Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment

, Volume 78, Issue 8, pp 5569–5581 | Cite as

The effect of scale on the water leakage from the reservoir and abutment of Beheshtabad Dam

  • Hossein Abedian
  • Gholam Hossein KaramiEmail author
  • Haji Karimi
Original Paper


Dam construction on karstic carbonate formations usually involves leakage problems from their abutments and reservoirs. Constructing a dam in such formations can lead to reservoir leakage to downstream or adjacent basins. In karstic areas, hydraulic conductivity has a direct correlation with scale. In other words, hydraulic conductivity is far lower in sub-local scales (Slug test and Lugeon test) in comparison with local scales (pumping test) and large scales (dye tracing test and recession curve). The present study was conducted to investigate the scale effect on water leakage from the reservoir and abutment of Beheshtabad Dam. This dam is located approximately at the end of an anticline axis named Sangvil, which is mainly composed of dolomite-limestone with a thickness of about 700 m. The righthand side of the reservoir is in contact with this formation. Several methods have been used for the evaluation of hydraulic conductivity and for determining the reservoir leakage in the righthand side of the dam, including Lugeon tests, Uranine tracer, a gradient approach, and spring recession curves. Also, a pumping test was carried out by considering pumping well assumptions. The results showed a range of hydraulic conductivity values for the rock mass from 2.1×10−6 m/s at the sub-local scale (Slug test) to 1.7 × 10−4 m/s at the regional scale (dye tracing test). In such a context, reservoir leakage is calculated at approximately 0.1 l/s iayn the sub-local scale to 2.7 l/s at a regional scale. By considering that reservoir scale is correlated with regional scale, leakage in the righthand side of Beheshtabad dam is calculated according to a regional scale, and the leakage amount was predicted to be within the range of 5.4 to 7.8 m3/s.


Scale effect Karst Dam Hydraulic conductivity Leakage Beheshtabad 


  1. ASTM (1995) Standard guide for design of ground-water monitoring systems in karst and fractured-rock aquifers. The American society for testing and materials, CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonacci O (2012) Karst hydrology: with special reference to the Dinaric karst (Vol. 2). Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouwer H, Rice RC (1976) A slug test for determining hydraulic conductivity of unconfined aquifers with completely or partially penetrating wells. Water Resour Res 12(3):423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradbury KR, Muldoon MA (1990) Hydraulic conductivity determinations in unlithified glacial and fluvial materials. In: Nielson DM, Johnson AI (eds) Hydraulic conductivity and waste contaminant transport in soils. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP, Philadelphia, pp 138–151Google Scholar
  5. Brown D (1998) An investigation into the controls on groundwater flow at increasing scales in the carboniferous limestone of Middlebarrow Quarry, S. Cumbria, U.K. PhD thesis. University of Lancaster, LancasterGoogle Scholar
  6. Castany G (1984) Hydrogeological features of carbonate rocks. In: LaMoreaux PE, Wilson BM, Memon BA (eds) Guide to the hydrology of carbonate rocks. IHP studies and reports in hydrology, vol 41. UNESCO, Paris, pp 47–67Google Scholar
  7. Chapuis RP (2010) Permeability scale effect in sandy aquifers: a few case studies. Proceedings of the18th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen YF, Ling XM, Liu MM, Hu R, Yang Z (2018) Statistical distribution of hydraulic conductivity of rocks in deep-incised valleys, Southwest China. J Hydrol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clauser C (1992) Permeability of crystalline rocks. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 73(21):233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillon P, Pavelic P, Wright M, Peter P, Nefiodovas A (2001) Small-scale heterogeneity and anisotropy of a confined carbonate aquifer from triaxial tests on core samples. In: Wohnlich SA (ed) New approaches characterising groundwater flow. Swets and Zeitlinger, Lisse, pp 815–819Google Scholar
  11. Galvão P, Halihan T, Hirata R (2016) The karst permeability scale effect of Sete Lagoas, MG, Brazil. J Hydrol 532:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson RE (1963) An analysis of system flexibility and its effect on time-lag in porewater pressure measurements. Géotechnique 13(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halihan T, Sharp JM, Robert EM (2000) Flow in the San Antonio segment of the Edwards aquifer: matrix, fractures, or conduits? In: Sasowsky ID, Carol MW (eds) Groundwater flow and contaminant transport in carbonate aquifers. Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamm SY, Kim M, Cheong JY, Kim JY, Son M, Kim TW (2007) Relationship between hydraulic conductivity and fracture properties estimated from packer tests and borehole data in a fractured granite. Eng Geol 92(1):73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinrichsen EL, Aharony A, Feder J, Hansen A, Jøssang T, Hardy HH (1993) A fast algorithm for estimating large-scale permeabilities of correlated anisotropic media. Transp Porous Media 12(1):55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hvorslev ML (1951) Time lag and soil permeability in groundwater observations. Bull 36. Waterways Experiment Station Corps of Engineers. U. S. Army, VicksburgGoogle Scholar
  17. Illman WA (2007) Strong field evidence of directional permeability scale effect in fractured rock. J Hydrol 319(1–4):227–236Google Scholar
  18. Karami GH (2002) Assessment of heterogeneity and flow systems in karstic aquifers using pumping test data. PhD thesis, University of Newcastle, NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  19. Kiraly L (1975) Rapport sur l’etat actuel des connaissances dans le domaine des caracteres physiques des roches karstiques. In: Burger A, Dubertret L (eds) Hydrogeology of karstic terrains. International Union of Geological Sciences, Series B, 3:53–67Google Scholar
  20. Kurikami H, Takeuchi R, Yabuuchi S (2008) Scale effect and heterogeneity of hydraulic conductivity of sedimentary rocks at Horonobe URL site. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 33:S37–S44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landon MK, Rus DL, Harvey FE (2001) Comparison of instream methods for measuring hydraulic conductivity in sandy streambeds. Groundwater 39(6):870–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mace RE, Hovorka SD (2000) Estimating porosity and permeability in a karstic aquifer using core plugs, well tests, and outcrop measurements. In: Sasowsky ID, Wicks CM (eds) Groundwater flow and contaminant transport in carbonate aquifers. Balkema, Brookfield, pp 93–111Google Scholar
  23. Maréchal JC, Dewandel B, Subrahmanyam K (2004) Use of hydraulic tests at different scales to characterize fracture network properties in the weathered fractured layer of a hard rock aquifer. Water Resour Res 40(11)Google Scholar
  24. Milanovic PT (1981) Karst hydrogeology. Water Resources Publications, LittletonGoogle Scholar
  25. Mull DS, Liebermann TD, Smoot JL, Woosley LHJ (1988) Application of dye-tracing techniques for determining solute-transport characteristics of groundwater in karst terranes. EPA/904/9-88-001. U.S. EPA, Region IV, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  26. Raeisi E (2008) Ground-water storage calculation in karst aquifers with alluvium or no-flow boundaries. J Cave Karst Stud 70(1):62–70Google Scholar
  27. Rorabough MI (1964) Estimating changes in bank storage and grounwater contribution to streamflow. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Publ 63:432–441Google Scholar
  28. Rovey CW, Cherkauer DS (1995) Scale dependency of hydraulic conductivity measurements. Groundwater 33(5):769–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sauter M (1991) Assessment of hydraulic conductivity in a karst aquifer at local and regional scale. In: Quinlan J (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd conference on hydrogeology, ecology, monitoring, and management of ground water in karst terranes, 4th–6th December 1991, Nashville, Tennessee. National Ground Water Association, Dublin, pp 39–56Google Scholar
  30. Sauter M (2005) Scale effects of hydraulic conductivity in karst and fractured aquifers. Geophys Res Abstr. Accepted 28 Apr 2005
  31. Schlulz HD (1998) Evaluation and interpretation of tracing tests. In: Käss W (ed) Tracing technique in geohydrology. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 341–375Google Scholar
  32. Stocklin J (1968) Structural history and tectonics map of Iran: a review. Am Assoc Pet Geol Bull 52(7):1229–1258Google Scholar
  33. Whitaker FF, Smart PL (2000) Characterising scale-dependence of hydraulic conductivity in carbonates: evidence from the Bahamas. J Geochem Explor 69:133–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Worthington SR (1991) Karst hydrogeology of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. PhD thesis, McMaster University, HamiltonGoogle Scholar
  35. Worthington SR (2007) Groundwater residence times in unconfined carbonate aquifers. J Cave Karst Stud 69(1):94–102Google Scholar
  36. Yihdego Y (2017) Hydraulic in situ testing for mining and engineering design: packer test procedure, preparation, analysis and interpretation. J Geotech Geol Eng 35:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zayandab Consulting Engineers Co. (2006) Geological Report of the Reservoir and Dam Site Beheshtabad, (In Persian)Google Scholar
  38. Zayandab Consulting Engineers Co. (2007) Geotechnic Report of the Reservoir and Dam Site of Beheshtabad, (In Persian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hossein Abedian
    • 1
  • Gholam Hossein Karami
    • 1
    Email author
  • Haji Karimi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Earth SciencesShahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran
  2. 2.Department of AgricultureIlam UniversityIlamIran

Personalised recommendations