UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DA BAHIA

Curso de Especializao Segurana de Barragens Aspectos Tcnicos e Legais

01 de agosto de 2015

ASSESSMENT OF SELF RESCUE ZONES REGARDING BREACH OPENING

METHODS
Bruno NEVES

ABSTRACT
Saving lives during dam break events is the main topic of this article, considering that
a precise definition of the self-rescue zone (area in which authorities supposedly are
not able to provide support to the population at risk in case of dam break, within the
first minutes of the event) is crucial for planning mobilization of population in case of
flood inundation. This paper presents a comparison of hydrographs, highlighting their
dispersion through the self-saving zone, and sheds some light on issues of the
hydraulic model.

KEY WORDS

Dam Safety; Dam Break; Breach formation; Hydraulic simulation; Potential time for
alert the Self-Rescue Zone

1

1. INTRODUCTION

Despite the low probability of a dam break situation, around 0.0001 per year, this sort
of hazardous event may cause significant damage and considerable loss of life
(Medeiros, 2008).

In Brazil, federal law 12.334/2010 has set the National Policy of Dam Safety which
defines obligations to the stakeholders of dams. Through National Agencies of Natural
Recourses, details of this regulation are being defined.

ANA (National Water National Agency) and ANEEL (Electric Energy National Agency)
agree in their regulations on the definition of the Self Rescue Zone, as follows: The
downstream region of a dam where authorities are not able to provide assistance prior
to the arrival of the flood wave in case of dam break alert, which is assumed to be 10
kilometers or the distance the front end of the rupture wave can travel in 30 minutes.

Colorado Department of Natural Resources (2010) regulates that the simulation of dam
break events shall take place to characterize and identify locations which may be
potentially threatened.

The bibliography shows diversity in modeling methods of breach opening which may
lead to equally diverse results regarding potential damage in the self-rescue zone.

This paper cites details that may be considered when modeling a dam break event and
sheds some light on results acquired from different breach opening equations. The US
Army Corps of Engineers software HEC-RAS 5.0 (Hydrologic Engineering Centers
River Analysis System) was used and applied to Santa Branca Dam, an earthen dam
located in So Paulo state in Brazil.

2. OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to determine how different dam breach equations modify
the downstream hydrographs.

This intent unveils the following questions:

Which are the main factors influencing inundation hydrographs and breach
openings?
How does the breach equations influence inundation hydrograph?
What is the relationship between breach formation time and the diffusion of the
flood wave?

3. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REVIEW

Dam breach formation may be characterized generally in two categories: breach

induced by the suddenly removal of the dam or part of it, or breach formed by earth fill
erosion (DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 2010). A breach induced by
suddenly removal of the dam or part of it is typical of rigid structures generally
associated with loss of capacity. The second case is due to the overtopping and/or
piping process (Gomes, et al., 2015).

The dam utilized for this study is a 55 meter-high earthen structure, belonging to the
second category.

The rupture hydrograph can be computed by empirical equations. It is acknowledged

that there is uncertainty in this practice, since these tools were built from historic cases,
statistical analyses and limited practical simulation (Wahl, 2004). Consequently, a dam
break event is too complex to be assessed by empirical equations delivering a high
degree of uncertainty; hence the intent is to provide a probable magnitude of
parameters (ICOLD, 1998).

3.1. Breach formation parameters

Breach formation parameters are shape elements and may be evaluated to compose
the rupture hydrograph (Gomes, et al., 2015).

Width of the breach: width of the base of the breach when the event ends;

Height of the breach: height between the base of the breach and the crest of
the dam, considering its final development;

Breach slopes

Breach formation time;

3


Peak flow: Maximum discharge in the instant of total breach opening.

These parameters can be estimated by several methods. With respect to Santa Branca
Dam, the equations selected were the ones constructed from historic data and applied
to cohesive earth fill, shown below and summarized from Wahl (2004), Cestari, et al.
(2015), Brasil (2005) and Saraiva (2014):

Shape elements

Bureau of 3
Reclamation, 1988
.
MacDonald and 0.0261
Langridge-
Monopolis, 1984

Von Thun and 2.5

Gillete, 1990
. .
Froelich, 1995 0.1803

Wahl (1998) apud 3

Grimaldi et al(2010)
.
Critrio Eletrobrs, 2,1576
2003

Breach formation time

Bureau of 0.011
Reclamation, 1988
.
MacDonald and 0.017
Langridge-
Monopolis, 1984

Von Thun and 0.02 +0.25

Gillete, 1990

Von Thun and 4

Gillete, 1990
(considering Bavg)
. .
Froelich, 1995 0.0025

4

. .
Critrio Eletrobrs, 0.00714
2003

Peak Flow

.
Bureau of 19.1
Reclamation, 1982
.
Kirkpatrick, 1977 1.268 0.3

.
Soil Conservation 16.6
Service, 1981
.
Hagen, 1982 0.54 .
.
MacDonald and 1.154
Langridge-
Monopolis, 1984

Froelich, 1995 0.607 . .

.
USBR 1987 19

Table1PeakFlowBreachParameters.AdaptedfromWahl(2004),Cestari,etal.(2015),Brasil
(2005),Saraiva(2014)andLaurianoetal.2010

Bavg = width of breach, m;

C b = offset factor from Von Thun and Gillette, a function of reservoir volume;
h b = height of breach, m;
h d = height of dam, m;
h w = height of water above breach invert at time of failure, m;
K o = overtopping multiplier: Froelich: 1.4 for overtopping; 1.0 for piping;
*Eletrobrs: 1.0 for overtopping; 0.7 for piping;
Q p = peak flow, m3/s;
S = reservoir volume, m3;
t f = breach formation time, hours;
V w= volume of water above the breach invert at the time of failure;
V er = volume o, m3;

5

3.2. Rupture hydrographs

The rupture hydrographs is a function of time for the flow verified in a dam break event.
Two types of hydrographs were evaluated: the simplified triangular (Saraiva, 2014
apud Mascarenhas, 1990 pg. 37) and parabolic decay (Brasil, 2005 apud Barfield et
al., 1981 apud Walther et al., 2000pg. 55).

Simplified triangular hydrograph

Saraiva, 2014 apud Mascarenhas, 1990

Parabolic decay hydrograph

BRASIL, 2005 apud BARFIELD et al., 1981

apud WALTHER et al., 2000

Table2Rupturehydrographs.AdaptedfromBrasil(2005)

Qp is peak flow [m/s], Tp is peak time [h] and k is a factor which varies so that the
graphic matches the reservoir volume. Practical application considers peak time equal
to breach formation time.

6

3.3. Hydrodynamic risk
Balbi apud Synaven (2008) quotes that the capacity of the flow to cause damage to
people, animals or materials is relevant and this hazard can be considered the
Hydrodynamic Risk. It is the product of depth inundation (m) and the flow velocity (m/s).

Table3Definitionofconsequencesofhydrodynamicrisk.Source:Balbi,2008apudSYNAVENetal.,2000

3.4. Potential time for alert to self-rescue zone

As said before the self-rescue zone is characterized by the region where authorities
do not have time to provide assistance prior to the arrival of a dam break flood wave.
Considering this, the Potential time for alert to self-rescue zone concept takes
relevance because it defines the time interval between the beginning of breach
formation and the arrival of the wave to the distance of 10 kilometers.

Qp

RuptureHydrograph
Q(m/s)

Tp

Potentialtimeforalarm Time(h)

Image1:Exampleofbreachhydrograph.Source:AdaptedfromWahl(2004)

7

4. METHODOLOGY

The dam used in this study is the Santa Branca Dam. It is a 55 meter-high, 320 meter-
long earth fill structure. It was constructed on the Paraba do Sul River in So Paulo
state in Brazil.

Image2:ViewofthedownstreamslopeofSantaBrancadam.Source:Author

The image below shows the 10km long self-rescue zone downstream of the dam.

Image3:DownstreamregionoftheSantaBrancaDam.Source:Author

To answer the questions posed at the beginning of this paper, the rupture hydrographs
were constructed by applying the equations as described in Section 3.

Piping was the failure mechanism and four combinations of rupture time and peak flow
were composed.
8

The results of these combinations were applied to an expression of parabolic decay to
form the rupture hydrograph; this was chosen because it represents a smooth
liberation of the flow, better replicating a real situation.

These hydrographs were input to an All 2D model in HEC-RAS 5.0.

Constructing a 2D hydraulic model requires a digital terrain model (DTM). The DTM
was built using an aerial photogrammetric restitution with GSD (Ground Sample
Distance) of 40 centimeters and bathymetric data acquired with ecobatimeter and
DGPS, covering almost 70 kilometers of the river. The image below illustrates the
terrain of the digital model.

Image4:TheDigitalTerrainModelusedforthisstudy.

Image5:Bathymetryusedinthemodel.
9

At the end of the process HEC-RAS provided inundation hydrographs for all of the
combinations. Hence it was possible to assess the Hydrodynamic Risk and the
Potential time to alert in the self-rescue zone.

5. RESULTS

It was verified that equations which produced values of Q p above 60,000 m/s are
functions of the reservoir volume, except the equation proposed by Hagen (1982).
Vazodepico, Q p (m3/s)

Brasil,2015 65,731.80
Reclamation,1982 23,681.78
Kirkpatrick,1977 19,510.67
SoilConservationService,1981 20,582.07
Hagen,1982 63,470.10
MacDonaldandLangridgeMonopolis,1984 17,526.05
Froelich,2008 77,855.04
USBR1987 21,736.86

Table4CalculatedPeakFlows.

PeakFlow,Qp(m/s)
90,000.00

80,000.00

70,000.00

60,000.00

50,000.00

40,000.00

30,000.00

20,000.00

10,000.00

0.00

Graph1ScatterPlotofPeakFlowValues

The rupture time values had a larger relative range. This was attributed to the
uncertainty implicit in the equations, since the variables that dictate the breach
evolution are not well known.

Tempoderuptura,tf (horas)

Reclamation,1988 1.32
MacDonaldandLangridgeMonopolis,1984 3.2918421
VonThunandGillete,1990 1.19
Froelich,1995 2.5693113
Eletrobrs 2.1530649
HartfordandKartha,1995 1.5

10

Table5Calculatedrupturetimes

RuptureTime,tf(hours)
3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

Graph2Dispersionofcomputedrupturetimevalues.

Considering the variation of rupture time and peak flow, combinations of rupture
hydrographs were constructed.

Combinaes
tf (horas) Q p (m3 /s)
Reclamation,1988 1.320 23681.783
MacDonaldandLangridgeMonopolis,1984 3.292 17526.051
Froelich,1995e2008 2.569 77855.045
Eletrobrs,2003eBrasil(2005) 2.153 65731.863

Table6Combinationsofrupturetimeandpeakflow.

5.1. Rupture Hydrographs

Through the previous results we get the rupture hydrographs as follows:

11


Image6:Dambreakhydrographsevaluated

5.2. Inundation hydrographs

5.2.1. Self-rescue zone hazard
Graphics below shows the behavior of the wave in the 10 kilometer distance
downstream the dam.

Graph3InundationHydrographBureauofReclamationCombination

Graph4InundationHydrographMacDonaldandLangridgeCombination

12

Graph5InundationHydrographFroelichCombination

Graph6InundationHydrographBrasilandEletrobrsCombination

13

Considering the previous hydrographs it was possible to verify the Potential time to
alert the self-rescue zone as follows:

Temposdealarmeempotencialzonadeautosalvamento
tinicial (h) tfinal (h) (h)
Reclamation,1988 0.02 0.70 0.68
MacDonaldandLangridgeMonopolis,1984 0.35 1.20 0.85
Froelich,1995e2008 1.40 2.10 0.70
Eletrobrs,2003eBrasil(2005) 0.90 1.60 0.70

Table7Timetoalerttheselfrescuezone.

When the water hit the power plant belowit just disintegrated. The water picked up
a huge oil tank like a cork and away it went. There was a beautiful grove of cottonwood
trees down below, and they were snapped off like matchsticks. Later I could see the
water out on the plain. It was almost like a surrealist picture; as the water hit some of
the farm fields, you could see an eerie cloud of dust and mist rise up three to five miles
away.

-Dale Howard quoted in Times Teton: Eyewitness to Disaster

The hydrodynamic risk verified within the margins of the distance 10km downstream
of the dam is similar to the description of the eyewitness of Teton Dam disaster. The
values reached up 10, with potential to destroy buildings.

Image7:Hydrodynamicriskforthetestedcombinations.

14

In sequence will be shown the maps of hydrodynamic risk are shown below in
sequence in the final instant of the Potential time for alert the self-rescue zone.

Image8:GradationofHydrodynamicRisk(m/s)

Image9:HydrodynamicriskmapsettothefinalinstantofPotentialtimeforalerttheselfrescuezone
(01h36min)BrasileEletrobrsCombination

15


Image10:HydrodynamicriskmapsettothefinalinstantofPotentialtimeforalerttheselfrescuezone
(02h06min)FroelichCombination

Image11:HydrodynamicriskmapsettothefinalinstantofPotentialtimeforalerttheselfrescuezone
(01h12min)MacDonaldandLangridgeCombination

16


Image12:HydrodynamicriskmapsettothefinalinstantofPotentialtimeforalerttheselfrescuezone
(00h42min)BureauofReclamationCombination

6. CONCLUSIONS

Through use of rupture hydrographs and modeling the hydraulic behavior along the
downstream valley it is possible to make the following comments:

This assessment converged to the most relevant item of the system inundation
hydrograph x breach opening it is the Potential time for alert the self-rescue zone,
which may really save lives.

1. The Potential time to alert the self-rescue zone for each tested combination
varies considerably, as a function of the time of breach opening in a directly
proportional manner.

2. In these tests, the equations that produced the highest peak flow values are
functions of reservoir volume.

3. Shorter rupture times results in greater initial hydrodynamic risk. However,

regardless of the values for peak flow and rupture time chosen, the effects of
the event are destructive. If the event is scrutinized regarding time it may lead
to considerable benefits.

4. There is much uncertainty regarding the dispersion of rupture time and peak
flows. These uncertainties may be minimized with scrutinized choice of
formulae regarding its constructions, selection of equations that better fit to the
type of the dam, attention given to the cohesion parameter (in case of earthen
dams) and the failure mode.
17


7. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

GUAS,A..A.N.D.,2012.NotaTcnican24/2012PropostaderegulamentaodoPlanodeAo
deEmergncia(PAE).Braslia,DF:s.n.

Balbi,D.A.F.,2008.METODOLOGIASPARAAELABORAODEPLANOSDEAESEMERGENCIAIS
PARAINUNDAESINDUZIDASPORBARRAGENS.ESTUDODECASO:BARRAGEMDEPETIMG.Belo
Horizonte:s.n.

Brasil,L.S...,2005.Utilizaodemodelagensuniebidimensionalparaapropagaodeondade
cheiaprovenientederupturahipotticadebarragem.s.l.:s.n.

Cestari,E.S.M.D.O.J.N.,2015.Estudodepropagaodeondasparaauxiliaraelaboraodoplano
deaoemergencialexternoPAE.RevistaBrasileiradeRecursosHdricos,Set,pp.689697.

Courivaud,J.R.,Herledan,R.,Fry,J.J.&Souza,A.P.,2005.AVALIAOECOMPARAODEDOIS
MODELOSNUMRICOSPARASIMULAODARUPTURADABARRAGEMDEORS.Goinia,GO:s.n.

DEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES,D.O.W.R.,2010.GUIDELINESFORDAMBREACHANALYSIS.
Denver:s.n.

Engecorps,2012.ElaboraodeEstudosparaConcepodeumSistemadePrevisodeEventos
CrticosnaBaciadoRioParabadoSul,s.l.:s.n.

Gomes,J.,Veiga,B.V.,Romero,A.&Guerra,A.A.,2015.INVESTIGAODAINFLUNCIADOS
PARMETROSDEFINIDORESDAFORMAODABRECHADERUPTURADEUMABARRAGEMSOBREO
HIDROGRAMADECHEIAAJUSANTE.FozdoIguau:s.n.

ICOLD,1998.DAMBREAKFLOODANALYSISReviewandrecommendations.Paris:s.n.

Medeiros,H.C.,2008.Fatoresderiscoembarragens:Tcnicoseorganizacionais.Salvador,BA:s.n.

MINISTRIODASOBRASPBLICAS,T.E.C.P.,2007.DecretoLein.344/2007.Lisboa:s.n.

Saraiva,L.S.,2014.Comparaoentrecritriosparadeterminaodehidrogramasderupturade
barragens.PortoAlegre:s.n.

Security,B.o.H.,2015.1976TetonDamCollapse.[Online]
Availableat:http://bhs.idaho.gov/Pages/History/DamCollapse.aspx
[Accessed30082015].

Wahl,T.L.,1998.PredictionofEmbankmentDamBreachParametersALiteratureReviewandNeeds
Assessment,s.l.:BureauofReclamation.

Wahl,T.L.,2004.UNCERTAINTYOFPREDICTIONSOFEMBANKMENTDAMBREACHPARAMETERS.
JournalofHydraulicEngineering,Maio.

18


19