See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328228382

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OF AN EARTH DAM

Article · October 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 136

1 author:

Jasim M Abbas
University of Diyala
48 PUBLICATIONS   143 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fish Farming Project View project

Numerical Methods for the Solution of Nonlinear Differential Equations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jasim M Abbas on 16 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS FOR EARTH DAMS
USING (GEO-SLOPE/W)
Jasim M Abbas 1, Zainab Ali Mutiny, 2
1
Assistant Professor, 2 M. Sc. Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Engineering College,
University of Diyala
jasimalshamary@yahoo.com
Abstract
The study of slope stability is important in the
design and construction of the earth dams
under influence of special states. Some factors
affect on the slope stability for the earth dams
such as change the water level in the reservoir,
dam configuration, material properties..etc. In
this study, the factor of safety of upstream
slope stability for number of exist earth dams
has been assessed. To achieve the objective of
this study, Geo-SLOPE/W program that based
on limit equilibrium methods was used. Taking
into account the case of dry condition and
gradually rise of water level in upstream part
for these dams. It can be seems that the slope
stability of the earth dams increased in case of
dry condition. In addition, the slope stability
increased when the water reach to maximum
value.
Keywords: Earth Dams, Slope Stability, Geo-
SLOPE/W.
Paper History: Received: (2/11/2016)
Accepted: (2/2/2017)
Introduction
One of the important stages in design of
earth dam is the evaluation slope stability for
upstream slope for earth dams. Number of
previous studies takes into account the
influence of many factors on the (F). Pham et
al., 2013 studied the effect of the water levels
on the upstream slope of the earth dam
(Yashigou in Chine), were considered without
water level and steady state water level and
drawdown of the water level in the reservoir
using Geo-studio software SLOPE/W and
SEEP/W programs, to analysis "factor of
safety" for the stability of slope for earth dam
used (Morgenstern-Price and finite element
stress) methods. Kubba and Aqeel, 2013
studied the slope stability of earth dam which
is located in north of Iraq. The analysis
stability for upstream and downstream slopes
by using hand calculation (Bishop) method and
(SLOPEBG) program for the purpose
comparison the results. Abhilasha and
Ashwini, 2014 calculated the values of factor
of safety for downstream slope of (Poomala)
dam in India for variable pore water pressure
70
ISSN 1999-8716
eISSN 2616-6909
condition based on (Ordinary, Bishop, Janbu,
Morgenstern-Spencer) methods, using (Geo-
studio) software(SLOPE/W) program to find
the factor of safety for the earth dam. Athani,
et al., 2015founded the values of factor of
safety for upstream slope for the earth dam and
seepage analyses by using finite element
method (PLAXIS 3D software) of the earth
dam is located in India. The seepage analysis is
divided into two steps, steady state and
transient analyses. The slope stability for
upstream slope of the earth dam has been
studied for the following conditions: (a) full
(high) reservoir level of the earth dam, (b)
rapid drawdown in 5 and 10 days duration, (c)
slow drawdown in 50 days duration and (d)
low water level of the earth dam.
Andreea, 2015study the slope stability of
(Maneciu) earth dam with a 78 meter high and
200m width, in Romania. The analysis
including three stages which are: (a) the first
stage is steady state analysis (full reservoir)
with water level at 74 m height, (b) the second
stage is drawdown of water level to 50m
(transient analysis with time) and (c) the third
stage is after maintaining the water level 50m
for a long time. This study used Strength
Reduction Method (3D) program to calculate
the values of the "factor of safety" for
upstream slope for the earth dam.
Therefore, the paper presents the results of
LEM of the stability analyses of the earth dam
using Geo-SLOPE/W software taking into
account the factors that affected on the slope
stability performance.
2- STUDIED CASES
The following cases was taken in this
analysis:
A-Wand dam: The dam is located in
Diyala-Iraq. Wand dam which analysis in
software program use without paving of the
layer materials to prevent water leakage
inside the earth dam. The cross-section of
Wand dam is shown in Figure (1). (Ministry
of water resources in Iraq, 2011), with soil
properties of (c=0, ϕ=39o , γ=21kN/m3)
B-Horan dam H-2 is an earth dam located
18 Km north east of Al- Rutba in Iraq. The
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12
cross-section of Horan dam H-2 is shown in
Figure (2). (Abdul Kareem, 2010), with soil
properties of (c=10kN/m2, ϕ=32o, γ=21kN/m3)
C-Nian dam(1) is an earth dam is located
in Hormozgan in Iran. The cross-section of
Nian dam is shown in Figure(3). (Soleimani
and Adel, 2014), with soil properties of(c=0,
ϕ=43o , γ=23kN/m3) and (H=27.3m)
D-Nian dam (2) is an earth dam is located
in south of Iran. The cross-section of Nian dam
is shown in Figure (4). (Bagheri, 2006), with
soil properties of(c=0, ϕ=43o , γ=23kN/m3)and
(H=32m)
E-Poomala damis located at Kerala in
India. The cross-section of Poomala damis
shown in Figure (5).(Abhilasha and Ashwini,
2014), with soil properties of (c=29kN/m2,
ϕ=18o γ=16kN/m3).
3- METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Limit equilibrium methods are important in
slopes stability analyses. These methods
calculation the "factor of safety" (F) by
dividing a potential sliding mass into several
vertical slices. All these methods used based
on certain assumptions for the inter slice
normal (E) and shear (T) forces. This
assumption is a main part in distinction
between limit equilibrium method from another
and the basic difference among the methods is
how these forces are determined or assumed. In
addition to this the shape of the assumed slip
surface and the forces directions that acting on
each slice in the slope are assumed. The
ordinary method (1936) was developed this
method and is sometimes referred to as
“Fellenius method”. The Ordinary method
satisfies the moment equilibrium for a circular
slip surface, but neglects both the inter slice
normal and "shear forces". The advantage of
this method is its simplicity in solving the (F).
Abramson et al. and Nash (as cited in Aryal,
2006). Bishop simplified method (1955)
advanced, this method is very common in
practice for circular shear surface (SS). This
method considers the inter slice normal forces
but neglects the inter slice shear forces
(Michael, 2003). Janbu’s simplified method
this method which is based on a composite
shear surface (i.e. non‐circular) and the (Ff) is
determined by horizontal force equilibrium, as
in (Bishop simplified method),and this method
does not satisfy moment equilibrium and
considers inter slice normal forces (E) but
neglects the shear forces (T). Janbu (as cited in
Aryal, 2006). Spencer’s method this method is
the same (Morgenstern‐Price)method except
the assumption made for inter slice forces, the
71
ISSN 1999-8716
eISSN 2616-6909
forces considered in this method. Spencer (as
cited in Aryal, 2006). Morgenstern‐Price
method, this method satisfies both force and
moment equilibriums and assumes the inter
slice force function. According to method
Morgenstern-Price (as cited in Rashed, 2014).
4-RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this study the factor of safety calculate
for upstream slope of earth dams using
(Morgenstern-price(M1),Spencer(M2), Bishop
(M3), Janbu (M4), Ordinary(M5)). In the cases:
a- at the end of construction (dry condition) and
2- gradually rise of the water level (h) for the
reservoir. The minimum values of (F) for all
cases are detailed in Tables (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In
addition the shape of the critical slip surfaces of
the upstream slope for the earth dams is
analyzed using circular failure surface are
shown in Figures (6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
The relationship between the minimum (F)
and water level(m) is shown in Figure (11). It
can be seen that the values of (F) are decreased
between (h=0 to 9.6m) because used the value
of soil cohesion equal 0. This leads to
increasing the pore water pressure inside the
dam body, as a result of that the resisting force
decrease, which role decrease the values of
factor of safety. While the values of factor of
safety becomes increase when the water level
(h) greater than (9.6m) due to increase the
water forces supported the upstream slope face
that decreasing the driving forces.
It can be seen from the Figure (12) that the
values of (F) decreases between (h=0 to 2.8m)
because of increasing the pore water pressure
inside the dam body, as a result of that the
resisting force decrease, which role decrease
the values of factor of safety. While the values
of factor of safety becomes increase when the
water level(h) greater than (2.8m) because
increase the water forces supported the
upstream slope face that decreasing the driving
forces.
It can be noted from the Figure (13) that the
values of (F) decreases between (h=0 to
5.46m) due to use the value of (cohesion equal
0)which leads to increasing the pore water
pressure inside the dam body, as a result of that
the resisting force decreases, which role
decrease the values of factor of safety. While
the values of factor of safety becomes increase
when the water level(h) greater than (5.46m)
because of increasing the water forces
supported the upstream slope face that
decreasing the driving forces.
The relationship between the minimum (F)
and water level(m) as shown in Figure (14). It
can be seen from the Figure that the values of
factor of safety are decreased between (h=0 to
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12
6.4m) due to use the value of (cohesion equal
0)which leads to increasing the pore water
pressure inside the dam body, as a result of that
the resisting force decrease, which will
decrease the values of factor of safety. While
the values of factor of safety becomes increase
when the water level(h) greater than (6.4m)
because of increasing the water forces
supported the upstream slope face that
decreases the driving forces.
The relationship between the minimum (F)
and water level(m) for poomala dam is shown
in Figure (15). It could be seen from the Figure
that the values of factor of safety decrease
between (h=0 to 3.8m) because of increasing
the pore water pressure inside the dam body, as
a result of that the resisting force decreases,
which role decrease the values of factor of
safety. While the values of factor of safety
become increase when the water level(h)
greater than (3.8m) because of increasingmthe
water forces supported the upstream slope face
that decreasing the driving forces.
The values of factor of safety (F) that
calculated by (Morgenstern‐Price method (M1),
Spencer’s method (M2), Bishop simplified
method (M3), Janbu’s simplified method (M4),
Ordinary method (M5)) with small differences
can be observed. The differences between all
values of factor of safety which passed
previously agree with what Duncan (as cited in
Griffiths and Lane,1999) which refers that "The
differences between the values of the safety
factor obtained with the various methods are
generally lower than 6%".
5- CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study the following
conclusion could be placed:
Generally, that the slope stability of the
earth dams increases when the dams body are
dry while the slope stability of upstream slope
for Wand dam, Nian dam(1) and Nian dam(2)
is less than the slope stability for Horan dam
H-2 and Poomala dam, because of the
appropriate heights to Horan dam H-2 and
Poomala dam. For Wand dam, Nian dam(1)
and Nian dam(2) it can be noted that the values
of factor of safety, are decreased between
(dry condition to medium value), because used
the value of (cohesion equal 0) which leads to
increasing the pore water pressure inside the
dam body and the values of factor of safety
become increase when the water level greater
than (medium value) because increase the
water forces supported the upstream slope
face. In addition that the values of factor of
safety (F) calculated by (Morgenstern‐Price
method (M1), Spencer’s method (M2), Bishop
simplified method (M3), Janbu’s simplified
ISSN 1999-8716
eISSN 2616-6909
method (M4), Ordinary method (M5)), have
insignificant differences for all methods.
6- REFERENCES
1. Pham, H. T.,Htet, Z., Cheng, J.,(2013),Stability
of Slope and Seepage Analysis in Earth Dam
Using Numerical Finite Element Model, Study
of Civil Engineering and Architecture
(SCEA),2(4),104-108.
2. Kubba, F.A. and Aqeel R. L.,(2013),
Assessment of Earth Dams Slope Stability By
Computer Software, Australian Journal of
Basic and Applied Sciences,7(6),229-236.
3. Ministry of water resources in Iraq,(2011),
Encyclopedia of dams in Iraq,132.
4. Aryal, K. P.,(2006),Slope Stability Evaluations
by Limit Equilibrium and Finite Element
Methods. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Science
and Technology, Norwegian.
5. Michael, J. W.,(2003),Engineering and Design
Slope Stability. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, EM 1110‐2‐1902,(1-2), (c-8),(c-
14),(3-2),(3-4).
6. Rashed D. A.,(2014),A New Prediction Model
for Slope Stability Analysis.
DICAM.SettoreConcorsuale di afferenza:
08/B1 Geotecnica,1-98.
7. Abdul Kareem, A.H., (2010), Analysis of the
construction behavior of western desert Horan
dam H-2, Journal of Iraqi Desert Studies,
2(2),60.
8. Bagheri, H., (2006), Application of jet grouting
for water tightening of coarse grained alluvium,
Dams and Reservoirs, Societies and
Environment in the 21st century, 647.
9. Abhilasha, P. S. and Ashwini, S., (2014),
Stability Analysis of an Embankment Dam-
poomala Dam Case Study, International Journal
for Scientific Research & Development,
2(10),428-431.
10. Griffiths, D.V. and P.A. Lane,(1999),Slope
Stability Analysis by Finite elements,
Geotechnique, 49(3),387-403.
11. Athani, S. S.,Shivamanth, C. H., Solanki and
G. R. D.,(2015),Seepage and Stability Analyses
of Earth Dam Using Finite Element Method,
International Conference on Water Resources,
Coastal and Ocean Engineering,876 – 883.
12. Andreea, C., (2015),Unsaturated Slope Stability
and Seepage Analysis of a Dam, Sustainable
Solutions for Energy and Environment,
Eenviro, 18-20 November,93-98.
13. Soleimani ,S. and A. Asakereh,(2014),
Evaluation of static stability of earth dams
using geo-studio software. International
Journal of Engineering, Fascicule, 3:265-268.
72
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909
Table (1) minimum values of (F)for gradually rise (h)for Wand dam
Water M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
level(m)
0(dry) 2.029 2.028 2.03 2.027 2.027
4.8 2.014 2.014 2.016 1.96 1.949
9.6 1.977 1.976 1.974 1.918 1.901
14.4 2.009 2.008 2.012 1.962 1.982
19.2 2.025 2.029 2.03 2.027 2.061

Table (2) minimum values of (F)for gradually rise (h) for Horan dam H-2
Water M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
level(m)
0(dry) 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.473 2.484
2.8 2.426 2.427 2.427 2.358 2.366
5.6 2.442 2.442 2.441 2.367 2.375
8.4 2.617 2.617 2.617 2.528 2.557
11.2 2.876 2.876 2.872 2.781 2.881

Table (3) minimum values of (F)for gradually rise (h)for Nian dam(1)
Water M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
level(m)
0(dry) 1.834 1.834 1.834 1.721 1.678
5.46 1.677 1.682 1.71 1.518 1.469
10.92 1.733 1.739 1.768 1.555 1.469
16.38 1.819 1.82 1.819 1.631 1.534
21.84 1.827 1.827 1.827 1.704 1.629

Table (4) minimum values of (F)for gradually rise (h)for Nian dam(2)
Water M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
level(m)
0(dry) 1.705 1.713 1.761 1.556 1.536
6.4 1.564 1.573 1.607 1.414 1.348
12.8 1.58 1.59 1.628 1.434 1.34
19.2 1.64 1.65 1.695 1.49 1.394
25.6 1.712 1.722 1.767 1.567 1.482

Table (5) minimum values of (F)for gradually rise (h)for Poomala dam
Water M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
level(m)
0(dry) 1.371 1.371 1.367 1.354 1.353
3.8 1.37 1.37 1.365 1.352 1.351
7.6 1.375 1.376 1.369 1.357 1.357
11.4 1.499 1.501 1.501 1.462 1.463
15.2 1.875 1.873 1.878 1.819 1.811

73
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909

Figure (1): Cross-section of Wand dam

Figure (2): Cross-section of Horan dam H-2

Figure (3): Cross-section of Nian dam(1)

Figure (4): Cross-section of Nian dam(2)

74
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909

Facto r of Safety Factor of Safety

2.0 29 - 2.1 29 2.014 - 2.114
2.1 29 - 2.2 29 2.114 - 2.214
2.2 29 - 2.3 29 2.214 - 2.314
2.3 29 - 2.4 29 2.314 - 2.414
2.4 29 - 2.5 29 2.414 - 2.514
2.5 29 - 2.6 29 2.514 - 2.614
2.6 29 - 2.7 29
2.7 29 - 2.8 29
Figure (5): Cross-section of Poomala dam 2.614 - 2.714
2.714 - 2.814
2.8 29 - 2.9 29 2.814 - 2.914
≥ 2.9 29 ≥ 2.914

30 30

20 20
Ele va tio n
Ele va tio n

10 10

Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

1.977 - 2.077 2.009 - 2.109
2.077 - 2.177 2.109 - 2.209
2.177 - 2.277 2.209 - 2.309
2.277 - 2.377 2.309 - 2.409
2.377 - 2.477 2.409 - 2.509
2.477 - 2.577 2.509 - 2.609
2.577 - 2.677 2.609 - 2.709
0 2.6 77 - 2.7 77 0 2.7 09 - 2.8 09
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
2.777 - 2.877 2.809 - 2.909
≥ 2.877 ≥ 2.909

(a) h=0 (b) h=0.2H

30 30

20 20
Ele va t io n

10 10

0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Distance
(c) h=0.4H (d) h=0.6H

75
 2.325 - 2.425
2.425 - 2.525
2.525 - 2.625
2.625 - 2.725
2.725 - 2.825
2.825 - 2.925
≥ 2.925

Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909
30

20
Ele va tio n

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

(e) h=0.8H
Figure (6):Critical slip surface for Wand dam by Morgenstern‐Price method (M1)

(a) h=0 (b) h=0.2H

(c) h=0.4H (d) h=0.6H

76
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909

(e) h=0.8H
Figure (7):Critical slip surface for Horan damH-2 by Morgenstern‐Price method (M1)

35 35

30 30

25 25
Ele va t io n (m)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

(a) h=0 (b) h=0.2H

35
35

30 30

25
25
Ele va tio n (m)

20
El evati on( m)

20

15

15

10

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Distance(m)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

(c) h=0.4H (d) h=0.6H

77
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909
35

30

Elevation(m) 25

20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Distance(m)
(e) h=0.8H
Figure (8):Critical slip surface for Nian dam(1) by Morgenstern‐Price method (M1)
38 38

36 36

34 34

32 32

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24

22
Ele va tio n (m)

Ele va t io n (m)
22

20 20

18 18

16
16

14
14

12
12

10
10

8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Distance(m)
(a) h=0 (b) h=0.2H
38
38

36 36

34 34

32 32

30 30

28 28

26 26

24 24
Ele va t io n (m)

22
Ele va tio n (m)

22

20 20

18 18

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 0 130 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

(c) h=0.4H (d) h=0.6H

78
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909
38

36

34

32

30

28

26

24

22
Elevation(m)

20

18 Factor of Safety
16 1.469 - 1.569
14
1.569 - 1.669
1.669 - 1.769
12
Factor of Safety 1.769 - 1.869
1.469 - 1.569
10 1.869 - 1.969
1.569 - 1.6698 1.969 - 2.069
1.669 - 1.7696 2.069 - 2.169
1.769 - 1.869 2.169 - 2.269
1.869 - 1.9694 2.269 - 2.369
1.969 - 2.0692 ≥ 2.369
2.069 - 2.169
2.169 - 2.2690 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
2.269 - 2.369
≥ 2.369 (e) h=0.8H
Figure (9): Critical slip surface for Nian dam(2) by Morgenstern‐Price method (M1)
30 1.4 69

30 1.4 69

20
20 Elevation
Elevation

Factor of Safety
Factor of Safety
1.552 - 1.652
10
1.652 - 1.752 10 1.834 - 1.934
1.752 - 1.852 1.934 - 2.034
1.852 - 1.952 2.034 - 2.134
1.952 - 2.052 2.134 - 2.234
2.052 - 2.152 2.234 - 2.334
2.152 - 2.252 2.334 - 2.434
2.252 - 2.352 2.434 - 2.534
2.352 - 2.452 2.534 - 2.634
≥ 2.452 2.634 - 2.734
≥ 2.734

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance
(a) h=0 (b) h=0.2H
30 1.5 52 30 1.8 34

20 20
Elevation

10 10

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

(c) h=0.4H (d) h=0.6H

79
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909

(e) h=0.8H
Figure (10): Critical slip surface for Poomala dam by Morgenstern‐Price method (M1)

2.3

2.2 M
1
2.1 M
F

2
2 M
3
1.9

1.8
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
water level m
Figure (11): Relationship between minimum (F) & water level(m) for Wand dam

2.8
M
2.6 1
M
F

2.4 2
M
2.2 3

2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
water level m

Figure (12): Relationship between minimum (F) & water level(m) for Horan dam H-2

80
Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2018, pages 70-81 ISSN 1999-8716
DOI: 10.26367/DJES/VOL.11/NO.1/12 eISSN 2616-6909
2.6
2.4
2.2 M1
2 M2
1.8 M3
F
1.6 M4
1.4
M5
1.2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
water level m
Figure (13): Relationship between minimum (F) & water level(m) for Nian dam(1)

2.6
2.4
2.2 M1
2 M2
1.8 M3
F

1.6 M4
1.4
M5
1.2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
water level m
Figure (14): Relationship between minimum (F) & water level(m) for Nian dam(2)

1.8 M1
M2
1.6
M3
F

1.4 M4
1.2 M5

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
water level m
Figure (15): Relationship between minimum (F) & water level(m) for Poomala dam

81

View publication stats