28 February 2014

To Ian Sheppard (Tahmoor Colliery)

Copy to Belinda Treverrow (Tahmoor Colliery), Daryl Kay (MSEC)

From Rod Towner Tel 02 9239 7156

Subject Stilton Lane Preliminary Dam Break Assessment Job no. 21/14678

As part of the comprehensive planning in preparation for future northward extension of underground
mining at Tahmoor Colliery, the consequences of failure of Dam GG37a, should they occur as a result of
subsidence, have been appraised by way of a dam break assessment.
A “first-pass” preliminary investigation to determine a way forward, in the context of risk identification, has
been conducted so that the requirement for a more refined investigation could be determined. A
comprehensive dam break assessment has not been conducted since it is not necessary at this stage in
order to develop the way forward.

The general location of the dam and downstream waterway is shown in .

1 Methodology
The dam-break assessment has been undertaken through estimation of the peak flow rate of discharge
from a full depth notch (break) through the dam embankment under a sunny day dam break, as well as
estimation of the resulting hydraulic conditions (extents, levels and velocities) in the downstream
waterway extending downstream to the confluence with Myrtle Creek.

The methodology for the assessment is detailed in the below sections.

1.1 Estimation of Sunny Day Dam Breach Peak Flow Rate

The storage volume of the dam was estimated using available ALS information to estimate the dam wall
height. Based on this, the bathymetry of the dam (which was not represented in the ALS) was estimated
assuming that slopes of the surrounding land continue underneath the top water level of the dam down to
the invert of the dam. Based on this, the dam volume up to the estimated spill height of 247.5 m was
estimated to be approximately 27 ML. (Note that the storage volume of the dam therefore excludes
excavation of the floor of the reservoir, since this is unknown.)
Estimation of peak flow rate was undertaken through analysis of available literature and formulas
developed on the basis of historical dam failures. Parameters that influence dam breaching include dam
storage volume, wall geometry and construction method and material of the dam. The accuracy of the
estimation of dam breach parameters is dependent on the availability of data for historical dam failures.
Although the dam wall for Dam GG37a is over 8 metres high, the storage volume of the dam (27 ML) is
relatively small compared to most failures observed in the literature. Therefore, methods of estimation of
dam breach parameters and peak outflow for volumes this small are often extrapolations of data for
much larger dam failures. Therefore, significant variation is to be expected, and should be
21/14678/197870
acknowledged, in the estimated parameters.
Given that the sunny day dam break is the assessed scenario for this investigation, it was assumed that
failure will be through the occurrence of piping. To be conservative, it was assumed that failure would
occur from the bottom of the dam and that the breach height would be 8 metres.
Wahl (2004) summarises the equations presented in a number of articles for the peak flow rate resulting
from a dam breach. Based on the dam storage volume and estimated breach height, the peak flow rate
was estimated for several of the summarised methods as shown in Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 2 the range of peak flow values estimated using the different methods varies
significantly. In order to estimate an appropriate range of the potential peak flow rate, the following
criteria were assessed:

Given the relatively small size of the dam wall, a failure time in the order of 10 minutes was
considered to be reasonable. Failure times were estimated based on formulas summarised in
Wahl (2004) and are shown in Table 2.
Comparison with the peak discharge -vs- storage and peak discharge -vs- height data sets that are
available in Wahl (1998). Based on analysis of these two data sets, it was inferred that a peak flow
rate in the order of 100 to 200 m 3/s would be reasonable.
Method assumptions and input parameters – given that the dam storage volume is small relative to
the wall height, it is likely that methods that consider both storage and wall height would be more
accurate. In particular, methods that consider only wall height are likely to overestimate the peak flow
rate.
The following estimates shown in Table 2 were excluded from further assessment, as detailed below:
Froelich – as the predicted failure time was not considered to be appropriate for earth dams
SCS, and Singh & Snorrason (wall height method) – as the peak flow estimates of these methods are
significantly outside the data presented in Wahl (1998) and are based on wall height only.
Costa (Upper estimate) – as the peak flow estimate is significantly outside the data presented in
Wahl (1998) and it is an upper estimate.
The results from the remaining methods were assessed and the minimum, mean and maximum peak
flow rate from these remaining methods is shown in Table 3 with these flow rates considered in the
hydraulic assessment of the downstream waterway.
Immediately downstream of Dam GG37a is Dam GG38d. In the event of failure of the upstream dam, it is
possible that the breach outflows from the dam will fail the downstream dam and the combined peak flow
rate should then be considered. Given the preliminary nature of the assessment, it has been assumed
that Dam GG38d does not fail during the sunny day failure of Dam GG37a, as instructed.

1.2 Hydraulic Assessment of Downstream Waterway

A one-dimensional hydraulic model was developed using the HECRAS software package to estimate
flood conditions downstream of the dam resulting from the estimated sunny day failure peak flow rate. As

21/14678/197870 2
discussed in Section 1.1, the peak flow rate estimated by the MacDonald Langridge-Monopolis method
was adopted.
The developed model was a steady-state model. That is, a peak flow rate was input into the model rather
than an inflow hydrograph. Therefore, the effects of storage in the floodplain on flow attenuation was not
considered.
The model extended from the downstream face of the dam down to Myrtle Creek, with the model
centreline and cross sections developed based on available ALS survey. Cross sectional data was
exported to HECRAS using the 12D software package and the 12D-HECRAS interface tool.
Bank station values relating to Manning’s n roughness co-efficient were estimated based on aerial
imagery with Manning’s n values estimated as shown in Table 1. A normal flow depth was selected as
the downstream boundary condition at Myrtle Creek, given that the assessment is for a sunny day dam
break.

Table 1 Manning’s n Values

Surface Type Manning’s n

Cleared Agricultural Land 0.035

Vegetated Areas 0.07

Areas Partially Obstructed by Buildings 0.07

Creek Centreline (with reeds and other vegetation) 0.045

Floodlines were developed by exporting the flood levels from HECRAS to 12D and mapping the
intersection of the water surface with the ground surface.

21/14678/197870 3
2 Results
Table 2 presents the estimated peak flow rate resulting from the sunny day dam break for a number of
estimation methods, as well as the failure time estimation where available.

Table 2 Dam Breach Peak Flow Rates and Failure Times – Sunny Day Failure

Method Input Peak Flow Failure Notes

Parameters Rate (m3/s) Time
(Minutes)

MacDonald Langridge- Dam Storage, 180 9 Failure time ok

Monopolis Wall Height

Froehlich Dam Storage, 162 52 Failure time too long – not

Wall Height adopted

SCS Wall Height 778 - High- likely to be an outlier

Singh and Snorrason Dam Storage 215 -

Singh and Snorrason Wall Height 682 - High – likely to be an outlier

Kirkpatrick Wall Height 252 -

Hagen Dam Storage, 251 -

Wall Height

Costa Dam Storage 377 -

Costa Dam Storage, 171 (Lower) - Upper estimate considered

Wall Height 586 (Upper) to be an outlier

Evans Dam Storage 161

Von Thun and Gilette Wall Height - 7 Failure time ok

Bureau of Reclamation Wall Height - 16 Failure time ok

21/14678/197870 4
Table 3 shows the adopted peak flow rates for the downstream hydraulic assessment.

Table 3 Assessed Peak Flow Rates

Scenario Peak Flow Rate (m3/s)

Lower Estimate 161

Mean Estimate 230

Upper estimate 377

shows the flood extent results from the hydraulic assessment for the adopted peak flow range. It also
shows the location and river station of modelled cross-sections which can be compared with the
information presented in Table 4 to show flood levels, depths and average velocities over each cross
section.

It should be noted that there is the potential for floodwaters to be discharged from the catchment along
Remembrance Drive to the west of the waterway. However, it is likely that in this case flows would be
primarily conveyed over the road and discharged to Myrtle Creek without conveyance through building
areas.

21/14678/197870 5
21/14678/197870 6
Table 4 Flood Level, Depth and Velocity Results

Min
River Channel Maximum Flow Average Velocity
Station Elvn (m) Water Surface Level (m) Depth (m) (m/s)

Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

751 239.8 241.3 241.8 242.2 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.5 2.9 3.3

692 239.8 241.4 241.6 241.8 1.6 1.8 2.1 1.0 1.2 1.6

675 239.2 241.3 241.3 241.5 2.1 2.1 2.3 1.4 2.0 2.7

652 236.4 237.6 238.0 238.5 1.2 1.5 2.1 7.5 6.8 6.3

587 234.8 236.5 236.7 236.9 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.2

509 232.4 234.6 234.8 235.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.4 2.8

411 231.4 233.0 233.2 233.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.8 3.2

278 229.0 231.3 231.3 231.6 2.3 2.3 2.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

260 230.1 231.0 231.1 231.6 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.5

232 228.0 229.8 230.4 230.8 1.8 2.4 2.7 3.3 2.2 2.6

146 226.3 228.1 228.4 228.9 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.7

48 224.0 226.3 226.7 227.4 2.3 2.7 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.9

3 Discussion and Recommendations

As can be seen in that there are buildings in the downstream waterway which are predicted to be
inundated during the sunny day dam break.

On the southern side of Remembrance Drive this includes the houses at 2415 Remembrance Drive,
2413 Remembrance Drive and 2411 Remembrance Drive, as well as the open space areas in other lots.
On the northern side of remembrance drive this includes the house at 2410 Remembrance Drive.

Several buildings in the property adjacent to Dam GG38d (155 Stilton Lane) are inundated. These
buildings appear to be greenhouses for plant cultivation.
The modelled flood velocity in these areas is shown in Table 4, as is the range of water depths. The
dwellings listed above are near channel stations chainage 278 to 232 – which has been shaded blue in
Table 4 for convenience. For the analysis as described, the estimated mean depth of dam break water
flow is 2.4m, with an estimated maximum of 2.7m. This depth of water, flowing at 1.5 to 2.5m/sec is not
expected to be acceptable to the residents.

21/14678/197870 7
The modelled flood water across Remembrance Drive has a mean depth of 1.0m, a maximum depth
estimate of 1.4m, and flood velocity estimates of 1.9 to 1.5m/sec. The depth of flood water over
Remembrance Drive in this scenario is also not likely to be acceptable to road authorities.
It is reasonable to suggest, therefore, that the outcomes from this first pass analysis, notwithstanding its
reservations, identify that unacceptable conditions would exist in the event of dam break at Dam GG37a.
It would also be reasonable to suggest that consequential failure of the downstream Dam GG38d would
increase the estimated water depths in the situation of cascading dam failure.
It seems clear that the first pass appraisal demonstrates that issues exist in a dam break scenario that
would require intervention, as the analysis stands.
The first action would be to confirm building floor levels for the four identified dwellings.

On the expectation that the floor levels are unlikely to raise the dwellings sufficiently to remove the
hazard, the following next steps appear worth consideration:
refinement of the hydraulic modelling to improve the flood depth estimates, particularly in regard to
the drawdown of the storage volume in the dam which in reality is unlikely to maintain the steady
state conditions assumed in the modelling. The estimate of the depth of flooding is expected to be
less in a more refined analysis;
implementation of management options.

Management options may not be without their challenges. One management option which has been
mentioned is draining the dam during mining. By way of early comment, this could bring with it a legacy
of dam embankment instability issues as a consequence of the likely adverse clay soil characteristics
that are endemic to the area (reactive and dispersive clays). Clearly, the embankment materials would
require appraisal geotechnically in consideration of such an option. Further, in a management context,
the ability for the dam to re-fill quickly in the event of various intensity rainfall events, which would negate
the defensive measure, also would need to be appraised.

21/14678/197870 8
4 Limitations
The assessment was a “first-pass” preliminary investigation to determine a way forward in the context of
risk identification and recommendation of further investigations or measures and was not a
comprehensive dam break assessment. The following limitations of the assessment should be noted:
The storage volume of Dam GG37a is small compared to most available data relating to dam failures
and therefore estimates of dam breach geometry and peak outflows cannot be estimated with
certainty. Therefore, detailed hydrodynamic modelling of dam breaching has not been undertaken.
The assessment considers only the sunny day dam break scenario.
Failure of the downstream dam GG38d due to the failure of dam GG37a is possible and has not been
assessed.
Dam bathymetry data was not available and was assumed based on available information.
HECRAS modelling of the downstream waterway was for steady state conditions and did not include
the effects of flow attenuation in the floodplain.

5 References
Allen (1994), ANCOLD Bulletin 97.
Department of Water Resources, Dam Safety Committee of New South Wales (1988), General
Guidelines for Determining Flooding conditions Resulting from the Failure of Small Dams.
MacDonald Langridge-Monopolis (1984), Breaching Characteristics of Dam Failures.
Queensland Department of Energy and Water Supply (2012), Guidelines for Failure Impact Assessment
of Water Dams.
Wahl (2004), Uncertainty of Predictions of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters.
Wahl (1998), Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters.

21/14678/197870 9