Next Article in Journal
Weather Risk Assessment for Collective Water Supply and Sewerage Systems
Next Article in Special Issue
Comment on Aureli et al. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968
Previous Article in Journal
A Unified View of Nonlinear Resistance Formulas for Seepage Flow in Coarse Granular Media
Previous Article in Special Issue
A New Dam-Break Outflow-Rate Concept and Its Installation to a Hydro-Morphodynamics Simulation Model Based on FDM (An Example on Amagase Dam of Japan)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/w13141968
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Comment published on 17 January 2022, see Water 2022, 14(2), 264.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models

by
Francesca Aureli
1,*,
Andrea Maranzoni
1 and
Gabriella Petaccia
2
1
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43124 Parma, Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, via Ferrata 3, 27100 Pavia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2021, 13(14), 1968; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141968
Submission received: 30 April 2021 / Revised: 7 July 2021 / Accepted: 13 July 2021 / Published: 17 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Dam-Break Modeling for Flood Hazard Mitigation: Theory, Numerical Models, and Applications in Hydraulic Engineering)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dam break inundation mapping is essential for risk management and mitigation, emergency action planning, and potential consequences assessment. To quantify flood hazard associated with dam failures, flooding variables must be predicted by efficient and robust numerical models capable to effectively cope with the computational difficulties posed by complex flows on real topographies. Validation against real-field data of historical dam-breaks is extremely useful to verify models’ capabilities and accuracy. However, such catastrophic events are rather infrequent, and available data on the breaching mechanism and downstream flooding are usually inaccurate and incomplete. Nevertheless, in some cases, real-field data collected after the event (mainly breach size, maximum water depths and flood wave arrival times at selected locations, water marks, and extent of flooded areas) are adequate to set up valuable and significant test cases, provided that all other data required to perform numerical simulations are available (mainly topographic data of the floodable area and input parameters defining the dam-break scenario). This paper provides a review of the historical dam-break events for which real-field datasets useful for validation purposes can be retrieved in the literature. The resulting real-field test cases are divided into well-documented test cases, for which extensive and complete data are already available, and cases with partial or inaccurate datasets. Type and quality of the available data are specified for each case. Finally, validation data provided by dam-break studies on physical models reproducing real topographies are presented and discussed. This review aims at helping dam-break modelers: (a) to select the most suitable real-field test cases for validating their numerical models, (b) to facilitate data access by indicating relevant bibliographic references, and (c) to identify test cases of potential interest worthy of further research.

1. Introduction

Artificial dams are hydraulic works of fundamental importance for human development since ancient times due to the great benefits provided by the storage of large water volumes, such as a water supply for drinking and irrigation purposes. The first dams known date back to 3000 BC in Mesopotamia. In recent times, as early as 1800, technological progress has allowed construction of large dams. The most impressive ones have been built within the last century, when, moreover, the number of dams has significantly increased according to water demand. In addition to supplying water and controlling floods, modern dams are often designed for power production.
However, despite its great benefits, the storage of large volumes of water poses serious risks for the downstream areas. Unfortunately, over the centuries, the history of retaining dams has been studded with disasters of various types, sometimes of great magnitude, with loss of human lives and destruction of downstream properties, agricultural lands, historical sites, industrial and productive settlements, and urban areas. Even though a time-related analysis shows that the frequency of failure of large dams has been reduced by a factor of four or more over the last forty years worldwide [1], dam incidents still occur at present with a non-negligible frequency [2,3,4]. In the current year, the failure of the Rishiganga dam (India), induced by a glacier avalanche, caused a catastrophic flood in the downstream valley with many casualties and huge damages to four hydropower plants. Moreover, the state of emergency was declared over toxic wastewater leaks in Florida due to the dreaded breach of the Piney Point reservoir. In this case a potential disaster was ultimately fortunately averted.
Wider dissemination of awareness on risk factors affecting dam safety is constantly necessary due to the presence of old and new hazardous conditions that can have an adverse effect on stability and efficiency of retention barrages. Some examples of such adverse factors are dam aging [5] and insufficient spillway capacity due to long-term alteration of weather patterns and exacerbated climatic extremes (e.g., [6,7]).
All these elements can increase dam-break flood risk in downstream areas, which is further amplified by growing exposure of human settlements and potential high vulnerability to flooding [8]. For this reason, research related to the assessment of the hydraulic risk resulting from the failure of retaining structures is constantly ongoing and involves scientists from all over the world. Moreover, the lessons learnt by dam accidents and catastrophes in the past are still very relevant [9,10]. Although there are countless works on the general subject of dam safety (e.g., [11,12,13,14,15,16,17]), only the ones that significantly helped in drafting the review are mentioned in this paper.
Among the possible aspects linked to the topic of dam safety [18,19], the assessment of flood hazard associated with a potential total or partial dam collapse is of key relevance and is strictly required by national technical guidelines worldwide [20,21,22,23]. To this end, relevant flooding variables must be predicted by numerical models, which have seen a growing and unstoppable development for decades, especially thanks to the constant advances in computational techniques (e.g., [24,25,26]). For use in practical applications, dam-break numerical models must be efficient and robust, and capable to accurately track wetting and drying fronts and handle all the complexities that characterize unsteady free surface flows on real topographies. The verification and validation of these models are then necessary before the application to real case studies. Model verification can be performed by comparing numerical results with available analytical solutions of dam-break problems (which usually hold under the shallow water approximation [27]). However, such analytical solutions, which in some countries have even influenced the drafting of legislation on dams, deal with schematic geometries and cannot adequately represent the complex phenomena occurring on real topographies. On the other hand, numerical models can be validated against field or experimental data. Accordingly, in recent decades, great attention has been devoted to set up suitable databases from laboratory dam-break investigations [28,29,30].
Field data can be derived from the analysis of historical dam-break events. However, such catastrophic events are fortunately rather rare, and available data on flood dynamics are typically inaccurate and incomplete. Indeed, there is no targeted preparation or general attitude for collecting of a rich amount of information at the dam site and in the downstream areas during a calamitous event of this kind. Nevertheless, in some cases, data collected after or occasionally during the event (mainly maximum water depths and flood wave arrival times at selected locations, and extent of the flooded areas) are sufficient to set up interesting validation test cases, provided that all other essential data required to perform numerical simulations are available (i.e., the digital elevation model of the floodable area and, possibly, of the reservoir, and the input parameters defining the dam-break scenario).
This paper reviews and provides an exhaustive list of the historical dam-break events for which datasets are available for validation purposes. The cases identified are organized in two groups: the former includes well-documented cases with extensive and complete data; the latter refers to cases with incomplete or inaccurate data, which could actually be completed without excessive effort with further research [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Laboratory investigations on dam-break flow in physical models reproducing real topographies are also considered.
The main aim of this review is to provide modelers with a set of real-field test cases for validation purposes, facilitating the retrieval of the corresponding data. An additional aim is to contribute to the studies related to dam safety, according to the philosophy of the 2019 ICOLD World declaration on Dam Safety: The profession of dam engineering has a profound ethical responsibility to carry out its professional duties so that dams and reservoirs are designed, constructed and operated in the most effective and sustainable way, while also ensuring that both new and existing dams are safe during their entire lifespan, from construction to decommissioning [40].
The paper is organized as follows. Well-documented dam-break real events are presented and analyzed in Section 2. Historical dam-break events open to further study to complete the validation datasets are presented in Section 3. In Section 4, dam-break investigations on physical models reproducing real topographies are discussed. Type and quality of the available data for each test case are highlighted in specific tables for the three categories. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in Section 5.

2. Well-Documented Dam-Break Test Cases

Table 1 reports twenty well-documented historical dam-breaks found in the literature for which the writers have deemed the available data adequate to validate numerical models. These events are indeed documented with exhaustive information and real-field data concerning breach formation and the water volume stored in the upstream reservoir before breaching. Data on the propagation of the dam-break flood wave downstream are also available in most of these cases. Some events listed in Table 1 have already been inserted in other databases, especially concerning the peak outflow resulting from an earthen dam failure [41,42,43,44,45,46]. The same applies to some dam-break cases presented in the next section.
Table 1 is organized in 23 columns. Columns from 2 to 4 report dam name, location and type, respectively. The table is divided into six different sections according to the dam type. Columns 5 and 6 specify the cause and year of the disaster. Among the twenty dam-break events considered, 60% refers to earthfill dams, 25% to concrete dams, 10% to rockfill dams, and 5% to tailing dams. The most frequent causes of failure for this set of historical events are piping (PI, 35%) and overtopping (OT, 30%), followed by quality problems and design errors (QP, 15%), erosion (ER, 15%), and poor management (PM, 5%). Most of the disasters included in this set occurred between 1950 and 2000 (55%), while only 5% occurred before 1900, 15% between 1900 and 1950, and 25% after 2000 (15% between 2000 and 2010, and 10% between 2010 and 2020). The fact that 25% of the well-documented disasters examined here occurred in the last two decades might seem surprising, but it has to be considered that in recent years input and validation data, such as a digital terrain model (DTM), rainfall data, and aerial photographs before and after the flooding, are available more frequently than in the past. Therefore, in the writers’ opinion, the presence in Table 1 of a high number of dam-break cases occurred in the last twenty years is probably due to greater availability of information rather than to a real increase in the incidence of this calamitous event.
Column 7 of Table 1 provides relevant references in which the selected dam-break events are described. The remaining columns detail the type of available information for validation purposes for each entry. The quality or completeness of this information is indicated through different symbols. The full dot indicates that the available information is rather detailed, exhaustive, and accurate. The empty dot denotes incomplete or vague information (i.e., not accurate or not immediately available in quantitative terms). The availability of dam and reservoir characteristics, as well as of data concerning the water level in the reservoir before the failure, is indicated in Columns 8–10. Column 11 informs if photographic documents on the dam remnants (from which important data on the final breach shape and dimensions can be derived) and on the consequences of the dam-break flood in the downstream area are available. Data availability on breach formation, breach geometry, and dam materials is specified in Columns 12 to 14, while the availability of topographic data and rainfall data of the storm event (which sometimes is related to the dam-break) is indicated in Columns 15 and 16. Finally, the availability of other real-field data useful to validate numerical models is highlighted in Columns 17 to 22 (peak outflow and breach outflow hydrograph, water marks, water elevation or discharge or velocity data at selected locations, flood timing, extent of the flooded areas, respectively).
The peak flow at the dam was recorded or estimated from observations in 70% of cases considered in Table 1. Historical photographic documentation is available in 85% of cases. Rainfall data were recorded only in 45% of cases. A terrain model or topographic cross-sections are available for all the cases. Focusing on data concerning the dam-break flooding, the most available information is related to water marks (90% of cases), while time series of flooding variables are provided only in 25% of cases. Flood timing and maps of flooded areas are available in 70% and 65% of cases, respectively.
As regards the ten dam-break events involving earthfill (EF) dams, breach outflow is rarely known (only in 20% of cases), while breach characteristics and breach development data are available in 70% and 40% of cases, respectively.
Among the five concrete (CO) dam failures listed in Table 1, the Malpasset and St. Francis ones (entry no. 12 and 15, respectively) are probably the most famous. However, water marks and flood timing are available for all these five dam-break cases. Flooded areas are present in 60% of cases, while hydrographs of relevant flooding variables are available only in 20% of cases. An estimate of peak outflow was provided in 40% of cases.
Only two historical disasters involving rockfill (RF) dams were considered as well-documented. Water marks and flooded areas are known for both cases. The Tous dam failure is probably the most famous disaster involving a rockfill dam.
Column 23 indicates whether numerical simulations of the dam-break events were already carried out and which types of models were used. The literature review has shown that 90% of the well-documented cases listed in Table 1 have already been numerically simulated and that only two events have not yet been modelled (i.e., Kelly Barnes and South Fork, entry no. 4 and no. 18 in Table 1, respectively), although enough data for numerical modelling seem to be available in both cases.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Lake Ha! Ha! breakout flood (entry no. 5) was characterized by significant geomorphic effects along the flooded valley, while a highly destructive mudflow was generated by the collapse of two tailing dams in the Stava disaster (entry no. 20). The La Josefina dam-break (entry no. 19) was caused by the erosion of a natural dam produced by a landslide, which obstructed a river confluence forming two ephemeral lakes.

3. Dam-Break Test Cases Open to Further Study

Numerical modelers are usually very interested in lesser known historical dam-break events. Indeed, the simulation of new challenging cases supports a robust assessment of models’ potentialities and effectiveness. In addition, real events always pose new challenges to numerical models, which encourage the development of more sophisticated and performant computational codes. Finally, the ability of the numerical models to adequately reproduce different real phenomena is one of the fundamental prerequisites for their use for hydraulic risk assessment.
Table 2 lists thirty seven historical dam-breaks for which the data retrieved in the literature are inaccurate or incomplete. This is confirmed by the fact that only a few of these cases were simulated and used for validation purposes. Often these events are documented with relevant, albeit scarce, data concerning breach formation and geometry, water level in the upstream reservoir before breaching, and propagation of the dam-break wave downstream. However, in the writers’ opinion, an in-depth research is possible to gather further information and complete the validation datasets for most of these scarcely documented real cases.
Table 2 is organized with the same structure as Table 1. Almost 60% of the dam-break events included in this table refer to homogeneous (EF) or composite earthfill (CF) dams, 11% to rockfill (RF) dams, 11% to tailing (TA) dams, 6% to concrete (CO) dams; coal waste (CW), gravity (GR), masonry (MA), tephra (TE) or natural (NA) dam categories amount to approximately 3% each. In the cases involving tailing dams, the dam failure resulted in a destructive mudflow. Some events concerning earthfill dams were already considered in the literature, especially in the framework of breach formation and evolution modeling [4,6,28,29,33]. Nevertheless, for these cases, further data are often available, allowing the setting up of interesting benchmark tests for hydrodynamic dam-break models, too. Considering the list of Table 2, the most frequent cause of failure is overtopping (OT, 24%), followed by erosion (ER, 16%), quality problems and design error (QP, 14%), piping (PI, 11%), poor management and liquefaction (PM and LI, 8% each). Only occasionally dam failure is due to sliding (SL), undercut erosion (UE), lahars (LA), earthquakes (EQ), or a combination of different processes. As regards the year of failure, most of the disasters included in this set occurred between 1950 and 2000 (51%), while only 8% occurred before 1900, 14% between 1900 and 1950, and 27% after 2000. Also for this category of dam-break cases, it can be stressed that the presence of a high number of cases occurred in the last twenty years is probably due to greater availability of information rather than to a real increase in the incidence of such calamitous events.
The geometric characteristics of the dam and reservoir are known in 95% and 73% of cases, respectively. The characterization of the dam material is available in 27% of cases. The water level in the reservoir at the time of the collapse was reported only in 62% of selected events. The peak discharge at the dam was estimated in 41% of cases. Historical photographic documentation is available in 73% of cases. Data of the rainfall event, which potentially triggered the dam collapse, were recorded only in 35% of cases. A terrain model or topographical cross-sections are available only for 49% of cases.
Time series of breach outflow are very rare (available only in 5% of cases), while breach characteristics and breach development data are available for 68% and 24% of cases, respectively. Focusing on data concerning dam-break flooding, water marks are documented in 57% of cases. As for the previous set of well-documented cases, hydrographs of flooding variables are rather sporadic (only 24%), as well as data on flood timing (30%). The boundaries of flooded areas are available in 46% of cases.
Column 23 of Table 2 shows that only seven cases (19%) were already simulated by 1D or 2D numerical models. No numerical simulations of the other cases were found in the literature, even though a fair amount of information is present for some of these cases, both in terms of dam and reservoir characteristics and of the hydro-meteorological event that triggered the disaster.
It is worth noting that topographic data concerning the reservoir and downstream floodable area are currently available only for a limited number of events listed in Table 2. In some cases, especially for the more recent events, this gap could be filled considering terrain models freely downloadable from the web and other available resources. Freely downloadable world DTMs (from satellite images) are increasingly popular and are experiencing a constant and rapid development in terms of spatial resolution and accuracy (e.g., [112,113]). It can be predicted that DTMs with a spatial resolution in the order of 10 m will be probably freely available (or available at a low cost) soon. As an example, consider the Ivex dam (entry no. 8 in Table 2), located on the Chagrin River immediately upstream of the village of Chagrin Falls, northeast OH, USA. Thanks to the historical images from Google Earth, it is possible to geolocalize the two cascade reservoirs and reconstruct with satisfactory accuracy the main characteristics of the territory and the built-up areas at the time of the event. The availability of the ALOS Global Digital Surface Model “ALOS World 3D–30m” (AW3D30), freely downloadable from the JAXA website [114], could provide the topographic information (with acceptable spatial resolution) required to perform numerical simulations. Also, the MERIT Hydro dataset and other global digital elevation models (GDEMs) could be considered to set up the test case [115,116]. The roughness parameter involved in shallow water models can be set on the basis of the local land cover, which can be obtained from suitable databases (e.g., [117]). Moreover, in the absence of first-hand data concerning the breaching and flooding processes, useful validation data can be obtained through the analysis of remotely sensed images, which can occasionally be available. As an example, some authors used multi-spectral images from the Sentinel-2A satellite, commonly exploited for forest and land cover change monitoring, to integrate the observations collected in post-event survey campaigns [118].
Approximately half of the earthfill (EF) dam failures present a significant amount of test and validation data (at least 50% of the fifteen data categories considered under the heading of “Available Information” in Table 2). Among these, entry no. 4, referring to the Edenville and Sanford dams (failed on 19 May 2020), shows data in eleven of the fifteen categories considered. For this event, a large number of extraordinarily interesting videos and aerial photos is available online concerning dam breaching and the propagation of the flood wave downstream (e.g., [119,120]). As for the group of earthfill (EF) dams, in only one case the available information covers less than 25% of the data categories considered. Information in more than 50% data categories exists for four of the six composite fill (CF)-type dams and for all the rock fill (RF)-type dams. Only one of the four tailing (TA) dam-break cases is rather well documented. It is worth noting that a considerable amount of data, albeit rather inaccurate, is available for the flood induced on 26 February 1972 by the failure of a coal slurry impoundment at the Buffalo Creek coal mine, in West Virginia, USA (entry no. 33 in Table 2).
Other dam-break events, not included in Table 2 due to the current substantial lack of publicly available data, could be however very interesting. For example, an exceptionally rich photographic documentation is available for the Frenchman dam-break event [121], which occurred on 15 April 1952. This catastrophic dam failure was already mentioned in well-known literature studies on breach formation and evolution modeling [122].
Table
Table 2. Dam-break test cases open to further study.
Table 2. Dam-break test cases open to further study.
(1)
N.		(2)
Dam Name		(3)
Country		(4)
Type 1		(5)
Cause 2		(6)
Year		(7)
References		Available Information 3(23)
Sim.
Flood 4
(8)
Dam Char.		(9) Reserv. Char.(10) Reserv. Level(11)
Phot. Docum.		(12) Breach Char.(13)
Dam
Mater.		(14) Breach Devel.(15)
DTM		(16) Storm(17) Peak Flow(18) Breach
Outfl.		(19)
Water
Marks		(20) Hydrogr.(21) Flood Timing(22)
Flooded Areas
1ApishapaCol. (USA)EFPI1923[13,123,124,125,126,127]••• •• •
2Black HillsS.Dak. (USA)EFOT1972[128,129,130,131]◦ ◦ •◦ ••◦•
3Centennial
Narrows		Ariz. (USA)EFPI1997[132,133,134,135]◦ ◦◦ •• •
4Edenville +
Sanford		Mich. (USA)EFER-OT2020[136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143]◦◦◦•◦ •◦◦ ◦◦ •2D
5FujinumaJapanEFSL-OT2011[144,145]• ••◦◦ ◦ ◦
6HatchtownUtah (USA)EFQP1914[146,147]◦ •◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
7IvanovoBulgariaEFPM2012[148,149] ◦ • • ◦ •
8IvexOhio (USA)EFPI1994[150]••••• • ••
9Lake LeeMass. (USA)EFER1968[151,152]•••• ◦ • ••
10Little Deer
Creek		Utah (USA)EFQP1963[153,154]•••◦• • • ◦ ◦
11Nahal OzIsraelEFQP2001[155]••••• ◦ • • *
12NiedowPolandEFOT2010[156,157]••••• •• • • 1D-FD
13OpuhaNew ZealandEFPM1997[158]••••• ◦ ◦ •
14Otto RunPenn. (USA)EFOT1977[48,73,102,159]•• • ••
15PanshetIndiaEFOT1961[160]•• • 1D-FD
16ZhugouChinaEFOT1975[161]••• ••
17BanquiaoChinaCFOT1975[161,162,163,164,165]•◦◦◦◦ • •• ◦
18BelciRomaniaCFOT1991[33,166,167,168]•◦•◦◦ ◦ ◦•◦ ◦
19Big Bay LakeMississippiCFPI2004[73,169,170]• ◦◦◦◦◦ • ◦•1D-FD
20Bila DesnaCzech. Rep.CFER1916[171]◦◦ ◦◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
21Dale DikeEnglandCFER1864[172,173,174,175,176]◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
22Lake DelhiIowa (USA)CFOT-ER2010[177,178,179,180,181]• ◦•• •◦• ◦
23OverholserOkla.(USA)COOT1923[182]•• • • 1D-FD
24Vega de TeraSpainCOQP1959[183]• • • • 1D-FD
25AznalcollarSpainRFLI1998[184,185,186,187]•• ••• ◦ ◦ ◦◦
26CastlewoodCol. (USA)RFOT1933[122,188,189,190,191]•••••• ◦• ◦◦
27Gouhou DamChinaRFER1993[163,192,193,194,195]•••◦•• • ◦
28Hell HoleCal. (USA)RFPM1964[196]••••◦ ◦•••◦ *•
29BrumadinhoBrazilTA mLI2019[197,198,199,200,201,202]◦◦ ◦◦◦◦• ◦•2D-FV
30El Cobre OldChileTA mEQ1965[203,204,205]•• •
31FundãoBrazilTA mLI2015[206,207]◦ ◦• ◦ ◦ •
32MerriespruitS. AfricaTA mSL-OT1994[208,209,210,211]••• • ◦ •
33Buffalo CreekW.Virg. (USA)CWER1972[212,213,214,215,216]◦◦◦◦ ◦ ◦ ◦◦◦
34Pantano de
Puentes		SpainGRQP1802[217,218]•• •
35AustinTex. (USA)MAUE1900[36,219,220]• ◦◦◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
36TangiwaiNew ZealandTELA1953[221,222,223] •• • • •
37Huohua Lake
Natural Dam		ChinaNAEQ2017[118]•◦•••• • ◦ * ◦2D-FD
1 Type: CF = composite fill embankment; CO = concrete; CW = coal waste; EF = earthfill; GR = gravity; MA = masonry; NA = natural dam; RF = rockfill; TA = tailing; TE = tephra. 2 Cause: EQ = earthquake; ER = erosion; LA = lahar; LI = liquefaction; OT = overtopping; PI = piping; PM = poor management; QP = quality problems and design errors; SL = sliding; UE = undercut erosion. 3 • = complete; ◦ = uncertain or incomplete or not readily available; * = geomorphic effects; m = mudflow. 4 Numerical model: approach-method; FD = finite difference; FV = finite volume.

4. Dam-Break Test Cases Based on Physical Modelling

Physical model investigations of dam-break floods over real topographies are rather rare in the literature. Table 3 shows 4 cases found by the authors with extensive experimental datasets. Experimental dam-break test cases concerning schematic idealized geometries are much more numerous and are based on dam-break experiments aimed at analyzing specific issues or hydrodynamic effects of selected topographic singularities on both fixed [224,225,226,227,228] or movable bed (e.g., [229]). However, the complexities occurring, all together, in physical models where a real topography is reproduced cannot be found in these idealized cases.
Among the test cases listed in Table 3, the Toce River test (entry no. 3) concerns a flash flood not induced by a dam-break but produced by an inflow hydrograph supplied through a pump. In this test, the rapidity of the flood propagation is comparable to that typical of dam-break floods. Therefore, the Toce river test case is usually included among the physical model tests for dam-break numerical models, although it is not a dam-break case in the strict sense. In all other cases listed in Table 3, the dam-break flood is generated by the sudden removal of a gate, miming an almost instantaneous collapse of a dam. Physical model test cases concerning flooding (on real topography) caused by levee breaches (e.g., [230]) are not considered in this review.
Probably, the best known dam-break dataset obtained from a physical model concerns the Malpasset dam-break event (entry no. 2 in Table 3). In 1964, an undistorted 1:400-scale physical model was built in the EDF laboratories to reproduce the historical catastrophic flooding induced by the total collapse of the dam, which occurred in 1959. Original data on the model topography and details about the construction technique are not available. However, Goutal [87] provides a dataset of 13,541 points (obtained from digitalization of historical topographic maps) describing the topography of the valley and the floodplain downstream of the dam. Hervouet and Petitjean [86] support the hypothesis that model bottom roughness was adjusted to reproduce correctly the field observations regarding the real event, and suggest that a roughness Manning coefficient ranging from 0.025 to 0.033 m−1/3s is used in the numerical computations based on shallow water equations. During the laboratory investigation, maximum water levels and dam-break wave arrival times were measured at nine points located along the valley downstream of the dam. These data are usually merged with the field data of the real event (water marks and arrival times at some locations) to form a complete dataset for validation purposes. This test case was used by many modelers (e.g., [88,231,232,233]) and was also considered within the frame of the CADAM European project [28].
Table
Table 3. Physical models of dam-break on real topography.
Table 3. Physical models of dam-break on real topography.
(1)
N.		(2)
Dam Name		(3)
Country		(4)
Type 1		(5)
Scale		(6)
Year 2		(7)
References		Available Information 3(22)
Sim.
Flood 4
(8)
Dam Char.		(9)
Reserv. Char.		(10) Reserv. Level(11)
Phot. Docum.		(12)
Breach Char.		(13)
Breach Develop.		(14)
Peak Flow		(15)
DTM		(16)
Rough.		(17)
Waterm./
Gauge		(18)
Arrival Times		(19)
Hydrogr.		(20)
Flooded Areas		(21)
Breach
Outfl.
1Cancano IItalyCO1:5001943[233,234,235]•◦•••••◦• ••••1D-FV; 2D-FD, FV
2MalpassetFranceCO1:4001964[86,87,88,231,232,233]••• •• •••• 2D-FD, FE, FV, LB; 3D
3Toce River *Italy-1:1001999[237,238,239,240,241,242] • •••••• 2D-FV
4ÜrkmezTurkeyEF1:150 h–1:30 v2013[243,244]•••••••◦◦•••◦•2D-FD
1 Type: CO = concrete; EF = earthfill. 2 Year: year of construction of the physical model. * = Flash flood (No dam-break). 3 • = complete; ◦ = uncertain or incomplete or not readily available. 4 Numerical model: approach-method; FD = finite difference; FE = finite elements; FV = finite volume; LB = lattice Boltzmann.
A lesser known dam-break test case based on physical modeling concerns the collapse of the Cancano I dam (entry no. 1 in Table 3). The consequences of this hypothetical event were studied by De Marchi [234] on a 1:500-scale physical model reproducing a stretch (approximately 16 km long) of the very irregular alpine valley downstream of the dam. Unfortunately, elevation data of the model bottom (built by connecting several cross-sections of the valley through a concrete-lined surface) are not available. To fill this gap, Pilotti et al. [235] provide a 60-m DTM extracted from a current DTM of the valley. Moreover, they suggest a range of values for the Manning roughness coefficient at the real scale (0.04–0.055 m−1/3s), based on dimensional analysis considerations. Moreover, the bathymetry of the Cancano I reservoir was not exactly reproduced in the physical model, and detailed information about this point was not reported in the original work by De Marchi [234]. Despite these shortcomings, this test case is exceptional in the availability of measured discharge hydrographs at three control cross-sections (namely the dam section and two significant cross-sections downstream) for two different scenarios of total and partial dam-break. In addition, the measured boundaries of the flooded areas along a stretch of the downstream valley are available for both the collapse scenarios. Pilotti et al. [236] and Pilotti et al. [235] simulated this test case at the real scale using 1D and 2D models, discussing the issue of potential scale effects that can affect the comparison between numerical results and experimental data.
Another interesting test case proposed in the framework of the European IMPACT research program [29,30] refers to a hypothetical flash flood in a 1:100-scale physical model reproducing a 5-km long stretch of the Toce valley (entry no. 3 in Table 3), in which an idealized urban district is placed [237]. Data concerning the model topography (9928 bottom elevation points) and the locations of the buildings (organized according to two different patterns) are provided (at the model scale) in supplemental files. Moreover, the authors suggest the optimal value of 0.0162 m−1/3s for the roughness coefficient of the concrete bottom of the physical model. Three inflow hydrographs with different peak discharges were considered as upstream boundary conditions. Water depth time series were measured at ten selected points, eight of them located within or near the urban area. This case was used by a large number of modelers to validate numerical models of urban flooding (e.g., [238,239,240,241,242]).
The last test case reported in Table 3 (entry no. 4) refers to the experimental investigation carried out by Guney et al. [243] on a distorted (1:150 horizontal scale and 1:30 vertical scale) physical model reproducing the reservoir of the Ürkmez dam and the downstream region (including an urban area) potentially floodable as a result of the hypothetical collapse of the dam. Only a topographic map of the floodable area is available and no indications are provided on reasonable roughness values for the concrete bottom of the model. A partial dam-break with trapezoidal breach was assumed. Flood depth time series were measured at eight selected positions in the floodable area, along with time series of vertically-averaged velocities and vertical profiles of flow velocity at selected times at other four points. Finally, some information about the timing of the dam-break wave propagation was obtained from videos of the experimental runs. Haltas et al. [244] simulated this test case at the real scale using a combined 1D-2D numerical model and compared predicted flow depth hydrographs with the (scaled) experimental ones. A 1-m DTM was used to create the computational grid and maps of land use were utilized to estimate a spatial distribution of Manning’s roughness coefficient.
The physical model test cases considered in this review were chosen on the basis of the presence of experimental data on the propagation of the dam-break wave in downstream areas. However, it is worth noting that several laboratory experiments on breach formation and growth in earthfill dams are reported in the literature (e.g., [245,246]). Valuable and interesting results of experimental field investigations at the prototype scale are also available (e.g., [247]). All related experimental data can be useful for validating numerical models of breach development.

5. Conclusions

This paper outlines historical dam-break events currently and potentially available for the validation of dam-break models. This kind of data is indeed very useful to assess the predictive capabilities of numerical models on real topographies. Data available for each test case have been listed in two different tables concerning well-documented and scarcely documented cases, respectively.
These tables can be useful for modelers to select the most suitable real-field test cases for validation purposes, thereby supporting the development of robust and accurate computational models of dam-break flow. The extensive literature review helps the modelers to identify relevant references where available information on the selected dam-break events can be retrieved.
It is worth noting that two of the well-documented dam-break cases have not been simulated yet, despite the available dataset appears extensive and complete. The list of scarcely documented historical dam-break events (for which the dataset is rather incomplete or inaccurate) indicates potential test cases open to further research, which in addition are of potential scientific and historical interest. For this set, approximately half of the cases are characterized by a significant amount of data, covering at least half of the model and validation data categories considered. Gaps in the availability of topographic data and roughness information can be filled using freely downloadable world DEMs and land cover databases.
Dam-break test cases based on physical models reproducing real topographies have been listed in a separate table, in which the experimental data available for validation purposes are specified. Further physical model investigations concerning dam-break flows on real topographies would be welcome to widen available experimental datasets. Actually, extensive and accurate datasets of relevant hydraulic variables can easily be obtained from laboratory investigations on physical models under controlled conditions. However, in this case, particular care must be paid to the model scale to avoid scale effects.

Author Contributions

F.A., A.M. and G.P. contributed equally to the conceptualization and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results and to the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research through the PRIN 2017 Project RELAID “REnaissance of LArge Italian Dams”, project number 2017T4JC5K.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study were derived from public domain resources.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ICOLD. Dams’ Safety. Available online: https://www.icold-cigb.org/GB/dams/dams_safety.asp (accessed on 24 April 2021).
  2. Douglas, K.; Spannagle, M.; Fell, R. Analysis of Concrete and Masonry Dam Incidents. Int. J. Hydropower Dams 1999, 6, 108–115. [Google Scholar]
  3. Foster, M.; Fell, R.; Spannagle, M. The Statistics of Embankment Dam Failures and Accidents. Can. Geotech. J. 2000, 37, 1000–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. ICOLD. Dam Failures—Statistical Analysis; Bulletin 188; ICOLD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  5. Perera, D.; Smakhtin, V.; Williams, S.; North, T.; Curry, A. Water Storage Infrastructure: An Emerging Global Risk; UNU-INWEH Report Series, Issue 11; United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health: Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2021; Available online: https://inweh.unu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Ageing-Water-Storage-Infrastructure-An-Emerging-Global-Risk_web-version.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  6. Bocchiola, D.; Rosso, R. Safety of Italian Dams in the Face of Flood Hazard. Adv. Water Resour. 2014, 71, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. ICOLD. Global Climate Change, Dams, Reservoirs and Related Water Resources; Bulletin 169; ICOLD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  8. ICOLD. Dam Break Flood Analysis—Review and Recommendations; Bulletin 111; ICOLD: Paris, France, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  9. ICOLD. Lessons from Dam Incidents; ICOLD: Paris, France, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  10. Charles, J.A.; Tedd, P.; Warren, A. Lessons from Historical Dam Incidents; Environment Agency: Bristol, UK, 2011. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290812/scho0811buba-e-e.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  11. ICOLD. Dam Failures—Statistical Analysis; Bulletin 99; ICOLD: Paris, France, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. RCEM–Dam Failure and Flood Event Case History Compilation; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 2015. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/documents/RCEM-CaseHistories2015.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  13. Wahl, T.L. Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters—A Literature Review and Needs Assessment; DSO-98-004, Dam Safety Research Report; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Dam Safety Office: Denver, CO, USA, 1998.
  14. Wahl, T.L. Evaluation of Erodibility-Based Embankment Dam Breach Equations; Hydraulic Laboratory Report HL-2014-02; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center: Denver, CO, USA, 2014.
  15. Froehlich, D.C. Embankment Dam Breach Parameters and Their Uncertainties. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2008, 134, 1708–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rong, G.; Wang, X.; Xu, H.; Xiao, B. Multifactor Regression Analysis for Predicting Embankment Dam Breaching Parameters. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 04019051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. USCOLD. Lessons from Dam Incidents; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  18. Adamo, N.; Al-Ansari, N.; Ali, S.H.; Laue, J.; Knutsson, S. Special Issue–Dam Safety Review: General Principles and Procedures-Part 1. J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng. 2020, 10, 1–348. [Google Scholar]
  19. Adamo, N.; Al-Ansari, N.; Ali, S.H.; Laue, J.; Knutsson, S. Special Issue-Dam Safety Review: General Principles and Procedures-Part 2. J. Earth Sci. Geotech. Eng. 2021, 11, 1–438. [Google Scholar]
  20. FEMA. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  21. FEMA. Federal Guidelines for Inundation Mapping of Flood Risks Associated with Dam Incidents and Failures; FEMA P-946; 2013. Available online: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_dam-safety_inundation-mapping-flood-risks.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  22. European Council Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks. 2007, pp. 27–34. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32007L0060 (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  23. ICOLD European Club. Working Group on Dam Legislation. Dam Legislation. Final Report. 2018. Available online: https://britishdams.org/assets/documents/News%20Item%20Docs/2018/ICOLD%20EurClub%20-Dam%20Legislation%20Report%20-%20Dec%202017.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  24. Almeida, A.B.; Franco, A.B. Modeling of Dam-Break Flow. In Computer Modeling of Free-Surface and Pressurized Flows; NATO ASI Series (Series E: Applied, Sciences); Chaudhry, M.H., Mays, L.W., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1994; Volume 274, pp. 343–373. [Google Scholar]
  25. Toro, E.F.; Garcia-Navarro, P. Godunov-type Methods for Free-Surface Shallow Flows: A Review. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 736–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Teng, J.; Jakeman, A.J.; Vaze, J.; Croke, B.F.W.; Dutta, D.; Kim, S. Flood Inundation Modelling: A Review of Methods, Recent Advances and Uncertainty Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 90, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stoker, J.J. Water Waves; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  28. Morris, M. CADAM: Concerted Action on Dambreak Modeling-Final Report; Rep. No. SR 571; HR Wallingford: Wallingford, UK, 2000; Available online: http://www.ib-nujic.de/Dammbruch/CADAM_final.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  29. Morris, M.; Hassan, M. IMPACT: Investigation of Extreme Flood Processes and Uncertainty—A European Research Project. In Proceedings of the Defra Flood and Coastal Management Conference, York, UK, 5–7 July 2005; Available online: https://eprints.hrwallingford.com/555/1/HRPP346_IMPACT_Investigation_of_extreme_flood_processes_and_uncertainty_-_a_European_research_project.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  30. Zech, Y.; Soares-Frazão, S. Dam-Break Flow Experiments and Real-case Data. A Database from the European IMPACT Research. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 5–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Saxena, K.R.; Sharma, V.M. Dams: Incidents and Accidents; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  32. Singh, V.P.; Scarlatos, P.D. Analysis of Gradual Earth–Dam Failure. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1988, 114, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singh, V. Dam Breach Modeling Technology; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; Volume 17. [Google Scholar]
  34. De Wrachien, D.; Mambretti, S. Dam-Break Problems, Solutions and Case Studies; de Wrachien, D., Mambretti, S., Eds.; WIT Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zhang, L.M.; Xu, Y.; Jia, J.S. Analysis of Earth Dam Failures: A Database Approach. Georisk 2009, 3, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Bartholomew, C.L. Failure of Concrete Dams. In Proceedings of the 6th Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1–5 October 1989; pp. 428–445. Available online: https://damfailures.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Failure-of-Concrete-Dams.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  37. You, L.; Li, C.; Min, X.; Xiaolei, T. Review of Dam-Break Research of Earth-rock Dam Combining with Dam Safety Management. Procedia Eng. 2012, 28, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Zhang, L.; Peng, M.; Chang, D.; Xu, Y. Dam Failure Mechanisms and Risk Assessment; John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.: Singapore, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chanson, H. Environmental Hydraulics for Open Channel Flows; Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  40. ICOLD. World Declaration on Dam Safety. 2019. Available online: https://www.ussdams.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/World-Declaration-on-Dam-Safety_final.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  41. Hood, K.; Perez, R.A.; Cieplinski, H.E.; Hromadka, T.V.; Moglen, G.E.; McInvale, H.D. Development of an Earthen Dam Break Database. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2019, 55, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Wang, B.; Liu, W.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Wu, C.; Peng, Y.; Wu, Z.; Liu, X.; Yang, S. Enhancement of Semi-Theoretical Models for Predicting Peak Discharges in Breached Embankment Dams. Environ. Fluid Mech. 2020, 20, 885–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, B.; Chen, Y.; Wu, C.; Peng, Y.; Song, J.; Liu, W.; Liu, X. Empirical and Semi-Analytical Models for Predicting Peak Outflows Caused by Embankment Dam Failures. J. Hydrol. 2018, 562, 692–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ashraf, M.; Soliman, A.H.; El-Ghorab, E.; El Zawahry, A. Assessment of Embankment Dams Breaching using Large Scale Physical Modeling and Statistical Methods. Water Sci. 2018, 3, 362–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Sattar, A.M.A. Gene Expression Models for Prediction of Dam Breach Parameters. J. Hydroinform. 2014, 16, 550–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhong, Q.; Chen, S.; Fu, Z.; Shan, Y. New Empirical Model for Breaching of Earth-Rock Dams. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2020, 21, 06020002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gallegos, H.A.; Schubert, J.E.; Sanders, B.F. Two-dimensional, High-resolution Modeling of Urban Dam-Break Flooding: A Case Study of Baldwin Hills, California. Adv. Water Resour. 2009, 32, 1323–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. MacDonald, T.C.; Langridge–Monopolis, J. Breaching Characteristics of Dam Failures. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1984, 110, 567–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leonards, G.A. Baldwin Hills Reservoir Failure. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, VA, USA, 6–11 May 1984; Missouri University of Science and Technology, Ed.; University of Missouri-Rolla: St. Rolla, MO, USA, 1984; pp. 1581–1588. [Google Scholar]
  50. Scott, R.F. Baldwin Hills Reservoir Failure in Review. Eng. Geol. 1987, 24, 103–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Costa, J.E. Floods from Dam Failures; U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey; Open-File Report 85-560; U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 1985.
  52. Hamilton, D.H.; Meehan, R.L. Ground Rupture in the Baldwin Hills. Science 1971, 172, 333–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Latrubesse, E.M.; Park, E.; Sieh, K.; Dang, T.; Lin, Y.N.; Yun, S.-H. Dam Failure and a Catastrophic Flood in the Mekong Basin (Bolaven Plateau), Southern Laos, 2018. Geomorphology 2020, 362, 107221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chikamori, H. Rainfall-Runoff Analysis of Flooding Caused by Typhoon RUSA in 2002 in the Gangneung Namdae River Basin, Korea. J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 2004, 26, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kim, B.; Sanders, B.F. Dam-Break Flood Model Uncertainty Assessment: Case Study of Extreme Flooding with Multiple Dam Failures in Gangneung, South Korea. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2016, 142, 05016002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Crisp, R.L.; Fox, W.E.; Robison, R.C.; Sauer, V.B.; Geological Survey Federal Investigative Board. The 1977 Toccoa Flood, Report of Failure of Kelly Barnes Dam Flood and Findings; USGS: Washington, DC, USA, 1977.
  57. Sowers, G.F. Reconnaissance Report on the Failure of Kelly Barnes Lake Dam, Toccoa Falls, Georgia; Committee on Natural Disaster, Commission on Sociotechnical Systems, National Research Council; National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  58. Land, L.F. Mathematical Simulations of the Toccoa Falls, Georgia, Dam-Break Flood. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1980, 16, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Reed, S.; Halgren, J. Validation of a New GIS Tool to Rapidly Develop Simplified Dam Break Models. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference 2011, Washington, DC, USA, 25–29 September 2011; Volume 2, pp. 1860–1877. [Google Scholar]
  60. Capart, H.; Spinewine, B.; Young, D.L.; Zech, Y.; Brooks, G.R.; Leclerc, M.; Secretan, Y. The 1996 Lake Ha! Ha! Breakout Flood, Québec: Test Data for Geomorphic Flood Routing Methods. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Brooks, G.R.; Lawrence, D.E. The Drainage of the Lake Ha! Ha! Reservoir and Downstream Geomorphic Impacts along Ha! Ha! River, Saguenay Area, Quebec, Canada. Geomorphology 1999, 28, 141–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lin, C.A. A Coupled Atmospheric-Hydrological Modeling Study of the 1996 Ha! Ha! River Basin Flash Flood in Québec, Canada. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2002, 29, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lapointe, M.F.; Secretan, Y.; Driscoll, S.N.; Bergeron, N.; Leclerc, M. Response of the Ha! Ha! River to the Flood of July 1996 in the Saguenay Region of Quebec: Large-scale Avulsion in a Glaciated Valley. Water Resour. Res. 1998, 34, 2383–2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Ferreira, R.M.L.; Leal, J.G.B.; Cardoso, A.H. Mathematical Modeling of the Morphodynamic Aspects of the 1996 Flood in the Ha! HA! River. In Proceedings of the 31st IAHR World Congress 2005, Seoul, Korea, 11–16 September 2005; pp. 3434–3445. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tremblay, M.; Guillaud, C. The 1996 Saguenay Flood Event and its Impacts. Nat. Hazards 2019, 98, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. AlQasimi, E.; Mahdi, T.-F. Flooding of the Saguenay Region in 1996: Part 1—Modeling River Ha! Ha! Flooding. Nat. Hazards 2019, 96, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. AlQasimi, E.; Pelletier, P.; Mahdi, T.-F. Flooding of the Saguenay Region in 1996. Part 2: Aux Sables River Flood Mitigation and Environmental Impact Assessment. Nat. Hazards 2019, 96, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yu, W.; Lin, C.A.; Benoit, R. High Resolution Simulation of the Severe Precipitation Event over the Saguenay, Quebec Region in July 1996. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1997, 24, 1951–1954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Jarrett, R.D.; Costa, J.E. Hydrology, Geomorphology, and Dam-Break Modeling of the 15 July 1982 Lawn Lake Dam and Cascade Lake Dam failures, Larimer County, Colorado (USA); U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1369; Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1986.
  70. Paquier, A. New Methods for Modelling Dam-Break Wave. In Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Modelling of Flood Propagation Over Initially Dry Areas, Milan, Italy, 29 June–1 July 1994; pp. 229–240. [Google Scholar]
  71. Paquier, A.; Robin, O. CASTOR: Simplified Dam-Break Wave Model. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1997, 123, 724–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Baker, M.E.; McCormick, B. 30th Anniversary of the Lawn Lake Dam Failure: A Look Back at the State and Federal Response. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 16–20 September 2012; Volume 2, pp. 1495–1525. Available online: https://damfailures.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Baker_30thAnniver.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  73. Pierce, M.W.; Thornton, C.I.; Abt, S.R. Predicting Peak Outflow from Breached Embankment Dams. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2010, 15, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Trieste, D.J. Evaluation of Supercritical/Subcritical Flows in High–Gradient Channel. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1992, 118, 1107–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Singh, A.K.; Kothyari, U.C.; Ranga Raju, K.G. Rapidly Varying Transient Flows in Alluvial Rivers. J. Hydraul. Res. 2004, 42, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Muhunthan, B.; Pillai, S. Teton dam, USA: Uncovering the Crucial Aspect of its Failure. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Civ. Eng. 2008, 161, 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Solava, S.; Delatte, N. Lessons from the Failure of the Teton Dam. In Proceedings of the 3rd Forensic Engineering Congress, San Diego, CA, USA, 19–21 October 2003; pp. 178–189. [Google Scholar]
  78. Chen, T.-Y.K.; Capart, H. Kinematic Wave Solutions for Dam-Break Floods in Non-Uniform Valleys. J. Hydrol. 2020, 582, 124381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Lai, W.; Khan, A.A. Discontinuous Galerkin Method for 1D Shallow Water Flows in Natural Rivers. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2012, 6, 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Land, L.F. Evaluation of Selected Dam-Break Flood-Wave Models by Using Field Data; Water-Resources Investigations 80-44; Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
  81. Balloffet, A.; Scheffler, M.L. Numerical analysis of the Teton Dam failure flood. J. Hydraul. Res. 1982, 20, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Azeez, O.; Elfeki, A.; Kamis, A.S.; Chaabani, A. Dam Break Analysis and Flood Disaster Simulation in Arid Urban Environment: The Um Al-Khair Dam Case Study, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Nat. Hazards 2020, 100, 995–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Irvem, A.; Ozbuldu, M. Evaluation of Flood Simulation for Zeyzoun Dam-Break in Syria using HEC-RAS Model. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2020, 29, 1250–1255. [Google Scholar]
  84. Saleh, H.; Allaert, G. Mitigating Urban Flood Disasters in Syria: A Case Study of the Massive Zeyzoun Dam Collapse. In Proceedings of the World Water Week 2009, Stockholm, Sweden, 16–22 August 2009; Ghent University, Stockholm International Water Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009; pp. 192–193. [Google Scholar]
  85. Pilotti, M.; Maranzoni, A.; Tomirotti, M.; Valerio, G. 1923 Gleno Dam Break: Case Study and Numerical Modeling. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011, 137, 480–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Hervouet, J.-M.; Petitjean, A. Malpasset Dam-Break Revisited with Two-Dimensional Computations. J. Hydraul. Res. 1999, 37, 777–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Goutal, N. The Malpasset Dam Failure. An Overview and Test Case Definition. In Proceedings of the 4th CADAM Meeting, Zaragoza, Spain, 18–19 November 1999. [Google Scholar]
  88. Valiani, A.; Caleffi, V.; Zanni, A. Case Study: Malpasset Dam—Break Simulation using a Two-Dimensional Finite Volume Method. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2002, 128, 460–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bruschin, J.; Bauer, S.; Delley, P.; Trucco, G. The Overtopping of the Palagnedra Dam. Int. Water Power Dam Constr. 1982, 34, 13–19. [Google Scholar]
  90. Petaccia, G.; Natale, L. 1935 Sella Zerbino Dam-Break Case Revisited: A New Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 05020005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Waltham, T. St Francis: The World’s Worst Dam Site. Geol. Today 2018, 34, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Begnudelli, L.; Sanders, B.F. Simulation of the St. Francis Dam-Break Flood. J. Eng. Mech. 2007, 133, 1200–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Witcher, T.R. From Fame to Failure: The St. Francis Dam (Part 2). Civ. Eng. Mag. Arch. 2019, 89, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rogers, J.D.; Watkins, C.M.; Chung, J.W. The 2005 Upper Taum Sauk Dam failure: A case history. Environ. Eng. Geosci. 2010, 16, 257–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Luna, R.; Wronkiewicz, D.; Rydlund, P.; Krizanich, G.; Shaver, D. Damage Evaluation of the Taum Sauk Reservoir Failure Using LiDAR. In Proceedings of the Geo-Denver 2007, Denver, CO, USA, 18–21 February 2007. [Google Scholar]
  96. Watkins, C.M.; David Rogers, J. Overview of the Taum Sauk Pumped Storage Power Plant Upper Reservoir Failure, Reynolds County, MO. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference 2010, Seattle, WA, USA, 19–23 September 2010; Volume 2, pp. 1859–1879. [Google Scholar]
  97. Gehring, Q.; Luna, R. Evaluation of the Taum Sauk Upper Reservoir Failure. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, VA, USA, 11–16 August 2008; Missouri University of Science and Technology: St. Rolla, MO, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  98. Rydlund, P.H. Peak Discharge, Flood Profile, Flood Inundation, and Debris Movement Accompanying the Failure of the Upper Reservoir at the Taum Sauk Pump Storage Facility near Lesterville, Missouri; Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5284; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5284/pdf/SIR06-5284_508.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  99. Alcrudo, F.; Mulet, J. Description of the Tous Dam Break Case Study (Spain). J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Serra-Llobet, A.; Tàbara, J.D.; Sauri, D. The Tous Dam Disaster of 1982 and the Origins of Integrated Flood Risk Management in Spain. Nat. Hazards 2013, 65, 1981–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bellos, V.; Tsakiris, G. 2D Flood Modelling: The Case of Tous Dam Break. In Proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress, The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 June–3 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
  102. Coleman, N.M.; Kaktins, U.; Wojno, S. Dam-Breach Hydrology of the Johnstown Flood of 1889—Challenging the Findings of the 1891 Investigation Report. Heliyon 2016, 2, e00120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Kaktins, U.; Todd, C.D.; Wojno, S.; Coleman, N. Revisiting the Timing and Events Leading to and Causing the Johnstown Flood of 1889. Pa. Hist. 2013, 80, 335–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ward, S.N. The 1889 Johnstown, Pennsylvania Flood: A Physics-Based Simulation. In The Tsunami Threat—Research and Technology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2011; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/the-tsunami-threat-research-and-technology/the-1889-johnstown-pennsylvania-flood-a-physics-based-simulation (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  105. Brua, S.A. Floods of 19–20 July 1977 in the Johnstown Area, Western Pennsylvania; Open-File Report 78-963; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Harrisburg, PA, USA, 1978. Available online: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr78963 (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  106. United Nations, Department of Humanitarian Affairs. Landslide La Josefina on the Paute River, Cuenca, Ecuador: Report on Disaster Management; Open-File Report 78-963; Department of Humanitarian Affairs: Geneva, Switzerland, 1993; Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/229691?ln=en (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  107. Cadier, E.; Zevallos, O.; Basabe, P. Le Glissement de Terrain et les Inondations Catastrophiques de La Josefina en Équateur. Bull. Inst. Fr. Études Andines 1996, 25, 421–441. Available online: https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/divers14-12/010011840.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  108. Luino, F.; De Graff, J.V. The Stava Mudflow of 19 July 1985 (Northern Italy): A Disaster that Effective Regulation Hight Have Prevented. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 12, 1029–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Pirulli, M.; Barbero, M.; Marchelli, M.; Scavia, C. The Failure of the Stava Valley Tailings Dams (Northern Italy): Numerical Analysis of the Flow Dynamics and Rheological Properties. Geoenviron. Disasters 2017, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Schippa, L.; Pavan, S. Numerical Modelling of Catastrophic Events Produced by Mud or Debris Flows. Int. J. Saf. Secur. Eng. 2011, 1, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Chandler, R.J.; Tosatti, G. The Stava Tailings Dams Failure, Italy, July 1985. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng. 1995, 113, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Musa, Z.N.; Popescu, I.; Mynett, A. A Review of Applications of Satellite SAR, Optical, Altimetry and DEM Data for Surface Water Modelling, Mapping and Parameter Estimation. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 3755–3769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Yan, K.; Di Baldassarre, G.; Solomatine, D.P.; Schumann, G.J.P. A Review of Low-Cost Space-Borne Data for Flood Modelling: Topography, Flood Extent and Water Level. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 3368–3387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, E.O.R.C. ALOS Global Digital Surface Model “ALOS World 3D-30m (AW3D30)”—Product Description. Available online: https://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/ALOS/en/aw3d30/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  115. McClean, F.; Dawson, R.; Kilsby, C. Implications of Using Global Digital Elevation Models for Flood Risk Analysis in Cities. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2020WR028241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Azizian, A.; Brocca, L. Determining the Best Remotely Sensed DEM for Flood Inundation Mapping in Data Sparse Regions. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2020, 41, 1884–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. CORINE Land Cover—Copernicus Land Monitoring Service. Available online: https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  118. Wang, D.; Zhou, Y.; Pei, X.; Ouyang, C.; Du, J.; Scaringi, G. Dam-Break Dynamics at Huohua Lake Following the 2017 Mw 6.5 Jiuzhaigou Earthquake in Sichuan, China. Eng. Geol. 2021, 289, 106145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Petley, D. Edenville Dam failure: The Astonishing Video of the Collapse Sequence; The Landslide Blog, AGU Blogosphere. Available online: https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/05/21/edenville-dam-failure-2/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  120. Wilkinson, M. Before and after Satellite Photos Show Damage Wrought by Mid-Michigan Floods. Bridge Michigan Website. Available online: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/and-after-satellite-photos-show-damage-wrought-mid-michigan-floods (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  121. US National Weather Service Glasgow Montana. April 1952 Frenchman Dam Failure. Available online: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1001592366586578.1073741845.108063722606118&type=3 (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  122. Froehlich, D.C. Peak Outflow from Breached Embankment Dam. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 1995, 121, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hakimzadeh, H.; Nourani, V.; Amini, A.B. Genetic Programming Simulation of Dam Breach Hydrograph and Peak Outflow Discharge. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2014, 19, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Wu, W. Simplified Physically Based Model of Earthen Embankment Breaching. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 837–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Rozov, A.L. Modeling of Washout of Dams. J. Hydraul. Res. 2003, 41, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Zhong, Q.; Wu, W.; Chen, S.; Wang, M. Comparison of Simplified Physically Based Dam Breach Models. Nat. Hazards 2016, 84, 1385–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Xu, Y.; Zhang, L.M. Breaching Parameters for Earth and Rockfill Dams. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2009, 135, 1957–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Schwarz, F.K.; Huges, L.A.; Marshall Hansen, E. The Black Hills—Rapid City Flood of June 9–10, 1972: A Description of the Storm and Flood; Geological Survey Professional Paper 877; U.S. Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1975. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0877/report.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  129. Graham, W.J.; Major, U.S. Dam Failures: Their Cause, Resultant Losses, and Impact on Dam Safety Programs and Engineering Practice. In Proceedings of the Great Rivers History Symposium at World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2009, Kansas City, MO, USA, 17–21 May 2009; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 52–60. [Google Scholar]
  130. Carter, J.M.; Williamson, J.E.; Teller, R.W. The 1972 Black Hills-Rapid City Flood Revisited; USGS Fact Sheet FS-037–02; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 2002. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-037-02/pdf/fs-037.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  131. Larimer, O.J. Flood of June 9–10, 1972, at Rapid City, South Dakota; Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-511; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1973. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/511/plate-1.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  132. Lukman, S.; Otun, J.A.; Adie, D.B.; Ismail, A.; Oke, I.A. A Brief Assessment of a Dam and Its Failure Prevention. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2011, 11, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Waters, S.D. Storm Report—Tropical Storm Nora—September 1997. Flood Control District of Maricopa County. Available online: http://alert.fcd.maricopa.gov/alert/nora/nora_rpt.html (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  134. Newhouse, S. Averted Piping Failure—Earth Dam on Permeable Foundation. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Arlington, VA, USA, 11–16 August 2008; Missouri University of Science and Technology: St. Rolla, MO, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  135. Benoist, J.M.; Cox, G.D. Failure of Centennial Narrows Dam. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 11–14 October 1998. [Google Scholar]
  136. Ayres Associates. Probable Maximum Flood Determination—Tittabawasse River Hydroelectric Projects; Ayres: Eau Claire, WI, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.four-lakes-taskforce-mi.com/uploads/1/2/3/1/123199575/ttbw_pmf_final_report-may2020.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  137. Petley, D. Edenville Dam Breach: Interpreting the Failure; The Landslide Blog, AGU Blogosphere. Available online: https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/05/22/edenville-dam-breach/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  138. Petley, D. Edenville Dam: A Major Dam Collapse in Michigan; The Landslide Blog, AGU Blogosphere. Available online: https://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2020/05/20/edenville-dam-1/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  139. Yuan, Y.; Bazzett, D.; Padnani, R.; Wang, R. Unlocking Data from the Online Footage of the Edenville Dam Failure. Submitted to Geo-Extreme 2021. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342639092_Unlocking_data_from_the_online_footage_of_the_Edenville_Dam_Failure (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  140. NASA Science. Michigan Floods and Dam Failures May 2020. NASA Applied Science. Available online: https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/what-we-do/disasters/disasters-activations/michigan-floods-and-dam-failures-may-2020 (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  141. USGS, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center. Dam Breaks in Michigan. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/dam-breaks-michigan?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=22f79331-0ea7-4adb-bbc3-7596b1432776&utm_content=&utm_campaign=usgs_eros&qt-science_support_page_related_con=0#qt-science_support_page_related_con (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  142. USGS, National Water Information System. Current Conditions for USGS 04156000 Tittabawassee River at Midland, MI. Available online: https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv/?cb_00060=on&cb_00065=on&cb_70969=on&cb_70969=on&format=gif_stats&site_no=04156000&period=&begin_date=2020-05-14&end_date=2020-05-21 (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  143. Hergott, M. Modeling Flooding from the Dam Failures in Michigan. AIR Worldwide. Available online: https://www.air-worldwide.com/blog/posts/2020/6/modeling-flooding-from-the-dam-failures-in-michigan/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  144. Harder, L.F.; Kelson, K.I.; Kishida, T.; Kayen, R. Preliminary Observations of the Fujinuma Dam Failure Following the March 11, 2011 Tohoku Offshore Earthquake, Japan; Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER); Preliminary Association Report No. GEER-25e; Folsom, CA, USA, 2011; Available online: http://learningfromearthquakes.org/2011-03-11-tohoku-japan/images/2011_03_11_tohoku_japan/pdfs/QR5_Preliminary-Observations-of-Fujinuma-Dam-Failure_06-06-11.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  145. Pradel, D.; Wartman, J.; Tiwari, B. Failure of the Fujinuma Dams during the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake. In Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2013: Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments III, San Diego, CA, USA, 3–7 March 2013; pp. 1559–1573. [Google Scholar]
  146. Clay, R.A. 100th Anniversary of Hatchtown Dam. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 21–25 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  147. Timmins, W.M. The Failure of the Hatchtown Dam, 1914. Utah Hist. Q. 1968, 36, 263–273. [Google Scholar]
  148. German Aerospace Center. Bulgaria: Biser Flood as of February 10, 2012—Disaster Extent Map. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/map_1736.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  149. Bocheva, L.; Pophristov, V. Seasonal Analysis of Large-Scale Heavy Precipitation Events in Bulgaria. AIP Conf. Proc. 2019, 2075, 200017. [Google Scholar]
  150. Evans, J.E.; Mackey, S.D.; Gottgens, J.F.; Gill, W.M. Lessons from a Dam Failure. Ohio J. Sci. 2000, 100, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  151. Environmental Business Council of New England. Dam Management Webinar Series: Liability & Insurance Considerations for Dam Owners and Engineers—Part 1: Historical Dam Failures in New England. 2020. Available online: https://ebcne.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Presentations-Dam-Management-Webinar-Series-Part-One.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  152. Wooten, L. The Grande Old Dam of Foster’s Pond Turns 162: An Engineer’s Take. GEI Consultants, 2020. Available online: https://www.fosterspond.org/Lee_Wooten_presentation_%202020_Annual_Meeting.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  153. Lindon, M.C. Forensics of a Dam Failure Fatality; Water and Whatever Blog. Available online: http://waterandwhatever.blogspot.com/2013/05/forensics-of-fatality.html (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  154. Collins, W.E. Report on the Cause of Failure of Little Deer Creek Dam, Provo River Project, Utah; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Washington, DC, USA, 1964.
  155. Bergman, N.; Sholker, O.; Roskin, J.; Greenbaum, N. The Nahal Oz Reservoir Dam-Break Flood: Geomorphic Impact on a Small Ephemeral Loess-Channel in the Semi-Arid Negev Desert, Israel. Geomorphology 2014, 210, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kostecki, S.; Rędowicz, W. The Washout Mechanism of the Niedów Dam and its Impact on the Parameters of the Flood Wave. Procedia Eng. 2014, 91, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Kosierb, R. Process of Wave Transformation in the Riverbed on the Example of a Flood on the Nysa Łużycka River. WasserWirtschaft 2014, 104, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Lees, P.; Thomson, D. Emergency Management, Opuha Dam Collapse, Waitangi Day 1997. In Proceedings of the NZ Society on Large Dams (NZSOLD) 2003 Symposium ‘‘Dams–Consents and Current Practice’’, IPENZ, Wellington, New Zealand, 26 August 2003; pp. 84–89. Available online: https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000028/Hearings-Week-06/dd571f3ec6/29-Colin-Riden-Emergency-management-Opuha-Dam-collapse-Waitangi-Day-1997.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  159. Azimi, R.; Vatankhah, A.R.; Kouchakzadeh, S. Predicting Peak Discharge from Breached Embankment Dams. In Proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress, The Hague, The Netherlands, 28 June–3 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
  160. Jansen, R.B. Dams and Public Safety; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Denver, CO, USA, 1983. Available online: https://www.usbr.gov/tsc/techreferences/mands/mands-pdfs/AZ1130.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  161. Xu, Y.; Zhang, L.; Jia, J. Lessons from Catastrophic Dam Failures in August 1975 in Zhumadian, China. In Proceedings of the GeoCongress 2008, New Orleans, LA, USA, 9–12 March 2008; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2008; pp. 162–169. [Google Scholar]
  162. Froehlich, D.C. Predicting Peak Discharge from Gradually Breached Embankment Dam. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2016, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Zhong, Q.; Chen, S.; Deng, Z. A Simplified Physically-Based Breach Model for a High Concrete-Faced Rockfill Dam: A Case Study. Water Sci. Eng. 2018, 11, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Zhong, Q.; Chen, S.; Deng, Z. A Simplified Physically-Based Model for Core Dam Overtopping Breach. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2018, 90, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Graham, W.J. The Banqiao and Shimantan Dam Failures: Factors Affecting the Warning and Evacuation Success. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 19–23 September 2010; Volume 2, pp. 1055–1069. [Google Scholar]
  166. Diacon, A.; Stematiu, D.; Mircea, N. An Analysis of the Belci Dam Failure. Int. Water Power Dam Constr. 1992, 44, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  167. Asman, I.; Bratianu, G. Project for Rehabilitation of Belci Dam after the 1991 Failure. In Proceedings of the 9th ICOLD European Club Symposium 2013, Venice, Italy, 10–12 April 2013; Available online: https://www.academia.edu/21861832/An_analysis_of_the_Belci_Dam_failure (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  168. Sharma, R.P.; Kumar, A. Case Histories of Earthen Dam Failures. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Chicago, IL, USA, 29 April–4 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
  169. Yochum, S.E.; Goertz, L.A.; Jones, P.H. Case Study of the Big Bay Dam Failure: Accuracy and Comparison of Breach Predictions. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2008, 134, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Ferguson, K.A.; Anderson, S.; Sossenkina, E. Reexamination of the 2004 Failure of Big Bay Dam, Mississippi. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual United States Society on Dams Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 7–11 April 2014; Available online: https://damfailures.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/62Ferguson_BigBayDam.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  171. Raška, P.; Emmer, A. The 1916 Catastrophic Flood Following the Bílá Desná Dam Failure: The Role of Historical Data Sources in the Reconstruction of its Geomorphologic and Landscape Effects. Geomorphology 2014, 226, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Sheffield Local Studies Library. Sources for the Study of the Sheffield Flood 1864; Sheffield Libraries Archives and Information; Sheffield City Council: Sheffield, UK, 2015; Available online: https://nanopdf.com/download/flood-study-guide-v1-6-sheffield-city-council_pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  173. Burns, W. The Sheffield Flood: A Critical Study of Charles Reade’s Fiction. PMLA 1948, 63, 686–695. Available online: www.jstor.org/stable/459435 (accessed on 7 July 2021). [CrossRef]
  174. Binnie, G.M. The Collapse of the Dale Dyke Dam in Retrospect. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 1978, 11, 305–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Binnie, G.M. Erratum to “The collapse of Dale Dyke Dam in Retrospect”, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, 11, 305–324 (1978). Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 1979, 12, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Binnie, G.M. Postscript to ‘The Collapse of the Dale Dyke dam in Retrospect’ . Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 1983, 16, 357–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. McDaniel, L.; Garton, J.; Fiedler, W.; King, W.; Schwanz, N. Lake Delhi Dam Breach—Two perspectives. In Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Annual Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 25–29 September 2011; p. 21. [Google Scholar]
  178. Fiedler, B.W.; King, W.; Schwanz, N.; Garton, J.; McDaniel, L. Dam Safety: What Happened to Lake Delhi Dam? Available online: https://www.hydroreview.com/world-regions/dam-safety-what-happened-to-lake-delhi-dam/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  179. Garton, J.; Welty, C. How Dams Fail and Proper Dam Maintenance. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2020. Available online: https://www.iowadnr.gov/Portals/idnr/uploads/water/dams/dams_damsfailures_powerpoint.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  180. Stanley Consultants. Lake Delhi Dam—Design Alternatives Report–App. B: Hydrologic and Hydraulic Studies Report. 2011. Available online: https://www.scribd.com/document/311562178/2011DelhiStudy-Appendix-B-Hydrologic-and-Hydraulic-Studies-Report (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  181. Eash, D.A. Floods of July 23–26, 2010, in the Little Maquoketa River and Maquoketa River Basins, Northeast Iowa; Open-File Report 2011-1301; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; p. 45.
  182. Shivers, M. Dam Breach Study and Inundation Mapping of Eleven Dams Owned by Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Master’s Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City, OK, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  183. Calderón, J.L.P. Reconstrucción Histórica, Estructural, Hidrológica, Hidráulica y Socioeconómica de la Catástrofe de Ribadelago (Rotura de la Presa de Vega de Tera). Master’s Thesis, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  184. Martí, J.; Riera, F.; Martínez, F. Interpretation of the Failure of the Aznalcóllar (Spain) Tailings Dam. Mine Water Environ. 2021, 40, 189–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Gallart, F.; Benito, G.; Martín-Vide, J.P.; Benito, A.; Prió, J.M.; Regüés, D. Fluvial Geomorphology and Hydrology in the Dispersal and Fate of Pyrite Mud Particles Released by the Aznalcóllar Mine Tailings Spill. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 242, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Lyu, Z.; Chai, J.; Xu, Z.; Qin, Y.; Cao, J. A Comprehensive Review on Reasons for Tailings Dam Failures Based on Case History. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 4159306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. McDermott, R.K.; Sibley, J.M. The Aznalcóllar tailings dam accident—A case study. Miner. Resour. Eng. 2000, 9, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Dollman, D.S. Colorado’s Deadliest Floods; Arcadia Publishing: Charleston, SC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  189. Groom, K.M.; Allen, C.D. Denver’s Forgotten Flood: The Geomorphologic Impacts of the 1933 Castlewood Dam Failure. J. West. 2014, 53, 54–65. [Google Scholar]
  190. Mauney, L. 80th Anniversary of the Castlewood Dam Failure. Decade Dam Failure Series—ASDSO. Available online: https://damfailures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ASDSO-Castlewood_Mauney.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  191. Rudolph, K. August 3, 1933: Castlewood Dam Breaks, Floods Denver. Denver Public Library. Available online: https://history.denverlibrary.org/news/august-3-1933-castlewood-dam-breaks-floods-denver (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  192. Zhang, L.M.; Chen, Q. Seepage Failure Mechanism of the Gouhou Rockfill Dam during Reservoir Water Infiltration. Soils Found. 2006, 46, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Chen, Q.; Zhang, L.M. Three-dimensional Analysis of Water Infiltration into the Gouhou Rockfill Dam Using Saturated-unsaturated Seepage Theory. Can. Geotech. J. 2006, 43, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Shen, G.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Xiang, Y.; Sheng, J.; Fu, J.; Fu, S.; Liu, M. Risk Dynamics Modeling of Reservoir Dam Break for Safety Control in the Emergency Response Process. Water Supply 2021, 21, 1356–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Zhong, Q.; Chen, S.; Fu, Z. Failure of Concrete-Face Sand-Gravel Dam Due to Water Flow Overtops. J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 2019, 33, 04019007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Scott, K.M.; Gravlee, G.C., Jr. Flood Surge on the Rubicon River, California—Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Boulder Transport; Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-M; USGS: Washington, DC, USA, 1968.
  197. Palmer, J. Anatomy of a Tailings Dam Failure and a Caution for the Future. Engineering 2019, 5, 605–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Pereira, L.F.; Cruz, G.d.B.; Guimarães, R.M.F. Impactos do Rompimento da Barragem de Rejeitos de Brumadinho, Brasil: Uma Análise Baseada nas Mudanças de Cobertura da Terra. J. Environ. Anal. Prog. 2019, 4, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Raman, A.; Liu, F. An Investigation of the Brumadinho Dam Break with HEC RAS Simulation. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1911.05219. [Google Scholar]
  200. Silva Rotta, L.H.; Alcântara, E.; Park, E.; Negri, R.G.; Lin, Y.N.; Bernardo, N.; Mendes, T.S.G.; Souza Filho, C.R. The 2019 Brumadinho Tailings Dam Collapse: Possible Cause and Impacts of the Worst Human and Environmental Disaster in Brazil. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2020, 90, 102119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. de Lima, R.E.; de Lima Picanço, J.; da Silva, A.F.; Acordes, F.A. An Anthropogenic Flow Type Gravitational Mass Movement: The Córrego do Feijão Tailings Dam Disaster, Brumadinho, Brazil. Landslides 2020, 17, 2895–2906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Lumbroso, D.; Davison, M.; Body, R.; Petkovšek, G. Modelling the Brumadinho Tailings Dam Failure, the Subsequent Loss of Life and How It Could Have Been Reduced. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Rico, M.; Benito, G.; Díez-Herrero, A. Floods from Tailings Dam Failures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 154, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  204. Rico, M.; Benito, G.; Salgueiro, A.R.; Díez-Herrero, A.; Pereira, H.G. Reported Tailings Dam Failures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 152, 846–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Quelopana, H. Released Volume Estimation for Dam Break Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Tailings Management, Santiago, Chile, 10–12 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  206. do Carmo, F.F.; Kamino, L.H.Y.; Junior, R.T.; de Campos, I.C.; do Carmo, F.F.; Silvino, G.; do Castro, K.J.D.S.X.D.; Mauro, M.L.; Rodrigues, N.U.A.; de Souza Miranda, M.P.; et al. Fundão Tailings Dam Failures: The Environment Tragedy of the Largest Technological Disaster of Brazilian Mining in Global Context. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 2017, 15, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Fernandes, G.W.; Goulart, F.F.; Ranieri, B.D.; Coelho, M.S.; Dales, K.; Boesche, N.; Bustamante, M.; Carvalho, F.A.; Carvalho, D.C.; Dirzo, R.; et al. Deep into the Mud: Ecological and Socio-economic Impacts of the Dam Breach in Mariana, Brazil. Nat. Conserv. 2016, 14, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Van Niekerk, H.J.; Viljoen, M.J. Causes and Consequences of the Merriespruit and other Tailings-dam Failures. Land Degrad. Dev. 2005, 16, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Wagener, F.V.; Craig, H.J.; Blight, G.; McPhail, G.; Williams, A.A.B.; Strydom, J.H. The Merriespruit Tailings Dam Failure—A Review. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 26–28 January 1998; pp. 925–952. [Google Scholar]
  210. Petkovšek, G.; Hassan, M.A.A.M.; Lumbroso, D.; Roca Collell, M. A Two-Fluid Simulation of Tailings Dam Breaching. Mine Water Environ. 2021, 40, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Visser, J.K. Safety Practices and Procedures Used When Three Major Accidents Occurred in South Africa. In Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL 2005: Advances in Safety and Reliability, Tri City (Gdynia-Sopot-Gdansk), Poland, 27–30 June 2005; Kolowrocki, K., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 2001–2008. [Google Scholar]
  212. Davies, E.W.; Bailey, F.J.; Kelly, D.B. West Virginia’s Buffalo Creek Flood: A Study of the Hydrology and Engineering Geology; Geological Survey Circular 667; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1972; p. 32. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1972/0667/report.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  213. Kelley, J.H.; Kealy, D.; Hylton, C.D.; Hallana, E.V.; Ashcraft, J.; Murrin, J.F.; Davies, W.E.; Erwin, R.B.; Latimer, I.S. The Buffalo Creek Flood and Disaster: Official Report from the Governor’s Ad Hoc Commission of Inquiry. West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History, 1973. Available online: http://www.wvculture.org/history/disasters/buffcreekgovreport.html (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  214. Gee, N. Case Study: Buffalo Creek Dam (West Virginia, 1972). Association of State Dam Safety Officials Lessons Learned from Dam Incidents and Failures. Available online: https://damfailures.org/case-study/buffalo-creek-dam-west-virginia-1972/ (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  215. Waler, W.A. Associates. Analysis of Coal Refuse Dam Failure Middle Fork Buffalo Creek, Saunders, West Virginia; OFR 10-73; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Washington, DC, USA, 1973; Volume I, p. 217.
  216. Waler, W.A. Associates. Analysis of Coal Refuse Dam Failure Middle Fork Buffalo Creek, Saunders, West Virginia; OFR 10-73; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Washington, DC, USA, 1973; Volume II, p. 178.
  217. Chabal, J.P.; Bordes, J.L. Puentes, 1802: La Rupture du Plus Grand Barrage du Monde, ou le Double Echec d’Antonio de Robles. Le rapport Betancourt. Quad. d’Història l’Enginyeria 2009, X, 151–167. [Google Scholar]
  218. Úbeda Romero, E. La rotura del pantano de Puentes—Región de Murcia Digital. Revista Murgetana 1963, 21, 5–33. [Google Scholar]
  219. Burnett, J. Flash Floods in Texas; Texas A&M University Press: College Station, TX, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  220. David Rogers, J. The Failure of the Lower Colorado River Dam at Austin, Texas. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Austin, TX, USA, 17–21 May 2015; Karvaz, K., Webster, V.L., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2015; pp. 147–160. [Google Scholar]
  221. Neall, V.E. Lahars as Major Geological Hazards. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 1976, 13, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Manville, V.; Hodgson, K.A.; Nairn, I.A. A Review of Break-out Floods from Volcanogenic Lakes in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Geol. Geophys. 2007, 50, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. New Zealand Railways Board of Inquiry into Derailment of Wellington-Auckland Express at Whangaehu River Bridge between Tangiwai and Karioi Railway Stations on 24 December 1953. Tangiwai Railway Disaster/Report of Board of Inquiry; Govt. Printer: Wellington, New Zealand, 1954.
  224. Soares-Frazão, S. Experiments of Dam-break Wave over a Triangular Bottom Sill. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Experimental Study of Dam-break Flow against an Isolated Obstacle. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Dam-break Flow through an Idealised City. J. Hydraul. Res. 2008, 46, 648–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  227. Aureli, F.; Dazzi, S.; Maranzoni, A.; Mignosa, P.; Vacondio, R. Experimental and Numerical Evaluation of the Force Due to the Impact of a Dam-break Wave on a Structure. Adv. Water Resour. 2015, 76, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Elkholy, M.; LaRocque, L.A.; Chaudhry, M.H.; Imran, J. Experimental Investigations of Partial-Breach Dam-Break Flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Spinewine, B.; Zech, Y. Small-scale Laboratory Dam-break Waves on Movable Beds. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. LaRocque, L.A.; Elkholy, M.; Hanif Chaudhry, M.; Imran, J. Experiments on Urban Flooding Caused by a Levee Breach. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 960–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Biscarini, C.; Di Francesco, S.; Ridolfi, E.; Manciola, P. On the Simulation of Floods in a Narrow Bending Valley: The Malpasset Dam Break Case Study. Water 2016, 8, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  232. Venturi, S.; Di Francesco, S.; Geier, M.; Manciola, P. Modelling Flood Events with a Cumulant CO Lattice Boltzmann Shallow Water Model. Nat. Hazards 2021, 105, 1815–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Liang, D.; Lin, B.; Falconer, R.A. A Boundary-fitted Numerical Model for Flood Routing with Shock-capturing Capability. J. Hydrol. 2007, 332, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. De Marchi, G. Sull’Onda di Piena che Seguirebbe al Crollo della Diga di Cancano. [On the Dam-break Wave Resulting from the Collapse of the Cancano Dam]. L’Energia Elettr. 1945, 22, 319–340. [Google Scholar]
  235. Pilotti, M.; Milanesi, L.; Bacchi, V.; Tomirotti, M.; Maranzoni, A. Dam-Break Wave Propagation in Alpine Valley with HEC-RAS 2D: Experimental Cancano Test Case. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 05020003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Pilotti, M.; Maranzoni, A.; Milanesi, L.; Tomirotti, M.; Valerio, G. Dam-break Modeling in Alpine Valleys. J. Mt. Sci. 2014, 11, 1429–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Testa, G.; Zuccalà, D.; Alcrudo, F.; Mulet, J.; Soares-Frazão, S. Flash Flood Flow Experiment in a Simplified Urban District. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Soares-Frazão, S.; Lhomme, J.; Guinot, V.; Zech, Y. Two-dimensional Shallow-water Model with Porosity for Urban Flood Modelling. J. Hydraul. Res. 2008, 46, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. El Kadi Abderrezzak, K.; Paquier, A.; Mignot, E. Modelling Flash Flood Propagation in Urban Areas Using a Two-dimensional Numerical Model. Nat. Hazards 2009, 50, 433–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Guinot, V. Multiple Porosity Shallow Water Models for Macroscopic Modelling of Urban Floods. Adv. Water Resour. 2012, 37, 40–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. An, H.; Yu, S. Well-balanced Shallow Water Flow Simulation on Quadtree Cut Cell Grids. Adv. Water Resour. 2012, 39, 60–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Miliani, S.; Montessori, A.; La Rocca, M.; Prestininzi, P. Dam-Break Modeling: LBM as the Way towards Fully 3D, Large-Scale Applications. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2021, 147, 04021017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Güney, M.S.; Tayfur, G.; Bombar, G.; Elci, S. Distorted Physical Model to Study Sudden Partial Dam Break Flows in an Urban Area. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2014, 140, 05014006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  244. Haltas, I.; Tayfur, G.; Elci, S. Two-dimensional Numerical Modeling of Flood Wave Propagation in an Urban Area due to Ürkmez Dam-break, İzmir, Turkey. Nat. Hazards 2016, 81, 2103–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  245. Morris, M.W.; Hassan, M.A.A.M.; Vaskinn, K.A. Breach Formation: Field Test and Laboratory Experiments. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Morris, M. Modelling Breach Initiation and Growth; Report Number T06-08-02; FLOODsite project Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management Methodologies; European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme. 2008. Available online: http://www.floodsite.net/html/partner_area/project_docs/t06_08_01_breach__execsumm_v3_5_p01.pdf (accessed on 7 July 2021).
  247. Shuibo, P.; Mingsen, Q.; Lianxiang, W.; Guoyi, X.; Yongqiang, S.; Longda, X.; Cuiyu, M.; Loukola, E.; Pyyny, J.; Reiter, P.; et al. Chinese-Finnish Cooperative Research Work on Dam Break Hydrodynamics; Shuibo, P., Loukola, E., Eds.; National Board of Waters and the Environment: Helsinki, Finland, 1993; pp. 1–92. Available online: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/29795/VYHA%20julkaisujaVYHA%20julkaisuja%20A%20167.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 7 July 2021).
Table
Table 1. Well-documented dam-break test cases.
Table 1. Well-documented dam-break test cases.
(1)
N.		(2)
Dam Name		(3)
Country		(4)
Type 1		(5)
Cause 2		(6)
Year		(7)
References		Available Information 3(23)
Sim.
Flood 4
(8)
Dam Char.		(9) Reserv. Char.(10) Reserv. Level(11)
Phot. Docum.		(12) Breach Char.(13)
Dam
Mater.		(14) Breach Devel.(15)
DTM		(16) Storm(17) Peak Flow(18) Breach
Outfl.		(19)
Water
Marks		(20) Hydrogr.(21) Flood Timing(22)
Flooded
Areas
1Baldwin HillsCalif. (USA)EFPI1963[47,48,49,50,51,52]•••••••• •◦ •••2D-FV
2Xe Pian –
Xe Namnoy		LaosEFER2018[53]◦••• • •• • ◦•1D-FD; 2D-FV
3GangneungSouth KoreaEFOT2002[54,55]•••• •• ••◦•2D-FV
4Kelly BarnesGeo. (USA)EFPI1977[56,57,58,59]•••••• ◦•• • •
5Lake Ha! Ha!CanadaEF (DK)OT1996[60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68]•••••• •••• • *1D-FD; 2D-FV
6Lawn Lake &
Cascade Lake		Col. (USA)EFPI1982[69,70,71,72]•••••••◦ • • •◦1D-FV
7Quail CreekUtah (USA)EFPI1989[73,74,75]••• • •◦ • • • 1D-FD
8TetonIdaho (USA)EFPI1976[76,77,78,79,80,81]•••••••◦ • •• •1D-FD
9Um Al-KhairS. ArabiaEFPI2011[82]•••••• ••• • 1D-FD
10ZeyzounSyriaEFPM2002[83,84]•• • • ••• 1D-FD
11GlenoItalyCOQP1923[85]••••• •• ◦ ◦•1D-FV
12MalpassetFranceCOQP1959[86,87,88]••••• •• • •◦2D-FD, FV; 3D
13PalagnedraSwitzerlandCOOT1978[89]•••• ••• ••• 2D-FD
14Sella ZerbinoItalyCOOT1935[90]•••• ••• • • 2D-FV
15St. FrancisCalif. (USA)COPI1928[91,92,93]••• • • ••2D-FV; 3D
16Taum Sauk Up.Miss. (USA)RFQP2005[94,95,96,97,98]•••• • • • •1D-FD
17TousSpainRFOT1982[99,100,101]•••• ••• • ••2D-FV
18South ForkPenns. (USA)CFOT1889[73,102,103,104,105]•• •• ••• • ••
19La JosephinaEcuadorLDER1993[106,107]•••• ••◦ •◦• 1D-FD
20StavaItalyTA mPM-QP1985[108,109,110,111]• • • ◦ • • 1D-FV; 2D-FV
1 Type: CF = composite fill; CO = concrete; EF = earthfill; DK = dike; LD = landslide; RF = rockfill; TA = tailing. 2 Cause: ER = erosion; OT = overtopping; PI = piping; PM = poor management; QP = quality problems and design errors. 3 • = complete; ◦ = uncertain, incomplete or not readily available; * = geomorphic effects; m = mudflow. 4 Numerical model: approach-method; FD = finite difference; FV = finite volume.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Petaccia, G. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141968

AMA Style

Aureli F, Maranzoni A, Petaccia G. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water. 2021; 13(14):1968. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141968

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aureli, Francesca, Andrea Maranzoni, and Gabriella Petaccia. 2021. "Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models" Water 13, no. 14: 1968. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141968

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop