Review of Experimental Investigations of Dam-Break Flows over Fixed Bottom

Abstract

Laboratory experiments of dam-break flows are extensively used in investigations of geophysical flows involving flood waves, to provide insight into relevant aspects of the physics of the process and collect experimental data for validating numerical models. A dam-break flow is a typical example of a highly unsteady free surface flow with high reproducibility. Indeed, dam-break experiments can be repeated several times under the same test conditions obtaining large amounts of different types of data (possibly using various measuring techniques) that can be combined in a single rich dataset. Moreover, laboratory tests on dam-break flows are widely considered a valuable benchmark for the validation of numerical models, since field data from historical events are scarce, sparse, and highly uncertain. However, no systematic review of laboratory investigations of dam-break flows and existing related datasets are available in the literature to provide a comprehensive overview of the test conditions considered, the measuring techniques used, and the experimental data collected. This review article aims to fill this gap, focusing on laboratory tests in schematic and idealized setups with a fixed, non-erodible bed. In particular, this review aims to help researchers and modelers to: (a) select the most appropriate laboratory tests for validating their numerical models; (b) facilitate access to databases by indicating relevant bibliographic references; (c) identify specific challenging aspects worthy of further experimental research; and (d) support the development of new or improved technologies for the mitigation of the impact of dam-break flood waves. The references reviewed are organized into tables according to the purposes of the laboratory investigation, and comprehensive information is provided on test conditions, datasets, and data accessibility. Finally, suggestions for future experimental research on dam-break flows are provided.

Advances in Dam-Break Modeling for Flood Hazard Mitigation: Theory, Numerical Models, and Applications in Hydraulic Engineering

“…An extensive review of the state-of-the-art experimental investigations into dam-break flows was performed by Aureli et al (2023) [Contribution No. 4], limited to schematic test cases with fixed, non-erodible bottoms.…”

“…The comprehensive review of experimental studies on dam-break flow reported by Aureli et al (2023) [Contribution No. 4] shows that in the past, an impressive number of experimental investigations were performed on this topic in a variety of test conditions, and many extensive and accurate datasets are available for the validation of dam-break numerical models.…”

Dam-break due to overtopping failure: experiments in homogeneous earthfill dams

“…Pereira (2017) also stated that hydraulic dam projects must be supported by studies/tests in a physical model, to carry out spillway capacity and flow energy dissipation tests (downstream erosive processes). In fact, physical models or reduced-scale models integrate the study of the flow with complex hydraulic structures (Motta, 1972;Marques & Unas, 2010;Aureli et al, 2021Aureli et al, , 2023Trautwein et al, 2022) mainly through cause-consequence scenarios of simulation. Several parameters are the main focus on the present state of art, including soil composition (Correia et al, 2018;Alzamily & Abed, 2022;Trautwein et al, 2022) and the understanding of the phenomenon of failure due to overtopping (inflow hydrograph).…”

Modelling the impact of a dam‐break wave on a vertical wall

“…Therefore, the comparison of numerical results with measured data is crucial to assess the performance of the mathematical models. Both Chanson (2009) and Aureli et al (2023) have highlighted that apart from few exceptions (e.g. Aureli et al, 2015), detailed experimental data to fully assess the predictive capabilities of such models are not widely available, although such data are of utmost importance for numerical models validation (Aureli et al, 2015;Fang et al, 2022;Lara et al, 2012;Robertson et al, 2013;Stamataki et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2022;Wüthrich et al, 2018;Wúthrich et al2019).…”