Evaluation of new models for simulating embankment dam breach
Download
1 / 32

EVALUATION OF NEW MODELS FOR SIMULATING EMBANKMENT DAM BREACH - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 325 Views
  • Uploaded on

EVALUATION OF NEW MODELS FOR SIMULATING EMBANKMENT DAM BREACH. Tony L. Wahl Bureau of Reclamation – Denver, CO. What is CEATI International?. Since 1891, the Canadian Electrical Association (CEA) has been the forum for electrical business in Canada

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'EVALUATION OF NEW MODELS FOR SIMULATING EMBANKMENT DAM BREACH' - omer


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Evaluation of new models for simulating embankment dam breach l.jpg

EVALUATION OF NEW MODELS FOR SIMULATING EMBANKMENT DAM BREACH

Tony L. Wahl

Bureau of Reclamation – Denver, CO


What is ceati international l.jpg
What is CEATI International? BREACH

  • Since 1891, the Canadian Electrical Association (CEA) has been the forum for electrical business in Canada

  • In 1974, CEA initiated its R&D Program to serve the research needs of Canadian electric utilities

  • In 1998, CEA’s R&D Program opened its doors to international participation

  • In 2001, CEA Technologies Inc. (CEATI) was separated from the Canadian Electrical Association

  • CEATI International is now the “Centre for Energy Advancement through Technological Innovation”

ASDSO 2009


Interest groups l.jpg
Interest Groups BREACH

  • 14 Interest Groups in the areas of electrical energy…

    • Generation

    • Transmission

    • Distribution

    • Utilization

  • Dam Safety Interest Group

    • About 40 dam owners

    • Jointly sponsors research & development projects

    • Participants from Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand

ASDSO 2009


Dam safety interest group dsig l.jpg
Dam Safety Interest Group (DSIG) BREACH

  • Areas of Interest:

    • Risk assessment for dam safety

    • The use of geophysical methods in the diagnostics and monitoring of embankment dams

    • Erosion and piping in dams

    • Reliability of discharge facilities

    • Ice loadings

    • Probability (frequency) of extremefloods

    • Emergency preparedness

    • Testing of embedded dam anchors

ASDSO 2009


Dam break modeling recent history l.jpg
Dam-Break Modeling: Recent History BREACH

  • Lethal Dam Failures in 1970s

    • Canyon Lake

    • Kelly Barnes

    • Laurel Run

    • Buffalo Creek

    • Teton

  • 1977 DAMBRK model developed

    • Could route peak breach outflows to determine inundation depths, flood consequences

    • Could determine peak breach outflow, given a description of how a breach would develop

ASDSO 2009


Modeling breach development l.jpg
Modeling Breach Development BREACH

  • Concrete dam failure modes (sliding, overturning, structural) are usually instantaneous and complete

  • Embankment dam failures usually involve erosion, which takes time and depends on many factors

    • Regression equations to relate breach parameters to dam and reservoir characteristics

      • Many developed in 1980s and refined in 1990s

    • Adequate for cases in which the area of interest was in the “far-field”

    • Too crude for the “near-field”

ASDSO 2009


Physically based breach modeling l.jpg
Physically-Based Breach Modeling BREACH

  • Dr. Danny Fread recognizedneed for modeling erosionprocesses to obtain betterresults in near field

  • May 18, 1980 eruption ofMt. St. Helens createdlandslide dam on Toutle River

  • Dr. Fread developed NWS-BREACH model to analyze possible breach of this dam

  • NWS-BREACH released to public in 1988

ASDSO 2009


Modeling developments in 1990s l.jpg
Modeling Developments in 1990s BREACH

  • Flood routing capabilities much improved

    • 2D modeling

    • Integration with GIS to improve consequence analysis

  • Little change in breach modeling during this time

ASDSO 2009


Ceati dam erosion and breach project l.jpg
CEATI Dam Erosion and Breach Project BREACH

  • Since 2001 the DSIG has had an interest in improving the tools used to model embankment dam erosion and breaching

  • Key Questions

    • Will a dam breach?

    • What is the outflow hydrograph?

    • What is the warning time?

  • Available methods mostly unchanged since late 1980s

    • Regression models for predicting peak outflow

    • Regression models for predicting breach parameters

    • Breach erosion models, such as NWS-BREACH

ASDSO 2009


Shortcomings of available methods l.jpg
Shortcomings of Available Methods BREACH

  • Regression models for peak outflow

    • No aid in determining whether breach occurs

    • Little detail about hydrograph shape or warning time

  • Regression models for predicting breach parameters

    • Uncertainties are large, especially for time parameters

      • Breach initiation time

      • Breach formation time

  • Breach erosion models (e.g. NWS-BREACH)

    • Used sediment transport equations, not true erosion models

    • Poor modeling of erosion of cohesive materials

ASDSO 2009


Large scale physical tests l.jpg
Large-Scale Physical Tests BREACH

  • Since 2000, many organizations have been performing small-scale and some large-scale embankment breach tests

    • European IMPACT Project (22 lab tests and sponsorship of Norwegian field tests)

    • Norwegian tests (23 lab tests, 5 field tests of 6-m-high dams)

    • Agricultural Research Service (7 overtopping tests and 4 piping tests of 2-m-high dams)

  • New breach erosion models under development

    • Physically-based simulation of erosion processes

    • Better modeling of the erosion of cohesive soils

ASDSO 2009


Project objectives l.jpg
Project Objectives BREACH

  • Dam breach erosion project was initiated in 2004, with a focus on erosion and breach processes and prediction of breach outflow hydrographs at the dam

  • We want to develop physically-based models for overtopping erosion and internal erosion leading to dam breach and facilitate the integration of those technologies into existing flood routing tools like HEC-RAS, MIKE11, Telemac, InfoWorks, etc.

ASDSO 2009


Participants l.jpg
Participants BREACH

  • Electricité de France

    • Case studies…erodimeter and piping erosion research

  • Hydro Québec / Ecolé Polytechnique Montréal

    • Numerical modeling of dam breach, development of Firebird breach model

  • Bureau of Reclamation

    • Laboratory testing…investigate erodimeters

  • Agricultural Research Service

    • Large-scale laboratory testing and development of SIMBA/WinDAM models

  • HR Wallingford

    • Large-scale testing (IMPACT project), developers of HR-BREACH model

  • US Army Corps of Engineers

    • Integration of breach modeling technology into HEC-RAS suite

  • Elforsk AB

    • Model evaluation

  • Other interested parties and sponsors

    • BC Hydro, Churchill Falls, Elforsk AB, EoN Vasserkraft, Great Lakes Power, Manitoba Hydro, New York Power Authority, Ontario Power Generation, Seattle City Light, Scottish & Southern Energy, National Weather Service

ASDSO 2009


Project overview l.jpg
Project Overview BREACH

  • Phase 1: Information Gathering

    • Reviewed and assembled case-study and large-scale laboratory test data

    • Reviewed and identified numerical models under development

  • Phase 2: Model Development and Implementation

  • Phase 3: Model Enhancement

ASDSO 2009


Tasks in phase 2 l.jpg
Tasks in Phase 2 BREACH

  • Evaluation of three numerical breach models

    • SIMBA (ARS)

    • HR-BREACH (HR Wallingford)

    • FIREBIRD BREACH (Montreal Polytechnic)

  • Evaluation of methods for quantifying erodibility of cohesive embankment materials

    leading to…

  • Integration of breach modeling technologies into HEC-RAS dynamic routing model

  • Potential efforts to facilitate integration with commercial flood routing models

ASDSO 2009


The models common characteristics l.jpg
The Models: Common Characteristics BREACH

  • Models are all physically-based

  • Models utilize quantitative input parameters describing erodibility of cohesive materials

  • Models are intended to perform well without specific calibration to a particular case

  • Models are not computationally intensive

ASDSO 2009


The models l.jpg
The Models BREACH

  • SIMBA – Simplified Breach Analysis (USDA-ARS)

    • Simulates breach by overtopping of homogeneous earth embankments with negligible protection on the downstream face

    • Four stage failure process

      • surface erosion leading to development of a headcut on the downstream face of the embankment

      • headcut advance through the crest to initiate the breach

      • breach formation as the headcut advances into the reservoir

      • breach expansion during reservoir drawdown

    • Erosion formulas are fixed and most calibration factors have been determined from lab testing. Complete model is not calibrated to any specific data set.

ASDSO 2009


The models19 l.jpg
The Models BREACH

  • HR BREACH (HR Wallingford)

    • Overtopping or piping-induced breach of cohesive, non cohesive and simple composite (i.e. zoned) structures.

    • Simulated processes:

      • Initial erosion of embankment surface protection (grass or rock cover)

      • Headcut erosion through embankment

      • Potential failure of breach side slopes by shear or bending

      • Potential for sliding or overturning of core section

    • Limited selection of erosion formulas

    • Not calibrated to any specific data set

ASDSO 2009


The models20 l.jpg
The Models BREACH

  • FIREBIRD BREACH (Montreal Polytechnic)

    • Overtopping-induced breach of homogeneous earthfill or rockfill dams

    • One dimensional unsteady flow, St. Venant equations coupled with sediment continuity

    • Able to handle transcritical flows

    • Side slopes are evaluated for ability to resist sliding along a simple inclined face

    • Choice of erosion formulas

    • Can be more computationally intensive

ASDSO 2009


Model evaluation l.jpg
Model Evaluation BREACH

  • Evaluate model performance against large-scale laboratory tests and case-study data

    • 2 ARS outdoor laboratory tests 2.3-m high homogeneous dams, overtopping 1 breach, 1 non-breach

    • 3 overtopping breach tests performed in Norway during the IMPACT project (5- to 6-m high dams)

      • homogeneous clay

      • homogeneous gravel

      • zoned embankment

    • 2 real dam failures

      • Oros (Brazil)

      • Banqiao (China)

ASDSO 2009


Ars tests l.jpg
ARS Tests BREACH

  • Two overtopped embankments, 2.3 m high

    • SM Silty Sand, complete breach in 51 minutes

    • CL Lean Clay, headcut damage, but no breach after 20 hours

  • 2.5 orders of magnitudedifference in erodibility ofmaterials

  • Constant inflow, smallreservoir

    Hanson, G.J., Cook, K.R., Hunt, S. 2005. Physical modeling of overtopping erosion and breach formation of cohesive embankments. Transactions of the ASAE, 48(5):1783-1794.

ASDSO 2009


Norwegian tests part of impact l.jpg
Norwegian Tests - Part of IMPACT BREACH

  • Three overtopped embankments, 5 to 6 m high

    • Homogeneous clay, placed very wet

    • Homogeneous gravel, surface frozen

    • Zoned rockfill with moraine core

  • Inflow regulated at upstream reservoir

    • Clay dam: Peak inflow arrivedshortly after initial breach…reservoir level went back up…peak outflow driven by peakinflow

    • Flow regulation not attempted forgravel dam test

    • Inflow was too little, too latefor zoned test

ASDSO 2009


Oros dam brazil 1960 l.jpg
Oros Dam (Brazil, 1960) BREACH

  • 35-m high dam, failed by overtopping during construction

  • Core material probably a Sandy Lean Clay, with PI=10

  • Well-compacted, except maybe last lifts

ASDSO 2009


Slide25 l.jpg

ASDSO 2009 BREACH


Oros dam summary l.jpg
Oros Dam - Summary BREACH

  • Thick, erosion-resistant embankment, large reservoir

  • Slow erosion

    • 12 hrs to initiate breach

    • 6.5 to 12 hrs to form breach and drain reservoir

ASDSO 2009


Banqiao dam china 1975 l.jpg
Banqiao Dam (China, 1975) BREACH

  • Hand-built dam with homogeneous earth shells and clay core wall of “arenaceous shale”

  • Assumed to be poorly compacted and highly erodible

  • 1 hr breach initiation

  • 2 to 2.5 hrs to fully form breach

ASDSO 2009


Evaluation criteria l.jpg
Evaluation Criteria BREACH

  • Evaluate performance using

    • initial inputs (best available information and judgment)

    • optimized inputs

  • Objective criteria

    • Time to initiate breach (erode through crest)

    • Time to form breach (reach full width)

    • Final breach width

    • Breach widening rate

    • Peak outflow

  • Subjective criteria

    • Do models exhibit appropriate sensitivity?

    • Ease of determining input data and selecting parameters

    • Ease of operation

ASDSO 2009


Current status l.jpg
Current Status BREACH

  • Team met at last year’s USSD meeting in Portland

  • Members have been working this summer to perform the evaluation runs

  • Group will meet again later this week to compare results and try to reach consensus on:

    • Which models and model components are working well?

    • What technologies are presently ready to be integrated into state-of-the-art models?

    • Where is more work needed?

  • SIMBA and HR-BREACH models are being integrated into USDA WinDAM and Wallingford Software InfoWorks products

ASDSO 2009


Challenges l.jpg
Challenges BREACH

  • TIME: Too many models, cases, scenarios

  • Each case study presents unique evaluation challenges

    • Real failures have questions about dam materials and erodibility, and about observed breach and outflow characteristics

    • Lab tests have “real-world” logistical complications and limitations related to reservoir size

    • Failure to accurately model breach initiation phase can require judgment to evaluate how well the model reproduced later stages of the breach process

  • Evaluation process has already been extremely valuable

ASDSO 2009


Slide32 l.jpg

CEATI Information: BREACHChris HayesDirector, Business Development1155 Metcalfe St., Suite 1120Montreal, QC H3B 2V6 (514) 866-5377 | www.ceatech.ca | info@ceatech.ca