1

Please sure to cite this article if you found the article useful!
Cite by URL or name Taher and Alshibli (2015)

PIPING EFFECT IN EARTH

DAMS
An Investigative Paper

(Fell, et al., 2003)

Prepared for
Dr. Khalid Alshibli
Professor of Geotechnical Engineering at the
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee, 37916

Prepared by
Zana Taher
Graduate Student at the University of
Tennessee
Knoxville, Tennessee, 37916

May 1, 2015
 i

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... ii

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... ii

Aim ............................................................................................................................................................. ii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................... 1

History of piping ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Types and phases of piping ............................................................................................................................. 5

Heave .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Backward erosion ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Concentrated leak erosion (scour) ................................................................................................................ 7
Tunneling or Jugging: usually in vadose zone ............................................................................................... 7
Suffusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 7
Suffosion ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
Xu a d Zha g’s odel of pipi g progressio ................................................................................................... 9

Solutions of piping before and after construction ......................................................................................... 11

Sedghi-Asl’s Solution .................................................................................................................................. 11

Fell’s Solution ............................................................................................................................................ 13

Peck’s Solution .......................................................................................................................................... 13

How to protect, detect and control earthen dam piping? .............................................................................. 13

Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 17

References .................................................................................................................................................... 18

List of Illustration
Figure 1 Bligh’s a d La e’s Creep Ratios ......................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2 Backward erosion and Scour ............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 3 Xu and Zhang model components ..................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4 Xu and Zhang dam zones and soil properties ................................................................................... 11

Figure 5 Sedghi-Asl test instrument; blanket and sheet pile ......................................................................... 12

Figure 6 dam components to resist piping .................................................................................................... 14

Table 1 Creep ratio of both Bligh and Lane for different types of soil ............................................... 4
Please sure to cite this article if you found the article useful! ii
Cite by URL or name Taher and Alshibli (2015) on Academia.edu
Piping Effect in Earth Dams
Internal Erosion
Executive Summary

Abstract

One of the most severe failure causes for earthen dams is “seepage and piping,” which, due to

chemical and physical effects, causes the soil particles to weaken and lose the soil’s property.

Piping has been the primary cause of failure in most of the world’s earth dams. This paper

covers the definition and various types of piping and piping causes and effects in earth dams.

I will explain the difficulties in dealing with piping, and currently available solutions to

prevent piping in earth dams during the design period and construction stage.

Aim

This paper specifies types of soil piping that encounter earth dams and explains the methods

taken to solve it. It covers a brief piping history to indicate the time when geotechnical

engineers first defined this phenomenon. In addition, it includes a piping progression model

created by Xu and Zhang (2013) to understand how they have simulated piping progression

in earth dams. Moreover, I will present the current piping solutions and recommendations,

stated by Dr. Ralph Peck (2008), Sedghi-Asl (2012) and others, to initiate the move towards a

safer environment.

To minimize the piping problem in earth dams, I recommend the following:

 Engineers should thoroughly account for piping while designing the earth dams.

 Engineers and dam owners should perform close surveillance, hire special workers to

check the dams regularly, and timely repair the structure.

 Further geotechnical research and studies are needed.

 1

Introduction

Piping can be defined as the erosion of soil particles, subsequent through tiny

weakened paths of the soil. It causes permeability from the inner side of the soil

embankments where the physical force is applied to the outer side of the embankment. The

definition of piping, proposed by Heede (1971), states that soil piping is “Erosion in which

the soil is carried away by water running through holes in the ground” (Jones, 1981). Piping

is the internal erosion inside a soil mass causing seepage and water discharge through a hole

appearing in the downstream of the embankment (Moffat, et al., 2011, from ICOLD 1978, p.

44).

Piping can further be defined as the formation of tunnels between the upstream and

downstream of any hydraulic soil structures. Due to difficulty in dealing with piping when it

happens, urgent action plans should be taken to avoid high potential risks and casualties to

the hydraulic structure (Srephane, et al., 2007).

Sherad et al. (1972), Charles (1997), and Foster et al. (2000) noted that piping failure

is an extremely quick and rapid process. The duration between the moment piping is

observed and the breach or failure time is very brief and rapid, and uncontrolled failures

could easily happen. Foster et al. (2000 a, b) noted this failure duration could be only six to

twelve hours. So, this fact is to be carefully considered for the safety of the hydraulic soil

structures, as piping could be a dangerous factor causing failures in soil embankments and

earth dams (Fell, et al., 2003).

Terzaghi (1921), known as the father of soil mechanics, and Lane (1934) are amongst

the very first scientists who explored and defined “piping.” The definition they proposed

states that when a seeping water force acts upon a point in a soil, the shear resistance in that

point bears erosion until the force becomes more dominant and subsequently penetrates the

soil particles, eventually causing erosion. Sherad believes that dispersive clay particles are the
 2

type of soil that is mostly subjected to piping. He further states that dispersive soils cannot be

separated by ordinary engineering specifications from those soils that are naturally resistant

to erosion. That is, piping failures occurred in some soil embankments of the same

engineering properties in those embankments which did not even experience any sign of

failure (Sherad & Decker, 1976).

Dr. Ralph B. Peck (1912-2008) was a geotechnical professor who wrote one of the

most influential textbooks in geotechnical engineering: Soil Mechanics in Engineering

Practice with Dr. Karl Terzaghi. In two lectures, he discusses the sudden failure nature of

dams due to piping. As a proof, he introduces a number of dams in United States of America.

One of which was Walter Bouldin Dam in Alabama, in 1975, where piping had occurred

between the power house concrete roof and the overlying clay. Unfortunately, the dam

completely failed within one hour after the watchman warned the supervisor about some

leakage problems in the dam (Peck, 2008).

History of piping

Piping is the most common cause of dam failures in the history of earth dams.

Statistically, 46 percent of the failures of large dams are attributed to piping. Foster stated

that 35 percent of reported dam failures and 59 percent of the incidents caused by internal

erosion occurred after the first five years the dam was put in service (Foster et al., 2000; Xu

and Zhang, 2009; Zhang et al., 2009). About two thirds of the failures occur on first filling or

in the first five years of operation. Moreover, internal erosion and piping have historically

resulted in about 0.5 percent of embankment dams failing in the world, and 1.5 percent of the

dams experienced a piping incident (Fell, et al., 2003).

It is not easy to determine the exact factor causing piping after failure, because when

the dams collapse there would remain no evidence. Jones (1981), Lane (1934), and data of
 3

two hundred and sixty seven dam failures from National Performance of Dams Program

indicate most of the piping failures attributed to:

 Foundation related piping failures

 Conduit and internal erosion piping failures

 Possible backwards erosion and suffusion

 Piping failures induced by biological activity

Thun’s 1985 report showed that nearly 26 percent of piping failures are attributed to

inadequate filter design. (Richards & Reddy, 2007) stated that piping is generally caused by

the following:

 Poor construction and compaction of the embankment

 Poor compaction of the soil surrounding concrete structures and pipes

 Lack of foundation treatment

 Cracks due to settlement of conduit and foundation

 Cracks induced by earthquakes

 Biological activities

Again, Terzaghi (1921) and Lane (1934) are amongst the very first scientists who

defined and explored “piping.” However, in efforts before Terzaghi (1921), some engineers

indirectly created solutions for piping failures. Bligh (1910) formulated his creep theory for

water flow through a soil mass. In his creep theory, Bligh stated that the longer the seepage

path is, the better the soil might resist erosion and consequent failure. In Bligh’s theory, the

hydraulic gradient is a constant value that equals Δh/L, where Δh is the difference between

upstream and downstream water levels, and L is the total horizontal and vertical flow

creeping lengths through which the water particles pass (Sedghi-Asl, et al., 2012). He

established a “Factor of Safety” for the line of creep, called “creep ratio,” to guarantee the

safe resistivity of soils against failure. Creep ratio is equal to the ratio of the total creep
 4

length, also called creep line, to the difference between height of upstream and downstream

of the dams (Cc= L/Δh). Later in 1934, Lane noted that the horizontal path of the particles are

three times less effective than the vertical paths, so the horizontal paths should be divided by

three when calculating the path of creep (Peck, 2008). Bligh’s and Lane’s Creep Ratio are

shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 illustrates Bligh’s and Lane’s Creep Ratios. Source: (Peck, 2008)

The following table, Table 1, is the Creep ratio of both Bligh and Lane. As it can be

seen from the table, Cw is approximately 3 times less than Cc, which means that a greater

factor of safety is maintained in Lane’s modification. Thus, in some cases, Lane’s Creep

Ratio is used in solving earth dams’ piping problems.

Table 1 lists Creep ratio of both Bligh and Lane for different types of soil (Leliavsky, 1965)

Material allowing Seepage Bligh's Creep ratio- Cc Lane's Weighted Creep

Below the Dams (L/dh) Ratio-Cw (L/dh)
Very fine sand or silt 18 8.5
Fine sand 15 7
Coarse sand 12 5
Soft clay - 3
Medium clay - 1.8
Hard clay - 1.8
Very hard clay or hardpan - 1.8
Source: (Sedghi-Asl, et al., 2012)
 5

Early warning for dam safety is important. An advance warning of failure of as little

as sixty minutes can have a significant impact on reducing the number of lives lost.

Therefore, engineers should perform regular surveillance to prevent disasters (Fell, et al.,

2003, from USBR 1999).

Types and phases of piping

Piping occurs in four phases. The first is initiation, on which a concentrated leak

forms and erosion initiates along walls of cracks (Foster & Fell, 2000). The second is

continuation of erosion; no continuation phase occurs if filters are designed well. Third is

progression to form a pipe. The first signs of erosion tend to be seen only at the progression

phase and the resulting failure after the progression phase is rapid. Fourth is formation of a

breach. This Occurs in the embankment or its foundation leading to sinkholes, crest

settlement and loss of freeboard of the embankment. Breach phase means the possibility of

failure of the dam, not the failure itself (Fell, et al., 2003). Refer to Figure 2 in page 8.

According to Dr. Ralph Peck, piping is generally divided into three categories. First,

piping failure due to “heave” occurs at the very first filling of the dam reservoir. When the

reservoir is filled, the water acts on the base of the dam and causes immediate erosion cracks

and paths in the soil. Heave, as a type of piping, was first introduced by Terzaghi, in 1921.

He stated that piping by heave could be solved theoretically by flow net analysis and

practically by applying piezometers. In both, engineers analyze the flow path of the water

particles from the upstream of the dams to the downstream, and accordingly anticipate any

potential failure in the dam. Second, “backward erosion” happens in a cohesive layer in

which erosion openings develop and through which water particles transfer and expand the

openings. Unlike heave, this process causes a slow and delayed failure because it firstly

occurs in the downstream. Third is removal of joint filling, altered rock, or other weak

materials, either immediately or throughout the lifetime of the dam (Peck, 2008).
 6

In ‘‘internal erosion,’’ the forces that act on the soil surface gradually remove soil

particles. It occurs because of the penetrating forces passing mainly through the openings

paths and fractions which might have already existed in the soil. These could be tiny cracks

inside the clay below the dam’s rock fill, or even voids between the clay and the rock fill, or

concrete membrane, used to prevent water from entering the filled and compacted clay.

Internal erosion starts with the planar fatigue failure (Richards & Reddy, 2007). Fatigue is

one of the most common failure modes of structures and components. The manner of fatigue

crack growth may be affected by mechanical factors such as mean stress, load ratio and

frequency, random loading, multi-axial and complex stress states, as well as environmental

effects such as corrosion and temperature. As far as the crack propagation phase is concerned,

the most dominant parameter is the near-crack-tip elastic stress intensity factor (Lin & Smit,

1997).

There are different definitions for categorizing piping. (Richards & Reddy, 2007)

defined “internal erosion” as an independent type of piping and different from “backward

erosion.” They supported their ideas with Lane’s (1934) theory of internal erosion, as Lane

(1934) states:

‘‘Internal erosion is similar to backwards erosion piping in that tractive forces remove

soil particles. However, internal erosion is due to flow along pre-existing openings

such as cracks in cohesive material or voids along a soil-structure contact. By this

definition, internal erosion is not due to the dynamics of inter-granular flow, and the

hydraulic aspects of the problem are quite different than for backwards erosion”

However, in their recent paper (2014), Richards and Reddy, much like (Fell, et al., 2003),

defined internal erosion in a boarder range claiming: “Internal erosion is any process that

causes erosion within a soil mass.” A single type of internal erosion or perhaps a combination
 7

of more than one type can possibly happen in a dam. Internal erosion is divided into six

types:

Heave
Uplift forces, as a result of high pore pressures, act on the soil particles in the dam (Richard

and Reddy 2014) causing zero effective stress, and, as a result, remove the soil particles (also

called “Blowup” or “Blowout”). It can be detected readily by carefully positioned and well

monitored piezometers (Fell, et al., 2003).

Backward erosion
Backward erosion is the formation of a continuous passage (Fell, et al., 2003) as a result of

progressive erosion starting at an exit point and working backwards toward the reservoir or

the surface of the dam (Richard and Reddy 2014). Failures from piping in the embankment

and its foundation are mostly from backward erosion (Fell, et al., 2003). Refer to Figure 2.

Concentrated leak erosion (scour)

As shown in Figure 2, Scour involves the formation of a crack or concentrated leak, or voids

caused by settlement, directly from the source of water to an exit point, and erosion starts

along the walls of the concentrated leak (Fell, et al., 2003). This is most common in a dam

constructed on rock foundations (Richards & Reddy, 2014).

Tunneling or Jugging: usually in vadose zone

Tunneling is the piping failure that occurs in natural slopes, embankments, or foundations

composed of dispersive soils (Sherad & Decker, 1976).

Suffusion
Suffusion occurs when fine grains migrate by seepage flow through internally unstable soils

(Fell, et al., 2003), that are supported by coarse skeletal grains, and where a relatively high

percentage of course grains exist (Richards & Reddy, 2014).

 8

Initiation of erosion by suffusion/internal instability is likely to be a more slowly developing

process (Fell, et al., 2003). Kovacs (1981, p. 350) defined suffusion as the migration of fine

grains in a circular way, inside the soil layer, changing the soil permeability, without having

effect on the soil volume (Moffat, et al., 2011).

Suffosion
Suffosion is similar to backward erosion, but occurs in a gap graded soil that is not supported

by coarse skeletal grains (Richards & Reddy, 2014). Chapuis (1992, p. 711) defined suffosion

as the migration of the fine grains leaving large openings in the soil and reducing the total

volume of the soil (Moffat, et al., 2011).

While each of these definitions describes a specific seepage-related failure mode, they

might also occur in some combination or occur at different locations within the dam or

foundation (Richards & Reddy, 2014).

Figure 2 illustrates: (a) Backward erosion and (b) Scour. Source: (Foster, et al., 2002)
 9

Xu and Zhang’s model of piping progression

(Xu & Zhang, 2013) developed a new model for assessing the progression of piping

failure in earth dams (Figure 3). In their model, they present the simulation process and

discuss the model principles of Teton Dam located on the Teton River in Idaho, United

States.

Figure 3 illustrates Xu and Zhang model components. Source: (Xu & Zhang, 2013)

They suggest the piping cross-sectional hole has trapezoidal shape as shown in the

figure above. They included in the model mechanisms of both surface erosion and soil

collapse. The first mechanism, surface erosion, happens due to the shear force induced by the

water passing continuously through the piping hole. The following equation represents the

depth of the erosion caused by seepage through the hole: Δd= E. Δt where E is the rate of

erosion and Δt is the time required for the water to pass through the hole.

The second mechanism, soil collapse, starts when the area of the trapezoidal hole

increases. In addition, when the arch top of the trapezoidal hole lacks support, due the

beneath erosion by the first mechanism, the outer soil particles exert a huge stress on the

boundary particles causing collapse of the soil toward the hole.

 10

They divided the model into nine segments. If the width of the hole exceeds its critical

value in a segment, that segment will induce the second mechanism and collapse. Moreover,

if this process takes place in all the segments, then piping will occur through the dam as an

open channel and causes failure of the dam.

The Teton Dam was a 92 meter high earth dam containing a core zone inside. The

dam failed in 1976, just after the first filling of the reservoir, because of an immediate piping

development. High hydraulic stress on the dam and high erodibility of the core material were

two major factors causing the piping failure.

As shown in Figure 4, Xu and Zhang used the equations of “the coefficient of

erodibility (Kd)” and “the critical shear stress for the initiation of erosion (τc)” to calculate

the erodibility of zone I and II. In the simulation process, they proposed the initial crack

width and height to be 0.02 meters and 0.10 meters, respectively. They calculated the

erodibility of the zones with ten segments. Each segment reacted differently to erosion

depending on the erodibility of its material. Then, they set DABA model for the piping

failure process, and for the time rate, they set 30 seconds as the calculation time increment.

The simulation results showed that the width and height of the trapezoidal shape of the pipe

increased gradually.

Since the water flow in the seventh and ninth segments decreased after the soil

collapse, the change in the piping cross sectional shape of these segments slowed down

considerably. However, the downstream segments experienced relatively high changes in the

piping shape after the collapse.

The piping failure time took three hours for the model to completely fail, which is

also assumed to be the same failing duration for the Teton Dam. In regards to the outflow, it

reached 5040 cubic meters per second before the failure. However, they predicted the peak

outflow to be 55800 cubic meters per second at the collapse time.

 11

Figure 4 illustrates Xu and Zhang dam zones and soil properties. Source: (Xu & Zhang, 2013)

Solutions of piping before and after construction

In spite of the recent works done for indicating piping exact failing parameters, piping

failure is still a big problem in earth dams. Sherard and Dunnigan (1989) investigated four

types of soils used in the core of a dam to determine the effect of filter in reducing erosion.

They concluded that filter criteria can greatly reduce the internal erosion of the dam core

(Richards & Reddy, 2007).

Sedghi-Asl’s Solution
(Sedghi-Asl, et al., 2012) proposed a solution for a piping problem that occurred in an

earth dam in Iran. They suggested the problem was that engineers ignored Lane’s Creep

Ratio method when calculating the proper seepage length necessary to avoid piping. Thus,

they solved the piping problem by:

 Constructing a wall to increase the seepage path

 12

 Grouting the created pipe with high quality concrete

Figure 5 illustrates Sedghi-Asl test instrument; blanket and sheet pile. Source: (Sedghi-Asl, et al., 2010)

In another laboratory experiment, (Sedghi-Asl, et al., 2010) performed a test on

analyzing the effect of impermeable blanket and sheet pile as solutions for piping with the

instrument shown in Figure 5 above. As a result, they showed the effect in a table containing

blanket length and sheet pile depth. It can be inferred from the table that the longer and

deeper the blanket and sheet pile are, respectively, the less the piping phenomenon would

occur. They concluded that:

 The blanket length ratio LB/hm=8 is the optimum value from which seepage reduces.

As shown in the figure “LB” is length of impermeable horizontal blanket (1 to 3.5 m

in the test) and “hm” is maximum upstream water level (0.25 m in the test).
 13

 Erecting the sheet pile with the blanket to the maximum possible depth is effective in

reducing piping.

Fell’s Solution
Visual surveillance and measurement are two common ways to observe whether or

not piping has occurred (Fell, et al., 2003). Poor gradation of soil particles induces seepage

and thus internal erosion. Thus, a well graded soil yields in better protection against erosion

(Moffat, et al., 2011). Seepage measurement systems, when calibrated from rainfall and

snow, could be used to indicate the progression phase of dam piping (Fell, et al., 2003).

Peck’s Solution
Dr. Ralph Peck suggested that dam owners and operators should follow the below

procedures to minimize dam failure risks:

 Instrumentation: Such as using piezometers to observe any erosion in the dam.

 Visual surveillance and timely observations

 Evaluation of the dam performance

 Emptying the reservoir and permit repairs

 Dam monitoring, inspection and emergency response plans.

How to protect, detect and control earthen dam piping?

All modern dams are created with shells of granular material or rock that supports the

core impervious clay core that holds the water back. Since the cores are made of clay which

is an erodible material, filters are provided to protect the core. These filters are usually put

between the core and the shelter, especially in the downstream side. Moreover, there should

be a vertical cutoff diaphragm, below the core, that prevents flow of water through permeable

materials beneath the dam (Figure 6).

 14

There is a great problem with the dam filter design which, if not treated, causes

erosion of the core clay particles into the filter. The problem is the poor gradation of the filter

material. If the filter material is coarsely graded, then segregation will occur. That is, the

coarser grains segregate to the lower part and the finer grains float to the top, allowing the

core material to erode into the coarse filter grains. To solve this, a series of well screened and

differently graded layers of filter material should be used.

Figure 6 illustrates dam components to resist piping. Source: (Peck, 2008)

When dams are built on rock, usually piping can only occur in two ways:

 Migration of the core materials into the filter when segregation has occurred in the filter

material.

 Tendency of the core materials to crack because of tensile stresses in the core.

If dams are built on gorges, which unusual, then any overhangs in the gorge should be

filled with concrete to avoid potential erosion. Sometimes, slightly moved big rocks and

faults exist in the rock foundation beneath which there may be horizontal cracks. To prevent

any seepage through these cracks, engineering judgment is required to decide whether or not

to take out these rocks or fill the cracks with concrete or fills. In most cases, the rock surface
 15

has a rough surface which is not feasible for the fill to be compacted. Surface smoothing

treatments should be done for the rock foundation below the dam fill to provide space for the

fill to be easily compacted. This could be done by blasting, cutting the rock, or filling

overhangs with concrete. Otherwise, any rough surface of the foundation prevents

compacting of the fill and weakens the soil.

If dams are built on rock which is weathered due to climatic changes or thermal

alteration, then fills cannot be effectively compacted. In these cases hard judgments are

required to deal with such problems. Typically, it may be necessary to use concrete to

strengthen the rock foundation. Dams could be constructed on soil and rock partially or on

soil completely. When dams are built on soil foundations, there are two solutions for seepage

and piping problems. First, positive cutoffs which are vertical diaphragms walls, as shown in

Figure 6, are commonly used to prevent migration of fine materials and water. Sheet piles are

sometimes used as cutoffs; however, the interlocking joints between the sheet piles are not

reliable enough to prevent these migrations. Therefore, it will be economical and feasible to

construct concrete and slurry walls to prevent the particle migrations. Second, filters, blanket,

and Berm’s relief wells are used in case the positive cutoffs are not able to fully prevent the

flow of water or leakage. Not all of the water leakages in the downstream or even the face of

a dam are signs of failure. This is because often materials, especially sands, may follow a

circular path without escaping as a result of back pressure within the dam. Even though these

leakages are not detrimental, dam owners prefer treating them by putting in drainage and

laying blankets on the top to avoid weakening of the fill over time.

There are some measures that engineers and dam owners can take, after construction,

if piping is detected. Constructing new cutoff walls into existing dams is a good solution to

prevent piping. A good example of this is the cutoff wall that was added to the Mud

Mountain Dam in Washington State. The most important factor of protecting dams against
 16

piping failure is keeping the dam under careful surveillance. A study of the design and

construction history records of the dam enables engineers to see whether or not the piping

problem is accounted for. In cases of old dams, sometimes engineers cannot find information

about the dam, and they face difficulty judging and finding out the construction type of the

dam.

Piping could occur without being detected by simple inspection or surveillance. Thus,

discharge measuring devices, like weirs, should be used weekly, or even daily, to anticipate

the quantity of the water lost. Any change in the downstream of the dam, such as appearance

of grass, should be well observed and considered as an onset of erosion. Instrumentation used

in dam safety can be piezometers, which are used to indicate any change in the dam face or

the downstream. However, while piezometers indicate erosion at the point they are installed,

they may not be reliable to guarantee detecting all erosions going on in the dam.

Dam owners should be cautious about the surveillance process and employ dedicated

workers to investigate the dam every day. Surveillance may not guarantee complete safety of

the dams, but, at least, it reduces the possibility of failure to a great extent. A good example

of careful surveillance is the Sir Adam Beck Dam in Niagara Falls, in Canada, where the

watchman could witness and report a leakage problem in the dam and prevent immediate and

complete failure of the dam. Since the risk of preventing failure cannot be guaranteed

completely, emergency plans and dam-break analysis should be established. Therefore, these

are some factors which dam owners are responsible for that minimize the possibility of dam

failures due to piping:

 Close Surveillance

 Timely maintenance and remedy of the structure.

 17

Conclusion and Recommendations

Piping in earth dams is a problem for which no completely certain solutions can be

set. Water accumulated in the reservoir of a dam continuously exerts pressure on the earthen

dam designed to guard against it. The erodibility nature of the soil particles compacted to

build the earthen dams cannot be changed. It is not feasible and economical to build every

dam with concrete even though it is safer. But, if the construction of dams with soil is

designed well and inspected occasionally, then we could achieve a greater portion of

certainty. Adequate design and compaction of the dam core, proper gradation of the filter

material, constructing impermeable shell, constructing tight cutoffs, and locating necessary

relief wells are all factors that reduce the potential risk of immediate dam failures.

Dams are built for the public. Therefore, the highest priority should be considering

human safety. In order to maintain safety of dams against piping failures, careful attention

should be taken by the agent monitoring the dam. Routinely inspecting and maintaining the

dam are the most important actions we should take after finishing the dam construction.

Otherwise, the risk to human life outweighs the benefits of the dam. Therefore, taking proper

and continuous care is needed to reduce this risk as much as possible.

Advanced geotechnical research and studies, and further understanding of how the

soil actually reacts within dams are needed to better control earthen dams. Also, besides

piezometers and weirs, more advanced instrumentation and techniques are needed for

engineers to collect fully representative and elaborate data, and to be able to anticipate and

control any erosion in the dam. In this way, earth dams could better be protected against

piping failures, and they could better achieve their main purpose of serving the public.
 18

References

1. Bell, G., Fell, R. & Foster, M., 2001. Risk and standards based assessment of internal erosion
and piping failure - a convergence of appraches. NZSOLD/ ANCOLD 2001 Conference on
Dams, pp. 1-13.

2. Charles, J. A., 1997. Special Problems Associated with Earthfill Dams. commission
Internationale Des Grands Barrages, Issue Q. 73, pp. 1083-1198.

3. Fell, R., Wan, C. F., Cyganiewicz, J. & Foster, a. M., 2003. Time for Development of Internal
Erosion and Piping in Embankment Dams. JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE, Volume 129, pp. 307-314.

4. Fleshman, M. S. & Rice, J. D., 2014. Laboratory Modeling of the Mechanisms of Piping
Erosion Initiation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE, Volume 140.

5. Foster, M. A. & Fell, R., 2000. Use of event trees to estimate the probability of failure of
embankment dams by internal erosion and piping. Proc., 20th Int. Congress on Large Dams,
Beijing,International Commission on Large Dams, Paris, 1(Question 76), pp. 237-260.

6. Foster, M. & Fell, R., 2000. Use of event tress to estimate the probablity of failure of
embankment dams by internal erosion and piping. Australia: s.n.

7. Foster, M., Fell, R. & Spannagle, M., 2002. A method for assessing the relative likelihood of
failure of embankment dams by piping: Reply1. Can. Geotech. J., Volume 39, p. 497–500.

8. Jones, J. A. A., 1981. The nature of soil piping. illustrated ed. s.l.:Geo Books.

9. Koenders, M. A. & Sellmeijer, J. B., 1992. MATHEMATICAL MODEL FOR PIPING. J. Geotech.
Engrg., Volume 118, pp. 943-946.

10. Leonards, G. A., Huang, A. B. & Ramos, J., 1991. PIPING AND EROSION TESTS AT CONNER
RUN DAM. J. Geotech. Engrg., Volume 117, pp. 108-117.

11. Lin, X. B. & Smit, R. A., 1997. AN IMPROVED NUMERICAL TECHNIQUE FOR SIMULATING THE
GROWTH OF PLANAR FATIGUE CRACKS. Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials &
Structures, 20(10), pp. 1363-1373.

12. Lominé, F., Scholtès, L., Sibille, L. & Poullain, P., 2013. Modeling of fluid–solid interaction in
granular media with coupled lattice Boltzmann/discrete element methods: application to
piping erosion. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN
GEOMECHANICS, Volume 37, p. 577–596.

13. Moffat, R., Fannin, R. J. & Garner, a. S. J., 2011. Spatial and temporal progression of internal
erosion in cohesionless soil. Can. Geotech. J., Volume 48, p. 399–412.

14. Ojha, C. S. P., Singh, V. P. & Adrian, D. D., 2001. Influence of Porosity on Piping Models of
Levee Failure. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, pp. 1071-1074.
 19

15. Peck, R. B., 2008. Federal Emergency Management Agency. [Online]

Available at: https://archive.org/details/gov.fema.p-717dvd.1

16. Richards, K. S. & Reddy, K. R., 2007. Critical appraisal of piping phenomena in earth dams.
Bull Eng Geol Environ, Volume 66, p. 381–402.

17. Richards, K. S. & Reddy, K. R., 2014. Kinetic Energy Method for Predicting Initiation of
Backward Erosion in Earthen Dams and Levees. Environmental & Engineering Geoscience,
Vol. XX(1), p. 85–97.

18. Schmertmann, J. H., 2002. A method for assessing the relative likelihood of failure of
embankment dams by piping:Discussion. Can. Geotech. J., Volume 39, p. 495–496.

19. Sedghi-Asl, M., Parvizi, M. & Begham, A., 2012. Internal erosion under spillway: a case study.
ICSE6 Paris, pp. 289-293.

20. Sedghi-Asl, M., Rahimi, H. & Khaleghi, H., 2010. Experimental Analysis Of Seepage Flow
Under Coastal Dikes. EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUES, pp. 49-54.

21. Sherad, J. L. & Decker, R. S., 1976. Dispersive Clays, related piping, and erosion in
geotechnical projects. Chicago: ASTM.

22. Shmertmann, J. H., 2000. The No-Filter Factor of Safety Against Piping Through Sands.
Judgment and Innovation, Issue 11, pp. 65-131.

23. Srephane, B., Olivier, B. & Damien, L., 2007. The Scaling Law of Piping Erosion. 18eme
Congres Francais de Mecanique, pp. 27-31.

24. Weijers, J. B. A. & Sellmeijer, J. B., 1993. A new model to deal with the piping mechanism.
Filters in geotechnical and hydraulic engineering, pp. 349-355.

25. Xu, T. & Zhang, L., 2013. Simulation of Piping in Earth Dams Due to Concentrated Leak
Erosion. Geo-Congress 2013 © ASCE 2013, pp. 1091-1099.