TRUNG HIEW CONSTRUCTION JSC

Address: 139 Quang Trung Street Hong Linh Town

Ha Tin Province Vietnam SR
Project Site Office: Long District EPC Request for Submission

REQUEST FOR REVIEW / APPROVAL OF SUBMITTALS

Ref. No. EPC - RFS-023 Date: 7/4/2021

Category Powerhouse Tunnel Works Dam / Weir

Main Civil Works Penstock Others

Type of 1. Pre-Construction Submittal 5. Calculation Report 9. Field Report

Submittal 2. Shopdrawings 6. Test Report 10. O & M Data

3. Equipment Brochure 7. Manufacturer Certificates 11. Weekly Plan

4. Samples 8. Method Of Statement 12. Others

DESCRIPTION OF SUBMITTAL: Volume 2.2.1 Calculation Report for NL2 Weirs

Description
Item No. Volume 2.2.1 Calculation Report for NL2 Unit Quantiy Remarks
1 Weirs A4 pages 65

Type docs. Detailed Design Calculation Sheet

Ref. Docs. No. TH-NL2-DD-CalS-HW-RW-01
Ref. Specification No. Basic Design Documents

Name : Mr. Nguyen Van Kien Signature :

Submitted by : Title : Project Manager - EPC
Submitted Date : 07/04/2021

Name : Signature :
Approved by : Title : Consultant - NL2 (Resident Engineer)
Received Date :

Name : Signature :
Received by : Title : Site Engineer - NL2
Received Date :
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 1: Hydraulic calculation of weir

APPENDIX 1
HYDRAULIC CALCULATION OF WEIR

1 DATA

Table 1:Main parameters

No. Parameter Unit Value
I Water level
1 Full supply level (FSL) m 684.00
2 Design flood level (DFL) m 687.60
3 Downstream design flood level (DDL) m 680.88
4 Check flood level (CFL) m 688.85
5 Downstream check flood level (DCL) m 681.80
II Overflow weir
1 Sill elevation m 684.00
2 Total width m 35
3 Width of the pier m 1.0
4 Bottom elevation of downstream of weir m 674.60
Gate weir (outlet sluice & flood discharge
III
sluice)
1 Sill elevation m 677.50
2 Number of bay bay 2
3 Dimension of one bay m (8x6.5)
4 Width of the pier m 1.5
5 Bottom elevation of downstream of weir m 670.50
2 DISCHARGE CAPACITY OF WEIRS

Weir structure includes:

 Overflow weir with total width, b =35m
 Gate weir with dimension nx(bxh) =2(8x6.5)m
Total discharged flow through weirs are determined by the following equation:
Q = Q1 + Q 2
Where:
Q1: discharged flow through gate weir
Q2: discharged flow through overflow weir
Discharged flow through weir is determined by the following equation:

PECC3 1
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 1: Hydraulic calculation of weir

Q   n mB 2gH3/2
o

Where:
 n: submerged coefficient
 m: discharge coefficient
 : contraction ratio.
1  0.2*(mt  (n  1)* mb )

n *b
 n: number of bay
 b: width of one bay
  mb =1.0: boundary pier contraction
 mt =0.45: intermediate pier contraction
Table 2: Discharge capacity of weirs
Upstream Downstream
Q1 Q2 ΣQ Notes
Water level Water level
679.88 677.81 100 0 100.0
681.35 678.29 200 0 200.0
682.63 678.65 300 0 300.0
683.81 678.95 400 0 400.0
684.50 679.51 574 22 500.0
685.14 679.52 519 81 600.0
685.98 679.97 596 193 789.0
686.02 679.99 600 200 800.0
686.47 680.24 640.6 273.4 914
687.60 680.88 749 492 1241
688.85 681.8 869 786 1655

PECC3 2
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 1: Hydraulic calculation of weir

3 CALCULATION OF ENERGY DISSIPATION

Figure 1 :Diagram of energy dissipation

Formula:
q2
H  P  E  hc 
2 ghc2 2
Where:
 H: height of water head on crest of weir
 P: Difference in elevation between crest of weir and downstream bottom
 hh: Depth of downstream water level
 hc: contracted depth
  : Velocity coefficient
Q
q
 q: flow rate, B
Conjugate depths hc” of hc is determined by the following equation.
hc  8q 2 
h   1  3  1
''
c
2  ghc 
Depth of stilling basin
hb = . hc'' = d + hh + Z
Where:
 =1.05 ÷1.10
q2 q2
Z = 
 .2.g.hh2 2.g.hb2

PECC3 3
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 1: Hydraulic calculation of weir

 Length of hydraulic jump is determined by the following equation.

Lnn = 4.5hc’’
 Length of stilling basin is determined by the following equation.
Lb = (0.7- 0.8).Lnn
Calculation results
Table 3:Energy dissipation of overflow weir
River Bottom Note
Upstream Downstream
Q bed hc hc" EL db Lb
WL WL
level
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

492 687.60 680.88 677.00 1.09 6.1 674.6 2.4 21.96 Flood design

786 688.85 681.80 677.0 1.62 7.89 674.6 2.4 28.4 Flood check

Table 4:Energy dissipation of gate weir

River Note
Q Up Down Bottom
bed hc hc " Lb
WL WL EL
level
(m3/s) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

749 687.60 680.88 677.0 3.19 10.65 670.5 38.3 Design flood

869 688.85 681.80 677.0 3.07 11.67 670.5 42.01 Check flood

Selection of weir structure

 Overflow weir
 Elevation of stilling basin: 674.6 m
 Length of stilling basin: 29.00 m
 Elevation of wall: 677m
 Gate weir (outlet sluice/flood discharge sluice)
 Elevation of stilling basin: 670.5 m
 Length of stilling basin: 42 m

PECC3 4
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 2: Dam crest calculation

APPENDIX 2
DAM CREST CALCULATION

1 DATA

Table 1:Main parameters

No. Parameter Unit Value
1 Project grade
2 Full supply level (FSL) m 684.00
3 Design flood level (DFL) m 687.60
4 Check flood level (CFL) m 688.85
5 Fetch km 0.12
Angle between reservoir axis and wind
6 degree 0.00
direction
Table 2:Wind speed
P% V (m/s)
2 35.8
4 32.3
25 21.7
50 16.52
2 STANDARD AND EQUATION OF CALCULATION

Table 3:Standards
No. Code Standard
1 Lao electric power Technical standards December, 2018
Hydraulic structure – Load and actions of win-
2 TCVN 8421-2010
induced and ship-induced waves on structures
3 TCVN 8216-2009 Design standard for compacted earth dam
Design standard for concrete and reinforced
4 TCVN 9137-2012
concrete dam
The dam crest elevation is determined by the following equations:

(2)
(1) Freeboard for normal water level (normal freeboard)
hw + he + ha + hi and yet 2 m or higher
(2) Freeboard for flood water level (Design flood)
hw + ha + hi and yet 1 m or higher
(3) Freeboard for flood water level (Check flood)
hw + ha + hi and yet 0.5 m or higher
PECC3 1
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 2: Dam crest calculation

Where
hw: the wave height caused by wind
he: the water height caused by earthquake
ha: 0.5 if dam has spillway gate and 0 m if it does not
hi: 1 m for a fill dam and 0 for a concrete dam
2.1 Calculate wave hw
(1) Used for FSL
(2) Used for DFL
 WL: calculated water level.
 s: The increasing of free wave-surface is determined by the following
equation:
2
K.hi%
ηs =hi% .cosδt+ .cth KHcos2δt
2
 s : with maximum of cos  t  1
Where:
  : Wave frequency.
 t: time (s)
2
 K : Wave coefficient.

  : wave length (m)
D
λ=0.073*V*
ε
 D: Fetch (Km)
  : Wave gradient.
1
ε= 14
V
9+19e
 V: wind velocity (m/s)
Calculation frequency of wind velocity:
Table 4:Wind velocity
Project grade
Water level
I and II III and IV V
FSL 2% 4% 10%
DFL 25% 50% 50%
 hi % : height of wave correlated with frequency P= i %

PECC3 2
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 2: Dam crest calculation

hi% =β*h o
  : factor depend on reservoir level  = f(H/)
 H: distance from upstream bottom elevation to upstream water level.
 h0: distance from wave midline to static water level
h o =0.073*K dt *V* D*ε

 Kđt: Coefficient is considered to increasing level of wave along to length of

wave length
D
-0.4
V
Kdt =1+e

 a : Safe height is depended on grade of dam

 With grade I, a=0.8m.
 With grade II, a=0.6m.
 With grade III & IV, a=0.4m.
 h: the height of the increasing of water caused by wind (compared to
static level)
V 2D
h  2.10 3
cos  g
gH
Where:
  g : Angle between reservoir axis and wind direction (degrees)

Table 5:Calculation results

No. Parameters Symbol Unit FSL DFL CFL
1 Reservoir level WL m 684.0 687.6 688.85

2 River bed level m 677.0 677.0 677.0

Angle between reservoir axis and wind
3 g degree 0.0 0.0 0.0
direction
4 Fetch D Km 0.12 0.15 0.15

5 Distance from reservoir level to bed level H 7.0 10.6 10.6

6 Wave frequency P % 4.0 50.0 50.0

7 Wind velocity V m/s 32.3 16.5 16.5

8 Factor depend on reservoir level  1.00 1.00 1.00

9 Wave Height hi% m 0.26 0.13 0.13

10 Wave length  m 5.06 3.41 3.41

PECC3 3
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 2: Dam crest calculation

No. Parameters Symbol Unit FSL DFL CFL

11 Wave gradient  0.03 0.02 0.02
Distance from wave midline to static water
12 h0 m 0.26 0.13 0.13
level
13 Increasing of wave along wind length Kdt 2.00 2.00 2.00

14 Wave coefficient K 1.24 1.84 1.84

15 Safe height a m 0.40 0.40 0.40

16 Increasing of wave surface (hw) s m 0.31 0.14 0.14

2.2 Calculation of raised water height by earthquake, he

The previous study of ZDWP (China) shown that earthquake in area of the
Project is less than grade VI. Based on Vietnamese and Russoa standard,
calculation for earthquake is not required. For more safety for structures we
suggest to calculate with earthquake of Lao severe zone (earthquake coeffient
of 0.025). The Calculation results are as below:

Case K  Ho he Note

FSL 0.025 1 15.3 0.27 Following Japanese standard

DFL 0.025 1 15.3 0.135 Following Japanese standard

2.3 Determination of dam crest elevation

Summary of calculation results are shown in the table below.
Table 6:Determination of dam crest elevation
Calculation Selection of
Reservoir
Case hw he ha hi A of dam crest
WL
dam crest elevation
FSL 684.00 0.31 0.270 0.5 0 2 687.070
DFL 687.6 0.14 0.135 0.5 0 1 689.37 690
CFL 688.85 0.14 0.5 0 0.5 689.99

PECC3 4
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

APPENDIX 2-3
STABILITY CALCULATION OF WEIR

1 DESIGN STANDARDS

Design standard of concrete gravity dam DL51-08 – 1999 (China)

Safe and stability condition of works is determined as follows:
With basic combination, using limit state formula to calculate:
1  fK 
 0 S (  G G K ,  Q Q K , a K )  R  , a K  (1)
 d1   m 
Left Part (LP) ≤ Right Part (RP)
Where:
0 : coefficient depend on the important of structure; With safe grade of
structure is I, II, III, value of 0 is 1.1, 1.0, 0.9 respectively.
 : coefficient depend on design cases, with case of permanent, temporary
or specially, the value of  is 1.0, 0.95, 0.85 respectively
S(.) : function of active impact.
R(.) : function of resistance force.
G : permanent impact Coefficient, see in table A-1.
Q : coefficient of variable impact classification
GK : standard value of permanent impact.
QK : standard value of variable impact
aK : standard value of geometry parameter (can be solved as fixed value)
fK : standard value of material feature.
d1 : structure coefficient of basic combination, see in table A-3
m : classification coefficient of material feature, see in table A-2
With random combination, using following limit state formula to calculate:
1  fK 
 0 S (  G G K ,  Q Q K , A K , a K )  R  , a K  (2)
d2  m 
Where:
AK : representation value of special impact
d2 : structure coefficient of special combination, see in table A-3

PECC3 1
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Table 3-1: Over-load coefficient

No Load Coefficient
1 Self weight 1.0
1) Hydrostatic water pressure 1.0
2 2) Hydrodynamic water pressure: Average
instantaneous pressure, centripetal force, impact 1.05 ; 1.1 ; 1.1 ; 1.3
force, pulsation pressure
Back pressure
3 1)Seepage pressure 1.2
2) Uplift pressure 1.0
4 Sediment pressure 1.2
5 Wave pressure 1.2

Table 3-2: Material Coefficient

No. Item Coefficient Notes
Shear resistant strength Use for calculation.
1) Concrete/Foundation The values of f’ and C’in
Friction Coefficient f’R 1.3 table 3-2 (strong
Cohesiveness C’R 3.0 weathering) must be
1 divided by 1.3 and 3.0.
2) Concrete/Concrete For reference.
Friction Coefficient f’R 1.3
Cohesiveness C’R 3.0
3) Foundation/Foundation: For reference.
Friction Coefficient f’R 1.4
Cohesiveness C’R 3.2
2 Concrete strength: For reference.
Compression strength fC 1.5

Table 3-3: Structure Coefficient

No.
Item Combination Coefficient Notes

Limit design state for non- Basic combination 1.2

1
slipping stability Special combination 1.2
2 Limit design state Basic combination 1.8

PECC3 2
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Table 3-4: Water level parameters

No. Item Unit Value
1 Full supply level – FSL m 684
2 Design flood level - DFL m 687.6
3 Downstream design flood level - DDL m 680.88
4 Check flood level – CFL m 688.85
5 Downstream check flood level - DCL m 681.80
2 SLIDING & OVERTURNING STABILITY COEFFICIENT

Horizontal sliding coefficient

Sliding coefficient Ktr is determined by following formula

Ktr 
 Y f  CF  [K ]
X
Where:
 Y: Total vertical forces
 X : Total horizontal forces
 f : friction coefficient between dam and foundation
 C: unit cohesiveness between dam and foundation
 F: bottom area
Overturning stability coefficient
This work has been checked with the downstream flip at the foot works with
the general formula for calculating the coefficient of the dam stability flip:

KL 
M G

M L

Where:
 MG: Total righting moment
 ML : Total overturning moment
Durability standard
The calculation of stresses at exposed surface between concrete and the
foundation is performed for the entire block of the dam, the stress is
determined by the method of strength of materials according to the formula:

PECC3 3
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

 max, min    2 o
Y 6 M
BL B L
Where:
 Y: Overall capacity of the forces on the vertical works
 B * L: Bottom area
 Mo: Moment to point O
Load capacity of foundation

Rtc=(A.b. *+B.h. +D.C)

Where:
A, B, D: coefficients depend on friction angle
b: width of foundation
h: depth of foundation
*: uplift density
: natural density
C: unit cohesive force
3 DATA

Table 3-5: Physical and mechanical parameters of soil

Compression Characteristic
Shear strength modulus ES value of load
Natural Saturated capacity
density γ density γm
Name Total stress Effective stress 100～ 200～
200kPa 400kPa
C φ C’ φ’

kN/m3 kN/m3 kPa “°” “°” MPa MPa kPa

Silty clay 17.0 18.0 26 14 30 18 5.5 7.5 160

Weathered soil
Gravel silty clay
17.0 17.2 30 16 35 20 6.0 8.0 180

PECC3 4
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Table 3-6: Physical and mechanical parameters of rock

Rock Concrete/rock
Project Characteristic
Saturated Deformation Elastic value of load
density Poisson modulus Modulus Anti Anti capacity
ratio Shear shear Shear shear

γ μ E0 E f’ C’ f f’ C’ F

RockCategory 3 — GPa GPa — MPa — — MPa — MPa

kN/m

Strong
weathering
22.5 0.35 0.9 1.2 0.45 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.20 0.35 0.80
(Use)

Weakly
weathering 26.5 0.32 2.5 2.2 0.60 0.35 0.50 0.70 0.40 0.45 1.00
Siltstone
Weak
weathering 27.0 0.26 5.0 3.0 0.85 0.65 0.64 0.90 0.45 0.60 2.50

4 CALCULATION CASES AND LOAD COMBINATIONS

Table 3-7: Load combination

No. Symbol Load combination

Upstream level : FSL = 684.00m
1 Case 1 Basic combo 1
Downstream level: no water
Upstream level : DFL = 687.60 m
2 Case 2 Basic combo 2
Downstream level: DDL = 680.88m
Upstream level : CFL = 688.85 m
3 Case 3 Basic combo 3
Downstream level: DCL = 681.8m

Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m

4 Case 4 Special Combo 1 Downstream level: no water
Curtain grouting facilities inoperative.
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m
5 Case 5 Special Combo 2 Downstream level: no water
Earthquake: Lao severe zone (Keq=0.15).

PECC3 5
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

5 CALCULATION SECTIONS

Figure 3-1 Typical section of overflow weir

Figure 3-2 Typical section of gate weir

PECC3 6
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

6 CALCULATION RESULTS

6.1 Overflow weir

Figure 3-3 Load diagram on the gate weir

Table 3-8: Stability result of free overflow weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer) - according to Lao/US standards
Uplift e 
Sliding
coef. [Ktr]- e≤[B/3]  max min 
No. Case coef.
Kt
Kđn Lao/US (m) m) (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 1:
upstream level:
1 FSL = 684.00m 5.73 3.96 3 0.28 4.57 -10.71 -8.34 158.8
downstream
level: no water
Case 2:
upstream level:
DFL=687.60 m
2 2.47 2.1 2 1.44 4.57 -2.63 -11.59 158.8
downstream
level:
DDL=680.88m
Case 3:
upstream level:
CFL = 688.85
3 2.13 2.14 2 2.36 4.57 0.22 -14.87 158.8
Downstream
level: DCL =
681.8m

PECC3 7
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Uplift e 
Sliding
coef. [Ktr]- e≤[B/3]  max min 
No. Case coef.
Kt
Kđn Lao/US (m) m) (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 4:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream
4 level: no water 5.08 3.31 2 0.21 4.57 -9.72 -8.06 158.8
Curtain
grouting
facilities
inoperative.
Case 5:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream 2.03 4.57
5 2.68 2.26 2 -0.71 - 12.09 158.8
level: no water
Earthquake:
Lao severe
zone
Table 3-9: Stability result of free overflow weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer) - according to Chinese standards

Sliding Overturning Uplift max min 

No. Case
LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 1:
56.98<
upstream level:
638.18<
1 FSL = 684.00m 119.50 53.8< -10.37 -8.96 62.12
1569.95
downstream 186.41
level: no water
Case 2:
upstream level:
DFL=687.60 m 90.66 < 1338.34 < 120.3 <
2 -11.6 -2.88 62.12
downstream 100.98 1884.67 240
level:DDL=
680.88m
Case 3:
upstream level:
CFL = 688.85 102.86 < 1526.1 < 134.29 <
3 -14.53 -0.55 62.12
Downstream 103.2 2016.37 280.72
level: DCL =
681.8m
Case 4:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream
62.43< 718.02<
4 level: no water 64.21< -8.66 -9.15 62.12
112.97 1563.96
Curtain 186.4
grouting
facilities
inoperative.

PECC3 8
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Sliding Overturning Uplift max min 

No. Case
LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 5:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
89.95<
Downstream 84.32 <
5 96.71 1249 < 1570 -13.56 1.66 62.12
level: no water 165.9
Earthquake:
Lao severe
zone

PECC3 9
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

a. Case 1:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water
Table 3-10: Summary table of forces of free overflow weir (soil
foundation – xxx layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level
no water
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -186.41 -186.41 -1.53

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.29
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -6.24
Vertical force Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 18.90 18.90 4.08
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 29.09 29.09 -1.34
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00 -6.61
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vertical force
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-138.42
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 2.37 2.37 8.98
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 40.50 40.50 5.80
Horizontal Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2 -5.44 -5.44 1.10
force
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 17.25 17.25 2.17
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal
force of Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00
Total
Horizontal 56.20
force

PECC3 10
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

b. Case 2:
Upstream level: DFL= 687.6 m; downstream level: DDL =680.88m.
Table 3-11: Summary table of forces of free overflow weir (soil
foundation – xxx layer)- upstream level DFL =687.6 m
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -186.41 -186.41 -1.53

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.29

Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -6.24

Vertical force Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 92.71 92.71 0.57

Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 23.00 23.00 -1.34

Upper water weight 1.00 W1V -4.32 -4.32 -7.11

Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -29.30 -29.30 -0.91

Vertical force
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-104.32
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 1.44 1.44 11.28

Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 72.90 72.90 6.47

Horizontal Downstream water pressure 0.0 W2 -37.67 0.00 2.89

force
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83

Horizontal force of water

1.00 Pu(H) 25.50 25.50 1.43
pressure

Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00

Horizontal Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
force of
earthquake Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Upper water pressure 1.00 G 0.000 0.00 0.00
Vertical force 101.37

PECC3 11
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

c. Case 3:
DFL= 688.85 m ; downstream level: DDL =681.80m.
Table 3-12: Summary table of forces of free overflow weir (soil
foundation – xxx layer)- upstream level CFL =688.85 m
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -186.41 -186.41 -1.53

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.29

Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -6.24

Vertical force Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 105.34 105.34 0.51

Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 24.12 24.12 -1.34

Upper water weight 1.00 W1V -4.76 -4.76 -7.11

Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -46.55 -46.55 -0.48

Vertical force
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-108.26
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 1.58 1.58 12.11

Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 84.15 84.15 6.58

Horizontal Downstream water pressure 0.0 W2 0.00 0.00 0.00

force
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83

Horizontal force of water

1.00 Pu(H) 28.80 28.80 1.45
pressure

Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00

Horizontal Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
force of
earthquake Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
Upper water pressure 1.00 G 0.000 0.00 0.00
Vertical force 116.06

PECC3 12
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

d. Case 4:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water, curtain grouting
facilities inoperative.
Table 3-13: Summary table of forces of free overflow weir (soil
foundation – xxx layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level
no water Curtain grouting facilities inoperative.
Load Force Value Center
deflection
Force Load Symbol
coefficient (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 1.00 -186.41 -186.41 -1.53

Force by waves 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -2.29

Upper Silt pressure 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -6.24

Vertical force Floating force 1.00 1.00 18.90 18.90 4.08

Uplift load of seepage 1.00 1.00 37.76 37.76 -1.22

Upper water weight 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -6.61

Water weight on spill 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vertical force
Gravity load 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-129.75
force
Force by waves 1.00 1.00 2.37 2.37 8.98

Upper water pressure 1.00 1.00 40.50 40.50 5.80

Horizontal Downstream water pressure 0.0 0.0 -5.44 0.00 1.10

force
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 1.00 1.53 1.53 0.83

Horizontal force of water

1.00 1.00 17.25 17.25 2.17
pressure

Upper water pressure 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Horizontal
force of Downstream water pressure 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Gravity load 1.00 1.00 0.000 0.00 0.00
Vertical force 61.55

PECC3 13
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

e. Case 5:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water, Earthquake:
Lao severe zone.
Table 3-14: Summary table forces of free overflow weir (soil foundation –
xxx layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level no water
Earthquake level 7.
Load Force Value Center
deflection
Force Load Symbol
coefficient (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 1.00 -186.41 -186.41 -1.530

Force by waves 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -2.287

Upper Silt pressure 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -6.235

Vertical force Floating force 1.00 1.00 18.90 18.90 4.08

Uplift load of seepage 1.00 1.00 54.51 54.51 -1.092

Upper water weight 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -6.610

Water weight on spill 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.000

Vertical force
Gravity load 1.00 1.00 18.64 18.64 -1.530
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-94.35
force
Force by waves Pw 2.37 2.37 8.98 Pw

Upper water pressure W1 40.50 40.50 5.80 W1

Horizontal Downstream water pressure W2 -5.44 0.00 1.10 W2

force
Upper Silt pressure Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83 Psil

Horizontal force of water

Pu(H) 17.25 17.25 2.17 Pu(H)
pressure

Upper water pressure W 1E 7.09 7.09 3.78 W 1E

Horizontal
force of Downstream water pressure W 2E 0.95 0.95 1.39 W 2E
earthquake
Gravity load GE(H) 27.961 27.96 5.65 GE(H)
Vertical force 97.76

PECC3 14
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

6.2 Gate weir

Figure 3-4: Load diagram on gate weir

Table 3-15: Stability result of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx layer) -
according to Lao/US standards
Uplift e 
Sliding
coef. [Ktr]- e≤[B/3]  max min 
No. Case coef.
Kt
Kđn Lao/US (m) m) (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 1:
upstream level:
1 FSL = 684.00m 4.03 5.23 3 -0.796 5.52 -11.07 -20.05 162
downstream
level: no water
Case 2:
Upstream
level:
2 DFL=687.60 m 2.98 2.05 2 -0.52 5.52 -9.74 -14.31 162
downstream
level:
DDL=680.88m
Case 3:
3 upstream level: 2.7 2.0 2 -0.57 5.52 -9.51 -14.41 162
CFL = 688.85

PECC3 15
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Uplift e 
Sliding
coef. [Ktr]- e≤[B/3]  max min 
No. Case coef.
Kt
Kđn Lao/US (m) m) (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Downstream
level: DCL =
681.8m
Case 4:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream
4 level: no water 3.87 4.09 2 -0.92 5.52 -9.68 -19.4 162
Curtain
grouting
facilities
inoperative.
Case 5:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream
5 2.37 4.75 2 -2.99 5.52 1.17 28.83 162
level: no water
Earthquake:
Lao severe
zone
Table 3-16: Stability result of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx layer) -
according to according to Chinese standards

Sliding Overturning Uplift max min 

No. Case
LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 1:
upstream level:
93.07< 71.73 <
1 FSL = 684.00m 1253< 3065 -19.94 -9.88 57.44
191.39 318.48
downstream
level: no water
Case 2:
Upstream
level:
108.28< 2097.28 < 195.11 <
2 DFL=687.60 m -14.31 -9.09 57.44
157.54 3580.62 388.76
downstream
level:
DDL=680.88m
Case 3:
upstream level:
CFL = 688.85 119.33< 2291.74< 211.92<
3 -14.42 -8.82 57.44
Downstream 157.48 3755.68 404.28
level: DCL =
681.8m
Case 4:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m 93.07< 1441.15< 91.95<
4 -19.17 -8.21 57.44
Downstream 179.50 3065.61 318.48
level: no water
Curtain

PECC3 16
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Sliding Overturning Uplift max min 

No. Case
LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

grouting
facilities
inoperative.

Case 5:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream 154.76< 2042.58 < 71.73 <
5 -29.6 3.59 57.44
level: no water 177.45 3065.61 286.90
Earthquake:
Lao severe
zone
Note:
- LP: left side of formula (1)
- RP: right side of formula (1)

PECC3 17
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

a. Case 1:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water
(downstream level = 670.50m)
Table 3-17: Summary table forces of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level no water
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Vertical force Gravity load 1.00 G -287.08 -287.08 -0.81

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.76
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -7.65
Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 7.00 7.00 6.34
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 53.94 53.94 -1.40
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00 -7.65
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -31.40 -31.40 -6.24
Vertical force
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-257.54
force
Horizontal
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 3.11 3.11 11.74
force
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 69.62 69.62 7.63
Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2 -2.00 -2.00 0.67
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 6.86 6.86 1.77
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 13.48 13.48 1.79
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal
force of Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00
Vertical force 91.07

PECC3 18
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

b. Case 2:
Upstream level: DFL =687.60 m, downstream level: DDL=680.88m.
Table 3-18: Summary table forces of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer)- upstream level DFL =687.60 m
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -287.08 -287.08 -0.81

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.76
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -7.65
Vertical force
Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 162.89 162.89 0.62
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 26.85 26.85 -1.40
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -101.68 -101.68 -1.06
Vertical force of
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Total Vertical
-199.01
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 1.76 1.76 14.04
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 67.57 67.57 6.17
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 -13.47 -13.47 1.73
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 6.86 6.86 1.77
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 43.83 43.83 1.77
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W3E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00

Vertical force 106.56

PECC3 19
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

c. Case 3:
Upstream level: CFL = 688.85m, downstream level: DCF=681.80m
Table 3-19: Summary table forces of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer)- upstream level FSL = 688.85m downstream level no water Curtain
grouting facilities inoperative.
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -287.08 -287.08 -0.81

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.76
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -7.65
Vertical force
Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 178.12 178.12 0.57
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 28.17 28.17 -1.40
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -117.20 -117.20 -1.33
Vertical force of
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Total Vertical
-197.99
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 1.90 1.90 14.88
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 74.20 74.20 6.18
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 -12.85 -12.85 1.69
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 6.86 6.86 1.77
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 47.47 47.47 1.78
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W3E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00

Vertical force 117.58

PECC3 20
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

d. Case 4:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water
(downstream level = 573.5m). Curtain grouting facilities inoperative.
Table 3-20: Summary table forces of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level no water Curtain
grouting facilities inoperative.
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -287.08 -287.08 -0.81

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.76
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -7.65
Vertical force
Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 7.00 7.00 6.34
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 70.79 70.79 -1.30
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00 -7.65
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -31.40 -31.40 -6.24
Vertical force of
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Total Vertical
-240.69
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 3.11 3.11 11.74
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 69.62 69.62 7.63
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 -2.00 -2.00 0.67
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 6.86 6.86 1.77
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 13.48 13.48 1.79
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W3E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00

Vertical force 91.07

PECC3 21
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

e. Case 5:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water
(downstream level = 670.50m). Earthquake: Lao severe zone.
Table 3-21: Summary table forces of gate weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water,
earthquake level 7.
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -287.08 -287.08 -0.81

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -2.758
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -7.650
Vertical force
Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 7.00 7.00 6.34
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 53.94 53.94 -1.397
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00 -7.650
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -31.40 -31.40 -6.245
Vertical force of
Gravity load 1.00 GE(V) 28.71 28.71 -0.811
earthquake
Total Vertical
-228.83
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 3.11 3.11 11.74
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 69.62 69.62 7.63
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 -2.00 -2.00 0.67
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 6.86 6.86 1.77
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 13.48 13.48 1.79
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 12.18 12.18 4.96
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2E 0.35 0.35 0.84
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W3E 0.49 0.49 1.77
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 43.062 43.06 9.17

Vertical force 147.16

PECC3 22
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

6.3 Left concrete weir

Figure 3-5 Load diagram on left concrete weir

Table 3-22: Stability result of left concrete weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer) - according to Lao/US standards
Uplift e 
Sliding
coef. [Ktr]- e≤[B/3]  max min 
No. Case coef.
Kt
Kđn Lao/US (m) m) (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 1:
upstream level:
1 FSL = 684.00m 7.36 7.55 3 0.122 3.15 -17.3 -20.8 153.6
downstream
level: no water
Case 2:
Upstream
level:
DFL=687.60 m 3.0
2 3.68 2 -2.69 -24.93 153.6
downstream 1.32 3.15
level:
DDL=
680.88m
Case 3:
upstream level:
CFL = 688.85 3.02 1.41 3.15
3 2.93 2 -1.86 -24.69 153.6
Downstream
level: DCL =
681.8m

PECC3 23
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Uplift e 
Sliding
coef. [Ktr]- e≤[B/3]  max min 
No. Case coef.
Kt
Kđn Lao/US (m) m) (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 4:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream
4 level: no water 6.76 5.57 2 0.55 3.15 -19.97 -9.99 153.6
Curtain
grouting
facilities
inoperative.
Case 5:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
Downstream 3.46 0.92 3.15
5 4.58 2 -18.21 - 5.15 153.6
level: no water
Earthquake:
Lao severe
zone

Table 3-23: Stability result of left concrete weir (soil foundation – xxx
layer) - according to Chinese standards

Sliding Overturning Uplift max min 

No. Case
LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

Case 1:
upstream level:
45.05< 366.2<
1 FSL = 684.00m 32.75 < -20.47 -15.97 57.3
156.7 1213.8
downstream 212.2
level: no water
Case 2:
Upstream
level:
80.06< 753.1 <
2 DFL=687.60 m 79.9 < -25.24 -1.62 57.3
132.8 1213.8
downstream 232.2
level:
DDL=680.88m
Case 3:
upstream level:
CFL = 688.85 98.98< 912.63< 86.83 <
3 -26.3 -8.65 57.3
Downstream 146.83 1561.44 294.94
level: DCL=
681.8m
Case 4:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m 36.75<
Downstream 45.05< 378.19< 214.78
4 -27.75 -9.92 57.3
level: no water 153.38 1352.04
Curtain
grouting
facilities

PECC3 24
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

Sliding Overturning Uplift max min 

No. Case
LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP LP ≤ RP (T/m2) (T/m2) (T/m2)

inoperative.

Case 5:
upstream level:
FSL = 684.00m
64.67<
Downstream 575.28 < 55.16 <
5 133.18 -6.38 -14.91 57.3
level: no water 1160.8 160.05
Earthquake:
Lao severe
zone
Note:
- LP: left side of formula (1)
RP: right side of formula (1)

PECC3 25
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

a. Case 1:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water
(downstream level = 670.50m)
Table 3-24: Summary table forces of left concrete weir (soil foundation –
xxx layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level no water
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Vertical force Gravity load 1.00 G -214.78 -214.78 -1.57

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -1.58
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -4.10
Floating force 1.00 Pu(V) 4.73 4.73 0.00
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 22.67 22.67 -2.22
Upper water weight 1.00 W1V 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -32.40 -32.40 3.29
Vertical force 1.00
Gravity load GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake
Total Vertical
-219.78
force
Horizontal 1.00
Force by waves Pw 2.37 2.37 6.18
force
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 40.50 40.50 3.00
Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2 -0.13 -0.13 0.17
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83
Horizontal force of water 1.00
Pu(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal
force of Downstream water pressure 1.00 W2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake 1.00
Gravity load GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00
Vertical force 44.27

PECC3 26
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

b. Case 2:
Upstream level: DFL=687.60m, downstream level: DDL=680.88m.
Table 3-25: Summary table forces of left concrete weir (soil foundation –
xxx layer)- upstream level DFL=687.60 m
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -214.78 -214.78 -1.57

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -1.58
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -4.10
Vertical force 1.00
Floating force Pu(V) 55.57 55.57 0.00
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 17.93 17.93 -2.22
Upper water weight 1.00 W 1V 0.00 0.00 -7.11
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -32.40 -32.40 3.29
Vertical force of 1.00
Gravity load GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Total Vertical
-173.68
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 1.44 1.44 8.48
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 76.50 76.50 3.82
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 0.00 0.00 1.96
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W 1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W 2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W 3E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00

Vertical force 79.47

PECC3 27
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

c. Case 3:
upstream level: CFL = 688.85m, downstream level: DCL=681.80m.
Table 3-26: Summary table forces of left concrete weir (soil foundation –
xxx layer)- upstream level FSL = 688.85m downstream level no water
Curtain grouting facilities inoperative.
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -214.78 -214.78 -1.57

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -1.58
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -4.10
Vertical force 1.00
Floating force Pu(V) 64.26 64.26 0.00
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 18.81 18.81 -2.22
Upper water weight 1.00 W 1V -4.76 -4.76 -7.11
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW -32.40 -32.40 0.00
Vertical force of 1.00
Gravity load GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Total Vertical
-168.87
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 1.58 1.58 9.31
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 95.25 95.25 4.55
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 0.00 0.00 0.00
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W 1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W 2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W 3E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 0.000 0.00 0.00

Vertical force 98.36

PECC3 28
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

d. Case 4:
Upstream level: FSL= 684.00m, downstream level: no water
(downstream level = 573.5m). Curtain grouting facilities inoperative.
Table 3-27: Summary table forces of left concrete weir (soil foundation –
xxx layer)- upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level no water
Curtain grouting facilities inoperative.
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -214.78 -214.78 -1.57

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -1.58
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -4.10
Vertical force 1.00
Floating force Pu(V) 4.73 4.73 0.00
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 26.69 26.69 -2.00
Upper water weight 1.00 W 1V 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW 0.00 0.00 0.00
Vertical force of 1.00
Gravity load GE(V) 0.00 0.00 0.00
earthquake
Total Vertical
-183.36
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 2.37 2.37 6.18
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 40.50 40.50 3.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 -0.13 0.00 0.17
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W 1E 0.00 0.00 0.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W 2E 0.00 0.00 0.00
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W 3E 0.000 0.00 0.00
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) -214.78 -214.78 -1.57

Vertical force 44.4

PECC3 29
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 3 : Stability calculation of weir

e. Case 5:
Upstream level: FSL = 684.00m, downstream level: no water
(downstream level = 670.50m). Earthquake: Lao severe zone.
Table 3-28: Summary table forces of left concrete weir (soil foundation –
xxx layer) - upstream level FSL = 684.00m downstream level no water
Earthquake level 7.
Load Force Value Center
deflection Symb
Force Load
coefficient ol (T/m) (T/m) X (m) Y(m)

Gravity load 1.00 G -214.78 -214.78 -1.570

Force by waves 1.00 RS 0.00 0.00 -1.575
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 0.00 0.00 -4.100
Vertical force 1.00
Floating force Pu(V) 4.73 4.73 -
Uplift load of seepage 1.00 Ps 40.16 40.16 -1.575
Upper water weight 1.00 W 1V 0.00 0.00 0.000
Water weight on spill 1.00 GW 0.00 0.00 0.000
Vertical force of 1.00
Gravity load GE(V) 21.48 21.48 -1.570
earthquake
Total Vertical
-148.41
force
Force by waves 1.00 Pw 2.37 2.37 6.18
Upper water pressure 1.00 W1 22.50 22.50 -5.00
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W2 -0.13 0.00 0.17
pressure
Upper Silt pressure 1.00 Psil 1.53 1.53 0.83
Horizontal force of water
1.00 Pu(H) 0.00 0.00 0.00
pressure
Upper water pressure 1.00 W 1E 7.09 7.09 3.78
Horizontal force Downstream water
1.00 W 2E 0.02 0.02 0.21
of earthquake pressure
Upper sediment pressure 1.00 W 3E 0.11 0.11 0.83
Gravity load 1.00 GE(H) 32.216 32.22 6.62

Vertical force 65.83

PECC3 30
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

APPENDIX 4
SEEPAGE CALCULATION

1 GENERAL ISSUES

1.1 Calculation purpose

The weirs of Nam Long 2 Pond is located on the permeability ground
foundation. Seepage flow will appear at bottom if there is a difference between
upstream and downstream water level. The flow will move through the pore in
soil foundation to form a seepage flow. This can cause seepage instability of the
foundation.
Therefore, stability calculation to define following issues:
 Determine seepage outlet gradient at bottom of works, Joutlet.
 Determine seepage average gradient Javerage, verify seepage durability.
 Determination unit seepage flow q.
1.1 Design standards
 TCVN 9143:2012 Hydraulic structures - Calculate Permeable borders of
Dam on unrock Foundation.
 TCVN 4253:2012 Hydraulic structures – Foundation of hydraulic projects –
Design standard
 Technical hydraulic manual.
1.2 Water level
a. Case 1
 Upstream water level UWL: 684m
 Downstream water level DWL: 674.6m/670.5m (for the bottom of overflow
weir or gate weir).
b. Case 2
 Upstream water level UWL: 688.85m (for the check flood water level).
 Downstream water level DWL: 681.80m (for the check flood water level).
1.3 Basic assumptions
Basic assumptions including:
 Soil foundation is a homogeneous, isotropic environment.
 The soil in completely saturated state and water in the pore is not pressed
 There is no water supply point and drain point in seepage zone (qinlet=qoutlet).
 Stable seepage flow.
 Seepage flow is calculated by Darcy law:  = k.J

PECC3 1
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

 Planar seepage calculation.

Where:
 : average seepage velocity.
 k: seepage coefficient of soil.
 J: hydraulic gradient
2 CALCUALTION OF SEEPAGE BORDER LINE

2.1 Case 1
2.1.1 Seepage calculation for gate weir

Figure 1:Section of gate weir

 Horizontal projection of seepage border line: L0 = 40.46 m
 Vertical projection of seepage border line: S0 = 5.0 m
 Verify condition:
𝐿0 40.46
= = 8.1 → 𝑇𝑡𝑡 = 0,5. 𝐿0 = 20.23 𝑚
𝑆0 5
Table 1:Length of sections
Section Length Section Length
AB 1 GH 9.5
BC 0,5 GI 6.05
CD 0,71 IJ 6.71
DE 13,79 JK 2
EF 1,52 KL 2.78
FG 3 LM 7.82
𝑎
 Part 1: Inlet with no pile: 𝜉𝑏 = ; 𝜉𝑣 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏
𝑇

PECC3 2
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

 Part 2: horizontal part

 Verify condition:
𝑆1 + 𝑆2
𝐿2 ≥
2
𝐿2 − 0.5(𝑆1 + 𝑆2 )
𝜉𝑛 =
𝑇2
𝑆
𝑆2 0.5 2
𝑇2
𝜉𝑐 = 1.5 +
𝑇2 1 − 0.75 𝑆2
𝑇2

 Part 3: Outlet
𝜉𝑣𝑟 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏 + 𝜉𝑐

Table 2:Resistance coefficient

No. Resistance coefficient Value
1 ξb_AB 0.05
2 ξn_BCDE 0.76
3 ξb_EF 0.08
4 ξn_FGI 0.5
5 ξc_GH 1.21
6 ξn_IJ 0.44
7 ξn_JK 0.13
8 ξn_KL 0.16
9 ξn_LM 0.44
10 ξcv 0.44
11 ξcr 0.44
So, total resistance coefficient of parts: ∑ ξ = 4.64
J tbK
 Using Javerage  to verify overall seepage gradient of foundation
Kn
Where:
 Kn: reabilitiy coefficient.With project grade III, Kn= 1.15
 J Tb
K : Gradient of average critical water head, depending on project grade and

type of soil foundation. Reffer to table P3-2, with project grade: III, soil
foundation: clay, the value of J Tb
K = 0.60.

 Javerage: Gradient of average water head

 Ttt: depth of aquifer layer

  : total ressistance coeefficient of seepage border line

PECC3 3
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

H
Javerage = = 13.5/(20.23x4.64) = 0.14 0.60
Ttt 
So, foundation of overflow weir satisfies seepage condition
 Using Joutlet< 0.5÷0.7 to verify outlet seepage gradient at downstream
apron
Ground extrusion condition at downstream apron:
Sr  t
hm≤
1.25
Where:
  : refer to graph A10 depending on S/T1 and T2/T1( S, T1, T2 are dimension
of outlet).
T1
 With condition 0.7 ≤ ≤ 1.4.
T2
  can be defined as follows:
 
 S T 
 = sin    1  2 
 2  T1 T1 

 hm: value of water head under pile or wall.

 Sr: depth of plinth
 t: thickness of concrete face and graded filter of stilling basin, t=1,5m.
 1.25: safety coefficient.
We have: Jra = 0.65 < 0.5÷0.7
Z 2
 .
T2  .

Sr  t
hm = 1.8 ≤ =2.4
1.25
So, equivalent thickness in water head of downstream apron satisfies seepage
condition.
z
 Unit seepage flow: q = .k

Where:
 Z: heigth of water head
 Ʃξ: ressitance coefficient
 K: safety coefficient of foundation , k= 8.e-6 m/s.
z
So q = . k = 13.5x 8.10-6/4.64 = 2.32.10-5 m3/s.m


PECC3 4
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

2.1.2 Seepage calculation for overflow weir

Figure 2:Section of overflow weir

Horizontal projection of seepage border line: L0 = 29.22 m
Vertical projection of seepage border line: S0 = 2.0 m
𝐿0 29.22
Verify condition: = = 14.61 → 𝑇𝑡𝑡 = 0.5. 𝐿0 = 14.61 𝑚
𝑆0 2

Table 3:Length of sections

Section Length Section Length 
AB 1 FG 3
BC 0.5 GH 9.6
CD 0.71 GL 11.72
DE 8.4 LM 1.01
EF 1.51 MN 4.55
𝑎
Part 1: inlet with no pile: 𝜉𝑏 = ; 𝜉𝑣 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏
𝑇

 Part 2: horizontal part

 Verify condition:
𝑆1 + 𝑆2
𝐿2 ≥
2
𝐿2 − 0.5(𝑆1 + 𝑆2 )
𝜉𝑛 =
𝑇2
𝑆
𝑆2 0.5 2
𝑇2
𝜉𝑐 = 1.5 +
𝑇2 1 − 0.75 𝑆2
𝑇2

 Part 3: Outlet
𝜉𝑣𝑟 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏

PECC3 5
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Table 4:Resistance coefficient

No. Resistance coefficient Value
1 ξb_AB 0.07

2 ξn_BCDE 0.68

3 ξb_EF 0.11

4 ξn_FG 0.24

5 ξc_GH 2.03

6 ξn_GL 0.93

7 ξb_LM 0.08

8 ξn_MN 0.34

9 ξCV 0.44

10 ξCr 0.44

So, total resistance coefficient of parts: ∑ ξ = 5.35

J tbK
 Using Jtb  to verify overall seepage gradient at foundation
Kn
Where:
 Kn: reabilitiy coefficient.With project grade III, Kn= 1.15
 J Tb
K : Gradient of average critical water head, depending on project grade and

type of soil foundation. Refer to table P3-2, with project grade: III, soil
foundation: loam, the value of J Tb
K = 0.60.

 Javerage: Gradient of average water head

 Ttt: depth of aquifer layer

  : total ressistance coeefficient of seepage border line

H
Jtb= = 9.4/(14.61x5.35) = 0.12 ≤ 0.60
Ttt 

So, foundation of gate weir satisfies seepage condition

 Using Joutlet< 0.5÷0.7 to verify outlet seepage gradient at downstream
apron
Ground extrusion condition at downstream apron:
Sr  t
hm≤
1,25

PECC3 6
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Where:
  : refer to graph A10 depending on S/T1 and T2/T1( S, T1, T2 are dimension
of outlet).
T1
 With condition 0.7 ≤ ≤ 1.4.
T2
  can be defined as follows:
 
 S T 
 = sin    1  2 
 2  T1 T1 

 hm: value of water head under pile or wall.

 Sr: depth of plinth
 t: thickness of concrete face and graded filter of stilling basin, t=1.5m.
 1.25: safety coefficient.
Z 2
We have: Jouttlet  . = 0,683 < 0.5÷0.7
T2  .
Sr  t
hm = 1.5 ≤ =2.4
1,25
So, equivalent thickness in water head of downstream apron satisfies
seepage condition.
z
 Unit seepage flow: q = .k

Where:
 Z: heigth of water head
 Ʃξ: ressitance coefficient
 K: safety coefficient of foundation , k= 8.e-6 m/s.
z
So q= . k = 9.4x8.10-6/5.35 = 1.4.10-5 m3/s.m


PECC3 7
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

2.2 Case 2
2.2.1 Seepage calculation for gate weir

Figure 3:Section of gate weir

 Horizontal projection of seepage border line: L0 = 40.46 m
 Vertical projection of seepage border line: S0 = 5.0 m
 Verify condition:
𝐿0 40.46
= = 8.1 → 𝑇𝑡𝑡 = 0.5. 𝐿0 = 20.23 𝑚
𝑆0 5
Table 5:Length of sections
Section Length Section Length
AB 1 GH 9.5
BC 0.5 GI 6.05
CD 0.71 IJ 6.71
DE 13.79 JK 2
EF 1.52 KL 2.78
FG 3 LM 7.82

𝑎
 Part 1: Inlet with no pile: 𝜉𝑏 = ; 𝜉𝑣 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏
𝑇

 Part 2: horizontal part

 Verify condition:
𝑆1 + 𝑆2
𝐿2 ≥
2

PECC3 8
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

𝐿2 − 0.5(𝑆1 + 𝑆2 )
𝜉𝑛 =
𝑇2
𝑆
𝑆2 0.5 2
𝑇2
𝜉𝑐 = 1.5 +
𝑇2 1 − 0.75 𝑆2
𝑇2

 Part 3: Outlet
𝜉𝑣𝑟 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏
Table 6:Resistance coefficient
No. Resistance coefficient Value
1 ξb_AB 0.05
2 ξn_BCDE 0.76
3 ξb_EF 0.08
4 ξn_FGI 0.5
5 ξc_GH 1.21
6 ξn_IJ 0.44
7 ξn_JK 0.13
8 ξn_KL 0.16
9 ξn_LM 0.44
10 ξcv 0.44
11 ξcr 0.44
So, total resistance coefficient of parts: ∑ ξ = 4.64
J tbK
 Using Javerage  to verify overall seepage gradient of foundation
Kn
Where:
 Kn: reabilitiy coefficient,With project grade III, Kn= 1.15
 J Tb
K : Gradient of average critical water head, depending on project grade and

type of soil foundation, Reffer to table P3-2, with project grade: III, soil
foundation: loam, the value of J Tb
K = 0.60.

 Javerage: Gradient of average water head

 Ttt: depth of aquifer layer

  : total ressistance coeefficient of seepage border line

H
Javerage = = 0.075 ≤ 0.60
Ttt 
So, foundation of overflow weir satisfies seepage condition

PECC3 9
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

 Using Joutlet<0.5÷0.7 to verify outlet seepage gradient at downstream

apron
Ground extrusion condition at downstream apron:
Sr  t
hm≤
1.25

Where:
  : refer to graph A10 depending on S/T1 and T2/T1 ( S, T1, T2 are dimension
of outlet),
T1
 With condition 0.7 ≤ ≤ 1.4
T2
  can be defined as follows:
 
 S T 
 = sin    1  2 
 2  T1 T1 

 hm: value of water head under pile or wall.

 Sr: depth of plinth
 t: thickness of concrete face and graded filter of stilling basin, t=1.5m,
 1.25: safety coefficient,
Z 2
We have: Jra  . = 0.336< 0.5÷0.7
T2  .
Sr  t
hm = 1.8 ≤ =2.4
1.25
So, equivalent thickness in water head of downstream apron satisfies seepage
condition.
z
 Unit seepage flow: q = .k

Where:
 Z: heigth of water head
 Ʃξ: ressitance coefficient
 K: safety coefficient of foundation , k= 8.e-6 m/s.
z
So q = .k = 1.21.10-5 m3/s.m


PECC3 10
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

2.2.2 Seepage calculation for overflow weir

Figure 4:Section of overflow weir

Horizontal projection of seepage border line: L0 = 29.22 m
Vertical projection of seepage border line: S0 = 2.0 m
𝐿0 29.2
Verify condition: = = 14.61 → 𝑇𝑡𝑡 = 0.5. 𝐿0 = 14.61 𝑚
𝑆0 2

Table 7:Length of sections

Section Length Section Length
AB 1 LM 1.01
BC 0.5 MN 4.55
CD 0.71 NP 1.12
DE 8.4 PQ 20.85
EF 1.51 QS1 2.68
FG 3 S1S2 0.5
GH 9.6 S2S3 6.0
GK 10.72
KL 1.0
𝑎
 Part 1: inlet with no pile: 𝜉𝑏 = ; 𝜉𝑣 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏
𝑇

 Part 2: horizontal part

 Verify condition:
𝑆1 + 𝑆2
𝐿2 ≥
2
𝐿2 − 0.5(𝑆1 + 𝑆2 )
𝜉𝑛 =
𝑇2

PECC3 11
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

𝑆
𝑆2 0.5 2
𝑇2
𝜉𝑐 = 1.5 +
𝑇2 1 − 0.75 𝑆2
𝑇2

 Part 3: Outlet
𝜉𝑣𝑟 = 0.44 + 𝜉𝑏

No. Resistance coefficient Value

1 ξb_AB 0.07

2 ξn_BCDE 0.68

3 ξb_EF 0.11

4 ξn_FG 0.24

5 ξc_GH 2.03

6 ξn_GL 0.93

7 ξb_LM 0.08

8 ξn_MN 0.34

9 ξCV 0.44

10 ξCr 0.44

So, total resistance coefficient of parts: ∑ ξ = 5.35

J tbK
 Using Jtb  to verify overall seepage gradient at foundation
Kn
Where:
 Kn: reabilitiy coefficient,With project grade III, Kn= 1.15
 J Tb
K : Gradient of average critical water head, depending on project grade and

type of soil foundation, Refer to table P3-2, with project grade: III, soil
foundation: loam, the value of J Tb
K = 0.60.

 Javerage: Gradient of average water head

 Ttt: depth of aquifer layer

  : total ressistance coeefficient of seepage border line

H
Jtb= = 0.09 ≤ 0.60
Ttt 

So, foundation of gate weir satisfies seepage condition

PECC3 12
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

 Using Joutlet< 0.5÷0.7 to verify outlet seepage gradient at downstream

apron
Ground extrusion condition at downstream apron:
Sr  t
hm≤
1,25
Where:
  : refer to graph A10 depending on S/T1 and T2/T1 ( S, T1, T2 are dimension
of outlet),
T1
 With condition 0.7 ≤ ≤ 1.4.
T2
  can be defined as follows:
 
 S T 
 = sin    1  2 
 2  T1 T1 

 hm: value of water head under pile or wall.

 Sr: depth of plinth
 t: thickness of concrete face and graded filter of stilling basin, t=1,5m.
 1,25: safety coefficient,
Z 2
We have: Jouttlet  . = 0.51< 0.5÷0.7
T2  .
Sr  t
hm = 1.5 ≤ =2.4
1.25
So, equivalent thickness in water head of downstream apron satisfies
seepage condition.
z
 Unit seepage flow: q = .k

Where:
 Z: heigth of water head
 Ʃξ: ressitance coefficient
 K: safety coefficient of foundation , k= 8.e-6 m/s.
z
So q = . k = 1.05.10-5 m3/s.m

2.3 Total seepage flow
Q = Ʃqi,bi = qgated.bgated + qfree-overflow.bfree-overflow
Where:

PECC3 13
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Q: total seepage flow

q: unit seepage flow
b: width
Table 8:Total seepage flow
q b Q
Case Position
m3/m.s m m3/s
Gate weir 2.32E-05 16.00 3.71E-04
Case 1 Free-overflow weir 1.40E-05 33.00 4.62E-04
Total 8.33E-04
Gate weir 1.21E-05 16.00 1.94E-04
Case 2 Free-overflow weir 1.05E-05 33.00 3.47E-04
Total 5.40E-04

PECC3 14
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Table 9:Result of seepage stability

Allowa
Calculated
Seepage stability Unit ble Note
value
value
Overall seepage gradient at
0.14 0.6 OK
foundation
Outlet seepage gradient at Two filter layers
Gate weir 0.65 0.5÷0.7
stilling basin is necessary

Equivalent thickness in water

m 1.8 2.4 OK
head of downstream apron

m3/s,
Unit seepage flow 2.3x10-5
m
Overall seepage gradient at
0.12 0.6 OK
Case 1 foundation
Outlet seepage gradient at Two filter layers
0.683 0.5÷0.7
Overflow stilling basin is necessary
weir Equivalent thickness in water
m 1.5 2.4 OK
head of downstream apron
m3/s.
Unit seepage flow 1.4x10-5
m
Overall seepage gradient at
0.075 0.6 OK
foundation
Outlet seepage gradient at Two filter layers
0.4 0.5÷0.7
stilling basin is necessary
Gate weir
Equivalent thickness in water
m 1.8 2.4 OK
head of downstream apron
m3/s.
Unit seepage flow 1.21x10-5
Case 2 m
Overall seepage gradient at
0.09 0.6 OK
foundation
Outlet seepage gradient at Two filter layers
0.51 0.5÷0.7
stilling basin is necessary
Overflow
Equivalent thickness in water
weir m 1.5 2.4 OK
head of downstream apron
m3/s.
Unit seepage flow 1.05x 10-5
m

PECC3 15
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

3 Calculate by SeepW software

 Case 1:
689

679

1.Cuoi soi

5. Be tong 1.Cuoi soi

Elevation(m)

3 .2 5. Be
3 .2 3 .2 43 .2 tong
4 .8

4
2. Da phong hoa hoan toan 2 .4
1.6 2.4 1 .6
Ro Da

0.8
5. Be tong 2. Da phong hoa hoan toan
669 3. Da phong hoa manh
3. Da phong hoa manh 3. Da phong hoa manh 3. Da phong hoa manh

0.8

0.8
Mang khoan phut

659

4.Da phong hoa vua

649

639
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Distance(m)

Figure 5:Seepage gradient line- Gate weir

689

679
4.7489e-006 m³/sec

1.Cuoi soi

5. Be tong 1.Cuoi soi

Elevation(m)

2. Da phong hoa hoan toan 5. Be tong

Ro Da
5. Be tong 2. Da phong hoa hoan toan
669 3. Da phong hoa manh
3. Da phong hoa manh 3. Da phong hoa manh 3. Da phong hoa manh
150
Mang khoan phut

659 200

4.Da phong hoa vua

250

649

639
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Distance(m)

Figure 6:Equipotential line- Gate weir

PECC3 16
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Graph 1
4

XY-Gradient
2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (m)

Figure 7:Graph of equipotential line- Gate weir

690

680 0.5

1
2
1.5

2.5
0.5
0.5

670
Elevation(m)

660

650

640

630
355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425 435 445

Distance(m)

Figure 8:Seepage gradient line- Free-overflow weir

PECC3 17
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

690

6.9074e-006 m³/sec
680

670
Elevation(m)

660

650

640

630
355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425 435 445

Distance(m)

Figure 9:Equipotential line- Free-overflow weir

Graph
9

7
Pressure Head (m)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance (m)

Figure 10:Graph of equipotential line- Free-overflow weir

PECC3 18
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

 Case 2
689

679
Elevation(m)

4
4

3
669 5 14 6 54 3 2 1 1

2
659

649

639
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Distance(m)

Figure 11:Seepage gradient line- Gate weir

689

679
6.5258e-006 m³/sec

1.Cuoi soi

5. Be tong 1.Cuoi soi

Elevation(m)

2. Da phong hoa hoan toan 5. Be tong

Ro Da
5. Be tong 2. Da phong hoa hoan toan
669 3. Da phong hoa manh
3. Da phong hoa manh 3. Da phong hoa manh 3. Da phong hoa manh

Mang khoan phut

20 0

659
25 0

4.Da phong hoa vua

649 30 0

639
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Distance(m)

Figure 12:Equipotential line- Gate weir

PECC3 19
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Graph 2
8

XY-Gradient
5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance (m)

Figure 13:Graph of Equipotential line- Gate weir

690

680

0.5
2.5

2
0.5

670
1.5
Elevation(m)

0.5

660

650

640

630
355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425 435 445

Distance(m)

Figure 14:Seepage gradient line- Free-overflow weir

PECC3 20
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

690

9.5845e-006 m³/sec
680

670
Elevation(m)

660

650

640

630
355 365 375 385 395 405 415 425 435 445

Distance(m)

Figure 15:Equipotential line- Free-overflow weir

Graph 2
7

5
XY-Gradient

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Distance (m)

Figure 16:Graph of Equipotential line- Free-overflow weir

PECC3 21
 Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 4: Seepage calculation

Calculated Allowable
Seepage stability Unit Note
value value
OK ( Strong
1 5-10
Overall seepage gradient weathering)
at membrane OK (Weakly
Gate weir 0.8 25
weathering)
Case 1 m3/s,
Unit seepage flow 4.74x10-6
m
OK ( Strong
1.2 5-10
Overall seepage gradient weathering)
at membrane OK (Weakly
Overflow weir 0.9 25
weathering)
m3/s.
Unit seepage flow 6.9x10-6
m
OK ( Strong
1.2 5-10
Overall seepage gradient weathering)
at membrane OK (Weakly
Gate weir 1 25
weathering)
Case 2
m3/s.
Unit seepage flow 6.5x10-6
m
OK ( Strong
1.8 5-10
Overall seepage gradient weathering)
at membrane OK (Weakly
1.2 25
Overflow weir weathering)
m3/s.
Unit seepage flow 9.58 x 10-6
m

Table 10:Result of seepage stability by seepW software

PECC3 22
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 5: Stability calculation of excavated slope

APPENDIX 5
STABILITY CALCULATION OF EXCAVATED SLOPE

1 APPLIED STANDARD

 TCXDVN 285:2002 “Hydraulic works – The basic stipulation for design”.

 TCVN 4253:2012 “Hydraulic structures - Foundation of hydraulic
projects - Design standard”
2 CALCULATING DATA

Table 1:Physical-mechanical parameters for slope stability

Strong Weathered
Testing indicator Symbol Unit Weak Silty clay
weathering soil
Saturated volumetric
γw g/cm³ 22.5 26.5 17 17
mass
Natural interior
tn degree 30o96’ 34o99’ 14 16
friction angle
Saturated cohesive Cbh Mpa 0.20 0.40 0.26 32
Seepage coefficient k cm/s 5.0x10-4 1.0x10-4 1.0x10-3 1.0x10-5

(Other parameters which there are not in this report, it is shown in geology
report)
Grade of work: Grade II
Allowable safety factor :
 Basic combination: K = 1.2
 Special combination: K = 1.08
3 CALCULATION CASES

 Combination 1: normal operation (soil, rock in saturated state), physical-

mechanical parameters of soil, rock are in saturated state.
 Combination 2: normal operation (soil, rock in saturated state), physical-
mechanical parameters of soil, rock are in saturated state with underground
water level
4 CALCULATION PROGRAM AND METHOD CALCULATION

Using stability, seepage calculation program: Geo-Slope programme of Canada.

Ordinary method: this method has not taken into account pressure at two sides
and friction load on side soil bar
Stability factor on formula:
 Gn .cos n .tgi   Ci .li
K at 
 Gn" sin  n

PECC3 1
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 5: Stability calculation of excavated slope

Where:
Ci: unit cohesion of material layer i
i: inner friction angle of material layer i
ln: length of slip circle in limit of material column n
Gn: Weight of material column do not effect of seepage pressure.
G’n: Weight of material column n includes seepage pressure.
: Angle between central normal of slip circle n with vertical line
Bishop method
 It is different from above method so it takes into account pressure at two sides
soil bar.
JanBu method:
 It is different from above 2 methods so it takes into account bottom pressure
at two sides and friction soil bar.
In this calculation, Bishop method is selected

PECC3 2
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Construction Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 5: Stability calculation of excavated slope

5 CALCULATING RESULT

Table 2:Stability factor result (Bishop method)

Ktt
Position Calculating case
Ktt
[K]
left side
 - Combination 1: normal operation (soil, rock in saturated state), physical-mechanical
1.753 1.20
parameters of soil, rock are in saturated state
Left side
- Combination 2: normal operation (soil. rock in saturated state). physical-mechanical
1.753 1.08
parameters of soil. rock are in saturated state with underground water level

 - Combination 1: normal operation (soil, rock in saturated state), physical-mechanical

1.331 1.20
parameters of soil, rock are in saturated state
Right side
- Combination 2: normal operation (soil. rock in saturated state). physical-mechanical
1.331 1.08
parameters of soil. rock are in saturated state with underground water level

PECC3 3
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 5: Stability calculation of excavated slope

6 CALCULATNG RESULT APPENDIX

6.1 Combination 1
 Combination 1: normal operation(soil. rock in saturated state). physical-
mechanical parameters of soil & rock are in saturated state

1.753

Dat

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho a m an h
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Dat
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Da ph on g ho a vu a

Figure 1: Excavated slope of left side

1.331
Dat

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho a m an h
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Dat
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Da ph on g ho a vu a

Figure 2 :Excavated slope of right side

PECC3 4
Nam Long 2 HPP Volume 2.2.1 – Calculation Report for NL2 weirs
Detailed Design Appendix 5: Stability calculation of excavated slope

6.2 Combination 2:
 Combination 2: normal operation (soil. rock in saturated state). physical-
mechanical parameters of soil. Rock are in saturated state with underground
water level.

1.753

Dat

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho a m an h
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Dat
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Da ph on g ho a vu a

Figure 3 :Excavated slope of left side

1.331
Dat

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho an t oa n

Da ph on g ho a m an h
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Dat
Da ph on g ho a m an h

Da ph on g ho a vu a

Figure 4 :Excavated slope of right side

PECC3 5