The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

THE AUGMENTATION OF SPILLWAY CAPACITY AND STORAGE CAPACITY OF CANDOWIE DAM

Mike Taylor1 and Doug Halloran2

ABSTRACT:
Candowie Dam is a 15m high embankment dam with a storage capacity of 2182 ML. It is the primary source of water for the Westernport Region Water Authority which includes Phillip Island and the town of Cowes southeast of Melbourne. The existing spillway, comprising a 21m long concrete ogee profile crest discharging into a concrete chute which converges to a width of 7m, has a capacity to only accommodate the 1 in 6 000 annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood, well short of the required capacity of the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood. In addition, Westernport Water would like to increase the yield of Candowie Dam as far as economically possible, within the scope of the spillway works. A solution has been developed whereby the spillway capacity could be increased to accommodate the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood and at the same time the full supply level could be raised by 900mm resulting in an increase in storage of 573 ML and an increase in yield of 580 ML per year. The solution comprises the following: 1) Lowering the existing spillway crest by 850 mm 2) The installation of 1.75m high precast concrete Hydroplus fusegates on the lowered crest. The fusegates are designed to tip off incrementally with the initial tip off occurring when the flood exceeds the 1 in 200 AEP flood. The tip offs are actuated purely by hydrostatic pressure developed by the rising flood level and programmed so that at no stage does the outflow flood peak exceed the inflow flood peak. Westernport Water can accommodate the risk (0.5% per year) of the occasional loss of the existing top 850mm of storage resulting from a tip-off. The total cost of the augmentation is estimated to be in the order of $ 700 000.

KEYWORDS
Spillway, Capacity, Augmentation, Reservoir, Yield, Hydroplus. raised to 60.48m AHD and the spillway south wall to 61.3m AHD. A general arrangement drawing of the existing spillway has been compiled from available information and is presented in Figure 1. It appears as if the raising was based on a maximum flood level of 60.36m AHD with a return period of approximately 1 in 1 000 years based on Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 1977. (1, 2). In 1981 a further 1.5m raising of the FSL to 60.07m AHD using spillway control equipment was investigated by John Scroggie (1, 2). The investigation included a stability review of the embankment.

1. INTRODUCTION
Candowie Dam which is the primary source of water for Westernport Water, is located east of Phillip Island on Tennent Creek, 2km south of Almurta. The dam was originally constructed in 1964 with a full supply level (FSL) of 56.89m AHD and a capacity of 1130 ML. In 1978 the spillway crest was raised by 1.68m to 58.57m, increasing the capacity to 1737 ML. At the same time the embankment crest parapet wall was raised by 1.7m to the current level of 61.3 m AHD, and the spillway north wall was

1. Principal Dams Engineer, GHD Melbourne, BSc, BSc (Eng) (Hons), GDE, MSAICE. 2. Project Engineer, Westernport Water, BE (Hons).

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Page 1

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

FIGURE 1: Existing Spillway Arrangement

Page 2

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

FIGURE 2: Existing Embankment and Spillway Showing Crest Parapet Wall and Spillway North Wall The investigation concluded that the embankment could accommodate an increase in FSL of 1.5m. In particular the investigation found that: 1) the factor of safety of the downstream slope was 2.5 (well in excess of the accepted value of 1.5); the chimney drain effectively; and was functioning around the water stop. The joints were subsequently sealed on the upstream face. In 1989 an investigation into options for spillway gates was conducted in order to increase storage capacity (4). The report recommended the installation of mechanical gates to increase the storage level to 60.27m AHD, increasing storage volume to 3040 ML. The report gave a 1 in 10 000 annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood level of 60.69 m AHD, with a peak outflow of 81m3/s. The report confirmed that the raising would have negligible adverse impact on the stability of the embankment but made no mention of the impact on the stability of the crest parapet wall. In the early nineties, 400mm high dropboards were installed on the spillway crest to increase storage capacity. The dropboards were meant to collapse when the height of water over them exceeded 100mm. However during the flood of 1996 the depth over the top of the dropboards exceeded 500mm without collapse. The dropboards were subsequently removed. A spillway adequacy review and dam break analysis of Candowie Reservoir (5) concluded that the dam was a High Hazard dam in accordance with ANCOLD Guidelines on Design Floods for Dams (6). The report adopted a Recommended Design Flood (RDF) of 1 in 40 000 AEP based on an assessment of risk in accordance with the ANCOLD Guidelines on Risk Management. The dams spillway was estimated as being only able to pass a 1 in 6 000 AEP flood event.

2) 3)

the parapet wall foundation was practically impermeable and seepage problems were not expected to result from extended periods of inundation due to the increase in FSL.

No gates were installed, but in 1982 the spillway crest was raised a further 800mm to its present level of 59.37m AHD. This reduced the spillway flood capacity significantly. In 1987 seepage water was reported from two of the construction joints in the embankment parapet wall. A photograph of the embankment and spillway crest showing the crest parapet wall and spillway north wall is shown in Figure 2. An investigation was conducted by John Scroggie in association with Golder Associates (3). The investigation found that the seepage was confined to the joint between the original parapet wall (1964) and the raised parapet wall (1978). Coring showed no seepage beneath the original wall. The seepage was due to either a damaged water stop or uncompacted concrete

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Page 3

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam Following further discussion and review, Westernport Water commissioned GHD in May 2000 to investigate the spillway remedial works required to bring the dam to an adequate standard and to maximise the storage volume at the Candowie Reservoir as far as economically possible, within the scope of the spillway works. The results of this investigation were presented in September 2000 (7) and form the basis of this paper. The estimated 1 in 40 000 year AEP flood levels in the chute are shown in Figure 1. The minimum freeboard in the chute is about 400mm and occurs at chainage 75m. The existing spillway design has attempted to minimise the effect of the standing waves by: 1) 2) incorporating symmetry; and gradual convergence of the chute.

2. HYDROLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 Flood Hydrology The inflow hydrographs for Candowie Dam were revised to take into account the 1999 revision to Australian Rainfall and Runoff (8). The revised inflow hydrographs for the 1 in 200 and 1 in 40 000 AEP floods with peak discharges of 33 and 131m3/s respectively are shown in Figure 7. 2.2 Reservoir Yield The estimated mean annual flow (MAF) of Tennent Creek has been estimated by SKM (9) at approximately 5900 ML. The present storage capacity of 2182 ML represents less than 50% of the mean annual flow. Based on yield data provided in the SKM report, a 900mm increase in FSL (corresponding to a storage increase of 573 ML) could provide an increase in yield of about 580 ML per annum, from 2530 to 3110 ML per annum (53% of MAF).

The magnitude of the effect of the standing waves on the hydraulic performance and available freeboard can, however, only be confidently estimated by means of a physical hydraulic model study. Notwithstanding this, any overtopping of the chute which occurs downstream of chainage 40m is highly unlikely to result in erosion and breaching of the embankment. Upstream of chainage 40m it is not expected that the height of standing waves will exceed the available freeboard (1.2m at chainage 37.5m). Based on the above analysis, the spillway chute was assessed to be adequate for the proposed augmentation.

4. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY EVALUATION

4.1 Embankment The embankment is considered to be well engineered with a dense clay core, rocky/gravelly shell zones and an effective vertical chimney drain confirmed by exploratory drilling (10). In addition the embankment slopes are generous: Downstream Slope: 2.5H to 1.0V above a 4.5m wide berm. 3.0H to 1.0V below the berm Upstream Slope: 3.0H to 1.0V above a 3m wide berm. 4.5H to 1.0V below the berm. From a critical appraisal of the Golder (10) and GHD stability analyses, the embankment is considered to be well within accepted stability criteria for a FSL up to 60.27m AHD and a flood level of up to 61.1m AHD. 4.2 Embankment Crest Parapet Wall The parapet wall is shown in Figure 2.

3. HYDRAULICS OF SPILLWAY CHUTE

A one dimensional hydraulic model (HECRAS) was used to estimate flow depths in the spillway chute for the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood (peak discharge of 131m3/s). The analysis was based on the following assumptions: 1) The full flood is discharged over the existing 21m long ogee crest (no overtopping of the embankment parapet wall, spillway north wall and south wall (Figures Nos 1 & 2). A Manning roughness co-efficient of 0.013 for the chute floor and walls; and The standing waves generated as a result of converging super-critical flow were not modelled.

2) 3)

Page 4

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam Previous investigations (3 and 10) revealed that the footing of the parapet wall was founded on stiff to hard sandy, gravelly clay which is practically impermeable and that there was no water present at the underside of the footing despite a high reservoir level. The chimney drain on the downstream side of the parapet wall cut-off key was found to be effective in drawing the phreatic surface down to below the wall base. Nevertheless full hydrostatic uplift on the underside of the base upstream of the cut-off key was allowed in the analysis. The stability of the parapet wall was analysed under a raised FSL of 60.27m AHD and was found to meet acceptable (greater than 1.5) factors of safety against sliding, overturning and bending failure. The wall is therefore considered to be able to safely accommodate a FSL of 60.27m AHD, given that the assumptions above continue to hold true. This confirmed the findings of the Golder investigation (10). The wall was then analysed under an extreme flood level of 61.3m AHD (top of parapet wall). It was found that the wall could fail by sliding. The maximum flood level which can be accommodated is considered to be 61.1m AHD. As the stability and safety of the parapet wall depends on the actual water pressure beneath the base of the parapet wall, it has been recommended that piezometers be installed along the crest to enable piezometric pressures under the base of the parapet wall to be monitored. It is also essential that the watertight integrity of the vertical joints in the parapet wall, as well as the horizontal joint between the existing wall and the original wall, be maintained. Monitoring and maintenance of these joints is required and should form part of the routine operation and maintenance of the dam It was further recommended that if the FSL is increased, an auxiliary mini spillway, fitted with adjustable stop-logs, be installed (as shown in Figure 4). This will enable the FSL to be increased in a step-wise manner in conjunction with the monitoring of piezometric pressure beneath the parapet wall base. In this way the raising of the FSL could be achieved in a controlled way and in the unlikely event of unacceptable pressures developing beneath the parapet wall base, the FSL could be lowered immediately by removing the stop-logs. This is considered to be a cost effective way of maximising the potential storage level in the reservoir. 4.3 Spillway North Wall The spillway north wall (Figures Nos 1 and 2) was analysed to establish whether the wall could be raised to prevent overtopping for flood levels in excess of 60.48m AHD as overtopping of the wall could result in unsatisfactory flow conditions in the spillway chute. The analysis showed that the original section of the wall (below the 1978 raising) would possibly fail for flood levels in excess of 60.27m AHD (the proposed maximum FSL). A peak flood level of 60.27m AHD was recorded in 1996 indicating the wall could have been on the point of incipient failure. The reason for the limited capacity is the low reinforcement content provided in the original wall. With full hydrostatic pressure behind the original portion of the wall, a bending failure is possible for water levels above the current FSL. The wall will need to be strengthened to address the current unsatisfactory condition and at the same time, provide for raising the wall to the current parapet wall level.

5. CONSTRAINTS
The constraints on increasing storage capacity by raising the FSL while at the same time increasing spillway capacity are: 1) the maximum FSL is limited by the stability of the parapet wall to 60.27m AHD; the maximum flood level should not exceed 61.1m AHD; an increase in the FSL above 60.27m AHD or an increase in the maximum flood level above 61.1m AHD will require the parapet wall to be strengthened and stabilised against sliding by the construction of a stabilising berm on the downstream slope of the embankment;

2) 3)

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Page 5

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam 4) the spillway crest should not be lengthened on one side only as this will result in asymmetry and unacceptable flow conditions (large standing waves) in the spillway chute resulting in a reduced chute capacity before overtopping of the chute walls occurs. Lengthening of the spillway crest on the right hand side would entail virtual emptying of the dam and reconstruction of the spillway north wall and the left hand end of the embankment (Figures 1 and 2); the location of the washwater tank for the water treatment works within 11m of the left hand spillway training wall (Figure 3) limits the extent to which the spillway can be widened on the left hand side, without relocating the tank and associated pipework; and any change to the geometry of the spillway chute will require flow conditions to be determined by means of a physical hydraulic model study. In the case of the Candowie Dam application, precast concrete labyrinth crested fusegates with remote stainless steel wells located in a separate structure behind the left hand training wall, are proposed. The wells are connected to the fusegate base chambers by means of pipes cast into the base slab on the lowered spillway crest. The use of remote wells, rather than wells fixed to the fusegates, will obviate the wells obstructing the passage of the gates under the spillway bridge following tip off. The existing ogee crest is required to be lowered by 0.85m to 58.52m AHD to accommodate the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood. The selection of 1.75m high fusegates ensures that the flood can be accommodated while achieving a 900mm raising of the FSL. The first fusegate will only tip off for a flood in excess of the 1 in 200 AEP flood. As the flood level continues to rise, more fusegates will tip until all have tipped to release the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood. The proposed fusegates would be similar to those at Mas Chaban dam in France (Figure 6) but with remote wells situated to the left of the spillway entrance. A major advantage of this option is that there would be minimal interference with the operation of Candowie Dam during construction. The dam is the primary source of water for Westernport Water and has to meet a highly seasonal demand, peaking between Boxing day and early January, making it essential for the dam to be as full as possible at the start of the Christmas holidays. With the proposed arrangement, the existing crest could be lowered during the period of reservoir draw-down (February to March), and the fusegates installed by May/June in time to store the winter runoff (mainly June to August). Further advantages are the low maintenance requirements and robustness of the system and the minimal extent of construction related disturbance to the site and adjacent environment, especially with the use of precast concrete units. The inflow and outflow hydrographs for the 1 in 200 AEP and the 1 in 40 000 AEP floods are presented in Figure 7. It can be seen that in spite of the tipping off of the fusegates, at no stage does the outflow flood peak exceed the inflow peak and flooding is therefore not exacerbated downstream.

5)

6)

FIGURE 3: Existing Spillway Showing Proximity of Washwater Tank

6. OPTIONS FOR INCREASING STORAGE AND SPILLWAY CAPACITY

6.1 An Application of the Hydroplus System This is a worldwide patented system with a proven track-record which has to date been installed on 36 dams in 12 countries around the world and is considered to be ideally suited to application at Candowie Dam. The system was presented at the ANCOLD 2000 Conference on Dams in Cairns (11). The proposed general arrangement is shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Page 6

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

FIGURE 4: General Arrangement of Hydroplus Fusegates

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Page 7

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

FIGURE 5: Details of Hydroplus Fusegates

Page 8

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

FIGURE 6: Precast Concrete Labyrinth Hydroplus Fusegates at Mas Chaban dam in France Similar to Those Proposed for Candowie Dam It is recognised that the tipping off of one or more fusegates for a flood in excess of the 1 in 200 year event will result in a temporary loss of storage and lowering of the FSL to 58.52m AHD until the fusegate(s) are replaced or temporary stop-logs installed. The estimated total cost of this option is $700 000 (excluding GST). This cost includes an allowance for the raising and strengthening of the spillway north wall. The cost equates to a little over $1200/ML of additional water stored. With an expected increase in yield of about 580 ML/year and amortising the capital cost at 5% over 20 years at $56 000/year, the unit cost equates to under $100/ML which is cost effective. The capital cost allows for stainless steel wells and associated metalwork. Savings could be achieved by the use of galvanised mild steel but this is not recommended due to the long term maintenance obligations. The rubber seals, installed between units and along the upstream edge of the base chambers, have a life expectancy of 10 to 20 years depending on the extent of UV exposure which in turn depends largely on fluctuating water levels in the reservoir. The cost of replacement seals is not expected to exceed $10 000.

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Page 9

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

1 in 200 Year AEP

45 40 35 30
Inflow Outflow Reservoir level

60.8

No. of Fusegates : 8 Height : 1.75 m Width : 2.63 m

60.7

Reservoir Level
60.5

25 20

Inflow
15 60.4

Outflow
10 5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Max inflow: 39 m/s Max outflow: 33 m/s Max water level: 60.77 m

60.3

60.2

Time (hours)

1 in 40 000 Year AEP

200 180 160 No. of Fusegates : 8 Height : 1.75 m Width : 2.63 m Reservoir Level Outflow
Inflow Inflow

61.4 61.2 61

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 Time (hours) 10 Max inflow: 173 m/s Max outflow: 163 m/s Max water level: 61.11 m

60.6 60.4 60.2 60 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.2

12

14

16

FIGURE 7: Flood Routing Analysis at Candowie Dam for Spillway Equipped with Hydroplus Fusegates for Raised FSL of 60.27m AHD 6.2 Other Options Considered Other options considered include: Raising the embankment, spillway crest and parapet wall This option, which involves a downstream raising of the embankment, is estimated to cost in excess of $1 million for a 900mm raising of Page 10 the FSL and could be considered further if a larger raising than 900mm could be justified at this stage. Lengthening of the spillway crest A 10m lengthening of the spillway crest is required to accommodate the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood with the current FSL, and a 25m

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Reservoir level (m)

Discharge (m/s)

140

60.8

Reservoir level (m)

60.6

Discharge (m/s)

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam lengthening is required for a 400mm increase in FSL. Relocation of the Washwater tank and widening of the entire chute will be required if any increase in FSL is to be achieved. The estimated cost of this option is in excess of $1 million. Installation of mechanical gates. This option was considered in some detail in a previous study (4). Mechanical gates suffer the disadvantages of fallibility to human error and high maintenance costs. They also require back-up facilities, such as standby generators for electrically operated gates, and/or built-in redundancy to allow for nonoperation of one or more gates, which add further to the cost. The construction of a remote auxiliary spillway on a natural saddle upstream in the dam basin. Without a fuse plug arrangement, and limiting its operation to floods in excess of the 1 in 200 AEP event, such a spillway would need to be 33m wide with no increase in FSL. No significant increase in FSL is therefore considered feasible with this option. In addition, there are legal, environmental and social issues relating to the transfer of a flood into another watercourse, as well as land acquisition costs. For a raising of up to 900 mm in FSL the Hydroplus option was found to be the most cost effective, given that the temporary loss of storage due to tipping off of one or more gates is acceptable to Westernport Water. spillway constructed to permit a gradual stepwise increase in the FSL. Piezometers should also be installed along the crest to enable the piezometric pressures beneath the parapet wall base to be monitored. Construction should be timed for the period February to June to minimise interference with the operation of Candowie Dam. The total cost is estimated to be $700 000 excluding GST.

8. POSTSCRIPT
Subsequent to the investigation on which this paper is based, and a peer review undertaken by Geo-Eng Pty Ltd (12), a further study was undertaken by GHD based on the latest ANCOLD Guidelines on flood capacity (13) and a risk based approach applying the ALARP principal. The study resulted in a recommended spillway capacity to accommodate the 1 in 100 000 AEP flood. The configuration of the proposed solution presented in this paper will need to be adjusted to accommodate the revised flood. Initial estimates indicate that a lowering of the existing spillway crest by an additional 350 mm and the installation of seven 2.1 m high Hydroplus gates (instead of eight 1.75m high gates) will be required. Although the revised configuration is expected to cost an additional $100 000, the benefit/cost ratio is only marginally lower (reduced from 3.1 to 2.7) and the Cost to Save a Statistical Life (CSSL) only marginally up from $46.1 million to $46.7 million.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The Hydroplus fusegate system provides a cost effective means of upgrading the capacity of Candowie Dam Spillway and augmenting storage capacity. The application described in this paper will provide increased spillway capacity sufficient to safely accommodate the 1 in 40 000 AEP flood. At the same time an increase in FSL of up to 900 mm could be achieved using 1.75m high fusegates, resulting in an increase in storage of up to 573 ML. This is expected to provide for an increase in the yield of Candowie of up to 580 ML per annum. The spillway north wall should also be raised and strengthened and an auxiliary mini

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Board and officials of Westernport Water for permission to publish this paper and especially Alastair Munro, Manager Technical Services for his valuable contribution to the project, Bill Hakin and Hydroplus International for their valuable and enthusiastic contribution in developing the proposal, Geo-Eng Pty Ltd for their constructive contribution in their Peer Review of the investigation and GHD Pty Ltd for their support and encouragement in the preparation of this paper.

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams

Page 11

The Augmentation of Spillway Capacity and Storage Capacity of Candowie Dam

10 REFERENCES
1. Scroggie. September 1980. Preliminary Report on Spillway Control Equipment to Raise Candowie Reservoir. Report 113/4880 prepared for Westernport Waterworks Trust. 2. Scroggie. January 1981. Supplementary report to Report 113/4880. Report prepared for Westernport Waterworks Trust. 3. Scroggie. March 1988. Candowie Parapet Wall Seepage Investigation. Report No.10953 prepared for Westernport Water Board. 4. Scroggie. November 1989. Options For Gates Installation at Candowie Reservoir. Report No. WESW/11590 prepared for Westernport Water Board. 5. GHD. January 1997. Candowie Reservoir Preliminary Dam Safety and Spillway Capacity Review - Stage 2. Report prepared for Westernport Water Authority. 6. ANCOLD. 1986. Guidelines on Design Floods for Dams. 7. GHD Pty Ltd. September 2000. Final Report on Storage Capacity and Spillway Capacity Augmentation Investigation. Report prepared for Westernport Water. 8. Institution of Engineers, Australia. 1999. Australian Rainfall and Runoff, Book 6. Estimation of Large and Extreme Floods. 9. Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. July 2000. Security to the Westernport Water System. Final Report prepared for Westernport Water. 10. Golder Associates. April 1981. Detailed Stability Review of the Existing Candowie Reservoir Embankment for the Westernport Waterworks Trust. Report prepared for John Scroggie, Consulting Engineer. 11. Hakin, W.D. November 2000. The Hydroplus Spillway Control System. Paper presented at the ANCOLD Conference on Dams, Cairns. 12. Geo-Eng Pty Ltd. October 2000. Review and Assessment of Spillway Upgrade Options for Candowie Dam. Report No. 1831/50196/16 prepared for Westernport Water. 13. ANCOLD. March 2000. Guidelines on Selection of Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams.

Page 12

NZSOLD / ANCOLD 2001 Conference on Dams