# Investigate Impact Force of Dam-Break Flow against Structures by Both 2D and 3D Numerical Simulations

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

_{0}) were considered as variables that affect the maximum value of the impact force.

## 2. Methodology

#### 2.1. 2D Shallow Water Equations

**U**indicates the vector of conserved variables;

**F**and

**G**are flux vectors and

**S**is a source term accounting for the bed slope term

**S**

_{1}and friction term

**S**; x, y are orthogonal space coordinates on a horizontal plane; t is time; h and z

_{2}_{b}represent water depth and bottom elevation; u, v are velocity components in the x and y directions; S

_{0x}, S

_{0y}, S

_{fx}, S

_{fy}are bed slopes and friction slopes along the same directions; n is the Manning roughness coefficient; g is gravity acceleration.

**A**(

**U**) and

**B**(

**U**) are Jacobian matrices corresponding to the fluxes

**F**(

**U**) and

**G**(

**U**), respectively. The expressions of two matrices are expressed as

**S**

_{2}.

#### 2.2. 3D Navier Stokes Equations

**f**accounts for the body force per unit of mass; ν is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid; p is pressure; t is time; ρ is fluid density;

**v**is the vector variable of the 3 velocity components u, v, w.

## 3. Result and Discussion

#### 3.1. Dam-Break Wave on an Obstruction

#### 3.2. Force Due to Dam-Break Wave on a Group of Structures

_{0}) was 0.2 m, and downstream was dry. Ten square pillars (0.06 m wide and 0.2 m high) were placed in the flood plain. The coordinates of the 6 columns which were studied are shown in Figure 3.

_{e}= 10

^{−4}m was utilized to indicate whether the cell was wet or dry. The Manning coefficient n was equal to 0.007.

- a
- Mesh sensitivity analysis

^{®}Core ™ i5-7300HQ CPU @ 2.5GHz and an installer memory (RAM) of 8 GB, the resulting file size and computational time correspondence of 4 meshes were 87 GB, 27 GB, 12 GB, 4 GB and 9 h 17 min 28 s, 2 h 53 min 44 s, 2 h 34 min 56 s and 2 h 8 min 31 s, respectively. The cost-effective PC showed that the finest mesh generated the largest result file while the grid size of 0.015 m gave a much smaller one. Afterwards, the influence of the mesh resolutions on the accuracy of the models in predicting the flow depth (h) and velocity components (u and v) at the two study points a and b were evaluated employing the normalized root mean square error (NRMSE).

_{i,exp}, X

_{i,sim}, X

_{exp,max}and X

_{exp}

_{,min}represented the empirical, numerical, maximum and minimum values of the X variables:

- b
- Forces acting on groups of building

^{3}).

_{i}is the depth and F

_{ri}= u

_{i}/(gh

_{i})

^{0.5}is the Froude number of the incident wave (Figure 7).

_{dynamic,front}and F

_{static,back}.

#### 3.3. Effect of Dam-Break Width and Initial Water Level on Static Force and Dynamic Force Against Structures

_{0}) on the peak intensity of impact load generated by a discontinuous flow against the buildings using Flow 3D with the LES turbulence model. Table 2 shows different scenarios.

^{3}/s/m) at the damsite was estimated by the following expression:

^{2}b/h

_{0}and force per unit width (F) at columns A and E were quite good (0.979 and 0.967 for static force and 0.925 and 0.853 for dynamic force, respectively). When q

^{2}b/h

_{0}was small, the effect of velocity-induced force was minor, so the dynamic force was close with static force. The difference between the two types of force was increased significantly when q

^{2}b/h

_{0}increased. Thus, dynamic force instead of static force should be estimated for design purposes in a floodplain. Column A was directly in the path of the dam-break wave propagation; hence, both its static and dynamic impact loads were the largest. Meanwhile, the location of column E was further from the path and so had smaller impact force results. On the other hand, a poor R-square value was seen at column D, which was in the second array, so the Froude number in the vicinity of this column was reduced dramatically. So, dynamic force was approximately equal to static force, and both of them were much smaller than those at columns A and E.

## 4. Conclusions

- (1)
- To formulate water depth or velocity profiles, both 2D and 3D numerical solutions are quite similar. The proposed 2D numerical model is suitable for predicting hydraulic characteristics involving water depth and a velocity component as well as the maximum value of the static force. However, the 3D hydrodynamic model with the LES and RANs turbulent modules can well capture two peaks of impact load while the 2D shallow flow model presents only one. In general, the 3D result is closer to the experimental one.
- (2)
- Both the static and dynamic forces against several buildings were computed by Flow 3D with the LES module. The role of velocity-induced force and pressure force on a building varies with location. Near the damsite, the velocity-induced force is more prevalent while away from main direction of dam-break wave or in the second array the pressure force is the more important. The impact of velocity-induced force is quantified by parameter α, which is carried out as a function of the Froude number and water depth of the incident wave. The linear regression relation between q
^{2}b/h_{0}and the peak intensity of the static force and dynamic force is worked out with reasonable R-square quantities.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Testa, G.; Zuccala, D.; Alcrudo, F.; Mulet, J.; Frazao, S.S. Flash flood flow experiment in a simplifed urban district. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2007**, 45, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Soares-Frazao, S.; Zech, Y. Dam-break flow through an idealized city. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2008**, 46, 648–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Experimental study of dam-break flow against an isolated obstacle. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2007**, 45, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Soares-Frazão, S. Experiments of dam-break wave over a triangular bottom sill. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2007**, 45, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - di Cristo, C.; Evangelista, S.; Greco, M.; Iervolino, M.; Leopardi, A.; Vacca, A. Dam-break waves over an erodible embankment: Experiments and simulations. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2018**, 56, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Evangelista, S. Experiments and numerical simulations of dike erosion due to a wave impact. Water
**2015**, 7, 5831–5848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Li, Y.L.; Yu, C.H. Research on dam break flow induced front wave impacting a vertical wall based on the CLSVOF and level set methods. Ocean Eng.
**2019**, 178, 442–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Özgen, I.; Zhao, J.; Liang, D.; Hinkelmann, R. Urban flood modeling using shallow water equations with depth-dependent anisotropic porosity. J. Hydrol.
**2016**, 541, 1165–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Mignot, E.; Li, X.; Dewals, B. Experimental modelling of urban flooding: A review. J. Hydrol.
**2019**, 568, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Aureli, F.; Dazzi, A.; Maranzoni, A.; Mignosa, P.; Vacondio, R. Experimental and numerical evaluation of the force due to the impact of a dam break wave on a structure. Adv. Water Resour.
**2015**, 76, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Milanesi, L.; Pilotti, M.; Belleri, A.; Marini, A.; Fuchs, S. Vulnerability to flash floods: A simplified structural model for masonry buldings. Water Resour. Res.
**2018**, 54, 7177–7197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shige-eda, M.; Akiyama, J. Numerical and experimental study on two dimensional flood flows with and without structures. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2003**, 129, 817–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cagatay, H.O.; Kocaman, S. Dam break flows during initial stage using SWE and RANs approaches. J. Hydraul. Res.
**2010**, 48, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, S.; Yang, W.; Qin, S.; Li, Q.; Yang, B. Numerical study on characteristics of dam break wave. Ocean Eng.
**2018**, 159, 358–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Robb., D.M.; Vasquez., J.A. Numerical simulation of dam break flows using depth averaged hydrodynamic and three dimensional CFD models. In Proceedings of the 22nd Canadian Hydrotechnical Conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 28–30 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kocaman, S.; Evangelista, S.; Viccione, G.; Guzel, H. Experimental and Numerical analysis of 3D dam break waves in an enclosed domain with a single oriented obstacles. Environ. Sci. Proc.
**2020**, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Issakhov, A.; Zhandaulet, Y.; Nogaeva, A. Numerical simulation of dambreak flow for various forms of the obstacle by VOF method. Int. J. Multiph. Flow
**2018**, 109, 191–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mokarani, C.; Abadie, S. Conditions for peak pressure stability in VOF simulations of dam break flow impact. J. Fluids Struct.
**2016**, 62, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, L.; Sun, J.; Lin, B.; Lu, L. Building performance in dam break flow—an experimental sudy. Urban Water J.
**2018**, 15, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Armanini, A.; Larcher, M.; Odorizzi, M. Dynamic impact of a debris flow front against a vertical wall. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on debris-flow hazards mitigation: Mechanics, prediction and assessment, Padua, Italy, 14–17 June 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubbard, M.E.; Garcia Navarro, P. Flux difference splitting and the balancing of source terms and flux gradients. J. Comput. Phys.
**2000**, 165, 89–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Roe, P.L. A basis for upwind differencing of the two-dimensional unsteady Euler equations. In Numerical Methods in Fluids Dynamics II; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Bradford, S.F.; Sander, B. Finite volume model for shallow water flooding of arbitrary topography. J. Hydraul. Eng. (ASCE)
**2002**, 128, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brufau, P.; Garica-Navarro, P. Two dimensional dam break flow simulation. Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids
**2000**, 33, 35–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hien, L.T.T. 2D Numerical Modeling of Dam-Break Flows with Application to Case Studies in Vietnam. Ph.D. Thesis, Brescia University, Brescia, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Hien, L.T.T.; Tomirotti, M. Numerical modeling of dam break flows over complex topography. Case studies in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 19th IAHR-APD Congress 2014, Hanoi, Vietnam, 21–24 September 2014; ISBN 978-604-82-1383-1. [Google Scholar]
- Flow-3D, Version 12.0; User Mannual; Flow Science Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2020.
- Guney, M.S.; Tayfur, G.; Bombar, G.; Elci, S. Distorted physical model to study sudden partial dam break flow in an urban area. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2014**, 140, 05014006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version] - Shige-eda, M.; Akiyama, J. Discussion and Closure to “Numerical and experimental study on two dimensional flood flows with and without structures” by Mirei Shige-eda and Juichiro Akiyama. J. Hydraul. Eng.
**2005**, 131, 336–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ritter, A. Die Fortpflanzung der Wasserwelle (Generation of the water wave). Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing.
**1892**, 36, 947–954. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**(

**a**) Configuration of experiment test (dimension in meters); (

**b**) Gauges on the vertical front face of building.

**Figure 2.**(

**a**) Distributed pressure profiles at centerline of front face of column; (

**b**) Comparison of load-time histories simulated by different numerical models.

**Figure 8.**Snapshots of streamlines of Froude number at different times: 1.0 s, 2.0 s, 5.0 s and 10 s.

Gauges | X | Grid Sizes and Models | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

3D Model | 2D Model | |||||

0.01 m | 0.015 m | 0.02 m | 0.03 m | 0.01 m | ||

a | h | 0.445 | 0.449 | 0.449 | 0.457 | 0.441 |

u | 0.155 | 0.201 | 0.224 | 0.251 | 0.317 | |

v | 0.277 | 0.277 | 0.294 | 0.407 | 0.454 | |

b | h | 0.264 | 0.345 | 0.438 | 0.619 | 0.697 |

u | 0.126 | 0.183 | 0.133 | 0.234 | 0.221 | |

v | 0.311 | 0.248 | 0.213 | 0.443 | 0.242 |

**Table 2.**Case studies with different value of initial water level in reservoir and the damsite width.

Case | Initial Water Level (h_{0}) (m) | Damsite Width (b) (m) |
---|---|---|

1 | 0.2 | 0.25 |

2 | 0.2 | 0.50 |

3 | 0.4 | 0.50 |

4 | 0.2 | 0.75 |

5 | 0.6 | 0.50 |

6 | 0.4 | 0.75 |

7 | 0.6 | 0.75 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Hien, L.T.T.; Van Chien, N.
Investigate Impact Force of Dam-Break Flow against Structures by Both 2D and 3D Numerical Simulations. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 344.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030344

**AMA Style**

Hien LTT, Van Chien N.
Investigate Impact Force of Dam-Break Flow against Structures by Both 2D and 3D Numerical Simulations. *Water*. 2021; 13(3):344.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030344

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Hien, Le Thi Thu, and Nguyen Van Chien.
2021. "Investigate Impact Force of Dam-Break Flow against Structures by Both 2D and 3D Numerical Simulations" *Water* 13, no. 3: 344.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13030344