Internal Erosion Toolbox PDF

INTERNAL EROSION TOOLBOX
A Method for Estimating Probabilities of Failure of

Embankment Dams due to Internal Erosion
Best Practices Guidance Document
4 August 2009
Credits
USACE
Best Practices
Authors:
Jeff Schaefer
US Army Corps of Engineers, ERRDX
Date:
Status:
4 August 2009
Final Draft
Date:
Status:
21 August 2008
Delta Version, Issue 2
Noah Vroman
US Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC
Tim OLeary
US Army Corps of Engineers, ERRDX
USACE-USBR
Unified Method
Authors:
Robin Fell
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of New South Wales, Sydney
Mark Foster
URS Australia
John Cyganiewicz
US Bureau of Reclamation
George Sills
Noah Vroman
Richard Davidson
URS Corporation
Table of Contents
Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1

1.1
1.2
1.3
Introduction
General Process
Information Review
2-1
2-1
2-2
Failure Modes and Load Partitioning--------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4
1-1
1-1
1-2
Methodology------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
General
Terminology to Describe Embankment Types
Terminology
Generic Event Tree

General Failure Modes
3.2.1
Internal Erosion through the Embankment
3.2.2
Internal Erosion through the Foundation
3.2.3
Internal Erosion of the Embankment into or at the Foundation
Identification of Failure Paths
3.3.1
Overview
3.3.2
Examples
Failure Path Screening
3.4.1
Overview
3.4.2
3.4.3
Internal Erosion through the Soil Foundation
3.4.4
Partitioning of the Reservoir Levels
3.5.1
Pool of record level
3.5.2
Partitioning of reservoir levels
3.5.3
Assessing frequencies of reservoir loading
Earthquake Load Partitioning
3-1
3-3
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-5
3-5
3-6
3-9
3-9
3-10
3-17
3-19
3-20
3-20
3-20
3-21
3-21
Application of Tables for Estimating Conditional Probabilities --------------------------- 4-1

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
General Approach
Historical Frequencies of Cracks and Poorly Compacted or High Permeability
Zones in Embankments
Historical Frequencies for Internal Erosion in and into the Foundation
Estimating Conditional Probabilities
4.4.1
Estimating conditional probabilities using relative importance factors and
likelihood factors
4.4.2
Estimating conditional probabilities using scenario tables
4.4.3
Estimating conditional probabilities using probability estimate tables
Length Effects
Nature of the Estimates of Probabilities Given by the Toolbox
4.6.1
The toolbox gives best estimate probabilities
4-1
4-1
4-3
4-3
4-3
4-4
4-4
4-5
4-13
4-13
Table of Contents
4.6.2
4.6.3
4.6.4
Adjusting the toolbox best estimates

Limitations of the methods used in the toolbox
Assessment of probabilities of failure for failure modes which are not
covered by the toolbox
4.7 Modeling Uncertainty in the Estimates of Conditional Probabilities
4.7.1
Purpose of this section
4.7.2
Sensitivity analysis
4.7.3
Uncertainty analysis
4.8 Summarizing (Making the Case)
4.9 Development of System Response Curves
4.10 Combining Probabilities
5
4-15
4-15
4-15
4-16
4-16
4-21
4-21
4-23
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Transverse Cracks in the Embankment ------ 5-1

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
4-13
4-14
Overall Approach
Probability of Transverse Cracking in the Embankment
5.2.1
Transverse cracking due to cross valley differential settlement (IM1)
5.2.2
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement adjacent to a cliff at the
top of the embankment (IM2)
5.2.3
Transverse cracking due to cross section settlement due to poorly
compacted shoulders (IM3)
5.2.4
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement in the foundation soil
beneath the core (IM4)
5.2.5
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement due to embankment
staging (IM5)
5.2.6
Transverse cracking due to desiccation (IM6 and IM7)
5.2.7
Transverse cracking due to an earthquake (IM8)
Probability of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Embankment
5.3.1
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement causing cross valley
arching (IM9)
5.3.2
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement causing arching of the
core onto the embankment shoulders (IM10)
5.3.3
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement in the soil foundation
5.3.4
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement over small-scale
irregularities in the foundation profile beneath the core (IM12)
Factors to Account for Observations and Measured Settlements
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Transverse Crack or Hydraulic Fracture in
the Embankment
5.5.1
Overall approach
5.5.2
Details of the method
5-1
5-3
5-3
5-5
5-7
5-9
5-11
5-11
5-15
5-18
5-18
5-20
5-21
5-21
5-23
5-26
5-26
5-28
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Poorly Compacted or High

Permeability Zones in the Embankment ---------------------------------------------------------- 6-1
6.1
6.2
Overall Approach
Probability of Continuous Poorly Compacted or High Permeability Zones in the
Embankment or on the Core-Foundation/Abutment Contact
ii
6-1
6-2
Table of Contents
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones within the core (IM13)

Poorly compacted or high permeability zones at the corefoundation/abutment contact (IM14)
6.2.3
High permeability zones in the embankment due to freezing (IM15 and
IM16)
Probability of Continuous Poorly Compacted or High Permeability Zones adjacent
to a Conduit or Features Allowing Erosion into the Conduit
6.3.1
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a conduit (IM17)
6.3.2
Features allowing erosion into a conduit (IM18)
Probability of Continuous Poorly Compacted or High Permeability Zones or Gaps
adjacent to a Spillway or Abutment Wall
6.4.1
Approach
6.4.2
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a spillway or
abutment wall (IM19)
6.4.3
Crack or gap adjacent to a spillway or abutment wall (IM20)
6.4.4
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement adjacent to a spillway or
6.4.5
Special considerations for wrap-around details for connection of
embankment dam to concrete gravity dam (IM19 and IM21)
Factors to Account for Observations
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Poorly Compacted or High Permeability
Zones in the Embankment or adjacent to a Conduit or Wall
6.6.1
Screening of erosion mechanism based on soil classification
6.6.2
Assessment of the probability of initiation of backward erosion in a layer
of cohesionless soil or soil with Plasticity Index 7
6.6.3
Probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion in a layer of cohesionless
soil or soil with Plasticity Index 7 (PI 12 for seepage gradients > 4)
6.6.4
Probability of initiation of erosion in a poorly compacted or high
permeability cohesive soil layer and in silt-sand-gravel soils in which
collapse settlement may form a crack or flaw (IM13 and IM14)
6.6.5
Probability of initiation of erosion in a high permeability soil due to frost
action (IM15 and IM16)
6.6.6
permeability cohesive soil layer adjacent to a conduit (IM17)
6.6.7
Probability of initiation of erosion into a conduit (IM18)
6.6.8
permeability cohesive soil layer adjacent to a wall (IM19)
6-2
6-7
6-8
6-13
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-15
6-16
6-17
6-19
6-20
6-22
6-24
6-24
6-25
6-33
6-35
6-37
6-38
6-39
6-39
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Soil Foundation------------------------------------- 7-1

7.1
7.2
Screening Check on Soil Classification

Probability of Initiation of Backward Erosion in a Layer of Cohesionless Soil or
Soil with Plasticity Index 7 in the Foundation (IM22)
7.2.1
Overall approach
7.2.2
Probability of a continuous layer of cohesionless soil (Pexit)
7.2.3
Probability of a seepage exit (Pexit)
7.2.4
Probability of initiation of backward erosion given a seepage exit exists
iii
7-1
7-1
7-1
7-2
7-2
7-6
Table of Contents
7.3
7.4
Probability of Initiation of Suffusion in a Cohesionless Layer in the Foundation

(IM23)
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Crack in Cohesive Soil in the Foundation
(IM24)
7.4.1
Overall approach
7.4.2
Some factors to consider in this assessment and suggested method for
estimating the probability of a continuous crack
7-9
7-9
7-9
7-10
Probability of Continuous Open Defects in the Rock Foundation ----------------------- 8-1

8.1
8.2
Overall Approach
Probability of Continuous Defects in the Rock Foundation due to Stress Relief in
the Valley Sides
8.2.1
Overview of method
8.2.2
Probability of continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley
sides based on geologic and topographic data (PGT)
8.2.3
sides based on site investigations, construction, and performance data
(PSC)
8.2.4
Effects of blasting on the foundation
8.3 Probability of Continuous Defects in the Rock Foundation due to Valley Bulge or
Rebound
8.3.1
Overview of method
8.3.2
Probability of continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound
based on geologic and topographic data (PGT)
8.3.3
based on site investigations, construction, and performance data (PSC).
8.4 Probability of Continuous Defects in the Rock Foundation due to Solution Features
8.4.1
Overview of method
8.4.2
Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based on
geologic and topographic data (PGT)
8.4.3
Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based on
site investigations, construction, and performance data (PSC)
8.5 Probability of Continuous Defects in the Rock Foundation due to Other Geological
Features such as Landslides, Faults, or Shears
8.5.1
Overview of method
8.5.2
Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears
8.5.3
Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears
based on site investigations, construction, and performance data (PSC)
8.6 Weighted Averages of Estimated Probability of Continuous Rock Defects
8.7 Probability of Grouting Being Ineffective in Cutting Off Rock Defects (PGI)
8.8 Probability of Cut-Off Walls Being Ineffective in Cutting Off Rock Defects (PCI)
8.9 Probability of Rock Surface Treatment Being Ineffective at Preventing Contact of
the Core with Open Rock Defects (PTI)
8.10 Probability of Continuous Rock Defects (PCR)
8.11 Describing the Defects
8.11.1 Extent of features associated with stress relief in the valley sides
iv
8-1
8-4
8-4
8-4
8-7
8-8
8-8
8-8
8-9
8-11
8-12
8-12
8-13
8-15
8-16
8-16
8-17
8-19
8-20
8-21
8-23
8-25
8-25
8-26
8-26
Table of Contents
8.11.2
8.11.3
8.11.4
9
9.3
9.4
9.5
General Principles
Overall Approach
9.2.1
Rock Foundations
9.2.2
Open-Work Granular Foundations
Probability of a Continuous Pathway of Coarse-Grained Layers in Soil Foundations
Probability of Initiation of Scour at the Core-Foundation Contact
Probability of Soil Transport through Defects
9-1
9-1
9-1
9-4
9-6
9-8
9-8
Probability of Continuation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------10-1

10.1 Probability of Continuation for Internal Erosion through the Embankment
10.1.1 Overall Approach
10.1.2 Probability of continuation (PCE) Scenario 1 (homogeneous zoning)
10.1.3 Probability of continuation (PCE) Scenario 2 (downstream shoulder can
hold a crack or pipe)
10.1.4 Probability for continuation Scenario 3 (filter/transition zone is present
downstream of the core or a downstream shoulder zone which is not
capable of holding a crack/pipe)
10.1.5 Probability of continuation (PCE) Scenario 4 (internal erosion into open
defects, joints, or cracks in conduits, walls, toe drains, or rock
foundations)
10.2 Probability of Continuation for Internal Erosion through Soil Foundations
10.2.1 Overall approach
10.3 Probability of Continuation for Internal Erosion of the Embankment into or at the
Foundation
10.3.1 Scour along rock defects or erosion into rock defects
10.3.2 Scour along the contact or erosion into open-work granular foundations
11
8-29
8-29
8-29
Probability of Initiation of Erosion from the Embankment into or at the

Foundation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9-1
9.1
9.2
10
Extent of features associated with valley bulge or rebound

Extent of solution features
Extent of other geological features such as landslides faults and shears
10-1
10-1
10-3
10-3
10-4
10-16
10-17
10-17
10-18
10-18
10-18
Probability of Progression ----------------------------------------------------------------------------11-1

11.1 Overall Approach
11.2 Probability of Forming a Roof
11.2.1 Internal erosion through the embankment
11.2.2 Internal erosion through a soil foundation
11.3 Probability of Crack Filling Action Being Ineffective
11.3.2 Internal erosion through the foundation
11.3.3 Internal erosion of the embankment into or at the foundation
11.4 Probability for Limitation of Flows
11.4.1 Flow limitation by upstream zone
11.4.2 Flow into/out of open joint in conduits
11-1
11-1
11-1
11-1
11-4
11-4
11-4
11-4
11-6
11-6
11-6
Table of Contents
11.4.3
12
Flow into jointed bedrock
11-6
Probability of Unsuccessful Intervention --------------------------------------------------------12-1

12.1 General Principles
12.2 Some Information on the Rate of Internal Erosion and Piping
12.3 Detection
12.3.1 Some general principles
12.3.2 Probability of not detecting internal erosion (Pndi)
12.4 Intervention and Repair
12.5 Probability of Unsuccessful Intervention
13
Probability of Breach -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------13-1

13.1 Overall Approach and Screening
13.1.2 Screening of breach mechanisms
13.2 Probability of Breach by Gross Enlargement (Pge)
13.2.1 Screening for internal erosion through the embankment, through the soil
foundation, and from the embankment into or at the foundation
13.2.2 Assessment for internal erosion through the embankment, through the soil
foundation, and from the embankment into or at the foundation
13.3 Probability of Breach by Slope Instability (Psi)
13.3.1 Approach
13.3.2 Probability of slope instability initiates for internal erosion through the
embankment, through the soil foundation, and from the embankment into
or at the foundation (Psi-i)
13.3.3 Probability of slope instability of the embankment initiates for internal
erosion in a rock foundation (Psi-i)
13.3.4 Loss of freeboard due to slope instability (Psi-lf)
13.4 Estimation of the Probability of Breach by Sloughing or Unraveling (Psu)
13.5 Probability of Breach by Sinkhole Development (Psd)
13.5.1 Approach
13.5.2 Probability of sinkhole formation (Ps-f)
13.5.3 Probability of loss of freeboard due to sinkhole formation (Ps-lf)
14
12-1
12-2
12-5
12-5
12-6
12-10
12-12
13-1
13-1
13-1
13-3
13-3
13-4
13-5
13-5
13-6
13-8
13-12
13-13
13-16
13-16
13-16
13-16
References -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14-1
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Navigation Tables for Internal Erosion through the Embankment

Navigation Tables for Internal Erosion in Soil Foundations
Navigation Tables for Continuous Rock Defects
Navigation Tables for Internal Erosion of the Embankment into or at the Foundation
vi
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 3.1 Screening of initiating mechanisms for internal erosion through the embankment due to
concentrated leaks in transverse cracks ......................................................................... 3-10
concentrated leaks in hydraulic fractures....................................................................... 3-13
concentrated leaks in poorly compacted or high permeability zones ............................ 3-14
Table 3.4 Screening of initiating mechanisms for internal erosion through the foundation ................ 3-17
Table 3.5 Screening of initiating mechanisms for internal erosion of the embankment into or at the
foundation...................................................................................................................... 3-19
Table 3.6 Example of earthquake load partitions................................................................................. 3-21
Table 4.1 Estimated historical frequencies of cracking, hydraulic fracture or poorly compacted or
high permeability zones in embankment dams................................................................ 4-2
Table 4.2 Historical frequencies for cracking or poorly compacted zone in the embankment dam
body ................................................................................................................................. 4-2
Table 4.3 Length effects for internal erosion through the embankment due to concentrated leaks in
transverse cracks.............................................................................................................. 4-6
Table 4.4 Length effects for internal erosion through the embankment due to concentrated leaks in
hydraulic fractures ........................................................................................................... 4-8
Table 4.5 Length effects for internal erosion through the embankment due to poorly compacted or
high permeability zones................................................................................................... 4-9
Table 4.6 Length effects for internal erosion through the soil foundation and into or at the foundation4-11
Table 4.7 Best estimate, likely high, and likely low equivalence table................................................ 4-18
Table 5.1 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking in the embankment due to cross
valley differential settlement (IM1)................................................................................. 5-3
Table 5.2 Probability of transverse cracking in the embankment dams due to cross valley differential
settlement (IM1) versus (RFxLF) ................................................................................. 5-4
Table 5.3 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking in the embankment due to
differential settlement adjacent a cliff at the top of the embankment (IM2) ................... 5-5
Table 5.4 Probability of transverse cracking in the embankment due to differential settlement
adjacent to a cliff at the top of the embankment (IM2) versus (RFxLF) ...................... 5-6
Table 5.5 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking in the embankment due to cross
section settlement due to poorly compacted shoulders (IM3) ......................................... 5-7
Table 5.6 Probability of transverse cracking in the embankment due to cross section settlement due to
poorly compacted shoulders (IM3) versus (RFxLF) .................................................... 5-8
differential settlement in the foundation soil beneath the core (IM4) ............................. 5-9
Table 5.8 Probability of transverse cracking due to differential settlement in the foundation soil
beneath the core (IM4) versus (RFxLF) ..................................................................... 5-10
Table 5.9 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking due to desiccation at the
embankment crest (IM6) ............................................................................................... 5-12
Table 5.10 Probability of transverse cracking due to desiccation at the embankment crest (IM6)
versus (RFxLF) ........................................................................................................... 5-13
Table 5.11 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking due to desiccation at seasonal
shutdown layers during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM7) ................ 5-14
vii
Table 5.12 Probability of transverse cracking due to desiccation versus at seasonal shutdown layers
during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM7) versus (RFxLF) .............. 5-14
Table 5.13 Damage classification system (Pells and Fell, 2002, 2003) ............................................... 5-15
Table 5.14 Probability of transverse cracking and maximum likely crack width at the top of the core
due to an earthquake (IM8)............................................................................................ 5-17
Table 5.15 Factors influencing the likelihood of hydraulic fracturing in the embankment due to
differential settlement causing cross valley arching (IM9) ........................................... 5-18
Table 5.16 Probability of hydraulic fracturing in the embankment due to differential settlement
causing cross valley arching (IM9) versus (RFxLF) .................................................. 5-19
differential settlement causing arching of the core onto the embankment shoulders
(IM10)............................................................................................................................ 5-20
Table 5.18 Probability of hydraulic fracturing in the embankment due to differential settlement
causing arching of the core onto the embankment shoulders (IM10) versus (RFxLF)5-21
differential settlement over small-scale irregularities in the foundation profile beneath
the core (IM12).............................................................................................................. 5-22
Table 5.20 Probability of hydraulic fracturing in the embankment due to differential settlement over
small-scale irregularities in the foundation profile beneath the core (IM12) versus
(RF x LF) .................................................................................................................... 5-22
Table 5.21 Settlement multiplication factors versus observed settlements .......................................... 5-24
Table 5.22 Cracking observation factors (applies to upper embankment only) ................................... 5-25
Table 5.23 Maximum likely width of cracking at the top of the core for transverse cracking in the
embankment (IM1 through IM7 and IM21) versus (RFxLF) ..................................... 5-28
Table 5.24 Maximum likely depth of cracking from the top of the core for transverse cracking in the
embankment (IM1 through IM5 and IM8) .................................................................... 5-29
Table 5.25 Maximum likely depth of desiccation cracking based on climate (IM6 and IM7) ............ 5-29
Table 5.26 Maximum likely width of cracking for hydraulic fracturing in the embankment (IM9 and
IM20) versus (RFxLF)................................................................................................ 5-30
Table 5.27 Maximum likely width of cracking in the embankment for hydraulic fracturing in the
embankment (IM10 through IM12) versus (RFxLF).................................................. 5-30
Table 5.28 Examples of estimated maximum likely depths below the top of the core and widths of
cracking formed by hydraulic fracture in the embankment (IM9) ................................ 5-31
Table 5.29 Representative erosion rate index (IHET) versus soil classification for non-dispersive soils
based on Wan and Fell (2002, 2004) ............................................................................. 5-31
Table 5.30 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for ML or SM with < 30% fines soil
types............................................................................................................................... 5-33
Table 5.31 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for SC with <40% fines or SM with >
30% fines soil types....................................................................................................... 5-33
Table 5.32 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for SC with > 40% fines or CL-ML soil
types............................................................................................................................... 5-34
Table 5.33 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for CL or MH soil types........................ 5-34
Table 5.34 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for CL-CH or CH with LL < 65 soil types5-35
Table 5.35 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for CH with LL > 65 soil types ............. 5-35
Table 5.36 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for dispersive soils (CL, CH, CL-CH) . 5-36
Table 5.37 Estimated hydraulic shear stress (N/m2) from water flowing in an open crack, versus
crack width and flow gradient ....................................................................................... 5-36
Table 5.38 Initial shear stress assumed for Table 5.30 to Table 5.36 .................................................. 5-37
viii
Table 6.1 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high permeability zones within
the core for cohesive soils (IM13) ................................................................................... 6-3
Table 6.2 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high permeability zones within
the core for cohesionless soils (IM13)............................................................................. 6-5
Table 6.3 Probability of poorly compacted or high permeability layers within the core (IM13) versus
(RFxLF) ........................................................................................................................ 6-6
Table 6.4 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high permeability zones at the
core-foundation/abutment contact (IM14)....................................................................... 6-7
Table 6.5 Probability of a poorly compacted or high permeability zones at the corefoundation/abutment contact (IM14) versus (RFxLF).................................................. 6-8
Table 6.6 Factors influencing the likelihood of high permeability zones due to freezing at the
embankment crest (IM15)................................................................................................ 6-9
Table 6.7 Probability of high permeability zones due to freezing at the embankment crest (IM15)
versus (RFxLF) ........................................................................................................... 6-10
Table 6.8 Factors influencing the likelihood of high permeability zones due to freezing at seasonal
shutdown layers during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM16) .............. 6-11
Table 6.9 Probability of high permeability zones due to freezing at seasonal shutdown layers during
construction or staged construction surfaces (IM16) versus (RFxLF) ....................... 6-12
Table 6.10 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high permeability zones
adjacent to a conduit through the embankment (IM17)................................................. 6-13
Table 6.11 Probability of poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a conduit through
the embankment (IM17) versus (RFxLF) ................................................................... 6-14
Table 6.12 Factors influencing the likelihood of an open joint or crack allowing erosion into a nonpressurized conduit when the internal condition is known............................................ 6-15
Table 6.13 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high permeability zones
adjacent to a spillway or abutment wall (IM19) ............................................................ 6-16
Table 6.14 Probability of poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a spillway or
abutment wall (IM19) versus (RFxLF)....................................................................... 6-16
Table 6.15 Factors influencing the likelihood of a crack or gap adjacent to a wall (IM20)................. 6-17
Table 6.16 Probability of a gap or crack adjacent to a wall (IM20) versus (RFxLF)........................ 6-17
differential settlement adjacent a spillway or abutment wall (IM21) ............................ 6-19
Table 6.18 Probability of cracking due to differential settlement adjacent a spillway or abutment wall
(IM21) versus (RFxLF) .............................................................................................. 6-19
Table 6.19 Factors to be considered in assessing seepage gradients on wrap-around ......................... 6-20
Table 6.20 Seepage observation factors ............................................................................................... 6-23
Table 6.21 Suggested locations for determination of average gradients .............................................. 6-24
Table 6.22 Time to develop seepage gradient in cohesionless soils .................................................... 6-30
Table 6.23 Probability of initiation of backward erosion in cohesionless soils and soils with PI 7 for
compacted layers ........................................................................................................... 6-32
Table 6.24 Probability of initiation of backward erosion in cohesionless soils and soils with PI 7 for
uncompacted layers ....................................................................................................... 6-33
Table 6.25 Probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion................................................................. 6-35
Table 6.26 Amount of collapse settlement which may occur on saturation versus compaction
properties ....................................................................................................................... 6-36
Table 6.27 Width of frost-induced flaw versus (RFxLF) .................................................................. 6-37
Table 7.1 Probability of a seepage exit through the confining layer (Pexit) versus calculated factor of
safety against heave ......................................................................................................... 7-4
ix
Table 7.2 Factors influencing the likelihood of a seepage exit due to defects in the confining layer.... 7-5
Table 7.3 Probability of a seepage exit due to defects in the confining layer (Pexit) versus (RFxLF) . 7-6
Table 7.4 Probability of initiation of backward erosion in the foundation given a seepage exit is
predicted .......................................................................................................................... 7-8
Table 8.1 Geologic and topographic factors influencing the likelihood of continuous rock defects due
to stress relief in the valley sides ..................................................................................... 8-5
Table 8.2 Factors influencing likelihood for topography ....................................................................... 8-6
Table 8.3 Probability of continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley sides based on
geologic and topographic data (PGT) versus (RFxLF)................................................... 8-6
Table 8.4 Site investigation, construction, and performance factors influencing the likelihood of
continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley sides........................................ 8-7
Table 8.5 Probability of continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley sides based on site
investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC) versus (RFxLF) .................... 8-8
Table 8.6 Geologic and topographic factors influencing the likelihood of continuous rock defects due
to valley bulge or rebound ............................................................................................. 8-10
Table 8.7 Probability of continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound based on geologic
and topographic data (PGT) versus (RFxLF) ............................................................... 8-10
continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound ............................................... 8-11
Table 8.9 Probability of continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound based on site
investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC ) versus (RFxLF).................. 8-12
Table 8.10 Geologic and topographic factors influencing the likelihood of continuous rock defects
due to solution features.................................................................................................. 8-14
Table 8.11 Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based on geologic and
topographic data (PGT) versus (RFxLF) ...................................................................... 8-14
continuous rock defects due to solution features ........................................................... 8-15
Table 8.13 Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based on site investigation,
construction, and performance data (PSC) versus (RFxLF)......................................... 8-16
Table 8.14 Geologic and topographic factors influencing the likelihood of continuous rock defects
due to landslides, faults, or shears ................................................................................. 8-18
Table 8.15 Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears based on
geologic and topographic factors (PGT) versus (RFxLF) ............................................ 8-18
continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears .......................................... 8-19
Table 8.17 Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears based on site
investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC) versus (RFxLF) .................. 8-20
Table 8.18 Weighting factors for assessing probabilities of open or in-filled rock defects ................. 8-20
Table 8.19 Factors influencing the likelihood of grouting not being effective in cutting off rock
defects............................................................................................................................ 8-21
Table 8.20 Probability of grouting not being effective for continuous rock defects (PGI) versus
(RFxLF) ...................................................................................................................... 8-22
Table 8.21 Factors influencing the likelihood of a cut-off in the foundation not being effective for
continuous defects ......................................................................................................... 8-24
Table 8.22 Probability of a cut-off not being effective for continuous defects (PCI) versus (RFxLF)8-25
Table 8.23 Probability of rock surface treatment being ineffective at preventing contact of the core
with open rock defects (PTI)........................................................................................... 8-25
Table 9.1 Probability of a continuous pathway (PCP) for erosion into soil foundation .......................... 9-7
Table 9.2 Probability of soil transport through defects .......................................................................... 9-8

Table 10.1 Probability of continuation (Scenario 2) ............................................................................ 10-4
Table 10.2 Likelihood for filters with excessive fines holding a crack.............................................. 10-10
Table 10.3 Potential for segregation of filtering materials................................................................. 10-10
Table 10.4 Gradation limits to prevent segregation (USDA SCS 1994, USBR 1987, US Corps of
Engineers 1994)........................................................................................................... 10-11
Table 10.5 Susceptibility of filter/transition zones to segregation versus (RFxLF) ........................ 10-11
Table 10.6 No erosion boundary for the assessment of filters of existing dams (after Foster and Fell
2001)............................................................................................................................ 10-12
Table 10.7 Excessive and continuing erosion criteria (Foster 1999; Foster and Fell 1999, 2001)..... 10-12
Table 10.8 Aid to judgment for estimation of probability of continuing erosion (PCE) when the actual
filter grading is finer than the continuing erosion boundary ....................................... 10-13
Table 10.9 Example of estimating probabilities for no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion, and
continuing erosion for the example shown in Figure 10.6 .......................................... 10-15
Table 10.10 Probability of continuation for open defects, joints, or cracks....................................... 10-16
Table 11.1 Probability of a soil being able to support a roof to an erosion pipe (PPR)......................... 11-3
Table 11.2 Probability for crack filling action not stopping pipe enlargement for internal erosion
through the embankment (PPC) ...................................................................................... 11-5
Table 11.3 Probability that flow in the developing pipe will not be restricted by an upstream zone,
cut-off wall or a concrete element in the erosion path (PPL).......................................... 11-6
Table 12.1 A method for the approximation estimation of the time for progression of piping and
development of a breach, for breach by gross enlargement, and slope instability linked
to development of a pipe (Fell et al 2001, 2003) ........................................................... 12-3
Table 12.2 Rate of erosion of the core or soil in the foundation .......................................................... 12-4
Table 12.3 Influence of the material in the downstream zone of the embankment on the likely time
for development of a breach .......................................................................................... 12-4
Table 12.4 Qualitative terms for times of development of internal erosion, piping and breach (Fell et
al 2001, 2003) ................................................................................................................ 12-4
Table 12.5 Factors influencing the likelihood of not observing a concentrated leak ........................... 12-8
Table 12.6 Probability of not observing a concentrated leak (Pnol) versus (RFxLF) for internal
erosion in an embankment ............................................................................................. 12-9
Table 12.7 Probability that given the leak is observable it is not detected given the time between the
first appearance of the concentrated leak, and the frequency of inspections and/or
reading of monitoring instruments (Pnd) ........................................................................ 12-9
Table 12.8 Assessment of the probability that given the concentrated leak is detected, intervention
and repair is not successful (Pdui)................................................................................. 12-11
Table 13.1 Screening of breach mechanisms for internal erosion through the embankment, internal
erosion through soil foundations, and of the embankment into the foundation............. 13-2
Table 13.2 Screening for probability of breach by gross enlargement of the pipe: ability to support a
pipe ................................................................................................................................ 13-3
Table 13.3 Probability of breach by gross enlargement of the pipe (Pge)............................................. 13-5
Table 13.4 Factors influencing the likelihood of breach by instability of the downstream slope: slide
initiates for internal erosion through the embankment, through the soil foundations, and
from the embankment into or at the foundation ............................................................ 13-7
Table 13.5 Probability of breach by slope instability: slide initiates for internal erosion through the
embankment, through soil foundations, and from the embankment into or at the
foundation (Psi-i) versus (RFxLF)................................................................................ 13-8
xi
Table 13.6 Probability of seepage exits from defects or solution features in a rock foundation into the
downstream shell (PS).................................................................................................... 13-9
Table 13.7 Assessment of size of leak in defect or solution feature in a rock foundation relative to
discharge capacity of foundation drains and downstream shell .................................. 13-10
Table 13.8 Factors influencing the likelihood of breach by instability of the downstream slope: slide
initiates for internal erosion in rock foundation........................................................... 13-11
Table 13.9 Estimation of the probability of breach by slope instability: slide initiates for internal
erosion in rock foundations (Psi-i) versus (RFxLF) ................................................... 13-12
Table 13.10 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by instability of the downstream slope:
loss of freeboard .......................................................................................................... 13-12
Table 13.11 Probability of breach by loss of freeboard (Psi-lf) versus (RFxLF) .............................. 13-13
Table 13.12 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by sloughing: dams with an earthfill
downstream zone ......................................................................................................... 13-14
Table 13.13 Probability of breach by sloughing (earthfill) for internal erosion through the
embankment, through soil foundations, and from the embankment into the foundation
(Psl) versus (RFxLF) ................................................................................................. 13-14
Table 13.14 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by unraveling: dams with a rockfill
downstream zone ......................................................................................................... 13-15
Table 13.15 Probability of breach by unraveling (rockfill) for internal erosion through the
embankment, through soil foundations, and from the embankment into the foundation
(Pun) versus (RFxLF)................................................................................................. 13-15
Table 13.16 Probability of a sinkhole or crest settlement developing (Ps-f) ....................................... 13-16
Table 13.17 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by sinkhole development: loss of
freeboard given sinkhole develops .............................................................................. 13-17
Table 13.18 Probability of breach by sinkhole development: loss of freeboard given sinkhole
develops (Ps-lf) versus (RFxLF)................................................................................. 13-17
Figures
Figure 1.1 Dam zoning categories.......................................................................................................... 1-1
Figure 1.2 Soil types which are subject to internal instability and suffusion ........................................ 1-3
Figure 1.3 Gradation of broadly graded soils with poor self-filtering characteristics (Sherard 1979)... 1-3
Figure 3.1 Typical embankment dam showing some key features associated with potential internal
erosion failure paths......................................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.2 Examples of embankment crest details which may result in relatively high likelihood of
internal erosion ................................................................................................................ 3-8
Figure 3.3 Example of an embankment with significantly different probabilities of internal erosion
above and below the top of the downstream berm .......................................................... 3-9
Figure 4.1 Example system response curve ......................................................................................... 4-22
Figure 4.2 Examples of multiple flow paths ........................................................................................ 4-23
Figure 5.1 Definition of terms used to describe cross valley geometry ................................................. 5-4
Figure 5.2 Cracking adjacent to cliffs due to differential settlement of the embankment...................... 5-6
Figure 5.3 Sloping core dam (a) Definitions of terms (b) Limit of what constitutes a sloping core dam5-8
Figure 5.4 Typical scenarios which may lead to differential settlement in the foundation.................. 5-10
Figure 5.5 Longitudinal section through staged embankment ............................................................. 5-11
Figure 5.6 Incidence of transverse cracking versus seismic intensity and damage class contours for
earthfill dams (Pells and Fell 2002, 2003)..................................................................... 5-16
xii
Figure 5.7 Incidence of transverse cracking versus seismic intensity and damage class contours for
earthfill and rockfill dams (Pells and Fell 2002, 2003) ................................................. 5-16
Figure 5.8 Longitudinal profiles of the dam showing the definition of terms for cross valley arching 5-19
Figure 5.9 Examples of the estimation of crack width and flow gradient in the crack ........................ 5-32
Figure 6.1 Example of poor detailing of seepage collars around a conduit (FEMA 2005).................. 6-14
Figure 6.2 Situations where a gap may form between the dam fill and spillway wall (a) Steep
foundation adjacent spillway wall; (b) Change in slope of the retaining wall (Fell et al.
2004).............................................................................................................................. 6-18
Figure 6.3 Wrap-around details for connection of embankment dam to concrete gravity dam ........... 6-21
Figure 6.4 Underlayer factor CZ versus D/r (Schmertmann 2000)....................................................... 6-27
Figure 6.5 Graph to obtain ip from ipo and (Schmertmann 2000) .................................................... 6-29
Figure 6.6 Maximum point gradient (ipmt) needed for complete piping (initiation and progression for
an unfiltered exit) versus uniformity coefficient of soil (Schmertmann 2000) ............. 6-31
Figure 6.7 Backward erosion piping layer and path geometry............................................................. 6-32
Figure 6.8 Contours of the probability of internal instability for silt-sand-gravel soils and clay-siltsand-gravel soils of limited clay content and plasticity (PI 12) (Wan and Fell 2004)6-34
Figure 6.9 Contours of the probability of internal instability for sand-gravel soils with less than 10%
non-plastic fines passing 0.075 mm (Wan and Fell 2004) ............................................ 6-34
Figure 6.10 Map showing the maximum depth of frost penetration from Sowers (1970) ................... 6-38
Figure 7.1 An example of a situation where there is no continuous layer of cohesionless soil in the
foundation and backward erosion cannot occur .............................................................. 7-2
Figure 7.2 Cross section of an embankment and foundation showing seepage flow net and definition
of terms ............................................................................................................................ 7-3
Figure 7.3 Section through embankment and foundation showing definition of terms to estimate the
average gradient in the foundation sand .......................................................................... 7-7
Figure 8.1 Flow chart for estimating the probability, width, depth and spatial distribution of
continuous open defects and solution features in rock foundations ................................ 8-3
Figure 8.2 Definition of hp and hp ...................................................................................................... 8-22
Figure 8.3 Computation of probability of a continuous open defect below the embankment.............. 8-26
Figure 8.4 Assumed distribution of defect depths for defects related to stress relief effects in the
valley sides (Figures from Fell et al. 2004) ................................................................... 8-27
Figure 10.1 Examples of scenarios for evaluation of probability of continuation ............................... 10-2
Figure 10.2 Flow chart for evaluating the probabilities of no erosion, some erosion, excessive
erosion, and continuing erosion..................................................................................... 10-7
Figure 10.3 Example of the selection of representative grading curves (fine, average, and coarse) for
the assessment of filter compatibility ............................................................................ 10-9
Figure 10.4 Approximate method for estimating DF15 after washout of the erodible fraction from a
suffusive soil or for soils susceptible to segregation ..................................................... 10-9
Figure 10.5 Criteria for excessive erosion boundary.......................................................................... 10-13
Figure 10.6 Example of filter/transition gradings compared to filter erosion boundaries determination
of the filter erosion boundaries for the representative fine, average, and coarse gradings
of the core material ...................................................................................................... 10-14
Figure 10.7 Example of unfiltered exits in the soil foundation .......................................................... 10-17
Figure 10.8 Example of an unfiltered exit in the soil foundation due to daylighting of the foundation
sand layer downstream of the dam .............................................................................. 10-18
Figure 11.1 Scenarios for holding a roof of a pipe for internal erosion through the foundation.......... 11-2
Figure 12.1 Sub-event tree for calculating the probability of unsuccessful intervention ................... 12-12
xiii
Introduction
Introduction
1.1
General
Section 1
This document was prepared by the USACE Risk and Reliability Directory of Expertise (ERRDX) to
summarize USACE best practices for estimating probabilities of failure of embankment dams by internal
erosion. This document was developed by incorporating USACE best practices into the original guidance
document entitled A Unified Method for Estimating Probabilities of Failure of Embankment Dams by
Internal Erosion and Piping Delta Version, Issue 2, dated August 2008 developed by U.S Bureau of
Reclamation, USACE, University of New South Wales, and URS Corporation. Much of this document is
similar to the original guidance document except for changes made here in.
1.2
Terminology to Describe Embankment Types
In several of the tables provided to assist in assessing probabilities, the probability is linked to embankment
type. The terms shown in Figure 1.1 have been adopted.
core
0. Homogeneous earthfill
downstream zone
of rockfill
4. Zoned earth and rockfill
Embankment filter
and/or
Foundation filter
rockfill
Puddle core
8. Puddle core earthfill
concrete corewall
rockfill
earthfill
core
5. Central core earth and rockfill
1. Earthfill with filter
2. Earthfill with rock toe
3. Zoned earthfill
rockfill
earthfill
Max 0.2H
core
concrete corewall
concrete
facing
Rock toe
6. Concrete face earthfill
downstream zone
of sand/gravel
9. Earthfill with corewall
10. Rockfill with corewall
concrete
facing
hydraulic fill core

rockfill
7. Concrete face rockfill
Figure 1.1 Dam zoning categories
1-1
11. Hydraulic fill
Introduction
1.3
Section 1
Terminology
The methodology uses the following terminology:

Internal erosion. Internal erosion occurs when soil particles within an embankment dam or its foundation,
are carried downstream by seepage flow. Internal erosion can initiate by concentrated leak erosion, backward
erosion, suffusion and soil contact erosion.
Concentrated leak erosion. Erosion in a concentrated leak may occur in a crack in an embankment or its
foundation, caused by differential settlement, desiccation, freezing and thawing, or hydraulic fracture; or it
may occur in a continuous permeable zone containing coarse and/or poorly compacted materials which form
an interconnecting system of voids. The concentration of flow causes erosion (sometimes called scour) of the
walls of the crack or interconnected voids.
Flaw. A continuous crack, gap, or poorly compacted or high permeability layer in which a concentrated leak
may form.
Backward erosion. Backward erosion involves the detachment of soils particles when the seepage exits to a
free unfiltered surface, such as the ground surface downstream of a soil foundation or the downstream face of
a homogeneous embankment or a coarse rockfill zone immediately downstream from the fine grained core.
The detached particles are carried away by the seepage flow and the process gradually works its way towards
the upstream side of the embankment or its foundation until a continuous pipe is formed.
Piping. Piping is the form of internal erosion which initiates by backward erosion, or erosion in a crack or
high permeability zone, and results in the formation of a continuous tunnel called a pipe between the
upstream and the downstream side of the embankment or its foundation.
Suffusion and internal instability. Suffusion is a form of internal erosion which involves selective erosion of
fine particles from the matrix of coarser particles (coarse particles are not floating in the fine particles). The
fine particles are removed through the constrictions between the larger particles by seepage flow, leaving
behind an intact soil skeleton formed by the coarser particles. Soils which are susceptible to suffusion are
internally unstable. Coarse graded and gap graded soils, such as those shown schematically in Figure 1.2, are
susceptible to suffusion. In these soils the volume of fines is less than the volume of voids between the coarse
particles.
1-2
Introduction
Section 1
100
90
CLAY TO SILT
SAND
GRAVEL
80
% Passing
70
60
50
GA P GRA DED SOIL
40
30
20
COA RSELY GRA DED SOIL

WITH A FLA T TA IL OF FINES
10
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Particle size (mm)
Figure 1.2 Soil types which are subject to internal instability and suffusion
Self-filtering. In soils which self-filter, the coarse particles prevent the internal erosion of the medium
particles, which in turn prevent erosion of the fine particles. Soils which potentially will not self-filter include
those which are susceptible to suffusion (internally unstable), and very broadly graded soils such as those
which fall into the grading envelope shown in Figure 1.3 (Sherard 1979). The soils had particle size
distributions which plotted nearly as a straight line, were typically of glacial origin, and the dams from which
the soils were taken had all exhibited signs of internal erosion. The soils have a volume of fine particles
greater than the volume of voids between the coarse sand and gravel fraction, and the coarser particles are
floating in the finer particles. The figure is not meant to define the boundary of such soils, only examples.
Figure 1.3 Gradation of broadly graded soils with poor self-filtering characteristics
(Sherard 1979)
1-3
Introduction
Section 1
Continuation. Continuation is the phase where the relationship of the particle size distribution between the
base (core) material and the filter controls whether or not erosion will continue. Foster and Fell (1999, 2001)
and Foster (1999) define four levels of severity of continuation from no erosion to continuing erosion.
No erosion. The filtering material stops erosion with no or very little erosion of the material it is protecting.
The increase in leakage flows is so small that it is unlikely to be detectable.
Some erosion. The filtering material initially allows erosion from the soil it is protecting, but it eventually
seals up and stops erosion.
Excessive erosion. The filter material allows erosion from the material it is protecting, and in the process
permits large increases in leakage flow, but the flows are self healing. The extent of erosion is sufficient to
cause sinkholes on the crest and erosion tunnels through the core.
Continuing erosion. The filtering material is too coarse to stop erosion of the material it is protecting and
continuing erosion is permitted. Unlimited erosion and leakage flows are likely.
Progression. Progression is the third phase of internal erosion, where hydraulic shear stresses within the
eroding soil may or may not lead to the enlargement of the pipe. Increases of pore pressure and seepage
occur. The main issues are the likelihood of and rate of pipe enlargement and whether the pipe will collapse,
whether upstream zones may control the erosion process by flow limitation, and whether a pipe will extend
through the low permeability zones of the embankment.
Breach. Breach is the final phase of internal erosion. It may occur by one of the following four phenomena
(listed below in order of their observed frequency of occurrence).
Gross enlargement of the pipe (which may include the development of a sinkhole from the pipe to the
crest of the embankment).
Slope instability of the downstream slope.
Unraveling of the downstream face.
Overtopping (e.g., due to settlement of the crest from suffusion and/or due to the formation of a sinkhole
from a pipe in the embankment).
Annual exceedance probability (AEP). The estimated probability that an event of specified magnitude will
be exceeded in any year.
Frequency. A measure of likelihood expressed as the number of occurrences of an event in a given time or in
a given number of trials (see also likelihood and probability).
Likelihood. Conditional probability of an outcome given a set of data, assumptions and information. Also
used as a qualitative description of probability and frequency.
1-4
Introduction
Section 1
Probability. A measure of the degree of certainty. This measure has a value between zero (impossibility) and
1.0 (certainty). It is an estimate of the likelihood of the magnitude of the uncertain quantity, or the likelihood
of the occurrence of the uncertain future event.
There are two main interpretations:
Statistical (frequency or fraction) The outcome of a repetitive experiment of some kind like flipping
coins. It includes also the idea of population variability. Such a number is called an objective or
relative frequentist probability because it exists in the real world and is in principle measurable by doing
the experiment.
Subjective probability (degree of belief) Quantified measure of belief, judgment, or confidence in the
likelihood of an outcome, obtained by considering all available information honestly, fairly, and with a
minimum of bias. Subjective probability is affected by the state of understanding of a process, judgment
regarding an evaluation, or the quality and quantity of information. It may change over time as the state
of knowledge changes.
Failure Path. A sequence of potential events starting from an initiating mechanism, such as a defect, flaw or
seepage path in the dam or its foundation, and which may lead to an uncontrolled release of the reservoir.
1-5
Methodology
Methodology
2.1
Introduction
Section 2
Risk is defined as the probability of a loss occurring in a given time period (annually). The equation for risk
is:
Risk = [Probability of the loading] [Probability of adverse response given the loading] [Adverse
consequence given the failure].
The first two components of this equation, when multiplied, produce the Annual Probability of Failure (APF)
and are the main topic of this document.
2.2
General Process
The process for estimating the annual probability of failure by piping and internal erosion includes the
following general steps:
Step 1:
Review all information pertinent to internal erosion and piping (refer to Section 2.3 as an aid).
Step 2:
Identify all potential failure paths associated with internal erosion and piping, considering each of
the failure locations:
Internal erosion through the embankment;
Internal erosion through the foundation; and
Internal erosion of the embankment into or at the foundation.
Screen those failure paths that are assessed to have negligible contribution to the annual probability
of failure and document the reasons for their exclusion. Develop detailed descriptions and sketches
of all realistic failure paths. Guidance is provided in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
Step 3:
Decompose each of the potential failure paths into event trees. Generic event trees have been
developed for each general failure mode the navigation tables in Appendices A to D. Select the
event tree and associated navigation table that best fits the failure path being considered.
Step 4:
Select the loading partitions for each of the load conditions (hydrologic and seismic) as described in
Sections 3.5 and 3.6.
Step 5:
Estimate the conditional probabilities for each node on the event tree, fully documenting the
rationale. Specific guidance is given for estimating the conditional probabilities for various
initiating mechanisms and failure locations in Sections 5 to 13. Navigation tables are provided in
2-1
Methodology
Section 2
Appendices A to D to assist the user to find the location of the guidance tables for each node of the
event tree.
Step 6:
Calculate the probability of failure for each load condition and failure path.
Step 7:
Develop system response curves for use in follow-on risk analysis and assessment.
2.3
Information Review
The quality and credibility of a risk estimate will suffer unless the risk assessor is fully aware of all pertinent
information about internal erosion. Typical information to review includes characteristics of the constructed
project (e.g., embankment geometry, zoning, materials, construction methods, and seepage cut-off and
control features) and characteristics of the setting (e.g., site geology and stratigraphy, and foundation material
characteristics). Additional site information is provided by documented performance history.
To the maximum extent practicable, existing data from design and construction records, performance history,
and post-construction investigations need to be reviewed. At preliminary stages of risk analysis, existing data
supplemented by engineering judgment provide a sufficient basis for evaluation. If significant risk for the
project is indicated including consideration of uncertainty, field investigations, laboratory testing, and
additional analyses may be warranted. In some cases, however, it may be less expensive to simply fix the
structure for the failure mode of concern.
A site examination has been found to provide valuable input into the risk analysis process. Typically, the site
examination is performed as part of the PFMA process. It consists of a physical review of the dam site and
appurtenant structures to better understand the layout of the dam and to help visualize potential failure modes
as well as structural and geologic conditions. During the site visit, it is also essential to discuss the site,
performance, and project operations with field personnel in their own environment and to obtain their opinion
of potential vulnerabilities.
2-2
Failure Modes and Load Partitioning
3.1
Generic Event Tree
Section 3
The following generic sequence of events has been developed for internal erosion failure modes:
Reservoir Rises
Initiation Flaw exists (1) (2)
Initiation Erosion starts
Continuation Unfiltered or inadequately filtered exit exists
Progression Roof forms to support a pipe
Progression Upstream zone fails to fill crack
Progression Upstream zone fails to limit flows
Intervention fails
Dam breaches (consider all likely breach mechanisms)
Consequences occur
(1)
A flaw is a continuous crack or gap, poorly compacted or high permeability zone in which a
concentrated leak may form.
(2)
For Backward Erosion Piping (BEP), no flaw is required, but a continuous zone of cohesionless soil
in the embankment or foundation is required.
Generic event tree structures have been developed based on this sequence of events, and these are presented
in the navigation tables in Appendices A to D for each of the general failure modes.
Initiation is the first phase and considers the existence of a flaw such as a continuous crack or poorly
compacted layer in which a concentrated leak may form. If a flaw exists, erosion must start to initiate for
internal erosion to develop. There are several processes by which erosion can initiate in the embankment or
foundation as follows:
Concentrated leak erosion. Erosion can commence from the walls of a crack within the soil or within a
poorly compacted layer.
Scour at the embankment-foundation contact. Erosion of the soil may occur where it is in contact with
seepage passing through the foundation either through a coarse-grained soil or open joints in rock.
3-1
Section 3
Backward erosion. Backward erosion involves the detachment of soils particles when the seepage exits
to a free unfiltered surface. The detached particles are carried away by the seepage flow, and the process
gradually works its way towards the upstream side of the embankment or its foundation until a
continuous pipe is formed.
Suffusion. This is a form of internal erosion which involves selective erosion of fine particles from the
matrix of coarser particles (coarse particles are not floating in the fine particles). The fine particles are
removed through the constrictions between the larger particles by seepage flow, leaving behind an intact
soil skeleton formed by the coarser particles.
Continuation is the phase where the relationship of the particle size distribution between the base (core)
material and the filter controls whether or not erosion will continue. Foster and Fell (1999, 2001) and Foster
(1999) define four levels of severity of continuation: no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion and
continuing erosion. In this document, only continuing erosion is considered since it indicates the base soil
could be eroded through the filter without plugging off.
Progression is the third phase of internal erosion, where hydraulic shear stresses within the eroding soil may
or may not lead to the enlargement of the pipe. Increases of pore pressure and seepage occur. The main issues
are whether the pipe will collapse and whether upstream zones may control the erosion process by flow
limitation or crack filling.
Intervention fails is the fourth phase of the event tree, and this considers whether the internal erosion failure
mechanism will be detected and whether intervention and repair will successfully stop the failure process.
Dam breaches is the final phase of internal erosion. It may occur by one of the following four phenomena
(listed below in order of their observed frequency of occurrence):
Gross enlargement of the pipe;
Instability of the downstream slope;
Unraveling of the downstream face; and
Sinkhole collapse resulting in overtopping.
3-2
3.2
Section 3
General Failure Modes
Failure by internal erosion of embankment dams is categorized into three general failure modes:
Internal erosion through the embankment;
Internal erosion through the foundation; and
Internal erosion of the embankment into or at the foundation.
3.2.1
In this failure mode, internal erosion occurs solely within the embankment. This includes internal erosion
associated with through-penetrating structures, such as an outlet works, spillway, or adjoining a concrete
gravity structure. The initiating mechanisms for these failure modes are listed below.
Transverse cracking of the embankment (Section 5.2)
Cross valley differential settlement (IM1)
Differential settlement adjacent to a cliff (IM2)
Cross section settlement due to poorly compacted shoulders (IM3)
Differential settlement in the foundation soil beneath the core (IM4)
Differential settlement due to embankment staging (IM5)
Desiccation (IM6 and IM7)
Earthquake (IM8)
Hydraulic fracturing of the embankment (Section 5.3)
Differential settlement causing cross valley arching (IM9)
Differential settlement causing arching of the core onto the shoulders (IM10)
Differential settlement due to small scale irregularities in the foundation profile (IM12)
A more detailed description of the entire process and a generic event tree is given in the navigation tables in
Appendix A.
3-3
3.2.2
Section 3
Internal Erosion through the Foundation
This general failure mode involves internal erosion occurring solely within the foundation until the later
stages of the breach process where the embankment starts to collapse. The initiating mechanisms for these
failure modes are as follows:
Poorly compacted or high permeability layer during construction within the core (IM13) using
Section 6.2.1.
Poor compacted or high permeability layer on the foundation or abutment contact (IM14) using
Section 6.2.2.
High permeability layer due to freezing (IM15 and IM16) using Section 6.2.3.
Poorly compacted or high permeability layer associated with a conduit (IM17 and IM18) using
Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2, respectively.
Poorly compacted or high permeability layer associated with other structures penetrating the core
(IM 19 through IM21) using Section 6.4.
More detailed descriptions of the process are given in the navigation tables given in Appendix B for internal
erosion in a soil foundation.
3.2.3
Internal erosion initiates at the contact between the embankment and foundation owing to: i) seepage through
the embankment eroding material into the foundation; or ii) seepage in the foundation at the embankment
contact, eroding the embankment material. The initiating mechanisms for these failure modes are:
Scour along rock defects in the foundation (IM25) using Section 9.2.1
Erosion into rock defects in the foundation (IM 26) using Section 9.2.1
Scour along the contact with open-work granular soils (IM27) using Section 9.2.2
Erosion into open-work granular soils (IM28) using Section 9.2.2
A more detailed description of the process is given in the navigation tables given in Appendix D.
3-4
3.3
Identification of Failure Paths
3.3.1
Overview
Section 3
A potential failure path is a sequence of events starting from an initiating mechanism, such as a defect, flaw
or seepage path in the dam or its foundation, and which may lead to an uncontrolled release of the reservoir.
The risk analysis team should go through a discussion of all potential failure paths and develop a thorough
understanding of the sequence of events and the potential location of seepage and erosion paths through the
embankment and foundation. The sequence of events and seepage pathways should be documented by
annotating cross sections and longitudinal sections of the embankment and its foundation to help visualize the
failure path. An example is given in Section 3.3.2. The development of the failure paths should consider the
following:
The general event tree structure as described in Section 3.1;
Potential initiating mechanisms, as summarized in Table 3.1 to Table 3.5;
Zoning of the embankment, including the configuration of internal filter and drainage measures;
Foundation geology and stratigraphy; and
Filtered and unfiltered exit points of seepage.
The possibility of overlooking potentially important failure modes is reduced by considering the particular
details if the dam and its appurtenant structures, such as details of walls retaining the embankment, conduits
through the embankment, by assembling construction photographs and reports and inspecting the dam as part
of the failure modes assessment. It is also reduced by having the failure modes assessment done by a team
which includes the engineer and geologist most familiar with the dam, dam operating and surveillance staff,
and facilitated by a person experienced in failure modes analysis.
The development team has strived to address all failure modes that, in their experience, occur in embankment
dams. Procedures are also suggested to handle failure modes not well covered in this methodology. However,
in the end, as pointed out by the late Ralph Peck in his paper The Risk of the Oddball, there remains the
potential that even with the efforts of even the most experienced engineers the most significant potential
failure mode may occasionally be overlooked.
3-5
3.3.2
Section 3
Examples
The following sketch depicts an example of the description of a failure path for an initiating event involving
seepage through a poorly compacted layer in the embankment. It is followed by a description of the failure
mode for seepage path A.
Riprap on
Gravel Bedding
El. 500
A
El. 460
Zone 2
(SM)
Downstream Slope
Protection (Cobbles)
B
Zone 1
(SC)
Zone 2
(SM)
C
Drainage Blanket
Initiating event: Poorly compacted layer

Failure Path Description: The reservoir rises to elevation 466 feet, which is 1 foot above the
historic high reservoir elevation. A low density zone exists in the Zone 2 at this elevation due to a
thick lift being placed during original construction of the embankment that was not compacted well
by the equipment being used. Upon saturation from the reservoir, the bottom of this layer settles and
separates from the upper portion of the layer leaving a gap (i.e., as a result of collapse settlement of
the poorly compacted layer). Seepage flows through this gap achieve sufficient velocity (i.e.,
sufficient gradient and gap width) to initiate erosion and begin a concentrated leak erosion process.
The downstream cobble layer (slope protection) does not filter the Zone 2 material or the material
does not have sufficient overburden and the slope protection layer blows off from reservoir pressure
reaching the layer. A roof forms through the Zone 2 material. The riprap bedding layer does not
function as a crack stopping material because it does not have sufficient volume due to its limited
thickness or it is not of the proper gradation to be filtered by the downstream slope protection
material. There is no upstream zone of material to limit flows. Wet spots and flowing water appear
on the downstream face of the embankment, but these seepage expressions are not seen by either the
public or project personnel. If the seepage expressions are seen and reported, intervention efforts are
unsuccessful because the efforts simply do not stop the erosion process or the erosion progresses too
rapidly allow meaningful intervention efforts to be implemented. The gap widens which leads to
increased seepage velocities and more erosion of the Zone 2 material. Eventually this process of
increasing seepage velocities and erosion progresses to full breach. The breach occurs by
mechanisms typical for this type of embankment (i.e., gross enlargement of the developing pipe,
slope instability, or sinkhole development).
3-6
Section 3
Spillway
crest
Crest
Crest
Outlet
conduit
Spillway
walls
Intake
tower
PLAN
D
C
ELEVATION
No filters above FSL

FSL
Filters
Rockfill
Rockfill
Earthfill core
Alluvium
Rock
SECTION
LEGEND
A, B
C
D,E
F
G
Adjacent spillway walls.

Adjacent outlet conduit.
Related to irregularities
in the foundation profile.
In the foundation.
From embankment to
foundation.
Figure 3.1 Typical embankment dam showing some key features associated with
potential internal erosion failure paths
3-7
Section 3
Figure 3.1 shows a fairly typical embankment dam, with a concrete spillway structure. Failure paths that
could be considered for this dam include:
a)
Internal erosion adjacent the spillway walls at A and B.
b)
Internal erosion adjacent to and into the outlet conduit .
c)
Internal erosion over irregularities in the foundation (e.g., at D for piping in the upper part of the
embankment, and E for piping in the lower part, where there are likely to be low stresses and a potential
for cracking and hydraulic fracture due to differential settlement).
d)
Internal erosion for the remainder of the embankment (e.g., in high permeability layers).
e)
Internal erosion in the alluvium foundation (F).
f)
Internal erosion from the embankment to foundation at G.
For many dams, it is likely that features that lead to initiation of internal erosion are in the upper part of the
dam. This is because cracking due to differential settlement over large scale irregularities in the foundation
profile is more likely to be present near the crest. Continuation is also more likely because often the detailing
of the dam design, or as-built, will give no or little filter protection. Figure 3.2 gives examples of this with
increased likelihood of flood loading near the crest of the dam.
Figure 3.2 Examples of embankment crest details which may result in relatively high
likelihood of internal erosion
3-8
Section 3
Figure 3.3 is an example where there is a significantly different probability of internal erosion above the berm
than below because the upper part is essentially a homogeneous dam while the sandy gravel in zone 2 may
act as a filter. This is best managed in the analysis by considering internal erosion above the berm (the upper
part of the embankment) separately to below the berm (the middle and lower parts of the embankment).
Flow path A
Flow path B
Figure 3.3 Example of an embankment with significantly different probabilities of

internal erosion above and below the top of the downstream berm
While considering failure paths in this amount of detail may seem to be a lot of extra work, experience shows
that it is necessary to do the analysis in this detail to allow proper consideration of the probability of failure,
and in reality it makes assessment of conditional probabilities easier because factors are not being lumped
together.
3.4
Failure Path Screening
3.4.1
Overview
The purpose of the failure path screening process is to systematically review the potential failure paths/modes
that have been identified and eliminate those from further consideration that are assessed to have negligible
contribution to risk.
The failure path is evaluated by listing the adverse factors that make the failure mode more likely and the
favorable factors that make the failure mode less likely. These are based on the teams understanding of the
dam and background material.
3-9
Section 3
Screening of the failure paths is also evaluated using the screening criteria for the various initiating
mechanisms which are summarized in Table 3.1 to Table 3.5.
Each failure path is then screened by the analysis team based on the consideration of the list of the more
likely and less likely factors, and using the initiating mechanism screening criteria. The primary intent is to
identify those failure paths that are clearly so remote as to be negligible or non-credible. These screened
failure paths are not carried forward into the risk analysis. The rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of each
potential failure path should be fully documented.
3.4.2
Table 3.1 Screening of initiating mechanisms for internal erosion through the embankment
due to concentrated leaks in transverse cracks
Exclude the failure path if the following
conditions are satisfied
Failure path/location
IM1 Transverse cracking due to
cross valley differential settlement
Exclude if:
(1) The abutment profile is uniform without benches.
Reference
Section 5.2.1,
Table 5.1
OR
(2) The abutment slope is gentle (2 < 25, refer to
Figure 5.1).
OR
(2) The reservoir stage being considered is below
the likely maximum depth of cracking.
differential settlement adjacent to
a cliff at the top of the
embankment
Exclude if:
(1) There is no vertical cliff in contact with the
embankment.
OR
(2) A wide bench is present at the base of the cliff
(Wb/Hw > 2.5, refer to Figure 5.2).
OR
(3) The abutment slope below the cliff is gentle (1 <
25, refer to Figure 5.2).
OR
3-10
Section 5.2.2,
Table 5.3

cross section settlement due to
poorly compacted shoulders
Section 3
Exclude if:
(1) The dam is zoning type homogeneous earthfill,
earthfill with filter drains, or zoned earthfill.
Reference
Section 5.2.3,
Table 5.5
OR
(2) Evidence from relative settlements of core and
shoulders indicate the materials have a similar
modulus.
OR
differential settlement in the
foundation soil beneath the core
Exclude if:
(1) There is no compressible soil in the foundation
beneath the core.
Section 5.2.4,
Table 5.7
OR
differential settlement due to
embankment staging
Exclude if:
(1) The embankment construction was not staged.
OR
(2) There is little or no difference in the modulus of
the different stages.
OR
(3) The existing embankment slope is gentle (2 <
OR
3-11
Section 5.2.5
(and 5.2.1),
Table 5.1

desiccation at the embankment
crest
Section 3
Exclude if:
(1) The crest is paved with concrete, asphalt or
bitumen seal with a base layer at least 12 in (300
mm) thick and/or rockfill or non-plastic granular layer
at least 3 ft (1 m) thick.
Reference
Section 5.2.6,
Table 5.9
OR
(2) The soils are not susceptible to desiccation in the
climatic conditions at the site.
OR
desiccation at seasonal shutdown
layers during construction or
staged construction surfaces
Exclude if:
Section 5.2.6,
Table 5.11
OR
(2) The soils are not susceptible to desiccation in the
climatic conditions at the site.
OR
(3) Very good control and clean-up practices were
used (e.g., desiccated layers were removed from the
embankment and replaced with new soil or
adequately reworked to specified moisture content).
OR

earthquake
Exclude if:
Section 5.2.7
(1) The joint probability of the earthquake and

reservoir level is at least 2 orders of magnitude less
than the tolerable risk guidelines.
OR
3-12
Section 3
due to concentrated leaks in hydraulic fractures
IM9 Hydraulic fracturing due to
cross valley arching
Exclude if:
(1) The valley is very wide (Wv/H > 2, refer to Figure
5.8).
Reference
Section 5.3.1,
Table 5.15
OR
the likely location of hydraulic fracturing.
differential settlement causing
arching of the core onto the
shoulders of the embankment
Exclude:
(1) For all dam zoning types other than central core
earth and rockfill (or gravel shells) and puddle core
earthfill dams.
Section 5.3.2,
Table 5.17
OR
(2) The embankment has a wide core (W/H > 1),
OR
(3) The core has a higher modulus than the shells.
Shoulders poorly compacted or dumped. Core
compacted >98% SMDD.
OR
the likely location of the phreatic surface.
IM11 Hydraulic fracturing in the
lower part of the embankment due
to differential settlement in the
Exclude if:

small-scale irregularities in the
foundation/abutment profile
beneath the core
Exclude if:

beneath the core.
(1) The persistency of the irregularity is less than

50% across the base width of the core.
3-13
Sections 5.3.3
(and 5.2.4),
Table 5.7
Section 5.3.4,
Table 5.19
Section 3
due to concentrated leaks in poorly compacted or high permeability zones
IM13 Poorly compacted or high
permeability zone within the
embankment
Reference
Exclude if:
Section 6.2.1
(1) All soils are very well-compacted with suitable

equipment, suitable lift thicknesses, around optimum
moisture content, and with good documentation and
records.
Table 6.1 for

cohesive soils
(PI > 7)
OR
(2) For cohesive soils (PI > 7), compacted to 98%
SMDD at -2% to +1% of OWC.
OR
(3) For cohesionless soils and soils with PI 7,
compacted to >85% relative density or SPT (N1)60 >
42 bpf.
permeability layer on the corefoundation/abutment contact
Exclude if:
(1) Contact soils are well-compacted on a regular
foundation surface with good documentation and
records
Table 6.2 for

cohesionless
soils or soils
with PI 7
Section 6.2.2,
Table 6.4
OR
(2) Uniform or regular rock surface, or rock surface
was treated with shotcrete or concrete to correct
slope irregularities, and soils well compacted
(contact soil compacted using special compaction
methods (e.g., rubber tires, use more plastic
material, compaction wet of OWC).
OR
(3) Uniform well-compacted soil foundation, with
good mixing, bonding and compaction of contact fill.
OR
(4) Compacted soil foundation
IM15 High permeability zone
due to freezing at the
embankment crest
Exclude if:
(1) The climate is such that temperatures do not fall
below freezing point except possibly overnight or for
a day or two.
OR
3-14
Section 6.2.3,
Table 6.6

IM16 High permeability zone
due to freezing at seasonal
shutdown layers during
construction or staged
construction surfaces
Section 3
Exclude if:
Reference
Section 6.2.3,
Table 6.8
OR
(2) The climate is such that temperatures do not fall
below freezing point except possibly overnight or for
a day or two.
OR
(3) Very good control and clean-up practices were
used (e.g., frozen layers were removed from the
embankment and replaced with new soil or
adequately reworked to specified moisture content).
OR

permeability zone adjacent to a
conduit through the embankment
Exclude if:
(1) There is no conduit passing through the
embankment.
Section 6.3.1,
Table 6.10
OR
(2) The conduit is totally embedded in a trench
excavated in non-erodible rock and backfilled to the
surface with concrete.
IM18 Features allowing erosion
into a conduit
Exclude if:
(1) There is no conduit passing through the
embankment.
Section 6.3.2,
Table 6.12
OR
(2) Careful internal inspection of conduit shows no
evidence of open joints or cracks.
permeability zone associated with
a spillway or abutment wall
Exclude if:
IM20 Crack or gap adjacent to a

spillway or abutment wall
Exclude if:
(1) There is no spillway or abutment wall in contact

with the embankment.
OR
3-15
Section 6.4.2,
Table 6.13
Section 6.4.3,
Table 6.15

IM21 Transverse cracking due
to differential settlement adjacent
to a spillway or abutment wall
Section 3
Exclude if:
OR
(2) A wide bench is present at the base of the wall
(Wb/Hw > 2.5, refer to Figure 5.2).
OR
(3) The abutment slope below the wall is gentle (1 <
OR
3-16
Reference
Section 6.4.4,
Table 6.17
3.4.3
Section 3
Internal Erosion through the Soil Foundation
Table 3.4 Screening of initiating mechanisms for internal erosion through the foundation
Initiating mechanism
All modes of internal erosion
through the foundation (backward
erosion, suffusion, or erosion in a
crack)
Exclude if:
Reference
Section 7
(1) The foundation is rock.

OR
(2) The soil layer beneath the dam is cut-off.
IM22 Backward erosion in a

cohesionless foundation soil
Exclude if:
Section 7.2
(1) The foundation soil has a PI > 7.

OR
(2) The layer of cohesionless soil or soil with PI 7
is not continuous below the embankment (i.e., it
terminates beneath the dam, refer to Figure 7.1)
OR
(3) The factor of safety against heave of the
confining layer is greater than 1.3, or the thickness
of the confining layer (for consideration of defects
in the confining layer) is greater than 25 feet.
OR
(4) The factor of safety for the exit gradient is
greater than 1.3.
IM23 Suffusion in a
cohesionless foundation soil
Exclude if:
Section 7.3
(1) The foundation soil has a PI > 7.

OR
(2) The soil is not gap-graded. For gap-graded or
broadly graded soils, the proportion of the finer
fraction is less than 40% of the total mass.
OR
(3) The layer of cohesionless soil or soil with PI 7
is not continuous below the embankment (i.e., it
terminates beneath the dam, refer to Figure 7.1).
OR
(4) The factor of safety against heave of the
confining layer is greater than 1.3, or the thickness
of the confining layer (for consideration of defects
in the confining layer) is greater than 25 feet.
OR
3-17
Section 3

Reference
(5) The factor of safety for the exit gradient is

greater than 1.3.
IM24 Erosion in a crack in a
cohesive foundation soil due to
differential settlement or
desiccation
Exclude if:
(1) The foundation soil is cohesionless.
Section 7.4
OR
(2) The layer of cohesive soil or soil with PI > 7 is
not continuous below the embankment
OR
to cause cracking due to differential settlement.
(Section 5.2.4,
Table 5.7)
OR
(4) The foundation soils are not susceptible to
desiccation in the climatic conditions at the site.
OR
(4) Very good construction practices were used to
strip zones of desiccation from the foundation.
3-18
(Section 5.2.6,
Table 5.9)
3.4.4
Section 3
Table 3.5 Screening of initiating mechanisms for internal erosion of the embankment
into or at the foundation
IM25 Scour along defects in
rock foundation < 25 mm
Exclude if:
Reference
Section 9
(1) Rock foundation below the core is comprised of

rock containing closed defects (<1 mm wide) or
open defects less than 3D95 of fine limit of the core
OR
(2) Rock foundation below the core has been
adequately treated (e.g., shotcrete, slush grouting
mortar treatment, concrete cut-off wall)
IM26 Erosion into defects in

rock foundation > 25 mm
Exclude if:
Section 9
(1) Rock foundation below the core is comprised of

rock containing closed defects (<1 mm wide) or
open defects less than 3D95 of fine limit of the core
OR
(2) Rock foundation below the core has been
adequately treated (e.g., shotcrete, slush grouting
mortar treatment, concrete cut-off wall)
IM27 Scour along contact with

open-work granular foundation
Exclude if:
Section 9
(1) Foundation soil is fine-grained with FC > 12%,

and the soil does not contain macrostructure such
as root holes, relic joints, or solution features.
OR
(2) Soil foundation below the core is comprised of
sands (SP or SW) which are filter-compatible with
the embankment materials (i.e., satisfy the no
erosion criteria in Section 10.1.4).
IM28 Erosion into open-work

granular foundation
Exclude if:
Section 9
(1) Foundation soil is fine-grained with FC > 12%,

and the soil does not contain macrostructure such
as root holes, relic joints, or solution features.
OR
(2) Soil foundation below the core is comprised of
sands (SP or SW) which are filter-compatible with
the embankment materials (i.e., satisfy the no
erosion criteria in Section 10.1.4).
3-19
3.5
Partitioning of the Reservoir Levels
3.5.1
Pool of record level
Section 3
The pool of record (POR) level is the maximum level the reservoir has reached during its operation. It is also
known as historic high reservoir level and water surface of record. It is an important level because the
embankment and its foundations have been tested up to this level.
3.5.2
Partitioning of reservoir levels
For each failure path under consideration, the risk assessor must establish load increments for evaluation.
These will be used in developing system response curves that relate the probability of failure to the reservoir
level. The evaluation points must be carefully selected to define the shape of the system response curve,
especially at elevations where significant changes in the probabilities will occur. Two pool elevations will be
required to define significant changes in probabilities (e.g., at the location of the bottom of a know defect or
crack and at the pool of record). It is important to capture the full range of loading so extrapolation outside of
the defined system response curve will not be necessary with performing follow on risk analysis.
The reservoir levels should be partitioned to coincide with:
Elevation of the maximum annual pool or the highest elevation where the probability of initiation
becomes equal to zero (e.g., bottom of transverse crack, elevation of defect in rock, etc.)
Geological features which occur above a particular level in the foundation (e.g., a highly permeable
gravel layer).
Elevations where there is a documented change in performance (e.g., boils, high piezometric levels)
Topographic features such as major changes in foundation profile if these are above the pool of record.
Changes in design such as the top of the filter or top of the core as shown in Figure 3.2(a) and Figure
3.2(b) or the top of downstream berms as shown in Figure 3.3.
Pool of record level.
Pool of record plus 1 foot (required for failure modes through the embankment, except IM17, and
intervention if inspection frequency changes).
Elevation equivalent to 20 percent increase in previously recorded hydraulic head (for IM17 only).
Elevation equivalent to 20 percent increase in previously recorded hydraulic head, plus 1 foot (for IM17
only).
3-20
Section 3
Bottom of transverse of crack (required for failure modes through the upper part of the embankment).
Embankment crest level.
The reservoir levels do not have to be consistent between failure modes or with the reservoir frequency curve
as long as the full range of loading is covered and the shape of the system response curve is adequately
defined.
3.5.3
Assessing frequencies of reservoir loading
For internal erosion, use the annual probability that the level in the partition is exceeded regardless of how
long, not the proportion of time the reservoir is above the level. This is because internal erosion often
develops quite quickly and may go from initiation to breach in hours or days.
3.6
Earthquake Load Partitioning
Evaluate the peak ground bedrock acceleration and earthquake magnitude versus Annual Exceedance
Probability (AEP) for the site. Partition the loads to form a table as shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Example of earthquake load partitions
Earthquake peak
ground acceleration
Representative
earthquake moment
magnitude
Annual exceedance
probability of the
earthquake loading
Probability/annum the
loading is in this stage
0.99
< 0.10g
6.0
0.01
0.009
0.20g
6.0
0.001
0.0009
0.30g
7.0
0.0001
0.0001
Seismic loading data can be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) banded ground motion
deaggregation web site:
http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggband/2002/index.php
The web site provides the mean annual rate of occurrence of peak ground acceleration (PGA) within predefined acceleration partitions and the relative contribution for different moment magnitude-distance
combinations for a given location (latitude and longitude), frequency, and site condition. The earthquake load
3-21
Section 3
partition size varies: 0.05g (from 0 to 0.3g), 0.1g (from 0.3g to 1.0g), 0.25g (from 1.0g to 2.5g), 0.5g (from
2.5g to 3.0g), and 1.0g (from 3.0g to 5.0g). The magnitudes obtained from the USGS banded deaggregations
are in moment magnitude scale (Mw). The most likely magnitude (mode) is suggested for the representative
earthquake magnitude for risk assessments. The mode represents a relatively likely source, whereas the mean
may represent an unlikely or even unconsidered source.
Probabilities of failure should be developed for each of the earthquake loading ranges. The first node in the
main event tree will be the earthquake loading (annualized), and the second node will be the proportion of the
time (in a given year) that the reservoir level is exceeded.
In some situations the reservoir may rise to higher levels before repairs to cracks caused by seismic loading
can be affected, or cracking may be undetected. The possibility of these scenarios should be assessed.
3-22
Application of Tables for Estimating Conditional

Probabilities
4
Application of Tables for Estimating Conditional Probabilities
4.1
General Approach
Section 4
For each failure mode the conditional probabilities at each node in the event tree are estimated for each
reservoir and earthquake load partition. They are used in the event trees to calculate probabilities of failure
for each load partition. These probabilities are conditional on the reservoir or earthquake loading and are
known as the system response.
The estimation of conditional probabilities is covered in Sections 5 to 13, with Sections 5 to 9 covering
Initiation, Section 10 Continuation, Section 11 Progression, Section 12 Intervention, and Section 13 Breach.
Tables are presented within the sections to provide guidance on the estimation of conditional probabilities.
These tables have been developed to model the physical processes so far as practical. The probabilities have
been assessed using the expert judgment of the workshop attendees. Where practical, the probabilities have
been anchored to historic data. This has mainly been possible in the estimation of the probability of initiation
of erosion in concentrated leaks and is discussed further in Section 4.2 and in the Supporting Document.
4.2
Historical Frequencies of Cracks and Poorly Compacted or High

Permeability Zones in Embankments
Concentrated leak erosion may occur in cracks caused by differential settlement, desiccation, or in poorly
compacted zones. In poorly compacted zones initiation of erosion may be a result of the voids between
aggregated soil particles giving higher permeability and continuous open paths, or collapse settlement of the
poorly compacted layer leading to a flaw or continuous open path in which water can flow and erode the
sides of the flaw as happens in a crack.
Estimated frequencies of the occurrence of cracking, hydraulic fracture or poorly compacted or high
permeability zones in embankments are presented in Table 4.1. They have been determined from analysis of
historic dam accidents and failures, allowing for under reporting of the incidents in the database, cracking
which may have been present in the dams in the database but were sufficiently resistant to erosion for erosion
not to initiate, the cracks sealed by swelling, were above the Pool of Record (POR) of the dams, or erosion
was stopped by filters. Details of the database and the analysis are given in the Supporting Document.
The frequencies in Table 4.1 are for a crack, hydraulic fracture or poorly compacted or high permeability
zone being present, and do not include the assessment of whether erosion initiates in the crack, hydraulic
fracture or poorly compacted or high permeability zone. These historic frequencies have been used as a basis
for anchoring the estimated probabilities of a flaw being present in which erosion may initiate.
When applying the historic frequencies to predict future behavior it is assumed that the Above POR values
apply when the reservoir level exceeds the pool of record level by at least one foot (0.3 meters). This is so the
Above POR frequencies apply when the reservoir is testing significant new areas of the dam.
4-1

Probabilities
Section 4
Table 4.1 Estimated historical frequencies of cracking, hydraulic fracture or poorly

compacted or high permeability zones in embankment dams
Location of cracking,
poorly compacted or high
permeability zone
Estimated historical frequencies of cracking, hydraulic fracture or

poorly compacted or high permeability zones
First filling
Reservoir level above

pool of record
Reservoir level below

pool of record
In embankment (dam body)
0.014
0.014
0.001
Associated with conduit
0.01
0.01
0.0007
Associated with concrete

wall or structure through
embankment
0.004
0.004
0.0003
The historical frequencies for cracking or poorly compacted or high permeability zone in the dam body were
further subdivided into the various mechanisms of crack formation. This was necessary so as to avoid the
double counting of the historical frequencies when the probabilities for each initiating mechanism are added
together. Table 4.2 presents the estimated historical frequencies for each of the mechanisms.
Table 4.2 Historical frequencies for cracking or poorly compacted zone in the embankment
dam body
Mechanism for cracking or poorly

compacted or high permeability zone
Estimated historical frequencies of cracking, hydraulic

fracture or poorly compacted or high permeability zones
Proportion of
cases
Reservoir level
above pool of
record
Reservoir level
below pool of
record
All incidents (cracking, hydraulic fracture

and poorly compacted or high
permeability zone)
100%
0.014
0.001
Cracking and hydraulic fracture
63%
In upper part
(47%)
0.007
0.0005
In middle/lower part
(16%)
0.002
0.0002
37%
0.005
0.0004
Poorly compacted or high permeability

zone in upper and lower parts (total)
As described in the Supporting Document, the historical frequencies presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2
represent the average frequencies for cracks, hydraulic fracture, and poorly compacted or high permeability
zones across the population of dams in the database. These represent a large number of dams of varying age
and varying levels of engineering design and construction practice. They do not represent the historical
4-2

Probabilities
Section 4
frequencies for the average dam a term which has been applied previously (e.g., Fell et al 2003, 2004). It
would be expected that a portfolio of well engineered Reclamation, USACE and Australian dams would have
average probabilities estimated based on these historical data less than the average historical frequencies
presented in the tables.
The historical frequencies have been determined for a load cycle. For Above POR case, the frequencies
were not adjusted because the incidents were related to one load cycle. For the Below POR case, the
frequencies have been adjusted by dividing by the average age of the dams before the incident occurred. It
was assumed that a loading cycle was equivalent to one year of operation including a seasonal fluctuation
below the pool of record.
The database of incidents is relatively small, and because of this, there should be no further subdivision of the
failure and accident statistics.
4.3
Historical Frequencies for Internal Erosion in and into the

Foundation
The conditions in the foundations of dams are inherently more complex and varied than in the dam body, and
hence historic frequencies for internal erosion in and into the foundation are more difficult to interpret and
apply. One of the key issues for these modes of internal erosion is whether continuous seepage paths or open
defects are present, and historic performance data provides very little information to aid in the assessment.
For this reason, the use of historic performance data for anchoring the conditional probabilities for internal
erosion through the foundation and internal erosion from the embankment into the foundation has not been
done.
4.4
Estimating Conditional Probabilities
4.4.1
Estimating conditional probabilities using relative importance factors

and likelihood factors
Most of the sections for estimation of conditional probabilities are structured so there is a table of factors
affecting the likelihood. These tables are structured to show:
The factors;
The relative importance of this factor (RF) with numeric weightings (usually three factors with relative
importance weightings of 3, 2, and 1); and
4-3

Probabilities
Section 4
Likelihood factors (LF) for which there are descriptions. Generally there are four for each factor, with
likelihood weightings of 4, 3, 2 and 1.
There is then a second table which links (RFxLF) to the conditional probability. Where there is historic data
to anchor the probabilities these are shown in brackets (e.g., [0.0005] for Table 5.2, Below POR). The
tables have two or more sets of probabilities. Where the anchor probabilities are estimated by expert
judgment of the toolbox development team they are shown with rounded brackets: e.g., (0.003). The
conditional probabilities on these tables are on a log scale, and interpolation between the bracketed
probability values should be based on log interpolation.
The Below POR figures are for reservoir level stages with a representative level up to and 1 foot (0.3
meter) above the historic high reservoir pool level (POR). The Above POR figures are for representative
reservoir level stages at least 1 foot (0.3 meter) above this historic high reservoir pool level.
These anchor probabilities are a form of a base rate frequency and the approach used in the tables is a base
rate frequency approach.
Those carrying out the risk analysis are required to choose which of the descriptors for each factor best
reflects conditions at the dam. Where there is little data this assessment should be made on the best available
information and using judgment based on geological conditions and experience elsewhere on dams of similar
age and design.
For some conditional probability estimates it has been necessary to modify the format of the table to better
model relative importance or likelihood distributions.
In the tables the term negligible means that the contribution to the probability of failure would be very
small indeed, insufficient to affect the outcome.
4.4.2
Estimating conditional probabilities using scenario tables
Where the number of factors affecting the estimation of conditional probabilities is few or to be based on
limited data, scenario tables are used. These have been developed by the toolbox development team based
on published information, and the experience of the team members.
These tables present ranges of conditional probabilities within which the risk analysis team are to select their
best estimate based on the details of the dam they are analyzing.
4.4.3
Estimating conditional probabilities using probability estimate tables
In some sections, e.g., those describing the assessment of the probability of initiation of erosion in a crack,
(Section 5.4.2) and initiation and progression of backward erosion in cohesionless soils (Section 6.6.2), the
4-4

Probabilities
Section 4
toolbox development team have carried out analyses to simplify the estimation of conditional probabilities
from input data which itself has significant uncertainty, and the analysis methods themselves have uncertain
outputs.
The assumptions made to develop these tables are described in the Supporting Document.
4.5
Length Effects
The effect of the length of the embankment being considered may have an influence on the assessed
probability of internal erosion and piping. The effect is dependent on the failure mode, how the embankment
is partitioned for the analysis, and how the conditional probabilities are assessed.
Many failure modes are independent of length because they are related to specific features in the
embankment, such as a conduit, contact with a wall, and differential settlement of a major change in
foundation profile. In many embankments, these failures modes contribute most to the likelihood of internal
erosion and piping.
The failure modes which are potentially affected by length are cracking due to desiccation (either by drying
and/or freezing), high permeability zones in the embankment (e.g., due to poorly compacted layers in the
core), high permeability layer on the core-foundation contact, internal erosion of the embankment into or at a
rock or soil foundation, and backward erosion in cohesionless soils in the foundations of dams. For these
failure modes it is the likelihood of initiation of erosion for which length may be a factor. The length can be
accounted for by considering it in determination of the probability: e.g., what is the probability of a through
going crack in the core due to desiccation in this 1000 feet length of embankment which so far as can be
ascertained all has the same geometry, zoning and material properties?
In statistical terms if all sections of the embankment are exactly the same, then they are perfectly correlated
and the probability of at least one crack in the whole of the embankment is the same as for one section
regardless of length. If each section is completely independent of the others (i.e., different construction
materials, different specifications and construction methods, different cover (e.g., road pavement) over the
core), then each section should be considered separately and the probabilities added using DeMorgans rule:
P = 1 (1-P1) x (1-P2) x (1-P3)etc.
The following tables describe whether length effects are applicable to each of the internal erosion failure
paths/location, and if so, the method of accounting for length effects. The notes for all of the tables are
located after Table 4.6.
4-5

Probabilities
Section 4
Table 4.3 Length effects for internal erosion through the embankment due to concentrated
leaks in transverse cracks
Initiating
Mechanism
IM1 Transverse
cracking due to
cross valley
differential
settlement
IM2 Transverse
cracking due to
differential
settlement adjacent
to a cliff at the top
of the embankment
IM3 Transverse
cracking due to
cross section
settlement due to
poorly compacted
shoulders
IM4 Transverse
cracking due to
differential
settlement in the
foundation soil
beneath the core
Effect of length on
failure probability
Sketch of Failure Mode

Crack
No length effect but

consider each abutment
and add the calculated
probabilities
In most cases one abutment or

change in foundation profile
will be much larger than the
other, so it will be sufficient to
calculate for this case only
No length effect but

consider each abutment
and add the calculated
probabilities
In most cases one abutment

cliff will be much larger than
the other, so it will be sufficient
to calculate for this case only
No length effect for

case (a)
In most cases one part of the

embankment will be larger
than the other, so it will be
sufficient to calculate for this
part only
Long Section
Crack/Gap
Long Section
Long Section
(a)

case (b) but each part
contributes and add the
calculated probabilities
(b)
Long Section

cases (a) and (b). No
length effect for case (c)
but each part
contributes and add the
calculated probabilities
Long Section
(a)
Compressible soil
Long Section
(b)
Long Section
(c)
IM5 Transverse
cracking due to
differential
settlement due to
embankment
staging
Comments
Long Section
No length effect. If more

than one staging
surface add the
probabilities
Crack
Stage 2
Stage 1
4-6

Probabilities
Initiating
Mechanism
IM6 Transverse
cracking due to
desiccation at the
embankment crest
Effect of length on
failure probability
Length effects may

apply. See Notes (1)
and (2)
Long Section
IM7 Transverse
cracking due to
desiccation at
seasonal shutdown
layers during
construction or
staged construction
surfaces
No length effect
IM 8 Earthquake
Note:
Refer to the end of Table 4.6 for notes.
4-7
Section 4
Comments
In many cases the nature of
the embankment design and
construction materials will be
such that all sections are the
same. Then the correlated
condition exists, so length
effects will be negligible.

Probabilities
Section 4
Table 4.4 Length effects for internal erosion through the embankment due to concentrated
leaks in hydraulic fractures
Initiating Mechanism
Effect of length
on failure
probability
Comments
No length effect
IM9 Hydraulic
fracturing due to cross
valley arching
Crack
Long Section
IM10 Hydraulic
fracturing due to
differential settlement
causing arching of the
core onto the shoulders
of the embankment
IM11 Hydraulic
fracturing in the lower
part of the embankment
due to differential
settlement in the
foundation soil beneath
the core
Long Section
Long Section
(a)
(b)
Long Section
Compressible soil
(a)
Long Section
(b)

case (a)
case (b) but each
part contributes and
add the calculated
probabilities
In most cases one part of the

embankment will be larger
than the other, so it will be
sufficient to calculate for this
part only

cases (a) and (b).No
length effect for
case (c) but each
part contributes and
add the calculated
probabilities
Long Section
(c)
IM12 Hydraulic
fracturing due to smallscale irregularities in
the foundation/
abutment profile
beneath the core
Note:
No length effect, but

allow for the number
of irregularities and
add the calculated
probabilities.
Long Section
4-8
See Note (3)

Probabilities
Section 4
Table 4.5 Length effects for internal erosion through the embankment due to poorly
compacted or high permeability zones
IM13 Poorly
compacted or high
permeability zone
within the embankment
IM14 Poorly
compacted or high
permeability layer on
the corefoundation/abutment
contact
IM15 High
permeability zone due
to freezing at the
embankment crest

Long Section
Long Section
Poorly compacted layers
Poorly compacted layer
Effect of length on
failure probability
Length effects may
and (4)
IM16 High
permeability zone due
to freezing at seasonal
construction or staged
construction surfaces
IM17 Poorly
compacted or high
permeability zone
adjacent to a conduit
through the
embankment
IM18 Features
allowing erosion into a
conduit
Long Section
High
Permeability
Zone
Long Section
Erosion into
Conduit
4-9

effects will be negligible
Length effects may

and (5)
Length effects may

and (6)
Long Section
Comments
No length effect. If
there is more than one
conduit treat each
separately and add the
probabilities
conduit treat each
probabilities

effects will be negligible

Probabilities
IM19 Poorly
compacted or high
permeability zone
associated with a
spillway or abutment
wall
wall treat each
probabilities
IM20 Crack or gap

adjacent to a spillway
or abutment wall
IM21 Transverse
cracking due to
differential settlement
adjacent to a spillway
or abutment wall
Crack/Gap
Long Section
Notes.
Effect of length on
failure probability
4-10
Section 4
Comments

Probabilities
Section 4
Table 4.6 Length effects for internal erosion through the soil foundation and into or at the
foundation
IM22 Backward
erosion in a
cohesionless
foundation soil
Effect of length on failure

probability
Length effects may apply. See
Notes (1) and (7).
Long Section
Comments
See Note 7
IM23 Suffusion in a
cohesionless
foundation soil
IM24 Erosion in a
crack in a cohesive
foundation soil due to
desiccation
IM25 Scour along
defects in rock
foundation < 25 mm
Depends on the cause of the

cracking. For desiccation
induced cracking see IM6; for
settlement induced cracking see
IM9 or IM11
Long Section

Notes (1) and (7).
Long Section
IM26 Erosion into

defects in rock
foundation > 25 mm
IM27 Scour along
contact with open-work
granular foundation

Notes (1) and (7).
Long Section
See Note 7
IM28 Erosion into

open-work granular
foundation
Notes for Table 4.3 to Table 4.6:
(1) If all sections of the embankment are exactly the same, then they are perfectly correlated and the
probability of cracking in the whole of the embankment is the same as for one section regardless of length. If
each section is completely independent of the others, i.e., different construction materials, different
specifications and construction methods, different cover (e.g., road pavement) over the core, each section
should be considered separately and the probabilities added using DeMorgans rule.
(2) The probabilities in Table 5.10 are determined by expert judgment and are for an embankment about
1600 feet (500 meters) long. The spacing of the cracks is likely to be about 5X crack depth, so there will be
many cracks of maximum depth within the 500 meters. These probabilities will apply for embankments
shorter than 1600 feet (500 meters) without adjustment for length.
(3) The probabilities in Table 5.20 are anchored against historic data, for which there were between 2 and 5
small scale irregularities. Use these figures unless there are greatly more than 5 small scale irregularities.
(4) The probabilities in Table 6.3 are anchored on historic data and are for an embankment about 1600 feet
(500 meters) long. There are likely to be a number of sections within 500 meters which have the conditions
4-11

Probabilities
Section 4
potentially leading to a flaw. These probabilities will apply for embankments shorter than 1600 feet (500
meters) without adjustment for length.
(5) The probabilities in Table 6.5 are anchored by relation to historic data and are for an embankment about
1600 feet (500 meters) long. There are likely to be a number of sections within 1600 feet (500 meters) which
have the conditions potentially leading to a flaw. These probabilities will apply for embankments shorter than
1600 feet (500 meters) without adjustment for length.
(6) The probabilities in Table 6.7 and Table 6.9 are determined by expert judgment and are for an
embankment about 1600 feet (500 meters) long. There are likely to be a number of sections within 1600 feet
(500 meters) which have the conditions potentially leading to a flaw. These probabilities will apply for
embankments shorter than 1600 feet (500 meters) without adjustment for length.
(7) The foundation should be partitioned so that geotechnical conditions are essentially the same within a
section. Within a section the correlated condition exists, regardless of its length. Estimate the probability of
backward erosion or suffusion for each section and add the probabilities using DeMorgans rule. Any section
may have experience one or more sand boils. If these occurred at the same reservoir level for dams, the
number of boils is not a factor in assessing the probability as one boil or many boils both mean initiation has
occurred at that level.
DeMorgans rule is P = 1 (1-P1) x (1-P2) x (1-P3)etc.
4-12

Probabilities
Section 4
4.6
Nature of the Estimates of Probabilities Given by the Toolbox
4.6.1
The toolbox gives best estimate probabilities
The methods in the toolbox provide best estimates of the conditional probabilities and hence best
estimate probabilities of failure.
The estimates are determined by expert judgment based on analyses and laboratory tests modeling the
physical processes. They are designed to avoid systematic bias towards conservative or non-conservative
probabilities.
Probabilities for some of the most important initiating modes within the embankment are calibrated against
historic performance of dams from a large database of around 10,000 dams in the ICOLD (1986) survey of
failures and accidents. This is discussed in detail in Section 4.2. Where this has not been possible, expert
judgment of the team developing the toolbox based on extensive experience in dams and risk assessment has
been used, taking into account the feedback from trials and reviews of the toolbox by Reclamation and
USACE.
The methods in the toolbox are likely to be more reliable in assessing relative probabilities between failure
modes and between dams than assessing absolute values.
4.6.2
Adjusting the toolbox best estimates
Allowance for factors not included in the toolbox methods

It is recommended that the toolbox estimate be adopted except where there are factors not covered in the
toolbox tables which the risk analysis team believe affect the estimate of the conditional probability for the
node in question. These factors may include observations or monitoring data, or physical factors not allowed
for in the toolbox. In these cases, the best estimate should be determined by adjusting the toolbox estimate to
allow for the additional factors. It would not be expected that this would generally result in conditional
probabilities greatly different to those estimated by the toolbox.
The additional factors should be described and the reasoning for the revised estimate provided in the risk
analysis report.
What to do if the toolbox estimates seem incorrect

There may be cases where the toolbox estimates of failure probabilities are significantly different to what the
risk analysis team would have expected. This may be due to 1) the logic (i.e., construction of the event tree)
4-13

Probabilities
Section 4
does not well match the perceived failure mode for the dam being analyzed, 2) the RF and LF factors do not
well represent what the team originally thinks are the key factors or actual observances, or 3) the probability
value suggested in the toolbox does not well represent what the risk assessor thinks is appropriate. The
suggested steps to follow for each of these situations are:
a)
If the issue appears to be in the logic, look carefully at the failure mode being modeled to identify where
the perceived difference has occurred. Experience has shown that the logic presented in the toolbox has
stood the test of time and is normally considered appropriate. Issues with the logic are typically due to a
less-than-full understanding of what is already presented in the toolbox. If there is still perceived to be an
error in the toolbox logic, check with USACE personnel familiar with the toolbox to ascertain that a
problem still exists. If in the end there still is an issue, then the failure mode could be developed into its
own event tree or adjustments made to the portion of the toolbox event tree in question followed by
assigning probabilities using Expert Opinion Elicitation. In this case the issue should also be referred to
one of the current toolbox developers for consideration in future updates.
b)
If there seems to be an issue in the RF and/or LF factors, fully discuss the factors presented to ascertain
that the proposed new factors are indeed more important. Be sure that the failure mode is well
understood and that the risk assessor has a good understanding of the available case histories upon which
the toolbox has been built around. If in the end, it appears that the factors should be adjusted or changed,
make the changes/adjustments and document well what was done and why. The USACE person who
manages the toolbox should oversee the corrections/adjustments.
c)
If there seems to be an issue with the probabilities assigned, the risk assessor should be sure they are
well aware of the database of historic precedent and experienced judgment that has been extensively
used in the development of the methods probabilities. Once the risk assessor is well-armed with this
information, the risk assessor is then equipped to assess the appropriateness of the prescribed
probabilities and attempt an adjustment. The adjustment should be made, using Expert Opinion
Elicitation, and then fully documented. In this case the issue should also be referred to one of the current
toolbox developers for consideration in future updates.
4.6.3
Limitations of the methods used in the toolbox
The toolbox is based on the (2007) state of the art on modeling the mechanics of initiation of internal erosion
in cracks and other flaws, by backward erosion and suffusion. The methods available are sufficient to form
the basis of the toolbox, and are to be preferred to methods based only on historic data, or expert judgment
anchored on historic data such as those detailed in Fell et al (2003, 2004).
The mechanics of continuation (filter action) are fundamentally simpler, more extensively researched and the
methods are less subjective than for initiation, provided the data to do the analyses is available.
4-14

Probabilities
Section 4
The modeling of progression, detection and intervention, and breach are more subjective and largely based on
case studies and expert judgment.
The methods used here are a significant improvement on the methods described in Fell et al (2003, 2004)
which have been used in Australia and as input to the Reclamation methods.
It is recommended that those using Fell et al (2003, 2004) now use the methods described in this Guidance
Document.
Most of the logic, modeling, analysis, laboratory testing, expert elicitation techniques used in this document
continues to be actively researched and/or studied. Case histories continue to occur that give more insight to
the process involved. It is likely that these developments in understanding will result in improved methods for
assessing probabilities of initiation, continuation, and progression of internal erosion, and breach mechanics.
When this occurs, it will be necessary to revise the toolbox.
4.6.4
Assessment of probabilities of failure for failure modes which are not

covered by the toolbox
In some dams, there may be failure modes which are not well modeled by the toolbox. For these failure
modes the risk analysis team should develop an event tree to model the failure mode. Conditional
probabilities within the event tree should be estimated using the toolbox where the nodes are common to the
toolbox event tree, and by expert judgment for the other nodes. When expert judgment is required, use the
current version of the Dam Safety Risk Management Center Training Document: Technical Guide for the
Use of Expert Opinion Elicitation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Risk Assessments.
4.7
Modeling Uncertainty in the Estimates of Conditional Probabilities
4.7.1
Purpose of this section
The toolbox has been developed to provide best estimate values of conditional probabilities for the nodes in
the event trees for all failure modes. Sometimes where there is considerable uncertainty or contradictory
information in the data being used for the risk analysis a sensitivity analysis to gauge the effect of the likely
range of estimates of conditional probability on one or two of the most critical nodes on the event tree may be
modeled.
In some more detailed risk analyses, it may be required that the uncertainty which is inherent in such
estimates is modeled. This uncertainty may arise from limitations in the toolbox methods used to estimate
probabilities (a type of model uncertainty), the data available for the dam being analyzed (epistemic
uncertainty) and uncertainty associated with unpredictable variations of a random nature in data relied on for
the risk analysis (aleatory uncertainty), uncertainty about the true accuracy and/or applicability of an
4-15

Probabilities
Section 4
analytical model used to assess the data, and measurement and parameter uncertainty of properties of
materials in the dam and its foundation.
The effects of uncertainty in the estimates of conditional probability can be examined either with sensitivity
analysis or modeling uncertainty in the event tree. Both approaches are described in this section. Reference
should be made to Reclamation (2001b), Dam Safety Risk Analysis Methodology, Appendix T, Handling
Uncertainty.
4.7.2
Sensitivity analysis
There will be some cases where the quality and quantity of data available to do the risk analysis is limited,
and/or is somewhat contradictory. For example, data on filters or transition zones may be limited. In these
cases, it is recommended that the best estimate and the range of the best estimate for the node probability is
calculated from this data and carried forward in the risk analysis as a sensitivity analysis. This means that
there will be a best estimate and two other estimates representing the range of estimates of the frequency of
failure to be reported for this failure mode. Alternatively, only the upper and lower estimates are carried
through so decision makers can gauge the importance of this data on the risk analysis.
This approach should be adopted when uncertainty is not being modeled as detailed in Section 4.7.3.
4.7.3
Uncertainty analysis
In some situations, uncertainty of the estimate of conditional probability in each node of the event tree may
need to be modeled. This uncertainty would then be used in Monte Carlo analyses to determine the
distribution of estimates of the probability of failure.
The following sections provide some information on how uncertainty may be modeled.
Modeling uncertainty for event tree nodes where relative importance factors and
likelihood factors tables are used to estimate conditional probabilities.
This covers the probability versus (RFxLF) tables. In these tables there is:
i)
Uncertainty in the historic data anchor probabilities, and in the minimum and maximum probabilities
(e.g., negligible, [0.005], and 0.2 in Table 5.4). These in turn affect the values in the tables in between.
Where there are no historic data to anchor the probabilities there is uncertainty in the estimates based
on the expert judgment of the toolbox development team.
ii) Uncertainty in the ability of these tables and the factors they are based on to model the relative
probabilities.
4-16

Probabilities
Section 4
iii) Uncertainty in the analysis and laboratory testing data upon which the methods may be based. An
example would be the numerical analysis upon which Table 5.3 is largely based.
iv) Uncertainty resulting from limitations of the available investigations, design, construction and
monitoring data relating to the probability being assessed. An example would be limitations of
knowledge of the degree of compaction and borrow area variability in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2.
(a) Model uncertainty
Uncertainties (i) (ii) and (iii) are model uncertainties.
Table 4.7 shows best estimate and equivalent likely low and likely high probabilities. This can be used to
develop likely minimum and likely maximum probability versus (RFxLF) tables. Table 4.7 is based on a
dissection of the basis upon which the historic probabilities anchor points and the minimum and maximum
values were determined. Details of how this was done are given in Section S4.7 of the Supporting Document.
If the probability for (RFxLF) = 6 is less than or equal to 0.0001, then the likely low probability should
equal the best estimate.
Table 4.7 allows definition of the anchor point, minimum and maximum probability values. The risk assessor
should then interpolate to determine the intermediate values on the (RFxLF) table. An example is given in
the Section S4.6 of the Supporting Document.
Reclamation Risk Analysis Methodology Appendix T, Handling Uncertainty, uses the terms reasonable
low to represent the 10th percentile bound, and reasonable high to represent the 90th percentile bound. The
range of 0.2x (likely low) to 5x (likely high) represents more stringent percentiles, possibly < 1% to >99%. It
is for the agency doing the uncertainty analysis to judge what range the model uncertainty represents and to
decide what range to adopt.
4-17

Probabilities
Section 4
Table 4.7 Best estimate, likely high, and likely low equivalence table
Best Estimate Probability
Likely High Probability
Likely Low Probability
0.0001
0.0005
0.0001
0.001
0.005
0.0002
0.01
0.05
0.002
0.02
0.1
0.004
0.05
0.2
0.01
0.1
0.4
0.02
0.2
0.6
0.04
0.3
0.8
0.07
0.5
0.95
0.15
0.9
0.999
0.4
Note. Likely high probabilities are assumed to be 5 times best estimate, and likely low probabilities 0.2
times best estimate. See Section S4.7 of the Supporting Document for details of the calculations to
develop the values in the table.
(b) Data uncertainty

The uncertainty in the probability estimate resulting from limitations in the data (factor (iv) above) should be
assessed by assessing the likely low and likely high (RFxLF) values from the table, and using these in the
Probability versus (RFxLF) tables to estimate the range of probabilities resulting from data uncertainty.
(c) Combining the model and data uncertainty.
To combine the model and data uncertainty, use the likely low, best estimate and likely high probability from
the relevant probability versus (RFxLF) table. An example is given in Section S4.6 of the Supporting
Document.
This is a severe test of overall uncertainty and Agencies will need to develop their policy on how to combine
these components of uncertainty.
Modeling uncertainty for event tree nodes where scenarios and examples are
described, and a range of probabilities provided
This covers the tables where scenarios are described, examples are given, and a range of probabilities
provided from which the risk assessor makes a selection based on the available information, and the risk
assessors degree of belief.
Examples are Table 11.1, Table 11.2, Table 11.3, Table 12.8, and Table 13.6.
4-18

Probabilities
Section 4
For these cases it is recommended that:
The risk analysis team estimate is taken as the best estimate.
The likely low and likely high probability is estimated by the analysis team, within the range shown in
the table.
Where the toolbox table indicates a probability of 1.0, this should generally be adopted for best estimate and
likely low and likely high estimates. These are only used in the toolbox where there is very high degree of
confidence based on physical factors that a probability of 1.0 is applicable.
In cases where the information available to the risk analysis team strongly supports adopting best estimate
and/or likely low or likely high probabilities outside the range in the tables, the risk analysis team may adopt
this value, but it would not be expected that this would result in probabilities greatly different to those
estimated by the toolbox.
The factors leading to this probability estimate should be described and the reasoning for the revised estimate
provided in the risk analysis report.
Modeling uncertainty for event tree nodes where single value estimates of
probability are provided
This covers tables where analysis has been carried out to combine a number of input variables, and the
toolbox development team have allowed for uncertainty in the input variables to allow for uncertainty. This
includes Table 5.30 to Table 5.36, Table 6.23 to Table 6.25, and Table 7.4.
i)
Probability of initiation of erosion in concentrated leaks, Table 5.30 to Table 5.36
As described in Section S5.4.2.4 of the Supporting Document, these tables have been developed allowing for:
Probability distributions in the maximum crack width and crack width at depth versus crack width at the
surface.
The initial shear stress of the soil.
Using these to run Monte Carlo analyses.
The values in Table 5.30 through Table 5.36 are median values. Tables in S5.4.2.4 of the Supporting
Document have the equivalent tables for the 10% and 90% values, representing the likely minimum and
likely maximum probabilities.
4-19

Probabilities
Section 4
ii) Probability of initiation of erosion in cohesionless soils, Table 6.23 to Table 6.25 and Table 7.4
As described in Section S6.6.2.7 of the Supporting Document, these probabilities are obtained by comparing
the actual average seepage gradient to that required to initiate and progress backward erosion. The
probabilities were assessed by expert judgment allowing for the uncertainty in the method used to assess
whether backward erosion would initiate and progress.
Table 6.23, Table 6.24, Table 6.25, and Table 7.4 are best estimate values. Tables in Section S6.6.2.7, S7.3.2
and S7.3.3 of the Supporting Document have the equivalent tables for the likely minimum and likely
maximum probabilities. These have been developed by expert judgment.
Selection of the Probability Distribution

The risk analysis team should select the probability distribution they believe best fits their best estimate,
likely low and likely high probability estimates. The alternatives which may be considered are explained in
Reclamation (2001b). For many cases, a triangular distribution is likely to be suitable.
4.8
Summarizing (Making the Case)
Once a risk estimate is prepared with the use of this toolbox, the risk assessor needs to make summary of the
key factors that generated the estimates of probability of failure. An exercise of making the case is
important so that reviewers and decision makers can quickly focus on the story being told. This can be done
relatively easily by reviewing each of the components of the estimate and select those that drive most of the
final estimate. Once these are determined, they should be reviewed and the main factors that contribute most
to the actual estimate of this component should be brought forward into an engineering summary of the
failure mode. This engineering summary should normally only focus on those factors key to the overall
estimate.
By doing this the redundancy, or lack thereof, in the design can be demonstrated. In the case with much
redundancy (i.e., dams with many components that contribute to the overall risk being low), it is important to
highlight this. For example, dams with a low chance for concentrated leakage; a non-erodible core; some
filtering components should be viewed as an overall robust situation with reasonable redundancy. In contrast,
a homogenous dam with an erodible core where the risk is low due almost solely to a low probability of a
concentrated leak is a case with little redundancy. It is important to summarize this situation for reviewers
and decision makers.
4.9
Development of System Response Curves
The following guidelines have been developed for users who intend to use system response curves to quantify
the risk. The probabilities of failure estimated for each of the reservoir level and earthquake can be used as
4-20

Probabilities
Section 4
point estimates for developing system response curves. Separate system response curves should be developed
for each of the potential failure modes identified in the screening process.
The process to develop system response curves for reservoir level loading is summarized as follows:
Select the reservoir level partition points as described in Section 3.5.
Estimate the conditional probabilities of failure for each step of the event tree developed for each failure
path at each reservoir level of interest.
Plot the conditional probabilities versus reservoir level on a semi-logarithmic scale. Join the individual
point estimates using straight lines. An example is shown in Figure 4.1.
230
Reservoir Level (ft)
210
Pool of Record
Embankment Crest
190
170
150
Abutment Defect
130
110
Annual Pool
90
6.00E-03
5.00E-03
4.00E-03
3.00E-03
2.00E-03
1.00E-03
0.00E+00
Conditional Probabilty of Failure
Figure 4.1 Example system response curve
For a given initiating mechanism, if the dam profile is divided into segments or different cross-sections
are evaluated (e.g., due to physical differences in geology, geometry, treatment, etc.), the individual
system response curves should be combined into a single system response curve by selecting the
maximum probability of failure at each reservoir level.
For a given initiating mechanism (e.g. transverse cracking through the embankment), develop system
response curves for each failure path (e.g. above and below a filter, above and below the top of a berm,
etc.). The individual system response curves should be combined into a single system response curve by
4-21

Probabilities
Section 4
selecting the maximum probability of failure at each reservoir level. Examples of multiple flow paths are
shown in Figure 3.2, Figure 3.3, and Figure 4.2.
Flow Path A
Flow Path A
Flow Path B
Flow Path B
Flow Path C
Partial Core
Partial Filter
Flow Path A
Flow Path A
Flow Path B
Flow Path B
Stability Berm
Partial Filter
Figure 4.2 Examples of multiple flow paths
4.10
Combining Probabilities
Risk is computed by finding the product of probabilities and consequences for each path of the event tree.
The principles for combining the probabilities on the event trees and for the different failure paths are as
follows:
For mutually exclusive failure paths, as occurs on a specific event tree, the conditional probabilities of
failure should be added.
For failure paths that are not mutually exclusive, the total probabilities of failure from the event trees
should be calculated using DeMorgans rule:
P = 1 (1-PIM1) x (1-PIM2) x (1-PIM3)etc.
Failure path probabilities should only be combined in cases where the mechanisms are very similar and all
possible risk reduction remedial measures will have the same influence on the failure paths that were
combined.
4-22
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Transverse Cracks

in the Embankment
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Transverse Cracks in the Embankment
5.1
Overall Approach
a)
Section 5
Estimate the probability of a crack (PC.xx) for each of the initiating mechanisms that can lead to
transverse cracking and low stress zones in which hydraulic fracture can occur. These are:
Transverse cracking of the embankment (Section 5.2)
Cross valley differential settlement (IM1)
Differential settlement adjacent to a cliff (IM2)
Cross section settlement due to poorly compacted shoulders (IM3)
Differential settlement due to embankment staging (IM5)
Desiccation (IM6 and IM7)
Earthquake (IM8)
Hydraulic fracturing of the embankment (Section 5.3)
Differential settlement causing cross valley arching (IM9)
Differential settlement causing arching of the core onto the shoulders (IM10)
Differential settlement due to small scale irregularities in the foundation profile (IM12)
This is done using Table 5.1 to Table 5.14 in Section 5.2 for cracking and Table 5.15 to Table 5.20 in
Section 5.3 for hydraulic fracturing. The probabilities obtained from these tables are modified for
observed settlement and cracking using Table 5.21 and Table 5.22 in Section 5.4 to obtain Pflaw.
Modifications are not applicable to all mechanisms.
For most dams not all mechanisms will be present, and those mechanisms are assigned a probability of
zero. The details for screening the mechanisms are described in Section 3.4.
b)
If grouting was performed within the maximum depth of likely cracking in the embankment, evaluate the
likelihood of the grouting being ineffective at cutting off the cracking using Table 8.19 and Table 8.20 in
Section 8.7. If a cut-off wall was installed through the maximum depth of likely cracking in the
embankment, evaluate the likelihood of grouting being ineffective at cutting off the cracking using Table
Table 8.21 and Table 8.22 in Section 8.8.
c)
Estimate the maximum likely crack width at the surface of the core for each of the initiating mechanisms
which apply as described in Section 5.5.
5-1

in the Embankment
Section 5
d)
Estimate the maximum likely crack depth as described in Section 5.5.
e)
Estimate the likely crack width at the reservoir level under consideration assuming a uniformly tapered
crack.
f)
Estimate the probability of initiation of erosion for this mechanism given this estimated crack width,
seepage gradient across the core, and the properties of the soil in the core (PI) using Section 5.5.
g)
The estimated probabilities of a flaw and initiation of erosion for each initiating mechanism are not
added together, but are carried through the event trees for each failure path. For many dams, one or more
of the mechanisms will not be present.
5-2

in the Embankment
Section 5
5.2
Probability of Transverse Cracking in the Embankment
5.2.1
Transverse cracking due to cross valley differential settlement (IM1)
Table 5.1 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking in the embankment due
to cross valley differential settlement (IM1)
Factor
Cross valley
profile under
embankment
core (a)
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
(3)
Likelihood Factor (LF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Uniform
abutment profile
without benches
Wide bench low

in the abutment
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
h2/h1 > 1
b/h2 > 1
Height of
embankment
(1)
Notes:
b/h2 > 1
0.5 < h2/h1 < 1
Wide bench
near the crest in
the abutment
b/h2 > 1
0 < h2/h1 < 0.5
b/h2 > 0.5

h2/h1 < 0.25
b/h2 <0.5
h2/h1 >1.5
(2)
Wide bench in
upper half to
one-third of the
abutment
Much More
Likely
(4)
or narrow bench
in upper half to
one-third of the
abutment
Narrow bench
very low in the
abutment
Slope of
abutments
under
embankment
core (a)
More Likely
(3)
Gentle abutment
slopes
Moderate
abutment slopes
Steep abutment
slopes
Very steep
abutment slopes
2 < 25
25 < 2 < 45
45 < 2 < 60
2 > 60
Dams 50 to 100
ft (15 to 30 m)
high
Dams 100 to
200 ft (30 to 60
m) high
Very high dams

> 200 ft (60 m)
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
Dams less than
50 ft (15 m) high
(a) See Figure 5.1 for definitions of b, h1, h2, and 2.
5-3
Note: Select
LF=5 for dams
higher than 400
ft (120 m).

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.2 Probability of transverse cracking in the embankment dams due to cross valley
differential settlement (IM1) versus (RFxLF)
negligible negligible 0.00005
0.00015
[0.0005]
0.005
0.02 Below POR
0.002
[0.007]
0.05
0.2
Above POR
11
13
18
24
RFxLF
7 8
Valley
Centerline
Dam crest
h2
Abutment
h1
2
Figure 5.1 Definition of terms used to describe cross valley geometry
5-4

in the Embankment
5.2.2
Section 5
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement adjacent to a cliff at

the top of the embankment (IM2)
to differential settlement adjacent a cliff at the top of the embankment (IM2)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Cross valley
profile under
embankment
core (a)
(3)
Slope of
abutments
under
embankment
core (a)
(2)
Height of
embankment
(1)
Note:

Less Likely
(1)
Wide bench
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Bench adjacent
to cliff
Narrow bench
adjacent to cliff
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
1.0 < Wb/Hw

<2.5
0.25 < Wb/Hw <

1.0
Gentle abutment
slopes
Moderate
abutment slopes
Steep abutment
slopes
Very steep
abutment slope
1 < 25
25 < 1 < 45
45 < 1 < 60
1 > 60
Dams 50 to 100
ft (15 to 30 m)
high
Dams 100 to
200 ft (30 to 60
m) high
Very high dams

> 200 ft (60 m)
Wb/Hw > 2.5
No or very
narrow bench
adjacent to cliff
Wb/Hw < 0.25
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
Dams less than
50 ft (15 m) high
(a) See Figure 5.2 for definitions of Wb, Hw, 1.
5-5

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.4 Probability of transverse cracking in the embankment due to differential

settlement adjacent to a cliff at the top of the embankment (IM2) versus (RFxLF)
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible [0.0005]
0.002
0.02 Below POR
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible [0.005]
0.02
0.2
Above POR
11
13 14
19
24
RFxLF
Figure 5.2 Cracking adjacent to cliffs due to differential settlement of the embankment
5-6

in the Embankment
5.2.3
Section 5
Transverse cracking due to cross section settlement due to poorly

compacted shoulders (IM3)
to cross section settlement due to poorly compacted shoulders (IM3)
Factor
EITHER
Relative
Importance
Factor (RF)
(3)
Embankment
zoning
and
Compaction
of outer zone
(3)
Embankment
zoning
and
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Zoned earthfill,
earthfill with filter
drains, or
homogeneous (all
materials have a
similar modulus)
Zoned earthfill,
earthfill with filter
drains, modulus of
outer zones lower
than core
Central core earth

and rockfill (or
gravel fill),
rockfill or gravel
fill compacted by
dozer tracking or
by small rollers in
thick layers
Central core earth

and rockfill,
uncompacted
(dumped)
Core sloped flatter
than 45
Core sloped flatter
than 45
Core sloped flatter
than 45
Rockfill (or gravel

fill), and core well
compacted
Rockfill (or gravel

fill), rockfill or
gravel fill
compacted by
dozer tracking or
by small rollers in
thick layers
Construction
staged with rockfill
in the lower part of
the dam
compacted to a
higher modulus
than the upper
part
Core sloped
steeper than 45
but within limits of
sloping core
embankment
Central core earth

and rockfill (or
gravel fill), with
well compacted
shoulders and
core
Rockfill (or gravel

fill), and core well
compacted, and
with similar moduli
Compaction
of outer zone
Much More
Likely
(4)
Less Likely
(1)
Note: Probability
is zero if there is
evidence that the
materials have a
similar modulus.
Excluding
sloping core
earth and
rockfill dams
OR
Sloping core
earth and
rockfill dams
Rockfill
OR
Uncompacted
(dumped) rockfill
(b)
Core
geometry (b)
(2)
W/H > 3
1.5 < W/H < 3
0.5 < W/H < 1.5
W/H < 0.5
Height of
embankment
(1)
Dams less than

50 ft (15 m) high
Dams 50 to 100
ft (15 to 30 m)
high
Dams 100 to
200 ft (30 to 60
m) high
Very high dams

> 200 ft (60 m)
Note:
(a) See Figure 5.3 for definition of core slope.

(b) Average width (W) of core within the zone of cracking and height (H) of the embankment.
5-7

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.6 Probability of transverse cracking in the embankment due to cross section
settlement due to poorly compacted shoulders (IM3) versus (RFxLF)
0.00001
0.00002
0.00005
0.0002
[0.0005]
0.002
Below POR
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.002
[0.007]
0.02(a)
Above POR
11
13
18
6
Note:
24
RFxLF
(a) If there is a large difference in modulus between the core and shoulders, a probability of cracking between 0.02 and
0.2 may be applied.
core slope 1
Figure 5.3 Sloping core dam

(a) Definitions of terms
(b) Limit of what constitutes a sloping core dam
5-8

in the Embankment
5.2.4
Section 5
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement in the foundation

soil beneath the core (IM4)
to differential settlement in the foundation soil beneath the core (IM4)
Factor
Foundation
geology and
geometry (a)
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
(3)

Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Rock foundations
or uniform soil
foundations
Shallow soils or
soils with gradual
variation in depth
and
compressibility
sufficient to cause
differential
settlement of less
than 0.2% of the
embankment
height
Moderate depth of
compressible soil
in the foundation
sufficient to cause
differential
settlement of 0.2%
to 0.5% of the
embankment
height
Deep
compressible soil
in the foundation,
including soils
which collapse on
saturation and
which have not
been treated or
removed during
construction,
sufficient to cause
differential
settlement of
>0.5% of
embankment
height
Gentle
Moderate
Steep
Very steep
< 30
30 < < 45
45 < < 60
> 60
Dams less than

50 ft (15 m) high
Dams 50 to 100
ft (15 to 30 m)
high
Dams 100 to
200 ft (30 to 60
m) high
Very high dams

> 200 ft (60 m)
Note: Probability
is zero if there is
no compressible
soil in the
foundation.
Slope of the
sides of the
compressible
zones (b)
(2)
Height of
embankment
(1)
Notes:
Much More
Likely
(4)
Less Likely
(1)
(a) See Figure 5.4 for typical scenarios which may lead to differential settlement.
(b) See Figure 5.4 for definition of slope .
5-9

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.8 Probability of transverse cracking due to differential settlement in the foundation
soil beneath the core (IM4) versus (RFxLF)
0.0002
[0.0005]
0.003
0.02 Below POR
0.002
[0.007]
0.03
0.2
11
13
18
8 9
Above POR
24 RFxLF
Figure 5.4 Typical scenarios which may lead to differential settlement in the foundation
5-10

in the Embankment
5.2.5
Section 5
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement due to embankment

staging (IM5)
This mode does not apply if the embankment construction was not staged. If the embankment was staged
during construction, there is a potential for differential settlement to occur if the existing (first stage)
embankment is a significantly higher modulus than the remainder of the embankment. If this is the situation,
use the method described in Section 5.2.1 for IM1 to assess the likelihood of cracking. If there is no or little
difference in the modulus, this mode may be ignored. In most cases, the latter will apply.
Final embankment crest level
h2
b
Existing
Embankment
h1
Figure 5.5 Longitudinal section through staged embankment
5.2.6
Transverse cracking due to desiccation (IM6 and IM7)
At the embankment crest (IM6)

This mechanism only applies if the crest is not paved with concrete, asphalt or bitumen seal. If the crest is
paved with concrete, asphalt or bitumen seal, the probability of cracking due to desiccation can be assumed to
be zero. Where the mechanism applies, estimate the probability of desiccation cracking using Table 5.9 and
Table 5.10.
5-11

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.9 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking due to desiccation at
the embankment crest (IM6)
Factor
Crest zoning
and surface
layer over
core
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
(3)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Road pavement
cover(a) with
base layer at
least 12 in (300
mm) thick
No road
pavement
cover(a) with
non-plastic
granular layer 6
to 12 in (150 to
300 mm) thick
and/or
Rockfill or nonplastic granular
layer at least 3 ft
(1 m) thick
More Likely
(3)
No pavement
cover(a) with
non-plastic
granular layer
less than 3 in
(75 mm) thick
Much More
Likely
(4)
No surface
layer; dam core
extends to crest
level
or
Low plasticity
granular
transition layer
over core
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
Climate
(2)
Temperate
climate with
uniform rainfall
throughout the
year
Seasonal
climate with
annual rainfall
greater than 20
in (500 mm) and
no prolonged
hot dry periods
Monsoonal or
other distinct
wet and dry
periods in the
year with
summer
maximum
temperatures
>85F (>30C)
Arid climate with

less than 10 in
(250 mm)
rainfall and high
summer
temperatures
Plasticity of
core material
(1)
Low plasticity to
non-plastic
Medium to low
plasticity
Medium to high
plasticity
High plasticity
(LL < 20)
(20 < LL < 40)
(40 < LL < 50)
Note: (a) Road pavement cover may comprise concrete, asphalt or bitumen seal.
5-12
(LL > 50)

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.10 Probability of transverse cracking due to desiccation at the embankment crest
(IM6) versus (RFxLF)
0.0001
6
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.5
0.9
11
16
20
24
RFxLF
On seasonal shutdown layers or on the surface of staged embankments (IM7)

This mechanism only applies where there has been a seasonal shutdown during construction or the
embankment construction was staged. If there was no seasonal shutdown layer during construction or the
embankment construction was not staged, this mode can be ignored.
This mechanism only applies above the level of saturation of the core. Below that any desiccation cracks
should have swelled and closed. If the seasonal shutdown layer is below the Pool of Record, use the Below
POR probabilities in Table 5.15.
Where the mechanism applies, estimate the probability of desiccation cracking using Table 5.11 and Table
5.12. The descriptions in Table 5.11 are to be assessed according to the conditions across the width of the
core.
5-13

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.11 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking due to desiccation at
seasonal shutdown layers during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM7)
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Factor

Less Likely
(1)
Construction
practices
regarding
clean-up of
desiccated
layers after
construction
shutdowns or
the surface of
the earlier
stage of the
dam
(4)
Climate
(2)
Temperate
climate with
uniform rainfall
throughout the
year
Plasticity of
core material
(1)
Very good control

and clean-up
practices.
Neutral
(2)
Good control and
practices.
Much More
Likely
(4)
More Likely
(3)
Moderate control.
Poor control.
Attempts to scarify
desiccated layers,
but depth of
scarifying
insufficient or
difficulties with
moisture control
No attempt to
scarify or remove
desiccated layers,
poor moisture
control practices
Seasonal
climate with
annual rainfall
greater than 20
in (500 mm) and
no prolonged hot
dry periods
Monsoonal or
other distinct wet
and dry periods
in the year with
summer
maximum
temperatures
>85F (>30C)
Arid climate with

less than 10 in
(250 mm) rainfall
and high
summer
temperatures
Low plasticity to
non-plastic
Medium to low
plasticity
Medium to high
plasticity
High plasticity
(LL < 20)
(20 < LL < 40)
(40 < LL < 50)
Desiccated layers
removed from
embankment and
replaced with new
soil or adequately
reworked to
specified moisture
content.
Surfaces scarified;
moisture adjusted
to specified range;
and surface recompacted.
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
(LL > 50)
Table 5.12 Probability of transverse cracking due to desiccation versus at seasonal

shutdown layers during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM7) versus (RFxLF)
negligible
negligible
negligible 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
Below POR
negligible
negligible
negligible 0.001
0.01
0.1
0.9
Above POR
10
12 13
18
22
28
RFxLF
5-14

in the Embankment
5.2.7
Section 5
Transverse cracking due to an earthquake (IM8)
FIRST Determine the earthquake hazard for the site (refer to Section 3.6 for details).
SECOND Estimate the likely damage class which the embankment may experience as a result of the
earthquake based on the peak ground acceleration (PGA) on bedrock at the dam site and the moment
magnitude (Mw) using Figure 5.6 for earthfill dams or Figure 5.7 for earth and rockfill dams. Do this for each
earthquake load partition.
THIRD Estimate the probability of transverse cracking from the damage class and Table 5.14.
This procedure applies to situations where liquefaction does not occur in the dam or its foundations. If flow
liquefaction occurs assume the damage is class 4. For cases where liquefaction occurs but it is not flow
liquefaction, assume damage class 3.
Table 5.13 Damage classification system (Pells and Fell, 2002, 2003)
Damage Class
Notes:
Maximum Longitudinal Maximum Relative Crest

Crack Width (a)
Settlement (b)
(mm)
(%)
Number
Description
No or Slight
< 10
< 0.03
Minor
10 - 30
0.03 - 0.2
Moderate
30 - 80
0.2 - 0.5
Major
80 - 150
0.5 - 1.5
Severe
150 - 500
1.5 - 5
Collapse
> 500
>5
(a) Maximum crack width is taken as the maximum width of any longitudinal cracking that occurs.
(b) Maximum relative crest settlement is expressed as a percentage of the structural dam height.
5-15

in the Embankment
Section 5
Figure 5.6 Incidence of transverse cracking versus seismic intensity and

damage class contours for earthfill dams (Pells and Fell 2002, 2003)
Figure 5.7 Incidence of transverse cracking versus seismic intensity and damage
class contours for earthfill and rockfill dams (Pells and Fell 2002, 2003)
5-16

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.14 Probability of transverse cracking and maximum likely crack width at the top of
the core due to an earthquake (IM8)
Damage
class
For cases where cracking assessment

from Table 5.1, Table 5.3 or Table 5.7
results in (RFxLF) 13
For cases where cracking assessment

from Table 5.1, Table 5.3 or Table 5.7
results in (RFxLF) > 13
Probability of
transverse
cracking
Maximum likely
crack width
mm (in)
Probability of
transverse
cracking
Maximum likely
crack width
mm (in)
0.001
0.01
20
0.01
20
0.05
50 (2)
0.05
50 (2)
0.10
75 (3)
0.2
100 (4)
0.25
125 (5)
0.5
150 (6)
0.6
175 (7)
5-17

in the Embankment
Section 5
5.3
Probability of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Embankment
5.3.1
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement causing cross valley

arching (IM9)
Table 5.15 Factors influencing the likelihood of hydraulic fracturing in the embankment
due to differential settlement causing cross valley arching (IM9)
Factor
Slope of
abutments
under
embankment
core (a)
Relative
Importance
Factor (RF)
(3)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Moderate
abutment slope
Moderate steep
abutment slopes
Steep
abutments
Very steep
abutments,
1 , 2 < 45
45 < 1, 2 < 60
60 < 1 , 2 <
1 , 2 > 75
75
1 near vertical,
2 > 60
Cross valley
geometry
under
embankment
core (a)
(2)
Height of
embankment
(1)
Note:
Wv/H > 0.75
0.4< Wv/H <0.75
Note:
Probability is
zero if Wv/H >
2.
Dams less than
50 ft (15 m) high
Dams 50 to 100
ft (15 to 30 m)
high
Narrow deep
valley
Very narrow
deep valley
0.25< Wv/H <0.4
Wv/H < 0.25
Dams 100 to
200 ft (30 to 60
m) high
Very high dams

> 200 ft (60 m)
(a) See Figure 5.8 or definitions of Wv, H, 1 and 2

(b) If the soil in the lower part of the core is poorly compacted or subject to collapse compression on saturation,
and the upper part is not, increase weighted factor (RFxLF) by 1 or 2.
5-18

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.16 Probability of hydraulic fracturing in the embankment due to differential

settlement causing cross valley arching (IM9) versus (RFxLF)
0.0001
0.0005
0.004
0.02 Below POR
0.001
0.007
0.05
0.2
Above POR
13
17
21
24
RFxLF
9 10
Figure 5.8 Longitudinal profiles of the dam showing the definition of terms for cross valley
arching
5-19

in the Embankment
5.3.2
Section 5
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement causing arching of

the core onto the embankment shoulders (IM10)
This mode is applicable to central core earth and rockfill (or gravel shells) dams and puddle core earthfill
dams. It is not applicable to all other the following dam types (including dams with a sloping core). The most
likely location for arching to occur is in the upper to middle part of the dam. The mechanism is considered to
be significant only for reservoir levels above the pool of record. Finite element analyses which properly
model the history of the dam, and its properties including collapse on saturation may be used to assess the
likelihood of hydraulic fracture.
due to differential settlement causing arching of the core onto the embankment shoulders
(IM10)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Core
geometry (a)
(3)
Relative
stiffness of
core and
shells
(2)

Less Likely
(1)
W/H > 1.0
Core has higher

modulus than
shells
Shoulders poorly
compacted or
dumped
Note:
Probability is
zero if these
conditions are
present.
Notes:
0.5 < W/H < 1.0
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Core compacted
>98% SMDD
Height of
embankment
Neutral
(2)
(1)
Dams less than 50

ft (15 m) high
Modulus of core
same or
marginally lower
than shoulders
Shoulders well
compacted and
high modulus
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Narrow core
Very narrow core
0.25 < W/H < 0.5
W/H < 0.25
Core lower
modulus than
outer stiffness
Core much lower

modulus than
outer shoulders or
subject to collapse
compression
Shoulders well
compacted and
high modulus
Core compacted
to >98% SMDD at
a moisture content
between -2% and
+1% of standard
OWC
Either core
compacted 0% to
2% wet of OWC
and between 95%
and 98% SMDD or
2% to 3% dry of
OWC and <95%
(b)
SMDD
Dams 50 to 100 ft
(15 to 30 m) high
Dams 100 to 200

ft (30 to 60 m) high
Shoulders well
compacted and
high modulus
Either core
compacted >2%
wet of OWC, or
more than 3% dry
of OWC and <95%
(b)
SMDD
Very high dams >
200 ft (60 m)
(a) Width (W) of the core at the phreatic line and height (H) of the embankment.
(b) In core materials compacted dry of optimum moisture and to a density ratio less than about 95%, collapse
compression of the core may occur. This may lead to arching and low stresses. It may also lead to softened zones
and even a crack in the vicinity of the contact between the saturated and unsaturated parts of the core (i.e., at the
phreatic surface).
5-20

in the Embankment
Section 5

settlement causing arching of the core onto the embankment shoulders (IM10) versus
(RFxLF)
negligible
6
negligible
negligible
negligible [0.001]
0.01
11
12 13
18
0.05 Above POR

24
RFxLF
Notes: The probability for this initiating mechanism is assumed to be negligible for the Below POR cases.
5.3.3
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement in the soil foundation

Hydraulic fractures may occur in low stress or tension zones at the base of the embankment due to differential
settlement in the soil foundation as shown in Figure 5.4b. Refer to the likelihood factors in Table 5.7 in
Section 5.2.4 which covers this mode as well as cracking in the embankment.
5.3.4
Hydraulic fracturing due to differential settlement over small-scale

irregularities in the foundation profile beneath the core (IM12)
Small-scale irregularities in the foundation profile under the core may comprise steps, benches or depressions
in the foundation rock. Small scale irregularities include those features which have heights less than 10% of
the embankment height. Larger irregularities are covered in Section 5.3.2.
5-21

in the Embankment
Section 5
due to differential settlement over small-scale irregularities in the foundation profile beneath
the core (IM12)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Persistent across
less than 50% of
the width of the
core
Persistent 50% to
75% across the
width of the core
Persistent 75% to
90% across the
width of the core
Persistent 90% to
100% across the
width of the core
Steps, benches,
or depressions in
rock foundations
less than 3% of
the embankment
height
Steps, benches,
or depressions in
rock foundations
3% to 5% of the
embankment
height
Steps, benches,
or depressions in
rock foundation
5% to 10% of the
embankment
height (a)
Narrow core
Very narrow core
0.25 < W/H < 0.5
W/H < 0.25
Persistence
of the
irregularity
across the
core
(3)
Small-scale
irregularities
in abutment
profile (a)
(2)
Uniform
abutment profile
or irregularities
treated by slope
modification
Core
geometry (b)
(1)
Wide core
Notes:
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
W/H > 1.5
0.5 < W/H < 1.5
(a) Larger irregularities are covered in Section 5.3.2.

(b) Width (W) of the core at the base of the embankment and height (H) of the embankment.

settlement over small-scale irregularities in the foundation profile beneath the core (IM12)
versus (RF x LF)
negligible
negligible
negligible 0.0002
[0.0007]
0.002
0.01 Below POR
negligible
negligible
negligible 0.002
[0.005]
0.02
0.1 Above POR
11 12
13
18
5-22
24
RFxLF

in the Embankment
5.4
Section 5
Factors to Account for Observations and Measured Settlements
Settlement Observations
Where there are settlement observations for the dam, these can be used to modify the results of Sections 5.2
and 5.3. The probability from the relevant table is multiplied by the factor from Table 5.21. For dams which
have experienced settlements larger than the average population of that class of dam, the probabilities of
cracking or hydraulic fracturing will be increased, and for those which have experienced settlements smaller
than the average population of that class of dams, the probability of cracking or hydraulic fracturing will be
reduced. The multiplication factor should be selected taking account of what data is available, allowing for
the quantity and quality of the data, and the relative importance of the observations. Table 5.21 applies to the
assessment of transverse cracking in the upper part of the embankment, but lower corrections apply to the
middle and lower parts of the embankment.
Select the likelihood column in Table 5.21 which corresponds to the maximum settlement measured
anywhere in the embankment expressed as a ratio of the maximum embankment height. Then, obtain the
settlement multiplication factors for the upper part and middle and lower parts from the corresponding bottom
four rows of Table 5.21 depending on whether the dam has poorly compacted rockfill shells or not.
If there is significant differential settlement across the valley greater than expected from the mechanisms
present, an additional increase in probabilities may be applied. The maximum multiplier should be less than
10 times and should not double up on the factors listed in Table 5.21.
5-23

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.21 Settlement multiplication factors versus observed settlements

Influence on Likelihood
Factor
Less Likely
Neutral
More Likely
Much More
Likely
- Core settlement during construction
< 1.5%
1.5% to 3%
3% to 4%
> 4%
- Post construction crest settlement at 10 years

after construction dams with poorly compacted
shoulders
<0.5%
0.5% to
1.0%
1.0% to
1.5%
> 1.5%
- Post construction crest settlement at 10 years

after construction other dams
<0.25%
0.25% to
0.5%
0.5% to 1%
> 1%
- Long term settlement rates(% per log time

cycle in years) dams with poorly compacted
shoulders
< 0.15%
0.15% to
0.4%
0.4% to
0.7%
> 0.7%
- Long term settlement rates(% per log time

cycle in years)-other dams
< 0.1%
0.1% to
0.25%
0.25% to
0.5%
> 0.5%
Dams with
poorly
compacted
rockfill (b)
0.05 to 0.2
0.2 to 0.5
1.0
2 to 5
All other
dams
0.2 to 0.5
1.0
2 to 10
10 to 20
Dams with
poorly
compacted
rockfill (b)
0.2
0.2 to 0.5
1.0
2 to 5
All other
dams
0.5
1.0
2 to 5
5 to 10
Observed maximum settlements as

percentage of embankment height
Settlement multiplication
factors for cracking or
hydraulic fracture in the
upper part (a) of the
embankment based on
observed maximum
settlements
Settlement multiplication
factors for cracking or
hydraulic fracture in the
middle and lower parts (c)(d)
of the embankment
Notes:
(a) Settlement multiplication factors to be applied to the probabilities for IM1 through IM5 and IM9. These factors are
not applicable to IM6, IM7 and IM8.
(b) Includes dumped rockfill, and rockfill and other granular zones compacted by tracking with bulldozers and by small
rollers in thick layers
(c) Settlement multiplication factors to be applied to the probabilities for IM10 and IM11. These factors are not
applicable to IM12.
(d) Multiplication factors assumed to be half those for cracking in the upper part.
5-24

in the Embankment
Section 5
Cracking Observations
Where there are observations of cracking for the dam these can be used to modify the results of Sections 5.2
and 5.3. The probability is multiplied by the factor from Table 5.22.
Table 5.22 Cracking observation factors (applies to upper embankment only)
Factor
Less Likely
Neutral
More Likely
Much More Likely
Cracking
observed in
test pits to
the top of or
into the
core
No cracking observed
when large areas of the
top of the core are
exposed.
No test pits
Transverse cracks
persistent across the
top of the core and/or,
extensive, open
longitudinal cracking
Transverse cracks which

pits show persist across
the core, and extend below
reservoir water level in the
reservoir level partition
being considered
Cracking
Factor
1.0
5 to 100 depending on
width(2) of cracking and
whether they are in
locations in which
cracking might be
expected
Probability of transverse
crack = 1.0
(A)
0.5 to 0.1 depending on

the extent of exposure
and how relevant the
exposure is to the
possible mechanism of
cracking
Cracking in
the surface
of the crest,
no test pits
No cracking observed,
core exposed on the
surface, careful
inspection for cracking
No cracking
observed, core
covered with
road pavement or
other granular
material
Narrow (<10mm)
transverse cracks
persistent across the
crest and/or, extensive,
narrow longitudinal
cracking
Transverse cracks which

persist across the crest
and/or, extensive, wide
longitudinal cracking.
Cracking
Factor
0.5 to 0.2 depending on

the quality of exposure
and whether they are in
locations in which
cracking might be
expected
1.0
2 to 5 depending on
and whether they are in
locations in which
cracking might be
expected
2 to 20 depending on the
(2)
width of cracking and
whether they are in
locations in which cracking
might be expected
(B)
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Apply either Cracking Factor (A) or Cracking Factor (B) for IM1 through IM6 and IM9, whichever gives greatest
probability of cracking. These factors are not applicable to IM7, IM8, and IM10 through IM12.
The greater the crack width the more likely it represents cracking in the core.
Evaluate the Cracking Factors (A) and (B) from Table 5.22 and then multiply the largest value of (A) or (B)
to the probabilities of transverse cracking in the upper part of the dam. For dams which display cracking the
probabilities will be increased. For those which do not display cracking the probabilities may remain the
same, or are reduced depending on how extensive the investigations to locate cracking have been. The
multiplication factor should be selected taking account of what data is available, allowing for the relative
importance of the observations. This factor only applies to the assessment of transverse cracking in the upper
part of the embankment. Cracking in the middle and lower parts will generally not be observed.
5-25

in the Embankment
Section 5
5.5
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Transverse Crack or

Hydraulic Fracture in the Embankment
5.5.1
Overall approach
(a) For cracking in the embankment

The method to be followed is:
Estimate the maximum likely crack width at the top of the core from Table 5.23 for IM1 through IM7
and from Table 5.14 for IM8.
Estimate the maximum likely crack depth using Table 5.24 for IM1 through IM5 and IM8 and Table
5.25 for IM6 and IM7. The maximum likely crack depth for IM1 though IM6 and IM8 is measured from
the top of the core, whereas the maximum likely crack depth for IM7 is measured from the seasonal
shutdown layer during construction or staged construction surface.
Consider flow paths based on embankment zoning and seepage exit conditions as shown in Figure 5.9
and perform a separate evaluation for each flow path.
Estimate the likely crack width at the reservoir level stage under consideration using Figure 5.9 and
assuming a uniformly tapered crack from the top of the core to the base of the crack.
Estimate the average gradient of flow through the crack at the mid-level of the flow path for the reservoir
level under consideration using Figure 5.9.
Assess the soil classification and whether the soils are dispersive. Dispersive soils are soils with Sherard
Pinhole test D1 or D2. While reservoir water salinity will affect dispersion, the salt content of the
reservoir water will in most cases reduce with flood inflows and unless laboratory testing is carried out
to assess the initial shear stress with the same reservoir water salts content it should be assumed soils
which test dispersive in the laboratory will be so in the dam. Where there are signs of dispersive soils in
field performance (e.g., severe gully erosion, sinkholes, and tunneling), soils should be assumed
dispersive regardless of laboratory test results.
Based on the soil classification and estimated crack width, estimate the probability of initiation of
erosion in the crack (P IC ) using Table 5.30 to Table 5.36, depending on the gradient across the crack. If
there are hole erosion tests available assess which classification should apply to best reflect this value
when using Table 5.30 to Table 5.36. Use approximate interpolation between values where necessary.
These tables only apply to soil compacted to 95% to 98% of Standard Proctor maximum dry density at a
moisture content between -1% to +2% of optimum moisture content. For saturated soils, soils
5-26

in the Embankment
Section 5
significantly dry of optimum moisture content, and poorly compacted soils, Hole Erosion Tests should
be carried out to determine the initial shear stress, and the method detailed in (c) below followed.
(b) For hydraulic fracturing in the embankment

The method to be followed is:
Estimate the maximum likely crack width from Table 5.27 for IM9 and from Table 5.28 for IM10, IM11
and IM12.
Assess the likely location for the hydraulic fracture. For IM9, estimate the location at which hydraulic
fracture may occur using the ratio of approximate maximum depth at which hydraulic fracture may
occur to embankment height at the abutment in Table 5.28. For IM10, assume the hydraulic fracture
occurs in the core at the phreatic line. For IM11, assume the hydraulic fracture occurs at the base of the
embankment. For IM12, assume the hydraulic fracture occurs at the core-foundation/abutment contact.
Assess the soil classification and whether the soils are dispersive. Dispersive soils are soils with Sherard
Pinhole test D1 or D2. While reservoir water salinity will affect dispersion, the salt content of the
reservoir water will in most cases reduce with flood inflows and unless laboratory testing is carried out
to assess the initial shear stress with the same reservoir water salts content it should be assumed soils
which test dispersive in the laboratory will be so in the dam. Where there are signs of dispersive soils in
field performance (e.g., severe gully erosion, sinkholes, and tunneling), soils should be assumed
dispersive regardless of laboratory test results.
Based on the soil classification and estimated crack width, estimate the probability of initiation of
erosion in the hydraulic fracture (P IC ) using Table 5.30 to Table 5.36, depending on the gradient across
the crack. If there are hole erosion tests available assess which classification should apply to best reflect
this value when using Table 5.30 to Table 5.36. Use approximate interpolation between values where
necessary. These tables only apply to soil compacted to 95% to 98% of Standard Proctor maximum dry
density at a moisture content between -1% to +2% of optimum moisture content. For saturated soils,
soils significantly dry of optimum moisture content, and poorly compacted soils, Hole Erosion Tests
should be carried out to determine the initial shear stress, and the method detailed in (c) below followed.
(c) Procedure to be followed where Hole Erosion Test data is available

In cases where Hole Erosion tests are available for the dam core soil, the following procedure should be
followed:
Estimate the crack width and hydraulic flow gradient as detailed in (a) or (b), whichever is applicable.
EITHER Calculate the hydraulic shear stress in the crack for the reservoir stage under consideration
using Table 5.37.
5-27

in the Embankment
Section 5
AND Compare this hydraulic shear stress to the initial shear stress of the soil at the compaction and
moisture conditions it exists in the core. Based on this comparison estimate the probability of initiation
of erosion. In doing this calculation, take account of the uncertainty in the crack width and initial shear
stress as detailed in Section S5.4.2.4 of the Supporting Document.
OR/AND Use Table 5.38 to determine which of Table 5.30 to Table 5.36 best fits the initial shear stress
of the soil tested in the HET and use that table to estimate the probability of initiation of erosion.
5.5.2
Details of the method
Table 5.23 Maximum likely width of cracking at the top of the core for transverse cracking
in the embankment (IM1 through IM7 and IM21) versus (RFxLF)
Crack formation mechanism
Cross valley differential
settlement (IM1 and IM5)
Maximum likely crack width (mm) versus (RFxLF)

6 to 9
9 to 11
11 to 13
13 to 18
18 to 24
20
50
75
100
10
25
37
50
20
50
75
100
20
50
100
150
20
50
75
20
50
75
Table 5.1
Differential settlement adjacent
to a cliff or wall
Table 5.3 (IM2)
Table 6.17 (IM21)
Cross section settlement due
to poorly compacted shoulders
(IM3)
Table 5.5
Differential settlements in the
soil foundation (IM4)
Table 5.7
Desiccation cracking at the
crest (IM6)
Table 5.9
Desiccation cracking on
seasonal shutdown layer (IM7)
Table 5.11
5-28

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.24 Maximum likely depth of cracking from the top of the core for transverse
cracking in the embankment (IM1 through IM5 and IM8)
Maximum likely crack
width at the top of the
core (from Table 5.23)
Maximum likely crack

depth from the top of the
core
mm (in)
ft (m)
10 (0.5)
5 (1.5)
25 (1)
10 (3)
50 (2)
15 (4.5)
75 (3)
25 (7.5)
100 (4)
30 (10)
250 (10)
75 (22.5)
Table 5.25 Maximum likely depth of desiccation cracking based on climate (IM6 and IM7)
Climate
Maximum likely crack depth

with gravel layer and no road
pavement cover (a)
(IM6 only)
ft (m)
Maximum likely crack depth

with no gravel layer or
pavement road cover (a) (i.e.,
dam core extends to the crest )
(IM6 or IM7)
ft (m)
Arid climate with less than 10 in

(250 mm) rainfall and high
summer temperatures
15 (4.5)
23 (7)
Monsoonal or other distinct wet

and dry periods in the year with
summer maximum temperatures
>85F (>30C )
13 (4)
20 (6)
Seasonal climate with annual

rainfall greater than 20 in (500
mm) and no prolonged hot dry
periods
10 (3)
16 (5)
Temperate climate with uniform

rainfall throughout the year
6 (2)
15 (4.5)
Note: (a) Road pavement cover may comprise concrete, asphalt or bitumen seal.
5-29

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.26 Maximum likely width of cracking for hydraulic fracturing in the embankment
(IM9 and IM20) versus (RFxLF)
Maximum likely crack width (mm)
(RFxLF)
from Table 5.15 (IM9) and Table 6.15 (IM20)
IM9
IM20
10 to 13
14 to 19
>19
10
10
Table 5.27 Maximum likely width of cracking in the embankment for hydraulic fracturing in
the embankment (IM10 through IM12) versus (RFxLF)
Crack formation mechanism
Differential settlement causing arching
of the core onto the shoulders (IM10)
Maximum likely crack width (mm) relative to (RFxLF)

6 to 9
9 to 11
11 to 13
13 to 18
18 to 24
10
10
20
10
Table 5.17
Differential settlement in the foundation
soil beneath the core (IM11)
Table 5.7
Differential settlement over small-scale
irregularities in the foundation/abutment
Table 5.19
5-30

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.28 Examples of estimated maximum likely depths below the top of the core and
widths of cracking formed by hydraulic fracture in the embankment (IM9)
Abutment
slope
degrees
Ratio of bench
width to
embankment
height
Ratio of depth of
zero stress to
embankment
height at the
abutment
Ratio of approximate
maximum depth at which
hydraulic fracture may
occur to embankment
height at the abutment
Likely crack width

formed by hydraulic
fracture (mm)
15
0.67
<0.01
0.05
25
No bench
0.02
0.05
45
No bench
0.12
0.3
45
0.2
0.12
0.3
45
0.4
0.09
0.25
45
1.0
0.10
0.25
60
No bench
0.35
0.5
10
Table 5.29 Representative erosion rate index (IHET) versus soil classification for nondispersive soils based on Wan and Fell (2002, 2004)
Soil Classification
Representative Erosion Rate Index (IHET)

Likely Minimum
Best Estimate
Likely Maximum
SM with < 30% fines
<2
2.5
SM with > 30% fines
<2
2 to 3
3.5
SC with < 30% fines
<2
2 to 3
3.5
SC with > 40% fines
ML
2 to 3
CL-ML
CL
3 to 4
4.5
CL-CH
MH
3 to 4
4.5
CH with Liquid Limit < 65
CH with Liquid Limit > 65
Notes:
(1) Use best estimate value for best estimate probabilities. Check sensitivity if the outcome is strongly dependent on the
results.
(2) For important decisions carry out Hole Erosion Tests, rather than relying on this table which is approximate
(3) The Representative Erosion Rate index is for soils compacted to 95% standard (Proctor) maximum dry density at
optimum moisture content.
(4) See Supporting Information Report for information regarding the Representative Erosion Rate index for soils which
are significantly drier than optimum moisture content or saturated.
5-31

in the Embankment
Ld1
Cmax
dP
Flow Path
d1
Cd1
Base of Cracking
iavg =
Section 5
Cmax
Cd 1
=
(D d P ) / 2
D
D dP
Ld 1
D dP
Cd 1 = Cmax
2D
a) Homogeneous embankment
Ld2
Cmax
Ld1
Flow Path 1
dF
Flow Path 2
dP
d1
Cd1
d2
Cd2
Base of Cracking
Filter
iavg ,1 =
dF dP
Ld 1
Cmax
Cd 1
=
D
D (d F + d P ) / 2
d + dP
Cd 1 = Cmax 1 F
2D
iavg , 2 =
D dP
Ld 2
Cmax
Cd 2
=
(D d F ) / 2
D
D dF
Cd 2 = Cmax
2D
b) Embankment with a partial filter

Figure 5.9 Examples of the estimation of crack width and flow gradient in the crack
5-32

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.30 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for ML or

SM with < 30% fines soil types
Estimated likely crack
width in core for reservoir
stage being considered
(mm)
Probability of initiation of erosion for different seepage gradients
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.05
0.2
0.6
0.95
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Average Hydraulic Gradient
Note: The gradient is the average hydraulic gradient from the upstream to the downstream of the core at the level of the assumed
crack under the reservoir level under consideration. No allowance is made for seepage head losses in the zones upstream or
downstream of the core.
Table 5.31 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for SC with <40% fines
or SM with > 30% fines soil types
(mm)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.02
0.2
0.6
0.9
0.95
1.0
0.1
0.6
0.9
0.95
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.95
0.99
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
25
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5-33

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.32 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for SC with > 40% fines
or CL-ML soil types
(mm)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.02
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.95
0.1
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.95
1.0
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.95
1.0
1.0
10
0.7
0.9
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
25
0.9
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
50
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Table 5.33 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for CL or MH soil types

(mm)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.01
0.03
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.02
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.0
10
0.2
0.5
0.7
0.95
1.0
1.0
25
0.4
0.7
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
50
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5-34

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.34 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for CL-CH or CH

with LL < 65 soil types
(mm)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.005
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.6
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.05
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.0
10
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.95
1.0
25
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
50
0.6
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Table 5.35 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for CH with LL > 65 soil types
(mm)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.002
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.1
0.4
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.3
0.95
10
0.01
0.04
0.1
0.4
0.6
1.0
25
0.02
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.95
1.0
50
0.1
0.5
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
0.4
0.95
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5-35

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.36 Estimation of probability of initiation in a crack for dispersive soils

(CL, CH, CL-CH)
(mm)

0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.02
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.05
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
100
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Table 5.37 Estimated hydraulic shear stress (N/m2) from water flowing in an open crack,
versus crack width and flow gradient
Flow Gradient in Crack
Crack Width
(mm)
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.5
1.25
2.5
10
25
2.5
10
20
50
2.5
12
25
50
125
10
12
25
50
100
250
20
10
25
50
100
200
500
50
25
60
125
250
500
1250
100
50
125
250
500
1000
2500
5-36

in the Embankment
Section 5
Table 5.38 Initial shear stress assumed for Table 5.30 to Table 5.36
Table
Initial shear stress assumed for

assessing probabilities of initiation of
erosion
Soil types
Table 5.30
ML and SM with < 30% fines
2 Pa
Table 5.31
SC with < 40% fines, SM with > 30% fines
2 Pa
Table 5.32
SC with > 40% fines, and CL-ML
4 Pa
Table 5.33
CL and MH
5 Pa
Table 5.34
CL-CH and CH with LL < 65
25 Pa
Table 5.35
CH with LL > 65
60 Pa
Table 5.36
Dispersive soils
2 Pa
5-37
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Poorly Compacted

or High Permeability Zones in the Embankment
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Poorly Compacted or High Permeability Zones in the Embankment
6.1
Overall Approach
a)
Section 6
Estimate the probability of a continuous poorly compacted or high permeability zone (PP.xx) for each of
the mechanisms which can lead to a poorly compacted or high permeability zone. These are:
Poorly compacted or high permeability layer during construction within the core (IM13) using
Section 6.2.1.
Poor compacted or high permeability layer on the foundation or abutment contact (IM14) using
Section 6.2.2.
High permeability layer due to freezing (IM15 and IM16) using Section 6.2.3.
Poorly compacted or high permeability layer associated with a conduit (IM17 and IM18) using
Poorly compacted or high permeability layer associated with other structures penetrating the core
(IM 19 through IM21) using Section 6.4.
This is done using Table 6.1 to Table 6.9 in Section 6.2 for zones within the embankment or at the corefoundation/abutment contact, Table 6.10 and Table 6.11 in Section 6.3 for zones and features associated
with a conduit, and Table 6.13 to Table 6.19 in Section 6.4 for zones adjacent to a spillway or abutment
walls. The probabilities obtained from these tables are modified for observed seepage using Table 6.20
in Section 6.5 to obtain Pflaw. Modifications are not applicable to all mechanisms.
For most dams not all mechanisms will be present, and those mechanisms are assigned a probability of
zero. The details for screening the mechanisms are described in Section 3.4.
b)
If grouting was performed within the poorly compacted or high permeability zone in the embankment,
evaluate the likelihood of the grouting being ineffective at cutting off the poorly compacted or high
permeability zone using Table 8.19 and Table 8.20 in Section 8.7. If a cut-off wall was installed through
the poorly compacted or high permeability zone in the embankment, evaluate the likelihood of grouting
being ineffective at cutting off the cracking using Table Table 8.21 and Table 8.22 in Section 8.8.
c)
Assess the erosion mechanism(s) which will apply. This will be one or more of the following:
Backward erosion
Suffusion
Erosion in a crack or flaw resulting from the poor compaction.
6-1

Section 6
Backward erosion and suffusion will apply to cohesionless soils and as discussed in Section 6.6.1, to
soils with a plasticity index 7. For cohesive soils, erosion will occur in cracks or continuous open flow
paths formed by collapse of the soil on saturation, or between aggregated particles of the soil, and can be
considered as equivalent to erosion in a crack. Even low plasticity soils may form a crack so soils with a
plasticity index between zero and 7 should be considered for both erosion in a crack and backward
erosion and suffusion and the highest probability of initiation carried forward in the analysis.
d)
Assess the probability of erosion in the poorly compacted or high permeability zone (PI) for the
mechanism using the relevant method described in Section 6.6.
e)
The estimated probabilities of a flaw and initiation of erosion for each initiating mechanism are not
added together, but are carried through the event trees for each failure path. For many dams, one or more
of the mechanisms will not be present.
6.2
Probability of Continuous Poorly Compacted or High Permeability

Zones in the Embankment or on the Core-Foundation/Abutment
Contact
6.2.1
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones within the core (IM13)
The scenarios may lead to poorly compacted or high permeability zones within the core of an embankment:
Poorly compacted layers in the core
A segregated layer in the core due to the presence of coarser particles and poor construction practices
Coarser soil layers in the core due to variability in particle size and soil type in the borrow areas. This
can result in a cohesionless layer within a cohesive core, or a coarser cohesionless layer within a finer
cohesionless soil.
The effect of these factors on the likelihood of a poorly compacted or high permeability zone is different for
cohesive and cohesionless soils so they are treated separately. For these purposes, a cohesionless soil is nonplastic.
6-2

Section 6
Table 6.1 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high permeability
zones within the core for cohesive soils (IM13)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Much More
Likely
(4)
More Likely
(3)
METHOD BASED ON COMPACTION EQUIPMENT, LAYER THICKNESS, AND MOISTURE CONTENT (a)
EITHER
(3)
Compaction
equipment
and
As for neutral but

with good
documentation and
records
Soil compacted by
suitable rollers in
suitable layer
thicknesses
Soil placed and

compacted by
bulldozer, no
compaction by
rollers, or rolled in
thick layers beyond
the capability of
the roller
Soil placed with no

formal compaction
(e.g., by horse and
cart in old dams or
by pushing into
place by excavator
or bulldozer, or in
very thick layers)
Layer thickness 6
to 10 in (150 to
250 mm) after
compaction
Layer thickness at
or beyond the limit
of compaction
equipment (e.g., >
12 to 18 in (300 to
450 mm) after
compaction)
No control on layer
thickness, often >
18 to 24 inches
(450 to 600 mm)
loose
Around OWC (b)
Dry of OWC (b)
Note:
Probability is
zero if the soils
are wellcompacted.
Layer
thickness
and
Moisture
content
Well dry of OWC
(b)
METHOD BASED ON COMPACTION EQUIPMENT, LAYER THICKNESS AND MOISTURE, CONTENT (a)
OR
Measured or
estimated
compaction
density ratio
and moisture
content
(3)
All very wellcompacted to e.g.,

98% SMDD,
moisture content
2% dry of OWC to
1% wet of OWC
Well-compacted to
e.g., 95-98%
SMDD, moisture
content 2% dry of
OWC to 1% wet of
OWC
Note:
Probability is
zero if the soils
are wellcompacted.
6-3
Layers of poorly
compacted, dry of
standard OWC
e.g., < 93%
SMDD, 2% to 3%
dry of OWC
Layers of very
poorly compacted
Dry of standard
OWC
e.g., < 90% SMDD,
3% dry of OWC

Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Section 6

Less Likely
(1)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Uniform soils in
the borrow areas
Uniform or minor
variability in the
borrow areas
Variable soils in
the borrow areas
Very variable
soils in borrow
areas including
gravely soils
Good site
supervision
documented with
laboratory tests
Good site
supervision
Moderate site
supervision
Poor site
supervision
Narrow core
Very narrow core
0.25 < W/H < 0.5
W/H < 0.25
FACTORS APPLYING TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

Borrow area
variability
(2)
and
Site
supervision
Core
geometry (b)
Note:
(1)
Wide core
W/H >1.5
0.5 < W/H < 1.5
(a) Make an assessment based on a combination of available data.

(b) Average width (W) of core at poorly compacted or highpermeability layer and height (H) of the embankment.
6-4

Section 6
Table 6.2 Factors influencing the likelihood of poorly compacted or high

permeability zones within the core for cohesionless soils (IM13)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Much More
Likely
(4)
More Likely
(3)
METHOD BASED ON COMPACTION EQUIPMENT, LAYER THICKNESS, AND MOISTURE CONTENT (a)
EITHER
(3)
Compaction
equipment
and
As for neutral but

with good
documentation and
records
Soil compacted by
suitable rollers in
suitable layer
thicknesses
Soil placed and

compacted by
bulldozer, no
compaction by
rollers, or rolled in
thick layers beyond
the capability of
the roller
Soil placed with, no

formal compaction
( e.g., by horse and
cart in old dams, or
by pushing into
place by excavator
or bulldozer or in
very thick layers
Layer thickness 8
to 12 in (200 to
300 mm) after
compaction
Layer thickness at
or beyond the limit
of compaction
equipment (e.g., >
12 to 18 in (300 to
450 mm) after
compaction)
No control on layer
thickness, often >
24 to 36 in (600 to
900 mm) loose
Around OWC (a)
Dry of OWC (a)
All well-compacted
(e.g., dense, 66%
to 85% relative
density, SPT (N1)60
26 to 42 bpf)
Layers moderately
compacted (e.g.,
medium dense,
36% to 65%
relative density,
SPT (N1)60 9 to 25
bpf)
Note:
Probability is
zero if the soils
are wellcompacted.
Layer
thickness
and
Moisture
content
OR
Measured or
estimated
compaction
density ratio
and moisture
content
(3)
All very wellcompacted (e.g.,

very dense, >85%
relative density
with good
documentation and
records, SPT
(N1)60 > 42 bpf)
Note:
Probability is
zero if the soils
are wellcompacted.
6-5
Well dry of OWC
(a)
Layers very poorly

compacted (e.g.,
very loose to loose,
<35% relative
density, SPT (N1)60
< 8 bpf)

Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Section 6

Less Likely
(1)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Uniform soils in
the borrow areas
Uniform or minor
variability in the
borrow areas
Variable soils in
the borrow areas
Very variable
soils in borrow
areas including
gravely soils
Good site
supervision
documented with
laboratory tests
Good site
supervision
Moderate site
supervision
Poor site
supervision
Narrow core
Very narrow core
0.25 < W/H < 0.5
W/H < 0.25
FACTORS APPLYING TO BOTH ALTERNATIVES

Borrow area
variability
(2)
and
Site
supervision
Core
geometry (b)
Note:
(1)
Wide core
W/H > 1.5
0.5<W/H<1.5
(a) Make an assessment based on a combination of available data.

(b) Average width (W) of core at poorly compacted or highpermeability layer and height (H) of the embankment.
Table 6.3 Probability of poorly compacted or high permeability layers within the core
0.0001
[0.0004]
0.005
0.01 Below POR
0.001
[0.005]
0.05
0.5
Above POR
11
13
18
24
RFxLF
8 9
6-6

6.2.2
Section 6
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones at the corefoundation/abutment contact (IM14)
zones at the core-foundation/abutment contact (IM14)
Factor
EITHER
Relative
Importance
Factor (RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
(3)
Uniform rock
surface or surface
treated with
shotcrete, or
concrete to correct
slope irregularities
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Regular rock
surface, or rock
surface treated
with shotcrete or
concrete to correct
slope irregularities
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Irregular rock
surface, with
minimal slope
correction or
treatment or
irregular or
benched soil with
no compaction
Very irregular rock

surface, overhangs
with no slope
correction,
shotcrete or
concrete treatment
(3)
Uniform well
compacted soil
foundation
Compacted soil
foundation
Irregular or
benched soil with
no compaction
Poor stripping of
soil foundation
leading to poor
compaction of first
lift
Soil placed and

compacted by
bulldozer, no
compaction by
rollers
Poor compaction
methods used, soil
poorly compacted
or allowing
segregation
against foundation
surface.
Rock
foundation
preparation
below the
core (a)
OR
Soil
foundation
preparation
below the
core (a)
Compaction
methods for
contact zone
Core
geometry,
continuity of
features
Notes:
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
(2)
(1)
As for neutral but

with good
documentation and
records (b)
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Soil compacted
using special
compaction
methods (rubber
tires, use more
plastic materials,
compaction wet of
OWC)
Wide core
W/H > 1.5
0.5 < W/H < 1.5
More Likely
(3)
Layer thickness at
the limit of
compaction
equipment (e.g., >
(c)
12 to 18 in
Much More
Likely
(4)
Thick layer
thickness, often >
18 to 24 in, loose
Narrow core
Very narrow core
0.25 < W/H < 0.5
W/H < 0.25
Core wall or grout

cap cutoff present
(a) For homogeneous earthfill dams, assess foundation preparation and compaction methods for the central portion of
the section.
(b) Even situations where soil is well-compacted can soften or loosen if the contact is irregular.
(c) Smaller thicknesses are for cohesive soil, larger thicknesses for cohesionless soil.
(d) Width (W) of the core at the base of the embankment and height (H) of the embankment.
6-7

Section 6
Table 6.5 Probability of a poorly compacted or high permeability zones at the corefoundation/abutment contact (IM14) versus (RFxLF)
0.0002
[0.0004]
0.005 0.01 Below POR
0.002
[0.005]
0.05
11
13
18
6.2.3
8 9
0.1 Above POR

24 RFxLF
High permeability zones in the embankment due to freezing (IM15 and

IM16)
Freezing conditions can result in frost heave and formation of ice lenses in the crest of dams. When the ice
thaws, loosened and/or cracked soil may be present in which internal erosion may initiate if the reservoir rises
sufficiently high. The following sections describe how to assess the probability of the presence of such
features at the crest of the dam and on seasonal shutdown layers during construction and staged construction
surfaces. The method for estimating the probability of initiation of erosion is detailed in Section 6.6.5.
6-8

Section 6
At the embankment crest (IM15)

Table 6.6 Factors influencing the likelihood of high permeability zones due to freezing at
the embankment crest (IM15)
Factor
Climate
Relative
Importance
Factor (RF)
(3)

More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Temperate
climate where
temperatures
may remain
below freezing
point for up to 1
month
Sub arctic or alpine

climates where
temperatures
remain below
freezing point for 1
to 3 months
Sub arctic or alpine

climates where
temperatures
remain below
freezing point for 3
months or more
Gravely (GP,
GW) and sandy
(SP, SW) soils
with between 3%
and 6% finer than
0.02mm
Silty gravely (GM,

GW-GM, GP-GM)
and silty sandy
soils (SM, SW-SM,
SP-SM) with 6% to
15% finer than
0.02mm
Silts (ML, MH),

silty sands (SM)
with > 15% finer
than 0.02mm, and
clayey silts (MLCL)
Less Likely
(1)
Other climates
where
temperatures do
not fall below
freezing point
except possibly
overnight or for a
day or two.
Neutral
(2)
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Classification
of core
material
(2)
Clean gravel (GP,

GW) and sand
(SP, SW), less
than 3% finer than
0.02 mm
High plasticity
clays (CH)
Crest zoningsurface layer

over core
(1)
Greater than 6 ft (2
m) of rockfill over
the core
Gravely material
or rockfill 3 to 6 ft
(1 to 2 m) thick
over the core
6-9
Clayey sands and

gravels (SC, GC),
clays with PI < 12
Gravel material or
rockfill 18 in to 3 ft
(0.45 to 1 m) thick
over the core
No surface layer
with dam core
extending to crest
level or thin (< 3 in
(75 mm)) road
pavement or
gravely material

Section 6
Table 6.7 Probability of high permeability zones due to freezing at the embankment crest

6
10 11
0.001
0.1
0.3
0.9
12
16
21
24 RFxLF
On seasonal shutdown layers or on the surface of staged embankments (IM16)

This mechanism only applies where there has been a seasonal shutdown during construction or the
embankment construction was staged. If there was no seasonal shutdown layer during construction or the
embankment construction was not staged, this mode can be ignored.
Where the mechanism applies, estimate the probability of a freezing layer using Table 6.8 and Table 6.9. The
descriptions in Table 6.8 are to be assessed according to the conditions across the width of the core.
6-10

Section 6
Table 6.8 Factors influencing the likelihood of high permeability zones due to freezing at
seasonal shutdown layers during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM16)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Construction
practices
regarding
clean-up of
frozen layers
after
construction
shutdowns or
the surface of
the earlier
stage of the
dam
(4)
Climate
(2)

Much More
Likely
(4)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Very good control

and clean-up
practices.
Good control and

practices,
surfaces scarified,
moisture adjusted
to specified range,
surface recompacted.
Moderate control.
Attempts to scarify
frozen layers, but
depth of scarifying
insufficient or
difficulties with
moisture control
on re-compacting
the soil
Poor control. No
attempt to scarify
or remove frozen
layers, poor
moisture control
on re-compacting
the soil
Temperate
climate where
temperatures may
remain below
freezing point for
up to 1 month
Sub arctic or
alpine climates
where
temperatures
remain below
freezing point for
1 to 3 months
Sub arctic or
alpine climates
where
temperatures
remain below
freezing point for
3 months or more
Gravely (GP, GW)

and sandy (SP,
SW) soils with
between 3% and
6% finer than
0.02mm
Silty gravely (GM,

GW-GM, GP-GM)
and silty sandy
soils (SM, SWSM, SP-SM) with
6% to 15% finer
than 0.02mm
Silts (ML, MH),

silty sands (SM)
with > 15% finer
than 0.02mm, and
clayey silts (MLCL)
Frozen layers
removed from
embankment and
replaced with new
soil or adequately
reworked to
specified moisture
content.
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Other climates
where
temperatures do
not fall below
freezing point
except possibly
overnight or for a
day or two.
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
Classification
of core
material
(1)
Clean gravel (GP,

GW) and sand
(SP, SW), less
than 3% finer than
0.02 mm
High plasticity
clays (CH)
6-11
Clayey sands and

gravels (SC, GC),
clays with PI < 12

Section 6
Table 6.9 Probability of high permeability zones due to freezing at seasonal shutdown
layers during construction or staged construction surfaces (IM16) versus (RFxLF)
negligible
negligible
negligible 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1 Below POR
negligible
negligible
negligible 0.001
0.01
0.1
0.9 Above POR
10
12 13
18
22
28
6-12
RFxLF

Section 6
6.3

Zones adjacent to a Conduit or Features Allowing Erosion into the
Conduit
6.3.1
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a conduit

(IM17)
zones adjacent to a conduit through the embankment (IM17)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Conduit type
and surround
(3)
Concrete encased
round pipe,
concrete precast
or cast in situ,
sloping sides
Concrete encased
round pipe,
concrete precast
or cast in situ,
vertical sides.
Flowable fill
(CLSM)
Masonry, brick
Any round pipe

(including
corrugated metal
pipe), not concrete
encased
Cut-off
collars
(2)
No cut-off collars
Well detailed cutoff collars
Poorly detailed
cut-off collars,
widely spaced
Poorly detailed
cut-off collars,
close spacing
Compaction
of earthfill
around the
conduit
(2)
Compaction by
rollers to >98%
SMDD at -1% to
+2% OWC
Compaction by
hand and
mechanical
equipment to
>95% SMDD at 1% to 2% OWC
Compaction by
hand equipment,
thick layers, dry of
optimum moisture
content
No formal
compaction, or
poor compaction
practices used
(e.g., thick layers
inappropriate for
equipment)
Conduit
trench details
(2)
Trench totally in
non-erodible rock,
backfilled to the
surface with
concrete
Wide, slopes
flatter than 1H:1V,
base width not
less than conduit
width plus 2
meters either side.
Medium width,
depth, and slope;
and/or sides of
trench desiccated
and cracked
Narrow, deep,
near vertical sides
in soil or rock,
backfilled with soil;
and/or sides of
trench highly
desiccated and
cracked
Note: Probability
is zero if this
condition is
present.
No desiccation of
sides of trench
6-13

Section 6
Table 6.11 Probability of poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a

conduit through the embankment (IM17) versus (RFxLF)
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
[0.0009]
0.005
0.02 Below 1.20 x hPOR
0.0003
0.0006
0.0015
[0.003
0.02
0.1
Above 1.20 x hPOR
0.001
0.002
0.005
[0.01]
0.05
0.5
First Fill (untested)
12
16
20
26
36
RFxLF
Note: Above POR probabilities apply where the reservoir rise is greater than 20% increase in previously recorded hydraulic head (e.g.
for flood protection dams).
Figure 6.1 Example of poor detailing of seepage collars around a conduit (FEMA 2005)
6.3.2
Features allowing erosion into a conduit (IM18)
For non-pressurized conduits, assess the probability of a feature being present in the conduit which would
allow erosion of the surrounding soil into the conduit.
a)
For cases where the internal condition of the conduit is regularly inspected and there is good
documentation of the inspections: If open joints are cracks are documented, then estimate the probability
of having a feature allowing erosion into the conduit using Table 6.12.
b)
For cases where the internal condition of the conduit is not known, use the appropriate structural toolbox
to assist in assessing the probability of having a feature allowing erosion into the conduit.
6-14

Section 6
Table 6.12 Factors influencing the likelihood of an open joint or crack allowing erosion
into a non-pressurized conduit when the internal condition is known
Probability of an
Open Joint or Crack
Observed Condition
Careful inspection showing no evidence of open joints or cracks
Negligible
Careful inspection showing no evidence of open joints, but cracks < 5 mm

are present
0.001 to 0.005
Open joints or cracks 5 mm present with no evidence of flowing seepage
0.05 to 0.3
Open joints or cracks 5 mm present with evidence of flowing seepage

through joint/crack, or evidence of erosion of soil into the conduit
1.0
It should be noted that this mechanism can apply for erosion into the conduit from the foundation and from
the embankment. The probability of initiation of erosion into the conduit is assessed using the method
detailed in Section 6.6.7. Whether erosion continues (continuation) into the conduit will be assessed in
Section 10.1.5. When evaluating continuation, the defect size measured from careful inspection should be
used. If defect size and location are unknown, assume a 5 mm defect located at the center of the core.
For pressurized conduits, recalculate the gradients for IM17 assuming full reservoir head at the known crack
location along conduit. Otherwise, assume the crack is located at the center of the core. Recalculate the
gradient using the shortened seepage path from the crack to the downstream exit.
6.4

Zones or Gaps adjacent to a Spillway or Abutment Wall
6.4.1
Approach
Assess the probability of a poorly compacted or high permeability zone or gap for each of the three
mechanisms for a spillway or abutment wall:
1) Poorly compacted or high permeability zone associated with the wall (IM19) using Table 6.13 and
Table 6.14 in Section 6.4.2.
2) Crack/gap adjacent to the wall (IM20) using Table 6.15 and Table 6.16 in Section 6.4.3.
3) Differential settlement adjacent to the wall (IM21) using Table 6.17 and Table 6.18 in Section 6.6.4.
For IM19, estimate the probability erosion will initiate in the high permeability zone using the methods
detailed in Section 6.6.
6-15

Section 6
For IM20 and IM21, estimate the probability erosion will initiate in the crack or gap using the methods
detailed in Section 5.5.
6.4.2
Poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a spillway or

zones adjacent to a spillway or abutment wall (IM19)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Compaction
of earthfill
adjacent to
the wall
(3)
Compaction by
rollers to >98%
SMDD at a
moisture content
between -2%
and +2% of
standard OWC
Compaction by
hand and
mechanical
equipment to
>95% SMDD at
a moisture
content between
-2% and +2% of
standard OWC
Compaction by
hand
equipment, thick
layers, dry of
optimum
moisture content
No formal
compaction, or
poor compaction
practices (e.g.,
placed in very
thick lifts or
allowing
segregation
against wall)
Concrete
buttresses
(2)
None
Single but with

good
compaction
around the
buttress
Single with poor

details such as
vertical sides,
little evidence of
good
compaction
Several close
together
preventing good
compaction
Finish on wall
(1)
Smooth planar
coupled with flat
slope (flatter
than 0.5H:1V)
Smooth, planar
Rough and
irregular
Vertical and
horizontal steps
(e.g., masonry
or brick walls)
Table 6.14 Probability of poorly compacted or high permeability zones adjacent to a

spillway or abutment wall (IM19) versus (RFxLF)
0.00005
0.0001
0.0002
[0.0003]
0.002
0.02 Below POR
0.001
0.002
0.005
[0.01]
0.05
0.5
Above POR
11
13
18
24
RFxLF
6-16

6.4.3
Section 6
Crack or gap adjacent to a spillway or abutment wall (IM20)
Table 6.15 Factors influencing the likelihood of a crack or gap adjacent to a wall (IM20)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Slope of wall
(3)
Wall type,
wall stiffness
(2)
Cyclic
loading
conditions
(1)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Much More
Likely
(4)
More Likely
(3)
Sloping, flatter
than 0.5H to 1V
Sloping, 0.1H to
1V to 0.5H to 1V
Vertical, or
Very stiff gravity

wall or
counterfort wall
Thin gravity wall
Cantilever wall
(short wall)
Cantilever wall,
Wall not subject

to cyclic
reservoir level
conditions
Wall rarely
subject to cyclic
reservoir level
conditions
Wall frequently
subject to cyclic
reservoir level
conditions
Wall subject to
cyclic reservoir
level conditions
Overhanging
over the core
width.
Vertical with
flatter slope on
lower part
(tall slender wall)
Table 6.16 Probability of a gap or crack adjacent to a wall (IM20) versus (RFxLF)
0.00005
0.0001
0.0002
[0.0004]
0.002
0.02 Below POR
0.001
0.002
0.005
[0.01]
0.05
0.3
Above POR
11
13
18
24
RFxLF
6-17

Section 6
Figure 6.2 Situations where a gap may form between the dam fill and spillway wall
(a) Steep foundation adjacent spillway wall;
(b) Change in slope of the retaining wall (Fell et al. 2004)
6-18

6.4.4
Section 6
Transverse cracking due to differential settlement adjacent to a

spillway or abutment wall (IM21)
Table 6.17 Factors influencing the likelihood of transverse cracking in the embankment
due to differential settlement adjacent a spillway or abutment wall (IM21)
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Cross valley
profile under
embankment
core (a)
(3)
Slope of
abutments
under
embankment
core (a)
(2)
Height of
embankment
(1)
Note:

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Wide bench
Much More
Likely
(4)
More Likely
(3)
Bench adjacent
to wall
Narrow bench
adjacent to wall
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
1.0 < Wb/Hw <2.5
0.25 < Wb/Hw <

1.0
Gentle abutment
slopes
Moderate
abutment slopes
Steep abutment
slopes
Very steep
abutment slope
1 < 25
25 < 1 < 45
45 < 1 < 60
1 > 60
Dams 50 to 100
ft (15 to 30 m)
high
Dams 100 to 200

ft (30 to 60 m)
high
Very high dams

> 200 ft (60 m)
Wb/Hw > 2.5
No or very
narrow bench
adjacent to wall
Wb/Hw < 0.25
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
Dams less than
50 ft (15 m) high
(a) See Figure 5.2 for definitions of Wb, Hw, 1.
Table 6.18 Probability of cracking due to differential settlement adjacent a spillway or

abutment wall (IM21) versus (RFxLF)
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible [0.0005]
0.002
0.02 Below POR
negligible
negligible
negligible
negligible [0.005]
0.02
0.2 Above POR
11
13 14
19
6-19
24
RFxLF

6.4.5
Section 6
Special considerations for wrap-around details for connection of

embankment dam to concrete gravity dam (IM19 and IM21)
Figure 6.3 shows typical details of the connection of an embankment dam to a concrete gravity dam with a
potential seepage path along PQRS. The seepage path length and hence the gradient varies with the reservoir
level. However, there is a potential for the embankment to move away from the concrete dam at PQ and
particularly at RS due to settlement of the embankment. There is also a potential for poorly compacted zone
to exist along PQ or RS. It is recommended that this situation be assessed as follows:
The primary control on seepage and initiation of erosion is considered to be along QR. When assessing
the seepage gradient along QR, the likelihood there will be gaps or poorly compacted soil along PQ and
RS should be assessed taking account of the factors in Table 6.19. For the worst scenarios, there will be
no benefit from the seepage path on PQ and RS if there is a gap there which can be seen on inspection.
Estimate the probability of a poorly compacted zone for IM19 (Section 6.4.2) and for a crack (or gap)
being present for IM21 (Section 6.4.4). IM20 does not apply to long concrete sections or monoliths.
However, when assessing the probability of initiation of erosion for both mechanisms (IM19 and IM21),
use the unpeeled seepage path length. If a gap is likely as shown in Figure 6.3 (plan), the length at the
mid-level of the flow path should be measured from Point Q to Point R rather than Point P to Point S.
Combine the crack geometry and use the maximum probability of initiation for each reservoir level
under consideration.
The effect is likely to be most important for reservoir level stages nearing dam crest level. For evaluating
the seepage path length, the crack width at the mid-level of the flow path or average gradients for the
reservoir level under consideration.
Table 6.19 Factors to be considered in assessing seepage gradients on wrap-around
Factors which make it likely there is a good
seepage contact along PQ and RS, and
gradients will be lower
Factors which make it likely there is a poor

seepage contact along PQ and RS, and
(1)
gradients will be higher
(1)
Uniform slope with no overhangs
Overhangs in the concrete
Well compacted embankment shoulders or zoning

with all materials having a similar and high modulus
Poorly compacted shoulders leading to large

settlements during and post construction
Uniform concrete slopes with at least 0.1H:1V slope
Change in slope of concrete such as shown in

Figure 6.2 allowing a gap to form as the
embankment settles
Low embankments
Reservoir level at least 20 feet below dam crest
level so there is a lesser likelihood a crack will
persist to reservoir level
High embankment
Reservoir level approaching dam crest level
6-20

Section 6
Figure 6.3 Wrap-around details for connection of embankment dam to concrete gravity
dam
6-21

6.5
Section 6
Factors to Account for Observations
Seepage observations
Where there are observations of seepage for the dam these can be used to modify the results of Sections 6.2,
6.3 and 6.4. The probabilities obtained from Sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 are multiplied by the factor from Table
6.20. The multiplication factor should be selected taking account of what data is available, allowing for the
relative importance of the observations.
This factor applies to the assessment of poorly compacted or high permeability zones in the embankment,
around conduits and adjacent walls. In addition, the seepage observations and observation factor must be
associated with the initiating mechanism of interest. For example, seepage observations at the toe are not
related to high permeability zones near the crest of the dam. Thus, a different seepage observation factor
should be applied.
6-22

Section 6
Table 6.20 Seepage observation factors

Factor
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Observed seepage
No seepage
observed for dams
where there is no
potential for seepage
to be hidden, careful
inspection for
seepage
Seepage observed
at toe of dams with
permeable
downstream zone or
internal drainage
systems, or potential
for hidden seepage
Wet areas on the

downstream slope
Concentrated
seepage is present
on the downstream
slope
Seepage Adjustment
Factor
Multiplier = 0.9 to 0.5
Multiplier = 1.0
Probability of high
permeability zone =
0.5 to 1.0
Probability of high
permeability zone =
1.0
Observations in drill
holes/CPT in the core
Multiple drill holes or

CPT tests indicate
no evidence of high
permeability or
softened zones
No drill holes or CPT

tests in core
Drill holes or CPT

tests indicate
softened zones in
the core
Multiple drill holes or

CPT tests indicate
persistent high
permeability zones
are likely to be
present
Drill Hole/CPT
Adjustment Factor
Multiplier = 0.1 to 0.5

depending on
quantity and quality
of the investigations
Multiplier = 1.0
Multiplier = 5 to 10
Probability of high
permeability zone =
0.5 to 1.0
Drilling through the

core with water
causing excessive
water losses in the
core
High pressure
grouting was carried
out through the core
Multiplier = 2 to 5
Multiplier = 5 to 10
(A)
(B)
Drilling/grouting
practices inducing
defects in the core
Neglect this adjustment factor if no water

drilling or pressure grouting through the core
Adjustment Factor
for Induced Core
Defects
More Likely
(3)
Much More Likely

(4)
(C)
Notes:
(a) Seepage observation factors do not apply to IM18, IM20, and IM21.
(b) Apply either Seepage Adjustment Factor (A), Drill Hole/CPT Factor (B) or Induced Defect Factor (C), whichever
gives greatest probability of high permeability zones.
(c) Use multipliers towards the lower of the range for reservoir level below POR and towards the upper of the range for
reservoir levels above POR.
6-23

Section 6
6.6
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Poorly Compacted or High

Permeability Zones in the Embankment or adjacent to a Conduit
or Wall
6.6.1
Screening of erosion mechanism based on soil classification
If the soil is cohesionless or has a Plasticity Index 7, follow the procedures in Sections 6.6.2 and 6.6.3 to
assess the probability of backward erosion and suffusion, respectively.
If the soil is cohesive with a Plasticity Index > 7, then the likelihood of backwards erosion and suffusion is
negligible under the seepage gradients which occur in a conventional dam. Consider if erosion may occur
through a crack in the soil using the procedure detailed in Sections 6.6.4 to 6.6.7. If the seepage gradients are
greater than 4, consider suffusion for soils with a Plasticity Index 12.
For all erosion mechanisms, the location of the poorly compacted or high permeability zone is needed in
order to estimate the average hydraulic gradient. Table 6.21 provides some suggested guidance for
performing the gradient calculations.
Table 6.21 Suggested locations for determination of average gradients
Initiating
Mechanism
Suggested Location(s)
IM13
Use specific layer identified from PFMA; or select critical location for given pool that
maximizes gradient or has different filter characteristics
IM14
At the core-foundation/abutment contact
IM15
Use full depth of frost penetration, measured from the crest (or top of pavement)
IM16
Use full depth of frost penetration, measured from the elevation of the seasonal
shutdown layer during construction or staged construction surface
IM17
Use specific layer identified from PFMA; or use conduit invert or bottom of trench
IM18
Use location along conduit if known from inspections; otherwise, assume open joint or
crack beneath the center of the core
IM19
Assume a 5 mm crack full-height of the wall (UNO)
IM20
Assume depth of gap based on monolith geometry using Figure 6.2 as a guide
IM21
See IM2 for depth of transverse crack
6-24

6.6.2
Section 6
Assessment of the probability of initiation of backward erosion in a

layer of cohesionless soil or soil with Plasticity Index 7
The steps to be followed are:
Estimate the average seepage gradient (iave) through the dam (or in the continuous cohesionless layer) at
the level of the high permeability layer for the reservoir stage under consideration.
Estimate the time it will take to develop a seepage gradient in the layer from the estimated permeability
of the soil, allowing for potential collapse of the layer on saturation if the soil is not well-compacted. Use
Table 6.22 to assist in this estimate. From this and the time the reservoir will be above this stage, assess
whether there is sufficient time to develop the seepage gradient in the layer. For layers below the normal
operating pool level, the layer will be saturated and the seepage gradient will develop as the reservoir
rises.
From the particle size distribution of the core material, estimate a representative uniformity coefficient
cu = D60/D10.
For 1 cu 6, estimate the average gradient (ipmt) required to initiate backward erosion from Figure 6.6.
This is the gradient that is required to initiate backward erosion at the downstream end of the layer and
also to progress the pipe by backward erosion to the upstream end of the layer.
Correct this average gradient for the geometry, horizontal to vertical permeability ratio of the zone
subject to backward erosion, and grain size as detailed in the following step and in Section S6.6.2.4 of
the Supporting Document. This gives (ipmt)corrected where
(ipmt)corrected = [(CD CL CS CK CZ C C) / CR] ipmt

where
(6.6a)
ipmt
Maximum point seepage gradient needed for complete piping in the flume test based
on the soil coefficient of uniformity cu (from Figure 6.6)
CD
Correction factor for (D/L)
CL
Correction factor for total pipe length L
CS
Correction factor for grain size
CK
Correction factor, for permeability anisotropy. This is for the anisotropy of the soil
layer subject to backward erosion, not the embankment core as a whole.
CZ
Correction factor for high-permeability under layer
Correction factor for density
Adjustment for pipe inclination
6-25

Section 6
CR
Correction factor for dam axis curvature
Depth of piping sand layer, in direction perpendicular to (m)
Direct (not meandered) length between ends of a completed pipe path, from
downstream to upstream exit, measured along the pipe path (m)
Calculate the correction factors in the following steps:

o
Determine the angle of the pipe exit from horizontal in the direction of the pipe formation (). See
Figure 6.7. For a horizontal exit = 0 and for a vertical exit = 90
Determine the average thickness of the piping layer being evaluated (D).
Determine the relative density of the piping layer (Drf).
Determine the ratio of the horizontal to vertical permeability (Rkf) of the piping soil as
Determine the length of the piping path in the field normal to the axis of the dam (L) transformed to
isotropic homogeneous conditions (Lf) as L f =
0.2
D 2
1
L f
1.4
(6.6b)
Calculate CL = Correction factor for total pipe length L
5
CL =
L
f
o
L
.
k h / kv
Calculate CD = Correction factor for (D/Lf)
L
f
CD =
o
Rkf =
0.2
(6.6c)
Calculate CS = Correction factor for grain size
d
Cs = 10
0.20
0.2
(6.6d)
6-26
kh
.
kv

Section 6
Calculate CK = Correction factor, for permeability anisotropy. This is for the anisotropy of the soil
layer subject to backward erosion, not the embankment core as a whole.
.5
1. 5
CK =
R
kf
o
(6.6e)
Calculate CZ = Under-layer factor. If the layer susceptible to piping is underlain by a more

permeable under-layer of thickness d meters, and permeability ku (m/sec), CZ is calculated from
Figure 6.4. In this figure, kp is the permeability of the piping layer (m/sec) and r is the equivalent
radius of the tunnel developing as piping progresses (meters). For practical purposes, r is very small
and D/r very large, so it is suggested that CZ = 1. If very thin erodible layers is being considered, use
r = 2.5 to 10 mm. For thin alternating layers of erodible and non-erodible soil modelled as a
homogenous layer with high anisotropy and use CZ = 1 as Schmertmann recommends in his paper
(Schmertmann 2000).
CZ
Figure 6.4 Underlayer factor CZ versus D/r (Schmertmann 2000)

o
Calculate C = Correction factor for density
C = 1 + 0.4 rf 0.6
100
(6.6f)
6-27

Calculate C = Pipe inclination adjustment. This is based on the inclination of the piping tunnel
(the flow line) estimated on the true (not transformed) section. When is zero (flow line horizontal),
there is no correction. In Figure 6.5, ipo is obtained by making all the other corrections to ipmt using
Equation 6.9h. In Figure 6.5, ip is found on the graph by inputting ipo and .
C = ip/ipo
(6.6g)
ipo = [(CD CL CS CK CZ C) / CR] ipmt
(6.6h)
Calculate CR = Convergent or divergent flow factor. This factor is mainly used to correct for 3-D
effects when there is significant convergence or divergence in flow as when there is significant
curvature in the dam alignment. Divergent flow is flow from the center outward and convergent flow
is flow towards the center. If the dam alignment is straight, CR = 1. For curved embankments, CR is
estimated from
CR =
where
Section 6
R=
R1 + R 0
2R
(6.6i)
radius to point on the pipe path in a dam with curved axis (ft) (or radius of curvature in the
dam)
R1 = shortest radius to an end of completed pipe path (ft) (i.e., distance from the center of
curvature to the upstream toe)
R0 = longest radius to an end of completed pipe path (i.e., distance from the center of curvature
to the downstream toe)
Note that a 3-D seepage analysis can also be used to determine the correction factor by
comparing the gradients from a 2-D to a 3-D.
6-28

Section 6
ip
Figure 6.5 Graph to obtain ip from ipo and (Schmertmann 2000)
If cu > 6, estimate the critical gradient (icr) from icr = (sat w)/w for vertical exits or icr = [(sat w)/w]
tan() for horizontal exits.
Estimate the probability of initiation of backward erosion from Table 6.23 for compacted layers and
Table 6.24 for poorly compacted layers. Use iave and (ipmt)corrected or (icr) as inputs. The table allows for
gradients potentially being higher than the average at the downstream side as has been observed on many
dams, and case study data from Sweden which shows erosion may occur at average gradients less than
1.0, at least if the layers are poorly compacted. It also allows for application of corrections recommended
by Schmertmann (2000) which for a thin layer of permeable soil indicate gradients higher than those
from Figure 6.6 are required to initiate erosion. These probabilities apply for reservoir levels up to and
above the pool of record.
For poorly compacted silt/sand/gravel soils which are subject to collapse settlement on saturation, assess
the likelihood of initiation of erosion using Section 6.6.4.
6-29

Section 6
Table 6.22 Time to develop seepage gradient in cohesionless soils

Method of compaction (see Table 6.1 and
Table 6.2 for detailed descriptions
Time for developing

seepage gradient with
collapse settlement
Time for developing

seepage gradient if there is
no collapse settlement
No formal compaction
Minutes
Not applicable. Collapse

settlement is highly likely.
Tracking by dozer or rolled in layers too

thick for the equipment
Minutes to a few hours

settlement is highly likely.
Compacted by rollers in suitable layer

thicknesses to normal compaction standards

settlement is highly unlikely.
Hours to days for silty sands

and sands
Compacted by rollers in suitable layer

thicknesses to normal compaction standards
with well-documented compaction records

settlement is highly unlikely.
Hours to days for silty sands

and sands
6-30

Section 6
Note: This relationship

applies for 1 cu 6.
For cu > 6, calculate the
critical gradient using
icr = (sat w)/ w
for horizontal exits or
icr = [(sat w)/w] tan()
for vertical exits.
Figure 6.6 Maximum point gradient (ipmt) needed for complete piping (initiation and
progression for an unfiltered exit) versus uniformity coefficient of soil (Schmertmann 2000)
6-31

Section 6
=0
L
+
=0
Figure 6.7 Backward erosion piping layer and path geometry
Table 6.23 Probability of initiation of backward erosion in cohesionless soils and soils with
PI 7 for compacted layers
Average seepage
gradient required to
initiate and progress
backward erosion
(ipmt)corrected or icr
Average seepage gradient across embankment core (iave)

0.05
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.05
0.9
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.25
0.01
0.2
0.9
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.5
0.001
0.01
0.2
0.9
0.95
0.99
1.0
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.2
0.9
0.95
6-32

Section 6
Table 6.24 Probability of initiation of backward erosion in cohesionless soils and soils with
PI 7 for uncompacted layers
Average seepage
backward erosion
(ipmt) corrected or icr
6.6.3
Average seepage gradient across embankment core (iave)

0.05
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.05
0.9
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.25
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.95
0.99
0.99
0.5
0.05
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.95
0.99
1.0
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.95
Probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion in a layer of

cohesionless soil or soil with Plasticity Index 7 (PI 12 for seepage
gradients > 4)
Check if the soil is potentially internally unstable

From the particle size distribution for the soil, determine the finer fraction which is defined by the point of
inflection of broadly graded or gap-graded soils. This is a check on whether the coarser particles will form a
matrix into which the finer particles will fit. If the proportion of the finer fraction is less than 40% of the total
mass of the soil, continue to assess the probability of the soil being internally unstable as described in the
following steps. If the proportion of the finer fraction is more than 40% of the total mass of the soil, the
coarse particles will float in the finer particles, and suffusion is not possible. These soils may experience
backward erosion. If the soil is likely internally unstable, the probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion,
PI = (PIUS) x (PSI).
Assess the probability the soil is internally unstable (PIUS)

From the particle size distribution for the soil, determine the d15, d60 and d90 sizes (the particle size for which
15%, 60% and 90% are finer). The grading curve is not adjusted for this procedure. Then estimate the
probability the soil is internally unstable (PIUS) from Figure 6.8 for soils with more than 10% fines passing
0.075 mm (#200 sieve), and Figure 6.9 for soils with less than 10% fines passing 0.075 mm.
6-33

10
Data point (447, 17.2)

plotted out of range
Data source:
Kenney et al. (1983)
Kenney & Lau (1984, 85)
Lafleur et al. (1989)
Burenkova (1993)
Skempton & Brogan (1994)
Chapuis et al. (1996)
UNSW
h' = d90 /d60
Section 6
P is the probability, predicted by logistic

regression, that a soil is internally unstable
if it is plotted along the respective
dotted line
.
P
Sun (1989) data and UNSW data points B1,
D1 not included in the logistic regression.
P = exp(Z)/[1 + exp(Z)]
Z = 2.378 LOG(h") - 3.648 h' + 3.701
Internally stable soil samples are

represented by hollow symbols
(e.g. ,
, etc.), and
internally unstable soil samples are
represented by solid symbols
(e.g. ,
, etc.).
D1
0.05
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.70
B1
0.90
0.95
10
100
4000
1000
[woSUNBD2.GRF]
h" = d90 /d15
Figure 6.8 Contours of the probability of internal instability for silt-sand-gravel soils
and clay-silt-sand-gravel soils of limited clay content and plasticity (PI 12) (Wan and Fell
2004)
10
Data source:
Kenney & Lau (1984, 85)
Lafleur et al. (1989)
Burenkova (1993)
Skempton & Brogan (1994)
Chapuis et al. (1996)
UNSW (only data points 4R,
A3 and C1)
Internally stable soil samples are
represented by hollow symbols
(e.g. ,
, etc.), and
internally unstable soil samples are
represented by solid symbols
(e.g. ,
, etc.).
h' = d90 /d60
P is the probability, predicted by logistic

regression, that a soil is internally unstable
if it is plotted along the respective
dotted line
.
P
Sun (1989) data are not included in
the logistic regression.
P = exp(Z)/[1 + exp(Z)]
Z = 3.875 LOG(h") - 3.591 h' + 2.436
4
0.05
0.10
0.30
0.50
0.70
4R
2
C1
A3
10
0.90
0.95
100
200
h" = d90 /d15
Figure 6.9 Contours of the probability of internal instability for sand-gravel soils
with less than 10% non-plastic fines passing 0.075 mm (Wan and Fell 2004)
6-34

Section 6
Assess the probability that given the soil is internally unstable erosion by suffusion
will begin (PSI)
Assess the probability that given the soil is internally unstable suffusion will begin under the seepage gradient
in the highly permeable layer using Table 6.25. The probability of suffusion and backward erosion should
both be assessed and carried forward in the analysis.
Table 6.25 Probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion
Porosity (volume of
voids/total volume of
soil)
0.05
0.1
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
<0.20
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.9
0.99
0.20 to 0.25
0.02
0.05
0.1
0.5
0.95
0.99
0.25 to 0.30
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.99
0.99
0.30 to 0.35
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.95
0.99
0.99
>0.35
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.99
0.99
0.99
6.6.4
Average seepage gradient across embankment core (i)

permeability cohesive soil layer and in silt-sand-gravel soils in which
collapse settlement may form a crack or flaw (IM13 and IM14)
This section only applies to such zones within the embankment (IM13) and on the embankmentfoundation/abutment contact (IM14). It is well-documented that internal erosion and piping occurs in poorly
compacted cohesive soils. This is particularly so for dispersive soils. The mechanism is potentially of two
types:
The soil behaves as a series of clods with openings between the clods in which water passes.
The soil collapses on saturation forming a crack or flaw in which the water flows. This is most likely
where there is poorly compacted soil against a pipe but is possible within layers of soil.
To model this it is most practical to assume a crack is formed and to assess the likelihood of erosion initiating
in the crack. The procedure is:
Assess the thickness of the layer of soil which is poorly compacted. (Tp). There may be a single layer or
several layers. The minimum layer thickness adopted should be 300 mm (12 in).
6-35

Section 6
Estimate the amount by which the layer may collapse (CF) using Table 6.26 as a guide. Then, estimate
the height of the gap which could result, G = (Tp) x (CF). This represents the scenario with the weight of
the soil above being supported on non-collapsed soil adjacent.
Assume G is the height of the crack which is formed, and use the method outlined in Section 5.5 to
estimate the probability of initiation of erosion given this width crack, the average gradient through the
core at the level of the high permeability layer, and the soil properties.
This method should be also applied to silty sands, and silty sandy gravel soils which may be subject to
collapse settlement even if the soils are non plastic, since they will erode rapidly in a crack.
Table 6.26 Amount of collapse settlement which may occur on saturation versus
compaction properties
Description of the method and degree of compaction of the core
Soil placed with, no formal compaction ( e.g., by

horse and cart in old dams, or by pushing into place
by excavator or bulldozer or in very thick layers)
Amount of collapse
settlement as a
proportion of the layer
thickness
Layers very poorly compacted,

dry of standard optimum
moisture content e.g., < 90%
standard dry density ratio, 3%
dry of standard OWC
0.02 to 0.05
Layers poorly compacted, dry of

standard optimum moisture
content e.g., < 93% standard
dry density ratio, 2% to 3% dry
of standard OWC
0.01 to 0.02
Soil rolled in layers near the limit of the capability of

the rollers, at moisture contents dry of standard
OWC
Compacted to e.g., 93-95%

standard dry density ratio,
moisture content 2% to 3% dry
of standard OWC
0.005
Soil compacted by suitable rollers in suitable layer

thickness
Well compacted to e.g., 95-98%

standard dry density ratio,
moisture content 2% dry of
optimum to 1% wet of standard
OWC
Will not collapse, but for the

poorly compacted layer
within
All very well compacted to e.g.,

98% standard dry density
ratio, moisture content 2% dry of
optimum to 1% wet of standard
OWC
Will not collapse, but for the

poorly compacted layer
within
No control on layer thickness,

Well dry of optimum moisture content.
Soil placed and compacted by bulldozer, no
compaction by rollers, or rolled in thick layers
beyond the capability of the roller
Layer thickness at or beyond the limit of compaction
equipment
Dry of optimum moisture content
Around optimum moisture content
As above but with good documentation and records.
6-36
0.005
0.005

6.6.5
Section 6
Probability of initiation of erosion in a high permeability soil due to

frost action (IM15 and IM16)
This section only applies to IM15 and IM16. The effects of frost action are complex and include formation of
cracks due to heave and formation of ice lenses. The latter may melt in summer months and leave pathways
in which erosion may initiate. The procedure is:
Where there is specific information about frost effects for the dam being assessed, that information
should be used by the risk analysis team to assess likely defect widths. In the absence of such data,
assess the width of the frost-induced crack using Table 6.27. The selected width should be applied to the
full depth of frost penetration since evidence shows ice lenses may be as thick at the base of freezing as
at the surface. If the reservoir level under consideration is below the likely depth of freezing, the
probability of a crack or poorly compacted zone due to freezing can be assumed to be zero.
Assess the maximum likely depth of freezing for the soil in the core of the dam based on the frost depth
of locality as determined by local building code (preferred method) or from the frost contour map
(Sowers 1970) shown in Figure 6.10. The frost depth should be measured from the top of pavement, if
present.
For cases where the reservoir stage is above the base of potential freezing, use the method outlined in
Section 5.5 to estimate the probability of initiation of erosion given this width crack or flaw, the average
gradient through the core at the level of the high permeability layer, and the soil properties.
Table 6.27 Width of frost-induced flaw versus (RFxLF)
(RFxLF)
(RFxLF)
from Table 6.6 (IM15)
from Table 6.8 (IM16)
Width of Flaw
(mm)
24
28
20
21
22
10
16
18
12
13
10
12
6-37

Section 6
Figure 6.10 Map showing the maximum depth of frost penetration from Sowers (1970)
6.6.6

permeability cohesive soil layer adjacent to a conduit (IM17)
This section only applies to section IM17. The method assumes that the critical case is where poorly
compacted soil surrounding the conduit collapses on saturation and a gap is formed.
The procedure is:
Assess the thickness of the layer of soil which is poorly compacted. (Tp). There may be a single layer or
several layers.
Estimate the amount by which the layer may collapse (CF) using Table 6.26 as a guide. Then, estimate
the height of the gap which could result, G = (Tp) x (CF). To do this, take account of the dimensions of
the conduit and the trench in which it is placed.
For cases where it appears that the soil around the conduit is well compacted and where crack widths
less than 5 mm are calculated, assume a crack width of 5 mm to allow for possible shrinkage of the soil
6-38

Section 6
from the pipe during construction or in service. For poorly compacted soil around the conduit, the
minimum layer thickness adopted should be 300 mm (12 in).
Assume G is the height of the crack which is formed, and use the method outlined in Section 5.5 to
estimate the probability of initiation of erosion given this width crack, the average gradient through the
core at the level of the high permeability layer, and the soil properties.
6.6.7
Probability of initiation of erosion into a conduit (IM18)
Given an open joint or crack is present, assume a probability of initiation = 1.0.
6.6.8

permeability cohesive soil layer adjacent to a wall (IM19)
If the crack width is unknown from inspection, assume a 5 mm wide crack full-height of the wall and use the
method outlined in Section 5.5 to estimate the probability of initiation of erosion given this width crack, the
average gradient through the core at the level of the high permeability layer, and the soil properties.
6-39
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Soil

Foundation
7
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Soil Foundation
7.1
Screening Check on Soil Classification
Section 7
If the soil is cohesionless or has a Plasticity Index 7, then follow the procedures in Section 7.2 to assess the
probability of backward erosion and Section 7.3 for suffusion.
If the soil is cohesive with a Plasticity Index > 7, then the likelihood of backwards erosion and suffusion is
zero under the seepage gradients which occur in foundations of a conventional dam. Consider if erosion may
occur through a crack in the soil using the procedure detailed in Section 7.4. If the seepage gradients are > 4,
consider suffusion for soils with a Plasticity Index 12.
7.2
Probability of Initiation of Backward Erosion in a Layer of

Cohesionless Soil or Soil with Plasticity Index 7 in the
Foundation (IM22)
7.2.1
Overall approach

a)
Estimate the probability there is a continuous layer of cohesionless soil or soil with PI 7 across the
core from upstream to downstream. The layer does not have to be exposed to the ground surface
downstream of the embankment. That is, it may be overlain by a layer of cohesive soil or a confining
layer. Assess the probability of a continuous layer (PCL) using subjective estimation methods.
b)
If grouting was performed in the cohesionless foundation, evaluate the likelihood of the grouting being
ineffective at cutting off the layer using Table 8.19 and Table 8.20 in Section 8.7. If a cut-off wall was
installed through the cohesionless layer, evaluate the likelihood of grouting being ineffective at cutting
off the layer using Table Table 8.21 and Table 8.22 in Section 8.8.
c)
Estimate the probability a seepage exit (Pexit) occurs for the cohesionless layer. Three scenarios are
possible. A seepage exit can occur if the cohesionless layer daylights downstream of the dam (e.g.,
daylights in a toe ditch). The likelihood of this exit condition should be determined using subjective
estimation methods. If the cohesionless layer is overlain by a cohesive layer, a seepage exit can occur
through the overlying confining layer. A seepage exit through the overlying confining layer can occur
through either heave of the overlying confining layer or through defects in the confining layer (e.g.,
animal burrows, roots, etc). Details of assessing the probability of a seepage exit (Pexit) due to heave or
defects in the confining layer are given in Section 7.2.3.
d)
Calculate the probability of a continuous path with a seepage exit (Pflaw) from the results of the above
assessments: (Pflaw) = (PCL) x (Pexit).
7-1

Foundation
e)
Section 7
Estimate the probability of initiation backward erosion given a seepage exit occurs (PI) using Section
7.2.4. For situations where sand boils have been observed, the probability of initiation (PI) for the
reservoir level at which sand boils have been observed and above is assumed to be 1.0.
7.2.2
Probability of a continuous layer of cohesionless soil (Pexit)
This section assesses the probability of a continuous cohesionless layer (Pexit) associated with depositional
conditions in which the soils were deposited. If there is no continuous layer such as shown in Figure 7.1, then
backward erosion is not possible and the probability of backward erosion may be taken as zero. In some
situations there will be some uncertainty and the probability of a continuous layer should be assessed from
the geotechnical borehole data, understanding of the depositional conditions in which the soils were and
deposited, piezometer data, including response of the piezometers to changes in reservoir level. Pexit is likely
to be between 0.1 and 1.0 for most situations.
CLAY
SAND
CLAY
Figure 7.1 An example of a situation where there is no continuous layer of cohesionless

soil in the foundation and backward erosion cannot occur
7.2.3
Probability of a seepage exit (Pexit)
A seepage exit in the cohesionless layer can occur through either an exposed exit (e.g., daylights in a toe
ditch, at the toe of the dam, or downstream of the dam) or through an overlying confining layer by heave or
through defects. If the cohesionless layer daylights a considerable distance downstream of the dam, then the
gradient along the pipe path would be lower and possibly less likely for backward erosion to initiate.
However, if a seepage exit occurs through the confining layer at the toe of the dam then the gradients along
the pipe path would be higher and more likely for backward erosion to initiate. Thus, it is necessary to
evaluate the probability of initiation of backward erosion (PI) for each complete seepage path.
7-2

Foundation
Section 7
No confining layer or cohesionless layer daylights downstream

If the cohesionless layer daylights downstream, assess the probability of a seepage exit (Pexit) using subjective
estimation methods. If there is no confining layer or a known location where the cohesionless layer daylights,
then Pexit will be 1.0.
Through heave of the confining layer

To determine probability of a seepage exit occurring through heaving of the confining layer, calculate the
factor of safety against heave, and then use Table 7.1 to determine Pexit. This method applies to soil confining
layers. If the confining layer is hard pan or rock, then the following procedure may not be appropriate.
a) The factor of safety against heave can be determined from the following equations:
FUT = v/u
where
(1)
v = total vertical stress at any point in the foundation, psf (kN/m2)

u = pore pressure at the same point, psf (kN/m2)
or
FUT = (h sat) / (hp w)
where
(2)
sat = unit weight of saturated foundation soil, pcf (kN/m3)

w = unit weight of water, pcf (kN/m3)
hp = piezometric head, ft (m)
Figure 7.2 Cross section of an embankment and foundation showing seepage flow net and
definition of terms
b) Estimate the probability of a seepage exit occurring through the confining layer from heave (Pexit)
using FUT from Table 7.1. If piezometric data is available in the cohesionless layer, this data can be
7-3

Foundation
Section 7
used to determine the factor of safety against heave for recorded reservoir levels. If possible, the
piezometric data may be extrapolated for higher unrecorded reservoir levels. If the factor of safety
against heave is greater than 1.3, then the heave is not likely.
Table 7.1 Probability of a seepage exit through the confining layer (Pexit) versus calculated
factor of safety against heave
Factor of safety against heave
Probability of a seepage exit

through the confining layer
FUT
Pexit
> 1.3
Negligible
1.3
0.005
1.23
0.02
1.12
0.05
1.05
0.1
1.0
0.9
0.92
0.99
0.80
0.999
Note: The selected probability should take account of the quality of the data on which the factors of safety are based.
Due to defects in the confining layer

The probability of a seepage exit occurring through defects in a confining layer is mostly governed by the
thickness of the confining layer and other factors such as animal burrows, vegetation, utilities, desiccation
cracks, etc which may cause defects. If the confining layer is hard pan or rock layer then considerations
should given to formation and potential openings in the layer. Due to the complex nature of such layers, this
should be handled on a case by case basis.
Generally, for soil confining layers (cohesive layers), the thinner the layer, the more likely these defects
penetrate through the layer providing a seepage exit. If the layer thickness is greater than 25 feet, the
probability of a seepage exit occurring through defects is negligible. The probability of a seepage exit
occurring through defects in a soil confining layer should be assessed using Table 7.2 and Table 7.3. If
concentrated seeps have been observed downstream of the dam, it should be assumed that the probability of a
seepage exit through defects in the confining layer (Pexit) will be 1.0
7-4

Foundation
Section 7
Table 7.2 Factors influencing the likelihood of a seepage exit due to defects in the
confining layer
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Confining
layer
thickness
(3)
Thick layer (>25 ft)
Layer thickness 15
to 25 ft
Layer thickness 5
to 15 ft
Thin layer (<5 ft)
Vegetation
downstream
of the dam
(1)
Small woody
vegetation (i.e.,
small trees,
bushes)
Large trees with

shallow root
systems compared
to layer thickness
(layer thickness 5
x depth of root
system)
Numerous large
trees with deep
root systems/tap
roots
Factor
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
No trees
(b)
Small trees with

very shallow root
systems compared
to the layer
thickness (layer
thickness 10 X
depth of root
system)
Desiccation
cracking (b)
Animal
burrows (b)
Note:
(1)
(1)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Numerous downed
trees with rotting
stumps/root
system
Temperate climate
with uniform
rainfall throughout
the year
Seasonal climate
with annual rainfall
greater than 20 in
(500 mm) and no
prolonged hot dry
periods
Monsoonal or
other distinct wet
and dry periods in
the year with
summer maximum
temperatures
>85F (>30C)
Arid climate with

less than 10 in
(250 mm) rainfall
and high summer
temperatures
Low plasticity to
non-plastic
Medium to low
plasticity
Medium to high
plasticity
High plasticity
(LL < 20)
(20 < LL < 40)
(40 < LL < 50)
(LL > 50)
Very little to no
animals burrows
found in the area
Few animal
burrows found;
burrows relatively
shallow.
Some animal
burrows found in
area; burrows
moderately deep
compared to the
layer thickness
Extensive animal
burrows found in
area; burrows
moderately deep
compared to the
layer thickness
(a) If concentrated seeps are observed downstream of the dam, it is likely that defects exist through the confining
layer, and the probability = 1.0.
(b) Other considerations for sources of defects are utilities (buried lines, poles, etc), and an assessment should be made
relative to the blanket thickness for these sources.
7-5

Foundation
Section 7
Table 7.3 Probability of a seepage exit due to defects in the confining layer (Pexit) versus
(RFxLF)
0.0001
6
7.2.4
0.0005
0.002
0.01
0.1
0.9
12
15
18
21
24
RFxLF
Probability of initiation of backward erosion given a seepage exit exists
Given sand boils have been observed

If sand boils have been observed it should be assumed that the probability of initiation of backward erosion
will be 1.0 for reservoir levels at or above the level at which sand boils have been observed. For lower
reservoir levels use the procedure given below for when a seepage exit is predicted. This applies to sand boils
with moving sand but not pin boils.
In these sections the probability of initiation of backward erosion only covers whether the backwards erosion
process will progress within the developing pipes. It does not include assessment of whether a roof will form
and whether flow limitation may occur. These are covered in Section 11.
Given a seepage exit is predicted

Whether backwards erosion will progress to develop a pipe all the way from the downstream toe to upstream
of the dam depends on the gradients along the pipe path. For practical purposes, in most cases, this can be
taken as the average seepage gradient (iavf) in the foundation layer beneath the dam at the midpoint of the pipe
path at the reservoir stage under consideration.
The average seepage gradient (iavf) is defined as the hydraulic head difference divided by the seepage path
length. However, if there is upstream blanketing with lower permeability soil, much of the head may be lost
in seepage through this blanket. If in doubt, neglect the blanketing effect. For cases, where a seepage exit is
likely at the toe of the dam (either through heave or defects), this gradient may be estimated as (H2 H3)/L in
Figure 7.3. This allows for the head losses through the upstream clay layer.
7-6

Foundation
Section 7
Piezometric surface at
base of clay layer
L (to downstream exit location)
Reservoir level
H1
H2
Clay
Sand
Piezometric
surface at base of
clay layer
H3
Note heave is
calculated at the base
of the clay layer here
Figure 7.3 Section through embankment and foundation showing definition of terms to
estimate the average gradient in the foundation sand
If there is a sheet pile, soil-bentonite or concrete cut-off wall, the gradient of interest is the average gradient
in the soil subject to backward erosion from downstream of the cut-off wall to the toe of the embankment
allowing for the effectiveness of the cut-off wall. This is discussed further in Section S7.3.2 of the Supporting
Document.
As discussed previously, the location of the seepage exit is important to determine the pipe path and average
seepage gradient at the midpoint of the path. Typically, for heave the critical locations exists where the
confining layer is the thinnest, and the uplift pressures are the highest. This occurs typically at the toe of the
dam or at a near by toe ditch.
For seepage exits through defects using Table 7.2 and Table 7.3, the assumption is made that these defects
occur at the toe of the dam. The gradients are calculated along the midpoint of pipe path where the path
extends from the upstream toe of the dam to the downstream toe of the dam. For seepage exits where the
cohesionless layer daylights downstream of the dam, the pipe path extends from upstream toe of the dam to
point where the cohesionless layer daylights downstream of the dam.
Once the average seepage gradient has been determined, other factors such as particle size characteristics,
permeability of the soil, and the geometry of the embankment and the foundation are considered. In the
absence of more definite methods, the following procedure is used to determine the probability of initiation of
backwards erosion given a seepage exit is predicted:
Estimate the average seepage gradient (iavf) through the cohesionless soil layer in the foundation beneath
the dam at the midpoint of the pipe path (not at the toe where there are likely to be locally higher
gradients) for the level for the reservoir stage under consideration.
7-7

Foundation
Section 7
From the particle size distribution of the foundation material, estimate a representative uniformity
coefficient, cu = D60/D10.
For 1 cu 6, estimate the average gradient (ipmt) required to initiate backward erosion from Figure 6.6.
This is the gradient that is required to initiate backward erosion at the downstream end of the layer and
also to progress the pipe by backward erosion to the upstream end of the layer.
Correct this average gradient for the geometry, horizontal to vertical permeability ratio of the zone
subject to backward erosion, and grain size as detailed in Section 6.6.2 to obtain (ipmt)corrected.
If cu > 6, estimate the critical gradient (icr) from icr = (sat w)/ w for vertical exits (e.g., heave or defects
in the confining layer) or icr = [(sat w)/ w] tan() for horizontal exits (e.g., cohesionless layer daylights
into a toe ditch).
Estimate the exit gradient for the seepage path under consideration. If the layer is exposed at the ground
surface downstream of the embankment, estimate the exit gradient from a seepage analysis. For seepage
exits through the overlying confining layer due to heave or defects, assume a continuous column of sand
from the base of the confining layer to the ground surface, and estimate the exit gradient by ie = (H3
T)/T. Calculate the factor of safety for the exit gradient, FSe = [icr or (ipmt)corrected)]/ie. If the factor of
safety is greater than 1.3, then the probability of initiation is negligible.
Estimate the probability of initiation of backward erosion given a seepage exit occurs from Table 7.4.
Table 7.4 Probability of initiation of backward erosion in the foundation given a seepage
exit is predicted
Average seepage
gradient required
to initiate and
progress
backward erosion
(i pmt) corrected or icr
Average seepage gradient in the foundation (iavf)
0.05
0.1
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
2.0
0.05
0.62
0.9285
0.9987
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.1
0.19
0.62
0.9671
0.9987
0.9999
1.0000
1.0000
0.25
0.008
0.11
0.62
0.93
0.98
0.9958
0.9999
0.5
0.0002
0.008
0.19
0.62
0.84
0.93
0.9958
0.75
0.00001
0.001
0.06
0.35
0.62
0.78
0.97
1.0
0.000001
0.0002
0.02
0.19
0.43
0.62
0.93
7-8

Foundation
7.3
Section 7
Probability of Initiation of Suffusion in a Cohesionless Layer in

the Foundation (IM23)

a)
Use the methods outlined in Section 7.2.1 and 7.2.3 to estimate the probability of a continuous path with
a seepage exit (Pflaw) = (PCL) x (Pexit).
b)
Use the method outlined in Section 7.2.4 to estimate the factor of safety for the exit gradient. If the factor
of safety is greater than 1.3, then the probability of initiation is negligible.
c)
Use the method outlined in Section 6.6.3 to estimate the probability the soil is internally unstable (PIUS)
and the probability that given the soil is internally unstable erosion by suffusion will begin (PSI). Table
6.25 should to determine PSI using the average gradient in the foundation layer.
d)
Estimate the probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion by (PI) = (PIUS) x (PSI).
7.4
Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Crack in Cohesive Soil in

the Foundation (IM24)
7.4.1
Overall approach

a)
Estimate the probability (PCL) of a layer of cohesive soil containing a continuous crack or interconnected
pattern of cracks across the core from upstream to downstream. Cracking may be the result of
differential settlement in the foundation, or desiccation cracks in the foundation soil which was not
stripped from the foundation, or other causes.
b)
If Scenario (b) in Figure 5.4 is applicable, estimate the probability of cracking due to differential
settlement using Table 5.7 and Table 5.8 in Section 5.2.4. The probabilities obtained are modified for
observed settlement using Table 5.21 (factors for lower part of the embankment) in Section 5.4 to obtain
Pflaw.4. If the cracking is due to desiccation, estimate the probability of cracking using Table 5.11 and
Table 5.12 (Below POR only) in Section 5.2.7 to obtain Pflaw.7. If the cracking is due to other causes,
assess the probability of a flaw using subjective estimation methods.
c)
If grouting was performed within the maximum depth of likely cracking in the foundation, evaluate the
likelihood of the grouting being ineffective at cutting off the cracking using Table 8.19 and Table 8.20 in
Section 8.7. If a cut-off wall was installed through the maximum depth of likely cracking in the
foundation, evaluate the likelihood of grouting being ineffective at cutting off the cracking using Table
8.21 and Table 8.22 in Section 8.8.
7-9

Foundation
Section 7
d)
Calculate the probability of a flaw (Pflaw) from the results of the above assessments: (Pflaw) = (PCL) x
(Pflaw.4 or Pflaw.7 or Pflaw.other).
e)
Estimate the probability erosion will initiate in the cracks (PI) using Section 5.5. Unless crack widths are
documented, assumed a 5 mm wide crack.
7.4.2
Some factors to consider in this assessment and suggested method

for estimating the probability of a continuous crack
For cracking due to differential settlement

The situations which are likely to result in cracking in the foundation soils are essentially the same as those
causing cracking low in the embankment due to differential settlement in the foundation. An example is
shown in Figure 5.5(b). Given this, it is suggested that if in using Section 5.2.4 to assess the probability of
cracking in the embankment due to differential settlement in the foundation, the presence of cracking in the
embankment is likely to be on the foundation/embankment contact, then this probability also be assigned to
the probability of cracking in the cohesive soil in the foundation beneath the embankment.
If the assessment of cracking in Section 5.2.4 is for features such as those in Figure 5.5(a) and (c) which will
cause cracking near the crest of the dam, then cracking in the foundation due to differential settlement may be
assumed to be negligible.
For cracking due to desiccation

Some factors to consider in assessing the likelihood of continuous or interconnected cracking include:
Whether desiccation cracking is evident in the soil surrounding the dam.
Whether the foundation soil is susceptible to desiccation in the climatic conditions at the site
Whether good construction practices regarding clean-up of desiccated layers were used before
embankment fill placement
Assess the likelihood of desiccation cracking using Section 5.2.7 and Table 5.11 and Table 5.12 considering
the foundation soil as the core material and using Below POR values for all pools.
For cracking due to other causes

For cracking due to other causes, use subjective estimation methods to estimate the likelihood of cracking.
7-10
Probability of Continuous Open Defects in the

Rock Foundation
8
Probability of Continuous Open Defects in the Rock Foundation
8.1
Overall Approach
Section 8
The overall approach to determine the probability of continuous defects in rock is primarily based on
judgment (degree of belief). When using the judgment tables included in this chapter it is critical that the risk
assessor perform a complete evaluation of the available data and summarize the factors from the data that
support their selections. The factors should be list under factors that make the item more likely and factors
that make the item less likely.
The framework considers the geological processes which can lead to the formation of defects in rock. The
geological processes considered are:
Defects related to stress relief effects in the valley sides (Section 8.2).
Defects related to stress relief effects in the valley floor valley bulge and rebound (Section 8.3).
Solution features for rock subject to solution such as limestone, dolomite, gypsum and salt (Section 8.4).
Defects associated with landslides and faults and shear zones.(Section 8.5)
Tables have been produced to evaluate the probabilities for assessing the presence of continuous defects
caused by these geological processes. For each applicable geological process four defect width ranges should
be evaluated:
<5 mm
5 to 25 mm
25 to 100 mm
>100 mm
An outline of the overall approach is summarized in the flow chart shown in Figure 8.1.
The steps to assess the probability such defects and solution features exist in the dam foundation below the
core are as follows:
a) Evaluate the geological profile through the dam and abutments. Determine if the profile should be
divided up into separate segments based on differences in geology or foundation treatment.
b) Assess the probability of one or more continuous defects in the rock in the foundation beneath the core of
the embankment for each type of applicable geological feature.
c) For each type of geological feature, there are two parts to the assessment. The first is based on the
geology and topography of the dam site (PGT). This information will be available for all dam sites. The
8-1

Rock Foundation
Section 8
second is based on observations and site investigation data (PSC) of which there will be greatly varying
amounts for different dams. It is anticipated that for some older dams there may be virtually no such data.
d) The two estimates are combined by a weighted average (Pw) depending on the detail of the investigation
and construction data that is available with greater weighting to the second method where there is good
quality data available (Section 8.6). The relative importance factors are selected taking account of the
data which is likely to be available.
e) Assess the probability that grouting has not been effective (PGI) in cutting off the open defects (Section
8.7).
f) Assess the probability of cut-off walls not being effective (PCI) in cutting off defects (Section 8.8).
g) Assess the probability that foundation surface treatment (PTI) has not been effective in preventing contact
of the core with the defects (Section 8.9).
h) Calculate the probability of a continuous rock defect (PCR) by multiplying the probabilities from the
previous steps. If more than one geological process applies, then combine the probabilities for each defect
size using DeMorgans Rule.
i)
Describe the defects, their width, depth, spatial distribution in the foundation, and how these relate to the
cut-off and general foundation of the embankment beneath the core. In particular identify features which
will be in contact with the core at the base of the cut-off and in the sides of the cut-off trench.
8-2

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Probability of one or more continuous defect (stress

relief in the valley sides, valley bulge or rebound,
solution features, and other geological features)
Make estimates based on:
Geologic/topographic factors; and
Site investigation/construction/performance factors

Probabilities are estimated for four widths <5 mm, 5 to 25 mm,
25 to 100 mm, and >100 mm).
Combine the estimates using a weighted average.
(Pw)
Is grouting ineffective? (PGI)

Is a cutoff wall ineffective? (PCI)
Is rock surface treatment ineffective? (PTI)
Calculate the probability estimates for continuous rock defects.
PCR= (Pw) (PGI) (PCI) (PTI)
If more than one geologic process applies then combine the
probabilities for each defect size using DeMorgans Rule.
Prepare a summary of the probability of occurrence of open defects categorized by width, depth
and spatial occurrence in the embankment foundation. Prepare sketches showing the defects in
relation to the cut-off foundation beneath the core, general foundation under the shoulders,
foundation grouting and cut-off foundation surface treatment. Identify the failure modes and
breach mechanisms which may develop from the presence of these features.
Figure 8.1 Flow chart for estimating the probability, width, depth and spatial distribution of
continuous open defects and solution features in rock foundations
8-3

Rock Foundation
Section 8
8.2
Probability of Continuous Defects in the Rock Foundation due to

Stress Relief in the Valley Sides
8.2.1
Overview of method
This section assesses the probability of a stress relief feature in the valley sides such as a joint or joint set or
bedding surface being continuous in the dam foundation from upstream of the core of the embankment to
downstream of the core. It does not consider whether these are cut-off by the foundation excavation, grouting
or other treatment. That is considered later.
Estimate the probabilities of features of all 4 defect sizes. Defects of each width may all be present, and each
should be considered because of their likely impact on the probability of breach of the embankment. The
widths for stress relief features are at the ground surface, not accounting for the depth of the cut-off of the
embankment.
This is done in two ways:
Based on the geology and topography of the site. This data will be available for all dams.
Based on observations during site investigations, construction, and performance monitoring. There will
be varying amounts of this data for each dam.
The weighted average of these estimates is carried forward in the analysis. The weighting relates to the detail
of the investigations and construction data available.
8.2.2

sides based on geologic and topographic data (PGT)
The defects are stress relief joints, sheet joints, and bedding surface partings. The major variables affecting
the likelihood of these being in the dam foundation, and their relative importance are:
Geological environment. It is known that interbedded weak and strong rocks such as interbedded shale
and sandstone commonly result in open joints due to differential strains due to stress relief on valley
formation with these strains being concentrated in bedding surface shears in the weaker rock. The other
geological environments where stress relief defects are common are massive rocks such as granite.
These are commonly called sheet joints.
Topography. The topography which is likely to lead to stress relief features. This is dependent on the
depth of valley and steepness of valley sides.
Continuity of mapped defects in the exposure of rock in the abutments or regional outcrops.
8-4

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Use Table 8.1 to Table 8.3 to estimate the probability of one or more continuous stress relief features in the
rock in the foundation beneath the embankment. In Table 8.3, the probabilities for each size defect are
independent of each other because all defect sizes may be present. The probabilities may total greater than 1.0
because they are not conditional probabilities. Where the geology of the site is not covered in Table 8.1, the
risk analysis team should assess which of the descriptions in Table 8.1 best suits the geology of the site.
Table 8.1 Geologic and topographic factors influencing the likelihood of continuous rock
defects due to stress relief in the valley sides
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
Neutral
More Likely
(1)
(2)
(3)
Geological
environment
likely to give
features
related to
stress relief
in the valley
sides
(3)
Topography
of the dam
site
(steepness
and valley
depth)
(2)
LL from Table
8.2 matrix
Continuity (b)
of defects
from surface
mapping or
regional
outcrops
(1)
Discontinuous
Notes:
Shale not
containing other
rocks (subhorizontal
bedded)
Schistose, steeply
dipping
Granite
Basalt
(a)
columnar
Rhyolite,
(a)
ignimbrite
Schistose parallel
to abutment
Uniform
sandstone (subhorizontal
bedded)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Sedimentary
inter-bedded thin
beds of mud rocks
and thick beds of
sandstone or
limestone/dolomit
e or conglomerate
Thinly interbedded
sedimentary
Volcanics, interbedded thin beds

of tuff or other soft
rocks, with thick
beds of hard rocks
N from Table 8.2

matrix
ML from Table
8.2 matrix
MML from Table

8.2 matrix
Possible
interconnectivity
Interconnected
defects
Continuous
defects
(a) Some basalts (e.g., if interbedded with weak tuff, and some ignimbrites) may classify as MML.
(b) Continuity should be judged based on a length equivalent to the width of the core in the upstream-downstream
direction.
8-5

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.2 Factors influencing likelihood for topography

Valley Depth
<100 ft
Average Abutment Slope (degrees) (a) (b)

<20
20 to 45
45 to 60
>60
LL
LL
ML
LL
ML
MML
LL
ML
MML
MML
ML
MML
MML
(<30 m)
100-300 ft
(30-100 m)
300-1000 ft
(100 300 m)
>1000 ft
(>300 m)
Notes:
(a) Use average overall slope except for slopes with large colluvium deposits overlying the rock surface, in which case use
the slope of the rock surface.
(b) For slopes with more than 20 ft (6 m) high cliffs, adopt a category not lower than ML.
Table 8.3 Probability of continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley sides
based on geologic and topographic data (PGT) versus (RFxLF)
Defect width
<5 mm
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.9
1.0
5-25 mm
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.5
0.9
25-100 mm 0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.01
0.1
0.5
>100 mm
0.0001
0.0002
0.001
0.005
0.02
0.2
11
13
18
24
RFxLF
8-6

Rock Foundation
8.2.3
Section 8

sides based on site investigations, construction, and performance data
(PSC)
The evaluation will determine the likelihood that the defects are present and the likelihood that the defects are
continuous across the core from upstream to downstream.
Review all available data from site investigation, construction records, and performance monitoring. This
data can include: records/photographs from excavations, tunnels, down hole imaging, high water losses in
drilling, high grout takes, core loss, drill rods dropping, high leakage rate in dam foundation, seepage
observations, abnormal piezometric levels in the abutments.
The data should be summarized in a format that will support the selection made from Table 8.4. List the
factors that make it more likely and less likely that defects are present. Do the same for the factors the
make it more likely and less likely the defects are continuous.
Estimate the probability of one or more continuous defects from Table 8.4 and Table 8.5. Do this for each
defect width. It is expected that there will be different probabilities for each defect size. Note that in Table 8.5
the probabilities for each size defect are independent of each other because all defect sizes may be present.
The probabilities may total greater than 1.0 because they are not conditional probabilities.
Table 8.4 Site investigation, construction, and performance factors influencing the
likelihood of continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley sides
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Data
indicating
defects of
this size
are/are not
present
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are very
unlikely to be
present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are unlikely
to be present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are present
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are present
Data
indicating
defects of
this size are
continuous
across the
core
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
that defects of
this size are
isolated and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are isolated
and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence one or
more defect of
this size could
be continuous
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are
continuous
8-7

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.5 Probability of continuous rock defects due to stress relief in the valley sides
based on site investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC) versus (RFxLF)
RFxLF
8.2.4
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.99
11
13
18
24
Effects of blasting on the foundation
The potential for blasting of the rock foundation to lead to open defects should be assessed (e.g., for the cutoff or to form a trench into which the diversion conduit is placed). This can only be assessed on a case by
case approach. Construction photographs are the best guide as to whether such features may exist, and their
likely continuity and opening.
8.3

Valley Bulge or Rebound
8.3.1
Overview of method
This section assesses the probability of an open or in-filled valley bulge or rebound feature such as a joint or
joint set, thrust fault, or bedding surface being continuous in the foundation from upstream of the core of the
embankment to downstream of the core. It does not consider whether these are cut-off by the foundation
excavation, grouting or other treatment. That is considered later.
widths are at the ground surface not accounting for the depth of the cut-off of the embankment.
8-8

Rock Foundation
8.3.2
Section 8

The major variables and their relative importance are:
Geological environment. Valley bulge or rebound features only occur in near horizontally bedded
sedimentary rocks, and in particular where there are interbeds of strong rock such as sandstone, with
weaker rocks such as shale or claystone on which differential movements due to stress relief are
concentrated. For other geological environments assume the probability of valley bulge or rebound
defects is negligible.
Potential for buckling or strut shear. The presence of beds of stronger rock underlain by weaker rock
in the valley floor and the slenderness of the strut as characterized by the relative thickness of the strong
rock bed compared to the valley width.
Topography. The topography which is likely to lead to stress relief features. This is dependent on the
depth of valley and steepness of valley sides.
These assessments do not rely on mapping of the dam foundation during site investigations and construction.
Use Table 8.6 and Table 8.7 to estimate the probability of one or more continuous valley bulge or rebound
features in the rock in the foundation beneath the embankment. In Table 8.7, the probabilities for each size
defect are independent of each other because all defect sizes may be present. The probabilities may total
greater than 1.0 because they are not conditional probabilities.
8-9

Rock Foundation
Section 8
defects due to valley bulge or rebound
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Factor
Geological
environment
likely to give
valley bulge
or rebound
features
(3)
Potential for
buckling or
strut failure
relating to
slenderness
of the strut
(2)
Topography
of the dam
site
(steepness
and valley
depth)
(1)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
Shale or siltstone
not containing
other rocks
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Thick beds of
siltstone or shale
inter-bedded with
massive beds of
sandstone,
limestone,
dolomite or
conglomerate
Thin beds of
siltstone interbedded with
massive beds of
sandstone,
limestone,
dolomite or
conglomerate
Thin beds of
claystone or shale
inter-bedded with
massive beds of
sandstone,
limestone,
dolomite or
conglomerate
(Valley floor
width) / (strut
thickness) <1
(Valley floor
width) / (strut
thickness) >2
(Valley floor
width) / (strut
thickness) >4
(Valley floor
width) / (strut
thickness) >8
LL from Table
8.2 matrix
N from Table 8.2

matrix
ML from Table
8.2 matrix
MML from Table

8.2 matrix
Uniform
sandstone
Note: If this
condition is
present, the
probability is
zero.
Table 8.7 Probability of continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound based on
geologic and topographic data (PGT) versus (RFxLF)
Defect width
<5 mm
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.9
1.0
5-25 mm
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.9
25-100 mm 0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.02
0.2
0.5
>100 mm
0.0001
0.0002
0.001
0.005
0.05
0.2
11
14
18
24
RFxLF
8-10

Rock Foundation
8.3.3
Section 8

based on site investigations, construction, and performance data (PSC).
defect width. It is expected that there will be different probabilities for each defect size. Note that in Table 8.9
the probabilities for each size defect are independent of each other because all defect sizes may be present.
The probabilities may total greater than 1.0 because they are not conditional probabilities.
likelihood of continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Data
indicating
defects of
this size
are/are not
present
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are very
unlikely to be
present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are unlikely
to be present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are present
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are present
Data
indicating
defects of
this size are
continuous
across the
core
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
that defects of
this size are
isolated and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are isolated
and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence one or
more defect of
this size could
be continuous
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are
continuous
8-11

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.9 Probability of continuous rock defects due to valley bulge or rebound based on
site investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC ) versus (RFxLF)
RFxLF
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.99
11
13
18
24
8.4

Solution Features
8.4.1
Overview of method
Screening
This Section applies only to rock foundations subject to solution such as limestone, dolomite, gypsum
and salt.
Approach
This section assesses the probability of a solution feature in the dam foundation being continuous from
upstream of the core of the embankment to downstream of the core. It does not consider whether these are
cut-off by the foundation excavation, grouting or other treatment. That is considered later.
8-12

Rock Foundation
8.4.2
Section 8
Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based

on geologic and topographic data (PGT)
Geological environment. The presence or absence in the region and dam site of karst and solution
features. This is based on geologic literature related to the formations present in the dams foundation
and abutments.
The topography which is likely to lead to the presence or absence of regional defects such as sinkholes,
caves, pinnacled rock outcrops. This is based on topographic mapping, aerial photographs, and
observations of rock outcrops.
Continuity of regional defects relative to the width of the core in the upstream-downstream direction.
These assessments do not rely on mapping of the dam foundation during investigations and construction.
Use Table 8.10 to Table 8.11 to estimate the probability of one or more continuous solution features in the
rock foundation beneath the embankment. In Table 8.11, the probabilities for each size defect are independent
of each other because all defect sizes may be present. The probabilities may total greater than 1.0 because
they are not conditional probabilities.
8-13

Rock Foundation
Section 8
defects due to solution features
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Factor
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Geological
environment
relating to
development
of solution
features
(3)
Regional
geologic
documentation
indicates rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments do
not contain
solution features
Regional
geologic
documentation
on the rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments
does not mention
the presence or
absence of
solution features
Regional
geologic
documentation
indicates rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments
contain
occasional
solution features
Regional
geologic
documentation
indicates rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments
contain
numerous
solution features
Regional
defects
observable on
topographic
mapping,
aerial
photographs
or outcrops
(2)
High quality
evidence of no
sinkholes, caves,
or pinnacled rock
in the region
No good quality
mapping, photos,
or outcrops
available
Good quality
evidence of
occasional
sinkholes, caves,
or pinnacled rock
Good quality
evidence of
numerous
sinkholes, caves,
or pinnacled rock
Continuity (a)
of defects
from surface
mapping or
regional
outcrops
(1)
Discontinuous
Possible
interconnectivity
Interconnected
defects
Continuous
defects
Note: (a) Continuity should be judged based on a length equivalent to the width of the core in the upstream-downstream direction.
Table 8.11 Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based on
geologic and topographic data (PGT) versus (RFxLF)
RFxLF
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.99
11
13
18
24
8-14

Rock Foundation
8.4.3
Section 8
Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based

on site investigations, construction, and performance data (PSC)
defect width. It is expected that there will be different probabilities for each defect size. Note that in Table
8.13 the probabilities for each size defect are independent of each other because all defect sizes may be
present. The probabilities may total greater than 1.0 because they are not conditional probabilities.
likelihood of continuous rock defects due to solution features
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Data
indicating
defects of
this size
are/are not
present
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are very
unlikely to be
present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are unlikely
to be present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are present
Good quality data

indicates defects
of this size are
present
Data
indicating
defects of
this size are
continuous
across the
core
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
that defects of
this size are
isolated and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are isolated
and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence one or
more defect of
this size could
be continuous
Good quality data

indicates defects
of this size are
continuous
8-15

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.13 Probability of continuous rock defects due to solution features based on site
investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC) versus (RFxLF)
RFxLF
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.99
11
13
18
24
8.5

Other Geological Features such as Landslides, Faults, or Shears
8.5.1
Overview of method
Approach
This section assesses the probability of a feature associated with geological processes other than stress relief
or solution features. These include defects related to landslides in rock, such as joints and bedding surface
partings, and fault or shear zones. This section assesses the probability of a defect in the dam foundation
continuous from upstream of the core of the embankment to downstream of the core. It does not consider
whether these are cut-off by the foundation excavation, grouting or other treatment. That is considered later.
8-16

Rock Foundation
8.5.2
Section 8
Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or

shears based on geologic and topographic data (PGT)
Geological environment. The presence or absence in the region and dam site of rock slides or faulting.
This is based on geologic literature related to the formations present in the dams foundation and
abutments.
The topography which is likely to lead to the presence or absence of regional defects such as rock slides
or faults. This is based on topographic mapping, aerial photographs, and observations of rock outcrops.
Continuity of regional defects relative to the width of the core in the upstream-downstream direction.
These assessments do not rely on mapping of the dam foundation during investigations and construction.
Use Table 8.14 to Table 8.15 to estimate the probability of a continuous defect in the rock foundation beneath
the embankment. Note that in Table 8.14 the probabilities for each size defect are independent of each other
because all defect sizes may be present. The probabilities may total > 1.0 because they are not conditional
probabilities.
8-17

Rock Foundation
Section 8
defects due to landslides, faults, or shears
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Factor
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Geological
environment
relating to
development
of landslides,
faults, or
shears
(3)
Regional
geologic
documentation
indicates rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments do
not contain
defects due to
rock slides, faults
or shears
Regional
geologic
documentation
on the rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments
does not mention
the presence or
absence of rock
slides, faults or
shears
Regional
geologic
documentation
indicates rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments
contain
occasional
defects due to
rock slides, faults
or shears
Regional
geologic
documentation
indicates rock
formations in the
dam foundation
or abutments
contain
numerous
defects due to
rock slides, faults
or shears
Regional
defects
observable on
topographic
mapping,
aerial
photographs
or outcrops
(2)
High quality
evidence of no
rock slides,
faults, or shears
No good quality
mapping, photos,
or outcrops
available
Good quality
evidence of
occasional
defects due to
rock slides, faults
or shears
Good quality
evidence of
numerous
defects due to
rock slides, faults
or shears
Continuity (a)
of defects
from surface
mapping or
regional
outcrops
(1)
Discontinuous
Possible
interconnectivity
Interconnected
defects
Continuous
defects
Note: (a) Continuity should be judged based on a length equivalent to the width of the core in the upstream-downstream direction.
Table 8.15 Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears
based on geologic and topographic factors (PGT) versus (RFxLF)
RFxLF
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.99
11
13
18
24
8-18

Rock Foundation
8.5.3
Section 8
Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or

shears based on site investigations, construction, and performance
data (PSC)
defect width. It is expected that there will be different probabilities for each defect size. Note that in Table
8.17 the probabilities for each size defect are independent of each other because all defect sizes may be
present. The probabilities may total greater than 1.0 because they are not conditional probabilities.
likelihood of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Data
indicating
defects of
this size
are/are not
present
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are very
unlikely to be
present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are unlikely
to be present
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are present
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are present
Data
indicating
defects of
this size are
continuous
across the
core
(3)
Good quality
data indicates
that defects of
this size are
isolated and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence that
defects of this
size are isolated
and/or
discontinuous
Data indicates
circumstantial
evidence one or
more defect of
this size could
be continuous
Good quality
data indicates
defects of this
size are
continuous
8-19

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.17 Probability of continuous rock defects due to landslides, faults, or shears
based on site investigation, construction, and performance data (PSC) versus (RFxLF)
RFxLF
8.6
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.99
11
13
18
24
Weighted Averages of Estimated Probability of Continuous Rock

Defects
In Sections 8.2 to 8.5, two estimates are made of the probability of the presence of defects. The first is based
on geologic and topographic information (PGT) which should be available for all dam sites. The second (PSC)
depends on having more detailed site investigations and construction records, which for some dams will be
not available, or there will be limited data. The weighted estimate of the probability (Pw) should be estimated:
Pw = w PGT + (1 w) PSC
where w = weighting factor to be assessed based on the quantity and quality of the available data. Table 8.18
provides some guidance in assessing the weighting factor.
Table 8.18 Weighting factors for assessing probabilities of open or in-filled rock defects
Information Available
No site investigations or construction mapping or other records
Weighting Factor
(w)
1.0
Limited site investigations data (e.g., small number of boreholes, no or poor quality
water pressure testing data, no mapping of the embankment cut-off foundation or
grouting records, no foundation treatment information or photographs of
foundations)
0.7 to 0.9
Some site investigations data (e.g., small number of boreholes or larger number but
poor quality boreholes, Sparse or poor quality water pressure testing data, no
mapping of the embankment cut-off foundation or grouting records, no foundation
treatment information or photographs of foundations)
0.6 to 0.8
Some good quality site investigations data and water pressure testing, limited
mapping of the embankment cut-off foundation, basic grouting records, no records
of foundation treatment some photographs of foundations
0.4 to 0.6
Extensive good quality site investigations data and water pressure testing,
reasonable quality mapping of the embankment cut-off foundation, and grouting
records, some records of foundation treatment and photographs of foundations
0.2 to 0.4
Very detailed and good quality site investigations data, good quality mapping of the
embankment cut-off foundation, grouting records, foundation treatment and
photographs of foundations
0.1 to 0.2
8-20

Rock Foundation
8.7
Section 8
Probability of Grouting Being Ineffective in Cutting Off Rock

Defects (PGI)
Evaluate the likelihood of grouting not being effective in cutting off the potential defect using Table 8.19 and
Table 8.20. If no grouting was performed assume PGI = 1.0.
Table 8.19 Factors influencing the likelihood of grouting not being effective in cutting off
rock defects
Factor
Orientation of
grout holes
compared
with the open
defects(a)
Quality of
grouting
(closure,
number of
lines,
spacing,
grout takes,
w/c ratio)
Performance
(pore
pressures
and leakage)
(b)
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
(3)
(c)
(2)
(1) (c)
Less Likely
(1)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Grout holes at a
wide angle to the
dip of the open
defect (45 to 90
degrees)
Grout holes at an
acute angle to dip
of open defects
(30 to 45 degrees)
Grout holes at an
acute angle to dip
of open defects
(10 to 30 degrees)
Grout holes
parallel or near
parallel to dip of
open defects (<10
degrees)
Three or more
lines of grout
curtain, with
primary holes 6m
(20ft) or less
spacing,
secondary, tertiary
etc holes to close
to < 10 lugeons or
<25 kg cement
/meter (15lb/ft)
take, W/C ratio < 3
Single line grout

curtain with
primary holes 6m
(20ft) or less
spacing,
secondary, tertiary
etc holes to close
to < 10 lugeons or
<25 kg cement
/meter (15lb/ft)
take, W/C ratio < 3
Single line curtain

5m to 6m (15 ft to
20 ft) spacing, no
check of closure,
high (>5:1 ) W/C
ratio
Single line curtain,

> 10m (30ft)
spacing, single
stage, no
secondary holes to
check closure,
high (>10:1 ) W/C
ratio
Significant
reduction in
foundation pore
pressures across
the grout curtain
(hp/hp >60%)
Moderate
reduction in pore
pressures across
grout curtain
(hp/hp = 30% to
60%)
Minor reduction in
pore pressures
across grout
curtain (hp/hp =
10% to 30%)
No or very little
reduction in pore
pressures across
grout curtain
(hp/hp <10%)
Very low leakage

in the foundation(c)
Low leakage in the

foundation
Moderate to high
leakage in the
foundation
High leakage in
the foundation
Note: Select
LF=4 if in-filled
or partially infilled defects
are present.
OR
No performance
data available at
all
8-21

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Notes:
(a) The dip of the open defect will depend on the type of defect:
For stress relief defects in the valley wall in inter-bedded sedimentary rock, these defects are likely to be near vertical
and parallel to the valley walls (refer to Figure 8.4a). For stress relief defects associated with massive rocks, these are
likely to be parallel to the valley slopes (refer to Figure 8.4b).
Defects associated with valley bulge are likely to be horizontal or near horizontal.
Solution features are more likely to develop along the predominant defects sets.
(b) Refer to Figure 8.2 for definition of hp and hp. When making this assessment takes account of the amount and quality of the
instrumentation, the duration and range of reservoir levels of the observations.
(c) If there is very good instrumentation which can measure the effectiveness of the grouting to a high degree of confidence,
and there is a large drop in pore pressure across the grouting, use LF=3 for performance factor and LF=1 for
orientation factor.
hp
Rock Foundation
hp
Piezometer
Grout curtain
Figure 8.2 Definition of hp and hp

Table 8.20 Probability of grouting not being effective for continuous rock defects (PGI)
versus (RFxLF)
<5 mm
0.0005
0.005
0.03
0.1
0.4
0.85
5-25 mm
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.2
0.5
0.9
25-100 mm
0.002
0.02
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.95
>100 mm
0.005
0.05
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.99
11
13
18
24
RFxLF
8-22

Rock Foundation
8.8
Section 8
Probability of Cut-Off Walls Being Ineffective in Cutting Off Rock

Defects (PCI)
Where a cut-off has been excavated and backfilled in the rock foundation to intercept the continuous defects,
use Table 8.21 and Table 8.22 to assess the probability the cut-off has not been successful and a continuous
open defect or solution feature remains. If no cut-off wall is present assume PCI = 1.0.
In assigning the weightings it is assumed that for such cut-offs there will be good quality monitoring of the
pore pressure drop across the cut-off.
8-23

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.21 Factors influencing the likelihood of a cut-off in the foundation not being
effective for continuous defects
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Extent and
depth of the
cut-off relative
to the defects
(3)
Extent and depth

of the defects
well defined and
cut-off extends
sufficiently wide
and deep
Extent and depth

of the defects not
well defined cutoff may or may
not extend
sufficiently wide
and deep
Extent and depth

of the defects not
well defined and
cut-off probably
does not extend
sufficiently wide
and deep
Extent and depth

of the defects well
defined and cutoff does not
extend sufficiently
wide and deep
Performance
(pore
pressures and
leakage) (a)
(2)
Significant
reduction in
foundation pore
pressures across
the cut-off wall
(hp/hp >60%)
Moderate
reduction in pore
pressures across
cut-off wall (hp/hp
= 30% to 60%)
Minor reduction in
pore pressures
across cut-off wall
(hp/hp = 10% to
30%)
No or very little
reduction in pore
pressures across
cut-off wall (hp/hp
<10%)
Low leakage in
the foundation
Moderate to high
leakage in the
foundation
High leakage in
the foundation
Very low leakage

in the foundation
OR
No performance
data
Quality of the
cut-off
(1)
Excavated open
hole or under
water, borehole
camera inspection
to confirm defects
are intercepted
and
Concrete, or
bentonite, cement,
sand gravel
backfill
Note:
Excavated under
bentonite, good
clean-up of the
base of the
excavation, and
overlap between
panels or piers
and/or
Concrete, or
bentonite, cement,
sand gravel
backfill
Excavated under
bentonite,
moderate cleanup of the base of
the excavation,
and overlap
between panels or
piers
Excavated under
bentonite, poor
clean-up of the
base of the
excavation, poor
overlap between
panels or piers
and/or
Bentonite cement
or soil bentonite
backfill
Bentonite cement
or poorly
controlled
concrete or
cement, sand
gravel backfill
and/or
(a) Refer to Figure 8.2 for definition of hp and hp. When making this assessment taking into account of the amount and
quality of the instrumentation, the duration and range of reservoir levels of the observations.
8-24

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Table 8.22 Probability of a cut-off not being effective for continuous defects (PCI) versus
(RFxLF)
0.001
8.9
0.005
0.02
0.1
0.5
0.9
11
14
18
24
RFxLF
Probability of Rock Surface Treatment Being Ineffective at

Preventing Contact of the Core with Open Rock Defects (PTI)
Use Table 8.23 to assess the probability that the rock surface treatment is ineffective and fails to prevent
contact of the core with continuous rock defects. Do this for each defect width, for the base and the sides of
the cut-off trench, and for the various parts of the foundation (e.g., each abutment and the river section).
Table 8.23 Probability of rock surface treatment being ineffective at preventing contact of
the core with open rock defects (PTI)
Probability of the treatment not
preventing contact
Scenarios
Well-documented evidence that there was no treatment of the cut-off
foundation
1.0
No construction records available, the design and construction

organization not known or known but likely to have not paid much
attention to inspecting foundations and carrying out surface treatment
0.3 to 0.9
No construction records available, but knowledge that the practice of

the design and construction authority was to inspect foundations and
carry out surface treatment
0.1 to 0.5
Evidence that the foundations were mapped, but not in detail. Some
evidence that defects and solution features were covered with
concrete or shotcrete
0.05 to 0.2
Well-documented evidence that the foundations were carefully

mapped, and all defects and solution features were covered with at
least 100 mm (4 in) of concrete or good quality shotcrete, or that they
were cleaned out to at least 3 times the surface width and treated with
slush grout
8.10
0.01 to 0.001
Probability of Continuous Rock Defects (PCR)
The probability of a continuous defect in rock foundation below the embankment can be calculated using the
a sub-event tree as shown in Figure 8.3. This is to be done for each defect width for each applicable geologic
8-25

Rock Foundation
Section 8
process. If more than one geologic process applies, then combine the probability of each defect size using
DeMorgans rule.
Yes
P CI
Yes
P TI
Probability of 5-25mm Defect
Rock Surface Treatment Ineffective?

No
Yes
P GI
Cutoff Wall Ineffective?

No
Yes
Pw
Is Grouting ineffective?
No
Valley Stress Relief 5-25mm
Repeat for each defect range size
Continuous Defect?
No
Evaluate:
Regional Geology and Topographic Data
Site Investigations, Construction, and Performance Data
Figure 8.3 Computation of probability of a continuous open defect below the embankment
8.11
Describing the Defects
It is essential that the risk analysis team document with sketch diagrams (plans and sections) of the spatial
distribution of the defects which have been assessed potentially present in the foundation. This should show
the features superimposed on the foundation drawings and showing the cut-off and general foundations
beneath the core of the embankment so the relationship between the defects and the base of the cut-off trench,
and sides of the cut-off trench is clear. The extension of the defects upstream and downstream of the core,
including under the shoulders of the embankment, and beyond the embankment should also be shown. Any
foundation grouting, surface treatment of the cut-off foundation, and cut-off walls (if constructed) should also
be shown. These are required so that the potential failure modes can be clearly visualized for the assessment
of progression, detection, intervention and repair, and breach probabilities. The following sections can be
used to aid in judging the extent of the defects for each geological mechanism.
8.11.1 Extent of features associated with stress relief in the valley sides
For stress relief defects in valley sides, estimate the extent of the defects below the original ground surface
based the available site investigations data, and construction mapping and grouting records. If there is little or
no such data make the assessment based on the assumed geometry of stress relief defects shown in Figure 8.4.
This may also be used to supplement the site investigations and construction data.
8-26

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Stress relief joints open for 3 or 4

joints or for a width of up to 30%
of valley depth whichever is larger
Stress relief joints open for 3 or 4

joints or for a width of up to 30% of
valley depth whichever is larger
(a) Horizontally bedded sedimentary rocks

Figure 8.4 Assumed distribution of defect depths for defects related to stress relief effects
in the valley sides (Figures from Fell et al. 2004)
8-27

Rock Foundation
Section 8
Stress relief joints to a distance

normal to the ground surface of
up to 30% of the valley depth.
(b) Uniform jointed rock such as thinly bedded sandstone, jointed granites and basalt (see supporting
document for explanation of numbers)
Stress relief joints (sheet

joints) to a distance normal
to the slope of up to 30% of
the valley depth
(c) Massive rocks such as some granite

Figure 8.4 (cont.) Assumed distribution of defect depths for defects related to stress relief
effects in the valley sides (Figures from Fell et al. 2004)
8-28

Rock Foundation
Section 8
8.11.2 Extent of features associated with valley bulge or rebound

For stress relief effects associated with valley bulge or rebound, the extent and depth to which the features
may occur should be assessed based on the available information from construction and investigations.
In the absence of other information it should be assumed these features exist to below the level of the strut
(massive stronger bed). It should be noted that these features are known to have occurred to depths of up to
50 feet (15 meters) below the valley floor.
8.11.3 Extent of solution features

For solution defects, the depth and spatial distribution of solution features should be assessed based on the
following factors:
How the solution features were formed stress relief effects or regional effects and the extent these can
be expected to occur.
The geological history of the valley, particularly in relation to the historical groundwater levels which
may have been lower in the geological history of the valley.
Observational data Observations from boreholes including in-filled features, voids, water losses and
water pressure testing and grouting records.
It is not practical to develop any general rules for these assessments.
8.11.4 Extent of other geological features such as landslides faults and

shears
For these features, the depth and spatial distribution of solution features should be assessed based on the
following factors:
How the features were formed The faulting mechanism should be evaluated to assess the expected
special distribution and depth.
The geologic history of the valley including mapping and of known faults and shears.
Observational data Observations from boreholes including in-filled features, voids, water losses and
water pressure testing and grouting records. Observations in foundation excavations and nearby rock
cuts can be used to assess the extent and possibly spacing.
8-29
Probability of Initiation of Erosion from the

Embankment into or at the Foundation
9
Probability of Initiation of Erosion from the Embankment into or at the Foundation
9.1
General Principles
Section 9
This section is concerned with assessing the failure path where initiation of internal erosion of the
embankment into or at the foundation by backward erosion piping or scour is followed by gross enlargement,
slope instability, unraveling or sinkhole development in the embankment. For erosion to initiate from the
embankment into the foundation, open joints in rock or coarse-grained soils in the base or sides of the cut-off
trench are required. For cases where a cut-off trench is not present, then the issue is whether erosion can
occur along the core-foundation contact.
Internal erosion may initiate by:
Scour at the core foundation contact by water flowing in joints in the rock foundation or through openwork gravels
Backward erosion of cohesionless soils or stoping of cohesive soils into rock defects or open-work
gravels
9.2
Overall Approach
9.2.1
Rock Foundations
Determine the probability of a continuous pathway of open joints in rock in the base or sides of the
core trench or core-foundation contact. For rock defects the probability of continuous pathways (PCR) is
determined in Section 8. For each defect size range use the corresponding evaluation size for the remaining
steps.
Defect Size RangesDefect Evaluation Size
0-5 mm
2.5 mm
5-25mm
15 mm
25-100mm
62.5 mm
>100 mm
300 mm
9-1

Section 9
Scour along rock defects < 25 mm (IM25)

a) Determine the probability of 2.5 mm and 15 mm defects (PCR) from Section 8.
b) Assess the probability of a seepage exit. Three scenarios are possible: 1) the rock defects daylight
downstream with an unprotected exit; 2) the network of rock defects has a large void capacity below
or downstream of the core; and 3) the exit is soil-covered. A review of all relevant data is required to
determine the exit conditions that may be present. The likelihood of each exit condition should be
determined using subjective estimation methods. In some cases, it will be obvious (e.g., a known rock
outcrop with seepage exiting a defect).
c) Calculate the probability of a continuous path with a seepage exit (Pflaw) from the results of the above
assessments: (Pflaw) = (PCR) x (Pexit).
d) Assess the probability of initiation (PI) of scour using the procedure described in Section 5.5.
Evaluate for each reservoir level under consideration.
e) Assess the probability of continuation (PCE) by evaluating the exit conditions downstream of the core
of the dam to determine if the soil can exit the rock defects. Three scenarios are possible:
If the rock defects daylight downstream with an unprotected exit, then the probability of
continuation is 1.0. The exit can be above or below the tailwater surface.
If the network of rock defects has enough capacity below or downstream of the core to accept
enough material to allow erosion to continue, then the probability of continuation is 1.0.
If the exit is covered by soil, then use the methods described in Section 10.1.4 (Scenario 3) to
determine the probability of continuation.
f) Assess the probability of progression (Section 11).

g) Assess the probability of unsuccessful intervention (Section 12).
h) Assess the probability of breach (Section 13).
Erosion into rock defects > 25 mm (IM26)

a) Determine the probability of 62.5 mm and 300 mm defects (PCR) from Section 8.
b) Assess the probability of a seepage exit. Three scenarios are possible: 1) the rock defects daylight
downstream with an unprotected exit; 2) the network of rock defects has a large void capacity below
or downstream of the core; and 3) the exit is soil-covered. A review of all relevant data is required to
9-2

Section 9
determined using subjective estimation methods. In some cases, it will be obvious (e.g., a known rock
outcrop with seepage exiting a defect).
assessments: (Pflaw) = (PCR) x (Pexit).
d) Assess the probability of the initiation (PI) of internal erosion given there is a continuous path,
PI = PIC x PCED x PSTD.
Given there are continuous open defects in the rock foundation, the probability of initiation (PIC)
should be assumed to be 1.0 for both cohesionless soils (backward erosion) and for cohesive soils
(sinkhole stoping).
Assess the probability of continuation into the rock defect (PCED) using the procedures described
in Section 10.1.5 (Scenario 4).
Assess the probability that the average hydraulic gradient along the rock defect is sufficient to
cause transport of soils through the defects (PSTD) using Table 9.2 in Section 9.5.
of the dam to determine if the soil can exit the rock defects. Three scenarios are possible:
continuation is 1.0. This exit can be above or below the tailwater surface.
If the network of rock defects has enough capacity below or downstream of the core to accept
enough material to allow erosion to continue, then the probability of continuation is 1.0.

g) Assess the probability of detection, intervention, and repair (Section 12)
9.2.2
Open-Work Granular Foundations
Scour along the contact with open-work coarse-grained foundation soil (IM27)
a) Assess the probability of a continuous pathway (PCP) into an open-work coarse-grained foundation
soil using Section 9.3.
9-3

Section 9
b) Assess the probability of a seepage exit. Three scenarios are possible: 1) the open-work soil daylights
downstream with an unprotected exit; 2) the open-work soil has a large void capacity below or
downstream of the core; and 3) the exit is soil-covered. A review of all relevant data is required to
determined using subjective estimation methods. In some cases, it will be obvious (e.g., a known
location where the open-work soil daylights with seepage exiting).
assessments: (Pflaw) = (PCP) x (Pexit).
d) Assess the probability of initiation (PI) of scour using the procedure described in Section 0. Evaluate
for each reservoir level under consideration.
of the dam to determine if the soil can exit the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil. Three
scenarios are possible:
If the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil daylights downstream with an unprotected exit,
then the probability of continuation is 1.0. This exit can be above or below the tailwater surface.
If the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil has enough capacity below or downstream of the
core to accept enough material to allow erosion to continue, then the probability of continuation
is 1.0.

g) Assess the probability of detection, intervention, and repair (Section 12).
h) Assess the probability of Breach (Section 13).
Erosion into open-work coarse-grained foundation soil (IM28)

a) Assess the probability of a continuous pathway (PCP) into an open-work coarse-grained foundation
soil using Section 9.3.
b) Assess the probability of a seepage exit. Three scenarios are possible: 1) the open-work soil daylights
downstream with an unprotected exit; 2) the open-work soil has a large void capacity below or
downstream of the core; and 3) the exit is soil-covered. A review of all relevant data is required to
9-4

Section 9
determined using subjective estimation methods.In some cases, it will be obvious (e.g., a known
location where the open-work soil daylights with seepage exiting).
assessments: (Pflaw) = (PCP) x (Pexit).
d) Assess the probability of the initiation (PI) of internal erosion given there is a continuous path,
PI = PIP x PCED x PSTD.
Given there are continuous open defects in the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil, the
probability of initiation (PIP) should be assumed to be 1.0 for both cohesionless soils (backward
erosion) and for cohesive soils (sinkhole stoping).
Assess the probability of continuation into the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil (PCED)
using Section 10.1.4 (Scenario 3).
Assess the probability that the average hydraulic gradient along the core-foundation contact is
sufficient to cause transport of soils through the defects (PSTD) using Section 9.5.
of the dam to determine if the soil can exit the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil. Three
If the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil daylights downstream with an unprotected exit,
then the probability of continuation is 1.0. This exit can be above or below the tailwater surface.
If the open-work coarse-grained foundation soil has enough capacity below or downstream of the
core to accept enough material to allow erosion to continue, then the probability of continuation
is 1.0.

g) Assess the probability of unsuccessful intervention (Section 12).
9-5

9.3
Section 9
Probability of a Continuous Pathway of Coarse-Grained Layers in

Soil Foundations
This should be assessed from the geology of the foundation, mapping and, photographs taken during
construction, the depth of general foundation and cut-off excavation, and whether there are filters between the
core and trench side. In many cases it will become apparent at this stage that there is little or no likelihood of
such features being present and the probability of internal erosion into the foundation may be assessed as
negligible.
Guidance on estimating the probability is given for a range of scenarios for soil foundations in Table 9.1.
9-6

Section 9
Table 9.1 Probability of a continuous pathway (PCP) for erosion into soil foundation
Scenarios
Examples
Adequate treatment of soil foundation

contact
Filter protection provided on

downstream side of cut-off trench
Site investigations indicate

continuous coarse-grained
foundation soil layers are very
unlikely to be present
No evidence of open-work gravel

layers
Site investigation data is not

available, but circumstantial evidence
indicates coarse-grained foundation
soils are unlikely to be present
Circumstantial evidence might

include;
Observations of cuts in foundation
soil;
Range of probabilities for

continuous pathway of coarsegrained soils
Negligible
Assume probability = 0
Negligible
Assume probability = 0
0.0001 to 0.001
Depending on the quality of the
available data. In some cases
negligible.
Geological environments where

coarse grained soils are unlikely to
be present (e.g., residual soils,
aeolian, lacustrine, volcanic ash)
Site investigation data is not
available, but circumstantial evidence
soils maybe present
Circumstantial evidence might

include;
Observations of cuts in foundation
soil;
0.001 0.01
Depending on level of confidence in
assessment and degree of continuity
of features
Geological environments where

coarse grained soils maybe present
(e.g., alluvium, colluvium, glacial,
lateritic profiles)
Site investigation or construction data
soils are likely to be in contact with
the core, no or inadequate treatment
Evidence from drill holes, excavation

logs, construction photographs
Well-documented evidence
confirming the presence of coarsegrained foundation soils are in
contact with the core with no or
inadequate treatment
Evidence from drill holes, excavation

logs, construction photographs
9-7
0.05 0.5
Depending on extent and degree of
continuity of soils
1.0

9.4
Section 9
Probability of Initiation of Scour at the Core-Foundation Contact
This considers the likelihood that seepage flows within a continuous pathway in a rock or an open granular
soil may initiate erosion of the core material at the core-foundation contact.
The steps in the assessment are as follows:
Estimate the probability of erosion of the core material at the core-foundation contact (PI) using the
method for erosion in a crack in the core as described in Section 5.5. The hydraulic gradient used in the
assessment should be based on the estimated seepage gradient on the core-foundation contact. Assume
that the hydraulic shear stresses imposed on the core by the water flowing in the open joints is equivalent
to those for a crack width equal to the rock defect width. For open granular soils, assume a crack width
equal to the D15/4.
Do this for each of the potential defect openings (2.5 mm and 15 mm for rock) and soil type in contact
with the defects.
9.5
Probability of Soil Transport through Defects
This section considers the likelihood that the average gradient through the rock defects or the open-work
gravel is sufficient to transport the soils that have piped into the voids from above. The average gradient
along the defect or core-open gravel contact should be estimated for each pool under consideration. Use
Table to estimate the probability of soil transport though the defect PSTD. The probabilities in the table were
estimated based on the assumption that the soils that are washed into the defects will be very loose and will
essentially behave similar to a very uniform sand. This was then related to the testing done by Schmertmann
that determined gradients required for complete backward erosion piping.
Table 9.2 Probability of soil transport through defects
Average gradient along rock defect
or coreopen-work gravel contact
Probability of soil transport

through defects, PSTD
0.01
0.002
0.025
0.02
0.05
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.25
0.97
0.5 or greater
1.0
9-8
Probability of Continuation
Section 10
10
10.1
Probability of Continuation for Internal Erosion through the

Embankment
10.1.1 Overall Approach

Step 1: Assess which of the following five scenarios is most applicable to the dam section and failure path
that is under consideration:
Scenario 1: Homogeneous zoning with no fully intercepting filter.
Scenario 2: Downstream shoulder of fine grained cohesive material which is capable of holding a
crack/pipe. Soils which are capable of holding a crack or pipe are:
well compacted shoulder (shell), containing > 5% plastic fines; or
poorly compacted shoulder (shell), containing >15% plastic fines
well compacted shoulder, containing > 30% non plastic fines
poorly compacted shoulder, >30% non plastic
Scenario 3: Filter/transition zone is present downstream of the core or a downstream shoulder zone
which is not capable of holding a crack/pipe. This includes earthfill dams with a chimney filter.
Scenario 4: Erosion into an open defect, joint, or crack (e.g., in a conduit, wall, toe drain, or rock
foundation).
The example sketches shown in Figure 10.1 can be used to help evaluate the most applicable scenario.
Step 2: For Scenarios 1 and 2, estimate the probability of continuing erosion based on the guidance given in
For Scenario 3, estimate the probability of continuing erosion based on the guidance given in Section 10.1.4.
If more than one filter/transition zone exists, evaluate the probability of continuing erosion for each material
boundary, and then select the maximum probability of continuation for the system response curve.
For Scenario 4, estimate the probability of continuing erosion based on the guidance given in Section 10.1.5.
10-1
Section 10
EARTHFILL WITH TOE DRAIN,

INTERNAL EROSION ABOVE TOE DRAIN
HOMOGENEOUS EARTHFILL
2
3
INTERNAL EROSION ABOVE CORE AND FILTERS
a) Scenario 1 Homogeneous zoning with no fully intercepting filter

1
1A
1A
1A
1A
INTERNAL EROSION ABOVE FILTER ZONE,

COHESIVE DOWNSTREAM SHELL
ZONED EARTHFILL WITH COHESIVE SHELLS
b) Scenario 2 Downstream shoulder of fine grained cohesive material which is capable of holding a crack/pipe
2
2
1
3
1
EARTHFILL WITH CHIMNEY FILTER
ZONED EARTHFILL WITH CHIMNEY FILTER
3
1
ZONED EARTHFILL WITH GRANULAR SHELLS
c) Scenario 3 Filter/transition zone is present downstream of the core or

a downstream shoulder zone which is not capable of holding a crack/pipe
SOIL
SOIL
CONDUIT
1
OPEN JOINTED ROCK
EROSION INTO AN OPEN CRACK
OR JOINT IN A CONDUIT OR WALL
EROSION INTO OPEN JOINTS IN

ROCK FOUNDATION
INTERNAL EROSION THROUGH THE

EMBANKMENT INTO A TOE DRAIN
d) Scenario 4 Piping into an open defect, joint, or crack
Figure 10.1 Examples of scenarios for evaluation of probability of continuation
10-2
Section 10
10.1.2 Probability of continuation (PCE) Scenario 1 (homogeneous zoning)

There is no potential for filtering action for this scenario. Adopt a probability of continuation, PCE = 1.0.
10.1.3 Probability of continuation (PCE) Scenario 2 (downstream shoulder

can hold a crack or pipe)
The issue for this scenario is whether the crack or high permeability feature that is present through the core is
continuous through the downstream shoulder, or if not, whether it can find an exit. This depends on the
following factors:
The mechanism causing the concentrated leak, in particular whether it also causes cracking in the
shoulder.
The material characteristics and width of the downstream shoulder zone.
Use Table 10.1 to evaluate the conditional probability of continuation.
10-3
Section 10
Table 10.1 Probability of continuation (Scenario 2)

Predominant Mode of
Concentrated Leak
Characteristics of downstream
shoulder zone
Range of Probabilities of
Continuing Erosion
1.0
Cracking due to differential settlement

(cross valley, foundation, embankment
staging). Mechanism causing cracking in
the core is also likely to cause cracking
of the downstream shell (e.g., common
cause cracking).
Well compacted, cohesive materials.

Material likely to hold a crack.
Poorly compacted, low plasticity materials.
Material may collapse on wetting.
0.5 0.9
Desiccation cracking near crest, or on

construction layer
Similar plasticity to core
0.5 - 1.0
Lower plasticity than core, less prone to

desiccation cracking
0.1 0.5
High permeability zone in the core or

along the foundation contact, or
High permeability feature also likely to be

present across the shoulder zone (e.g.,
shutdown surface)
0.5 - 1.0
Cracking due to differential settlement,

features causing cracking in the core are
not present below the downstream shell.
Along outside of conduits passing

through the dam
Leak unlikely to find an exit through the

shoulder (e.g., very wide downstream
shoulder, well compacted, low gradients, low
erodibility, different compaction methods
and lift thicknesses used in core and
downstream shoulder)
0.01 0.1
Leak likely to find an exit through the

shoulder (e.g., narrow downstream
shoulder, high gradient across shoulder,
high erodibility, similar compaction methods
and lift thicknesses used in core and
downstream shoulder, materials placed in
upstream/downstream orientation, feature
extends part way through the shoulder)
0.1 0.5
Leak also likely to be common cause

through downstream shoulder (e.g.,
desiccation cracking on sides of excavation,
poor compaction, arching in trench backfill)
0.5 - 1.0
10.1.4 Probability for continuation Scenario 3 (filter/transition zone is

present downstream of the core or a downstream shoulder zone which
is not capable of holding a crack/pipe)
The method of assessing the probability for continuation depends on the information that is available on the
particle size distributions of the core and filter/transition/shoulder materials. The two approaches are as
follows:
If particle size distribution information is available for the core and filter/transition/shoulder materials
(either from construction, specifications and/or borrow area investigations), then use the approach
described in 10.1.4(a).
10-4
Section 10
If particle size distribution information is not available for the core and filter/transition/shoulder
materials, then use the approach described in 10.1.4(b).
(a) Particle size distribution information is available

The recommended procedure is shown as a flowchart in Figure 10.2 and involves the following steps:
Step 1: Check for the blow out condition for each reservoir level. In cases where there is limited depth of
cover over the filter/transition zone, assess the potential for blow out by comparing the seepage head at the
downstream face of the core to the weight of soil cover. This is calculated as the ratio of the total stress from
the vertical depth of soil (and rockfill) over the crack exit to the potential reservoir head. If the factor of
safety is greater than about 0.5 three dimensional effects will be sufficient to make this a non-issue. If the
factor of safety is less than about 0.1 it should be assumed the filter/transition will not be effective and
probability of continuation PCE = 1.0. Between these limits a probability of continuation between 0.1 and 0.9
should be applied. Blow out condition is a function of reservoir level and should be assessed accordingly. If
the factor of safety for blow out is greater than 0.5, then follow the proceeding steps.
Step 2: Check if the filter/transition zone will hold an open crack. If the filter/transition zone contains an
excess of silty or clayey fines, assess the potential for them to hold an open crack using Table 10.2. If the
probability of the filter/transition holding a crack from Table 10.2 is 0.1, then evaluate the remaining steps
by considering the cracked filter/transition zone as the base soil and the zone downstream of the cracked filter
as the filter material. This assumes the cracked filter zone will also erode. If the filter is cemented, then the
cracked filter zone should be ignored, and the core should be evaluated against the zone downstream of the
cracked filter. Use the average grading when checking if the filter/transition zone will hold a crack.
Step 3: Adjust and select base soil gradings. Plot the particle size distributions for the core material and the
filters or transitions which are protecting the core. If the maximum particle size of the core material is greater
than 4.75 mm, then regrade the core grading such that the maximum size is 4.75 mm. If the base soil is gap
graded, then regrade the base soil grading on the particle size that is missing (i.e., at the point of inflection of
the grading curve). Select representative gradings of the regraded base soil which are indicative of the finer
5% of the base soil gradings (fine base soil grading), the average grading (average base soil grading) and the
coarser 5% of the base soils (coarse base soil grading). Figure 10.3 shows an example.
Step 4: Check if the filter/transition zone is segregated. Assess the potential for segregation of the
filter/transition/shoulder materials using Table 10.3, Table 10.4 and Table 10.5. If a continuous segregated
layer is likely to be present, then estimate the grading of the segregated layer assuming that 50% of the finer
soil fraction is segregated out leaving the remaining 50% of coarser fraction. Figure 10.4 shows a graphical
method for adjusting the gradation curve to allow for segregation. Use the DF15 values from the adjusted
grading curves for estimating the conditional probabilities of no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion, and
continuing erosion in the remaining steps. Use the average grading when checking if the filter/transition zone
is segregated.
10-5
Section 10
Step 5: Check if the filter/transition zone is internally unstable. Evaluate the probability that the filter or
transition zone materials are internally unstable (PIUS) using Figure 6.8 for materials with >10% fines or
Figure 6.9 for materials with <10% fines. If the probability of internal instability (PIUS) is 0.3, then adjust
the grading curve assuming that 50% of the unstable soil fraction is washed out. Figure 10.2 shows a
graphical method for adjusting the gradation curve to allow for suffusion. Use the DF15 values from the
adjusted filter grading curves for assessing the probability of no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion, and
continuing erosion in Step 7. If the probability of internal instability is < 0.3, then do not adjust the filter
grading curves. Note only the average grading should used when checking if the filter/transition zone is
internally unstable.
Step 6: Evaluate the DF15 values for the no erosion, excessive erosion, and continuing erosion
boundaries using Table 10.6 and Table 10.7 for the fine base soil grading, the average base soil grading and
the coarse base soil grading. Plot the DF15 values for these boundaries on the grading curve limits of the
filter/transition material (see Figure 10.6 for an example). Use the adjusted grading curves for the
filter/transition zone if required to do so by the preceding Steps 4 or 5.
Step 7: Estimate the probabilities for no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion, and continuing
erosion for each representative base soil grading. Estimate the proportion of the actual (or adjusted)
filter/transition gradings that fall into each of the particular erosion categories based on the plot of
filter/transition grading curves versus filter erosion boundaries (an example is shown in Figure 10.6). If there
are no filter/transition gradings that fall into the continuing erosion category, then use Table 10.8 to aid
judgment in assigning probabilities for continuing erosion. This allows for the possibility of the gradations
being coarser than indicated by the available information and depends on how much finer the gradings are to
the continuing erosion boundary. The suggested approach is to estimate the proportions for the some,
excessive, and continuing erosion categories first (PSE, PEE , and PCE ) and then calculate PNE = 1- (PSE + PEE +
PCE). Do this for each of the representative base soil gradings (fine, average and coarse gradings) as follows:
For the fine base soil grading:
PNE fine, PSE fine, PEE fine, and PCE fine
For the average base soil grading:
PNE avg., PSE avg., PEE avg., and PCE avg.
For the coarse base soil grading:
PNE coarse, PSE coarse, PEE coarse, and PCE coarse
Make an initial estimate of the probabilities of no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion, and continuing
erosion by the sum-product of the percentage of base soil gradings and the percentage of no erosion, some
erosion, excessive erosion, and continuing erosion for each representative base soil grading. The calculations
are as follows:
PNE = (5% x PNE fine) + (90% x PNE avg.) + (5% x PNE coarse)
PSE = (5% x PSE fine) + (90% x PSE avg.) + (5% x PSE coarse)
PEE = (5% x PEE fine) + (90% x PEE avg.) + (5% x PEE coarse).
PCE = (5% x PCE fine) + (90% x PCE avg.) + (5% x PCE coarse).
10-6
Section 10
Figure 10.2 Flow chart for evaluating the probabilities of no erosion, some erosion,
excessive erosion, and continuing erosion
10-7
Section 10
An example of summing of the probabilities is shown in Table 10.9 for the example shown in Figure 10.6.
Use judgment to adjust the calculated percentages to take into account the effects of other factors such as the
distribution of the core and filter gradations in the fill, borrow area variability and selective placement of
materials.
(b) Particle size distribution information is not available
Estimate the particle size distribution of the core materials based on the likely source of materials. The
gradation of the soils may be able to be estimated based on the likely geological origin of the materials
(e.g. decomposed granitic soils, residual soils, alluvial fine clays and silts, etc).
Estimate the particle size distribution of the filter/transition/shoulder materials based on the likely source
of the materials and whether they were processed or not (e.g. run-of-pit alluvial sands and gravels,
unprocessed quarry fines or tunnel spoil, processed sand and gravels, etc). Estimate the DF15 of the
filter/transition/downstream shoulder materials.
Evaluate the DF15 values for the no erosion, excessive erosion, and continuing erosion boundaries for the
estimated gradation of the core materials using Table 10.6 and Table 10.7.
Estimate the probabilities for no erosion, some erosion, excessive erosion, and continuing erosion based
on the estimated proportion of the filter/transition gradings that is likely to fall into each of the particular
filter erosion categories. The suggested approach is to estimate the probabilities for some, excessive, and
continuing erosion (PSE, PEE, and PCE) and calculate PNE = 1 (PSE + PEE + PCE).
10-8
Section 10
Representative Fine
Grading Curve
Representative Coarse
Grading Curve
% Passing
Average Grading
Envelope of Base
Soil Gradings
Particle Size (mm)
% Passing
Figure 10.3 Example of the selection of representative grading curves (fine, average, and
coarse) for the assessment of filter compatibility
(1) Select the point of

maximum inflexion of the
grading curve
(2) Locate the mid point
below the point of inflection
Original
gradation
Estimated gradation
curve after washout
or segregation
15%
Equal
distance
Particle size
(3) Estimate the shape of the

gradation curve passing
through the mid point
(4) Estimate the D15 after

washout or segregation
Figure 10.4 Approximate method for estimating DF15 after washout of the erodible fraction
from a suffusive soil or for soils susceptible to segregation
10-9
Section 10
Table 10.2 Likelihood for filters with excessive fines holding a crack
Fines Content
Fines Plasticity
Probability of holding a crack
% Passing 0.075 mm
Compacted
Not compacted
5%
0.001
0.0002
7%
0.005
0.001
12%
0.05
0.01
15%
0.1
0.02
>30%
0.5
0.1
Plastic
5%
0.05
0.02
(or fines susceptible to

cementing)
7%
0.1
0.05
12%
0.5
0.3
15%
0.9
0.7
Non plastic (and no

cementing present)
Note: Fines susceptible to cementing for filters having a matrix predominately of sand sized particles (e.g., filters derived from
crushed limestone).
Table 10.3 Potential for segregation of filtering materials
Factor
Construction
practices
Gradation
comparison
to USACE
filter criteria
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
(3)
(2)
and %passing
No. 4 sieve
Width of zone
(1)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Good construction
and stockpiling
practices used
Fair construction
and stockpiling
practices
Poor construction
or stockpiling
practices
Very poor
construction and
stockpiling
practices with no
regard for
segregation
effects
Placed in thin lifts

< 2 ft (< 0.6 m),
careful control
during
construction
End dumping from

trucks, spread by
dozer in thin lifts <
2 ft (< 0.6 m)
End dumping from

trucks, spread by
dozer in thick lifts
> 2 ft (> 0.6 m)
Filters/transitions
constructed by
pushing material
over the edge of
the core
Meets segregation
criteria in Table
10.4
Borderline
segregation
criteria in Table
10.4
Fails segregation
criteria in Table
10.4
Significant
departure from
segregation
criteria in Table
10.4
>50% passing
4.75 mm sieve
40-50% passing
4.75 mm sieve
25-40% passing
4.75 mm sieve
<25% passing
4.75 mm sieve
Wide zone,
>20 ft (>6 m)
10-20 ft (3-6 m)
Narrow zone,
5-10 ft (1.5-3 m)
Narrow zone,
<5 ft (<1.5 m)
10-10
Section 10
Table 10.4 Gradation limits to prevent segregation

(USDA SCS 1994, USBR 1987, US Corps of Engineers 1994)
D10 (mm)
Maximum D90 (mm)
<0.5
20
0.5 1.0
25
1.0 2.0
30
2.0 5.0
40
5.0 10
50
10 50
60
Note: D10 and D90 are based on the average filter gradation.
Table 10.5 Susceptibility of filter/transition zones to segregation versus (RFxLF)

(RFxLF)
from Table 10.3
Segregation Assessment
Consideration of Segregation Effects for

Filter/Transition Assessment
6 12
Low potential for segregation
Segregation of filter/transition materials do

not need to be considered
13 17
Moderate potential for segregation
Segregation of filter/transition materials

should be considered, unless investigations
show otherwise.
18 24
High potential for continuous segregated

layers
Segregation should be assumed to be

present, unless investigations show
otherwise.
Note: If (RFxLF) 13, then segregation should be considered unless investigations show otherwise.
10-11
Section 10
Table 10.6 No erosion boundary for the assessment of filters of existing dams
(after Foster and Fell 2001)
Base
Soil
Category
Fines
content
(1)
Design Criteria of
Sherard and Dunnigan
(1989)
Range of DF15 for

No Erosion Boundary
From Tests
Criteria for
No Erosion Boundary
85%
DF15 9 DB85
6.4 - 13.5 DB85
DF15 9 DB85 (2)
40 - 85%
DF15 0.7 mm
0.7 - 1.7 mm
DF15 0.7 mm (2)
15 - 40%
DF15 (40-pp% 0.075

mm) x (4DB85-0.7)/25 +
0.7
1.6 - 2.5 DF15 of Sherard

and Dunnigan design
criteria
DF15 (40-pp% 0.075

mm) x (4DB85-0.7)/25 +
0.7
<15%
DF15 4 DB85
6.8 - 10 DB85
DF15 4 DB85
Notes:
(1) The fines content is the % finer than 0.075 mm after the base soil is adjusted to a maximum particle size of 4.75 mm.
(2) For highly dispersive soils (pinhole classification D1 or D2 or Emerson Class 1 or 2), it is recommended to use a lower
DF15 for the no erosion boundary. For soil group 1 soils, suggest use the lower limit of the experimental boundary, i.e.
DF15 6.4 DB85. For soil group 2 soils, suggest use DF15 0.5 mm. The equation for soil group 4 would be modified
accordingly.
Table 10.7 Excessive and continuing erosion criteria

(Foster 1999; Foster and Fell 1999, 2001)
Base Soil
Proposed Criteria for

Excessive Erosion Boundary
Soils with DB95 < 0.3 mm
DF15 > 9 DB95
Soils with 0.3 < DB95 < 2 mm
DF15 > 9 DB90
Soils with DB95 >2 mm and

fines content > 35%
DF15 > the DF15 value which gives an erosion

loss of 0.25g/cm2 in the CEF test
(0.25g/cm2 contour line in Figure 10.5)
Soils with DB95 > 2 mm and

fines content < 15%
DF15 > 9 DB85
Soils with DB95 > 2 mm and

fines content 15-35%
DF15 > 2.5 DF15 design,
Proposed Criteria
for Continuing
Erosion Boundary
For all soils:

DF15 > 9 DB95
where DF15 design is given by:

DF15 design =
(35-pp%0.075 mm)(4DB85-0.7)/20+0.7
Notes:
Criteria are directly applicable to soils with DB95 up to 4.75 mm. For soils with coarser particles determine DB85 and
DB95 using grading curves adjusted to give a maximum size of 4.75 mm.
10-12
Section 10
15
Filter DF15 (mm)
0.25g/cm
Contour of
Erosion Loss
10
No Erosion
Boundary
for Soil Group 2
DF15=0.7mm
EXCESSIVE EROSION
SOME EROSION
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Core material % fine - medium sand (0.075 - 1.18mm)
55
60
Figure 10.5 Criteria for excessive erosion boundary
Table 10.8 Aid to judgment for estimation of probability of continuing erosion (PCE) when
the actual filter grading is finer than the continuing erosion boundary
Comparison of Actual DF15 of the Filter/Transition
Zone to the Continuing Erosion boundary
Probability for Continuing Erosion (PCE)
DF15 in dam < 0.1x DF15,CE
0.0001
DF15 in dam < 0.2 x DF15,CE
0.001
DF15 in dam < 0.5 x DF15,CE
0.01 0.05
Notes:
DF15,CE = DF15 for continuing erosion boundary from Table 10.7. For this comparison of actual DF15 to the CE boundary,
use the coarse filter/transition gradation.
10-13
Section 10
100
90
Zone 1- Fine Grading

Zone 1 - Average Grading
80
Zone 1 - Coarse Grading
Percent Passing
70
Filter erosion boundaries for the Average core grading

Filter erosion boundaries for the Fine core grading
60
Filter erosion boundaries for the Coarse core grading
Zone 1 - Core Material

re-graded to maximum size of 4.75 mm
50
Zone 3- Filter
Transition
40
30
20
0.7
No
Erosion
10
2.5
0.7 Some 2.0

Erosion
36 38
Excessive
Erosion
30
Continuing
Erosion
0.001
0.01
0.1
10
100
1000
Seive Size (mm)

Assessment of Zone 1 core against no erosion, excessive erosion and continuing erosion criteria
Core
Base soil sizes (mm)
No Erosion
Gradation
% passing
% fine-medium sand
DB85 (mm) DB95 (mm)
0.075mm
(0.075 - 1.18mm)
DF15 (mm)
Fine Grading
1.9
3.3
50
25
0.7
Average
2.4
4
41
29
0.7
Coarse Grading
2.5
4.2
35
30
0.7
Excessive
Erosion
Continuing
Erosion
DF15 (mm)
2
2.5
2.6
DF15 (mm)
30
36
38
Figure 10.6 Example of filter/transition gradings compared to filter erosion boundaries

determination of the filter erosion boundaries for the representative fine, average, and
coarse gradings of the core material
10-14
Section 10
Table 10.9 Example of estimating probabilities for no erosion, some erosion, excessive
erosion, and continuing erosion for the example shown in Figure 10.6
Representative
Base Soil
Grading
Estimated Proportion of Filter Gradings falling into each Filter Erosion category
(from Figure 10.6)
No Erosion (NE)
Some Erosion
(SE)
Excessive
Erosion (EE)
Continuing
Erosion (CE)
Fine Base Soil

Grading
(represents 5%
of finest grading
curves)
PNE fine =
PSE fine =
PEE fine =
PCE fine =
20%
60%
20%
0%
Average Base
Soil Grading
(represents 90%
of grading
curves)
PNE avg. =
PSE avg. =
PEE avg. =
PCE avg. =
20%
70%
10%
0%
Coarse Base Soil

Grading
(represents 5%
of coarsest
grading curves)
PNE coarse =
20%
PSE coarse =
PEE coarse =
10%
PCE coarse =
Calculation of
Probabilities for
No, Some,
Excessive and
Continuing
Erosion (Pxx)
PNE = (5% x PNE

fine) + (90% x
PNE avg.) + (5%
x PNE coarse)
(5% x
PSE =
PSE fine) + (90% x
PSE avg.) + (5% x
PSE coarse)
(5% x
PEE =
PEE fine) + (90%
x PEE avg.) +
(5% x PEE
coarse)
(5% x
PCE =
PCE fine) + (90% x
PCE avg.) + (5% x
PCE coarse)
20%
69.5%
10.5%
0%
100%
PNE = 0.20
PSE = 0.69
PEE = 0.11
PCE = 0.0001(a)
1.000
Calculation
Result
Assigned
Probabilities
70%
0%
Sum
PXX
100%
100%
100%
Notes: (a) Even though there are no filter gradings falling into the continuing erosion category in this example, a probability of
0.0001 was assigned for continuing erosion based on the guidance given in Table 10.8. This takes into account the possibility of the
materials in the dam being coarser than indicated by the gradation curves. In this example, the filter gradation envelope is
significantly finer than the continuing erosion boundary, and hence a very low probability is assigned based on Table 10.8.
10-15
Section 10
10.1.5 Probability of continuation (PCE) Scenario 4 (internal erosion into

open defects, joints, or cracks in conduits, walls, toe drains, or rock
foundations)
For erosion to continue through an open defect, the defect needs to be sufficiently open to allow the soil
surrounding the defect to pass through it. The recommended procedure is as follows:
1. Compare the D95 of the coarse soil grading of the soil in contact with the open defect, joint, or crack to
the JOS. If the D95,coarse JOS, then PCE = 1.0.
2. Compare the D95 of the fine soil grading of the soil in contact with the open defect, joint, or crack to the
JOS. If the D95,fine > JOS, then determine PCE by interpolation using D95,fine in Table 10.10.
3. Estimate PCE by estimating the proportion of the soil grading at 95% passing finer than the JOS
For conduits, walls, or toe drains, use the JOS determined from inspection. If there is no inspection, assume a
JOS of 5 mm. The supporting document gives additional details into the assessment of erosion into a toe
drain and considers the observed condition of the toe drain (from video or external inspections) and the
design and construction details of the toe drain. For rock defects, use the midpoint of the defect size range for
the JOS.
Table 10.10 Probability of continuation for open defects, joints, or cracks
Comparison of joint opening in the dam (JOS) to the Continuing Erosion criteria
Joint Opening in the dam
Probability for Continuing Erosion (PCE)
JOS < 0.1x D95
0.0001
JOS < 0.2 x D95
0.001
JOS < 0.5 x D95
0.01
JOS = D95
0.1
JOS > D95
Estimate based on the proportion of the base soil

grading (at 95% passing) finer than the JOS
10-16
10.2
Section 10
Probability of Continuation for Internal Erosion through Soil

Foundations

Given the exit condition is unfiltered, the probability of continuation will be 1.0. Given the exit is filtered,
estimate the probability for continuing erosion using the method described in Section 10.1.4.
When considering seepage parths in the foundation, it needs to be recognized that low permeability strata
beneath horizontal drains may prevent them working effectively. Figure 10.7 shows an alluvial foundation
where the lower permeability strata (A and E) will prevent the seepage in the most permeable sand and gravel
strata (B and D) from flowing into a filtered exit in the horizontal drain. For the situation of backward erosion
piping or suffusion within a foundation sand layer which has an overlying low permeability (confining) layer,
an unfiltered exit is implicit if a heave condition or a sand boil is present, or if there is a defect in the
confining layer. In Figure 10.7, the possible seepage paths include through the confining layer (stratum E)
due to heave or defects and an unfiltered exit for strata B and D if they daylight downstream of the dam.
Figure 10.8 shows a foundation sand layer daylighting at an unfiltered exit downstream of the dam.
Figure 10.7 Example of unfiltered exits in the soil foundation
10-17
Section 10
Foundation filter
Unfiltered exit
Sand layer
Figure 10.8 Example of an unfiltered exit in the soil foundation due to

daylighting of the foundation sand layer downstream of the dam
10.3
Probability of Continuation for Internal Erosion of the

10.3.1 Scour along rock defects or erosion into rock defects

Assess the probability of continuation (PCE) by evaluating the exit conditions downstream of the core of
the dam to determine if the soil can exit the rock defects. Three scenarios are possible:
It is also possible that the network of rock defects has enough capacity below or downstream of
the core to accept enough material to allow erosion to continue. If this condition exists, then the
probability of continuation is 1.0.
10.3.2 Scour along the contact or erosion into open-work granular

foundations
The process for evaluating continuing erosion for open-work granular foundations is basically the same
as for rock defects. Assess the probability of continuation (PCE) by evaluating the exit conditions
10-18
Section 10
downstream of the core of the dam to determine if the soil can exit the open granular foundation. Three
If the open granular soils daylight downstream with an unprotected exit, then the probability of
It is also possible that the void space in open-work coarse-grained foundation soil has enough
capacity below or downstream of the core to accept enough material to allow erosion to continue.
If this condition exists, then the probability of continuation is 1.0.
10-19
Probability of Progression
11
11.1
Overall Approach
Section 11
Step 1: Estimate the probability that the soil will hold a roof over a pipe (Section 11.2).
Step 2: Estimate the probability that crack filling action will not stop the erosion process (Section 11.3).
Step 3: Estimate the probability that flow in the developing pipe will not be restricted by an upstream zone
(or for example a concrete face slab) so the erosion process continues to develop (Section 11.4).
11.2
Probability of Forming a Roof

For internal erosion and piping through the dam or piping from the embankment into a rock foundation, the
core must be capable of holding the roof of a pipe. Assess the probability of the soil forming a roof of a pipe
using Table 11.1.
11.2.2 Internal erosion through a soil foundation

For internal erosion and piping through a soil foundation, the roof of a pipe will be formed by layers of soil in
the foundation which are cohesive or have high fines content, or by the core of the embankment. Other
geological conditions which may form a roof within a soil foundation include where basalts overly the soil
layer.
Assess the probability of the embankment and foundation materials supporting the roof of a pipe in the
foundation using Table 11.1.
In most cases, the core of the embankment is capable of providing a roof to a developing pipe in the
foundation. However, if there are upstream or downstream zones of non plastic granular material in the
embankment that are not capable of supporting a roof of a pipe (e.g., rockfill or gravel shells), then a pipe
through the foundation may not be able to fully develop. Figure 11.1(b) shows an example of this.
11-1
Section 11
SAND
(a) Homogeneous earthfill dam

ROCKFILL OR
GRAVEL SHELLS
2
3
PIPE COLLAPSE LEADING

TO SINKHOLE
2
1
3
SAND
(b) Dam with gravel or rockfill shells

Figure 11.1 Scenarios for holding a roof of a pipe for internal erosion through the
foundation
11-2
Section 11
Table 11.1 Probability of a soil being able to support a roof to an erosion pipe (PPR)
Soil Classification
Percentage
Fines
Plasticity of
the Fines
Moisture Condition
Likelihood of
Supporting a Roof
Clays, sandy clays

(CL, CH, CL-CH)
> 50%
Plastic
Moist or saturated
1.0
ML or MH
>50%
Plastic or
non-plastic
Moist or saturated
1.0
Plastic
Moist or Saturated
1.0
Non-plastic
Moist
0.7 to 1.0
Saturated
0.5 to 1.0
Moist
0.5 to 1.0
Saturated
0.2 to 0.5
Moist
0.05 to 0.1
Saturated
0.02 to 0.05
Sandy clays, Gravely

clays,
15% - 50%
(SC, GC)
Silty sands,
> 15%
Silty gravels,
Silty sandy gravel
(SM, GM)
Granular soils with
some cohesive fines
(SC-SP, SC-SW, GCGP, GC-GW)
5% to 15%
Granular soils with

some non plastic fines
(SM-SP, SM-SW, GMGP, GM-GW)
5% to 15%
Granular soils, (SP,

SW, GP, GW)
Notes:
(1)
(2)
< 5%
Plastic
Non-plastic
Non-plastic
Moist and saturated
0.0001
Plastic
Moist and saturated
0.001 to 0.01
Lower range of probabilities is for poorly compacted materials (i.e., not rolled), and upper bound for well compacted
materials.
Cemented materials give higher probabilities than indicated in the table. If soils are cemented, use the category that
best describes the particular situation.
11-3
11.3
Section 11
Probability of Crack Filling Action Being Ineffective

Estimate the probability of crack filling action not stopping pipe enlargement using Table 11.2.
For piping through the dam or piping from the dam into a rock foundation, crack filling from an upstream
zone can limit the extent of erosion in the core if the materials washed into the crack or pipe are capable of
filtering against the downstream filter or transition zone. The washed in materials aid in the filtering action
against the downstream zone. This will be of greatest benefit in cases where there is poor filter compatibility
between the core and downstream filter due to a lack of sand size particles in the core. In these cases, the
probability of continuation may be high, but the washed in materials may be capable of filtering against the
downstream filter zone and this reduces the potential for the pipe enlarging. There is less benefit where the
materials that are washed in are of similar sizes to those already in the core. Hence the probabilities for crack
filling in Table 11.2 are higher for a well graded core material compared to those for a core which is deficient
in sand sizes. There is very little benefit where there is no downstream filter/transition zone.
11.3.2 Internal erosion through the foundation

The potential for crack filling action for internal erosion in the foundation applies only if a filtered exit exists.
In most cases, PPC will be 1.0.
11.3.3 Internal erosion of the embankment into or at the foundation

The potential for crack filling action for internal erosion of the embankment into or at the foundation applies
only if a filtered exit exists. In most cases, PPC will be 1.0.
11-4
Section 11
Table 11.2 Probability for crack filling action not stopping pipe enlargement for internal
erosion through the embankment (PPC)
Embankment Zoning
Upstream
Granular Zone
Downstream Filter
or Transition or
other granular
material
Homogeneous, earthfill with

toe drain, earthfill with
horizontal drain, concrete
face earthfill, puddle core
earthfill, earthfill with
corewall, hydraulic fill
None except for

rip rap and filters
under these
None or none
effective
Earthfill with vertical and

horizontal drain, zoned
earthfill
None
Present
Central and sloping core

earth and rockfill (or gravel
shoulders)
Present
Likelihood of Piping
Progressing Crack Filling
Action Not Effective
1.0
1.0
Present
0.1 to 0.9
If the core is well-graded and
has fine to coarse sand sizes
(0.075 4.75 mm) already
present (1)
0.01 to 0.1
If the core is deficient in sand
sized particles, and washed in
sand material aids in sealing
the downstream zone (2).
Notes:
(1)
(2)
Crack filling is more likely to stop pipe enlargement when the core zone is deficient in sand size particles and these
particles can be provided by washing in from the upstream zone. This aids in sealing of the downstream filter zone. If
the core is well-graded and has sand sizes present, then the potential benefits of crack filling are less as the sand size
particles are already present.
Probability dependent on compatibility of particle sizes of granular soils upstream of the core and in the downstream
filter transition.
11-5
11.4
Section 11
Probability for Limitation of Flows
11.4.1 Flow limitation by upstream zone

Estimate the probability that flow in the developing pipe will not be restricted by an upstream zone using
Table 11.3. This considers the potential for flow limitation due to zoning within the dam or cutoff walls or
other structural elements within the dam or foundation.
11.4.2 Flow into/out of open joint in conduits

Limitation of flows for flow into a non-pressurized conduit is shown in Table 11.3. Erosion into open defects
in a conduit may lead to the development of a sinkhole on the embankment, and this is considered under the
breach node of the event tree (refer to Section 13.5).
Leakage out of a pressurized conduit is likely to be limited by the defect in the pipe. Estimate the potential
flows out of the defects in the conduit pipe, and this is used in Section 13.3 to estimate the likelihood for it to
cause slope instability.
11.4.3 Flow into jointed bedrock

The possible scenarios are:
Erosion initiating at the core-foundation contact where there is no or a shallow cut-off trench. This
is likely to lead to the pipe forming through the embankment. For this case, estimate the probability that
flow in the developing pipe will not be restricted by an upstream zone use Table 11.3.
Erosion initiating within a deep cutoff trench into open joints in a rock foundation. The extent of
erosion may become limited by the opening width of the rock defects. This is embedded in the system
for estimating the likelihood of breach due to the flow through the open joints in the rock foundation
(Section 13). The limitation of flows is therefore not applicable to this scenario and a probability of no
flow limitation of 1.0 should be used.
Table 11.3 Probability that flow in the developing pipe will not be restricted by an upstream
zone, cut-off wall or a concrete element in the erosion path (PPL)
Characteristics of Upstream Zone,
Concrete Element, or Cut-off
Likelihood for No Flow Restriction
Flow limitation by an upstream zone:

No zone upstream of core (e.g., homogeneous, earthfill with
toe drain, earthfill with filter drains)
11-6
1.0
Section 11

High permeability zone (e.g., clean rockfill)
1.0
Fill with > 15% cohesive fines, highly likely to support a roof,
Mechanism causing cracking or flaw in the core is also likely
to affect the upstream zone (e.g., common cause cracking)
0.8 to 1.0
Fill with > 15% cohesive fines, highly likely to support a roof,
features causing cracking or flaw in the core are not present
below the upstream shell
0.01 to 0.1 depending on the

confidence that there is not a common
cause defect
Fill with 5% to 15% cohesive fines, likely to support a roof. (1)

0.5 to 0.7
Fill with 5% to 15% cohesive fines, likely to support a roof (1),

below the upstream zone

cause defect and fines content
Fill with <15% cohesionless fines, unlikely to support a roof (1)

Fill with <15% cohesionless fines, unlikely to support a roof (1),
below the upstream zone
0.4 to 0.9 if gradient across upstream

zone is > 1
zone is < 1
zone is <1 (assign a probability
depending on the confidence that there
is not a common cause defect)
zone is > 1
Fill with 15% to 30% cohesionless fines, may support a roof,

0.2 to 0.8
Fill with 15% to 30% cohesionless fines, may support a roof,


cause defect
Fill with > 30% cohesionless fines, may support a roof,

0.8 to 1.0
Fill with > 30% cohesionless fines, may support a roof,


cause defect
Upstream low permeability blanket (for internal erosion in the

foundation)
0.01 to 0.1 depending on the extent of

coverage of the piping soil layer
Flow limitation by a concrete element in the embankment:

Concrete slab on upstream slope
0.1 to 0.5
11-7
Section 11

Soil cement wave protection
0.05 to 0.2
Partially penetrating concrete core wall in dam (for internal

erosion and piping along foundation contact)
0.01 to 0.001 for piping along the corefoundation contact (depending on

height of the wall)
Flow limitation by cut-off walls in the foundation (for internal erosion and piping in the
foundation):
Sheet pile walls
Extruded: 0.01 to 0.5

Cold-rolled: 0.1 to 0.9 (may use lower
bound or possibly even lower if good
piezometer data shows wall is integral)
Concrete core wall within embankment (1920s-1930s)
0.01 to 0.001(2)
Modern diaphragm walls:

Cementitious walls (e.g., conventional concrete, plastic
concrete, cement bentonite)
Well-constructed: 0.0001
Non-cementitious walls (e.g., soil-bentonite)
0.001 to 0.01
Soil-cement-bentonite wall
0.01 to 0.1
Column walls (e.g., jet grouting, soil mixing)
0.01 to 0.1
Open joint, water stop, crack or other defect in the conduit
0.05 to 0.2
Notes:
Serious defects suspected: 0.001
(1) Need to check whether the upstream zone materials are susceptible to suffusion and backward erosion. If so, fines can
wash out and lead to higher permeability, and/or a pipe may develop. At gradients > 1.0, backward erosion is likely.
(2) Need to consider potential size of pipe and ability of downstream shoulder to handle flows.
(3) For these walls the soil is excavated by excavator or dragline, and the bentonite mixed with the excavated soil using
earth-moving equipment.
11-8
Probability of Unsuccessful Intervention
12
12.1
General Principles
Section 12
The likelihood that a particular failure path can be detected, and if so, whether it is possible to intervene (e.g.,
by lowering the reservoir level) or carry out repairs to prevent the dam breaching, is usually best considered
as two questions:
1.
Will this failure path be detected?
2.
Will intervention and repair be possible?
A probability is assigned to each of these questions. The overall probability of detection, intervention and
repair is the product of these two probabilities.
The likelihood of detection and successful intervention and repair is dependent on a number of factors
including:
a)
The category of internal erosion and piping (i.e., internal erosion in the embankment, in the foundation
or from the embankment into or at the foundation).
b)
The mechanism of initiation of internal erosion (i.e., erosion in a crack, suffusion or backward erosion).
c)
The breach mode (i.e., gross enlargement of a pipe, instability of the downstream slope, unraveling or
sloughing of the downstream slope, settlement of the foundation, sinkhole development).
d)
The nature of and the geometry of the materials in the foundation.
e)
The zoning of the embankment, and the materials in the embankment.
f)
The reservoir level at the time of the piping incident, and how rapidly it can be drawn down.
g)
The type and frequency of monitoring and surveillance at the dam and the training of the staff to
recognize a developing internal erosion and piping incident.
h)
The ability to get trained personnel out to the site in the event of a piping incident.
i)
The ability of those responsible to be able to direct emergency release of the reservoir.
j)
The availability of materials and equipment to intervene and carry out repair works.
It is necessary to use judgment to assess these probabilities.
12-1
12.2
Section 12
Some Information on the Rate of Internal Erosion and Piping
The likelihood of detection and successful intervention or repair depends on the time from when the internal
erosion process may be detected to when breach begins.
Fell et al. (2001, 2003) studied case histories of failures and accidents for piping in the embankment,
foundation, and embankment to foundation. Based on the case histories and an understanding of the physical
processes they provided guidance on the time for progression beyond when a concentrated leak is first
observed, and development of a breach. Table 12.1 to Table 12.3 are based on that study.
Table 12.1 should be used to estimate the approximate likely time to dam failure after a concentrated leak is
first observed. Table 11.1, Table 12.2, Table 11.3, and Table 12.3 are used in Table 12.1 working from left
top right.
Table 12.3 replaces an original table to assess the likely rate of erosion of the core of the embankment or the
soil in the foundation. Table 11.1 and Table 11.3 should be used to assess the ability to support a roof and
upstream flow limitation respectively.
In these tables the terms for rates are defined as shown in Table 12.4. Dual descriptors are used to describe
intermediate terms (e.g., very rapid rapid for 6 hours). The terms are applied to part (e.g., progression) or
the whole process.
Most of the cases studied were for breach by gross enlargement, so the method is applicable to cases where
the mechanism is gross enlargement. It is considered to be reasonably applicable to cases where the final
breach is by slope instability, following development of a pipe. It will probably underestimate the time for
breach by sloughing. Sloughing is a slowly developing breach mode which should take days or weeks to lead
to breach.
Breach by sinkhole development is potentially a rapid process in the final stages when the sinkhole emerges
into the reservoir. We would expect breach to occur in a small number of hours but do not have case data to
support a more refined estimate.
Table 12.1 is used by assigning the values to the first four columns, and selecting the likely time for
progression and breach which best fits the data.
12-2
Section 12
Table 12.1 A method for the approximation estimation of the time for progression of piping
and development of a breach, for breach by gross enlargement, and slope instability linked
to development of a pipe (Fell et al 2001, 2003)
Factors Influencing the Time for Progression and Breach
Approximate
Likely Time
(Qualitative)
Approximate
Likely Time
VR or R-VR
Very Rapid
< 3 hours
No
Very Rapid to Rapid
3 to 12 hours
R-M
No
VR
Yes
No
R-M
Rapid
12 to 24 hours
Yes
No
M or S
Yes
R or R-M
No
M or M-S
Rapid to Medium
1 to 2 days
Yes
M or R-M
Yes
R or R-M
Yes
M or R-M
No
Yes
R-M or M
Yes
Medium
2 to 7 days
Yes
Yes or No
Slow
Weeks, even
months or years
Ability to
Support a Roof
Rate of
Erosion
Upstream
Flow Limiter
Breach
Time
from
Table 11.1
from
Table 12.2
from
Table 11.3
From
Table 12.3
Yes
R or VR
No
Yes
Yes
Note: VR = Very Rapid; R = Rapid; M = Medium; and S = Slow.
12-3
Section 12
Table 12.2 Rate of erosion of the core or soil in the foundation

Time for erosion in the core of the embankment
or in the foundation
Best Estimate
Erosion Rate Index
(IHET)
Gradient along pipe 0.2
Gradient along pipe 0.5
SM with <30% fines
<2
Very Rapid
Very Rapid
SM with > 30% fines
2 to 3
Very Rapid
Very Rapid
SC with < 30% fines
2 to 3
Very Rapid
Very Rapid
SC with >40% fines
Rapid
Very Rapid
2 to 3
Very Rapid to Rapid
Very Rapid
Rapid
Very Rapid
3 to 4
Rapid
Very Rapid to Rapid
Rapid
Rapid
3 to 4
Rapid
Very Rapid to Rapid
CH with LL < 65
Rapid to Medium
Rapid
CH with LL > 65
Medium to Slow
Medium
Soil Classification
ML
CL-ML
CL
CL-CH
MH
Table 12.3 Influence of the material in the downstream zone of the embankment on the
likely time for development of a breach
Material Description
Likely Breach Time
Coarse grained rockfill
Slow medium
Soil of high plasticity (PI > 50) and high clay size content including
clayey gravels
Medium rapid
Soil of low plasticity (PI < 35) and low clay size content, all poorly
compacted soils, silty sandy gravels
Rapid very rapid
Sand, silty sand, silt
Very rapid
Table 12.4 Qualitative terms for times of development of internal erosion, piping and
breach (Fell et al 2001, 2003)
Qualitative Term
Equivalent Time
Slow (S)
Weeks or months, even years
Medium (M)
Days or weeks
Rapid (R)
Hours (>12 hours) or days
Very Rapid (VR)
<3 hours
12-4
Section 12
Note that the dispersivity of the soil does not significantly affect the rate of erosion so is not listed as a factor
in Table 12.2. For a homogeneous dam, the whole of the embankment is the same soil, so in Table 12.2 the
soil is considered as the core, and in Table 12.3 as the downstream zone.
Fell et al (2001, 2003) show that the method gives a reasonable estimate of the time for progression beyond
where a concentrated leak is observed and breach and the times are acceptably accurate for the purpose here
which is to assess the likelihood of detection, intervention and repair. Fell et al (2001, 2003) caution however,
against over-reliance of these figures for life loss estimates where the estimates are sensitive to the assumed
warning times. The times estimated in Table 12.1 are only approximate, and hidden or unknown details
within a dam or its foundation may give shorter or longer times.
12.3
Detection
12.3.1 Some general principles

Detection may be possible in the continuation or early progression phase, or more likely, in the advanced
stages of progression and breach formation. Detection is likely to be by:
1. Observation of increased seepage out of the downstream face of the embankment or in the foundation.
This may be by visual observation, or by seepage measurement, or more sophisticated methods such as
thermal monitoring of the foundation or the downstream slope.
2. Measured higher pore pressures in the foundation and/or embankment.
3. Settlements, deformation and cracking in the embankment or area downstream of the dam.
Whether detection is likely depends on:
1. The rate at which the internal erosion and piping, and associated processes, such as instability of the
downstream face, occurs.
2. The frequency of inspections, and measurement of monitoring equipment.
3. The dam zoning and the location of the concentrated leak and whether the leak will be visible to those
doing the inspection.
For example if a process may go from initiation or first presence of a concentrated leak to breach in say 6
hours, and the dam is only inspected or monitored weekly, it is very unlikely that a piping incident will be
detected before breach occurs. However, if the dam is visible by the general population, there is some chance
the leak may be noticed none-the-less.
12-5
Section 12
Detection early in the internal erosion process is usually difficult, particularly for erosion initiating along a
crack, or by backwards erosion because the amount of leakage is very small at the start. Fell et al (2001,
2003) record that most piping incidents are first identified as a concentrated leak in the progression phase.
Suffusion is more likely to be detected by piezometers because the process is slower to develop. The presence
of conditions potentially leading to heave and backward erosion in the foundation may also be detected by
piezometers provided they are correctly positioned and read as reservoir levels rise.
Visual inspection is a vital tool in detecting internal erosion and piping, whether it is successful is dependent
on the factors discussed above, but also on such practical issues as:
Inspections are seldom practical at night, so there is 30% to 50% of the time (varying throughout the
year) when detection will not be effective, particularly for rapidly developing piping mechanism. Many
dams are not inspected on weekends, further reducing the likelihood of detection.
Dense vegetation, runoff from rainfall, snow cover can all hide the presence of a concentrated leak.
However it can be the case that melted snow is a good indicator of areas affected by seepage.
For very long embankments, it is not practical to walk to inspect, so it is less likely small leaks are
detected.
It is known that most internal erosion and piping failures occur at reservoir levels close to or above historic
high, and the physical processes are driven by the reservoir water. Hence a good monitoring and surveillance
program will have a greatly increased frequency of inspections and reading of critical instruments under such
reservoir conditions.
12.3.2 Probability of not detecting internal erosion (Pndi)

The probability of not detecting internal erosion is determined by
Assess the probability of not observing the concentrated leak (Pnol) allowing for the location of the
leak for the failure mode under consideration and factors which may mean the leak cannot be
observed. This is done using Table 12.5 and Table 12.6.
Assess the probability that given the leak is observable (1 Pnol), it is not detected (Pnd) allowing for the time
between the first appearance of the concentrated leak, and the frequency of inspections and/or reading of
monitoring instruments. This is done using:
Table 12.7.
The probability of not detecting the concentrated leak given it is observable,

Pndi = Pnol + [(1 Pnol) Pnd].
When using these tables, take account of:
12-6
Section 12
The location of the potential leak when assessing the probabilities. For example, there might be a
dam where leaks in the abutment area may be readily observed because the foundations are low
permeability, and the vegetation is clear, while they may be difficult to observe in the river section
because the foundation is high permeability alluvium and the toe overgrown with vegetation.
The toe of the embankment being drowned out by another reservoir or is in the river, which may
make it virtually impossible to detect leaks in this part of the dam.
The internal erosion mechanism. It may be easier to detect some such mechanisms than others (e.g.,
backward erosion piping in the foundation because sand boils will form).
12-7
Section 12
Table 12.5 Factors influencing the likelihood of not observing a concentrated leak
Factor
Can a
concentrated
leak be
observed at
toe?
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(3)
Influence on Likelihood of Not Observing

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Foundation low
permeability soil
or rock, so leaks
will emerge at
the toe
Foundation low
permeability soil
or rock so leaks
will emerge at
the toe
and
and/or
No vegetation or
only mown
grass at toe,
observation of
leakage is easy
Vegetation at
toe may
preclude
observation of
seepage
Foundation
medium
permeability soil
or rock so leaks
may remain in
the foundation
and not emerge
at the toe
and/or
Much More
Likely
(4)
Tailwater
drowns part or
all of toe, or
foundation
permeable
alluvium so
leaks may not
emerge at the
toe
Dense
vegetation at toe
makes
observation of
seepage difficult
and
Dense
vegetation at toe
makes
observation of
seepage difficult
Dam zoning
which affects
whether leaks
emerge on
the
downstream
face of the
embankment
(2)
Homogeneous,
earthfill with
core wall,
concrete face
earthfill
Earthfill with toe

drain, zoned
earthfill dam,
Puddle core,
Earthfill with
horizontal and
chimney drains,
zoned earth and
rockfill
Central core
earth and rockfill
dams, concrete
face rockfill,
rockfill with core
wall
Seepage
instrumenttation weirs,
etc.
(1)
Seepage
collected to flow
to readily
observed
measuring weir
or real time
monitored
Seepage partly
collected to flow
to measuring
weir
Seepage partly
collected to flow
to measuring
weir but masked
by rainfall
effects
No seepage
collection
system
12-8
Section 12
Table 12.6 Probability of not observing a concentrated leak (Pnol) versus (RFxLF) for
internal erosion in an embankment
0.05
6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.9
12
15
18
24 RFxLF
Table 12.7 Probability that given the leak is observable it is not detected given the time
between the first appearance of the concentrated leak, and the frequency of inspections
and/or reading of monitoring instruments (Pnd)
Frequency of
Inspection
and /or
Monitoring
Probability of Not Detecting the Internal Erosion (Pnd) Given the Time for
Development of Concentrated Leak to Initial Breach From Table 12.1
<3 hr
3 to 12 hr
12 to 24 hr
1 to 2 days
2 to 7 days
Weeks or
months
Monthly, no
public nearby
0.999
0.99
0.95
0.9
0.6
0.1
Monthly,
public nearby
0.999
0.8
0.5
0.25
0.1
0.05
Weekly, no
public nearby
0.99
0.95
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.1
Weekly,
public nearby
0.99
0.75
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
Daily, no
public nearby
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.01
Daily, public
nearby
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.05
0.01
Daily with
real-time
monitoring of
leakage
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.01
12-9
12.4
Section 12
Intervention and Repair
Intervention and repair to prevent the progression of internal erosion and piping and breach can take several
forms including:
(i) Drawing down the reservoir level using spillway gates or outlet valves.
(ii) Installing pressure relief wells in the foundation of the embankment.
(iii) Building reverse filters over boils or areas where eroding material is emerging from the foundation of
the embankment.
(iv) Building a weighting berm to reduce the likelihood of heave, or slope instability, or unraveling.
(v) Dumping granular material (sand/gravel/rockfill) into the upstream side of sinkholes to try to block
them.
More than one of these measures may be used together. Which is applicable or feasible will depend on the
particular circumstances of the dam.
It should be recognized that there may be reluctance on the part of the reservoir owner or operator to release
water given the lost revenue that may result, or if release of reservoir water is likely to result in property
damage and loss of life, for example if levee banks downstream of the dam are likely to be overtopped by the
flood resulting from release of the water.
Table 12.8 should be used to assess the probability that given the concentrated leak is detected, intervention
and repair is not successful. This is done for each pool (reservoir) level partition. It is not practical to cover all
the possible scenarios and those doing the risk analysis are required to make their assessment within the range
of probabilities shown. In making this assessment consideration should be made for the failure mode and
location of the developing pipe.
12-10
Section 12
Table 12.8 Assessment of the probability that given the concentrated leak is detected,
intervention and repair is not successful (Pdui)
Time for
Development of
Concentrated
Leak to Initial
Breach
What can be done
Probability of
Not
Intervening
There is too little time to successfully intervene regardless of the

failure mode
0.99
3 to 12 hrs
In most cases it will be impractical to intervene successfully in this

amount of time. Only in cases where there is a straight forward
method of intervention, and there are personnel, equipment and
materials available will intervention be successful.
0.9
12 to 24 hrs
In many cases it will be impractical to intervene successfully in

this time. Only in cases where there is a straight forward method
of intervention, and there are personnel, equipment and materials
available will intervention be successful; or it is a small storage
which can be drawn down to stop the failure mode.
0.7
1 to 2 days
In many cases it will be impractical to intervene successfully in

this time. Only in cases where there is a straight forward method
of intervention, and there are personnel, equipment and materials
available will intervention be successful; or it is a small storage or
medium storage with large gate discharge capacity which can be
drawn down to stop the failure mode.
0.5
2 to 7 days
In some cases it will be practical to intervene successfully in this

time. In cases where there is a straight forward method of
intervention, and there are personnel, equipment and materials
available; or it is a small storage or medium storage with large
gate discharge capacity allowing the reservoir to be drawn down
to stop the failure mode.
0.1
In some cases it will be practical to intervene successfully in this

time. Where there is a straight forward method of intervention, and
there are personnel, equipment and materials available and large
resources intervention has a fair chance of being successful; or it
is a small or medium storage with large gate discharge capacity
allowing the reservoir to be drawn down to stop the failure mode
0.01
<3 hrs
Weeks or months
12-11
12.5
Section 12
The probability of unsuccessful intervention is calculated as follows:

Probability of unsuccessful intervention = [Probability of not observing the concentrated leak because it is not
observable] + [Probability leak is observable but not detected] + [Probability leak is observable and
detectable but intervention fails], where
[Probability of not observing the concentrated leak because it is not observable] = Pnol
[Probability leak is observable but not detected] = (1 Pnol) Pnd
[Probability leak is observable and detected but intervention fails] = (1 Pnol)(1 Pnd) Pdui
or
Pui = Pnol+ [(1 Pnol) Pnd] + [(1 Pnol)(1 Pnd) Pdui]
This calculation is represented by the sub-event tree structure shown in Figure 12.1.
Yes
1 - Pnd
Yes
Intervention successful?
No
Yes
1 - Pnol
Pdui
(1 - Pnol)(1 - Pnd)(Pdui)
Concentrated leak detected?

Pnd
No
Intervention
1 - Pdui
(1 - Pnol)(Pnd)
Concentrated leak observable?

No
Pnol
Probability of Unsuccessful Intervention,

Pui = Summation of these 3 branches
Pnol
Figure 12.1 Sub-event tree for calculating the probability of unsuccessful intervention
12-12
Probability of Breach
Section 13
13
13.1
Overall Approach and Screening

For each general failure mode including internal erosion through the embankment, through the soil
foundation, and from the embankment into or at the foundation:
Step 1: Screen the breach mechanisms depending on the dam zoning type using Table 13.1.
Step 2: Estimate the probability of breach by gross enlargement of the pipe using Section 13.2.
Step 3: Estimate the probability of breach by instability of the downstream slope using Section 13.3, which
estimates the probability of slope instability and the probability of loss of freeboard given instability.
Step 4: Estimate the probability of breach by sloughing or unraveling of the downstream slope of the
embankment using Section 13.4.
Step 5: Estimate the probability of breach by sinkhole development using Section 13.5.
Step 6: Estimate the overall probability of breach by combining the probabilities for each of the four
mechanisms, using the appropriate statistical summation Pbreach = 1 [(1 Pge) (1 Psi) (1 Psu) (1 Psd)].
13.1.2 Screening of breach mechanisms

For most dam types and failure modes, the likelihood for breach development will be dominated by one or
two of the potential breach mechanisms. Breach mechanisms will not necessarily be applicable to some dam
zoning types or modes of piping and can be ignored.
Table 13.1 lists those breach mechanisms which should be considered in the assessment depending on the
dam zoning type and mode of internal erosion for internal erosion in the embankment due to a crack or poorly
compacted zone. Table 13.1 also applies to internal erosion in a soil foundation. Figure 1.1 in Section 1.2
shows the dam zoning types.
13-1
Section 13
Table 13.1 Screening of breach mechanisms for internal erosion through the embankment,
internal erosion through soil foundations, and of the embankment into the foundation
Breach Mechanisms
Dam Zoning Type
Gross
Enlargement
Slope Instability
Sloughing or
Unraveling
Sinkhole
Development
Homogeneous earthfill
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Earthfill with filters
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Earthfill with rockfill toe
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Zoned earthfill
Exclude, except if
downstream fill can
support a roof
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Zoned earthfill and

rockfill
Exclude, except if
downstream fill can
support a roof
9*
Central core earth and

rockfill (or gravel shells)
Exclude, except if
downstream fill can
support a roof
Exclude, except if
existing dam has
marginal stability
9*
Concrete face earthfill
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Concrete face rockfill

(including gravel fill)
Exclude
Exclude, except if
dam is gravel or low
permeability
9*
Exclude
Puddle core earthfill
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Earthfill with corewall
Exclude
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill is
cohesionless
Rockfill with corewall
Exclude
Exclude, except if
existing dam has
marginal stability
9*
Exclude, except if
downstream fill can
support a roof
9*
Hydraulic fill
Key:
9
9*
Breach mechanism should be included in the probability estimate.

Breach mechanism should be included in probability estimate and is usually the more critical mechanism.
13-2
Section 13
Internal erosion by the process of suffusion is very unlikely to lead to the formation of a pipe through the dam
or its foundation, and hence the probability of breach by gross enlargement where the mode of erosion is
suffusion can be excluded. Breach by slope instability or sloughing/unraveling are usually the more critical
mechanisms for suffusion, although the probabilities for breach are usually relatively low for this mode
internal erosion.
Erosion into open defects in a non-pressurized conduit is likely to lead to the development of a sinkhole on
the embankment, and hence the other breach mechanisms can be excluded. Leakage out of a pressurized
conduit is likely to cause slope instability, and hence the other breach mechanisms can be excluded.
13.2
Probability of Breach by Gross Enlargement (Pge)
13.2.1 Screening for internal erosion through the embankment, through the
soil foundation, and from the embankment into or at the foundation
Breach by gross enlargement of the pipe requires a continuing erosion condition.
For internal erosion through the embankment, breach by gross enlargement can be considered negligible
in cases where the downstream shell is unable to support a roof of a pipe. Use Table 13.2 to assess if this
applicable.
If applicable, estimate the probability of breach by gross enlargement using Table 13.3. This considers
whether the reservoir will drop below the level of the pipe before the enlarging pipe develops into a
breach.
Table 13.2 Screening for probability of breach by gross enlargement of the pipe:
ability to support a pipe
Downstream shell/zone
Downstream shell comprises free draining
rockfill, or coarse sandy gravel
Ability to Support a
Roof
Very unlikely for
piping through dam
Not a likely mode of breach for

piping through the dam. Breach
by slope instability or
unraveling/sloughing are likely to
be more critical. Assign
probability of breach by gross
enlargement Pge = 0.
Likely
Assess using Table 13.3
Downstream shell comprises sand and gravel,

<5% plastic fines or <15% non plastic fines
All other cases
Probability of Breach by
Gross Enlargement
13-3
Section 13
13.2.2 Assessment for internal erosion through the embankment, through the
soil foundation, and from the embankment into or at the foundation
For breach to occur by gross enlargement of a pipe; the pipe must stay open until it is so large that the
settlement of the crest due to the pipe, or collapse of the embankment into the pipe lowers the crest to below
the reservoir level. For rock foundations with open defects, gross enlargement can occur if the soil roof (core
or foundation materials) is in contact with the defect.
If there is no intervention, the process can only stop if one or more of the following occurs:
a)
The hydraulic shear stresses in the pipe reach an equilibrium condition with the erosion resistance of
the soil. This will not happen unless the reservoir level drops giving a lower gradient, as the
hydraulic shear stress increases with hole diameter for a constant gradient.
b)
The reservoir empties or falls below the entrance of the pipe before a breach mechanism is able to
develop. This is a common consideration where internal erosion may develop in the upper part of the
dam under short duration flood loading conditions.
Table 13.3 provides guidance on the probability of breach by gross enlargement assuming there is no
restriction on flows. Table 13.3 considers the duration that the reservoir level is above the pipe. This duration
is based on ability of the project to pass the flood loading under normal operations (i.e., through overflow
spillway) and not by intervention. Intervention is accounted for separately in Section 12 and thus for breach
to occur intervention has failed. For normal reservoirs levels the pool will remain long enough to lead to
gross enlargement for IHET < 6 unless normal operations lowers the pool very rapidly. For high reservoir
levels leading to spillway flows, the spillway may drawdown the reservoir level below the pipe before gross
enlargement leading to breach occurs. Most projects the reservoir levels will remain long enough (> 2 weeks)
for gross enlargement for IHET < 6 for all pools under consideration. Use the maximum range given in column
4 unless you have a condition where the pool will only be above the pipe for a very short period. A defect that
is above the invert of a dam with an uncontrolled spillway is case where the lower values may apply.
13-4
Section 13
Table 13.3 Probability of breach by gross enlargement of the pipe (Pge)

Characteristics of Core or Foundation Materials
Soil Classification
SM, SC, ML, dispersive
soils
CL, CL-CH, MH or
CH with LL < 65
CH with LL > 65
CH with HET carried out
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
13.3
Hole Erosion Index

(IHET) (1)
Duration Reservoir
is above Pipe
Probability of Breach by
Gross Enlargement(2)
1.0
2 to 3
4 (avg)
>2 days(3)
0.8 to 0.95(3)
3 to 5
1-2 days
0.6 to 0.8(4)
<1 day
0.3 to 0.6(4)
5 (avg)
> 2 weeks(3)
0.8 to 0.95(3)
4 to 6
1 2 weeks
0.3 to 0.8(4)
<1 week
0.1 to 0.3(4)
Pipe will likely self

limit and probability of
gross enlargement is
low regardless of
duration
.001
>6
IHET from Hole Erosion Tests.

The basis for the judgmental probabilities is given in the supporting information document.
For most projects, the reservoir level under consideration will remain long enough to lead to breach by gross
enlargement for these soils.
Only use these ranges when the duration the pool is short under normal operating conditions such as a defect that is
above the invert of an uncontrolled spillway.
Probability of Breach by Slope Instability (Psi)
13.3.1 Approach
For internal erosion in embankments, soil foundations and from embankment to foundation, estimate the
probability of slope instability occurring due to the increased seepage flows (Psi-i) using Table 13.4 and
Table 13.5.
For internal erosion in rock foundations, use Section 13.3.3 and Table 13.6 to Table 13.9.
Estimate the probability of loss of freeboard due to instability (Psi-lf) using Table 13.10 and Table 13.11.
The probability of breach by slope instability is equal to (Psi-i) x (Psi-lf).
13-5
Section 13
13.3.2 Probability of slope instability initiates for internal erosion through the
embankment, through the soil foundation, and from the embankment
into or at the foundation (Psi-i)
The assessment considers whether internal drainage measures in the dam are able to prevent pore pressures
rising in the dam and/or foundation and whether the factor of safety of the dam falls below 1.0 if pore
pressures do increase.
Estimate the probability of a downstream slide initiating using Table 13.4 and Table 13.5. It is assumed that
seepage in a soil foundation will exit under the embankment.
13-6
Section 13
Table 13.4 Factors influencing the likelihood of breach by instability of the downstream
slope: slide initiates for internal erosion through the embankment, through the soil
foundations, and from the embankment into or at the foundation
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Factor
Internal
drainage
measures in
dam
(3)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Good
Moderate
Limited
None
Filter drains with

good discharge
capacity
Single stage
filter zones
Filter drain with

excessive fines,
poor discharge
capacity,
No or limited
zoning of
materials and no
filter drains
Or free draining
rockfill or clean
sandy gravel in
the downstream
zones
Or sandy gravel,
or moderate
fines rockfill in
the downstream
zones
Or silty sandy
gravel, or high
fines content
weathered
rockfill in the
downstream
zones
(2)
Downstream
Slope
3H:1V or flatter
2.5H:1V
2H:1V
Steeper than
1.8H:1V
Flatter than
1.75H: 1V
1.5H: 1V
Steeper than
1.4H: 1V
Steeper than
1.3H: 1V
Sandy gravel
<5% fines,
Sandy gravel 520% fines
Cohesive soils,
Coarse grained,
free draining
rockfill
Dirty rockfill
Silty sand, silty

sandy gravel,
20-50% fines
For dams with

an earthfill
downstream
zone (a)
OR
For dams with
a free
draining
rockfill
downstream
zone (b)
Downstream
shell
materials
Notes:
(a)
(b)
Much More
Likely
(4)
(1)
Fine grained
rockfill
Applies to the following dam types; homogeneous earthfill, earthfill with filter, earthfill with rock toe, zoned
earthfill, concrete face earthfill, puddle core earthfill, earthfill with core wall and hydraulic fill.
Applies to the following dam types; zoned earth and rockfill, central core earth and rockfill, concrete face rockfill
and rockfill with core wall.
13-7
Section 13
Table 13.5 Probability of breach by slope instability: slide initiates for internal erosion
through the embankment, through soil foundations, and from the embankment into or at the
foundation (Psi-i) versus (RFxLF)
0.001
6
0.003
0.005
0.02
0.1
0.9
11
13
18
24 RFxLF
13.3.3 Probability of slope instability of the embankment initiates for internal

erosion in a rock foundation (Psi-i)
Estimate the probability that leakage through the rock foundations exits into the downstream shell PS
using Table 13.6.
Estimate the probability of slope instability initiating due to the increased leakage flows (Psi-i) using
Table 13.7, Table 13.8 and Table 13.9.
The assessment considers whether the internal drainage measures in the dam are able to prevent pore
pressures rising in the dam and/or foundation and whether the factor of safety of the dam falls below 1.0 if
pore pressures do increase.
13-8
Section 13
Table 13.6 Probability of seepage exits from defects or solution features

in a rock foundation into the downstream shell (PS)
Probability of the Seepage
Path Exiting into the
Downstream Shell
Scenarios
The open defect in the rock foundation daylights downstream of the dam,
and the defect is not in direct contact with the downstream shell, and there
is very limited interconnectivity through other joint sets
Negligible. Adopt PS = 0
and the defect is not in direct contact with downstream shell, but there is a
likely connection into the downstream shell via an interconnected open
joint set
0.1 to 0.5
and the defect is likely to be in direct contact with downstream shell
0.5 to 1.0 (a)
The open defect in the rock foundation does not daylight downstream of
the dam, and the defect is in direct contact with downstream shell
1.0 (a)
Note (a) The geometry of the leakage flow path affects the flow rate. If the leakage path daylights downstream of the dam it is likely
there will be less flow into the downstream shell of the dam.
Evaluate the relative discharge capacity of the foundation drains and downstream zone compared to the size
of the defect in the rock foundation using Table 13.7.
Estimate the probability of a downstream slide initiating using Table 13.8 and Table 13.9.
13-9
Section 13
Table 13.7 Assessment of size of leak in defect or solution feature in a rock foundation
relative to discharge capacity of foundation drains and downstream shell
Discharge capacity of foundation drain and downstream zone
Limited
Width of Defect or
solution feature
exiting into the
Downstream Zone
Poor
No or limited zoning
of materials and no
foundation filter
drains
Moderate
Good
Single stage
foundation filter
zone
Foundation filter
drains with good
discharge capacity
Or silty sandy
gravel, or high fines
content weathered
rockfill in the
downstream zones
Or sandy gravel, or
moderate fines
rockfill in the
downstream zones
Or free draining
rockfill or clean
sandy gravel in the
downstream zones
Foundation filter
drain with excessive
fines, poor
discharge capacity,
<5 mm
LL
Negligible
5-25 mm
ML
ML
LL
25-100 mm
MML
MML
ML
>100 mm
MML
MML
MML
ML
Note: LL = Less Likely; N = Neutral; ML = More Likely; MML = Much More Likely
13-10
Section 13
Table 13.8 Factors influencing the likelihood of breach by instability of the downstream
slope: slide initiates for internal erosion in rock foundation
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Factor
Size of leak
relative to
discharge
capacity of the
foundation
drains and
downstream
shell (from
Table 13.7)
(3)
Downstream
Slope
(2)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
LL
ML
MML
Refer to Table
13.7
Refer to Table
13.7
Refer to Table
13.7
Refer to Table
13.7
3H:1V or flatter
2.5H:1V
2H:1V
Steeper than
1.8H:1V
Flatter than
1.75H: 1V
1.5H: 1V
Steeper than
1.4H: 1V
Steeper than
1.3H: 1V
Sandy gravel
<5% fines,
Sandy gravel 520% fines
Cohesive soils,
Coarse grained,
free draining
rockfill
Dirty rockfill
Silty sand, silty

sandy gravel, 2050% fines
For dams with

an earthfill
downstream
zone (a)
OR
For dams with
a free draining
rockfill
downstream
zone (b)
Downstream
shell materials
Notes:
(a)
(b)
(1)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Fine grained
rockfill
Applies to the following dam types; homogeneous earthfill, earthfill with filter, earthfill with rock toe, zoned
Applies to the following dam types; zoned earth and rockfill, central core earth and rockfill, concrete face rockfill
13-11
Section 13
Table 13.9 Estimation of the probability of breach by slope instability: slide initiates for
internal erosion in rock foundations (Psi-i) versus (RFxLF)
0.001
6
0.003
0.006
0.02
0.1
0.9
11
13
18
24 RFxLF
13.3.4 Loss of freeboard due to slope instability (Psi-lf)

The assessment considers whether the resulting sliding deformations are sufficient to result in loss of
freeboard so the reservoir overtops the dam crest. Estimate the probability of loss of freeboard using Table
13.10 and Table 13.11.
Table 13.10 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by instability of the

downstream slope: loss of freeboard
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)

Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Freeboard
compared to
dam height at
the time of
incident
(3)
> 7%
5%
< 3%
< 1%
Presence of
strain
weakening
soils in the
embankment
and foundation
(2)
Sandy clays,
low to medium
plasticity, clay
size content
<20%, or
medium dense
to dense dilative
non cohesive
soils or rockfill.
Clays, sandy
clays, clay size
content 20% to
40%, or medium
dense non
cohesive soils.
Clays, sandy
clays, high
plasticity; clay
size content (%
passing 0.002
mm) > 40%
or/and
saturated, very
loose sand, or
loose silty sand
contractive on
shearing
As for more
likely, but with
very high clay
size content or
very loose
contractive
granular soil
Crest width
(1)
> 30 ft (9m)
20 ft (6m)
< 13 ft (4m)
10 ft (3m)
13-12
Section 13
Table 13.11 Probability of breach by loss of freeboard (Psi-lf) versus (RFxLF)

0.001
6
13.4
0.005
0.02
0.1
0.5
1.0
11
13
18
24
Estimation of the Probability of Breach by Sloughing or

Unraveling (Psu)
For sloughing to occur, the downstream face would have to be relatively steep, and the shoulder material a
cohesionless soil, probably sandy gravel, or gravely sand, possibly with some silty fines. The process would
have to be allowed to continue until it gradually eroded away the crest and allowed the reservoir to overtop
the embankment.
Unraveling usually relates to the progressive removal of individual rocks by fairly large seepage flows
flowing through the downstream rockfill.
The approach is:
For internal erosion in rock foundations, Estimate the probability that seepage through the rock
foundations exits into the downstream shell PS using Table 13.6.
For internal erosion in the embankment, soil foundation and embankment into foundation, assume
that the seepage will emerge into the downstream shell of the embankment, so PS = 1.0.
For dams with a downstream zone of earthfill (i.e., clay, silt, sand or gravel) use Table 13.12 and
Table 13.13 to estimate the probability of breach by sloughing Psl.
For dams with a downstream zone of rockfill, use Table 13.14 and Table 13.15 to estimate the
probability of breach by unraveling Pun.
The probability of breach by sloughing or unraveling is equal to (PS) x (Psl) for dams with a
downstream zone of earthfill or (PS) x (Pun) for dams with a rockfill shell.
13-13
Section 13
Table 13.12 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by sloughing: dams with an
earthfill downstream zone
Factor
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Material in
downstream
zone
(3)
Freeboard at
the time of
incident
(2)
Downstream
slope of the
embankment
(1)

Less Likely
(1)
Cohesive soils
Neutral
(2)
Much More
Likely
(4)
More Likely
(3)
Sandy gravel
<20% fines,
Silty sand, silty

sandy gravel,
20%-50% non
plastic fines.
As for more
likely, but
uncompacted
materials
> 13 ft (4 m)
10 ft (3 m)
< 6 ft (2 m)
< 3 ft (1 m)
3H:1V or flatter
2.5H: 1V
2H: 1V
Steeper than
1.8H: 1V
Note:
Probability is
zero if this
condition is
present.
Note: Table 13.12 applies to the following dam types; homogeneous earthfill, earthfill with filter, earthfill with rock toe, zoned
Table 13.13 Probability of breach by sloughing (earthfill) for internal erosion through the
embankment, through soil foundations, and from the embankment into the foundation (Psl)
versus (RFxLF)
negligible
6
negligible
0.05
8 9
0.1
0.5
0.9
1.0
11
13
18
24 RFxLF
Note: For open rock defects, the defect must discharge into the downstream shell.
13-14
Section 13
Table 13.14 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by unraveling: dams with a
rockfill downstream zone
Factor
Relative
Importance of
Factor (RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Material in
downstream
zone
(3)
Coarse grained
free draining
rockfill.
Medium
grained dirty
rockfill
Fine grained
rockfill
As for more
likely, but
uncompacted
materials
Downstream
slope of the
embankment
(2)
Flatter than
1.75H: 1V
1.5H: 1V
Steeper than
1.4H: 1V
Steeper than
1.3H: 1V
Freeboard at the
time of incident
(1)
> 13 ft (4 m)
10 ft (3 m)
< 6 ft (2 m)
< 3 ft (1 m)
Note: Table 13.14 applies to the following dam types; zoned earth and rockfill, central core earth and rockfill, concrete face rockfill
Table 13.15 Probability of breach by unraveling (rockfill) for internal erosion through the
embankment, through soil foundations, and from the embankment into the foundation (Pun)
versus (RFxLF)
0.5
6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
11
13
18
24 RFxLF
Note: For open rock defects, the defect must discharge into the downstream shell.
13-15
13.5
Section 13
Probability of Breach by Sinkhole Development (Psd)
13.5.1 Approach
Estimate the probability of a sinkhole developing as a result of the internal erosion (Ps-f).
Estimate the probability that the sinkhole causes loss of freeboard (Ps-lf). Assume the sinkhole develops
on the crest unless there is a specific reason to expect it to develop elsewhere on the embankment.
The probability of breach by sinkhole development, Psd = (Ps-f) (Ps-lf).
13.5.2 Probability of sinkhole formation (Ps-f)

Estimate the probability of a sinkhole developing as a result of the internal erosion (Ps-f) using Table 13.16.
Table 13.16 Probability of a sinkhole or crest settlement developing (Ps-f)
Probability of sinkhole or crest
settlement developing given
internal erosion has initiated
Mode of internal erosion

Internal erosion in the embankment and into
the foundation
0.6
Internal erosion in the foundation
0.3
13.5.3 Probability of loss of freeboard due to sinkhole formation (Ps-lf)

For breach to occur by sinkhole development into an erosion pipe in the embankment, the sinkhole or crest
settlement would need to be sufficiently large to settle the crest to below reservoir level. For internal erosion
in the foundation, loss of freeboard can also occur by excessive settlement of the embankment induced by the
loss of foundation materials.
Estimate the probability of loss of freeboard due to sinkhole formation using Table 13.17 and Table 13.18.
13-16
Section 13
Table 13.17 Factors influencing the likelihood of breaching by sinkhole development: loss
of freeboard given sinkhole develops
Relative
Importance
of Factor
(RF)
Less Likely
(1)
Neutral
(2)
More Likely
(3)
Much More
Likely
(4)
Freeboard at
the time of the
incident
(3)
> 13 ft (4 m)
10 ft (3 m)
< 6 ft (2 m)
< 3 ft (1 m)
Width of crest
(2)
> 30 ft (9 m)
20 ft (6 m)
< 13 ft (4 m)
10 ft (3 m)
Material in the
core of the
embankment
(1)
High plasticity
clay, well
compacted
Low to medium
plasticity clays,
and sandy clays
Non-cohesive,
silty sand or silty
sandy gravel
Factor
As for more
likely, poorly
compacted,
loose
Table 13.18 Probability of breach by sinkhole development: loss of freeboard given

sinkhole develops (Ps-lf) versus (RFxLF)
0.0002
6
0.0005
0.001
0.005
0.02
11
13
18
13-17
0.2
24 RFxLF
References
14
Section 14
References
Barneich, J., Majors, D., Moriwaki, Y., Kulkarni, R. and Davidson, R., Application of reliability analysis in
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and design of a major dam project. Proceedings of Uncertainty
1996. Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE.
Fell, R., Wan, C.F., Cyganiewicz, J. and Foster, M. (2001). The time for development and detectability of
internal erosion and piping on embankment dams and their foundations. UNICIV Report No. R-399,
ISBN: 84841 366 3. School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South
Wales.
Fell, R., Wan, C.F., Cyganiewicz, J. and Foster, M. (2003). Time for development of internal erosion and
piping in embankment dams. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol.
129, No.4, 307-314.
Fell, R., Wan, C.F. and Foster, M. (2004). Methods for estimating the probability of failure of embankment
dams by internal erosion and piping piping through the embankment. UNICIV Report No. R-428, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. ISBN 85841 395 7.
Fell, R. and Wan, C.F. (2005) Methods for estimating the probability of failure of embankment dams by
internal erosion and piping in the foundation and from embankment to foundation. UNICIV Report No
R-436, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 2052.ISBN: 85841 403 1.
FEMA (2005) Conduits through Embankment Dams, Best practices for design, construction, problem
identification and evaluation, inspection, maintenance, renovation and repair, L-266, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Foster, M.A. (1999). The probability of failure of embankment dams by internal erosion and piping. PhD
thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales.
Foster, M.A. and Fell, R. (1999a). A Framework for Estimating the Probability of Failure of Embankment
Dams by Piping Using Event Tree Methods. UNICIV Report No. R-377. School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales. ISBN: 85841 343 4.
Foster, M.A. and Fell, R. (1999b). Assessing Embankment Dam Filters Which Do Not Satisfy Design
Criteria. UNICIV Report No. R-376, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New
South Wales. ISBN: 85841 343 4, ISSN 0077-880X.
Foster, M. and Fell, R. (2000). Use of Event Trees to Estimate the Probability of Failure of Embankment
Dams by Internal Erosion and Piping. 20th Congress on Large Dams, Beijing. Vol. 1, 237-260. ICOLD,
Paris.
Foster, M. and Fell, R. (2001). Assessing embankment dams, filters which do not satisfy design criteria, J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.127, No.4, May 2001, 398-407.
14-1
References
Section 14
Maniam, M. (2004). Critical seepage gradients beneath embankment dams. Bachelor of Civil Engineering
thesis, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Pells, S. and Fell, R. (2002). Damage and Cracking of Embankment Dams by Earthquakes, and the
Implications for Internal Erosion and Piping. UNICIV Report No. R-406, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales, ISBN: 85841 375 2.
Pells, S. and Fell, R. (2003). Damage and Cracking of Embankment Dams by Earthquake and the
Implications for Internal Erosion and Piping. Proceedings 21st Internal Congress on Large Dams,
Montreal. ICOLD, Paris Q83-R17, International Commission on Large Dams, Paris.
Schmertmann, J.H. (2000). The non-filter factor of safety against piping through sands. ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 111, Judgment and Innovation. Edited by F. Silva and E. Kavazanjian, ASCE,
Reston.
Sherard, J.L. and Dunnigan, L.P. (1989). Critical filters for impervious soils. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE,
Vol.115, No.7, 927-947.
Skempton A.W. and Brogan, J.M. (1994). Experiments on piping in sandy gravels. Geotechnique 44, No.3,
449-460.
Sowers, G.B. and Sowers, G.F. (1970). Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations. MacMillan Publishing
Co., New York.
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2004). Experimental investigation of internal instability of soils in embankment dams
and their foundations. UNICIV Report No.429, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, ISBN 85841 396 5.
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2002). Investigation of internal erosion and piping of soils in embankment dams by
the slot erosion test and the hole erosion test. UNICIV Report No. R-412, ISBN: 85841 379 5, School of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of New South Wales.
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2004). Experimental investigation of internal instability of soils in embankment dams
and their foundations. UNICIV Report No.429, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The
University of New South Wales, Sydney, ISBN 85841 396 5.
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2004a). Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in embankment dams. ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 4, 373-380.
Wan, C.F. and Fell, R. (2004b). Laboratory tests on the rate of piping erosion of soils in embankment dams.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, vol.27, No.3, 295-303.
Weijers, J.B.A and Sellmeijer, J.B. (1993). A new model to deal with the piping mechanism on Filters in
Geotechnical and Hydraulic Engineering. Brauns, Herbaum and Schuler (editors), Balkema, Rotterdam.
14-2
Appendix A
Navigation Tables for Internal Erosion
through the Embankment
Table A1 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion through the Embankment (Sheet 1)
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
Initiation of Erosion
PI
(3) Probabilities for

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

Probability of Failure
(7) Probability of
Unsuccessful Intervention
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
Determine the
probability of a
crack using Section
5. This is also
described in Table
A2.
Determine Probability
of initiation for each
crack initiating
mechanism using
Section 5. This is also
described in Table A2.
Evaluate the
probabilities for
Continuing Erosion for
the failure path under
consideration using
Section 10
Estimate the probabilities for

Progression for the failure
path under consideration
using Section 11
Pflaw(IMx)
PI
PCE
Sketch
Pflaw
Initiation of Erosion in
Transverse Cracks in
the Embankment
Cross Section
Crack
IM1-IM8
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach
Calculate the probability

of failure for each IM
using the event tree
Pfail =Pflaw(IMx) x PI x
PCE x PP x Pbreach
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 5
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Traverse Crack in Embankment
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 5
A-1
* Evaluate the probabilty of

unsuccessful intervention using
Chapter 12. This will be input into the
risk engine. Do not include it in the
system response estimate.
Estimate the probability for

unsuccessful intervention
using Section 12
Table A1 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion through the Embankment (Sheet 2)
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
PI

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
crack initiating
mechanism using
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10

using Section 11
PI
PCE
Pflaw
Hydraulic Fractures in
the Embankment
Hydraulic
Fracture
Cross Section
IM9-IM12
Determine the
probability of a
hydraulic fracture
crack using Section
5. This is also
described in Table
A3.
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
Pflaw(IMx)
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Probabilty of Failure
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 5
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Hydraulic Fracture in Embankment
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 5
A-2

Table A1 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion Through the Embankment (Sheet 3)
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
PI

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
crack initiating
mechanism using
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10

using Section 11
PI
PCE
Pflaw
Poorly Compacted or
High Permeability
Zones in the
Embankment
Poorly Compacted
or High Permeability
Zone
Cross Section
Determine the
probability of a
poorly compacted
or high permeability
zone using Section
6. This is also
described in Table
A4.
IM13-IM16
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
Pflaw(IMx)
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 6
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Poorly Compacted or High Perm. Zone
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 6
A-3

(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
PI

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
crack initiating
mechanism using
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10

using Section 11
PI
PCE
Pflaw
Poorly Compacted or
High Permeability
Zones adjacent to a
Conduit
Cross Section
Conduit
IM17
Determine the
probability of a
poorly compacted
zone using Section
6. This is also
described in Table
A4.
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
Pflaw(IMx)
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 6
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 6
A-4

(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
PI

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
of initiation using
Section 6
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10

using Section 11
Pflaw
Determine the
probability of an
open joint or crack
in the conduit using
Section 6
into an Open Joint or
Crack in a Conduit
PI
Pflaw(IMx)
IM18
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
PCE
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 6
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Flaw in Conduit
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 6
A-5

(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
PI

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
of initiation using
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10

using Section 11
Pflaw
Determine the
probability of a
poorly compacted
zone using Section
6. This is also
described in Table
A4.
Poorly Compacted or
High Permeability
Zones adjacent to a
Spillway or Abutment
Wall
PI
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
PCE
Pflaw(IMx)
IM19
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 6
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 6
A-6


Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
PI

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
of initiation using
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10

using Section 11
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Flaw
Pflaw
Determine the
probability of a
poorly compacted
zone using Section
5. This is also
described in Table
A5.
Traverse Cracks
adjacent to a Spillway
or Abutment Wall
IM20-IM21
PI
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PP
Pbreach

PCE x PP x Pbreach
PCE
Pflaw(IMx)
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 5
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Traverse Crack Adjacent to Wall
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 5
A-7


using Section 12
Table A2 Probability of a Crack in the Embankment and Initiation of Erosion
Initiating Mechanism for

Transverse Cracking
IM1 Cross valley differential

settlement
Crack
Probability of Cracking in the Embankment

(Pflaw)
Probability of Initiation of Erosion (PI)
(1) Assess (RFxLF)

and estimate
probability of a crack
(PC.xx)
(2) Assess factors for

measured settlement
and observed
cracking (MOU) and
calculate Pflaw
(1) Estimate maximum

likely crack width at
the top of the core
(Cmax)

likely crack depth (D)
(3) Estimate likely

crack width at
reservoir stage under
consideration (W)
(4) Estimate
probability of erosion
(PI)
Assess (RFxLF) from

Table 5.1 and estimate
probability from Table
5.2
Assess multiplication
factors from Table 5.21
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.1)
Estimate maximum
likely crack width from
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum
likely crack depth from
Table 5.24 using Cmax
Estimate crack width at

reservoir level under
consideration assuming
a uniformly tapered
crack and using Cmax
and D
Estimate probability of
erosion from Tables
5.30 to 5.36 based on
the core soil type and
using W and average
hydraulic gradient (iave)
PC.1
Pflaw.1 = PC.1 x MOU.1
PI.1
Long Section
IM2 Differential settlement

adjacent to a cliff
Crack/Gap
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.4
PC.2
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.2)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum

a uniformly tapered
and D
PI.2
Long Section
IM3 Cross section settlement

due to poorly compacted
shoulders
Cross Section
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.6
Cracking
PC.3
IM4 Differential settlement in the

and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.3)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum
Settlement of
shoulders
Long Section
erosion from Tables
using W and average

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.3
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.8
PC.4
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.4)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.4
A-8

Transverse Cracking
IM5 Differential settlement due to

embankment staging
Long Section
Crack
Stage 2

(Pflaw)
(1) Assess (RFxLF)
and estimate
(PC.xx)

measured settlement
and observed
cracking (MOU) and
calculate Pflaw

the top of the core
(Cmax)

(3) Estimate likely

crack width at
consideration (W)
(4) Estimate
(PI)
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.2 (refer to Section
5.2.5 on how to apply)
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.7)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum
PC.5

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
Stage 1
PI.5
IM6 Cracking in the crest due to

desiccation
Long Section
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.10
factor from Table 5.22
(MOU.6)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum
PC.6

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.6
IM7 Cracking on seasonal

construction and staged
construction surfaces due to
desiccation
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.12
Multiplication factor not

applicable (MOU.7 = 1.0)
Pflaw.7 = PC.7
PC.7
Long Section
Estimate maximum
likely crack width (at
surface of seasonal
shutdown layer or
staged construction
surface) from Table
5.23 using (RFxLF)
Estimate maximum
likely crack depth (from
surface of seasonal
shutdown layer or
staged construction
surface) from Table
5.25 using Cmax

a uniformly tapered
and D
Estimate maximum
Table 5.14 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.7
Crack
Stage 2
Stage 1
IM8 Cracking due to an

earthquake
Crack
Long Section
Assess the damage

class from Figure 5.6 for
earthfill dams or Figure
5.7 for earth and rockfill
dams and estimate
5.14 using (RFxLF)
from IM1, IM2, or IM 4

applicable (MOU.8 = 1.0)
Pflaw.8 = PC.8
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.8
PC.8
A-9
Table A3 Probability of a Hydraulic Fracture in the Embankment and Initiation of Erosion

Hydraulic Fracturing
IM9 Cross valley arching
Crack
Probability of Hydraulic Fracturing

in the Embankment (Pflaw)
(1) Assess (RFxLF)

and estimate the
(PC.xx)

measured settlement
and observed
cracking (MOU or MOL)
and calculate Pflaw

likely crack width
(Cmax)
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.16
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.9)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.26 using
(RFxLF)
PC.9
(2) Estimate likely

crack location
Estimate the location of

the crack below the
crest using Table 5.28
(3) Estimate likely

crack width at
consideration (W)
Use W = Cmax
Long Section
(4) Estimate
(PI)
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.9

causing arching of the core onto
the shoulders of the embankment.
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.18
(MOL.10)
Pflaw.10 = PC.10 x MOL.10
Estimate maximum
Table 5.27 using
(RFxLF)
At the phreatic line
Use W = Cmax
PC.10
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.10
IM11 Differential settlement in

the foundation soil beneath the
core
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.8 (IM4)
(MOL.11)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.27 using
(RFxLF)
At the base of the

embankment
Use W = Cmax
PC.11
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.11
IM12 Differential settlement over

small scale irregularities in the
foundation/abutment profile
beneath the core
Long Section
Assess (RFxLF) from

5.21

applicable (MOL.12 = 1.0)
Pflaw.12 = PCw.12
Estimate maximum
Table 5.27 using
(RFxLF)
At the core-foundation/
abutment contact
PC.12
Use W = Cmax
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.12
A-10
Table A4 Probability of a Poorly Compacted or High Permeability Zone in the Embankment and Initiation of Erosion
Probability of a Poorly Compacted or High

Permeability Zone in the Embankment (Pflaw)
(1) Assess (RFxLF)

and estimate the
probability of a poorly
compacted or high
permeability zone
(PP.xx)
high permeability layer in the
embankment
Cross Section
High
Permeability
Zone
Assess (RFxLF) from

Table 6.1 for cohesive
soils or Table 6.2 for
cohesionless soils and
estimate probability from
Table 6.3
PP.13
(2) Assess factor for

observed seepage
(MOS) and calculate
Pflaw
(MOS.14)
Pflaw.13 = PP.13 x MOS.13

(Cohesionless Soils) If both mechanisms
apply, carry both probabilities forward

(Cohesive Soils)
(1) Estimate
probability of initiation
of erosion by
backward erosion
piping (BEP)
(2) Estimate
of erosion by
suffusion
Refer to Section 6.6.2
Step 1. Assess whether

there is time for
seepage gradient to
develop using Table
6.26 for reservoir levels
above the normal
operating pool level.
Exclude if the reservoir
level rise is insufficient
for seepage gradient to
develop
Step 1. Determine if the

proportion of the finer
fraction is less than
40% of the total mass of
the soil. If the finer
fraction is more than
40% then suffusion is
not possible and
continue to backward
erosion piping.
Step 1. Estimate the

thickness of the poorly
compacted layer (TP)
Step 2. Estimate
average seepage
backward erosion:
a) for 1 cu 6,
estimate (ipmt)corrected;
b) estimate critical
gradient (icr), for cu > 6,
adopt this gradient if
smaller than (ipmt)corrected
Step 3. Estimate
(PI.13) from Table 6.23
for compacted layers
and Table 6.24 for
uncompacted layers
based on the average
seepage gradient
across the embankment
core (iave) and
(ipmt)corrected or icr.
Step 2. If the proportion

of the finer fraction is
less than 40%, estimate
probability the soil is
internally unstable (PIUS)
using Figure 6.8 or
Figure 6.9
probability of initiation of
erosion by suffusion
given the soil is
internally unstable (PSI)
from Table 6.25 based
on the average seepage
gradient across the
embankment core and
porosity (n)
Step 4. Calculate
probability of initiation of
erosion by suffusion,
PI.13 = PIUS x PSI
A-11
(1) Estimate likely

crack width (G or W)

amount by which the
layer may collapse (CF)
from Table 26
height of the gap,
G = TP x CF
(2) Estimate
(PI)
erosion from Tables
using G and average
PI.13

(1) Assess (RFxLF)

and estimate the
compacted or high
permeability zone
(PP.xx)
permeability layer on the corefoundation contact
Long Section
Poorly compacted layer
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.5

observed seepage
(MOS) and calculate
Pflaw
(MOS.14.)

(1) Estimate
of erosion by
backward erosion
piping (BEP)
(2) Estimate
of erosion by
suffusion
Refer to IM13
Refer to IM13

(Cohesive Soils)
(1) Estimate likely


PP.14

amount by which the
from Table 26
(2) Estimate
(PI)
erosion from Tables
using G and average
PI.14

height of the gap,
G = TP x CF
IM15 Cracking in the crest due
to desiccation by freezing
Long Section
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.7
(MOS.16).
Not applicable
Not applicable
Step 1. Estimate width

(W) of frost-induced
flaw using Table 6.27
PP.15
IM16 Seasonal shutdown layers

during construction and staged
construction surfaces due to
freezing.
Long Section
Stage 2
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.9
Step 2. Estimate depth

of frost penetration
using local building
code or Figure 6.10
(MOS.16).
Not applicable
Not applicable

Step 1. Estimate width
(W) of frost-induced
flaw (at surface of
seasonal shutdown
layer or staged
construction surface)
using Table 6.27
PP.16
Stage 1
Step 2. Estimate depth

of frost penetration
(from the surface of
seasonal shutdown
layer or staged
construction surface)
using on local building
code or Figure 6.10
A-12
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.15
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.16

(1) Assess (RFxLF)

and estimate the
compacted or high
permeability zone
(PP.xx)
permeability layer around a
conduit through the embankment
Long Section
High
Permeability
Zone
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.11

observed seepage
(MOS) and calculate
Pflaw
(MOS.17).

(1) Estimate
of erosion by
backward erosion
piping (BEP)
(2) Estimate
of erosion by
suffusion
Refer to IM13
Refer to IM13

(Cohesive Soils)
(1) Estimate likely


PP.17

amount by which the
from Table 26
(2) Estimate
(PI)
erosion from Tables
using G and average
PI.17

height of the gap,
G = TP x CF
permeability zone associated with
a spillway or abutment wall
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.14
(MOS.19).
Refer to IM13
Refer to IM13

If the crack width is
unknown from
inspection, assume a 5
mm wide gap full-height
of the wall
PP.19
erosion from Tables
using G and average
PI.19
A-13
Table A5 Probability of a Crack or Gap in the Embankment adjacent to a Spillway or Abutment Wall and Probability of Initiation
IM20 Crack/gap adjacent to a

spillway or abutment wall

(Pflaw)
(1) Assess (RFxLF)

and estimate
(PC.xx)

measured settlement
and observed
cracking (MOU) and
calculate Pflaw

the top of the core
(Cmax)

(3) Estimate likely

crack width at
consideration (W)
(4) Estimate
(PI)
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.16
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.1)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.26 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum
likely crack depth using
Figure 6.2 as a guide

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PC.20
PI.20

adjacent to a spillway or abutment
wall
Assess (RFxLF) from

6.18
Crack/Gap
PC.21
and Table 5.22 and
select the maximum
factor (MOU.21)
Estimate maximum
Table 5.23 using
(RFxLF)
Estimate maximum

a uniformly tapered
and D
erosion from Tables
using W and average
PI.21
Long Section
A-14
Appendix B
Navigation Tables for Internal Erosion
through Soil Foundations
Table B1 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion through a Soil Foundation (Sheet 1)

(1) Evaluate
Probability of a Flaw
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
Initiation of
Erosion
Pflaw

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10
Estimate the
probabilities for
Progression for the
failure path under
consideration using
Section 11
PI
Initiation of Backward
Erosion in a Layer of
Cohesionless Soil in the
Foundation
Determine the
probability of
continuous
cohesionless layer
and a seepage exit
using Section 7. This
is also described in
Table B2
Backward erosion piping
IM22
Determine
Probability of
initiation using
Section 7. This is
also described in
Table B2
PI
PCE
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
Pbreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
PP
Pflaw(IMx)
Pfailure
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Backward Erosion Piping
Progression
No
PI
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Initiation
Continuous Cohesionless layer with Seepage Exit

Use Section 7
Use Chapter 13
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 7
B-1

(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
Initiation of
Erosion
(1) Evaluate
Sketch
Pflaw

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10
Estimate the
probabilities for
Progression for the
failure path under
consideration using
Section 11
PI
Initiation of Suffusion in
a Layer of
Cohesionless Soil in the
Foundation
Determine the
probability of
continuous
cohesionless layer
and a seepage exit
using Section 7. This
is also described in
Table B3
IM23
Internally unstable soil
Determine
Probability of
initiation using
Section 7. This is
also described in
Table B3
PI
PCE
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
PBreach


using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
PP
Pflaw(IMx)
Pfailure
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Suffusion
Progression
No
PI
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Initiation
Continuous Cohesionless layer with Seepage Exit

Use Section 7
Use Chapter 13
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 7
B-2

(1) Evaluate
Sketch
Pflaw
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
Initiation of
Erosion

Continuing Erosion
PCE
(4) Probability of
Progression
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
PP
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
Evaluate the
probabilities for
consideration using
Section 10
Estimate the
probabilities for
Progression for the
failure path under
consideration using
Section 11
PI
Initiation of Erosion in a
Crack in Cohesive Soil
in the Foundation
Determine the
probability of
continuous cracking in
the foundation using
described in Table B4
IM24
Desiccation cracks in clay
Determine
Probability of
initiation using
Section 7. This is
also described in
Table B4
Pflaw(IMx)
PI
PCE
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
Pbreach

using the event tree.

using Section 12
PCE x PP x Pbreach
PP
Pfail
Yes
PP
Yes
Pbreach
Breach
No
PCE
Yes
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
Pflaw
Use Section 7
Initiation
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Transverse Crack in Foundation
Progression
Use Chapter 10
No
Use Section 7
B-3

Table B2 Probability of Initiation by Backward Erosion Piping in a Cohesionless Layer in the Soil Foundation
Probability of a Continuous Layer of Cohesionless Soil with a
Seepage Exit (Pflaw)
(1) Assess probability of a

continuous layer from
upstream to downstream
(Pcl)
IM22 Backward erosion piping in
a cohesionless soil foundation
Backward erosion piping
(1) Estimate probability of initiation and progression of backward erosion piping

given a seepage exit is predicted (PI)
Refer to 7.2.4
Estimate probability of a
continuous layer of
cohesionless soil from
across the core.
Step 1. If the cohesionless layer

daylights downstream, assume
PSEC = 1.0
Estimate the probability of backward erosion given heave has occurred as follows:
Pcl

seepage exit (PSEC) and calculate
Pflaw
Probability of Initiation (PI)
Step 2. Estimate the probability of a

seepage exit occurring through
heaving of the confining layer (PSEC)
using Table 7.1 based on the factor
of safety against heave (FUT).
Step 3. Assess (RFxLF) from Table
7.2 for and estimate probability of
seepage exit occurring due to defects
in the confining layer (PSEC) from
Table 7.3
Step 4. Select the maximum
probability and calculate Pflaw.22
Step 1. If sand boils have been observed, PI = 1.0 for reservoir levels at or above the
level at which sand boils have been observed.
Step 2. If sand boils have not been observed, estimate probability of initiation of
backward erosion given a seepage exit exists as follows:
Estimate the average seepage gradient (iavf) through the cohesionless soil
layer in the foundation beneath the dam at the midpoint of the pipe path (not at
the toe where there are likely to be locally higher gradients) for the level for the
reservoir stage under consideration.
From the particle size distribution of the foundation material, estimate a

representative uniformity coefficient, cu = D60/D10.
For 1 cu 6, estimate the average gradient (ipmt) required to initiate

backward erosion from Figure 6.6. This is the gradient that is required to
initiate backward erosion at the downstream end of the layer and also to
progress the pipe by backward erosion to the upstream end of the layer.
Correct this average gradient for the geometry, horizontal to vertical

permeability ratio of the zone subject to backward erosion, and grain size as
detailed in Section 6.6.2 to obtain (ipmt)corrected.
Estimate the critical gradient (icr) from icr = (sat w)/ w for vertical exits or icr =
[(sat w)/ w] tan() for horizontal exits (e.g., cohesionless layer daylights into
a toe ditch). If cu > 6, adopt this gradient if it is smaller than (ipmt)corrected.
Estimate probability of initiation given a seepage exit occurs (PI.22) from Table
7.4 based on the average seepage gradient across the foundation (iavf) and
ipmt or icr.
Pflaw.22 = Pcl x MAX(PSEC)
B-4
Table B3 Probability of Initiation of Erosion by Suffusion in a Cohesionless Layer in the Soil Foundation
Probability of a Continuous Layer of Cohesionless Soil with a
Seepage Exit (Pflaw)
IM23 Suffusion in a
cohesionless soil foundation

(Pcl)
(1) Estimate probability of initiation

and progression of backward
erosion piping given a seepage
exit is predicted (PI)
Estimate probability of a
continuous layer of
cohesionless soil from
across the core.
Step 1. If the cohesionless layer

daylights downstream, assume
PSEC = 1.0
Step 1. Determine if the proportion of the finer fraction is less than 40% of the total
mass of the soil. If the finer fraction is more than 40% then suffusion is not possible and
continue to backward erosion piping.
Step 2. Estimate the probability of a

seepage exit occurring through
heaving of the confining layer (PSEC)
using Table 7.1 based on the factor of
safety against heave (FUT).
Step 2. If the proportion of the finer fraction is less than 40%, estimate probability the
soil is internally unstable (PIUS) using Figure 6.8 or Figure 6.9
Pcl
Probability of Initiation (PI)
Step 3. Assess (RFxLF) from Table

7.2 for and estimate probability of
seepage exit occurring due to defects
in the confining layer (PSEC) from
Table 7.3
(1) Estimate probability of initiation of suffusion given the soil is internally

unstable (PI)
Step 3. Estimate the probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion given the soil is
internally unstable (PSI) from Table 6.25 based on the average seepage gradient across
the embankment core and porosity (n)
Step 4. Calculate probability of initiation of erosion by suffusion,
PI.23 = PIUS x PSI
Internally unstable soil

probability and calculate Pflaw.23
Pflaw.23 = Pcl x MAX(PSEC)
B-5
Table B4 Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Crack in a Cohesive Layer of in the Soil Foundation
Failure Path/Location
Probability of Cracking in the Foundation due to Differential Settlement or Desiccation

(Pflaw)
IM24 Erosion in cracks in a

cohesive soil foundation due to
desiccation

(Pcl)
(2) Assess (RFxLF) and

estimate probability of a
crack
(PC,xx)
Estimate probability of a layer

of cohesive soil containing a
continuous crack or
interconnected pattern of
cracks across the core
Step 1. If IM4 Scenario (b)

from Figure 5.4 is applicable,
assess (RFxLF) from Table
5.7 and estimate probability
from Table 5.8
PC.4
Pcl
Step 2. Assess (RFxLF)

from Table 5.11 and estimate
probability from Table 5.12
using Below POR
3
Desiccation cracks in clay
PC.7

measured settlement (MOL)
and calculate Pflaw
Step 1. For IM4, assess

multiplication factor from
Table 5.21 (MOL.4)
(1) Estimate likely crack

width (W)
If the crack width is unknown

from inspection, assume a 5
mm wide crack
Step 2. For IM7,

multiplication factor not
applicable (MOL.7 = 1.0)
Pflaw.7 = PC.7
(2) Estimate probability of

erosion (PI)
erosion from Tables 5.30 to
5.36 based on the core soil
type and using W and
average hydraulic gradient
(iave)
PI.24

probability and calculate
Pflaw.25
Pflaw.24 = Pcl x MAX(Pflaw.4 or
Pflaw.7)
B-6
Appendix C
Navigation Tables for Presence of
Continuous Rock Defects
Table C1 Probability of Continuous Defects Related to Stress Relief Effects in the Valley Sides in a Rock Foundation
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Based on Site
Investigation and
Construction Data
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Based on Geology and
Topography
Combine the Two

Probability Estimates
for Continuous
Defects
Pw
PGT
Assess the
Probability that
Grouting is
Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Cut-off Wall is
Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Surface Treatment
is Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
PGI
PCI
PTI
Assess the likelihood

of grouting not being
effective using Tables
8.19 and 8.20.
Assess the
likelihood of cut-off
walls not being
effective using
Tables 8.21 and
8.22.

of surface treatment
not being effective
using Table 8.23.
Compute the Probability of a

Continuous Rock Defect
Describe the Extent of the

Defects
PCR
PSC
Identify potential failure paths for initiation

of erosion in defects related to stress relief
effects in the valley sides.
Stress Relief Defects
Long Section
Estimate the probability

of a continuous defect in
the rock foundation from
upstream of the core to
Assess (RFxLF) from
Tables 8.1 and 8.2 and
estimate the probabilities
for each defect size from
Table 8.3.
Use this process to evaluate each of the 4

defect sizes.

of a continuous defect
in the rock foundation
from upstream of the
core to downstream of
the core.
Obtain the weighting

factor (w) based on the
quantity and quality of
the investigation and
construction data using
Table 8.18.
Assess (RFxLF) from

the probabilities for
each defect size from
Table 8.5.
Calculate the weighted

estimate of the
probability of continuous
defects for each defect
size.
PCR = (Pw) (PGI) (PCI) (PTI)
Pw = w PGT + (1-w) PSC
<5 mm
5 mm to 25 mm
25 mm to 100 mm
>100 mm
P TI
Yes
Yes
P CI

No
Yes
P GI

No
Yes
Pw
No
Stress Relief in The Valley Sides
Continuous Defect?
No

<5mm
5mm to 25 mm
25mm to100mm
>100 mm
Evaluate:
* Regional Geology and Topographic Data PGT
* Site Investigations, Construction, and Performance Data PSC
Sub-event tree structure to show computation of a continuous defect below the embankment
C-1
P CR
Probability of Continuous Rock Defect
Describe the defects in relation to

the embankment details (refer to
Section 8.11).
Describe the defects, their width,
depth, spatial distribution in the
foundation, and how these relate to
the cut-off and general foundation
of the embankment beneath the
core. In particular, identify features
which will be in contact with the
core at the base of the cut-off and
in the sides of the cut-off trench.
Table C2 Probability of Continuous Defects Related to Stress Relief Effects in the Valley Floor Valley Bulge and Rebound
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Topography
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Based on Site
Investigation and
Construction Data
Combine the Two

for Continuous
Defects
Pw
PGT
Assess the
Probability that
Grouting is
Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Cut-off Wall is
Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Surface Treatment
is Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
PGI
PCI
PTI

8.19 and 8.20.
Assess the
walls not being
effective using
Tables 8.21 and
8.22.

not being effective
using Tables 8.23.


Defects
PCR
PSC

of erosion in defects related to valley
bulge and rebound.

Assess (RFxLF) from
Tables 8.6 and 8.2 and
estimate the probabilities
for each defect size from
Table 8.7.
Valley Bulge
Features
Long Section

defect sizes.

the core.

Table 8.18.
Assess (RFxLF) from

Table 8.9.

estimate of the
size.
<5 mm
5mm to 25mm
25mm to 100mm
>100 mm
P TI
Yes
Yes
P CI

No
Yes
P GI

No
Yes
Pw
No
Valley Bulge and Rebound
Continuous Defect?
No

<5mm
5mm to 25 mm
25mm to100mm
>100 mm
Evaluate:
C-2
P CR

Section 8.11).
Table C3 Probability of Continuous Defects Related to Solution Features for Rock Subject to Solution
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Topography
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Based on Site
Investigation and
Construction Data
Combine the Two

for Continuous
Defects
Pw
PGT
Assess the
Probability that
Grouting is
ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Cut-off Wall is
ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Surface Treatment
is ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
PGI
PCI
PTI

8.19 and 8.20.
Assess the
walls not being
effective using
Tables 8.21 and
8.22.

not being effective
using Tables 8.23.


Defects
PCR
PSC


of erosion in defects related to solution
features.
Solution Features
Long Section
Assess (RFxLF) from

the probabilities for each
defect size from Table
8.11.
Limestone, dolomite

defect sizes.

the core.

Table 8.18.
Assess (RFxLF) from

Table 8.13.

estimate of the
size.
<5 mm
5 mm to 25 mm
25 mm to 100 mm
>100 mm
P TI
Yes
Yes
P CI

No
Yes
P GI

No
Yes
Pw
No
Solution Features
Continuous Defect?
No

<5mm
5mm to 25 mm
25mm to100mm
>100 mm
Evaluate:
C-3
P CR

Section 8.11).
Table C4 Probability of Continuous Defects Associated with Other Geological Features such as Landslides, Faults and Shears
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Topography
Probability of
Continuous Defects
Based on Site
Investigation and
Construction Data
Combine the Two

for Continuous
Defects
Pw
PGT
Assess the
Probability that
Grouting is
Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Cut-off Wall is
Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
Assess the
Probability that
Surface Treatment
is Ineffective in
Cutting Off the
Defects
PGI
PCI
PTI

8.19 and 8.20.
Assess the
walls not being
effective using
Tables 8.21 and
8.22.

not being effective
using Tables 8.23.


Defects
PCR
PSC


of erosion in defects related to landslides,
faults, and shears.
Defects associated with landslide
Long Section
Assess (RFxLF) from

the probabilities for each
defect size from Table
8.15.
Fault or
Shear Zone

the core.

Table 8.18.
Assess (RFxLF) from

Table 8.17.

estimate of the
size.

defect sizes.
<5 mm
5 mm to 25 mm
25 mm to 100 mm
>100 mm
P TI
Yes
Yes
P CI

No
Yes
P GI

No
Yes
Pw
No
Landslide, Faults, and Shears
Continuous Defect?
No

<5mm
5mm to 25 mm
25mm to100mm
>100 mm
Evaluate:
C-4
P CR
PCR= (PW) (PGI) (PCI) (PTI)

Section 8.11).
Appendix D
Navigation Tables for
Internal Erosion of the Embankment into or
at the Foundation
Table D1 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion of the Embankment due to Scour along Rock Defects < 25 mm
Sketch
IM25 Scour along Rock

Defects < 25 mm
3
Evaluate this mechanism

for rock defect ranges:
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Continuous Defect
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of Initiation
of Erosion
PCR
PI
Estimate probability
of a continuous rock
defect from Section 8.
Assess the probability of

initiation of scour. See
Section 9.4
Use a crack width of 2.5
mm for the defects < 5
mm and a width of 15
mm for the 5-25 mm
defects.
Erosion of core by water flowing in

open rock defects
<5 mm
5-25 mm
(3) Evaluate Probability

of Continuing Erosion
PCE
Evaluate the probabilities

for Continuing Erosion for
considering the exit
conditions for the
defects.
Unprotected exit:
PCE = 1.0
(4) Probability of Progression

PP

forming a roof (PPR), crack filling
action not stopping pipe
enlargement (PPC) and
upstream zone fails to limit flows
(PPL) for the failure path under
consideration using Section 11.
(5) Probability of
Breach
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
Calculate the probability of

failure using the event tree.
Pfail = PCR x PI x PCE x PP x
Pbreach
PP = PPR x PPC x PPL
Large capacity defect

system: PCE = 1.0
Protected exit: Evaluate
PCE using Scenario 3
(Section 10)
Pfail
Yes
Yes
PP
Pbreach
Breach
No
Yes
PCE
Progression
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
PCR
<5mm or 5-25 mm Rock Defects
Use Chapter 8

Chapter 12. This will be input into
the risk engine. Do not include it
in the system response estimate.
No
Scour Initiation
No
Evaluate Exit Conditions

Unprotected PCE = 1.0
Large Capacity Defects PCE = 1.0
Protected Use Scenario 3 in Chapter 10
Use Tables 5.30-5.36
D-1

Section 12
Table D2 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion of the Embankment due to erosion into Rock Defects > 25 mm
Failure
Path/Location
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Continuous
Defect
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
Initiation of
Erosion
(3) Evaluate
Probability of
Continuation into
rock defects
PCED
PIC
(4) Evaluate
Probability that the
gradient through
the voids is
sufficient for soil
transport
PCR
IM26 Erosion
into Rock Defects
> 25 mm
3
Estimate
probability of a
continuous rock
defect from
Section 8.
Evaluate this
mechanism for
rock defect
ranges:
25-100 mm
>100 mm
(5) Evaluate Exit

Conditions and
determine Probability
(6) Probability of
Progression
(7) Probability
of Breach
PP
Pbreach
(8) Calculate the

Probability of
Failure
(9) Probability of
Unsuccessful
Intervention
Pfail
Pui
Calculate the
probability of failure
using the event
tree. For each
defect size.
Estimate the
probability for
unsuccessful
intervention using
Section 12
PCE
PSTD
Given there are
continuous open
defects in the
foundation, the
probability of
initiation (PIC)
should be assumed
to be 1.0 for both
cohesionless soils
(backward erosion)
and for cohesive
soils (sinkhole
stoping).
Assess the
probability of
continuation into
the rock defect
following the
procedures for
Scenario 4 in
Chapter 10.
Use a crack width
of 62.5 mm for 25100 mm and a
width of 300 mm
for the >100 mm
defects
Assess the
probability that the
average hydraulic
gradient along the
rock defect is
sufficient to cause
transport of soils
through the voids
(PSTD).

for Continuing Erosion
for the failure path under
conditions for the
defects.
Use Table 9.2 in

Section 9.5

system: PCE = 1.0
Unprotected exit:
PCE = 1.0

(Section 10)
Estimate the
probabilities for
forming a roof (PPR),
crack filling action not
stopping pipe
upstream zone fails to
limit flows (PPL) for the
failure path under
consideration using
Section 11.
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
Pfail = PCR x PI x
PCEI x PSTV x PCE PP
x Pbreach
Pfail
Pbreach
PP
Yes
Yes
Breach
No
Yes
PCE
Progression
Use Chapter 13
No
PSTD
Continuation
Yes
No
PCED
Yes
Soil Transport Through Defects

No
PIC
Yes
Continuation into Defect

PCR
25mm-100mm, >100mm Rock Defects
Use Chapter 8
Use Table 9.2 in Section 9.5
No
Initiation into Defect

+
Use JOS with Scenario 4 in Chapter 10
No
Assume PIC =1.0
D-2

Use Chapter 11
* Evaluate the probabilty of unsuccessful

intervention using Chapter 12. This will be
input into the risk engine. Do not include it
Table D3 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion of the Embankment due to Scour along the Contact with Open-Work Granular Foundations
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of Initiation
of Erosion
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Continuous Path
Sketch
(3) Evaluate Probability

(4) Probability of Progression
IM27 Scour along the

Contact with Open-Work
Coarse-Grained
Foundation Soil
PI
Estimate probability
of a continuous
pathway into openwork granular
foundation (PCP).
Assess the probability of

initiation of scour. See
Section 9.4
Use a crack width
equivalent to the D15/4 of
the open granular
foundation material
Erosion of core by water flowing (scour) in

Open Granular Foundations
Use Section 9.3
(6) Calculate the

(7) Probability of
Pbreach
Pfail
Pui
Calculate the probability of

failure using the event tree.

Section 12
PP
PCE
PCP
(5) Probability of
Breach

for Continuing Erosion for
conditions for the
defects.
Unprotected exit:
PCE = 1.0

forming a roof (PPR), crack filling
action not stopping pipe
upstream zone fails to limit flows
(PPL) for the failure path under
consideration using Section 11.
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
Pfail = PCP x PI x PCE x PP x

Pbreach

system: PCE = 1.0
(Section10)
Pfail
Yes
Yes
PP
Pbreach
Breach
No
Yes
PCE
Progression
Use Chapter 13
No
PI
Use Chapter 11
Yes
Continuation
No
PCP
Open Granular Foundations
Use Section 9.3
Scour Initiation
No

Assume Crack Width D15 /4

Use Tables 5.30-5.36
D-3

Chapter 12. This will be input into
the risk engine. Do not include it
Table D4 Probability of Failure by Internal Erosion of the Embankment due to erosion into Open-Work Granular Foundations
(1) Evaluate
Probability of a
Continuous Path
Failure
Path/Location
Sketch
(2) Evaluate the

Probability of
Initiation of
Erosion
(3) Evaluate
Probability of
Continuation into
rock defects
PCED
PIP
PCP
(4) Evaluate
Probability that the
gradient through
the voids is
sufficient for soil
transport
(5) Evaluate Exit

Conditions and
determine Probability
PCE
(6) Probability of
Progression
(7) Probability
of Breach
PP
Pbreach
Assess the
probability that the
average hydraulic
gradient along the
rock defect is
sufficient to cause
transport of soils
through the defects
(PSTD).

for Continuing Erosion
for the failure path under
conditions for the
defects.
Use Table 9.2 in

Section 9.5

system: PCE = 1.0
Estimate the
probabilities for
forming a roof (PPR),
crack filling action not
stopping pipe
upstream zone fails to
limit flows (PPL) for the
failure path under
consideration using
Section 11.
(8) Calculate the

Probability of
Failure
(9) Probability of
Unsuccessful
Intervention
Pfail
Pui
Calculate the
probability of failure
using the event
tree. For each
defect size.
Estimate the
probability for
unsuccessful
intervention using
Section 12
PSTD
IM28 Erosion
into Open-Work
Coarse-Grained
Foundation Soil
Given there are

continuous open
defects in the
foundation, the
probability of
initiation (PIP)
should be assumed
to be 1.0 for both
cohesionless soils
(backward erosion)
and for cohesive
soils (sinkhole
stoping).
Estimate
probability of a
continuous
pathway into
open-work
granular
foundation (PCP).
Erosion of core by water eroding into Open

Granular Foundations
Use Section 9.3
Assess the
probability of
continuation into
the open granular
foundation
following the
procedures for
Scenario 3 in
Chapter 10.
Unprotected exit:
PCE = 1.0

(Section10)
Estimate the
probabilities of
breach using
Section 13
Pfail = PCP x PI x
PCEI x PSTD x PCE PP
x Pbreach
Pbreach
PP
Yes
Yes
Pfail
Breach
No
Yes
PCE
Progression
Use Chapter 13
No
PSTD
Continuation
Yes
No
PCED
Yes
Soil Transport Through Defects

No
PIP
Yes
Continuation into Defect

PCP
Open Granular Foundation
Use Section 9.3
Use Table 9.2 in Section 9.5
No
Initiation into Defect

+
Use Scenario 3 in Chapter 10
No
Assume PIP =1.0
D-4

Use Chapter 11
* Evaluate the probabilty of unsuccessful
intervention using Chapter 12. This will be
input into the risk engine. Do not include it

Internal Erosion Toolbox PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Internal Erosion Toolbox PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNAL EROSION TOOLBOX

A Method for Estimating Probabilities of Failure of

Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-1

Failure Modes and Load Partitioning--------------------------------------------------------------- 3-1

Generic Event Tree

Application of Tables for Estimating Conditional Probabilities --------------------------- 4-1

Adjusting the toolbox best estimates

Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Transverse Cracks in the Embankment ------ 5-1

Probability of Initiation of Erosion in Poorly Compacted or High

Poorly compacted or high permeability zones within the core (IM13)

Probability of Initiation of Erosion in a Soil Foundation------------------------------------- 7-1

Screening Check on Soil Classification

Probability of Initiation of Suffusion in a Cohesionless Layer in the Foundation

Probability of Continuous Open Defects in the Rock Foundation ----------------------- 8-1

Probability of Continuation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------10-1

Probability of Initiation of Erosion from the Embankment into or at the

Extent of features associated with valley bulge or rebound

Probability of Progression ----------------------------------------------------------------------------11-1

Flow into jointed bedrock

Probability of Unsuccessful Intervention --------------------------------------------------------12-1

Probability of Breach -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------13-1

Navigation Tables for Internal Erosion through the Embankment

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables and Figures

Table 9.2 Probability of soil transport through defects .......................................................................... 9-8

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables and Figures

Terminology to Describe Embankment Types

4. Zoned earth and rockfill

8. Puddle core earthfill

5. Central core earth and rockfill

1. Earthfill with filter

2. Earthfill with rock toe

6. Concrete face earthfill

9. Earthfill with corewall

10. Rockfill with corewall

hydraulic fill core

7. Concrete face rockfill

Figure 1.1 Dam zoning categories

11. Hydraulic fill

The methodology uses the following terminology:

GA P GRA DED SOIL

COA RSELY GRA DED SOIL

Particle size (mm)

Slope instability of the downstream slope.

Unraveling of the downstream face.

Internal erosion through the embankment;

Internal erosion through the foundation; and

Internal erosion of the embankment into or at the foundation.

Failure Modes and Load Partitioning

Failure Modes and Load Partitioning

Generic Event Tree

Failure Modes and Load Partitioning

Gross enlargement of the pipe;

Instability of the downstream slope;

Unraveling of the downstream face; and

Sinkhole collapse resulting in overtopping.

Failure Modes and Load Partitioning

General Failure Modes