STATIC AND SEISMIC

STABILITY ASSESSMENT OF
RESERVIOR WALLS
GAUTAM AGARWALLA
17SE06007
 CONTENTS
▪ INTRODUCTION
▪ NEED OF STUDY
▪ OBJECTIVES
▪ BACKGROUND OF THE RESERVOIRS
▪ GROUND INVESTIGATION
▪ OVER ALL DESIGN APPROACH
▪ CONCLUSIONS
▪ REFERENCES
INTRODUCTION

 A Reservoir is a place where water is retained by man made structures for the
later use in activities such as:

 Agriculture

 Hydropower

 Fishing

 Flood retention

 Industry and for domestic household etc.

NEED OF STUDY
▪ 70% reservoir dams are before 1900.

▪ A no. of incident occurred ,causing the concern about the robustness of this system .

▪ Some of the recent examples .. in SOUTH YORKSHIRE in 2007, in RENFREWSHIRE in

2008.

▪ According to the 1975 Reservoir Act, the significant advance way to regulate reservoir in
terms of protection from the risk of flooding or dam failure along with the mandatory
periodic inspection of all these assets.

Hence, results in the activation of emergency response procedure i.e. stability assessment.
OBJECTIVE
▪ Static and Seismic stability assessment of the masonry walls using the different
methodology and assumptions &

▪ Recommend various strengthening measures depending on various stability issues

identified.

Reservoirs:

1.Burncrooks reservoir

2.Munnoch reservoir
BACKGROUND OF THE RESERVOIRS
1.BURNCOOKS RESERVIOR:
 As no built drawing exists it is believed to be earth filled dam embankment
 Assumed dimensions:length-350m ,u/s height-22m ,d/s height -6m.
 Masonry faced retaining wall at toe.
 As per the preliminary survey
• Lower spillway wall require strengthening &
• Stability of toe wall to be investigated.
2. MUNNOCH RESERVOIR
 Earth embankment reservoir
 Dimensions: height of-13.5m,overall length 515m,d/s slope 1:2.5
 The main section of the embankment is masonry head-wall.
 As per the preliminary survey it was recommended to be investigated for
seismic event & to determine if any strengthening work required.
GROUND INVESTIGATION
1. BURNCROOK RESERVIOR

 Original superficial deposit were entirely removed to rock head and replaced by fill materials
for reservoir embankment

 At toe wall , dense silt sandy gravel with medium cobble & boulder.

 At spillway wall , sandy gravelly clay up to 1m b.g.l overlying the sandy gravelly silt with
cobble & boulder contain to rock head.

 Ground water behind toe wall within made ground & soil behind spillway to be dry.
2. MUNNOCH RESERVIOR
 A desk study of ground condition in vicinity of masonry wall as per BGS
 It was found a glacial-till over bed rock.
OVERALL DESIGN APPROACH

▪ Static stability analysis using Euro code 7 (EC7)

▪ Seismic stability analysis using Euro code 8 (EC8)

Hence, the methodology to evaluate the stability were carried out using above codes.
 BURNCROOKS RESERVOIR
OVER ALL ASSUMPTION-:
 D/s slope 1(v):2.5(H)
 Pore water pressure was considered.
 Base friction= (2/3)*internal angle of friction of
foundation stratum
 Wall friction= (2/3)*internal angle of friction of
Ground model 1
retained materials
1.Lower spillway wall:
 Founded on Engineering bed rock
 Ground models were developed using 2 possible
retained heights

Ground model 2
2.Toe wall:
 Engineering bed rock.
 The material in front of it comprise of ground
materials as per G.I
 2 ground models were of different depth were
analyzed.
 (for seismic analysis , Type 1 & over estimated GWL Ground model 1

was considered)

Ground model 2
STATIC ANALYSIS
 SEISMIC ANALYSIS
1.TOE WALL
• The vertical component of inclined active
pressure is considered for toe wall (hence
MoS just above unity).

2. SPILLWAY WALL
• MoS << 1

Hence, Strengthening measures of lower spillway

wall to be considered.
 STRENGTHENING MEASURES (SPILLWAY WALL) :
 An additional vertical and horizontal weight is

needed to be added.
 Hence partial replacement of backfill material

with mass concrete.

 Effective width increases

 Hence adequate MoS for overturning and

sliding could be achieved.

 Relation between retained height and overall

wall thickness shown in the graph.

(Required overall width as per the varying retained height).
 (could be adjusted along the length in
(Retained height vs. overall thickness)
accordance with the geometry).
 Munnoch reservoir
Components:
 Head wall- 2.44m base width & 7 m max height (with
tapered C/sec).
 Wing wall with 2 sets of counterforts (@5.95m & @
3.50 m with length 10 &14m respectively).

 Φ’= 29 to 33° (assumed as no GI was available)

 The foundation stratum consisted of locally reworked
Glacial till.
 D/s face-1(v):2.5(H)
 No additional loading effect were considered
3D ANALYSIS
▪ 3 sec we’re considered :

▪ Arched headwall,

▪ Wing wall with the counterforts &

▪ Remaining wing wall

▪ Adjacent wing wall contributed to the stability of headwall.

▪ Friction angle = 2/3*φ ( static analysis)

= φ (seismic analysis) (deviation from EC8)

FALIURE MECHANISM AND
RESISTING FORCE

▪ Base sliding
▪ Passive form soil in front of embedded
depth of wall
▪ Passive from wing wall counterforts
▪ Side friction of wing wall.

(Headwall) (Wing wall)

In both the cases the results comply with the current standards.
 CONCLUSIONS

▪ Detailed Investigation and geotechnical stability analysis were performed.

▪ Munnoch headwall and wing wall were in compliant with the current standards for both
seismic and static loadings.( How ever slight deviation from EC8 for seismic)

▪ Burncrook’s lower spillway wall required strengthening measure to increase the MoS to
comply with current standards. (Over all wall thickening)

▪ And form structural perspectives ,risk management approach was recommended for the
Munnoch reservoir along with inspection at appropriate intervals.
 REFERENCES

Manuel Neves ,MSc ,PhD ,Geotechnical Engineering ,Department of Earth Engineering &
sciences, Fraser Linday ,MEng ,CEng ,MICE ,Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Department of
Rail & Ground Engineering & Chris Holt BSc (Hons) ,CEng ,MICE ,Senior Consultant
,Department of Rail & Ground Engineering (ice Vol 27 issue 3).
THANK YOU

Questions ???
(if any)
GROUND INVESTIGATION
▪ 4 percussion boreholes with in situ SPT behind lower spillway and toe walls
▪ 2 rotary boreholes in rock in front of toe wall
▪ 2 hand dug trail pits behind the top of toe wall
▪ 5 hand dug pits to investigate the rock fill wedge at the rear of the toe wall
▪ Ground water monitoring
▪ Geotechnical and geochemical laboratory testing
▪ 6 horizontally 50 mm die masonry cores through toe walls
▪ 4 inclined 50 mm die masonry cores through toe walls
▪ Results, original superficial deposits were entirely removed to rock head and
replaced with fill materials for embankment.