Economic optimization of the cutoff

wall depth for Nenskra dam, Georgia

L. Canale, Stucky SA, Switzerland

During studies for the foundation treatment at the Nenskra rockfill dam in Georgia, an economic analysis was carried out, as
part of the feasibility study, to weigh the losses associated with seepage against the cost of a deep cutoff wall. A partial cutoff
solution was found to represent a good compromise, reducing costs while limiting seepage to an acceptable level.

enskra dam is a 135 m high asphalt-core rockfill dam (ACRD) which is part of the 210 MW
Nenskra hydro project, currently under development in Georgia. The project is in the Svaneti
region, on a major tributary of the Enguri river,
upstream of the existing Enguri arch dam. The
Nenskra dam foundation consists of a thick layer of
fluvio-glacial deposits, 90 m deep, overlying bedrock
of jointed gneisses and granites. Seepage beneath the
dam is controlled by a plastic concrete cutoff wall,
implemented from the foundation along the dam axis.
The cost of the complete cutoff, down to the bedrock,
is significant and represents more than 30 per cent of
the overall cost of the dam.
During the feasibility study it was decided to construct the concrete diaphragm down to a sufficient
depth so that the expected leakage under the cutoff
would be economically viable and would occur in controlled conditions. The adopted procedure for economicl optimization is described here.
Two-dimensional seepage analyses were carried out
using the program SEEP/W for various maximum
depths of the cutoff (D). The hydraulic conductivity
values in the foundation were derived from in-situ permeability tests from about 20 boreholes. The annual
water volume lost by seepage was expressed as an
annual loss of energy/revenue. The provisional unit
prices of the diaphragm for the various depths were
obtained with the support of international contractors
and supplemented with unit prices taken from other
projects successfully implemented worldwide. The
costs of the seepage barrier and annual revenue losses

Methodology

Fig. 1. Nenskras
monthly energy and
reservoir operating
levels.

70

Table 1: Monthly generation of the Nenskra powerplant

Reservoir
Energy
Tariff
Revenue
level (masl) (GWh) (US$/kWh) (US$ mil)
Jan
1398
91
0.0570
5.19
Feb
1378
85
0.0570
4.85
Mar
1350
88
0.0570
5.02
Apr
1339
99
0.0570
5.64
May
1365
140
0.0715
10.01
Jun
1396
145
0.0715
10.37
Jul
1414
155
0.0715
11.08
Aug
1413
157
0.0715
11.23
Sep
1422
63
0.0715
4.50
Oct
1428
45
0.0570
2.57
Nov
1430
36
0.0570
2.05
Dec
1416
90
0.0570
5.13
Average

1396

1194

0.0650

77.63

from energy production were then actualized in a discounted cash-flow analysis over a 35-year period. The
most economic cutoff depth was considered to be that
which corresponds to the minimum net present value
(NPV). The risk of piping of the foundation material
has been thoroughly assessed for the proposed option.
Piezometers and a measuring section in the riverbed
immediately downstream of the dam toe are envisaged, to monitor the total seepage flow continuously
during operation.
The main purpose of the Nenskra hydro scheme is to
generate and deliver electricity to the national grid
during the winter, and to export to neighbouring countries (mainly Turkey), with a profitable market, during
the summer. Strict requirements on the firm energy
were established by the owner on the monthly production over the three months of December, January and
February. Because of the seasonal variation in the natural river discharges, some of the summer runoff has
to be stored in the Nenskra reservoir. The average
monthly production profile and reservoir operations
are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1.
The Nenskra plant is designed to generate nearly
1200 GWh/year. The reservoir is drawn down from
December to April and gradually filled again from
May through to September. During October and
November, the reservoir level is maintained at the
maximum elevation until the beginning of
December when it is lowered again. The reservoir
can oscillate between els. 1335 and 1430, the annual average level being el. 1396. This level was con-

Energy production profile

Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013

sidered to be constant in all the seepage-flow analyses carried out for the purpose of the economic optimisation.
The internal market price of US5.70/kWh is considered in the study for the winter tariff (October to
April); the Turkish market price, net of the transmission cost up to the border with Turkey, is paid for the
summer export period (May to September), being
US7.15/kWh. The average annual revenue amounts
to US$77.63 million, which corresponds to an annual
electricity selling price of US6.50. This price has
been adopted in the economic comparison of options,
for estimating the price value of the annual revenue
lost by seepage.
The Nenskra dam is founded on a deep layer of compressible and pervious fluvio-glacial materials in a
U-shaped glaciated valley. The foundation was investigated based on borehole drillings (full recovery),
geophysical profiles and permeability tests.
Fresh and strong granite-gneisses are exposed on
both abutments, and were found at depths of nearly 90
m in the riverbed in the centre of the valley. The deeper soil layer, QG, comprises glacial alluvial outwash
and is characterized by sands and sandy gravels with
cobbles. This layer is 40 to 60 m thick, is fairly dense
and has a lower permeability. The upper soil layer, QF,
is an alluvial fan resulting from the deposition of allu-

Design of foundation treatment

vial material transported by the Nenskra river and the

numerous side creeks. This layer, 20 to 30 m thick,
comprising sands and sandy gravels with cobbles and
boulders (as small as 50 cm), shows a low degree of
compaction and is more pervious. The base rock, PZ, is
composed of early Palaeozoic gneisses and migmatites
with diorites and minor granites. The rock joints are
generally tight.
The watertightness of the rockfill dam will be provided by a vertical core in the bituminous concrete.
The asphalt core will be connected to a concrete plinth
running along the axis from one abutment to the other.
Along the abutments, the concrete plinth will be
placed on the excavated rock, treated with consolidation grouting and a 40 m-deep grout curtain, while in
the central part, the plastic concrete diaphragm will be
executed from a horizontal platform down to the optimal depth.
The diaphragm will be directly connected to the
asphalt core with asphalt mastic. The horizontal platform is designed to be 20 m wide, to allow for easy
movement and operation of the equipment. To reduce
the excavation volume along the dam axis, the
riverbed is to be filled for 15 m, in the narrow part,
with adequately compacted gravel, so that the cutoff
wall will be provided from el. 1320. The total length of
the platform will be about 600 m.
Because of the particular rock profile, for the first
150 m on the left bank, a total cutoff will extend down
to the bedrock, and will have depths of between 10 and

Fig. 2. Longitudinal
section along the
dam axis: (a)
geological features;
(b) foundation
treatment.
Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013

71

30 m; the seepage barrier will be supplemented by a

grout curtain 50 m deep, down to el. 1240. The
remaining length of the cutoff is part of the subject of
the economic optimization described here.
The length of the cutoff wall ranges from 450 m at 20
m depth, to 250 m at 90 m depth, and will be excavated by hydro-mills (or trench cutters). The geology and
foundation treatments envisaged for controlling seepage are shown in Fig. 2.

The seepage analyses were carried out in steady conditions using the GEOSTUDIO (SEEP/W) software,
which is suitable for analysing filtration in saturated and
unsaturated porous media. The upstream reservoir level
is assumed to be at el. 1396, corresponding to the average operating level in the annual reservoir operation.
Two different geometries were considered in the 2D
finite element model to estimate the total quantity of
seepage. One transverse section was taken in the central
part of the dam axis where the dam height and the alluvium depth are at the maximum, and the other was
taken from the lateral part, where the bedrock is 70 m
deep. To obtain the total quantity of seepage, the unit
flow was then multiplied by an average seepage front
(W) of 135 m and 250 m, respectively for section 1-1
and 2-2. The two sections of the model are shown in
Fig. 3.

Seepage analysis

Table 2: Hydraulic conductivities and anisotropy ratios

Material

Hydraulic conductivity
kh

kv/kh

1E-04

0.2

(m/s)

Shell

1E-02

Asphalt core

1E-12

Transition
Filter

Plastic concrete

Upper alluvium

Lower alluvium

Bedrock (ungrouted)

1E-05
1E-08
1E-03
5E-05
1E-07

(-)

1.0
0.2
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.1
1.0

The dam embankment is constructed of rockfill and

the hydraulic conductivity values (k) are well known
from international experience and the technical literature. For the asphalt concrete and the plastic concrete,
k values were provided by specialized contractors. As
mentioned above, permeability values for the upper
and lower alluvial layers and the bedrock were derived
from site investigations. The shell material in the dam
body can be considered as isotropic, but, as a result of
the considerable layering, a significant anisotropy is
expected for the alluvium in foundation. The perme-

Fig. 3. SEEP/W
Model: (a)
Section 1-1 at
chainage
0+500; (b)
Section 2-2 at
chainage 0+700
72

Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013

Max cut-off depth D (m)

Cross-section 1-1
(W = 135 m)
Unit flow
(m3/s/m)
Cross-section 2-2
(W = 250 m)

30

Table 3: Seepage flow results

Total seepage (m /s)

3

40

50

60

70

80

90

1.09E-02

3.13E-03

1.17E-03

8.77E-04

6.60E-04

4.83E-04

2.43E-04

1.709

0.600

0.299

0.224

0.140

0.116

0.084

9.25E-04

7.12E-04

ability in the vertical direction is assumed to be one

tenth of that in the horizontal direction.
The cutoff forces seepage water to move along in a
vertical direction down the wall and back up to the
ground surface. The seepage path around the concrete
cutoff wall will be twice the depth of the cutoff, and
therefore the cutoff is more effective as the ratio kv/kh
decreases. Hydraulic conductivity values adopted in
the model are given in Table 2.
The results of the seepage flow analysis for the various cutoff depths are given in Table 3.
The seepage barrier starts to become really effective
for D > 40 m, or in other words when the more pervious upper alluvium layer is entirely cut off by the concrete diaphragm.

The unit price of a plastic concrete cutoff wall depends

greatly on the geological conditions and the maximum
depth to which the diaphragm has to extend. In overburden material, the cutoff excavation process is further
complicated by the presence of boulders and is sensitive
to the size, frequency and strength of the boulders.
Deeper cutoffs require tighter tolerances for the panel
verticality and more elaborate equipment is required.
Over the last two decades, the rapid development in
excavation techniques, panel concreting and quality
control has made this solution more and more effective
and cost competitive, especially for depths greater
than 20 30 m. With the latest generation of hydraulically operated trench cutters, plastic concrete cutoff
walls can extend to a depth of 150 m and cut through
steep and strong bedrock or large boulders.
At the Nenskra project there is no technical limitation to prevent implementing a total cutoff wall down
to the rock base; the only limitation may be the cost. A
trench cutter, together with the concepts for the cutoff
excavation and concreting works are shown in Fig. 4.

Unit cost of the cutoff

5.61E-04

4.22E-04

2.05E-04

2.05E-04

2.05E-04

During the feasibility study, consultations took place

with the most qualified contractors worldwide to define
reasonable unit prices for the cutoff at Nenskra (including equipment, concreting works and all ancillary
works). In addition, intensive research was carried out
on the final cost of cutoff walls at international projects
successfully completed over the last 30 years in North
and South America (for example in the USA, Chile and
Argentina). This cost analysis was also aimed at identifying the critical aspects encountered at each project
during the implementation of the cutoff works, to make
sure that the range of prices adopted for classes of maximum depth would cover the largest number of unexpected and unforeseeable conditions. For those projects
completed some time ago, prices were escalated.
The resulting price list is given in Table 4. Unit rates
are given per square metre of wall, because most of the
price represents the machine excavation and auxiliary
costs, and is payable per square metre. The cost of concreting works (materials, casting, and so on), generally payable per cubic metre, is minor, and typically represents less than 10 per cent of the total cost for deep
cutoffs and up to 20 per cent for shallower cutoffs. The
thickness of the concrete diaphragm ranges from 50 to
120 cm, as a function of the differential water head and
the seepage gradient through the wall.
Table 4: Unit rates of plastic concrete cutoff
Maximum depth D (m)
0-20

20-40
40-60
60-80

80-100

100-120

Unit rate (US$/m2)

< 250

250 - 400
400 - 600

600 - 1000

1000 - 2000
> 2000

Fig. 4. The Trevi

Hydromill, and
conceptual scheme
for the
implementation of
the cutoff.
Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013

73

Energy loss
Cutoff
Under
Cutoff
max.
seepage
Annual energy Annual revenue
area (m2)
depth (m)
flow (m3/s) loss (GWh) loss (US$ million)

Cutoff cost

Table 5: Economic comparison for different cutoff depths

30

12 660

1.709

85.3

5.54

NPV
(US$
million)
53.4

60

24 190

0.224

11.0

0.71

6.9

40
50
70
80
90

16 630
20 490
27 750
30 840
33 390

0.600
0.299
0.140
0.116

0.084

30.0
14.9
7.5
5.8
4.2

1.95
0.97
0.49
0.38
0.27

Unit rates refer to the maximum depth to be reached,

because this governs the selection of the machinery
and equipment to be used. In general terms, down to
depths of 50-60 m, the cutoff works are accomplished
with equipment and methodologies which are currently quite standardized. On the other hand, a noticeable
cost increase is observed for maximum depths greater
than 60 m. For the purpose of the economic optimization, the following equation, expressing the unit price
UP as a function of D, has been derived by regression
from the values in Table 4:
UP($m2) = 160.17 e0.0225 D(m)

(1)

The seepage loss and the consequent loss of revenue

from energy sales decrease with the cutoff depth.
Conversely, the cost of the cutoff wall increases with
depth. Future revenue losses during operation and the
cost of the cutoff can both be considered as outgoing
cash-flows for the same investment, and they have to
be discounted appropriately to the same time value.
The economic optimization procedure of the cutoff
wall consists of finding the depth corresponding to the
option with the minimum net present value (NPV).
Annual energy loss is proportional to the annual volume lost by seepage and the net generation head and is
expressed by the following equation:

18.8
9.3
4.7
3.6
2.6

Unit cost
Cutoff cost
(US$/m2) (US$ million)
315
394

4.0
6.6

493

10.1

969

29.9

618
774

1213

Total
NPV
NPV
(US$
(US$
million) million)
5.3
58.7

14.9
21.5
40.5

E (GWh) = c QH

(2)

where: c is a constant (8.59E-02 for the Nenskra

scheme); is the global efficiency of the generators

27.5

28.6

33.2

19.9
39.7
53.9

22.8
26.8
43.4
56.5

(0.88); Q is the under-seepage flow in m3/s; H is the

net head (m). The 210 MW Nenskra powerhouse will
be equipped with three 70 MW Pelton units with a setting level at el. 705, fed by a 15 km-long power tunnel
and a high head pressure shaft. Therefore, assuming
the reservoir level at el. 1396, the net head for generation including head losses in the power waterway will
be approximately equal to 660 m. Annual revenue loss
(EL) is obtained by multiplying the energy loss from
eq. (2) by the average tariff of 0.065 $/kWh. The annual shortfalls of future cash inflow are discounted over
the 35-year generation period and the net present value
is obtained by the following expression:
(3)

Economic optimization

Fig. 5. NPVs for

various cutoff
depths.

8.7

13.4

where: t is the time in year and i is the discount rate; i

is normally considered as the weighted average cost of
capital (WACC), and for the purpose of the present
analysis is taken at a time constant value of 10 per
cent. The cost of the plastic concrete cut-off for a given
depth is calculated by multiplying the unit price from
eq. (1) by the total area of the diaphragm, graphically
measured from the longitudinal section, see Fig. 2b. In
accordance with the provisional five-year Nenskra
general construction schedule, the cutoff works will
start one year after commencement date for the project
t (once excavation of the dam foundation and the
diversion works have been completed) and it will not
last more than 10 months. The net present value of the
cutoff cost is given by the following equation:
(4)

where: t is the time from the reference year at which

the cutoff cost (CO) is paid. The reference year, t = 0,
for discounting past and future cash-flow is considered
as the last year of the investment; therefore, t in eq. (4)
equals -3. The results of the economic comparison are
shown in Table 5.
The curve of the total NPV (loss of revenue + cost of
cutoff) is plotted in Fig. 5. The minimum NPV is
obtained for a maximum cutoff depth of 50 m. The
annual loss of energy caused by the under-seepage is
about 15 GWh, representing nearly 1 per cent of the
total annual generation. For deeper cutoffs, the seepage flow reduction does not economically justify the
extra cost of the anti-seepage barrier. The cost of a
total diaphragm extended down to the bedrock would
amount to US$41 million, equivalent to about 32 per
cent of the total cost of the Nenskra rockfill dam.
74

Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013

cutoff. Therefore, any possible increase in the design

depth, as a result of more severe permeability conditions, could only marginally affect the design of the
cutoff system and will not compromise the technical
and economical feasibility of the proposed solution.
Various electricity selling prices have been taken into
account within the expected range of US6.5 to
8.5/kWh. The economic loss caused by the seepage
under the dam increases with the electricity price, so
the optimized cutoff depth will increase accordingly to
limit this loss. Nevertheless, the sensitivity analysis
has shown the very limited influence of the market
price on the optimization study.
Apart from economic issues, to be technically feasible
the partial cutoff solution will not expose the foundation to the risk of piping or migration of finer material, during the long-term operation of the dam. In general, gravelly soils where fine sand or cohesionless silt
is not present in persistent or homogeneous layers are
less susceptible to piping. Similar conditions occur in
the foundation alluvium of the Nenskra dam. In addition to that, the strong layering and interbedding represents an obstacle to the migration of the fines, especially in the vertical direction, where the seepage path
is forced by the presence of the cutoff.
The flow-net for the selected cutoff depth of 50 m
and with the reservoir maintained at full supply level
is shown in Fig. 7.
The exit gradients at the downstream toe of the dam,
where the backward erosion could initiate, are not significant (that is, less than 0.34). The factors of safety
against piping or blow-up, defined as the ratio of the
vertical stress to the pore pressure at any point, are
more than 2.3 greater than the minimum allowable 1.5,
as suggested by Fell [20051]. The hydraulic gradients
at the toe of the wall can be as high as 10; however,
they will be very unlikely to cause erosion since the
possible lenses of finer material will be bounded by
graded alluvium. Locally, only small movements of
the fines are expected, which would not affect the
overall stability or performance of the plastic concrete
diaphragm. During first filling and the long-term operation of the reservoir, the under-seepage flow will be
monitored to control the exit gradients and the risk of
erosion continuously.

Risk of piping

Fig. 6. Total NPV curves for various anisotropy ratios (a) and
electricity selling prices (b).

This outcome is based on the assumption kv/kh = 0.1

in the foundation soil, which seems fairly realistic for
bedded deposits, and considering an annual electricity
tariff of US6.5/kWh. Two sensitivity analyses were
carried out to cover the main uncertainties of the
study: the first was done by varying the anisotropy
ratio of the alluvium layer within a reasonable range;
the second was done by varying the electricity tariff
within the expected range. The evolution of the minimum NPV is shown in Fig. 6.
Soil deposits with considerable layering are characterized by a marked anisotropy, generally being kv/kh=
0.1. More pessimistic values of the ratio kv/kh as large
as 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0, have been considered, to
check how rapidly the optimal depth moves. The sensitivity analysis has revealed that the optimal depth
varies in a range of 10 m for the case of the Nenskra

Fig. 7. Flow net for

D = 50 m and the
reservoir at full
supply level.
Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013

75

During the feasibility study for the Nenskra project, a

partial cutoff wall of plastic concrete was proposed as
foundation treatment for the dam, to reduce excessive
under-seepage. A complete cutoff of 90 m, extending
for a few metres into the bedrock could practically
eliminate leakage beneath the dam, but on the other
hand would be a very expensive solution, representing nearly one-third of the total cost of the rockfill
dam. The optimal depth of the partial cutoff has been
assessed by economic comparison of the value of
hydropower which could be lost versus the cost of the
diaphragm. The best economy is achieved for cutoff
depths of around 50 m. The seepage quantity would
be economically acceptable, and the expected leakage conditions in the foundation would be safe
against potential erosion or piping.
The full methodology, which has been described
here, is supported by field data on hydraulic conductivity, consultations with cutoff contractors and reference projects. The main uncertainties are related to
the anisotropy ratio of the alluvium layer and the
electricity tariff; nevertheless, the sensitivity analyses have shown that the optimal cutoff depth is only
mildly sensitive to the first parameter and hardly
affected at all by the second one. It is clear that the
final selection of the cutoff depth to be adopted for
the Nenskra dam may change based on new factors
which could emerge later during the detailed design

Conclusions

or construction, but the approach remains valid and is

considered to be very supportive for the early stage of
design and highly influential in the decision-making

process.
The author is grateful to JSC Partnership Fund and CEO, Mr
Irakli Kovzanadze and to JSC Nenskra, the Client, and CEO,
Mr Teimuraz Kopadze, for assistance in the preparation of this
paper. The author would also like to thank Mrs Raffaella
Granata of Trevi SpA for support on the definition of design
requirements for the plastic concrete cutoff works.

Acknowledgements

1. Fell, R. et al., Geotechnical Engineering of Dams, Taylor

& Francis, UK; 2005.

Reference

Bibliography

Bruce, A., di Cervia, A.R., and Amos-Venti, J., Seepage

remediation by positive cut-off walls: A Compendium and
Analysis of North American case histories, Canadian Dam
Association Conference, Canada; 2006.
Pinilla, L., CFRD on deep alluvium, Blanket-Concrete face
combination, MN Ingenieros, Chile; 2001.

ICOLD, Bulletin No.150, Cutoffs for dams, Internaitonal

Commission on Large Dams, Paris, France; 2010.

L. Canale

Luciano Canale is a Hydraulic Expert and Project Manager

at Stucky Ltd. He graduated with an MSc in hydraulic
structures from the Technical University of Naples, Italy.
He has 13 years of experience in the design and
implementation of hydroelectric schemes, hydraulic
structures, gravity and rockfill dams. As a Project Manager,
he has headed the design works for several large dams and
hydro projects in Europe, Asia and Africa. He was the
Project Manager for the feasibility study and the basic
design of the Nenskra scheme, completed by Stucky in
2012. He is currently involved in the design and site
supervision of two large hydropower projects under
construction in India. He is a member of the Swiss
Committee on Large Dams.
Stucky SA, Rue du Lac 33, 1020-Renens, Switzerland.

76

Hydropower & Dams

Issue Six, 2013