You are on page 1of 11

Dike Failure Mechanisms and Breaching Parameters

Jozsef Danka 1 and L. M. Zhang, F.ASCE 2

Abstract: Dike risk management requires breaching parameters that can be estimated rapidly to support the prediction of inundation zones
and decision making. The objectives of this paper are to compile a database of dike breaching cases, study common dike failure mechanisms,
and develop a set of empirical equations for estimating breaching length, depth, and peak discharge. A database of over 1,000 dike failure
cases was collected, with information on pre-breach dike geometry, materials, type of dike, failure mechanisms, breaching length, depth, and
peak discharge. A set of regression models are formulated using five control variables: dike height, width, material, type of dike, and failure
mechanism. The standard error is set as a selection criterion and the Akaike information criterion is used to optimize the proposed empirical
models. The new models are validated using independent cases and compared with available empirical equations for dikes and man-made
dams. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001335. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Downloaded from by New York University on 05/11/15. For personal use only.

Author keywords: Dikes; Dam failures; Floods; Risk management; Slope stability; Soil erosion.

Introduction Howard et al. (2009) illustrated the stages of breaching caused
by piping. Large-scale experiments on the breaching mechanism
Dike risk management requires information about breaching caused by overtopping and concentrated leak were conducted in
parameters, especially breach geometry and peak discharge, which Norway (Morris et al. 2005). Other important failure mechanisms,
can be estimated using physically based or empirical models such as micro instability and horizontal shear failure were also
(e.g., Courage et al. 2013; Zhang et al. 2013). In most scenarios, studied [e.g., Technical Advisory Committee on Water Defences
physically based models are favored. However, when a dike is (TAW) 1998, 1999; Construction Industry Research and Informa-
likely to fail, rapid risk assessment must be conducted to support tion Association (CIRIA) et al. 2013].
decision making, and empirical models may be preferred because In the literature, only two sets of empirical equations were re-
they do not require detailed field or laboratory measurements that ported for estimating the breaching lengths of dikes (Verheij 2002;
are often not available. The objectives of this paper are to compile a Nagy 2006) despite that similar research on man-made earth and
database of dike breaching cases, study dike failure mechanisms, rockfilled dams (e.g., Bureau of Reclamation 1982, 1988; Xu and
and develop a set of empirical equations to assess dike breaching Zhang 2009) or landslide dams (e.g., Peng and Zhang 2012) have
parameters (i.e., breaching length, depth, and peak discharge) based been studied extensively. Verheij (2002) proposed two formulas for
on past dike breach records. Toward these goals, a large number of estimating the breaching length of sand and clay dikes, respec-
dike breach cases must be collected, likely breaching mechanisms tively. The control variable of the equations is the development
and processes understood, and critical control variables identified. time. Nagy (2006) established a relation based on a dataset of
Dike breaching cases have been reported by Nagy and Tóth overtopped dikes built of fines, in which the breaching length is
(2005), Heyer (see Acknowledgement), National Science Founda- a function of dike height. At the same time, empirical models
tion (NSF) (2006), and Li et al. (2003), among many others. A few for earth and rockfill dams were sometimes applied to dikes with-
researchers have studied mechanisms of historical breaches (van out verification of their applicability.
Baars and van Kempen 2009; Nagy 2012); the past breaches were This paper is organized as follows. The classification of dikes is
most frequently caused by external erosion (e.g., overtopping and presented first. The compilation of a dike breaching database is
wave erosion), internal erosion, and slope failures. The physical then described. Thereafter the most frequent failure mechanisms
process of dike breaching by overtopping was detailed in two are evaluated and the control variables for determining the breach-
Ph.D. theses (Visser 1998; Zhu 2006) related to homogeneous ing parameters are selected. Multivariable regression analyses are
sand and clay dikes. Earthen sea dikes with an impermeable mask then performed to develop a set of easy-to-use equations for esti-
were studied by D’Eliso (2007). The International Commission on mating dike breaching parameters. A compromise between the
Large Dams (ICOLD) (2013) detailed the physical processes of number of control variables and prediction error has been made
four different internal erosion-related failure mechanisms: concen- during these analyses. The new multivariate models are optimized
trated leak, backward erosion, contact erosion, and suffusion. with the aid of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and validated
using two independent cases and compared with prediction results
Ph.D. Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- using existing equations for dikes and man-made dams.
ing, Hong Kong Univ. of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay,
Hong Kong. E-mail:
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hong Kong
Univ. of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong
Classification of Dikes
(corresponding author). E-mail:
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 16, 2014; approved
The structure of a dike plays an important role in breaching devel-
on March 17, 2015; published online on May 6, 2015. Discussion period open opment. Two main categories, i.e., earthen dikes and composite
until October 6, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for individual dikes, are differentiated as shown in Fig. 1. The earthen dikes
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenviron- are only constructed of soils (granular or cohesive), with the ma-
mental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/04015039(11)/$25.00. terials satisfying the requirements of water retention and stability.

© ASCE 04015039-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

material. L = length of the breach. cutoff wall. since the application of coarse fills can lead to dikes savings on the use of fines. Therefore. g = gravitational accel- eration. Homogenous dikes are built in places rich in fine. and observed The database provides information on the breach location. mostly in the range of 2–4 m and only in two cases are above 10 m. and slope inclination). timate the peak discharge using Visser’s (1998) formula. Earthen dikes USA 36 Homogenous dike Serbia 2 Name of country Pakistan 1 Netherlands 20 Zoned dike Zoned dike Italy 1 (strengthening on both sides) (core with fill support) Ireland 1 120 Hungary Germany 82 China 16 Zoned dike Zoned dike 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 (dike with clay cover) (core dike with chimney drain) (a) Number of cases 0-1 3 1-2 35 Range of dike Composite dikes 114 height (m) 2-3 Dike with I-wall 3-4 90 4-10 Dike with T-wall (masonry wall) Dike with cut-off wall 10 < 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 (b) Number of cases 5-10 21 Downloaded from ascelibrary. other layouts are in use too. which cal- cation of retaining structures on the water side can serve the culates the peak discharge in the early stages of breaching as purpose of enhancing surface protection against erosion as well. 2(b)] and the width in 228 cases tion and quality-management methods. Geoenviron.. thus. width. bedded structures such as T-wall. and development time. Geotech. 1. U. Fig. masonry wall. heights. the peak discharge could be overestimated. J. and additional available re- is formed due to historical strengthening. 1. The common layouts are categorizes most dikes as small dams. The use it is important for estimating the inundation zone and supporting of such walls can also lead to smaller dike width compared with risk management decisions. . dike however. and peak outflow). Eng. China. Hw = floodwater elevation. depth. and A database of 1. Peak discharge is rarely available although the crest and hence lower the probability of overtopping.. Zoned dikes are preferred when there is a lack of good quality fine-grained soils. zation of such dikes is challenging due to the lack of accurate Most of the dike breaching cases lack details. and the breach length is defined as the final Program (URS) 2008. height. Two main types of zoned dikes are common: those with an impermeable core supported by fills. The database distinguishes three different soil length. only needs lead to the heightening of a former section. Urban Streams Restoration set as the dike height. > 50 3 grained soils. and the Netherlands [Fig. van Baars and van Kempen 2009. 2(c)]. the differ- literature [Nagy and Tóth 2005.g. The characteri. and Meguid 2011]. The col- is formed piecemeal as the safety standards evolve or as social lected cases mainly represent river or canal dike breaches. dike geometry (e. In this paper. only one configuration of impermeable core is illustrated. T-wall or I-wall can increase the elevation of must be 15 m or above. Bayoumi breach length. This multilayer structure cords (e. 1. a few Dutch and New Orleans cases are related to seawater dikes. date. data about the pre-breach materials based on their erosion and strength characteristics: © ASCE 04015039-2 J. and widths of the breached structure is popular. The majority of the cases were reported from by New York University on 05/11/15. and those with an impermeable mask on the top of a fill material.S. Q¼m gLðH w − Zbr Þ3=2 ð1Þ 3 Database of Past Dike Breaching Cases where m = discharge coefficient (m ≈ 1).  3=2 Cutoff walls are used to prevent seepage through the subsoil or the 2 pffiffiffi embankment. Eng.S.g. revision of the peak discharge values could be required Hungary. lists detailed information on dike geometry. Classification of dikes 10-15 63 Range of dike width (m) 15-20 89 20-25 37 25-30 9 There are two different types of earthen dikes: homogenous and 30-50 6 zoned dikes. failure mechanism. Geotech. an attempt was made to es- earthen dikes of the same elevation therefore saving space. Nagy 2007. ICOLD gateway. flooded area. only available in 268 cases [Fig. as the height of a large dam presented in Fig. Appli. Geoenviron. 2. NSF 2006. which who studied dike breaches in the Carpathian Basin in Europe. This type of Fig. Statistics of the locations. [Fig. The dike height is information about historic geometries. A special type of earthen dike material.004 dike breaching cases was compiled from the Zbr = elevation of the bottom of the breach. and differences in construc. 2(a)]. which is favorable as they have low permeability 0 20 40 60 80 100 (c) Number of cases and high resistance against erosion. casualties. on a case by case basis. and discharge pipes. Army ence between the flood water level and the bottom of the breach is Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2007. spillway. I-wall. Although dikes often protect significant economic values. In Fig. Many of these cases were reported by Nagy and Tóth (2005) Part of the database (42 cases) is presented in Table 1.. and likely failure mechanism. Statistics show that the heights of the breached dikes are Composite dikes include additional superstructures or em. Germany. For personal use only. U.

4 1.0 Earthen Fine 184 9.2 20.2 122 HUN Tolna Duna – R Ext.1 226 HUN Margittasziget. Geoenviron.0 19.0 Earthen Fine 110 17.6 1. Dunafalva Duna – L Ext. New Orleans 17th str. Geoenviron. 1956 2.6 111 HUN Tolna Duna – R Ext. 1956 4.5 Earthen Fine 70 4. width.5 26.8 475 HUN Szeremi f. erosion March 11. 1956 2. For personal use only. 1956 2.5 21. 1998 4.6 17.0 19.364 CH Jiujiang Yangtze Int.0 1.005 HUN Ásványráró Duna – R Int. Downloaded from ascelibrary.2 1.6 20. erosion March 11. 1956 2.7 363 HUN Kisbodak Duna – R Int. 1956 2.8 1. Duna – L Int.7 537 HUN Bogyiszló Duna – R Ext. 1956 3.6 812 HUN Margittasziget.2 15.0 Earthen Coarse 139 5.0 Earthen Fine 66 6.0 Earthen Fine 40 7.0 24. 1947 3.5 21.0 19.) 137 8.2 25. Dunafalva Duna – L Ext.5 Earthen Fine 90 8.0 Earthen Coarse 100 6.5 Earthen Fine 90 8. erosion March 13.6 1. 1956 4.5 Earthen Fine 35 11. 2003 4.5 16.224 NL Wilnis Canal Sliding August 26. erosion July 24. depth. 1956 3. 1956 3.5 Earthen Fine 390 17. 1956 4.061 HUN Szeremi f.2 15. 1956 2.0 Validation U. Eng. Data of Dike Breaches Failure Date of Dike Dike Breaching Breaching Peak © ASCE mechanism failure Height. 1956 2. 1956 3. Dunafalva Duna – L Int.0 Earthen Coarse 128 6.7 719 HUN Bogyiszló Duna – R Ext. 1956 3.0 470 HUN Bogyiszló Duna – R Ext.8 18.0 Earthen Fine 22 4. erosion March 14.7 17.0 707 HUN Szeremi f.0 HUN Tiszabecs Batár — L Ext.500 HUN Tass Duna – L Int.855 HUN — Duna – R Int.0 Earthen Fine 55 6. Duna – L Int.0 1.S.0 Earthen Coarse 75 4. erosion March 13.1 11.176 HUN Vajastorok Duna – L Slope failure March 13. 1956 2.0 HUN Dunafalva Duna – L Ext.1 HUN Szekszárd Sió – R Ext.5 391 HUN Dunakiliti Duna – R Slope failure June 1954 3. erosion March 11. Eng. erosion June 1954 3. erosion June 1954 2.0 614 HUN Bogyiszló Duna – R Ext. Country Location River bank (f) (m=d=y) h (m) w (m) type (t) (m) L (m) D (m) Qpeak (m3 ) HUN Szeremi f.1 14. Duna – L Int. 1956 4.7 320 HUN Tolna Duna – R Ext. Dike material length. erosion March 13.6 2. Dunafalva Duna – L Int. erosion December 31. erosion March 14.8 18.0 Earthen Coarse 53 12. Geotech.0 Earthen Fine 250 18. discharge. erosion March 13.215 HUN Békavári-Baja Duna – L Other March 14.0 Composite Organic 50 9. J. Table 1.0 Earthen Fine 120 7. erosion March 10.0 Earthen Fine 110 13. 1956 3.7 22.5 Earthen Fine 100 17.5 Earthen Fine 100 8. 1998 9. 1956 4. erosion March 13.4 16.2 15. 1956 3. . erosion March 11. erosion December 30.6 1.7 32.1 Composite Fine 61. L = left bank.0 Earthen Fine 110 19.5 Earthen Fine 110 11.0 19.1947 3. erosion = external erosion. Dunafalva Duna – L Int. 1956 2.0 Earthen Fine 75 8.0 Earthen Fine 45 8. erosion June 1954 3. erosion March 11. Duna – L Ext.576 HUN Ásványráró Duna – R Ext.5 Earthen Coarse 58 10.0 2.5 21.1 8. erosion March 14. 1956 1.5 Earthen Fine 100 8. erosion March 11. 1956 2.2 1.9 23. erosion March 11. HUN Margittasziget. erosion March 8.6 886 HUN Tivadar Tisza – R Ext. erosion March 13.0 28.0 15.005 Note: Ext.5 Earthen Fine 77 20.8 Earthen Fine 100 11.134 J.5 19.0 Earthen Fine 100 12.8 1.1 1.116 HUN Bogyiszló Duna – R Ext. Dunafalva Duna – L Int. erosion March 11.5 Earthen Coarse 95 16. Can. 1956 3.0 24. Dunafalva Duna – L Int. R = right bank.0 Earthen Fine 23 3.9 204 HUN Bogyiszló Duna – R Ext.5 11.2 15.5 21. 1956 5.0 Earthen Coarse 127 5.8 58 HUN Tolna Duna – R Ext.5 Earthen Fine 38 5.6 1.5 858 HUN Pőrböly Duna – R Slope failure March 13.5 Earthen Fine 114 22.0 CH Lizhou Polder Yangtze Ext. erosion March 13. erosion August 7.2 Earthen Fine 5 6.2 1.630 HUN Dombori Duna – R Int.116 HUN Margittasziget.4 976 HUN Margittasziget. erosion March 11.5 1.0 14. erosion March 14. 2005 3.7 22. 1956 5. 1956 2. 1956 3.9 582 HUN Szeremi f.5 25.2 773 HUN Vöröshíd-Baja Duna – L Slope failure March 13.335 HUN Margittasziget. erosion March 13.0 Composite Fine ( by New York University on 05/11/15.9 1.8 1. 1956 3. Sliding August 29.5 65. erosion March 11. 1956 3. Geotech. erosion March 14.0 19. 1956 2.101 04015039-3 HUN Margittasziget. Int.0 Earthen Fine 90 17. erosion March 10.0 24. erosion March 13.4 Earthen Fine 11 4. Duna – L Int.5 Earthen Fine 120 7.5 Earthen Fine 65 2.3 15.213 HUN Margittasziget.500 HUN Vajastorok Duna – L Ext.4 21. Dunafalva Duna – L Ext. 1956 3. erosion March 13. erosion March 11. erosion = internal erosion.5 21. 1956 3.2 30.

respectively.. The failure mechanisms are observed in the following or- man-made dams der (Fig. Seepage forces controls the hydraulic conditions of landslide dam breaching. Visser (1998) made dams. dis- Two types of external erosion were observed.g. © ASCE 04015039-4 J.. The breaching mechanisms of dikes and man-made dams differ erning equations to describe the erosion process and applied a in several aspects: jet-erosion model to simulate homogeneous clay dike breaching.. 4): external erosion (68. 4. A dike is a long distributed system. 3. internal erosion.g. and other mechanisms (5. 2008. dams are also different: and suffusion (ICOLD 2013). by meteorological and hydrological conditions. and been studied for instance in Stanczak and Oumeraci (2012). initiates when the elevation of the dike crest is not suf.3%). Zhu (2006) used shear stress based gov. Since the Danube Others 29 and Tisza dikes are mainly constructed of clay. Frequency of failure mechanisms of dikes. erodibility. and landslide dams are compared in Fig. Geotech. through the weir. Limited flood control measures are available for dikes whereas sidered under flood conditions.g. 1. The breaching pro. which increases permeability and dete. The breach water from a dam is limited by the amount of Recently. stored water. embedded structure related failure (3. Sasanakul et al. 3. Song et al. Additionally. and (Fig. This process is controlled The three most important failure mechanisms of dikes. Geoenviron. contact erosion. overtopping is more likely for dikes tivities along the river direction or in shores. perme- served in several cases. the breaching mechanisms of dikes and landslide take place: concentrated leak. 2014) and centrifuge tests 58% Man-made dams (e. horizontal shear failure might be triggered. Yuan and Whittle 2013. horizontal on-site flood defense is often not available for landslide dams. For personal use only. in Wilnis (van Baars 2005) and ability. the horizontal sliding opened a 50 m breach. that foundation scour is less likely. and lack of compaction and quality control.. landslide dams. Eng. defined the breaching stages of homogeneous sand dikes and pro. Slope failure 38 structed of fines when there is a lack of information. sliding might be a potential hazard especially if organic subsoil Hence. 2008. In Wilnis. it may lose stability. Man-made dams are usually higher than dikes and the dam Internal erosion is witnessed when the energy of seepage water slopes are usually steeper. the hydraulic gradi- through or beneath the dike is sufficient to detach particles from the ents in man-made dams are often larger and hence internal soil matrix inside the dike. the reservoir volume Dike slope failure can also lead to breaching. J. These failures are defined briefly here. the dike material erodes.g. man- by hydraulic conditions and dike material properties. Morris 2011). horizontal sliding (0. External erosion 400 Unknown 0 100 200 300 400 Evaluation of Dike Failure Mechanisms Number of cases Fig. and Structural failure 16 different types of silt materials. Geotech. Accordingly. fine-grained. The formation of a gap between the I-wall and the surround. internal erosion (14. subsoil failure. The first by New York University on 05/11/15. more realistic heterogeneous dike and dam erosion mod. riorates the soil structure. whereas the breach water from a dike is governed els became available (e. and timber sheet pile wall. spillways). sand-dike is overtopped. meteorological conditions and dike geometry.. Ubilla et al. section decreases. for instance. 3). 4. . of breaching of man-made dams and landslide dams are reported by posed a mathematical model to describe the development when a Xu and Zhang (2009) and Peng and Zhang (2012).2%). a peat dike. 4. erosion-related failures are more likely in man-made dams. The data Downloaded from ascelibrary. which erode the waterside slope. and shear strength) are highly variable due to natural New Orleans (NSF 2006). ice ficient and the floodwater level exceeds it. (1) are also presented in the last column of Internal erosion 72 345 Table 1. Geoenviron. and reduction of the shear strength of dike materials must be con. If the area of the cross than for man-made dams.g. Hence. 3. 37% ing soil media was highlighted. The estimated Hor. backward erosion. slope failure. e. supported with a deposition. bedded structural failures. At high water levels. for dikes. Man-made dams are usually founded on solid bedrock so when the outer slope angle becomes too steep. shear/sliding 3 discharges using Eq. Following the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. (e. silty clay. the breach is longer than cess of sea dikes due to waves. Rapid breaching caused by embedded structure failures was ob. which is governed by dike height due to the foundation scour.6%). Similar to breaching of man-made dams. overtopping is more likely for landslide dams than or dike material is present. and organic soils. tresses caused by human or animal activities. lost its stability under dry weather condi- tions. or 2. whereas dikes are often The erosion process is controlled by the erosion resistance of the founded on soils and the breach depth can be larger than the dike material and the wave dynamics.. The second type of external erosion develops when the outer man-made dams have better floodwater control measures part of a dike section erodes due to high flow velocity or wave ac. and em- slope failure (7.6%). coarse-grained. Eng. 14% 8% 8% 1% 5% Statistics of Observed Failure Mechanisms Overtopping Piping Slope failure The failure mechanisms for 503 breaching cases are identified Fig. Statistics of observed failure mechanisms Most Relevant Failure Mechanisms The most frequent failure mechanisms observed in the dike failure dataset are external erosion. 1. these dikes are assumed to be con.8%. 2. has that of a dam. Four internal erosion mechanisms can Similarly. Steedman and Sharp 2011). D’Eliso 2007. extensive research has been 91% Dikes carried out on I-wall structures.5%). including numerical analyses 69% Landslide dams (e. While floodwater flows drifting. overtopping. micro instability).g. Material properties of landslide dams (e.

7. (c) dike reinforcement © ASCE 04015039-5 J. The effect of slide dams. 0. 6. However. overtopping was not the most common cause of dike breaches. Fig. and understanding of the structural behavior. With a higher dike. In addition.15 or horizontal sliding caused shorter breaches. 0. . For personal use only. This is not surprising: slope failures 0. new dike construction on an existing system is that the maximum floodwater level increases as a result of the narrowing down of the 1.20 breaches in the database are longer than 500 m.80 The strengthening of a dike system.50 draulic head difference may trigger breaches via internal-erosion 0. has contradictory effects. Geotech. improvements in dike maintenance. Geoenviron. Eng. The crests of landslide dams are wider and their slopes are category of others) is lower after World War I. priorities scale and potential weak links can be identified more reliably. 7). which indicates gentler than those of dikes. Therefore. the underlying reasons could be dike Ext. The relationship between breach length and failure mecha- 0. Geoenviron.25 internal erosion might lead to extremely long breaches.35 Internal erosion rivers. J. While slope failure 0. urban and agricultural developments in flood zones. For instance. which usually includes height- ening.10 only 300 m in the database. external and Slope failure 0. Under flood conditions the hydrau. the likelihood Relative frequency 0. Effect of dike construction and afterward reinforcement: (a) high flood risk without dike protection.05 or sliding are of local nature.40 related failure mechanisms. or horizontal sliding were observed more fre- Time period quently.10 end of World War II.30 Structural failure Relative frequency nism is presented in Fig.20 sively. 5. but internal erosion.00 channel under flood conditions (Fig.90 of an overtopping-triggered breach may become higher over time. Evaluation of the frequency of breaching mechanisms on time Such improvements support flood defense activities. the longest one is 0.60 of overtopping decreases but at the same time the increased hy- 0. Therefore. several Others 0.30 of 1920–1950 and 1950–1980 new dikes were constructed exten- 0. Eng. Based on the statistics. the likelihood 0.00 Results also show that from 1980 to 2000. dikes are more New dikes were built and old dikes were reinforced to protect Downloaded from ascelibrary. 0. Breaches that occurred before 1920 are dif- ficult to study due to a lack of details. After the Fig. 0. some conclusions Breaching length (m) can be drawn. erosion Structural failure Slope failure Others reinforcement and improvement in floodwater level forecast with the aid of more reliable meteorological and hydraulic predictions. 5. during the periods 0. while dike strengthening took place around 1950 after the 0. the percentage of breaches caused by animal activity or vegetation (under the 4. Geotech. According to Fig. better compaction technology.70 0. 6). structural failure-induced breaches were less common over time due to the increasingly stringent tech- Fig.00 The evolution of observed breaching mechanisms over time is also evaluated (Fig. As mentioned above. Breaching length as a function of breaching mechanism nical standards. lic gradients in dikes are larger. structural failures.40 External erosion The breach length is a critical parameter for dikes along major 0. erosion Int. 6. quality control. likely to fail in internal erosion and slope instability than land. (b) new dike construction that narrows down the river by New York University on 05/11/15.

X j s type. the development time is available only for a few cases AICc ¼ n logðσ2ε Þ þ 2K þ ð3Þ in a quantitative form. The use of a failure mecha- The breaching length is available in 504 cases. developing the best-fit models. Downloaded from ascelibrary. During the selection pro- Dike breaches are typically long compared with their depths. which caused the wash- highest number of available data. most likely these dikes Parameters were not designed for the observed floodwater levels and the dike system was overtopped extensively.38 for coarse-grained soils. Geotech. Eq. where σε is the standard error. earthen dikes). If a particular L ¼ 0. it is taken as ln e ¼ 1. where Y i (i ¼ 1. others X 35 Breaching depth (D) Y 2 (m) Dike width (w) X 2 (m) Dike type. fine grained X 52 . (2) control variables indicator variable is e. The first analysis uti- plicative regression model is in the form of lizes all available dike height versus breaching length information (227 cases in Table 3. slope failure X 34 . The regression analysis targets to maximize the number of uti- evance to the target breach parameter. Breaches larger than 1. first row). type of dike. the total number of in- Y i ¼ b0 Xj j þ ε ð2Þ volved cases decreases due to the lack of information. lationships between Y 1 (breaching length) and X j control variables are studied (Fig. and dike material information. Five control variables estimated regression parameters. It favors the simpler models if as continuous variables. The AIC does not provide the absolute quality of the models. J. For this purpose. (2) (if the condition is true. The analyses involve four control variables at most. Information about peak discharge is limited in 2KðK þ 1Þ the by New York University on 05/11/15. breaching depth. mechanism. As the first step. 3) represent the three breaching parameters. following order: height of dike. The peak flows on several trol variable in the established empirical models. therefore. Geoenviron. Since the structural failure mechanism implies a composite dike. the most accurate model is the one with the least information on experimental studies. not all of nism as a control variable is practical as the different mechanisms these cases can be utilized in the regression analysis due to incom- can be studied separately in a risk assessment framework (Huang plete information of the control variables. In this paper. ε is the residual with an expected value of EðεÞ ¼ 0 and a variance VarðεÞ ¼ σ2ε . width.06 em linearized by taking a natural logarithm on both sides. the perfor. t Composite dike X 4 Peak discharge (Qpeak ) Y 3 (m3 ) — — Material type (m) Coarse grained X 51 . Eng. σε = standard error. . n−K−1 Control variables are selected via a study of the physical where n = sample size. gate.g. internal erosion X 32 . Thereafter additional control Y b variables are added one by one. When an indicator variable is used. (4)] with are selected control variables (Table 2).42 for fine-grained soils. (2) control variables in Eq. the value of the parameters in Eq. It was be found that the application of any model may lead to some information loss and the model cannot Breaching Parameters and Control Variables replicate the original data without errors. the amount of information is available in the regression equations have been considered. where m is a material coefficient (0. and material as variables performs the best [Eq. which is applicable to a parameters are taken as breaching length. the ratio of external erosion has increased again. Morris (2011) concluded that the slopes of loss. Table 2.03 m: cients. Akaike’s information criterion (Akaike 1998) is utilized. otherwise 1) Breaching length (L) Y 1 (m) Dike height (h) X 1 (m) Failure External erosion X 31 . Therefore.94 for composite dikes and 0 for the best-fit model. the re- et al. which Hence.08 ð4Þ h2. extreme flood events with record-breaking flood levels Further study is conducted to evaluate the relevance of each con- were observed all around the world. the breach can be but provides a basis for comparing the relative information loss be- approximated as a rectangular channel. its value equals either e or 1. Through regression analysis bj s and σ2ε can be deter. AICc punishes the use of a large are selected for regression analysis: dike height and dike width number of regression parameters. away of a small part of a dike. and 0. σε is 0.. dike type.35 for organic soils) and t is a assumed to be a constant and utilized as a criterion for selecting dike type coefficient (0. The longest breaches in the data- Empirical Equations for Estimating Dike Breaching base were developed due to overtopping. (2) is w3. To of the control variables. Geotech. For personal use only. During the analysis. either failure mechanism or Breaching Length dike type is included in the analysis. Geoenviron. The second order AIC. failure mance of the multiplicative one is better and presented. However. and failure mechanism. Proposed Breaching Parameters and Selected Continuous and Indicator Control Variables Breaching Symbol Continuous Symbol Indicator Symbol in Eq. otherwise it is ln 1 ¼ 0. 2013). evaluating the importance of each control variable based on its rel. a breach are usually close to vertical. In the case of the short Regression Analysis Models breaches (breaching length shorter than 10 m). σε ¼ 60. based cess. A multi. the following equation using dike height. and studying the sensitivity lized data and evaluate the relevance of each control variable. Both additive and multiplicative forms of aim the first target. bj s are regression coeffi. is expressed as peak discharge. and K = total number of breaching process and availability of data. and small sample (Burnham and Anderson 2002). dike width. Eng.000 m or shorter than 10 m are considered as outliers. mined using the least-squares method. and dike their standard errors are similar. structural failure mechanisms (f) X 33 . 2. material as indicator variables (Table 2). the breaching tween two models. spillway).11 et indicator variable is present. the breach was close The regression analysis targets several objectives: utilizing the to a failed structure (e. high organic content X 53 millennium. Based on the goodness of fit. 8). However. © ASCE 04015039-6 J. European rivers set new records and more dikes were overtopped. measures the relative quality of a model for a given dataset based on information theory.

however. 8. w.07 3. erosion. As illustrated in Table 4. 3. f.98 — — — 67 h. w. a slightly better relationship posed for the estimation of breaching depth: can be obtained if dike material is neglected when the dataset of 111 cases is studied. but incomplete about the scour depth.45 48. m 111 28.52 61 925 h. t.91 h1.94 0.55 — — — — 72 h. w. Based on rows 4–6) to select the best model.27 3. 4.02 — — — — — −0. The changes in σε favor a relationship that should be studied in depth by examining the AICc values (Table 4. No information on the breaching Peak Discharge depth is available for the breaches due to the failure of embedded structures. where f represents the failure mechanisms (f ¼ 0. The importance of the control variables follows the the model including dike height. via comparing σε s. and failure mechanism order of w > h > t > m. m 78 0.08 — — — — — −1.96 — — — 60 917 h. 0. For personal use only.35 60 923 h. Geotech. therefore. approach for the breaching length. and 5).08 −2.98 38. Coarse-grained Fine-grained Highly organic erosion erosion failure failure Material Failure mechanisms Fig. w. Information on 155 cases is Models that include or exclude dike width show similar AICc available. Geotech. w.25 68 h.54 1.42 0.04 −2. t.73 1. and the category of other failure mecha.44 −0. .18 1.09 −0. Eng.39 1.32 1. J. most complex models utilizing four control variables are only based on 40 cases (Table 4).39 — 0. (5)] is favored.81 for slope failure or horizontal sliding. w 193 3.74 for overtop- ping. the nism only [Eq. w.11 3. Thereafter as the number of control variables increases. Breaching Depth and 1.20 0. (1) instead (Visser nisms (excluding the failure of embedded structures) during the 1998).14 0. w. The first analysis and σε values (Table 4. its value is estimated using Eq.17 0.15 for other failure mechanisms). Therefore. f only includes external erosion. It is practical to keep the physical sense D ¼ 0.01 −2.38 by New York University on 05/11/15. rows 1–2. t.21 for piping. m 111 1. dike width is uses only one control variable (i.02 1.06 — — — — — −0. Hence.95 68 948 © ASCE 04015039-7 J. the dike height) based on 125 not included and the model based on dike height and failure mecha- cases. t 193 3.14 −2. internal The peak discharge information is only available in two cases. – 111 0. Relationships between breaching length and four control variables The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in the last 5 regression analysis. Following the same procedure for breaching length and Table 3.02 ef ð5Þ and use dike material as a control variable. The following equation is pro- the calculated AICc values.00 26.79 0. 1. f 154 1.19 −0.e.21 0. Eng. slope failure. m 111 0. Regression Analyses for Breaching Length Exponent for dike Exponent for failure mechanism (f) material (m) Exponent Exponent Control Included for height for width External Internal Structural Slope Type variable cases b0 (h) (w) erosion erosion failure failure Other (t) Coarse Fine Organic σε AICc h 227 50.22 — — — — — — −75.31 0.01 0.54 — — — — — — — — — — 96 h.32 — — — — — −0.13 — 1.37 3.96 1.21 — — — — — — 0.12 1.29 11.90 72 963 –. m 111 0.74 1.69 1. t.73 0.42 — — — — — — — — — 68 h. 500 500 450 Breaching length (m) Breaching length (m) 400 400 350 300 300 250 200 200 150 100 100 50 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 20 40 60 80 Dike height (m) Dike width (m) 2500 450 400 Breaching length (m) Breaching length (m) 2000 350 300 1500 250 200 1000 150 500 100 50 0 0 External Internal Structural Slope Others Downloaded from ascelibrary. rows of Table 3.01 0. The failure mechanism is often unknown before failure so the potential failure mechanisms The regression analysis for the breaching depth follows a similar should be studied one by one. uses dike material as a variable (Table 3 rows 2. –. width.93 1. –.. and 6). Geoenviron. Geoenviron.35 0.

a section of dike was breached due to over- Models for man-made earth dams are sometimes used for the topping on the left bank of the Danube in Dunafalva.074 © ASCE 04015039-8 J.0 1. and 1.98 1.1699e0.60 1. Eqs.06 — — — — 3. the peak discharge estimated using Eq. m 63 1. the equations of the variables are added one by one (Table 5). w.86 — — — 376 1. range between 0.16 0.23 — 1. and soils with high organic content.03 — — — 390 h.22 −0.13 1. w.03 365 1. The bias factors of the models developed in this paper spectively.74 1.20 1. –.9 h.02. w 100 175.15 364 1. w. f 113 0.47 3.03 by New York University on 05/11/15.58 — — — — — −0.84 2. m 90 2. re. and 0 for earthen dikes.24 — — — — — — — — — 395 h. w.67 1.08 — — — 3. f. t.00 1. the mean value of the ratio of observed value to predicted value.44 4. regression analysis is carried out and the control empirical formulas for dikes.55 1. t 118 2. Eqs. Eq.5 1.3 148 h. w.15 — — — — — — — — 3. t. However. and the Nagy equation for dikes. t. For comparison. 1956.84 for coarse.51 — — — — 421 h. f 113 0. Geotech. w.56 — — — — — — — — — — 427 h.62 0. t. t 100 223. In Eq.81 1.66 0.78 0.5 m Table 5.78 −0. last 2 rows).15 1. fine-grained soils. m 90 2.8 1.85 ð10Þ h1.81 −0. – 90 7.06 2. Geotech.99 0.9 329 h. t represents the type of dike (0. w. The two best models are Bureau of Reclamation (1982.67 em Table 6 presents the bias factor and its standard deviation asso- Qpeak ¼ 4. m 90 1. its height and width were h ¼ 3.5 137 breaching depth.37 3. The analyses for these two The results from the new empirical equations [Eqs.14 0. w.71 0.75 0. Hungary.46. t. (9) and (10) are as- The sensitivity analysis (Table 5. length.14 w0.20.28 0. 0 for earthen The numbers of cases in Table 6 refer to those used during the dikes).51 — — — — — −0.39 2.21 0.89 0. m 90 4.55 1.26 1.7498h ð8Þ On March 13. In Eq.15 — — — — 3.34 1. Table 4.93 2.0 for composite dikes. (6).22 — 0.84 4. –.31 0. 2. compared with predictions from Nagy (2006).30 0. The estimation of dike breaching parameters due to the lack of specific dike was constructed of fines.15 1. h1. w.47 for organic soils.06 0.5 299 h.01 362 1. f. m 40 1. which is 2.53 4. . w. respectively. Regression Analyses for Peak Discharge Exponent for dike Exponent for failure mechanism. Eng.9 h.95 and 1.54 0.33 — — — — — −1. Eng.47 360 1.98 — 2.5 296 h.93 0.45 1.072 –. (7).15 0. m 40 0. w. when σε show that the order of the relevance of the control variables applied to dikes.02 — 0.58 0.1h1.03 — — — — — — — — 3. t ¼ 1.14 0.075 h. – 113 1.97 — — — — 3.15 ð7Þ et ciated with each of the best prediction models for dikes in this paper and the two Bureau of Reclamation equations for man-made dams.50 0. f 72 6. –.86 1. f 113 0.55 ð6Þ et Qpeak ¼ 19.14 0. 3.60 for fine-grained soils.03 — — — — −0. a Hungarian dike breach and the case of the 17th Street Models Canal dike (USA) are separated for validation prior to the regres- sion analyses (Table 1.00 3. (4)–(7).81 1. The mean bias factor denotes grained soils. (10) is on average only 22% of the measured value. (4)–(7)] are cases are presented separately in the following sections.89 0.87 3. last 5 rows) and the study of sociated with bias factors of 12. 1988) are studied with σε ≈ 360 m3 L ¼ 3h ð9Þ Downloaded from ascelibrary. f material (m) Exponent Exponent Control Included for height for width External Internal Structural Slope Type variable cases b0 (h) (w) erosion erosion failure failure Other (t) Coarse Fine Organic σε AICc h 120 111.76 1.074 h.66 1.60 −0. m is the material coefficient.47. In addition to using the bias factor as a measure of model ac- Validation and Comparison with Existing Empirical curacy.59 1.58 em Qpeak ¼ 2.10 0. J.93 for composite dikes.05 — — — — 0.33 0.70 0. w. and 2. Geoenviron.67 — — — — — — −1.94 4. m ¼ 3.17 — — — — — — — — — 3.04 1.20 2.77 — — — — — −0.01 for coarse-grained regression analysis to determine the regression coefficients for soils.63 1. For personal use only.00 1. Regression Analyses for Breaching Depth Exponent for dike Exponent for failure mechanism (f) material (m) Exponent Exponent Control Included for height for width External Internal Slope Type variable cases b0 (h) (w) erosion erosion failure Other (t) Coarse Fine Organic σε AICc h 125 1.16 0.07 — 1. w 118 2. (9) vastly underestimates the final breaching is m > t > h > w > f.8 305 h.55 385 h. w.53 and 4.74 0. Geoenviron.53 1. who expresses the dike breaching length as a function of dike height as Breaching of Dike Section at 35+295 on Danube L ¼ 5.23 0.074 h.5 295 –.29 1.91 1.79 — — — — — — 2.

Peak discharge 1.2 m 60.42 and et ¼ 1 leads to The storm surge floodwater released from the breach inundated homes and destroyed buildings in the Lakeview area. and the estimated Qpeak is 1. (6) 0.99 0. a portion of the I-wall structure and plication of the developed model. This process Hurricane Katrina on August 29.9 m and sive earth pressure was mobilized.46 4.06 em 21. σε Mean prediction Mean prediction Breaching length 90 m Eq.08 2. Comparison of Observed and Predicted Breaching Parameters. w3. although in the case of breaching length it pre- dicted the after-sliding value (61 m) rather than the final breach length (137 m). (4) (composite) 62.2 m. Table 7 compares the mean predictions and standard section was founded on high organic soil. therefore.9 m 3. (5) 6.0 m 71. a dam is the estimated breaching depth is 10.5 m. Such a scenario is checked with the aid of the new estimate both the breach length and peak discharge. (5) 10.62 Eq. . hence.53. Danube Dike Breach at 35+295 in 1956 Bureau of Reclamation Proposed models of this paper Nagy (2006) (1982.5 m — — Downloaded from ascelibrary.96 0. New Orleans After the horizontal sliding.90 Breach width (D) 113 Eq.10 4. Applying the parameters of m ¼ the embankment moved 15 m horizontally (Rogers et al.2 m 3. 2008).11 1 the dike using centrifuge tests and field investigations. However. The failure was initiated by the landward rotation of the I-wall.53 31. (7) 249 m3 =s © ASCE 04015039-9 J. (4) to illustrate the ap. (7) 820 m3 =s and w ¼ 21.2 m 60. performed well. respectively. which devel- The calculated breach length agrees reasonably well with the oped as the water level rose and the water pressure increased. the breaching depth already reached A dike section of about 61 m (200 ft) breached rapidly on the 17th the underlying highly erodible marsh. the height of the I-wall above the crest was h ¼ 1.80 Table 7. the Nagy equation observed.5 m and w ¼ performance of the new equations [Eqs. (8)–(10). measurement (90 m). 2005.0 m.5 m Breaching depth 8. and the length of the flow path 820–846 m3 =s. The dike was built with an from composite dike to earthen dike. The empirical models higher and the dam slopes might be steeper) and hydraulic conditions. and caused by the differences in the geometric ratios (i. which had a low shearing errors.60 m. During the failure. New Orleans. then the predicted breaching Table 8.2 m. and further rotation of the I-wall was Compared with the new prediction models.005 m3 =s. the pas- [Eq. Geoenviron.53 — — Peak discharge (Qpeak ) 90 Eq. (5) 0. 1988) Breaching Observed parameter value Applied equation Mean prediction Standard error. σε Mean prediction Mean prediction Breaching length (after sliding) 61 m Eq.3 m 10. (4) (earthen) 159. (6) and (7)] are 6.e.62 12. respectively.42 Steedman and Sharp (2011) evaluated the failure mechanism of L ¼ 0.65 4. it is categorized as a composite dike. (7) 0. The The height and width of the earthen dike were h ¼ 3. Geotech.08 ¼ 108. (6) 296 m3 =s ∼360 m3 =s — 193. This might be empirical models. 1988) Number Applied Standard Standard Standard Parameters of cases equation Mean deviation Mean deviation Mean deviation Breach length (L) 111 Eq. The dike was a composite dike and the observed failure mecha- Table 7).9 m. Eng.11 ¼ 0. An example is presented using Eq. (4) 1. 0. The Eqs. 90 m and D ¼ 8. Eng. (5)] and peak discharge [Eqs. Hence further breach devel- Street Canal. which are approximately 15–20% decreased. The mean predictions of breach depth The opened gap was immediately filled with water. J. due to horizontal shear failure during opment was governed by fast erosion of the marsh. the models for man-made dams grossly under.005 m3 =s Eq. (4)–(7)] is compared with 25.5 m — — Peak discharge Not available Eq. (6) 846 m3 =s ∼360 m3 =s — 194 m3 =s (estimate) Eq. Breaching of 17th Street Canal Dike.02 0. After the development of the critical slip surface the fail- smaller than the measured values. 17th Street Canal Dike in 2005 Bureau of Reclamation Proposed models of this paper Nagy (2006) (1982. 1988) Breaching Observed parameter value Applied equation Mean prediction Standard error. resistance. gives a reasonable estimate for the breaching length (71. Table 6. Geotech. Comparison of Bias Factors for Prediction Models for Dikes and Man-Made Dams Based on the Dike Breaching Cases in This Study Bureau of Reclamation’s Best prediction models Nagy’s equation for equations for man-made for dikes in this paper dikes (Nagy 2006) dams (1982.0 m 71.52. If the dike type is changed and the final length was 137 m.95 0.3 m. nism was sliding. ure progressed backwards. For personal use only.21 m ð11Þ h et 3. The mean predicted breach length is 62.9 m3 =s Eq.. Later the breach evolved was similar to that of an earthen dike. Comparison of Observed and Predicted Breaching Parameters. (4) 108.06 e0.69 by New York University on 05/11/15.6 m Breaching depth 8–9 m Eq. Geoenviron.5 m Breaching length (final length) 137 m Eq.6 m Eq. The final breach dimensions are L ¼ embedded I-wall.3 m 10.

. (2006). Q. Geoenviron. Results show and Environmental Engineering. The Courage. G. L.3 m. 62–76. A. Civ. “New Orleans levee system performance Acknowledgments during Hurricane Katrina: 17th Street Canal and Orleans Canal North. and USACE (United States Army Corps Nagy’s equation predicts a breaching length of 71.” Impact Project. often longer than that developed by failure mechanisms of “Conclusions and recommendations from the IMPACT Project WP2: local nature such as slope failure. W.” 〈www. The control variables of the nism. and Cheng. W. Univ. and NSF (National Science Foundation). A set of multivariable empirical equations is proposed to es- Print. The breach length caused by external and internal erosion is Morris. The new set of empirical equations is demonstrated on two mance of New Orleans flood protection systems in Hurricane Katrina independent cases: a Hungarian breach in 1956 on the Danube. 90(2). M. and Sloan. “Breaching of Earth embankments and dams. D. 2014). W. M.” Riscuri si Catastrofe.. et al. L. Griffiths.-Ing. internal erosion (14. horizontal sliding. 583–601. The estimated peak flow rate is model inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. J. A. results of the regression analysis. (2005). Eng. timate the breach length of the dike (10. detailed mechanism of the dike. D. “Levee breach geom- Multivariate empirical equations were developed for estimating etries and algorithms to simulate breach closure.” Civil and the 17th Street Canal dike failure in 2005. H. (2013). Eng.cee cases. Eng. of California. which is slightly larger than the mea.” J. R. 657–667. (1998). 2nd Ed. Eng. (2012). 39–46. G. 〈http://www ever. sensitivity analysis is also conducted using Akaike’s www. Howard. 13–31. and Oumeraci.. Geotech. and failure Nagy.tawinfo. 2.3%) and slope failure ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams). animal activity. bulletin on internal erosion of existing dams.” Landslides.. A. S. L. L.〉 (Sep. “Estimating dike breach length from historical data.. and Information Association). G. J. . 1. et al..” Proc. Volume I: Main text and executive summary. 60–67.” J. and Tom. 10.. are slightly more common in dikes.berkeley. of embedded structures. “Wildlife and safety of earthen TAW (Technical Advisory Committee on Water Defences). 7–20. (2002). (7)]. “WP6: Monitoring and case by New York University on 05/11/15. L.1943-5606. 12. Eng.. (2006).. and Schweckendiek. Sasanakul. For personal use only. and their (7. X.impact-project. 28–37.” Coast. 53(4). 11(4).. Fail. M. slope failures Morris. and Anderson. and Li. failure mechanisms during the last few decades shows an in.1061/(ASCE)GT. Y. “A new look at the statistical model identification. Hungary (in Hungarian). 353–372.5%) are the most common causes of dike breaching. References Steedman. among others were also observed fre. R. and Sharp. Lyamin.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134: The authors would like to thank Dr. M. H (1998).〉 (Sep. Védekezés az árvízvédelmi gátak suvadása ellen. thesis.S. Open Univ. material. According to statistical evaluation of the collected cases and . New York. S. empirical equations for embankment dams again grossly underes.” Impact Project. was measured. or failure Breach formation. 12.. (2007). 2014). Inst. Paris. Italy. Anal. 125–139. regards to the process and location factors. How- of Engineers).. Al-Ostaz. 16212514). eds. Geoenviron. those of man-made dams and landslide dams. (6)] or 249 m3 =s [Eq. 〈http:// tion. 215–222. Akaike. and are not recommended Rogers. timate breaching length. and Tóth. size and discharge of dike breaches. Evaluation of the relative frequency of (Sep. Mississippi State Univ. Prev.” J. D’Eliso.” by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. Eng. For further studies and optimiza.6%). C.” Ph. the following conclusions can Huang. K. Street Canal Levee failure in New Orleans. (〉 (Sep.ce....” Ph. K. on August 29. C.5 versus 137 m). (2011).. M. D. Vol.” 〈www.D. (2008). and Meguid. New York. Adhikar. K. “Quantitative risk assessment of landslide by limit analysis and 1. Eng. and peak discharge Nagy. (2013). horizontal sliding. (2008). The selection of control variables is technical report on the collection and analysis of dike breach data with based on the standard error. length will become 159.K. and engineered cut. “ICOLD Downloaded from ascelibrary.” creasing tendency of overtopping. 2005.. A. 9(1)〉 of embedded structures. Geotech.” Georisk. 296 m3 =s [Eq. Parzen.. therefore. Dresden for sharing his unpublished dike breaching cases during Song. 〈http://www.〉 (Sep. (2012). van Mierlo. (2013).leveehandbook. M.. T. CIRIA (Construction Industry Research. Berkeley. 2014). and Zhang. Conclusions Florence. “Breaching parameters of landslide Empirical equations for dams may grossly underestimate the dams.004 dike breach mental Engineering Dept. and TAW (Technical Advisory Committee on Water Defences). 11(2). 7(2). erosion (68. the alteration is not surprising. 12.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:5(583).. C.. be drawn: (2013).. V. Saucier. Periodica Polytechnica Civ. Geotech. (2007). the 2002 Elbe floods.. Hassan..impact-project.. 〈http://www.. Vrouwenvelder. type. (2014). Geotech.. Geotech. V. Innova- 3. the equation was proposed based on overtopping failures .. Milton Keynes. Nagy. H. A (2005). Krabbenhoft.” Comput. Geoenviron. Geoenviron. levees and dikes. Peng. (2003). Based on the statistics of the compiled database. Bayoumi. A. Ministry of Ecology. Model selection and multi- sured final value (Table 8). K.tawinfo.0001024/ and Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong SAR 04013031.. E. W. (2011). Li. 12. 12. T. “Physical modelling analysis of the New Orleans levee breaches. 295–319. “Yangtze dyke and its strength- quently. “Statistical evaluation of historical dike failure mecha- for risk management purposes.6 m. J. U. “System behavior in flood risk calculations. “Geologic conditions underlying the 2005 17th for dikes. external random fields. T. 〈http://www. 12. X. CA. “Modeling sea dike breaching induced by wave impact-laboratory experiments and computational model. Geotech.msstate. “Investigation of the perfor- 4. Springer. L. 51129902)〉 (Sep. Stanczak. of dikes built of fines. 2014). A. M. (2009). Jie. Geotech. 59(1). Univ. L. “Fundamentals on water defences. of Florence... Budapest. S. 5(2).〉. M. Geoenviron.” Lowland Technol. A. Eng. and Vaskinn. 10. J. 2014).” 164(6).” Civil and Environ- dike breaching parameters based on a dataset of 1. 04013031. the peak flow rate cannot be verified. 2014).. G.” Internal erosion processes and engineering assessment.. Eng. Torsten Heyer from TU 5(657). U. Selected papers of Hirotugo Akaike. on sea and lake dikes.. Int. This research was substantially supported “Reevaluation of the gap formation in the New Orleans levee system. 10. Kitagawa. but no peak flow rate Springer. acceptable first estimates for risk management purposes. S. Burnham. R. Tanabe.D.. Nagy. © ASCE 04015039-10 J. “Breaching of sea dikes initiated by wave overtopping: A tier and modular modeling approach. (2012). breaching depth. (1999).. K. (2011). “Guide structures: A review. International levee handbook.-D. information criterion. I. Y. Therefore. The overtopping and piping failures are between ening. Failure foundations. new equations are the height.

12. (1982). section 9. Eng.countyofsb. (2008).1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:5(668). Geotech.” Ph. Y. URS (Urban Streams Restoration Program).gov〉 (Sep.” Ph. (2009). Denver. (2013). Liu. . “Downstream hazard clas. 55(4).ca. Eng. “Guidelines for defining Verheij..” County of Santa Barbara. Y. J.〉 flood risks in Pearl River Delta due to levee breaching. TU Delft. 2014). (1988). Geoenviron. thesis. “Sunny-day risk Yuan.0000814. Eng. Water Resources Research Visser.. Ubilla. 〈http://www. A. (2006). I. Geotech. Netherlands. L. Delft. Geotech. “The horizontal failure mechanism of the Wilnis peat Zhu. United States Bureau of Reclamation. “Breaching parameters for earth and sification guidelines.” J.D. (Sep.” J.1061/(ASCE)GT.. “Breach growth in sand-dikes. M. (Sep. 12. Geoenviron. Geoenviron. (2013). Y. J. “Advanced mea. “Assessment of Valley levees. Geoenviron.〉 (Jan. “Breach growth in clay-dikes. and van Kempen. (1998). 2015). and Zhang. Netherlands. H. 2014). Eng.” Impact Project.. .org by New York University on 05/11/15. J. USACE (United States Army Corps of Engineers) (2007). et al. S. risk analysis report. 〈http://www.. van Baars. “New Orleans levee system performance during van Baars.1061/(ASCE)GT Commissioner-Engineering and Research. and Whittle.1943-5606. (2002). Santa Maria Zhang. of historical dike failures in the Netherlands. United States Bureau of Reclamation.” ACER Technical Memorandum No. tech. Downloaded from ascelibrary. Xu. “Time dependent breach development in cohesive inundated areas downstream from Bureau of Reclamation dams. 319–323. Geoenviron. M. S. TU Delft.” California Dept.. 12. M. Reclamation Planning Instruction No. J. Assistant rockfill 841–852.” Géotechnique.0000162. “The causes and mechanisms Hurricane Katrina: London Avenue and Orleans Canal South. 122–133. Geotech. 10. sures report based on technical assistance investigation. Denver.nsf/home?readform&treeid=1〉 668–680. 82-11. 〈http://www.. 1957–1970. 10.” Resources.. 13. (2005). 7(2).. of Water 17th Street Canal I: Wall stability using numerical limit analyses.impact-project. and Peng. 〈www.” material. For personal use only. (2009). P.” Georisk.1943-5606. J. Water Assoc. thesis.. “Evaluation and prediction of analysis. Geo. © ASCE 04015039-11 J.. Eng. 2014). L. M. Y. 11. (2008). 10. Y.” Eur.dwa. Delft..water. dyke.