applied
sciences
Article
Stability Improvement Method for Embankment Dam with
Respect to Conduit Cracks
Young-Hak Lee 1 , Jung-Hyun Ryu 2 , Joon Heo 3 , Jae-Woong Shim 3 and Dal-Won Lee 2, *






Citation: Lee, Y.-H.; Ryu, J.-H.; Heo,
J.; Shim, J.-W.; Lee, D.-W. Stability
Improvement Method for
Embankment Dam with Respect to
Conduit Cracks. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12,
567. https://doi.org/10.3390/
app12020567
Academic Editor: Bernhard Schrefler
Received: 21 October 2021
Accepted: 5 January 2022
Published: 7 January 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12020567
1 Institute of Agricultural Science, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea; fulia_cate@cnu.ac.kr
2 Department of Agricultural and Rural Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea;
ryoujh1155@naver.com
3 Rural Research Institute, Korea Rural Community Corporation, Ansan 15634, Korea; jheo01@ekr.or.kr (J.H.);
dskk@paran.com (J.-W.S.)
* Correspondence: dwlee@cnu.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-042-2821-5793
Featured Application: In this study, the inside of a conduit was monitored to visually reproduce
the erosion phenomenon caused by a crack in the conduit in an embankment. In addition, a
model that can dramatically reduce erosion based on the dispersion principle of water pressure
is proposed. The dispersion effect of water pressure was verified via pore water pressure mea-
surements and 3D FEM analysis.
Abstract: In recent years, as the number of reservoir embankments constructed has increased,
embankment failures due to cracks in aging conduits have also increased. In this study, a crack in a
conduit was modeled based on the current conduit design model, and the risk of internal erosion
was analyzed using a large-scale model test and three-dimensional deformation–seepage analysis.
The results show that when cracks existed in the conduit, soil erosion and cavitation occurred near
the crack area, which made the conduit extremely vulnerable to internal erosion. Herein, a model is
proposed that can reduce internal erosion by applying a layer of sand and geotextiles on the upper
part of the conduit located close to the downstream slope. In the proposed model, only partial erosion
occurred inside the conduit, and no cavitation appeared near the crack in the conduit. The results
suggest that internal erosion can be suppressed when the water pressure acting intensively on the
crack in the conduit is dispersed by the drainage layer. To validate these results, the pore water
pressure, seepage line, and hydraulic gradient were investigated to confirm the erosion phenomenon
and reinforcement effect.
Keywords: conduit crack; embankment dam; hydraulic gradient; internal erosion; pore water pressure
1. Introduction
Old embankments can have high variability in their filling material because of the low
level of compaction and are generally known to exhibit unique heterogeneity [1]. These
characteristics result in uncertainty regarding the stability of an aging embankment due to
structural defects, which can increase the potential risk in an emergency.
One way to describe failure mechanisms of embankment dams that are associated
with the uncontrolled flow of water is through internal erosion. Internal erosion can be a
threat to the future stability of the embankment due to cracks in the aging conduit. It is
highly dependent on the compaction of the embankment zone, the ratio of clay particles,
the water content, and the erosion rate, and it is known to be caused by various factors, such
as structural defects or construction failures inside the embankment [2–5]. In particular, the
boundaries between a conduit structure constructed of concrete and the embankment zone,
the impervious cores, and their shoulders can make the conduit more prone to internal
erosion owing to the difference in material properties and differential settlement [6–10]. A
condition in which such internal erosion persists causes piping. Here, piping refers to a
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 2 of 12

phenomenon in which soil and water in the embankment zone are discharged to the slope
as erosion gradually develops inside the embankment [11].
A failure due to a conduit crack occurred at the Sandae Reservoir in Korea in April
2013 [12]. The failure, due to internal erosion caused by a conduit crack, resulted in a
concave circular shape being dug out around the conduit on the downstream slope, which
gradually expanded to the top of the embankment. The failure width of the embankment,
which started on the slope around the conduit, was approximately 12.2 m. The time that
elapsed between the leaked water appearing on the downstream slope and the failure
occurring was approximately 3 h, which is extremely short. An embankment failure due
to conduit cracks is a rare case, but since conduits continue to deteriorate, these failures
suggest that measurement strategies to deal with conduit cracks and failure problems will
be important in the future.
The conduits of small reservoirs are mostly circular in shape and have a small diameter.
This type of structure is a poor environment for reinforcing the inside of a conduit because
access by personnel and equipment is restricted. Therefore, reinforcement is carried out
outside the conduit. Currently, the reinforcement of conduits is based on the results of
investigating the leakage using photographic equipment, and a full or partial repair and
reinforcement are conducted according to the level of damage [13]. There are various
methods for reinforcing a conduit, such as grouting, waterproof mortar, and high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) slip lining of the pipe [14], and drilling is required in many cases.
However, reinforcement by drilling requires a careful approach, as it can affect the reinforce-
ment effectiveness by introducing new problems due to hydrofracturing, internal erosion,
and the contamination of filters and drainage materials in the embankment zone [15,16].
Therefore, in this study, an improvement model was developed as a way to minimize
the uncertainty of reinforcement due to drilling and maintain the reinforcement effect in the
long term. The improvement model aims to delay internal erosion by applying a drainage
layer (geotextile and sand layers) that can distribute the water pressure on the upper and
downstream slopes of the conduit without drilling. In order to evaluate the effectiveness
of the improvement model, the current model was constructed based on a conduit with a
circular shape and a small diameter. For the current model and the improvement model,
the erosion characteristics due to cracks occurring in the conduit were evaluated by a
large-scale indoor model test and three-dimensional deformation–seepage analysis. The
results discussed in this study provide basic data that can be put into practical use on the
embankment site of an old reservoir in the future.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Target Reservoirs and Samples
In embankments over 50 years old, cores and filters are often not functional due to
aging [17]. An embankment under these conditions may exhibit the same seepage behavior
as a homogeneous embankment, and if a crack occurs in the conduit, the risk of failure may
be high. The Gyeryong reservoir has a zoned-fill-type structure, and its condition has been
deteriorating since the year it was built (1964), meaning that its condition is now close to
that of an embankment aged over 50 years; thus, it was selected as a target reservoir for
this study. Table 1 shows the physical and mechanical properties of the samples used in
the model.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 12

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 3 of 12

Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of samples used in the model.

𝑷𝑰 𝑾𝒐𝒑𝒕 𝜸𝒎𝒂𝒙 𝒄 𝒌𝒗
Sample 𝑮𝒔 ∅° USCS
(%) properties
Table 1. Physical and mechanical (%) of(kN/m 3)
samples (kPa)
used in the model. (m/s)
Clay layer 2.76 8.6 - 13.66 29.43 0 3.70 × 10−9 CL
PI W γmax c kv
Sample Gs Embankment opt
2.65 9.2 8.6 17.75 ∅◦
16.70 24 2.37 × 10−7 SC
USCS
(%) (%) (kN/m3 ) (kPa) (m/s)
Sand layer 2.65 NP 12.7 17.00 0 33 7.82 × 10−4 SP
Clay layer 2.76 8.6 - 13.66 29.43 0 3.70 × 10−9 CL
Embankment 2.65 Geotextile 8.6 -
9.2 - 17.75 - 16.70- - 24 - 2.371.00 7 −3
× 10×−10 SC-
Sand layer 2.65 𝐺 NP 12.7 𝑃𝐼 = plasticity
= specific gravity, 17.00 index, 𝑊 0 = optimum moisture33 content, 𝛾 −4 = maximum
7.82 × 10 SP
Geotextile - dry density,
- 𝑐 = cohesion,
- ø° = internal
- friction angle,
- kv = coefficient
- 1.00 × 10−3 USCS =- uni-
of permeability,
fied
Gs =soil classification
specific gravity, PIsystem.
= plasticity index, Wopt = optimum moisture content, γmax = maximum dry density,
c = cohesion, ∅◦ = internal friction angle, kv = coefficient of permeability, USCS = unified soil classification system.
2.2. Measurement Location and Experimental Conditions
2.2. Measurement Location and Experimental Conditions
In this study, the experimental model was designed to be 1/30 of the prototype. The
heightIn(H),
thiswidth
study,(W),
the experimental
and length (L)model
of the was
model designed to250,
were 51, be 1/30 of the
and 270 cm,prototype. The
respectively.
height (H), width (W), and length (L) of the model were 51, 250, and
The embankment model was equipped with a pore water pressure gauge (rated capacity:270 cm, respectively.
The
50 embankment
kPa) that can bemodel was
applied to equipped
the scale ofwith a pore water
a reduced pressure
model, gauge
and it was (rated capacity:
installed in each
50 kPa) that can be applied to the scale of a reduced model, and it was installed
section (P1, P2, and P3) of the upper part of the conduit. Figure 1 shows the cross-section in each
section (P1, P2, and P3) of the upper part of the conduit. Figure 1 shows the
of the experimental model and the installation location of the pore water pressure gauge. cross-section
of the
The experimental
model conduit wasmodel and theofinstallation
composed a pipe withlocation
a lengthof
ofthe
250pore
cm andwater pressureof
a diameter gauge.
φ50
The model conduit was composed of a pipe with a length of 250 cm and
mm based on design criteria [13], where the width of the crack area for the pipe wasϕ50a diameter of 10
mm based on design criteria [13], where the width of the crack area for the pipe was 10 cm,
cm, and the diameter of the crack was φ8–10 mm.
and the diameter of the crack was ϕ8–10 mm.

Experimentalmodel
Figure1.1.Experimental
Figure modeland
andmeasurement
measurementlocation.
location.

2.3. Experimental Models

2.3. Experimental Models
The experimental models for the conduit were the current model, which was used at
The and
the site, experimental models for
the improvement the conduit
model proposed were the paper.
in this currentFigure
model, which was
2 shows used at
an overview
the site, and the improvement model
of the current and improvement models. proposed in this paper. Figure 2 shows an overview
of theThe
current andmodel
current improvement
coveredmodels.
the outside of the conduit with a layer of clay to relieve
The current model covered
water pressure on the conduit. Most the outside of the conduit
old reservoirs (over 50with a layer
years) of clay
in Korea aretodesigned
relieve
water pressure on the conduit. Most old reservoirs (over 50 years) in Korea
similarly to the current model. However, as the facilities have recently deteriorated, the are designed
similarly
structuraltoenvironment
the current model.
of theseHowever,
conduits hasas the facilities
become have recently
increasingly deteriorated,
uncertain regardingthethe
structural
stability ofenvironment of these
the embankment. Forconduits
example,hasthebecome increasingly
loss of clay uncertain
particles over regarding
time is the
unavoidable,
stability of the embankment.
which naturally increases theFor example,
pressure thatthe
theloss of clay
conduit particles
receives fromover timeFurthermore,
water. is unavoid-
able, which naturally increases the pressure that the conduit receives
increased water pressure in aging small reservoirs can potentially cause problems from water. Further-
such as
more, increased water pressure in aging small reservoirs can potentially
erosion and piping phenomena on the downstream slopes. In a fill-type embankment, the cause problems
failure rate of the piping is high (30.5%) [18]; thus, it was necessary to additionally devise a
method to reduce the water pressure on the downstream slope.
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 4 of 12

Figure 2. Comparison
Figurebetween conduit models:
2. Comparison between(a)conduit
currentmodels:
model, (b)
(a)proposed improvement
current model, model. improve
(b) proposed
model.
In this context, the improved model presented in this study is a method of applying a
layer of sand and geotextiles on top
In this context, theofimproved
the clay layer
modelinpresented
the current model.
in this The
study is purpose
a method of app
of this additional layer is to install a sand layer on the downstream slope to prevent
a layer of sand and geotextiles on top of the clay layer in the current model. the The pur
leaking water from
of thisrising to the downstream
additional embankment
layer is to install zoneonand
a sand layer thetodownstream
apply geotextile
slopetoto preven
prevent the loss of soil particles.
leaking water from rising to the downstream embankment zone and to apply geote
In a general embankment
to prevent the lossdam, a drainage
of soil particles. structure such as a toe drain or filter is
located at the end ofInthe downstream slope
a general embankment of the embankment
dam, a drainage to stably drain
structure such the
as aseepage
toe drain or fil
water. However, when erosion starts at a crack in the conduit, the drainage
located at the end of the downstream slope of the embankment to stably structure
drain the see
installed at the end of the downstream slope induces rapid drainage of the seepage water,
water. However, when erosion starts at a crack in the conduit, the drainage structur
which may increase the risk of internal erosion.
stalled at the end of the downstream slope induces rapid drainage of the seepage w
Here, the general premise of the improvement model is that when a sand layer and
which may increase the risk of internal erosion.
geotextile are placed on the upper part of the conduit, the water pressure concentrated on
Here, the general premise of the improvement model is that when a sand layer
the crack surface of the conduit is dispersed into the sand layer to induce a delay of internal
geotextile are placed on the upper part of the conduit, the water pressure concentrate
erosion. The improved model differs from the general embankment dam drainage structure
the crack surface of the conduit is dispersed into the sand layer to induce a delay of i
in that it is designed in consideration of the prevention of potential piping due to conduit
nal erosion. The improved model differs from the general embankment dam drai
cracks. Table 2 lists the experimental cases for the current model and the improvement
structure in that it is designed in consideration of the prevention of potential piping
model.
to conduit cracks. Table 2 lists the experimental cases for the current model and th
provement
Table 2. Experimental model.
cases for the current model and the improvement model.

Table 2. Experimental cases for the current Crack

modelLocation
and the improvement model.
Section
Model Case Number
of Conduit Location
Crack Location of Section
ModelCase 1—CrackCase NumberDownstream side Section A
Current model Conduit Location
Case 1—Reinforcement - -
Case 2—Crack
Case 1—Crack Downstream side
Downstream Section A
side Section A
Improvement model
Current model
Case 2—Reinforcement - -
Case 1—Reinforcement - -
Improvement Case 2—Crack Downstream side Section A
In the current model, the erosion characteristics and the effectiveness of reinforcement
model
were evaluated under cracking conditions in the conduit (Section A). -
Case 2—Reinforcement -

3. Results and Discussion

In the current model, the erosion characteristics and the effectiveness of reinf
3.1. Investigation of Erosion
ment of Currentunder
were evaluated and Improvement Models in the conduit (Section A).
cracking conditions
In order to compare the erosion phenomena in the current model and the improvement
3. Results and
model, the embankment Discussion
model requires conditions close to a steady state. Here, steady
state means that3.1.most of the infiltration
Investigation of Erosion has occurred,
of Current andand there is no
Improvement change in the water
Models
pressure. In order to compare the erosion phenomena in the current model and the imp
The experiment was initiated
ment model, after the embankment
the embankment model
model requires reached
conditions a steady
close state state. H
to a steady
through preliminary
steady state means that most of the infiltration has occurred, and there is48noh change i
experiments, and the pore water pressure was measured for
(2 days) at the water
full water level (H = 35 cm).
pressure.
In Case 1—Crack, soil loss was observed at the outlet and inside the conduit, as shown
in Figure 3a, indicating no resistance to erosion. The downstream slope was slightly dry,
as shown in Figure 3b. This dry state indicates that the soil and water in the embankment
 the upper soil layer as erosion progressed.
In general, it is believed that if the embankment zone has a high degree of compac-
tion, cavitation is less likely to occur owing to the high density of soil. The model embank-
ment constructed in this study had a compaction degree of approximately 95%, similar to
that of the actual embankment dam. Experimental results clearly show that even if the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 compaction or strength of the embankment is high, structural defects, such as conduit 5 of 12
cracks, can create a special environment wherein cavitation can occur. Cavitation is sug-
gested as one of the causes that can lead to the failure of an embankment dam [19]. Gen-
erally,were
zone the causes
flowing ofwithin
embankment accidents
the conduit and failures
through are investigated,
its cracked area. Therefore, but the
theyseepage
are dif-
ficult to
water didspecify because
not reach they are diverse.
the downstream However,
slope, the results obtained
and the downstream in this study
slope remained dry. are
In
considered
Figure 3c, it important for the
can be observed field
that of embankment
cavitation occurred duedams, as cavitation
to erosion in the due
clay to conduit
layer near
cracks
the crackwasin identified.
the conduit. In this experiment, the cause of cavitation is considered to be the
erosionConsequently, Case into
of clay particles 1—Cracks did not
the conduit lead toItthe
cracks. failure of that
is assumed the embankment, but the
the initially formed
current
small model clearly
cavitation showed
gradually that the
expanded cavitation
into risk right
the left and due tofillthe internal
zones erosion
and the upperofsoil
the
embankment
layer as erosion zone could be high once conduit cracks occur.
progressed.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Crack
Crack conditions
conditionsin
incurrent
currentmodel
model(Case
(Case1—Crack):
1—Crack):(a)(a)
soil particle
soil lossloss
particle inside conduit,
inside (b)
conduit,
surface conditions of downstream slope, (c) erosion in near-conduit-filling zone.
(b) surface conditions of downstream slope, (c) erosion in near-conduit-filling zone.

In
In general, it is believed
the condition that by
reinforced if the embankment zone
a geomembrane (Casehas a high degree of compaction,
1—Reinforcement), no soil loss
cavitation
or erosionisoccurred
less likely to occur
inside owing to
or outside theconduit,
the high density of soil.
as shown in The model
Figure 4a,b.embankment
However, a
constructed
wide wet area in this
in a study had awas
loose state compaction
observeddegree
on theofdownstream
approximately 95%,
slope, as similar
shown toin that of
Figure
the actual embankment dam. Experimental results clearly show that even
4b. This indicates that the seepage line inside the embankment was formed on the top of if the compaction
or
thestrength of theThese
clay layer. embankment is high,
results show structural
that the claydefects, suchfunctioning
layer was as conduit cracks, can create
normally, but it
ashould
specialbeenvironment wherein cavitation can occur. Cavitation is suggested as
noted that over a long period of time, structural defects occurred in the conduit, one of the
causes that can failure
and a potential lead to might
the failure
form ofin an
theembankment
downstream dam slope.[19]. Generally, the causes of
embankment accidents and failures are investigated, but they are difficult to specify because
they are diverse. However, the results obtained in this study are considered important for
the field of embankment dams, as cavitation due to conduit cracks was identified.
Consequently, Case 1—Cracks did not lead to the failure of the embankment, but the
current model clearly showed that the cavitation risk due to the internal erosion of the
embankment zone could be high once conduit cracks occur.
In the condition reinforced by a geomembrane (Case 1—Reinforcement), no soil loss or
erosion occurred inside or outside the conduit, as shown in Figure 4a,b. However, a wide
wet area in a loose state was observed on the downstream slope, as shown in Figure 4b.
This indicates that the seepage line inside the embankment was formed on the top of the
clay layer. These results show that the clay layer was functioning normally, but it should
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12
be noted that over a long period of time, structural defects occurred in the conduit, and a
potential failure might form in the downstream slope.

Reinforcementcondition
Figure 4. Reinforcement conditionofofcurrent
current model
model (Case
(Case 1—Reinforcement):
1—Reinforcement): (a) loss
(a) no no loss of par-
of soil soil
ticles inside
particles conduit,
inside (b)(b)
conduit, formation of of
formation wide
widewet
wetarea
areaoutside
outsidethe
theconduit,
conduit,(c)
(c)reinforced
reinforced crack
crack area
using membrane.
using membrane.

Figures 55 and
and66depict
depictthe
theleakage
leakageofof soil
soil into
into thethe conduit,
conduit, the the downstream
downstream slope,
slope, and
and the erosion
the erosion of soilofaround
soil around the cracked
the cracked area of area of the conduit.
the conduit. In the
In the crack crack condition
condition (Case 2—
Crack), the amount of soil loss inside the conduit was markedly smaller than that in the
current model (Case 1—Crack), as shown in Figure 5a. For the erosion area at the bottom of
the conduit, the improvement model was found to have approximately 1.7 times less ero-
sion than the current one; this proved it to be effective in reducing internal erosion. Mean-
 Figure 4. Reinforcement condition of current model (Case 1—Reinforcement): (a) no loss of soil par-
Figure 4. Reinforcement
ticles inside conduit, (b)condition
formationofofcurrent model
wide wet (Case
area 1—Reinforcement):
outside the conduit, (c)(a) no loss ofcrack
reinforced soil par-
area
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 ticles inside conduit, (b) formation of wide wet area outside the conduit, (c) reinforced crack 6 of 12
area
using membrane.
using membrane.
Figures 5 and 6 depict the leakage of soil into the conduit, the downstream slope, and
(Case Figures
the erosion of5 soil
2—Crack), andthe 6 depict
amount
around thecracked
the leakage
of of soil
soil loss
area of into
inside
the thethe conduit
conduit,
conduit. thecrack
was
In the downstream
markedly
condition slope,
(Caseand
smaller than
2—
the
that erosion
Crack),in the of soil
the current around
amountmodel the
of soil (Case cracked area
1—Crack),
loss inside of the conduit.
as shown
the conduit was in In the crack
Figure 5a.
markedly condition
For the
smaller that in2—
(Case
thanerosion area
the
Crack),
at
current the amount
the bottom
model of theof
(Case soil lossthe
conduit,
1—Crack), inside the in
asimprovement
shown conduit
Figure was
model
5a. Formarkedly
was thefound smaller
erosion to area
have than that
atapproximately
the in theof
bottom
current
1.7
thetimes model
lessthe
conduit, (Case
erosion 1—Crack),
than the current
improvement as shown
model one;infound
was Figure
this to5a.
proved For
haveit tothe
beerosion
effective
approximately area at times
in1.7 the bottom
reducing of
internal
less ero-
the conduit,
erosion. the
sion thanMeanwhile, improvement
the currentlocallyone; this model
wetproved was
areas were found
it to beobservedto have
effectiveinin approximately
the downstream
reducing 1.7
internal times
slope, less
as shown
erosion. ero-
Mean- in
sion
Figure than
5b.the
Thiscurrent
shows one;
that this
the proved
seepage it to be
water effective
concentrated in reducing
in
while, locally wet areas were observed in the downstream slope, as shown in Figure 5b. This the internal
crack areaerosion.
of the Mean-
conduit
while,
was
shows locally
partially
that the wet areas were
dispersed
seepage in
water observed
the sand in theIndownstream
layer.
concentrated contrast
in the crack to slope,
Case
area of asthe
shown
1—Crack, in
noFigure
conduit was 5b.
cavitation This
was
partially
shows
observed that
dispersed in the seepage
in the sand
vicinity water
layer.of In concentrated
thecontrast
conduittoin Casein
Case the crack
2—Crack,
1—Crack, area of
no despitethe
cavitation conduit
thewas was
erosion
observed partially
inside the
in the
dispersedasinshown
conduit, the sand inlayer.
Figure In contrast
Thesetoresults
Case 1—Crack, no cavitation was observed in the
vicinity of the conduit in Case5c. 2—Crack, despiteare theassociated
erosion inside withthe the layers
conduit, of shown
as sand and
in
vicinity of the
geotextiles in conduit
theresults in Case
cracked 2—Crack, despite the erosion inside the conduit, as shown in
Figure 5c. These are area of thewith
associated conduit suppressing
the layers of sand and the erosion
geotextiles rates.
in the Under
cracked the
Figure 5c. These
condition results are associated with the layers of sand and geotextiles in theno cracked
area of theof geomembrane
conduit suppressing reinforcement
the erosion (Case 2—Reinforcement),
rates. Under the condition of there was
geomembrane lossre-of
area
soil of the
inside conduit
the suppressing
conduit, and the the erosion
area around rates.it Under
was the
stable condition
against of geomembrane
erosion, as shown re-in
inforcement (Case 2—Reinforcement), there was no loss of soil inside the conduit, and the
inforcement
Figure (Case
6a,c. In 2—Reinforcement),
addition, there was no the
losswetof soil inside the conduit, and theas
area around it was stableon the downstream
against erosion, as shownslope, in Figure area
6a,c.decreased
In addition, considerably,
on the down-
area
the around
seepage it was stable against erosion, as shown in Figure 6a,c. In addition, on theasdown-
stream slope,water
the wetin the
areaembankment was dispersed
decreased considerably, as thethroughout
seepage water the sand
in thelayer,
embankment shown
stream
in Figure slope, the wet area decreased considerably,
6b. throughout the sand layer, as shown in Figure 6b. as the seepage water in the embankment
was dispersed
was dispersed throughout the sand layer, as shown in Figure 6b.

Figure 5. Crack
Figure Crack conditions
conditions in the
in the improved
the improved model
improvedmodel (Case
model(Case 2—Crack):
(Case2—Crack): (a)
2—Crack):(a) modest
(a)modest loss
lossofof
modestloss soil
ofsoil particles
soilparticles
particles
Figure 5.
5. Crack conditions in
in the
in the conduit,
conduit, (b)
(b) sand
sand and
and geotextile
geotextile layers
layers in
in the
the downstream
downstream slope,
slope, and
and (c)
(c) minimal
minimal soil
soil loss
lossnear
near
sand and geotextile layers in the downstream slope, and (c) minimal soil loss near
the conduit-filling zone.
the conduit-filling zone.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Reinforced
Reinforced conditions
Reinforced conditions of
conditions of improvement model
of improvement
improvement model (Case
model(Case 2—Reinforcement):
(Case2—Reinforcement):
2—Reinforcement):(a) (a) zero
(a)zero loss
lossofof
zeroloss of
soil particles
soil particles due
particles due to reinforced geomembrane, (b) reduced wet area in the downstream slope, and
soil due to
to reinforced
reinforced geomembrane,
geomembrane,(b) (b)reduced
reducedwet
wetarea
areaininthe
thedownstream
downstreamslope,
slope,and
and
(c) stability
(c) stability against
against erosion
erosion in the
the fillingzone
zone nearthe
the conduit.
(c) stability against erosion in
in the filling
filling zone near
near theconduit.
conduit.

The improvement model analyzed in this study used the combined effect of the sand
and geotextile layers in the downstream slope to suppress cavitation, even in the presence
of other structural defects (such as cracks in the piping). Therefore, it can be concluded
that the improvement model is a reliable method to improve the safety of an embankment
compared to the current method. Furthermore, applying the improvement model to the
downstream slope is simple and does not require drilling, which can be a great advantage
in terms of constructability.

3.2. Pore Water Pressure Distribution: Model Experiment

The pore water pressure gauge was located at a height of 20 cm from the foundation,
and when the measurement started, the model embankment was saturated. Therefore, this
measurement result reveals a condition in which negative pore water pressure may occur,
 downstream slope is simple and does not require drilling, which can be a great advantage
in terms of constructability.

3.2. Pore Water Pressure Distribution: Model Experiment

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 The pore water pressure gauge was located at a height of 20 cm from the foundation, 7 of 12
and when the measurement started, the model embankment was saturated. Therefore,
this measurement result reveals a condition in which negative pore water pressure may
occur, depending
depending on the fluctuation
on the fluctuation conditioncondition of the
of the water water
level. level.
Figure Figurethe
7 shows 7 shows
changethein
change
pore water pressure in the current model and the improvement model when a crackwhen
in pore water pressure in the current model and the improvement model occurs a
crack
in the occurs
conduitinon
thethe
conduit on the downstream
downstream slope. slope.

(a) Water supply

(b)
Water supply Water supply Water supply
1.5 1.5
P1 (Upstream) P1 (Upstream)
P2 (Center) P2 (Center)
1 P3 (Downstream−Crack) 1 P3 (Downstream−Crack)
PWP (kPa)

PWP (kPa)
0.5 0.5

0 0

-0.5 -0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (hr) Time (hr)

7. Changes
Figure 7.
Figure Changesininpore
porewater
waterpressure duedue
pressure to conduit cracking:
to conduit (a) current
cracking: modelmodel
(a) current (Case 1—Crack),
(Case 1—
(b) improvement
Crack), model (Case
(b) improvement model2—Crack).
(Case 2—Crack).

In Case
In Case 1—Crack,
1—Crack,the theupstream
upstream pore
porewater pressure
water (P1)(P1)
pressure shows a continuous
shows decrease,
a continuous de-
which indicates that the crack in the conduit was affected by leakage. The
crease, which indicates that the crack in the conduit was affected by leakage. The changechange in the
downstream pore water pressure (P3) was insignificant because the leak from
in the downstream pore water pressure (P3) was insignificant because the leak from the the conduit
crack escaped
conduit to the lower
crack escaped to thepart
lowerofpart
the of
point
the where the pore
point where the water pressure
pore water gauge
pressure was
gauge
installed, and the effect of the water pressure was not observed. This trend
was installed, and the effect of the water pressure was not observed. This trend providedprovided the
same measurement results in all cases. In addition, the water pressure change
the same measurement results in all cases. In addition, the water pressure change was was small
at the center pore water pressure (P2). The results show that leakage was extensive in the
small at the center pore water pressure (P2). The results show that leakage was extensive
downstream conduit cracks, and thus, the seepage water did not reach the pore pressure
in the downstream conduit cracks, and thus, the seepage water did not reach the pore
gauge located in the center of the embankment zone. The embankment cross-section with
pressure gauge located in the center of the embankment zone. The embankment cross-
these conditions suggests that the risk of internal erosion around the downstream conduit
section with these conditions suggests that the risk of internal erosion around the down-
crack area may increase because the seepage water proceeds at the conduit crack area.
stream conduit crack area may increase because the seepage water proceeds at the conduit
In Case 2—Crack, the pore water pressure trends on both the upstream side (P1) and
crack area.
downstream side (P3) were similar to those of Case 1—Crack, but only the pore water
In Case 2—Crack, the pore water pressure trends on both the upstream side (P1) and
pressure (P2) at the center side increased. The increase in the central pore water pressure
downstream side (P3) were similar to those of Case 1—Crack, but only the pore water
(P2) indicates that water leakage is induced by the sand layer and geotextile installed on
pressure (P2) at the center side increased. The increase in the central pore water pressure
the downstream slope.
(P2) indicates that indicate
These results water leakage is sand
that the induced byand
layer the geotextile
sand layerdisperse
and geotextile installed
the water on
pressure
the downstream slope.
acting intensively on the conduit crack area and show that these additional layers are
These
effective in results
reducingindicate
the riskthat the sanderosion
of internal layer and geotextilethe
by delaying disperse the velocity.
leakage’s water pressure
acting intensively on the conduit crack area and show that these additional layers are ef-
fective in reducing
3.3. Seepage Line andthe risk of internal
Hydraulic Gradient:erosion by delaying
Numerical Analysis the leakage’s velocity.
3.3.1. Analysis Conditions
Seepage analysis in embankment dams provides useful information for estimating
the influence of seepage behavior according to the shapes of substructures inside the
embankment and the physical properties of their materials, water level conditions, and
soil–water characteristic curve. In this study, three-dimensional transient analysis was con-
ducted to identify the effects of conduit cracks and reinforced conduits on the embankment.
Transient analysis provides information supporting the validity of experimental results
by evaluating the erosion potential of the seepage line and the hydraulic gradient. The
analysis was performed using the elastic model (Geotextile) and Mohr–Coulomb model
(Clay, Embankment, Sand) of GTS NX 3D with the finite element method applied [20].
The dimensions, analysis parameters (Table 2), water level (H: 35 cm), and time boundary
(1 day = 86,400 s) of the cross-section of the embankment dam were the same as those of
the experimental model in this study. Additionally, the foundation of an impermeable
layer was configured to allow the leak to flow only in the embankment zone due to cracks
in the conduit. The mesh used Delaunay triangulation. The mesh size was about 0.03 m,
 Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 8 of 12

and 357,027 elements were generated. Tables 3 and 4 show the input parameters used for
3D transient analysis. The soil–water characteristic curves were applied to silty clay (clay
layer), sandy clay (embankment zone), and sand (sand layer) based on the van Genuchten
data [21]. At the present stage, only the cavitation potential in the experiment is presented,
and cavitation modeling was not included in this analysis.

Table 3. Parameters used in analysis.

c kx
Sample ν e0 ∅◦
(kPa) (m/s)
Clay layer 0.40 0.98 29.43 0 3.70 × 10−9
Embankment 0.35 0.48 16.70 24 2.37 × 10−7
Sand layer 0.33 0.50 0 33 7.82 × 10−4
Geotextile 0.30 - - - 1.00 × 10−3
ν = Poisson’s rate, e0 = initial void ratio, c = cohesion, ∅◦ = internal friction angle, k x = horizontal coefficient
of permeability.

Table 4. Parameters of the soil–water characteristic curve used in the analysis.

Sample θs θr α n m(1−1/n)
Clay layer 0.38 0.007 0.8 1.09 0.083
Embankment 0.46 0.034 1.6 1.37 0.270
Sand layer 0.43 0.045 14.5 2.68 0.627
θr = residual water content, θs = saturated water content, α, n, m = curve fitting parameters.

3.3.2. Change in Seepage Line

The seepage line was examined based on the conditions of fluctuations in the water
level after 2, 3, 10, and 24 h to provide additional evidence for the experimental results of
conduit cracking.
In Case 1—Crack (Figure 8a), the seepage line had a concave shape and was concen-
trated in the crack area of the conduit. This concave shape of the seepage line means that the
leakage occurred in the conduit crack area and is considered a condition in which internal
erosion can easily occur. Case 1—Reinforcement (Figure 8b) is a condition in which the
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
crack area of the conduit is reinforced by the geomembrane, and the seepage line indicates
a stable state, with the embankment functioning normally.

Figure 8. 8.
Figure Changes
Changesininseepage
seepage line in current
line in currentand
andimprovement
improvement models:
models: (a) Case
(a) Case 1—Crack,
1—Crack, (b) Case
(b) Case
1—Reinforcement,
1—Reinforcement,(c) (c)Case
Case 2—Crack,
2—Crack, (d)(d)Case
Case2—Reinforcement.
2—Reinforcement.

Figure8c,d
Figure 8c,dshow
show the
the improvement
improvement model,
model,ininwhich thethe
which sand layer
sand and and
layer geotextile
geotextile
were applied to minimize internal erosion in this study. The seepage line of Case 2—Crack
were applied to minimize internal erosion in this study. The seepage line of Case 2—Crack
(Figure 8c) was formed at the crack site of the conduit for the initial 3 h, but the seepage
line dropped to the end of the downstream slope under the water level condition at 24 h.
These results show that the model not only reduces erosion due to the promotion of drain-
age in the sand layer above the clay layer but also provides a useful function to stably
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 9 of 12

(Figure 8c) was formed at the crack site of the conduit for the initial 3 h, but the seepage line
dropped to the end of the downstream slope under the water level condition at 24 h. These
results show that the model not only reduces erosion due to the promotion of drainage
in the sand layer above the clay layer but also provides a useful function to stably drain
the seepage water inside the embankment. Case 2—Reinforcement (Figure 8d) is the
condition in which the crack area of the conduit was reinforced by the geomembrane
in the improvement model. Unlike Case 1—Reinforcement, the seepage line of Case
2—Reinforcement appeared to gather at the end of the downstream slope under all of the
time conditions (0–24 h), which was interpreted as the condition in which the embankment
is in its most stable state. The seepage lines analyzed in this study are considered to be valid
data that can support the reliability of the internal erosion results in the model experiments.

3.3.3. Change in Hydraulic Gradient

The initial stage of internal erosion depends on the relationship between the critical
hydraulic gradient and the permeability coefficient of the soil [22,23], and it is known that
the risk of piping increases under conditions in which internal erosion continues [24]. The
hydraulic gradient for internal erosion is approximately one-fifth to one-third of the critical
hydraulic gradient for soil stability, and a change in strength occurs at a hydraulic gradient
of 0.5 or higher [25]. A stability evaluation to evaluate for the risk of internal erosion, as
described above, has an important meaning, and the safety factor (Fs) calculated by the
ratio of the critical hydraulic gradient and the exit hydraulic gradient is mainly used [26].
In this study, the critical hydraulic gradient (Icr ) of the model embankment was 0.99.
The relationship between the critical hydraulic gradient and a standard safety factor (Fs)
value of 2.0 can ensure safety only when the calculated exit hydraulic gradient (Iexit ) is less
than approximately 0.5. In this study, based on the current model and the improvement
model, the tendency of the hydraulic gradient was evaluated, and the hydraulic gradient for
the reduction in internal erosion was analyzed numerically. Figure 9 shows the evaluation
position of the exit hydraulic gradient at the boundary between the clay layer and the em-
bankment layer on the downstream slope. Figure 10a,b show the comparison results
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of
of the
12
hydraulic gradient over a period of time in the current model and the improvement model.

Figure 9.
Figure 9. Location of hydraulic-gradient evaluation.

(a) As shown in Figure 10a, Case

(b) 1—Crack (current model) had a hydraulic gradient in
4.5 the range of 3.6–4.0 between the0.25
clay layer and the embankment zone and exceeded the
Hydrualic gradient (Iexit)

Hydrualic gradient (Iexit)

4 safety conditions for the internal erosion suggested in this study. In the current model,
3.5 0.2
3
if a crack occurs in a conduit, erosion may be inevitable regardless of fluctuations in
the water level, and 0.15
2.5 Caseit1-Crack
was determined that the possibility of1-Reinforcement
Case it developing into a piping
2 phenomenon is high. Case 2—Crack
Case 2-Crack (improvement model) had a hydraulic gradient of
Case 2-Reinforcement
0.1
1.5 0.42–0.44 and satisfied the safety conditions for internal erosion. Despite the small scale
1 0.05
0.5 of the cross-section of the drainage layer in Case 2—Crack, the hydraulic gradient was
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 10. Time histories of variations in hydraulic gradients under (a) crack and (b) reinforcement
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 10 of 12

reduced compared to Case 1—Crack; thus, the improvement model was confirmed to be
effective for increasing
Figure 9.the resistance
Location to internal erosion.
of hydraulic-gradient evaluation.

(a) (b)
4.5 0.25

Hydrualic gradient (Iexit)

Hydrualic gradient (Iexit)

4
3.5 0.2
3
2.5 0.15
Case 1-Crack Case 1-Reinforcement
2 Case 2-Crack Case 2-Reinforcement
0.1
1.5
1 0.05
0.5
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (hr) Time (hr)

Figure 10. Time histories

Figure 10.ofTime
variations inofhydraulic
histories variationsgradients under
in hydraulic (a) crack
gradients underand (b) reinforce-
(a) crack and (b) reinforcem
ment conditions. conditions.

In Figure 10b, Case 1—Reinforcement

As shown in Figure 10a,(theCasecurrent
1—Crack model) wasmodel)
(current a condition
had a in which gradien
hydraulic
the embankment zone
the rangeand
of conduit functioned
3.6–4.0 between normally
the clay layer and without structural faults;
the embankment zone andthus,exceeded
safety conditions
the hydraulic gradient was small.for thehydraulic
The internal erosion
gradient suggested
showedinathis study. to
tendency In increase
the current mode
a crackthe
gradually but satisfied occurs
safetyin condition
a conduit,for erosion mayerosion.
internal be inevitable
In Caseregardless of fluctuations in
2—Reinforcement
water level,
(improvement model), and it was gradient
the hydraulic determined that the
tended to possibility
be partially ofirregular,
it developingbut into
therea piping p
nomenon is high. Case 2—Crack (improvement model) had
was no increase. These results are considered to indicate stability against internal erosion. a hydraulic gradient of 0.
The hydraulic gradient results presented in this study are summarized as follows. scale of
0.44 and satisfied the safety conditions for internal erosion. Despite the small
As the hydrauliccross-section of the drainage
gradient calculated in the layer in Case
analysis has 2—Crack,
a wide rangethe hydraulic
depending gradient
on thewas redu
compared to Case 1—Crack; thus, the improvement model
soil–water characteristics, physical properties of soil, and shape of the structure, the occur-was confirmed to be effect
for increasing the resistance to internal erosion.
rence of piping cannot be guaranteed, even if the hydraulic gradient increases. However,
because it can be an In Figure 10b,
important Case 1—Reinforcement
indicator of anomalies that (themay
current
causemodel) was a condition in wh
the embankment
the embankment zone and conduit functioned
to be unstable, the analytical approach has some rationality. In the improvementnormally without structural
model, faults; th
the sand layer suppresses the hydraulic gradient concentrated in the conduit crack area. to incre
the hydraulic gradient was small. The hydraulic gradient showed a tendency
Therefore, if thegradually
width and butheight
satisfied
of the
the safety condition
sand layer for internal erosion.
are appropriately In Case in
considered 2—Reinforcem
the
(improvement model), the hydraulic gradient tended to be partially irregular, but th
crack area of the conduit, internal erosion can be delayed. In addition, in terms of disaster
was no increase. These results are considered to indicate stability against internal erosi
reduction, it is expected that the risk of embankment failure due to piping can be reduced.
The hydraulic gradient results presented in this study are summarized as follows.
4. Conclusions the hydraulic gradient calculated in the analysis has a wide range depending on the s
water characteristics, physical properties of soil, and shape of the structure, the occurre
In this study, a large-scale model test and three-dimensional deformation–seepage
of piping cannot be guaranteed, even if the hydraulic gradient increases. However,
analysis were performed to understand the effect of internal erosion due to conduit cracking
cause it can be an important indicator of anomalies that may cause the embankment to
on the stability unstable,
of the embankment
the analytical dam in the has
approach current
somedesign model.
rationality. In addition,
In the improvement the model,
reinforcement effect of the proposed improvement model, which aimed to reduce
sand layer suppresses the hydraulic gradient concentrated in the conduit crack ar internal
erosion, was evaluated,
Therefore,andif its
thevalidity
width andwasheight
discussed.
of the sand layer are appropriately considered in
Under the cracking condition in a conduit, the current design method for conduits was
evaluated as having a high risk of embankment failure due to the occurrence of cavitation
with erosion near the cracked area. In the improvement model, which applies a layer of
sand and geotextile, although erosion occurred, cavitation did not appear near the conduit.
These results are related to the effect of the drainage layer dispersing the water pressure in
the improvement model, indicating that the erosion velocity can be suppressed.
In the current model, as a result of reinforcing the cracked area of the conduit with a
geomembrane, a wide saturation area in a loose state was observed on the downstream
slope. Saturated areas on slopes near the conduit can increase the risk of disasters due to
increased internal erosion in case of an emergency. The improvement model proposed in
this study is expected to provide the embankment with additional stability compared to
the current model because the saturation area of the downstream slope is greatly reduced.
The pore water pressure, hydraulic gradient, and seepage line investigated in this
study are valid data that can support the results of internal erosion in this model experi-
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 11 of 12

ment. These data explain the relationship between conduit cracks and the stability of the
embankment and can be used as fundamental data for the reduction in internal erosion.
Despite the small crack scale of the conduit, piping may occur due to internal erosion
under low water level conditions. The improvement model proposed in this study is a
useful method that can improve the safety of the embankment compared to the current
method because it can suppress the development of cavitation and piping, even if structural
defects, such as cracks, occur in the conduit.

Author Contributions: Software, J.-H.R.; investigation, J.H. and J.-W.S.; writing—review and editing,
Y.-H.L.; project administration, supervision, and conceptualization, D.-W.L. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research
Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education (grant no. 2019R1I1A3A01058517),
and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT
& Future Planning of the South Korean Government (grant no. 2019R1C1C1007100). In addition,
this work was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food,
Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through the Agricultural Infrastructure and Disaster Response
Technology Development Project, funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(MAFRA) (grant no. 320002-01).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The study did not report any data.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the Rural Research Institute and Korea Rural Commu-
nity Corporation for their support (data and administrative) to prevent disasters caused by cracks
in conduits.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Skempton, A.W. Embankments and cuttings on the early railways. Constr. Hist. 1996, 11, 33–49.
2. Coleman, S.E.; Andrews, D.P.; Grant Webby, M.G. Overtopping breaching of noncohesive homogeneous embankments. J. Hydraul.
Eng. 2002, 128, 829–838. [CrossRef]
3. Fell, R.; Wan, C.F.; Cyganiewiewicz, J.; Foster, M. Time for development of erosion and piping in embankment dams. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2003, 129, 307–314. [CrossRef]
4. Flores-Berrones, R.; Ramírez-Reynaga, M.; Jose Macari, E. Internal erosion and rehabilitation of an earth-rock dam. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2011, 137, 151–160. [CrossRef]
5. Fox, G.A.; Felice, R.G.; Midgley, T.L.; Wilson, G.V.; Al-Madhhachi, A.T. Laboratory soil piping and internal erosion experiment:
Evaluation of a soil piping model for low-compacted soils. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2014, 39, 1137–1145. [CrossRef]
6. Lee, D.W.; Noh, J.J. Behavior of failure on agricultural reservoirs embankment by riprap reinforcement method. J. Korean Soc.
Agric. Eng. 2014, 56, 63–73. (In Korean)
7. Lee, Y.H.; Lee, T.H.; Lee, D.W. Overtopping model experiments and 3-D seepage characteristics of the embankment of deteriorated
homogeneous reservoirs. J. Korean Soc. Agric. Eng. 2019, 61, 13–23. (In Korean)
8. Ngambi, S.; Nakano, R.; Shimizu, H.; Nishimura, S. Cause of leakage along the outlet conduit underneath a low fill dam with
special reference to hydraulic fracturing. Trans. Jpn. Soc. Irrigation Drain. Reclam. Eng. 1997, 188, 263–272.
9. Tran, D.Q.; Nishimura, S.; Senge, M.; Nishiyama, T. Research on cause of dam failure from viewpoint of hydraulic fracturing—
Case study of a dam failure in Vietnam. Int. J. GEOMATE 2018, 14, 86–94. [CrossRef]
10. Tran, D.Q.; Nishimura, S.; Senge, M.; Nishiyama, T. Effects of culvert shapes on potential risk of hydraulic fracturing adjacent to
culverts in embankment dams. Int. J. GEOMATE 2018, 15, 38–44. [CrossRef]
11. Wan, C.F.; Fell, R. Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in embankment dams. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2004, 130, 373–380.
[CrossRef]
12. Korea Rural Community Corporation (KRC). Report on the Failure of the Embankment of the Angang Sandae Reservoir; Report of
Korea Rural Community Corporation; KRC: Naju-si, Korea, 2013. (In Korean)
13. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA). Agricultural Infrastructure Design Standards; MAFRA: Sejong, Korea,
2002. (In Korean)
14. Cesare, J.A.; Brauer, D.J. Pinery Dam Outlet Conduit Repair, Biennial Geotechnical Symposium 2004. 26 April 2012. Available
online: https://doi.org/10.1061/40758(151)13 (accessed on 6 December 2021).
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 567 12 of 12

15. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Guidelines for Drilling in and near Embankment Dams and Their Foundations, Version
3.1; Division of Dam Safety and Inspections; FERC: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
16. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Engineering and Design—Drilling in Earth Embankment Dams and Levees; ER 1110-1-1807;
USACE: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
17. Lee, Y.H.; Park, S.Y.; Tokida, K.I.; Lee, D.W. Three-dimensional seepage characteristics of reservoir embankment considering
interval of horizontal filter. Int. J. Offshore Polar Eng. 2018, 28, 80–86. [CrossRef]
18. Foster, M.A.; Fell, R.; Spannagle, M. The statistics of embankment dam failures and accidents. Can. Geotech. J. 2000, 37, 1000–1024.
[CrossRef]
19. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Technical Manual: Conduits through Embankment Dams: Best Practices for
Design, Construction, Problem Identification and Evaluation, Inspection, Maintenance, Renovation, and Repair; FEMA: Washington, DC,
USA, 2005.
20. MIDAS IT. Midas Geotechnical and Tunnel Analysis System (Midas GTS). 2020. Available online: https://www.midasgeotech.
com/blog/tag/geotechnical-engineering (accessed on 20 October 2020).
21. Carsel, R.F.; Parrish, R.S. Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention characteristics. Water Resour. Res. 1988,
24, 755–769. [CrossRef]
22. Ojha, C.S.P.; Singh, V.P.; Adrian, D.D. Influence of porosity on piping models of levee failure. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001,
127, 1071–1074. [CrossRef]
23. Ojha, C.S.P.; Singh, V.P.; Adrian, D.D. Determination of critical head in soil piping. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2003, 129, 511–518.
[CrossRef]
24. United States Society on Dams (USSD). The Aging of Embankment Dams. 2010. Available online: https://www.ussdams.org/
wp-content/uploads/2016/05/aging.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
25. Ke, L.; Takahashi, A. Strength reduction of cohesionless soil due to internal erosion induced by one-dimensional upward seepage
flow. Soils Found. 2012, 52, 698–711. [CrossRef]
26. Terzaghi, K.; Peck, R.B. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1967; p. 729.