See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295861554

Piezometers, Inclinometers, and Extensometers (and how to Evaluation

Piezometers for Earth Dams)

Presentation · February 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3442.6648

CITATIONS READS

0 305

1 author:

Richard Olsen
US Army Corps of Engineers
52 PUBLICATIONS   380 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

USSD peizometer evaluation papers View project

SCAPS SRS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Olsen on 25 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Piezometers, Inclinometers, and Extensometers 
From Equipment to Evaluation in 29 minutes  
2016 Feb 18 ‐ FEMA site, Emmitsburg, Maryland
NDSP Technical Seminar No. 23
Internal Evaluation Techniques for Earthen Dams
FEMA National Dam Safety Review Board

Richard S. Olsen, PhD, PE
Acting Principle Geotechnical Engineer 

Geotechnical & Materials CoP Lead 
Headquarters
Engineering & Construction Division
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Washington DC

o16F1618

HQ USACE
inclinometers

HQ USACE
Inclinometer thoughts

Install 
properly

Estimate shear zone 
Depth is Enough
HQ USACE
HQ USACE
Inclinometer casing

HQ USACE
HQ USACE
IN-PLACE OR
STATIONARY
INCLINOMETERS

Inclinometers for vertical measurement

HQ USACE
 Poor man’s inclinometers
Sometimes just an installed  Reduction in cable length can 
plastic tube together with a  also be used to index shear 
plumb bob is all that is required movement

Slip surface Slip surface

Strong 
cable

Concrete Plug
HQ USACE
HQ USACE
A & B directions

HQ USACE
B
Technically, this is what you need to calculate  
A (45 years ago we did these calculations)

Today it’s done with software 
BUT remember – garbage in – garbage out 

HQ USACE
incremental cumulative
A A

HQ USACE
 Zone
Influenced by 
slope 
movement

Shear
Zone
} Shear Zone

Stable 
cumulative ZONE

cumulative

HQ USACE
Good Example

HQ USACE
Errors
Insufficient Depth

HQ USACE
Errors

First 
Measurement

HQ USACE
Extensometers

HQ USACE
HQ USACE
Get Good Advice 
(more than just from vendors)

HQ USACE
Piezometers  (equipment and evaluation)

Measuring 
pore 
pressures Stay away from multi stage piezometers

HQ USACE
Piezometer 
in a grouted 
hole

Two stage 
piezometer 
in a grouted 
hole

HQ USACE
Points B and A will correctly measure the
corresponding soil pore pressures If Rd << Ld

Ld

Rd
HQ USACE
Casagrande Standpipe Piezometer

HQ USACE
HQ USACE
Evaluating piezometer data 
You need to understand how piezometer 
data can be evaluated to know the why, 
the where, and how to install them.
USSD 2016 (April) paper: (this paper is already out of date)

RELEARNING HOW TO LOOK AT PIEZOMETRIC DATA

FOR SEEPAGE EVALUATION
Richard S. Olsen PhD PE USACE HQ
Isaac J. Stephens PE USACE ERDC GSL
A copy is at USSD2016.geostaff.net
I saw the need to push the state‐of‐the‐art
in a critical area for USACE, 
so I wrote this paper and I’m giving this lecture
HQ USACE
 How high can water (pore) pressure get ?

Artesian
water
Inclined sand
pressure
layers can have
Hillside geometry  extremely high
can concentrate  water (pore)
pressure
seepage and cause 
high pore pressure
Tube filled with water
This tube is like a sand layer that Localized landslide can
extends up the slope but is 1) block the sand layer, or
2) Dissipate pore pressure
plugged at the end
HQ USACE
 Simple flow net construction

∆H
d=8.3
8.3

part
1
8
flow
2

3
1 7
2 3 4 5 6

4
Equal potential lines
Same dimensions n=4 (equal elevation pore pressure)

Flow lines
HQ USACE
Determining elevation pore pressure along a flow line.

∆H

HQ USACE
Elevation pore pressure for a situation having a cutoff wall
Pore pressure  Pore pressure 
along a along an interface
seepage path
i=0.5=7.5/15 
Cutoff wall
i=0.7=10.5/15 

HQ USACE
HQ USACE
 From Field to Representative
Field
Simplified
Idealized
Flow in
Representative 

Flow out

HQ USACE
 Pore pressure for an equivalent sand layer

Flow in Equivalent water well standpipe
Pore pressure elevation head 
trend for steady state flow in a 
uniform granular layer 
Gauge
pore Flow out
pressure

Steady state flow – non changing – in a equivalent uniform pipe

HQ USACE
Comparison of pore pressure trend for sand and gravel layers   

Same elevation pore pressure trend 

sand gravel

HQ USACE
Pore pressure response for a blocked sand layer.
Total pressure head, also known as 
Elevation Pore Pressure Head
For a blocked soil path the 
pore pressure elevation head 
trend is equal to the reservoir water 
elevation

blocked 
No pore pressure 
decrease between 
soil path
two point means no 
water flow

HQ USACE
Flow nets representing an equivalent uniform sand layer

Water elevation
pressure head
(uniform sand layer)

HQ USACE
 Defining a pinch condition in a uniform sand layer 

Water elevation pressure trend
due to pinching of a sand layer

Water elevation 
H
P
pressure head
(uniform layer)

B T

Uniform Layer – normal situation
Pinching of sand layer
Q/sec decreases because of the pinch but is the same for the total length

V (distance/sec) at the pinch will be higher than for either side
HQ USACE
Construction of the R‐P trend line to a “no flow” condition
Reservoir (head) equals Piezometer
(R=P, no soil condition)   NOTE: tail is constant

Elevation Piezometric Level
Head water  U
Head water
Piezometric 
Piezometric

Constant 
Tail water

Situation trend to 
no flow condition
High reservoir Low reservoir
Reservoir Head water level 
L‐P plot  R‐P plot L‐P plot

HQ USACE
 How does Seepage caused piping
change the Reservoir‐Piezometer (R‐P) chart ? 
Head=Piezo  (no flow) U
v

Piezo Elevation
v Initial 
piping

Major piping Seepage 
piping 
Initial piping formation

Major piping Reservoir (head) Elevation

Initial formation  Head = Piezo (i.e. no soil)
of piping

HQ USACE
Data example from FEMA manual to determine the zero flow condition

PIEZO Elevation

1.9 ft POOL Elevation
8 ft Assuming piezometer is from the crest location
1.9 
ap =       = 0.24
8.0 Data from 
FEMA document
Data trend to P=R no flow
TAIL ? at elevation 243 ft HQ USACE
 Data example from USACE manual to determine the zero flow condition.

Before grouting 1992‐2009
Piezo DC248R
Data from USACE EM 1110‐2‐1908 

Tail ranges from 545 to 563 ft After grouting 2010‐2102

Both data trends to  600 610 620 640 660 680

elevation 620 ft
for a zero flow condition
(about 70 feet above average tail)

HQ USACE
 Data from USACE EM 1110‐2‐1908 

Both data trends to 
elevation 1309 ft for zero flow condition

Data example from USACE manual to determine the zero flow condition.

41
HQ USACE
Show  Spillway invert
piezometer  Project: xxxx
Infrastructure: xxxx High pool emergency
information
Location: i.e. on crest xx m from right abutment
at top left inside 

Piezometer  Elevation
U/D location: i.e. xx m upstream from crest
plotting area Computer file (database) name : xxx key
Lat/Long: xx.xxxxxxx xx.xxxxxxxx Piezometer xxxx
Piezo Name: xxxx during normal operations
Database item name: xxxx Piezometer xxxx
Sensor Elevation:  xxxx after seepage observed
Show projected  Ground elevation: xxxx  
to no flow 
condition and 
related text Other example Symbols;
∆   static reservoir (summer)
Inferred projected ↑  reservoir going up
Show lines for ↓  reservoir going down
no flow condition ⃝ a er site modifica on
Head=Piezo and 
― high tail water elevation
Uniform sand layer  Piezo response for uniform 
behavior U sand layer behavior
Use axis interval  R=P (no soil) i.e. reservoir = piezo
of 1, 2, 5, 10 etc 
and use tic  Reservoir Elevation
marks
HQ USACE
USACE information to 
show a site map and time 
history of piezometer

Data from USACE EM 1110‐2‐1908 

Date
43

HQ USACE
 Stopping a CPT probe inside a thin critical sand layer, 
for pore pressure measurements

Cone resistance

CPT probe
CPT sleeve
CPT piezo element
Clay layer
CPT cone

Thin critical 
sand layer

Clay layer depth

HQ USACE
Required plots that should be added to computer seepage modeling output
% passing #200
Permeability (cm/sec) or 
10‐3 10‐2 10‐1 1 D10 (mm)
SM‐ML
SM

Elevation (feet)

Depth below crest (feet)
SP

SM
SP

Lab measured D10
Lab measured permeability
Trend from measured data Lab  based trend

Estimated trend from D10

HQ USACE
 Debris from landslide dams
could cause failure of 
conventional earth/rock dams
(due to high fluid density)
Olsen (ERDC) concept through US STATE & DOD
Landslide Dams China 2008

= 62 psf = 90 psf
W F+W
HQ USACE
View publication stats

Thank You
Rick Olsen

Eh
v
v
EP EP
and
H=P
U
Eh
U
Et
o16F1618

Et
Eh
HQ USACE