logo

SCIENCE CHINA Technological Sciences, Volume 62 , Issue 8 : 1455-1466(2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-018-9271-1

Cascading dam breach process simulation using a coupled modeling platform

More info
  • ReceivedJan 27, 2018
  • AcceptedApr 26, 2018
  • PublishedOct 10, 2018

Abstract

This study evaluates the possibility of a cascade failure by developing a coupled breach-modeling platform based on one-dimensional flow modeling of the river channel, flood propagation, regulation process of reservoir fluctuation, overtopping with breaching, and wave damping downstream. A hyperbolic model of the DB-IWHR was embedded into the platform to simulate the dam breaching process. Five breach models and software were used to calculate the Tangjiashan barrier lake breaching. The results of a sensitivity study were then compared with the measured data. The peak flow and the time of occurrence were confirmed to be predictable with a reasonable accuracy if the input values were within ranges appropriate for the model. The approach was applied to a case involving two layout planning schemes for a cascade of rock-filled dams under extreme operating conditions. The probability of the failure of a key control cascade downstream caused by a continuous cascade breach upstream was simulated. Moreover, measures to prevent the transmission of risk by advance warnings were investigated. The proposed methodology and the discharge capacity measures provide guidelines to assess the risk to a cascade of dams under extreme operating conditions and offer support for the design criteria of unusual discharge structures for very large dams.


Funded by

the National Key Research and Development Program of China(Grant,No.,2016YFC0401706)

the National Natural Science Foundation of China(Grant,No.,51679262)

and the IWHR Research & Development Support Program(Grant,Nos.,HY0145B642017,HY0145B802017)


Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFC0401706), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51679262), and the IWHR Research & Development Support Program (Grant Nos. HY0145B642017, and HY0145B802017).


References

[1] Guo X L, Yang K L, Xia Q F, et al. Discharge capacity characteristics of piano key weir (in Chinese). J Hydraul Eng, 2014, 46: 867–882. Google Scholar

[2] Zhu Y H, Visser P J, Vrijling J K, et al. Experimental investigation on breaching of embankments. Sci China Technol Sci, 2011, 54: 148-155 CrossRef Google Scholar

[3] Zhou J P, Wang H, Chen Z Y, et al. Evaluations on the safety design standards for dams with extra height or cascade impacts. Part I: Fundamentals and criteria (in Chinese). J Hydraul Eng, 2015, 46: 505–514. Google Scholar

[4] Li S Y, Zhou X B, Wang Y J, et al. Study of risk acceptance criteria for dams. Sci China Technol Sci, 2015, 58: 1263-1271 CrossRef Google Scholar

[5] Du X H, Li B, Chen Z Y, et al. Evaluations on the safety design standards for dams with extra height or cascade impacts. Part II: Slope stability of embankment dams (in Chinese). J Hydraul Eng, 2015, 46: 640–649. Google Scholar

[6] ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breach. Earthen embankment breaching. J Hydraul Eng, 2011, 137: 1549–1564. Google Scholar

[7] Singh V P. Dam Breach Modeling Technology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1996. Google Scholar

[8] Wahl T L. Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters: A literature review and needs assessment. Dam Safety Report. No. DSO-98-004, U.S. Department of the interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1998. Google Scholar

[9] Morris M W, Kortenhaus A, Visser P J, et al. Breaching processes: A state of the art review. FLOODsite Report. T06-06-03, FLOODsite Consortium, 2009. Google Scholar

[10] Xu Y, Zhang L M. Breaching parameters for earth and rockfill dams. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, 2009, 135: 1957-1970 CrossRef Google Scholar

[11] Cristofano E A. Method of computing erosion rate of failure of earth dams. Technical Report. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 1965. Google Scholar

[12] Harris G W, Wagner D A. Outflow from Breached Earth Dams. Technical Report. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1967. Google Scholar

[13] Fread D L. BREACH: An erosion model for earthen dam failure (model description and user manual). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, 1988. Google Scholar

[14] Walder J S, O’Connor J E. Methods for predicting peak discharge of floods caused by failure of natural and constructed earthen dams. Water Resour Res, 1997, 33: 2337-2348 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[15] Liang L, Ni J R, Borthwick A G L, et al. Simulation of dike-break processes in the Yellow River. Sci China Ser E-Technol Sci, 2002, 45: 606-619 CrossRef Google Scholar

[16] Wang Z, Bowles D S. Three-dimensional non-cohesive earthen dam breach model. Part 1: Theory and methodology. Adv Water Resources, 2006, 29: 1528-1545 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[17] Zhang J Y, Li Y, Xuan G X, et al. Overtopping breaching of cohesive homogeneous earth dam with different cohesive strength. Sci China Ser E-Technol Sci, 2009, 52: 3024-3029 CrossRef Google Scholar

[18] Chang D S, Zhang L M. Simulation of the erosion process of landslide dams due to overtopping considering variations in soil erodibility along depth. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci, 2010, 10: 933-946 CrossRef Google Scholar

[19] Erpicum S, Dewals B J, Archambeau P, et al. Dam break flow computation based on an efficient flux vector splitting. J Comput Appl Math, 2010, 234: 2143-2151 CrossRef Google Scholar

[20] Wu W. Simplified physically based model of earthen embankment breaching. J Hydraul Eng, 2013, 139: 837-851 CrossRef Google Scholar

[21] Brown R J, Rogers D C. BRDAM Users Manual. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior, Water and Power Resources Service, 1981. Google Scholar

[22] Singh V P, Scarlatos P D, Collins J G, et al. Breach erosion of earthfill dams (BEED) model. Nat Hazards, 1988, 1: 161-180 CrossRef Google Scholar

[23] Zhong Q, Wu W, Chen S, et al. Comparison of simplified physically based dam breach models. Nat Hazards, 2016, 84: 1385-1418 CrossRef Google Scholar

[24] Sammen S S, Mohamed T A, Ghazali A H, et al. An evaluation of existent methods for estimation of embankment dam breach parameters. Nat Hazards, 2017, 87: 545-566 CrossRef Google Scholar

[25] Sattar A M A. Gene expression models for prediction of dam breach parameters. J Hydroinform, 2014, 16: 550-571 CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] Zhang M L, Xu Y Y, Hao Z N, et al. Integrating 1D and 2D hydrodynamic, sediment transport model for dam-break flow using finite volume method. Sci China-Phys Mech Astron, 2014, 57: 774-783 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[27] Wu W, Marsooli R, He Z. depth-averaged two-dimensional model of unsteady flow and sediment transport due to noncohesive embankment break/breaching. J Hydraul Eng, 2012, 138: 503-516 CrossRef Google Scholar

[28] Chen Z, Ma L, Yu S, et al. Back analysis of the draining process of the Tangjiashan Barrier Lake. J Hydraul Eng, 2014, 141: 05014011 CrossRef Google Scholar

[29] Zhou X, Chen Z, Yu S, et al. Risk analysis and emergency actions for Hongshiyan barrier lake. Nat Hazards, 2015, 79: 1933-1959 CrossRef Google Scholar

[30] Dewals B, Erpicum S, Detrembleur S, et al. Failure of dams arranged in series or in complex. Nat Hazards, 2011, 56: 917-939 CrossRef Google Scholar

[31] Fread D L. DAMBRK: The NWS dam break flood forecasting model. Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, 1984. Google Scholar

[32] Singh V P, Scarlatos P D. Analysis of gradual earth-dam failure. J Hydraulic Eng, 1988, 114: 21-42 CrossRef Google Scholar

[33] Liu N, Chen Z, Zhang J, et al. Draining the Tangjiashan barrier lake. J Hydraul Eng, 2010, 136: 914-923 CrossRef Google Scholar

  • Figure 1

    (Color online) Layout of the cascade earth-rock dams considered in the study.

  • Figure 2

    Framework of the cascading dam breach modeling platform.

  • Figure 3

    Comparison of dam breach models. (a) Dam breach flow; (b) water level of the reservoir; (c) channel bed level; (d) flow surface width.

  • Figure 4

    (Color online) Layout of the three dams considered in the case study.

  • Figure 5

    Flood hydrograph of the Xiazhuang I reservoir.

  • Figure 6

    Fluctuation in the water level under different flood regulation schemes.

  • Figure 7

    Dam breach for the failure of Xiazhuang II and flood propagation to the Dali dam.

  • Figure 8

    Flooding and water level of the reservoir of Dali after the Xiazhuang II failure.

  • Figure 9

    Dam breach for the continuous failure of Dali and flood propagation to the Shuangtunzi dam site.

  • Figure 10

    Inflow, outflow, and flood regulation process of Shuangtunzi without pre-warning for the upstream cascade breaches.

  • Figure 11

    Inflow, outflow, and flood regulation process of Shuangtunzi with pre-warning for the upstream cascade breaches.

  • Figure 12

    Outlet structure discharge curve of Shuangtunzi.

  • Figure 13

    Inflow, outflow, and flood regulation process of Shuangtunzi with an increased discharge capacity, but no pre-warning of the upstream cascade breaches.

  • Figure 14

    Inflow, outflow, and flood regulation process of Shuangtunzi with an increased discharge capacity and pre-warning for the upstream cascade breaches.

  • Figure 15

    (Color online) Summarized cascading dam breach process of the four cases and the typical breaching characteristic values.

  • Table 1   Sensitivity analysis results

    Model

    Typical parameter

    Values

    Occurring time of peak flow

    Peak flow (m3/s)

    BREACH

    Porosity

    0.2

    15:29

    4982.8

    0.4

    13:41

    7217.5

    0.6

    12:07

    10686.9

    Grain size distribution uniformity d90/d30

    10

    15:04

    5582.5

    30

    13:41

    7217.5

    50

    13:43

    8115.4

    Internal friction angle φ (°)

    15

    13:17

    7401.8

    22

    13:41

    7217.5

    35

    14:25

    6700.5

    Mike11 DB

    Porosity

    0.2

    16:26

    5403.7

    0.4

    13:06

    6822.1

    0.6

    10:50

    8234.4

    Initial width of breach

    8

    13:36

    6455.6

    14

    13:06

    6822.1

    20

    12:50

    7278.3

    Lateral erosion rate

    0.12

    13:10

    6487.5

    0.2

    13:06

    6822.1

    0.3

    13:00

    7414.7

    DB-IWHR

    Drop coefficient

    m=h/(Hz)

    m=0.8

    10:51

    7470.0

    m=0.7

    10:54

    7688.6

    m=0.6

    10:51

    7828.6

    Erosion rate parameters

    a =1.1 b = 0.0007

    10:51

    7470.0

    a =1.0 b = 0.0006

    10:40

    8457.8

    a = 0.9 b =0.0005

    10:37

    9705.6

  • Table 2   Typical parameters of the earth-rock dam cascades

    Item

    Xiazhuang I

    Xiazhuang II

    Dali

    Shuangtunzi

    Elevation of crest (m)

    3126

    3070

    2690

    2510

    Max. dam height (m)

    231

    175

    113.5

    314

    Max. flood level (m)

    3122.87

    3065

    2687.61

    2504.42

    Normal flood level (m)

    3120

    3062

    2686

    2500

    Elevation of dead water (m)

    3060

    3010

    2683

    2420

    Total reservoir storage (hundred million m3)

    30.19

    10.9

    1.85

    28.97

    Normal reservoir storage (hundred million m3)

    29.05

    10.24

    1.766

    27.32

    Dead storage (hundred million m3)

    9.81

    2.7

    1.606

    8.15

    Natural inflow (m3/s)

    185

    185

    206

    516

    Distance (km)

    0

    0

    85.6

    174.9

    p1

    0.207

    0.06

    0.04

    0.16

    p1

    19.65

    -4.74

    4.94

    11.07

    p1

    981.13

    90.19

    161.49

    814.65

    Reference water level

    3060

    2895

    2683

    2420

Copyright 2020  CHINA SCIENCE PUBLISHING & MEDIA LTD.  中国科技出版传媒股份有限公司  版权所有

京ICP备14028887号-23       京公网安备11010102003388号