An update on data-fusion-based dam breach empirical equations based on a worldwide historical dam failure database: a comparative assessment.
Saved in:
| Title: | An update on data-fusion-based dam breach empirical equations based on a worldwide historical dam failure database: a comparative assessment. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Azmi, Monte1 (AUTHOR) monte.azmi@acciona.com |
| Source: | Natural Hazards. Jun2026, Vol. 122 Issue 12, p1-27. 27p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Dam failures, *Data fusion (Statistics), *Statistics, *Statistical models |
| Abstract: | This research concentrated on estimating breaching embankment dams with focus on i) the extraction of failure cases from the historical dam failure database, adoptable for dam breach parameters estimates, ii) an update on data-fusion-based (DFM) dam breach equations published by Azmi and Thomson (2024) using the adopted failure cases, and finally iii) a comprehensive comparative assessment of all models to estimate breach peak discharge, breach formation time, and average breach width. A multi-stage procedure was used to select the empirical equations that best fit the observed data across all three dam breach parameters. The ultimate selected predictors for updated DFM are: Breach Peak Outflow: F16 (Froehlich DC (2016a); Z20 (Zhong et al., Zhong et al, 2020); XZ9 (Xu and Zhang, Xu and Zhang, 2009); Final breach average width: F95 (Froehlich 1995); F8 (Froehlich, 2008); XZ9 (Xu and Zhang, 2009); Time of Failure: F95; F8 (Froehlich DC 1995, 2008); MCLM (MacDonald and Langridge‐Monopolis 1984). Statistical evaluations included t- and F-tests, probability distribution analyses (K-S test, Q-Q plots, boxplots, scatter plots), along with the performance criteria (coefficient of determination (R2), median of percentage error (MPE), root mean square errors (RMSE), coefficient of variation and Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)), were used for comparative assessments. The ultimate outperformed equations are: i) Breach peak outflow: Z20 (Zhong et al., 2020) (NSE = 0.85, R2 = 0.85) and updated DFM (NSE = 0.89, R2= 0.88), ii) Final breach average width: DFM 2024 (Azmi and Thomson, 2024) (NSE = 0.70, R2 = 0.70) and updated DFM (NSE = 0.77, R2 = 0.72), and iii) Time of Failure: F8 (Froehlich, 2008) (NSE = 0.02, R2 = 0.25) and updated DFM (NSE = 0.17, R2 = 0.24). It is critical to note that the proposed equations are applicable only to embankment and rockfill dams; therefore, they are not recommended for other dam types, such as concrete arch dams. It is also critical to note that embankment dams with extensive safety elements (e.g., wave walls, additional rock-mesh protections) significantly affect breaching mechanisms (i.e., longer breaching times and lower peak breaching discharges). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Database: | Energy & Power Source |
| Abstract: | This research concentrated on estimating breaching embankment dams with focus on i) the extraction of failure cases from the historical dam failure database, adoptable for dam breach parameters estimates, ii) an update on data-fusion-based (DFM) dam breach equations published by Azmi and Thomson (2024) using the adopted failure cases, and finally iii) a comprehensive comparative assessment of all models to estimate breach peak discharge, breach formation time, and average breach width. A multi-stage procedure was used to select the empirical equations that best fit the observed data across all three dam breach parameters. The ultimate selected predictors for updated DFM are: Breach Peak Outflow: F16 (Froehlich DC (2016a); Z20 (Zhong et al., Zhong et al, 2020); XZ9 (Xu and Zhang, Xu and Zhang, 2009); Final breach average width: F95 (Froehlich 1995); F8 (Froehlich, 2008); XZ9 (Xu and Zhang, 2009); Time of Failure: F95; F8 (Froehlich DC 1995, 2008); MCLM (MacDonald and Langridge‐Monopolis 1984). Statistical evaluations included t- and F-tests, probability distribution analyses (K-S test, Q-Q plots, boxplots, scatter plots), along with the performance criteria (coefficient of determination (R2), median of percentage error (MPE), root mean square errors (RMSE), coefficient of variation and Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)), were used for comparative assessments. The ultimate outperformed equations are: i) Breach peak outflow: Z20 (Zhong et al., 2020) (NSE = 0.85, R2 = 0.85) and updated DFM (NSE = 0.89, R2= 0.88), ii) Final breach average width: DFM 2024 (Azmi and Thomson, 2024) (NSE = 0.70, R2 = 0.70) and updated DFM (NSE = 0.77, R2 = 0.72), and iii) Time of Failure: F8 (Froehlich, 2008) (NSE = 0.02, R2 = 0.25) and updated DFM (NSE = 0.17, R2 = 0.24). It is critical to note that the proposed equations are applicable only to embankment and rockfill dams; therefore, they are not recommended for other dam types, such as concrete arch dams. It is also critical to note that embankment dams with extensive safety elements (e.g., wave walls, additional rock-mesh protections) significantly affect breaching mechanisms (i.e., longer breaching times and lower peak breaching discharges). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0921030X |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11069-026-08239-x |
