21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

31st Annual USSD Conference San Diego, California, April 11-15, 2011

Hosted by Black & Veatch Corporation GEI Consultants, Inc. Kleinfelder, Inc. MWH Americas, Inc. Parsons Water and Infrastructure Inc. URS Corporation

On the Cover
Artist's rendition of San Vicente Dam after completion of the dam raise project to increase local storage and provide a more flexible conveyance system for use during emergencies such as earthquakes that could curtail the regions imported water supplies. The existing 220-foot-high dam, owned by the City of San Diego, will be raised by 117 feet to increase reservoir storage capacity by 152,000 acre-feet. The project will be the tallest dam raise in the United States and tallest roller compacted concrete dam raise in the world.

U.S. Society on Dams

Vision To be the nation's leading organization of professionals dedicated to advancing the role of dams for the benefit of society. Mission USSD is dedicated to: Advancing the knowledge of dam engineering, construction, planning, operation, performance, rehabilitation, decommissioning, maintenance, security and safety; Fostering dam technology for socially, environmentally and financially sustainable water resources systems; Providing public awareness of the role of dams in the management of the nation's water resources; Enhancing practices to meet current and future challenges on dams; and Representing the United States as an active member of the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD).

The information contained in this publication regarding commercial projects or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and may not be construed as an endorsement of any product or from by the United States Society on Dams. USSD accepts no responsibility for the statements made or the opinions expressed in this publication. Copyright 2011 U.S. Society on Dams Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924673 ISBN 978-1-884575-52-5 U.S. Society on Dams 1616 Seventeenth Street, #483 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-628-5430 Fax: 303-628-5431 E-mail: stephens@ussdams.org Internet: www.ussdams.org

SENSITIVITIES OF CHANNEL GEOMETRY COMPARED TO MODELING ASSUMPTIONS IN DAM FAILURE ANALYSIS Joey M. Windham, P.E1 ABSTRACT This research includes a sensitivity analysis of channel geometry and model assumptions in 1 dimensional (1D) dam break analysis. The specific modeling assumptions that are analyzed include: breach development time, breach width, and breach side-slopes. The question always arises when doing 1D dam break modeling of how detailed does the geometry data need to be to answer the subject question within an acceptable tolerance. LIDAR data and bathymetric data used for channel characteristic add significant detail to the model geometry as opposed to using coarse gridded data such as the USGS 10 meter Digital Elevation Models (DEMs). However, as geometry detail increases so does model development time, model run time, and cost to retrieve data. This research analyzes the level of error introduced in model results from accuracy of channel geometry as compared to the level of error introduced from assumptions made in breach characteristics. INTRODUCTION Overview of Modeling Process Using hydraulic models to analyze a possible dam break is a valuable way to establish level of risk for consequences related to loss of life, property damage, and loss of operation. Consequence estimates are driven both directly and indirectly from many hydraulic factors of a dam break. Specifically, consequences are dependent on flood arrival time, total discharge, flood extent, and flood depth which are estimated by hydraulic modeling. Therefore, the sensitivities of modeling parameters that affect these hydraulic factors are important in producing models that are effective in assisting in decisions making related to dam failure. This research utilizes HEC-RAS to analyze the sensitivity of geometry data and modeling parameters in completing dam break analysis. HEC-RAS is a one-dimensional mathematical modeling software produced by the United States Army Corps of Engineers Hydrological Engineering Center in Davis, California. The inputs to the model include a geometry file that requires points attributed with elevation and distance between points. These points can be pulled from a digital terrain model such as a DEM, TIN, or from surveyed points. A DEM is developed by normalizing elevation points into a grid system such as pixels, with each pixel representing one elevation. A TIN surface is a terrain model developed from triangulation of elevation point data. DEM and survey data was utilized in this research.

Civil Engineer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, 4155 East Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39183, Joseph.M.Windham@usace.army.mil

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

375

This data is used to build a geometry file representative of the dimensions of the studied channel. A channel centerline is also required that indicates the direction and distance between cross-sections. For the purpose of this research HEC-GeoRAS, was utilized. This allowed for georeferencing of all channel data. HEC-GeoRAS is an ArcGIS extension to HEC-RAS. HEC-GeoRAS also allows flood extents and flood depths to be analyzed in ArcGIS. Selection of Study Site The river reach below Dam X has a significant slope of 12.3 feet per mile for a length of greater than 100 miles. The valleys are deep and relatively narrow, therefore it is a valid assumption that the majority of flood flows in the channel and overbanks are generally in the downstream direction. This allows the dam to be accurately modeled with a 1D modeling software such as HEC-RAS. If the dam was located above flat topography such as a delta region, a 2 dimensional model would need to be utilized. Dam X was also chosen because of its similarity in downstream channel and overbank characteristic to other dams of interest. This will allow for the use of these results to gain insight into to developing modeling approaches and procedures for these dams. Stage hydrographs, discharge hydrographs, flood arrival time and maximum water surfaces were analyzed at cross-sections ST 417639 (30 Miles from dam) & ST 535372 (15 Miles from dam). ST 535372 was selected because of its location near to a very populated area, therefore it represent an area of high consequences. Furthermore, this cross-section allowed for analysis of results in relatively close proximity to the dam. ST 417639, was selected because it allowed for the analysis of how attenuation of the flood wave would affect variance in results due to its relative long distance from the dam. Statement of the Problem and Study Approach Level of accuracy of data used to create modeling geometry files has an obvious effect on the level of accuracy of results. However, the data used to construct the geometry can be the biggest time factor and cost factor in completing the model. In addition to geometry, model results are affected by the assumptions made related to the breach size should a failure occur, the side-slopes of the failure, and the formation time of the breach. The magnitude of the impact of incorrect assumptions of these factors was compared to the sensitivity of the level of accuracy of the channel data captured in model geometry files. Conclusions were then drawn as to whether the effort and cost to collect accurate channel geometry data is warranted or do inherent assumptions in the model dwarf errors introduced from lack of channel geometry data. Geometry data for dam break modeling can be a significant cost in the modeling effort. Typical 1D dam break models cost in the range of $ 100,000 if surveyed cross-section data is not collected. Surveyed cross-section data can cost as much as $1500/section. As much as 200-500 miles of river might need to be modeled when analyzing a dam breach before the flood wave returns to within the banks; therefore, more than doubling the cost. In some instances cross-section data can

376

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

also be pulled from old studies. However, often this causes the labor cost for model setup too often double. This prompts the question when making numerous assumptions on the size and characteristics of the breach, does the accuracy of your geometry warrant the amount of effort and cost? Sensitivity of Model Geometry USGS 10 meter DEMs are readily available for download from the USGS website. This data can be used to cut-cross sections in order to build a geometry file for analysis of water surface elevations utilizing HEC-RAS. However, a significant portion of the channel is not represented when only utilizing 10 meter DEMs. In order to calculate the percent error introduced in utilizing only a 10 meter DEM, separate geometry sets were developed with specific depths and widths which were burned into the cross sections cut from the DEM. Actual surveyed cross section data downstream of the dam for approximately 60 miles indicated an average channel bottom width of 50-60 ft and an average depth of roughly 20 ft. Therefore, one of the geometry sets analyzed consisted of a 50 ft bottom width channel with 20 ft of depth. The second geometry set of 125 bottom width channel and 20ft of depth was selected to produce a range of channel sizes and because other dams of interest in this area have downstream channels in this size range. Breach size of dam failure was varied in order to compare the calculated difference in water surface elevation and velocities calculated for the selected geometry files from a range of discharges. Figures 1 shows examples of calculated water surfaces with and without channel data included. The green line represents the cross-section obtained when only using the DEM, while the red-line indicates the addition of cross-section data constructed from analyzing actual cross-section data. Blue and pink lines represent corresponding water surface elevations. Figure 2 shows comparison on stage and discharge hydrographs computed from using geometry with and without channel data.

Figure 1. Example of the Water-Surface Comparison from Different Geometry Sets

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

377

Figure 2. Comparison of Stage and Discharge Hydrographs Sensitivity of Model Parameters In order to compare the sensitivity of results to geometry as compared to other modeling parameters, the following parameters were varied and results were calculated: breach size, breach side-slopes, and formation time. A comprehensive summary of the literature on historic dam failures is a Bureau of Reclamation report written by Tony Wahl titled Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach Parameter (Wahl, 1998). This report was used to establish ranges of the aforementioned parameters. This report discusses all types of dams; however information on earthen/embankment dams was utilized for this research. Specifically, regression equations from Froehlich (1995b), MacDonald and LangridgeMonopolis (1984), and Von Thun and Gillette (1990) were utilized because of working experience using these equations and because of the authors suggested applicability to earthen, zoned earthen, and rockfill dams. In addition, Corps of Engineers guidance referenced in Wahl's paper was utilized to develop the range of parameters. Description of Scenarios Analyzed Once a steady model was obtained, the scenarios listed below were modeled. Approximately 60 miles downstream of dam was modeled. For scenarios 1-4, the breach widths were varied to obtain a range of discharges down the channel.

378

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Table 1. Scenarios Analyzed 1 Geometry file developed from 10 Meter DEM. Breach Widths(ft):500,400,300,200,100,50,10 2 Geometry file developed from 10 Meter DEM with channel burned in with 20ft depth and 50ft bottom width with 1/3 side slopes. Breach Widths(ft):500,400,300,200,100,50,10 3 Geometry file developed from 10 Meter DEM with channel burned in with 20ft depth and 125 ft bottom width with 1/3 side slopes. Breach Widths(ft):500,400,300,200,100,50,10 4 Results from scenario 1 were used to plot resulting elevations and discharges from range of breach widths(ft):500,400,300,200,50,10 5 Geometry file developed from 10 meter DEM. Breach width was kept constant at 300 ft with side slopes equal to 0.9. Formation times were varied (hrs): 0.25,0.5,1,2,3,4,5,7,10,15,20 6 Geometry file developed from 10 meter DEM. Breach width was kept constant at 300 ft. Breach Side-Slopes were varied V:H (Horizontal was varied): 0.0(vertical),0.5,1,2,3,4

CONCLUSIONS Overview Stage hydrographs, discharge hydrographs, flood arrival time and maximum water surfaces were analyzed at cross-sections ST 417639 (30 Miles from dam) & ST 535372 (15 Miles from dam). Scenarios 1-3 were used to analyze the amount of error that would be induced into water surface elevation, total discharges, and arrival time calculation if a 50 ft bottom width channel or a 125 ft bottom width channel was not captured in the model geometry. This was accomplished by executing the model with three separate geometry files: 1.) No Cross-Section, 2.) 50 ft bottom width 20 ft depth, and 3.) 125 ft bottom width 20 ft depth. Resulting variance in total discharge, maximum water surface elevation, and flood arrival time was then charted and compared to the sensitivity of these calculated values using a range of breach-width, formation time of breach, and sideslopes of breach Differences in Maximum Calculated Discharge Sensitivity of Channel Geometry: In comparing the error produced in different geometry files, results indicated that the largest variation in calculated discharges was observed at ST 417639 for the comparison of no cross-section & 125 ft BW channel. The maximum Sensitivities of Channel Geometry 379

calculated difference was approximately 17,200 cfs with a total discharge approximately of 600,000 cfs. If the assumption is made that the variations observed at this cross-section are linear, the largest rate of variation of calculated maximum discharge for compared geometries is approximately 2000 cfs / 100,000 cfs (See Figure 3).

Figure 3. ST 417639 Linear Approximation of Variance in Calculated Discharges Similar results were observed at ST 535372 with the comparison of no cross-section & 125BW showing the largest variance in calculated maximum discharge, with 16,600 cfs being the largest variation at a total calculated discharge of approximately 800,000 cfs. Variance increased at an approximate rate of 1,800 cfs per 100,000 cfs. (See Figure 4).

380

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 4. ST 535372 Linear Approximation of Variance in Calculated Discharges The variance between calculated discharges for no cross-section compared to a 50 BW 20 depth channel varied much less for both cross - sections; with the variance staying roughly below 4,000 cfs for any scenario. Sensitivity of Breach Widths: The variance in total discharge calculated with various sizes of breaches varied significantly as seen in (Figure 5). If the assumption is made that the variation is linear, then the rate of variation of calculated maximum discharge with estimated breach width for ST 535372 is roughly 130,000 cfs / 100 ft of variance in estimated breach width.

Figure 5. ST 535372 Linear Approximation of Discharge Variance due to Breach Widths Dimensions

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

381

Similar results were observed at ST 417639, with the variation of calculated maximum discharge of 94,000 cfs for every 100 ft of variance in estimated breach width (See Figure 6).

Figure 6. ST 417639 Linear Approximation of Discharge Variance due to Breach Width Dimensions Sensitivity of Breach Formation Time: The calculated maximum discharge varied only slightly for the range between 0.25 hrs and 1 hrs. However, in formation times greater than 1 hr, the calculated maximum discharge varied roughly, 25,000 cfs for every 1hr of variation of formation time (See Figure 7).

Figure 7. ST 535372 Linear Approximation of Discharge Variance due to Formation Time Sensitivity of Breach Side-Slopes: The calculated maximum discharge varied between 550,000 cfs and 800,000 cfs for estimated side-slopes ranging between vertical 0.0 to 1.4 (See Figure 8). A linear approximation was made of the graph. This approximation 382 21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

indicated that the calculated maximum discharge varied at a rate of 59,000 cfs for every integer unit of variation of the horizontal component of the side slope.

Figure 8. ST 535372 Linear Approximation of Discharge Variance due to Breach Side-Slopes In comparing the calculated total discharge for the 4 variables in the executed runs; geometry, breach width, formation time, breach side-slopes, the error introduced from geometry files lacking significant channel data was minor. The maximum variance in calculated discharge from geometry was 17,200 cfs and this was assuming a large channel was missed in the construction of the geometry file. This variance was dwarfed when considering breach width, side-slopes and formation time Maximum Calculated Water Surface Sensitivity of Channel Geometry: Calculated maximum water surface elevation for the three sets of geometry varied significantly on the non-failure runs as seen in Figures 9&10. The non-failure run released a discharge of less than 20,000 cfs from the dam which is conveyed within the channel banks. However, the maximum difference in calculated water surface was relatively low for the failure runs. For ST 535372, all of the failure runs indicated a difference of less than 4ft for the 125BW channel and less then 1ft for the 50BW channel (See Figure 9).

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

383

Figure 9. ST 535372 Large Error in Non-Failure Runs For ST 417639 all of the failure runs indicated less the 2ft error for 125 ft BW channel and less then 1ft for 50 ft BW channel. (See Figure 10).

Figure 10. ST 417639 Large Error in Non-Failure Runs

384

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Sensitivity of Breach Widths: Estimated breach width significantly affected the calculated water surface. As indicated in Figure 11, if a linear approximation is made at ST 535372, the rate of change of calculated water surface for estimated breach width would be 4 ft per 100 ft of change in estimated breach width. Similar results were observed at ST 417639 with a minimum of 2 ft variance in calculated water surface elevation for estimated breach width (See Figure 11).

Figure 11. ST 535372 Linear Approximation of Variance in Water-Surface due to Size of Breach Widths

Figure 12. ST 417639 Linear Approximation of Water-Surface Variance due to Breach Widths

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

385

Sensitivity of Breach Formation Time: Variation in formation time changed the calculated water surface elevation only slightly for variation less than 1 hour. However, for formation times above 1 hr, the variation in calculated water surfaced varied at a rate of 0.63 ft/ per hour difference in estimated formation time. Therefore, using the assumption that the equations are not accurate within 1 hr of formation time, a minimum error of 0.6 ft is introduced from estimates of formation time (See Figure 13).

Figure 13. Linear Approximation of Water-Surface Elevation due to Formation Time Sensitivity of Breach Side-Slopes: The calculated water surface elevation varied between 5221.8 ft and 5226.9 ft as seen in Figure 14. If a linear approximation is assumed, the rate of variation is 1.29ft for ever integer unit of variation in the horizontal component of side-slope. Therefore, a minimum of 1.29ft error is introduced from estimates of sideslope using the aforementioned equations.

386

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

Figure 14. Linear Approximation of Water-Surface Elevation due to Formation Time Flood Arrival Times Sensitivity of Channel Geometry: The variances in the flood arrival time for the 3 sets of geometry files were insignificant. The maximum variance was 10 minutes for any of the executed runs. Sensitivity of Breach Width: Estimated breach widths varied the flood arrival time at a significant rate. With the maximum variation being as much as two hours at the most upstream cross-section analyzed (ST 535372). The downstream stream cross-section (ST 417639) varied at a greater rate with a maximum variation of 4 hrs. These variations are due to a higher velocity with the large releases from the dam. The higher discharge produces a higher stage, which supplies a higher head to drive the velocity up. A variation of anything greater than 1 hr can have significant effects on the loss of life estimated. This is one hour less that an individual has to reach a safe zone. Sensitivity of Breach Formation Time: The variations of flood arrival time due to estimates of formation time varied significantly. Variations of 1hr in estimated breach formation time indicated a minimum error of 1.5 hours for flood arrival time. This variation is due to the maximum release from the dam being directly proportional to the breach size, which is also directly proportional to the formation time. Therefore, the longer it takes for the maximum discharge to be released from the dam increases the time a person has to evacuate to a safe zone. Consequently effecting consequences related to loss of life and structure damages.

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

387

Sensitivity of Breach Side-Slopes: The variation of breach side slopes effect the amount of discharge released from the dam at a lower head. The flatter breach slopes produces a greater area for conveyance of water through the dam at a particular pool elevation. The more discharge in the channel, the higher water surface elevation; therefore, more head to increase velocities and decrease flood arrival times. However, the results indicated that the flood arrival times were not very sensitive to the variations in the horizontal component of the side slopes. The maximum variation being at ST 417639 at a value of 1 hour and 10 minutes. However, this was assuming that the side slopes changed from vertical to 1:4 V:H, the maximum range analyzed. Summary of Conclusions: As the discharge flowing down the entire floodplain increases the percent of total conveyance within the channel decreases, consequently the calculated water surface and velocity are less dependent on the channel conveyance. However, the more important question is to what degree it affects the results. The error in calculated discharges, maximum water surface elevation, and flood arrival time due to the variation of channel geometry was small relative to errors produced from variations in other model parameters, when considering dam break level discharges. Results indicated that a small variation in estimated breach width would dwarf any error introduced from not capturing the full channel size in model geometry. Furthermore, variation in estimated side-slopes and formation time would also exceed errors introduced from not capturing the full channel size in the model. Breach parameters such as the ones analyzed in this paper are very difficult to predict even when it is assumed that the exact failure mode is known. However, in analyzing dam failure analysis the only thing I believe is certain is that we will not be able to accurately predict the actual mechanism that will initiate the failure or the way in which the failure will progress. Therefore, the inherent error from these assumptions will dwarf errors in not capturing the full channel size in dam failure analysis. Furthermore, this is the reason it is important to try and capture a range of failure levels, so that in the event of a failure, important decisions can be made by interpolating results. The sensitivity of modeling parameters such as the ones analyzed in this research is inherently somewhat site specific. These results will vary depending on size of reservoir, slope of downstream channel, characteristics of floodplain, and height of dam. However, I do believe that these results can be extrapolated to dams with relatively steep channels and steep narrow flood plains below the dam. These results also suggest that dam break models can be populated with estimated channel sizes that would produce an acceptable result in most cases with much less time and effort than collecting detailed surveys. These channel estimates can be broken into segment of the river. Each segment may be determined by channel slope, overbank characteristics, etc. Each segment would be populated with one characteristic channel geometry. The estimated channel characteristics could not only be made from old cross-section data, but also arial photography, sediment ranges, etc. This effort would minimize the error from not having any channel geometry at all and decrease development cost of the model substantially.

388

21st Century Dam Design Advances and Adaptations

REFERENCES Brunner, Gary W., Goodell, Chris R., and Gibson, Stanford., January 2010 HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual. U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA Froehlich, David C., 1995b, Embankment Dam Breach Parameters Revisited, Water Resources Engineering, Proceedings of the 1995 ASCE Conference on Water Resource Engineering, San Antonio, Texas, August 14-18, 1995, p. 887-891. MacDonald, Thomas C., and Jennifer Langridge-Monopolis, 1984. Breaching Characteristics of Dam Failures, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 110, no.5 p.567586 Von Thun, J. Lawrence, and David R. Gillette, 1990 Guidance on Breach Parameters. unpublished internal document, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, March 19,1990, 17p. Wahl, Tony L.,1998 Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters-A needs Assessment.DSO-98-007, Dam Safety Research Report, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dams Safety Office, July 1998

Sensitivities of Channel Geometry

389