REHABILITATION OF KEBAR DAM,

THE WORLD’S OLDEST OPERATING MASONRY DAM

Hossein Morshedian, PE 1
Habib Leylabi 2

ABSTRACT

The Kebar arch-gravity dam in Iran, 22 meters high, is especially remarkable for its
extraordinary age--700 to 900 years. This longevity is a world record for any type of
operating dam. Despite the dam’s age, it still serves as an example of optimum dam
design that was based on uncertain design parameters.

Because of the hundreds of years of operation and significant overtopping events (the last
one in 2009), the dam experienced seepage problems, such as leakage along the cold
joints created during dam raising.

In light of the historical value of the dam, detailed design criteria were established that
were compatible with the environmental and cultural aspects. A comprehensive
watershed hydrology study concluded that the current crest elevation is adequate, and
no extension is needed. Efforts, therefore, have been focused on enhancing current
operations and correcting any problems.

A finite element model was created using the surveying data, subsurface and field
conditions, and historical data to assess the stability of the dam. The modeling results
were consistent with the dam’s behavior during many recent and historical high
magnitude earthquakes that resulted in no damage. Recent plans have included the
following:

1. Emergency spillway (to avoid or decrease the overtopping frequency).

2. Outlet renovation.
3. Low-pressure grouting through the dam body.
4. Upstream sediment trap.
5. Reservoir sediment dredging plan.

The design phase was conducted from 2008 to 2010, and most rehabilitation tasks have
been completed. According to the analysis and observations, the dam is operating safely.
The rehabilitation of Kebar Dam can provide guidance for the safe operation of other old
masonry dams.

1
Geotechnical Engineer, Black & Veatch, 2999 Oak Rd, Ste 490, Walnut Creek, CA 94597. E-mail:
morshedianh@bv.com
2
Project Manager, Kamandab Consultant Engineers Co., No.9, Attar, Arasbaran, Seydkhandan, Tehran,
Iran, E-mail: habibleylabi@yahoo.com

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

 INTRODUCTION

Kebar Dam is located in central Iran in Qom Province (Figure 1). The dam crest is
approximately 82 meters long. The crest width is 4 meters in the middle and extends to
8 meters at the abutments. The foundation is estimated to be approximately 8 meters
wide. The overall dam static and seismic stability has been questioned. To protect this
invaluable piece of art, the owner decided to find out how stable the dam would be if a
strong earthquake were to hit the site.

Figure 1. Project Location Map

More than being an asset, the dam might be considered as one of the most magnificent
structural engineering landmarks in the world. Figure 2 shows the last major overtopping
event in 2009.

Figure 2. Last Significant Overtopping

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

 HISTORY

Kebar Dam was constructed in multiple stages. At the final stage in 1980 (about
300 years after last stage), its height was increased to approximately 3 meters to allow the
reservoir to retain approximately 1 million cubic meters (m3) of water. This modification
was crucial to the serviceability of the dam because of the watershed’s high rate of
sedimentation. However, this modification, which used reinforced concrete over the crest
and downstream cascade, might be considered a catastrophic adjustment (Figure 3).

Figure 3. 3-D View of Existing Condition

The dam was originally built in a narrow canyon with a short crest as a gravity barrier.
However, when the height of the dam was increased, the valley became wider, and an
arched dam was constructed. The arch configuration minimized the thickness and volume
of the dam. More importantly, the overtopping resistance of the arch masonry dam was
vital to its safety, as the dam had no spillway. To meet cultural resources criteria, the
rehabilitation process should be consistent with traditional methods and materials, and all
changes should be documented. Any new appurtenances should be compatible with the
texture, color and appearance of the existing structure and should minimally interfere
with its aesthetics and historical integrity. Figure 4 shows downstream flaws at the dam.

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

 Figure 4. Downstream Flaws

NONDESTRUCTIVE TESTING

It should be noted that as part of the initial scope of services, extensive nondestructive
testing (NDT) was planned. The purpose of this study was to provide professional
services to investigate the most appropriate NDT methods to determine material
properties and to identify the most efficient and practical NDT for Kebar Dam and its
foundation and abutments. Five reputable international companies or experts were
contacted. To meet the objectives, the application, advantages, disadvantages, costs and
limitations of NDT methods, in particular, ground penetrating radar (GPR), were
discussed.

The consensus of the experts was that little information would be obtained after extensive
efforts and a high cost. In addition, it was learned that, although GPR may identify
weaker materials from stronger ones, but no data would be obtained for use in the
proposed numerical finite element model. In a meeting with Qom Water Authority
(QWA), a summary of the study was discussed. QWA confirmed termination of the NDR
methods and suggested alternative methods to determine material properties. Figure 5
shows downstream and upstream views of the dam.

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

 Figure 5. Downstream (L) and Upstream (R) View of Dam

FINDINGS

Existing Site Condition

The foundation and abutments at the site are limestone, lime-marlstone (compared to
limestone, contain clay [35 percent to 65 percent] and calcium carbonate [65 percent to
35 percent]) and marl. Approximately the top 27 to 35 meters of these formations are
light brown, weathered and fractured karstic materials with medium to high permeability.
To determine the geotechnical characteristics of the foundation, abutments and silt
deposits in the reservoir, four boreholes were drilled: KH1, located on the right abutment,
55 meters deep; KH2, located downstream, 50 meters deep; KH3, located on the left
abutment, 55 meters deep; and KH4, located in the reservoir, 17 meters deep. These
boreholes were all vertical, except that KH3 was drilled at an angle of 38 degrees to be
perpendicular to the formation layering. Figure 6 shows geologic sections of the
foundation.

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

 Figure 6. Geologic Sections of the Foundation.

On the basis of the results of the above tests, it is the authors’ engineering judgment that
the material properties shown in Table 1 are appropriate to be considered in the numerical
model used.

Table 1. Assumed Material Properties

Poisson Tensile Compressive Angle of

E Coefficient Density Strength Strength Cohesion Friction
Material (N/mm2) (-) (kg/m3) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (degrees)
Concrete (top) 23000 0.15 2350 2.5 25
Masonry (dam) 3000 0.2 1900 0.2 25
Rock
7000 0.2 1960
(foundation)
N/mm2 = newton per square millimeter; kg/m3 = kilograms per cubic meter.

Finite Element Model

ANSYS Finite Element Software was used to analyze the behavior of the dam under
static and seismic loading.

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

Element Type. SOLID92 of ANSYS was used which has a quadratic displacement
behavior and is well suited to model irregular meshes.

Geometry and the Mesh. The geometry is visible on Figure 7a, which shows the mesh
and elements and the complete modeling of the dam, abutments, and foundation.
Figure 7b shows the concrete and masonry part of the dam and mesh and elements from
upstream. A total of 59,438 nodes and a total of 40,863 elements were used in the model.

Figure 7. a) Dam and Foundation, b) Dam

Boundary Condition. Translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions were prevented at all
outer areas of the foundations and abutments.

Static Loading. The weight of the dam, water and sediment pressure were considered in
the static loading on the upstream side. A gravity acceleration of 9.81 meters per second
squared (m/s2) was considered. Water pressure was 9,810 N/m3, effective sediment
pressure was 9,000 N/m3, and linear increase from elevation (level) was 1,020 meters.

Seismic Loading. The earthquake response spectrum, as shown on Figure 8, was used for
seismic analysis. In addition, the earthquake excitation was horizontal and in the direction
normal to the dam and at the mid-part of the dam (coordinates; X= 100, Y= 70 and Z=
1,000).

Stability Analysis

Static Analysis. The most relevant results are the displacements and the stresses. The
material behavior is assumed to be elastic. Nevertheless, a Mohr-Coulomb ratio factor
(SRATMC) was calculated in every element to estimate the validity of this assumption.

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

 Figure 8. Earthquake Response Spectrum

The lower value of SRATMC (less than 1) indicates that the material remains in an
elastic state. If this ratio factor were to exceed 1, the Mohr-Coulomb criterion would be
violated.

Modal Analysis. The first step in the response spectrum analysis is to calculate the
natural frequencies. Generally speaking, in masonry structures such as the Kebar Dam,
the fundamental frequency (the lowest frequency), or the lowest 3 to 7 modes, will
govern the behavior of the dam during an earthquake. In this analysis, a combined impact
of the first 20 modes was considered. From the modal participation factors and mode
coefficients, it can be concluded that Modes 1, 4, 5 and 6 contribute the most to the
dynamic response. Therefore, these modes are shown on Figure 9.

Figure 9. Displacement Sum

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

Seismic and Static Displacement. Displacements (and stresses) under static loading are
smaller than under seismic loading. The maximum static displacement was found to be
approximately 5.5 mm and occurred in the middle of the dam. In the seismic case, the
maximum displacement (calculated by considering the first 20 modes and applying the
SRSS combination method) was found to be approximately 6.3 mm and occurred at the
mid-point of the dam crest. In the worst-case scenario, the maximum dam displacement
at any point during a seismic event when the reservoir is filled with water and sediments
may not be more than 11.8 mm, which would not cause significant damage over a short
period of time.

Seismic Stresses. Stresses arising from different modes cannot be combined. The same
applies for the SRATMC factor. Most meaningful is to present this factor for each of the
dominating modes separately. From the analyses, it can be concluded that in the masonry
part of the dam close to the abutments, some very local plasticity can arise. In the
concrete part of the dam, the SRATMC factor always remains below 1.

The magnitude of these conservative displacements and stresses is not causing damage,
indicating that the dam will remain stable if subjected to the assumed earthquake.

REHABILIATION

Hydraulics

Dredging and New Intake. To reach the upstream face of the dam and low-level intake, a
10 meter excavation was planned. Dredging (about 100,000 m3) was to be continued
toward the reservoir; a safe slope and intake pipe were to be demolished, and a new
masonry intake tower was planned on the right abutment bedrock using the existing low-
level hole inside the dam (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Excavated Upstream Face, 3-D Model and Constructed Intake Tower

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

Flood Criteria. A crest elevation of 1031.3 meters above mean sea level was assumed
as the normal water level and a broad-crested weir relation was used for outflow
calculations. On the basis of the observed maximum flood flow (Figure 2), about
0.8 meter, the inflow discharge equals 100 cubic meters per second (m3/s) (100 to
200 year flood), which was defined as the criteria for the auxiliary spillway design to
decrease the probability of overtopping and dam/abutment erosion.

Auxiliary Spillway. Multiple alternatives, such as morning glory, ogee on the abutments,
cascade, tunnel in the left abutment and side/ogee over a saddle, were considered.
Because of cultural resources limitations, any construction on historic structures is not
permitted, so investigations narrowed down to remote alternatives. Finally based on cost
and constructability considerations, the “open ogee” spillway along with a chute at
adjacent saddle point was selected. Figure 11 shows the location and alignment of the
auxiliary spillway, and Figure 12 shows the 3-D model and constructed auxiliary
spillway.

Figure 11. Location and Alignment of Auxiliary Spillway

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

 Figure 12. 3-D Model and Constructed Auxiliary Spillway

Grouting

The mortar used in the old part of the dam (Sarooj) is a combination of clay, lime, fly
ash, and other materials that can be expected to sustain damage over the years. A natural
material (Limepor) that contains hydrated lime and pozzolan mortar was selected to
replace the old mortar. A 1 meter by 1 meter network of 60 centimeter (cm) holes were
drilled into the dam body, and a low-pressure water flow was injected to clean up the
loose mortar. Low-pressure Limepor grout was injected to fill the openings. A borescope
is a common tool for monitoring the quality of cleaning and grouting. The cleaning
procedure at the Kebar Dam was not successful, possibly because the old mortar was in
good condition, so this stage of rehabilitation was skipped.

Dam Facade

The upstream face of the dam has been repaired using inappropriate materials such as
brick and concrete. To maintain dam texture integrity, the face has been trimmed and
reconstructed using consistent materials.

CONCLUSION

Using the modal method, the stability of dam under earthquake loads was analyzed, and
no structural issue and concern were discovered. It was shown that the downstream
cascade, which was added during the 1980 construction to improve dam stability and
foundation erosion, is not necessary, especially with an auxiliary spillway in service.

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

Hydraulic calculations showed the auxiliary spillway would pass the 100 to 200 year
flood, which guarantees rarer overtopping occurrences.

The new intake tower will ensure safe and continuous irrigation of downstream lands,
without any probable sedimentation interference.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to our ex-professor and supervisor of this study, the late Dr. Ali M.
Oskoorouchi, who provided us technical support during the planning and design
procedure.
REFERENCES

Kamandab Consultant Engineers Co. Kebar Rehabilitation Project, Construction Progress

Reports, August 2012 through September 2013, prepared for Qom Regional Water
Authority, Iranian Water Resource Management, Ministry of Energy.

Kamandab Consultant Engineers Co., Kebar Rehabilitation Project, Cultural and

Historical Studies, March 2010, prepared for Qom Regional Water Authority, Iranian
Water Resource Management, Ministry of Energy.

Kamandab Consultant Engineers Co., Repair and Upgrading of Kebar Dam, Engineering
Geology, June 2009, prepared for Qom Regional Water Authority, Iranian Water
Resource Management, Ministry of Energy.

Kamandab Consultant Engineers Co., Repair and Upgrading of Kebar Dam, Technical
Memorandum, July 2010, prepared for Qom Regional Water Authority, Iranian Water
Resource Management, Ministry of Energy.

Kamandab Consultant Engineers Co., Seismic Hazard Investigation, Kebar Dam,

February 2009.

Kebar Dam Sections and Topographical map.

Kebar en Iran Sans Doute le Plus Ancien des Barrages-voute, 1964.

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