reading

Cover
Title Page
Foreword
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgements
About the Authors
Part I: Dam and Dike Failure Databases
1. 1 Dams and Their Components
  1. 1.1 Classification of Dams
  2. 1.2 Constructed Embankment Dams
  3. 1.3 Landslide Dams
  4. 1.4 Concrete Gravity Dams
  5. 1.5 Concrete Arch Dams
  6. 1.6 Dikes
2. 2 Statistical Analysis of Failures of Constructed Embankment Dams
  1. 2.1 Database of Failures of Constructed Embankment Dams
  2. 2.2 Failure Modes and Processes
  3. 2.3 Common Causes of Embankment Dam Failures
  4. 2.4 Failure of Different Types of Embankment Dams
3. 3 Statistical Analysis of Failures of Landslide Dams
  1. 3.1 Database of Failures of Landslide Dams
  2. 3.2 Stability, Longevity, and Failure Modes of Landslide Dams
  3. 3.3 Mitigation Measures for Landslide Dams
4. 4 Statistical Analysis of Failures of Concrete Dams
  1. 4.1 Database of Failures of Concrete Dams
  2. 4.2 Failure Modes and Processes
  3. 4.3 Common Causes of Concrete Dam Failures
5. 5 Statistical Analysis of Failures of Dikes
  1. 5.1 Introduction
  2. 5.2 Database of Dike Breaching Cases
  3. 5.3 Evaluation of Dike Failure Mechanisms
Part II: Dam Failure Mechanisms and Breaching Process Modeling
1. 6 Internal Erosion in Damsand Their Foundations
  1. 6.1 Concepts of Internal Erosion
  2. 6.2 Mechanisms of Initiation of Internal Erosion
  3. 6.3 Initiation of Concentrated Leak Erosion Through Cracks
  4. 6.4 Initiation of Backward Erosion
  5. 6.5 Initiation of Contact Erosion
  6. 6.6 Initiation of Suffusion
  7. 6.7 Filter Criteria
  8. 6.8 Continuation of Internal Erosion
  9. 6.9 Progression of Internal Erosion
  10. 6.10 Suggested Topics for Further Research
2. 7 Mechanics of Overtopping Erosion of Dams
  1. 7.1 Mechanics of Surface Erosion
  2. 7.2 Determination of Erodibility of Soils
  3. 7.3 Characteristics of Overtopping Erosion Failure of Dams
  4. 7.4 Suggested Topics for Further Research
3. 8 Dam Breach Modeling
  1. 8.1 Methods for Dam Breach Modeling
  2. 8.2 Dam Breaching Data
  3. 8.3 Empirical Analysis Methods
  4. 8.4 Numerical Simulation of Overtopping Erosion
  5. 8.5 Numerical Simulation of Internal Erosion
4. 9 Analysis of Dam BreachingFlood Routing
  1. 9.1 River Hydraulics
  2. 9.2 Numerical Models for Flood Routing Analysis
  3. 9.3 Example – Tangjiashan Landslide Dam Failure
Part III: Dam Failure Risk Assessment and Management
1. 10 Analysis of Probability of Failure of Dams
  1. 10.1 Introduction
  2. 10.2 Analysis Methods
  3. 10.3 Examples of Probabilistic Analysis of Dam Failure
2. 11 Vulnerability to Dam Breaching Floods
  1. 11.1 Concepts of Vulnerability
  2. 11.2 Human Vulnerability to Dam Breaching Floods
  3. 11.3 Bayesian Network Analysis of Human Vulnerability to Floods
  4. 11.4 Damage to Buildings and Infrastructures
  5. 11.5 Suggested Topics for Further Research
3. 12 Dam Failure Risk Assessment
  1. 12.1 Risk and Risk Assessment
  2. 12.2 Dam Failure Risk Analysis
  3. 12.3 Risk Assessment
  4. 12.4 Suggested Topics for Further Research
4. 13 Dam Failure Contingency Risk Management
  1. 13.1 Process of Contingency Risk Management
  2. 13.2 Decision‐making Under Uncertainty
  3. 13.3 Dynamic Decision‐Making
  4. 13.4 Suggested Topics for Further Research
5. 14 Case Study
  1. 14.1 Timeline for Decision‐making for the Tangjiashan Landslide Dam Failure
  2. 14.2 Prediction of Dam Break Probability with Time Series Analysis
  3. 14.3 Simulation of Dam Breaching and Flood Routing
  4. 14.4 Evaluation of Flood Consequences
  5. 14.5 Dynamic Decision‐making
  6. 14.6 Discussions
Part IV: Appendixes: Dam Failure Databases
1. Appendix A: Database of 1443 Cases of Failures of Constructed Dams
2. Appendix B: Database of 1044 Cases of Failures of Landslide Dams
References
Index
End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 02
1. Table 2.1 Summary of information of 75 dam failure cases (O = overtopping; P = internal erosion; S = sliding; HD = homogeneous dams; DC = dams with corewalls; FD = concrete faced dams; ZD = zoned‐fill dams; HE = high erodibility; ME = medium erodibility; LE = low erodibility)
2. Table 2.2 Reservoir capacities of the failed embankment dams
3. Table 2.3 Heights of the failed embankment dams
4. Table 2.4 Construction times of the failed embankment dams
5. Table 2.5 Ages of the embankment dams at failure
6. Table 2.6 Categories of dam failure causes involved in the dam failure database in Appendix A (based on MWR, 1993)
7. Table 2.7 Subdivision of failed embankment dams in terms of dam type
8. Table 2.8 Summary of failure causes for four types of embankment dams
9. Table 2.9 Summary of potential locations at risk for typical types of embankment dams
Chapter 03
1. Table 3.1 Review of datasets of landslide dams
2. Table 3.2 Information of 52 landslide dam failures
3. Table 3.3 Landslide dams that failed in internal erosion
4. Table 3.4 Overview of engineering risk mitigation measures for landslide dams
5. Table 3.5 List of high‐risk landslide dams caused by the Wenchuan earthquake in 2008, and their disposal measures
6. Table 3.6 Parameters of Tangjiashan landslide dam
Chapter 04
1. Table 4.1 Reservoir capacities of failed concrete dams
2. Table 4.2 Heights of failed concrete dams
3. Table 4.3 Construction time of failed concrete dams
4. Table 4.4 Ages of failed concrete dams
5. Table 4.5 Causes of concrete dam failures
6. Table 4.6 Sub‐causes of quality problems for concrete dam failures
7. Table 4.7 Subdivision of failed concrete dams in terms of structure type
8. Table 4.8 Causes of gravity dam failures
9. Table 4.9 Sub‐causes of quality problems for gravity dam failures
Chapter 05
1. Table 5.1 Detailed data of dike breaches (ext. erosion = external erosion; int. erosion = internal erosion; L = left bank; R = right bank)
Chapter 06
1. Table 6.1 Summary of factors affecting concentrated leak erosion
2. Table 6.2 Bligh’s criteria for critical hydraulic gradient (after Richards and Reddy, 2007)
3. Table 6.3 Physical properties of the test soil
4. Table 6.4 Summary of the testing program
5. Table 6.5 Summary of experimental investigation of internal stability of soils
6. Table 6.6 Summary of commonly used geometric criteria for soil internal stability
7. Table 6.7 Summary of models of critical hydraulic gradient for granular soils
8. Table 6.8 Filter design criteria
Chapter 07
1. Table 7.1 Summary of empirical equations for calculating the critical erosive shear stress of soils
2. Table 7.2 Summary of factors affecting the erodibility of cohesive materials
Chapter 08
1. Table 8.1 Results of additive regression analyses for the dimensionless representation of breach depth h_b/h_d
2. Table 8.2 Results of multiplicative regression analyses for the dimensionless representation of breach depth h_b/h_d
3. Table 8.3 Summary of the best prediction models for the five key dam breaching parameters
4. Table 8.4 Summary of the best‐simplified prediction models for the five key dam breaching parameters
5. Table 8.5 Empirical equations for estimating the breaching parameters of constructed embankment dams
6. Table 8.6 Comparison of model biases for different prediction equations based on the failure cases in Table 8.1
7. Table 8.7 Predictions of breaching parameters for Banqiao dam
8. Table 8.8 Predictions of breaching parameters for Teton dam
9. Table 8.9 Empirical equations for estimating the breaching parameters of landslide dams
10. Table 8.10 Order of importance of the control variables
11. Table 8.11 Comparison of the bias factors for the empirical models for predicting peak flow rate from failure of landslide dams
12. Table 8.12 Predictions of breaching parameters of Tangjiashan landslide dam
13. Table 8.13 Predictions of breaching parameters of Mantaro River landslide dam
14. Table 8.14 Empirical equations for estimating breaching parameters of dikes
15. Table 8.15 Comparison of bias factors for prediction models for dikes
16. Table 8.16 Comparison of the bias factors for prediction models for landslide dams and constructed earth and rockfill dams
17. Table 8.17 Summary of simplified physically based dam breach models (after Singh 1996; Wahl 1998; and Morris 2000)
18. Table 8.18 Summary of detailed physically based dam breach models (after ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Dam/levee Breaching 2011).
Chapter 09
1. Table 9.1 Subcritical flow contraction and expansion coefficients (after HEC, 2008, public domain, http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec‐ras/)
Chapter 10
1. Table 10.1 Subdivision of distressed embankment dams in terms of dam type
2. Table 10.2 Common patterns and causes of the distresses associated with embankment dams.
3. Table 10.3 Prior probability table for the root nodes involved in analysis of failures of embankment dams by overtopping.
4. Table 10.4 Conditional probability table for the relationships among nodes SCF, EM, and ES involved in analysis of failure of homogeneous/composite dams by overtopping
5. Table 10.5 Verbal descriptions of likelihood and corresponding probability values for dam failures in China (Li et al. 2006)
6. Table 10.6 Prior probability table for the root nodes involved in analysis of failures of embankment dams by seepage erosion/piping.
7. Table 10.7 Conditional probability table for the relationships among nodes EBI, ARS, and ASS involved in analysis of failure of homogeneous/composite dams by seepage erosion/piping.
8. Table 10.8 Calculated failure frequencies over the operation time and average annual failure probabilities (dam operation time = 50 years).
9. Table 10.9 Conditional probability table for the relationships between nodes EM and K₁, and nodes FD and K₃ involved in probabilistic analysis of seepage erosion/piping failure of Chenbihe dam
10. Table 10.10 Calculated failure frequencies over the design service life and average annual failure probabilities for seepage erosion/piping failure of the Chenbihe dam (Prior = prior values at the global level, Posterior‐i = posterior values at the local level before rehabilitation, Posterior‐ii = posterior values at the local level after rehabilitation)
11. Table 10.11 Conditional probability table for the relationships between nodes EM and K₁, nodes CMG and K₂, and K₄, and nodes FD and K₃ involved in probabilistic analysis of seepage erosion/piping failure of the rehabilitated chenbihe dam
Chapter 11
1. Table 11.1 Dam failure cases that caused more than 500 deaths in each case
2. Table 11.2 Comparison of Graham’s model (1999) and the HURAM model
3. Table 11.3 Nodes and states of the Bayesian network
4. Table 11.4 Recommended damage parameters for building structures (modified from RESCDAM, 2000)
5. Table 11.5 Definitions of building‐story inundation
6. Table 11.6 Flood severity matrix
7. Table 11.7 Prior probabilities of basic nodes
8. Table 11.8 Recorded flood fatality data in medium flood severity cases
9. Table 11.9 Prior probabilities for the medium and end nodes (the probabilities of the basic nodes are shown in Table 11.7)
10. Table 11.10 Hydraulic condition for building float and building damage (modified from Black, 1975; USACE, 1985)
Chapter 12
1. Table 12.1 Glossary of risk and its components (after ISSMGE, 2004)
2. Table 12.2 Elements at risk due to dam breaching (based on Frieser, 2004)
3. Table 12.3 Classification of Landslide Dams according to Hazard (after MWR, 2009)
4. Table 12.4 Classification of Landslide Dams according to Consequences (after MWR, 2009)
5. Table 12.5 Risk Classification of Landslide Dams (after MWR, 2009)
6. Table 12.6 ALARP Justifications (Modified from ANCOLD, 2003)
Chapter 13
1. Table 13.1 Prediction lead time indications (modified from Frieser, 2004)
2. Table 13.2 Predicted and measured water levels during the flood.
3. Table 13.3 Predicted water level and flooding probability with different lead time.
4. Table 13.4 Prior probability table of water depth based on statistical data
5. Table 13.5 Prior conditional probability table for evacuation using HURAM
6. Table 13.6 Prior conditional probability table for flood severity using HURAM
7. Table 13.7 Evacuation costs evaluated by DYDEM (PAR = 1000)
8. Table 13.8 Flood damage evaluated by DYDEM (PAR = 1000)
9. Table 13.9 Monetized loss of life evaluated by DYDEM (PAR = 1000)
10. Table 13.10 Total consequences (in RMB 10,000) and the optimal decision with a dam failure probability of 1.0
11. Table 13.11 Total consequences (in RMB 10,000) and the optimal decision with a dam failure probability of 0.1
12. Table 13.12 Total consequences (in RMB 10,000) and the optimal decision with a dam failure probability of 0.01
13. Table 13.13 Total consequences (in RMB 10,000) and the optimal decision with a dam failure probability of 0.001
14. Table 13.14 Identification of time series
15. Table 13.15 Comparison of decision‐making methods for dam break floods
Chapter 14
1. Table 14.1 Available information in the three stages of decision‐making for Tangjiashan landslide dam
2. Table 14.2 Recorded time series of inflow rate into the Tangjiashan landslide lake (data from Zhang, 2009a)
3. Table 14.3 Autocorrelation function and partial autocorrelation function for time series Q_t
4. Table 14.4 Autocorrelation function for A_t in time series Q_t
5. Table 14.5 The ψ weights for time series Q_t in stage 1
6. Table 14.6 The ψ weights for time series V_t in stage 1
7. Table 14.7 Dam break floods in Beichuan Town and Mianyang City in stage 1
8. Table 14.8 Dam break floods in Beichuan Town and Mianyang City in stage 2
9. Table 14.9 Dam break floods in Beichuan Town and Mianyang City in stage 3
10. Table 14.10 Optimal decision and flood consequences in Beichuan Town
11. Table 14.11 Optimal decision and flood consequences in Mianyang City

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01
1. Figure 1.1 A homogeneous dam with a conduit
2. Figure 1.2 A section of the 314 m high Shuangjiangkou rockfill dam
3. Figure 1.3 A section of the Pubugou rockfill dam with a vertical earth core
4. Figure 1.4 A section of the Xiaolangdi dam with an inclined earth core
5. Figure 1.5 A section of Shuibuya concrete‐faced rockfill dam
6. Figure 1.6 The Hongshiyan landslide dam formed on 3 August 2014 in Yunnan Province, China
7. Figure 1.7 An overflow section of the Three‐Gorges concrete gravity dam
8. Figure 1.8 The Jinping I arch dam and its left abutment foundation
9. Figure 1.9 Classification of dikes.
Chapter 02
1. Figure 2.1 Breaching process of a granular embankment dam by overtopping: (a) side view, (b) downstream view (breach initiation phase, steps 1–2; breach development phase, steps 3–7)
2. Figure 2.2 Breaching process of a cohesive embankment dam by overtopping: (a) side view, (b) downstream view (breach initiation phase, steps 1–4; breach development phase, steps 5–7)
3. Figure 2.3 Breaching process of a granular embankment dam by internal erosion: (a) side view, and (b) downstream view (breach initiation phase, steps 1–4; breach development phase, steps 5 and 6)
4. Figure 2.4 Breaching process of a cohesive embankment dam by internal erosion: (a) side view, and (b) downstream view (breach initiation phase, steps 1–3; breach development phase, steps 4 and 5)
5. Figure 2.5 Percentages of causes for embankment dam failures.
6. Figure 2.6 Percentages of quality problems for earth dam failures.
7. Figure 2.7 Sketches of four typical types of embankment dams
8. Figure 2.8 Potential locations at risk in a dam system.
Chapter 03
1. Figure 3.1 Locations of landslide dams (1267 cases)
2. Figure 3.2 Formation time of landslide dams (1267 cases)
3. Figure 3.3 Triggers of landslide dams (1086 cases)
4. Figure 3.4 Types of landslides (621 cases)
5. Figure 3.5 Heights of landslide dams (451 cases)
6. Figure 3.6 Lake volumes of landslide dams (228 cases)
7. Figure 3.7 Age of landslide dams at time of failure (275 cases)
8. Figure 3.8 Comparison of failure modes of the failed landslide dams (171 cases) and man‐made earth and rockfill dams (176 cases)
9. Figure 3.9 Locations of 37 landslide dams induced by the Wenchuan earthquake (Based on Google Maps). Note: the numbers of the landslide dam cases refer to Table 3.5
10. Figure 3.10 Enlarging the overflow spillways: (a) the Xiaogangjian‐downstream landslide dam with backhoes; (b) the Shibangou landslide dam with blasting
11. Figure 3.11 Landslide dams mitigated with constructed spillways before overflow: (a) the Xiaojiaqiao landslide dam; (b) the Ma’anshi landslide dam; (c) the Tangjiashan landslide dam; (d) the Laoyingyan landslide dam
12. Figure 3.12 The Tangjiashan landslide dam and two small landslide dams downstream: the Kuzhuba and Xinjian village landslide dams
13. Figure 3.13 Cross‐sections of the Tangjiashan landslide dam: (a) across the river; (b) along the river
Chapter 05
1. Figure 5.1 Statistics of the locations, heights and widths of the breached dikes.
2. Figure 5.2 Statistics of observed failure mechanisms.
3. Figure 5.3 Frequency of failure mechanisms of dikes, landslide dams and constructed dams.
4. Figure 5.4 Breaching length as a function of breaching mechanism.
5. Figure 5.5 Evaluation of the frequency of breaching mechanisms on time scale.
Chapter 06
1. Figure 6.1 Four types of initiation mechanisms of internal erosion
2. Figure 6.2 Coupling of three kinds of conditions (geometric, hydraulic and mechanical conditions) that trigger internal erosion
3. Figure 6.3 Illustration of initiation of internal erosion by four modes: backward erosion, concentrated leak erosion, soil contact erosion, and suffusion
4. Figure 6.4 Consequences of internal erosion initiated by suffusion: (a) downstream slope failure; (b) settlement of dam with loss of freeboard; and (c) sinkhole in upstream face
5. Figure 6.5 Illustration of transverse cracks in an embankment dam due to (a) steep abutment slope; (b) irregular abutment surface; and (c) compressible foundation material
6. Figure 6.6 (a) Low density zones subjected to hydraulic fracture and (b) formation of a void below the conduit due to high energy compaction
7. Figure 6.7 Schematic of hole erosion test (HET) apparatus (modified from Wan and Fell, 2004a)
8. Figure 6.8 Schematic of pinhole test apparatus (modified from Sherard et al., 1976a)
9. Figure 6.9 Schematic of observed processes
10. Figure 6.10 Elementary configurations of contact erosion depending on the orientation of the interface and of the seepage flow
11. Figure 6.11 Illustration of testing apparatus for contact erosion under horizontal flow
12. Figure 6.12 Local geometrical evolution in the two configurations of contact erosion: (a) fine soil below coarse soil; (b) coarse soil below fine soil (modified after Béguin, 2011)
13. Figure 6.13 Illustration of (a) the principal stress contour and the orientation of the major and minor principal stresses in different zones after reservoir filling in a cross‐section of an embankment dam with a corewall and (b) the tensile stress zones at the abutment of an embankment dam
14. Figure 6.14 Schematic of the testing apparatus and components
15. Figure 6.15 Grain size distribution of the test soil
16. Figure 6.16 Stress states in the internal erosion tests
17. Figure 6.17 Phases of internal erosion and associated critical hydraulic gradients
18. Figure 6.18 (a) Normalized cumulative eroded soil mass, (b) axial strain, and (c) radial strain of specimens GS‐I‐1, GS‐C‐6, and GS‐E‐6 during the internal erosion testing (the eroded soil mass is normalized by the total mass of the specimen)
19. Figure 6.19 Kezdi’s criterion for assessing internal stability of granular soils
20. Figure 6.20 Kenney and Lau’s criterion for assessing internal stability of granular soils
21. Figure 6.21 Composite geometric criteria for (a) well‐graded soils and (b) gap‐graded soils
22. Figure 6.22 Variations in initiation hydraulic gradient with porosity under different stress states
23. Figure 6.23 Variations in skeleton‐deformation hydraulic gradient with porosity under different stress states
24. Figure 6.24 (a) Illustration of the stresses at the top and bottom of a specimen under downward seepage and (b) evolution of the stress states of the specimen under triaxial compression and extension stress conditions with increase of hydraulic gradient in the p′‐q space
25. Figure 6.25 Illustration of the constriction size distributions of two typical filters
Chapter 07
1. Figure 7.1 Forces balance on a particle at the surface of a bed
2. Figure 7.2 Forces acting on sediment particles lying on steep slope
3. Figure 7.3 Geometry of a typical breach cross‐section
4. Figure 7.4 Schematic of suspended load transport
5. Figure 7.5 Schematic of the erosion function apparatus (EFA): (a) conceptual diagram and (b) testing section
6. Figure 7.6 Schematic of the jet index apparatus
7. Figure 7.7 Field testing procedure: (a) levelling the ground and pushing the base ring, (b) assembling the backwater tank and the inner cylindrical liner, (c) connecting the jet tube and the water tank, (d) connecting the water tank to the gasoline pump, (e) measuring the scour depth using a pin profiler, (f) final scour profile
8. Figure 7.8 Schematic of jet scour parameters
9. Figure 7.9 Classification of soil erodibility based on erosive shear stress and coefficient of erodibility
10. Figure 7.10 Classification of soil erodibility based on applied shear stress and erosion rate.
Chapter 08
1. Figure 8.1 Geometric parameters of an idealized dam breach.
2. Figure 8.2 Observed outflow discharge during failure of Teton Dam on 5 June 1976 (based on Singh 1996).
3. Figure 8.3 Statistics of (a) dam type, (b) dam height, (c) reservoir capacity, and (d) failure mode.
4. Figure 8.4 Summary of five breaching parameters and five control variables for constructed embankment dams.
5. Figure 8.5 Sketch of outflow hydrographs resulting from the failures of a higher dam and a lower dam with the same reservoir capacity.
6. Figure 8.6 Geometric parameters of a landslide dam: (a) cross‐section, (b) aerial view.
7. Figure 8.7 Summary of five breaching parameters and five control variables for landslide dams.
8. Figure 8.8 Comparison of three breaching models for peak outflow rates from failure of landslide dams.
9. Figure 8.9 Comparison of dam height–lake volume relationships for constructed earth and rockfill dams and landslide dams.
10. Figure 8.10 Comparison of peak outflow rates from failure of landslide dams and earth and rockfill dams: (a) influence of dam height, (b) influence of lake volume.
11. Figure 8.11 Comparison of breach depths of landslide dams and earth and rockfill dams: (a) influence of dam height, (b) influence of lake volume.
12. Figure 8.12 Comparison of breaching durations of landslide dams and earth and rockfill dams: (a) influence of dam height, (b) influence of lake volume.
13. Figure 8.13 Comparison of breach top widths of landslide dams and earth and rockfill dams: (a) influence of dam height, (b) influence of lake volume.
14. Figure 8.14 Components of a physically based dam breaching analysis model
15. Figure 8.15 Evolution of breach geometry in the BREACH model: α_k = π/2 – θ; θ = side slopes angle; B₀ = width of the breach; B_0m = final width of the breach bottom; H_d = elevation of the dam; H_c = elevation of the breach bottom (modified from Fread 1988)
16. Figure 8.16 Outflow hydrograph associated with the stages defined by Visser (1998) during a dam failure
17. Figure 8.17 Breach enlargement process: (a) stage I, (b) stage II, (c) stage III
18. Figure 8.18 Longitudinal breach growth: (a) steepening of the downstream slope, (b) longitudinal breach development
19. Figure 8.19 Sketch of headcut erosion of cohesive dam in Stages II and III.
20. Figure 8.20 Hydraulic flow regime and erosion zones for overtopping erosion (modified after Powledge et al. 1989)
21. Figure 8.21 Three types of breach cross‐sections: (a) rectangular, (b) trapezoidal, (c) triangular
22. Figure 8.22 Sketch of bank collapse process: (a) initial breach, (b) initial bank failure, (c) subsequent bank failure (based on Osman and Thorne 1988; Wang et al. 2008)
23. Figure 8.23 Breach hydrograph for the South Fork Dam (after Quiroga and Singh 1987)
24. Figure 8.24 (a) Tangjiashan landslide dam after breaching, (b) soil profile and variations in soil erodibility along depth of Tangjiashan landslide dam
25. Figure 8.25 Predicted and observed breach parameters for the Tangjiashan landslide dam: (a) outflow hydrographs, (b) breach geometry
26. Figure 8.26 Illustration of pore channels within typical filter element
27. Figure 8.27 Typical cross‐section of Teton Dam
28. Figure 8.28 Predicted outflow hydrograph during the failure process of the Teton Dam: (a) whole failure process; and (b) piping process
Chapter 09
1. Figure 9.1 Water surface profile for energy equation
2. Figure 9.2 Geometric profiles of the Tangjiashan landslide dam and the river downstream
3. Figure 9.3 A cross‐section of the river downstream of the dam
4. Figure 9.4 The cross‐section of the dam
5. Figure 9.5 The dam breach dimensions
6. Figure 9.6 The dam breaching progression curve
7. Figure 9.7 Setting boundary conditions
8. Figure 9.8 Lateral inflow rates upstream of Beichuan town
9. Figure 9.9 Downstream boundary
10. Figure 9.10 Inflow rates into the lake
11. Figure 9.11 Setting initial conditions
12. Figure 9.12 Flood simulation settings
13. Figure 9.13 The stage and flow hydrographs at the dam site
14. Figure 9.14 The stage and flow hydrographs in the Beichuan town
15. Figure 9.15 Details of the outputs at the dam site
16. Figure 9.16 Details of the outputs in the Beichuan town
17. Figure 9.17 Details of the outputs in selected cross‐sections
Chapter 10
1. Figure 10.1 Sequential failure diagram from FMEA
2. Figure 10.2 Event tree model
3. Figure 10.3 Fault tree diagram
4. Figure 10.4 Illustration of three typical simple Bayesian networks: (a) serial connection, (b) diverging connection, and (c) converging connection.
5. Figure 10.5 General Bayesian network
6. Figure 10.6 Summary of causal networks for probabilistic analysis of failures of (a) homogeneous/composite and clay‐core dams by overtopping, (b) homogeneous/composite dams by seepage erosion/piping, and (c) clay‐core dams by seepage erosion/piping (see full names of the variables in Table 10.6).
7. Figure 10.7 Calculations of annual probability of failure for (a) overtopping and (b) seepage erosion/piping of homogeneous/composite dams using program Hugin Lite.
8. Figure 10.8 Sketch of the cross‐section of Chenbihe Dam: (a) after construction in 1961 and (b) after rehabilitation in 1972 – (1) earthfill, (2) clay core, (3) drainage, and (4) concrete core.
9. Figure 10.9 Sketch of the five leakage areas on the downstream of Chenbihe Dam (A₁ = 2640 m², A₂ = 225 m², A₃ = 500 m², A₄ = 850 m², and A₅ = 100 m²).
10. Figure 10.10 Causal network for probabilistic analysis of seepage erosion/piping failure of Chenbihe Dam: (a) after construction in 1961, and (b) after rehabilitation in 1972.
11. Figure 10.11 Comparison of k₁ with a specified design requirement k_d1.
12. Figure 10.12 Prior and posterior distributions of (a) k₁ and (b) k₂.
13. Figure 10.13 Posterior‐I (or prior) and posterior‐II distributions of (a) k₁, (b) k₂, and (c) k₄.
Chapter 11
1. Figure 11.1 Human stability in water flow (modified from Lind et al. 2004)
2. Figure 11.2 Models of human body for moment and for friction instability.
3. Figure 11.3 Existing models for estimating loss of life (Modified from Jonkman, 2007)
4. Figure 11.4 A simple Bayesian network for vulnerability to dam‐breaking floods
5. Figure 11.5 Logic structure of the HURAM model.
6. Figure 11.6 The Bayesian network for estimating loss of life.
7. Figure 11.7 Sub‐networks for (a) evacuation, (b) sheltering in buildings, (c) flood severity, and (d) loss of life.
8. Figure 11.8 Locations of dam‐failure cases with records of fatality.
9. Figure 11.9 Number of fatalities in dam‐failure cases
10. Figure 11.10 Quantification of loss of life in low flood severity cases (data selected from Jonkman, 2007).
11. Figure 11.11 Quantification of loss of life in medium flood severity cases.
12. Figure 11.12 Comparison of recorded fatality rate and predicted fatality rate using the D&M model, Graham’s model and the HURAM model.
13. Figure 11.13 Lateral pressure distribution on a building
Chapter 12
1. Figure 12.1 The process of risk management (modified from Fell and Hartford, 1997)
2. Figure 12.2 Tolerability of risk framework (Modified from HSE, 2001)
3. Figure 12.3 Societal risk guidelines: (a) ANCOLD (after ANCOLD, 2003); (b) HKGEO (after Wong et al., 1997); (c) Provincial Waterstaat, Groningen, Netherlands (after Cornwell and Meyer, 1997); (d) Health and Safety Executive (HSE), UK (after Cornwell and Meyer, 1997)
Chapter 13
1. Figure 13.1 Emergency management of dam breaks in time scale
2. Figure 13.2 A decision tree
3. Figure 13.3 Decision tree for dam‐break emergency management.
4. Figure 13.4 Decision tree for multi‐phase decision‐making.
5. Figure 13.5 Influence diagram of the dam‐break emergency decision model
6. Figure 13.6 Emergency management of dam breaks in space scale
7. Figure 13.7 Probability of dam‐break flood as a continuous stochastic process of time
8. Figure 13.8 Probability of dam‐break flood as a discrete stochastic process of time
9. Figure 13.9 Flood consequences as functions of time for evacuating the PAR
10. Figure 13.10 Parameters of an assumed time series: (a) autocorrelation function, (b) partial autocorrelation function
Chapter 14
1. Figure 14.1 Locations of the dam, Beichuan Town and Mianyang City
2. Figure 14.2 The timeline and three stages of decision‐making
3. Figure 14.3 Predicted inflow rate in stage 1 based on the records before 15 May using the time series method
4. Figure 14.4 Predicted lake volume in stage 1 using the time series analysis method
5. Figure 14.5 Dam break probability as a discrete time series at an interval of one day in stage 1
6. Figure 14.6 Discrete probability of dam failure in three stages with a time interval of one hour
7. Figure 14.7 Outflow rates in the three scenarios of stage 1
8. Figure 14.8 Outflow rates in the five scenarios of stage 2
9. Figure 14.9 Outflow rates in the five scenarios of stage 3
10. Figure 14.10 Evaluation of flood consequences in Beichuan Town in the medium erodibility case in stage 1
11. Figure 14.11 Flood consequences in Beichuan Town: (a) stage 1, (b) stage 2, (c) stage 3
12. Figure 14.12 Flood consequences in Mianyang City: (a) stage 1, (b) stage 2. No flooding is predicted in stage 3
13. Figure 14.13 The probability of dam break flood in Beichuan as a discrete time series at an interval of one hour in stage 1 (with a breach formation time of three days)
14. Figure 14.14 Optimal decision‐making for Beichuan Town: (a) stage 1, (b) stage 2, (c) stage 3
15. Figure 14.15 Optimal decision‐making for Mianyang City: (a) stage 1, (b) stage 2 (No flooding is predicted in stage 3)