Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

SEEPAGE CUTOFFS FOR DAMS AND LEVEES:

LESSONS LEARNED FROM 40 YEARS OF REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTION

Donald A. Bruce, Ph.D., D.GE, C.Eng., P.G. L.G., L.E.G.1

ABSTRACT

Beginning with the first Wolf Creek Dam remedial cutoff over 40 years ago,
approximately 30 major cutoffs have been installed to remediate seepage in major U.S.
dams and levees. The execution of these efforts has been described in several papers by
project participants, including the author, over many years. Such papers have typically
and understandably focused on the successes of the respective projects, such as major
technological advances, respecting time and budget, and the short-term impact of the
cutoff on dam and foundation performance.

However, it is now timely to lend perspective to these works, and to conduct a forthright
assessment of the fundamental lessons learned: although the unparalleled “rush” of
projects following the 2005 Gulf Coast disaster has somewhat abated, there remain
several major cutoff walls in various stages of design and construction. The paper
considers these lessons under the following topics.

1. Design Considerations
2. Construction
3. QA/QC and Verification
4. Instrumentation and Performance Monitoring
5. Development of Contract Documents and Contractual Arrangements

It is intended that the paper will be of particular value to those involved in the design and
procurement of such projects.

1. INTRODUCTION

The National Inventory of Dams (NID) has listed over 84,000 dams in the United States
which meet its criteria for inclusion (Ragon, 2011), namely:

1. High hazard classification — loss of one human life is likely if the dam fails.
2. Significant hazard classification — possible loss of human life and likely significant
property or environmental destruction.
3. Low hazard classification — no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or
environmental losses, but the dam:
• equals or exceeds 25 feet in height and exceeds 15 acre-feet in storage;
• equals or exceeds 50 acre-feet storage and exceeds 5 feet in height.

Almost 14,000 dams meet Criterion 1. Only 4% (3,075) are federally owned, and these
mainly date from the earlier third of the Twentieth Century. Over 87% of the total are
primarily classified as earth embankments, while no other category exceeds 3% of the
total. The main primary purposes are recreation (35%), flood control (17%), fire

1 President, Geosystems, L.P., P.O. Box 237, Venetia, PA 15367, U.S.A., Phone: 724-942-0570, Fax:
724-942-1911, dabruce@geosystemsbruce.com.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 1


protection in stock/small fish ponds (15%) and irrigation (10%), while less than 3%
generate power. Many structures are multipurpose. Figure 1 summarizes their completion
dates: about 50% were completed between 1950 and 1979, while the median age in the
year 2016 is about 65 years.

Figure 1. U.S. dams by completion date.


(From National Inventory of Dams, CorpsMAP, http://nid.usace.army.mil, 2010.)

Whereas it may be calculated from the National Inventory of Dams (2010) that the
cumulative “end-to-end” length of all the U.S. dams is around 18,000 miles, preliminary
estimates put the cumulative length of levees in the U.S. at over 120,000 miles. Only
about 14% of this total may be regarded as federal, and referred to by Halpin (2010) as
“robust.” The balance includes municipal, local and agricultural structures often
featuring little engineering design, patchwork construction and minimal periodic
maintenance, since they were traditionally regarded as “simple” structures.

Certain design assumptions and construction techniques used in the dams and levees built
prior to, say, 1970, would not be acceptable today, and have left behind fundamental
flaws in some structures. Appropriate filter criteria for embankments and uplift/sliding
issues in concrete dams are two obvious design related examples, while old approaches to
rock surface preparation and foundation treatment would also fall into the unacceptable
category. In addition, there are two overriding geological considerations which directly
influence the serviceability, reliability, and performance of the dam and levee system.
These considerations are (i) the presence of solution susceptible carbonate and evaporite
formations, and (ii) the potential for seismic activity.

Regarding point (i), there is a huge swath of karstic limestones and dolomites which
outcrops from Pennsylvania to Alabama, while Martinez et al. (1998) have estimated that
evaporites underlie about 40% of the contiguous 48 states. Regarding point (ii), there are
highly seismic active zones centered on New Madrid, MO, and Charleston, SC, as well as
the more famous seismic belts of the Western U.S.
Very simplistically, therefore, geology and seismicity — either alone or together — pose
a clear and present threat to tens of thousands of water-retention structures nationwide,
but especially to those in the basins of the central Mississippi-Missouri river system and
its major tributaries such as the Tennessee and Ohio rivers, and to those in the Western
states. To these concerns must be added the more transient, but equally destructive, threat
posed by extreme weather events to levees all across the country, but especially in the
upper Midwest, the lower Mississippi, and central California. The problem in the New

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 2


Orleans area is exacerbated by the continual regional settlement of the entire delta area,
estimated at up to ½ inch per year.

Galvanized by the Gulf Coast tragedy of August, 2005, the federal government, in the
form of the USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), developed and implemented a
radically different approach to dam-remediation prioritization, building on the pioneering
expertise and experience from the Bureau of Reclamation. This “risk-based” or “risk-
informed” approach has since become a model for other bodies with large portfolios of
dams, including the Tennessee Valley Authority and the larger utilities. This new
approach has been the catalyst for the prioritized and expedited repair of many major
structures in recent years.

2. BASIC CLASSIFICATION OF CUTOFF WALL TECHNOLOGIES

Cutoff walls for existing structures can be divided fundamentally for clarity into two
categories (Bruce, 2012):

• Category 1 cut-offs involve backfilling of a trench or shaft previously excavated


under bentonite slurry or similar supporting medium. Construction involves the use of
backhoes, grabs, hydromills and/or secant pile rigs.
• Category 2 cut-offs involve the mixing of the fill and/or foundation soils in situ.
Examples include conventional (i.e., vertical axis) Deep Mixing Methods (DMM), the
TRD Method and the CSM Method.

The prime subject of this paper is the Category 1 cutoffs, because they have been
employed most frequently in dams, given their indisputable advantages in terms of depth
and geological application. However, it would be remiss not to first acknowledge the
rich history of Category 2 structures in dam and levee remediation.

Traditional, vertical axis Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) have been used since 1987 on
many dam and levee remediation projects throughout the U.S. Most notable have been
seepage cutoffs at Cushman Dam, WA (1992), Sacramento Levees, CA (1990 and 2003),
Lewiston Dam, ID (2001), and seismic remediations at Jackson Lake Dam, WY (1988),
Sunset North Basin Dam, CA (2006), Clemson Diversion Dams, SC (2005), and San
Peblo Dam, CA (2009). In addition, the massive seismic retrofits at Wickiup Dam, OR
(2002) and Tuttle Creek Dam, KS (2007) were undertaken with jet grouting and cement-
bentonite walls, respectively, although both were initially candidates for some type of
DMM treatment (Stare, et al., in Bruce, 2012). A prime area for the use of conventional
DMM has been in the New Orleans area, for the strengthening of very soft foundations
prior to rebuilding levees higher than previously existing. A detailed history of this work
is provided by Bruce, et al., 2012, while by far the biggest project (LPV 111) was
completed in 2011 and is described by several authors in the New Orleans Conference
(2012) and in other sources (Schmutzler and Pagliacci, 2012; and Schmutzler and Leoni,
2013).

In recent years, considerable use has been made of two variants of DMM, new to the U.S.
One is the TRD Method (trench remixing and cutting, deep) which, in very simple terms,
is a large and very powerful chain saw which progresses laterally through the ground,
cutting and blending (with grout) to create a continuous soilcrete wall. Developed in
Japan in 1993-1994, it is capable of producing a cutoff from 2 to 3 feet thick, to depths

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 3


approaching 180 feet, even in dense and bouldery soils, provided they are “rippable.”
There have been several applications in the U.S. since its introduction in 2006, with the
biggest, by far, being at Herbert Hoover Dike, FL, where 5 miles of wall as deep as 80
feet were constructed. The vertical nature of the cutting and blending process provides a
high degree of homogeneity in the soilcrete, although care must be taken to compensate
for thermally-induced stresses during curing. Production rates have been found to be
extremely high in appropriate conditions, and the environmental impacts are minimal
(Burke, et al. in Bruce, 2012).

The second, newer DMM variant widely seen in levee remediation is CSM (Cutter Soil
Mix). The technique is a joint German-French development, commencing in 2003, and
building on experience with hydromill (trench cutter) and conventional DMM techniques.
Kelly-mounted CSM can comfortably reach depths of 100 feet, while newer cable-
suspended cutters are reportedly capable of over 180 feet depth. Wall thicknesses of 2 to
4.5 feet are feasible and, like TRD, can provide soilcrete of excellent homogeneity, with
high degrees of real time QC. Again the largest project yet conducted was at Herbert
Hoover Dike, FL, where CSM was used to install about 12 miles of soilcrete cutoff, in
several different phases. One of the inherent advantages of the CSM method is that the
cutter itself can be mounted on non-specialized carriers. Thus, CSM is found to be
competitive on quite small projects also, because the costs of mobilization are moderate
(Weidenmann, in Bruce, 2012).

Most recently, conventional DMM has been used on the massive seismic retrofit of Perris
Dam, CA, and for construction of a cutoff at Buckeye Lake Dam, OH. In the latter case,
there was a rare opportunity to compare the relative performances of two distinctly
different types of Category 2 walls, namely DMM, and the DeWind “One Pass” system,
not dissimilar to TRD in basic concept. The DeWind method is an improvement in size
and capability of earlier commercially available trenchers, and has been used on several
major cutoffs. It is quickly gaining both technical reputation and market share.

Reverting to Category 1 walls for dams, these are built through and under existing
structures by first excavating the in-situ materials, and thereafter filling the excavation
with an engineered “backfill,” typically cement based. During the excavation phase, the
trench or panel must be stabilized against collapse by employing a bentonite or polymer
slurry. Only when the cutoff is being built in rock by the secant pile method, is it not
necessary to use such slurry, although other methods such as full-length, temporary
casing are required in extreme conditions.

The review by Bruce (2017) provided details of 27 major remedial Category 1 cutoffs.
These projects are listed in Figure 2 which also shows the principal construction method
and Specialty Contractor. One project remains in progress (East Branch Dam, PA), while
three others are foreseen to commence in 2018, including two in Tennessee and the
second phase of Herbert Hoover Dike, FL. Details of construction methods and cutoff
material design are provided in older texts such as Xanthakos (1979) and ASTM (1992),
while Bruce (2012) summarizes many of the more recent case histories referred to in
Figure 2. Several different methods of constructing cutoffs have been successfully and
safely utilized on these projects. The choice of

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 4


Figure 2. List of remedialm cutoffs for dams showing principal construction method and specialty contractor.

method is primarily dictated by the geotechnical conditions, the depth of the cutoff, dam
safety considerations, and the traditional preferences of the respective Specialty
Contractors.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 5


3. LESSONS LEARNED

3.1 Design Considerations

3.1.1 Geological and Geotechnical Site Characterization

The following observations are provided, for brevity and clarity, in bullet form. Some
readers may find certain lessons to be self-evident and not worthy of consideration.
However, each topic has its roots in situations personally observed by the author and, in
his opinion, each merits inclusion.

• Before designing a new program of investigation, very carefully reexamine existing,


historical information (e.g., grouting programs, original site investigation data,
construction photos, as-built drawings), and dam performance data, especially “signs
of distress” (sinkholes, seepages, depressions, erratic piezometer readings, etc.). The
work product is a basic hydrogeological model.

• The intensity of the new investigation must reflect the variability of the ground
conditions as interpreted from the preexisting hydrogeological model (but will be,
practically, governed by budget and access, and the project risks).

• Exploratory drill holes must cover the entire length and depth of a foreseen cutoff.
Their location should reflect what is suspected to be the main risk areas identified in
the preexisting hydrogeological model.

• The investigatory program must inform the design of the cutoff, and produce
information essential for bidders to select their construction methods, estimate
productivities, and evaluate construction risks.

• All investigations must be conducted in accordance with prevailing standards of care


for drilling in dams/levees (e.g., USACE EM-1807), and for environmental
protection.

• Even the investigatory program may require a certain enhanced level of


instrumentation monitoring during its implementation.

• Smaller projects often involve relatively inexperienced teams. However, even these
projects will benefit from having expert involvement, even if just as “peer review.”

3.1.2 Geotechnical Reports

• Many different types of Reports can be produced including:

 Geotechnical Data Report (GDR),


 Geotechnical Interpretive Report (GIR),
 Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR),
 Geotechnical Design Basis Report (GDBR).

• It is essential that at least the GDR, GIR and GDBR are shared with all bidders, in
full. GBR’s are relatively uncommon outside the Tunneling Industry, and have very

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 6


well-defined contractual and legal significance. The goals of these Reports,
considered together, must:

 allow development and understanding of an accurate hydrogeological model,


 permit the Engineer-of-Record to design a responsive cutoff,
 ensure that all bidders are on a “level playing field” when preparing their
submittals,
 clearly identify areas of particular geotechnical construction or performance risk,
 permit the implementation of a responsive instrumentation plan to monitor
conditions before, during and after construction.

3.1.3 General Principles of Cutoff Wall Design

• Plan Location: Typically on centerline of embankment (for access reasons), or on


upstream slope (to save footage and to ensure tie-in to sloping cores).

• Length: Determined by flow analysis to ensure minimal “end around” seepage. Most
cutoffs actually tie-in to existing concrete structures, such as spillways or
powerhouses. The far end typically is determined by the topography of the site (i.e.,
width and steepness of abutment). It is rarer to find length is driven only by
geological conditions (e.g., as in a steeply dipping valley).

• Width: The minimum continuous width (typically 12 to 24 inches) should primarily


be determined by the depth of the wall, the variability of the geology, the composition
of the wall, and its performance requirements. Note that a cutoff wall does not have
to be perfectly vertical to satisfy its design function: it can “ripple” provided the
minimum inter-element overlap thickness is satisfied. For practical reasons,
thicknesses of less than 12 inches should not be designed.

• Depth: The terminal elevation of the toe must be chosen to reflect the geological
conditions and the purpose of the wall.

 “full depth” cutoff into effectively impermeable rock;


 “partial depth” (or “floating” cutoff), to reduce (not eliminate) seepage and/or to
prevent internal erosions. Such walls are often constructed through previously
installed grout curtains (2 rows), intended to investigate the ground; pretreat voids
to prevent sudden slurry loss; and grout to say < 3 Lu the rock mass under and
around the wall in “clean fissure” conditions. It is vital to evaluate the gradient
modifications within the foundation that such walls may create.

This is the concept of the “composite wall,” also referred to in Section 3.2, below.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 7


• Material Properties:
 In-situ permeability (especially at joints) must be established, and verified.
Typically ≤ 10-6 cm/s for materials, but 1 Lu for joints (i.e., approximately 1 x 10-
5
cm/s).
 Strength and deformability must reflect the project conditions (e.g., “plastic”
concrete vs structural concrete). “Plastic” concrete is typically only considered in
cases where deformation of the embankment may occur under static and/or
seismic conditions, after installation. All materials must be non-erodible.
 Homogeneity must be considered, e.g., minimal inclusions of native ground or
bentonite slurry, segregation of the backfill, or contamination of the joints (or the
toe).
 Durability/chemical compatibility must be addressed, but is typically not an issue.

3.1.4 Risk and Performance Considerations

• In dam and levee safety considerations, Risk = Probability x Consequence.

• Risk is to be assessed in Potential Failure Mode Analysis sessions (PFMA).

• The individual PFM’s, appropriately prioritized, must drive the remedial


requirements and the instrumentation requirements.

• The performance of the cutoff and the existing structure must be measured during
construction, and after construction. Specific project goals must be set and verified,
e.g.:

 reduction in seepage,
 acceptable piezometric performance,
 elimination of other “signs of distress” (e.g., settlements, sinkholes, muddy flows,
boils).

• The evaluation of risk may dictate the sequencing and prioritization of the work and
the permissible remedial techniques.

3.1.5 Durability of Walls

• The actual backfill materials must be durable. This will be proved by design
(“pinhole erosion”), quality of construction, and conditions of curing and service.

• There may be some evidence of cracking in old diaphragm walls, but the case is not
proven. Newer walls have intense in-situ verification and long-term performance
monitoring.

• Desiccation cracking may be a concern in levees where the upper part may be above
water level for most of its service life. However, the typical cross-sectional shape of
a levee is favorable (i.e., very broad).

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 8


3.2 Construction

• Each Contractor has its own particular mentality and preferences for means and
methods, as well as for equipment. Each project’s construction details must therefore
be evaluated on this basis, with the prime concern being the safety of the dam during
construction.

• A proper, stable, working platform (concreted if possible) is essential for a host of


reasons, ranging from personnel safety to enhancing productivity.

• Some cutoff walls involve extensive pregrouting such as in the “Composite Wall”
concept (Bruce et al., 2008). Such grouting must be conducted by an experienced and
knowledgeable Contractor who may not necessarily be the same as the cutoff wall
Contractor. Insufficient grouting may create dire problems to subsequent cutoff wall
quality and schedule.

• “Technique Demonstration Areas,” or Demonstration Sections, are invariably of great


value to all the project’s stakeholders.

• Time is well spent up front in building high quality, weatherproofed bentonite and
concrete storage and batching facilities, and maintenance shops.

• Development of mix designs and their approval by the Owner should not be allowed
to negatively impact schedule and should be given high priority during the site
mobilization phase.

• Ensure all preconstruction permits, etc., are in place prior to site mobilization.

• Avoid rework by implementing all the QC checks (i.e., the principle of Total Quality
Management).

• Provide a Lavazza machine on Day 1.

• “Flex and stretch” every morning as part of the Construction Safety Program.

• Ensure that all equipment is maintained regularly, and that all instrumentation is
frequently recalibrated (if necessary).

3.3 QA/QC and Verification

• Details must be linked directly to the design intent and specifications, regulatory
requirements, and to the actual construction techniques adopted by the Contractor.

• Key elements of success include:

 Clear and complete contract specifications and drawings;


 Appropriate organizational structure and qualified personnel;
 Good communication;
 Cooperation from all parties (Owner, Engineers and Contractors);
 Diligent implementation of the Quality Plan.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 9


• A comprehensive, formal Quality Control Implementation Plan is essential, and the
effort needed for the drafting and implementation of this Plan should not be
underestimated by the Contractor. A project-specific plan is essential, including:

 Description of the project, site layout and list of contract documents;


 Site organization chart showing responsibilities, lines of communication and
authority of project personnel;
 Construction schedule;
 Inspections and tests, including preliminary bench-scale and field test;
 List of materials, showing the compliance requirements for each;
 List of project-specific quality procedures and work instructions;
 Data and quality records management and communication.

• Specific topics to be addressed must include:

 Setting out;
 Bentonite Slurry;
 Wall Verticality and Panel Overlap (at least 2 independent methods);
 Wall Tolerances;
 Joint Cleanliness;
 Concrete Placement;
 Sampling and Testing of Wall Backfill Material;
 Coring and Permeability Testing (and the use of an Optical Televiewer);
 The Development and Implementation of a Joint Instrumentation Monitoring Plan
(JIMP). In this regard, on smaller projects, often only a limited number of
piezometers may exist for monitoring.

• While an essential element of the Quality Plan is timely and accurate transmittal of
information, the Plan must be developed and managed by an Engineer or Geologist,
and not an IT Specialist in Data Management Systems.

3.4 Instrumentation and Performance Monitoring

• Prime types are piezometers, settlement gages, inclinometers, seismographs and


weirs.

• Data loggers (“trolls”) can detect suspended sediments, change in pH, and
temperature. Real time data transmission is preferable.

• Instrumentation adequacy is audited, and supplemented if necessary, well in advance


of construction (“baselining”).

• Location, intensity, and responsibility during construction must be governed by the


JIMP.

• Monitoring must be continued after construction, with clear guidelines for identifying
and acting upon Threshold and Action Levels.

• Long-term performance trends should be published in the technical community.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 10


3.5 Development of Contract Documents and Contractual Arrangements

• Performance-based specifications are optimal, with the fundamental performance


goals clearly and consistently stated. Specification drafters must be very careful not
to mix elements of Performance and Prescriptive Specifications: this will lead to
confusion during the bidding process, and potentially major disputes during
construction.

• Partnering must be implemented rigorously, and with total commitment at all levels.

• Contractual risks must be allocated fairly, with the Owner being responsible for the
site conditions and for the potential impacts and benefits of any previous remediations
(e.g., by pregrouting) on the project. Risks can be managed in many ways:

 Ensure all available data are made available at bid stage;


 Engage an appropriately qualified, experienced and resourced consultant and/or
Board of Consultants;
 Clearly define respective roles, responsibilities, and duties, especially for site
inspection staff;
 Select “Best Value” as opposed to “Low Bid” for Contractor selection;
 Insist on a “Partnering” environment;
 Select a qualified and experienced Contractor with appropriate human and
mechanical resources;
 Encourage the bidders, via Performance Specifications, to bring their own ideas
and expertise to the project while, at the same time, assuring bidders that their
own proprietary ideas and methods will remain confidential and not widely
“shared”;
 Ensure modifications are issued quickly, and be sympathetic to requests for bid
extensions;
 Allow budget for adequate short- and long-term instrumentation.

• There must be realistic expectations, such as that:

 The project will satisfy the design intent;


 The project will be designed and built to the current state of practice and to
appropriate referenceable standards of care;
 Project schedule is actually attainable (especially in “tight” projects with multiple
trades);
 The work will not cause damage or detriment to adjacent preexisting structures;
 Claims are inevitable, and must be evaluated strictly on merit (often not the case
when CM’s operating on very small margins are involved).

• The principles of “Early Contractor Involvement” should be applied whenever


feasible, and especially on particularly challenging projects, technically or schedule-
wise.

4. FINAL REMARKS

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 11


The major technological advance in recent years has been the combination of techniques
used at Wolf Creek Dam, KY (e.g., Bassola et al., 2013; Bedford et al., 2013; and Bobba
et al., 2013). This is not to short sell the innovative construction methods adopted by the
three different Contractors at Herbert Hoover Dike, FL. However, the standards set in
design, quality control and assurance, in Data Management Systems, in construction
methodologies, and in Dam Safety Management at Wolf Creek truly represented a “great
leap” forward. As one direct consequence, Owners are now being more prescriptive in
their specifications, such is their confidence in the wonderful database of knowledge that
has been forthcoming.

It is doubtful that the dam remediation market in the U.S. will again see the sustained
levels of activity which characterized the decade from 2007. However, there is
absolutely no doubt that some level of activity will endure, and that, in all likelihood, it
will be characterized by safe and effective solutions in an increasingly competitive
commercial atmosphere. The author trusts that the various “Lessons Learned”
summarized in this paper will prove of use.

5. REFERENCES

American Society for Testing and Materials (1992). “Slurry Walls: Design,
Construction, and Quality Control.” ASTM Publication Code Number 04-011290-38.
STP 1129. David B. Paul, Richard R. Davidson and Nicholas J. Cavalli, Editors.
September. 425 pp.

Bassola, P., F. Santillan, L. Bedford, M. Zoccola and B. DeBruyn (2013). “State of Art
of the Quality Control at Wolf Creek Dam Remediation Project,” International
Conference on Large Dams, August 12-15, 15 pp.

Bedford, L., F. Santillan, P. Bassola, M. Zoccola and B. DeBruyn (2013). “Wolf Creek
Dam Foundation Remediation - An Innovative Successful Solution,” International
Conference on Large Dams, August 12-15, 19 pp.

Bruce, D.A. (2017). “Remedial Cutoff Walls for Dams in the U.S.: 40 Years of Case
Histories, “ 5th International Grouting, Deep Mixing, and Diaphragm Walls Conference,
International Conference Organization for Grouting (ICOG), Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii,
July 9-12, 15 pp.

Bruce, D.A., T.L. Dreese, and D.M. Heenan (2008). “Concrete Walls and Grout
Curtains in the Twenty-First Century: The Concept of Composite Cut-Offs for Seepage
Control,” USSD Annual Conference, Portland, OR, April 28-May 2, 35 pp.

Bruce, D.A. (2012). “Specialty Construction Techniques for Dam and Levee
Remediation,” Spon Press an imprint of Taylor and Francis, 304 p.
Bruce, D.A., P.R. Cali and M.L. Woodward. (2012). “The History of Deep Mixing in
New Orleans,” Deep Foundations Institute, Fourth International Conference on Grouting
and Deep Mixing, New Orleans, LA, February 15-18.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 12


Bobba, R, H.W. Gault and B.B. Vannoy (2013). “Secant Pile Barrier Wall Overlap,
Thickness and Position at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wolf Creek Dam,
Jamestown, KY” DFI 38th Annual Conference, September 25-28, 10 pp.

Burke, G.K., D.S. Yang, Y. Nishimura, S. Katsukura and U. Weidenmann (2012),


“Specialty Construction Techniques for Dam and Levee Remediation,” Chapter 3 - Mix
In-Place Technologies, Spon Press, an imprint of Taylor and Francis, 304 pp.

Halpin, E.C. (2010). “Creating a National Levee Safety Program, Recommendations


from the National Committee on Levee Safety,” ASDSO Dam Safety Conference,
September 19-23, Seattle, WA, 22 p.

Martinez, J.D., K.S. Johnson and J.T. Neal. (1998). “Sinkholes in Evaporite Rocks.”
American Scientist, v. 86, no. 1, pp. 38-51.

National Inventory of Dams (NID). (2010). http://nid.usace.army.mil.

Ragon, R. (2011). “National Inventory of Dams Provides Interesting Data and Statistics,”
USSD Newsletter, March, p. 14.

Schmutzler, W. and F. Pagliacci (2012). “Digging Deep into the New Orleans Levee
Structural Reinforcement Deep-Soil Mixing Project,” Foundation Drilling Magazine,
ADSC: The International Association of Foundation Drilling, Vol. XXXIII No. 4, May,
pp. 18-23.

Schmutzler, W. and F. Leoni (2013). “New Orleans Levee Improvement Project: An


OPA Runner-Up,” Deep Foundations Magazine, The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI),
January/February, pp. 12-15.

Stare, D.P., T.L. Dreese and D.A. Bruce (2012). In “Specialty Construction Techniques
for Dam and Levee Remediation,” Chapter 2 - Contemporary Drilling and Grouting
Methods, Spon Press, an imprint of Taylor and Francis, 304 p.

Weidenmann, U. (2012). In “Specialty Construction Techniques for Dam and Levee


Remediation,” Chapter 3 – Mix In-Place Technologies, Spon Press an imprint of Taylor
and Francis, 304 p.

Xanthakos, P.P. (1979). “Slurry Walls.” McGraw Hill Book Company, ISBN 0-07-
072215-3, 622 p.

Copyright © 2018 U.S. Society on Dams. All Rights Reserved. 13