Arabian Journal of Geosciences (2022) 15: 947

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10226-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

Peak discharge from breached embankment dams, analysis,

and prediction
Kawa Z. Abdulrahman1

Received: 8 February 2022 / Accepted: 27 April 2022 / Published online: 7 May 2022
© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2022

Abstract
The dam break peak discharge is one of the most critical parameters necessary for performing an accurate dam break flood
routing and the associated risk assessments. Many attempts have been made to obtain an accurate dam break peak discharge
prediction formula. The majority of the available formulas for predicting the peak discharge, on the other hand, are inac-
curate. The most influential factors that cause the inaccuracy of the formulas are low precision and inconsistency of some of
the compiled databases from which they were derived. This study aimed to eliminate the inconsistency in the peak discharge
database by identifying the low precision peak discharge data and then reestimating them using a physically based dam
break numerical model. Sixteen of the 41 available peak discharge data measurements are of low precisions, necessitating
numerical re-evaluation. In addition, a new relationship was developed based on the revised datasets. The new relationship’s
accuracy was then checked using three different error criteria. When compared to several other models, the new relationship
could accurately predict the peak discharges as it had the lowest RMSE and the highest NSE value.

Keywords Embankment dam failure · Dam break · Peak breach outflow · Breach peak discharge · Breach hydrograph

Introduction
Peak discharge from dam failure is essential for anticipating
inundation water levels for emergency preparation in areas
downstream of the dams. In recent years, the world’s interest
in the safety of dams and reservoirs has significantly grown.
The public’s protection from the consequences of dam fail-
ures has become increasingly critical due to the increase in
the number of dams constructed and the population density.
The latter led to the formation of population groups down-
stream of the dams.
According to Jansen (1983), the number of signifi-
cant dams that failed in 65 years (between 1900 and 1965)
was 154, while according to the (ASDSO 2021) database,
around 250 dams failed in the USA alone in 10 years
(between 2010 and 2020), more than two dams per month.
Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel
* Kawa Z. Abdulrahman
kawa.abed@univsul.edu.iq
1
Department of Water Resources Engineering, College
of Engineering, University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region,
Sulaymaniyah 46002, Iraq
This can be attributed to (1) the aging of the existing dams,
(2) climate changes, and (3) the large number of dams
constructed in recent years (Fluixá-Sanmartín et al. 2018;
Javadinejad et al. 2021; Toumi and Remini 2021; Fatahi
Nafchi et al. 2021; Hassan et al. 2022).
Several academics gathered databases of well-docu-
mented case studies to develop a formula for anticipating
peak breach discharges or breach parameters (Singh and
Scarlatos 1988; Xu and Zhang 2009; Pierce et al. 2010;
Hooshyaripor et al. 2014; Azimi et al. 2015; Froehlich,
2016b). In the meantime, other researchers have investi-
gated various approaches to improve the effectiveness of
relationships. Non-traditional regression methodologies
such as machine learning have been used by many studies
(Hooshyaripor et al. 2014; Eghbali et al. 2017).
Despite the efforts described above, the obtained relation-
ships are associated with uncertainty, such as a confidence
limit. According to Wahl (2004), the uncertainties in peak
outflow predictions obtained by several of the previously
derived equations were in the range of ± 0.5 to ± 1 order
of magnitude. Furthermore, according to several research
investigations, the generated database has a large number of
outliers (Xu and Zhang 2009; Duricic et al. 2013).

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
947 Page 2 of 10 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947

However, the most significant limitation of the previ-
ously developed relationships is that they directly rely on
the inconsistent dam failure event data. This study aims to
obtain a more consistent database by reestimating the peak
discharge values of the low precision data using a physically
based dam break numerical model. In addition, a new for-
mula will be developed using the revised dataset. The accu-
racy of the developed formula will then be checked against
several previously developed formulas using three different
error criteria.
ing techniques are either undocumented or less accurate
than others.
2. The recalculated peak discharge values will be merged
with the Froehlich (2016b) 41 field measurements to
obtain a more consistent dataset.
3. Finally, an empirical equation will be derived and com-
pared to the other previously developed equations to
ensure accuracy using the revised dataset.
Inconsistency in peak discharge measurements

Inconsistencies exist in the literature between several com-

Materials and methods
Typically, dam break peak outflows at different time inter-
vals and locations are estimated using indirect approaches.
The techniques utilized to estimate some of the peak dis-
charges are undocumented. Other peak discharges have been
measured a long distance downstream of the failed dams
and are unlikely to accurately represent the actual embank-
ment breach peak discharge (Froehlich 2016b). As a result,
the peak discharges differ significantly in terms of whether
they represent the average flow of the failure hydrograph
or instantaneous outflow (Hagen 1996). Therefore, a more
precise method is required to determine dam failure peak
outflows with greater consistency.
This study explored 41 observed peak outflows from
previous dam failures compiled by Froehlich (2016b). The
collected data were rigorously reviewed, and the details of
the methodology used to determine peak outflow are all indi-
cated (see Appendix). The breach geometries and breach
formation times, on the other hand, have been taken from
Froehlich (2016a). The work program of this study can be
divided into the following steps:
1. A physical-based numerical model is to be used to esti-
mate the peak discharges of failed dams whose measur-
piled databases. For example, Singh and Scarlatos (1988)
reported a peak discharge of 290 m ­ 3/s from the North Branch
dam breach, ten times greater than the one reported by Costa
(1985). Froehlich (2016b) reported a peak outflow of Or´os
dam failure of 58,000 ­m3/s, which is roughly larger than six
times the one reported by Xu and Zhang (2009), Hooshyari-
por et al. (2014), and Azimi et al. (2015). Table 1 contains
more examples of reported peak breach discharge inconsist-
encies in the literature. Most of the formulas were developed
using the data gathered from the literature mentioned above.
As a result, the obtained formulas may have been affected by
the inconsistencies in the compiled database.
Peak discharge determination techniques
Since they are difficult to measure directly, the peak dis-
charges of the flood that occurred by dam breaks are typi-
cally determined by indirect methods. Froehlich (2016b)
identified four indirect methods that have been used to deter-
mine peak discharges of the dam break floods; the slope-area
method, the reservoir drawdown over a short time interval
method, doubling the average flow rate required to empty the
reservoir in a given period method, and dam break numeri-
cal modeling method. Indirect peak discharge measurement
methods, on the other hand, do not have the same level of

Table 1  Some examples of the No Dam name and location Froehlich, Xu and Zhang Pierce et al. Wahl
difference in the reported breach (2016b) (2009) (2010) (1998)
peak outflow in the literature m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s

1 Banqiao, China 56,300 78,100 78,100 -

2 Baldwin Hills, California 420 - 1,130 1,130
3 Bradfield (Dale Dyke), England 2,370 - - 1150
4 Hatchtown, Utah 4,440 - 3,080 3,080
5 Hell Hole, California 17,000 7,360 7,360 7,360
6 Or´os, Brazil 58,000 9,630 9,630 9,630
7 Puddingstone, California 960 480 480
8 Schaeffer, Colorado 4,930 4,500 4,500 4,500
9 Shimantan, China 25,300 30,000 30,000 -
10 Taum Sauk Reservoir, Missouri 8,180 7,743 -

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947 Page 3 of 10 947

precision; the methods’ accuracy varies. According to Froe-

hlich (2016b), the method of doubling the average outflow
rate required to empty the reservoir is the least accurate.
Apart from the four aforementioned methods, the peak 3S
discharge measurement methods used for many previous
dam break floods are unknown (i.e., undocumented).

Dam break numerical model Banqiao Subcat

In this study, HydroCAD (version 10.10–5) was used for
simulating the dam failures. The HydroCAD 10.10–5 offers
a wide range of hydrological and hydraulics features, includ-
ing SCS, NRCS, hydrograph routing through ponds and
reaches, dam breach modeling, etc. The HydroCAD has
been used as a numerical methodology to estimate the peak 2P
dam breach outflow using the reservoir storage volume at
failure initiation, the final breach geometry, the breach for-
mation time, and the inflow hydrograph during the failure.
The inflow hydrographs for the overflow-induced dam fail- Banqiao Pond
ures were obtained either from the maximum runoff at the
failure time or from the maximum height of water above the
outlets, while for the non-overtopping cases, due to their
negligible values, the inflow discharges were assumed to be
zero. A minimum of 1.5-km-long trapezoidal downstream
reach with a width equal to the approach flow width reported
by Froehlich (2016b, a) was adopted. Also, a value of 0.04
as the Manning roughness coefficient was assumed. Fur-
thermore, a free discharge was assigned as the downstream 3R
boundary condition.
HydroCAD 10.10–5 includes a new outlet device for a
gradual dam breach modeling using a dynamic pond rout-
ing procedure. The breach can start at any water surface Banqiao Downstream
elevation or at any time and progress over a user-specified Reach
period (HydroCAD 2011). Figure 1 shows the HydroCAD
diagram used in this study to model the Banqiao dam break
as an example. Fig. 1  HydroCAD modeling diagram of Banqiao dam break

Factors influencing the peak discharge

Kirkpatrick (1977) and other early prediction models simply
took into account the height of the water at the moment of
dam failure, while most of the new prediction models con-
sidered both the water height and the water volume at the
time of failure (Pierce et al. 2010; Hooshyaripor et al. 2014;
Azimi et al. 2015). On the other hand, Xu and Zhang (2009)
used the water height, failure mode, the water volume at the
time of failure, reservoir shape coefficient, dam type, the
dam’s height, and dam erodibility to derive their empirical
equations.
In this study, based on a sensitivity analysis of the influ-
encing factors, three parameters were used as input to the
proposed empirical equation: the water height, the water
volume at the time of failure, and the failure mode.
Results and discussions
Re‑determination of the peak discharge data
It is necessary to determine whether the low precision and
the inconsistent peak discharge data are physically possi-
ble or not. To achieve this goal, the peak breach discharges
estimated using either low accurate or undocumented tech-
niques have been listed in Table 2. For these data, dam
breach numerical models were developed to estimate the
peak breach discharges. Table 2 shows the measured peak
outflow (obtained from Froehlich (2016b)) and their rees-
timated values using the HydroCAD numerical approach.
Despite the poor accuracy of the Bass Haven Lake and the
Bradfield dams’ flow measuring techniques, their numerical

13
13
947 Page 4 of 10

Table 2  Re-calculation of the peak flow discharges from the breached embankment dams using HydroCAD modeling
No Dam name and location Mode of ­failurea Vw ­(Mm3) Hw (m) Hb (m) T f (Hrs) Measured Qp estima- Numerical estimation of Qp ­(m3/s) ­[QpN] QpN/QpM
b
Qp ­(m3/s) tion ­method
[QpM]

1 Baldwin Hills, California I.E 0.95 12.2 21.3 0.33 420 TA 858 2.04
2 Banqiao, Henan Province, China O.F 701 31.9 29.5 5.5 56,300 TA 46,188 0.82
3 Bass Haven Lake, Texas O.X 0.641 4.9 9.2 NA 240 TA Tf is not available NA
4 Belci, Bacău County, Romania O.F 12.7 15.5 15 1.25 4,700 TA 3872 0.82
5 Bila Desna, Czech Republic I.E 0.29 10.7 14.6 0.20 320 TA 591 1.85
6 Bilberry, England O.S 0.327 23.6 23 0.167 725 TA 649 0.90
7 Bradfield (Dale Dyke), England I.E 3.2 28 29 0.75 2,370 TA Breach side slope is not available NA
8 Hatchtown, Utah O.S 16 16.8 18.3 1.0 4,440 TA 4,700 1.06
9 Hell Hole, California I.E 30.6 35.1 56.4 0.75 17,000 TA 13,506 0.79
10 Lake Avalon, New Mexico I.E 31.5 13.7 14.6 2.0 2,320 Unknown 3,227 1.39
11 Lower Latham, Colorado I.E 7.08 5.79 7.01 1.5 340 SA 1231 3.62
12 Lower Otay, California O.F 56.9 39.6 39.6 1.0 15,800 TA 19,643 1.24
13 Prospect, Colorado I.E 3.54 1.68 4.42 2.5 116 RR 264 2.28
14 Puddingstone, California O.F 0.617 14.3 13.7 0.25 960 TA 983 1.02
15 Schaeffer, Colorado O.F 4.44 31.9 30.5 0.5 4,930 TA 4070 0.83
16 Zhugou, Henan O.F 18.5 23.8 23.5 0.43 11,200 Unknown 12,839 1.15
a
I.E. internal erosion, O.F. overtopping due to floodwaters, OG overtopping due to outlet works failure, O.S. overtopping due to embankment sliding, OW overtopping due to wave action, O.X.
intentional breaching due to excavation.
b
TA twice the average flow rate required to empty the reservoir in a certain time interval, SA slope-area measurement at an unknown distance, RR rate of reservoir volume change in a in a certain
time interval.
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947
peak discharges were not calculated due to a lack of data
required (i.e., breach formation times, reservoir volumes,
and breach geometries) to develop a numerical model. It is
worth mentioning that the Or´os dam peak discharge is not
included in Table 2 because its new value was re-evaluated
by Wahl (2014) using a more accurate method. However,
using the HydroCAD dam break model produces a Qp value
of 28,500 m ­ 3/s instead of 58,000 m
­ 3/s (i.e., the new value).
This result may indicate that the T­ f value is inaccurate, pro-
viding that the 58,000 ­m3/s is correct.
The results show that some numerical model results
are close to the field measurement values, while others are
significantly different. The highest difference between the
measured and numerically estimated peak discharges is at
the Lower Latham Dam, where the numerical value is nearly
four times higher than the measured value.
However, when the inflow hydrographs were included in
the dam breach models, the breach outflow rate changed in
different ratios. Depending on the inflow hydrograph, breach
formation time, and the reservoir size, the increased ratios
ranged from 4 to 43%, with an average value of 18%.
Developing a prediction equation
A multiparameter nonlinear regression analysis was per-
formed to obtain an empirical equation to predict the peak
discharges of failing embankment dams. The sum of the
squared errors of Qp is minimized as an objective function
using the Generalized Reduced Gradient (GRG) nonlinear
method to get the constants of the suggested equation pre-
sented below. The GRG algorithm is used to solve optimiza-
tion problems with nonlinear goals or constraints. It is the
most commonly used program of its kind, with a lengthy
track record of successful applications in a wide range of
fields (Dalal et al. 2018).
Qp = A × MF × HwC × VwD (1)
Qp = 55.36 × MF × Hw0.413 × Vw1.081 (2)
where MF is the mode of failure; it is equal to 1 for non-
overtopping mode and 1.414 for overtopping mode.
It should be noted that the derived equation is valid for
the range of the data analyzed in this study. By removing
the data of the Teton dam (the largest dam in the database),
another equation was generated to test the validity of the
regression models in predicting the peak discharge of dams
larger than those considered in their derivation. Even though
the new equation performed very well in predicting the peak
outflow for the range of the used data, it could not reproduce
an accurate peak outflow for the Teton dam. It underpre-
dicted the peak outflow by 1/3 of what was measured. This
Page 5 of 10 947
result demonstrates that Eq. 2 is more accurate when used
to estimate breach outflow for dams with parameters within
the range of the data utilized in its derivation; otherwise,
as with other previously developed equations, it should be
used with caution.
Comparison of peak discharge prediction equations
Many empirical equations have been developed to predict
the peak discharge from embankment dam failures, as shown
in Table 3. As mentioned earlier, the previously developed
peak discharge formulas have some limitations. They were
developed using regression analysis of data concerning
embankment dam failure events that are sometimes very
different or inconsistent. The performances of several peak
discharge equations in Table 3 were compared to the pro-
posed equation driven based on the revised 41 measurements
mentioned previously.
Three statistical measures, Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency
(NSE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and box and
whiskers plot, were used to assess the accuracy of the devel-
oped equation to that of others. Table 4 shows the RMSE
and NSE obtained from combining the predicted results
by Eq. 2 with those predicted by other prediction models.
Ratios of predicted to measured peak discharges obtained
from all the previously developed methods and those from
Eq. 2 are compared graphically in the box and whiskers plot
shown in Fig. 2. The style of Fig. 2 is widely used to com-
pare two or more datasets since it displays how the data
are scattered around a median. The graph clearly shows the
distribution’s center, dispersion, and data range. Half of the
data is contained within the box (i.e., interquartile range),
while each whisker contains 25% of the data. The narrower
the box, the more the data values are consistent with the data
median (Montgomery and Runger 2010).
Table 4 shows that Eq. (2) has the lowest RMSE and the
highest NSE value, indicating that the predicted and meas-
ured datasets are well aligned. The performance of Eq. 2 is
better than the others, with Froehlich (2016b) and Azimi
et al. (2015) following closely behind. In addition. Figure 2
indicates that there is one outlier when applying Eq. 2 and
that 50% of the predicted results are in the range of 0.9 to
1.4 times the measured data, and approximately 100% of the
predictions are in the range of 0.62 to 1.89 times the meas-
ured data, with both the median and average values close to
one, and the skew is insignificant. This level of prediction is
higher than the others.
The results of all other models are less accurate compared
to the ones recently mentioned above. Notably, the SCS
(1985) and the Kirkpatrick (1977) equations provide poor
predictions. The models developed by SCS (1985) overesti-
mate Qp and have a comparatively large interquartile range.
13
947 Page 6 of 10 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947

Table 3  Previously developed peak discharge prediction models

Author Formula Reference

�
Kirkpatrick (1977) √ 0.3m, forSIunits Froehlich (2016b)
Qp = 0.4 × g(Hw + 𝜇)2.5 , where𝜇 =
1.0ft, forU.S.customaryunits
{ { [ ]1.35 }
SCS (1985) max 0.000421 × (Vw Hw )∕Wavg Hb ) , 1.77 × H 2.5 , ifHw < 31.4 Froehlich (2016b)
Qp =
16.6 × Hw1.85 , ifHw ≥ 31.4m
Froehlich (1995) Qp = 0.607 × Vw 0.295 Hw1.24 Froehlich, (1995)

(Pierce et al. 2010) Qp = 0.038 × Vw 0.475 Hw1.09 Pierce et al. (2010)

Azimi et al. (2015) Qp = 16.553 × g0.5 × Vw

0.501
Hw0.997 Azimi et al. (2015)
3
Vw = Mm .
√
(Froehlich 2016b) (1) gVw Hw Hb2 Froehlich (2016b)
Qp = 0.0175 × kM × kH × Wavg
,
{
1;fornon − overtoppingfailuremodes
kM =
1.85;forovertoppingfailuremodes
{
1;forHb ≤ Hs
kM = ( )1∕8
Hb
Hs
;forHb > Hs
{
6.1mforSIunits
Hs =
20ftforU.S.customaryunits

(Froehlich 2016b) (2) � �0.28 � � ��� Froehlich (2016b)

⎧ 8 La
Bavg − m Hb − 45 Hw gHw3 , forHw ≤ Hb
⎪ �
27 Bavg �� ��
QPmax =⎨ � �0.28 � � �2.5 �
8 La H
⎪ Bavg − mHb − 54 mHw 1 − H b −1 gHw3 , forHw > Hb
⎩ 27 Bavg w

� �𝛽
Qp = QPmax × √
1
g
1+𝛼tf Hb

) [(
]2∕3
𝛼 = 0.000045and𝛽 = 500 × Wavg × Hb2 ∕Vw
1
√
V
Bavg = 0.27 × kM × Vw3 , tf = 63.2 × gHw2
b
{
1;fornon − overtoppingfailuremodes
kM =
1.3;forovertoppingfailuremodes
{
0.7;fornon − overtoppingfailuremodes
m=
1.0;forovertoppingfailuremodes

The models of Kirkpatrick (1977), Froehlich (1995), and
(Pierce et al. 2010) underestimate Qp and have a compara-
tively large RMSE.
Summary and conclusions
Peak discharges of breached embankment dams at various
time intervals and locations are typically determined
using several indirect techniques. However, some of
the techniques used have less accuracy than others. In
addition, many of the compiled databases of the peak
breach discharges are inconsistent; many of the peak
discharge values available in the literature are different
from one another, and some may even not be physically
possible. A more accurate method is, therefore, required
to obtain more consistency in determining dam failure
peak outflow. In this study, the HydroCAD software
was used as a physically based dam break model to
calculate the peak discharge of the dams that their values

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947 Page 7 of 10 947

Table 4  The RMSE and NSE obtained from using the predicted results by Eq. 2 and that predicted by other prediction models
Kirkpatrick (1977) SCS (1985) Froehlich (1995) Pierce et al. Azimi et al. Froehlich Froehlich Equation (2)
(2010) (2015) 2016b (1) 2016b (2)

RMSE 10,481 54,052 8,774 7,107 2,783 3,085 5,157 1,415

NSE 0.503 − 12.231 0.651 0.771 0.965 0.957 0.878 0.991

had been measured using low accurate techniques or
even the techniques used in their determination were
undocumented. The HydroCAD models were developed
using the physical parameters of the failed dams, such
as the breach formation time, reservoir volume, breach
geometry, and inflow hydrograph. The results showed
that some of the peak discharge values obtained from the
numerical models correspond with those measured in the
field. At the same time, the difference in the vast majority
of the data is considerable.
However, a new equation was developed using
the composite database obtained by merging the
numerically computed data with the 41 measurements
of Froehlich (2016b). To assess t he developed
equation’s performance and compare it to the other
models proposed in the literature, three criteria are
used. The results showed that the new proposed
equation has the lowest RMSE and the highest NSE
value compared to several other previously developed
models, indicating that the predicted and measured
datasets are well aligned.
Several basic flood-routing models that need peak
breach discharge to estimate flood discharge in areas
downstream from a breached embankment dam have
recently been used to produce approximate inundation
maps. The findings of this research will help in esti-
mating peak breach discharge and delineating areas that
are probably to be affected by embankment dam failure
floods.

Fig. 2  Box and Whiskers plot

for the predicted to measured
Qp ratio of different developed
formulas

13
947 Page 8 of 10 Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947

Appendix

No Dam name and Dam ­typea Failure Wavg (m) Vw ­(Mm3) Hw (m) Hb (m) Qp ­(m3/s) Peak discharge
location mode estimation
method

1 Apishapa, Colorado EHC I.E 82.4 22.8 28 31.1 6850 RR

2 Baldwin Hills, Cali- EH I.E 59.6 0.95 12.2 21.3 420 TA
fornia
3 Banqiao, Henan Prov- EH O.F 97 701 31.9 29.5 56,300 TA
ince, China
4 Bass Haven Lake, EH O.X 22.9 0.641 4.9 9.2 240 TA
Texas
5 Belci, Bacău County, EZ O.F 37.8 12.7 15.5 15 4,700 TA
Romania
6 Bila Desna, Czech EH I.E 29.6 0.29 10.7 14.6 320 TA
Republic
7 Bilberry, England EZ O.S 62.5 0.327 23.6 23 725 TA
8 Big Bay Lake, Mis- EH I.E 20.4 17.5 13.6 14 4,160 Numerical
sissippi modeling
9 Bradfield (Dale Dyke), EZ I.E 76 3.2 28 29 2,370 TA
England
10 Butler Valley, Arizona EH O.F 9.63 2.38 7.16 7.16 810 SA
11 Castlewood, Colorado EM O.F 47.4 6.17 21.6 21.3 3,570 RR
12 Centralia (Seminary EH O.S 10.1 0.01333 5.5 6.1 71 SA
Hill) Reservoir No.
3, Washington
13 Delhi, Iowa EHC O.F 31.5 12.2 11.2 11 1,950 Numerical
modeling
14 FP&L Martin Plant, EH I.E 27.7 125 5.09 9.14 2,750 RR
Florida
15 Fred Burr, Montana EH I.E 30.8 0.75 10.2 10.2 654 SA
16 French Landing, EH I.E 34.3 3.87 8.53 14.2 929 RR
Michigan
17 Frenchman Creek, EH I.E 37.3 16 10.8 12.5 1420 Unknown
Montana
18 Hästberga, Sweden EHC OG 12.7 30 7.35 7 600 RR
19 Hatchtown, Utah EZ O.S 44.8 16 16.8 18.3 4,440 TA
20 Hell Hole, California RZ I, E 103 30.6 35.1 56.4 17,000 TA
21 Ireland Reservoir No. EH I.E 18 0.16 3.81 5.18 110 SA
5, Colorado
22 Kelly Barnes, Georgia EH I.E 19.4 0.777 11.3 12.8 680 SA
23 Lake Avalon, New ER I.E 42.7 31.5 13.7 14.6 2,320 Unknown
Mexico
24 Laurel Run, Pennsyl- EH O.F 40.5 0.555 14.1 13.7 1,050 SA
vania
25 Lily Lake, Colorado EH OW 13.2 0.0925 3.35 3.66 71 SA
26 Little Deer Creek, EH I.E 63.1 1.36 22.9 27.1 1,330 SA
Utah
27 Lower Latham, Colo- EH I.E 25.7 7.08 5.79 7.01 340 SA
rado
28 Lower Otay, California RC O.F 53.3 56.9 39.6 39.6 15,800 TA

13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947 Page 9 of 10 947

No Dam name and Dam ­typea Failure Wavg (m) Vw ­(Mm3) Hw (m) Hb (m) Qp ­(m3/s) Peak discharge
location mode estimation
method
29 Lower Two Medicine, EH I.E 33.3 29.6 11.3 11.3 1,800 SA
Montana
30 Or´os, Brazil ERZ O.F 110 660 35.8 35.5 58,000 RR
31 Porter Hill, Oregon EH O.S 12 0.015 5 5.8 30 SA
32 Prospect, Colorado EH I.E 13.1 3.54 1.68 4.42 116 RR
33 Puddingstone, Cali- EH O.F 43 0.432 13.7 13.7 960 TA
fornia
34 Quail Creek, Utah EZ I.E 56.6 30.8 16.7 21.3 3,110 RR
35 Rito Manzanares, New EH I.E 13.4 0.12 4.57 7.32 83 SA
Mexico
36 Schaeffer, Colorado EH O.F 80.8 4.44 31.9 30.5 4,930 TA
37 Shimantan, Henan EH O.F 58 167 27.4 25.8 25,300 RR
Province, China
38 South Fork, Pennsyl- EH O.F 64 18.9 24.6 24.4 8,500 RR
vania
39 Taum Sauk Reservoir, EZ O.F 46.8 5.39 36.5 36.3 8,180 RR
Missouri
40 Teton, Idaho EZ I.E 250 310 77.4 86.9 65,120 SA
41 Zhuguo, Henan EZ O.F 99 18.5 23.8 23.5 11,200 Unknown

Acknowledgements The author is very grateful to Dr. Omed S. Q.
Yousif for his help in proofreading the manuscript.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The author declares that he has no competing in-
terests.
References
ASDSO (2021) Incidents Search/Association of State Dam
Safety. URL https://​damsa​fety.​org/​incid​ents. Accessed 25 Nov 2021
Azimi R, Vatankhah A, and Kouchakzadeh S (2015) Predicting peak
discharge from breached embankment dams. E-Proc. 36th IAHR
World Congress, Hague
Costa JE (1985) Floods from dam failures. U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 85-560
Dalal S, Dahiya N, Jaglan V (2018) Efficient tuning of COCOMO
model cost drivers through generalized reduced gradient (GRG)
nonlinear optimization with best-fit analysis. In Progress in
Advanced Computing and Intelligent Engineering (pp. 347–354).
Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​10-​6872-0_​32
Duricic J, Erdik T, van Gelder P (2013) Predicting peak breach dis-
charge due to embankment dam failure. J Hydroinf 15(4):1361–
1376. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​hydro.​2013.​196
Earth dams and reservoirs (1985) US Department of agriculture tech.
Release No. 60, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Washington, D.C.
Eghbali AH, Behzadian K, Hooshyaripor F, Farmani R, Duncan AP
(2017) Improving prediction of dam failure peak outflow using
neuroevolution combined with k-means clustering. J Hydrol Eng
22(6):04017007
Fatahi Nafchi R, Yaghoobi P, Reaisi Vanani H, Ostad-Ali-Askari K,
Nouri J, Maghsoudlou B (2021) Eco-hydrologic stability zonation
of dams and power plants using the combined models of SMCE
and CEQUALW2. Appl Water Sci 11(7):109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s13201-​021-​01427-z
Fluixá-Sanmartín J, Altarejos-García L, Morales-Torres A, Escuder-
Bueno I (2018) Review article: climate change impacts on dam
safety. Nat Hazard 18(9):2471–2488. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​
nhess-​18-​2471-​2018
Froehlich DC (1995) Peak outflow from breached embankment dam. J
Water Resour Plan Manag 121(1):90–97. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​1061/​
(ASCE)​0733-​9496(1995)​121:​1(90)
Froehlich D (2016a) Empirical model of embankment dam breaching.
Proc. 8th Conf. River Flow, St. Louis, pp 1821–1829
Froehlich DC (2016b) Predicting peak discharge from gradually
breached embankment dam. J Hydrol Eng 21(11):04016041.
https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 061/​( ASCE)​H E.​1 943-​5 584.​0 0014​2 4
Hagen VK (1996) Discussion of “Peak Outflow from Breached
Embankment Dam” by David C Froehlich. J Water Resour Plan
Manag 122(4):314–316. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​
9496(1996)​122:​4(314)
Hassan MA, Ismail MAM, Shaalan HH (2022) Numerical mod-
eling for the effect of soil type on stability of embank-
ment. Civil Eng J 7:41–57. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 2 8991/​
CEJ-​S P2021-​0 7-​0 4
Hooshyaripor F, Tahershamsi A, Golian S (2014) Application
of copula method and neural networks for predicting peak
outf low from breached embankments. J Hydro-Environ
Res 8(3):292–303. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​j her.​2 013.​
11.​0 04
HydroCAD (2011) HydroCAD Stormwater Modeling System. https://​
www.​hydro​cad.​net/​pdf/​Hydro​CAD-​10%​20Own​ers%​20Man​ual.​
pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2021
Jansen RB (1983) Dams and public safety. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
Javadinejad S, Eslamian S, Ostad-Ali-Askari K (2021) The analysis of
the most important climatic parameters affecting performance of
crop variability in a changing climate. Int J Hydrol Sci Technol
11(1):1–25

13
947 Page 10 of 10
Kirkpatrick GW (1977) Guidelines for evaluating spillway capacity.
Water Power Dam Constr 29(8):29–33
Montgomery DC, Runger GC (2010) Applied statistics and probability
for engineers. John Wiley & Sons
Pierce MW, Thornton CI, Abt SR (2010) Predicting peak outflow from
breached embankment dams. J Hydrol Eng 15(5):338–349. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​HE.​1943-​5584.​00001​97
Singh VP, Scarlatos PD (1988) Analysis of gradual earth-dam failure.
J Hydraul Eng 114(1):21–42
Toumi A, Remini B (2021) Evaluation of geology and hydrogeol-
ogy of the water leakage in Hammam-Grouz Dam, Algeria. J
Human, Earth Future 2(3):269–295. https://​doi.​org/​10.​28991/​
HEF-​2021-​02-​03-​08
13
Arab J Geosci (2022) 15: 947
Wahl TL (1998) Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters—
A literature review and needs assessment. Dam Safety Rep. No.
DSO-98-004, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver
Wahl TL (2004) Uncertainty of predictions of embankment dam breach
parameters. J Hydraul Eng 130(5):389–397. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1061/​(ASCE)​0733-​9429(2004)​130:​5(389)
Wahl T (2014) Evaluation of erodibility-based embankment dam
breach equations. Hydraulic Laboratory Rep. HL-2014-02, U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver
Xu Y, Zhang LM (2009) Breaching parameters for earth and rockfill
dams. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 135(12):1957–1970. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GT.​1943-​5606.​00001​62