FILTER PLACEMENT AT

ISABELLA LAKE DAM

Risk Management Center Training

DLS-212
Embankment Dam Design
Participant Workbook

Online Resources
Risk Management Center Training Website
www.rmc.usace.army.mil/Training/Dam-and-Levee

Risk Management Center Library

publibrary.planusace.us/#/home

2023
Table of Contents
Course Overview 5

Training Agenda 6

How to Log in to Socrative 8

How to Download the Presentation 8

How to Download the Exercises 8

Course Instructors 10

Module & Workshop Outline 13

References 70

Glossary 82

DLS-212 | Table of Contents | 2023 3

Risk Management Center Training
FLYER
DLS-212
Embankment Dam Design

Course Overview FEATURES

Throughout this training course, gain knowledge • Training with USACE experts
and understanding of best practices for the design
of new embankment dams and the rehabilitation • Real-world case studies with practical
of existing embankment dams. Learn the critical applications
components of embankment design, embankment
dam failure modes and their importance in design,
in addition to critical aspects of construction and Target Audience
geology and how to apply this knowledge toward Junior to mid-level professionals with limited
embankment design. Participation in this course experience in the design of new embankment
will provide support in the quality of embankment dams or the rehabilitation of existing
dam design, more timely delivery and more cost- embankment dams.
effective products.
Format
Learning Objectives This four-day, in-person course will include
lectures and demonstrations from USACE
By the end of this course, participants will have a experts as well as hands-on exercises. A
deeper understanding of embankment dam design. workbook of required materials and online
In addition, participants will be able to: resources will be provided to participants.
Participants must bring a laptop.
• Understand the components of embankment
dams
• Identify embankment dam failure modes and their
importance in design
Contact & Registration
• Understand critical aspects of the site geology and
how to prepare a subsurface characterization of Lead Instructor
the site Gregg Batchelder Adams
[email protected]
• Understand the analyses required to support
the design including settlement, seepage, filter Prerequisites
compatibility, stability and seismic evaluations None
• Understand critical embankment design details
including foundation design and instrumentation
Level
Intermediate (200 series)
• Determine critical construction considerations Courses at this level are devoted to a particular
discipline. Intermediate courses may require a
• Develop an appreciation of previous embankment prerequisite at the fundamental level.
dam case histories to provide insight into future
designs Course Credit and Certificates
To earn the fully allotted amount of PDHs, you
must attend the entire course and demonstrate
active participation. RMC certification is based
on successfully meeting all requirements, such
as passing the final assessment.

Professional Development Hours (PDH)

28 PDHs

Registration & More Information

FILTER PLACEMENT AT (registration subject to availability)
www.rmc.usace.army.mil/training/
ISABELLA LAKE DAM
Training Agenda
DAY 1 Tuesday, October 24 Instructor
8:00 am – 8:30am 30 Welcome and Introductions

Module 1: Introduction to Embankment Gregg Batchelder

8:30 am – 9:00 am 30
Design Adams

9:00 am – 9:30 am 30 Module 2: Importance of Geology Cassie Wagner

9:30 am – 10:30 am 60 Module 3.1: Site Characterization, Part 1 Ed Friend

10:30 am – 10:45 am 15 Break
10:45 am – 11:45 Am 60 Module 3.2: Site Characterization, Part 2 Ed Friend
11:45AM – 1:00 pm 75 Lunch
1:00 pm – 2:00 pm 60 Module 4: Testing and Soil Classification Brian Francis
Module 5: Settlement, Deformation and
2:00 pm – 2:45 pm 45 Brian Francis
Cracking
2:45 pm – 3:00 pm 15 Break
3:00 pm – 3:45 pm 45 Camber Design – Exercise Brian Francis
3:45 pm – 4:45 pm 60 Module 6: Seepage Berm Case History Brian Dillard
Total 525

DAY 2 Wednesday, October 25 Instructor

Amanda
8:00 am – 9:00 am 60 Module 7.1: Seepage Analysis, Part 1
Duvigneaud
9:00 am – 9:15 am 15 Break
Amanda
9:15 am – 10:15 am 60 Module 7.2: Seepage Analysis, Part 2
Duvigneaud
Gregg Batchelder
10:15 am – 11:45 am 90 Module 8.1: Embankment Design, Part 1
Adams
11:45 am – 1:00 pm 75 Lunch
Brian Francis/
1:00 pm – 1:45 pm 45 Filter Compatibility Check – Exercise
Ed Friend
Gregg Batchelder
1:45 pm – 2:30 pm 45 Module 8.2: Embankment Design, Part 2
Adams
2:30 pm – 2:45 pm 15 Break
Amanda
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm 60 Module 9: Static Stability Analysis
Duvigneaud
3:45 pm – 4:45 pm 60 Module 10: Instrumentation Brian Francis
Total 525

6 DLS-212 | Training Agenda | 2023

 DAY 3 Thursday, October 26 Instructor
8:00 am – 8:45am 45 Module 11: Foundation Design Ed Friend
Amanda
8:45 am – 9:45 am 60 Module 12: Seismic Considerations
Duvigneaud
Module 13: General Edgar Jadwin Dam Gregg Batchelder
9:45 am – 10:15 am 30
Case History Adams
10:15 am – 10:30 am 15 Break
What's Wrong with this Cross Section? –
10:30 am – 11:15 am 45 Brian Francis
Exercise
11:15 am – 12:15 pm 60 Module 14.1 Rehabilitation Design, Part 1 Ed Friend
12:15 pm – 1:30 pm 75 Lunch
1:30 pm – 2:45 pm 75 Module 14.2 Rehabilitation Design, Part 2 Ed Friend
2:45 pm – 3:00 pm 15 Break
Gregg Batchelder
3:00 pm – 4:30 pm 90 Module 15: Isabella Dam Case History Adams/Brian
Francis
Total 510

DAY 4 Friday, October 27 Instructor

Module 16: New Embankment Dam Case Gregg Batchelder
8:00 am – 8:30am 30
History Adams
8:30 am – 9:30 am 60 Module 17: Risk Informed Design John Kendall
9:30 am – 9:45 am 15 Break
Brian Francis/
9:45 am – 11:00 am 75 Embankment Dam Raise – Exercise Gregg Batchelder
Adams
Module 18: Green Ridge Glade Dam Case Gregg Batchelder
11:00 am – 11:30 am 30
History Adams
11:30 am – 12:30 pm 60 Lunch
12:30 pm – 1:15 pm 45 Module 19: Construction Considerations Ed Friend
1:15 pm – 1:45 pm 30 Knowledge Assessment
1:45 pm – 2:00 pm 15 Wrap Up
Total 360

DLS-212 | Training Agenda | 2023 7

Downloads
HOW TO LOG IN TO SOCRATIVE
1. Visit www.socrative.com

2. Click on “Login”

3. Select “Student Login”

4. Enter Room Name: [____________]

Alternatively, the free Socrative Student

application can be downloaded and
installed to your mobile device. When
you open the application on your
mobile device, you will be prompted for
the Room Name and then your name.

HOW TO DOWNLOAD THE

PRESENTATIONS
1. Visit publibrary.planusace.us/#/home

2. Search your course

a. Example: DLS212

3. Click the download icon

publibrary.planusace.us/#/searchresults

HOW TO DOWNLOAD THE EXERCISES

1. Visit publibrary.planusace.us/#/home

2. Search your course

a. Example: DLS212

3. Click the download icon

publibrary.planusace.us/#/searchresults

8 DLS-212 | Downloads | 2023

Course Instructors
Gregg Batchelder Adams, P.E.
Mr. Gregg Batchelder Adams is a registered professional engineer with more than 40
years of experience in geotechnical and civil engineering with expertise in the evaluation,
risk assessment, and the design and construction of over 50 dam and levee projects
in the US and abroad. His experience includes working for a general contractor, a state
government transportation agency, consulting engineering firms, and two Federal
government dam safety offices. He received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from
the University of Vermont and a master’s degree in civil engineering from the University
of New Hampshire. He is currently a Lead Civil Engineer with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Risk Management Center, is a member of the Structural Slurry Wall and
Seepage Control Committee of the Deep Foundations Institute, and a member of USSD.

Brian Dillard, P.E.

Mr. Dillard is the Deputy Director for the USACE SWD-Dam Safety Production Center,
he has over 21 years of professional experience including 17 years in Dam Safety. He has
spent 8 years with USACE and 13 years with USDA-NRCS.

Mr. Dillard started with USACE in 2016 as a Geotechnical Engineer performing designs
and risk assessments on Dam Safety Modification projects then moved into the
Geotechnical Branch Chief position. In 2020, he accepted the Deputy Director position
and is also the Lead Engineer for the Lewisville Dam Safety Modification Study. Prior
experiences include design and construction management on the rehabilitation of dams
within the USDA-NRCS Small Watershed Program.

Brian holds a Bachelor's Degree in Biosystems Engineering from Oklahoma State

University and is a member of ASDSO.

Brian Francis, P.E.

Mr. Francis is a Civil Engineer with over 21 years of professional experience. He is currently
a technical advisor for risk assessments and the RMC Program Manager for Dam Safety
Modifications Studies. He facilitates and participates in PFMAs, SQRAs, and QRAs, field
investigation plans, IESs and modification studies for dams and levees. Mr. Francis has
acted as the ATR lead for the Proctor Dam DSMS and PED, several IES studies, and
Periodic Assessments (PAs). He has performed geotechnical analyses and design for
earthen embankment and rockfill dams, flood protection levees, and tailing storage
dams. He has planned and performed subsurface investigations and instrument
installations for dams and levees and prepared numerous geotechnical engineering
reports. Mr. Francis has worked on large civil projects in the United States and Australia.

10 DLS-212 | Course Instructors | 2023

Course Instructors
John Kendall, P.E.
Mr. Kendall is a registered professional engineer in the state of Florida and is the Risk
Management Branch Chief and SAJ Cadre lead for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Jacksonville District. Kendall has a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering from
the University of North Florida, Master of Engineering from University of Idaho, and a
Graduate Certificate in Risk Management from Notre Dame of Maryland University.

John has been with USACE since 2009, after working for about 10 years in private industry
in Jacksonville. With USACE, John has served as Lead Geotechnical Engineer for the
Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) rehabilitation project, responsible for completing geotechnical
design and engineering during construction for numerous water control structures and
several miles of cutoff wall at the project. John also served as one of the technical experts
that completed the potential failure mode analysis and risk assessment for HHD and was
one of the primary engineers and authors of the HHD Dam Safety Modification Study
(which provides authority for approximately 30 miles of additional cutoff wall at HHD). Most
recently, John has been serving as the lead engineer for the Jacksonville district National
Risk Cadre which was established in 2016. In this role, Kendall is responsible for a diverse
team of engineers that evaluates risk on USACE dams and levees nationwide. SAJ Cadre
has been responsible for numerous risk assessments and risk informed design support
on dam and levee systems from Seattle to Puerto Rico and have supported risk informed
design support on projects from feasibility through construction.

Cassandra Wagner, P.G.

Ms. Wagner received a B.S. in Geology from the University of Florida and an M.S. in
Geological Engineering from Missouri University of Science and Technology, and is
a registered Professional Geologist in the State of Wyoming. Cassandra is a Senior
Engineering Geologist with the Dam Safety Production Center, South Pacific Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and previously worked as an Engineering Geologist at the
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, in Denver, CO. Her primary focus has
been in Dam Safety, including the development of field investigation programs, risk
analysis, site characterization, and construction modifications.

Ed Friend, P.E.
Mr. Friend is a Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist, and Project Management
Professional with over 25 years of progressive experience related to geotechnical,
geological, and construction engineering for the design of new and rehabilitation of
existing dams and reservoirs. He has been the lead engineer, lead geotechnical engineer,
lead construction engineer, lead design reviewer or project manager on over 40 new
dam or dam rehabilitation projects with construction costs up to $600 million and dam
heights over 200 feet. He has been a key contributor on over 100 dam and reservoir
projects. Mr. Friend has a Bachelor's degree in geological engineering from the South
Dakota School of Mines and Technology.

DLS-212 | Course Instructors | 2023 11

Course Instructors
Amanda Duvigneaud, P.E.
Ms. Duvigneaud is a geotechnical engineer and the risk cadre Program Manager with
the USACE Risk Management Center. She has 14 years of experience and has been with
the USACE for the last 7 years. She has experience in facilitating and reviewing risk
assessments and acts as an advisor for higher level risk assessments. She has a B.S. in
Civil Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines and an M.S. in Civil Engineering
from Virginia Tech. Prior to joining USACE, Amanda worked for URS/AECOM in tailing and
water dam analysis and design.

12 DLS-212 | Course Instructors | 2023

Module & Workshop Outline
1. Introduction to Embankment Design 11. Foundation Design

2. Importance of Geology 12. Seismic Considerations

3. Site Characterization 13. General Edgar Jadwin Dam

Case History
4. Testing and Soil Classification
3. What's Wrong with this Cross Section?
5. Settlement, Deformation,
and Cracking 14. Rehabilitation Design

1. Camber Design 15. Isabella Dam Case History

6. Seepage Berm Case History 16. New Embankment Dam Case History

7. Seepage Analysis 17. Risk Informed Design

8. Embankment Design 4. Embankment Dam Raise

2. Filter Compatibility 18. Green Ridge Glade Dam Case History

9. Static Stability Analysis 19. Construction Considerations

10. Instrumentation

Module Exercise

DLS-212 | Module & Workshop Outline | 2023 13

Module 1
Introduction
Objectives
• Identify general drawing layout guidelines for embankment dams
• Identify elements of an embankment dam
• Determine potential embankment dam failure modes
• Describe typical embankment dam and rockfill dam cross sections
• Identify factors to select an embankment dam cross section
• Discuss design and construction factors

Key Points
• Importance of proper drawing layout for embankment dams
• Embankment dams consist of multiple zones with different purposes
• Embankment design needs to consider potential failure modes and to not create new
failure modes
• Numerous factors are used to select an embankment dam cross section

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

14 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 15

Module 2
Importance of Geology
Objectives
• Describe the role of the engineering geologist
• Identify the unique considerations of soil and rock foundations
• Explain why geologic considerations are crucial to all scales and phases of
embankment design and construction

Key Points
• The engineering geologist is a vital member of the multidisciplinary team all project
scales, for the full duration of the project.
• Engineering Geology in Embankment Design and Construction is applied at
numerous scales.
• The geologist must take care to representatively sample the site to account for
variability.
• The geology record is important for future investigations and analyses or dam safety
reviews.
• Understanding the dam foundation treatment that was performed during
construction is critical for understanding and characterizing the subsurface conditions,
interpreting instrumentation readings, and identifying seepage issues.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

16 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 17

Module 3
Site Characterization
Objectives
• Determine when to recommend supplementary site investigations
• Describe the types of investigations available for site characterization
• Explore the engineering properties of earth materials
• Identify geologic hazards
• Recognize data gaps and using the observational method

Key Points
• Just because something is plausible, does not mean it is probable. We should
continue to refine our awareness of probability with experience and knowledge of
case histories.
• As new information becomes available, we should remain skeptical and avoid
confirmation bias. Example: continuity.
• While geology is often the key condition with unfavorable conceivable deviations,
we root our uncertainty in the context of what is observed or processes that are
understood. Ex: depositional environment.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

18 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 19

Module 4
Testing and Soil Classification
Objectives
• Identify the soil and rock tests typically used for embankment dam design
• Describe how the unified soil classification system (USCS) is used to make soil
classification consistent across the industry
• Explain the importance of testing dispersive soils
• Assign confining pressures to strength tests that represent conditions after dam is
constructed
• Describe the use of laboratory test results when developing material properties

Key Points
• A suite of Index tests (gradation and Atterberg Limits) are used to classify soils using
the USCS.
• Follow ASTM standards for sample size.
• Even if you think dispersive soils are not an issue, run the tests anyway.
• Standard Proctor is the standard used for dam construction.
• Different strength tests are used to estimate the shear strength along the failure path.
• Any strength tests that consolidate or load the samples should be assigned such that
the anticipated stress ranges is covered by the test.
• Peak strength is not always used, in embankment dam design it is not typically ideal
to load soils to their peak strength and critical state is typically used.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

20 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 21

Module 5
Static Settlement, Deformation and Cracking
Objectives
• Identify the key characteristics of dam design
• Define and estimate total settlement
• Describe the types of settlement
• Explain the foundation consolidation process
• List consolidation issues
• Identify key design measures

Key Points
• Dams are not static, embankment and foundation settlement must be estimated
during design
• Total settlement consists of initial + primary +secondary
• Consolidation tests required for each foundation layer
• Add defensive measures to counteract the affects of settlement
• Use camber for all zones
• Even rock foundations settle and must be estimated as part of design
• Rock foundations are complicated to estimate settlement, advanced modeling and
thorough investigations are required

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

22 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 23

Exercise
Camber Design
EXERCISE 1 – CAMBER DESIGN

Develop a camber design table for a small embankment dam using the information provided in
the sections below.

Site Description

The proposed embankment foundation consists of a 10-foot-thick layer of alluvium overlying

firm bedrock. The alluvium consists of 5 feet of soft clay overlying 5 feet of stiff clay. Lab test
results for the soft clay and stiff clay are provided in Table 1:

Table 1 – Laboratory Test Results

Layer USCS Ccε Crε
Soft Clay CL 0.06 0.007
Stiff Clay CH 0.07 0.01

Exercise
Use the following equations to finish filling out Tables 2 and 3:

-1-

24 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

Exercise
Camber Design

Table 2 – Foundation Consolidation Estimate

Dam Layer Layer Cr Cc σ’p σ’v0 σ’vf Equation Settlement

Station Thickness (psf) (psf) (psf) Number (ft)
(Ho – ft)
0+00 0 - - - - - - - 0
1+00 5 CL 1,000 150 2,650
1+00 5 CH 4,000 500 3,000
2+00 5 CL 1,000 150 2,650
2+00 5 CH 4,000 500 3,000
3+00 0 - - - - - - - 0

Table 3 – Camber Estimate using 1% rule

Dam Station Embankment 1% of height Foundation Camber
Height (ft) (ft) Settlement (ft) (ft)
0+00 0
1+00 20
2+00 20
3+00 0

Draw the camber profile for the dam crest and core:

Camber Profile
21

20.5

20

19.5
Elevation (ft)

19
Dam Crest
18.5 Core
18

17.5

17
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00
Dam Station

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 25

-2-
Module 6
Seepage Berm Case History
Objectives
• Identify potential failure modes
• Explore definable features of work
• Discuss data evaluation
• Explain inverted filter berm design
• Describe seepage collection & filter design
• Discuss embankment slope stability
• Identify monitoring Instrumentation
• Review construction photos

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

26 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 27

Module 7
Seepage Analysis
Objectives
• Estimate hydraulic conductivity of soils
• Evaluate seepage through soils
• Describe how flow nets are used to evaluate seepage through an embankment
• Compare flow net analyses to finite element analyses using computer programs
• Perform filter compatibility evaluations

Key Points
• Seepage through and under embankment dams is governed by the constitutive
equations of fluid flow through porous media.
• Two-dimensional seepage analysis is governed by LaPlace’s equation.
• An estimate of hydraulic conductivity is needed to evaluate seepage.
• Hydraulic conductivity can be measured through laboratory or field tests, but it can
also be estimated empirically through published tables of values or equations that
relate soil data such as the grain size to hydraulic conductivity.
• Void ratio and the porosity of the soil heavily influences the hydraulic conductivity of
the soil.
• The relationship between degree of saturation and hydraulic conductivity is important
in transient loading modeling and in partially saturated soils in seepage models.
• Flow nets or other numerical solutions can be used to evaluate the seepage concerns
for the embankment.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

28 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 29

Exercise
EXERCISE 2
Filter Compatibility
FILTER DESIGN

Introduction

Design a filter to protect a base soil that is representative of a silty sand (SM) embankment zone.

Select Base Soil Gradation and Regrade

Step 1: Gather all base soil gradations. To simplify this exercise the base soil has been selected
and is shown in the figure below. The base soil is not dispersive.

Figure 1. Base Soil Gradation

Steps 2 and 3: Select Representative Base Soil Gradation and Regrade Base Soil

Engineering judgment should be used in the selection of a representative base soil gradation. In
the majority of cases, the selected gradation will be taken from the fine side of the sample
gradation range. Prior to selecting the representative base soil gradation, the gradations should
be regraded, if necessary. For this exercise this step has already been completed.

Because gradation for the base soil contains gravel (materials larger than the #4 sieve (4.75 mm))
an evaluation needs to be made to determine if the material should be regraded. Use flow chart in
Figure 2 and fill out Table 1 to determine if the base soil needs regrading.

1
DLS-212 – Exercise 2
30 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023
Exercise
Filter Compatibility

where:
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷60 ⁄𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷10 (Base Soil Cu = ~22)
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑧𝑧𝑧𝑧 = 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷30 2 ⁄(𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷10 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷60 ) (Base Soil Cz = ~1.4)

Figure 2. Logic Diagram Showing When Regrading of the Base Soil is Required.

Table 1. Regrading Evaluation

Gradation Base soil Base soil is not Base soil is not Should soil be
Number contains <15% gap graded? broadly regraded?
fines? graded?
Base Soil

If sample requires regrading use Table 2 to develop regraded gradation.

Correction Factor = 100/percent passing #4 sieve

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 31

Exercise
Filter Compatibility
Table 2. Regrading Calculations for Base Soil
Size Original
Sieve (mm) Percent Final Percent
Size Passing Adjustment Passing
3" 75 100 Correction Factor = 100 / ___ = ___
1-1/2" 37.5 100
3/4" 19 100
3/8" 9.5 99
#4 4.75 98 98 x
#8 2.36 96.5 96.5 x
#16 1.18 90 90 x
#30 0.6 85 85 x
#50 0.3 75 75 x
#100 0.15 50 50 x
#200 0.075 35 35 x
1 min 0.037 26 26 x
4 min 0.019 14 14 x
19 min 0.009 10 10 x
60 min 0.005 8 8x
435 min 0.002 6 6x

Draw the regraded base soil on Figure 3 (if necessary).

32 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

3
Exercise
Filter Compatibility

Figure 3. Regraded Base Soils

Properties for this gradation include:

• D85B = ___ mm
• D15B (prior to regrading) = ___ mm
• Fines content (percent passing the #200 sieve) after regrading = ___ percent

Step 4: Determine Base Soil Category

Based on the fines content of ___ percent, the base soil is categorized as a soil category ___
according to Table 3.

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 33

Exercise
Filter Compatibility
Table 3. Base Soil Categories

Percent finer than No. 200

Base soil sieve (0.075 mm) (after
Base soil description
category regrading where
applicable)
1 > 85 Fine silts and clays
2 40 – 85 Silts, clays, silty sands, and clayey
sands
3 15 – 39 Silty and clayey sands and gravels
4 < 15 Sands and gravels

Step 5: Particle Retention Requirements

Fine the equation for the maximum D15F for category ___ soils, according to Table 4 and
calculate the maximum D15F in the space below:

Table 4. Filtering Criteria

Base Soil
Filtering – Maximum D15F
Category
The maximum D15F should be ≤ 9 x D85B, but not less than 0.2
mm, unless the soils are dispersive. Dispersive soils require a
1
maximum D15F that is ≤ 6.5 x D85B size, but not less than 0.2
mm.
The maximum D15F should be ≤ 0.7 mm unless soil is
2 dispersive, in which case the maximum D15F should be < 0.5
mm.
For nondispersive soils, the maximum D15F should be:

40 − 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴
≤� � [(4 × 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷85 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵) − 0.7𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚∗ ] + 0.7𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚∗
40 − 15

Where:
3
A = Percent passing No. 200 sieve after any regrading.

When 4 x D85B is less than 0.7 mm*, use 0.7 mm*

* For dispersive soils, use 0.5 mm instead of 0.7 mm.

The maximum D15F should be ≤ 4 x D85B of base soil after
4
regrading.

34
5
DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023
DLS-212 – Exercise 2
Exercise
Filter Compatibility

Plot the maximum D15F as “Point A” on Figure 4.

Step 6: Develop Hydraulic Conductivity Requirements

The minimum allowable D15F is:

D15 F ≥ 3 to 5 × D15 B , but not less than 0.1 mm

5 × ____ mm = ____ mm

D15 F ≥ ____ mm

Note that D15B is selected before regrading for Step 6. This is plotted as “Point B” on Figure 4.

Step 7: Prevent Gap Grading

To prevent the use of gap-graded filters, the width of the filter band should be adjusted such that
the ratio of the maximum diameter to the minimum at any percent passing less than 60 percent is
5 or less. This adjustment is done initially with the maximum and minimum D15F sizes
calculated in Steps 5 and 6. The width of other portions of the filter band are checked with a
“sliding bar” as discussed below. In addition, check the D10F and D60F limits for both the
maximum and minimum sides of the filter band to ensure the coefficient of uniformity (Cu) is
between 2 and 6.

“Max D15F/ Min D15F” = ____ mm / ____ mm = ___. If the result is greater than 5 change the
calculated D15F points to Max D15F / 5 = ____ mm.

Max D10F = Point C = Max D15F / 1.2 = ____ / 1.2 = ___ mm

Min D10F = Point D = Min D15F / 1.2 (but not less than 0.075 mm) = ____ / 1.2 = ___ mm

Max D60F = Point E = Point C x 6 = ___ x 6 = ___ mm (Cu = 6)

Min D60F = Point F = Point D x 2 = ___ x 2 = ____ mm (Cu = 2)

A “sliding bar” is used to prevent the specified maximum gradation being more than 5 times the
minimum gradation at any percent passing below 60 percent. The “sliding bar” defined by
“Points G and H” where

6
DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 35
DLS-212 Exercise 2
Exercise
Filter Compatibility
F<G<E

H=Gx5

*DO NOT ADD SIDING BAR IT WILL BE EXPLAINED IN THE SOLUTION

Step 8: Limit Fines Content and Oversize Particles

From Table 5, D5F = ____ mm (“Point I” on Figure 4)

From Table 5, D100F = ___ mm (“Point J” on Figure 4)

Table 5. Maximum and Minimum Particle Size Criteria

Base soil category Maximum D100F Minimum D5F

≤ 2 inches 0.075 mm
ALL categories
(51 mm) (No. 200 sieve)

To limit segregation potential using Table 6, when minimum D10F = ____ mm, the maximum
D90F = ___ mm (“Point K” on Figure 4)

Table 6. Segregation Criteria

If
Then, maximum D90F
minimum
Base soil category is:
D10F is:
(mm)
(mm)
< 0.5 20
0.5–1.0 25
1.0–2.0 30
ALL categories
2.0–5.0 40
5.0–10 50
> 10 60

Step 9: Final Gradation Selection

Commercially available material will be used for construction of this filter because the small
quantity of filter material required for construction will not make producing a different material
financially feasible. A C33 fine aggregate (C33 concrete sand) is filter compatible with many
base soils and the specifications for C33 concrete sand were plotted on Figure 4. Does a C33
meet the filter requirements based on the design filter band? YES or NO (Circle One)

36 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

7
Exercise
Filter Compatibility

Figure 4. Filter Compatibility Results for Base Soil to C33 Concrete Sand

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 37

Module 8
Embankment Design
Objectives
• Describe the importance of design • Explain the importance of filters and
criteria drains, including filter compatibility, toe
• Identify different embankment dam drains and trench drains/filters
configurations and zonation through • Identify filters and fill placement
example cross sections procedures adjacent to outlet works
• Describe foundation design, freeboard conduits and spillway walls
and camber • Recognize the importance of stream
• Recognize upstream and downstream diversion
slope protection features • Identify overtopping protection features

Key Points
• There are numerous factors that need • Numerous cross-sections have been
to be considered when evaluating the used, and the cross-section for a new
location of a new embankment dam, and dam must be selected based the local
the type conditions
of embankment to use • Filters and drains are essential design
• Embankment dams must be designed components for both embankments
for all anticipated loading conditions as well as for outlet works conduits and
• The design of the foundation is critical to spillways
ensure the performance of the structure • Stream diversions and cofferdams are
• Several key features (water barrier, shells, typically required to construct a new
seepage control, slope erosion) need to embankment dam.
be considered

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

38 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 39

Module 9
Static Stability Analysis
Objectives
• Introduce slope stability analyses and inputs required for slope stability analyses
• Provide case histories of slope instability
• Explain effect of changing values of various inputs on the results of the slope stability
analysis

Key Points
• Four slope stability loading conditions are generally considered in embankment
design.
• Soil strengths are always governed by effective stresses.
• Limit equilibriums methods are the most used methods to evaluate slope stability.
• If artesian pressures or a different pore pressure regime is expected in different layers
of the embankment model, this can have a large effect on the analysis results.
• Unit weight, analysis method and computer program are far less critical.
• Pore pressure conditions in the foundation of the embankment are generally not
assumed to not change from the pre-construction evaluation

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

40 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 41

Module 10
Instrumentation
Objectives
• List the elements of an effective dam safety monitoring program
• Describe deformation monitoring and methods
• Describe seepage monitoring and methods
• Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the automated collection of
instrumentation data
• Explain why instrumentation data does not replace visual observations

Key Points
• Elements of an effective dam safety monitoring program.
• Deformation monitoring can monitor for stability, settlement, and differential
settlement and is accomplished by many methods, such as surface monuments,
embedded settlement points, and inclinometers.
• Seepage monitoring can monitor for internal erosion and scour related concerns,
and is accomplished by many methods, such as piezometers, observation wells, and
seepage weirs and flumes.
• Collection of instrumentation data may be automated, which allows for frequent data
collection, collection and evaluation of data at remote locations, and “real time” data
evaluation at any time, though it also presents challenges that must be considered.
• Instrumentation data does not replace visual observations; it supplements those
observations.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

42 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 43

Module 11
Foundation Design
Objectives
• Define foundation design
• Identify the various foundation preparation methods
• Describe foundation improvement methods
• Explain seepage control methods

Key Points
• Foundation shaping and cleaning are crucial for rock foundations and abutments
to prevent low stress zones and CLE at various locations in the foundation and
embankment.
• Dewatering of foundation excavations for embankment dam construction and
rehabilitation is typically required
• Numerous methods for strengthening and cutting off soft and permeable foundations
– confirm Do No Harm.
• Foundation design and construction are critical for dam safety and long-term
performance.
• Evaluations and design updates occur through construction.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

44 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 45

Module 12
Seismic Considerations
Objectives
• Explain the basics of seismic behavior of soils and embankments
• Provide overview of seismic analyses
• Describe material characterization requirements for seismic analyses

Key Points
• Two behaviors of concern are liquefaction or large strength loss leading to instability
and no large strength loss, but accumulated deformations
• Methods to perform seismic evaluations include post-earthquake limit equilibrium
slope stability, Newmark style simplified deformation analyses, and Numerical
analyses using FLAC or similar.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

46 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 47

Module 13
General Edgar Jadwin Dam Case History
Objectives
• Review embankment dam modification case histories to enhance future similar
designs
• Identify the flaw that was left in-place during construction of an earthfill dam
• Evaluate the existing conditions of an existing earthfill embankment to determine
feasible modification alternatives to lower the risk
• Describe the alternatives considered and the reasons the selected alternative was
used in the final design
• Recognize the importance of establishing design criteria during the initial stages of a
final design

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

48 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 49

Exercise
What's Wrong with this Cross Section?
EXERCISE 3 – CROSS SECTION IMPROVEMENT
Review the new embankment dam cross section below and identify as many design errors,
omissions, or improvements as you can. Also provide a bullet list of recommended
instrumentation. Assume the foundation deposits have a low liquefaction potential.

Note impervious fill material consists of CL material, however SM and SP materials are readily
available in the foundation and reservoir area. The sandstone is pervious and horizontally
bedded.

50 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

-1-
Module 14
Rehabilitation Design
Objectives
• Discuss the design of rehabilitation of embankments
• Describe approaches to manage seepage collection and control
• Explain seepage reduction
• Identify slope stability
• Discuss seismic considerations

Key Points
• Just like a new dam design, there is no “one size fits all” for remediation
• Whenever you work in an existing dam and its foundation, expect the Unexpected
• Do No Harm

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

52 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 53

Module 15
Isabella Dam Case Study
Objectives
• Identify major risk-driving PFMs
• Describe design and construction considerations
• Discuss the sourcing, handling, and sequencing of materials
• Discuss observations and lessons learned

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

54 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 55

Module 16
New Embankment Dam Case History
Objectives
• Review the project goals of this case history
• Explore the existing site features and how they influenced the embankment design
• Discuss major embankment design features and challenges
• Identify the typical embankment dam cross section
• Integrate on-site, acceptable materials into the design

Key Points
• It is critical to protect the foundation from internal erosion.
• Extensive dewatering system (well points) was required to excavate to the planned
depths.
• Foundation mapping of the soil foundation was performed prior to placing any fill at
specific areas.
• The trenching method was used to construct the chimney filter.
• Since this was the first filling, identification of potential issues through observations
(seepage, movement/cracks) and instrumentation (abnormal instrument readings)
were critical to ensure it was safe to progress with reservoir filling.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

56 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 57

Module 17
Risk Informed Design
Objectives
• Explore the differences between risk-based decision making and risk-based design
• Review the definition of risk as used in USACE dam and levee safety programs
• Review guidance that defines the risk informed approach used in these programs
• Present a series of case studies as examples of risk informed decisions and risk-based
design

Key Points
• Risk informs the decision to act, but design is still standards based.
• Risk informs what potential failure modes warrant action.
• Risk informs how safe is safe enough (ALARP).
• In some cases, designs may be based on risk that may ignore minimum design
standards (may be more or less than typical design standard depending on risk
characterization)

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

58 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 59

Exercise
Embankment Dam Raise
EXERCISE – EMBANKMENT DAM RAISE
An existing embankment dam provides storage of about 600 acre-feet of water at normal pool
for water supply. Due to increased water demands, the normal pool storage needs to be
increased to 6,800 acre-feet. To provide this additional storage, the existing embankment dam
must be raised by 61 feet. Develop the following preliminary design details to raise the dam:

1. Draw a typical raised dam cross section showing internal zonation, slope protection,
excavations, and dimensions/elevations of critical features.
2. List all materials that are required to raise the dam, and their potential sources.
3. List proposed instruments and locations.
4. List at least two embankment analyses or evaluations that will be needed to complete
the final design of the embankment raise.

Given Information:

Existing Dam and Appurtenant Features:

• See Figure 1 for a typical cross section of the existing embankment
• Constructed in 1977
• Zoned earthfill with a drainage blanket
• Structural height of 86 feet
• Cutoff trench below the dam crest excavated to bedrock
• Foundation rock was not grouted
• Good performance with no history of seepage or instability
• Uncontrolled concrete weir spillway on the left abutment with a crest at 7.5 feet below
the dam crest
• Low level outlet near the left abutment (free standing outlet tower and 36-inch concrete
conduit through the embankment)
• Off-stream reservoir (most of the inflows can be diverted)

Geology:
• Sedimentary rock with low permeabilities on the left abutment, and granite with
moderate to high permeabilities on the right abutment. The contact of the two
formations is about in the middle of the dam.
• Surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium over bedrock.
• A 40-foot-thick deposit of very soft to medium stiff clay foundation material exists
starting at the ground surface and extends upstream and downstream of the existing
dam (except at the cutoff trench).
Borrow Material:
• Clay deposits are located along the bottom of the valley in the existing reservoir area.
• Silty sand and sandy silt colluvial deposits are located on the valley side slopes along the
existing reservoir rim.

60 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

-1-
Exercise
Embankment Dam Raise
• Granite will be blasted to construct the new spillway on the right abutment, and the
granite is massive and unweathered.
• See borrow area plan view (Figure 2) and borrow area typical sections (Figures 3 and 4).

Completed Preliminary Analyses:

• Preliminary stability analyses have been completed for the raised embankment dam
with a 3H:1V upstream slope and a 2.5H:1V downstream slope. The analysis did not
include berms or shear keys and no excavation of the soft clay foundation deposit. The
factors of safety for rapid drawdown and for downstream slope static steady-state
cases were found to be less than the acceptable minimum factors of safety.

Design Assumptions/Key Elevations:

• Assume that the existing spillway and outlet works will be demolished and new
structures will be constructed to align with the raised embankment. This exercise does
not involve any layout of the spillway or outlet works structures.
• The reservoir will be completely drained prior to construction to allow the use of borrow
material from the reservoir area.
• The design must include measures to reduce water loss through the foundation rock.
• New normal pool at El. 5366.
• Raised dam crest elevation = 5377

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 61

-2-
Exercise
Embankment Dam Raise
62 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023
DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

Embankment Dam Raise

Exercise
Centerline existing dam

TH-10
B TH-2 TH-9
TH-5 B

TH-3
TH-1
TH-8
TH-4
TH-7
TH-6

Figure 2 - Borrow Area Plan A

63
Exercise
Embankment Dam Raise
Figure 3 – Borrow Area Typical Cross Section – Cross Valley
64 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023
Exercise
Embankment Dam Raise
Figure 4 – Borrow Area Typical Cross Section – Bottom of Valley
DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 65
Module 18
Green Ridge Glade Dam Case History
Objectives
• List the project goals of this case history
• Describe the existing site features and how they influenced the embankment design
• Discuss major embankment design features and challenges
• Recognize the typical embankment dam cross section in response to Exercise 4
• Discuss construction issues

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

66 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 67

Module 19
Construction Considerations
Objectives
• Describe the materials used during construction (on and off-site sources, processing,
placement, QA/QC observations and testing)
• Identify correct methods of filter and drain placement
• Discuss the importance of protecting filters and drains during construction
• Identify proper compaction methods for clay core and filter/drain materials
• Define the key objectives of performing test fills
• Explain the importance of performing QA/QC
• Identify the key construction methods used for a case history

Key Points
• Material balance should be evaluated to ensure optimum use of on-site materials.
• Filters and drains must be protected from contamination.
• QA/QC are critical to ensure project is constructed as designed, and that no additional
failure modes are created.
• Test fills can be useful in determining equipment that is required and placement
methods.
• Moisture condition filters immediately prior to compaction.
• Do not over compact filters and drains.
• Clay core should be compacted at or slightly above optimum; scarify between lifts to
ensure a good bond and no preferential seepage path is created.

REFLECTION

In the space below, answer the two questions related to this module.

1. What is the most important thing you learned in this module?

2. How will you apply what you learned?

68 DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023

 ADDITIONAL NOTES

DLS-212 | Modules & Workshops | 2023 69

References
Literature References
1 AASHTO T272, Standard Method of Test for One-Point Method for Determining Maximum
Dry Density and Optimum Moisture, January 2018
2 Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 210-I-AWMFH, Amendment IA-3, July 2013
3 ASCE, Geotechnical Practice in Dam Rehabilitation: Special Publication No. 35, Edited by L.
Anderson, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993.
4 ASCE Task Committee, Guidelines for Instrumentation and Measurements for Monitoring
Dam Performance, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000.
5 ASTM C39, Concrete Cylinder Compression Testing
6 ASTM C138, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete
7 ASTM C232, Standard Test Method for Bleeding of Concrete
8 ASTM D2487, Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
9 ASTM D2488, Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-
Manual Procedures)
10 ASTM D2434, Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Coarse-
Grained Soils
11 ASTM D5084, Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of
Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
12 ASTM D422, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils
13 ASTM D2166, Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil
14 ASTM D2850, Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression on
Cohesive Soil
15 ASTM D7181, Standard Test Method for Consolidated Drained Triaxial Compression Test for
Soils
16 ASTM D4767, Standard Test Method for Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test
for Cohesive Soils
17 ASTM D6467, Standard Test Method for Torsional Ring Shear Test to Determine Drained
Residual Shear Strength of Fine-Grained Soils
18 ASTM D698, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
Using Standard Effort
19 ASTM D6276, Standard Test Method for Using pH to Estimate the Soil-Lime Proportion
Requirement for Soil Stabilization
20 ASTM D7625-10, Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Abrasiveness of
Rock Using the CERCHAR Method (CAI Method)
21 Barber, E. and Sawyer, C., “Highway Subdrainage,” Highway Research Board, Proceedings,
Vol. 31, 1952.

70 DLS-212 | References | 2023

References
22 Boulanger, R. and Idriss, I., “Monograph 12: Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes,”
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2008.
23 Boulanger, R. and Idriss, I., “Probabilistic Standard Penetration Test–Based Liquefaction–
Triggering Procedure,” Journal Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138(10), 1185–
1195, 2012.
24 Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, McGraw-Hill, 1988.
25 Bray, Jonathan D., and Thaleia Travasarou. “Simplified procedure for estimating earthquake-
induced deviatoric slope displacements,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 133.4 (2007): 381–392.
26 Bray, Jonathan D., and Thaleia Travasarou. “Pseudostatic slope stability procedure,” 5th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, 2011.
27 Carrier, W.D. 2003. “Goodbye, Hazen; Hello, Kozeny-Carman,” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering. 1054.
28 Casagrande, A. and Fadum, R., “Notes on Soil Testing for Engineering Purposes,” Harvard
University Graduate School Engineering Publication No. 8, 1940.
29 Casagrande, A., “Seepage Through Dams”, Contribution to Soil Mechanics 1925–1940, Boston
Society of Civil Engineers, p. 295, 1937.
30 Castellanos, Bernardo A., Thomas L. Brandon, and Daniel R. VandenBerge. “Use of fully
softened shear strength in slope stability analysis.” Landslides 13.4 (2016): 697–709.
31 Cedergren, HARRY R., and Drainage Seepage. “Flow Nets.” (1967).
32 Cedergren HR (1977) Seepage, drainage, and flow nets, 2nd edition. Wiley, New York, pp. 1–534
33 Cedergren, H. R. (1989). Seepage, drainage, and flow nets, 3rd Ed., Wiley, New York
34 Cetin, K. Onder, et al. “Summary of SPT based field case history data of cetin (2016) database.”
No. METU/GTENG 08/16-01. Middle East Technical University, 2016.
35 Chapuis, R., “Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using
effective diameter and void ratio,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, p. 787–795, 2004.
36 Collins, W.E. and Davis, F.J., “Construction Control of High Earth Dams,” ICOLD, New York,
R.94, 1958.
37 Creager, William Pitcher, Joel De Witt Justin, and Julian Hinds. Engineering for Dams:
General Design. Vol. 1. John Wiley & Sons, 1950.
38 Deep Foundations Institute, Guidelines for Selecting Cutoff Wall Systems, Prepared by the
Slurry Wall Committee, 2021.
39 Deere, D.U. and Dunnicliff, J., Judgment in Geotechnical Engineering: The Professional
Legacy of Ralph B. Peck, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1984.
40 Duncan, M. and Wright S., Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005.
41 Engineering Geology Field Manual - Volume II - 2nd Ed. - Chapter 17, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the interior

DLS-212 | References | 2023 71

References
42 Esmiol, Elbert E. Impervious Soils Used in Rolled Earth Dams. US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Office of the Assistant Commissioner and Chief Engineer, 1954.
43 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Dam Safety: An Owner’s Guidance Manual, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 1987.
44 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Earthquake Analyses and Design of Dams, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2005.
45 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Filters for Embankment Dams: Best Practices for
Design and Construction, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2011.
46 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Technical Manual: Conduits through
Embankment Dams, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2005.
47 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Technical Manual: Plastic Pipe Used in
Embankment Dams, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007.
48 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Technical Manual for Dam Owners, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, 2005.
49 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Overtopping Protection for Dams, FEMA P-1015,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, May 2014.
50 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, Guidelines
for Drilling in and Near Embankment Dams and Their Foundations, Version 3.1, June 2016.
51 United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Publication
No. FHWA NHI-06-088, December 2006.
52 Eseller-Bayat et al., The coupled influence of relative density, CSR, plasticity and content of
fines on cyclic liquefaction resistance of sands, August 2017.
53 European Standard, EN 12716:2018, Execution of Special Geotechnical Work.
54 Fell, R., MacGregor, P. and Stapledon, D., Geotechnical Engineering of Embankment Dams,
Rotterdam: Balkema, 1992.
55 Fookes, P. G. “Geology for engineers: the geological model, prediction and
performance.” Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology 30.4 (1997): 293–424.
56 Fookes, Peter G., Frederick J. Baynes, and John N. Hutchinson. “Total geological history: a
model approach to the anticipation, observation and understanding of site conditions.” ISRM
International Symposium. OnePetro, 2000.
57 Foster, M., Spannagle, M., & Fell, R. (1998). Analysis of embankment dam incidents. University
of New South Wales.
58 Foster, M., Fell, R., and Spannagle, M., “A method for assessing the relative likelihood of failure
of embankment dams by piping.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 37.5 (2000): 1025–1061.
59 Foster, M. and Fell, R., “Assessing Embankment Dam Filters that Do Not Satisfy Design
Criteria,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, p. 398–407, May 2001.
60 Freeze, A. and Cherry, J., Groundwater, Prentice-Hall, 1979.

72 DLS-212 | References | 2023

References
61 Frei, L.R. and Duster, C.O., “Determination and Presentation of Subsurface Conditions for
Design and Construction,” Detection of and Construction at the Soil/Rock Interface ASCE
Symposium, October 1991.
62 Gamez, Joseph A., and Timothy D. Stark. “Fully softened shear strength at low stresses
for levee and embankment design,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 140.9 (2014): 06014010.
63 Golzé, A.R., Handbook of Dam Engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1977.
64 Hamblin, Kenneth, Earth’s Dynamic Systems, Third Edition, 1982​
65 Hanson, Gregory J., K. R. Cook, and S. L. Britton. “Observed erosion processes during
embankment overtopping tests,” 2003 ASAE annual meeting. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2003.
66 Hazen A. “Discussion: dams on sand foundations.” Trans Am Soc Civ Eng. 1911; 73:199–203.
67 Head, K., Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, 3rd Edition, Wiley, 1986.
68 Hess-Brittelle, S., Instrumentation and Monitoring Evaluations for Risk Assessments, 2021​
69 Hilf, J.W, “Compacting Earth Dams with Heavy Tamping Rollers,” Journal of the Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, Paper
1205, 1957.
70 Hirschfeld, Ronald, “Design, Construction, and Inspection of Embankment Dams to Reduce
the Risk of Piping,” Seepage, Piping and Remedial Measures, Interagency Committee on
Dam Safety (ICODS) article, March 23–24, 1995.
71 Höeg, K., Asphaltic Concrete Cores for Embankment Dams, Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute, 1993.
72 Holtz, W.G., “The Determination of Limits for the Control of Placement Moisture in High
Rolled Earth Dams,” 1948.
73 Holtz, Robert D., William D. Kovacs, and Thomas C. Sheahan. An introduction to geotechnical
engineering. Vol. 733. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
74 Hunt, R.E., “Applying Geology to Geotechnical Investigations,” Geo-Strata - Geo-Institute of
ASCE, Vol. 16, No. 6, November/December 2012, pp. 12–13.
75 Boulanger, R. W., and I. M. Idriss. “CPT and SPT based liquefaction triggering
procedures.” Report No. UCD/CGM.-14 1 (2014).
76 Idriss, I. M., and Boulanger, R. W. (2008). Soil liquefaction during earthquakes. Monograph
MNO-12, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 261 pp
77 “Independent Panel to Review Cause of Teton Dam Failure,” Failure of Teton Dam, State of
Idaho, 1976.
78 Institution of Civil Engineers, Clay Barriers for Embankment Dams, Thomas Telford Ltd.,
1990.
79 Institution of Civil Engineers, Dams and Earthquake, Thomas Telford Ltd., 1981.

DLS-212 | References | 2023 73

References
80 International Commission on Large Dams, Bulletin 134: Weak Rocks and Shales in Dams,
Committee on Materials for Fill Dams, 2008.
81 International Commission on Large Dams, Bulletin 135: Geomembrane Sealing Systems for
Dams, European Working Group, 2010.
82 International Commission on Large Dams, “ICOLD 17th Congress Proceedings,” Vienna,
Austria, Q.66–R.62, 1991.
83 International Commissions on Large Dams, Bulletin 150: Cutoffs for Dams, December 2018.
84 Jansen, R., Advanced Dam Engineering for Design, Construction, and Rehabilitation, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.
85 Poullain, J., P.E., Drilling and Sampling of Soil and Rock, PDHOnline Course C 250, 2012.
86 J.P. Bardet, “Experimental Soil Mechanics,” Prentice-Hall, 1997, p. 43​
87 Justin JD, Hinds J, Creager WP (1945) ‘Earth, rock-fill, steel and timber dams’ in Creager, W.P.,
Justin, J.D. and Hinds, J. ‘Engineering for dams’, Vol III. pp. 619–650.
88 Knodel, P.C., “Dispersive Clays,” Advanced Dam Engineering for Design, Construction, and
Rehabilitation, R.B. Jansen, pp. 176–217, 1988.
89 Kramer, R., “Construction Issues from the Designer’s Point-of-View,” Hushan Reservoir
Project, 2010.
90 Kramer, R., “Discussion to Question 53,” 14th Congress, Vol. 5, Rio De Janeiro, International
Commission on Large Dams, 151, bd Haussmann, Paris, 1982.
91 Kramer, R., “Long-term Reliability of Clay Barriers,” Clay Barriers of Embankment Dams,
Institution of Civil Engineers, 1989.
92 Ladd, C., “Test Embankment on Sensitive Clay,” Conference on Performance of Earth and
Earth Supported Structures, Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. I, Part 1, pp. 101–128, 1972.
93 Lambe, T. William. Soil testing for engineers. Vol. 72. No. 5. LWW, 1951.
94 Lambe , T. W. , and Whitman, R. V. (1969). Soil mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
York, N.Y
95 Lambe, T. William, and Robert V. Whitman. Soil mechanics. Vol. 10. John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
96 Leonards, Gerald A., ed. Foundation engineering. McGraw-Hill, 1962.
97 Mansur, Charles I., and Robert I. Kaufman. “Underseepage, Mississippi River Levees, St. Louis
District.” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 122.1 (1957): 985–1008.
98 Matheson, G. D., and W. G. Keir. Site investigation in Scotland. No. TRRL Lab Rpt 828. 1978.
99 Mathis, M., A., Characterization of Claypan Soils in Southeastern Kansas, et al. January 2019
100 Makdisi, Faiz I., and H. Bolton Seed. “Simplified procedure for estimating dam and
embankment earthquake-induced deformations.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering
Division 104.7 (1978): 849–867.
101 Merriman, T., “Naught but the Best,” Civil Engineering, 9:12, pp. 701–702, 1939.

74 DLS-212 | References | 2023

References
102 Montgomery, D. J., Weber, C., and Arnold, T. E., “No Cracking up - This is Serious: Soil Cement
Slope Protection Design and Performance,” ASDSO Dam Safety, September 2012.
103 Morris, M.D, Earth Compaction, Construction Methods and Equipment, McGraw-Hill
Publishing CO., Inc., 1961.
104 Morris, D. and Johnson, A.: Summary of Hydrologic and Physical Properties of Rock and Soil
Materials, as Analyzed by the Hydrologic Laboratory of US Geological Survey 1948–1960, US
Geological Survey, Washington, USA, 1967
105 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Manual on Subsurface
Investigations, 2019.
106 Natural Resource Conservation Service, TR-60 Earth Dams and Reservoirs, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 2005.
107 National Resource Conservation Service, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook,
Resources for Planning and Designing Animal Waste Facilities, IA210-VI-AWMFH, July 2013
108 Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Design Manual 7.01 - Soil Mechanics, Department of
the Navy, 1986.
109 Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Trenching and Excavation Safety, OSHA
2226-10R, 2015.
110 Pabst, M., Robbins, B., Engemoen, B., Hanneman, D., Redlinger, C. and Scott, G., “Heave,
Uplift and Piping at the Toe of Embankment Dams – A New Perspective,” Journal of Dam
Safety, 2013.
111 Palmstrom, Axel F., Pralay K. Santra, and Stacey F. Bent. “Atomic layer deposition
in nanostructured photovoltaics: tuning optical, electronic and surface
properties.” Nanoscale 7.29 (2015): 12266–12283.
112 Palmström, Arild, and Håkan Stille. “7 Rock engineering design tools.” Rock engineering.
Thomas Telford Ltd, 2010. 185–232.
113 Peck, Ralph B., Walter E. Hanson, and Thomas H. Thornburn. Foundation engineering. Vol.
75. No. 4. LWW, 1953.
114 Peck, R., “Where Has All the Judgment Gone?”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 17:4,
pp. 584–590, 1980.
115 Seed, H. Bolton, et al. “Dynamic analysis of the slide in the Lower San Fernando Dam during
the earthquake of February 9, 1971.” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering division 101.9
(1975): 889–911.
116 Seed, Raymond B. “SPT-based analysis of cyclic pore pressure and undrained residual soil
strength.” Proc., H. Boldon Seed Memorial Symp., University of California, Berkeley. Vol. 2.
1990.
117 Slichter CS (1902) The motions of underground waters. US Geological Survey Water Suppl Irr
Pap 67: 13–106
118 Sherard, J., Dunningham, L. and Talbot, J., “Basic Properties of Sand and Gravel Filters,” ASCE,
1984.

DLS-212 | References | 2023 75

References
119 Sherard, J.L., Trends and Debatable Aspects in Embankment Dam Engineering, Water,
Power and Dam Construction, December 1984.
120 Soil Conservation Service, National Engineering Handbook Part 651 - Agricultural Waste
Management Field Handbook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992.
121 Todd, David K., and L. W. Mays. “Groundwater Hydrology. John Willey & Sons.” Inc., New
York 535 (1980).
122 URS, Instrumentation Embankment Design Course, 2013
123 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-1-1804 Geotechnical Investigations, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 2001.
124 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-1-1901 Seepage Analysis and Control of Dams, U.S.
Department of the Army, 1993.
125 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-1156, Chapters 21 and 22, Policy and Procedures, U.S.
Department of the Army, March 2014.
126 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-1901, Section 9-4, Seepage Analysis and Control of
Dams, U.S. Department of the Army, 1993.
127 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-1902 Slope Stability, U.S. Department of the Army,
2003.
128 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-1-1904 Settlement Analysis, U.S. Department of the
Army, 1990.
129 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-1908 Instrumentation of Embankment Dams and
Levees, U.S. Department of the Army, 1995.
130 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-1911 Construction Control for Earth and Rockfill
Dams, U.S. Department of the Army, 1995.
131 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-1913, Engineering and Design, Design and
Construction of Levees, U.S. Department of the Army, 2000.
132 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-2300 General Design and Construction
Considerations for Earth and Rockfill Dams, U.S. Department of the Army, 2004.
133 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EM-1110-2-3506, Grouting Technology, U.S. Department of the
Army, March 2017.
134 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Guidelines for Instrumentation and Measurement for
Monitoring Dam Performance, U.S. Department of the Army, December 2014.
135 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, EC-1156-2-218, Engineering and Design, USACE Levee Safety
Program, U.S. Department of the Army, April 2021.
136 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, ECB-2019-15, Interim Approach for Risk Informed Designs for
Dam and Levee Projects, U.S. Department of the Army, October 2019.
137 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, ER-1110-1-1807, Drilling in Earth Embankment Dams and
Levees, U.S. Department of the Army, 2004.

76 DLS-212 | References | 2023

References
138 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, ER-1110-2-1156, Chapter 18, Risk Assessment Methodology,
Drilling in Earth, U.S. Department of the Army, March 2014.
139 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, ETL 1110-2-3506, Grouting Technology, U.S. Department of the
Army, March 2017.
140 U.S Army Corps of Engineers, ETL 1110-2-586, Dewatering Methods, Evaluations, Design,
Installation, and Performance Monitoring, U.S. Department of the Army, May 2021.
141 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (J.P. Gould), Compression Characteristics of Rolled Fill Materials
in Earth Dams (Technical Manual 648), U.S. Department of the Interior, 1954.
142 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Guidelines for Drilling and Sampling in Embankment Dams,
2010.
143 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Dam Safety Risk Analysis Best Practices Training Manual, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 2011.
144 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987.
145 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 3
Foundation Surface Treatment, U.S. Department of the Interior, July 2012.
146 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 5
Protective Filters, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2011.
147 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 7 Riprap
Slope Protection, U.S. Department of the Interior, May 2014.
148 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 8
Seepage Analysis and Control, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987.
149 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 9, Static
Deformation Analysis, Phase 4 (Final) U.S. Department of the Interior, November 2011.
150 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 15,
Foundation Grouting, Phase 4 (Final) U.S. Department of the Interior, September 2014.
151 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13 Embankment Dams: Chapter 16,
Cutoff Walls, Phase 4 (Final) U.S. Department of the Interior, July 2014.
152 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, 3rd Ed., U.S. Department of the Interior, 1998.
153 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Embankment Dam Instrumentation Manual, U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1987.
154 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual, 2nd Ed., U.S. Department
of the Interior, 2001.
155 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hu Shan Reservoir Project: Technical Review Report,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010.
156 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Maximum Sections and Earthwork Control Statistics,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1994.

DLS-212 | References | 2023 77

References
157 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Arthur, H. G.), Dynamic Analysis of Embankment Dams, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1976.
158 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Davis, F.J.), Summary of Bureau of Reclamation Experience in
Statistical Control of Earth Dam Embankment Construction, U.S. Department of the Interior,
1966.
159 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Holtz, W.G), Report No. 17: Soil as an Engineering Material,
U.S. Department of the Interior, 1974.
160 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Library Catalogue, http://www.usbr.gov/library
161 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, DSO-09-01, Physical Properties of Plastic Pipe Used in
Reclamation Toe Drains, September 2009.
162 U.S. Commission on Large Dams, Anthology of Dam Modification Case Histories, USCOLD
Committee on Dam Safety, 1996.
163 U.S. Commission on Large Dams, Anthology of Dam Modification Case Histories, USCOLD
Committee on Dam Safety, 1996.
164 U.S. Commission on Large Dams, Observed Performance of Dams During Earthquakes
Vol. II, USCOLD Committee on earthquakes, 2000.
165 United States Department of Agriculture, Part 633 Soils Engineering National Engineering
Handbook, Chapter 26 Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters.
166 U.S. Society on Dams, 21st Century Dam Design – Advances and Adaptations, 31st Annual
Conference Proceedings, 2011.
167 U.S. Society on Dams, The Aging of Embankment Dams, USSD Committee on Materials for
Embankment Dams, 2010.
168 U.S. Society on Dams, Dam Modification to Improve Performance During Strong
Earthquakes, USSD Committee on Earthquakes, 2003.
169 U.S. Society on Dams, Guidelines on Design Features of Dams to Effectively Resist Seismic
Ground Motion, USSD Committee on Earthquakes, 2003.
170 U.S. Society on Dams, Materials for Embankment Dams, USSD Committee on Materials for
Embankment Dams, 2011.
171 U.S. Society on Dams, Guidance for Surface Preparation of Dam Foundations, Draft, March
2021.
172 Vaughan, Peter H., and Hermusia F. Soares. “Design of filters for clay cores of dams.” Journal
of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 108.1 (1982): 17–31.
173 Von Thun, J. Lawrence. Application of Statistical Data from Dam Failures and Accidents to
Risk-Based Decision Analysis on Existing Dams. Bureau of Reclamation internal document.
October 1985.
174 Wan, Chi Fai, and Robin Fell. “Assessing the potential of internal instability and suffusion in
embankment dams and their foundations.” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental
engineering 134.3 (2008): 401–407.

78 DLS-212 | References | 2023

References
175 Weaver K., Dam Foundation Grouting, ASCE, 1991.
176 Wohl, Ellen. “Floodplains and wood.” Earth-Science Reviews 123 (2013): 194–212.
177 Wohl, Ellen. Mountain rivers revisited. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
178 Yong, Raymond Nen, and Benno P. Warkentin. Introduction to soil behavior. No. 451 pp. 1966.
179 Youd, T. Leslie, and Izzat M. Idriss. “Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of
soils.” Journal of geotechnical and Geoenvironmental engineering 127.4 (2001): 297–313.
180 Zanger, C. N. “Theory and problems of water percolation, US Bur.” Rec. Engineering
Monograph 8 (1953): 76.
181 Zeping, X.U., “Discussion on Technologies of Modern High Rockfill Dam Construction,”
ICOLD, Kyoto, Q.92-R.28, 2012.

Photo References
1 NGI Research and Development Solutions, https://www.ngi.no
2 The Constructor, Laboratory Tests for Determining Strength of Rocks, https://theconstructor.
org/building/laboratory-tests-determine-strength-rocks/11665/​
3 Dr. J.N. Jha, Professor and Head (Civil Engineering), Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College,
Ludhiana, Punjab-141006​, https://slideplayer.com/slide/4713675/
4 Geoengineer, Prefabricated Vertical Drains, March 2014. https://www.geoengineer.org/
education/web-class-projects/cee-542-soil-site-improve-winter-2014/assignments/
prefabricated-vertical-drains​
5 Dynamic Compaction, Deep Densification, Pete G. Nicholson, 2015, Soil Investigation and
Pile Design, El-Reedy, M., 2017. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dynamic-
compaction
6 Interactive geotechnical design of bridge foundations, Kovacevic M., https://www.
researchgate.net/figure/Jet-Grouting-procedure_fig2_237749672
7 Hoover Dam, Information and Background
https://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/hoover_dam/index.htm
8 DGSI Durham Geo Slope Indicator, Inclinometers, Inclinometer Applications, https://
durhamgeo.com/inclinometers/​
9 United States Geological Survey, usgs.com
10 Kansas Geological Survey, Kansas Earthquakes, http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Geophysics/
Earthquakes/network.html

DLS-212 | References | 2023 79

References
11 Encardio Rite, Multipoint Borehole Extensometer- Introduction, Application, and System
Requirements, https://www.encardio.com/blog/multipoint-borehole-extensometer-
introduction-application-and-system-requirements/​
12 Monitoring and Modeling Ground Deformations During Tunneling, Kavvadas, M. May 2003.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Top-Sliding-curvometer-and-bottom-Chain-
deflectometer-for-measuring-deflections-of_fig5_252835619
13 DGSI, Durham Geo Slope Indicator, Rod Extensometer,
https://durhamgeo.com/product/rod-extensometer/
14 Bauer Trench Cutter Systems, Bauer Masschinen GmbH, 2016. https://www.ecanet.com/
uploads/files/Resources/BC_Trench_Cutter_Systems_EN_905_679_2.pdf​
15 Science Direct, Dynamic Compaction, Soil Improvements and Ground Modification
Methods, 2015. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/dynamic-compaction
16 Jet Grouting Procedure, Kovacevic, M., Figure 2, “Interactive Geotechnical Design of Bridge
Foundations.” https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Jet-Grouting-procedure_fig2_237749672.
17 CasagrandeGroup, Diaphragm Wall, Hydromills, FD60 Hydromill.
https://www.casagrandegroup.com/diaphragm-wall/hydromills/fd60-hydromill/
18 Civil Digital, Ground Improvement Techniques, Shereena, O. August 2016. https://civildigital.
com/ground-improvement-techniques-complete-list-of-methods-classifications/
19 Keller, Vibro-Compaction.
https://www.kellerme.com/expertise/techniques/vibro-compaction
20 The Foundations of Antarctica,
https://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/antarctic/geology/3_foundations
21 United States Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil
Survey, https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/​
22 United States Geological Survey, The National Map Data Delivery Application.
https://www.usgs.gov/the-national-map-data-delivery
23 United States Geological Survey, The National Geologic Map Database.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmdb/ngmdb_home.html
24 United States Geological Survey, Geologic Maps of the US States.
https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/
25 United States Geological Survey, Historic Topographical Maps.
https://nationalmap.gov/historical
26 United States Geological Survey, National Geologic Map Database, Geolex Search.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/search

80 DLS-212 | References | 2023

References
27 National Aeronautics and Space Administrations, Curation Lunar, Lunar Sampling Laboratory
Tour. https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/laboratory_tour.cfm
28 Hydropower Reform Coalition, National Environmental Policy Act.
https://hydroreform.org/resource/national-environmental-policy-act-nepa/
29 Kenilworth Historical Society, National Register Properties.
https://kenilworthhistory.org/national-register-properties/
30 Endangered Species Coalition, https://www.endangered.org/
31 Exploratory Test Pit Excavations, Devin, S. P.E., G.E., https://devingeo.com/home/projects/
geotechnical/site-investigation/exploratory-test-pit-excavations/
32 Thompson Brothers Drilling.
http://thompsonbrothersdrilling.com/data1/images/auger_bit_drilling.jpg
33 Civil Concepts, Standard Penetration Test, Mahajan, B.
https://civiconcepts.com/blog/spt-test
34 GeoComp Instrumentation and Monitoring Solutions, https://www.geocomp.com/
35 Geotechnical Testing Equipment, Consolidation Apparatus,
https://geotechnical-equipment.com/product/consolidation-apparatus/
36 GeoEngineer, Soil Consolidation and Oedometer Test, https://www.geoengineer.org/
education/laboratory-testing/soil-consolidation
37 Soil Observation Institute, “Dispersion – An Underlying Issue”, August 2014. http://soilnews.
feedsynews.com/dispersion-an-underlying-issue/
38 Hydrometer Procedure – AASHTO T88, http://www.atechcenter.com/hyd1.html
39 VJ Tech, Introduction to Direction Simple Shear Testing, https://www.vjtech.co.uk/blog/
introduction-to-direct-simple-shear-dss-testing​
40 ELE International, Materials Testing Equipment, https://www.ele.com/
41 Effects of multiple corrections on triaxial compression testing of sands, Omar, T., August 2014.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-diagram-of-the-triaxial-testing-system_
fig1_273455888
42 Sieve Analysis and Particle Size Analysis, Haseeb Jamal, March 2017,
https://www.aboutcivil.org/Sieve-analysis-and-soil-classification.html
43 Test Sieves for Gradation Analysis of Soils, Blau-Metall Laboratory Test Sieves,
https://labsieves.com/blau-metall/test-sieves-for-gradation-analysis-of-soils/

DLS-212 | References | 2023 81

Glossary
AALL Average Annualized Life Loss
tADAS automated data acquisition system
AEP Annual exceedance probability
ARA applied Research Associates
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASDSO Association of State Dam Safety Officials
ASTM American Society of Testing Materials (now ASTM International)
BEP backward erosion piping, internal erosion
blanket drain zone that provides foundation hydrostatic pressure relief for pervious
foundations and protects against particle movement in soil foundations,
collects seepage from water collected by the chimney drain
BPT Becker penetration test
broadly soils with Cu>4 gravels, Cu>6 sands and 1<Cc<3
graded
c cohesion
c' effective cohesion
Ca coefficient of secondary compression
CB Cement-bentonite trench-excavated barrier wall
Cc virgin compression index
Cc coefficient of curvature (=D102/(D60xD10))
CDSM Cement deep soil mixing
chimney drain zone (typically gravel) that carries away seepage coming through the
chimney filter, acts as transition zone between the chimney filter and the
downstream shell
chimney filter zone (typically sand) that protects the dam core from internal erosion and
internal erosion by retaining particles
CLE concentrated leak erosion, internal erosion
CMP corrugated metal pipe
CPT cone penetrometer test
CSM cutter soil mixing
CSU Colorado State University
Cu coefficient of uniformity (=D60/D10)
cutoff wall vertical barrier through soil or rock such as grout curtains or trenches held
open during excavation with bentonite or polymer slurry and backfilled with
a soil mixed with bentonite (and sometimes cement)
Cv coefficient of consolidation
d/s downstream
DMM deep soil mixing

82 DLS-212 | Glossary | 2023

Glossary
DMT Dilatometer test
DPP Drilling Program Plan
Dr relative density
drain stone free draining gravel with small% clay and silt providing particle retention and
drainage (primary purpose in staged filter-drain)
DSM deep soil mixing
DSMS Dam Safety Modification Study
e void ratio
EDM Electronic distance measurement
EM electromagnetic methods geophysical survey
ER Electrical resistivity geophysical survey
exaggerated
scale
F Factor of Safety
f angle of internal friction
f' effective angle of internal friction
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
fetch straight line distance of wind travel across the reservoir to the dam
filter-drain sequential interval of filter and drain
filters well graded free draining sand with small % clay and silt providing particle
retention (primary purpose in staged filter-drain) and drainage
FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua finite difference analysis software
FS Factor of Safety
GCL Geosynthetic clay liner
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HAC hydraulic asphalt core
HDPE high density polyethylene
i gradient, ratio of head loss over distance for that head loss (Dh/Dl)
ICOLD International Committee on Large Dams
impervious low permeability zone that extends the seepage path and increases the head
blanket loss zone Upstream blankets are integrated into the core of the dam.
IPI in-place inclinometers
k hydraulic conductivity
K hydraulic conductivity, coefficient of permeability
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging, non intrusive survey scanning
LL liquid limit
LLDPE linear low density polyethylene

DLS-212 | Glossary | 2023 83

Glossary
MHP maximum high pool
n porosity
Nd number of equipotential drops in flownet
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Nf number of flow paths in flow net
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
Np number of equipotential drops in flow net
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
O&M operations and maintenance
P Wave Seismic compression wave, particles compress and expand in line with wave
progression
PED Pre-construction Engineering and Design
PFM potential failure mode
PFMA potential failure mode analysis
PI plasticity index
PIE Post Implementation Evaluation
PL plastic limit
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
PMT pressure meter test
poorly graded soils with Cu<4
s
poorly sorted soils with Cu>4 gravels, Cu>6 sands and 1<Cc<3
PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
PVC polyvinyl chloride
PZ piezometer
QA or Q/A quality assurance
QC or Q/C quality control
R wave runup, maximum elevation on embankment sloop reach by waves with
respect to the water surface elevation on the slope without waves
rc primary consolidation settlement
RC relative compaction
Reclamation US Bureau of Reclamation
relief well collects seepage in foundation that cannot be collected by to drain because
of impervious layers; used to reduce artesian pressures
ri immediate settlement
rs secondary consolidation settlement

84 DLS-212 | Glossary | 2023

Glossary
S wave setup, vertical rise in stillwater level due to wind related momentum on
the water surface, water rises up on the leeward side of a dam
S Wave Seismic shear wave, travel through solids only, induce motion back and for
perpendicular to the line of wave progression
SB Soil-bentonite trench-excavated barrier wall
SCB Soil-cement-bentonite trench-excavated barrier wall
SCE soil contact erosion, internal erosion
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SEEP/W GeoStudio seepage modeling software
SL shrinkage limit
SLOPE/W GeoStudio slope stability modeling software
SLR Sea level rise
SPT standard penetration test
TAS top of active storage
toe drain collects water from blanket drain and foundation seepage
TRD Trench cutting remixing deep wall method barrier wall
TRG tolerable risk guidelines
u/s upstream
uniformly soils with Cu<4
graded s
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS US Geologic Survey
USSD US Society on Dams
VFD vertical filter drain
well graded soils with Cu>4 gravels, Cu>6 sands and 1<Cc<3
soils
well sorted soils with Cu<4

DLS-212 | Glossary | 2023 85

Risk Management Center Training
DLS-212
Embankment Dam Design
Participant Workbook

Information about this training and other dam or levee safety trainings
can be found on the RMC training website at www.rmc.usace.army.
mil/Training. If you have questions about dam or levee safety trainings
please email [email protected].