Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 699

Dam Breaching Models and the Soil Mechanics Analysis

Jianbo Fei1, Huina Yuan1, and Qiguang Zhang1

1
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering,
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; huinayuan@tsinghua.edu.cn
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: The breach formation process and breaching models for earth dams are
briefly reviewed. The breaching models are classified as breach geometry assumed
models, statistical breach models, and soil mechanics based models. In current breach
modeling, the analysis of slope stability is usually highly simplified and the slope
collapsing process as well as its contribution to the flow is often neglected, which
makes the simulation of breach formation very difficult. To ameliorate this situation,
it is proposed here to take into account the effects of both breach slope collapse and
flow erosion. The applicability of different slope stability analysis methods to breach
slope are discussed. Models that could be used for simulating the sliding and breaking
during slope collapse under water are reviewed. Other important factors in dam
breach modeling and the possibility of borrowing ideas from research results on
similar phenomena are discussed at the end.

INTRODUCTION
Human beings have witnessed the severe disasters caused by the breakage of
dams such as Johnstown Dam (1889) in the U.S. and Banqiao Dam (1976) in China.
The common causes of earth embankment breaching are overtopping, piping,
foundation and structural defects and so on (Wu et al. 2011). Among these factors
overtopping is the leading one. Statistically, 30% of the dam break cases are caused
by overtopping (Middlebrooks 1953) around the world and more than 50% in China
(Loukola et al. 1993).
The breach formation process for earth dams due to overtopping has been
extensively studied and numerous breaching models have been proposed. In this
paper, the breaching models are reviewed and classified into three categories
according to different assumptions or fundamentals: breach geometry assumed
models, statistical breach models, and soil mechanics based models. In current breach
modeling, the analysis of breach slope stability is usually highly simplified and the
slope collapsing process as well as its contribution to the flow is often neglected,
which makes reliable simulation of the breach formation process very difficult.
To overcome these problems, here it is proposed to take into account the effect of

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 700

breach slope collapse and its coupling with flow erosion by using and combining
suitable methods and models. The applicability of different slope stability analysis
methods to breach slope are discussed, such as the limit equilibrium method, the
slip-line method, the limit analysis method and the finite element method. Models for
avalanche and debris flow that could be used for the simulation of slope collapsing
under water are reviewed. Their combination with flow erosion models is suggested.
Other important factors that should be considered in dam breach modeling and the
possibility of borrowing ideas from research results on dam removal and dike
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

breaching are discussed at the end of the paper.

1. THE BREACH FORMATION PROCESS FOR OVERTOPPED EARTH

DAMS
Earth dam break problems can be classified into instantaneous breakage cases and
gradual breakage cases. Researchers often pay more attention to gradual breakage as
it is more common among dam break cases. Information collected from actual dam
failure cases and laboratory tests can exhibit the process of dam breach formation.
1.1 Homogeneous earth dams
When the water level exceeds the dam crest of a homogeneous earth dam, erosion
on the downstream slope of the embankment leads to the formation of a headcut
capable of moving upstream through the embankment to form a breach (Temple and
Hanson 2005). Once the erosion has reached the crest of the embankment, the breach
begins to advance upstream from the crest. The breach expands downward and
sideways until it reaches the toe of the embankment. This classic pattern for headcut
erosion ignores the material characteristics. For embankments composed of coarse
granular materials, the initial erosion flow may fail to carry large particles far
downstream, and thus these particles will accumulate around the downstream toe and
weaken the erosion effect on both the toe of the dam and the downstream slope. This
is why in some laboratory experiments the phenomenon of headcut erosion fails to
occur. In summary, the process of headcut erosion may be obvious for embankments
made of fine grained soils while it is not obvious for embankments composed of
coarse granular materials.
Characteristic phenomena have been observed during dam break experiments.
Hoeg (1998) conducted 7 field tests on 6m high model dams and 23 laboratory tests
in the scale of 1:5~1:10. The results show that erosion of the downstream slope is a
slow process. The erosion accelerates when it reaches the upstream slope and the dam
breach first develops downward to the toe of the dam and then expands sideways. The
final slope of dam breach is sub-vertical. The cohesive strength of the dam material
affects the dam break process remarkably. Zhang et al. (2009) experimented on
cohesive homogeneous earth dams with different cohesive strength and the results

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 701

show that dams with larger cohesive strength tend to fail because of toppling while
the failures of dams with smaller cohesive strength are often caused by shear
destruction. The test results also indicate that the sideways erosion speed is much
greater than the downward speed.
Historical failures also provide useful data for dam breach modeling. According to
MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984), the breach development time varies
from minutes to hours and analyses indicate that the breach development time for
earth dams varies in a consistent manner with the volume of material removed during
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

breaching. There is also a direct, proportional relationship between the volume of

water and the volume of material removed during breaching.
1.2 Nonhomogeneous earth dams
The breach formation process described above is the characteristic dam breaching
phenomenon for homogeneous dams. For the breaching process of nonhomogeneous
dams, Tinney and Hsu (1962) performed experiments on dams with inclined clay core.
The results demonstrate that erosion of the downstream slope gives rise to exposure
of the clay core to the flow and the clay core finally breaks due to the absence of
material below it and the flow. Mohammed (2007) studied the breakage process of
dams with clay core and derived formulas for failure patterns of the core (sliding,
dumping and collapsing) using the equilibrium of force and moment. Ren et al. (2010)
took into account of the erosion process and erosion level of the downstream slope
and developed a numerical approach with computer program.
2. THE BREACHING MODELS
Most currently used dam breaching models are based on dams composed of
homogeneous material. This simplification is reasonable because numerous factors
contribute to the uncertainty of dam breaching and simplifying the dams as
homogeneous benefits modeling. The models presented below are based on the
assumption that the materials of embankment dams are homogeneous. Although there
are existing classifications of embankment breaching models such as those proposed
in (Singh and Scarlatos 1988; Wahl 998; Morris et al. 2009; Froehlich 2008), the
classification in this paper focus on the assumption or basic principle used in
modeling the breaching process. The breaching models are classified into three
categories: breach geometry assumed models, statistical breach models and soil
mechanics based models.
2.1 Breach geometry assumed models
Making assumptions about the breach cross-section geometry is a common way
that breach modeling adopts. Johnson and Illes (1977) described the cross section of
dam breach as evolving from the shape of V with the width-depth ratio between 3
and 4 to the shape of U. Other researchers, such as Cristofano (1965), Harris

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 702

Wagner (1967), Brown and Rogers (1977/1981), Lou (1981), Nogueira (1984), Fread
(1988), Singh et al. (1986/1988), Wetmore et al. (1991), Coleman et al. (1998),
Loukola and Huokuna (1998), Zhu et al. (2006), Macchione (2008), Hanson et al.
(2010), Wu et al. (2009), assumed that the breach morphology is either fixed
(triangular, trapezoidal, parabolic or cosine curve) or changing from one shape to
another.
Singh and Scarlatos (1988) compared the solutions of assuming rectangular,
triangular and trapezoidal-shaped breaches, pointing out that rectangular breach
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

models were more accurate than triangular breach models. However, this viewpoint is
limited to the specific case of Teton dam (Wetmore and Fread 1981; Macchione
2008).
Although geometry assumed models are widely used in estimating the breach
development process, they cannot provide a thorough or detailed description of the
physical process of erosion that takes place when an embankment dam does fail.
Factors including soil characteristics, soil composition, and protective soil covers in
the form of vegetation have not been taken into account (Froehlich 2008).
2.2 Statistical breach models
Monte Carlo method has been used to study the effect of the spatial variability of
soil parameters in models that require soil properties. Aziz (2000) extended the
nearest-neighbor method to produce auto-correlated distribution with certain mean
and variance. Uncertainty of the predictions of dam breach parameters was assessed
by Wahl [(2004) using statistics and a 95% confidence band was obtained for each
parameter. It was indicated that the prediction of breach width generally had an
uncertainty of about 1/3. Based on data from 74 dam failure cases, Froehlich (2008)
derived mathematical expressions for the expected values of ultimate width and side
slope and evaluated their variances. Monte Carlo simulation was adopted to estimate
the uncertainty, where the statistical model randomly samples the probability
distribution for each stochastic variable. Froehlich and Goodell (2012) employed the
Rosenblueths probabilistic PEM method to obtain moment estimates of calculated
peak water-surface elevations, peak discharges and flood peak travel times. This
method was proved to be an efficient way of assessing the uncertainty of dam breach
model prediction in his paper.
Chauhan et al. (2004) indicated that DAMBRK model with parameters estimated
by statistical method (Froehlich 1995) may significantly overestimate the peak breach
flow and physical mechanisms associated with dam breakage and breach
development should be studied to develop the physically-based dam breaching
methods.

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 703

2.3 Soil mechanics based models

Natural phenomena surely have their mechanisms. It is not persuasive to simply
assume the geometry and evolution of the breach cross-section. Furthermore, the
properties of embankment material contribute a lot to the divergence of breach shapes
in laboratory experiments and numerical modeling. Therefore, soil mechanics based
models that consider the material properties should be more reliable and may reflect
the real situation better.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.3.1 Transverse breach modeling

Mohammed (2007) assumed that the initial shape of the breach is rectangular and
it evolves with the erosion of flow. In the process of erosion, the width and depth of
the bottom part of the breach tends to expand while the width of the upper part
remains unchanged. This erosion process may lead to the formation of unstable slope
whose stability coefficient can be calculated by the following formula:
FOS= the resistant shear force/the driving shear force
Thus the ultimate shape of the breach is the result of both flow erosion and slope
collapse.
Osman (1988) took the bank geometry as the initial shape of the breach and then
applied soil mechanics to analyze the stability. With the erosion caused changes in the
riverbed width and depth, the bank collapses and the width of the failure block and
the angle that the failure plane makes with the horizontal plane could be calculated.
The stability of the bank can be determined by comparing the measured ratio and the
analytical bank height ratio.
Chen et al. (2009) assumed that the collapsed part of the slope is a triangle and
slope stability analysis is for this part of soil. By this method, the critical depth and
side slope of the breach can be estimated. Darby and Thorne (1996) considered the
pore-water pressure and hydrostatic confining pressure acting on the boundary of the
potential collapsing block in the modeling of river bank stability. In his analysis the
failure plane is not constrained to pass through the toe of the bank and predicting the
probability of mass failure is also possible.
2.3.2 Longitudinal slope modeling
According to Xu and Zhang (2007), the erosion and collapse process of the
downstream slope of the embankment can be classified into two typical categories
according to material of the embankment. If the dam is composed of sand, the
ultimate track of the downstream slope is somewhat like a straight line declining from
the top of the embankment to the downstream toe. On the other hand, if the dam is
made of clay, the track is more like a vertical line or a flight of stairs from the top to
the bottom.

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 704

For short sand embankments, no apparent breach takes form during overtopping.
Pontillo et al. (2010) simulated the erosion process due to overtopping based on the
conservation of mass and momentum and an equation accounting for bed evolution.
The numerical simulation results of three selected hydraulic model tests agreed
reasonably with laboratory experiments.
Tingsanchali and Chinnarasri (2001) analyzed the downstream slope of the
embankment, where the safety factor was defined in terms of the moments about the
center of the failure arc. The traction acting along the interface between the flowing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

water and the dam bed and the pore water pressure were considered. Wang and
Bowles (2006) proposed a three-dimensional slope stability method based on the
research of Hungr et al. (1989) to analyze the stability of the downstream slope of the
dam. Hungr et al. (1989) made the assumption that the vertical inter-column shear
forces could be neglected and thus the equilibrium conditions are sufficient to
determine all the unknown variables. With this assumption, they extended the
simplified Bishops method for slope stability to three dimensions.
3. BREACH SLOPE ANALYSIS
As discussed earlier, development of the breach is the result of both flow erosion
and slope collapse. Stability analysis of the breach slope can be used to predict
evolution of the slope and estimate the sediment adding to the flow. Currently, the
mechanical mechanism used in breach slope modeling is highly simplified and it is
essential to employ soil mechanics methods to evaluate the stability of breach slope.
3.1 Sliding surface determination
Slope failure problems, induced by strength deficiency, are often simplified into
static equilibrium problems combined with yield conditions. The methods for slope
stability analysis can be classified into 4 categories: the limit equilibrium method, the
slip-line method, the limit analysis method, and the finite element method.
The limit equilibrium method has been used to analyze slope stability problems in
soil mechanics for many years. Commonly used limit equilibrium methods include
the Swedish method, Bishops method, Janbus method, Morgenstern-Price method,
Spencer method and so on. Compared to the highly simplified equilibrium methods
(Osman 1988; Chen et al. 2009; Darby and Thorne 1996; Tingsanchali and
Chinnarasri 2001) usually used in dam breach modeling, application of slice methods
may better describe the breach slope evolution.
The slip-line method is based on the assumption that the soil is a kind of ideal
plastomer that observes the plastic theory. This method has difficulties in solving
complicated slope problems as the characteristic method often fails in these
circumstances. Therefore its application to complex breach slope analysis is limited.

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 705

The limit analysis method is based on the upper and lower bound theorem. It is
not widely applicable due to the fact that the lower bound solution is seldom available
except for some special cases (Zheng et al. 2007).
The finite element method that uses the constitutive relations of materials is a
powerful tool for stress-deformation analysis of geotechnical structures. The safety
factor of a slope can be calculated using the shear strength reduction technique as the
ratio of the soils actual shear strength to the reduced shear strength at failure. This
method finds the critical failure surface automatically and can be applied to complex
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

problem configurations as long as the computational cost is paid.

3.2 The sliding and breaking process
Since the breach slope is submerged in water and subjected to the effect of
erosion, the soil in the slope is loose and mixed with water. Therefore, the properties
of collapsed soil are more like those of debris flow. Once the collapsing part of the
slope is determined, the sliding process can be simulated by employing avalanche
dynamics methods. There are currently several types of models that could depict the
shape and position of the slope during sliding.
Takahashi (1981), Hutchinson (1986), Chen (1988), Iverson and Denlinger (1987)
and Gray et al. (1999) proposed different models based on different assumptions. The
most recognized model is the S-H model proposed by Savage and Hutter (1989). The
sliding process is described by the combination of a mass conservation equation and a
momentum conservation equation. The S-H model is based on the constitutive
relation of Mohr Coulomb that may fail when the slope variation is large, which is
often the case for breach slope. Bouchut et al. (2003) proposed a model based on the
S-H model to deal with large slope variation topography, where the interface between
the base and the moving layer is changing during sliding. Bouchut et al. (2008)
supplemented this method with an erosion model. In this model, the energy
dissipation equation and the depth integrated energy equation are added.
However, the models mentioned above may have difficulties in modeling the
process of slope sliding into water. Fernndez-Nieto et al. (2008) proposed a new
model based on the S-H model to simulate submarine avalanches, where the
dissipation entropy inequality was observed and a system of Euler equations under
hydrostatic assumptions was obtained. However, this model is not completely
applicable to dam breach modeling since it neglects the effect of flow erosion that
could be significant as the slope collapses into the river. Therefore an integrated
model that considers the combined effect of underwater slope collapse and flow
erosion is needed for breach slope analysis.
4. CONCULSIONS
Based on a brief review of the breach formation process and breaching models for
earth dams, breach slope analysis related problems, such as slope stability analysis

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 706

and slope collapse simulation, are discussed above. We try to explore the possible
way of adopting soil mechanics analysis to model dam breaching as it is often over
simplified in traditional breach models
Except for these problems, there are also some other important factors requiring
further study and research results on similar phenomena may be helpful to the
investigation of dam breaching.
1. An initial breach is often set in both laboratory tests and numerical modeling
and current models have difficulties in determining the location where breach begins.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

It is important to evaluate the relatively fragile location where breach is most likely to
appear.
2. River supply to the reservoir affects the breaching process significantly. The
water level, reducing much slower when there is water supply, has great influences on
the discharge rate and the mechanical properties of soil.
3. Owing to the similarities in their failure process, research results on dam
removal and dike breaching may be helpful for dam breach modeling. At the same
time, the differences between these problems should not be omitted. For example, the
underwater sludge involved in dam removal has different properties compared to
compacted dam materials.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program
2013CB036402), Natural Science Foundation of China (51039003), and the State
Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering (2013KY4) is gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCE
Aziz, M. (2000). Dam breaching model. In 2000 joint conference on water
resources engineering and water resources planning and management,
Minneapolis, MN.
Bouchut, F., Fernndez-Nieto, E. D., Mangeney, A. et al. (2008). On new erosion
models of SavageHutter type for avalanches. Acta Mechanica, 199(1-4):
181-208.
Bouchut, F., Mangeney-Castelnau, A., Perthame, B. et al. (2003). A new model of
Saint Venant and SavageHutter type for gravity driven shallow water flows.
Comptes Rendus Mathematique, 336(6): 531-536.
Chauhan, S. S., Bowles, D. S., and Anderson, L. R. (2004) Do current breach
parameter estimation techniques provide reasonable estimates for use in breach
modeling. Dam Safety 2004, ASDSO 2004 Annual Conf. 2004: 26-30.
Chen, C. (1988). Generalized viscoplastic modeling of debris flow. Journal of
hydraulic engineering, 114(3): 237-258.

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 707

Chen, S. S., Zhong, Q. M., and Ren, Q. (2009). Numerical model study on break
development due to overtopping failure for earth-rock dam. Hydro-Science and
Engineering, (4): 53-58. (in Chinese)
Darby, S. E. and Thorne, C. R. (1996). Development and testing of
riverbank-stability analysis. Journal of hydraulic engineering, 122(8): 443-454.
Fernndez-Nieto, E. D., Bouchut, F., Bresch, D. et al. (2008) A new SavageHutter
type model for submarine avalanches and generated tsunami. Journal of
Computational Physics, 227(16): 7720-7754.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Froehlich, D. C. (2008). Embankment dam breach parameters and their

uncertainties. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134(12): 1708-1721.
Froehlich, D. C. and Goodell, C. R. (2012). Breach of Duty (Not): Evaluating the
Uncertainty of Dam-Breach Flood Predictions. World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress 2012, ASCE, 1203-1212.
Gray, J. (2001). Granular flow in partially filled slowly rotating drums. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 441(4): 1-29.
Gray, J., Wieland, M., and Hutter, K. (1999). Gravity-driven free surface flow of
granular avalanches over complex basal topography. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
455(1985): 1841-1874.
Hoeg, K. (1998). New dam safety legislation and the use of risk analysis. The
International Journal of Hydropower and Dams, 5(5).
Hungr, O., Salgado, F. M., and Byrne, P. M. (1989). Evaluation of a
three-dimensional method of slope stability analysis. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 26(4): 679-686.
Hutchinson, J. N. (1986). A sliding-consolidation model for flow slides. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 23(2): 115-126.
Iverson, R. M., and Denlinger, R. P. (1987). The physics of debris flowsa
conceptual assessment. IAHS-AISH publication, (165): 155-165.
Johnson, F. A., Illes, P. (1977). A classification of dam failures. Int. Water Power
Dam Constr., 28(12), 4345.
Loukola, E, Reiter, P, and Shen, C, et al. (1993). Embankment dams and their
foundation: evaluation of erosion. Proc Int Workshop on Dam Safety Evaluation,
Grindlwald: 171-188.
Macchione, F. (2008). Model for predicting floods due to earthen dam breaching. I:
Formulation and evaluation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134(12):
1688-1696.
MacDonald, T. C. and Langridge-Monopolis, J. (1984). Breaching characteristics of
dam failures. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 110(5): 567-586.
Middlebrooks, T A. (1953). Earth-dam practice in United States. Trans Amer Soc
Civil Eng, 118: 697-772.
Mohammed, A. (2007). The improvement of forecast precision on dam breach.

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics

 Soil Behavior and Geomechanics GSP 236 ASCE 2014 708

Express Water Resources& Hydropower Information, 28(7): 21-25. (in Chinese).

Morris, M. W., Hassan, M., Kortenhaus, A., et al. (2009). Breaching processes: A
state of the art review. FLOODsite Rep. T06-06-03, FLOODsite Consortium,
www. floodsite. net,.
Osman, A. M. (1988). Thorne C R. Riverbank stability analysis. I: Theory[J].
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 114(2): 134-150.
Pontillo, M., Schmocker, L., Greco, M., et al. (2010). 1D numerical evaluation of
dike erosion due to overtopping. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 48(5): 573-582.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Selcuk Universitesi on 12/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

REN, Q., CHEN, S. S., and ZHONG, Q. M. (2010). Numerical model for clay core
dam break due to overtopping failure. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 32(4): 562-566. (in Chinese)
Savage, S. B. and Hutter, K. (1989). The motion of a finite mass of granular material
down a rough incline. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 199(1): 177-215.
Singh, V. P. and Scarlatos, P. D. (1988). Analysis of gradual earth-dam failure.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 114(1): 21-42.
Takahashi, T. (1981). Debris flow. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 13(1): 57-77.
Temple, D M and Hanson, G J. (2005). Earth dam overtopping and breach outflow.
Proc. of the World Water and Environmental Resources Congress.
Tingsanchali, T. and Chinnarasri, C. (2001). Numerical modelling of dam failure due
to flow overtopping. Hydrological sciences journal, 46(1): 113-130.
Tinney E. R., Hsu H. Y. (1962). Mechanics of washout of an erodible fuse plug.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 127(1): 31-59.
Wahl, T. L. (1998). Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters: a literature
review and needs assessment.Rep. No. DSO-98-004, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Denver, 60.
Wahl, T. L. (2004). Uncertainty of predictions of embankment dam breach
parameters. Journal of hydraulic engineering, 130(5): 389-397.
Wang, Z. and Bowles, D. S. (2006). Three-dimensional non-cohesive earthen dam
breach model. Part 1: Theory and methodology. Advances in water resources,
29(10): 1528-1545.
Wetmore, J. N. and Fread, D. L. (1981). The NWS simplified dam-break flood
forecasting model. National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland: 164-197.
Wu, W, Altinakar, M S, and Bradford S F, et al. (2011). Earthen embankment
breaching. Journal of hydraulic engineering, 137(12): 1549-1564.
Xu, Y. and Zhang, L. M. (2007). Study on the breaching models for earth-rock
dams. China Flood and Drought Management, (S1): 18-21.
Zhang, J Y, Li Xuan G X, et al. (2009). Overtopping breaching of cohesive
homogeneous earth dam with different cohesive strength. Sci China Ser E-Tech
Sci, 52(10): 3024-3029, doi: 10.1007/s11431-009-0220-3.
Zheng, Y.R., Chen, Z.Y., Wang, G.X., et al. (2007). Engineering Treatment of Slope
& Landslide. China Communications Press, (in Chinese)

Soil Behavior and Geomechanics