Cogent Environmental Science

ISSN: (Print) 2331-1843 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaes20

Glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) study of

Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya

Lalan Kumar Jha & Deepak Khare

To cite this article: Lalan Kumar Jha & Deepak Khare (2016) Glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF)
study of Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya, Cogent Environmental Science, 2:1, 1249107

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license

Published online: 31 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1047

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaes20
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH | RESEARCH ARTICLE

Glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) study of
Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya
Lalan Kumar Jha1* and Deepak Khare1

Received: 06 May 2016
Accepted: 10 October 2016
Published: 31 October 2016
*Corresponding author: Lalan Kumar
Jha, Water Resources Development &
Management (WRDM), Indian Institute
of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
E-mails: lalan.437@gmail.com,
lalan.437@rediffmail.com
Reviewing editor:
Peter Christiaan Speldewinde, The
University of Western Australia,
Australia
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Abstract: Numerous glacial lakes are forming in high-altitude regions worldwide
due to rise in temperature. Some of them may burst i.e. Glacier Lake Outburst Flood
(GLOF) may occur causing loss of lives, properties and infrastructures in downstream
areas. Thus, GLOF study is necessary to understand its threat and save or minimise
the imminent losses. In the present study, the highest dangerous glacial lake of
Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya has been considered with a view to estimate the
GLOF hydrograph just downstream of the lake and the routed GLOF hydrograph near
Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam. The Glacial lake L2 (Latitude 30o26′45″ E and Longitude
80o23′16″ N) is the highest potentially dangerous lake, whose maximum surface
area was 132,300 m2 acquired on 16 September 2009. GLOF has been simulated for
Glacial lake L2 for its maximum volume 2 × 106 m3, by the model prepared with the
help of hydraulic software such as HEC-RAS. Results by the model have been com-
pared with the results got by the popular empirical formulae. In average condition,
the GLOF hydrograph peak just downstream of Glacial lake L2 is 2,021 cumec and
the same is 4,272 cumec in worst condition. The GLOF hydrograph has been routed
from Glacial lake L2 to Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam covering a distance around 72 km.
In average condition, routed GLOF hydrograph peak near Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam
including 100-year return period flood 1,700 cumec is 3,047 cumec at 2 h 01 min
and the same is 3,253 cumec at 1 h 46 min in worst condition.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Lalan Kumar Jha is working as a civil engineer in
Hydrology unit of Design division of NHPC Ltd since
2002. He wrote the article “Glacial lake outburst
flood (GLOF) study of Dhauliganga basin in the
Himalaya” during his MTech in IIT Roorkee (2013–
2015). As their organisation has been constructing
hydropower schemes, his study is focused on
examining the safety of dams in case of GLOF
event. Nowadays, it is mandatory to conduct GLOF
study for safe design of hydropower schemes
as well as safety of lives and property in the
vicinity. In recent years, frequency of GLOF event
has increased and people have become more
Lalan Kumar Jha conscious about change in environment due to
construction of hydropower schemes. Therefore,
this kind of study has become very essential.
Please refer my previous manuscript “Detection
and delineation of glacial lakes …” published by
Springer (Jha & Khare, 2016).
Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs) may cause
loss of lives, as well as the destruction of houses,
bridges, fields, forests, hydro-power stations,
roads, etc. in the downstream. The recent example
of GLOF destruction is Kedarnath disaster in
India, which claimed life of thousands of people
and caused huge devastation of property and
infrastructure in downstream areas. Thus, there is
urgent need to carry out GLOF study of potentially
dangerous glacial lakes in a basin in order to know
magnitude of flood discharge, stage, duration,
travel time to the point of interest, etc. to minimise
the impending losses. In this manuscript, GLOF
study has been carried out to know the flood
peak and its travel time for different scenario to
assess its impact on Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam and
downstream area. The simplified methodology
adopted in this study may be employed for studies
to be carried at different locations of other basins.

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Subjects: Environmental Health; Hydraulic Engineering; Water Engineering

Keywords: Dhauliganga catchment; glacial lake; glacier lake outburst flood (GLOF)

1. Introduction
During twentieth century, greenhouse gases emission into Earth’s atmosphere increased manifold
due to incessant use of natural resources especially fossil fuels by human being. This caused in-
crease in surface air temperature globally and the common word coined for it, is “Global warming”.
An increase of 0.85°C in surface air temperature has been estimated on the basis of globally aver-
aged temperature data over the period of 1880–2012 (IPCC 5th Assessment Report, 2013 as cited by
Che, Xiao, & Liou, 2014). Also, it has been observed that during last three decades, there is warming
in the Himalayas around 0.15–0.60°C per decade (Shrestha, Nakagawa, Kawaike, Baba, & Zhang,
2010). Since, glaciers are very sensitive to change in temperature as well as other climatic factors;
the life cycle of glaciers in the Himalaya changed considerably. As a result, ice and snow mass of
glaciers are melting at faster rate. Consequently, Himalayan glaciers have thinned and receded
(Ageta & Kadota, 1992; Fushinmi, 2000 as cited in WWF Nepal Program, 2005) causing formation of
a large number of glacial lakes. Further, majority of these glacial lakes have been formed behind
loosely consolidated moraine dams which are inherently unstable. These lakes may burst due to
triggering by moraine failures induced due to lake area expansion rate, up-glacier and down-valley
expansion rate, dead-ice melting, seepage, the degradation of permafrost, a seismic activity, a flood
wave caused due to a rock, snow, or ice avalanche into the lake and abrupt rise in the water level due
to heavy precipitation (Bolch et al., 2011; Watanabe, Lamsal, & Ives, 2009); consequently sudden
release of huge reserve of water and debris i.e. glacier lake outburst flood (GLOF) may occur. In most
of the incidences, GLOFs transform into flash floods, causing loss of lives, as well as the destruction
of houses, bridges, fields, forests, hydro-power stations, roads, etc. in the downstream (Das &
Murugesh Prabhu, 2012; Richardson & Reynolds, 2000). At the locations where flow-path is steep &
erodible material is available, GLOFs often get converted into even more destructive debris flows
(e.g. Clague & Evans, 1992; Clague, Evans, & Blown, 1985; Huggel, Kääb, Haeberli, Teysseire, & Paul,
2002; Kääb et al., 2005; Chiarle et al. 2007 as cited by Petrakov et al., 2007).

Thus, GLOFs pose a serious hazard in populated mountainous regions all over the world (Clague &
Evans, 2000; Iwata et al., 2002; Huggel, Kääb, Haeberli, & Krummenacher, 2003; Huggel et al., 2005;
Richardson & Reynolds, 2000; Ma et al. 2004 as cited by Bolch et al., 2011). This is more evident from
the reports of killing of some 32,000 people by GLOF incidences in Peru during this century; as well
thousands of people and livestock have died in the Himalayas in the last 50 years due to catastroph-
ic flash flood generated by outbursts from lakes high in the mountains (Richardson and Reynolds,
2000). Additionally, it has been observed that GLOFs occurrence have become frequent in the
Himalayas in recent decades (Bajracharya, Mool, & Shrestha, 2006; Iwata et al., 2002; Mool, 1995;
Sakai, Chikita, & Yamada, 2000; Walder & Costa, 1996; Wang, Liu, Guo, & Xu, 2008; Xu, 1988 as cited
by Yaning, Changchun, Yapeng, Weihong, & Jingshi, 2010). The recent example of GLOF destruction
is Kedarnath disaster in the Indian Himalaya, which claimed life of thousands of people and caused
huge devastation of property and infrastructure in downstream areas like Gobindghat, Rambara,
Sonprayag, Rudraprayag town and several other parts of the Rudraprayag district.

It is necessary to understand threats of GLOF to save or minimise the imminent losses by taking
proper mitigation measures and early warning to downstream people (Shrestha & Nakagawa, 2014).
Further, understanding threats of GLOF has become necessary for safety of hydropower projects
also, as these projects are moving gradually into the High Himalaya due to availability of high head
and sufficient discharge (Shrestha et al., 2010). In the present study, the highest dangerous glacial
lake of Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya has been considered with a view to estimate the GLOF
hydrograph just downstream the lake and the routed GLOF hydrograph near Dhauliganga Stage-I
Dam. Thus, GLOF has been simulated for the highest potentially dangerous Glacial lake L2 for its
maximum volume 2 × 106 m3 (Jha & Khare, 2016), by the model prepared with the help of hydraulic
software such as HEC-RAS. As cited by Byers, McKinney, Somos-Valenzuela, Watanabe, & Lamsal,

Page 2 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

2013, “HEC-RAS 1D unsteady flow model (US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrological Engineering
Center [USACE], 2010) is the proven model for GLOF scenarios, which is relatively easy to use, has a
large user base, an extensive training literature”. HEC-RAS 1D unsteady flow model has been used for
GLOFs studies (Cenderelli & Wohl, 2001, 2003; Osti & Egashira, 2009). HEC-RAS (Hydraulic Engineering
Center [HEC], 1995) has been used for similar study “Repeated glacial-lake outburst floods in
Patagonia: an increasing hazard?” by Dussaillant et al. (2010). As cited by Clayton and Knox (2008)
“We used the HEC-RAS step-backwater model to determine the flood discharge through the reach”.
Somos-Valenzuela et al. (2015) has also used the HEC-RAS dam breach model for assessing down-
stream flood impacts due to a potential GLOF from ImjaTsho in Nepal. Also, HEC-RAS has been used
for hydraulic simulation study of Kedarnath flash floods by Durga Rao, Venkateshwar Rao, Dadhwal,
and Diwakar (2014). HEC-RAS 1-D (St. Venant) has been used for GLOF study of Sagarmatha region
(Nepal) by Bajracharya, Shrestha, and Rajbhandari (2007) and also for GLOF study of south-eastern
Tibet by Wang et al. (2012) as cited by Worni, Huggel, Clague, Schaub, and Stoffel (2014). Further,
Alho and Aaltonen (2008) have shown that one-dimensional modelling of GLOF propagation using
HEC-RAS provides results broadly comparable to data derived from more complex two-dimensional
simulations. However, it is recognised that there are limitations in using 1D model in that they have
greater uncertainty in predicting inundation extent in GLOF-type flows and cannot adequately rep-
resent large feature incision in a debris-laden flow (Byers et al., 2013).

2. Study area
Dhauliganga River originates at an altitude of about 5,330 masl in central Himalaya, is a tributary of
Kaliganga River. The catchment area of Dhauliganga River considered in this study is above
Dhauliganga Dam stage-I (Lat 29o58′42.6″ E and Long 80o34′19.2″ N). This is located in Dharchula
subdivision of Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand state in India. The catchment area is about
1,350 km2 and lies between Longitude 80o14′44″ N to 80o44′01″ N and between Latitude 29o57′00″
E to 30o34′11″ E. The location map is shown in Figure 1. Further, the elevation of the catchment var-
ies from 1,350 to 6,750 masl, and the catchment area above 5,000 masl, which may be considered
permanent snowline, is around 381.73 km2, i.e. 28.8% of total area. Likewise, the catchment area
above 4,500 masl is around 696.16 km2, which is 51.57% of total area, may be considered snow-
bound catchment area.

The river length up to Dhauliganga Dam stage-I is about 93 km, and the average river slope is
around 1 in 25 which comprises very steep to moderate slope at several locations. As reported there
are some hydropower schemes on this stretch of Dhauliganga River. Among them, Dhauliganga
Dam stage-I is the lowest stage with an installed capacity 280 MW and has been considered outlet
point in this study.

3. Data used
ASTER DEM data ASTGTM2_N29E079, ASTGTM2_N29E080, ASTGTM2_N30E079 and ASTGTM2_
N30E080 have been used to get spatial information like catchment area, elevation, slope, contour,
co-ordinates of points, etc.

Cross-sections of the river stretch from Glacial lake L2 to Dhauliganga stage-I dam have been
extracted from above-mentioned DEM data at an interval from 500 to 2,000 m using HEC-GeoRAS.
The interval has been decided as per variation in shape, size and orientation of cross-sections.
Likewise cross-sections of main tributary Dermaganga have also been extracted.

4. Methodology
Hydrologic Engineering Centre’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) has been utilised for present (GLOF)
study. As per glacial lake’s analysis by remote sensing techniques and image processing and GIS
software, using Landsat data from 1972 to 2013, Glacial lake L2 is the highest potentially dangerous
lake with its maximum area 132,300 m2 on 16 September 2009 (Jha & Khare, 2016); therefore, it has
been chosen for setting up the model for GLOF study. Further, representation of Glacial lake L2 has
been accomplished by cross-sections extracted from DEM and glacial lake outburst has been

Page 3 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Figure 1. Location map of study

area.

modelled by dam break structure. In addition to that, cross-sections of river reach from Lake L2 to
Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam have been used in setting up the model. Also, the river cross-sections
have been taken up to the highest bank elevation. Since the river reach has 72-km length and has
steep slope at several locations, it was very difficult to stabilise the model. To obviate this problem,
the model has been operated in following four parts:

• The glacial lake L2 has been breached in the model for GLOF hydrograph.
• GLOF hydrograph has been routed from Lake L2 to 25 km downstream.
• GLOF hydrograph further routed from 25 km downstream to 46 km downstream of Lake L2.
• Hydrograph further routed from 46 km downstream to 72 km downstream of Lake L2 i.e. near
Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam.

Cross sections of main tributary Dermaganga have also been used in the model for routing 100-
year return period flood contribution from its catchment. The schematic diagram of the HEC-RAS
model is shown in Figure 2.

Page 4 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of

the HEC-RAS model for GLOF.

Volume of Glacial lake L2 has been worked out by Huggel’s formula,

V = 0.104 A1.42 (1)

where V = volume of lake and A = surface area of lake.

GLOF event is not very common phenomenon. Additionally, studies on GLOFs and their floods or sediment
disasters in downstream areas are very limited (Shrestha et al., 2014). Therefore, breach parameters like breach
width and full breach formation time are not fully understood (Jain, Lohani, Singh, Chaudhary, & Thakural,
2012). But we know that modes of failure of Moraine dams are similar to earthen dams as following:

• Both are non-overtopping i.e. they may fail in case of overtopping by flood discharge.
• Both are susceptible to shear stress by water column and may fail after breach development.
• Both may fail due to erosion by wave or series of waves in the lake.
• Both may fail due to excessive seepage.

Page 5 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Figure 3. Dhauliganga sub-

catchments with location
of cross-sections, used for
distribution of 100-year flood
1,700 cumec.

Several empirical equations are available to predict breach parameters of earthen dam. Also al-
most all equation use, hw which is depth of water above breach invert at time of failure except
Froehlich who use hb which is height of breach. “hw” cannot be estimated without proper knowledge
of the actual dam break event whereas in critical condition hb may be estimated as height of the dam.
Thus in the present study, breach parameters like breach width and full breach formation time have
been estimated as per popular empirical equations for Earthen Dam given by Froehlich (Wahl, 2004)

Average breach width (Bw ) in m = 0.1803Ko (Vw )0.32 (hb )0.19 (2)

Failure time (Tf ) in h = 0.00254 (Vw )0.53 (hb )−0.9 (3)

where Vw is the volume of water stored above the breach at the time of failure (m3), hb is the height
of the breach (m), Ko = 1.4 for overtopping and 1 for piping.

Page 6 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

The side slope of breach has been taken as 0.8 h:1 V.

It has been assumed that dam breach occurred due to overtopping and coincided with 100-year
return period flood at Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam. Accordingly, 100-year return period flood has been
distributed in the catchment as shown in Figure 3 and considered as constant discharge at its re-
spective outlet points to facilitate routing of GLOF hydrograph.

The Manning’s roughness coefficient for mountainous stream with no vegetation, banks usually
steep, trees and bushes on the submerged banks, having gravel, cobbles and boulders at bottom,
ranges from 0.03 to 0.07 (Chow, 1959 as cited in HEC-RAS Manual HEC, 2010). It is known that
Himalayan Rivers have mountainous terrain in upper reaches having gravel, cobbles and boulders at
bottom. As well, large debris flow occurs during GLOF and high velocity may erode banks and bottom
increasing the sediment load, so range of Manning’s roughness coefficient has been considered
from 0.04 to 0.06. Thus, the model has been run for different set of breach parameters and Manning’s
“n” 0.04, 0.05 and 0.06 have been utilised to check the sensitivity of the model.

Contraction and expansion coefficient values have been assigned 0.1 and 0.3, respectively, as
recommended by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (2010) manual for gradual flow transitions.

5. Results and discussion

GLOF study has been carried out for the highest potentially dangerous lake L2 which has the largest
surface area 132,300 m2 in September 2009. Using Equation (1), V (Volume of lake L2) = 0.104(132,
300)1.42 = 1,948,266 m3 say 2,000,000 m3. Further, breach parameters have been estimated using
Equations (2) and (3). Thus, average breach width (Bw) in m = 0.1803 × 1.4 × (2,000,000)0.32(30)0.19 = 5
0 m for overtopping. Whereas, the width of moraine dam of glacial Lake L2 is about 150 m. Therefore,
model has been run for 50, 100 and 150 m breach width. Likewise, Failure time (Tf) in
hour = 0.00254 × (2,000,000)0.53(30)–0.9 = 0.26 h. It is known that failure time in case of an earthen
dam generally ranges from 0.1 to 1 h. Thus, model has been run for 0.33, 0.50, 0.75 and 1-h breach
formation time.

Further, the GLOF hydrograph has been routed from Glacial lake L2 to Dhauliganga Dam Stage-I
covering 72-km distance in unsteady flow condition. The results of the model for GLOF in case of
breach of Glacial lake L2 are shown in Tables 1 and 2. As per these results, the highest Peak of GLOF
hydrograph just downstream of Glacial lake L2 is 4,455 cumec for breach width = 150 m, failure
time = 0.33 h and Manning’s n = 0.04 and the lowest peak of the same is 1,469 cumec for breach
width = 50 m, failure time = 1 h and Manning’s n = 0.06. It has been observed that Manning’s n is not
sensitive for GLOF hydrograph at this location.

Hydraulic simulations and empirical models may be combined to overcome some of the limita-
tions imposed by both the lack of knowledge of the breach formation processes and the moraine
characteristics (Rivas, Somos-Valenzuela, McKinney, & Hodges, 2014). Thus, in the absence of any
other suitable means/information, the popular empirical relations have been used to estimate peak
flows for comparison with the results worked out by HEC-RAS simulation to arrive at the reasonable
estimate of GLOF.

Popov 1991 (as cited in Huggel, 2002) gave an empirical relation for volume of lake and peak flow
of moraine dam,

Qmax = 0.0048 V 0.896 (4)

where V = volume of lake in m3, in present case V = 2 × 106 m3

Using above relation, Qmax = 0.0048 × (2,000,000)0.896 = 2,123 cumec.

Page 7 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Table 1. GLOF hydrograph peak just downstream of glacial lake L2

Breach Breach Breach
width = 50 m width = 100 m width = 150 m
Failure Manning’s Peak Time to Peak Time to Peak Time to
time “n” peak peak peak
h cumec min cumec min cumec min
0.33 0.04 3,752 14 4,275 12 4,455 11
0.05 3,750 14 4,272 12 4,452 11
0.06 3,748 14 4,270 12 4,448 11
0.5 0.04 2,691 19 2,953 17 3,061 16
0.05 2,691 19 2,951 17 3,059 16
0.06 2,691 19 2,949 17 3,057 16
0.75 0.04 1,896 27 2,021 24 2,076 22
0.05 1,895 27 2,021 24 2,076 22
0.06 1,894 27 2,021 24 2,076 22
1 0.04 1,469 33 1,550 30 1,579 28
0.05 1,469 33 1,550 30 1,578 28
0.06 1,469 33 1,550 30 1,578 28

Table 2. Routed GLOF hydrograph peak near Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam i/c 100-year return
period flood 1,700 cumec
Breach width = 50 m Breach width = 100 m Breach width = 150 m
Failure Manning’s “n” Peak Time to peak Peak Time to peak Peak Time to peak
time
h cumec h:min cumec h:min cumec h:min
0.33 0.04 3,472 1:33 3,487 1:31 3,478 1:30
0.05 3,250 1:48 3,253 1:46 3,257 1:45
0.06 3,083 2:03 3,076 2:01 3,082 2:00
0.5 0.04 3,372 1:39 3,385 1:37 3,371 1:36
0.05 3,178 1:55 3,179 1:53 3,169 1:52
0.06 3,033 2:09 3,038 2:07 3,029 2:06
0.75 0.04 3,183 1:48 3,195 1:46 3,174 1:45
0.05 3,038 2:04 3,047 2:01 3,043 2:00
0.06 2,930 2:19 2,927 2:16 2,926 2:15
1 0.04 2,993 1:57 3,010 1:53 3,010 1:52
0.05 2,901 2:12 2,914 2:09 2,902 2:08
0.06 2,820 2:28 2,819 2:25 2,817 2:23

Costa and Schuster, (1988) (as cited in Huggel 2002) developed an empirical relation for PE the
potential energy of the lake water and peak flow of moraine dam,

Qmax = 0.00013 (PE)0.60 , (5)

where Qmax is the peak discharge (m3/s) and PE the potential energy of the lake water. PE is the prod-
uct of dam height (m), lake volume (m3) and the specific weight of water (9,800 N/m3).

In the present case, Lake volume = 2 × 106 m3 and Dam ht. derived from DEM with the help of
length of lake (500 m) and slope (0.06) = 30 m (verified by mean depth by Huggel’s formula).

Page 8 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Figure 4. GLOF at just d/s of 4500

glacial lake L2.
4000
Breach width=100m
n=0.05
3500

Flow(cumec)-------->
3000

2500
Failure Time=20 min,
2000 Peak=4272 cumec at
12 min
1500
Failure Time=45 min,
1000 Peak=2021 cumec at
24 min
500

0
0:00
0:07
0:14
0:21
0:28
0:35
0:42
0:49
0:56
1:03
1:10
1:17
1:24
1:31
1:38
1:45
1:52
1:59
2:06
2:13
2:20
2:27
2:34
2:41
2:48
2:55
3:02
3:09
3:16
3:23
3:30
3:37
3:44
3:51
3:58
Time (Hour:Minute)---------->

Figure 5. Routed GLOF at 486 m 3500

Failure Time=20 min,
u/s of Dhauliganga dam i/c 100- Peak=3253 cumec at Breach width=100m
year flood 1,700 cumec. 1 hr 46 min n=0.05
3000 Failure Time=45 min,
Peak=3047 cumec at
Flow(cumec)-------->

2 hr 01 min

2500

2000

1500
0:00
0:07
0:14
0:21
0:28
0:35
0:42
0:49
0:56
1:03
1:10
1:17
1:24
1:31
1:38
1:45
1:52
1:59
2:06
2:13
2:20
2:27
2:34
2:41
2:48
2:55
3:02
3:09
3:16
3:23
3:30
3:37
3:44
3:51
3:58
Time (Hour:Minute)---------->

Using above relation, Qmax = 0.00013(30 × 2,000,000 × 9,800)0.60 = 1,498.20 say 1,500 cumec.

Evans 1986 (as cited in Huggel, 2002) gave an empirical relation between peak discharge and
volume of reservoir; the same may also be used for estimating peak discharge as Moraine dam is
similar to man-made Earth and Rockfill dam.

Qmax = 0.72 V 0.53 (6)

where V = volume of lake in m3, in present case V = 2 × 106 m3

Using above relation, Qmax = 0.72(2,000,000)0.53 = 1,573 cumec.

Huggel (2002) (as cited in Huggel, 2002) gave an empirical relation between peak discharge and
reservoir volume for moraine dam

Qmax = 0.00077 × V 1.017 (7)

where V = volume of lake in m3, in present case V = 2 × 106 m3

Page 9 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

Using above relation Qmax = 0.00077(2,000,000)1.017 = 1,971cumec.

The Popov formula is giving the highest value 2,123 cumec. This is nearly matching with the GLOF
peak = 2,021 cumec simulated by the model in case of failure time = 0.75 h, breach width = 100 m,
Manning’s n = 0.05 as shown in Figure 4. Therefore, in average condition this case may be considered
the realistic estimate of GLOF hydrograph just downstream of Glacial lake L2.

Haeberli’s (as cited in Huggel, 2002) gave a worst-case estimate,

Qmax = 2 V∕t, where t = 1, 000 s (a time constant). (8)

Using above relation Qmax = 2 × 2,000,000/1,000 = 4,000 cumec.

This is nearly equal to GLOF hydrograph peak = 4,272 cumec simulated by the model in case of
failure time = 0.33 h, breach width = 100 m and Manning’s n = 0.05 as shown in Figure 4. Therefore,
in worst condition this case may be considered the realistic estimate of GLOF hydrograph just down-
stream of Glacial lake L2.

As concluded earlier, in average condition, corresponding routed GLOF hydrograph peak near
Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam including 100-year return period flood 1,700 cumec is 3,047 cumec simu-
lated by the model for failure time = 0.75 h, breach width = 100 m and Manning’s n = 0.05 as shown
in Figure 5. In worst condition, corresponding routed GLOF hydrograph peak near Dhauliganga
Stage-I Dam including 100-year return period flood 1,700 cumec is 3,253 cumec simulated by the
model for failure time = 0.33 h, breach width = 100 m and Manning’s n = 0.05 as shown in Figure 5.

Among different case of simulation shown in Table 2, the lowest peak of routed GLOF hydrograph
near Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam including 100-year return period flood 1,700 cumec is 2,817 cumec
for breach width = 150 m, failure time = 1 h and Manning’s n = 0.06 and the highest Peak of the
same is 3,486 cumec for breach width = 100 m, failure time = 0.33 h and Manning’s n = 0.04. The
average value of routed GLOF considering all cases is 3,106 cumec. Therefore, GLOF estimate as
concluded in earlier paragraphs appears reasonable. Additionally, it has been observed that Breach
width is not sensitive for GLOF hydrograph at this location due to routing for about 72 km. Maximum
velocity observed during routing in this river stretch varies from 4.5 to 14.75 m/s.

GLOF phenomenon is characterised as sudden release of accumulated water and debris from
glacial lake creating flash flood situation in downstream, whereas the model has been operated for
clear water condition, therefore the result has its own limitation.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1. Conclusions
HEC-RAS software is freely available for public use, thus very helpful in this type of study. Further,
HEC-RAS 1-D unsteady-flow hydraulic model may be used easily to simulate GLOF phenomenon
along with routing of GLOF hydrographs to downstream locations. Thus, GLOF hydrographs may be
worked out at any desired locations in downstream. Also, in the absence of any field information/
data, the results may be validated using empirical relations. In present study, it can be seen that
peaks of GLOF hydrographs worked out by the model are consistent with the peaks derived from
popular empirical relations.

In average condition, the GLOF hydrograph peak just downstream of Glacial lake L2 is 2,021 cumec
simulated by the model for failure time = 0.75 h, breach width = 100 m and Manning’s n = 0.05,
whereas corresponding routed GLOF hydrograph peak near Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam including 100-
year return period flood 1,700 cumec is 3,047 cumec at 2 h 01 min. In worst-condition, GLOF hydro-
graph peak just downstream of Glacial lake L2 is 4,272 cumec simulated by the model for failure

Page 10 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

time = 0.33 h, breach width = 100 m and Manning’s n = 0.05, whereas corresponding routed GLOF
hydrograph peak near Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam including 100-year return period flood 1,700 cumec
is 3,253 cumec at 1h 46 min. These values have been arrived at by comparing results of the model
with the values derived by well-known empirical formulae. In simulation of GLOF by the model,
Manning’s n is not sensitive for GLOF hydrograph at just downstream of Glacial lake L2. It has also
been observed that breach parameter like breach width is least sensitive for routed GLOF hydro-
graph at 72 km downstream from Glacial lake L2 i.e. near Dhauliganga Stage-I Dam.

6.2. Recommendations
Following recommendations may improve the result of similar study in future:

• ASTER DEM data which have 30-m spatial resolution have been used for extraction of river cross-
sections for preparation of HEC-RAS model for routing of GLOF. High-resolution DEM, which are
available commercially/free, are recommended for better result.
• In simulation of GLOF, clear water has been considered in the HEC-RAS model whereas GLOF is
always accompanied by debris accumulated in the lake as well as sediment carried along the
river. Thus, for simulation of actual GLOF phenomenon, some appropriate software which would
be able to consider debris and sediment load also is recommended.
• GLOF phenomena occur in mountainous region worldwide and cause huge devastation of prop-
erty, infrastructure and lives downstream. Therefore, it is strongly recommended to conduct
thorough research for better understanding of GLOF.

Funding dangerous glacial lakes in the northern Tien Shan. Natural

This work was supported by NHPC Ltd. Hazards, 59, 1691–1714.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9860-2
Author details Byers, A. C., McKinney, D. C., Somos-Valenzuela, M., Watanabe,
Lalan Kumar Jha1 T., & Lamsal, D. (2013). Glacial lakes of the Hinku and
E-mails: lalan.437@gmail.com, lalan.437@rediffmail.com Hongu valleys, Makalu Barun National Park and Buffer
Deepak Khare1 Zone, Nepal. Natural Hazards, 69, 115–139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0689-8
E-mail: kharefwt@gmail.com
Cenderelli, D. A., & Wohl, E. E. (2001). Peak discharge estimates
1
Water Resources Development & Management (WRDM),
of glacial-lake outburst floods and “normal” climatic
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
floods in the Mount Everest region, Nepal. Geomorphology,
40, 57–90.
Citation information
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-555X(01)00037-X
Cite this article as: Glacial lake outburst flood (GLOF) study
Cenderelli, D. A., & Wohl, E. E. (2003). Flow hydraulics and
of Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya, Lalan Kumar Jha
geomorphic effects of Glacial-Lake outburst floods in the
& Deepak Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2:
Mount Everest region, Nepal. Earth Surface Processes and
1249107.
Landforms, 28, 385–407.
Che, T., Xiao, L., & Liou, Y.-A. (2014) Changes in Glaciers and
References
Glacial Lakes and the identification of dangerous Glacial
Ageta, Y., & Kadota, T. (1992). Predictions of changes of glacier
Lakes in the Pumqu River Basin, Xizang (Tibet), Advances
mass balance in the Nepal Himalaya and tibetan Plateau:
in Meteorology, 2014. Article ID 903709.
A case study of air temperature increase for three
Clague, J. J., & Evans, S. C. (1992). A self-arresting moraine
glaciers. Annals of Glaciology, 16, 89–94.
dam failure, St. Elias Mountains, British Columbia; Current
Alho, P., & Aaltonen, J. (2008). Comparing a 1D hydraulic
Research, Part A. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 92-
model with a 2D hydraulic model for the simulation of
IA, 185–188.
extreme glacial outburst floods. Hydrological Processes,
Clague, J. J., & Evans, S. G. (2000). A review of catastrophic
22, 1537–1547.
drainage of moraine-dammed lakes in British Columbia.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
Quaternary Science Reviews, 19, 1763–1783.
Bajracharya, B., Shrestha, A. B., & Rajbhandari, L. (2007).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-3791(00)00090-1
Glacial lake outburst floods in the Sagarmatha region.
Clague, J. J., Evans, S. G., & Blown, I. G. (1985). A debris flow
Mountain Research and Development, 27, 336–344.
triggered by the breaching of a moraine-dammed lake,
Bajracharya, S. R., Mool, P. K., & Shrestha, B. R. (2006, November
Klattasine Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of
25–26). The impact of global warming on the glaciers of
Earth Sciences, 22, 1492–1502.
the Himalaya. In Proceeding ICIMOD International
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/e85-155
symposium on Geo-disasters, infrastructure management
Clayton, J. A., & Knox, J. C. (2008). Catastrophic flooding from
and protection of world heritage (pp. 231–242).
Glacial Lake Wisconsin. Geomorphology, 93, 384–397.
Kathmandu: Nepal Engineering College, Ehime College
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.03.006
and National Society for Earthquake Technology Nepal.
Costa, J. E., & Schuster, R. L. (1988). The formation and failure
Bolch, T., Peters, J., Yegorov, A., Pradhan, B., Buchroithner, M., &
of natural dams. Geological Society of America Bulletin,
Blagoveshchensky, V. (2011). Identification of potentially
100, 1054–1068.

Page 11 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/0016-7606(1988)100<1054:TFA
FON>2.3.CO;2
Das, B. K., & Murugesh Prabhu, T. S. (2012). Impacts of climate
change: Glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). Climate
Change in Sikkim. Retrieved from sikkimforest.gov.in
Durga Rao, K. H. V., Venkateshwar Rao, V., Dadhwal, V. K., &
Diwakar, P. G. (2014). Kedarnath flash floods: A
hydrological and hydraulic simulation study. Current
Science, 106, 598–603.
Dussaillant, A., Benito, G., Buytaert, Carling, P., Meier, C., &
Espinoza, F. (2010). Repeated glacial-lake outburst floods
in Patagonia: An increasing hazard? Natural Hazards, 54,
469–481.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-009-9479-8
Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). (1995). HEC-RAS, river
analysis system, hydraulics reference manual (Version 1.0).
Davis, CA: Author.
Hydrologic Engineering Center. (2010, January). HEC-RAS, river
analysis system, hydraulics reference manual (Version 4.1).
Davis: Author.
Huggel, C., Kääb, A., Haeberli, W., Teysseire, P., & Paul, F. (2002).
Remote sensing based assessment of hazards from
glacier lake outbursts: a case study in the Swiss Alps.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39, 316–330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/t01-099
Huggel, C., Kääb, A., Haeberli, W., & Krummenacher, B. (2003).
Regional-scale GIS-models for assessment of hazards
from glacier lake outbursts: evaluation and application in
the Swiss Alps. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science,
3, 647–662.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-3-647-2003
Huggel, C., Zgraggen-Oswald, S., Haeberli, W., Kääb, A., Polkvoj,
A., Galushkin, I., & Evans, S. G. (2005). The 2002 rock/ice
avalanche at Kolka/Karmadon, Russian Caucasus:
Assessment of extraordinary avalanche formation and
mobility, and application of QuickBird satellite imagery.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 5, 173–187.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-5-173-2005
Iwata, S., Ageta, Y., Naito, N., Sakai, A., Narama, C., & Karma.
(2002). Glacial lakes and their outburst flood assessment
in the Bhutan Himalaya. Global Environmental Research, 6,
3–17.
Jain, S. K., Lohani, A. K., Singh, R. D., Chaudhary, A., & Thakural,
L. N. (2012). Glacial lakes and glacial lake outburst flood
in a Himalayan basin using remote sensing and GIS.
Natural Hazards, 62, 887–899.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0120-x
Jha, L. K., & Khare, D. (2016). Detection and delineation of
glacial lakes and identification of potentially dangerous
lakes of Dhauliganga basin in the Himalaya by remote
sensing techniques. Natural Hazards, 1–27.
doi:10.1007/s11069-016-2565-9
Kääb, A., Huggel, C., Fischer, L., Guex, S., Paul, F., Roer, I., …
Weidmann, Y. (2005). Remote sensing of glacier- and
permafrost-related hazards in high mountains: An
overview. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 5,
527–554.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhess-5-527-2005
Mool, P. K. (1995). Glacier lake outburst floods in Nepal. Journal
of Nepal Geological Society, 11, 273–280.
Osti, R., & Egashira, S. (2009). Hydrodynamic characteristics of
the Tam Pokhari glacial lake outburst flood in the Mt.
Everest region, Nepal. Hydrological Processes, 23, 2943–
2955.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.v23:20
Petrakov, D. A., Krylenko, I. V., Chernomorets, S. S., Tutubalina,
O. V., Krylenko, I. N., & Shakhmina, M. S.. (2007). Debris
flow hazard of glacial lakes in the Central Caucasus. In
Chen & Major Debris-flow hazards mitigation: Mechanics,
prediction and assessment (pp. 703–714). Chendgu: Mill
Press.
Richardson, S. D., & Reynolds, J. M. (2000). An overview of
glacial hazards in the Himalayas. Quaternary
International, 65, 31–47.
Rivas, D. S., Somos-Valenzuela, M. A., McKinney, D. C., &
Hodges, B. R. (2014). Predicting outflow induced by
moraine failure in glacial lakes: The Lake Palcacocha case
from an uncertainty perspective. Natural Hazards and
Earth System Sciences Discussions, 2, 5971–6002.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-2-5971-2014
Sakai, A., Chikita, K., & Yamada, T. (2000). Expansion of a
moraine-dammed glacial lake, Tsho Rolpa, in Rolwaling
Himal, Nepal Himalaya. Limnology and Oceanography, 45,
1401–1408.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4319/lo.2000.45.6.1401
Shrestha, A. B., Eriksson, M., Mool, P., Ghimire, P., Mishra, B., &
Khanal, N. R. (2010). Glacial lake outburst flood risk
assessment of Sun Koshi basin, Nepal. Geomatics, Natural
Hazards and Risk, 1, 157–169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19475701003668968
Shrestha, B. B., & Nakagawa, H. (2014). Assessment of
potential outburst floods from the Tsho Rolpa glacial lake
in Nepal. Natural Hazards, 71, 913–936.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-013-0940-3
Shrestha, B. B., Nakagawa, H., Kawaike, K., Baba, Y., & Zhang, H.
(2010). Glacial lake outburst due to Moraine Dam failure
by seepage and overtopping with impact of climate
change. Annuals of Disaster Prevention Research Institute,
Kyoto University, 53, 569–582.
Somos-Valenzuela, M. A., McKinney, D. C., Byers, A. C., Rounce,
D. R., Portocarrero, C., & Lamsal, D. (2015). Assessing
downstream flood impacts due to a potential GLOF from
Imja Tsho in Nepal. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
19, 1401–1412.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1401-2015
US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrological Engineering Center
(USACE). (2010) HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic
users manual (Version 4.1). Davis, CA.
Wahl, T. L. (2004). Uncertainty of predictions of Embankment
Dam breach parameters. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
130, 389–397.
Walder, J. S., & Costa, J. E. (1996). Outburst floods from glacier-
dammed lakes: the effect of mode of lake drainage on
flood magnitude. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms,
21, 701–723.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9837
Wang, X., Liu, S. Y., Guo, W. Q., & Xu, J. L. (2008). Assessment
and simulation of glacier lake outburst floods for
Longbasaba and Pida Lakes, China. Mountain Research
and Development, 3, 310–317.
Watanabe, T., Lamsal, D., & Ives, D. J. (2009). Evaluating the
growth characteristics of a glacial lake and its degree of
danger of outburst flooding; Imja Glacier, Khumbu Himal,
Nepal. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of
Geography, 63, 255–267.
Worni, R., Huggel, C., Clague, J. J., Schaub, Y., & Stoffel, M.
(2014). Coupling glacial lake impact, dam breach, and
flood processes: A modeling perspective. Geomorphology,
224, 161–176.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.06.031
WWF Nepal Program. (2005, March). An overview of glaciers,
glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India
and China. Kathmandu: Author.
Yaning, C., Changchun, X., Yapeng, C., Weihong, L., & Jingshi, L.
(2010). Response of glacial-lake outburst floods to
climate change in the Yarkant River basin on northern
slope of Karakoram Mountains, China. Quaternary
International, 226, 75–81.
Page 12 of 13
Jha & Khare, Cogent Environmental Science (2016), 2: 1249107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2016.1249107

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Environmental Science (ISSN: 2331-1843) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 13 of 13