Hansen_final.

qxd:ARTICLE TEMPLATE 19/6/08 15:35 Page 2

Design considerations for

small RCC dams
K.D. Hansen, Schnabel Engineering, USA
The design of small dams constructed of roller compacted concrete (RCC) can be more challenging than
the design of a much larger RCC dam. This is especially true when the design engineer has a restricted
budget for design and construction of the dam.

S
mall RCC dams may be a misnomer. By defini-
tion, a small RCC dam is one that is less than 15
m high. Some of these low dams can be quite
long and may store a considerable volume of water.
Many are classified as high hazard dams by dam safe-
ty regulators.
Most of the small RCC dams worldwide are located
in the USA, where more than 30 such structures have
been built. In many cases, the small RCC dams have
replaced either timber-crib or earth embankments
which had either failed or where the continued relia-
bility or safety was questionable. The RCC structure
was considered by the design engineer to provide a
higher level of safety and longer service life than the
dam being replaced.
Small RCC dams have been built for a variety of
purposes in the USA. They include water supply,
flood control, irrigation, recreation, or a seismic or
hydraulic upgrade. Some of these small RCC dams
could be called weirs, as they are basically a long
spillway section. To date, no small RCC dam has been
built for hydroelectric generation. Because of the low
head involved and the cost of permitting, such appli-
cations are not generally economically feasible. View of the Cedar Falls dam in Washington.

1. Design considerations modulus and a high degree of resistance to erosion and

The basis design considerations such as stability, seep- seepage. Nevertheless, if sound engineering principles
age control, durability as well as aesthetics that apply are applied, an RCC dam can be founded on a non-
to higher RCC dams also apply to small RCC dams. rock or low modulus foundation material.
There are some exceptions which will be discussed in An example for the competent design of a small
this article. RCC dam sitting on a non-rock foundation is Cedar
Falls dam in the State of Washington. Cedar Falls dam
is part of a two dam system which is a main water sup-
1.1 Foundation conditions ply source for the City of Seattle. The existing timber
While an RCC dam higher than 30 m is invariably crib dam was deteriorating, leaking, and determined to
founded on a reasonably competent rock foundation, have an inadequate spillway capacity by current stan-
Fig. 1. Cross there are a number of examples of low RCC dams dards. The owner therefore decided the dam should be
section of the Cedar being founded on non-rock foundations. Sound rock replaced with a more reliable structure.
Falls dam in foundations are preferred for concrete dams because Because the dam would be completely inundated
Washington, USA. they have a high bearing capacity, a high deformation when the reservoir from the dam downstream was at a
high level, a concrete dam was a logical choice.
However, Cedar Falls dam is located in a valley,
where glacial sand and gravel deposits up to 180 m
deep overlay sound rock.
Obviously, excavation to sound rock and building
back up with RCC was not an option. The design engi-
neers therefore had to consider differential settlement,
under seepage, and piping potential in their design for
placing a 10.4 m-high RCC dam on this mainly sand
foundation.
The design solution included replacing the upper 4.9
m of low density sand with compacted fill. This
decreased the potential for earthquake-induced lique-
faction, decreased the seepage below the RCC dam
and reduced settlement of the structure. A 6.1 m-deep
sheet-pile cutoff at the heel of the gravity section (see
Fig. 1) and an upstream concrete blanket lengthened

2 Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2008

Hansen_final.qxd:ARTICLE TEMPLATE 19/6/08 15:35 Page 3

the seepage path beneath the dam. A downstream fil-

ter and drain system under the stilling basin slab was Section Usual height Usual crest Usual slope Downstream facing
designed to collect seepage and to control uplift pres- range (h) width (tc) (S) treatment
sure and piping potential. The completed RCC dam is
(a) 12 to 15 m 3 to 4.9 m 0.8 to 0.9 Formed or exposed
shown in the photo on the previous page.
There are at least seven other small RCC dams in the (b) 3 to 15 m 3 to 3.7 m 0.8 to 0.9 Formed or exposed
USA founded on non-rock materials. (c) 3 to 15 m 3 to3.7 m 0.7 to 0.9 Formed - less volume
If underseepage of a small RCC dam is not handled than (b)
properly, a failure could occur. This was case of the (d) 1.5 to 4.6 m 2.4 to 3 m 0.8 to 1
failure of the 2 m-high Ferris Ditch diversion dam in
Wyoming. In the opinion of the author, the failure was
a classical piping failure when the dam had been in ser-
vice for about five years. There was a differential head
from upstream to downstream, an RCC roof over an
erodible foundation and an unfiltered downstream exit.
The 2 m-high dam was reportedly designed in one day
with an upstream cutoff wall. This cutoff wall was
omitted by the contractor as a cost-saving measure.

1.2 RCC Section

A number of options are available to the design engi-
neer with respect to cross sections for small RCC
dams. Some of the possible cross sections are shown The upstream facing solutions have included Fig. 2. Possible
in Fig. 2, with the usual range of dam heights for each unformed RCC, formed RCC, and earthfill. Unformed sections and
option. One consideration is to attempt to minimize RCC on a slope has been used for a number of low dimensions for small
the amount of forming required mainly on the down- RCC diversion dams, less than 4.3 m high. These low RCC dams.
stream face to simply construction and minimize cost. RCC dams are overtopped either frequently or contin-
All of these sections have been used on small RCC uously. Thus, seepage reduction is not of great impor-
dams in the USA with the exception of (c), which is an tance.
attempt to reduce the volume of RCC. This solution Formed vertical faces of RCC have found accep-
requires forming of the downstream slope steeper than tance on some slightly higher RCC gravity dams. For
0.8H:1.0V. both seepage control and appearance, an RCC mixture
The basic stability of small RCC sections for shear with increased cementitious content, reduced maxi-
resistance or an overturning calculation is invariably mum size aggregate, and wetter consistency (lower
no problem. This is because the minimum crest width VeBe time) has produced the best results. For these
of 2.4 m for RCC constructability produces a more formed RCC faces, as well as for all unformed RCC
than adequate cross section. faces, mortar bedding between each lift of RCC helps
The RCC section needs to be designed for full uplift improve seepage resistance. In the case of the Atlanta
pressures, as no small RCC dam in the USA has Road dam (see photo below, left) in Georgia, grout-
included a gallery from which drain holes can be enriched RCC (GERCC) was tried in places to
drilled to collect foundation seepage and thus reduce improve appearance at the face and seepage control at
uplift. the lift lines of this storm water detention dam. It was
1.2.1 Upstream face the first trial of GERCC in the USA on any dam.
Earthfill has been used at the upstream face for a
Seepage control through the RCC section has become number of small RCC dams. Clay materials adjacent
a challenge to designers of small RCC dams. to the RCC are preferred in these cases to aid with
Traditional upstream facing systems such as conven- seepage control. For the Tobesofkee Creek
tional concrete or membrane-faced pre-cast concrete Replacement dam (see photo below) in Georgia, the
panels become a major item in the total cost picture. RCC layer was placed first and compacted. Then, an
Still, certain owners of water supply dams can absorb earthfill layer was placed and compacted against the
this cost, because of the critical nature of the structure. 45º edge of the RCC lift. The earth thus acted as a
However, in most cases, designers have had to come form in addition to providing a seepage barrier
up with alternative solutions to keep their designs upstream of the RCC gravity section.
within limited budgets. Small quantities of conven-
tional concrete can be quite expensive and can slow
down the RCC construction process.

Far left: the

Atlanta Road dam
in Georgia, USA.
Left: The
Tobesofkee Creek
replacement dam,
also in Georgia.

Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2008 3

Hansen_final.qxd:ARTICLE TEMPLATE 19/6/08 15:35 Page 4

The 4th Low Water vided by the foundation or abutments. At the 4th
Street dam in Texas, Street Low Water dam at Fort Worth, Texas, the author
USA. could find no visible cracks in the 46 m-long RCC
structure (see photo, left).
The small volume of concrete in these low dams
minimizes the potential for cracking caused by a cool
exterior being restrained by a warm interior called the
mass gradient. Still, design engineers need to be con-
cerned with a thermal related cross canyon shortening,
especially if the structure is restrained at its base by
being well bonded to a rock foundation.
Waterstopped transverse joints to accommodate
1.2.2 Downstream face these contractions have not been installed in most of
Exposed RCC tends to predominate for the sloping the small RCC dams, except those with a convention-
downstream faces of the small gravity structures. al concrete face. In these cases, the waterstop can be
Again, for the very low dams, unformed RCC elimi- placed and crack inducers installed by methods simi-
nates the need for any formwork. Unformed RCC lar to those used for higher RCC dams.
requires of a slope of at least 0.8H:1.0V, preferably For Cache Creek dam in California, transverse joints
1.0H:1. Formed steps of RCC are then used as the were installed at 30 m intervals. Measurements of the
height of the dam increases. The steps can be either crack opening varied from 1.5 to 6 mm.
0.3 m or 0.6 m high, depending on the designer’s and Where no transverse joints are installed, the RCC is
in some cases contractor’s preference. The steps can allowed to crack. For these low dams, this has not
be visually attractive and hydraulically efficient dur- been reported as a problem to date for several reasons.
ing overflow situations. If the exposed RCC is located They include earthfill or other seepage barriers
in an area with a large number of freeze-thaw cycles upstream of the RCC, the formation of cracks not
annually, the design engineer should specify an RCC wide enough to pass water, and no real concern for
mix that is sufficiently durable for the location. seepage for frequently overtopped diversion structures
In some unique applications, the downstream face of or dry flood control dams. For these reasons, design
the dam has been vertical. This has led to a variety of engineers have not specified overly restrictive RCC
solutions that are visually attractive. These applica- placement temperatures which would increase cost
tions included precast concrete panels for the Great due to cooling requirements.
Hills dam located in a business park in Austin, Texas.
To maintain the historical appearance of the original 1.4 Training walls and stilling basins
Bear Creek dam in Pennsylvania, a rough cut white As with any dam, flow over the structure should be
pine facing covered the RCC for the replacement dam. retrained at its ends in some manner to direct the flow
At Sally’s Pond dam in New Jersey, a stone facing was downstream or to prevent erosion of an unprotected
used with some concrete behind to act as a bond abutment. The photo below shows the Bosque River
between the stone and RCC section. dam in Texas with stepped RCC abutments. The
downstream face is also stepped exposed RCC.
1.3 Thermal considerations and The design of stilling basins or other downstream
transverse joints energy dissipators is the same for a small RCC dam as
Thermal-induced cracking in small RCC dams has been for a higher one. Some floors for stilling basins or
less of a problem than in higher, more massive gravity downstream aprons have been constructed of RCC
dams constructed by the RCC method. This is because rather than conventional concrete for reasons of cost
of the smaller volume of concrete to heat up and the fact and ease of construction reasons. ◊
that a number of these lower dams were constructed on
non-rock foundations, which provide no or little Bibliography
restraint to contraction as the concrete cools. Hansen, K.D., and Reinhart, W.G., “Roller-Compacted
There are a couple of examples to help prove the lat- Concrete Dams”, McGraw-Hill, Inc, New York, USA; 1991.
ter situation. At Cedar Falls dam, a malfunction in Portland Cement Association, “Design Manual for Small RCC
Dams”, Publication EB 225.01, prepared by Schnabel
metering cement at the proportioning and mixing Engineering Associates Inc., Skokie, Illinois, USA; 2003.
plant caused an increase in cement content. The cal-
culated 11ºC increase in the RCC mixture’s maximum
temperature produced no more cracking than original-
ly anticipated as a result of the lack of restraint pro- Ken Hansen is a Senior Consultant with Schnabel
Engineering. Before joining the company more than 11
The Bosque River years ago, he worked for the Portland Cement Association
dam in Texas. (PCA) for nearly 37 years. He is an international
recognized author, lecturer, and consultant on the use of
roller compacted concrete (RCC) for new dams and the
rehabilitation of existing dams. He is the primary author of
the book ‘Roller Compacted Concrete Dams’ published by
McGraw-Hill, and he edited or co-edited all three ASCE
books on RCC. Mr. Hansen has given more than 400
presentations on RCC dams in the USA and by invitation in
11 other countries, including being the keynote speaker or
invited special lecturer at six international conferences on
RCC. His consulting assignments now number 70 in 11
countries.
Schnabel Engineering, LLC, 510 East Gay Street,
West Chester, PA 19380, USA.
K. Hansen

4 Hydropower & Dams Issue Three, 2008