Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

Appendix A DAM
OPTIONS

A.1 Introduction

Farm dams can take many forms depending on site conditions. It is important to
understand the type of dam required for each site and to understand the efficiency
of water storage.

In terms of construction cost, efficiency is measured either as S:E ratio (storage to

excavation ratio) or as cost per megalitre stored. This chapter will show that the
capital cost (earthworks only) of farm dams can vary from $100/ML to $3000/ML.
Obviously this strongly affects the economic variability of farm dam design.

Efficiency can also be gauged in terms of evaporation loss. This depends on local
climate and surface area.

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-1

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.2 Gully Dams

A gully dam is an earth embankment built across a gully, stream or depression (see
Photograph A-1). Despite being the most difficult to design and construct, it is the
most favoured due to its good S:E ratios.

Figure A-1 shows a typical layout for a gully dam. As the embankment crosses a
drainage line, provision must be made for excess runoff to pass around the
embankment. Usually a wide bywash is used but there are alternatives available (see
Chapter 4).

Storage capacity and embankment earthworks for gully dams can be estimated using
Figure A-2 and Figure A-3. For large gully dams it is appropriate to survey the site
and use computer software to accurately calculate earthworks.

PHOTOGRAPH A-1 TYPICAL GULLY DAM

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-2

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

CREST
FREEBOARD
TOP WATER SUPPLY LEVEL
EMBANKMENT

BERM
BORROW PIT CUTOFF EXCAVATION

LONGITUDINAL SECTION THROUGH STORAGE

DOWNSTREAM TOE
UPSTREAM TOE

CONTOURS

TOP WATER LEVEL

INLE BYWASH RETURN

BORROW PIT EXCAVATION SLOPE
(3:1 BATTERS)
OUTLET
BATTER 2:1

PLAN OF STORAGE

DESIGNED CREST LEVEL

BATTER 2:1
BYWASH

CUTOFF EXCAVATION
NATURAL SURFACE

ELEVATION OF EMBANKMENT

FIGURE A-1 -TYPICAL LAYOUT FOR A GULLY DAM

(Nelson, K.D. 1985, Design and Construction of Small Earth Dams, Inkata Press Pty Ltd,
Melbourne.)

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-3

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

FIGURE A-2 ESTIMATION EARTHWORKS FOR A GULLY DAM

Based on 1:3 batters internal and external.
(Officers of Rural Water Advisory Services 1995, Gully Dams Estimating earthworks
and storage volumes [Online]. Available: http://www.dnr.qld.gov.au [Accessed 20
January 2001]).

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-4

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

FIGURE A-3 ESTIMATION OF CAPACITY FOR GULLY DAMS

(Officers of Rural Water Advisory Services 1995, Gully Dams Estimating earthworks
and storage volumes [Online]. Available: http://www.dnr.qld.gov.au [Accessed 20
January 2001]).

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-5

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.3 Hillside Storages

Hillside storages are built on the side of a hill that has no significant drainage line.
They have three-sided or curved banks (see Photograph A-2). Catch drains are
typically needed to ensure that that sufficient runoff enters the storage. These dams
have poor storage ratios but can provide a gravity supply during irrigation. A
bywash is required for such a dam. Figure A-4 shows a typical layout for a hillside
storage.

Storage capacity and embankment earthworks for hillside storages can be estimated
using the same figure for a gully dam with higher k values around 1.2 to 1.6. (See
Figure A-2 and Figure A-3). For large hillside storages it is appropriate to survey the
site and use computer software to accurately calculate earthworks.

PHOTOGRAPH A-2 TYPICAL HILLSIDE STORAGE

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-6

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

CATCH
DRAIN
DRAIN
CATCH

WATER
TOP LEVEL

STONE PITCHING
BORROW PIT PROTECTION AGAINST
EXCAVATION EROSION

BYWASH RETURN SLOPE

IS TO BE WELL GRASSED
TO PREVENT EROSION

BYWASH FLOWS MUST

BE RETURNED TO THE
BED OF THE DEPRESSION
BEFORE LEAVING THE
PROPERTY

FIGURE A-4 TYPICAL LAYOUT FOR A HILLSIDE STORAGE

(Fitzsimon, R. 1995, Planning Your Farm Dam [Online]. Available:
http://www.dnr.qld.gov.au [Accessed 20 January 2001].

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-7

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.4 Ring Tanks

A ring tank is built on flat ground and consists of a continuous bank that can be
circular, square or rectangular (see Photograph A-3). They are filled by pumping
water in from an external source. The bank earthworks are obtained from an
excavation inside the bank or from an external sump. Some stored water is below
the natural surface level and has to be pumped out when needed.

Ring tanks with high embankments are more expensive to construct due to the larger
amount of soil moved. However, with an increased height, the volume of water
stored increases while the surface area of exposed water remains the same. This is
desirable for minimizing evaporation losses in proportion to the volume of water
being stored. S:E ratios for ring tanks are discussed in Section A.6. Figure A-5 can be
used to estimate earthworks requirements for round ring tanks, while Table A-1 and
Table A-2 give earthworks estimations for rectangular ring tanks.

PHOTOGRAPH A-3 TYPICAL RING TANK (SHOWING ADJACENT WATERCOURSE

AND EXTERNAL SUMP ON TWO SIDES)

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-8

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

FIGURE A-5 - EARTHWORKS ESTIMATION FOR ROUND RING TANKS

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-9

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

TABLE A-1 EARTHWORKS ESTIMATION FOR RECTANGULAR RING TANKS

(UP TO 75 ML)

Square Rectangular
Length at TWL = width at TWL Length at TWL = 2.0 x width at TWL
Outside Outside Outside Outside
Emb. Fill Borrow Fill Borrow
Capacity Toe Toe Toe Toe
Height Earthworks Depth Earthworks Depth
Length Width Length Width
(ML) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
5 2 - - - - - - - -
5 3 - - - - - - - -
5 4 - - - - - - - -
5 5 - - - - - - - -
5 7 - - - - - - - -
10 2 7300 4.0 89 89 - - - -
10 3 - - - - - - - -
10 4 - - - - - - - -
10 5 - - - - - - - -
10 7 - - - - - - - -
15 2 9400 1.7 111 111 9700 2.0 144 85
15 3 - - - - - - - -
15 4 - - - - - - - -
15 5 - - - - - - - -
15 7 - - - - - - - -
20 2 11200 1.2 130 130 11700 1.4 170 98
20 3 13700 13.4 97 97 - - - -
20 4 - - - - - - - -
20 5 - - - - - - - -
20 7 - - - - - - - -
30 2 14300 0.8 161 161 14900 0.9 214 120
30 3 17700 8.7 120 120 - - - -
30 4 - - - - - - - -
30 5 - - - - - - - -
30 7 - - - - - - - -
40 2 16900 0.7 188 188 17700 0.7 252 139
40 3 21000 3.1 138 138 21900 3.8 181 106
40 4 - - - - - - - -
40 5 - - - - - - - -
40 7 - - - - - - - -
50 2 19200 0.6 211 211 20100 0.6 285 155
50 3 24000 2.3 155 155 25000 2.6 205 117
50 4 - - - - - - - -
50 5 - - - - - - - -
50 7 - - - - - - - -

Inputs: Crest Width 5m, Internal Batter 1:4, External Batter 1:2, Freeboard 1.0m,
Corner Radius 0m, includes 0.5m deep cutoff trench
Notes: capacity includes borrow volume, embankment height is above natural
surface, assumes flat surface, borrow depth assumes all borrow taken from inside,
No value (-) indicates require external borrow.

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-10

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

TABLE A-2 EARTHWORKS ESTIMATION FOR RECTANGULAR RING TANKS

(75 ML TO 500 ML)

Square Rectangular
Length at TWL = width at TWL Length at TWL = 2.0 x width at TWL
Outside Outside
Outside Outside
Emb. Fill Borrow Fill Borrow Toe Toe
Capacity Toe Toe
Height Earthworks Depth Earthworks Depth Length Width
Length Width
(ML) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
75 2 24100 0.4 261 261 25300 0.5 355 191
75 3 30300 1.5 190 190 31700 1.6 254 142
75 4 37700 5.7 159 159 - - - -
75 5 - - - - - - - -
75 7 - - - - - - - -
100 2 28200 0.4 303 303 29700 0.4 415 221
100 3 35600 1.2 220 220 37300 1.3 297 163
100 4 44600 3.4 184 184 46600 4.1 243 139
100 5 - - - - - - - -
100 7 - - - - - - - -
150 2 35200 0.3 374 374 37000 0.3 515 271
150 3 44500 0.9 270 270 46700 0.9 367 199
150 4 56100 2.2 225 225 58800 2.4 301 168
150 5 68400 6.1 198 198 - - - -
150 7 - - - - - - - -
200 2 41000 0.2 434 434 43200 0.2 600 313
200 3 52000 0.7 313 313 54700 0.8 427 229
200 4 65800 1.7 259 259 69200 1.8 350 192
200 5 80700 3.9 228 228 84700 4.6 304 171
200 7 - - - - - - - -
300 2 50900 0.2 534 534 53700 0.2 742 384
300 3 64700 0.5 384 384 68100 0.6 528 279
300 4 82200 1.2 317 317 86500 1.3 432 233
300 5 101300 2.5 278 278 106500 2.8 375 207
300 7 - - - - - - - -
400 2 59200 0.2 619 619 62500 0.2 861 444
400 3 75300 0.5 444 444 79400 0.5 612 321
400 4 96000 1.0 366 366 101100 1.1 501 268
400 5 118600 2.0 320 320 124900 2.2 435 236
400 7 166700 8.1 268 268 - - - -
500 2 66500 0.1 694 694 70200 0.1 967 496
500 3 84700 0.4 496 496 89400 0.4 687 358
500 4 108100 0.9 409 409 114000 0.9 562 298
500 5 133900 1.7 358 358 141100 1.8 488 263
500 7 189200 5.6 298 298 199000 6.9 400 223

Inputs: Crest Width 5m, Internal Batter 1:4, External Batter 1:2, Freeboard 1.0m,
Corner Radius 0m, includes 0.5m deep cutoff trench
Notes: capacity includes borrow volume, embankment height is above natural
surface, assumes flat surface, borrow depth assumes all borrow taken from inside,
No value (-) indicates require external borrow.

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-11

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.5 Excavated Sumps

Excavated sumps are fully cut below the natural surface level (see Figure A-6). The
excavated material is generally not required for the bank but is stockpiled nearby or
disposed of. These sumps are ideally built in clay soils or, where this is not possible,
should have a clay lining. When excavated to a reasonable depth, this type of
storage can have the advantage of relatively low evaporation losses, however the S:E
ratio is typically in the order of 0.9-1.0, which is not very efficient. Photograph A-4 is
an example of a sump constructed adjacent to a ring tank. In this case the excavated
material can be used for the construction of the ring tanks embankment.

With the proper soil conditions, an excavated sump can also be designed to act as a
soakage or seepage tank. This setup is possible when the local water table is
relatively close to the surface and underlain by an impermeable rock layer. The
sump is excavated into pervious soil to a depth below the water table. The sump is
then filled naturally by groundwater flows. In this situation, a clay lining is not
required and can even prove to be counterproductive.

Freeboard is not usually required unless the sump is intended to intercept significant
drainage from surrounding areas. On a typical flat site, a bywash is usually only
required to divert excess runoff in a desired direction.

Figure A-7 and Table A-4 can be used to estimate the capacities for excavated
sumps.

PHOTOGRAPH A-4 EXCAVATED SUMP ADJACENT TO RING TANK

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-12

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

FIGURE A-6 TYPICAL LAYOUT OF EXCAVATED SUMPS

(Nelson, K.D. 1985, Design and Construction of Small Earth Dams, Inkata Press Pty Ltd,
Melbourne.)

1000 m3 = 1ML

FIGURE A-7 EARTHWORKS/CAPACITY CALCULATIONS FOR EXCAVATED SUMPS

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-13

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

TABLE A-3 EARTHWORKS ESTIMATION FOR EXCAVATED SUMPS

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-14

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

TABLE A-4 EARTHWORKS ESTIMATION FOR EXCAVATED SUMPS (CONTINUED)

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-15

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.6 Storage Efficiency

Storage efficiency is measured by the storage to excavation ratio (S:E ratio) or capital
cost/ML.

The S:E ratio is calculated as:

Storage Capacity (ML) x 1000

SE ratio =
Excavation Volume (m 3 )

Capital cost/ML is calculated as:

Storage Capacity (ML)

Capital cost/ML ($/ML) =
Excavation Volume (m 3 ) x Earthworks Rate ($/m 3 )

Each type of storage has different S:E ratios. Figure A-8 shows the range in S:E ratio
for various storage types. It shows the S:E ratio is 1 or less for excavated sumps. For
ring tanks the S:E ratio can range from below 2 for small volumes (<100 ML) to over
15 for large volumes (5000 ML). For gully dams on steep sites and hillside storages
the S:E ratio is moderate and can range from 2 to 5. Gully dams on flat sites have the
best S:E ratios ranging from 5 to over 20.

The earthworks rate ($/m3) is the cost of excavating and placing a cubic metre of
earth. The earthworks rate can vary from less than $1.00/m3 to over $4.00/m3. Costs
in the order of $1.00/m3 to $1.50/m3 are typical for a large ring tank on the Darling
Downs involving 250,000 m3 of earthworks, built with scrapers. Compaction of the
embankment with a sheepsfoot roller increases the cost by 10 to 30%. At the higher
end of the spectrum, the cost to excavate a sump and truck the spoil away for
disposal could be over $4.00/m3.

The variation in S:E ratios of less than 1 to over 20, combined with the differences in
earthworks rate of $1.00/m3 to over $4.00/m3, means the capital cost can range from
between $50 and $4000 /ML. Examples of this are given in Figure A-8.and Table A-5.
Obviously this has a large impact on the feasibility of proposed on-farm storages.

Other factors which effect the S:E ratio, particularly for ring tanks, include the
embankment height and the shape.

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-16

 Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

S:E~ 0.8 to 1

S:E~2 to 15

S:E~ 2 to 5

HILLSIDE STORAGE
OR

S:E~ 5 to 20

FIGURE A-8 S:E RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT DAM TYPES

TABLE A-5 APPROXIMATE COSTS AND S:E RATIOS FOR DIFFERENT DAM TYPES
Earthworks
Dam Type Capacity S:E Ratio Cost $/ML
Cost $/m3
Excavated 1 ML 0.9 3.00 3300
Tank 5 ML 0.9 2.00 2200
Hillside 10 ML 2.0 2.00 1000
Storage 100 ML 4.0 1.50 375
Gully Dam 10 ML 3.0 2.00 666
100 ML 6.0 1.50 250
Ring Tank 100 ML (Square) 1.9 1.50 830
1000 ML (Round) 5.9 1.00 175

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-17

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.6.1 Embankment Height

Three main factors influence the optimal height of embankment:

Cost of earthworks
Value of water lost to evaporation
Value of land lost to the storage

Increasing embankment height reduces storage efficiency (S:E ratio) because the
volume of earthworks increase disproportionately with height (ie
earthworks ~ height). Also, construction standards are more important for dams
with greater embankment heights, and this can increase the cost and risk involved.
However, to hold the same volume of water, low banked ring tanks need a greater
surface area than high banked ring tanks and therefore incur greater evaporative
losses. Table A-6 shows the increase in earthworks for a 200 ML ring tank with
different embankment heights.

Evaporation is not seen as a significant factor in the Bundaberg/sugar cane case,

because harvested water is generally irrigated soon after collection and is not stored
for extended periods (usually less than 4 months of the year). Also, the net
evaporation from open water surfaces in the Bundaberg area averages around
0.1 m/yr. Based on these figures the evaporation per year from a farm dam could be
almost negligible. However, this might not be the case in the dryer areas west of
Bundaberg.

The footprint of a dam reduces as the embankment height increases. Reducing the
amount of cropland lost to the storage tank may be a high priority if there is limited
cropping land available. However, this might not be as important as first thought as
shown in the analysis below.

The relationship between embankment height and cost has been analysed to
determine the optimum height for the Bundaberg area. The earthworks cost and the
cost of lost productive land has been included in the analysis. Evaporation was not
seen as a significant cost as outline above.

A square 100 ML ring tank was used for the analysis. Assumptions were also made
as to the earthworks rate ($1.50/m) and cost of land ($6000/ha). The results of the
analysis are shown in Table A-7 and presented graphically in Figure A-9. The results
show the optimum height to be 2.5 m. To be conservative and allow for some effect
of evaporation the optimum height could be slightly higher at 3.0 m. This is an
interesting result as the optimum height for ring tanks on the Darling Downs is
generally thought to be 5 to 7 m.

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-18

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

TABLE A-6 HEIGHT VS. EARTHWORKS FOR A 200 ML RING TANK

Height Earthworks Footprint Increase in Cost

Case S:E ratio
(m) (m3) (ha) (referenced to Case 1)
1 3.5 59500 3.5 7.9 -
2 4.5 74600 2.8 5.8 25%
3 5.5 90500 2.3 4.6 52%
4 6.5 106500 1.9 3.8 79%
Note: Based on square shape, crest width = 5 m, inner batter slope = 4:1, outer batter
slope = 2:1

TABLE A-7- EMBANKMENT HEIGHT VS COST

Earthworks Cost Lost Land Cost
Embankment
Height Land Total Cost
Volume Rate Area
(m) Cost Value Cost
(m) ($/m) (ha)
($/ha)
1.5 16660 1.50 $ 24,990 11.4 6000 $ 68,400 $ 93,390
2.5 27233 1.50 $ 40,849 6.4 6000 $ 38,400 $ 79,249
3.5 40270 1.50 $ 60,405 4.9 6000 $ 29,400 $ 89,805
4.5 55583 1.50 $ 83,374 4.2 6000 $ 25,200 $ 108,574
5.5 73167 1.50 $109,750 3.8 6000 $ 22,800 $ 132,550
Note: Based on square shape, crest width = 4 m, inner batter slope = 4:1, outer batter
slope = 2:1, freeboard = 0.5m

$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
Earthworks Cost
Cost ($)

$80,000
Lost Land
$60,000
Total Cost
$40,000
$20,000
$-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Embankment Height

FIGURE A-9 - EMBANKMENT HEIGHT VS COST

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-19

Farm Dams for the Sugar Industry Dam Options

A.6.2 Shape

For a given storage volume, various shapes of ring tanks will require different
earthworks volumes. For example, circular tanks require the minimum amount of
earthworks for a given storage volume. Circular tanks therefore have higher S:E
ratios. Since cost generally increases linearly with earthworks, circular tanks are the
least expensive tanks to build. However, most sites do not suit a circular ring tank in
terms of using the available ground most efficiently. Therefore, the higher cost of a
square or rectangular ring tank can often be offset by the benefit of long-term farm
efficiency.

Table A-8 shows the difference in cost for different shaped 200 ML ring tanks.

TABLE A-8 COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT SHAPED 200 ML RING TANKS

Increase in cost
Earthworks Footprint
Shape S:E Ratio (referenced to
(m3) (ha)
circular tank)
Circular 74 100 2.8 5.1 -
Square 82 400 2.5 5.1 11%
#
Rectangular 93 800 2.2 5.1 27%
Note: Based on height = 5.0 m, crest width = 5 m, inner batter slope = 4:1, outer batter
slope = 2:1, freeboard 1m
#
Rectangular: Length at centreline = 3 x width at centreline

June 2001 FSA Irrigation Page No. A-20