Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Experimental study and numerical verification of silted-up dam break T

a a,⁎ a b
Foad Vosoughi , Gholamreza Rakhshandehroo , Mohammad Reza Nikoo , Mojtaba Sadegh
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This manuscript was handled by Corrado In this study, multiphase flood waves caused by failure of silted-up dams have been scrutinized experimentally,
Corradini, Editor-in-Chief, with the assistance and efficacy of the public-domain CFD software OpenFOAM numerical models to represent such phenomenon is
of Subashisa Dutta, Associate Editor evaluated. Experimental observations are sparse on dam break for reservoirs with high sediment depths, called
Keywords: silted-up reservoirs. Sediment layer, in this case, may behave as a viscous fluid and produce a complex multi-
Dam break layer flow of air and water overtopping a sediment layer. Massive sediment quantities can have a substantial
Silted-up reservoirs impact on the wave propagation pattern caused by dam break. This study contributes to an experiment-based
Multiphase flood wave understanding of dam break phenomenon with silted-up reservoir, and elaborates the propagation of multi-layer
Image processing
waves. Herein, different hydraulic conditions were experimentally observed including 8 different upstream
OpenFOAM
sediment depths in the range of 0–0.24 m and 4 downstream initial water levels of 0, 0.02, 0.04 and 0.05 m,
which collectively created 32 scenarios. The resulted waves were filmed by high-speed cameras and data were
extracted through image processing. An open-source CFD software, namely OpenFOAM, was employed to si-
mulate the experiments using two distinct numerical approaches: volume of fluid (VOF) and Eulerian. Results of
both numerical approaches were in good agreement with the experimental measurements; with MAE and RMSE
error values varying from 0.006 m to 0.031 m and 0.008 m to 0.043 m, respectively (2% to 10% and 2.6% to
14% with respect to the reservoir height of 0.3 m). The Eulerian approach showed marginally superior per-
formance to VOF, especially in cases with high sediment depths, which is likely due to accommodating phase
mixing. A wide collection of high-quality data is made available online in the Appendix Data and could be
utilized in future studies.

1. Introduction
Reservoir sedimentation can cause challenging problems such as
reducing the effective volume and triggering flood overpassing (Yang,
1996). It may also cause failure of coffer dams built to trap sediments
upstream of the main dam reservoir (Vischer and Hager, 1998). Massive
amount of sediment stored in dam reservoirs has a substantial impact
on the dam break flood propagation pattern and also can bury build-
ings, installations and infrastructures at the downstream of the dam. In
such phenomenon, the sediment layer may behave like a viscous fluid,
with clear water flowing easily over its top which produces a complex
three-layer wave formed by air, a layer of water overtopping a satu-
rated sediment layer (Duarte et al., 2011).
Most early studies as well as current work focus on dam break for
water filled reservoirs and this problem for silted-up reservoir is spar-
sely addressed in the literature (Duarte et al., 2011). At the first glance,
many dam break scenarios with mobile bed may seem similar to silted-
up reservoirs because the parameters such as water level and sediment
depth play important roles in both. But in fact, there is a large differ-
ence between the sediment depth in a silted-up reservoir and typical
sediment level in a river downstream of the dam (Duarte et al., 2011).
Particularly, the authors are not aware of any numerical model ver-
ifying the adequacy of the public-domain CFD software OpenFOAM on
dam break multi-layer waves for silted-up reservoirs, which motivated
this work. Accordingly, it is appropriate to investigate the dam break
issue with silted-up reservoirs, and elaborate how multi-layer waves
propagate therein, experimentally and verifying numerically using
OpenFOAM CFD software (Open∇FOAM, 2015).
The oldest experimental works on dam break and associated flood
wave dating back to the late 20th century (Dressler, 1954; Bell et al.,
1992; Bellos et al., 1992; Fraccarollo and Toro, 1995; Lauber and
Hager, 1998). The majority of prior experimental researches have
evaluated this issue for a fixed channel bed (without sediment), in
which different initial conditions such as dry-bed or wet-bed down-
stream have been addressed (Soares Frazão and Zech, 2002; Bellos,
2004; Meile et al., 2013; Wood and Wang, 2015; Xue et al., 2011;

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rakhshan@shirazu.ac.ir (G. Rakhshandehroo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125267
Received 25 March 2020; Received in revised form 30 June 2020; Accepted 1 July 2020
Available online 07 July 2020
0022-1694/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
F. Vosoughi, et al.
Fig. 1. Flowchart of the methodology utilized for experimental study and numerical verification of silted-up dam break.
Kocaman and Ozmen-Cagatay, 2012; LaRocque et al., 2013; Ozmen-
Cagatay et al., 2014). Recently, dam break laboratory studies con-
cerning mobile bed scenarios have gained more attention to assess re-
levant physical parameters such as flow depth and wave front celerity
(Leal et al., 2001; Spinewine and Zech, 2007; Cochard and Ancey, 2008;
Leal et al., 2009; Lal and Moustafa, 2016). To collect the required data
in these studies, digital image processing has been used (Leal et al.,
2001; Spinewine and Zech, 2007). Although, studies of dam break are
well documented, to the authors’ knowledge, just one study is available
in the literature that experimentally examined dam break with silted-up
reservoirs (Duarte et al., 2011). In particular, that study has considered
only dry tail water portion as the downstream condition (Duarte et al.,
2011).
Additionally, several experimental works have been conducted in
the literature to examine dam break phenomena with various kinds of
fluid in their reservoir (Nsom, 2002; Ancey et al., 2009; Minussi and De
Freitas MacIel, 2012); some focusing on Newtonian fluids with high
viscosities and debris flows (Nsom, 2002; Ancey et al., 2009), others on
similar scenarios, but for Non-Newtonian fluids (Minussi and De Freitas
2
Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267
MacIel, 2012). In reality the multiphase flood resulted from dam break
with silted-up reservoir may behave as a non-Newtonian flow, espe-
cially at small shear stresses. There are different non-Newtonian models
in OpenFOAM in which various solvers such as SimpleFoam, non-
NewtonianIcoFoam and PISOFoam are developed to simulate non-
Newtonian fluids (Open∇FOAM, 2015; Unofficial OpenFOAM, 2019).
However, since in the numerical part of this study, sudden dam break
was modeled and partial gate opening was not considered, the applied
models and solvers are not capable of non-Newtonian simulation.
Hence, it is one of the modeling assumptions - although imperfect – in
this study that the multiphase flood wave behaves Newtonian.
A considerable body of literature on dam break phenomena are
based on numerical modeling, without recourse to the main differences
between sudden failure of dams with highly silted-up reservoirs and
dam break with usual mobile bed condition. In the late 20th century,
there has been numerous studies to investigate 1D and 2D dam break
(Gabutti, 1983; Beam and Warming, 1976; Chaudhry, 2008; Fennema
and Chaudhry, 1990; Mingham and Causon, 1998), on the basis of
computational fluid dynamics (CFDs), in which specific numerical
F. Vosoughi, et al.
approaches have been widely used, such as finite difference method
(Gabutti, 1983; Beam and Warming, 1976) and finite volume method
(Fraccarollo and Toro, 1995; Mingham and Causon, 1998). Usually
simple scenarios have been the focus of researches, where straight and
bending channels (Soares Frazão and Zech, 2002; Valiani et al., 2002;
Zoppou and Roberts, 2003; Ackerman et al., 2008) have been con-
sidered for a constant bed. Later dam break studies have emphasized on
more complicated scenarios such as wet-bed downstream conditions
(Zoppou and Roberts, 2003; Cao et al., 2004; Leal et al., 2006; Wu and
Wang, 2007; Crespo et al., 2008; Zoppou and Roberts, 2000; Aliparast,
2009) and the role of sediment transport and vegetation (Evangelista
et al., 2013; Postacchini et al., 2014; He et al., 2017; Kim and Sanders,
2016; Fu and Jin, 2016) have also gained more attention. Recently, 3D
numerical studies have been conducted to simulate such phenomenon
(Biscarini et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2012; Marsooli and
Wu, 2015), some focusing on mobile bed condition (Marsooli and Wu,
2015). However, the efficacy of numerical models to represent the dam
break multi-layer waves for silted-up reservoirs to date has not been
directly evaluated.
The present study is focused on two- and three-phase flood waves
caused by sudden dam break with silted-up reservoirs. In order to ad-
dress the literature gaps and shortcomings outlined above, the authors
have scrutinized this topic experimentally for 32 different cases and
modeled them numerically using the OpenFOAM software. More spe-
cifically, different initial hydraulic conditions were considered in-
cluding eight distinct depths for saturated sediment layer upstream of
the dam which occupied 10%–80% of the reservoir’s initial water
depth. Four downstream boundary conditions were examined: zero
(dry) and three different non-zero (wet) initial water depths of 0.02,
0.04 and 0.05 m, which collectively created 32 scenarios.
Results of this study can enhance the technical understanding of
how multi-layer waves resulted from dam break phenomena with
silted-up reservoirs propagate therein, and elaborate how the saturated
sediment cone begins to move and develops or deforms as time elapses.
This study also provides a wide collection of high-quality laboratory
data that can be utilized for validation of other numerical models. A
free-licensed CFD package, namely OpenFOAM (Open∇FOAM, 2015),
was employed to simulate the experiments using two distinct numerical
approaches: volume of fluid (VOF) and Eulerian. Then, the experi-
mental measurements and numerical results are comprehensively
compared and their correlation is discussed.
2. Experimental procedure
Fig. 1, represents flowchart of the methodology utilized in devel-
oping experimental study and numerical verification of silted-up dam
break. As reflected in the figure, the methodology contains 5 main steps
which will be discussed in detail in the rest of the research paper.
All main experiments were carried out in the Hydraulic Lab of Civil
and Environmental Engineering Department at Shiraz University,
Shiraz, Iran, using a 6-m-long horizontal laboratory flume with pris-
matic rectangular section; 0.3 m wide and 0.32 m high (Fig. 2). The
Fig. 2. Top view of the experimental set-up.
3
Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267
flume consists of a smooth metallic bottom, and the walls are made of 9-
mm-thick glass. In order to represent a reservoir, a 1.52 m long section
of the flume was isolated by a gate (dam) to split the upstream and
downstream regions of the flume, while the downstream flume reach
was 4.5 m long (Fig. 2). Initial experiments were carried out to carefully
evaluate hydraulic parameters, initial conditions and required facilities.
Then, by preparing, constructing and installing detailed parts to the
flume, it was equipped to perform main dam break experiments. Dam
break was physically emulated by rapidly raising the gate downstream
of the reservoir. We followed the literature guidelines that gate opening
time should be shorter than 1.25( h 0 / g ) where h 0 is the initial reservoir
water level, and g is the gravitational acceleration (Lauber and Hager,
1998). Noted that, in all experiments, h 0= 0.3 m, and hence, maximum
gate opening time is 0.22 s. The gate was removed in a much shorter
duration (0.08–0.16 s) as documented by high-speed imaging, and
hence, this process may be considered as a sudden dam break.
Two- and three-phase flows of water and saturated sediment layer
caused by dam break phenomena were filmed by three professional and
high-speed digital cameras (Canon EOS 70D). Cameras were mounted
on the right-hand side of the flume, without any position change in
more than 6 months, while main experiments were conducted.
Recorded videos were 50 frames per second with 1920 × 1080 pixels
(Full HD/1080p) resolution. As shown in Fig. 2, cameras covered
5.52 m along the flume, which consisted of 1.52 m upstream to 4 m
downstream of the gate location (dam). Moreover, two powerful spot-
lights were mounted above the flume as light sources at both ends of the
flume. The opposite lateral wall of the flume was covered with black
plastic sheets to conceal installations in the back of the flume. Lab
windows and other uncontrolled light sources were covered using thick
black curtains to eliminate light pollution and obtain adequate contrast.
Different hydraulic conditions were examined (Table 1) including
various depths of saturated sediment layer in the reservoir and different
downstream initial water levels (dry-bed or wet-bed downstream con-
ditions with different water levels), which collectively created 32 dam
break scenarios. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this study was to
scrutinize the multiphase shock waves caused by failure of silted-up
dams. It also addresses the failure of coffer dams, secondary dams and
gravel or front basins built upstream of a main dam to protect its re-
servoir sedimentation by trapping sediments (Vischer and Hager,
1998).
As shown in Table 1, a variety of initial upstream sediment depths
were considered to cover 10%–80% of the reservoir’s initial water
depth. These experimental scenarios were designed to cover different
elevation zones of the dam reservoir such as inactive zone (dead sto-
rage), buffer and active zone (conservative) and flood control zone
(Lamond and Boukhtouta, 2002). Initial downstream water levels of
0.02, 0.04 and 0.05 m, as well as dry downstream conditions were also
considered. This setup was specifically designed to approximately ac-
quire logical downstream river level conditions and to evaluate and
cover different states as much as possible (Vischer and Hager, 1998;
Lamond and Boukhtouta, 2002). Authors believe these initial condi-
tions are sufficient to mimic practical applications. Percentage depth of
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Table 1
Scenarios formed by different upstream and downstream hydraulic conditions examined in this study.

saturated sediment stored in the reservoir was defined in Table 1
asSd/ h 0 (%) = (Sd/ h 0) × 100 , where Sd and h 0 are initial upstream sedi-
ment and water levels, respectively.
Fig. 3 (a), shows wave propagation images at different times after
dam break for the case with 0.075 m depth silted-up reservoir and
0.02 m standing water downstream. As expected, the wave stretches
and dampens as it moves downstream. It is worth noting that to gain
higher quality and accuracy in determining free surface profiles, all
images have been enhanced in brightness, sharpness, contrast, color,
and overlap.
The waves caused by a dam break in silted-up reservoirs produce a
very complex phenomenon with a three-phase behavior, as shown in
Fig. 3 (b), including a layer of water on a saturated sediment layer and
the third phase being air. Additionally, once the dam breaks, the sedi-
ment layer may behave like a viscous fluid, with clear water flowing
easily on its top.

Fig. 3. Multiphase dam break wave propagation, (a) experimental images for different times after dam break, with 0.075 m depth silted-up reservoir and 0.02 m
standing water downstream, (b) schematic side view of a typical dam break experiment with silted-up reservoir and dry downstream.

4
F. Vosoughi, et al.
To collect the required data, several 1-mm-resolution point-gages in
stripe forms have been installed on the flume outside wall. These point-
gages located in overlap sections covered by two closed cameras were
used as reference to match the images. For the main tests with silted-up
reservoirs, a certain type of sediment was selected as mixtures of quartz
sand with a uniform grain size between 0.2 and 0.4 mm; the sediment
gradation curve is presented in Fig S1, in Supplementary Material. In
order to ensure uniformity and homogeneity of sedimentation, a stan-
dard test preparation procedure was followed carefully (Duarte et al.,
2011). After washing and drying the sediment, it was transferred slowly
into the dry flume. Therefore, the smooth and horizontal sediment layer
surface was manually created by a putty knife. In order to minimize
sediment diameter separation, water was injected to the flume at a low
discharge while slow sediment deposition took place simultaneously.
2.1. Data collection
For each experiment, three 40 s video files in MOV format were
recorded using all cameras while each camera covered about 2 m of the
flume length (Fig. 2). Relevant parameters of water level and sediment
depth were extracted, using an automated image processing method.
Main advantage of digital image processing is that this method is non-
subjective and can yield accurate and high-quality results. Additionally,
measurement points can be easily replaced in this method and the
measurements of water level and sediment depth variations can be
estimated at any arbitrary location along the flume. For this purpose,
the spatially surveyed spots, including 16 distinct points have con-
sidered covering the entire length of the flume (Fig. 4). Gaps between
the points near the gate location were less than other areas along the
flume, to ensure enough measurements are performed in this area of
high turbulence and rapid depth change. The first point was at the
beginning of the reservoir (upstream of the flume) and the distances of
15 other surveyed points were 0.76, 1.02, 1.27, 1.37, 1.42, 1.47, 1.52,
1.57, 1.67, 1.77, 1.87, 2.52, 3.52, 4.52 and 5.52 m downstream of the
first point, respectively. These data were extracted by the analysis of the
first 300 frames, covering 6 s (50 frames per second) of each video file
using 15 time snaps after the dam breaks. Intervals between the snaps
were shorter immediately after the dam break and increased gradually.
The snap times were 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.5, 2, 3,
4, 5 and 6 s after the dam break.
Given 3 cameras for shooting, 15 time snaps and 32 different dam
break scenarios, a total of 1440 photographs extracted, which were all
examined carefully. According to the 16 fixed locations and two para-
meters, these photographs contained 15,360 data (32 scenarios × 15
times × 16 locations × 2 parameters) which are all presented in the
Appendix Data.
To verify the experimental measurements and OpenFOAM results,
particular physical models with clear water upstream and dry-bed or
wet-bed downstream conditions were designed and modeled both ex-
perimentally and numerically. Then their results were compared with
Fig. 4. Schematic view of the laboratory flume; L1 to L16 are depth measuring points.
5
Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267
available experimental and numerical studies reported in literature si-
milar results in the (LaRocque et al., 2013; Ozmen-Cagatay and
Kocaman, 2010). Fig. 5, presents a set of image comparisons at different
times after dam break to visually compare the results of the present
study against other researchers’ results (Ozmen-Cagatay and Kocaman,
2010). A good agreement with literature was found in terms of water
depths and wave front locations as illustrated in Fig. 5 and also Figs. S2
and S3, in Supplementary Material.
3. Numerical modeling
Along with several commercial CFD software, such as Fluent and
Flow3D to solve fluid mechanics problems, free-licensed software also
gained popularity in the field; one of the most widely used being an
open-source code software named OpenFOAM (Open∇FOAM, 2015).
This software allows users to simulate a wide range of physical phe-
nomena such as two-phase and multiphase flows (Open∇FOAM, 2015;
Unofficial OpenFOAM, 2019). The numerical part of this study is lim-
ited to simulation of all experimental data collected from 32 different
experiment scenarios using the OpenFOAM software. This software is
designed for installation on a Linux operating system and its pro-
gramming language is C++; an object-oriented and easily expandable
programming language. Simulations have been performed using both
volume of fluid (VOF) and Eulerian approaches. Although these ap-
proaches have been used previously to solve clear water dam break
problems (Ozmen-Cagatay et al., 2014; Biscarini et al., 2010; Issakhov
and Imanberdiyeva, 2019; Mokrani and Abadie, 2016; Panicker et al.,
2015; Fondelli et al., 2015; Ye and Zhao, 2017; Issakhov et al., 2018), to
the authors’ knowledge, they have never been used in multiphase dam
break with silted-up reservoirs modeling. It should be noted that, no
reduction or enlargement in width of channel downstream was con-
sidered, and the longitudinal slope of channel was taken as zero.
3.1. VOF method
The VOF method is used to simulate layered flows in which the
phases have explicit boundaries (clear interfaces) such as free surface
flows. In order to simulate two-phase and multiphase dam break waves
with OpenFOAM, interFoam and multiPhaseInterFoam solvers have been
used. In this approach, a set of conservative forms of continuity and
momentum equations are simultaneously solved for all available
phases. Computations of the water free surface by VOF also involved a
CFD package based on the Finite Volume Method (FVM). Continuity
and momentum equations for a Newtonian incompressible fluid in VOF
method may be described as Eqs. (1) and (2) (Jamshidi et al., 2019;
Kassar et al., 2018; Barbosa et al., 2019; Hirt and Nichols, 1981;
Rusche, 2002):
→
∇· U = 0 (1)
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Fig. 5. Visual comparison of free surface profiles h(x) at different times: (a) available experimental results (Ozmen-Cagatay and Kocaman, 2010), (b) Fluent
predictions (Ozmen-Cagatay and Kocaman, 2010), (c) experimental results, and (d) OpenFOAM predictions. Lengths in cm, and β: the depth ratio of downstream
water level to reservoir initial height.

→ and 1 (Deising et al., 2016):

∂ (ρU ) →→
+ ∇ ·(ρU U ) = −∇ ·P + ∇ ·τ + ρ ·g + Fσ
∂t (2)
⎧1 filled by fluid 1
→ α (x. y. z. t) = 0 < α < 1 At the interface
where U represents the velocity field; P is pressure; t is time; τ is vis- ⎨
cous stress tensor; ρ is density; g is gravitational acceleration constant, ⎩0 filled by fluid 2 (6)
and Fσ is the momentum associated with surface tension. The viscous
To determine α as a function of time and estimate the location of
stress tensor τ is given by
interphase between the two fluids, the volume fraction equation for -
→ → α has to be solved (Hirt and Nichols, 1981):
τ = μ [(∇U ) + (∇U )T ] (3)
∂α →
where μ is the fluid dynamic viscosity (Jamshidi et al., 2019; Kassar + ∇ ·(U α ) = 0
∂t (7)
et al., 2018). The last term in momentum Eq. (2), the surface tension Fσ ,
is modeled as Continuum Surface Force (CSF) and is expressed as More theoretical details of the OpenFOAM and VOF method are
Jamshidi et al. (2019), Kassar et al. (2018), Heyns and Oxtoby (2014), presented as Eqs. (S1)–(S6) in Supplementary Material and also can be
Brackbill et al. (1992): found in Jamshidi et al. (2019), Kassar et al. (2018), Barbosa et al.
Fσ = σK ∇α (4) (2019), Hirt and Nichols (1981), Rusche (2002), Heyns and Oxtoby
(2014), Brackbill et al. (1992), Deising et al. (2016).
where σ is the surface tension constant, K is the curvature of the sur-
face, and α represents volume fraction of the fluid. The curvature K 3.2. Eulerian method
may be approximated by Heyns and Oxtoby (2014), Brackbill et al.
(1992): Eulerian method is used to solve multiphase flows while phases may
∇α1 ⎞ mix together. In this method, which is also called Two-Fluid Method
K = −∇ ⎛ ⎜ ⎟
(TFM), each phase is individually calculated and solved, making the
⎝ α1 | ⎠
|∇ (5)
computing time longer than VOF. The most widely used solvers in this
In more details, the volume fraction α (alpha in the software code) method are twoPhaseEulerFoam and multiPhaseEulerFoam, with the
is used as an index function to determine the relative proportion of the theoretical details being described in Soleimani et al. (2015), Bhusare
cell filled with fluid. α is 1 for a place filled by the first fluid with the et al. (2017), Lubchenko et al. (2018), Kia and Aminian (2017), Panda
density ρ1 and α is 0 for a place filled by the second fluid with the et al. (2017)). To verify the OpenFOAM numerical results; particular
density ρ2 . At the interphase between the two fluids α varies between 0 clear water dam break scenarios were modeled physically and

6
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

numerically under dry-bed and wet-bed downstream conditions. Re-

sults were compared (Fig. 5) with available laboratory and numerical
results in the literature (LaRocque et al., 2013; Ozmen-Cagatay and
Kocaman, 2010) and a good agreement with literature was found. Also,
as shown in Figs. S4 and S5, in the Supplementary Material, the nu-
merical results are in good agreement with measured data in the lit-
erature.

3.3. Initial conditions and solution domain

Owing to the laboratory channel restrictions, the solution domain

was 6 m long, 0.3 m wide and 0.32 m high. As the initial condition, a
volume of 1.52 m in length and 0.3 m in height was considered as the
reservoir. Channel bottom and side walls were made of steel and glass,
thus assumed smooth. As the boundary condition, the upstream,
bottom, and side boundaries along the channel were all defined as
walls, and the downstream boundary at the end of the channel, was
defined as a pressure outlet. The top boundary was defined as a pressure
inlet, due to atmospheric pressure on the free surface. The boundary
hydraulic conditions were also independently considered (meshed),
creating different downstream and upstream conditions. Downstream
conditions were completely dry-bed or wet-bed with different initial
water depths, and upstream conditions were reservoirs with various
saturated sediment layer heights.
A standard procedure was followed carefully to determine suitable
mesh size and time step (Akbari and Barati, 2012; Barati et al., 2012).
Mesh size analysis was performed using eight different sizes. Then, by
compromising the error and runtime, a uniform mesh of fixed cubes
with dx = dy = dz = 0.005 m was selected. In total, the three di-
mensional computational domain contained more than 4.6 million
cells. Time step analysis was performed using four different time steps
and considering the error, courant number, and the runtime, a time step
of 0.001 s was selected. More details of the mesh size and time step
analyses are presented in Figs. S6–S8 in Supplementary Material.
4. Results and discussion
In this section, several graphs and tables are presented and dis-
cussed to study the effects of various factors including dry-bed or wet-
bed downstream and different depths of upstream saturated sediment
layer on multiphase flood waves caused by the silted-up dam break.
Fig. 6, shows the comparison between simulation results using VOF and
Eulerian approaches at distinct times of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1 s after the
dam breaks. Images are extracted and categorized for an approximately
2-m interval covered from 0.2 m upstream to 1.8 m downstream of the
dam. As shown, the resulted wave moves rapidly downstream; about
0.18 m in 0.1 sec after the dam breaks and it reaches 1.5 m downstream
of the dam in 1 s (3-m point in the figure).
Once this wave hits the standing downstream water, it creates
special large bulges in the water level. As the time passes after dam
break, water level at the dam section as well as its upstream decreases
quickly. Results of the two numerical methods are slightly different. For
example, at 0.4 and 1 s, the amount of sediment layer propagation in
VOF method is slightly higher than that in Eulerian. Also, the boundary
between the phases is sharp and clear in VOF results, while the inter-
ference of phases has occurred at some regions in Eulerian.
4.1. Image comparisons for upstream sediment depths of 0.03, 0.15, and
0.22 m
Several image comparisons are depicted using photographs ex-
tracted from the laboratory videos and simulation results of VOF and
Eulerian methods. All images are presented on an evaluable basis and a
complete comparison is made to better visualize different upstream and
downstream hydraulic conditions. The photographs associated with
Camera No. 2 (mid camera), have utilized covering about 2 m of the
Fig. 6. Results of simulation by VOF and Eulerian numerical approaches for
0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1 s after dam break.
channel length from upstream to downstream of the dam. Six snap
times of 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1 s after dam break were scrutinized.
In Fig. 7, water level and sediment depth profiles are shown after
the dam breaks. The simulation results by VOF and Eulerian methods
are located below experimental images for a span of 1.3–3.1 m from the
beginning of the flume; from 0.2 m upstream to 1.6 m downstream of
the dam. This figure is for the case where upstream sediment depth is
0.03 m and dam downstream is wet with 0.04 m of standing water. By
comparing the experimental and numerical results, it is observed that
the downstream wave propagations are similar in predicting the wave
tip locations. Hence there is an acceptable concordance in prediction of
the wave front celerity. At 0.4 s, the downstream positive wave causes
an increase in downstream water elevation. Also, the progressive wave
has a specific profile with two bulges in the body and a front wave in its
forehead region. The wave tip has reached 2.4 m in downstream and it
is well predicted by both numerical methods in terms of size, form and
location, however, Eulerian results seem to be more accurate in pre-
dicting the details. At 0.6 s, turbulence is increased in the forehead
region and the wave tip has reached 2.9 m from the reservoir beginning
with two large bulges in its body. Also, at 2.2 m from the reservoir
beginning, the water level is about 0.13 m which predicted reasonably
by both numerical methods.
At 0.8 s, the wave has some bulges in frontal area and at an interval
of 2.1–3 m, the water level has increased and all of these fluctuations
are well predicted by the software. Investigating later times after dam
break indicates that the sediment layer has moved downstream up to
0.08 m without any significant change in its initial form of a relatively
sharp step. Comparisons of water level and sediment depth profiles,
show that laboratory experiments and results of VOF and Eulerian
methods are in good agreements. Note that the water level and sedi-
ment depth profile images after dam break, while upstream sediment
depth is 0.15 m and dam downstream is wet with 0.04 m water are
depicted and discussed in Fig. S9, in Supplementary Material.

7
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Fig. 7. Visual comparison of laboratory modeling results (a, d, g, j, m and p), VOF (b, e, h, k, n and q) and Eulerian predictions (c, f, i, l, o and r) in determining water
level and sediment depth profiles, at different times after dam break, when upstream sediment depth is 0.03 m and dam downstream is wet with 0.04 m water.

Fig. 8. Visual comparison of laboratory modeling results (Figs. a, d, g, j, m and p), VOF (Figs. b, e, h, k, n and q) and Eulerian predictions (Figs. c, f, i, l, o and r) in
determining water level and sediment depth profiles, at different times after dam break, when upstream sediment depth is 0.22 m and dam downstream is wet with
0.05 m water.

In Fig. 8, water level and sediment depth profiles are shown while,
upstream sediment depth is 0.22 m and downstream is wet with 0.05 m
of standing water. As in previous figure, the experimental and both
numerical results are in good agreements. At 0.4 s, the positive wave
hits the downstream standing water creating an increase in water ele-
vation and reaches 1.95 m from the reservoir beginning and at 0.6 s, the
wave tip reaches 2.25 m downstream point.
At 0.8 and 1 s, the wave tip has reached 2.6 m and 2.85 m from the
reservoir beginning point, respectively, while water level upstream is
decreasing and rising in the downstream region. For instance, water
level at 0.8 s, is about 0.24 m at point 1.4 m and about 0.07 m at point
2.5 m. However, at 1 s, water level at 1.4 m decreases to 0.22 m and
rises to a maximum of 0.1 m at point 2.5 m. Investigating images at
later times after dam break indicates the saturated sediment layer

8
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

upstream has moved downstream up to 0.18 m. As previously dis-
cussed, the sediment depth at the dam location and dam upstream
decreased as time passes. For instance, at 1 s after dam break, the se-
diment depth decreased about 0.08 m at dam location, which is well
predicted by both numerical methods.
As the upstream sediment depth increases, the movement of satu-
rated sediment layer as well as its depth in the downstream direction
increase accordingly. On the other hand, the downstream initial water
presence reduces the advancement of saturated sediment layer, redu-
cing the risk of burying structures and equipment under the massive
saturated sediment layer. However, downstream initial water level
leads to increase the maximum water level there after dam break, and
hence, increases immersion risk of downstream structures and equip-
ment. Comparing the predictions of VOF and Eulerian methods with
experimental results, it is clear that Eulerian, especially for wet
downstream conditions, is more accurate in predicting the details at the
wave forehead region. Also, if the upstream sediment depth is more
than half of the reservoir's height, then Eulerian is more accurate and
closer to experimental results, in both terms of the sediment layer depth
and movement in the downstream direction. Despite advantages such as
higher accuracy, Eulerian has disadvantages; 1) longer computational
times, 2) more complex simulation conditions, and 3) requiring pro-
fessional skills to design and run a multiphase model.
4.2. Water surface and sediment depth profile
Fig. 9 shows water surface profiles at different times after dam break
when the upstream reservoir is filled up by clear water (without sedi-
ment) and the downstream is either dry (Fig. 9 a and b) or wet with
0.05 m of sitting water (Fig. 9 c and d). Figures depict the profiles for
early (Fig. 9 a and c) and late (Fig. 9 b and d) times after dam break. All
figures show both laboratory measurements (points) and VOF results
(lines).
The experimental and VOF results are in good agreements and the
maximum RMSE and MAE are 0.012 m and 0.006 m, respectively.
Compared to the 0.3 m depth of the reservoir water, error indices seem
insignificant as the maximum RMSE and MAE are 4% and 2% of the
reservoir water depth, respectively. However, as the downstream con-
dition gets more complicated with higher flow turbulence, the statis-
tical error indices increase accordingly (Fig. 9, c and d). The experi-
mental results at 0.04, 0.08 and 0.2 s (early times), indicate that the
dam break wave propagated up to 0.7 m upstream and 0.7 m down-
stream. However, at 0.4, 1, 2, and 6 s (late times), the negative wave
reached the flume beginning (1.52 m upstream of the dam). The water
level was affected at the beginning of the reservoir within 0.4 s and
decreased to less than 0.04 m at 6 s there. The waves shape and pro-
pagation pattern differ in dry versus wet downstream conditions. In dry
downstream condition, the wave tip propagates about 0.7 m at early
times (0.2 s) and progresses smoothly. However, in wet downstream
condition, at the same time this wave only propagates up to 0.45 m and
has several humps.
In the late times (0.4, 1, 2 and 6 s) after dam break, the effect of
downstream conditions on the wave propagation pattern is significant.
For instance, wet downstream in comparison with dry downstream has
caused an increase in the water level at the flume beginning point,
created several humps in the progressive wave, and also increased the
maximum flood wave’s depth.
Fig. 10 (a–d) shows water surface profiles after dam break while the
upstream sediment depth is 0.03 m and the downstream is dry (Fig. 10
a and c) and wet with 0.02 m of sitting water (Fig. 10 b and d). All
figures depict experimental measurements as well as VOF (Fig. 10 a and
b) and Eulerian (Fig. 10 c and d) results. The measured data and both
VOF and Eulerian results are in good agreement, and the maximum
RMSE and MAE values (which occurred in the VOF method) are 0.013
and 0.0098 m, respectively. These errors are negligible compared to the
0.3 m depth of the reservoir water. Profile results at 0.4, 1, 2, and 6 s
(late times) indicate that the negative wave has reached the flume be-
ginning in 0.4 s, and the water level has changed there from 0.3 m to
around 0.05 m in 6 s. Although many of the analyses are similar to
Fig. 9, comparisons of water level in Fig. 10 (a–d) show that Eulerian

Exp. Data @ 0.04 Sec Num. Results @ 0.04 Sec Exp. Data @ 0.4 Sec Num. Results @ 0.4 Sec
Exp. Data @ 0.08 Sec Num. Results @ 0.08 Sec Exp. Data @ 1 Sec Num. Results @ 1 Sec
Exp. Data @ 0.2 Sec Num. Results @ 0.2 Sec Exp. Data @ 2 Sec Num. Results @ 2 Sec
Exp. Data @ 6 Sec Num. Results @ 6 Sec
(a) (b)
0.35 0.35
0.3 RMSE = 0.0061 (m) 0.3 RMSE = 0.0036 (m)
Water depth (m)

Water depth (m)

0.25 MAE = 0.0031 (m) 0.25 MAE = 0.0028 (m)

0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance along flume (m) Distance along flume (m)

(c) (d)
0.35 0.35
0.3 RMSE = 0.0122 (m) 0.3 RMSE = 0.0063 (m)
Water depth (m)

Water depth (m)

0.25 MAE = 0.0063 (m) 0.25 MAE = 0.0049 (m)

0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance along flume (m) Distance along flume (m)
Fig. 9. Comparison of laboratory results and VOF predictions, in determining water level profiles at early (0.04, 0.08 and 0.2 s) and late (0.4, 1, 2 and 6 s) times after
the dam break, when the upstream reservoir is filled up with clear water (without any sediment) and the downstream is, a) dry (early times), b) dry (late times), c)
wet (early times) and d) wet (late times).

9
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Exp. Data @ 0.4 Sec Num. Results @ 0.4 Sec

Exp. Data @ 1 Sec Num. Results @ 1 Sec
Exp. Data @ 2 Sec Num. Results @ 2 Sec
Exp. Data @ 6 Sec Num. Results @ 6 Sec
(a) (b)
0.35 0.35

Water depth (m)

RMSE = 0.0131 (m) RMSE = 0.0115 (m)
Water depth (m)

0.3 0.3
0.25 MAE = 0.0098 (m) 0.25 MAE = 0.0094 (m)
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance along flume (m) Distance along flume (m)

(c) (d)
0.35 0.35
RMSE = 0.0085 (m) RMSE = 0.0091 (m)
Water depth (m)

0.3 0.3

Water depth (m)

0.25 MAE = 0.0073 (m) 0.25 MAE = 0.0076 (m)
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance along flume (m) Distance along flume (m)

(e) (f)
0.08 0.08
Sediment depth (m)

Sediment depth (m)

RMSE = 0.0055 (m) RMSE = 0.0083 (m)

0.06 MAE = 0.0034 (m) 0.06 MAE = 0.0047 (m)

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance along flume (m) Distance along flume (m)

(g) (h)
0.08 0.08
Sediment depth (m)

Sediment depth (m)

RMSE = 0.0053 (m) RMSE = 0.0046 (m)

0.06 MAE = 0.0029 (m) 0.06 MAE = 0.0023 (m)
0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance along flume (m) Distance along flume (m)
Fig. 10. Comparison of laboratory measurements and simulation predictions by VOF (a, b, e & f) and Eulerian (c, d, g & h) methods in determining water level
profiles (a, b, c & d), when upstream sediment depth is 0.03 m, and in determining sediment depth profiles (e, f, g & h), when upstream sediment depth is 0.075 m, at
0.4, 1, 2 and 6 s after the dam break under different downstream conditions; dry downstream condition (a, c, e & g), wet downstream with 0.02 m of standing water
depth (b & d), or with 0.05 m of standing water depth (f & h).

results are more accurate than VOF in predicting the measured data.
RMSE and MAE values for Eulerian are 0.0091 m and 0.0076 m, re-
spectively (RMSE is 3% and MAE is 2.53% with respect to the 0.3 m
depth of the reservoir water). While wet downstream condition has not
had much of an effect on the upstream wave pattern, it has had a
profound effect on the downstream wave pattern and created a bumpy
profile.
Fig. 10 (e–h) shows sediment depth profiles after dam break while
the upstream sediment depth is 0.075 m and the downstream is dry
(Fig. 10 a and c) or wet with 0.05 m of sitting water (Fig. 10 b and d).
All figures depict measured data as well as VOF (Fig. 10 a and b) and
Eulerian (Fig. 10 c and d) results. The experimental measurements are
in good agreement with VOF and Eulerian results and the maximum
RMSE and MAE values are 0.0083 m and 0.0047 m, respectively that
occurred in VOF when the downstream was initially wet. Profile results
at 0.4, 1, 2, and 6 s indicate that the sediment negative wave has ad-
vanced back to upstream by 0.15 m in 0.4 s to a maximum of 0.5 m in
6 s and its positive wave has moved up to 0.35 m to the dam down-
stream. Also, the sediment layer propagation differs in dry versus wet
downstream conditions. However, in dry bed condition, the sediment

10
F. Vosoughi, et al.
Table 2
Statistical error values in predicting water surface profile by the VOF and Eulerian numerical methods, at times 0.4, 1, 2 and 6 s after dam break.
layer tip propagates around 0.35 m to downstream, in wet downstream
condition, it only moves up to 0.25 m there.
Comparisons of sediment depth profiles in Fig. 10 (e–h) show that
Eulerian is more accurate than VOF in predicting measured data. RMSE
and MAE values for the Eulerian method are 0.0046 m and 0.0023 m,
respectively; RMSE is 6.1% and MAE is 3.1% with respect to the
0.075 m depth of the sediment layer. Deeper investigation indicates, in
early times after dam break (up to 0.2 s), the reservoir sediment layer
was not influenced by downstream dry-bed or wet-bed conditions and
no significant changes has occurred in the sediment layer initial form of
a relatively sharp step. In the latter case, low sediment depth and tur-
bulence of the wave, may prevent significant deformation in sediment
layer at early times. Note that water surface profiles when the upstream
sediment depth is 0.15 m with different downstream conditions are
shown in Fig. S10, in Supplementary Material. The sediment depth
profiles when the upstream sediment depth is 0.2 m are also depicted
and discussed in Fig. S11, in Supplementary Material.
The statistical error values of VOF and Eulerian in predicting water
surface profile at late times (0.4, 1, 2, and 6 s) after dam break are
11
Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267
presented in Table 2, covering upstream sediment depths of
0.03–0.24 m and dry-bed or wet-bed downstream initial conditions. As
reflected in Table 2, the experimental measurements are in good
agreement with VOF and Eulerian results, and the maximum RMSE and
MAE were 0.043 m and 0.03 m respectively. The maximum error values
occurred in VOF for wet downstream condition with 0.04 and 0.05 m
water. In these cases, the upstream sediment depths were 0.22 m and
0.2 m. However, according to simulation assumptions such as con-
sidering the saturated sediment layer as a viscous fluid, the results are
satisfactory and the maximum amounts of error seems acceptable as
compared to 0.3 m depth of reservoir water. As previously mentioned,
it seems, as the downstream condition gets more complicated, the error
indices increase accordingly. It should be noted that, the RMSE value
presented for each dam break scenario in Table 2 is an average of the
errors calculated in 16 distinct surveyed locations along the channel
and also at 4 time snaps (0.4, 1, 2 and 6 s) after the dam break.
Deeper investigation showed that in the lower sediment depth
conditions (0.03 m and 0.075 m), the ability of numerical models is
higher than other cases. Moreover, in dry downstream condition, the
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Water Level @ 0.76 (m), Exp. Water Level @ 1.52 (m), Exp. Water Level @ 2.52 (m), Exp.

Water Level @ 0.76 (m), Num. Water Level @ 1.52 (m), Num. Water Level @ 2.52 (m), Num.

(a) (b)
0.35 0.35
0.3
RMSE = 0.0041 (m) RMSE = 0.0073 (m)
0.3
MAE = 0.0019 (m) MAE = 0.0046 (m)
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
Y (m)

Y (m)
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t (sec) t (sec)

(c) (d)
0.35 0.35
RMSE = 0.0079 (m) RMSE = 0.0065 (m)
0.3 0.3
MAE = 0.0057 (m) MAE = 0.004 (m)
0.25 0.25
0.2 0.2
Y (m)

0.15 Y (m) 0.15

0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t (sec) t (sec)
Fig. 11. Comparison of laboratory modeling results and VOF predictions, in determining variation of water level with passing time after dam break at 3 fixed
locations, including upstream reservoir midpoint (0.76 m), dam location (1.52 m) and dam downstream (2.52 m) when, reservoir is filled up with clear water
(without upstream sediment), under various downstream conditions: a) dry downstream, b) wet downstream with 0.02 m water, c) wet downstream with 0.04 m
water and d) wet downstream with 0.05 m water.

best fit between experimental and numerical results is achieved. By
comparing the statistical error indices, it is observed that the Eulerian
had better fit to the measured data than the VOF. For instance, when
the upstream sediment depth was 0.2 m and downstream was wet with
0.05 m water, the Eulerian yielded error indices that are 17% lower
than the VOF, pointing to a superior performance. Nevertheless, the
insignificant errors reported from different cases indicate the high
ability of OpenFOAM in simulating the multiphase shock waves. The
statistical error values of VOF and Eulerian in predicting sediment
depth profiles at 0.4, 1, 2 and 6 s after dam break are presented in Table
S1 in Supplementary Material.
In general, the calculated MAEs vary between 0.006 m and 0.031 m
(2%–10% with respect to the reservoir height of 0.3 m) and the RMSEs
vary between 0.008 m and 0.043 m (2.6%–4% with respect to the
maximum reservoir height of 0.3 m). Results of all numerical simula-
tions indicate that, especially in some cases with high upstream sedi-
ment depths, the Eulerian method showed slightly superior perfor-
mances than the VOF and the error values in the Eulerian were lower
than the VOF by 5%–20%. Accommodating mixing of the phases in
Eulerian may have prompted its superior results.
4.3. Investigation of water level and sediment depth variations over time
In this part, the results of VOF and Eulerian methods are compared
with experimental measurements in predicting the variation of water
level and sediment depth as time elapses. The MAE and RMSE indices
are also calculated and presented for all cases to assess the agreement
between experimental and numerical results. For this purpose, 15 time
snaps are considered in a wide range, of 0.04–6 s after dam break
(Section 2.1). All graphs are presented for three fixed locations and the
distances between locations from reservoir beginning are 0.76 m (up-
stream reservoir midpoint), 1.52 m (dam location) and 2.52 m (dam
downstream). The channel side view and three fixed locations are il-
lustrated in Fig. S12 in Supplementary Material. For data extraction
from these locations, both first and second camera (mid camera) are
used covering about 3.7 m of the flume length.
In Fig. 11, the water level variation as time elapses after dam break
at 3 fixed locations are shown. Here, the reservoir is filled up by clear
water with different downstream conditions. Points and lines represent
experimental measurements and VOF results, respectively. The ex-
perimental and VOF results are in good agreement and as the down-
stream condition gets more complicated, the error indices increase ac-
cordingly. The maximum RMSE and MAE were 0.0079 m and
0.0057 m, respectively; 2.6% and 1.9% with respect to the 0.3 m depth
of reservoir water, respectively.
As expected, after dam break for up to 3 s, the upstream water level
(at 0.76 m) decreases rapidly. While, at the same time, the downstream
water level (2.52 m) rises rapidly and then slowly decreases along the
flume. Once the dam breaks, the water depth at dam location (1.52 m)
sharply reduced and after about 0.5 s, it reached less than half of its
initial depth, and then gradually decreases. As reflected in the figure,
presence of downstream initial water has led to an increase in water
level in the dam downstream. Particularly, during late times (4–6 s), the
effect of downstream conditions on the water level in all three surveyed
points (upstream, dam location and downstream) was evident, and the
water level at all points for wet downstream condition was higher than
dry downstream condition.
In Fig. 12, both water level and sediment depth variations have been

12
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Water Level @ 0.76 (m), Exp. Sed. Depth @ 0.76 (m), Exp. Water Level @ 1.52 (m), Exp.
Sed. Depth @ 1.52 (m), Exp. Water Level @ 2.52 (m), Exp. Sed. Depth @ 2.52 (m), Exp.
Water Level @ 0.76 (m), Num. Sed. Depth @ 0.76 (m), Num. Water Level @ 1.52 (m), Num.
Sed. Depth @ 1.52 (m), Num. Water Level @ 2.52 (m), Num. Sed. Depth @ 2.52 (m), Num.
(a) (b)
0.4 0.4
0.35 RMSE = 0.0338 (m) 0.35 RMSE = 0.0365 (m)
MAE = 0.0239 (m) MAE = 0.0255 (m)
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
Y (m)

Y (m)
0.2 0.2
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t (sec) t (sec)

(c) (d)
0.4 0.4
0.35 RMSE = 0.0311 (m) 0.35 RMSE = 0.0315 (m)
MAE = 0.0206 (m) MAE = 0.0204 (m)
0.3 0.3
0.25 0.25
Y (m)

0.2 Y (m) 0.2

0.15 0.15
0.1 0.1
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
t (sec) t (sec)
Fig. 12. Comparison of laboratory experimental results and both VOF (a and b) and Eulerian (c and d) predictions, in determining water level and sediment depth
variation with passing time after dam break at 3 fixed locations, including upstream reservoir midpoint (0.76 m), dam location (1.52 m) and dam downstream
(2.52 m) when, upstream sediment depth was 0.24 m, under various downstream conditions: (a and c) dry downstream, (b and d) wet downstream with 0.02 m
water.

examined for three fixed locations along the flume, and results of VOF cases with high sediment depths upstream, the error values in Eulerian
and Eulerian numerical methods have been compared with experi- were lower, showing slightly superior performance than the VOF. Noted
mental measurements when upstream sediment depth was 0.24 m with that, in Fig. S13, in Supplementary Material, the time variation results
different downstream conditions. The experimental and both VOF and of VOF and Eulerian methods have been compared with experimental
Eulerian results are in acceptable agreement with maximum RMSE and measurements when upstream sediment depth is 0.03 m with different
MAE of 0.0365 and 0.0255 m, respectively; 12.1% and 8.5% of initial downstream conditions.
reservoir water level (0.3 m). Based on the simulation assumptions such
as considering the saturated sediment layer as a viscous fluid, the re-
4.4. Investigation of correlation factor in experimental and numerical
sults are acceptable.
results
The water level variation in dam upstream and downstream has
behaved in the same manner as previously discussed. As expected, once
In this section, by presenting several graphs for different upstream
the dam breaks, the water level at dam location (1.52 m) sharply re-
and downstream conditions, and comparing the coefficient of
duced and after 0.5 s reached less than 0.2 m and then gradually de-
determination(R2) , the correlation between experimental results and
creased. Experimental results indicate that the sediment depth at the
numerical simulations is evaluated. In Fig. 13 (a), the correlation be-
dam upstream (0.76 m) and downstream (2.52 m) do not change much
tween experimental measurements and VOF results in determining
in the first 2 s after the dam break. However, in the same time the
water level after dam break is shown for different times. In this case, the
sediment depth rapidly decreased (about 0.1 m) at the dam section
reservoir is filled up by clear water and downstream is wet with 0.04 m
(1.52 m) and then slowly decreased. Moreover, at 2 s after dam break
water. As it can be seen, the experimental measurements are highly
the downstream sediment depth, slowly started to increase, and
correlated with VOF results and the R2 is 0.989.
reached 0.025 m at 6 s.
Fig. 13 (b) and (c) indicates the correlation of laboratory mea-
It is also observed in Fig. 12 that different downstream conditions
surements versus VOF or Eulerian numerical methods in determining
(dry-bed or wet-bed) at early times after dam break (up to 0.4 s) did not
water level variation at different times after dam break for the case that
have any effect on water level variation, at upstream and dam section
the upstream sediment depth is 0.075 m and downstream is wet with
(1.52 m). However, presence of downstream initial water has led to an
0.05 m water. Experimental measurements are correlated with both
increase in the water level at dam downstream, and the effect of wet
VOF and Eulerian results with R2 values of 0.983 and 0.987, respec-
downstream condition on the water level at dam section is obvious in
tively, which indicates an acceptable accuracy of results. However, a
late times (6 s).
small difference in the determination coefficients shows the Eulerian
In general, the experimental measurements are in good agreement
results have a higher precision as compared to VOF results. The sta-
with VOF and Eulerian results. Also, as previously discussed, in some
tistical error value presented in this study for each scenario, is an

13
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

(a)
0.3
0.04 Sec
0.08 Sec
0.25
0.2 Sec
0.4 Sec
1 Sec

VOF results (m)

0.2
2 Sec
6 Sec
0.15

0.1 0.9889

0.05

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Experimental data (m)

(b) (c)
0.3 0.3
0.04 Sec 0.04 Sec
0.08 Sec 0.08 Sec
0.25 0.25
0.2 Sec 0.2 Sec
0.4 Sec 0.4 Sec
Eulerian results (m)

1 Sec 1 Sec
VOF results (m)

0.2 0.2
2 Sec 2 Sec
6 Sec 6 Sec
0.15 0.15

0.1 0.9834 0.1 0.9873

0.05 0.05

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Experimental data (m) Experimental data (m)
Fig. 13. Correlation analysis of experimental measurements and the results of VOF and Eulerian numerical methods in determining water level variation along the
flume, for different times after dam break; a) when the reservoir is filled up with clear water and downstream is wet with 0.04 m standing water depth, b) and c)
when the upstream sediment depth is 0.075 m and downstream is wet with 0.05 m standing water depth.

average of the errors calculated for different sections of the flume at
various time snaps after the dam break. However, according to Fig. 13,
in some locations along the flume, high error values are observed. For
example, in Fig. 13(b), at 6 s after the dam break, the error value has
reached 40%–50% in some locations along the flume. The reason seems
to be the difference between threshold shear stress in a fluid with non-
Newtonian behavior (reality) and the assumption of numerical mod-
eling in this study in which Newtonian fluid is assumed. This has led to
significant differences between observed data and numerical results at
some locations at the beginning of the dam reservoir. It should be noted
that the correlation analysis for the case that the upstream sediment
depth is 0.2 m while downstream is dry has been presented in Fig. S14,
in Supplementary Material.
4.5. Investigation of wave front celerity
The wave front celerity values were rigorously measured by means
of extracted images at four 1-m-long intervals through dam down-
stream. These four intervals totally cover 4 m length of dam down-
stream (1.52 m–5.52 m from reservoir beginning). The measured wave
front celerity values for these intervals are provided in 4 tables (due to 4
downstream conditions) presented in Supplementary Material (Section
S11). However, the mean measured wave front celerity along dam
downstream for all 32 dam break scenarios are classified in Table 3.
Investigating Table 3, it is concluded that the upstream sediment
depth is an important factor which determine the celerity values. The
deeper the upstream sediment layer, the slower the dam break flood
wave propagates. It seems that shallower water flow on the top of the
sediment layer is one of the reasons resulting in lower wave front cel-
erity values. Downstream initial standing water also leads to decrease in
the flood celerity; deeper downstream standing water reduced the wave
front celerity further. Reduced wave velocity due to downstream initial
water level is also reported in previous studies (Leal et al., 2006; Deng
et al., 2018). As reflected, the mean wave front celerity values along the
flume, are in a range of 1.08–2.32 m/s, based on different dam up-
stream and downstream conditions. The variance of each mean celerity
value was also calculated and classified in Table 3 (VAR line). As it can
be seen, the calculated variance values are insignificant and varied from
0.004 to a maximum of 0.042 m2/s2 and the maximum variance values
have occurred in the cases with deeper initial upstream sediment.

14
F. Vosoughi, et al. Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267

Table 3 from 0.006 m to 0.031 m (2% to 10% with respect to the reservoir
Mean measured wave front celerity along the flume (m/s). height of 0.3 m), and in terms of Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) varied
Mean wave front celerity (m/s) from 0.008 m to 0.043 m (2.6% to 14% with respect to the maximum
reservoir height of 0.3 m). Although, comparing coefficient of de-
Upstream Different downstream conditions termination (R2 ) showed acceptable correlations between the measured
sediment data and the results of VOF and Eulerian approaches, the Eulerian
depth (m) Dry downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream
with 0.02 m with 0.04 m with 0.05 m
method indicated a better correlation with experimental results.
standing standing standing However, required computational time for Eulerian approach was far
water water water more than that of VOF; in some cases, twice as long. It requires more
complex simulation conditions, especially when utilizing as a multi-
0 2.32 1.95 1.83 1.78
VAR* 0.012 0.021 0.020 0.017
phase modeling tool.
0.03 2.26 1.85 1.76 1.73 Future research could examine the potential effects of changing
VAR 0.014 0.007 0.019 0.022 downstream condition along the flume on such a multiphase shock
0.075 2.17 1.80 1.71 1.65 wave propagation. Simulating the saturated sediment layer as a fluid
VAR 0.014 0.008 0.017 0.017
with non-Newtonian behavior or as solid particles might prove im-
0.15 2.04 1.62 1.54 1.48
VAR 0.007 0.013 0.004 0.006 portant, too. Moreover, evaluating the application of expert systems,
0.175 1.92 1.55 1.44 1.42 particularly artificial neural networks (ANNs) on predicting such
VAR 0.012 0.016 0.011 0.009 complex issues may constitute the object of future studies. First of all,
0.2 1.75 1.47 1.34 1.31 this is desirable to apply artificial intelligence or genetic algorithm
VAR 0.029 0.018 0.008 0.008
0.22 1.65 1.35 1.23 1.20
models to make an accurate estimation for such multiphase flood waves
VAR 0.042 0.025 0.011 0.011 (Nikoo et al., 2015, 2016). Since, artificial intelligence models may
0.24 1.28 1.18 1.13 1.08 have different accuracies, fusion-based methods are common ap-
VAR 0.040 0.014 0.006 0.005 proaches could be conducted on the wide database provided in this
research (Alizadeh and Nikoo, 2018; Ghazali et al., 2018; Taravatrooy
* VAR: Variance value (m2 /s2 ).
et al., 2018). In the last, this is very much the key component in future
attempts to discuss the uncertainties in the peak estimation as well as
5. Summary and conclusion
the hydrograph of dam break flood, using interval optimization
methods, factorial analysis and also the method of conditional value at
In the present study, two- and three-phase flood waves caused by
risk (/CVaR) (Naserizade et al., 2018; Soltani et al., 2016; Tavakoli
sudden dam break with silted-up reservoirs have been studied both
et al., 2014). Above all, this issue would need to be explored further,
experimentally and numerically. Different initial conditions including
using different types of sediments with various grain sizes and grada-
various upstream sediment depths and dry-bed or wet-bed downstream
tions and this is desirable for future work to take into account the
have been considered which created a total of 32 scenarios. Multiphase
consolidation of sediment.
dam break shock waves were filmed by cameras mounted along the
flume and image processing method was employed to extract water
CRediT authorship contribution statement
level and sediment depth data from 16 locations along the flume and 15
snap times after the dam breaks. Numerical simulations were conducted
Foad Vosoughi: Conceptualization, Software, Validation,
using OpenFOAM via VOF and Eulerian numerical approaches.
Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original draft,
Authors concluded that upstream sediment depth is an important
Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Gholamreza
factor in determining flood wave propagation velocity. Particularly,
Rakhshandehroo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision,
higher upstream sediment depths (and less water depth on it), caused a
Writing - review & editing. Mohammad Reza Nikoo:
slower flood wave propagation downstream. It was postulated that the
Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review &
high sediment viscosity is a factor for the wave front celerity decrease
editing. Mojtaba Sadegh: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
under these conditions. On the other hand, by increasing upstream
sediment depth, both length and depth of the saturated sediment pro-
Declaration of Competing Interest
pagation to downstream area increase, raising the risk of burying
downstream facilities. The results demonstrate a strong effect of
downstream initial water on the flood wave, which reduces the ad- The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
vancement of saturated sediment layer, leading to a decrease in flood interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
wave velocity. The deeper the downstream initial water is, the slower ence the work reported in this paper.
the flood wave propagates (Leal et al., 2006; Deng et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, presence of downstream initial water has led to increase Appendix A. Supplementary data
in maximum flood wave height in downstream, which could raise the
immersion risk of structures and equipment located in prone areas. Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
Despite limitations such as assuming the upstream saturated sedi- doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125267.
ment layer as a viscous fluid in numerical modeling, comparing the
numerical results of VOF and Eulerian approaches with laboratory References
measurements showed that they are in good agreements. The Eulerian
approach slightly outperformed VOF, especially in cases with high Yang, C.T., 1996. Sediment Transport: Theory and Practice. McGraw-Hill.
Vischer, D.L., Hager, W.H., 1998. Dam Hydraulics. Wiley, Chichester, New York.
upstream sediment depths. Accommodating phase mixing in Eulerian Duarte, R., Ribeiro, J., Boillat, J.L., Schleiss, A., 2011. Experimental study on dam-break
method is believed to have caused its superior results. Further, good waves for silted-up reservoirs. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.
controls over the conditions in the lab such as no leakage from gate 1943-7900.0000444.
Open∇FOAM, The Open Source CFD Toolbox – User Guide, OpenFOAM Found. 15th
edges, short gate opening time (0.08–0.16 s), high imaging quality and December. (2015).
precise computer processing of the images appeared to be among rea- Dressler, R.F., 1954. Comparison of theories and experiments for the hydraulic dam-break
sons leading to good matching of experimental and numerical results. wave. Int. Assoc. Sci, Hydrol.
Bell, S.W., Elliot, R.C., Hanif Chaudhry, M., 1992. Experimental results of two-dimen-
Maximum error values in terms of Mean Absolute Error (MAE) varied sional dam-break flows. J. Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/

15
F. Vosoughi, et al.
00221689209498936.
Bellos, C.V., Soulis, V., Sakkas, J.G., 1992. Experimental investigation of two-dimensional
dam-break induced flows. J. Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221689209498946.
Fraccarollo, L., Toro, E.F., 1995. Experimental and numerical assessment of the shallow
water model for two-dimensional dam-break type problems. J. Hydraul. Res. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00221689509498555.
Lauber, G., Hager, W.H., 1998. Experiments to dambreak wave: horizontal channel. J.
Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221689809498620.
Soares Frazão, S., Zech, Y., 2002. Dam break in channels with 90° bend. J. Hydraul. Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128: 11(956).
Bellos, C.V. 2004. Experimental Measurements of Flood Wave Created by a Dam Break.
Eur. Water.
Meile, T., Boillat, J.L., Schleiss, A.J., 2013. Propagation of surge waves in channels with
large-scale bank roughness. J. Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.
2012.738876.
Wood, A., Wang, K.H., 2015. Modeling dam-break flows in channels with 90 degree bend
using an alternating-direction implicit based curvilinear hydrodynamic solver.
Comput. Fluids. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.03.011.
Xue, Y., Xu, W.L., Luo, S.J., Chen, H.Y., Li, N.W., Xu, L.J., 2011. Experimental study of
dam-break flow in cascade reservoirs with steep bottom slope. J. Hydrodyn. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6058(10)60140-0.
Kocaman, S., Ozmen-Cagatay, H., 2012. The effect of lateral channel contraction on dam
break flows: Laboratory experiment. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2012.02.035.
LaRocque, L.A., Imran, J., Chaudhry, M.H., 2013. Experimental and numerical in-
vestigations of two-dimensional dam-break flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000705.
Ozmen-Cagatay, H., Kocaman, S., Guzel, H., 2014. Investigation of dam-break flood
waves in a dry channel with a hump. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jher.2014.01.005.
Leal, J., Ferreira, R.M.L., Franco, A.B., Cardoso, A.H., 2001. Dam-break waves over
movable bed channels experimental study. In: Proc. Congr. Assoc. Hydraul. Res.
Soltani, M., Kerachian, R., Nikoo, M.R., Noory, H., 2016. A conditional value at risk-based
model for planning agricultural water and return flow allocation in river systems.
Water Resour. Manag. 30, 427–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1170-0.
Spinewine, B., Zech, Y., 2007. Small-scale laboratory dam-break waves on movable beds.
J. Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2007.9521834.
Cochard, S., Ancey, C., 2008. Tracking the free surface of time-dependent flows: Image
processing for the dam-break problem. Exp. Fluids. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-
007-0374-3.
Leal, J.G.A.B., Ferreira, R.M.L., Cardoso, A.H., 2009. Maximum level and time to peak of
dam-break waves on mobile horizontal bed. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000099.
Lal, A.M.W., Moustafa, M.Z. 2016. Dam-break wave fronts in vegetated wetlands. In:
World Environ. Water Resour. Congr. 2016 Hydraul. Waterw. Hydro-Climate/
Climate Chang. – Pap. from Sess. Proc. 2016 World Environ. Water Resour. Congr.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784479872.012.
Naserizade, S.S., Nikoo, M.R., Montaseri, H., 2018. A risk-based multi-objective model for
optimal placement of sensors in water distribution system. J. Hydrol. 557, 147–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.12.028.
Nikoo, M.R., Hatami Bahman Beiglou, P., Mahjouri, N., 2016. Optimizing multiple-pol-
lutant waste load allocation in rivers: an interval parameter game theoretic model.
Water Resour. Manag. 30, 4201–4220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1415-6.
Nikoo, M.R., Khorramshokouh, N., Monghasemi, S., 2015. Optimal design of detention
rockfill dams using a simulation-based optimization approach with mxed sediment in
the llow. Water Resour. Manag. 29, 5469–5488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-
015-1129-1.
Nsom, B., 2002. Horizontal viscous dam-break flow: experiments and theory. J. Hydraul.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128:5(543).
Alizadeh, M.R., Nikoo, M.R., 2018. A fusion-based methodology for meteorological
drought estimation using remote sensing data. Remote Sens. Environ. 211, 229–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.001.
Ancey, C., Cochard, S., Andreini, N., 2009. The dam-break problem for viscous fluids in
the high-capillary-number limit. J. Fluid Mech. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022112008005041.
Minussi, R.B., De Freitas MacIel, G., 2012. Numerical experimental comparison of dam
break flows with non-newtonian fluids. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1590/S1678-58782012000200008.
Unofficial OpenFOAM wiki. This page was last modified on 27 July 2019 (accessed 23
May 2020). https://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/Main_Page.
Gabutti, B., 1983. On two upwind finite-difference schemes for hyperbolic equations in
non-conservative form. Comput. Fluids. https://doi.org/10.1016/0045-7930(83)
90031-2.
Beam, R.M., Warming, R.F., 1976. An implicit finite-difference algorithm for hyperbolic
systems in conservation-law form. J. Comput. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-
9991(76)90110-8.
Chaudhry, M.H., 2008. Open-channel flow: second ed. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-
387-68648-6.
Fennema, R.J., Chaudhry, M.H., 1990. Explicit methods for 2-D transient free-surface
flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1990)
116:8(1013).
Mingham, C.G., Causon, D.M., 1998. High-resolution finite-volume method for shallow
water flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1998)
124:6(605).
Taravatrooy, N., Nikoo, M.R., Sadegh, M., Parvinnia, M., 2018. A hybrid clustering-fusion
16
Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267
methodology for land subsidence estimation. Nat. Hazards 94, 905–926. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-018-3431-8.
Tavakoli, A., Kerachian, R., Nikoo, M.R., Soltani, M., Malakpour Estalaki, S., 2014. Water
and waste load allocation in rivers with emphasis on agricultural return flows: ap-
plication of fractional factorial analysis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 186, 5935–5949.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-3830-6.
Valiani, A., Caleffi, V., Zanni, A., 2002. Case study: Malpasset dam-break simulation using
a two-dimensional finite volume method. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(2002)128:5(460).
Zoppou, C., Roberts, S., 2003. Explicit schemes for dam-break simulations. J. Hydraul.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2003)129:1(11).
Ackerman, C.T., Fleming, M.J., Brunner, G.W., 2008. Hydrologic and hydraulic models
for performing dam break studies. In: World Environ. Water Resour. Congr. 2008
Ahupua’a – Proc. World Environ. Water Resour. Congr. https://doi.org/10.1061/
40976(316)285.
Cao, Z., Pender, G., Wallis, S., Carling, P., 2004. Computational dam-break hydraulics
over erodible sediment bed. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(2004)130:7(689).
Leal, J.G.A.B., Ferreira, R.M.L., Cardoso, A.H., 2006. Dam-break wave-front celerity. J.
Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:1(69).
Wu, W., Wang, S.Y., 2007. One-dimensional modeling of dam-break flow over movable
beds. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:1(48).
Crespo, A.J.C., Gómez-Gesteira, M., Dalrymple, R.A., 2008. Modeling dam break behavior
over a wet bed by a SPH technique. J. Waterw. Port CoastOcean Eng. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(2008)134: 6(313).
Zoppou, C., Roberts, S., 2000. Numerical solution of the two-dimensional unsteady dam
break. Appl. Math. Model. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0307-904X(99)00056-6.
Aliparast, M., 2009. Two-dimensional finite volume method for dam-break flow simula-
tion. Int. J. Sediment Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(09)60019-6.
Evangelista, S., Altinakar, M.S., Di Cristo, C., Leopardi, A., 2013. Simulation of dam-break
waves on movable beds using a multi-stage centered scheme. Int. J. Sediment Res.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-6279(13)60039-6.
Postacchini, M., Othman, I.K., Brocchini, M., Baldock, T.E., 2014. Sediment transport and
morphodynamics generated by a dam-break swash uprush: Coupled vs uncoupled
modeling. Coast. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2014.04.003.
Ghazali, M., Honar, T., Nikoo, M.R., 2018. A fusion-based neural network methodology
for monthly reservoir inflow prediction using MODIS products. Hydrol. Sci. J. 63,
2076–2096. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1558365.
He, Z., Wu, T., Weng, H., Hu, P., Wu, G., 2017. Numerical simulation of dam-break flow
and bed change considering the vegetation effects. Int. J. Sediment Res. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijsrc.2015.04.004.
Kim, B., Sanders, B.F., 2016. Dam-break flood model uncertainty assessment: Case study
of extreme flooding with multiple dam failures in Gangneung, South Korea. J.
Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001097.
Fu, L., Jin, Y.C., 2016. mproved multiphase Lagrangian method for simulating sediment
transport in dam-break flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.
1943-7900.0001132.
Biscarini, C., Di Francesco, S., Manciola, P., 2010. CFD modelling approach for dam break
flow studies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-705-2010.
Yang, C., Lin, B., Jiang, C., Liu, Y., 2010. Predicting near-field dam-break flow and impact
force using a 3D model. J. Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2010.
531099.
Hu, K.C., Hsiao, S.C., Hwung, H.H., Wu, T.R., 2012. Three-dimensional numerical mod-
eling of the interaction of dam-break waves and porous media. Adv. Water Resour.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.06.007.
Marsooli, R., Wu, W., 2015. Three-dimensional numerical modeling of dam-break flows
with sediment transport over movable beds. J. Hydraul. Eng. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000947.
Lamond, B.F., Boukhtouta, A., 2002. Water Reservoir Applications of Markov Decision
Processes, pp. 537–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0805-2_17.
Ozmen-Cagatay, H., Kocaman, S., 2010. Dam-break flows during initial stage using SWE
and RANS approaches. J. Hydraul. Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221686.2010.
507342.
Issakhov, A., Imanberdiyeva, M., 2019. Numerical simulation of the movement of water
surface of dam break flow by VOF methods for various obstacles. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2019.03.034.
Mokrani, C., Abadie, S., 2016. Conditions for peak pressure stability in VOF simulations of
dam break flow impact. J. Fluids Struct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.
2015.12.007.
Panicker, P.G., Goel, A., Iyer, H.R., 2015. Numerical modeling of advancing wave front in
dam break problem by incompressible Navier-stokes solver. Aquat. Proc. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aqpro.2015.02.108.
Fondelli, T., Andreini, A., Facchini, B., 2015. Numerical simulation of dam-break problem
using an adaptive meshing approach. Energy Proc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.
2015.12.038.
Ye, Z., Zhao, X., 2017. Investigation of water-water interface in dam break flow with a
wet bed. J. Hydrol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.055.
Issakhov, A., Zhandaulet, Y., Nogaeva, A., 2018. Numerical simulation of dam break flow
for various forms of the obstacle by VOF method. Int. J. Multiph. Flow. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2018.08.003.
Jamshidi, F., Heimel, H., Hasert, M., Cai, X., Deutschmann, O., Marschall, H., Wörner, M.,
2019. On suitability of phase-field and algebraic volume-of-fluid OpenFOAM® solvers
for gas–liquid microfluidic applications. Comput. Phys. Commun. 236, 72–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2018.10.015.
Kassar, B.B.M., Carneiro, J.N.E., Nieckele, A.O., 2018. Curvature computation in volume-
of-fluid method based on point-cloud sampling. Comput. Phys. Commun. https://doi.
F. Vosoughi, et al.
org/10.1016/j.cpc.2017.10.003.
Barbosa, D.V.E., Santos, A.L.G., dos Santos, E.D., Souza, J.A., 2019. Overtopping device
numerical study: Openfoam solution verification and evaluation of curved ramps
performances. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheatmasstransfer.2018.11.071.
Hirt, C.W., Nichols, B.D., 1981. Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free
boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(81)90145-5.
Rusche, H., 2002. Computational Fluid Dynamics of Dispersed Two-Phase Flows at High
Phase Fractions PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine.
Heyns, J.A., Oxtoby, O.F., 2014. Modelling surface tension dominated multiphase flows
using the VOF approach. In: 11th World Congr. Comput. Mech. WCCM 2014, 5th Eur.
Conf. Comput. Mech. ECCM 2014 6th Eur. Conf. Comput. Fluid Dyn. ECFD 2014.
Brackbill, J.U., Kothe, D.B., Zemach, C., 1992. A continuum method for modeling surface
tension. J. Comput. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(92)90240-Y.
Deising, D., Marschall, H., Bothe, D., 2016. A unified single-field model framework for
Volume-Of-Fluid simulations of interfacial species transfer applied to bubbly flows.
Chem. Eng. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2015.06.021.
Soleimani, A., Schneiderbauer, S., Pirker, S., 2015. CFD study of the gas-particle flow in a
horizontal duct: the impact of the solids wall boundary conditions. Proc. Eng. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.225.
17
Journal of Hydrology 590 (2020) 125267
Bhusare, V.H., Dhiman, M.K., Kalaga, D.V., Roy, D.S., Joshi, J.B., 2017. CFD simulations
of a bubble column with and without internals by using OpenFOAM. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2017.01.128.
Lubchenko, N., Magolan, B., Sugrue, R., Baglietto, E., 2018. A more fundamental wall
lubrication force from turbulent dispersion regularization for multiphase CFD ap-
plications. Int. J. Multiph. Flow. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2017.
09.003.
Kia, S.A., Aminian, J., 2017. Hydrodynamic modeling strategy for dense to dilute gas-
solid fluidized beds. Particuology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.partic.2016.06.004.
Panda, S.K., Singh, K.K., Shenoy, K.T., Buwa, V.V., 2017. Numerical simulations of liquid-
liquid flow in a continuous gravity settler using OpenFOAM and experimental ver-
ification. Chem. Eng. J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2016.10.102.
Akbari, G.H., Barati, R., 2012. Comprehensive analysis of flooding in unmanaged
catchments. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Manag. https://doi.org/10.1680/wama.10.
00036.
Barati, R., Rahimi, S., Akbari, G.H., 2012. Analysis of dynamic wave model for flood
routing in natural rivers. Water Sci. Eng. https://doi.org/10.3882/j.issn.1674-2370.
2012.03.001.
Deng, X., Liu, H., Lu, S., 2018. Analytical study of dam-break wave tip region. J. Hydraul.
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001453.