Investigating the Influence of Dam-Breach Parameters on Dam-Break Connected Flood Hydrograph

Abstract

The dam-break connected flood hydrograph properties primarily depend on the breach geometry and the time for the breach to fully develop. Therefore, the prediction of dam’s breach geometry is essential in dam-break studies. To understand the impact of breach parameters on flood peak hydrograph, five of the most common breach prediction methods are implemented in the presented study to estimate the flood hydrographs using 2-dimensional HEC-RAS model. The Ürkmez Dam is chosen as the case study due to the presence of a residential settlement located right at the dam downstream where undesirably any breach of the dam body can have inevitable and dramatical risks on downstream populations and properties. Various levels for reservoir storage are investigated in each method. In order to assess the impact of each breach parameter on the resulting flood hydrographs, sensitivity analysis is carried out. The peak discharge rates and the times to peak for each analyzed scenario are investigated and discussed. Results reveal that Froehlich approach is the most reasonable method for estimating dam-breach parameters as far as exemplified in the Ürkmez Dam case. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis points out that the parameter of the breach side slope has no major influence on the time to peak while having an insignificant impact on the peak discharge. Besides, the study exhibits that both the peak discharge and the time to peak characteristics are highly sensitive to breach time formation parameter. In the light of these targeted findings, the study is aimed to contribute to other relevant research in designating the set of key parameters in experimental or modeling efforts in a way to limit the uncertainty that substantially originates from personal judgment.

Keywords

• Dam-break
• dam breach flows
• sensitivity analysis
• uncertainty
• flood hydrograph
• Ürkmez Dam

References

1. G. Brunner, Using HEC-RAS for Dam Break Studies, TD-39, 2014.
2. M. Zagonjolli, Dam break modelling, risk assessment and uncertainty analysis for flood mitigation, Delft University of Technology & UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, 2007.
3. C. A. Pugh and D. W. Harris, Prediction of landslide-generated water waves, 1982.
4. L. Li, M. Cargnelutti, and C. Mosca, Dam-break events,flood damage, Piemonte region, Italy, Water Resour. Manag., vol. 5, pp. 261–270, 1991.
5. Z. Bozkuş and A. Kasap, Comparison of physical and numerical dam-break simulations, Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 429–443, 1998.
6. Z. Bozkuş and A. I. Güner, Pre-event dam failure analyses for emergency management, Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci., vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 627–641, 2001.
7. P. Brufau, M. E. Vázquez-Cendón, and P. García-Navarro, A numerical model for the flooding and drying of irregular domains, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 247–275, May 2002, doi: 10.1002/fld.285.
8. A. M. Yanmaz and M. R. Beşer, On the reliability-based safety analysis of the Porsuk Dam, Turkish J. Eng. Environ. Sci., vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 309–320, 2005, doi: 10.3906/sag-1203-6.

9. J. A. Vásquez and J. G. A. B. Leal, Two-dimensional dam-break simulation over movable beds with an unstructured mesh, Proc. Int. Conf. Fluv. Hydraul. - River Flow 2006, vol. 2, pp. 1483–1491, 2006, doi: 10.1201/9781439833865.ch158.
10. F. Alcrudo and J. Mulet, Description of the Tous Dam break case study (Spain), J. Hydraul. Res., vol. 45, no. sup1, pp. 45–57, Dec. 2007, doi: 10.1080/00221686.2007.9521832.
11. A. Palumbo, S. Frazão, L. Goutiere, D. Pianese, and Y. Zech, Dam-break flow on mobile bed in a channel with a sudden enlargement, in Proceedings international conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, 2008, pp. 645–654.
12. F. Macchione, Model for Predicting Floods due to Earthen Dam Breaching. I: Formulation and Evaluation, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 134, no. 12, pp. 1688–1696, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:12(1688).
13. F. Macchione and A. Rino, Model for Predicting Floods due to Earthen Dam Breaching. II: Comparison with Other Methods and Predictive Use, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 134, no. 12, pp. 1697–1707, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:12(1697).
14. D. C. Froehlich, Embankment Dam Breach Parameters and Their Uncertainties, Environ. Prot., vol. 134, no. May 2011, pp. 1708–1721, Dec. 2008, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:12(1708).
15. S. E. Yochum, L. A. Goertz, and P. H. Jones, Case Study of the Big Bay Dam Failure: Accuracy and Comparison of Breach Predictions, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 134, no. 9, pp. 1285–1293, 2008, doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:9(1285).
16. X. Ying, J. Jorgeson, and S. S. Y. Wang, Modeling Dam-Break Flows Using Finite Volume Method on Unstructured Grid, Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 184–194, 2009, doi: 10.1080/19942060.2009.11015264.
17. J. Singh, M. S. Altinakar, and Y. Ding, Two-dimensional numerical modeling of dam-break flows over natural terrain using a central explicit scheme, Adv. Water Resour., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1366–1375, 2011, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.07.007.
18. P. Marco, M. Andrea, T. Massimo, and V. Giulia, 1923 Gleno Dam Break: Case Study and Numerical Modeling, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 137, no. 4, pp. 480–492, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000327.
19. Z. Bozkuş and F. Bağ, Virtual Failure Analysis of the Çınarcık Dam, Tek. Dergi/Technical J. Turkish Chamb. Civ. Eng., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 5675–5688, 2011.
20. Q. Honghai, S. M. Altinakar, H. Qi, and M. S. Altinakar, GIS-Based Decision Support System for Dam Break Flood Management under Uncertainty with Two-Dimensional Numerical Simulations, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag., vol. 138, no. 4, pp. 334–341, Jul. 2012, doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000192.
21. H. Mahdizadeh, S. K. Peter, and R. D. Benedict, Flood Wave Modeling Based on a Two-Dimensional Modified Wave Propagation Algorithm Coupled to a Full-Pipe Network Solver, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 138, no. 3, pp. 247–259, Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000515.
22. S. Bosa and M. Petti, A Numerical Model of the Wave that Overtopped the Vajont Dam in 1963, Water Resour. Manag., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1763–1779, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0162-6.
23. G. Tsakiris and M. Spiliotis, Dam- Breach Hydrograph Modelling: An Innovative Semi- Analytical Approach, Water Resour. Manag., vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1751–1762, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11269-012-0046-9.
24. T. Moramarco, S. Barbetta, C. Pandolfo, A. Tarpanelli, N. Berni, and R. Morbidelli, Spillway Collapse of the Montedoglio Dam on the Tiber River, Central Italy: Data Collection and Event Analysis, J. Hydrol. Eng., vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1264–1270, Jun. 2014, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000890.
25. A. S. Chen, B. Evans, S. Djordjević, and D. A. Savić, A coarse-grid approach to representing building blockage effects in 2D urban flood modelling, J. Hydrol., vol. 426–427, pp. 1–16, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.007.
26. A. S. Chen, B. Evans, S. Djordjević, and D. A. Savić, Multi-layered coarse grid modelling in 2D urban flood simulations, J. Hydrol., vol. 470–471, pp. 1–11, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.022.
27. V. Bellos and G. Tsakiris, Comparing Various Methods of Building Representation for 2D Flood Modelling In Built-Up Areas, Water Resour. Manag., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 379–397, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11269-014-0702-3.
28. Ş. Elçi, G. Tayfur, İ. Haltas, and B. Kocaman, Baraj Yıkılması Sonrası İki Boyutlu Taşkın Yayılımının Yerleşim Bölgeleri İçin Modellenmesi, Tek. Dergi/Technical J. Turkish Chamb. Civ. Eng., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 7955–7975, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.18400/tekderg.307456.
29. İ. Haltas, S. Elçi, and G. Tayfur, Numerical Simulation of Flood Wave Propagation in Two-Dimensions in Densely Populated Urban Areas due to Dam Break, Water Resour. Manag., vol. 30, no. 15, pp. 5699–5721, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11269-016-1344-4.
30. M. Ş. Güney, G. Tayfur, G. Bombar, and S. Elci, Distorted Physical Model to Study Sudden Partial Dam Break Flows in an Urban Area, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 140, no. 11, p. 5014006, 2014, doi: doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000926.
31. I. Haltas, G. Tayfur, and S. Elci, Two-dimensional numerical modeling of flood wave propagation in an urban area due to Ürkmez dam-break, İzmir, Turkey, Nat. Hazards, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 2103–2119, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2175-6.
32. S. Oguzhan and A. Ozgenc Aksoy, Experimental investigation of the effect of vegetation on dam break flood waves, J. Hydrol. Hydromechanics, no. 2016, pp. 231–241, 2020, doi: 10.2478/johh-2020-0026.
33. F. Jonson and P. Illes, A Classification of Dam Failures, Water Power Dam Constr., vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 43–45, 1976.
34. A. B. De Almeida and A. B. Franco, Modeling of Dam-Break Flow BT - Computer Modeling of Free-Surface and Pressurized Flows, M. H. Chaudhry and L. W. Mays, Eds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1994, pp. 343–373.
35. M. Morris, Final Technical Report – January 2005, 2005.
36. USBR, Downstream Hazard Classification Guidelines, Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior, 1988, Denver, Colorado, 1988.
37. K. A. Vaskinn et al., Physical Modeling of Breach Formation - Large scale field tests, in Proceedings of Dam Safety, 2004, pp. 1–16.
38. T. L. Wahl, Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters - A Literature Review and Needs Assesment, 1998. doi: DSO-98-004.
39. S. Dhiman and K. C. Patra, Experimental study of embankment breach based on its soil properties, ISH J. Hydraul. Eng., no. December, pp. 1–11, 2018, doi: 10.1080/09715010.2018.1474500.
40. R. P. George, C. R. David, P. Miller, H. G. Yung, E. C. Paul, and M. Temple, Mechanics of Overflow Erosion on Embankments. II: Hydraulic and Design Considerations, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 115, no. 8, pp. 1056–1075, Aug. 1989, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1989)115:8(1056).
41. C. Goodell, Weir Equations in HEC-RAS, The RAS Solution - The Place for HEC-RAS Modellers, 2016. https://www.kleinschmidtgroup.com/ras-post/weir-equations-in-hec-ras/ (accessed Jul. 16, 2020).
42. C. T. MacDonald and J. Langridge‐Monopolis, Breaching Charateristics of Dam Failures, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 567–586, May 1984, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1984)110:5(567).
43. J. L. Von Thun and D. R. Gillette, Guidance on breach parameters. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1990.
44. Y. Xu and L. M. Zhang, Breaching Parameters for Earth and Rockfill Dams, J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., vol. 135, no. 12, pp. 1957–1970, Dec. 2009, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000162.
45. K. P. Singh and A. Snorrason, Sensitivity of outflow peaks and flood stages to the selection of dam breach parameters and simulation models, Journal of Hydrology, vol. 68, no. 1–4. pp. 295–310, 1984, doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(84)90217-8.
46. D. C. Froehlich, Embankment-Dam Breach Parameters, in Hydraulic Engineering, Proceedings of the 1987 National Conference., 1987, pp. 570–575, [Online]. Available: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70014497.
47. D. M. Hershfield, Method for Estimating Probable Maximum Rainfall, J. Am. Water Works Assoc., vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 965–972, 1965, doi: 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1965.tb01486.x.
48. A. W. Petrascheck and P. A. Sydler, Routing of dam break floods, Int. Water Power Dam Constr., vol. 36, no. 7, 1984.
49. Z. Bozkuş, Dam Break Analyses for Disaster Management (in Turkish), Tek. Dergi, vol. 15, no. 74, pp. 3335–3350, 2004.
50. T. A. Basheer, A. Wayayok, B. Yusuf, M. D. R. Kamal, and M. Rowshon, Dam breach parameters and their influence on flood hydrographs for Mosul dam, J. Eng. Sci. Technol., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 2896–2908, 2017.
51. T. C. MacDonald and J. Langridge‐Monopolis, Breaching Charateristics of Dam Failures, J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 567–586, May 1984, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1984)110:5(567).