See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311507543

Empirical model of embankment dam

breaching

Conference Paper · June 2016

DOI: 10.1201/9781315644479-285

CITATIONS READS

0 43

1 author:

David Froehlich
Egis Eau
67 PUBLICATIONS 512 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dam Break Analysis of DRIP Dams View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David Froehlich on 03 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Empirical Model of Embankment Dam Breaching

D.C. Froehlich
Consulting Engineer, 303 Frenchmans Bluff Drive, Cary, North Carolina 27513, USA

ABSTRACT: Catastrophic flooding created by breached embankment dams needs to be evaluated when as-
sessing potential hazards to select appropriate inflow design floods and to prepare emergency action plans.
Embankment dam breaches are often considered to develop in a presupposed way, usually in the shape of a
trapezoid that is defined by its final height, base width or average width, and side slopes, along with the time
needed for the breach to form completely. Here data from 111 embankment dam failures are evaluated to ob-
tain expressions for expected values of the final width, side slope, and formation time of the breach, along
with expressions to calculate variances and prediction intervals of the parameters.

1 INTRODUCTION breach need to be evaluated to select spillway design

The National Inventory of Dams (NID) is a database
maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) that contains information about more than
87,000 dams located in the United States and its terri-
tories (USACE 2013). About 75,000, or nearly 86%,
of these dams are formed by embankments con-
structed from natural erodible materials (earth and
rock) that rely on their weight to hold back the force
of water. Because embankment dams are so numer-
ous, potential flood hazards that would be created by
uncontrolled releases of impounded water through a
Figure 1. Final dimensions of a trapezoidal dam breach approx-
imation, including height Hb, average width Bavg and side-slope
ratio m (horizontal to vertical). Breaching begins when the res-
ervoir water-surface elevation reaches the failure elevation Yf.
floods and to prepare emergency action plans.
How a breach forms in an embankment dam when
it fails depends on many factors including embank-
ment geometry, material composition, construction
methods, type and degree of embankment crest and
slope protective cover, reservoir dimensions, inflow
to the reservoir during failure, and the manner of fail-
ure. Most dam failure models portray the process with
little regard for the causal agents underlying water
motion over and/or through embankments, and the re-
sulting soil erosion. Instead, breach development is
simplified greatly and is considered to proceed in a
presupposed way, usually with the breach growing in
the shape of a trapezoid that is defined by its final
shape and the time needed to form completely as
(Fig. 1). Such an empirical model requires fewer in-
put data than more intricate models that describe the
physical processes of embankment erosion in detail
(Froehlich 2008).
Because all process models are abstractions of re-
ality and cannot be considered completely accurate,
they possess varying degrees of uncertainty. Conse-
quently, variability of model parameters needs to be
quantified so that bounds on their values can be estab-
lished. With knowledge of parameter uncertainties,
the reliabilities of predicted reservoir outflow hydro-
graphs, peak flow rates, and water-surface elevations
at downstream locations, can be estimated in a
straightforward manner.
To estimate embankment dam breach model pa-
rameters and their variabilities, data from 111 dam
failures are analyzed using multivariate nonlinear

1
modeling. Expressions for the expected values of
trapezoidal breach width, side-slope, and formation
time, as well as for their uncertainties, are developed
based on measurable characteristics of the embank-
ments and impoundments.
2 EMBANKMENT DAM FAILURE DATA
Evaluation of parameters needed to apply the empiri-
cal breach formation model is based on data describ-
ing 111 embankment dam failures collected from a va-
riety of sources presented in Table 1. These data
include a brief description of each dam, average width
of the embankment (between toes of the downstream
and upstream slopes), water volume above the breach
bottom at the time of failure Vw, width of flow ap-
proaching the breach La, height of water above the
breach bottom at the time of failure Hw, the measured
dimensions (height Hb, average width Bavg, and aver-
age side slope ratio m) of a trapezoidal approximation
of the final eroded opening in the embankment, and
the formation time of the breach.
Final breach dimensions (Hb, Bavg, and m) for most
of the failures were obtained from cross sections taken
through the narrowest part of the breach, or from topo-
graphic surveys of the breached section of the em-
bankment. For other dams, breach dimensions were
acquired by taping, by measurement from aerial pho-
tographs or satellite images, or by scaling from ground
photographs. Approach flow width La for all dams was
measured from current satellite imagery or from his-
torical topographic maps (Davis & Allord 2015).
For the purpose of predicting an outflow hydro-
graph, a breach is considered to begin forming when
erosion of the downstream embankment slope has
reached the crest of the dam (that is, when the initia-
tion phase comes to an end) and rapid downward ero-
sion of the breach starts, which is accompanied by a
rapid increase in the outflow through the opening.
Breach formation ends when the breach reaches its
maximum size, which will occur before the reservoir
empties completely. Estimates of breach formation
time were made on the basis of eyewitness accounts,
photographs, and recorded stage and discharge meas-
urements that helped establish the beginning of rapid
outflows (that is, the onset of breaching.)
3 BREACH MODEL PARAMETERS
Breach formation model parameters that need to be
estimated consist of the reservoir water-surface eleva-
tion at which breach formation begins Yf (or, equiva-
lently, the critical overtopping depth Hc), the height
Hb, average width Bavg, and average side slope ratio m
of the final trapezoidal breach as shown in Fig. 1, and
the breach formation time tf (that is, the time needed
for complete development of the breach following the
2
initiation phase). Mathematical expressions for Bavg,
m, and tf are presented here.
3.1 Average Breach Width, Bavg
The best mathematical model for Bavg determined
from 110 measurements given in Table 1 (Bavg is
missing for one embankment dam failure) is
H
ln Bˆ avg  ln 1  Mode  ln  2  Size  3  ln b 
4
(1)
V W
5 ln w3  6 ln avg  ln H b
Hb Hb
where Bˆ avg  expected value of Bavg, Mode = failure
mode indicator (0 for internal erosion failures, 1 for
overtopping failures), and Size = embankment height
indicator (1 for Hb < θ4, 0 otherwise), and θ1,…,θ6 =
model parameters. The following parameter values
were determined by minimizing the sum of squared
errors of predicted values of ln Bavg: θ1 = 0.28,
θ2 = 3/2, θ3 = 1/2, θ4 = 6.1 m, θ5 = 1/3, and θ6 = 1/6,
which provides a linear relation with constant vari-
ance. Parameter values were adjusted slightly to form
nearby common fractions (that is, fractions in which
both the numerator and denominator are whole num-
bers). The coefficient of determination of ln Bavg
given by Eq. (1) is 0.838, and the standard error of
estimate of ln Bavg is 0.391. Predicted values of Bavg
given by Eq. (1) are plotted against measured values
in Fig. 2.
Inserting parameter values in Eq. (1) and rearrang-
ing leads to the following expression for the expected
value of Bavg
Bˆ avg  0.28  kM  k H  Vw1/3  Wavg
1/ 6
 H b1/ 6 (2)
where,
1.0, for internal erosion failures
kM   ,
1.5, for overtopping failures
 H 1/ 2
 b , for H b  H s
k H   H s  ,

1.0, for H b  H s
and
6.1 m, for SI units
Hs   .
20 ft, for U.S. customary units
The expression shows that Bavg increases as the im-
pounded water volume and breach height increase,
and decreases with larger embankment widths.
A less complicated, but slightly less accurate, ex-
pression for the expected value of ln Bavg is
 3.3 Breach Formation Time, tf
The best expression for breach formation time is
found as
V Wavg Hb
ln tˆf  ln 1   2 ln w3  3 ln  ln (7)
Hb Hb g
where θ1 = 50, θ2 = 1/2, and θ3 = 1/4. As before, pa-
rameter values were adjusted slightly to nearby sim-
ple fractions. The coefficient of determination of ln tf
given by Eq. (7) is 0.959, and the standard error of
estimate of ln tf is 0.210. Predicted values of tf are
plotted against measured values in Fig. 3. Inserting
parameter values in Eq. (7) and rearranging gives the
following expression for the expected value of tf:
1/ 4
Vw  Wavg 
tˆf  50    . (8)
gH b2  H b 
Figure 2. Predicted values of average breach width Bavg given
by Eq. (1) plotted against measured values.
From Eq. (8), breach formation time is seen to
lengthen as Vw and Wavg increase, and shortens as em-
V bankment height increases, as one would naturally
ln Bˆavg  ln 1  Mode  ln  2  3 ln w3  ln H b (3) suppose.
Hb
A simpler expression for ln tf that does not include
where optimal parameter values θ1 = 0.23, θ2 = 3/2, Wavg as an independent variable is
and θ3 = 1/3. The coefficient of determination is
V Hb
rln2 Bavg  0.820 , and the standard errors of estimate is ln tˆf  ln 1   2 ln w3  ln (9)
Hb g
sln Bavg  0.407 . Inserting parameter values and rear-
where optimal parameters θ1 = 60 and θ2 = 1/2. The
ranging provides the following expression expression is slightly less accurate than Eq. (7) with a
coefficient of determination rln2 t f  0.954 , and a
Bˆ  0.23  k  V 1/3 (4)
avg M w
standard error of estimate sln t f  0.220 . Inserting pa-
where kM is as before. Breach width is independent of rameter values and rearranging provides the follow-
embankment measures in Eq. (4), with only failure ing dimensionally correct expression for tf
mode (internal erosion or overtopping) and the vol-
ume of impounded water volume affecting the final Vw
tˆf  60  (10)
size of the eroded opening in the dam. gH b2

3.2 Average breach side slope Ratio, m

Expected average breach side-slope ratio m is given
simply as
ln mˆ  ln 1  Mode  ln 2 (5)
where 1  3 5,2  5 3, and parameter values have
been adjusted slightly to nearby simple fractions. In-
serting values in Eq. (7) and rearranging gives the fol-
lowing simple expression for the expected value of m:
0.6, for internal erosion failures
mˆ   (6)
1.0, for overtopping failures
The coefficient of determination of ln m given by
Eq. (6) is 0.130, and the standard error of estimate of
ln m is 0.771. Failure mode is the only significant pre-
dictor of m.

Figure 3. Predicted values of breach formation time tf given by

Eq. (7) plotted against measured values.
3
4 PARAMETER UNCERTAINTY f  x; θ  1 f  x; θ  Mode
 ,  , and
1 1  2 2
The delta method is used to approximate the standard (17)
errors of breach model parameters by means of first- f  x; θ  Vw
 ln 3 ,
order Taylor approximation about their mean values 3 Hb
to obtain prediction intervals of breach parameters.
Evaluating derivatives in Eq. (17) for the 110 meas-
For example, to find the prediction interval for de-
urements of Bavg given in Table 1, the  F ' F  matrix
1
pendent variable y at x = x0, where x0 = vector of in-
dependent variables, let y0 = f (x0; θ) + ε0 where θ  for ln Bavg is found as
vector of model parameters, and the error term  0.00930 0.00600 0.00500
ε0 ~ N(0, σ2) (that is, errors are considered to be nor-  FF ln B   0.00600 0.08206 0.00003
1
(18)
mally distributed with a mean value of zero and vari- avg

ance σ2.) An obvious estimate of y0 is provided by the  0.00500 0.00003 0.00298

fitted model which gives the “prediction”
 
yˆ0  f x0 ; θˆ . Taylor series expansion yields
Prediction intervals of ln Bavg for specified values of
Mode, Vw, and Hb are then given by Eq. (16) with
yˆ 0  ln Bˆ avg , s  sln Bavg  0.407 ,  F ' F    F ' F ln B ,
1 1

f (x0 ; θ) ˆ
f (x0 ; θˆ )  f (x0 ; θ) 
avg

(θ  θ), (11) n = 110, and p = 3.

θ
which gives
y0  yˆ0  ln Bavg  f (x0 ; θ)  f0 (θˆ  θ) 4.2 Prediction interval for m
(12)
  0  f0 (θˆ  θ), Derivatives of f  ln mˆ with respect to the parame-
where ters θ obtained from Eq. (5) are as follows:
f  x; θ  1 f  x; θ  Mode
 f  x0 ; θ  f  x0 ; θ  f  x0 ; θ    and  , (19)
f0   , ,...,  (13) 1 1  2 2
 1    
 2 p  where x   Mode  . Evaluating derivatives in Eq. (19)
is the transpose of f0 . Because of the statistical inde- for the 110 measurements of m given in Table 1, the
F 'F
1
pendence of θˆ and  0 (Seber & Wild 2003, p. 193), matrix for ln m is found as
Var [ y0  yˆ 0 ]  Var[ 0 ]  Var[f0 (θˆ  θ)]  0.00621 0.01724 
 FF ln m  
1
 (20)
  2 [1  f0 (F'F) 1 f0 ] (14)  0.01724 0.10131 
Prediction intervals for ln m for a specified value of
  2 [1  0 ]
Mode are then given by Eq. (16) with yˆ0  ln mˆ ,
where   s , and s  sln m  0.771 ,  F ' F    F ' F ln m , n = 110, and
1 1

 f  xi ; θ  
F  F θ    (15) p = 2.
  j 
is the n × p matrix of derivatives of f (xi; θ) with re- 4.3 Prediction Interval for tf
spect to the p parameters for each of the i = 1, …, n
measurements. An approximate 100 x (1-α)% confi- Predictions of ln t f are given by Eq. (9) with
dence interval is therefore given by
x  V , H  , and parameters θˆ    ,  =
yˆ0  t2 , n  p  s 2  1  f0  FF  f0 
1 0 w b 1 2
(16)
   60,1 2  .Derivatives of f  ln tˆf with respect to θ̂
where t = two-tailed Student's t-distribution (hence
are found as follows:
the need for an exceedance probability of 2α) with
n – p degrees of freedom. f  x; θ  1 f  x; θ  V
 and  ln w3 , (21)
1 1  2 Hb
4.1 Prediction interval for Bavg Evaluating derivatives using Eq. (21) for the n = 43
measurements of tf given in Table 1, the  F ' F  ma-
1

For specified values of Mode, Vw, and Hb, ln Bˆ avg is

trix for ln tf is
given by Eq. (3) with x0   Mode,Vw , H b  , and pa- 1175.98554 2.46506
 FF ln t f  
1

0.00556
(22)
rameters θˆ   1 , 2 ,3  =  0.24,3 2,1 3  . Derivatives  2.46506
of f  ln Bˆ avg with respect to θ̂ are found as follows:

4
Prediction intervals of ln tf for specified values of Vw 10 m
and Hb are then given by Eq. (16) with yˆ 0  ln tˆf ,
FRL
s  sln t f  0.220 ,  F ' F    F ' F ln t , n = 43, and
1 1
f
2 2
40 m
p = 2. 38.5 m 1 1

5 EXAMPLE APPLICATION Figure 4. Cross-section of example earthfill embankment dam.

Use of relations presented here to predict the three ln Bavg  ln Bˆavg  t2 , n  p  sln2 Bavg  0
trapezoidal breach parameters (Bavg, m, and tf) and
their confidence intervals illustrated by an example  5.669  1.659  0.407 2  0.04498 (28)
application to an earth-fill embankment dam for  5.669  0.690  6.359,4.979
which a dam-breach flood inundation map needs to be which gives 95% upper and lower prediction limits
prepared for a “fair-weather” failure caused by inter- of Bavg = 578 m and 145 m, respectively.
nal erosion. A typical cross section of the embank- With f  ln mˆ , derivatives with respect to the pa-
ment, which spans the river valley for a distance of
1700 meters, is shown in Fig. 4. The simulated failure rameters θ obtained from Eq. (5) are as follows:
f 1 1
occurs when full reservoir level (FRL) conditions ex-    1.667 (29)
ist, and the breach will erode to natural ground level, 1 1 3 5
giving Hb = 40 m, Hw = 38.5 m, Wavg = 90 m, and Vw f Mode 0
= 2000 Mm3.   0 (30)
 2 2 53
giving f0  1.667,0  and 0  f0 (F'F)ln1m f0 
5.1 Expected values
0.01724. A 95% confidence interval (α = 0.05, n =
For an internal erosion failure (Mode = 0), Eq. (4) 110, p = 2) of the predicted value of ln m is found as
with kM = 1.0 gives ln m  ln mˆ  t2 , n  p  sln2 m  0
Bˆ avg  0.23  1.0  2,000,000,0001 3  290 m, (23)
and average side-slope ratio of the trapezoidal breach  0.5108  1.6591  0.7712  0.01724 (31)
mˆ  0.6 from Eq. (6). Predicted breach formation is  0.5108  1.2901  0.7793, 1.8010
given by Eq. (10) as giving 95% upper and lower prediction limits of m =
2,000,000,000 2.18 and 0.17, respectively.
tˆf  60   21,420 s = 6.0 h. (24) Similarly, for f  ln tˆf , derivatives with respect to
9.807  402
the parameters θ obtained from Eq. (9) are as follows:
f 1 1
5.2 Prediction intervals    0.01667 (32)
1 1 60
Prediction intervals are also needed to carry out sen-
f Vw 2000  106
sitivity analyses in which a range of breach parameter  ln 3  ln  10.350 (33)
estimates will be used to assess the robustness of de-  2 Hb 403
cision justifications based on risk assessment out-
comes. With f  ln Bˆ avg from Eq. (3) giving f0   0.01667,10.350  and 0  f0 (F'F)ln1m f0 
f 1 1 0.12952. A 95% confidence interval (α = 0.05, n =
   4.167 (25)
1 1 0.24 110, p = 2) of the predicted value of ln m is found as
f Mode 0 ln t f  ln tˆf  t2 , n  p  sln2 m  0
  0 (26)
 2 2 1.5
 9.9721  1.6828  0.2202  0.12952 (34)
f V 2,000  106  9.9721  0.3935  10.3656,9.5786
 ln w3  ln  10.350 (27)
3 Hb 403 Which provides 95% confidence level upper and
which gives f0   4.167,0,10.350  and lower prediction limits of tf = 8.8 h and 4.0 h, respec-
tively.
0  f0 (F'F)ln1B f0  0.04498 .
avg

A 95% confidence interval (α = 0.05, n = 110, p = 3)

of the predicted value of ln Bavg is found as

5
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Data from embankment dam failures were assembled
to evaluate parameters needed in empirical models of
breach formation that consider the breach to form in
the shape of a trapezoid. Expressions were developed
from the data to predict the parameters (that is, aver-
age breach width, the side-slope ratio of the trapezoi-
dal opening, and formation time of the breach) and
their variances. Confidence intervals of the predicted
breach model parameters can then be calculated in a
straightforward way.
While the trapezoidal breach formation model de-
scribed is used widely to estimate downstream
flooding from potential dam failures, it does not pro-
vide a thorough or detailed description of the physi-
cal process of erosion that takes place when an em-
bankment dam does fail. Factors including soil
composition and protective soil covers in the form of
vegetation, rock riprap, or hardened surfaces of con-
crete or asphalt, have not been taken into account
when evaluating the model parameters Bavg, m, and
tf. Nonetheless, the model does provide a compara-
tively uncomplicated way of estimating the conse-
quence of an embankment dam breach.
References
Davis, L.R., & Allord, G.J. 2015. “Scanning and georeferencing
historical USGS quadrangles.” Fact Sheet 2011-3009, U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Forster, M., Fell, R., & Spannagle, M. 2000. “The statistics of
embankment dam failures and accidents.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 37(5), 1000-1024.
Froehlich, D. C. 2008. “Embankment dam breach parameters
and their uncertainties.” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
134(12), 1708-1721.
Seber, G.A.F. & Wild, C.J. 2003. Nonlinear regression. John
Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, N.J.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013. “National Inventory of
Dams Trifold Brochure.” Engineer Pamphlet EP 360-1-23,
Geospatial Systems Directorate, Civil Application Branch,
Alexandria, Virginia

Table 1. Embankment dam breach data

No. Name and location Typea Year Year Failure Wavg Vw Hw Hb La Bavg m tf
built failed modeb (m) (Mm3) (m) (m) (m) (m) (h:v) (h)
1 Apishapa, Colo. E, H, C 1920 1923 IE 82.4 22.8 28.0 31.1 200 93.0 0.44 0.75
2 Baldwin Hills, Calif. E, H 1951 1963 IE 59.6 0.950 12.2 21.3 200 25.0 0.31 0.33
3 Banqiao, Henan Province, China E, H 1953 1975 OF 97.0 603 31.9 30.3 2100 291 2.54 5.5
4 Bass Haven Lake, Tex. E, H --c 1984 OX 22.9 0.641 4.90 9.20 100 23.5 0.60 --
5 Bearwallow Lake, N.C. E, H 1963 1976 OS 17.1 0.0493 5.79 6.40 150 12.2 1.43 --
6 Belci, Bacău County, Romania E, Z 1963 1991 OF 37.8 12.7 15.5 15.0 400 102 0.67 1.25
7 Big Bay Lake, Miss. E, H 1992 2004 IE 20.4 17.5 13.6 14.0 800 83.2 0.95 0.92
8 Big Lake, Tex. E, H. -- 1996 OF 12.8i 0.550 7.00 6.40 150 53.3 2.38 --
9 Bílá Desná, Czech Republic E, H 1915 1916 IE 23.2 0.290 10.3 14.2 170 19.0 0.77 0.20
10 Bilberry, England E, Z 1845 1852 OS 62.5 0.327 23.6 23.0 200 37.0 1.09 0.167
11 Bradfield (Dale Dyke), England E, Z 1863 1864 IE 76.0 3.20 28.0 29.0 300 50.3 2.50 0.75
12 Buckhaven No. 2, Tenn. E, H -- 1991 OF 13.4 0.0247 6.10d 6.10 70 4.72 0.73 --
13 Bullock Draw Dike, Utah E, H 1971 1971 IE 18.6 0.740 3.05 5.79 540 12.5 0.21 --
14 Butler Valley, Ariz. E, H -- 1982 OF 9.63 2.38 7.16 7.16 850 62.5 0.85 --
15 Caulk Lake, Ky. E, H -- 1973 OS 32.0 0.698 11.1 12.2 70 35.1 1.38 --
16 Chaq-Chaq, Sulaimani City, Iraq E, Z -- 2006 OF 45.3 2.55 15.1 14.5 170 37.8f 0.57 --
17 Clearwater Lake, Ga. E, H 1965 1994 OF 15.0 0.466 4.05 3.78 230 22.8 1.03 --
18 Coedty, Wales, United Kingdom E, H, C 1924 1925 OF 14.5 0.311 6.00d 6.00 260 42.7 1.33 0.50
19 Cougar Creek, Alberta, Canada R, H 1982 1990 OF 21.7 0.0298 11.1 10.4 200 -- -- 0.083
20 Delhi, Iowa E, H, C 1929 2010 OF 31.5 12.2 11.2 11.0 170 68.6f 1.25 1.75
21 East Fork Pond River, Ky. E, H -- 1978 IE 38.9 1.87 9.80 11.4 250 17.2 0.44 --
22 East Lake, Tex. E, H -- 1966 OF 18.0 0.527 5.80 5.50 320 21.3 1.67 --
23 Elk City, Okla. E, H, C 1925 1936 OF 50.4 1.18 9.44 9.14 680 36.6 1.00 --
24 Ellis Creek No. 4, British Colum- E, H, C -- 1941 IE 30.0i 0.740 3.00 10.0 30 24.0 0.10 --
bia, Canada
25 Emery, Calif. E, H -- 1966 IE 22.2 0.425 6.55 8.23 140 10.8 0.35 --
26 Fogelman, Tenn. E, H 1958 1991 IE 21.3 0.493 11.1 12.6 65 7.62 0.36 --
27 FP&L Martin Plant, Fla. E, H 1977 1979 IE 27.7 125 5.09 9.14 3800 136 0.10 6.0
28 Fred Burr, Mont. E, H 1948 1948 IE 30.8 0.750 10.2 10.2 100 30.0 1.00 --
29 French Landing, Mich. E, H 1925 1925 IE 34.3 3.87 8.53 14.2 350 27.4 0.97 0.58

6
Table 1. Embankment dam breach data
No. Name and location Typea Year Year Failure Wavg Vw Hw Hb La Bavg m tf
b (m)
built failed mode (Mm3) (m) (m) (m) (m) (h:v) (h)
30 Frenchman Creek, Mont. E, H 1952 1952 IE 37.3 16.0 10.8 12.5 600 54.6 0.50 --
31 Fujinuma, Fukushima Prefecture, E, H 1949 2011 OS 55.0 1.50 14.5 10.0g 120 30.5 2.60 --
Japan
32 Gararda, Rajasthan, India E, H 2010 2010 IE 86.0 34.5 25.1 31.8 1150 79.0 0.62 --
i
33 Glashütte, Germany E, H 1953 2002 OF 26.8 0.050 9.00 8.70 65 13.0 0.92 0.20
34 Grand Rapids, Mich. E, Z 1874 1900 OF 14.8 0.222 6.40d 6.40 80 19.0 2.26 --
35 Haas Pond, Conn. E, H -- 1984 IE 16.7 0.0234 2.99 3.96 120 10.7 0.38 --
36 Hadlock Pond, N.Y. E, R, H 1896 2005 IE 24.1 2.00 4.57 6.71 250 35.8 0.34 --
37 Hart Lake, Mich. E, H 1920 1986 IE 31.1 6.35 10.7 10.8 300 73.9 3.03 --
38 Hästberga, Sweden E, H, C 1950 2010 OG 12.7 30.0 7.35 7.00 300 30.0 0.10 1.25
39 Hatchtown, Utah E, Z 1908 1914 OS 44.8 16.0 16.8 18.3 200 151 0.53 1.00
40 Hell Hole, Calif. R, Z 1964 1964 IE 103 30.6 35.1 56.4 470 121 0.96 0.75
41 Herrin Reservoir, Ill. E, H -- 1935 OF 28.8 1.70h 10.7d 10.7 180 47.2 1.14 --
42 Horse Creek, Colo. E, H 1971 1993 IE 26.8 12.8 7.01 12.8 1320 73.1 0.83 --
43 Hutchinson Lake, Ga. E, H 1960 1994 OF 14.0 1.17 4.42 3.75 160 33.4 1.14 --
44 Iowa Beef Processors, Wash. E, H 1971 1993 IE 16.4i 0.370 4.42 4.57 300 16.8 0.33 --
45 Ireland Reservoir No. 5, Colo. E, H -- 1984 IE 18.0 0.160 3.81 5.18 370 13.5 0.38 0.50
46 IVEX, Ohio E, H 1985 1994 IE 23.8i 0.0385 7.50 7.50 185 16.2 0.51 0.125
47 Jacobs Creek, Penn. E, Z 1901 1904 IE 58.3i 0.423 20.1 21.3 160 17.5 0.61 --
48 Johnston City, Ill. E, H 1921 1981 IE 21.5 0.575 3.05 5.18 75 8.23 1.00 --
49 Kelly Barnes, Ga. E, H 1948 1977 IE 19.4 0.777 11.3 12.8 80 27.3 0.85 --
50 Kraftsmens Lake, Ga. E, H -- 1994 OF 8.10 0.177 3.66 3.20 100 14.5 1.48 --
51 La Fruta, Tex. E, H 1930 1930 IE 40.0 78.9 7.90 14.0 900 58.8 0.30 --
52 Lake Alice, Ga. E, H 1935 2013 IE 18.9 0.148 6.00 6.10 40 13.3 0.73 --
53 Lake Avalon, N. Mex. E, R 1894 1904 IE 42.7 31.5 13.7 14.6 370 130 0.52 2.0
54 Lake Francis, Calif. E, H 1899 1899 IE 47.4 0.789 14.0 17.1 430 18.9 0.65 --
55 Lake Galahad Dam, Tex. E, H -- 1996 OF 17.6 0.403 6.10 5.50 210 21.3 1.67 --
56 Lake Genevieve, Ky. E, H 1930 1985 IE 19.8 0.680 6.71 7.92 200 16.8 1.54 --
57 Lake Latonka, Penn. E, H 1966 1966 IE 28.0 4.09 6.25 8.69 500 39.2 1.18 --
58 Lake Philema, Ga. E, H 1965 1994 OF 28.0 4.78 9.00 8.53 420 47.2 0.33 --
59 Lambert Lake, Tenn. E, H 1957 1963 IE 53.9 0.296 12.8 14.3 200 7.62 0.21 --
60 Laurel Run, Penn. E, H -- 1977 OF 40.5 0.555 14.1 13.7 160 35.1 2.40 --
61 Lawn Lake, Colo. E, H 1903 1982 IE 14.2 0.798 6.71 7.62 140 22.2 0.96 --
62 Lily Lake, Colo. E, H 1913 1951 OW 13.2i 0.0925 3.35 3.66 60 10.8 0.13 --
63 Little Deer Creek, Utah E, H 1962 1963 IE 63.1 1.36 22.9 27.1 400 29.6 0.75 0.25
64 Long Branch Canyon, Calif. E, H -- 1938 IE 11.3 0.284 3.17 3.66 50 9.14 0.40 --
65 Lower Latham, Colo. E, H 1926 1973 IE 25.7 7.08 5.79 7.01 120 79.2 6.30 1.5
66 Lower Otay, Calif. R, C 1897 1916 OF 53.3 56.9 39.9 39.6 200 133 1.00 1.0
67 Lower Two Medicine, Mont. E, H 1913 1964 IE 33.3i 29.6 11.3 11.3 350 67.0 1.50 --
68 Lynde Brook, Mass. E, H, C 1871 1876 IE 41.8 2.88 11.6 12.5 200 30.5 1.22 --
69 Marimac (Upper) Lake, Ga. E, H 1939 1994 OF 17.5 0.0696 3.44 3.05 110 14.2 0.41 --
70 Meadow Pond, N.H. E, H 1994 1996 IE 29.0 0.348 10.0 11.0 140 20.0 0.67 --
71 Melville, Utah E, Z 1907 1909 IE 25.1 24.7 7.90 9.80 250 43.0 1.30 --
72 Mossy Lake, Ga. E, H 1955 1994 OF 14.3 4.13 4.41 3.44 340 41.5 1.24 --
73 Noppikoski, Sweden E, H -- 1985 OF 46.3i 1.00 17.0 16.5 130 f
42.0 0.24 0.38
74 Oakford Park, Penn. E, H 1895 1903 OF 13.6 0.185 7.00 6.10 110 8.50 0.55 0.50
75 Old City Lake, Edgewood, Tex. E, H 1927 2009 IE 9.50 0.095 4.00 4.30 180 7.60 0.36 --
76 Opuha, New Zealand E, Z 1997 1997e OF 55.0i 13.0 20.0d 20.0 300 f
42.0 1.40 --
77 Orós, Ceará, Brazil E, R, Z 1960 1960e OF 110 660 35.8 35.5 1000 200 1.00 6.5
78 Otter Lake, Tenn. E, H 1954 1978 IE 20.6 0.109 5.00 6.10 140 9.30 1.28 --
79 Pierce Reservoir, Wyo. E, H -- 1986 IE 26.7 4.07 8.08 8.69 380 30.5 0.77 1.0
7
Table 1. Embankment dam breach data
No. Name and location Typea Year Year Failure Wavg Vw Hw Hb La Bavg m tf
b (m)
built failed mode (Mm3) (m) (m) (m) (m) (h:v) (h)
80 Potato Hill, N.C. E, H 1947 1977 OF 23.5 0.105 7.77d 7.77 80 16.5 1.25 --
81 Porter Hill, Ore. E, H 1990 1993 OS 12.0 0.015 5.00 5.80 120 10.0 1.72 --
82 Prospect, Colo. E, H 1914 1980 IE 13.1 3.54 1.68 4.42 900 88.4 0.69 2.5
83 Puddingstone, Calif. E, H 1926 1926 OF 39.3 0.610 14.3 13.7 420 78.5 1.00 0.25
84 Quail Creek, Utah E, Z 1986 1989 IE 56.6 30.8 16.7 21.3 550 70.0 0.10 1.0
85 Rainbow Lake, Mich. E, H -- 1986 OF 28.2 6.78 10.0 9.54 300 38.9 2.52 --
86 Renegade Resort Lake, Tenn. E, H 1970 1973 OF 11.0 0.0139 3.66d 3.66 75 2.29 0.63 --
87 Rito Manzanares, N. Mex. E, H -- 1975 IE 13.4 0.120 4.57 7.32 75 13.3 0.77 --
88 Schaeffer, Colo. E, H -- 1921 OF 80.8 4.44 31.9 30.5 350 137 2.25 0.50
89 Scott Farm Dam No. 2, Canada E, H 1947 1948 IE 39.3 0.086 10.4 11.9 100 15.0 0.10 --
90 SEQ #2 - Farm Dam, Ipswich, E, H -- 2008 IE 13.2 0.0264 2.00 4.00 110 4.50 0.70 --
Queensland, Australia
91 SEQ #5 - Farm Dam, Toowoomba, E, H -- 2008 OF 18.0 0.088 3.70 3.60 50 7.00 1.18 --
Queensland, Australia
92 Shimantan, Henan Province, China E, H -- 1975 OF 58.0 120 27.4 25.8 900 367 0.32 3
93 Simplot Wastewater Lagoon #1, E, H 1992 2005 IE 13.7 0.361 4.70 5.00 270 18.8 0.20 --
Ore.
94 Sinker Creek, Idaho E, H 1910 1943 OS 49.6 3.33 20.0 21.3 410 81.3 0.51 2.0
95 South Fork, Penn. E, H 1853 1889 OF 64.0 18.9 24.6 24.4 300 94.5 1.38 0.75
96 Spaulding Pond, Conn. E, H 1853 1963 IE 9.10 0.170 5.00 5.50 70 13.7 0.94 0.33
97 Statham Lake, Americus, Ga. E, H 1955 1994 OF 12.6 0.564 5.55 5.12 150 21.0 0.54 --
98 Sutton Lake, Texas E, H -- 1996 OF 10.7i 0.500 4.8 4.0 140 30.5 1.92 --
99 Taum Sauk Reservoir, Mo. E, Z 1962 2005 OF 46.8 5.39 36.5 36.3 250 175 1.20 0.33
100 Testalinden, British Columbia, E, H 1937 2010 OF 8.25i 0.0200 2.10d 2.10 80 5.15 0.88 0.50
Canada
101 Teton, Idaho E, Z 1975 1976 IE 250 310 77.4 86.9 500 151f 1.00 1.25
102 Timberlake, Va. E, H 1926 1995 OF 26.8 1.80 7.33 7.32 200 56.7 1.50 --
103 Trial Lake, Utah E, H -- 1986 IE 7.62 1.48 5.18 5.18 230 21.0 0.82 --
d 75
104 Trout Lake, N.C. E, H -- 1916 OF 21.6 0.493 8.53 8.53 26.2 1.79 --
i d
105 Upper Pond, Conn E, H -- 1984 OF 18.0 0.228 5.18 5.18 35 16.5 1.71 --
106 West Lake Dam, Tex. E, H -- 1996 OF 21.5 0.400 6.1 5.5 200 34.3 2.08 --
107 Wheatland No. 1, Wyo. E, H 1897 1969 IE 39.3i 11.6 12.2 13.7 230 35.4 0.75 1.5
108 Wilkinson Lake, Ga. E, H, C 1956 1994 IE 13.2 0.533 3.57 3.72 125 29.0 1.74 --
109 Winston, N.C. E, H, C 1900 1912 OF 7.76 0.662 6.40 6.10 140 19.8 0.20 --
110 Zeyzoun, Hama Province, Syria E, Z 1996 2002 IE 106 71.0 38.0 40.0 1740 90.0 0.25 1.0
111 Zhuguo, Henan Province, China E, Z 1970 1975 OF 99.0 18.5 23.8 23.5 300 135 0.98 1.0
a
E = earthfill, R = rockfill, H = homogeneous, Z = zoned, C = solid corewall (either concrete, masonry, or steel).
b
OF = overtopping by floodwaters, OS = overtopping caused by embankment sliding, OW = overtopping caused by wave action, OG
= overtopping caused by outlet works failure, OX = intentional breaching by excavation, IE = internal erosion.
c
Information not available.
d
Height of water assumed equal to height of dam breach.
e
Failed during initial construction.
f
Breach width may have been restricted by spillway or natural ground.
g
Breach height based on approximate crest elevation following embankment slide.
h
Approximation based on lake surface area at time of failure and estimated average depth.
i
Estimated from photographs.

8
View publication stats