Lovering, W. K. (160), BINCIeNt FRETINg Lor EALECUIVE LrinAKeE, Amptiaie tumenuse Quarterly, April 1960. Lovering, W. R,, and H.R, Cedergren (1969), “Structural Seetion Drainage,” Proceed ings, International Conference on the Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., August 20-24, 1962, pp. 173-784 Luthin, J, N. (1966), Drainage Engineering, Wiley, New York, pp. 144-178. McAdam, John L. (1820), "Report to the London Board of Agriculture.” Renner, Dean Mand Charles C, Mueller 1974), "Drainage System Design and Analy ‘sis by Computer,” Journal, Irigation and Drainage Division, A'S C.E,, Vol. 100, No. IRS, September 2974, pp. 255-265 Richardson, Emory 8,, and William A. Liddle (1973),"Open-Graded Emulsified Asphalt ‘Pavements. Region 10 Oftice of Federal Highway Projects, Lapleimeutation Divi= sion, Office of Development, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washing: ton, DC, June 1973. Ring, George W. IU (19741, "Seasonal Strength of Pavements,” Publie Roads, Vol. 38, ‘No. 2, September 1974 Slaughter, George M, (1973), “Evaluation of Design Methods of Subsurface Drainage Facilities far Highways,” Contract Research Project No. 6901, Georgia Department of Transportation and Georgia Institute af Technology, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Final Report, February 1973, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Serviee (1971), National Engineer- ing Handbook, Section 16, "Drainage of Agricultural Land,” May 197. U.S, Corps of Bnigineers, Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers (1955), "Drainage and Erosion Control, Subsurface Drainage Facilities for Airfields,” Part XIII, Chapter 2, June 1955, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CBRL), (1974), "Methodology and Effectiveness of Drainage Systems for Airfield Pavements.” Technical Report C-13, November 1974; prepared by Harry R. Cedergren for CERL, Champaign, IM, Chicago District. Willardson, Lyman 8, (1974), "Drainage for World Crop Production EMicieney,” Proceed- ings, ASCE, Specialty Conference Contribution of Irrigation and Drainage to the Worid Food Supply. Biloxi, Miss,, August 14-16, 1974, p. 0 1974a),p. 10 (19745), pit. Winterkora, Huns (1967), "Application of Granulometric Principles for Optimization of ‘Strength and Permeability of Granular Drainage Structures,” Highway Research Record No, 203, Highway Research Board (now Transportation Research Board) CHAPTER TEN Structural Drainage 10.1 PROBLEMS OF STRUCTURES CAUSED BY WATER This chapter reviews the control of seepage and groundwater be- neath or behind retaining structures, overpour weirs, masonry dams, spillway chutes, basements, drydocks, canal and reservoir linings, and comparable types of engineering works. Most of the structures reviewed in this chapter have rigid members in contact with earth or rock foundations, which usually are somewhat crodible and often somewhat compressible, The placement of rigid, relatively impermeable structural elements against water-bearing earth leads to two damaging conditions: 1. Excess uplifting or overturning pressures caused by trapped water. Concrete and other impermeable elements of structures create major discontinuities where they join the earth. Because they are virtually impermeable, they obstruct natural paths of seepage and may cause water pressures to build up to dangerous levels if not relieved, 2. Channeling of seepage and piping caused by the presence of permeable discontinuities. Any contact between a rigid structural member and soil or rock is a potential plane of weakness because the slightest separation or opening attracts seepage. If the soil or rock is erodible, piping can develop and unless arrested can lead to serious damage or complete failure, Another damaging condition in saturated soil is piping failure caused by heave, which occurs when the uplift forces due to seepage equal the downward forces due to the submerged weight of the soil. Many of the serious failures of dams, reservoirs, and other civil engineering works of our times have been caused by one or more of 433these damaging actions of water. ‘The objective of structural drainage is to control water pressures and seepage forces in the earth adjacent to structures and thus prevent their untimely damage, deterioration, or failure In Chapter 3 methods are described for estimating rates of seepage (Sec, 3.4), for determining the forces exerted by seeping water (Sec. and for determining the uplift pressures exerted by water under structures (Sec, 3.5). Applying these principles is especially important when designing the types of structure described in this chapter. In Chapter 5 emphasis is placed on the need for adequately designed and constructed filters and drains to ensure long, trouble-free performance of dams and other structures involving water. Filters and drains must be designed to prevent piping (Sec. 5.2), yet have sufficient discharge capacity (See, 5.4) to remove quickly any water that reaches them without large buildup of hydrostatic head. These fundamental princi- ples of drain and filter design are of great importance to all the structures described in this chapter. Many of these works have costly structural elements that ean be properly and economically protected from the damaging actions of water only by features incorporated in the original construction, If adequate drainage facilities or other seep- age control measures are not provided at this time, repairs or correc- tive measures can be extremely costly. Strict adherence to sound drainage principles is probably the most important single aspect of the design of nearly all the structures described in this chapter. Almost every serious failure of structures of these kinds has been caused by lack of control of groundwater or seepage. ‘Throughout this book emphasis is placed on the need for specifying and obtaining drains that provide filter protection and have high water-removing capacities. The mere provision of drains of the proper dimensions in the correct locations does not of itself ensure that strue- tures will be properly drained (Sees. 1.2, 1.3, and 9.4). The needs of drainage systems should be determined by the methods described in this book and realistic designs and specifications prepared and strictly followed in the construction, Unfortunately the general appearance of drainage aggregates can be highly deceiving to the unwary, Nearly any aggregate containing some gravel sizes (even those entirely un- satisfactory for drainage purposes) may appear to the layman to be an excellent drainage material Construction personnel should be made aware of the need for strict adherence to specifications for filters and drains because good designs can be nullified if drain and filter materials depart appreciably from the specifications, even in a small part of the work 10.2 RETAINING STRUCTURES As defined in this chapter, a retaining structure may be for the purpose of retaining or supporting earth fills and slopes or for holding back water. Structures for the retention of earth may be retaining walls, cribs, steel shect pile cells, bin walls, or tied sheet. piling. Water-retaining structures discussed in this’ chapter include flood walls or cofferdams but exelude earth dams and levees. Earth-Retaining Structures Retaining walls and other types of earth-retaining structure are used to restrict earth slopes within limited rights-of-way or to prevent embankments from spilling down long slopes. They are also used widely to stabilize steep cut and fill slopes, for wing walls for embank- ments, and for numerous other situations in which substantial differ- ences in the elevation of earth are required within short distances. Three general types of retaining structure are in widespread use: (D gravity structures (masonry, crib, or bin walls), (2) cantilever walls, and (3) counterfort walls. The general features of these three types are shown in Fig. 10.1, Levinton and Feldstein (1957) describe these types as well as several others and set forth basic principles of design. Regardless of the type, earth pressures act to slide walls forward on their foundations and to overturn them. Walls must be set on founda- tions with sufficient strength to resist these overturning and sliding forces, and their dimensions should be established with full considera- tion of the properties of the backfill material and the foundation Groundwater and infiltering rainfall must always be controlled by adequate drainage. Clay or other highly impervious materials should not be used for backfilling crib- and bin-type walls if drainage is important to a specific wall, as it usually is. Compacted pervious granular materials make stable, well-drained backfill for walls of these types. For many years it has been customary to place a vertical blanket of “pervious” sand and gravel behind retaining walls for protection against hydrostatic pressures. Terzaghi (1943) demonstrates that even though the back face of a wall is drained with a vertical blanket appreciable pore pressures can exist in the earth behind the blanket, thus inereasing the pressure on the wall. This condition is illustratedAG cantilever ‘Cantilever “1 Soe 4\ boon) omncanon ) FIG. 10.1 Several types of retaining structures (diagrammatic). (a) Gravity walls. (6) Cantilever walls. (c) Counterfort walls, in Fig. 10.2, which shows a masonry retaining wall supporting sand fill (Fig, 10.22) that is being saturated by a heavy rainstorm. A steady seepage condition has developed toward a vertical drainage layer be- hind the wall as shown by the flow net in Fig. 10.2a, Under this drainage condition a potential failure plane de, has the excess pore pressure distribution dfe,, which produces resultant U, perpendicular to failure plane de,. Standpipe S measures the hydrostatic head hy at point A on the failure plane. The forces entering into a calculation of the resultant force acting to overturn the wall are shown in Fig, 10.26. This condition can exist as long as the intensity of rainfall is sufficient. to maintain steady seepage in the sand behind the vertical drainage layer, Terzaghi points out that in humid climates this condition can exist during every severe rainstorm if the permeability k of the sand is equal to or less than about 0,002 emisee or 2.84 inJhr, Few natural soil hate Timpermocbi Ease © FIG. 10.2 The influence of types of drainage on earth pressures on the back of a ertical retaining wall. From Fig, 76, Theovetial Soil Mechanics, K. Terzaghi, Wiley, New York, 1943, p. 248, (a) Fig. 76a. (b) Fig. 76. tc! Fig, 76 formations have permeabilities greater than this amount; hence most retaining walls constructed with vertical drainage blankets behind the wall as shown in Fig. 10.2a have greater earth pressures bearing on them during rainstorms than at other times. To overcome this deficiency Terzaghi suggests inclining the drain- age blanket as shown in Fig. 10.2 to force seepage into a vertical pattern and eliminate excess hydrostatic pressures in the sliding wedge that enters into the earth pressure computation, Without this drain the earth pressure on the wall is greater than that customarily obtained in earth pressure computations hy Coulomb's method; but with the inclined drainage blanket in place the pressures are reduced to those obtained by the normal computation methods. Because the higher pressures are not ordinarily used in designing retaining walls, the true factors of safety frequently are lower than indicated by com- putations. The suggested drainage eliminates this unsafe discrepancy. The desirability of forcing seepage into vertical patterns to improve slope stability is demonstrated in Chapter 8 (Figs. 8.9, 8.13 and 8.24), ‘The principle is stated in Chapter 8: Water seeping in a generally horizontal direction destabilizes slopes, whereas water seeping verti- cally downward produces no destabilizing forces and no pore pressures. Gilkey (1959) points out that the removal of all poseible moisture