NORTH SPUR DAM BREAK ANALYSIS

In the computer program used to analyse the effect of an embankment dam break, there are several
inputs required to determine the maximum flow and duration of the flow through the breach. The most
important is the level of the inerodible foundation which determines the downward limit of the breach.
Observations of the few dam breaks
which have occurred has shown that on
overtopping of the dam, the water will seek the
lowest point on the dam crest or the most
erodible area, where the flow will concentrate
and start the erosion of a V-shaped breach as
at the South Fork Dam (USA) break
The bottom of the V will fall to the
inerodible surface, (bedrock) and then the
breach widens into a trapezoidal shape, until
the velocity through the breach falls below the erosion velocity of the materials in the dam. Alternatively, if
there is no inerodible foundation, the downward cutting will continue until the velocity through the breach falls
below the erosion velocity of the materials in the dam.
NALCOR advised Hatch to assume that the downward erosion stopped at the level of the top of the
bentonite cut-off wall, El. 20.5m. This would be a correct instruction if the top of the bentonite cut-off wall was
inerodible. However, such is not the case. Bentonite is a clay which has the property of swelling when water is
added, and was first used to stabilize the wall of oil wells drilled through sand, by adding bentonite to the sand
and clay in the slurry filling the drilled hole. About
1962, the process was adapted to stabilizing the
vertical walls of cut-off trenches excavated through
sands and gravels, using a long-arm backhoe
Bentonite is even used medically in many
compounds for both internal and external cleansing.
The analysis of the stability of vertical walls in
cut-off trenches was first developed by Dr. N. R.
Morgenstern at the University of Albert in 1965. It is
very marginal, ranging from about 1.05 to 1.2, just
enough to provide temporary stability until the
trench is backfilled with an impervious material,
usually a mixture of the excavated material with
bentonite added to improve imperviousness. Stability
is provided by the bentonite slurry permeating the sand in the trench wall to form a filter cake, a locally
impervious area, which stops the loss of excavation (slurry) fluid, allowing the slurry level in the trench to rise
above the water pressure level in the sand layer, thus stabilizing the vertical wall. Stability is immediately lost
when the trench slurry level falls below the water pressure level in the surrounding sands, and the trench wall
1

collapses. Trench wall stability can be increased by adding bentonite to increase slurry density. However, too
much bentonite thickens the slurry to such an extent that the excavation process becomes difficult.
This detailed description of the properties of a bentonite beneficiated cut-off wall is included merely to
show that it is not resistant to erosion.
Accordingly, the NALCOR instruction to assume that downward cutting of the V-notch in the spur stops
at El. 20.5 is incorrect, resulting in a questionable analysis of the dam break effects.
A very approximate limit to downward cutting can be determined from the flow erosion velocity of the
spur materials, sand and clay. This has been determined by Dr. Filip Hjulstrom in his 1935 thesis, and is
reproduced below. The curve shows that for clay, the predominant material in the lower layer of the North Spur,
the erosion velocity ranges from 1.0m/s to 3.0m/s. For sands, it ranges from 0.2m/s to 0.6m/s.

If it is assumed that erosion will continue until the velocity through the breach drops to 2m/s, the
downward cutting depth can be determined from the volume of flow and assuming the breach is V- shaped.
This analysis indicates that the depth of cut is equal to the square root of half the flow volume. Hence, the larger
the flow, the greater the depth of cut.
In the Hatch report, the maximum flow through a breach reaches 28,400m3/s. However, the flow velocity
would be much higher than 2m/s since the head difference would be much larger. What is needed is a
calculation of the depth of cut after the dam has failed, as the V-shaped cut initiated by the breach gradually
erodes down to the non-erodible velocity.
The average flow at the site is about 1,817m3/s. Hence depth of erosion = (1,817/2)0.5 = 30.1m. This is
about 27m below seawater level, and is probably the lower bound for the depth of cut. Another scenario is a
wide erosion cut resembling a river through clay such as the Mississippi. The width is indeterminate, but
assuming it is about half the length of the spur or 500m, and that the erosion is incurred during a 1/5 flood of
2

3,900m3/s (from Figure 6.5 in the feasibility report), the flow area will be = 3,900/2 = 1,950m2 and the depth of
cut will be around 1,950/500 = 3.9, say 4m. Subtracting this from the tailwater at a flow of 3,900m 3/s of 4.5m,
erosion wild be down to 0.5m below sea level. This would represent the upper bound.
Accordingly, a dam breach at the North spur would likely result in a channel eroded down to
somewhere between about sea level and 27m below sea level. This is only a very approximate calculation of
the channel depth. However, it is so far below the level imposed by NALCOR, that a re-evaluation of the dam
break analysis should be undertaken, without a limitation on the erosion depth.

James L. Gordon P.Eng. (Retired)