James Stuart, Michael Hughes
Several recent rain events in Australia have resulted in impoundment flood levels where there was a surprising variability between the Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of the flood level and that of the rainfall. The issue was highlighted during the Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry (QFCI, 2011) by the Queensland Dam Safety Regulator who suggested there may be a problem with design hydrology after a dam safety event that saw impoundment levels of around 1:9000 AEP with a 1:200 AEP catchment rainfall at North Pine Dam, north of Brisbane in 2011. Wide disparities have occurred at Wivenhoe Dam west of Brisbane, at Callide Dam, west of Gladstone and at other locations.
This paper examines the Generalised Short Duration Method (GSDM) (BoM, 2003) and the Revised Generalised Tropical Storm Method (GTSMR) (BoM, 2003) typically used for dam flood capacity assessments in an attempt to explain the variability outlined above and whether it is, in part, exacerbated by the methods themselves.
It finds that processes of generalising rainfall depth, intensity, temporal and spatial characteristics are working together with adopted hydrological methods to contribute to such variability, that in the worst case could lead to PMF levels in dams with much less rainfall than the associated PMP would infer.
Moreover, two key assumptions; that of AEP neutrality (AEP of rainfall is equal to that of the flood) and frequency of PMP based on catchment area, which are the foundations stones of our understanding of flood frequency for large structures, are found to be untested or simply interim advice. This leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of floods in the range 2000 year AEP to PMF may continue to show surprising variability, potentially of an order of magnitude or more, compared to the rainfall AEP.
There is a need for a review of these methods and potentially provision of interim guidance as these methods are currently being used in dam upgrade programs throughout Australia and are also the basis for emergency planning. The identification of these issues concerns current methods and are independent to any discussion on climate change.Prior to commencing, it is worth defining two terms that re-occur throughout the document:
Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP): The probability that a given rainfall total accumulated over a given duration will be exceeded in any one year. AEP Neutrality is the theory that assumes the probability of the rainfall can be transferred to the resulting flood.
Average Variability Method (AVM): Technique for estimating design temporal pattern of average variability to ensure AEP Neutrality in transition from PMP to PMP design flood
— OR —
Now showing 1-12 of 47 2981:
Peyman Andaroodi, Barton Maher
Seqwater is a statutory authority of the Government of Queensland that provides bulk water storage, transport and treatment, water grid management and planning, catchment management and flood mitigation services to the South East Queensland region of Australia. Seqwater also provides irrigation services to about 1,200 rural customers in the region that are not connected to the grid and provides recreation facilities. Seqwater owns and operates 26 referable dams regulated under Queensland dam safety legislation.
Leslie Harrison Dam is an Extreme Hazard category dam located in the Redland Bay area of Brisbane.A significant portion of Population at Risk is located within a short distance downstream of the dam, reducing the available warning time in the event of a dam safety issue and impacting on the estimated loss of life used to assess risk. Following the Portfolio Risk Assessment undertaken by Seqwater in 2013, a series of detailed investigations were undertaken to confirm the assessed risk and the scope and urgency of the upgrade works.
Before a final decision on the scope and timing of the dam upgrade is made, Seqwater has completed a detailed review of the downstream consequences. This review was intended to update the Population at Risk(PAR) and Potential Loss of Life(PLL) estimates using the latest estimation methods for a range of scenarios. Three life loss estimation methods were used including empirical and dynamic simulation models and the results were compared.
This paper discusses the updated consequences assessment and the impact on the assessed risks, for Leslie Harrison Dam for both the current dam and the proposed upgrade scenarios using the revised Potential Loss of Life estimates.
Lesa Delaere, Dr Natalie Clark, Dr Shayan Maleki
Waterway barriers, such as dams and weirs, have the potential to impact aquatic fauna species through the restriction of fauna movement and direct injury and mortality of individuals. Without suitably designed aquatic fauna passages and features to minimise injury and mortality, these barriers may adversely affect the viability of local and regional populations, through disruption to critical behaviours (e.g. breeding, dispersal).
The Lower Fitzroy River Infrastructure Project comprises of two weirs on the Fitzroy River in central Queensland. Two threatened turtle species, the Fitzroy River turtle and the white-throated snapping turtle, and a range of fish species needed consideration of species-specific requirements and development of targeted design solutions.
This paper discusses the ecological needs of these species as well as features incorporated into the design to reduce the impact of the weirs. The design incorporated modular fishlocks, gate, spillway and stilling basin features, an innovative turtle passage, special considerations for outlets and operational aspects. The design was further subject to complexity due to the variation in river flows, zero flow to approximately 9,000m3/sat bank full, and needed to account for a wide range of operational scenarios with respect to the species impacts.The paper also includes a discussion on computational fluid dynamics modelling (CFD) which was used to validate the design of fish passage structures.
Andrew Northfield, Simon Lang, Peter Hill
Melbourne Water currently manages more than230retarding basins (RBs). A large portion of these are less than 4 metres high, and traditionally structures of this size have not been subject to intermediate or detailed ANCOLD Consequence Assessments. However, the need to understand the failure consequences for smaller structures has increased over time, as risk based approaches to managing safety have expanded from large dams to other water retaining assets.
Undertaking detailed consequence assessments for all Melbourne Water’s RBs would not be practical, given the costs and time involved. Therefore, this paper describes a method for assessing the level of ANCOLD Consequence Assessment that is justified, based on the structure’s attributes. It also presents an equation that was used to estimate peak outflows from RB failure. The peak outflow estimates can be used to model approximate failure inundation extents downstream of small dams and RBs.
The paper draws on work that HARC have recently undertaken for Melbourne Water to assess the failure consequences for 88 RBs. The outcomes are relevant to other organisations that own or manage significant numbers of small water dams or RBs.
Paul S. Meeks
In June 2008 a young girl kayaking at a hydroelectric control dam owned by Alcan in Quebec Canada, tragically drowned when she was swept through the open spillgates. The public safety boat barrier, installed the year before, failed to prevent this accident. In June 2015, Stephen Hembree took his daughter and 7 of her friends out for a pontoon boat ride on Lake Linganore to celebrate her 16th birthday. A short time later, Mr. Hembree was dead while his daughter and her friends were be rescued by helicopter as they clung to boulders in the spillway. Contrast these incidents to one in March 2017, when the public safety boat barrier installed by Alliant Energy at Kilbourn Dam was credited with preventing the loss of life after a woman fell into the river above the dam. What went wrong in the first 2 instances and what can we learn from the third incident? What steps can dam owners take to prevent accidents like these from happening?
The first two incidents represent preventable loss of life at a dam while the third incident proves how a proactive approach to public safety results in reduced liability for dam owners and lower loss of life. In the Alcan instance, the public safety barrier installed to prevent this very scenario was instead installed in a location that doomed the girl even before she set her kayak in the water. The second instance demonstrates how a dam owners lack of risk awareness coupled with a boat owners carelessness resulted in a fatality.
Using the incidents above, this presentation, modeled after the Canadian Dam Associations Guidelines for Public Safety Around Dams, will educate owners and operators how to identify “dangerous” zones above and below dams. We will consider the effects of surface water velocity of individual survivability and barrier effectiveness. Flow-3D models will be shown to illustrate the effect of barrier alignment and velocity to increase an individual’s ability to “self-rescue”. Lastly, we will integrate within the presentation practical guidelines for the use of signage, sign size, lettering height and message consistency. The presentation will conclude by examining lessons learned in the Alcan incident and presenting how a proper public safety barrier and signage plan would be implemented.
More people have died from accidents around dams than have died from dam failures. The Canadian Dam Association published its guidelines in 2011 and the result has seen a significant reduction in fatalities and injuries as a result of recreating around Canadian Dams. The United States Society on Dams (USSD), the Association of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) all have embarked on efforts, modeled in large part around the CDA Guidelines to bring Public Safety out of the dam safety toolbox so Public Safety is viewed as a separate managed system. This is being conducted in an effort to educate and alert dam owners, operators and recreational users to hazards and risks in and around dams.
David Guest, George Samios, Richard Rodd
Tenterfield Creek Dam is a 15m high concrete gravity structure that was constructed in 1930 and raised by 1.83m and stabilised using 97 post-tensioned ground anchors in 1974.Recent stability assessments concluded that the dam does not satisfy the ANCOLD Guidelines for Stability of Gravity Dams and that the situation is likely to deteriorate given the questionable performance of the post-tensioning cables and on the grounds of continuing corrosion and demonstrated loss of load.Tenterfield Shire Council is committed to improving the stability of the dam to meet the requirements of the NSW Dam sSafety Committee and engaged Public Works Advisory to assist them achieve this outcome.
Public Works Advisory prepared a dam upgrade options study which selected two options for further consideration. The estimated costs of the two preferred options were found to be potentially close;therefore Tenterfield Shire Council requested that both options be taken to detail design and tender stage to allow the market to indicate which option was in-fact better value.Factors other than construction costs were also considered in the options evaluation process and these factors influenced the selection outcome. The two upgrade options of lowest cost were the conventional gravity dam strengthen solutions i.e. installation of new post-tensioned ground anchors and downstream mass concrete buttressing. The decision to proceed to tender with two options was supported by the other key funding stakeholder, DPI Water.
This paper provides some unique insight on the comparison of conventional upgrade options for concrete gravity dams and also examines some interesting design aspects encounter edduring the design development process