Drain Dam

Drainage for Dams
and Associated
Structures
United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation
2004
Drainage for Dams and
Associated Structures
Technical Service Center

Denver, Colorado
2004
United States Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation
MISSION STATEMENTS
The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect

and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural
heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes.
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage,

develop, and protect water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public.
Any use of trade names and trademarks in this publication is for descriptive
purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The information contained in this document regarding commercial products

or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not
to be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Preface
Drains are important design features for dams and appurtenant structures. It is standard
practice to include drains in the design of these structures. They reduce seepage uplift
pressures, control seepage, and reduce foundation driving forces on dams and other
structures, improving their stability.
A primary purpose of this manual is to provide information that can be used to establish an
effective drain maintenance program. Drains at Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) dams
have received varying amounts of attention. In some cases, drains have not been maintained
since they were constructed. Drains that are obviously plugged have generally been detected
during an examination of the dam, and a cleaning program initiated. In other cases,
instrumentation data have provided strong indications that drains are plugged, and
appropriate action was taken. In still other cases, drains have become plugged without the
plugging being detected for a period of time, because the drains could not be easily accessed
and visual evidence did not strongly suggest that the drains were plugging. Cleaning
programs have resulted in varying degrees of success.
This manual hopefully will provide a heightened awareness of the importance and benefits
of drainage systems and the need for periodic monitoring and maintenance of these systems.
Rather than providing strict requirements for a regular drain cleaning program, this manual
is intended to provide guidelines for evaluating drainage systems and determining the need
for initiating a drain cleaning program. The current Comprehensive Facility Review and
Periodic Facility Review process results in a systematic evaluation of each Reclamation dam.
This provides an ideal opportunity to evaluate drainage systems, considering the
instrumentation data and the physical condition of the exposed portions of drainage systems.
The need for a more comprehensive inspection of the drainage system, possibly through the
use of a remote video camera can also be assessed. The Performance Parameter documents
now available for all major Reclamation dams also are a valuable tool for assessing the
performance of drainage systems. Performance Parameter documents should indicate
acceptable levels for drain flows and water pressures at a specific dam, and levels at which a
further evaluation of a drainage system or a drain cleaning program should be initiated.
This manual provides background information on the purpose of drainage systems and on
the design and analysis of drainage systems. This information is provided to illustrate the
importance of drainage systems to the overall stability of dams and associated structures, and
also as a starting point for the design and analysis of drainage systems. The design and
analysis information is basic and not intended to be a comprehensive design guide.
The manual is organized as follows: general descriptions and the purposes of various types
of drainage systems for dams and appurtenant structures (ch. 1); design guidelines and
analysis methodology on various drainage systems (ch. 2); installation methods for drains
(ch. 3); case histories that illustrate the performance of a variety of drainage systems (ch. 4);
and, guidance on maintaining drains, including a discussion of drain plugging mechanisms,
iii
methods for evaluating drain effectiveness, guidelines for drain maintenance, site-specific
considerations, and a summary of drain cleaning methods (ch. 5). Appendices are also
included that contain design examples (app. A), detailed case histories (app. B) and
descriptions of drain cleaning and inspection equipment (app. C).
The authors of this manual are Bill Fiedler, Rick Kelsic, John LaBoon, Becky Morfitt, Rich
Munoz, Gary Turlington, Chuck Cooper, Doug Hurcomb, and Steve Young. The peer
reviewers are Bill Engemoen and Gregg Scott. The technical editor for the manual is Lelon
A. Lewis. The authors would like to thank Bill and Gregg for their thorough reviews and
substantial feedback, which greatly improved the manual. They would like to thank Mr.
Lewis for his tireless work in assembling numerous drafts and shaping the writings of
multiple authors into a coherent document. The authors would also like to thank the
following people who either reviewed or provided input to the manual: Chuck Cooper,
Doug Craft, Dave Harris, Dave Hinchliff, Larry Nuss, Mike Romansky, and Rod TeKrony
of the Technical Service Center; Jim Kinney of the Office of Policy; Lloyd Crutchfield,
Lovell Parrish, and Jan Seckel of the Great Plains Regional Office; Brad Augustine of the
Lower Colorado Regional Office; Marvin Lockhart of the Pacific Northwest Regional
Office; Mark Neeley of the Upper Colorado Regional Office; Ken Lally of the Mid-Pacific
Regional Office; Kit Kwiatkowski of the South-Central California Office; Bob Major of the
Albuquerque Area Office; Keith Brooks of the Snake River Area Office; Randy Harris of the
Grand Coulee Power Office; Kit Kwiatkowski of the South-Central California Area Office;
and Terry Seitz of the McCook Field Office.
Funding for this manual was provided by the Dam Safety Office, the Technical Service
Center, and the Office of Policy. The authors would like to thank these offices for their
joint efforts in support of the manual.
iv
Contents
page
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Chapter 1—Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1-1. Purpose of Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
a. Concrete Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
b. Embankment Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
c. Spillways and Outlet Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
d. Cut Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
e. Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1-2. Types of Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
a. Concrete Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1. Foundation Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Formed Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Prefabricated Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
b. Embankment Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1. Blanket Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Toe Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Downstream Drainage Trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Relief Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Drainage Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6. Semihorizontal Drain Borings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7. Surface Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
c. Spillways and Outlet Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
d. Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Horizontal or Angled Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Dewatering Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Drainage Adits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Surface Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
e. Tunnels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 2—Drain Design and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2-1. Design Philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2-2. Site-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2-3. Concrete Dam Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2-4. Embankment Dam Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
a. Toe Drain Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1. Type of Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2. Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3. Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
v
Drainage for Dams and Associated Structures
4. Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5. Outfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
b. Relief Well Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
c. Analysis Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1. Equations, Figures, and Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2. Graphical Methods, and Flow Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3. Numerical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4. Other Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2-5. Appurtenant Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
a. General Design Considerations and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1. Structural Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2. Configuration and Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3. Filter Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4. Pervious Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5. Insulation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
6. Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7. Hydraulic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
8. Air Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
b. Specific Design Considerations and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
1. Spillways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2. Outlet Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
1. Inlet (or Approach) Channel or Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2. Spillway Crest Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3. Outlet Works Inlet Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4. Conveyance Structure (Chutes, Conduits, Pipes, Tunnels) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5. Terminal Structure (Stilling Basin, Plunge Pool) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6. Exit Channel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2-6. Slope Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
a. Rock Slope Plane Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
b. Rock Slope Wedge Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
c. Soil Slope Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
d. Rock/Soil Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
e. Permeability Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
f. Monitoring of Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
g. Modeling of Groundwater Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
h. Depressurization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2-7. Rock Tunnel Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
vi
Contents
Chapter 3—Drain Installation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

3-1. Drilling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
a. Drain Drilling Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
1. Auger Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
2. Rotary Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3. Cable Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4. Jetting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5. Reverse Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
b. Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3-2. Subsurface Installation of Drains in Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
a. Backhoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
b. Trenching Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
c. Grade Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3-3. Subsurface Installation of Drains in Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3-4. Installation of Drains at Concrete Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Chapter 4—Drain Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

4-1. Brantley Dam—Foundation Drain Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
a. Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
b. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
c. Drain Cleaning History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
d. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4-2. Folsom Dam—Foundation Drain Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
a. Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
b. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
c. Drain Cleaning History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
1. High Pressure Fluid Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2. Chemical Removal of Carbonate Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3. Ultrahigh Pressure Fluid Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4. Roto-Rooter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5. High Pressure Fluid Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
6. Other Cleaning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
d. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4-3. Friant Dam—Foundation Drain Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
b. Drain Cleaning History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4-4. Grand Coulee Riverbank Stabilization Well Rehabilitation for Iron-Reducing
Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
a. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
vii
b. Well Cleaning Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

1. Initial Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
2. Chlorination Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3. Acid Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4. Final Chlorination (Disinfection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
c. Personal Safety Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4-5. California Department of Transportation—Horizontal Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
b. Case Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
1. Whitmore Maintenance Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2. San Andreas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
3. Pacific House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4. Cloverdale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
5. Nojoqui Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
6. La Selva Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7. York Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4-6. Ochoco Dam Video Toe Drain Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
a. Ochoco Dam Video Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
b. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4-7. Senator Wash Dam Relief Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
b. Relief Well Cleaning Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4-8. Sherman Dam Toe Drain Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
a. Drain Cleaning Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
b. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4-9. Upper Stillwater Dam—Foundation Drain Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
b. Remedial Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
4-10. Concrete Dam Foundation Drain Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
b. Drain Cleaning History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
4-11. Tuttle Creek Dam—Blended Chemical and Heat Treatment for Bacteria in Relief
Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
b. Relief Well Treatment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
viii
Contents
4-12. Davis Creek Dam Toe Drain Rehabilitation and Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
b. Inspections and Cleanings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
4-13. Keechelus Dam—Piping into Drainage System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
a. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
b. Video Investigation and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
c. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
4-14. Summary of Toe Drain Inspection Using Closed Circuit Television . . . . . . . . 161
a. Common Pipe Material Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
b. Common Obstructions to CCTV Inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
c. Common Defects Cbserved during Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
1. Clay Tile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
2. HDPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
3. CMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
4. Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5. Asbestos cement, PVC, and iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
d. Plugging Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
e. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Chapter 5—Monitoring and Maintaining Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

5-1. Drain-Plugging Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
a. Calcium Carbonate Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
b. Biological Plugging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
c. Deposition of Fines, Sands and/or Gravels/Cobbles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
d. Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
5-2. Site-Specific Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
a. Importance of Drains to Dam/Structure Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
b. Access to Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
5-3. Evaluating Drain Effectiveness with Instrumentation/Visual Monitoring . . . . . 178
a. Site Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
b. Concrete Dams/Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
1. Water Pressures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
2. Drainage Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
3. Drain Hole Depths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
4. Visual Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
c. Embankment Dams/Foundations/Horizontal Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
1. Seepage Flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
2. Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
ix
d. Relief Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

1. Flow Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
2. Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
4. Pump Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
e. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
5-4. Drain Cleaning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
a. Rodding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
b. Flushing and Air Lifting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
c. Reaming, Drain Enlargement or Drilling of New Holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
d. Rotary Tube Cleaners or Mechanical Abraders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
e. Ultrahigh Pressure Water Jet System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
f. High Pressure Water Jet System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
g. Chemical Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
h. Overpumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
i. Surge Block Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
j. Excavation and Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
k. Slip Lining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
5-5. Reclamation Drain Cleaning Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
a. Reclamation Guidelines for Maintaining Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
b. Checklists for Drain Cleaning Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Appendix A—Design/Analysis Examples

Appendix B—Case Histories
Appendix C—Drain Cleaning Equipment
x
Contents
Tables
No. page
1 Permeability coefficients for typical rocks and soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

2 Coefficient of consolidation for rocks and soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3 Range of effectiveness of depressurization stategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4 Plugged/cleaned drain case histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5 Foundation drains inspected at Brantley Dam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6 Results of 1997 drain cleaning, uplift pressures—line 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
7 Results of 1997 drain cleaning, probed depths of drains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
8 Effect of drain cleaning on horizontal flow at Cloverdale, California—1956. . . . 124
9 Drain-cleaning methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Figures
No page
1 Forces used in stability analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2 The effect of internal drains on the zone of saturation in embankment dams . . . . 13
3 Piping through the embankment leads to the failure of a dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4 Example blowout calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5 Appurtenant structures—Examples of damage/failure due to inadequate drainage
provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6 Typical foundation drain layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7 Abutment drainage adit and foundation drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8 Details of abutment drainage adit and foundation drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
9 Formed drain layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10 Formed and foundation drain layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11 Formed and foundation drain layout for RCC buttress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
12 Formed drain details for RCC buttress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13 Embankment dam drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
14 Plan and profile of the drainage tunnels for the right abutment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
15 Appurtenant structures—Perforated and slotted PVC drains with sand, gravel
and/or geotextile envelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
xi
16 Appurtenant structures—Drilled and formed drains (sometimes referred to as

“weep holes”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
17 Appurtenant structures—Prefabricated drains (such as “flat drains”) . . . . . . . . . . . 31
18 Appurtenant structures—Graded filter drains—Drainage provisions for
conduit/pipe that passes through or beneath an embankment dam . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
19 Appurtenant structures—Graded filter drains—Drainage provisions for
embankment dam overtopping protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
20 Plan view and sections of a drain cleanout within a spillway chute . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
21 Plan view and section of a drain cleanout for spillway chute, outside drains . . . . . 34
22 Drainage systems for rock and soil slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
23 Example of tunnel drains—river outlet works tunnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
24 Comparison of assumed and measured uplift for Shasta Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
25 Graphical representations of uplift criteria used for stability analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 42
26 Typical toe drain configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
27 Typical relief well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
28 Example flow nets for high level steady state and for rapid drawdown . . . . . . . . . 49
29 Grassy Lake Dam Spillway, Wyoming—Chute floor has succumbed to inadequate
drainage provisions and frost heave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
30 Illustration of chute and hydraulic jump stilling basin with “eductors” connected
to chute drainage provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
31 Spring Creek Debris Dam, California—Using drilled/formed drains (weepholes)
and “eductors” (i.e., aspirators) to mitigate excessive hydrostatic (uplift) pressure
beneath chute and stilling basin floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
32 Illustration of conditions that could result in a stagnation pressure failure.
Laboratory modeling has indicated that uplift pressures could be as high a
0.9 velocity head. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
33 Keechelus Dam Outlet Works, Washington—Section along stilling basin showing
steel vent pipe (vacuum break) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
34 Keechelus Dam Outlet Works, Washington—Section through stilling basin
showing steel vent pipe (vacuum break) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
35 Rigdway Dam spillway, Colorado—Cross section showing conduit with
embankment filter wrap-around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
36 McGee Creek Dam M&I Outlet Works, Oklahoma—Cross section showing
conduit and cutoff collar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
37 McGee Creek Dam M&I Outlet Works, Oklahoma—Section along conduit
centerline and through cutoff collars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
38 Ridgway Dam spillway, Colorado—Cross section showing conduit founded on
and tied into excavated bench with nonstructural concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
39 Tension cracks contributing to slope failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
40 Wedge failure with water pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
41 Standpipe piezometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
xii
Contents
42 Typical flow net for a rock slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

43 Detail of the horizontal drains installed into the rock cut slopes for the spillway
chute at Stewart Mountain Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
44 View of rotary drilling operations to install high-angle drain holes in bedrock
from a platform on the downstream right abutment of Horse Mesa Dam,
Arizona. The drill rig is a Craelius Diamec 260 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
45 Views of rotary drilling operations to install high-angle drain holes in bedrock in
a drainage adit in the downstream right abutment of Horse Mesa Dam, Arizona.
The drill rig is a Craelius Diamec 260. The drill is mounted on a stand when
drilling high-angle drain holes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
46 Open trench excavation without a trench box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
47 Open trench excavation with a trench box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
48 Wheel trencher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
49 Ladder trencher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
50 Chain trencher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
51 Trencher boot arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
52 Laser plane system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
53 Profile of the concrete portion of Brantley Dam showing the approximate
location of the uplift pressure monitoring lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
54 Typical layout of the uplift pressure monitoring lines under blocks 2 and 14 . . . . 95
55 Scatter plot of uplift pressures under block 2 between January 1990 and March
1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
56 Profile of Friant Dam and drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
57 Cross section of Friant Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
58 Plan view of Friant Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
59 Profile of Friant Dam and drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
60 Friant Dam uplift pressures for line 1, sta. 03+69.5, block 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
61 Friant Dam uplift pressures for line 4, sta. 24+55, block 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
62 Friant Dam drain flows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
63 Discharge from drain well No. 29, showing a large increase in production after
cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
66 Self-propelled camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
67 Sled-mounted camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
68 Ochoco Dam plan view showing east and west drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
69 Typical drain cleanout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
70 Typical inspection well used to gain access to outfall pipes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
71 Site map of Senator Wash Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
xiii
72 Discharge rates for relief well 14 at Senator Wash Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

73 Discharge rates for relief well 15 at Senator Wash Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
74 Vented surge block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
75 Seepage flows from toe drain No. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
76 Readings of groundwater levels from observation wells near toe drain No. 3 . . . 141
77 Locations of observation wells with respect to the dam and the toe drain outfall 141
78 Profile of Upper Stillwater Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
79 Cross section of foundation gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
80 Uplift pressure lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
81 Plot of piezometer data along line B at Upper Stillwater Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
82 Total seepage before and after the foundation treatment program . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
83 Filling of drains containing PVC and gravel filter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
84 Filling of drains without PVC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
85 Uplift pressures response to drain cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
86 Tuttle Creek Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
87 Hotsy unit used in the BCHT process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
88 Locations of observation wells and cleaned reaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
89 The typical amount of sediment deposition observedin toe drain pipes in a
November 2000 inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
90 A damaged left toe drain pipe at approximately sta. 23+25 stopped the camera-
crawler. A cleaning removed fine materials from the pipe invert . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
91 Readings of left and right toe drain seepage relative to reservoir level . . . . . . . . . 156
92 Clay tile outfall pipe with fines in the invert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
93 CMP outfall pipe with coarse grained material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
94 Sediment sump for SM-D11 and -D12 showing fines that accumulated in one
season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
95 Camera-crawler used for CCTV inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
96 Extensive longitudinal cracking within a clay tile pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
97 Extensive joint offsetting within a clay tile pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
98 Clay tile pipe experiencing inward collapse of the crown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
99 HDPE pipe experiencing extensive shape deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
100 HDPE pipe experiencing failure at the crown. Materials surrounding the pipe
have entered through the failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
101 An HDPE pipe joint has experienced extensive separation. Materials
surrounding the pipe have entered through the separated joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
102 Extensive deterioration existing within a CMP pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
103 CMP pipe experiencing extensive loss of surface coating due to delamination . . 166
104 Concrete pipe experiencing extensive joint offset and separation at a bend in the
pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
105 Extensive transverse cracking within a concrete pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
106 PVC pipe experiencing extensive transverse cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
xiv
Contents
107 Accumulation of sediments has resulted in plugging of the pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

108 Biofouling has resulted in plugging of the pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
109 Mineral encrustation has resulted in plugging of a number of the pipe
perforations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
110 Root growth has resulted in partially plugging the pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
111 Calcium carbonate deposit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
112 Iron sulphide deposits in foundation gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
113 Plug of organic material in toe drain (also shown is camera used to inspect
drain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
114 High pressure water jet nozzle and hose being lowered into foundation drain . . 184
115 High pressure water jet nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
xv
xvi
Chapter 1
BACKGROUND
Drains are a common feature for dams and their foundations as well as for associated
structures and their foundations. In general, all drains fulfill the same purpose—they reduce
seepage pressures within a structure or foundation and improve the stability of the structure
or foundation. Drains also provide the benefit of collecting and transporting seepage to a
desired outfall location, while minimizing aesthetic impacts, or impacts due to erosion.
There are a variety of drain types and configurations. Factors that influence the type and
configuration of drains are the type of structure or foundation, the expected seepage or
groundwater locations and volume of drain flows, ease of construction, and accessibility.
This section describes the types and purposes of various drainage systems for concrete dams
and their foundations, embankment dams and their foundations, spillway and outlet works
structures and their foundations, and for other features.
1-1. Purpose of Drains.—Drains are provided in dams, in dam foundations, in certain

appurtenant structures, and at structure/foundation interfaces to safely intercept, collect, and
transport seepage that may compromise the stability of any of these features. An important
component of dam stability, drains reduce uplift/pore water pressures associated with
reservoir loading that can develop below and/or within a structure. Uplift/pore water
pressures develop when water enters discontinuities, such as joints and faults, in rock
foundations; when water seeps through soil foundations and embankments; and when water
accesses structural interfaces within a dam or foundation. Uplift/pore water pressures can
reduce the ability of a structure to resist sliding and overturning. The magnitude of the
uplift/pore water pressure depends on a number of factors, including relative material
permeabilities and the extent to which water is limited from exiting discontinuities or
materials.
1
Collected seepage can be measured to detect changes in seepage flows that may indicate
changes in the condition of the dam or foundation, or possible clogging of drains.
Furthermore, collected seepage can be inspected for the presence of sediments that may
indicate a possible loss of soil materials. The effectiveness of drainage can be evaluated
from instrumentation measurements through the use of piezometers, observation wells
and/or uplift pressure pipes installed upstream and downstream of a drainage system.
a. Concrete Dams.—Major concrete storage dams, regardless of dam type, are typically
constructed on rock foundations which may contain joints, faults, and other discontinuities.
Within the concrete structure itself, formed and unformed joints exist, associated with
concrete placements, cantilever interfaces, and appurtenant structure contacts. Furthermore,
cracks may develop within concrete structures due to tensile stresses that exceed the
concrete tensile capacity caused by shrinkage, loading, and/or differential settlements.
When reservoir water enters the material, joints, cracks, and/or discontinuities within a dam
or dam foundation, uplift pressures develop proportionally to the hydrostatic reservoir head.
Uplift pressure within these discontinuities will increase the overturning moment and reduce
the sliding stability within concrete dams and foundation blocks. Generally speaking, except
for foundation discontinuities, the consequences of uplift are greater for gravity dams than
for arch dams due to the greater surface area over which uplift can act and the assumed lack
of three-dimensional load transfer. In arch dams, the effect of uplift is often critical within
the foundation and abutments, since it reduces the stability of foundation blocks that carry
loads. Historical data show foundation failure to be the major cause of concrete dam
failures [2].
b. Embankment Dams.—Embankment dams and foundations are not totally

impervious. Control of the leakage is necessary to prevent uneconomical loss of water and
prevent water forces and pressures related to seepage from contributing to static instability
and piping or blowout. Cutoff trenches, cutoff walls, and upstream impervious blankets are
methods used to reduce the flow of water and control water pressures. Chimney drains,
downstream drainage blankets, toe drains, drainage trenches, drainage tunnels, and relief
wells are used to collect seepage and reduce pressures to prevent static instability, blowout,
uplift failure, and piping failure in the downstream zones and foundations of the
embankments.
A number of failure mechanisms can develop for embankment dams that are related to
seepage/drainage:
2
Chapter 1—Background
• Stability of Embankment (High Pore Pressures).—The water table in sloping ground (an
embankment) can affect the stability of the mass and cause a slope failure. The factor of
safety for slope stability is evaluated as the ratio of the resisting force to the driving
force. The resistance is a function of the effective stress which is affected by saturation
(effective stress = total stress - pore pressure). A saturated material has a lower effective
stress, which can also be looked at as water generating pore pressure that decreases the
effective stress and resisting force. To a lesser extent, the seepage force imparted by
seeping water on the saturated medium through friction can contribute to the driving
force (fig. 1). Therefore, lowering the line of saturation increases the resisting force
(fig. 2). Clogged drains prevent the release of water and can allow the pore pressures
(line of saturation) to increase, which could cause a stable slope to become unstable.
• Piping or Internal Erosion.—Piping or internal erosion involves the progressive removal of

soil particles from a mass by flowing water. Several conditions must exist in order for
there to be piping and a piping-related failure. First, there must be a source of flowing
water. Second, there must be erodible soils, which are usually fine grained soils such as
silts and clays. Clays tend to be nonerodible under low pressures due to attractive forces
between particles. Then there must be a free surface where the water is released and the
soil particles can be removed. This can be open ground, concrete cracks, rock cracks, or
soils with voids such as coarse sands, gravels, rockfill, or riprap. The material must also
be capable of sustaining a roof or “pipe.” As the water exits, the small soil particles are
carried with the water, and a hole starts forming. As a piping hole forms it enlarges and
the velocity of the water flow increases, which allows larger and larger particles to be
carried away and the erosion “pipe” to progress toward the reservoir. Eventually, the
hole becomes large or progresses backward to the point where it is in contact with the
reservoir, and the embankment erodes rapidly and releases the reservoir uncontrollably
as shown on figure 3. Sinkholes and depressions can be formed as material from above
falls into the piping hole. If the piping is occurring through cracks in concrete or rock,
the rate and extent of the piping are restricted by the size of the opening, and as larger
particles are moved, the crack can actually become plugged.
To prevent piping, either the water level can be lowered or the pressure reduced, so that
the force required to move the particles does not develop. This can be done with relief
wells and downstream drainage trenches, or the seepage path can be increased with
impervious upstream blankets and cutoff walls, which in turn reduce the pore pressure
and exit-gradient. Another means of preventing piping is to place a material (filter) at
the exit location that has void spaces large enough to allow the water to flow out but
small enough to prevent the soil particles from moving. This can be accomplished with
a filter and toe drain system.
3
Piping is progressive and can result in a rapid failure (often occurring within the first
filling of the reservoir) or a failure that starts slowly and then progresses rapidly. Careful
monitoring of seepage exit areas for evidence of material being moved is important if
early intervention is to occur to prevent continuation of piping and an uncontrolled
release of the reservoir. Clogged drains and improperly functioning relief wells can cause
the water pressure and exit-gradient to increase and cause initiation of piping.
• Blowout (High Pore Pressures).—Foundation pore pressure can exert significant uplift force
on a confining layer of soil downstream of the dam. This occurs when a more
permeable layer underlies a less pervious layer, also known as a confining layer (e.g., a
clay layer overlying a gravel layer). Failure begins to occur when the pore pressure on
the bottom of the confining layer exceeds the overburden pressure created by the weight
of the confining layer. The resulting uplift eventually breaches the confining layer,
providing a flow path that can lead to a piping or fluidization failure. The factor of
safety can be calculated as shown on figure 4. A minimum factor of safety of 2 is
recommended, depending upon the confidence level of the variables.
c. Spillways and Outlet Works.—Drains beneath and/or adjacent to appurtenant

structures should be provided to control (mitigate) excessive water pressures which might
lead to instability, including failure of appurtenant structures and/or their foundation (see
fig. 5 for examples). Appurtenant structures include spillways, outlet works, canals,
pipelines, retaining walls, drainage adits, access adits, powerplants, and pumping plants.
Historically, it has been the Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) practice to design
appurtenant structures to withstand part or all of an anticipated water pressure (i.e.,
assuming drains do not function or are only partially effective). However, it has been and is
considered prudent engineering practice to provide drainage for critical appurtenant
structures (An appurtenant structure is considered critical if increased risk to the dam and/or
downstream consequences could result from misoperation, inability to operate, and/or
failure). It should be noted that the science of drainage and groundwater has progressed to
the point where drain designs can incorporate considerations/details that will result in a high
level of confidence that drainage effectiveness can be maintained over the service life of the
appurtenant structure. Other guidelines/criteria recommend that drainage provisions should
be considered for any appurtenant structure where the permanent water table is above the
foundation or the temporary water table, due to local ponding or seasonal variation, could
exceed the foundation level [3].
d. Cut Slopes.—The purpose of drains associated with rock or soil cut slopes is to
depressurize the slope. This reduces driving forces and uplift pressures on rock wedges or
soil masses formed along a circular failure surface and improves their stability.
4
e. Tunnels.—The purpose of drains in tunnels is to relieve groundwater pressures

surrounding the perimeter of a tunnel. This is important for concrete-lined tunnels that
might be associated with a spillway or outlet works. The presence of a reservoir upstream of
the tunnel can significantly increase groundwater levels and water pressures in the
abutments. A concrete lining seals off joints and fractures along the perimeter of the tunnel
and prevents drainage and relief of groundwater pressures, unless the lining is drained.
1-2. Types of Drains.—Various types of drains are used to control seepage and limit
uplift in concrete dams, embankment dams, dam foundations, and appurtenant structures
associated with either concrete or embankment dams as well as in natural slopes. Each drain
type is generally suited to a particular application such as within foundations, within massive
concrete structures, within embankment dams or their foundations, at interfaces between
concrete and rock, and at interfaces between existing concrete and new concrete placements.
Drain types include drilled drains, formed drains in concrete, underdrains, and prefabricated
drains. The various types of drains are described below:
a. Concrete Dams .—
1. Foundation Drains.—Foundation drains, typically drilled in a fixed pattern of

hole spacing and depth referred to as a drainage curtain, are used to collect seepage that
passes through rock foundations and abutments of concrete dams. Such drains are drilled
from galleries within the dam, from the downstream toe, or from adits excavated into the
abutment rock. As a rule, a foundation drainage curtain is located downstream of the grout
curtain and consists of one or more lines of holes parallel to the dam axis. Most
Reclamation drainage curtains consist of 3-inch diameter drain holes at a 10-foot spacing,
drilled to a depth of up to 40 percent of the dam height. Drain hole diameters may range
from 2 to 3 inches, spacings from 5 to 15 feet, and depths from 20 to 40 percent of the dam
height. Because drain efficiency can decrease significantly as the depth of hole is reduced,
depths of 40 percent of the dam height are recommended. The diameter, spacing, and depth
of drain holes may be adjusted based on a prior knowledge of foundation discontinuities and
expected seepage paths and quantities. A typical foundation drain layout, figure 6, shows
foundation drains drilled from the drainage gallery and from foundation adits.
It is common practice in arch dam design to provide drainage in the abutments by drilling
drains from foundation adits. Foundation adits extend from galleries in the dam into the
abutments where drains can be drilled into the abutment at any desired angle and depth.
Adits can also be excavated from the downstream face of the abutment and provide access
for drilling drains into the abutment. This is often the case in dam rehabilitations where the
only access is from the downstream face. Figure 7 is a layout drawing of an abutment adit
and drain system. Section views of the adit and drains are shown in figure 8.
5
2. Formed Drains.—Formed drains are placed within the mass of a concrete

structure to intercept seepage that may enter through joints, unbonded lifts, or cracks in the
dam. These drains, which are generally vertical in orientation and circular in cross section,
extend the height of the dam and are connected to galleries where seepage is collected for
transport to a downstream location. Typically, formed drains have a diameter of 5 inches
and are spaced at 10-foot centers. Holes may have diameters that range from 3 to 8 inches
and have spacings as close as 5 feet. Figure 9 shows a layout for formed drains. Figure 10
shows the layout of foundation drains (foundation drains shown in this figure extended to a
depth less than the recommended 40 percent of the dam height) and formed drains with
each of the drainage systems tied into the foundation gallery. Also shown in this figure are
adits from which foundation drains are drilled in the upper abutments.
3. Prefabricated Drains.—Prefabricated drains are generally used at structural

interfaces, such as between an existing structure and a concrete overlay, where seepage
control is needed to ensure stability and where formed drains are not feasible. Prefabricated
drains are manufactured in a variety of solid and flexible shapes for different applications.
Prefabricated drain applications have been used in dam modifications, as shown in figure 11,
with details shown in figure 12. In this application, 2-inch diameter perforated polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe was placed at the interface between the downstream slope of the
concrete arch dam and a roller-compacted concrete (RCC) overlay. Welded wire fabric and
burlap were used to attach the drains to the existing concrete surface and prevent infiltration
of the new concrete into the drains.
b. Embankment Dams.—
1. Blanket Drains.—A blanket drain is a horizontal or inclined layer of sand and

gravel material that carries the seepage water to a pipe or natural exit. These drains are also
known as filter/drain layers, chimney drains, inclined filters, and horizontal filters. Drainage
blankets are used beneath slope protection, beneath membrane liners, beneath
embankments, and on abutments, and can be used as a part of an internal drainage system in
embankment dams and dikes. Figure 13 shows the general location of blanket drains in an
embankment dam.
2. Toe Drains.—Toe drains are designed as a downstream extension of the

embankment internal drainage system to colllect seepage passing through the dam or
foundation and should also be designed with filter protection from seepage flow entering
from the foundation. Toe drains typically consist of perforated or slotted pipe sized to carry
this flow and all of the flow from any attached blanket drains. Pipe sizes generally range
from 8-to 24-inch diameter, depending on seepage values expected. Typically the pipe is
HDPE, although concrete and PVC pipe is also used. An outfall pipe is normally placed as
6
low in the system as the discharge point will allow, to provide maximum drainage. Manhole
access should be provided at intervals along the toe drain system for the purposes of
inspection, measurement, and maintenance. The toe drain is sometimes the only drainage
feature needed to mitigate or eliminate seepage exit gradients at the toe of the dam.
Figure 13 shows the general location of a toe drain in an embankment dam. Section 2-4
gives more details on toe drain design. Old toe drains were oftern constructed of clay tile
pipe with open joints. These drain types are prone to inflow of material and plugging.
Collapse of HDPE pipe has also recently been observed.
3. Downstream Drainage Trenches.—Downstream drainage trenches running parallel

to the toe of the dam can be used when downstream drainage of the foundation is needed
and a low enough discharge point is available. An open trench should be lined with graded
sand and gravel material for filter protection and riprap or other suitable material for erosion
protection. A closed trench (typically 2 to 3 feet wide) should be backfilled in the drainage
zone with pervious soil meeting filter criteria, have a properly sized collector pipe (typically
8-to 12-inch diameter HDPE pipe) and be provided with access manholes at intervals for
inspection, measurement, and maintenance. Figure 13 shows the general location of a
drainage trench in an embankment dam.
4. Relief Wells.—Relief wells are used to reduce artesian pressure in a confined

aquifer to a tolerable level with respect to factor of safety against uplift and/or exit gradients
through the confining layer downstream of the dam. Spacing of relief wells depends on a
number of factors, including the required reduction in pore pressure, the permeability of the
foundation materials, and the thickness of the confining layer. Drilled hole diameters are
typically 12 to 18 inches, which allows for installation of a filler pack and well casing.
Gravity flow relief wells can be installed at smaller diameters. Filter criteria should be used
in designing the “gravel pack” around the well screen. Figure 13 shows the general location
of a relief well at an embankment dam. Section 2-4 gives more details on the layout and
design of a pressure relief well system.
5. Drainage Tunnels.—Drainage tunnels from which a series of drain holes can be

drilled are sometimes necessary to relieve seepage pressure from rock abutments and remove
seepage flows from near the embankment/foundation contact. Considerations should
always be given to possible adverse effects of increasing the gradient through the
embankment core and the possible need for filtering when such drainage of the contact
occurs. Figure 14 shows the design of the right abutment drainage tunnel and drains for a
dam modification.
6. Semihorizontal Drain Borings.—Semihorizontal drain borings can be made into

the abutments of a dam to relieve excessive pore pressures or intercept seepage before it
reaches the dam or an erodible exit surface. The spacing and depth of the drain borings will
7
vary depending on the pressure that needs to be relieved, the location of the foundation
areas that need to be drained, and the permeability of the foundation materials. Drilled hole
diameters are typically 4 to 6 inches, with the drain pipe diameter used to case the hole
usually 2 to 4 inches. Proper drilling techniques, screening and filtering must be used when
installing this type of drain to prevent erosion of materials due to the increased gradient and
velocity created.
7. Surface Drains.—Surface drains in groins, along abutments, at the toe of a dam

and in other areas are used in conjunction with slope protection to protect the structure
from erosion by surface waters. An open trench should be lined with graded material for
filter protection, and riprap or other suitable material for erosion protection.
c. Spillways and Outlet Works.—A number of different types of drains are used with
spillway and outlet works structures. Drains used in Reclamation appurtenant structures
include:
• Structure underdrains.—Structure underdrains collect seepage at the interface between

foundation rock or soil and a concrete structure, typically a concrete slab where uplift is
a concern. Common applications of underdrains are in chutes, conduits, and stilling
basins for dam spillways and outlet works. Underdrains are typically laid out in an
interconnected grid pattern, so that seepage can be collected and carried to a point
downstream of the overlying structure. In some cases, seepage may be collected in an
access gallery located along the axis of the overlying structure. Drains consist of split tile
pipe drains, and perforated and slotted PVC drains with a sand/gravel envelope.
Geotextiles are not recommended as an envelope for underdrains, because they are
prone to plugging. This type is primarily used beneath slabs or adjacent to walls (see
fig. 15 for examples). Also, high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes have been used in
lieu of PVC drain pipes. Split tile underdrains were common in older installations.
• Weep holes.—Drilled and formed drains (sometimes referred to as “weep holes”) may be a
stand alone drainage provision or tied into collector drains (manifold) beneath and
adjacent to slabs or walls (see fig. 16 for examples).
• Prefabricated drains.—Prefabricated drains (such as “flat drains”) are self-contained

drainage features (generally, a geotextile exterior to filter seepage and an interior PVC
collector). This type has been effectively used between foundation and concrete and
between existing and new concrete (see fig. 17 for examples).
• Graded Drains.—Graded drain systems serve as a foundation drain and can envelop
features of an appurtenant structure, such as a conduit through an embankment dam.
These drain systems are used to control and filter seepage that flows through or beneath
8
an embankment or rockfill impoundment structure, such as dams, dikes, levees, or

similar structures (see figs. 18 and 19 for examples). These features are often placed
beneath embankment dam overtopping protection, channel protection/armorment, and
around conduits/pipes.
• Free draining backfill.—Free draining (pervious) backfill adjacent to walls is a common

drainage provision of many appurtenant structures. This is a “well graded” material
ranging in size from a maximum of 3 inches to less than 5 percent passing a No. 200
sieve.
As previously noted, Reclamation’s historical approach to drainage features for spillways and
outlet works has been to design for loss of effectiveness over time, due to the difficulty in
accessing, monitoring, and maintaining drains. However, there are now design and
operation and maintenance (O&M) tools that would result in a high level of confidence that
drainage effectiveness can be maintained over the service life of the appurtenant structure.
To date, not all of these tools have been fully implemented on Reclamation jobs, but the
effort continues. As an example, figures 20 and 21 provide a recent design example of
cleanouts being provided in a spillway chute for future access and maintenance. As another
example, Reclamation has implemented remote controlled video inspection (RCVI) for
accessing/inspecting drains as small as 3 inches in diameter. Although there are still access
difficulties (such as accessing drains at interconnects, where the turning radius is less than
8 inches), this tool had potential value in visually evaluating the present condition
(effectiveness) of existing drainage features, which were previously inaccessible. For
additional information about RCVI, refer to appendix C.
Although many drainage provisions for appurtenant structures are designed based on
historical practice, consideration should always be given to evaluating whether the drainage
requirements or expectations fall within the examples and assumptions being used as guides.
To evaluate the level of analysis/design required for the appurtenant structure drainage
system, geology/geohydrology information (such as extent, thickness, stratification, and
permeability of foundation), along with stream and groundwater fluctuations may be needed.
Additional information concerning the level and method of design for appurtenant structure
drainage systems can be found in Chapter 2, Drain Design and Analysis.
d. Slopes.—Water pressure can have two adverse effects on soil and rock slopes. It
can increase the driving force within the slope, and it can decrease the frictional resistance
along sliding surfaces. The presence of water within slopes is not critical by itself. The
water pressure within a slope is the important parameter.
9
In order to improve the stability of slopes, drainage can be provided. The drains will
depressurize the slopes and improve stability. There are several different ways of providing
drainage:
1. Horizontal or Angled Drains.—This is the most common method of

depressurizing slopes. This type of drainage system is quick to install, can be effective up to
300 feet into the slope, can penetrate steeply dipping features in a rock mass, and does not
require power to operate. Disadvantages of horizontal drains are that they must be installed
after excavation; they drain water on the face of the cut slope, which could lead to erosion
and aesthetic concerns; they are prone to freezing unless angled; and they may require
maintenance. Typically, drilled horizontal drain diameters would be 2 to 4 inches. In soil
slopes, the drains are lined with a perforated PVC pipe, and the annular space between the
PVC pipe and the outside of the drilled hole is plugged at the outlet end of the hole. In
some cases, the PVC pipe may be wrapped with geotextile. The spacing of horizontal drains
depends on the geometry of the slope and on the soil type and stratigraphy for soil cut
slopes, and on the location and orientation of discontinuities for rock cut slopes.
2. Dewatering Wells.—Wells can also be used to depressurize slopes, although

they are not as common as horizontal drains. Advantages of dewatering wells are that they
are effective over considerable distances, they can be located remotely from the active
excavation and provide benefits during the excavation of a slope, and they direct water away
from the excavated face and excavation in progress. Disadvantages of dewatering wells are
that they require power and high maintenance, they must be located remotely from the area
being excavated, where depressurization is most needed, and they are expensive.
Dewatering wells typically have the pump located at the bottom of the well for maximum
efficiency and a well screen over the full depth of the well. Wells are typically spaced on the
order of 50 to 200 feet.
3. Drainage Adits.—Drainage adits are typically constructed parallel to the face of

a rock cut slope. Drain holes are then drilled from the inside of the adit into the rock mass.
The drains discharge water into the adit, where it collects and is discharged via gravity or a
sump pump. The advantages of a drainage adit are that it is a highly effective method of
draining a slope, it can be installed at the optimum location for depressurization, it can be
installed in advance of the excavation or as a remediation effort after excavation, water is
collected in one location, and it is not subject to freezing. The disadvantages of a drainage
adit are the relatively high cost, and that it takes longer to construct that other
depressurization methods. The drains installed from within the drainage adit are typically
very similar to horizontal drains, consisting of drilled holes, occasionally lined with slotted
PVC pipe.
10
4. Surface Drains.—Surface drains typically consist of ditches or trenches at the

top of a cut slope or at a bench. They are designed to collect surface drainage before it can
infiltrate and saturate the slope.
Figure 22 provides a sketch showing each of the four drainage systems that can be provided
for rock and soil slopes.
e. Tunnels.—In some cases, drains are required to reduce foundation water pressures
on the tunnel lining and to prevent collapse of tunnel linings. Care should be used, as drains
can also pressurize the surrounding material when water flows through the tunnel. Typically,
drainage holes for tunnels consist of drilled drains that are 1½ to 3 inches in diameter.
Drains are typically located just below springline and are drilled slightly upslope to allow for
drainage into the tunnel. Drains are typically spaced at 20-foot centers and drilled 20 feet
deep, with two drains (one on each side of the tunnel) provided at each location. Figure 23
provides an example of drains that were provided for a downstream river outlet works
tunnel. Tunnel drains can also serve as an exit point for piped material from an
embankment dam or from the dam tunnel foundation. The seepage should be carefully
monitored for piped material.
11
Figure 1.—Forces used in stability analysis.
12
Figure 2.—The effect of internal drains on the zone of saturation in embankment dams.
13
Figure 3.—Piping through the embankment leads to the failure of a dam.
Figure 4.—Example blowout calculation.
14
a. Vallecito Dam spillway stilling basin, Colorado.—Failure of the left retaining wall was the result
of inadequate drainage provisions, which led to accumulation of water behind the wall, and
subsequent large lateral loads, due to ice formation.
b. Vallecito Dam spillway stilling basin, Colorado.—After backfill was excavated, only portions of
the counterforts remained.
Figure 5.—Appurtenant structures—Examples of damage/failure due to inadequate drainage

provisions.
15
c. Dickinson Dam spillway chute, North Dakota.—Due to improperly graded drain filter material,
foundation was piped out and floor slab was collapsed.
d. Grassy Lake Dam spillway, Wyoming.—Due to excessive frost heave, walls have failed.
Figure 5 (cont’d)
16
e. Unknown dam.—Sediment accumulation in an outlet pipe could be a warning sign that piping of
adjacent embankment material is occurring. This could be the result of inadequate drainage of the
embankment and/or the outlet pipe.
f. Unknown dam.—The worst-case scenario for piping of adjacent embankment material can lead to
failure of not only the outlet works, but also the embankment.
Figure 5 (cont’d)
17
Figure 6.—Typical foundation drain layout.
18
Figure 7.—Abutment drainage adit and foundation drains.
19
Figure 8.—Details of abutment drainage adit and foundation

drains.
20
Figure 9.—Formed drain layout.
21
22
Figure 10.—Formed and foundation drain layout.

23
Figure 11.—Formed and foundation drain layout for RCC buttress.
Figure 12.—Formed drain details for RCC buttress.
24
Figure 12 (cont’d)
25
26
Figure 13.—Embankment dam drains.
27
Figure 14.—Plan and profile of the drainage tunnels for the right abutment.
28
a. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary spillway,
Arizona.—Typical drainage feature
(longitudinal) which extends along the heel of
a retaining wall (limited filter and no
insulation requirements). Depending on fill
material adjacent to drain, consideration of
additional filtering (such as sand, or
geotextile) may be needed.
b. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary spillway,

Arizona.—Typical drainage feature (lateral and
longitudinal underdrains) for slabs on firm formation
(limited filter and no insulation requirements).
c. Costilla Dam spillway, New Mexico.—Typical

drainage feature (lateral and longitudinal
underdrain) for slabs on soil (filter and insulation
requirements).
d. Costilla Dam spillway, New Mexico.—Typical

drainage feature (longitudinal), which extends along the
heel of a retaining wall (filter and insulation
requirements).
e. Costilla Dam spillway, New Mexico.—

Typical drainage feature (lateral)
adjacent to cutoffs for slabs on soil
(filter and insulation requirements).
Figure 15.—Appurtenant structures—Perforated and slotted PVC drains with sand, gravel and/or
geotextile envelope.
a. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary spillway,
Arizona.—Drilled and formed “weep hole” (no filter
and insulation requirements) to address hydrostatic
pressure in rock adjacent to wall. Note slightly
inclined hole to facilitate drainage. Also,
orientation of drain holes should be based on
geologic features (type of rock, thickness of layers,
joint orientation, etc.). Finally, as a rule of thumb,
this type of drain should extend at least to the same
depth as anchor bars and/or rockbolts.
b. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary spillway, c. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary

Arizona.—Formed “weep holes” with gravel filter spillway, Arizona.—Formed “weep holes” with gravel
(limited filter and no insulation requirements) to filter (limited filter and insulation requirements) to
address hydrostatic pressure in backfill adjacent to address hydrostatic pressure in backfill adjacent to a
a cantilever wall. gravity wall.
d. Stewart Mountain
Dam Auxiliary
spillway, Arizona.—
Gravel detail used
with weep holes
shown in the
cantilever (b) and
gravity walls (c).
Figure 16.—Appurtenant structures—Drilled and formed drains (sometimes referred to as “weep holes”).
30
a. Ochoco Dam spillway stilling basin, Oregon.—RCC extension (drainage provisions employ flat drains),
which is founded on firm formation.
b. Typical layout of flat drains (longitudinal) adjacent c. Typical drainage feature (longitudinal) that
to the walls and beneath floor of the RCC extension. illustrates flat drain details adjacent to the walls
of the RCC extension (limited filter requirements;
insulation requirements met by RCC thickness).
d. Typical drainage feature (lateral and longitudinal)

that illustrates details of flat drains beneath the floor of
the RCC extension (limited filter requirements; insulation
requirements met by RCC thickness).
e. Typical drainage feature

(longitudinal) that illustrates exit
details of flat drains beneath the floor
of the RCC extension (limited filter
requirements; insulation requirements
met by RCC thickness).
Figure 17.—Appurtenant structures—Prefabricated drains (such as “flat drains”).

a. Outlet works.—Internal drainage for embankment dam ties into (provides foundation and wraps
around) canal outlet works, which is founded on soil.
b. Outlet works.—Typical drainage feature (longitudinal) that wraps embankment filter material
around/beneath outlet works conduit, which is founded on soil (filter requirements).
Figure 18.—Appurtenant structures—Graded filter drains—Drainage provisions for conduit/pipe that

passes through or beneath an embankment dam.
32
a. Vesuvius Dam overtopping protection, Ohio—Filter blanket beneath RCC provides drainage.
» b. Typical drainage feature beneath

the RCC on the downstream dam slope,
which ties filter blanket (longitudinal)
with perforated collector drains (filter
requirements, insulation requirements
met by RCC and topsoil thickness).
c. Typical drainage feature beneath and

at the downstream end of the RCC,
which ties filter blanket (longitudinal)
with perforated collector drain (filter
requirements, insulation requirements
met by RCC and topsoil thickness). º
Figure 19.—Appurtenant structures—Graded filter drains—Drainage provisions for embankment dam overtopping protection.
Figure 20.—Plan view and sections of a drain cleanout within a spillway chute.
Figure 21.—Plan view and section of a drain cleanout for spillway chute, outside drains.
34
Figure 22.—Drainage systems for rock and soil slopes (fig. 141 from Hoek and Bray [24]).
35
Figure 23.—Example of tunnel drains—river outlet works tunnel.
36
Chapter 2
DRAIN
DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
2-1. Design Philosophy.—The design philosophy of a drainage system may vary,

depending on the type of drainage system, the structure/foundation for which the drains are
provided, or the loading condition for which the structure/foundation is being analyzed/
designed. In some cases, the drainage system is a critical portion of the design, with
functioning drains being critical to the assurance of a stable structure. In other cases, the
drains are provided to achieve a desired factor of safety (the structure may be stable without
the drains but at a reduced factor of safety). And finally, a structure may be designed to
meet required factors of safety without drains, but the drains are provided as an additional
line of defense or an increased margin of safety against instability (particularly under unusual
loading conditions).
Procedures for designing the various types of drainage systems are provided in this chapter.
In some cases, the spacing and sizing of drains is based on “rules of thumb,” which provide
a starting point for designing a system based on what has worked effectively for similar
drainage systems. In other cases, a detailed seepage analysis may be warranted to design a
given drainage system. Analysis methods will also be presented in this chapter, and further
described in appendix A, for evaluating the stability of a structure/foundation with and
without a fully functioning drainage system. This type of analysis may demonstrate the need
for initiating a drain cleaning program.
2-2. Site-Specific Considerations.—Material types, cementation, grain size,

permeability, and fabric or structure (orientation and spacing of discontinuities) are major
lithological factors which influence drain effectiveness. In addition, groundwater pH and
mineral content can adversely affect slots or perforations in drain pipe; well screens and the
37
drain itself can become plugged by precipitation of minerals from solution in the
groundwater, or by bacterial/organic growth.
Most foundation drains for concrete dams are installed in rock. While some embankment
toe drains and horizontal drains are installed in rock, many are installed in weathered rock or
soil. Movement of groundwater within the rock is largely confined to discontinuities such as
joints, fractures, bedding planes, foliation planes, and fault planes. Exceptions are where the
fabric of the rock matrix is permeable (volcanic agglomerate, poorly cemented dune sand,
etc.). Movement of groundwater within soil is in the interconnected pore spaces between
individual soil particles. Drains must intersect discontinuities or permeable materials so that
influent seepage and groundwater can be removed. Most drains are normally wet or flowing
year-round (fluctuating with reservoir elevation); however some drains are often dry, yielding
large amounts of water only during times of high precipitation or high reservoir levels.
The most effective foundation drain installations are those which have been designed and
installed based on the geology of the site. The design of drains should incorporate the
location, orientation, and spacing of discontinuities and confining layers or aquatards.
Groundwater barriers such as clayey zones, or confining beds such as clay layers must first
be identified and then penetrated by drains to relieve the impounded water behind or below
them. Spacing of drains should ideally be based on the location of productive zones where
the water occurs rather than an even spacing over a large area. Spacing of rock joints may
vary widely over a short distance. This will affect the effectiveness of individual drains but
may be difficult to fully consider in the layout of a drainage system. It may be necessary to
monitor pressures and drain flows and install supplemental drainage after reservoir
impoundment.
Foundation drain layout often makes use of uniform lengths and spacings. Horizontal drain
length is governed by the water-bearing strata intercepted rather than a predetermined
length. In most cases, the initial drains are drilled longer than is considered adequate.
Volumes and points where the water is intercepted are recorded during drilling, and
subsequent drain lengths are determined from the drill data.
Slot or perforation size and well screen opening is particularly important to consider in the
design of some projects. For example, 2-inch diameter pipe with d-inch perforations used
in horizontal drain installations at one site may not work at another site. The drain hole
casings may fill with sand, causing the drains to lose their effectiveness almost immediately.
Generally, 0.020-inch slotted PVC pipe is used in the majority of current horizontal drain
installations. Slotted PVC pipe sections allow roots easy access near the ground surface, and
a protective sleeve of galvanized pipe should be installed over the 10 or 20 feet of drain near
the ground surface to discourage root penetration. When poorly cemented, granular
38
Chapter 2—Drain Design and Analysis
material is encountered, a soil gradation analysis is performed to determine the proper slot
size and backfill materials.
2-3. Concrete Dam Drains.—It is possible through rigorous analysis procedures to

develop a design layout for foundation and formed drains in a concrete dam based on
known or assumed seepage flow characteristics. Such a design would include hole diameter,
depth, spacing, and location. An approach to the design and analysis of foundation drains
has been presented in a paper by Casagrande [4], which expands upon the work of Brahtz
and Muskat [5, 6]. His analysis of foundation drain efficiency, which is purely theoretical,
indicates that spacings of between 5 and 10 feet for a hole diameter as small as 3 inches
would be expected to provide full reduction of uplift pressure (reducing the uplift pressure
downstream of the drains to the uplift created by the tailwater elevation) if the water surface
in the holes remains below the tailwater elevation. The analyses suggest that a typical
foundation drain layout used by Reclamation for concrete dams should be adequate to
reduce uplift to a level below that assumed in a stability analysis. While this procedure was
applied to drilled foundation drains, a similar approach would be valid for other drain types,
such as formed drains within structures and prefabricated drains.
The above approach assumes that the drainage curtain extends to a depth sufficient to
intercept the seepage that could affect the stability of the structure. Studies based on flow
patterns and empirical data from existing gravity dams suggest that drain depths of 40
percent of the dam height provide the necessary reduction in uplift pressure at the
dam/foundation contact.
A more common approach to drain design is to base the layout on the historical precedence
of similar dams and foundations for which actual empirical data are available. Readings
from uplift pressure gauges, as shown in figure 24 for a gravity dam, are an indication of the
effectiveness of a foundation drain layout. Uplift gauges represent discrete points at the base
of the dam only. Evaluating drain flows and possibly foundation pressures at deeper depths
in addition to uplift pressures at the base of the dam will provide a more comprehensive
picture of drain effectiveness. This approach is valid, because flow characteristics prior to
reservoir filling cannot always be determined, and design stability analyses are based on a
theoretical, rather than actual, uplift profile. Modifications can be made to the foundation
treatment after construction by performing additional foundation grouting or providing
additional drains.
An aspect of drain design, not always addressed in the initial layout, is the question of access
for the purpose of future maintenance of the drain system. The two areas of concern are
access to the drain outlet (often through galleries) and access to the full length of the drain
hole (both formed and drilled). Galleries should be sized and orientated so that equipment
and personnel can reach drain outlets with special attention to possible obstructions such as
39
Figure 24.—Comparison of assumed and measured uplift for Shasta Dam.
stairwells. Drain holes should be made accessible at their outlet by eliminating or bypassing
any bends that may be present in formed sections or in pipe attached at the drain outlet.
In considering the layout of foundation drains for concrete dams, it is important to

remember that the goal is to ensure that uplift pressures do not exceed those assumed in the
design and analysis of the concrete dam or foundation feature. Uplift loading is a significant
factor in the foundation stability analysis of both gravity and arch dams. Within each
structure, however, uplift loading and its reduction by formed drains are more critical factors
in the stability of a gravity dam structure than an arch dam structure, due to the thinner arch
section and the ability to transfer loads to the abutments through arch action. However,
drainage may be critical to the stability of arch dam abutments, and foundation drainage
should be maintained for either type of dam. The extent to which uplift loading is a
significant part of the stability analysis depends upon factors such as the weight of the dam,
the thickness and associated shear strength of the dam, the shear and tensile strength at the
40
concrete lifts, the degree of load redistribution in arch dams due to arch action, and the
presence of potential failure planes or wedges in the foundation. An example of a stability
analysis of a gravity dam showing the effects of uplift loading with variations in cohesion
and friction angle is provided in appendix A (example A7).
An understanding of effect of uplift on structures has evolved over time as a greater base of
observed performance has been obtained and more research has been conducted to confirm
the effectiveness of drains. Nonetheless, uplift loading assumptions used in the design and
analysis of dams may differ among groups devoted to dam engineering. Reclamation
guidelines generally assume full uplift at the heel of the dam, tailwater or zero uplift at the
toe, and one-third of the difference of these two values at the drain line. When cracking
occurs, previous Recalmation criteria assumed that full uplift extended the full length of the
crack with no reduction at the drains. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria differ from
Reclamation criteria when cracking occurs. While full uplift is assumed over the length of
the crack upstream of the drains, the drains continue to reduce uplift, although at a lower
efficiency, until the crack passes the drain, at which point the drains become ineffective.
Research conducted at the University of Colorado [7] indicated that drains continue to
operate at full efficiency after cracking is initiated, and drain efficiency is reduced only after
the crack extends beyond the drain. Reclamation currently uses this criterion. Graphical
representations of the uplift criteria are shown in figure 25.
The design and analysis of foundation drains for concrete dams to a large extent are based
on two factors—historical precedence and an understanding of the foundation rock
conditions. Typically, dams have been designed with a single curtain of foundation drains
using 3-inch diameter holes spaced at 10 feet. The depths of holes generally vary from
abutment to abutment, so as to maintain a depth of about 40 percent of the hydraulic height
(the height from the original streambed elevation at the dam axis to the normal water
surface). Where excessive seepage flows are expected based on geologic conditions,
additional drainage features should be considered. These features may include additional
drains to reduce the drain hole spacing or a second drainage curtain.
In the case of existing structures where stability concerns are present which pose an
unacceptable failure risk, measures to reduce uplift, especially in the abutments, may be
considered. A reduction in uplift can be accomplished through the installation of a new or
supplemental drainage system or the rehabilitation of an existing drainage system. In the
case of a new or supplemental drainage system, the drains can be designed to optimize the
potential for intercepting seepage based on an understanding of the geology, and
measurements of uplift pressures can be taken before and after installation to determine the
effectiveness of the system. An example of a rehabilitation project is Horse Mesa Dam [8],
where a drainage adit and deep drains were installed to reduce uplift in the right abutment.
41
Figure 25.—Graphical representations of uplift criteria used for stability analysis.
42
The design, which was based on geologic conditions of the abutment and visual observation
of seepage on the abutment face, is summarized in appendix A (example A8). Similarly,
formed drains within a concrete structure are generally orientated vertically, spaced at 10-
foot intervals, and connected to galleries within the dam. A typical diameter of 5 inches is
used, and holes may be lined with pervious or slotted pipe, or unlined.
2-4. Embankment Dam Drains.—A number of different drain systems may be

involved with embankment dams. The two main types of drains using pipes are toe drains
and relief wells.
a. Toe Drain Design.—
1. Type of Pipe.—Toe drain pipes may be made of any material that has adequate
durability and strength. The current preferred type of pipe is high-density polyethylene pipe
with slots or perforations. Wood stave, vitrified clay, concrete, or asbestos-bonded
corrugated metal pipes laid with open joints or perforated (laid with closed joints) have been
used in the past. Open-jointed pipe laying is no longer recommended due to the potential
for plugging from material flowing into the open joints and the possibility of the joints
pulling apart. The outfall pipe, which carries the water collected in the perforated pipe to an
appropriate discharge location, is generally the same type as the collection pipe but without
perforations.
2. Capacity.—The capacity of the toe drain should be sufficient to handle the

maximum amount of seepage expected through the embankment and the foundation
(usually based on a seepage analysis), as well as precipitation drainage that might occur
through the overlying materials. In order to provide a margin of safety for the drain
capacity, pipes should be sized so that the depth of water in the drain pipe is less than
75 percent of the inside diameter of the drain pipe at the time of maximum expected flow.
The pipe diameter can vary from smaller diameter pipes laid along the abutment sections to
increasing larger pipes, with the largest pipes placed along the valley floor. The largest pipe
may be used throughout the entire length for ease of construction. The minimum pipe
diameter recommended for small dams is 6 inches; however, diameters up to 24 inches may
be required for long reaches at flat gradients.
3. Alignment.—Toe drains are generally located at the downstream toe of the

dam, where they can be accessed for repairs. Occasionally, they are located farther upstream
to drain cutoff trenches or when intercepting springs and known seepage locations beneath
the dam. The alignment should be set so that the minimum gradient of the pipe is greater
than 0.01. A maximum gradient of about 0.09 (5 degrees) is recommended based on
limitations of video camera and cleaning equipment (unless uphill access is provided). Pipe
bends greater than 22.5° should be avoided to facilitate inspection with a remote camera and
43
Figure 26.—Typical toe drain configuration.
cleaning. For additional recommendations on the alignment and layout of toe drains, see
section C-2 in appendix C.
4. Installation.—The drain pipes are generally placed in trenches at a sufficient

depth to ensure effective interception of the seepage flow. The minimum depth of the
trench is normally 4 feet. The maximum depth is that required to maintain a reasonably
uniform gradient, even if the ground surface is uneven. A gravel envelope or filter layer
meeting the requirement that D85 size of the filter be equal to or greater than twice the size
of the maximum opening in the pipe is constructed around the pipe. It is recommended,
whenever practical, that the envelope consist entirely of gravels. Figure 26 shows a typical
toe drain installation.
5. Outfall.—An outfall pipe is used to convey the water collected in the toe drain
to an appropriate discharge point. The flow is usually discharged into the spillway or outlet
works stilling basin, into the stream channel downstream of the dam, or into some other
44
drainage channel. Multiple outfalls may be required depending upon the natural ground
topography. The outfall pipe is usually the same material as the toe drain but without
perforations. Occasionally a corrugated metal pipe (CMP) is placed over the outlet end to
prevent deteriorations of the pipe due to sunlight and weather. A screen of some type, or
rodent guards, should be placed over the exit to prevent animals from entering the pipe and
plugging it. The outfall pipe should daylight above flowing water to allow monitoring of
flow. A sediment box, weir and/or flumes should be placed at the outfall to monitor
quantity of flow and trap and monitor sediment that may be carried with the flow.
b. Relief Well Design.—Pressure relief wells are used to reduce and control excessive
artesian pressures, thereby reducing the potential for a blowout failure or reducing uplift
pressures on structures. The design and installation of a relief well system should be done by
specialized staff with the appropriate knowledge and skills. This type of system requires
considerable post-construction supervision, long term operation costs, and maintenance. A
relief well system is generally not used if a simpler, lower maintenance system like an
upstream blanket will satisfy the design requirement. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
done extensive research on design and installation of relief wells, and there are a number of
excellent papers [9, 10] that should be referenced for additional information.
The following is a brief summary of a relief well system.
The primary components of a pressure relief well system consist of:
• Wells.—The wells differ little from conventional water supply wells except that the main
purpose is for lowering the water table, instead of supplying water. Figure 27 shows a
typical pressure relief well.
• Collector Pipe.—A collector pipe is connected to the wells and sometimes placed between
wells to collect the flow from the wells and transport the flow to the outfall pipe.
• Outfall Pipe.—An outfall pipe is used to convey the water from the collector pipes to an
appropriate discharge point. The flow is usually discharged into the spillway or outlet
works stilling basin, into the stream channel downstream of the dam, or into some other
drainage channel. Multiple outfalls may be required, depending upon the natural ground
topography. A screen of some type should be placed over the exit to prevent animals
from entering the pipe and plugging it. The outfall pipe should daylight above flowing
water to allow monitoring of flow.
• Measurement Devices.—Piezometers are normally installed between the wells to monitor

the drawdown of the water table. Rising piezometric levels are an indication that the
well system may not be functioning properly. A sediment box, weir, and/or flumes are
45
Figure 27.—Typical relief well.
46
placed at the outfall to monitor quantity of flow and trap and monitor sediment that
may be carried with the flow. Weirs or flumes are sometimes placed at the wells or
along the collector pipe to monitor flows from specific wells.
The primary requirements for a relief well system are:
• The wells should extend deeply enough into the pervious foundation underlying the
confining layer to provide stability against underlying unrelieved pressures. Depths of
wells up to the height of the dam are usually satisfactory.
• The wells should be spaced to intercept the seepage and reduce the uplift pressure
between wells. Wells spacings of 25 to 100 feet are generally used.
• The wells should be designed to offer little resistance to the infiltration and discharge of
seepage. In general, the well diameter should not be less than 6 inches with a minimum
6-inch thick filter between the well screen and the foundation. In the past, the filter
thickness used for some relief wells has been less than 6 inches, but the 6-inch minimum
is now strongly recommended.
• The wells should be designed so that they will not become ineffective as a result of
clogging or corrosion. This is controlled by the type of well screen used and the gravel
pack surrounding the well screen. Some maintenance of the wells may be unavoidable,
however, due to the presence of iron bacteria or other plugging mechanism.
• The capacity of the collector and outfall pipes should be sufficient to handle the
maximum expected flow from the wells (normally based on a seepage analysis). In order
to provide a margin of safety for the system capacity, pipes should be sized so that the
depth of water in the pipes is less than 75 percent of the inside diameter of the pipe at
the time of maximum expected flow.
c. Analysis Techniques.—Various methods of analysis of the effect of seepage on

embankments are available. The methods used depend upon available information and the
particular situation that is of concern. The following types of methods, in increasing
complexity, are generally used:
1. Equations, Figures, and Charts.—Darcy’s law is the basic premise, upon which
almost all seepage and water flow analyses are based: q = k i A, where q is flow rate, k is the
hydraulic conductivity, i is the hydraulic gradient, and A is the cross-sectional area.
Numerous other equations, and simplifying charts and figures can also be used. These types
of analysis are generally used for preliminary studies and layouts.
47
2. Graphical Methods, and Flow Nets.—Semigraphical and graphical methods such

as flow nets (fig. 28) are used to predict the location of the steady-state phreatic surface for
use in stability analysis. The flow net also provides information on hydraulic potentials, flow
direction, pore pressure, and quantity. These analysis types are two dimensional and limited
to the more homogenous and simple conditions. A good source of additional information
on flow nets is Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets, by H.R. Cedegren [11].
3. Numerical Methods.—Numerical methods using finite elements and boundary

element techniques are used to evaluate more complex problems. The analysis can be
performed based on two or three dimensions. Numerous computer programs (SEEP2D,
SEEP3D, UNSAT, BIE2DCP, SEEPW) are available to perform these analyses. These
types of analyses are best left to be performed by people with the appropriate technical
knowledge.
4. Other Methods.—Numerous other methods have been used, such as the

method of fragments and electrical analogy methods. Most of these methods are no longer
used due to the introduction of high speed computers and the ease of running numerical
methods.
2-5. Appurtenant Structures.—This section will focus on design considerations and

methodology for drainage provisions associated with appurtenant structures, which include
spillways, embankment dam overtopping protection, outlet works, channel protection,
retaining walls, drainage adits and access adits. Design considerations and methodology will
be presented in two sections: (1) general design considerations that apply to drainage
provisions for most appurtenant structures, and (2) specific design considerations and
methodology for specific appurtenant structures.
a. General Design Considerations and Methodology.—A number of “tried and true”

guidelines apply to most appurtenant structures, whether they are founded on firm
formation (rock) or soil. These include:
1. Structural Foundation.—Minimize disturbance of the structural foundation by

employing drainage provisions that would limit the amount of excavation needed to install
those drainage provisions. This is particularly true for structures founded on firm
formations (i.e., rock). As an example, drainage provisions for the Stewart Mountain
Auxiliary Spillway and Spring Creek Debris Dam Spillway chute floors (see fig. 31)
incorporated an underdrain grid system of near vertical formed/drilled weep holes
connected to PVC pipes in lieu of a more traditional underdrain grid system, using lateral
and longitudinal perforated PVC pipe placed in excavated trenches (which, if used, would
have resulted in the removal of about 50 percent of the structural foundation).
48
Figure 28.—Example flow nets for high level steady state and for rapid drawdown.
49
2. Configuration and Size.—As a general rule, most appurtenant structure drainage

provisions are laid out in a grid pattern, whether dealing with walls, conduits, tunnels, or
slabs. Spacing of the grid in both the longitudinal (along the structure) and lateral (across the
structure) directions are influenced by the amount of flow expected, anticipated efficiency
over the (economic) life of the structure, etc. In some cases, design by precedent (and rules-
of-thumb) may be employed.
As another reminder, Reclamation’s historical approach to drainage features for spillways

and outlet works has been to design for loss of effectiveness over time, due to the difficulty
in accessing, monitoring, and maintaining drains. However, there are now design and O&M
tools that would result in a high level of confidence that drainage effectiveness can be
maintained over the service life of the appurtenant structure.
The number and size of collector drain pipes (generally longitudinal) are based on the
guideline that open channel flow will be maintained. To achieve this guideline, the pipes
should be sized so that the maximum depth of flow does not exceed 75 percent of the pipe
diameter (or if using collector drains with noncircular cross sections, such as rectangular,
wetted area should be 80 percent or less of the total cross sectional area). Unstable flow
conditions, such as “slug flow” can result with flow depths greater than this and lead to
damage and/or failure of the drain pipe. To estimate the number and diameter (or area) of
the collector drain pipes, the maximum seepage must be estimated. Design examples of
estimating seepage for lined channel drainage systems can be found in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers publication, EM 1110-2-2007, “Structural Design of Concrete Lined Flood
Control Channels” [3]. A flow net analysis, assuming the collector drain pipes have an
infinite permeability, can be used to estimate total seepage per foot of drain adjacent to and
beneath the appurtenant structure. It should be noted that since gradients may become very
steep adjacent to drains, often greater refinement is needed in this area. For more details on
developing a flow net analysis, refer to section 2-4 in this chapter on drainage provision
designs for embankment and rockfill dams. Once the total seepage is estimated, the number
and size of drain pipes can be made by assuming normal (uniform) flow conditions and
employing Manning’s equation:
1.49 2 3 1 2 a ∆
v= r s , where r = , and s = elev
n p length
v: Average velocity in collector pipe, ft/s
n: Manning’s roughness factor (smooth-walled pipe, such as PVC, n = 0.009; ribbed

walled pipe, such as CMP, n = 0.0225; concrete/mortar pipes, n = 0.013)
50
r: Hydraulic radius, ft, which is defined as the wetted area, a, divided by the wetted
perimeter, p [Note: d (depth of flow) #0.75 diameter of pipe, if circular, or a #0.80 area
of pipe, for any cross-sectional shape]
s: Slope of energy grade line, which can be approximated by the difference in elevation,
)elev, divided by length (the length of the longitudinal drain pipe along the appurtenant
structure).
To determine the capacity, q, of the collector pipes, the average velocity, v (determined from
Manning’s equation above), and the wetted area, a, use the continuity equation:
q = va
Also, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has developed a nomograph for estimating the size
of circular drains, flowing full (refer to sec. A-6 in app. A). This could be used for an initial
pipe size, then applying the 75 percent of the pipe diameter (flowing full) guideline, a final
pipe diameter can be estimated for the longitudinal collector drain pipes. Additionally, it is
very likely that the drainage system may lose efficiency over time. This is particularly true
for drainage systems associated with appurtenant structures, where inspection and cleaning
may not be possible. Therefore, it is prudent to design the drainage systems for a reduced
level of efficiency. The drain pipe should be designed for a reduced area (due to material
deposition or calcium carbonate deposits) in the range of 75 percet of the original pipe
diameter, while still allowing for free flow conditions within the pipe [3].
For design by precedent (applicable for preliminary or lower-level designs), refer to

section A-1 in appendix A for guidelines (rules of thumb). In other cases, configuration and
size requirements must be determined from design data and subsequent analysis. As a
general guideline, drainage systems should be defined by analysis rather than by precedent
whenever there is no precedent for the drainage feature being considered and/or the
consequences of failure of the drainage system could lead to failure of the appurtenant
structure and/or impoundment structure, resulting in uncontrolled release of part or all of
the reservoir.
3. Filter Requirements.—Determination of filter requirements can have a

significant bearing on the type, size, and location of drainage provisions, along with the
stability of the appurtenant structure. In some cases, design by precedent will suffice (i.e.,
using drainage provisions from similar previously constructed appurtenant structures and/or
rules-of-thumb). In other cases, filter requirements must be determined from design data
and subsequent analysis. Refer to section A-6 in appendix A for typical design data needed
and analysis to determine filter requirements.
51
Figure 29.—Grassy Lake Dam Spillway, Wyoming—Chute floor has succumbed to

inadequate drainage provisions and frost heave.
4. Pervious Backfill.— As a general guideline, consideration should be given to

using pervious backfill or other freely draining material adjacent to retaining walls and
conduits that are not part of a water impoundment structure (i.e., dam or dike), where
economically feasible. Of particular importance is providing sufficient freely draining
material (such a pervious backfill) adjacent to walls and conduits in cold weather climates
(i.e., in locations were freezing ground can occur). Unheated appurtenant structures surfaces
in contact with frost-susceptible backfill and with access to water are subject to frost
penetration, ice lensing, and subsequent frost heave that can be significant. Placement of a
freely draining granular material adjacent to the appurtenant structure will limit, if not
prevent “frost heave.” The required thickness of non-frost-susceptible backfill material may
be determined from the surface-freezing index (cumulative degree-days below freezing,
based on average daily temperatures), using design curves presented in Reclamation’s Frost
Action Team Report [12, 13] and in section A-2 in appendix A.
5. Insulation Requirements.—Considerable damage and even failure can result from

freezing foundations and adjacent materials, particularly if the materials are soil (refer to
figure 29 for example of frost-heave damage to an appurtenant structure). As described in
Pervious Backfill above, unheated appurtenant structures’ surfaces in contact with frost-
susceptible backfill or foundation and with access to water are subject to frost penetration,
ice lensing, and subsequent loading that can be significant. To address this concern for
52
foundations and backfill, insulation requirements are employed to protect drainage

provisions from freezing during cold weather. Historically, typical insulation materials for
appurtenant structures’ drainage provisions are rigid polystyrene insulating materials, such as
Styrofoam HI brand plastic foam, available in standard thicknesses of ¾, 1, 1½, 2, and
3 inches; widths of 24 inches; and lengths of 4 and 8 feet. Also, to improve performance,
and if needed, insulation should be placed in at least two overlapping layers [14]. Methods
that have been used to estimate insulation requirements include:
• Modified Berggren Equation for Multilayer Systems.—This is a widely used method for
estimating seasonal frost depths in soils. It is assumed that each layer of material is
homogeneous and isotropic, and the average thermal properties of the materials (frozen
and unfrozen) are applicable. The entire mass is assumed to be at the mean annual
temperature for the site prior to the start of the freezing season. When the freezing
season starts, the surface temperature is assumed to drop to a temperature below
freezing, determined by the length of the freezing season and by the surface-freezing
index. The effect of latent heat of fusion is considered as a heat sink at the moving frost
line, with complete freezing assumed to occur at 32.0 °F [15, 16]. The degree-days
required to penetrate each layer are accumulated until the summation equals the surface-
freezing index. The sum of the thicknesses of all the frozen layers is the frost depth of
the system [17]. This method cannot be used for the design of insulating materials alone,
since these materials have negligible moisture contents and therefore no latent heat.
However, the modified Berggren equation does give reliable results for frost depths
greater than 8 to 12 inches beneath the insulating layer. More details and an example
problem can be found in section A-3 in appendix A.
• Lachenbruch 3-Layer Method.—This method does not consider the effects of latent heat,
and can therefore be used to design a system allowing no frost penetration beneath the
insulating layer. A 3-layer system of a gravel base, an insulating layer, and gravel subbase
is assumed. A sinusoidal temperature variation of amplitude A (based on the mean
annual temperature and the surface-freezing index) is applied at the surface. The
amplitude F at the interface of the insulating and subbase layers is determined, from
which the ratio F/A is calculated. This ratio is then used to determine the required
thicknesses of the gravel base and insulating layers [15, 16]. Assuming that no frost
penetration beneath the insulation is permitted, the magnitude of F is the difference
between the mean annual temperature and the freezing point of the soil moisture, or
32.0 °F. For colder climates, the effects of the gravel base over the insulating material
may be neglected. A review of Lachenbruch’s data indicates that increased thicknesses
of insulation required to eliminate frost penetration beneath the insulating layer have a
diminishing effect in colder climates (where the F/A ratio is small). In unheated
structures, the insulation required is significantly reduced if clean, non-frost-susceptible
fill material can be provided beneath the floor slab.
53
• Finite Element Method (FEM).—This method was developed by C. T. Hwang and applied
to the design of insulated foundations by Eli Robinsky and Keith Bespflug. The method
may be used to analyze two-dimensional heat flow in multilayer systems, and includes
the effects of latent heat. Thermal properties of the various materials for both the
frozen and unfrozen states may be used. For open spaces and unheated structures, a
sinusoidal temperature variation during the freezing season may be assumed to closely
approximate actual winter conditions. The temperature at depths of 16 to 20 feet is
assumed to remain constant at the mean annual temperature throughout the year.
Robinsky and Bespflug developed design curves for determining insulation and granular
fill thicknesses beneath unheated structures, based on the surface freezing index and this
FEM . These curves were included in Reclamation’s Frost Action Team Report [13].
6. Contamination.—Primarily concerned with contamination of drainage

provisions during construction, considerations should be given to providing design features
that will isolate the drainage provisions from adjacent concrete placements. Typically, this
has been accomplished by using insulation material, burlap, geotextiles, geomembranes,
and/or steel wool (weep holes) as a barrier between drains and fresh concrete. Some
considerations related to selecting barrier materials include:
• Prior to the advent of geotextiles and geomembranes, burlap was typically used as a
barrier material. However, burlap may not be readily available today, so geotextiles
and/or geomembranes are another option.
• Insulation (if needed) may suffice as a barrier material, but may not satisfy filter
requirements.
• Geotextiles could serve the dual purpose of a barrier material and provide filter
requirements (if needed).
• Geomembranes would provide an impermeable barrier material.
• Consideration should be given to the slope of the foundation when selecting a barrier
material. As a general rule, geotextiles and geomembranes should not be used on slopes
greater than 3:1, unless they are anchored, and the overlying material can be shown to be
stable against sliding.
7. Hydraulic Considerations.—
(a) Back Pressure.—Particularly for hydraulic appurtenant structures (such as

spillways and outlet works) associated with high velocity, high volume releases, care must be
54
taken to ensure that drainage provisions do not create adverse conditions that could lead to
damage or failure of the appurtenant structure. Such situations have and can occur in chutes
and hydraulic jump stilling basins (i.e., terminal structures) where tailwater is above the floor
of the stilling basin and portions of the chute. During operation, particularly at releases
considerably less than the maximum designed release (when a hydraulic jump might begin in
the chute rather than the stilling basin), the depth of the jet just upstream of the hydraulic
jump (i.e., d1) will be considerably less than the tailwater depth (i.e, $ d2). The weight of the
floor slab and water in the jet may be less than the hydrostatic pressure under the slab
(corresponding to full tailwater head), which can be introduced through the drainage
provisions beneath and adjacent to the stilling basin.
It was common on many Reclamation chute and stilling basin structures to terminate the
drainage provisions at the downstream face of the chute blocks (usually at the interface
between the chute and stilling basin floor). For maximum design releases, subatmospheric
pressures generally resulted at this location (i.e., the beginning of the hydraulic jump) which
lowered hydrostatic pressures beneath the chute slabs. However, for smaller releases, the
tailwater could exceed the conjugate depth needed for the jump, which causes the beginning
of the hydraulic jump to move upstream of the termination point for the drainage
provisions. This could lead to the introduction of increased hydrostatic (uplift) pressure
beneath the chute floor, which in turn could result in damage or failure of the chute floor.
Although Reclamation has not experienced this type of failure, such a failure occurred at
Karnafuli Spillway in Bangladesh. Perhaps one factor that has helped Reclamation avoid this
type of failure is that the majority of Reclamation hydraulic structures, particularly spillways
and outlet works, have been constructed on firm formation, with anchorage (i.e., rockbolts,
or anchor bars). The bond strengths between the concrete and foundation and anchorage
are not usually considered as stabilizing features, but as redundancies that are considered
prudent, given the potential consequences resulting from damage or failure of an
appurtenant structure.
To address this situation, “eductors” (i.e., aspirators) are incorporated into the drainage
provisions (refer to fig. 30 for graphical representation of eductors). These are drains which
exit through the chute slab into high velocity flow. During operation, a negative pressure
occurs at the exit of the eductors, which lowers the hydrostatic pressure beneath the chute
and/or stilling basin slab (even when the eductors are located below tailwater). When the
appurtenant structure is not operating, the eductors below the tailwater will admit water into
the drainage provisions. However, since this is a balanced pressure condition, there is no
concern. For more details of this concept, refer to the Spring Creek Debris Dam
enlargement study [19], figure 31, and the design procedure found in appendix A4.
(b) Stagnation Pressure.—High velocity flow within an open channel on steep

slopes is a significant source of energy, which can generate damaging uplift pressures.
55
Figure 30.—Illustration of chute and hydraulic jump stilling basin

with “eductors” connected to chute drainage provisions (from Smith
and Gui [18])
Offsets may develop within the concrete lining at joints or cracks as a result of shrinkage,
differential settlement/heaving, ice pressures, etc. In some cases, these offsets serve to
direct a portion of the flow downward into openings (such as contraction and control joints)
and beneath the concrete slab. The result may be stagnation pressures (refer to fig. 32 for a
graphical representation of stagnation pressure conditions). If these pressures are large
enough to overcome the weight of the concrete lining (slab), the weight of the water on the
slab, and any mechanical or chemical bonds (anchor bars, interface bonding of concrete and
foundation, etc.), the slab will be displaced, and structural failure may result [20].
Reclamation has experienced several stagnation-pressure-induced incidents. These failures
are associated with older structures (built prior to 1965) that did not employ present-day
design and construction considerations such as pressure grouting (where applicable);
embedded waterstops in floor joints; longitudinal reinforcement and transverse cutoffs;
foundation anchors; and as this discussion emphasizes, an adequately sized, filtered, and
insulated underdrain system. An adequately sized, filtered, and insulated underdrain system
is a key element in reducing the potential for offsets and/or cracks in the overlaying concrete
slab by effectively removing seepage and mitigating potential frost heave. For related details
on size, filter and insulation requirements, refer to section 2-5.a., General Design Considerations
and Methodology, under Configuration and Size, Filter Requirements, Pervious Backfill, and Insulation
Requirements.
8. Air Demand.—For many underdrain systems, air demand must be accounted

for in the design. This demand could range from just requiring a “vacuum break” to
providing sufficient air to offset lowered pressures induced by high velocity flow across
drain outlets (such as “eductors” or aspirators). The vacuum break air demand concept is
analogous to needing two openings in a can of fluid. Without the second opening, pressure
can drop below atmospheric pressure, causing reduced flow rates under unstable conditions,
such as slug flow (refer to figs. 33 and 34 for vacuum break vent). For further discussion on
56
a. Layout of spillway drainage provisions, including lateral and longitudinal collector drains, near vertical drilled and formed weephole drains,
eductors (i.e., aspirators), and standpipes.
» b. Layout of lateral
collector drain and
drilled/formed weephole
drains. Note that lateral
collector drain is
embedded in structural
concrete to minimize
disturbance to
foundation.
c. Typical detail of
drilled/formed weephole
drain. º
Figure 31.—Spring Creek Debris Dam, California—Using drilled/formed drains (weepholes) and “eductors” (i.e., aspirators) to mitigate excessive
hydrostatic (uplift) pressure beneath chute and stilling basin floors.
d. Section through chute illustrating lateral collector pipe tie-in with drilled/ e. and f. Details of eductor in chute.
formed weephole drains and standpipe, used to provide air to eductors.
g. Section through chute-stilling basin interface illustrating lateral collector drain pipe tie-in with h. Details of eductor in chute-stilling basin
drilled/formed weephole drains and standpipe, used to provide air to eductors. interface.
Figure 32.—Illustration of conditions that could result in a

stagnation pressure failure. Laboratory modeling has indicated
that uplift pressures could be as high a 0.9 velocity head.
air demand to mitigate lowered pressures induced by high velocity flow across a drain outlet,
refer to section 2-5.a., General Design Considerations and Methodology under Back Pressure, section
A-4 in appendix A, and Reclamation’s Engineering Monograph No. 41, Air-Water Flow in
Hydraulic Structures [21].
b. Specific Design Considerations and Methodology.—In addition to the general design

considerations and methodology, specific or unique consideration should be given to certain
types of appurtenant structures. Considerations for two high velocity, high volume, high
pressure hydraulic structures follow.
1. Spillways.—Reclamation’s definition of a spillway is a structure that passes

normal and/or flood flows for the purpose of protecting the structural integrity of the
dam(s) and/or dike(s). Other definitions include: an overflow channel of a dam or
impoundment structure; a structure over or through which flow is discharged from a
reservoir; and/or any passageway, channel, or structure designed to discharge surplus water
from a reservoir. If the rate of flow is controlled by mechanical means such as gates, it is
considered a controlled spillway. If the geometry of the spillway is the only control, it is
considered an uncontrolled spillway.
59
Figure 33.—Keechelus Dam Outlet Works, Washington—Section

along stilling basin showing steel vent pipe (vacuum break).
Figure 34.—Keechelus Dam Outlet Works, Washington—Section

through stilling basin showing steel vent pipe (vacuum break).
60
2. Outlet Works.—Reclamation’s definition of an outlet works is a combination

of structures and equipment required for the safe operation and control of water released
from a reservoir to serve various purposes—regulating downstream flow and quality;
releasing floodwater; and providing, municipal, and/or industrial water. Other definitions
include: a series of components located in a dam through which normal releases from the
reservoir are made; a device to provide controlled releases from a reservoir; and/or a pipe
that lets water out of a reservoir, mainly to supply downstream demands [22].
Drainage provisions are a key component of most spillways and outlet works designs.
Drainage provisions should be considered for the following features of most spillways and
outlet works:
1. Inlet (or Approach) Channel or Structure.—This feature is located upstream of the

spillway crest structure or the outlet works inlet structure and generally in the reservoir. It
conveys water from the reservoir to the crest or inlet structure. Drainage provisions are
usually only considered for this feature if it is lined (with materials such as reinforced
concrete, roller-compacted concrete, riprap, or grouted riprap). Needs for drainage
provisions are based on historical or planned operation of the reservoir (e.g., the
submergence of the channel, or a potential for rapid reservoir fluctuations). Generally,
drainage provisions are limited to relieving hydrostatic pressure in the excavated channel
subject to potential rapid fluctuations in the reservoir.
2. Spillway Crest Structure.—This feature is generally located upstream of the

conveyance structure, in the reservoir and/or upstream of the dam/dike axis (or centerline).
Its intended purpose is to serve as a control point for reservoir releases, whether it is free
flow or gated flow. For crest structures located adjacent to or through dams/dikes, drainage
provisions will be similar to the dam’s/dike’s drainage provisions, including grout curtains
located at or upstream of the spillway crest, and drain holes, and/or graded filter material
located downstream of the grout curtains. Drainage provisions may be needed to relieve
hydrostatic pressure in the excavation adjacent to the spillway crest structure subject to
potential rapid fluctuations in the reservoir (in areas at or upstream of the dam/dike axis).
Also, drainage provisions may begin within the spillway crest structure (in areas downstream
of the dam/dike axis) and tie into the other downstream features. For this situation, refer to
section 2-5.a., General Design Considerations and Methodology.
3. Outlet Works Inlet Structure.—Similarly to the spillway crest structure, this

feature is located upstream of the conveyance structure, in the reservoir and/or upstream of
the dam/dike axis (or centerline). The inlet structure may or may not have control features
such as gates. Its intended purpose is to provide an unobstructed opening to the reservoir.
The need for drainage provisions is based on historical and/or planned operations of the
reservoir (e.g., submergence of the intake, or the potential for rapid reservoir fluctuations).
61
Figure 35.—Rigdway Dam spillway, Colorado—Cross section showing

conduit with embankment filter wrap-around.
4. Conveyance Structure (Chutes, Conduits, Pipes, Tunnels).—This feature conveys

discharge from the crest or inlet structure to the terminal structure. As with the crest or inlet
structure, if the conveyance structure is located adjacent to or through dams/dikes, drainage
provisions compliment the dam’s/dike’s drainage provisions, which could include drain
holes, lateral and longitudinal drains, and graded filter material (which could be part of or a
continuation of the dam/dike drainage provisions, such as those shown in fig. 35).
• Chutes.—This feature is an open structure, such as a cast-in-place concrete rectangular or

trapezoidal section, riprap (or grouted riprap) trapezoidal section, gabion rectangular or
trapezoidal section, grass-lined trapezoidal section, rock cut unlined rectangular or
trapezoidal section, or geomembrane trapezoidal section, that discharges water under
free flow conditions. Drainage provisions will be needed for most chutes. For details
and specific considerations, refer to section 2-5.a.
• Conduits or Pipes.—This feature is a closed structure, such as precast concrete pipe, cast-
in-place concrete conduit, HDPE pipe, or CMP, that could discharge water under free
flow or pressure conditions. Drainage provisions are needed for most conduits and
pipes.
Of special concern are cut and cover conduits or pipes through or beneath embankment
or rockfill water impoundment structures (i.e., dams, dikes, or levees), which may create
an opportunity (increase the risk) for seepage and subsequent internal erosion, perhaps
leading to failure, along the conduit or pipe surface. Therefore, other alternatives (such
as tunnels) will be considered in lieu of conduits wherever they are technically and
economically feasible. When conduits are placed through or beneath embankments,
62
filters enveloping the conduit are a particularly important defense against internal erosion
caused by seepage along the conduit. For additional details, see the following text.
N Through Embankment/Rockfill Dams or Dikes—When a conduit or pipe is identified as

the preferred alternative for conveying water through or beneath an embankment or
rockfill water impoundment structure, Reclamation’s policy is that “cutoff collars”
will not be used as a seepage control measure (refer to figs. 36 and 37 for graphical
representation of cutoff collars). The use of cutoff collars can result in lower density
material, nonuniform earth pressure, and seepage gradients along a conduit, which
can lead to zones where a combination of higher seepage gradients and lower earth
pressures will allow internal movement of less dense soil particles or piping. Seepage
gradients are more uniform along a smooth conduit without cutoff collars. Seepage
will be controlled by careful selection and compaction of earth backfill against the
conduit, which should have battered walls, and installation of a properly graded filter
around the conduit at the downstream limit of the embankment impervious zone.
Designs should provide for horizontal drainage contiguous with the inclined and
horizontal drainage zones of the embankment (or rockfill) dam. If it is impractical to
use the dam filtering and drainage provisions along the conduit, separate filtering and
drainage provisions around and along the conduit, respectively, should be added [23].
Specific guidelines that should be considered include:
R Combine waterways for different purposes into one structure. A major concern
that needs to be addressed when considering this option is that if a combined
structure is inoperative, there may be no way to safely pass floods or operational
releases through or around the impoundment structure.
R Locate the conduit(s) in a cut-and-cover section into firm formation when the
firm formation is at or near the ground surface. For this alternative, the
specifications should include provisions for firm formation excavation to be
performed to eliminate or minimize open fractures or other damage to the firm
formation beyond the limits of the excavation. In this case, backfill around the
conduit with nonstructural concrete through at least the dam impervious zone
(or a significant portion of the impervious zone). The concrete plug should
extend to an upper limit of the top of the conduit or to the original firm
formation surface if lower than the top of the conduit. If the dam is to be placed
against the upstream and/or downstream ends of the plug, then sloping the ends
may be desirable. Depending on the nature of the foundation, and deformation
characteristics, the conduit and nonstructural concrete backfill should be not be
bonded together.
63
Figure 36.—McGee Creek Dam M&I Outlet Works, Oklahoma—Cross section showing
conduit and cutoff collar. NOTE: Cutoff collars are not acceptable drainage
provisions for future Reclamation appurtenant structures.
Figure 37.—McGee Creek Dam M&I Outlet Works, Oklahoma—Section along conduit
centerline and through cutoff collars. NOTE: Cutoff collars are not acceptable
drainage provisions for future Reclamation appurtenant structures.
64
Figure 38.—Ridgway Dam spillway, Colorado—Cross section showing conduit founded on and tied
into excavated bench with nonstructural concrete.
R Locate the conduit in a trench or on a bench excavated along the toe of an

abutment when geological conditions and topography are favorable. Placing a
lean concrete plug on the abutment side, or casting the conduit against the
excavated firm formation reduces or eliminates requirements for earthfill
compaction against one side of the conduit (refer to fig. 38 for a graphical
representation of placing conduit against excavated firm formation).
R The conduit-foundation contact must not be overlooked as a path for potential

seepage and piping, particularly when the foundation is soil. Prevention of
excessive seepage (piping) along the conduit consists of providing a smooth, firm
contact surface free from loose or disintegrated materials. If the foundation
surface is subject to deterioration when exposed to the atmosphere, it may be
necessary to protect the foundation surface with suitable earthfill, a concrete pad
(“mud slab”), or an acceptable sealing compound until conduit construction
commences.
65
R Filters placed around conduits to prevent piping should envelop conduits on soil
foundations. Filters around conduits on firm formation should extend only to
the foundation surface. The filters should meet the same guidelines/criteria for
dry unit weight and filtering as for other filters within the dam or dike (refer to
fig. 35 for a graphical representation of filter wrap-around).
N Through Canal or Levee Embankments.—Pipe culverts through this type of embankment

should have soil-cement slurry placed to a level to ensure a firm pipe foundation
under the pipe haunches. Special consideration should be given to compacting
earthfill around the remainder of the pipe. Cutoff collars should not be used for
seepage control. A filter should be provided around the downstream reach of the
pipe.
For additional discussion, concerning design and construction considerations for

controlling seepage along conduits, refer to Assistant Commissioner - Engineering and
Research (ACER) Technical Memorandum No. 9 [23].
• Tunnels.—Section 2-7 covers Rock Tunnel Drains.
5. Terminal Structure (Stilling Basin, Plunge Pool).—This feature can be either an

open or closed structure. Open structures can be rectangular or trapezoidal, and lined with
cast-in-place concrete, roller-compacted concrete (RCC), and/or soil cement; constructed
with gabions; or consist of an unlined rock cut. Open structures can also be trapezoidal, and
lined with riprap or grouted riprap. Closed structures include rectangular, covered, cast-in-
place structures. These features dissipate the kinetic energy of the discharge. Usually, the
drainage provisions terminate prior to or at the terminal structure. Because of the significant
pressure fluctuations (due to the energy dissipation) associated with most terminal structures,
care must be given to designing and installing drainage provisions so that they do not
jeopardize the structural integrity of this feature or adjacent features by, for example,
introducing excessive back pressures into the drainage provisions. Details of drainage
provisions can be found in section 2-5.a.
Another issue for terminal structures is unwatering these structures for inspection.
Unwatering often requires sealing the end of the structure against tailwater through the use
of stoplogs, sandbags or other provisions. Once this is accomplished, the inside of the
terminal structure can be unwatered by pumping out water from inside of the structure.
Before unwatering is attempted, it should be verified that the structure is adequate for this
loading condition. Provisions may also be required for preventing tailwater from reentering
the terminal structure through the drainage system.
66
6. Exit Channel.—This feature is located downstream of the terminal structure.

It conveys water from the terminal structure to the stream or a canal. Similarly to
considerations given for the inlet (or approach) channel or structure, drainage provisions are
usually only considered for this feature if it is lined (with materials such as reinforced
concrete, roller compacted concrete, or grouted riprap). Needs for drainage provisions are
based on historical or planned reservoir releases and their affects on the downstream
river/stream (e.g., the submergence of the channel, or the potential for rapid increasing or
decreasing releases). Similarly to the inlet (approach) channel considerations, drainage
provisions are limited to relieving hydrostatic pressure in the excavated channel subject to
(potential) rapid tailwater fluctuations.
2-6. Slope Drains.—Water pressure (whether acting as an uplift pressure on a base

plane or acting as a driving force within a tension crack or a similar nearly vertical fissure)
can be a significant factor in the stability of rock slopes. Water pressure is also significant in
soil slopes, because it increases the driving force on a potential slide and reduces the sliding
resistance of a soil mass, through pore pressure acting along the failure surface. Examples
are provided to indicate how water pressures are accounted for in the stability of slopes.
Three cases are considered—the plane failure of a rock slope, a wedge failure within a rock
slope, and a soil slope failure.
a. Rock Slope Plane Failure.—One of the assumptions for a plane failure is that the
plane on which sliding occurs must strike parallel or nearly parallel to the slope face. For
this type of failure, a tension crack may be assumed to form either in the slope face or on the
slope bench, which provides a back-release plane for the failure. The tension crack may be
assumed to be filled with water to a certain depth. This water provides a lateral driving force
on the block and also provides uplift pressure on the sliding plane. Figure 39 provides two
scenarios for a plane failure—a tension crack forming in the upper slope surface and a
tension crack forming in the slope face.
The factor of safety (FS) for a plane failure is a function of the total force resisting sliding
relative to the total forces which encourage sliding. FS can be expressed as:
cA + (W ⋅ cosψ p − U − V ⋅ sinψ p )
FS = tan φ
W ⋅ sinψ p + V ⋅ cosψ p
where, from figure 39,
A = (H - z) @cosec Rp (area of base plane)

U = ½ (w @ zw (H-z) @cosecRp (uplift force)
V = ½ (w @z2w (lateral water force)
67
Figure 39.—Tension cracks contributing to slope failure (from Hoek and Bray, figs. 62a
and 62b [24]).
For the tension crack in the upper bench surface (fig. 39),
W = ½ ( H2 ((1- (z/H)2) cot Rp - cot Rf)
For the tension crack in the slope face (fig. 39),
W = ½ ( H2 ((1- z/H)2 cot Rp (cot Rp @ tan Rf - 1))
b. Rock Slope Wedge Failure.—A wedge failure is more complicated to analyze than a
plane failure. Figure 40 represents a wedge failure and an assumed water pressure
distribution. For this case, it was assumed that the wedge itself is impermeable, and water
enters the top of the wedge along lines of intersection 3 and 4 and exits the slope face
68
Figure 40.—Wedge failure with water pressure (from Hoek and Bray, fig. 97 [24]).
along lines of intersection 1 and 2. The maximum water pressure would occur along line 5,
and zero pressure would occur along lines 1, 2, 3 and 4. The water pressure distribution
shown in figure 40 and described above is an extreme case that could occur during heavy
rain. The equations for the factor of safety for this type of analysis and a detailed discussion
of wedge failures in rock slopes can be found in Hoek and Bray [24].
c. Soil Slope Failure.—A soil slope failure is similar to a rock slope plane failure.
Instead of a continuous linear failure surface, however, a circular slip surface, or sometimes a
noncircular slip surface, described by linear segments, is assumed in a slope stability analysis.
A circular surface is applicable to homogeneous slopes, whereas a noncircular slip surface is
more suited to a slope containing materials in variable layers. More detail on analysis
methods for soil slopes can be found in Chapter 4 of the Embankment Dams Design
Standard No. 13 [40].
d. Rock/Soil Permeability.—The permeability of intact rock is generally very low, as

shown in table 1. However, discontinuities in the rock mass in the form of joints, fractures,
or other geologic features will result in the permeability becoming significantly greater. The
discontinuities form pathways in which water can travel. The permeability of soil materials
is a function of the soil type, gradation, and the geologic history of the soil deposit.
The lack of surface flow on a rock or soil mass may not be an indication that groundwater is
not present in the mass. If the evaporation rate is higher than the seepage rate, the surface
may look dry, but there may be water at significant pressure within the mass. Water
pressure, not rate of flow, is the important parameter that influences slope stability.
Drainage is a very effective method of improving slope stability, and a good understanding
of water flow patterns in a rock or soil mass is necessary to design an efficient drainage
69
Table 1.—Permeability coefficients for typical rocks and soils (from Hoek and Bray, p. 132 [24]).
General k
Condition (cm/s*) Intact Rock Fractured Rock Soil
Practically 10-10 Slate Homogeneous clay

impermeable below zone of
10-9 Dolomite weathering
10-8 Granite
Limestone
10-7 Sandstone
Low discharge 10-6 Very fine sands,

Poor drainage organic and
inorganic silts,
10-5 Clay-filled
mixtures of sand
joints
and clay, glacial
10-4 till, stratified clay
deposits
10-3
High discharge 10-2 Jointed rock

Low drainage
10-1 Clean sand, clean
sand and gravel
1.0 Open jointed mixtures
rock
101
102 Heavily Clean gravel

fractured rock
* cm/s x 0.0328 = ft/s; cm/s x (1.035 x 106) = ft/yr
system. Measurement of permeabilities and pressures are keys to understanding the

groundwater patterns.
e. Permeability Measurements.—Permeability measurements may be helpful in designing

a drainage system for a slope. While the stability of a slope depends on the water pressure
within the rock or soil mass, the pressure at a point in the mass depends on the path the
70
water took to arrive at the point. Permeability measurements may help determine where
water is likely to be produced and areas where drain spacings need to be adjusted.
The following field permeability tests are typically performed in a borehole:
• Falling Head Tests.—A known volume of water is introduced into a borehole and the time
it takes for the water level to lower to its original level is recorded.
• Constant Head Tests.—Water is introduced into a borehole at a rate to maintain a specific

water level, and the volume of water added is measured over a time interval.
• Pump-In Tests.—Water is pumped into a borehole section between two packers or

between a packer and the bottom of the borehole at various pressures, and the flow rates
are recorded.
• Lugeon Test.—A Lugeon test is a specific pump-in test for rock foundations in which
intervals of a test hole are tested over a range of pressures. A Lugeon is defined as
1 liter/meter/minute at 150 lb/in2. If pressures vary from 150 lb/in2, the calculation
adjusts for the actual pressure used.
• Pump-Out Tests.—Water is pumped out of a borehole (packers usually not installed), and
observation wells surrounding the borehole are monitored to record the drawdown.
Of the five tests, falling head tests, constant head tests, and pump-out tests are best suited
for uniform soils or rock. Pump-in tests do allow for measuring permeabilities in distinct
zones, where geologic conditions indicate permeabilities will likely vary. A more thorough
discussion of field permeability tests and how to calculate permeability values from these
tests can be found in Hoek and Bray [24, p. 136]. A detailed discussion of Lugeon tests and
the supporting calculation can be found in Houlsby [25].
f. Monitoring of Slopes.—If an accurate assessment of the stability of slopes is needed,

or if drainage is provided to ensure the stability of slopes, it will be important to monitor the
water pressure in slopes. This is typically done by installing observation wells or piezometers
in boreholes. A number of different types of instruments can be installed. An important
factor in selecting an observation well/piezometer is the time lag. The time lag is the time it
takes for the pressure in the system to reach equilibrium after a pressure change. The time
lag is a function of the permeability of the ground and the changes related to pressure and
volume.
The following is a summary of the more frequently used types of piezometers.
71
• Observation Wells.—This type of instrument consists of an open borehole. In rock or soil

with low permeability, lag time may be significant for these instruments. This is because
of the relatively large volume of water required. A device for measuring the water level
in the borehole is required for these instruments. Typically, this measurement can be
made using a probe, a marked cable, and a small resistance-measuring device. The probe
is lowered into the borehole on a cable. When contacts in the probe encounter water in
the borehole, the resistance of the electrical circuit drops, and this change in resistance
can be measured. An observation well averages out water pressures over the entire hole.
• Standpipe Piezometers.—A standpipe piezometer (fig. 41) consists of a perforated tip sealed
into a section of the borehole. A small diameter tube, or standpipe, extends through the
seal, and the water level within the tube can be read with a device similar to that used for
observation wells. Since the standpipes are of small diameter, several standpipes can be
installed in the same borehole, allowing pressures to be read in different zones within the
soil or rock. Leakage can prevent this type of installation from functioning properly.
The ability to read pressures in different zones would be important if water flow were
confined in certain zones within the rock mass or in areas of high gradients. A standpipe
piezometer allows for measurement of water pressures in a specific interval of the
borehole. This is usually more useful in understanding flow paths.
• Closed Hydraulic Piezometer.—A closed hydraulic piezometer is filled with de-aired water,
and is capable of measuring small water pressure changes. This type of instrument will
allow for pressure measurements in a specific zone within the borehole.
• Electrically Indicating Piezometer.—This type of device will provide an almost instantaneous

response time. The deflection of a diaphragm as a result of water pressure changes is
measured electrically by means of a strain gauge attached to the diaphragm. This type of
instrument will allow for pressure measurements in a specific zone within the borehole.
g. Modeling of Groundwater Flow.—Piezometers only provide the groundwater pressure

at discrete locations in the rock or soil mass. In order to get an overall picture of
groundwater pressures, analyses are required to predict groundwater pressures throughout
the rock mass. The flow of groundwater through a soil or rock mass can be represented
graphically with a flow net. See figure 42 for an example of a flow net. Flow nets consist of
flow lines and equipotential lines. Flow lines are paths followed by the groundwater when
flowing through the rock mass. Equipotential lines are lines that join points where the total
head is the same . A thorough discussion of the construction and calculation of flow nets is
provided by Cedegren [11].
72
Figure 41.—Standpipe piezometer (from Hoek and Bray, fig. 59 [24]).
Computer programs are also available, which can be used to construct flow nets and
evaluate groundwater flows. Calibration of the model against known responses of the actual
system is necessary to develop confidence in the model. There will always be some
uncertainty in the model results, due to the difficulty in comprehensively verifying the
results, and in modelling geologic discontinuities.
73
Figure 42.—Typical flow net for a rock slope (from Hoek and Bray, fig. 53 [24].
Modeling flow through fractured bedrock is difficult to do with any accuracy. Assuming
equivalent porous media to represent a rock mass is only good for gross trends, and
predicting pressures with this method will likely be inaccurate.
While groundwater models may have inaccuracies, they can provide a useful tool for
predicting the effectiveness of drains on slope stability by comparing drained and undrained
slope stability. Models are also effective in extrapolating limited information on
permeabilities and water pressures to a bigger picture of groundwater flow within the slope.
h. Depressurization.—If the stability of a rock or soil slope needs to be improved and

water pressures are significant, there are three options for improving slope stability:
1. reduce the water pressure in the slope

2. modify the geometry of the slope, or
3. reinforce the slope.
Reducing the water pressure in the slope (depressurization) is often a cost-effective method
of improving slope stablility. Depressurization is effective, because it reduces the driving
force on rock blocks or soil masses, and it reduces uplift pressures on sliding surfaces,
increasing the shear strength and sliding resistance along these surfaces.
Depressurization is accomplished by removing water from slope materials. The amount of

water that can be removed in the short term depends on the storage of water in the slope.
The rate at which water can be removed from the slope depends on the hydraulic
74
conductivity of the slope materials, k. The coefficient of consolidation, CV, incorporates

both the storage and hydraulic conductivity parameters and reflects the rate of pressure
change that can be achieved.
Table 2 provides some typical field values for CV. Table 3 provides an indication of the
effectiveness of various depressurization methods as related to the coefficient of
consolidation. Tables 2 and 3 are provided to give a general indication of the range over
which various drainage strategies would be effective. The actual selection and design of a
drainage system requires a good understanding of the site geology, groundwater conditions,
and the slope geometry in relation to the above factors.
Table 2.—Coefficient of consolidation for rocks and soils
Coefficient of consolidation (m2/s)
10-8 to 10-6 10-6 to 10-2 10-2 to 102
Soil Clay Silt Sand
Sedimentary Massive clay Siltstones and Sandstones and

rock shales layered layered siltstones
Foundation
claystones
material
Igneous and Totally Altered and Weathered Clean
metamorphic decomposed and decomposed
rock gouge filled
Table 3.—Range of effectiveness of depressurization stategies
Range of coefficient of consolidation (m2/s) over which

depressurization strategies are effective
Depressurization strategy Marginal Effective
Unaided drainage 10-2 to 1 1 to 102
Horizontal drains 10-4 to 10-2 10-2 to 102
Wells 10-2 to 1 1 to 102
Drainage adits 10-4 to 10-3 10-3 to 102
Unloading 10-8 to 10-6 10-6 to 10-4
75
Figure 43.—Detail of the horizontal drains installed into the rock cut slopes for the spillway chute at
Stewart Mountain Dam.
Figure 43 shows a detail of the horizontal drains that were installed into the rock cut slope
for the auxiliary spillway chute at Stewart Mountain Dam.
2-7. Rock Tunnel Drains.—Water pressure in the rock surrounding a tunnel is not a
major stability concern for unlined tunnels. In the case of underground structures, the
stresses in the surrounding rock mass are typically much greater than any pressures that can
be generated by groundwater, and the dangers of instability due to a reduction in effective
stresses are not very significant. This is in contrast to the influence of groundwater pressures
on rock slopes and foundations, where the water pressures in these features may be of the
same magnitude as the stresses acting across discontinuities, which can have a significant
effect on stability.
Tunnels associated with appurtenant structures are subjected to greater groundwater

pressures than other types of tunnels (such as highway tunnels). Appurtenant structure
tunnels are typically constructed through dam abutments, and these tunnels are near the
surface, where in situ stresses may be low. The presence of a reservoir just upstream of the
abutments provides a constant and high head water source. External water pressure on the
outside of a tunnel is often the controlling loading condition for the design of the permanent
tunnel support (often a reinforced concrete tunnel lining). The external water pressure is
often assumed to be full reservoir head on the outside of the tunnel, and reinforced concrete
tunnel linings are typically designed for this load. This is a conservative assumption, since
the rock surrounding the tunnel and any temporary reinforcement (rock bolts, steel sets, etc.)
have the capacity to carry some of this load. External water pressures during the maximum
anticipated water surface should also be considered as a loading condition.
76
Drainage is usually provided for tunnels as a redundant feature that provides extra assurance
that the permanent support system will be adequate. A typical spillway or tunnel
arrangement would be an upstream pressurized tunnel, a gate chamber located at mid-length
of the tunnel with guard gates and regulating gates, and a free flow downstream tunnel.
Drains are not provided in the pressurized portion of the tunnel, as this would allow leakage
from the tunnel into the abutment and could possibly increase the water pressure in the
abutment. Drains are typically provided in the nonpressurized or free flow section of the
tunnel to relieve any water pressures that could develop on the outside of the concrete
lining. An example of tunnel drains is provided in chapter 1. Care must be taken when
installing drains to ensure that the installation does not have adverse effects on other
structures.
77
78
Chapter 3
DRAIN
INSTALLATION METHODS
This chapter discusses various methods for installing drainage systems. The most common
method of installing drains is drilled drainage holes (vertical, horizontal, or angled). In other
cases, prefabricated drains (toe drains for dams, structure underdrains, and drains between
the interface of existing and new concrete) are installed. Drilling methods and installation
methods for prefabricated drains are discussed in this chapter. An important aspect of all
drain installations is accurate documentation of drain locations in the form of as-built
drawings. This will allow for future inspections of the drains.
3-1. Drilling Methods.—Drains are a proven, effective method for removing water
from embankments, foundations, and slopes in an effort to reduce or eliminate pore
pressures, uplift pressures, and ultimately, slope or structure failure. Most foundation drains
are installed in rock, while many toe drains and horizontal drains are installed in weathered
rock or soil. Drains must intersect discontinuities or permeable materials so that seepage
and groundwater can be removed. Foundation drains and horizontal drains in rock require
some type of drilling method in order to provide an avenue to relieve water pressure from a
foundation.
a. Drain Drilling Methods.—Numerous drilling methods are used to install drains in

varying geologic conditions that range from hard, unweathered rock to soft, intensely
weathered rock to uncemented sediments and soils. Drilling methods commonly used for
completing drains include auger and rotary. Other drilling methods, including cable tool,
jetting, and reverse rotary, are available for special applications. No single drilling method is
best for all conditions, because each job is site specific with its own individual characteristics.
Access issues may preclude some drilling methods. Therefore, the drilling operation should
79
use the most suitable method and equipment for the specific job, considering the access,
geologic, and groundwater conditions that will be encountered and general site work
conditions.
In practical terms, a suitably sized hole must be drilled by mechanically breaking or cutting
rock or loosening uncemented sediments, and the broken or loosened material (cuttings)
must be cleaned from the hole. The hole cleaning method, whether the cuttings are cleaned
from the borehole by mechanical or fluid methods (air, water, bentonite, etc.), must be
considered when selecting the drilling method for installing drains. For example, drilling
with bentonite drill fluid may effectively remove cuttings from the borehole, but could also
reduce the effectiveness of the borehole as a drain. After completion of drilling, a clean and
open hole can be used as the drain, or perforated or slotted pipe (steel, PVC, or plastic)
and/or filter material can be inserted to keep the borehole from collapsing in loose
materials. Some of the more common drilling methods are listed with advantages and
disadvantages in the following paragraphs. Section C-4 in appendix C also provides more
information on portable drills used in restricted or confined spaces.
1. Auger Methods.—Augers can be inexpensive and fast in dry soils, weekly

cemented soils, unconsolidated formations, and very soft rock. In optimum conditions,
auger drilling can advance holes to several hundred feet deep. The auger method generally
uses continuous helical flights driven by a top-drive rotary machine that mechanically carries
cuttings to the ground surface. There are two basic types of augers, solid stem and hollow
stem. Solid stem augers must be removed from the hole before installation of any casing or
pipe in the hole, leaving the hole unsupported. Hollow stem augers have the advantage of a
hollow center tube or stem. The hollow center tube supports the hole while casing or pipe is
inserted. Another advantage of the hollow stem system is that when hard material is
encountered that cannot be drilled with the conventional auger, it is relatively simple to
convert to rotary diamond coring using the hollow stem of the auger as casing. The major
disadvantage of augers is they do not perform well in hard or bouldery materials. Auger
methods are usually limited to a maximum hole size of 24 to 36 inches.
2. Rotary Methods.—Rotary drilling methods are any form of drilling which makes
a hole by turning the bit at the bottom of the hole. Rotary drilling methods include diamond
coring, roller rock bits, plug bits, and can also use either a top hole hammer or a down hole
hammer to drill through very firm or tough materials. Rotary methods are usually limited to
a maximum size hole of 24 inches. Figures 44 and 45 show rotary drilling equipment
installing drains on a dam abutment and within a drainage adit.
Rotary methods use fluid or air circulation to clear the cuttings from the drill hole. The
drilling fluid can be water, bentonite “mud”, man-made muds or additives (engineered
water- or oil-based polymers), or air. The liquids or air travel down the interior of the drill
80
Chapter 3—Drain Installation Methods
Figure 44.—View of rotary drilling operations to install high-angle

drain holes in bedrock from a platform on the downstream right
abutment of Horse Mesa Dam, Arizona. The drill rig is a Craelius
Diamec 260.
Figure 45.—Views of rotary drilling operations to install high-angle drain holes in bedrock in a
drainage adit in the downstream right abutment of Horse Mesa Dam, Arizona. The drill rig is a
Craelius Diamec 260. The drill is mounted on a stand when drilling high-angle drain holes.
81
rods, remove cuttings from the borehole and heat from the drill bit, and return to the surface
via the annulus between the drill rods and borehole wall. Advantages and disadvantages of
the various drill fluids have to be considered for each particular job. For example, natural or
man-made muds (bentonite, polymers) can stabilize borehole walls and improve drilling
conditions and drilling rates, but can also mask aquifers or intrude into an aquifer or water-
bearing feature, causing damage or plugging, which defeats the purpose of the drainage. Air
normally requires greater volume of circulation than fluids in order to properly cool the drill
bit. Higher air volumes are accompanied by increased air pressure, which can damage
formations, structures (embankment or concrete), and slopes.
Rotary methods have the advantage of relatively rapid penetration rates in all material types,
usually minimal casing required during the drilling operation, and rapid mobilization and
demobilization. Disadvantages of rotary methods are the high cost of equipment, high
maintenance costs, use of drill fluids that may plug formations (if something other than
water is needed), and high level of experience required for operators.
3. Cable Tools.—Cable tools are one of the oldest methods of drilling. The cable
tool works by repeatedly dropping tools suspended from a cable to crush or break material
into small fragments which are then mixed with water and bailed or pumped from the hole.
Cables tools can achieve depths of thousands of feet. The advantages of the cable tool
method is that it is inexpensive to purchase and maintain, and easy to operate. The main
disadvantage of the cable tool method is that it is extremely slow.
4. Jetting.—There are two methods of jetting. Both methods involve a high

velocity stream of water. One of these jetting methods uses a drill bit with chopping action
and high pressure nozzles at the bit to clean and loosen material. Large diameter wells over
1,000 feet deep have been drilled in this manner. The second method uses only the washing
action of the water jet to remove material. The second method is good only in sand for
shallow depths of a few tens of feet. The advantages of jetting methods are that they are
relatively easy to use and can achieve fast penetration in unconsolidated materials. The
disadvantage of jetting methods is the rods often become stuck and require large hoisting
equipment, and large supplies of water are required in permeable materials.
5. Reverse Circulation.—Reverse circulation equipment is similar to rotary rigs

except the equipment is larger in order to drill larger diameter holes, and the direction of the
drilling fluid is reversed when compared to rotary methods. The drilling fluid travels down
the annulus between the drill rods and borehole wall, and returns to the surface via the
interior of the drill rods. The advantages of the reverse circulation method are that the
porosity and permeability of the formation are relatively undisturbed when compared to
other drilling methods, large diameter holes can be drilled quickly, and washouts are less
frequent because of the low velocity of the drill fluid. Disadvantages of the reverse
82
circulation method are that a large supply of drill fluid is required, equipment is expensive
compared to other methods of drilling, large mud pits are required to dispose of cuttings,
some sites are inaccessible because of the size of equipment, and more operators are
required when compared to other methods of drilling.
b. Additional Considerations.—Material types, cementation, grain size, permeability,

and fabric or structure (orientation and spacing of discontinuities) are major lithological
factors which influence drain effectiveness. These same factors may also influence the
drilling method selected to install drains. The most effective drain installations are those
which have been designed and installed on the basis of the site geology.
Drilling programs for installation of drains should be carefully planned to ensure compliance
with all Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances relating to the
performance of the work. All required permits, certifications, and licenses should be
acquired. A plan for drilling and safety, and potential sampling and testing, should also be
prepared prior to initiating work. In addition, a schedule of drilling drain holes including
sequence, method, depth, angle (either in degrees from vertical or horizontal, and bearing or
azimuth), and any special instructions should be prepared for the driller.
Legible, permanent copies of drilling logs and records should be maintained in a central
filing system for future reference. The drilling logs should record zones of water loss,
cavities, rod jerks, rough drilling and other unusual or nonordinary drilling experiences that
might illuminate the nature and extent of any fracturing and abnormalities. All such records
should be recorded during the actual performance of the drilling. The following minimum
information should also be included on the logs or in the records for each hole:
• Hole number or designation and elevation at the top (or collar) of the hole
• Hole diameter
• Depth of bottom of hole
• Depth at which groundwater is encountered initially and when stabilized
• Depths at which drill fluid is lost and regained and amounts
Refer to the Engineering Geology Field Manual [31] for the format and required data for a final
geologic log.
83
Whether a drain fails or underperforms can usually be traced to improper construction or

drilling methods. An inspector with experience in drain installations should be on site
during construction to ensure the proper installation of drains.
The installation of horizontal or up-angled drain holes in slopes, tunnels, or other

applications requires a specialized drill rig capable of orienting and drilling in the required
direction. In addition, installation of drain holes in tunnels or drainage adits may require
electric, instead of hydraulic, systems to comply with environmental or safety requirements.
Section C-4 in appendix C provides a discussion of portable drills used in confined or
restricted spaces.
3-2. Subsurface Installation of Drains in Soils.—An example of this type of drain

installation would be the installation of toe drains for embankment dams. Drains of this
type are typically installed by backhoe or continuous trenching machine. The pipe for a toe
drain will usually be corrugated HDPE pipe but could also be PVC pipe. A drain envelope
is an integral part of the toe drain. The drain envelope prevents movement of soil particles
into the drain, improves drain efficiency by providing a material surrounding the drain that is
more permeable than the surrounding soil, provides a structural bedding for the drain to
protect and improve the strength of the pipe, and stabilizes the soil in which the drain is
placed.
The drain envelope includes bedding material and backfill for the HDPE and PVC pipe.
The bedding material and the compacted material placed below the drain pipe provide
structural support for these flexible pipes and ensure that the pipe retains its shape and is
able to achieve its full structural capacity. The bedding material and compacted backfill on
top of the pipe must be properly designed and constructed to ensure the integrity of HDPE
and PVC pipes. Constriction loads and traffic loads after construction must also be carefully
evaluated to ensure that the structural capacity of the drain pipe is not exceeded.
Toe drains should be inspected with a video camera upon backfilling of the trench and
completion of the installation. This will ensure that the drain was properly installed and not
damaged during the installation and that no obstructions exist in the drain. For drains with
large amounts of backfill over the top of them, consideration should be given to an
intermediate video inspection, in addition to the final video inspection. This will make it
easier to correct any problems with the installed pipe.
a. Backhoe.—With this method, drains are constructed by excavating a trench with a

backhoe, placing the pipe and envelope material and backfilling the trench. This method is
referred to as “open trench” construction and an example is shown in figure 46. The use of
a trench box as shown in figure 47 is highly recommended for open trench construction. It
provides for a safer installation and better control of the envelope material. Care must be
84
Figure 46.—Open trench excavation without a trench box.
Figure 47.—Open trench excavation with a trench box.
85
Figure 48.—Wheel trencher.
taken when moving the trench box to avoid strain or displacement of the drain pipe.
Dewatering with open trench construction is not required, but is recommended if the water
table is more than a few inches above the invert of the trench [32].
b. Trenching Machines.—Another method for installing subsurface drains in soils is

the use of a continuous trenching machine, with laser plane grade control and a boot for
placing the pipe and the drain envelope material. A trenching machine will excavate the
trench, lay the pipe within the drain envelope and sometimes backfill the trench in one
continuous operation. Trenching machines use three different methods for excavating the
trench. Trenching machines can be wheel trenchers (fig. 48), ladder trenchers (fig. 49) or
chain trenchers, sometimes referred to as “high speed trenchers” (fig. 50). Dewatering is
usually not required because the pipe and envelope material are place only seconds after the
trench is excavated. A typical boot arrangement is shown in figure 51, which allows pipe to
be placed into the trench through the round chute, while the drain envelope material is fed
through the surrounding opening [32].
c. Grade Control.—Grade control for pipe drains is important, since these drains rely
on gravity flow and may have flat slopes (minimum slope of 1 ft per 100 ft for toe drains).
Lightweight HDPE or PVC pipe may be difficult to install at the proper grade. Great care
should be excercised during the installation/compaction of these types of drains to ensure
the pipe remains on grade. Usually a laser plane is used for grade control. A revolving laser
86
Figure 49.—Ladder trencher.
sender generates a plane of laser light over the work area. With open trench construction,
hand receivers are placed on the pipe to check grade. When trenching machines are used,
receivers mounted on the trenching machines follow the plane as the trencher moves
forward. The receivers send commands to the hydraulic system to raise or lower the digger
and the boot to keep the drain on grade. Figure 52 shows the equipment for a laser plane
system.
3-3. Subsurface Installation of Drains in Rock.—An example of this type of

installation would be a foundation underdrain system for a spillway or outlet works chute or
stilling basin, where the foundation consists of rock. A common method of installation
would be to excavate trenches in the rock for the grid of underdrains and then place the
drain and drain envelope material in the trench. The concrete floor slab would then be
placed on top of the foundation and the drain trenches. If the rock foundation is hard and
competent, controlled blasting may be required to excavate the drain trenches. Care should
be taken to prevent damage to the rock surrounding the drain trenches. If the jointing and
bedding in the rock will result in significant overbreak outside of the drain trenches or if a
significant area of competent rock foundation would be removed to install drain trenches,
drilled drains into the rock foundation and a collector system either on top of the rock
foundation or embedded in the concrete slab should be considered. An example of this type
of installation can be found in chapter 2 (fig. 31).
87
Figure 50.—Chain trencher.
3-4. Installation of Drains at Concrete Interfaces.—An example of this type of drain

would be drains installed at the interface between existing concrete and a new concrete
overlay. Typically a flat drain or a split round drain is used to provide drainage at this
interface. Provisions must be made to prevent wet concrete from the new placement from
entering the drains. Geotextile, burlap or some sort of filter fabric is effective for
accomplishing this. The drains also must be anchored to the existing concrete to prevent
movement of the drains during concrete placement.
88
Figure 51.—Trencher boot arrangement.
Figure 52.—Laser plane system.
89
90
Chapter 4
DRAIN PERFORMANCE
It is common for drains to experience some degree of plugging (i.e., loss of efficiency or
effectiveness) during their operational life. A number of mechanisms can cause plugging of
drains—calcium carbonate (probably the most common plugging mechanism at Reclamation
structures), slime-producing bacteria, deposition of fines or sands in the drains, tree or plant
roots, and collapse of the drain (from the collapse of either the foundation material, or the
manmade materials forming the drain). These plugging mechanisms can affect a variety of
drainage systems, including toe drains, drilled foundation drains in concrete dams, formed
drains within the body of a concrete dam, horizontal slope drains, horizontal underdrains for
spillway or outlet works structures, or relief wells. Fourteen case histories are presented in
this chapter, in which drainage systems have become plugged and a drain cleaning program
was initiated. The case histories were chosen to provide a representative cross section of
plugging mechanisms, drain types, and cleaning methods.
Table 4 provides a quick reference for each of the case histories and its key parameters. The
case histories can be used to help determine the best cleaning equipment for a given drain
system.
91
Table 4.—Plugged/cleaned drain case histories
Drained Plugging
Case history feature Type of drain mechanism Cleaning method
Brantley Concrete dam Drilled foundation Iron bacteria, Low pressure water
Dam foundation drains calcium carbonate, flushing, chopping
silt deposition bits, wire brush
Folsom Dam Dam Drilled foundation Calcium carbonate Chemical

foundation drains treatments,
mechanical
abrader, high
pressure water
jetting
Friant Dam Dam Drilled foundation Calcium carbonate High pressure water
foundation drains jetting
Grand Riverbank Relief wells Iron-reducing Chemical

Coulee Dam stabilization bacteria treatments
(chlorination and
acid)
Horizontal Slopes Drilled horizontal Mineralization, High pressure water

Drains drains fines deposition, jetting
roots
Ochoco Dam Embankment Concrete bell and Failed pipe, Video inspection;
toe drain spigot toe drain sediment replacement
deposition
Senator Embankment Relief wells Fine sand and silt Surge block
Wash Dam foundation deposition
Sherman Embankment 12-inch perforated Unknown High pressure water

Dam toe drain asbestos cement jet (1,500-lb/in2)
pipe sewer-cleaning tool
Upper Dam Drilled foundation Sand deposition, Redrilled new

Stillwater foundation drains iron bacteria drains
Dam
Concrete Dam Drilled foundation Calcium Reaming, high

gravity dam foundation drains carbonate/silt pressure water
jetting
Tuttle Creek Embankment Relief wells Iron bacteria Boiling water and
Dam foundation chlorine
92
Chapter 4—Drain Performance
Table 4.—Plugged/cleaned drain case histories (cont’d)

Drained Plugging
Case history feature Type of drain mechanism Cleaning method
Davis Creek Embankment 8-inch and 12-inch Collapsed pipe; Replacement; high
Dam toe drain perforated sedimet deposition pressure water
corrugated jetting; video
polyethylene pipe inspections
Keechelus Embankment Rock drain with Sediment and Water jetting; video
Dam toe drain outfall pipes gravel inspection;
installation of new
toe drain with filter
Summary of Embankment Various materials Various Video inspection

toe drain toe drains mechanisms
inspections
4-1. Brantley Dam—Foundation Drain Cleaning.—
a. Abstract.—Brantley Dam, located on the Pecos River in New Mexico, has

experienced an increase in uplift pressures under block 2 since 1992. The increases in
pressure are approximately 8 to 10 percent. These unexpected uplift pressure increases
resulted in the initiation of a program to evaluate the foundation drains at the dam to
determine the cause of the increased foundation pressures. Several drain holes were selected
as test holes to be evaluated as a precursor to an extensive drain cleaning program. Each
test drain hole was inspected with a borehole camera before and after cleaning. The drain
cleaning used a variety of methods—low pressure water flushing, chopping bits, wire brush,
and combinations of these methods. During this program, three possible drain-plugging
mechanisms were identified—biological fouling, mineral incrustation, and siltation. This test
program led to a proposal by the Albuquerque Area Office to try several different cleaning
methods to maintain all the drain holes at Brantley Dam.
b. Background.—Brantley Dam, the major feature of the Brantley Project, has

operated satisfactorily since its construction completion in early 1988. It is located on the
Pecos River, 15 miles upstream of Carlsbad, New Mexico. The reservoir is a replacement
for McMillan reservoir, which was located 5.5 miles upstream.
Brantley Dam is a composite structure consisting of a zoned earthfill embankment with a

concrete gravity midsection (fig. 53). The crest length is 20,850 feet, including the 760-foot
long concrete gravity section. The crest elevation of the embankment section is 3308.0 feet;
the crest elevation of the concrete gravity section is 3308.5 feet. The crest width of the
93
Figure 53.—Profile of the concrete portion of Brantley Dam showing the approximate
location of the uplift pressure monitoring lines.
earthfill embankment is 24 feet; the crest width of the concrete gravity section is 15 feet.
The dam impounds a reservoir with a total capacity of 381,748 acre-feet at the top of
exclusive flood control (El. 3283.0), including 106,950 acre-feet allowance of 100-year
sediment deposition. The spillway for Brantley Dam consists of six 50-foot-wide by
25-foot-high radial gates with a total ogee crest length of 300 feet and a 52-foot radius roller-
bucket stilling basin that is common to both the spillway and the outlet works. The outlet
works is a high pressure gate-controlled structure.
The foundation of Brantley Dam consists of sound and competent layers of dolomite,
sandstone, and siltstone. Excavation for the concrete section was about 30 feet into firm
foundation. A 30-foot thickness of consolidation grouting was placed beneath the concrete
section.
The foundation drains are “NX” sized (2.97-inch diameter) core holes angled approximately
5 to 10 degrees from vertical in the downstream direction from the foundation gallery of the
concrete portion of the dam. The top 5 feet of the drain holes is within 3½-inch diameter
steel pipe embedded in the concrete; the remainder of the hole is completed uncased in the
foundation material. In general, the holes are about 50 feet deep.
c. Drain Cleaning History.—Review of Brantley Dam uplift pressure pipe installations

indicated that by 1995, the dam was experiencing a slight but constant increase (about 8%)
of uplift pressures in block 2 and to a lesser extent in block 14 (2%). Figure 54 illustrates the
typical layout of uplift pressure monitoring lines under blocks 2 and 14. The increase in
block 2 appears to have begun in 1992. The uplift pressures beneath block 2 were increasing
at approximately 2 to 3 percent a year (fig. 55).
The rise in uplift pressures prompted a program of cleaning the foundation drains in 1994.
The drain cleaning program consisted of flushing and probing of the foundation drains using
94
Figure 54.—Typical layout of the uplift pressure monitoring lines under blocks 2 and 14.
a 1-inch diameter PVC pipe and a low head centrifugal pump, rated at 41 gal/min and
powered by an electric motor. The PVC pipe was inserted to the bottom of the drain, and
water from the gallery gutter was circulated through the drain until discharge cleared, which
took from 15 to 20 minutes. Higher pressure methods, such as a jetting tool, were not
employed because of the friable nature of the foundation material. This was borne out when
some of the drains were video taped with a borehole camera, which showed foundation
drain hole erosion.
During the flushing operations, it was noticed that some holes were partially blocked by a
white precipitate, later tested to be predominantly calcium and magnesium carbonate with
some sulfates also present. These holes were cleaned with a chopping blade mounted on
metal pipe. Also present in the foundation drain holes was iron bacteria, which were
removed by flushing. This cleaning program provided some relief for the uplift pressures,
but only for a short time, as documented by the reduction of uplift pressures. However, the
reduced uplift pressures only lasted a short time.
95
Figure 55.—Scatter plot of uplift pressures under block 2 between January 1990 and March 1994.
96
Because of the short-lived success of the flushing method to keep the majority of the drains
open, a field team consisting of personnel from the Bureau of Reclamation and Carlsbad
Irrigation District was assembled in February 1996 to evaluate the foundation drains at
Brantley Dam. Down hole video inspection was determined to be the first step toward
determining the condition of the foundation drains.
The following 12 foundation drains were selected as part of the video inspection program:
Block Drain number(s)

1 81
2 71, 74, 75, 76
3 67, 69, 70
4 64
6 62
9 34
11 26
Drain number 62 at station 88+65 in block 6 was designated as the “control” foundation
drain because of an 8-percent decrease in uplift pressures in block 6 since 1989. Prior to the
video inspection by the borehole camera, the selected foundations drains were cleaned by
flushing and probing. Drain 69 had a floating mat of iron-related bacteria that had to be
skimmed away prior to video inspection.
Listed in table 5 are the foundation drains in the order in which they were inspected, along
with depth reached.
The video inspection identified three possible processes that could contribute to the decline
of drain effectiveness—biological fouling, mineral incrustation, and siltation:
• Biological Fouling.—Iron-related bacteria were observed in all the foundation drains

inspected with the camera. The species Gallionella ferruginea was confirmed to be present
in foundation drain water samples by the New Mexico Department of Health’s scientific
laboratory. This genus is commonly found in iron-bearing waters and soils, and its
growth causes problems in water wells. Gallionella is a stalked iron bacterium
characterized by a small bean-shaped cell with a long slender twisted stalk. It was once
thought that the stalks were entirely inorganic extrusions of ferric hydrate; current
research indicates the stalk may contain protein to which ferric hydrate is bound [33].
The video inspection showed iron bacteria in all the foundation drains in seemingly
equal concentrations with perhaps the greatest accumulations in drain 34, block 9. Using
97
Table 5.—Foundation drains inspected at Brantley Dam.
Foundation Approx. drain Camera total

drain number Station Block depth (ft) depth (ft)
81 87+09 1 49.2 37.82
76 87+55 2 48.7 48.6
75 87+65 2 49.9 49.7
74 87+75 2 50.7 50.7
71 88+05 2 53.3 40.32
70 88+10 3 49.2 37.42
69 88+20 3 48.8 48.7
67 88+40 3 51.8 51.6
64 88+65 4 49.2 49.2
62 88+85 6 49.7 49.5
34 91+50 9 50.2 50.1
26 92+20 11 50.4 50.1
71 88+05 2 53.3 53.03
74 87+75 2 50.7 50.14
1
Approximate total depth of hole. Numerous depths for the same hole are given on the
cleaning reports. Some of the depths are acknowledged to be off “by a coupling length or
two.” The depths given here are either rounded “eyeball” averages or the value that most
closely agrees with the depth determined with the camera.
2
Camera stopped by mineral incrustation (deposits) in hole.
3
Hole cleaned 2/21/96 with the single blade (e- by 2½-inch) sharpened chopping bit
on a mixed string of 1-inch and ¾-inch diameter by 5-foot long joints of galvanized steel
pipe, followed by about 30 minutes of washing.
4
Inspection with radial view lens. Actual depth was 50.1 feet. Mirror motor occupies
lower 0.6 ft of hole.
the flushing method to clean the drain improved drain effectiveness where iron
bacteria were the predominant clogging mechanism.
98
The method of flushing drains, in which the wash pipe is moved from drain to drain, as
well as the manner in which the drains are plumbed into a common gallery gutter suggest
that iron bacteria have been able to develop throughout the drainage system.
• Mineral Incrustation.—The camera could not be lowered to the bottom of the hole in
drains 81 (block 1), 71 (block 2), or 70 (block 3) due to mineral incrustation (deposits)
that occluded most in the borehole. These deposits are probably combinations of
calcium and magnesium carbonates and calcium sulfate [34]. X-ray diffraction
techniques are needed to determine the specific mineral. The remaining opening was
only sufficient to allow passage of the 1-inch diameter PVC wash pipe. These blockages
and others that the camera was able to pass by correspond closely to “plugs” or “partial
plugs” reported on the cleaning report. An unsuccessful attempt was made to clear the
plug in drain 71 using a 2½-inch diameter flue brush on d-inch fiberglass rods. The
blockage was then chopped out with the single blade, steel chopping bit on steel pipe.
From the cleaning report, “plugs” were not exclusively a problem in block 2.
• Siltation.—Using the borehole camera’s radial lens revealed that fine grained debris was
building up in the horizontal joints/fractures in drain 74. Since this was the only hole
this lens was used in, the extent of this type of buildup is not known. These deposits
may be the result of the flushing process. Siltation is not considered to be a viable
explanation of decreased drain performance.
d. Conclusion.—Experience gained by the field team in evaluating the foundation
drain holes at Brantley Dam has provided some suggestions for future cleaning programs.
The field team has made a general suggestion for cleaning drains for each of the specific
types of plugging processes:
• Biological Fouling.—Disinfecting the drains with one of the chlorine compounds is an

effective means of destroying a wide variety of bacteria. Acid treatment is effective to
dissolve the ferric hydrate deposited by the organisms. It should be noted that
disinfecting with both chlorine and acid compounds provides only temporary relief from
fouling. There are also environmental considerations when using these types of
chemicals.
• Mineral Incrustation.—Mechanical cleaning by chopping, or alternatively, drilling can keep

the borehole clean. If these deposits are adjacent to an active groundwater flow zone
(likely) and invade the formation (likely), opening the borehole will do little to restore
drain performance. Acid treatment is effective to dissolve deposits in the drain hole and,
to a limited extent, out into the formation material. It should be noted that acid
treatment may not be practical for all locations because of environmental restrictions.
99
• Siltation.—More energy is needed in the flushing process to keep material from settling
out of the water column. Top to bottom agitation with a jetting tool on a hose that
directs wash water out into the formation, followed by pumping from the drains should
remove the sediment. Since the drains may produce very little water during the pumping
phase, a means of providing (disinfected) make-up water at the top of the hole may be
needed.
This case history demonstrates the need to establish a foundation drain cleaning program to
maintain the effectiveness of foundation drains. The cleaning program initiated at this site
showed an immediate reduction of uplift pressures after cleaning. The inspection of selected
foundation drains indicated that the buildup of deposits from biological fouling, mineral
incrustation, and siltation led to the increase in foundation pressures under block 2.
Although three processes were identified, none of the three are conclusive causes for the
increase in uplift pressures. It appears that the primary cause was from the buildup of
deposits from biological fouling and mineral incrustation. As described above, the drain
cleaning program reduced uplift pressures at Brantley Dam for only a short period of time,
which demonstrates the need to periodically maintain the foundation drains.
4-2. Folsom Dam—Foundation Drain Cleaning.—
a. Abstract.—Folsom Dam, located on the American River about 20 miles northeast

of Sacramento, California, has a concrete gravity section flanked by earth embankment wing
dams. The concrete gravity dam has a structural height of 340 feet and a crest length of
1,400 feet. A single line of 3½-inch diameter foundation drains (139 drains total) is provided
in the gravity section to relieve foundation uplift pressures. The foundation drains are
affected by calcium carbonate deposition within the drains and have been cleaned several
times. In 1983, the foundation drains were cleaned with high pressure water jetting
(pressure and flow rates unknown). In 1985, an unsuccessful attempt was made to clean
several foundation drains by chemical removal of calcium carbonate deposits. In 1987,
several foundation drains were cleaned with ultrahigh pressure water jetting (up to
36,000 lb/in2, 0.6 gal/min). Also in 1987, a mechanical abrader (Roto-Rooter) was used to
clean one foundation drain. In 1988, several foundation drains were cleaned with high
pressure water jetting (up to 10,000 lb/in2, 20 gal/min). Cleaning of selected foundation
drains continued periodically through the early 1990s using a 3,000-lb/in2 water blaster that
was not able to effectively remove the calcium carbonate.
b. Background.—Folsom Dam is a Reclamation structure located on the American

River in the Central Valley of California about 20 miles northeast of Sacramento. Folsom
Dam consists of a concrete gravity section across the river channel flanked by earth
embankment wing dams extending from the concrete section to high ground on either side
of the river. Bedrock at Folsom Dam is quartz diorite, a hard granite-like rock.
100
Folsom Dam construction was completed in 1956. The concrete gravity dam section has a
structural height of 340 feet and a crest length of 1400 feet. A single line of 3½-inch
diameter foundation drains (139 drains total) is provided in the gravity section to relieve
foundation uplift pressures. The drains range in depth from 11 to 150 feet and average
125 feet. The foundation drains were drilled on 10-foot spacings to relieve uplift pressures
that may develop under the dam and potentially cause stability problems. Since construction
of the dam, the foundation drains have experienced a gradual loss of effectiveness through
deposition of calcium carbonate within the drain holes, inducing increased uplift pressures.
c. Drain Cleaning History.—In 1978, the foundation drains at Folsom Dam showed
signs of normal seepage. By 1980, the examination report suggested that the foundation
drain and discharge pipes be probed and cleaned where plugged, and efforts to probe and
clean the foundation drains were initiated. The 1983 examination report stated that work on
the drain probing and cleaning recommendation was incomplete but that partial work had
been done and would continue until finished. Drain cleaning efforts continued at Folsom
Dam with the chronology of drain cleaning events listed below:
1. High Pressure Fluid Jet.—The Industrial Hydropower Company of Placerville,

California volunteered to demonstrate their high pressure water-blasting system on the
3½-inch diameter drain holes at Folsom Dam in April 1983. They demonstrated its
effectiveness by removing some exposed hard calcium carbonate within the upper portion of
the drain holes.
In May 1983, Industrial Hydropower returned to Folsom Dam for a more extensive
demonstration, cleaning two drain holes selected by Reclamation. Each of the holes was
inspected before and after the demonstration with a borehole camera. The demonstrations
showed this equipment can access tens of feet into drain holes and is capable of removing
hard calcium carbonate deposits.
2. Chemical Removal of Carbonate Deposits.—In 1985, Reclamation studied the

potential for chemical removal of hard, thick calcium carbonate deposits that had reduced
casing and drain hole diameters. Granular and pelletized forms of sulfamic acid were
applied to a sampling of drains in quantities equivalent to 2 to 8 percent of the unobstructed
drain volumes. An immediate vigorous reaction was observed at the drain opening, when
the granular form of the acid reached the point of obstruction. (Obstructions near the upper
ends of the drains were detected by probing.) The pellets dissolved slowly, providing
acidification at the bottom of the hole over an extended period.
Follow-up inspection of the drains indicated no evidence of improvement in drain function.

An odor was detected in and around the treated areas, and due to concern for safety of
personnel, acid treatments were discontinued. Possibilities for the sulfamic acid treatment to
101
dissolve the calcium carbonate obstruction remain, but the problem of gases generated needs
to be studied. In addition, environmental issues of introducing acid into the groundwater
table may preclude the use of acid treatment. The sulfamic acid treatment may be best
utilized as a deterrent to calcium carbonate buildup on a preventative maintenance basis.
3. Ultrahigh Pressure Fluid Jet.—In 1987, Power Master, Inc., demonstrated an

ultrahigh pressure (UHP) water jet method of cleaning the foundation drains at Folsom
Dam. The contractor, using a flow rate of 0.6 gallons per minute and nozzle configurations
of 45°, 30°, and 20° had little success penetrating a hard calcium carbonate plug located at a
depth of 35 feet. The contractor also tried a nozzle tip with jets designed to cut through the
center of the plug. This tip also failed to show satisfactory success. The contractor then
increased discharge pressure to an estimated 36,000 pounds per square inch with a 60°
nozzle tip. This tip cut through approximately six feet of the calcium carbonate plug. A
borehole camera lowered into the drains showed satisfactory cleaning. However, the low
flow rate would not flush the cuttings from the jet cleaning from the hole, leading to
eventual plugging of the drain.
The equipment used to clean the foundation drain holes required 440-volt power source,
was very bulky, hard to maneuver, and prone to breakdown. Modifications to the 1987
vintage equipment are required to adapt the UHP cleaning equipment to clean foundation
drains.
4. Roto-Rooter.—In 1987 a local Roto-Rooter franchise demonstrated the use of

an electrically driven, rotary, interior pipe cleaner to break though a plugged foundation
drain using a variety of cutting edges. The drain hole was plugged from 16- to 25- and
40- to 53-foot depths. The borehole was opened to 129 feet in six to seven hours. Flow
rate from the drain hole increased from no flow to 1.6 gallons per hour. The foundation
drain hole was inspected with a borehole camera and found to be free of calcium carbonate.
5. High Pressure Fluid Jet.—In 1988, Donco Industries, Inc., demonstrated high
pressure fluid jet methods. The equipment was most effective at a working pressure of
10,000 lb/in2 and a flow rate of 20 gal/min. System pressure losses were 150 lb/in2 per
50 feet of ½-inch-inside-diameter (I.D.) supply hose and a loss of 3,300 lb/in2 for 25 feet of
¼-inch-I.D. flexible, nylon steel, lance hose. The heads available for use were:
• Seven-sixteenths-inch flexible lance, with 25 feet of ¼-inch-I.D. nylon steel hose, with
one hole straight forward and 18 holes pointing forward 30°
• One-half-inch molehead, with 5-foot long, ½-inch-I.D. steel shaft, and one hole straight
forward, three holes at 45° forward, and three holes at 35° aft
102
• Two-inch molehead, with 5-foot long, ½-inch-I.D. steel shaft, and several different
nozzles that could be arranged as needed
• Two-and-one-half-inch rotating molehead, with 5-foot long, ½-inch-I.D. steel shaft, one
hole straight forward, two holes at 45° forward, and two holes at 45° aft
• Three-inch diameter carbide bit with high pressure water jets protruding forward, adding
5-foot shafts as necessary to advance the hose and cutter head to required depths
A ½-inch-I.D., 30,000-lb/in2 capacity hose was used to convey flow from the pump. As a
safety feature, a dump-load device with a foot pedal was used to regulate pressure to the
molehead or lance.
In drain hole 12-D-4, a solid calcium carbonate plug was encountered from 50 to 80 feet,
and cleaning was continued 130 feet deep. After cleaning, the drain hole was flushed with
water. Inspection with a borehole camera showed approximately 60 percent of the borehole
circumference was clean. The contractor then used the 2½-inch rotating molehead to
reclean between 50 and 60 feet deep in 5 minutes. A recheck with the borehole camera
showed no significant change.
The contractor then used the 2-inch-diameter molehead to reclean between 50 and 60 feet
deep. A recheck with the borehole camera at 55-feet-depth where the cleaning was
concentrated showed calcium carbonate on 30 to 40 percent of the borehole wall. The other
60 to 70 percent of the borehole wall was clean.
In drain hole 12-D-5, a solid calcium carbonate plug was encountered 14 feet deep. Using
the flexible lance, the contractor attempted to cut through the plug for five minutes with no
success. An attempt to break through the plug with the 2½-inch rotating molehead was also
unsuccessful. The contractor switched to the ½-inch molehead and penetrated the plug in a
few minutes; the plug was only a few feet in length. The contractor then used the flexible
lance to clean the drain hole between 17 and 140 feet deep in 17 minutes. While cleaning
drain hole 12-D-5, the contractor did not rotate the lance. The borehole was then inspected
with the borehole camera. Streaks were present, indicating the lance should be rotated to
ensure complete removal of deposits.
6. Other Cleaning Methods.—Other cleaning methods used by Reclamation O&M

staff at Folsom Dam include installing an inflatable packer at the collar, and bubbling carbon
dioxide into drain hole 12-D-1. The pressure on the carbon dioxide could not be
maintained and the carbon dioxide escaped through interconnected discontinuities into
adjacent drain holes. An additional cleaning method includes using a 2½-inch diameter,
pointed brass nozzle (that looks similar to a plumb bob) with holes in the side that induce
103
the nozzle to spin. The plugged drain holes were initially opened by dropping a 5-foot
length of ¾-inch diameter steel pipe attached to a hose onto the plug in an attempt to break
the plug. The rotating nozzle was then lowered into the drain to flush cuttings from the
hole. Soft plugs (bacterial) are adequately removed using this method.
d. Conclusions.—The most effective method to clean obstructed foundation drain

holes at Folsom Dam was a high pressure fluid (water) jet. High pressure fluid jet
equipment and methods improved through the 1980s. The improvements included
downsizing of equipment, increasing reliability of equipment, improving power sources, and
improvements in nozzle configurations, jet orifice attack angles, and rates of lowering and
raising the jet in the drain holes. High pressure fluid jetting demonstrated its effectiveness
by removing hard calcium carbonate within the drain holes, improving drainage flows, and
reducing uplift pressures.
While the Roto-Rooter method was successful, other methods used by Reclamation to clean
foundation drain holes either failed or were only marginally effective.
Chemical removal of calcium carbonate obstruction that reduces drain hole effectiveness is
not proven effective. However, chemicals may be best utilized as a deterrent to buildup on a
preventative maintenance basis if environmentally acceptable.
4-3. Friant Dam—Foundation Drain Cleaning.—
a. Background.—Friant Dam is a Reclamation concrete gravity dam, located

approximately 25 miles northeast of Fresno, California on the San Joaquin River. The dam,
which was completed in 1942, has a structural height of 319 feet and a crest length of about
3,500 feet. Formed drains within the dam, as well as foundation drains are provided at
Friant Dam to relieve uplift pressures. Five-inch diameter formed drains are provided at
10-foot centers within the dam. Five-inch diameter foundation drains at 10-foot centers are
provided with depths into the foundation from 12 to 100 feet. Figures 56 and 57 provide
the layout and locations of the foundation drains. The foundation drains discharge into the
grouting and drainage gallery, which is located in the lower portion of the dam. Seepage is
collected and measured from blocks 21-28 (SM-Area 1), 29-34 (SM-Area 2), 34-49 (SM-
Area 3) and 49-57 (SM-Area 4). A V-notch weir is used to measure the flow in the drainage
channel at each of the four collection points. The locations of the seepage weirs are shown
on figure 58.
The foundation drains have become plugged, as indicated by reduced depths that a probe
could be inserted into the drain holes and by increased measured uplift pressures within the
104
Figure 56.—Profile of Friant Dam and drains.
Figure 57.—Cross section of Friant Dam.
105
Figure 58.—Plan view of Friant Dam.
dam foundation. During the period of 1987 through 1994, seepage flow values, as measured
at weirs in the foundation galleries, decreased dramatically and were very low. The plugging
mechanism was determined to be calcium carbonate because of the formation of hard white
deposits at the outlet end of the drains. Four lines (oriented in the upstream/downstream
direction, five to six pressure pipes per line) of uplift pressure pipes are provided to monitor
foundation pressures at the base of the dam. The locations of the uplift pressure lines and
pipes are shown on figures 58 and 59. Only one of the lines (line 4) has been responsive to
changes in the reservoir elevation, and this line has indicated uplift pressures greater than the
assumed design uplift pressures. Figure 60 shows the results of uplift pressure readings on
line 1 since 1982, and shows no response to reservoir level or any change over the last 17
years. Lines 2 and 3 show similar results to line 1. All three of these lines showed little or
no response to reservoir levels from the time of their original installation. The holes for the
uplift pressure pipes were not drilled very deeply into the foundation (only about 3 feet), and
it is believed that they may not intersect any discontinuities in the dam foundation, and as a
result, do not reflect actual uplift pressures in the foundation. Uplift pressures in lines 1, 2,
and 3 have historically been very low and have shown very little response to changes in
reservoir levels throughout their history.
Uplift pressures in the Friant Dam foundation are a concern, since measured uplift pressures
(along line 4) are greater than the uplift pressures assumed for design. The original uplift
assumed during design was full reservoir head at the upstream heel of the dam, one-third of
the difference between the reservoir and tailwater head at the drain location, and the
tailwater head at the downstream toe of the dam. The uplift was assumed to vary linearly
between the three points described above. Monitoring uplift pressures is important. In the
106
Figure 59.—Profile of Friant Dam and drains.
Figure 60.—Friant Dam uplift pressures for line 1, sta. 03+69.5, block 28.
107
Figure 61.—Friant Dam uplift pressures for line 4, sta. 24+55, block 49.
1998 Performance Parameters for Friant Dam, it was recommended that uplift pressure
pipes on lines 1, 2 and 3 be reestablished in an attempt to determine actual uplift pressures in
the dam foundation over a wider area than that provided by line 4 only.
b. Drain Cleaning History.—In 1993, a contract was issued to clean the foundation
drains in blocks 47 through 54, using high pressure water jetting techniques (pressures up to
10,000 lb/in2 were used). Results of the cleaning effort indicated that most of the drain
holes were opened to greater depths (based on probing the holes before and after cleaning),
although the pressure gauge readings for line 4 do not reflect an improvement in drainage
(see fig. 61 for uplift pressure readings on line 4). However, it was also noted that depths
measured after flushing with air and water after cleaning were less than the depths measured
by the contractor during cleaning of the drain holes. It was speculated that the water-
blasting tool punched through obstructions (made a small hole) but did not fully remove
them.
108
In December 1997, the foundation drains were cleaned again using high pressure water
jetting. One hundred ninety eight drains were cleaned in blocks 27 through 65. A 4-inch
diameter plumb bob was passed through each drain before and after cleaning to confirm
that an acceptable degree of cleaning had been accomplished. In addition, uplift pressures
along line 4 were recorded before and after drain cleaning.
A 20,000-lb/in2, 17-gal/min hydroblast pump was used as the power unit for the 1997 drain
cleaning operations. The cleaning tool was a speed-governed reaction-jet rotating mole with
a proprietary head design. The mole with its rotating head and diverging nozzles is capable
of cutting through solid blockages and scrubbing the walls clean at the same time. A
portable derrick and electric winch was used to control raising and lowering the mole within
the drain holes. A 4-inch centralizing cable support system was also provided for the mole.
The results indicate that the drain cleaning was successful. Prior to cleaning the foundation
drains, very little water was flowing in the drainage channels of the drainage gallery. After
cleaning, water was flowing at a much higher rate through the channels (based on a visual
assessment). Seepage readings were not made immediately after the cleaning, because the
contractor was working in drainage areas 3 and 4 and also working on the sump in the
gallery. Instrumentation readings shortly after the cleaning show an increase in seepage
flows, but the reservoir level was also rising. Pressures were recorded at the uplift pressure
pipes in line 4 before and after the cleaning. Table 6 summarizes the readings, which
indicate the cleaning was very effective in reducing uplift pressures, at least in the portion of
the dam foundation near line 4.
Table 6.—Results of 1997 drain cleaning, uplift pressures—line 4.
Pressure head (ft) Pressure head (ft)

Location 12/9/97 1/2/98
A 52 48
B 26 10
Line 4,
sta. 24+55, C 36 2
block 49
D 23 3
E 40 3
The uplift pressure profile from the January 1998 readings matches closely with the original
design assumption—some points are slightly above the design profile and some points are
slightly below.
109
Hole depths before and after the drain cleaning indicated that the hole depths increased for
all but one foundation drain hole (block 58, No. 3, 21-7). Table 7 provides the hole depths
before and after cleaning for selected drain holes, indicating that the drain cleaning was
effective.
Table 7.—Results of 1997 drain cleaning, probed depths of drains.
Depth before Depth after 1997

Block No. Drain No. 1997 cleaning (ft) cleaning, feet
32us 5 37 90
33us 1 49 90
33us 5 55 86
35us 2 66 83
39us 4 18 73
39us 6 29 84
43us 2 36 86
45us 4 60 89
48us 4 67 90
48us 5 67 94
50 1 13 71
50 2 12 71
58 2 37 80
Although the uplift pressure data is only at one location in the dam foundation, other
evidence, including increased depth of probed holes and visual indication of increased
seepage, indicates that the cleaning was effective in increasing the efficiency of the drains
across the dam foundation. Figure 61 provides a plot of uplift pressure readings along line 4
and indicates that the uplift pressures stayed at a reduced level after the 1997 cleaning.
Foundation seepage data since the 1997 drain cleaning is somewhat puzzling (see fig. 62).
The total drain flows measured at the four weirs have been reduced significantly since the
cleaning (contrary to the initial visual reports that the drain flows increased immediately after
cleaning). The expectation would be that drain flows would increase with cleaning.
110
Figure 62.—Friant Dam drain flows.
c. Conclusions.—The drain cleaning performed in 1997 was the second drain cleaning
effort at Friant Dam, the first being in 1993. While the 1993 cleaning only showed a slight
reduction in uplift pressures along line 4 (see fig. 61), the 1997 results showed a significant
reduction in uplift pressures. An improvement in cleaning methods from 1993 to 1997 was
the cleaning of the holes to their original diameters as opposed to just opening a path
through the plugged portions of the drains.
The importance of instrumentation to verify the effectiveness of drains and their ability to
reduce uplift pressures was also demonstrated at Friant Dam. Only one line of uplift
pressure pipes appears to provide valid foundation uplift pressures. Since this line only
provides information over a limited portion of the dam foundation and since the data along
this line has indicated uplift pressures which exceed design uplift pressures, plans have been
made to reestablish uplift pressure pipes at other locations in the dam foundation.
111
4-4. Grand Coulee Riverbank Stabilization Well Rehabilitation for Iron-Reducing

Bacteria.—About 45 pumped wells were installed in the mid 1980s as part of a stabilization
process along the riverbanks of the Columbia River in a 6-mile reach downstream of Grand
Coulee Dam. The wells were installed to reduce the groundwater level in the vicinity of the
riverbanks. Other features of the stabilization effort included large diameter shafts with
horizontal drains. The riverbank slopes were also reshaped and covered with armor riprap
to reduce erosion.
Iron-reducing bacteria infested the relief wells, which clogged the screens as well as the
gravel pack surrounding the screens. Personnel from the Grand Coulee Project Office
developed procedures for rehabilitating the screens. These procedures evolved over a
number of years based on the project's experiences with the wells. Project personnel found
that an extreme change in the pH of the well water, which is achieved by an acid treatment
followed by a chlorine treatment, is more effective in killing the bacteria than using only a
chlorine solution or only an acid solution.
Each well is equipped with a water meter, which records the well discharge. When a
significant decrease in discharge rate occurs, the wells are rehabilitated using the procedures
outlined in this case history.
a. Results.—This method is very effective in restoring the production rate in wells

with iron-reducing bacteria encrustation. Figures 63 through 65 are plots of well discharge.
These figures show the big jump in well production that occurred after the well cleaning
procedure. Well production prior to the cleaning procedure was typically about 50 percent
of the production after the procedures. In the case of drain well No. 33, the production rate
prior to the cleaning procedure was only 30 percent of the rate after the procedure.
Many types of iron-reducing bacteria clog wells, with varying degrees of encrustation. The
procedures described here have been effective at Grand Coulee. It may be necessary,
through trial and error, to alter the concentrations at other sites to get the best results.
Personnel at Grand Coulee recommended using the procedure frequently, rather than
waiting until production rate has dropped off by 50 percent or more.
b. Well Cleaning Procedure.—
1. Initial Preparation.—
1. The well depth, design, screen size, and static water level need to be determined so that
the proper amounts of chemicals can be calculated.
112
Figure 63.—Discharge from drain well No. 29, showing a large increase in production after cleaning.
2. Remove the well pump. For effective cleaning, any inner screen or casing should also be
removed to allow chemicals and the mechanical cleaner to be in contact with the outer
screen.
3. Air lift the well for about 2 hours to remove debris and suspended particles. An air lift is
simply a pipe, with a diameter of usually two inches or less, that has a compressed air
line attached in a manner that will allow air bubbles to travel up the inside of the air lift
pipe. The bubbling action of the compressed air creates an upward flow of water in the
pipe, and the air lift acts like a vacuum cleaner.
4. Near the end of the 2-hour air lift process, take a water sample and test the pH of the
well water. Also, measure and record approximately how much water the well is
producing with the air lift system. This information will be needed later.
5. After the air lift process is complete, the entire length of the well screen and the solid
casing in the vicinity of the pump intake should be video taped using a down hole
camera. The air lift process will improve the clarity of the well water, which benefits the
video taping. The type of treatment required to rehabilitate the well will be determined
from the video information.
2. Chlorination Treatment .—Both the chlorination and the acid treatment require
handling of hazardous chemicals. Special precautions and protective equipment are
required. Safety considerations are summarized in Personal Safety Procedures (p. 119). The
safety requirements could vary from case to case; therefore, the procedures for each job
should be reviewed by qualified safety personnel.
1. This procedure should be started in the morning to allow a full day of chlorine
treatment.
2. Chlorine should be added to the well as required to bring the concentration in the well
to about 1,000 ppm of chlorine by weight. Protective clothing must be worn while
working with the chlorine. Approximately 1 gallon of water will dissolve 1 pound of
calcium hypochlorite pellets/granules. The chlorine solution should be mixed in a
plastic or steel container, not a galvanized container. The granules take about
30 minutes to go into solution, and after the solution is mixed, it must be gently agitated
to keep the chlorine in suspension while the mix is pumped into the well.
3. The chlorine solution is pumped into the well from the bottom up. The solution is
dispersed evenly through the entire water column with the use of a tremie pipe. A
plastic or black iron pipe should be used for the tremie operation.
116
4. After the chlorine solution has been evenly dispersed in the well water column, it is
gently agitated and surged with a surge block (see the case history on Senator Wash Dam
on page 134 for a description of a surge block and how it is operated). Starting at the
top and working to the bottom, the surge block is operated in 5-foot intervals. The
surging action will gently force the chlorine through the well screen and out into the
sand/gravel pack. After the surging operation is complete, the chlorine solution remains
in the well overnight.
5. After the chlorine solution has been in the well for about 24 hours, the surge block is
once again operated in 5-foot intervals, starting at the top of the well screen. After
surging each interval for approximately 10 minutes, the air lift is used to remove the
water and debris from the well. The surge and air lift process is repeated several times
until the well water discharging from the air lifts clear. Then the surge block is moved
down to the next 5-foot interval. Periodically, the surge block should be lifted out of the
well to inspect the rubber or leather discs (whichever type is used on the surge block). It
is important to replace worn discs, because if they wear down to the wooden or metal
block, the well screen could be damaged.
6. Although there should be very little residual chlorine left at this point, caution should be
taken to not discharge the well water directly to any water body or near woody plants or
trees. If the waste water cannot be discharged into an area adjacent to the well in an
environmentally safe manner, pump the well discharge into a tank and transport to a
suitable site.
3. Acid Treatment.—It is important that all of the chlorine has been removed
from the well before beginning the acid treatment. The acid treatment requires handling of
hazardous chemicals. As a result, special precautions and protective equipment are required.
Safety considerations are summarized in the section on Personal Safety Procedures (p. 119).
However, the safety requirements could vary from case to case; therefore, the procedures for
each job should be reviewed by qualified safety personnel.
1. A product called Nu-Well has been used to prepare the acid solution used to rehabilitate
the riverbank stabilization relief wells downstream of Grand Coulee Dam. Nu-Well is a
blend of sulfamic and amidosulfonic acid. The acid treatment should be started at the
beginning of the shift to allow sufficient time for the chemicals to dissolve and to allow
for several hours of surging before the shift ends.
2. The procedures for the acid treatment will depend on the amount and type of
encrustation. The video tape which was taken during the initial well preparation should
reveal the amount of encrustation. For treatment of a slightly encrusted screen or soft
bacteria slime, the Nu-Well by itself should reduce the pH in the well to 5 or less. Five
117
percent of Nu-Well by weight of water in the well is added to the well. Only the weight
of the water in the screened portion of the relief well should be used to calculate the
weight of the Nu-Well to be added. In addition to Nu-Well, rock salt should also be
used when the encrustation is hard and is believed to be of iron or manganese origin
(rustlike deposits on screen). The encrustation in the Grand Coulee wells is commonly
of iron origin. The rock salt should be added to the well at a rate of 2 pounds of rock
salt for every 10 pounds of Nu-Well. Trial and error is sometimes required. If the
process is not effective, the concentration of the Nu-Well may have to be increased. In
cases where the screen is moderately to heavily encrusted, it may be necessary to increase
the weight of Nu-Well to as much as 30 percent.
3. The calculated quantity of Nu-Well pellets is poured into the well casing, and allowed to
set in the well for 1 to 2 hours. Then the rock salt, if needed, is added to the well and
allowed to set for an additional 2 hours.
4. After the chemicals have been in the well for the required amount of time, the surge
block/air lift assembly is installed to gently agitate the well water and help dissolve the
remaining chemicals (approximately 30 min).
5. After the chemicals are dissolved, the air lift is used to circulate a quantity of well water
equal to the volume of the well. During this process, the well water is very acidic;
therefore, it is important that the discharge hose on the air lift is inserted far enough into
the well casing that no well water splashes out of the well.
6. Next, the surge block is used to gently force the acid solution out through the well
screen and into the sand/gravel pack and natural formation.
7. The acid solution is allowed to set overnight in the well. In the case of moderately to
heavily encrusted well screens, it will be necessary to surge the well again on the second
day and leave the chemical solution in the well for a second night.
8. The acid solution is removed by first surging the well for 30 minutes and then air lifting
the solution from the well for 1 hour. This surging and air lifting cycle is repeated until
the water is clear. After the water is clear, the pH is checked to see if it is close to the
pH that existed in the well prior to the rehabilitation process. Should the water be clean,
but still acidic, the surging is discontinued and the well water is air lifted from the well
until the desired pH is attained. As long as the waste water from the well is acidic, the
water should not be discharged directly into any water body or near woody plants or
trees. If a suitable site to discharge the waste water does not exist near the well, the
waste water must be pumped into a tank and transported to a suitable site.
118
4. Final Chlorination (Disinfection).—The well should be video taped again before

this procedure is started. If bacterial encrustation or slime is still present on the screen, the
well is given a second “chemical” treatment. During the video taping, the screen is also
checked for damage as a result of the cleaning procedure.
1. This step is performed to disinfect the well, pump, pipes, and discharge line.
2. A quantity of chlorine (calcium hypochlorite) needed to bring the concentration in the

well up to 300-500 ppm should be added to the well and mixed using the same
procedures used previously in the chlorination treatment.
3. The chlorine solution is circulated in the well with the airlift system until one well
volume has been circulated. This will mix the solution throughout the water column.
Then the airlift/surge assembly is removed. During the disinfection phase, no water is
added to the well and no surging is performed.
4. The pump and pipes are installed and the whole assembly is allowed to soak in the
chlorine solution for 2 hours minimum and up to 24 hours if time permits.
5. The chlorine solution is pumped to waste. If the well is to be connected to a domestic

supply, it should be pumped to waste for at least 48 hours before connecting to the
domestic line.
c. Personal Safety Procedures.—Any job involving hazardous chemicals should have a

job hazard analysis completed and reviewed by the required safety personnel. Important
considerations are listed below, however, these items are not all inclusive for each specific
job.
• All personnel at the site of the well must wear appropriate safety equipment while
mixing, injecting, purging, or pouring chemicals into the well. As a minimum, the
equipment must include:
N Chemical goggles
N Chlorine-approved respirator (each employee must be fit tested)
N Rubber gloves and boots
N Coveralls
• When chlorine or acid is being mixed, added, or purged from the well, a container (5-gal
minimum) of clear, potable water or a portable eye wash station must be on site for use
in case of accidental exposure. A gallon of 35-percent hydrogen peroxide should also be
119
on hand to neutralize any concentrated spillage of calcium hypochlorite (1 pint will

neutralize 1 lb of calcium hypochlorite).
• Chlorine granules/pellets must be stored in an approved locker. The cabinet must be

labeled “Class III Oxidizer,” and no other chemicals or material should be stored in this
cabinet.
• Only black pipe and/or plastic pipe shall be used when treating the well. No
galvanized pipe should be used, because the strong acids and oxidizers (chlorine) can
severely react with galvanized pipe.
4-5. California Department of Transportation—Horizontal Drains.—
a. Background.—The California Department of Transportation (CDOT) experiences

slope failures in natural ground, cut slopes, and road embankments on both the California
state highway and Interstate systems [28]. The failures are generally initiated by rainfall, with
the water lubricating the material, adding weight, increasing pore pressures, and decreasing
shear strength until failure occurs.
Horizontal drains, generally installed at an angle slightly above horizontal, remove water
from the material in an effort to avoid initiating slope failure. However, the horizontal
drains are susceptible to blockage by mineralization, infiltration of fines, and root growth.
CDOT determined high pressure water cleaning systems used for unplugging culverts and
cleaning sewers can easily be adapted for horizontal drain cleaning by modifying the hose
diameter and nozzle configuration.
b. Case Histories.—Seven horizontal drain installations were selected for evaluation

because they represent the diverse conditions under which horizontal drains perform
successfully in California.
1. Whitmore Maintenance Station.—The site is located at elevation 5,000 feet in the

Sierra Nevada Mountains between Sacramento, California, and Reno, Nevada. Annual
precipitation for the area is 67 inches. After exceptionally heavy rainfall over a 4-day period,
in February 1963, two large road embankment slides occurred on the newly constructed
eastbound lanes of Interstate 80 near the Whitmore Maintenance Station. All three
eastbound lanes were affected by the slope failures and traffic had to be rerouted to the
westbound lanes.
Correction of the two failures included removal of slide debris, removal of roadway
embankment, placement of permeable blankets over the foundation, replacement of the
120
compacted embankments, and installation of horizontal drains into the embankment and
volcanic agglomerate and ash bedrock.
Horizontal drains totaling 21,251 linear feet were installed. The 103 drains average 206 feet
in length with initial total flow ranging from 300,000 to 500,000 gal/d. The drains are highly
responsive to precipitation. Within 24 hours after rainfall, the flow quantity increases
considerably. The drains were cased with 2-inch-diameter perforated steel pipe.
A review of the service records indicates that the drains are cleaned about every 3 to 4 years
using a high-pressure water system. Small amounts of silt and rust are encountered from
time to time, but heavy root growth from willows was found and removed each time from
several of the drains. Since the cleaning is usually done in the late fall, little increase in flow
was noted except in those drains clogged with roots.
The effectiveness of horizontal drains in dewatering the volcanic bedrock at this installation
is excellent. No distress of the roadway or embankments has been noted since installation
of the horizontal drains.
2. San Andreas.—The site is located in the Sierra Nevada foothills on State

Highway 49 at elevation 800 feet. Annual precipitation for the area is 33 inches. Two
landslides developed in newly constructed cut slopes near the community of San Andreas
during late winter of 1964. A 1,200-foot-long section of an 80-foot-high 1½:1 cut slope
failed in sheared and broken serpentine bedrock. A few days later a second slope 3,000 feet
north of the first failed. This cut slope was also newly constructed in serpentine on a 1½:1
slope and was approximately 90 feet high. Free water was evident at the toe of both failures
and the lower portions of each cut were wet before movement occurred.
Correction of the failures consisted of removal of the failed debris, laying the slopes back to
2:1 ratio in the areas of movement, and installing horizontal drains.
Thirty-three horizontal drains, ranging from 150 to 200 feet long, were installed from the toe
of the cut slopes. Grades ranged from 5 to 20 percent (angled upward) and all 5,189 lineal
feet of drain were drilled normal to the roadway alignment. Spacing between drains ranged
from 20 to 150 feet. Locations for the drains were selected based on the surface geology,
evidence of free water on the slopes, and subsurface information obtained during a forensic
investigation drilling program. Perforated steel pipe (2-inch-diameter) was used as casing for
all the installations, and 2-inch-diameter galvanized steel pipe was used for the exposed
outlets and for connecting to the buried 8-inch corrugated metal pipe collector system.
The combined initial flow from the horizontal drains was 119,486 gal/d. Two months after
completion of the installation, the combined flow dropped to 68,504 gal/d, or approximately
121
one-half of the initial flow. Examination of the installation approximately 1 year after
completion revealed a combined flow of 5,710 gal/d. While the flows are greatly
diminished, flows are very responsive to rainfall and increase significantly after a heavy rain.
Cleaning records for this installation are not complete. Apparently, the horizontal drains
were cleaned using a high-pressure water system three times during their first 15 years of
service, for an average of about once every 5 years. Minor amounts of silt and rust were
removed from all the drains, and heavy root growth was removed from four. Little increase
in flow was noted after cleaning except for the drains clogged by roots.
The drains are in excellent condition and show little sign of rusting or damage. The four
drains previously plugged with roots were again clogged and require cleaning. The
remaining 29 drains could easily function another 2 or 3 years without cleaning. With the
exception of the four drains, this installation only needs cleaning about every 8 years.
3. Pacific House.—The site is located at elevation 3,600 feet on the western slope
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains at Pacific House on Trans-Sierra Highway 50. Annual
precipitation for the area is 51 inches. Saturated clayey soil and decomposed coarse-grained
granitic debris slid onto the eastbound lanes from a 30-foot-high, 3/4:1 slope. The slide
mass was fed by springs which may be partially sustained through irrigation of an apple
orchard located upslope from the top of the cut.
Ten horizontal drains were installed in bedrock, during October 1969, ranging in length
from 156 to 213 feet. Grades varied from 2 to 4 percent (angled upward). Schedule 80,
1½-inch-diameter PVC pipe was used in 4 of the 10 drains, while 2-inch-diameter perforated
steel pipe was used in the remaining 6 drains.
The combined initial flow was 26,285 gal/d. Upon completion of the project, the flows
totaled 15,438 gal/d.
Ten years later the site remained stable. Wet spots are common around the drains and two
of the drains showed more water coming from around the drain pipe than through them.
Heavy root growth from willows plugged most of the drains. Approximately 3,000 gal/d
flow from the drains. The slope appeared stable and no distress was evident on the highway
pavement.
4. Cloverdale.—During extremely heavy rainstorms, in February 1941, a large

landslide occurred on Highway 101 near Cloverdale, 90 miles north of San Francisco.
Portions of a high cut slope and side-hill embankment in poorly bedded, sheared shale with
minor lenses and beds of sandstone slid into the Russian River, destroying approximately
122
1,100 feet of the roadway. Large quantities of water in the form of springs and saturated
slide debris were associated with the failure.
Corrective measures included a benched 1½:1 cut slope and a reconstructed 2:1
embankment slope. Ninety-seven horizontal drains were installed using “Hydrauger”
equipment with 2-inch-diameter perforated steel casing placed in 4-inch-diameter drilled
holes. The loose, broken shale caused difficulty during the installation. The average drain
length was only 55 feet. Several holes were abandoned because of caving conditions. Drain
outlets and downpipes were connected to corrugated metal pipe buried below the shoulder,
preventing periodic inspection of the drains.
A complete record of initial flows is missing although some of the individual drains
produced between 150,000 and 200,000 gal/d.
Heavy rains 15 years after construction produced appreciable quantities of water which
appeared in various places along the toe of the cut slope. The water was coming from
around the horizontal drains which had ceased to function properly because of heavy
deposits of rust, gypsum, and root growth. A drain cleaning and restoration program using a
high-pressure water system was completed. Forty-nine drains were located. Prior to
cleaning, the drains produced a combined flow of 184,250 gal/d with one drain producing
143,000 gal/d of this total. Immediately after cleaning, the drains produced a cumulative
total flow of 284,440 gal/d. This flow increase clearly illustrates the value of the drain
cleaning work performed (table 8).
In addition to the cleaning and reconditioning of the collector system with easily accessible
cleanouts, three new drains were installed in the most critical areas. An average length of
114 feet was used. These three drains produced initial flows totaling 28,000 gal/d. Later in
the year, 11 additional horizontal drains, with an average length of 125 feet, were installed in
a slide immediately south of the original failure. Initial flows from these 11 drains totaled
261,989 gal/d. An unknown additional number of drains were also installed in a large cut
area. There is no record of their initial performance.
Twenty years later, the installation was evaluated. Of the 147 drains examined,
approximately 40 percent had flows. Many of the original drains installed 39 years earlier
were still functioning, one of which had a flow of 36,000 gal/d. Most of the steel casings
were severely rusted. Root growth from willows and other native plants clogged many of
the drains and the 8-inch collector system. Sloughing of the weathered slopes buried some
of the drain outlets on both the bench and at grade.
123
Table 8.—Effect of drain cleaning on horizontal flow at Cloverdale, California—1956.
Hole Depth Flow before Flow after

Drain depth cleaned cleaning cleaning
No. (ft) (ft) (gal/d) (gal/d) Remarks
3 65 65 830 1,080 Heavy root growth and rust
6 60 60 143,800 143,800 Gypsum and heavy rust
9 50 50 2,460 4,320 Gypsum and heavy rust
11 75 75 300 43,000 Very heavy root growth
13 80 80 1,440 7,200 Heavy rust
18 45 45 100+ 10,790 Heavy root growth and silt
19 30 11 2,880 7,200 Heavy root growth and rust
21 26 26 100+ 4,320 Heavy root growth
22 35 6 360 1,080 Heavy root growth
23 35 8 6,640 10,790 Heavy root growth and rust
24 37 37 200+ 12,340 Heavy root growth and rust
27 57 57 720 1,540 Heavy rust
29 45 45 300 17,280 Root growth first 20 feet, sand and

rust
5. Nojoqui Grade.—Approximately 200 feet of the northbound lanes of Coastal

Highway 101 was lost or endangered by the sliding of a portion of a sidehill embankment in
December 1940. Geologic investigations indicated the presence of a high water table in soft,
indistinctly bedded claystone and siltstone. A smaller slide of similar nature occurred
800 feet north of this site at approximately the same time.
Forty-two horizontal drains were installed using “Hydrauger” equipment after the
embankments had been reconstructed. They were placed into the hillside from locations
immediately below the toe of the fill slope in the saturated foundation area. These drains
ranged in length from 72 to 191 feet. Perforated 2-inch-diameter steel pipe was used in
4-inch-diameter holes drilled with the auger. Grades ranged from 2 to 10 percent angled
upward. Records of initial flows are not available.
124
The first record of cleaning was 21 years after installation. Only 27 of the original 42 drains
were found. The other drains had been buried by end dumping over the side of the
embankment. A heavy accumulation of roots, rust, and silt was evident in most of the drains
cleaned. No appreciable increase in flow was noted after cleaning, probably due to cleaning
at the end of a hot, dry summer. Flows increase considerably during the wet season.
In late 1974, the embankment was widened and two additional lanes for traffic were
constructed. During construction of the roadway, boggy conditions were encountered.
Several of the severely rusted but still-functioning, buried drains were uncovered. Drains
with exposed outlets had large accumulations (mounds) of iron oxide and algae on the
ground below the casing. Additional subdrainage was necessary to assure construction and
maintenance of a stable highway and thirty-two new drains were installed, ranging in length
from 150 to 450 feet. The combined initial flow was 157,480 gal/d. The combined flow at
the completion of the job was 11,350 gal/d.
Four years later the installation was inspected. Of the original 42 drains installed, in 1941, all
but 8 were destroyed or replaced during the highway widening project. Of the eight
remaining drains, two were dry, one had a drip, two displayed a trickle, two produced
90 gal/d and one had a flow of 720 gal/d. The steel pipe of the nearly 4-decade-old drains
were severely rusted and would probably be destroyed if disturbed by a cleaning operation.
6. La Selva Beach.—In August 1973, cracking developed during construction of a

120-foot-high, 1,200-foot-long 2:1 cut slope near La Selva Beach, located on the coastal
highway south of Santa Cruz, California. Just prior to excavation, a large grove of mature
eucalyptus trees located near the top of the planned cut slope was cut down. Elimination of
transpiration by the trees caused a rapid rise in the groundwater table, resulting in saturation
of the poorly cemented sand foundation and a loss of strength, resulting in cracking of the
new cut slope near the top, followed shortly by slope failure and flow of saturated sand near
grade.
Corrective measures included removal of the failed slide and excavation of a new 2:1 cut
slope down to the grade of an upper 50-foot-wide bench. A 30-inch-diameter vertical well
was installed on the bench to a depth of 51.5 feet and five observation wells were installed
along the upper bench spaced on 200-foot centers. These wells were drilled through
45 to 50 feet of sandy material to the top of a major clay layer along which slope movement
and groundwater flow were occurring. The lower 2 to 12 feet of sandy material in the wells
were saturated. The 30-inch well was pumped 24 hr/d for 3 months with average daily
discharge of 1,900 gallons. No appreciable drawdown was noted at the observation wells,
and the pumping well was abandoned.
125
Sixty-nine horizontal drain holes from 150 to 200 feet in length were installed in the cut
slope. Grades ranged from 6 to 8 percent (angled upward), and the holes were cased with
PVC pipe with 0.010-inch slots. The combined initial flow was 169,500 gal/d. Observation
well data indicated a slow, steady drawdown of the groundwater table during and following
completion of the horizontal drain installation. Based on these positive results, excavation
resumed from the upper bench to the lower bench level. An 8-inch-diameter slotted plastic
pipe underdrain was placed in an 8- to 12-foot-deep trench on the lower bench. This
underdrain was located 1.5 feet below the top of the major clay layer. During placement of
the underdrain a crack formed on the slope above the upper bench. Construction
accelerated until the system was backfilled and no additional movement has been observed
in this area.
After 6 years there were no signs of distress. The horizontal drains have performed
extremely well and have been effective in keeping the groundwater at a safe level.
Maintenance forces clean the drains every 2 to 3 years using a high pressure water system.
Minor amounts of sand have been removed, but the quantity decreases each time the drains
are cleaned.
Slot size was particularly important on this project. In comparison, 2-inch-diameter steel
pipe with 3/8-inch perforations was used on a job with similar foundation materials on a
project located 3 miles east of the present site. The horizontal drain hole casings filled with
sand and the drains lost their effectiveness almost immediately.
7. York Mountain.—Failure of a 1½:1, 750-foot-long cut slope occurred in

November 1970 during a heavy rainfall near York Mountain along a new highway alignment
between Paso Robles and Cambria on the central coast of California. The planned cut for
this slope was 140 feet in height. Excavation had been completed to within 50 feet of grade
when movement was first observed. Excavation stopped 37 feet above grade as the area of
disturbance rapidly enlarged.
Corrective measures included redesigning the cut slope to 2¼:1, with a 20-foot-wide bench
50 feet above grade and a 10-foot-wide debris bench at grade. Cracks appeared at the top of
the redesigned slope within a year, and during the wet season movement renewed. Free
water occurred along the debris bench at grade, on the lower portion of the slope, and for
about 20 feet above the upper bench.
Five 360-foot-long exploratory horizontal drains were installed at grade. All drains were
oriented normal to the roadway alignment to intercept as many bedding planes as possible.
Grades were 5 percent (angled upward) and spacing between drains ranged from 45 to
126
100 feet. The combined initial flow was 72,830 gal/d. Somewhat reduced movement
continued the next winter.
An additional 18 horizontal drains were installed from grade and from the bench above
grade. Lengths ranged from 245 to 360 feet and grades ranged from 5 to 15 percent (angled
upward). Orientation of each drain was normal to the steeply dipping shale beds and all
drains were completed with 1½-inch slotted PVC pipe. Initial flows ranged from dry to
175,000 gal/d and the combined flow was 332,940 gal/d. At completion of installation,
combined flows were 70,954 gal/d. The drains are extremely responsive to rainfall.
The project was inspected 7 years after completion. The drains and collector system were in
good condition but have not been cleaned since installation. Some silt and root growth was
noted. No additional movement is recorded since the final 18 drains were installed.
c. Conclusions.—The seven case histories presented demonstrate the effectiveness of

horizontal drain installations in arresting movement and stabilizing serious problem areas.
Several factors influence the effectiveness of a drain system:
• Lithology.—Material types, cementation, grain size, permeability, and fabric or structure

(orientation and spacing of discontinuities) are major lithological factors which influence
drain effectiveness. Most horizontal drains installed were drilled in weathered rock
covered by thin surficial layers of soil. Movement of ground water within the rock is
largely confined to discontinuities such as joints, fractures, bedding planes, foliation
planes, and fault planes. Exceptions are where rock is permeable volcanic agglomerate
at the Whitmore Maintenance Station or poorly cemented dune sand at the La Selva
Beach project. Horizontal drains installed in these materials must intersect
discontinuities or permeable materials so that influent seepage and ground water can be
removed.
• Drain location, orientation and spacing.—The most effective horizontal drain installations are
those which have been designed and installed on the basis of the geology of the site.
The design of a horizontal drain installation should incorporate the location, orientation,
and spacing of discontinuities and confining layers or aquatards. Groundwater barriers
such as clayey shear zones or confining beds, such as clay layers, must first be identified
and then penetrated by horizontal drains to relieve the impounded water behind them.
Spacing of drains in an installation should be based on the location of productive zones
where the water occurs rather than an even spacing over a large area. Spacing of joints
may vary widely over a short distance, requiring a variable spacing of drains to
127
accommodate change, assuming the ability to identify which joints are carrying water and
where spacing changes.
Drain length is governed by the water bearing strata intercepted rather than on a
predetermined length. In most cases the initial drains are drilled longer than is
considered adequate. Volumes and points where the water is intercepted are recorded
during drilling, and subsequent drain lengths are determined from the drill data.
• Effect of time on drain hole casing and productivity.—Some of the first horizontal drains
installed by the CDOT were cased with 2-inch-diameter, perforated steel pipe.
Subsequent inspections showed the steel pipe rusted in 20 to 30 years, in some cases
severely. Since about 1970, CDOT drain installations are completed with slotted PVC
pipe. Follow up inspections indicate the PVC pipe remains in excellent condition for
years and should perform well for decades.
Generally, PVC pipe with 0.020-inch slots is used in the majority of installations. When
poorly-cemented, granular material is encountered, a mechanical analysis is performed to
determine the proper slot size. Slotted PVC pipe can be penetrated by roots near the
ground surface. While there is no specific correlation of production with time, drains
tend to decrease in effectiveness with increasing age. Steel pipe can rust, steel and PVC
pipe can shear with new or renewed slope movement, and iron-reducing bacteria,
mineralization, sediment, or root penetration can obstruct drain pipe or collector
systems. However, if a proper cleaning and maintenance program is performed on a
regular basis, a drain installation will function effectively for at least as long the expected
life of the structure.
• Maintenance programs.—Perhaps the most important factor in long-term performance of

horizontal drains is a well developed and executed program of inspection, repair, and
cleaning. A drain maintenance program should be established with provisions for annual
inspections for cleaning and repair of damaged outlets or collector systems. Most drains
need to be cleaned only every 5 to 8 years. Heavy root growth or fine-grained sediments
may reduce this period to every 2 years.
A drain cannot be maintained if it cannot be located. Good records, including plans

which show the locations in relationship to survey monuments or permanent landmarks,
are required. Otherwise, drain locations are lost because of transfers, retirements, or
promotions of personnel who are only aware of the drain locations because they were
present during the actual installation. Drains located near the toes of embankments are
sometimes lost through the practice of end-dumping waste material over the side of the
fill, covering the outlets. The establishment and maintenance of a central file on all drain
128
installations as well as placement of markers such as steel posts or signs is a good

practice.
The most effective method of maintaining continuity in a horizontal drain maintenance

program is to assign qualified personnel the full-time task of inspecting, cleaning,
replacing, or repairing horizontal drain installations on a regional or statewide basis.
Dense growth of water-seeking vegetation around the outlets not only tends to conceal
the drains but also to curtail their performance by extensive root growth within the first
10 to 20 feet of the drain pipe. Nonslotted pipe, or galvanized pipe slipped over the
PVC pipe and inserted into the drilled hole for the outer 20 feet of each drain, can
discourage roots from entering the drains. Selective herbicides can be used around the
drain outlets to retard or eliminate undesired vegetation.
Horizontal drains are also lost or damaged because they are not protected against
rockfall, particularly in the case of exposed PVC pipe, or because they are vulnerable to
snow plows, rock plows, or straying vehicles near the edge of the slope. A good practice
is to protect the PVC pipe at the outlet with a galvanized pipe that slips over the PVC
pipe and is inserted into the drilled hole approximately 20 feet.
Drain cleaning and maintenance records should be kept for each installation. These
records should indicate dates of cleaning and repairs, what was done, flows recorded for
each drain prior to and after each cleaning, and damage due to slide movements or
external forces.
• Ground water pH and mineral content.—Drain performance can be adversely affected by

ground water pH or mineral content. Slots in drain pipe and the drain pipe itself can
become plugged by precipitation of minerals in solution in ground water.
4-6. Ochoco Dam Video Toe Drain Inspections.—Remote control, track-mounted

video cameras were used to inspect existing toe drains at Ochoco Dam. Camera inspections
were used to determine the amount and type of debris that may exist inside the drain pipes,
as well as the condition of the pipes themselves.
Ochoco Dam is an earthfill structure located 6 miles east of Prineville in central Oregon.
The Veterans Farm Administration constructed the dam between 1917 and 1921 and
transferred it to Reclamation in 1948. Several modifications have been made to the structure
due to seepage concerns. In 1949 and 1950, the east and west drains were added to the dam.
As a result of video inspections performed in 1998, it was determined that both of these
drains should be rehabilitated. During examination of the east drain, a previously unknown
segment of the drain was discovered.
129
a. Ochoco Dam Video Inspections.—The original east and west drains at Ochoco Dam
were constructed of concrete bell and spigot pipe. In 1998, video examinations were
performed on all existing east and west drains. The video camera was supplied and operated
by a subcontractor that specialized in inspections of sewer lines. The camera, which had the
capability to view left, right, up, and down, was mounted on a motorized, tracked vehicle.
Typical inspection cameras are shown in figures 66 and 67.
During the video inspections, breaks were found in the drain pipe, and sediment was also
observed inside the pipe. These conditions were considered unacceptable, and the decision
was made to modify the drains. However, the video inspection also revealed sections of the
drains that were in good condition and could remain in place. The inspection also revealed a
previously unknown segment of the east drain. Early discovery of the unknown segment
had the added benefit of giving Reclamation enough lead time to address this segment in the
modification.
The modified drains were constructed of double-walled HDPE corrugated pipe with smooth
interior walls. The pipe diameter ranged from 10 to 18 inches. Figure 68 shows the
locations of the modified drains. Video examination was also performed on the completed
drains, as required by the modification specifications. The postmodification video
examination revealed an accumulation of debris in the drain which came from construction
activity. Although care was taken to keep the drain pipes clean during construction, some
material was introduced into the pipes. The drain segments containing the debris were
cleaned with a sewer cleaner, and another video examination was performed to verify that
cleaning had been successful.
Since access to the original drains had been difficult, it was desired to have easier access to
the modified drain system. This was achieved by including cleanouts and inspection wells
(manholes) in the drain design. For the cleanouts, the drain pipe was daylighted by using
two 22½° elbows in the drain pipe. A single 45° elbow is too tight for some types of video
and cleaning equipment. A protective galvanized pipe with locking lid was then installed at
the ground surface. Figure 69 shows a typical cleanout.
Inspection wells, which were installed at the junction of drains and/or outfalls, were
constructed of 8-foot diameter concrete pipe. The inspection wells are especially useful in
gaining access to bends in the east drain. A typical inspection well is shown in figure 70.
b. Conclusions.—Video inspections were very successful in evaluating the conditions

of the toe drains and outfall pipes at Ochoco Dam.
Video inspections are valuable as a documentation tool after drains have been cleaned or
after drains have been installed to verify that the work has been performed satisfactorily. It
130
Figure 66.—Self-propelled camera.
Figure 67.—Sled-mounted camera (the cell phone provides scale).
131
Figure 68.—Ochoco Dam plan view showing east and west drains.
132
Figure 69.—Typical drain cleanout.
Figure 70.—Typical inspection well used to gain access to outfall pipes.
133
is advisable to specify postconstruction video inspections to determine if debris has been

introduced into the drain pipes during construction. The specifications should also require
that any damage to the pipe as a result of installation or the existence of debris introduced
during construction be rectified at the contractor’s expense. This should include the cost to
reinspect the drain pipe after the contractor has rectified any construction-related problems.
Recent video inspections for the HDPE toe drains installed at San Justo and Davis Creek
Dams have revealed collapsed portions of these drains. The damage likely occurred during
installation of these drains. For more information on remote controlled video inspctions,
see appendix C.
New drain designs should include inspection wells and cleanouts to make drains more
accessible for inspection and cleaning tools.
4-7. Senator Wash Dam Relief Wells.—Senator Wash Dam is located in California
just west of the Colorado River and about 15 miles north of Yuma, Arizona. In 1989,
20 relief wells with stainless steel screens were installed at the downstream toe of the dam to
control seepage uplift pressure. Figure 71 is a site map of Senator Wash Dam.
a. Background.—The well screens at Senator Wash Dam were silting up, resulting in
reduced efficiency of the relief wells. Discharge rates had been steadily dropping since well
installation in 1989. By 1997, the well discharge rates on some of the relief wells had
dropped to about 10 percent of the original discharge rates. As examples, figures 72 and 73
respectively show discharge rates for RW-14 and RW-15. On the average, about 2 feet of
fine soil particles had collected in the bottom of the well screens. Little or no mineral
deposits or bacteria built up on the well screens. Even though a filter pack had been placed
around the outside of the well screens; some of the native soil, which is predominantly fine
sand and silt, and some of the filter material had passed through the screens and caused the
clogging. Periodically, most relief wells need to be redeveloped to maintain efficiency. In
this instance, a surge block was used. The surge block is one of the oldest and most
effective methods of well development.
b. Relief Well Cleaning Operation.—The surge block process forces water back and
forth through the well screen. The back-and-forth action loosens the clogged particles and
eventually forces most of the particles through the screen and into the well.
Surge blocks come in many varieties. Figure 74 shows an example of a vented surge block.
Some surge blocks are solid, and others are vented by drilling a number of holes through the
body. The top of the vented body is fitted with rubber to act as a flap valve. This seals the
holes on the upward stroke and permits water to move through the holes on the
downstroke. The Ground Water Manual [45] shows additional drawings of surge blocks.
134
Figure 71.—Site map of Senator Wash Dam.
135
Figure 72.—Discharge rates for relief well 14 at Senator Wash Dam.
Figure 73.—Discharge rates for relief well 15 at Senator Wash Dam.
136
Figure 74.—Vented surge block.
Much of this information on surge blocks was obtained from the Ground Water Manual,
which also has information on other well development techniques.
The solid and vented blocks consist of a body block which is 1 to 2 inches smaller in
diameter than the well screen. The body block is fitted with as many as four ¼- to ½-inch
thick disks called leathers, which have a diameter the same as the inside diameter of the well
screen. Rubber can also be used for the disks. The block is attached to a metal rod so it can
be cycled up and down in the relief well. At Senator Wash Dam, a cable tool rig was used to
cycle the surge block during the well redevelopment process. The surge block was cycled
about once per second over a 4-foot distance. Before and after the surging, fine sand and
silt should be cleaned from the bottom of the well.
Surging should be started above the screen to bring in the initial flow of soil particles, thus
minimizing the hazard of sand locking the block in the screen. After the initial surging
above the screen is complete, the surge block is lowered to the bottom of the screen, and the
cyclic action is performed in an upward direction over the entire length of the screen. This
process is repeated several times over the entire length of the screen. During the first
upward pass, the strokes are slower. Then the rate of the cycling is increased for each
successive upward pass by the surge block. Each time the entire length of screen has been
surged, the depth of sediment in the bottom of the well should be checked. The sediment
should be bailed or air lifted if it is encroaching on the well screen.
Discharge data for two typical wells are noted here from both before and after the surge
block operation:
• Relief well 14 (fig. 72), was making about 330 gal/min in 1989, then slowly dropped off
to 25 gal/min by 1997 before the well was surged. After surging, the discharge increased
to about 280 gal/min, then dropped to 220 in 1998 and 90 gal/min in 1999. The
137
reservoir did not reach maximum reservoir level in 2000, making discharge rates
unavailable.
• Relief well 15 (fig. 73), was originally making 120 gal/min in 1989 and actually increased
to 150 gal/min in 1990 before slowly dropping off to 25 gal/min in 1997 before surging.
After the well was surged, the discharge rate increased to 230 gal/min, then dropped to
190 gal/min in 1998 and 130 gal/min in 1999. As with relief well 14, discharge rates
were unavailable for 2000.
c. Conclusions.—The discharge rate for typical wells increased by an order of

magnitude after the wells were redeveloped with the surge block technique. This indicates
the effectiveness of the surge block method for redevelopment of relief wells. The surge
block method is only recommended for cases where soil particles are plugging the well
screen. This method is not recommended for bacterial plugging or mineral encrustation.
Plugging mechanisms for relief wells can be determined by video inspections of the wells. If
the plugging mechanism cannot be clearly identified, sampling and testing can be performed
(see setion C-5 in app. C).
In the case of the Senator Wash relief wells, the discharge rates dropped off fairly quickly.
This was true not only after the wells were originally installed, but also after the
rehabilitation. This rapid dropoff is somewhat unusual, and may be due to the type of native
soil in which the wells have been installed. It could also be related to the gradation of the
gravel pack.
With any relief well system, the time interval at which the wells should be redeveloped
depends not only on the decrease in well discharge but also on the increase in piezometric
level in the foundation. The piezometric level is typically measured at the midpoint between
relief wells. For each dam, the allowable piezometric level should be determined, and as that
level is approached, relief well redevelopment should be initiated. Even though the
piezometric level may be acceptable, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers experience suggests that
after a certain period of time, relief wells cannot be redeveloped.
4-8. Sherman Dam Toe Drain Rehabilitation.—Sherman Dam, located about

40 miles northwest of Grand Island, Nebraska, is 98 feet high and 4,450 feet long. The dam
is a homogeneous earth structure, constructed between 1959 and 1962. The toe drains were
replaced in 1980. Toe drain No. 3 is a 12-inch perforated asbestos-cement pipe with sealed
joints and has a length of about 1,200 ft. Sherman Dam has four toe drains, but No. 3 is the
only one with significant flow.
Toe drain No. 3 has had a steady decrease in discharge rate over the past 14 years. In 1998,
the irrigation district used a standard sewer cleaner with a jetting pressure of about
138
1,500 lb/in2 in an attempt to improve the efficiency of the toe drain. The discharge rate
changed from about 4 gal/min before the cleaning process to 15 gal/min immediately after
the process. The rate dropped to 12 gal/min at the next reservoir peak. The 12-gal/min
rate is about 40 percent of the discharge rate observed in 1986.
The early readings obtained from toe drain No. 3 are difficult to explain. The discharge rate
increased steadily between mid-1980 and mid-1982 from 8 gal/min to 70 gal/min. Then the
rate leveled off until mid-1983, when it started climbing to about 95 gal/min in March 1984.
Normally, when a new toe drain is installed at a dam where the reservoir has been full or
nearly full for several years, as is the case with Sherman Dam, the discharge from the toe
drain would not take 4 years to peak. This suggest that either the readings were inaccurate
or something other than reservoir seepage contributes to the flow in the toe drain.
After March of 1984, the discharge rate started dropping rapidly until it was only 29 gal/min
in August of 1984. The drop in discharge was unrelated to changes in the reservoir. Again,
this indicates that something other than the reservoir level was influencing the toe drain
discharge, or else the readings were in error.
Between 1986 and 1998, toe drain No. 3 had a gradual decrease in discharge (see fig. 75).
The gradual decrease in discharge was similar to the change that might be expected if the toe
drain were slowly plugging off. By 1998, the discharge rate was fluctuating between 2 and
5 gal/min, which was down considerably from the 29-gal/min rate in 1986.
Some observation wells such as OW-84-1 and OW-84-3 indicated gradual increases in
groundwater level of 5 to 6 feet between 1986 and 1998 (see fig. 76). These increases could
be the result of decreasing efficiency in toe drain No. 3 during the same time period.
Figure 77 shows the location of the observation wells with respect to the dam and the toe
drain outfall.
a. Drain Cleaning Operation.—The irrigation district used a Meyer sewer cleaning tool
to rehabilitate drain No. 3. The tool has a 2-inch diameter nozzle that can generate a
pressure of about 1,500 lb/in2. Some jets on the nozzle are angled forward; but most of the
jets are angled backward, allowing the nozzle to pull the supply hose up the drain pipe. The
pressure from the jets also has a self-centering effect, keeping the nozzle approximately in
the center of the drain pipe.
During this operation, the sewer cleaning unit works its way up the toe drain at its own rate.
Most of the cleaning occurs as the unit is pulled slowly out of the toe drain. The nozzle
advanced 600 ft up the drain pipe, which was the extent of the cleaning operation. The
operator estimates that the nozzle was pulled out at a rate of about 1 ft/s. The cleaning tool
was run up and down the 600-foot section of the toe drain three times.
139
Figure 75.—Seepage flows from toe drain No. 3.
Unfortunately, no video of the inside of the drain pipe was obtained before or after the
cleaning. This prevented a comparison of before and after conditions inside the pipe. Also,
without the video information, the irrigation district was not able to determine the plugging
mechanism.
The discharge rate, after cleaning, was measured at 16 gal/min (see fig. 75). This may have
included some return water from the cleaning operation, because the next time the reservoir
peaked in June of 1999, the discharge rate was 12 gal/min. The 12 gal/min rate is about
2.5 times the discharge rate prior to cleaning and about 40 percent of the discharge rate
measured in 1986. The water levels in observation wells OW-84-1 and OW-84-3 dropped
back to about the same levels recorded in 1986.
140
Figure 76.—Readings of groundwater levels from observation wells near toe drain No. 3.
Figure 77.—Locations of observation wells with respect to the dam and the toe drain outfall.
141
b. Conclusions.—The sewer cleaner significantly improved the short term efficiency

of toe drain No. 3. Because it has only been a short time since the cleaning process was
completed, long term efficiency of the cleaning operation has not been evaluated. It should
be noted that only half the length of the drain was cleaned. If the entire length were cleaned,
the discharge rate might have improved even more.
Cleaning the toe drain several years earlier, and perhaps more often, might have resulted in
the ability to maintain a higher discharge rate.
If the plugging mechanism was the result of biological fouling (such as iron bacteria) or
mineral incrustation (such as calcium carbonate), the cleaning process would likely be more
effective if an additive such as bleach or sulfumic acid were mixed with the cleaning water.
Video of the toe drain taken before cleaning would be useful in trying to determine the cause
of the toe drain plugging. Such information could influence decisions regarding the use of
chemicals in the cleaning water. Video of the toe drain taken after the cleaning operation
would be useful in evaluating how effectively the perforations were cleaned, and determining
whether or not the pressure jetting did any damage to the inside of the drain pipe.
4-9. Upper Stillwater Dam—Foundation Drain Rehabilitation.—
a. Background.—Upper Stillwater Dam, constructed from 1983 to 1987, is a

Reclamation RCC gravity dam located 31 miles northwest of Duchesne, Utah. The dam has
a structural height of 292 feet and a crest length of about 2,650 feet. Three-inch diameter
foundation drains were drilled at 10-foot centers and at least 75 feet into the dam
foundation, with the intent of penetrating the unit L argillite layer. The drains were provided
to reduce uplift pressures acting at the base of the dam and within the dam foundation.
Figure 78 provides the layout of the foundation drains. The drains are located in a 6-foot
wide gallery, with the gallery centerline located 20 feet from the upstream face of the dam.
The gallery extends through the dam from one abutment to the other. The invert of the
gallery is at two different elevations, elevation 7992 through most of the dam (lower gallery)
and elevation 8042 at the left abutment (upper gallery). Foundation grouting was also
performed from within the gallery. Adits, which connect to the foundation gallery, were also
excavated into the abutments. Upward and downward drain holes were drilled from the
adits. Figure 79 provides details of the foundation gallery. The foundation for Upper
Stillwater Dam consists of Pre-Cambrian sandstone and argillites with nearly horizontal
bedding planes. It was recognized that fine sand and silt infillings were present in some
joints and bedding plane partings.
142
Figure 78.—Profile of Upper Stillwater Dam.
Figure 79.—Cross section of foundation gallery.
After the dam RCC was placed, a single row grout curtain was constructed from the gallery
and also from abutment adits. Holes were drilled as deeply as 150 feet into the foundation
rock, inclined from vertical by 5 degrees upstream and by 30 degrees toward the nearer
abutment. Downstream of the grout curtain, a drainage curtain was constructed from the
gallery and abutment adits by drilling holes into the foundation. A gutter system in the
gallery collects water from the foundation drains, and three 12-inch diameter steel pipes
143
Figure 80.—Uplift pressure lines.
carry water from the gutter to below the water surface in the spillway stilling basin. Drain
flows can be measured individually at each drain, or total drain flows can also be measured
by weirs in the foundation gutter, where the gutter flows dump into the 12-inch pipes.
Four lines of piezometers are provided within the dam foundation to provide upstream/
downstream profiles of foundation uplift pressures. The four lines are located at stations
23+00 (line A), 27+50 (line B), 32+00, (line C) and 38+70 (line D). Figure 80 provides
cross sections at each of the uplift pressure lines.
144
During first filling of the reservoir, flowing sand from some of the drains and filling of some
of the drains with sand (which reduced the effectiveness of the drains) was noted. It was
believed that certain areas of the foundation had developed complex interconnected paths
formed by the intersection of joints, shears and bedding planes. Sand was transported into
the drains from these paths over the first 5 years of reservoir operation.
Slotted PVC pipe wrapped in filter cloth was installed in some of the drains to filter the
migrating sand. Most of the filter-wrapped drains plugged completely due to the presence of
iron-fixing bacteria, and the installation of the filters was discontinued. Tests using filter
socks indicated that the plugging of the filter fabric typically occurred in a few hours.
The source of the sand is backfill material placed at the upstream toe of the dam flowing
through cracks in the RCC and sand-filled joints in the dam foundation. Concerns over
clogged drains was that the factor of safety for sliding on shallow beds would be reduced,
and washing of sand from foundation joints in large quantities could lead to settlement,
cracking, and ongoing maintenance problems for the dam.
b. Remedial Measures.—In 1992 and 1993, remedial action was undertaken to address
the migration of sand into the drains. A limited grouting and drainage program was initially
planned, but the program was expanded to include grouting and drain remediation across
the entire foundation due to the high grout takes that occurred at the start of the program.
The treatment from the gallery included grouting upstream, redrilling the downstream
drains, and installing slotted drain pipe, some surrounded by a filter pack. The Technical
Report of Construction [36] provides details of the program.
The grouting program drastically reduced the rate and distribution of sand infiltration into
the drains and the drain flows. Probe data of the drain holes from 1993 indicated a definite
reduction in sand infiltration rates with the reservoir at maximum elevation. In a 1995
report [37], caution was urged in installing 1- or 1.5-inch slotted PVC pipe in the 4-inch
drains until it could be proven that the iron bacteria problem has been eliminated and that
there is a real need for filter installation. Iron bacteria is not a problem in the 4-inch open
drains, because the drains can be readily cleaned.
Some of the piezometers in the dam foundation indicated increases in foundation uplift
pressures after the grouting. Most of the increased pressures were upstream of the drainage
curtain, with only one increase occurring downstream of the drainage curtain. Some of the
piezometers indicate pressures that exceed Reclamation criteria, and all of these are upstream
of the drainage curtain. The pressures that exceed Reclamation criteria act over relatively
small areas and do not present a significant concern [37]. See figure 81 for the plot of
piezometer data along line B.
145
Figure 82 provides total seepage data before and after the foundation treatment program.
The plot indicates a dramatic decrease in drain flows, and hence sand inflow, as a result of
the foundation grouting program. It should be noted that the urethane grout used to seal
cracks in the RCC deteriorated with time, and flow rates again increased.
c. Conclusions.—Foundation drains at Upper Stillwater Dam began filling with sand

during first filling of the reservoir. A remedial grouting and drainage program greatly
reduced the amount of sand infiltration. The probed depths of drains indicate that the sand
infiltration has stopped at most drains since 1993 (see figs. 83 and 84 for plots of typical
drain probed depths). Drain depths continue to be monitored.
The experience at Upper Stillwater Dam revealed the potential for filter fabric becoming
plugged from iron bacteria. While the intent of the fabric was to filter sand and prevent
potential movement of foundation materials, it had the effect of reducing the effectiveness
of drains, increasing foundation pressures, and increasing the potential for sliding within the
foundation.
4-10. Concrete Dam Foundation Drain Cleaning.—
a. Background.—This case history involves a concrete gravity dam located in the

Pacific Northwest that is owned and operated by an agency other than the Bureau of
Reclamation. The dam is 256 feet high and 3,791 feet long. Bedrock at the dam is hard
basalt. The basalt is comprised of successive series of basalt flows separated by thin (several
inches to several feet thick) interlayers of volcanic ash and tuff. The ash and tuff layers are
typically hard, being baked by deposition of the overlying basalt flow.
The dam was constructed in 1969. Five hundred and forty foundation drains were drilled to
80-foot depths to relieve uplift pressures that may develop under the dam and potentially
cause stability problems. Since construction of the dam, the foundation drains experienced
gradual loss of effectiveness, inducing increased uplift pressures.
b. Drain Cleaning History.—Foundation drains in the dam experienced gradually

reduced flows and increased uplift pressures that caused concern for static and dynamic
stability of the structure. The drains became plugged with calcium carbonate and silt that
entered through fractures intersecting the drain holes in the basalt bedrock. Since no
natural, geological source of calcium carbonate occurs in the area, the source of the calcium
carbonate is believed to be the concrete dam and/or the cement grout curtain. The source
of the silt is sedimentation in the reservoir.
In 1992, conventional drilling methods were used to clean the silt and calcium carbonate
from the foundation drains. The boreholes were reamed using diamond bits to clean the
borehole walls, increasing the borehole size by an additional 3/32 inch.
146
Figure 81.—Plot of piezometer data along line B at Upper Stillwater Dam.
Figure 82.—Total seepage before and after the foundation treatment program.
147
Figure 83.—Filling of drains containing PVC and gravel filter.
Figure 84.—Filling of drains without PVC.
148
Figure 85.—Uplift pressures response to drain cleaning.
Figure 85 shows the immediate and significant response to the 1992 drain cleaning
operation. Measured uplift pressures were immediately reduced by 50 feet of pressure.
Figure 85 also shows a gradual decrease in drain effectiveness between mid-1992 and 1998
until uplift pressures nearly returned to precleaning levels.
In 1998, a contract was issued for drain cleaning of the same drains using high pressure fluid
(water) jet methods. The contract allowed the contractor to determine the pressure and
nozzle configuration needed for the cleaning operation. High pressures of 12,000 to
13,000 lb/in2, and low flow rates of 15 gal/min were used.
c. Conclusions.—The following conclusions were reached from rehabilitating the

drains with conventional drilling methods:
• The use of conventional drilling methods in 1992 to clean the drain holes was effective
but expensive.
149
• The borehole walls were cleaned of any calcium carbonate coating during the process of
reaming and enlarging the borehole diameter 3/32 inch.
• The drilling method used clean water for drilling fluid that thoroughly washed the
borehole, lifting and removing calcium carbonate and basalt cuttings and silt from the
borehole, resulting in renewed effectiveness of the drain holes.
• The conventional drilling action may also have broken and removed calcium carbonate
for a short distance into the fractures that intersect the borehole, removing blockages in
the seepage path and enhancing flow into the boreholes.
The following conclusions were reached from rehabilitating the drains with high pressure
fluid jet methods:
• The use of high pressure fluid jet methods in 1998 to clean the drain holes was
marginally effective.
• Insufficient pressure may have been applied to induce scouring/etching of the calcium
carbonate from the borehole walls.
• The water jet was raised within the borehole too rapidly to adequately induce
scouring/etching of the calcium carbonate on the borehole walls.
• The water jet nozzles were not properly oriented and/or sized to induce
scouring/etching of the calcium carbonate on the borehole walls.
• The water jet did not have sufficient flow to lift loosened calcium carbonate deposits or
silt from the borehole. After the water jetting process is completed, a wash tube should
be inserted to the bottom of the hole to lift/wash loosened debris from the hole.
• If the drain holes are open sufficiently to allow a borehole camera to be lowered, the
condition of the drain hole walls should be determined prior to cleaning, and then after
the cleaning process. Inspection of the drain hole walls prior to initiating cleaning
operations could identify specific areas of calcium carbonate deposits and identify
potential problem areas such as fractured rock or soft zones in the rock. Water jet
cleaning in the potential problem areas could be avoided so that caving or erosion of the
drain hole walls is not induced. Inspection of the drain hole walls after the cleaning
operation could identify areas of calcium carbonate requiring remedial cleaning, if
additional material adheres to the drain hole walls.
150
4-11. Tuttle Creek Dam—Blended Chemical and Heat Treatment for Bacteria in
Relief Wells.—The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District, has
used a process referred to as a blended chemical and heat treatment (BCHT) process to
combat iron, sulfate-reducing, and slime bacteria in relief wells. Environmental restrictions
often preclude the use of acids. The hot water treatments (well water temperatures greater
than 130 degrees) are environmentally safe, and they have been found to be effective in
killing bacteria in relief wells. The process has been used on at least seven dams in the
Kansas City District, most notably Tuttle Creek Dam.
a. Background.—Tuttle Creek Dam, which the USACE constructed and operates, is

located 5 miles north of Manhattan, Kansas on the Big Blue River. The dam consists of a
rolled earth and rockfill embankment with a gated, concrete chute spillway on the left
abutment, and an outlet works with intake tower near the right abutment. The embankment
has a maximum height of 157 feet and a crest length of 7,500 feet. Construction of the dam
was completed in 1959. Figure 86 is a photograph of the dam at the maximum section with
the outlet channel in the foreground. Bacterial infestation of the relief well screens was
identified as a problem at Tuttle Creek Dam, and the USACE has been using the BCHT
process to treat the wells.
b. Relief Well Treatment Process.—Prior to treating the wells, the water is sampled and
tested for bacterial types. Three main categories of bacteria are treated with the BCHT
Figure 86.—Tuttle Creek Dam.
151
Figure 87.— Hotsy unit used in the BCHT process.
process. These include sulfate-reducing , iron, and slime bacteria. The wells are pump
tested prior to the treatment to determine the specific capacity for comparison with the
value obtained after the treatment process. An air lift (see sec. 5-4 for a description of the
air lift) is used to remove any silt or organic material from the bottom of the well. If soil
particles as well as bacterial growth are responsible for clogging, or if there is uncertainty
about the cause of clogging, the relief well should be surged with a surge block as part of the
rehabilitation process. Surge blocks are discussed in section 5-7.
In the BCHT process, boiling water is pumped into the relief well through a pipe with
½-inch diameter water jets. The water jets direct boiling water through the well screen and
out into the gravel pack. The top of the well is packered off to force more of the hot water
to flow out through the screen, and in ideal situations the hot water may also penetrate the
aquifer.
Figure 87 is a photograph showing the “Hotsy” unit that the USACE uses to heat and
control the boiling water to be injected into the relief wells. The unit is basically a steam
cleaner with a high capacity boiler for heating the water.
Typically, the well is treated in 10-foot vertical intervals. A steel plate with a rubber gasket is
used at the top of the 10-foot interval to impede hot water from rising past the top of the
152
interval. The steel plate does not need to create a tight fit to be effective; but to verify that
water in the treated interval is hot enough, a thermal sensor is used. The temperature should
be at least 130 °F. For unusually difficult bacterial infestation problems, it may be necessary
to reduce the treated interval to 5 feet. Initially, a trial-and-error process might be required
to determine the best length for the interval. Once the water temperature in the interval
reaches 130 °F, the interval is treated for about 15 minutes. As each interval is completed,
chlorine (household bleach) is added to the jetting fluid to increase the effectiveness of the
treatment. Approximately ½ to 1 gallon of household bleach is used per interval. The
casing above the well screen is also jetted to kill any bacteria that may be attached.
However, the process goes faster for the unslotted casing, because the hot water heats up
faster when it doesn't pass through the screens into the aquifer.
When the BCHT process is complete, the relief well is again air lifted to remove any organic
debris and/or soil in the bottom of the relief well. A pump test is performed to determine
the specific capacity of the well after treatment. The specific capacity is typically greater than
the value obtained before the treatment. However, the goal of the BCHT process is to
achieve at least 80 percent of the specific capacity that was measured when the well was
originally constructed.
Generally, the time period between treatments is 1 to 2 years. However, there have been
cases where the bacterial infestation increases significantly within a few months. This is
believed to be the result of nutrient sources that naturally exist in some aquifers.
c. Conclusions.—The USACE Kansas City District has used the blended chemical and
heat treatment process for relief wells on at least seven dams, including Tuttle Creek Dam.
This method has often been effective in reestablishing a specific capacity equal to 80 percent
or more of the original specific capacity of the relief wells. The method is also
environmentally safe, because strong acids are not required as part of the treatment process.
4-12. Davis Creek Dam Toe Drain Rehabilitation and Cleaning.—
a. Background.—Davis Creek Dam was completed in 1992 and is located about 6

miles southeast of North Loup in Central Nebraska. The dam is a homogenous earthfill
embankment with a structural height and crest length of approximately 110 feet and 3,000
feet, respectively. The toe drain system consists of two toe drains, one to the right of the
outlet works centerline and another to the left of the outlet works centerline. The right and
left toe drains consist, respectively, of approximately 1,200 feet of 8-inch and 1,440 feet of
12-inch diameter perforated, corrugated polyethylene pipe. Flow from the right toe drain is
measured by a V-notch weir, located about 30 feet to the right of the outlet works centerline
in inspection well No. 7 (see fig. 88). Flow from the left toe drain is measured by a V-notch
weir located at the end of a weir box. The weir box is on the ground surface several
153
Figure 88.— Locations of observation wells and cleaned reaches.
hundred feet to the left of the outlet works centerline. The toe drains meet at the location of
the toe drain outfall manhole, station 98+95, where they flow into the Jack Canyon drain
pipe. The Jack Canyon drain pipe was constructed to carry toe drain discharges and surface
runoff. The Jack Canyon drain pipe extends for about 1,100 feet and consists of
18-inch-diamter perforated, corrugated polyethylene drain pipe.
In the spring of 1994, a sinkhole 8 to 10 feet deep and approximately 20 feet wide developed
above the 12-inch nonperforated, corrugated polyethylene outfall pipe. The sinkhole was
located along the right outfall about midway between inspection well No. 9 and the Jack
Canyon diversion drain culvert outlet transition. Drain rehabilitation in the fall of 1994 and
the spring of 1995 consisted of replacing the 12-inch outfall drain pipe with a 12-inch
perforated pipe placed within a gravel envelope.
b. Inspections and Cleanings.—In November of 2000, Reclamation performed a video

inspection of the toe drains at Davis Creek Dam as part of routine drain maintenance.
Observations from the video inspection showed areas of pipe failures, other potentially
damaged areas of pipe, and sediment deposition. The photo in figure 89, taken during the
inspection at an unknown location, shows the typical amount of sediment deposition that
was seen in the toe drain pipe.
154
Figure 89.—The typical amount of sediment deposition observedin toe drain

pipes in a November 2000 inspection.
Based on this video inspection, selected reaches of the Davis Creek toe drains were cleaned
in January of 2002. The drains were cleaned by the Twin Loups Irrigation District which
used the Farwell Irrigation District’s sewer cleaning equipment. The reaches cleaned were
located in the left toe drain pipe from stations 19+46.91 to 23+00 and from stations 23+00
to 26+00; however, care was taken not to wash out any of the materials from the locations
where the pipe was damaged.
On February 12, 2002, Reclamation inspected the cleaned reaches, including the short reach
of the Davis Creek toe drain outfall replacement pipe and stations 98+95 to 99+12 of the
Jack Canyon drain. The video inspection consisted of viewing the interior surfaces of drain
pipe using Reclamation’s inline MicroTrac camera-crawler. The inspection of the left toe
drain at Davis Creek was within the 12-inch diameter pipe. The camera-crawler was inserted
into the manhole at station 23+00, and then it proceeded downstream to station 19+46.91.
The camera-crawler was then backed out and turned around in order to proceed upstream.
The camera-crawler proceeded upstream to approximately station 23+25. The reaches of
the left toe drain pipe that were inspected are outlined in figure 88. Originally, it was
intended to inspect the entire cleaned reach to station 26+00, but the camera-crawler was
unable to proceed when it came across damaged pipe that was previously reported during
the 2000 inspection. Figure 90 shows the results of toe drain cleaning and the pipe damage
155
Figure 90.—A damaged left toe drain pipe at approximately sta. 23+25 stopped
the camera-crawler. A cleaning removed fine materials from the pipe invert.
that halted the camera-crawler. This photograph was taken in the Davis Creek toe drain at
approximately station 23+25. From the photograph, it can be seen that the fine materials
previously seen on the pipe invert have been removed.
For the short reach of the Davis Creek toe drain outfall replacement pipe, the crawler went
upstream in the manhole at station 98+95 and was halted at approximately station 98+78,
where the camera-crawler encountered 2- to 3-inch diameter rocks. The 2- to 3-inch
diameter rock might be a result of construction activities for the rehabilitation. Next, the
camera-crawler was sent downstream of the manhole into the 18-inch diameter Jack Canyon
drain. The camera-crawler was able to inspect the drain from stations 98+95 to 99+12.
Typically, flows in the left toe drain range from 30 gal/min to a maximum of 253 gal/min
with the flow record paralleling the reservoir level. On the other hand, the right toe drain is
typically dry or flows are limited to less than 20 gal/min. Toe drains typically show a
decrease in flow leading up to the cleaning and then an increase in flow after the cleaning. A
graph of toe drain seepage and reservoir elevation data with respect to time is given as
figure 91. From the graph, it can be seen that flow did increase a few months after the
cleaning; however, the reservoir elevation also increased. Since both the reservoir and the
156
Figure 91.—Readings of left and right toe drain seepage relative to reservoir level.
toe drain seepage increased, it is hard to determine if any increase in the toe drain seepage
was a result of the cleaning.
c. Conclusions.—The long-term efficiency of the cleaning operation is unknown, since

the 2002 video inspection was completed so soon after cleaning. In the short term, the
sewer cleaner was effective in removing most of the deposited sediments within the cleaned
reaches. It was also seen that no damage occurred inside the drain pipe because of the
pressure jetting. Decreases in toe drain flows were not seen before cleaning, nor were higher
flows seen immediately following cleaning. It should be noted that only a portion of the toe
drain was cleaned. If the entire length were cleaned, the discharge rate might have increased.
It is also possible that the sediments plugging the toe drain are not controling toe drain
flows.
In a 1994 field examination, it was concluded that the sink hole developed from material
being transport into an open, collapsed pipe. It was thought the collapse of the pipe could
have occurred either from equipment load during construction or from earth pressure on the
157
outside of the pipe. A video inspection immediately following or during construction would
have been helpful in pinpointing the cause of the pipe failures. Even though the cause of
the sinkhole could not be pinpointed, the video inspections in 2000 and 2002 were helpful in
viewing the condition of the toe drain pipe and supporting the conclusion from the 1994
exam. Both inspections noted some pipe failures that could facilitate the development of
sink holes.
4-13. Keechelus Dam—Piping into Drainage System.—Keechelus Dam is located

in central Washington about 20 miles northwest of the town of Cle Elum. The dam, which
was constructed between 1913 and 1917, has a structural height of 138 feet and a crest
length of 6,550 feet. At the top of active conservation pool, the structure impounds 157,000
acre-feet of water.
a. Background.—During construction, a rock drain was placed at the downstream toe

of the dam. This drain did not contain a drain pipe, but it did have at least 17 known
discharge pipes to serve as outfalls for the rock drain. These outfall pipes had a variety of
diameters and compositions. None were slotted, but some were open jointed. The rock
drain is not filter compatible with the majority of the embankment and foundation soils that
were adjacent to the drain. In addition, the earthfill and foundation materials were
considered to be internally unstable with regard to piping. Over the years, sinkholes or
depressions have been observed on the upstream face of the dam that were believed to be
the result of internal instability of the embankment materials.
In June 1998, a void in the crest of the dam was discovered during excavation for a cable
trench. At the same time, the Pacific Northwest Regional Office was in the process of
inspecting toe drains at several dams including Keechelus. Reclamation was not aware of all
of the outfall pipes that existed at Keechelus Dam when the inspection process started.
However, the inspection was expanded to include a search for other unknown outfalls that
might exist.
b. Video Investigation and Monitoring.—Initial video inspections were performed in

September and October of 1998. Although the outfalls were generally in good condition
with only a limited number of cracks, silt to gravel sized debris (see figs. 92 and 93) was
present in most of the outfall pipes. Many of the pipes had little or no flow, but water marks
observed during video inspection indicated higher flows had occurred in the past.
The majority of outfall pipes that had been discovered by the time of the September and
October inspections were cleaned with a water jetting tool. This work occurred in
December 1998 and May 1999. The pipes were reinspected by video camera after the
cleaning process. The next step was to inspect the outfall pipes again after the 1999
reservoir filling cycle to determine if material from the rockfill toe drain was moving into the
158
Figure 92.—Clay tile outfall pipe with fines in the invert.
Figure 93.—CMP outfall pipe with coarse grained material.
159
outfall pipes. The reservoir reached its highest level of the year on July 13, 1999. Only
seven outfall pipes flowed with water during the filling cycle. Therefore, the inspections
were limited to those seven outfalls. Many of the drains may have remained dry, because the
reservoir level was under restriction.
The reinspection of the seven outfall pipes was performed on September 9, 1999. The video
inspection revealed that silt to sand sized material was transported into the pipes by seepage
flows in six of the seven drains. In some cases, gravel sized material was also found in the
drain outfall pipes. The gravel was able to enter through the upstream open end of the
outfall pipes, which were exposed to the rock drain. The sediment sumps or weir boxes at
the downstream end of the outfall pipes were also inspected and found to contain sediment.
Unfortunately, the sediment traps were not covered during the year and outside debris may
have been introduced from sources other than the outfall pipes. As part of the September
1999 work, the sediment traps were secured with covers to prevent outside soil from being
introduced.
The same seven outfall pipes experienced flow during the 2000 reservoir cycle and were
inspected again on October 23, 2000. Silt to sand sized sediments with some gravel were
again found in six of the seven pipes. The volume of the soil in the sumps was measured,
and in the worst case, the sump for outfall SM-D5 North had two gallons of fines. More
typically, sediment volumes were a quart or less. The sumps and weir boxes were cleaned
and covered after the October 2000 inspection.
On September 19, 2001 the drains were once again video inspected. The maximum
reservoir elevation was about 22 feet lower in 2001 compared to 2000. As a result, only four
toe drain outfalls had seepage flows in 2001. All four outfalls indicated fines were
transported from the rock drain by seepage flows. In the worst case, SM-D5 North had
three quarts of silt to gravel sized soil in the sump. The common sediment sump for
SM-D11 and SM-D12, which was cleaned in October 2000, had ½ inch of fines and iron
bacteria in the bottom of the sump (see fig. 94) when inspected in September 2001.
c. Conclusions.—As a result of the video inspections made in 1999, 2000, and 2001,
Reclamation concluded that piping of fines into the outfall pipes was a frequent occurrence
that could ultimately result in a dam safety issue. Consequently, the decision was made to
install a completely new toe drain system. The new system contained slotted pipe enclosed
within an engineered two-stage filter to prevent piping of soils into the toe drain.
160
Figure 94.—Sediment sump for SM-D11 and -D12 showing fines that
accumulated in one season.
4-14. Summary of Toe Drain Inspection Using Closed Circuit Television.— The
Bureau of Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC) has been performing closed circuit
television (CCTV) inspection of toe drain systems as part of their dam safety program since
about 2000. CCTV has also been used to perform inspections of wall drains, structural
underdrains, pressure relief wells, siphons, pipelines, outlet works and spillway conduits,
gates, and valves. The TSC has provided CCTV inspection services to many federal and
state agencies.
CCTV inspection equipment consists of a video camera attached to a self-propelled

transport vehicle (crawler). The transport vehicle and camera are commonly referred to as a
camera-crawler (see fig. 95). An operator remotely controls both the transport vehicle and
camera. The camera can provide both longitudinal and circumferential views of the interior
of the pipe being inspected. Video images are transmitted from the camera to a television
monitor, from which the operator can view the conditions within the pipe. The video
images are recorded onto videotape, compact disc, or digital versatile disc (DVD) for
technical evaluation and documentation (Report of Findings). The operator can add voice
narrative and alphanumeric captions or notations as the inspection progresses. Section C-1
in appendix C provides more details of CCTV inspection equipment.
161
Figure 95.—Camera-crawler used for CCTV

inspection.
The TSC performed a series of tests in 2002 to evaluate the performance capabilities using
camera-crawlers in double-walled HDPE pipe. The results of the performance tests served
as the basis for the development of design guidance on acceptable pipe diameters and bends,
invert slopes, and distances between manholes or access entry locations (see app. C) required
to accommodate CCTV inspection. The design guidance is generally applicable for use with
other pipe materials.
Sometimes a toe drain pipe is so small that a camera-crawler cannot be used, or obstructions
or invert conditions exist within the pipe that prevent the transport vehicle from traversing
the pipe. For these types of situations, small color cameras (1.5 to 3 inches in diameter) can
be attached to metal or plastic poles (often referred to as push poles) and manually pushed
up the pipe. Push poles are normally used for straight sections of pipe. The use of push
poles for advancement is generally limited to about 400 feet of pipe length. If bends exist in
the pipe, a flexible snake device (spring steel wire, coiled wire, or flexible polypropylene-
jacketed fiberglass push rod) can be used instead of the push poles. The color cameras are
connected to a video cassette recorder and to a television monitor. Snake devices are
generally limited to about 75 to 200 feet of pipe length.
a. Common Pipe Material Types.—Reclamation has used a variety of pipe materials to

construct toe drain systems. In some instances, Reclamation has used combinations of pipe
materials. The most common pipe materials are (the numbers in parentheses indicate the
percentage of use based solely on toe drain systems inspected with CCTV):
• Clay tile (29%)
• HDPE (25%)
162
• CMP (22%)
• Concrete (16%)
• PVC (4%)
• Asbestos cement (3%)
• Iron (1%)
Based on the toe drain systems inspected, clay tile, concrete, and CMP pipe were frequently
used in older dams (1910 to about 1980), and HDPE pipe has been used in newer dams
(1980 to present).
b. Common Obstructions to CCTV Inspection.—Toe drain systems can contain a variety

of obstructions that may limit the success of a CCTV inspection. These obstructions include
(the numbers in parentheses indicate frequency of occurrence):
• Sediments, gravels, and rocks (40%)
• Sharp bends and tee sections (22%)
• Shape deformation and failure (11%)
• Roots (8%)
• Adverse invert slopes (5%)
• CCTV cable tether limitations (5%)
• Joint offsets and separations (3%)
• Pipe diameter constrictions (3%)
• Other (3%)
The type and location of any obstruction encountered affects the overall success of the
CCTV inspection. The typical range of completion for toe drain inspection is (percentage is
based on the total linear feet of toe drain pipe inspected divided by the total linear feet of toe
drain system):
163
Figure 96.—Extensive longitudinal cracking Figure 97.— Extensive joint offsetting within a
within a clay tile pipe. clay tile pipe.
Inspection completion Percentage of occurrence

0 to 24% (49%)
25 to 49% (15%)
50 to 74% (13%)
75 to 100% (23%)
Due to obstructions encountered in the pipes, most toe drain systems cannot be fully
inspected. Other options need to be considered to provide more complete inspections, such
as high pressure jet washing to clear debris from the pipes, additional access to provide
alternate pipe entry locations for CCTV equipment, and future designs made to
accommodate CCTV equipment.
c. Common Defects Cbserved during Inspections.—Some pipe materials are more prone to
specific defects developing over time. The following summarizes instances of specific
defects observed inside of the most common toe drain pipe materials.
1. Clay Tile.—Longitudinal and transverse cracking was observed in 24 percent

of all clay tile pipes. Cracks ranged from hairline to extensive. Figure 96 shows a clay tile
pipe that has experienced extensive longitudinal cracking.
Joint offsets and separations were observed in 67 percent of all clay tile pipes. Joint offsets
and separations ranged from minor to extensive. Figure 97 shows a clay tile pipe that has
experienced extensive joint offsetting.
164
Figure 98.— Clay tile pipe experiencing inward Figure 99.— HDPE pipe experiencing
collapse of the crown. extensive shape deformation.
Figure 100.—HDPE pipe experiencing failure Figure 101.—An HDPE pipe joint has experienced
at the crown. Materials surrounding the extensive separation. Materials surrounding the pipe
pipe have entered through the failure. have entered through the separated joint.
Shape deformation and failure was observed in 24 percent of all clay tile pipes. Shape
deformation ranged from minor to extensive. Figure 98 shows a clay tile pipe experiencing a
failure of the crown.
2. HDPE.—Shape deformation and failure was observed in 56 percent of all

HDPE pipes. Shape deformation ranged from minor to extensive. Figure 99 shows an
HDPE pipe experiencing extensive shape deformation. Figure 100 shows an HDPE pipe
that has failed.
Joint offsets and separations were observed in 11 percent of all HDPE pipes. Joint offsets
and separations ranged from minor to extensive. Figure 101 shows an HDPE pipe joint that
165
Figure 102.— Extensive deterioration existing within a Figure 103.—CMP pipe experiencing
CMP pipe. extensive loss of surface coating due to
delamination.
has experienced an extensive separation and has allowed materials surrounding the pipe to
enter through the separated joint.
3. CMP.—Deterioration was observed in 75 percent of all CMP pipes.

Deterioration ranged from minor to extensive. Figure 102 shows a CMP pipe that has
experienced extensive deterioration.
Some CMP pipes have the interior surfaces coated with asbestos bonded or bituminous
coatings. Instances of loss of surface coating due to delamination was observed in about 69
percent of all surface-coated CMP pipes. Loss of surface coating ranged from minor to
extensive. Figure 103 shows a CMP pipe that has experienced extensive loss of surface
coating due to delamination.
4. Concrete.—Joint offsets and separations were observed in 58 percent of all

concrete pipes. Joint offsets and separations ranged from minor to extensive. Figure 104
shows a concrete pipe that has experienced extensive joint offset and separation at a bend in
the pipe.
Cracks were observed in 42 percent of all concrete pipes. Cracks ranged from hairline to
extensive. Figure 105 shows a concrete pipe that has experienced extensive transverse
cracking.
5. Asbestos Cement, PVC, and Iron.—A few cracks and joint offset/separation
observations were noted within asbestos cement, PVC, and iron pipe. Figure 106 shows a
PVC pipe that has experienced extensive transverse cracking.
166
Figure 104.—Concrete pipe experiencing

extensive joint offset and separation at a
bend in the pipe.
Figure 105.— Extensive transverse cracking

within a concrete pipe.
Figure 106.— PVC pipe experiencing

extensive transverse cracking.
d. Plugging Mechanisms.—Plugging mechanisms can affect the performance of pipe

perforations and slots and also the conveyance of collected seepage water. The most
common plugging mechanisms encountered were (the numbers in parentheses indicate
frequency of occurrence):
• Sediments, gravels, and rocks (36%)
• Biofouling (23%)
• Mineral incrustation (23%)
• Roots (18%)
Figures 107 through 110 show examples of toe drain pipes which have experienced plugging
due to sediments, biofouling, mineral incrustation, and roots, respectively.
167
Figure 107.—Accumulation of sediments has Figure 108.— Biofouling has resulted in plugging of
resulted in plugging of the pipe. the pipe.
Figure 109.—Mineral encrustation has resulted Figure 110.— Root growth has resulted in partially
in plugging of a number of the pipe plugging the pipe.
perforations.
e. Conclusions.—Clay tile pipe was frequently used in the construction of early toe
drain systems. The common practice of laying clay tile pipe with open joints has allowed
sediments, gravels, and rocks to enter toe drain systems. Entry of these materials has
resulted in obstructions for inspection and plugging mechanisms. Clay tile pipes are also
prone to joint offsets and separations either from improper installation during construction,
backfill loadings, or foundation conditions.
HDPE pipe has been used in many toe drain systems constructed or modified after about
1980. HDPE pipe, while lightweight and easily handled and installed, has experienced a
significant number of shape deformation and failure instances. Some of the HDPE pipe
failures may be related to stress cracking. Stress cracking is a failure mechanism that
develops over time at stresses less than the yield strength. In the past, HDPE pipe resins
168
have differed in the amount of stress crack resistance (SCR). Proper installation of HDPE
pipe requires good compaction and quality control of the backfill to ensure good support
under the haunches. If the pipe is not well supported by the backfill, the pipe will deflect
excessively and stresses will be concentrated at the crown, invert, or springline. These stress
concentrations can lead to premature failure, especially if the pipe does not have sufficient
SCR. Other failures could be the result of isolated point loads from construction loading,
such as equipment crossings. When using HDPE for toe drain applications, a preliminary
CCTV inspection should be performed when 3 to 5 feet of backfill has been placed over the
pipe. The purpose for this inspection would be to identify and repair any abnormalities,
cracks, bulges, etc. early before construction is completed. Another CCTV inspection
should be performed when the final backfill loading over the pipe is completed. CCTV
inspection should be performed prior to the contractor pulling the torpedo-shaped plug or
pig through the pipe and prior to any cleaning. The purpose for this inspection would be to
identify any abnormalities, cracks, bulges, etc. that may have developed since the preliminary
inspection. CCTV inspection could replace the need for pulling the plug or pig through the
pipe.
Most CMP pipes have experienced deterioration ranging from minor to extensive. The rate
of deterioration varies, depending on chemical and physical properties of the soils and water,
and exposure to the environment. Where corrosion has occurred, it is a continuous and
irreversible process. Interior surface coatings have been somewhat effective in extending the
service life of CMP. However, most CMP pipe with surface coating has experienced some
loss of coating from delamination.
Biofouling and mineral encrustation are frequent plugging mechanisms that can affect the
long-term performance of pipe perforations and slots. In a few cases, cleaning using high
pressure jet washing has been performed after identification during the initial CCTV
inspection. Follow-up CCTV inspection has shown that the biofouling and mineral
incrustation was generally removed from the interior surface. Some improvement of
discharge from the toe drain pipe is typically observed. However, no determination could be
made as to the extent of the plugging mechanism remaining in the backfill materials
surrounding the pipe.
169
170
Chapter 5
MONITORING AND
MAINTAINING DRAINS
Most drain systems will require maintenance over time. The biggest cause for maintenance
is plugging mechanisms, which reduce the effectiveness of drains by making it more difficult
for water to enter or exit. Drains with reduced effectiveness can allow pressures to increase
in a structure or foundation, to the point where the stability of a structure is reduced, or
cause seepage to move to unprotected areas, where piping would start to develop
undetected. Even if the reduced stability has no immediate effect on a structure, the
reduced stability could become critical during an extreme loading condition, such as a large
earthquake or flood.
There are a number of ways to evaluate if drains are becoming plugged. Often, visual
evidence will exist, such as a calcium carbonate plug at the outlet end of a drilled foundation
drain for a concrete dam, or a drain that is dry but had previously been flowing under the
same reservoir elevations. Drains can also be probed to determine if the full length or depth
of the hole is open and unobstructed. If the full depth of the drain cannot be probed,
plugging is likely. Remote video cameras can also be used to determine if drains are plugged,
and to determine the location and extent of plugging. Finally, instrumentation may provide
indirect evidence that drains are becoming plugged. Reduced drain flow measurements
(under comparable reservoir water surface elevations) or increased uplift pressure or
piezometric readings (under comparable reservoir water surface elevations) are indicators of
potentially plugged drains.
If it is determined that drains are plugged or they are becoming plugged, a drain cleaning
program should be initiated. Regular monitoring of drains is a key component of a drain
maintenance program. Deferred maintenance of drains will result in continued degradation
171
Figure 111.—Calcium carbonate deposit.
of the stability of the structure or foundation and will make any future cleaning of the drains
more difficult and expensive. In some cases, drains cannot be restored once they have
degraded to a certain point. A number of different cleaning methods can be used,
depending on the type of drain, the nature of the plugging mechanism, and the extent of the
plugging.
This chapter on maintaining drains addresses plugging mechanisms, site-specific

considerations, methods for evaluating drain effectiveness, guidelines for drain maintenance,
information on establishing a drain cleaning program, and drain cleaning methods.
5-1. Drain-Plugging Mechanisms.—A variety of mechanisms can plug drains,

including calcium carbonate deposits, bacterial deposits, collapse of the drains, and the
deposition of fines, sand, or gravel particles in drains. The following is a summary of the
different plugging mechanisms:
a. Calcium Carbonate Precipitation.—Solid deposits are often found at the seepage drain
emergence points and at other locations where drainage water evaporates. These deposits
often contain calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which commonly precipitates out of solution as
the mineral calcite. Figure 111 shows an example of a calcium carbonate deposit at the
172
Chapter 5—Monitoring and Maintaining Drains
outlet end of a formed drain in a concrete dam. Calcite will precipitate out of solution and
form deposits when the calcium ion and bicarbonate and carbonate ion concentrations in
the water increase to the point where they exceed the solutioning capacity of the water. This
situation may occur when drainage water evaporates at outfalls (thereby increasing the
concentrations of calcium and hydrogen carbonate [Ca and HCO3]), or when lower
concentration waters have an alkaline pH above 8.3.
Calcium in seepage water can come from a variety of sources. Concrete structures and grout
curtains used to control seepage underneath dams and some foundation rocks or soils
(containing limestones) provide a steady supply of calcium. Factors that affect calcium
carbonate precipitation are a steady supply of calcium, pH (an alkaline environment, created
at grout curtains and concrete structures, promotes calcite precipitation), and evaporation
(deposits occur at locations where seepage water evaporates). The primary source of Ca in
seepage is water dissolution of limestones present in rock formations and in soil. Concrete
will contribute some Ca, but the larger effect on calcite precipitation is from the high pH
(> 9.5) usually caused by dissolution of sodium oxides/hydroxides associated with the
cement. While calcite is most frequently observed at locations where seepage water
evaporates (at the outfall of foundation drains, at formed drains within a concrete dam, or
along the sidewalls of a toe drain, subjected to intermittent flows), calcium carbonate can
precipitate underwater if the pH is high and a steady supply of calcium is available.
Precipitated calcium carbonate usually forms a white solid deposit, which may mineralize
and harden with time. Calcium carbonate deposits may be colored by small amounts of
manganese, iron, or other impurities. Evaporative deposits will contain other salts,
depending on the proportions of dissolved ions in solution. These deposits will be complex
mixtures of several hydrated minerals, including: the chlorides, sodium chloride, potassium
chloride, and manganese chloride (NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2, respectively); gypsum/anhydrite,
CaSO4; along with the carbonate salts, calcite, dolomite, and magnesite. Calcite is the least
soluble of these minerals and will precipitate before sulfates and well before chlorides drop
out of solution. If a deposit is suspected to be calcium carbonate but cannot be confirmed
in the field, samples should be submitted to a qualified laboratory for analysis. Section C-5
in appendix C provides information on sampling and testing for calcium carbonate.
b. Biological Plugging.—Biological plugging results from life process activities of

certain bacteria, which obtain energy for their existence from the conversion of sulfates to
sulfides, iron to ferric oxides, and manganese to manganese oxides. Bacterial deposits are
common and can develop under a variety of conditions. Bacterial growth can occur
anaerobically (without oxygen) or aerobically (with oxygen). Energy sources can be organic
materials or other carbon-containing substances. Bacteria require a steady supply of
dissolved iron, manganese, or sulfate, depending on the type of bacteria. Most of the time,
bacterial deposits are soft and easily removed, but some can become hard and mineralized.
173
Figure 112.—Iron sulphide deposits in

foundation gallery.
Aerobic bacterial growth can also create a hazardous condition by depleting the oxygen in
the air of a confined space.
Iron bacteria deposits are the most common type of bacterial deposits found in drain
systems. Iron bacteria form rusty slime deposits as ferrous iron is converted to ferric oxide
or what is also known as iron oxide. Sulphur bacteria and moderate levels of iron may result
in the formation of iron sulphide. Iron sulphide deposits in drainage systems are usually
observed as black tarlike sticky substances. Section C-5 in appendix C provides information
on testing for bacterial deposits.
Figure 112 shows iron sulphide deposits from drain flows in a concrete dam foundation
gallery. Shock chlorination is an effective method for preventing iron bacteria growth. The
Grand Coulee Dam case history (in ch. 4) provides an example of the use of this technique.
Using hot water or steam to kill the bacteria has also shown promise as a preventive
measure.
174
Figure 113.—Plug of organic material in toe drain (also shown is camera used to
inspect drain).
c. Deposition of Fines, Sands and/or Gravels/Cobbles .—The deposition of fines, sand

and/or gravel/cobble particles in drains can also reduce the effectiveness of drains. The
source of these particles can be foundation materials, backfill, or embankment materials, and
their deposition is generally the result of no filter, or a poorly designed filter surrounding the
drain. They can be blown in by the wind or transported by drainage flows.
d. Other.—Other mechanisms for plugging drains include roots from trees or bushes
that penetrate the drains and cause obstructions; the accumulation of inorganic fibers
(fig. 113); collapse of drain hole in either rock or soil; plugging from animals or humans
(vandalism); debris plugs (from back flooding); and deterioration of the drain pipe material
(i.e., corrosion of metal pipes) which may lead to a collapse of the pipe. In some
installations, drain pipes are damaged during installation, and the damage is not detected,
because a video inspection of the pipe is not performed immediately after backfilling and
installation of the drain is completed. On Brantley Dam, for instance, a video inspection of
a drain in 1991 showed that a lath had been driven through the plastic pipe to hold it in
place and never removed. Recent video inspections of the HDPE toe drains installed at San
Justo and Davis Creek Dams have revealed collapsed portions of the drains. The damage
likely occurred during the installation of these drains.
175
5-2. Site-Specific Considerations.—Geology and specific drain installation details

(steel pipe, PVC pipe, size of screen openings, diameter of perforations, etc.) are major
factors which influence drain cleaning effectiveness. Drain flows may decrease, or cease
entirely, because of heavy deposits of rust, iron-reducing bacteria, mineralization,
sedimentation, or root growth. Alternating layers of hard and soft material (sandstone and
shale) can also render drain cleaning difficult, with the soft layers providing material for
sedimentation in the drain hole, while the hard layers may develop hard mineralization
encrustation. Cleaning of drains in this type of material will also be difficult, especially if
high pressure water jetting is used. Pressures required to clean the sandstones will likely
erode the shales. Drain cleaning, or the degree of rehabilitation that is possible, depends on
these and other conditions. For example, several-decades-old steel pipe in horizontal drains
and metal collector systems may be severely rusted and would probably be destroyed if
disturbed by a cleaning operation, while the newer PVC pipe installations may remain in
excellent condition and should perform well for decades.
While individual drain systems tend to lose effectiveness at varying rates, most drains tend to
decrease in effectiveness with increasing age. Steel pipe can rust, steel and PVC pipe can fail
with new or renewed slope movement, and iron-reducing bacteria, mineralization, sediment,
or root penetration can obstruct drain pipe or collector systems. However, if a proper
cleaning and maintenance program is performed on a regular basis, a drain installation is
likely to function effectively for at least as long the expected life of the structure that it
protects.
a. Importance of Drains to Dam/Structure Stability.—Maintaining an effective drainage

system (whether it is toe drains or relief wells for an embankment dam, foundation and
formed drains for a concrete dam, or drains for a tunnel outlet works) is very important to
ensure that the structure behaves as designed and originally constructed (i.e., drainage
systems are a primary “line-of-defense” in maintaining structural stability/integrity of many
features). Good drainage may be particularly important under unusual loadings, such as
floods or earthquakes. Given this, it is imperative that drainage features for all dams and
appurtenant structures be adequately designed, constructed, monitored, and maintained.
When choosing a drain cleaning method, consideration must be given to the type of drain,
drain materials and foundation materials and conditions.
Reclamation has constructed and/or operates about 60 concrete dams and over 210
embankment dams with a structural height of 50 feet or taller. Most of these dams have
some form of drainage system, and most dams have appurtenant structures that also rely on
drainage systems to help maintain intended performance. Reclamation’s structures are aging;
therefore, monitoring, analyzing, and maintaining existing dam drainage systems is as critical
as ever.
176
Reclamation has implemented numerous programs and activities that facilitate monitoring
and maintaining drainage systems. As part of the safety of dams program, Reclamation
performs periodic reviews/examinations of its high- and significant-hazard structures,
including the annual examination, the periodic facility review and the comprehensive facility
review (CFR). Additionally, visual and instrumentation performance parameters have been
developed for each high- or significant-hazard dam. What is noteworthy about these
activities includes:
• Many potential failure modes typically include a foundation-related failure, which has
some element of uplift and/or seepage associated with it.
• Failure of a concrete dam and/or foundation tends to be very rapid, associated with a
large peak breach outflow (i.e., potential of limited warning time, significant property
damage, and loss of life).
• For some Reclamation concrete dams, a review and subsequent analysis of uplift
pressures indicated an apparent loss of drain efficiency (higher uplift pressures) from the
efficiency present after initial reservoir filling. It should be noted that limited uplift
measurements are available, and even if higher pressures are not measured where
instruments are located, they could be increasing elsewhere.
• During several CFR examinations, blockage of foundation and/or abutment drains was
observed at dams without a program of periodic probing/inspection and/or cleaning of
drains. These situations have resulted in a CFR recommendation to establish a drain
monitoring/cleaning program.
• Designers’ Operating Criteria for many dams recommend periodic drain cleaning (every
5 to 10 years). However, these recommendations have been rountinely overlooked.
Perhaps the most important factor in long-term performance of drains is a well developed
and executed program of inspection, repair, and cleaning. A drain maintenance program
should be established with provisions for annual inspections for cleaning and repair of
damaged outlets or collector systems. Most drains need to be cleaned only every 5 to
8 years. Rapid accumulation of mineral or bacterial deposits, heavy root growth, or fine-
grained sediments may reduce this period to every year or every other year.
An effective method of maintaining continuity in a drain program would be to permanently

assign qualified personnel the full-time task of inspecting, cleaning, replacing, or repairing
drain installations on a regional or area office basis.
177
Drain cleaning and maintenance records should be kept for each installation. These records
should indicate dates of cleaning and repairs, flows, and pressures (if available), recorded for
each drain prior to and after each cleaning, and any damage that has occurred to the drains.
b. Access to Drains.—To inspect and maintain drain systems, good records are
required, including plans and cross sections showing the locations of drains in relationship to
survey monuments or permanent landmarks. A permanent record of specifications drawings
or as-built drawings showing the locations of drains is also very important. Otherwise, drain
locations are lost because of transfers, retirements, or promotions of personnel who are only
aware of the drain locations because they were present during the actual installation. In
some cases, the original design and layout of the drain system precludes access to much of
the system, but any information that will allow access even to portions of the system is
valuable.
Drains located on slopes or near the toes of embankments are sometimes lost through the
practice of end-dumping waste material over the side of the fill or road grading, covering the
outlets. Sloughing of weathered slopes has buried many drain outlets both on benches and
at grade at several sites. Horizontal drains are lost or damaged because they are not
protected against rock fall, particularly in the case of exposed PVC pipe, or because they are
vulnerable to snow plows, rock plows, or straying vehicles near the edge of the slope. A
good practice is to protect the PVC pipe at the outlet with a galvanized pipe that slips over
the PVC pipe approximately 20 feet. The establishment and maintenance of a central file on
all drain installations as well as placement of markers such as steel posts or signs, is a good
practice.
Drains located in difficult access areas are challenging to maintain or rehabilitate. Examples
of difficult access areas include drilled drains or formed drains in drainage galleries within
concrete dams, spillways, and powerplants. The drainage galleries usually are small (5 by
8 feet), providing limited work area for equipment and crews. Access into these areas
requires mobilization of equipment up and down stairs and/or spiral staircases, and possibly
through maintenance facilities, power generation facilities, etc. If rehabilitation of drains
involves using conventional drilling methods, mobilization of equipment and safety
considerations such as clean air supply, noise, and oxygen levels can be significant. A source
of clean water is typically required for drain cleaning operations. Depending on the
closeness of the drains to the reservoir at Reclamation dams or to another water source, a
lengthy delivery system may be required.
5-3. Evaluating Drain Effectiveness with Instrumentation/Visual Monitoring.—

Along with the importance of maintaining drains at Reclamation structures comes the
importance of evaluating the effectiveness of these drains with the passing of time.
Numerous methods can be used to evaluate drainage systems. The most common methods
178
to evaluate the effectiveness of drain systems at dams are monitoring changes in water
pressures or water levels, drainage or seepage flows, depth of drain holes, and physical and
visual inspection of drainage systems themselves.
a. Site Review.—Prior to evaluating the performance of a drainage system, the site

geology should be reviewed. This review should include the material type of the foundation,
and orientation and spacing of discontinuities. Likewise, foundation material type can also
indicate where drain plugging might be more extensive. For example, foundations
containing limestone or carbonaceous materials are susceptible to calcium carbonate type of
plugging. Joint infillings, weak shale layers, and other soft materials can also erode and plug
drains.
In addition to the type of foundation material, records such as those for construction
grouting should also be reviewed. Special attention should be given to areas along the
foundation where grout takes were greater than the average. Areas of large grout takes
would be areas where the foundation drains might be more prone to calcium carbonate
plugging because of leaching of carbonaceous materials or prone to plugging due to loose
foundation conditions, where drain holes might collapse.
b. Concrete Dams/Foundations.—
1. Water Pressures.—Increased water pressures (that do not reflect reservoir

fluctuations) are an indirect indication that the drainage system is becoming plugged.
Regular review of the uplift pressure readings would alert one to this condition. The most
obvious indications that the drainage system has become less efficient due to plugging are
when uplift pressures exceed historical performance under the same reservoir head. Also,
gradual increases in uplift pressures over several years at similar reservoir and tailwater
elevations are another indication that the drainage system is becoming plugged. This type of
trend is difficult to identify until there is a notable increase in expected values. Uplift
pressures that are greater than those assumed in the original design of the concrete dam are a
concern, since they will likely reduce safety factors assumed in the design.
Performance parameters have been prepared for all of Reclamation’s major dams. These
documents identify the most likely failure modes for each dam and identify the
instrumentation used to monitor for these failure modes. Acceptable limits for each
instrument or set of instruments are provided, and this information should be used when
evaluating uplift pressure readings and other instrumentation data.
2. Drainage Flows.—Decreased drainage flows under constant conditions are

usually a direct indication that the drainage system is becoming plugged although reservoir
siltation may be another explanation. Constant total drainage flows for a dam may not be a
179
clear indication that the drainage system is fully functional. As drain holes lose their
effectiveness and become plugged, the water may migrate toward surrounding holes with
minor or no change in total flows. Therefore, a change in total flows may not materialize
until large portions of the drain system have become nonfunctional. Monitoring multiple
points along a drainage collection system will assist with identifying changing flows from one
point source to another point within the system. This should include an accounting of
which drain holes are flowing. The performance parameter document for a given dam
should identify the expected behavior and the conditions for performing a closer evaluation
of the drainage system.
3. Drain Hole Depths.—Decreasing diameter or depth of drain holes (due to

deposition of materials within drains) is a direct indication that the drainage system is
becoming clogged. Probing of the drain holes on a regular basis (at least every 6 years and
more frequently if potential drain plugging is indicated by visual evidence or instrumentation
data) is a proactive maintenance program to effectively monitor drain hole plugging. For
dams with a large number of deep foundation drains, probing the drains may be time-
consuming and expensive. Probing of a representative sample of drain holes and/or video
inspections may be worth considering under these circumstances. The performance
parameter document for a given dam should identify the expected behavior and the
conditions for performing a closer evaluation of the drainage system.
4. Visual Observations.—Visual inspection is another useful tool for evaluating

drain holes. Visual inspections should consist of three parts. The first part is visual
inspection of drain hole exit conditions, looking specifically at the exit of the drain hole for
buildup of deposits (most commonly calcium carbonate or iron bacteria deposits) that are
restricting flows. The second part is a general visual inspection of the exposed portions of
the entire drainage system, looking for changing seepage flow points; transfer of seepage
flows from one drain hole to another or new seepage points appearing; seepage occurring at
joints; etc. These observations indicate that some of the drain holes might be plugged and
that seepage paths could be changing or that new preferential seepage paths have developed.
The third part of visual inspection is using a camera to inspect the interior of the drain hole.
If visual inspections indicate plugging is likely occurring, then the affected drain holes should
be cleaned.
The performance parameter visual inspection checklist should include items relative to a
visual inspection of the drains (parts one and two). The recommended interval or
conditions for performing a remote video inspection of the drains should also be included in
the performance parameter document.
180
c. Embankment Dams/Foundations/Horizontal Drains.—
1. Seepage Flows.—Decreasing seepage flows at similar reservoir and tailwater

elevations are a direct indication that the drainage system (typically toe drains) may be
becoming clogged. Increasing flow, particularly if sediment is detected as well, may indicate
that the drainage system has a failure at some location (loss of filter, collapse of drain pipe,
pipe joint separation, etc.).
Performance parameters have been prepared for all of Reclamation’s major dams. These
documents identify the most likely failure modes for each dam and identify the
instrumentation used to monitor for these failure modes. Acceptable limits for each
instrument or set of instruments are provided, and this information should be used when
evaluating uplift pressure readings and other instrumentation data.
2. Water Levels.—Changing water levels monitored by observation wells and

piezometers are indirect indicators that the drainage system (typically toe drains or relief
wells) may be clogging. Therefore, water level monitoring data can become important
indicators that the drains may be plugged. The performance parameter document for a
given dam should identify the expected behavior and the conditions for performing a closer
evaluation of the drainage system.
3. Visual Observations.—Visual inspection of drains indicates drain effectiveness.

The appearance of sediment, organic material, and other deposits at the outlet indicates a
drainage system problem. The most practical method of performing a visual inspection of a
toe drain is by probing with a rod or stick and using a mobile or remote camera to
inspect the length of the drain. If a toe drain or horizontal drain has not been inspected
since its original installation, a video inspection of the drain should be considered. Recent
inspections of toe drains at Reclamation dams revealed collapsed sections of the HDPE pipe
(see case history in ch. 4) forming the toe drain. However, the appearance of new seepage;
wet areas; the appearance of material transport in seepage and leakage; and settlements,
depressions, or collapse or formation of sinkholes in areas close to toe drains would be other
visual signs that drains may not be functioning as designed and may be a more serious
indicator that an internal failure erosion mode is in progress. If anything indicates that a toe
drain may have become plugged or has potentially experienced a failure, a video inspection
of the toe drain should be performed. Appendix C provides information on remotely
controlled video inspections. Reclamation has equipment which may be used for these types
of inspections.
The performance parameter visual inspection checklist should include items relative to a
visual inspection of the drains. The recommended interval or conditions for performing a
181
remote video inspection of the drains should also be included in the performance parameter
document.
d. Relief Wells.—
1. Flow Rates.—Reduced flow rates are a direct indication that the drainage
system is becoming plugged. Decreasing flow amounts can signal that the relief wells are
becoming plugged.
2. Water Levels.—Increasing water levels monitored by observation wells and

piezometers indicate indirectly that the relief well system is becoming plugged. Therefore,
water level monitoring points close to the wells can become important indicators that the
relief wells are becoming plugged.
3. Visual Observations.—Visual inspection of relief wells directly indicates drain

effectiveness. A method of performing a visual inspection of a relief well is by remote video
borehole camera. This type of equipment is inserted and lowered into the well. Appendix C
contains additional information on remotely controlled video inspections. If areas of
plugging are found, the well screen should be cleaned. However, the appearance of new
seepage; changes of existing seepage; the appearance of material transported by seepage and
leakage; and the collapse or formation of sinkholes in areas close to the relief wells would be
visual signs that they may not be functioning as designed, and more seriously, that an
internal erosion failure mode is in progress.
4. Pump Tests.—Pump tests should be performed on relief wells that flow

infrequently. The tests should be performed to verify that screens are not plugged and the
design drawdown can still be achieved.
e. Conclusions.—Many methods can be used to evaluate drainage systems. The most

common methods to evaluate the effectiveness of a drainage system are monitoring changes
in uplift pressures, water levels, drainage flows, seepage flows, or depth of drain holes; and
visually inspecting the condition of the drainage system.
Certain types of drainage systems, such as foundation underdrain systems for spillway crest
structures and chutes, have traditionally not received much attention in the form of
inspection and monitoring. With the improvements in remote video inspection capability
(see app. C), consideration should be given to performing video inspections on the systems.
Drainage flows should also be visually monitored wherever possible.
A drainage system is an important part of the monitoring system at a site, since it provides
information about the health of the structure. Therefore, maintaining such a system
182
warrants as much attention as the monitoring instruments at the site. In addition, a properly
maintained monitoring system (including instrumentation data as well as data from the
drainage system) is useful in conjunction with other O&M activities to support the decisions
to schedule drainage cleaning activities at a specific site.
5-4. Drain Cleaning Methods.—Depending on accessibility to drains, the type of

plugging mechanism, and the application of a given method, success in reestablishing drain
flows may vary from site to site. Several methods have been successfully used by
Reclamation to clean plugged drains and restore their efficiency (see ch. 4 for case histories).
Pressures and forces proposed for mechanical cleaning methods and high pressure and
ultrahigh pressure water jetting should be determined before their use to avoid damage to
drains and the surrounding materials. Cleaning methods include:
a. Rodding.—A steel rod or similar device is used to break through the plugged
encrustation deposit. In some cases, a metal object such as a star drill has been attached to a
line and dropped down the foundation drain to break through the blockage. Flushing of the
hole should be performed after rodding. Rodding does not completely clean the drain hole
walls. It is most effective where plugs high in the drains must be removed but where lower
areas of the drain still allow good flow through the drain hole walls. It would not be a good
method where extensive drain plugs exist. This is an economical method that uses simple
equipment.
b. Flushing and Air Lifting.—Soft and loose deposits (iron bacteria, organics,
sediments, etc.) can be flushed out of drain holes (typically vertical) by placing the end of a
water line at the bottom of a drain and using water pressures of up to 250 lb/in2 and flows
up to 60 gal/min to loosen the deposits and flush them out of the hole. Air lifting is done in
a similar manner, but uses compressed air to force debris out of the drain. This could be an
effective method for bacterial deposits and other loose deposits that have not hardened but
would not be effective in removing hard deposits such as calcium carbonate.
c. Reaming, Drain Enlargement or Drilling of New Holes.—For foundation drains in rock,

the existing drain holes can be reamed up to the original diameter using a drill to remove
obstructions and coatings on the borehole walls. The effectiveness of this method will be
reduced if the fractures and joints around the perimeter of the drain are plugged. Correct
alignment of the drill and drill bit is critical to successfully using this method.
Drain enlargement is another method that utilizes drill equipment to restore the efficiency of
drains. For foundation drains in rock, the existing drain holes are redrilled to enlarge the
original diameter of the hole by ¼ to 1 inch. The first cleaning using drain enlargement
appears to achieve the most improvement in drain efficiency. Subsequent redrilling of the
same hole often does not result in the same improvement. This can occur if joints and
183
fractures become plugged in the areas immediately surrounding the perimeter of the hole,
blocking off pathways for water to enter the drains.
As an alternative, new drain holes are sometimes drilled to replace the old ones, if the
desired efficiency cannot be economically achieved with drain enlargement or reaming. All
of the drilling methods are usually very effective in improving drain efficiency, but these
methods are some of the more costly methods of drain rehabilitation. Any of the drilling
methods should only be used after less expensive alternatives have been ruled out.
d. Rotary Tube Cleaners or Mechanical Abraders.—This method cleans the deposits from
the inside surfaces of the foundation drain, restoring the original diameter of the hole.
These devices typically have a rotating cutting head on the end of a flexible rod or hose.
The effectiveness of this method will be reduced if the fractures and joints around the
perimeter of the drain are plugged. A Roto-Rooter device, a common commercial method
for cleaning sewer drains, is a device in this category that has been successfully used in drains
at Reclamation facilities.
e. Ultrahigh Pressure Water Jet System.—A typical ultrahigh pressure water cleaning
system delivers a flow of 3 to 10 gal/min at pressures between 20,000 and 50,000 lb/in2. A
high pressure pump is connected to a filtered water supply. Hoses are provided from the
pipe to the hole being cleaned, and a tripod is used to lower the equipment in and out of the
hole. A jetted nozzle attached to a flexible lance is lowered into the hole and removed
slowly during the cleaning operation. Typically, a number of different heads with different
nozzles can be used. This method should be used with extreme care for drains in
embankment dams and in areas of soft foundation rocks or in other areas where
surrounding materials could be fractured or washed away.
f. High Pressure Water Jet System.—This method delivers a flow of 10 to 20 gal/min at

a pressure typically between 6,000 and 10,000 lb/in2. Other than the pressure and flow
rates, the equipment and methods for these systems are similar to the ultrahigh pressure
water jet systems. Figures 114 and 115 show equipment used for high pressure water jet
cleaning. Extreme care should be exercised when using this method for drains in
embankment dams and in areas of soft foundation rocks or in other areas where
surrounding materials could be fractured or washed away. Under these conditions, a good
knowledge of the foundation/drain conditions is required, along with the experience and
expertise to adjust the equipment for the site conditions. Both the ultrahigh pressure water
jet system and the high pressure water jet system are very effective, cost-efficient methods
when used by trained personnel. These methods are very effective for drains installed in
concrete or rock.
184
Figure 114.—High pressure water jet nozzle

and hose being lowered into foundation drain.
Figure 115.—High pressure water jet nozzle.
185
g. Chemical Treatments.—Sulfamic, sulfuric, and hydrochloric acids have been used to

dissolve deposits in drains. Sulfamic acid has been field tested at Folsom Dam to chemically
dissolve calcium carbonate in clogged foundation drains. Granular and pelletized forms of
the acid are applied to drains in quantities equivalent to 2 to 8 percent of the unobstructed
volume. Other acids have been used in liquid form with limited success due to dilution and
health problems related to their use. Acids have not been effective in clearing fully plugged
drains. Acids seem most effective when used as a preventive maintenance procedure for
controlling the buildup of mineral deposits in drains.
Relief wells downstream of Grand Coulee Dam have been successfully maintained and
major plugging of the wells avoided through the use of both bleach and sulfamic acid. The
solutions are alternated in the wells and the rapid change in pH has been effective in
controlling bacterial deposits.
Another chemical method that has been used is adding carbon dioxide under pressure to
drains plugged with calcium carbonate. Typically the zone being treated is isolated with
packers. This process has the potential for dissolving calcium carbonate, since the carbon
dioxide can acidify water in the drain, however, an attempt to use this method at Folsom
Dam was unsuccessful because joints in the foundation rock made it impossible to
pressurize the holes.
h. Overpumping.—This method consists of pumping a relief well at a discharge rate

considerably higher than the design capacity of the well. This method is only recommended
for thin, relatively uniform grained, permeable aquifers. The pump is normally set above the
top of the screen, and development is primarily concentrated in the upper one fourth to one
half of the screen length. As long as pumping continues and water is moving from the
outside to the inside of the well screen, stable bridging of the sand grains occurs. When
pumping is stopped, the water in the column pipe drops back into the well, causing a reverse
flow which destroys the bridging. When the well is again pumped, sand will enter the well
until bridging is reestablished. For a thorough discussion of overpumping, see the Ground
Water Manual [45].
i. Surge Block Technique.—This technique is used to maintain the efficiency of relief

wells. Surge blocks are usually solid or vented and consist of a body block 1 to 2 inches
smaller in diameter than the well screen and fitted with as many as four ¼- to ½-inch disks
of belting, rubber or other tough material having the same diameter as the inside diameter of
the well screen. Solid surge blocks have a solid body, while vented surge blocks have a
number of holes drilled through the body, parallel to the block axis. The top of the body is
fitted with a rubber flap valve, that seals the holes on the upward stroke and allows water to
flow through the holes on the downstroke.
186
As a solid surge block is moved up and down in the well screen, a surging action is imparted
to the water, which is about equal in both directions. The gentler downstroke of a vented
surge block causes only sufficient backwash to break up any bridging that may occur, and
the stronger upstroke pulls in the sand grains freed by the destruction of the bridging. The
solid surge block is usually most effective in dirty sands containing large percentages of clay,
silt and organic matter. A vented surge block is more effective in cleaner sands.
A figure showing a vented surge block, and more details on this technique can be found in
the case history for Senator Wash Dam (in ch. 5). For a thorough discussion of the surge
block technique, see the Ground Water Manual [45].
j. Excavation and Replacement.—Excavation and replacement is a method of removing

a damaged or plugged section of a drain when other techniques are not possible or are
unsuccessful. This is typically used on embankment dam toe drains when the exit of the
drain is damaged or where collapse of the toe drain or infilling through openings at joints
along the pipe has caused plugging or a restriction in the drain. Prior to excavating any
drain, technical specialists should be consulted to ensure that the safety of the structure is
not compromised.
k. Slip Lining.—Slip lining can be used at damaged or unfiltered toe drains or at

other unfiltered drains to prevent piping or migration of foundation or embankment
materials. Slip lining may also be useful to prevent collapse of drains in soft or unstable
materials. Slip lining consists of installing a smaller diameter perforated drain pipe into the
original drain.
Table 9 provides a summary of the drain methods described above, and information that can
be used when selecting a drain cleaning method.
5-5. Reclamation Drain Cleaning Program.—
a. Reclamation Guidelines for Maintaining Drains.—Drains are an important feature at

dams and their associated structures. They reduce the water pressures within structures,
within structure foundations, and at structure/foundation contacts. Elevated water
pressures reduce the stability of structures by reducing the sliding and overturning resistance
of the structure. Drains also control seepage to prevent piping. While a structure may
perform adequately under static loading conditions, the lack of drains in a structure or
plugged drains can reduce the factors of safety for the overall stability of the structure for
operational, flood, and earthquake loading conditions. This could become especially critical
if unforeseen loading conditions or higher loads under seismic or hydrologic conditions
occur beyond what was originally expected. Because drains increase the stability of
structures and foundations and because they are a significant investment which would be
187
Table 9.—Drain-cleaning methods
Method Most Effective Conditions Ineffective Conditions Cost Access
Rodding Plugs are fairly soft and Holes where drain hole Low Simple, easily
occur near drain outlet, walls are plugged over transported equipment,
good flow in remainder of significant lengths or holes need to be
drain. Typically used for plugs are fairly hard flushed
concrete dam foundation
drains
Flushing/Air Removing soft and loose Removing mineralized Low Air or water compressor
Lifting deposits or hardened deposits can be located
remotely from drain
holes, with hoses run to
hole
Reaming/Drain Drains installed in rock or Removing soft and loose High Drilling equipment will
Enlargement concrete (typically deposits; Successive have to be transported
concrete dam drains); attempts using this to each drain location;
Removing mineralized or method may provide access difficulties
hardened deposits and/or reduced effectiveness associated with size of
plugs; Other cleaning drilling equipment
methods have been
ineffective; Plugging
mechanism influence
extends into fractures
and joints outward from
hole perimeter (drain
enlargement)
Drilling New Drains installed in rock or Limited access High Drilling equipment will
Holes concrete (typically have to be transported
concrete dam foundation to each drain location;
drains); Zone around access difficulties
drain hole has fractures associated with size of
and joints plugged so drilling equipment
water can’t enter drains;
Last resort method—other
methods tried and failed
Rotary Tube Smooth walled drain Not effective in Low Equipment is generally
Cleaners or holes; removing removing deposits easy to transport.
Mechanical mineralized or hardened within joints and
Abraders deposits; removing tree fractures around
or plant roots that have perimeter of holes
infiltrated toe drains or
horizontal drains
188
Table 9.—Drain-cleaning methods (cont’d)
Ultrahigh Good general method; Removing fines or sands Mod- Water compressor can
Pressure Water Removes soft deposits as that have settled into a erate be located remotely
Jet System well as mineralized and drain; Foundation drains from drain holes, with
hardened deposits. in rock where hoses run to hole
Effective in removing foundation is soft and
deposits in joints and erodible; pressure losses
fractures to limited can be high in long
depths (more so than high hoses, limiting the
pressure water jets). Has accessibility to some
been effective in cleaning drains; rotation of the
well screens nozzle is required to
cover the entire
circumference of a drain
hole.
High Pressure Good general method; Removing fines or sands Mod- Water compressor can
Water Jet removes soft deposits as that have settled into a erate be located remotely
System well as mineralized and drain; Foundation drains from drain holes, with
hardened deposits; in rock where hoses run to hole
Somewhat effective in foundation is soft and
removing deposits in erodible
joints and fractures (to
limited depths); relatively
low pressure losses allow
the use of long hoses to
extend from the pump to
the drain being cleaned.
Has been effective in
cleaning well screens
Chemical Effective as a Not effective in fully Low Equipment is limited

Treatments preventative measure and plugged drains; More and access should not
for controlling the complicated be an issue; Ventilation
buildup of deposits method—requires may be required
(calcium carbonate and trained personnel to be depending on chemicals
iron bacteria); often used effective and to avoid used
for relief wells; has been health problems
used successfully for associated with some
horizontal agricultural materials;
drains with significant environmental
calcite deposits considerations may limit
use.
189
Table 9.—Drain-cleaning methods (cont’d)
Temperature Effective as a Not effective for Low Equipment is small and

Treatments preventative measure and plugging mechanisms access should not be an
for controlling the other than iron bacteria issue
buildup of deposits (iron
bacteria?); often used for
relief wells
Overpumping Used for relief wells in Not applicable outside Low Utilizes existing pump;
the initial development of of relief wells; not no additional
the well and for restoring recommended for cases equipment needed
the efficiency of the well; where mineral
only recommended for encrustation or
thin, relatively uniform bacterial plugging.
grained, permeable
aquifers and where soil
particles are plugging the
well screen.
Surge Block Used for relief wells to Not applicable outside Low Surge block is a very
Technique redevelop the well; only of relief wells; not simple device that is
recommended where soil recommended for cases easily transported and
particles are plugging the where mineral installed in relief well.
well screen. encrustation or
bacterial plugging.
Excavation and Primarily used for toe Not practical for Mod- Excavation required.
Replacement drains and drains that are foundation underdrains erate
easily accessible and under a concrete slab. to
installed in a soil trench. High*
Slip Lining Useful for damaged or No real benefits in Low Limited access may
unfiltered toe drains or drains where additional to require frequent
for other unfiltered drains structural capacity or Mod- couplers to maintain
where liner can provide filtering capacity is not erate liner continuity.
some filtering capacity. needed.
May also be used in drains
susceptible to collapse.
* Depends on extent of drain that is replaced.
expensive to replace, drains should be maintained. If drains are not maintained, the stability
of the structure could be jeopardized under critical loadings of the structure. Also if drains
are not maintained for a period of time and then an attempt is made to rehabilitate them, it
may not be possible to restore the drains to their full effectiveness. This could occur if the
plugging mechanism (e.g., calcium carbonate) plugged a significant zone within the drain
190
foundation and extended outward from the perimeter of the drain. While the inside opening
of the drain could be reestablished, the drain effectiveness could be drastically reduced,
because the zone immediately around the drain had been made impermeable.
Drains at Reclamation dams have received varying amounts of attention. In most cases,
drains that were obviously plugged have been detected during examinations of the dam, and
a cleaning program was initiated. Cleaning programs that were initiated resulted in varying
degrees of success as indicated by the case histories in chapter 4. In other cases,
instrumentation data have provided a strong indication that drains are plugged, and
appropriate action was taken. In some cases, drains have become plugged without the
plugging being detected for a period of time, because the drains could not be easily accessed,
and visual evidence did not strongly suggest that the drains were plugging.
This manual hopefully will provide a heightened awareness of the importance and benefits
of drainage systems and the need for continual monitoring and maintenance of these
systems. Rather than providing strict requirements for a regular drain cleaning program, this
manual is intended to provide guidelines for evaluating drainage systems and determining
the need for initiating a drain cleaning program. The current CFR and periodic facility
review processes provide for a systematic evaluation of each of Reclamation’s dams. This
provides an ideal opportunity to evaluate drainage systems, considering the instrumentation
data, physical condition of the exposed portions of the drainage system, and the need for a
comprehensive inspection of the drainage system, typically through the use of a remote
video camera. The Performance Parameter documents now available for all major
Reclamation dams also are a valuable tool for assessing the performance of drainage systems.
If not already provided, Performance Parameter documents should indicate acceptable levels
for drain flows and water pressures at a specific dam, and levels at which a further evaluation
of a drainage system or a drain cleaning program should be initiated. The Performance
Parameter document can also be used to identify a regular interval for probing or inspecting
drains with remote video cameras. With experience in maintaining a drainage system at a
given dam, a regular schedule of drain cleaning can possibly be established. This will make
programming of O&M funds easier and ensure that cleaning can be performed when
necessary.
Drain inspection or cleaning should be considered under the following conditions:
• Total drain flows from the entire drainage system have decreased from the original drain
flows, or since the most recent drain cleaning exercise. Drain flows should be compared
at similar reservoir levels or consistent conditions for slope drains where the water
source is groundwater and not a reservoir. If conditions are not consistent for drain
flows, it will be difficult to determine if drain effectiveness has changed.
191
• Uplift pressures, piezometer readings or observation wells indicate an increase from the
original installation values or since the most recent drain cleaning exercise. Readings
should be compared under consistent conditions as discussed above.
• Significant plugging of the drains has occurred from a visual or video inspection of the
drains. Significant plugging would consist of the outlet end of the drains being sealed or
nearly sealed off by drain deposits, the inside surface of the drains being coated or sealed
by drain deposits, or a blockage within a drain that prevents or nearly prevents portions
of the drain from discharging.
As a further tool to evaluate the effectiveness of a drainage system and to establish a

maintenance program for drains, the following information should also be considered:
• Information on the drain performance, historical drain flows, and historical

instrumentation data providing evidence of drain effectiveness—drain flows, uplift
pressure, piezometer and observation well data. In most cases, instrumentation data will
need to be evaluated over a long period of time and the general trends evaluated.
Changes from year to year may be small and inconclusive. All relevant instrumentation
should also be considered as a complete set of data, to provide the best interpretation of
drain performance.
• Original design assumptions and analysis results regarding the drains, indicating whether
they were considered an integral part of the design, or strictly a defensive measure, and
indicating assumptions regarding drain effectiveness.
• For those situations where functioning drains were counted on in the design, an updated
analysis should be performed for the case of nonfunctioning drains, if evidence exists
that the drainage system has been compromised, and these results should be
documented in a Technical Memorandum.
b. Checklists for Drain Cleaning Program.—In order to conduct an effective drain

cleaning program, monitoring of key parameters before and after the cleaning should be
conducted. Two checklists are provided—one for vertical or near vertical drilled foundation
drains in rock foundations (primarily for concrete dams) and one for horizontal drains,
which would apply to toe drains, slope drains, and other horizontal installations. The
following is a checklist of recommended procedures for ensuring a successful drain cleaning
program for vertical drains in a rock foundation. This checklist could also be adapted to
address cleaning of vertical formed drains in a concrete dam.
• Measure drain flows prior to cleaning, measuring individual drains if possible
192
• Take uplift pressure readings and piezometer readings prior to cleaning.
• Probe holes with rods or a plumb bob to determine depth of open hole prior to
cleaning. Compare this measurement to as-built depths, if available.
• Use a borehole camera to inspect borehole walls on selected drains prior to cleaning.
Drains to be inspected should be selected to represent distinct zones in the foundation.
Note changes in rock type, deposits, and other variables along length of hole. The
borehole may require washing/flushing to allow access with the camera or to provide a
clean column of water for viewing with the borehole camera. The borehole inspection
of the borehole walls, as well as other geologic information should be used to identify
any soft zones in the foundation. The presence of soft zones and the general condition
of the borehole walls should be used to establish maximum cleaning pressures, where
high pressure water jet cleaning is used.
• Initiate cleaning of the holes. If using water jetting methods, record nozzle details,
nozzle orientations, cleaning rate (ft/min) and pressures used during cleaning. Also,
document specifics of equipment used (catalog sheets and devices used to centralize the
nozzles in the hole).
• Flush holes thoroughly with water after cleaning.
• Measure drain flows and record uplift pressures periodically during drain cleaning to
identify incremental effects.
• Probe holes with rods or plumb bob to determine depth of open hole after cleaning.
Compare this measurement to precleaning depths (if available).
• Use a borehole camera to videotape borehole walls of the same drains previously
inspected after cleaning. Note any remaining deposits or partial plugs along depth of
hole, as well as any evidence of erosion or caving of sidewalls from cleaning. If deposits
still remain, additional cleaning efforts should be considered. If possible, determine if
deposits were cleaned from fractures/joints intersecting the borehole walls.
• Measure drain flows after cleaning, measuring individual drains if possible.
• Take uplift pressure readings and piezometer readings after cleaning.
• Summarize cleaning activities in a report, including, photographs, graphs and tables that
readily portray before and after conditions and demonstrate effectiveness of cleaning.
Integrate postcleaning flow rates and/or uplift pressures and piezometer readings with
193
historical instrumentation records for the structure. Some of the case histories in
chapter 4 provide plots showing before and after instrumentation data.
The following is a checklist of recommended procedures for ensuring a successful horizontal

drain cleaning program:
• Measure drain flows and pressures prior to cleaning, measuring individual drains if
possible.
• Probe drains with rods to determine depth (or length) of open holes prior to cleaning.
Compare this measurement to as-built depths, if available. If possible, use a camera to
videotape the walls/casing/drain pipe interior before cleaning. Note any deposits or
partial plugs along depth of drain, as well as any evidence of erosion or caving of
sidewalls in noncased holes, or damage to casing or drain pipe. The inspection of the
drain walls as well as other information on the drain pipe materials and the material
surrounding the drains should be used to identify any vulnerable areas along the drains.
The presence of vulnerable areas along the drains and the general condition of the drain
should be used to establish maximum cleaning pressures, where high pressure water jet
cleaning is used.
• Initiate cleaning of the drains. The drain may be cleaned using only washing/flushing
with water. If using water jetting methods, record nozzle details, nozzle orientations,
cleaning rate (ft/min), and pressure used during cleaning. Also, document specifics of
equipment used (catalog sheets and devices used to center nozzles in the hole, size and
length of rods/pipe used to wash/flush the holes, flow rates, photographs, etc.).
• Record type of material cleaned from the drains (rust, roots, sediment, mineral
encrustation, fragments of drain pipe, etc.). Knowledge of the type of material cleaned
from the drains may be useful during future cleaning operations.
• Flush drains thoroughly with water after cleaning.
• Probe drains with rods to determine depth of open hole after cleaning. Compare this
measurement to precleaning depths (if available).
• If possible, use a camera to videotape the walls/casing/drain pipe interior after cleaning.
Note any remaining deposits or partial plugs along depth of hole, as well as any evidence
of erosion or caving of sidewalls from cleaning noncased holes, or damage to casing or
drain pipe from cleaning.
194
• Measure drain flows and pressures periodicallly during cleaning to identify incremental
effects.
• Measure drain flows and pressures after cleaning, measuring individual drains if possible.
• Summarize cleaning activities in a report, including graphs, tables, and photographs that
readily portray before and after conditions and demonstrate effectiveness of cleaning.
Integrate postcleaning flow rates with historical instrumentation records for the
structure. Some of the case histories in chapter 4 provide plots showing before and after
instrumentation data.
Checklists for other types of drains, such as relief wells, can also be developed using the
same concepts of inspecting the drains and monitoring instrumentation before cleaning,
cleaning the drains, and then reinspecting the drains and monitoring instrumentation after
cleaning.
195
196
Bibliography
Bibliography
[1] Douglas, K.J., M. Spannagle, and R. Fell, Analysis of Concrete and Masonry Dam Incidents,
UNICIV Report No. R-373, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, August
1998.
[2] Bureau of Reclamation, Guidelines, Foundation and Geotechnical Studies for Existing Concrete
Dams, September 1999.
[3] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual 1110-2-2007, Structural Design of Concrete
Lined Flood Control Channels, April 30, 1995.
[4] Casagrande, A., "Control of Seepage through Foundations and Abutments of Dams,"
First Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, Vol. II, June 1961, pp 159-180.
[5] Brahtz, J.H.A., Pressures due to percolating water and their influence upon stresses in hydraulic
structures, Trans. 2nd Congress Large Dams, Washington, 5:43-71, 1936.
[6] Muskat, M., The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous bodies, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1937.
[7] Goodman, R.E., B. Amadei, and N. Sitar, “Uplift Pressure in Crack Below Dam,” Journal
of Energy Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers, December 1983.
[8] Powell, Chris, Technical Memorandum No. HM-8312-2, Right Abutment Stability
Improvement for Horse Mesa Dam, Salt River Project, Arizona, October 1997.
[9] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual No. 1110-2-1914, Engineering and
Design; Design Construction and Maintenance of Relief Wells, Washington D.C., May 29, 1992.
Design; Inspection, Monitoring and Maintenance of Relief Wells, Washington D.C., September 25,
1998.
[11] Cedegren, H.R., Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967.
[12] Bureau of Reclamation, Design Summary, Big Sandy Dam Spillway Modification, Eden
Project, Wyoming, March 1987.
197
[13] Jones, C.W., D.G. Miedema, and J.S. Watkins, Report REC-ERC-82-17, Frost Action in
Soil Foundations and Control of Surface Structure Heaving, Bureau of Reclamation, June 1982.
[14] Robinski, E.I., and K.E. Bespflug, Paper, "Design of Insulated Foundations," ASCE
Journal of the Soil Mechanics of Foundations Division, September 1973.
[15] Aiken, G.W., and R.L. Berg, Special Report 122, Digital Solution of Modified Berggren
Equation to Calculate Depths of Freeze or Thaw in Multilayered Systems, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, October 1968.
[16] Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Technical Manual 5-852-6, Calculation
Methods for Determination of Depths of Freeze and Thaw in Soils, January 1966.
[17] Berg, R.L., Special Report 76-3, Thermoinsulating Media Within Embankments on Perennially
Frozen Soil, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1976.
[18] Smith, C.D., and Zirong Gui, Paper, Pressure Relief Under Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basins,
Hydraulic Engineering 93, 1993.
[19] Bureau of Reclamation, Draft Specifications, Spring Creek Debris Dam Enlargement,
December 1994.
[20] Hepler, T.E., and P.L. Johnson, Paper, Analysis of Spillway Failures by Uplift Pressures,
ASCE Conference, August 1988.
[21] Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Monograph No. 41, Air-Water Flow in Hydraulic
Structures, December 1980.
[22] Bureau of Reclamation, Glossary of Technical Terms, web site:

http://www.usbr.gov/cdams/index.html.
[23] Bureau of Reclamation, Assistant Commissioner - Engineering and Research (ACER)

Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 9, Guidelines for Controlling Seepage Along Conduits Through
Embankments, April 1987.
[24] Hoek, E., and J.W. Bray, Rock Slope Engineering, Third Edition, The Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, London, England, 1981.
[25] Houlsby, A.C., Construction and Design of Cement Grouting—A Guide to Grouting in Rock
Foundations, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1990.
198
Bibliography
[26] Bureau of Reclamation, Specifications Document 1-553.01-1, Amendment No. 3,

Costilla Dam Modifications, May 23, 1988.
[27] Bureau of Reclamation, Construction Considerations, Big Sandy Dam Spillway Modification,
Eden Project Wyoming, June 1984.
[28] California Department of Transportation, The Effectiveness of Horizontal Drains, Report

No. FHWA/CA/TL-80/16, Sacramento, California, June 1980.
[29] Drilling, The Manual of Methods, Applications, and Management, Australian Drilling Industry
Training Committee Limited, 1997.
[30] Driscoll, F.G., Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition, 1986.
[31] Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual, Second Edition, Volume I,
1998.
[32] Sanders, Glen D., “Subsurface Drainage of Irrigated Land,” Water Operation and
Maintenance Bulletin, No. 188, Bureau of Reclamation, June 1999.
[33] Hackett, Glen, and Lehr, J.H., Iron Bacteria Occurrence Problems, and Control Methods in Water
Wells, National Water Well Association for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985.
[34] Sisneros, Thomas, Memorandum to Robert Love, from Thomas Sisneros, subject:
Brantley Dam Drain Hole Samples, Alamosa Field Division, Colorado, August, 3, 1995.
[35] Day, Gregg, and Todd Rutenbeck, An Evaluation of Water Jetting for Bureau of Reclamation
Use in Cleaning Concrete Dam Foundation Drains, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service
Center, Denver, Colorado, April 1999.
[36] Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Report of Construction, Grouting and Drainage

Remediation, Upper Stillwater Dam—Strawberry Collection System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah
Project, Utah, November 1993.
[37] Shaffner, Pete, Technical Memorandum No. US-3620-3, Evaluation of 1992/1993

Grouting and Drain Remediation Program, Upper Stillwater Dam, Technical Service Center, Bureau
of Reclamation, September 1995.
[38] Baumgarten, Robert A., and James A. Lundeen, Foundation Drain Maintenance Methods,
Report No. GR-89-1, Geotechnical Services Branch, Research and Laboratory Services
Division, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, January 1989.
199
[39] Bureau of Reclamation, Piezometer Installation Program, Davis Dam, Phoenix Area
Office, Phoenix, Arizona, May 21, 1997.
[40] Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13—Embankment Dams, Chapter 4,

Static Stability Analysis, Denver, Colorado, August 3, 1987.

Protective Filters, Denver, Colorado, November 24, 1994.

Seepage Analysis and Control, Denver, Colorado, March 20, 1987.
[43] Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, Third Edition, Denver, Colorado, 1987.
[44] Wong, J., and A. Kumar, Drain Practices at B.C. Hydro Dams, B.C. Hydro, September
1994.
[45] Bureau of Reclamation, Ground Water Manual, Second Edition, Denver, Colorado, 1995.
[46] Bureau of Reclamation, Drainage Manual, Third Edition revised reprint, Denver,
Colorado, 1993.
[47] Bureau of Reclamation, Specifications Design Data, Big Sandy Dam Spillway Modification,
May 1982.
[48] Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (ADS), ADS Culvert Pipe. ADS Sewer Pipe Engineered
for Tough Drainage and Storm Sewer Applications, (promotional literature), ADS, Columbus,
Ohio, 1986.
[49] Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic and Excavation Tables, Eleventh Edition, 1957.
[50] Agard, S.S., Preliminary Geologic Map of the Yellowtail Dam Quadrangle, Big Horn, County,
Montana, USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2039, 1988.
[51] Allen, D.U., Final Construction Engineering Geology Report, Yellowtail Dam— Montana, Bureau
of Reclamation, 1966.
[52] Bergantino, R.N., Geologic Map of the Hardin 1 Degree by 2 Degrees Quadrangle, Southeastern
Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Atlas 2-A, 1980.
200
Bibliography
[53] Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Record of Design and Construction, Yellowtail Dam
and Powerplant, 1975.
[54] Bureau of Reclamation, Solicitation No. 6-SI-60-02010, Foundation Drain Cleanout,

Yellowtail Dam and Powerplant, Yellowtail Unit—Lower Bighorn Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program, Montana, 1986.
[55] Bureau of Reclamation, 1995 Periodic Facility Review Report—Yellowtail Dam, Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program, Great Plains Region, 1995.
[56] Feuerstein, V., Safety for the Hi-Pressure Drain Cleaning Operations, Bureau of Reclamation
Safety, 1999.
[57] Jepson, D.H. and W.J. Witherspoon, Explorations, Yellowtail Damsite, Bureau of
Reclamation, 1948.
[58] Mann, D., A Report on the Water Testing of Cavities and Drill Holes in Tunnels “A” and “C” at
Yellowtail Damsite, Bureau of Reclamation, 1949.
[59] Patterson, C.G., et al., Mineral Resources of the Pryor Mountains, Burnt Timber Canyon, and Big
Horn Tack-On Wilderness Study Areas, Carbon County, Montana, and Big Horn County, Wyoming,
USGS Bulletin 1723, 1988.
[60] Perry, E.S., Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Southeastern Montana, Montana, Bureau of
Mines and Geology Memoir No. 14, 1935.
[61] Taucher, G., Engineering Geology Report on Seepage Control Drill Holes, Spring S-10 and Spring
S-24-R Area, Bureau of Reclamation, 1969.
[62] Thom, W.T., et al., Geology of Big Horn County and the Crow Indian Reservation - Montana,
[63] Witherspoon, W.J., A Special Preliminary Report on the Foundation Exploration and Geology of
[64] Witherspoon, W.J., Final Construction Report, Drilling of Holes for Ground-Water
Investigations, Yellowtail Dam Site, Bureau of Reclamation, 1953.
[65] Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Record of Design and Construction, Canyon Ferry
Dam and Powerplant, 1957.
201
[66] Scott, Gregg A., Report of Findings Comprehensive Facility Review for Canyon Ferry Dam,
Bureau of Reclamation, 1998.
[67] Wilson, R.E., Final Construction Report on the Geology of Canyon Ferry Dam, Missouri Basin
Project, Canyon Ferry Unit, Canyon Ferry, Montana, Bureau of Reclamation, 1953.
[68] Bureau of Reclamation, SEED (Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams) Report, Canyon Ferry
Dam, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Montana, Missouri Basin Region, 1987.
[69] Water and Power Resources Service, Project Data, 1981.
[70] Grenoble, B. Alex, and Amadei, Bernard, Evaluation of Uplift Pressure for Concrete Gravity
Dams Founded on Jointed Rock: Analytical Results, Dam Foundation Engineering, 10th Annual
Lecture Series, New Orleans, LA, March 1990.
202
Index
A
Abrader, 98, 107, 201, 211
Abutment, 2, 5-8, 40, 41, 44, 66, 78, 81, 153, 162
Acid, 98, 106, 108, 120, 126-129, 152, 162, 164, 204
Adit, 4-6, 10, 22, 41, 51, 89, 153
Air, 61, 84, 87, 115, 121, 163, 164, 176-178
Air demand, 58
Air lifting, 128, 201, 211
Alignment, 44, 131, 136, 201
Analysis technique, 48, 50
Appurtenant structure, iii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 29-33, 51-53, 55-58, 60-70, 78
B
Back pressure, 56, 57, 69
Backfill, 15, 30, 39, 54, 66, 89, 154, 178, 179
Background, 1-24, 27-33, 35, 36, 162, 165, 170
Brantley Dam foundation drain cleaning, 100, 101
California Department of Transportation horizontal drains, 129, 130
Concrete dam foundation drain cleaning, 159
Folsom Dam foundation drain cleaning, 107
Friant Dam foundation drain cleaning, 111-114
Senator Wash Dam relief wells, 144, 146
Upper Stillwater Dam foundation drain rehabilitation, 152-155
Backhoe, 89
Bacterial deposit, 38, 48, 97, 98, 101, 104, 106, 110, 120, 121, 123-125, 127-129, 138, 148,
152, 154, 156, 190, 191, 195, 201, 204
Bits, 84, 98, 100, 159
Blanket drains, 6, 27
Brantley Dam, 98, 100-106, 192
Bureau of Reclamation, 4, 5, 8, 9, 39, 41, 43, 52, 54, 56-58, 62, 66, 67, 97, 102, 107, 108, 110,
111, 139, 152, 156, 159, 174, 194, 197-199, 206-208
C
Calcium carbonate, 53, 97, 98, 107-111, 159-161, 190, 191, 196, 198, 201, 204, 206, 212
California Department of Transportation, 129-139
203
Capacity, 163, 164

Collector and outfall pipes, 48, 53
Concrete tensile, 2
Solutioning, 190
Structural, 89
Toe drain, 44
Case histories
California Department of Transportation, 130-139
Chart, 48
Checklist, 198, 199, 208-210
Chemical removal of carbonate deposits, 108
Chemical treatment, 98, 128, 204, 212
Chlorination, 98, 126-129, 192
Chute, 16, 51, 55, 60, 64, 65, 78, 81, 90, 94, 162, 200
Circulation, 84, 87, 88
Cloverdale, 132-134
Cobbles, 192
Concrete, 3, 5, 6, 8, 52, 56, 57, 60, 64-66, 68-70, 78, 81, 83, 90, 98, 100, 107, 139, 141, 162,
175, 177, 191, 202, 211, 213
Concrete dam, 2, 5, 6, 38-41, 43, 44, 97, 98, 159-161, 190-192, 194, 208, 211
Monitoring drains, 197, 198
Concrete interface, 90
Conduit, 64-69, 174
Configuration of drains, 1, 51, 52
Contamination of drainage provisions, 56
Control, 163, 166, 174, 178
Grade, 90
Conveyance structure, 64-68
Core
Embankment, 7
Cost, 10, 45
Drain-cleaning methods, 211-213
Drilling, 87
RCVI services, 142
Crest, dam, 100, 107, 111, 152
204
Index
D
Dams
Importance of drains, iii, 1, 194, 195
Definition
Outlet works, 62, 64
Spillway, 62
Depressurization, 77-79, 81
Design data, 53
Design philosophy, 37
Dewatering well, 10
Discontinuities, 1, 2, 5, 10, 37, 38, 72, 76, 78, 83, 88, 110, 111, 137, 196
Disinfection, 128, 129
Downstream drainage trench, 7
Drain cleaning, 130, 133, 150-152, 166, 195
Brantley Dam foundation, 100-106
Concrete dam foundation, 159-161
Folsom Dam foundation, 107-111
Friant Dam foundation, 111-114, 116-118, 120
Drain cleaning equipment, 39, 90, 95, 97, 98, 196, 199, 209
Drilling equipment, 84, 87, 88
High pressure water jetting equipment, 87, 109, 110
Ultrahigh pressure water jet, 108, 109
Drain cleaning methods, 190, 194, 200-202, 204-206, 211-213
Chemical treatments, 98, 107, 108, 111, 204
Excavation and replacement, 205
Flushing and air lifting, 98, 100-102, 104-106, 115, 201
High pressure water jet system, 202
High pressure water jetting equipment, 87, 98, 108, 109, 114, 116, 130, 135, 159, 160
Overpumping, 204
Reaming, overcoring or drilling of new holes, 201
Rodding, 200
Rotary tube cleaners or mechanical abraders, 98, 107, 201
Slip lining, 205, 206
Surge block technique, 98, 126-128, 144, 147, 148, 205
Ultrahigh pressure water jet system, 108, 201, 202
Drain cleaning program, iii, 37, 97, 100, 101, 106, 189, 206-210
Drain effectiveness, 2, 4, 9, 37-39, 41, 52, 77, 84, 88, 97, 104, 106, 107, 111, 118, 130,
136-139, 160, 196-200, 206, 207
205
Drain hole depth, 5, 7, 30, 39, 41, 87, 88, 104, 105, 107, 109, 111, 114, 117, 118, 133, 156,
159, 197
Drain performance, iii, 41, 54, 97, 98, 100-114, 116-118, 120, 121, 123-125, 127-141,
143-161, 207
Drain rehabilitation, 149-158, 165, 193, 196, 201
Drain-plugging, 196-198, 206, 207
Drain-plugging mechanisms, 189
Biological plugging, 38, 48, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106, 110, 120, 121, 123-125, 127-129,
148, 152, 156, 191, 192
Calcium carbonate precipitation, 53, 97, 98, 101, 104, 107-111, 159-161, 190, 191
Deposition of fines, sands and/or gravels/cobbles, 53, 97, 98, 192
Drainage flow, 110, 192, 197, 200
Drainage tunnel, 2, 7
Drill rod, 87
Drilling method, 83, 84, 87, 88
Drilling methods
Auger, 84
Cable tools, 87, 147
Jetting, 87
Reverse circulation, 87, 88
Rotary, 84, 87
Drilling of new holes, 201
Drilling rate, 87
E
Effectiveness of drain cleaning, 193, 201, 209
Embankment dam, 1-9, 13, 32, 33, 44-48, 50, 51, 89, 194, 198, 199, 205
Equation, 48, 52, 54, 72
Example, 4, 15-17, 54, 55, 75, 77, 89, 92, 144, 146-148, 190
Excavation, 10, 51, 64, 66, 100, 135, 136, 170
Excavation and replacement, 205, 213
Exit channel, 69, 70
206
Index
F
Failure, 2-4, 14-17, 41, 53, 54, 57, 58, 70-72, 83, 129-131, 135, 136, 165, 167, 175, 176, 178,
194, 197-199
Figure, 48, 162, 163, 165, 166, 176-178
Filter, 3, 6-8, 45, 58, 66, 68, 90, 154, 156, 170, 172, 192, 198, 213
Filter requirement, 31-33, 53, 56
Fine, 97, 98, 130, 166, 172, 192, 195, 212
Flow, 163, 165, 166, 170, 172
Flow net, 48, 50, 52, 75, 77
Flow rate, 48, 108, 109, 156, 159, 199
Fluid, drilling, 84, 87, 88, 110, 160
Flushing, 98, 100-102, 104-106, 115, 200, 208, 210
Flushing and air lifting, 201, 211
Folsom Dam, 98, 107-111, 204
Formed drain, 6, 8, 30, 39, 40, 44, 60, 97, 111, 190, 196, 208
Foundation, iii, 1, 2, 4-8, 11, 16, 32, 37, 44, 48, 51, 54-58, 60, 66, 68, 74, 78, 83, 90, 97, 98,
130, 134, 135, 148, 170, 178, 198, 199
Concrete dam, 39-41
Evaluating drain effectiveness, 197-199
Foundation drain, 5, 8, 38-41, 83, 97, 98, 100-114, 116-118, 120, 152-161, 189, 196, 201, 203,
204, 208, 211, 212
Free draining backfill, 9
Friant Dam, 98, 111-114, 116-118, 120
G
Geology, 9, 38, 41, 78, 88, 131, 137
Gradation, 39, 148
Grade control, 89, 90
Graded filter drain, 32, 33
Gravel, 3, 4, 6-8, 29, 30, 45, 48, 55, 73, 120, 126, 128, 148, 163, 165, 170, 172, 175, 177, 178,
190, 192
Gravity dam, 2, 39-41, 98, 107, 111, 152, 159
Guidelines, 4, 41, 51, 53, 66, 68, 206-208
207
H
High pressure water jetting, 98, 107-110, 114, 116, 130, 135, 159-161, 202
Histories of drain cleaning, 101-105, 107-110, 114, 116-118, 159-161
Hole, 165-167, 170, 174
Horizontal drain, 10, 38, 66, 78, 81, 83, 98, 120, 129-139, 193, 195, 198, 199, 208-211
Hydraulic jump stilling basin, 8, 15, 31, 56-58, 60, 61, 63, 68, 69, 90, 100, 153
Hydrostatic pressure, 30, 57, 64, 70
I-L
Inlet (or approach) channel or structure, 64, 69, 70
Instrumentation, 2, 117, 118, 189, 194, 196-200, 206, 207, 209, 210
Insulation, 56
Insulation requirements, 29-31, 33, 54-56, 58
Interface, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 55, 57, 61, 83, 90
Iron, 162-164, 172, 175, 177, 178
Iron bacteria, 48, 98, 101, 104, 120, 121, 138, 152, 154, 156, 172, 191, 192, 198, 201, 212
Jetting, 164, 166, 170
Keechelus Dam, 63, 143, 144, 170
La Selva Beach, 135-137
Level, 166, 170
M-N
Maintenance, 9, 10, 39, 45, 48, 87, 108, 111, 135, 138, 139, 154, 165, 189, 190, 195, 197, 204,
206-208
Manning’s equation, 52, 53
Measurement, 2, 46, 75, 189, 195
Checklists for drain cleaning program, 208-210
Permeability, 73
Monitoring, 4, 45, 46, 74, 75, 101, 102, 114, 170, 189, 194-200, 206, 208, 210
Monitoring and maintaining drains, iii, 9, 189-202, 204-213
Nojoqui grade, 134
Numerical method, 51
208
Index
O
Ochoco Dam, 31, 139-141
Operation, 166
Outfall, 1, 6, 44-46, 48, 141, 149, 151, 165, 166, 170, 172, 190, 191
Outlet works, 11, 17, 32, 36, 62-64, 67, 162, 165, 174
Outlet works inlet structure, 64
Overcoring, 211
P
Pacific House, 131, 132
Permeability, 52, 72, 73, 75, 88
Pervious backfill, 53
Pipe, 6-8, 10, 32, 38, 44, 46, 48, 51-53, 84, 89, 90, 98, 101, 104, 111, 121, 126, 129, 131, 132,
134-139, 141, 149, 154, 156, 163, 165-167, 170, 172, 174-179, 192, 193, 195, 196,
199, 205
Appurtenant structures, 61, 64-68
Toe drain, 44, 45
Pipe diameter, 8, 44, 52, 53, 139, 174, 175
Plane failure, 70-72
Plunge pool, 68, 69
Prefabricated drain, 6, 8, 31, 39, 83
Probing of drains, 101, 104, 107, 108, 114, 197, 199
Pump, 10, 74, 87, 101, 106, 109, 116, 121, 127-129, 135, 163, 164, 201, 205, 212, 213
Pump test, 163, 164, 200
Purpose of drains, iii, 1-5
R
Reaming, 98, 160
Reaming, drain enlargement or drilling of new holes, 201, 211
Relief well, 2-4, 7, 45-48, 98, 120, 127, 144-148, 162-164, 174, 199, 200, 204, 205, 212, 213
Remedial measure, 155-157
Remote controlled video inspection, iii, 9, 89, 98, 101, 102, 104, 122, 126-128, 152, 189, 192,
198-200, 207, 209, 210
Ochoco and Keechelus Dams, 139-141, 143, 144
209
Reverse circulation, 87, 88

Riverbank stabilization, 98, 120, 121, 123-125, 127-129
Rock tunnel drain, 78, 81
Roto-Rooter, 107, 109, 110
S
Safety, 89, 108, 109, 126, 127, 172, 174
Safety procedure, 129
San Andreas, 130, 131
Sand, 3, 6-8, 29, 38, 73, 87, 97, 133, 135-137, 144, 147, 153-156, 172, 192, 205, 212
Seepage flow, 2, 6, 7, 39, 41, 45, 111, 117, 150, 172, 196, 198, 200
Semihorizontal drain boring, 7, 8
Senator Wash Dam, 98, 144-148, 205
Shear strength, 40, 77, 129
Sherman Dam, 98, 149-152
Site conditions, 202
Site review, 196
Size, 3, 6, 7, 9, 44, 48, 51, 52, 58, 84, 170, 172
Slope, 4, 9, 10, 70-73, 75-78, 174, 175
Soil, 1, 3, 4, 10, 29, 32, 33, 35, 38, 54, 70, 72, 73, 75, 80, 89, 90, 144, 148, 163, 164, 170, 172,
178, 191, 192, 213
Spillway, 16, 29, 30, 51, 55, 57, 60, 62, 65, 69, 78, 100, 162, 174
Spillway crest structure, 64, 200
Spillways and outlet works, 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 45, 46, 51, 52, 57, 64, 90, 97, 100
Stability, 1-4, 6, 10, 12, 37, 39-41, 43, 48, 70, 72-74, 77, 78, 159, 170, 189, 190, 194, 195, 206
Structure underdrain, 8
Subsurface installation of drains in rock, 90
Subsurface installation of drains in soils, 89, 90
Surface drain, 8, 11
Surge block technique, 98, 126-128, 144, 147, 148, 205, 213
T
Terminal structure, 56, 68, 69
Test, 74, 100, 121, 154
Toe drain, 3, 6, 7, 38, 44-46, 83, 89, 90, 97, 98, 139-141, 143, 144, 149-152, 165-167, 170,
172, 174-176, 178, 179, 192, 193, 198, 199, 205, 211, 213
210
Index
Trenching machine, 89, 90, 93, 94

Types of drains
Concrete dams, 5, 6
Embankment dams, 6-8
Slopes, 9, 10
Spillways and outlet works, 8, 9
Tunnels, 11
U-Y
Ultrahigh pressure water jet system, 107-109, 201, 202, 212
Underdrain, 5, 8, 29, 58, 83, 90, 97, 135, 174, 200, 213
Uplift pressures, 2, 4, 40, 41, 45, 57, 62, 77, 83, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 107, 110, 111, 152,
153, 156, 159, 160, 194, 197, 200, 207, 209
Friant Dam, 116-118
Upper Stillwater Dam, 98, 152-158
Visual observation, 42, 117
Visual observations, 189, 194, 196-200, 206, 207
Water level, 3, 74, 75, 121, 152, 196, 198-200
Wedge failure, 71, 72
Weep hole, 8, 30, 51, 56
Weir, 45, 46, 111, 117, 153, 165, 172
Well cleaning procedure, 121, 125
Well rehabilitation, 120, 121, 123-125, 127-129
Whitmore maintenance station, 130, 137
York Mountain, 136
211
212
Appendix A
Design/Analysis Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Example A1—Drainage “Rules of Thumb” for Appurtenant Structures . . . . . . . A-1
Example A2—Pervious Backfill Requirements Adjacent to Appurtenant Structures
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
Example A3—Insulation Requirements for Underdrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
Example A4—Design Procedures to Mitigate Back Pressure in Drainage Provisions
for Chutes and Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
Example A5—Toe Drain Pipe Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
Example A6—Filter Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15
Example A7—Design of Foundation Drains for Concrete Dams . . . . . . . . . . . A-23
Example A8—Gravity Dam Analysis Showing the Effects of Functional and
Nonfunctional Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-33
Example A9—Foundation Stability Analysis Resulting in Installation of Drainage
Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-35
Appendix B
Case Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-49
B-1—Drain Cleaning at Yellowtail Dam Using High Pressure Water Jetting
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
B-2—Drain Cleaning at Canyon Ferry Dam Using High Pressure Water Jetting
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-21
Appendix C
Drain Cleaning Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-33
C-1—Remote Controlled Video Inspection of Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
C-2—Evaluating the Performance of Remotely Controlled Video Inspection Equipment in
Double Walled, High Density Polyethylene Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
C-3—High Pressure Water Jetting Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-31
C-4—Drilling Equipment for Drains in Limited Access Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-41
C-5—Guidance on Sampling, Transportation, and Analysis of Materials in Drains
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-47
Bibliography
[1] Douglas, K.J., M. Spannagle, and R. Fell, Analysis of Concrete and Masonry Dam Incidents,
UNICIV Report No. R-373, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, August
1998.
[2] Bureau of Reclamation, Guidelines, Foundation and Geotechnical Studies for Existing Concrete
Dams, September 1999.
[3] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Manual 1110-2-2007, Structural Design of Concrete
Lined Flood Control Channels, April 30, 1995.
[4] Casagrande, A., "Control of Seepage through Foundations and Abutments of Dams,"
First Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, Vol. II, June 1961, pp 159-180.
[5] Brahtz, J.H.A., Pressures due to percolating water and their influence upon stresses in hydraulic
structures, Trans. 2nd Congress Large Dams, Washington, 5:43-71, 1936.
[6] Muskat, M., The flow of homogeneous fluids through porous bodies, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1937.
[7] Goodman, R.E., B. Amadei, and N. Sitar, “Uplift Pressure in Crack Below Dam,” Journal
of Energy Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers, December 1983.
[8] Powell, Chris, Technical Memorandum No. HM-8312-2, Right Abutment Stability
Improvement for Horse Mesa Dam, Salt River Project, Arizona, October 1997.
Design; Design Construction and Maintenance of Relief Wells, Washington D.C., May 29, 1992.
Design; Inspection, Monitoring and Maintenance of Relief Wells, Washington D.C., September 25,
1998.
[11] Cedegren, H.R., Seepage, Drainage and Flow Nets, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1967.
[12] Bureau of Reclamation, Design Summary, Big Sandy Dam Spillway Modification, Eden
Project, Wyoming, March 1987.
[13] Jones, C.W., D.G. Miedema, and J.S. Watkins, Report REC-ERC-82-17, Frost Action in
Soil Foundations and Control of Surface Structure Heaving, Bureau of Reclamation, June 1982.
[14] Robinski, E.I., and K.E. Bespflug, Paper, "Design of Insulated Foundations," ASCE
Journal of the Soil Mechanics of Foundations Division, September 1973.
[15] Aiken, G.W., and R.L. Berg, Special Report 122, Digital Solution of Modified Berggren
Equation to Calculate Depths of Freeze or Thaw in Multilayered Systems, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, October 1968.
[16] Departments of the Army and the Air Force, Technical Manual 5-852-6, Calculation
Methods for Determination of Depths of Freeze and Thaw in Soils, January 1966.
[17] Berg, R.L., Special Report 76-3, Thermoinsulating Media Within Embankments on Perennially
Frozen Soil, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 1976.
[18] Smith, C.D., and Zirong Gui, Paper, Pressure Relief Under Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basins,
Hydraulic Engineering 93, 1993.
[19] Bureau of Reclamation, Draft Specifications, Spring Creek Debris Dam Enlargement,
December 1994.
[20] Hepler, T.E., and P.L. Johnson, Paper, Analysis of Spillway Failures by Uplift Pressures,
ASCE Conference, August 1988.
[21] Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Monograph No. 41, Air-Water Flow in Hydraulic
Structures, December 1980.
[22] Bureau of Reclamation, Glossary of Technical Terms, web site:

http://www.usbr.gov/cdams/index.html.
[23] Bureau of Reclamation, Assistant Commissioner - Engineering and Research (ACER)

Technical Memorandum (TM) No. 9, Guidelines for Controlling Seepage Along Conduits Through
Embankments, April 1987.
[24] Hoek, E., and J.W. Bray, Rock Slope Engineering, Third Edition, The Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, London, England, 1981.
[25] Houlsby, A.C., Construction and Design of Cement Grouting—A Guide to Grouting in Rock
Foundations, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1990.
[26] Bureau of Reclamation, Specifications Document 1-553.01-1, Amendment No. 3,

Costilla Dam Modifications, May 23, 1988.
[27] Bureau of Reclamation, Construction Considerations, Big Sandy Dam Spillway Modification,
Eden Project Wyoming, June 1984.
[28] California Department of Transportation, The Effectiveness of Horizontal Drains, Report

No. FHWA/CA/TL-80/16, Sacramento, California, June 1980.
[29] Drilling, The Manual of Methods, Applications, and Management, Australian Drilling Industry
Training Committee Limited, 1997.
[30] Driscoll, F.G., Groundwater and Wells, Second Edition, 1986.

[31] Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual, Second Edition, Volume I,
1998.
[32] Sanders, Glen D., “Subsurface Drainage of Irrigated Land,” Water Operation and
Maintenance Bulletin, No. 188, Bureau of Reclamation, June 1999.
[33] Hackett, Glen, and Lehr, J.H., Iron Bacteria Occurrence Problems, and Control Methods in Water
Wells, National Water Well Association for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985.
[34] Sisneros, Thomas, Memorandum to Robert Love, from Thomas Sisneros, subject:
Brantley Dam Drain Hole Samples, Alamosa Field Division, Colorado, August, 3, 1995.
[35] Day, Gregg, and Todd Rutenbeck, An Evaluation of Water Jetting for Bureau of Reclamation
Use in Cleaning Concrete Dam Foundation Drains, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service
Center, Denver, Colorado, April 1999.
[36] Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Report of Construction, Grouting and Drainage

Remediation, Upper Stillwater Dam—Strawberry Collection System, Bonneville Unit, Central Utah
Project, Utah, November 1993.
[37] Shaffner, Pete, Technical Memorandum No. US-3620-3, Evaluation of 1992/1993

Grouting and Drain Remediation Program, Upper Stillwater Dam, Technical Service Center, Bureau
of Reclamation, September 1995.
[38] Baumgarten, Robert A., and James A. Lundeen, Foundation Drain Maintenance Methods,
Report No. GR-89-1, Geotechnical Services Branch, Research and Laboratory Services
Division, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, January 1989.
[39] Bureau of Reclamation, Piezometer Installation Program, Davis Dam, Phoenix Area
Office, Phoenix, Arizona, May 21, 1997.

Static Stability Analysis, Denver, Colorado, August 3, 1987.

Protective Filters, Denver, Colorado, November 24, 1994.

Seepage Analysis and Control, Denver, Colorado, March 20, 1987.
[43] Bureau of Reclamation, Design of Small Dams, Third Edition, Denver, Colorado, 1987.
[44] Wong, J., and A. Kumar, Drain Practices at B.C. Hydro Dams, B.C. Hydro, September
1994.
[45] Bureau of Reclamation, Ground Water Manual, Second Edition, Denver, Colorado, 1995.
[46] Bureau of Reclamation, Drainage Manual, Third Edition revised reprint, Denver,
Colorado, 1993.
[47] Bureau of Reclamation, Specifications Design Data, Big Sandy Dam Spillway Modification,
May 1982.
[48] Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (ADS), ADS Culvert Pipe. ADS Sewer Pipe Engineered
for Tough Drainage and Storm Sewer Applications, (promotional literature), ADS, Columbus,
Ohio, 1986.
[49] Bureau of Reclamation, Hydraulic and Excavation Tables, Eleventh Edition, 1957.
[50] Agard, S.S., Preliminary Geologic Map of the Yellowtail Dam Quadrangle, Big Horn, County,
Montana, USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2039, 1988.
[51] Allen, D.U., Final Construction Engineering Geology Report, Yellowtail Dam— Montana, Bureau
of Reclamation, 1966.
[52] Bergantino, R.N., Geologic Map of the Hardin 1 Degree by 2 Degrees Quadrangle, Southeastern
Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Montana Atlas 2-A, 1980.
[53] Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Record of Design and Construction, Yellowtail Dam
and Powerplant, 1975.
[54] Bureau of Reclamation, Solicitation No. 6-SI-60-02010, Foundation Drain Cleanout,

Yellowtail Dam and Powerplant, Yellowtail Unit—Lower Bighorn Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program, Montana, 1986.
[55] Bureau of Reclamation, 1995 Periodic Facility Review Report—Yellowtail Dam, Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program, Great Plains Region, 1995.
[56] Feuerstein, V., Safety for the Hi-Pressure Drain Cleaning Operations, Bureau of Reclamation
Safety, 1999.
[57] Jepson, D.H. and W.J. Witherspoon, Explorations, Yellowtail Damsite, Bureau of
Reclamation, 1948.
[58] Mann, D., A Report on the Water Testing of Cavities and Drill Holes in Tunnels “A” and “C” at
[59] Patterson, C.G., et al., Mineral Resources of the Pryor Mountains, Burnt Timber Canyon, and Big
Horn Tack-On Wilderness Study Areas, Carbon County, Montana, and Big Horn County, Wyoming,
[60] Perry, E.S., Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Southeastern Montana, Montana, Bureau of
Mines and Geology Memoir No. 14, 1935.
[61] Taucher, G., Engineering Geology Report on Seepage Control Drill Holes, Spring S-10 and Spring
S-24-R Area, Bureau of Reclamation, 1969.
[62] Thom, W.T., et al., Geology of Big Horn County and the Crow Indian Reservation - Montana,
[63] Witherspoon, W.J., A Special Preliminary Report on the Foundation Exploration and Geology of
[64] Witherspoon, W.J., Final Construction Report, Drilling of Holes for Ground-Water
Investigations, Yellowtail Dam Site, Bureau of Reclamation, 1953.
[65] Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Record of Design and Construction, Canyon Ferry
Dam and Powerplant, 1957.
[66] Scott, Gregg A., Report of Findings Comprehensive Facility Review for Canyon Ferry Dam,
Bureau of Reclamation, 1998.
[67] Wilson, R.E., Final Construction Report on the Geology of Canyon Ferry Dam, Missouri Basin
Project, Canyon Ferry Unit, Canyon Ferry, Montana, Bureau of Reclamation, 1953.
[68] Bureau of Reclamation, SEED (Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams) Report, Canyon Ferry
Dam, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Montana, Missouri Basin Region, 1987.
[69] Water and Power Resources Service, Project Data, 1981.
[70] Grenoble, B. Alex, and Amadei, Bernard, Evaluation of Uplift Pressure for Concrete Gravity
Dams Founded on Jointed Rock: Analytical Results, Dam Foundation Engineering, 10th Annual
Lecture Series, New Orleans, LA, March 1990.
Appendix A
Design/Analysis Examples
Appendix A provides design/analysis examples for various types of drain systems:
Example page
A1 Drainage “Rules of Thumb” for Appurtenant Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A2 Pervious Backfill Requirements Adjacent to Appurtenant Structures . . . . . . . A-2
A3 Insulation Requirements for Underdrains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7
A4 Design Procedures to Mitigate Back Pressure in Drainage Provisions for
Chutes and Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
A5 Toe Drain Pipe Sizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
A6 Filter Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15
A7 Design of Foundation Drains for Concrete Dams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-23
A8 Gravity Dam Analysis Showing the Effects of Functional and
Nonfunctional Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-33
A9 Foundation Stability Analysis Resulting in Installation of Drainage
Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-35
Example A1—Drainage “Rules of Thumb” for Appurtenant Structures.—
• Location of drainage provisions for hydraulic appurtenant structures (such as spillways and outlet
works).—Generally limited to downstream of water barriers in dams and/or dikes.
Drainage provisions downstream of the water barriers tend to be continuous, such as an
underdrain system that collects and conveys seepage to the exit channel and/or river.
Any drainage provisions upstream of the water barriers, such as weepholes, do not cross
the water barriers. Their intent is to relieve localized hydrostatic pressures due to
reservoir fluctuations. Water barriers include grout curtains (in concrete, embankment,
and rockfill dams/dikes) and impervious cores (in embankment, and rockfill
dams/dikes).
• Riprap bedding (i.e., filter material) thickness (associated with excavated or filled channels).—Half the
riprap thickness. Bedding material is typically well graded crushed rock, gravel, or
concrete aggregate.
• Size of perforated/slotted PVC collector pipes (such as those used in trench-type drainage provisions).—
Minimum of 6-inch diameter, maximum range of 8- to 10-inch diameter. For
perforated/slotted PVC pipe inserts (such as those used in drilled/formed weep holes),
the minimum size should be 2-inch diameter.
• Spacing/number of lateral perforated/slotted PVC collector pipes (such as those used in trench-type
drainage provisions).—Generally located at or adjacent to floor joints (i.e., contraction,
control, and/or expansion joints), which typically have spacing of 25 to 50 feet for
concrete appurtenant structures.
• Spacing/number of longitudinal perforated/slotted PVC collector pipes (such as those used in

trench-type drainage provisions).—When the width (lateral) of appurtenant structures is less
than 30 feet, collector pipes (longitudinal direction) located at the outside edges of the
appurtenant structures are generally adequate. When the width of appurtenant structures
is greater than or equal to 30 feet, intermediate collector pipes (longitudinal), spaced
between the outside edges collector pipes, should be considered.
• Spacing/number of drilled/formed weep holes for walls and slabs—Longitudinal and lateral, vertical
and horizontal.—Range of 5 to 25 feet.
• Depth of drilled/formed weep holes for walls and slabs.—Greater than or equal to depth of
anchor bars and/or rockbolts.
A-1
Example A2—Pervious Backfill Requirements Adjacent to Appurtenant

Structures.—Pervious backfill applications can be adjacent to spillway and outlet works
inlet structure walls (upstream of dam and/or dike); adjacent to spillway and outlet works
chute and terminal structure walls (downstream of dam and/or dike); enveloping outlet
works conduits (downstream of dam and/or dike); adjacent to outlet works control
structures (downstream of dam and/or dike); and adjacent to other appurtenant structures
when control of seepage and ice is important. Its primary purposes include augmenting
drainage provisions, and controlling the development of ice lenses and subsequent “frost
heave”. As an illustration, figure 1 shows types of soil materials that have varying potentials
for frost heave.
a. Material Requirements.—A basis for design and development of specifications

paragraphs is summarized in the following text. Pervious backfill is similar to embankment
zone 2 (sand and gravel mixture), which is selected materials, reasonably well graded to
6-inch maximum size, except that occasional fragments larger than 6 inches may be used if
well distributed in the backfill, given that no material larger than 6 inches will be allowed
adjacent to the concrete appurtenant structure. This is to mitigate the potential for a stress
point developing through the larger rock fragment into the concrete. The pervious backfill
shall not contain more than 5 percent, by weight, of materials passing a United States
Standard No. 200 sieve. The pervious backfill is provided from any “approved” borrow or
commercial source. The pervious backfill may require washing or other processing to
remove excess fines. Care is required to protect the pervious backfill from contamination,
such as silt, clay, cement, organic materials, or other materials that would reduce the in-place
permeability and density or increase its in-place cohesion. Also, during stockpiling of
pervious backfill, remixing may be required if segregation occurs due to inclement weather
(such as wind or rain). The specific gravity of the pervious backfill larger than a United
States No. 4 sieve shall be 2.56 or greater. Clean pervious backfill with a specific gravity of
less than 2.56 will be allowed farther than 5 feet from the concrete [26, 27]. Figure 1
presents frost susceptibility of a wide range of soil materials. As one can see, sands and
gravels are the least susceptible, while silts are the most susceptible to frost formation.
The pervious backfill shall be handled and placed in such a manner as to prevent
segregation. Pervious backfill placement on either side of an appurtenant structure shall be
kept approximately at the same level as the placing of the backfill progresses. Pervious
backfill shall be placed and roughly leveled off in layers not more than 24 inches thick. For
most cases, pervious backfill is not compacted. Where compaction is deemed needed,
relative densities in the range of 70 to 75 percent are typical.
A-2
Figure 1.—Summary of average rate of heave versus percentage of natural soil finer than
0.02 mm [13].
b. Example.—The following example is the actual design for estimating the thickness
of pervious backfill needed for the Big Sandy spillway modification [12].
1. Design Data.—
• Design surface freezing index, °F—1,800 degree-days [13]

• Average wall thickness for battered cantilever walls—2 feet [12]
A-3
• Material properties of pervious backfill—unit weight, (, 120 lb/ft3 and 15 percent

moisture [12]
2. Analysis, Design, and Results.—Using figure 2 to determine the thickness of

non-frost-susceptible backfill behind concrete walls, the estimated minimum thickness is
5 feet.
3. Conclusions.—Although only a 5-foot thickness of pervious backfill was

estimated, the actual thickness specified was 8 feet. This increase was due to constructability
considerations (i.e., minimum size of placing equipment). Note: Although figure 3 shows a
zoned backfill, in other cases it may be more cost effective and more constructable to simply
specify one type of backfill.
A-4
Figure 2.—Thickness of non-frost-susceptible backfill behind concrete walls [13].
A-5
Figure 3.—Big Sandy Dam spillway modification, Wyoming. Pervious Backfill

adjacent to wall [12].
A-6
Example A3—Insulation Requirements for Underdrains.—The example presented

is the design of the spillway underdrain insulation for Big Sandy Dam modification [12]
(figs. 4 and 5).
a. Design Data.—
1. Site Conditions.—
• Design air-freezing index, °F—2,000 degree-days [13]

• Surface correction factor (pavement free of snow and ice), n—0.9 [16]
• Design surface freezing index, nF—1,800 degree-days [13]
• Mean annual temperature, MAT—36.3 °F [47]
• Length of freezing season (November through April), f—160 days [47]
2. Thermal Properties of Materials.—
Property Concrete Insulation Gravel* Source
Unit weight, ( (lb/ft3) 145 2 120 [47]
Percent moisture, W 5 0.25 15 [47]
Coefficient of thermal conductivity, K

(Btu/ft-hr-°F) 1 0.021 2.1 [16]
Volumetric heat capacity, C (Btu/ft3-°F) 30 0.54 34 [16]
Volumetric latent heat, L (Btu/ft3) 1044 0 2592 [16]
*Typically, rigid plastic foam insulation is used.
b. Analysis/Design.—Using the multilayer solution for the modified Berggren

equation, (1) frost depth through the concrete slab on gravel bedding, without insulation, is
determined, and if excessive, (2) the thickness of insulation and gravel are determined. A
simple spreadsheet was developed and used in the following example. Also, the width of
insulation (from the centerline of the feature/area being protected) is equal to or greater
than the frost depth estimate (e.g., if the frost depth is estimated to be 30 inches, the lateral
insulation cover width would be at least 30 inches from the centerline of the feature/area
being protected). Note: For larger diameter pipes, consideration should be given to
extending the insulation from the edge of the pipe rather than the centerline of the pipe.
A-7
Figure 4.—Big Sandy Dam spillway, Wyoming—Typical

longitudinal underdrain provisions on firm formation
(filter and insulation requirements).
Figure 5.—Big Sandy Dam spillway, Wyoming—Typical lateral underdrain

provisions on firm formation (filter and insulation requirements).
A-8
a). Estimating Frost Penetration Beneath Concrete Slab - Multilayer Solution using Modified Berggren Equation
Given: Mean annual temperature (MAT): 36.3 oF

Air-freezing index (F): 2000 degree-days
Surface-freezing index (nF): 1800 degree-days
Length of Freezing season (Nov thru Apr): 160 days
Concrete slab thickness: 1.0 feet
Thermal properties of materials:

Properties Concrete Gravel Surface freezing index (vs) = nF/(length of freezing season) = 1800/160 = 11.25 oF
Unit weight, gamma (lbs/ft3): 145.0 120.0
Percent moisture, w (%): 5.00 15.00 Soil temperature difference (vo) = MAT - 32 = 36.3 - 32 = 4.30 oF
Thermal conductivity, K (btu/ft-hr-oF): 1.000 2.100
Coefficient of volumetric heat capacity, C ((btu/ft3-oF): 30.00 34.00 Thermal ratio (alpha) = vo/vs = 4.3/11.25 = 0.38
Volumetric latent heat, L ((btu/ft3): 1044.0 2592.0
Procedure:
1. Assume thickness of gravel (dg).
2. Solve for sum(nF) and compare to given nF.
3. If sum(nF) equal to or slightly greater than given nF, frost penetration depth has been identified.
4. If sum(nF) is less than given nF, repeat steps 1 thru 3 until sum(nF) equals or slightly greater than given nF.
Assumed dg: 40.4 inches 3.36 feet Given nF: 1800 degree-days (given information which was determined from historic temperature data)
Calculated nF: 1800.15 degree-days (calculated from column 22)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)
Layer gamma w d sum(d) C K L Ld sum(Ld) bar(L) Cd sum(Cd) bar(C) mu lambda lambda^2 Rn sum(Rn)sum(Rn) + nF sum(nF)
(4) x (8) (10) / (5) (4) x (6) (13) / (5) vs[ (14) / (11)] Figure 6 (4) / (7) (18)/2 + (19) (20) [(9)/24(17)]
(lb/ft3) (%) (ft) (ft) (btu/ft3-oF) (btu/ft-hr-oF) (btu/ft3) (btu/ft2) (btu/ft2) (btu/ft3) (btu/ft2-oF) (btu/ft2-oF) (btu/ft3-oF) (ft2-ft-hr/btu) (ft2-ft-hr/btu) (ft2-ft-hr/btu) (degree-days) (degree-days)
Concrete 145.0 5.00 1.00 1.00 30.00 1.000 1044 1044.00 1044.00 1044.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.323 0.85 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.50 90.31 90.31
Gravel 120.0 15.00 3.36 4.36 34.00 2.100 2592 8715.60 9759.60 2237.16 114.33 144.33 33.08 0.166 0.85 0.72 1.60 2.60 3.40 1709.84 1800.15
Results:
Therefore, estimated frost depth is 40 inches below the 12-inch thick concrete slab (assuming a gravel sub-base) or a total frost depth of 52 inches from the concrete slab surface.
Since it would be impractical to place an underdrain system at this depth (to minimize freezing potential), insulation should be considered.
b). Estimating Insulation and Gravel Thicknesses for Underdrains - Multilayer Solution using Modified Berggren Equation
Given: Mean annual temperature (MAT): 36.3 oF

Air-freezing index (F): 2000 degree-days
Surface-freezing index (nF): 1800 degree-days
Length of Freezing season (Nov thru Apr): 160 days
Concrete slab thickness: 1.0 feet
Thermal properties of materials:

Properties Concrete Insulation Gravel Surface freezing index (vs) = nF/(length of freezing season) = 1800/160 = 11.25 oF
Unit weight, gamma (lbs/ft3): 145.0 2.0 120.0
Percent moisture, w (%): 5.00 0.25 15.00 Soil temperature difference (vo) = MAT - 32 = 36.3 - 32 = 4.30 oF
Thermal conductivity, K (btu/ft-hr-oF): 1.000 0.021 2.100
Coefficient of volumetric heat capacity, C ((btu/ft3-oF): 30.00 0.54 34.00 Thermal ratio (alpha) = vo/vs = 4.3/11.25 = 0.38
Volumetric latent heat, L ((btu/ft3): 1044.0 0.0 2592.0
Procedure:
1. Assume thickness of insulation (di) and gravel (dg).
2. Solve for sum(nF) and compare to given nF.
3. If sum(nF) equal to or is greater than given nF, assumed thicknesses di and dg are OK (i.e., frost penetration would not extend through the gravel to the underdrain pipe).
4. If sum(nF) is less than given nF, repeat steps 1 thru 3 until sum(nF) equals or is greater than given nF (i.e., frost penetration could extend through gravel to the underdrain pipe).
Assumed di: 4.0 inches 0.33 feet Given nF: 1800 degree-days (given information which was determined from historic temperature data)
Assumed dg: 9.0 inches 0.75 feet Calculated nF: 1953.31 degree-days (calculated from column 22)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22)
Layer gamma w d sum(d) C K L Ld sum(Ld) bar(L) Cd sum(Cd) bar(C) mu lambda lambda^2 Rn sum(Rn)sum(Rn) + nF sum(nF)
(4) x (8) (10) / (5) (4) x (6) (13) / (5) vs[ (14) / (11)] Figure 6 (4) / (7) (18)/2 + (19) (20) [(9)/24(17)]
(lb/ft3) (%) (ft) (ft) (btu/ft3-oF) (btu/ft-hr-oF) (btu/ft3) (btu/ft2) (btu/ft2) (btu/ft3) (btu/ft2-oF) (btu/ft2-oF) (btu/ft3-oF) (ft2-ft-hr/btu) (ft2-ft-hr/btu) (ft2-ft-hr/btu) (degree-days) (degree-days)
Concrete 145.0 5.00 1.00 1.00 30.00 1.000 1044 1044.00 1044.00 1044.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.323 0.85 0.72 1.00 1.00 1.50 90.31 90.31
Insulation 2.0 0.25 0.33 1.33 0.54 0.021 0 0.00 1044.00 783.00 0.18 30.18 22.64 0.325 0.85 0.72 15.87 16.87 24.81 0.00 90.31
Gravel 120.0 0.25 0.75 2.08 34.00 2.100 2592 1944.00 2988.00 1434.24 25.50 55.68 26.73 0.210 0.87 0.76 0.36 17.23 17.41 1863.00 1953.31
Results:
Therefore, 4 inches of insulation and 9 inches of gravel placed beneath a 12-inch thick concrete slab will minimize the potential of freezing the underdrains.
Figure 6.—Coefficient 8 for modified Berggren equation. T0—difference

between mean annual site temperature and 0 °C (32 °F); Ts—surface
freezing or thawing index divided by length of freezing of thawing
season; Cav—average volumetric heat capacity = 0.5(Cu + Cf); L—latent
heat of fusion of soil.
c. Results.—Based on the assumed thermal properties for concrete, insulation, and

gravel, and using a surface freezing index of 1,800 degree-days, 4 inches of insulation and
9 inches of gravel are required beneath a 12-inch thick concrete slab. The details of the
procedure for estimating these thicknesses are described more fully on the following spread
sheets.
d. Conclusions (Final Layout).—For frost penetration calculations, it is assumed that

the effective thickness of gravel may be measured from the bottom of the insulation to the
centerline of the drain pipe. (Note: For larger diameter pipes, consideration should be given
to measuring the gravel layer thickness from the top of the pipe.) Therefore, for the 6-inch
diameter collector pipe, the minimum effective gravel layer thickness would be 9 inches. For
a 9-inch effective gravel thickness, a 4-inch insulation thickness is required. The width of
insulation required depends on insulation depth, frost depth, and pipe diameter. The
estimated frost penetration below the 1-foot thick concrete slab is 40 inches. As a rule-of-
thumb, the insulation should prevent freezing of the pipe and therefore, the width of the
insulation will be at least 80 inches (40 inches on either side of the centerline of the pipe).
For constructability purposes, the actual width will be set at 96 inches (48 inches on either
side of the centerline) to use full sheets of insulation (manufactured in 4-foot widths). Note:
Until approximately 1990, Reclamation used sewer pipe for trench-type drainage provisions.
Since then, PVC pipe has been almost exclusively used (stronger and more durable).
A-11
Example A4—Design Procedures to Mitigate Back Pressure in Drainage

Provisions for Chutes and Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basins.—The following procedure
was outlined in the published proceedings of the Hydraulic Engineering ‘93 Conference, in a
paper titled Pressure Relief Under Hydraulic Jump Stilling Basins, by C.D. Smith and Zirong Gui
[18]. See figure 7.
1. Develop tailwater curve(s) and/or table(s) for the range of discharges anticipated for the
appurtenant hydraulic structure.
2. Determine the range of hydraulic jump profiles associated with the range of discharges
anticipated for the appurtenant hydraulic structure.
3. Based on the location of the upstream extent of the hydraulic jump (i.e., where the
hydraulic jump begins), for the range of discharges, a determination of instability (i.e.,
the potential for hydrostatic head beneath the floor slab being greater than the weight of
the water jet and slab just upstream of the hydraulic jump) can be made. From this
effort, a range of instability along the chute and stilling basin for the range of discharges
can be developed.
4. Based on information from step 3, identify locations of “eductors” (i.e., aspirators),

based on location where uplift approaches the weight of the concrete slab. They may be
at multiple locations, from intersection of the chute and stilling basin to an upstream
location on the chute which is at or just downstream of the beginning of the hydraulic
jump profiles for minimum releases (which could result in instability). Whenever
possible, specific locations will be at lateral collector drains, just upstream of the floor
joints.
5. Suggested design features include:
• One 50-mm (2-in) eductor for each 8 meters (26 ft) of lateral collector drain is
recommended.
• Vertical standpipes are located at each end of the lateral drain, which are usually
embedded in the chute walls. Vertical standpipes serve two purposes: (1) acting as
air vents to the lateral drain and eductors, whenever the pressure at the eductors
drops below atmospheric pressure, which prevents suction of the drain provisions
beneath the floor; and (2) acting as surge pipes when the eductors are subjected to
high transient pressures, such as those that occur when the eductors are submerged.
A-12
Figure 7.—Profile through chute and hydraulic jump stilling

basin, illustrating locations of eductor, which mitigate high
backpressure beneath the chute and stilling basin and
subsequent damage or failure.
• The standpipe diameter is 100 mm (4 in) for chutes up to 40 meters (130 ft) wide;
150 mm (6 in) for chutes between 40 and 90 meters (130 and 295 feet) wide; and
200 mm (8 inches) for chutes wider than 90 m (295 ft).
• The horizontal portion of the eductor running from the underdrains to the chute
floor should be galvanized steel and should be placed horizontally through the chute.
• As a guide, the crown of the eductor should extend at least 1/15 of the jet flow depth
above the floor surface (to induce a pressure drop when flow passes over the
eductor).
• Provisions should be incorporated into the design to allow for inspecting and
cleaning the drains.
A-13
Example A5—Toe Drain Pipe Sizing.—The procedure below can determine the
diameter needed for a drain pipe to convey, for example, 3 ft3/s of water:
a. Manning’s n.—From the specifications and technical data for Advanced Drainage
Systems, Inc. (ADS) for corrugated polyethylene pipe less than 15 inches in diameter, n is
0.018 for a corrugated interior, and 0.010 for a smooth wall interior [48].
b. Slope.—The minimum slope of the drain must be determined. In this case

example, assume the minimum slope occurs in the area from the toe of the existing dam to
the flow measurement boxes, which is 0.0106 feet/foot
c. Pipe Diameter.—Perform a trial calculation. Assuming a pipe diameter of 12 inches

and substituting values into Manning's equation:
 1.49  2 3
Q =  rH s A
 n 
where:
rH is the hydraulic radius, defined as the wetted flow area divided by the wetted
perimeter, rH = A/P. For a 12-inch diameter pipe flowing ¾ full, rH = 0.317 ft.
A = flow area = 0.6319 ft2 for a 12-inch diameter pipe flowing ¾ full.
These values were obtained from tables in Reclamation’s Hydraulic Excavation Tables [49].
Substituting values into Manning’s equation makes it clear that a 12-inch diameter
polyethylene pipe with a smooth wall interior will pass the required flow:
Corrugated interior:
 1.49  2 3  1.49  23
Q =  rH s A =   0.317 0.0106 0.6319 = 2.5 ft 3 s
 n   0.018 
Smooth wall interior:
 1.49  2 3  1.49 
Q =  rH s A =   0.317
23
0.0106 0.6319 = 4.5 ft 3 s
 n   0.010 
A-14
Example A6—Filter Design.—
a. Design Criteria.—The design of the filter/drainage blanket zone should be in

accordance with Reclamation’s Design Standard No. 13, Embankment Dams, Chapter 5,
“Protective Filters" [41]. Figure 8 shows a simplified version of the filter criteria for
different base soils. The primary design requirement is to size the material to prevent
migration and piping of materials, and to have sufficient permeability to permit seepage to
escape freely and thus provide a high degree of control over seepage forces and hydrostatic
pressures.
b. Material Gradation.—The materials to be protected (base soils) generally consist of

the new or existing embankment materials and foundation materials. Gradation curves of
the materials can be obtained from preconstruction borrow area investigations, construction
quality control testing, and postconstruction sampling and testing. For this design example,
it is assumed there is a fine grained material (core) against which a sand and gravel shell
material is to be placed. The flow of water is from the core (fine grained) material into the
shell (sand and gravels). Figure 9 shows the assumed gradations of the two types of
materials.
c. Check of Filtering Capability of Shell Against the Core.—The base soil is the material
which is to be protected from piping and in this case, is the core material. The base soil
contains about 85 percent finer than the No. 200 sieve and, as shown on figure 8, is
considered a category 1 soil, so the filter criterion is:
D15F # 9 x D85B
where: D15F is the 15-percent size (15 percent is finer) of the filter material in mm
D85B is the 85-percent size (85 percent is finer) of the base material in mm, and
is 0.074
Therefore, D15F # 0.67 mm
D15 of the shell is 1.18 mm, which is greater than the maximum D15F to protect against
piping; therefore, a filter is required.
d. Filter Design.—Again, the base soil contains about 85 percent fines and is
considered a category 1 soil. The filter criteria are:
1. D15F # 9 x D85B; therefore, D15F # 0.67 mm
2. To ensure sufficient permeability:
A-15
A-16
* For D90 > 20 mm, the

ratio of D90/D10 is limited
in accordance with the
following table:
Min. D10/F Max D90/F

(mm) (mm)
<0.5 20
0.5-1.0 25
1.0-2.0 30
2.0-5.0 40
5.0-10 50
10-50 60
Figure 8.—Graphical representation of categories of base soils.

Figure 9.—Gradation of existing materials.
D15F $ 5 x D15B, but no less than 0.1 mm
Since D15B < 0.005, D15F $ 0.1 mm controls
See subsection h.2 below for further discussion.
3. Maximum particle size of 2 inches (50 mm) for the filter material
4. Maximum passing the No. 200 (0.074-mm) sieve of 5% for the filter material
5. D10F and D90F limits to prevent segregation:
Since D10F < 0.5mm, then, D90F # 20 mm
A-17
Figure 10.—Design of filter material for core.
The gradation limits of the filter zone are shown on figure 10. The gradation of the material
used for the filter should be based on materials available from borrow sources near the site
or a commercial source. Borrow source material should be evaluated to determine what is
available and what can be economically screened to meet the filter requirements. If a small
volume of material is required or processing of local materials will be difficult or expensive,
commercial sources should be considered. If a commercial source is to be used for the
material, a standard gradation that the supplier may already be producing for other uses may
be considered to facilitate production and reduce the cost. However, filter design
requirements should not be compromised just because of material availability.
e. Check of Filtering Capability of Shell Against the Filter.—A check also needs to be
made to determine if the filter material has the potential to pipe into the shell. The filter
material is now considered the base material. The new base material has a range of
gradation, and the gradation that contains the largest amount of fines (the curve furthest to
the right) should be used in the filter criteria evaluation. Since this gradation curve contains
no gravels, the gradation curve does not require adjusting. The base soil contains less than
15 percent fines and is considered a category 4 soil. The filter criteria are:
A-18
1. D15F # 4 x D85B
where: D15F is the 15-percent size (15 percent is finer) of the filter material in mm
D85B is the 85-percent size (85 percent is finer) of the base material in mm, and
is approximately 3 mm
Therefore, D15F # 12 mm.
2. To ensure sufficient permeability:
D15F $ 5 x D15B but no less than 0.1 mm
D15B is approximately 0.25 mm; therefore D15F $ 1.3 mm
3. As a check on segregation potential:
Since D10F < 0.5mm, then, D90F # 20 mm
A second stage filter is not required, since the shell meets these filter requirements, as shown
on figure 11. (Note that permeability is only marginal for the first base material but will
obviously satisfy most of the gradation range).
f. Check of Compatibility of Filter with Pipe Slot Sizes.—Perforated pipe is often placed
within the filter or drain material to collect and convey the seepage water. The material
placed against the perforated pipe must be large enough to prevent washing of materials
through the holes into the pipe, leading to a piping failure or causing the pipe to become
clogged. The criterion used for sizing materials placed against perforated pipe is
D85 $ 2 x (slot size). Perforated pipe can be purchased with a standard circular hole size of
d-inch (9.52mm), or c inch (3.18 mm) by 2½-inch (64-mm) slots. For this example pipe,
d-inch perforations will be used; therefore:
D85 $ 2 x 9.52 = 19 mm
Since in this example, D85 of the filter material is about 3 to 7 mm, a second layer of material
or an envelope of gravel material about the drain pipe is required.
g. Gravel Envelope Gradation.—
1. The filter material is a category 4 material and the filter criterion is:
D15F # 4 x D85B
A-19
Figure 11.—Filter criteria check between filter material and shell.
where: D15F is the 15-percent size (15 percent is finer) of the gravel envelope
material in mm
D85B is the 85-percent size (85 percent is finer) of the base (filter zone)
material in mm, and is about 3
Therefore, D15F # 12 mm.
2. Permeability:
D15F $ 5 x D15B but no less than 0.1 mm
D15B < is about 0.25 mm; therefore D15F $ 1.3 mm
3. Check of gravel envelope against pipe slot size:
D85 $ 2 x (slot size) = 2 x 9.52 = 19 mm
D85 gravel envelope about 25 to 50 mm, which is > 19 mm
A-20
Figure 12.—Gradation of gravel envelope.
4. As a check on segregation potential:
D10F will be between 5 to 10 mm, so D90F< 50mm
The gradation limits of the gravel envelope are shown on figure 12. Note that all criteria
could not be completely satisfied. However, the critical cases are the “movement potential”
and “perforation size” for a gravel envelope. In this example, only the segregation criteria,
which can be easily monitored and controlled, is not fully satisfied on the course end.
(However the “average” gradation would meet the requirement.)
h. Check of Permeability.—
The permeability of the filter or drain needs to be checked to ensure that the filter or drain
has the capacity to carry the expected flows from seepage and other sources, so the filter
should have sufficient carrying capacity to handle any seepage emerging from the core.
A-21
1. Permeability of Fine Grained Material.—Field tests, laboratory tests, and seepage

analyses can be used to estimate permeability of materials. For this example, it is assumed a
permeability test was performed and the permeability of the core material was estimated at
Kh = 4.8 X 10-6 cm/s and Kv = 1.0 X 10-6 cm/s.
2. Filter Zone.—The permeability of the filter zone can be estimated as:
K = 0.35(D15F)2
where:
K is the coefficient of permeability in cm/s
D15F is the 15-percent size (15 percent is finer) of the filter material in mm
For the finer side of the filter material, the permeability is approximately:
K = 0.35(D15F)2 = 0.35 (0.25)2 = 0.02 cm/s
This permeability is much greater than the core material permeability.
The gradation for the filter and drain shown in this example is just one of many that could
meet filtering to prevent piping. The preference is to use a gravel against the drain pipe and
use the coarsest filter that meets filter criteria to reduce the potential for clogging and failing.
Also, coarser filters are desirable for secondary lines of defense for plugging cracks that
could develop from seismic shaking or other causes.
A-22
Example A7—Design of Foundation Drains for Concrete Dams.—Foundation

drains are an important feature to reduce uplift pressures in concrete arch and gravity dam
foundations. Without foundation drains, the assumed uplift distribution could vary linearly
from full reservoir head at the upstream heel of the dam to tailwater head at the downstream
toe of the dam, or even higher if adverse geologic conditions existed. When drains are
provided, it is assumed that (1) full reservoir head exists at the upstream heel of the dam,
(2) the uplift at the line of drains is reduced to a third of the difference between the reservoir
head and the tailwater head, and (3) the uplift at the downstream toe of the dam is equal to
the tailwater head, based on empirical evidence from uplift measurements at a number of
Reclamation dams. Linear variations are assumed between these three points.
Measurements of uplift along sections of existing concrete gravity dams have shown that
uplift is typically less than what is assumed for design purposes. Drainage curtains for
concrete dams have typically been designed using rules of thumb. However, this has
resulted in drains that are too shallow for some high structures, and a more rigorous
approach is proposed here.
In a landmark paper by Casagrande [4], equations are presented for designing and evaluating
the performance of foundation drains in concrete gravity dams. Key parameters in the
design of foundation drains are:
• the distance of the line of drains from the upstream face of the dam
• the horizontal spacing of drains
• the diameter of the drain holes
• the elevation of the drain outlet (typically dictated by the elevation of the foundation
gallery floor)
• the location and the extent of permeable zones in the dam foundation
• the reservoir and tailwater elevations
The general approach and concepts provided in the Casagrande paper have been found to
still be reasonable based on more recent studies. Goodman, Amadei, and Sitar [7] evaluated
the effectiveness of drains for a crack along the foundation contact at the base of the dam,
as opposed to the porous media assumption for the foundation in the Casagrande paper.
Grenoble and Amadei [70] evaluated the interaction of drains with joints and other geologic
features in the dam foundation. The conclusions of this study, based on a Monte Carlo
simulation of two-dimensional joint networks, indicate that on the average, the porous
A-23
Figure 13.—Dimensions used in drain calculations.
media assumption is valid, but local geologic conditions or drains that are not deep enough
can significantly affect the results.
Drain design using this method requires initial layouts, calculation of the results, and then
selection of the best design, or performing further adjustments or checks. This design
example will evaluate the effectiveness of foundation drains for a hypothetical dam.
Figure 13 diagrams the dam and the details of the foundation gallery and drainage system.
Foundation drains will be evaluated for two cases—a case where the gallery is below the
tailwater elevation (this will require a sump and sump pump to discharge the drain flows),
and a case where the gallery is above the tailwater elevation (this layout is less efficient in
reducing uplift, but drain flows can be discharged by gravity to the downstream river
channel). For each case, two drain spacings were evaluated—5 feet and 10 feet.
a. Case 1—Foundation Gallery Below Tailwater Elevation.—
1. Drains at 10-foot spacings.—The required water level in the drains (hw, measured
from the tailwater elevation to the discharge elevation of the drains, which is typically in a
gutter in the foundation gallery, just below the floor elevation of the gallery), the piezometric
level between drains (hm, measured above tailwater elevation), and the flow to each drain (qw)
are calculated below. The gallery elevation is calculated to provide no flow downstream of
the drains.
A-24
Water level in drains (below tailwater elevation)
hw a a a rw
= −0.366 log (when < 3 and < 0.1)
ht d 2π rw d a
hw 10 10
= − 0.366 log = − 0.067
ht 60 2π (0.125)
hw = - 0.067(265) = - 17.8 feet (below tailwater)
Piezometric surface halfway between drains (measured above tailwater)
hm a 10
= 0.110 = 0.110 = 0.018
ht d 60
hm = 0.018 (265) = 4.9 feet (above tailwater)
average h = -6.4 feet (below tailwater)
Rate of flow toward each drain
D
qw = kht a
d
assume permeability of granitic dam foundation (from examination of geology and results of
packer permeability tests), k = 0.01 cm/s = 0.00033 ft/s
150
qw = 0.00033(265) (10) = 2.19 ft3/s
60
2. Drains at 5-foot spacings.—The required water level in the drains (hw, measured
from the tailwater elevation to the discharge elevation of the drains, which is typically in a
gutter in the foundation gallery, just below the floor elevation of the gallery), the piezometric
level between drains (hm, measured above tailwater elevation), and the flow to each drain (qw)
are calculated below. The gallery elevation is calculated to achieve no seepage downstream
of the drains.
A-25
Water level in drains (below tailwater elevation)
hw a a a rw
= −0.366 log (when < 3 and < 0.1)
ht d 2π rw d a
hw 5 5
= −0.366 log = −0.024
ht 60 2π (0.125)
hw = - 0.024 (265) = - 6.5 feet (below tailwater)
Piezometric surface halfway between drains (measured above tailwater)
hm a 5
= 0.110 = 0.110 = 0.0092
ht d 60
hm = 0.0092 (265) = 2.4 feet (above tailwater)
average h = - 2.0 feet (below tailwater)
Rate of flow toward each drain
D
qw = kht a
d
assume permeability of granitic dam foundation (from examination of geology and results of
packer permeability tests), k = 0.01 cm/s = 0.00033 ft/s
150
qw = 0.00033(265) (5) = 1.09 ft3/s
60
In addition to evaluating drains at 5- and 10-foot spacings, drains at 20-foot centers were
also evaluated. The results for all three cases are summarized in table 1 below.
A-26
Table 1.—Summary of results for gallery located below tailwater elevation (no
flow past line of drains)
Drain spacing
5 feet 10 feet 20 feet
Water level in drains, ft* -6.5 -17.8 -45.3
Piezometric surface halfway between drains, ft* 2.4 4.9 9.7
Average piezometric surface at line of drains, ft* -2.0 -6.4 -17.8
Flow towards each drain, ft3/s 1.09 2.19 4.37
* measured from tailwater elevation (negative = below tailwater)
As can be seen in table 1, the water level in the drains (which dictates approximately where
the floor of the gallery would be located), is affected significantly by the spacing of the
drains. The assumption for this case is that no flow occurs downstream of the line of drains.
For the 20-foot drain spacing, significant drawdown is required at the drains to satisfy this
requirement. The average piezometric surface, which relates to the average uplift at the base
of the dam, decreases with increasing drain spacing. The flow toward each drain is directly
related to the drain spacing. The same total flow is captured in all three cases. As the
spacing increases, and the number of drains decreases, the flow toward a single drain
increases proportionally. While the drain spacing at 20 feet appears to have some benefit
over the 5- and 10-foot spacings, the 20-foot spacing would require significantly more
pumping effort to lift the drain flows from the gallery floor elevation up to the tailwater
elevation in the channel downstream of the dam.
b. Case 2—Foundation Gallery Above Tailwater Elevation.—For this case, the uplift at
the line of wells (uw), the total flow through the foundation (q), the flow passing through the
wells (qt), and the ratio of flow passing through the wells to the total flow through the
foundation (qt/q) are calculated below. As part of the calculations, an auxiliary parameter, hc,
is also calculated. The drains are assumed to have a water level 5 feet above the actual
tailwater elevation ()hw = 5 feet). The water level in the drains corresponds to
approximately the invert elevation of the foundation gallery. The parameter hc represents the
elevation difference between the reservoir elevation and a fictitious tailwater elevation. The
fictitious tailwater elevation represents the tailwater for which there is no flow downstream
of the drains and such that with a constant gradient, it, the new tailwater elevation and the
water level in the wells will coincide.
A-27
1. Drains at 10-foot spacings.—
Auxiliary quantity, hc
b +d
ht − ∆hw
hc = b
1 a b +d a
1+ ∗ ∗ ∗ ln
2π d b 2π rw
(207 + 60)
265 − (5)
hc = 207 = 237.8 feet
1 10 267 10
1+ ∗ ∗ ∗ ln
2π 60 207 2π (0.125)
Hydraulic gradients it (downstream of drain) and iw (upstream of drain)
ht − hc
it =
b +d
265 − 237.8
it = = 0.102
267
hc
iw = + it
d
237.8
iw = + 0.102 = 4.06
60
Uplift at line of wells
uw = b ∗ it + ∆ hw
The formula shown above is the formula that appears in Casagrande’s paper [4]. It appears
that the last term ()hw) is extraneous and should not be included in the equation.
Calculations were made without adding this term.
A-28
uw = 207*0.102 = 21.1 feet
Seepage: assume packer tests for granitic dam foundation yield an average permeability, k = 0.01 cm/s =
0.00033 ft/s
Total flow: q = kDiw = 0.00033(150)(4.06) = 0.20 ft3/s
Flow passing wells: qt = kDit = 0.00033(150)(0.102) = 0.005 ft3/s
qt i t 0.005
Ratio passing wells: = = = 2.5%
q iw 0.20
2. Drains at 5-foot spacings.—
Auxiliary quantity, hc
b +d
ht − ∆hw
hc = b
1 a b +d a
1+ ∗ ∗ ∗ ln
2π d b 2π rw
(207 + 60)
265 − (5)
hc = 207 = 251.0 feet
1 5 267 5
1+ ∗ ∗ ∗ ln
2π 60 207 2π (0.125)
Hydraulic gradients it (downstream of drain) and iw (upstream of drain)
ht − hc
it =
b +d
265 − 251.0
it = = 0.052
267
A-29
hc
iw = + it
d
251.0
iw = + 0.052 = 4.24
60
Uplift at line of wells
uw = b ∗ it + ∆hw
uw = 207*0.052 = 10.8 feet
The formula shown above is the formula that appears in Casagrande’s paper [4]. It appears
that the last term ()hw) is extraneous and should not be included in the equation.
Calculations were made without adding this term.
Seepage: assume packer tests for granitic dam foundation yield an average permeability, k = 0.01 cm/s =
0.00033 ft/s
Total flow: q = kDiw = 0.00033(150)(4.24) = 0.21 ft3/s
Flow passing wells: qt = kDit = 0.00033(150)(0.052) = 0.003 ft3/s
qt i t 0.003
Ratio passing wells: = = = 1.4%
q iw 0.21
In addition to evaluating drains at 5- and 10-foot spacings, drains at 20-foot centers were
also evaluated. The results for all three cases are summarized in table 2 below.
As can bee seen from table 2, doubling the drain spacing, results in almost doubling the
uplift at the line of wells. While the net increase in uplift going from drains at 5-foot spacing
to drains at 10-foot spacing is about 10 feet, the net increase is about 30 feet when going
from 5-foot to 20-foot spacing. The amount of flow captured by the drains is similar for all
three cases.
A-30
Table 2.—Summary of results for gallery located above tailwater elevation
Drain spacing
5 feet 10 feet 20 feet
Uplift at line of wells, ft* 10.8 21.1 41.4
Total flow, ft3/s 0.21 0.20 0.18
Flow passing wells, ft3/s 0.003 0.005 0.010
Ratio passing wells, percent 1.4 2.5 5.4
* measured from tailwater elevation (negative = below tailwater)
When evaluating the results for drains at 5-, 10-, and 20-foot spacings, it appears that the
10-foot spacing (which is the typical spacing provided for concrete dam foundation drains),
is a good choice. For the case of the gallery below tailwater, the 20-foot spacing provides
the most reduction in uplift but would result in higher pumping costs to discharge the drain
flows back into the river channel downstream of the dam. Drains at 10-foot spacing would
require some additional pumping costs as well, but this would be offset by reduced costs for
drilling the drain holes (half as many drains are required at 10-foot spacing). For the case of
the gallery above tailwater, drains at 20-foot spacing result in the highest uplift pressures.
Drains spaced at 10 feet would have a good balance between installation cost and reduction
in uplift pressures. A refined analysis, considering construction costs, operation and
maintenance costs and impact of drain spacing and uplift pressures on dam and foundation
stability could be used to more accurately determine the optimum spacing of the foundation
drains.
When comparing the first case (foundation gallery below tailwater elevation) to the second
case (foundation gallery above tailwater elevation), for drains at 10-foot spacings, the first
case results in lower uplift pressures along the dam foundation. The difference at the line of
drains is about 32 feet for drains at 10-foot spacing, for a structure over 300 feet high.
Sliding stability analyses will indicate whether this is significant. However, if there is
significant cohesive bond or intact rock along sliding surfaces, this is not likely to be a
significant difference, and designing the gallery to be free-draining and will save on
operations and maintenance costs.
While an initial layout of foundation drains should generally provide good reduction of
uplift, flow through jointed rock is not always predictable, and ultimately the performance of
the drains (as reflected by drain flows and uplift pressures) will provide the best indication of
drain adequacy. Based on the monitored performance, additional drains may need to be
installed.
A-31
Another important consideration for drain design and layout is the geology in the dam
foundation. Fault zones or other impervious features in a dam foundation can greatly affect
the ability of drains to control uplift pressures. It is important that drains are deep enough
(40 percent of the dam height is recommended as a general rule) to intersect the critical
discontinuities in the foundation as well as penetrating any impervious barriers in the
foundation that might control uplift pressures. Casagrande’s paper [ 2] provides a number
of examples of geologic features that can influence and control uplift pressures in a dam
foundation.
A-32
Example A8—Gravity Dam Analysis Showing the Effects of Functional and

Nonfunctional Drainage.—The analysis of a gravity dam is based on a simple free-body
diagram where the resultant force is determined from summing the moments of the dam
weight, hydrostatic load and uplift load. Safety factors are the ratio of the resisting forces to
the driving forces. The two scenarios illustrate the effect on stability at the foundation
contact for a gravity dam with nonfunctional foundation drains (fig. 14) and functional
foundation drains (fig. 15). Nonfunctional drains increase the uplift load in a dam by about
60 percent, assuming the drains are located 10 percent of the base width from the upstream
face and have a drain efficiency of b (the drains, when functioning, reduce the uplift
pressure at the drains to a of the differential between full reservoir head and tailwater
head). At the same time, nonfunctional drains reduce stability in two ways: first, the
resisting force is reduced by the amount of additional uplift, and second, the potential for
tensile stress, and subsequent cracking, to develop on the upstream face is increased.
A-33
Factor of safety:
cA + (N − U ) tan θ
FS =
P
where:
c = cohesion
A = area
N = normal force
U = uplift pressure
2 = friction angle
P = pressure force
Without drains:
B
U = γ H   + γ TB
2
FS = 1.1, assuming 0 cohesion and

40° friction angle
Figure 14.—Loads applied in an analysis of a
With drains: typical gravity dam section with no foundation
drainage.
B  H  B − b 
U = γ   + λ    + λTB
2  3  2 
where:
( = density of water
H = height of water
B = base width
T = height of tailwater
b = distance to drains
FS = 1.5, assuming 0 cohesion

and 40° friction angle
Figure 15.—Loads applied in an analysis of a

typical gravity dam section with foundation
drainage.
A-34
Example A9—Foundation Stability Analysis Resulting in Installation of Drainage

Provisions.—Horse Mesa Dam, a feature of the Salt River Project located east of Phoenix,
Arizona, is a 305 ft high concrete thin arch dam as shown in plan view in figure 16. The
following is a summary of the foundation analysis that prompted modifications to the right
abutment of the dam. This description is limited to a single static load case for one
foundation block on the right abutment; the complete analysis, which includes a description
of the dynamic (earthquake) analysis, is documented in Technical Memorandum No. HM-
3620-1.
a. Abutment Geology.—The rock that forms the abutments at Horse Mesa Dam
consist of dacite porphyry that exhibits continuous joints parallel to flow boundaries. The
right abutment bedrock has a distinct stepped structure resulting from the interaction of
flow joints which dip moderately toward the river, and high-angle joints. A number of
predominant low-angle flow features are present on both abutments. Due to the orientation
and obvious continuity of the predominant joints on both abutments, the adequacy of the
abutments to resist loading was of concern. Individual joints were mapped from which
wedges were defined on the abutments.
b. Abutment Stability Procedure.—The stability assessment procedure consists of the

following steps:
• Use available discontinuity data to identify the critical foundation blocks.
• Use computer program SAPLOD-M (with output tapes generated by the SAPIV finite
element program) to determine for each identified block the external dam load, which is
the resultant of the combined influence of gravity, reservoir, and temperature loadings.
• Determine the weight of the critical rock blocks.
• Determine the weight of the spillway structure acting on the critical rock mass (the
spillway structures were not included as part of the finite element model).
• Determine the hydrostatic load acting on the spillway structures.
• Develop a differential-head contour map for the damsite based on piezometer and
surface seepage data.
• Estimate the hydraulic loads acting on the planes bounding the critical rock mass.
• Estimate the shear strength of the critical discontinuities.
A-35
Figure 16.—Plan view of Horse Mesa Dam and its foundation.
A-36
• Use computer program RIGID to resolve all forces acting on the critical rock mass into
components parallel and normal to planes used to define the critical rock mass, and
determine the static factor of safety against sliding.
Due to observable continuity of a number of geologic features in the abutment, a request

was made for orientation data for specific joints. Joint orientations obtained along
continuous fractures exposed during the 1993 spillway releases represent realistic critical
potential foundation wedge/joint combinations. This information was used to define a
deterministic critical foundation blocks rather than a statistical representation if joint surveys
were used. Wedge planes were defined according to their location and function as:
• Base sliding plane (sub-horizontal)
• Side sliding plane (moderately dipping)
• Release plane (sub-vertical at upstream boundary)
c. External Dam Load.—The external dam load is made up of three components:
• Gravity load
• Temperature load
• Reservoir water load
The total external dam force was determined by summing the static loads associated with
gravity, normal reservoir, and high temperature loading.
To determine the X, Y, and Z components of the external dam load, computer program
SAPLOD-M was used in conjunction with output files generated during Finite Element
Model (FEM) studies of the dam. Prior to execution of SAPLOD-M, the wedge for the
right abutment was superimposed onto the foundation contact of the FEM, and all dam
elements having either a face, an edge, or a node in direct contact with the wedge were
identified as load contributors. All foundation nodes within the wedge boundary contribute
load to the right abutment wedge.
Once the elements and nodes contributing load to the wedge were identified, a SAPLOD-M
run was made for each of the individual loads. Table 3 is a summary of the individual load
force components acting on the wedge.
A-37
The resulting external dam force components are summarized in table 4 and the resultant
force and orientation is summarized in table 5.
Table 3.—Individual force components.
Force components
Abutment Load X (lb) Y (lb) Z (lb)
Gravity (odd cantilevers in

contact with wedge) 5,281,000 -8,140,000 80,350,000
Gravity(even cantilevers in
Right contact with wedge) 226 -288 8369
Normal reservoir
(R.S.=1915) -67,000,000 247,000,000 25,940,000
High temperature -43,200,000 36,460,000 -55,650,000
Table 4.—External dam force components.
Force components
Abutment Load case X (lb) Y (lb) Z (lb)
Right 1 -104918774 275,419,712 50,648,369
NOTE: The positive X-axis is directed into the left abutment and has a bearing of S30.5E,
the positive Y-axis is directed downstream and has a bearing of S59.5W, the positive Z-axis
is directed downward.
Table 5.—Magnitude and orientation of the external dam force.
Smallest angle
Load with respect to Plunge
Abutment case Magnitude(lb) Bearing X-axis (degrees) (degrees)
Right 1 299,047,194 S80.5W 69 10
A-38
d. Wedge Weight.—To determine the wedge weight, sections oriented parallel to the
direction of sliding were cut at a spacing of 20 feet. Cross sectional areas were determined
and the average end area method was used to estimate wedge weight assuming a unit density
of 155 lb/ft3 for the dacite porphyry. The weight and mass of the wedge analyzed is given in
table 6.
Table 6.—Wedge weight and mass.
Abutment Weight (lb) Mass (lb-s2/in)
Right 241,200,000 624,224
e. Spillway Structure Loads.—The spillway structure was not included as part of the
finite element model, therefore, it was necessary to estimate the weight, magnitude, and
direction of the water force acting on it. The reservoir water force on the spillway structure
acts normal to the orientation of the spillway crest. The magnitude of this horizontal force
was determined for a reservoir elevation of 1915 feet. This water force was resolved into X
and Y components. Table 7 gives the X, Y, and Z force components associated with the
spillway structures.
Table 7.—Spillway structure loads.
Spillway force components

Spillway Reservoir
structure elevation (ft) X (lb) Y (lb) Z (lb)
Right 1915 12,352,020 7,869,104 70,000,000
The spillway force components were added to the corresponding external dam force
components. The resulting composite force, referred to here as the final external dam force,
was applied to the potential wedge during abutment stability analyses. The final external
dam forces used for stability analysis is summarized in table 8.
Table 8.—Final external dam force components.
Force components*
Abutment Load case X (lb) Y (lb) Z (lb)
Right 1 -92600000 283,300,000 120,600,000
* Force components have been rounded off to the nearest 100,000 pounds.
A-39
f. Foundation Seepage Hydraulic Loads.—A differential head contour map was

developed for the damsite based on two types of data:
• Foundation uplift measurements taken following construction of the dam

• Recent surface seepage survey
Uplift measurements were taken with the reservoir between elevations 1909 and 1913, and
the tailwater between elevations 1652 and 1649, respectively. Pressure measurement holes
were angled upstream at angles varying between 45N and 75N with respect to horizontal.
Eight surface seeps were located on each abutment.
The percent differential head was computed based on the measured water pressure. Surface
seep elevation, drill hole data, and reservoir and tailwater elevations were used to estimate
the percent differential head as follows:
1. Assume pressure head equals zero at surface seep location
2. Determine percent differential head using the following relationship:
% DIFFERENTIAL 
=
( SEEP EL . − TAILWATER EL . )  × 100

HEAD  ( RESERVOIR EL . − TAILWATER EL . ) 
The following assumptions were made prior to development of this water pressure contour
map:
• The upstream edge of the foundation contact is taken as the 100 percent differential
head boundary condition.
• The normal tailwater contour (elevation 1648) is taken as the 0 percent differential head
boundary condition.
• Surface seeps are true indicators of the groundwater surface (if a piezometer was
installed at a surface seep it would indicate a water level at the ground surface).
• Uplift pressure measurements made following dam construction represent water

pressure in the bedrock at midpoint between the concrete/rock contact and the bottom
of the hole.
A-40
When drawing pressure contours, an effort was made to ensure that they do not daylight
except at known surface-seep locations. The differential head contours were used in
conjunction with the wedge plane contours to estimate uplift forces acting on the abutment
wedges. The procedure used to estimate uplift force acting on the base, side, and release
planes of the right abutment wedge is outlined below:
1. Using a plan view of the abutment, each wedge plane was divided up into smaller
triangles such that the vertices of each triangle are located on differential head contours.
2. Wedge plane elevation was determined at each triangle vertex using the wedge plane
contours.
3. An average pressure head was determined for each triangle using information from steps
1 and 2, the design reservoir water elevation, and the design tailwater elevation. The
following equation was used to determine the average pressure head for each triangle:
 3 
 ∑ ( RWE − TWE ) DHPi + TWE  − WPEI 
PH AVG =  i =1 
3
where:
PHAVG = Average Pressure Head Acting On Individual Triangle

TWE = Design Tailwater Elevation
WPE = Wedge Plane Elevation at Triangle Vertex
RWE = Design Reservoir Water Elevation
DHP = Differential Head Percentage at Triangle Vertex
4. The uplift force on each wedge plane triangle was calculated using the following
equation:
 ( B )( H ) 
PH AVG 
2 γw
F=  
COS DIP
where:
F = Uplift Force Acting on Individual Triangle

PHAVG = Average Pressure Head Acting on Individual Triangle
A-41
B = Base Dimension of Individual Triangle (plan view)

H = Height Dimension of Individual Triangle (plan view)
DIP = Dip of Wedge Plane
(w = Unit Weight of Water
5. Forces computed for individual wedge plane triangles were summed resulting in a total
wedge plane uplift force.
Table 9 summarizes the uplift forces used for the stability analyses.
Table 9.—Wedge plane uplift forces.
Uplift force (lb)

Abutment Wedge plane Res. El. = 1915
Base 77,900,000
Right Side 69,800,000
Release 94,300,000
NOTE: A tailwater elevation of 1648 was used with the reservoir elevation. Uplift forces
have been rounded off to the nearest 100,000 pounds.
g. Shear Strength of Critical Discontinuities.—The "Q-system" of rock mass classification

developed by Barton in which the tangent of the friction angle is defined as the ratio of joint
roughness number (Jr) to joint alteration number (Ja), or tan n = Jr/Ja, was used to estimate
shear strength of the critical discontinuities.
Assuming rock wall contact along the joints, and taking into consideration joint information
included in the MDA geology report, estimates for Jr vary between 1.0 and 3.0 and estimates
for Ja vary between 1.0 and 2.0.
Table 10 summarizes estimates for Jr and Ja of specific geologic discontinuities as provided

by project field geologists.
Though values of the friction angle could be as high as 63N for the right abutment wedge
side plane, a value of 50N was used as a more conservative value. A friction angle of 45N
was used for the flow-joint base planes and a friction angle of 50N was used for the release
planes. Cohesion on all wedge planes was assumed to be zero for the following reasons:
A-42
• Cohesive shear strength is attributed to: shearing through steep asperities; a dilatancy
effect; and the presence of rock bridges. A quantitative assessment of the rock bridge
effect is very difficult.
• It is not prudent to rely on strength that cannot be determined with a high degree of
confidence, especially when evaluating a large dam's ability to withstand earthquake
loads.
Table 10.—Discontinuity shear strength
Abutment Feature Jr Ja n(°) Wedge plane
C1 joints 2.0 1.0 63

Side
C2 joints 2.0 1.0 63
Right
D1 joints 1.25 1.0 51 Release
Flow joints 1.5 1.5 45 Base
h. Static Stability Analyses.—Computer program RIGID was used to evaluate the

static stability of the abutments at Horse Mesa Dam. This program performs a rigid block
limit equilibrium analysis. It uses three-dimensional vector techniques to analyze the forces
acting on the foundation wedges. Input to the program included: the weight of the wedge
(and the mass for the dynamic analysis), the combined loads from the dam and the spillway
structures (resolved into x, y, and z components), the hydraulic uplift forces on the
individual planes that form the wedge, and the orientation and shear strength of the wedge
planes.
Table 11 gives static analyses results using input from tables 4 through 7 and table 10.
Table 11.—Static analyses results.
Abutment Load case Factor of safety
Right 1 1.26
i. Results.—The computed factor of safety for the selected foundation wedge under
the loading analyzed was 1.26. To gain some insight on how the dam and reservoir have
impacted the stability of the right abutment, a factor of safety was estimated for the potential
foundation wedge with no dam or reservoir loads. The estimated factor of safety is 5.75.
A-43
Assumptions regarding the continuity and shear strength of the wedge planes, as well as the
hydraulic uplift forces acting on these planes, have a significant effect on the estimated
factor of safety. However, the assumptions made during the analyses are not considered
overly conservative, therefore, the stability of the right abutment critical potential foundation
wedge should be considered a safety of dams deficiency.
A risk analysis indicated that the risk associated with the right abutment at Horse Mesa Dam
was sufficiently high to justify action to reduce the risk. Alternative remedial proposals were
studied which included anchor bolts, post-tensioned tendons, and several drainage options.
The selected alternative was a phased approach in which the first phase would was intended
to provide further geologic data while relieving uplift pressures in the abutment. In
subsequent phases additional measures would be taken to increase the abutment stability as
needed.
j. Abutment Modifications Resulting from the Stability Analysis.—The modification to the

right abutment was completed in the following steps as documented in Technical
Memorandum No. HM-8312-2, Horse Mesa Dam—Right Abutment Stability Improvement:
1 Install piezometers in the abutment to measure the existing uplift pressures.

Measurements continued throughout the project so that the effectiveness of the
modifications could be determined.
2. Pre-drain holes were drilled to relieve uplift pressure in the abutment and reduce seepage
in the construction area. Pre-drain holes were orientated to intercept seepage from
certain known discontinuities as shown in figure 17. Measurements showed that the pre-
drains reduced uplift pressures by between 38 and 90 per cent.
3. An 8- by 10-ft adit was constructed in the right abutment to a length of 175 ft. During
the construction of the adit geologic data was collected for use in mapping the abutment
and in future stability analyses.
4. Deep drains were drilled into the abutment from the adit. The depth and orientation of
the deep drains were based on projections of seepage paths within the abutment as
shown in figure 18. Deep drains were found to further reduce uplift pressures by
between 13 and 51 per cent.
The stability of the right abutment was evaluated based on the measured reduction in uplift
pressures and the additional geologic data collected during construction of the adit. The
procedure followed that described above with adjustments made based on the data collected
during the construction of the modifications. The minimum factor of safety on the right
abutment for static loading was found to be 1.73. The updated stability analyses are
A-44
documented in Technical Memorandum No. HM-8312-3, Horse Mesa Dam, Post-Construction

Abutment Stability Studies.
The need for further modifications to stabilize the right abutment was evaluated based on a
revised stability analysis and risk analysis. The results of the risk analysis indicated that the
risk associated with the right abutment was sufficiently reduced; no further modifications
were proposed.
A-45
Figure 17.—Plan view of right abutment with predrains and adit.
A-46
Figure 18.—Plan view of right abutment with deep drains and adit.
A-47
A-48
Appendix B
Case Histories
Case
History page
B-1 Drain Cleaning at Yellowtail Dam Using High Pressure Water Jetting
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
B-2 Drain Cleaning at Canyon Ferry Dam Using High Pressure Water Jetting
Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-51
B-1—Drain Cleaning at Yellowtail Dam Using High Pressure Water Jetting

Equipment.—In 1998 and 1999, drill crew and geology personnel from Reclamation's
Great Plains Regional Office cleaned drains in the foundations of Yellowtail Dam and
adjacent powerplant using high pressure water jetting equipment. Additional work
performed at the time included probing drains in the adjacent left and right foundation
drainage tunnels of the dam, and probing drains in the right abutment landslide tunnel.
References [50] through [64] list geologic and technical data sources for this work.
a. Reason for Cleaning the Drains.—The drains were cleaned to relieve increasing
foundation uplift pressures beneath the dam and powerplant area. Uplift pressure gauge
readings had been increasing under portions of the dam for several years, and visual
inspection by the Regional Geologist of the foundation drains during January of 1998
indicated that both the drains and connecting lateral discharge pipes were partially to
completely clogged with deposits of clay, iron bacteria, and calcium carbonate. The main
foundation drains were last cleaned in 1986 by a contractor using a modified Roto-Rooter.
In 1991, Reclamation drill crews cleaned eight drains that were reported blocked in 1986
using conventional core drilling methods.
b. Description of the Dam.—Yellowtail Dam (fig. 1) is a thin-arch concrete structure

located on the Bighorn River in south-central Montana, approximately 2 miles upstream
from the small town of Fort Smith. It was constructed between 1961 and 1967. The
multipurpose facility produces benefits of flood protection, sediment retention, irrigation,
power production, enhanced fish and wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. The
dam has a crest length of 1,480 feet and a structural height of 525 feet. It impounds a long,
narrow reservoir extending as far as 72 miles upstream at maximum water surface elevations.
At maximum capacity (elevation 3657.0 ft), the reservoir has a surface area of approximately
17,300 acres lying within both Montana and Wyoming. Maximum storage capacity is
1,375,000 acre-feet.
Appurtenant structures include the tunnel spillway, located in the left abutment of the dam,
and an irrigation outlet and an evacuation outlet, both of which discharge to the right of the
powerplant located near the center of the base of the dam.
c. Foundation Geology.—Bedrock in the foundation of Yellowtail Dam and

powerplant is Mississippian age Madison Limestone (figs. 2 and 3). The formation is
near-horizontally bedded, and mostly consists of hard limestones with interbedded siltstone
layers—especially near the top of the unit. Jointing is well developed, but proved to be
relatively tight during construction grouting. Several slip planes degrade the rock of the left
abutment, and additional grouting was necessary in that area.
B-1
Figure 1.—View of the downstream face of the dam from the access road along the
river.
d. Description of the Drainage System.—Drainage for Yellowtail Dam is accomplished

through a series of tunnels, vertical shafts, and galleries, within which 3-inch diameter drain
holes have been drilled into the foundation bedrock. The foundation of the dam and the
abutments in immediate contact with the lower portion of the dam are drained by a
foundation gallery and series of inclined tunnels and vertical shafts or stairwells, from which
a total of 153 drain holes radiate out into the bedrock around the perimeter of the structure.
These drains are of varying depths with all being less than 200 feet deep. The powerplant
foundation is drained by a series of 20 shallow drain holes on the lowest level. All are less
than 60 feet deep. The 153 deep drains in the foundation perimeter of the dam and the 20
shallow drains in the downstream portion of the powerplant are the holes that were cleaned
with the high pressure water jetting equipment. Total footage cleaned amounted to
24,975.8 feet.
Foundation drainage tunnels (containing 25 drains apiece) lie within each abutment, and
another drainage tunnel (with 103 drains) lies just below a landslide high on the right
abutment. Drains within these features were probed during the 1998 phase of the cleaning
program, but were not considered sufficiently blocked to necessitate cleaning during the
1999 phase of the program.
B-2
Figure 2.—Madison Limestone outcrop in the left abutment

downstream from the dam. Note the weathering in
fractured zones. The rock in this abutment is not as sound
as in the other abutment.
Grouting and inspection tunnels are located high in each abutment, but those two tunnels
contain no drains involved in the recent drain cleaning and probing program.
e. Individual Drain Construction.—The floor of the access tunnel or powerplant is flat,

or sloping in the inclined sections. A nearby gutter in the concrete floor (fig. 4) provides a
means of passing the drain flows to a centralized sump and discharge pumps in the base of
the dam. This gutter is located along the upstream side of the access tunnel in the
foundation. Three-inch diameter drain holes are drilled in a fan pattern around the
perimeter of the dam foundation at a slight angle downstream. Holes in the dam foundation
B-3
Figure 3.—Sound Madison Limestone in the right

abutment downstream from the dam.
vary from near vertical to near horizontal. Powerplant foundation holes are vertical. The
top of each hole is completed with a 3-inch diameter steel pipe set in the surrounding
concrete, and all except for those in the vertical stairwells are teed to a 2-inch diameter steel
lateral discharge pipe in the concrete, which transfers water from the drain to the gutter.
Fifty-six drains in the stairwells flow directly into the stairwells and are covered with metal
splash shields. They do not have lateral pipes channeling flows to the gutters. All holes
except for those in the vertical stairwells are capped with compression-type plumber's
packers.
f. Condition of the Drains Before Cleaning.—During the January 1998 inspection by the
Regional Geologist, it was obvious that the condition of the foundation gallery and
B-4
Figure 4.—Gutter along the upstream side of the foundation gallery. The outlet of
a lateral discharge pipe is shown near the center of the photograph. It connects to
a nearby drain. Most of these pipes were at least partially plugged prior to the
drain cleaning operation.
drains dictated remedial actions. The caps to many of the drains were difficult to find
because of the accumulation of dirt covering the drains. All of the original screw-in plugs
had been replaced (probably in 1986 during the last cleaning) with rubber and metal
plumber's packers because the threads in the pipes were rusted out (fig. 5). The metal
portions of these packers were rusted and the rubber expandable parts severely rotted in
most instances. Most of the lateral discharge pipes between the drains and the gutter were at
least partially plugged with iron bacteria or calcium carbonate deposits. Some pipes were so
completely plugged that water squirted in the air and then flowed across the floor (fig. 6)
when the plumber's packer was removed from the drain. Deposits were visible in the top
portions of most drains (fig. 5), and pressurized red oxidized mud had pushed at least one
plumber's packer completely out of the drain, and the drain was oozing soft mud (fig. 7).
Even the uplift pressure gauges on the walls of the access tunnel were rusted and in suspect
working condition (fig. 8).
Drains in the powerplant area appeared to be in much better condition than those in the
dam foundation gallery.
B-5
Figure 5.—Top of a drain showing the rusted out threads in the 3-inch steel pipe
and the deposit of iron bacteria in the upper part of the hole.
Figure 6.—Water flowing from the top of a drain across the gallery floor because
the lateral discharge pipe to the upstream gutter was completely plugged.
B-6
Figure 7.—Red clay oozing from a drain under a sloping staircase. The
plumber's packer that had capped the hole was pushed out by the pressurized
mud.
Figure 8.—Gauges on the foundation gallery wall that measure uplift pressures
in the underlying bedrock. These old gauges were replaced on November 24,
1998. Unfortunately, many of the new gauge readings do not appear to
correlate with the old readings.
B-7
g. Description of the Water Jetting Equipment.—Near the end of 1998, the Great Plains
Region purchased a complete high pressure water jetting system, with the low bidder being
Pacific Jetting International Inc. of Placerville, California. The pump is powered by a 215-hp
Cummins diesel engine and rated to deliver 15,000 lb/in2 at 22 gal/min at the pump
discharge. Fifteen hundred feet of ½-inch I.D. high pressure hoses in 100- and 50-foot
lengths transfer water from the pressure regulator on the pump unit to the control apparatus
in the drainage tunnels, which regulates flows going into the drains. A flexible ½-inch I.D.
lance hose is connected to a variety of both rotating or nonrotating cleaning heads in the
drains. Water is supplied to the water jetting unit by a submersible pump rated at
50 gal/min and 100 lb/in2 and is double filtered before entering the jetting system. A bypass
device diverts excess flows from the delivery pump when they are not needed. Drill crew
personnel constructed a portable tripod with electric winch to assist with pulling the flexible
lance from high angle deep holes. A separate hand-held wand for cleaning surface materials
was also purchased. The cleaning system is mounted on a flatbed trailer along with two
large tool boxes of sufficient capacity to contain all of the hoses and other cleaning
paraphernalia. Appendix C of this manual provides photographs of the various components
of the high pressure water jetting equipment.
h. Training and Safety Issues.—As part of the purchase price, the supplier of the high
pressure water jetting equipment was required to provide a company representative for
2 days of training involving setup and familiarization with equipment, and safe hands-on
operation using Reclamation drill crew personnel. This was all accomplished onsite at
Yellowtail Dam after an orientation session in the drill crew warehouse in Billings.
Personal protective equipment had previously been purchased and checked out. It consisted
of hard hats with face shields, heavy gloves, and steel-toed boots, with personnel actually
running the lance into the drains wearing steel-toed rubber mine boots. Waterproof rain
suits were purchased, but generally proved unnecessary.
The high pressure cleaning unit is a new technology for regional drill crews and it has the
potential to do serious damage to both personnel and structures. Safety issues are of utmost
concern. A job hazard analysis was developed for the particular work site, and the regional
industrial hygienist wrote a specific safety procedures booklet for the high pressure water
jetting unit. He also was personally present for the prework orientation and the hands-on
training at the dam to observe any problems that might develop. Untrained personnel
absolutely should not operate this equipment.
i. Cleaning Methodology.—Starting with Yellowtail Dam, regional geology and drill

crew personnel developed generic methods or procedures to be used with each drain
cleaning job. Individual sites are somewhat different, so these general guidelines were meant
B-8
to be adaptable to each new job and are being further refined as experience is gained with
the equipment and how it performs under differing geologic and site conditions.
The first step was to research all available literature to determine geologic conditions in the
areas to be cleaned. Special emphasis was placed on available drill logs and geologic sections
to determine rock types and special conditions such as weathering, jointing, and the
locations of faults and shear zones. At Yellowtail Dam, the rock was determined to be
mostly limestone with interbedded siltstone. It had well developed jointing and some slip
fracturing in the left abutment.
A site visit was made for determining logistics for moving and setting up equipment, water
supply, electrical supply for lights and ventilation (if needed) in the access tunnels, and local
safety and operational concerns, and checking for radon gas and hydrogen sulfide (or other
noxious gases).
After the initial site visit in 1998, a decision was made to divide the cleaning program at
Yellowtail Dam into two separate phases. The first phase was to wash down the foundation
tunnel with an electric portable washer capable of producing 2.1 gal/min at 1,200 lb/in2,
flush out the lateral 2-inch discharge pipes connecting the drains with the gutter using the
electric washer, and replace all of the rusted and rotted plumber's packers at the tops of the
holes with newly purchased rubber and nylon plumber's packers that will not rust.
Additional work added to this first phase of cleaning included probing drain holes in the left
abutment landslide tunnel, and in the left and right foundation drainage tunnels. The results
of the probing are included in section B-1.l, Probing of Drains. All work included in the first
phase of the program was completed during August of 1998.
The second phase of the cleaning program at Yellowtail Dam was completed between June
and September of 1999. A second visit was made to the dam to confirm final logistics
before moving in equipment. Access and equipment setup sites were located on each end of
the crest with access through manholes, and at the base of the dam through a door near the
powerplant. The foundation gallery consisted of a long, flat-floored tunnel at the base of the
dam with sloping stairs and vertical stairwells up the abutments. The powerplant drains
were on a flat floor with easy access. Clean water was pumped by a submersible pump
lowered into the tailrace below the dam or from the reservoir by a pump hung over the
upstream side of the dam. All drain areas were lighted, but the electrical supply for other
equipment was limited to 110 volts with a 20-ampere breaker, which caused severe problems
for the tripod and winch system that the drillers had constructed. There were no radon or
noxious gas concerns requiring additional ventilation. Local safety and operational issues
were reviewed with project personnel. Since the dam operations and maintenance people
only worked 4 days per week, and the drillers worked a compressed work schedule of 8 days
B-9
on duty and then 6 days off, alternatives for security and unlocking accesses had to be
arranged.
The next step in procedures was to videotape several representative drains to determine
precleaning conditions such as degree of blockages and types of materials to be removed.
The visual condition of the drains, suggestions from the water jetting representative, and
knowledge gained from the literature search, determined the pressures, types, and sizes of
cleaning heads to use. Adjustments were then made based on videos made after the first few
holes were cleaned.
The first attempts at videotaping were learning experiences. Most of the drains were
blocked with masses of floating iron bacteria. That material can best be described as slimy
reddish brown to nearly black strings and gelatinous clumps. It covered the lens of the
camera soon after lowering it into the near vertical drains and prevented further viewing. To
overcome this problem, the drains were flushed with clean water using a small electric pump,
garden hose, and lengths of flush-joint ½-inch diameter PVC pipe. After flushing, most of
the loose iron bacteria were removed, and the harder calcium carbonate deposits were visible
on the walls of the drains. A few of the drains contained enough hard blockages that
precleaning videos could not be completed. The flatter angled drains were essentially empty
of water except for limited flows along the bottom of the holes, so floating material was not
a problem. Screwing together and unscrewing the push rods necessary to advance and
retrieve the camera in the long flat holes was, however, very time consuming.
The final step in procedures was to monitor as many potential changes in site conditions as
possible. In order to judge the effectiveness of the cleaning operation, all uplift pressure
gauges and weirs in the dam were read before starting cleaning. Regularly scheduled
monthly monitoring was then continued during and after the cleaning operation. In
addition, each drain flow was measured before and after cleaning by packering off the gutter
outlet pipe and determining the flows with a graduated container and stopwatch from a pipe
passing through the top drain packer.
Actual cleaning operations started on June 10, 1999 and continued through September 17,
1999. Three regional drill crew members were utilized in operating the high pressure
cleaning unit, with a physical science technician from the regional office being onsite
occasionally to do before and after spot checks with the down-hole video camera to monitor
results.
Cleaning operations began at the base of the dam near the powerplant with water supplied
to the high pressure pump by lines laid from a submersible pump set in the tailrace. After
some trial and error adjustments at the beginning of the operation, cleaning pressures and
flows were generally kept between 8,000 and 10,000 lb/in2 and about 14 to 16 gal/min by
B-10
adjusting the pressure regulator on the high pressure pump and increasing or decreasing the
revolutions per minute of the pump motor. Lower pressures usually would not clean out as
much hard calcium carbonate scale as desired, and higher pressures tended to enlarge the
softer or fractured bedrock zones of the drain holes to an undesirable size. A 2¾-inch
outside diameter (O.D.) rotating cleaning head with two backward-thrusting 45° angle jets,
two forward-thrusting 45° angle jets, and one forward jet offset in the front of the cleaning
head and angled at 10° was selected as doing the best job of cleaning. The size of the
backward-thrusting jets had to be adjusted to lessen the forward thrust on the cleaning head,
because it was too difficult to pull from the deepest high angle drains as it was first set up
from the factory. A feed and retrieval rate of 2 to 4 ft/min seemed to be a satisfactory speed
for cleaning the drains. Slower movement tended to erode the walls, and faster movement
did not allow the cleaning head enough time to sufficiently remove hard deposits.
Two minor problems soon became apparent. The first was that the ½-inch high pressure
hoses delivering water from the pump to the controls at the top of the drains were
constantly vibrating while the system was running and wearing through very quickly at any
angle or rough contact point such as around corners or over stair treads. This problem was
largely alleviated by encasing the delivery hoses inside old fire hoses. Even the fire hoses
eventually wore through, so the water delivery system had to be regularly checked for wear
and the fire hoses adjusted to new points of contact as they abraded. The second problem
was that the 20-ampere breaker on the lighting system did not allow full use of the lights and
the winch on the tripod hoist for pulling the flexible lance hose from the near vertical drains.
The crew unscrewed as many lights as safety allowed, but surges from starting the winch
caused the breaker to open or brownouts. That problem plagued the drillers all across the
bottom of the foundation gallery. Once the near horizontal drains in the abutments were
reached, the winch was abandoned and the flexible lance hose and cleaning head were pulled
from the drains by hand.
The drains were cleaned in the following order: the foundation gallery in the base of the
dam, the sloping portions (inclined stairs) of the lower abutments, the powerplant
foundation, the upper left abutment, and finally the right abutment. Tear down and setup
time for moving between the three main site locations at the bottom and top of the dam
took about a half day per move.
Most of the cleaning was completed without incident. The flexible cleaning lance and
rotating cleaning head were temporarily stuck in a few drains for times varying from minutes
to several hours, but they were quickly shut off in order to prevent hole enlargement. Total
hole blockage and subsequent pressure buildup were never experienced. The cleaning tools
had to be removed in some instances by washing down from the top of the drain with a
½-inch diameter PVC pipe in addition to pulling.
B-11
The near vertical drains in the base of the dam were the easiest to clean, except for pulling
the long, flexible cleaning lance from the deepest holes. They generally had the highest
flows of any of the drains. When the high pressure rotating cleaning head reduced the hole
inclusions to fine sand and silt-sized particles, the flows from the high angle holes helped
flush the material up and into the nearby gutter. Only a few minor instances of sticking the
cleaning tools in the high angle drains occurred.
Low angle drains higher in the abutments were harder to clean for two reasons. First, they
were not filled with water and when the cleaning head pulverized hole inclusions, the
material settled to the bottom side of the hole and did not flush out as easily as in the
completely water-filled, near vertical holes. Secondly, when the cleaning head tended to
parallel the bedding of the near horizontal rock units in the low angle holes, larger pieces of
rock tended to fall in behind the cleaning head and could not be flushed out of the drains by
the back-pointing jets of the cleaning head. This resulted in the stuck cleaning tools
previously mentioned.
After the drain cleaning was completed, the drill crew went through the entire structure and
washed down the areas around the drains and flushed any remaining "cuttings" from the
gutters. Metal splash guards in the vertical stairwells that had been removed by the drill crew
to gain access to drains were not replaced, but were left for project personnel to install, as
had been previously agreed to.
j. Results of the Cleaning Program.—
1. Depth Comparisons.—In most instances, the original drilled depth was known
for each drain in addition to the depth to which it had been cleaned in 1986 or 1991 (table
1). The depths to which the drains were cleaned in 1999 were also measured and recorded.
Minor discrepancies appear to occur in some of the measurements. Comparison of the data
indicates that all drains, except for four, were cleaned to satisfactory depths. Those drains
are block 4 - drain 3, block 4 - drain 5, block 8 - drain 5, and block 23 - drain 3. They are all
low angle drains occurring high in the abutments. All had low or no flows and could not be
cleaned with the high pressure jetting system because of large rock fragments blocking the
drains. The overall effect of these holes on structure drainage is negligible, so cleaning them
by conventional drilling methods at this time cannot be justified. If at some time in the
future other drains need to be cleaned by conventional drilling methods, these drains can be
included in that program. They are identified here strictly for easy future reference.
2. Video Observations.—Several representative drains were videotaped both before

and after cleaning to help adjust cleaning apparatus parameters and determine the
effectiveness of the high pressure washer as a cleaning tool. The before-cleaning videos
showed that most blockages in the drain holes consisted of floating masses of iron bacteria.
B-12
Minor encrustations of calcium carbonate also occurred in nearly all holes—usually along
fractures. A few holes contained deposits of red mud. Bedrock in the drains was reasonably
sound with the limestone varying from massive to thinly bedded. Occasional thin zones of
shale or thinly bedded siltstone were present. Original drilling or subsequent cleaning had
sometimes enlarged the weaker bedding zones to possibly as much as 6 to 8 inches in
diameter.
After-cleaning videos indicated that pressures of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 lb/in2 were
sufficient to remove all of the clay and iron bacteria plus nearly all of the hard calcium
carbonate without doing undue damage to the drain walls. When the pressure was increased
above those limits or the cleaning head was allowed to remain too long in one spot, hole
enlargement occurred. Softer zones were easily enlarged to an estimated 5 or 6 inches from
the original 3-inch diameter. Not all calcium carbonate could be removed without some
hole enlargement, so a compromise was made to leave a minor amount in exchange for little
or no change in drain diameter.
An especially noteworthy observation was that the high pressure jet cleaner was very
effective in removing deposits from cracks and joints. Several blocked fractures showing
little or no flow (as determined by particulate movement in the drain) were observed to be
flowing substantial amounts of water after the jetting action of the cleaning head had
removed the blockages from the fractures.
3. Weir Measurements.—Seven weirs measure drain flows in Yellowtail Dam.

They are read on a monthly basis. During the drain cleaning phases of 1998 and 1999, the
reservoir elevation fluctuated greatly with periods of high inflow, so determination of the
effectiveness of the cleaning program had to be interpreted from a combination of past and
recent weir flows and past and recent reservoir elevations. Tables 2-A through 2-G present
the data used for the interpretations.
The weir readings of July, August, September, October, and November of 1998 and those
for August, September, October, and November of 1999 were used for comparisons.
Unfortunately during these periods of time, several erratic measurements appear not track
the rise and fall of the reservoir elevation. Either the measuring devices were not being
accurately read or the cleaning operations during the time affected some of the
measurements.
With the difficulties of correlation and limited number of readings for comparison, it
appears that the cleaning program caused only a slight long-term increase in overall weir
measurements. That will be better confirmed when additional data become available for
comparison.
B-13
4. Individual Drain Measurements.—The flow from each drain was measured

shortly before and after cleaning to compare individual flows. This was accomplished by
installing a pneumatic packer to block the gutter end of the lateral cross drain pipe, and then
measuring the flow from a pipe extending through the center of a packer in the main drain
pipe using a graduated container and stopwatch. Those drains in the vertical stairwells do
not have lateral cross pipes, so their flows were determined by simply packering off the main
drain outlet and measuring the flow from the pipe extending through the packer.
There was some confusion and a learning process involved with the initial methodology for
making the flow measurements, so all readings at the start of the program were not entirely
comparable. Table 1 shows the individual drain flows before and after cleaning as they can
best be interpreted from original field data. Nearly all of the drain flows increased after
cleaning. Summing of the measurements shows an increase in flows from the dam
foundation drains of approximately 33 percent after cleaning, and approximately 450 percent
for the powerplant foundation drains. The greatly increased flow rates for the powerplant
drains are probably somewhat exaggerated by the low overall flows and associated likelihood
of measurement error influence.
Timing of measurements can dramatically alter the recorded flow rates. If the after-cleaning
measurements are completed too soon after cleaning, return flows of water forced into the
surrounding bedrock by the cleaning process will significantly increase rates as compared to
flow rates taken later. Experience has shown that approximately 2 hours of minimum lag
time should expire between the cleaning process and the after-cleaning flow measurement to
allow for drain flow stabilization
5. Uplift Pressures.—A series of fifteen gauges in the foundation tunnel of

Yellowtail Dam monitors uplift pressures exerted by water in the bedrock beneath the
structure. A gradual increase in those gauge readings occurred over time and was one of the
indications that the drains at the dam needed to be cleaned. The gauges are identified in
tables 3-A through 3-E by block, line, and letter, with the letters corresponding to upstream
to downstream installations (A—upstream to E—downstream).
Comparison of individual gauge readings before and after cleaning drains in the various
blocks where the gauges are placed to monitor is extremely difficult because new gauges
were installed on November 24, 1998, to replace old gauges that were showing suspect
measurements. The total number of readings since the new gauges were installed is very
limited. Readings before and after the date of change are comparable in some instances, but
other gauge readings do not seem to correlate. In a few instances, individual readings are
obviously incorrect. The following comparisons are based entirely on readings taken after
the new gauges were installed and any obvious mistakes were omitted.
B-14
The gauge readings show somewhat mixed results produced by the drain cleaning. Most of
the gauge readings indicate a significant decrease in feet of head since the drains were
cleaned, with the upstream gauges (except A gauges) generally showing the greatest decrease.
At similar reservoir elevations, the decreases in head range from a maximum in excess of
50 feet in one upstream gauge to as little as 2 feet or less in some of the downstream gauges.
Gauges A in blocks 12, 18, and 22 are exceptions to the general trend, showing little if any
decrease in head after the surrounding drains were cleaned. Initial comparisons are based on
so little data, because of the recent replacement of gauges and the severe fluctuation of the
reservoir within the past year, that more accurate correlations of gauge readings with
reservoir elevations should be done in the future after additional measurements have been
taken.
k. Cost Comparisons.—Total cost for the 1998 and 1999 probing and cleaning
program was $119,513, which calculated to $4.86 per foot. Those costs included initial
training, videotaping, and the additional costs for probing drains in the left and right
foundation drainage tunnels, and the right abutment landslide tunnel. It should be noted,
however, that the program was completed under nearly ideal conditions with both
competent rock and good access. Experience gained since the Yellowtail Dam program
with more difficult geologic conditions at Canyon Ferry Dam in Montana indicates that a
realistic cost estimate for future jobs could range from $4 to $8 per foot depending on the
circumstances.
Even at greater anticipated costs, the high pressure water jetting system is a bargain
compared to the Great Plains Region's most recent drain cleaning costs using conventional
drilling. The cheapest drain cleaning project with conventional drilling that the region has
completed was the 1997 program at Pueblo Dam in Colorado. That job cost $11.21 per foot
for a program that included 9,812.4 feet of 3-inch diameter drains very similar in
construction and accessibility to those at Yellowtail Dam. References to other Reclamation
and Corps of Engineers drain cleaning costs sometimes are in excess of $20 per foot for
conventional drilling projects.
l. Probing of Drains.—Drains in the right abutment landslide tunnel and the left and
right foundation drainage tunnels were all probed in August 1998 to evaluate the extent of
blockages. Regional drill crews completed this probing activity as an addition to their
originally scheduled cleaning of the drains beneath the dam and powerplant. Drain holes in
the right abutment landslide tunnel had been identified as needing probing evaluation as
early as 1995 in the Periodic Facility Review Report for Yellowtail Dam. Since no recent
data existed on the condition of drains in the other two tunnels, it was decided to probe
them after the probing was completed in the landslide tunnel. All work was completed using
multiple 5-foot lengths of ½-inch flush joint PVC pipe.
B-15
1. Right Abutment Landslide Tunnel.—The right abutment landslide tunnel was

constructed during 1964 and 1965, after earlier excavations for the access road to the top of
the dam undercut the upper part of the Madison Limestone and triggered landslides in an
underlying shaley zone of the Amsden Formation. Stabilization of the abutment has
included reshaping and unloading the landslide mass and providing enhanced surface and
subsurface drainage. During 1965, 103 3-inch diameter drain holes were drilled at upward
angles in the crown of the tunnel. Most of the holes were completed at an attitude near
vertical, but a few angle upward near 45 degrees. They extend at varying depths to within
about 10 feet of the top of the bedrock surface in the landslide. The holes are lined with
1½-inch diameter PVC perforated pipe with 2 feet of stainless steel pipe grouted into the
tunnel crown.
Since at least 1995, recommendations have been made to inspect and probe the depths of
the drains in the right abutment landslide tunnel. The Regional Geologist completed a visual
inspection in January 1998. At that time, little drainage flowed from any of the holes, and
nothing indicated that flows had ever been significant. No records have been located of past
drainage from the tunnel, and no records have been located indicating that any of the drains
have ever been cleaned since they were originally drilled.
During August of 1998, regional drill crews measured and labeled a total of 103 crown
drains in the tunnel. Table 4 shows the resulting depths of the holes. Records have not
been located showing the original depths for the holes, so no sure way exists of determining
significant blockage. About 25 to 30 percent of the drains appear to now be shallower than
surrounding drains, and during probing, the drillers noted red clay present on the probe rods
of 4 holes.
Because of the PVC liners, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to clean hard calcium
carbonate from the drains without destroying the liners. If, however, the supposed
blockages are composed of red clay filling, as may be indicated by the red clay coating on the
probe rods, then the drains can probably be effectively flushed with the region's high
pressure water jetting equipment. Methodology would dictate using a small, nonrotating
sewer cleaning head and greatly reduced pressures so as not to damage the PVC liners.
However, since no indication exists of any significant past drainage in the right abutment
landslide tunnel, such as higher levels of water staining in the outflow ditch, and no
indication exists of water pressures causing instability in the overlying landslide, further
cleaning is not recommended at this time.
In approximately 5 years, the drains in this tunnel should be probed and the depths
compared with those from the 1998 probing to determine if cleaning needs to be
considered.
B-16
2. Left Foundation Drainage Tunnel.—The left foundation drainage tunnel has a

rather complicated history regarding drains and cleaning.
During 1970 and 1971, a regional Reclamation drill crew drilled a total of 25 3-inch
diameter, unlined, vertical drain holes into the bedrock above the crown of the left
foundation drainage tunnel. They were completed approximately on 10-foot centers and
had depths varying from 15.5 to 120 feet. Drilling of the drain holes had been delayed after
construction of the tunnel because of a possible grouting program in the abutment to close
slip fractures. Engineers speculated that grout intrusion would block any drains drilled prior
to the grouting.
A video inspection during 1991 showed partial to complete calcium carbonate blockage of
all holes. As a result of the video inspection, a regional Reclamation drill crew cleaned the
drains during June through August of 1992 using conventional core drilling methods. They
encountered hard calcium carbonate in many of the drains.
Nineteen of the 25 holes were probed during 1998. The remaining six were not probed
because of unsanitary conditions in the tunnel caused by the buildup of packrat droppings
and nest debris. Of the 19 that were probed, 4 showed significant blockages well short of
the last drilled depths. Table 5 displays each drain with the drilled, cleaned, and recently
probed depths.
Based on the 1998 probing, it appears that the left foundation drainage tunnel needs some
remedial work. First, the packrat debris needs to be removed and the tunnel washed out.
Then the remaining unprobed holes need to be measured, and those holes exhibiting
significant blockages need to be opened.
3. Right Foundation Drainage Tunnel.—Drains are also provided in the right

foundation drainage tunnel. Twenty-five vertical, unlined, 3-inch diameter drain holes were
completed by contract drillers in the crown of the tunnel during 1966. They were drilled
approximately on 10-foot centers and had maximum depths of 75 feet from station 0+60 to
station 1+60, and 80 feet from station 1+70 to station 2+80 [53].
A records search of regional and project files has resulted in finding no indication that these
25 drains have ever been probed or cleaned since they were drilled in 1966. Probably during
1987, two drains in the tunnel were videotaped with a down-hole camera. The unidentified
drains were reviewed during 1990 and determined to show no significant blockages.
Table 6 presents results of the 1998 probing. The drill crew measured and labeled the holes
beginning at the entrance to the tunnel and going toward the far end.
B-17
Since no record exists of past probing, it is not possible to determine for sure if any of the
drains are significantly blocked. However, if the depths and stationing from literature
references are correct, it appears that all of the drains except possibly the first two near the
tunnel entrance are open to within a few feet of their original drilled depths. Drill crew
members reported very little drainage from any of the holes at the time of probing, and there
appeared to be no indication of past increased flows.
It did not seem that these right foundation drainage tunnel drains needed to be cleaned after
their 1998 probing. In about another 5 years, they should be probed again and the depths
compared with the depths derived from the 1998 probing to determine if changes warrant
any further action.
m. Conclusions and Recommendations.—With good bedrock conditions and reasonable

access, high pressure water jetting equipment is a safe and cost effective method of cleaning
unlined drains. It is not well suited to all geologic circumstances, and must be operated only
by trained and experienced personnel who have the ability to understand and adjust to
differing site conditions. It is best utilized at those sites having a competent bedrock
foundation devoid of soft layers or fractured zones. At all sites, it should be mandatory that
progress of the cleaning program be regularly monitored with down-hole video equipment
to both ensure the integrity of the drain holes and obtain an effective cleaning job.
The Great Plains Regional Office has not yet proven the ability of high pressure water jetting
equipment to effectively remove extensive solid deposits of hard calcium carbonate from
drain holes. In addition, contrary to information from the manufacturer, the region's limited
experiments with test cleaning grouted PVC pipes and screens suggests that because of the
pressures required, it is doubtful if high pressure equipment can clean hard deposits from
PVC lined drains without severely damaging the liners.
Observation of the rate of redeposition of materials in the drains last cleaned in 1986 and
1991 indicate that possibly as long as 10 years may expire before the drains at Yellowtail
Dam become clogged enough to require another thorough cleaning. Careful monitoring of
uplift pressures and weir flows will prove invaluable in determining the future cleaning
schedule. Several representative drains should also be examined with a down hole video
camera approximately at 5-year intervals to visually determine their conditions.
It will be much more cost effective to clean the drains on a regular schedule with the high
pressure drain cleaner than waiting until they become completely filled with hard calcium
carbonate, which could require very time consuming conventional drilling to remove.
B-18
The right abutment landslide tunnel drains and the right foundation drainage tunnel drains
did not need to be cleaned after the 1998 probing. They should be reprobed in about
another 5 years and the depths compared with those obtained during the 1998 probing to
determine if cleaning is warranted.
The left foundation drainage tunnel needed remedial work. Rodent droppings and nest
debris prevented a complete probing of all 25 drains. Of those that were probed, a few
showed significant blockages. This tunnel needs to be cleaned, the remainder of the holes
probed, and all, or at least those drains showing blockages, need to be cleaned.
The reason the drains in the left abutment showed more need for maintenance was probably
because the holes drain more water than the drains in the right abutment tunnels. Also,
some of the grout from the extensive fracture grouting in the left abutment was most likely
being dissolved and redeposited in the drain holes by reservoir water slowly seeping through
the abutment rock.
B-19
B-20
Sheet 1 of 4
TABLE 1
Yellowtail Dam
Drain Hole Cleaning Data
(Recorded Depths and Individual Drain Flow Measurements)
Foundation Gallery
Last cleaned FIOW
Original depth Cleaned depth increase or
depth 1966 or 1991 1999 1999 Before flow Afler flow decrease
Sheet 2 of 4
TABLE 1
Yellowtail Dam
Foundation Gallery
Last cleaned FIOW
Location depth 1966 or 1991 1999 1339 Before flow After flow decrease
Sheet 3 of 4
TABLE 1
Yellowtail Dam
Foundation Gallery
Las1 cleaned FIOW
depth 1966 or 1991 1999 1999 Before lbw After flow decrease
20 8 192.0 187.3 195.4 08/06/99 7.2 8.2 1

21 1 187.0 186.9 185.2 06/06/99 too much flow to measure loo much flow to measure -
21 2 190.0 191.2 195.2 08/06/99 4.9 5.5 0.6
21 3 187.0 186.3 190.0 08/06/99 1.7 5.5 3.8
21 " 4 196.0 195.2 _ 210.0 08/07/99 2.2 - 2.6 0.4
Sheet 4 of 4
TABLE 1
Yellowtail Dam
Foundation Gallery
Last cleaned FIOW
LoCallOll deplh 1966 or 1991 1999 1999 Betore flow After flow decrease
Block Hole W.) (W w Date cleaned GPM GPM GPM
Power Plant
TABLE 2-A
Yellowtail Dam - Weir Readings
Location of Weir: Block 7

Weir Number: WV95B7 (V)
1998 1999
Date Reservoir Flow Date Reservoir Flow
Elevation (GPM) Elevation (GPM)
0 1I25199 3622.94 1cLoo
1 O&l 6/99 j 3615.14 ! 8.49
---!I
Notes.
-2
Weir is a 90 degree “V” weir
TABLE 2-B

Weir Number: WV52B9 (V)
1998 1999
Elevation (GPM) Elevation (GPM)
01/25/99 3622.94 29.20
02/l 6/99 3615.14 32.31
03/09/99 3610.55 26.03 4
04108198 3619.91 29.2 04/27/99 3605.10 26.03

05/l 8198 3615.53 26.0 05/26/99 3616.89 26.03
bii?i%%
__. ..-- 1 3627.23 1 29.2 1 1 06/l 5/99 1 3639.17 1 32.31 1
07/l 4198 3642.12 32.3 07128199 3644.57 32.31
0813 1/$J 3638.58 29.2 08108199 3642.01 29.17
OS.- .,--
1/24/98 ---- --
3638.60 1 26.0 I I 09/21/99 I 3638.93 / 32.31 I
1 O/27/98 3636.47 26.0 1O/l 9/99 3636.75 35.90
11 I23198 3635.20 32.3 1 l/03/99 3635.13 29.17
12108198 3634.82 29.2
Notes
Weir a 90 degree "V" weir
Weir reads Block 8
TABLE 2-C

Weir Number: WV62B12A (V)
1998 1999
-Notes
Weir is left looking downstream
Tr = Trace
TABLE 2-D

Weir Number: WV62B12B (V)
1998 1999
Notes:
Weir is right looking downstream
Tr = Trace
TABLE 2-E

Weir Number: WV55B12A (R)
1998 1999
Elevation JGPM) Elevation (GPM)
Notes:
Weir is rectangular weir
Weir is left looking downstream
TABLE 2-F

Weir Number: WV55B12B (R)
1998 1999
r Date Reservoir Flow Date Reservoir Flow 1
Elevation (GPM) 1 Elevation @PM) 1
1 01/25/99 1 3622.94 / 148.0 ]
-1 I
/ 1 02/16/99 1 3615.14 1 139.4 I
03/09/99 3610.55 148.0
I 04/08/98 I 3619.91 1 ;174.9 04/27/99 3605.10 139.4
105118/98-: -1.53--.-~-- /: 156.8
~~ I; 1I 05/26/99 1 3616.89 1 148.0 I
--. ..--
/17/98 / 3627.23 1 184.2 I / 06/l 5/99 3639.17 1 243.8
1 07/l 4/98 / 3642.12 t 223.2 j 07128199 3644.57 j 233.5
08131I98 i38.58
3L-- T , 174.9 / /I 08/08/99
-- -- -~ / 3642.01 t 223.3 I
09124198 3638.60 1 17419 1 I 09/21/99 3638.93 174.9
3636.75 174.9
IO 174.9 11/03/99 3635.13 174.9
j 12/08/98 / 3634.82 165.8
Notes
A
Weir is a rectangular weir
Weir is right looking downstream
TABLE 2-G

Weir Number: WV3OB20 (V)
1998 1999
1 Elevation 1 (GPM) 1 1 / Elevation / (GPM) 1
01/25/99 3622.94 56.10
- 02/16/99 3615.14 47.57
03/09/99 3610.55 47.57
04/08/98 3619.91 71.40 04127199 3605.10 65.97
05118198 ,~~3615.53 61.04 05/26/99 3616.89 56.10
WI/' 3627.23 76.70 06/15/99 3639.17 / 114.89 /
1 ,_.17/98
n7/14/98 1 3642.12 1 88.41 1 1 07/28/99 /1 3Ej44.57 88.41
08/31/98 3638.58 76.70 08/08/99 3642.01 82.58
09&4/98 3638.60 71.40 09/21/99 3638.93 71.36
1 10/27/98
._,-..-- 1 3636.47 1 56.10 / / 10/19/99 t 3636.75 t 56.10
11/23/98 3635.20 61.00 11/03/99 3635.13 56.10
12/08/98 3634.82 56.10
Notes:
Weiris a 90 degree "V" weir
Sheet 1 of 2
TABLE 3-A
Yellowtail Dam
Uplift Pressure Readings
Date Reservoir Location of Pipe Elevation of Gauge Pressure
Elevation Gauge Head in Feet
418198 3619.91 Line 1 - Block 7 A 3370.9 102
B 3371.8 60
51I 8198 3615.53 Line I - Block 7 A 3370.9 100
B 3371.8 25
6117198 3627.23 Line I - Block 7 A 3370.9 103
B 3371.8 I 60
7114198 3642.12 Line 1 - Block 7 A 3370.9 102
B 3371.8 55
-
8126198 3639.42 Line I - Block 7 A 3370.9 101
B 3371.8 25
8131198 3638.59 Line 1 - Block 7 A 3370.9 101
B 3371.8 25
9124198 3638.60 Line 1 - Block 7 A 3370.9 100
B 3371.8 60
I O/27/98 3636.47 Line I - Block 7 A 3370.9 100
B 3371.8 58
I 1I24198 3635.25 Line 1 - Block 7 A 3370.9 0
B 3371.8 3
1218198 3634.82 Line 1 - Block 7 A 3370.9 85
B 3371.8 52
I I25199 3622.94 Line I - Block 7 A 3370.9 82
B 3371.8 50
2116199 3615.14 Line I - Block 7 A 3370.9 81

”
B 3371.8 47
Sheet 2 of 2
Date Reservoir
Elevation
i/9/99 3610.55 he I - Block 7
-
1127199 3605.10 ,ine I - Block 7
i/26/99 3616.89
3637.41 Line I - Block 7

j/IO/99 *
j/15/99 3639.79
3649. IO
719199 *
7128199 3644.57
814199 3642.01 Line 1 - Block 7
8118199 * 3640.22
8124199 * 3639.29
9fl.5199 * 3639. II
9121199 3638.93
IOli 9199 3636.70
,.
1113/99 3635.13 Line I - Block 7
Sheet 1 of 5
TABLE 3-B
Yellowtail Dam
Date Reservoir
Elevation
418198 3619.91
5/l 8198 3615.53 Line 2 - Block 12
6117198 3627.23
7114198 3642.12
8126198 3639.42 Line 2 - Block 12
C 3158.5 30
D 3158.5 I5
E 3 158.5 22
Sheet 2 of 5

813 I I98 3638.59 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 10
B 3158.5 95
C 3158.5 30
D 3158.5 15
E 3158.5 22
9124198 3638.60 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 5
B 3 158.5 90
C 3158.5 30
D 3158.5 I5
E 3158.5 50
10127198 3636.47 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 60
B 3158.5 210
C 3158.5 62
D 3158.5 32
E 3158.5 52
I 1124198 3635.25 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 390
B 3158.5 215
C 3158.5 68
D 3158.5 43
E 3158.5 42
1218198 3634.82 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 390
B 3158.5 220
C 3158.5 70
D 3158.5 43
E 3158.5 46
I /25/;9 3622.94 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3 158.5 380
B 3 158.5 208
c 3 158.5 60
D 3158.S 42
I: 3 15x.5 45
Sheet 3 of 5

21I 6199 3615.14 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 350
B 3158.5 194
C 3158.5 55
D 3158.5 40
E 3158.5 45
319199 3610.55 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 370
B 3158.5 189
C 3158.5 53
D 3158.5 40
E 3 158.5 43
4127199 3605.10 Line 2 - Block I2 A 3158.5 360
B 3158.5 I80
C 3158.5 50
D 3158.5 37
E 3158.5 43
5126199 3616.89 Line 2 - Block I2 A 3158.5 378
B 3158.5 200
C 3158.5 56
D 3158.5 40
E 3158.5 45
6llOl99 * 3637.4 I Line 2 - Block I2 A 3158.5 390
B 3158.5 259
C 3158.5 92
D 3158.5 46
E 3158.5 51
61I S/j’9 3639.79 Line 2 - Block I2 A 3158.5 388
B 3 158.5 260
c 3158.5 94
D 315X.5 47
E 3 I5S.i 50
Sheet 4 of 5

3646.44 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 434

6/26/99 *
B 3158.5 300
C 3158.5 99
D 3158.5 49
E 3158.5 55
6127199 * 3646.92 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 386
B 3158.5 240
C 3158.5 67
D 3158.5 42
E 3158.5 55
719199’ * 3649.10 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 388
B 3158.5 243
C 3158.5 67
D 3158.5 40
E 3158.5 53
7128199 3644.57 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 397
B 3158.5 225
C 3158.5 55
D 3158.5 35
E 3158.5 45
814199 3642.0 1 Line 2 - Block 12 A 3158.5 390
B 3158.5 212
C 3158.5
D 3158.5 30
E 3158.5 42
3640.22 Line 2 - Block I2 397

8/l 8/;9 *
201
39
; 30
30
Sheet 5 of 5
Date Reservoir
Elevation
9115199 * 3639. I I
912 I I99 3638.93 Line 2 - Block I2
I ot I 9199 3636.70
I I /3/99 3635.13
Notes: Pipes are numbered in upstream to downstream direction.

No reading data available from January I997 to April 1998.
Dates marked with * = readings conducted by Technician or Driller during the cleaning time
frame. All other readings conducted by power plant personnel.
Sheet 1 of ‘2
TABLE 3-C
Yellowtail Dam
Line 3 - Block 15
5/18/98 3615.53 Line 3 - Block 15
7114198 3642.12 Line 3 - Block 15
813 l/98 3638.59
9124198 3638.60
Line 3 - Block 15
1218198 3634.82 Line 3 - Block 15
/
I
Line 3 - Block 15 A 3158.5 355
B 3 158.5 137 ,
1
,
3/9/99 36 IO.55 Line 3 - Block I5 A 3158.5 350 I
I3 /
315s.5 I30
Sheet 2 of 2
Date Reservoir
Elevation
t/27/99 3605.10 Line 3 - Block IS
5/26/99 3616.89
5/l o/99 * 3637.41
6/l 5199 3639.79
3649. IO
719199 *
7128199 3644.57
814/99 3642.01
3640.22 Line 3 - Block I5

8118199 *
3639.1 I ne3-Block I5
9/l 5199 *
912 1I99 3638.93 Line 3 - Block I5
1Of 19199 3636.70
1 l/3/99 3635.13
Notes: Pipes are lettered in upstream to downstream direction.

” No reading data available from January 1997 to April 1998.
Reading on pipe A for 6/l 5/99 is not accurate. PVC was damaged on that day and repaired a few
days later.
Dates marked with * = rcatlin~s conducted by Tcchnicim or Ihillcr during the clcanitlg time
f’ramc. All other rcaclings contluctcd by po\vcr plant personnel.
Sheet 1 of 5
TABLE 3-D
Yellowtail Dam
1122197 3618.89 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3184.8 55
D 3 184.8 IO
2118197 3609.66 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3 184.8 51
D 3184.8 IO
3117197 3604.95 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3184.8 52
D 3184.8 10
4/l 0197 3604.49 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3 184.8 52
D 3 184.8 10
5120197 3599.20 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3184.8 20.5
D 3 184.8 8
6125197 3645.03 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3184.8 66
D 3 184.8 17
/
/
718197 3650.43 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3 184.8 75
I
I
D 3 184.8 16 /
I
7/l 5197 365 I .68 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3 184.8 75
D 3 184.8 16
7124197 3650.35 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3184.8 76
D 3 184.8 18
817197 3648.04 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3184.8 76
D 3184.8 16.5
81I 4197 3646.56 Line 4 - Block 18 C 3 184.8 70
D 3 184.8 16
91I 6/q 3637.0 I Line 4 - Block 18 C 3 184.8 56
D 3184.8 II
1012Ol97 3637.54 Line 4 - Block 18 c 3 184.8 56
D 3 184.8 9
Sheet 2 of 5
Date Reservoir
Elevation
11/19191 3633.93 Line 4 - Block 18
12115197 3632.89
l/15/98 3630.43
214198 3627.23
319198 3618.88 Line 4 - Block 18
Note: From January 1997 to April 1998 - no reading available for pipes A & B
418198 3619.91
5118198 3615.53
6117198 3627.23
7114198 3642.12
,.
Sheet 3 of 5

8126198 3639.42 Line 4 - Block 18 A 3 188.5 290
B 3188.5 120
I C I 3184.8 58
D 3 184.8 II
8131I98 3638.59 Line 4 - Block 18 A 3 188.5 290
B 3188.5 120
C 3 184.8 58
D 3 184.8 II
9124198 3638.60 Line 4 - Block IS A 3188.5 290
B 3188.5 120
I C I 3 184.8 50
D 3 184.8 8
I O/27/98 3636.47 Line 4 - Block 18 A 3188.5 280
B 3 188.5 120
C 3 184.8 50
I D I
11I24198 3635.25 Line 4 - Block 18
pjey-+-
/
D I 3 184.8 I IO
1218198 3634.82 Line 4 - Block I8
I I25199 3622.94 Line 4 - Block I8

,I
/j-e/-p
D 3 I X4.8 I5
Sheet 4 of 5

2116199 3615.14 Line 4 - Block 18 A 3188.5 255
B 3 188.5 120
c 3184.8 45
D 3 184.8 I.5
319199 3610.55 Line 4 - Block I8 A 3188.5 250
B 3188.5 115
C 3 184.8 45
D 3 184.8 14
4127199 3605. IO Line 4 - Block 18 A 3 188.5 240
B 3188.5 110
C 3 184.8 42
D 3184.8 I3
5126199 3616.89 Line 4 - Block 18 A 3188.5 245
B 3 188.5 I12
C 3 184.8 44
D 3184.8 IO
61I0199 * 3637.4 I Line 4 - Block I8 A 3188.5 277
B 3188.5 132
61I5199 3639.79 Line 4 - Block I8 A 3188.5 280
B 3188.5 133
C 3184.8 52
D 3 184.8 12
719199* 3649. IO Line 4 - Block I8 A 3188.5 284
B 3188.5 I57
7128199 3644.57 Line 4 - Block 18 A _ 3188.5 275

,.
B 3 188.5 130
C 3 184.8 45
D 3 I X4.8 IO
Sheet 5 of 5
Date Reservoir
Elevation
g/4/99 3642.0 I ,ine 4 - Block I8
3640.22
3/l 8199 *
3639. I I
YI 5199 *
912 1199 3638.93
I a/ 19199 3636.70
I I I3199 3635.13
Note: Pipes are numbered in upstream to downstream direction.

No reading available for pipes A & B from January I997 to April 1998.
Dates marked with * = readings conducted by Technician or Driller during the cleaning time
frame. All other readings conducted by power plant personnel. No reading for pipes C & D on
these dates.
Sheet 1 of2
TABLE 3-E
Yellowtail Dam
M/98 3619.91 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 68
B 3346.0 17
5/18/98 3615.53 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 150
B 3346.0 17
6/17198 3627.23 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 160
B 3346.0 17
7114198 3642.12 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 180
B 3346.0 17
8126198 3639.42 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 160
B 3346.0 17
813 II98 3638.59 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 160
B 3346.0 17
9124198 3638.60 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 150
B 3346.0 17
10/27/98 3636.47 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 140
B 3346.0 17
~ 11124198 3635.25 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 153
B 3346.0 0
1
' 1218198 3634.82 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 160
B 3346.0 0
II25199 3622.94 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 160
B 3346.0 0
2/16Ki9 3615.14 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 150
B 3346.0 0
Sheet 2 of 2
Date Reservoir
Elevation
119199 3610.55 he 5 - Block 22
I/27/99 3605.10
S/26/99 3616.89
j/10199-k 3637.4I
5/15199 3639.79
719199* 3649.10
J/28/99 3644.57
814/99 3642.01
8/18/99 * 3640.22
9/15/99 * 3639.11 Line 5 - Block 22
9121199 3638.93 Line 5 - Block 22
10/19/99 3636.70 Line 5 - Block 22
B 3346.0 0
I l/3/99 3635.13 Line 5 - Block 22 A 3346.0 I65

,\
B 3346.0 0
Notes: Pipes are lettered in upstream to downstream direction.
No reading data available from January I997 to April IOOX.
Dates marked with * = rcatlings conductctl by Tcclltlician or Driller during the cleaning time
liramc. All other rcaditiys contluctcd by po\bcr plant pcrsoIlncI.
TABLE 4
Yellowtail Dam
Right Abutment Landslide Tunnel
Drain Holes and Probed Depths
1998 1998 1998

Hole Number Probed Depth Hole Number Probed Depth Hole Number Probed Depth
References indicate that original depths range from 147 to 197 feet. There are no confirmed individual hole depths.
Holes were renumbered at time of 1998 probing.

TABLE 5
Yellowtail Dam
Left Abutment Foundation Drainage Tunnel
1970-71 1992 1998

Hole Station Logs Depth After Drilling Depth Probed Depth
M&S:
Holes were renumbered at time of 1998 probing. Hole 98-25 is first hole entering tunnel.
l Holes 98-l 7 through 98-22 were not probed due to unsanitary conditions caused
by rodent infestation in this area of tunnel.
TABLE 6
Yellowtail Dam
Right Abutment Foundation Drainage Tunnel
1998
Hole Number Probed Depth
(ft.)
D-l 45.7
D-2 67.0
D-3 74.3
D-4 75.0
D-5 73.9
D-6 74.7
D-7 70.3
D-8 74.7
D-13 78.5
D-14 79.3
Notes;
Holes were renumbered at time of 1998 probing. Hole D-l is first hole entering tunnel.
Records indicate that the drainage holes were drilled to varying depths ranging from
a maximum of 75 feet between stations 0+60 and 1+60, and a maximum depth of 80 feet
between stations 1+70 and 2+80. No record was found of the original individual drilled
hole depths.
B-2—Drain Cleaning at Canyon Ferry Dam Using High Pressure Water Jetting
Equipment.—Regional Reclamation drill crew and geology personnel used high pressure
water jetting equipment to clean the foundation drains in Canyon Ferry Dam during 1998
and 1999. References [65] through [69] list geologic and technical data sources for this
work.
a. Reason for Cleaning the Drains.—Foundation drains at Canyon Ferry Dam were last
cleaned in 1972 and 1973. At that time, several drains were partially or solidly plugged.
Those drains were cleaned by conventionally drilling the holes to 3 inches in diameter and
reaming the lateral discharge or cross pipes to 1 inch in diameter. It was suspected that the
drains became plugged because of the 1965 grouting of the contraction joints in the dam.
A Report of Findings Comprehensive Facility Review for Canyon Ferry Dam, dated December 1998,
recommended that the foundation drains be cleaned every 6 years. The report indicated that
there was some evidence that the drains may be plugging. During a precleaning site visit by
the Regional Geologist in 1998, it was evident that some of the lateral discharge pipes or
cross pipes were partially plugged. In addition, black algae or iron bacteria covered the
gallery floor in several areas in the foundation drainage tunnels. Calcium carbonate deposits
and other loose debris were present in the foundation gallery drainage ditch.
b. Description of the Dam .—Canyon Ferry Dam and Powerplant (fig. 9) along with
other appurtenant works, comprise the Canyon Ferry Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program. The dam is a concrete gravity structure located on the Missouri River in
west-central Montana about 17 miles northeast of Helena. It was constructed between 1949
and 1954. The multipurpose Canyon Ferry Unit provides benefits of flood protection,
irrigation, power production, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreational
opportunities. The dam has a crest length of 1,000 feet and a structural height of 225 feet.
It creates the 2,051,000-acre-foot (at elevation 3800.0) Canyon Ferry reservoir, which is
approximately 25 miles long and 4 miles wide at the widest point. The spillway is an
overflow section in the central portion of the dam. The powerplant, constructed of
reinforced concrete, is located on the right downstream toe of the dam adjacent to the
spillway apron.
c. Foundation Geology.—Bedrock in the foundation of Canyon Ferry Dam consists of

Empire Shale in the Precambrian sedimentary unit known as the Belt Series (fig. 10). The
shale is a massive, exceedingly fine-grained, dense, hard, and brittle rock which has been
classified as hornfels. Because of the brittle nature of the rock, structural deformations have
caused it to have a very complex, closely spaced system of joints. Superimposed on these
joints are faults and shears with crushed zones, clay-gouge seams, and shattered zones. Two
faults crossing the foundation in the areas of blocks 8 and 15 have associated with them
B-51
Figure 9.—View of the downstream side of the dam from the access road along the
river.
crushed and brecciated zones. Figure 11 shows the bedrock in the left abutment, and
Reclamation drawings 296-613-619 and 296-613-620 show the geologic section along the
foundation gallery.
d. Description of the Drainage System.—Drainage of the foundation beneath the dam

consists of a row of holes drilled from the foundation gallery and tunnels into the underlying
rock. These holes were drilled through 4-inch diameter pipes embedded in the concrete and
are angled downstream at approximately 10 from the vertical. The embedded pipes extend
6 to 12 inches into the underlying rock. The drain holes are spaced on 10-foot centers and
were supposed to have a minimum diameter of 3 inches. During the cleaning process, it was
discovered that a few holes had been reduced to a smaller size. There is a total of 118 drain
holes (90 across the bottom and up each abutment side, 11 in the left abutment foundation
tunnel, and 17 in the right abutment foundation tunnel). All hole depths are less than
100 feet. During the cleaning process, it was discovered that one hole was completely
plugged with a wooden plug (block 19, hole 68); therefore, this hole was not cleaned. No
documentation could be located indicating the reason for this plugged hole.
A nearby drainage ditch in the concrete floor provides a means of passing the drain flows to
a centralized sump and discharge pump in the base of the dam (block 12). The drainage
B-52
Figure 10.—Empire Shale, classified as hornfels, right

abutment downstream from the dam.
ditch (fig. 12) is located along the upstream side of the access tunnel in the foundation.
Water is transferred from the drain hole into the drainage ditch through a 2-inch diameter
steel lateral discharge pipe or cross pipe embedded in the concrete floor. All drain holes are
capped with 4-inch threaded caps (fig. 13). Table 1 lists individual hole numbers and
original or probed depths.
e. Condition of the Drains Before Cleaning.—Cross pipes were plugged with bacterial
sludge. Some pipes had calcium carbonate buildup mostly on the ends of the pipes. A few
were completely plugged. Floors and ditches located in the tunnels were stained with a black
algae or iron bacteria that gave off an unpleasant odor (fig. 14).
B-53
Figure 11.—Empire Shale in the left abutment downstream from the dam.
f. Description of Cleaning Unit.—The drains were cleaned using the Great Plains
Region's high pressure water jetting equipment. The unit consists of a Butterworth
Liquiblaster pump powered by a 215-hp Cummins diesel engine rated to deliver a maximum
of 15,000 lb/in2 at 22 gal/min at the pump discharge. The pressure is regulated using a
nitrogen pressure regulator located close to the high pressure pump. Water is delivered,
using ½-inch I.D. high pressure supply hose, from the high pressure pump and nitrogen
pressure regulator to a foot-operated dump valve and flow control pressure cart. The
foot-operated dump valve and flow control pressure cart are located close to the top of the
drain hole in the drainage tunnel and regulate flows going into the hole. With the dump
valve engaged, the pressurized water is supplied to a ½-inch I.D. flexible lance hose with the
cleaning head attached, which is advanced down the drain hole. (Photographs of the high
pressure water jetting equipment are provided in app. C of this manual.)
g. Cleaning Methodology and Procedures.—The drain cleaning was accomplished in two

phases. The first phase, which was initiated and completed in September 1998, consisted of
preliminary cleaning of the drain lateral discharge pipes or cross pipes, the tunnel gallery
floors, and the drainage ditches. This procedure was accomplished using a small portable
electric-powered low pressure washer unit rated at 1,200 lb/in2 at 2.1 gal/min. Several
buckets of debris were shoveled out of the drainage ditch and carried out of the dam
B-54
Figure 12.—Drainage ditch located along the upstream

side of the access tunnel or gallery. Water is passed
from the drain holes into the drainage ditch through a
2-inch steel pipe embedded in the concrete floor. This
view looks along the right abutment foundation drainage
tunnel.
into a trash dumpster. All drain hole caps were inspected, and approximately 20 of the old
caps were replaced.
The second phase of cleaning the drains was initiated and completed in October 1999 using
the high pressure water jetting unit. A site visit was made for determining logistics for
moving and setting up equipment, water supply, electrical supply, and access to the drainage
gallery and tunnels. In addition, all safety issues were discussed.
B-55
Figure 13.—Top of a drain hole with a 4-inch threaded cap. The pipe is 4 inches in
diameter, and the hole becomes 3 inches upon entering bedrock.
Figure 14.—Drainage ditch and wall stained with black algae or iron bacteria.
B-56
Figure 15.—Weir readings are recorded before and after cleaning.
Figure 16.—Uplift pressure gauge readings are recorded before and after
cleaning.
B-57
It was decided to set up the trailer-mounted high pressure pump unit behind the powerplant
at the base of the dam. The water supply to the pump unit was attained from a fire hose
water hook-up located in the powerplant. The high pressure supply hoses were laid out
from the pump unit through the back door of the powerplant, down to the first level, and
into the foundation gallery. The maximum amount of high pressure supply hose used was
approximately 900 feet, which reached to the top of the left abutment.
Before the cleaning process began, several drain holes were videotaped, using the Region's
down-hole video camera, to determine the condition of the rock and the cleaning pressures
to use. To get a good view of the drain hole wall, the holes needed to be flushed. This was
accomplished using a regular garden hose and ½-inch PVC pipe.
Individual flow measurements were recorded before cleaning and after cleaning. Table 1
indicates these flow measurements. Weir readings are measured and recorded monthly by
the powerplant personnel. Two weirs are located in the foundation gallery drainage gutter
on either side of a collection and pumping sump in block 12 (fig. 15). One of the these
weirs measures total drain flow from blocks 5 to 12, and the other measures total drain flow
from blocks 12 to 22. Table 2 indicates weir readings from January 1997 through January
2000.
Uplift pressure gauge readings (fig. 16) were recorded prior to the cleaning program, and
powerplant personnel monitor them monthly. The measuring system consists of four lines
of measuring points running upstream-downstream in blocks 8, 11, 15, and 18. On all four
lines, the gauge farthest upstream, gauge A, reads uplift pressures on the upstream side of
the main grout cutoff curtain and foundation drains; gauge B reads uplift pressures existing
downstream from the grout curtain but upstream from the foundation drains; and the
remainder of the gauges measure uplift pressures at points downstream from both the grout
curtain and foundation drains. Tables 3-A through 3-D indicate uplift pressure readings
from January 1997 through January 2000.
After reviewing the foundation geology, it was determined to start the cleaning in block 12,
in an area where the rock was more stable. In the more stable rock, the cleaning pressures
varied from 5,500 to 7,000 lb/in2, 18 to 20 gal/min, with a feed rate of 3 to 4 ft/min. In areas
of highly sheared and shattered rock, the holes were flushed using 1,000 to 1,500 lb/in2.
Two different types of cleaning heads were used. With the higher pressures, a 2¾-inch O.D.
rotating cleaning head with 5 jets was used. Where lower pressures were needed, a smaller
¾-inch nonrotating cleaning head similar to a sewer flushing nozzle was used. This smaller
nozzle is capable of providing a maximum of about 2,000 lb/in2. The drains were cleaned in
the following order: block 12 through block 17, right abutment tunnel, left abutment
tunnel, blocks 11 through 4 in the left abutment, and finally blocks 19 through 23 in the
right abutment. Cleaning pressures were adjusted depending on the condition of rock
B-58
encountered in each drain hole. The video results indicated that using the lower pressures
did not effectively remove all of the calcium carbonate from the holes but did flush the loose
debris out. Even the higher pressures of 5,500 to 6,500 lb/in2 were not able to clean all the
calcium carbonate from the cracks but were able to break through any large deposits. To
completely remove all hard calcium carbonate, experience indicates that pressures of
approximately 9,000 lb/in2 are necessary. The rock at Canyon Ferry is too fragile to
withstand that amount of pressure.
All but 19 drain holes were cleaned or flushed to within 5 feet of the original or probed
depth. Table 1 indicates the cleaned depths. Some problems were encountered with those
19 holes. The majority of the problems occurred in various holes toward the right abutment
in blocks 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 22. Due to the fault zone located in the area of block 15
and 16, the rock is highly sheared and shattered. The shattered rock is cut by two or more
very closely spaced sets of joints, and the resulting interlocking rock fragments are often
loose in place. When the 2¾-inch cleaning tool entered drain holes in this area, or as it was
being pulled out of the holes, some of the loose rocks caved in or sloughed, causing the tool
to get stuck. At this point, it was decided to use the smaller nonrotating cleaning head with
low pressure, thus mainly flushing the holes. Even with the lower pressures, some caving
was encountered in the fault breccia areas. The holes in these areas may need to be redrilled
at some future date and cased with slotted PVC to keep them open. Blocks 19 through 22
also produced some problem holes. The cleaning tool would get stuck in areas where the
bedrock was shattered and loose rock fragments caved into the holes. The 19 problem holes
are indicated on table 1 with the suspected problem noted in the remarks section.
After the cleaning was completed, all gallery floors, stairs, areas around the drain holes, and
drainage gutters were washed down using the small portable, electric-powered pressure
washer.
h. Results of the Cleaning.—
1. Flow Measurements.—The individual flow measurements were recorded about

2 hours after each drain was cleaned. It was decided to wait at least 2 hours in order to allow
time for the water introduced into the hole, while cleaning, to exit. Because of the low flow
rates and the associated difficulty in taking the measurements, the individual flows did not
appear to increase in most of the holes. However, the overall flows did increase
approximately 500 percent. The weir readings used for this comparison were taken 2 days
after the cleaning was initiated (October 5, 1999), and approximately 1 month after the
cleaning was completed (December 2, 1999), when the reservoir elevation varied by only
0.01 foot. Table 2 indicates this overall flow increase. As additional readings become
available for comparison, the effectiveness of the cleaning program can be better evaluated.
B-59
2. Uplift Pressures.—Uplift pressure reading comparisons of before cleaning and

after cleaning were made using comparable reservoir elevations. For example, pressure
readings taken on October 5, 1999 (2 days after the cleaning procedure was initiated) were
compared with readings taken on December 2, 1999 (approximately 1 month after
completion of the cleaning program). The reservoir elevation was 0.01 foot higher, and yet
the pressures in all of the A gauges decreased. However, results were mixed for the
downstream gauges. Some decreased, some increased, and some remained the same.
A second comparison was made using the dates of April 9, 1998 (before cleaning) and
January 4, 2000 (after cleaning) when the reservoir elevation was 0.06 feet higher. All of the
A gauges showed a decrease in pressures ranging from 2 to 10 feet of head, while the
downstream gauges decreased in a range from 1 to 8 feet of head.
A third comparison was made using the dates of March 10, 1998 (before cleaning) and
October 31, 1999 (after cleaning) when the reservoir was 0.03 foot lower. All of the A
gauges decreased in pressures ranging from 4 feet of head in Line 3, block 15 to 15 feet of
head in Line 2, block 11. All downstream gauges showed decreases ranging from 1 to
12 feet of head pressure with the exception of gauge B in Line 4, which increased by 1 feet
of head. Table 4 shows the dates, reservoir elevations, and uplift pressures used for the
above comparisons, and tables 3-A through 3-D list all monthly uplift pressure readings over
a 3-year period.
i. Cost Comparisons.—Total cost for the 1998 and 1999 cleaning program was
approximately $59,000, which calculated to about $9.62 per foot. There were 117 drain
holes cleaned totaling 6,134.3 feet. In addition, 117 cross pipes were cleaned. Because of
the highly sheared and shattered rock (particularly in the fault zones), the pressures had to be
adjusted several times. The cost per foot of this job ended up being significantly higher than
the recent Yellowtail Dam cleaning program. This higher cost is attributed to problems
encountered with the rock conditions, which required numerous procedural adjustments and
more videotaping. However, it was still only about 50 percent of what the cost would have
been if completed totally by conventional drilling.
j. Summary and Recommendations.—Most of the material blocking the drains at Canyon

Ferry Dam appeared to be some type of bacterial deposit that was reasonably easy to remove
at lower water pressures. The harder calcium carbonate deposits could not be completely
removed by the water pressures allowable because of the poor foundation rock conditions.
Therefore, the final results of the drain cleaning operation were somewhat in doubt.
Based on the limited amount of data now available, it appears that the drain cleaning at
Canyon Ferry Dam was more successful than first thought. The initial before-and-after
B-60
individual drain flow measurements did not indicate much difference in after-cleaning
readings. This, however, is probably attributable to low reservoir elevations and
correspondingly low flows at the time of cleaning. A limited comparison of flows at higher
elevations has now been possible. Most of the uplift pressure gauge readings have shown a
decrease in pressures, and the weirs measuring collective drain flows have shown a very
significant increase in overall quantities.
The cleaning program further confirmed that the high pressure jetting method is not a
complete answer to all drain cleaning situations. It can, however, be adjusted and adapted to
obtain acceptable results under most circumstances. The overall highly jointed foundation
rock and even worse gouge-filled fault zones at Canyon Ferry Dam proved to be a real test
for the cleaner.
Approximately 84 percent of the drains were cleaned or flushed in a successful manner to

their original or probed depths. Nineteen of the holes produced sloughing or caving
problems. They were located in zones containing shattered rock and had very low to no
flows both before and after cleaning. These holes are specifically noted on table 1, along
with the suspected problem depths. In the future, when it becomes necessary to again clean
the other holes, these problem holes in the areas of bad rock should be redrilled using
conventional drilling methods and continuously cased with slotted PVC well screen. That
will hold the holes open even if the surrounding rock collapses and will make it possible to
flush mud or bacterial deposits from the drains using low pressures without damaging the
screens. If they become clogged with hard calcium carbonate, it is doubtful if they can be
cleaned without destroying the PVC, but at least the useful life of the drain holes can be
extended to a maximum limit.
An alternative solution would be to drill new holes between the old drains to replace the
problem holes. It is likely, however, that the same bad rock conditions that caused the
problems with the original drains, would again cause the new holes to collapse during drilling
or the first cleaning. Also, these replacement drains would require the construction of new
lateral discharge pipes in the concrete floor of the gallery, which would be quite expensive.
The timing of the next round of drain cleaning should be based mainly on observation of the
uplift pressure gauge readings and performance of the weirs. About every 5 years, even if
the pressures and weir readings do not indicate a problem, a few representative drains should
be inspected with a down-hole video camera to confirm the status of drain deposits. It is
much more cost effective to remove sediments while they are soft scale on the walls of holes
rather than have to remove hard deposits from completely plugged drains.
B-61
Sheetlof3
TABLE 1
Canyon Ferry Dam
(Recorded Depths and individual Drain Flow Measurements)
Foundation Gallery
Originsl or
Location Probed depth Ckaned depth Before lkw *nor now Flav l”EMs.2 or clecmaK Ckanlng
q ,oek “Ok (ft.) (ft.) Date cleaned GPM GPM CPM . Prn.Ure(PSI) Remarks
10 26 35.0 35.0 10/17/99 0.1 0.1 0 5500

10 27 61.0 61.0 10/17/99 0.2 0.3 0.1 5500
10 26 66.0 66.0 10/17/99 noflow no flow 0 5500
10 29 67.0 67.0 lo/17199 noflow no flow 0 5500
10 30 63.0 26.5 10/17/99 2.0 1.9 -0.1 5500 uck*tdhaln',amQehwprw,
10 31 64.0 64.0 10/17/99 0.2 0.4 0.2 5500
11 32 62.0 62.0 lol17l99 0.2 0.3 0.1 5500
11 33 59.0 59.0 10/17/99 0.1 0.2 0.1 5500
11 34 600 60.0 10/17/99 01 0.1 0 55cKl
Sheet 2 of 3
TABLE 1
Canyon Ferry Dam

Sheet 3 of 3
TABLE 1
Canyon Ferry Dam

Foundation Tunnel - Left Abutment
Original or .
Probed depth Cleaned depth setom mw Alter now Flow I”cre.Iy or deaeax Cleaning
Block Hole w (It.) Date cleaned GPM GPM GPM . PrwS”rE (PSI) Remarks
11 /I B
A 11 25.0
22.0 j1 25.0
22.0 I1 10/16/99
10/16/99 1I << .1.l no< flow
.l 00 I1 5cQo
5ooD’ I1 I
Unable to take reading - could not get packer into hole because of stairs.
** Unable to take reading _ packer would not seal in this hole.
*** Hole has been plugged with wood.
TABLE 2
Canyon Ferry Dam

Weir Readings
JANUARY 1997 TO JANUARY 2000
1997 Blocks 5 - 12 Blocks 12 - 22 . Total Discharge
1998 Blocks 5 - 12 Blocks 12 - 22
2000 Blocks 5 - 12 Blocks 12 - 22 Total Discharge

Date 1 ,. Reservoir El. 1 Flow (GPM) 1 1 Flow (GPM) / Flow (GPM)
01/04/00 1 3787.10 32.314 j 51.612 83.926
Notes: Readings recorded on October 5, 1999 and December 2, 1999 were used for comparison of overall flow increase.
TABLE 3-A
Canyon Ferry Dam

Uplift Pressure Gauge - Line 1, Block 8, Sta. 3+84
1997 1
Date Reservoir El. Pipe A / Pipe f3 Pipe C Pipe D / Pipe E
“- ---,“. -
03/04/97 3777.01 70 10 0 0 0
04/O 1197 3771.76 64 8 0 0 0
05/20/97 3777.31 64 8
06/l 7197 3797.9s 82 10 0 0 0
08/l 7198 3794.31 82 10 0 0 0

09/l 0198 3790.72 78 8 0 0 0
10/23/98 3789.45 77 8 0 0 0
1 O/28/98 3790.20 76 8 0 0 0
12JO7l98 3792.52 78 8 0 0 0
2000
Date Reservoir El. ) Pipe A 1 Pipe B 1 Pipe C 1 Pipe D / Pipe E
01/04/00 3787.10 76 7 0 0 0
Notes: Pipes are lettered in upstream to downstream direction (See Drawing 296-D-347).
* Denotes uplift pressure gauge reading done by drill crew or technician during cleaning time frame
All other readings performed by powerplant personnel.
TABLE 3-B
Canyon Ferry Dam

1997
Date Reservoir El. / Pipe A 1 Pipe B 1 Pipe C 1 Pipe D 1 Pipe E 1 Pipe F 1 Pipe G
01/02/97 3700.24 1 124 32 12 14 14 30 32
02/04/97 1 3783.47 j 124 32 14 14 15 30 32
03/04/97 1 3777.01 1 118 30 12 14 14 30 32
I 04/01/97 I 3771.76 1 112 20 12 14 14 30 32
05/20/! 371 3777.31 1 112 ] 26 12 14 14 30 32
06/17/97I_. .1797!W
_ _ __ II 128
.-- I 30 14 I 14 T 14 I 26 1 30 1
07/02&L.371 .,.
7707-8 .V"
sn I ._I
138 I !7n
-- I IA I IA I IA I 29 1 29
07131197 3796.61 124 20 14 14 14 28 30
09/l 6197 3794.74 118 26 14 14 14 28 30
09/30/97 3794.40 118 28 13 14 14 26 30
11/13/97) 3793.90 ) 118 28 12 14 14 30 1 32
v/04/97/ 3793.74 j 118 26 13 12 14 30 32
1998
Date Reservoir El. 1 Pipe A 1 Pipe B I Pipe C ( Pipe D I Pipe E / Pipe F 1 Pipe G
01/05/98 3790.64 1 122 26 12 10 12 28 31
01/00/98 3791.61 125 30 13 11 14 30 32
02/12/98 3789.44 127 32 13 11 14 30 32
0311 O/98 3787.67 127 32 13 11 14 40 32
04/09/9a 3787.04 128 32 13 11 13 30 32
05/05/ 98 3785.99 125 30 13 11 13 30 32
OtYOZ98 3791.98 1 127 30 14 7- 12 14 30 32
07/09/98 3798.88 ) 126 30 14 12 14 28 30
08117/96/ 3794.31 1 121 26 14 10 14 29 30
09/10/96 3790.72 1 116 27 13 11 14 29 31
10123198 3789.45 ) 113 27 13 11 14 29 31
10/28/981 3790.20 1 114 26 12 10 14 28 30
W/07/981 3792.52 / 118 26 12 10 14 28 31
1999
Date Reservoir El. Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C PipeD 1 PipeE 1 PipeF 1 PipeG 1
02/01/99 3789.79 126 30 12 10 14 29 31
02/11/99 3789.27 126 31 12 10 14 30 31 1
03/03/99 3707.48 1 126 1 ~32 12 10 14 30 32 1
04/06/99 3781.86 I 124 32 14 12 14 30 32
05/03/99 3780.20 / 120 30 12 10 14 30 32
06/01/99/ 3784.82 j 118 29 13 11 14 30 32
3 11 14 30 31
3787.57 112 27 11 9 12 28 31
* 10/31/99] 3707.64 I 112 27 11 9 12 28 31
11/04/991 3787.56 I 112 26 12 11 13 30 1 31 I
1 12/02/99~ 3788.11 j 112 28 12 11 13 30 32
2000
Date ,, Reservoir El. I Pipe A / Pipe B [ Pipe c 1 Pipe D ] Pipe E I Pipe F I Pipe G
01/04/00 3787.10 j ii8 30 11 10 13 30 31
Notes: Pipes are lettered in upstream to downstream drrection (See Drawing 296-D-347).
* Denotes uplift pressure gauge reading done by drill crew or technician during cleanrng time frame. All other readings performed
by powerplant personnel.
TABLE 3-C
Canyon Ferry Dam

.I_. ,
Date 1 Reservoir El. / Pipe A 1 Pipe B 1 Pipe C 1 Pipe D 1 Pips E 1 Pipe F 1 Pipe G
71 3788.24 1 148 62 I 16 28 34 38 36
I 153 63 ‘5 34 38 36
3796.61 ( 154 64 15 30 32 38 35
09/16/97 3794.74 152 62 14 28 32 36 35
09/30/97 3794.40 152 62 14 29 33 36 35
11 II 3197 3793.90 151 60 14 29 31 33 32
12/04/97 3793.74 150 62 17 29 33 37 35
1998 1
Date ] Reservoir El. ( Pipe A I Pipe B 1 Pipe C 1 Pipe D I Pipe E I Pipe F 1 Pipe G
01/05/98 3790.64 148 60 16 28 32 36 34
01 I08198 3791.61 150 62 18 29 32 36 34
02/l 2198 3789.44 150 62 18 29 32 37 35
03/l O/98 1 3787.67 j 150 62 18 29 33 38 35
04/09/98 j 3787.04 I 150 62 18 I ~~~~~~
29 I 33 38 35
05/05/98 1 3785.99 I 148 62 18 29 32 37 1 35 1
I3
06/02/98 1 3791.98 / 150 35
07/09/98 1 3798.88 1 155 35
34
34
35
34
34
2000
Date .,Resewoir El. Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C I Pipe D / Pipe E I Pipe F / PipeG
12 28 32 36 34
* Denotes uplift pressure gauge reading done by drill crew or technician during cleaning time frame. All other readings performed
by powerplant personnel.
TABLE 3-D
Canyon Ferry Dam

2000
Reservoir El. PipeA 1 Pipe B / PipeC 1 PipeD 1 PipeE
01/04/00 3767.10 76 10 0 6 0
l Denotes uplift pressure gauge reading done by drill crew or technician during cleaning time frame.
All other readings performed by powerplant personnel.
TABLE 4
Canyon Ferry Dam

Uplift Pressure Reading - Comparison
Line 1 Block 8
Date Reservoir El. (ft.) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E
03/l O/98 3787.67 80 10 0 0 0
10/31/99 3787.64 75 4 0 0 0
Difference -0.03 -5 -6 0 0 0
04/09/98 3787.04 78 10 0 0 0
01/04/00 3787.10 76 7 0 0 0
Difference 0.06 -2 -3 0 0 0
1 o/05/99 3788.10 78 4 0 0 0
12/02/99 3788.11 76 7 0 0 0
Difference 0.01 -2 3 0 0 0
Line 2 Block 11
Date Reservoir El. (ft.) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F Pipe G
03/l 0198 3787.67 127 32 13 11 14 40 32
lOl31199 3787.64 112 27 11 9 12 28 31
Difference -0.03 -15 -5 -2 -2 -2 -12 -1
Line 3 Block 15
Date Reservoir El. (ft.) Pipe A Pipe B Pipe C Pipe D Pipe E Pipe F Pipe G
03110198 3787.67 150 62 18 29 33 38 35
lOl31199 3787.64 146 56 12 27 30 36 34
Difference -0.03 -4 -6 -6 -2 -3 -2 -1
04109198 3787.04 150 62 18 29 33 38 35

01104/00 3787.10 144 58 12 28 32 36 34
Difference 0.06 -6 -4 -6 -1 -1 -2 -1
10105l99 3788.10 146 60 16 28 32 36 34

12/02/99 3788.11 144 58 13 28 32 37 34
Difference 0.01 -2 -2 -3 0 0 1 0
Line 4 Block 18
Appendix C
Drain Cleaning Equipment
page
C-1 Remote Controlled Video Inspection of Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

C-2 Evaluating the Performance of Remotely Controlled Video Inspection
Equipment in Double Walled, High Density Polyethylene Pipe . . . . . . . . . . . C-7
C-3 High Pressure Water Jetting Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-31
C-4 Drilling Equipment for Drains in Limited Access Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-41
C-5 Guidance on Sampling, Transportation, and Analysis of Materials in
Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-47
C-1—Remote Controlled Video Inspection of Drains.—Reclamation's use of

remotely controlled video inspection (RCVI) is becoming an increasingly useful method for
examining small or inaccessible drains, as well as conduits and pipelines. Drains are used to
reduce pore water pressures and uplift pressures, and safely convey and discharge seepage
water. The ability of drains to perform this function may become compromised by age,
mechanical deterioration, loads on the drain pipe that exceed the capacity of the pipe or
chemical attack. When a drain can no longer safely perform its intended function, the safety
of the dam or water project may become jeopardized. Earthfill dams are vulnerable to toe
drain deterioration (see the Case History of Toe Drain Inspections in ch. 4 for examples), and
typical failure modes involving drains include:
• The potential for a partial or a complete failure of the dam through a mechanism
whereby embankment material is eroded into the toe drain by seepage resulting from
high pore pressures within the portion of the embankment that immediately surrounds
the toe drain. Such an erosion mechanism could progress into the embankment, toward
the reservoir, and could possibly result in a sudden release of the reservoir. The erosion
of embankment material could occur through open/separated joints, deterioration of
rivets, cracks, deterioration of flow surfaces, collapsed toe drain, etc.
• The potential for a partial or complete failure of the dam as a result of continued long
term structural deterioration and collapse of a toe drain. The void caused by the collapse
of the toe drain provides an open “pipe,” allowing the uncontrolled flow of reservoir
water and the resulting erosion of the surrounding embankment materials.
• The potential for a partial or complete failure of a spillway or outlet works chute or
stilling basin floor slab as a result of piping of foundation materials into the drain and
undermining of the foundation for the structure.
• The potential for a partial or complete failure of a concrete dam or a spillway or outlet
works structure due to a blockage in the drainage system. This blockage could result in
ineffective drains, the buildup of uplift pressures, and a sliding failure within the
structure foundation or at the structure/foundation contact.
Numerous case histories provide documented evidence that many dams have failed as a
result of these potential failure modes. These dam failures, along with the increasing age of
Reclamation's inventory of dams and recent improvements in inspection technology, have
prompted Reclamation to institute a program of remote video inspections of drains.
RCVI can provide significant improvements over other methods of inspection, such as
physical inspection, where an inspector crawls through the drain or conduit (30-in or larger)
and documents the conditions, manual inspection, where a sled with a camera is pushed
through the drain or conduit using long push rods, and mechanical inspection, where a
C-1
camera tethered to a wire rope and is pulled through the drain or conduit. RCVI has the
advantages of being able to examine drains or conduits regardless of size limitations, has
complete mobility, and provides real time video images. Generally, an RCVI consists of a
video camera attached to a self-propelled transport vehicle. An operator remotely controls
the transport vehicle and camera. The camera can provide both longitudinal and
circumferential views of the interior of the drain or conduit surfaces. Video images are
transmitted from the camera to a television monitor, from which the operator can view the
conditions within the drain or conduit.
a. Guidelines for Initiating a Remotely Controlled Video Inspection.—The water and soil or
rock environment can greatly affect the condition and service life of a drain. RCVI can be
used to effectively assess and monitor the conditions within the drain. Some general
guidelines for when to perform an RCVI are:
• When obvious seepage areas or depressions along the drain alignment or at the exit
portal area exist
• When the clarity or volume of water being discharged from the drain changes
• After any significant seismic activity near the dam. Deformation of an embankment
dam may cause spreading of the drain joints.
• When drains are subjected to corrosive environments caused by certain water and soil
conditions and the drains are constructed of a material vulnerable to corrosion
• When drains approach their life expectancy. For instance, CMP can be expected to
deteriorate significantly after about 25 to 50 years of operation.
• If the drain has not been inspected since its original construction
Over the years, many types of materials have been used for drains, including reinforced
concrete pipe, CMP, and clay tile. More recently, plastic pipe such as PVC and HDPE are
also being used. Some drain materials are more prone to the development of problems and
may require a more frequent inspection program. For example, CMP is subject to chemical
and galvanic corrosion, joint leakage, and live load distortion. RCVI can be used to develop
a baseline from which future inspections can be compared and the degree of continuing
deterioration determined.
b. Remotely Controlled Video Inspection Equipment.—RCVI was initially used for gas/oil
and sewer pipelines. Over the last 10 years, RCVI has expanded into many applications,
such as toe drain and conduit inspection. In that time period, the robotic equipment used
C-2
for video inspection has changed significantly.

The latest trend in RCVI equipment is for
modular efficiency, so more versatility and a
wider range of applications can be provided.
The benefit of modular design is the
reduction of added costs required for
“application specific” and “custom designs.”
Typical RCVI equipment and features:
• Camera.—Underwater viewing, solid state

circuitry, color, wide angle zoom lens,
remote controlled optical focus,
automatic iris with manual override,
variable speed pan and tilt, operating Figure 1.—RCVI equipment (VersoTrac System)
temperature range of 32 to 122 °F, used by Reclamation.
underwater lights, shock and
vibration resistant, and easy
transportation and storage
• Transport vehicle.—Depth rating of

100 feet, forward, neutral and
reverse clutch, speed control (0 to
30 ft/min), operating temperature
Figure 2.—RCVI instrumentation and control equipment.
range of 32 to 122 °F, direct
current motor, varying operating voltage on models (24 V to 110 V), rubber tracked
belts or tires, adjustable tracks or tires for larger diameter drains, lowering harness, and
camera adaptor plate. Drains with diameters from 4 inches to 240 inches can be
inspected.
• Cable reel.—Self-laying, direct current motor, motorized rewind, cable comes in variety of
lengths (up to 1,500 ft, depending on cable diameter), footage meter, and manual
operator override braking system
• Control unit.—Color monitor, VCR VHS with built-in microphone and push talk button,
transport vehicle controller, pan and tilt camera controller, and data logger system
(electronic footage display, date/time, alpha/numeric input, data card hardware for data
transfer to PC). For the purposes of a longer storage of media, the use of DVD is
becoming standard practice. The control unit is normally transported to the site in a
truck or van. Customized trucks and vans are available. In difficult access locations, a
portable system can be installed on an all-terrain vehicle.
C-3
RCVI services are available in many areas. However, the quality of video inspection
equipment can vary greatly. Any company selected to perform RCVI services should be
experienced and have a wide range of available equipment for various site conditions. Costs
for RCVI services vary, depending upon the location of the job, remoteness of the site,
access difficulties at the site, etc. If multiple drain inspections are done for a number of
dams during the same trip, the average cost per video inspection will be usually be lower.
Some RCVI companies also provide cleaning services.
Dam owners and dam safety organizations may want to purchase their own video inspection
equipment. This becomes especially economical, if annual video inspections are needed at
numerous dams. Costs for purchasing video inspection equipment depend on the quality
and options selected.
c. Guidelines for Performing a Remotely Controlled Video Inspection.—The success of an

RCVI depends upon the quality of the equipment and the experience of the operator. An
RCVI usually requires a two-person crew, consisting of an operator and cable reel handler.
Additional crew members may be required in difficult access locations.
An important part of any RCVI is the technical evaluation of the conditions observed during
the videotaped inspection. This evaluation should be performed by a qualified and
experienced professional engineer. The engineer should prepare a Report of Findings which
documents all problem areas observed and provides recommendations for future actions.
Tips for a successful video inspection:
• Light.—The amount of light provided is critical to the success of the inspection.

Without the proper amount of light, areas of concern cannot be observed clearly. Lack
of clarity hinders making definitive conclusions about the integrity of the conduit. Also,
the larger the diameter of the conduit, the more light that is needed. A trial-and-error
procedure maybe required to obtain the sufficient amount of light. The ability to vary
light intensity and control glare is an important feature to consider for the RCVI
equipment.
• Camera.—The video camera should be able to pan and tilt and also look straight ahead.
Not all inspections involve horizontal conduits. Inspections of vertical drops are
sometimes required. The video camera should be able to accommodate different
orientations.
• Footage meter.—A footage meter should be superimposed on the videotape. This meter
makes identifying specific locations within the conduit much easier.
C-4
• Narration.—All inspection videotapes should include a narration by the operator. The

operator should describe in detail what is being seen. Narration should note mineral
deposition, changes in the slope of the invert, changes in the depth or velocity of water
(inflow), condition of drain joints, etc.
• Drawings and photographs.—Copies of all available design and/or as-built drawings of the
dam and drains should be on-site during the video inspection for immediate reference
and confirmation of details and features seen in during the inspection.
• Measurements and data collection.—The inspection and the technical evaluation will be
greatly enhanced if the following data are collected at the time of the video inspection:
reservoir water level, outflow from the drains, any relevant data on nearby piezometer
levels or uplift levels, history of operations, and time/date.
• Videotape library.—The inspectors should review all previous inspection videotapes (if
available) prior to doing the video inspection. This will provide a baseline reference, so
the rate of any continuing deterioration can be noted.
d. Evaluating the Results of a Remotely Controlled Video Inspection.—Conditions observed

during an RCVI vary depending on the drain materials used. Typical inspection
observations are summarized below:
• Leaking joints.—Watertight joints are not always obtained during construction. If a joint
is leaking, mineral deposition may be observed inside the drain. As water enters the
drain and evaporates, minor precipitates are deposited. Deposition will usually occur in
drains with little or intermittent flow. Joints may also become separated after installation
as a result of settlement of embankment or fill material placed above the drain.
• Corrosion.—Metal or steel pipes can deteriorate due to chemical or electrochemical

reactions to the environment. Corrosion can occur on the flow surface or on the outside
of the drain.
• Shape distortion.—Due to poor compaction, the surrounding backfill does not provide the
required support. This can result in loss of cross section. Shape distortion is most
common with flexible pipes such as PVC, HDPE, and corrugated metal pipes.
• Misalignment.—A sag in the invert or a deflection of a joint may indicate settlement or

poor installation.
• Cracking.—Longitudinal or transverse cracking is usually a sign of distress caused by

overloading, subgrade problems, or differential movement.
C-5
• Concrete deterioration.—Spalling is usually a sign of overloading or caused by water

corroding the reinforcing steel. The oxidized steel expands, resulting in a separation of
the concrete covering the reinforcement.
e. Summary.—Remotely controlled video inspection is a useful tool for assessing the

condition of drains. As the existing inventory of dams and water projects continues to age,
more drain-related safety concerns will require inspection and evaluation. After viewing the
conditions within the drain, the dam safety official can better determine if corrective actions
are warranted. Depending on the severity of the conditions, more frequent video
inspections may be required.
C-6
C-2—Evaluating the Performance of Remotely Controlled Video Inspection

Equipment in Double Walled, High Density Polyethylene Pipe.—
a. Purpose.—In 2000, Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC) implemented a

program of remotely controlled video inspection as part of their dam safety program. This
program provides for the inspection of toe drains, wall drains, structural underdrains,
pressure relief wells, siphons, pipelines, and outlet works/spillway conduits. Generally, a
complete video inspection includes (1) performance of the video inspection, (2) a technical
evaluation of observed conditions (including recommendations for future actions), and
(3) documentation of the inspection and evaluation (including photographs captured from
videotape and a detailed inspection log). Experience has shown that the pipe configuration
(diameter, bends, invert slopes, and existing invert conditions such as gravel, sediments, and
bacterial growths) greatly affect the success of a video inspection. This section is intended to
provide guidance to geotechnical engineers in laying out toe drain systems for embankment
dams, so that remotely controlled video inspection equipment will be able to navigate within
new toe drain installations.
b. Introduction.—The use of remotely controlled video inspection (RCVI) has greatly

advanced the capability to evaluate existing conditions within small and inaccessible pipes
and conduits, such as toe drains, wall drains, structural underdrains, pressure relief wells,
siphons, pipelines, and outlet works/spillway conduits. Pipes and conduits may be
inaccessible due to diameter size or confined space entry. RCVI differs from other methods
of inspection, such as (1) physical inspection, where an inspector crawls through the conduit
(30 in. or larger) and documents the conditions; (2) manual inspection, where a camera
attached to a sled is pushed through the conduit using long push rods; and (3) mechanical
inspection, where a camera tethered to a wire rope is pulled through the conduit. RCVI has
the advantages of being able to examine pipes and conduits regardless of size limitations,
having complete mobility, and providing real time video images. Generally, an RCVI
consists of a video camera attached to a self-propelled transport vehicle (crawler). The
transport vehicle and camera are commonly referred to as a camera-crawler. An operator
remotely controls the camera-crawler. The camera can provide both longitudinal and
circumferential views of the interior of the pipe or conduit. Video images are transmitted
from the camera to a television monitor, from which the operator can view the conditions
within the pipe or conduit. The video images are recorded onto videotape, compact disc, or
DVD for future evaluation and documentation.
Over the years, many types of materials have been used for pipes and conduits. Commonly
used materials have consisted of cast-in-place reinforced concrete, reinforced concrete pipe,
corrugated metal pipe (CMP), welded steel pipe, clay tile, asbestos-cement, and plastics such
as high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
C-7
The majority of Reclamation’s spillways and outlet works are large enough for physical
inspection of the conduit. However, toe drains used at embankment dams are usually too
small to be physically inspected. Most toe drains for embankment dams have never been
inspected. The Technical Service Center has been performing video inspection of toe drain
systems over the past few years using RCVI. Experience with recent video inspections has
shown that past design practices for toe drains do not always allow for the accommodation
of RCVI equipment. This report will focus on evaluating a variety of toe drain pipe
configurations for diameter, bend, invert slope, and invert conditions to accommodate RCVI
equipment.
The Technical Service Center most frequently specfies double walled, high density
polyethylene (known as HDPE) for new toe drains. An RCVI equipment testing program
for HDPE was developed and conducted in 2002. Tests were conducted for a wide variety
of pipe diameters, bends, invert slopes, and invert conditions. This section summarizes the
results of those tests and provides recommendations concerning the layout of toe drain
systems to accommodate inspection using RCVI equipment.
c. Conclusions.—The following general guidelines are based on the results of the

performance testing of RCVI equipment within double walled HDPE pipe. All
performance testing in this research program was based on the assumption that the
camera-crawler would travel up the pipe from a downstream location. Toe drain designs
that provide an upstream access location from which the camera-crawler can gain entry
allow for improved cable tether pulling capacity, since the camera-crawler can move
downward on a sloping decline. Sloping declines generally do not result in camera-crawler
traction issues. For the camera-crawler backout process, the transport vehicle has a free-
wheeling clutch mechanism on the track unit that allows for high speed retrieval either
manually or by a cable take up reel. Although not tested in this research program, the
upstream access location would also benefit camera-crawler navigation around pipe bends
and allow for the use of steeper invert slopes, since the effect of cable drag would be
lessened. Providing upstream access locations would be especially important where steeper
invert slopes may be required, such as on abutments.
• Pipe diameters.—The minimum recommended pipe diameter to successfully accommodate

RCVI equipment is 8 inches. Although camera-crawlers are available for pipes smaller
than 8 inches, they are very limited in cable tether pulling capacity and generally do not
have sufficient traction for use in toe drain inspection. In addition, the cameras typically
only have a fixed lens and the transport vehicle is not steerable. Camera-crawlers used in
pipes with diameters between 8 and 12 inches generally have cameras with some pan, tilt,
and zoom capabilities, but generally are not steerable. Camera-crawlers used in pipes
with diameters of 15 inches or larger are steerable, have a greater cable tether pulling
C-8
capacity, and have cameras which can provide a wider array of optical capabilities
including pan, tilt, and zoom.
• Pipe bends—The maximum recommended bend angle to successfully accommodate

RCVI equipment is 22.5 degrees. In pipes with diameters of 8 and 10 inches, the
camera-crawler cannot be navigated around bends greater than 45 degrees, since the
camera cannot clear the pipe crown as it travels through the bend. If sharper bends are
required in pipes with diameters of 8 and 10 inches, a series of 22.5-degree bends are
recommended. Each bend should be connected to a minimum 5-foot length of pipe to
allow the camera-crawler to navigate around the bend segment and provide adequate
crown clearance. Pipes with diameters of 12 inches or larger can have bends that exceed
22.5 degrees, but drag friction then reduces the cable tether pulling capacity by as much
as 75 percent.
• Invert slope inclination.—The maximum recommended invert slope inclination to

successfully accommodate RCVI equipment is 5 degrees. The difference in invert slope
inclination between flat and 10 degrees can reduce cable tether pulling capacity by as
much as 70 percent depending upon the pipe diameter, degree of pipe bend, and the
invert condition. Invert slopes from 0.01 to about 0.09 (5 degrees) would appear to be
the most reasonable inclination. Slopes greater than 10 degrees are not recommended,
due to the significant loss of traction that occurs when camera-crawlers are pulling long
cable tethers.
• Distance between manholes or access entry locations.—The maximum distance between

manholes or access entry locations can range between 500 and 2,000 feet, but highly
depends upon the pipe diameter, bends, invert slopes, and invert conditions. The
designer will need to take these limitations in account when selecting the appropriate
distance between manholes or access entry locations. In pipes with diameters of 8, 10,
and 12 inches, the maximum distance should not exceed about 1,000 feet. This assumes
that access is available on both ends of the pipe. If access will be only be available on
the downstream end of the pipe, then the maximum distance should be limited to about
500 feet. The graphs at the end of this section provide more information on how pipe
diameter, bends, invert slopes, and invert conditions affect the cable pulling capacity of
camera-crawlers and the maximum distance between manholes or access entry locations.
In pipes with diameters of 15 and 18 inches, the maximum distance should not exceed
about 2,000 feet. This assumes that access is available on both ends of the pipe. If
access will be only be available on the downstream end of the pipe, then the maximum
distance should be limited to about 1,000 feet. The graphs provide more information on
how pipe diameter, bends, invert slopes, and invert conditions affect the cable pulling
capacity of camera-crawlers and the maximum distance between manholes or access
entry locations.
C-9
Figure 3.—Apparatus used for performance testing of

remotely controlled video inspection equipment within
HDPE pipe.
d. Investigation.—The Technical Service Center has a wide variety of remotely

controlled video inspection equipment. A research project was initiated to test the
performance capabilities of the most commonly used equipment.
1. Testing Apparatus.—In June 2002, the TSC’s laboratory construction shop

constructed a testing apparatus. The apparatus was designed to be multifunctional, so it
could be configured to accommodate a variety of pipe diameters, bends, invert slope
inclinations, and invert conditions. Some of the tests required supplemental support
assistance supplied by a small, 1,500-lb capacity boom crane mounted on a truck. Figure 3
shows the testing apparatus.
2. HDPE Pipe.—The HDPE pipe used in the performance testing was N12
solid double walled, manufactured by Advanced Drainage System. This pipe has
corrugations on the exterior and is smooth walled on the interior. It meets the requirements
of AAHSHTO M 294.
Figure 4 shows the pipe and bends for the 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe. The 90-degree
bend was made by joining two 45-degree bends. This joining method is preferred for RCVI
equipment, as it reduces the sharpness of the bend and generally improves the navigation
C-10
Figure 4.—8-in. diameter HDPE pipe and the bends used: (a) a 10-ft length of 8-in. diameter HDPE
pipe; (b) a 22.5° bend; (c) a 45° bend; (d) two 45° bends used to form a 90° bend; (e) a 90° bend
made from joining two 45° bends.
capability of the camera-crawler through the pipe. Although not tested, the 10-inch
diameter pipe would be similar.
Figure 5 shows the pipe and bends for the 15-inch diameter HDPE pipe. The manufacturer
fabricates the 45- and 90-degree bends as a one piece unit. The pipe and bends for the
12- and 18-inch diameter pipes are similar. The fabricated bend is preferred for RCVI
equipment, as it reduces the sharpness of the bend and makes navigation of the
camera-crawler easier through the pipe.
All pipe bends were connected using the manufacturers’ supplied couplers and secured
together using plastic cable ties (figs. 6 and 7).
C-11
Figure 5.—15-in. diameter HDPE pipe and the bends used: (a) a 10-ft length
of 15-in. diameter HDPE pipe; (b) a 22.5° bend; (c) a fabricated 45° bend;
(d) a fabricated 90° bend.
Figure 6.—Manufacturer supplied coupler. Figure 7.—Plastic cable ties used for securing
the pipe bends.
C-12
Figure 8.—The MiniTrac remotely controlled inspection system.
3. RCVI Equipment.—Performance tests were conducted using two types of

camera-crawlers, the MiniTrac and the VersaTrax 150 systems. Each camera-crawler system
consisted of a transport vehicle and a camera. Inuktun Services Ltd. manufactured the
transport vehicles and R.J. Electronics manufactured the cameras.
The MiniTrac system (fig. 8) uses a transport vehicle with two motorized brass track units in
an inline configuration.
The VersaTrax 150 system (fig. 9) uses a transport vehicle with two motorized brass track
units in a parallel configuration.
Individual control units, plugged into a standard 120VAC 60-Hz power source, power the
track units, lights, and cameras. The camera-crawler is connected to the track unit control
by use of the cable tether. The cable tether consists of two 500-foot-long polyurethane
jacketed coaxial cables joined together by a connector assembly. The cable tether feeds the
power and control signals to the transport vehicle, camera, and lights and also returns data
from the sensors to the controllers. The control units for the lights and cameras are
connected directly to the track control unit. Table 1 summarizes the camera-crawler
specifications.
An operator (fig. 10) controls the movement of the camera-crawler’s track units, lights, and
camera.
C-13
Figure 9.—The VersaTrax 150 remotely controlled inspection system.
Figure 10.—Operator controlling the remote inspection equipment.
C-14
Table 12.—Camera-crawler system specifications
Specification MiniTrac—inline VersaTrax 150—parallel
Depth rating (ft) 100 100
Maximum speed (ft/min) 32 32
Operating temperature (°F) 0-120 0-120
Height (in.) 7 15
Length (in.) 62 35
Width (in.) 9 14
Steerable No Yes
4. Performance Tests.—The performance tests were designed to determine how

many linear feet of cable tether the transport vehicle can pull and to determine the
navigability of the camera-crawlers in various pipe configurations.
To simulate conditions normally encountered in performing a video inspection, the cable

tether was laid flat on the ground (which in this case was the asphalt parking lot). While this
method does not exactly match possible coefficients of friction experienced in toe drains, it
was felt that due to the wide variation of invert conditions that typically exist in pipes, this
would be conservative.
The HDPE pipe was positioned on the testing apparatus and secured in place using rubber
bungee cords (fig. 11).
Figure 11.—Bungee cords used to secure the pipe to the testing apparatus.
C-15
Table 2 summarizes the testing variables studied in the performance tests.
Table 13.—Testing variables
Invert Bend
Camera-crawler Material Diameters slopes radius
system type (in.) (degrees) (degrees) Invert conditions
Mini Trac—inline ADS N-12 8 and 12 Flat, 10, 0, 22.5, Dry, slippery, and
and 30 45, 90 gravel
Versa Trax—parallel ADS N-12 15 and 18 Flat,10, 0, 22.5, Dry, slippery, and
and 30 45, 90 gravel
Dish soap (fig. 12) was used on the pipe invert to simulate the slippery conditions that can
develop in toe drain pipes due to bacterial growth and sediment deposition.
A random mixture of fine and coarse aggregates (fig. 13) was used to simulate deposits that
occasionally collect on the inverts of toe drain pipes.
e. Discussion and Results.—
1. Use of Cleats.—Preliminary performance tests were conducted with track belts

supplied by the manufacturer. These track belts have deep rubber lugs. The traction
performance of the transport vehicles using the lug track belts was disappointing. To
Figure 12.—Dish soap used to simulate slippery Figure 13.—Random mixture of fine and coarse
invert conditions. aggregates used to simulate sediment
deposition on the pipe invert.
C-16
improve traction, cleats (fig. 14) were installed into the

track belts. These cleats consisted of two No. 6
stainless steel screws (¾ in. long) drilled through each
lug on the track belt. The pointed tip of each screw
was cut off using a bolt cutter.
Comparative traction performance tests were

conducted using the MiniTrac system. Graphs 1 and 2
show the cable tether pulling capacity of the MiniTrac
system using track belts with and without cleats for a
dry invert with no slope and a 10-degree slope
inclination. For the dry invert, no slope test, the use of
cleated track belts resulted in a cable tether pulling
capacity that was almost twice as much as the
noncleated track belt. However, for the dry invert,
10-degree slope test, the cleated track belts provided
added traction that resulted in almost four times the
cable tether pulling capacity as the noncleated track
belt. No tests were conducted with the VersaTrax 150 Figure 14.—Cleated track belt on the
VersaTrax 150 system.
system, since similar results were expected.
Conclusion: The cleated track belts provided significant added traction over the noncleated
track belts. The added traction using cleated track belts improved cable tether pulling
capacity by as much as four times that of the noncleated track belts. Due to the improved
traction, all subsequent performance tests were conducted using cleated track belts.
2. Pipe Diameter.—These performance tests evaluated the effects of pipe

diameter on RCVI equipment. The size of the pipe diameter determines the type of RCVI
equipment to be used for inspection. Camera-crawlers can be easily configured in the field
for many sizes of pipe diameters.
Performance tests were conducted using the MiniTrac and VersaTrax 150 systems. A variety
of pipe diameters were tested to see what entrance limitations are encountered with the
camera-crawlers. Successful entry into pipes can be limited by the positioning of the lights
and camera on the transport vehicle. Improper positioning of the lights and camera can
result in elimination of the required crown clearance within the pipe. Although
camera-crawlers are available for pipes smaller than 8 inches, they are very limited in cable
tether pulling capacity and generally do not have sufficient traction for use in toe drain
inspection. The MiniTrac system could easily enter all pipes 8 inches or larger (fig. 15). The
VersaTrax system could enter all pipes 15 inches or larger (fig. 16). One caveat to note:
C-17
Figure 15.—The MiniTrac system inside an 8-in. Figure 16.—The VersaTrax 150 system inside
diameter pipe. an 15-in. diameter pipe.
even though a camera-crawler can enter a pipe, other issues such as pipe bends may present
navigation problems. The effects of pipe bends on camera-crawler navigation were
evaluated in other performance tests discussed later in this report.
Conclusion: To allow for more clearance at the pipe crown, the lights can be moved slightly
to other more favorable orientations on the camera. The lights can be held in place by using
hose clamps. Although camera-crawlers are available for pipes smaller than 8 inches, they
are very limited in cable tether pulling capacity and generally do not have sufficient traction
for use in toe drain inspection. In addition, the cameras typically only have a fixed lens and
the transport vehicle is not steerable. Camera-crawlers used in pipes with diameters between
8 and 12 inches generally have cameras with some pan, tilt, and zoom capabilities, but
generally are not steerable. Camera-crawlers used in pipes with diameters of 15 inches or
larger are steerable, have a greater cable tether pulling capacity, and have cameras which can
provide a wider array of optical capabilities including pan, tilt, and zoom.
3. Pipe Bends.—These performance tests evaluated the effects of pipe bends on

RCVI equipment. The following issues were investigated:
• Frictional drag.—Frictional drag on the cable tether is caused when the cable tether is
pulled around the bend by the camera-crawler. The sharper the pipe bend, the more
frictional drag on the cable tether.
C-18
• Clearance.—Stabilization wings (fig. 18) are used on camera-crawlers to provide stability

as it travels through the pipe. These wings are not required in pipes with diameters of
8 inches. However, in pipes with diameters larger than 8 inches, the stabilization wings
are normally used to prevent the camera-crawler from trying to run up the side of the
pipe and turning over onto its side. Pipe bends present navigation problems for
camera-crawlers since the lights and stabilization wings reduce required clearance and
interfere with advancement through the bend.
Performance tests were conducted using the MiniTrac and VersaTrax 150 systems to
evaluate the effects of frictional drag at pipe bends on the cable tether pulling capacity.
For the MiniTrac system, tests were conducted in 8- and 12-inch diameter pipes with pipe
bends of 0, 22.5, 45, and 90 degrees, with invert inclinations of flat and 10-degrees, and with
invert conditions of dry, slippery, and gravel.
Graphs 2, 3, and 4 summarize the results of tests using an 8-inch diameter pipe. The
MiniTrac system could be navigated through 0- and 22.5-degree pipe bends, but cable tether
was significantly reduced by about 15 to 40 percent depending upon the invert slope
inclination and the invert condition. The camera-crawler could not be navigated through a
45-degree pipe bend (fig. 17), since the camera did not clear the pipe crown as it traveled
through the bend. The use of stabilization wings (fig. 18) affects travel through bends
Figure 18.—Stabilization wings used on

the MiniTrac system.
Figure 17.—The MiniTrac system could not be

navigated through a 45° bend in an 8-in. diameter pipe
due to the lack of crown clearance.
C-19
sharper than 22.5-degrees. No bend performance tests were conducted on 10-inch diameter
pipe, since the results were expected to closely match those from the 8-inch diameter pipe.
Graphs 5 and 6 summarize the results of tests using a 12-inch diameter pipe. The MiniTrac
system could be navigated through 0-, 22.5-, 45-, and 90-degree pipe bends, but cable tether
was significantly reduced by 50 to 75 percent depending upon the invert slope inclination
and the invert condition.
For the VersaTrax 150 system, tests were conducted using 15- and 18-inch diameter pipes,
with pipe bends of 0, 22.5, 45, and 90 degrees, invert inclinations of flat and 10-degrees, and
invert conditions of dry, slippery, and gravel.
Graph 7 summarizes the results of tests using a 15-inch diameter pipe. The VersaTrax 150
system could be navigated through 0-, 22.5-, 45-, and 90-degree pipe bends, but cable tether
was significantly reduced by 30 to 40 percent depending upon the invert slope inclination
and the invert condition. The slippery and gravel inverts were not tested for the 15-inch
diameter pipe, since the results were expected to closely match those of the 18-inch diameter
pipe.
Graphs 8, 9, and 10 summarize the results of tests using an 18-inch diameter pipe. The
VersaTrax 150 system could be navigated through 0-, 22.5-, 45-, and 90-degree pipe bends,
but cable tether was significantly reduced by 30 to 60 percent depending upon the invert
slope inclination and the invert condition.
Conclusion: In pipes with diameters of 8 inches, the camera-crawler cannot be navigated

around bends greater than 22.5 degrees, since the camera does not clear the pipe crown as it
travels through the bend. Pipes with diameters 12 inches or larger can have bends that
exceed 22.5 degrees, but the cable tether pulling capacity
is reduced by as much as 30 to 75 percent due to drag
friction.
4. Invert Slope Inclination.—These

performance tests evaluated the effects of invert slope
inclination on RCVI equipment. The degree of invert
slope inclination reduces the amount of cable tether a
camera-crawler can pull due to a loss of traction.
Performance tests were conducted for flat, 10-, and
30-degree invert slopes. Additional traction can be Figure 19.—Lead weight attached to
provided with the addition of lead weights mounted to the VersaTrax 150 system to provide
the frame or track units of the transport vehicle (fig. 19). added traction.
C-20
Graphs 2 through 10 show the effects of flat and

10-degree invert slope inclination for 8-, 12-, 15-,
and 18-inch diameter pipes. In general, invert slope
inclination reduces the amount of cable tether a
transport vehicle can pull by 10 to 70 percent
depending upon the pipe diameter, degree of pipe
bend, and the invert condition. Only the VersaTrax
150 system was able to travel up an invert slope
inclination of 30 degrees. However, due to a
significant loss of traction, only a very short length
of cable tether could be successfully pulled up the
slope. Also, for the 30-degree inclined slope, the
VersaTraz 150 system could only travel up a dry
invert (fig. 20) and could not navigate any pipe
bends.
Conclusion: The difference in invert slope

inclination between flat and 10 degrees can reduce
cable tether by 10 to 70 percent depending upon the
pipe diameter, degree of pipe bend, and the invert
condition. The use of invert slopes in the range of
0.01 to about 0.09 (5 degrees) would appear to be
the most reasonable maximum invert slope
inclination. Slopes greater than 10 degrees are not
Figure 20.—VersaTrax 150 system
recommended due to the significant loss of traction
traveling up a 30-degree dry invert slope.
that occurs when camera-crawlers are pulling long
cable tethers. These performance tests were conducted for inclined invert slopes. Sloping
declines generally do not result in camera-crawler traction issues. Camera-crawlers have a
much greater cable tether pulling capacity on a sloping decline. The transport vehicle has a
free wheeling clutch mechanism on the track unit that allows for high speed retrieval either
manually or by a cable takeup reel. Therefore, no performance tests were conducted for
sloping declines. A designer should consider both downstream and upstream access entry
locations.
5. Invert Conditions.—Invert conditions greatly affect the success of a video

inspection. Invert conditions that reduce traction of the transport vehicle also reduce the
amount of available cable tether. Bacterial growth and sediment deposition are the most
common types of invert conditions. Since slippery invert conditions are more common than
gravel, the performance testing focused on comparing cable tether pulling capabilities on dry
and slippery invert conditions.
C-21
Figure 21.—Example of sediment deposition

encountered during a video inspection of a toe drain.
Figures 21, 22, and 23 show examples of invert conditions that have been encountered
during recent remotely controlled video inspections of toe drains by the Technical Service
Center.
Graphs 2 through 10 show the effects of dry, slippery, and gravel invert conditions for 8-,
12-, 15-, and 18-inch diameter pipes, pipe bends of 0-, 22.5-, 45-, and 90-degree bends, and
Figure 22.—Example of gravel and fines deposition

encountered during a video inspection of a toe drain.
C-22
Figure 23.—Example of bacterial growth encountered

during a video inspection of a toe drain.
Figure 24.—Example of the dry invert condition.
C-23
Figure 25.—Example of the slippery invert condition.
invert slope inclinations of flat and 10 degrees. In general, invert conditions reduced the
amount of cable tether a transport vehicle can pull by 10 to 60 percent depending upon the
pipe diameter, degree of pipe bend, and the invert slope inclination. Figures 24, 25, and 26
show dry, slippery, and gravel invert conditions, respectively.
Figure 26.—Example of the gravel invert condition.
C-24
Conclusion: Slippery and gravel invert conditions can reduce cable tether pulling capacity by
10 to 60 percent compared to dry invert conditions depending upon the pipe diameter,
degree of pipe bend, and the invert slope inclination. Adverse invert conditions generally
occur gradually over time. Periodic cleaning of the pipe can reduce the impacts on cable
tether due to invert conditions.
The effects of flowing water were not modeled as part of this research program due to the
physical limitations of trying to put flowing water through the pipe. However, based on
actual experiences encountered during video inspections of toe drain pipes with flowing
water in them, its presence does not greatly affect tether pulling capacity.
Bibliography
Inuktun Services Ltd, VersaTrax Pipe Inspection System Manual #839, September 2000.
C-25
Graphs of Camera-
Crawler Performance HDPE 8-inch-diameter - dry invert
VersaTrax inline - no cleats
500
Graph 1 No slope
10 degree slope
Curve equation coefficients 400
Cable Tether Pulling Capacity (feet)

No slope:
a = 405.31013000000 300
b = -0.88572100000 No slope: y=a+bx^2+cx^3

c = 0.00878011470 200
10 degree slope: y=a+bx+cx^0.5
10° slope:
a = 90.10236200000 100
b = 1.36118170000
c = -22.43697600000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
Graph 2
HDPE 8-inch-diameter - dry invert
Curve equation coefficients VersaTrax inline - w ith cleats
1000
No slope:
No slope
a = 824.03888000000
b = -0.17866936000 800
10 degree slope
c = 0.01770202400
10° slope: 600

a = 446.90842000000
b = -0.62396908000 No slope: y=a+bx^2.5+cx^3
10 degree slope: y=a+bx^2+cx^2.5
c = 0.05995915900 400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
C-26
Graph 3
HDPE 8-inch-diameter - slippery invert
Curve equation coefficients VersTrax inline - w ith cleats
600
No slope: No slope
a = 571.04876000000 10 degree slope
b = -0.34338478000

c = 0.00003367892
400
10° slope:
a = 361.07671000000
b = -0.49988957000 No slope: y=a+bx^2+cx^4
c = 0.04799311700 200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
Graph 4
HDPE 8-inch-diameter - gravel invert
500
No slope:
No slope
a = 446.90842000000
b = -0.62396908000 400
10 degree slope
c = 0.05995915900
10° slope: 300

a = 271.17391000000
b = -0.23367840000 No slope: y=a+bx^2+cx^2.5
10 degree slope: y=a+bx^2+cx^3
c = 0.00222436930 200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
C-27
Graph 5
600
No slope: No slope
a = 540.26918000000 10 degree slope
b = -0.14719461000

c = 0.01199827900
400
10° slope:
a = 358.42369000000
b = -1.28203750000
c = 0.10203537000 200
No slope: y=a+bx^2+cx^2.5
10 degree slope: y=a+bx^1.5+cx^2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
Graph 6
Curve equation coefficients VersTrax inline - w ith cleats
600
No slope:
No slope
a = 540.11567000000
b = -0.01254663800 10 degree slope
c = -17.76999600000
400
10° slope:
a = 269.21184000000
b = -0.64101875000
c = 0.05101768500
200
No slope: y=a+bx+cx^0.5
10 degree slope: y=a+bx
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
C-28
Graph 7
Curve equation coefficients VersaTrax parallel - w ith cleats
1200
No slope: No slope
a =1009.93020000000 10 degree slope
b = -5.11496080000

1000
c = 0.00221790510
10° slope:
a = 721.55172000000 800
b = -4.30706080000
c = 0.00015893288
600
10 degree slope: y=a+bx+cx^3
400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
Graph 8
1200
No slope:
No slope
a =1009.93020000000
b = -5.11496080000 1000
10 degree slope
c = 0.00221790510
10° slope: 800

a = 729.14087000000
b = -1.28519060000
c = 0.00868130570 600
400
10 degree slope: y=a+bx^1.5+cx^2.5
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
C-29
Graph 9
800
No slope: No slope
a = 699.68875000000 700
10 degree slope
b = -0.00042852570

c = -9.19022890000
600
10° slope:
a = 598.24854000000 500
b = -1.42448610000
c = 0.11337263000 400
300
10 degree slope: y=a+bx+cx^3
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
Graph 10
HDPE 18-inch-diameter - gravel invert
700
No slope:
No slope
a = 598.73047000000
b = -6.22651110000 600
10 degree slope
c = 0.42438920000
10° slope: 500

a = 500.00000000000
b = -2.22222220000
c = 0.00000000000 400
300
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Pipe Bend (degrees)
C-30
C-3—High Pressure Water Jetting Equipment.—The Great Plains Regional Office

of the Bureau of Reclamation purchased a complete high pressure water jetting system in
1998. The system provides the capability of adjusting cleaning pressures and nozzle
configurations to best suit the site conditions. The major pieces of equipment (diesel engine
and pump) can be located remotely from the drains being cleaned. The pump is powered by
a 215-hp diesel engine (figs. 27 and 28) and rated to deliver 15,000 lb/in2 at 22 gal/min at
the pump discharge. Fifteen hundred feet of ½-inch I.D. high pressure hoses in 100- and
50-foot lengths transfer water from the pressure regulator on the pump unit (fig. 29) to the
control apparatus in the drainage tunnels (fig. 30), which regulates flows going into the
drains. A flexible ½-inch I.D. lance hose (fig. 31) is connected to a variety of both rotating
or nonrotating cleaning heads (figs. 32 through 34) in the drains.
A submersible pump, rated at 50 gal/min and 100 lb/in2, supplies water to the water jetting
unit and is double filtered before entering the jetting system (fig. 35). A bypass device
(fig. 36) diverts excess flows from the delivery pump when they are not needed. A portable
electric car wash unit (fig. 37) was also purchased for cleaning the lateral discharge pipes
from concrete dam foundation drains as well as for performing general cleaning of gallery
walls and floors. Figure 38 shows equipment for flushing drains before and after cleaning.
Individual drains are usually isolated and measurements taken before and after drain cleaning
Figure 27.—High pressure water jetting unit used to clean drains. Pump powered
by a 215-hp diesel engine.
C-31
Figure 28.—Trailer supporting pump, tool boxes and diesel engine. The black
hoses are high pressure ½-inch delivery lines. The green coiled hose is the
½-inch flexible lance that is used with the cleaning head down the drain.
Figure 29.—Driller adjusting the pressure regulator between the high pressure
pump and the delivery lines supplying water to the control.
C-32
Figure 30.—Control unit near the drains that

serves as a foot-operated dump valve for Figure 31.—Green flexible lance hose being
releasing pressurized water to the drain cleaning lowered into a drain using the tripod with
head. It is equipped with a gauge for monitoring electric winch that is being used to help retract
pressure at the end of the ½-inch high pressure the cleaning unit from deep, near vertical holes.
supply line coming from the main pump.
(figs. 39 and 40). Videotaping of drain holes before and after cleaning is also important for
evaluating the effectiveness of drain cleaning (fig. 41). The cleaning system is mounted on a
flatbed trailer along with two large tool boxes of sufficient capacity to contain all of the
hoses and other cleaning paraphernalia.
a. Drain Cleaning.—Pump pressures of about 11,000 lb/in2 to 12,000 lb/in2 and a

flow rate of around 20 gal/min are typically used with the equipment. With those settings
and the appropriate cutting head configurations, a good cleaning rate is about 2 to 4 ft/min.
At that rate, nearly all calcium carbonate deposits are removed with only minimal damage to
soft foundation materials, such as limestone. At higher pressures, greater flow rates, and
slower feed rates, softer zones of the foundation are removed in addition to the calcium
carbonate deposits. This can enlarge the diameter of a drain hole by several inches.
C-33
Figure 32.—2¾-inch O.D. rotating cleaning head shown at top, and ¾-inch O.D.
nonrotating sewer cleaning nozzle at the bottom. The top unit has five
replaceable jets of varying sizes to adust flow rates and pressures. Two point
back at 45°. Two point forward at 45°. One is offset from the front at 10°. The
bottom nozzle has 10 predrilled holes. Six are around the outer perimeter and
point straight out. Four point straight out from the front.
The drain cleaning equipment typically takes about a half day to set up, and moving from
hole to hole takes 30 minutes or less if the holes are reasonably close together. There are no
heavy parts to move as with a conventional drill, only a tripod and winch assembly. The
main pump is very noisy, but is located remotely from the drains being cleaned (outside of
the dam for concrete dam foundation drains). Inside a confined space, such as a drainage
gallery, the noise is minimal and earplugs are not required.
The long stiff hoses used to deliver water from the pump to the drain holes need to be
protected from excessive abrasion caused by constant vibration and need to be manipulated
to avoid kinking. Initial selection of the appropriate settings and video observation to avoid
hole damage at the start of each job or after significant setting changes are time consuming.
Spot checking during drain cleaning with a video camera should be performed to make sure
no unacceptable changes occur because of changes in the rock being cleaned.
The total cost for cleaning 3-inch diameter concrete dam foundation drains with this
equipment at Reclamation dams has ranged from about $6 to $12 a foot.
b. Cost of the Water Jetting Equipment.—Total cost of all equipment purchased for
cleaning and monitoring was approximately $129,722 (1998 costs), itemized as follows:
C-34
Figure 33.—Front view of the rotating cleaning head, showing the opposing side
jets pointing forward at 45° and the offset front jet pointing forward at 10°.
Jet washer unit $92,128

Tripod and winch 6,530
Electric car washer 1,005
Submersible pump 805
Generator 2,432
Flatbed trailer 4,430
Tool boxes 798
Packers 700
Safety items 1,009
Down-hole camera equipment 19,885
Total $129,722
Most of the cost was included in the initial purchase of the jet washer unit and the down-
hole camera equipment. The remainder of the items were purchased as needed.
As part of the purchase price, the supplier of the high pressure water jetting equipment was
required to provide a company representative for 2 days of training involving setup and
familiarization with equipment, and safe hands-on operation using Reclamation drill crew
personnel.
c. Safety.—Personal protective equipment had previously been purchased and

checked out. It consisted of hard hats with face shields, heavy gloves, and steel-toed boots,
C-35
with personnel actually running the lance into the drains wearing steel-toed rubber mine
boots. Waterproof rain suits were purchased, but generally proved unnecessary.
The high pressure cleaning unit has the potential to do serious damage to both personnel
and structures. Safety issues are of utmost concern. A job hazard analysis should be
developed for the particular work site. A Reclamation Industrial Hygienist has written a
specific safety procedures booklet for the high pressure water jetting unit. Because of the
significant safety issues, untrained personnel should not be allowed to operate this
equipment.
C-36
Figure 34.—Front view of nonrotating sewer cleaning nozzle. One predrilled hole
points straight forward from the center. Three other predrilled evenly spaced
holes point straight forward from the beveled portion. This cleaning head is used
for flushing with pressures of less than 2,000 lb/in2.
Figure 35.—Double filter system for cleaning the water entering the high pressure
pump. Clean water prolongs the life of the pump, cleaning jets, and nozzles.
The filters are changed at least daily—more often if the water source is dirty.
C-37
Figure 36.—Bypass device used to divert all or part of the flow from the supply
pump when the flow is not being used.
Figure 37.—Portable electric car wash unit used for cleaning the lateral discharge
pipes from the drains. It is capable of producing 2.1 gal/min at 1,200 lb/in2.
C-38
Figure 38.—Electric pump, garden hose, and flush-jointed PVC used to

flush drains before making an initial down-hole video examination. Water
was obtained by placing a temporary dam in the nearby drainage gutter.
Figure 39.—Portable air tank and pneumatic packers to take before and
after cleanout drain flow measurements. The small packer closes the end
of the lateral discharge pipe, and the larger packer with the elbow pipe
extension goes in at the top of the drain.
C-39
Figure 40.—Individual drain flow measurement being recorded.
Figure 41.—Down-hole video equipment used to determine the

condition of the drains before and after cleaning.
C-40
C-4—Drilling Equipment for Drains in Limited Access Areas.—For many years,

Reclamation drill crews have used small portable drills to drill holes and clean drains in
tunnels, drainage galleries, outlet works, spillways, and other areas having restricted or
confined spaces. The drills are of necessity small and lightweight, use short rods and barrels
and a variety of bits, depending on the individual job, and are usually powered by air or
electricity. The power supply often must be located at a considerable distance from the drill
site to meet acceptable air quality standards. Most of the drilling has been limited to hole
diameters of less than 4 inches and maximum depths of less than 150 feet.
Success rates of the drilling operations using these types of equipment have been quite
erratic. Most of the drills are slow and of limited power and capabilities. Historically, very
poor documentation has been made of drilling rates and the costs for operations using these
types of equipment.
Five different types of portable drills are presented here. No endorsement of specific drills
or drill manufacturers is intended. These drills are presented because of the familiarity that
Reclamation drill crews have gained in using these drills. Each drill is described separately.
Drills may be available or may become available in the future which are better suited for a
given application than those presented.
Drilling rates and costs are presented based on recent experience at Pueblo Dam, where two
of the drills were used.
a. Drill Types.—
• Longyear 65 Diamond Core Drill.—This drill has long been a standard for drilling in
confined or poorly accessible spaces. It is a single-column-mounted, screw feed drill
with an “E” size quill rod powered by an attached 20-hp rotary air motor. The motor
requires at least 90 lb/in2 of air at 250 ft3/min from a 2-inch diameter supply line. The
drill has a pneumatic rod puller and is light enough (about 200 lb) to be carried by two
people with difficulty, or it can be disassembled into even lighter pieces. It mounts on a
3-inch diameter single column with a swivel-knuckle that allows for angle drilling in a
360° radius. Drill water is supplied through a water swivel at the top of the quill rod.
The drill is rated to a maximum depth of 300 feet, using NX size tools. Larger sizes are
not recommended. It has a stroke of 2 feet and a manual chuck.
The Longyear 65 drill is a very common drill that is highly adaptable to many drilling
situations, and because of the good torque and down-hole pressure capability, it is a
good choice for drilling new holes. The main disadvantage is that the screw feed does
not allow for varying the feed rate without changing the speed of the bit rotation. It is a
very dependable but slow drill.
C-41
• Hilti DD 250E Diamond Core Drill.—This is an electrically powered, column-mounted

drill on a portable stand. The power unit is a 115-volt, 20-ampere electric motor that is
designed to use a masonry bit or hole saw. This drill may be modified to use standard
core bits up to 6 inches in diameter. Drill water is supplied through a water swivel
between the motor and bit. The motor mounting bracket slides over a square column
that is bolted to a base plate, which in turn is bolted with cinch anchors to the surface to
be drilled. The driller applies up or down pressure through the use of a rack and pinion
manual feed. The drill also has a swivel mount for drilling angle holes up to horizontal.
The Great Plains and Pacific Northwest Regional drill crews use this drill regularly. It is
an excellent drill if used for the proper purposes. It is light in weight (approximately
125 lb fully assembled) and can be moved, set up, and operated by one person. One
three-man crew can easily operate two of these drills simultaneously. Without
modification, they can drill large diameter concrete cores by using a thin kerf hole saw.
Retrieval of core is accomplished by drilling to the depth desired or limit of the bit,
removing the bit from the hole, breaking the core with a wedge, and then going back
over the core with a core lifter and pulling it from the hole. Drilling core sizes over 6
inches in diameter is not recommended, although concrete cores of up to 10 inches in
diameter have been drilled. The manufacturer supplies accessories that allow for drilling
above horizontal angles. This drill is slow and of limited power.
• Jet Rock Drill.—This model JRD-40R-1 drill is a very small (41 lb) air-powered unit
designed to be hand held. It was modified to be swivel mounted on one of masonry drill
columns described above. A water swivel was fitted between the motor and the bit. The
drill was recently used in a spiral staircase area at Pueblo Dam where access for a larger
drill was prohibited. It was used to clean “N” size drill holes that were up to 65.2 feet
deep. The use of the drill at Pueblo Dam was far past its design capacity. As a
consequence, numerous problems developed with the drill shaft twisting off, the water
swivel breaking, and the air vanes in the motor shearing. A drill of this type should be
limited to use in cleaning small, shallow holes. It is not designed for coring operations.
• Sprague and Henwood Core Drill.—The Mid-Pacific Regional drill crew owns the Sprague
and Henwood core drill. It is an air powered, double-column-mounted, hydraulic feed
core drill with a 2-foot stroke. Water is supplied through a swivel at the top of the quill,
which can be any size drill rod from “E” through “B”. Rods are added or removed from
the drill string either by removing the water swivel each time or by breaking the drill rods
under the manual chuck. The air motor requires a 2-inch air supply line with
450 ft3/min at 90 lb/in2 of air. The feed rates are controlled by a hydraulic control
system that is separate from the air motor used to turn the drill rods. This arrangement
allows the driller to vary the feed rate or the rotation rate independent of each other to
better adapt to changing drilling conditions. The drill is capable of drilling holes ranging
C-42
in size from “E” to at least 6 inches in diameter. It is rated to a depth of 200 feet, using
“N” size equipment.
A modified skid was constructed that attached to the double columns and enabled the
driller to move the whole drill short distances without disassembling it. The skid mount
still allowed the rig to be used for angle hole drilling, and be either bolted down at hole
sites or held in place by screw jacks on top of the columns. The drill was moved from
site to site on pipe rollers placed under the skids.
This drill is not really powerful enough to quickly drill new holes of “N” size or larger.
Major disadvantages are its weight of over 500 lb fully assembled (or broken down into
approximately 200-lb maximum size parts), the need for having two or more people to
move and set up the equipment, and the requirement of a large air compressor for the air
supply. This drill is no longer available from the manufacturer.
• Diamec 232 E Drill.—The Great Plains Regional drill crew purchased the Atlas Copco
Diamec 232 E core drill in early 2001. The drill was put into immediate service coring
new holes to inspect and sample lift lines in Pueblo Dam. The Diamec 232 E is an
electrically driven, all hydraulic drill, which may be set up as three separate components.
The drill components include the core drill, the operator's control panel, and the power
unit. A skid-mounted electric water pump is included with the system, but other water
supplies could be used.
The drill component features an A-size hydraulic chuck with a maximum axial holding
torque of 6,600 lbf, and a rod holder with a maximum holding force of 2,700 lbf. The
maximum feed beam, down-hole pressure is 3,400 lbf pulling and 4,500 lbf pushing.
The rod running speed is 2.6 ft/s traveling in and 3.3 ft/s traveling out. The rotation
unit is variable speed, ranging from 550 to 2,200 r/min under load, and has a maximum
torque of 6,600 lbf. The drill may be mounted on either a single column mount or an
adjustable, skid-type, 180° mounting frame. Between the two mounting types, and the
hydraulic operation, the drill can operate oriented in virtually any direction.
The operator's control panel includes a system pressure gauge, a feed pressure gauge, a
flush water pressure gauge, a feed force control valve, and a rod holder control valve. In
typical usage, the control panel may be positioned between the other two components
and separated, by use of hydraulic lines, from the other components by a distance of up
to 20 feet. This separation allows the operator a clear view of the drill and hole collar
while remaining a safe distance from both the core drill—important when drilling up and
collared in fractured material—and the power unit, allowing some noise buffer between
the operator and the equipment.
C-43
The power unit is the heaviest component, weighting 507 lb. The effects of moving this
weight are greatly reduced by mounting on a manufacturer-supplied, skid-type frame that
incorporates three wheels. The power unit consists of a 20-hp motor that operates on
60 Hz at 440-volt, 3-phase electric power. By use of compatible #6 AWG wiring rated
at 72 amps, the power unit may be tethered over 750 feet from an acceptable power
source. The power unit operates at a 71 dB sound power emission while an equally
powered diesel unit operates at 110.8 dB.
The advantages of this drill are speed, power, noise level, and versatility. Disadvantages
include slow set up and difficulty in initial insertion into a gallery or other restricted or
confined space.
b. Drill Rods, Core Barrels, and Bits.—Drill rods, core barrels, and bits are made in a
variety of sizes. Three basic sizes are used for the drills discussed here: “E,” which has a
diameter of about 1.47 inches; “A,” which has a diameter of about 1.89 inches; and “N,”
which has a diameter of about 2.97 inches. These sizes are approximate and vary slightly
from one manufacturer to another. The other designations for drill rods, such as W or WJ,
indicate the type of threads. The following drill rods, core barrels, and bits were used with
the four types of portable drills discussed above.
• Longyear 65 Diamond Core Drill.—This drill uses an “E” quill rod with three threads per
inch. From that rod, Great Plains Regional drill crews have substituted “AW” rods,
“AWJ” rods, “NW” rods, or “NWJ” rods, depending on the job. The Great Plains
Region presently has about 165 feet of “AWJ” rods in 1-, 2-, and 5-foot lengths for use
with these small drills.
These various rod sizes can be used to substitute a likewise variable group of barrels or
solid “plug” bits, depending on the objective of the individual job. For most of the core
drilling, 5-foot or shorter “N” series barrels have been used. For drain cleaning, where
no core is required, some type of “N” size plug bit to fit the existing holes has generally
been used.
• Hilti DD 250E Diamond Core Drill.—This drill uses 1¼-inch masonry drill rods with
7 threads per inch that screw into a variety of masonry bits and hole saws ranging in size
from about 1½ to 10 inches O.D. The drill can also use other types of rods and core
barrels, but is too underpowered to use them effectively.
• Jet Rock Drill.—This drill is restricted to substituting “AWJ” rods attached to either an
“N” size core barrel for coring (with very limited success), or an “N” size plug bit or a
215/16-inch rock bit for drain cleaning.
C-44
• Sprague and Henwood Core Drill.—This drill can use any of the previously mentioned rods,
barrels, and bits but is not recommended for use with masonry bits.
• Diamec 232 E Drill.—Reclamation's experience with this drill has been recent. To date,
the drill has been used with “AWJ” rods, and “N” series core barrels. Any “N” series bit
can be used with this drill. The Great Plains Region plans to use this drill with a 6-inch
diameter core barrel.
c. Drilling Rates and per Foot Costs.—No detailed records are available documenting
former drilling programs using small, portable drills. Drilling rate data were obtained from
the recent drain cleaning at Pueblo Dam, where detailed records were kept of the activities
of the jet rock drill and the Sprague and Henwood core drill. The two drills were utilized in
areas having vastly different access problems, but similar drilling conditions.
The jet rock drill was used exclusively for cleaning shallow “N” size holes in a vertical spiral
staircase area that was too small for almost any other type of drill. A crew of 2 people
cleaned 29 angle holes averaging 54 feet deep (a total of 1,552 ft) over a period of 21 shifts
of 10 hours each. Part of this time involved removing and replacing stairs and repairing the
drill, which was sadly mismatched for the job. The drilling progress rate amounted to
approximately 74 feet per shift, or 7.4 feet per hour. Based on the proportion of total labor
and total job cost, the jet rock drill costs about $24.81 per foot to operate (not including the
cost of numerous repairs).
The Sprague and Henwood core drill was used to clean 83 “N” size vertical holes averaging
99.5 feet deep (a total of 8,260.7 ft) in the main gallery at Pueblo Dam. Access was good
with no tunnel invert obstructions, and the fully assembled drill was moved from hole to
hole on small rollers made of pipe placed under the skids. Two crew members ran the rig
and worked 10 hour shifts. The drill ran mostly trouble-free. The progress rate for this drill
over a period of 39 shifts was 212 feet per shift or about 21 feet per hour. This amounted to
a cost of approximately $8.66 per foot.
The total job cost was $110,000 for 9,812 feet of drain cleaning of “N” size holes that were
partially encrusted with mostly calcium carbonate. This produced an overall cost of
approximately $11.21 per foot using the two drills.
d. Conclusions and Recommendations.—None of the five types of small portable drills

used by the Bureau of Reclamation drill crews and discussed here has proven to be the
“perfect” drill for every job. Probably no such drill exists, because each job seems to be very
site specific with its own individual problems. For those places where it can be used, the
Diamec 232 E rig is by far the best choice, especially when it comes to the speed of drilling.
The Longyear 65 is probably the most versatile with regards to accessability and adaptability
C-45
but is very slow, because it does not have a separate feed control. Both the Hilti DD 250E
Diamond core drill and the jet rock drill have very limited applications. The Longyear and
Sprague and Henwood drills are no longer being manufactured, and repairs may soon
become a problem.
A good drill for drilling or cleaning drains would be a small, electrically powered, skid- or
column-mounted drill capable of drilling at any angle. For use in tunnels with remote access
and no electric power source, the drill should have a separate skid- or trailer-mounted, diesel
generator power unit complete with scrubber. The generator should have enough capacity
to run not only the drill, but also lights and circulation fans. The requirement could cause
the generator to be too large for reasonable use, so other options may have to be considered.
The drill should have a hydraulic feed control separate from the power unit so quick
advancement can be made through those portions of drain holes where little or no blockage
is encountered. An electrically powered drill is preferred, because it is much quieter than an
air-powered one, and does not require the double hearing protection now necessary with an
air drill like the Longyear 65.
For drill rods to be used with the small portable drills, “AWJ” rods in 1-, 2-, and 5-foot
lengths work very well. They are light in weight yet sufficiently strong, short enough to
work in small tunnels, and screw together easily because of their tapered ends.
C-46
C-5—Guidance on Sampling, Transportation, and Analysis of Materials in

Drains.—The topic of monitoring seepage sediments in dams is a reoccurring one.
Examples of sediments that may be present in a drain are soils, clay to sand size sediments,
biological growths and films, and precipitates.
Investigators often need guidance to estimate costs and specify sampling procedures for dam
safety monitoring programs. Without guidance, investigators may sample critical material
and handle it inappropriately, which requires resampling and loss of time and resources. The
brief guidance in this appendix provides advice on how to effectively determine what is
fouling a drain. This appendix includes a discussion of drain inspections, materials,
sampling, transportation, and testing.
This appendix should be used as a practical guide. It should not be considered complete or
a definitive dissertation on microbiology and sampling.
a. Inspections.—It is likely that deposited materials will be discovered in drains during

operation and maintenance (O&M) inspections and activities. The Dam Safety Office, the
Technical Service Center (TSC), and regional and area offices conduct dam inspections
within the Bureau of Reclamation as part of Comprehensive Facility Reviews (CFRs) and
Periodic Facility Reviews (PFRs). Annual Facility Inspections are performed in years in
which a CFR or PFRs are not scheduled. Drain inspections are typically performed using
closed circuit television (CCTV) equipment.
If deposited materials are present, they will be revealed during inspections or monitoring of
the drain. The sampling will typically be scheduled for a later date or routine O&M
activities. Instructions to O&M personnel should be clear and concise. Figures 42 to 53
contain photographs that show examples of biofouling, biofilms, bacterial growths,
mineralization, sediments, and vegetation found in drains during inspections.
b. Material typically found in drains.—
1. Sediments.—Sediments may be transported in seepage and collected at outfalls

and drain outlets. Sediments may be evidence of piping or internal erosion of a structure,
which may have serious structural consequences. Evidence of erosion of dam or foundation
materials surrounding a drain requires immediate attention. Continued erosion could result
in partial or complete dam failure. If piping is suspected, a sample of the suspected eroding
material should be collected by drilling or excavation. This is to allow the potential parent
material to be compared to the drain sediment.
Samples of any significant or unusual buildup of sediments in a drain should be

petrographically examined to provide evidence for piping with in the dam or foundation.
C-47
Figure 42.—The manhole shows an example of Figure 45.—The weep hole shows an example of
biofouling sulfur (yellow) and phosphorous (white) related
biofilm.
Figure 43.—The weep shows an example of a Figure 46.—The weir shows an example of
sulfate (black) related biofilm biofouling.
Figure 44.—The outlet shows an example of Figure 47.—The bacterial growth is partially
biofouling. covering the inside of 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe.
C-48
Figure 48.—Bacterial grow is shown completely Figure 51.—Calcium carbonate precipitate was
covering the 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe. observed covering the 18-inch pipe interior
about 60 ft upstream of the outfall exit portal of
a toe drain.
Figure 49.— Bacterial grow is shown completely

covering the 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe. Figure 52.—Sediments were observed fouling the
invert portion of a 12-inch diameter HDPE pipe.
Figure 50.—Bacterial growth is shown covering Figure 53.—Vegetative growth shown fouling
the 8-inch diameter HDPE pipe invert. 8-inch-diameter HDPE pipe.
C-49
This type of examination is most effective if accompanied by a sample of material from the
suspected source or sources of the parent material. This may require that samples of several
additional materials be sampled.
2. Mineralization and encrustations.—The accumulation of minerals deposited in a

drain or the material surrounding a drain hinders water from exiting or being removed from
a structure. An excellent discussion of mineralization and encrustation and groundwater
constituents can be found in the Ground Water Manual [1] and Driscoll [2].
3. Biofilms and drains.—Biofilms are composed of populations or communities of

microorganisms adhering to surfaces. These microorganisms form slimelike mats, which
bacteria adhere to. The fouling caused by biofilms is called biofouling. Biofilms may be
found on essentially any surface in which sufficient moisture is present. Their development
is most rapid in low flowing systems, where adequate nutrients are available, for example,
drains. The following is a discussion of some biofilms that affect drains:
• Iron-related bacteria.—Bacterially rich organic slimes commonly observed in Reclamation

structures are composed of iron-related bacteria. Iron-related bacteria films can be sticky
and cause drain blockage. Any of the following symptoms suggests the presence of
iron-related bacteria or other microflora:
N Orange, red, brown, and black colored slime
N Slimy deposits blocking main lines and laterals
N Unpleasant odor in water
N Slimy, rusty deposits in water collection systems
N Severe staining on concrete surfaces
N Oil like films on surface water
N White flocking, like finely shredded tissue paper, floating in water
Iron-related bacteria are a diverse group of microorganisms widely distributed in

nature. They are found naturally in fresh and salt waters and in soils. Iron bacteria
are a nuisance microorganism capable of transforming dissolved iron and manganese
to an insoluble form that can cause severe fouling and plugging in pipes, plumbing,
well pumps, treatment plants, and distribution systems.
C-50
They tend to grow much faster and in greater quantities when the temperature rises
in a drain or when exposed to air. The result of the iron bacteria converting soluble
iron, from a soluble state (Fe2+), to the insoluble form (Fe3+), is referred to as “red
water.” It is in this stage that iron and manganese become deposited on the outside
of the bacteria cell sheaths and the slimes they produce. The bacteria cell sheaths
and slimes become encrusted with iron and manganese.
• Other microflora that may be found in drains and wells.—
N Sulfate-reducing bacteria.—Sulfate-reducing bacteria live in oxygen-deficient water.

They reduce sulfur compounds, producing hydrogen sulfide gas in the process.
Hydrogen sulfide gas is foul-smelling and highly corrosive. Sulfate-reducing
bacteria are more common than iron bacteria. The most obvious sign of a sulfur
bacteria problem is the distinctive “rotten egg” odor of hydrogen sulfide gas.
The bacteria respire oxygen in sulfate ion and create hydrogen sulfide gas.
Sulfate-reducing bacteria occur in waters where oxygen is absent and sufficient
dissolved organic materials are present [3].
Iron bacteria may coexist with sulfate-reducing bacteria. Iron bacteria and
sulfate-reducing bacteria contamination are often difficult to tell apart,
because the symptoms are similar. Sulfate-reducing bacteria often live in
complex symbiotic relationships with iron bacteria, so both types may be
present.
N Sulfur-oxidizing bacteria.—Sulfur-oxidizing bacteria require oxygen to grow and

convert sulfides to sulfuric acid or hydrogen sulfide to sulfates. They can be
colorless, purple, or green.
N Algae.—Algae are small single or simple multicellular plantlike organisms that

grow in the presence of light by photosynthesis. Algae occur in shallow wells or
drains where there are adequate nutrients.
N Heterotrophic bacteria.—Heterotrophic bacteria are able to utilize organic materials

as their principle source of energy and carbon for survival, growth, and synthesis.
c. Sampling.—During the course of an inspection, it may be determined that drains

are plugged, or deposition of material in outfall or seeps is reducing the effectiveness of
drains or otherwise causing a problem. Good digital photographs can help the field office
and laboratory personnel communicate.
C-51
A sampling plan should be developed by those who conduct drain maintenance in

consultation with project engineers and field personnel. A discussion of the problem and
how to implement the plan will help define the critical issues before sampling, so appropriate
analyses can be made by the proper personnel. Often, the issue is how much sample needs
to be collected or under what conditions should the sample be shipped to provide the
analyst with what he or she needs to conduct an effective analysis.
Information provided with submitted samples should include a clear statement defining:
• The problem and/or what information is sought
• Names of Project, Area, Region, and/or Technical Service Center personnel familiar
with the problem
• Sample location information including amount and location of the deposit
• Knowledge of the type of material previously taken from drains, if known
• Any other relevant data
• The required deadline for results.
Appropriate personnel in the Technical Service Center or your contract laboratory should be
contacted with any questions concerning type, quantity, selection, preparation, and shipment
of representative samples. Submitted samples should be representative of the material
intended for analyses. The analyst should be able to provide a complete cost estimate for
the recommended work to be performed.
Upon arrival of samples in the laboratory, the analyst will determine which tests are to be
performed based on the purpose of the examination and previous communication with
project personnel. Photographs of submitted samples will be provided upon request.
Because more than one analysis may be performed on a sample, enough material for each
procedure should be submitted.
• Inorganic material.—If the material contaminating the drain appears to be sediments

(mineral and soil material), then no special precautions are usually needed regarding
holding times.
Every effort should be made to obtain a representative sample, that is, a sample or
group of samples selected to typify the larger population.
C-52
If laboratory identification of a precipitate is required, a representative sample, at

least 1 teaspoon or 50 grams, should be sent to a qualified laboratory for
examination. Typically, calcium carbonate deposits can be easily identified by
application of a mixture of 3:1 distilled water to hydrochloric acid as described in
Reclamation's Engineering Geology Field Manual [4, p. 43]. Calcium carbonate is also
easily and inexpensively determined by microscopic examination.
Water carrying suspended sediments can be sampled by taking a water sample. The
sample should be a sufficient volume to allow at least 1 teaspoon or 50 grams of
sediment to settle.
Excessive amounts or unusual materials in a drain may require a sample. Ensure that
all particle sizes are represented by taking a sample large enough to ensure an
adequate population of all particle sizes. If only a limited amount of material is
available, take everything. If abundant material is available, an average sample can be
assembled by taking a scoop from 30 different parts of the sample to yield a
representative sample free of grouping and segregation error.
Reclamation's Concrete Manual, designation 7 [5, p. 511], offers guidance on the

amount of material required with respect to particle size. A typical sand sample, with
particle sizes ranging from 0.074 to 4.75 mm, should weigh about 500 grams (1 lb) or
equal about a pint of material. The weight or volume requirement increases with
increasing particle size.
• Organic material.—If the material contaminating the drain is suspected to be organic, an

analyst should be contacted in advance of field sampling to ensure the sample is properly
handled and preserved so that it survives the trip to the laboratory undamaged. Usually,
the analyst recommends that the organic material sample is placed in a clean container,
transported in an insulated picnic cooler with sealed “blue ice” containers, and shipped
to the laboratory as soon as possible to reduce the holding time. Planning should
include making sure a qualified analyst is on duty to accept the shipment. About 500 mL
(1 pint) of fresh material is required for a positive identification. The TSC’s Ecological
Research and Investigations Group analyzes and identifies organic material.
Water samples should be collected in clean, 500-mL nalgene bottles using aseptic
techniques, placed in an iced cooler, and shipped immediately to the laboratory.
Collect the samples early in the work week so the water can be cultured upon arrival.
Biofilms and slimes should also be collected in clean, nalgene bottles or stout plastic
bags using aseptic techniques and placed in an iced cooler and shipped immediately
C-53
to the laboratory. Collect the samples early in the work week so the water can be
microscopically examined upon arrival.
Description of aseptic technique for sampling water.—Have latex gloves and isopropyl
alcohol on hand. After putting on gloves, wash hands and sample bottle and top
with some alcohol. Open the sample bottle as close to the sampling location as
possible, taking care not to contaminate the bottle top by facing the cap in the
bottom-up position or leaving the cap off for excessive time, to reduce the chance of
airborne bacterial contamination. Triple rinse the bottle with sample water then fill
the bottle with sample water and cap. Label each bottle with the sample location
and place in cooler. If requested in advance, the Ecological Research and
Investigations Group will prepare a cooler with sample bottles and send it to the
collection site.
d. Transportation.—
1. Transporting inorganic materials to the Laboratory.—Ship the samples by any

reasonable means in a competent container directly to your contract laboratory or the
Bureau of Reclamation Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory Group (call for current
laboratory location):
Earth Sciences and Research Laboratory Group

Mail code D-8340
Denver Federal Center
6th and Kipling
Denver CO 80225
303-445-2329
2. Transporting organic materials to the Laboratory.—As soon as possible, store the

labeled samples in a picnic cooler. Use sealed “blue ice” cartridges to chill the cooler and
samples. Ship the samples OVERNIGHT EXPRESS directly to the Bureau of Reclamation
Ecological Research and Investigations Group (ERIG) (call for current laboratory location)
or your contract laboratory. It is necessary to contact the analyst prior to sampling and
shipment to insure the sample is properly received in the laboratory.
Ecological Research and Investigations Group

Mail code D-8220
Denver Federal Center
6th and Kipling
Denver CO 80225
303-445-2200
C-54
e. Testing of materials.—
1. Inorganic materials.—Soil and soil-like materials from drains are petrographically

examined to determine mineralogical composition, organic fraction, and origin usually for
documentation purposes. Soil and soil-like material in a drain is analyzed to identify the
mineralogical composition and to detect the presence of minerals and rock types that
determine origin, occurrence, and history of the sample. If a sample of the construction or
foundation material surrounding the drain or suspected to be the source material is
submitted for examination, the samples can be compared for common mineralogical
composition. Note that the suspected source material may not be adjacent to the drain, but
may be located farther upstream.
The petrographic examination of soils generally includes a description of the submitted

sample and a determination of the mineralogical composition and estimated volume
percentages.
The soil and soil-like material analysis results can be applied to the material in the field only
to the extent that the submitted sample represents that material.
2. Organic materials.—Two approaches are generally considered. One is to

sample the water that has passed over the biofilm using aseptic techniques to reduce sample
contamination. The second technique is to remove some of the slime or biofilm from the
original site for microscopic examination.
The ERIG laboratory performs bacterial activity reaction tests and light microscope
examinations. The ERIG laboratory performs analytical testing for water, solid samples, and
hazardous wastes, research and special studies to solve environmental, operation and
maintenance, and engineering problems.
f. Bibliography.—
[1] Bureau of Reclamation, Ground Water Manual, second edition, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, 1995.
[2] Driscoll, F.G, Groundwater and Wells, second edition, Johnson Division, St. Paul,
Minnesota, 1986.
[3] Cullimore, D.R., Practical Manual of Groundwater Microbiology, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
Michigan, 1992.
C-55
[4] Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering Geology Field Manual, second edition, Denver,
Colorado, 1991.
[5] Bureau of Reclamation, Concrete Manual, eighth edition, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington DC, 1981.
g. Further references.—
Ford, H.W., Iron Ochre and Related Sludge Deposits in Subsurface Drain Lines, Florida Cooperative
Extension Service, Circular 671, 1993. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_AE026
Hem, J.D., Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, third edition,
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2254, 1985.
Lennox, J.E., A Manual of Biofilm Related Exercises, A Biofilm Primer

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/e/jel5/biofilms/primer.html
McCook, D.K., White Paper on the Impacts of Aging of Seepage Control/Collection System Components
on Seepage Performance, ASDSO/FEMA, 2000.
University of Alaska Fairbanks, Water Treatment Plant, Iron Bacteria

http://www.uaf.edu/fs/water/ironbact.html
C-56

Drain Dam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drain Dam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drain Dam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drainage for Dams

United States Department of the Interior

Technical Service Center

United States Department of the Interior

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage,

The information contained in this document regarding commercial products

Chapter 2—Drain Design and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Chapter 3—Drain Installation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Chapter 4—Drain Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

b. Well Cleaning Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter 5—Monitoring and Maintaining Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

d. Relief Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Appendix A—Design/Analysis Examples

1 Permeability coefficients for typical rocks and soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

1 Forces used in stability analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

16 Appurtenant structures—Drilled and formed drains (sometimes referred to as

42 Typical flow net for a rock slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

72 Discharge rates for relief well 14 at Senator Wash Dam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

107 Accumulation of sediments has resulted in plugging of the pipe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

1-1. Purpose of Drains.—Drains are provided in dams, in dam foundations, in certain

b. Embankment Dams.—Embankment dams and foundations are not totally

• Piping or Internal Erosion.—Piping or internal erosion involves the progressive removal of

c. Spillways and Outlet Works.—Drains beneath and/or adjacent to appurtenant

e. Tunnels.—The purpose of drains in tunnels is to relieve groundwater pressures

1. Foundation Drains.—Foundation drains, typically drilled in a fixed pattern of

2. Formed Drains.—Formed drains are placed within the mass of a concrete

3. Prefabricated Drains.—Prefabricated drains are generally used at structural

1. Blanket Drains.—A blanket drain is a horizontal or inclined layer of sand and

2. Toe Drains.—Toe drains are designed as a downstream extension of the

3. Downstream Drainage Trenches.—Downstream drainage trenches running parallel

4. Relief Wells.—Relief wells are used to reduce artesian pressure in a confined

5. Drainage Tunnels.—Drainage tunnels from which a series of drain holes can be

6. Semihorizontal Drain Borings.—Semihorizontal drain borings can be made into

7. Surface Drains.—Surface drains in groins, along abutments, at the toe of a dam

• Structure underdrains.—Structure underdrains collect seepage at the interface between

• Prefabricated drains.—Prefabricated drains (such as “flat drains”) are self-contained

an embankment or rockfill impoundment structure, such as dams, dikes, levees, or

• Free draining backfill.—Free draining (pervious) backfill adjacent to walls is a common

1. Horizontal or Angled Drains.—This is the most common method of

2. Dewatering Wells.—Wells can also be used to depressurize slopes, although

3. Drainage Adits.—Drainage adits are typically constructed parallel to the face of

4. Surface Drains.—Surface drains typically consist of ditches or trenches at the

Figure 1.—Forces used in stability analysis.

Figure 3.—Piping through the embankment leads to the failure of a dam.

Figure 4.—Example blowout calculation.

Figure 5.—Appurtenant structures—Examples of damage/failure due to inadequate drainage

Figure 6.—Typical foundation drain layout.

Figure 7.—Abutment drainage adit and foundation drains.

Figure 8.—Details of abutment drainage adit and foundation

Figure 10.—Formed and foundation drain layout.

Figure 12.—Formed drain details for RCC buttress.

Figure 13.—Embankment dam drains.

b. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary spillway,

c. Costilla Dam spillway, New Mexico.—Typical

d. Costilla Dam spillway, New Mexico.—Typical

e. Costilla Dam spillway, New Mexico.—

b. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary spillway, c. Stewart Mountain Dam auxiliary

d. Typical drainage feature (lateral and longitudinal)

e. Typical drainage feature