Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Figure 8:
Figure 9:
Dam breach parameters of tests 1, 2, and 3_
| Test | Peak discharge (l/s) | Timing of the peak discharge (s) | Duration of breach (s) | Duration of expansion of the breach (s) | Eroded material (m3) | Average erosion rate (m3/s) | Final width of the top of the breach (cm) | Average rate of breach expansion (cm/s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 114.65 | 102 | 171 | 129 | 0.571 | 0.004 | 121 | 0.9 |
| 2 | 122.67 | 86 | 162 | 157 | 0.520 | 0.003 | 114 | 0.7 |
| 3 | 182.17 | 64 | 122 | 117 | 0.586 | 0.005 | 127 | 1.1 |
Comparison of breach parameters using empirical formulas_
| Ashraf et al. (2018) | Soliman (2015) | Webby (1995) | Chinnarasri et al. (2004) | The present study | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test 1 | Test 2 | Test 3 | |||||
| Qp (l/s) | 16.51 | - | 138.93 | 38.42/471.07* | 114.65 | 122.67 | 182.17 |
| Bavg (m) | 1.30 | 2.41 | - | - | 1.20 | 1.10 | 1.23 |
| Hf (m) | 0.39 | 0.44 | - | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Tf (s) | 411 | 654 | - | 75/79* | 128 | 157 | 117 |