![Dambrk Dambrk](http://slideplayer.com/3935986/13/images/29/Current+Status+Team+met+at+last+year%E2%80%99s+USSD+meeting+in+Portland.jpg)
The next step is the analysis of the problem using the BOSS DAMBRK software. This portion of the study makes. DAMBRK simulates the failure of the dam together with the movement of the. By 1990, drafters, architects, and engineers alike were doing most of their technical drawing with computers. Programs like AutoCAD, DAMBRK, and HEC-2 were running on personal computers all over the country while many new modelling software components continued to arrive on the market.
- ASCE, (2000). Guidelines for instrumentation and measurements for monitoring dam performance. American Society of Civil Engineers, USA, 712.Google Scholar
- Balloffet, A. E.; Cole, E.; Balloffet, A. F., (1974). Dam collapse wave in a river. J. Hydraul. Div., 100(5), 645–655 (11 pages).Google Scholar
- BOSS International, (1999). BOSS DAMBRK hydrodynamics flooding routing user’s manual. Madison, Wiscosin, USA.Google Scholar
- Chow, V. T., (1964). Handbook of applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, U.S.A., 38–40.Google Scholar
- Dressler, R. F., (1954). Comparison of theories and experiments for the hydraulic dam-break wave. Int. Assoc. Sci. Pubs., 3(38), 319–328 (20 pages).Google Scholar
- Ecosol Consultancy, (2001). Environmental impact assessment for the proposed gerugu dam. Sarikei Division, Sarawak, Malaysia.Google Scholar
- Enzel, Y.; Ely, L. L.; Martinez-Goytre, J.; Vivian, R. G., (1994). Paleofloods and dam-failure flood on the virgin river, Utah and Arizona. J. Hydrology, 153(1–4), 291–315 (25 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- FEMA, (1989). Dam safety: Know the potential hazards. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Booklet L152, USA.Google Scholar
- Fread, D. L., (1977). The development and testing of a dam-break flood forecasting model. Proceedings of dam-break flood modeling workshop, US Water Resources Council, Washington D. C., 164–197.Google Scholar
- Fread, D. L., (1984). The NWS dam-break flood forecasting model. Office of hydrology, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
- Fread, D. L., (1989). The NWS DAMBRK Model: Theoretical background/user documentation. Hydrologic Research Laboratory, National Weather Services, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
- Froehlich, D. C., (1995). Peak outflow from breached Embankment dam. J. Water Res., Pl., 121(1), 90–97 (8 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gundlach, D. L.; Thomas, W. A., (1977). Guidelines for calculating and routing a dam-break flood. Research note No. 5, US Army Corps of Engineers, the Hydrologic Engineering Center, USA.Google Scholar
- Harris, G. W.; Wagner, D. A., (1967). Outflow from breached Dams. University of Utah, Logan, Utah, USA.Google Scholar
- Hoggan, D. H., (1989). Computer-assisted floodplain hydrology and hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, USA.Google Scholar
- Jansen, R. B., (1980). Dams and public safety. Water resources technical publications. Denver. CO Water and Power Resources Service, US Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
- Jansen, R. B., (1988). Advanced dam engineering for design construction and rehabilitation. Van nostrand reinhold, New York, 8–16.Google Scholar
- Johnson, F. A.; Illes, P., (1976). A classification of dam failures. Water power and dam construction. USA., 43–45.Google Scholar
- King, H. W.; Brater, E. F., (1963). Handbook of hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 23–51.Google Scholar
- Liong, S. Y.; Tan, C. C.; Alwis, W. A. M.; Selvalingam, S., (1991). Computer-aided dam break flow routing. Adv. Eng. Softw. Workst., 13(3), 110–115 (6 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rico, M.; Benito, G.; Diez-Herrero, A., (2008a). Flood from tailing dam failures. J. Hazard. Mater., 154(1–3), 79–87 (9 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rico, M.; Benito, G.; Salgueiro, A. R.; Diez-Herrero, A., (2008b). Reported tailing dam failures: A review of the european incidents in the worldwide context. J. Hazard. Mater., 152(2), 846–852 (7 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Singh, K. P.; Snorrason, A., (1984). Sensitivity of outflow peaks and flood stages to the selection of dam breach parameters and simulation models. J. Hydrology, 68(1–4), 295–310 (6 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Singh, V. P.; Scarlators, P. D., (1988). Analysis of gradual earth-dam failure. J. Hydrology Eng., 114(1), 21–42 (22 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Singh, V. P., (1996). Dam breach modeling technology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 150–219, 176–186.Google Scholar
- Tingsanchali, T.; Chinnarasri, C., (2001). Numerical model of dam failure due to flow overtopping. Hydrolog. Sci. J., 46(1), 113–130 (18 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Turahim, A. H.; Mohd, N. A., (2002). Analysis of dam break for disaster preparedness. 2nd. world engineering congress, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 7–9.Google Scholar
- USDI, (1988). Downstream hazard classification guidelines. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of reclamation, USA.Google Scholar
- Wang, Z.; Bowles, D. S., (2006). Dam breach simulations with multiple breach locations under wind and wave actions. Adv. Water Resour., 29(8), 1222–1237 (16 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wurbs, R. A., (1987). Dam-breach flood wave models. J. Hydrologic. Eng., 113(1), 29–46 (6 pages).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Mathematical simulations on dam break or failure using Boss Dambrk hydrodynamic flood routing dam break model were carried out to determine the extent of flooding downstream, flood travel times, flood water velocities, and impacts on downstream affected residences, properties and environmental sensitive areas due to floodwaters released by failure of the dam structure. Computer simulations for one of the worse-case scenarios on dam failure using BOSS DAMBRK software accounted for dam failure, storage effects, floodplains, over bank flow and flood wave attenuation. The simulated results reviewed a maximum flow velocity of 2.40 m/s with a discharge (Q) of approximately 242 m/s occurred at 1.00 km downstream. The maximum discharge increased from 244 m3/s (flow velocity = 1.74 m/s occurred at 8th km) to 263 m3/s (flow velocity = 1.37 m/s occurred at 12th km); about a 39 % drop in flow velocity over a distance of 4.00 km downstream. If the entire dam gives way instantly, some spots stretching from 0.00 km (at dam site) to approximately 3.40 km downstream of the dam may be categorized as “danger zone”, while downstream hazard and economic loss beyond 3.40 km downstream can be classified as “low ” or “minimal ” zones.