CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT

STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

BELFAST PROJECT

SEPTEMBER 2011

REVISION 0

Reg. No. 1977/000524/07

PO Box 2973, Pretoria 0001
Landmark Building East, Umgazi Road
Menlo Park
Tel:(012) 460 2008, Fax: (012) 460 2053
Submitted by: TGM Visagie (082 873 5734)
E-mail: visagiet@jgi.co.za
 CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DAMS
BELFAST PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2011
REVISION 0

Prepared by: Prepared for:

Contact Person Contact Person

Riaan Le Roux Daan Killian
Tel: 082 825 2448 Tel: 012 307 3147
 VERIFICATION PAGE Form 403.1
Rev 10/06

TITLE : CONCEPT DESIGN REPORT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND DAMS

JG NO. : 002802 DATE : 19/09/2011 STATUS : Final

CARRIED OUT BY : COMMISSIONED BY :

Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd Exxaro HQ
P O Box 2973 P O Box 9229
PRETORIA, 0001 PRETORIA, 0001
Tel: (012) 460-2008 Tel (012) 307 3147
Fax: (012) 460-2053 Fax (012) 307 5707
Cell: 082 825 2448
Email: lerouxr@jgi.co.za Email: Daan.Killian@exxaro.com

AUTHOR : CLIENT CONTACT PERSON :

Riaan le Roux Daan Killian

SYNOPSIS :

This report covers the concept design of a new coal mine planned by Exxaro in the vicinity of
Belfast to be used as part of the water use license application for the Belfast Project,
Mpumalanga.

KEY WORDS :

Concept design report, storm water management, dam sizing and design, low level bridge,
lining design, pans, spillways, culverts, drains.

COPYRIGHT: Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd.

QUALITY VERIFICATION

This report has been prepared under the controls established by a

quality management system that meets the requirements of
ISO9001: 2008 which has been independently certified by DEKRA
Certification under certificate number 90906882

Verification Capacity Name Signature Date

By Author Project Leader CC le Roux

Checked by Discipline Head J Nel

Authorised by Project Director CC le Roux

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................... 2

3. EXECUTION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 3

4. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................ 5

5. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 6

5.1 TOPOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 6
5.2 CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................... 7

6. SITE HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................. 9

6.1 RAINFALL RECORDS ........................................................................................... 9
6.2 EVAPORATION DATA .......................................................................................... 9
6.3 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................... 10
6.3.1 CATCHMENTS AND FLOOD ESTIMATION .......................................................................... 10
6.3.2 FLOOD PEAK METHODS ...................................................................................................... 10
6.3.3 FLOOD VOLUME ESTIMATION ............................................................................................. 11

6.4 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 11

7. SURFACE GEOLOGY ...................................................................................... 12

7.1 SUMMARY BY AREA .......................................................................................... 12
7.1.1 RETURN WATER DAM WEST ............................................................................................... 12
7.1.2 RETURN WATER DAM EAST ................................................................................................ 12
7.1.3 DISCARD AREA ...................................................................................................................... 12

7.2 PROBLEMATIC SOILS ....................................................................................... 13

7.2.1 CLAY AND HEAVE ................................................................................................................. 13
7.2.2 COLLAPSIBLE SOILS ............................................................................................................ 13
7.2.3 AGGRESSIVENESS ............................................................................................................... 13

7.3 SUITABILITY OF SITES ...................................................................................... 13

8. CLEAN AND DIRTY WATER SEPARATION ................................................... 14

8.1 THE REGULATION ............................................................................................. 14

ii
 8.2 SEPARATION SYSTEM ...................................................................................... 14
8.3 DESIGN APPROACH .......................................................................................... 14
8.3.1 SYSTEM PERIMETER ............................................................................................................ 14
8.3.2 INNER SYSTEM ...................................................................................................................... 16

9. CLEAN WATER SYSTEM................................................................................. 17

9.1 PANS ................................................................................................................... 17
9.1.1 NATURAL PAN EAST .............................................................................................................17
9.1.2 NATURAL PAN WEST ............................................................................................................ 18
9.1.3 DISCHARGE ........................................................................................................................... 20

10. DIRTY WATER SYSTEM .................................................................................. 21

10.1 DIVISIONS ........................................................................................................... 21
10.2 SEDIMENTATION ............................................................................................... 21
10.3 HAUL ROAD DRAINAGE .................................................................................... 21

11. DRAIN AND CULVERT DESIGNS ................................................................... 23

11.1 DRAINS ............................................................................................................... 23
11.1.1 DESIGN APPROACH.............................................................................................................. 23
11.1.2 DRAIN LINING MATERIALS ................................................................................................... 23
11.1.3 DRAIN DESIGN ....................................................................................................................... 24

11.2 CULVERTS .......................................................................................................... 25

11.2.1 MINIMUM CULVERTS SIZES................................................................................................. 25
11.2.2 CULVERT CAPACITY DESIGN .............................................................................................. 25

11.3 ENERGY DISSIPATION ...................................................................................... 26

11.4 SILT TRAPS ........................................................................................................ 26

12. DAM DESIGNS .................................................................................................. 27

12.1 DAM CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION ................................................................. 27
12.2 FREEBOARD DETERMINATION ........................................................................ 29
12.3 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 31
12.4 SPILLWAYS ........................................................................................................ 32
12.5 DAM LININGS ..................................................................................................... 33
12.6 GROUNDWATER AND DRAINAGE ................................................................... 33
12.7 CAPACITY DETERMINATION AND DAM SIZING.............................................. 34
12.8 DAM WALL DESIGN ........................................................................................... 36

iii
 12.8.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ....................................................................................... 36
12.8.2 DAM WALL DIMENSIONS ...................................................................................................... 37
12.8.3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 37
12.8.4 CONSTRUCTION METHOD ................................................................................................... 39
12.8.5 CAUTION ................................................................................................................................. 39

13. LINING DESIGNS .............................................................................................. 40

13.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 40
13.2 RETURN WATER AND PROCESS WATER DAMS (D3, D7 AND D8)............... 42
13.3 STORM WATER DAMS (D2 AND D5) ................................................................ 45
13.4 STORMWATER DAM (D1) .................................................................................. 46
13.5 EMERGENCY SLURRY DAM (D4) ..................................................................... 46
13.6 BIOFILTER DAM (D6) ......................................................................................... 47
13.7 SLOPE OF LINING MATERIAL ........................................................................... 47
13.8 INSTALLATION ................................................................................................... 48
13.9 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 48
13.10 LEAKAGE DETECTION (D3, D7 AND D8) ......................................................... 48

14. DISCARD DUMP AND STOCKPILE SEEPAGE PREVENTION ..................... 49

14.1 LINING DESIGNS ................................................................................................ 49
14.2 SEEPAGE COLLECTION .................................................................................... 49

15. LOW LEVEL STREAM CROSSING ................................................................. 51

15.1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS ......................................................................... 51
15.2 STRUCTURES INVESTIGATED ......................................................................... 51
15.3 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE ......................................................................... 52
15.4 PROTECTION AND DETAILS ............................................................................. 53

16. SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND BIOFILTER DAM ........................... 54

16.1 BIOFILTER DAM (D6) SIZING ............................................................................ 54
16.1.1 SIZING OF THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ................................................................. 54
16.1.2 SIZING OF THE EVAPORATION POND ............................................................................... 54
16.1.3 PACKAGE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT .......................................................................... 55

16.2 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES ............................................................................ 56

16.2.1 EFFLUENT IRRIGATION ........................................................................................................ 56
16.2.2 GREY WATER DIVERSION AND LOW FLOW FITTINGS .................................................... 56

iv
 16.2.3 CONSTRUCTED REEDBED .................................................................................................. 56

17. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 58

18. BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................ 59

List of Annexures
Annexure A: SITE HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
Annexure B: DRAIN SIZING
Annexure C: PANS AND DAMS
Annexure D: CULVERT SIZING
Annexure E: LOW LEVEL STRUCTURE
Annexure F: GRASS BLOCK SYSTEM
Annexure G: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Annexure H: CONCEPT DESIGN DRAWINGS

List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location ............................................................................................................. 1
Figure 2: General Topography and Vegetation on Site ............................................................ 6
Figure 3: Google Image of Site ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4: Plant Area Limitations ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Clean (Blue) and Dirty Water (Red) Catchment Areas ........................................... 15
Figure 6: Cut-Off Drains and Berms (Yellow lines) ................................................................ 15
Figure 7: Natural Pan Positions.............................................................................................. 17
Figure 8: Natural Pan East Balance Model ......................................................................... 18
Figure 9: Natural Pan West Undivided Balance Model ....................................................... 19
Figure 10: Natural Pan West Divided Balance Model ......................................................... 20
Figure 11: Silt Trap Incorporated into Dam(DWAF-A4, Aug 2007) ........................................ 22
Figure 12: Superelevated Sections of Haul Road (Yellow Lines) ........................................... 22
Figure 13: Dam Positions ....................................................................................................... 29
Figure 14: Stability analysis for the inside slope of the dam wall ........................................... 38
Figure 15: Stability analysis for the outside slope of the dam wall ......................................... 38
Figure 16: Dam Positions ....................................................................................................... 41

v
Figure 17: Typical Lined Dam (DWAF-A4, Aug 2007) ........................................................... 41
Figure 18: Hazardous Waste Lagoons: Minimum Requirements for Liner Design ................ 42
Figure 19: Alternative Lining for Moderate to High Risk Liquid Option A ............................ 43
Figure 20: Alternative Lining for Moderate to High Risk Liquid Option B ............................ 43
Figure 21: Proposed Lining for Moderate to High Risk Liquid Option C .............................. 44
Figure 22: Proposed Lining System for Storm water Dams ................................................... 46
Figure 23: Proposed Lining System for Emergency Slurry Dam ............................................ 47
Figure 24: Proposed Lining System for Biofilter Dam ............................................................ 47
Figure 25: Position of Leakage Detection Sumps (Purple) .................................................... 48
Figure 26: Seepage Collection System .................................................................................. 49
Figure 27: Lined Stockpile Areas (shaded orange) ................................................................ 50
Figure 28: Position of Low Level Stream Crossing ................................................................ 51
Figure 29: Result Of Pond Evaporation Modelling (1.5m Depth) ........................................... 55

List of Tables
Table 1: 24hr Rainfall depths ................................................................................................... 9
Table 2: Average Monthly Evaporation Rates .......................................................................... 9
Table 3: Typical Drain Sizes Implemented ............................................................................. 25
Table 4: Silt Trap Dimensions ................................................................................................ 26
Table 5: PCD Size Classification ............................................................................................ 27
Table 6: Hazard Potential Classification ................................................................................. 27
Table 7: Category Classification of Dams with a Safety Risk ................................................. 27
Table 8: Category Classification of Belfast Dams .................................................................. 28
Table 9: Simplified Practical Freeboard Guidelines ............................................................... 30
Table 10: Operational Requirements of Dams ....................................................................... 31
Table 11: Spillway Sizes ........................................................................................................ 33
Table 12: Lining of Dams ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 13: Subsurface Drainage Measures for Dams ............................................................. 34
Table 14: Dam Dimensions and Volumes .............................................................................. 36
Table 15: Summary of Strength Test Results ........................................................................ 37
Table 16: Dam Content .......................................................................................................... 40
Table 17: Low Level Crossing Flood Levels........................................................................... 52

vi
Table 18: Proposed Low Level Structure ............................................................................... 53
Table 19: Evaporation Data Used In The Modelling............................................................... 55

List of Concept Design Drawings

Drawing 002802-BP- 1: Drainage Plan
Drawing 002802-BP- 2: Dirty and Clean Water Catchments
Drawing 002802-BP- 3: Plant Drains and Terrace Areas
Drawing 002802-BP- 4: Typical Drains and Linings
Drawing 002802-BP- 5: Cut-off Drains, Stilling Basins and Road Cross-sections
Drawing 002802-BP- 6: Typical Silt Traps
Drawing 002802-BP- 7: Typical Spillway Details
Drawing 002802-BP- 8: Low Level Structure
Drawing 002802-BP- 9: Dam Linings and Sump Details
Drawing 002802-BP- 10: Stockpile Linings
Drawing 002802-BP- 11: Typical Box Culvert Normal Loads
Drawing 002802-BP- 12: Typical Culverts Abnormal Loads
Drawing 002802-BP- 13: Longitudinal Section (C1 to C30, C2-C5b)
Drawing 002802-BP- 14: Longitudinal Section (C29 to D5)
Drawing 002802-BP- 15: Longitudinal Section (P28 to C10)
Drawing 002802-BP- 16: Longitudinal Section (C23 to D5)
Drawing 002802-BP- 17: Return Water Dam Sections (1 of 2)
Drawing 002802-BP- 18: Return Water Dam Sections (2 of 2)

vii
1. INTRODUCTION
Exxaro Resources Limited (Exxaro) appointed Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd (J&G) to
undertake the conceptual design of a surface water runoff system for the proposed plant
area of the Belfast Project.
The Belfast Project is located in Mpumalanga and approximately 10km southwest of
Belfast on the farms Leeuwbank, Blyvooruitzicht and Zoekop.
Exxaro is evaluating the utilisation of its coal reserves at the site and has commissioned
several studies to this effect. The conceptual design of surface water runoff is specifically
required for the Water Use License Application (WULA) which would pave the way for
further and more detailed studies to commence. Refer to Figure 1.
Figure 1: Site Location

1
2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objective can be summarised as the development and design of a storm water
drainage system in compliance with environmental and water management requirements
and legislation as applicable to the mining industry in order to ensure a successful Water
Use License Application (WULA).
The following main requirements must be met for compliance:
Unpolluted water to be confined to a clean water system.
Polluted water to be confined to a closed system (runoff and seepage).
Polluted and unpolluted systems not to spill over more than once in 50 years.
Systems to be fully serviceable for floods up to the 1:50 year.
No infrastructure within the 1:100 year flood-line or within 100m from a water
course, estuary etc.
Minimum freeboard of 800mm above full supply level applicable to dams (unless
otherwise specified in the relevant act).
The effect of any watercourse diversions and runoff reductions to be minimised.
To comply with Dam Safety Regulations.
To comply with regulations on the use of water for mining, Government Notice 704.

2
3. EXECUTION METHODOLOGY
The execution methodology followed is:
Gather available information:
Topography and digital terrain model (DTM).
Previous reports relating to surface water, water balance, hydrology etc.
Previous reports relating to environmental issues.
Relevant legislation.
Client specific requirements.
Confirm scope of work:
Determine the size and layout of clean and dirty water drains and specify
erosion protection.
Determine the size of Storm Water Dams, specify protection and design
spillways.
Design low level crossing and determine impact on flood-lines.
Propose sewerage treatment plant type and size.
Design and determine the size of a Biofilter Dam.
Design Pollution Control Dams (certified dam engineer where appropriate).
Design linings appropriate to hazard.
Write report and compile drawings.
Design of pumping systems is excluded.
Design recommendations for Discard Facility in compliance to WULA
regulations.
Stockpile design recommendations for compliance to WULA regulations.
Site visits.
Carry out geotechnical testing.
Confirm plant layout.
Provisional sizing and layout to be checked for space constraints and adjustments
to be made if required.
Design, drawings and report complete with options and recommendations.

3
 Internal review and submit to Exxaro.
Exxaro to exercise options.
Adjust, peer review and submit final documents to Exxaro.

4
4. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The legal requirements as summarised in the Best Practice Guidelines issued by the
Directorate: Resource Protection & Waste of the Department: Water Affairs and Forestry
were referenced. The following sections of the Best Practice Guidelines are of specific
relevance:
G1 Storm Water Management, Section 5 (DWAF-G1, Aug 2006)
A2 Water Management for Mine Residue Deposits, Section 5 (DWAF-A2, Jul
2008)
A4 Pollution Control Dams, Section 5 (DWAF-A4, Aug 2007)
A5 Water Management for Surface Mines, Section 4 (DWAF-A5, Jul 2008)

Of the Acts referred to in the Guidelines, the following form the backbone of the framework:
National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998)
Government Notice No. 704, 4 June 1999 (Regulations on the use of water for
mining)
Government Notice R.1560 of 25 July 1986 (Dam Safety Regulations)
National Environment Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998)

5
5. SITE DESCRIPTION

5.1 TOPOGRAPHY
The plant is situated on the western banks of the Klein-Komatirivier with a Return Water
Dam on the eastern bank. The topography of the western bank slopes gently (<3%)
towards the river and the eastern bank is more steep (8%) but then flattening off above the
1770 contour at the dam site.
At the time of the site visit, July 2011, the majority of the area was used for cattle grazing.
The area is covered by grassland (Figure 2) and there is no evidence of recent crop
cultivation except in the Discard Facility area. Refer to Figure 3.
Plantations of wattle, blue gum and pine trees have been planted to the north and east of
the proposed site with portions of the Discard Facility and Plant areas occupied by stands
of trees. Refer to Figure 3.
Figure 2: General Topography and Vegetation on Site

6
 Figure 3: Google Image of Site

5.2 CONSTRAINTS
The plant area is restricted by (Figure 4):
Coal reserves to the north and east (blast lines and mining operations).
Klein-Komatirivier to the west (the 1:50 and 1:100 flood-lines and a 100m clear zone
from the stream centre).
Property boundary to the east.
Provincial road to the south (building line restriction of 95m from the road centre
line).
Two pans to the west.

7
Figure 4: Plant Area Limitations

All the above is fixed with the exception of the building line. Following discussions with the
regional office of the Roads Department, the building line restriction for this class of road
can be relaxed to 16m measured from the edge of the road reserve. The road reserve for
road D1770 is 25m and the effective distance is now 28,5m. A formal application is in
process.
The original plant layout (Aurecon, Jun 2011) was revised to shift the plant layout as far as
possible away from the wetland and flood-lines. This updated layout (Drawing 002802-BP-
1) was used as the basis for the concept design.

8
6. SITE HYDROLOGY

6.1 RAINFALL RECORDS

The Roodepoort weather station (No. 0516554) records as provided by the South African
Weather Service (SAWS) span a period of 98 years and is the closest to the Belfast Project
site.
The same station and values were used in the report Belfast Surface Water Assessment
(Golder and Associates, 2009).
The Mean Annual Precipitation for the Roodepoort station is 690mm and the 24hr rainfall
depths for various recurrence intervals as presented in Table 1 were used.
Table 1: 24hr Rainfall depths
Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
(Years)
24 hr Rainfall Depth
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
(mm)

A different method was applied by GCS in their report Glisa Hydrological Study (GCS, Jan
2011). Runoff data from the WR2005 database (WRC, 2008) was used in the report. The
Glisa colliery is also owned by Exxaro and is west of Belfast. The MAP for Glisa is slightly
higher at 714mm.
As the catchment area is in the headwaters of the Komati River and relatively small,
preference was given to the historic rainfall data.

6.2 EVAPORATION DATA

The mean monthly pan evaporation rates for both the Belfast Project (Golder and
Associates, 2009) and Glisa Colliery (GCS, Jan 2011) can be found in the Table 2 below:
Table 2: Average Monthly Evaporation Rates

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tot

Belfast Pan
Evaporation 138 138 156 164 140 138 104 91 75 81 102 124 1451
(mm)

Glisa Pan
Evaporation 189 169 163 122 106 88 93 129 175 195 185 200 1814
(mm)

9
6.3 HYDROLOGY

6.3.1 CATCHMENTS AND FLOOD ESTIMATION

The Klein-Komatirivier catchment is in the upper reaches of the Komati River. At the
position of the site, the total catchment area is approximately 23km2 which is relatively
small.
Floods can be defined in two ways depending upon the application:
The 24hr runoff depth (section 6) is used to determine the sizes of Storm Water
Dams where storage capacity (flood volume) is critical (DWA requirement).
Flood Peak Methods (section 6.3.2) are used to calculate the sizes of drains,
culverts, spillways and silt traps where peak flows exceed the 24hr runoff
requirement. These methods relate to events irrespective of the duration of these
events.

6.3.2 FLOOD PEAK METHODS

Methods can be broadly classified as statistical, deterministic or empirical. As the
catchment area is relatively small, deterministic methods are deemed more appropriate.
It is good practice to use more than one method to get confidence in the flood peak value.
The methods considered are discussed in the following paragraphs.

6.3.2.1 Rational Method

The Rational method is probably the most widely used method for the calculation of peak
flows for small catchments. It was first proposed in 1851 by the Irish engineer Mulvaney
(SANRAL, 2006). It is recommended for use in catchments up to 15km2, but can be used
by experienced engineers for much larger areas, especially where verified with another
method.

6.3.2.2 Standard Design Flood

The Standard Design Flood method was developed by Alexander (Alexander, 2002) and is
based on the Rational Method. It can be described as a numerically regionally calibrated
version of the Rational Method, but is more robust and less site specific.

6.3.2.3 Unit Hydrograph

This method is recommended for areas between 15 and 5 000km2 and is set out in detail in
Report 1/72 of the Hydrological Research Unit, University of Witwatersrand (Witwatersrand,
1972). It is a time consuming method and problematic to apply to short storm durations.

6.3.2.4 Deterministic Method

The empirical peak flow calculations for rural areas as developed by Midgley and Pitman
(SANRAL, 2006) were used. The results are likely to be less accurate and should be
adjusted subjectively. It is based upon flow measurements and these are seldom available
for catchments smaller than 10km2 and usually only for catchments bigger than 100km2.

10
6.3.3 FLOOD VOLUME ESTIMATION
Flood volumes are most accurately determined from flow stations for bigger catchments.
Where not applicable, the unit hydrograph is recommended where the hydrograph shape is
of importance. The Rational and SDF methods assume a triangular hydrograph. These
methods are applicable to single storm events.
The requirements calls for 1:50 year 24hr runoff which is best calculated using statistical
data from the SAWS.

6.4 LIMITATIONS
All hydrology calculations are based upon contour information (0,5m intervals) and a Lidar
survey provided by Exxaro. No flow data is available close to this section of the Klein-
Komatirivier, and estimated Manning n values for the river and banks were used in the
calculations.
Topographical maps (1:50 000) of the Chief Directorate of Survey and Mapping were used
for areas outside that covered by the Lidar survey.

11
7. SURFACE GEOLOGY
The dam sites are underlain by rock units of the Dwyka Group of the Karoo Supergroup and
the area to the east is underlain by rock units of the Vryheid Formation.
Fieldwork was carried out in June 2011 and a detailed report can be found in Annexure G.

7.1 SUMMARY BY AREA

Below is a general summary of this report with corresponding paragraph letters for similar
properties.

7.1.1 RETURN WATER DAM WEST

a) Test pits 1 to 10 carried out by hand auger to depths of between 0,20 and 1,05m.
b) DCP refusal between 0,15 and 1,00m with slow advance to 1,5m at one position.
c) Moist to wet, loose, gravelly, silty sand (colluvium) transitioning to honeycomb
ferricrete.
d) Hardpan ferricrete observed in outcrops.
e) Standing water at lower end of site with little to no seepage higher up.

7.1.2 RETURN WATER DAM EAST

a) Test pits 11 to 19 were excavated by TLB to depths of between 0,15 and 1,15m.
b) DCP refusal between 0,06 and 0,87m.
c) Dry to moist, loose, gravelly, silty sand (colluvium) transitioning to honeycomb
ferricrete or even hardpan ferricrete.
d) Hardpan ferricrete observed in outcrops and possibly underlain by weathered
sandstone in places.
e) Slight ground water seepage in 2 test pits and none in the other 7 pits.

7.1.3 DISCARD AREA

a) Test pits 20 to 23 were excavated by TLB to depths of between 0,12 and 1,80m.
b) DCP refusal between 0,15 and 1,90m (apparatus limit).
c) Dry to moist, loose, gravelly, silty sand (colluvium) transitioning to honeycomb
ferricrete in two pits and residual sandstone in the other two pits.
d) Hardpan ferricrete not observed although shallow at one test pit position.
e) No ground water seepage, but moisture does increase with depth.

12
7.2 PROBLEMATIC SOILS

7.2.1 CLAY AND HEAVE

The soils are predominantly sandy with low Plasticity Index (PI) if any and low heave
potential (low clay content). PI varies from Non Plastic (NP) to 10.

7.2.2 COLLAPSIBLE SOILS

Further testing should be done as soils encountered in TP23 were described as open
ended. This could be a potentially collapsible material. This test pit is in the Discard
Facility area.

7.2.3 AGGRESSIVENESS
Soils were found to be highly aggressive towards concrete and highly corrosive towards
metals. This nature of the soil must be taken into account in the design of any buried
structures.

7.3 SUITABILITY OF SITES

This preliminary geotechnical investigation indicates that the sites are suitable for the
construction of two main earth fill Return Water dams (East and West) provided that the
recommendations are implemented:
Move the Return Water Dam West in a southerly direction as far as possible.
Take into account the aggressiveness of the soils for any ground touching
structures.
Conduct further investigations for detail design purposes.

13
8. CLEAN AND DIRTY WATER SEPARATION

8.1 THE REGULATION

In broad terms, Government Notice No. 704, 4 June 1999, inter alia requires the following:
Unpolluted water should be confined to a clean water system away from dirty water areas
and polluted water inclusive of runoff and seepage should be confined to a closed system,
not affecting clean water. The mentioned systems may overspill only once in 50 years and
should remain serviceable (maintained) for this event.

8.2 SEPARATION SYSTEM

The plant area is situated next to the Klein-Komatirivier and two pans are located to the
west of the plant (refer to Drawing 002802-BP- 1). Pans form in low lying areas that cannot
drain freely. The challenge is not to contaminate these clean water areas and to divert any
overflow to the river although the natural flow path is through a dirty area.
The proposed system is for diverting water as close as possible to its natural drainage path
while still complying with the maximum of 1:50 year spillage requirement. This drainage
path through the plant should be designed such that it can accommodate the runoff and
that there is no possibility for accidental or otherwise contamination with polluted water that
may occur during the operational phase of the mine.
The proposed catchment areas of the clean and dirty water systems are indicated on Figure
5 below. Refer to Drawing 002802-BP- 2 for more detail.

8.3 DESIGN APPROACH

8.3.1 SYSTEM PERIMETER

In compliance with the regulations, the outer perimeter of the systems is designed to ensure
there is no contamination within a 50 year recurrence period. The outer perimeter consists
of a combination of open drains and berms as well as roads with safety berms and side
drains.
The cut-off drains and berms that form this perimeter can be seen as yellow lines on Figure
6 below.

14
Figure 5: Clean (Blue) and Dirty Water (Red) Catchment Areas

Figure 6: Cut-Off Drains and Berms (Yellow lines)

15
8.3.2 INNER SYSTEM
The inner system need not be designed for the 1:50 year recurrence as it is contained
within the outer perimeter. The inner system design is a function of safety, operational and
maintenance requirements.
The minimum recurrence interval used for the design is 10 years although a lower figure
can be used. This recurrence interval is deemed appropriate as maintenance requirements
necessitate bigger culverts and drains, and the additional cost is minimal.
During detail design, these assumptions should be revisited as critical areas may require
adjustments. Critical areas include high value, high operational risk as well as areas where
safety can be an issue.

16
9. CLEAN WATER SYSTEM

9.1 PANS
The clean water system incorporates two Natural Pans located to the west of the plant
(Figure 7) referred to as Natural Pan East and Natural Pan West. Refer to Drawing
002802-BP- 2 to see the pans in relation to the clean and dirty water areas as well as the
Mining Area.
Figure 7: Natural Pan Positions

9.1.1 NATURAL PAN EAST

The Natural Pan East has a relatively low natural overflow level and a simulation was done
based upon average precipitation, pan evaporation and a variable infiltration rate. The
results in Figure 8 confirm that it is appropriate to assume that the pan may be full prior to
the 1:50 year event.

17
 Figure 8: Natural Pan East Balance Model

1775.0

1774.5

1774.0

1773.5

1773.0

Natural Overflow Level

1772.5
Infiltration 0%
Infiltration 10%
Infiltration 25%
1772.0
Jan 01

May 01

Sep 01

Jan 02

May 02

Sep 02

Jan 03

May 03

Sep 03

Jan 04

May 04

Sep 04
9.1.2 NATURAL PAN WEST

The Natural Pan West is intersected by the property boundary as well as the mining
perimeter as evident on Figure 7. There are neighbouring mining related activities taking
place to the west of the pan. To mitigate his clash, the Mining Area can be reduced or the
pan can be divided by a wall.
A modelling was carried out for the two scenarios:
a) Undivided
The first scenario is the reduction of the Mining Area. The pan will remain in its natural
state but coal reserves will be sterilized.
From Figure 9 it is clear that the pan will not overflow even if there is no infiltration. No
overflow structure is required for this scenario.
The possibility of retaining the Natural Pan West was investigated, but this will result in
the sterilization of coal reserves. Given the impact on the reserves and the
neighbouring mining activities, this scenario is not regarded as desirable.

18
Figure 9: Natural Pan West Undivided Balance Model

1786.5

1786.0

1785.5

1785.0

1784.5

1784.0 Natural Overflow Level

Infiltration 0%
Infiltration 10%
1783.5
Infiltration 25%
Infiltration 0% + 1:100
1783.0
Jan 01

Jan 02

Jan 03

Jan 04
May 01

Sep 01

May 02

Sep 02

May 03

Sep 03

May 04

Sep 04
b) Divided
The second scenario is of the pan being divided by a wall on the property boundary.
The eastern half will then fall in the Mining Area.
The model in Figure 10 confirms that the pan may be at the overflow level at the onset
of the 1:50 year event (assuming infiltration is less than 5%) and an overflow should be
provided.

19
 Figure 10: Natural Pan West Divided Balance Model

1787.0

1786.5

1786.0

1785.5

1785.0

1784.5
Natural Overflow Level
1784.0
Infiltration 0%

1783.5 Infiltration 5%
Infiltration 10%
1783.0

Sep 03

Sep 04
Jan 01

Sep 01

Sep 02
Jan 02

Jan 03

Jan 04
May 01

May 02

May 03

May 04
Scenario b) was assumed for the concept design. This entails the construction of a wall
with a freeboard of 800mm minimum and a spillway and drain to cater for a 1:50 year event.
It has the advantage of not sterilizing coal reserves and any overflow would be diverted as
clean water to the Klein-Komatirivier.

9.1.3 DISCHARGE
The runoff from the clean water areas is conveyed by a system of drains and culverts
through or around the dirty areas.
Where clean water has to be diverted through the dirty areas, it is protected by a berm on
all sides of sufficient height to prevent cross contamination for a 50 year recurrence event.
Refer to nodes C4, C5a up to C5b on Drawing 002802-BP- 1.

20
10. DIRTY WATER SYSTEM

10.1 DIVISIONS
Given the topography of the area and to reduce risk, the dirty water system is divided into
three separate areas:
Hard and Soft Stockpile Area (D1)
Discard Facility (D2)
Plant Area (D5)
Refer to Figure 5 for the clean and dirty water catchment areas. More detail can be found
on Drawing 002802-BP- 2. Points D1, D2 and D5 indicate dams for collecting runoff.

10.2 SEDIMENTATION
A network of open drains collects water from the dirty areas and discharges the runoff into
the Storm Water Dams.
To protect Storm Water Dams from sedimentation, silt traps are located as close as
possible to the source of contamination. Some drainage lines may pass through more than
one silt trap.
Silt traps are also provided next to all Storm Water Dams with a side overflow into the
dams. Alternative arrangements can be considered during detailed design e.g. Figure 11
(DWAF-A4, Aug 2007).

10.3 HAUL ROAD DRAINAGE

Sections of the haul roads pass through clean water areas and to simplify the drainage
network and to reduce maintenance requirements, berms and drains have been integrated
into the roads.
Over sections, the roads are designed with superelevation discharging all runoff to the one
side where it is collected in a side drain and drained away to dirty water systems.
Superelevated sections should be kept short and be an extension of superelevation around
a curve. Where this is not the case, the driver may feel uneasy and with regular
maintenance, the tendency is for these areas to be graded back to a camber.
Berms and side drains form part of the safety measures of haul roads and is not an
additional cost. When properly designed and maintained, they are extremely effective as
part of the drainage network.
Refer to Drawing 002802-BP- 5 for a typical superelevated cross-section of a haul road.
The yellow lines in Figure 12 indicate the section of haul roads where a combination of
superlevation, berms and channels are used to divert polluted runoff back to dirty areas.

21
Figure 11: Silt Trap Incorporated into Dam(DWAF-A4, Aug 2007)

Figure 12: Superelevated Sections of Haul Road (Yellow Lines)

22
11. DRAIN AND CULVERT DESIGNS

11.1 DRAINS

11.1.1 DESIGN APPROACH

It is preferred to keep runoff as close to its natural state as possible. In a developed area
this is not always possible as the vegetation and permeability of the catchment area is
changed and may also change over time.
The following order of preference was applied:
Maintain natural flow conditions.
Provide wide shallow drains.
Grass lined drains.
Grass block lined drains.
Concrete lined drains.
Energy dissipation is normally required where flow velocities become too high and need to
be reduced to acceptable levels e.g. where drains discharge into natural areas.

11.1.2 DRAIN LINING MATERIALS

a) Natural
The area is mainly grassland with vlei conditions close to the Klein-Komatirivier and
stands of trees at the discard area. The trees, wattle, blue gum and pine, will be
cleared. The surface material (topsoil) consists predominantly of loose, intact, silty fine
sand with relatively low clay content.
Based upon the above, a MAP of 690 and a clay content of between 6 and 15, the safe
flow velocity (SANRAL, 2006) to prevent erosion is between 0,8 and 1,5m/s. As the
MAP is on the upper limit, a figure of 1,2m/s was adopted.
b) Grass
Grass lined drains will be covered with topsoil after excavation. The type of grass
covering can be selected to favour higher flow velocity conditions. A maximum
allowable velocity of 1,5m/s was adopted (Kikuyu or NK37).
c) Grass Blocks
Grass blocks are individual concrete blocks with holes, stringed together to form a
mattress through which vegetation can establish. As a concrete matrix exists around
the roots of the vegetation, much higher velocities can be achieved. It is a flexible
system and can easily be shaped to follow natural contours.

23
 Two sizes of grass blocks were considered:
Type 140 weight of 140kg/m2 and can be used for velocities up to 3m/s.
Type 180 weight of 180kg/m2 and can be used for velocities up to 6m/s
The disadvantage of grass blocks is that it is more difficult to maintain where
sedimentation may take place. For this reason, its use should rather be restricted to
clean water systems or where water is not highly polluted with sediment.
More detail on a commercial product can be found in Annexure F.
d) Concrete
Concrete lined drains can be designed to withstand velocities of up to 8m/s (SANRAL,
2006) if heavily reinforced. Thin linings (60mm) can be used up to 2,5 m/s, but this is
not practical in a mining environment. A maximum velocity of 5m/s was used.
e) Gabion Mattresses
These mattresses are not normally used for the lining of drains as they are expensive
and difficult to clean when silted up. Their most appropriate application is for protection
of banks, stilling basins, retaining walls, spillways etc.
They have been used in combination with the other linings, especially concrete, to
dissipate energy.
Safe velocities for gabions are determined by their thickness and size of stone used.
This should be addressed during the detail design phase.

11.1.3 DRAIN DESIGN

The drain designs were based upon empirical open channel flow formulae such as Manning
and Chezy (Webber, 1985). The Manning formula is widely employed today and is
particularly appropriate to the rough turbulent zone, the zone in which most channels
operate. From flow calculations using the Manning n-value, the absolute roughness k-value
was calculated and compared to the estimated roughness of the channel as a check.
Freeboard was calculated as per the Drainage Manual (SANRAL, 2006), for straight
sections. Additional freeboard must be provided for curved sections. This detail should be
determined during the detail design phase.
The calculations are attached in Annexure B. These calculations are cross-referenced to
the catchment areas presented in Annexure A.
From the calculations as summarised in Annexure B, standard drain sections were
identified. This selected was based upon:
Lining type.
Capacity required.
Construction practicality.
Accessibility (some drains crossed by vehicles).

24
 The types are indicated on Drawing 002802-BP- 4 and their positions on Drawing 002802-
BP- 1 and Drawing 002802-BP- 3.
Table 3: Typical Drain Sizes Implemented

Type Lining Depth Bottom Width Side Slope Total Width

Type 1 Concrete - V 0.20m 0.0m 1:2.5 1.1m

Type 2a Concrete Trap. 0.50m 2.0m 1:2 4.1m

Type 2b Concrete Trap. 0.50m 1.0m 1:2 3.1m

Type 2c Concrete Trap. 0.20m 1.0m 1:10 5.1m

Type 3 Grass Trap. 0.50m 2.0m 1:3 5.0m

Type 4a Grass Block Trap. 0.80m 2.0m 1:3 6.8m

Type 4b Grass Block Trap. 0.80m 5.0m 1:3 9.8m

Type 4c Grass Block Trap. 0.80m 8.0m 1:3 12.8m

11.2 CULVERTS

11.2.1 MINIMUM CULVERTS SIZES

Haul road traffic exceeds normal traffic loads on culverts and these culverts are best cast in
situ. To simplify construction and to keep costs low, a single barrel size of 900x900mm was
adopted and additional barrels of the same size added where required. A dimension of
900x900mm is the minimum recommended from a maintenance perspective for haul roads
which are typically wider than 20m.
A minimum size of 900x600mm (900mm wide and 600mm high) was used for other roads
as it will be easier to maintain in a mining environment. The minimum size adopted by most
road authorities for box culverts is 600x600mm.
Pipe culverts are not recommended as additional cover over the culverts is required.

11.2.2 CULVERT CAPACITY DESIGN

Culverts were selected using inlet control as the restriction. Outlet control reduces capacity
and sedimentation may take place inside the culvert. It is imperative that the outlet be
maintained free of obstructions.
The culvert inlet and outlet geometry as well as erosion protection are indicated on Drawing
002802-BP- 11 and Drawing 002802-BP- 12 for haul road culverts.
A maximum Hw/D (head water depth / culvert depth) of 1.2 was used in the calculation, so
no pressure will build up inside culverts.

25
 The calculations are attached in Annexure D. These calculations are cross-referenced to
the catchment areas presented in Annexure A. Pipe sizes are indicated for comparison
only, and they are not recommended.

11.3 ENERGY DISSIPATION

Gabion boxes and mattresses have been used extensively for energy dissipation. Refer to
Drawing 002802-BP- 5 and Drawing 002802-BP- 7 for details. Positions are indicated on
Drawing 002802-BP- 1.

11.4 SILT TRAPS

A velocity of less than 0,8m/s (SANRAL, 2006) is required for silt to be deposited. The silt
traps were designed as such to ensure this velocity is not exceeded. Silt traps were
designed as long as possible, within reason, to ensure sufficient time for silt to be
deposited.
Silt traps were placed in the plant area as indicated on Drawing 002802-BP- 3.
The silt trap at P27 is downstream of the Washing Plant, the Middlings Export and the
Emergency Stockpile areas where a relatively high percentage of suspended solids can be
expected.
A second silt trap is located at C12 to trap any solids spilled at the Export and Middling Bins
and from vehicles on the concrete road.
The third silt trap is placed adjacent to the Storm Water Dam D5. It will trap suspended
solids that may have passed through the previous two traps, as well as that from the
Primary Crusher, ROM stockpile and Discard Bin (C6, C7 and C8). This silt trap decants
longitudinally into D5. Refer to Drawing 002802-BP- 6 for a typical detail.
Two further silt traps are provided next to the Hard and Soft Stockpile Area (D1) and the
Discard Facility (D2). Refer to Drawing 002802-BP- 1. These silt traps are similar in
operation than the one at D5.
The dimensions are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4: Silt Trap Dimensions

Width Length Depth Flow Velocity

Position
m m m m3/s m/s

Dam 1 (D1) 3 20 1.2 4.2 <0.8

Dam 2 (D2) 3 20 1.2 6.2 <0.8

Dam 5 (D5) 5 40 1.2 6.9 <0.8

Plant (P27) 3 8 1.0 min 1.6 <0.8

Plant (C12) 3 8 1.0 min 0.8 <0.8

26
12. DAM DESIGNS

12.1 DAM CATEGORY CLASSIFICATION

Dams should adhere to the relevant dam safety criteria, based upon the safety risk and
classification of the dam. The relevant dam safety regulations can be found in Government
Notice R 1560 of 25 July 1986, (DWAF-A4, Aug 2007).
The dam category classification is based upon size and the potential hazard. Each
category has its own conditions and requirements to be adhered to, and these are more
stringent and comprehensive for large and high hazard potential dams.
In terms of the Guidelines (DWAF-A4, Aug 2007), Pollution Control Dams (PCD) should be
classified in terms of the following tables:
Table 5: PCD Size Classification

Size Class Maximum Wall Height in Metres

Small More than 5 but less than 12m

Medium Equal to or more than 12 but less than 30m

Large Equal to or more than 30m

Table 6: Hazard Potential Classification

Hazard Potential Rating Potential Loss of Life Potential Economic Loss

Low None Minimal

Significant Less than ten Significant

High More than ten Great

Table 7: Category Classification of Dams with a Safety Risk

Hazard Potential Rating

Size Class
Low Significant High

Small Category I Category II Category II

Medium Category II Category II Category III

Large Category III Category III Category III

All dams under consideration are classified as small as their wall height is less than 12m.
The Hazard Potential Classification of the two biggest dams (Return Water Dam East and

27
Return Water Dam West) is Significant based upon the potential economic loss for the
proposed mining operation. The Hazard Potential Classification of the other dams is
Minimal.
Although only the Return Water Dams must be designed by an Approved Professional
Person, it is recommended that all the dams be checked by such a person.
The Category Classification for the PCDs can be found in Table 8. Capacity calculation is
dealt with under Section 12.7 and Freeboard determination under Section 12.2.
Table 8: Category Classification of Belfast Dams
1 2 3
No. PCD Type Volume Required Wall Height Freeboard Classification

D1 Storm Water Dam 11 800 m3 3.1m 0.8m Category I

3
D2 Storm Water Dam 17 100 m 3.3m 0.8m Category I

D3 Process Water Dam 15 000m3 3.5m 0.8m Category I

D4 Emergency Slurry Dam Not specified Ground level N.a. N.a.

D5 Storm Water Dam 47 400m3 7.9m 0.8m Category I

3
D6 Biofilter Dam 30 000m max 2.3m 0.8m Category I

3
D7 Return Water Dam 230 000m 9.0m 1.5m Category II

D8 Return Water Dam 230 000m3 9.0m 1.5m Category II

1 2
No. Clean Water Types Volume Required Wall Height Classification

PE Natural Pan N.a. N.a. N.a. N.a.

3
PW Divided Pan 64 800m 2.0m 0.8m Category I
1
Excluding freeboard.
2
Measured from crest to invert, including free board.
3
Minimum Freeboard requirement.

Refer to Figure 13 for the position of the dams (more detail on Drawing 002802-BP- 1).

28
 Figure 13: Dam Positions

12.2 FREEBOARD DETERMINATION

In terms of the DWA regulations, a minimum freeboard of 0,8m is required above full supply
level. This may not be sufficient for dams with a safety risk, and the most appropriate
guideline is published by the South African National Committee on Large Dams
(SANCOLD). Report No. 3, Safety Evaluation of Dams, Interim Guidelines on Freeboard
for DAMS (SANCOLD, Aug 1990).
Freeboard determination is based upon design combinations including:
Flood Outlets - Not applicable.
Flood Surges and Seiches - Relevant to bigger water masses.
Earthquake Wave - Even in mildly seismic areas, detailed calculations are not
warranted.
Land Slide Wave Not applicable.
Wind Wave Run-up and Wind Set-up - The effect of wind is negligible as the biggest
dam is less than 300m long. This is the minimum length where wind starts having
an effect.
Recommended Design Flood - The biggest two dams are Return Water Dams
(230,000m3 each) and will have pumped inlets and outlets. Design Floods and

29
 Flood Surges will have a minimal impact on Freeboard. The remaining dams are
small (Table 8) and do not pose a safety risk w.r.t. freeboard.
The Interim Guidelines present a practical and simplified table for the circumstances
explained above. The relevant data is reflected in Table 9.
Table 9: Simplified Practical Freeboard Guidelines
1
Category and Type of Dam Total Freeboard

Category I (Earthfill) 0,8m

Category II (Earthfill) 1,5m

1
Measured between design water level and non-overspill crest.

Refer to Table 8 for a summary of Freeboard requirements for the Belfast dams.

30
12.3 OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The operational requirements as summarised in Table 10 were used as the basis for the
design.
Table 10: Operational Requirements of Dams

PCD Types Applicable Dams Operational Requirement

Storm Water Dams D1 Keep empty by:

Evaporation, return to process water system, manage
water quality dynamically and release into clean water
system if quality complies.
Source: Storm water runoff from Hard and Soft
Stockpile Area.

Storm Water Dams D2, D5 Keep empty by:

Return to process water system.
Source: Storm water runoff from Discard Facility and
Plant Area.

Process Water Dam D3 Operate at level to accommodate dirty water inflow,

less outflow and losses and maintain required
freeboard.
Source: Pumped from Return Water Dams and other
dirty areas.

Emergency Slurry Dam D4 Evaporate excess fluid and remove to dump / discard
facility.
Source: Plant processing.

Biofilter Dam D6 Operate at a level to accommodate inflow, less outflow,

(Evaporation Dam) losses and maintain required freeboard by returning to
process water should water quality comply with
regulations.
Sourced: Outflow from Sewage Package Plant.

Return Water Dams D7,D8 Operate at level to accommodate dirty water inflow,
less outflow and losses and maintain at required
operational level. Operational level provides for direct
rain collection and freeboard.
Source: Pumped from Mining Areas

Clean Water Types Applicable Dams Operational Requirement

Natural Pan PE None. Pan will overflow naturally and follow clean
water path and drain.
Source: Clean storm water runoff.

Divided Pan PW None. Pan may overflow through spillway provided

and follow clean water drain.
Source: Clean storm water runoff.

31
12.4 SPILLWAYS
The dams are discussed below:
a) Storm Water Dams (D1, D2, D5)
These are provided with spillways to accommodate 1:100 year 24hr events as the
timing of the event cannot be predicted or managed. The minimum freeboard is 0.8m
as per Table 8. Dam D1 is to be provided with a gabion lined overflow.
b) Process Water Dam (D3)
This dam is similar in operation to the Return Water Dams discussed below. The
spillway and volume has been designed to accommodate the 1:100 year events.
c) Emergency Slurry Dam (D4)
This facility should be maintained at a low level and no spillway is provided.
d) Biofilter Dam (D6)
A spillway is provided and sized to accommodate a 1:100 year event. The minimum
freeboard is 0.8m as per Table 8.
e) Return Water Dams (D7, D8)
A combination of float valves and level sensors can be installed to shut-off pumps at a
preset level. The dams are elevated above ground level so no storm water runoff can
enter the dam. Provision has to be made for rainfall collected over the dam surface.
The spillway has been designed to allow for a 1:100 year peak flow event combined
with the peak rate of inflow from the pumps. The minimum freeboard is 1.5m as per
Table 8. These are the only Category II dams.
f) Natural Pan East (PE)
No spillway is provided for the Natural Pan East as it will not overflow for a 1:50 or even
a 1:100 recurrence interval (refer to section 9.1.1). The outflow will follow its natural
path up to the diversion though the plant area.
g) Natural Pan West (PW)
An overflow is provided for the Natural Pan West Divided as it is likely to overflow
(refer to section 9.1.2). The overflow is designed for a 1:100 year event and
constructed from gabions.
The spillway sizes are summarised in Table 11 below. The spillway calculation and sizes
can be found in Annexure D and more detail can be seen on Drawing 002802-BP- 7.

32
 Table 11: Spillway Sizes

No. Dam Type Type Length Design Rate Flow Depth

Storm Water 3
D1 Gabion overflow 20m 1:100 5.4 m /s 0.31m
Hard and Soft

Storm Water 3
D2 Side decanting 20m 1:100 8.95m /s 0.44m
Discard and Plant

3
D3 Process Water Side decanting 5m 1:100 1.0 m /s 0.26m

3
D4 Emergency Slurry Side decanting 2m 1:100 0.2m /s 0.16m

Storm Water 3
D5 Side decanting 40m 1:100 15.03m /s 0.39m
Discard and Plant

3
D6 Biofilter Side decanting 5m 1:100 1.58m /s 0.35m

D7,8 Return Water Spillway 20m 1:100 5.4m3/s 0.31m

PE Natural Pan Natural N.a. N.a. N.a. N.a.

3
PWb Pan Divided. Gabion overflow 20m 1:100 8.0m /s 0.41m

12.5 DAM LININGS

Linings are discussed in detail in section 13. Table 12 below summarises which dams
require lining.
Table 12: Lining of Dams

Lining and Hazard Classification Applicable to Dams

Lined (hazardous liquid) D2 to D8

Unlined (not hazardous or clean) D1, PE and PW

12.6 GROUNDWATER AND DRAINAGE

Linings float when the groundwater is high and this then reduces the capacity of lined
dams. Three methods or a combination thereof, are normally used to prevent floating:
Subsurface drainage (below invert level)
Ballast (stone, gravel and even tyres)
Anchoring (could be problematic when dam levels are low)
Subsurface drainage is proposed as the main measure to prevent floating and this can be
implemented in the following way:
Network of shallow subsurface trench drains (herringbone pattern)

33
 Cut-off vertical drains, deep trench drains (normally around the perimeter)
Layer subsurface drainage (permeable layer in a geotextile blanket)
Based upon the geotechnical investigation, the following measures are envisaged for the
dams:
Table 13: Subsurface Drainage Measures for Dams
1
Dam Envisaged Conditions Wall and Lining Sub surface Drainage Method

D1 Intermediate to hard Earth, HDPE lining of wall. N.a.

D2 Intermediate to hard Earth, HDPE lining Blanket layer drain

D3 Intermediate to hard Earth, HDPE lining Blanket layer drain

D4 Intermediate to hard Earth, concrete lining Blanket layer drain

D5 Intermediate to hard, Earth, HDPE lining Blanket layer, vertical cut-off

groundwater drain

D6 Soft to Intermediate to hard, Earth, HDPE lining Blanket layer, shallow trench
groundwater and vertical cut-off drains

D7 Intermediate to hard, Earth, HDPE lining Blanket layer, vertical cut-off

groundwater drain

D8 Intermediate to hard Earth, HDPE lining Blanket layer drain

PE Natural Pan N.a. N.a.

PWb Natural Pan, divided Earth, HDPE lining of wall. N.a.

1
Refer to section 13 for lining designs

The subsurface drains discharge into a collection sump from where it should be pumped by
means of automated level control. These sumps can also be used for water quality
monitoring and can be an indication of possible lining leakage. The sizing of pumps and
automation are to be part of the detail design phase.

12.7 CAPACITY DETERMINATION AND DAM SIZING

The dam capacities and sizes were determined on the following basis for the various types
of dams:
a) Storm Water Dams (D1, D2, D5)
Dams designed to accommodate the 1:50 year 24hr event assuming they are empty at
the onset of the event. Although not a requirement, additional provision was made for
some degree of silting to take place (varies between 5 and 10% of dam capacity).
Freeboard added to this level and flood level for 1:100 year peak runoff checked
(overflow).

34
 b) Process Water Dam (D3)
Capacity requirement of 15 000m3 as per information provided (Aurecon, Jun 2011).
The 1:50 year 24hr event over the surface area of the dam was added to the given
capacity. Freeboard added to this level and flood level for 1:100 year peak runoff
checked (overflow).
c) Emergency Slurry Dam (D4)
No capacity specified. It is an emergency facility linked to operational requirements.
The maximum reasonable volume for the available space was calculated.
d) Biofilter Dam (D6)
A detailed discussion on sewage treatment and the sizing of the dam can be found in
section 16.
e) Return Water Dams (D7, D8)
Capacity requirement of 230 000m3 each as per information provided (Aurecon, Jun
2011). The 1:50 year 24hr event over the surface area of the dam was added to the
given capacity. Freeboard added to this level and flood level for 1:100 year peak runoff
checked (overflow).
f) Natural Pan East (PE)
For the modelling done in section 9.1.1, a depth-volume relationship was calculated
from the available contours. The volume reflected is at the estimated overflow level.
g) Natural Pan West (PW)
For the modelling done in section 9.1.2, a depth-volume relationship was calculated
from the available contours. This relationship was adjusted to reflect the division of the
pan with a wall. The volume reflected is at the estimated overflow level for the divided
pan.
The calculations can be found in Annexure C and a summary in Table 14.

35
 Table 14: Dam Dimensions and Volumes

Max. Wall Volume to Actual

Width1 Length1 Crest Width
Dam Height2 Spillway Freeboard
m m m
m m3 m

D1 85 105 3 3.1 11,840 1.1

D2 96 126 3 3.3 17,100 1.2

D3 89 109 3 3.6 16,060 1.1

D4 50 115 3 2.5 4,700 1.0

D5 103 142 5 7.8 47,360 1.2

D6 160 160 3 2.5 31 560 1.1

D7,8 140 370 5 9.3 234,320 1.8

PE N.a. N.a. N.a. N.a. N.a. N.a.

PWb N.a. N.a. 3 3.2 4,700 1.2

1
Measured between insides of crest
2
Measured from invert to crest (inclusive of freeboard)

12.8 DAM WALL DESIGN

12.8.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

The geotechnical investigation at the location of the proposed dam sites (Annexure G) has
revealed that both the Return Water Dams are underlain by colluvium, with some alluvium
encountered at the Return Water Dam West site. The alluvium is underlain by pedogenic
ferricrete which varies between honeycomb to hard pan ferricrete. The ferricrete was
encountered between 0.3m and 0.9m below ground level. The material underlying the
ferricrete was not proved but is anticipated to be residual to highly weathered sandstone.
No trail pits could be excavated at the Return Water Dam West site and soil samples from
the Return Water Dam East site were tested. It is anticipated that the laboratory test results
will be representative of the material encountered at both sites as the geology is fairly
consistent.
The shear strength parameters for the colluvial material encountered at both sites, was
determined by undertaking consolidated un-drained (CU) tri-axial tests with pore pressure
measurements. The tests were undertaken on re-compacted samples that were first
compacted to 95% Proctor density, and the samples were saturated prior to testing.
The test results are summarised in Table 15.

36
 Table 15: Summary of Strength Test Results
1 1
Test Depth Sample Angle of Internal Friction (Phi) Cohesion (C)
Position m Preparation Degrees kPa

T11 0.2-0.70 Remoulded 35.4 10.0

T15 0.25-0.75 Remoulded 34.1 12.8

T16 0.35-0.85 Remoulded 32.3 17.9

1
Angle of internal friction (Phi), Effective Strength

12.8.2 DAM WALL DIMENSIONS

The height of the dam walls is determined by the topography of the sites and was taken to
be 6m for the outside slope and 9m for the inside slope. The height difference means that
the centre of the dams will need to be excavated below ground level to generate sufficient
retention capacity and also to provide construction material
From the geotechnical investigation the maximum depth of excavation which was possible
with a Tractor Loader Backhoe (TLB) was between 0.3m and 1.1m below ground level. As
the required excavation will be to 3m below ground level, heavier excavation plant will be
required to break through the hard pan ferricrete to reach the required depth. It is
anticipated that residual sandstone grading into weathered sandstone will be present
beneath the ferricrete horizon.

12.8.3 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

By lining the dams (as per section 13), the embankments can therefore be designed for the
unsaturated case, as there will be no flow within the dam walls from the waste water
contained within the dams. The use of a liner therefore obviates the need to provide an
impermeable core to the dam walls and the embankments have been designed to be
homogeneous, using in situ construction material.
Slope stability analyses for the proposed dam were undertaken using the software
programme SLIDE, which is part of the RocScience suite of geotechnical programmes.
Initial analysis showed that slopes up to 1 vertical to 2.5 horizontal (1:2.5) will be stable.
However, the lining materials dictate a maximum slope of 1 vertical to 3.5 horizontal (1:3.5)
to prevent slippage and membrane failure (refer to paragraph 13.4).
The inside slope was analysed at a slightly steeper 1:3 to accommodate an alternative
lining solution that may cope with a steeper slope. The outside slope was analysed at 1:2.
The crest of the dam is 5m, which allows for vehicular access and inspections to be carried
out.
Conservative values of shear strength were used for the construction material, with an
angle of internal friction taken as 30 degrees and a cohesion of 5kPa. The Bishop and
Morgernstern Price method of analyses was used. The design has allowed for subsurface

37
drainage beneath the dam to accommodate the high in-situ water table and to prevent
water seepage into the embankment.
The plots of Stability analysis for the inner wall are presented in Figure 14 and that of the
outer wall in
Figure 15.
Figure 14: Stability analysis for the inside slope of the dam wall

Figure 15: Stability analysis for the outside slope of the dam wall

As can be seen from Figure 14 and

38
 Figure 15, the factors of safety against failure are 3.6 for the inside slope and 1.8 for the
outside slope. Both values are above the recommended minimum value of 1.5.

12.8.4 CONSTRUCTION METHOD

The embankment foundation will need to be stripped of topsoil and organic matter prior to
construction. The material for the embankment shall be placed at a minimum compaction of
95% Proctor at optimum moisture content. The material shall be placed such that the larger
particle sizes, i.e. anything greater than 60mm in diameter shall be placed on the steeper
outer slope. The colluvial material tested on site may need to be blended with the material
excavated out of the excavation for the dam, assumed to be residual and weathered
sandstone, and additional shear strength testing of the blended material undertaken to
finalise the design. It is recommended that the outer slope of the dams be top soiled and
grassed to reduce the risk of erosion.

12.8.5 CAUTION
Cognisance should be taken of the fact that the in situ soils that were tested in the
laboratory are classified as Very Highly Corrosive, and concrete structure in contact with
these soils will need to be designed accordingly.

39
13. LINING DESIGNS

13.1 INTRODUCTION
A number of dams are proposed for the Belfast Project and they are listed in Table 16 with
regards to content (refer to Table 10 for more detailed operational requirements). Their
positions are shown on Figure 16.
Table 16: Dam Content

No Dam Description Retention and Liquid

D1 Storm Water from Hard and Soft Keep empty, evaporate, release
Stockpile Are Could be dirty.

D2,5 Storm Water from Discard and Plant To be kept empty.

Areas Dirty water

D3 Process Water mainly from Return Maintained at operational level

Water Dams Dirty water

D4 Emergency Slurry Dam from plant Evaporate liquid and remove

operations Dirty slurry

D6 Biofilter Dam downstream of a package Evaporate. Not suitable for release into clean water
sewage treatment plant system.

D7,8 Return Water Dam Maintained at operational level

Dirty water

PE Natural pan with clean storm water Evaporate, infiltrate, overflow

Clean water system.

PW Divided pan with clean storm water Evaporate, infiltrate, over flow
Clean water system.

The lining systems will be specifically designed and installed to prevent contamination from
entering into the underlying groundwater and to facilitate the storage, handling, re-use or
disposal of the contained liquids.
The selection of the lining systems needs to take into account regulatory requirements, cost
considerations, availability of materials, functional requirements, lifespan in terms of
operating, chemical and climatic conditions, ease of installation and serviceability, i.e.
posing the least risk in terms of short to long term leakage.
Existing site conditions such as the geology and nature of the soils associated with the site,
the capacity and physical characteristics of the dams (e.g. magnitude of side slopes, depth
of contained liquids) and the nature of the contained liquids also need to be assessed in the
selection and design of the lining systems.

40
Figure 16: Dam Positions

Figure 17: Typical Lined Dam (DWAF-A4, Aug 2007)

41
13.2 RETURN WATER AND PROCESS WATER DAMS (D3, D7 AND D8)
The two proposed Return Water Dams (East and West, 230,000m3 each) are intended to
store process water to be re-used in the mining operations. The depth of water stored will
be approximately 7.5m with the dams maintained close to their full capacity for most of the
time.
It is envisaged that the process water will generally have a low pH value which is reported
could be as low as 2. Chemical results of water samples taken from other similar mines
indicate that elevated total dissolved solids (TDS), sulphates and manganese could be
expected (GCS, Jan 2011).
Employing the LC50 eco-toxicity criteria, i.e. the concentration at which a substance will kill
50% of aquatic animals tested, a liquid with a pH of less than 6 can be regarded as a
hazardous liquid and a storage dam or lagoon should be effectively lined so as to contain
the liquid in order to prevent environmental contamination. The anticipated low pH
characteristic will classify the liquid as a moderate to high-risk substance, and the proposed
liner design is accordingly based on the Department of Water Affairs Minimum
Requirements for the design of Hazardous Waste Lagoons (DWA, 2005), (DWAF-A2, Jul
2008). The diagram below indicates the design criteria set out in the Minimum
Requirements:
Figure 18: Hazardous Waste Lagoons: Minimum Requirements for Liner Design

Note: It may be possible to treat the mine water through a process of blending and/or pH
control and thus delist the liquid to a low-hazard classification which in turn may result in a
reduced acceptable design standard. For purposes of this report, a precautionary approach
has been adopted and a moderate-high hazard classification is assumed.

42
Taking the DWA Minimum Standards as the basis for the liner design, three options were
designed (Figure 19,
Figure 20 and
Figure 21). Subsurface drainage measures are not reflected on these figures.
Option A is proposed where there is sufficient and suitable clay material in the area.
For this project, there is uncertainty as to the quantity of clay available.
Option B proposes the replacement of clay with a geosynthetic clay (mineral) liner
(GCL), while still having a 300mm ballast layer on top of it to provide a confining
pressure on the GCL.
Option C excludes the 300mm ballast layer on top of the GCL as these dams will be
operated at operational level all the time. Sufficient pressure from water.
Figure 19: Alternative Lining for Moderate to High Risk Liquid Option A

Ballast Layer (optional)

Protection Geotextile (optional)

2mm HDPE
GCL
Cuspated Drain (bonded geotextile on slopes)
1mm LLDPE (textures both sides on slopes)

2 x 150mm Compacted Clay Layers

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dam Formation Level

Figure 20: Alternative Lining for Moderate to High Risk Liquid Option B

Ballast Layer (optional)

Protection Geotextile (optional)

2mm HDPE
GCL
Cuspated Drain (bonded geotextile on slopes)
1mm LLDPE (textures both sides on slopes)

2 x 150mm Compacted Layers

GCL

Base Preparation Layer

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dam Formation Level

43
Figure 21: Proposed Lining for Moderate to High Risk Liquid Option C

Ballast Layer (optional)

Protection Geotextile (optional)

2mm HDPE
GCL

Cuspated Drain (bonded geotextile on slopes)

1mm LLDPE (textures both sides on slopes)
GCL
Base Preparation Layer
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dam Formation Level
Note: Additional subsurface drainage layers may be required where groundwater is expected. Placement
would be between GCL and Dam Formation Level.

The layers as proposed in the three options are discussed below (layers from formation
level):

a) Dam Formation preparation includes trimming and compaction of constructed dam

basin floor and embankment sides to construction specifications.

b) A Base Preparation Layer free from particles that may cause mechanical damage to
the overlying liner.

c) Compacted Clay Layers (CCLs). This layer should serve as a protection layer to the
LLDPE liner (particle size that does not cause mechanical damage) and as a
preparation layer for the primary and secondary lining layers that follow. The
permeability (water-tightness) of the two CCL layers is not considered a critical
requirement in the context of the total lining design, and from a practical construction
perspective, CCLs will always have limitations in achieving permeability
requirements, irrespective of the average quality of the clay used.

d) A Geosynthetic Clay (mineral) Liner (GCL) consists of two layers of geotextiles with a
thin layer of bentonite powder or granules sandwiched between the geotextiles and
with the geotextiles needle-punched together to contain the bentonite. Normally, a
300mm ballast layer is placed on top of the GCL to provide a confining pressure to
the GCL. The PH of the polluted water is not as important as the Ca content where
bentonite is used. This is not considered a major concern based upon the available
information(GCS, Jan 2011).

e) The LLDPE geosynthetic secondary liner should be textured on both sides where
placed on the sloping embankments, and smooth on both sides where placed on the
basin floor. Full manufacturing and construction quality assurance should be
implemented.

44
 f) The HDPE cuspated drain layer is a leakage collection layer and consists of a
bonded geotextile applied to both sides where used on the sloping embankments.
This layer should be drained by pipes to a collection sump for monitoring. Bigger
dams, especially where there is no alternative storage, can be divided into section
each with its own collection sump.

g) The primary composite liner comprises a GCL followed by a HDPE liner.

h) Geotextile protection layer protects against migration of particles, damage and can
act as a drainage layer.

i) The top ballast layer protects the integrity of the primary liner. It is recommended that
the ballast layer comprise of a 150mm layer of crushed stone aggregate on the
sloping sides. Consideration can be made to using an alternative ballast material for
the basin floor, such as motor car tyres. Consideration should be given regarding the
low pH of the contained liquid when deciding on a suitable ballast material. Should it
be required to periodically remove accumulated solids from the basin floor, a hyson-
cell or similar cellular layer could be considered. The infill material to the cellular
layer should take into account potential chemical attack from the low pH liquid.

13.3 STORM WATER DAMS (D2 AND D5)

These two Storm Water Dams collect runoff from the Discard Facility and Plant Area. The
classification of the water is considered to be of a low-risk hazard, but likely to fail the water
quality requirements for open discharge into a receiving stream. The requirement is that
these dams be lined.
These dams are not used for storage, but for collection and transfer to the Process Water
system seasonal runoff and for short periods of time. The risk of seepage and
contamination is therefore much reduced and the liner design can be adjusted accordingly.
The design of the lining system should take into account the aggressive chemical
characteristics of the soils, the wetting and drying cycles that will occur and the need to
periodically clean the accumulated solids from the basin floors.
The following lining system is proposed:

45
 Figure 22: Proposed Lining System for Storm water Dams

Sand/Cement filled hyson cells (Optional)

1.5mm HDPE

Protection Geotextile

150mm Base preparation Layer

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dam Formation Level

Note: Additional subsurface drainage layers may be required where groundwater is expected. Placement
would be between Protection Geotextile and Dam Formation Level.

In addition to layers previously discussed:

a) A concrete-filled hyson-cell layer or concrete slab can be considered as protection to
the geosynthetic LLDPE membrane and to facilitate periodic cleaning out of the dam.

13.4 STORMWATER DAM (D1)

This Storm Water Dam collects runoff from the Hard and Soft Stockpile Area. It is expected
that this water may meet water quality requirements for open discharge into a receiving
stream, but this cannot be assumed for planning and design purposes. The classification of
the water is that of a low risk hazard.
Water should be tested and discharged into the clean water system or pumped to the dirty
water system should it feel to meet the criteria. It may be desirable to give the water time
for any suspended solid to settle.
For the reasons above, it is not recommended to line this dam.

13.5 EMERGENCY SLURRY DAM (D4)

This Dam would be used in operational emergencies to store and dry out slurry. Front-end
loaders would typically be used to transfer slurry and the lining system should be durable.
The proposed dam is to be concrete lined. Joints should be designed to be durable and
movement between slabs should be restricted.
The following basic design is proposed:

46
 Figure 23: Proposed Lining System for Emergency Slurry Dam

Concrete Lining (varies, 150mm minimum)

1.5mm HDPE

Protection Geotextile

150mm Base preparation Layer

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dam Formation Level

Note: Additional subsurface drainage layers may be required where groundwater is expected. Placement
would be between Protection Geotextile and Dam Formation Level.

13.6 BIOFILTER DAM (D6)

This dam is used as an evaporation pond for effluent from the sewage treatment package
plant. The final effluent from the package sewage treatment plant will be of the General
Limit effluent standard. For discharge into the clean water system, effluent will have to
comply with Special Limit quality since the mine is within a Special Limit catchment (i.e. All
tributaries of the Komati River between Nootgedacht Dam and the confluent with the
Sevenfonteinspruit, Table 3.3 Listed Resources, National Water Act of 1998).
The following lining system is proposed:

Figure 24: Proposed Lining System for Biofilter Dam

Ballast Layer (Optional)

1.5mm HDPE

Protection Geotextile

150mm Base preparation Layer

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Dam Formation Level

Note: Additional subsurface drainage layers may be required where groundwater is expected. Placement
would be between Protection Geotextile and Dam Formation Level.

13.7 SLOPE OF LINING MATERIAL

The slope of lining material is determined by the interface friction between the liners. At
steep slopes, there will be slippage leading to membrane failure. The preferred slope is 1:4
(1 vertical and 4 horizontal), but this could probably be increased to 1:3.5. The difference in
slope is small and not critical in the dam wall design as shown with the slope stability
analysis (section 12.8.3). It is recommended that this be further investigated during the
detail design phase.

47
13.8 INSTALLATION
The design of the geosynthetc layers (for all proposed dams) must incorporate proper
anchorage detailing for the prevention of slip and rupture failure on the side slopes. The
quality of the materials used in the lining layers as well as the quality of the construction
and installation of the lining layers is critical and the requirements of the accepted industry
standards and specifications as well as any special requirements of the regulatory
authorities should be strictly applied.

13.9 MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS

Periodic cleaning of the dams would be required although a 5-10% allowance was made for
silt. Cleaning methods and structures designed during the detail design phase should be
such that they do not compromise the proposed linings.

13.10 LEAKAGE DETECTION (D3, D7 AND D8)

Dams with high potential hazard liquid and dams operated at a full level should be
monitored for leakage of the lining. The cuspated drain layer should be drained by pipes to
a collection sump. The position of monitoring sumps is indicated on Figure 25 in purple.
Sumps S3, S3 and S4 are applicable. Sumps S1 and S5 relate to seepage collection dealt
with under Section 14.
Water from the sumps are to be pumped back to the Process Water System.
Figure 25: Position of Leakage Detection Sumps (Purple)

48
14. DISCARD DUMP AND STOCKPILE SEEPAGE PREVENTION

14.1 LINING DESIGNS

Runoff and seepage from these areas must be prevented from contaminating clean surface
water and groundwater. It is preferred to intercept seepage before it enters the ground.
The proposed solution is to make use of a combination of an impermeable layer and a
seepage collection layer. Special attention should be given to the edges of this system so
contamination does not occur at this interface with the natural ground.
The proposed lining system is shown below:
Figure 26: Seepage Collection System

Stockpile / Discard

200mm Pilot layer

Barricade netting high visibility

3 x 150mm Terrace Layers

Protection Geotextile

1 x 150mm Permeable stone layer

(<9mm stone, collection layer)

Protection Geotextile

1.5mm HDPE

Correction Layer (min slope of 0,75%)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX In Situ Material

Note: Additional subsurface drainage layers may be required where groundwater is expected. Placement
would be between 1.5mm HDPE and In Situ Material.

Figure 27 indicates the lined areas (shaded orange) for collection of seepage before
contamination of groundwater. It includes the Discard Facility, Export Stockpile, Middlings
Stockpile, Emergency Stockpiles and Export and Discard Bin areas. Refer to Drawing
002802-BP- 1 for the exact location.

14.2 SEEPAGE COLLECTION

Seepage is to be collected by a network of pipes e.g. herringbone pattern, and discharged
to a collection sump to be pump by means of level control to the Process Water System.

49
Figure 26 (Section 13.10) and sumps S1 and S5 refer. S1 serves the Discard Facility Area
and S5 the Middling and Export Stockpile Areas.
Figure 27: Lined Stockpile Areas (shaded orange)

50
15. LOW LEVEL STREAM CROSSING
The haul road crosses the Klein-Komatirivier northwest of the plant area (refer to Figure 28
for position). This position is close to and will replace an existing river crossing. The
Surface Water Assessment Report (Golder and Associates, 2009) presents a flood-line
modelling of this section of river before and after a proposed a low level structure consisting
of 5/2mx1.8m (barrels / width x height) pre-cast culverts (Figures 8 and 9 of the said report).
Figure 28: Position of Low Level Stream Crossing

15.1 HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS

The hydrology of the area was repeated with the following results as set out in Annexure A:
Catchment area 23km2
Runoff coefficient C of between 0.36 and 0.44
Runoff peak for 1:50 76m3/s
Runoff peak for 1:100 105m3/s

15.2 STRUCTURES INVESTIGATED

Three different culvert and road overflow combinations were used as presented in
Annexure E. The smallest culvert opening considered was 1.5mx1.5m as smaller openings

51
 can get blocked easily with debris from these size storms. The flood levels immediately
upstream of the structure were calculated as follows (refer to Annexure E for detailed
calculations):
Table 17: Low Level Crossing Flood Levels
1
Culvert Road Overflow Width 1:50 Level 1:100 Level

5/2.0mx1.8m BC 32m 1762.80 1763.17

10/1.5mx1.5m BC 39m 1762.29 1762.64

14/1.5mx1.5m BC 39m 1761.77 1762.25

Streambed Level is 1760m

1
Barrels/widthxheight

From the above it can be seen that the flood levels for the 5/2.0mx1.8m is much higher than
the other two options. The reason for this is the confinement of flow through a narrow but
high opening.
The flood level is more sensitive to the number of barrels than road overflow width, as the
total deck thickness is estimated to be 500mm. This deck thickness is due to structural
strength requirements of the design haul vehicles. The deck thickness increases the
headwater depth at the inlet forcing more water through the culvert.
At the position of the proposed low level crossing, the 100m clear zone restriction from the
river is more critical than the 1:100 year flood-line level. The footprint of storm water dam
D1 is therefore well away from the flood line and any possible undermining.

15.3 RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE

A lower and wider low level structure (1.5mx1.5m box culvert solution) is preferred as;
this will reduce the average flow velocity,
have a lower flood level and,
will be closer to the conditions prior to development.
The additional cost of 14/1.5mx1.5m box culverts brings about little advantages and the
10/1.5mx1.5m box culverts are proposed.
As can be seen from the detailed calculations in Annexure E, LowLevB option, the
structure will not overtop up to the 1:10 year event. Crossing the structure is possible up to
the 1:50 year event.

52
 Table 18: Proposed Low Level Structure

10/1.5m x 1.5m Box Culverts

Property 1:10 Year 1:20 Year 1:50 Year 1:100 Year

Road Overtopping Width 0 39m 39m 39m

Max. Overtopping Depth 0 0.11m 0.19m 0.54m

Flood Peak Runoff Rate 38.6m3/s 50.6m3/s 76.0m3/s 105.7m3/s

Flood Level (Upstream) 1761.9 1762.2 1762.3 1762.6

Streambed Level 1760 1760 1760 1760

1
Average Through Velocity 2.1m/s 2.0m/s 1.96m/s 1.8m/s

Pre-development Velocity 1.6m/s 1.7m/s 1.8m/s 2.0m/s

1
.Note: The Average Through Velocity takes the headwater build-up into account as well, and is not the outlet
velocity! The outlet velocity is to be reduced by energy dissipation to pre-development velocities as discussed
in the section below.

15.4 PROTECTION AND DETAILS

The streambed needs to be protected upstream and downstream of the culvert and it is
recommended to use gabions as energy dissipaters. The length of road that will be flooded
must also be protected and the road surface is to be constructed of concrete with anchors
to tie gabion mattresses to that protect the side slopes. Refer to Drawing 002802-BP- 8 for
more detail.

53
16. SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND BIOFILTER DAM

16.1 BIOFILTER DAM (D6) SIZING

The design brief entailed the conceptual design for an evaporation pond to dispose of the
domestic sewage from the new mine. The evaporation pond will receive treated effluent
from a package sewage treatment plant.
The final effluent from the package sewage treatment plant (General Limit effluent
standard) cannot be discharged off site, as the mine is within a Special Limit catchment (i.e.
all tributires of the Komati River between Nootgedacht Dam and the confluent with the
Sevenfonteinspruit, Table 3.3 Listed Resources, National Water Act of 1998). It is rather
onerous to achieve the Special Limit effluent quality. Some alternatives to this concept are
included later.
The rationale for the sizing of the sewage treatment plant and the evaporation pond is as
follows.

16.1.1 Sizing Of The Sewage Treatment Plant

The estimated domestic sewage flow for the facility was based on SANS 10252-2 (Table 9)
as follows:
a) Office Staff :
225 people per day working 1 x 8hour shift, amounts to a total of 15.75m3/d.
b) Labour:
225 people per day, including shower use (7 days a week), amounts to a total of
33.75m3/d.
c) Canteen:
450 meals per day amounts to a total of 13,5m3/d
Thus the estimated total sewage flow from the facility is 63m3/d.

16.1.2 Sizing Of The Evaporation Pond

Table 19 shows the average evaporation data (GCS, Jan 2011) that was used as a basis
for the sizing of the evaporation pond.

54
 Table 19: Evaporation Data Used In The Modelling

Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tot

Pan
Evaporation 189 169 163 122 106 88 93 129 175 195 185 200 1814
(mm)

Precipitation
138 87 71 43 12 6 4 7 25 72 125 124 714
(mm)

Net
Evaporation 51 82 92 79 94 82 89 122 150 123 60 76 1100
(mm)

The evaporation from the pond was modelled over a 4 year period using the average
evaporation data and a consistent flow of 63m3/d. It was determined that an evaporation
pond of 2.0ha will be adequate assuming an average depth of 1.5m. The results of the
evaporation modelling on the dam volume are given in Figure 29.

2000
1800
1600
PondVolume(m3)

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 29: Result Of Pond Evaporation Modelling (1.5m Depth)

16.1.3 Package Sewage Treatment Plant

There are numerous commercial package sewage treatment plants available on the market
in South Africa that are designed to treat to the General Limit effluent standard. Since the

55
 effluent is to be evaporated or irrigated, the General Limit effluent standard would be more
than sufficient to comply with the standards set by the Department of Water Affairs.
It is therefore recommended that a package plant based on the extended aeration activated
sludge process be used. The package plant should have facilities to store and possibly
digest sludge in order to minimise the maintenance required by the mine.

16.2 ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

The following alternative strategies can be considered:

16.2.1 Effluent Irrigation

The effluent from the package sewage treatment plant would be of a quality that could be
suitable for irrigation, but not for discharge off site. The quantity of 63m3/d is above the limit
of 50m3/d which would allow this to be done in terms of a General Authorisation and as
such an application for the registration of a water use must be submitted to DWA before the
irrigation can commence. An area of between 2 and 3 hectares would probably be sufficient
for this irrigation and could include the use of the water for dust suppression. However, the
following restrictions would apply:
the irrigation cannot take place below the 100 year flood line,
the irrigation cannot take place less than 100 metres from a water resource or a
borehole which is utilised for drinking water or stock watering; and
the irrigation cannot take place if the land overlies a Major Aquifer

16.2.2 Grey Water Diversion And Low Flow Fittings

The shower water makes up approximately 30% of the total sewage flow and this fraction
could be separated before the sewage treatment plant and irrigated. This would reduce the
size of the evaporation pond by 30%. This shower water could irrigate between 0.5 and 1.0
hectares.
The calculation of the sewage flow is based on conventional sanitation fittings. Further
reductions of the sewage flow could be achieved by means of low flow fittings, hold flush
toilets and waterless urinals. This could thus result in a reduction in the required size of the
evaporation pond by a further 10% to 30%.

16.2.3 Constructed Reedbed

An alternative to the package plant would be to construct a reedbed preceded by a large
septic tank. This would have the advantage of not requiring electricity to operate and would
significantly reduce the maintenance requirements. An area of between 2500m2 and
3000m2 would be required for a reedbed to treat the sewage from 450 people. This could
be reduced if the grey water from the showers is diverted prior to the septic tank. The
reedbed would have to be lined, preferably with a GCL and would be planted with a
commonly available reed.
The final effluent would probably not meet General Limit standard effluent quality, but would
be suitable for irrigation in terms of Clause 2.7 (1) of the National Water Act. The final

56
effluent would however have to be disinfected before irrigation takes place. The septic tank
would be sized for at least 24 hours hydraulic retention and it would be advisable to
construct 2 x 32 m3 parallel tanks so that one tank can be cleaned without shutting down
the entire tank. Either a 2 or 3 compartment septic tank would be required, and a manual
raked screen should be considered. Sludge would have to be removed from the septic tank
once a year.

57
17. CONCLUSIONS
It is possible, as demonstrated, to comply with the requirements of the regulations without
altering the plant layout dramatically. A slight rotation of the plant as well as a relaxation of
the building line requirements improved the storm water management system.
Further in investigations need to be carried out such as:
Surface geotechnical investigation where access was restricted.
Borrow area identification (e.g. source of clay)
Topographical survey
Structures (steel and concrete) in contact with the ground need to be designed to withstand
the corrosive soil conditions.
Lining requirements may be relaxed once more accurate data is available as to the
chemical composition and acidity of water in the area. The consumptions made are
conservative.
Minor adjustments to the layouts may be required once more detailed information is
available.
-oOo-

58
18. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, W. (2002). The Standard Design Flood. Journal of the South African Institution
of Civil Engineering, 44(1) , 26-30.
Aurecon. (Jun 2011). Drawing 106233-CIV-GEN-101 Rev I. Pretoria: Aurecon.
DWA. (2005). Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition.
Pretoria: DWA.
DWAF-A2. (Jul 2008). Best Practice Guideline A2: Water Management for Mine Residue
Deposits. Pretoria: DWAF.
DWAF-A4. (Aug 2007). Best Practice Guideline A4: Pollution Control Dams. Pretoria:
DWAF.
DWAF-A5. (Jul 2008). Best Practice Guideline A5: Water Management for Surface Mines.
Pretoria: DWAF.
DWAF-G1. (Aug 2006). Best Practice Guideline G1: Storm Water Management. Pretoria:
DWAF.
GCS. (Jan 2011). Glisa Hydrological Study, Project 10-296.
Golder and Associates. (2009). Surface Water Assessment Report No 12433-9312-1.
SANCOLD. (Aug 1990). Safety Evaluation of Dams: Interim Guidelines on Freeboard for
Dams, Report No. 3. Pretoria: South African Committee on Large Dams.
SANRAL. (2006). Drainage Manual, 5th Edition. Pretoria: SANRAL.
Webber, N. (1985). Fluid Mechanics for Civil Engineers. Bristol, England: J.W. Arrowsmith.
Witwatersrand, U. o. (1972). Design Flood Detemination in South Africa. Hydrological
Research Unit.
WRC. (2008). Surface Water Resources of South Africa: WR2005, Report No. TT382/08.
Water Research Commission.

- oOo -

59
 Annexure A:
SITE HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Ref Catchment No PW-50 PW-100 PE-50 PE-100 C2-50 C3-50 C4-50 C5-50 D1-50 D1-100 D2-50 D2-100 D3-50 D3-100 D4-50 D4-100 D5-10 D5-50 D5-100 D6-50
1 Approx. Culvert km km
2 SUMMARY
3 Rational Method m/sec 7.959 11.806 8.650 12.830 7.917 0.915 8.730 12.130 4.485 5.396 6.474 8.947 0.841 1.035 0.154 0.190 4.521 10.136 15.034 1.286
4 SDF Method m/sec 9.461 12.183 10.249 13.198 8.981 1.062 9.903 13.356 4.206 5.416 6.236 8.385 0.317 0.408 0.058 0.075 3.971 9.075 11.686 0.485
5 Empirical Method m/sec 11.959 15.106 12.604 15.921 11.466 2.109 12.398 15.671 6.608 8.347 8.276 10.666 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.194 13.194 16.666 n.a.

6 Universal Input Data

7 Return Period (T) years 50 100 50 100 50 50 50 50 50 100 50 100 50 100 50 100 10 50 100 50
8 Catchment Area (A) km 0.480 0.480 0.528 0.528 0.592 0.061 0.653 1.133 0.246 0.246 0.336 0.336 0.013 0.013 0.002 0.002 0.858 0.858 0.858 0.020
9 Main Channel length (L) km 0.700 0.700 0.760 0.760 1.120 0.800 1.120 1.900 0.680 0.680 0.920 0.920 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.200 1.200 1.200 0.000
10 Mean Annual Rainfall (MAP) mm 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690

Steps Rational Method Calculations (for areas smaller than 15 km)

1 Catchment Area (A) km 0.480 0.480 0.528 0.528 0.592 0.061 0.653 1.133 0.246 0.246 0.336 0.336 0.013 0.013 0.002 0.002 0.858 0.858 0.858 0.020
2 Main Channel length (L) km 0.7 0.7 0.76 0.76 1.12 0.8 1.12 1.9 0.68 0.68 0.92 0.92 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 0
3 Average Slope (10-85) (S) m/m 0.020 0.020 0.022 0.022 0.016 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.010 0.010 0.026 0.032 - - - - 0.004 0.004 0.004 -
4 Time of Concentration (Tc) hours 0.227 0.227 0.234 0.234 0.355 0.281 0.355 0.524 0.292 0.292 0.253 0.234 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.150
5 Mean Annual Rainfall (MAR) mm 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0
6 Region Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland
7 Point Intensity (Pit) mm 197 243 195 240 159 179 159 127 175 216 188 239 231 285 231 285 71 115 142 231
8 Area Reduction Factor (ARF) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
9 Average Rainfall Intensity (IT) mm 197.05 242.60 194.67 239.67 158.91 178.74 158.91 127.24 175.43 215.98 187.79 239.35 231.44 284.94 231.44 284.94 71.08 115.19 141.82 231.44
10a Dolomite Area % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
10 Ct = C1d+C2*C3 0.303 0.365 0.303 0.365 0.303 0.303 0.303 0.303 0.374 0.365 0.369 0.401 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.267 0.369 0.445 1.000
11 Peak Flow for 1: 50 years (Qt) m/sec 7.959 11.806 8.650 12.830 7.917 0.915 8.730 12.130 4.485 5.396 6.474 8.947 0.841 1.035 0.154 0.190 4.521 10.136 15.034 1.286

Steps SDF Method Calculations (no limit on area size)

1 Basin number no. 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
6a Time of concentration (t) minutes 14 14 14 14 21 17 21 31 18 18 15 14 9 9 9 9 37 37 37 9
6b Mean annual daily maxima (M) mm 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
6c Audible Thunder (R ) days/yr 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
6d Point precipitation depth (Pt) mm 45 52 46 53 54 49 54 62 50 58 47 53 37 42 37 42 42 65 75 37
7a Area Reduction Factor (ARF) % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7b Catchment Rainfall for return period (T) mm 45.06 51.92 45.62 52.57 54.17 49.42 54.17 62.12 50.21 57.85 47.27 52.64 36.57 42.13 36.57 42.13 42.26 65.37 75.32 36.57
7c Rainfall Intensity (It) mm/hr 198.2 228.4 195.2 225.0 152.6 175.6 152.6 118.6 171.7 197.8 186.7 224.6 243.8 280.9 243.8 280.9 68.8 106.4 122.6 243.8
8d Runoff coefficient Ct 0.358 0.400 0.358 0.400 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.400 0.358 0.400 0.358 0.400 0.358 0.400 0.242 0.358 0.400 0.358
9 Peak Flow (Qt) m/sec 9.461 12.183 10.249 13.198 8.981 1.062 9.903 13.356 4.206 5.416 6.236 8.385 0.317 0.408 0.058 0.075 3.971 9.075 11.686 0.485

Steps Empirical Method Calculations (no limit on area size - prefer larger areas)
5 Veld Type 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a
6 Catchment Parameters (C ) 0.240 0.240 0.234 0.234 0.104 0.020 0.114 0.071 0.091 0.091 0.111 0.123 - - - - 0.069 0.069 0.069 -
7 Kovacs Region K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5
9 Constant Value for (Kt) 0.950 1.200 0.950 1.200 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 1.200 0.950 1.200 0.950 1.200 0.950 1.200 0.590 0.950 1.200 0.950
10 Peak Flow (Midgley & Pitman) (Qt) m/sec 11.959 15.106 12.604 15.921 11.466 2.109 12.398 15.671 6.608 8.347 8.276 10.666 - - - - 8.194 13.194 16.666 -
11a Peak Flow (Qrmf Kovacs factor 1) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11b Peak Flow (Qrmf Kovacs factor 2) 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
11 Peak Flow (Kovacs) (Qrmf) m/sec 6.928 6.928 7.266 7.266 7.694 2.466 8.080 10.643 4.964 4.964 5.797 5.797 1.144 1.144 0.490 0.490 9.261 9.261 9.261 1.414
12 Qt/Qrmf ratios 1.726 2.180 1.735 2.191 1.490 0.855 1.535 1.472 1.331 1.682 1.428 1.840 - - - - 0.885 1.425 1.800 -
12 Peak Flow (Qt) m/sec 11.959 15.106 12.604 15.921 11.466 2.109 12.398 15.671 6.608 8.347 8.276 10.666 - - - - 8.194 13.194 16.666 -

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 1 of 2 CulHyd

 CATCHMENT HYDROLOGY
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Ref Catchment No D6-100 D7,8-50 D7,8-100 C10-50 C14-50 LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100 LL-200
1 Approx. Culvert km km
2 SUMMARY
3 Rational Method m/sec 1.583 4.372 5.382 5.397 2.370 21.611 29.906 38.614 50.632 75.959 105.691 130.120
4 SDF Method m/sec 0.624 1.648 2.122 6.164 2.812 2.906 17.272 31.069 46.954 71.002 91.426 113.224
5 Empirical Method m/sec n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.230 4.424 #N/A #N/A 44.748 51.574 72.052 91.013 91.013

6 Universal Input Data

7 Return Period (T) years 100 50 100 50 50 2 5 10 20 50 100 200
8 Catchment Area (A) km 0.020 0.068 0.068 0.389 0.144 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970
9 Main Channel length (L) km 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.200 0.800 15.000 15.000 15.000 15.000 15.000 15.000 15.000
10 Mean Annual Rainfall (MAP) mm 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690 690

Steps Rational Method Calculations (for areas sm

1 Catchment Area (A) km 0.020 0.068 0.068 0.389 0.144 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970 22.970
2 Main Channel length (L) km 0 0 0 1.20015 0.8001 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
3 Average Slope (10-85) (S) m/m - - - 0.022 0.025 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
4 Time of Concentration (Tc) hours 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.331 0.231 3.184 3.184 3.184 3.184 3.184 3.184 3.184
5 Mean Annual Rainfall (MAR) mm 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0 690.0
6 Region Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland Inland
7 Point Intensity (Pit) mm 285 231 285 165 196 13 17 21 25 33 41 51
8 Area Reduction Factor (ARF) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
9 Average Rainfall Intensity (IT) mm 284.94 231.44 284.94 164.97 195.59 12.75 16.78 20.66 25.43 33.48 41.22 50.74
10a Dolomite Area % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
10 Ct = C1d+C2*C3 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.303 0.303 0.266 0.279 0.293 0.312 0.356 0.402 0.402
11 Peak Flow for 1: 50 years (Qt) m/sec 1.583 4.372 5.382 5.397 2.370 21.611 29.906 38.614 50.632 75.959 105.691 130.120

Steps SDF Method Calculations (no limit on area s

1 Basin number no. 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29
6a Time of concentration (t) minutes 9 9 9 20 14 191 191 191 191 191 191 191
6b Mean annual daily maxima (M) mm 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66
6c Audible Thunder (R ) days/yr 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
6d Point precipitation depth (Pt) mm 42 37 42 53 45 29 49 64 79 99 114 129
7a Area Reduction Factor (ARF) % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7b Catchment Rainfall for return period (T) mm 42.13 36.57 42.13 52.71 45.40 29.00 48.92 63.99 79.06 98.99 114.06 129.13
7c Rainfall Intensity (It) mm/hr 280.9 243.8 280.9 159.5 196.4 9.1 15.4 20.1 24.8 31.1 35.8 40.6
8d Runoff coefficient Ct 0.400 0.358 0.400 0.358 0.358 0.050 0.176 0.242 0.296 0.358 0.400 0.438
9 Peak Flow (Qt) m/sec 0.624 1.648 2.122 6.164 2.812 2.906 17.272 31.069 46.954 71.002 91.426 113.224

Steps Empirical Method Calculations (no limit on

5 Veld Type 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a 4&5a
6 Catchment Parameters (C ) - - - 0.070 0.062 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
7 Kovacs Region K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5 K5
9 Constant Value for (Kt) 1.200 0.950 1.200 0.950 0.950 #N/A #N/A 0.590 0.680 0.950 1.200 1.200
10 Peak Flow (Midgley & Pitman) (Qt) m/sec - - - 8.230 4.424 #N/A #N/A 44.748 51.574 72.052 91.013 91.013
11a Peak Flow (Qrmf Kovacs factor 1) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11b Peak Flow (Qrmf Kovacs factor 2) 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
11 Peak Flow (Kovacs) (Qrmf) m/sec 1.414 2.608 2.608 6.235 3.795 47.927 47.927 47.927 47.927 47.927 47.927 47.927
12 Qt/Qrmf ratios - - - 1.320 1.166 #N/A #N/A 0.934 1.076 1.503 1.899 1.899
12 Peak Flow (Qt) m/sec - - - 8.230 4.424 #N/A #N/A 44.748 51.574 72.052 91.013 91.013

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 2 of 2 CulHyd

 Annexure B:
DRAIN SIZING
UNIFORM OPEN CHANNEL FLOW - MANNING Simplified Target Values
Lining and Roughness (Manning Max.
N m/s 1:max
Project Number: 002802 Concrete (0.0140-0.005) 6.0 1
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater Trapezoidal Drain V-drain Armorflex 140 (0.0300-0.150) 3.0 2
Done by: CCLR Armorflex 180 (0.0300-0.150) 6.0 2
Date: 23 July 2011 1:y 1:x 1:y 1:x Grass Long (0.0360-0.400) 1.8 4
Spreadsheet by RLR w w=0 Grass Short (0.0320-0.200) 1.5 4
Max velocity to encourage silt depositing 0.8
Section

Ground Flow Manning Lining Flow Wetted Wetted Hydraulic Flow Peak Freeb Drain

Traffic
Notes
w y x Type k V
Slope depth n n-k Width Area Perim. Radius, R Q Flow Straight Depth
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m/s) (m) (m)

5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.34 0.032 0.156 7.03 2.040 7.144 0.286 4.787 2.347 0.102 0.441

40-0.005) (0.0300-0.150) (0.0320-0.200) (0.0300-0.150) (0.0320-0.200) (0.0300-0.150) (0.0300-0.150) (0.0300-0.150)

dissipation rqd dissipation rqd dissipation rqd dissipation rqd dissipation rqd
Armorflex 140 Armorflex 140 Armorflex 140
Trapezoidal
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.45 0.032 0.174 7.71 2.873 7.859 0.366 7.950 2.767 0.136 0.588
C1-C30

Energy

None
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.57 0.032 0.188 8.39 3.783 8.573 0.441 11.866 11.806 3.137 0.170 0.735
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.68 0.032 0.200 9.07 4.769 9.288 0.513 16.552 3.471 0.203 0.881
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.79 0.032 0.210 9.75 5.832 10.003 0.583 22.031 3.778 0.237 1.028
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.29 0.032 0.145 6.71 1.674 6.808 0.246 3.557 2.125 0.086 0.372
Trapezoidal

5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.38 0.032 0.163 7.29 2.341 7.410 0.316 5.878 2.511 0.114 0.495
C2-C5A

Energy

None
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.48 0.032 0.177 7.86 3.063 8.013 0.382 8.730 8.730 2.851 0.143 0.619
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.57 0.032 0.189 8.43 3.838 8.615 0.446 12.119 3.157 0.171 0.743
5.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.67 0.032 0.199 9.00 4.669 9.218 0.506 16.057 3.439 0.200 0.867
8.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.27 0.032 0.145 9.62 2.381 9.709 0.245 5.048 2.121 0.081 0.351
Trapezoidal
C5A-C5B

8.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.36 0.032 0.163 10.16 3.272 10.279 0.318 8.256 2.523 0.108 0.468

Energy

None
8.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.45 0.032 0.178 10.70 4.211 10.848 0.388 12.130 12.130 2.880 0.135 0.585
8.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.54 0.032 0.190 11.24 5.200 11.418 0.455 16.659 3.204 0.162 0.703
8.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.63 0.032 0.201 11.78 6.237 11.988 0.520 21.836 3.501 0.189 0.820
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.13 0.032 0.098 2.79 0.316 2.835 0.112 0.397 1.254 0.040 0.172
Grass Short
Trapezoidal

2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.18 0.032 0.112 3.06 0.445 3.113 0.143 0.658 1.480 0.053 0.229

Energy
C3-C2

None
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.22 0.032 0.123 3.32 0.585 3.391 0.173 0.982 0.915 1.678 0.066 0.286
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.26 0.032 0.132 3.58 0.737 3.670 0.201 1.368 1.856 0.079 0.343
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.31 0.032 0.140 3.85 0.901 3.948 0.228 1.820 2.021 0.092 0.400
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.13 0.032 0.098 2.79 0.316 2.835 0.112 0.397 1.254 0.040 0.172
Armorflex 140
Trapezoidal
Alternative

2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.18 0.032 0.112 3.06 0.445 3.113 0.143 0.658 1.480 0.053 0.229

Energy
C3-C2

None
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.22 0.032 0.123 3.32 0.585 3.391 0.173 0.982 0.915 1.678 0.066 0.286
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.26 0.032 0.132 3.58 0.737 3.670 0.201 1.368 1.856 0.079 0.343
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.31 0.032 0.140 3.85 0.901 3.948 0.228 1.820 2.021 0.092 0.400
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.10 0.032 0.087 2.62 0.237 2.650 0.089 0.257 1.083 0.031 0.134
Grass Short
Trapezoidal

2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.14 0.032 0.100 2.82 0.330 2.866 0.115 0.423 1.282 0.041 0.178
C29-C6

None
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.17 0.032 0.110 3.03 0.430 3.083 0.140 0.627 0.627 1.457 0.051 0.223
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.21 0.032 0.119 3.23 0.538 3.300 0.163 0.868 1.615 0.062 0.267
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.030 0.24 0.032 0.127 3.44 0.652 3.516 0.185 1.147 1.760 0.072 0.312
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.008 0.31 0.030 0.114 3.86 0.909 3.962 0.229 0.983 1.082 0.074 0.384
Armorflex 140
Trapezoidal

2.00 3.00 3.00 0.008 0.41 0.030 0.126 4.48 1.340 4.615 0.290 1.696 1.266 0.099 0.513
C6-D5

None
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.008 0.52 0.030 0.135 5.10 1.835 5.269 0.348 2.623 2.623 1.429 0.124 0.641
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.008 0.62 0.030 0.143 5.72 2.395 5.923 0.404 3.780 1.578 0.149 0.770
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.008 0.72 0.030 0.150 6.34 3.018 6.577 0.459 5.184 1.718 0.175 0.899
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.008 0.23 0.015 0.004 2.91 0.561 3.022 0.186 1.055 1.880 0.069 0.297

pation rqd
pezoidal
rnative)

oncrete

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.008 0.30 0.015 0.004 3.22 0.795 3.362 0.236 1.754 2.207 0.091 0.396

nergy
C6-D5

None
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.008 0.38 0.015 0.004 3.52 1.052 3.703 0.284 2.623 2.623 2.494 0.114 0.495

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 1 of 4 Drains

 UNIFORM OPEN CHANNEL FLOW - MANNING Simplified Target Values
Lining and Roughness (Manning Max.
N m/s 1:max
Project Number: 002802 Concrete (0.0140-0.005) 6.0 1
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater Trapezoidal Drain V-drain Armorflex 140 (0.0300-0.150) 3.0 2
Done by: CCLR Armorflex 180 (0.0300-0.150) 6.0 2
Date: 23 July 2011 1:y 1:x 1:y 1:x Grass Long (0.0360-0.400) 1.8 4
Spreadsheet by RLR w w=0 Grass Short (0.0320-0.200) 1.5 4
Max velocity to encourage silt depositing 0.8
Section

Ground Flow Manning Lining Flow Wetted Wetted Hydraulic Flow Peak Freeb Drain

Traffic
Notes
w y x Type k V
Slope depth n n-k Width Area Perim. Radius, R Q Flow Straight Depth
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m/s) (m) (m)

En
05) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0320-0.200) (0.014

N
Trap

dissip
C

Co
Alte

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.008 0.46 0.015 0.004 3.83 1.331 4.043 0.329 3.666 2.753 0.137 0.594
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.008 0.53 0.015 0.004 4.13 1.635 4.384 0.373 4.889 2.991 0.160 0.693
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.016 0.15 0.032 0.103 2.88 0.357 2.926 0.122 0.347 0.972 0.039 0.185

Grass Short
Trapezoidal
C18-C16

2.00 3.00 3.00 0.016 0.20 0.032 0.117 3.17 0.505 3.234 0.156 0.578 1.146 0.052 0.248

None
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.016 0.24 0.032 0.128 3.46 0.666 3.543 0.188 0.865 0.865 1.298 0.066 0.310
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.016 0.29 0.032 0.138 3.76 0.843 3.851 0.219 1.209 1.435 0.080 0.372
2.00 3.00 3.00 0.016 0.34 0.032 0.146 4.05 1.033 4.160 0.248 1.613 1.562 0.093 0.435
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.05 0.015 0.004 1.96 0.071 1.965 0.036 0.066 0.922 0.014 0.062
Middlings-C23

Trapezoidal

Concrete
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.06 0.015 0.004 2.28 0.105 2.286 0.046 0.113 1.081 0.019 0.083

Yes
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.08 0.015 0.004 2.60 0.144 2.608 0.055 0.176 0.176 1.223 0.024 0.104
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.10 0.015 0.004 2.92 0.188 2.930 0.064 0.254 1.352 0.029 0.125
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.11 0.015 0.004 3.24 0.237 3.251 0.073 0.350 1.473 0.034 0.146
0.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.09 0.015 0.004 0.92 0.042 0.937 0.045 0.045 1.068 0.028 0.119
Middlings-C23 Middlings-C23
Alternative

Concrete

0.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.12 0.015 0.004 1.23 0.075 1.249 0.060 0.097 1.293 0.037 0.159
V-drain

Yes
0.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.15 0.015 0.004 1.53 0.117 1.562 0.075 0.176 0.176 1.501 0.046 0.199
0.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.18 0.015 0.004 1.84 0.169 1.874 0.090 0.286 1.695 0.055 0.239
0.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.21 0.015 0.004 2.14 0.230 2.186 0.105 0.432 1.878 0.064 0.279
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.05 0.015 0.004 1.53 0.067 1.539 0.043 0.070 1.042 0.016 0.069
Trapezoidal
Alternative

Concrete

1.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.07 0.015 0.004 1.70 0.095 1.719 0.055 0.117 1.226 0.021 0.092

Yes
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.09 0.015 0.004 1.88 0.127 1.899 0.067 0.176 0.176 1.389 0.026 0.115
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.11 0.015 0.004 2.06 0.162 2.078 0.078 0.248 1.536 0.032 0.137
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.016 0.12 0.015 0.004 2.23 0.199 2.258 0.088 0.334 1.672 0.037 0.160
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.15 0.015 0.004 1.60 0.195 1.672 0.117 0.394 2.016 0.045 0.195

dissipation rqd
Trapezoidal

Concrete
C23-P25

1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.20 0.015 0.004 1.80 0.281 1.896 0.148 0.662 2.359 0.060 0.260

Energy

Yes
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.25 0.015 0.004 2.00 0.376 2.120 0.177 1.000 1.000 2.661 0.075 0.326
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.30 0.015 0.004 2.20 0.481 2.344 0.205 1.412 2.934 0.090 0.391
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.35 0.015 0.004 2.40 0.596 2.568 0.232 1.900 3.186 0.105 0.456
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.005 0.06 0.015 0.004 2.15 0.090 2.154 0.042 0.051 0.569 0.015 0.072
Trapezoidal
Emer-C24

Concrete

1.00 10.00 10.00 0.005 0.08 0.015 0.004 2.53 0.135 2.538 0.053 0.090 0.667 0.020 0.096

Yes
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.005 0.10 0.015 0.004 2.91 0.187 2.923 0.064 0.141 0.141 0.755 0.025 0.121
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.005 0.11 0.015 0.004 3.30 0.247 3.307 0.075 0.206 0.835 0.030 0.145
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.005 0.13 0.015 0.004 3.68 0.313 3.692 0.085 0.285 0.910 0.035 0.169
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.19 0.015 0.004 1.77 0.268 1.865 0.144 0.621 2.315 0.058 0.251

dissipation rqd
Trapezoidal

Concrete
P25-C11

1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.26 0.015 0.004 2.03 0.391 2.153 0.182 1.057 2.703 0.077 0.335

Energy

None
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.32 0.015 0.004 2.29 0.530 2.441 0.217 1.615 1.615 3.046 0.097 0.419
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.39 0.015 0.004 2.55 0.686 2.730 0.251 2.303 3.358 0.116 0.503
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.016 0.45 0.015 0.004 2.80 0.858 3.018 0.284 3.131 3.647 0.135 0.587
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.05 0.015 0.004 2.01 0.076 2.011 0.038 0.072 0.946 0.015 0.065
al

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 2 of 4 Drains

UNIFORM OPEN CHANNEL FLOW - MANNING Simplified Target Values
Lining and Roughness (Manning Max.
N m/s 1:max
Project Number: 002802 Concrete (0.0140-0.005) 6.0 1
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater Trapezoidal Drain V-drain Armorflex 140 (0.0300-0.150) 3.0 2
Done by: CCLR Armorflex 180 (0.0300-0.150) 6.0 2
Date: 23 July 2011 1:y 1:x 1:y 1:x Grass Long (0.0360-0.400) 1.8 4
Spreadsheet by RLR w w=0 Grass Short (0.0320-0.200) 1.5 4
Max velocity to encourage silt depositing 0.8
Section

Ground Flow Manning Lining Flow Wetted Wetted Hydraulic Flow Peak Freeb Drain

Traffic
Notes
w y x Type k V
Slope depth n n-k Width Area Perim. Radius, R Q Flow Straight Depth
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m/s) (m) (m)

Trapezoida

.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.005) (0.0140-0.00

Concrete
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.07 0.015 0.004 2.34 0.112 2.348 0.048 0.124 1.110 0.020 0.087
Exp-P26

Yes
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.08 0.015 0.004 2.68 0.154 2.685 0.057 0.193 0.193 1.255 0.025 0.109
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.10 0.015 0.004 3.01 0.202 3.022 0.067 0.280 1.388 0.030 0.131
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.016 0.12 0.015 0.004 3.35 0.255 3.359 0.076 0.386 1.512 0.035 0.153
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.014 0.09 0.015 0.004 2.84 0.176 2.847 0.062 0.218 1.235 0.028 0.119
Trapezoidal
Stack-C13

Concrete
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.014 0.12 0.015 0.004 3.45 0.273 3.463 0.079 0.395 1.449 0.037 0.159

Yes
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.014 0.15 0.015 0.004 4.06 0.388 4.078 0.095 0.637 0.637 1.643 0.046 0.199
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.014 0.18 0.015 0.004 4.68 0.522 4.694 0.111 0.951 1.823 0.055 0.239
1.00 10.00 10.00 0.014 0.21 0.015 0.004 5.29 0.674 5.310 0.127 1.343 1.993 0.064 0.279
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.014 0.14 0.015 0.004 1.57 0.183 1.637 0.112 0.335 1.831 0.043 0.185

dissipation rqd dissipation rqd dissipation rqd

Trapezoidal

Concrete
C13-C12

1.00 2.00 2.00 0.014 0.19 0.015 0.004 1.76 0.262 1.850 0.142 0.563 2.145 0.057 0.247

Energy

None
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.014 0.24 0.015 0.004 1.95 0.350 2.062 0.170 0.848 0.848 2.420 0.071 0.309
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.014 0.29 0.015 0.004 2.14 0.448 2.275 0.197 1.194 2.668 0.086 0.371
1.00 2.00 2.00 0.014 0.33 0.015 0.004 2.33 0.554 2.487 0.223 1.605 2.898 0.100 0.432
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.014 0.12 0.015 0.004 2.22 0.197 2.247 0.088 0.307 1.557 0.037 0.159
Trapezoidal
Alternative

Concrete
C13-C12

1.00 5.00 5.00 0.014 0.16 0.015 0.004 2.63 0.296 2.663 0.111 0.540 1.823 0.049 0.212

Energy

Yes
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.014 0.20 0.015 0.004 3.04 0.411 3.078 0.134 0.848 0.848 2.062 0.061 0.265
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.014 0.24 0.015 0.004 3.45 0.544 3.494 0.156 1.240 2.282 0.073 0.318
1.00 5.00 5.00 0.014 0.29 0.015 0.004 3.85 0.692 3.909 0.177 1.722 2.487 0.086 0.371
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.030 0.21 0.015 0.004 2.82 0.495 2.918 0.170 1.749 3.537 0.062 0.267
C11,12-C9-D5

Trapezoidal

Concrete

2.00 2.00 2.00 0.030 0.27 0.015 0.004 3.09 0.697 3.224 0.216 2.899 4.159 0.082 0.356

Energy

None
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.030 0.34 0.015 0.004 3.37 0.918 3.529 0.260 4.319 4.309 4.705 0.103 0.445
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.030 0.41 0.015 0.004 3.64 1.158 3.835 0.302 6.015 5.196 0.123 0.534
2.00 2.00 2.00 0.030 0.48 0.015 0.004 3.92 1.416 4.141 0.342 7.996 5.646 0.144 0.622
5.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 0.60 0.014 0.002 8.01 3.902 8.659 0.451 2.749 0.705 0.125 0.725
D5 STILLING

Trapezoidal

Min. Size
Concrete

Cleaning
5.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 0.80 0.014 0.002 9.01 5.603 9.879 0.567 4.603 0.821 0.167 0.967
5.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.00 0.014 0.002 10.01 7.505 11.099 0.676 6.932 6.932 0.924 0.209 1.209
5.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.20 0.014 0.002 11.01 9.607 12.319 0.780 9.759 1.016 0.251 1.451
5.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.40 0.014 0.001 12.01 11.910 13.539 0.880 13.110 1.101 0.292 1.692
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 0.60 0.032 0.181 6.01 2.702 6.659 0.406 0.607 0.225 0.121 0.721
12 STILLING P27 STILLING

Trapezoidal

Min. Size
Concrete

Cleaning
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 0.80 0.032 0.199 7.01 4.003 7.879 0.508 1.045 0.261 0.161 0.961
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.00 0.032 0.213 8.01 5.505 9.099 0.605 1.615 1.615 0.293 0.201 1.201
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.20 0.032 0.224 9.01 7.207 10.319 0.698 2.327 0.323 0.241 1.441
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.40 0.032 0.234 10.01 9.110 11.539 0.789 3.191 0.350 0.281 1.681
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 0.60 0.032 0.181 6.01 2.702 6.659 0.406 0.319 0.118 0.120 0.720
Trapezoidal

Min. Size
Concrete

Cleaning
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 0.80 0.032 0.199 7.01 4.003 7.879 0.508 0.549 0.137 0.160 0.960
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.00 0.032 0.213 8.01 5.505 9.099 0.605 0.848 0.848 0.154 0.200 1.200
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.20 0.032 0.224 9.01 7.207 10.319 0.698 1.222 0.170 0.240 1.440

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 3 of 4 Drains

UNIFORM OPEN CHANNEL FLOW - MANNING Simplified Target Values
Lining and Roughness (Manning Max.
N m/s 1:max
Project Number: 002802 Concrete (0.0140-0.005) 6.0 1
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater Trapezoidal Drain V-drain Armorflex 140 (0.0300-0.150) 3.0 2
Done by: CCLR Armorflex 180 (0.0300-0.150) 6.0 2
Date: 23 July 2011 1:y 1:x 1:y 1:x Grass Long (0.0360-0.400) 1.8 4
Spreadsheet by RLR w w=0 Grass Short (0.0320-0.200) 1.5 4
Max velocity to encourage silt depositing 0.8
Section

Ground Flow Manning Lining Flow Wetted Wetted Hydraulic Flow Peak Freeb Drain

Traffic
Notes
w y x Type k V
Slope depth n n-k Width Area Perim. Radius, R Q Flow Straight Depth
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) (m/s) (m) (m)
C1

(0.
3.00 0.01 5.00 0.000 1.40 0.032 0.234 10.01 9.110 11.539 0.789 1.677 0.184 0.280 1.680

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 4 of 4 Drains

 Annexure C:
PANS AND DAMS
 WATER BODIES Natural Pan West - Undivided
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm
Runoff Coefficient max. 0.365
Catchment Area 480,000 m2
Overflow Level 1786.0 m
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship of Pan
Level m 1784.0 1784.5 1785.0 1786.0 1787.0
Depth m 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
Surface Area m2 0 43,200 76,800 100,800 128,000
Inc. Volume m3 0 10,800 30,000 88,800 114,400
Cum. Volume m3 0 10,800 40,800 129,600 244,000

1785.516 1785.516
1785.544
1786.000
NaturalPanWest
1785.544
1786.000 122000.000 244000.000
Undivided
1787.5
0.000 244000.000 0.000 122000.000
1787.204 1787.204
Offset 1787.0 0 10800 40800 129600 244000 Volume
0.0 43200.0 76800.0 100800.0 128000.0 Area
1786.5 1,784 1,785 1,785 1,786 1,787 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1786.0 0 10800 40800 129600 244000 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1785.5 33116.3

Lookup Lev 1784.872
1785.0
Lookup Area 68194.213 Overflow
Area 1784.5 39457.0 WallLevel
Lookup
L k L Lev 1784.457
1784 457 1:100NoInfiltration
Lookup vol 1784.0 9864.250
1:50NoInfiltration
1783.5
0

50

100

150

200

250

300
#REF!

Thousands
Volume(m3)

Mean Annual Volume 120,888

Infiltration 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Remaining Volume 120,888 90,666 60,444 30,222 0
Area for Balance Evap. 83,371 62,528 41,686 20,843 0
Balance Volume before Event 65112.8 28057.4 10421.4 5210.7 0.0

Balance Level before Event 1,785.27 1,784.79 1,784.48 1,784.24 1,784.00

Event 24h Volume Level After Event
5 13,490 1785.43 1785.01 1784.72 1784.63 1784.54
10 15,768 1785.45 1785.03 1784.76 1784.67 1784.58
50 21,550 1785.52 1785.10 1784.85 1784.77 1784.68
100 24,002 1785.54 1785.13 1784.89 1784.81 1784.72

200 26,806 1785.58 1785.16 1784.94 1784.85 1784.77

1786.0 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 7.959 11.806 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 9.461 12.183 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a 11.959 15.106 n.a
11.806 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway Unit Dimension Level Freeboard

Width and Level m 30.000 1786.000 0.000
Height and Level m 1.204 1787.204 1.204
1:50 Event m 0.000 1786.000 1.204
1:100 Event m 0.404 1786.404 0.800

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 1 of 10 Pan-Wa

 WATER BODIES Natural Pan West - Divided
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm
Runoff Coefficient max. 0.365
Catchment Area 480,000 m2
Overflow Level 1786.0 m
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship of Pan
Level m 1784.0 1784.5 1785.0 1786.0 1789.0
Depth m 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0
Surface Area m2 0 21,600 38,400 50,400 91,200
Inc. Volume m3 0 5,400 15,000 44,400 212,400
Cum. Volume m3 0 5,400 20,400 64,800 277,200

1788.729 1788.729
1788.763
1786.000
1788.763
1786.000
NaturalPanWest
138600.000 277200.000
Divided
1790.0
0.000 277200.000 0.000 138600.000
1787.207 1787.207
Offset 1789.0 0 5400 20400 64800 277200 Volume
0.0 21600.0 38400.0 50400.0 91200.0 Area
1788.0 1,784 1,785 1,785 1,786 1,789 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
0 5400 20400 64800 277200 Volume
Level(m)

1787.0
vol 33116.3
Lookup Lev1786.0 1785.286
Lookup Area 41836.828 Overflow
1785.0 WallLevel
Area 62528.0
Lookup
L k L Lev 1786.892
1786 892 1:100NoInfiltration
Lookup vol 1784.0 127936.941
1:50NoInfiltration
1783.0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Mean Annual Volume 120,888

Infiltration 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Remaining Volume 120,888 90,666 60,444 30,222 0
Area for Balance Evap. 83,371 62,528 41,686 20,843 0
Balance Volume before Event 236443.3 127938.4 32556.4 5210.7 0.0

Balance Level before Event 1,788.42 1,786.89 1,785.27 1,784.48 1,784.00

Event 24h Volume Level After Event
5 13,490 1788.61 1787.08 1785.58 1784.94 1784.77
10 15,768 1788.65 1787.11 1785.63 1785.01 1784.85
50 21,550 1788.73 1787.20 1785.76 1785.14 1785.03
100 24,002 1788.76 1787.23 1785.81 1785.20 1785.08

200 26,806 1788.80 1787.27 1785.88 1785.26 1785.14

1786.0 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 7.959 11.806 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 9.461 12.183 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a 11.959 15.106 n.a
7.959 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway Unit Dimension Level Freeboard

Width and Level m 20.000 1786.000 0.000
Height and Level m 1.207 1787.207 1.207
1:50 Event m 0.000 1786.000 1.207
1:100 Event m 0.407 1786.407 0.800

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 2 of 10 Pan-Wb

 WATER BODIES Pan East
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm
Runoff Coefficient max. 0.365
Catchment Area 528,000 m2
Overflow Level 1774.0 m
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship of Pan
Level m 1773.0 1773.5 1774.0 1775.0 1776.0
Depth m 0.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0
Surface Area m2 0 35,200 60,000 96,000 132,000
Inc. Volume m3 0 8,800 23,800 78,000 114,000
Cum. Volume m3 0 8,800 32,600 110,600 224,600

1775.126 1775.126 0.000 112300.000

1775.150
1774.000
1775.150
1774.000
112300.000
PanEast
224600.000

1776.5
0.000 224600.000

Offset 1776.0 0 8800 32600 110600 224600 Volume

0.0 35200.0 60000.0 96000.0 132000.0 Area
1775.5 1,773 1,774 1,774 1,775 1,776 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1775.0 0 8800 32600 110600 224600 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1774.5 33116.3

Lookup Lev 1774.007
Lookup Area
1774.0 60238.275

Area 39457.0 N
NaturalOverflow
l O fl
1773.5
Lookup Lev 1773.586 1:100NoInfiltration(Wall)
Lookup vol 1773.0 12885.347
1:50NoInfiltration(Wall)
1772.5
100

150

200

250
0

50

#REF!

Thousands
Volume(m3)

Mean Annual Volume 132,977

Infiltration 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Remaining Volume 132,977 99,733 66,488 33,244 0
Area for Balance Evap. 91,708 68,781 45,854 22,927 0
Balance Volume before Event 101301.0 51625.7 19024.5 5731.8 0.0
Balance Level before Event 1,774.88 1,774.24 1,773.71 1,773.33 1,773.00
Event 24h Volume Level After Event
5 14,839 1775.05 1774.43 1774.02 1773.75 1773.63
10 17,345 1775.07 1774.47 1774.05 1773.80 1773.68
50 23,705 1775.13 1774.55 1774.13 1773.93 1773.81
100 26,403 1775.15 1774.58 1774.16 1773.99 1773.87
200 29,486 1775.18 1774.62 1774.20 1774.03 1773.93
1774.0 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 8.650 12.830 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 10.249 13.198 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a 12.604 15.921 n.a
8.650 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway Unit Dimension Level Freeboard

Width and Level m
Height and Level m
Natural overflow!
1:50 Event m
1:100 Event m

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 3 of 10 Pan-E

 WATER BODIES Dam 1
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Dam Size Inside Footprint

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Width 60.00 100.05
Runoff Coefficient max. 0.374 Floor Length 80.00 123.15
Catchment Area 246,400 m2 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Overflow Level 1762.0 m Tot Depth / crest 3.10 3.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1760.00 1762.00 1764.00 1765.00 1766.00
Depth m 0.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Surface Area m2 0 7,296 10,304 12,000 13,824
Inc. Volume m3 0 11,968 17,216 10,816 12,416
Cum. Volume m3 0 11,968 29,184 40,000 52,416

overflow
1762.296
1761.982
1762.296
1761.982 Dam1
1767.0
1763.096 1763.096
0.000 52416.000
Offset 1766.0 0 11968 29184 40000 52416 Volume
0.0 7296.0 10304.0 12000.0 13824.0 Area
1765.0 1,760 1,762 1,764 1,765 1,766 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1764.0 0 11968 29184 40000 52416 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1763.0 2000.0

Lookup Lev 1760.334
Lookup Area1762.0 1219.251

Area 1761.0 2000.0 Spillway(1:50)

Lookup Lev 1760.548
Lookup vol 1760.0 3280.702 DamWall
1:100
1759.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for siltation in dam

Start Silt Volume m3 0.0 540.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0
Start Silt Level m 1,760.00 1,760.09 1,760.17 1,760.25 1,760.33
% of Capacity % 0.00% 4.55% 8.12% 11.70% 15.02%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 7,086 1761.18 1761.27 1761.35 1761.43 1761.52
10 8,283 1761.38 1761.47 1761.55 1761.63 1761.72
50 11,320 1761.89 1761.98 1762.04 1762.10 1762.16
100 12,608 1762.07 1762.14 1762.19 1762.25 1762.31
200 14,081 1762.25 1762.31 1762.36 1762.42 1762.48
1762.0 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 4.485 5.396 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 4.206 5.416 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a 6.608 8.347 n.a
5.396 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 20.000 1761.982 0.000 11,837
Height and Level m 1.114 1763.096 1.114 20,702
1:50 Event m 0.000 1761.982 1.114 11,837
1:100 Event m 0.314 1762.296 0.800 14,166

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 4 of 10 Dam1

 WATER BODIES Dam 2
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Dam Size Inside Footprint

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Width 70.00 111.91
Runoff Coefficient max. 0.374 Floor Length 100.00 145.18
Catchment Area 336,000 m2 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Overflow Level 1770.0 m Tot Depth / crest 3.26 3.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1768.00 1770.00 1772.00 1773.00 1774.00
Depth m 0.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Surface Area m2 0 9,976 13,464 15,400 17,464
Inc. Volume m3 0 16,848 23,056 14,096 15,936
Cum. Volume m3 0 16,848 39,904 54,000 69,936

overflow
1770.465
1770.025
1770.465
1770.025
Dam2
1775.0
1771.265 1771.265
0.000 69936.000
Offset 1774.0 0 16848 39904 54000 69936 Volume
0.0 9976.0 13464.0 15400.0 17464.0 Area
1773.0 1,768 1,770 1,772 1,773 1,774 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1772.0 0 16848 39904 54000 69936 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1771.0 2000.0

Lookup Lev 1768.237
1770.0
Lookup Area 1184.236

Area 1769.0 2000.0 Spillway(1:50)

Lookup Lev 1768.401
Lookup vol 1768.0 3377.706
DamWall
1:100
1767.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for siltation in dam

Start Silt Volume m3 0.0 1700.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0
Start Silt Level m 1,768.00 1,768.20 1,768.24 1,768.30 1,768.36
% of Capacity % 0.00% 9.92% 11.47% 13.94% 16.27%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 9,663 1769.15 1769.35 1769.38 1769.44 1769.50
10 11,295 1769.34 1769.54 1769.58 1769.64 1769.70
50 15,436 1769.83 1770.02 1770.05 1770.09 1770.14
100 17,193 1770.03 1770.18 1770.20 1770.25 1770.29
200 19,201 1770.20 1770.35 1770.38 1770.42 1770.46
1770.0 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 6.474 8.947 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 6.236 8.385 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a 8.276 10.666 n.a
8.947 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 20.000 1770.025 0.000 17,096
Height and Level m 1.240 1771.265 1.240 30,659
1:50 Event m 0.000 1770.025 1.240 17,096
1:100 Event m 0.440 1770.465 0.800 21,625

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 5 of 10 Dam2

 WATER BODIES Dam 3
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Dam Size Inside Footprint

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Width 60.00 105.63
Runoff Coefficient max. 1.000 Floor Length 80.00 129.23
Catchment Area 13,081 m2 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Overflow Level 1770.5 m Tot Depth / crest 3.60 3.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1768.00 1770.00 1772.00 1773.00 1774.00
Depth m 0.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Surface Area m2 0 7,296 10,304 12,000 13,824
Inc. Volume m3 0 11,968 17,216 10,816 12,416
Cum. Volume m3 0 11,968 29,184 40,000 52,416

overflow
1770.802
1770.539
1770.802
1770.539
Dam3
1775.0
1771.602 1771.602
0.000 52416.000
Offset 1774.0 0 11968 29184 40000 52416 Volume
0.0 7296.0 10304.0 12000.0 13824.0 Area
1773.0 1,768 1,770 1,772 1,773 1,774 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1772.0 0 11968 29184 40000 52416 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1771.0 2000.0

Lookup Lev 1768.334
Lookup Area1770.0 1219.251

Area 1769.0 2000.0 Spillway(1:50)

Lookup Lev 1768.548
DamWall
Lookup vol 1768.0 3280.702
1:100
1767.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for 15000 capacity plus 24hr event

Start Volume m3 15000.0 15000.0 15000.0 15000.0 15000.0
Start Level m 1,770.35 1,770.35 1,770.35 1,770.35 1,770.35
% of Capacity % 90.31% 90.31% 90.31% 90.31% 90.31%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 1,007 1770.47 1770.47 1770.47 1770.47 1770.47
10 1,177 1770.49 1770.49 1770.49 1770.49 1770.49
50 1,609 1770.54 1770.54 1770.54 1770.54 1770.54
100 1,792 1770.56 1770.56 1770.56 1770.56 1770.56
200 2,001 1770.58 1770.58 1770.58 1770.58 1770.58
1770.5 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 0.841 1.035 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 0.317 0.408 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a n.a. n.a. n.a
1.035 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway (for reference only) Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 5.000 1770.539 0.000 16,060
Height and Level m 1.063 1771.602 1.063 25,306
1:50 Event m 0.000 1770.539 1.063 16,060
1:100 Event m 0.263 1770.802 0.800 18,201

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 6 of 10 Dam3

 WATER BODIES Dam 4 DO NOT INCLUDE!!!!!!
check levels
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR
Dam Size Inside Footprint
Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Floor Width 30.00 121.41
Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Length 80.00 115.65
Runoff Coefficient max. 1.000 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Catchment Area 2,400 m2 Ramp 1: 10.00
Overflow Level 1759.5 m Tot Depth / crest 2.47 3.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1758.00 1759.00 1759.50 1760.00 1761.00
Depth m 0.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0
Surface Area m2 0 3,872 4,692 5,568 7,488
Inc. Volume m3 0 3,108 2,117 2,520 6,332
Cum. Volume m3 0 3,108 5,225 7,744 14,076

overflow
1759.671
1759.514
1759.671
1759.514
Dam4
1761.5
1760.471 1760.471
0.000 14076.000
Offset 1761.0 0 3108 5225 7744 14076 Volume
0.0 3872.0 4692.0 5568.0 7488.0 Area
1760.5 1,758 1,759 1,760 1,760 1,761 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1760.0 0 3108 5225 7744 14076 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1759.5 2000.0

Lookup Lev 1758.644
Lookup Area1759.0 2491.634

Area 1758.5 2000.0 Spillway(1:50)

Lookup Lev 1758.517
DamWall
Lookup vol 1758.0 1605.372
1:100
1757.5
0

10

12

14

16
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for 5000 capacity plus 24hr event

Start Volume m3 5000.0 5000.0 5000.0 5000.0 5000.0
Start Level m 1,759.45 1,759.45 1,759.45 1,759.45 1,759.45
% of Capacity % 94.43% 94.43% 94.43% 94.43% 94.43%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 185 1759.49 1759.49 1759.49 1759.49 1759.49
10 216 1759.50 1759.50 1759.50 1759.50 1759.50
50 295 1759.51 1759.51 1759.51 1759.51 1759.51
100 329 1759.52 1759.52 1759.52 1759.52 1759.52
200 367 1759.53 1759.53 1759.53 1759.53 1759.53
1759.5 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 0.154 0.190 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 0.058 0.075 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a n.a. n.a. n.a
0.190 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway (for reference only) Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 2.000 1759.514 0.000 4,698
Height and Level m 0.957 1760.471 0.957 8,856
1:50 Event m 0.000 1759.514 0.957 4,698
1:100 Event m 0.157 1759.671 0.800 5,312

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 7 of 10 Dam4

 WATER BODIES Dam 5
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Dam Size Inside Footprint

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Width 40.00 136.39
Runoff Coefficient max. 0.445 Floor Length 80.00 184.25
Catchment Area 857,600 m2 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Overflow Level 1760.7 m Tot Depth / crest 7.85 5.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1754.00 1756.00 1758.00 1759.00 1764.00
Depth m 0.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 10.0
Surface Area m2 0 5,376 8,064 9,600 19,200
Inc. Volume m3 0 8,448 13,056 8,496 66,000
Cum. Volume m3 0 8,448 21,504 30,000 96,000

overflow
1761.054
1760.662
1761.054
1760.662
Dam5
1766.0
1761.854 1761.854
0.000 96000.000
Offset 1764.0 0 8448 21504 30000 96000 Volume
0.0 5376.0 8064.0 9600.0 19200.0 Area
1762.0 1,754 1,756 1,758 1,759 1,764 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
0 8448 21504 30000 96000 Volume
1760.0
Level(m)

vol 2000.0
Lookup Lev1758.0 1754.473
Lookup Area 1272.727
1756.0 Spillway(1:50)
Area 2000.0
Lookup Lev 1754.744
Lookup vol 1754.0 3142.857
DamWall
1:100
1752.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for siltation in dam

Start Silt Volume m3 0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0
Start Silt Level m 1,754.00 1,755.18 1,756.24 1,757.00 1,757.77
% of Capacity % 0.00% 9.63% 17.56% 24.22% 29.88%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 29,386 1758.93 1759.33 1759.71 1760.09 1760.47
10 34,347 1759.33 1759.71 1760.09 1760.47 1760.84
50 46,941 1760.28 1760.66 1761.04 1761.42 1761.80
100 52,284 1760.69 1761.07 1761.45 1761.82 1762.20
200 58,390 1761.15 1761.53 1761.91 1762.29 1762.67
1760.7 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:5 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method 4.521 n.a 10.136 15.034 n.a
SDF Method 3.971 n.a 9.075 11.686 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a 13.194 16.666 n.a
15.034 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 40.000 1760.662 0.000 47,355
Height and Level m 1.192 1761.854 1.192 62,491
1:50 Event m 0.000 1760.662 1.192 47,355
1:100 Event m 0.392 1761.054 0.800 52,071

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 8 of 10 Dam5

 WATER BODIES Dam 6
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Dam Size Inside Footprint

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Width 140.00 174.00
Runoff Coefficient max. 1.000 Floor Length 140.00 176.54
Catchment Area 20,000 m2 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Overflow Level 1756.5 m Tot Depth / crest 2.55 3.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1755.00 1757.00 1759.00 1760.00 1761.00
Depth m 0.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Surface Area m2 0 24,336 29,584 32,400 35,344
Inc. Volume m3 0 43,808 53,536 30,656 33,376
Cum. Volume m3 0 43,808 97,344 128,000 161,376

overflow
1756.745
1756.482
1756.745
1756.482
Dam6
1762.0
1757.545 1757.545
0.000 161376.000
Offset 1761.0 0 43808 97344 128000 161376 Volume
0.0 24336.0 29584.0 32400.0 35344.0 Area
1760.0 1,755 1,757 1,759 1,760 1,761 Level
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
1759.0 0 43808 97344 128000 161376 Volume
Level(m)

vol 1758.0 2000.0

Lookup Lev 1755.091
Lookup Area1757.0 1111.030

Area 1756.0 2000.0 Spillway(1:50)

Lookup Lev 1755.164
DamWall
Lookup vol 1755.0 3600.263
1:100
1754.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for 30000 capacity plus 24hr event

Start Volume m3 30000.0 30000.0 30000.0 30000.0 30000.0
Start Level m 1,756.37 1,756.37 1,756.37 1,756.37 1,756.37
% of Capacity % 92.42% 92.42% 92.42% 92.42% 92.42%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 1,540 1756.44 1756.44 1756.44 1756.44 1756.44
10 1,800 1756.45 1756.45 1756.45 1756.45 1756.45
50 2,460 1756.48 1756.48 1756.48 1756.48 1756.48
100 2,740 1756.49 1756.49 1756.49 1756.49 1756.49
200 3,060 1756.51 1756.51 1756.51 1756.51 1756.51
1756.5 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 1.286 1.583 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 0.485 0.624 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a n.a. n.a. n.a
1.583 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway (for reference only) Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 5.000 1756.482 0.000 31,557
Height and Level m 1.063 1757.545 1.063 57,403
1:50 Event m 0.000 1756.482 1.063 31,557
1:100 Event m 0.263 1756.745 0.800 37,701

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 9 of 10 Dam6

 WATER BODIES Dam 7,8
Project Number: 002802
Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Mean Annual Precipitation 690.000 mm Dam Size Inside Footprint

Mean Annual Evaporation 1450 mm Floor Width 65.00 177.59
Runoff Coefficient max. 1.000 Floor Length 295.00 416.92
Catchment Area 68,000 m2 Sides 1: 4.00 2.00
Overflow Level 1772.6 m Tot Depth / crest 9.33 5.00
24hr rainfall depths for different Recurrence Intervals
2 5 10 20 50 100 200
58 77 90 104 123 137 153
Level, Area and Volume Relationship Dam
Level m 1765.00 1768.00 1771.00 1774.00 1777.00
Depth m 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0
Surface Area m2 0 28,391 38,759 50,279 62,951
Inc. Volume m3 0 70,917 99,429 130,533 164,229
Cum. Volume m3 0 70,917 170,346 300,879 465,108

overflow
1772.826
1772.563
1772.826
1772.563
Dam7,8
1778.0
1774.326 1774.326
0.000 465108.000
Offset 1776.0 0 70917 170346 300879 465108 Volume
0.0 28391.0 38759.0 50279.0 62951.0 Area
1,765 1,768 1,771 1,774 1,777 Level
1774.0
1 2 3 4 5 Ref
0 70917 170346 300879 465108 Volume
1772.0
Level(m)

vol 2000.0
Lookup Lev 1770.0 1765.085
Lookup Area 800.682
1768.0 Spillway(1:50)
Area 2000.0
Lookup Lev 1765.211
DamWall
Lookup vol 1766.0 4995.738
1:100
1764.0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500
Thousands
Volume(m3)

Allow for 230000 capacity plus 24hr event

Start Volume m3 230000.0 230000.0 230000.0 230000.0 230000.0
Start Level m 1,772.37 1,772.37 1,772.37 1,772.37 1,772.37
% of Capacity % 96.49% 96.49% 96.49% 96.49% 96.49%

Event 24h Volume Level After Event

5 5,236 1772.49 1772.49 1772.49 1772.49 1772.49
10 6,120 1772.51 1772.51 1772.51 1772.51 1772.51
50 8,364 1772.56 1772.56 1772.56 1772.56 1772.56
100 9,316 1772.59 1772.59 1772.59 1772.59 1772.59
200 10,404 1772.61 1772.61 1772.61 1772.61 1772.61
1772.6 Indicate overflow conditions

Peak Runoff (m3/s) for: 1:10 1:20 1:50 1:100 1:200

Rational Method n.a n.a 4.372 5.382 n.a
SDF Method n.a n.a 1.648 2.122 n.a
Empirical Method n.a n.a n.a. n.a. n.a
5.382 Indicates the most relevant method and recommended peak runoff rate

Spillway (for reference only) Unit Dimension Level Freeboard Volume

Width and Level m 5.000 1772.563 0.000 234,319
Height and Level m 1.763 1774.326 1.763 317,069
1:50 Event m 0.000 1772.563 1.763 234,319
1:100 Event m 0.263 1772.826 1.500 245,947

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 10 of 10 Dam78

 Annexure D:
CULVERT SIZING
CULVERT HYDRAULICS

Project Number: 002802

Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Catchment No. PWa-100 PWb-100 D1-100 D2-100 D3-100 D4-100 D5-100 D6-100 D7,8-100 PE50 C3-50 C4-50 C5-50 D5-50 D5-10
Position C1 C1 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7,8 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Road n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Maint. Maint. Haul Haul Haul Haul
Note Spillway Spillway Spillway Spillway Spillway Spillway Spillway Spillway Spillway Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert
Sub area m2 480,000 480,000 246,400 336,000 13,081 2,400 857,600 20,000 68,000 528,000 528,000 652,800 1,132,800 44,000 160,000
Q (m3/s) m3/s 11.81 7.96 5.40 8.95 1.04 0.19 15.03 1.58 5.38 7.92 0.91 8.73 12.13 0.63 1.41
Hmax water m 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.08 0.90 0.90 1.20 0.90 0.90
Pipe Culverts
D (diameter.) m 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.600
H/Dmax Pipes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
So (%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Barrels No #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 18 7 3 10 11 2 4
H/D max #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.56 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20
Q/barrel m3/s #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.31 1.16 0.42 0.88 1.16 0.42 0.42
Actual Hw m #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.49 1.06 0.56 0.89 1.05 0.57 0.60
Actual H/D #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.54 1.18 0.93 0.99 1.16 0.95 1.00
Hmax>D #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Throat Velocity m/s #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.47 1.78 1.08 1.37 1.73 1.11 1.24
Box Culverts
B (width) m 30.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 5.000 2.000 40.000 5.000 20.000 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
D (depth) m 0.400 0.400 0.400 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.900 0.600 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.600
H/Dmax Boxes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Cb 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ch 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Barrels No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 8 8 1 2
H/D max 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.20 1.20 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20
Q/barrel m3/s 15.62 10.42 10.42 10.85 2.71 1.08 21.70 2.71 10.85 1.58 0.86 1.18 1.58 0.86 0.86
Actual Hw m 0.40 0.41 0.31 0.44 0.26 0.16 0.39 0.35 0.31 0.97 0.48 0.86 1.06 0.59 0.64
Actual H/D 1.01 1.02 0.78 0.73 0.44 0.26 0.65 0.58 0.52 1.08 0.80 0.95 1.18 0.98 1.06
Hmax>D OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Throat Velocity m/s 0.97 0.98 0.86 1.02 0.79 0.61 0.96 0.91 0.86 1.51 1.06 1.42 1.58 1.18 1.22

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 1 of 3 CulSize

CULVERT HYDRAULICS

Project Number: 002802

Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Catchment No. D5-10 D5-50 C10-50 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 C14-50 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10
Position C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22
Road Haul Access Access Berm Berm Conc. Access Maint. Maint. Maint. Access Access Haul Maint. Haul
Note Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert Culvert
Sub area m2 67,200 302,640 388,800 183,760 96,480 72,480 144,000 15,360 98,400 79,200 12,000 67,200 14,400 38,400 6,720
Q (m3/s) m3/s 0.59 4.31 5.40 1.61 0.85 0.64 2.37 0.13 0.86 0.70 0.11 0.59 0.13 0.34 0.06
Hmax water m 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Pipe Culverts
D (diameter.) m 0.600 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600
H/Dmax Pipes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
So (%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Barrels No 2 5 7 4 3 2 6 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1
H/D max 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Q/barrel m3/s 0.42 0.88 0.88 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Actual Hw m 0.55 0.89 0.82 0.65 0.54 0.57 0.64 0.36 0.54 0.60 0.32 0.55 0.35 0.59 0.24
Actual H/D 0.92 0.99 0.92 1.08 0.90 0.95 1.07 0.61 0.90 1.00 0.53 0.92 0.59 0.98 0.39
Hmax>D OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Throat Velocity m/s 1.04 1.35 1.21 1.43 1.00 1.13 1.40 0.48 1.02 1.23 0.37 1.04 0.45 1.19 0.21
Box Culverts
B (width) m 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.900 0.600 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.600
D (depth) m 0.600 0.900 0.900 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600
H/Dmax Boxes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Cb 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ch 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Barrels No 1 4 5 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
H/D max 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Q/barrel m3/s 0.86 1.18 1.18 0.86 0.86 0.57 0.86 0.57 0.86 0.86 0.57 0.86 0.86 0.57 0.57
Actual Hw m 0.57 0.85 0.85 0.70 0.71 0.49 0.69 0.28 0.46 0.63 0.24 0.57 0.20 0.51 0.16
Actual H/D 0.95 0.94 0.94 1.17 1.18 0.82 1.15 0.46 0.77 1.06 0.39 0.95 0.34 0.85 0.27
Hmax>D OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Throat Velocity m/s 1.16 1.41 1.41 1.28 1.33 1.08 1.27 0.81 1.04 1.22 0.74 1.16 0.69 1.10 0.61

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 2 of 3 CulSize

CULVERT HYDRAULICS

Project Number: 002802

Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Catchment No. D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 D5-10 C10-50
Position C23 C29 P24 P24Emer P25 P26 P27 P28
Road Conc. Haul
Calculated peak runoff for drain sizing!
Note Culvert Culvert
Sub area m2 20,000 9,600 134,400 16,000 146,400 22,000 183,760 336,000
Q (m3/s) m3/s 0.18 0.08 1.18 0.14 1.29 0.19 1.61 4.66
Hmax water m 0.90 0.90
Pipe Culverts
D (diameter.) m 0.600 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H/Dmax Pipes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
So (%) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Barrels No 1 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
H/D max 1.20 1.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Q/barrel m3/s 0.42 0.88 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Actual Hw m 0.42 0.25 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Actual H/D 0.70 0.28 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Hmax>D OK OK #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Throat Velocity m/s 0.62 0.13 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Box Culverts
B (width) m 0.900 0.900 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
D (depth) m 0.600 0.900 0.600
H/Dmax Boxes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Cb 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ch 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Barrels No 1 1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
H/D max 1.20 1.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00
Q/barrel m3/s 0.86 1.18 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.00
Actual Hw m 0.25 0.16 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Actual H/D 0.42 0.17 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Hmax>D OK OK #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Throat Velocity m/s 0.77 0.60 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 3 of 3 CulSize

 Annexure E:
LOW LEVEL STRUCTURE
LOW LEVEL STRUCTURE

Project Number: 002802

Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Catchment No. LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100 1764.00

Position Opt A Opt A Opt A Opt A Opt A Opt A
Road Haul Haul Haul Haul Haul Haul LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100
Note Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing 36.71 1761.31 1761.56 1761.85 1762.21 1762.80 1763.17
1763.50
Sub area km2 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 40.71 1761.31 1761.56 1761.85 1762.21 1762.80 1763.17
Q req. (m3/s) m3/s 21.61 29.91 38.61 50.63 75.96 105.69
H water m 1.31 1.56 1.85 2.21 2.80 3.17 Invert Culvert Road
Q Total m3/s 22.97 29.91 38.64 50.85 76.58 106.22 1763.00 0.00 1763.62
Q total > Q req. OK OK OK OK OK OK 32.71 1760.00 15.00 1763.17
Invert Level m 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 32.71 1760.00 1761.80 32.71 1761.80 22.71 1762.40
Box Culverts 1762.50 44.71 1760.00 1761.80 44.71 1760.00 54.71 1762.40
B (width) m 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 44.71 1761.80 62.42 1763.17
D (depth) m 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 77.42 1763.62
H/D max Boxes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
1762.00
Cb 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ch 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Barrels No 5 5 5 5 5 5
1761.50 Culvert
Actual H/D 0.73 0.87 1.03 1.23 1.56 1.76
Road
Q total m3/s 22.97 29.91 38.64 50.85 62.74 69.18
Q total > Q req. OK OK OK OK Not OK! Not OK! LL2

Throat Velocity m/s 1.76 1.92 2.09 2.30 2.24 2.18 LL5
1761.00
Broad Crested Weir LL10
Height above Culvert Soffit m 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 LL20
Road Length m 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 LL50
1760.50
H (above weir) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.77 LL100
Q weir m3/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.84 37.04
d (critical) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.52
v (critical) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 2.25 1760.00
Throat Velocity m/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 1.50
Total Volume
Box Culverts m3/s 22.97 29.91 38.64 50.85 62.74 69.18 1759.50
Weir m3/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.84 37.04
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
Total Volume m3/s 22.97 29.91 38.64 50.85 76.58 106.22

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 1 of 3 LowLevA

LOW LEVEL STRUCTURE

Project Number: 002802

Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Catchment No. LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100 1763.50

Position Opt B Opt B Opt B Opt B Opt B Opt B
Road Haul Haul Haul Haul Haul Haul LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100
Note Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing 36.77 1761.31 1761.56 1761.85 1762.21 1762.29 1762.64
Sub area km2 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 1763.00 43.10 1761.31 1761.56 1761.85 1762.21 1762.29 1762.64
Q req. (m3/s) m3/s 21.61 29.91 38.61 50.63 75.96 105.69
H water m 1.31 1.56 1.85 2.21 2.29 2.64 Invert Culvert Road
Q Total m3/s 34.46 44.87 58.31 70.87 75.96 105.69 0.00 1763.09
1762.50
Q total > Q req. OK OK OK OK OK Not Ok! 30.44 1760.00 15.00 1762.64
Invert Level m 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 30.44 1760.00 1761.50 30.44 1761.50 20.44 1762.10
Box Culverts 49.44 1760.00 1761.50 49.44 1760.00 59.44 1762.10
B (width) m 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 49.44 1761.50 64.87 1762.64
1762.00
D (depth) m 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 79.87 1763.09
H/D max Boxes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Cb 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ch 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 1761.50
Barrels No 10 10 10 10 10 10
Culvert
Actual H/D 0.87 1.04 1.23 1.47 1.53 1.76
Q total m3/s 34.46 44.87 58.31 68.44 70.48 78.96 Road

Q total > Q req. OK OK OK OK Not OK! Not OK! 1761.00 LL2

Throat Velocity m/s 1.76 1.92 2.10 2.06 2.05 1.99 LL5
Broad Crested Weir LL10
Height above Culvert Soffit m 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.600 LL20
Road Length m 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 1760.50 LL50
H (above weir) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.54 LL100
Q weir m3/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 5.48 26.73
d (critical) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.36
1760.00
v (critical) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.11 1.89
Throat Velocity m/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.74 1.26
Total Volume
Box Culverts m3/s 34.46 44.87 58.31 68.44 70.48 78.96
1759.50
Weir m3/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.43 5.48 26.73
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00
Total Volume m3/s 34.46 44.87 58.31 70.87 75.96 105.69

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 2 of 3 LowLevB

LOW LEVEL STRUCTURE

Project Number: 002802

Project Title: Belfast Stormwater
Done by: CCLR
Date: 23 July 2011
Spreadsheet by RLR

Catchment No. LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100 1763.00

Position Opt C Opt C Opt C Opt C Opt C Opt C
Road Haul Haul Haul Haul Haul Haul LL-2 LL-5 LL-10 LL-20 LL-50 LL-100
Note Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing Crossing 32.59 1760.77 1760.95 1761.13 1761.35 1761.77 1762.25
Sub area km2 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 1762.50 41.45 1760.77 1760.95 1761.13 1761.35 1761.77 1762.25
Q req. (m3/s) m3/s 21.61 29.91 38.61 50.63 75.96 105.69
H water m 0.77 0.95 1.13 1.35 1.77 2.25 Invert Culvert Road
Q Total m3/s 21.86 29.91 38.81 50.66 75.96 105.78 0.00 1762.70
Q total > Q req. OK OK OK OK OK OK 23.72 1760.00 15.00 1762.25
1762.00
Invert Level m 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 1760.00 23.72 1760.00 1761.50 23.72 1761.50 17.52 1762.00
Box Culverts 50.32 1760.00 1761.50 50.32 1760.00 56.52 1762.00
B (width) m 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 50.32 1761.50 59.04 1762.25
D (depth) m 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.500 74.04 1762.70
H/D max Boxes 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1761.50
Cb 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Ch 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Barrels No 14 14 14 14 14 14
Culvert
Actual H/D 0.51 0.63 0.75 0.90 1.18 1.50 1761.00
Road
Q total m3/s 21.86 29.91 38.81 50.66 75.96 97.34
Q total > Q req. OK OK OK OK OK Not OK! LL2

Throat Velocity m/s 1.35 1.50 1.63 1.78 2.04 2.06 LL5
Broad Crested Weir LL10
1760.50 LL20
Height above Culvert Soffit m 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.500
Road Length m 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 39.0 LL50
H (above weir) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 LL100
Q weir m3/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.44
d (critical) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1760.00
v (critical) m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29
Throat Velocity m/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86
Total Volume
Box Culverts m3/s 21.86 29.91 38.81 50.66 75.96 97.34 1759.50
Weir m3/s 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.44
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Total Volume m3/s 21.86 29.91 38.81 50.66 75.96 105.78

2802CCLR_PlantStormwater_19092011.xlsx Page 3 of 3 LowLevC

 Annexure F:
GRASS BLOCK SYSTEM
 The 6 easy steps to site assembled Armorflex...
Step 1 Step 2

Armorflex
The engineered solution for simple erosion
Step 3
protection
Step 4
100mm

Technicrete Armorflex erosion control system
provides an alternative for a wide variety of
erosion control and drainage projects.

Technicrete Armorflex system is flexible,
conforming to ground contours, settling
Step 5 Step 6
without cracking, and requires limited ground
preparation.

Step 1: Site preparation, excavation, trimming & compaction a 5 mm diameter polyester rope can be used. In certain situations
Prior to laying Armorflex, the base material must be profiled to wiring up may not be necessary. Generally the wire will be
line and level and should be compacted to a firm and even finish. threaded perperdicular to the flow.
Obstructions, such as roots and projecting stones should be
removed as the quality of the preparation will be reflected in the Step 4: A final twist to the wire
finished surface. The angle of repose of the in situ material must Galvanized wire can be twisted across the block joint for a length
not be exceeded. Maximum desired slope is 1:1,5 of minimum. 100mm or a suitable knot used on the polyester
cable.
Step 2: Handling & placing by manual labour
Armorflex loose block should be placed in a stretcher bond Step 5: Anchorage
pattern to achieve the mechanical interlock. At areas such as Armorflex placed on steep slopes may slide on the geotextile until
culvert inlets and outlets, the blocks should be placed to allow for the system has settled. Temporary or permanent anchorage can be
access to the cable ducts. achieved with steel or wooden pegs through the top cable loops.

Step 3: Wiring up in situ Step 6: Finishing

The wire is easily pushed through the cable ducts in the blocks Armorflex subject to wave attack should be blinded with a
and secured as detailed in Step 4. The choice of wire will depend sand/gravel mixture. Above normal waterline, the voids should be
on the application. A 3,1 mm diameter galvanized fencing wire or soiled and seeded to develop natural vegetation.

Technicrete reserves the right to change or amend the contents of this document at anytime without any notice with this document intended for general information only.
Any specific information required about product specifications, applications, technical information, sales conditions, warranties and guarantees as required for any design or installation
should be obtained from Technicrete.

Technicrete House
cyberGraphics | Printed by Ex Libris Press

Cnr. Main Reef Road & Houtkapper Street, Roodepoort, 1725

Tel: 011 674 6900 Fax: 011 672 1425
Email: info@technicrete.co.za
www.technicrete.co.za
0861 266267 CONCRETE ROOF TILES EROSION PROTECTION BLOCKS KERBS MASONRY
PAVING PREBAGGED PRODUCTS RETAINING WALLS STOPE SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Branches: White River: 013 758-1203 BCT Rustenburg: 014 538-0818

Olifantsfontein: 011 203-7700 Port Elizabeth: 041 372 2230
Carletonville: 018 790-4380 Polokwane: 015 298-8083
Evander: 017 689-2100 Welkom: 057 391-4200
Stilfontein: 018 484-6234 Witbank: 013 696-1153

Technicrete Armorflex

When your project calls for protection that can withstand severe applications and
climatic conditions, when it must be installed quickly with no in situ concrete, and
even when it must be placed under water, ARMORFLEX is the engineered Cable
solution. Technicrete can provide design assistance and on site consultation if Specified
geotextile
required. Base compacted
and trimmed to
line & level
Typical cross-section: the performance of the system relies on maintaining intimate contact between the blocks, geotextile and the base material.

The engineered solution Applications Characteristics

Civil Engineers throughout the world are continually faced with Erosion control Stability
the problem of controlling erosion of coastal shorelines and inland ARMORFLEX provides defence against erosion in fast flowing streams ARMORFLEX provides protection that acts as a single articulating mat Vegetation
waterways. Coastal areas frequently experience land loss and and rivers. ARMORFLEX is particularly suitable for protection of to withstand the destructive forces of water. Where necessary, ARMORFLEX, with stone filling in the cells, will greatly reduce the
property damage resulting from the dynamic forces associated with rivers, estuaries, lakes, reservoirs and other areas subject to wave alternative weights and sizes of mats can be produced for special development of vegetal growth. When the cells are filled with topsoil,
wave attack, while inland waterways experience heavy currents which action. ARMORFLEX, with the stability of its specially designed applications. ARMORFLEX provides the perfect environment for the establishment
erode channel banks and beds, consequently resulting in blocks, provides flexible protection unaffected by subsidence and Flexibility of vegetation. Roots will penetrate the geotextile providing a
unfavourable environmental conditions. hidden by nature. ARMORFLEX blocks are of a sophisticated design which allows the permanent anchor for the installation.
The ARMORFLEX Erosion Control System provides an Roadways mat to remain flexible. The blocks are specially tapered to allow for Flow resistance
engineered alternative for a wide variety of erosion control and ARMORFLEX provides an ideal heavy duty riding surface for this flexibility, maintaining minimum stress on the blocks. This facility The ARMORFLEX matrix of open cells and projections create a surface
drainage projects. The matrix of open cells and projections retain temporary and permanent access roads, parking areas and enables ARMORFLEX to conform to contours even if settlement with an engineered roughness. This surface roughness causes a loss
soils, relieve hydrostatic pressure and provide the perfect stormwater drift crossings. occurs after installation. of energy due to the formation of eddies within each open cell, thus
environment for establishing natural vegetation. Drainage Filtration reducing the potential for erosion. The Manning Roughness
The ARMORFLEX system is flexible, conforming to ground ARMORFLEX provides an excellent lining for drainage channels. ARMORFLEX mats are placed on a geotextile. The geotextile replaces Coefficient, n, of ARMORFLEX has a value ranging from 0.025 -
contours, settling without fracture, and requires only limited ground Bed and channel banks are stabilized against erosion caused by high graded filter materials for a more simplified installation. The 0.035, depending on the material filling the open cells and vegetal
preparation. velocities and the tendency of water to change the planned course of a permeability of the filter and blocks relieves hydrostatic pressure cover. ARMORFLEX 140 offers protection against flow velocities up to
ARMORFLEX can be supplied palletized in loose block form for channel. ARMORFLEX aprons at pipe inlets and outlets eliminate pipe while its capacity for soil retention prevents leaching of materials 3.5 m/s and ARMORFLEX 180 up to 5.5 m/s. Each project should
manual installation or in preformed mats for mechanical installation. undercutting that may lead to severe problems such as surrounding through the installation. however be carefully assessed to determine the correct specification
The result is a stable protection designed to withstand high water bank failure and siltation downstream. Other drainage applications and product size. Characteristics
velocities and wave attack with a finish that is environmentally include: ditch linings, spillways, headwalls, sediment basins and
acceptable. traps, pipe inlet protection, and protection of berms.

Dimensions Normal plan No. of Weight of Unit Open Vol. material to Mat sizes Cable Vertical bending
length x breadth size of block blocks block weight area fill joints & voids (m) Factory assembled In situ assemled radius
x height (mm) (mm) (p/m2) (kg ave) (kg/m2) (%) (m3/m2) (m)

Armorflex 180 340 x 294 x 115 309 x 294 11 16.4 180 18 0.022 Standard 6.2 x 2.4 galvanised steel wire/synthetic rope galvanised fencing wire/synthetic rope 0.5 min
(20 x 8 blocks)

Armorflex 205 340 x 294 x 115 309 x 294 11 19.2 205 8 0.008 Standard 6.2 x 2.4 galvanised steel wire/synthetic rope galvanised fencing wire/synthetic rope 0.5 min
(20 x 8 blocks)

Armorflex 140 340 x 400 x 95 309 x 400 8 17.5 140 18 0.017 Standard 6.2 x 2.4 galvanised steel wire/synthetic rope galvanised fencing wire/synthetic rope 0.5 min
(20 x 6 blocks)

Armorflex 165 340 x 400 x 95 309 x 400 8 20.6 165 8 0.009 Standard 6.2 x 2.4 galvanised steel wire/synthetic rope galvanised fencing wire/synthetic rope 0.5 min
(20 x 6 blocks)

TECHNICRETE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND THE ABOVE SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Specifications: Armorflex blocks consist of machine compressed concrete blocks which are either solid or with vertical holes and two horizontal
cable ducts, depending on the application. The block shape is such that they interlock with each other transversely across the mat. The blocks
have a partial taper to the sides which allow the system to articulate freely without disjointing. The partial taper encourages the ingress of fine
granular particles into the joint between blocks.
 Annexure G:
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal

BELFAST MINE DAMS

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2
2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION ........................................................................................... 2
3. SITE LOCATION................................................................................................................ 2
3.1. Topography and Drainage ......................................................................................... 5
3.2. Vegetation, Landuse and Existing Infrastructure ................................................. 5
3.3. Access ........................................................................................................................... 5
4. GEOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 5
5. CLIMATE ............................................................................................................................ 6
6. FIELDWORK ...................................................................................................................... 6
6.1. Trial Pits ........................................................................................................................ 7
6.2. DCP Tests ..................................................................................................................... 9
7. LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................................... 10
8. GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DAM AND DISCARD SITES ............................ 12
8.1. Soil and Rock Conditions West Dam ................................................................. 12
8.1.1. Colluvial Soils ....................................................................................................... 12
8.1.2. Pedogenic Soils - Ferricrete ............................................................................... 13
8.1.3. Alluvial Soils.......................................................................................................... 13
8.2. Soil and Rock Conditions East Dam .................................................................. 13
8.2.1. Colluvial Soils ....................................................................................................... 13
8.2.2. Pedogenic Soils - Ferricrete ............................................................................... 13
8.3. Soil and Rock Conditions Discard Area ............................................................ 14
8.3.1. Colluvial Soils ....................................................................................................... 14
8.3.2. Pedogenic Soils - Ferricrete ............................................................................... 14
8.3.3. Residual Sandstone Soils................................................................................... 14
8.4. Groundwater .............................................................................................................. 14
8.5. Expansive, Collapsible and Dispersive soils ....................................................... 14
9. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................................. 15
9.1. Foundations ............................................................................................................... 15
9.2. Clay Core .................................................................................................................... 15
9.3. Embankment Material ............................................................................................... 15
9.4. Ease of Excavation ................................................................................................... 16
10. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 16
11. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A: TRIAL PIT LOGS ....................................................................................................... 17
APPENDIX B: DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTS ......................................................... 18
APPENDIX C: TRIAL PIT PHOTOGRAPHS .................................................................................... 19
APPENDIX D: LABORATORY TEST RESULTS............................................................................. 20

W:\2812 - Belfast Mine Leachate Dams Geotech (CC)\04 Documents and Reports\J&G Reports\Belfast Mine Dams - Final Report.docx
1 July 2011
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal

BELFAST MINE DAMS

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation undertaken for the preliminary
design of two lined earthfill storage dams at a proposed mine infrastructure site located near
eMakhazeni (Belfast) in Mpumulanga. The dams will be required to store water pumped from the
open cast mine and other contaminated runoff from the mine and each dam will have a storage
capacity of approximately 230 000m3.

The investigation included an initial assessment of the ground conditions at the proposed discard
site.

The objectives of the investigation are as follows:

Determine the geotechnical conditions at the proposed dam sites

Locate suitable construction materials for the embankments (preferably within the dam
footprints)
Determine suitable design parameters (for both the in-situ soils and embankment materials)
for input into the dam design

The field investigation was carried out between the 3rd and 7 th of June 2011 and entailed the
following:

Excavation and profiling of 23 trial pits

Driving of 23 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer tests
Recovery of representative disturbed samples for laboratory testing

The interpretation of the overall subsurface conditions across the site is inferred, using professional
judgment, from the interpolation and extrapolation of point information assimilated from the test
positions. Given the relatively limited number of investigation points and the shallow excavation
depths obtained using the available excavation methods, it is recommended that further
investigations are undertaken for detailed design purposes.

2. AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The following information was available at the time of the site visit:

Drawing titled Belfast_wetlands_Golder_February_2011 showing wetland areas and the

proposed layout of the dams and other mine infrastructure.

A directive that no mechanical excavation of trial pits may take place within the designated wetland
areas was received from the client.

Jeffares & Greens Engineering Geologist was accompanied during the field investigations by Mrs
Millicent Mkhwanazi from Exxaro.

3. SITE LOCATION

The proposed mine infrastructure site is located approximately 18 km south west of Belfast (by
road). The proposed storage dams are located on the northern and southern side of a gentle
sloping valley formed by a stream which runs in a rough east to west direction through the site. The

2812 2 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
dam on the northern side is designated the East Dam and the dam on the southern side the West
Dam.

Locality Plans (Figures 1a and 1b) and a Site Layout Plan showing the position of the dams and
the discard area are included below and overleaf.

Figure 1a: Locality Plan Large Scale

2812 3 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
Figure 1b: Locality Plan Medium Scale

Figure 2: Site Layout Plan

2812 4 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
3.1. Topography and Drainage
As mentioned above, the site is located within a gently sloping valley. The topography of the
surrounding area is gently undulating.

The proposed footprint of the West Dam is located approximately 130 m south of the stream
channel and the land slopes in a gentle northerly direction. The topography over the dam
footprint ranges from a gently convex slope in the northern section of the footprint to a concave
slope over the lower southern section. Poor drainage conditions were noted in many areas of
the site. The northern section of the footprint indicated in Figure 3b appears to be located
within the permanent zone of a wetland and standing water was observed at shallow depth
below ground level in this area. Ground water seepage was also noted in the south western
corner of the site.

The East Dam is located approximately 180 m north of the stream channel on elevated ground
that slopes in a very gentle southerly direction. There are no drainage features on the site
itself. However the flatter central section of the dam footprint is poorly drained and slight
groundwater seepage was observed in TP19 excavated in this area.

The proposed Discard Area slopes in a general north easterly direction towards the stream.
The south western boundary is located near the crest of a gentle ridge while the south north
eastern section appears to overly a wetland formed by a drainage line running in a north
easterly direction towards the stream.

3.2. Vegetation, Landuse and Existing Infrastructure

The natural vegetation of the area is grassland. Plantations of wattle, blue gum and pine trees
have been planted to the north and east of the proposed mine infrastructure site and sections
of the East Dam and the Discard Area are occupied by stands of trees.

The site is currently used for grazing animals and a section of the Discard Area is occupied by
ploughed fields.

There is no existing infrastructure at the proposed dam sites. A number of fences traverse the
Discard Area.

Old farmstead buildings occur to the east of the West Dam and graves were noted in this area.
Piles of rocks were noted in the northern section of the East Dam site and the presence of
graves should be investigated at this site.

Distinct piles of stones occur to the west of the drainage line on the western side of the East
Dam and this area appears to be an old graveyard.

No underground infrastructure was encountered in any of the trial pits.

3.3. Access
The site is accessed via the Eesterlingsfontein road off the N4. Access to the West Dam and
the Discard Area is obtained via tracks directly off the Eesterlingsfontein Road, as indicated in
Figure 2. Access to the East Dam site is via various gravel roads and farm tracks from the
north, as indicated in Figure 2. Sections of this access route will be difficult to traverse during
the wet summer season and the route will need to be upgraded for construction vehicles.

4. GEOLOGY

The 1:250 000 scale Geological Maps of the study area (2528 PRETORIA and 2530 BARBERTON)
indicate that the two proposed storage dams are underlain by rock units of the Dwyka Group of the
Karoo Supergroup. The Dwyka Group typically comprises diamictite, also known as tillite. However
the group contains various rock types including the stratified diamictite facies containing mudrock,
2812 5 July 2011
Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
sandstone and conglomerate beds, the conglomerate facies and the sandstone facies consisting of
fine- to medium- to coarse-grained sandstones (Johnson, et. al. 2006).

The proposed Discard Area is underlain by sedimentary rock units of the Vryheid Formation of the
Ecca Group which also forms part of the Karoo Supergroup. The Vryheid Formation comprises
quartzitic sandstone, pebbly and gritty sandstone, shale and coal measures.

A Geological Map of the area is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Geological Map

Pv

(Extracted from the 1:250 000 scale Geological Maps 2528 PRETORIA and 2530 BARBERTON
published by the Council for Geoscience)

Legend: Pd Dwyka Group Lithology: Shale

Ecca Group
Pv Vryheid Formation Lithology: Sandstone, lesser shale, coal

5. CLIMATE

The climatic regime plays a fundamental role in the development of a soil profile. Weinert (1964),
through his studies of weathering of basic igneous rocks, demonstrated that mechanical
disintegration is the predominant mode of rock weathering in areas where his climatic N-value is
greater than 5, while chemical decomposition predominates where the N-value is less than 5.
Weinerts climatic N-value for the Belfast area is approximately 1,7. This implies that chemical
decomposition is the dominant mode of weathering in the study area.

6. FIELDWORK

The fieldwork was undertaken on the 3 rd , 6th and 7 th of June 2011, during the drier winter season.

The approximate positions of the trial pits are shown on the Site Plans, Figures 3a to 3c overleaf.
The test positions were recorded using a Garmin e-trex hand-held GPS.

All depths provided were measured from existing ground level at each test position.

2812 6 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
6.1. Trial Pits
A total of 23 trial pits, designated TP1 to TP23, were excavated across the three sites. The trial
pits were profiled immediately after excavation by our Engineering Geologist in accordance
with the method of Jennings et al., (1973). The trial pits were loosely backfilled after profiling.

TP1 to TP10 were excavated by hand auger at the West Dam site to depths of between 0,20
and 1,05 m. TBL access was not permitted at the West Dam site as the site falls within the
area designated as a wetland on the wetland map referenced in Section 2.

Figure 3a: West Dam Site

175m

2812 7 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
TP11 to TP19 were excavated by TLB at the East Dam site to depths of between 0,15 and
1,15 m. The test pits were terminated at the refusal depth of the TLB.

Figure 3b: East Dam Site

162m

2812 8 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
TP20 to TP23 were excavated by TLB at the Discard Area site to depths of between 0,12 and
1,80 m.

Figure 3c: Discard Area

313m

The trial pit profiles are attached in Appendix A and photographs of the soil profiles are
provided in Appendix C.

6.2. DCP Tests

Twenty three in-situ Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests, designated DCP1 to DCP23,
were carried out adjacent to each of the trial pits.

The DCP apparatus consisted of a 10 kg weight falling from a drop height of 450 mm onto a
string of rods with a 25 mm diameter end-cone with a 60 degree apex angle.

The DCP tests were advanced to depths of between 0,12 and 1,90 m below existing ground
level. The DCP tests were terminated when the blow count exceeded approximately 50 blows
per 300 mm, or refusal. The results have been used to derive, empirically, Estimated Allowable
Safe Bearing Pressures (EASBP) for the soils. A non-cohesive soil profile has been assumed
for the purposes of interpreting the DCP results as a predominantly sandy soil profile was
encountered. The estimation of the EASBPs is based on Terzaghis chart for allowable
bearing pressures for less than 25 mm of settlement.
2812 9 July 2011
Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
 Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
The DCP test results may also be used to obtain a rough estimate of the shear strength of the
soils.

The blow counts obtained from the DCP tests indicate that the soils at shallow depth (overlying
the ferricrete / weathered rock / gravel) typically have loose or very loose consistencies.
Extremely low blow counts of 1 blow per 300 mm were recorded at DCP6 and DCP8 which
were undertaken within the permanent zone of the wetland.

Refusal of the DCP probe is attributed to the presence of hard ferricrete, gravel (which typically
occurred immediately above the ferricrete in the trial pits) or possibly weathered rock.

An aspect of DCP testing that should always be borne in mind is that the results are affected
by the moisture content of the soil profile, as well as any gravel, concretions or boulders that
may be struck. A dry soil horizon will provide higher consistencies than a similar test
undertaken during the rainy season, when percolating water softens the subsoils. Moisture
content should thus always be noted and made mention of in any DCP investigation. Soils
within the proposed site were described as moist or wet and as such a significant reduction
in strength with increasing moisture content is not expected.

The results of the DCP tests are included in Appendix B.

7. LABORATORY TESTING

The following laboratory tests were carried out on disturbed soil samples recovered from the trial
pits:
Refer to:
Grading analyses and hydrometer tests Appendix D1
Atterberg limit and linear shrinkage determinations Appendix D1
Triaxial testing Appendix D2
Moisture density relationship (Standard PROCTOR) Appendix D3
Permeability testing (Falling Head Permeability) Appendix D4
Chemical testing Appendix D5

Table 7.1: Grading and Atterberg Limit Determinations

Particle Size Atterberg
Depth Heave
Pit No Description % Limits % GM
(m) Potential
Clay Silt Sand Gravel LL PI LS
TP3 0,10-0,80 Sandy fine gravel (colluvium) 5 10 33 51 NP NP 0,0 1,92 Low

TP6 0,30-0,90 Slightly silty sand (alluvium) 6 15 70 10 NP NP 0,0 1,20 Low

TP8 0,20-0,80 Silty clayey sand (alluvium) 18 17 62 3 25 12 5,0 0.83 Low

18 18 61 2 23 10 5,0 0,80 Low

TP11 0,20-0,70 Sandy ferricrete gravel 2 10 22 66 NP NP 0,0 2,26 Low

TP12 0,70-1,00 Silty gravelly sand (colluvium) 8 13 47 33 19 6 2,0 1,53 Low

TP15 0,25-0,75 Sandy gravel (various) 5 10 38 47 20 8 2,5 1,87 Low

TP16 0,35-0,85 Slightly silty sand (colluvium) 5 16 58 21 NP NP 0,0 1,28 Low

TP17 0,20-0,50 Silty sand (colluvium) 6 15 65 14 NP NP 0,0 1,22 Low

TP20 0,30-0,70 Silty sand (colluvium) 6 25 67 2 NP NP 0,0 0,87 Low

2812 10 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
 Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
Particle Size Atterberg
Depth Heave
Pit No Description % Limits % GM
(m) Potential
Clay Silt Sand Gravel LL PI LS
TP20 1,05-1,20 Silty gravelly sand (colluvium) 5 14 37 43 20 6 2,5 1,76 Low

TP22 1,00-1,75 Silty sand (residual 8 24 49 19 27 8 4,0 1,13 Low

sandstone)
TP23 0,95-1,80 Slightly clayey silty sand 11 27 58 5 26 10 4,0 0,82 Low
(residual sandstone)
LL- Liquid Limit GM - Grading Modulus LS - Linear Shrinkage PI - Plasticity Index
Heave Potential assessed according to the Van der Merwe method (Williams & Donaldson 1980)

The laboratory test results indicate that the colluvial soils are predominantly sandy or gravelly
in composition low with PIs (Plasticity Index) of between non-plastic and 8.

The alluvial soil recovered from TP6 (0,30-0,90 m) was non-plastic while the alluvial soil
recovered form TP8 (0,20-0,80 m) had a higher clay content and was moderately plastic with a
PI of 10 to 12.

The residual sandstone soils recovered from TP22 (1,00-1,75 m) and TP23 (0,95-1,80 m) were
predominantly sandy in composition and were moderately plastic with PIs of 8 to 10.

Table 7.2: Triaxial Test Results

Angle of internal Cohesion
Depth Sample Friction (Phi) (C Effective
Test Position
(m) Preparation Effective Strength) Strength)
Degrees kPa
TP11 0.20-0.70 Remolded 35,4 10,0
TP15 0.25-0.75 Remolded 34,1 12,8
TP16 0.35-0.85 Remolded 32,3 17,9
1) Triaxial tests Consolidated Undrained (CU) tests with pore water pressure measurements
2) Tests undertaken on disturbed samples re-compacted to 95% Proctor density
3) Samples saturated prior to testing
4) Specified normal stress: 50, 100, 200 kPa

Table 7.3: Moisture Density Relationship & Permeability Test Results

Optimum Maximum Dry Coefficient of
Pit Depth Moisture Content Density Mod Permeability
No (m) (%) AASHTO (m/s)
3
(kg/m )
TP11 0.20-0.70 10,8 2105 1,7 x 10-8
-8
TP15 0.25-0.75 11,9 2168 2,6 x 10
TP16 0.35-0.85 7,7 2080 5,9 x 10-8
1) Moisture density relationship undertaken using Standard Proctor compactive effort
2) Permeability Coefficient obtained using the Falling Head test method on disturbed samples re-
compacted to 95% Proctor density under a load of 100 kPa

Chemical testing was undertaken on representative soil samples to determine the

aggressiveness of the soils (and of the percolating groundwater) to concrete and steel. The
aggressiveness of the soils to concrete was determined using the method developed by J. J.
2812 11 July 2011
Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
Basson, which is described in Fultons Concrete Technology (1994). The results of the
analyses are presented in Appendix D5 and are summarised in Table 7.4.

Table 7.4: Chemical Analysis to Determine Aggressiveness to Concrete (Basson Index)

Aggressiveness Aggressiveness
Pit Depth Index
Soil Type
No (m) (Nc corrected for
stagnant conditions)
TP6 0,30-0,90 Slightly silty sand (alluvium) 1746 Very highly corrosive
TP11 0,20-0,70 Sandy ferricrete gravel 1526 Very highly corrosive
TP16 0,35-0,85 Slightly silty sand (colluvium) 1561 Very highly corrosive

Chemical analysis was undertaken to determine the corrosivity of the soils to buried metal and
concrete. The chemical analysis results were used to determine the Langelier Index, the
Ryznar Stability Index, Stability pH and Aggressiveness Index. The full chemical analysis
results are included in Appendix D5 and the results are summarised in Table 7.5.

Table 7.5: Chemical Analysis to Determine Corrosivity

Chemical Analysis Corrosiveness
Pit Depth pH Langelier Ryznar Aggress- Cl / SO4 towards
No (m) Stability Index Index iveness Corrosivity concrete &
Index Index metals
TP6 0,30-0,90 10,6 -4,9 15,5 6,5 2,4 Very highly
corrosive
TP11 0,20-0,70 10,5 -4,2 14,6 7,3 1,9 Very highly
corrosive
TP16 0,35-0,85 10,7 -4,5 15,2 7,0 3,8 Very highly
corrosive

The chemical tests indicate that the soils are very highly corrosive towards concrete and metals.
The corrosive nature of the soils must be taken into account for the design of buried structures.

8. GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DAM AND DISCARD SITES

The ground conditions encountered in trial pits at each location are described below.

8.1. Soil and Rock Conditions West Dam

The profile descriptions at the west dam are based on materials recovered from hand auger
excavations. The excavation depths obtained with the hand auger was limited due to the
presence of gravel and ferricrete at most test positions.

8.1.1. Colluvial Soils

Colluvial soils were encountered in all trail pits with exception of TP6 and TP8 and
extended from surface to depths of between 0,20 and 1,05 m (average depth 0,53 m). The
soil profile typically consisted of an upper horizon of brown to grey brown, loose, silty sand
to gravelly sand extending to depths of approximately 0,10 to 0,25 m below ground level.

The upper colluvial soil in the higher-lying areas was typically underlain by pale orange to
orange brown, loose, slightly gravelly silty sand.

2812 12 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
The gravel content of the colluvial soils generally increased with depth and refusal of the
hand auger on gravel occurred at many test positions.

8.1.2. Pedogenic Soils - Ferricrete

The accumulation of iron oxides and hydrates is a commonly occurring pedogenic
phenomenon related to a varying water table. This process takes place between the limits
of a fluctuating water table and results in the formation of mottles and hard concretions,
often with dark brown or black centres. With time the concretions may coalesce, resulting
in an open honeycomb structure (commonly known as honeycomb ferricrete), or a
continuous sheet of cemented material, commonly known as hardpan ferricrete.

Honeycomb ferricrete was encountered at the base of TP2 ( 0,50 m) and TP3 (0,80 m) and
loose ferricrete gavel was observed in TP10 between 0,80 and 1,05m below ground level.

Hardpan ferricrete was also noted in the vicinity of TP1 and occasionally over the higher-
lying sections of the site.

8.1.3. Alluvial Soils

Alluvial soils are transported and deposited by flowing water. Alluvium was encountered in
TP6 and TP8 from surface to the base of both trial pits at 0,90 m.

An upper horizon of dark grey brown, loose, silty sand with abundant organic matter was
encountered in TP6 and TP8 to depths of 0,10 and 1,20 m, respectively. Light grey to light
grey brown mottled orange, very loose slightly silty sand was encountered to depths of
0,30 m (TP6) and 0,50 m (TP8). Light grey to beige mottled light orange, loose slightly silty
sand containing cobbles with depth was encountered below the aforementioned horizon in
both trial pits.

Bedrock was not encountered at the West Dam site.

8.2. Soil and Rock Conditions East Dam

The ground conditions encountered in the mechanically excavated trial pits are described
below. The trial pits were excavated to the refusal depth of the TLB which ranged from 0,15 to
1,15 m (average refusal depth 0,65 m).

8.2.1. Colluvial Soils

Colluvial soils were observed in all trial pits from surface to depths of between 0,10 m to
1,00 m below ground level (average depth 0,47 m).

In areas of deeper soil cover the profile typically consisted of brown, loose, silty fine sand
to gravelly silty fine sand underlain by pale orange to pale orange brown silty sand.

Colluvial gravel generally consisting of sandstone rock fragments and transported

ferricrete gravel in a silty sand matrix was encountered TP12 (0,70-1,00 m), TP13 (0,10-
1,55 m) and TP15 (0,40 0,65 m).

8.2.2. Pedogenic Soils - Ferricrete

Pedogenic soils in the form of hardpan ferricrete, honeycomb ferricrete, nodular ferricrete
and ferruginised sand were observed beneath the colluvial soils in all nine trial pits.

The pedogenic soils observed in the trial pits have formed in a predominately sandy parent
material that has the appearance of weathered sandstone rock in some of the trial pits.

2812 13 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
8.3. Soil and Rock Conditions Discard Area
Four trial pits were excavated at the proposed Discard Area. One trial pit (TP21) refused at
shallow depth (0,10 m) on hardpan ferricrete while the remaining trial pits were advanced to
depths of between 1,30 and 1,80 m.

8.3.1. Colluvial Soils

With the exception of TP21, broadly similar colluvial soils were observed to extend from
surface to depths of between 0,95 and 1,20m. An upper horizon of light brown, loose, silty
fine sand was observed from surface to between 0,30 and 0,35 m. This was underlain by
pale orange to orange brown, loose, silty sand to a depth of 0,70 m in all three trial pits. A
soil horizon containing gravel (interpreted to be a gravel marker) was observed in all three
trial pits.

8.3.2. Pedogenic Soils - Ferricrete

Weakly cemented honeycomb ferricrete was encountered in TP20 between 1,20 m and
the refusal depth of the TLB at 1,30 m.

The TLB refused on hardpan ferricrete at a depth of 0,12 m at TP21.

8.3.3. Residual Sandstone Soils

Residual soils are formed from the complete in-situ weathering of the underlying bedrock.

Residual sandstone soils described as pale orange, medium dense to dense, silty fine
sand was observed in TP22 and TP23 to depths of 1,75 and 1,80 m, respectively.

Sandstone rock was not encountered in the trial pits.

8.4. Groundwater
Groundwater seepage or standing water was observed in the following trial pits:

West Dam Site

TP4 0,20 m (Moderate seepage)
TP6 0,00 m (Free standing water)
TP8 0,10 m (Free standing water)

East Dam Site

TP12 1,00 m (Slight seepage)
TP19 0,55 m (Slight seepage)

It must be noted that the investigation was undertaken during the dry winter season. Given the
poor drainage conditions seepage is probable in other areas during the wetter summer season
and after rainfall.

The groundwater levels and the subsequent rates of infiltration into excavations will vary
seasonally.

8.5. Expansive, Collapsible and Dispersive soils

The soils encountered during the investigation were described as predominantly sandy in
composition. The laboratory test results indicate that the soils have low heave potential and
problematic ground conditions arising from expansive soils are not expected.

The colluvial silty fine sand encountered in TP23 (0,35 0,70 m) was described as open-
voided. This texture is characteristic of a potentially collapsible soil. Further investigations
should be designed determine the collapse potential of the soils.

2812 14 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
Problems associated with dispersive soils are not anticipated.

9. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

The project involves the construction of two earth embankment dams with wall heights of
approximately 6 m. It is understood that the dams will be lined to prevent water loss. The design of
the dam embankments had not been confirmed at the time report this report was compiled. The
dam design will take into account the materials available on site.

The following broad assessment is provided for the two storage dams.

9.1. Foundations
There are two main geotechnical criteria for considering the foundations for a dam, firstly, the
dam needs to be founded on competent material of sufficient strength so that settlements are
limited and secondly the material beneath the dam must not allow for excessive seepage under
of the dam, whic h has the effect of destabilising the dam and also results in water loss.

The investigation indicates that founding material with sufficient strength to support an earthfill
dam embankment will be encountered at shallow depth at the East Dam site. Similar
competent foundation material will is expected at shallow depth in the central and southern
section of the proposed West Dam footprint. Very loose material was encountered in TP6 and
TP8 in the northern section of the West Dam footprint. This material will have a very low shear
strength and will be problematic as a founding medium.

Free standing water was observed at very shallow depth in TP6 and TP8 and compaction and
construction activities in this area will require dewatering. It is therefore recommended that dam
footprint is shifted in a southerly direction to avoid these problematic geotechnical conditions.

The permeability of the soils was found to be moderately permeable with permeability
coefficients of between 1,7 x 10-8 and 5,9 x 10 -8 m/s.

9.2. Clay Core

The majority of the natural materials encountered in the trial pits have a low clay content and
appeared unsuitable for use in construction of a clay core. This assessment was confirmed by
the laboratory test results and none of the soils tested had properties within the range generally
considered suitable for clay core.

Given the geology of the area, obtaining s ufficient natural material suitable for clay core
material in close proximity to the project area will be problematic.

9.3. Embankment Material

The predominantly sandy and gravelly colluvial soils encountered in the trial pits will be suitable
for embankment construction. Blending of these materials with the underlying ferricrete and
weathered sandstone rock will improve the material shear strength properties and is
recommended for construction. However, as discussed in Section 9.4, excavation into this
material will require the use of heavy excavation plant or possibly blasting.

The strength properties of selected representative soil samples were obtained from triaxial
testing on samples re-compacted to specifications anticipated for embankment construction.
These results are considered suitable for preliminary design purposes. Given the s hallow
excavation depths achieved during this investigation it is recommended that further shear
strength testing is undertaken on representative samples of the actual materials that will be
used during construction.

2812 15 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final
Jeffares & Green (Pty) Ltd EXXARO NBC Coal
9.4. Ease of Excavation
Soft excavation conditions are expected within the colluvial and residual soils. These soils were
found to occur at shallow depth in most areas of the dam sites and were underlain by harder
ferricrete or gravel. The average refusal depth of the hand auger at the West Dam site was
0,60 m and the average refusal depth of the TLB at the East Dam site was 0,65 m.
Intermediate to hard excavation conditions are expected at an average depth of less than
approximately 1.0 m at both sites.

Given the difficult excavation conditions it is recommended that further investigations are
undertaken using large excavation plant such as a track-mounted excavator fitted with a rock
bucket. Alternatively rotary core drilling may be considered.

10. CONCLUSIONS

This geotechnical investigation was undertaken to provide information for the preliminary design of
two lined earthfill storage dams. The investigation indicates that the sites are suitable for
construction of the storage dams, provided that the recommendations provided in this report are
implemented. The recommendations include moving the West Dam footprint in a southerly
direction to avoid problematic ground conditions that were encountered in the low-lying northern
section of the proposed footprint.

Even though the equipment employed to excavate trial pits was only able to penetrate to limited
depths, the investigation undertaken provides an adequate picture of the ground conditions for the
purposes of preliminary design. It is recommended that further investigations are undertaken for
detailed design purposes.

11. REFERENCES

Core Logging Committee of the South African Section of the Association of Engineering Geologists
(1976). A Guide to Core Logging for Rock Engineering. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg.

Jennings, J.E., Brink, A.B.A. and Williams, A.A.B. (1973). Revised Guide to Soil Profiling for Civil
Engineering Purposes in Southern Africa. Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil
Engineers, Vol. 15.

Johnson, M.R., Anhausser, C.R., Thomas, R.J. (1996) The Geology of South Africa. The
Geological Society of South Africa and the Council for Geoscience.

Weinert, H. H. (1964) Basic igneous rocks in road construction. Research Report 218, CSIR,
Pretoria.

2812 16 July 2011

Belfast Mine Dams
Geotechnical Report Final