Forum
Earthen Embankment Breaching
ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breaching
Corresponding author: Weiming Wu, National Center for Computational
Hydroscience and Engineering, Univ. of Mississippi, University, MS
38677. E-mail: wuwm@ncche.olemiss.edu
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000498
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Introduction
A large number of embankment structures, including dams, levees,
dikes, and barriers, have been built by humans or formed naturally
along rivers, lakes, and coastal lines around the world. Most of
these structures play very important roles in flood defense,
although many are also used for water supply, power generation,
transportation, and sediment retention. Because these structures can
sustain only limited safety levels and are subject to decay, they may
fail owing to various triggering mechanisms (Costa 1985; Foster
et al. 2000; Allsop et al. 2007), particularly with a high probability
of failure under extreme conditions. These failures pose significant
flood risks to people and property in the inundation area and cause
an interruption of services provided by these structures. Examples
of such events include the failure of the Teton Dam in 1976 (Ponce
1982) and the New Orleans levee failures during Hurricane Katrina
in 2005 (Sills et al. 2008), as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Clearly, under-
standing and prediction of embankment failure processes are cru-
cial for water infrastructure management.
Embankments can be classified as nonerodible (concrete), erod-
ible (earth/rock), or of the mixed type. Artificial dams may be con-
structed with one of these, but are mostly built as homogeneous or
zoned earthfill, rockfill with a clay core, and/or a concrete face.
According to the U.S. Committee on Large Dams (1975), almost
80% of the large dams in the United States were formed by em-
bankments constructed from natural erodible materials. Landslide
dams are usually composed of erodible earth and rock materials.
Most levees and dikes are constructed using clay, silt, or sand with
a clay core or cover, often on a foundation of erodible substrata.
Natural coastal barriers often consist mostly of sandy material.
Embankment failures are very sensitive to the structures’ mate-
rials and configurations, impacting forces, and other environmental
factors. In general, a concrete embankment is prone to fail instanta-
neously (break) when the entire structure or only a portion loses
stability under certain loading conditions; thus, the breach dimen-
sions are often determined on the basis of structural stability analy-
sis and the resulting flood can then be simulated by using numerical
tools. An earth embankment, however, is likely to fail gradually
(breaching) because of erosion of its materials by water flow or
wave action involving mixed-regime flows, strong sediment trans-
port, and rapid morphological changes. Therefore, determination of
the earth embankment breach characteristics (e.g., width, shape,
peak outflow, failure time) is quite complex and challenging, re-
quiring the prediction of complex interactions among soil, water,
and structure.
In the last few decades, a number of laboratory experiments and
field investigations have been carried out and many empirical,
analytical, and numerical models have been developed to first
understand and then simulate earthen embankment breaching proc-
esses. This forum provides an overview of the state of the art of
several important related issues, including the earthen embankment
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1549
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
breaching processes, data collection, breach modeling, flood
routing, model limitations and uncertainties, and potential future
development.
Earthen Embankment Breaching Processes
Common Causes of Earthen Embankment Breaching
The major causes of earthen embankment failure are overtopping,
foundation and structural defects, and piping, although additional
failure causes may exist for individual structures. According to
Costa (1985), approximately 34% of dam failures are caused by
overtopping, 30% by foundation defects, and 28% by piping.
Foster et al. (2000) present similar statistics but with a greater per-
centage for piping failure.
Overtopping. In this type of failure, overtopping of the crest
results in channel erosion over the crest and downstream face
driven by shear forces. Observations in laboratory experiments and
case studies suggest a distinct difference among the erosion proc-
esses of noncohesive and cohesive earthen embankments attribut-
able to overtopping flow (Pugh 1985; Ralston 1987; Powledge
et al. 1989; Singh 1996; Visser 1998; Hanson et al. 2005). The criti-
cal overtopping erosion mode is usually progressive surface erosion
(sediment transport in dispersed particles) for noncohesive em-
bankments but headcut erosion (formation and migration of a ver-
tical or nearly vertical drop on the bed) for cohesive embankments.
However, noncohesive, heavily compacted embankments may also
erode in the form of a headcut, and the point of transition between
the headcut and surface erosion modes is not well defined. Erosion
usually starts at the downstream slope and advances upstream, re-
sulting in a decrease of the width of the embankment crest. In the
case of surface erosion, the downstream slope may flatten, steepen,
and erode back parallel, depending on the soil type and state. In the
case of headcut erosion, initial overtopping flow results in sheet and
rill erosion, with one or more master rills developing into a series of
cascading overfalls and then a large headcut on the downstream
slope, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (Hanson et al. 2005). The breach bed
erosion is often accompanied by lateral erosion and mass failure
of side walls. When the embankment crest vanishes, the breach
flow starts to increase significantly, and the breach is then further
lowered and widened at a much greater rate until the headwater is
depleted or the tailwater elevation increases.
The overtopping failure of composite embankments differs from
that of homogenous embankments (Tinney and Hsu 1961; Chee
1984; Pugh 1985; Fletcher and Gilbert 1992; Morris and Hansen
2005; D’Eliso 2007). When water overflows or waves overtop a
composite embankment with an internal clay, steel, or concrete
core, or a concrete floodwall on the crest, erosion starts on the
downstream slope in the form of either surface erosion or headcut
migration until the core or floodwall is reached, as shown in Fig. 4.
This erosion may affect the stability of the core and floodwall and
eventually lead to their respective failures. The likely failure mech-
anisms of the core and floodwall include sliding, overturning,
and bending (Powledge et al. 1989; Fletcher and Gilbert 1992;
Mohamed et al. 2002; Allsop et al. 2007; Sills et al. 2008; Orendorff
2009). The failed materials may be quickly washed out or relocated
downstream by the increasing breach flow, and then the breach
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Teton Dam failed on June 5, 1976; the failure released nearly 300,000 acre feet of water, then flooded farmland and towns downstream,
causing the eventual loss of 14 lives and with a cost estimated to be nearly $1 billion (image by Mrs. Eunice Olson, courtesy of A. G. Sylvester)

Fig. 2. New Orleans levee failure by Hurricane Katrina, a Category 3 hurricane, on August 29, 2005; approximately 80% of the city and large tracts of
neighboring parishes were flooded for weeks; the toll a year later was listed as 1,118 dead and 135 missing; more than 400,000 citizens fled the city,
many never to return; property damage reached tens of billions of dollars (ASCE Review Panel 2007) (UPI Photo/Vincent Laforet/Pool)

channel may be further lowered by downcutting and widened by
lateral erosion and mass failure. For an embankment with a less
erodible cover, overtopping flow or waves may erode and damage
the cover first, and then retrograde (headcut) erosion may start in
the more erosive embankment body from the location in which the
cover is removed (D’Eliso 2007).
Overtopping may occur for a variety of reasons, such as large
inflows into the reservoir caused by excessive rainfall or by the
failure of an upstream dam, extreme waves and surge, inadequate
design, construction and maintenance of the structure, debris block-
age in the spillway and flood channel, and settlement of the
embankment crest. Ralston (1987) indicates that there are approx-
imately 57,000 dams in the United States alone that have the
potential for overtopping. It is the leading cause of failure in
embankment dams worldwide. In addition, overtopping failures
are likely to occur with increasing frequency attributable to a
significant increase in global warming that, according to climatol-
ogists, will result in strong variability and extremes in precipitation
patterns (Milly et al. 2002). This implies that spillways and flood
control structures designed on the basis of expected flood return
periods evaluated from an analysis of historic hydrological data
could prove to be dangerously inadequate if a definite shift in
precipitation frequencies and intensities manifests itself.
Piping. Failure by piping or internal erosion is the process by
which seepage forces can result in the removal of fines along a path
between the upstream and downstream faces. If unchecked, larger
sediment particles are washed out by a process known as backward
erosion ultimately leading to the formation of a pipe or tunnel
carrying a significant discharge. The pipe increases in diameter
because of removal of material at the wall primarily attributable
to shear stress forces until local collapse or slumping of the
crest roof occurs. After the collapse of the crest, overtopping

1550 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Cohesive dam breaching by overtopping: (a) rills and cascade of small overfalls at t ¼ 7 min; (b) consolidation of small overfalls at
t ¼ 13 min; (c) headcut at downstream crest at t ¼ 16 min; (d) headcut at upstream crest at t ¼ 31 min; (e) flow through breach at
t ¼ 40 min; (f) transition to final breach stage at t ¼ 51 min (reprinted from Hanson et al. 2005, with permission from the American Society
of Agricultural and Biological Engineers)

Foundation and structural defects. Foundation and structural de-

Fig. 4. Overtopping breaching of a composite dam with clay core
breach characteristics dominate, including downcutting and lateral
widening. The typical piping failure process is documented in Fig. 5
(Hanson et al. 2010). The Teton Dam failure shown in Fig. 1 is a
classic case of piping failure (Ponce 1982). Some case studies have
shown that the pipe initiation and erosion stages may take several
days or weeks, whereas the subsequent embankment breaching
may take only a few hours or less.
Piping and liquefaction may occur because of seepage or leak-
age flow through weak layers, dessication cracks, structural joints,
dead tree roots, and animal burrows in the embankment, without
the necessity for the water level to have reached the full height
of the embankment (Foster et al. 2000; Fell et al. 2003; Richards
and Reddy 2007). Under certain conditions, seepage can liquefy the
sediment-water mixture and cause sliding of the embankment mass
or allow large volumes of material to be transported quickly as
slurry.
fects include differential settlement, sliding and slope instability,
high uplift pressure, and uncontrolled foundation seepage. Differ-
ential settlement may cause cracks and weaken layers in the em-
bankment, in which internal erosion may develop to initiate piping
failure. Excessive foundation seepage through permeable substrata
is often accompanied by the formation of sand boils, which often
look like miniature volcanoes ejecting water and sediment, and may
result in piping failure if not controlled. High uplift pressure and
saturation of foundation materials may give rise to slope instability
and sliding failure. The piping failures caused by foundation de-
fects are similar to those described in the preceding subsection,
but the initial breaches may involve the whole height of the em-
bankment. Sliding failures can form a large rupture much more rap-
idly than piping failures. Geotechnical conditions limit the extent of
initial sliding failure and the amount of forward movement, and
determine the actual size, shape, and position of failure.
Other causes. Channel migration and widening often change
the main flow path and may endanger a riverine levee system.
Significant erosion may occur near channel banks subject to high
energy river flow at the downstream end of bends and across from
tributary inflows, resulting in bank retreat and eventual levee
failure. Embankments constructed across ancient river beds or
stream channel meanders can provide weak points for seepage
and pipe formation. Earthquakes can damage or cause complete
failures in embankments. Additionally, lack of maintenance and
control is often the origin of embankment breaching; for instance,

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1551

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Dam breaching attributable to piping: (a) initiation; (b) t ¼ 5 min; (c) 8 min; (d) 13 min; (e) 13 min, following collapse of piping roof;
(f) 60 min, continued widening (reprinted from Hanson et al. 2010, with permission from the U.S. Society on Dams)
uncontrolled development of vegetation or animal burrows may
originate local weaknesses.
Special Features of Different Earthen Embankment
Breaching Processes
The breaching processes of earthen dams, levees, dikes, and bar-
riers differ. One of the most significant differences is the effect of
the upstream and downstream water conditions. In a dam breaching
event, the upstream reservoir water level drops and the breach out-
flow discharge increases to a peak as the breach enlarges; sub-
sequently, the discharge decreases as water level decreases and
storage volume in the reservoir is depleted. The dam breach size
and outflow are thus usually limited by reservoir characteristics
rather than downstream tailwater conditions. However, in a levee
or dike failure along a large lake, the water level either does not
drop or drops minimally. The breach size and outflow continue
to increase until the tailwater downstream of the breach rises to
reduce and eventually stop the flow through the breach. This down-
stream tailwater rise is likely to be the limiting condition. Tailwater
rise has a similar effect on a riverine levee breach, but upstream
river inflow (and hence catchment size) also affects the breach size
and outflow by sustaining the water level in the river. In addition, in
the case of a riverine levee breach, the flow is parallel to the em-
bankment, whereas in a dam breach, the flow is more or less
perpendicular to. A difference between dam and river levee breach-
ing would then be expected owing to the direction of the momen-
tum flux.
In a coastal context, sea dike or barrier breaching occurs from
the seaward side because of sustained high water levels and waves,
1552 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
especially storm surges, together with tide and barometric surges.
Barrier breaching can also occur from the bay side if the bay water
level is raised under extreme precipitation in the basin. The setup of
water level by strong winds and surges during a storm and the run-
up of waves can contribute to the inundation, and the presence of
waves in the incipient breach increases sediment mobilization and
transport. The breach flow may be affected by the tidal cycle, and
water conditions on both sides of the embankment tend to limit the
breach characteristics. In addition, a barrier breach may be closed
naturally by the sediments transported from adjacent beaches and
shores attributable to littoral drift, or it may increase in size and
become a new inlet or estuary (Kraus and Wamsley 2003).
Breach Characteristics
The embankment breach cross-section may be an approximate trap-
ezoid, rectangle, triangle, or parabola, depending on embankment
geometry, soil properties, water conditions, and failure mode. Most
historic dam failure events suggest a trapezoidal breach shape
(MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis 1984; Froehlich 2008;
Xu and Zhang 2009). However, many dam breaching experiments
(Morris and Hassan 2005; Hanson et al. 2005) and many field
levee, dike, and barrier breaches (Kraus and Hayashi 2005) dem-
onstrate a breach shape with vertical, near-vertical, or undercut
sides in both cohesive and noncohesive soils. This difference may
be attributable to the fact that historic dam failure data are often
associated with the final breach after an event when the soil dries
out, whereas experimental data describe the breach process as it
forms. The other possible explanation is that prototype dams are
usually higher than laboratory model dams and field levees, dikes,
 and barriers. The stability of a side slope depends on the relative
strength of the resistance forces, such as soil cohesion and suction,
against the driving forces, such as gravity (Simon et al. 2000;
Al-Riffai et al. 2009). Soil cohesion and suction tend to allow for
vertical breach sides in lower embankments, whereas gravity tends
to cause the collapse of side walls in high embankments. In addi-
tion, chemical substances (such as salinity) and organic materials in
water and soil may also affect the breach shape because they
modify the geotechnical properties.
The bottom of a fully formed dam breach is usually the foun-
dation, which is more resistant to erosion than the embankment
materials. However, base erosion often occurs in the breaching of
levees, dikes, and barriers, whose foundations may be erodible. The
maximum breach depth may be limited by the volume of headwater
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
at the time of failure, by tailwater rise, or by the presence of a layer
of erosion-resistant material located in the embankment.
Laboratory Experiments and Field Case Studies
Laboratory experimentation has been one of the key elements used
to understand embankment breaching processes and collect reliable
data to develop embankment breach models. Wahl (2007) reviewed
dozens of laboratory dam breach experiments consisting of approx-
imately 325 test runs spanning several decades by many investiga-
tors. Table 1 expands Wahl’s list to cover more than 726 test
runs in total for dam, levee, and sea dike breaching. Most of the
experiments focused on small-scale (approximately 0.15 to 1 m in
height), noncohesive (rockfill, sand, and fuse plug), and homo-
geneous embankments with overtopping erosion as the initiation
mechanism. Notable efforts have been made in the fuse plug
dam breach experiments of Tinney and Hsu (1961) and Pan et al.
(1993) and in several recent research programs, such as the
European IMPACT project (Morris and Hassan 2005), the USDA-
ARS research project (Hanson et al. 2005; Hunt et al. 2005), and
that of Zhang et al. (2009), to study more complex embankment
designs (e.g., zoned rockfill with interior structural elements), in-
ternal erosion and piping processes, and larger-scale (up to several
meters in height) embankment breaching.
Considering that laboratory experiments often encounter scale
effects and simplifications that may make them not readily compa-
rable with real-life breach situations, full-scale field experiments
and failure case studies are inevitably one of the most important
steps required to understand the complex natural phenomena and
validate embankment breach models. Examples of well-documented
field case studies include the Teton Dam breach of 1976 (Ponce
1982) and the Lawn Lake Dam breach of 1982 (Jarrett and Costa
1986). Justin (1932) and Singh (1996) briefly described 29 and 63
earth dam failures, respectively, with the history of the dam, geo-
logical, and hydrological aspects of its construction, the mode of
dam failure, and the breach characteristics. Wahl (1998) compiled
data sets from 108 past dam failure events. On the basis of cases in
the United States, China, and other countries, Xu and Zhang (2009)
developed a database consisting of 182 earth and rockfill dam fail-
ures, among which nearly half were for dams higher than 15 m; 75
cases had sufficient information for developing their parametric
breach model. The Rijkswaterstaat (1961) reported sea dike failures
in the Netherlands during the 1953 flood, and Kraus and Wamsley
(2003) described several case studies of barrier breaching along the
United States coast.
With respect to the flood propagation downstream of a dam-
break/breach, there are many examples of flume experiments, scale
model testing, and field surveys in the literature. For example, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1553
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
(WES 1960) measured a partial dam-break flow in a straight flume,
Bell et al. (1992) investigated a dam-break flow in an 180° bend
flume, Soares-Frazao and Zech (2008) measured a dam-break flow
through an idealized city, and Briechle et al. (2004) performed an
experimental study on riverine dike-break induced flood wave
propagation. Goutal (1999) provided field survey and scale model
data for the failure of the Malpasset Dam in France, Alcrudo and
Mulet (2007) described the failure of the Tous Dam in Spain,
and Begnudelli and Sanders (2007) described the failure of the
St. Francis Dam in the United States. These data are useful for
validation of dam-break flow models without considering sediment
transport. In addition to paleoflood reconstruction (Greenbaum
2007), remote sensing and satellite imagery (Hossain et al. 2009)
can also provide useful data. Several small-scale experimental
studies (Capart and Young 1998; Fraccarollo and Capart 2002;
Soares-Frazao et al. 2007; Spinewine and Zech 2007) have pro-
vided physical insights into dam-break flow over movable beds
and useful data to validate relevant numerical models. However,
larger-scale experiments and field investigations of movable-
bed dam-break flow are sorely needed but hindered by the lack
of efficient measurement techniques. One of the best documented
field cases for testing movable-bed dam-break flow model may
be the Lake Ha!Ha! dike breach of July 1996 (Brooks and
Lawrence 1999).
Although tremendous efforts have been made in field investiga-
tions, many real-life embankment failure events have been poorly
documented because there were too few eyewitnesses, a variation in
how eyewitnesses interpret and relate their observations, haphazard
data collection hampered at least initially by a priority focus on
rescue and recovery after a failure, and a lack of forthright disclo-
sure by parties that may anticipate legal fallout from a failure (Wahl
et al. 2008). To facilitate future calibration and validation of em-
bankment breaching and flood propagation models, more reliable
data is needed to establish a database consisting of available data
sets of historical events and past laboratory/field experiments. For
each case, the data should have sufficient documentation about in-
flow hydrograph or sea climate, reservoir or bay elevation-storage
curve, topography, breach outflow hydrograph, breach geometry
(shape, side slope, and width), failure time, embankment geometry
before failure, embankment material properties (particle size,
clay content, erodibility, construction method, cohesion, and shear
strength), embankment designs (rockfill and earthfill), and down-
stream flood characteristics (water level, inundation area, and
arrival time). The source reference and reliability of each item
of the data should be verified, rated, and reported.
Modeling of Earthen Embankment Breaching
Processes
The hydraulic analysis of a dam, levee, or dike breach and the re-
sulting flood includes three primary tasks: (1) predicting the breach
characteristics (e.g., shape, depth, width, and formation time) and
processes, (2) routing the upstream inflows, and (3) routing the
breach outflow hydrograph through the downstream area. Coastal
barrier breaching can occur from either side of the embankment, so
barrier breach analysis is more complex but can still be divided into
three similar tasks. Among these tasks, predicting breach character-
istics and processes is considered to contain the greatest uncertainty
(Singh 1996; Wahl 1998; Morris 2000). Embankment breach mod-
eling is discussed in this section, and upstream and downstream
flow routing is presented in the next section.
Although different classifications exist in the literature (Singh
1996; Wahl 1998; D’Eliso 2007; Morris et al. 2009b), embankment
 Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Embankment Breach Test Programs [Updated from Wahl (2007)]
Performing organization
Washington State Univ., U.S.
Univ. of Windsor, Canada
China
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Technical University of Graz
China
Simons, Li & Assoc. for
USDOT FHWA
Simons, Li & Assoc. for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
USDOT FHWA
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
University of Colorado, U.S.
Colorado State University, U.S.
USDA-ARS-HERU
USDA-ARS-HERU
USDA-ARS-HERU
IMPACT—HR Wallingford,
UK
Norway—IMPACT
Norway—Other field tests
Norway—Lab tests
Delft Univ. of Technology, Netherlands
University of Birmingham, UK
Brno Univ. of Technology,
Switzerland
Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand
Technical University of Lisbon,
Portugal
St. Petersburg State Technical
Univ., Russia
Asian Institute of Technology,
Thailand
South Africa
École Polytechnique de Montréal,
Canada
University of Ottawa, Canada
New Zealand/Switzerland
VAW, Switzerland
Germany-FLOODsite
Japan
Federal Armed Forces Univ.,
Germany
Wuhan University, China
Nanjing Hydraulic Research
Institute, China
Università di Padova, Italy
1554 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
Number of tests
Test description Literature citation > 726
Fuse plug breach—lab and field scales Tinney and Hsu (1961) 13
Fuse plug breach—lab scale Chee (1984) Unknown
Fuse plug breach—field scale Pan et al. (1993) > 50
Fuse plug breach—lab scale Pugh (1985) 8
Rockfill dam breach—overtopping Simmler and Samet (1982) 22
Rockfill dam breach—lab scale Pan et al. (1993) Approx. 6-8
Highway embankment—overtopping Chen and Anderson (1986) 35
Highway embankment—protection Clopper and Chen (1988), 74
Clopper (1989)
Embankment dam—overtopping Dodge (1988) 9
Embankment erosion—overtopping Powledge et al. (1989) 3
Overtopping breach AlQaser and Ruff (1993) 2
Erosion in cohesive bare-earth and Hanson and Temple (2002) 4
vegetated steep channels
Overtopping breach—cohesive Hanson et al. (2005), 10
Hunt et al. (2005)
Internal erosion breach—cohesive Hanson et al. (2010) 4
Lab-scale overtopping and piping—various Morris and Hassan (2005) 22
configurations
Large-scale overtopping and piping Morris and Hassan (2005), 5
breach—various configurations Vaskinn et al. (2004),
EBL_Kompetanse (2006)
Rockfill dams—through-flow and breach Vaskinn et al. (2004), 2
EBL_Kompetanse (2006)
Rockfill dams—through-flow and overtopping EBL_Kompetanse (2006) 23
Overtopping—sand dikes Visser (1998) 5
Overtopping—sand embankments Lecointe (1998) 2
Overtopping—noncohesive Jandora and Riha (2009) >1
Overtopping—noncohesive Coleman et al. (2002) 9
Overtopping—rockfill Franca and Almeida (2004) 22
Overtopping—noncohesive Rozov (2003) 4
Overtopping—noncohesive, full/partial-width Tingsanchali and Chinnarasri (2001), 16
breach Chinnarasri et al. (2004)
Overtopping—noncohesive Parkinson and Stretch (2007) 24
Overtopping—moraine Zerrouk and Marche (2005) 1
Overtopping—effects of compaction and initial Al-Riffai et al. (2009), 14
breach Orendorff (2009)
Overtopping—replicate landslide dam Davies et al. (2007) 2
Overtopping—noncohesive, lab scale Schmocker and Hager (2009) Approx. 60
Overtopping—coastal dike Geisenhainer and Kortenhaus (2006), Approx. 11
(small and large scales) Geisenhainer and Oumeraci (2008)
Levee breach—lab scale Fujita and Tamura (1987) 32
Overtopping—noncohesive, lab scale Kulisch (1994) Approx. 7
Overtopping—landslide dams, lab scale Cao et al. (2011) Approx. 50
Overtopping—cohesive, layered, field scale Zhang et al. (2009) 5
Criteria for overtopping failure—landslide dams, Gregoretti et al. (2010) 168
small-scale
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
 breach models are usually classified as parametric, simplified
physically-based, or detailed physically-based, considering the
model formulation and approximation of physical processes. These
can be further divided into empirical, analytical, and numerical
models in the solution approach used. Parametric models are usu-
ally empirical, simplified physically-based models may be solved
analytically or numerically, and detailed physically-based models
need to be solved numerically.
Parametric Breach Models
The parametric modeling approach uses statistically derived regres-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
outflow developed by using both water height and volume improve
correlations over single-variable relations.
Parkinson and Stretch (2007) established similar regression
equations for the breach formation time and peak outflow of bar-
riers in perched estuaries and coastal lagoons, considering the ef-
fects of the outflow volume, hydraulic head, and barrier breadth.
However, very few studies have been carried out to derive regres-
sion equations for levee breach parameters. The aforementioned
parametric dam breach models may not be strictly applicable to
levee breaches because water conditions upstream and downstream
of levee breaches may be very different from those at dam breaches,
as mentioned previously.
Only a few parametric dam breach models, such as those of

sion equations for estimating the embankment breach characteris-
tics. Such equations for dam breaching have been developed on the
basis of data from dozens of historic dam failures described in
the preceding section. Some of them are summarized in Table 2.
The concerned dependent parameters include breach width, shape,
side slope, peak outflow, and failure time, whereas the independent
variables usually include reservoir volume, initial water height,
dam height, dam type, configuration, failure mode, and material
erodibility. For example, the peak outflow is related to the height
of water above the breach invert at the time of failure (hw in Fig. 6,
or replaced by the dam height hd , or the water height h behind the
dam), to the volume of water stored above the breach invert at
the time of failure (V w , or replaced by the reservoir storage S),
or to both water height and volume. Xu and Zhang (2009) and
Pierce et al. (2010) found that multivariable equations for peak
von Thun and Gillette (1990), Walder and O’Connor (1997), and
Xu and Zhang (2009), consider the effect of embankment
erodibility. According to Wan and Fell (2004), Briaud (2008),
Jang et al. (2011), and Hanson et al. (2011), embankment erodibil-
ity plays an important role in embankment breaching. Sand and
clay are often associated with high and low erodibility, respectively,
whereas silt and rockfill are associated with medium erodibility.
Soil compaction conditions, dam cross-section geometry, and slope
surface protection also affects the erodibility of an embankment.
Potential errors can be massive if the embankment erodibility is
not considered. In addition, the breach depth (or the breach bottom
elevation) should be a dependent variable to be predicted, but many
of the parametric breach models miss it and use hw as an indepen-
dent variable. This will affect their predictability because hw is
related to the breach depth.

Table 2. Summary of Selected Parametric Embankment Breach Models

Reference Relations proposed Number of case studies Remarks
Kirkpatrick (1977) Qp ¼ 1:268ðhw þ 0:3Þ2:5 16 (plus 5
hypothetical failures)
SCS (1981) Qp ¼ 16:6ðhw Þ1:85 13
Hagen (1982) Qp ¼ 0:54ðhd SÞ0:5 6
Singh and Snorrason (1984) Guidance for B, z, t f , Qp ¼ 1:776S0:47 , 20 real failures and Qp Relations on the
Qp ¼ 13:4ðhd Þ1:89 8 simulated failures basis of simulations
MacDonald and V er ¼ 0:0261ðV w hw Þ0:769 (earthfill) 42
Langridge-Monopolis (1984) V er ¼ 0:00348ðV w hw Þ0:852 (nonearthfills)
t f ¼ 0:0179ðV er Þ0:364
Qp ¼ 1:154ðV w hw Þ0:41
Costa (1985) Qp ¼ 0:981ðhd SÞ0:42 31 constructed
dams
Evans (1986) Qp ¼ 0:72ðV w Þ0:53
USBR (1988) Bavg ¼ 3hw , t f ¼ 0:011Bavg 21
Qp ¼ 19:1ðhw Þ1:85 (envelope eq.)
Von Thun and Gillette (1990) Guidance for z, Bavg ¼ 2:5hw þ C b , t f ¼ Bavg =ð4hw Þ 57 Including erodibility
erosion-resistant, t f ¼ Bavg =ð4hw þ 61Þ highly erodible
Froehlich (1995a) Qp ¼ 0:607ðV w Þ0:295 ðhw Þ1:24 22
Froehlich (1995b) Guidance for z, Bavg ¼ 0:1803K o ðV w Þ0:32 ðhb Þ0:19 63 Including overtopping/piping
t f ¼ 0:00254ðV w Þ0:53 ðhb Þ
0:9 in K o
Walder and O’Connor (1997) Qp ¼ f (V w , relative erodibility) Including erodibility
Xu and Zhang (2009) B, Qp , t f ¼ f (V w , hw , erodibility, etc.) 75 Considering overtopping
and piping; low, medium,
and high erodibility
Pierce et al. (2010) Qp ¼ 0:0176ðVhÞ0:606 or Qp ¼ 0:038V 0:475 h1:09 87
Note: B = breach width; Bavg = average breach width (m); C b = offset factor varying as a function of reservoir volume; h = height of water behind dam;
hb = height of breach (m); hd = height of dam (m); hw = height of water above breach invert at failure (m); K o ¼ 1:4 for overtopping and 1.0 for piping;
Qp = peak discharge (m3 =s); S = reservoir storage (m3 ); t f = failure time (h); V = volume of water behind dam; V er = volume of embankment material
eroded (m3 ); V w = volume of water stored above breach invert at failure (m3 ); and z = breach side slope coefficient defined in Fig. 6.

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1555

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.


Fig. 6. Sketch of trapezoidal breach cross-section
Simplified Physically-Based Breach Models
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In the last decades, many simplified physically-based embankment
breach models have been developed on the basis of either analytical
or numerical solutions. Some of these models are summarized in
Table 3. They usually simplify the breach cross-section as a trap-
ezoid (Fig. 6), rectangle, or triangle, and estimate the flow through
the breach by using the broad-crested weir relation or orifice flow
equation. To derive the analytical models, significant simplifica-
tions have to be made. For example, the reservoir rating curve
is approximated with a linear or simple power function between
the water level and surface area (or volume), the erosion rate at
the breach is assumed to be a power function of the flow velocity
(Singh and Scarlatos 1988; Rozov 2003; Franca and Almeida 2004)
or shear stress (Macchione 2008; Macchione and Rino 2008), and
erosion on the downstream slope is ignored. Such simplifications
limit the applicability of the analytical models. Therefore, better
approximations have been used in the numerically solved simpli-
fied breach models for dams (Cristofano 1965; Harris and Wagner
1967; Lou 1981; Ponce and Tsivoglou 1981; Nogueira 1984; Fread
1984, 1988; Singh and Scarlatos 1985; Broich 1998; Temple et al.
2005, 2006), sea dikes (Visser 1998; D’Eliso 2007), and barriers
(Kraus and Hayashi 2005). The rating curve of the reservoir or
bay is represented more accurately by using measured pair values
of water level and surface area (or volume), and the erosion at the
breach crest and on the downstream slope is modeled by using im-
proved sediment transport models. In the case of sea dike and levee
breaches, wave overtopping and/or overflow by high mean sea
water levels may be estimated by using empirical relations of
van der Meer and Janssen (1995), Bleck et al. (2000), and Hughes
and Nadal (2009). In the barrier breach model of Kraus and
Hayashi (2005), the breach downcutting and widening are calcu-
lated with the sediment continuity equation, considering the long-
shore sediment transport from adjacent shores.
The simplifications of the erosion and breaching processes in
the aforementioned analytical and numerical simplified breach
models have some inconsistency with subsequent observations
of breaching mechanics in case studies and laboratory tests (Wahl
et al. 2008). Almost all are based on local equilibrium bed-load
sediment transport (Harris and Wagner 1967; Lou 1981; Nogueira
1984; Fread 1988; Singh and Scarlatos 1985), and only a few recent
models have considered the breach formation by headcut erosion
(Hanson et al. 2005; Zhu et al. 2006; D’Eliso 2007) and the non-
equilibrium total-load sediment transport from clear-water in the
reservoir to downstream turbid water (Visser 1998; Wu et al.
2009). Uncertainties in predicted breach parameters and the flood
hydrograph exist because of significant model simplifications
(Mohamed et al. 2002). The application of the models has been
hindered by an inability to quantify the erodibility of cohesive
embankment materials (Wahl et al. 2008). In recent years, sev-
eral research groups (Mohamed et al. 2002; Wang et al. 2006;
1556 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
Wahl et al. 2008; Morris et al. 2009a; Wu et al. 2009) have been
developing more comprehensive (but still simplified) physically-
based embankment breach models which are able to simulate
the breaching processes of cohesive and noncohesive, homo-
geneous, and composite embankments attributable to overtopping
and piping.
Detailed Physically-Based Breach Models
Recently, one-dimensional (1D), depth-averaged two-dimensional
(2D), and three-dimensional (3D) numerical models based on hy-
drodynamic and sediment transport equations have been developed
to simulate the embankment breaching processes in greater detail
(Odd et al. 1995; Broich 1998; Basco and Shin 1999; Tingsanchali
and Chinnarasri 2001; Wang and Bowles 2006; Faeh 2007; D’Eliso
2007; Wang et al. 2008; Roelvink et al. 2009; Wu 2010; Cao et al.
2011). To handle overtopping flow that is usually composed of
mixed flow regimes with discontinuities, shock-capturing schemes,
such as approximate Riemann solvers and total variation diminish-
ing (TVD) schemes, are usually used in 1D and depth-averaged 2D
models (Toro 2001; Wu 2007), and the volume-of-fluid method,
level-set method, and smooth particle hydrodynamics method in
vertical 2D and 3D modeling (Mohapatra et al. 1999; Shigematsu
et al. 2004; Dalrymple and Herault 2009).
These detailed breach models encounter difficulties owing to a
lack of understanding of sediment transport under embankment
breach flow conditions. Dam-break flows over movable beds differ
from clear-water flows on fixed beds because they are significantly
affected by high sediment concentration and rapid bed change,
which should be included in the flow continuity and momentum
equations (Cao et al. 2004; Wu and Wang 2007; Wu 2010). The
sediment entrainment or transport capacity functions developed
under uniform flow conditions may not be valid for embankment
breach flow situations (Odd et al. 1995; Wu and Wang 2007).
Moreover, the traditional assumption of local equilibrium capacity
of sediment transport can be problematic, and a nonequilibrium
sediment transport approach should be used in the case of transient
flows in which strong erosion and deposition occur (Capart and
Young 1998; Cao et al. 2004; Wu 2010). Furthermore, high-
concentration sediment-laden flow may become non-Newtonian,
two-phase or two-layer flow, which requires significantly different
modeling strategies (Fraccarollo and Capart 2002; Greco et al.
2008; Zech et al. 2008).
Detailed breach modeling is now limited to only overtopping
flow. Many more challenges are encountered in the cases of piping
breach in which pipe and open-channel flows, and surface and
subsurface flows all exist. Considering that multidimensional, in
particular 3D, physically-based breach models are still at the early
stage of development, only a few examples of 1D/2D breach mod-
els are listed in Table 4.
Upstream and Downstream Flow Routing
The aforementioned parametric and simplified physically-based
earthen embankment breach models are usually integrated with
flood routing models. The parametric models determine the ulti-
mate width, depth and shape of the breach, and the time required
for breach development, whereas the simplified breach models sim-
ulate the temporal variations of the breach geometry. Both types of
models can provide the breach outflow hydrograph as boundary
conditions for upstream and downstream flow routing.
The upstream routing is often on the basis of the mass balance of
the reservoir in the case of dam failure
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. Summary of Selected Simplified Physically-Based Embankment Breach Models

Breach morphology
Model Cross-section Longitudinal section Flow over the breach Sediment transport Geomechanics Solution method Remarks
Singh and Scarlatos Triangular, Broad-crested weir Erosion rate as Analytical solution Simplified reservoir
(1988) trapezoidal, and formula function of flow storage curve
rectangular velocity
Rezov (2003) Rectangular with Exner equation Weir formula Sediment transport as Analytical solution Simplified reservoir
initial bottom at the function of flow storage curve
dam base velocity and depth
Franca and Almeida Breach shape Weir formula Sediment transport as Analytical solution Simplified reservoir
(2004) observed by using function of flow storage curve,
experiments velocity rockfill dams
Macchione (2008); Triangular to Weir formula Sediment transport as Analytical solution Simplified reservoir
Macchione and Rino trapezoidal function of bed shear storage curve
(2008) stress
Cristofano (1965) Trapezoidal with Constant d=s slope Broad-crested weir Cristofano’s formula No lateral collapse Iterative No downstream
constant bottom formula submergence
width
BRDAM (Brown and Constant parabolic Weir formula for Schoklitsch’s Top wedge failure Numerical No downstream
Rodgers 1981; based shape overtopping and formula during piping, no submergence
on Harris and orifice for piping lateral collapse
Wagner 1967)
Ponce and Tsivoglou Relation between the Exner equation Unsteady Saint- Meyer-Peter and No lateral collapse Preissmann’s finite
(1981) top-width and Venant equations Mueller’s formula difference
discharge
Lou (1981) Most efficient stable Exner equation Unsteady Saint- DuBoys’ and No lateral collapse Preissmann’s finite

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.

section Venant equations Einstein’s formulas difference
Nogueira (1984) Determined by Exner equation Unsteady Saint- Meyer-Peter and No lateral collapse Preissmann’s finite
effective shear stress Venant equations Mueller’s formula difference
DAMBRK (Fread Trapezoidal or Constant d=s slope Weir formula Assumed linear None Numerical iterative
1984; similar one rectangular erosion
used by HEC-RAS)
BEED (Singh and Trapezoidal Constant d=s slope Weir formula Einstein and Brown, Breach side slope Numerical iterative
Scarlatos 1985) and erosion of the Meyer-Peter-Mueller stability
crest
EMBANK (Chen Erosion in horizontal Broad-crested weir DuBoys’ formula, Iterative nomograms Road embankment
and Anderson 1986) layers; breach width velocity profile Shields diagram failure
undetermined
NWS BREACH Rectangular and Constant d=s slope Weir formula for Meyer-Peter- Breach side slope Numerical-iterative With downstream
(Fread 1988) trapezoidal overtopping and Mueller, modified by stability, top wedge submergence effects
orifice for piping Smart failure during piping

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1557

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 3. (Continued.)
Breach morphology
Model Cross-section Longitudinal section Flow over the breach Sediment transport Geomechanics Solution method Remarks
DEICH_A (Broich Trapezoidal Horizontal channel Weir formula Meyer-Peter-Mueller
1998)
BRES (Visser 1998; Trapezoidal Rotation up to a Weir formula Various equations, Simple slope stability Numerical iterative Sea dike breach
Zhu et al. 2006) constant d/s slope noncohesive and mechanism
cohesive
HR BREACH Effective shear stress Soil erosion/wasting Variable weir plus Various equations, Slope stability, core Numerical iterative Option for
(Mohamed et al. dependent 1D steady noncohesive and stability, and uncertainties in
2002; Morris et al. nonuniform equation cohesive multiple zones of material properties
2009a) variable erodibility and full Monte Carlo
simulation
Kraus and Hayashi Rectangular Horizontal channel 1D Keulegan Empirical formula, None Numerical iterative Coastal barrier
(2005) equation plus longshore breach
sediment source
FIREBIRD (Wang Variable trapezoidal Exner equation Unsteady St. Venant Sediment transport Side stability Numerical finite Limited testing on
et al. 2006) equations formulas or erosion differences Norweigian data and
rate equations two prototype cases
D’Eliso (2007) Rectangular to Headcut Wave overtopping Formulas erosion Grass cover, clay Numerical iterative Composite sea dike
trapezoidal development and and/or overflow— rate and headcut cover, sand core, and failure
migration Bernoulli equation advance breach slope stability
WinDAM/SIMBA Rectangular Headcut Weir formula Parametric relations Breach side slope Numerical iterative

1558 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011

(Hanson et al. 2005; trapezoidal development and for headcut advance, erosion
Temple et al. 2005, migration bottom, and lateral
2006; Hanson et al. erosion

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.

2010)
Wu et al. (2009) Trapezoidal or Variable slope and Weir formula for Nonequilibriun Lateral erosion, Numerical iterative With downstream
rectangular erosion of the crest overtopping and sediment transport, headcut stability, submergence,
orifice for piping noncohesive and clay core stability, configurations of
cohesive erosion, and and top wedge failure dam and levee
headcut advance during piping
 Table 4. Summary of Selected Multidimensional Physically-Based Embankment Breach Models
Sediment transport
Model Breach morphology Flow capacity Geomechanics Solution method Remarks
Tingsanchali and 1D Exner equation 1D St. Venant Multiple formulas Longitudinal slope Finite difference, Overtopping, no
Chinnarasri (2001) equations stability uncoupled lateral erosion
DEICH_N1 and Evolution from 1D/ Shallow water Nine different 1D/2D numerical
DEICH_N2 2D Exner equation equations formulas available model, uncoupled
(Broich 1998)
Dave_F 2D Exner equation 2D shallow water Erosion formula 2D numerical model, Validated with
(Froehlich 2004) equations from WEPP, USDA uncoupled Norweigian field
tests
Wang and Bowles Clear-water scour 2D shallow water Chen and Anderson’s 3D slope stability 2D TVD finite Noncohesive dam,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(2006) equations formula for difference, overtopping

erosion rate uncoupled
Faeh (2007) 2D Exner equation 2D shallow water Formulas for Lateral erosion, 2D finite volume Noncohesive levee,
equations bed-load and vertical erosion, and (Roe and HLL), overtopping
suspended load slope stability uncoupled
Wang et al. 2D nonequilibrium 2D shallow water Formula for Lateral erosion, 2D finite volume Noncohesive,
(2008) sediment transport equations bed-load vertical erosion, and (Roe’s Riemann overtopping
equation slope stability solver), coupled
Roelvink et al. 2D nonequilibrium 2D shallow water Soulsby formula Bed avalanching 2D finite difference, Noncohesive dune
(2009) sediment transport equations with uncoupled and barrier,
equation wave-action overtopping
Wu and Wang 1D/2D Generalized Wu et al. total-load Lateral erosion and 1D/2D finite volume Noncohesive dam
(2007); Wu Nonequilibrium shallow water capacity formula slope stability (HLL) scheme, and levee,
(2010) total-load transp ort equations (repose angle) coupled overtopping
Cao et al. 2 D nonequilibrium Generalized shallow Modified Meyer- Slope stability Finite volume Landslide dam,
(2011) sediment transport water equations Peter and Mueller (repose angle) (HLLC) scheme, overtopping
bed-load coupled

dV The 1D and depth-averaged 2D hydrodynamic models can be

¼ Qi
Qb
Qo ð1Þ
dt
where t = time; V = volume of water in the reservoir; Qi = inflow
discharge; Qb = breach flow; and Qo = outflow from spillways and
powerhouse. In a large flood forecasting system, the upstream in-
coming flow Qi can be predicted by using a watershed hydrologic
model such as the Hydrological Engineering Center’s hydrologic
modeling system (HEC-HMS) (USACE 2000). The breach flow Qb
can be determined by using the broad-weir or orifice flow equation
as the breach enlarges at the rate specified by the parametric or
simplified breach models. An equation similar to Eq. (1) can also
be derived for the mass balance in the river in the case of levee
failure, or in the bay in the case of barrier failure.
The downstream flood routing may be performed by using a 1D
or depth-averaged 2D hydrodynamic unsteady flow model that sol-
ves the St. Venant equations. The 1D hydraulic routing models
often used in the United States include FLDWAV, UNET, and
HEC-RAS (Fread and Lewis 1988; Brunner 2003). 2D models in-
clude those developed by Galland et al. (1991), Valiani et al.
(2002), Schwanenberg and Harms (2004), Ying and Wang (2004),
Begnudelli and Sanders (2007), Gallegos et al. (2009), and Lai
(2010). Many of these 2D models use shock-capturing schemes,
such as approximate Riemann solvers and TVD schemes, to solve
the St. Venant equations for dam-break flows. 1D models can pre-
dict the flood propagation in channels with reasonable accuracy and
good efficiency, but a 2D or hybrid 1D/2D approach should be used
in wide floodplains and complex terrain regions with elevated
roads, secondary dikes, levees, buildings, and other obstacles
(Vanderkimpen and Peeters 2008).
used from upstream to downstream and include the breach as an
intrinsic node, a subdomain, or an internal boundary condition,
with the breach morphology and outflow determined by using re-
gression equations or a simplified breach model. The detailed
multidimensional physically-based breach models described in the
preceding section can be extended to simulate the flow and sedi-
ment transport over movable beds in the entire domain, including
the breach and the upstream and downstream zones (Faeh 2007;
Wu 2010). Compared to the mass balance model described in
Eq. (1), the 1D and 2D hydrodynamic routing models have better
accuracy, particularly in the case of riverine levee breaching, but
require more computational effort.
To maximize their usefulness and benefits, embankment breach
models should be integrated into a comprehensive flood forecasting
and risk assessment system (e.g., Altinakar et al. 2009; Morris et al.
2009a). Such an integrated system should combine weather fore-
casting, basin hydrological simulation, channel and floodplain flow
routing, embankment breach modeling, risk assessment, and deci-
sion support capabilities. Storm surge and wave modeling is also
needed in the case of sea dike and barrier breaching. The system
should take advantage of a comprehensive database, including the
meteorological, hydrological, hydrodynamic, geomorphological,
and geological features of the study area; water bodies; and struc-
tures. Additional information on agricultural and dairy lands, natu-
ral areas, preserved habitats, urban and industrial communities,
highways, railways, and ports are also useful for the assessment
of socioeconomic and/or environmental impacts of embankment
failure. Such modeling systems and databases have the potential to

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1559

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.

 support emergency action plans for dam and levee hazards and
serve as the key components of an early warning system.
3.
Model Uncertainties
Embankment breach models have uncertainties attributable to flow
conditions, embankment configurations, material properties, model
formulations, and parameters. Some uncertainties are attributable
to the complexity of the phenomenon and our lack of associated
knowledge. In particular, high uncertainties result from the inherent
variation in the erodibility of cohesive embankment materials as a
function of soil type, compaction degree, moisture condition, veg-
etation growth, and wildlife (e.g., burrowing animals) intrusion,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for embankment breaches, including data from laboratory
and field experiments and failure events all over the world,
would be beneficial to breach model development.
The current challenge for embankment breach modeling is pre-
dicting initiation of embankment breach when given a set of
conditions. This includes prediction of the breach mode (over-
topping, piping, or foundation defects), how much time is re-
quired to initiate a breach, and the possibility for the initial
breach to develop into a failure under the given conditions.
Most of the existing breach models simulate only the breach
development processes after an initial breach is given and can-
not handle the breach initiation process adequately. Therefore,
laboratory experimentation, field survey, and computational
modeling need to be carried out to better understand embank-

and the effects of variability of embankment design, configuration,
and geometry. Reducing these uncertainties requires us to collect
high-quality data about the study case, establish better (although
not necessarily more complicated) model formulations, and vali-
date and calibrate the models systematically.
Uncertainty can be quantified by statistical analysis of past event
data (Wahl 2004), sensitivity analysis (Fread 1984; Morris and
Hassan 2005; Al-Riffai et al. 2007), Monte Carlo simulation
(Morris and Hassan 2005; Froehlich 2008), and Latin hypercube
sampling simulation (Hodak and Jandora 2004). By using 108 sets
of dam failure data, Wahl (2004) assessed various parametric
embankment breach models, including Kirkpatrick (1977), SCS
(1981), Hagen (1982), MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis
(1984), Singh and Snorrason (1984), Costa (1985), Evans (1986),
USBR (1988), von Thun and Gillette (1990), Froehlich (1995a, b),
and Walder and O’Connor (1997), and found that these methods
have uncertainties of approximately 1=3, 1, and 1=3 to 1
order of magnitude for predicted breach width, failure time, and
peak outflow, respectively. Therefore, it is important to conduct un-
certainty analyses for existing and newly developed embankment
breach models by using available data and incorporate uncertainties
into risk assessment and management.
Model Limitations and Research Needs
Mohamed et al. (2002), D’Eliso (2007), and Morris et al. (2009b)
identified the deficiencies and limitations of available embankment
breach models, regarding breach initiation, breach location, breach
mode, breach morphology, breach flow hydraulics, sediment trans-
port, headcut migration, lateral erosion and mass failure, soil prop-
erties, composite embankments, vegetation effects, infiltration and
seepage, embankment base erosion, and tailwater effect. In general
terms, the following tasks need to be carried out in the near future to
improve earthen embankment breach modeling:
1. Laboratory and field experiments should be performed to
better understand the complex physical processes of embank-
ment breaching. Because material properties do not scale uni-
formly and can be difficult to reproduce on small scales,
physical model testing is better performed on large scales to
overcome those problems. Large-scale models allow for the
use of near-prototype size materials and make results more re-
liable and easier to interpret. Physical model testing should
consider a variety of embankment designs, foundation config-
urations, soil types and state, and headwater and tailwater con-
ditions (Wahl 1998).
2. It is important to collect the data from real-world case studies
of past and future dam failures. It would be extremely valuable
to form a standing forensic team that can quickly investigate
failures or incidents of dam/levee/barrier survival of extreme
events (e.g., overtopped, but not failed). A reliable database
ment breach initiation.
4. Quantification of cohesive soil erosion and headcut migration
is the weakest point in all the developed embankment breach
models. Only a few parametric breach models have considered
the effects of dam erodibility, the existing simplified or detailed
physically-based breach models have to use oversimplified re-
lations of cohesive soil erosion rate, and only a few physically-
based breach models have considered headcut migration. The
effects of soil type, moisture content and compaction on cohe-
sive soil erosion, and headcut migration need to be better
incorporated (Gaucher et al. 2010; Jang et al. 2010; Hanson
et al. 2011).
5. Based on past experience, the embankment breach formation
from its initiation to the development of the final breach
geometry can vary from dozens of minutes to a few hours.
Engineers need a quick prediction of the breach flood to make
timely warnings and decisions on evacuation and mitiga-
tion. The most important parameters are the final breach
dimensions and the time to reach the final breach. Therefore,
current engineering practice still relies on parametric models
and simplified physically-based models, which can meet some
of the basic requirements. Nevertheless, next-generation sim-
plified physically-based breach models are needed, which
should be able to simulate the breaching processes of non-
cohesive, cohesive, homogeneous, and composite embank-
ments attributable to overtopping, piping, and foundation
defects with sounder physical basis, better reliability, and less
uncertainty.
6. Detailed multidimensional physically-based models can pro-
vide better physical insight and knowledge on the complex
embankment breaching processes, but their computational
efficiency needs to be improved for quick applications and
solutions, either by seeking better numerical schemes or using
higher-performance computers. Several new approaches have
been proposed for modeling dam-break/breaching flow and se-
diment transport over movable beds, on the basis of single-
phase, two-phase, or two-layer flow theories, but all depend on
models used for handling the sediment entrainment at the
bed. Those models exist but are not yet sufficiently validated
against experiments and real-life cases. More laboratory ex-
periments and field investigations with better measurement
techniques are needed to improve the understanding and mod-
eling of sediment entrainment under embankment break/
breaching flows.
7. Numerous embankment breach models are available in the
literature and are currently under development. It is recognized
that one breach model will not cover all the failure mechanisms
of every type of dam or levee in an optimal way. Engineers
and government authorities are often confused about which
model should be used under which conditions. There is an

1560 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.

 overwhelming need to compare and evaluate existing modeling
tools and select a set of state-of-the-art methodologies to simu-
late the breaching processes of earthen embankments and the
hydrodynamic and morphodynamic processes in the upstream
and downstream areas at various levels of sophistication. The
capability, reliability, uncertainties, and limitations of each re-
commended model need to be adequately documented.
8. It is necessary to develop engineering design aids and standard
procedures for embankment breach analysis and hazard man-
agement. Because of the complexity of the problem, the insuf-
ficiency of data and information and the potential limitations
and uncertainties of existing breach models that are still under
development, a multitier approach may be a better choice,
which should include the following steps: (1) collect enough
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
hydrological and geotechnical data on the specific embank-
ment structure and the surrounding areas, (2) identify embank-
ment types, possible failure mechanisms, and processes and
carefully select one or several suitable embankment breach
models using the available information, (3) integrate the
selected breach model(s) into a robust system for flood predic-
tion and risk assessment, (4) simulate various breaching sce-
narios by using the modeling system, (5) analyze uncertainties
in the model results, (6) an emergency action plan should
be developed on the basis of the breach analysis and flood
prediction results, and (7) inspection and assessment of the
structure should be carried out regularly and in emergency
situations and an early warning system is highly desirable for
management agencies, local communities, and owners.
Summary
Embankment breaching processes are very complex and involve
mixed-regime free-surface flow with overfalls and hydraulic jumps,
pressurized pipe flow, strong vertical and lateral erosion, discrete
mass failure, and headcut migration. The failure mode and mecha-
nism are affected by upstream and downstream water conditions,
embankment configurations, and soil properties and state. Great
progress has been made to investigate embankment breaching proc-
esses through laboratory and field experiments and real-world case
studies. However, most laboratory experiments were for small-
scale homogeneous embankments, only a few outdoor experiments
were conducted at large scales (up to several meters in height) and/
or were of composite construction, and only limited data sets for
historical embankment failures were sufficiently documented. A
number of parametric, simplified physically-based, and detailed
multidimensional physically-based embankment breach models
have been established in the past decades, but prediction with these
models involves significant uncertainties. The biggest limitation of
the existing breach models is quantifying erosion rates or erodibil-
ity of cohesive soils and sediment entrainment under embankment
break/breaching flows. It is important to conduct more large-scale
laboratory experiments and field case studies to improve existing
embankment breach models or develop new ones. These models
should also be enhanced by incorporating better physical insights,
by using more efficient computational technologies, and integrating
them into more robust flood forecasting and risk assessment sys-
tems with comprehensive relevant databases.
Acknowledgments
The ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/Levee Breaching
(Break Fluvial Processes) is chaired by Weiming Wu, University
of Mississippi, and consists of the following members:
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1561
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
Mustafa S. Altinakar (University of Mississippi), Mahmoud
Al-Riffai (University of Ottawa, Canada), Nathaniel Bergman
(The Building & Infrastructure Testing Laboratory Ltd., Israel),
Scott F. Bradford (Naval Research Laboratory), Zhixian Cao
(Wuhan University, China), Qin J. Chen (Louisiana State
University), Serban G. Constantinescu (University of Iowa),
Jennifer G. Duan (University of Arizona), D. Michael Gee
(HEC, Army Corp of Engineers), Blair Greimann (Bureau of
Reclamation), Greg Hanson (USDA-ARS-HERU), Zhiguo He
(Zhejiang University, China), Pal Hegedus (RBF Consulting),
Thomas Van Hoestenberghe (Soresma, Belgium), David
Huddleston (Tennessee University of Technology), Steven A.
Hughes (ERDC, Army Corp of Engineers), Jasim Imran (Univer-
sity of South Carolina), Yafei Jia (University of Mississippi),
Jeffrey D. Jorgeson (ERDC, Army Corp of Engineers), René
Kahawita (HydroQuebec, Canada), Cassie C. Klumpp (Bureau
of Reclamation), Yong Lai (Bureau of Reclamation), Eddy J.
Langendoen (National Sedimentation Laboratory), Shielan Liu
(BGC Engineering Inc., Canada), Fekadu Moreda (National
Weather Service, NOAA), Mark Morris (HR Wallingford, U.K.),
Hervé Morvan (University of Nottingham, U.K.), Bryan Orendorff
(McCormick Rankin Corporation, Canada), Jay Pak (HEC, Army
Corp of Engineers), Patrik Peeters (Flanders Hydraulics Research,
Belgium), Seann Reed (National Weather Service, NOAA), Brett F.
Sanders (University of California at Irvine), Steve H. Scott (ERDC,
Army Corp of Engineers), Sandra Soares-Frazao (Université
Catholique de Louvain, Belgium), Chung R. Song (University of
Mississippi), James Sutherland (HR Wallingford, U.K.), Martin J.
Teal (WEST Consultants, Inc.), Ryota Tsubaki (Hiroshima Univ.,
Japan), Tony L. Wahl (Bureau of Reclamation), David M. Weston
(Army Corp of Engineers), David T. Williams (David T. Williams
and Associates, Colorado), Yves Zech (Université Catholique de
Louvain, Belgium), and Limin Zhang (Hong Kong University of
Science and Technology, China).
References
Alcrudo, F., and Mulet, J. (2007). “Description of the Tous Dam break case
study (Spain).” J. Hydr. Res., IAHR, 45 (Extra issue), 45–57.
Allsop, N. W. H. A., Kortenhaus, A., and Morris, M. W. (2007). “Failure
mechanisms for flood defense structures.” FLOODsite Rep. T04-06-01,
FLOODsite Consortium, 〈www.floodsite.net〉.
AlQaser, G., and Ruff, J. F. (1993). “Progressive failure of an overtopped
embankment.” Proc., 1993 Hydraulic Speciality Conf., ASCE,
New York.
Al-Riffai, M., Nistor, I., Orendorff, B., Rennie, C. D., and St-Germain, P.
(2009). “Influence of compaction and toe-drains on the formation of
breach channels of overtopped earth embankments: An experimental
study.” Proc., 33rd IAHR Congr.–Water Engineering for a Sustainable
Environment (CD-ROM), Vancouver, Canada.
Al-Riffai, M., Nistor, I., Vanapalli, S., and Orendorff, B. (2007). “Overtop-
ping of earth embankments: Sensitivity analysis of dam breaching
using two numerical models.” Proc., 60th Canadian Geotechnical
Conf., Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1213–1220.
Altinakar, M. S., Matheu, E. E., and McGrath, M. (2009). “New generation
modeling and decision support tools for studying impacts of dam
failures.” Proc., Association of State Dam Safety Officials Dam Safety
2009 Annual Conf., ASDSO, Lexington, KY.
ASCE Hurricane Katrina External Review Panel. (2007). “The New
Orleans hurricane protection system: What went wrong and why?”
Rep. of American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Basco, D. R., and Shin, C. S. (1999). “A one-dimensional numerical
model for storm-breaching of barrier islands.” J. Coastal Res., 15(1),
241–260.
Begnudelli, L., and Sanders, B. F. (2007). “Simulation of the St. Francis
dam-break flood.” J. Eng. Mech., 133(11), 1200–1212.
 Bell, S. W., Elliot, R. C., and Chaudhry, M. H. (1992). “Experimental
results of two-dimensional dam-break flows.” J. Hydr. Res., IAHR,
30(2), 225–252.
Bleck, M., Oumeraci, H., and Schuettrumpf, A. (2000). “Combined wave
overtopping and overflow of dikes and seawalls.” Proc., 27th Int. Conf.
on Coastal Eng., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Briaud, J. L. (2008). “Case histories in soil and rock erosion: Woodrow
Wilson Bridge, Brazos River Meander, Normandy Cliff, and New
Orleans levees.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 134(10), 1425–1447.
Briechle, S., Joeppen, A., and Koengeter, J. (2004). “Physical model tests
for dike-break induced, two-dimensional flood wave propagation.”
Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. Fluvial Hydraulics (River Flow 2004), Vol. 2,
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 937–944.
Broich, K. (1998). “Mathematical modeling of dam-break erosion caused
by overtopping.” M. Morris, ed., CADAM-Concerted Action on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Dambreak Modeling: 2nd Project Workshop, Munich, Germany.
Brooks, G. R., and Lawrence, D. E. (1999). “The drainage of the
Lake Ha!Ha! Reservoir and downstream geomorphic impacts along
Ha!Ha! River, Saguenay area, Quebec, Canada.” Geomorphology,
28(1–2), 141–168.
Brown, R. J., and Rogers, D. C. (1981). “BRDAM users’ manual.” U.S.
Department of the Interior, Denver.
Brunner, G. W. (2003). “Dam and levee breaching with HEC-RAS.”
Proc., 2003 World Water and Environmental Resources Congr., ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Cao, Z., Pender, G., Wallis, S., and Carling, P. (2004). “Computational
dam-break hydraulics over erodible sediment bed.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
130(7), 689–703.
Cao, Z., Yue, Z., and Pender, G. (2011). “Landslide dam failure and flood
hydraulics. Part I: Experimental investigation. Part II: Coupled math-
ematical modeling.” Natural Hazards, 59(2), 1003–1045.
Capart, H., and Young, D. L. (1998). “Formation of jump by the dam-break
wave over a granular bed.” J. Fluid Mech., 372, 165–187.
Chee, S. D. (1984). “Washout of spillway dams: Channels and channel
control structures.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Hydraulic Design in Water
Resources Eng., Southampton, UK.
Chen, Y. H., and Anderson, B. A. (1986). “Development of a methodology
for estimating embankment damage due to flood overtopping.” FHWA/
RD-86/126, FHWA, McLean, VA.
Chinnarasri, C., Jirakitlerd, S., and Wongwises, S. (2004). “Embankment
dam breach and its outflow characteristics.” Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst.,
21(4), 247–264.
Clopper, P. E. (1989). “Hydraulic stability of articulated concrete block
revetment system during overtopping flow.” Rep. No. FHWA-RD-89-
199, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Clopper, P. E., and Chen, Y. H. (1988). “Minimizing embankment damage
during overtopping flow.” Rep. No. FHWA-RD-88-181, Federal High-
way Administration, McLean, VA.
Coleman, S. E., Andrews, D. P., and Webby, M. G. (2002). “Overtopping
breaching of noncohesive embankment dams.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
128(9), 829–838.
Costa, J. E. (1985). “Floods from dam failures.” Open-File Rep.
No. 85-560, USGS, Denver, 54.
Cristofano, E. A. (1965). “Method of computing erosion rate of failure of
earth dams.” U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
Dalrymple, R. A., and Herault, A. (2009). “Levee breaching with GPU-
SPHysics code.” Proc., 4th Int. SPHERIC Workshop, ERCOFTAC,
Nantes, France.
Davies, T. R., Manville, V. R., Kunz, M., and Donaldini, L. (2007).
“Modeling landslide dambreak flood magnitudes: Case study.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 133(7), 713–720.
D’Eliso, C. (2007). “Breaching of sea dikes initiated by wave overtopping:
A tiered and modular modeling approach.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of
Braunschweig, Germany, and Univ. of Florence, Italy.
Dodge, R. A. (1988). Overtopping flow on low embankment dams:
Summary report of model tests, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver.
EBL_Kompetanse. (2006). “Stability and breaching of embankment dams.”
Rep. Sub-project 3 (SP3): Breaching of embankment dams,
Norway.
Evans, S. G. (1986). “The maximum discharge of outburst floods caused by
1562 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
the breaching of man-made and natural dams.” Can. Geotech. J., 23(3),
385–387.
Faeh, R. (2007). “Numerical modeling of breach erosion of river embank-
ments.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 133(9), 1000–1009.
Fell, R., Wan, C. F., Cyganiewicz, J., and Foster, M. (2003). “Time for
development of internal erosion and piping in embankment dams.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 129(4), 307–314.
Fletcher, B. P., and Gilbert, P. A. (1992). “Center Hill Fuseplug Spillway,
Caney Fork River, Tennessee: Hydraulic model investigation.” Tech.
Rep. HL-92-15, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer Water-
ways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Foster, M., Fell, R., and Spannagle, M. (2000). “The statistics of
embankment dam failures and accidents.” Can. Geotech. J., 37(5),
1000–1024.
Fraccarollo, L., and Capart, H. (2002). “Riemann wave description of
erosional dam-break flows.” J. Fluid Mech., 461, 183–228.
Franca, M. J., and Almeida, A. B. (2004). “A computational model of
rockfill dam breaching caused by overtopping (RoDaB).” J. Hydr.
Res., 42(2), 197–206.
Fread, D. L. (1984). “DAMBRK: The NWS dam break flood forecasting
model.” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Fread, D. L. (1988). “BREACH: An erosion model for earthen dam
failures (Model description and user manual).” National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Silver Spring,
MD.
Fread, D. L., and Lewis, J. M. (1988). “FLDWAV: A generalized flood
routing model.” Proc., National Conf. on Hydraulic Eng., ASCE,
New York, 668–673.
Froehlich, D. C. (1995a). “Peak outflow from breached embankment dam.”
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 121(1), 90–97.
Froehlich, D. C. (1995b). “Embankment dam breach parameters revisited.”
Proc., 1995 Conf. on Water Resources Engineering, ASCE, New York,
887–891.
Froehlich, D. C. (2004). “Two dimensional model for embankment dam
breach formation and flood wave generation.” Association of State
Dam Safety Officials Dam Safety 2004 Conf., ASDSO, Lexington, KY.
Froehlich, D. C. (2008). “Embankment dam parameters and their uncertain-
ties.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 134(12), 1708–1721.
Fujita, Y., and Tamura, T. (1987). “Enlargement of breaches in flood levees
on alluvial plains.” J. Nat. Disaster Sci., 9(1), 37–60.
Galland, J. C., Goutal, N., and Hervouet, J.-M. (1991). “TELEMAC—
A new numerical model for solving shallow-water equations.” Adv.
Water Resour., 14(3), 138–148.
Gallegos, H. A., Schubert, J. E., and Sanders, B. F. (2009). “Two-
dimensional, high-resolution modeling of urban dam-break flooding:
A case study of Baldwin Hills, California.” Adv. Water Resour.,
32(8), 1323–1335.
Gaucher, J., Marche, C., and Mahdi, T. (2010). “Experimental investigation
of the hydraulic erosion of noncohesive compacted soils.” J. Hydraul.
Eng., 136(11), 901–913.
Goutal, N. (1999). “The Malpasset Dam failure: An overview and test case
definition.” Proc., 4th CADAM Meeting, Zaragoza, Spain.
Geisenhainer, P., and Kortenhaus, A. (2006). “Hydraulic model tests on
breaching with and without waves.” FLOODsite Rep. T06-06-03,
Hanover, Germany, 86.
Geisenhainer, P., and Oumeraci, H. (2008). “Sea dike breach initiation and
development—Large scale experiments in GWK.” FLOODsite Rep.
T06-08-12, Hanover, Germany, 64.
Greco, M., Iervolino, M., Vacca, A., and Leopardi, A. (2008). “A two-phase
model for sediment transport and bed evolution in unsteady river flow.”
Proc., Int. Conf. on Fluvial Hydraulics, River Flow 2008, Çeşme, Izmir,
Turkey.
Greenbaum, N. (2007). “Assessment of dam failure flood and a natural,
high-magnitude flood in a hyperarid region using paleoflood hydrology,
Nahal Ashalim catchment, Dead Sea, Israel.” Water Resour. Res., 43(2),
W02401.
Gregoretti, C., Maltauro, A., and Lanzoni, S. (2010). “Laboratory experi-
ments on the failure of coarse homogeneous sediment natural dams on a
sloping bed.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 136(11), 868–879.
 Hagen, V. K. (1982). “Re-evaluation of design floods and dam safety.”
Proc., 14th Congress of Int. Comm. on Large Dams, Int. Comm. on
Large Dams, Paris.
Hanson, G. J., and Temple, D. M. (2002). “Performance of bare earth and
vegetated steep channels under long duration flows.” Trans. ASABE,
45(3), 695–701.
Hanson, G. J., Cook, K. R., and Hunt, S. L. (2005). “Physical modeling of
overtopping erosion and breach formation of cohesive embankments.”
Trans. ASABE, 48(5), 1783–1794.
Hanson, G. J., Tejral, R. D., Hunt, S. L., and Temple, D. M. (2010).
“Internal erosion and impact of erosion resistance.” Proc., 30th U.S.
Society on Dams Annual Meeting and Conference (CD-ROM), USSD,
Sacramento, CA, 773–784.
Hanson, G. J., Temple, D. M., Hunt, S. L., and Tejral, R. D. (2011).
“Development and characterization of soil material parameters for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
embankment breach.” J. Appl. Eng. Agric., 27(4), 587–595.
Harris, G. W., and Wagner, D. A. (1967). “Outflow from breached earth
dams.” B.Sci. thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Utah, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Hodak, J., and Jandora, J. (2004). “Statistical approach for modeling of
dam breach due to overtopping.” Proc., Wasserbaukolloquium 2004:
Risken bei der Bemessung und Bewirtschaftung von Fließgewassern
und Stauanlagen, Wasserbauliche Mitteilungen, Heft 27, Institut fur
Wasserbau und Technische Hydromechanik der TU Dresden, Dresden,
Germany, 135–144 (in German).
Hossain, A. K. M. A., Jia, Y., and Chao, X. (2009). “Validation of CCHE2D
model using digital image processing techniques and satellite imagery.”
Proc., 33rd IAHR Congr. (CD-ROM), Vancouver, Canada.
Hughes, S. A., and Nadal, N. C. (2009). “Laboratory study of combined
wave overtopping and storm surge overflow of a levee.” J. Coastal Eng.,
56(3), 244–259.
Hunt, S. L., Hanson, G. J., Cook, K. R., and Kadavy, K. C. (2005). “Breach
widening observations from earthen embankment tests.” Trans. ASAE,
48(3), 1115–1120.
Jandora, J., and Riha, J. (2009). The failure of embankment dams due to
overtopping, Brno Univ. of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic, 116.
Jang, W., Song, C. R., Kim, J., Cheng, A. H.-D., and Al-Ostaz, A. (2011).
“Erosion study of New Orleans levee materials subjected to plunging
water.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 137(4), 398–404.
Jarrett, R. D., and Costa, J. E. (1986). “Hydrology, geomorphology, and
dambreak modeling of the July 15, 1982 Lawn Lake Dam and Cascade
Lake Dam failures, Larimer County, Colorado.” Professional Paper
1369, USGS, Denver Federal Center, CO.
Justin, J. D. (1932). Earth dam projects, Wiley, New York.
Kirkpatrick, G. W. (1977). “Evaluation guidelines for spillway adequacy.”
The evaluation of dam safety: Engineering Foundation Conf. Proc.,
ASCE, New York, 395–414.
Kraus, N. C., and Hayashi, K. (2005). “Numerical morphologic model of
barrier island breaching.” Proc., 29th Coastal Eng. Conf., World
Scientific Press, Hackensack, NJ, 2120–2132.
Kraus, N. C., and Wamsley, T. V. (2003). “Coastal barrier breaching. Part 1:
Overview of breaching processes.” Coastal and Hydraulics Engineer-
ing Tech. Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-IV-56, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
Kulisch, H. (1994). “Physical 3D-simulations of erosion-caused dam-
breaks.” Int. Workshop on Floods and Inundations related to Large
Earth Movements, Trento, Italy.
Lai, Y. G. (2010). “Two-dimensional depth-averaged flow modeling with
an unstructured hybrid mesh.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 136(1), 12–23.
Lecointe, G. (1998). “Breaching mechanisms of embankments: An
overview of previous studies and the models produced.” CADAM—
Munich Workshop, Munich, Germany.
Lou, W. C. (1981). “Mathematical modeling of earth dam breaches.” Ph.D.,
dissertation, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO.
Macchione, F. (2008). “Model for predicting floods due to earthen
dam breaching. I: Formulation and evaluation.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
134(12), 1688–1696.
Macchione, F., and Rino, A. (2008). “Model for predicting floods due to
earthen dam breaching. II. Comparison with other methods and predic-
tive use.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 134(12), 1697–1707.
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011 / 1563
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
MacDonald, T. C., and Langridge-Monopolis, J. (1984). “Breaching char-
acteristics of dam failures.’’ J. Hydraul. Eng., 110(5), 567–586.
Milly, P., Wetherald, R., Dunne, K., and Delworth, T. (2002). “Increasing
risk of great floods in a changing climate.” Nature (London), 415(6871),
514–517.
Mohamed, A. A. A., Samuels, P. G., Morris, M. W., and Ghataora, G. S.
(2002). “Improving the accuracy of prediction of breach for-
mation through embankment dams and flood embankments.” Proc.,
Int. Conf. on Fluvial Hydraulics (River Flow 2002), Louvain-la-Neuve,
Belgium.
Mohapatra, P. K., Eswaran, V., and Bhallamudi, S. M. (1999). “Two-
dimensional analysis of dam-break flow in vertical plane.” J. Hydraul.
Eng., 125(2), 183–191.
Morris, M. W. (2000). “CADAM: A European concerted action project on
dam break modeling.” Biennial Conf. Proc., British Dam Safety,
Thomas Telford, London.
Morris, M. W., and Hassan, M. A. A. M. (2005). “IMPACT: Breach for-
mation technical report (WP2).” IMPACT, 〈www.impact-project.net〉.
Morris, M. W., Kortenhaus, A., and Visser, P. J. (2009a). “Modeling breach
initiation and growth.” FLOODsite Rep. T06-08-02, FLOODsite
Consortium, 〈www.floodsite.net〉.
Morris, M. W., Kortenhaus, A., Visser, P. J., and Hassan, M. A. A. M.
(2009b). “Breaching processes: A state of the art review.” FLOODsite
Rep. T06-06-03, FLOODsite Consortium, 〈www.floodsite.net〉.
Nogueira, V. D. Q. (1984). “A mathematical model of progressive earth
dam failure.” Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State Univ., Fort
Collins, CO.
Odd, N. V. M., Roberts, W., and Maddocks, J. (1995). “Simulation
of lagoon breakout.” Proc., 26th Congress of IAHR, Vol. 3, London,
92–97.
Orendorff, B. D. E. (2009). “An experimental study of embankment dam
breaching.” Master thesis, Univ. of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Pan, S., et al. (1993). “Investigation report on dam safety research in China:
Chinese-Finnish cooperative research work on dam break hydrodynam-
ics.” Series A 167, National Board of Waters and the Environment,
Helsinki, Finland, 92.
Parkinson, M., and Stretch, D. (2007). “Breaching timescales and peak out-
flows for perched, temporary open estuaries.” Coastal Eng. J., 49(3),
267–290.
Pierce, M. W., Thornton, C. I., and Abt, S. R. (2010). “Predicting peak
outflow from breached embankment dams.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 15(5),
338–349.
Ponce, V. M. (1982). “Documented cases of earth dam breaches.” Res. Rep.
SDSU Civil Eng. Series, No. 82149, San Diego State Univ., CA, 43.
Ponce, V. M., and Tsivoglou, A. J. (1981). “Modeling gradual dam
breaches.” J. Hydr. Div., 107(HY7), 829–838.
Powledge, G. R., Ralston, D. C., Miller, P., Chen, Y. H., Clopper, P. E., and
Temple, D. M. (1989). “Mechanics of overflow erosion on embank-
ments. I: Research activities; II: Hydraulic and design considerations.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 115(8), 1040–1075.
Pugh, C. A. (1985). “Hydraulic model studies of fuse plug embankments.”
REC-ERC-85-7, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 33.
Ralston, D. C. (1987). “Mechanics of embankment erosion during
overflow.” Hydraulic Engineering, Proc., 1987 National Conf. on
Hydraulic Eng., ASCE, Reston, VA, 733–738.
Richards, K., and Reddy, K. (2007). “Critical appraisal of piping phenom-
ena in earth dams.” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ., 66(4), 381–402.
Rijkswaterstaat (RWS). (1961). “Verslag over de stormvloed van
1953.” Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management,
Staatsdrukkerij- en Uitgeverijbedrijf, Netherlands, 714. 〈 http://english
.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/organization/organization_of
_the_ministry/organization_elements/060_dg_public_works_and_water
_management/〉.
Roelvink, D., Reniers, A., van Dongeren, A., de Vries, J. v. T., McCall, R.,
and Lescinski, J. (2009). “Modeling storm impacts on beaches, dunes,
and barrier islands.” J. Coastal Eng., 56(11–12), 1133–1152.
Rozov, A. L. (2003). “Modeling of washout of dams.” J. Hydr. Res., 41(6),
565–577.
Schmocker, L., and Hager, W. H. (2009). “Dike breaching due to overtop-
ping.” Proc., 33rd Congr. of IAHR (CD-ROM), Vancouver, Canada.
 Schwanenberg, D., and Harms, M. (2004). “Discontinuous Galerkin finite-
element method for transcritical two-dimensional shallow water flows.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(5), 412–421.
Shigematsu, T., Liu, P. L.-F., and Oda, K. (2004). “Numerical modeling of
the initial stages of dam-break waves.” J. Hydr. Res., 42(2), 183–195.
Sills, G. L., Vroman, N. D., Wahl, R. E., and Schwanz, N. T. (2008). “Over-
view of New Orleans levee failures: Lessons learned and their impact on
national levee design and assessment.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
134(5), 556–565.
Simmler, H., and Samet, L. (1982). “Dam failure from overtopping studied
on a hydraulic model.” Proc., 14th Congr. of the Int. Commission on
Large Dams, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Simon, A., Curini, A., Darby, S. E., and Langendoen, E. J. (2000).
“Bank and near-bank processes in an incised channel.” Geomorphology,
35(3–4), 193–217.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 02/03/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Singh, K. P., and Snorrason, A. (1984). “Sensitivity of outflow peaks and
flood stages to the selection of dam breach parameters and simulation
models.” J. Hydrol., 68(1–4), 295–310.
Singh, V. P. (1996). Dam breach modeling technology, Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Singh, V. P., and Scarlatos, C. A. (1985). “Breach erosion of earthfill dams
and flood routing: BEED model.” Res. Rep., Army Research Office,
Battelle, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Singh, V. P., and Scarlatos, C. A. (1988). “Analysis of gradual earth-dam
failure.” J. Hydraulic Eng., 114(1), 21–42.
Soares-Frazao, S., and Zech, Y. (2008). “Dam-break flow through an ideal-
ised city.” J. Hydr. Res., IAHR, 46(5), 648–658.
Soares-Frazao, S., Le Grelle, N., Spinewine, B., and Zech, Y. (2007).
“Dam-break induced morphological changes in a channel with uniform
sediments: Measurements by a laser-sheet imaging technique.” J. Hydr.
Res., 45(Suppl. 1), 87–95.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). (1981). “Simplified dam-breach routing
procedure.” Tech. Release No. 66 (Rev. 1), USDA, Washington, DC, 39.
Spinewine, B., and Zech, Y. (2007). “Small-scale laboratory dam-break
waves on movable beds.” J. Hydr. Res., 45(Extra issue), 73–86.
Temple, D. M., Hanson, G. J., Neilsen, M. L., and Cook, K. R. (2005).
“Simplified breach analysis model for homogeneous embankments:
Part 1, Background and model components.” Proc., 25th Annual USSD
Conference, U.S. Society on Dams, Denver.
Temple, D. M., Hanson, G. J., and Neilsen, M. L. (2006). “WINDAM—
Analysis of overtopped earth embankment dams.” Proc., ASABE
Annual Int. Meeting, American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Tingsanchali, T., and Chinnarasri, C. (2001). “Numerical modeling of dam
failure due to flow overtopping.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 46(1), 113–130.
Tinney, E. R., and Hsu, H. Y. (1961). “Mechanics of washout of an erodible
fuse plug.” J. Hydraulics Div., 87(3), 1–29.
Toro, E. F. (2001). Shock-capturing methods for free-surface shallow flows,
Wiley, New York.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2000). “HEC-HMS hydrologic
modeling system: Technical reference manual.” Hydrologic Engineer-
ing Center, Davis, CA.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). (1988). “Downstream hazard
classification guidelines.” ACER Tech. Memorandum No. 11, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Denver, 57.
U.S. Committee on Large Dams. (1975). Lessons from dam incidents, USA,
ASCE, New York.
Valiani, A., Caleffi, V., and Zanni, A. (2002). “Case study: Malpasset
dam-break simulation using a two-dimensional finite volume method.”
J. Hydraul. Eng., 128(5), 460–472.
Vanderkimpen, P., and Peeters, P. (2008). “Flood modeling for risk evalu-
ation: A MIKE FLOOD sensitivity analysis.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Flu-
vial Hydraulics (River flow 2008), Çeşme, Izmir, Turkey, 2335–2344.
Van der Meer, J. W., and Janssen, W. (1995). “Wave run-up and wave
overtopping at dikes.” Wave forces on inclined and vertical wall struc-
tures, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–27.
1564 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / DECEMBER 2011
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011.137:1549-1564.
Vaskinn, K. A., Lovoll, A., and Hoeg, K. (2004). “WP2.1 Breach
formation: Large scale embankment failure.” IMPACT project,
〈www.impact-project.net〉.
Visser, P. J. (1998). “Breach growth in sand-dikes.” Communications on
Hydraulic and Geotechnical Eng., Report No. 98-1, Delft Univ. of
Technology, Netherlands.
Von Thun, J. L., and Gillette, D. R. (1990). “Guidance on breach param-
eters.” Internal Memorandum, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Denver, 17.
Wahl, T. L. (1998). “Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters: A
literature review and needs assessment.” Dam Safety Rep. No. DSO-98-
004, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Denver.
Wahl, T. L. (2004). “Uncertainty of predictions of embankment dam breach
parameters.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(5), 389–397.
Wahl, T. L. (2007). “Laboratory investigations of embankment dam erosion
and breach processes.” Rep. T032700-0207A, CEA Technologies, Inc.
(CEATI), Montréal.
Wahl, T. L., et al. (2008). “Development of next-generation embankment
dam breach models.” Proc., 2008 U.S. Society on Dams Annual Meet-
ing and Conf., Portland, OR, 767–779.
Walder, J. S., and O’Connor, J. E. (1997). “Methods for predicting peak
discharge of floods caused by failure of natural and constructed earth
dams.” Water Resour. Res., 33(10), 2337–2348.
Wan, C. F., and Fell, R. (2004). “Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in
embankment dams.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 130(4), 373–380.
Wang, G. Q., Zhong, D. Y., Zhang, H. W., Sun, Q. C., and Hu, D. C. (2008).
“Numerical modeling of breach process of Tangjiashan landslide
dam generated by Wenchuan earthquake.” Sci. Commun., 53(24),
3127–3133 (in Chinese).
Wang, P., Kahawita, R., Mokhtari, A., Phat, T. M., and Quach, T. T. (2006).
“Modeling breach formation in embankments due to overtopping.”
ICOLD Conf., Barcelona, Spain.
Wang, Z., and Bowles, D. S. (2006). “Three-dimensional non-cohesive
earthen dam breach model. Part 1: Theory and methodology.” Adv.
Water Resour., 29(10), 1528–1545.
Waterways Experiment Station (WES). (1960). “Floods resulting from
suddenly breached dams.” Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-374, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Rep. 1: Conditions of Minimum Resistance,
Vicksburg, MS.
Wu, W. (2007). Computational river dynamics, Taylor & Francis, London,
494.
Wu, W. (2010). “A depth-averaged 2D model of coastal levee and barrier
island breach processes.” Proc., 2010 World Environmental and Water
Resources Congr. (CD-ROM), Providence, RI.
Wu, W., and Wang, S. S. Y. (2007). “One-dimensional modeling of dam-
break flow over movable beds.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 133(1), 48–58.
Wu, W., Kang, Y., and Wang, S. S. Y. (2009). “An earthen embankment
breach model.” Proc., 33rd Congr. of IAHR (CD-ROM), Vancouver,
Canada.
Xu, Y., and Zhang, L. M. (2009). “Breaching parameters for earth and rock-
fill dams.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(12), 1957–1969.
Ying, X., and Wang, S. S. Y. (2004). “Two-dimensional numerical simu-
lation of Malpasset dam-break wave propagation.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf.
on Hydroscience and Eng. (CD-ROM), Brisbane, Australia.
Zech, Y., Soares-Frazao, S., Spinewine, B., and Le Grelle, N. (2008).
“Dam-break induced sediment movement: Experimental approaches
and numerical modeling.” J. Hydr. Res., IAHR, 46(2), 176–190.
Zerrouk, N. E., and Marche, C. (2005). “An experimental contribution
to the study of the erosion of a dike by overtopping.” J. Water Sci.,
18(3), 381–401.
Zhang, J. Y., Lu, Y., Xuan, G. X., Wang, X. G., and Li, Y. (2009). “Over-
topping breaching of cohesive homogeneous earth dam with different
cohesive strength.” Sci. China E: Technol. Sci., 52(10), 3024–3029.
Zhu, Y.-H., Visser, P. J., and Vrijling, J. K. (2006). “A model for breach
erosion in clay-dikes.” Coastal Dynamics 2005: Proc., 5th Int. Conf., A.
Sanchez-Arcilla, ed., ASCE, Reston, VA.