detailed presentation on the dam/weir design

2. Engineering Design
and Analysis of
Embankment Dams
Two Days Training Workshop
22 – 23 April, 2019

3. I am Zaheer M. Malik
Director Projects (Design & Studies)
Ph.D Water Resources Engineering: 2012, CEWRE, UET, Lahore.
M.Sc. Hydropower Engineering: 2004, CEWRE, UET, Lahore.
B.E. (Civil): 2001, MCE, Risalpur, NUST.
Intro!

4. General content outline
◉Understanding dams
◉Appurtenant hydraulic structures
◉Schematic layouts of dam types
◉Embankment dams
Basic elements
Classification
Use of local materials
Design Criteria
◉Focus Items for Consideration
Intro
General
STABILITY
Zones and
Slopes
Overview
FREEBOARD
Calculations
SALIENT
DESIGN
ASPECTS
Embankment
Dams
(ECRD, CFRD)
Internal
Erosion
ANALYSIS
SEEPAGE

5. Understanding Dams
Dams are water retaining structures for damming a riverbed in order to raise the water
level and to create an artificial lake (impounding reservoir).
EMBANKMENT DAMS
These are the most widespread type of dams
They are constructed by means of placement
and compaction of natural, locally available
earthfill and rockfill materials.
Their cross-section has the form of a
trapezium.
CONCRETE DAMS
Concrete dams are divided into massive (gravity)
dams, roller compacted concrete dams, buttress
dams and arch dams.
The cross-section of a concrete dam generally
approximates the rough form of a triangle, except
for the arch dam which has a curved form.
Overflowing of water, as a rule, is not allowed for embankment dams!
Concrete dams can be constructed as no-overflow dams or overflow dams, since appurtenant
hydraulic structures can be carried out relatively simply within the dam wall.

6. Appurtenant Structures
◉Appurtenant Hydraulic Structures are anticipated within the
framework of a dam, for its proper and safe service.
◉Among the general hydraulic structures, the most significant are the
spillway and outlet works which, almost without exception, are
constructed in every scheme with a dam for conveying and discharging
water from the impounded reservoir.
◉Other ancillary facilities are incorporated as necessary during the dam
construction and in the service period, like river-diversion structures,
intake structures, etc.

7. Schematic Layouts of Dam Types
(a) Homogeneous; (b) zoned;
(c) with impermeable face lining,
and (d) with an internal core wall
made of artificial material
(a, b) Gravity (non-overflow, overflow);
(c) Buttress, and (d) Arch
Embankment Dams Concrete Dams

8. Typical ECRD Project Layout Plans

9. Typical CFRD Project Layout Plans

10. 1. Applicable on variable site situations
2. Adaptable to broad foundation conditions
3. Adjustable for use of local materials
Embankment Dams A dominant dam type

11. General Basic Elements
Crest (1) is the highest horizontal surface of the dam;
Horizontal axis (2) is a line of symmetry of the crest in ground plan,
Vertical axis (3) is a normal, drawn through the middle of the crest in
the cross-section of the dam.
Upstream slope (4) is the face, i.e. the side of the dam towards the water,
Downstream slope (5) is the opposite unimmersed side.
Contours (6) are the lines along which are connected the slopes of the
dam and the ground, forming the heel and the toe of the dam;
Foundation (7) is the ground upon which the dam is supported.
Height (8) is the distance from the bottom of the excavation for the
foundation in the riverbed to the crest of the dam,
The level of headwater (9) is the level of water in the impounding
reservoir,
The height of headwater (10) is the difference between the level of water
in the riverbed before construction of the dam and the maximum level of
the water in the storage lake.
The cross-section (11) is any vertical section, which is perpendicular to
the longitudinal axis of the dam.
Abutments of a dam are the surfaces of the valley, to
the right and to the left of the river bed, upon which
the dam is supported;
The body of a dam is the volume that is confined
within the surface of the foundation, within the
slopes, as well as within the crest;

12. Embankment Dam Classification
• Homogeneous
• Zoned
• Earthfill
• Rockfill
• Large
• Small
• Storage
• Diversion
Purpose Size
Structure
Material

13. Use of local materials for embankment dams

14. General Design Criteria
The Dam should function without appreciable
deterioration in normal conditions expected to
occur in its life.
The Dam should be able to avoid catastrophic
failure in unusual conditions (most unlikely but
possible) which may be imposed.
The basic design
criteria essentially
require an optimized
solution for the main
dam, to perform
most economically
together with its
foundation and
environment.

15. ◉ The dam design should be such as to allow optimum use of materials
readily available, standard equipment and normal construction control.
◉ The dam must be safe against overtopping during occurrence of
PMF/Design Floods by providing adequate Freeboard.
◉ Seepage through, around and beneath the dam must be controlled to
ensure that hydrostatic and seepage forces do not exceed the
conditions assumed in the design.
◉ Stability of the structural geometry must be ensured, without
impairing the water retaining capability of the dam, under all
conditions of construction and reservoir operation, including rapid
drawdown of the reservoir and seismic forces.
Embankment Dam Design Criteria

16. Focus items for consideration
Over-
topping
Stability
Seepage

17. Freeboard
Riprap (Upstream Slope Protection)
Crest
Camber
Overtopping

18. Freeboard
Protection against overtopping
◉ FREEBOARD for a dam is the
vertical distance between a
specified reservoir water surface
level and the crest of the dam,
without allowance for camber of
the crest of the dam;
◉ The Objective of having
freeboard is to provide
assurance against overtopping
resulting from wind set up and
wave run up.

19. Methods for determining the Fetch length (over-water distance the wind blows)
Effective Fetch … Saville et. al. (1962) Fetch … USBR (2012)
A trial and error approach was used
to select the critical position on the
dam and direction of the central radial
to give the maximum effective fetch.
The radials spanning 45° on each
side of the central radial were used to
compute the effective fetch.
The recommended procedure for estimating
the fetch consists of constructing nine radials
from the point of interest at 3-degree intervals.
This calculation should be performed for
several directions (of the central radial)
approaching the dam, including the direction
where the central radial is normal to the dam
axis and also the direction where the total
spread results in the longest possible set of
radials.

20. Example of Comparative Fetch Determination

21. Example of Fetch Computations
Fetch
Computations:
Length of Radials (m)
β Fetch F1 Fetch F2 Fetch F3
Deg NFSL MWSL NFSL MWSL NFSL MWSL
12 1600.899 1629.450 1163.148 1554.869 1540.848 1579.793
9 1617.224 1951.103 1347.444 1377.781 1549.493 1710.634
6 1710.262 1831.945 1357.908 1591.638 1643.733 1684.321
3 1688.693 1977.151 1349.966 1670.758 1772.179 2475.923
0 (Main Radial) 3359.680 3578.975 2143.772 2286.335 3031.496 3053.091
3 2667.591 2853.058 2065.752 2085.889 2695.794 2730.275
6 2096.721 2126.492 1248.612 1715.622 2524.572 2977.707
9 1881.660 2241.555 1170.427 1510.267 2336.228 2566.435
12 1665.171 1884.812 1192.835 1376.275 2347.487 2493.677
Average Fetch
(kms) =
2.032 2.231 1.449 1.685 2.160 2.364
Fetch Angle (β°) 45.020 45.020 0.000 0.000 24.590 24.590

22. Important Terminologies in Freeboard Computations
Unit (Color) Legends:
[F (km)], [Vw (km/hr)], [T(sec)], [Hs, L, S, R, D (m)]
[F (miles)], [Vw (mi/hr)], [T(sec)], [Hs, L, S, R, D (ft)]
Wind Setup:
𝑆 = 𝑉
𝑤
2
𝐹 /62000D
𝑆 = 𝑉
𝑤
2
𝐹 /1400D
Wave Length:
𝐿 = 1.5 𝑇 2
𝐿 = 5.12 𝑇 2
Wave Period:
𝑇 = 0.0335 𝐹 0.33
𝑉
𝑤
0.33
1.1 + 0.01𝑉
𝑤
0.167
𝑇 = 0.464 𝐹 0.33
𝑉
𝑤
0.33
1.1 + 0.0156𝑉
𝑤
0.167
Wave Height:
𝐻𝑠 = 0.00366 𝐹 0.5
𝑉
𝑤 1.1 + 0.01𝑉
𝑤
0.5
𝐻𝑠 = 0.0245 𝐹 0.5
𝑉
𝑤 1.1 + 0.0156𝑉
𝑤
0.5
Wave Runup:
𝑅 = 𝐻𝑠 𝐴ξ𝑝 + 𝐶 𝛾𝑟𝛾𝑏𝛾ℎ𝛾𝛽

23. Example of Freeboard Computations
Fetch
km ECRD CFRD ECRD CFRD
<1.6 1.200 1.800 0.900 1.350
1.6 1.500 2.250 1.200 1.800
4 1.800 2.700 1.500 2.250
8 2.400 3.600 1.800 2.700
16 3.000 4.500 2.100 3.150
Freeboard for Preliminary Studies
Reference:
Normal Minimum
Fell, et al. (2015)
Fetch angle β RH
0 1
20 0.96
40 0.9
60 0.84
80 0.75
y = -2E-05x2 - 0.0017x + 0.9997
R² = 0.9988
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wave
Height
Reduction
Factor,
R
H
Angle of Main Radial with Normal to Dam Axis, β
Wave height reduction due to angular spread
Series1
Poly. (Series1)
Detailed Freeboard Computations

24. Riprap
Upstream Slope Protection
◉ Median Weight: 𝑊50 = 𝛾𝑟𝐻3
𝐾𝑅𝑅 𝐺𝑠−1 3 cot 𝜃
◉ Volume: W / ɣr
◉ Diameter: (V / 0.75)1/3
◉ Thickness: 2D50
lbs kg ft3
m3
ft mm
100 1484 673 8.65 0.24 2.26 689
70 90 742 337 4.32 0.12 1.79 547
35 55 371 168 2.16 0.06 1.42 434
0 20 46 21 0.27 0.01 0.71 217
Wmax = 4 W50
0.5 Wmax
W50
Wmin = W50 / 8
20% Band
Riprap Specification
% Finer Size
Coarse
Limit
Fine Limit
Weight Volume (W / ɣr) Diameter (V / 0.75)1/3
{H=H10=1.27Hs}

25. Crest
Width and typical details
◉ Crest Width is usually defined by
practical considerations, like
construction limitations, roadway
requirements, seismically active
areas, etc.;
◉ The smallest crest width, for
small dams can be 3 – 4 m while
for large dams it is 5 – 6 m.
The crest width can also be approximated by means of empirical formulae, as a function of the dam’s height e.g.:
𝑏 = 3.6
3
𝐻 − 3.
𝑏 = 0.2𝐻 + 3.
𝑏 = 1 + 𝐴 𝐻 … (A=1.1 – 1.65)

26. Camber
Protection against overtopping
◉ CAMBER is provided along
the crest of embankment
dams, with the objective of
ensuring that the crest
elevation remains at or above
the design crest elevation and
that the freeboard will not be
diminished after settlement.
◉ The most practical method of
camber design is to apply the
“1 percent rule”.

27. Example of Camber Profile
◉ 1 % of the embankment height is calculated for various stations along the embankment. Then,
the numbers are added to the post-construction foundation settlements to arrive at a required
camber height.

28. Example of Camber Profile
968.00
968.10
968.20
968.30
968.40
968.50
968.60
968.70
00+000
00+025
00+050
00+075
00+100
00+125
00+150
00+175
00+200
00+225
00+250
00+275
00+300
00+325
00+350
00+375
00+400
00+425
00+450
00+475
00+500
00+525
00+550
00+575
00+600
00+625
00+650
00+675
Dam
Crest
El.
(m)
Dam Centreline RD (m)
Parabolic Camber Profile Linear Camber Profile Overall Camber Calculated
◉ The provided camber maintains incremental elevations across the embankment sections
within the valley floor and is roughly proportional to the height of the embankment above its
foundation.

29. Embankment Dam Zones and Filters
General Design Features of ECRD
General Design Features of CFRD
Seepage Control

30. Embankment Dam Zones

31. Schematic Presentation of a Filter
(1) Basic material;
(2) Filtering layers;
(3) Drainage.

32. Filter Design Basics

33. 36"
24"
12"
9"
6"
4"
3"
2"
1½"
1"
3/4"
1/2"
3/8"
#4
#8
#10
#16
#20
#30
#40
#50
#60
#100
#140
#200
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Percentage
Passing
Grain Size in Millimeters
Sieve Size/No.
Boulders Cobbles Gravel
Coarse
Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand Silt Clay
Sample Filter Gradations
ECRD CFRD
Flow Chart for Base Soil Selection

34. Conditions encountered in embankment dam zones and how they are protected by filters.

35. Internal erosion and piping is ignored mainly because the main focus is
usually the adequacy of the spillway and slope stability.

36. Earth Core Rockfill Dam
General Design
Features of ECRD

37. Typical ECRD Sections
Zone Descriptions:
1 Impervious Core, 2A Fine Filter, 2B Coarse Filter, 2C Bedding, 3 Rockfill, 4 Riprap
 Foundation cutoffs are to be tied up with bedrock for positive seepage cutoff expected through core trench at abutments and
slurry trench wall in the riverbed reach.
 Upstream impervious blanket is provided for lengthening the seepage path where depth to bedrock is unpractical.

38. Typical Cutoff Wall Profile
0
50
100
Clamshell Backhoe
30 15
Excavation
Depths
(m)
Extensive situations
Less common
Typical range
Basic Types
By Funtion
Cutoff Barrier
Diaphragm Wall
By Composition
Soil-Bentonite
Cement-Bentonite
Critical Criteria
Permeability
Permanence
Deformability
Strength

39. Partial Cutoff Wall
Cutoff Wall permeability
Thickness of Cutoff Wall
qf = rate of underseepage with foundation seepage control in m3
/sec
d = penetration depth of cutoff wall in m
W = open area in positive cutoff in m2
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.00E+00
1.00E-03
2.00E-03
3.00E-03
4.00E-03
5.00E-03
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Rate
of
underseepage
(qf),
cumecs
Lo = Discontinuous upstream impervious blanket length,meter
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.900
1.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Flow
Efficiency
Lo = Discontinuous upstream impervious blanket length,meter
Select L0 from table, assuming L3 = 0 450 10 h
ZDesign 10% of head = 0.1h = 4.5
a. Corresponding L1 = = 402.7871752 8.95 h
750 16.67 h
Z2 5% of head = 0.05h = 2.25
b. Corresponding 530.3300859 11.79 h
Difference (b-a) = 127.543 2.83 h
Zmin USBR (1987) Design of Small Dams 1.00 m
c. Corresponding 353.5533906 7.86 h
Selected upstream impervious blanket dimensions:
Design thickness for blanket z bR = 0.1h = 4.5 m
Effective length for z bR = ~ 9h = 405 m OK
Half design thickness for blanket z 1 = 0.05h = 2.25 m
Effective length (transition) for z 1 = ~ 3h = 135 m OK
Minimum blanket thickness z min = 1 m
Allowable effective length (remaining) for z min = ~ 8h = 360 m OK
Provided discontinuous length L o = ~ 20h = 900 m OK
≈
≈
Dam Crest Elevation 968 m
Normal Conservation Level 961 m
Riverbed Level 916 m
Foundation permeability Kf = K˳= 2.50E-04 m/sec
Core base width L2 = B = 25 m
Head over foundation h= 45 m
Depth of foundation D= (≈h) 50 m
Initial Trial with No underseepage control
Rate of underseepage Qo = = 2.25E-02 m3
/sec
(Theoretical)
Upstream Impervious Blanket
Permeability of blanket KbR = 1.00E-07 m/sec
Thickness of blanket zbR = 0.1 h
4.5 m
Factor = 0.001333333 1/m
Lo = discontinuous upstream impervious blanket length
L1 = effective upstream impervious blanket length
(Assuming L3 = 0)
(m) (m3
/sec)
100 99.412 4.521E-03 0.799
200 195.390 2.552E-03 0.887
300 284.962 1.815E-03 0.919
400 365.944 1.439E-03 0.936
500 437.087 1.217E-03 0.946
600 498.028 1.075E-03 0.952
700 549.108 9.798E-04 0.956
800 591.152 9.129E-04 0.959
900 625.241 8.651E-04 0.962
1000 652.546 8.302E-04 0.963
1100 674.205 8.045E-04 0.964
1200 691.251 7.853E-04 0.965
1300 704.586 7.710E-04 0.966
1400 714.968 7.602E-04 0.966
1500 723.021 7.520E-04 0.967
1600 729.248 7.458E-04 0.967
1700 734.054 7.411E-04 0.967
1800 737.756 7.375E-04 0.967
1900 740.604 7.347E-04 0.967
2000 742.793 7.326E-04 0.967
Lo (m)
USACE (1993). Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams , Engineer Manual 1110-2-
1901, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC,
30 April 1993.
qf
Thickness of blanket zbR = 0.1 h
4.5 m
Factor = 0.001333333 1/m
Lo = discontinuous upstream impervious blanket length
L1 = effective upstream impervious blanket length
(Assuming L3 = 0)
(m) (m3
/sec)
100 99.412 4.521E-03 0.799
200 195.390 2.552E-03 0.887
300 284.962 1.815E-03 0.919
400 365.944 1.439E-03 0.936
500 437.087 1.217E-03 0.946
600 498.028 1.075E-03 0.952
700 549.108 9.798E-04 0.956
800 591.152 9.129E-04 0.959
900 625.241 8.651E-04 0.962
1000 652.546 8.302E-04 0.963
1100 674.205 8.045E-04 0.964
1200 691.251 7.853E-04 0.965
1300 704.586 7.710E-04 0.966
1400 714.968 7.602E-04 0.966
1500 723.021 7.520E-04 0.967
1600 729.248 7.458E-04 0.967
1700 734.054 7.411E-04 0.967
1800 737.756 7.375E-04 0.967
1900 740.604 7.347E-04 0.967
2000 742.793 7.326E-04 0.967
Lo (m)
USACE (1993). Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams , Engineer Manual 1110-2-
1901, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC,
30 April 1993.
qf

40. Concrete Face Rockfill Dam (Face Slab connected with a Foundation Plinth)
General Design
Features of CFRD
Zone Descriptions:
1A: Face protection zone, Joint or crack healer, cohesionless fine grained soil
1B: Random fill, support to 1A
2A: Perimeter filter zone,
2B: Face support zone, processed (-75mm particle size)
3A: Selected rockfill, (0.4m layers)
3B and 3C: Quarry run rockfill (1m and 2m layers).

41. CFRD Design Elements
Design of CFRD plinth includes dimensions for its thickness and width, followed by its geometric
layout and alignment
Where:
A = Foundation Type
B = Foundation Class
C = Min. Ratio: Plinth Width/Water Depth (Full Reservoir)
D = Rock Quality Designation (RQD in %)
E = Weathering Degree: I = sound rock; VI = residual soil
F = Consistency Degree: 1 = very hard rock; 6 = friable rock
G = Weathered Macro Discontinuities per 10 m
H = Excavation Classes:
1=requires blasting
2=requires heavy rippers; some blasting
3=can be excavated with light rippers
4=can be excavated with dozer blade
Design of CFRD face slabs begins with the selection of slab
thickness, width and location of vertical and horizontal joints.
*H = Head of water above plinth in meters

43. CFRD Plinth Alignment and Face Slab Layout
Points Easting Northing Elevation ΔEl LPlan θ n h
1 315297.40 3351824.71 1832.5
35.5 60.71 41.25 2.27 0.92
2 315236.69 3351877.96 1797
0 55.00 0.00 0 1.00
3 315181.69 3351877.96 1797
-35.5 74.29 -35.63 -2.57 0.93
4 315107.40 3351824.71 1832.5
∆𝐸𝑙 = 𝐸𝑙𝑖 − 𝐸𝑙𝑗
𝜃 = tan−1
∆𝐸𝑙 × 𝑚
𝐿𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛
𝑛 =
𝑚
sin 𝜃
ℎ =
ℎ𝑜
1 + sin 𝜃
𝑚
2

44. Geological Profile at Upstream Toe for Plinth Alignment

46. CFRD Plinth Alignment and Face Slab Layout

47. CFRD Plinth Alignment and Face Slab Layout

48. Typical Plinth Geometry for Different Reaches

49. Plinth Excavation Details

50. Methods and Considerations
Slope Stability
Different shapes of sliding surfaces
• Classical – Limit Equilibrium: Method of Slices
• Advanced - FEM
• Immediately following construction
• Full reservoir with established stationary seepage flow
• Rapid drawdown of water level

51. Seepage and Stability Analysis – GeoStudio Results

52. Seepage and Stability Analysis – Slide Results

53. Reporting Stability Analysis Results
Loading
Conditions
Critical Consideration Detailed Description
Minimum FoS
Required Analyzed
Normal Long term seepage condition Downstream slope with steady state seepage from
reservoir water level at 1139.5 m. amsl.
1.5 1.836
Unusual Short term seepage conditions Details as follows:
Unusual-MSL Maximum surcharge pool Downstream slope with steady state seepage from
reservoir water level at 1144.5 m. amsl.
1.4 1.836
Unusual-EoC End of Construction Upstream Slope 1.3 2.192
Downstream Slope 1.3 1.844
Unusual-RDD Rapid drawdown Upstream slope with transient seepage resulting from
drawdown of reservoir from El. 1139.5 to El. 1126.5 (i.e.
normal conservation to dead pool)
1.2 1.92
Unusual-OBE Operational Basis Earthquake
(OBE) with normal loading
condition
Downstream slope with OBE seismic coefficients
(0.18g) along with steady state seepage from reservoir
water level at 1139.5 m. amsl.
1.1 1.311
Extreme-MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake
(MCE) with normal loading
condition
Downstream slope with MCE seismic coefficients
(0.32g) along with steady state seepage from reservoir
water level at 1139.5 m. amsl.
1 1.083

54. Reporting Stability Analysis Results
Loading
Condition
Scenario Slope Face
Slab
Reservoir
Level (m)
Seismic
Load
Required
FOS
Calculated
FOS
Normal N1 SS DS Yes 1800 1.5 1.88
N2 EoC DS No 1.4 1.992
N3 EoC US No 1.4 1.547
Unusual U1 SS DS Yes 1802 OBE 1 1.063
U2 SS DS Yes 1800 DBE 1 1.172
U3a EoC DS No OBE 1 1.369
U3b EoC US No OBE 1 1.08
U4 EoC DS No 1800 1.2 1.426
U5a RDD DS No 1800-
1780
1.3 1.881
U5b RDD US No 1800-
1780
1.3 1.503
Extreme E1 SS DS Yes 1800 SEE 1 1.015
E2 EoC DS No 1800 OBE 1 1.011

55. Typical Cut-Slope Analysis (SLIDE Results)

56. GARUK DAM: ECRD
Other Features

58. Seismic Hazard Assessment
Tectonic Feature
Fault
Type
Maximum
Magnitude
(MW)
Closest
Distance
to Fault
(km)
Peak Horizontal Ground Acceleration (g) Median
Abrahamson-Silva
NGA (2008)
Boore-Atkinson
NGA (2008)
Campbell-Bozorgnia
NGA (2008)
Average PGA
50% 84% 50% 84% 50% 84% 50% 84%
Chaman Fault
(Naushki Segment)
S 7.6 2 0.48 0.82 0.46 0.81 0.56 0.94 0.50 0.86
Ghazaband Fault
S 7.6 25 0.15 0.26 0.18 0.32 0.17 0.29 0.17 0.29
PGA (g)
OB RP
(Yrs)
Rock
0.19 145 0.16
0.28 475 0.25
0.36 1,000 0.32
0.49 3,000 0.44
0.67 10,000 0.61
MCE: 0.86g, SEE: 0.50g, OBE: 0.19g (OB), 0.16g (Rock), DBE: 0.28g (OB), 0.25g (Rock)
Ref: ICOLD (2016) Bulletin No. 148.
Results of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
Results of Deterministic Seismic Hazard Analysis

61. Ortho-Image Grids for Dam Site
Aerial Survey
Quadcopter
used for Aerial
Mapping
GCPs for Aerial Survey
Satellite and Aerial Photogrammetry
Digital Terrain Model (DTM)
Topographic Survey Plan
(at 1m contour interval)

62. Comparative Survey Results
0
50
100
150
200
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Capacity (AF x 1000)
Elevation
(m
amsl)
Elevation
(m
amsl)
Area (Acres)
Reservoir Surface Area - Conventional Survey
Reservoir Surface Area - Satellite DEM
Reservoir Surface Area - Aerial Survey
Reservoir Capacity - Conventional Survey
Reservoir Capacity - Satellite DEM
Reservoir Capacity - Aerial Survey
Description (Unit)
Conventional
Survey
Satellite
Imagery
DEM
Aerial
Survey
Dead Storage (Aft) 25,800
25,474
(31.42 MCM)
25,952
(32.01 MCM)
Gross Storage (Aft) 50,695
51,649
(63.71 MCM)
53,025
(65.41 MCM)
Live Storage (Aft) 24,895
26,175
(32.29 MCM)
27,073
(33.40 MCM)
Dead Storage El. (m amsl) 959 951 953
Gross Storage El. (m amsl) 970 961 963
Depth of Live Storage (m) 11 10 10

63. Issues in dimensioning embankment dams, (a) and (c) are poor practice; (b) is the correct practice

64. Some References of Interest
Robin Fell, Patrick MacGregor, David Stapledon, Graeme Bell, & Mark Foster (2015). Geotechnical
Engineering of Dams, 2nd Edition, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, Netherlands.
ICOLD (2010). Concrete Face Rockfill Dams: Concepts for design and construction, International
Commission on Large Dams, Bulletin 141.
USACE (1993). Seepage Analysis and Control for Dams, Engineer Manual 1110-2-1901, Department of the
Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, 30 April 1993.
USBR (2011). Design Standard No. 13: Embankment Dams. Chapter 5: Protective Filters, Revision 9, Phase
4 (Final). November 2011, United States Bureau of Reclamation [DS-13(5)-9].
USBR (2012). Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dams, Chapter 6: Freeboard, Revision 2, Phase 4
(Final), September 2012, United States Bureau of Reclamation [DS-13(6)-2].
USBR (2014). Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dams, Chapter 7: Riprap Slope Protection, Revision
2.1, Phase 4 (Final), May 2014, United States Bureau of Reclamation [DS-13(7)-2.1].
USBR (2014). Design Standards No. 13: Embankment Dams, Chapter 8: Seepage, Revision 4.1, Phase 4
(Final), January 2014, United States Bureau of Reclamation [DS-13(8)-4.1].

65. Any questions ?
You can contact me at
◉ zaheer.malik@pespk.com
Thanks!