Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Challenges
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envc

Dam break analysis using HEC-RAS and HEC-GeoRAS: A case study of

Hidkal dam, Karnataka state, India
A Bharath a,∗, Anand V Shivapur b, C G Hiremath b, Ramesh Maddamsetty c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Technology, GITAM University, Bangalore, Karnataka 562163, India
b
Department of Water and Land Management Program, Center for PG studies, VTU Campus, Belagavi, Karnataka 590018, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, GITAM University, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 530045, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: A dam is a structure constructed across river which stores water and supplies water for various purposes. Though
Dam break analysis the dams have many benefits, there is always a threat of dam break floods which are devastating in nature. Hence
HEC-RAS it becomes essential to analyze and simulate dam failure scenarios to understand the severity of dam break flood
Breach parameters
and identify areas under threat which helps in land use planning and developing emergency response plans. This
Flood routing
study attempts to carry out dam break/breach analysis for the Hidkal dam using a one-dimensional hydraulic
Flood inundation
model called Hydraulic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). HEC-GeoRAS tool is used to ex-
tract river geometry data from the Cartosat-1 digital elevation model (DEM) and to generate the inundation map
to identify the areas affected. The study involves the prediction of breach parameters, breach flood hydrograph,
peak flow, flood arrival time, and generation of inundation maps. The dam break model is simulated for unsteady
flow conditions using Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) corresponding to piping and overtopping failure scenarios.
HEC-RAS tool is utilized to determine the breach outflow hydrograph and hydraulic conditions at critical down-
stream locations. Further, the breach outflow hydrographs are routed using dynamic flood wave routing. Further
HEC-RAS model is simulated for breach parameters derived from five different empirical methods, and the re-
sults are compared. A sensitivity analysis is also carried out to know the variation of peak flow and maximum
stage with respect to the breach parameters. The immediate downstream of the dam experience a peak flow of
72,085.45 m3 /s and 78,454.82 m3 /s and the corresponding inundation area of 75.224 km2 and 79.205 km2 due
to piping failure and overtopping failure, respectively. Around twenty village located on the downstream of dam
location gets affected due to flood produced by dam break. The analysis shows that overtopping failure is more
severe than failure due to piping. The study shall further help authorities concerned to develop an emergency
response plan and flood mitigation measures.

1. Introduction erable property harm, catastrophic effects on human safety, ecological

The construction of dams is perhaps the best method for safeguard-
ing sustainable water supply (Khosravi et al., 2019; Murthy, 1998;
Derdous et al., 2015) and overcoming the growing population’s rising
water demand (Bharath et al., 2020; Schutte and Pretorius, 1997).
Dam is a barrier that stores water and plays a vibrant role in the
country’s economy (Abhijith et al., 2017; Kahraman and Kaya, 2009;
Yusuf, 2009). Dams serve various purposes like irrigation, wa-
ter supply, flood control and power generation (Jain et al., 1998;
Hadjerioua et al., 2015). Even though the dams are very beneficial
for society (Derdous et al., 2015), floods arising from the dam failure
have caused the most devastating disasters (Xiong, 2011; Lariyah et al.,
2013; Evans et al., 2000; Pellicani et al., 2018), bringing about consid-
quality, and the landscape (Hadjerioua et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2017;
Zhang et al., 2016).
Earthen dams are among the most widely recognized dams
(Ashraf et al., 2018) due to their suitability for any type of foundation,
simple construction, and relatively economical (Maddamsetty et al.,
2010). However, the earthen dams are more susceptible to failure as
they are less rigid (Maddamsetty et al., 2010; Pa and Sin, 2020). The
dam failure results in the development of a catastrophic flood wave ca-
pable of damaging the downstream activities, active sediment transport,
and morphological changes (Cao et al., 2014).
Dam break is summarized as a dam’s partial or disastrous fail-
ure resulting in uncontrolled flooding in the downstream (George and
Nair, 2015; Leoul, 2015). Dam break brings a flood wave of greater
height and velocity, which affects the life and property in the down-

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bashu@gitam.edu (A. Bharath), rmaddams@gitam.edu (R. Maddamsetty).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100401
Received 4 August 2021; Received in revised form 17 November 2021; Accepted 22 November 2021
2667-0100/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al.
stream (Mujumdar, 2001; Frenette and Munteanu, 2005). Although a
suitable safety factor is considered in designing, the dams still fail due
to many causes like piping, overtopping, seepage, earthquakes, etc.
(Shahrim and Ros, 2020; Rong et al., 2020; Foster et al., 2000). Consid-
ering the threat of dam failure and its impacts, it becomes necessary for
dam break analysis, which helps the decision-makers in planning land
use and developing emergency response plans to mitigate the calami-
tous loss of life and damage to property (Froehlich, 2008; Elfalan, 2008;
Wu et al., 2011). The failure of Baldwin Hills Dam, California in 1964
and Lower Van Norman Dam due to the earthquake in 1971 provoked
the dam authorities to prepare inundation maps for dam failures. Con-
sequently, the requirement for investigating techniques to assess the
breach hydrograph came into existence. Numerous dam failures that oc-
curred in The United States during the 1970s motivated the researchers
to focus much on dam safety (Wu et al., 2011).
The study of over 1065 earthen dam failures reveals that significant
causes of earthen dam failure are overtopping and piping. Spillways,
downstream slopes and foundations are the potential locations at risk
for overtopping failure, whereas for the piping failure entire dam section
is at potential risk (Zhang et al., 2009).
Most of the dam failures give warning on the formation of a breach
in the structure. A breach in the dam’s body generates flood wave from
the impounded water stored in upstream of the dam (Xiong, 2011). The
people in downstream are to be provided with the information on oc-
currence of dam breach or otherwise unavoidable expenses might be
required (Wahl, 1997) in either protecting the area from the hazard or
mitigate the issue.
Breach outflow hydrograph prediction and routing of the same are
the essential tasks of dam break analysis (Wu et al., 2011). Thus, the
flood hydrograph shape and affected length along the river course are
the two crucial aspects in dam break analysis (Wahl, 1997). Predict-
ing flood help in developing an emergency plan to safeguard life and
property against flood hazards (Mohamed, 2018). Accurate prediction
of dam break flood wave and their propagation along the downstream
valley are usually undertaken by hydraulic models (Wang et al., 2015;
Sowiński, 2006).
A team of federal, state, and consulting engineers have reported
their study on Hawaii Dam Break analysis and found that the re-
sults obtained through FLOW-2D and HEC-RAS were relatively similar
(Ackerman et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2017) with regard to submerged
area and water surface elevation. Gogoaşe Nistoran et al. (2016) ana-
lyhzed Bicaz dam, Romania using HEC-RAS to assess the depth, ve-
locity, and travel time of a dam break flood wave. (Xiong (2011)
performed dam break analysis on Foster Joseph Sayers dam, United
States for unsteady flow condition considering probable maximum
flood to predict the stage and flow hydrographs in the downstream.
Kulkarni and Jagtap (2017) analyzed Pawana Dam, India for dam
break scenario using HEC-RAS to estimate maximum discharge, veloc-
ity, stage and top width. Abhijith et al. (2017) has analyzed dam break
scenario on Idukki dam, India using HEC-RAS to estimate the maxi-
mum stage, maximum discharge and their arrival at different locations.
Chandrabose et al. (2014) has used HEC-GeoRAS to derive river ge-
ometry data from SRTM digital elevation model and HEC-RAS for per-
forming dam break analysis for Malankara dam, India to obtain stage,
flow hydrograph and inundation area. Many researchers have compared
one and two-dimensional hydraulic models, among which HEC-RAS is
the most commonly used model for dam break analysis (Rendon et al.,
2012) because of its reliable prediction and being an open-source tool.
Researchers have also preferred using the HEC-RAS model for flood sim-
ulation as it gives accurate results, even in the complex channel geome-
try and bed discontinuity exists by approximation, which poses signifi-
cant challenges in more robust unsteady hydraulic models (Kalam et al.,
2016; Pathan and Agnihotri, 2020; Gee and Brunner, 2005; Hicks and
Peacock, 2005).
HEC-RAS was developed by the USACE to manage and control
the rivers, channels, harbours, and other public works. HEC-RAS soft-
2
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401
ware provides simulations like one-dimensional steady flow, one and
two-dimensional unsteady flow, sediment transport, bed computations
and water temperature/water quality modeling (Seker et al., 2003;
Hosseinzadeh-Tabrizi and Ghaeini-Hessaroeyeh, 2015; Vojtek et al.,
2019). This model is more commonly used for floodplain manage-
ment and flood insurance studies to evaluate floodway encroachments
(Andrei et al., 2017; Shahiriparsa et al., 2016). Most of the models do
not directly simulate the breach; instead, the user must determine the
ultimate breach parameters and the time required for breach formation.
After providing the inputs to the hydraulic model, it then progressively
simulates the breach development. Ultimately, the breach parameters
are estimated using various empirical equations developed based on the
dam and reservoir characteristics such as dam height and storage vol-
ume (Wahl, 1997).
The two essential tasks in dam break modeling are predicting
the dam breach outflow hydrograph and generating the inundation
maps (Wahl, 1997; Ackerman and Brunner, 2008). Outflow hydro-
graph prediction can be partitioned into predicting the breach param-
eters; breach width, depth, breach formation time, routing the reser-
voir storage, and influx through the breach along the downstream
(Xiong, 2011; Wahl, 1997; Sharma, 2016). Prediction of the shape, mag-
nitude, and timing of a flash flood hydrograph resulting from a dam
failure is essential for evacuation planning and safe reservoir operations
(Murthy, 1998; Singh et al., 1988; Sammen et al., 2017).
The literature available on the dam break analysis reveals that many
models for flood simulation have been in use. However, no significant
efforts are made to compare the results using breach parameters derived
from different empirical equations (Froehlich, 2008, 1995; Zhang et al.,
2009; MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis, 1984). The present study
focuses on the breach outflow hydrograph analysis in various situations
of breach parameters.
The primary objective of this study is to perform dam break anal-
ysis for the Hidkal dam to predict the flood wave characteristics like
peak flood discharge and its stage along with the time of occurrence
of peak flood and routing the peak flood hydrograph for the different
downstream stretch along the river course. The authors have prepared
the inundation maps for different dam failure scenarios.
2. . Methodology
2.1. Study area
Hidkal dam, popularly known as “Raja Lakhamagouda Dam” is lo-
cated at Hidkal village, Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District, Karnataka, In-
dia, at latitude 16 ° 09 ′’ N and longitude of 74 ° 38 ′’ E as shown in
Fig. 1. It is constructed across the Ghataprabha River, a tributary of Kr-
ishna and has a catchment area of 1412 km2 . The precipitation ranges
from 6250 mm to about 1000 mm and the annual mean temperature
ranges from 7.5 °C (Tmin ) to 40.5 °C (Tmax ) (Bharath et al., 2020). The
catchment area is situated in an extremely hilly region and most of it
is covered by forest and shrub growth. The land use in the catchment
has four different classifications, i.e., agricultural land, forest, shrubs
and barren/ fallow land. Hidkal dam is a composite structure of earthen
embankment and masonry structure. The main section of the dam has a
length of 4481 m and the total length of 10,183 m. The dam is 53.34 m in
height above the foundation with ten vertical crest gates and impounds a
large area with a gross water surface area of 63.38 km2 . The dam stores
51.00 TMC ft of water and has an irrigable command area of 7,84,400
acres and supplies drinking water for Belagavi city and many villages.
Further, the stored water is also used for hydroelectric power genera-
tion while releasing the water for irrigation purpose. It has an installed
capacity of 32 MW and an annual yield of 131 MU. (Source: Office of
Chief Engineer KNNL Irrigation North Zone, Belagavi, Karnataka state,
India).
Since its completion in 1978, it has experienced many floods, often
putting people of downstream villages under stress. Therefore, the study
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Fig. 1. Location map of Hidkal dam.

by the authors is an attempt to analyze the situation during dam breach The 1-D St. Venant’s unsteady flow equations of conservation of mass
through the dam break analysis, which gives an insight for authorities and conservation of momentum are as follows:
on the flood protection.
𝜕A 𝜕Q
This study mainly involves two steps; firstly, dam break flood hy- + =0 (1)
𝜕x 𝜕x
drograph is estimated at the dam location. The next step involves rout-
ing breach flood hydrograph to downstream stations and generating ( ) ( )
floodplain maps for different dam failure modes. The hydraulic model 𝜕Q 𝜕 Q2 𝜕z
+ + gA + Sf − Se = 0 (2)
HEC-RAS 5.0.1 is used for dam break analysis, and HEC-GeoRAS is 𝜕t 𝜕x A 𝜕x
used to generate river geometric data and floodplain mapping. HEC-
Where Q is the discharge, A is the total flow area, t is time, z is the
RAS uses flood routing techniques proposed by St. Venant’s equations
elevation of the water surface above the datum line, g is the acceleration
for unsteady flow (Ackerman et al., 2008; Pathan and Agnihotri, 2020;
due to gravity, Sf is the friction slope, Se is the expansion-contraction
Leandro et al., 2011; Leandro and Martins, 2016; Bharath et al., 2021).
slope. Eqs. (1), (2)

3
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al.
The methodology adopted for performing dam break analysis is
shown in Fig. 2, and the following subsections explain the steps followed
in hydraulic modeling, model simulation, and floodplain mapping.
2.2. Geometric data
For any hydraulic modeling the basic requirement is the river ge-
ometry. The river geometry data can be extracted by field survey or by
remote sensed data. Acquiring data by conventional survey techniques
gives accurate river geometry but it is tedious and time consuming as
large area is to be surveyed. Whereas usage of remote sensed data saves
time and cost hence its usage has been increased in hydraulic model-
ing (Bharath et al., 2021; Sodango et al., 2021; Annis et al., 2020). In
the current study, Cartosat-1 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of 30 m
resolution (Source: ISRO Bhuvan) is used which is then converted to
Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) format to extract the river geome-
try data.
The reservoir can be modeled in two ways in HEC-RAS. Firstly, as
storage reservoir pool with a storage-elevation relationship which re-
sults in level pool routing. Second, as 1D cross-sections throughout the
reservoir pool, which results in dynamic flood routing. Reservoirs with
long narrow pools will unveil a more significant water surface slope in
upstream of the dam than wide and short reservoirs (USACE, 2016).
Therefore, full dynamic wave (unsteady flow) routing is the most ac-
curate modeling technique to capture pool elevations and outflow of
long narrow reservoirs. The user can model the pool with 1D cross-
sections for full dynamic wave routing in HEC-RAS throughout the reser-
voir (USACE, 2016). Fig. 3 highlights the cross-sections of the river ob-
4
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401
Fig. 2. Methodology.
tained from the HEC-GeoRAS tool using TIN data prepared from DEM.
Manning’s roughness coefficients are selected based on land use and
land cover through visual inspection of the site using web imagery
(Yochum et al., 2008).
2.3. Dam modeling
In HEC-RAS, a dam is modeled as an inline structure with at least
two cross-sections specified in the upstream. The dam is modelled in
HEC-RAS by defining all its geometric features, material properties and
discharge outlets etc. The cross-section of the dam, complete dam struc-
ture, along with spillways and sluice gates, are presented in Fig. 4. The
reservoir storage is modeled using cross-sections, resulting in full dy-
namic wave routing as it permits a sloping water surface on dam up-
stream during the failure (Ackerman and Brunner, 2008).
2.4. Dam breach data
For dam break analysis, various breach parameters like final bottom
breach width, the final elevation of breach bottom, side slope of the
breach, breach formation time, initial reservoir elevation corresponding
to the breach initiation are required. Breach parameter estimation using
regression equations requires the dam height, the material used, water
surface elevation, and storage volume. In the present study, regression
equations proposed by Froehlich (2008) are used for breach parameters
estimation for piping and overtopping failure modes on the Hidkal dam.
Table 1 represents the breach parameters used in this study.
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Fig. 3. Cross-sections of Ghataprabha River stretch at Hidkal dam in HEC-RAS.

Fig. 4. Inline structure at river station 23,304.79 in HEC-RAS.

Table 1 2.5. Flow data and boundary conditions

Dam breach data.

Breach Dam failure mode Boundary conditions are an essential input that significantly affects
parameter the downstream floodwater. These boundary conditions must be chosen
Piping Overtopping
appropriately, and they should represent the actual site conditions. In
Breach depth in m 50 48 this analysis, the upstream boundary condition provided is inflow hy-
Breach width in m 222 285 drograph; probable maximum flood (PMF) hydrograph provided by dam
Side slopes 0.7 1
Breach formation time in hr 3.96 4.12
authority (Fig. 5). Normal depth (friction slope value = 0.0004) is given
as downstream boundary condition. At the inline structure, the time se-
ries of gate opening is defined as the boundary condition, i.e., 0.1 m of
spillway gate is kept open throughout the simulation period, whereas
the sluice gate is completely closed.

5
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al.
Fig. 5. Probable maximum flood hydrograph.
Table 2
Stage-flow details at the inline structure.
Piping failure
Particular
Maximumelevation Time since breach formation in hours
Headwater Stage (m) 666.48 35.67
Tailwater Stage (m) 647.16 38.67
Peak discharge (m3 /s) 72,085.45 38.6
2.6. Floodplain mapping
Simulation results obtained through HEC-RAS application are given
as an input for HEC-GeoRAS to generate inundation maps to know the
likely areas that get affected due to flood. The geo-referenced cross-
sections are imported, the water surface elevation is attached to the
cross-sections, and the continuous water surface is generated. Then the
comparison is made between the water surface and terrain. Then the
floodplain maps are generated corresponding to the elevation of the
flood event. The floodplain is used in identifying the affected areas for
different dam failure scenarios (Ackerman and Brunner, 2008).
3. Results and discussions
The study reports the scenario due to the piping and overtopping
failure modes of Hidkal dam and flood inundation map for the
22 km stretch on downstream of the reservoir.
3.1. Flood hydrograph and stage hydrograph
Unsteady flow simulation is carried out for piping and overtop-
ping failure for reservoir full condition considering a downstream river
stretch of 22 km. Cross-sections are extracted at closer intervals and fur-
ther, the same are interpolated with an interval of 150–200 m. HEC-RAS
model is simulated by considering PMF from 01-July-2020 at 9 am to
03-July-2020 at 10 am and the obtained results correspond to the same
simulation period.
Fig. 6 (A and B) represents the dam profile before and after the simu-
lation, respectively. The figure highlights the breach formed in the dam
section and depleted water surface level at the end of the simulation.
Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 represent the stage hydrograph (headwater stage
and tailwater stage) and the flood hydrograph at the inline structure for
piping and overtopping failure modes, respectively. Table 2 represents
6
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401
Overtopping
Maximumelevation Time since breach formation in hours
668.52 33.67
651.82 34.23
78,454.82 34.83
the maximum headwater stage, tailwater stage, peak discharge, and ar-
rival time for both failure modes. From the start of breach formation,
the maximum flow rate is observed at 3.6 and 3.33 h for piping and
overtopping failure. The results show that the headwater stage, tail wa-
ter stage and the peak discharge value of breach outflow hydrograph
is maximum in the overtopping failure than that of piping failure, and
their occurrence time is also much earlier than that of piping failure.
3.2. Flood inundation maps
HEC-RAS results are exported, and floodplain maps are generated us-
ing HEC-GeoRAS. Fig. 9 (A and B) represents the inundated downstream
area due to piping and overtopping failure. It is found that an area of
75.224 km2 is inundated in the downstream due to piping failure and
79.205 km2 for overtopping failure. The maximum depth of flow varies
from 30.44 m at the downstream of the dam up to 13.15 m at the end
of river reach for piping failure, whereas 35.1–13.87 m for overtopping
failure. The inundated area and the maximum depth are very high in
the overtopping failure scenario and pose a greater threat to the down-
stream region. However, the overtopping failure can be avoided with
proper reservoir operation. It has been found that seventeen villages get
completely inundated and three villages are partially inundated with
the condition considered in the present study. The population and live-
stock residing in these areas have a severe threat of damage to their life
and property. The large agricultural land area is being inundated; hence,
there will be a significant loss of crops, affecting the people’s economy.
3.3. Flow variation at different river stations
Flood hydrographs at different river locations on downstream of the
dam such as 5 km, 10 km, 15 km, 20 km, and 22 km from the dam
for piping and overtopping failures are as shown in Fig. 10 and Fig.
11, respectively. The results show that the magnitude of peak flow is
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Fig. 6. Dam section, (A) Before simulation and (B) At the end of the simulation.

Fig. 7. Stage-flow hydrograph at the inline structure for piping failure.

Fig. 8. Stage-flow hydrograph at the inline structure for overtopping failure.

very high at the location immediately downstream of the dam and it de-
creases gradually towards the downstream. Table 3 represents the peak
flow rate and its time of arrival at different river locations. For piping
failure, it is observed that the peak flow rate at the location immediately
downstream of the dam is 72,085.45 m3 /s, and at the end of the river
reach is 59,701.73 m3 /s, and the corresponding time of arrival is 3.6 h
and 5.6 h, respectively from the start of breach formation. Whereas for
overtopping failure, it is observed that the peak flow rate at the loca-
tion immediately on the dam downstream is 78,454.81 m3 /s and at the
end of the river reach is 69,028.94 m3 /s, and the corresponding time of
arrival is 3.33 h and 5.15 h, respectively from the start of breach forma-
tion. The kinks formed in the hydrographs at locations 5 and 10 km may
be due to the surge created in the flow due to the meandering of streams
and valley cross-sections. The results indicate that the peak flow in the
downstream region gradually decreases as the distance increases. At all
the stations, the peak flow values are higher in overtopping failure than
piping failure.
3.4. Stage at various river locations
Stage hydrographs at the dam site and river location on downstream
of the dam at 5 km, 10 km, 15 km, 20 km, and 22 km distance from the
dam are plotted for piping and overtopping failure scenarios as shown in
Fig. 12 and Fig. 13, respectively. The results indicate that the peak stage

7
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Fig. 9. Flood inundation map for (A) Piping failure (B) Overtopping failure.

Fig. 10. Flood hydrographs for piping failure.

Table 3
Peak flow rate and its time of arrival.

River location (km) Piping failure Overtopping failure

Peak flow (m3 /s) Arrival time (h) Peak flow (m3 /s) Arrival time (h)

Immediately on dam d/s 72,085.5 3.6 78,454.81 3.33

5 73,613.2 4.67 86,261.8 4.27
10 69,718 4.75 81,313.9 4.35
15 65,081.4 4.88 75,428.28 4.48
20 60,014 5.38 69,488.55 4.9
22 59,701.7 5.6 69,028.94 5.15

is higher immediately downstream of the dam and decreases towards the
downstream.
Table 4 represents the maximum stage, flood depth and its time of
arrival at different river locations. For piping failure, it is observed that
the maximum flood depth immediately on dam downstream location is
30.44 m and at the end of the river reach considered is 13.15 m. The
arrival time of peak flood at the dam downstream and the end of the
river reach considered is 3.78 h and 5.52 h, respectively from the start
of breach formation. Whereas for overtopping failure, it is observed that
the maximum flood depth immediately on dam downstream is 35.1 m
and the end of river reach considered is 13.87 m. The arrival time of peak
flood at the dam downstream and the end of the river reach considered
is 2.73 h and 5.1 h, respectively from the start of breach formation. The
kinks in the stage hydrograph at the downstream station may be due
to the surge formed in the upstream during failure. The results indicate
that the peak stage on the downstream region gradually decreases as the
distance increases. At all the stations, the peak stage values are higher
in overtopping failure than piping failure.

8
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Fig. 11. Flood hydrographs for overtopping failure.

Fig. 12. Stage hydrographs for piping failure.

Table 4
Maximum stage and its time of arrival.

River station Piping failure Overtopping failure

(km)
Maximum stage (m) Maximum flood depth (m) Arrival time (h) Maximum stage (m) Maximum flood depth (m) Arrival time (h)

Dam d/s 647.16 30.44 3.78 651.82 35.1 2.73

5 633.14 19.76 4.68 634.12 20.73 4.3
10 632.07 18.99 4.77 632.99 19.89 4.38
15 629.19 17.89 5.13 630.03 18.7 4.7
20 626.3 14.29 5.52 627.02 15.02 5.03
22 625.15 13.15 5.52 625.87 13.87 5.1

The peak attained at different locations for both the failure modes
along the river stretch chosen for the study is represented in Table 5. It
can be seen that the peak flow at all locations for overtopping failure is
higher than that of piping failure; hence, the overtopping failure can be
considered to be the critical failure mode for dam break analysis.
3.5. Model calibration
Channel resistance, i.e., Manning’s roughness coefficient ’n’ is the
only parameter required by a hydraulic model for calibration. But in
the flood forecasting applications, data of a flood of similar magnitude

9
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Fig. 13. Stage hydrographs for overtopping failure.

Table 5
Peak flow along the river stretch for failure modes.

River location Peak flow for piping failure (m3 /s) Peak flow for overtopping failure (m3 /s) Difference in peak flow (m3 /s)

Dam D/S 72,085.5 78,454.8 6369.36

5 km 73,613.2 86,261.8 12,648.6
10 km 69,718 81,313.9 11,595.9
15 km 65,081.4 75,428.3 10,346.9
20 km 60,014 69,488.6 9474.57
22 km 59,701.7 69,028.9 9327.21

Fig. 14. Breach outflow hydrographs for Manning’s ‘n’ values.

that had occurred before is required for calibration which would not
be available. In such situations, the conventional method is to conduct
a model sensitivity analysis for a range of Manning’s roughness coeffi-
cients. Confidence in the model results is increased if the model shows
less sensitivity to this parameter.
Fig. 14 shows the breach outflow hydrograph for piping and over-
topping failure for various Manning’s ‘n’ values. From the figure it can
be noticed that the flow hydrograph shows very less or negligible vari-
ations to varying Manning’s roughness coefficient. Hence the model is
assumed to perform and give reliable results (Hicks and Peacock, 2005;
Brunner, 2014; Tsai et al., 2019).
3.6. Comparison of empirical methods
To assess the variation in the behavior of the dam breach, the
HEC-RAS model is simulated for breach parameters derived from
five different empirical methods for the piping failure mode only,
as the spillway of the considered dam has sufficient capacity to
discharge the PMF. The empirical methods available in the HEC-
RAS model are used to derive breach parameters for the dam
(Table 6).
Figs. 15 and 16 represents the maximum stage and peak flow ob-
tained using empirical equations at locations along the river stretch on
dam downstream. The empirical equation given by MacDonald et al.

10
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al. Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401

Table 6
Breach parameters by empirical equations.

Breach Empirical methods

parameters
Froehlich (2008) Froehlich (1995) Von Thun and Gillette (2021) Xu and Zhang (2021) MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984)

Bottom width (m) 222 264 135 154 663

Side Slope 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.52 0.5
Formation Time (hr) 3.96 4.97 1.09 9.77 4.75
Breach depth (m) 50 50 50 50 50

Fig. 15. Maximum stage for empirical methods.

Fig. 16. Peak flow for empirical methods.

provides the maximum stage and peak values among the various equa-
tions tried in the present investigation, whereas Xu and Zhang (2021)
equation gives the lowest value of these. The higher simulated values in
the case of MacDonald et al. are attributed to higher breach width and a
reasonable time it takes for breach formation time. Whereas in the case
of Xu and Zhang (2021), the lower simulated values may be attributed
to lower breach width and the greater beach formation time. From
this, it can be understood that the breach width has a direct effect and
breach formation time has an indirect effect on the peak flow and stage
values.

11
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al.
Fig. 17. Peak flow and maximum stage for variation of breach parameter.
3.7. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is carried out by varying each of the breach
parameters as obtained from Froehlich’s (2008) equations by step
difference of 20% while keeping the remaining parameters constant
to understand their impact on peak flow and stage (Xiong, 2011;
Lariyah et al., 2013; Sidek, 2011). Fig. 17 represents the peak flow and
maximum stage corresponding to variation in breach parameters. The
continuous line represents the peak flow variation, and the discontinu-
ous line represents the maximum stage variation.
Fig. 17A indicates that the peak flow and maximum stage values are
directly proportional to the breach width, i.e., the peak flow and maxi-
mum stage increases with an increase in breach width. The steepness of
curves indicates that the magnitude of peak flow and maximum stage
increases drastically. Fig. 17B shows the increase in peak flow and max-
imum stage values marginally as the side slope of the breach increases.
From Fig. 17C, it is observed that the peak flow and maximum stage
values are inversely proportional, i.e., peak flow and maximum stage
values decrease with an increase in the breach formation time. The peak
flow decreases rapidly, whereas the maximum stage decreases slightly.
It can be observed from Fig. 17D that the peak flow and maximum stage
values are directly proportional to the breach depth. The steep lines in-
dicate that the variation in the breach depth has a greater impact on the
magnitude of peak flow and maximum stage.
Based on percentage variation in peak flow and maximum stage due
to variation in breach parameters, it can be concluded that the peak flow
is very sensitive to the breach depth, width, and formation time, whereas
it is less sensitive to the side slopes of the breach and the maximum
stage is very sensitive to the breach depth and width but less sensitive
to breach formation time and side slopes.
4. Conclusions
Dam break is a very catastrophic event and highly complex process
and the dam failure mechanism is still not well understood fully. The
12
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401
present study on the Hidkal dam, Karnataka state, India, uses the HEC-
RAS model for dam break analysis. The dam break model is simulated
for unsteady flow conditions using PMF as flow data for piping and over-
topping failure modes to understand the dynamics of the dam breach.
HEC-RAS helps in simulating the dam break scenario and breach flood
routing along the downstream of the river stretch. It is also used to find
the hydraulic conditions at desired locations along the river course. On
exporting the results of HEC-RAS to HEC-GeoRAS, the inundation maps
are generated to know the submerged areas and villages affected due to
dam beach corresponding to due to piping and overtopping failures.
The peak flow of 72,085.45 m3 /s and 78,454.82 m3 /s, immediately
on the downstream of the dam and an inundation area of 75.224 km2
and 79.205 km2 for piping failure and overtopping failure, respectively.
Since the peak flow values for overtopping failure is higher than the
piping failure, the overtopping failure mode can be considered as the
critical failure mode. Further, a sensitivity analysis is done to know the
sensitivity of breach parameters to peak flow and maximum stage. The
sensitivity analysis results show the peak flow is very sensitive to the
breach depth, width, and formation time, whereas less sensitive to the
side slopes of the breach and the maximum stage is very sensitive to the
breach depth and width but less sensitive to breach formation time and
side slopes.
The inundation maps so generated show that around twenty villages
on the banks of 22 km stretch immediately downstream of Hidkal dam
are affected by the flood, among which seventeen villages are severely
affected. As the dam failure poses a significant threat to people and
property downstream, the results of this study help to take precautions
to protect people’s lives and property by taking suitable measures to
avoid catastrophes. This study also helps the authorities to develop an
emergency response plan and flood mitigation measures.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al.
References
Khosravi, K., Rostaminejad, M., Cooper, J.R., Mao, L., Melesse, A.M., 2019. Dam Break
Analysis and Flood Inundation Mapping: The Case Study of Sefid-Roud Dam, Iran.
Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-815998-9.00031-2.
Murthy, J.S.R., 1998. Gradual dam breach flow routing. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 4, 30–38.
doi:10.1080/09715010.1998.10514630.
Derdous, O., Djemili, L., Bouchehed, H., Tachi, S.E., 2015. A GIS based approach for the
prediction of the dam break flood hazard-a case study of Zardezas reservoir “Skikda,
Algeria. J. Water Land Dev. 27, 15–20. doi:10.1515/jwld-2015-0020.
Bharath, A., Manjunatha, M., Tangadagi, R.B., Shailaja, P., 2020a. Environmental assess-
ment for rainwater harvesting at GITAM Campus. J. Green Eng. JGE 10, 1776–1785.
Schutte, C.F., Pretorius, W.A., 1997. Water demand and population growth. Water SA 23,
127–133. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511582363.006, (accessed September 15, 2021).
Abhijith, R., Amrutha, G., Vijayaraj, G., Rijisha, T.V., 2017. Dam break analy-
sis of Idukki Dam using HEC RAS. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 4, 3410–3415
https://irjet.net/archives/V4/i7/IRJET-V4I7674.pdf.
Kahraman, C., Kaya, I., 2009. Fuzzy process capability indices for quality con-
trol of irrigation water. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 23, 451–462.
doi:10.1007/S00477-008-0232-8.
Yusuf, K., 2009. Influence of Jebba Hydropower Dam on Statistical Distribution of Hy-
dro-Meteorological Variables in Niger River Basin. Academia Education, Nigeria
(n.d.).
Jain, S.K., Goel, M.K., Agarwal, P.K., 1998. Reservoir operation studies of
Sabarmati system, India. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag 124, 31–37.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1998)124:1(31).
B. Hadjerioua, A.M. Witt, K.M. Stewart, M. Bonnet Acosta, M. Mobley, The economic
benefits of multipurpose reservoirs in the United States-federal hydropower fleet, Oak
Ridge, TN (United States), 2015. 10.2172/1237622.
Xiong, Y., 2011. A dam break analysis using HEC-RAS. J. Water Resour. Prot. 03, 370–379.
doi:10.4236/jwarp.2011.36047.
Lariyah, M.S., Vikneswaran, M., Hidayah, B., Muda, Z.C., Thiruchelvam, S., Isham, A.K.A.,
Rohani, H., 2013. Numerical modelling dam break analysis for water supply project.
In: Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 16.
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/16/1/012044.
Evans, J.E., Mackey, S.D., Gottgens, J.F., Gill, W.M., 2000. Lessons from a dam failure.
Ohio J. Sci. 100, 121–131.
Pellicani, R., Parisi, A., Iemmolo, G., Apollonio, C., 2018. Economic risk evaluation in
urban flooding and instability-prone areas: the case study of San Giovanni Rotondo
(Southern Italy). Geosci 8, 112. doi:10.3390/GEOSCIENCES8040112, 2018Page8112.
Kumar, S., Jaswal, A., Pandey, A., Sharma, N., 2017. Literature review of dam break stud-
ies and inundation mapping using hydraulic models and GIS. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.
4. https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i5/IRJET-V4I511.pdf. 2395–56.
Zhang, L., Peng, M., Chang, D., Xu, Y., 2016. Dam breach modeling. In: Dam Failure
Mechanisms and Risk Assessment, pp. 161–221. doi:10.1002/9781118558522.ch8.
Ashraf, M., Soliman, A.H., El-Ghorab, E., El Zawahry, A., 2018. Assessment of embankment
dams breaching using large scale physical modeling and statistical methods. Water Sci.
32, 362–379. doi:10.1016/j.wsj.2018.05.002.
Maddamsetty, R., Praveen, T.V., Rao, S.S., Manjulavani, K., 2010. Tehri Dam-breach ver-
sus monsoon flood routing in the Ganga River system. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 16, 109–
131. doi:10.1080/09715010.2010.10514992.
Pa, P., Sin, S., 2020. Modeling approach for earthen dam breach analysis in North Yamar
Dam, Myanmar. Am. Sci. Res. J. Eng. Technol. Sci. 69, 59–72.
Cao, Z., Huang, W., Pender, G., Liu, X., 2014. Even more destructive: cascade dam break
floods. J. Flood Risk Manag. 7, 357–373. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12051.
George, A.C., Nair, B.T., 2015. Dam break analysis using BOSS DAMBRK. Aquat. Procedia
4, 853–860. doi:10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.107.
A.Z. Leoul, Dam breach analysis using HEC-RAS and HEC-GeoRAS : the case of Kesem
Kebena Dam (doctoral dissertation), (2015) 92.
Mujumdar, P.P., 2001. Flood wave propagation. Resonance 6, 66–73.
doi:10.1007/bf02839085.
Frenette, R., Munteanu, A., 2005. Vertically integrated numerical model to simulate
breach formation by flow overtopping earth-filled dams: hydraulics. J. Hydraul. Res.
43, 408–416. doi:10.1080/00221680509500136.
Shahrim, M.F., Ros, F.C., 2020. Dam break analysis of Temenggor Dam using HEC-RAS. In:
Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, p. 479.
doi:10.1088/1755-1315/479/1/012041.
Rong, G., Wang, X., Xu, H., Xiao, B., 2020. Multifactor regression analysis
for predicting embankment dam breaching parameters. J. Hydraul. Eng. 146.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001653.
Foster, M., Fell, R., Spannagle, M., 2000. The statistics of embankment dam failures and
accidents. Can. Geotech. J. 37, 1000–1024. doi:10.1139/t00-030.
Froehlich, D.C., 2008. Embankment dam breach parameters and their uncertainties. J.
Hydraul. Eng. 134, 1708–1721. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134, 12(1708).
Elfalan, D., 2008. Hawaii Dam break analysis follow-on actions. In: Proceedings
of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 316, pp. 1–8.
doi:10.1061/40976(316)283.
Wu, W., Altinakar, M.S., Song, C.R., Al-Riffai, M., Bergman, N., Bradford, S.F., Cao, Z.,
Chen, Q.J., Constantinescu, S.G., Duan, J.G., Gee, D.M., Greimann, B., Hanson, G.,
He, Z., Hegedus, P., Van Hoestenberghe, T., Huddleston, D., Hughes, S.A., Im-
ran, J., Jia, Y., Jorgeson, J.D., Kahawita, R., Klumpp, C.C., Lai, Y., Langen-
doen, E.J., Liu, S., Moreda, F., Morris, M., Morvan, H., Orendorff, B., Pak, J.,
Peeters, P., Reed, S., Sanders, B.F., Scott, S.H., Soares-Frazao, S., Sutherland, J.,
Teal, M.J., Tsubaki, R., Wahl, T.L., Weston, D.M., Williams, D.T., Zech, Y.,
Zhang, L., 2011. Earthen embankment breaching. J. Hydraul. Eng. 137, 1549–1564.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000498.
13
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401
Zhang, L., Xu, Y., Jia, J.S., 2009. Analysis of earth dam failures: a database approach.
Georisk 3, 184–189. doi:10.1080/17499510902831759.
Wahl, T.L., 1997. Predicting embankment dam breach parameters-a needs assessment. In:
Proceedings of the International Association for Hydraulic Research Congress (IAHR),
pp. 48–53.
Mohamed, M.M.A., 2018. Overtopping breach peak outflow approximation of embank-
ment dam by using Monte Carlo method. Beni Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 7, 724–
732. doi:10.1016/j.bjbas.2018.10.002.
Wang, B., Zhang, T., Zhou, Q., Wu, C., Chen, Y.L., Wu, P., 2015. A case
study of the Tangjiashan landslide dam-break. J. Hydrodyn. 27, 223–233.
doi:10.1016/S1001-6058(15)60476-0.
Sowiński, M., 2006. An uncertainty analysis of the flood-stage upstream from a bridge.
Water Sci. Technol. 53, 77–84. doi:10.2166/wst.2006.009.
Ackerman, C.T., Fleming, M.J., Brunner, G.W., 2008. Hydrologic and hydraulic models
for performing dam break studies. In: Proceedings of the World Environmental and
Water Resources Congress, 316, pp. 1–11. doi:10.1061/40976(316)285.
Chen, W., Huang, G., Zhang, H., 2017. Urban stormwater inundation simulation based
on SWMM and diffusive overland-flow model. Water Sci. Technol. 76, 3392–3403.
doi:10.2166/wst.2017.504.
Gogoaşe Nistoran, D.E., Popovici, D.A.G., Savin, B.A.C., Armaş, I., 2016. GIS for dam-
break flooding. Study area: Bicaz-Izvorul Muntelui (Romania). In: Space and Time
Visualization. Springer, pp. 253–280. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24942-1_15.
Kulkarni, S.R., Jagtap, S.A., 2017. Dam break analysis of Pawana Dam. Int. J. Recent Adv.
Eng. Technol. 5, 20–23.
Chandrabose, G., et al., 2014. Dam break analysis using HEC-RAS with DEM generated
geometry. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 5, 313–319.
S. Rendon, C. Ashworth, S. Smith, Dam-breach analysis and flood-inundation mapping for
Lakes Ellsworth and Lawtonka near Lawton, Oklahoma, (2012) 63.
M.A. Kalam, M. Ramesh, N.B. Rao, P.K. Rao, Management in Zaheerabad, that combines
volunteered geographic Development of a spatial decision support system for Milli
watershed management in Zaheerabad, that combines volunteered geographic infor-
mation system with cloud mobile data collection, (2016).
Pathan, A.I., Agnihotri, P.G., 2020. Application of new HEC-RAS version 5 for 1D hy-
drodynamic flood modeling with special reference through geospatial techniques:
a case of River Purna at Navsari, Gujarat, India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 1–12.
doi:10.1007/s40808-020-00961-0.
Gee, D.M., Brunner, G.W., 2005. Dam break flood routing using HEC-RAS and NWS-
FLDWAV. In: Proceedings of the World Water and Environmental Resources Congress,
p. 401. doi:10.1061/40792(173)401.
Hicks, F.E., Peacock, T., 2005. Suitability of HEC-RAS for flood forecasting. Can. Water
Resour. J. 30, 159–174. doi:10.4296/cwrj3002159.
Seker, D.Z., Kabdasli, S., Rudvan, B., 2003. Risk assessment of a dam-break using GIS
technology. Water Sci. Technol. 89–95. doi:10.2166/wst.2003.0546.
Hosseinzadeh-Tabrizi, A., Ghaeini-Hessaroeyeh, M., 2015. Coupled dam-break flow and
bed load modelling using HLLC-WAF scheme. Water Sci. Technol. 72, 1155–1167.
doi:10.2166/wst.2015.324.
Vojtek, M., Petroselli, A., Vojteková, J., Asgharinia, S., 2019. Flood inundation mapping
in small and ungauged basins: sensitivity analysis using the EBA4SUB and HEC-RAS
modeling approach. Hydrol. Res. 50, 1002–1019. doi:10.2166/NH.2019.163.
Andrei, A., Robert, B., Erika, B., 2017. Numerical limitations of 1D hydraulic models
using MIKE11 or HEC-RAS software-case study of Baraolt River, Romania. In: Pro-
ceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, p. 245.
doi:10.1088/1757-899X/245/7/072010.
Shahiriparsa, A., Noori, M., Heydari, M., Rashidi, M., 2016. Floodplain zoning simulation
by using HEC-RAS and CCHE2D models in the Sungai Maka River. Air Soil Water Res.
9, 55–62. doi:10.4137/ASWR.S36089.
Ackerman, C.T., Brunner, G.W., 2008. Dam failure analysis using HEC-RAS and HEC-Geo-
RAS. In: Proceedings of the 2008 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress,
p. 8 Ahupua’A.
Sharma, P., 2016. Dam break analysis using HEC-RAS and HEC-GeoRAS-
a case study of Ajwa reservoir. J. Water Resour. Ocean Sci. 5, 108.
doi:10.11648/j.wros.20160506.15.
Singh, V.P., Singh, V.P., Scarlatos, P.D., 1988. Analysis of gradual earth-dam failure. J.
Hydraul. Eng. 114 (1), 21–42 114 (1988) 21–42.
Sammen, S.S., Mohamed, T.A., Ghazali, A.H., El-Shafie, A.H., Sidek, L.M., 2017. Gener-
alized regression neural network for prediction of peak outflow from dam breach.
Water Resour. Manag. 31, 549–562. doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1547-8.
Froehlich, D.C., 1995. Embankment dam breach parameters revisited. In: Proceedings of
the Water Resources Engineering Conference, 1, pp. 887–891.
MacDonald, T.C., Langridge-Monopolis, J., 1984. Breaching charateristics of dam failures.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 110, 567–586. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1984)110:5(567).
Bharath, A., Preethi, S., Manjunatha, M., Tangadagi, R.B., 2020b. Prediction of tempera-
ture data for Ghataprabha sub-basin. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 26, 140–144.
Leandro, J., Djordjević, S., Chen, A.S., Savić, D.A., Stanić, M., 2011. Calibration of a 1D/1D
urban flood model using 1D/2D model results in the absence of field data. Water Sci.
Technol. 64, 1016–1024. doi:10.2166/wst.2011.467.
Leandro, J., Martins, R., 2016. A methodology for linking 2D overland flow models with
the sewer network model SWMM 5.1 based on dynamic link libraries. Water Sci.
Technol. 73, 3017–3026. doi:10.2166/wst.2016.171.
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath, Dam break flood routing and inundation map-
ping using HEC-RAS and HEC-GeoRAS, (2021) 129–137. 10.1007/978-3-030-79400-
2_11.
Bharath, A., Kumar, K.K., Maddamsetty, R., Manjunatha, M., Tangadagi, R.B.,
Preethi, S., 2021b. Drainage morphometry based sub-watershed prioritization
of Kalinadi Basin using geospatial technology. Environ. Chall. 5, 100277.
doi:10.1016/j.envc.2021.100277.
A. Bharath, A.V. Shivapur, C.G. Hiremath et al.
Sodango, T.H., Sha, J., Li, X., Noszczyk, T., Shang, J., Aneseyee, A.B., Bao, Z., 2021. Mod-
eling the spatial dynamics of soil organic carbon using remotely-sensed predictors in
Fuzhou city, China. Remote Sens. 13, 1682. doi:10.3390/RS13091682, Page13 (2021)
1682.
Annis, A., Nardi, F., Petroselli, A., Apollonio, C., Arcangeletti, E., Tauro, F., Belli, C., Bian-
coni, R., Grimaldi, S., 2020. UAV-DEMs for small-scale flood hazard mapping. Water
12 (12), 1717. doi:10.3390/W12061717, 2020Page1717.
USACE, HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic reference manual version 5.0, Hydro-
logic Engineering Center. (2016) 547.
Yochum, S.E., Goertz, L.A., Jones, P.H., 2008. Case study of the Big Bay Dam failure:
accuracy and comparison of breach predictions. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134, 1285–1293.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134:9(1285).
14
Environmental Challenges 5 (2021) 100401
G. Brunner, Using HEC-RAS for dam break studies, TD-39, Us Army Corps Eng. Hydrologic
Engineering Center (2014) 74.
Tsai, C.W., Yeh, J.J., Huang, C.H., 2019. Development of probabilistic inundation map-
ping for dam failure induced floods. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 33, 91–110.
doi:10.1007/s00477-018-1636-8.
L. Sidek, 2011, Hydrodynamic dam breach modelling of earthfill Saddle Dam,
Uniten.Edu.My. (n.d.). http://journal.uniten.edu.my/index.php/jee/article/view/117
(accessed September 26, 2021).