As North Floods, Major Dam At 100% Capacity

[farcanell]

14 hours ago, halloween said:

And thank you for your cheap shot. You could have added that the dam did exactly what it is supposed to do, blocked a seriously heavy flow event while keeping enough water in storage for the dry season, but it is more fun to claim mismanagement when there isn't any.

BTW 101% is of the dam's normal working level, it's actual maximum capacity is around 15% higher, as explained in the full article.

Ummm.... maximum capacity ( as quoted in OP).... should mean "maximum capacity"

 

any extra... excess... to the maximum capacity is an issue, and needs addressing.

 

in the west, this difference (between working levels and excess of working levels) would be a no go area.... as in never exceed. Here, things like "safety factors", are often factored right out.... so there will be flood

[joeyg]

4 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Ummm.... maximum capacity ( as quoted in OP).... should mean "maximum capacity"

 

any extra... excess... to the maximum capacity is an issue, and needs addressing.

 

in the west, this difference (between working levels and excess of working levels) would be a no go area.... as in never exceed. Here, things like "safety factors", are often factored right out.... so there will be flood

Oh I'm so confused...

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Ummm.... maximum capacity ( as quoted in OP).... should mean "maximum capacity"

 

any extra... excess... to the maximum capacity is an issue, and needs addressing.

 

in the west, this difference (between working levels and excess of working levels) would be a no go area.... as in never exceed. Here, things like "safety factors", are often factored right out.... so there will be flood

It is not a maximum capacity, it is a normal working level. Dams are designed to contain water levels greater than their spillway height. But don't let your lack of understanding stop you scaremongering.

[joeyg]

1 minute ago, halloween said:

It is not a maximum capacity, it is a normal working level. Dams are designed to contain water levels greater than their spillway height. But don't let your lack of understanding stop you scaremongering.

Now I'm really confused... 

[joeyg]

1 hour ago, Cadbury said:

There you go again Pumpkin Head upsetting yourself over criticism of your beloved military. Try not to punish yourself so  much. And here I was trying to be nice and wanting you to enjoy your day.

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Now I'm really confused... 

If you go back to the level chart, the top yellow line is maximum capacity, the second line from top is normal working level. the dam is at 101% working level but far from full.

If the dam should reach maximum capacity, and the inflow is greater than the outflow through the gates, water will flow over the spillway. But if the level is only exceeded by 1mm, the spillway flow will be quite small, and the dam level will rise, in turn increasing the spillway flow.

This is not particularly unusual, nor desirable. It is nowhere near happening in this case.

[joeyg]

3 minutes ago, halloween said:

If you go back to the level chart, the top yellow line is maximum capacity, the second line from top is normal working level. the dam is at 101% working level but far from full.

If the dam should reach maximum capacity, and the inflow is greater than the outflow through the gates, water will flow over the spillway. But if the level is only exceeded by 1mm, the spillway flow will be quite small, and the dam level will rise, in turn increasing the spillway flow.

This is not particularly unusual, nor desirable. It is nowhere near happening in this case.

I guess 8 years of college was not enough for me... 

[halloween]

5 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I guess 8 years of college was not enough for me... 

I did an electrical engineering degree in 4, while working shift work.

[Cadbury]

2 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I guess 8 years of college was not enough for me... 

No one can ever have as much knowledge about everything as Pumpkin Head. We should be grateful he shares it with us. Seems he is also an expert in electrical engineering as well as water management. As someone once said:

"Those who think they know it all have no way of finding out they don't"

[halloween]

3 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

No one can ever have as much knowledge about everything as Pumpkin Head. We should be grateful he shares it with us. Seems he is also an expert in electrical engineering as well as water management. As someone once said:

"Those who think they know it all have no way of finding out they don't"

Let me know when I am factually wrong on matters of fact rather than opinion.  Do you ever post facts rather than biased slurs?

[farcanell]

38 minutes ago, halloween said:

It is not a maximum capacity, it is a normal working level. Dams are designed to contain water levels greater than their spillway height. But don't let your lack of understanding stop you scaremongering.

Me?

 

scaremongering?

 

it wasn't me who said the damn was at 100% capacity.... maybe you should look up a definition for "100% capacity"

 

It will probably say something like.... the maximum allowable level in a container/vessel/damn (whatever).... which should not be exceeded

 

i would guess that when the design engineers decided (calculated) what the maximum capacity should be, they were thinking about "maximum capacity"... why would you want to work that calculated figure downwards, increasing the risk of damn failure, by exceeding the engineers definition of what they determined to be the "maximum capacity"

 

Anywho.... as you like.... back to reality (ie... the OP)

 

from the link, the damn engineers say the level exceeds maximum capacity but it can take more water before the water crests (bursts its banks... erodes external wall and structure... which leads to failure)

 

anywho.... now back to your reality.

 

 

 

 

[halloween]

2 minutes ago, farcanell said:

Me?

 

scaremongering?

 

it wasn't me who said the damn was at 100% capacity.... maybe you should look up a definition for "100% capacity"

 

It will probably say something like.... the maximum allowable level in a container/vessel/damn (whatever).... which should not be exceeded

 

i would guess that when the design engineers decided (calculated) what the maximum capacity should be, they were thinking about "maximum capacity"... why would you want to work that calculated figure downwards, increasing the risk of damn failure, by exceeding the engineers definition of what they determined to be the "maximum capacity"

 

Anywho.... as you like.... back to reality (ie... the OP)

 

from the link, the damn engineers say the level exceeds maximum capacity but it can take more water before the water crests (bursts its banks... erodes external wall and structure... which leads to failure)

 

anywho.... now back to your reality.

 

 

 

 

It appears you not only don't understand, you don't want to understand. At crest, water will flow over the spillway, the only failure is your lack of comprehension.

[farcanell]

19 minutes ago, halloween said:

It appears you not only don't understand, you don't want to understand. At crest, water will flow over the spillway, the only failure is your lack of comprehension.

Funny man.

 

heres a wee picture of a damn structure to demonstrate your lack of comprehension ( again... consider the use of the term ""maximum"... as was used in the article).... in this diagram "MWL" means "maximum water level, and is clearly shown as being significantly less than "crest" level

 

so kiddies..... here we see the "max" level as the uppermost height of the spillway, with the "normal" level at the lower most height of the spillway.

 

the difference is herein called the "freeboard".... meaning this is the volume within which "controlled" releases should occur.... breaching the maximum level means "uncontrolled" overflow.... as in it's gone pear shaped. ( uncontrolled is the key word)

 

now.... whilst I'm trying to understand, nasty little facts get in the way... facts which I'm passing on to you, although I think you really don't want to consider these

[halloween]

We have misunderstanding due to using different terms. What you call normal water level, I call maximum working level - there is no such thing as "normal level" it varies day to day. What you call maximum level is not. At that level there is no water flowing over the spillway, for that to happen the level has to be higher, and for significant flow it has to be significantly higher. i referred to this as cresting the spillway, you refer to cresting the dam wall, something the design of the dam tries to prevent. This 'uncontrolled flow' is a safety mechanism built into the dam design, it is not particularly unusual, and is in no way a sign of imminent collapse. Dams are designed to handle levels considerably higher than spillway level, and it takes huge inflows of water to raise that level rapidly in a large dam.

During the 2011 floods, Wivenhoe Dam (near Brisbane) had huge spillway flows but the emergency spillway level was not reached.

"The largest ever recorded inflows for the dam occurred in January 2011.^[12] On 11 January 2011, Wivenhoe Dam reached its highest level ever, 191% of normal water supply storage capacity, as it held back floodwater.^[13] Because it is an embankment dam, it was not designed to spill over its crest or overtop and there is a risk that if waters spilled over the crest, this could erode the dam wall and potentially cause the dam to fail.^[7] In this scenario the water level would need to rise to 225% capacity. To prevent this, the dam was designed and built to include a second emergency spillway.^[7] During the peak of the flooding event the dam water level reached 60 centimetres (24 in) below the auxiliary spillway height.^"

The Thai dam in question is nowhere near spillway height, in no danger of causing floods or collapse.

 

[joeyg]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

It appears you not only don't understand, you don't want to understand. At crest, water will flow over the spillway, the only failure is your lack of comprehension.

Analyze this...  

 

[halloween]

36 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Analyze this...  

 

Red Sea Pedestrians.

[Cadbury]

6 hours ago, halloween said:

Let me know when I am factually wrong on matters of fact rather than opinion.  Do you ever post facts rather than biased slurs?

I am hardly in likely to respond just to satisfy your overblown ego. This comment is an exception.