Swakoppoort Dam

Louis C Hattingh (APP)

Hattingh Anderson Associates CC in
association with Lithon Project Consultants
Swakoppoort Dam
 Hydrology
• Previous hydrology reports:
• Hydroconsultants (undated):
– estimates of extreme flood in the Swakop River -
1922/23 to 1941/42 - observations by road construction
personnel
• Department of Water Affairs (1975):
– Westphalenhof gauging station – 1961/62 to 1970/71
– Synthetic record
– statistical analysis both synthesized & observed - LN
distribution
– SUH tc of 16 hours
• Greenbaum et al (2014):
• Water levels @ Swakoppoort Dam:
– 1977/78 to 2012/13
• Flows @ Westphalenhof
– 1961/62 to 1970/71
 Recommended flood peaks (m 3/s)

Probability of exceedance (%) DWA (1975) Greenbaum et al (2014)

1.0% 1 900 1 320 – 1 350

0.5% 2 500

0.2% 4 150

0.1% 5 000 2 100 – 2 150

 10000 1 136

Inflow (m3/s)
Water level

1000 1 131

Relative water level (m)

Unrouted inflows (m3/s)

100 1 126

10 1 121

1 1 116

0.1 1 111
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time
 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SWAKOPPOORT DAM
Recurrence interval in 2 5 10 20 50 100 1000 10000
10000
LN
LP3
GEV
GEVpwm
Proposed

1000
Annual peak flow (m3/s)

100

10

1
0.998 0.995 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.0001

Probability of exceedance
 This study
Flood peaks (m3/s)

Probability of Greenbaum et al
exceedance (%) Statistical (2014)* TR 137 Recommended

1.0% 1 238 1 320 – 1 350 1 238

0.1% 2 093 2 100 – 2 150 2 093

0.01% 3 198 3 198

0.001% 4 602 4 602

RMF 6 320 3 600

RMF+Δ 11 095 6 320

Recommended 1 472
Design Flood

SEF 4 602
 Flood hydrographs
• 1984/85, 1987/88 and 2005/06
• SUH
– 1 tc = 26 hours
– tc = 9 hours
 1.0

1985
0.9 1988
2006

0.8 26 hour SUH hydrograph

9 hour SUH hydrograph

0.7

0.6
Flow (m3/s)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
Time (hours)
 Spillway capacity
• Uncontrolled ogee spillway
• Hydraulic model study
• Maximum capacity of spillway system
= 4 250 m3/s
• Cannot accommodate unrouted SEF
• Can accommodate routed SEF:
– 0.16 m freebord 26 hour
– 1.58 m freeboard 9 hour
 Outlet works
• Outlet works capacity = 9.5 m3/s at
FSL  93.4 days from FSL to lowest
draw down level  sufficient under
normal operating circumstances
• Capacity is, however, not sufficient to
lower the water level down during an
impending failure.
 Dam wall
• Trial load analysis
• 7 scenarios
• Relies on pressure relief of
foundation
• Stresses acceptable
• Calcite stains corresponds with trial
load results
 Inspection

• Operational staff not at inspection

• No access to left flank
• Some typical alkali aggregate reaction
crack patterns
• Drainage holes not cleaned
• Silt outlet urgently needs
maintenance – no maintenance for 20
years
 Surveillance
• Reservoir water level
• No inspections
 Risk & impact
• Dambreak
• Impact assessment using Google
Earth
• Failure probability:
– 1 x 10-4 and 1 x 10-5
• Impacts acceptable
 Risk level

1.E+08
Risk of financial losses (R/annum)
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03

1.0E-11 1.0E-10 1.0E-09 1.0E-08 1.0E-07 1.0E-06

Annual risk of fatalities per exposed hour

 O&M Manual & EPP
• Info either not correct or based on
earthfill embankment & gated spillway
info
• No appropriate operation,
maintenance or surveillance
• No proper EPP
• Does not satisfy SA requirements
 Other
• No safety boom upstream of spillway
 Recommendations
Maintenance:
1. Urgent maintenance to all the components of the silt outlet
including access ladders;
2. The drainage holes should be cleaned on an annual basis;

Operation:
3. The Operation and Maintenance Manual should be updated as
a matter of urgency;
4. A proper Emergency Preparedness Plan should be compiled;
5. The Operation and Maintenance Manual should be revised on
an annual basis;
6. Once compiled the Emergency Preparedness Plan should be
update (especially the telephone numbers) and tested on an
annual basis;
7. The updated Operation and Maintenance Manual and
Emergency Preparedness Plan should effectively implemented
by training the operators of the dam in the proper operation
and maintenance of all the components;
8. The dam’s blocks should be numbered on the downstream face
for monitoring purposes. The numbering should be of
sufficient size to enable identification from either flank;
9. The drainage holes should be clearly numbered and this should
be recorded on a drawing for future reference;
 Recommendations
Monitoring & inspection:
10. NamWater should start detail water level monitoring as soon
as possible in addition to the DWA monitoring to provide
appropriate redundancy;
11. A system of three monthly routine visual inspections be
implemented;
12. Logbooks (for civil as well as mechanical/electrical
components) should be compiled by an appropriate person to
record the observation made during routine inspections;
13. Movement of the vertical construction joints should be
monitored at least on a monthly basis by the installation of 3D
crack gauges on the non-overspill crest (both left and right
flanks) as well as at the downstream toe;
14. The displacement of the dam should be monitored on a six
monthly basis by a geodetic survey to monitor the possible
alkali aggregate swelling action at the dam. The survey should
be conducted to correspond with the turning points in the
displacements (January/February and July/August);
15. Formal monitoring of the calcite stains and cracks should done
on an annual basis (a detail crack map as well as detail enough
photos of the whole of the downstream face) as part of the
routine inspection program;
16. The depths of the drainage holes at the toe of downstream
face should be measured and recorded after each cleaning;
 Recommendations
Betterment:

17. Safe access to the left flank should be provided from an

Occupational Health and Safety as well as surveillance
view;
18. An appropriate safety boom should be provided upstream
of the spillway;

Other:
19. The statistically determined flood peaks determined from
the analysis of the observed flood peaks should be used as
the representative flood peaks for Swakoppoort Dam;
20. That the synthetic flow record methodology previous used
for Swakoppoort Dam not be used at Swakoppoort Dam or
any other dam in Namibia;
21. That the K-value for the determination of the RMF be
changed form 4.6 down to 4.0;
22. A flood peak of 4 602 m3/s with an annual probability of
exceedance of 0.001% (10-5) be used as Safety Evaluation
Flood (SEF) instead of using any relationship with the RMF
peak (typically RMF+Δ);
Thank you

Louis Hattingh
halh@icon.co.za