CVEN30010 SYSTEMS MODELLING AND DESIGN DESIGN PROJECT Kira Martin 758835 October, 2017
1
Table of Contents Executive Summary
3
Introduction
3
Ground model
4
Water Storage and Catchment
4
Town Water Supply System
6
Water Tower
8
Water Supply System for Farms
9
Stability of Existing Slopes
11
Embankment Dam
14
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
17
Conclusions
19
References
20
Appendices
21
2
Executive Summary
In this design report, a conceptual design of a water storage reservoir (The Reynoso Reservoir) and connecting water supply systems is proposed. The design process took a linear approach, as a set of steps that continually increased in detail and analysis were followed. Firstly, a critical geological cross-section of the ground model was designed using Adobe Illustrator. This cross-section includes the ground surface level, ground layers with depths and location of the groundwater table. Next, a water storage and catchment model was generated through an Excel Spreadsheet, which provided the engineering team with the appropriate catchment area for the predicted precipitation levels in the area that will create a reliable supply water to Martinville and the farms. The water supply systems for Martinville and farms were then analysed, developed and proposed. Firstly, a pipeline route was designed from The Reynoso Reservoir to Martinville, and through analysis of different diameter options for piping, an optimal diameter was chosen. A schematic diagram of pump positioning, as well as installation and operating costs, is also included in the report. Additionally, a water tower design for Martinville was proposed in the case of emergency situations. The geometry of the water tank and tower are presented. Lastly for the water supply systems, the system to supply water to the farms is considered. This is proposed in the form of two concrete open flow channels, and their optimal cross-sections are presented in the report. Referring back to the geological cross-section, the stability of the existing slopes in the valley where The Reynoso Reservoir is to be constructed is analysed. Using the software of SLOPE/W, stability of the slopes are analysed in the form of Factor of Safety values, and slope stability improvement measures were proposed if slopes were deemed unstable. The seepage rates through embankment dams in The Reynoso Reservoir were also analysed using SEEP/W software, and a optimum cross-section was presented that limited seepage a maximum of 0.85m^3/day per metre length of the dam. Finally, the environmental and social impacts of reservoir construction were identified and assessed. Mitigation measures were proposed if needed.
Introduction
A conceptual design of the water storage reservoir and the water supply systems is to be created for the new township of Martinville - located in Western Tasmania, Australia. The proposed water storage reservoir has been named ‘The Reynoso Reservoir’, which will supply water to 200 households, 15 small business outlets and several dairy farms operating near Martinville. The conceptual design presented in this design report addresses all key aspects of facilities, satisfies Australian Standards, and meets all design requirements listed in the design brief. Extensive appendices with all calculations, software reports and additional information has been attached to this report as a reference for the reader. 3
Ground model
Site investigation data provided in Appendix A was used to construct a ground model of the soil to be used for The Reynoso Reservoir (see figure 1). This ground model was created on Adobe Illustrator, and shows the ground surface level, ground layers with depths and the location of the groundwater table. It should be noted that the borehole widths are designed to be large enough to see a visual representation of the different soil layers at those points. Therefore, the width of the boreholes are not to scale, and the connections of lines between the boreholes are taken from the middle width instead of their edges. All other parts of the cross-section are to scale.
Figure 1. Geological cross-section BH1-BH8
Water Storage and Catchment
The Reynoso Reservoir storage volume was then calculated on Excel spreadsheets. A catchment area was to be found that satisfied the required reliable water supply to Martinville and dairy farms. Precipitation and potential evapotranspiration data from Luncheon Hill (2010-2012) was used in the calculations. A minimum reservoir volume of 1,000,000m^3 was to be followed, and the initial water volume in the reservoir was 2,500,000m^3. All data presented in the design brief was entered into the Excel spreadsheet (see figure 2), which was then used in a series of equations (see Appendix G) throughout the columns seen in the spreadsheet in figure 3. 4
Figure 2. Inputted data into Excel spreadsheet for catchment area calculation
Figure 3. Excel Spreadsheet for catchment area calculation The column for water storage seen in figure 3 was then graphed against time, shown in figure 4. The catchment area data value shown in figure 2 was then adjusted until a desirable curve in the water storage vs. date graph was attained. A desirable graph involves water storage values that have a minimum of 1,000,000m^3 but that are also not too large due to cost reasons (a bigger catchment area will cost more to create and maintain). When a desirable graph shape was found, the minimum for the modelled water storage was 1,340,761m^3. This means there is a substantial difference between the actual minimum and the allowed minimum of 1,000,000m^3 at all times in case of an emergency such as a drought. This desired water storage pattern gives a 2.5km^2 catchment area to be used for the design.
5
Figure 4. Water storage vs. date graph
Town Water Supply System
To propose a reliable and cost-effective system to supply water from the water storage of The Reynoso Reservoir to a water distribution station at Martinville the water consumption for households and businesses needed to be calculated (see Appendix A.1). The calculated water supply was then inputted into excel sheets that test the four potential pipe diameters for effectiveness (see Appendix B). Friction factors were calculated with an online friction factor calculator. Two separate excel sheets were created per diameter size, one for the water supply rates between the periods of April to October and the other for November to March. The maximum required water supply for all the pipes was 16.6m^3/hour for all piping diameters. Calculated from the excel spreadsheets (see Appendix B), the required maximum total head for the diameters are as follows: 83mm: Overall head (m): 114 101mm: Overall head (m): 83.3 115mm: Overall head (m): 74.5 129mm: Overall head (m): 70.1 For the 83mm diameter piping, two PLMGH 3-11 pumps would need to be in series to achieve a 114m total head due to the maximum total head that can be achieve by one pump is approximately 105m. Pumps in series double the achieved total head of the system. With the pumps now in series, they would need to produce 57m of head each, and therefore (according to the pump curve seen in Appendix F) will achieve a flow rate of 4.7m^3/hour per pump. For the 16.6m^3/hour required flow rate, four parallel pumps would be needed (as parallel pumps double 6
the flow rate of the system). Therefore, a total of eight pumps (four parallel pipelines with two pumps in series on each) is the required configuration for the 83mm diameter. This process was repeated for the other three diameters. For the 101mm piping, the pump curve shows a flow rate of 3.2m^3/hour for a 83.3m total head. Therefore, six pumps in parallel are needed for to achieve a 16.6m^3/hour flow rate with no pumps in series. For the 115mm piping, the pump curve shows a flow rate of 3.8m^3/hour for a 74.5m total head. Therefore, five pumps in parallel are needed for to achieve a 16.6m^3/hour flow rate with no pumps in series. For the 129mm piping, the pump curve shows a flow rate of 4.0m^3/hour for a 70.1m total head. Therefore, five pumps in parallel are needed for to achieve a 16.6m^3/hour flow rate with no pumps in series. Operating and installation costs were then compared between the four pipe sizes. The operating costs were taken from the spreadsheets in Appendix B, and the installation costs are as follows: Piping cost = length of piping (4000m) * piping cost (found in Appendix F) Excavation = length of piping * $50/m Pumping cost = number of pumps * $4000 The 115mm piping was calculated to be the most cost-effective (see figure 6) and was therefore selected for the proposed piping and configuration of pumps (see figure 5). The overall installation cost of the proposed town water supply system is approximately $276000, and the operating cost of the system for 20 years is $69145.11.
Figure 5. Proposed configuration of five pumps in parallel for 115mm piping.
Figure 6. Final operation and installation costs for piping diameters.
7
Water Tower
A reliable and cost-effective design of a water tower to store water for Martinville for the cases of power outage or other emergencies is required. It should be able to store 3-days supply of water for Martinville, which is calculated by multiplying the maximum total daily water supply (167.9m^3) from the water consumption spreadsheet (see Appendix A.1) by three, giving a total required water storage of 503.7m^3. Through research, it was found that a commonly used shape for a water tower tank is a cylinder with a hemispherical bottom (State of Michigan, 2003), therefore this design shape was selected. The shape is ideal for a system where all the water will naturally flow to the bottom of the tank and no water will get stuck in the edges/corners of the tank interior. The dimensions for a hemispherical tank size from State of Michigan (2003) were used as an initial point to calculate the tank’s dimensions and aimed to satisfy the minimum of 503.7m^3 volume. The actual volume was calculated through the following equations: Cylindrical element: Vc = (⅔)*π*(r^3) = (⅔)*π*(4^3) = 134m^3 Hemispherical element: Vh = π*(r^2)*h = π*(4^2)*7.5 = 376.99m^3 Vtotal = Vc + Vh = 510.99m^3 These proposed dimensions and volume are shown in figure 7.
Figure 7. Final design of water tower
8
The material of a polyethylene water tank combined with a steel tower with steel bracing is selected after literature research. Polyethylene was chosen due to concrete water tanks being ‘very heavy and difficult to handle’ (Bushmans Industrial, 2016) and steel water tanks having the disadvantage of ‘rust or corrosion’ (Bushmans Industrial, 2016). Therefore steel tanks require galvanising and ‘extensive testing’ to ensure the tank is watertight (Bushmans Industrial, 2016). A polyethylene tank was selected due to easier installation (Team Poly, 2017), as well as a lack of ‘incompatibility issues with dissimilar metals and metals that can cause corrosion’ such as the steel tower (Team Poly, 2017). This will decrease maintenance expenses. It should be noted that AS4766 requires the thickness of the tank walls to be greater than 4.5mm (Standards Australia, 2006) and therefore this thickness will be used for the design of this water tank. The typical tank life of a polyethylene water tank is 15-20 years (State of Michigan, 2003), which means the tank will need to be analysed at least every 5 years to see if it needs replacing or maintenance. Lastly, it was considered that a minimum water pressure of 250kPa has to be maintained at all households and business outlets, which gives a required change in elevation of 26m from the water tower to Martinville: ∆P = ρ * g * ∆h ∆P = 998 * 9.8 * 26 ∆P = 254.290 kPa Therefore, because a total difference in elevation of 26m is needed to achieve a water pressure of 250kPa, and there being a minimum drop in elevation from the bottom of the tower to Martinville of 15m, a height of 11m is required for the tower of the water tank.
Water Supply System for Farms
A reliable and cost-effective system to supply water from the water storage of The Reynoso Reservoir to the farm water distribution centre is to also be proposed. This system needs to supply two days worth of water over a two hour period and will be organised through a main concrete open flow channel via two legs. From the water consumption spreadsheet (see Appendix A.2) a flow rate of 3560.86m^3/hour per leg was calculated. To propose a reliable and cost-effective design, four different cross-sections for the concrete channels were investigated: a semicircle, a right-angled triangle, a square and a trapezium (see Appendix C). The optimal height needed for the required flow rate of two days’ supply for the farms is then calculated by solving for h in Manning’s equation: V = (1/n)*(Rh)^(⅔)*(S)^(½) Where: V is the velocity n is Manning’s roughness coefficient Rh is the hydraulic radius (area/wetted perimeter) S is the channel slope The trapezium cross-section was chosen as the most cost-effective, as it is able to satisfy the required flow rate with the lowest amount of excavation and concrete needed for construction (see figure 8). In the final proposed design, h is 7.2m for leg 1 and 9.6m for leg 2 (see figure 9 and 10). An additional 0.3m is included in the optimal heights of the cross-sections, creating a more reliable open channel flow system where water is less likely to splash out of the channel. The 9
total cost for the proposed designs is $281023 for excavation and $111795 for concrete costs (see figure 8).
Figure 9. Final proposed cross-section for leg 1.
Figure 8. Excavation and concrete usage for open-channel flow system cross-sections.
Figure 10. Final proposed cross-section for leg 2.
10
Stability of Existing Slopes
The program SEEP/W was used to model both slopes before construction and find critical failure surfaces. All geometric characteristics of the slopes have been modelled from the geological cross-section in the first part of this report, and it should be mentioned that a diameter of 16mm for the boreholes was used (IndustrySearch, 2017). The minimum factor of safeties (FoS) against sliding were found using Bishop’s Grid and Radius method and are as follows: Left slope before construction: 1.148 Right slope after construction: 0.967 The critical failure surfaces for both slopes before construction can be found in Appendix D.2 and D.3. Both of these minimum FoS’s do not satisfy a FoS of more than 1.2, therefore before the construction of The Reynoso Reservoir, both slopes are considered to be unstable. The right slope of The Reynoso Reservoir cross-section before construction was then chosen to perform hand calculations (using Bishop’s Method) to compare with the SLOPE/W results, which can be seen in figure 11.
Figure 11. Bishop’s Method for critical slip surface for right slope before construction In the cross-section in figure 11 the slip surface is divided into 6 slices with even widths of 5m. The area of soil 1 (stiff silty clay) and soil 2 (soft silty clay) in each slice, each slice’s base angle, and the height of the water table to the base of each slice were all measured. From this, the base angle (α), cohesion (c’), friction angle (φ’), slice weight (W), slice width (b) and pressure on the base of the slice (u = height from water table*gravitational forces) were entered into the excel spreadsheet seen in figure 12. Calculations for the FoS were then performed through the solver function on excel, which aimed to reduce the ‘difference’ to zero between the guessed and calculated FoS excel boxes. This gave a calculated FoS of 0.94.
11
Figure 12. Excel spreadsheet for calculated FoS SLOPE/W analysis produced an FoS of 0.966 for this particular slope, therefore the difference between the two values are minor at a value of 0.026. It’s safe to assume that the hand-calculations of Bishop’s Method are quite accurate, but do not give completely accurate results due to human error, as well as the simplification of the base angle and measurements of the slices’ dimensions within the method’s steps. Modelling of the slopes after construction of The Reynoso Reservoir was then performed on SEEP/W. This construction involved the valley being filled up with water at a maximum of 213m from RL. The original slopes were used as a starting point, with the piezometric line then readjusted to model the reservoir construction. Bishop’s Grid and Radius method was then used to find the new FoS values for both slopes: Left side slope after construction: 1.205 Right side slope after construction: 1.144 The critical failure surfaces for both slopes after construction can be found in Appendix D.4 and D.5. The pressure force on the higher water level has stabilized the slopes slightly, with the left side now becoming stable (a FoS above 1.2). However, the right slope is still significantly under the required 1.2 FoS. Using unit costs of available slope stability improvement measures (see Appendix F), the three improvement measure options (excavation and local re-compaction of soil, excavation and removal of soil, and imported fill) were compared to identify the most cost-effective. The slopes were modified before construction due to constructability (as it’s increasingly difficult to construct the modifications of the reservoir slopes when the reservoir is full of water). Additionally, the modifications were constructed to increase the FoS’s of the slopes before construction of the dam because the construction of the dam (reservoir being filled with water) will only increase the stability of the slopes. Therefore, if a FoS of 1.2 is satisfied before construction then the slopes will always remain stable. Firstly, the left slope was first modified to satisfy a 1.2 FoS. Excavation and fill was considered (see figure 13) which resulted in a FoS of 1.208 (stable) by excavating and filling 4.9651m^2 of soil and excavating an extra 0.2149m^2. The total cost would be $123.46/m (see figure 14). The improvement measure of excavation and removal of soil was then calculated (see Appendix D.6), which was not possible to achieve a FoS of more than 1.2 for the left slope without excavating 12
below the water-table (impossible due to water coming out of the soil resulting in instability of the slope). Imported fill was also considered, however even though the modification was geometrically possible, the cost to increase the FoS to 1.2 was significantly more than the other options (see figure 14). Therefore, excavation and re-compaction will chosen as the slope stability improvement measure for the left hand slope. This is not only because of cost-effectiveness, but also due to a smaller reduction in the volume of the future reservoir.
Figure 13. Excavation and fill modification of left slope
Figure 14. Comparison of costs for modification for left slope
Next, the right slope was then modified to satisfy a 1.2 FoS. Excavation and fill was considered (see figure 15), which produced a FoS of 1.211 (stable) by excavating and filling 23.81m^2 of soil and excavating an extra 0.3m^2. The total cost is $577.44/m (see figure 16). The improvement measure of excavation and removal of soil was then calculated (see Appendix D.10), which was not possible to achieve a FoS of more than 1.2 for the left slope without excavating below the water-table. Imported fill was also considered, however even though the modification was geometrically possible, the cost to increase the FoS to 1.2 was significantly more than the other options (see figure 16). Therefore, excavation and re-compaction was chosen as the slope stability improvement measure for the right hand slope.
13
Figure 15. Excavation and fill modification of right slope
Figure 16. Comparison of costs for modification for right slope
Embankment Dam Firstly, the estimated daily seepage rates through the dams and underlying soil for the two preliminary design options of the dam cross-section (see Appendix F) were analysed using SEEP/W software. The first preliminary design option is a dam without a drain, which can be seen in figure 17. SEEP/W estimated the daily seepage rate to be 3.15m^3/day. Secondly, the same geometric structure of the dam with an added drain was analysed (see figure 18), giving a significant increase in daily seepage rate to 5.4m^3/day. Refer to figure 19 for summary of seepage rates. When a drain is included in the design, a mesh of 0.1m length is placed around the barrier instead of the universal 1m mesh which is placed throughout the rest of the dam. This is because the pressure gradient increases quickly towards the area of the drain as the water leaves the body of the dam (pressure increases). A finer mesh is placed at the drain as it will be more accurate in picking up changes in the pressure gradient. A 1m mesh can be placed elsewhere, as the pressure gradient is more gradual and a larger mesh can more accurately pick up the pressure gradient.
14
Figure 17. Preliminary design option with no drain
Figure 18. Preliminary design option with drain
Figure 19. Summary of seepage rates for variety of dam designs
A recommendation for construction of the dam was then found through consideration of different sized cores. Two core materials were available for use: a clayey core material of medium hydraulic conductivity (LHC core) or a clayey core material of low hydraulic conductivity (MHC core). For the design option without a drain, the cost when using the MHC core is significantly higher than when using the LHC core (see figure 19). The LCH core also gives a more optimal flow rate, therefore the MHC core will not be considered for the final design option of the dam. The design 15
option involving no drain will not be used due to safety issues of piping, as drainage systems significantly lower the possibility of failure due to piping or erosion of soil. Additionally, it should be noted that additional drain material is an option to decrease the seepage rate, but will not be further looked at as it affects the flow rate by increasing it, and therefore only the initial drainage from the second preliminary design option will be used. Therefore, the design option with the initial drain design and a LHC core is selected. Different sized LHC cores were considered and it was found that the minimum amount of material needed to achieve the maximum daily seepage rate was 132m^2 (see figure 20 and 21). The total cost of this design is $5544/m length of the dam, which is more cost-effective than using the MCH core. It is also a safe design option as the likelihood of piping failure has been avoided through use of a drain system. This design reduces the flow rate to a desired 0.83m^3/day (see figure 19).
Figure 20. Final conceptual design for embankment dam
Figure 21. Seepage analysis of final conceptual design for embankment dam
16
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
Lastly, potential environmental and social impacts of construction and operation of the water storage in The Reynoso Reservoir are identified and their mitigations outlined in table 1. Item
Impact Description
Proposed mitigation measures (if necessary)
Local regional infrastructure (social)
Increased access to water for ‘domestic and industrial purposes’ (Tortajada, Altinbilek and Biswas, 2014). This stability of water leads to positive social changes and new opportunities for further development of the surrounding area. This regional development which will ultimately improve the quality of life (Tortajada, Altinbilek and Biswas, 2014).
Economics (social)
Majority of economic impacts are positive, as it will increase job opportunities during construction and maintenance/running of the reservoir. Reservoir construction demands ‘large amounts of skilled and unskilled labor’ (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017) which improves the local community’s economic growth. However, many construction jobs will be of a ‘temporary nature’ and will last for under a decade (Haws, 1985). A stable water supply for irrigation in a regulated manner will promote efficient agricultural production (Tortajada, Altinbilek and Biswas, 2014). Additionally, the chance of floods and droughts will decrease by storing rainwater (Valdiya, 2015).
To relieve post project migration, it’s recommended that other new industries surrounding the reservoir are constructed post-construction of the reservoir (Haws, 1985). This will continue local economic prospects and result in stronger job stability.
Water flux (environmental)
The altering of water temperature, chemistry, flow, pressure and coverage will upset the equilibrium of the ecosystems in the surrounding areas of the reservoir (Valdiya, 2015).
Upstream and downstream residents must adapt to new flow patterns. Residents should not rule out the chance of flooding completely. Residents of 17
There will also be reduced runoff and reduction in groundwater recharge in the dammed areas (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017). Flow of any present rivers will dramatically be impacted, with water velocity increasing below the dam and past annual cycles of discharge changing significantly (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017). Upstream and downstream residents can be ‘adversely’ affected while living in distant towns (Valdiya, 2015).
connecting rivers to the valley/reservoir area should keep riverbeds clear and banks in good order (Haws, 1985). Signs should be invested in to remind residents of potential flooding in riverbank areas even though it is rare. Authorities should produce an emergency flooding evacuation plan incase of flooding, and downstream and upstream residents should have access to these plans (Haws, 1985).
Biodiversity of surrounding environment (environmental)
Usually connecting river channels are narrowed and become ‘overrun with vegetation’ (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017). Additionally, submergence of forests within the reservoir area also occurs. This causes wildlife to flee the area due to habitat loss (Valdiya, 2015). Increased human activities in the area such as ‘intensive agriculture, industries, and increased pressure on land’ (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017) also impact the physical habitat, including fauna and flora. Changes in the water flows upstream and downstream also negatively affect ecosystems in connected areas (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017).
Analysis of the current ecosystem is to be completed, and a plant and animals protection management plan should be written up pre-construction with the aim of minimal impact. Environmental impacts are to be assessed during and after construction regularly to check that management plan is followed. This assessment will include: ● Investigating the landscape (Wang et al., 2011). ● Analysing the efficiency of protective mitigations (Wang et al., 2011). ● Creating better mitigations if standards are not being met (Wang et al., 2011).
Health and welfare (environmental/so cial)
Nutrients are entrapped in the reservoir water body, which can cause high eutrophication and ‘growth of aquatic weeds’ (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017). There is deterioration of water quality due to decay of organic matter and human pollution, which also supports growth of organisms feeding on these
Before construction of the reservoir, an investigation into any potential human diseases within the area is conducted (Haws, 1985). A new health system located within the township should be constructed. Medicines, vaccines and other related health products should be stocked at this health system. 18
Erosion changes (environmental)
products (Valdiya, 2015). Due to the increase in human population there will also be an increase in solid waste and wastewater. This creates a habitat where parasites and germs thrive as large bodies of water can easily transmit human diseases (Haws, 1985).
A pollution management plan will combat the impacts of chemicals and sewage waste in the reservoir. Agricultural uses of pesticides and fertilisers should always be recorded and observed by authorities, with any chemicals that can cause harm to humans banned (Haws, 1985).
Increased erosion and scouring of riverbeds in downstream areas will occur (Manatunge, Priyadarshana and Nakayama, 2017) as sediment transportation is greatly impacted. This occurs due to the water released from the reservoir wanting to ‘satisfy its capacity of bed material’ (Valdiya, 2015). The construction of the reservoir will cause the water table to ‘rise and fall drastically’ which ultimately reduces the shear strength of the soil and rocks in the slopes of the reservoir (Valdiya, 2015). This could cause a failure of the reservoir slopes, resulting in a landslide ‘particularly is the slopes are already in a state of instability’ (Valdiya, 2015).
The chance of erosion occurring in the water channels between the reservoir and the township and farmlands will be mitigated by using a piping system for the township and a open-channel water system with a concrete bed for the farm water supply system. This ensures no erosion of riverbeds/soil in the surrounding environment will occur. This most critical slip surfaces of the reservoir have been analysed pre-construction and slope stability mitigations presented in this report should be followed to ensure no failures of the slopes will occur.
Table 1. Potential environmental and social impacts assessment
Conclusions A step-by-step process to achieve an overall conceptual design of The Reynoso Reservoir and it’s connecting water supply systems was taken throughout this assignment. The Reynoso Reservoir aims to supply Martinville and the surrounding dairy farms with a reliable water supply in the most cost-effective way. The engineering team also takes negative environmental impacts into account, and mitigation measures should be pursued throughout construction and post-construction. All Australian Standards and design brief requirements were successfully followed for the final designs that are proposed in the report, and it’s recommended that conceptual designs are not modified without professional engineering consultation. 19
References
Bushmans Industrial (2016). Tank Material Comparison. Bushmans Industrial. Available at: http://bushmansindustrialtanks.com.au/information/tank-material-comparison. Haws, E. (1985). Dams and the environment. Paris, France: International Commission on Large Dams. IndustrySearch (2017). Small Diameter Borehole Water Level Datalogger. IndustrySearch. Available at: https://www.industrysearch.com.au/small-diameter-borehole-water-level-datalogger/p/33449. Manatunge, J., Priyadarshana, T. and Nakayama, M. (2017). Environmental and Social Impacts of Reservoirs: Issues and Mitigation. Oceans and Aquatic Ecosystems, 1. Standards Australia 2006. Polyethylene Storage Tanks for Water & Chemicals (AS/NZS 4766:2006). Standards Australia International Ltd. Sydney, NSW. State of Michigan (2003). Tanks Section UIP 11. Michigan, U.S.A.: State of Michigan, pp.1-8. Team Poly. (2017). Water Tanks Compared: Poly Tanks versus Galvanised Steel Tanks. Available at: http://www.teampoly.com.au/knowledge-base/water-tanks-compared-poly-tanks-versus-galvanis ed-steel-tanks/. Tortajada, C., Altinbilek, D. and Biswas, A. (2014). Impacts of Large Dams: A Global Assessment. Berlin: Springer Berlin. Valdiya, K. (2015). Environmental geology. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Education LLC. Wang, Q., Du, Y., Su, Y. and Chen, K. (2011). Environmental Impact Post-Assessment of Dam and Reservoir Projects: A Review. In: The 18th Biennial Conference of International Society for Ecological Modelling. Beijing, China: School of Environment, Beijing Normal University, p.1441.
20
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Water Supply System for Township and Farms
Figure A.1: Water consumption calculations
21
Figure A.2: Water consumption for farms
APPENDIX B: Town Water Supply System
Figure B.1: Calculations for 101mm diameter piping
22
Figure B.2: Calculations for 83mm diameter piping
23
Figure B.3: Calculations for 115mm diameter piping
24
Figure B.4: Calculations for 129mm diameter piping
25
APPENDIX C: Water Supply System for Farms
Figure C.1: Calculations for cross-sections of open channel flow
26
APPENDIX D: Stability of Existing Slopes
Figure D.1: Geometry of existing slopes
Figure D.2: Stability analysis of left slope before construction
27
Figure D.3: Stability analysis of right slope before construction
Figure D.4: Stability analysis of left slope after construction
28
Figure D.5: Stability analysis of right slope after construction
Figure D.6: Excavation modification of left slope
29
Figure D.7: Critical slip surface for excavation and fill modification of left slope
Figure D.8: Imported fill modification of left slope
Figure D.9: Critical slip surface for imported fill modification of left slope 30
Figure D.10: Excavation modification of right slope
Figure D.11: Critical slip surface for excavation modification of right slope
Figure D.12: Critical slip surface for excavation and fill modification of right slope
31
Figure D.13: Imported fill modification of right slope
Figure D.14: Critical slip surface for imported fill modification of right slope
APPENDIX E: Embankment Dam
Figure E.1: Original geometry of embankment dam 32
Figure E.2: Embankment dam geometry with drainage
Figure E.3: Required low hydraulic conductivity core modifications with no drainage
Figure E.4: Required medium hydraulic conductivity core modifications with no drainage 33
APPENDIX F: Design Brief
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
APPENDIX G: Single Store Flux Equations
43