Failure Consequence Classification

Audience: Dam Safety Officers (DSO)

Owners of small dams
Community emergency preparedness coordinators

Introduction

This document provides an overview of failure consequence classification for dams in

British Columbia. It outlines a rough method for assessing consequence and some key
concepts that require consideration in assessing consequence.

If the method provides a clearly defined consequence classification then a consequence

classification can be assigned. If the results are uncertain, use of the higher possible
consequence classification is appropriate or a more detailed assessment method should be
used. For larger structures or complicated downstream channel conditions more detailed
procedures may be required.

These guidelines are only intended for consequence of failure classification. They are not
adequate for the preparation of inundation mapping for Emergency Preparedness
Planning (EPP), or for the assessment of hazards and risk analysis.

Consequence Classification Guide

The BC Dam Safety Regulation - Schedule 1 “Dam Failure Consequence Classification”

outlines a classification guide for dams in British Columbia. The consequence
classification (extreme, very high, high, significant or low) identifies the potential for
damage and loss in the unlikely event of a dam failure. The consequence classification is
not a reflection on how safe the dam is; thus age and condition of the dam are not
reflected in the Consequence classification.

The consequence classification is used to determine the design requirements for a

particular dam, with dams of higher failure consequence having higher design standards.
Suggested design requirements for dams falling under the various consequence
classifications are identified in the “Dam Safety Guidelines” published by the Canadian
Dam Association.

Dam Breach Flood Determination

The flood hydrograph resulting from a dam breach is dependent on many factors. The
primary factors are the physical characteristics of the dam, the volume of the reservoir,
and the mode of failure. The dam characteristics such as dam geometry, construction
materials, and mode of failure; determine the dimensions and timing of breach formation.
Breach formation, volume of reservoir storage, and reservoir inflow at the time of failure
determine the peak discharge and the shape of the flood hydrograph.

Prepared: 2001
Minor Updates: November 2013
The following sections provide a method for estimating dam breach parameters and peak
flow discharges for earthfill dams. The focus is on earthfill dams because the majority of
small dams in BC are earthfill. When estimating concrete gravity dam breach parameters,
a complete failure of a discrete number of monoliths is considered. For concrete arch
dams a complete dam failure is considered. Breach times for concrete gravity dams
generally fall between 0.1 and 0.5 hours and for concrete arch dams they generally fall
between instantaneous and 0.1 hours.

Estimation of Dam Breach Parameters

Work by MacDonald and Landridge-Monopolis (MacDonald, 1984) were successful in

relating breaching characteristics of earthfill dams to measurable characteristics of the
dam and reservoir. Specifically, a relationship exists between the volume of material
eroded in the breach and the Breach Formation Factor (BFF):

BFF = Vw (H)

where:
Vw = Volume of water stored in the reservoir (acre-ft) at the water surface
elevation under consideration
H = Height of water (feet) over the base elevation of the breach

Interpretation of data (MacDonald, 1984) suggests that the estimates of material eroded
from earthfill dams may be taken to be:

Vm = 3.75 (BFF)0.77 for Cohesionless Embankment Materials; and

Vm = 2.50 (BFF)0.77 for Erosion Resistant Embankment Materials

where:
Vm = Volume of material in breach (yds3) which is eroded

Using the geometry of the dam and assuming a trapezoidal breach with sideslopes of
(Zb:1) the base width of the breach can be computed (MacDonald, 1984) as a function of
the eroded volume of material as:

Wb = [27Vm – H2 (CZb + HZbZ3/3)] / [H (C + HZ3/2)]

where:
Wb = Width of breach (feet) at base elevation of breach
C = Crest Width of dam (feet)
Z3 = Z1 + Z2
Z1 = Slope (Z1:1) of upstream face of dam
Z2 = Slope (Z2:1) of downstream face of dam

If the calculated breach width is negative then the reservoir volume is not large enough to
fully breach the dam and a partial breach will result. In this case the head of water (H)

Page 2
needs to be adjusted to estimate the breach depth and peak discharge. Maximum breach
widths have historically been limited to breach widths less than 3 times dam height
(Fread, 1981). In addition site geometry often limits breach width.

The time of breach development (τ) in hours, has been related to the volume of eroded
material (MacDonald, 1984). Interpretation of data suggests that the time for breach
development can be estimated by:

τ = 0.028 Vm0.36 for Cohesionless Embankment Materials; and

τ = 0.042 Vm0.36 for Erosion Resistant Embankment Materials

There is a large uncertainty in the eyewitness accounts for many of these failures; thus
these equations may tend to overestimate breach times. In addition, these equations
appear to produce unrealistically short breach development times in the case of small
dams. A lower limit for the breach development time of perhaps 10 minutes for dams
constructed of cohesionless materials and 15 minutes for dams constructed of erosion
resistant materials seems reasonable.

Due to the uncertainties in breach development parameters, a range of values should be

used to assess the computed dam break flood peak discharges. There is a range of
alternative procedures for estimating dam break parameters. An example is the computer
program BREACH, developed by Fread (1987) which is used for larger complex dams.

Estimation of Dam Breach Peak Discharge

A number of computer programs, such as DAMBRK (Fread, 1988), have been developed
for estimating dam break peak discharge. This computer model, and others, utilises
unsteady flow conditions in combination with user selected breach parameters to
compute the breach flood hydrograph.

Fread (1981) gives an alternative method suitable for many planning purposes. He
developed an empirical equation based on numerous simulations with the DAMBRK
model. Estimation of the peak discharge from a dam breach is computed as:

Qp = 3.1 W H1.5 [ A / (A + τ H0.5]3

where:
Qp = Dam breach discharge (cfs)
W = Average breach width (feet) W = Wb + ZbH
H = Initial height of water (feet) over the base elevation of the breach
τ = Elapsed time for breach development (hours)
A = 23.4 Sa / W
Sa = Surface area of reservoir (acres) at level corresponding to depth H

Page 3
The following Tables 1 & 2 contain estimates of dam breach peak flows for overtopping
induced failures of earthfill dams based on Fread’s equation. The values used in
developing these estimates are presented after the Tables.

Table 1 – Earthfill Dam Peak Discharge Estimates (metric units)

Dam Breach Discharge Estimates
for Earthfill Dams Constructed of Cohesionless Materials

Dam Breach Peak Discharge (m3/s)

Reservoir Surface Area (hectares)
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 40
1.2 6.9 12*
2 14 23 31 39 Breach Width > 5xDam Height
Dam Height (meters)

3 23 38 50 61 72
4 52 69 84 98 160
5 67 88 106 123 200 267 329
6 106 128 149 239 318 391
7 149 173 277 367 450
8 170 196 313 414 507 832
9 219 347 459 561 918
11 411 542 661 1077
13 Partial Breach 467 616 752 1221
15 682 832 1351
* This discharge value results from a breach width of 5.2 times the dam height

Dam Breach Discharge Estimates

for Earthfill Dams Constructed of Erosion Resistant Materials

Dam Breach Peak Discharge (m3/s)

Reservoir Surface Area (hectares)
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 40
1.2 4.5 7.8 11
2 8.8 15 21 26 31 Breach Width > 5xDam Height
Dam Height (meters)

3 15 25 34 41 49 81
4 22 35 46 57 67 110 148 183
5 45 59 72 84 138 185 228
6 56 72 88 102 165 221 272 452
7 85 103 119 192 256 315 521
8 98 118 136 218 290 356 587
9 132 153 244 323 396 651
11 184 292 385 471 771
13 Partial Breach 336 443 541 881
15 376 496 605 983

Page 4
Table 2 – Earthfill Dam Peak Discharge Estimates (imperial units)
Dam Breach Discharge Estimates
for Earthfill Dams Constructed of Cohesionless Materials

Dam Breach Peak Discharge (cfs)

Reservoir Surface Area (acres)
2 4 7 10 15 20 35 50 100
4 212 362
6 362 612 942 Breach Width > 5xDam Height
8 532 888 1335 1723
Dam Height (feet)

10 722 1176 1722 2212 2956 3641

15 1883 2702 3433 4540 5557 8295
20 3669 4628 6072 7395 10946 14124
25 5767 7530 9138 13440 17279 28413
30 8892 10771 15773 20223 33099
35 12276 17939 22959 37442
40 19932 25487 41464
45 Partial Breach 21746 27808 45182
50 23374 29919 48608

Dam Breach Discharge Estimates

for Earthfill Dams Constructed of Erosion Resistant Materials

Dam Breach Peak Discharge (cfs)

Reservoir Surface Area (acres)
2 4 7 10 15 20 35 50 100
4 139 239 372
6 235 401 621 821 1129 Breach Width > 5xDam Height
8 342 578 889 1166 1571 1944
Dam Height (feet)

10 461 770 1162 1499 2012 2484 3759

15 1262 1829 2336 3105 3814 5722 7435
20 2499 3168 4178 5106 7602 9839 16348
25 3159 3981 5219 6353 9396 12119 20029
30 4764 6220 7549 11105 14280 23489
35 7169 8685 12726 16325 26745
40 8058 9755 14258 18257 29811
45 Partial Breach 10750 15697 20076 32696
50 17040 21781 35409

Page 5
The tables were computed based on:

Failure by overtopping thus H, Sa, and Vw are for reservoir at crest of dam
(they are not values for maximum reservoir level)
Storage volume was calculated as (H Sa / 3)
Upstream face of 3H: 1V
Downstream face of 2H: 1V
Crest width C = 2 + 2 H0.5 (in feet)
Breach sideslopes (Zb: 1) are 1.0 for cohesionless embankment material,
and 0.5 for erosion resistant embankment material
Minimum breach development times of 10 minutes for cohesionless
embankment material, and 15 minutes for erosion resistant
embankment material was used.

Values were not entered into the Tables for cases in which the calculated breach did not
develop to the full depth of the dam. In addition, values were not entered into the Tables
when breach widths were calculated to be greater than 5 times the dam height.

It should be noted that actual peak discharges could vary greatly from the calculated peak
discharges. Differences in site conditions, dam materials, and reservoir inflow could
greatly influence the results. For example a dam increasing storage on an existing lake
could result is greater peak breach flows due to a greater reservoir volume than modelled.

Selection of Reservoir Conditions for Breach Analysis

The selected reservoir storage is an important consideration in dam breach analysis.

Normally a couple of reservoir conditions, normal pool and maximum storage elevation
during floods are considered. For smaller unattended structures usually only the case of
dam failure during overtopping needs to be considered. Overtopping could result from a
debris blockage, or a beaver dam constructed, in overflow spillway channel.
In evaluating the overtopping dam breach it needs to be remembered that the reservoir
storage and head on the dam are greater than for normal pool levels.

Downstream Routing of Dam Breach Flood

As the dam breach flood wave travels downstream there is a reduction in the peak flow.
This effect is governed by factors such as:
the channel bedslope,
the cross-sectional area and geometry of the channel and overbank areas,
the roughness of the main channel and overbank,
the existage of storage for floodwaters in off-channel areas, and
the shape of the flood hydrograph.
Small attenuation is associated with:
large reservoir volume,
small confining channel,
steep channel slopes, and
little frictional resistance in channel and overbank areas.

Page 6
Large attenuation is associated with:
small reservoir volume,
broad floodplain and/or off-channel storage areas,
mild channel slopes, and
large frictional resistance in channel and overbank areas.
There are a number of methods for modelling the attenuation of peak flow as the breach
flood wave travels downstream. For consequence classification a simplified procedure
based on generalised flood attenuation curves developed by the USBR (1982) is often
adequate. The curves presented in Figure 1 should be used conservatively as they utilize
generalised solutions to approximate the reduction of flood peak discharge with
distance downstream of the dam. For example the attenuation would be much smaller
for a dam breach flow travelling down a steep narrow valley.

Figure 1 – Generalised Flood Attenuation Curves 1

Note: This figure is in imperial units

The curves in Figure 1 are arranged in terms of reservoir storage. They show flood
attenuation in terms of peak dam breach discharge (Qp) at the dam site and peak
discharge (Qx) at some distance downstream.

Page 7
Downstream Inundation

For many planning purposes a reasonable approximation of the inundation at a given

location can be made using peak dam breach discharge from the Figure 1 or 2, the
attenuation curves in Figure 3, and site specific channel cross-section data and
representative flow velocities from Table 3.

Table 3 - Representative Velocities for use in Estimating Inundation

from Dam Break Floods
Note: This figure is in imperial units

TYPE 1 TYPE 2 TYPE 3

MAIN CHANNEL - GRAVEL MAIN CHANNEL - GRAVEL, MAIN CHANNEL GRAVEL
OVERBANKS - GRASS, COBBLES COBBLES, BOULDERS
PASTURE OVERBANKS - IRREGULAR, OVERBANKS WOODED
BRUSH,
SCATTERED SHRUBS
BEDSLOPE VELOCITY BEDSLOPE VELOCITY BEDSLOPE VELOCITY
(ft/mi) (ft/sec) (ft/mi) (ft/sec) (ft/ml) (ft/sec)
5 2.4 5 1.7 5 1.4
10 3.4 10 2.4 10 1.9
15 4.1 15 3.0 15 2.4
20 4.8 20 3.5 20 2.7
30 5.8 30 4.2 30 3.3
40 6.7 40 4.9 40 3.8
60 8.2 60 6.0 60 4.7
80 9.5 80 6.9 80 5.4
100 10.6 100 7.7 100 6.1
200 12.0 200 10.9 200 8.6
300 12.0 300 12.0 300 10.5
400 12.0 400 12.0 400 12.0
or greater or greater or greater

The cross sectional channel area required to pass the flood would be:

A = Qx / V
where:
A = Cross-sectional area of channel and overbank (feet)
Qx = Peak flood discharge (cfs)
V = Representative average velocity (feet/sec) at the cross-section
The resulting inundation mapping should represent a conservative estimate of the
consequences of a dam failure.

1
This table should not be used for all creeks. Each downstream creek bed should be analysed individually.

Page 8
Downstream Hazard Classification

Once the dam breach flood inundation path has been determined, the resulting
consequence of failure classification can be determined. For BC, the classification system
is outlined in Schedule 1 “Dam Failure Consequences Classification” of the British
Columbia Dam Safety Regulation. The consequence rating is determined for each of
three categories; loss of life, economic and social loss, and environmental and cultural
losses; and the highest of the three is the consequence rating for the dam.

In estimating loss of life in a dam breach one needs to consider:

Time of day of failure
Number of homes in inundation area
Flood depth and velocity
Number of people living in each structure -
3 people per home (USBR, 1988)
Highways
Recreation facilities
Warning time
Sources of uncertainty
For further information on this topic see the “Downstream Hazard Classification
Guidelines” produced by the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR, 1988).

Other Considerations

There are many other factors that can influence the consequence of failure classification.
They include:
Debris build-up and sediment transport which can increase floodwave size and its
destructive power,
Channel avulsions especially on alluvial fans,
Multiple dams on a river system, and
Current and potential future downstream development,
Warning systems can be effective in reducing loss of life in the event of a dam failure.
Thus they are effective risk management tools, however they do not change the
consequence of failure classification.

Acknowledgement

This document in part follows the Washington State Department of Ecology publication
“Dam Safety Guidelines, Technical Note 1: Dam Breach Inundation Analysis and
Downstream Hazard Classification” (Schaefer, 1992). The Washington State Dam Safety
Office site at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/dams/dss.html has a good site that
includes excel spreadsheets for calculating peak dam break flood flows.

Page 9
References

Fread, D.L., 1981, Some Limitations of Dam-Breach Flood Routing Models, ASCE Fall
Convention, St. Louis, MO, October 26-30, 1981.

Fread, D.L., 1987, BREACH: An Erosion Model for Earthen Dam Failures, Hydrologic
Research Laboratory, NOAA, NWS, June 1987.

Fread, D.L., 1988, DAMBRK: The NWS-Dam Break Flood Forecasting Model, Office of
Hydrology, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD.

MacDonald, T.C., and J. Langridge-Monopolis, 1984, Breaching Characteristics of Dam

Failures, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 110, No, 5, May 1984.

Schaefer, M.G., 1992, Dam Safety Guidelines, Technical Note 1: Dam Breach Inundation
Analysis and Downstream Hazard Classification, Washington State Department of
Ecology Publication No. 92-55E, July 1992.

United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1982, Guidelines for Defining Inundation Areas
Downstream from Bureau of Reclamation Dams, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

United States Bureau of Reclamation, 1988, Downstream Hazard Classification

Guidelines, ACER Technical Memorandum No. 11, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.

Page 10