Predicting Breach Formation

Mark Morris
HR Wallingford
The Science of Asset Management
London 9th December 2011

www.floodrisk.o
rg.uk

EPSRC Grant:
EP/FP202511/1

An overview of current options, practice and

future direction for predicting breach formation

1. What are we talking about?

2. Current options / Latest developments
3. Practice
4. Future direction
5. Research gaps

[1] What are we talking about?

What are we talking about?

What are we talking about?

Why do we need to predict breach?

The way and rate at which an embankment breaches can
affect the timing of the breach, the rate and magnitude of
the flood water released and the size of the breach itself.
Therefore, breach affects the analysis of flood risk (ie.
FRAs) and can change the way in which flood events
might be managed.
Understanding the degree of uncertainty within the
process and any prediction is a very important aspect of
using breach predictions

Why do we need to predict breach?

Consider that different aspects of breach prediction are important
for different users:
Flood risk assessment
Planning
Scheme design

Emergency planning
Flood event management
Emergency repairs
Peak discharge? Flood volume? Rate of flooding?
Time to catastrophic failure? Size of breach?

Different types of breach processes

The stages in breach development comprise:
Initiation
Surface protection (grass) cover fails, soil starts to erode

Formation
Significant erosion of material through embankment body and
down to base

Growth (widening)
Open breach; flow continues to widen the breach

Can be driven by wave overtopping, water overflowing or

seepage through

Different types of breach processes

Soil type and state affects the soil erodibility
Soil erodibility affects the overall physical process
...which (for external erosion) may be headcut erosion or
surface erosion (or a combination / transition between the two).
Typically:
Sandy, non cohesive soil = surface erosion
Cohesive, clayey soil = headcut
[not forgetting that soil state significantly affects the process...]

Different breach processes

Different breach processes

Photos: Greg Hanson - USDA-ARS

Whats the point here?

1. Rate of flow through a breach is controlled by the
upstream crest level

Breach formation occurs when this control erodes since flow

can then increase, so increasing erosion
The timing of crest erosion for headcut or surface erosion
varies
Hence the nature of flood hydrograph depends upon the form
of erosion, hence the soil erodibility, hence soil type and state

Whats the point here?

2. The nature of the flood hydrograph also depends
upon the reservoir stage/volume relationship and the
soil erodibility

Assuming the crest erodes (surface erosion)

Hydrograph shape = function of rate crest erosion and
reservoir surface area
Can the reservoir level drop to match the rate of crest
erosion?

[2a] Current options for predicting breach

Different methods include:
1.Judgement (guess work?)
2.Simple predictive equations
3.Simple predictive models
4.More complex predictive models
5.Integrated breach and flow models
6.Probabilistic breach models

Current options for predicting breach

1. Judgement (guess work?)

Can vary from reasonable judgement to a blind guess hence

can be highly inaccurate
Use of historic records from same catchment / soil / structure
type helps

2. Simple predictive equations

Typically developed for dams or non cohesive soils

Regression analysis on limited data (and hence specific
conditions)
Can have large uncertainties
Typically give peak discharge, maybe breach width not
hydrograph

Current options for predicting breach

3. Simple predictive models

Predefines and simplifies the breach process

Is the simplification acceptable?

4. More complex predictive models

Greater complexity less uncertainty

typically a slower model

5. Integrated breach and flow models

Allows for drowning of breach important but dont overlook what

the model actually does

6. Probabilistic breach models

Gives more information regarding range of possible behaviour

[2b] Some recent developments in

predicting breach
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.

Advances in rapid simulation FRMRC2

Conclusions from the DSIG breach modelling project
Advances in more detailed modelling HR BREACH
Advances in understanding soil erodibility

[i] Advances in rapid simulation:

FRMRC2 WP4.4 research
WP4.4 (University of Oxford andGoal
HRof the research
Wallingford): Rapid breach assessment - will
develop simplified equations for the rapid prediction
of breach size for a limited range of embankment
structures. The methods will be directly applicable to
practicing engineers and will replace the default and
very approximate breach modelling methods
currently included within the RASP family of tools.
Researcher = Myron van Damme University of Oxford

In summary...
Myron has:
1.Reviewed breaching processes and models
2.Chosen to develop simple, physically based equations

NOT regression analysis; Not emulating other models

3.Equations simulate average erosion rates for the

different types of breach process (surface / headcut /
internal erosion)
4.Assumes predefined physical processes for breach
5.Validated the model [AREBA] using HR BREACH and
DSIG case study data
[ builds upon international best]

Underlying assumptions (1/4)

General assumptions
1D flow behaviour
Rectangular spatially
constant cross section breach
No equilibrium transport
conditions
Constant soil erodibility
Instantaneous failure grass
cover
No erosion below the
foundation level of the
embankment
Widening rate is proportional
to the downward erosion rate

Underlying assumptions (2/4)

Assumptions surface erosion
Landside slope remains equal
to the initial slope gradient
Depth along landside slope
approaches the normal depth
starting from the critical depth
Landside slope retreats at a
spatially averaged erosion rate
Crest erodes downward while
landside slope retreats

Underlying assumptions (3/4)

Assumptions headcut erosion
No downward erosion due to
flow over the crest
Headcut starts at the top of
landside slope

Underlying assumptions (4/4)

Assumptions piping
An initial pipe diameter widens in
an equal rate due to the flow through
the pipe
After slumping of the soil above
the pipe, potential further failure of
the embankment is described by the
surface erosion failure process
The grass cover is assumed to
have failed with failure of the pipe

Performance and validation

AREBA - A Rapid Embankment Breach
Assessment
AREBA gives promising results when being
bench marked against HR BREACH
Validating AREBA against the DSIG data
showed that the model prediction lie within
the bounds of uncertainty following from the
uncertainty in the input parameters
Run speed AREBA is approximately 0.2s per
run.

Data Requirements / Applicability

AREBA predicts breach through simple,
homogeneous embankments
Does not simulate composite or complex structures
But speed of simulation does allow the user to play

AREBA requires definition of:

Upstream load (time varying water level)

Embankment geometry
Embankment soil erodibility, Kd
Assumed failure mode (surface, headcut, internal erosion)
Downstream volume / stage (time varying water level)

[ii] Conclusions from the DSIG breach

modelling
project
International project dam
owners industry

needs focus
Breach model review 3 selected for
evaluation (as greatest potential for industry
uptake) = SIMBA / HR BREACH / FIREBIRD
Data review to assist model performance
validation
USDA ARS data / IMPACT project data / 2 dam
failures

FIREBIRD eventually rejected due to lack of

usability and hence testing

DSIG Conclusions (Cont.)

SIMBA = Headcut; HR BREACH = surface erosion
Performance of both models against the various test
cases varied, but neither was consistently better or worse
Conclusions:
Still to be formally reported by PM (Tony Wahl USBR)

( not formal

conclusions)

Develop an industry model using both headcut and surface erosion

processes (ie SIMBA + HR BREACH)
Modeller understanding and ability with the models is important
For example, models simulate breach through simple structures; expertise is
needed to know how to apply the models to more complex, real structures

Available data to support research and model validation is limited

Uncertainty / lack of knowledge in soil erosion processes /
simulation

[iii] Advances HR BREACH model

HR Wallingford programme of research over past

decade

National / EU / International projects plus company R&D

HR BREACH model
Mohamed (2002); Integrated InfoWorks (Wallingford Software
Innovyze); Morris (2011)

1D flow; sections through embankment; 2D section

erosion plus block failure
Focus here on one area of advance breach
formation through zoned flood embankments /
embankment dams

Zoned embankments

Trying to predict breach

through real rather than
idealised structures
How significant is this for
flood risk assessment and
hence asset management
practice?

Representing zones in the model

1

1
1

2
3

4
1

2
3

4
1

2
3

4
1

2
3

Effect of Kd versus As

Soil erodibility versus reservoir stage area

Homogeneous embankment breach two different

erodibilities
Peaky
Hydrograph

Flat
Hydrograph

Effect of zoned embankment (2 layers)

2 flat layers different erodibility (also fn of reservoir area)

Extremes show peaky versus flat hydrograph (trends in-between)

Homogeneous embankment breach two layers with

different erodibilities

Erodible top
layer

Resistant
top
layer

Effect of layers on outflow hydrograph

2 layers different erodibility

Advances HR BREACH model

Conclusions:
The combined effects of zoning and soil erodibility
can significantly affect the breach flood hydrograph
Layering can provide significant degrees of protection
against more erodible material beneath

Ie. the Dutch / German embankment design

Erodibility plus reservoir area affects flood

hydrograph
Each of these points is significant for design /
construction / maintenance / risk assessment

[iv] Advances in understanding soil

erodibility
Greg Hanson

[4] Industry Practice

Industry practice:
Often guesswork / judgement or simple equations
Why?
Confusion over choice of best (appropriate) method?
Avoid the cost

By avoiding perceived complexity of analysis

By avoiding purchase of software

Blame uncertainty

Systems analysis:
Risk models run many thousands of simulations need
simple and / or fast methods of prediction

[5] Future Direction

1. Industry versus academic solutions the challenges are
different

Fast simple Complex slow(er)?

2. Need to integrate flow, with soil erosion, with structure

response / behaviour

Complex / significant interdependencies

Can reduce the uncertainty from flow by moving to a 2D, 3D flow
model (using existing models and improved computer power)
Need to keep a balance in terms of analysis accuracy & relevance for
different processes

3. Need to improve understanding of soil erodibility

[5] Future Direction

4. Need to improve understanding of natural and man
made variability in soils / structures in order to assess
likely erosion / failure processes
5. Different soils erode by head cut or surface erosion
currently as separate models merge into a single
model with analysis sufficient to determine and flip
between processes

[5] Future Direction

5. Putting model speed aside, use more accurate flow
models combined with a better analysis of soil
behaviour... merge a soils analysis model (ie. Levee
stability analysis) with a breach model to provide the
complete assessment of levee response and failure
6. Given the uncertainty in soil parameters / distribution,
consider how this may be done probabilistically as
well as deterministically

[6] Research Gaps

(i) Soil Erodibility:
1. Understand which parameters affect erodibility
(close)
2. Understand how those parameters vary in-situ and
under climate change conditions
3. Link parameters to field observations for asset
management
4. Link parameters to design and construction
specifications

[6] Research Gaps

(ii) Breach model:
1. Meshing headcut and surface erosion, with analysis to
flip between processes
2. Meshing geotechnical analysis model with a breach
model
3. Dealing with uncertainty distribution?

[6] Research Gaps

(iii) Data:
We always seem to be chasing better data!
1. Despite the frequency of dam and levee failure there
remains very little high quality, field scale data against
which the different processes can be studied and
models validated. Solution?
2. Soil erodibility data If we accept process
dependence upon soil erodibility, and we build models
using measures of erodibility, how can we provide
best guidance on value selection?

More information on breach?

Website information
The EU FP6 Integrated Project FLOODsite - Tasks 4 & 6:
www.floodsite.net/html/work_programme2.asp?taskID=4
www.floodsite.net/html/work_programme2.asp?taskID=6
The CEATI Dam Safety Interest Group breach modelling project:
www.ceati.com/collaborative-programs/generation/dam-safety
The FRMRC II project website: www.floodrisk.org.uk

Contact: Mark Morris mark.morris@samui.co.uk