INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY GANDHINAGAR

Project Course Report

Dam Break Analysis on Mahi River

using HEC-RAS

Under Guidance of : By: Madhav Tiwari

Prof. Vikrant Jain 17110079
Prof. Pranab Mohapatra
 1. Introduction
Dam break analysis is very important as there is always a risk of failure. So
simulation of the dam break and resulting flood becomes crucial to
characterizing and reducing the threats due to failure.
There are many reasons for the failure of the dam like seepage, piping,
overtopping due to insufficient spillway capacity. Whatever be the reason for
the failure of the dam, but all the failure starts with the formation of the breach.
Basically, the breach is defined as the opening formed in the dam body that
leads the dam to fail.
The dam break tool in HEC-RAS can simulate the breach of an inline
structure such as a dam, or a lateral structure such as a levee. The objective
of this study is to apply HEC-RAS to a dam break analysis based on given
geometry data.

2. Mahi Dam Break Analysis

a. Study Area

The HEC-RAS dam break analysis is performed on the Mahi river. This
dam break is performed on the Mahi dam which is situated between
the river station Paderdibadi and Mataji which are 115Km apart.

b. Dam Break Simulation and Analysis using HEC-RAS

In order to see the incremental effect of a dam break, we have

considered the three scenarios: “with dam and breach”, “with a dam but
no breach”, “no dam”. Also, we have adjusted some parameter like the
width of the breach, depth of the breach and formation time of the
breach. And in this analysis, we are only considering piping failure only.

Fig 1 – Geometric Profile

 Fig 2- Input hydrograph

3. Results
a. For Dam break

Fig 3 – Dam Break

Fig 4 - Hydrograph at RS 83900 (immediate downstream of dam)

Fig 5- Hydrograph at RS 84300 (immediate upstream of dam)

Fig 6- Hydrograph at RS 59900 (downstream of dam)

b. For No Dam Break

Fig 7- Hydrograph at RS 84300 (immediate upstream of dam)

 Fig 8- Hydrograph at RS 83900 (immediate downstream of dam)

Fig 9- Hydrograph at RS 59900 (downstream of dam)

Incremental Results of dam failure analysis

Table 1:

No Dam break Dam break Without Dam

Location River W.S. Vel W.S. Vel Elev W.S. Vel Elev
Station Elev Chnl Elev Chnl Increase Elev Chnl Increase

Upstream of 84300 292.33 0.50 260.33 1.63 -32 253.81 3.21 -38.52
dam

Downstream 83900 218.63 3.20 252.71 4.06 34.08 242.19 3.20 23.56
of dam
 Intermediate 59500 210.63 3.01 220.68 3.02 10.03 225.35 3.01 6.72
station

Downstream 0 144.50 1.90 147.51 1.90 2.01 144.51 1.90 0.01

of station

Dam break sensitivity analysis 1

Table 2:
Breach Formation Time

Increase 20% Decrease 20%

Location W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl

Upstream of dam 260.33 1.63 261.21 1.62 260.23 1.63

Downstream of dam 252.71 4.06 251.87 4.05 253.09 4.06

Intermediate station 220.68 3.02 220.57 3.01 221.48 3.02

Downstream of station 147.51 1.90 147.50 1.90 147.61 1.90

Breach Depth Breach Width

Decrease 20% Increase 20% Decrease 20%

W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl

262.17 1.63 260.16 1.22 261.45 1.02

249..56 4.06 253.84 4.08 250.84 4.08

218.68 3.02 222.23 3.01 221.23 3.05

 147.12 1.90 147.76 1.93 147.18 1.94

Dam break sensitivity analysis 2 :

Table 3:
Breach Formation Time

Increase 50% Decrease 50%

Location W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl

Upstream of dam 260.33 1.63 261.85 1.63 260.14 1.63

Downstream of dam 252.71 4.06 250.93 4.02 253.69 4.12

Intermediate station 220.68 3.02 220.17 3.01 221.98 3.03

Downstream of station 147.51 1.90 147.50 1.90 147.68 1.90

Breach Depth Breach Width

Decrease 30% Increase 50% Decrease 50%

W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl

262.95 1.63 258.91 1.22 261.85 1.02

248..82 3.98 254.24 4.08 249.47 4.02

218.64 3.02 223.34 3.01 221.13 2.89

147.03 1.90 147.93 1.90 147.08 1.91

Dam break sensitivity analysis 3

Table 4:
Breach Formation Time

Increase 75% Decrease 75%

Location W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl

Upstream of dam 260.33 1.63 261.95 1.63 260.01 1.63

Downstream of dam 252.71 4.06 250.3 4.02 253.92 4.02

Intermediate station 220.68 3.02 219.13 3.01 223.07 3.01

Downstream of station 147.51 1.90 147.49 1.90 147.7 1.90

Breach Depth Breach Width

Decrease 50% Increase 75% Decrease 75%

W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl W.S. Elev Vel Chnl

263.15 1.63 258.41 1.63 262.34 1.63

248.28 3.98 255.14 4.08 246.72 4.02

218.24 3.02 223.74 3.02 221.05 3.02

147.03 1.90 148.01 1.90 147.02 1.90

Figure 5-9 shows the stage and flow hydrographs at different river station for dam
scenarios of “no dam break” and “dam break”. Apparently, The Mahi dam attenuates
the peak flow at RS 84700 effectively. Before the peak arrives in upstream
hydrograph for both cases, the stage and flow hydrographs are approximately
overlapped, while after that the “no dam break” flow drops suddenly and the “dam
break” stage is lower than “no dam break” stage. It shows that there is a significant
drawdown of the reservoir in the case of “dam break”. At downstream of the dam ,
both the stage and flow of “no dam break” drop dramatically as shown in the figure,
compared with those of “dam break”. It looks that dam break elongates the time
period of higher water surface level, and greatly weakens the flood protection
capacity of the dam and at the downstream area near the dam. As shown in Figure
7, the effects of dam break on the flow and stage are less significant than those of
RS 83900 which is nearer the dam. Dam failure has less impact on RS 0 as it very
far from the dam, while the flood situation is much more severe at RS 59900

.From the table of incremental results of dam failure analysis, and three scenarios
are compared at four different locations. From the dam break analysis it came to
know that the downstream area near the dam is the critical and sensitive area in
terms of dam failure. Obviously, the scenario without dam poses much greater risk
on further downstream area as shown. We can also see that the construction of the
dam changes the velocity at RS 83900 . Dam controls the flood, but brings the
problem of sediment
deposition and erosion as well.
Table 2 shows dam break sensitivity analysis 1 (±20%), and three situations are
looked at four different areas. There is no huge distinction among "break without
modification", "full formation time", "adjusted rupture width", "adjusted break depth"
in Maximum Water Surface Elevation and Velocity at each distinguished area. Table
2 likewise demonstrates that Max. W.S. Elev isn't so delicate to the modifications of
given rupture parameters inside ±20%. Just on account of adjusted full formulation
on time at the upstream of the dam , Max. W.S. Elev (261.85 m) in +20% is less than
1 m higher than Max. W.S. Elev (260.37 m) in – 20%. More noteworthy full
formation time postponing the arrival of seized water behind the dam may be the
reason. Table 3 demonstrates the dam break affectability investigation 2 (±50%) and
no critical change is watched either (all the changes were within 1m only) . No further
new data is appeared Table 5 as contrasted and Table 4. For Dam break
examination, the Max. W.S. Elev is unfeeling toward the difference in the given dam
rupture parameters.

4. Conclusion

Dam break is an entangled and exhaustive procedure. Neither current physical

based models nor exact models could completely clarify dam break components and
effects. The dam break investigation was done on Mahi Dam dependent on given
geometry information. The dam break because of funnelling lengthens the timespan
of high-water surface dimension, which builds the term of hazard. Nonetheless, the
dam break does not expand the downstream most extreme water surface rise
essentially at past structure, dam break has more prominent effect on the
downstream area where is closer to the dam as per the examination of the
hydrographs at various areas. As per the affectability investigation, the progressions
of dam break parameters had not too much impact on the downstream Max. W.S.
Elevation (only variation of 1m in the water surface elevation at both downstream
and upstream river stations) , which may come about because of beginning trigger
water surface rise, limit conditions including the inflow hydrograph and entryway
opening height.
References:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq0AEkOsqeM
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhOCmncetX4
• Xiong, Yi. (2011). A Dam Break Analysis Using HEC-RAS. Journal of Water Resource and
Protection. 03. 370-379. 10.4236/jwarp.2011.36047.
• https://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/documentation/HEC-
RAS%205.0%20Reference%20Manual.pdf