ISSN 0077-880X

THE UNIVERSITY OF
NEW SOUTH WALES

STUDIES FROM
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

THE DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF

EMBANKMENT DAMS

G. HUNTER and R. FELL

Eppalock dam during remedial works in 1999

photo courtesy of Goulburn Murray Water

UNICIV REPORT No. R-416 FEBRUARY 2003

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SYDNEY 2052 AUSTRALIA

ISBN : 85841 383 3

 The University of New South Wales
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET ISSN 0077-880X

1. UNICIV Report No. R-416 2. ISBN : 85841 383 3 3. Date : 12 February 2003

4. Title DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF EMBANKMENT DAMS

GAVAN HUNTER
5. Author(s)
ROBIN FELL

embankment dams, puddle dams, deformation, “abnormal” deformation,

6. Keywords
during construction, post construction.

This report presents the findings of the analysis of the deformation behaviour
of embankment dams.
7. Abstract
The deformation behaviour during construction, on first filling and post first
filling has been analysed from a database of some 134 embankments,
including earthfill, zoned earthfill, zoned earth and rockfill and puddle core
earthfill embankments. Factors influencing the stress conditions, the strength
and compressibility properties of the embankment materials, and the
interaction between embankment zones have been evaluated. Method for
identification of potentially “abnormal” deformation behaviour have been
developed and mechanism/s for the “abnormal” deformation behaviour
assessed on a case by case basis. Guidelines are presented for prediction of
the deformation behaviour during and post construction that incorporate the
significant factors found to influence the deformation behaviour for the
various embankment types considered.

Text = 242 pages

Appendix A = 75 pages
8. Number of pages Appendix B = 131 pages
Appendix C = 36 pages
Appendix D = 28 pages
 -i-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1
1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY........................................................................................................................1
1.2 DEFINITIONS ...............................................................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Embankment Dam Zoning Classification............................................................................................2
1.2.2 Classification of Rockfill Placement ...................................................................................................3
1.3 DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF ROCKFILL .................................................................................................4

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................................5

2.1 FAILURE AND ACCIDENT STATISTICS .........................................................................................................5
2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EMBANKMENT DAMS AS THIS AFFECTS DEFORMATION
BEHAVIOUR.............................................................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Earth and Earth-Rockfill Dams ..........................................................................................................5
2.2.2 Puddle Core Earthfill Dams................................................................................................................6
2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEFORMATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS.........................................................7
2.3.1 Deformation Properties of Rockfill .....................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Deformation Properties of Earthfill....................................................................................................8
2.3.3 Summary of Research on Puddle Core Earthfill Dams.......................................................................8
2.4 PREDICTIVE METHODS OF DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR ...........................................................................10
2.4.1 Empirical Predictive Methods...........................................................................................................10
2.4.2 Numerical Methods ...........................................................................................................................14

3.0 DATABASE OF CASE STUDIES...........................................................................................17

3.1 EARTHFILL AND ZONED EARTH AND EARTH-ROCKFILL EMBANKMENTS ...............................................17
3.2 PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL EMBANKMENTS ..............................................................................................17

4.0 GENERAL DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF EARTHFILL AND ZONED

EARTH AND EARTH-ROCKFILL EMBANKMENTS......................................................21
4.1 DEFORMATION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF EARTH AND EARTH-ROCKFILL EMBANKMENTS ................21
4.1.1 Stresses During Construction ...........................................................................................................21
4.1.2 Lateral Deformation of the Core During Construction ....................................................................34
4.1.3 Vertical Deformation of the Core During Construction ...................................................................40
4.2 DEFORMATION ON FIRST FILLING ............................................................................................................54
4.2.1 Effect of Water Load on the Core......................................................................................................55
4.2.2 Collapse Compression During First Filling .....................................................................................57
4.2.3 Lateral Surface Deformation Normal to the Dam Axis During First Filling....................................66
4.3 POST CONSTRUCTION DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF EARTH AND EARTH-ROCKFILL
EMBANKMENTS .....................................................................................................................................76
4.3.1 Post Construction Internal Vertical Deformation of the Core..........................................................76
4.3.2 Post Construction Total Deformation of Surface Monitoring Points ...............................................79
4.3.3 Post Construction Crest Settlement Versus Time..............................................................................84
 - ii -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

4.3.4 Post Construction Horizontal Displacement of the Crest Normal to the Dam Axis. ......................102
4.3.5 Post Construction Deformation of the Mid to Upper Downstream Slope ......................................109
4.3.6 Post Construction Deformation of the Upper Upstream Slope and Upstream Crest .....................115

5.0 GENERAL DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL

EMBANKMENTS ..................................................................................................................123
5.1 DEFORMATION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL EMBANKMENTS .....................123
5.2 DEFORMATION DURING FIRST FILLING OF PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL EMBANKMENTS .......................124
5.2.1 Collapse Compression of Poorly Compacted Filling......................................................................125
5.3 DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR POST FIRST FILLING OF PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL DAMS .......................128
5.3.1 Available Deformation Records ......................................................................................................128
5.3.2 Long-term Settlement Rate Index ....................................................................................................131
5.3.3 “Normal” Deformation Under “Steady State” Conditions ............................................................132
5.3.4 “Normal” Deformation Under Normal Reservoir Operation and Fluctuating Phreatic
Surface in the Upstream Shoulder ..................................................................................................133
5.3.5 Deformation During Abnormally Large Drawdown Events ...........................................................137
5.3.6 Factors Affecting the Long-term Deformation Behaviour of Puddle Core Dams...........................140

6.0 “ABNORMAL” EMBANKMENT DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR – METHODS

OF IDENTIFICATION AND CASE STUDIES ..................................................................142
6.1 METHODS OF IDENTIFICATION OF “ABNORMAL” DEFORMATION ..........................................................142
6.2 “ABNORMAL” DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR DURING CONSTRUCTION OF EARTH AND EARTH-
ROCKFILL EMBANKMENTS .................................................................................................................143
6.2.1 Plastic Deformation of the Core During Construction...................................................................143
6.2.2 Collapse Compression of the Central Earthfill Zone......................................................................146
6.2.3 Reservoir Filling During Construction...........................................................................................147
6.2.4 Shear Surface Development in the Core During Construction.......................................................147
6.3 “ABNORMAL” DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR POST CONSTRUCTION OF ZONED EARTH AND
ROCKFILL EMBANKMENTS .................................................................................................................149
6.3.1 Rockfill Susceptibility to Collapse Compression ............................................................................150
6.3.2 Deformation on First Filling in Embankments where Collapse Compression occurs in the
Upstream Rockfill Shoulder ............................................................................................................153
6.3.3 Development of Shear Surfaces Within the Earthfill Core..............................................................164
6.3.4 Post First Filling Acceleration in Deformation that is Not Known to be Shear Related................182
6.3.5 Other Case Studies with Potentially “Abnormal” Deformation Behaviour Post Construction .....183
6.4 “ABNORMAL” DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR POST CONSTRUCTION OF EARTHFILL AND ZONED
EMBANKMENTS WITH VERY BROAD CORE WIDTHS..........................................................................189
6.4.1 Collapse Compression of the Earthfill on Wetting..........................................................................189
6.4.2 “High” Shear Stress or Marginal Stability Conditions Within the Embankment...........................195
6.4.3 The Effect of the Development of the Phreatic Surface on the Displacement of the Crest and
Downstream Shoulder.....................................................................................................................203
6.4.4 Other Cases of Potential “Abnormal” Deformation Behaviour.....................................................203
6.5 “ABNORMAL” DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL DAMS .................................206
6.5.1 Comparison with the Deformation Behaviour of Other Puddle Dams ...........................................206
6.5.2 General Movement Trends Indicative of Deformation to Failure ..................................................208
 - iii -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

6.5.3 Other Indicators of “Abnormal” Deformation Behaviour..............................................................209

6.6 SUMMARY OF “ABNORMAL” DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR ....................................................................209

7.0 SUMMARY AND METHODS FOR PREDICTION OF DEFORMATION OF

EMBANKMENT DAMS........................................................................................................215
7.1 EARTHFILL, AND ZONED EARTH AND EARTH-ROCKFILL DAMS ............................................................215
7.1.1 Prediction of Deformation Behaviour During Construction for Earthfill and Zoned Earth
and Earth-Rockfill Embankments....................................................................................................215
7.1.2 Prediction of Deformation Behaviour Post Construction for Earthfill and Zoned Earth and
Earth-Rockfill Embankments...........................................................................................................217
7.2 PUDDLE CORE EARTHFILL DAMS ...........................................................................................................223

8.0 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................224

9.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................225

10.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................226

Appendix A: Summary Tables and Plots for Earthfill and Earth-Rockfill Embankments
Appendix B: Selected Case Studies of Earthfill and Earth-Rockfill Embankments
Appendix C: Blowering Dam
Appendix D: Puddle Core Earthfill Dams
 - iv -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Historical summary of rockfill usage in embankment design (Galloway 1939; Cooke 1984;
Cooke 1993). ....................................................................................................................................................6
Table 2.2: Mechanisms affecting the long-term deformation behaviour of old puddle core earthfill
embankments (Tedd et al 1997a). ....................................................................................................................9
Table 2.3: Vertical compression of rolled, well-compacted earthfills measured during construction
(adapted from Sherard et al 1963)..................................................................................................................12
Table 2.4: Published ranges of post construction deformation of embankment dams ..........................................13
Table 3.1: Central core earth and rockfill embankments in the database ..............................................................18
Table 3.2: Zoned earth and rockfill embankment case studies..............................................................................19
Table 3.3: Zoned earthfill embankment case studies.............................................................................................19
Table 3.4: Earthfill embankment case studies .......................................................................................................20
Table 3.5: Puddle core earthfill embankment case studies....................................................................................20
Table 4.1: Multiplying coefficients for the calculation of the total vertical stress at the embankment
centreline at end of construction to the embankment height ratio (h/H) according to Equation 4.1..............23
Table 4.2: Properties of central core used in finite difference analyses ................................................................25
Table 4.3: Lateral deformations of the central core at end of construction for central core earth and
rockfill embankments.....................................................................................................................................35
Table 4.4: Summary of embankment and earthfill properties for cases used in the analysis of lateral core
deformation during construction. ...................................................................................................................37
Table 4.5: Confined secant moduli during construction for well-compacted, dry placed earthfills......................44
Table 4.6: Equations of best fit for core settlement versus embankment height during construction...................53
Table 4.7: Equations of best fit for core settlement (as a percentage of embankment height) versus
embankment height during construction ........................................................................................................53
Table 4.8: Properties of central core used in finite difference analyses ................................................................62
Table 4.9: Lateral displacement of the crest (centre to downstream edge) on first filling. ...................................68
Table 4.10: Thirteen cases with largest downstream crest displacement on first filling .......................................71
Table 4.11: Typical range of post construction crest settlement. ..........................................................................80
Table 4.12: Typical range of post construction settlement of the upstream and downstream shoulders. .............84
Table 4.13: Summary of long-term crest settlement rates (% per log cycle of time). ...........................................95
Table 4.14: Range of long-term settlement rate of the downstream slope. .........................................................110
Table 4.15: Range of long-term settlement rate of the upper upstream slope and upstream crest region. ..........117
Table 5.1: Summary of the post construction surface deformations of the puddle core earthfill dam case
studies...........................................................................................................................................................129
Table 6.1: Embankments for which collapse compression caused moderate to large settlements......................151
Table 7.1: Figure references for post construction crest deformation .................................................................217
Table 7.2: Figure references for post construction deformation of the embankment shoulders..........................218
Table 7.3: References to post construction settlement magnitude tables and plots.............................................219
Table 7.4: Embankment crest region, typical range of post construction settlement and long-term
settlement rate ..............................................................................................................................................219
Table 7.5: Embankment shoulder regions, typical range of post construction settlement and long-term
settlement rate ..............................................................................................................................................220
Table 7.6: References to tables and figures of long-term settlement rate............................................................220
Table 7.7: Predictive methods of long-term crest settlement and displacement under normal reservoir
operating conditions for puddle core earthfill embankments .......................................................................223
 -v-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Dam zoning categories of embankment types (Foster et al 1998) ........................................................3
Figure 1.2: Embankment zoning classification system (Foster 1999).....................................................................3
Figure 2.1: Typical stress-strain relationship of rockfill from a triaxial compression test (Mori and Pinto
1988) ..............................................................................................................................................................15
Figure 4.1: Embankment construction indicating (a) broad layer width to embankment depth ratio in the
early stages of construction and (b) narrow layer width to embankment depth ratio in the latter stages
of construction................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 4.2: (a) Total vertical stress (σz,EOC) contours at end of construction for 1.8H to 1V embankment
slopes, and (b) vertical stress ratio, Z1, versus h/H under the embankment axis for various
embankment slopes. .......................................................................................................................................23
Figure 4.3: Embankment model for finite difference analysis during construction. .............................................25
Figure 4.4: Total vertical stress, total lateral stress, and lateral (horizontal) displacement distributions at
end of construction for zoned earthfill finite difference analysis...................................................................26
Figure 4.5: Finite difference modelling results; (a) total vertical stress on the dam centreline at end of
construction, (b) settlement profile at dam axis at end of construction, and (c) lateral deformation at
Point a (Figure 4.3) during construction. .......................................................................................................27
Figure 4.6: Finite element analysis of zoned embankments highlighting arching of core zone from (a)
Beliche dam at about mid-height, elevation 22.5 m (Naylor et al 1997), and (b) a puddle core
embankment (Dounias et al 1996). ................................................................................................................28
Figure 4.7: Estimated versus measured (from pressure cells) total vertical stresses during construction.............29
Figure 4.8: Total vertical stress profiles from the numerical analysis of construction for zoned
embankments with different core slopes; (a) 0.2H to 1V case, (b) 0.5H to 1V case, and (c) total
vertical stress at h/H = 0.70 with increasing embankment height..................................................................30
Figure 4.9: Idealised types of pore water pressure response in the core during construction. ..............................31
Figure 4.10: Pore pressure response during construction in the core zone of clayey earthfills placed at
close to or wet of Standard Optimum moisture content.................................................................................32
Figure 4.11: Triaxial isotropic compression tests with staged undrained loading and partial drainage on a
partially saturated silty sand (Bishop 1957)...................................................................................................33
Figure 4.12: Estimated lateral displacement ratio of the core at end of construction............................................36
Figure 4.13: Estimated lateral displacement ratio of the core versus fill height above gauge during
construction. ...................................................................................................................................................36
Figure 4.14: Lateral displacement ratio and pore water pressure versus fill height or measured total
vertical stress at (a) Dartmouth dam; (b) Blowering dam; (c) Talbingo dam and (d) Thomson dam............39
Figure 4.15: Vertical stress versus strain of the core during construction for selected cross-arm intervals
of selected case studies; (a) dry placed clay cores, and (b) dry placed dominantly sandy and gravelly
cores with plastic fines. ..................................................................................................................................42
Figure 4.16: Confined secant moduli of the core versus vertical stress during construction for selected
cross-arm intervals of selected case studies, (a) dry placed clay cores, and (b) dry placed dominantly
sandy and gravelly cores with plastic fines....................................................................................................42
Figure 4.17: Seating settlements at low stresses suspected as cause of low moduli estimates at low
stresses............................................................................................................................................................43
Figure 4.18: Vertical strain versus effective vertical stress in the core at end of construction for (a) dry
placed clay earthfills and (b) dry placed dominantly sandy and gravelly earthfills. ......................................45
Figure 4.19: Confined secant moduli versus effective vertical stress in the core at end of construction for
(a) dry placed clay earthfills and (b) dry placed dominantly sandy and gravelly earthfills. ..........................46
 - vi -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Figure 4.20: Vertical strain in the core versus fill height during construction at selected cross-arm
intervals in selected case studies of earthfills placed close to or wet of Standard optimum, for (a) thin
core (combined slopes less than 0.5H to 1V), and (b) medium cores (combined slope ≥ 0.5H to 1V
and < 1H to 1V)..............................................................................................................................................48
Figure 4.21: Vertical strain in the core versus fill height at end of construction for dominantly sandy and
gravelly earthfills with plastic fines placed close to or wet of Standard optimum, for (a) thin cores
(combined slopes less than 0.5H to 1V), and (b) medium to thick cores (combined slope ≥ 0.5H to
1V)..................................................................................................................................................................49
Figure 4.22: Vertical strain of the core versus fill height at end of construction for clay earthfills placed
close to or wet of Standard optimum moisture content, for (a) thin core (combined slopes less than
0.5H to 1V), and (b) medium to thick cores (combined slope ≥ 0.5H to 1V)................................................50
Figure 4.23: Core settlement during construction of earth and earth-rockfill embankments (a) including
Nurek dam, and (b) excluding Nurek dam. ....................................................................................................52
Figure 4.24: Effect of reservoir filling on a zoned embankment (Nobari and Duncan 1972b) .............................54
Figure 4.25: Water load acting on a homogeneous earthfill dam..........................................................................55
Figure 4.26: Lateral stress distribution at (a) end of construction, and (b) reservoir full condition, for
central core earth and rockfill embankment with core of similar compressibility properties to the
rockfill............................................................................................................................................................56
Figure 4.27: Lateral stress distribution at (a) end of construction, and (b) reservoir full condition, for a
central core earth and rockfill embankment with wet placed core of low undrained strength.......................57
Figure 4.28: Compression curves for dry and wet states and collapse compression from the dry to wet
state for Pyramid gravel in the laboratory oedometer test (Nobari and Duncan 1972a). ...............................58
Figure 4.29: Idealised effect of matric suction on collapse compression of earthfills (Khalili 2002)...................59
Figure 4.30: Cracking caused by post construction differential settlement between the core and the
dumped rockfill shoulders (Sherard et al 1963). ............................................................................................60
Figure 4.31: Embankment model for finite difference analysis during first filling...............................................62
Figure 4.32: Model of the stress-strain relationship of the upstream rockfill incorporating collapse
compression for the linear-elastic range in one-dimensional vertical compression.......................................62
Figure 4.33: Case 8 – “dry” placed, very stiff core modelling collapse compression in the upstream
rockfill; numerical results of (a) vertical and (b) lateral displacement on first filling. ..................................63
Figure 4.34: Case 9 – “dry” placed, very stiff core without collapse compression; numerical results of (a)
vertical and (b) lateral displacement on first filling. ......................................................................................63
Figure 4.35: Case 10 – “wet” placed clay core of low undrained strength modelling collapse compression
in the upstream rockfill. Numerical results of vertical and lateral deformation on first filling; (a) and
(b) for reservoir at 40% of embankment height, (c) and (d) for reservoir at 98% of embankment
height..............................................................................................................................................................64
Figure 4.36: Case 11 – “wet” placed clay core without collapse compression; numerical results of (a)
vertical and (b) lateral displacement on first filling. ......................................................................................65
Figure 4.37: Regional division of the embankment for analysis of post construction surface deformation. ........66
Figure 4.38: Lateral displacement of the crest (centre or downstream region) on first filling versus
embankment height (displacement is after the end of embankment construction). .......................................69
Figure 4.39: Lateral displacement of the downstream slope (mid to upper region) on first filling versus
embankment height (displacement is after the end of embankment construction). .......................................73
Figure 4.40: Lateral displacement at the upper upstream slope of upstream crest region on first filling
versus embankment height (displacement after the end of embankment construction).................................74
Figure 4.41: Lateral displacement of the crest (centre to downstream region) on first filling versus
downstream slope...........................................................................................................................................75
 - vii -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Figure 4.42: Lateral displacement of the downstream slope (mid to upper region) on first filling versus
downstream slope...........................................................................................................................................75
Figure 4.43: Post construction internal settlement of the core at Talbingo dam (IVM ES1 at the main
section). ..........................................................................................................................................................77
Figure 4.44: Post construction internal settlement of the core at Copeton dam (IVM B, 9 m downstream of
dam axis at main section)...............................................................................................................................78
Figure 4.45: Post construction internal settlement of the core at Bellfield dam....................................................78
Figure 4.46: Post construction crest settlement at 3 years after end of construction, (a) all data, (b) data
excluding Ataturk...........................................................................................................................................80
Figure 4.47: Post construction crest settlement at 10 years after end of construction...........................................81
Figure 4.48: Post construction crest settlement at 20 to 25 years after end of construction..................................81
Figure 4.49: Post construction settlement of the downstream slope (mid to upper region) at 3 years after
end of construction.........................................................................................................................................82
Figure 4.50: Post construction settlement of the downstream slope (mid to upper region) at 10 years after
end of construction.........................................................................................................................................82
Figure 4.51: Post construction settlement of the upper upstream slope and upstream crest region at 3 years
after end of construction.................................................................................................................................83
Figure 4.52: Post construction settlement of the upper upstream slope and upstream crest region at 10
years after end of construction. ......................................................................................................................83
Figure 4.53: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central core
zones of dry placed clayey earthfills; (a) all data, (b) data excluding Ataturk...............................................87
Figure 4.54: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central core
zones of wet placed clayey earthfills..............................................................................................................88
Figure 4.55: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central core
zones of dry placed clayey sand to clayey gravel (SC to GC) earthfills. .......................................................88
Figure 4.56: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central core
zones of wet placed clayey sand to clayey gravel (SC to GC) earthfills........................................................89
Figure 4.57: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central core
zones of silty sand to silty gravel (SM to GM) earthfills. ..............................................................................90
Figure 4.58: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with central core zones of clayey
earthfills of thick width (1 to 2.5H to 1V combined width)...........................................................................90
Figure 4.59: Crest settlement versus time for zoned embankments with central core zones of silty to
clayey gravel and sand (SC, GC, SM, GM) earthfills of thick width (1 to 2.5H to 1V combined
width). ............................................................................................................................................................91
Figure 4.60: Crest settlement versus time for embankments with very broad core widths (> 2.5H to 1V
combined width) and limited foundation influence. ......................................................................................92
Figure 4.61: Crest settlement versus time for embankments with very broad core widths (> 2.5H to 1V
combined width) and potentially significant foundation influence................................................................93
Figure 4.62: Long-term post construction crest settlement rate for zoned earthfill and earth-rockfill
embankments of thin to thick core widths, (a) all data, and (b) data excluding Ataturk. ..............................94
Figure 4.63: Long-term post construction crest settlement rate for embankments of very broad core width,
(a) all data, and (b) data excluding Belle Fourche, Roxo and Rector Creek. .................................................95
Figure 4.64: Crest settlement versus time for central core earth and rockfill embankments with central
core zones of clayey earthfills and steady post first filling reservoir operation.............................................99
Figure 4.65: Crest settlement versus time for central core earth and rockfill embankments with thin to
thick central core zones of clayey earthfills subjected to seasonal reservoir fluctuation. ..............................99
Figure 4.66: Post construction settlement and reservoir operation at Enders dam (data courtesy of USBR). ....102
 - viii -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Figure 4.67: Post construction settlement at main section and reservoir operation at San Luis dam (data
courtesy of USBR). ......................................................................................................................................102
Figure 4.68: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central
core zones of dry placed clayey earthfills. ...................................................................................................103
Figure 4.69: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central
core zones of wet placed clayey earthfills....................................................................................................104
Figure 4.70: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central
core zones of dry placed clayey sand and clayey gravel (SC/GC) earthfills................................................104
Figure 4.71: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central
core zones of wet placed clayey sand and clayey gravel (SC/GC) earthfills. ..............................................105
Figure 4.72: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with thin to medium width central
core zones of silty sand and silty gravel (SM/GM) earthfills.......................................................................105
Figure 4.73: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with central core zones of clayey
earthfills of thick width (1 to 2.5H to 1V combined width).........................................................................106
Figure 4.74: Crest displacement versus time for zoned embankments with central core zones of silty to
clayey sand and gravel earthfills of thick width (1 to 2.5H to 1V combined width). ..................................106
Figure 4.75: Crest displacement versus time for embankments with very broad core zones (> 2.5H to 1V
width) and with limited foundation influence on the embankment deformation. ........................................107
Figure 4.76: Crest displacement versus time for embankments with very broad core zones (> 2.5H to 1V
width) and with potentially significant foundation influence on the embankment deformation..................107
Figure 4.77: Crest displacement normal to dam axis post first filling.................................................................109
Figure 4.78: Long-term settlement rates for the downstream slope (mid to upper region) versus
embankment height; (a) all data, and (b) data excluding Belle Fourche......................................................111
Figure 4.79: Post construction settlement of the downstream shoulder (mid to upper region) for selected
case studies...................................................................................................................................................112
Figure 4.80: Post construction displacement of the downstream shoulder (mid to upper region) for
selected case studies of embankments with very broad core widths............................................................113
Figure 4.81: Post construction displacement of the downstream shoulder (mid to upper region) for
selected case studies of central core earth and rockfill embankments. ........................................................114
Figure 4.82: Post construction displacement of the downstream shoulder (mid to upper region) for
embankments with compacted earthfills and gravels in the downstream shoulder......................................115
Figure 4.83: Long-term settlement rates of the upper upstream slope to upstream crest region of earthfill
and earth-rockfill embankments...................................................................................................................118
Figure 4.84: Post construction settlement of the upper upstream slope to upstream crest region for
embankments with poorly compacted rockfill in the upstream slope. .........................................................119
Figure 4.85: Post construction settlement of the upper upstream slope to upstream crest region for
selected case studies (excluding poorly compacted rockfills)......................................................................119
Figure 4.86: Post construction lateral displacement of the upper upstream slope and upstream crest region
for selected case studies of embankments with rockfill in the upstream shoulder.......................................121
Figure 4.87: Post construction lateral displacement of the upper upstream slope to upstream crest region
for selected case studies of embankment with earthfills and gravels in the upstream shoulder...................122
Figure 5.1: Selset Dam internal settlements during construction (data from Bishop and Vaughan 1962)..........123
Figure 5.2: “Idealised” model of collapse compression of poorly compacted shoulder fill of puddle core
earthfill dam on first filling. .........................................................................................................................126
Figure 5.3: “Idealised” model of yielding of poorly compacted shoulder fill and puddle core on first
drawdown of a puddle core earthfill dam.....................................................................................................127
Figure 5.4: “Idealised” model of collapse compression on wetting of poorly compacted earthfill in the
downstream shoulder of a puddle core earthfill dam. ..................................................................................128
 - ix -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Figure 5.5: Post construction crest settlement versus log time of puddle core earthfill dams.............................130
Figure 5.6: Definitions of “steady state” conditions during normal reservoir operating conditions. ..................133
Figure 5.7: Fluctuation of pore pressures adjacent to and upstream of the puddle core with fluctuations in
reservoir level...............................................................................................................................................134
Figure 5.8: Ramsden Dam, internal horizontal deformation of the puddle core, 1988 to 1990 (Holton
1992). ...........................................................................................................................................................136
Figure 5.9: Ramsden Dam, internal vertical strains measured in the puddle core from 1988 to 1990 (data
from Tedd et al 1997b and Kovacevic et al 1997). ......................................................................................136
Figure 5.10: Vertical strain (or settlement) at the crest versus drawdown depth for specific drawdown and
refilling cycles (Tedd et al 1997b). ..............................................................................................................137
Figure 5.11: Permanent vertical crest strains during cyclic drawdown (in normal operating range) for
puddle core dams with permeable upstream filling (Tedd et al 1997b). ......................................................137
Figure 5.12: Ramsden Dam, settlement of SMPs versus time from 1988 to 1990 (data from Tedd et al
1990). ...........................................................................................................................................................138
Figure 5.13: Ogden Dam, crest settlement versus time (Tedd et al 1997a).........................................................138
Figure 5.14: Idealised model of deformation during historically large drawdown. ............................................139
Figure 5.15: Walshaw Dean (Lower) dam, crest settlement versus time (Tedd et al 1997a)..............................140
Figure 6.1: Cross section through Beliche dam at the main section (Maranha das Neves et al 1994)................144
Figure 6.2: Cross section of Chicoasen dam at the main section (Moreno and Alberro 1982) ...........................145
Figure 6.3: Section at Hirakud dam (Rao and Wadhwa 1958)............................................................................146
Figure 6.4: Cumulative settlement during construction at Hirakud dam (adapted from Rao 1957) ...................146
Figure 6.5: Cross section of Nurek dam (adapted from Borovoi et al 1982) ......................................................147
Figure 6.6: Carsington dam, section at chainage 825 m after failure (adapted from Skempton and
Vaughan 1993). ............................................................................................................................................148
Figure 6.7: Carsington dam, vertical strain profiles from IVM during construction, (a) IVM C at chainage
850 m, and (b) IVM B at chainage 705 m (adapted from Rowe 1991)........................................................149
Figure 6.8: Carsington dam, variation of the maximum vertical strain in the core with bank level (Rowe
1991). ...........................................................................................................................................................149
Figure 6.9: Maximum section at El Infiernillo dam (Marsal and Ramirez de Arellano 1967)............................154
Figure 6.10: El Infiernillo dam, deformation instrumentation on station 0+135 at the lower left abutment
(Marsal and Ramirez de Arellano 1967). .....................................................................................................155
Figure 6.11: El Infiernillo dam, internal settlements during first filling at Station 0+135..................................156
Figure 6.12: Main section at Chicoasen dam (Moreno and Alberro 1982). ........................................................157
Figure 6.13: Chicoasen dam, inclinometer and cross-arm locations at the main section (Moreno and
Alberro 1982). ..............................................................................................................................................157
Figure 6.14: Internal settlement profiles during first filling at Chicoasen dam (adapted from Moreno and
Alberro 1982). ..............................................................................................................................................157
Figure 6.15: Beliche Dam, cross section (Maranha das Neves et al 1994) .........................................................158
Figure 6.16: Beliche dam, post construction internal vertical settlement profile within the embankment for
the period from end of construction to 2.75 years post construction. ..........................................................159
Figure 6.17: Typical section of Canales dam (Bravo 1979)................................................................................160
Figure 6.18: Canales dam, (a) cracking and differential settlement at the crest, and (b) post construction
settlement at the crest (Giron 1997) .............................................................................................................160
Figure 6.19: Main section at Djatilihur dam (Sowers et al 1993) .......................................................................161
Figure 6.20: Djatilihur dam; (a) location of crack observed during construction, January 1965; and (b)
deformation of monuments at elevation 103 m, January to April 1965 (Sherard 1973)..............................162
Figure 6.21: Eppalock dam, post construction settlement of SMPs on the crest and slopes for the first five
years after construction. ...............................................................................................................................163
 -x-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Figure 6.22: Main section at Blowering dam (courtesy of NSW Department of Public Works and
Services, Dams and Civil Section)...............................................................................................................165
Figure 6.23: Blowering dam, vertical strain during construction for selected cross-arms intervals in the
core...............................................................................................................................................................166
Figure 6.24: Blowering dam, post construction internal settlement of the core from IVM A during first
filling. ...........................................................................................................................................................167
Figure 6.25: Cross section of Ataturk dam (Cetin et al 2000).............................................................................167
Figure 6.26: Post construction settlement of the crest and downstream shoulder at Ataturk dam. .....................169
Figure 6.27: LG-2 dam; crack in crest and possible shear plane in core (Paré 1984) .........................................169
Figure 6.28: Main section at Copeton dam (courtesy of New South Wales Department of Land and Water
Conservation) ...............................................................................................................................................170
Figure 6.29: Copeton dam, post construction internal settlement profile in the core at IVM A. ........................172
Figure 6.30: Copeton dam, post construction settlement between cross-arms versus time.................................172
Figure 6.31: Eppalock dam, original design at maximum section (Woodward Clyde 1999)..............................173
Figure 6.32: Eppalock dam, post construction settlement at main section and CS1. ..........................................175
Figure 6.33: Eppalock dam, post construction horizontal displacement at the main section. .............................176
Figure 6.34: Djatilhur dam, post construction crest settlement. ..........................................................................177
Figure 6.35: Bellfield dam, main section at chainage 701 m (courtesy of Wimmera Mallee Water) .................177
Figure 6.36: El Infiernillo dam, internal (a) settlement and (b) displacement in the core from 1966 to 1972
(Marsal and Ramirez de Arellano 1972) ......................................................................................................178
Figure 6.37: El Infiernillo dam, post construction (a) settlement and (b) displacement of surface markers.......179
Figure 6.38: Main section at Eildon dam (courtesy of Goulburn Murray Water). ..............................................180
Figure 6.39: Eildon dam, post construction settlement of SMPs at chainage 685 m. .........................................181
Figure 6.40: Eildon dam, internal settlement profiles in core from IVM records for the period 1981 to
1998..............................................................................................................................................................181
Figure 6.41: Main section at Svartevann dam (Kjœrnsli et al 1982)...................................................................183
Figure 6.42: Svartevann dam, post construction (a) settlement and (b) displacement........................................185
Figure 6.43: Cross section at Cougar dam (Cooke and Strassburger 1988). .......................................................186
Figure 6.44: Cougar dam; post construction (a) settlement and (b) displacement normal to dam axis of the
crest at the maximum section (adapted from Pope 1967). ...........................................................................187
Figure 6.45: Cougar dam; differential settlement and cracks on crest (Pope 1967)............................................187
Figure 6.46: Section at Wyangala dam (courtesy of New South Wales Department of Land and Water
Conservation). ..............................................................................................................................................188
Figure 6.47: Wyangala dam, post construction internal settlement in IVM B located 9 m upstream of dam
axis. ..............................................................................................................................................................189
Figure 6.48: Rector Creek dam main section (Sherard 1953). ............................................................................190
Figure 6.49: Rector Creek dam; post construction settlement and displacement versus log time (adapted
from Sherard et al 1963)...............................................................................................................................191
Figure 6.50: Roxo dam, settlement versus log time (adapted from De Melo and Direito 1982). .......................191
Figure 6.51: Main section at Mita Hills dam (Legge 1970) ................................................................................192
Figure 6.52: Main section at Dixon Canyon dam (courtesy of U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). ...........................193
Figure 6.53: Post construction (a) settlement and (b) displacement of SMPs on the upper upstream slope
at the Horsetooth Reservoir embankments...................................................................................................194
Figure 6.54: Belle Fourche dam; main section as constructed in 1911 (courtesy of U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation). ...............................................................................................................................................195
Figure 6.55: Belle Fourche dam; post construction crest settlement over the period 1911 to 1928 (to 17
years post construction)................................................................................................................................198
 - xi -
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Figure 6.56: Belle Fourche dam closure section; post construction (a) settlement and (b) displacement
normal to dam axis of the crest and slopes over the period 1985 to 2000 (73 to 89 years post
construction).................................................................................................................................................199
Figure 6.57: San Luis dam, section of the slide in the upstream slope in 1981 at Station 135+00 (courtesy
of United States Bureau of Reclamation).....................................................................................................199
Figure 6.58: San Luis dam, difference between actual and predicted settlement (Von Thun 1988)...................201
Figure 6.59: San Luis dam, comparison of settlement between SMPs at 13 m upstream of dam axis and
SMPs at 6.5 m downstream..........................................................................................................................201
Figure 6.60: San Luis dam, post construction settlement of SMPs in the vicinity of the slide area....................202
Figure 6.61: Main section at Horsetooth dam (courtesy of the United States Bureau of Reclamation)..............204
Figure 6.62: Horsetooth dam, post construction displacement of SMPs near to the main section......................204
Figure 6.63: Pueblo dam; cross section of left abutment embankment at Station 75..........................................205
Figure 6.64: Pueblo dam, post construction settlement of the left embankment near Station 75........................206
Figure 6.65: Yan Yean dam; settlement rate versus time of SMPs at Chainage 150 and 750 m. .......................209
 -1-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

Failures by slope instability constitute about 6% of failures and 37% of incidents of embankment dams (Foster
et al 1998, 2000). A number of these incidents were prevented from becoming failures by early detection of the
impending failure from visual inspection or from deformation monitoring, and remedial action is taken by
lowering the reservoir and/or construction of stabilization works.

Those who are responsible for interpreting the monitoring data do not have clear criteria to assess their data and
have to rely on their judgement and personal experience. Currently available numerical modelling packages and
the sophistication of the constitutive models on which they are based are improving making for useful tools in
modelling embankment dam behaviour. However, few reported Type A predictions have been able to
accurately model the deformation behaviour during construction and on first filling. Methods based on
comparison to historical records of similar embankments are still heavily relied upon and, particularly for the
assessment of post construction deformation behaviour, provide the responsible personnel with the best guide to
assessment of embankment performance.

Overall, the purpose of the presented data is, from a broad database of well-instrumented earth and earth-rockfill
embankments, to provide dam owners and their consultants with methods that:
• Allow comparison of their structures to similar embankment types in terms of the deformation behaviour
during construction, on first filling and post first filling.
• Broadly define “normal” deformation behaviour and from this platform to then identify potentially
“abnormal” deformation behaviour, either in terms of magnitude, rate or trend.
• Provide some guidance on the trends in deformation behaviour that are potentially indicative of a marginally
stable to unstable slope condition, and precursors to slope instability.

The embankment types considered in this report include earthfill, zoned earthfill, zoned earth and rockfill
(mainly central core earth and rockfill) and puddle core earthfill embankments. A brief summary of the
literature related to slope instability statistics and prediction of deformation behaviour is presented in Section
2.0. The database of case studies is summarised in Section 3.0. Sections 4.0 and 5.0 present the general
deformation behaviour for the embankment types considered, and Section 6.0 the methods for identification of
“abnormal” deformation behaviour with reference to case studies.

Section 6.6 presents a summary of the methods of identification of “abnormal” deformation behaviour and
highlights important aspects evident from the case study analysis. Guidelines are also presented on trends in the
deformation behaviour that are potentially indicative of a marginal stability condition. Section 7.0 presents a
summary of the outcomes from the analysis for use in prediction of, or comparison of the deformation behaviour
of an embankment during and post construction.

Related reports to the study of embankment dams as part of this project include:
• Hunter and Fell (2002a) on the deformation behaviour of rockfill from analysis of the deformation
behaviour of rockfill in concrete face rockfill dams.
• Hunter and Fell (2002b) on the post failure deformation behaviour of slides in embankment dams and cut
slopes in heavily over-consolidated clays. This report discusses the mechanics of failure and post failure
deformation behaviour of failures in embankment dams, and provides guidelines for estimation of slide
velocity and prediction of travel distance. Some information is also provided on the precursory signs to
slope failure.
 -2-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

1.2 DEFINITIONS

1.2.1 Embankment Dam Zoning Classification

The embankment dam zoning classification system used is essentially the system developed by Foster (1999).
The system incorporates three components to describe the general zoning of the embankment; embankment
type, embankment filters and foundation filters, and consists of a three number system (Figure 1.2). The codes
to the numbering used for the embankment zoning category are given in Figure 1.1. Two other codes are used
to describe the embankment zoning category that are not shown in Figure 1.1, they are:
12 - Other embankment types such as timber crib dams
13 - Unknown embankment type

For the filter classification the numbering code system used for both the embankment and foundation filters is as
follows:
0 - No filter drains present
1 - One filter present
2 - Two (or more) filter zones present
X - Unknown

The earthfill materials used in embankment construction have been classified in accordance with the Australian
soil classification system (Australian Standard AS 1726-1993 Geotechnical Site Investigations). This
classification system is similar to the Unified Soil Classification System (USBR Earth Manual and ASTM
D2487-69) except that the particle size limits for the sand and gravel sizes are in metric units and at slightly
different sizes.

Foster also developed a subjective classification system for the degree of compaction of earthfill materials, but it
has not been used here because for most dams considered in this study the earthfills were either well-compacted
rolled fills or puddle core earthfills.

A sub-classification system has been developed to describe the thickness or width of the core. It was developed
mainly to distinguish between zoned earthfill or earth and rockfill embankments with thin central cores from
those with thick central cores, then broadened to encompass all earthfill and zoned earth-rockfill embankments.
The core width classification is as follows:
• Thin earthfill core – symbol c-tn. Core width increasing at less than or equal to 0.5 times the vertical
distance below the crest; i.e. slopes less than or equal to 0.25H to 1V for central cores.
• Medium thickness earth core – symbol c-tm. Core width increase in the range 0.5 to 1.0 times the vertical
distance below the crest. For central cores it includes cores with slopes greater than 0.25H to 1V and less
than or equal to 0.5 H to 1V.
• Thick earthfill core – symbol c-tk. Core width increase in the range 1.0 to 2.5 times the vertical distance
below the crest. For central cores it includes cores with slopes greater than 0.5H to 1V and less than 1.25 H
to 1V.
• Very broad earthfill core - symbol c-vb. This classification includes all homogeneous earthfill
embankments and earthfill embankments with filters as well as zoned earthfill and zoned earth and rockfill
embankments where the main earthfill water barrier zone has an average width equal to or greater than the
width at the crest plus 2.5 times the depth below the crest.

For zoned earthfill embankments the core width classification only considers the width of the main water barrier
zone, from its upstream edge to the downstream edge of the filter or permeable transition zones. Therefore,
zoned embankments with filters separating similar type earthfills in the downstream shoulder may not be
 -3-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

classified as “very broad”, although, earthfill embankments with chimney filters are classified as “very broad”.
This is somewhat contradictory but the database only includes one earthfill embankment with a chimney filter
(Mita Hills) classified as “very broad” that would fail the zoned embankment criteria for the “very broad”
classification.

core
downstream zone
of rockfill Puddle core

0. Homogeneous earthfill 4. Zoned earth and rockfill 8. Puddle core earthfill

Embankment filter rockfill concrete corewall

and/or rockfill
Foundation filter earthfill
core

1. Earthfill with filter 5. Central core earth and rockfill 9. Earthfill with corewall

concrete concrete corewall

facing
Rock toe rockfill
earthfill
Max 0.2H

2. Earthfill with rock toe 6. Concrete face earthfill 10. Rockfill with corewall

concrete
core facing hydraulic fill core
downstream zone
of sand/gravel rockfill

3. Zoned earthfill 7. Concrete face rockfill 11. Hydraulic fill

Figure 1.1: Dam zoning categories of embankment types (Foster et al 1998)

Figure 1.2: Embankment zoning classification system (Foster 1999)

1.2.2 Classification of Rockfill Placement

The method of placement of rockfill has a significant influence on its compressibility during construction and its
deformation behaviour post construction. The definitions by Cooke (1993, 1984) for dumped and compacted
rockfill have be used as a basis for categorisation of the method of placement. The definitions used are:
• Compacted Rockfill – rockfill placed in layers up to 2 m thickness (generally 0.9 to 2.0 m thick) and
compacted by smooth drum vibrating roller. Accepted practice is typically 4 to 6 passes of a minimum 10
tonne (possibly up to 15 tonne) deadweight vibrating roller, with variation in layer thickness, added water
and number of passes depending on the quality and type of the rockfill, amount of fines and location within
the embankment. Three classifications for compacted rockfill have been used:
 -4-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

− Well-compacted – layer thickness typically less than about 1.0 m (depending on the compressive
strength of the intact rock) and compacted with a minimum of four passes of a 10 to 15 tonne
deadweight smooth drum vibrating roller (SDVR).
− Reasonable Compaction – layer thickness typically 1.5 to 2.0 m and compacted with typically four
passes of a 10 tonne SDVR.
− Reasonably to Well Compacted - layer thickness typically 1.2 to 1.6 m (depending on the compressive
strength of the intact rock) and compacted with typically 4 to 6 passes of a 10 to 15 tonne SDVR.

• Rockfill not formally compacted or “poorly compacted”. Several methods of rockfill placement have been
included under the definition “poorly compacted”, these include:
− Dumped rockfill – rockfill placed in lifts ranging from several to tens of metres thickness, with or
without sluicing, and without formal compaction.
− Rockfill placed in lifts less than about 2 to 3 m thickness and not formally compacted (i.e. without the
use of rollers for compaction). Specified track rolling by bulldozer or other plant, or rockfill indicated
as being trafficking by trucks or other haulage equipment has been classified under “not formally
compacted”.
− Rockfill placed in lifts greater than 2 to 3 m and formally compacted. For these rockfills the lift
thickness is considered too great for compaction to have any significant influence at depth.

Watering is an important component for placement of rockfills, particularly in cases where the compressive
strength of the rock used in the rockfill is susceptible to reduction on wetting, breaks down under the action of
the roller, or if the rockfill contains large quantities of fines. Cooke (1993) comments that watering is not
overly important for compaction of very high strength rockfills that are not susceptible to weakening on wetting.
However, these rockfills can still show collapse type settlements on wetting.

For dumped rockfills, sluicing had a significant influence on the deformation behaviour of the rockfill as
evidenced by the large collapse deformations of dry dumped or poorly sluiced rockfills when wetted (Cogswell
dam (Bauman 1958), Strawberry and Dix River dams (Howson 1939)).

1.3 DEFORMATION BEHAVIOUR OF ROCKFILL

Hunter and Fell (2002a) analysed the deformation behaviour of rockfill from a database of thirty-six case studies
of mainly concrete face rockfill dams (CFRD). Predictive methods were developed for estimation of the
deformation of rockfill based on historical records of embankment performance. Methods were developed or
current methods enhanced for estimation/prediction of the vertical deformation during construction, deformation
of the face slab and post-construction crest settlement for CFRD. The methods were derived from a good
quality data set and consideration of the significant factors that influenced the deformation behaviour.

The accuracy of prediction of rockfill deformation during construction (for both numerical and empirical
methods) is dependent on the quality of representation of the stress-strain relationship of the rockfill, which is
strongly dependent on the rockfill properties, in particular the intact strength of the rock, method of placement
and particle size distribution after compaction. The embankment height is a significant factor as this predicates
the level of applied stress within the embankment. Valley shape is a significant factor for embankments
constructed in narrow valleys due to the effects of cross-valley arching and resultant reduction in applied
stresses. Typical stress-strain relationships of rockfill from field measurements during construction (under the
embankment centreline) show that the relationship is non-linear and has a general trend of decreasing secant
(and tangent) modulus with increasing applied stress.
 -5-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

For dumped rockfill there was not sufficient data from which to give guidelines on moduli during construction.

The predictive method of post-construction crest settlement is based on historical records. The significant
factors incorporated into the deformation prediction include the degree of compaction of the rockfill (i.e.
dumped versus compacted), intact rock strength and embankment height. The long-term crest settlement rate
values provide a useful guide for comparison to rockfills used in other embankment types, such as central core
earth and rockfill dams.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 FAILURE AND ACCIDENT STATISTICS

This review of slope instability incidents in embankment dams is a summary of that by Hunter and Fell (2002b)
as part of the post-failure deformation analysis of instability incidents in embankment dams. Most of the data
and findings on slope stability incidents is a summary of the work by Foster et al (1998) on dam failure and
accident incidents, derived from a database of some 11192 large embankment dams from around the world
constructed up to 1986.

Foster et al (1998) reported 124 incidents of slope instability. Of these, 12 were failures that involved a breach
and uncontrolled release of water from the reservoir and the remaining 112 were accidents (no breach). They
concluded that the major factors influencing the likelihood of slope instability in embankment dams were:
• Slope instability is more likely in earthfill embankments than earth and rockfill embankments.
Homogeneous dam embankments (without filters) and hydraulic fill dam embankments are statistically the
most susceptible to slope instability.
• Slope instability is more likely for dam embankments on soil foundations than for dam embankments on
rock foundations. Of the slides passing through the embankment and foundation, the incidence of slope
instability is much greater in foundations of high plasticity clays.
• Slope instability is much more likely in dam embankments constructed of high plasticity clays and silts,
particularly for slides in the downstream slope. Dam embankments constructed of sands and gravels have a
significantly lower incidence of slope instability.
• Compaction, or lack there of, of the earthfill materials is also a significant factor. The incidence of slope
instability is much more likely for earthfills constructed by placement with no formal compaction, and the
least likely for rolled, well compacted earthfills.

Further analysis by Hunter and Fell (2002b), which excluded hydraulic fill embankments, found that:
• Earthfill embankments (homogeneous earthfill, earthfill with filters and earthfill with rock toe) made up a
very high percentage (80%) of the slope stability incidents that passed through the embankment only.
• For embankments that incorporate rockfill zones, it is very to extremely unlikely that the surface of rupture
will pass through the rockfill zone itself, it will preferentially pass through the foundation.

2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF EMBANKMENT DAMS AS THIS AFFECTS DEFORMATION

BEHAVIOUR

2.2.1 Earth and Earth-Rockfill Dams

An historical summary of the use of rockfill in embankment design and construction (Galloway 1939; Cooke
1984; Cooke 1993) is given in Table 2.1.
 -6-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

Table 2.1: Historical summary of rockfill usage in embankment design (Galloway 1939; Cooke 1984; Cooke
1993).
Approximate Method of Placement and Comments
Time Period Characteristics of Rockfill
Concrete Face Rockfill Dams
Mid to late Dumped rockfill with timber facing Early embankments constructed with timber facing. Typically of
1800’s to early very steep slopes (up to 0.5 to 0.75H to 1V). First usage of
1900’s concrete facing in the 1890’s. Height limited to about 25 m.
1920’s to 1930’s Main rockfill zone dumped in high Rockfill typically sound and not subject to disintegration. Dam
lifts (up to 20 to 50 m) and sluiced, heights reaching 80 to 100 m. For high dams, cracking of the
although the sluicing was relatively facing slab and joint openings resulted in high leakage rates
(2700 l/sec Dix River, 3600 l/sec Cogswell, 570 l/sec Salt
ineffective. A hand or derrick placed
Springs).
rockfill zone was used upstream.
Late 1930’s to High pressure sluicing used for the Cracking of face slab, particularly at the perimeter joint, and high
1960’s main rockfill zone. Rockfill still very leakage rates a significant issue with higher dams (3100 l/sec at
coarse. Wishon, 1300 l/sec at Courtright).
From late 1960’s Rockfill placed in 1 to 2 m lifts, Significant reduction in post-construction deformations due to
watered and compacted. Reduction in low compressibility of compacted rockfill. Significant reduction
particle size. Usage of gravels and in leakage rates; maximum rates typically less than 50 to 100
l/sec. Continued improvement in plinth design and facing details
lower strength rock.
to reduce cracking and leakage.
Earth and Rockfill Dams
1900 to 1930 Dumped rockfill Use of concrete cores with dumped rockfill shoulders at angle of
repose. Limited use of earth cores. Dam heights up to 50 to
70m.
1930’s to 1960’s Earth core (sloping and central) with Use of earth cores significant from the 1940’s due to the
dumped rockfill shoulders. difficulties with leakage of CFRD. Increasing dam heights up to
150 m.
From 1960’s Use of compacted rockfill. Typically Improvements in compaction techniques. Early dams compacted
placed in 1 to 2 m lifts, watered and in relatively thick layers with small rollers. Gradual increase in
compacted with rollers. roller size and reduction in layer thickness reduced the
compressibility of the rockfill. Significant increase in dam
heights in the mid to late 1970’s, up to 250 to 300 m.

From the 1930’s to the mid 1960’s the height of construction of CFRDs was limited to about 80 to 100 m due to
problems with face slab cracking and high leakage rates as a result of excessive deformation of the dumped and
sluiced rockfill. In terms of stability though the embankment performance was excellent (Cooke 1984). The
transition from dumped and sluiced to compacted rockfill in embankment design (Cooke 1984, 1993), occurring
in the late 1950’s to 1960’s, resulted in proliferation in the use of CFRD from the late 1960’s.

For earthfills, the significant changes affecting deformation behaviour were developments in placement
methods. The use of rollers from about the 1850’s was significant, although their usage was more widespread
from about the late 1890’s into the early 20th century. But, the most significant development was after the
1930’s with the application of soil mechanics principles (Wilson and Squier 1969; Penman 1986) and
consideration of moisture content control, compacted layer thickness and level of compaction. Consideration of
these principles was evident in embankment construction earlier in the 20th century (Schuyler 1912), such as at
Belle Fourche dam in California.

2.2.2 Puddle Core Earthfill Dams

Skempton (1990) referred to the puddle core earthfill dam as the preferred method of dam construction in the
United Kingdom (UK) in the 19th and first half of the 20th century. It was also the preferred method of
construction in India and Australia up to the 1930’s.
 -7-
UNICIV Report No. 416 – Deformation Behaviour of Embankment Dams February 2003

The significant historical events in the design and construction of puddle dams in the UK (Skempton 1990;
Foster 1999) are summarised as follows:
th
• The first puddle dams were constructed in the late 18 century.
• Puddle Core - improvements in preparation procedures resulting in greater uniformity of the core material
− Late 18th century to mid 19th century the puddle core was watered on the embankment, allowed to soak
and then heeled (by foot) or rammed (using hand held rammers) in 150 to 200 mm layers.
− In the second half of the 19th century the clays for core material were generally wetted up in the borrow
area before being brought onto the embankment.
− 20th century, preparation of core materials in pugmills and placement in 100 to 150 mm layers.
• Shoulder Fill - significant improvements in design and method of placement
− Initially, no zoning in shoulder fill and no formal compaction. Compaction was typically using loaded
wagons and carts in relatively thick layers (generally less than 1 m but up to 1.5 - 2 m).
− From the 1850’s/60’s, following the failures of Bilberry Dam in 1852 (by internal erosion) and Dale
Dyke in 1864 (by a combination of internal erosion and over-topping), embankment designs generally
included a select zone of the more cohesive earthfills adjacent to the core.
− From the 1900’s improved compaction of shoulder fill using thinner layers and steam driven rollers.
− From the 1940’s further improvements in compaction procedures following improvements in earth-
moving plant and the application of soil mechanics.
• The use of rolled clay cores took over from puddle clay cores in the UK in the 1960’s.

In Australia and India the use of rolled clay cores took over from puddle clay cores in the 1930’s. The last large
puddle dam constructed in Australia was in the 1930’s. Improvements in the preparation of puddle cores and
alteration in design and placement methods of the shoulder fill occurred in Australia at relatively similar time
periods to those in the UK. There is evidence of the use of horse or bullock drawn sheepsfoot rollers (up to 3.5
tonne dead-weight) for compaction of the shoulders and bullocks for compaction of the puddle core in Australia
from the 1870’s.

2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE DEFORMATION OF EMBANKMENT DAMS

2.3.1 Deformation Properties of Rockfill

A more detailed assessment of the factors affecting the compressibility of rockfill are given in Hunter and Fell
(2002a). In summary, field observations (Mori and Pinto 1988; and others) and the results of large scale
laboratory tests (Marsal 1973; Marachi et al 1969; and others) indicate the compressibility properties of rockfill
are affected by:
• Degree of compaction of the rockfill
• Applied stress conditions and stress path.
• Particle shape and particle size distribution.
• Intact strength of the rock used as rockfill

An important aspect in the evaluation of the deformation behaviour of rockfill in embankment dams is its
susceptibility to collapse compression on wetting. This is discussed in Sections 4.2.2 and 6.3.1.

The time dependent or creep type deformation of rockfill is an important aspect for evaluation of the post
construction deformation behaviour in embankment dams. The best guide from field records is Hunter and Fell
(2002a).