikely to have resulted in dam failure. However, if
the abutment had not been grouted, it is possible some of the joints or fractures could have
directed seepage water along the embankment/bedrock contact, causing erosion at contact
points, possibly bringing full reservoir head closer to the unfiltered exit points, increasing

20
gradients and initiating a pipe completely along the embankment/foundation contact. The pipe
would then transmit higher-velocity seepage, rapidly increase erosion, and eventually initiate
a dam breach.

Engineers on the project warn that there should be a greater awareness of potential stiffness
changes beneath a planned toe drain, so that differential settlement from embankment loading
does not tear openings in the drain pipe. At the project the original toe drain was replaced
with a perforated PVC pipe, embedded in a sand and gravel mixture having a gradation
designed to filter the fine-grained foundation materials. The filter material was also placed as
a chimney drain on the upstream face of the excavation slope. CEATI and DSIG ,(2009).

2.2 Review of Seepage analysis in Embankment Dam

Major features of the design of Embankment dam are required foundation treatment, abutment
stability, seepage conditions, stability of slopes adjacent to control structure approach
channels and stilling basins, stability of reservoir slopes, and ability of the reservoir to retain
the water stored. These features should be studied with reference to field conditions and to
various alternatives before initiating detailed stability or seepage analyses. Which makes the
design of an embankment dam is complex because of the unknown materials property of
foundation.

Earth dams should be designed to utilize available material to the best advantage and to
conform to actual conditions at site. Sherard et al. (1963) say, “The characteristics of the
particular site have a great influence on the design of an earth dam than they do on many
other engineering structures”. Detail design sometimes will be influenced heavily by the
strengths of foundation and construction materials, but the basic features are usually ditched
by seepage considerations (Novak, 2001).

Seepage through the embankment, foundation and abutments must be collected and controlled
to prevent excessive uplift pressures, piping, sloughing, and removal of material by solution,
formation of cracks, joints and cavities. The design should consider seepage control measures
such as foundation cutoffs, adequate and non brittle impervious zones, transition zones,
drainage blankets, upstream impervious blankets and relief wells Criteria for safe design have
to be so specified that they cover all possible cause of failure.

21
2.2.1Estimation of Seepage
2.2.1.1 SEEP/W Software Model

Many computer soft-wares have come in general use, and any hard computations and
simulation can be carried out through them by giving them appropriate inputs and data.
The numerical model SEEP/W can be employed to carry out simulation of seepage and
phearatic surface.

The SEEP/W program is capable enough to simulate quite effectively seepage rates and
phearatic surfaces in homogenous and non homogenous earthen dams Mohammed et al.
(2006). SEEP/W is a finite element computer enabled (CAD) software which is capable
enough to solve groundwater flow, seepage and excessive pore water pressure problems
within the porous media such as soil and rock.

The software is capable enough to resolve the problems ranging from simple saturated steady
state issues to saturated/unsaturated time dependent problems. The software is also capable
enough to employ in designing of geotechnical, civil, hydrological and mining engineering
problems Geo-Slope International (2007) integrated with other applications such as:-

 SLOPE/W 2007 for slope stability analysis(eg roads and embankment dams)

 SEEP/W 2007 for groundwater seepage analysis;

 SIGMA/W 2007 for stress-deformation analysis;
 QUAKE/W 2007 for dynamic earthquake analysis;
 TEMP/W 2007 for geothermal analysis (eg. ground water-air interaction problems)
 CTRAN/W 2007 for contaminant transport analysis;
 AIR/W 2007 for air flow analysis;
 VADOSE/W 2007 for vadose zone and soil cover analysis

The principal quality of the software is due to its ability to allow seepage analysis as a
function of time and this process is considered as infiltration of precipitation. Due to transient
characteristic of the system, it provides a window of opportunity for researchers to analyze
such problems; for instance migration of a wetting front and dissipation of excessive pore
water pressures Geo-Slope International (2007).

22
2.2.1.1 Flow Net Analysis

1) Isotropic soils

The analysis of seepage by flow nets contributes to the proper design and construction of
many dams. The analysis of seepage using flow net starting with drawing a flow net
diagram with subjective division of equipotential line and flow line. If the number of
division point increases the result become more accurate, but the line makes an orthogonal
line with each other if the soil is an isotropic soil; its permissibility is constant in all
direction, horizontal permissible is equal to the vertical permissible i.e. the amount of
seepage through it can also be computed from the flow net analysis. The flow net is drawn by
free hand sketching and making suitable adjustment and corrections until to draw the flow
line and equipotent line intersect at right angle.

The seepage rate (q) can be computed from the flow net, using Darcy's law. Applying the
principle of continuity between each pair of flow lines, it is evident that the velocity must
vary inversely with the spacing and flow through the field or through the flow channel
containing this square.

Using Darcy‟s law:-

∆𝑞 = 𝐾𝑖𝐴 − − − − − − − −2.4
∆𝐻
∆𝑞 = 𝑘 ∆𝑦𝑥𝑙 − − − − − −2.5
∆𝑋

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑟𝑜𝑝 (H) 𝑖. 𝑒 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝐶𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤

∆𝐻 = − − − 2.6
𝑁𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑤𝑕𝑖𝑐𝑕 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 (𝑁𝑑)

Where
ΔH = is the energy drop between the two equipotential lines
Δx = is horizontal distance between the flow line
Δy = is Vertical distance between the equipotential lines
k = hydraulic conductivity
Ad = average area under seepage line through d/s shell
i= hydraulic gradient flow through shell
Ks = coefficient of permeability shell

23
 Ld= length of path flow through d/s shell
𝐻 ∆𝑦
∆𝑞 = 𝑘 − − − − − − − − − 2.7
𝑁𝑑 ∆𝑥
Since ∆𝑦 = ∆𝑥
The total flow through all the channels, i.e. the total flow through the unit width of the dam
⇒q =∑ Δ q
𝐾∗𝐻
= * No. of flow channels (Nf)
𝑁𝑑
𝐾𝑠 𝐻
𝑞= 𝑁𝑓 − − − − − − − − − 2.8
𝑁𝑑
ii) Non- isotropic soils

If the permeability of the soil is different in the horizontal direction than that in the vertical
direction, soil type is non-isotropic soil and the seepage quantity is estimated using the
effective permeability (K‟). The flow net is drawn in the same manner as was explained earlier
for isotropic soils; with the only difference the dam section shall be drawn to the same vertical
scale but to a transformed horizontal scale. All horizontal dimensions shall be reduced by
multiplying them by a factor equal to

𝐾′ = 𝐾𝑕 𝐾𝑉 − − − − − − − − − − − 2.9

𝑁𝑓
𝑞= 𝐾𝑕 𝐾𝑣 * 𝐻 − − − − − − − −2.10
𝑁𝑑

2.2.1.2 A.Casagrande Phreatic Line Analysis

This method was developed for embankment dams with assumption relatively impervious
foundation and homogenous core section. The procedure involves locating the line of
saturation (phreatic line) through an embankment when full seepage equilibrium has
developed. Seepage rate (q) can be calculated from certain points on the phreatic line and this
method can be applied to embankments with various zoning patterns and drainage conditions.
Procedure and method of construction phearatic line
 Draw Cross Section of Dam to Scale
 Locate Bo; Calculate Yo and a

24
  Plot Basic Parabola
Note u/s shell is considered so pervious as to cause no effect on phreatic line through core
 Sketch ingress and egress transitions through core
 Calculate (q) through the core
 Knowing (q),(ks) and (L) calculate(h‟)
 Sketch shell transition and seepage line

Fig: 2.2: Zoned dam cross - section and Dawn stream shell

𝑌𝑜 = 𝑕2 + 𝑑 2 − 𝑑 − − − 2.11 , 𝑎 = 𝑕2 + 𝑑 2 − 𝑑 2 − 𝑕2 𝑐𝑜𝑡 2 𝛼 − −2.12

𝑌 2 − 𝑌𝑜2
𝑦= 2𝑌𝑜𝑋 + 𝑌𝑜2 − − − −13 , 𝑋= − − − − − 2.14
2𝑌𝑜

q (Core) =K a sinα for α< 600 , q (core) =KYo for α>600

25
 𝐾𝑠 𝑕 ′ 𝐴
q (Dawn stream shell) = KiA = − − − −2.15
𝐿

Where kc=coefficient of permeability of core

Ks= coefficient of permeability shell

i = hydraulic gradient flow through shell
h‟ = difference in elevation of seepage line through d/s shell
Ld= length of path flow through d/s shell
Ad= average area under seepage line through d/s shell
Note: this method produces satisfactory result only when Ks is several hundred times as large
as K. for example zoned dam central clay or silt core with sand and gravel shell

2.3 Slope Stability Analysis Methods and Theories

There are three recent well-known methods for analyzing the stability of a slope: limit
equilibrium method, finite element method, and probabilistic method. The most commonly
used method by geotechnical engineers is the limit equilibrium method (LEM), due to its
simplicity and wide-range of conditions of application (Cheng & Lau, 2008; Abramson et al.,
2002).

The finite element method (FEM) is a more complex method that allows engineers to perform
refined, 2D or 3D slope evaluation. Despite its complexity, FEM is likely to be used in
geotechnical computer software due to its compatibility (Cheng & Lau, 2008). The newest
method of analysis in slope stability is the probabilistic method; this method tends to quantify
some uncertain factors, and is applied in studies of the design reliability of a slope (Peterson,
J.L., 1999).

2.3.1 Limit Equilibrium Method

The limit equilibrium method (LEM) is a method that assumes slope factor of safety as a
constant parameter for the entire failure surface. Factor of safety (FOS) is used to define the
stability of slope, and can be determined with respect to force or moment equilibrium as
illustrated in Figure 2.3 Generally, moment equilibrium is used for the analysis of rotational
landslides, while force equilibrium is applied to translational or rotational failures composed
of planar or polygonal slip surfaces (Cheng & Lau, 2008). A slope has to be considered as

26
being in an unstable condition if FOS < 1.0. However, many natural slopes have been found
to be still stable, despite their FOS being less than 1.0. Cheng & Lau (2008) stated that this
inconsistent phenomenon is due to some common processes in the analysis, such as:
1. Applying an additional factor of safety on the soil parameters;
2. Only considering 2D analysis rather than 3D analysis;
3. Ignoring an additional stabilization due to the presence of vegetation or soil suction.

Figure :2. 1: Definitions of Factor of Safety (FOS)

(adopted from Abramson et al., 2002)

Various types of analysis with limit equilibrium concepts have been used to correspond with
the typical modes of failure. In the following paragraphs, some of them are briefly reviewed,
including, block analysis, infinite slope analysis, planar surface analysis, circular surface
analysis and the popular method of slices. A block/wedge analysis assumes a soil slope to be a
compact block, for which an active force (PA) or a passive force (PP) has to be applied in
analysis, to determine the FOS.

This analysis usually used to estimate the FOS against sliding, in situations where the
shearing strength of an embankment fill is greater than that of the foundation soils, as
illustrated in Figure 2.4.

27
 Figure :2. 2: Sliding Block AnalysiS

(adopted from Abramson, 2002)

Infinite slope analysis is used for a slope that extends for a relatively long distance and has a
consistent subsoil profile. In this situation, the failure plane is parallel to the surface of the
slope and the limit equilibrium method can be readily applied. For instance, Figure 2.5
illustrates the infinite slope failure in dry sand, where N is normal force, T is driving force,
and W is the weight of the slice.

Figure: 2. 3: Infinite Slope Failure in Dry Sand

(adopted from Abramson, 2002)

Planar surface analysis is used for slopes with a thin layer of soil that have relatively low
strength in comparison to the overlaying materials. Figure 2.6 shows a planar failure
illustration with three force parameters: W = weight of sliding mass; Cm = mobilized
shear strength; and N = normal force, which are being used to evaluate the stability of slopes
(Abramson, 2002).

28
 Figure: 2. 4: Planar Failure Surface
(adopted from Abramson, 2002)

The most popular method of analysis that uses the limit equilibrium concept is the method of
slices. In the method of slices, the potential failure surface is assumed to be a circular arc with
centre “O” and radius “r”. The soil mass (ABCD) above a trial failure surface (AC) is divided
by vertical planes into a series of slices of width “b”, as shown in Figure 2.7.

Figure: 2. 5:The Method of Slices

(adopted from Craig. 2004)

Each slice is assumed to have a straight baseline. For any slice 𝛼 is the inclination of the
baseline to the horizontal, and h is the height that measured on the centerline. FOS is
defined as the ratio of the available shear strength (𝜏𝑓 ) to the shear strength. (𝜏𝑚 ). By
implying that there must be mutual support between slices, the factor of safety is taken to
be the same for each slice.

29
The method of slices has gained in popularity in the methods of analysis, due to its ability
to accommodate complex geometrics and variable soil and water pressure conditions
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1967). Subsequently, various new methods based on this concept have
been developed (Wright, 1969).

A comparison of some methods of analysis has been published by Fredlund and Krahn
(1977), as summarized in Table 2.2. Their research aimed to compare the FOS obtained by
each method.

Table: 2. 1: Methods of Slides Comparisons

(adapted from Fredlund and Krahn, 1977 Corps of Engineers, 2003)

Fredlund & Krahn (1977) concluded that FOS from analysis methods (1) to (6) are very
similar (difference <0.1%). All methods have the same form of the normal force equation
with the exception of the Ordinary method. The differences in the various methods are the
assumptions relating to the inter slice forces. For instance, the Ordinary method ignores inter
slice forces (V=H=0); Simplified Bishop‟s method assumes inter slice forces are horizontal
(V=0, H>0); Spencer‟s method assumes all inter slice forces are parallel (V>0, H>0) with an
unknown inclination which is computed through iterations; Morgenstern and Price‟s method
relates the shear force (V) to the normal force (H), where V= f(x) H.

The first three methods - Ordinary method, Bishop‟s simplified and Janbu‟s simplified, ignore
vertical inter-slice forces. Due to the assumption that effective normal and pore pressure
forces do not affect the moment equilibrium since they are directed through the centre of the

30
circle, therefore, Ordinary method, Bishop‟s simplified and Janbu‟s simplified, should not be
used to compute an FOS for noncircular failure surfaces (Abramson et al., 2002) Bishop‟s
method is not applicable for horizontal force equilibrium analysis, and Janbu‟s method is not
applicable for moment equilibrium analysis.

On the other hand, Spencer‟s method or the Morgenstern-Price‟s method satisfies complete
force and moment equilibrium. Janbu‟s Simplified method determined the final FOS by
multiplying the calculated FOS value with a modification factor. However, FOS values from
Bishop‟s method and Janbu‟s method generally only have +15 % differences to the FOS from
Spencer‟s method or the Morgensters-Price‟s method (Abramson et al., 2002). Spencer‟s
method and Morgenstern-Price method have similarities, in that these methods determine
FOS by using force and moment equilibrium analysis. The difference is that Spencer‟s
method has a constant inclination of resultant inter slice force, while Morgenstern-Price has
variation in the inclination of the inter slice resultant force.

The Lowe and Karafiath‟s method and Corps of Engineers method determine FOS by using
force equilibrium analysis. Both methods consider the inclination of the inter slice force. The
difference is that the Corps of Engineers method presents an over determined system, where
moment equilibrium is not satisfied for all slices (Abramson et al., 2002).

The latest method for limit equilibrium analysis is that proposed by Fredlund et al. (1981) and
Chugh (1986) namely, general limit equilibrium (GLE). The method can determine FOS by
satisfying both force and moment equilibrium. It also can be used for analyzing circular and
noncircular failure surfaces. Furthermore, the GLE has the ability to model a discrete version
of the Morgenstern and Price (1965) procedure, and to implement the Spencer‟s method
directly by using a constant inter slice force function (Abramson et al., 2002).

In conclusion, it is very important for a geotechnical engineer to have a comprehensive

understanding of the limit equilibrium methods. A large range of method procedures, from
simple to complex analysis, requires a geotechnical engineer to have an ability to choose the
most suitable method for particular slopes.

31
2.3.2 Finite Element Method
In general, the Finite Element Method (FEM) is the numerical analyses method applied
to solve differential equations in engineering (Abramson et al., 2002; Hammouri et
al.,2008). Clough and Woodward (1967) introduced FEM for use in geotechnical
engineering. This method can be applied in soil slope problems by dividing the soil
continuum into discrete units that inter-connected at their nodes and at predefined boundaries
of the continuum, as shown in Figure 2.8. For application in geotechnical engineering, the
displacement method formulation of the FEM is typically used (Abramson et al., 2002).
This method also presents the results in the form of displacements, stresses, and strains, at
the nodal points.

Figure: 2. 6:Terms in Finite difference grid

Published reviews have shown reasonable agreement between the results of FEM analysis and
the LEM-based chart (Smith and Hobbs, 1974; Zienkiewicz et al., 1975; Griffith,
1980).Abramson et al. (2002) stated that a finite element approach has advantages in the
analysis of slope stability problems over traditional LEM in the absence of assumptions for
shape or location of the failure surface, slice side forces, and their direction. Complex slope
configurations and soil deposits can be applied in FEM, to model virtually all types of
mechanisms in two or three dimensions. Zaki (1999) also suggested the real benefits are
offered by FEM relative to LEM.

Rocscience Inc. (2001) stated that, in general two approaches can potentially be applied for
analyzing slope stability using FEM, these being the gravity loading increase to failure and

32
the strength reduction to failure.The gravity loading approach generates the initial stress state
of the problem by assembling calculated element forces from designed load increasing into a
global force vector of the finite element mesh.

The strength reduction technique is applied to determine factored shear strength parameters
related to Mohr-Coulomb criterion (e.g. Matsui and San, 1992; Griffith & Lane, 1999) as
given by the following equation

C tan ∅
Cf = − − − − − 2.16 ∅f = tan−1 ( ) − − − − − 2.17
SRF SRF

Where:
Cf = factored cohesion
. ∅𝑓 = factored friction angle
SRF = strength reduction factor

Despite of the advantage of FEM, it still has drawbacks due to its uncertainties failure
criteria, as mentioned by Wong (1984). In FEM, the failure condition occurs progressively as
a consequence of discrete elements of the soil model. Since not all elements fail
simultaneously, a wide range of failure spans can be extended from the first occurrence of the
yield point to the final failure of all elements.

According to Wong (1984), some popular failure criteria include the bulging of slope line
(Snitbhan and Chen, 1976), shear limit (Duncan and Dunlop, 1969), and non- convergence of
the solution (Zienkiewicz, 1971). Detail on these failure criteria has been described by
Abramson et al. (2002), who also concluded that the interpretation of FEM results still
depends on the experience and intuition in predicting the behavior of the real physical model,
based on the numerical model. Hammouri et al. (2008) concluded in their research that FEM
seems to be unable to locate the critical slip surface in cases of an undrained clay slopes. They
also concluded that FEM could not adequately reflect the significance when some tension
cracks were modeled at different locations. In conclusion, geotechnical analysis using FEM
has the benefit in presenting more detail information of slope stability regarding the sstress
state in the soil. However, the uncertainties in slope stability need to be emphasized to obtain
valid analysis.

33
2.3.3 Seismic Slope Stability
The stability of slopes can be decreased due to the presence of seismic load. The
earthquake ground motions are capable to destabilizing internal forces in soil matrices and
also initiate the excess pore water pressures. When the shear strength decreases, the stability
of slope then will be affected.

In general, four methods of analysis have been proposed by Houston et al. (1987) for the
evaluation of the stability of slopes during earthquakes. In increasing order of complexity
and expense, these methods are:

1. Pseudo static Method:

A limit equilibrium analysis is applied in this method by using the static horizontal and
vertical force to simulate the initial forces of the earthquake.
2. Newmark‟s Displacement Method:
By comparing the actual slope accelerations with the static yield acceleration, this method
determines the permanent displacements of the slope (Newmark, 1965).
3. Post-earthquake Stability:
This method determines the stability of a slope by examining the condition of soil samples
using a laboratory undrained strength test. The soil samples are subjected to cyclic loads
comparable to the anticipated earthquake (e.g., Castro et al., 1985).
4. Dynamic Finite Element Analysis:
This method applies the Finite Element Method (FEM) using an appropriate constitutive
soil model. The result of the analysis is in the form of stresses, strains and permanent
displacements (e.g., Finn, 1988; Prevost et al., 1985).
Due to their ease of implementation, familiarity and economic considerations, the Pseudo
static and Newmark‟s Displacement methods have gained in popularity in general
geotechnical engineering practices.

In contrast, the final two methods on the list are rarely used. Although the post-
earthquake stability method is simple to implement, it requires comprehensive dynamic
laboratory testing to determine the shear strength of the soils along some of the preselected
potential failure surfaces in the slope. For finite element analysis, the drawback is in its
high cost of laboratory testing of the constitutive model and use of computational resources.

34
While earlier research has enhanced the understanding of soil slope stability
concepts, there have been few investigations relating to the impact of the level of
saturation of the soil mass. As stated by Tohari et al. (2007), the major portion of soil mass
involved in slope instability is under unsaturated conditions. Therefore, increased
effort and inputs are needed to achieve a better knowledge and understanding of
the relationship of soil slope stability to the level of soil saturation.

2.3.4 Loading Conditions for Embankment Dams

The stability of the upstream and downstream slopes of the dam embankment is analyzed for
the most critical or severe loading conditions that may occur during the life of the dam.
These loading conditions typically include(USACE ,2003)
1) End of Construction — when significant pore pressure development is expected either in
the embankment or foundation during construction of the embankment.
2) Steady-State Seepage — when the long-term phreatic surface within the embankment has
been established.
3) Rapid (or Sudden) Drawdown — when the reservoir is drawn down faster than the pore
pressures can dissipate within the embankment after the establishment of steady-state
seepage conditions.
4) Earthquake — when the embankment is subjected to seismic loading.

Tabel:2.3 The minimum desired values of factor of safety under various loading conditions,

specified by USACE,(2003)

Case Loading Condition Critical Slope FOSmin

Upstream 1.3
I End of construction
Downstream 1.3
II Sudden drawdown Upstream 1.3(1.2)
Upstream 1.5
III Steady state seepage
Downstream 1.5
steady state under Upstream and
Iv 1.1
Seismic load Downsteam

35
 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the study area
3.1.1. Location

Dora micro-embankment dam, the selected study area, is found in Tigray National Regional
state, Southeastern zone administration, Hintalo wagearat woreda. The geographical
coordinate of the dam site using UTM is 1440509M Northing and 0572188M Easting with an
average altitude of 2170 masl. It can be accessed by asphalt road through the regional town
Mekelle to Tabia Adi Keyh, which is small town near the study area at a distance of 82Km,
and 2 km in dry weather road from Adi Keyh.

Dam

Figure: 3 1: Location Map of Dora Earth Fill Dam

36
 Tabel :3.1: The Salient Features of Dora Earth Fill Dam

Types of earth fill dam Zoned earth fill dam

Embankment fill Silt clay core and Spill way
material sandy silt with
gravel shell

Maximum crest length 454.43m Type Ungated chute

spill way
Top crest width 7m
Height of the dam 43.5m Structural = 30m
Dam crest level 2189.5 a.m.s.l width
Maximum flood level Maximum Q= 82.6 m3/s
2187.2501a.m.s.l probable
Normal water level 2186.00a.m.s.l flood
Bottom width 254.63 m Length of = 320.14m
U/S slope 1:3 spill Way
D/S slope 1:2.5
Foundation/ Cut off depth 9m
6
Reservoir capacity 2.61x 10 m3

(Source TBoWR design document)

3.1.2 Topography

Dora embankment dams lay on the high land part of Ethiopia. The topography showed
that, the right and left abutments are small gentle sloppy mountain and have saddle for
spillway and the topography of the site has been shaped by tectonic activity with
subsequent erosion. Due to this an earthen dam type with appurtenance structure chute type
spillway was selected. The dam axis lay on across the catchment out let. The topography of
the study area has good land grading for surface irrigation and greeded Mountain
catchments.

37
3.1.3 Land use and land cover

The major land use types in this watershed area are cultivated land, free grazing land,
forest land (area closure), and miscellaneous land. The dominant land use type is free
grazing land that covers 71% of the total area. It has moderate vegetation cover. The
second largest land use type that has good vegetation cover is forest land, which covers
23%. It is situated dominantly on moderately steep terrain. This includes shrubs, bush
land and woodlands. The miscellaneous land that has an area of 2 ha represents areas
occupied with gullies, footpaths, dry weather road, rocky outcrops, and river.

3.1.4 Climate

Climate condition within the project area is classified as continental, with relatively short
cold winter and cold summers. Dora experiences nine months of dry season and three
months of rainy season, most of its rainfall occurring from the middle of June to the
middle of September and the rainfall variability are expected, particularly in the lower
rainfall areas of the north east highlands. Average mean annual rain fall is about 609.43mm
and the average annual temperature is of 19ºC, ranging from a minimum of 11º to a
maximum of 27ºC with a mean annual temperature of 19ºC.

3.1.5 Site Geology

The specific site has a narrow river valley which is outcropped by highly to moderately
weathered basalt which is covered by river channel deposit on the centre and towards the right
bank of the river. The strength and the degree of weathering of this unit vary along the axis
(laterally and vertically). According to the geological report of design document subsurface
investigation showed that, Dora lay on the foundation condition along the dam axis
composed of mainly weathered basalt and saturated enticho sand stone and 9 m foundation
depth soil is very good to with stand permeability and seepage lose so that 9m cut off trench is
provided.

38
3.2. Data Collection
3.2.1. Data collection methods

For field data collection and measurement purposes and proper implementation of the
proposed study, the following materials and equipments were used:-
Topographic map, Tape Meter, GPS for specific location Digital camera Geo studio soft ware
SEEP/W and SLOPE/W for conceptual models and for pre and post processing Microsoft
excel or word, GIS soft ware (arc map) version 10 for delineating of the proposed study,
DEM and Excavator. And the methodology used in this study to carry out seepage and slope
stability analysis was based on Geo studio soft ware with the help of primary and secondary
data.

Fig: 3. 3: Flow chart of methodology adopted in the present study

39
3.1.1.1 Primary data collection

Collection of primary data from the field was based on visual inspection/
observation/measuring and interviewing the proper sensitive and insensitive beneficiaries of
farmers, development agents, dam operator‟s, supervisors and related sector engineers and
chiefs. According to the following were collected

Defects during construction and design phases were occurred such as, different materials were
compacted in one layer, luck of sufficient site geological information, shortage or low quality
construction material used (the gravel containing many fine material and it is not clean, the
sand they used also not sound and clean it changes to fines as machine or load is put in the
sand) and different equipment for compaction work used (from hand tool to big dossiers).

-The sensitive and insensitive beneficiary farmers and community society said during
interviewing, they have high awareness about the dam unstability and they ask a series
remediation of the dam to the state tigray water development bureau and they also indicate the
dam is not giving its expected value to users.

Also during the visit time of the earth fill dam measurement was taken for the analysis of
seepage and slope failure such as:- cross sectional length of seepage sensitive area, u/s current
water level and the d/s boundary condition of the seepage where emerged/end of saturated
line at exit in the downstream dam slope.And measurement of seepage quantity at the down
stream recharge area was also carried out using three sample of hund dug wells using
volumetric discharge measurement method and the average value were taken for comparision
with how effective was the seep/w soft ware model in quantifying total seepage through the
cross-section of dam.

Here below are some collected pictures that show the locality of seepage failure at the dawn
stream dam site, disscussion of the related sector experts and community users during their
visit at the earth fill dam and miss use of riprap in the upstream dam slope with adigital
camera.

40
 Seepage sensitive area
13.5m

a) D/S Seepage at the dam and left abutment side in the deepest section

b) D/S seepage as stream and discussion of the beneficiaries with related sector during their
visit at earth fill dam.

41
 c) U/S side of Dam without stone riprap and d/s left abutment seepage area of the dam
Fig: 3.3: Defects of Dora Eaerth Fill Dam
3.1.1.2 Secondary data sources

The data used for the analysis have been collected from Tigray water resources bureau(Design
document of the dam), from REST higher engineer(soil material property parameter of the
dam), guide line, manuals, from standard books and literatures or journals.Those data includes
geometry of the structure, related upstream and downstream water levels, dam construction
Material properties of soils (Unit weight, Angle of internal friction, Cohesion of soil,
saturated unit weight/permeability) for Core Material, Foundation Material and shale material.
soil gradiation value and detailed geo physical investigation of horizontal profile and vertical
electrical sounding for existing dam stability assessment report data of Dora earth fill dam.

3.3 Data Analysis

In order to achieve the objective of this study(Stability of Slope and seepage analysis) Dora
embankment dam which has a problem of seepage and soil slope stability it is considered to
use Geo-Studio 2007 soft ware model to analyse the seepage and stability slope failure of the
dam.

Geo Studio 2007 is a package of eight software programs designed for solving various
geotechnical problems in 2D space. Except SLOPE/W 2007, the analyses using all other
software programs are based on finite element methods (FEM). SLOPE/W uses the limit

42
equilibrium methods (LEM) for the stability analysis. The most of these software programs
can be coupled with each other, to enable the results of one software program to be used as
the input data for another. For example, the pore-water pressures in the soil obtained from the
seepage analysis using SEEP/W 2007 can be used as the initial conditions for the slope
stability analysis using SLOPE/W. In this research, SEEP/W and SLOPE/W were used to
analysis the stability of slope and seepage.

3.3.1 Seepage analysis

In order to achieve the research objective (to determine the total seepage of water
through the body of the dam) SEEP/W software model with primary and secondary data
were used. The SEEP/W software (program) is a sub program of the Geo-Slope (software)
which is used to cater for seepage problems through porous soil media and following
partial differential equation (PDE) is the governing equation used for modeling of
SEEP/W program.

𝜕 𝜕𝐻 𝜕 𝜕𝐻𝑡
𝑘𝑥 + 𝑘𝑦 = 0 − − − − − − − − 3.1
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑦
Where: -
kx ,ky = coefficient of permeability in (x, y) directions.
Ht= total head of water.

3.3.1.1FEM Mesh Formation and Its Verification Using SEEP/W Software

The material properties for each model section with proper dimensions of dam are made as
input to the software respectively and verification for each cross section has been made
accordingly. After all the necessary inputs, the computer program SEEP/W verified the
mesh development and delivered report that the vertical and horizontal meshing is strong
enough and there if is no error in formation of mesh model. Thus the model is ready for
computation and analysis of the results.

The finite element mesh used in this analysis is as shown in figure: 3 . 4 three node
triangles elements are used to describe the domains. The mesh contains 2131 element
and 1163 node; the first step in our analysis are concerning about selected the numbers

43
of element and selected these value when the number of element became independents o f
solution.

In this case any increment in the number of node and element dose not affected on the
values of solution in domain of analysis the number of elements is selected from mesh
generation from change in phreatic surface.

3.3.1.2 Setting of Boundary Conditions

steady steate seepage is usually occurred during uncondtion at maximum pool level or flood
surcharge(The flood surcharge is generally considered a temporary condition causing no
additional saturation of the dam embankment) and conditional steady state at normal pool
level and at current or partial pool level conditions.
In this study the Computation of seepage in Dora embankment Dam were carried out for
following two conditional scenarios, via: (i) Normal pool level based on laboratory result
and site boundary condition at u/s ele =2186m or 41.13 m above the bed level and the d/s ele
= 0 m and at u/s ele 2186m and d/s ele. = 2162.6 m or at 24.63 m from the bed level of the
dam and
(ii) current /partial pool reservoir level Boundary conditions were set as: (a) At fill level up-
and down-stream boundary conditions that is the current water level at the reservoir is 16.5m
higher than the downstream surface where water is emerged and the d/s surface is at 13.5m
above the bed level and the filter is not working. With this assumption, the parameters are
adjusted to represent those boundary conditions.

With this consideration Dirichlet boundary conditions (when the upstream and downstream
water head, saturated /phreatic line is specified on boundaries) for all the above given
scenarios that specifies the field variable head (H) at anode and

(b) In foundation up-, down and bottom level are considered as with zero flux condition or
flow gradient (q = m3/s/m) i.e. A vertical line (flux section line) has been drawn through the
center of clay core and foundation of the dam and the total entire seepage through the dam
body and its foundation (Total seepage = in m3/s) is unit flux multiply by the horizontal length
of the dam. Then this is satisfied by Neuman boundary conditions for all the above given
conditions.

44
3.3.1.3 Seepage Analysis using FEM method

The earth-fill dam is subjected to seepage through embankment and foundation Therefore
seepage control is essential to prevent dam failure due to excessive uplift pressure, piping
through the dam body and also foundation, erosion etc. The Geo Studio program using
Seep/W was utilized to analyze the seepage problem using finite element method (FEM).

The hydraulic conductivity parameters of the dam soil materials used in the seepage analysis
are listed in Table below. These parameters are obtained based on the typical hydraulic
conductivity parameters, k given from the laboratory result.

Tabel: 3. 2:Values of Hydraulic Conductivity Properties (Adapted from Design document)

Hydraulic Conductivity,
Section Soil Material Used k( m/s)
Shell Sandy silt and sand 1×10–7
clay
Core Silt clay 1×10–9
Foundation Sandstone and 1×10–6
phylite

A) Calculation model
Plan finite element method employed for calculation of dam and the calculation model will
not simulate the concrete slab at the bottom the clay core, upstream block stone slopes, and
the horizontal drainage layer provided at the downstream dam foundation. The calculation
model is shown in Figure 3.4 below..
Area of application of this model:
 Dam height =43.5 m
 Dam crest width =7m
 Depth of foundation =9m
 Depth of NPL = 41.13m
 Bottom width of the dam =275m
 Two berms at upstream and downstream faces of the dam , having 3m width

45
  Upstream slope 3(H):1(V) and downstream slope 2.5(H):1(V) are adopt for dam
construction
 Top width of core material =3m and is 2.25m below dam crest level elevation
 Trench width =4m

a) Typical cross-section of dam

2b) Mesh formation of FEM

Fig: 3 4: Typical Cross Section of Dora Dam and FEM for Dora dam

3.3.2 Stability Analysis using SLOPE/W

3.3.2.1 Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM)

SLOPE/W is a software product designed for computing the safety factors for earthen slopes,
based on the principle of the limit equilibrium method (LEM) (GEO- SLOPE International
Ltd., 2010b). SLOPE/W provides eleven methods that can be used for slope stability analysis.
All the methods are based on limit equilibrium formulations which use finite element

46
computed stresses. The stability analysis methods used in SLOPE/W are Fellenius, Bishop‟s
simplified, Janbu‟s simplified, Spencer, Morgenstern Price, Corps of Engineers-1, Corps of
Engineers-2, Lowe- Karafiath, Janbu‟s generalized, Sarma‟s vertical slices and general limit
equilibrium (GLE) (GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., 2010b). Slope stability analysis using
Limit Equilibrium Methods (LEM).

The LEM has been the most popular method used by geotechnical engineers for analyzing the
stability of earth slopes, for many decades (Cheng and Lau, 2008 Desai, 1977; Morgenstern,
1963; GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, 2010b). The advantage of this method is that it can
solve very complex earth problems with complicated geometrical structures, highly irregular
pore-water pressure conditions, and various linear and nonlinear shear strength models,
almost any kind of slip surface shape, distributed or concentrated loads, and structural
reinforcement.

In the present study, the general limit equilibrium method (GLE) (Fredlund and Krahn, 1977;
Fredlund et al., 1981) has been employed to calculate the FOS, because of this method
encompassing the key elements of all other methods available in SLOPE/W. The GLE
method provides a framework for discussing, describing, and understanding all the other
methods.

¡) Slip Surface Shapes

The main interest in stability analysis remains to determine the position of the critical slip
surface with the lowest factor of safety. A trial procedure is still well-known technique in
finding the critical slip surface that after creating a possible slip surface then the associated
factor of safety is computed. Repeated process using the same procedure is undertaken for
many possible slip surfaces. And as a result, the trial slip surface with the lowest factor of
safety is chosen to be the critical slip surface.

There are many different ways of defining the shape and positions of trial slip surfaces in
SLOPE/W, such as: Grid and radius for circular slips, Composite slip surfaces, Fully specified
slip surfaces, Block specified slip surface, Entry and exit specification, Optimization, and
Auto-Locate. In this research, the Auto-Locate method was used in SLOPE/W analysis due to
this method has combined the others method advantages, particularly the Entry and Exit
method with the Optimization method, and does some preliminary work automatically to find

47
approximate solution. More reasonable result is determined using the Auto-Locate method
since this method generates 1000 trial slip surface to find the most probable minimum slip
surface and then applies the optimization technique.

¡¡) Geometry

SLOPE/W uses the concept of regions to define the geometry, as in SEEP/W. Regions are a
beneficial aid for finite element meshing. SLOPE/W by itself does not need a finite element
mesh, but regions defined in SLOPE/W can also be used to create a mesh for an integrated
finite element analysis.

In Geo Studio, the objective is to define the geometry only once, for use in many different
types of analyses. Using regions in SLOPE/W as well as in the finite element products makes
this possible, even though SLOPE/W uses slice discretization instead of finite element
discretization. SLOPE/W can then use the results obtained from other analyses, such as
SEEP/W, in stability analysis.

¡¡¡) Pore-water Pressure

Finite element computed pressures: SLOPE/W is fully integrated with the finite element
products available in Geo Studio. This makes it possible to use the finite element computed
pore-water pressure in stability analysis. For this research the pore-water pressure should
come from a SEEP/W analysis. In general, the pore-water pressure can come from any finite
element analysis that creates a head or pore-water pressure file.And the pore water pressure
was defined when steady seepage at normal pool level operation condition or after long term
phreatic line was established during steady state seepage analysis.

¡v) Defining the Problem

A limit equilibrium analysis is carried out using the Slope/W software for the slope
stability of the natural slope. The geometry is created in dxf format and imported in to the
Slope/W program. The analysis type is then selected and it is determined that failure
should fo llow a right to left path.
v) Modeling

The most common way of describing the shear strength of geotechnical materials is by
Mohr Coulomb‟s equation which is:

48
 𝜏 = 𝑐 + 𝜎 ′ 𝑛 ∗ tan 𝜑 − − − − − − − − − 3.2
Where, τ is shear strength (i.e., shear at failure), c is cohesion, σn is normal on shear plane,
and υ is angle of internal friction.

The failure envelope is often determined from tri-axial tests and the results were presented in
terms of half-Mohr circles the strength parameters c and υ can be total strength parameters or
effective strength parameters. Slope/W makes no distinction between these two sets of
parameters. Which set is appropriate for a particular analysis is project specific, and is
something the software user, need to decide. The software cannot do this for you. From a
slope stability analysis point of view, effective strength parameters give the most realistic
solution, particularly with respect to the position of the critical slip surface.

𝜏′ = 𝑐′ + 𝜎 ′ 𝑛 ∗ tan 𝜑′ − − − − − − − − − 3.3

Where, τ‟ is effective shear strength (i.e., shear at failure), c‟ is effective cohesion, σ´n is
normal on shear plane, and υ‟ is effective angle of internal friction
v¡) Analysis Type
In this research the slope stability of dam using FOS under static conditions were calculated
using GLE method for upstream and downstream slope during normal operation condition
(steady seepage at normal pool level) , current reservoir level, un usual operation conditions
of end construction and upstream slope draw down from normal to minimum pool level.

The GLE analysis and half-sine function was selected in this study but the software also

gives the result of factor safety for Ordinary, Bishop and Janbu analysis type. And those are
also used for evaluation safety factor of the dam under different loading and operation cases.

v¡¡) Verification and Computation

After the material input and pore pressure were assigned, the slip surface is specified, then
Slope/W runs several checks to verify the input data using the verify/optimize data command
in the Tools menu. When the verification is completed and there are no errors, then Slope/W
computes the factor of safety using the method of slice selected. The minimum factor of
safety is obtained for that particular analysis and its corresponding critical slip surface is
displayed.

49
3.2.2 Dam Slope Stability Calculation under Static Conditions

The limit equilibrium method-based slope stability analysis method includes the following
basic principles

¡) Definition of factor of safety

The factor of safety against sliding F of a soil slope along a slip surface is defined as below:
in case the shear strength parameters of soil is reduced to c'/F and tanυ'/F, the soil mass
reaches limit equilibrium here and there along the slip surface, i.e.,
𝜏 = 𝐶𝑒 + 𝜎′𝑛 tan ∅ − − − − − − − − − − − 3.4
𝐶′
𝐶𝑒 = − − − − − − − − − 3.5
𝐹
tan′ ∅
tan′ ∅𝑒 = − − − − − − − −3.6
𝐹
¡¡) Mohr-Coulomb Strength Criterion
Assuming that a part of the soil mass slides along a slip surface, the soil mass on the slip
surface reaches equilibrium everywhere, i.e., the normal stress σ n‟ and shear stress τ meet the
Mohr-Coulomb Strength Criterion. Assuming that normal and tangential forces of the soil
slice bottom are N and T, respectively, then

∆𝑇 = 𝑐′𝑒 ∆xsec 𝛼 = +(∆𝑁 − 𝑈 𝑋 sec 𝛼) tan′ ∅𝑒 − − − − − − − −3.7

Where： α is the dip of the soil slice bottom, tanα = dy/d
xu is the pore water pressure.

The pore water pressure coefficient is generally defined as:

𝑈
𝑟𝑢= − − − − − − − − − −3.8
𝑑𝑤
𝑑𝑥

¡¡¡) Static equilibrium condition

The sliding soil mass is divided into several soil slices, and each soil slice and the whole
sliding soil mass should meet the equilibrium conditions of force and moment. In the static
equilibrium equations, the number of unknowns is more than the number of equations. The
method to solve this problem is to give assumptions to the surplus unknowns so as to make

50
the number of rest unknowns equal to the number of equations and obtain the value of factor
of safety.

The assumptions of the above-mentioned surplus unknowns must make the solutions obtained
conform to the mechanical characteristics of soil and rock. The rationality conditions
popularly accepted are general limit equilibrium method (GLE) (Fredlund and Krahn, 1977;
Fredlund et al., 1981).

3.3.2.3 General Limit Equilibrium method or (GLE) theory

The GLE formulation is based on two factor safety equations and allows for a range of
interslice shear-normal force assumptions. One equation gives the factor of safety with
respect to moment equilibrium (Fm), while the other equation gives the factor of safety
with respect to horizontal force equilibrium (Ff).

Fig: 3.5: Discrete slice and forces acting on a slice

(developed from GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., 2010b)
As shown in figure: 3.6 below the summation of moments for all slices about an axis Point
can be expressed as follows:

𝑊𝑋 − 𝑆𝑚𝑅 − 𝑁𝑓 + 𝐾𝑤𝑒 ± 𝐷𝑑 ± 𝐴𝑒 = 0 − − − −3.9

Where:
W = the total weight of a slice of width d and height h [N];
N = the total normal force on the base of the slice [N];
Sm = the mobilized shear force on the base of each slice [N];
D = an external line load [N];
KW = the horizontal seismic load applied through the centroid of each slice [N];

51
 R = the radius of a circular slip surface or the moment arm associated with the
mobilized shear force, Sm, for any shape of slip surface [m].
f = the perpendicular offset of the normal force from the centre of rotation it is
assumed that f distances on the right side of the centre of the rotation of a negative slope
(i.e., a right-facing slope), and those of the left side of the centre of rotation are
positive. For positive slopes, the sign convention is reversed [m].
x = the horizontal distance from the centre line of each slice to the centre of
rotation or to the centre of moments [m];
e = the vertical distance from the centre of each slice to the centre of rotation or to the
centre of moments[m];
d = the perpendicular distance from a line load to the centre of rotation or to the
centre of moments [m];
a = the perpendicular distance from the resultant external water force to the
centre of rotation or to the centre of moments. The L and R subscripts designate the left and
right side of the slope, respectively [m];
A = the resultant external water forces. The L and R subscripts designate the left and
right side of the slope, respectively [N]. The mobilized shear force on the base of each
slice ( S m ) can be written for saturated soil conditions as follows:
𝛽 ,
𝑆𝑚 = 𝐶 + 𝜎′ tan ∅, − − − − − − − 3.10
𝐹
Where:
𝛽 = the base length of each slice [m]
F = the factor of safety
c‟ = effective cohesion [kPa]
∅, = effective angle of internal friction [degree]
. 𝜎′ = effective normal stress [kPa]
After substituting for S m in Eq 3.9 and rearranging the terms, the factor of safety with respect to
moment equilibrium is (Fm = F)
(𝐶 , 𝛽𝑅 +[𝑁−𝑈𝛽 ] 𝑅 tan ∅,
𝐹𝑚 = − − − −3.11
𝑊𝑥 − 𝑁𝑓 + 𝐾𝑤𝑒 ± 𝐷𝑑 ± 𝐴𝑎

As shown in Fig: 3.6 the summation of forces in the horizontal direction for all slices is
expressed as:

52
 𝐸𝑙 − 𝐸𝑅 − (𝑁 sin 𝛼) − (𝑆𝑚 cos 𝛼) − 𝐾𝑤 + 𝐷 cos 𝜔 ± 𝐴 =0

Equation--------------------------3.12

E = the horizontal interslice normal forces. Subscripts L and R designate the left and right
sides of the slice, respectively; 𝛼 = the angle between the tangent to the centre of the base of
each slice and the horizontal. The sign convention is as follows when the angle slopes in the
same direction as the overall slope of the geometry, 𝛼 is positive, and vice versa 𝜔 = the
angle of line load from the horizontal. This angle is measured counter-clockwise from the
positive x-axis. The term 𝐸𝑙 − 𝐸𝑅 presents the interslice normal forces, which must be
zero when summed over the entire sliding mass. After substituting S m in Eq.3.12 and
rearranging the terms, the factor of safety with respect to horizontal force equilibrium
is (Ff = F):
(𝐶 , 𝛽 cos 𝛼 + [𝑁 − 𝑈𝛽] tan ∅, cos 𝛼
𝐹𝑓 = − − − 3.13
(𝑁 sin 𝛼) + 𝐾𝑤 − 𝐷 cos 𝜔 ± 𝐴

The normal force (V) at the base of a slice Fig.3.6 is determined from the summation
forces in a vertical direction on each slice:

𝑋𝐿 − 𝑋𝑅 − 𝑊 + 𝑁 cos 𝛼 + 𝑆𝑚 sin 𝛼 − 𝐷 sin 𝜔 = 0 − − − − − − − −3.14

Where; X = the vertical interslice shear forces, subscripts L and R designate the left and
right sides of the slice, respectively.
After substituting for S m in Eq.3 . 1 4 and rearranging the terms, the factor of safety with
respect to moment equilibrium is:
(𝐶𝛽 sin 𝛼 + 𝑈𝛽 sin 𝛼 tanØ′ )
𝑊 + 𝑋𝐿 − 𝑋𝑅 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ø − + 𝐷 sin 𝜔
𝑁= 𝐹 − − − −3.15
sin 𝛼 tan ∅,
cos 𝛼 + 𝐹
N is non-linear, with the value dependent on the factor of safety, F. When calculating
moment equilibrium, the moment equilibrium factor of safety, Fm, is used. When calculating
force equilibrium, the force factor of safety, F f, is used. The base normal equation (N)
cannot be solved directly, since the factor of safety (F) and the interslice shear forces,
(i.e., XL and XR) are unknown. Consequently, N needs to be determined using an interactive
scheme.The interslice forces represent the normal forces that calculated using an

53
integration procedure commencing at the left end of each slip surface. The shear forces are
located in the vertical side between slices.
The summation of forces in a horizontal direction can be written for each slice as:
𝐸𝐿 − 𝐸𝑅 − 𝑁 sin 𝛼 + 𝑆𝑚 cos 𝛼 − 𝐾𝑊 + 𝐷 cos 𝜔 = 0 − − − −3.16

The left interslice normal force of the first slice (EL) is zero. Due to the effect of FOS
changing, the calculation of the interslice normal force will be updated during the
iteration process. The interslice shear force is then calculated as a percentage of the
interslice normal force according to the following equation is proposed by Morgenstern
and Price (1965):
X = E ∆F x − − − − − − − 3.17
Where: x = interslice force function. In this study, the “Half-Sine” function will be used.
∆ = the percentage of the function used (-1.25 ~ 1.25)
β, R, x, f, d, ω = geometric parameters
F(x) = a function,
λ = the percentage (in decimal form) of the function used,
E = the interslice normal force, and
X = the interslice shear force

Fig: 3.6: Forces acting on a slice overlying a circular slip surface (GEO- SLOPE Int. Ltd., 2010b)

3.3.2.4 The Ordinary Method

The Ordinary method satisfies the moment equilibrium(Fm) for a circular slip surface, but
neglects both the inter-slice normal(E) and shear forces(x). The advantage of this method is

54
its simplicity in solving the FOS, since the equation does not require an iteration
process and The FOS is based on moment equilibrium and computed by:-

C ′ L + NtanØ′
Fm = − − − − − − − 3.18
Wsinα
N = Wcosα − U − − − − − − − − − 3.19

Where, U = pore pressure,

L= slice base length and

α = inclination of slip surface at the middle of slice

3.3.2.5Bishop’s Simplified Method 1955

Bishop‟s simplified method assumes that there are no interslice shear forces(x), only
interslice normal forces (E) acting horizontally on the slice (Bishop, 1955).

(C ′ Lcosα + W − ULcosα tanØ′

F= mα − − − − − − − 3.20
Wsinα

sinαtanØ′
mα = cosα + − − − − − − − − − − − − − 3.21
FS
Generally
 Satisfies moment equilibrium for FOS,
 Satisfies vertical force equilibrium for N,,
 More common in practice, and
 Applies mostly for circular shear surfaces

55
3.3.2.6 Janbu’s Simplified Method
Janbu‟s simplified method uses horizontal force equilibrium to identify a factor of safety
for circular or non-circular failure surfaces (Janbu, 1968). It is similar to Bishop‟s
simplified method as it assumes the interslice shear forces(x) are zero, and the interslice
normal forces (E) act horizontally, but Janbu‟s simplified method only satisfies horizontal
force equilibrium (as opposed to moment equilibrium).

(C ′ L + N − UL tanØ′
Fo = − − − − − − − − − − − −3.22
Wsinα

F = fo ∗ Fo − − − − − − − − − − − − − −3.23

Where F = Corrected safety factor

Fo = Horizontal force equilibrium
fo = Correction factor
Generally
 Satisfies both force equilibriums,

56
  Does not satisfy moment equilibrium,
 Considers inter-slice normal forces, and
 Is commonly used for composite shear surface

3.3.2.4 Material Properties Considered For Stability Analysis

Tabel: 3. 3:Characteristics of Materials property for Dam Dlope Stability Analysis

(Adapted from Design Document)

Material Unit Weight ɣ' (kN/M3) Effective shear stress parameter

(ɸ')0 C‟ (kPa)
Core 15 35 33
Shale 16 37 39
Foundation 17 45 29

3.3.2.5General consideration of slope stability

The stability of an embankment depends on the characteristics of the foundation and fill
materials, on the geometry of the embankment section, and additional factors such as
presence of water, loading conditions etc. The stability of the proposed Dam has been
analyzed using state of the art software Slope/W from Geo-Slope International Ltd of
Canada. The stability analyses had been conducted in order to determine the factor of safety
for various slip surfaces.

The stability of the upstream and downstream slopes of the dam embankment is analyzed for
the most critical or severe loading conditions that may occur during the life of the dam.
These loading conditions typically include
 Upstream and downstream slopes under steady state seepage condition with or without
Slopes under Seismic load condition

57
 Upstream slope under sudden drawdown condition.
 Upstream and downstream slopes under end of construction condition.

¡) Steady State Seepage Condition

The stability analysis for both upstream and downstream slopes under steady state condition
has been checked by considering NWL for both: normal loading condition and with
earthquake loading condition (if there is earth quake data).

The phreatic surface computed with the help of Seep/W was used to set up the pore water
pressure line in the stability analysis. Critical condition for d/s slope occurs when the
reservoir is full and percolation is at its maximum rate. The direction of seepage forces
tends to decrease stability. In other words, the saturated line reduces the effective
stress responsible for mobilizing shearing resistance.

𝐶𝐿 + 𝑡𝑎𝑛Ø (𝑁 − 𝑈)
𝐹. 𝑆 = − − − − − − − −3.24
𝑆𝑇
Where 𝑈 = the total pore pressure on the slope surface
The pore water pressure at any point is represented by the Piezometric head, (hw) at that
point.

¡¡) Sudden draw dawn condition

A sudden drawdown stability computation was performed for the upstream slope for
conditions occurring when the water level adjacent to the slope is lowered rapidly and for
analysis purposes, it was assumed that drawdown is very fast, and no drainage occurs in
materials with low permeability.
¡¡¡) End of construction condition
Computation of stability at the end of construction for both upstream and downstream
slopes was performed using drained strengths in free-draining materials. For materials that
drain slowly and total stress analysis with undrained strengths and zero pore water pressure
Factor of safety against sliding
Mr CLtanØ (N − U)
F= = − − − − − − − −3.25
Md ST

58
 Shear streangth available
=
shear streangth required
for stablity
Where ST= sum of all tangential components
SN = sum of all normal components
c = the unit cohesion
L = the curved length of each slice
Ø= Angle of internal friction

3.3.2.6 Design seismic parameters

Seismic forces reduce the margin of safety of an embankment dam. When an

embankment dam is located in a seismic region, the stability analysis must consider
earthquake forces. During an earthquake, the ground surface oscillates randomly in different
directions. This motion can be represented by horizontal and vertical components. An
earth dam should be treated as a flexible structure for determining dynamic pressure due to
earthquake. However, a simple method to account for earthquake forces in the design of
structures is based on seismic coefficients. In this method, basic seismic coefficients or
earthquake acceleration coefficients are used as given by

earth quake accelaration

α= − − − − − −3.26
g

Where α = seismic coefficient

αg = Earthquake acceleration in a particular direction
Inertial force due to Earthquake is given by:
Fe = W g ∗ αg = Wα − − − − − − − 3.27
Then the inertial force of the soil mass (of the slice under consideration) is taken as α W in
the horizontal direction. Obviously, a force equal to Wcosα is added to the tangential
forces and Wsinα is deducted from the forces acting in the normal direction. The factor
of safety, therefore, is given as:

59
 Sc N − U − (αhWsinα tanØ
F= − − − − − −3.28
(Wsinα + αhWcosα)

The additional horizontal and vertical loads under pseudo-static analysis are represented by
appropriate seismic coefficient to give the design acceleration as a fraction of the
acceleration due to gravity. The design values of horizontal seismic co-efficient αh can be
computed either by seismic coefficient methods or by response spectrum method.

¡) Seismic co-efficient Method

In seismic coefficient method the design value of horizontal seismic coefficient αh is
computed by the following expression:
αh = β Iα0 − − − − − − − − − −3.29
Where β = a coefficient depending upon the soil foundation system
I = a factor depending upon the importance of the structure, and
αO= basic horizontal seismic coefficient applicable for that area
IS: 1893 specifies that value of β = for all earth dams are taken as 1.0 and the value of „I‟ for
all types of dams are taken as 3.0.
Tabel 3. 4 :Seismic zoning coefficient valueEBCS 8 95 (Table1.1)

Zone 4 3 2 1

αGr 0.1 0.07 0.05 0.03

The dam Site is considered to be lying somewhere in zone identified 4. EBCS the value of
basic horizontal seismic coefficient for zone 4 is 0.1 values of site may be taken as 0.1. it is
frequently assumed that αh=(1.5-2.0) αv for the purpose of initial analysis accordingly

αh= 1*3*0.1=0.3 and αv =0.3/2 =0.15

But in this research the horizontal seismic coefficient were taken for zone 4 = 0.1 and
vertical seismic coefficient= 0.05 according to the location of study area based on EBSC8.

60
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Seepage calculation
4.1.1. For case 1(Stable Seepage Flow at Normal Pool Level based on design
document)
During normal pool (normal reservoir level) at ele.=2186m or 41.13m above bed level of the
dam in the upstream slope and at 0 m elevation from the dam bed level at the dawn stream.
The analysis considered the dam without filter drainage system since it was not functional
and the permeability coefficient of shell and core materials are 1x10-7 &1x10-9 m/sec
respectively and foundation is 1x10-6 m/sec. From the geology report the impermeable base
rock is found at a depth of 9 m (there is no seepae below the impermeable) and considers
total longitudinal length of 275m and the coefficient of permeability at the foundation is
assumed saturated permeability.The estimated quantities of seepage at center of foundation
-7 -7
and at the toe of the core is 5.35x10 m3/sec/m and3.62x10 m3/sec/m respectively.(the
estimated quantities of seepage at the toe of the core reduced due to the cross-section of the
dam reduced at the toe).

61
 Fig: 4. 8: Steady state seepage analysis during normal pool condition of Dora dam

4.1.2. Case 2 (Current reservoir level condition based on site boundary)

In this case the hydraulic conductivity of soil parameters were arranged to meet or represenet
the measured site boundary condition of end saturated line at downstream by seep/w.The
boundary condition is that the current water level at the reservoir in upstream is 30m above
the bed level of dam and the down stream end saturated line is 13.5m higher than the
downstream bottom and the filter is not working and the estimated quantities of seepage at
-4
center of foundation is 3.73 x10 m3/sec/m. With this assumption, the K values of soil
parameters we gained by seep/w soft ware model to meet the measured site boundary
conditions of saturation line at exit or end of downstream are as shown below.

Table 4. 1: Hydraulic Conductivity Value (K) obtained Using seep/w to represent the
measured Site Boundary Condition and their characterstics according to USBR data

Dam Drainage Permeability Soil group Values of Test

materials characteristics classification from design K in m/s method
document obtained
4
Core Good Medium Silt clay 1x10- CH cell
4
Shell Good Medium Sandy silt 1x10- CH cell
-5
Foundation Good Medium- low Sand stone 1x10 FH cell

Where CH= Constant head

62
Fig: 4. 9: seepage analysis during current reservoir level condition based on site boundary

4.1.3 Case 3(Seepage at normal pool level using case 2 soil parameters)
In this case the analysis is carried out based on the combination of case one and two
conditions .That is the soil hydraulic conductivity parameters are taken from case two and
steady state Seepage at normal pool level (case one). And with this condition, the location
where the downstream surface water will emerge is exactly represented .According to the
seep/w soft ware model as shown below fig: 4.3., the maximum location where water
emerges is at elevation of 24.63 m from the ground at the dawn stream when the dam is at
normal pool level ele=2186m or 41.13m from the ground of bottom level in the upstream
slope. In this case the estimated total quantity of seepage at the center of dam including
-4
foundation seepage is 7.9x10 m3/sec/m.

63
Fig: 4.3. Total seepage analysis during normal reservoir level using site soil parameter

Table: 4.2:Summary of computed seepage flux using Seep/w

Boundary condition Computed
characteristics Recommend
seepage flux using
ed condition
Condition U/S ele. D/S ele. Seep/W soft ware

Case one 41.13m 0 5.35x10-7 m3/sec/m

Case two 30m 13.5m 3.73x10-4 m3/sec/m
Case three 41.13m 24.63m 7.9x10-4 m3/sec/m *

4.1.4 Discussion the result of analyzed seepage obtained by seep/w soft ware
As explained in the previous explanation the analysis paid attention to different cases
with three methods to quantify the expected amount of seepage .The result showed that the
expected quantity of seepage have considerable magnitude with SEEP/W model for zoned
dam case that without provision of filter drainage materials.

Based on the seepage analysis result determined by FEM as shown earlier in the three cases,
the results of the seepage analysis are presented with both the total seepage amount of the
dam. The seepage analysis through the dam within the three cases, the phreatic surface (zero
pressure line) can be viewed as the blue line as shown in fig 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 that crosses the
dam and the dam is considered saturated under the phreatic line. A vertical line (flux section

64
line) has been drawn through the center of clay core and foundation of the dam and the total
entire seepage through the dam body and its foundation is unit flux multiply by the horizontal
length of the dam.

In case one the phreatic line has been lowered down effectively through the wet
compacted clay core and thus the pore water pressure in the internal surface of
downstream are expected to be under control and the phreatic line also show that the
seepage in the dam is within the acceptable limit since it does not touch the downstream
or critical condition is not exist as shown in fig 4.1. While in case 2 and 3 the phreatic line
crosses the dam almost in horizontal direction up to the down stream shell this indicates the
seepage is a critical condition and the location where phreatic line emerges indicates seepage
face of the dam cross section as it has been seen earlier in fig 4.2 and 4.3.

But when we see the actual site during current condition, the dawn stream surface of the dam
has been exposed for seepage failure at deepest section up to 13.5m from bed level of down
stream dam elevation as we have seen in case 2 figure 4.2earlier and seepage is coming from
the dam body and left abutment of the dam.

We therefore investigated the problem by excavating at the toe of the dam to see whether
the filter of the dam is clogged by debris or whether it is functioning.since the seepage at
down stream emerged at deepest section above the bottom level. So we have observed
that the dumped material at the immediate downstream of the dam has clogged the filter
to a depth of about 3m after the excavation, we therefore perform to cart away the
material out of the downstream side because it will still fill the downstream by sliding
and by rain water daring to the toe. Accordingly the material was partially carted away.
We have made repetitive site visit to perform the following actions:-

a) Expose the toe drain by excavator

b) Cart away the downstream dumped material
c) Produce a gravel to pack the excavated toe drain

We have observed that the toe drain after exposing it observing the result after a week it
had brought only a little change. So, we can say that therefore the filter was not done
properly and is not functioning. Besides the sand that has been used is not sound sand, it

65
changes to fines as machines or load is put on the sand when we test based on field
identification of dry streangth test.

Fig: 4.4 Investigation of down stram toe by excavator

And detail geo physical investigation have been carried out by Assmelash.G,(2009). in
similar study area that is horizontal profile and vertical electrical sounding for existing
dam stability assessement using geo physical investigation Dora earth fill dam.

And the results of report have showed that:

 There is a change in material type and density variation at the center that means either the
material which is put at the deepest section was having low compaction.
 There is no difference between the shell and core material based on the Geotechnical
criteria (in most of it, it is change in color) so this causes difficulty to add water to attain
optimum moisture content, cracking of the dam body due to desiccation and compression,
wide section of dam and this has led to have unnecessary heavy costs to the dam.
 Different material was compacted within one layer.
 The geological formation at the left of the reservoir area with GPS location of 571965 m
East and 1440784 m North is a contact between Enticho Sandstone and Basalt. The
Enticho Sandstone is fractured, dip 900 and have strike direction of 1180 South East
moreover, it is crossed by river and filled with water. This area is the recharging area for
the seepage observed on the left abutment of the dam. It needs Special observation and
treatment.

66
 The geological formation near to the left abutment of the dam is fractured and weathered
basalt and has a contact with Enticho sandstone this may also causes a seepage at both
left abutment and central dam body at a depth of 25m from the dam crest.

In additional the permeability values of case one /in design document showed the core
material is practically impermeable with K values=1x10 -9 m/s and the shell material also
very low permeable with K values 1x10 -7 m/s but when we compute the soil properties to
indicate the measured site boundary condition of end saturated line at downstream using
seep/w soft ware model by assuming the K values of core and shell were pervious and
homogeneous characteristic according to the geo physical report and visual observing
seepage at deepest section or 13.5m from the bottom. So, K values =1x10 -4 m/s for
both.shell and core were obtained But the foundation material is almost the same in both
cases with K value=1x10 -6 during design taken and 1x10-5 m/s new obtained.

And when we compare the result of seepage quantity using software model (q in m3/s/m),
at the center of dam including foundation seepage case one (Seepage Flow at Normal Pool
Level based on design document soil hydraulic conductivity material) indicates too much
less, that is 1476.63 times less than case three (Seepage at normal pool level based on site
boundary condition soil properties) with in the same u/s water level. Also when we compare
with case two (Current reservoir level condition based on site boundary) with u/s water
elevation=30m it is also much less, that is 697.2 times.

So, the above two scenario indicates as the K value of the soil material increase, it offeres
great allowance to flow water through the embankment and foundation and since the
saturated soil material has lower streangth it can cause deformability due to loose
approximation between soil grains promoted by less compaction. This is caused due to
construction history of the dam and geological information as we explained in the primary
data collection and the above geo physical investigation report of the dam.

Also the geological report showed the seepage sensitive area at deepest section was having
low compaction and this leads to increase permeability of soil, decrease the shear strength
of soil , make the soil high susceptible to settlement ,permit subsequent moisture content
change and achieving state of decrease unit weight of soil.

67
So according the site boundary down stream surface of dam and the geo physical report of the
dam,we can judge that the results of laboratory soil hydraulic conductivity values we used
during case one is may not realistic data it was based on theoretical value and the method
of construction history and the geological information we used also considered as critical
including filter drainage placement problem.

Therefore we can judge that for this research analysis seepage failure of the dam was
based on above discussion.
For this research case 3 dam seepage analysis was taken for further analysis considering
the seepage failure problem of the dam as we explained in the above. And since this was
carried out based on the representing hydraulic conductivity of site soil parameter value
during normal pool level operation condition, it can be used to put some mitigation
measure for further safety of the Dora earth fill dam. Accordingly the total quantity of
seepage at the center and left abutment of dam including foundation seepage using the
rearranged hydraulic conductivity (K in m/s) soil parameter value based on seep/w soft
ware model analysis is 7.9e-4 m3/s/m. In this condition, the maximum seepage through the
entire length of dam as per the SEEP/W software model is 0.079m3/sec or 79 l/se. This
value is compared with the quantity seepage estimated practically at the site using 3 samples
of hand dug wells at the down stream using volumetric discharge measurement method and
the average value was 0.072 m3/se or 72 l/sec. Therefore, the practical measurement
analysis has some uncertainity in quantifying the expected quantity of seepage.

4.2 Calculation results of slope stability

4.2.1. Stability Analysis at NPL condition

4.2.1.1 During Steady state seepage condition

In this condition the analysis was carried out based on case three seepage analysis (steady
state seepage at normal pool level based on soil hydraulic conductivity to meet the actual
measured end saturation or phreatic line boundary condition at down stream) And the
upstream water level is set at NPL 2186 m or 41.13m from the bottom of dam and
downstream of the dam water emerged is also set at 24.63m from the ground of bed level

68
dam. With this consideration the boundary conditions of free liquid level for upstream and
dawn stream dam was assigned as below.

Upstream dam slope: the most unfavorable slip plane is on the upper part of the dam, and the
bottom of the slip circle exposes at the foundation of dam with upstream slope 1:3. And the
minimum safety factor(always recommoneded value) of the unfavorable slip plane against
sliding is 1.265 with seismic load and 1.332 without seismic load applied as shown in Fig4.5.

a) Without seismic load

69
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4.5: Unfavorable Slip Plane on the Upstream Dam Slope under Steady Seepage at NPL

Downstream dam slope: The shearing parameter of the embankment material is quite small,
and all the unfavorable slip planes pass through the dawn stream moist or seepage sensitive
area of shell material. And the dam slips out from the top to downstream riverbed. The
minimum safety factor against sliding is 1.037 with seismic load and 1.279 without seismic
load applied.

a) Without seismic load

70
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4.6: Unfavorable Slip Plane on the dawn stream Dam Slope under Steady Seepage at
NPL

5.2.1.2 End of Construction period

The calculated case is the case after the completion of the dam and before impoundment,
while impoundment might be started before the completion of the dam in the actual
construction. In this case the boundary condition of upstream and dawn stream elevation is set
to the heel and the toe of the dam by making water level to empty in the seep/w parent
analysis.

Upstream dam slope: the unfavorable slip ones slips out from the top to the bottom of dam
with a minimum safety factor against sliding of 1.505 without seismic load and 1.476 with
seismic load applied.

a) Without seismic load

71
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4.7: Unfavorable Slip Planes on the Upstream Dam Slope during end Construction
Period
Downstream dam slope: The unfavorable slip planes are similar with upstream slip circle
across the downstream from the top to the bottom of dam surface with a minimum safety
factor against sliding of 1.327 without seismic load and 1.307with seismic load applied.

a) Without seismic load

72
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4.8: Unfavorable Slip Planes on the downstream Dam Slope during Completion Period

4.2.1.3 Drawdown from NPL to the minimum operation level

It is assumed that phreatic line of the dam body does not drop from the upstream surface of
the core wall to the downstream dam surface, the water level at the upstream dam surface is at
minimum level elevation 2174.7m or at 30m from bed level of dam, and the upstream surface
of the core wall and the upstream dam surface are connected by a piezometric line. Only the
stability of the upstream dam slope against sliding with the assumption shell and core material
does not loose moisture rapidly through the water goes dawn rapidly is calculated.

Upstream dam slope: Unfavorable slip planes slip out in the upstream slope from the top to
the center of dam with a minimum safety factor against sliding of 1.17without seismic load
and 1.12 with seismic load consideration as shown below fig 4.9.

a) Without seismic load

73
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4.9: Unfavorable Slip Planes on the Upstream Dam Slope Drawdown from NPLto
minimum

4.2.2 Slope stability during current condition based on site boundary

This was also calculated based on the actual or feasible study of the dam at the site and the
upstream water level is at NPL 2174.87 m or 30 m from the ground of bed level dam and
downstream of the dam water emerged is at 13.5 from the ground of bed level dam and with
this consideration the boundary conditions of free liquid level for upstream and dawn stream
dam was assigned .

Upstream dam slope: the most unfavorable slip plane is on the upper part of the dam, and the
bottom of the slip circle exposes at the foundation of dam with upstream slope 1:3. And the
minimum safety factor of the unfavorable slip plane against sliding is 1.249 without seismic
load and 1.212 with seismic load applied. as shown in Fig.4.10.

a) Without seismic load

74
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4.10: Unfavorable Slip Plane on the Upstream Dam Slope under Steady Seepage at
current level

Downstream dam slope: in this case also the shearing parameter of the embankment
material is quite small, and all the unfavorable slip planes pass through the dawn stream
moist or seepage sensitive area of shell material on dam and slip out to the downstream
riverbed. And the minimum safety factor against sliding is 1.198 without seismic load and
1.031 with seismic load applied.

a) Without seismic load

75
 b) With seismic load
Fig: 4. 101: Unfavorable Slip Plane on the dawn stream Dam Slope under Steady Seepage at
current level

4.2.3 Discussion of result slope stability

The result and discussion of slope stability is during normal pool level using site boundary
condition soil propertties and the calculation result shows that the stability of the dam slopes
against sliding cannot meet the requirements under various static operation conditions and has
a certain margin. The margin of the safety factor for the stability of the dawn stream dam
slope for the case of Steady state with seismic loading of 0.1g and without seismic loading are
relatively small.
The FOS under four main critical conditions was determined using four different limit
equilibrium methods namely Ordinary/Fellenius, Bishop‟s Simplified, Janbu‟s Simplified,
and GLE method.

All the FOS at the end of construction obtained for both upstream and downstream slope has a
maximum value of 1.6 and a minimum value of 1.3. These results met the minimum required
FOS stated in USACE (2003) which is 1.3. Excess pore water pressure is expected to increase
due to shoulder filling during construction stage. And when the embankment is constructed
over the low permeable soil foundation, this can create a temporary condition of “excess pore
pressure” within it. Due to low permeability, the excess pore pressure within the soil
foundation cannot readily dissipate. A non-steady state situation then exists, in which the
elevated pore pressure can lead to lower safety factors, and possible failure. But since the
material properties of Dora embankment and foundation dam have good permeability at each

76
berm, the pore pressure dissipation can occur and thus will improve the slope stability at the
end of construction. Since shear movement or an actual slide during end construction will not
cause loss of life or great property damage under the worst conceivable circumstances, we are
justified in accepting lower safety factors than would be considered reasonable when there is
water in the reservoir. Because of this and the fact that the numerical result of the stability
analysis greatly depends on the type of analysis used, it is not feasible to establish here
minimum tolerable safety factors for the end construction conditions.

For steady state condition without seismic load applied when supply of water level is at
41.13 m LSD (Land-surface datum), the FOS obtained for both upstream and
downstream ranges from 1.15 to 1.38. The results showed that the FOS was not satisfied
the minimum required FOS which is 1.5. During steady state condition when the
reservoir has been full long enough for seepage water to percolate all the way through the
embankment, the pressure in the pore water in the downstream portion reaches its highest
values and cause to decrease the shear strength of the soil.

Under this condition the downstream slope may have its lowest factor of safety against
sliding. And the ponded water will exert external force on the upstream surface to
counter balance the internal force exerted by the pore water pressure. Hence, the
FOS computed under this condition is not indicating a stable slope.

Seismic hazard for Dora Dam is also taken into consideration in the dam stability
analysis. The value of 0.1g was adopted as the critical acceleration (since there is no
seismic data available the horizontal seisic coefficient value was adapted) under steady state
condition. The maximum and minimum FOS for the upstream and downstream under this
condition is 1.396 and 1.007 respectively.

The results satisfy the minimum required FOS of 1.1 for upstream only but not the
dawn stream slope of dam and has a lower value of FOS compared to the steady
state condition without seismic loading. This is mainly due to the effect of ground
shaking that will weaken the soil strength and thus will decrease the FOS.

With a full reservoir the critical region in an earth-fill dam is near the downstream face. If
the line of saturation or upper limit of free water in the dam intersects the downstream face, a

77
critical situation may develop. This condition can be avoided by providing a
sufficiently wide embankment so that the head loss is great enough to bring the line of
saturation out beneath the downstream toe of the dam. And the dawn stream slope of Dora
dam during steady state with and without seismic load applied is the most critical or
severe loading conditions that may occur during the life of the dam compared to the end
of construction and other loading conditions and in this case the problem can be also
overcome by proper geometry design of the dam and also integration of drainage
system to the dam such as internal drain , facing of clayey gravel coarse material and rock
toe filter on the downstream slope is usually a more economical solution.

For rapid drawdown, the condition was analyzed with normal flood level of 41.13 m
LSD lowered to a minimum operating level of 30 m LSD. The analysis results showed
that the FOS for the upstream slope ranges from 1.031 to 1.180 and the FOS is lower than
1.2 which is the minimum required FOS stated by USBR and thus the dam is
categorized as unstable during rapid drawdown condition.

During rapid drawdown, the stabilizing effect of the water on the upstream face of
embankment is lost, but the pore-water pressures within the embankment may remain high.
As a result, the stability of the upstream face of the dam can be much reduced.
Then dissipation of pore-water pressure in the embankment is largely influenced
by the permeability and the storage characteristic of the embankment materials.

Highly permeable materials drain quickly during rapid drawdown, but low permeability
materials take a long time to drain. The saturated weight of the slope produces the shearing
stresses while the shearing resistance is decreased considerably because of the development
of the pore water pressures which do not dissipate rapidly.

From the results, in the upstream slope of Dora dam it can be observed that rapid
drawdown is more critical compared to the steady state with and without seismic load
applied and end of construction. This is mainly due to the internal pore water pressure in
the dam that is unable to dissipate out as quickly as the lowering of water level in the
reservoir resulting in unbalance force equilibrium. The upstream slope will tends to be
pushed outward by the force of the internal pore water pressure in the dam and thus
reducing the stability. However, this problem can be overcome by proper geometry

78
design of the dam and also integration of drainage system to the dam such as sand
blanket or internal drain. And unless the upstream slope is constructed from an easily
draining material, the material will remain saturated and the developed pore water pressure
will reduce the resistance force used for the stability of the slope. So, to keep in safe
condition, it is better to put a soil of good permeability. Therefore in the case of Dora dam
since there is no proper geometry design of the dam and also integration of drainage
system to the dam such as internal drain and while the material in the U/S shell is easily
drainable material, the slope is not safe against sudden draw dawn condition.

The results of the dam stability analyses for 4 critical conditions using LEM are
summarized in Table below. Among the 4 LEMs, Janbu‟s Simplified method shows
almost the lowest FOS. This is mainly due to the moment equilibrium equations that are
not satisfied by Janbu‟s Simplified method compared to other methods. Generally, the
FOS analyzed by Bishop‟s Simplified, ordinary and GLE method produced
approximately similar results and all the FOS obtained under 4 main critical conditions
indicated that the dam is not stable except during end of construction in both upstream and
dawn stream slopes and upstream slope during steady state with seismic load of 0.1g.

Table: 4.3:Summary Result of FOS Slope Stability under Static Conditions

Steady state with End of Rapid

Critical stability Steady state seismic loading of construction draw
conditions 0.1g dawn
Upstream Down Upstream Down Upstream Downs Upstream
stream stream tream
Minimum 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.2
FOS(USACE,2003)

Ordinary/Fellenius 1.27 1.23 1.11 1.015 1.5 1.32 1.031

Bishop‟sSimplified 1.489 1.38 1.396 1.147 1.6 1.47 1.18

Janbu‟s Simplified 1.28 1.15 1.22 1.007 1.48 1.3 1.085

GLE 1.32 1.28 1.265 1.037 1.5 1.327 1.17

Con Stable * * *
dition
Unstable * * * *

79
4.3 calculation result of mitigation measure Analysis
In this research since Dora dam is already a constructed embankment dam having seepage at
the downstream surface, so it is difficult to apply all the control methods in order to ensure the
safety of dam as it is And some of the mitigation given in this study is according to authors
and world experienced perception. And the analysis is based on the result of total quantity
flux seepage (m3/s/m) and the maximum location (m) where water emerges from the ground
in the d/s boundary condition using seep/w soft ware model.

The quantified seepage flux is used to know the capacity of thickness filter material of the
constructed dam but not to place now since it could be the cause seepage problem to occure at
critical condition and it is also used in designing future another new dam thickness of filter
materials with considering the impact of foundation material to be on the safest side and the
boundary condition of d/s is used to design additional shoulder on the seepage sensitive area
of weak zone d/s shell during current condition of the dam to counter balance the uplift
pressure seepage developed and to protect the down stream slope against sliding.

4.3.1 Horizontal and vertical drains design

It is good practice (Cedergren, 1972, USBR, 1987) to design the horizontal drain to have
sufficient capacity to discharge the flow entering the drain from the dam foundation and from
the vertical drain without the phreatic surface rising into the low permeability fill (see Figure
below)

80
 Fig: 4.12:Cross-Sections of Earth Dam internal drain and vertical/horizontal chain

4.3.1.1 Determination of horizontal drain thickness

Cedergren (1972) gives a design for estimating the discharge capacity of horizontal drain
without pressurization based on

𝐊𝟏𝐡𝟐
𝐪= − − − − − −4.1
𝟐𝐋𝟏
Where K1 = permeability of the drain material- m/s
h = vertical thickness of the drain -m
Ld = length of the drain -m
q = discharge capacity per meter width of drain (width measured across river (m3/s/m)
Therefore according to the above equation horizontal drain thickness of Dora dam should be
as below.
Length of drain = 74m
K1= assumes for gravel = 0.01
q = 7.9e-4 m/s
h = sqrt (3.62e-7/0.01) *2*74 = 0.9m
Also according to the result the horizontal drain thickness = 0.9 m is based on layer of
gravel and sand on the D/S side underlying by drains to prevent the D/S side from
collapsing.

The capacity of the vertical drain is seldom a critical issue because the quantity of seepage
through the earth fill is small and the vertical drain width is dictated by construction factors.
However its capacity should be checked by:

81
 𝑘 2 𝑕2 𝑤
𝑞= − − − − − −4.
𝐿2
Where k2 = permeability of vertical drain; h2, L2 are as shown in the above Figure
w = width of drain.
When checking the design of the horizontal drain the following should be noted:
 Water from the abutments will flow towards the lowest part of the drain before flowing
out the toe of the dam. Hence the required flow capacity per unit width in this area will
be greater than the average flow per unit width under the dam;
 If a 3 layer filter drain is used, Zone 2B will dominate the discharge capacity;
 Conservative estimates of foundation permeability should be used for the design of the
horizontal drain, since failure to provide adequate capacity can lead to failure of the
dam, or the requirement for a stabilizing berm if the problem is recognized;
 Similarly, conservative estimates of the horizontal drain permeability should be used,
and care taken to ensure the drain is not contaminated by soil from the foundation during
construction.
Generally it is good practice to provide a 3 layer drain, so there is a large discharge capacity;

The downstream toe should be designed to ensure the drain outlet is not blocked by erosion of
soil of the embankment or the abutment. It is wise to provide a berm at the toe of the dam
above the drain to collect any material eroded off the downstream face of the dam.

The horizontal drainage blanket (filter drain) between shell material and the in-situ soil must
be provided in layers of graded materials. The bottom layer consists of 25cm sand followed
by 40 cm coarse gravel and the upper layer also consists of 25cm thick sand with a total of
0.9m horizontal drain thickness. The middle drain layer of gravel will lead seepage water on a
safe way out of the dam body towards the toe drain. The sand filter layers on both faces of
the gravel drain layer have the task to match the embankment material on top and the
foundation material at the bottom.

4.3.1.2 Design of Rock toe

At the downstream toe of the dam a rock toe combined with a drain is provided. The height of
the rock toe is kept equal to about 20% of reservoir depth which is about 9 m at the maximum

82
depth. One layers of graded filter (10 cm sand, 20cm gravel and 200cm rock toe) is provided
at the bottom contact face of the rock toe with the foundation soil. The fill materials of the
rock toe are big stones. To improve the drainage system of the dam, the rock toe will be
combined with a toe drain to collect and lead the seepage safely to the main drain. This
collector drain will have a bed width of 40 cm, a side slope of 1: 1 and a depth of 50 cm

4.3.1.3 Provision of D/S shoulder

As we have seen the phretic line during normal reservoir operation level or case three seepage
analysis condition, the maximum location (m) where water emerges from the bottom in the
d/s boundary condition is at 24.63m using seep/w soft ware mode.

Fig: 4.13: Steady State Seepage Analysis using site Boundary Condition at NPL
Therefore in order to safe the dam, additional shoulder at the d/s slope consists of 10cm sand
layer followed by 800 cm clay gravel(weathered dolerite) compacted in layer of 30cm with
enough moisture is recommended to prevent the d/s slope from sliding , to keep the phretic
line with in the dam body and to counter balance the uplift seepage pressure.

83
 Fig: 4.14: The new mitigation measure of design dawn stream shoulder

The additional shoulder is with average width of the shoulder = 8m and average height =35m
trough out the d/s slope which is shown as a blue color below.

Fig: 4.15: New Design Typical Integral Model of Dora Dam

Table 4.4: Hydraulic conductivity of soil material used for Mitigation analysis

Section Hydraulic Conductivity, k( m/s )

Shoulder 1×10–4
Core 1×10–4
Foundation 1×10–5
Shoulder 1×10–4

84
As shown in the figure below the phreatic line is within a dam body and the total quantity of
discharge at the center and toe of the dam section is 8.9e-4 m3/s/m and 8.4e4m3/s/m
respectively.

Fig: 4.16: Seepage Analysis after theRrecommended Mitigation Measure

Then safety of the dam d/s slope during stead state at NPL is there for checked with seismic
impute, the dam is there for stable as shown below.

Fig: 4.17: Dawn Stream Slope Analysis after Remediation during Steady state With Seismic
Load

85
 5. CONCLUSITON A N D RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
Excessive seepage from earth fill dams through dam body and dam foundation should
be seen from economic and dam safety point of view. Excessive seepage means less
water available for irrigation and water supply. Uncontrolled seepage through dam
foundation or dam body can be also a series treat for the dam safety if dam body or
foundation materials are washed away with the seeping water.

Several reasons has been described for seepage problem, but the author believes the
complexity of the geology where the dams are located and the method of investigation
coupled with lack of experience in data collection and analysis and considering problem of
construction history are the major factors attributed to this problem. Dam safety and
monitoring should be part of the routine task of the Bureau of Water Resources Energy
and Mines.

Dams having excessive seepage should be closely monitored and remedial measures
should be in place before severe damage or failure occurs.

During the field visit it was possible to observe the seeping water at the downstream of
Dora earth fill dam and it was very serious. And to know the causes of seepage failure in
Dora earth fill dam the following data were used: - Detail geo-physical survey study report,
observation, site and document investigation (measuring and sample taking) and interviewing.
and the result showed that the seepage failure of Dora earth fill dam is due to material
selection for embankment(material properties of shell and core are the same/homogenous
there is only color difference in the seepage sensitive area of the dam), foundation geology
data is weathered basalt and saturated enticho sand stone(such type of foundation will cause
loss of water from the reservoir and also the formation of channels will be facilated due to the
under flowing water and the channels may cause differential settlement which could be
followed by cracking of the dam or excessive settlement) , embankment construction( less
compaction and types of equipment used for compaction was different it was based on hand
tool and big dossiers), there is no properly filter placement during construction and less
quality material of filter used during construction and the geological formation near to the left
abutment of the dam is fractured and weathered basalt and has a contact with Enticho

86
sandstone this may also causes a seepage at both left abutment and central dam body at a
deepest section.

In this study the Geo-Slope software Seep/W and Slope/W model were used for seepage and
slope stability analysis in Dora earth fill Dam .Seepage analysis using Seep/W has been
carried out using different case conditions, and case three was selected for further analysis
since the causes of seepage problem is already identified and it can represent the actual
condition of the dam. And also due to suitability to put some mitigation measure to the future
of failed Dora earth fill dam. The result showed that average flow rate of seepage for the
entire length of the dam using case three operation condition is equal to 0.079m3/s or 79 l/s.
and the actual seepage measured at the downstream of the dam is 0.072 m3/s or 72 l/s.
Therefore, compared with the original estimated quantity of seepage is some varied .Hence
during the practical measurement there is some uncertainity in quantification of seepage
quantity.

The stability analysis using the slope/w software in Dora earth fill dam also carried out and
the stability analysis performed based on the four scenario these are during end of
construction, during steady with and without seismic loading for both upstream and dawn
stream slope and upstream slope during draw dawn and the result showed that all parts of
the dam are not safe within the prescribed rang of factors of safety for the possible
loading and operation cases except during end of construction and upstream slope during
steady with seismic load of 0.1g.The upstream and downstream slope of the dam at the end of
the construction phase is considered to be critical. Upstream slope of the dam at the steady
state with seismic loading of 0.1g phase is also considered to be in critical condition.

In these phases, the slope of the Dora earth fill dam is analyzed by Ordinary, Bishop, Janbu
and GLE methods and safety factors are calculated. It was found that the minimum factor of
safety is related to the janbu method at the dawn stream slope of the dam during steady state
with seismic loading of 0.1g phase with FOS= 1.007 and has the most critical safety factor
obtained when we compared with other loading and operation cases .

And t he maximum safety factor is related to the bishop‟s method at the upstream slope of
the dam during end of construction phase with FOS value of 1.6 compared to the other
loading and operation cases.

87
Generally the stability analysis of Dora earth fill dam performed based on the four scenarios
prescribed rang of factor of safety provided by United States army of Corpus for the
possible loading and operation. Therefore the minimum or most critical FOS is found in the
dawn stream slope during steady state with and without seismic load applied and upstream
slope during draw dawn condition compare to the other loading and operation condition.

5.2 Recommendation
 Before placing the filter material Further check up of the fine content of the filter in the
range of 3% (non-plastic) and after compaction 5% is needed.
 Placement of Vertical filter or horizontal filter with rock toe and well designed filter
according to the filter criteria should be done to protect possible defects in the
embankment core or controlling the pheritic surface within the body of the dam
 Flatting the slope( increasing the downstream slope) should be done with a reasonable
thickness and appropriate length of shoulder placed over the seepage areas at the
downstream face of the dam
 For the sake of future monitoring and rehabilitation works, dam instrumentation and
surveillance work must be incorporates.
 Evidence of seepage above the toe on the downstream face of the dam and left abutments
needs further investigation and reworks. Since the flowing water has the potential to
move soil particles that causes to piping or internal erosion.
 Verifying the permeability of the shell material is needed to determine the compaction
level for the core material (to avoid deferential settlement).
 Due to luck of data and instrument the differential settlement of the dam is not
performed. So, it needs further study.
 Design report should be prepared and reviewed by a panel of experts or other advisors
and geotechnical engineering consultants before any activities of construction work.

5.3 Remedial measure

Finally, though the proposed remedial measures are mainly based on the finding from the
existing document, ideas of author‟s professional judgment and reflection from world
experience. This study is recommends the remedial measures to solve the problem.
These are:-

88
 Placement of horizontal filter with rock toe and well designed filter according to the filter
criteria with a thickness of 2.3 m( one layer of graded filter with 10cm sand,20cm gravel
and 200cm rock toe of big stones) according to the seepage discharge to protect possible
defects in the embankment core or controlling the pheritic surface within the body of the
dam.
 Flatting the slope (increasing the downstream slope) with a reasonable thickness of 8m
and appropriate length of 35m shoulder with clayey gavel soil material or weathered
dolerite placed over the seepage area at the downstream face of the dam.
 Verifying the permeability of the shell material for compaction level of the shoulder
material to avoid collapsing or sliding of the dam.
 At the upstream part of the dam an impervious blanketing is one of the most efficient
measures since the source of water is controlled upstream of the embankment and its
foundation. It is clear that sealing of the u/s reservoir bottom and sides immediately u/s
of the embankment will be useful in reducing undesirable seepage quantities and
pressures beneath the embankment. The required thickness for blanketing is decided
after detail investigation of seepage quantity and general condition of the dam is
made.
 Berm control seepage is made by increasing the weight of the top stratum so that the
weight of the berm plus top stratum is sufficient to resist uplift pressure and the water
will not rise to the berm. Again, a seepage analysis must be made to determine the
resisting load required of the berm. Downstream slope stability of the embankment
will normally increase because of the resistance to sliding provided by the berm.

5.4 Lesson learnt

 Implementation Ownership needs not only to ensure a clear definition of responsibilities
and accountabilities of each implementing agency (bureau ,enterprise) but also creating a
common understanding by all;
 Quality assurance mechanisms need to be strengthened to improve the quality of
subprojects; and hence timely Multidisciplinary supportive supervision and design review
is a good opportunity to evaluate progresses, identify gaps and take corrective measures.

89
 Almost all staff in the respected bureau and enterprise cannot work without close follow-
up from the Regional Bureau's office or from the real concerned expertise. Hence, Strong
Follow up, implementation support and supervision is critical.
 Choosing of appropriate technologies based on the topography of the site is more curtails
than running simply to achieve the plan by campaigning manner.
 An exchange of information like giving of feedback is from top to bottom or vice versa is
very helpful in implementing of the projects.

90
 REFERENCES
Abramson, L. W, Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., and Boyce, G. M. (2002). Slope Stability Concepts.
Slope Stabilization and Stabilization Methods, Second edition, published by John
Willey &Sons, Inc., pp. 329‐461.

Abramson, L.W., Lee, T.S., Sharma, S. and Boyce, G.M. Slope Stability and Stabilization
Methods.2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, 712 p., 2001.

Anon 2003a: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual. [Online] Available:

Anon 2003b: Rocscience Inc. 2-D Limit Equilibrium slope Stability for soil and Rock Slopes,
2003.

Asmelash G. (2007): Horizontal Profile and Vertical Electrical Sounding for Existing Dam
Stablitiy Assessments Using Geo Physical investigation in Tigray, Mekelle, Ethiopia.

Bishop, A. W. (1955) the use of slip circles in stability analysis of slopes. Geotechnique,
Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 7‐17.

Bjerrum L, Simons NE (1960) Comparison of shear strength characteristis of normally

consolidated clays. Proc. ASCE Conference on Shear Strength of Cohesive Soils,
Boulde, Co
Casagrande, A. (1940). Seepage through dams, in Contributions to Soil Mechanics 1925
1940, Boston Society of Civil Engineers, Boston, MA, pp. 275-336.

Castro, G., Poulos, S.J. and Leathers, F.D., 1985.Re-Examination of slide of lower San
Fernando Dam. ASCE Journal of Ge technical Engineering, Vol. 3, No.9, 1093-1107.

Cheng, Y.M., Location of critical failure surface and some further studies on slope stability
analysis, Computers and Geo techniques 30 pp. 255–267, 2003.

Chugh, A. K.(1986).Variable Inters lice Force Inclination in Slope Stability Analysis. Soils
and Foundation, Japanese Society of SMFE, Vol 26, No. 1, pp. 115‐21.

Clough, R.W. and Woodward, R.J. (1967). Analysis of Embankment Stresses and
Deformations. Journal of Geotechnical Division, ASCE, 529-549. .

Craig, R.F. (2004), “Craig‟s Soil Mechanics”, Seventh edition, Spon Press

Desai, C. S. (1977). Drawdown analysis of slopes by numerical method. Journal of

Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 103(7), 667–676.

Duncan, J. M. & Wright, S. G. (2005), Soil Strength and Slope Stability, Canada: John
Wiley & Sons.

91
Duncan, J.M. & Dunlop, P. (1969). Slopes in stiff-fissured clays and shales.
Proceeding ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, 95(2),
467-492.

Finn, W.D. (1988). Dynamic Analysis in Geotechnical Engineering. In

J.L.VonThun,(Ed.), Proceeding of Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II –
Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication, 20.

Foster, M. A., Fell, R., Spannagle, M. (2000). “The statistics of embankment dam failures
and accidents,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, National Research Council Canada,
37(5), 1000-1024.

Fredlund, D. G. and Krahn, J. (1977). Comparison of slope stability methods of Analysis.

Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 429‐39.

Fredlund, D. G., Krahn, J. and Pufahl, D. E. (1981). The relationship between Limit
Equilibrium Slope Stability Methods. Proc. Of the 10th ICSMFE, Vol. 3,
Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 409‐16.

Geo-slope International Ltd. (2010a). Seepage Modeling with SEEP/W 2007 (4th Ed.).
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Geo-slope International Ltd. (2010b). Stability Modeling with SLOPE/W 2007 version (4th
Ed.). Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Gerrit, J.& Schiereck .(2004) design of small dams in Engineering Practice ( 2nd edition ).
Ven Stockum

Griffiths, D.V. (1980). Finite element analyses of walls, footing and slopes. Phd thesis,
Departement of Engineering, University of Manchester

Griffiths, D. V. & Lane, P.A. (1999). Slope Stability analysis by finite elements. Geo
technique 49(3), 387-403.

Hammouri, N.A., Malkawi, A.I.H., & Yamin, M.M.A. (2008). Stability analysis of slopes
using the finite element method and limiting equilibrium approach. Bulletin of
Engineering Geology and the Environment, 67(4), 471-478.

Harry R. Cedergren(1972), Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets ,Second Edition, New
York,USA.

Houston, S.L., Houston, W.N. & Padilla, J.M. (1987). Microcomputer-Aided Evaluation of
Earthquake-Induced Permanent Slope Displacements. Microcomputer in Civil
Engineering, 2, 207-222.

IS 1893 (Part I), 2002: Indian Standard Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of
Structures

92
Janbu, N. (1973). Slope Stability Computations. Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande
Volume, pp. 47‐86.

Liu,C.,and Evett,J.B.(1988). Soils and foundations. Singapore:prentice-Hall.

Leslie and Sarah (2009) Description and Classification of Soils Based on Their Particle Size.
Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes,Uk,London december, 2009.

Matsui, T. & San, K-C. (1992). Finite element slope stability analysis by shear trength
reduction technique. Soils Found, 32(1), 59-70.

Mohammed, A. (2009). Assessment of micro-dam irrigation projects and runoff Predictions

for ungauged catchments in Northern Ethiopia.Mekelle, Ethiopia

Mohammed, etal. 2006. Seepage through Homogenous and Non-Homogenous Earth Dams
Comparison between Observation and Simulation Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering.

Morgenstern,N. R. and Price, V. E. (1963).The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip

Surfaces. Geotechnique, Vol. 15, No. 1 pp. 77‐93.

Newmark, N.M. (1965). Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments. Geotechnique,

15 (2),129-160.

Panthulu, T.V., C. Krishnaiah and J. Shirke, 2001. Detection of seepage paths in earth
dams using self- potential and electrical resistivity methods. Journal of Engineering
Geology, 59(3-4): 281-295.

.P.Novak, A.I.B.Moffat, C.Nalluri and R.Narayanan (2001),Hydraulic Structures Third

Edition, London and New York

Ratnayaka, D. D., Lee, M. F. and Tiew, K. N. et al. (2008). An Engineering Guide to the
Saftey of Embankment Dams in the United Kingdom, Report 171, Building Research
Establishment, 1990new Edn

Robert B.Jansen (1988) Advanced Dam Engineering for Design, Construction, and
Rehabilitation, New York, USA.

Rocscience Inc. (2001). Application of the Finite Element method to Slope Stability.Toronto

Schiereck, Gerrit J. (2004) Introduction to Bed, Bank and Shore Protection ch.1Construction
pp 315 – 330 Pub Spon Press.

Smith, I.M. & Hobbs, R. (1974). Finite element analysis of centrifuged and built-upslopes.
Geotechnique, 24(4), 531-559.

93
Snitbahn, N. & Chen, W.F. (1976). Finite element analysis of large deformation in slopes.
In C.S. Desai (Ed.), Proceeding ASCE Conference on Numerical Method in
Geomechanics. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

Spencer E. (1973). Thrust Line Criterion in Embankment Stability Analysis. Geo

technique, 23(1), 85 – 100.

Stephens, T. 2010. Manual on small earth dams. A guide to siting, design &
construction(FAO irrigation & drainage paper N 64). Original edition, Food and
Agriculture organization of United nations

Taghavi J., M. Mehrdad, M.Veis Karami and A. Eslami, 2004. Geotechnical parameters
effect on embankment dam analysis and design. Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Dam Engineering, 18-20 October, Nanjing, China.

TBoWR (2006): Head work, irrigation infrastructure and Geology Design Report of Dora
Embankment Dam, Tigray Region, Mekelle.

Terzaghi, K. & Peck, R.B. (1922). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice (2nd edition).
New York: Wiley.

Tohari, A., Nishigaki, M. & Komatsu, M. (2007). Laboratory Rainfall-Induced Slope Failure
with Moisture Content Measurement. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133 (5).

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: Stability of Earth and Rock‐Fill Dams, U. S. Department of

Army, Corps of Engs. EM 110‐2‐190, 1970.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: Stability of Earth and Rock‐Fill Dams, U. S. Department of

Army, Corps of Engs. EM 110‐2‐1902, 2003.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Training Aids for Dam Safety, Module: Evaluation of
Hydrologic Adequacy, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO, 1993

Wright, S.G. (1969). A Study of Stability and Undrained Shear Strength of Clay Shales.
(PhD Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley, California.

Zaki, A. (1999). Slope stability analysis overview. University of Toronto

Zienkiewicz, O.C. (1971). The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Zomorodian, S. and M. Abodollahzadeh, 2010. Effect of Horizontal Drains on Upstream

Slope Stability During Rapid Drawdown Condition. International Journal of Geology.
4: 4.

94
95
96
97