Spillways

Overtopping spillways

make a comeback
Aerial view of the Yellow River Dam No. 14 located in Gwinnett
County which is a perfect example of downstream hazard creep
(as evidence by the subdivisions in the downstream valley).

Once shunned by the dam safety community, spillway overtopping dams are becoming more
commonplace as a means to address existing infrastructure rehabilitation. Greg W Huddock from
Golder Associates demonstrates how this has successfully provided additional hydraulic capacity in
the US state of Georgia.

am owners, engineers, and regulators

have struggled with the use of spillways
overtopping dam embankments during
recent decades. Typical dam safety practice is to
avoid spillways overtopping earthen
embankments because the structures cover the
surface of the embankment and can mask the
visual indications of dam safety issues such as
seepage, slope instability, internal erosion and
animal burrows.
The consequences of poor design for an
overtopping spillway chute can be disastrous,

36

since chute malfunction can cause failure of the

dam. Nevertheless, overtopping spillways can be
a very viable solution for existing dams where
additional hydraulic spillway capacity is needed,
and further area on the abutments is not available.
Spillway history in Georgia
The State of Georgia, located in the southeastern
US, has been actively utilising overtopping
spillways as a means to bring low hazard
structures in compliance with Georgias rules for
dam safety related to hazard creep.

INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

Hazard creep occurs when development

downstream in the dam breach inundation zone
of an existing low hazard dam structure results in
the dam becoming high hazard, because there is
now a high probability of loss of life. In Georgia,
low hazard dams are not regulated and do not
need to comply with a particular design storm,
but high hazard dams are regulated and the dam
safety rules require a specific fraction of the
probable maximum precipitation (PMP) as the
design storm. The specific fraction of the PMP
required is based on the size of the structure and

June 2013

Spillways

Completed RCC spillway overtopping the

dam embankment at the Potato Creek
Dam No. 6 project located near
Thomaston, Georgia.

varies from one-quarter PMP for small dams to the

full PMP for very large dams.
For dams in an urban environment,
overtopping spillways may be the only solution to
remedy deficient spillway hydraulic capacity due
to hazard creep. The Metropolitan Atlanta area
currently ranks 9th in population among US cities,
with an estimated population of 5.4M. In 1960,
Atlanta wasnt even ranked in the top 20 most
populous cities in the US. In the last 50 years,
Atlantas population has doubled two and a half
times, leading to a total growth of nearly 350%.
Rural areas that were once agricultural are
now sprawling with homes, roads, schools,
businesses, parks and other heavily used
developed areas. Dams that were built for
agricultural purposes or flood control are now
integral focal points of communities, providing
recreation, water supply, flood control, water
quality enhancement and biological habitat
benefits. There are literally thousands of dams
across Metropolitan Atlanta that are subject to
hazard creep and will require rehabilitation to
comply with the state rules, as the result of
insufficient spillway capacity.
In Georgia, the following tenets are considered
by dam engineers and owners which govern
spillway design projects:
Riparian water rights.
Floodplain ordinances disallowing additional
downstream discharge during the 100-year
storm.
Legal case law requiring dam owners to
maintain existing lake levels.
Limits on dam raises because of impinging
development around the lake.
Overtopping spillways are ideal because the
spillway solution is easily customised to address
downstream flow requirements.
Overtopping spillways are constructed of nonerodible materials and are predominately
reinforced concrete, roller-compacted concrete
(RCC), or articulated concrete blocks and mats. In
only a few instances would non-concrete materials
like riprap, gabions, or vegetated channels be used

June 2013

for an overtopping spillway. A spillway located on

the dam is often more cost-efficient than abutment
spillways since the dam location is a more direct
layout for discharge to the downstream and
utilises less construction materials. Depending on
the design layout, stakeholder concerns like
aesthetics and safety are even readily addressed.
For most dam types, overtopping spillways are
only recommended at existing dam sites where a
majority of the consolidation settlement of the soil
materials has occurred. Furthermore, the risk of
overtopping spillway use is minimised if the
structures are not service spillways. Rather, they
would be emergency spillways activated during
storm events with a low probability of occurrence,
such that the spillway and dam can be inspected
regularly for visual indications of dam safety
concerns.
A majority of the overtopping spillway projects
accomplished in Georgia were completed in the
last decade a Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) watershed structures. These are
flood control dams constructed mostly in north

Georgia from the 1950s to the 1990s, including in

and around Metropolitan Atlanta.
These NRCS dams were originally exempt
from the Georgia Rules for Dam Safety, but in
2000, the exemption expired. There are 357 NRCS
dams in Georgia and, in 1999, with the exemption
expiration looming, the NRCS Georgia, together
with the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, piloted a rehabilitation project for
two dams, Potato Creek Dam No. 6 and Pinelog
Tributary Dam No. 86.
RCC chute spillways were selected for both
structures as the most cost-effective solution to
provide the spillway capacity needed to route the
full probable maximum flood (PMF) through the
structure and still maintain the project flood
control benefits. Golder Associates designed the
RCC spillways for both of these structures that
consisted of the following:
Potato Creek Dam No. 6 100m wide stepped
RCC straight chute spillway with a reinforced
concrete ogee weir control section.
Pinelog Tributary Dam No. 86 152m wide
stepped RCC straight chute spillway with a
broadcrested weir control section.
Potato Creek Dam No. 6 was constructed in
2003 for approximately US$1.1M by DPS
Industries.
Pinelog Tributary Dam No. 86 was never
constructed due to a lack of funding.
Beginning in 2000, Gwinnett County, Georgia
funded a capital improvement project to upgrade
14 NRCS watershed dams to comply with the
Georgia Rules for Dam Safety. Similar to the
Potato Creek and Pinelog Tributary projects, the
Gwinnett structures were thoroughly studied to
determine the most cost-effective rehabilitation
solution to route runoff from the required design
storms.
Six of the Gwinnett County NRCS dams
warranted an overtopping spillway to provide the
additional spillway capacity needed:

Big Haynes Dam No. 3 hydraulic model study of a

preliminary design concept for a converging RCC
spillway. Note the spillway flows leaving the chute
training walls downstream of the ogee weir.

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM

37

Spillways

Placement of RCC at the Big Haynes Dam No. 3 RCC spillway located near Snellville, Georgia. The RCC steps are 0.3m high.
Yellow River Dam No. 14 (Y-14) Golder
Associates designed a 68.5m wide stepped
RCC spillway with an ogee weir that routes the
full PMF through the structure. Thalle
Construction Company completed construction
of Y-14 in 2004 for a cost of US$1.33M.
Yellow River Dam No. 17 (Y-17) The US Army
Corps of Engineers designed a 158.5m wide
stepped RCC spillway with an ogee weir that
routes the full PMF through the structure. ASI
RCC completed construction of Y-17 in 2005 for
a cost of US$1.5M.
Yellow River Dam No. 15 (Y-15) Golder
Associates designed a 146.3m wide stepped
RCC spillway with a short-crested weir that
routes the full PMF through the structure. ASI
RCC completed construction of Y-15 in 2008 for
a cost of US$4.3M.
Yellow River Dam No. 16 (Y-16) Schnabel
Engineering designed a 33.5m wide stepped

RCC spillway with a sharp-crested weir which

routes 50% of the PMF through the structure.
ASI RCC completed construction of Y-16 in
2008 for a cost of US$1.8M.
Big Haynes Dam No. 3 (H-3) Golder
Associates designed a 38m wide stepped RCC
spillway with a short-crested weir that routes
50% of the PMF through the structure. ASI
Constructors completed construction of H-3 in
2011 for a cost of US$1.7M.
How aesthetics and design come into play
Secondary to dam safety concerns, aesthetics has
been a major design constraint. Since these
structures are in a populous suburban area
surrounded by homes and green space, Gwinnett
County opted to cover the Y-17, Y-15, Y-16, and H3 structures with soil and grass. The combination
of the RCC design, which does not have vertical
training walls, and the covered spillway chutes
was strategic to successful stakeholder
negotiations for the projects.
Model studies completed by the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural
Research Service for the H-3 project, and the US
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for the Y-15 project,
Yellow River Dam No. 15 RCC spillway
located near Lawrenceville, Georgia
engaged during the September 21, 2009
flood event. The spillway overtopped by
0.84m and flowed for 36 hours.

38

INTERNATIONAL WATER POWER & DAM CONSTRUCTION

helped to establish design criteria for stepped

spillway projects that converge flows from a wide
spillway crest to a narrow stilling basin because of
topographic constraints.
In general, the H-3 model identified concerns
with typical RCC spillway design configurations,
but the Y-15 model proved that the spillway
geometry could be designed to mitigate these
issues. Design constraints that were identified to
be addressed as part of the design include these
flow patterns::
Flows converging in an RCC overtopping
spillway have a tendency to run out of the
chute at the training walls and erode the
interface of the RCC and soil embankment.
Flow bulking occurs along the converging
sidewalls but the formation of supercritical
waves was not observed.
If converging flows intersect downstream of
the stilling basin, significant scour may occur
in the stream bed.
Converging flows that intersect within the
spillway have a tendency to form high-velocity
jets that may cause scour in the stream bed
where the flow concentrations exit the stilling
basin.
Beginning with the Potato Creek Dam No. 6
through to the Big Haynes Dam No. 3 projects,
additional design features were added to each
RCC spillway. These were based on lessons
learned from the previous projects, ongoing
research on RCC spillway performance, and a

June 2013

Spillways

desire to improve the visual appearance of the

RCC finished product. As a result, the cost of RCC
increased from US$126/m3 at the Potato Creek
Project to US$188/m3 at the Y-15 project. Since
RCC is placed with earthfill moving equipment,
the construction methods used to build the
stepped spillway typically require approximately
three times as much RCC as reinforced concrete.
As the price increases, it becomes less
advantageous to use RCC in lieu of traditional
reinforced concrete. Beginning in 2010, the effects
of the US recession significantly reduced the price
of concrete construction. Spillway projects that
were planned to be RCC were re-evaluated and
designed as reinforced concrete chutes.
Building on the success of the NRCS and the
Gwinnett County dam rehabilitation projects,
Georgia began upgrading several NRCS watershed
dams in 2010. The state projects were facilitated
through funding by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, also known as
the stimulus bill). State revenue bonds were sold
to secure the 35% cost share that is required for
NRCS dam rehabilitation projects, and four NRCS
dams in Georgia were rehabilitated.
Two of these projects involved construction of
spillways overtopping the embankment. These
projects were planned as RCC chutes, but
because of the favorable reinforced concrete
costs, traditional reinforced concrete chutes were
selected for prices analogous to the RCC options.
Sandy Creek Dam No. 15 (SC-15) Golder
Associates designed a 55m wide reinforced
concrete spillway with a labyrinth weir that
routes the full PMF through the structure.
Brasfield and Gorrie General Contractors
completed construction of SC-15 in 2011 for a
cost of US$2.7M.
South River Dam No. 4 (SR-4) Schnabel
Engineering designed a 32m wide reinforced
concrete spillway with a labyrinth weir that
routes the full PMF through the structure.
Sunbelt Structures completed construction of
SR-4 in 2011 for a cost of US$1.9M.

Yellow River Dam No. 15 overtopping spillway after the 21 September

2009 flood event. The soil cover eroded in concentrated flow areas but
no damage to the RCC or embankment was noted.

When flooding hits

Metropolitan Atlanta experienced a significant
flood event on 21 September 2009, which was
caused by a stalled low pressure system pulling
moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. Many areas
across the region experienced 24-hour
precipitation amounts in excess of the 100-year
design storm. Areas to the west of Atlanta
experienced extreme rainfall amounts that were
approximately 50% of the Probable Maximum
Precipitation.
The Yellow River Watershed in Gwinnett County
received approximately 203mm of rainfall in a 24hour period and nearly 381mm of rainfall in a week.
The Y-14, -15, -16 and -17 RCC spillways engaged
for approximately 36 hours, with a maximum
overtopping of 0.84m. With the exception of
damage to the soil covers over the RCC, the Yellow
River spillways performed exceptionally well and
attenuated downstream flooding for close to a week
after the flood event. No subsequent repairs were
required for these structures.
Hydrologic studies completed by Golder
Associates after this flood event indicate that the
Labyrinth weir with a concrete chute
overtopping the Sandy Creek Dam No. 15 dam
near Commerce, Georgia. The chute spillway
is 55m wide and was completed in 2011.

Y-15 and Y-17 structures would have failed if the

structures had not been recently rehabilitated to
provide additional hydraulic spillway capacity.
More commonplace
While once shunned by the dam safety
community, spillways overtopping dams are
becoming more commonplace as a means to
address existing infrastructure rehabilitation. The
use of these in Georgia to provide additional
hydraulic capacity has been successfully
demonstrated. The state, Gwinnett County, and
other municipalities in Georgia continue to pursue
overtopping spillway projects for dam
rehabilitation as a means to increase hydraulic
spillway capacity in developed areas across the
state.
Currently, North Georgia Concrete is
constructing a 23.8m wide reinforced concrete
chute with a labyrinth weir design by Schnabel
Engineering at the South River Dam No. 29 for a
cost of US$1.9M. Additional projects are also
currently under design throughout the state that
will be overtopping spillways.
First and foremost, understanding the historic
performance and future use of a structure is
essential. Exhausting all other design options with
stakeholders is key before pursuing the
overtopping spillway option. Owners should
engage experienced dam hydraulic engineers and
geotechnical engineers to complete the design
and retain experienced contractors to construct
the project. As a team, the owner, engineer, and
contractor should work together to enhance the
safety of the dam structure through the use of
overtopping spillways that can extend the life and
benefits of the structure for many years.

Author Information
Gregg W. Hudock is a Senior Consultant
& Associate at Golder Associates Inc.
Email: ghudock@golder.com

June 2013

WWW.WATERPOWERMAGAZINE.COM

39