STABILITY PROBLEMS OF AN EARTHFILL DAM IN RAPID DRAWDOWN CONDITION

Tho X. Tran1 Abstract: The paper is devoted to analyse the stability of the Dau Tieng main dam in rapid drawdown condition for two cases before and after rehabilitation, using limit equilibrium and finite element methods. Changes of stress-strain behaviours and pore pressure, failure mechanism, and factor of safety of the upstream slope are investigated. The stability of the upstream slope is dramatically decreased but still in stable during rapid drawdown condition. Keywords: stability, earthfill dam, rapid drawdown, limit equilibrium, finite elements. 1. INTRODUCTION The drawdown is known as one of the most dangerous conditions for the upstream slope. When the countervailing upstream water pressure has disappeared, it causes a danger to the upstream slope. The upstream shell cannot keep peace under the hydrodynamic pressure due to rapid drawdown. Soils inside the dam body remain saturated and seepage commences from it towards the upstream slope. Seepage and hydrodynamic pressures create downward forces acting on the upstream slope. Those are adverse to the stability and create a critical condition to the upstream slope [2]. When the phreatic line (free surface) falls slowly or remains almost at the same position, it is considered as rapid drawdown. The lag of the phreatic line or the rate of drawdown depends on four factors: permeability coefficient of the dam fills, drawdown rate, pore active volume, and upstream slope gradient. The case in which the water has to be quickly lowered for the special purpose of rehabilitation, or material of the dam slope is impermeable so the phreatic line does not fall so much even if this drawdown has lasted for several months, is a common problem in the reality [1]. The need to study the slope stability of earthfill dams during drawdown is necessary and imperative not only for the existing dams, but also for the design and construction other earthfill dam projects in the region. 2. METHODS OF SOLUTION The limit equilibrium method (LEM) according to Bishop and Petterson presented by computer program GEO4 is applied to define the potential slip surface and calculate the factor of safety of the dam slopes. The failure area is assumed and divided into a number of sections. The equilibrium of each section is considered and finally a factor of safety for the assumed slip surface is determined, considering the equilibrium of the whole mass. The potential slip surface and factor of safety are iteratively determined until a critical slip surface and minimum factor of safety have been found. The finite element method (FEM) performed by PLAXIS program is used to analyse the problem. The Hardening Soil model describing an elastoplastic type of hyperbolic model, formulated in the framework of hardening friction plasticity, is applied for the material behaviour of different soil types. The safety assessment is defined by the c-phi reduction assumption. ______________________
Tho X. Tran, Eng., M.Eng., PhD Student (3 rd), GTE, SvF, STU Bratislava, Radlinskeho 11, 813 68 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, E-mail: txtho@yahoo.com
1

The main goal in this analysis is to determine the deformation, stress-strain behaviour, pore pressures, failure mechanism, and factor of safety of the dam. 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM AND NUMERICAL MODEL The Dau Tieng Reservoir, which is located in Tay Ninh province in Southern Vietnam, with 1350 hectares of water surface and 1450 mil. m3 of water, is the biggest reservoir in the country. The main dam is a homogeneous earthfill with a height of 31 m above ground, a crest of 10 m, and a length of 1100 m. The slope inclination varies from 1: 3 to 1: 4.5 upstream and from 1: 3 to 1: 4 downstream. The subsoil contains two soft soil layers having about 9 m, and sand layers at the deeper level. The fills of sandy-silty clay do not have very high shear strength. Moreover, its permeability is not low enough to totally intercept the seepage through the dam. The Dau Tieng Reservoir was built in three years from 1981 to 1984 and has been put in service since 1984-1985. Many parts of the water work, after 15 years in operation, have been downgraded and damaged. The dam slopes were suspected to be not stable enough because the shear strength of the fills was not very high. The downstream drains were too few, so erosion might occur. Therefore, the main dam had to be repaired in 1999. Figure 1 describes a general cross-section of the dam before and after treatment by constructing a cut-off wall (0.6 m wide and 33 m high) in the dams body and stabilising berms in the downstream slope.
40 30 20
28

Max. water level

1:4 1:4.5
B

10

0 5 10 20 30 40 50m

1:3
C 1 A 9

1:3

10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50

5 6

Figure 1 General cross-section of the Dau Tieng main dam, and simulation of five-stage construction and selected points for analysis (1) Sandy-silty clay, (2) excavation and backfill, (3) Top soil of silt and fine sand (layer 1), (4) Sandy clay (layer 2), (5) Medium sand (layer 3), (6) Fine sand (layer 4), (7) Shoulder berm of silty clay (after rehabilitation), (8) Toe berm of coarse gravel, cobblestones, and clay (after rehabilitation), (9) Cut-off wall of 0.6 m wide (after rehabilitation).

The rapid drawdown is simulated by means of the staged construction mode. The water level in the reservoir is supposed to lower quickly into six steps. The maximum water level (from L = 28 m) is lowered in 3 m (to L = 25 m) at the first step, and then equally in 5 m for each following drawdown. The phreatic line is assumed to remain at its initial position during drawdown. The drained behaviour of the soil materials is employed for the analysis of rapid drawdown because the dam has been put into operation for a long time. Three points (A at the middle of the soft soil layer, B at the upstream toe, and C at the middle shoulder of the upstream slope) are typically chosen for the analysis (Fig. 1). All the input parameters of the soils and cut-off wall properties are shown in Tables 1 and 2 based on the PLAXIS code issue.

>20

11 7.5

3 4

1:4

1.5

12.5 7

7 1:4

11.5

Table 1 Parameters of the dam and subsoil, and stabilising berms

SandySandy silty clay clay (dam) (layer 2) 31 HS 19/21 510-7 22000 66000 22000 20 24 0 0.2 7.5 HS 18/19 110-8 10000 30000 10000 14 14 0 0.2 Medium sand (layer 3) 11 HS 18.5/19.5 510-6 20000 60000 20000 2 26 0 0.2 Fine Silty clay sand (shoulder (layer 4) berm) >20 HS 19/20 210-6 25000 75000 25000 3 29 0 0.2 HS 19/20 510-8 20000 6000 20000 26 16 0 0.2
Gravel, cobblestones & clay (toe berm)

Parameter Height/thickness Material model Dry/Wet soil weight Horizontal/vertical permeability Youngs modulus Secant stiffness Unloading/reloading stiffness Tangent stiffness Cohesion Angle of internal friction Angle of dilatancy Poissons ratio for unloading-reloading

Name h Model dry/wet kx/ky Eref

ref E50

Unit m kN/m3 m/s kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2 kN/m2 -

Linear elastic 21/22 110-4 50000 0.2

ref Eur
ref Eoed

c ur

Table 2 Properties of the cut-off wall Parameter Type of behaviour Normal stiffness Flexural rigidity Equivalent thickness Poissons ratio Name Material type EA EI d Value Elastic 5.010 1.510 0.6 0.15
6 5

Unit kN/m kNm2/m m -

4. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS 4.1 Pore pressure Pore water pressure in the dams body seems not to change very much at all drawdown levels. Even when the water is almost empty, pore water pressure in the dams body is still high because the phreatic line does not drop. However, pore water pressure in the upstream toe decreases due to a disappearance of the overburden water load. The foundation beneath the dam is impermeable and thus has no draining effect upon the dam during drawdown. The permeability and consolidation process of the filling materials also effect on the change of pore water pressure in the upstream shell during drawdown. In order to lower the phreatic line and pore water pressure as well as the hydrodynamic pressure in the upstream shell, the drains in the upstream slopes base and at the intermediate level should be installed if appropriate. These upstream drains are capable of draining the upstream slope and making the equipotential lines tend to become horizontal. They have a very significant effect on the stability of the upstream slope during drawdown.

4.2 Stress-strain behaviours Figure 2 describes stress paths given as the changes in the effective horizontal and vertical stresses during rapid drawdown at points A, B, and C. It can be seen that the stress path at points A almost moves along the line representing h = constant, while the stress path at point C moves inwards and outwards the lines representing h = constant and (v - h)/2 = constant. It can be understood that the decrease in the effective vertical stresses is greater than the increase in the effective horizontal stresses in the dams body. The stress path at point B moves outwards the lines representing h = constant and (v - h)/2 = constant, which means that the changes in effective vertical stresses are greater than the changes in effective horizontal stresses. The decrease in the major effective stresses is greater than the increase in the minor effective stresses. The decrease of the major effective stresses results in a decrease in the effective shear strength of soils in the upstream slope, leadings a decline of the upstream slope stability.
100 80 ('v - 'h )/2 [kN/m ]
2

60 40 20 0 -20 -40 0 50 100 150 200 2 250 ('v +'h )/2 [kN/m ] 300 350 Point A Point B Point C

c = 20 kPa, = 24o c = 14 kPa, = 14o

Figure 2 Stress path in rapid drawdown at points A, B, and C (before rehabilitation)

4.3 Failure mechanism When the water in the reservoir is at the maximum level, the potential failure surface dominantly takes place in the downstream slope at the highest danger degree. Soils in the dam tend to displace to the downstream slope as seen in Figures 3 and 5. Since the water level commences to lower, soils change to move from the upstream to the upstream slope. The potential slip surface or failure mechanism changes to occur in the upstream slope. When the water just passes the level of 1/2H, the upstream slope is dominant to be destabilised to the downstream one. The potential mechanism of collapse occurs in the upstream and moves from the dam crest to ground as described in Figures 4 and 6. The insufficient stability may occur in the upstream slope as soon as the water is lower than the drawdown level of 1/3H. It can be explained that the water load has disappeared during rapid drawdown and the hydrodynamic pressure creates the tensile-downward forces, resulting in a decrease of the shear resistance of the upstream slope. Besides, there is no supporting pressure to resist against mobilising of the upstream slope, and the high negative pore water pressure remains in the dam slopes as the result of soil saturated, reducing the effective shear resistance of the upstream slope. The cut-off wall seems not to resist any failures in the upstream shell. The water load in the reservoir plays an important role in resisting the potential failure and in increasing the stability of the upstream slope.

Figure 3 Vectors of incremental displacement at maximum water level (before rehabilitation)

Figure 4 Vectors of incremental displacement at drawdown of L/H=1/3 (before rehabilitation)

Figure 5 Vectors of incremental displacement at maximum water level (after rehabilitation)

Figure 6 Vectors of incremental displacement at drawdown of L/H=1/3 (after rehabilitation)

4.4 Factor of safety The results of factor of safety (FS) of the upstream slope before rehabilitation (without cut-off wall and stabilising berms) are finally plotted in Figure 5 for different ratio of L/H. The interesting results shown in Figure 7 indicate that the FS decreases dramatically from the beginning of drawdown to the level of 1/3H. When L = 1/3H the value of FS = 1.40 can be considered nearly minimum. The differences of FS are not so great in the range of drawdown lower than 1/3H, roughly constant FS = 1.22 1.40. The value of FS decreases approximately 34% at the drawdown level of 1/3H and nearly 43% at the emptying.

In the initial stages of drawdown, the increased weight of the slope has a proportionally greater destabilising effect than the increased frictional strength. At the lower levels of drawdown, the increased frictional strength starts to have a greater influence than the increased weight. The results of FS of the upstream slope after the rehabilitation (with cut-off wall and stabilising berms) are drawn in Figure 8 for different ratio of L/H. The value of FS is equal to 1.47 at the drawdown level of 1/3H and 1.27 at the emptying. The value of FS decreases about 35% at the drawdown level of 1/3H and around 44% at the emptying. It can be inferred that the results of two cases are almost similar and the difference is very small, only about 5.2%. The presence of the cut-off wall dose not effect very much on the FS value of the upstream slope during rapid drawdown. It can be concluded that the critical degree of FS during the rapid drawdown can be considered at the drawdown level of 1/3H, not until the emptying. An explanation of the critical FS is due to the cohesive strength of the slope and the trade-off between soil weight and soil shear strength as the drawdown level is varied. The fully submerged slope is more stable than the dry slope, as indicated by a higher FS.
2.4 2.2 Factor of safety 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
L/H

Factor of safety

LEM - Bishop LEM - Petterson FEM

2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0

LEM - Bishop LEM - Petterson FEM

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
L/H

Figure 7 FS of the upstream slope in rapid drawdown for different values of ratio L/H by different methods (without cut-off wall).

Figure 8 FS of the upstream slope in rapid drawdown for different values of ratio L/H by different methods (with cut-off wall)

L water level at each rapid drawdown, H dam height 5. CONCLUSIONS The stability of the upstream slope of the Dau Tieng main dam dramatically decreases during rapid drawdown. The most dangerous degree may occur at the drawdown from 1/3H, not always at the complete emptying. The average FS values in both cases before and after rehabilitation are not different; they decrease about 35% at the drawdown level of 1/3H and 44% at the emptying. However, the upstream slope is still stable during rapid drawdown. The results obtained from the LEM and FEM analyses are very agreeable and reasonable. The LEM and FEM can be used to predict the dam stability as well as behaviours during design. Those methods can be considered useful approaches for solving the stability problems. 6 REFERENCES [1] C. B. Abadjiev (1994): Safety assessment and stability improvement of the upstream slope of earth dams. Proc. of the 18th ICOLD Congress. Durban, South Africa. Vol. 1, Q. 68, R. 20, pp 261-273. [2] Tran X. Tho (2001-2004): Stability problems of earthfill dams. Doctoral Dissertation, Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, (in progress). The paper has been supported by the Grant Project No. 1/9066/02