Designing Water Storage And Supply System For Dayzinc Township In Western Tasmania, Australia

Ground model

A preliminary design of the Dayzinc water storage reservoir and water supply system is to be created for, a new township of Dayzinc, located in Western Tasmania, Australia. Dayzinc reservoir will supply water to 200 households, 15 small business outlets and several dairy farms near Dayzinc. The preliminary design report provides highlights on key facilities that meets all design requirements, which will be used later for detailed design. It contains calculation and software reports.

The appendix A gives results of the field test which is used to provide the soil properties of the investigated region. From the eight boreholes drilled is used to perform ground modeling to come up with the soil profile of along existing slopes. The cross-section was created on AutoCAD. The modeling was done to scale with exception of the boreholes width. Create layers to represent the type of soil layers in the soil. To draw a region for each soil layer by drawing a close polyline using its respective layer type in AutoCAD. Then save as a AutoCAD( dxf) file, And export region to Geostudio to model profile that can later be used for slope stability modeling in that is in section 5.

Storage volume calculations carried out on excel spreadsheets templates. A catchment area provided to satisfy the required reliable water supply for the township and the dairy farms. On basis of the excel template the precipitation and potential evapotranspiration was calculated. Form the requirement a minimum volume of 1million, and the initial water volume in the reservoir was  (Abdel-Kader, Abdel-Hady, & Saleh, 2005). The result of the design calculation was represent below.

The requirement is to come up with accost-effective system that incorporate the pumps to enhance the supply of water to the distribution station form the water storage (Abramson, Lee, Sharma, & Boyce, 2002). First come up with pipe system without pumps, use trial and error to come up with the solution required. Based on the following equations

Piezomteric head,

Where, the resistance co-efficient is

For series arrangement of the system

Piezomteric head,

Where discharge is constant.

For parallel arrangement of the system

The Piezomteric head is constant.

The pump head depend on the charge

Therefore, propose four pumps in parallel with 119mm pipe diameter

Sketch of the pump syste

Installation Cost

Diameter	cost/m	excavation/m	total/m	length	pipe total cost	pump cost	overall cost
83mm	10	50	60	4000	240000	16000	256000
101mm	12	50	62	4000	248000	16000	264000
115mm	14	50	64	4000	256000	16000	272000
119mm	17	50	67	4000	268000	16000	284000

Operation cost

Diameter	Year	20yr
83mm	741.87	14837.44
101mm	741.87	14837.44
115mm	741.87	14837.44
119mm	741.87	14837.44

In case of power outages or sometimes during maintenance, or any other emergencies. The elevated water storage comes as a backup. It provides storage up to 3 days of the supply for both the households and local businesses (Birkel, Soulsby, & Tetzlaff, 2011).

The daily consumption volume calculated from the spreadsheet is.  For a 3-supply the water storage will be. This high volume suggested a welded steel tank.

Geometry of the tank

A square based of length 15m,

Therefore,

The effective height of the tank is,

The tank is design to cater for overflow. Therefore, the tanks tank height, 8.5m.

Must properties of the tanks

For a detail design, should be done according to AWWA D100-96 and BS 2654 (Casciati & Borja, 2004).

Water storage and Catchment

‘Steel tank to be supported by the steel shaft.

The access material shall be constructed with steel as it is done for the tank. This is due to the same design requirements as the tanks its supports.

Provided steel columns at intervals of 5m. The footing is pad footing for each column.

A proposed water supply system for the farm that is reliable and cost-effective from the storage of the reservoir. The system will rely on concrete lined trapezoidal open channel (Epstein, 2018). The supply of water from the reservoir is on the second day over a 2-hour period. The channel path has two legs straight legs (Epstein, 2018).

Design is based on the manning equation

Where;  V is the velocity

  n is manning’s roughness coefficient

 Rh is the hydraulic radius (A/P)

 S is the channel slope

The taste on how a material permeate water to flow through a porous medium affects the section of the improvement and type of materials used in the design of embankments and other water retaining structures (Ghaffari, et al., 2004). In addition, other taste can be performed for leachate through compacted clay linear at the bottom of the landfill. More granular materials have are more permeable than finer silts (Gibson, 2006). Key reason of performing this analysis is to find the slowest amount of water seeps through the embankment at a lower cost.

First consider option 1 with drain thickness of 1m and 12m long extending 2m away from the toe of embankment.

Software report

Kind: SEEP/W

Method: Steady-State

Settings

Include Air Flow: No

Control

Apply Runoff: Yes

Convergence

Maximum Number of Iterations: 500

Minimum Pressure Head Difference: 0.005

Significant Digits: 2

Max # of Reviews: 10

Hydraulic Under-Relaxation Criteria

Under-Relaxation Initial Rate: 1

Under-Relaxation Min. Rate: 0.1

Under-Relaxation Reduction Rate: 0.65

Under-Relaxation Iterations: 10

Equation Solver: Parallel Direct

Time

Starting Time: 0 sec

Duration: 0 sec

Ending Time: 0 sec

Model: Saturated / Unsaturated

Hydraulic

K-Function: Silty Sand k

Ky’/Kx’ Ratio: 1

Rotation: 0 °

Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand

Embankment fill

Model: Saturated / Unsaturated

Hydraulic

K-Function: Embankment k

Ky’/Kx’ Ratio: 1

Rotation: 0 °

Vol. WC. Function: Embankment w/c

Type: Pressure Head 0

Review: No

Type: Total Flux (Q) 0

Review: Yes

Type: Head (H) 18

Review: No

Coordinates

Coordinate: (42, 0) m

Coordinate: (42, 28) m

Model: Hyd K Data Point Function

Function: X-Conductivity vs. Pore-Water Pressure

Curve Fit to Data: 100 %

Segment Curvature: 100 %

Saturated Kx: 2e-005

Estimation Properties

Hyd. K-Function Estimation Method: Van Genuchten Function

Volume Water Content Function: Embankment w/c

Saturated Kx: 2e-005 m/sec

Residual Water Content: 0.0479 m³/m³

Maximum: 1,000

Minimum: 0.01

Num. Points: 20

Model: Hyd K Data Point Function

Function: X-Conductivity vs. Pore-Water Pressure

Curve Fit to Data: 100 %

Segment Curvature: 100 %

Saturated Kx: 5e-006

Model: Vol WC Data Point Function

Function: Vol. Water Content vs. Pore-Water Pressure

Mv: 0 /kPa

Saturated Water Content: 0.4779297 m³/m³

Model: Vol WC Data Point Function

Function: Vol. Water Content vs. Pore-Water Pressure

Mv: 0 /kPa

Saturated Water Content: 0.47199403 m³/m³

Water supply Systems for township and Farms

Residual Water Content: 0.047199403 m³/m³

Residual Water Content: 0.04779297 m³/m³

Curve Fit to Data: 100 %

Segment Curvature: 100 %

Porosity: 0.4779297

Estimation Properties

Vol. WC Estimation Method: Sample functions

Saturated Water Content: 0.479 m³/m³

Sample Material: Gravel

Liquid Limit: 0 %

Diameter at 10% passing 0

Diameter at 60% passing 0

Model: Vol WC Data Point Function

Function: Vol. Water Content vs. Pore-Water Pressure

Mv: 0 /kPa

Saturated Water Content: 0.47199403 m³/m³

Residual Water Content: 0.047199403 m³/m³

Estimation Properties

Vol. WC Estimation Method: Sample functions

Saturated Water Content: 0.472 m³/m³

Sample Material: Silty Sand

Liquid Limit: 0 %

Diameter at 10% passing: 0

Diameter at 60% passing:

	X (m)	Y (m)	Hydraulic Boundary
Point 1	0	0
Point 2	90	0
Point 3	90	8
Point 4	0	8
Point 5	10	8
Point 6	40	23
Point 7	45	23
Point 8	75	8	Zero Pressure
Point 9	30	18
Point 10	35	4
Point 11	36.052632	8
Point 12	50	4
Point 13	48.947368	8
Point 14	65	8

	Start Point	End Point	Length (m)	Angle (°)	Hydraulic Boundary
Line 1	1	2	90	0
Line 2	2	3	8	90
Line 3	4	1	8	90
Line 4	5	4	10	0	Upstream face
Line 5	3	8	15	0	Potential Seepage Face
Line 6	6	7	5	0
Line 7	7	8	33.541	-26.6	Potential Seepage Face
Line 8	5	9	22.361	26.6	Upstream face
Line 9	9	6	11.18	26.6
Line 10	11	5	26.053	0
Line 11	6	11	15.511	75.3
Line 12	11	10	4.1362	75.3
Line 13	10	12	15	0
Line 14	13	11	12.895	0
Line 15	12	13	4.1362	-75.3
Line 16	13	7	15.511	-75.3
Line 17	8	14	10	0
Line 18	14	13	16.053	0

	Material	Points	Area (m²)
Region 1	silty Sandy	1,2,3,8,14,13,12,10,11,5,4	664.21
Region 2	embankment fill	5,9,6,11	195.39
Region 3	embankment fill	7,13,11,6	134.21
Region 4	silty Sandy	11,10,12,13	55.789
Region 5	embankment fill	8,14,13,7	195.39

Kind: SEEP/W

Method: Steady-State

Settings

Include Air Flow: No

Control

Apply Runoff: Yes

Convergence

Maximum Number of Iterations: 500

Minimum Pressure Head Difference: 0.005

Significant Digits: 2

Max # of Reviews: 10

Hydraulic Under-Relaxation Criteria

Under-Relaxation Initial Rate: 1

Under-Relaxation Min. Rate: 0.1

Under-Relaxation Reduction Rate: 0.65

Under-Relaxation Iterations: 10

Equation Solver: Parallel Direct

Time

Starting Time: 0 sec

Duration: 0 sec

Ending Time: 0 sec

Model: Saturated / Unsaturated

Hydraulic

K-Function: Silty Sand k

Ky’/Kx’ Ratio: 1

Rotation: 0 °

Vol. WC. Function: Silty Sand

Model: Saturated / Unsaturated

Hydraulic

K-Function: Embankment k

Ky’/Kx’ Ratio: 1

Rotation: 0 °

Vol. WC. Function: Embankment w/c

Model: Saturated / Unsaturated

Hydraulic

K-Function: Drain material k

Ky’/Kx’ Ratio: 1

Rotation: 0 °

Vol. WC. Function: Drain material w/c

Model: Saturated / Unsaturated

Hydraulic

K-Function: Clayey core low k

Ky’/Kx’ Ratio: 1

Rotation: 0 °

Vol. WC. Function: Clayey Core low k w/c (2)

Type: Total Flux (Q) 0

Review: Yes

Type: Head (H) 18

Review: No

Type: Pressure Head 0

Review: No

Coordinates

Coordinate: (42, 0) m

Coordinate: (42, 28) m

Low core

Task 5: Slope stability

Software report

Analysis Settings

03-Slope Stability with water

Kind: SLOPE/W

Method: Bishop

Settings

PWP Conditions Source: Piezomteric Line

Apply Phreatic Correction: No

Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No

Slip Surface

Direction of movement: Left to Right

Use Passive Mode: No

Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit

Critical slip surfaces saved: 1

Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °

Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °

Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No

Tension Crack

Tension Crack Option: Tension Crack Line

Percentage Wet: 0

Tension Crack Fluid Unit Weight: 9.807 kN/m³

F of S Distribution

F of S Calculation Option: Constant

Advanced

Number of Slices: 30

F of S Tolerance: 0.001

Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m

Materials

Dense silty sand

Model: Mohr-Coulomb

Unit Weight: 18.9 kN/m³

Cohesion’: 4 kPa

Phi’: 36 °

Phi-B: 0 °

Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 18.1 kN/m³

Pore Water Pressure

Piezometric Line: 1

Stiff silty clay

Model: Mohr-Coulomb

Unit Weight: 19 kN/m³

Cohesion’: 16 kPa

Phi’: 21 °

Phi-B: 0 °

Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 16.5 kN/m³

Pore Water Pressure

Piezometric Line: 1

Soft silty clay

Model: Mohr-Coulomb

Unit Weight: 17.5 kN/m³

Cohesion’: 8 kPa

Phi’: 18 °

Phi-B: 0 °

Constant Unit Wt. Above Water Table: 15.5 kN/m³

Tower supply system

Pore Water Pressure

Piezomteric Line: 1

Bed rock

Model: Bedrock (Impenetrable)

Pore Water Pressure

Piezomteric Line: 1

Left Projection: Range

Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (-16.48206, 53.99991) m

Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (0, 53.99949) m

Left-Zone Increment: 4

Right Projection: Point

Right Coordinate: (103.68024, 31.05062) m

Right-Zone Increment: 4

Radius Increments: 4

Left Coordinate: (-20, 54) m

Right Coordinate: (178, 51) m

	X (m)	Y (m)
Coordinate 1	-20	53.25
Coordinate 2	0	53.25
Coordinate 3	37	49.25
Coordinate 4	80	34
Coordinate 5	104	29.5
Coordinate 6	120	36.75
Coordinate 7	133	45
Coordinate 8	178	47.75

	Material	Points	Area (m²)
Region 1	Dense silty sand	11,4,5,12,7,8,9,10,1,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,21	2,218.1
Region 2	Soft silty clay	20,21,19,18,17,22,23,24,25,26,27	203.5
Region 3	Soft silty clay	30,29,28,16,15,14,13,49,50,32	535.76
Region 4	Stiff silty clay	34,28,29,30,32,50,40,33	390.99
Region 5	Stiff silty clay	20,27,25,24,23,22,36,35,37,42,39	510.68
Region 6	bed rock	4,3,2,1,10,9,8,7,12,5	3,568.4
Region 7	bed rock	38,3,46,45	498.83
Region 8	Soft silty clay	39,42,43,44	62.817
Region 9	Dense silty sand	44,43,45,46	372.07
Region 10	bed rock	2,41,47,48	437.41
Region 11	Dense silty sand	48,47,49,13	204.96

Slip slices critical left side

Slip Surface: 22

F of S: 1.623

Volume: 961.19487 m³

Weight: 17,808.133 kN

Resisting Moment: 841,643.55 kN-m

Activating Moment: 518,555.59 kN-m

F of S Rank (Analysis): 1 of 25 slip surfaces

F of S Rank (Query): 1 of 25 slip surfaces

Exit: (103.68024, 31.05062) m

Entry: (0, 53.99949) m

Radius: 126.10142 m

Center: (76.558761, 154.20091) m

	X (m)	Y (m)	PWP (kPa)	Base Normal Stress (kPa)	Frictional Strength (kPa)	Cohesive Strength (kPa)
Slice 1	0.002525	53.997561	-7.3340078	-6.3516422	-2.438167	16
Slice 2	0.58185132	53.560186	-3.658883	-0.98222634	-0.37704136	16
Slice 3	3.0740935	51.750846	11.442998	25.71731	5.4793949	16
Slice 4	6.9049752	49.107437	33.305344	66.155387	12.60995	16
Slice 5	10.735857	46.665473	53.192125	103.48527	19.305728	16
Slice 6	14.192065	44.616145	69.62556	137.10736	21.926165	8
Slice 7	17.273599	42.91843	83.007953	161.16949	25.396224	8
Slice 8	20.924098	41.060177	97.361528	179.91872	59.981314	4
Slice 9	24.779601	39.236476	111.1589	206.1305	69.000903	4
Slice 10	28.271144	37.726437	122.26606	227.6609	76.573836	4
Slice 11	31.762686	36.33916	132.16929	247.25811	83.616923	4
Slice 12	35.254229	35.070351	140.91071	264.96228	90.128745	4
Slice 13	37.002105	34.464368	144.99537	273.37542	93.273563	4
Slice 14	38.722063	33.923274	144.31975	272.37619	93.038449	4
Slice 15	42.157769	32.895709	142.44748	270.31359	92.900166	4
Slice 16	45.593475	31.973339	139.54356	265.99731	91.874029	4
Slice 17	49.029181	31.153797	135.6312	259.75394	90.18045	4
Slice 18	52.464887	30.435039	130.73046	251.59355	87.812173	4
Slice 19	56.48287	29.729633	123.67357	239.05365	83.828534	4
Slice 20	59.687025	29.236592	117.36457	228.36391	80.645739	4
Slice 21	60.79763	29.088513	114.95402	224.21647	79.383814	4
Slice 22	61.099202	29.050755	114.27543	222.98594	78.982806	4
Slice 23	61.290807	29.027236	113.83966	221.89882	78.509574	4
Slice 24	62.764655	28.863879	110.31557	215.65464	76.533316	4
Slice 25	66.150602	28.545922	101.65724	201.15924	72.292436	4
Slice 26	70.168027	28.277593	90.315872	182.09091	66.678468	4
Slice 27	74.185452	28.137832	77.713647	160.12766	59.877285	4
Slice 28	78.097082	28.123234	64.251915	136.87856	52.766349	4
Slice 29	80.002105	28.14651	57.401309	125.21466	49.269284	4
Slice 30	81.660022	28.213611	53.694642	119.3491	47.700752	4
Slice 31	84.971647	28.39138	45.86181	106.83383	44.298767	4
Slice 32	88.283272	28.65674	37.16997	92.516979	40.211956	4
Slice 33	91.594897	29.010248	27.613656	76.35259	35.410908	4
Slice 34	94.906521	29.452655	17.185515	58.287713	29.862495	4
Slice 35	98.218146	29.984911	5.876224	38.079428	23.396997	4
Slice 36	101.7771	30.662127	-7.3094774	14.216064	10.328575	4

Slip Slices after construction

Slip Surface: 22

F of S: 1.623

Volume: 961.19487 m³

Weight: 17,808.133 kN

Resisting Moment: 841,643.55 kN-m

Activating Moment: 518,555.59 kN-m

F of S Rank (Analysis): 1 of 25 slip surfaces

F of S Rank (Query): 1 of 25 slip surfaces

Exit: (103.68024, 31.05062) m

Entry: (0, 53.99949) m

Radius: 126.10142 m

Center: (76.558761, 154.20091)

	X (m)	Y (m)	PWP (kPa)	Base Normal Stress (kPa)	Frictional Strength (kPa)	Cohesive Strength (kPa)
Slice 1	0.002525	53.997561	-7.3340078	-6.3516422	-2.438167	16
Slice 2	0.58185132	53.560186	-3.658883	-0.98222634	-0.37704136	16
Slice 3	3.0740935	51.750846	11.442998	25.71731	5.4793949	16
Slice 4	6.9049752	49.107437	33.305344	66.155387	12.60995	16
Slice 5	10.735857	46.665473	53.192125	103.48527	19.305728	16
Slice 6	14.192065	44.616145	69.62556	137.10736	21.926165	8
Slice 7	17.273599	42.91843	83.007953	161.16949	25.396224	8
Slice 8	20.924098	41.060177	97.361528	179.91872	59.981314	4
Slice 9	24.779601	39.236476	111.1589	206.1305	69.000903	4
Slice 10	28.271144	37.726437	122.26606	227.6609	76.573836	4
Slice 11	31.762686	36.33916	132.16929	247.25811	83.616923	4
Slice 12	35.254229	35.070351	140.91071	264.96228	90.128745	4
Slice 13	37.002105	34.464368	144.99537	273.37542	93.273563	4
Slice 14	38.722063	33.923274	144.31975	272.37619	93.038449	4
Slice 15	42.157769	32.895709	142.44748	270.31359	92.900166	4
Slice 16	45.593475	31.973339	139.54356	265.99731	91.874029	4
Slice 17	49.029181	31.153797	135.6312	259.75394	90.18045	4
Slice 18	52.464887	30.435039	130.73046	251.59355	87.812173	4
Slice 19	56.48287	29.729633	123.67357	239.05365	83.828534	4
Slice 20	59.687025	29.236592	117.36457	228.36391	80.645739	4
Slice 21	60.79763	29.088513	114.95402	224.21647	79.383814	4
Slice 22	61.099202	29.050755	114.27543	222.98594	78.982806	4
Slice 23	61.290807	29.027236	113.83966	221.89882	78.509574	4
Slice 24	62.764655	28.863879	110.31557	215.65464	76.533316	4
Slice 25	66.150602	28.545922	101.65724	201.15924	72.292436	4
Slice 26	70.168027	28.277593	90.315872	182.09091	66.678468	4
Slice 27	74.185452	28.137832	77.713647	160.12766	59.877285	4
Slice 28	78.097082	28.123234	64.251915	136.87856	52.766349	4
Slice 29	80.002105	28.14651	57.401309	125.21466	49.269284	4
Slice 30	81.660022	28.213611	53.694642	119.3491	47.700752	4
Slice 31	84.971647	28.39138	45.86181	106.83383	44.298767	4
Slice 32	88.283272	28.65674	37.16997	92.516979	40.211956	4
Slice 33	91.594897	29.010248	27.613656	76.35259	35.410908	4
Slice 34	94.906521	29.452655	17.185515	58.287713	29.862495	4
Slice 35	98.218146	29.984911	5.876224	38.079428	23.396997	4
Slice 36	101.7771	30.662127	-7.3094774	14.216064	10.328575	4

Reinforcement made anchor with nail

The diversity of dam incorporate various feeds in engineering, and science and art. The geotechnical engineer laisse with the hydraulic engineer to come up with the retained properties of the dam (Griffiths & Fenton, 2004). The geotechnical engineers give the structural engineer a base line for the preliminary design that will be used for detailed design of the retaining structures. The environmental engineer performs the assessment and check for sustainability of the dam if it is safe for use, health wise and its possible negative effects and possible solution (Grygoruk, Miros?aw-?wi?tek, Chrzanowska, & Ignar, 2013).

The complexity of a dam is not only based design, construction and operation but its diversity is seen supporting social- political, economic, and environmental.

Assessment simplified development

Item	Impact Description	Proposed mitigation measures
Environmental
Contamination	Incidences of spillage, poor disposal of waste present in the composition of runoff , possible leaching present  zone in the catchment area	Provision and management of the waste both wastewater and solid waste deposits
Soil	Erosion due to the removal of vegetation cover (Kirkegaard & Hunt, 2010).	Re-vegetation after construction Compaction of soil as engineers specification shows
Air pollution	During grading, excavation, other machine works cause the dust to raise on movement Smoke emission from the machineries Noise from heavy machines	Watering of vegetated area Providing workers with dust protection masks Can use low emission machinery if possible, and can use scrubbers Construction time during the day, using silencers, and ear muffs (McGuire, et al., 2005)
Water Flux	The altering of water temperature, flow, pressure. Water velocity in the downstream immediately. Salinity in the dam and reduction of the fertility in downstream	Provide features that will reduce salinity
Socioeconomic
Resettlement of population	Displacement of large population especially in the upstream to provide area that is reserved for the dam. Resettlement can come with psychological and physical damage (Wan & Fell, 2004).	The concern authority to prepare and fund the process  of resettlement Proper communication to the local communities around the area
Economy	During the project there is a large demand for skilled and unskilled labour and the mainly benefiting the local, and the communities (Yuan, 2000) Development of the local business
Health and welfare	Provides a habitat for  waterborne diseases	Before the construction of dam find out the potential diseases that will be that will be there during operation

Conclusion

The conceptual design is based on reliability and cost effectiveness to come up with key features that can be used later in the detailed design. An engineer uses them as a guideline for further specification. The design is accommodate for the future that is 20 year period and cases of emergency which a water tower is design for this future. Impact assessment is done to check for the effects of the dam pre-construction, during construction and operational. Recommendation are made to mitigate negative effects.

References

Abdel-Kader, F. H., Abdel-Hady, A. M., & Saleh, A. M. (2005). Integration of terrain, thematic mapper, and soil quality data for surface hydrology, water erosion and land suitability modeling NWcoast, Egypt. EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE, 45(2), 225.

Abramson, L. W., Lee, T. S., Sharma, S., & Boyce, G. M. (2002). Slope stability and stabilization methods. John Wiley & Sons.

Birkel, C., Soulsby, C., & Tetzlaff, D. (2011). Modelling catchment?scale water storage dynamics: Reconciling dynamic storage with tracer?inferred passive storage. Hydrological Processes, 25(25), 3924-3936.

Bishop, K., Seibert, J., Nyberg, L., & Rodhe, A. (2011). Water storage in a till catchment. II: Implications of transmissivity feedback for flow paths and turnover times. Hydrological Processes, 25(25), 3950-3959.

Casciati, S., & Borja, R. I. (2004). Dynamic FE analysis of South Memnon Colossus including 3D soil–foundation–structure interaction. Computers & structures, 82(20-21), 1719-1736.

Epstein, M. J. (2018). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts. Routledge.

Ghaffari, M., Ali, S. M. A., Murthy, V., Liao, X., Gaylor, J., & Hall, E. L. (2004). Design of an unmanned ground vehicle, bearcat III, theory and practice. Journal of Robotic Systems, 21(9), 471-480.

Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(03), 259-280.

Griffiths, D. V., & Fenton, G. A. (2004). Probabilistic slope stability analysis by finite elements. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 130(5), 507-518.

Grygoruk, M., Miros?aw-?wi?tek, D., Chrzanowska, W., & Ignar, S. (2013). How much for water? Economic assessment and mapping of floodplain water storage as a catchment-scale ecosystem service of wetlands. Water, 5(4), 1760-1779.

Kirkegaard, J. A., & Hunt, J. R. (2010). Increasing productivity by matching farming system management and genotype in water-limited environments. Journal of Experimental Botany, 61(15), 4129-4143.

McGuire, K. J., McDonnell, J. J., Weiler, M., Kendall, C., McGlynn, B. L., Welker, J. M., & Seibert, J. (2005). The role of topography on catchment?scale water residence time. Water Resources Research, 41(5).

Oweis, T., & Hachum, A. (2006). Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agricultural Water Management, 80(1-3), 57-73.

Wan, C. F., & Fell, R. (2004). Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in embankment dams. Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, 130(4), 373-380.

Yuan, D. I. (2000). A Corrective Method of Flat Region Occurring in DTM Constructed from Contours [J]. JOURAAL OF COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN & COMPUTER GRAPHICS, 8, 001.