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

net/publication/350995254

Dam Break Analysis using HEC-RAS and Flood Inundation Modelling for
Pulichinatala Dam in Andhra Pradesh, India

Article in Indian Journal of Ecology · January 2021

CITATIONS READS

7 912

4 authors:

Meenakshi Ramola P. C. Nayak

National Institute of Hydrology Roorkee National Institute of Hydrology
4 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS 41 PUBLICATIONS 2,944 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Venkatesh Basappa T. Thomas

National Institute of Hydrology National Institute of Hydrology
18 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS 73 PUBLICATIONS 1,180 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by P. C. Nayak on 20 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Manuscript Number: 3262
Indian Journal of Ecology (2021) 48(2): 620-626 NAAS Rating: 4.96

Dam Break Analysis using HEC-RAS and Flood Inundation

Modelling for Pulichinatala Dam in Andhra Pradesh, India

Meenakshi Ramola, P.C. Nayak*, B. Venkatesh1 and T. Thomas2

Deltaic Regional Centre, National Institute of Hydrology, Kakinada- 533 003, India
1
Hard Rock Regional Centre, National Institute of Hydrology, Belagavi- 590 019, India
2
Central India Hydrology Regional Centre, National Institute of Hydrology, Bhopal- 462 016, India
*E-mail: nayakpc@gmail.com

Abstract: Dams have been playing a significant role in enhancing socio-economic status of people and environmental benefits in arid and
semi-arid region of world. However, they cause a huge damage to the life and property when dam breaches. To minimise the effect of dam
breaches, it is important to identify potential areas which likely get affected by using through modelling analysis. The aim of modelling is to
simulate the movement of dam break flood wave along a river valley and to provide a solution in form of warning to the cities living downstream
of dam. The present study analyse the breach of Pulichitnala dam located at Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh upto Prakasam barrage using
HEC-RAS. The data required for analysis such as cross-sections elevation, dam structure, flow hydrograph, rating curve were collected from
3 -1
different line department of the State. The result obtained through the simulation of dam breach indicates a discharge of 121368.90 m sec at
3 -1
dam site and 84042.91 m sec at about 85km away from dam. A sensitivity analysis has been carried out changing Manning's roughness,
changing PMF, breach time and breach width.

Keywords: Dam break, HEC-RAS, Flood, Flood inundation

Dam is constructed for various domestic, agricultural
and industrial purposes across the river. But, sometimes dam
failure can cause high level of flood disaster to its nearby
areas. Floods cannot be fully prevented in advance but the
hazard can be minimized by previously knowing the flood
prone areas. Therefore, to reduce the loss of life, loss of
economy in the flood prone areas, estimation of water levels
of flood and velocity vector is possible by performing dam
break analysis (Balaji and Kumar 2018). It is evident that the
flood cannot be prevented but by adopting proper methods in
evacuation, the losses can be minimized and dam break
analysis is one of the tools for minimization of flood
causalities. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develops HEC-
RAS which is capable to model the dam break with one-
dimensional and two-dimensional steady and unsteady
conditions. For preparedness of this disaster, flood analysis
plays very important role, so that downstream flood wave
propagation can be estimated and inundation map is
prepared for further use (Joshi and Shahapure 2017). Failure
of dam can be of various reasons but mainly overtopping and
piping failures modes are considered. Any failure pattern
starts with an initiation process of breach. Breach can be
defined as a small cut or crack in a dam body that can initiate
a dam failure process and leads the reservoir water to move
downstream of dam with its full velocity. It causes high level of
devastation to the human life, environment and also leads the
economic loss (Yi Frank Xiong 2011). Dam breach
parameters generally classified into two groups (a)
geometrical parameters and (b) time related parameters
(Goel 2017). Breach parameters affect the flood discharge
values and also the other flow parameters, so the proper
calculation of these is very necessary. Chandrabose and
Thulasidharan (2014) have developed a dam break model
using HEC-RAS with the help of DEM generated geometry
for Malankara dam constructed across Thodupuzhariver in
Kerala and for the determination of Probable Maximum Flood
they used the GIUH based Clark's method. Sharma and
Mujumdar (2016) performed the Ajwa dam break modelling
using HEC-RAS software. Anjana et al (2016) reported dam
break analysis of Idukki dam using HEC-RAS. Goel et al
(2017) described the usefulness of HEC-RAS model, dam
breach parameters, data required for modelling and model
setup. Joshi and Shahapure (2017) studied the Vir dam
break analysis using two-dimensional modelling using HEC-
RAS. Abhijith et al (2017) considered the overtopping mode
of failure for the Idukki dam and modelling is performed with
the help of HEC-RAS. Balaji and Kumar (2018) reported
study on dam break analysis of Kalyani dam in Andhra
Pradesh using HEC-RAS model. In the current investigation
Pulichintala dam constructed on Krishna River has been
selected for dam break flow analysis study. It is a major dam
which covers about 50 lakh population downstream of the
 HEC-RAS and Flood Inundation Modelling
dam. One dimensional unsteady simulation is preferred for
this study. The objectives of the study are to investigate dam
break analysis for Pulichintala dam in Andhra Pradesh is to
be carried out using HEC-RAS model. The study includes the
sensitivity analysis of dam failure parameters and will provide
the computation of hydrographs and water level at various
downstream sections.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Study area and data availability: it's a combination of
earthen dam (355.00m) and concrete dam (934.00m) falls
between latitude 16o46'14” N and longitude of 80o03'33” E.
Dam is having a length of 1289.00m with its top elevation
58.24m. It has 24 radial gates with a discharge capacity of
3 -1
57,700 m sec .
Methodology: HEC-RAS is capable of doing one
dimensional, two dimensional modelling. The data
requirement and modelling procedure is different for both. In
this work one-dimensional (1-D) modelling is performed.
Procedure of 1-D modelling gives the hydrograph at every
previously plotted cross-section on the river. In this modelling
1-D Saint Venant's Equation is used as described below. The
equation of Saint Venant expressed in conservation form with
additional terms for the effect of expansion/contraction,
channel sinuosity and non- Newtonian flow consist of mass
equations (subramanya). These equations are:
Conservation of mass equation
Q  S c ( A  A0 )
 q0 (1)
x t
Conservation of momentum equation
2
 ( S m Q)  (  Q / A ) h
 gA   S   S e  S i   0 (2)

t x   x  probable maximum flood (PMF) is of 411 hours, and taken at
Data used: The data required for dam break flow analysis
and modelling is provided by Water Resources Department
(WRD) Govt of Andhra Pradesh and breach data is taken
according to the agency guidelines given in CWC report
(CWC 2018). The required data includes salient features and
detail of hydraulic structure, Manning's roughness value of
river bed and its flood plain, cross-sections elevation on river
reach, elevation-volume curve of reservoir, rating curve or
normal depth at downstream side of dam, probable maximum
flood (PMF) hydrograph of dam and breach parameters.
Breach parameters: Dam breach parameters are useful for
flood analysis. Change in those parameters effect the flood
discharge values. After processing the sensitivity analysis by
varying PMF hydrograph values, Manning's roughness
values, breach time and breach width, an inundation map is
plotted for worst case scenario. According to the National
Weather Services (NWS) guidelines, earthen dams take 0.1
to 1.0 hour failure time and concrete dam take 0.1 to 0.2 hour
621
failure time. Details on dam break parameters are available
with the UK Dam Break Guidelines and U.S Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) Guidelines (FERC 1988).
Data used for Pulichintala dam break analysis is given in
Table 1.
For the whole river course a constant Manning's
Roughness Coefficient is assumed. As the dam breach flood
levels far exceed the normal flood level marks and the flood
spreads beyond the normal river course so the Manning's
roughness coefficient is assumed to be little more than
usually used in other hydrodynamic model. Manning's
coefficients are estimated for active and off channel portions
of the stream based on standard references (Chow 1959).
For active channel and off channel portions values of
Manning's roughness η are taken as 0.035 and 0.045,
respectively. Breach parameters such as: breach width,
breach depth, breach side slope, breach formation time,
breach initiation time. Below shown breach parameters are
calculated according to the guidelines given in government
report (CWC 2018).
Dam break modelling: Pulichintala dam break modelling is
performed using HEC-RAS one-dimensional model. In order
to simulate the model, the necessary details are provided in
different windows named as RasMapper, view/edit geometric
data, view/edit unsteady data, unsteady flow analysis and
finally the model is simulated to perform an unsteady flow
simulation in HEC-RAS model (Fig. 1).
After preparing the geometric shape of model (Fig. 2),
Probable Maximum Flood hydrograph is considered as
upstream boundary condition and rating curve of Prakasam
barrage is taken as downstream boundary condition. The
1hour interval. The initial condition plays important role in 1-
D modelling, for this initial flow is taken as initial value of
PMF hydrograph and initial elevation is taken as initial
elevation of reservoir. After plotting all necessary
information the unsteady simulation processed and results
are generated.
Table 1. Data used for dam break analysis
Parameters used for dam break Unit and measurement
Pulichintala dam (concrete and 1289.00 m
earthen dam) length (L)
Dam height (Hd) 36.34 m
Breach height (Hb) 36.34 m (entire dam height)
Approach flow width (La) 902.3 m (70% of dam length)
Height of water at FRL (Hw) 53.34 m
Volume of water at FRL (Vw) 1026.00 M.Cum
type
Bavg = 0.12 x 1.5 3 (1/4)
x (Vw/H )
b x 672.99m
(2/3)
(La/Hb) x Hb
622 Meenakshi Ramola, P.C. Nayak, B. Venkatesh and T. Thomas
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Flood hydrograph at locations: TBL of the dam is 58.24m
and full reservoir level, FRL is 53.34m. Assumption is made
that elevation of the dam when dam failure starts is 58.24m
which is TBL of the dam. Therefore, for simulating dam break
flood, it has been assumed that initial reservoir level is at
58.24m when PMF inflows into the reservoir. In this situation,
if water level increases and reaches the level of 58.24m or
above the height of the dam, dam will fail by overtopping. In
the analysis breach width (675m), breach time (0.3hour) and
Manning's roughness η are taken as 0.035 and 0.045 for
active and off channel section respectively. Employing the
above described data as input to HEC-RAS model, outflow
hydrographs two different sections are computed (Fig. 3).
Details on outflow hydrographs coordinates at different
locations are presented in Table 2.
The result of combined flow hydrographs at Pulichintala
dam and Prakasam barrage cross-sections are presented
Fig. 1. Dam break modelling chart
(Fig. 3). In peak flow travel time from Pulichintala dam site to
Prakasam barrage is 8 hour. From the analysis it is observed
that the peak value of the discharge decreases and travel
time increases as the flood wave propagates downstream.
The falling limb of the hydrograph goes on smooth and
smoother as the wave travels farther downstream. It may be
noted that the maximum flow at dam site is 121368.9 m3 sec-1
with the water surface elevation of 51.96 m. The water
surface elevation of 29.60m is observed at Prakasham
barrage with flow of 84042.91 m3 sec-1 with a travel time of 8
hours.
Sensitivity analysis of the model parameters: Different
sensitivities analysis is carried out to study the effects of the
most influencing parameters on the flood wave propagation.
Initially, PMF is increased by 50% and its results are
analyzed. Secondly, sensitivity analysis for three model
parameters namely; breach width, time of breach and
Fig. 2. One-dimensional Pulichintala dam break modelling
120000 Hydrograph at Pulichintala dam site
Hydrograph at Prakasam barrage
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 100 200 300 400
Time (hour)
Fig. 3. Flow Hydrograph at Pulichintala Dam and at
Prakasam barrage
 HEC-RAS and Flood Inundation Modelling 623

Manning's roughness constant have been performed. The
input parameters and their variations for the above cases are
presented in Table 3. The comparative results for maximum
discharge and maximum water surface elevation in the study
area are presented in Figure 8 to 11 for PMF, breach length,
time of breach and bed roughness, respectively.
Sensitivity of PMF: In the analysis, PMF is increased by 1.5
times while keeping other parameters constant and used for
dam break analysis and propagation of flood wave is studied.
It is observed that there is only 3.97 m increase in discharge
at the dam section due to increase in PMF 1.5 times (Fig. 4).
Similarly water level is increased by 4.3 m, 2.89 m, 5.96 m
and 6.62 m at 3, 25, 61 and 85 km respectively (Table 4).
While analyzing peak flow, the peak flow was increased when
PMF is increased by 1.5 times. As the PMF values increases
by 1.5 times of initial values, the outflow discharge values
increases by 34.8% and water surface elevation increases by
7.6% correspondingly at the dam section.
Sensitivity of time of failure: The sensitivity of the
breaching time has been studied by changing the time of
breach to 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1 hour. This parameter has a
marginal effect on maximum water level when time of failure
increased from 0.1 hr to 1.0 hour (Table 5). It is evident that
water level observed 51.93m at dam section and 29.59 m at
Prakasam barrage for the breach time of 1.0 hour. Change in
failure time moderately affects the discharge and water
surface elevation results and as the breach time increases
from 0.1 hour to 1.0 hour, the discharge decreases by 7.83%
and the decrease in water surface elevation is about 0.04% at
the dame site. It shows that breach time has very less impact
on maximum water surface elevation.
Sensitivity of breach width: In order to study the effect of

Table 2. Peak discharge and water surface elevation at 160000 Breach hydrograph for PMF
different location Breach hydrograph for 1.5xPMF
140000
Distance from Peak discharge (m3/sec) Peak water surface
dam (km) elevation (m)
120000
0 121368.90 51.96
100000
3 121485.00 52.11
7 121047.40 51.64 80000

15 113955.20 48.83 60000

20 104045.50 48.02
40000
25 103650.50 41.22
35 99446.64 36.36 20000

50 93977.67 33.98 0
0 100 200 300 400
61 89307.70 32.07
Time (hour)
70 85905.43 30.92
Fig. 4. Peak Hydrograph at dam site for PMF and 1.5 times
85 84042.91 29.60 PMF

Table 3. Variation of input parameters for sensitivity analysis

Sensitivity analysis – I Case – 1(a) PMF= 1.5 X PMF
Effect of PMF

Sensitivity analysis – II Case – 2(a) Time of breach = 0.1hour

Effect of breach time
Case – 2(b) Time of breach = 0.3hour
Case – 2(c) Time of breach = 0.5hour
Case – 2(d) Time of breach = 1.0hour
Sensitivity analysis – III Case – 3(a) Breach width = 500m
Effect of breach width
Case – 3(b) Breach width = 675m
Case – 3(c) Breach width = 850m
Case – 3(d) Breach width = 1000m
Sensitivity analysis – IV Case – 4(a) Flood plain =0.045 Main channel=0.035
Effect of roughness
Case – 4(b) Flood plain=0.050 Main channel=0.035
Case – 4(c) Flood plain =0.050 Main channel=0.050
Case – 4(d) Flood plain=0.050 Main channel=0.040
624 Meenakshi Ramola, P.C. Nayak, B. Venkatesh and T. Thomas

breach length, the model is simulated with changing breach
width of 500, 675, 850 and 1000m. The effect of breach width
on the maximum water surface elevation at various
downstream sections (Fig. 5). It has been observed that
when breach width increases, maximum discharge at any
section also increases. The peak flow observed was
121336.2 m3 sec-1 (breach width of 500 m), 121368.9 m3 sec-1
(breach width of 675 m), and 121695.4 m3 sec-1 (breach width
of 850 m), compared to 121696.7 m3 sec-1 (breach width of
1000 m) at the dam site. There is increase in 0.27 % in peak
flow when breach width increased to 850m, similarly peak
flow decreased by 0.03 % when breach width reduced to
500m at dam site. This analysis indicates that increase in
breach width may increase water level and peak flow, but it is
not significant as variations are very less (Table 6). It may be
noted that width of the river is very large, it is varying from
1.4m (dam site) to 3.9 km (Prakasam barrage), and therefore
significant variation is not observed by increasing or
decreasing breach width.
Sensitivity of roughness: Manning's, coefficient is also a
sensitive and important parameter which affect the flow
computation in open channel flow. Further, it is very difficult to
estimate the coefficient value particularly for flood plain
region for which generally no historical flow records are
available. The effect of roughness corresponding to river bed
and flood plains are considered in the present study. In this
study the model has been simulated with 4 sets of Manning's
coefficient (Table 3). When roughness coefficient is
increased by 0.005 for flood plain (Case 4a and b), water
level increase by 0.14 m 0.080 m at dam section and barrage
respectively. Similarly, when roughness coefficient is
increased by 0.005 for flood plain and 0.015 for main channel
(Case 4(c)) water level increase by 2.72 m and 0.37 m at dam
section and barrage, respectively. It is also observed that
maximum water level reaches to 29.97 m at Prakasam
barrage (Fig. 6).
As the river roughness increases from 0.035, 0.40,
0.045, 0.050 the discharge value decreases and water depth
increases. As the main channel roughness increases from
0.035 to 0.050 the decrease in discharge is 12.95% and

Table 4. Sensitivity analysis for PMF

Location from Dam (Km) Peak discharge (m3/s) Peak water surface elevation (m)

PMF 1.5 x PMF PMF 1.5 x PMF

0 121368.90 163534.30 51.96 55.93

3 121485.00 163308.80 52.11 56.41
25 103650.50 143383.80 41.22 44.11
61 89307.70 125946.90 32.07 38.03
85 84042.91 119204.90 29.60 36.22

Table 5. Sensitivity analysis for time of failure

Location from Dam (Km) Peak discharge (m3/s) Peak water surface elevation (m)

1 hr 0.5 hr 0.3 hr 0.1 hr 1 hr 0.5 hr 0.3 hr 0.1 hr

0 119594.30 121368.90 123285.80 128955.00 51.93 51.96 51.96 51.95

3 119751.60 121485.00 123290.50 128338.80 51.98 52.09 52.11 52.12
25 103526.60 103650.50 103763.80 103886.30 41.17 41.21 41.22 41.23
61 89295.24 89307.70 89315.34 89312.48 32.06 32.07 32.07 32.08
85 83975.75 84024.14 84042.91 84060.72 29.59 29.59 29.60 29.60

Table 6. Sensitivity analysis for breach width

Location from Dam (Km) Peak discharge (m3/s) Peak water surface elevation (m)

500 m 675 m 850 m 1000 m 500 m 675 m 850 m 1000 m

0 121336.2 121368.9 121695.4 121696.7 51.90 51.96 52.00 52.03

3 121401.6 121485.0 121834.9 121846.6 52.03 52.11 52.16 52.19
25 103120.3 103650.5 103996.8 104072.9 41.19 41.26 41.25 41.28
61 89041.55 89307.7 89402.92 89446.34 32.05 32.07 32.08 32.09
85 83877.59 84042.91 84098.66 84129.94 29.57 29.60 29.61 29.61
 HEC-RAS and Flood Inundation Modelling 625

increase in water depth is 5.24% at the dam section (Fig. 7). 180000
Inundation map: Final step of dam break analysis is to plot flood plain n=0.045 and main channel n=0.035
flood plain n=0.050 and main channel n=0.035
an inundation map for the study area. Inundation map is 160000 flood plain n=0.050 and main channel n=0.050
flood plain n=0.050 and main channel n=0.040
plotted for breach width of 675m, in which at the dam site the
water level is about 51.96m and at 85km downstream of dam 140000
the water level is 29.60m i.e. at Prakasam barrage. The flood
inundation map shows the detail of flood affected areas 120000
nearby dam and downstream of dam so that in any critical
situation it can help to prevent the locals from flooded water. 100000
There are about 390 numbers of villages that can be
inundated due to this dam breach flood and all the villages 80000
location is visible in the map (Fig. 8). It can also be useful to
60000
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
60 Distance(Km) d/s of dam
W=500m
Fig. 7. Effect of roughness on outflow discharge
W=675m
W=850m
W=1000m
50

40

30

20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance(km) d/s of dam

Fig. 5. Effect of breach width on maximum water surface

elevation

60
flood plain n=0.045, main channel=0.035 Fig. 8. Pulichintala Dam Inundation map
flood plain n=0.050, main channel=0.035
flood plain n=0.050, main channel=0.050
flood plain n=0.050, main channel=0.040 develop an emergency action plan by the respective revenue
50
department/concern office of that area.

CONCLUSIONS
40 The study was carried out using a widely used HEC-RAS
model developed. The outflow hydrographs of the
hypothetical dam break flood at different locations have been
30 studied. For active channel and off channel portions values of
η have been considered as 0.035 and 0.045 respectively. As
the PMF values increases, the results of discharge and water
surface elevation also increases. Increase in breach
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 formation time decreases discharge and water surface
Distance (Km) d/s of dam elevation values. Increase in breach width also increases the
discharge and water surface elevation values. As the
Fig. 6. Effect of bed roughness on maximum water surface
elevation Manning's roughness values (η) increase, the discharge and
View publication stats
626 Meenakshi Ramola, P.C. Nayak, B. Venkatesh and T. Thomas
subsequently the water surface elevation increases also, the
river bed roughness has more impact on flood values than
flood plain roughness values.
REFERENCES
Abhijith R, Amrutha G, Gopika Vijayaraj and Rijisha TV 2017. Dam
break analysis of Idukki dam using HEC RAS. International
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) 4(7):
3410-3415.
Anjana KTK, Dijo Joy, Revathy Manikuttan, Sachin Sas and Binoy
Alias M 2016. Dam Break Analysis Using HEC-RAS.
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology
(IRJET) 3(05): 308-309.
Balaji B and Sanjeet Kumar 2018. Dam break analysis of Kalyani
dam using HEC-RAS. International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology 9(05): 372-380.
Central Water Commission, Government of India 2018. Guidelines
for mapping flood risks associated with dams.
Chow VT 1959. Open-channel hydraulics, New York, McGraw-Hill, p
680.
Costa John E 1985. Flood from Dam Failure, United State
Department of The Interior, Geological Survey Open File
Report, Denver, CO, p 85-560.
FERC 1988. Notice of Revised Emergency Action Plan Guidelines,
Received 12 December, 2020; Accepted 07 March, 2021
USA Federal Regulatory Commission.
Geehtika C and Thulasidharan NB 2014. Dam break analysis using
HECRAS with DEM Generated Geometry. International Journal
of Scientific and Engineering Research 5(7): 313-319.
Goel A, Prasad J and Shiva Prasad HJ 2017. HECRAS 2D Modelling
for Dam Break Inundation Analysis. Proc. of the National
Conference on Current and Future Trends on Emerging
Technologies-CFTET 2017, 11-16.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016. HEC-RAS River Analysis
System Hydraulic Reference Manual, Institute for Water
Resources.
Joshi, Mrunal M and Shahapure SS 2017. Study of two dimensional
dam break analysis using HECRAS for Vir dam. International
Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research 4(8):
982-987.
Sharma Pushkar and Mujumdar Sanskriti 2016. Dam break analysis
using HEC-RAS and HEC-GeoRAS: A case study of Ajwa
reservoir. Journal of Water Resources and Ocean Science 5(6):
108-113.
Subramanya K 1986. Flow in Open Channels, First Revised Edition,
Tata McGraw Hill Ltd., New Delhi, p.1-30.
NWS 1989. Users Manual, “DAMBRK”, the N.W.S. Dam Break Flood
Forecasting Model.
Xiong Yi (Frank) 2011. A dam break analysis using HEC-RAS.
Journal of Water Resource and Protection 3(6): 370-379.