DS13 3 PDF

Design Standards No.
13
Embankment Dams
Chapter 3: Foundation Surface Treatment
Phase 4 (Final)
U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation July 2012
Mission Statements
The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural
resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities,
and supplies the energy to power our future.
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop,

and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
Design Standards Signature Sheet
Design Standards No. 13
Embankment Dams
DS-13(3)-2: Phase 4 (Final)
July 2012

Foreword
Purpose
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) design standards present technical requirements and
processes to enable design professionals to prepare design documents and reports necessary to
manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Compliance with these
design standards assists in the development and improvement of Reclamation facilities in a way
that protects the public's health, safety, and welfare; recognizes needs of all stakeholders; and
achieves lasting value and functionality necessary for Reclamation facilities. Responsible
designers accomplish this goal through compliance with these design standards and all other
applicable technical codes, as well as incorporation of the stakeholders’ vision and values, that
are then reflected in the constructed facilities.
Application of Design Standards

Reclamation design activities, whether performed by Reclamation or by a non-Reclamation
entity, must be performed in accordance with established Reclamation design criteria and
standards, and approved national design standards, if applicable. Exceptions to this requirement
shall be in accordance with provisions of Reclamation Manual Policy, Performing Design and
Construction Activities, FAC P03.
In addition to these design standards, designers shall integrate sound engineering judgment,
applicable national codes and design standards, site-specific technical considerations, and
project-specific considerations to ensure suitable designs are produced that protect the public's
investment and safety. Designers shall use the most current edition of national codes and design
standards consistent with Reclamation design standards. Reclamation design standards may
include exceptions to requirements of national codes and design standards.
Proposed Revisions
Reclamation designers should inform the Technical Service Center (TSC), via Reclamation’s
Design Standards Website notification procedure, of any recommended updates or changes to
Reclamation design standards to meet current and/or improved design practices.
Chapter Signature Sheet
Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Service Center
Design Standards No. 13
Embankment Dams
DS-13(3)-2:1 Phase 4 (Final)

July 2012
Chapter 3 – Foundation Surface Treatment is an existing chapter within Design

Standards No. 13 and was revised to include:
Reorganized chapter content
Updated content to reflect modern construction practice
Added detail describing shaping, slush grouting, dental concrete,

foundation irregularities, water removal, inspection, and foundation
approval
Added figures and photographs
Added definitions
Added appendices
Updated references
1
DS-13(3)-2 refers to Design Standards No. 13, chapter 3, revision 2.
Contents
Page
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 1

3.1.1 Purpose ........................................................................ 1
3.1.2 Scope ........................................................................... 1
3.1.3 Deviations from Standard ........................................... 1
3.1.4 Revisions of Standard ................................................. 2
3.1.5 Applicability ............................................................... 2
3.1.6 Objectives at Structure/Foundation Contact ............... 2
3.2 Treatment for Earthfill Dams ...................................................... 4
3.2.1 Excavation................................................................... 4
3.2.2 Initial Cleaning and Inspection ................................... 7
3.2.3 Removal of Unsuitable Material ................................. 8
3.2.3.1 Soil Foundation ....................................... 8
3.2.3.2 Rock Foundation ..................................... 8
3.2.4 Shaping the Foundation Surface by Excavation
and Filling .............................................................. 9
3.2.4.1 Soil Foundation ....................................... 9
3.2.4.2 Rock Foundation ..................................... 9
3.2.5 Excavation Dewatering/Unwatering ........................... 20
3.2.6 Final Cleanup .............................................................. 20
3.2.6.1 Cleaning .................................................. 21
3.2.6.2 Water Removal ....................................... 22
3.2.6.3 Dental Concrete ...................................... 22
3.2.6.4 Slush Grout ............................................. 25
3.2.6.5 Shotcrete ................................................. 26
3.2.6.6 Additional Examples of Dam
Foundation Excavation, Treatment,
and Cleaning ..................................... 28
3.3 Inspection and Foundation Approval .......................................... 34
3.4 Placement of Embankment Materials ......................................... 39
3.4.1 Soil Foundations ......................................................... 39
3.4.2 Rock Foundations ....................................................... 40
3.5 Bibliography ............................................................................... 46
Appendix A: Construction Blasting Vibration Limits
Appendix B: Foundation Inspection Documentation and Approval No. 5

of Zone 1 Foundation
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-i

Figures
Page
3.2.1-1 All organic or other unsuitable materials are removed

from soil foundations ............................................................. 3-5
3.2.1-2 Treatment of rock foundation ................................................ 3-5
3.2.1-3 Slope modification to reduce differential settlement and

cracking of the earthfill core .................................................. 3-6
3.2.1-4 Mica Dam. Foundation excavation, typical excavation

detail ....................................................................................... 3-6
3.2.1-5 Bennet Dam, typical core abutment excavation

requirements ........................................................................... 3-7
3.2.4.2-1 Upper Stillwater Dam. Features such as this shear zone

create foundation irregularities that require treatment.
The surface should be cleaned of all loose and weathered
rock, and the shear zone should be filled with dental concrete.
Alternatively, the surface might be reformed by smooth
blasting techniques ................................................................. 3-11
3.2.4.2-2 Ridges Basin Dam. This dam foundation was shaped to

ensure proper compaction of fill and to prevent stress
irregularities in the overlying embankment ........................... 3-12
3.2.4.2-3 Extensive use of dental concrete used to fill potholes,

grooves, and channels in rock surface ................................... 3-12
3.2.4.2-4 Stripping of foundation removes all vegetation, soil,

weathered rock, and significant anomalies ............................ 3-13
3.2.4.2-5 Foundation cleaning is complete. All unsound, loose, or

detached blocks and soil-like sediment are removed ............. 3-13
3.2.4.2-6 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation after stripping and

before cleanup ........................................................................ 3-14
3.2.4.2-7 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation cleanup using

compressed air blow pipe....................................................... 3-14
3.2.4.2-8 Drilling blast holes to facilitate removal of a rock

overhang at Teton Dam .......................................................... 3-15
3-ii DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figures (continued)
Page
3.2.4.2-9 Teton Dam. The stepped surface in this right abutment

key trench could result in cracking and seepage
problems in overlying embankment. Embankment
may differentially settle adjacent to these surfaces,
resulting in cracks .................................................................. 3-16
3.2.4.2-10 Ridges Basin Dam. Open stress relief joint in

foundation requires filling with slush grout. .......................... 3-17
3.2.4.2-11 Ridges Basin Dam. Slush grout application to an

open joint in a dam foundation. ............................................. 3-17
3.2.4.2-12 Upper Stillwater Dam. Shear zone in foundation being

cleaned out for concrete backfill. ........................................... 3-19
3.2.6.1-1 Foundation cleanup is labor intensive and costly but

should not be neglected. ......................................................... 3-21
3.2.6.3-1 Dental concrete and acceptable vertical steps can be

tolerated in the foundation. . .................................................. 3-23
3.2.6.3-2 Bedding planes may modify cleanup plans. Here, a

decision is made to remove the rock mass. This
affects the decisions on the subsequent treatment ................. 3-23
3.2.6.3-3 Block is removed between fractured zone, bedding

plane, and joints. Treatment to further shape the
surface required dental concrete ............................................ 3-24
3.2.6.3-4 Feathering at the ends of concrete placements should

not be permitted. The edges of concrete should be
sloped no flatter than 45 degrees. .......................................... 3-25
3.2.6.4-1 Ridges Basin Dam. Slush grout application in an open,

cleaned joint ........................................................................... 3-26
3.2.6.5-1 Shotcrete application .............................................................. 3-27
3.2.6.6-1 Upper Stillwater Dam. Foundation excavated to material

capable of withstanding loads imposed by the dam.
Left side of photograph shows acceptable steps; right
side shows steps requiring concrete fillets. ............................ 3-28
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-iii

Figures (continued)
Page
3.2.6.6-2 Treating foundation with dental concrete. ............................. 3-29
3.2.6.6-3 Foundation for outlet works structure was shaped and

treated with dental concrete ................................................... 3-30
3.2.6.6-4 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation dental concrete.

Sometimes, a dental concrete slab is a mass placement ........ 3-30
3.2.6.6-5 Entire footprint of a concrete gravity dam is excavated to

material capable of withstanding loads imposed by
the dam ................................................................................... 3-31
3.2.6.6-6 Upper Stillwater Dam. After stripping and before cleanup .. 3-32
3.2.6.6-7 New Waddell Dam. After initial cleanup. Before any

treatment. ............................................................................... 3-32
3.2.6.6-8 Mica Dam foundation excavation, typical excavation

detail ....................................................................................... 3-33
3.2.6.6-9 Typical core contact surface treatment details, Mica Dam .... 3-33
3.2.6.6-10 Dental treatment of weak seams in the plinth foundation

of Kangaroo Creek Dam ........................................................ 3-34
3.3-1 Photographic records are critical! Photos should be

labeled and related to the foundation geologic map. ............. 3-36
3.3-2 Typical detail of geologic foundation map ............................ 3-37
3.4.2-1 After final cleanup, the foundation is moistened prior

to placing and compacting embankment fill .......................... 3-41
3.4.2-2 Pneumatic-tire equipment should be used to compact

fill near the foundation contact surfaces. A sheep’s foot
or tamping roller may be used when the fill is thick
enough to prevent contact of the tamping feet with
the foundation ........................................................................ 3-42
3.4.2-3 Pneumatic-tire equipment forces the plastic and

deformable earthfill into all remaining uneven
surfaces in the foundation and may create a feather edge
at the ends of the placement ................................................... 3-42
3-iv DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figures (continued)
Page
3.4.2-4 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup and placing

the first lift of embankment fill .............................................. 3-43
3.4.2-5 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup, wetting,

and placing first lift ................................................................ 3-43
3.4.2-6 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup and

spreading first lift. Note the dozer is working on
the fill, not on the foundation surface, to prevent
foundation damage. Foundation rock in foreground
has been moistened ................................................................ 3-44
3.4.2-7 Feather edge of first lift of compacted fill removed,

cleaned, and ready for fill placement. ....................................... 3-45
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-v

Definitions
Dental concrete: Concrete used to fill or shape foundation irregularities such as
holes, grooves, vertical surfaces, overhangs, solution features, shear zones, large
joints, or buried channels.
Dewatering: Removal and control of ground water from pores or other open
spaces in soil or rock formations to allow construction activities to proceed as
intended; includes relief of ground water pressures.
Shotcrete: Concrete or mortar that is sprayed in place.
Slush grout: Neat cement grout (for cracks less than ½ inch) or sand-cement
slurry (for cracks greater than ½ inch) that is placed into cracks in the foundation.
Unwatering: Control and removal of ponded, seeping, or flowing surface water

or emerging surface water from excavated surfaces and from precipitation within
and adjacent to excavations and construction zones using channel, ditches, gravel
drains, gravel blankets, pipe, sumps, and discharge lines.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-vii

Chapter 3
Foundation Surface Treatment
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Purpose
This chapter discusses foundation preparation for and placement of the first
several layers of earthfill for embankment dams and appurtenant structures.
Preparation includes excavating overburden; initial cleaning and inspection;
removal of unsuitable material; shaping the foundation surface by excavation and
filling; excavation dewatering and unwatering; and final cleanup, inspection, and
foundation approval. Final foundation cleanup is required before fill placement.
3.1.2 Scope
This chapter presents design criteria for surface treatment of an embankment dam
foundation to make it suitable for placement of the overlying embankment.
Criteria are discussed for both soil and rock foundations. Dimensions in this
chapter are listed for guidance and have been used by Reclamation on structures.
Foundation treatment for concrete dams can be found in Design Standards No. 2
(Concrete Dams), Chapter 1 (Introduction). For foundation treatment for
spillways and outlet works for both embankment and concrete dams, refer to
Design Standards No. 14 (Appurtenant Structures for Dams), Chapters 3 (General
Spillway Design Considerations) and 4 (General Outlet Works and Diversion
Design Considerations). Subsurface treatments such as foundation grouting and
cutoff walls can be found in Design Standards No. 13 (Embankment Dams),
Chapters 15 (Foundation Grouting) and 16 (Cutoff Walls). Foundation surface
treatments such as protective filters can be found in Design Standards No. 13
(Embankment Dams), Chapter 5 (Protective Filters).
3.1.3 Deviations from Standard

Foundation surface treatment for embankment dams and appurtenant structures
should conform to this standard. Deviations from this standard should be
documented and approved. The rationale for not using the standard should be
described in the documentation. The technical documentation must be approved
by appropriate line supervisors and managers.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-1

Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dams
3.1.4 Revisions of Standard

This chapter will be revised as its use indicates. Comments or suggested revisions
should be forwarded to the Chief, Geotechnical Services Division (86-68300),
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado 80225; they will be comprehensively
reviewed and incorporated as needed.
3.1.5 Applicability
The procedures and recommendations in this chapter are applicable to the
construction of earth fill dams and appurtenant structures founded on either soil or
rock.
3.1.6 Objectives at Structure/Foundation Contact

Geologic processes cause dam foundations to be much less than perfect for the
construction of an embankment dam. Thus, foundation treatment is almost
always required to improve a foundation to a suitable condition before a dam is
constructed. Recognition of natural processes that damage foundations help
formulate treatment objectives. Such processes and their effects include:
Buried river channels

Faulting
Shearing
Slope instability
Solution cavities
Potholes
Benches
Overhangs
Steps
Stress relief joints
Foundation treatments will be needed for these and other anomalies.
The basic objectives of foundation surface treatment are:
Embankment Foundation Contact. Obtain appropriate contact between

overlying embankment materials and the foundation. The foundation
surface must be shaped by excavation or concrete placement (dental
concrete) to provide a surface suitable for earthfill compaction.
Compaction techniques used for initial earthfill placement should result in
adequately compacted embankment material in intimate contact with the
foundation without damaging the foundation during placement of the first
and subsequent lifts.
3-2 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Preventing Internal Erosion of Embankment Materials. Defend

against seepage-induced erosion of embankment materials into the
foundation or by scour along the contact by filling surface cracks in the
foundation, blanket grouting, protective filters, and the use of nonerodible
embankment materials (natural or manufactured) at the foundation
contact. Blanket grouting and filter design are covered in separate Design
Standards chapters.
Remove Unsuitable Foundation Materials. Remove or treat unsuitable,

erodible, weak, unstable, liquefiable, or pervious materials to ensure a
foundation of adequate strength and appropriate permeability. When in
doubt, take it out. Beneath the impervious core, the foundation should be
as impervious as possible. Defects in rock foundations including fault
gouge, rock fragments, soft or pervious soil, fractures, joints, and bedding
laminations must be evaluated. These defects in the foundation require
removal to an adequate depth and treatment with slush grout, dental
concrete, filter material, or specially compacted earthfill, as well as
cleanup of the foundation immediately prior to the first placement of dam
material.
Prevent Embankment Cracking. Avoid cracking and resultant seepage

problems in embankment dams that may be caused by irregularities in the
foundation surface, such as stepped surfaces, abrupt changes in slope,
overhangs, and excessively steep surfaces and deep narrow fill zones.
Differential settlement may occur in embankment zones adjacent to these
areas, resulting in the development of cracks. Arching can occur near
steep surfaces with a zone of low stress adjacent to the steep surface.
Such zones are also susceptible to hydraulic fracturing. The foundation
surface should be shaped to obtain a smooth, continuous surface that
minimizes differential settlement and cracking potential.
Prepare Foundation Outside of Core Contact. Shape the foundation

outside of the core contact to facilitate placement and compaction
operations. Weak or compressible materials determined to be unsuitable
must be removed. Shell and filter materials must be prevented from
moving into open joints or pervious zones in the foundation, and erodible
foundation materials must be prevented from moving into the
embankment by using appropriately graded filters.
Prevent Foundation Damage. Avoid construction excavation damage.

Be careful! Damage can be caused by rippers, blasting, tracked
equipment, and slaking of unprotected weak rock. Prevent damage to the
foundation from placement equipment during the first few lifts of fill by
routing equipment travel, allowing only rubber-tired equipment on the
foundation surface, temporary coverings, or other means as needed. Rock
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-3

surfaces that slake or disintegrate rapidly on exposure must be protected or

covered immediately with embankment material, chemical sealants, or
concrete.
Document and Verify the Foundation Conditions. Map, photograph,

and fully understand the significance of all geologic features before
placing embankment fill or concrete. It is essential to verify that the
project design remains suitable for the actual foundation conditions
encountered. Formal foundation approval by the project engineer should
be obtained prior to proceeding with dam construction.
3.2 Treatment for Earthfill Dams

3.2.1 Excavation
Zoned earthfill and rockfill dams are commonly constructed in broad sites where
their foundations cover large areas. Embankment dams tend to be somewhat
forgiving of some foundation and embankment settlement, which generally occurs
primarily during construction, and they are often constructed on foundations that
would be marginal or unacceptable for concrete dams.
The minimum treatment of any foundation consists of stripping or removing

organic material such as roots and stumps, sod, topsoil, wood, trash, and other
unsuitable materials. When the foundation is soil, all organic or other unsuitable
materials, such as stumps, brush, sod, and large roots should be stripped as shown
in figure 3.2.1-1. Materials such as sod and topsoil can be reused to cover areas
that are to be seeded, while other materials should be wasted. When the
foundation is rock, the foundation should be treated as shown in figures 3.2.1-2
through 3.2.1-5. These figures detail slope modification and foundation
excavation.
Stripping should be performed carefully to ensure the removal of all material that
may be unstable because of saturation, slaking, or decomposition; all material that
may interfere with the creation of a proper bond between the foundation and the
embankment; and all pockets of soil or rock significantly weaker or more
compressible than the average foundation material. Exploratory test pits could be
excavated if the stripping operations indicate the presence of unstable or
otherwise unsuitable material.
3-4 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.1-1 All organic or other unsuitable materials should

be removed from soil foundations.
Figure 3.2.1-2 Treatment of rock foundation.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-5

Figure 3.2.1-3 Slope modification to reduce differential settlement and cracking of

the earthfill core (Fell et al., 1992).
Figure 3.2.1-4 Mica Dam. Foundation excavation, typical excavation detail (Pratt et al.,
1972; reproduced in Fell et al., 1992).
3-6 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.1-5 Bennet Dam, typical core abutment excavation requirements

(Pratt et al., 1972;
3.2.2 Initial Cleaning and Inspection

Foundations are cleaned to provide acceptable conditions of contact between the
body of the dam and its foundation, and to provide for observation and
documentation of details of foundation conditions at that interface. Exposure of
potentially adverse conditions during cleanup provides the opportunity to take
remedial action. The foundation must be cleaned to make the necessary
observations and to determine when additional treatment is required.
After initial stripping, or after sufficient excavation is accomplished so that

excavation is nearing final lines and grades, the foundation should be cleaned to
allow inspection by the designer, construction engineer, construction inspector,
and geologist. Whenever possible, the Consultant Review Board or some of its
members should be included in the initial foundation inspection. The initial
foundation cleaning should be sufficient to allow observation, and possibly
sampling, to determine if unsuitable materials or conditions (such as open
fractures, shears, faults, overhangs, etc.) exist in the foundation. The initial
inspection should be adequate to determine how to correct any deficiencies in the
foundation.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-7

3.2.3 Removal of Unsuitable Material

3.2.3.1 Soil Foundation
When the foundation is earth, all organic or other unsuitable materials, such as
stumps, brush, sod, and large roots, should be stripped and wasted. Stripping
should be performed carefully to ensure the removal of all material that may
become unstable due to saturation or decomposition, all material that may
interfere with the creation of a proper bond between the foundation and the
embankment, and all pockets of soil significantly more compressible than the
average foundation material. Highly pervious soils, such as open work gravels,
may need to be removed or treated. Loose, low density soils should be removed
to avoid excess settlement and the potential for seismic liquefaction. Exploratory
test pits should be excavated if the stripping operations indicate the presence of
unstable or otherwise unsuitable material.
3.2.3.2 Rock Foundation

When the foundation is rock, all erodible, weak, unstable, compressible (or loose),
or pervious materials should be removed if they are unsuitable without treatment
to ensure a foundation of adequate strength and appropriate permeability. In rock
foundations, defects such as faults, fractures, open joints, erosion channels, or
solution cavities or channels sometimes cannot be completely removed. Material
in defects in the rock mass includes fault/shear gouge, rock fragments, soft or
pervious soil, or solutioned rock. These materials require removal to an adequate
depth, as well as replacement with slush grout, dental concrete, or specially
compacted earthfill.
Other adverse foundation conditions may be caused by bedded clay and shale
seams, caverns, or springs. Procedures for treating these conditions will vary and
will depend on the characteristics of the particular condition to be remedied.
Foundations such as shale, chalk, mudstone, and siltstone may require protection
against air and water slaking or, in some environments, against freezing. These
excavations may be protected by leaving a temporary cover of unexcavated
material, immediately applying a minimum of 12 inches of cement mortar to the
exposed surfaces, immediately covering with embankment material, coating with
asphalt, or any other method that will prevent damage to the foundation.
Slaking behavior varies with rock type and may require evaluation for each
individual case. Faults, shears, joints, and solution channels may contain erodible
material.
3-8 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

3.2.4 Shaping the Foundation Surface by Excavation

and Filling
3.2.4.1 Soil Foundation
The foundation surface should be shaped by excavation and filling both under the
core contact and outside of the core contact to facilitate placement and
compaction operations.
Construction activities such as using tracked equipment on soft surfaces or using

rippers near foundation grade may loosen or damage soil foundations. This type
of damage can and should be avoided to limit excavation, backfilling, and
cleanup. Unsuitable or damaged material must be removed, and the foundation
surface must be shaped to provide a sufficiently regular surface on which earthfill
can be placed without differential settlement. If the irregularities are small
enough and discontinuous both horizontally and vertically, overexcavation can be
appropriate, followed by backfilling with suitable material and compaction.
Generally, the foundation surface can be shaped adequately by conventional
excavation.
All irregularities, ruts, and washouts in a soil foundation should be removed to

provide a satisfactory foundation that is smooth and firm. Cut slopes should be
flat enough to prevent sloughing and not steeper than 1H:1V (horizontal to
vertical). For cuts beneath the core, in a line oriented upstream-downstream,
slopes of 4H:1V are preferable. Soil material that has been loosened to a depth of
less than 6 inches is often treated by compaction. Loosened material deeper than
6 inches cannot be adequately compacted and should be removed.
3.2.4.2 Rock Foundation

The foundation surface should be shaped by excavation and filling, both under the
core contact and outside of the core contact, to facilitate placement and
compaction operations. How the exposed rock surface is shaped after removal of
unsuitable overlying materials depends on the type of rock and the irregularities
present. Construction activities such as using tracked equipment on soft rock
surfaces, using rippers near foundation grade, or nearby blasting may loosen rock
or open joints in originally satisfactory rock. This type of damage can and should
be avoided to limit excavation and cleanup. The configuration of exposed rock
surfaces is controlled largely by bedding, joints, other discontinuities, and
excavation methods. Depending on discontinuity orientations, these features can
result in vertical surfaces, benches, overhangs, or sawteeth. Features such as
potholes, buried river channels, solution cavities, and shear zones can create
additional irregularities requiring treatment (see figure 3.2.4.2-1). Unsuitable
material must be removed from the irregularities, and the foundation surface must
be shaped to provide a sufficiently regular surface on which earthfill can be
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-9

placed without differential settlement (see figure 3.2.4.2-2). If the irregularities

are small enough and discontinuous both horizontally and vertically,
overexcavation can be appropriate. Generally, the foundation surface can be
shaped adequately by conventional excavation or smooth blasting. When
smoothing of irregularities would require excessively large quantities of
excavation or blasting that could damage the foundation, shaping with dental
concrete may be appropriate (see figure 3.2.4.2-3).
When overburden is stripped to bedrock, carefully clean the rock surface and all
pockets or depressions of soil and rock fragments before the embankment is
placed as shown in figures 3.2.4.2-1, 3.2.4.2-2, 3.2.4.2-4, 3.2.4.2-5, and 3.2.4.2-6.
This may require compressed air or water cleaning and handwork as shown in
figure 3.2.4.2-7. Rock surfaces that slake or disintegrate rapidly on exposure
must be protected immediately with embankment material, concrete (dental,
shotcrete), or by other means such as delaying final excavation until immediately
before fill placement. Foundation rock should be shaped to remove overhangs
and steep surfaces (figure 3.2.4.2-8). High rock surfaces must be stable during
construction and should be cut back to maintain a smooth, continuous profile to
minimize differential settlement and stress concentrations within the
embankment. Final slopes should be 0.5H:1V or flatter. Beneath the impervious
zone, all overhangs should be removed; stepped surfaces steeper than 0.5H:1V
and higher than 0.5 foot should be excavated or treated with dental concrete to a
slope of 0.5H:1V or flatter (figure 3.2.4.2-9). Outside the impervious zone, all
overhangs should be removed, and stepped surfaces steeper than 0.5H:1V and
higher than 5 feet should be excavated or treated with dental concrete to a slope of
0.5H:1V or flatter. These are guidelines. The final decision on shaping rock
surfaces should be made during the foundation inspection and approval process.
Overhangs and steps should be removed or filled in with concrete. Removal is

preferred. The finished surface should be formed by smooth blasting techniques
or line drilling. High rock slopes must be stable during construction and must be
laid back to maintain a smooth, continuous profile to minimize differential
settlement and stress concentrations. Slopes should be 0.5H:1V or flatter,
depending on the fill material.
On steep surfaces, ramping the fill aids compaction; no steeper than a

6H:1V slope should be used for ramping the fill.
3-10 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.4.2-1 Upper Stillwater Dam. Features such as this shear zone
create foundation irregularities that require treatment. The surface should
be cleaned of all loose and weathered rock, and the shear zone should be
filled with dental concrete. Alternatively, the surface might be reformed by
smooth blasting techniques.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-11

Figure 3.2.4.2-2 Ridges Basin Dam. This dam foundation was shaped to
ensure proper compaction of fill and to prevent stress irregularities in the
overlying embankment.
Figure 3.2.4.2-3 Extensive use of dental concrete used to fill potholes, grooves,
and channels in rock surface.
3-12 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.4.2-4 Stripping of foundation removes all vegetation, soil, weathered

rock, and significant anomalies.
Figure 3.2.4.2-5 Foundation cleaning is complete. All unsound, loose, or

detached blocks and soil-like sediment are removed.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-13

Figure 3.2.4.2-6 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation after stripping and before
cleanup.
Figure 3.2.4.2-7 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation cleanup using compressed

air blow pipe.
3-14 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.4.2-8 Drilling blast holes to facilitate removal of a rock overhang at

Teton Dam.
Slush grout or joint mortar should be used to fill narrow cracks in the foundation
as shown in figures 3.2.4.2-10 and 3.2.4.2-11. However, they should not be used
to cover exposed areas of the foundation. Slush grout and joint mortar are
composed of Portland cement and water generally for openings less than ½ inch
or, in some cases, Portland cement, sand, and water generally for openings greater
than ½ inch. The slush grout is preferably used just before fill placement to
eliminate potential for hardened grout to crack under load as the fill is placed.
Dental concrete should be used to fill potholes and grooves created by bedding
planes and other irregularities such as previously cleaned shear zones and large
joints or channels in rock surfaces as shown in figure 3.2.4.2-3. Formed dental
concrete can be used to fillet steep slopes and fill overhangs.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-15

Figure 3.2.4.2-9 Teton Dam. The stepped surface in this right abutment key trench
could result in cracking and seepage problems in overlying embankment.
Embankment may differentially settle adjacent to these surfaces, resulting in
cracks.
Stepped surfaces that are steeper than 0.5H:1V and higher than 0.5 foot should be
excavated or treated with dental concrete to a resultant slope of 0.5H:1V or flatter,
depending on the fill material.
Remove overhangs as shown in figure 3.2.4.2-8. Overhangs should be trimmed,

or the undercut below the overhang should be filled with dental concrete. If
concrete fill is used, grouting would be required to ensure a watertight joint
between concrete and rock.
3-16 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.4.2-10 Ridges Basin Dam. Open stress relief joint in foundation
requires filling with slush grout.
Figure 3.2.4.2-11 Slush grout being applied to an open joint in a dam foundation.
If shaping requires blasting, proper blasting procedures are essential to ensure that
the permeability and strength of the rock are not adversely affected and that the
rock can stand on the slopes and handle the imposed loads. Existing fractures and
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-17

joints in a rock mass, as well as poor blasting techniques, can result in

unacceptable excavated surfaces. Prohibit or strictly control blasting for the
excavation to avoid damaging the foundation. Review, approval, and
enforcement of the contractor's blasting plan, control of blasting details,
requirements for acceptability of the excavated surface, and control of vibration
levels can help obtain the desired excavation surface. Refer to Reclamation’s
Position Paper on Construction Blasting Vibration Limits in appendix A.
If the material cannot be excavated with a hydraulic excavator fitted with a rock
bucket, grout nipples can be set directly in the competent foundation. An
intensely weathered zone can be grouted effectively by leaving the foundation
high and setting grout nipples through the unsuitable material. Long grout nipples
may be necessary in poor quality rock. Excavation to final foundation grade is
completed after grouting.
All loose or objectionable material should be removed by handwork, barring,

picking, brooming, water jetting, or air jetting. Remove accumulated water from
cleaning operations. When the rock surface softens or slakes by water washing,
compressed-air jetting or jetting with a small amount of water added to the air
should be used. Loose or unsuitable material in cavities, shear zones, cracks, or
seams should be treated as follows (see figures 3.2.4.2-4 and 3.2.4.2-5 and
figure 3.2.4.2-12):
 Openings narrower than 2 inches should be cleaned to a depth of three

times the width of the opening and treated by filling.
 Openings wider than 2 inches and narrower than 5 feet should be cleaned
to a depth of three times the width of the opening or to a depth where the
opening is 0.5 inch wide or less, but usually not to a depth exceeding
5 feet and treated by filling.
 Openings wider than 5 feet constitute a special situation requiring the

depth of cleaning and treatment to be determined in the field.
Shape the foundation to ensure proper compaction of fill and to prevent stress
irregularities in the overlying embankment (see figures 3.2.4.2-2 and 3.2.4.2-8).
The foundation surface should be shaped by excavating or by filling with concrete
to obtain a smooth, continuous surface.
3-18 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.4.2-12. Upper Stillwater Dam. Shear zone in foundation

being cleaned out for concrete backfill.
Stress cracking, fractures, and resultant seepage problems in embankment dams

may be caused by irregularities in the foundation such as stepped surfaces, abrupt
changes in slope, and excessively steep surfaces. Embankment zones may
differentially settle adjacent to these areas, resulting in cracks. Arching can occur
near steep surfaces, resulting in a zone of low stress adjacent to the steep surface.
Tension zones or areas of low confining stresses in the embankment are
susceptible to hydraulic fracturing and seepage forces.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-19

3.2.5 Excavation Dewatering/Unwatering

Methods for removal and control of water (dewatering and unwatering) for
excavating cutoff trenches or stabilizing foundations should ensure that fine
material is not washed out of the foundation because of improper filtering of wells
or sumps. The water level should be drawn down sufficiently to permit
construction “in the dry” and to maintain stability of cut slopes and the excavation
invert.
Whenever possible, locate well points and sumps outside the area to be excavated
to avoid work interference. Avoid loosening soil or creating a "quick" bottom
caused by the upward flow of water or equipment vibration. Avoid locating
sumps and associated drainage trenches and pipes within the impervious zone
because of the difficulty in properly grouting them after fill placement and due to
the danger of damaging the impervious zone/foundation contact. Trenches and
pipes, if used, should not be aligned in the upstream to downstream direction.
3.2.6 Final Cleanup

Proper cleaning and water control on a foundation before placing fill or concrete
allow the structure and soil or rock contact to perform as designed. Good cleanup
allows the contact area to have the compressive and shear strength and the
permeability anticipated in the design. Poor cleanup reduces the compressive and
shear strength, resulting in a weak zone under the structure and providing a highly
permeable path for seepage.
Special cleanup procedures are required for foundation materials that deteriorate
(slake) when exposed to air or water. The foundation must be kept moist if
deterioration is caused by exposure to air and kept dry if deterioration is caused
by exposure to water. Cleaning the surface and placing a lean concrete “mud
slab” approximately 4 inches thick may be effective. Usually, removing the last
few inches (or feet) of material and doing final cleanup just before first placement
of fill is the best approach. A maximum time interval may also be specified
between the time of exposure of the final grade and the time that the foundation is
protected with earthfill or a suitable protective coating.
Cleanup outside the core footprint is typically less critical. Loose material should
be removed so that the embankment is in direct contact with suitable rock. If
defects are small and outside the core, they may not require cleaning and refill. If
defects are continuous upstream to downstream, they require cleaning similar to
the foundation beneath the core.
3-20 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

3.2.6.1 Cleaning
Foundation cleanup is labor intensive (as shown in figure 3.2.6.1-1) and costly yet
necessary. When cleaning is neglected, it results in substandard foundations that
do not meet design requirements. As appropriate, rock foundations should be
cleaned by:
 Barring and prying loose all drummy rock
 Using an air/water jet to remove as much loose material and fluff as

possible
 Removing by hand loose material that an air/water jet misses
Figure 3.2.6.1-1. Foundation cleanup is labor intensive and costly but should not
be neglected.
Soil foundations should be cleaned by removing material missed by machine

stripping that will not be suitable foundation after compaction.
Foundations of weak rock or firm soil can often be cleaned by scraping/dragging

a steel plate (butter bar) welded across the teeth of a backhoe or hydraulic
excavator and scraping, “shaving,” or “peeling” objectionable material off the
surface, leaving a clean foundation requiring very little hand cleaning.
The choice of using air, air and water, or a water jet spray for cleaning is site
specific. Rock materials such as slaking shales and chalks should be cleaned with
air jets because they may be damaged by water. Where plastic soils cover rock,
surfaces cleaned with combined air and water jet sprays or water sprays are more
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-21

practical. In such cases, air is usually ineffective. Water-only sprays apply the
greatest cleaning force to the surface and are preferred in cleaning strong and
highly irregular rock surfaces. Weaker rocks such as thinly bedded sandstone
may be damaged by powerful water sprays and are often better cleaned using an
air/water mixture, which has less impact than a water-only jet. This blowdown
can be supplemented with high volume vacuum (vacuum truck) to clean the
surface of large areas, or small volume vacuum (shop vacuum) in small areas.
In areas where the rock is prone to slaking, the foundation cleanup should be
completed before slaking occurs, and foundation cleanup should not commence
until fill materials or concrete are available to be placed on the foundation.
3.2.6.2 Water Removal

Remove all water from low-lying areas. Refrain from using compressed air to
displace standing water (this normally creates a muddy coating on the
surrounding rock surface that subsequently requires removal because it will not
provide adequate bond with fill or concrete). Remove muddy coatings from the
rock.
Water in small quantities can be removed by vacuuming (with a high volume

vacuum or air-powered venturi pipe) or blotting with soil and wasting the wet
material just before fill placement. Larger water quantities from seeps can be
isolated in gravel sumps and pumped. Grout pipes should be installed, the sumps
covered with fabric or plastic, fill placed over the fabric, and after the fill is a few
feet above the sump, the sump should be cement grouted by gravity pressure.
Avoid aligning trenches or pipelines in an upstream-downstream orientation.
Sumps and associated drainage trenches should not be within the impervious zone
because of difficulty in properly grouting them after fill placement and due to the
danger of damaging the impervious zone/foundation contact.
3.2.6.3 Dental Concrete

Dental concrete is used to fill or shape holes, grooves, extensive areas of vertical
surfaces, and sawteeth or stair steps created by bedding planes, joints, and other
irregularities such as previously cleaned out solution features, shear zones, large
joints, or buried channels (see figures 3.2.6.3-1 through 3.2.6.3-3). Formed dental
concrete can be used to fillet steep slopes and fill overhangs. Placing a concrete
mat over a zone of closely spaced irregularities may be appropriate in local areas.
Dental concrete shaping can be used instead of removal by blasting when
excessive amounts of excavation would otherwise be required.
Unless this backfill concrete has undergone most of its volumetric shrinkage at
the time overlying embankment is placed, cracks can occur in the overlying
embankment near the boundaries of the backfill concrete. Loss of support occurs
because of continuing shrinkage of the backfill concrete. Where dental work is
extensive, the backfill concrete should be placed and cured before embankment is
placed over the area.
3-22 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.6.3-1 Dental concrete and acceptable vertical steps can be

tolerated in the foundation.
Figure 3.2.6.3-2 Bedding planes may modify cleanup plans. Here, a

decision is made to remove the rock mass. This affects the decisions on
the subsequent treatment.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-23

Figure 3.2.6.3-3 Block is removed between fractured zone, bedding

plane, and joints. Treatment to further shape the surface required dental
concrete.
Slabs of dental concrete should have a minimum thickness of 2 to 6 inches

depending on the quality of the foundation. Thin areas of dental concrete over
rock projections on a jagged rock surface are likely places for concrete cracking
and should be avoided by using a sufficient thickness of dental concrete or by
avoiding the placement of continuous slabs of concrete over areas containing
numerous irregularities on weak foundations. Feathering (thin edges) should not
be permitted at the end of concrete slabs on weak foundations, and the edges of
slabs should be sloped no flatter than 45 degrees as shown in figure 3.2.6.3-4.
Concrete mix proportions should provide a 28-day strength of 3,000 pounds per
square inch. The maximum aggregate size should be less than one-third the
thickness of slabs or one-fifth the narrowest dimension between the side of a form
and the rock surface. Cement type will depend on the concentration of sulfates in
the foundation materials and ground water. Low-alkali cement is required for
alkali-reactive aggregates. Aggregate and water quality should be equal to that
required in structural concrete.
The rock surface should be thoroughly cleaned and moistened before concrete
placement to obtain a good bond between the concrete and the rock surface.
When overhangs are filled with dental concrete, the concrete must be well bonded
to the upper surface of the overhang. The overhang should be shaped to allow air
to escape during concrete placement and to prevent air pockets between the
concrete and the upper surface of the overhang. The concrete must be formed and
placed so that the top of the concrete is higher than the upper surface of the
overhang so that the pressure creates a tight fit. Grout pipes should be installed in
the dental concrete for later filling of the air voids. If grouting through dental
concrete takes place, pressures should be closely controlled to prevent jacking the
concrete or fracturing the fill.
3-24 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.6.3-4 Feathering at the ends of concrete placements should not be

permitted. The edges of concrete should be sloped no flatter than 45 degrees.
Finished dental concrete slabs should have a roughened, broomed finish for
satisfactory bonding of fill to concrete. Dental concrete should be cured by water
or an approved curing compound for 7 days or covered by earthfill. Earthfill
placement may not be permitted over dental concrete for a minimum of 72 hours
or more after concrete placement (or until 70 percent of design strength is
achieved) to allow concrete time to develop sufficient strength to withstand stress
caused by placing and compacting earthfill. Inadequate curing may cause the
concrete to crack.
3.2.6.4 Slush Grout

Slush grout is a neat cement grout (for cracks less than ½ inch) or a sand-cement
slurry (for cracks greater than ½ inch) that is placed into cracks in the foundation.
Cracks or joints are filled with grout rather than spreading grout on the surface (as
shown in figure 3.2.6.4-1). Slush grout should be used to fill narrow surface
cracks and not to cover areas of the foundation. To ensure adequate penetration
of the crack, the maximum particle size in the slush grout mixture should be no
greater than one-third the crack width. The consistency of the slush grout mix
may vary from a very thin mix to mortar as required to penetrate the crack. The
water to cement ratio should be kept as low as possible to prevent shrinkage. The
grout preferably should be mixed with a mechanical or centrifugal mixer, and the
grout should be used within 30 minutes after mixing.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-25

Figure 3.2.6.4-1 Ridges Basin Dam. Slush grout application in an open,

cleaned joint.
The type of cement required will depend on the concentration of sulfates in the
foundation materials and ground water. Low-alkali cement is required for alkali
sensitive aggregates. Sand and water quality should be equal to that required for
structural concrete. Reclamation uses type K cement that contains anhydrous
calcium aluminate, an expanding agent that counteracts shrinkage.
Clean out cracks as described above. All cracks should be wetted before placing
slush grout. Slush grout may be applied by brooming over surfaces containing
closely spaced cracks or by troweling, pouring, rodding, or funneling into
individual cracks. Brooming slush grout is best done just before material
placement so that cracking will not occur during compaction.
3.2.6.5 Shotcrete
Shotcrete is concrete or mortar that is sprayed in place. Some shotcrete is mixed
with synthetic fibers to obtain a stronger product and so it can adhere to steeper
slopes. The quality of the shotcrete depends on the skill and experience of the
crew, particularly regarding the amount of rebound, thickness, feather edges, and
ensuring adequate thickness over protrusions on irregular surfaces. Shotcrete
should be placed in thin lifts (2 inches or less) to ensure intimate contact with the
foundation rock. Areas that have not yet been prepared can be inadvertently
covered because of the ease and rapidity of placement. Shotcrete should be used
beneath impervious zones only when site conditions preclude using dental
concrete. If shotcrete is used, close inspection and caution are necessary.
Shotcrete can be an acceptable alternative to dental concrete outside the core
contact area (figure 3.2.6.5-1).
3-26 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.6.5-1 Shotcrete application.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-27

3.2.6.6 Additional Examples of Dam Foundation Excavation,

Treatment, and Cleaning
Figures 3.2.6.6-1 through 3.2.6.6-10 provide additional examples of foundation
excavation, treatment, and cleaning.
Figure 3.2.6.6-1 Upper Stillwater Dam. Foundation excavated to material

capable of withstanding loads imposed by the dam. Left side of
photograph shows acceptable steps; right side shows steps requiring
concrete fillets.
3-28 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.6.6-2 Treating foundation with dental concrete.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-29

Figure 3.2.6.6-3 Foundation for outlet works structure was shaped and
treated with dental concrete.
Figure 3.2.6.6-4 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation dental concrete. Sometimes

a dental concrete slab is a mass placement.
3-30 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.6.6-5 Entire footprint of a concrete gravity dam is excavated to material

capable of withstanding loads imposed by the dam.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-31

Figure 3.2.6.6-6 Upper Stillwater Dam. After stripping and before cleanup.
Figure 3.2.6.6-7 New Waddell Dam. After initial cleanup. Before any
treatment.
3-32 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.2.6.6-8 Mica Dam foundation excavation, typical excavation detail

(Fell et al., 1992).
Figure 3.2.6.6-9 Typical core contact surface treatment details, Mica Dam (Pratt et al., 1972; as
reproduced in Fell et al., 1992)
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-33

Figure 3.2.6.6-10 Dental treatment of weak seams in the plinth foundation of

Kangaroo Creek Dam (Fell et al., 1992).
3.3 Inspection and Foundation Approval

The lead embankment designer and geologist should inspect the final excavated
foundation surface to verify that the final foundation conditions are as anticipated
and design intent is achieved. This is considered critical. Timely inspections and
effective resolution of any foundation-related issue should occur. Foundations
should not be approved for concrete or embankment fill placement until the
following is verified:
 The quality and sufficient details of foundation geologic records.
 An experienced engineering geologist has reviewed and signed technical

approval of the geologic records.
 Topographic survey of final excavated surfaces at a scale sufficient to

confirm that adverse surfaces such as overhangs, unacceptable slope
changes, etc., do not exist.
3-34 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

 Geologic maps and photographs of final excavated surface, and a full

understanding of the significance of all geologic features should be
ensured before placing embankment fill.
 The lead embankment designer has evaluated the foundation and has
determined that the foundation conforms to the design intent; that shaping,
treatment, and cleaning are adequate; and that the foundation is acceptable
for commencement of embankment placement.
The foundation should be segmented into manageable areas if the area is too
large.
Figures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 illustrate geologic mapping and photographic methods to
document foundation conditions.
Foundation inspection and approval must be formally documented in a

memorandum, including photographs and geological mapping. A clear statement
of conclusions resulting from the inspection should be provided. The
memorandum should be included with the Technical Report of Construction.
Refer to appendix B for a sample Foundation Inspection and Acceptance Report.
The memorandum should include, but is not limited to, description of:
 Site conditions
 Foundation geology
 Foundation conditions not meeting design intent
 Geotechnical considerations
 Foundation treatment that is required, and what was accomplished
 Locations approved and special requirements for approval
 Photographs and geologic maps
Many times, the geologic features outside of the dam footprint are critical to dam
stability. For example, some very important features may not actually be exposed
in the foundation but could pass underneath it, such as low angle joints, shears, or
faults.
Documentation should reflect a complete understanding of the foundation and

having the best information to be able to predict foundation behavior relative to
potential failure modes.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-35

Figure 3.3-1 Photographic records are critical! Photos should be labeled and
related to the foundation geologic map.
3-36 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.3-2 Typical detail of geologic foundation map.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-37

3.4 Placement of Embankment Materials

3.4.1 Soil Foundations
Before placing the first embankment layer (lift) on an earth foundation,
moistening and compacting the surface by rolling with a tamping roller is
necessary to obtain a proper bond. An earth foundation surface sometimes
requires scarification by disks or harrows to ensure proper bonding. No
additional scarification is usually necessary if the material is penetrated by
tamping rollers.
Foundation materials at the core/foundation contact must be compacted to a

density compatible with the overlying fill material. A fine-grained foundation
may need to be compacted, the first layer of embankment material placed, and
then disked to obtain good mixing and bond between the foundation and the first
lift of core material.
Fine-grained foundations should be compacted with a tamping roller. If the

foundation is too firm for the tamping feet to penetrate, the foundation surface
should be disked to a depth of 6 inches and moistened before compaction.
Smooth surfaces created by construction traffic on a previously compacted
foundation surface should be disked to a depth of 2 inches or more.
Coarse-grained foundations should be compacted by vibratory rollers. Vibratory

compactors create a more uniform surface for placement of the first earthfill and
are the preferred method of compaction.
Cemented and highly overconsolidated soils that break into hard chunks may
require special procedures. In some cases, they can be left in place and should not
be reworked or disked to mix foundation and core material. The first lift of
embankment material should be placed in a manner similar to that required for
rock foundations.
Soil foundation compaction requirements beneath filter and shell zones should be
the same as those outlined here, except bonding the foundation to the overlying
fill is not required.
The moisture content of the upper 6 inches of a fine-grained soil foundation

should generally be within 2 percent dry and 1 percent wet of the Proctor
optimum moisture content for adequate compaction. Coarse-grained foundation
materials should be just wet enough to permit compaction to the specified relative
density, but saturation is not permitted. Dry materials must be disked and
moistened to provide a homogeneous moisture content within the specified limits
in the upper 6 inches of the foundation. Wet materials must be dried by disking to
bring the upper 6 inches of foundation material to within the specified moisture
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-39

content limits. If drying is ineffective or disking creates muddy conditions,

removal and replacement with soil material having proper moisture content may
be required. Wet foundations should be unwatered or dewatered sufficiently to
prevent saturation of the upper 6 inches of foundation material due to capillary
rise or pumping caused by construction equipment travel.
All embankment materials should be protected from eroding into coarser soil
zones in the foundation by transitions satisfying filter criteria or by filter material
as needed. (The reverse may also be necessary if coarse fill is to be placed over
finer foundation soils.) Transition zones or filters on the downstream face of the
cutoff trench and beneath the downstream zones should prevent movement of fine
material in the foundation into the embankment.
The use of dispersive embankment material should be avoided if possible. If

used, dispersive embankment materials must be protected from eroding and
moving into coarse material in the foundation by placing select zones of
engineered filter material between the embankment and foundation. Lime-treated
or naturally nondispersive earthfill is preferred for the first several lifts of fill
material. Except for areas where an impervious seal between the embankment
and foundation is required, filters are the preferred method.
Precautions should be taken against placing embankment or filter material on

muddy or frozen surfaces.
3.4.2 Rock Foundations

Rock foundation surfaces should be moistened, but no standing water should be
permitted when the first lift is placed. The foundation should be properly
moistened to prevent drying of the soil as shown in figure 3.4.2-1. The moisture
content of impervious embankment material should be between 0 and 2 percent
wet of optimum moisture content, and the maximum particle size is 1 to 2 inches.
When the availability of plastic material is limited, it is common practice to select
and use the more plastic material at the foundation contact. Because of the high
plasticity of these lifts, they are vulnerable to dessication if allowed to dry too
much. Lifts that have been allowed to dessicate shall be removed entirely. On
steep, irregular rock abutments, material slightly wetter than optimum may be
necessary to obtain good workability and a suitable bond. When using special
compaction, be careful to ensure that suitable bonds are created between
successive layers of material. This usually requires light scarification between
lifts of compacted material. Special compaction methods, such as hand tamping,
should be used in pockets that cannot be compacted by roller, such as irregular
rock surfaces. However, where foundation surfaces permit, a pneumatic-tire
roller or other pneumatic-tire equipment should be used near foundation contact
surfaces. An alternative to using thin lifts is using a pneumatic-tire roller or
loader with a full bucket (see figures 3.4.2-2 and 3.4.2-3) and disking or
3-40 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

scarifying the lift surfaces to obtain a bond between lifts. The tamping roller can
be used when the fill is sufficiently thick and regular to protect the foundation
from the tamping feet. Unit weight and moisture should be carefully monitored in
the foundation contact zone, and placing and compacting operations should be
carefully inspected. For an illustration of the process of placing embankment fill
on a rock foundation, see figures 3.4.2-4 through 3.4.2-6.
Figure 3.4.2-1 After final cleanup, the foundation is moistened prior to placing and
compacting embankment fill.
For irregular surfaces and hard to reach areas, site-specific conditions determine
whether hand-compacting earthfill or filling with dental concrete is the best
solution. The fill compaction method used depends on the steepness of the
surface, the nature of the irregularities in the foundation surface, and the fill
material.
A hand tamper may be used to compact earthfill in or against irregular surfaces on

abutments, in potholes and depressions, and against structures not accessible to
heavy compaction equipment. Hand-tamped, specially compacted earthfill is
typically placed in 4-inch-maximum compacted lifts with scarification between
lifts.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-41

Figure 3.4.2-2 Pneumatic-tire equipment should be used to compact fill

near the foundation contact surfaces. A sheep’s foot or tamping roller
may be used when the fill is thick enough to prevent contact of the
tamping feet with the foundation.
Figure 3.4.2-3 Pneumatic-tire equipment forces the plastic and

deformable earthfill into all remaining uneven surfaces in the
foundation surface and may create a feather edge at the ends of the
placement.
3-42 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Figure 3.4.2-4 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup and placing the
first lift of embankment fill.
Figure 3.4.2-5 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup, wetting, and
placing first lift.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-43

Figure 3.4.2-6 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup and

spreading first lift. Note the dozer is working on the fill, not on the
foundation surface, to prevent foundation damage. Foundation rock
in foreground has been moistened.
The feet of the roller must not penetrate the first layer of earthfill and damage the
foundation. Penetration can be prevented by using a rubber-tired roller or loader
to compact the first few lifts above the foundation surface with scarification
between lifts. Earthfill specially compacted by pneumatic-tired equipment is
typically placed in 6-inch-maximum compacted lifts. Placement of horizontal
lifts against mildly sloping rock surfaces can result in feathering of the earthfill
lift near the edge of the lift. Placement of the initial lift parallel to the foundation
surface (as opposed to a horizontal lift) for foundation surfaces flatter than
10H:1V is acceptable if the compactor climbing up the slope does not loosen or
disturb the previously compacted earthfill.
Core material compacted against steep surfaces is typically placed in 6-inch

compacted lifts with scarification between lifts. Earthfill 8 to 10 feet from a steep
surface should be ramped toward the steep surface at a slope of 6H:1V to 10H:1V
so that a component of the compactive force acts toward the steep surface.
Earthfill placed against remaining, small, uneven surfaces should be plastic and
deformable so that the material is forced (squeezed) into all irregularities on
the foundation surface by compaction or subsequent loading as shown in
figure 3.4.2-3. The soil moisture content at the first layer should range from 0 to
2 percent wet of optimum. Select material with a required plasticity range is
commonly specified. A soil plasticity index ranging from 16 to 30 is preferred
3-44 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

although not absolutely necessary. Feathered edges of compacted fill should be

removed prior to subsequent placements as shown in figure 3.4.2-7.
Figure 3.4.2-7 Feather edge of first lift of compacted fill removed, cleaned, and
ready for fill placement.
Core materials that are erodible include low-plasticity or nonplastic, fine-grained

soils, silty sand, and dispersive clays. Prevent erosion of embankment materials
into the foundation by sealing cracks in the foundation with slush grout and dental
concrete and using filter zone(s) between the fine-grained material and the
foundation. Sealing cracks is not totally reliable because concrete and mortar can
crack due to shrinkage or loading. Using natural or manufactured erosion
resistant material (high plastic index soils) for the first several lifts of
embankment at the core-foundation contact is good practice.
If erosion-resistant plastic materials are available, these materials should be used

for the first several lifts along the foundation contact to avoid placing erodible
nonplastic materials directly against the rock surface. If plastic materials are not
available, the natural soil can be mixed with sodium bentonite or other imported
clay to produce core material to be placed against the foundation. Laboratory
testing should establish the amount of clay required to give the soil the
characteristics of a clay. Mixing must produce a uniform, impervious material.
Generally, mixing must be accomplished by using pug mills or tillers. Disking in
the borrow area or on the fill cannot be expected to produce uniform material.
Nondispersive material should be used instead of dispersive material in critical

locations such as along the core-foundation contact. In deposits containing
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-45

dispersive material, the dispersion potential generally varies greatly over short
distances. Selectively excavating nondispersive material from a deposit
containing dispersive materials is frequently difficult and unreliable. Lime can be
added to dispersive materials to reduce dispersivity or convert the soil to a
nondispersive material. The amount of lime required to treat the dispersive soil
should be established by performing dispersivity tests on samples of soils treated
with varying percentages of lime. Adding lime to a soil results in reduced
plasticity and a more brittle soil; therefore, the lime content should be the
minimum required to treat the soil. Do not treat material that has naturally low
plasticity with lime if it is not necessary.
3.5 Bibliography
Acker, Richard C., and Jack C. Jones. “Foundation and Abutment Treatment for
Rockfill Dams.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10,
pp. 995-1016.
Barron, Reginald A. 1972. Abutment and Foundation Treatment for High

Embankment Dams on Rock. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98,
No. SM10, pp. 1017-1032.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1984. Design Standards No. 13 – Embankment Dams,

Chapter 3: Foundation Surface Treatment. Engineering and Research Center,
Denver, Colorado.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1987. Design of Small Dams. Third Edition.
Bureau of Reclamation. 2001. Engineering Geology Field Manual. Second

Edition, Volume II.
Burke, Harris H., Charles S. Content, and Richard L. Kulesza. 1972. “Current
Practice in Abutment and Foundation Treatment.” Journal of the Soil
Mechanics and Foundations Division, Proceedings of the American Society of
Civil Engineers, Vol. 98, No. SM10, pp. 1033-1052.
Cato, Kerry D., Pete Shaffner, and Norman R. Tilford. June 23, 2000 draft.
Guidance for Preparing Dam Foundations. Special Publication, Dam
Foundation Committee, U.S. Committee on Large Dams.
Fell, MacGregor, and Stapleton. 1992. Geotechnical Engineering of

Embankment Dams.
3-46 DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

Fraser, William A. 2001. Engineering Geology Considerations for Specifying

Dam Foundation Objectives. California Department of Water Resources.
Goodman, Richard E. 1993. Engineering Geology – Rock in Engineering

Construction. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 412 p.
Pratt, Harold K., Robert C. McMordie, and Robert M. Dundas. 1972.

“Foundations and Abutments - Bennett and Mica Dams.” Journal of the Soil
Rizzo, Paul C., and John Charlton. 2008. Foundation Preparation for RCC Dams
Founded on Difficult Foundation Conditions. Presented at Hydro2008 in
Lubljana, Slovenia, October 6-8, 2008.
Sherard, J.L., R.J. Woodward, S.F. Gizienski, and W.A. Clevenger. 1963. Earth
and Rockfill Dams. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, New York.
Soderberg, Arthur D. 1988. Foundation Treatment of Karstic Features Under

TVA Dams, Geotechnical Aspects of Karst Terrain. ASTM Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 14, pp. 149-165.
Stroppini, Elmer W., Donald H. Babbitt, and Henry E. Struckmeyer. 1972.

“Foundation Treatment for Embankment Dams on Rock.” Journal of the Soil
Swiger, W.F. 1973. “Preparation of Rock Foundations for Embankment Dams.”

Embankment Dam Engineering, Casagrande Volume, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, New York, pp. 355-363.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Engineering and Design – General

Design and Construction Considerations for Earth and Rock-Fill Dams.
EM 1110-2-2300.
Walker, Fred C., and R.W. Bock. 1972. “Treatment of High Embankment Dam
Foundations.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98,
No. SM10, pp. 1099-1113.
Wallace, B.J., and J.I. Hilton. 1972. “Foundation Practices for Talbingo Dam,
Australia.” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 98,
No. SM10, pp. 1081-1098.
DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-47

Appendix A
Position Paper
Construction Blasting Vibration

Limits
Position Paper
Construction Blasting Vibration Limits
Technical Service Center
Prepared: /s/ Peer Review: /s/ .
Gregg A. Scott, P.E. Ernest Hall, P.E.
Date: 9/15/2008 .
Revised
Background and History
The Bureau of Reclamation has a long history of protecting structures from the adverse
impacts of construction blast vibrations. However, as experienced technical and
construction staff leave through retirement, the agency is in danger of losing expertise in
this area and having to re-learn the lessons of the past. This is evidenced by several
recent construction specification reviews where the vibration limits in the standard
specifications were reduced, with the only justification being a desire to be “more
conservative” without a clear idea of how this would affect the cost of the project or what
level of conservatism was really achieved. In some cases this may have resulted from a
belief that the values should lie closer to the conservative values in the Reclamation
Safety and Health Standards (RSHS). In addition, changes have been made to the RSHS
manual without consulting the technical staff, resulting in unrealistic blast vibration limits
and unclear airblast limits. Currently the agency is not allowing anything in the RSHS
document to be overridden by the construction specifications without a lengthy and time-
consuming waiver process, no matter how costly or unreasonable it might be on a
specific job. In the past, the construction specifications could override the RSHS blast
vibration limits, as discussed below.
Early Blast Vibration Limits

The Bureau of Reclamation first included blast vibration control limits in the construction
specifications for East Canyon Dam and Grand Coulee Forebay Dam issued in the mid-
1960’s. These limits were based on ground acceleration and frequency. About the same
time, the Bureau of Mines was conducting research into the effects of quarry blasting on
residential structures, using peak particle velocity (which is a function of acceleration and
frequency) as the controlling parameter. The Bureau of Mines published their work in
1971 [1], and the industry quickly adopted their guidance. They proposed a peak particle
velocity limit of 2 in/s to prevent damage to residential structures. However, it should be
1
noted that the type of damage observed was largely cosmetic, such as cracking of plaster,
drywall, or mortar joints between masonry blocks. In addition, these blasts were
typically large quarry blasts with the houses located at some distance from the blasting
with various foundation conditions.
Blasting Review Team

In the late 1970’s, Jim Legas, who was the Head of the Concrete Dams Section,
recognized a need to update Reclamation’s blasting specifications paragraphs. As a
result, Al Lindholm, acting Chief of the Dams Branch formed a Blasting Review Team in
1978, consisting of Louis Roehm (chairman), Gregg Scott, Clarence Duster, Ralph
Atkinson, Jim Kleppe, and Dave Daniels. The team’s charge extended beyond just blast
vibrations to include all aspects of blasting specifications. However, blast vibrations
were an important part of that study [2].
About the time the Blasting Review Team was formed, the Bureau of Mines was
expanding its research into the effects of quarry blasting on residential structures. Word
leaked out that they were going to come out with more restrictive criteria. The Office of
Surface Mining reacted to this by publishing a peak particle velocity limit of 1 in/s in a
1979 edition of the Federal Register [3]. Presumably, this was intended to be an interim
guideline until the Bureau of Mines study was published. At that time the RSHS
document was being updated, and the blast vibration limit of 1 in/s from the Federal
Register was included in the revision. The Blasting Review Team recommended that this
be taken out of the RSHS, but the decision was made to leave it in, the rationale being
that it would serve as a fall back position in cases where there were no specifications
paragraphs to cover blast vibrations. Thus, the wording “unless otherwise specified by
the Bureau” was included in the RSHS document. As noted by the Blasting Review
Team report, “The Construction Safety Standards guideline provides conservative control
of blast vibrations in the absence of a specifications paragraph.” This provision was later
removed for some unknown reason.
When the Blasting Review Team Report was published in 1979, it was noted that “Due to
numerous reasons (usually short distance from blast site to a structure), it is often difficult
to maintain low peak particle velocities . . . (and) most structures can tolerate a higher
particle velocity without damage for small charges close to the structure because the
motion occurs at a higher frequency.” As a result, the team recommended allowing peak
particle velocities as high as 4 in/s for substantial structures.
When the updated Bureau of Mines criteria were published in 1980 [4], the value of 2
in/s was retained to protect residential structures when the blast vibration frequencies are
greater than 40 Hz, which is typically where construction blasts fall. At lower, more
damaging frequencies, lower vibration limits were recommended, depending on the
condition of the structure.
Upper Stillwater Dam

In the mid- 1980’s, a situation arose during the construction of Upper Stillwater Dam that
tested the “fall back” position of the RSHS. The specifications were silent on blast
2
vibration, but required the blasting to be kept at a distance of 100 feet from any
structures. A concrete diversion structure was also required that eventually would
become embedded in the main roller-compacted concrete (RCC) dam. A diversion
channel through natural rock (less than 100 feet from the diversion channel) was to be
maintained until the diversion structure was constructed and river flows diverted through
it, and then the rock forming the channel was to be removed to foundation grade. The
contractor, Tyger Construction Co, claimed the 100-foot distance could not be
maintained, and the excavation could not be reasonably completed under a blast vibration
limit of 1 in/s. The contractor hired Lew Oriard, a blasting expert, and was preparing to
submit a large claim.
The design team quickly reviewed as much information as could be found on the effects
of blasting on concrete structures. To no one’s surprise, Lew Oriard had done significant
research into this topic in the early 1980’s, and had a major hand in developing blast
vibration specifications for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). These specifications
allowed up to 20 in/s peak particle velocity at close distances for massive concrete
structures where the concrete was more than 10 days old. Other cases were found in the
literature where no damage was reported for concrete structures exposed to blast
vibrations up to 8 in/s. Very few cases of concrete structures damaged by blast vibrations
could be found, and those that could be found were for very green concrete (less than 2
days old) at vibrations from 6 to 20 in/s, or were old concrete in questionable condition
damaged by high vibrations exceeding 30 in/s. Based on this review, criteria were
proposed at Upper Stillwater that allowed a peak particle velocity of 8 in/s for blasting
adjacent to the diversion structure. This was accepted by the contractor, and construction
proceeded as planned. In fact, the diversion structure was exposed to blast vibrations as
high as 9 in/s with no apparent damage [5].
Subsequent Blasting Jobs

Following Upper Stillwater, the Reclamation guide specifications paragraphs were
updated to include allowance for up to 10 in/s peak particle velocity blast vibrations for
close in blasting adjacent to massive concrete structures where the concrete was more
than 14 days old. However, these specifications were intended for large foundation
excavation blasting jobs with associated dental concrete foundation treatment placements
and construction of concrete structures while the blasting proceeded. Reclamation had
very few of these types of jobs remaining, and most blasting jobs were smaller.
Therefore, the guide specifications eventually reverted back to blast vibration limits
similar to those recommended by the Blasting Review Team, allowing peak particle
velocities up to 4 in/s. These limits were used successfully on a number of jobs. Notable
among these were Buffalo Bill Dam, and the outlet works air supply tunnel at Folsom
Dam, both of which involved blasting within the concrete of the dam structure itself.
However, when using these specifications, it is important to specify where the vibrations
will be monitored.
At Buffalo Bill Dam, the work included excavating a new gate chamber within the lower
body of the dam, demolishing some old penstock sections, and excavating a short section
of new penstock tunnel in the left abutment adjacent to the dam. Blast vibration
3
monitoring stations were established at some distance from the blasting. Blast vibrations
up to 4 in/s were allowed at these locations. Although this value was never exceeded, it
was recognized that blast vibrations in the concrete just beyond the gate chamber
excavation were considerably higher. For example, vibrations one foot beyond the
excavation line were estimated to be as high as 100 to 150 in/s based on the recordings
that were made [6], but these vibrations would be at extremely high frequencies and not
damaging. Indeed, a smooth surface was obtained with very little damage beyond the
controlled perimeter of the excavation.
At Folsom Dam, severe cavitation occurred in the outlet works during large releases. The
remedy to this situation included excavating an additional air supply tunnel through the
concrete dam. The spillway gate trunnion anchors needed to be protected, as they were
embedded within the mass concrete of the dam structure, and the tunnel passed within
close proximity of the anchors. In all, six blasts produced a peak particle velocity at the
trunnion anchors in excess of 5 in/s, with a maximum recorded value of 7.2 in/s, with no
damage noted [7]. These vibrations occurred at high frequencies. It should be noted that
strain gages were placed on four of the trunnion anchors to monitor strains within the
steel during the blasting, and all strains were below damaging levels.
Recommendations
Reclamation has developed considerable experience and expertise in blast vibration
monitoring and limits over the past 30 years. This expertise is in danger of being lost due
to retirement of experienced personnel. Given the decline in Reclamation blasting
expertise, and especially that related to blast vibration limits and monitoring, it is
recommended the following steps be taken to help ensure the agency remains credible
and that reasonable limits are placed on contractors to obtain competitive bid prices:
1. Allow the specifications paragraphs to once again over-ride the RSHS for air
blast and blast vibrations. Airblast limits are primarily related to preventing
cracked windows and tripping of sensitive switches. The limits to be placed on
airblast levels are dependent on the frequency response of the monitoring
instruments, as shown in the following table. The RSHS document is silent on the
instrumentation to be used. Hence, the airblast limits in the RSHS are not very
meaningful.
Flat Response Frequency Range Maximum Level, dB

of Instrumentation, Hz
0.1 to 200 134 peak
2 to 200 133 peak
6 to 200 129 peak
C-Weighted, slow response 105 C
The blast vibration limits currently in the RSHS were taken from a 1979 interim
guideline from the Office of Surface Mining, and are not found in any other
guidelines currently in use. These limits are overly restrictive in most cases.
4
Once again, the RSHS document is silent on the instrumentation characteristics to
be used in measuring peak particle velocity. As originally specified, there was a
clause that allowed these limits to be overridden by the specifications paragraphs.
That clause was removed for some unknown reason.
2. The guide specifications paragraphs related to blast vibration limits should

be updated as shown in the following table. These limits will provide
conservative protection, while in most cases allowing the contractor to
incorporate reasonable blasting practices to perform the excavations in an
economical manner. They will also help to maintain credibility of the agency
with the profession by not being overly restrictive. The notes at the end of the
table represent important considerations when changing the values in the table.
Table 02305A- Maximum Peak Particle Velocity Permitted at Structures

Structure Type Vibration Peak particle
frequencies velocity
(cycles/second) (inches/second)
Relatively new residential with Below 40 0.75
drywall walls Above 40 2.0
Older residential with lath and Below 40 0.5
plaster walls, or other Above 40 2.0
structures in precarious
condition, sensitive switches
Industrial (more substantial -- 2.0
than residential)
Government-owned concrete -- 4.0
or steel structures, or grouted
or treated foundations
Embankment dams 4.0
Notes:
1. Specify where the blast monitoring will be performed. Indicate which structures
will be monitored, and where the seismographs will be positioned relative to each.
2. Do not lower the recommended values without performing an economic
evaluation of the likely impacts to the blasting operations. Lowering the vibration
limits will result in the need to add more delays and possibly more blasts.
3. For close-in blasting (e.g. less than 50 to 100 feet), it may be necessary to raise
these limits in order to accomplish the blasting. Vibrations from such blasting
will be at a high frequency, and will be less damaging. Therefore, higher values
can be tolerated. Consult with a blasting specialist when in doubt.
5
References
[1] Nichols, H.R., C.F. Johnson, and W.I. Duvall, “Blasting Vibrations and their Effects
on Structures,” Bureau of Mines Bulletin 656, 1971.
[2] Roehm, L.H., et al, “Blasting Review Team Report,” Dams Branch, Bureau of
Reclamation, Revised February 1980.
[3] Federal Register, “Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Program,”

Tuesday, March 13, 1979, pp. 15404-15406.
[4] Siskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H. Dowding, “Structure Response and
Damage Produced by Ground Vibration from Surface Mine Blasting,” Bureau of
Mines, Report if Investigation RI 8507, 1980.
[5] Scott, G.A., “Concrete and Grout Damage Control for Blasting at Upper Stillwater
Dam,” ASCE National Convention, Boston, MA, 1986.
[6] Scott, G.A., and D.L. Hinchliff, “Blasting in and Adjacent to Concrete at Buffalo Bill
Dam,” ASCE Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics Conference,
Seattle, WA, 1998.
[7] Scott, G.A., “Blasting the Outlet Works Air Intake Tunnel through Folsom Dam,”
Technical Memorandum No. FOL-8110-CS-98-1, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
CO, June 1998.
6
Appendix B
Decision Memorandum No. DEC-RB-8311-29
Foundation Inspection
Documentation and Approval
No. 5 of Zone 1 Foundation
U. S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DECISION MEMORANDUM NO. DEC-RB-8311-29
DATE: June 7, 2006
RIDGES BASIN DAM

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT
COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO
RIDGES BASIN DAM COMPLETION, PUBLIC LAW 93-638
CONTRACT NO. 03-NA-40-8064
Foundation Inspection Documentation and Approval #5 of Zone 1 Foundation
Features: Dam embankment foundation
Area: Zone 1 footprint on the lower left and right abutments up to approximate
elevation 6700.
The left abutment is approved between approximate elevations 6662 and 6700, above a
line identified by Stations 22+10, 3’DS to 22+23, 225’US and below a line identified by
Stations 22+93, 204’ US to 22+90, 100’ US to 14+36, 3’ DS.
The right abutment is approved between approximate elevations 6662 and 6700, above a
line identified by Stations 15+65, 3’DS to 14+13, 225’US and below a line identified by
Stations 13+69, 204’US to 14+28, 100’ US to 14+25, 10’ US to 14+36, 3’ DS (see
attached foundation approval drawing and geologic maps).
Mapped by: Tom Strain, and Ryan Christianson, FCO/ALP geologists
Participants in the inspection:
Allen Gates, Field Engineer, ALP-300

Jim Gates, Supervisory Geologist, ALP-710
John Cyganiewicz, Geotechnical Engineer, D-86-68311
Dave Paul, Construction Liaison, D-86-68160
Curtis Cain, Principal Geologist, D-86-68320
This memorandum describes the conditions for dam foundation acceptance for final
cleaning of the exposed dam foundation beneath the Zone 1 embankment. No specific
site inspection was performed for the entire portion of the foundation described in this
document. Portions of this area were inspected by design team members prior to final
excavation and cleanup on April 25th and 26th, 2006 and during occasional site visits
during May and June. Subsequent foundation cleanup, preparation, and Zone 1
placement without the Designer present was accomplished using the attached checklist.
Initial foundation approval was granted on April 26th for both abutments between
elevations 6662 and 6700 with the following stipulations:
1) Removal of fractured, slaked or otherwise deleterious rock.

2) Adherence to foundation approval checklists.
3) Additional TSC review of scraping and cleaning of the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone
when it is reached at approximate elevation 6680 along the downstream portion of
the Zone 1 footprint on the right abutment.
4) TSC review of any areas requiring formed dental concrete which stretches
through an area greater than 20 feet laterally.
Final foundation approval was granted on June 7, 2006 based on occasional site visits,
email, photographic documentation, and conference call discussions. Zone 1
embankment was placed on foundation in these areas during April, May, and June 2006.
DESIGN INTENT:
The intent of the foundation is to provide a sound, competent and properly shaped surface
upon which to place dam core material. In addition, all material in the foundation which
is susceptible to piping should be removed. Potential seepage paths that could affect the
core material should be treated to eliminate/isolate them from the core.
DESCRIPTION OF AS_EXCAVATED CONDITIONS:
The foundation has been excavated to bedrock within the area of acceptance. The
foundation material was generally found to be in excellent condition. Bedrock of the
Lewis Shale (unit L1) exposed in the excavation will meet the design intent at the
currently excavated depths provided that final foundation preparation is performed as
described below. The Lewis Shale is composed primarily of siltstone with some
interbedded shale and ranges from moderately hard to moderately soft.
Initial foundation excavation included the removal of the overlying alluvium and
weathered or loose bedrock. This excavation was performed primarily using Caterpillar
365 and 385 trackhoes. Excavation of the left abutment was completed in January, 2005
and was followed by cleanup for geologic mapping during February and March, 2005.
Excavation of the right abutment was completed in April and May, 2005 with the
removal of the temporary diversion channel. Excavation was followed by removal of the
remaining rubble and slaked material by backhoe bucket mounted with a butterbar.
Blowdown using high pressure air was performed to complete cleanup for geologic
mapping. Foundation grouting took place in this area from August to November 2005
and final foundation excavation and cleanup for placement of embankment was
performed in April, May, and June, 2006. The final cleanup consisted of scraping with a
Caterpillar 325 trackhoe with butterbar to perform final foundation excavation, followed
by cleanup with compressed air.
LEFT ABUTMENT
Final cleanup on the left abutment was performed in strips (roughly 5 feet in elevation)
extending upstream to downstream along the lower portions of the abutments. The
foundation in this area consists of the Lewis Shale. Several “A” joints trending
approximately N20-30W are exposed in this area of the foundation. The joints are
predominantly tight to slightly open to 1/16-inch but occasionally contain weathered
siltstone to a width of 1- to 2-inches. Where this material is weathered and soft, it is
removed by either compressed air or rock pick to a depth of three times the width and the
opening is slush grouted immediately prior to placement of Zone 1. The removal of this
material often creates an opening with a depth of 1- to 4-inches and the material generally
becomes firm and the joint tightens with depth. The slush grout is a cement/sand/water
mixture which is mixed thin enough to penetrate the joint being treated.
Photograph 1. Weathered rock materials have been excavated from an “A” joint on the left
abutment at approximate Station 22+58, 132' US in preparation for slush grouting. The weathered
materials have become firm throughout most of the exposed joint at the excavated depth.
May 23, 2006 (Photo by J. Gates) Reference Image Only
Photograph 2. Crew finishes preparing the foundation for Zone 1 placement on the lower left
abutment at approximate Station 22+30, 150' US. View looking downstream.
May 5, 2006 (photo by R. Christianson) Reference Image Only
Final cleanup for Zone 1 placement commenced on April 25th, 2006 within the
acceptance area. A Caterpillar 325 trackhoe with a butterbar initially scraped slaked and
weathered material from the previously exposed foundation surface (3- to 6-inches
average). This material was hauled to placement in Zone 5. Near vertical ledges were
scraped down to less than 1-foot in height with the trackhoe. Grout nipples were either
removed or cutoff at the surface. A blow-down crew followed the rock scraping as final
foundation cleanup progressed in approximate 5-foot high strips. The edges of the
previously placed Zone 1 is trimmed with either a backhoe or shovels to expose fresh
moist clay. The Zone 1 is then scarified prior to wheel rolling the new lift onto the
foundation. The material utilized at the foundation/embankment interface is Zone 1 from
the center of Borrow Area A, having a PI of generally greater than 18 and a moisture
content which has averaged about 3 percent wet of optimum. This material is wheel-
rolled onto the foundation using either a Caterpillar 980 or a Volvo 220D loader.
Dental concrete within this approval area of the left abutment was limited to one small
area requiring less than 2 cubic yards. This occurred near Station 22+25, 15’ US where
a near vertical ledge could not practically be excavated to a height less than 1-foot.
Sandbags and a 8” piece of plywood were used at the base of the pour to hold the
concrete in place. The location of the dental concrete is shown on the attached geologic
maps.
RIGHT ABUTMENT
A Caterpillar 365 excavator has been used to excavate weathered and fractured rock
along the right abutment between approximate Stations 14+60, 125’ US and 14+10, 215’
US. The fractured rock was originally identified during geologic mapping in June 2005
as requiring removal prior to placement of dam embankment. The fractured rock is
adjacent to a clay filled joint trending upstream/downstream along the right abutment.
The joint was identified during geologic mapping as JR234 (N84W, 68NE) and is
representative of the “C” Joint set. Joint JR 244, also mapped in this area, was similar in
nature and indicated that additional excavation was necessary. The decision was made at
that time to leave the material in place during the foundation grouting operation and
remove it as the embankment was brought up. There was no additional excavation until
late April 2006, when initial scraping for final cleanup was performed with a Caterpillar
325 excavator equipped with a butterbar, revealing a significant, clay-filled (up to 2
inches) joint. Attempts at removing the intensely fractured rock overlying the joint using
the 325 excavator were unsuccessful. The 365 track-hoe was mobilized to excavate the
rock mass on May 1st, 2006 and again May 9th and 10th, 2006.
Photograph 3. Upstream view of fractured rock prior to additional excavation taking place above
approximate elevation 6665 on the upstream right abutment. Geologist and inspectors are standing
at approximate Station 14+55, 135’ upstream of centerline.
April 27, 2006 (Photo R. Christianson) Reference Image Only
Photograph 4. Caterpillar 365 excavator beginning the additional excavation on the right abutment
to remove fractured Lewis Shale.
The additional excavation has resulted in the exposure of a joint face along the abutment.
The joint strikes from N88W to N65E, and dips toward the valley at 51 to 68 degrees.
Dental concrete was used along the upstream portion of the joint face where it intersects
bedding.
Photograph 5. Additional excavation is being accomplished using a Caterpillar 365 trackhoe and is
exposing a prominent joint face on the upstream right abutment. The excavator can be seen
working on the upstream transition.
Foundation grouting was performed in the area upstream of the joint face in the fall of
2005 with some of the blanket holes in the area having moderate takes in the 0 to 15- foot
stages. Many of the joints near the blanket holes were exposed during final foundation
cleanup and were filled with grout. However, it appears the grout travel in the upstream
direction was limited by the clay joint fillings.
Stress relief “exfoliation” joints are common within a section of the Lewis Shale which is
approximately 20 to 40 feet below the contact of the overlying Pictured Cliffs Sandstone
and is most prevalent along the lower portion of the grouting stairway. The jointed rock
has locally required additional excavation of up to about 4- to 6-feet. The joints roughly
parallel the excavated slope trending N60E to N80E, dipping about 50 to 60 degrees
toward the north with spacings ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 feet. The joints are predominantly
tight to slightly open to about 1/16th inch with an occasional clay filling. Minor
groundwater seepage of less than ½ gpm appears along the exposed joint traces near
Station 15+50, 50’ upstream of dam centerline. Grout from the foundation grouting
program is often seen penetrating the joints in thicknesses ranging from about 1/16th to
3/4 inch. Exposed joint traces are generally less than 3 feet long and are slush grouted
where open.
Photograph 6. Joint on right abutment near Station 14+55, 130’ US that is filled with grout from
foundation pressure grouting operations. The grout reaches a maximum thickness of about ¾ inch.
Grout can also be seen along a joint at the upper right of photo. View looking downstream.
April 27, 2006 (Photo by R. Christianson) Reference Image Only
Final cleanup in this acceptance area is predominantly within the Lewis Shale with the
exception of the extreme downstream Zone 1 footprint near the right abutment ravine
area where the Pictured Cliffs is exposed. The upper portions of the Lewis Shale remains
classified as a siltstone although it becomes increasingly sandy approaching the contact
with the overlying unit P1 of the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone. This gradational contact
between the sandy siltstone and the interbedded sandstone, siltstone, and shale, of unit P1
can be seen near the green and orange line in the following photograph.
Photograph 7. Slush grout being placed in preparation for Zone 1 embankment. This area
represents the gradational contact between the Lewis Shale and the overlying Pictured Cliffs Unit P1.
View looking downstream from approximate Station 15+00 40' U/S.
May 24, 2006 (Photo by R. Christianson) Reference Image Only
Individual placements on foundation were generally restricted to 5 feet in elevation. The

final cleanup was performed using the same methods described for the left abutment
above. In addition to blowing with compressed air, washing the foundation with water
has been required in occasional areas due to the accumulation of mud on the rock. This
method has been effective in removing the mud without causing additional slaking of the
shale and siltstone. Cleanup methods used in the Pictured Cliffs Sandstone remain to be
essentially the same as used for the Lewis Shale.
Slush grout has been required in occasional open joints along the base of the right
abutment. Most of the joints are classified within the “C” joint set and trend roughly
N65E, dipping 50-70 degrees northwest toward the valley center. Dental concrete was
required in two locations to flatten the slope to less than 0.5:1.
Photograph 6. Unformed dental concrete at the base of the exposed joint face on the right abutment
between approximate Stations 14+15, 168’ US and 14+98, 190’ US.
GENERAL FOUNDATION CLEANUP METHODS
During the foundation inspection and other site visits, methods observed which resulted
in an acceptably clean foundation for placement of Zone 1 embankment have included
the following steps:
1) Scraping with butterbar;
2) blowdown using high pressure air;
3) cleaning of discontinuities;
4) removal of any mud coatings on the rock;
5) removal of standing water;
6) removal of any remaining rock chips or fragments that remained after the initial
blowdown using either a light blowdown or vacuum.
These steps (methods and criteria) are described in detail in the attached foundation
cleanup checklist and are used as the basis for this and future foundation acceptance.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The three key functions of the bedrock foundation material beneath the Zone 1
foundation is that it must 1) not provide a weak seam of material that will form a shear
plane beneath the core of the embankment 2) provide cutoff for seepage and 3) not
contain seepage that can adversely affect the core.
The conditions exposed will provide the needed functionality after final foundation
preparation is performed (see below).
ADDITIONAL FOUNDATION PREPARATION REQUIRED:
Decision:
The foundation within the limits prepared for this inspection is acceptable and meets
design intent, pending foundation preparation as established above and within the
attached foundation cleanup checklist.
H:\69-403\69-403-63.dwg, 6/7/2006 11:36:26 AM, DWF6 ePlot.pc3
H:\69-403\69-403-6 thru 23.dwg, 6/7/2006 10:13:04 AM, DWF6 ePlot.pc3

DS13 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DS13 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

DS13 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Standards No.

U.S. Department of the Interior

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop,

Design Standards No. 13

Chapter 3: Foundation Surface Treatment

Application of Design Standards

Design Standards No. 13

DS-13(3)-2:1 Phase 4 (Final)

Chapter 3 – Foundation Surface Treatment is an existing chapter within Design

Reorganized chapter content

Updated content to reflect modern construction practice

Added detail describing shaping, slush grouting, dental concrete,

Added figures and photographs

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 1

Appendix A: Construction Blasting Vibration Limits

Appendix B: Foundation Inspection Documentation and Approval No. 5

DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-i

3.2.1-1 All organic or other unsuitable materials are removed

3.2.1-2 Treatment of rock foundation ................................................ 3-5

3.2.1-3 Slope modification to reduce differential settlement and

3.2.1-4 Mica Dam. Foundation excavation, typical excavation

3.2.1-5 Bennet Dam, typical core abutment excavation

3.2.4.2-1 Upper Stillwater Dam. Features such as this shear zone

3.2.4.2-2 Ridges Basin Dam. This dam foundation was shaped to

3.2.4.2-3 Extensive use of dental concrete used to fill potholes,

3.2.4.2-4 Stripping of foundation removes all vegetation, soil,

3.2.4.2-5 Foundation cleaning is complete. All unsound, loose, or

3.2.4.2-6 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation after stripping and

3.2.4.2-7 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation cleanup using

3.2.4.2-8 Drilling blast holes to facilitate removal of a rock

3-ii DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

3.2.4.2-9 Teton Dam. The stepped surface in this right abutment

3.2.4.2-10 Ridges Basin Dam. Open stress relief joint in

3.2.4.2-11 Ridges Basin Dam. Slush grout application to an

3.2.4.2-12 Upper Stillwater Dam. Shear zone in foundation being

3.2.6.1-1 Foundation cleanup is labor intensive and costly but

3.2.6.3-1 Dental concrete and acceptable vertical steps can be

3.2.6.3-2 Bedding planes may modify cleanup plans. Here, a

3.2.6.3-3 Block is removed between fractured zone, bedding

3.2.6.3-4 Feathering at the ends of concrete placements should

3.2.6.4-1 Ridges Basin Dam. Slush grout application in an open,

3.2.6.5-1 Shotcrete application .............................................................. 3-27

3.2.6.6-1 Upper Stillwater Dam. Foundation excavated to material

DS-13(3)-2 July 2012 3-iii

3.2.6.6-2 Treating foundation with dental concrete. ............................. 3-29

3.2.6.6-3 Foundation for outlet works structure was shaped and

3.2.6.6-4 Ridges Basin Dam. Foundation dental concrete.

3.2.6.6-5 Entire footprint of a concrete gravity dam is excavated to

3.2.6.6-7 New Waddell Dam. After initial cleanup. Before any

3.2.6.6-8 Mica Dam foundation excavation, typical excavation

3.2.6.6-10 Dental treatment of weak seams in the plinth foundation

3.3-1 Photographic records are critical! Photos should be

3.3-2 Typical detail of geologic foundation map ............................ 3-37

3.4.2-1 After final cleanup, the foundation is moistened prior

3.4.2-2 Pneumatic-tire equipment should be used to compact

3.4.2-3 Pneumatic-tire equipment forces the plastic and

3-iv DS-13(3)-2 July 2012

3.4.2-4 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup and placing

3.4.2-5 Ridges Basin Dam. Final foundation cleanup, wetting,