Upload
lamkiet
View
264
Download
11
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Embankment dam spillways and energy dissipators
by Prof. Hubert CHANSONThe University of Queensland, School of Civil Engineering, Brisbane QLD 4072,
Australia, E-mail: [email protected]
Clermont MEL weir in 1993
Glashutte dam, 22 Aug. 2002
Spillway Designs for Embankment Overtopping System and Earth Dams
CHANSON, H. (2014). "Embankment Dam Spillways and Energy Dissipators." in "Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs II - PKW 2013." Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Labyrinth and Piano Key Weirs -PKW 2013, 20-22 Nov., Paris-Chatou, France, CRC Press, pp. 23-37 (ISBN 978-1-138-00085-8).
Introduction
Embankment failure & breach development
Minimum Energy Loss weirs
Embankment overflow stepped spillways
Precast concrete blocks
Gabions & Reno mattresses
Design considerations
Introduction
Embankment = earthfill structures
ApplicationsDamsRiver training / Flood protectionCoastal protections
Tsunami barrierStorm surge barrier
Natural lakes & Landslide damsMan-made flooding (during wars)
Kyoto, Japan
Sorpe dam, Germany
New Orleans, USA in 2005 (Hurricane Katrina)
EmbankmentsEarthfill structures � Erodible systems when overtoppedLevees, Dykes
Dale Dyke dam (UK)Construction: 1863Failure: 11 March 1864(piping, poor construction)150 lives lost
South Fork dam (USA)Construction: 1838-1853Failure: 31 May 1889(spillway capacity
& construction)2,209 lives lost
Lake Ha! Ha! (Canada)Failure: July 1996(spillway capacity)
Opuha Dam Failure on 5 February 1997
Opuha dam (NZ)Construction: 1996-1999Failure: 5 February 1997(outlet capacity)
Glashutte dam (Germany)Construction: 1953Failure: 12 August 2002(spillway capacity)
Downstream flooding and damageImages courtesy of Dr Bornschein
Embankment failure & breach development
Relatively slow failure processTeton dam (USA, 100 m high) 12 h to drain reservoir (1976)
Zeyzoun dam (Syria) breach opening = 3 ½ h (2002)
Glashutte dam (Germany) 4 hours overtopping +breach opening = 30 min (2002)
Zeyzoun Dam Failure on 4 June 2002
Embankment failure = dam break but ….
Embankment breach development & inlet shape
Sequence of 8 shots within 20 s – Non-cohesive embankment overtopping model
Natural scour = similarity with MEL inlet(McKAY 1970, CHANSON 2003 JHE)
Merriespruit tailings dam failure in 1994 (Courtesy of Pr A. FOURIE)
Saaiplaas tailings failure in 1993
Island of Capri canal
CHANSON, H. (2004). "Overtopping Breaching of Noncohesive Homogeneous Embankments. Discussion." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 4, pp. 371-374.CHANSON, H. (2005). "The 1786 Earthquake-Triggered Landslide Dam and Subsequent Dam-Break Flood on the DaduRiver, Southwestern China. Comment." Geomorphology, Vol. 71, pp.437-440.
Analogy with Minimum Energy Loss (MEL) culvert inlet
MEL culvert at Redcliffe (Australia)
Brazil
Irago peninsula, Japan
Crotty dam, Australia, 1991
Brushes Clough dam, UK in 1993
Choctaw 8A auxiliary spillway (USA) in 2002
Overflow protection systemsReinforced grassMacro-roughness elementsMinimum Energy Loss weir & spillwayConcrete stepped spillwayPrecast concrete blocksGabion (& Reno mattress) structures
Overtopping protection - Minimum Energy Loss weirs
Developments in 1950s in Queensland (Australia)by late Prof Gordon McKay (1913-1989)
Developed to pass large flood flows with minimum affluxin tropical catchments with very-flat bed slope
Chinchilla MEL weir (1973), Q = 850 m3/s, zero afflux
A
A
Earthfill
Concreteslab
Bank top
Section AA
Chinchilla MEL weir (1973), Qdes = 850 m3/s, zero afflux,ICOLD register listed
View from downstream(400 m3/s)
U/s water level
D/s water level
Basic design featuresSmooth flow contraction towards the crestCritical flow conditions at crestConverging chute wallsEnergy dissipation in channel centreline
Clermont weir (1962/63), Qdes = 850 m3/s
MEL spillway inlet designsSwanbank power house (1965)Lake Kurwongbah (850 m3/s, 1958-69)
MEL inlet design allowed extra 0.457 m of water storage
Lake Kurwongbah, Q = 850 m3/s
Swanbank
Prototype experienceOperation for more than 60 years (incl. Q > design flow)
Soundness of design + Little maintenance
There is no better proof of design soundness than successfulprototype experience
Key issue: expert design (Hydraulics expert & Physical modelling)
Major structures1- Sandy Creek MEL weir (Clermont)
1962/63, 850 m3/s, zero afflux2- Chinchilla MEL weir
1973, 860 m3/s, zero affluxlarge dam with international exposure (ICOLD)
3- Lake Kurwongbah (850 m3/s, 1958-69)MEL inlet design allowed extra 0.457 m of water storage
CHANSON, H. (2003). "Minimum Energy Loss Structures in Australia : Historical Development and Experience." Proc. 12th Nat. Eng. Heritage Conf., IEAust., Toowoomba Qld, Australia, N. Sheridan Ed., pp. 22-28 (ISBN 0-646-42775-X).
Embankment overflow concrete stepped spillwaysChoctaw 8A auxiliary spillway in 2002
Salado Creek Dam Site 15R
Developments during 1990s
Numerous applications
Secondary & primary spillways
RCC stepped spillway for a detention basin in west Las Vegas (USACE)
Tongue river dam (USA, 1997)
Ashton dam embankment overflow (USA,1989-1992) : h = 0.6 m, l = 0.9 m, Qmax = 690 m3/s (PMF)
Opuha dam (NZ, 1995-1999) H = 50 m
Melton dam (Australia, 1916/1990s) Q ~ 2,800 m3/s (secondary spillway)
ConstructionConcrete layers (RCC/rollcrete suitability)
Protection layer (in some cases)
Drainage layer beneath steps
Supplemented by drainage holes
Overflow hydraulicsAdequate discharge capacity
Skimming flow regime (Design flow)
Downstream dissipator
Embankment with precast concrete block stepped spillways
Kolymia (or Kolyma) (Courtesy of Prof. Yuri PRAVDIVETS)
Sosnovsky dam (Photograph by Prof. Yuri PRAVDIVETS)Farm dam, 1978. H = 11 m. qw = 3.3 m2/s, So = 0.167. B = 12 m
Russian design under the leadership of P.I. GORDIENKO
Overlapping precast concrete bocks
Primary spillway applications
Klinbeldin
Brushes Clough dam spillway (UK,1859-1991)- wedge shaped concrete blocks (120 kg each)- Chute slope : 18.4�, h = 0.19 m- Inclined downward steps (-5.6�)- Trapezoidal cross-section
(2-m bottom width, 1V:2H sideslope)- Design flow : 3.66 m3/s, Hdam = 26 m- Field tests in 1993
Prototype experiencesSolid record (qw up to 60 m2/s)
High construction standards requiredImportance of drainage layer
Flexibility of spillway channel bed
Hydraulics considerations
* Skimming flow operation
* Straight prismatic cross-sectional channel
* Downstream stilling structure
Bolshevik farm dam (1980), H = 11.5 m. qw = 3.3 m2/s, So = 0.12-0.2, B = 12 m
Volymia experimental earth dam (H=20 m) in the Magadan region (Siberia)
Gabion & Reno mattress protection
Duralie, NSW (Australia)Robina, QLD (Australia)
Porous materialno uplift pressureinteractions between seepage& overflow
Flexible stepped constructiondifferential settlement
Stacked vs lined placementGabion stepped chute
Limited lifetime (5-10 y)gabion resistance to damage by sediments and debris
Design considerations – Overflow protection (all systems)ConstructionStability of earthfill structure is essential� Good construction quality & Simple sound design
Drainage of embankment during overflow
Hydraulic EngineeringDischarge capacity estimate
Downstream dissipation structure
Down-to-earth considerationsHuman interferences
Vandalism (Brushes Clough; Africa)
Prototype experiences: no better proof ofdesign soundness than successful prototype operationNo need to re-invent the ‘wheel’
Summary and Conclusion
Embankments & Earthfill structures�Erodible systems when overtopped
Overtopping protection systemsMinimum Energy Loss weirs & spillwaysConcrete stepped spillwaysPrecast concrete blocksGabion stepped spillwaysMacro-roughness elements
Design and Construction must be soundNo better proof of design soundness than successful prototype operationLearn from successful designs !!!
Look forward seeing you at the5th International Symposium on
Hydraulic Structures25-27June 2014
Full Paper submission deadline: 2 December 2013
THANK YOU
http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/list/author_id/193/