This paper will explore the differences in pore pressures resulting from saturated and unsaturated seepage (pore pressure) analysis. It will also evaluate some conventional recommendations, such as the inclusion of essential components of the embankment dam and omission of inessential components. In addition, the identification of inessential components will be discussed.
Finally, pore pressures obtained from these analyses will be compared to monitoring data in order to identify the most appropriate seepage (pore pressure) model.
In conclusion, advantages and disadvantages of each method will be discussed and recommendations will be provided in order to gain the most appropriate results.
The results of this paper can be used for designing new embankment dams or safety reviews of existing dams, particularly when there is lack of reliable monitoring data.
Now showing 1-12 of 59 2982:
There are many dams in Australia with appurtenant features such as spillway gates, large capacity outlet works, power stations and transfer tunnels. These features can play a significant role in how these dams are operated during flood events and allow for additional flexibility to implement flood mitigation activities such as pre-releases and surcharge depending on authorised operating procedures for the dam.
Typical practice in many dam flood hydrology studies has been to significantly simplify or even ignore the impacts of these features on the dam water level frequency curve. For example, it may have been assumed that spillway gates were either fully open or changed from fully closed to fully open in a uniform manner regardless of inflow rate. Whilst this approach significantly simplifies routing of floods through these storages, it may produce results which are inconsistent with the expected flood probability of the dam given its current operating procedures, especially for relatively frequent flood events. This is particularly critical for risk assessment where definition of the flood loading probabilities requires robust estimates of water level AEPs for all events.
In a number of recent studies, greater emphasis has been placed on detailed modelling of the effects of spillway gates and other outlet works on dam flood hydrology. This has required site-specific algorithms to be developed which incorporate the characteristics of the spillway gates or other features at each structure, as well as the flood operations procedures for the dam. This paper presents a number of case studies where explicit simulation of dam flood operations has had a significant impact on the resulting flood frequency curve and downstream flow rates and discusses the implications of that on dambreak modelling and risk assessment for those dams.
Trustpower is a New Zealand based hydro generator and retailer. It started off as a business that only owned a few schemes and then during a period of rapid expansion between 1998 and 2002 acquired the bulk of its current schemes. Now it owns and operates 25 hydro schemes across New Zealand ranging from 150kW to 80MW output.
This paper examines how Trustpower’s Dam Safety Management System (DSMS) has evolved over time, taking account of developments in the business environment, proposed regulatory changes, improvements in the NZSOLD guidelines and evolution in international dam safety practice.
The Kumara-Dillmans-Duffers Hydro Electric Power Scheme (HEPS) and in particular its Kapitea Reservoir (high Potential Impact Category) will be used as an example to highlight how the DSMS evolved over this period.
Many Australian and international dam owners use risk assessments to understand and manage the societal risks posed by their dams. This requires estimates of dam failure consequences, particularly the potential loss of life (PLL). The methods used to assess PLL have become more varied and sophisticated in recent times. This paper summarises the current status of the methods most relevant to the Australian dams industry (i.e. RCEM, HEC-LifeSim, the Life Safety Model), and comments on their applicability for Australian PLL assessments. This commentary is based on material presented by dam owners, regulators, researchers and consultants from the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, at workshops on estimating dam failure consequences held in Denver in 2016 and Toronto in 2018.
Ulu Jelai project is a recently completed 372MW hydroelectric peak – power project located in the Cameron Highlands of Malaysia. A combination of power generating and reservoir operating conditions together with the site topography, existing road infrastructure, geology and hydrogeological conditions pose a significant risk to the viability of the project during operation. As a result, significant reservoir rim stability treatments were designed and constructed along a 3.5km section of the right abutment of t he Susu Reservoir to reduce the risk of instability to acceptable levels. This paper describes the methods of investigations, stability assessment and design aspects of the reservoir rim stability treatments that were constructed.
In 2018, DNRME released the latest revision of the Failure Impact Assessment (FIA) Guidelines and the first significant change since 2003. An FIA is the instrument for determining if a dam is referable and therefore regulated for dam safety purposes in Queensland.
The guidelines reflect upon changes in legislation and advances in methods and tools for assessing consequences of dam failure. The revised version tends to be less prescriptive and emphasises the responsibility of the engineer completing the assessment to develop appropriate and defensible methods.
The paper provides an overview of the FIA guidelines, key concepts, the steps to follow when preparing an FIA and a comparison to ANCOLD’s latest consequence assessment guideline.