See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330185103

DAM BREAK ANALYSIS FOR UKAI DAM IN LOWER TAPI BASIN, INDIA

Conference Paper · January 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 2,462

2 authors:

Shubham Jibhakate P V Timbadiya

Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    45 PUBLICATIONS   140 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Morphological study of Tapi River View project

Student Work View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shubham Jibhakate on 07 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DAM BREAK ANALYSIS FOR UKAI DAM IN LOWER TAPI BASIN,
INDIA
Shubham M. Jibhakate1and P. V. Timbadiya2
1
PG Student, Centre of Excellence on ‘Water Resources and Flood Management’, Department of Civil
Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology Surat, India – 395007.
2
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology
Surat, India – 395007.
shubhamjibhakate1771@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Dam break analysis provides important input on infrastructure development in any area. Surat city
having population of about 50 lakhs is situated in the lower Tapi basin, further important industries such
as ONGC, Reliance, Kakrapar Atomic Power Station etc. are situated in the said basin. The effect of
Ukai dam break flow in lower Tapi basin along with Surat city has carried out in the present study. The
inflow hydrograph coming into said reservoir has been considered as upstream boundary while Arabian
Sea has taken downstream boundary condition. Total 190 cross sections are used to model 128 km long
Lower Tapi River in 1D hydrodynamic model (Mike 11). The developed model has been calibrated for
the flood of year 1998 and validated for 2003 and 2006. The dam break flood hydrograph having peak
discharge 257885.9 m3/s is obtained and stage discharge relationship at different location is derived.
The stage discharge curve shows the water level 36.3 m above mean sea level at Surat for aforesaid
peak flow. The derived stage discharge curve obtained from dam break analysis can be utilized to fix
platform of critical infrastructure in the basin.

Keywords- Lower Tapi basin, Flood, Hydrodynamic (HD) model, Dam break, Stage-Discharge
relation, MIKE 11

1. INTRODUCTION

Multipurpose dam resolves various water resources related issue in the area at the same time,
sudden failure leads to catastrophic event. Unsteady floods of extreme magnitude and in river
due to sudden failure of dam found in numerous part of the world. More than 40% of flood
occurred during from 1985 to 2009 are due to sudden change in climatic condition and many
dams considered safe in past are facing maximum flow higher than design high flood level,
such high flow can be cause of dam break in past. MacDonald and Langeridge- Monopolis
(1984) developed the graphical relationship to estimate the breach parameter. High resolution
mathematical model to predict the flood caused by the instantaneous 1D dam break flow was
developed (Liu et al. 2006). Yotchum et al. (2008) developed 1D HD model in HEC-RAS by
using breach geometry for Big Bay Dam failure in March 2004. To calculate the expected value
of breach parameter mathematical expressions were developed using past data (Froehlich,
2008). Goosby et. al (2008) performed the dam break flood inundation study to develop the
flood risk maps for the state of Hawaii’s department of Land and Natural (DLNR) using 1D,
2D hydrodynamic modelling. Case study of dam break in southern California is performed by
Gallegoes et al. (2009) by modelling in BreZo. Mohapatra (2009) developed rating curves for
dam break by performing the hypothetical simulation of dam break flood. Lodhi and Agrawal
(2011) analyze the dam break flood using DAMBRK model for different scenarios along with
combination of different breach parameter. A case study on Gleno dam break in 1923 was
performed with help of available past data and 1D hydrodynamic modelling (Pilotti et. al 2011).
First law on dam break in European country was establish in 1968 after the incident of failure
of Malpasset dam. In India, for submitting the application for Environmental clearance in
respect of river and valley project it is mandatory to give Risk assessment and Disaster
management plan. Dam break analysis is important tool in the hand of planner to locate critical

1
infrastructure in the basin and dam break analysis has been carried out for different dams in
India using 1D hydrodynamic modeling. Keeping in view the importance of Surat city and
critical infrastructure planning objective of estimation of dam break flow for downstream area
and corresponding water level, travel time of flood wave is fulfilled in the present study.

2. STUDY AREA

The Tapi River is the second largest west flowing river in India after the Narmada River. It
originates from Multai in Behtul district of Madhya Pradesh and covers total 724 km to meet
the Arabian Sea. The Tapi is having total 65145 km2 area distributed over three states as
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The whole Tapi Basin is divides into three sub-
basins as (i) Upper Tapi basin from origin to Hathnur, confluence of Purna with main Tapi
(29430 km2) (ii) Middle Tapi basin from Hathnur to Ukai dam and to sea (32097 km2) and (iii)
Lower Tapi basin from Ukai dam to sea (3618 km2). The study reach is 128 km long lower Tapi
River having two existing structure as Kakrapar weir ogee shaped spillway crest elevation
48.78 m and weir co-efficient 1.881 (Subramanya 1998), Singanpur weir broad crested weir
crest elevation of 6 m and 1.666 (Timbadiya et al. 2011) located 22.2 km and 103.03 km
downstream of Ukai dam. Ukai dam is multipurpose dam in Lower Tapi basin, having total
length of 4927 m with 425 m long spillway. The FRL and Top of the dam is 105.156 m and
111.25 m above mean sea level respectively with live storage of 74.14 Mm3. Reservoir provide
irrigation facilities through its left bank main canal and right bank canal through pick up weir,
also provide partial flood control to the downstream area. The whole Surat city is divided into
seven different zones where the ground elevations varies from -5 m to the 16 m above mean
sea level.

The River network is generated from contour map provided by Surat Municipal Corporation
(SMC) and cross section are also extracted from it. The configuration of hydraulic structure as
Kakrapar weir and Singanpur weir collected from Surat Irrigation Circle (SIC) and SMC
respectively. The hourly outflow and stage at Ukai dam and Kakrapar weir for the year 1998,
2009 and 2006 has been collected from SIC. The water levels at Mandavi Bridge collected
from State Water Data Center, Gandhinagar, Government of Gujarat. The data of Ghala gauging
station and Nehru Bridge (Surat city) provided by Central Water Commission (CWC). The
hourly Tidal levels observed by SIC for December 6, 2009 to January 5, 2010 for both spring
and neap Tide has also been collected.

3. METHODOLOGY

Model is developed for total stretch of 128 km from Ukai dam to Arabian Sea, including two
existing structures Kakrapar weir and Singanpur weir. Total 190 cross section has been used to
developed the 1D hydrodynamic model. For calibration of the model, the outflow from the
Ukai dam and Tidal level at the sea are used as upstream and downstream boundary conditions
respectively for flood simulation of event 1998, 2003 and 2006. The inflow in the Ukai
reservoir for 2006 is used in simulation of dam break flow as upstream boundary condition.
The detailed methodology adopted in present study shown in Fig. 1.

3.1 Dam-break simulation of model

The point where Dam-break structure is located is act as an upstream boundary condition where
inflow hydrograph (see Fig. 2) is specified. For defining the reservoir storage, the additional
flooded area is specified for respective reservoir water level derived from Capacity-Elevation
curve shown in Fig. 3.

2
 Development of 1D HD model in MIKE 11

Network Cross-Section Hydrodynamic Boundary

Calibration of model for manning’s ‘n’

without dam-break Structure for the flood
of year 1998, 2003, 2006

Define the dam break structure in model on separate

reservoir branch and estimation the breach parameter

Simulation of model to obtain

dam-break flow hydrograph

Obtain the stage discharge curve due to dam break flow

in the lower Tapi River

Fig. 1 Methodology for development of 1D HD model for Dam-Break in MIKE 11

35000

30000

25000
Discharge (m3/s)

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (Hr)
Fig. 2 Hourly inflow hydrograph in Ukai dam during 2006 flood from 6-08-2006 00:00:00 to
20-08-2006 00:00:00

3
 120

110

100

90
Elevation (m)

80

70

60

50

40
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Capacity (MCM)
Fig. 3 Capacity Elevation curve for Ukai dam (extrapolated up to 111.25 m)

As per the International Commission on Large Dams (1974) one-third of embankment-dam

fails due to insufficient spillway capacity, which result as overtopping of embankment. For
Ukai dam the failure moment is specified as the reservoir attain water level 111.25 m as top of
the dam with overtopping due to inadequate capacity of the reservoir to hold the inflow. The
earthen embankment of the dam gets eroded and develop the breach due overtopping flow of
water. The breach parameters such as average width, side slope, formation time has been
estimated using Froehlich (2008) and tabulated in Table 1. The top and bottom widths of breach
is calculated by Btop =Bavg ± Hb Z, for Ukai dam it is 740 m and 603 m respectively.

Table 1 Breach Parameters based on Froehlich (2008)

Breach Parameter Formulae Calculated Value for Ukai Dam

Average Width 𝐵𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.27𝐾0 𝑉𝑤0.32 𝐻𝑏0.04 672 m

1.0= Overtopping, 0.7 for

Side slope 1.0
other

Formation time 𝑡𝑓 = 63.2√𝑉𝑤 ⁄𝑔𝐻𝑏2 8 Hour

Note- Vw = Volume of water in the reservoir at the time of failure (volume of reservoir) m3, Hb = breach height (m) k0 = failure
mode coefficient 1.3 for overtopping failure and 1.0 for other failure

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Calibration and Validation

To obtain the channel roughness, the best comparison between the observed and simulated data
is performed by calculating root mean square error (RMSE). The range of channel roughness
co-efficient used in calibration for given type of channel as given in (Chow et al. 1959). The
flood event of year 1998 has been used for calibration, simulation period used for 1998 with
highest flow of 19,815 m3/sec for duration of September 15, 1998 12.00 noon to September 18,
1998 12.00 noon for total period of 73 hours. RMSE at different gauging stations where
calculated and found that, manning’s ‘n’ = 0.03 shows the close agreement for the observed
simulated stage (Table 2). The model is validated for flood of year 2003 during August 29,

4
2003 00:00 to September 1, 2003 00:00 (73 Hr) and flood of year 2006 during August 6, 2006
06:00 to August 11, 2006 06:00 (115 Hr). ‘n’= 0.03 is used as roughness value in present study.
Visual comparison for simulated and observed discharge at Kakrapar weir and water level at
Mandavi Bridge, Ghala and Nehru Bridge shown in Fig. 4. For considering the critical situation
in dam break, the reservoir is already at FRL when the inflow is coming into reservoir. For this
study it is assumed improper timing of gate opening at the time of inflow and the dam get fails
due to overtopping as water level attains the 111.25 m. The reservoir takes 155 hr to fill from
FRL to top of the dam as large area undergo submergence with increase in water level of
reservoir. The maximum discharge of 257885.9 m3/s which is 7.6 times the inflow with velocity
of 18.93 m/s takes place from the breach.

Table 2 Calibration of manning’s n for the channel

RMSE (m)
Manning’s
Year Nehru Weighted
‘n’ Kakrapar Mandvi Ghala
bridge RMSE
0.02 1.0951 1.446 2.4066 1.9413 1.7222
0.025 1.1095 0.9327 1.7511 1.1685 1.2404
1998
0.03 1.1278 1.0695 1.5587 0.8471 1.1507
0.035 1.15 1.5938 1.8662 1.1243 1.4335
2003 0.03 0.2162 2.0203 0.2203 1.4961 0.9882
2006 0.03 1.2404 0.8296 1.9397 0.7914 1.2002

Observed Simulated Observed Simulated

(a) (a)
58 58
57 57
Discharge (m)

Discharge (m)

56 56
55 55
54 54
53 53
52 52
51 51
50 50
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Time (Hr) Time (Hr)

Observed Simulated Observed Simulated

27 (c) 14 (d)
12
Water Level (m)
Water Level (m)

22 10
8
17
6
12 4
2
7 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Timr (Hr) Time (Hr)

Fig. 4 Visual comparison of hourly Discharge at (a) Kakrapar weir and water level (b)
Mandavi (c) Ghala village (d) Nehru Bridge, using 1D hydrodynamic model

5
Dam break flood hydrograph for discharge occurring through the breach is shown in Fig. 5.
The water level at the various stations along the channel downstream of dam shown in Fig. 6.
The rating curve were developed and presented in Fig. 7 along the channel at various stations
is useful for development the flood inundation map as well as the design of levee along the side
of river as flood protection work.

250000

200000
Discharge (m3/s)

150000

100000

50000

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (Hr)
Fig 5. Dam break flood Hydrograph downstream of dam

110
110
(a) 100 (b)
100
Water level (m)

90
90
Water level (m)

80
80
70 70

60 60

50 50
40 40
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time (Hr) Time (Hr)

60 40

50 (c) (d)
Water level (m)

30
Water level (m)

40
20
30

20 10

10 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
Time (Hr) Time (Hr)
Fig. 6 Water level along the channel after the dam break (a) Downstream of dam (b) at
Kakrapar weir (c) Ghala stations and (d) in Surat city

6
 110 110
(a) (b)
100 100
Water level (m)

Water level (m)

90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
0 100000 200000 300000 0 100000 200000 300000
Discharge (m3/s) Discharge (m3/s)

60 40
(c) (d)
50 30

Water level (m)

Water level (m)

40
20
30
10
20

10 0
0 100000 200000 300000 0 100000 200000 300000
Discharge (m3/s) Discharge (m3/s)
Fig. 7 Rating curves along the channel after the dam break at (a) Downstream of dam (b)
Kakrapar weir (c) Ghala stations and (d) Surat city

5. CONCLUSIONS
The dam break analysis for Ukai dam in lower Tapi basin has been performed using inflow of
flood year 2006 into the reservoir in MIKE 11 (HD). Based on aforesaid analyses of river the
following conclusions can be made.
a) Hydrodynamic model of lower Tapi River in MIKE 11 has been calibrated for 1998,
2003 and 2006 floods, ‘n’= 0.03 is found to be most suitable value and utilize for future
simulation.
b) The peak discharge obtained from dam break flood hydrograph is 257885.9 m3/s, which
is 7.6 times more than flood of 2006 outflow from the Ukai dam.
c) The hydraulic parameters computed through simulation (Fig. 6) and rating curves
computed along the river (Fig. 7) will be helpful in designing flood protection measure
and development of flood inundation map for downstream area of dam.

REFERENCES

Chow, V. T. (1959). Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York

DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute) (2013a) User guide and reference manual to MIKE 11: modeling System
for the rivers and channels. Software manual, DHI, Denmark.
Froehlich, D. C. (2008). Embankment dam breach parameters and their uncertainties. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 134(12), 1708-1721.
Gallegos, H. A., Schubert, J. E., and Sanders, B. F. (2009). Two-dimensional, high resolution modeling
of urban dam-break flooding: A case study of Baldwin Hills, California. Advances in Water Resources,
Vol. 32, pp. 1323-1335.

7
 Goosby, S., Chatman, A., Michaud, J., and Kerper, D. (2008). Dam Break Inundation Study for the State
of Hawaii. Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008.
Liu, Y., Guo, Y., and Fan, W. B. (2006). “Computation of One-Dimensional Dam-Break Flow Using
ENO Scheme”. Computational Methods in Engineering and Science (pp. 175-175). Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg.
Lodhi, M. S., and Agrawal, D. K. (2012). “Dam-break flood simulation under various likely scenarios
and mapping using GIS: Case of a proposed dam on River Yamuna, India”. Journal of Mountain
Science, 9(2), 214-220.
MacDonald, T. C., and Langridge-Monopolis, J. (1984). Breaching characteristics of dam
failures. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 110(5), 567-586.
Mohapatra, P. K. (2009). Rating curves for dam-break flows. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 15(1),
57-60.
Pilotti, M., Maranzoni, A., Tomirotti, M., and Valerio, G. (2010). 1923 Gleno Dam break: Case study and
numerical modeling. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 137(4), 480-492.
Timbadiya, P. V., Patel, P. L., and Porey, P. D. (2011). Calibration of HEC-RAS model on prediction of
flood for lower Tapi River, India. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 3(11), 805.
Yochum, S. E., Goertz, L. A., and Jones, P. H. (2008). Case study of the big bay dam failure: accuracy
and comparison of breach predictions. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 134(9), 1285-1293.

View publication stats