Designing Experiments to Study Dam Breach

Hydraulic Phenomena
Sílvia Amaral 1; Laura Caldeira 2; Teresa Viseu 3; and Rui M. L. Ferreira 4

Abstract: The success of experimental studies to investigate hydraulics of dam breaching requires an adequate specification of geotechnical
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

parameters and control over its realization in field or in laboratory conditions. Although this is known, there are few studies specifically ad-
dressed to formulate and discuss the requirements for comparable laboratory hydraulic tests to study embankment failure by overtopping. This
study addresses this research gap specifically for homogeneous earthfill dams. It is aimed at proposing and discussing a set of core procedures
and monitoring techniques to be observed in studies of dam breaching by overtopping. A first procedural step involves the theoretical discussion
of similarities between model and prototype erodibility. Further steps involve observations of breached model dams under controlled hydraulic
and geotechnical conditions. Requirements for comparability of hydraulic laboratory practice are described and discussed, and it is argued that
the key geotechnical parameters of control are the soil composition (more specifically, the fraction of fine material) and the compaction con-
ditions (relative compaction and water content). To attain similarity conditions in what concerns model dam erodibility, whose failure modes
should include headcuts and undercutting, a range of reference values for the geotechnical control parameters is suggested and construction/
compaction methods are discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001678. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Hydraulics of dam breaching; Breach discharge; Geotechnical characterization; Dam monitoring.

Introduction
Dam failures pose significant flood risks. Such failures can incur
severe economic and environmental consequences and cause the
loss of human lives (Wahl 1998; Yochum et al. 2008). Failure stud-
ies on embankment dams are of particular interest because they
account for three-fourths of the 33,105 large dams worldwide
[earthdams ¼ 88%; rockfill dams ¼ 12% (ICOLD 2003)] and
are, by far, those failing more frequently. A thorough investigation
of International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), United
States Cold Storage (USCOLD), Australian National Commitee
on Large Dams Incorporated (ANCOLD), and other databases
showed that overtopping is responsible for about 48.4% of dam
failures up to 1986 (Foster et al. 2000).
The study of the hydraulics of dam breaching relied mostly on
field surveys of breached dams and paleo data (reviewed by
Costa 1985; ASCE 2011). Although some laboratory studies were
performed in the 1960 and 1970s, laboratory investigations did not
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Hydraulics and Environment,
National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Avenida do Brasil, 101, Lisbon
1700-066, Portugal (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-3520-3444. Email: samaral@lnec.pt
2
Senior Researcher with Habilitation and Head of LNEC ’s Geothecnics
Dept., National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Avenida do Brasil, 101,
Lisbon 1700-066, Portugal. Email: laurac@lnec.pt
3
Assistant Researcher and Head of the Water Resources and Hydraulic
Structures Division, Dept. of Hydraulics and Environment, National
Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Avenida do Brasil, 101, Lisbon 1700-066,
Portugal. Email: tviseu@lnec.pt
4
Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Research and Innovation
for Sustainability, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa,
Avenida Rovisco Pais 1, Lisbon 1049-001, Portugal. Email: ruimferreira@
tecnico.ulisboa.pt
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 6, 2018; approved
on June 25, 2019; published online on January 28, 2020. Discussion
period open until June 28, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429.
take off until the mid-1980s. Early studies explicitly acknowledged
that laboratory research should be considered qualitative (Powledge
et al. 1989a). Difficulties in scaling the model results to the proto-
type size, even in geotechnical centrifuge modeling studies, were
promptly identified (Ko et al. 1985; Gilbert and Miller 1991). Never-
theless, advances were attained in the description of the evolution of
the breach (Simmler and Samet 1982; Pugh 1985; Fujita and Tamura
1987; Powledge et al. 1989b; Fletcher and Gilbert 1992; AlQaser
and Ruff 1993) and identification of effective protection measures
[reviewed by Powledge et al. (1989a) in the United Kingdom and
United States).
Since the late 1990s, several national and international joint
research actions have attested to a renewed interest on embankment
breach studies, for instance concerted action on dambreak modeling
(CADAM) (Morris 2000), investigation of extreme flood processes
and uncertainty (IMPACT) (Morris et al. 2009, 2010), US Depart-
ment of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS)
(e.g., Hanson et al. 2005b; Zhang et al. 2009), US Bureau of Rec-
lamation (USBR) (Wahl and Lentz 2011), and National Research
Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agricul-
ture (IRSTEA) (Bonelli et al. 2018). Several other research efforts
contributed significantly to the body of empirical data describ-
ing embankment failure by overtopping produced in laboratory con-
ditions, such as those of Visser (1998), Coleman et al. (2002),
Franca and Almeida (2002), Chinnarasri et al. (2004), Schmocker
and Hager (2010), Orendorff et al. (2013), Zhao et al. (2013a), and
Feliciano Cestero et al. (2015), and more recently, Mohamed and
El-Ghorab (2019), Ettema and Ng (2016), Rifai et al. (2017), Bento
et al. (2017), Saghaee et al. (2017), Amaral (2017), and among
others.
In these studies, the experimental study of dam breach hydraulics
frequently involved determining the time scales of dam failure,
quantification of breach flow kinematics, characterization of the in-
terplay between dam erosion mechanisms and flow kinematics, and
quantification of the evolution of dam morphology. Instrumentation
to acquire velocity and morphology data varies with the specific
objectives of the work and with conditions for optical access and

© ASCE 04020014-1 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

 intrusiveness of measuring probes, among others. Employing non-
intrusive optical methods and image processing methods to deter-
mine near-breach flow velocities (Orendorff et al. 2011; Bento et al.
2017; Amaral et al. 2018), breach evolution (Van Emelen et al.
2015; Bento et al. 2017), or dam morphology (Amaral 2017;
Ferreira et al. 2018) is a clearly a current trend. This might
require laser-based illumination solutions (Van Emelen et al. 2015;
Bento et al. 2017) or digital high-speed imaging (Feliciano Cestero
et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2009) along with more traditional monitor-
ing solutions for water-table levels (acoustic or resistive probes) and
output and inlet discharges (Zhang et al. 2009). Kinect sensors have
also been applied (Amaral et al. 2018) to monitor breach and dam
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
morphologic evolution. Other techniques involve the use of tracers
embedded in the dam body (Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015) or (highly
intrusive) contact probing (Mohamed and El-Ghorab 2019).
The range of scales investigated varies from the almost proto-
type scale as those performed under the scope of IMPACT Project
(Vaskinn et al. 2004; Hanson et al. 2005b) open-air lab, or
(Mohamed and El-Ghorab 2019) large-scale tests to small-scale
embankments (Schmocker and Hager 2010; Feliciano Cestero et al.
2015). Both dams and dykes have been investigated, the latter nor-
mally in conditions of frontal overtopping (Fletcher and Gilbert
1992; Visser 1998; Pickert et al. 2011; Feliciano Cestero et al.
2015) but also in conditions of lateral flow (Wahl and Lentz 2011;
Rifai et al. 2017). Most studies involved homogeneous embank-
ments, but zoned (Fletcher and Gilbert 1992; Morris et al. 2009,
2010) and embankments with impervious membranes (Simmler
and Samet 1982; Franca and Almeida 2002) were also studied.
In the case of homogeneous embankments, different types of
material have been investigated, including (1) uniform sand, for
which pore pressure may introduce apparent cohesion (Simmler
and Samet 1982; Visser 1998; Coleman et al. 2002; Pickert
et al. 2004; Schmocker and Hager 2010; Orendorff et al. 2013);
(2) rip-rap (Franca and Almeida 2002); (3) poorly sorted noncohe-
sive material (Chinnarasri et al. 2004); (4) poorly sorted material
including clay sizes conferring the mixture cohesive properties (Ko
et al. 1985; Hanson et al. 2005a; Morris et al. 2009, 2010; Zhao
et al. 2013b; Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015); and (5) actual soil with
cohesive properties (Hanson et al. 2005a; Morris et al. 2009, 2010;
Bento et al. 2017; Amaral 2017). In the case of cohesive material,
studies have addressed the influence of the grain-size distribution
(Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015) as well as water content and com-
paction energy (Morris et al. 2009, 2010; Zhang et al. 2009).
The type of overtopping has largely differed, with some studies
focusing on full-crest overtopping (Simmler and Samet 1982; Ko
et al. 1985; Powledge et al. 1989a; Schmocker and Hager 2010;
Chinnarasri et al. 2004), with others aimed at studying the mech-
anisms of breach development employing initial notches carved in
the embankment crest (Visser 1998; Coleman et al. 2002; Morris
et al. 2009, 2010; Orendorff et al. 2009, 2013; Zhao et al. 2015;
Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015; Mohamed and El-Ghorab 2019;
Bento et al. 2017; Amaral 2017). Other studies looked at (1) the
effect of soil strength on scour depth at abutments formed of erod-
ible, compacted earthen embankments built with both noncohesive
and cohesive soils (Ettema and Ng 2016); and (2) the quantification
of the erosion resistance by establishing a novel setup device that
allowed the overflowing rate to increase (Bonelli et al. 2018). The
location of this notch has also been investigated (Morris et al. 2009,
2010; Zhao et al. 2013a).
An essentially consistent description of embankment breaching
by overtopping has emerged from these studies. There is a consensus
that different failure mechanisms may be observed for embankments
composed of different soils (Singh 1996), and differences between
overtopping failure in clayed (cohesive) and granular (noncohesive)
© ASCE 04020014-2
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
embankments have been discussed by Jack (1996), Powledge et al.
(1989b), Zhu et al. (2011), Orendorff (2009), and Schmocker and
Hager (2012). For clay soils (cohesive material), the main erosion
mechanisms of the breach is associated with the headcuts that deepen
and enlarge over time, migrating upstream through the embankment
(Hanson et al. 2005a; AlQaser and Ruff 1993; Zhang et al. 2009).
For granular soils (noncohesive material), the failure process tends to
develop through a hydraulic progressive/regressive surface erosion
(Visser 1998; Coleman et al. 2002).
In the presence of impervious elements, such as clay cores or
upstream blankets (membranes), the erosion starts at the dam
toe, propagating rapidly up the slope until it reaches the crest, low-
ering it and allowing for greater flow rates, which accelerates the
erosion process. After the impervious element is exposed, it canti-
levers and sequentially fails in tension (Simmler and Samet 1982).
However, there are still open research questions that require more
complete instrumentation, mostly related to the feedback relations
between the morphological evolution and flow hydraulics through
the body of the embankment. These are particularly relevant in stud-
ies aimed at clarifying processes occurring in embankments built
with real soils or realistic sediment mixtures, which necessarily in-
volve dealing with cohesive sediment (Amaral et al. 2018). A fun-
damental premise of this study is that further advances in the
knowledge on dam and dyke breach hydraulics require comparabil-
ity among studies with standardization of procedures and an ad-
equate specification of geotechnical parameters and control over
its realization in field or laboratory conditions. It is noticed that some
previous studies have had evident care in the characterization of the
geotechnical properties of the embankment (Fletcher and Gilbert
1992; Zhao et al. 2013a; Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015; Amaral
2017). Some others mention relevant quantities but not a full geo-
technical characterization (Morris et al. 2009, 2010). In fact, the
classification of cohesive embankment means different things in dif-
ferent studies (Hanson et al. 2005a; Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015;
Zhao et al. 2013b), which is surely due to the lack of precise def-
initions in hydraulic studies dealing with geotechnical processes.
There are other aspects about model design and construction
techniques that require attention, including the implementation
of bottom drainage for seepage with toe drains (Orendorff
2009; Walder et al. 2015; Al-Riffai 2014), compaction protocol
(Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2009), or monitoring
strategy. No studies have specifically sought to present and dis-
cuss the core procedures and monitoring practices for a geotechni-
cally well-posed experimental hydraulic study of embankment
failure by overtopping.
This paper addresses this research gap specifically for homo-
geneous earthfill dams built with realistic soils. It is aimed at for-
mulating and discussing a set of core procedures and monitoring
techniques to be observed in hydraulic dam breach studies to ensure
comparability among experimental tests of similar size. To meet
this objective, (1) theoretical arguments about similarity of dam
erodibility are formulated, (2) the procedure to select a range of
soils and compaction techniques is described, and (3) the results
of the laboratory tests featuring embankments built with different
soils and compacted under different conditions are analyzed.
Scaling Dam Erodibility: Problem Statement
The failure by overtopping of homogeneous earthfill dams involves
hydraulic and geotechnical phenomena. To obtain similarity in the
mechanical behavior of the breached embankment, its characteris-
tics cannot be defined by hydraulic similarity considerations only.
The forces dominating the hydraulic processes are gravity and
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 inertial forces, which call for Froude similarity. However, the erod-
ibility of reduced earthfill dam models depends on hydraulic forces
but also on soil resistance properties, including apparent or actual
mineralogical cohesion, which do not obey Froude similarity.
Furthermore, the hydraulic forces involved in erosive processes
may require other types of similarity, namely Reynolds similarity
(e.g., Gilbert and Miller 1991), which is impossible to attain using
the same fluid in the model and the prototype and under the same
gravity field.
It is well-known from observations in large-scale models and
prototypes (e.g., Mohamed et al. 2002; Hanson et al. 2005b;
Morris et al. 2010) that earthfill dams subjected to overtopping
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
feature hydraulic erosion and mass detachment episodes. If these
modes of failure are to be observed in the scaled models, extra
similarity considerations and a distinct geometrical scaling for soil
particles must be considered.
The conditions to approach similarity of erodibility are dis-
cussed next. The term bulk erodibility shall refer to all processes
that result in loss of dam sediment mass. Hydraulic erodibility
refers to processes associated to (continuous) hydraulic erosion.
Erodibility of an embankment is not an intrinsic property of its soil,
such as other parameters used in geotechnical design such as
strength, permeability, and porosity, among others.
Hydraulic erodibility is defined for a particular load condition,
and it is expressed by two concepts: soil erosion resistance (or easi-
ness of erosion) and the rate of soil erosion. The soil erosion re-
sistance has been quantified by several researchers (Arulanandan
and Perry 1983; Arulanandan et al. 1975; Wan and Fell 2004)
by a critical or threshold shear stress, τ y (ML−1 T−2 ). This is de-
fined as the value of the hydraulic shear stress required to initiate
erosion during a hydraulic flow. Erosion of the soil will occur if the
shear stress applied by flowing water, τ (ML−1 T−2 ), exceeds the
critical (or threshold) shear stress of the soil, τ y .
The soil erosion rate can be expressed is the rate of mass re-
moval per unit area. Using Exner’s equation (and assuming a
one-dimensional flow), it can be expressed (Exner 1925)
∂Zb ∂q
ð1 − pÞ ¼− s ð1Þ
∂t ∂x
where p = soil porosity; zb = elevation of the dam body subjected to
hydraulic erosion (L); and qs = sediment transport rate per unit
width (L2 T−1 ).
Major variables that influence qs include (1) soil and sediment
properties, including bulk sediment density [ρs (ML−3 )], cohesion
[σ0 (ML−1 T−2 )], apparent mineralogical origin, and grain-size dis-
tribution d (L); (2) fluid properties [density, ρ (ML−3 ) and viscosity,
μ (ML−1 T−1 )]; and (3) applied hydraulic forces per unit area (τ )
and gravity, g (MLT−2 ). In general
qs ¼ qs ðρs ; d; σ0 ; ρ; μ; τ ; gÞ ð2Þ
Buckingham’s Pi theorem (Brand, 1957) and phenomenological
considerations lead to the following formula:
 m
qs τ τy
pffiffiffiffiffi ¼ α − ð3Þ
d gd ðρs − ρÞgd ðρs − ρÞgd
where α = parameter that may be a weak function of the grain-size
distribution and bulk sediment density, where in particular, α would
increase with decreasing grain size and decreasing bulk soil den-
sity; and τ y = threshold stress, below which there is no soil erosion.
Eq. (3) may not be general, but it expresses the most relevant
traits of hydraulic erosion: it only exists if τ > τ y , it increases non-
linearly with the excess of the hydraulic action, and it increases
with the reduction of soil bulk density, the same imbalance τ − τ y .
© ASCE 04020014-3
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
The sediment transport rate in the model (assuming a constant
α, the same fluid in the model and prototype, and the same gravity
field, i.e., tests not carried out in a centrifuge) is
 m
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi τM τ yM
qsM ¼ αðdM gdM Þ − ð4Þ
ðρsM − ρÞgdM ðρsM − ρÞgdM
From Froude similarity, one expects
qsM ¼ λ3=2
L qsP ð5Þ
As argued previously, the threshold stress is a property of the
soil—cohesion and microfrictional contacts—but the hydraulic ap-
plied stress is a property of fluid flow. If the model is built with the
same soil (or finer) than the prototype and the bulk density is the
same, it would be difficult to achieve positive values of τ − τ y ow-
ing to the smaller size of the model. In other words, it would be
impossible to guarantee similar erodibility.
To understand how much the soil resistance would have to be
lowered in the model, one should first define the applied hydraulic
stress
τ ∝ fρU 2 ð6Þ
where U = characteristic flow velocity; and f = Darcy-Weisbach
friction factor. The latter is a function of the Reynolds number
Uδ
Re ¼ ð7Þ
ν
where δ = thickness of the boundary layer of the flow over the dam
body; and ν = fluid’s kinematic viscosity. Assuming that the fluid is
the same in the model and in the prototype, and given that
λU ¼ λ1=2
L , then
ReM ¼ λ3=2
L ReP ð8Þ
i.e., the Reynolds number in the model is much smaller than the
Reynolds number in the prototype. Therefore, the friction factor
is larger in the model. Anomalous Froude scaling is thus obtained
for the hydraulic stresses
fM
τ M ¼ λL τ P ð9Þ
fP
From Colebrook-White’s formula for open-channel flows (Graf
1971; Bousmar and Zech 1999) and considering that the boundary
layer over the breach crest is poorly developed (Bento et al. 2017),
one has that fM =f P is less than 10 and most likely less than 5.
Given that the geometric scale based on the height of the prototype
and model dams may be much less than 1=10, one concludes that
τ M is indeed smaller than τ P , even if not as small as if strict Froude
similarity would hold.
As an example, assume that a 0.5-m-tall model is simulating
the processes seen in a 10-m-tall prototype. Assume that ReP ¼
2 × 105 . The geometric scale would be λL ¼ 1=20 and ReM ¼
2,236. Then f M =fP ¼ 3.3 and τ M ¼ 0.167τ P . In order to maintain
the imbalance τ M − τ yM equal to that of the prototype, the soil’s
resistance property τ yM should be reduced to 16.7% of its value
in the prototype. Evidently, this can only be achieved by reducing
soil bulk density or decreasing the percentage of fines to reduce
cohesion. More importantly, there is no objective or correct value
of bulk density or correct grain-size distribution if the aim of
the study is not modeling a specific (prototype) dam. If the aim
is characterizing and quantifying processes, the geometric scale
is arbitrary, and the choice of grain-size distribution and bulk den-
sity may be governed by other considerations, namely availability
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 of material and reproduction of large-scale features of observed
geotechnical behavior.
Once it is guaranteed that both hydraulic stresses and soil resis-
tance obey the same scaling, one may cast Eq. (4) as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðd gdM Þ
qsM ¼ α M  ðΔτ M Þm ð10Þ
ðρsM gdM Þm
where Δτ M ¼ τ M − τ yM ; and ρsM ¼ ρsM − ρM . Assuming that the
geometric scale of soil particle diameter may be different from the
geometric scale and that there is also a degree of freedom between
ρsM and ρsP , Eq. (10) becomes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
 
qSP ðλd Þ3=2 fP m
qsM ¼ ðλL Þm ð11Þ
ðλρs Þm ðλd Þm fM
Eq. (11) shows that if the exponent m is 3/2 [the exponent of
Meyer, Peter, and Müller formula (Meyer-Peter and Müller 1948),
for instance], there is no possibility to achieve similarity in erodibility
given that the Reynolds numbers would be always different. In that
case, changing the gravity field would be necessary. If m is not 3/2,
from Eqs. (5) and (11), one may obtain the geometrical scaling of
soil material that would ensure similarity of erodibility as follows:
  m
f m−3=2
λd ¼ λL M ðλρs Þm
fP
Further pursuing the last example, if the soil in the model is
compacted to 80% of the bulk density of the prototype, and if
m ¼ 2, then
dM ¼ 3.8dP ð13Þ
i.e., a coarser grain-size distribution would be needed in the model.
Further research is needed to specify parameter m.
Again, without an imposed value of λL (to model a specific
dam), the grain-size distribution should be chosen to guarantee
the macroscopic geotechnical behavior, that is bulk erodibility.
A trial-and-error procedure, such as that described in the next
section, may be appropriate.
In addition to hydraulic erodibility, several processes involving
discontinuous mass failure may be present and determine dam bulk
erodibility. For instance, underscouring creates conditions for mass
detachments episodes laterally (Morris et al. 2010; Amaral et al.
2018) or by creating conditions for toppling (Fei et al. 2014;
Ashourian et al. 2018). Other discrete failure mechanisms of geo-
technical origin may be possible, but the focus here is on processes
that depend on underscouring of dams as the headcut reaches a
fixed bottom. Its evolution rate depends on the mean velocity
and turbulence of the flow generated by the spread of the jetlike
flow released from the breach as it hits the fixed bottom
(Feliciano Cestero et al. 2015). The mean velocity should obey
Froude similarity because it depends essentially on gravity and
height of dam. Turbulence intensities should be higher in the proto-
type, but the proper scaling should be based on the Reynolds num-
ber with the integral length scale as a geometric variable. Because
the latter should obey geometric similarity based on the dam height
(Chachereau and Chanson 2011), Eq. (8) should be valid for this
type of erosion. Turbulence intensities should be a monotonous in-
creasing function of the Reynolds number, although this is not
firmly established in this case; the closest applicable research con-
cerns turbulence in hydraulic jumps (e.g., Mignot and Cienfuegos
2010). It is thus legitimate to expect that underscouring erosion
in the model would be smaller than that occurring under strict
Froude similarity. Again, it would necessary to employ a coarser
© ASCE
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
grain-size distribution to ensure proportional erodibility or reduce
bulk density by applying a lower compaction energy.
From the preceding discussion, it is clear that the model’s grain-
size distribution cannot be scaled in accordance to the ratio of dam
heights. The resulting dam model would have mechanical proper-
ties very different from the prototype, ultimately leading to a bulk
erodibility much lower than that required to exhibit the failure
mechanisms of prototypes.
Two remarks should be made regarding the foregoing theoreti-
cal analysis:
• The soil particle scaling in Eq. (13) is not a general proposal; it
is an example of application of the similarity arguments devel-
oped for hydraulic erodibility. That this example leads coarser
sediment in the model is incidental, but it is not absurd. Eqs. (12)
and (13) are an attempt to introduce rationality in the process of
choosing the sediment mixture in the model, but the actual scal-
ing can be more complex if one takes into account all processes
involved in bulk erodibility.
• If the ultimate goal is to study hydraulics of dam failure by over-
topping, the soil should be chosen so that model bulk erodibility
allows for the development of the particular erosion modes of
interest, including mass detachment episodes. Possibly, the most
efficient way to achieve this is to first test a model built with soil
scaled in accordance with Eq. (12), then perform preliminary
ð12Þ tests with varying soil composition and degree of compaction
to make sure that the model does exhibit all modes of erosion
expected in prototypes. It should thus be clear that the preceding
analysis does not open the possibility that model results are ex-
actly scaled to prototype sizes. Rather, the analysis opens the
possibility of hydraulic testing in the model under some degree
of similarity in what concerns bulk erodibility.
Once a range of soil and compaction energy are established, it is
necessary to (1) determine the sufficient set of geotechnical design
parameters and its values to ensure that the embankment has the
required erodibility conditions; (2) set the building protocol for
the model embankment, e.g., number and thickness of soil layers,
as well as which compaction method, plus weight and plate size of
the compactor; and (3) adopt a monitoring procedure to ensure that
the design parameters are attained. The following sections address
these issues.
Preliminary Identification of Types of Soil
and Definition of Compacting Techniques
Preliminary Selection of Types of Soil
for Hydraulic Testing
A set of six homogeneous earthfill dams, about 0.45 m high and
1.5 m wide, were conducted to failure by overtopping under the
scope of this study (Fig. 1). For this purpose, the soil of several
homogeneous earthfill dams was first analyzed to define a range
of realistic prototype grain-size distribution curves [gray zone in
Fig. 2(a)]. The upper limit of this range is a silty sand (SM) or
a clayed sand (SC) [Fig. 2(a)] and the lower limit is a lean clay
(CL) [Fig. 2(a)], according to the unified soil classification system
(USCS) [ASTM D2487 (2011)]. The lower limit has necessarily to
be lean clay—low plasticity—because in earthfill dams, fat clays—
highly plastic—must be excluded due to their highly expansive and
deformable behavior.
Several samples of sand and silty and clayed soils were mixed
and tested along with samples of natural soils, whose grain-size
distribution curves were determined by sieving and sedimentation
analysis [LNEC E 196 (LNEC 1966)].
04020014-4 J. Hydraul. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Homogeneous embankment dam model: (a) downstream slope; (b) top view with the crest width; and (c) upstream slope.

Fig. 2. (a) Range of grain-size distribution curves that fall under the type of those concerning Portuguese homogeneous earthfill dams; and (b) grain-
size distribution curves of clay-sand mixture [clayed sand (SC)] (dashed line), natural soil [silty sand (SM)] (solid line), and target range of grading
curves (gray area).

Table 1. Tested soils; grading properties, Atterberg limits, density, and permeability coefficient
Atterberg limits (%)
Sample wP wL PI G K (m=s)
Clayed sand (SC) D50 ¼ 0.23 mm; 37% fines; 61% sand; 2% gravel 16.5 34.8 18.2 2.67 6 × 10−10
Silty sand (SM) D50 ¼ 0.31 mm; 27% fines; 66% sand; 7% gravel — 17.5 Nonplastic 2.64 1 × 10−7
Note: wP = plastic limit; wL = liquid limit; PI = plasticity index; G = particle density; and K = permeability coefficient.

Two different soils, a clay-sand mixture (1:2 clay to sand) and a
natural soil (from a quarry extraction deposit) were selected for
hydraulic testing. The clay-sand mixture was artificially processed
with a cement mixer. Their grain-size distributions can be seen in
Fig. 2(b). Their grading properties and the corresponding Atterberg
limits [wP , wL , and plasticity index (PI)], soil particle density (G),
and the permeability coefficient (k) can be found in Table 1. These
parameters were obtained according to NP-143 (LNEC 1969),
NP-83 (LNEC 1965), and ASTM D7664 (ASTM 2018).
The clay-sand mixture and the natural soil are a clayed
sand (SC) and a silty sand (SM) (ASTM D2487) with 37% and
27% of fines content (Table 1), respectively. Both soils have a
percentage of fines similar to those usually adopted in actual
dams (12%–50%). Both have a sufficiently low permeability for
the purpose of impounding water (ksilty sand ðSMÞ ¼ 10−7 m=s and
kclayed sand ðSCÞ ¼ 10−10 m=s, as indicated in Table 1).
The natural soil is slightly coarser than the upper limit of the
grain-size distributions of Fig. 2(a). Although this is not necessary,
the size of finer grain sizes of the natural soil approximately obey
Eq. (13) if one considers an average grain-size distribution curve
located between the upper and lower limits present in Fig. 2(a)
The index of erosion rate and the critical shear stress at the optimum
point of compaction for the natural soil are, respectively, 4.0 and
36.7 N=m2 , which qualitatively correspond to a soil with a mod-
erately rapid rate of progression of internal erosion. These values
were obtained from the hole erosion test (HET) as I HET and τ HET
(Wan and Fell 2004; Wahl and Erdogan 2008). Although the
goal of HET is to evaluate the internal erodibility of the soil, it
is relatable with the jet erosion test, which evaluates the superficial
erodibility (Regazzoni et al. 2008). Thus, under appropriate com-
paction conditions, it was envisaged that this natural soil would
exibit similarity in terms of concerns erodibility conditions.
Compaction Methods
Three different compaction methods were tested (Fig. 3): (1) using
a lawn roller filled with water without vibration; (2) by percussion,
using a metallic hand tamper; and (3) by vibration, using a low-
weight vibratory plate [PC1010 Euroshatal (Gersthofen, Germany)
low-weight compactor model (50 kg) with plate size ¼ 30 × 43 cm
and vibration frequency ¼ 100 Hz].
The first method (compaction using a lawn roller filled with
water) revealed itself to be inappropriate because the lack of vibra-
tion combined with the low weight of the roller resulted in lifts

© ASCE 04020014-5 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Compaction of the experimental embankment dams tested using (a) lawn roller; (b) metallic hand tamper; and (c) vibratory plate. (Images by
authors.)

compacted only close to the surface (first 2–3 cm). The collected
samples disaggregated after extraction [Figs. 4(a and b)].
The other two compaction methods were evaluated by asses-
sing the physical conditions of the soil after compaction for three
different compaction loads, materialized in terms of number of
blows (4, 8, and 12) [Figs. 4(c and d)] or passages (1, 3, and 6)
[Figs. 4(e–g)], respectively, for the compaction by percussion or
vibration. The standard Proctor compaction curve (natural soil),
together with the dry unit weights (γ d ) and water content (w) cor-
responding to the evaluated compaction loads for each compaction
method, percussion and vibratory, are presented in Figs. 5(a and b),
respectively.
Fig. 5 shows that relative compactions within range (80%–90%)
can be obtained for the natural soil with both tested methods:
(1) percussional for all the tested compaction loads (4, 8, and
12 blows) at the optimum water content (woptimum ); and (2) vibra-
tional for one or three passes of the vibratory plate at dry conditions
(w < woptimum ). A single pass would not assure a homogenous em-
bankment. Six passes with the vibratory plate resulted in too high
relative compactions (96%). The compaction by percussion also
shown to be inefficient in terms of ensuring homogeneity when
compared with the vibratory compaction.
The clayed sand soil was compacted by percussion using a
metallic hand tamper by applying a number of blows compatible

Fig. 4. Trial lifts for testing the compaction methods: (a) sample collection; (b) samples showing disaggregation; (c) bands with different compaction
loads; (d) sample locations; (e) trial lift; and (f and g) sand replacement method to determine the unit weight of the compacted soil. (Images by
authors.)

© ASCE 04020014-6 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

 Fig. 5. Physical conditions of the soil after compaction: (a) by percussion (4, 8, and 12 blows); and (b) by vibration (1, 3, and 6 passes).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

with the reference compaction conditions from the standard
Proctor test.
Hydraulic Testing to Define Suitable Dam Material,
Geotechnical Parameters, and Monitoring
Procedures
Layout of Laboratory Tests
In field tests, such as those performed under the scope of CADAM,
IMPACT, and FLOODsite projects (Mohamed et al. 2002; Morris
et al. 2009, 2010), it was observed that the failure process of real
embankment dams (prototypes) subjected to overtopping involves
undercutting, underscouring leading to the appearance of lateral
cavities, and consequent detachment of masses of soil from the
dam body. Before studying hydraulic phenomena associated with
these erosion modes, it was necessary to test the types of soil pre-
viously selected as well as the building techniques to achieve model
dams that possess an erodibility similar to that envisaged in
prototypes.
Six different tests were performed combining the two types of
soil described in the “Preliminary Selection of Types of Soil for
Hydraulic Testing” section, namely clayed sand (SC) and natural
soil (silty sand), and several values of relative compaction and
water content in relation to the results of the standard Proctor test.
The characterization of the tests is given in Table 2, including type
of soil, water content scenario, and the corresponding properties.
The model earthfill dams were approximately 0.45–0.48 m tall
and 1.50 m wide and were built in a 31.50-m-long and 6.60-m-wide
hydraulic channel (Fig. 6) at the Portuguese National Laboratory
for Civil Engineering (LNEC). The model dam’s crest width
was 0.17 m, and the face slopes were 1V∶2H (upstream) and
1V∶2.5H (downstream). All model dams where equipped with a
downstream toe drain for seepage control (Fig. 1). The total volume
of the reservoir was approximately 60 m3 to ensure negligible
kinetic head upstream the dam site.
Each test involved the following steps:
1. Preparatory work:
a. prepare/mix soils according to goal proportions of each type
of material,
b. perform the standard Proctor test (determine both optimum
soil water content wopt and corresponding maximum dry unit
weight γ max
d ),
c. construct the earthfill dam by adopting a multiple lift system
and implementing a compaction effort correspondent to pre-
designated water content and dry unit weight, and
2. Dam failure test:
a. partial fill of the reservoir to establish steady-state seepage
conditions,
b. determination of a common zero for all instrumentation, for
instance water-level probes and video monitoring equipment,

Table 2. Main characteristics of the experimental tests: main outcomes

Soil characteristics Hydraulic control
Tested water
Test Soil content scenario γ d (kN=m3 ) w (%) RC (%) Δw (%) tf Qmax (L=s) Observed erosion patterns
T0 Clayed — 18.8 12.0 a
— — 5 h 30 min 2.3 Hydraulic erosion at an ≈
sand constant rate and undercutting
(SC) formation
Compaction by percussion with a metallic hand tamper
T1 Silty wtested ∈ woptimum  2% 16.00 10.5 81 1.2 1 min 12 s 340 Hydraulic erosion; headcut formation,
T2 sand 17.30 10.6 87 1.2 17 min 40 s 253 and sudden sidewall collapses;
(SM) underscouring especially in T2
Compaction using a vibratory plate compactor of low weight (50 kg)
Tc 1 Silty wtested < woptimum − 2% 17.46 6.2 88 −3.3 3 min 14 s 331 Hydraulic erosion; headcut
Tc 2 sand 17.53 6.6 87 −2.9 4 min 48 s 370 formation and sudden sidewall
Tc 3 (SM) 16.83 7.4 85 −2.0 —a —a collapses induced by underscouring
in test Tc3 the regressive erosion
was very marked
Note: γ d = dry unit weight; w = water content; RC = relative compaction referred to the standard Proctor test; Δw = deviation from woptimum ; tf = failure time;
and Qmax = maximum effluent flow.
a
Tc 3 was stopped during the breach development phase, and the failure time and maximum effluent flow were not characterized.

© ASCE 04020014-7 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Plan view of the laboratory channel (dimensions in meters).

c. acquisition of calibration images for digital imaging acquisi-
tion methods,
d. carving a pilot channel, if the location of the breach is to be
controlled,
e. fill the remaining reservoir up to the crest level and activate a
trigger to start all acquisition devices,
f. enforce the prespecified plan for the evolution of the water
level in the reservoir (for instance a constant water level at
a prespecified elevation),
g. consider the test finished when relevant phenomena has been
observed, and
h. record all data acquired with digital systems and convert to
digital and store any analogue data [examples of operation
have been given by Orendorff et al. (2013), Zhang et al.
(2009), and Bento et al. (2017)].
Relevant variables to characterize the hydraulic behavior of the
model included the failure time, tf , which corresponds to the time
interval between the instants when the breach effluent flow starts to
increase and when it reaches the peak value, maximum effluent
flow, Qmax , observed erosion modes, and dam morphology.
The evolution of the erosion process was recorded with high
speed and regular [25 frames per second (fps)] digital video from
overhead and frontal cameras, thus allowing for the identification
of erosion modes. A motion sensor, Kinect (Microsoft, Redmond,
Washington), was used for a nonintrusive assessment of breach mor-
phology and for three-dimensional (3D) embankment reconstruction.
The latter was done only for the final dam geometry. Either the breach
discharge was monitored in all tests by directly measuring the breach
area and flow velocity or by computing the mass balance in the res-
ervoir and the outflow through a triangular weir installed downstream
the model dam (details have been given by Bento et al. 2017).
Description of the Clay Sand Test T0
Test T0 consisted of testing a model dam built with the clayed sand
(SC) soil (Fig. 7). This soil is gap-graded and thus inadequate for

Fig. 7. Preliminary test: temporal evolution of the embankment dam failure (breaching failure). (Images by authors.)

© ASCE 04020014-8 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

 Fig. 8. Test 1 (T1) erosion processes: (a) headcut formation (with steps and pools; and (b) sidewall collapse in the left side of the breach. (Images by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
authors.)
actual prototype dams. The negative aspects of this soil, such as
segregation during application (stratification) and suffusion ten-
dency during the reservoir filling (or the experimental test itself),
were mitigated by the quality of the mixer procedure (with a cement
mixer) and by the reduced dimensions of the model dam, respec-
tively. The mixing procedure was appropriate to ensure homo-
geneity, but is laborious and very time-consuming.
Compaction was aimed at reproducing the optimal conditions of
the standard Proctor test. It was performed by percussion using a
metallic hand tamper. After compaction (for the optimum water
content), and given that the percentage of material retained by
No. 200 sieve was about 63.0%, the soil mixture showed an evident
agglutinate behavior and high critical shear resistance (low erodi-
bility). The test was stopped 5.5 h after its initiation. During the
failure process, only hydraulic erosion was observed and at low
rates. There was evident headcut erosion in the downstream slope
with minor steps and pools events (this is clear in Fig. 7 at 2:00).
No mass detachment episodes were observed.
The results of this test were mainly of qualitative nature and
served mostly to improve the experimental procedure of further
tests. These are the major practical conclusions:
• The soil grain-size distribution is not only inappropriate for
prototype dams (gap-graded soil), but it is also inadequate
for models given that it leads to a disproportionally large shear
resistance.
• Compaction by percussion was revealed to be appropriate
for this type of soil, but the adoption of the reference values from
the standard Proctor test contributed for the excess of embank-
ment resistance, hence not meeting the erodibility conditions
required for these tests (discussed in the “Scaling Dam Erodibil-
ity: Problem Statement” section).
These conclusions led to the following decisions for the follow-
ing earthfill dam breach tests, performed with the silty-sand (SM)
of natural origin: (1) to adopt a less plastic and well-graded soil;
Fig. 9. Test 2 (T2) erosion processes: (a) erosion cavity created by underscouring; and (b) sidewall collapse caused by the underscouring. (Images by
authors.)
© ASCE 04020014-9
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
(2) to avoid the mixing procedure and instead select a natural soil
fitting the goal range; (3) to decrease the embankment’s relative
compaction (to increase the embankment erodibility); and (4) to
vary the water content among tests.
Description of Silty Sand (SM) Tests T1, T2, T c 1,
T c 2, and T c 3
Compaction Scenarios: Relative Compaction
and Water Content
The reference compaction conditions from the standard Proctor
test (LNEC E 197) for this soil were first determined: γ max ¼
d
19.9 kN=m3 and woptimum ¼ 9.4%. Then, several compaction con-
ditions (relative compaction and water content) were tested. The
following protocol was adopted:
1. Adopt relative compactions (RC) varying between 80% and
90% of the standard Proctor reference values.
2. Adopt two different scenarios of water content deviations from
the reference value ðwoptimum Þ:
• w ∈ woptimum  2% is within the standard practice reference
interval for actual dam building; and
• w < woptimum − 2% is below the usual lower limit in order to
reduce shear resistance [Eqs. (5)–(10) are discussed in the
“Scaling Dam Erodibility: Problem Statement” section].
Role of Relative Compaction: Comparison between Tests T1
and T2
Tests T1 and T2, compacted by percussion, evaluated the sensitiv-
ity of the breaching process to the relative compaction and hence
were conducted in equivalent water content conditions.
The compaction loads corresponded to 4 and 12 metallic hand
tamper blows, respectively. Bulk densities were within the relative
compaction goal (80%–90%), and water contents within the usual
reference interval w ∈ woptimum  2% (Table 2).
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 The earthfill dam of Test T1 was revealed to be highly erodible,
which resulted in an extremely fast erosion of the dam’s material
(1 min 12 s), attaining a maximum breach effluent flow of 340 L=s
(summarized in Table 2). In addition, headcuts formed almost
instantaneously, representing a steps and pools pattern along the
downstream face [Fig. 8(a)]. This observation is in line with the
stair-step headcuts in the dam downstream face associated with
the first stages of erosion of embankments composed by soils with
high fines content (with a cohesive mechanical behavior) first
described by Ralston (1987). Several sidewall collapses were also
observed during this fast process.
In Test T2, the embankment dam exhibited a relative compac-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
three passes with the vibratory plate. Both tests were conducted
with nearly the same relative compactions of the preliminary Test
T2 but in drier conditions [RC ∈ ð85% − 87%Þ and w < woptimum −
2% as summarized in Table 2]. The comparison among these tests
was aimed at evaluating the sensitivity of the breaching process to
the water content.
The combination of both low compaction and dry state of the
embankments resulted in highly erodible embankments because
both conditions lead to a diminishing of shear resistance. As in-
dicated in Table 2, the failure times corresponding to Tests Tc 1
and Tc 2 (3 min 14 s and 4 min 48 s, respectively) are much
shorter than that of Test T2 (17 min 40 s). The difference of
about 4% in the water contents between the former (Tc 1 and

tion higher than that of Test T1, maintaining similar water content
conditions [RC ¼ 87% and w ¼ 1.2% (Table 2)]. As expected, the
higher resistance to superficial erosion imposed by the higher rel-
ative compaction resulted in a higher failure time and lower breach
effluent flow [17 min 40 s and 253 L=s, respectively (Table 2)].
It was concluded that embankments with similar water contents
erode faster and display a higher peak breach discharge for lower
relative compaction conditions. In terms of the erosion patterns,
hydraulic and headcut erosion were present, as well as sidewall col-
lapses [Fig. 9(b)]. In this case, some of the masses of soil detached
from the dam body occurred by underscouring [Fig. 9(a)].
Role of Water Content and Higher Relative Compaction:
Comparison among Tests T2, Tc 1, and Tc 2
The embankments of Tests Tc 1 and Tc 2 were compacted by
vibration, using as reference a compaction load corresponding to
Tc 2) and the latter (T2) was translated into failure times of about
one-quarter of that of Test T2. Probably, this difference was fur-
ther accentuated by the fact that Tests Tc 1, Tc 2, and T2 had
water contents in different sides of the reference curve of the
standard Proctor test (dry and wet sides, respectively). Fig. 10
shows visual evidence of this increased erodibility of Tests Tc 1
and Tc 2.
Validation (Test Tc 3)
The embankment of Test Tc 3 was compacted by vibration with
three passes with the vibratory plate. This corresponded to nearly
the same relative compactions of Test T2 but in drier conditions
[RC ¼ 85% and Δw ¼ −2% (Table 2)]. Relatively to Tests Tc 1
and Tc 2, the water content was slightly larger but the compaction
ratio was lower. Analyzing the behavior of the previous tests, it was

Fig. 10. Breach temporal evolution in Tests T2, Tc1, and Tc2, where t1 corresponds to the instant when the breach effluent flow started to increase,
and t4 corresponds to the time instant when the maximum breach flow is attained (peak flow). Failure time ðtfÞ ¼ t4 − t1. (Images by Sílvia Amaral.)

© ASCE 04020014-10 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Breaching process behavior observed in the homogeneous embankment dam failure test showing stages of the failure during Test Tc3:
(a) images from the frontal HD camera; and (b) images from the top view camera. (Images by authors.)

© ASCE 04020014-11 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014

 envisaged that such soil and compaction conditions would result in
a failure process with strong hydraulic erosion, visible underscour-
ing, and significant mass detachment episodes. In this sense, this
was a validation test.
Expecting underscouring, a Kinect sensor was deployed to
survey the breach morphology and final breach morphology. For
this purpose, a full 3D scan of the dam body was performed at
an intermediate stage of breach development; the test was finalized
before complete failure.
The characterization of the several failure stages observed in
the earthfill dam of Test Tc 3 is represented in Fig. 11 and described
next.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Initially, the flow passes through the pilot channel and reaches
the downstream toe of the dam with a small flow width (Stage 1 in
Fig. 11). The erosion process begins when the tractive shear stress
induced by the overtopping flow exceeds the critical shear stress of
the embankment material and the downstream slope of the embank-
ment starts eroding, mainly by hydraulic erosion. Then, the breach-
ing process initiates with the formation of small steps and pools on
the downstream slope (a stair step pattern). The amplitude of these
increases with time, developing into the formation of one or two
well-defined headcuts (Stage 2 in Fig. 11). As the erosion process
continues to evolve upstream by regressive erosion (Stages 3 and 4
in Fig. 11), the headcuts enlarge and occasionally mass detachment
episodes occur. These are most likely by underscouring, i.e., the
erosion cavity created as the jetlike issued by the breach hits
and spreads on the fixed floor (Fig. 12). As erosion advances,
the cavities enlarge, the turbulence of the effluent flow increases,
and the mass detachment episodes become more frequent, leading
to further enlargement of the erosion cavities. This a nonlinear
self-feeding process that plays a role in determining the breach
failure time.
When the underscouring cavity starts propagating below and
upstream the dam crest, the breaching process accelerates. The
breach enlarges faster and progresses further upstream because
mass detachment episodes directly contribute to enlarging the re-
gion where the subcritical–supercritical flow transition occurs
(Stages 5–7 in Fig. 11). At this stage, there is an evident increase
in the positive slope of the rising limp of the breach effluent hydro-
graph, as well as its corresponding crest, which moves upstream.
The failure mechanisms observed in the experimental tests per-
formed as part this research, and in particular, in Test Tc 3, are com-
patible with the failure behavior of large-scale embankments
composed of clayed soils described by Zhang et al. (2009), Hanson
et al. (2005b), Hahn et al. (2000), and AlQaser and Ruff (1993). At
this stage, one might consider that the geotechnical requirements
that guarantee similarity conditions in terms of dam erodibility
are known and unambiguously specified in terms of the traditional
geotechnical parameters featured in Tables 1 and 2.
Fig. 12. Sidewall collapse from the left side of the breach: (a) frontal view of the falling mass; and (b) 3D reconstruction of the morphology of the
failed earth dam after the sidewall collapse (point cloud after postprocessing the Kinect sensor data). (Images by authors.)
© ASCE 04020014-12
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
Key Procedures and Monitoring Practices
for Dam Breaching Tests
Criteria for Soil Selection and Geotechnical Parameters
of the Compacted Soil
To characterize the soil of embankments built for dam breaching
tests, the following geotechnical parameters, which characterize
the soil as a geological material and describe it in its compacted
form, were considered the indispensable minima:
• grading properties (grain-size distribution curve);
• compaction curve from the standard Proctor test, particularly
the optimal values of relative compaction (RC) and water con-
tent (woptimum );
• Atterberg limits (wP , wL , and PI);
• density of soil particles (G);
• permeability coefficient (k);
• index of erosion rate (I) at the optimum point of compac-
tion; and
• critical shear stress (τ ) at the optimum point of compaction.
The latter two are relevant in the case of clay soils or soils with a
cohesive structural behavior. The hole erosion test (Wan and Fell
2004; Wahl and Erdogan 2008) and jet erosion test [Hanson and
Cook 2004; ASTM D5852 (ASTM 1995); Wahl 2016] are two po-
tential methods for evaluating the progression of erosion in this
type of soils that can be related through empirical expressions.
A complete comparison between the two has been given by Regaz-
zoni et al. (2008).
Geotechnical parameters of the soil and compaction conditions
of the embankment must be unambiguously characterized to ensure
comparability of overtopping experiments with homogeneous
earthfill model dams with similar dimensions. In terms of the se-
lection of the soil, first, a percentage of fines between 12% and 50%
is suggested to ensure that the embankment presents a cohesive
structural behavior (silt or clay soils can be chosen). Percentages
above this value will lead to an agglutinate behavior with a dispro-
portionally high critical shear resistance [discussed following
Eq. (5) in the “Scaling Dam Erodibility: Problem Statement” sec-
tion]. Second, well-graded soils are suggested because gap-graded
soils are likely to segregate during application and have a suffusion
tendency.
To ensure the similarity conditions in terms of hydraulic erod-
ibility, the grain-size distribution curve should be scaled in accor-
dance to Eq. (12) to get an order of magnitude of the model soil. In
any case, a reduction in the grain-size distribution curve should
only be implemented if the smaller dimension of the experimental
embankment is smaller than 6–8 times the soil maximum diameter,
D100 [ASTM D2850 (2007)]. In case this, only the gravel fraction
of the soil should be scaled. This can be carried out by adopting the
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 scalp and replace equation studied by Lin et al. (2001). In most
cases, the soil of the prototype can be used in the experimental tests
(Amaral 2017).
Construction of Embankments and Monitoring
Procedures
To increase the erodibility of the experimental embankments it is
necessary to reduce the relative compaction and to adjust its water
content. Embankments will display different physical properties
depending on which side of the Proctor reference curve they have
been compacted. A summary of the construction and monitoring
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
procedures emerging as best practice in this work are listed as
follows:
1. Use RCs below the standard Proctor reference values. In any
case, a sensitivity analysis to the RC must be performed pre-
viously, and the actual RC values must reflect a trade-off
between embankment erodibility and realistic geotechnical
behavior.
2. Create different scenarios of water content deviations from
the reference value determined from the standard Proctor test
ðwoptimum Þ. Select the actual value based on a sensitivity analysis.
3. Evaluate the compaction method, particularly the appropriate-
ness of percussional versus vibrational equipment, bearing in
mind the type of soil and the dimensions of the dam model.
4. Develop an embankment construction protocol that covers the
following main issues:
• Step 1: adopt a multiple lift or layered system with a thick-
ness compatible with a uniform compaction throughout the
Fig. 13. Experimental procedure for the construction of the homogeneous embankment dams. (Images by Sílvia Amaral.)
© ASCE 04020014-13
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
lifts. For the size of the earthfill dams of this study, lifts of
0.05–0.08 m thickness showed a good compromise between
construction time and adequate compaction (uniform com-
paction throughout the thickness of each lift). The material
of each lift must be sprayed with water and compacted to
ensure uniformity. Compaction by vibration leads to higher
degrees of homogeneity of the earthfill dams than a compac-
tion by percussion and hence should be preferred to the latter
to reduce uncertainty. Furthermore, for failure purposes, ex-
perimental embankment dams with relative compactions
varying between 80% and 90% should be adopted to increase
the embankment’s bulk erodibility, as a form of compen-
sating for the reduced value of external actions (velocity
field in the facility) relative to prototype values (“Scaling
Dam Erodibility: Problem Statement” and “Compaction
Methods” sections). This reference interval for compaction
is good trade-off between erodibility and realistic geotechni-
cal behavior (Fig. 13).
• Step 2: control the compaction during construction by gath-
ering samples of compacted soil in each lift and conduct-
ing laboratory analysis involving evaluation of the dry unit
weight (γ d ), water content (w), and relative compaction (RC)
referred to as the standard Proctor test. This can be per-
formed by using a sand replacement method, by applying
a nuclear gauge testing in each lift, or by using other equiva-
lent methods.
• Step 3: spray the surface material of the embankment with
water and cover it with a plastic sleeve to prevent variations
of humidity while the soil is stored awaiting construction.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 This is required because usually, a few days are necessary to
setup the instrumentation.
• Step 4: perform the final cuts to attain the desired geometry
in the embankments (on the day of the failure test) and im-
plement the toe drain. The most efficient way to construct the
embankment is to build it larger than the desired geometry
and then cut it until the desired slopes and crest width are
attained. This procedure will remove the superficial parts
of the embankments and those more exposed that have lost
humidity, and thus safeguard the homogeneity of humidity in
the entire dam body. Regarding the toe drain implementa-
tion, its goal is to assure that internal moisture conditions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are compatible with the functionality of the embankment,
i.e., the internal phreatic line has to be established and con-
verge to the dam toe. If the embankment dams have no toe
drain, the headcut erosion that might appear during the fail-
ure by overtopping is unrealistically large.
• Step 5: carve a pilot channel in the middle of the dam crest to
control the area of concentrated flow and the erosion at the
beginning of the overtopping process.
Conclusions
This work addressed the issue of formulating and discussing the
requirements for comparable laboratory hydraulic tests of embank-
ments subjected overtopping, particularly models of homogeneous
earthfill dams. Some core procedures and monitoring practices that
can be used to design comparable dam breach tests (hydraulic and
geotechnical) were proposed.
The first challenge concerned the theoretical discussion of
the possibility of similarity between model and prototype erodibil-
ity. It was found that the geometrical scaling for the model
soil should include a correction for simple geometric dam height
scaling. To attain a model hydraulic erodibility similar to proto-
type erodibility and taking in consideration processes beyond
simple Froude scaling, one arrives at the correction factor
ðf M =fP Þm=½m−ð3=2Þ ðλρs Þm in Eq. (12). This correction factor im-
plies that not only must the grain-size distribution must be coarser
than that obtained by simple geometric scaling but also the com-
paction should be different from that attained in the prototype.
Considerations about mass detachment episodes may change the
actual correction factor but not the key point that model grain-size
distribution cannot be scaled in accordance to the ratio of dam
heights if the aim is to have the same bulk erodibility in the model
and prototype.
The theoretical arguments developed introduce rationality in the
process of choosing the dam model soil and open the possibility of
hydraulic testing under some degree of similarity in terms of bulk
erodibility. Again, it should be emphasized that this research con-
cerns the conditions of possibility of hydraulic testing; the objective
is to study details of flow hydraulics in model dams that exhibit
failure modes similar to those found in prototypes. In other words,
this analysis does not provide exact scaling laws to generalize for
prototype sizes measurements taken in models, particularly in
terms of variables expressing geotechnical behavior. It is thus
implicit that full geotechnical characterization of a breaching
dam, including phenomenological advances in failure modes,
can possibly be achieved only at prototype scale.
Once a first criterion for model soil grain size and compaction is
achieved, further progress involved observations of breached model
dams under controlled hydraulic and geotechnical conditions. The
aims were to (1) determine the sufficient set of geotechnical design
parameters and their values to ensure that the embankment has the
© ASCE 04020014-14
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
required bulk erodibility conditions; (2) set the building protocol
for the model embankment (in terms of number of soil layers, thick-
nesses, and compaction method); and (3) decide a monitoring pro-
cedure to ensure that the design parameters are attained. The
particular contributions of this research were based on a set of
experimental tests on failure by overtopping of homogeneous em-
bankment dams focused on sandy soils with high fines content
[silty sand (SM) and clayey sand (SC) according to the USCS].
These tests encompassed the variation of the type of soil (fines con-
tent), compaction method (percussion versus vibratory), and soil
compaction conditions (relative compaction and water content).
The influence of classical geotechnical parameters in the breaching
process was generically evaluated by monitoring the failure time,
maximum effluent flow, and erosion patterns.
The procedure adopted in the definition of the experimental
earthfill dams, encompassing the soil selection process and the con-
struction and compaction method, was revealed to be appropriate
for dam breach experiments because the overtopping breaching
processes usually observed in prototypes of homogeneous embank-
ment dams were properly reproduced.
The tests carried also contributed to a better understanding of the
influence of the relative compaction and water content of the earth-
fill dams in the breaching process. It was observed that earthfill
dams with similar water contents erode faster and present higher
peak discharges (breach effluent flow) for lower relative compac-
tion conditions, i.e., respond in an inversely proportional manner.
In addition, low water contents translate into faster erosion,
i.e., drier embankments are more erodible.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the
study are available from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
The implementation of the methods herein presented was possible
due to the support of the Sector of Modelling and Construction,
Scientific Instrumentation Centre and Geotechnics Department
of the Portuguese National Laboratory for Civil Engineering.
The work was partially funded under the COMPETE program
(FEDER) and National Funds through FCT Project PTDC/ECI-
EGC/31618/2017. The first author is thankful for the financial sup-
port through the Ph.D. scholarship of FCT, No. SFRH/BD/47694/
2008. All authors are indebted to the three anonymous reviewers
and the associate editor for the discussions raised in the reviewing
process that contributed to a stronger manuscript.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
d = grain-size distribution (L);
f = Darcy-Weisbach friction factor;
G = density of soil particles (ML−3 );
g = gravity (MLT−2 );
I HET = index of erosion rate (HET);
K = soil permeability (LT−1 ]);
p = soil porosity;
Qmax = maximum effluent flow (L3 T);
qs = sediment transport rate per unit width (L2 T−1 );
tf = failure time (T);
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 U = characteristic flow velocity (LT−1 );
w = water content (%);
wL = liquid limit (Atterberg limits) (%);
woptimum = optimum water content (%);
wP = plastic limit (Atterberg limits) (%);
zb = elevation of the dam body subjected to hydraulic
erosion (L);
α = weak function of the grain-size distribution and of bulk
sediment density;
γ d = dry unit weights (ML−2 T−2 );
γ max
d = maximum dry unit weight (ML−2 T−2 );
δ = thickness of the boundary layer of the flow over the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
dam body (L);
λL = length scale;
λU = velocity scale;
μ = viscosity (ML−1 T−1 );
ν = fluid’s kinematic viscosity (ML−1 T−1 );
ρ = density (ML−3 );
ρs = bulk sediment density (ML−3 );
σ0 = cohesion (ML−1 T−2 );
τ = shear stress applied by hydraulic forces (ML−1 T−2 );
τ HET = critical shear stress (HET) (ML−1 T−2 ); and
τ y = threshold shear stress of the soil (ML−1 T−2 ).
References
AlQaser, G., and J. F. Ruff. 1993. “Progressive failure of an overtopped
embankment.” In Hydraulic engineering, 1957–1962. Reston, VA:
ASCE.
Al-Riffai, M. 2014. “Experimental study of breach mechanics in
overtopped noncohesive earthen embankments.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa.
Amaral, S. 2017. “Experimental characterization of the failure by overtop-
ping of embankment dams.” Ph.D. thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico,
Universidade de Lisboa.
Amaral, S., T. Alvarez, T. Viseu, and R. M. L. Ferreira. 2018. “Image analy-
sis detection applied to dam breach experiments.” In Proc., 5th IAHR
Europe Congress—New Challenges in Hydraulic Research and
Engineering. Bologna, Italy: Maccaferri.
Arulanandan, K. 1975. “Fundamental aspects of erosion of cohesive soils.”
J. Hydraul. Div. 101 (5): 635–639.
Arulanandan, K., and E. B. Perry. 1983. “Erosion in relation to filter design
criteria in earth dams.” J. Geotech. Eng. 109 (5): 682–698. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:5(682).
ASCE Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breaching. 2011. “Earthen embank-
ment breaching.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 137 (12): 1549–1564. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000498.
Ashourian, M., M. Shafai-Bejestan, and H. Babazadeh. 2018. “Investiga-
tion of headcut erosion in cohesive soils.” Water Res. 45 (1): 69–78.
ASTM. 1995. Standard test method for erodibility determination of soil in
the field or in the laboratory by the jet index method. ASTM D5852.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2007. Standard test method for unconsolidated-undrained
triaxial compression test on cohesive soils. ASTM D2850. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2011. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering
purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM D2487. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018. Standard test method for measurement of hydraulic conduc-
tivity of unsaturated soils. ASTM D7664. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Bento, A. M., S. Amaral, T. Viseu, R. Cardoso, and R. M. L. Ferreira. 2017.
“Direct estimate of the breach hydrograph of an overtopped earth dam.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 143 (6): 06017004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
HY.1943-7900.0001294.
© ASCE 04020014-15
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
Bonelli, S., S. Nicaise, G. Charrier, N. Chaouch, F. Byron, and Y.
Grémeaux. 2018. “Quantifying the erosion resistance of dikes
with the overflowing simulator.” In Proc., Protections 2018: Int. Conf.
on Protection against Overtopping. Wallingford, UK: HR Wallingford.
Bousmar, D., and Y. Zech. 1999. “Momentum transfer for practical
flow computation in compound channels.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 125 (7):
696–706. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1999)125:7(696).
Brand, L. 1957. “The Pi theorem of dimensional analysis.” Arch. Ration.
Mech. Anal. 1 (1): 35–45.
Chachereau, Y., and H. Chanson. 2011. “Free-surface fluctuations and tur-
bulence in hydraulic jumps.” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 35 (6): 896–909.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2011.01.009.
Chinnarasri, C., S. Jirakitlerd, and S. Wongwises. 2004. “Embankment dam
breach and its outflow characteristics.” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 21 (4):
247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286600412331328622.
Coleman, S. E., D. P. Andrews, and M. G. Webby. 2002. “Overtopping
breaching of noncohesive homogeneous embankments.” J. Hydraul.
Eng. 128 (9): 829–838. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(2002)128:9(829).
Costa, J. E. 1985. Floods from dam failures. Reston, VA: USGS.
Ettema, R., and K. W. Ng. 2016. “Insights from laboratory experiments
on the failure of earthen embankments at bridge-waterway abutments.”
In Proc., Protections 2016: 2nd Int. Seminar on Dam Protection
Against Overtopping. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Univ.
Exner, F. M. 1925. “Uber die wechselwirkung zwischen wasser und ge-
schiebe in flussen.” Akad. Wiss. Wien Math. Naturwiss. Kl. 134 (2a):
165–204.
Fei, J., H. Yuan, and Q. Zhang. 2014. “Dam breaching models and soil
mechanics analysis.” In Soil behavior and geomechanics, 699–708.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
Feliciano Cestero, J. A., J. Imran, and M. H. Chaudhry. 2015. “Experimen-
tal investigation of the effects of soil properties on levee breach by over-
topping.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 141 (4): 04014085. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000964.
Ferreira, R. L., S. Amaral, A. M. Ricardo, and A. M. Bento. 2018. “Assess-
ing the mass flux from a breached model dam with laser imaging and
Large-Scale PIV.” In Proc., 19th Int. Symp. on Applications of Laser
and Imaging Techniques to Fluid Mechanics. Lisbon, Portugal: Center
for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research.
Fletcher, B. P., and P. A. Gilbert. 1992. Center Hill Fuseplug Spill-
way Caney Fork River, Tennessee: Hydraulic model investigation.
Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Hydraulics Laboratory.
Foster, M., R. Fell, and M. Spannagle. 2000. “The statistics of embankment
dam failures and accidents.” Can. Geotech. J. 37 (5): 1000–1024.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-030.
Franca, M. J., and A. B. Almeida. 2002. “Experimental tests on rockfill
dam breaching process.” In Proc., IAHR-Int. Symp. on Hydraulic
and Hydrological Aspects of Reliability and Safety Assessment of
Hydraulic Structures, 29–31. St. Petersburg, Russia: Vniig Im. B.ye.
Vedeneyeva.
Fujita, Y., and T. Tamura. 1987. “Enlargement of breaches in flood levees
on alluvial plains.” Nat. Disaster Sci. 9 (1): 37–60.
Gilbert, P. A., and S. P. Miller. 1991. A study of embankment performance
during overtopping. Vicksburg, MS: Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Geotechnical Laboratory.
Graf, W. H. 1971. Hydraulics of sediment transport. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Hahn, W., G. J. Hanson, and K. R. Cook. 2000. “Breach morphology
observations of embankment overtopping tests.” In Proc., Joint Conf.
on Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources Planning and
Management, 1–10. Reston, VA: Environmental and Water Resources
Institute of ASCE.
Hanson, G. J., and K. R. Cook. 2004. “Apparatus, test procedures, and ana-
lytical methods to measure soil erodibility in situ.” Appl. Eng. Agric.
20 (4): 455. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.16492.
Hanson, G. J., K. R. Cook, and S. L. Hunt. 2005a. “Physical modeling of
overtopping erosion and breach formation of cohesive embankments.”
Trans. ASAE 48 (5): 1783–1794. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20012.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Hanson, G. J., M. Morris, K. Vaskinn, D. Temple, S. Hunt, and M. Hassan.
2005b. “Research activities on the erosion mechanics of overtopped
embankment dams.” ASDSO J. Dam Saf. 3 (1): 4–16.
ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams). 2003. Bulletin on risk
assessment in dam safety management. Paris: ICOLD.
Jack, R. 1996. “The mechanics of embankment failure due to overtopping
flow.” M.Sc. thesis, Dept. of Civil and Resource Engineering, Univ. of
Auckland.
Ko, H. Y., R. J. Dunn, and T. Hollingsworth. 1985. Study of embankment
performance during overtopping-prototype modelling and dimensional
verification. Vicksburg, MS: USACE.
Lin, D.-F., M. K. Chang, and H. L. Luo. 2001. “Study of scalp-and-replace
equation in compaction specification for soil with high gravel content.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Transp. Res. Rec. 1772 (1): 55–61. https://doi.org/10.3141/1772-07.
LNEC (Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil). 1965. Solos—
Determinação da densidade das partículas. LNEC NP-83. Lisboa,
Portugal: LNEC.
LNEC (Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil). 1966. Solos—Análise
granulométrica. LNEC E 196. Lisboa, Portugal: LNEC.
LNEC (Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil). 1969. Solos—
Determinação de limites de consistência. LNEC NP-143. Lisboa,
Portugal: LNEC.
Meyer-Peter, E., and R. Müller. 1948. “Formulas for bed-load transport.” In
Proc., IAHSR 2nd Meeting, Stockholm, Appendix 2. Madrid, Spain:
International Association for Hydro-Environment Engineering and
Research.
Mignot, E., and R. Cienfuegos. 2010. “Energy dissipation and turbulent
production in weak hydraulic jumps.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 136 (2):
116–121. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000124.
Mohamed, M. A. A., P. G. Samuels, M. W. Morris, and G. S. Ghataora.
2002. “Improving the accuracy of prediction of breach formation
through embankment dams and flood embankments.” In Proc., Int.
Conf. on Fluvial Hydraulics—River Flow, edited by D. Bousmar
and Y. Zech. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Mohamed, M. M. A., and E. A. S. El-Ghorab. 2019. “Investigating scale
effects on breach evolution of overtopped sand embankments.” Water
Sci. 30 (2): 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2016.10.003.
Morris, M. W. 2000. “CADAM: A European concerted action project on
dam-break modelling.” In Proc., Biennial Conf. of the BDS, 42–53.
London: Thomas Telford.
Morris, M. W., M. Hassan, and K. A. Vaskinn. 2010. “Breach formation:
Field test and laboratory experiments.” Supplement, J. Hydraul. Res.
45 (S1): 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2007.9521828.
Morris, M. W., A. Kortenhaus, P. J. Visser, and M. Hassan. 2009. Breach-
ing processes: A state of the art review. FLOODsite Rep. T06-06-03.
Wallingford, UK: FLOODsite Consortium.
Orendorff, B. 2009. “An experimental study of embankment dam breach-
ing.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Ottawa.
Orendorff, B., M. Al-Riffai, I. Nistor, and C. D. Rennie. 2013. “Breach
outflow characteristics of non-cohesive embankment dams subject to
blast.” Can. J. Civ. Eng. 40 (3): 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce
-2012-0303.
Orendorff, B., M. Al-Riffai, C. D. Rennie, I. Nistor, and P. St-Germain. 2009.
“The effects of initial breach geometry on dam breach morphology.” In
Proc., 33rd IAHR Congress, 9–14. Madrid, Spain: International Asso-
ciation for Hydro-Environment Engineering and Research.
Orendorff, B., C. D. Rennie, and I. Nistor. 2011. “Using PTV through an
embankment breach channel.” J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 5 (4): 277–287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2010.12.003.
Pickert, G., G. H. Jirka, A. Bieberstein, and J. Brauns. 2004. “Soil/water
interaction during the breaching process of overtopped embankments.”
In Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on River Flow, 903–910. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Pickert, G., V. Weitbrecht, and A. Bieberstein. 2011. “Breaching of over-
topped river embankments controlled by apparent cohesion.” J. Hydraul.
Res. 49 (2): 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2011.552468.
Powledge, G. R., D. C. Ralston, P. Miller, Y. H. Chen, P. E. Clopper, and
D. M. Temple. 1989a. “Mechanics of overflow erosion on embank-
ments. I: Research activities.” J. Hydraul. Eng. 115 (8): 1040–1055.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1989)115:8(1040).
© ASCE 04020014-16
J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014
Powledge, G. R., D. C. Ralston, P. Miller, Y. H. Chen, P. E. Clopper, and
D. M. Temple. 1989b. “Mechanics of overflow erosion on embank-
ments. II: Hydraulic and design considerations.” J. Hydraul. Eng.
115 (8): 1056–1075. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1989)
115:8(1056).
Pugh, C. A. 1985. Hydraulic model studies of fuse plug embankments.
Denver: US Bureau of Reclamation.
Ralston, D. C. 1987. “Mechanics of embankment erosion during overflow.”
In Hydraulic engineering, 733–738. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Regazzoni, P. L., D. Marot, J. R. Courivaud, G. Hanson, and T. Wahl. 2008.
“Soil erodibility: A comparison between the jet erosion test and the hole
erosion test.” In Proc., Inaugural Int. Conf. of the Engineering Mechan-
ics Institute, 1–7. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Rifai, I., S. Erpicum, P. Archambeau, D. Violeau, M. Pirotton, K. El Kadi
Abderrezzak, and B. Dewals. 2017. “Overtopping induced failure of
noncohesive, homogeneous fluvial dikes.” Water Resour. Res.
53 (4): 3373–3386. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020053.
Saghaee, G., A. A. Mousa, and M. A. Meguid. 2017. “Plausible
failure mechanisms of wildlife-damaged earth levees: Insights from
centrifuge modeling and numerical analysis.” Can. Geotech. J. 54 (10):
1496–1508. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2016-0484.
Schmocker, L., and W. H. Hager. 2010. “Modelling dike breaching due to
overtopping.” J. Hydraul. Res. 47 (5): 585–597. https://doi.org/10.3826
/jhr.2009.3586.
Schmocker, L., and W. H. Hager. 2012. “Plane dike-breach due to over-
topping: Effects of sediment, dike height and discharge.” J. Hydraul.
Res. 50 (6): 576–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2012.713034.
Simmler, H., and L. Samet. 1982. “Dam failure from overtopping studied
on a hydraulic model.” In Proc., 14th Int. Congress on Large Dams. Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil: International Commission on Large Dam.
Singh, V. 1996. Vol. 17 of Dam breach modeling technology. New York:
Springer.
Van Emelen, S., Y. Zech, and S. Soares-Frazao. 2015. “Formation de brèches
dans les digues de sable: modélisation de l'interaction eau-sol.” La Houille
Blanche 6 (Dec): 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/20150064.
Vaskinn, K. A., A. Lovell, K. Hoeg, M. W. Morris, G. J. Hanson, and M. A.
A. M. Hassan. 2004. “IMPACT: Physical modelling of breach forma-
tion: Large scale field tests.” In Proc., Association of State Dam Safety
Officials: Dam Safety Conf. Phoenix: Association of State Dam Safety
Officials.
Visser, P. J. 1998. “Breach erosion in sand-dikes.” In Vol. 3 of Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Coastal Engineering, edited by B. L. Edge, 3516–
3528. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Wahl, T. L. 1998. Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters—
A literature review and needs assessment. Dam Safety Rep No.
DSO-98-004. Denver: US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
Wahl, T. L. 2016. “The submerged jet erosion test: Past-present-future.”
In Proc., USSD Int. Symp. on the Mechanics of Internal Erosion for
Dams and Levees. Westminster, CO: United States Society on Dams.
Wahl, T. L., and Z. Erdogan. 2008. Determining erosion indices of cohesive
soils with the hole erosion test and jet erosion test. Denver: US Dept. of
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center.
Wahl, T. L., and D. J. Lentz. 2011. Physical hydraulic modeling of canal
breaches. Hydraulic Laboratory Rep. No. HL-2011-09. Denver: US
Bureau of Reclamation.
Walder, J. S., R. M. Iverson, J. W. Godt, M. Logan, and S. A. Solovitz.
2015. “Controls on the breach geometry and flood hydrograph during
overtopping of noncohesive earthen dams.” Water Resour. Res. 51 (8):
6701–6724. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016620.
Wan, C. F., and R. Fell. 2004. “Laboratory tests on the rate of piping
erosion of soils in embankment dams.” Geotech. Test. J. 27 (3):
295–303. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ11903.
Yochum, S. E., L. A. Goertz, and P. H. Jones. 2008. “Case study of the big
bay dam failure: Accuracy and comparison of breach predictions.”
J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (9): 1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9429(2008)134:9(1285).
Zhang, J., Y. Li, G. Xuan, X. Wang, and J. Li. 2009. “Overtopping breach-
ing of cohesive homogeneous earth dam with different cohesive
strength.” Sci. China Ser. E: Technol. Sci. 52 (10): 3024–3029. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11431-009-0275-1.
J. Hydraul. Eng.
 Zhao, G., P. J. Visser, and P. Peeters. 2013a. Large-scale embankment
breach experiments in flume. Rep. of Delft Univ. of Technology.
Antwerp, Belgium: Flanders Hydraulics Research and Rijkswaterstaat.
Zhao, G., P. J. Visser, P. Peeters, and J. K. Vrijling. 2013b. “Headcut
migration prediction of the cohesive embankment breach.” Eng. Geol.
164 (Sep): 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.06.012.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Lulea University of Technology on 01/29/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhao, G., P. J. Visser, R. Yankai, and W. S. J. Uijttewaal. 2015. “Flow
hydrodynamics in embankment breach.” J. Hydrodyn. Ser. B 27 (6):
835–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(15)60546-7.
Zhu, Y., P. J. Visser, J. K. Vrijling, and G. Wang. 2011. “Experimental
investigation on breaching of embankments” Sci. China Technol. Sci.
54 (1): 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-010-4208-9.

© ASCE 04020014-17 J. Hydraul. Eng.

J. Hydraul. Eng., 2020, 146(4): 04020014