ANALYSING TWO POTENTIAL

DAM DESIGN CONCEPTS

Assignment 02

NAME: DINEVMIE METHUNIMA ADIKARAM

STUDENT ID: DU23BE0139
Field Investigation / SEJ 202
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
2. Design Concepts .................................................................................................................... 5
3. Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 7
I. Constructing Flow Nets ...................................................................................................... 7
II. Total Seepage Rate and Required Pumping Capacity ....................................................... 9
Total Seepage Rate Calculation for Design Concept 1 (DC1) .......................................... 9
Total Seepage Rate Calculation for Design Concept 2 (DC2) .......................................... 9
III. Uplift Pressure Distribution and Safety Factor .............................................................. 11
Uplift Pressure Distribution Calculation for Design Concept 1 (DC1) ........................... 11
Uplift Pressure Distribution Calculation for Design Concept 2 (DC2) ........................... 13
IV. The Water Storage Footprint ......................................................................................... 15
Calculating the Water Storage Footprint for the DC1 design concept ............................ 15
Calculating the Water Storage Footprint for the DC2 design concept ............................ 15
V. The Water Storage Footprint relative to the Environmental Footprint ........................... 16
1. Assessing the Carbon Footprint ................................................................................... 16
2. Assessing the Water footprint ...................................................................................... 21
3. Assessing the Biodiversity footprint ............................................................................ 23
VI. Considerations for the Risk of Failure ........................................................................... 24
1. The Seepage Rate ......................................................................................................... 24
2. The uplift pressure and force acting on the base of the dam ....................................... 24
3. The overall safety factor and structural stability.......................................................... 25
4. Risk of failure due to overtopping ............................................................................... 25
5. Risk of failure to corrosion and foundation deterioration ............................................ 25
VII. Assessing the Consequences of Risk of Failure ........................................................... 28
1. Common Consequences for the DC1 and DC2 design concepts ................................. 28
2. Consequences Specific to Each Design Concept ......................................................... 29
VIII. Additional Considerations........................................................................................... 31
1. Maintenance of the Dam .............................................................................................. 31
2. Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................. 32
3. Overtopping of a dam .................................................................................................. 32
4. Spillway Design ........................................................................................................... 33
5. Flood and Drainage Control......................................................................................... 33
7. Width of the base and the crest .................................................................................... 34
IX. Comparing the Two Design Concepts and Selecting the Better Design ....................... 35
 X. Improving the Preferred Design ...................................................................................... 38
1. The DC2 design concept is prone to overtopping ........................................................ 38
2. Decrease the Seepage Rate .......................................................................................... 38
3. References ............................................................................................................................ 40

List of Figures

Figure 1. A brownfield site being remediated and reused. ........................................................ 4

Figure 2. The two design concepts for the weir: DC1 (left) and DC2 (right)............................ 5
Figure 3. Equipotential lines were obtained for the weir, DC1 on the left, and equipotential
lines were obtained for the weir, DC2 on the right. The distance between grid lines is 1 m. ... 6
Figure 4. The flow net illustration for the first design concept (DC1) ...................................... 7
Figure 5. The flow net illustration for the second design concept (DC2).................................. 8
Figure 6. The graph represents the uplift pressure distribution on the base of the weir DC1. 11
Figure 7. The graph represents the uplift pressure distribution on the base of the weir DC2. 13
Figure 8. The annual actual evapotranspiration (ETo) values for Australia. ........................... 22
Figure 9. Primary causes for dam failure. ................................................................................ 27
Figure 10. A summary of the main drivers that tend to cause dam failures. ........................... 27
Figure 11. Demonstration of a stepped spillway. .................................................................... 38

List of Tables
Table 1. Material properties for the SC soil and reinforced concrete ........................................ 5
Table 2. Uplift Pressure distribution table for DC1. ................................................................ 11
Table 3. The table represents the area under each trapezium. ................................................. 12
Table 4. Uplift Pressure distribution table for DC2. ................................................................ 13
Table 5. The table represents the area under each trapezium. ................................................. 14
Table 6. A table summarising the considerations for the risk of failure of each design concept.
.................................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 7. A Weightage Mark Matrix Comparing and Analysing the Two Design Concepts ... 35
Summary

This report examines two design concepts for a reinforced concrete dam, referred to as DC1
and DC2, intended for a proposed minor-scale project in Victoria on a brownfield site, land
that has been previously used and requires remediation. The analysis evaluates seepage rates,
uplift pressure distribution, stability, and environmental implications.

DC1 offers a higher water storage capacity but presents greater structural risks. These include
uneven uplift pressure, an increased probability of failure, and a higher potential for soil erosion
due to its steep downstream face. In contrast, DC2 has a lower storage volume but demonstrates
better structural stability. It minimizes flood risks and reduces environmental impact by more
effectively dissipating water energy.

The report concludes that DC2 is the safer and more environmentally sustainable option
because it has lower risks of failure and reduced potential for soil erosion.
1. Introduction

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of two reinforced concrete dam design concepts,
DC1 and DC2, for a proposed minor-scale dam construction on a waterway in a selected
location in Victoria. This site has been classified as a brownfield by the Victorian government.
A brownfield site refers to land or premises that have previously been used for urban or
industrial purposes but are currently unoccupied or abandoned due to potential contamination
or degradation. Typically, such sites require remediation before redevelopment can occur. It is
essential to note that these areas often have low biodiversity, and constructing a dam in such
locations will likely have minimal environmental impact.

The report will evaluate seepage rates, uplift pressure distribution, and the stability of each
design concept. Additionally, it will examine the environmental implications, including the
water storage footprint of each dam compared to its overall environmental footprint, as well as
an evaluation of the risk of failure associated with each design. The study will compare both
design proposals and identify the most suitable option for implementation. For further analysis,
the soil profiles of the surrounding area will be considered, as the geological composition of
the site will ultimately affect the total seepage rate and the stability of the structure.
Furthermore, the flow of water post-excavation will be analyzed for the worst-case scenarios
of both design concepts.

Through this investigation, essential engineering skills such as technical analysis, problem-
solving, and environmental considerations will be applied to determine a structurally stable and
sustainable design concept.

Figure 1. A brownfield site being remediated and reused.

2. Design Concepts

Below are the two design concepts proposed for consideration and analysis.

Figure 2. The two design concepts for the weir: DC1 (left) and DC2 (right).

Both design concepts for the dams are made of reinforced concrete and have a perpendicular
length of 20 meters extending into the third dimension. However, the DC1 design includes a
key at its bottom right corner, while the DC2 design features a sheet pile with a depth of two
meters.

The material properties of the SC soil and reinforced concrete are as follows:

Table 1. Material properties for the SC soil and reinforced concrete

Hydraulic
Material Saturated density Psat (kg/m3)
conductivity k (x 10-6 m/sec)

SC Clayey SAND 2056 4.8

Reinforced concrete 2400 0

The soil profile for both design concepts include a layer of permeable clayey-SAND (SC)
above the impermeable bedrock layer.
The flow of water post-excavation for the worst-case scenarios is analyzed for both design
concepts in the below diagram.

Figure 3. Equipotential lines were obtained for the weir, DC1 on the left, and equipotential lines were
obtained for the weir, DC2 on the right. The distance between grid lines is 1 m.

Using equipotential lines, we can draw flow lines that represent the path along which water
particles travel from upstream (on the left) to downstream (on the right). These flow lines
should intersect each equipotential line at a 90-degree angle, and each section formed by the
intersection of the flow lines and equipotential lines should roughly resemble a square.

Once the flow lines are constructed, we can apply Darcy's law to calculate the total seepage
rate and determine the required pumping capacity for each design concept. Following this, we
will calculate the total uplift pressure acting on each weir, along with the corresponding safety
factor. These values will help us assess the structural integrity of each design concept. We can
conclude and select the most suitable design proposal after analyzing the results obtained.
3. Analysis
I. Constructing Flow Nets

Figure 4. The flow net illustration for the first design concept (DC1)
Figure 5. The flow net illustration for the second design concept (DC2)
II. Total Seepage Rate and Required Pumping Capacity

Total Seepage Rate Calculation for Design Concept 1 (DC1)

Nd (Number of potential drops) = 18

Nf (Number of flow lines) = 6.6
Total Head loss (H) = 3.6m
k (Hydraulic Conductivity of clayey-SAND) = 4.8 × 10-6 m/sec

Using Darcy’s Law to calculate the total seepage rate,

𝑁𝑓
𝑞 = 𝑘𝐻
𝑁𝑑
Where q = total seepage rate
Substituting the above values,
6.6
𝑞 = 4.8 × 10e − 6 m/sec × 3.6m × × 20m
18

Total seepage rate = 1.2672 × 10-4 m3/sec

= 10.949 m3/day

Required Pumping Capacity = 10.949 m3/day

Total Seepage Rate Calculation for Design Concept 2 (DC2)

Nd (Number of potential drops) = 18

Nf (Number of flow lines) = 7.6
Total Head loss (H) = 3.6m
k (Hydraulic Conductivity of clayey-SAND) = 4.8 × 10-6 m/sec
Using Darcy’s Law to calculate the total seepage rate,

𝑁𝑓
𝑞 = 𝑘𝐻
𝑁𝑑
Where q = total seepage rate
Substituting the above values,
7.6
𝑞 = 4.8 × 10e − 6 m/sec × 3.6m × × 20m
18

Total seepage rate = 1.4592 × 10-4 m3/sec

= 12.607 m3/day

Required Pumping Capacity = 12.607 m3/day

From the above calculation, it can be determined that the second design concept (DC2), which
incorporates a 2m-deep sheet pile has a greater total seepage rate and required pumping
capacity than the DC1 proposal which uses a key structure. Theoretically, when the seepage
rate increases, the uplift pressure beneath the dam increases because the increasing water
content applies a greater upward force. This can reduce the overall safety against uplift, as the
dam's weight (the downward force due to gravity) is counteracted by the increased uplift
pressure.

However, since the difference between the seepage rates is approximately 2m3 (not a significant
difference), we need to consider and calculate the total uplift pressure acting on the dam in
relation to its structure.
 III. Uplift Pressure Distribution and Safety Factor

Uplift Pressure Distribution Calculation for Design Concept 1 (DC1)

Table 2. Uplift Pressure distribution table for DC1.

Point A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
x / (m) 0 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.8 2.55 3.5 4 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.6 5.9 6
Nd
(Potential
drop for 2.6 3 4 5 6 7 8 8.5 9 10 11 12 13 13.5
each
point)
h/(m) -
Total
head loss 3.08 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.9
at this
point
Z(m) -
Elevation -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1.5 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
head
U(m) -
Pressure 4.08 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 2.9
head
u(Kpa) -
Water
pressure 40.02 39.24 37.28 35.32 33.35 31.4 29.43 28.45 32.37 35.32 33.35 31.39 29.43 28.45
acting on
the point

Uplift Pressure Distribution Curve DC1

41
39
37
u/KPa

35
33
31
29
27
25
0 0.1 0.5 1.1 1.8 2.55 3.5 4 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.6 5.9 6
x/m

Figure 6. The graph represents the uplift pressure distribution on the base of the weir DC1.
 Calculating the uplift pressure acting on the base of the weir by calculating the area under each
trapezium and summing up the values obtained between each two points.

Table 3. The table represents the area under each trapezium.

Points A-B B-C C-D D-E E-F F-G G-H H-I I-J J-K K-L L-M M-N
Area of
each
3.96 15.30 21.78 24.03 24.28 28.89 14.47 15.21 13.54 10.30 12.95 9.12 2.89
pressure
point /m2

Summing up the values,

Total uplift pressure (kN/m) = 3.96 + 15.3 + 21.78 + 24.03 + 24.28 + 28.89 + 14.47 + 15.21 +
13.54 + 10.30 + 12.95 + 9.12 + 2.89
= 196.72974 kN/m
Total uplift force (kN) = 196.72974 × 20
= 3934.594 kN
Calculating the force due to gravity (Weight),
𝑊 = 𝑝𝑉𝑔
Finding the area of the weir,
Area of 1 = 4 × 1 = 4m2
1
Area of 2 = 2 × ( 1 + 5 ) × 1 = 3m2
1
Area of 3 = 2 × 1 × 1 = 0.5m2

Area of 4 = 6 × 1 = 6m2

Total Area = 13.5m2

Total Volume = 13.5 × 20
= 270m3
Weight of the weir (kN) = 2400 × 270 × 9.81
= 6356.880 kN
6356.880 𝑘𝑁
Calculating the safety factor against uplift = 3934.594 𝑘𝑁

= 1.6156
 Uplift Pressure Distribution Calculation for Design Concept 2 (DC2)

Table 4. Uplift Pressure distribution table for DC2.

Point A B C D E F G H I J
x / (m) 0 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.75 2.5 3.3 4.8 4.8
Nd
(Potential
0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7.8 17.5
drop for
each point)
h / (m) -
Total head
3.46 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.04 0.1
loss at this
point
Z(m) -
Elevation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
head
U(m) -
Pressure 3.46 3.4 3.2 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.04 0.1
head
u (Kpa) -
Water
pressure 33.9426 33.354 31.392 29.43 27.468 25.506 23.544 21.582 20.0124 0.981
acting on
the point

Uplift Pressure Distribution Curve DC2

40

35

30

25
u/ KPa

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
x/m

Figure 7. The graph represents the uplift pressure distribution on the base of the weir DC2.
Calculating the uplift pressure acting on the base of the weir by calculating the area under each
trapezium and summing up the values obtained between each two points.

Table 5. The table represents the area under each trapezium.

Points A-B B-C C-D D-E E-F F-G G-H H-I I-J
Area of each
pressure point 6.7297 6.4746 9.1233 14.2245 14.5679 18.3938 18.0504 31.1958 0
/m2

Summing up the values,

Total uplift pressure (kN/m) = 6.7297 + 6.4746 + 9.1233 + 14.2245 + 14.5679 + 18.3938 +
+ 18.0504 + 31.1958 + 0
= 118.75986 kN/m
Total uplift force (kN) = 118.75986 × 20
= 2375.197 kN
Calculating the force due to gravity (Weight),
𝑊 = 𝑝𝑉𝑔
Finding the area of the weir,
Area of 1 = 4 × 1 = 4m2
1
Area of 2 = 2 × ( 1 + 4 ) × 4 = 10m2

Total Area = 14m2

Total Volume = 14 × 20
= 280m3
Weight of the weir (kN) = 2400 × 280 × 9.81
= 6592.320 kN
6592.320 𝑘𝑁
Calculating the safety factor against uplift = 2375.197 𝑘𝑁

= 2.7755
IV. The Water Storage Footprint

A dam’s water storage footprint is the land occupied by the reservoir when the dam is at full
operational capacity.

Calculating the Water Storage Footprint for the DC1 design concept
The water storage footprint refers to the horizontal area that water covers at a specific height.
In the case of DC1, as the water level rises, the footprint expands due to the sloped sides of the
reservoir. However, since we are concentrating on the land area occupied by the reservoir, we
will only consider the area covered by the base of the dam.

The area that is covered by water at the base of the reservoir,

Area = 16m × 20m

= 320m2

Therefore, the water storage footprint at the base of the reservoir = 320m2

Calculating the water storage of the dam (the volume of water stored in the reservoir),

Water storage volume = Cross-sectional area × Perpendicular length

1
= ( 2 × ( 16𝑚 + 17𝑚 ) × 3.6𝑚 ) × 20𝑚

= 1188m3

Calculating the Water Storage Footprint for the DC2 design concept
Since the dam is vertical with no slant, we should consider the width of the base of the reservoir
and the perpendicular length to calculate the total land area required for water storage.

The area that is covered by water at the maximum capacity of the dam,

When the height of the water = 3.6m

Area = 13m × 20m

= 260m2

Therefore, the water storage footprint of the reservoir = 260m2

Calculating the water storage of the dam (the volume of water stored in the reservoir),
Water storage volume = Cross-sectional area × Perpendicular length

= 13m × 3.6m × 20m

= 936m3

V. The Water Storage Footprint relative to the Environmental

Footprint

The environmental footprint measures the impact of human activities on the environment. In
this scenario, we will evaluate the environmental impacts associated with water storage for
each design concept. To derive an accurate estimate of the environmental footprint, we need to
consider several parameters, including greenhouse gas emissions and energy
consumption(carbon footprint), water loss from the storage system due to evaporation and
leakages (water footprint), and deforestation or destruction of natural habitats when clearing
land and constructing the dam (biodiversity footprint). By considering these categories, we can
obtain a precise estimate of the overall environmental footprint.

1. Assessing the Carbon Footprint

The total carbon footprint associated with constructing the dam for either design concept
includes emissions released during three key phases: construction, operation, and end-of-life.

During the construction phase, emissions arise from several sources, including:

• The production of concrete and cement.

• The use of steel reinforcement.
• Fuel consumption by machinery and vehicles.
• Explosives used for excavation.
• Transportation of materials and equipment.

In the operational phase, emissions primarily result from the decomposition of submerged
organic materials, which release methane, as well as from maintenance practices.
Design Concept 1

During the Construction phase,

1. Concrete and Cement Production

The volume of the dam = 270m3

The density of reinforced concrete = 2400kg/m3

Mass of concrete required = 270 × 2400 = 648000kg

For every 1kg of cement used in concrete, 0.8 – 0.9 kg of CO2 is released (How Much CO2 Is
Produced from the Burning of Cement Replacement Waste Material to Convert It into Ash?,
n.d.)

The total amount of Carbon dioxide released = 648000 × 0.8

= 518400 kg

2. Emissions due to heavy machinery and explosives

The construction of a dam requires heavy machinery, including bulldozers, excavators, loaders,
compactors, cable cranes, and concrete mixers.

For the DC1 design concept, which features a key-like structure extending underground, an
excavation depth of 2 meters or more is necessary. This will result in increased use of heavy
machinery such as excavators over a longer period, leading to a higher quantity of greenhouse
gas emissions and fuel consumption during the construction process. Additionally, the design
allocates a land area of 320 square meters for water storage, necessitating extensive compaction
of the soil using compactors to ensure stability. This increased compaction will further
contribute to greater fuel consumption and, consequently, higher carbon emissions. Moreover,
during the excavation process in most cases due to the encountering of rocks, explosives such
as ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil), emulsions, and dynamite are used. Approximately
per ton of ANFO, 160kg of Carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. (The role of
different explosives in reducing energy and emissions in mining comminution for sustainable
improvement Purhamadani & Bagherpour, 2024).
3. Transportation of materials and equipment

The total weight of transported goods, travel distances, and the types of transportation modes
used are the primary factors that influence greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the
transportation phase. The key-like structure of the DC1 design concept is quite structurally
complex; as the complexity of the structure increases, it often necessitates additional materials
such as extra concrete, steel reinforcements, and construction equipment. When more materials
are required to complete the project, an increased number of truckloads will be needed to
transport them to the site, thereby raising the project's carbon footprint.

During the operation phase,

1. Methane released from the decomposition, of submerged materials.

The water stored in reservoirs is directly exposed to the ground, which consists of shrubs and
weeds. This submerged organic matter tends to decompose over time, especially in wet, rotting
environments, leading to the release of methane into the atmosphere due to microbial activity.
The anaerobic decomposition process of deadwood and other organic matter in trees and soil
occurs in the absence of oxygen and produces a significant amount of methane.

When plants decay behind a dam, they can store methane in the mud, which is released when
the water level behind the dam decreases (6 Surprising Sources of Methane, n.d.). Additionally,
as the area of land exposed to the water increases, the percentage of methane released from
decomposition rises. However, since the dam is built on a brownfield with little to no
vegetation, methane emissions from flooding a brownfield are considerably lower due to the
limited organic matter available for decomposition.

Ground cover area submerged by water = 12m × 20m

= 240m2

2. Maintenance and Operation

Greenhouse gas emissions during the maintenance and operation stage are mainly associated
with the maintenance of the civil structure and electromechanical equipment. The maintenance
of the civil structure involves activities such as repairing cracks in the body of the dam, which
over time is required to attend to. Moreover, since the uplift force acting on the DC1 design
concept is higher, it will require high maintenance over time. The uplift force increases
maintenance needs due to structural stress, and material degradation. A higher uplift force will
consequently lead to cracks developing on the base, foundation displacement, and potential
sliding, therefore releasing higher quantities of carbon dioxide emissions when frequent
grouting and other maintenance procedures involving machinery need to be conducted.

Comparison with Design Concept 2

During the Construction phase,

1. Concrete and Cement Production

The volume of the dam = 280m3

The density of reinforced concrete = 2400kg/m3

Mass of concrete required = 280 × 2400 = 672000kg

For every 1kg of cement used in concrete, 0.8 – 0.9 kg of CO2 is released
The total amount of Carbon dioxide released = 672000 × 0.8

= 537600 kg

2. Emissions due to heavy machinery and explosives

The construction of a dam with a 2-meter-deep sheet pile will involve heavy machinery,
including concrete mixers, loaders, compactors, and bulldozers. For the piling process,
additional heavy equipment such as piling rigs, vibratory hammers, augers, or drilling buckets
will be used. Installing a single 2-meter sheet pile is generally a short-term task that can be
completed within one or two days. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with a
single sheet pile mainly result from the fuel consumption of the pile-driving machinery, the
production of steel, and transportation to the construction site. The excavation process will
generate approximately twice the emissions of installing one sheet pile (‘What Equipment Is
Used for Piling?’, 2024).

Moreover, the land area required for compaction to ensure stability is less than that needed for
the DC1 design concept, specifically 60m2 less. Additionally, since no excavations are required
at the site, there is no need for explosives, which would significantly contribute to the carbon
footprint.
3. Transportation of materials and equipment

While the DC2 design concept releases almost similar quantities of carbon dioxide emissions
as the DC1 design, however, it features a simpler structure. The DC2 consists of a single,
uniform vertical section with a straightforward shape, unlike the complex geometry of the DC1
concept. This simplicity means that fewer steel reinforcements and materials are needed, which
in turn requires fewer truckloads to complete the structure. As a result, DC2 generates lower
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

During the operation phase,

1. Methane released from the decomposition, of submerged materials.

According to the DC2 design concept, the area of land exposed to water is 260 m², which is 20
m² more than the area exposed in the DC1 design concept. Since there is a greater ground cover
exposed to water, the methane emissions from the decomposition of submerged organic matter
are expected to be higher. However, it's important to note that the dam will be constructed in a
region designated as a brownfield, which has little to no vegetation. As a result, the methane
emissions produced from flooding this brownfield area are significantly reduced due to the lack
of organic matter available for decomposition.

2. Maintenance and Operation

Unlike the DC1 design concept, the DC2 concept experiences a lower uplift force at the base
of the dam. With this reduced force, the base and foundation are less prone to cracks and leaks.
A lower and well-controlled uplift force contributes to greater dam stability, which enhances
its durability and prolongs its lifespan. Additionally, this increased durability leads to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions associated with maintenance practices. Furthermore, a lower uplift
force results in less erosion of the dam's foundation, decreasing the need for sealing and
grouting, which ultimately lowers the carbon footprint.

Overall, the carbon footprint for the DC2 design concept is lower compared to the footprint
estimated for the DC1 design concept.
2. Assessing the Water footprint

The water footprint is a component of the environmental footprint that measures the volume of
freshwater (in cubic meters or liters) used and lost throughout a project. In this case, we will
determine the water footprint with respect to the water storage footprint. This involves
calculating the total volume of freshwater stored in cubic meters in relation to the water lost
from the reservoir due to evaporation and seepage. (Hogeboom et al., 2018).

Design Concept 1

1. Evaporation loss
The evaporation of each dam reservoir was calculated by using Equation 56 of FAO (2000) as
follows: (Evaporation from artificial lakes and reservoirs Kohli et al., n.d.)
Calculating the evaporation rate for the reservoir in cubic meters per year (m3/year),
Using the equation below,
𝐸𝑣 = 𝐸𝑇𝑜 × 𝐴 × 10−3
Where,
Ev = Dam reservoir evaporation in volume (m3 /year)
ETo = Reference evapotranspiration in depth (specific to each dam) (mm/year)
A = Reservoir surface area (specific to each dam) (m2 ) / the top water surface
Substituting the values we have,
A (when the reservoir is at full capacity) = 17m × 20m
= 340m2
ETo value for Victoria = Around 600–700 mm/year
Considering the value of 700mm/year

Ev = 700mm/year × 340 m2 × 10-3

= 238 m3/year
2. Seepage Rate
As calculated previously the seepage rate for the DC1 design concept is,
Seepage Rate = 10.949 m3/day
Design Concept 2

1. Evaporation loss
Calculating the evaporation rate for the reservoir in cubic meters per year (m3/year),
Using the equation below,
𝐸𝑣 = 𝐸𝑇𝑜 × 𝐴 × 10−3
Where,
Ev = Dam reservoir evaporation in volume (m3 /year)
ETo = Reference evapotranspiration in depth (specific to each dam) (mm/year)
A = Reservoir surface area (specific to each dam) (m2 ) / the top water surface
Substituting the values we have,
A (when the reservoir is at full capacity) = 13m × 20m
= 260m2
ETo value for Victoria = Around 600–700 mm/year
Considering the value of 700mm/year
Ev = 700mm/year × 260 m2 × 10-3
= 182 m3/year
2. Seepage Rate
As calculated previously the seepage rate for the DC1 design concept is,
Seepage Rate = 12.607 m3/day

Figure 8. The annual actual evapotranspiration (ETo) values for Australia.

The evaporation rate for DC2 is lower than that of DC1, with a difference of 101 m³ per year.
However, the seepage rate for DC2 is higher than that of DC1, exceeding it by 1.658 m³ per
day. As a result, the DC2 design concept has a larger water footprint. The increased seepage
loss significantly outweighs the reduced evaporation loss, leading to a greater overall loss of
freshwater compared to the water losses associated with DC1.

3. Assessing the Biodiversity footprint

A dam’s biodiversity footprint measures the impact that a dam has on the natural environment
and animal habitats. Since we are analyzing the water storage footprint in relation to the overall
environmental footprint, we will only consider the biodiversity footprint related to the land area
used for water storage.

The site selected for both design concepts has been designated as a brownfield by the Victorian
government, indicating potential land degradation or contamination. However, we do not have
information about the timeline of this classification. If the site has not been inhabited and
interacted with by humans for an extended period, the soil may have undergone remediation,
leading to the growth of small shrubs and other vegetation. Overall, brownfield sites typically
have lower biodiversity than undeveloped areas, which helps to minimize environmental
impact and reduce the biodiversity footprint.

Design Concept 1

The land area utilized for water storage = 320m2

Design Concept 2

The land area utilized for water storage = 260m2

The biodiversity footprint of the DC1 design concept is higher than that of the DC2 design
concept because the land area allocated for water storage in DC1 is 60 m² larger than in DC2.
This larger area requires more land to be deforested and cleared for the construction of the dam
and reservoir in DC1. Such extensive land clearance can lead to significant biodiversity loss
and habitat destruction. It may alter a larger land area, resulting in the fragmentation of both
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and in rare cases, it could even lead to species extinction or
endangerment. However, since it is a brownfield site with lower biodiversity, the overall
environmental impact is minimal.
VI. Considerations for the Risk of Failure

1. The Seepage Rate

When the total seepage rate from upstream to downstream increases, the water exerts greater
upward pressure (known as uplift pressure) on the foundation of the dam. This increased
pressure reduces the effective weight of the dam, making it more susceptible to sliding and
overturning. A higher seepage rate also reduces the shear strength of the dam material,
weakening the structure. Excess water infiltration due to high seepage can negatively impact
the structural integrity of the dam, potentially leading to partial or complete collapse even under
normal loads.

Uneven seepage flow can result in differential settlement, which may cause cracks to form in
the reinforced concrete structure. These cracks can further increase the seepage rate,
accelerating the failure of the dam. The DC2 design concept has a higher seepage rate compared
to the DC1 design concept, which reduces the structural integrity of the DC2 dam and makes
it more vulnerable to collapse.

2. The uplift pressure and force acting on the base of the dam

The uplift force caused by seepage acts on the base of the dam, while the only counteracting
force is the effective weight of the dam itself. This uplift force reduces the dam's effective
weight, which in turn lowers the friction between the base of the dam and its foundation. As a
result, this increases the risk of sliding failure, potentially leading to large-scale flooding in
surrounding areas.

Higher uplift pressures, or uneven distribution of these pressures, can cause fractures or cracks
in the dam’s structure, thus weakening the entire structure. When uplift pressure is elevated,
regular crack monitoring becomes essential, as cracks may appear more frequently on the base
of the dam and the dam structure, necessitating regrouting with cement or other sealing options.
The risk of failure due to uplift pressure is higher in the DC1 design concept because of the
greater uplift pressure values involved.
3. The overall safety factor and structural stability

A low safety factor against uplift reduces the structural stability of the dam, making it more
vulnerable to failures such as sliding, cracking, internal erosion, and overturning. Sliding
failure is particularly dangerous for concrete dams, as they rely on their weight for stability. If
uplift pressure becomes excessive, the dam may rotate around its downstream pivot point,
leading to failure due to overturning. The DC1 design concept has a lower safety factor against
uplift, which questions the structural stability and integrity of the dam.

4. Risk of failure due to overtopping

Overtopping of a dam occurs when water exceeds the dam's maximum capacity and flows over
the top, posing a significant risk of dam failure and causing extensive downstream flooding.
This flooding can lead to habitat destruction and widespread damage. Factors such as heavy
rainfall, earthquakes, sudden fluctuations in water levels, and landslides can contribute to
overtopping which over time erodes the dam and compromises its structural integrity.
Additionally, sediment and debris accumulation at the base of the reservoir over time can raise
the water level, increasing the likelihood of overtopping.

The DC2 design concept is particularly prone to overtopping due to its steeper, slope-like
downstream face, which causes floodwaters to rapidly spill over the base of the structure. This
can erode and degrade the crest of the dam, ultimately causing the dam to structurally fail.
Moreover, the structure of DC2 appears to be shorter and less robust compared to DC1 which
is more bulky and wider, therefore making it more vulnerable to overtopping during extreme
water level rises. DC1 can withstand higher water levels making it more resilient to
overtopping.

5. Risk of failure to corrosion and foundation deterioration

The corrosion of the sheet pile in the DC2 design concept and the deterioration of the dam
foundation in DC1 present significant risks, particularly for reinforced concrete dams If the
soil at the brownfield site is chemically contaminated, exposure to acidic or sulfate-rich
environments can corrode the metal sheet pile and lead to the deterioration of both the concrete
and the surrounding soil in the foundation over time. This degradation compromises the
structural integrity of the dam. Sulfate-reducing bacteria present in anaerobic conditions and
groundwater flow that trigger electrochemical reactions will accelerate the corrosion of the
steel sheet pile.

Corrosion can increase seepage rates, allowing more water to infiltrate, which may create
cracks at the base of the dam and weaken its overall structure. A compromised sheet pile can
bend or collapse, making it unable to withstand water pressure and ultimately reducing the
dam's stability.

Seepage flow through complex foundations is a primary cause of dam failure. Piping occurs
within the foundation when excessive water washes away fine soil particles, creating voids or
channels that undermine the structure.

As the foundation deteriorates, cracks can develop in the dam body, potentially leading to
uncontrolled water flow and an increased risk of failure. The formation of cracks increases
seepage and leakage rates, resulting in more water passing through the foundation. This
increase in water flow can elevate uplift forces and further diminish the stability of the dam.

The DC2 design concept is more vulnerable because it heavily relies on sheet piles for seepage
control and stability. If the sheet piles corrode, this could lead to increased seepage, resulting
in piping failure and potential structural instability. In contrast, DC1 is less dependent on sheet
piles and features a stronger, wider base, making it more resistant to foundation failure and
overall, more stable.

Table 6. A table summarising the considerations for the risk of failure of each design concept.

Considerations for the risk of failure of the dam

Consideration Design Concept 1 (DC1) Design Concept 2 (DC2)
The seepage rate of DC1 is 10.949 The seepage rate of DC2 is 12.607
The Seepage Rate
m3/day m3/day
The uplift pressure and
The uplift force acting on the The uplift force acting on the base of
force acting on the base
base of DC1 is 3934.594 kN DC2 is 2375.197 kN
of the dam

The overall safety factor The safety factor against uplift for The safety factor against uplift for
and structural stability DC1 is 1.6156 DC2 is 2.7755
The key-like structure is less The DC2 design concept is more
Overtopping
prone to overtopping prone to overtopping

Corrosion of the sheet More vulnerable due to its heavy

Less vulnerable due to a stronger
pile vs complex dependency on the condition of the
foundation
foundation deterioration sheet pile for structural stability
 Figure 9. Primary causes for dam failure.

Figure 10. A summary of the main drivers that tend to cause dam failures.
VII. Assessing the Consequences of Risk of Failure

1. Common Consequences for the DC1 and DC2 design concepts

I. Widespread Flooding

A dam failure can cause a rapid and devastating flash flood, submerging the areas surrounding
the dam in water. The sudden release of a large volume of water can exert tremendous force,
thus, destroying habitats, uprooting trees, and rapidly eroding riverbanks. This can lead to
permanent changes in the landscape and disrupt the surrounding ecosystem. Additionally,
flooding caused by dam failure can inundate the land, which results in the decomposition of
submerged organic matter. This process releases significant amounts of methane gas into the
atmosphere, worsening climate change. Flooding can also wash away topsoil, rendering the
land infertile for agriculture. Moreover, these floods can disrupt migration routes and breeding
cycles for species in the area, potentially leading to a loss of biodiversity and endangering local
species.

However, the impact of flooding varies depending on the volume of water released and the
characteristics of the affected area. Since the area is a brownfield, the effects on biodiversity,
agriculture, and infrastructure are likely to be minimal.

2. Groundwater and Waterway Contamination

Since the dam is located on a brownfield site, it may be vulnerable to potential contamination.
Therefore, if the dam were to fail, it could pose a significant threat to the surrounding
environment. Brownfields often contain hazardous substances such as heavy metals (like lead,
mercury, and arsenic) and industrial chemicals (including PCBs and dioxins). In the case where
the dam fails, sediments in the soil that contain these contaminants could be washed into rivers,
lakes, or groundwater, leading to long-term pollution. This pollution could harm aquatic
ecosystems and render the water unsafe for drinking, fishing, or irrigation in nearby areas.
Additionally, these chemicals and heavy metals could leach into the soil, contaminating the
groundwater system. Heavy metals can lead to bioaccumulation in the food chain, which could
adversely affect both humans and wildlife.

Widespread flooding could cause chemical pollutants to enter waterways, creating dead zones
in rivers and lakes. If the public were to be exposed to this contaminated water, they could
experience severe health issues, including neurological disorders, cancers, organ failure, birth
defects, and genetic mutations.

3. Sediment Depositions

A dam acts as a barrier to a reservoir, where water and sediments accumulate over time. These
trapped sediments, composed of sand, clay, silt, and organic matter, can build up for decades
due to the dam’s durability. When a dam fails, these sediments are suddenly released into the
environment. This abrupt release can disrupt local waterways, harming aquatic life by clogging
fish gills and affecting their breeding and feeding habitats. Furthermore, large amounts of
coarse sediments can block river channels, leading to flooding in the surrounding areas and
threatening both human and wildlife communities. The ecological and environmental
consequences of such sediment releases can be quite significant.

4. Increased Risk of Landslides in the surrounding areas

The sudden overflow or flooding caused by a collapsed dam, especially in a mountainous

region, can lead to landslides, erosion, and debris flows. This occurs because the rapid release
of high-pressure water destabilizes the surrounding soil. When a dam fails, water rushes
downstream at a high speed, increasing soil saturation and causing it to lose its structural
integrity.

As the soil in nearby areas becomes highly saturated, it can trigger mud and debris flows, which
consist of loose soil and sediments from the reservoir. These mudflows can contaminate
waterways, raising the riverbed and damaging fish breeding grounds and habitats. Additionally,
landslides can pollute freshwater resources, making them unsafe for human and wildlife
consumption.

2. Consequences Specific to Each Design Concept

I. Widespread Flooding

Design Concept 1,

The impact of flooding is influenced by the volume of water released and the characteristics of
the affected area. The volume of water stored in DC1 is 252 cubic meters greater than in the
reservoir of DC2. Consequently, if DC1 were to fail, the potential damage from flooding would
be greater due to its larger storage capacity.
The risk of failure for the dam is significant, primarily because the base of the dam experiences
an uneven distribution of uplift pressure. The greater uplift pressure makes the dam more
susceptible to sliding failures, cracks, and fractures. Such issues can increase the rate of
seepage, weakening the dam's structure and potentially leading to its collapse. Additionally,
the design concept of DC1 features a lower safety factor against uplift, which raises concerns
about its structural integrity.

While the wider and bulkier design of DC1 can hold more water before overtopping, the near-
vertical downstream face means that water falls from the top to the ground with greater energy.
Less energy is dissipated before impact, causing the water to hit the ground with high velocity
and force. This increases the likelihood of soil erosion in the surrounding area. Consequently,
this erosion threatens the foundation of the dam and its structural stability, as the soil around
the dam becomes unstable and washes away.

If DC1 were to fail and cause flooding, the consequences for the surrounding land would be
significant, leading to a higher overall impact.

Design Concept 2,

DC2 has a smaller water storage volume, which helps minimize potential flood damage in the
event of a dam failure. Additionally, DC2 demonstrates better structural stability than DC1 due
to a more even distribution of uplift pressure at its base. The uplift force acting on DC2 is also
lower than that on DC1, which enhances its stability and reduces the risk of sliding failure.
Furthermore, the safety factor against uplift for DC2 exceeds 2.5, indicating that the dam is
less likely to collapse or crack, which could lead to flooding.

DC2 features a steeper downstream face, allowing floodwaters to spill over more rapidly if
they exceed the dam crest. In comparison, it appears shorter and less robust than DC1, making
it more susceptible to overtopping during extreme rises in water levels. However, DC2 is less
likely to cause soil erosion during overtopping or flooding. The sloped downstream face allows
water to flow smoothly along its surface instead of free-falling. As the water travels down the
slope, friction between the water and the dam’s surface gradually decreases its velocity before
it reaches the ground. This results in lower impact forces on the surrounding soil, leading to
reduced soil erosion. Consequently, there is a lower threat of soil near the dam being washed
away, which decreases the risk of the dam sinking, damaging its foundation, or corroding its
sheet pile walls.

2. Sediment Depositions

Dams with lower water storage capacity trap less sediment and debris. If such a dam fails,
resulting in a smaller flood, it may not release as much coarse-grained material. However, the
rate of sediment release can still cause downstream damage, particularly affecting aquatic
species in nearby water sources. Since DC2 has a lower water storage capacity than DC1, it
retains less sediment, resulting in a reduced impact on nearby areas and species.

3. Increased Risk of Landslides in the surrounding areas

The size and volume of a dam significantly influence the risk of landslides. Generally, a larger
dam holds more water in its reservoir, while a smaller dam has a lower water storage capacity
and thus has less impact. In our case, DC2 will have a minimal impact and pose a lower risk of
landslides, as it holds less water compared to DC1.

Moreover, the risk of a landslide increases with the rate at which water is released. If a dam
collapses and water experiences a rapid free fall, the impact upon hitting the ground can trigger
an immediate flash flood and a more severe landslide. However, in the case of DC2, the steeply
sloped downstream surface will allow for a more gradual release of water, resulting in a less
violent landslide compared to what might occur if DC1 is subjected to failure.

VIII. Additional Considerations

1. Maintenance of the Dam

To prevent dam failure and its devastating consequences, it is essential to regularly inspect and
maintain dams, making repairs when necessary. Over time, variations in seepage rates, uneven
uplift pressure distributions, erosion, and corrosion can cause dams to develop cracks or leaks.
If these issues are not addressed, they could lead to the collapse of the dam. For example, cracks
may appear in the foundation of the dam, and it is crucial to seal these cracks using grouting
with cement to prevent increased seepage through the foundation, which could compromise the
dam's structural integrity.
Regular inspections for cracks and structural integrity checks should be conducted by experts,
along with monitoring water quality, controlling algae growth, managing sediment, and
ensuring proper disinfection.

Dams constructed with greater structural integrity are generally easier to maintain, as they are
less susceptible to damage, erosion, and fractures, requiring less frequent maintenance.
Additionally, sedimentation and debris clogging should be continuously monitored and cleared
from the dam and reservoir. Poor maintenance can lower the height of the dam's crest and
obstruct spillways, leading to overtopping that compromises the dam's structural integrity,
ultimately resulting in greater maintenance and more cost-extensive effort for the dam
infrastructure.

2. Cost Estimates

Larger dams and reservoirs with more complex infrastructure will naturally cost more to
construct. In contrast, a small dam with a maximum volume of 300 m³ will be significantly less
expensive. Various factors, including topography, geographical location, and terrain, will
influence the overall project costs. Importantly, soil conditions at the site can also impact costs
for example, if remediation is necessary, it will add to the construction expenses.

Regarding construction methods and materials, reinforced concrete is more expensive than
rockfill, which in turn is more costly compared to earthfill. In our case, both dams are designed
to be made from the most expensive construction material.

Moreover, land clearance and compaction take up a significant portion of the budget. Detailed
engineering studies, design work, and project management further contribute to the overall
costs. Finally, it is essential to consider the long-term operation and maintenance costs of the
dam and reservoir infrastructure when estimating total expenses.

3. Overtopping of a dam

Overtopping of a dam occurs when water levels exceed the designed crest of the dam, resulting
in uncontrolled overflow over the dam instead of being safely discharged through a spillway.
This situation can arise when the capacity of the spillway is too small to handle the rate of
water entering the reservoir or when excessive inflows occur. Additionally, debris obstructing
the spillway can prevent proper water flow thus, promoting overtopping.
Moreover, the settlement of the dam or soil erosion surrounding it can lower the height of the
crest, increasing the risk of overtopping. If overtopping does occur, it can lead to the erosion
of the dam's embankment, ultimately causing the entire dam structure to collapse. This failure
can result in catastrophic floods, destruction of wildlife habitats, damage to infrastructure, and
long-term environmental harm.

The process of failure typically occurs in stages where at first water overtops the dam, then
erosion weakens the structure, and finally the dam fails completely. To prevent overtopping, it
is essential to design a spillway that can accommodate the maximum expected flow, along with
implementing proper drainage control measures.

4. Spillway Design

A spillway is a critical safety feature of a dam, designed to safely control and release excess
water that accumulates during periods of heavy rainfall and flooding. By managing this
overflow, a spillway prevents the dam from overtopping and reduces the risk of structural
failure.

To effectively handle maximum flood conditions, a spillway must be designed to accommodate

the highest expected water levels, preventing water from rising above the dam's crest. An
undersized spillway can lead to overtopping, which may result in dam failure. The materials
used to construct the spillway should be resistant to erosion, corrosion, and uplift pressure to
endure extreme water flows. Spillways should be designed to gradually dissipate the
gravitational potential energy of the water to minimize soil erosion around the dam. This can
be achieved by using stepped structures or spillways with buttresses.

Additionally, spillways should be strategically positioned to reduce erosion at the dam's base
and downstream areas. Energy dissipation structures, such as stilling basins, baffle blocks, or
plunge pools, are implemented to lower water velocity, further protecting the dam and its
surroundings.

5. Flood and Drainage Control

Flood and drainage control is a crucial aspect of dam design, ensuring the ability of a dam to
manage excess water efficiently while minimizing potential risks to the structure and
surrounding areas. Without proper flood and drainage management, a dam may face issues
such as overtopping, structural instability, and environmental damage. A dam must be designed
to handle extreme flood events. The reservoirs should act as buffers, temporarily storing excess
water and gradually releasing it to prevent downstream flooding. This excess water can be
released through spillways and sluice gates, ensuring that water outflows remain within safe
limits.

Flood control systems, such as emergency spillways and gate releases, help prevent
overtopping, which can lead to embankment erosion or dam failure. Proper drainage systems
within the dam body, such as drainage galleries, relief wells, and filters are essential for
reducing internal erosion and preventing piping failure. Efficient drainage is vital for
controlling seepage and hydrostatic pressure within the dam and its foundation.

Drainage measures, including toe drains, filter layers, and seepage collection systems, help
prevent internal erosion and maintain the dam's integrity over time.

6. Depth of the Cut-Off wall

The main function of a cut-off wall is to reduce water seepage through the foundation of a dam.
If the cut-off wall is too shallow, water can flow underneath it, leading to piping (internal
erosion of the dam's foundation) and excessive seepage, which can weaken the dam's base. The
depth of the wall must be sufficient to reach an impermeable layer or close to it. Seepage under
the dam generates uplift pressure that can destabilize the structure. A deeper cut-off wall helps
to dissipate this pressure, thereby preventing structural failure due to sliding. While deeper cut-
off walls provide better seepage control, they are also more expensive due to the increased
excavation, materials, and construction time required.

7. Width of the base and the crest

The width of the base and the height of the crest are crucial factors when constructing a dam.
A dam with a wider base ensures greater structural stability, better load distribution, and
enhanced resistance to uplift forces. The base should be wide enough to create a favorable ratio
between the effective weight of the dam and the upward forces acting on it due to seepage. A
wider base helps prevent failures related to sliding and overturning and also controls seepage
by evenly distributing the uplift pressure across all pressure points on the base.

The width and height of the crest also significantly impact the dam's structural integrity,
accessibility, and flood control. A narrow crest can be more vulnerable to erosion and cracking,
whereas a wider crest provides stability, allows for vehicle access for maintenance, and aids in
managing overflow during extreme floods, as well as controlling overtopping.

Properly designed base and crest widths are essential for ensuring the longevity, safety, and
resilience of a dam against extreme conditions.

IX. Comparing the Two Design Concepts and Selecting the Better
Design

Table 7. A Weightage Mark Matrix Comparing and Analysing the Two Design Concepts

Consideration DC1 DC2 Discussion

DC2 exhibits greater structural stability compared to DC1 due to

the even distribution of uplift pressure at its base. Additionally, the
uplift force acting on DC2 is lower than that on DC1, which
Stability of the contributes to its enhanced stability. The effective weight of the
7 9
structure dam (essentially the force countering the uplift force) is greater in
DC2, thereby reducing the risk of sliding failure. Moreover, the
safety factor against uplift for DC2 exceeds 2.5, while DC1 has a
safety factor of less than 2.

The DC2 design concept is easier to maintain than the DC1 due to
its lower uplift force at the dam's base. This reduced force
minimizes structural stress and prevents cracks and foundation
displacement, leading to fewer maintenance activities over time.
Maintenance 6 8 With less erosion of the foundation, the need for sealing and
grouting is decreased, ultimately lowering maintenance
requirements. As a result, the DC2 design contributes to greater
overall stability and durability, making its maintenance simpler and
more sustainable compared to DC1.

Piling in DC2 is generally more expensive compared to excavating a

site in DC1, especially when the required pile depth is less than 3
meters. For smaller dam structures, excavation is often cheaper.
Additionally, piling involves the use of more costly materials, such
as steel and concrete piles, which drive up material costs.
Cost 9 7 Furthermore, the structure of DC2 requires a greater amount of
cement to produce the necessary concrete, further increasing
expenses. Although the more complex structure of DC1 requires
extra reinforced steel, which contributes to its costs, overall, it is
still more expensive to construct DC2 than DC1, despite DC2's
more straightforward design.
 DC2 is a simpler and more feasible structure to construct
Construction compared to DC1. Unlike the complex geometry of DC1, DC2 has a
Feasibility and straightforward design and uses fewer materials, such as
5 8
Structural reinforced steel. The key-like design of DC1 is structurally complex
Incomplexity and often requires additional materials, including extra concrete,
steel reinforcements, and more construction equipment.

The design of a spillway is more compatible with the DC2 design

concept because spillways should gradually dissipate the
gravitational potential energy of water. This gradual process helps
Spillway design 7 8
minimize soil erosion around the dam. In contrast, the DC1 design
concept involves a rapid free fall of water, which can increase the
risk of erosion.

The stability of DC2 is lower than that of DC1 because it depends

Stability of a entirely on the sheet pile for support. If the sheet pile experiences
complex corrosion or any damage, the seepage rate will increase, leading to
9 6
foundation vs bending and potential failure of the entire structure. DC1 has a
sheet pile stronger and more complex foundation that is less prone to
foundation failure.
DC2 is more prone to overtopping due to its steeper, slope-like
downstream face and shorter, less robust structure. In contrast,
Overtopping 8 6
the DC1 dam is wider and bulkier, with its upstream side designed
to hold back more water effectively.
If the dam requires greater water storage, then DC1 is the better
design concept because it can store a higher volume of water,
Water Storage 8 7
specifically a water storage capacity of 252m³ more than the DC2
design concept.
Land Area DC2 dedicates a lesser area to water storage compared to DC1.
occupied by 7 8 The land area allocated for water storage in DC1 is 60 m² larger
water than in DC2.
The pumping capacity needed for DC2 is greater than that of DC1,
Pumping
8 7 leading to increased energy consumption by the pumps connected
capacity
to DC2 in comparison to DC1.

The risk of failure for the DC2 dam is somewhat similar to that of
the DC1 dam. DC2 is susceptible to collapse due to sheet pile
corrosion, as it relies entirely on these sheet piles for support.
Additionally, DC2 is more prone to overtopping and has a higher
seepage rate, which could potentially lead to sliding and cracking
Lower Risk of at the dam's base, ultimately reducing its structural stability.
6 8
Failure However, DC2 has advantages that enhance its overall stability
more than DC1. It experiences lower and more evenly distributed
uplift pressure compared to DC1, and it also has a higher safety
factor against uplift. In contrast, DC1 has a lower safety factor and
a greater uplift force, which can cause cracks to develop over time.
Given these factors, I conclude that DC2 has a lower risk of failure.
 DC1 stores 252 m³ more water than DC2, increasing the potential
severity of its failure. The uneven uplift pressure on DC1 elevates
the risks of sliding, seepage, and collapse. Its steep downstream
Less Impact of face contributes to high-energy water impacts, leading to soil
flooding on the 7 9 erosion and structural instability. In contrast, DC2 has a lower
environment storage capacity and a more favorable distribution of uplift
pressure, enhancing its overall stability. Its sloped downstream
face efficiently dissipates water energy, reducing erosion risks and
minimizing the environmental impacts of flooding.

Although emissions from cement production are higher for DC2,

emissions from heavy machinery operation, material
Carbon transportation, decomposition of submerged organic matter, and
5 8
footprint maintenance are greater for DC1, thereby increasing its carbon
footprint.

DC2 has lower evaporation rates but higher seepage compared to

DC1. As a result, the overall annual freshwater loss in DC2 is
Water loss rate 8 6 greater because the increased seepage exceeds the reduced
evaporation by more than four times. DC2 experiences a higher
total water loss compared to DC1.

The impact on biodiversity from both dams is minimal due to the

Impact on
8 9 chosen location being a brownfield. However, since DC2 occupies a
biodiversity
smaller land area, its impact on biodiversity is even less.

Impact due to
DC2's lower water storage capacity compared to DC1 leads to less
Sedimentation
7 8 sediment retention, which minimizes its impact on surrounding
and debris
areas and species.
clogging

The DC2 design concept effectively dissipates more energy before

the water reaches the ground. Its sloped downstream face allows
water to flow along the surface instead of free-falling. This design
Soil Erosion 5 8 reduces soil erosion because the impact force of the water hitting
the surrounding soil is lower. In contrast, the DC1 design features a
vertical downstream face, which causes water to strike the soil
with high velocity and force, leading to rapid soil erosion.

Total out 170 120 130

After careful comparison and reasoning with proper justifications, I have determined that
Design Concept 2 (DC2) is the superior design to adopt for completing the project.
X. Improving the Preferred Design

After careful consideration and thorough research, I have concluded that Design Concept 2
(DC2) is the superior option and should be adopted for further development. However, there
are certain improvements that can be made to enhance the structural integrity of the dam and
address factors such as seepage rate.

1. The DC2 design concept is prone to overtopping

To minimize the overtopping of the dam, the height of the dam's crest could be increased,
followed by the introduction of a stepped spillway structure. A stepped spillway is designed
with steps along its chute, which helps dissipate the kinetic energy of descending water. This
design reduces the need for a large energy dissipator downstream. Additionally, the stepped
spillway would minimize soil erosion in the surrounding area and improve the stability of the
dam's structure while addressing any settlement issues.

Furthermore, increasing the width of the crest would result in a bulkier and more robust
structure, which would be more effective for efficiently controlling the water level on the
upstream side of the dam.

Figure 11. Demonstration of a stepped spillway.

2. Decrease the Seepage Rate

The seepage rate of the DC2 design concept is higher than that of the DC1 design concept. This
issue can be easily addressed by increasing the depth of the cut-off wall, or in this case, by
deepening the sheet pile. Additionally, widening the base will further enhance stability.
Increasing the depth of the sheet pile reduces the seepage rate by extending the flow path of
groundwater, making it more difficult for water to flow beneath the dam. A deeper sheet pile
reaches less permeable soil or bedrock, effectively blocking or slowing down water movement.
This approach minimizes seepage pressure and reduces the risk of piping or internal erosion.
By forcing water to navigate a longer and more resistant path, a deeper sheet pile improves
seepage control, dam stability, and overall structural integrity.

Additionally, we could implement soil remediation at the brownfield site proposed for
construction. Conducting a soil remediation treatment would remove any potential
contaminants present at the site and ensure the quality and safety of the water stored in the
reservoir. Moreover, soil remediation will improve the quality of the land, making the soil more
stable. This, in turn, will lead to a more stable dam and reduce the likelihood of settlement of
the dam.
 3. References

6 Surprising Sources of Methane. (n.d.). Treehugger. Retrieved 26 March 2025, from

https://www.treehugger.com/surprising-sources-of-methane-4863585

(19) What are the consequences of the dam break? | LinkedIn. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 March 2025,

from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-consequences-dam-break-dr-jarmil-vycital/

APLANET. (2022, October 27). What is the Environmental Footprint and how is it measured?

APLANET. https://aplanet.org/resources/what-is-the-environmental-footprint-and-how-is-it-

measured/

Aqua-Barrier. (2023, January 24). Dam Construction, Maintenance and Repair.

https://aquabarrier.com/blog/dams/dam-construction-maintenance-and-repair/

Chapter 4—Determination of ETo. (n.d.). Retrieved 26 March 2025, from

https://www.fao.org/4/X0490E/x0490e08.htm#pan%20coefficient%20(kp)

Dam | Consequences of Dam Failure. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 March 2025, from https://www.sms-

tsunami-warning.com/pages/consequences_of_dam_failure

Dam Failure | UNDRR. (2023, June 7). https://www.undrr.org/understanding-disaster-

risk/terminology/hips/tl0009

Dam Failures and Incidents | Association of State Dam Safety. (n.d.). Retrieved 26 March 2025,

from https://damsafety.org/dam-failures

Dong, K., Li, Z., Lu, X., Chen, C., Sheng, J., Chen, J., & Wu, Z. (2021). Analysis of Dam

Overtopping Failure Risks Caused by Landslide-Induced Surges Considering Spatial

Variability of Material Parameters. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9.

https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.675900

Environmental footprint calculators | Better Evaluation. (2024, January 3).

https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/methods/environmental-footprint-

calculators
Evaporation Rate Calculator. (2024, July 30). Omni Calculator.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/evaporation-rate

FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. (n.d.).

Full article: The effect of gabion steps on the hydraulic jump characteristics downstream of

stepped spillways. (n.d.). Retrieved 27 March 2025, from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23570008.2024.2307243

Hepler, T., Fiedler, B., Vermeyen, T., Dewey, B., & Wahl, T. (2012). OVERTOPPING

PROTECTION FOR DAMS – A TECHNICAL MANUAL OVERVIEW.

Hogeboom, R. J., Knook, L., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2018). The blue water footprint of the world’s

artificial reservoirs for hydroelectricity, irrigation, residential and industrial water supply,

flood protection, fishing and recreation. Advances in Water Resources, 113, 285–294.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2018.01.028

How much CO2 is produced from the burning of cement replacement waste material to convert it

into ash? (n.d.). ResearchGate. Retrieved 26 March 2025, from

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_much_CO2_is_produced_from_the_burning_of_cem

ent_replacement_waste_material_to_convert_it_into_ash

Knook, L. (n.d.). THE WATER FOOTPRINT RELATED TO RESERVOIR OPERATION ON A

GLOBAL SCALE.

Kohli, A., Frenken, K., & Programme, A. (n.d.). Evaporation from artificial lakes and reservoirs.

Kostecki, S., & Banasiak, R. (2020). The catastrophe of the Niedów dam – the dam break

causes,development and consequences. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2020-372

(PDF) Dam Safety and Οvertopping. (n.d.). ResearchGate. Retrieved 27 March 2025, from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342304956_Dam_Safety_and_Overtopping

(PDF) On the Cementitious Mixtures Reinforced with Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate. (2024).

ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17215351
Petheram, C., & McMahon, T. A. (2019). Dams, dam costs and damnable cost overruns. Journal

of Hydrology X, 3, 100026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydroa.2019.100026

Purhamadani, E., & Bagherpour, R. (2024). The role of different explosives in reducing energy

and emissions in mining comminution for sustainable improvement. Energy, 310, 133233.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133233

Stepped spillway design for energy dissipation | Water Supply | IWA Publishing. (n.d.). Retrieved

27 March 2025, from https://iwaponline.com/ws/article/23/2/749/93163/Stepped-spillway-

design-for-energy-dissipation

Tian, W., Liu, X., Wang, K., Bai, P., Liu, C., & Liang, X. (2022). Estimation of global reservoir

evaporation losses. Journal of Hydrology, 607, 127524.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127524

What Equipment is Used for Piling? (2024, February 19). Tebco Augers.

https://www.tebco.com.au/what-equipment-is-used-for-piling/

What is an ecological footprint and how is it calculated? (n.d.). REPSOL. Retrieved 24 March

2025, from https://www.repsol.com/en/energy-and-the-future/future-of-the-world/ecological-

footprint/index.cshtml