Geology and Dams On a large dam construction project the engineering geologist is concerned with:

the geology of the dam site including the foundation for the dam itself and the sites for other structures such as spillway, diversion tunnel and outlet works. Questions that need an answer include whether the dam foundation has sufficient strength and durability to support the type of dam proposed, whether the foundation is watertight and if not how much grouting will be required and whether the spillway will require concrete lining; the geology of the area to be occupied by the reservoir once the dam is completed. Questions often asked here include whether the storage area is watertight or are there areas of cavernous limestone which might lead to the dam not retaining water and whether landslides into the reservoir are possible which might cause a wave of water to be pushed over the top of the dam; finding sources of the construction materials which will be needed to build the dam.

Extensive site investigations are usually required to answer these questions. No two dam sites are identical as far as geology is concerned so each new dam construction project must be investigated individually. Some dam sites may be relatively uniform in their geology ie one rock type with a simple structure and a regular pattern of surface weathering. More often though the geology will be complex with several different rock types with different physical properties such as strength, durability and susceptibility to weathering. The geological structure may also be complex with geological units folded and faulted into a complicated, difficult to interpret pattern. Degree of surface weathering may vary suddenly from one geological unit to another further complicating the task of the engineering geologist. The following two examples are of dams where the site geology was a very significant factor in the design and overall layout of the entire project: Glennies Creek Dam: A 10 metre thick layer of completely weathered, non-welded tuff (a soil type material) at the dam site had a controlling influence on the choice of type of dam and the siting of the dam, diversion tunnel and the spillway; in fact, the whole project layout was determined by the outcrop and weathering pattern of the non-welded tuff. Windamere Dam: The embankment dam was built on a weathered, sedimentary rock foundation. The rock fill construction material to build the dam was obtained from an unlined rock cut spillway in unweathered andesite about 1 km from the dam site. If a spillway had been built adjacent to the dam in the weathered sedimentary rocks it would have had to have been lined with concrete to prevent erosion, at a greatly increased cost.

In the design of embankment dams there are two major decisions which have to be taken, both of which depend on geological factors:

The extent to which it will be necessary to provide concrete lining and/or energy dissipation structures in the dam spillway. The extent to which the spillway excavation will be able to supply fill for use in the construction of the dam embankment.

The geology of the dam spillway is thus important to the overall design and layout of the whole dam construction project. Geology of Dam Spillways The importance of the dam spillway geology in many dam projects stems from the fact that the most economic (cheapest) dam is often one which is built with rock fill obtained from the adjacent spillway excavation. The two important questions that the engineering geologist must answer are therefore;

is the spillway rock acceptable for use as rock fill in the dam embankment construction; is the spillway rock sufficiently erosion resistant that concrete lining and energy dissipation structures can be omitted from the spillway.

The above questions require a detailed study of the geology of each dam site on an individual basis, so it is difficult to give general rules which will apply to any dam site. Some rules of thumb which I have found useful are given below but it must be emphasised that they are not intended to replace a detailed study of each site. Criteria for acceptability as rock fill: The two properties that are useful here are Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) in the saturated state and Water Absorption (WA). UCS (saturated) > 50 MPa 20-50 MPa < 20 MPa Good to excellent quality rock fill. Durability OK Acceptable but rather weak rock fill Durability testing required before acceptance

Water Absorption < 1% 1-3% 3-5% Good to excellent quality, highly durable rock fill Fair to good quality rock fill, acceptable durability Durability testing required before acceptance

> 5%

Not suitable for riprap, durability testing essential before use as rock fill

Rock fill in service should be durable (ie its properties should not change over time) and should have a high shear strength and low compressibility. Criteria for provision of concrete lining and energy dissipators: A useful property here is the Rock Quality Designation (RQD) which, taken in conjunction with the state of stress of the rock mass and the presence or absence of erodible seams, gives the following criteria: As an example of what can happen if the spillway rock is under high in-situ stresses, see Copeton Dam Spillway. Dam Site Investigations The primary purpose of geological site investigations for a dam project is provide the information that dam designers require in order to design a safe dam structure and to be able to estimate with reasonable accuracy how much the dam is going to cost. The aim of the dam designers is to build the dam for the lowest cost consistent with currently accepted standards of safety. The engineering geologist must be able to answer the following questions;

what is the depth of overburden that must be removed to reach an acceptable foundation for the dam wall; what are the rock types which make up the foundation and to what extent are they affected by surface weathering; what are the engineering properties of the foundation rock types (important properties are strength, deformability and durability); what is the geological structure of the foundation (ie jointing, faulting and folding of the rock strata). A full description of the defect pattern in the rock mass should include orientation, spacing, extent or persistence and aperture or openess; how permeable is the rock foundation (ie to what extent are the rock defects such as joints, faults and bedding open); where can adequate supplies of construction materials such as clay, sand, gravel and rock fill be obtained, preferably as close as possible to the dam site; will the rock that must be excavated to provide a spillway for the dam be acceptable for use as rock fill in the construction of the dam embankment; will the spillway require concrete lining and an energy dissipation structure at its downstream end or is the spillway rock sufficiently erosion resistant that these can be omitted.

In order to be able to answer the above questions the dam site must be explored by an experienced engineering geologist. Methods commonly used to explore sites for construction projects are;

geological mapping of surface rock outcrops; geophysical surveys. Seismic refraction is often used to determine depth of overburden; excavation of trenches and pits using bulldozers, backhoes etc.; diamond core drilling. As usually carried out this method recovers an undisturbed, cylindrical sample (a core sample) about 50 mm in diameter from depths of a few metres to hundreds of metres, if necessary. Other types of drilling which recover disturbed samples may also be used in some circumstances;

The exploration methods above are listed in order of increasing cost. Most dam site investigations will employ several different methods, the exact mix of methods and the timing when each is carried out is something which is tailored to suit the particular geological problems of each individual dam site. These geological site investigations allow the engineering geologist to construct a "geological model" of the site which is then used by the dam designers as a basis on which they can design a safe and economic dam structure appropriate to the geology of that particular site. It is important to realise that even the most comprehensive site investigation programme cannot hope to reveal all the significant geological features of the site. It is therefore of critical importance that the actual geological conditions revealed during construction be compared with the geological model of the site derived from the site investigations. It is quite common for unexpected geological conditions to be revealed during construction which require changes to made to the original design. A record of the site geology "as found" during construction is also of great value if problems develop later during the operation and maintenance phase. Dam Failures Faults in construction methods (eg inadequate compaction of fill) or use of the wrong type of construction materials (eg silt) may lead to internal erosion or piping failures of embankment dams. An example is the failure of the Teton Dam in Idaho, USA in 1976. Geological problems with the dam foundation. The failure of the St. Francis Dam falls into this category. After the failure it was found that some of the foundation rock, a conglomerate, disintegrated when the rock was immersed in water so that the rock lost all its strength when saturated. This is exactly what happened as the newly completed dam filled with water for the first time and the dam failed shortly afterwards. Another example of a dam break due to foundation failure is the Malpasset Dam in France which failed in 1959. This was the first collapse of a modern, thin concrete arch dam. Landslides which fall into the storage reservoir, sending a wave of water over the top of the dam may cause a dam to fail, or the dam may survive if made of concrete but a

destructive flood may still devastate the river valley downstream as happened at the Vaiont Dam in Italy in 1963 when over 1900 people were killed. Earthquakes can certainly cause damage to dams but complete failure of a large dam due to earthquake damage appears to be very rare. The Lower San Fernando Dam in California, USA did fail during an earthquake in 1971 which caused the fill in the dam wall to liquefy resulting in the collapse of the upstream part of the dam. A disastrous flood was only prevented because the reservoir level happened to be low at the time of the earthquake and no water escaped downstream. Dams are likely to exist, perhaps for hundreds of years, even after they are no longer required for their original purpose. During these years, dangerous alterations to the operation of the dam and/or its structure may lead to failure eg South Fork Dam (Johnstown) which failed in 1889. Incorrect operation of a dam at any time can result in overtopping and failure eg Euclides da Cunha Dam, Brazil which failed in 1977. Site Investigations The first proposals for a fixed link between the two countries were made in the early nineteenth century and included various highly imaginative combinations of bored tunnels, immersed tubes, bridges and artificial islands. Most schemes, however, were far ahead of the engineering techniques and geological knowledge of the time to be considered seriously. One scheme even proposed the boring of a short direct route between Folkestone and Cap Gris Nez in Jurassic rocks of mixed lithologies, not ideally suited for tunnelling. The more reasonable proposals did at least recognise the importance of gaining a sound knowledge of both seabed topography and geology along the route, and it was these factors that ultimately would determine the success of any scheme Geological section along the length of the Channel Tunnel Despite the early history and attempts made in the late nineteenth century, the first modern investigation directly associated with the building of the Channel Tunnel was undertaken in 1958/59. This comprised both geophysical and borehole surveys with further work being carried out during the periods 1962-65, 1972-74 and more recently in 1986-88 as part of the present scheme. The initial two campaigns formed part of feasibility studies and were not intended to provide the complete information necessary for design purposes, and they therefore covered very large areas and had fairly broad specifications. They were, however, of considerable significance at the time and have been very useful in terms of their general contribution to the total database. The 1972-74 survey was the first to investigate a specific tunnel route as part of a tunnel design and was restricted in its area of coverage, as were the recent 1986-88 surveys. In all, a total of 116 marine and 68 land boreholes have been drilled along the alignment and over 4000 line kilometres of geophysical survey completed.

Continuous seismic profiling was and still is considered to be the most acceptable means of providing geological information relatively quickly for the large areas to be covered, but it provides only indirect information about the structure and nature of geological strata. Direct information may only be obtained from boreholes, which also provide representative samples of the ground for testing and one-dimensional information to control the geophysical survey. The marine site investigations differ from the land investigations in that: (a) Geophysical surveys are a very cost-effective method of obtaining geological data offshore. Consequently, these methods form a major part of the marine investigations carried out for the Channel Tunnel. (b) Information derived from land sited boreholes is much cheaper to acquire than from marine boreholes (e.g. 1987 comparative costs of 20 000 as against 0.5 million for a typical Channel Tunnel borehole). Thus, boreholes tend to dominate in this instance.