Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497

2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering Structures and Construction

Materials 2014 (SCESCM 2014)

Selection of soils as clay core embankment materials for rock fill

dams to resist hydraulic fracturing
Didiek Djarwadia*, Kabul Basah Suryolelonob, Bambang Suhendrob, Hary Christady
Hardiyatmob
a
Engineering Division Head, PT Pamapersada Nusantara, Jakarta 13930, Indonesia
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia

Abstract

Soil is widely used as clay core materials in rock fill dam engineering. As a clay core material, soil should be impermeable, for it
has sufficient shear strength and tensile strength to resist against hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing may occur in the
upstream face of clay core of a rock fill dam in the case of vertical effective stress in the core is reduced to levels that are small
enough to allow tension fracture to occur. This situation may arise if the total stress in the core is reduced by arching effect, and
by increasing pore water pressure in the core during impounding that will further reduce the effective stresses in the core.
Wedging due to water pressure may crack the upstream face of clay core. This paper presents the research on hydraulic fracturing
of clay core of rock fill dams on their variation of fine contents in the laboratory. Soil specimens were obtained from six major
rock fill dams in Indonesia, and were modelled into six (6) different fine contents (I < 0.075mm), there are; 30%, 40%, 50%,
60%, 70% and 80%. The soil specimens were of hollow cylinders which were compacted to follow ASTM D 698-00a standard.
The hydraulic fracturing tests were carried out on three (3) different initial stress states. The test results consistently indicate that
soils which have greater cohesion will also have better resistant towards hydraulic fracturing.
© 2014The
© 2014 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Structures
Peer-review and
underConstruction
responsibility Materials 2014.
of organizing committee of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
Structures and Construction Materials 2014
Keywords: Hydraulic fracturing; Rockfill dam; Clay core; Cohesion

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +62-21-4602015; fax: +62-21-4601916.

E-mail address: didiek.djarwadi@pamapersada.com

1877-7058 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of organizing committee of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Civil Engineering
Structures and Construction Materials 2014
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.209
490 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497

Nomenclature

Vy initial vertical stress applied to the soil specimen (kPa)

Vx initial horizontal stress applied to the soil specimen (kPa)
c cohesion of soil specimen (kPa)
V1c vertical effective stress in the soil specimen (kPa)
'Vc apparent vertical effective stress (kPa)
Vt tension stress at failure (kPa)
V3 confining pressure (kPa)
uf hydraulic fracturing pressure (kPa)
A outer diameter of the soil specimen (m)
a borehole diameter in the soil specimen (m)

1. Introduction

Hydraulic fracturing has become one of the major problems in rock fill dam, since it plays a significant role in the
initiation and extension of cracks in the clay core. Hydraulic fracturing may occur in the upstream face of clay core
of a rock fill dam in the case the vertical effective stress in the core is reduced to levels that are small enough to
allow tension fracture to occur. This situation may arise if the total stress in the core is reduced by an arching effect
where the core settles relatively to the rock fill. Pore water pressure in the core will also increase during
impounding, and this will further reduce the effective stress in the core. Wedging due to water pressure may crack
the upstream face of clay core. Loftquist [1] indicated that arching in the clay core of a rock fill dam may result in
leakage and internal erosion based on his observation on thin impervious cores of the 26 m high Holle dam and 34
m high Harspranget dam as being as low as half of the normal overburden pressures. The incident in Hyttejuvet dam
in Norway that caused unexpected leakage occurred during the first filling of the reservoir, Kjaernsli and Torblaa
[2]. Similar incidents for the unusual leakage occurred just before the reservoir became full during the initial filling
of Balderhead dam in England, Vaughan et al. [3]. The failure of Stockton and Wister dams in USA were suspected
as being due to hydraulic fracturing, Sherard [4]. An investigation to the leakage that occurred at Viddalsvatn dam in
Norway indicated that hydraulic fracturing might be the cause, Vestad [5]. The failure of Teton dam in USA during
the first reservoir filling also identified hydraulic fracturing as a possible cause, Independent Panel [6]. To enhance
the understanding of the hydraulic fracturing mechanism in the upstream face of the clay core of a rockfill dam in
general, the effects of construction time and impounding rates of the dams experiencing hydraulic fracturing were
then studied. The rates of embankment and impoundment did not affect the hydraulic fracturing on the clay core of
the rockfill dam. Lo and Kaniaru [7] studied and compared the embankment and impoundment rates of five (5)
dams; Balderhead, Hyttejuvet, Viddalstavn, Teton and Yard’s Creek dams which experienced hydraulic fracturing
as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Case records of hydraulic fracturing in dams [7]

Height Construction Period Rate of impoundment
Dams
(m) (year) (m/month)
Balderhead 48 4 2
Hyttejuvet 90 1 20
Viddalstavn 70 1 11
Teton 93 3 27
Yard’s Creek 24 2 7

It can be concluded that the slower rate of construction which may produce higher degree of consolidation and
slower rate of impoundment which may produce the steady state of flow in the core did not affect the hydraulic
fracturing, since all of the dams experienced hydraulic fracturing which were recorded occurred on the first
 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497 491

impounding. These situations led to the conclusion that the primary cause of the hydraulic fracturing was arching
effect in the core of rockfill dams.

2. Soil samples and tests

The soil samples for hydraulic fracturing test in the laboratory were taken from the borrow pits of the 5 major
rockfill dams in Indonesia; they are Batubulan, Batutegi, Pelaparado, Sermo and Wonorejo dams. The soil samples
were then modelled into six (6) different fine contents, there are the fraction passing sieve no. 200 at 30%, 40%,
50%, 60%, 70% and 80%, in order to investigate the effects of fine contents to the hydraulic fracturing. The
variation of moisture contents during the compaction were also carried out, the soil samples were compacted into
three (3) different moisture contents, they are (wopt-3%), wopt, and (wopt+3%). These variations were carried out in
order to investigate the effects of the moisture contents to the hydraulic fracturing.
Mode of failure of the clay core of a rockfill dam due to hydraulic fracturing has been justified as a tension
failure. The preliminary hydraulic fracturing tests, Djarwadi et al. [8] indicated that the tension failure is only found
on the soil specimen if the initial stress state falls in the envelope of ½(Vy - Vx) < c, where the Vy and Vx are the initial
vertical and horizontal stresses which are applied to the soil specimens, which reflects the vertical and horizontal
stresses on the upstream face of clay core before impounding took place, and c is the cohesion of the soil specimen,.
Based on this result, the three (3) variations of initial stress states were applied to the soil specimens in order to
study the effect of stress states on the upstream face of clay core of a rockfill dams to the hydraulic fracturing. Table
2 show the initial stress states applied to the soil specimens.

Table 2. Initial stress states applied to the soil specimens.

Initial
Vx (kPa) Vy (kPa) V y - V x) kPa
½(V
Stress States
A 140 200 30
B 200 280 40
C 260 360 50

Before the hydraulic fracturing tests were carried out, the physical and mechanical properties of the soil samples
were tested. The unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests with volume change measurement were carried out in order
to develop the strength and the hyperbolic parameters of the soils.
The soil specimens were compacted in a hollow cylinder. The specimens were compacted inside a Proctor mould
measuring 100 mm in diameter and 120 mm high. The inner diameter of the borehole was 18 mm, based on the
borehole fracturing research results, Widjaja [9]. Fig. 1 show the typical soil specimen used in the hydraulic
fracturing tests.

Fig. 1. Soil specimen for hydraulic fracturing test.

492 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497

3. Hydraulic fracturing test apparatus

The development of hydraulic fracturing test apparatus of the clay core in the laboratory has limitations where
not all the conditions of the dams can be modelled in such a way in the laboratory. The reduction of the total
overburden stress due to arching effect can be modelled in the laboratory by applying the initial stress states to the
specimens. In this study the variation of initial stress states were applied to investigate which condition of stress
states will lead to the hydraulic fracturing of the clay core of rock fill dams.
The development of the hydraulic fracturing test apparatus in the laboratory will mainly focus on investigating
the fracture of the soil specimen due to the wedging of the water pressure, which may result in the reduction of the
effective stress due to the increasing pore water pressure in the specimen. The test apparatus consists of two parts
namely: a hydraulic fracturing chamber and a pressure chamber. The hydraulic fracturing chamber consists of
compacted hollow cylinder soil specimen clamped at both ends. The inner side of the hole and the surrounding of
each soil specimen were then covered by sand which would function as granular filter. The gradation was modelled
using non-erosion filter criteria, Sherard and Dunnigan [10]. The outer side of the hydraulic fracturing chamber was
then covered by latex membrane. The hydraulic fracturing chamber was then fixed at the bottom platen of the
pressure chamber. The pressure chamber has the same function as the triaxial chamber, but the size is larger in order
to accommodate the hydraulic fracturing chamber dimensions. The confining stress (V3) was applied by water
pressure generated by constant pressure machine, while axial stress (V1) was applied by axial pressure generated by
electric motor.
The hydraulic pressure to the soil specimen was increased gradually using load control mechanism. The water
flowing through the soil specimen was monitored using a micro-flow meter and a transducer, while the confining
pressure which was assumed to be uniform during the test was monitored using a pore pressure transducer. Both
transducers supplied real time data to the Automatic Data Acquisition Unit (ADU) machine, and then using
computer program the data were displayed on the screen. The development of apparent effective stress during the
test was monitored using a calibrated proving ring.
When the soil specimen reaches failure, the axial stress, the axial strain, the pore water pressure, the effective
stress, hydraulic fracturing pressure as well as the amount of water flowing into the soil specimen can be obtained.
Fig. 2 show the hydraulic fracturing test apparatus developed in the Soil Mechanic and Geotechnical Laboratory,
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, Gadjah Mada University.

Fig. 2. Hydraulic fracturing test apparatus.

 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497 493

4. Stress equilibrium on the soil specimen

The stress on the soil specimen during the hydraulic fracturing test is assumed constant. The stress equilibrium on
the soil specimen at the end of the test for tension failure is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. The stress equilibrium on the specimen and crack tip after hydraulic fracturing occurred.

Two (2) stress equilibrium on the specimen after fracturing occurred, there are stress equilibrium on the specimen
and surroundings crack on the inner borehole wall. The equilibrium of the stress on the specimen and crack tip after
crack occurred is as follow;

A2 'V '  V 3  a 2 u f
V '
1 (1)
A2  a 2

Vt V1'  u f (2)

where V1c is the vertical effective stress in the specimen, 'Vc is the apparent vertical effective stress, V3 is the
confining pressure, uf is the hydraulic fracturing pressure, A is the outer diameter of the specimen, a is the borehole
diameter, and Vt is tension stress at failure of the specimen.

5. Test results

The unconsolidated undrained triaxial with volume change measurement test results with variation on the fine
contents and moisture contents and compaction were presented in Table 3, while the hydraulic fracturing test results
in terms of the tensile stress at failure with variation on fine contents, moisture contents and compaction of the soil
specimens as well as in initial stress states were presented in Table 4. Since the modus of failure of the clay core of a
rock fill dam due to hydraulic fracturing has been justified as a tension failure, and in assumption that the cohesion
of the soils as part of soil strength contributed a resistant against tension failure, the relationship between the
cohesion and tension stress at failure of the soil specimens was presented in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4 indicated strong and constant test results that when the cohesion increased, the tension stress at failure also
increases. This condition can be concluded that the cohesion of the soils as clay core materials in the rock fill dams
control the occurrence of hydraulic fracturing, whereas the soils which have greater cohesion have more resistant
against hydraulic fracturing.
494 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497

Table 3. Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test results.

Fine contents
Batubulan dam clay core material
30.14% 40.12% 50.24% 60.21% 70.27% 81.00%
Friction angle ( q) 20.91 18.72 18.08 17.65 16.16 14.42
Compacted on dry side
Cohesion (kPa 74.60 78.10 85.80 89.10 91.20 98.40
Compacted at optimum Friction angle ( q) 18.15 17.71 16.21 14.31 13.35 11.46
moisture content Cohesion (kPa) 78.20 85.10 83.30 90.10 95.50 100.37
Friction angle ( q) 16.43 15.68 13.34 12.26 11.00 9.88
Compacted on wet side
Cohesion (kPa) 80.70 87.10 92.30 98.70 107.10 112.80
Fine contents
Batutegi dam clay core material
30.54% 40.37% 50.25% 59.24% 72.37% 79.60%
Friction angle ( q) 27.28 26.35 25.95 25.41 24.81 22.76
Compacted on dry side
Cohesion (kPa) 52.70 58.50 62.40 72.50 74.00 75.90
Compacted at optimum Friction angle ( q) 24.49 22.51 21.87 19.31 18.29 17.55
moisture content Cohesion (kPa) 62.40 72.20 76.00 80.10 84.30 88.80
Friction angle ( q) 21.73 18.82 17.61 25.75 14.40 13.27
Compacted on wet side
Cohesion (kPa) 68.00 79.80 82.30 84.90 87.50 94.70
Fine contents
Pelaparado dam clay core material
30.84% 40.71% 50.60% 60.28% 70.40% 79.44%
Friction angle ( q) 25.49 23.26 22.18 20.76 18.45 17.15
Compacted on dry side
Cohesion (kPa) 61.40 65.10 72.30 78.80 81.00 85.40
Compacted at optimum Friction angle ( q) 22.22 20.63 18.64 15.29 14.70 13.21
moisture content Cohesion (kPa) 72.00 74.70 83.50 89.70 90.30 98.20
Friction angle ( q) 19.93 18.88 16.75 14.54 12.80 10.63
Compacted on wet side
Cohesion (kPa) 76.80 82.60 87.70 91.70 97.50 115.60
Fine contents
Sermo dam clay core material
30.17% 40.17% 47.68% 60.38% 69.95% 80.50%
Friction anle ( q) 22.95 22.25 21.43 16.43 14.81 12.89
Compacted on dry side
Cohesion (kPa) 72.50 75.60 83.00 82.40 91.50 102.30
Compacted at optimum Friction anle ( q) 18.74 17.26 17.31 14.32 12.51 10.62
moisture content Cohesion (kPa) 76.00 79.00 86.40 93.50 94.80 108.70
Friction anle ( q) 16.68 14.69 13.79 12.81 10.18 8.42
Compacted on wet side
Cohesion (kPa) 81.90 84.40 92.50 95.60 109.80 118.60
Fine contents
Wonorejo dam clay core material
30.26% 40.23% 50.14% 61.68% 70.26% 80.50%
Friction anle ( q) 22.27 20.50 18.74 21.20 17.35 16.46
Compacted on dry side
Cohesion (kPa) 61.90 69.30 72.50 80.20 87.80 91.00
Compacted at optimum Friction anle ( q) 19.20 17.91 15.70 18.04 14.10 13.98
moisture content Cohesion (kPa) 72.70 74.70 81.00 90.40 97.40 100.50
Friction anle ( q) 17.26 15.10 13.58 16.14 11.03 9.09
Compacted on wet side
Cohesion (kPa) 73.80 77.60 83.70 88.80 97.90 106.60

6. Discussion and conclusion

The number of unconsolidated undrained triaxial test with volume change measurement and variation of fine and
moisture contents, and compaction were 90, while the number of hydraulic fracturing tests with variations of fine
and moisture contents and compaction as well as the initial stress states were 270.
 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497 495

Table 4. Tension stress at failure obtained from hydraulic fracturing tests.

Fine contents
Batubulan dam clay core material
30.14% 40.12% 50.24% 60.21% 70.27% 81.00%
Compacted on dry side 17.80 19.80 22.00 23.00 25.20 26.30
Initial stress state A Compacted on OMC 20.60 21.60 23.70 24.80 26.90 28.00
Compacted on wet side 21.00 23.00 25.20 26.30 29.50 31.50
Compacted on dry side 15.00 18.00 20.10 21.30 23.30 25.50
Initial stress state B Compacted on OMC 16.60 19.70 21.90 23.90 26.00 27.20
Compacted on wet side 19.20 21.30 23.30 24.50 27.60 29.70
Compacted on dry side 12.80 14.80 16.90 19.10 20.10 21.30
Initial stress state C Compacted on OMC 14.60 16.60 17.80 19.80 21.90 23.00
Compacted on wet side 16.00 18.00 20.10 21.30 23.30 24.50
Fine contents
Batutegi dam clay core material
30.54% 40.37% 50.25% 59.24% 72.37% 79.60%
Compacted on dry side 14.70 16.60 21.60 26.60 33.70 36.80
Initial stress state A Compacted on OMC 18.70 23.70 28.70 31.60 36.60 41.60
Compacted on wet side 21.00 27.00 31.10 33.00 38.00 43.00
Compacted on dry side 10.60 15.70 18.70 22.50 25.50 28.40
Initial stress state B Compacted on OMC 16.50 21.50 25.60 29.40 31.40 34.40
Compacted on wet side 13.90 16.90 19.80 23.70 28.70 31.60
Compacted on dry side 6.20 9.30 14.30 17.30 19.20 23.10
Initial stress state C Compacted on OMC 13.10 18.00 22.00 24.90 26.00 29.90
Compacted on wet side 9.60 15.70 17.70 21.50 23.40 28.40
Fine contents
Pelaparado dam clay core material
30.84% 40.71% 47.68% 60.38% 69.95% 80.50%
Compacted on dry side 16.00 18.90 24.10 27.00 28.90 30.70
Initial stress state A Compacted on OMC 20.90 22.80 25.90 30.90 34.80 36.80
Compacted on wet side 24.30 28.40 32.40 35.40 38.30 41.30
Compacted on dry side 11.80 13.70 17.70 20.70 22.50 25.50
Initial stress state B Compacted on OMC 13.50 17.50 20.60 24.60 28.50 31.40
Compacted on wet side 21.30 25.20 28.20 31.00 33.90 37.00
Compacted on dry side 5.50 8.40 11.50 13.30 18.30 21.20
Initial stress state C Compacted on OMC 8.10 11.10 16.10 22.30 25.20 29.20
Compacted on wet side 12.80 18.80 19.70 25.60 28.70 32.70
Fine contents
Sermo dam clay core material
30.17% 40.71% 47.68% 60.38% 69.95% 80.50%
Compacted on dry side 13.00 18.00 21.10 25.10 32.20 37.00
Initial stress state A Compacted on OMC 18.90 20.00 23.90 28.90 35.00 42.00
Compacted on wet side 23.60 25.40 29.50 32.40 37.40 44.50
Compacted on dry side 10.70 13.80 16.60 20.70 28.80 34.80
Initial stress state B Compacted on OMC 15.70 16.60 18.50 24.60 33.70 36.80
Compacted on wet side 18.20 20.10 23.90 28.00 35.10 39.10
Compacted on dry side 7.00 9.60 13.40 18.40 24.40 27.50
Initial stress state C Compacted on OMC 10.30 12.30 16.40 22.30 26.20 30.20
Compacted on wet side 11.80 15.90 19.80 25.90 28.80 33.80
496 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497

Table 4 continued
Fine contents
Wonorejo dam clay core materials
30.26% 40.23% 50.14% 61.68% 70.26% 80.50%
Compacted on dry side 20.70 24.80 26.00 28.00 29.20 32.40
Initial stress state A Compacted on OMC 23.70 25.70 26.90 31.00 32.20 36.30
Compacted on wet side 23.90 27.20 29.20 32.40 37.70 39.70
Initial stress state B Compacted on dry side 14.60 15.70 18.90 23.00 24.20 26.30
Compacted on OMC 15.30 16.50 20.70 24.80 28.00 30.10
Compacted on wet side 16.90 18.00 25.40 29.50 30.60 32.70
Initial stress state C Compacted on dry side 9.60 12.80 16.00 18.00 21.30 23.30
Compacted on OMC 14.40 15.50 18.70 21.90 25.10 27.20
Compacted on wet side 14.80 18.00 21.30 23.30 26.80 28.90

Fig. 4. Relationship between cohesion and tension stress at failure of the clay core materials.

The relationship between the cohesion, obtained from triaxial test, and tension stress at failure, obtained from
hydraulic fracturing test, was analyzed from 270 data, so the number of data were enough to conclude such
relationships of the soils taken from the borrow pits of major dams in Indonesia. The main conclusion of this study
was described as follow:
a. The test indicated strong and constant results for all the tests, when the cohesion increased, the tension stress at
failure also increased,
b. The cohesion of the soils as clay core materials of the rock fill dams control the occurrence of hydraulic
fracturing.
 Didiek Djarwadi et al. / Procedia Engineering 95 (2014) 489 – 497 497

References
[1] Loftquis, B. 1951: Earth pressure in a thin impervious core. Transaction 4th International Congress on Large Dams. New De lhi. Vol 1. Pp 99-
109.
[2] Kjaernsli, B., and Toorblaa, I. 1968: Leakege through horizontal cracks in the core of Hyttejuvet dam. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute.
Publication no. 80. pp 39-47.
[3] Vaughan, P. R., Kluth, D. J., Leonard, M. W., and Pradoura, H. M. M. 1970: Cracking and erosion of the rolled clay core o f Balderhead dam
and the remedial works adopted for its repair. Transaction of 10th International Congress on Large Dams. Montreal. Vol 3. pp 73-93.
[4] Sherard, J. L. 1973: Embankment Dam Cracking. In Embankment Dam Engineering-The Casagrande Volume. New York. John Wiley &
Sons.
[5] Vestad, H. 1976: Viddalsvatn dam, a history of leakages and investigations. Transactions of 12th International Congress on Large Dams.
Mexico. Vol 2. pp 369-390.
[6] Independent Panel to Review Cause of the Teton Dam Failure. 1976: Report to US Department of the Interior and the State o f Idaho on
Failure of Teton Dam. US Government Printing Office. Washington DC.
[7] Lo, K. Y., and Kaniaru, K. 1990: Hydraulic Fracture in earth and rockfill dams. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol 27. No 4. pp 496-506.
[8] Djarwadi, D., Suryolelono, K.B., Suhendro, B., and Hardiyatmo, H.C. 2009: Failure Criterion of Soils during Hydraulic Fracturing Test.
Proceedings 1st International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure and Build Environment in Developing Country. Bandung 2 -3
November 2009. pp: G.30-G.35
[9] Widjaja, H., Duncan, J. M., and Seed, H. B. 1984: Scale and Time effects in hydraulic fracturing. Miscellaneous Paper GL -84-10. US Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
[10] Sherard, J. L., and Dunnigan, L. P. 1989: Critical Filter for Impervious Soils. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division. ASCE. Vol 115.
No GT7. pp 927-947.