Next Article in Journal
Fixation Effect of Modified Bamboo Charcoal on Typical Heavy Metals in Sediment
Next Article in Special Issue
Probabilistic Analysis of Floods from Tailings Dam Failures: A Method to Analyze the Impact of Rheological Parameters on the HEC-RAS Bingham and Herschel-Bulkley Models
Previous Article in Journal
Fate and Spatial–Temporal Variation of 23 Elements at 7 Wastewater Treatment Plants in Southeast City of China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Dam Breach Parameter Statistical Definition on Resulting Rupture Maximum Discharge
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

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

by
Francesca Aureli
1,
Andrea Maranzoni
1,*,
Gabriella Petaccia
2 and
Sandra Soares-Frazão
3
1
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, 43124 Parma, Italy
2
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
3
Institute of Mechanics, Materials and Civil Engineering, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(6), 1229; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061229
Submission received: 19 February 2023 / Revised: 12 March 2023 / Accepted: 14 March 2023 / Published: 21 March 2023

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.

1. Introduction

The technique of suddenly removing a gate placed between a reservoir storing a mass of water initially at rest and a downstream area is extensively used to generate unsteady free surface flows in experimental investigations of a variety of geophysical phenomena involving flood waves, such as dam-break floods and tsunamis. Despite active research (both theoretical and numerical) in this field in the last decades, physical modelling remains a widely used approach to provide insight into the features of the flow and collect valuable data for validating numerical models.
A dam-break flow is a typical (albeit extreme) example of an unsteady and rapidly varying flow. It is characterized by rapid and abrupt flow depth and velocity changes and by the presence of wetting and drying fronts. Hence, a dam-break flow is usually considered a stringent and probative validation test for numerical models. Indeed, it can be assumed that a numerical model able to cope with dam-break flows will also be able to simulate accurately less severe, slower floods.
Physical modelling in laboratory conditions on schematic, idealized geometries allows “for assessment within a controlled environment, enabling the isolation of individual processes and close study of their effect on the modelled system. The complexities of modelled systems are reduced to what is practical and feasible to model in a physical scale environment” [1]. Dam-break flow experiments are then relatively ‘easy’ to perform on the laboratory scale, since a small quiescent water volume must be released without the need to set up complex recirculation systems and regulation devices. In addition, dam-break flows are highly reproducible in controlled laboratory conditions, which allows experimental runs to be repeated several times under the same test conditions to collect a large amount of data of different types and merge them to form a complete database. This ease of implementation has fostered the investigation of various scenarios and situations characterized by different geometries and the presence of singularities and obstacles of various shapes. Therefore, even though laboratory setups do not reproduce, in general, the complexity of real situations in which various singularities and complex flow features simultaneously occur, conducting multiple idealized experiments focusing on specific singular features allows for an in-depth investigation of possible realistic flow conditions.
The physical quantities relevant to describe the process can be acquired with high accuracy in the laboratory via advanced and sophisticated measuring techniques. In particular, the advances in measuring techniques in the last two decades, especially the non-intrusive ones, have considerably enlarged the types of data that can be collected, and have improved their accuracy (e.g., [2,3,4]). Conversely, recovering reliable and accurate validation data from historical documents on real dam-breaks is unlikely because such catastrophic events are, fortunately, rare and seldom well documented [5]. Moreover, laboratory dam-break tests on scale physical models with real topography (which sometimes combine the real topography with an idealized situation [6]), are sporadic [5,7,8] although recent examples can be found in the literature [9].
Due to the advantages previously mentioned, a large number of laboratory tests on dam-break flows were performed in the past, and high-quality datasets are now available to the scientific community. However, a systematic review of laboratory investigations of dam-break flows, which provides a comprehensive overview of the test conditions, measuring techniques and available datasets, is missing in the literature. Only fragmentary or partial information is reported in some documents (e.g., [10,11,12]). Therefore, this review attempts to fill this gap, focusing on experiments conducted in schematic, idealized laboratory setups with a fixed, non-erodible bottom. It covers a period from the beginning of the 1900s (when the noteworthy early experiments on dam-break waves were performed) until the end of 2022. In particular, this review aims at helping researchers and dam-break modelers: (a) to select the most appropriate laboratory test cases for validating their numerical models; (b) to facilitate access to datasets and reference material through the indication of relevant bibliographic references; (c) to identify specific aspects regarding dam-break flows worthy of further insight and future research; and (d) to support the development of improved technologies to mitigate the impact of dam-break flood waves.
This review is limited to investigations with flood waves or bores generated by a typical dam-break mechanism, characterized by the total removal of a gate, and releasing the liquid mass stored behind. Investigations using different wave generation mechanisms (based on piston- or pumping-type wave makers, vertical release systems, and underflow gates) have not been considered. Furthermore, experiments on dam-break flows over an erodible bed with sediment transport, gravity currents, granular flows, and debris flows are not considered here in order not to overextend the scope of the review. Each of these topics would deserve a specific review (e.g., [3]) due to the relevance of the related applications and the amount of experimental research carried out.

2. State of the Art Experimental Investigations of Dam-Break Flows

Typical setups for dam-break flow studies are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1a shows an experimental facility for the simulation of a total dam-break, consisting of a rectangular flume equipped with a sluice gate, which can be suddenly removed to release a mass of quiescent water behind it. In the beautiful historical photo taken during Dressler’s experiments in the 1950s [13], the wall of water released by the gate removal can be appreciated. The side walls of the flume are typically transparent to allow direct observation of the phenomenon and the use of image processing techniques. Figure 1b shows a typical laboratory setup for the study of partial dam-break phenomena. It consists of a tank in which a portion acting as a reservoir is separated from a floodable area through a partition wall, in which a sluice gate is located. In the case shown in the picture, the bottom of the tank (made of opalescent material) is backlit in order to apply a colorimetric technique based on light absorption to measure the free surface [14].
References retrieved in the literature review are classified according to the objectives of the experimental investigation and organized into different tables.
Table 1 reports basic investigations of the physical characteristics of dam-break flows in straight (typically rectangular) channels or spreading on a plane. Such investigations mainly aim to explore the fundamental aspects and features of dam-break wave generation and propagation. Most reported cases concern smooth horizontal channels, but some studies also consider sloping channels or rough beds. Figure 1 shows typical laboratory setups for the study of total and partial dam-break flows.
Table 2 includes laboratory investigations of dam-break waves through geometric singularities (channel constrictions, bottom sills, curves or bends, etc.) to examine the effect of geometric elements and transition structures on the flow.
Table 3 lists experimental investigations of the dam-break wave impact against isolated obstacles, such as walls or vertical columns of various shapes. The disturbance induced on the flow by the presence of the obstacle is mainly analyzed in such experiments. Sometimes, the wave impact dynamics and the hydrodynamic load on the structure are also investigated.
Table 4 shows laboratory investigations of dam-break floods in idealized urban areas aiming to offer insights and an advanced understanding of urban flooding resulting from a dam-break event. In this field, the problem can be considered an extension of that presented in Table 3, since multiple obstacles are placed in the floodable area to reproduce a structured urban layout where more complex flow processes occur.
Table 5 reports experimental investigations concerning the propagation of tsunami bores (generated by a gate removal) in the swash zone. Such studies typically analyze the run-up over an adverse slope or the effect of coastal protective structures. Although a tsunami bore cannot strictly be considered a dam-break wave, these two wave types have many affinities, so tsunami bores are sometimes generated in the laboratory through the sudden removal of a gate. This review includes only investigations which use this technique to simulate a tsunami bore.
Table 6 lists experimental investigations of green water events in ships or offshore structures. In naval and maritime engineering, a ‘green water’ event is related to the presence of water on the deck of a ship or platform due to high waves exceeding the freeboard. Only the studies in which the wave overtopping onto the deck is produced by the sudden removal of a gate are considered in this review.
Table 7 includes experimental investigations and databases of dam-break waves of non-Newtonian liquids. Such phenomena are commonly observed in nature as well as in many industrial processes.
Table 8 shows laboratory investigations of dam-breaks in cascade reservoirs formed by multiple dams placed in sequence along a channel. In this case, a dam-break flood hazard assessment should consider that the collapse of the upstream dam could cause a flood wave involving the downstream dams, potentially inducing their overtopping or failure in a domino effect. Cascade reservoirs ensure flood hazard mitigation depending on their filling level and mutual distance.
Table 9 reports experimental investigations of dike-break-induced flows on a lateral floodplain. The break of a lateral structure produces significantly different effects compared to the collapse of a frontal one. Indeed, the flooding resulting from a dike-break is asymmetric, characterized by a long-term evolution, and is strongly influenced by the flow conditions in the main channel.
Finally, Table 10 contains details of experimental studies on the catastrophic failure of storage tanks with consequent potential overtopping of secondary containment systems (such as dikes or bunds). Such an application is of considerable interest in the industry when cylindrical tanks are used to store hazardous liquids whose sudden release could cause catastrophic effects.
Studies investigating multiple topics of those previously mentioned and potentially falling into many categories appear in all relevant tables for clarity.
Each table consists of 11 columns, which contain the information described below.
Column 1 provides the references in which the experimental investigations are presented and described.
Column 2 indicates the test conditions and the main characteristics of the dam-break flows investigated. In particular, this column specifies whether the dam-break is total or partial and whether the downstream channel is initially dry or wet. Moreover, it reports the types and dimensions of the singularities or obstacles interacting with the dam-break wave.
Column 3 describes the geometric configurations of the laboratory facilities and provides their main dimensions and roughness conditions.
Column 4 indicates the initial conditions of the experimental tests, namely the water depth behind the dam and the downstream water depth in wet bed conditions.
Column 5 reports the breach width, which can be different from the channel width in the event of a partial dam-break.
Columns 6 and 7 indicate the laboratory and the year in which the experiments were performed, respectively.
Column 8 gives the physical quantities measured, and Column 9 lists the measurement techniques and devices used.
Column 10 indicates whether experimental databases are freely available and downloadable in digital format.
Finally, Column 11 informs whether the experimental data were used to validate the dam-break numerical models in the original reference. In particular, this column specifies the types of numerical models used (among the many existing dam-break and flooding models reported, e.g., in [15,16,17,18]) and the value of the roughness coefficient set in the numerical simulations, if available. The knowledge of the roughness values proposed in the related references facilitates modelers, who can thus avoid laborious calibrations of this model parameter. In drafting Column 11, we have neglected the use of the data to develop and validate theoretical approaches or analytical solutions. Moreover, we have not investigated the subsequent use that other modelers may have made of the various databases in subsequent numerical studies.
Table 1. Basic experimental investigations of fundamental dam-break wave physical characteristics.
Table 1. Basic experimental investigations of fundamental dam-break wave physical characteristics.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Schoklitsch [19]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
Exp. (a) L = 26 m, W = 0.6 m
Exp. (b) L = 150 m, W = 1.3 m
Lr > 8 m, S = 0; smooth
(a) hu < 0.25 m
(b) hu < 1 m
(a)
0.6 m
(b)
1.3 m
Technischen Hochschule,
Graz, Austria
1917Wave profiles; depth at the dam section as a function of huMetal plates covered with washable colored stripes quickly dipped and lifted
Trifonov [20,21]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 0.4 m
Lr = N.A., S = 0.004; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4 m0.4 mResearch Institute of Hydraulic
Engineering,
Leningrad, Russia
1933Wave profilesN.A.
Eguiazaroff [22]Total
(partial opening
of the gate with
different velocities)
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = N.A.
Lr = N.A., S = 0;
smooth and rough
hu = 0.3 mN.A.Hydro-electric Laboratory,
Leningrad, Russia
1935Negative wave:
free surface profiles
at selected times;
flow depth time
series at six locations
Positive wave:
wave front celerity; free surface profiles
at selected times
Electric chronograph; floating flow level
recorder
(γ = 0.056 m1/2,
γ = 0.4 m1/2)
Levin [7]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular, triangular, and trapezoidal channels
L = N.A., W = N.A.
Lr = N.A., S = 0;
smooth and rough
hd/hu = 0–0.75N.A.Belgrade
Polytechnic, Serbia
1952Flow depth at the dam site and at some representative sections of the wave profileN.A.1D
SWE
(graphical
method)
(n = 0.007 s m−1/3,
n = 0.026 s m−1/3)
Martin and Moyce [23]Collapse of a
liquid column;
dry bottom
Tank
L > 3 Lr, W = 0.057 m,
Lr = 0.057 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.114, 0.057 m0.057 mN.A.1952Wave front position; stage hydrographsVideo camera
(300 fps)
Dressler [13]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 65 m, W = 0.225 m
Lr = N.A., S = 0; rough
(3 roughness values)
hu = 0.22, 0.11,
0.055 m
0.225 mUS Bureau
Standard, USA
1954Front positions,
water depth profiles
Video cameras
(1800 fps)
WES [24]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 121.92 m, W = 1.22 m
Lr = 60.96 m, S = 0.005; smooth
hu = 0.3048 m0.07–1.22 mVicksburg,
Mississippi, USA
1960Stage and discharge hydrographsVideo cameras
(16 mm movies,
8–12 fps)
(n = 0.009 s ft−1/3)
WES [25]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 121.92 m, W = 1.22 m
Lr = 60.96 m, S = 0.005; rough
hu = 0.09, 0.18,
0.30 m
0.18–1.22 mVicksburg,
Mississippi, USA
1961Stage and discharge hydrographsVideo cameras
(16 mm movies,
8–12 fps)
(0.04 < n < 0.12 s ft−1/3)
Faure and Nahas [26]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 40.6 m, W = 0.25 m
Lr = 20.3 m, S = 1.2·10−4; rough
hu = 0.23 m0.25 mLaboratoire
National
d’Hydraulique de Chatou, France
1961Water depth
time series;
front propagation
Video cameras1D
SWE
MOC
(n = 0.016 s m−1/3, n = 0.036 s m−1/3)
Estrade [27]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = N.A., W = 0.25, 0.5 m
Lr = N.A., S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2–0.3 m0.25,
0.5 m
N.A.1967Wave profiles
at different times
N.A.
Nakagawa et al. [28]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 0.5 m
Lr = 5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15–0.4 m
hd = 0–0.35 m
0.5 mKyoto University, Japan1969Wave profiles;
flow depth hydrographs at three positions; flow velocity at two locations; wave celerity;
bore height
Video cameras
(8–64 fps);
pressure gauges
Chervet and Dallèves [29]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 35 m, W = 0.3 m
Lr = 5, 7.5, 15 m, S = −1, 4, 10%; rough
hu = 0.3 m0.3 mLaboratory of
Hydraulics,
Hydrology and Glaciology, Zurich, Switzerland
1970Water depth and discharge hydrographs;
front position
and velocity
Video cameras1D
SWE
MOC
(n = 0.0077–0.0167 s m−1/3)
Cunge [30],
Cavaillé [31]
Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 40 m, W = 0.25 m
Lr = 20 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.23 m
hd = 0, 0.005,
0.01, 0.04 m
0.25 mNational
Laboratory
of Hydraulics,
Chatou, France
1970Water depth hydrographs; propagation path and discontinuity heightN.A.1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3,
n = 0.0125 s m−1/3)
Maxworthy [32]Total;
wet bottom;
reflection against
the closed end wall;
interaction between
solitary waves
Rectangular channel
L = 5 m, W = 0.2 m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0; smooth;
hd = 0.045–0.067 m
solitary waves with height of 0.31–0.5 hd
0.2 mUniversity of Southern
California,
Los Angeles, USA
1976Wave motion; maximum wave amplitude; qualitative wave profiles at selected timesVideo camera (64 fps)
Xanthopoulos and Koutitas [33]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.25 m
Lr = 1.2 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.02–0.15 m0.25 mAristoteles
University,
Thessaloniki, Greece
1976Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front propagationVideo cameras2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.033 s m−1/3)
Barr and Das [34]Total;
dry bottom;
reflections against the end wall
Rectangular channel
(a) L = 33.5 m, W = 1.5 m,
Lr = 7.62 m, S = 0;
(b) L = 4.4 m, W = 0.38 m
Lr = 1.0 m, S = 0;
smooth and rough
(a) hu = 0.3048 m
(b) hu = 0.1676–0.3048 m
(a)
1.5 m
(b)
0.38 m
University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK
1980Water depth hydrographs; water
surface profiles;
front trajectories
Video cameras1D
SWE
FD
(ε = 0.0134–0.0387 m)
Barr and Das [35]Total;
wet bottom;
reflections against the end wall
Rectangular channel
L = 33.5 m, W = 1.5 m
Lr = 7.62 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.3048 m
hd = 0.0762 m
1.5 mUniversity of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK
1981Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles;
front trajectories
Video cameras1D
SWE
FD
(ε = 0.0134 m,
ε = 0. 0387 m)
Memos et al. [36]Total;
dry bottom
Tank
L = 2.5 m, W =1.5 m
Plane W = –, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.03–0.105 m0.05 mNational Technical University of Athens, Greece1983Front propagation, velocity of the front along the x axis, flow profile near the damVideo camera (18 fps)(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Townson and Al-Salihi [37]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 4 m, W = 0.1 m, Lr ≈ 1.9 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.10 m
hd/hu = 0.176
0.1 mUniversity of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, UK
1989Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles at selected timesVideo camera; resistance wave probes;
pressure transducers
1D
SWE (radial)
MOC
Menendez and Navarro [38]Total;
dry bottom
(different gate
removal times)
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 0.31 m,
Lr ≈ 15 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.38 m (max)0.31 mUniversity of Buenos Aires,
Argentina
1990Flow images;
discharge and flow depth hydrographs
at the gate site
Wire gages; video cameras
Iverson et al. [39]
Logan et al. [40]
Total;
dry bottom
(steep bottom slope)
Rectangular channel
L = 95 m, W = 2 m,
Lr = 12 m, S = 0.6;
smooth and rough
Water volume: 6 m32 mH.J. Andrews
Experimental
Forest, Oregon, USA
1992–
2017
Flow depth time series at three locations; bottom pressure, bottom normal and shear loads at selected locations; propagation of the front waveUltrasonic distance meters; pressure and force transducers;
video cameras

(videos)
Antunes Do Carmo et al. [41]Total;
wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 7.5 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 3.85 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.099 m
hd/hu = 0.587, 0.515
0.3 mUniversity of Coimbra, Portugal1993Water depth hydrographs at four positionsWater depth gauges2D
SGN
FD
Tingsanchali and Rattanapitikon [42]Partial;
dry bottom
Downstream plane
L = 4 m, W = 1.9 m, Lr = 2.8 m (Reservoir, W = 1.7 m; bottom step at the plane inlet: 0.4 m)
S = 0 and 1/200; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.2, 0.25 m0.1 mAsian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand1993Wave front propagation; water depth hydrographs at selected positionsVideo camera; water depth gauges; mini-current meter2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.001–0.03 s m−1/3)
Braschi et al. [43]Partial;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 1.4 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 0.4 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.14 m
hd = 0, 0.005 m
0.05 mUniversity of
Pavia, Italy
1994Contour maps of water depth at different timesVideo camera (25 fps)2D
SWE
MOC-based
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Manciola et al. [44]Total;
wet and dry bottom;
open and closed
downstream end
(three different gate
opening velocities)
Rectangular channel
L = 9 m, W = 0.49 m, Lr = 3.366, 5.876 m, S = 0; smooth
hu =0.2, 0.22,
0.3, 0.35 m
hd = 0, 0.021 m
0.49 mUniversity of
Pavia, Italy
1994Discharge hydrograph at the gate section; front celerity hydrographs; water depth time series at the gate section; wave front propagationVideo cameras (25 fps)1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.015 s m−1/3)
Aguirre-Pe et al. [45]Total;
dry bottom;
highly viscous fluid
Rectangular channel
L = 7 m, W = 1 m, Lr = hu/sinθ,
S = 0.03, 0.05, 0.07, 0.1, 0.15; smooth
hu =0.05, 0.08, 0.1 m1 mUniversity of Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela1995Wave front propagation; wave profile at selected times; flow depth time series at selected locationsVideo camera (30 fps)1D
SWE
FD
Fraccarollo and
Toro [46]
Partial;
dry bottom
Plane
L = 3 m, W = 2 m, Lr = 1 m,
S = 0 and 7%; smooth
hu = 0.6 m
(0.64 m)
0.4 mUniversity of Trento, Italy1995Bottom pressure time series at 14 points; water depth time series at nine points; time series of flow velocity components at
14 locations
Pressure transducers; capacitance wave meters; electromagnetic velocity meters2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0)
Jovanović and Djordjević [47]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 4.5 m, W = 015 m,
Lr = 2.25 m, S = 0.1%; smooth
hu = 0.3 m0.15 mUniversity of
Belgrade,
Yugoslavia
1995Water depth
hydrographs,
water depth profiles
Water depth capacity probes and video camera2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.009 s m−1/3)
Jovanović and Djordjević [47]Partial;
dry bottom
Downstream plane
L = 1 m, W = 0.8 m, Lr = 1 m (Reservoir, W = 1 m),
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m0.1 mUniversity of
Belgrade,
Yugoslavia
1995Water depth
hydrographs,
water depth profiles
Water depth capacity probes and video camera2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Koshizuka and
Oka [48]; Koshizuka et al. [49]
Total,
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 0.584 m, W = N.A.,
Lr = 0.146 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.292 mN.A.University of
Tokyo, Japan
1996Water depth profiles,
wave front evolution
Video camera (50 fps)2D
NSE
MPS
Lauber and
Hager [50]
Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 3.5 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m0.5 mETH Zurich, Switzerland1998Free surface profiles, velocity and
discharge profiles,
wave front position
Video camera (50 fps)(ε = 5 × 10–6 m)
Lauber and
Hager [51]
Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 3.5 m
S = 0.1, 0.5; smooth
hu = 0.3 m0.5 mETH Zurich, Switzerland1998Surface profiles velocity distribution at fixed positions; discharge hydrographsVideo camera (50 fps)(ε = 5 × 10–6 m)
Stansby et al. [52]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 15.24 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 9.6 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.36 m
hd = 0, 0.01hu, 0.45hu
0.4 mUniversity of Manchester, UK1998Water elevation
profiles
Laser, video camera (25 fps)
Blaser and
Hager [53]
Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = N.A. S = 0–0.5; rough
hu = 0.2–0.6 m0.5 mETH Zurich, Switzerland1999Wave front velocity and locationN.A.(ε = 2.5 × 10–3 m)
Nsom et al. [54]Total;
dry bottom;
Newtonian solution
(glucose syrup-water)
Rectangular channel
L = 5 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = hu/S,
S = 3–12°; smooth
hu = 0.055 m0.3 mUniversité
de Savoie,
Cedex, France
2000Flow depth time series at a selected section; front wave propagationVideo camera
(1000 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
Gallati and Braschi [55]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 1.2 m, W = 0.05 m,
Lr = 0.3 m; rough
hu = 0.1 m
hd = 0–0.02 m
0.05 mUniversity of
Pavia, Italy
2000Water elevation
profiles
Video camera (24 fps)2D
EUL
SPH
Liem et al. [56]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.35,
0.4, 0.45 m
0.5 mAachen University of Technology, Germany2001Front position
and velocity
Video camera
(4500 fps)
1D
SWE
FE, FV
Briechle and Köngeter [57]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
inflow in the reservoir
Rectangular channel
L = 12.2 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 2.65 m,
S = 0.002; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.35, 0.4,
0.45 m;
steady inflow:
0, 40, 80, 120 l s−1
0.5 mAachen University of Technology, Germany2002Water depth hydrographs in six sections;
front position
and velocity
Video camera
(4500 fps)
Soares-Frazão
and Zech [58]
Total;
wet bottom
(undular bore)
Tank: L = 10 m, W > 1 m
Channel: L = 26.15 m, W = 1 m
S = 0; smooth
Different values of
huhd
1.0 mUniversité
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
2002Water depth hydrographs at six positionsWater level gauges1D
BOU
Hybrid FV–FD
(n = 0)
Shige-eda and
Akiyama [59]
Partial (asymmetric);
dry bottom
Tank
L = 4.8 m, Wr = 2.98 m
Lr = 1.93 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m0.5 mKyushu Institute of Technology,
Kitakyushu,
Japan
2003Wave front position, flow depths and
surface velocity hydrographs at six points
Digital video tape recorder; PTV2D
SWE
FV
(n < 0.07 s m−1/3)
Stelling and Duinmeijer [60]; Duinmeijer [61]Partial;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 31 m, W = 7.56 m, Lr = 2.4 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.6 m
hd = 0, 0.03–0.05 m
0.4 mDelft University
of Technology,
The Netherlands
2003Water depth hydrographs; front position and velocityWater depth resistance probes;
video camera (30 fps)
2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.012 s m−1/3)
Chegini et al. [62]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 15.24 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 9.76 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1 m
hd = 0.1–0.55 hu
0.4 mUniversity of Manchester,
UK
2004Flow field and velocityParticle tracking and streak velocimetry
Gallati and Sturla [63]Partial;
dry bottom
Tank
L = 1.4 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 0.4 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.08 m0.155 mUniversity of
Pavia, Italy
2004Images of the flow field in the flood plain at different time stepsVideo camera (25 fps)2D
SWE
SPH
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Jánosi et al. [64]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 9.93 m, W = 0.15 m,
Lr = 0.38 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.11–0.25 m
hd = 0, 0.018, 0.038 m
0.15 mEötvös University, Budapest,
Hungary
2004Water surface profiles;
front position and velocity
Video cameras
Bukreev and
Gusev [65]
Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L >> 1.3 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr >> 0.3 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.205 m
hd = 0.0, 0.02 m
0.2 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk,
Russia
2005Water level profilesWavemeters,
video camera
Eaket et al. [66]Partial;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 4.75 m, W = 2.31 m,
Lr = 2.32 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 m
hd = 0.05, 0.1 m
0.89 mUniversity of
Alberta,
Edmonton AB, Canada
2005Water surface profiles and velocitiesVideo stereoscopy,
Video cameras
(30 fps)
Piau and Debiane [67]Total;
dry bottom;
highly viscous
Newtonian solution
(12, 85, 130 Pa s)
Rectangular channel
L = 5 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 2, 4, 6, 8hu,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.054, 0.055 m0.3 mUniversité Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France2005Wave front position with time; flow depth profiles at selected timesVideo cameras
(25, 1000 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
Barnes and
Baldock [68]
Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 4.0 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 2.25 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.2 m0.4 mUniversity of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
2006Shear stress; free surface elevation; velocityShear plate, ADV,
acoustic displacement sensors
(ε = 0.1 × 10–3 m)
Bateman et al. [69]Total;
dry bottom;
end platform
Channel: L = 9.0 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 2.0 m, S = 27°; rough;
Platform: 4 m × 2.4 m
hu = 0.5 m0.4 mTechnical
University
of Catalonia,
Barcelona, Spain
2006Water surface profilesVideo cameras
(30, 1000 fps)
Cruchaga et al. [70]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
(two different fluids: shampoo and water)
Tank
L = 0.42 m, W = 0.228 m,
Lr = 0.114 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 1Lr, 2Lr0.228 mUniversity of
Santiago, Chile
2007Water depth time
series at selected
sections; wave front position
Video cameras2D
NSE, ETILT
FE
Maranzoni et al. [71]Total; dry bottom;
horizontal and sloping channel
Tank
L = 11 m, W = 0.18 m,
Lr = 0.114 m,
S = 0, 6%; smooth
hu = 0.1 m0.18 mUniversity of
Brescia, Italy
2007Water surface profiles; Water depth hydrographsVideo camera
(25 fps)
1D
SWE
FV;
2D
EUL, VOF
FV
Aureli et al. [14,72]Partial;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 2.6 m, W = 1.2 m, Lr = 0.8 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m
hd = 0.01 m
0.3 mUniversity of Parma, Italy2008Water surface at 10 times; water depth time series
at a gauge point
Video camera (3 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.007 s m−1/3)
Mohamed [73]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 12.2 m, W = 1.22 m,
Lr = 3.60 m, S = 0; concrete bottom and glass side walls, smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.45, 0.6 m
hd = 0, 0.025, 0.05 m
1.22 mUniversity of
Hawaii at Manoa
2008Water surface profiles in time, bore height, shape and speedVideo camera
(30 fps)
Ancey et al. [74]Total;
dry bottom;
highly viscous
Newtonian fluid
(glucose solution)
Rectangular channel
L = 4 m, W = 0.3 m
S = 0, 6, 12, 18, 24°; smooth
Mass in the reservoir:
50.8–57.6 kg
0.3 mEPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland2009Free surface (imaging technique) and flow depth profiles at selected times; front position with timeVideo camera
Yang et al. [75]Partial;
wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 28 m, W = 1.6 m, Lr = 10 m,
S = 0; concrete bottom and glass side walls; smooth
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.12 m
0.2 mTsinghua
University,
Beijing, China
2010Water depth hydrographs; velocity fields at fixed timesPressure probes, PIV, video cameras3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Ozmen-Cagatay and Kocaman [76,77]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 9 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 4.65 m,
S = 0; smooth;
hu = 0.25 m
hd = 0, 0.025, 0.1 m
0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2010Water depth profiles at different time stepsVideo camera
(50 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV;
2D
SWE
FV
Duarte et al. [78];
Boillat et al. [79];
Ribeiro et al. [80]
Total;
silted-up reservoir;
dry bottom;
multiphase flow
Rectangular channel
L = 5.5 m, W = 0.42 m,
Lr = 1.5 m, S = 0; smooth
(2 mean grain size diameters)
hu = 0.4, 0.41, 0.42 m
(sediment depth:
0.22–0.39 m)
0.42 mEPFL, Lausanne,
Switzerland
2011Video images; water and sediment surface profiles at selected times; sediment deposition; water front propagation; maximum wave depth
profile
Video camera
(15 fps)
Marra et al. [81]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 3 m, W = 0.1 m,
S = 1.5–24°; smooth and rough
Water volume in the reservoir = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 l0.1 mEPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland2011Wave front position and velocity; water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs at two positionsVideo camera (500–800 fps)(two rough
bottoms:
n = 0.0133 s m−1/3,
n = 0.0153 s m−1/3)
Aleixo et al. [82,83,84,85]Total;
dry bottom;
first stages
(upward and downward moving gate)
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.25 m, Lr = 3 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.325, 0.4 m0.25Université
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
2011Flow images;
velocity field and components
at selected sections
Video camera
(100 fps); PIV
Feizi Khankandi
et al. [86]
Total;
four different reservoir
geometries;
dry and wet bottom
1: Lr = 0.89 m, W = 2 m,
2: Lr = 1.79 m, W = 1.5 m,
3: Lr = 1.5-2.5 m, W = 0.51 m,
4: Lr = 3.5 m, W = 0.51 m, Channel: L = 9.3 m, W = 0.51 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.35, 0.4, 0.45 m
hd =0, 0.08 m
0.51mAmirkabir
University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran
2012Water depth, velocity and discharge hydrographs at different positions; water surface profile at different timesUltrasonic distance meters; ADV, video camera (110 fps)(n = 0.011 s m−1/3)
Oertel and
Bung [87]
Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 22 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 13 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 m0.3 mBergische
Universität
Wuppertal,
Germany
2012Water depth in seven measuring points; water depth profiles at selected times; velocity field at selected timesUltrasonic distance meters; video camera
(1000 fps); PIV
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
(ε = 0.0015 × 10−3 m)
LaRocque et al. [88]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 7.31 m, W = 0.18 m,
Lr = 3.37 m,
S = 0.93%; smooth
hu = 0.25, 0.3, 0.35 m0.18 mUniversity of South Carolina, USA2013Water surface profiles
at selected times;
velocity vertical profiles at eight locations
Ultrasonic distance meters; ultrasonic Doppler velocity
profilers
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
(ε = 0.01 × 10−3 m)
Miani et al. [89]Total;
wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 1 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.2, 0.3 m;
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 m
0.5 mJoint Research Centre, Ispra,
Italy
2013Water depth hydrographs at 10 locationsUltrasonic distance meters1D
SWE
FV
Hooshyaripor and Tahershamsi [90]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 9.3 m, W = 0.51 m,
Lr = 4.5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.35 m0.51 mAmirkabir
University of Technology,
Iran
2015Water depth hydrographs at 11 points; velocity and discharge
hydrographs at
six locations
Ultrasonic distance meters, ADV3D
RANS, VOF
FV
(n = 0.011 s m−1/3)
Jiang and Baldock [91]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 3 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 1.7 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 m0.4 mUniversity of Queensland,
St. Lucia,
Australia
2015Flow depth and bottom shear stress time seriesAcoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.01, 0.011,
0.019 s m−1/3)
Jiang and Baldock [91]Total;
dry bottom
(fixed sand false bed,
two grain sizes
d50 = 0.22, 2.85 mm)
Rectangular channel
L = 3 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 1 m,
S = 0, 1/10; rough
(fine and coarse)
hu = 0.08–0.22 m0.4 mUniversity of Queensland,
St. Lucia,
Australia
2015Flow depth and bottom shear stress time seriesAcoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.01, 0.011,
0.019 s m−1/3)
McMullin [92]Total;
dry and wet bottom
(two gate removal mechanisms)
Rectangular channel
L = 0.5 m, W = 0.175 m,
Lr = 0.2 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.06–0.14 m
hd = 0.005–0.02 m
0.175 mUniversity of
Nottingham, UK
2015Wave front position in time; wave profiles at selected times;
horizontal and vertical velocity at selected times and positions
Video cameras, PIV2D
NSE, VOF
FD
Mrokowska et al. [93]Total;
wet bottom;
closed downstream end
Rectangular channel
L = 60 m, W = 0.6 m Lr = 5 m,
S = 0.002; smooth;
hu = 0.31, 0.36 m
hd = 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 m
0.6 mPolish Academy
of Science,
Warsaw, Poland
2015Water depth hydrographs at seven locations;
velocity fields
Water level sensors; video camera
(520 fps); PIV
Aleixo et al. [94]Total;
silted-up reservoir
(tailings dam-break);
dry bottom;
sudden enlargement
Plane
L = 7.66 m, W = 3.66 m,
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 3.24 m, Wr = 0.5 m
hu = 0.4 m
(sediment depth
0.2 m)
0.5 mNational Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford,
Mississippi, USA
2016Velocity fieldsVideo cameras
(400 fps); PIV-PTV
Elkholy et al. [95]Partial;
dry bottom
Tank
L = 11 m, W = 4.3 m, Lr = 3 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 m0.4 mUniversity of South Carolina, USA2016Pressure head at the bottom in nine points; water surface elevations and surface velocity; velocity profile at the center of the gate sectionPressure sensors;
PTV (video cameras, 60 fps); ultrasonic
velocity profiler
Javadian et al. [96]Total;
dry bottom
closed downstream end
Rectangular channel
L = 2 m, W = 0.2 m, Lr = 1 m,
S = 0; smooth;
hu = 0.11, 0.12, 0.13 m0.2 mSharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran2016Water surface profiles at selected times; wavefront position
in time
Video camera
(24 fps)
Hooshyaripor et al. [97]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 9.3 m, W = 0.51 m,
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir:
Lr = 4.5 m, W = 2.25 m
(different side slopes
and lengths)
hu = 0.35 m0.51 mAmirkabir
University of
Technology,
Tehran, Iran
2017Water depth and flow velocity time series at selected locationsUltrasonic distance meters; ADV
Liu and Liu [98,99]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 6.5 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 1.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.16–0.36 m
hd = 0, 0.02, 0.04 m
0.4 mZhejiang
University, Hangzhou, China
2017Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series; flow velocity time seriesVideo camera
(150 fps); capacitive wave gauges; ADV
Cordero et al. [100]Patial;
dry bottom
Reservoir
Lr = 1 m; W = 1 m
Floodable area
L = 4 m, W, 3 m
S = 0, 12°; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 m2hu
(triang.
1H:1V slope)
Polytechnic
University of
Turin, Italy
2018Water surface at selected times; water depth time series;
water depth profiles
Video camera
(100 fps)
Liu et al. [101]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 18 m, W = 1 m,
Lr = 8.37 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.6 m
hd = 0.06, 0.12,
0.18, 0.24 m
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2018Water surface and average flow velocity profiles at selected times; wave front celeritiesVideo cameras
(48 fps)
1D
SWE
Hamid et al. [102,103]Total;
dry bottom
open and closed
downstream end
Rectangular channel
L = 6.7 m, W = 0.3048 m,
Lr = 2.13 m, S = 0.002; smooth
hu = 0.762 m0.3048 mUniversity of
Engineering and Technology, Peshawar,
Pakistan
2018Water depth and flood wave velocity time series at selected sectionsPoint gauges and
velocity sensor
2D
SWE
FV
Stolle et al. [104];
von Häfen et al. [105]
Total;
wet bottom;
swing gate
(opening time influence)
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 1.5 m,
Lr = 21.55 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.2, 0.3,
0.4, 0.5 m
1.4 mUniversity of
Ottawa, Canada
2018Water depth time series at four locations; flow velocity at a selected location; wave front arrival timeCapacitance wave gauges; propeller
velocity flowmeter; video cameras
(70, 120 fps)
(ε = 0.001·10−3 m,
λ = 0.014, 0.0293)
Liu et al. [106]Total;
wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.02, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16 m
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2019Video images;
water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locations
Video cameras
(48 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
Melis et al. [107]Total;
dry bottom;
effect of vegetation
(polymeric cylinders)
Rectangular channel
L = 11.6 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0, 1, 2, 3%; smooth, rough
hu = 0.15, 0.2,
0.25, 0.3 m
0.5 mPolytechnic
University of
Turin, Italy
2019Water surface profilesVideo cameras
(30 fps)
1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.05 s m−1/3)
Turhan et al. [108];
Turhan et al. [109]
Total;
dry and wet bottom;
closed downstream end;
salt water
Rectangular channel
L = 1.216 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr = 0.3 m, S = 0; smooth;
hu = 0.15 m
hd/hu = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4
0.2 mAdana Science and Technology
University, Turkey
2019Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at four locationsVideo camera
(60 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
SPH
Wang et al. [110]Total;
wet bottom
Rectangular channel
(rectangular and
triangular section)
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4, 0.6 m
hd/hu = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2019Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locationsVideo cameras
(48 fps)
Wu et al. [111]Total;
wet bottom;
closed downstream end
Rectangular channel
L = 16.38 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 5.47 m, S = 0; smooth;
hu = 0.16, 0.28 m
hd = 0.12 m
0.4 mDalian University of Technology, China2019Water depth hydrographs at 12 locations;
flow velocity time series at four locations
Wave gauges; ADV2D
BOU
Hybrid FD–FV
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Liu et al. [112]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m
S = 0, 0.003, 0.02; smooth
hu = 0.2 m
hd = 0–0.18 m;
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0–0.36 m
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2020Video images;
water surface and mean velocity profiles; wave front celerity
Video cameras
(48 fps)
Oertel and Süfke [113]Total;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 12.5 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 6.5 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 m0.3 mTechnical
University
of Applied
Sciences, Luebeck, Germany
2020Water depth at three selected locations; flow velocity vertical
profiles
Ultrasonic distance meters; video camera (732 fps); PIV and optical flow methods
Shugan et al. [114]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
first stages
Rectangular channel
L = 25 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = ~11 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4 m
hd = 0, 0.03,
0.06, 0.09 m
0.3 mNational Cheng Kung University, Taiwan2020Water depth time series at 12 locations; water surface profile at selected times;
front wave celerity; velocity profiles
Capacitance wave gauges; video camera (30 fps); PIV (video camera, 1000 fps)
Vosoughi et al.
[115,116,117]
Total;
silted-up reservoir
dry and wet bottom;
multiphase flow
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 1.52 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.02, 0.04, 0.05 m
(sediment depth:
0–0.24 m)
0.3 mUniversity of
Shiraz, Iran
2020Video images; water surface profiles; water and sediment depth time series at 16 pointsVideo cameras
(50 fps)
3D
NSE, VOF
NSE, TFM
FV
Wang et al. [118]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
(triangular section)
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 m
hd/hu = 0–0.9
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2020Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locations; wave front celerityVideo cameras
(48 fps)
Wang et al. [119]Total;
wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 m
hd/hu = 0.05–0.9
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2020Water surface profiles at selected times; water level hydrographs at selected locationsVideo cameras
(48 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
Ahmadi and
Yamamoto [120]
Partial (trapezoidal
and triangular breach);
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 12 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 2.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25, 0.3 m0.2,
0.3 m
Tokai University, Kanagawa, Japan2021Water depth
hydrograph at a point located 50 cm
upstream of the gate
Video camera
Ansari et al. [121]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 3.7 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 0.6 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m
hd = 0, 0.015, 0.03, 0.058, 0.07 m
0.6 mUniversity of
Zanjan, Iran
2021Water surface profilesVideo camera
(60fps)
2D
(Molecular dynamics software)
SPH
Ansari et al. [121]Total;
dry bottom;
interaction of two opposite dam-break waves
Rectangular channel
L = 3.7 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 0.6 m (2 opposite reservoirs at the channel ends),
S = 0; smooth
hu1 = 0.2 m
hu2 = 0.2, 0.3 m
0.6 mUniversity of
Zanjan, Iran
2021Water surface profilesVideo camera
(60fps)
2D
(Molecular dynamics software)
SPH
Birnbaum et al. [122]Total;
dry bottom; three-phase
Newtonian suspensions
Rectangular channel
L = 1.2 m, W = 0.15 m,
Lr = 0.2 m (W = 1m),
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.04–0.13 m0.15 mColumbia
University,
New York, USA
2021Wave front position
with time
Video cameras
(1 fps; 30 fps)
Espartel and
Manica [123]
Total;
dry and wet bottom;
first stages
Rectangular channel
L = 6.71 m, W = 0.24 m,
Lr = 0.71 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 m
hd = 0, 0.02,
0.04, 0.08 m
0.24 mUniversidade
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre,
Brazil
2021Water surface profiles at selected timesVideo cameras
(240 fps)
Kocaman et al. [124]Partial;
dry and wet bottom
Tank
L = 1 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 0.25 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m
hd = 0.015, 0.030 m
0.1 mIskenderun
Technical
University, Turkey
2021Water surface at selected times; water depth time series at five pointsVideo camera (50 fps); ultrasonic distance meters3D
RANS, VOF
FV;
2D
SWE
FV
Nguyen-Thi et al. [125]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
water and three high-viscous Newtonian fluids
Rectangular channel
L = 2 m, W = 0.055 m,
Lr = 0.28 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.11 m
hd = 0–0.066 m
0.055 mUniversité de
Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France
2021Water surface profilesVideo camera
(203 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Takagi and
Furukawa [126]
Total;
dry bottom;
different gate opening velocities (0.2–2.5 m/s)
Rectangular channel
L = 3 m, W = 0.38 m, Lr = 0.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.5 m0.38 mTokyo Institute of Technology, Japan2021Bottom pressure time series at four points along the channel centerline; water surface profilesPressure sensors;
video camera
(2400 fps)
Wang et al. [127]Total;
dry bottom
Triangular channel
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 m
hd/hu = 0–0.9
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2021Water surface profiles; water level hydrographs, wave front celerityVideo cameras
(48 fps)
Xu et al. [128]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 13 m, W = 0.25m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0.0031; rough
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0–0.098 m
0.25 mUniversity of
Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
2021Shear stress; water depth hydrographsShear plate; acoustic distance sensors(ε = 0.084 m)
Ozmen-Cagatay
et al. [129]
Total;
dry bottom;
closed downstream end;
three Newtonian fluids
Rectangular channel
L = 1.216 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr = 0.3 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m0.2 mAdana Science and Technology
University, Turkey
2022Water surface profiles, water depth hydrographsVideo camera
(60 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
Yang et al. [130,131]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 10.72 m, W = 1.485 m,
Lr = 4.58 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.13–0.483 m
hd = 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12, 0.14 m
1.485 mSouthwest
Jiaotong
University, Chengdu, China
2022Water depth hydrographs; wave front celerity;
flow velocity
Wave gauges; ADV2D
RANS, VOF
FV
Nielsen et al. [132]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 13 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 0.625 m, S = 0; smooth and rough (4 different values)
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.018 m
0.5 mUniversity of
Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia
2022Water depth and bottom shear stresses hydrographs; dam-break front celerityAcoustic transducers; shear plates
Zhang et al. [133]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Triangular channel
(side slope: 45°)
L = 18 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 8.37 m,
S = 0, 0.003, 0.01, 0.02; smooth
hu = 0.6 m; 0.4 m
hd/hu = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4
1 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2022Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographsVideo cameras
(50 fps)
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 ADV = acoustic Doppler velocimeter; PIV = particle image velocimetry; PTV = particle tracking velocimetry; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: BOU = Boussinesq equations; ETILT = edge-tracked interface locator technique; EUL = Euler equations; NSE = Navier–Stokes equations; RANS = Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations; SGN = Serre–Green–Naghdi equations; SWE = shallow water equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: FD = finite difference; FE = finite element; FV = finite volume; MOC = method of characteristics; MPS = moving particle semi-implicit; SPH = smoothed-particle hydrodynamics; TFM = two-fluid method–n = Manning roughness coefficient; ε = surface roughness; λ = friction factor; γ = Bazin roughness coefficient; N.A. = not available.
Table 2. Experimental investigations of dam-break waves through geometric singularities.
Table 2. Experimental investigations of dam-break waves through geometric singularities.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Chervet and Dallèves [29]Total;
wet bottom;
adverse slope;
converging-diverging walls
Rectangular channel
L = 23 m, W = 0.3 m
Lr = 5, 7.5, 15 m, S = −1, 4, 10%
rough channel
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.02 m
0.3 mLaboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology, Zurich,
Switzerland
1970Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front position and velocityVideo cameras1D
SWE
MOC
(n = 0.0077–
0.0167 s m−1/3)
Matsutomi [134]Total;
dry bottom;
adverse slope
Tank with
L = 3.9 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 1.5 m, S = −0.075, −0.15; rough
hu = 0.13 m0.3 mUniversity
of Akita,
Japan
1983Wave front trajectoriesN.A.2D
SWE
FD
(specific resistance law)
Martin [135]Total;
dry and wet bottom
Radial reservoir with variable radius r and diverging walls
(θ = 5.71–90°)
hu = 0.36 mr × θ
variable
Dresden
Technical
University,
Germany
1983Discharge hydrograph at the dam position; water surface profile; water level hydrographsPhotographic film sheeting; oscillograph; photogrammetric plotting1D
SWE
MOC
Michouev and
Sladkevich [136]
Total;
wet bottom;
sudden enlargement
at the dam
Rectangular channel
L = 8.8 m, W = 1.6 m,
Lr = 4 m, Wr = 0.4 m, S = 0
hu = N.A.
hd = 0.1 hu
0.4 mState
University
of Moscow,
Russia
1983Water depth hydrographs at four locations; water depth profiles at three timesN.A.2D
SWE
FD
Miller and
Chaudhry [137]
Total;
dry bottom;
180° curved channel
Rectangular channel
L = 11.4 m, W = 0.3 m;
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 1.6 m, Wr = 3.65 m
hu = 0.1, 0.152, 0.2,
0.254, 0.3 m
0.3 mState
University of Washington, USA
1988Water depth hydrographs at three points in the channel and five points in the reservoirCapacitance probes;
video camera
(60 fps)
1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.014–0.018 s m−1/3)
Townson and Al-Salihi [37]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
converging diverging walls (θ = 5°)
Rectangular channel
L = 4 m, W = 0.1 m, Lr ~1.9 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1 m
hd/hu = 0.176
0.1 mUniversity of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK1989Water depth hydrographs; wave front position; water surface profilesHigh speed tape
recorder; resistance wave probes;
pressure transducers
1D
SWE (radial)
MOC
Bell et al. [138]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
180° curved rectangular channel
Reservoir
Lr = 2.29 m, Wr = 3.66 m
Rectangular channel
W = 0.3 m, S = 0;
smooth and rough
hu = 0.15, 0.2, 0.25,
0.3, 0.35 m
hd = 0, 0.013, 0.025, 0.051, 0.0761 m
0.305 mState
University of Washington, USA
1992Water depth hydrographs; wave front positionCapacitance probes;
video camera
(60 fps)
(n = 0.0165, 0.04 s m−1/3)
Bellos et al. [139]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
gradually variable
channel width
Rectangular channel
L = 21.2 m, W = 1.4 m,
Lr = 8.5 m, S = 0–0.01; smooth
hu = 0.15–0.3 m
hd = 0, 0.053, 0.101 m
0.6 mUniversity of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece1992Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles at 10 positionsWave meters, pressure transducers2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.012 s m−1/3)
Četina and Rajar [140]Total;
dry bottom;
sudden enlargement
(4 m downstream
of the dam)
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.4 and 2.8 m,
Lr = 8 m, Wr = 1.2 m, S = 0.2%; smooth
hu = 0.25, 0.35, 0.45 m0.4 mUniversity
of Skopje,
North
Macedonia
1994Water depth time series in 31 points; longitudinal and cross-sectional water surface profiles; flow velocity time series at selected pointsCapacitance wave gauges; velocity probes2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.0137 s m−1/3)
Manciola et al. [44]Total;
wet and dry bottom;
adverse slope
(−0.084, −0.096, −0.15)
(three different gate opening velocities)
Rectangular channel
L = 9 m, W = 0.49 m, Lr = 3.366, 5.876 m, S = 0, smooth
hu =0.2, 0.22,
0.3, 0.35 m
hd = 0, 0.021 m
0.49 mUniversity of
Pavia, Italy
1994Discharge and water depth hydrographs at the gate section; front celerity hydrographs; wave front
propagation
Video cameras
(25 fps)
1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.015 s m−1/3)
Aureli et al. [141]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
bumps
Rectangular channel
L = 7 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 2.25 m,
S = 0–0.033; smooth
hu = 0.292, 0.342,
0.35 m
above the bump
1 mUniversity of
Parma, Italy
1999Water depth and velocity hydrographsVideo camera
(25 fps); ADV
1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Soares-Frazão
and Zech [142];
Soares-Frazão
et al. [143]
Total;
dry and wet bottom;
90° bend
(step at the channel
entrance δ = 0.33 m)
Tank
L = 2.39 m, W = 2.44 m
Channel with 90° bend
L = 7.335 m, W = 0.495m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m
hd = 0, 0.01 m
0.495 mUniversité
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
1999Water depth
time series at
six locations;
wave front velocity
Water level probes2D
SWE
LB
(bottom:
n = 0.0095 s m−1/3;
side walls: n =
0.0195 s m−1/3)
Soares-Frazão
and Zech [142];
Soares-Frazão
et al. [143]
Total;
dry bottom;
45° bend
(step at the channel
entrance δ = 0.33 m)
Tank
L = 2.39 m, W = 2.44 m
Channel with 90° bend
L = 8.2 m, W = 0.495m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m
hd = 0, 0.01 m
0.495 mUniversité
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
1999Water depth
time series at
nine locations;
wave front velocity
Water level probes2D
SWE
LB
(bottom:
n = 0.0095 s m−1/3;
side walls: n =
0.0195 s m−1/3)
Aureli et al. [144,145]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
adverse slope
(−8, −9, −10%)
Rectangular channel with adverse slope
L = 7 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 2.25 m,
S = 0, 1, 2%, smooth and rough
hu = 0.21, 0.25,
0.292 m
hd = 0, 0.045, 0.05 m
1 mUniversity of
Parma, Italy
2000Water depth and velocity hydrographsVideo camera
(25 fps); ADV
1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.01, 0.025 s m−1/3)
Bento Franco and Betâmio de Almeida [146]; Viseu et al. [147]Total;
wet bottom;
sudden enlargement
(6.45 m downstream
of the dam)
Rectangular channel
L = 19.3 m, W = 0.5 m, 2.3 m,
Lr = 6.1 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.504 m
hd = 0.003 m
0.5 mIstituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal2000Water depth
hydrographs at
six points
N.A.(n = 0.009 s m−1/3)
Hiver [148]Total;
dry bottom upstream of the sill, dry and wet bottom downstream;
triangular bottom sill
Rectangular channel
L = 38 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 15.5 m,
S = 0; smooth and rough
hu = 0.75 m
hd = 0, 0.15 m
1 mLaboratoire de Recherches Hydrauliques, Châtelet,
Belgium
2000Water depth
hydrographs
Gauge measurements(n = 0.0125 s m−1/3)
Soares-Frazão et al. [149];
Soares-Frazão [150]
Total;
closed downstream end
dry bottom upstream of the sill, wet bottom downstream; triangular bottom sill (±0.14 slopes, 0.065 m high)
Rectangular channel
L = 5.6 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 2.39 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.111 m
hd = 0, 0.02, 0.025 m
0.5 mUniversité
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
2002Water surface profilesVideo cameras
(25 and 40 fps)
1D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.011 s m−1/3)
Soares-Frazão
and Zech [151]
Total;
dry bottom;
90° bend
(step at the channel
entrance δ = 0.33 m)
Tank
L = 2.39 m, W = 2.44 m
Channel with 90° bend
L = 7.335 m, W = 0.495m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.495 mUniversité
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
2002Water depth profiles;
velocity field at the bend
Video camera
(200 fps and 40 fps); PIV
Hybrid 1D–2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.011 s m−1/3)
Bukreev [152]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
bottom drop
(δ = 0.051, 0.072 m)
Channel
L = 4.2 m, W = 0.202
Reservoir
L = 3.3 m, W = 1 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.075, 0.102, 0.12, 0.152, 0.154, 0.212 m
hd = N.A.
0.202 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2003Dimensionless height of water impingement on a vertical wallPowder coating
on end wall
Bukreev and
Gusev [153]
Total;
dry and wet bottom;
bottom drop
(δ = 0.072 m)
Channel
L = 4.2 m, W = 0.202 m
Reservoir
Lr = 3.3 m, W = 1 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.125 m
hd = 0.022, 0.032, 0.05, 0.056, 0.072, 0.1 m
0.202 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2003Dimensional and
dimensionless hydrographs of water depth for different reservoir and channel depths, water profiles at
selected times
Wavemeters;
video camera
Soares-Frazão
et al. [154]
Total;
dry bottom;
sudden enlargement
Rectangular channel
L = 7.6 m, W = 0.12–0.496 m,
Lr = 4 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.2 m0.12 mUniversité
Catholique de Louvain,
Belgium
2003Water depth time series at five locations;
surface-velocity fields at selected times
Water level gauges; water-level follower; digital imaging2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.015 s m−1/3)
Bukreev et al. [155]Total;
dry and wet bottom
bottom step (δ = 0.06 m)
Channel
L = 7.07 m, W = 0.202 m
Reservoir
Lr = 3.3 m, W = 1–0.202 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.01–0.22 m
hd = 0, 0.01, 0.09 m
0.202 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2004Water-level profiles, water depth
hydrographs
Wave recorders;
video camera
Bellos [156]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
gradually variable
channel width
Rectangular channel
L = 21.2 m, W = 1.4 m,
Lr = 8.5 m, S = −0.005, 0, 0.01; smooth
hu = 0.1–0.4 m
hd = 0, < 0.02 m;
hd = 0.0635 m for
S = −0.005
0.6 mUniversity of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece2004Water depth time series at ten positionsPressure transducers2D
SWE
FD
Natale et al. [157]Total;
dry bottom;
sluice gates
(gate 1: x = 8.4 m,
a = 0.04 m;
gate 2: x = 9.3 m,
a = 0.02 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 9.3 m, W = 0.48 m,
Lr = 3.36 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.2 m0.48 mUniversity of
Pavia, Italy
2004Water depth profilesVideo camera
(25 fps);
1D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.12 s m−1/3)
Bukreev [158]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
bottom step
(δ = 0.038, 0.056 m;
l = 0.036, 0.257 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 7.2 m, W = 0.2 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.066, 0.13,
0.15 m
hd = 0.055 m
0.2 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2005Water-level profilesPiezometers;
wave recorders;
video camera
Bukreev [159]Partial;
dry and wet bottom;
bottom step
(δ = 0.055 m; l = 0.69 m)
Tank and channel (closed end)
L = 7.2 m, W = 0.202 m,
Lr = 1.32 m, Wr = 1 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.145, 0.16 m
hd = N.A.
0.1 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2006Water-level profiles; depth hydrographs and longitudinal and vertical velocities at
three cross sections
Video camera;
PIV
Aureli et al. [14,72]Partial;
dry and wet bottom;
bottom sill
Tank
L = 2.6 m, W = 1.2 m, Lr = 0.8 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m
hd = 0.01 m
0.3 mUniversity of
Parma, Italy
2008Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographsVideo camera (3 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.007 s m−1/3)
Gusev et al. [160]Total;
wet bottom;
bottom step (δ = 0.05 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 7.06 m, W = 0.202 m
Lr = 4.76 m, Wr = 1.0 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.205 m
hd = 0.01–0.205 m
0.202 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2008Free-surface hydrographs at two points;
velocity of the front behind the step;
velocity of the front reflected by the step
Wavemeters
Bukreev et al. [161]Partial (vertically);
wet bottom;
lateral constriction and bottom step (b = 0.06 m,
l = 0.38 m, δ = 0.072 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 8.3 m, W = 0.20 m,
Lr = N.A., S = 0; smooth
0.08(hu–δ) < hd
< 1.1(hu–δ)
0.06 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2008Dimensionless
bore depth and
propagation speed
Wavemeters
Evangelista et al. [162,163]Total;
dry bottom;
bottom step (δ = 0.05 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 9 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m0.4 mUniversity
of Cassino and Southern
Lazio, Italy
2011Water surface profiles
at two selected times
Video camera
(30 fps)
1D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.0125 s m−1/3)
Ozmen-Cagatay and Kocaman [164]Total;
dry bottom;
trapezoidal bottom sill
(δ = 0.075 m, l = 1 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 8.9 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 4.65 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2011Water surface profiles
at selected times
Video cameras
(50 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV;
1D
SWE
FV
Ozmen-Cagatay and Kocaman [165]Total;
dry bottom;
trapezoidal contraction
(0.95 m long,
contraction ratio: 1/3)
Rectangular channel
L = 8.9 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 4.65 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2012Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs
at seven points
Video cameras
(50 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Kocaman and Ozmen-Cagatay [166]Total;
dry bottom;
triangular obstruction
(0.95 m long,
contraction ratio: 1/3)
Rectangular channel
L = 8.9 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 4.65 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2012Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs at six pointsVideo cameras
(50 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Ozmen-Cagatay
et al. [167]
Total;
dry bottom;
triangular bump
(δ = 0.075 m, l = 1 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 8.9 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 4.65 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2014Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs
at six points
Video cameras
(50 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV;
1D
SWE
FV
Degtyarev
et al. [168]
Total;
wet bottom;
contraction at the
dam location
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 0.254 m
Reservoir
Lr = 5 m, Wr = 0.38 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12, 0.14, 0.16, 0.18, 0.2 m
0.254 mState
University of Novosibirsk, Russia
2014Water depth hydrographs at three pointsConductive
wave meters
1D
SWE
(n = 0)
Wood and Wang [169]Total;
dry bottom;
90° bend
Rectangular channel
with 90° bend
L = 6.72m, W = 0.273 m
Reservoir
Lr = 0.89 m, Wr = 0.89 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2794 m0.29 mUniversity of Huston,
Texas, USA
2015Water depth hydrographs at four pointsResistance-type water level measurements2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.009 s m−1/3)
Hooshyaripor and Tahershamsi [90]Total;
dry bottom;
reservoir with
sloping sides
(side angle = 30°, 45°, 60°)
Rectangular channel
L = 9.3 m, W = 0.51 m,
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 4.5 m, Wr = 2.25 m
hu = 0.35 m0.51 mAmirkabir University of Technology,
Iran
2015Water depth hydrographs at 11 points; velocity and discharge hydrographs at
six locations
Ultrasonic distance meters, ADV3D
RANS, VOF
FV
(n = 0.011 s m−1/3)
Kikkert et al. [170]Total;
dry bottom;
sudden contraction
at the gate site
Rectangular channel
L = 6.6 m, W = 0.3 m,
S = 1/20; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 7.5 m, Wr = 2 m, S = 0
hu = 0.35 m0.3 mHong Kong University of Science and Technology2015Water depth time series; water depth
profiles and wave propagation time
Video cameras
(90 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
(ε = 5 × 10−5 m)
Chen et al. [171]Total;
wet bottom;
Y-shaped junction
Rectangular channels with junction (Y-shaped;
30°, 45°, 60°, 90°)
Side channel (with dam):
L = 2.5 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 1 m
Main channel:
L = 5 m, W = 0.3 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.45 m
hd = N.A.
0.3 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China;
2019Water depth and pressure hydrographs; velocity fieldVideo cameras; PIV; pressure gauges3D
RANS, VOF
FV
(n = 0.008 s m−1/3)
Kobayashi et al. [172]Total;
wet bottom;
meanders
Meandering rectangular
channel
L = 16.1 m, W = 0.8 m,
Lr = 1.5 m, S = 1/600; smooth
hu = 0.285 m
hd = 0.107, 0.147 m
0.8 mUniversity of Hiroshima, Japan2019Flow depth transversal profiles in eight cross-sectionsWave gauges1D
SWE
MOC
Kavand et al. [173]Total;
dry bottom;
three 90° bends
Rectangular channel
W = 0.2 m, S = 0;
smooth and rough
hu = 0.25, 0.35,
0.45, 0.55 m
0.2 mUniversity of Ahvaz, Iran2020Wave front celerity; wave height al the bend sidesVideo camera(ε = 0, 10, 16,
20 × 10−3 m)
Kocaman et al. [174]Total;
dry bottom;
triangular and
trapezoidal
channel contractions
Rectangular channel
L = 8.9 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 4.65 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2020Free surface profiles; flow depth
hydrographs
Video cameras
(50 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV;
2D
SWE
FV
Ansari et al. [121]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
triangular bottom sill
Rectangular channel
L = 3.7 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 0.6 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m
hd = 0, 0.07 m
0.6 mUniversity of Zanjan, Iran2021Water surface profilesVideo camera
(60 fps)
3D
RANS
SPH
Ismail et al. [175]Total;
wet bottom;
Y-shaped junction
Rectangular channels with a Y-shaped junction
Side channel (with dam):
L = 1.83 m, W = 0.304 m,
Lr = 0.91 m, S = 0; smooth
Main channel:
L = 3.35 m, W = 0.304 m
hu = 0.25, 0.4, 0.5 m
hd = 0.0425, 0.044,
0.052 m
(flow rate and velocity in the main channel:
Q = 1.87–2.64 l/s;
v = 0.145–0.181 m/s)
0.304 mUniversity of South Carolina,
Columbia, USA
2021Outflow hydrographs downstream of the junction; water surface elevation at the outletUltrasonic distance meters
Gamero et al. [176]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
closed downstream end;
Gaussian bottom sill in the reservoir
Rectangular channel
L = 15 m, W = 0.405 m,
Lr = 9.275 m,
S = 0.0015; smooth
hu = 0.302, 0.3 m
hd = 0, 0.12,
0.18, 0.24 m
0.405 mUniversity of Córdoba,
Spain
2022Piezometric measures along the centerline
of the obstacle;
water surface profiles
Piezometers;
video cameras
(25 fps)
2D
VAM
Hybrid FV–FD
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Kobayashi et al. [177]Total;
wet bottom;
meanders
Straight rectangular channel
L = 16.1 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 1.68 m, S = 0; smooth
Meandering rectangular
channel
L = 16.1 m, W = 0.39 m,
Lr = 1.66 m, S = 0; smooth
Straight
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.02 m
Meandering
hu = 0.285 m
hd = 0.107 m
Straight 0.4 m
Meand.
0.39 m
University of Hiroshima, Japan2022Wave height time series in eight cross-sections; free surface profiles at selected timesWave gauges2D
SWE;
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Vosoughi et al. [178,179]Total;
silted-up reservoir
(multiphase flow);
dry and wet bottom;
semi-circular bottom sill
(δ = 0.045 m, l = 0.09 m;
δ = 0.075 m, l = 0.15 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 1.52 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m
(7 sediment depths: 0.03–0.24 m)
hd = 0, 0.02,
0.04, 0.05 m
0.3 mUniversity of Shiraz, Iran2022Water surface profiles; profile of the saturated sediment layerVideo cameras
(50 fps)
3D
NSE, VOF
FV
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; θ = inclination angle; δ = bottom step/bump height; l = singularity length; b = constriction width; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 ADV = acoustic Doppler velocimeter; PIV = particle image velocimetry; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: NSE = Navier–Stokes equations; RANS = Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations; SWE = shallow water equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: FD = finite difference; FV = finite volume; MOC = method of characteristics; SPH = smoothed particle hydrodynamics–n = Manning roughness coefficient; ε = surface roughness; N.A. = not available.
Table 3. Experimental investigations of the dam-break wave impact against obstacles.
Table 3. Experimental investigations of the dam-break wave impact against obstacles.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Greenspan and Young [180]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on containment dykes (θ = 90°, 60°, 30°; variable dyke distance from the gate)
Tank
L = 1.22 m, W = 0.23 m,
Lr = 0.23 m; S = 0; smooth
hu ≤ 0.2032 m0.23 mMassachusetts Institute of Technology,
USA
1978Spillage fraction
dependence on dyke inclination
Video
recording
1D
SWE
MOC
Sicard and Nicollet [181]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 18 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 3 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = N.A.
hd = N.A.
0.6 mLaboratoire National d’Hydraulique, Chatou, France1983Water depth and celerity of the incoming wave; pressure time series on the wall at seven elevationsPiezoresistive pressure transducers
Ramsden [182]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 36.6 m, W = 0.396 m,
Lr = 8.97 m; S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.502 m
hd = 0 m;
hu = 0.4801 m
hd = 0.28 m
0.396 mCalifornia
Institute of Technology, USA
1996Impact force; pressure at the wall; position of the wave; 2D profiles near the wallForce and pressure transducers; contact probes; Argon-ion laser; video camera (300 fps)
Liu et al. [183]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on a vertical
porous structure
(0.29 m long, 0.37 m high, located 0.02 m downstream of the gate;
2 porous materials)
Tank
L = 0.892 m, W = 0.44 m,
Lr = 0.28 m; S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.35, 0.25, 0.15 m
hd = 0.02 m
0.44 mCornell
University, Ithaca, USA
1999Water surface profiles at 12 times;
water level time series
in the center of the porous structure
Camera (10 fps);
wave gauge
2D
RANS, VOF
FD
Gallati and Braschi [55]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on obstacle
(0.03 × 0.06 m, 0.17 m downstream of the dam)
Tank
L = 1.2 m, W = 0.03 m,
Lr = 0.3 m, rough
hu = 0.1 m
hd = 0 m
0.03 mUniversity of Pavia, Italy2000Water surface profilesVideo camera (25 fps)2D
EUL
SPH
Barakhnin et al. [184]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on a reflective vertical wall
Tank
L = l1 + l2, Lr = l1
50 < l2/hd < 90
l1 = N.A.
0.5 ≤ (huhd)/hd ≤ 1.4
hd = 0.03, 0.04 m
0.06 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2001Maximum water level at the wall, splash-up profile, free surface
profiles
Video camera (25 fps),
resistive wavemeter
1D
BOU
Soares-Frazão
and Zech [185,186]
Partial;
wet bottom;
impact on an isolated building (0.4 × 0.8 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 36 m; W = 3.6 m,
Lr = 6.9 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.02 m
1 mUniversité
Catholique
de Louvain,
Belgium
2002Water depth hydrographs at six locations;
velocity fields at selected times; flow velocity time series at the gauge points
Resistive level gauges; ADV; video camera (40 fps)(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Brufau et al. [187]; Méndez et al. [188]Partial (asymmetrical);
wet bottom;
pyramidal obstacle
Tank
L = 2.65 m, W = 2.615 m,
Lr = 1.3, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.5 m
hd = 0.1–0.3 m
0.293 mUniversity of La Coruña, Spain2002Water depth time series at several pointsN.A.2D
SWE
FV
Ciobataru et al. [189]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on pillars
(square: 0.12 m × 0.12 m;
circular: D = 0.14 m)
Tank
L = 16.62 m, W = 0.61 m,
Lr = 5.9 m; S = 0;
smooth and rough
hu = 0.1–0.3 m0.61 mUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA2003Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs, free surface profile at mid-channelLoad cell; LDV; PIV3D
NSE
ELMMC
Trivellato [190];
Bertolazzi and
Trivellato [191]
Total,
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.5 m,
0 ≤ S ≤ 25°
hf = 0.04 m
u0 = 2.77 ms−1
0.5 mUniversity of Trento, Italy2003Maximum run-up, pressure at the wall, toe velocity and depth, wall forcePressure transducers; video camera
(25 fps)
2D
EUL
FV
Campisano et al. [192]Total;
dry bottom;
downstream sediment deposit (0.03 m volcanic sand thickness)
Rectangular channel
L = 3.9 m, W = 0.15 m,
Lr = 1.3 m; S = 0.145%; rough
hu = 0.10–0.13 m0.15 mUniversity of Catania, Italy2004Water depth hydrographs, sediment bed profilesVideo camera
(25 fps)
1D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.0105 s m−1/3)
Gallati and Sturla [63]Partial;
dry bottom;
impact on a square
obstacle
Tank
L = 1.4 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 0.4 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.08 m0.155 mUniversity of Pavia, Italy2004Images of the flow field in the flood plain at different time stepsVideo camera
(25 fps)
2D
SWE
SPH
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Hu and
Kashiwagi [193]
Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Tank
L = 1.18 m, W = 0.12 m,
Lr = 0.68 m; S = 0
hu = 0.120.12 mKyushu
University, Japan
2004Pressure hydrograph at the wallPressure transducers; video camera2D
NSE
CIP, FD
Raad and Bidoe [194]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on vertical
columns
(square: 0.12 m × 0.12 m,
0.75 m high)
Tank
L = 1.6 m, W = 0.61 m,
Lr = 0.4 m; S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.01 m
0.61 mUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA2005Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographsLoad cell; LDV3D
NSE
ELMMC
Arnason [195]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on columns
(square: 0.12 m × 0.12 m;
circular: D = 0.029, 0.0606, 0.14 m)
Tank
L = 16.62 m, W = 0.61 m,
Lr = 5.9 m; S = 0;
smooth and rough
hu = 0.10–0.40 m0.61 mUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA2005Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs; free surface profilesLoad cell; LDV; video camera; PIV
Kleefsman et al. [196];
Issa and Violeau [197];
Larese et al. [198]
Total;
dry bottom;
impact on an obstacle
Tank
L = 3.22 m, W = 1.0 m,
Lr = 1.228 m; S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.55 m1.0 mMARIN
(Maritime
Research
Institute
The Netherlands)
2005Water depth, pressure and force hydrographsHeight probes; pressure transducers3D
NSE, VOF
FV;
3D
NSE
SPH, PFEM
Liang et al. [199]Partial;
wet bottom;
impact on a column
(circular: D = 0.35 m)
Tank
L = 25 m, W = 1.6 m, Lr = 2.5 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.235 m
hd = 0.059 m
0.15 mDelft
University of Technology, The Netherlands
2007Water depth hydrographs; front position and velocityVideo camera
(25 fps)
2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Aureli et al. [14]Partial;
dry and wet bottom;
insubmersible obstacle
Tank
L = 2.6 m, W = 1.2 m, Lr = 0.8 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m
hd = 0.01 m
0.3 mUniversity of Parma, Italy2008Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographsVideo camera
(3 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.007 s m−1/3)
Nouri [200];
Nistor et al. [201];
Nouri et al. [202]
Total;
dry bottom;
impact on columns (square: 0.2 m × 0.2 m;
circular: D = 0.32 m),
constrictions
Rectangular channel
L = 10.6 m, W = 2.7 m
Lr = 5.58 m, S = 0; rough
hu = 0.5, 0.75, 0.85,
1.0 m
2.7 mCanadian Hydraulics Center, Ottawa, Canada2008Pressures, water level and impact force hydrographs; point velocitiesCapacitance wave gauges; load cells; dynamometer; pressure transducers; ADV
Bukreev and
Zykov [203]
Total;
wet bottom;
vertical plate
Rectangular channel
L = 8.2 m W = 0.2 m
Lr > 1.4 m, S = 0; rough
hu/hd = 0.186, 0.419, 0.6050.2 mRussian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk
2008Water depth and force hydrographs, velocity in the vertical planeWavemeters; force transducer; PIV
Arnason et al. [204]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on
vertical columns (square: 0.12 m × 0.12 m; circular: D = 0.14 m; 5.2 m
downstream of the gate)
Tank
L = 16.6 m, W = 0.6 m,
Lr = 5.9 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.10–0.3 m
h = 0.025m)
hd = 0.02 m
0.6 mUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA2009Water depth and velocity hydrographs at different locations;
time series of the horizontal force on the columns
Laser induced fluorescence technique; particle image and LDV; load cell
Cruchaga et al. [205]Total;
dry bottom;
obstacles of different shapes
Tank
L = 0.456 m, W = 0.228m
Lr = 0.114 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.228 m0.228 mUniversity of Santiago, Chile2009Water depth profiles at different timesVideo camera2D
NSE, ETILT
FE
Hu and Sueyoshi [206]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Tank
L = 0.8 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr ~ 0.24 m, S = 0; smooth;
closed downstream end
hu = 0.42 m
(estimated)
0.2 mKyushu
University, Japan
2010Wave front position; water surface profiles at different timesVideo camera2D
NSE
CIP, MPS
Yang et al. [75]Total;
dry bottom;
impact against a brick (0.22 m × 0.12 m, placed 0.6 m downstream of the gate)
Rectangular channel
L = 7 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 2 m, S = 0; smooth
hu ≤ 0.123 m0.3 mTsinghua
University, Beijing, China
2010Critical reservoir depth hu causing brick movementN.A.3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Aureli et al. [207]Partial;
dry and wet bottom;
insubmersible obstacle
Tank
L = 2.6 m, W= 1.2 m,
Lr = 0.8 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.030–0.064 m
hd = 0.0068–0.0157m
0.3 mUniversity of Parma, Italy2011Water depth hydrographs; free surfaceVideo camera
(6.5 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
Al-Faesly et al. [208]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
impact on structural models (square and circular: 0.305 m, placed 4.92 m downstream of the gate); effect of mitigation walls (flat or curved)
Rectangular channel
L = 14.56 m, W = 2.7 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.55, 0.85, 1.15 m
hd = N.A.
2.7 mUniversity
of Ottawa,
Canada
2012Base shear forces and moments on structural models; acceleration and displacement at the top edge; pressures at 10 points; water depth hydrographs on models and channel;
wave front velocity
Load cell; accelerometer; displacement transducer; pressure transducers; capacitance wave gauges; free-standing wave gauges; video camera
Oertel and
Bung [87]
Total;
dry bottom;
submersible obstacle
Rectangular channel
L = 22 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 13 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.2,
0.3, 0.4 m
0.3 mBergische
University Wuppertal,
Germany
2012Drag force on the obstacle; water depth profiles and velocity field at selected timesUltrasonic distance meters; video camera
(1000 fps); PIV
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
(ε = 0.0015 × 10−3 m)
Lara et al. [209]Total;
wet bottom;
impact against a solid square prism
(0.12 m × 0.12 m)
Tank
L = 1.6 m, W = 0.6 m,
Lr = 0.4 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.01 m
0.6 mUniversity of Cantabria, Santander, Spain2012Flow velocity time series at a selected point; time history of the net force on the prismLDV; load cell3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Triatmadja and
Nurhasanah [210]
Total;
wet bottom;
impact on a building;
effects of a barrier
Rectangular channel
L = 24 m, W = 1.45 m,
Lr = 8 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 m
hd = 0.02 m
1.45 mGadjah Mada University, Indonesia2012Water depth hydrographs; force on the structureWave gauges;
load cell
Aguíñiga et al. [211]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on a vertical wall placed 2.18 m downstream of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 4.93 m, W = 0.305 m,
Lr = 0.305 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = N.A.
hd = 0.051, 0.076, 0.102 m
(bore height: 0.157, 0.203, 0.264 m)
0.305 mTexas A&M University, Kingsville, USA2013Maximum force
on the wall
Spring system and video camera
Nakao et al. [212]Total;
wet bottom;
model T-girder bridges (placed 7.5 m downstream of the gate)
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 1 m
Lr = 12 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.617 m
hu = 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 m
hd = N.A.
1 mPublic Works
Research
Institute,
Tsukuba, Japan
2013Tsunami height and reaction force in time; dynamic pressure at the girderVideo cameras;
load cells;
wave gauges;
pressure gauges
Lobovský et al. [213]Tank;
dry bottom;
impact against
the downstream end
Tank
L = 1.61 m, W = 0.15 m,
Lr = 0.6 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.6 m0.6 mTechnical
University of Madrid, Spain
2014Water surface profiles; wave front propagation; water level hydrographs at four locations; pressure hydrographs at five pointsVideo camera
(300 fps);
pressure transducers
Ratia et al. [214]Total;
wet bottom;
closed downstream end;
bridge models
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.24 m,
Lr = 1.56 m, Wr = 0.84 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.169–0.227 m
hd = 0.009–0.011 m
0.24 mUniversity of Zaragoza, Spain2014Water depth
hydrographs in two positions
Water depth gauges2D
SWE
FV
Aureli et al. [215]Partial;
dry bottom;
impact on a
insubmersible obstacle
(0.3 m × 0.155 m)
Tank
L = 2.6 m, W = 1.2 m,
Lr = 0.8 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.07–0.13 m0.3 mUniversity of Parma, Italy2015Impact forceLoad cell2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.007 s m−1/3)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV;
3D
NSE
SPH
Kocaman and Ozmen-Cagatay [216]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on the downstream vertical end
Rectangular channel
L = 8.9 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 4.65 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m
hd = 0.025, 0.1 m
0.3 mCukurova
University,
Adana, Turkey
2015Water surface profiles; water depth
hydrographs
Video cameras
(50 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV;
1D
SWE
FV
Liao et al. [217]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on an elastic structure (0.1 m high,
0.4 m downstream
of the gate)
Tank
L = 0.8 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr = 0.2 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 m0.2 mKyushu
University, Japan
2015Water surface profiles and deformation of the structure (three markers); longitudinal marker displacement hydrographsVideo camera
(1000 fps)
2D
NSE, VOF
Coupled
CIP, FD–FE
(interaction
fluid–structure)
Liang et al. [218]Total;
wet bottom;
bridge
Rectangular channel
L = 35.5 m, W = 1 m,
Lr = 5.5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m
hd = 0.198 m;
hu = 0.204 m
hd = 0.105 m
1 mHohai University, Nanjing, China2016Water depth and flow velocity time series in seven locations; pressure time series on the bridge piersWave gauges; ADV; pressure sensors2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Mohd et al. [219]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a
vertical cylinder
(square: 0.05 m × 0.05 m; circular D = 0.05 m)
Tank
L = 0.8 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr = 0.2 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.4 m0.2 mKyushu
University, Japan
2017Flow images; wave front celerity; water depth hydrographsVideo cameras3D
LBM
Kamra et al. [220]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on the closed downstream end
Tank
L = 0.8 m, W = 0.2 m, Lr = 0.2 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m0.2 mKyushu
University, Japan
2018Water surface profiles; pressure hydrographs; wave front positionPressure sensors3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Liu et al. [221]Partial;
dry bottom;
building
(0.4 m × 0.2 m × 0.3 m, locked and unlocked door scenarios)
Rectangular channel
L = 40 m, W = 2.2 m, Wr = 3.5 m, Lr = 11.5 m; S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15, 0.2 m0.8 mTsinghua University, Beijing, China2018Water level hydrographsPressure gauges;
ultrasonic distance meters
Martínez-Aranda et al. [222]Partial;
dry bottom;
obstacles, singularities, and a bridge model
Reservoir and
rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.24 m,
Lr = 1.57 m; Wr = 0.81 m
S ≈ 0 (in the first 3.26 m
downstream of the gate),
0.0404 downstream; smooth
hu = 0.055, 0.13 m0.24 mUniversity of Zaragoza, Spain2018Free surface;
free surface profiles;
flow depth time series
RGB-D sensor2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.008–0.012 s m−1/3)
Stamataki et al. [223]Total;
dry bottom;
building
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 1.2 m, Lr = 2.9 m,
S = 1/20; smooth and rough
hu = 0.1, 0.2 m1.2 mUniversity College London, UK2018Water depth and hydrodynamic force hydrographs; wave front celerityWave gauges; ultrasonic distance meters; load cell; pressure sensors; video camera
(250 fps)
2D
RANS, VOF
FV
Tinh et al. [224]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
impact on a vertical structure
Rectangular channel
L = 17.6 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 3 m,
S = 1/20; smooth
hu = 0.15 m
hd = 0;
hu = 0.2 m
hd = 0.05 m
0.3 mTohoku University, Sendai, Japan2018Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles;
flow images
Ultrasonic distance meters; video camera
Demir et al. [225]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on the downstream end; interaction with a deformable plate
(3 different heights)
Tank
L = 0.6 m, W = 0.2 m,
Lr = 0.15 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m0.2 mTechnical
University of Erzurum,
Turkey
2019Free surface profiles; tip displacement of the plate; pressure in time at the downstream endVideo camera
(25 fps);
pressure transducers
3D
EUL
Coupled
SPH–FE
(interaction
fluid–structure)
Ghodoosipour
et al. [226,227]
Total;
dry and wet bottom;
impact on a horizontal transversal pipe
(D = 0.1 m)
Rectangular channel
L = 30.1 m, W = 1.5 m,
Lr = 21.55 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 m
hd = 0, 0.03, 0.06,
0.08, 0.12, 0.17 m
1.5 mUniversity of Ottawa,
Canada
2019Water depth time series at three locations; wave front celerity; flow velocity at a location; time series of the hydrodynamic force on the pipeCapacitance wave gauges;
ADV;
dynamometer;
video cameras
(70 fps)
Kamra et al. [228]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical
cylinder (square and
circular section,
square: 0.05 m × 0.05 m, circular: D = 0.05 m)
Tank
L = 0.8 m, W = 0.2 m, Lr = 0.2 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m0.2 mKyushu
University, Japan
2019Flow images;
pressure hydrographs
Video camera
(1500 fps);
piezoresistive
pressure sensors
Mokhtar et al. [229]Total;
wet bottom;
impact on a vertical
seawall (solid or perforated, located 9 m
downstream of the gate)
Rectangular channel
L = 100 m, W = 1.5 m, Lr = 44 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.55, 0.6, 0.65, 0.7, 0.75 m
hd = 0.05 m
1.5 mNational
Hydraulic
Research
Institute,
Selangor,
Malaysia
2019Wave depth and pressure hydrographs; flow velocity hydrographs; flow imagesResistance wave gauges; pressure
sensors; ADV; video camera (240 fps)
Dutta et al. [230,231]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a
vertical structure
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 4 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4 m0.3 mIndian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur2020Flow velocity at two locations; water surface profilesADV;
video camera
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Farahmandpour
et al. [232]
Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a
vertical structure
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 2.1 m
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir
(cylindrical, D = 3 m)
hu = 0.5, 1, 1.25,
1.5, 1.75, 2 m
3 mUniversiti Teknologi
Malaysia
2020Flow depth time series at two locations; pressure time series on the face of the structure;
wave front celerity
Capacitance wave gauges; pressure cells; video cameras
Kocaman et al. [233]Partial;
dry bottom;
insubmersible obstacle
(0.15 m × 0.08 m)
Tank
L = 1 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 0.25 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m0.1 mIskenderun Technical
University, Turkey
2020Wave front; water depth time series
at five gauge points
Video camera
(300 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Pratiwi et al. [234]Partial;
dry bottom;
insubmersible
oblique obstacle
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 1 m
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 2 m, Wr = 5.2 m
hu = 0.4 m1 mInstitut Teknologi Bandung,
Indonesia
2020Water depth and flow velocity at five locationsUltrasonic
distance meters; current meters
Shen et al. [235]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 4 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 1 m
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3 m0.4 mZhejiang
University, Hangzhou, China
2020Pressure time series at five elevations on the vertical wall; water depth at the wall;
flow images
Pressure transducers; capacitance wave gauge;
video cameras
(100 and 200 fps)
Ansari et al. [121]Total;
dry bottom; circular cylinder, square cylinder, and cubic obstacle
Rectangular channel
L = 3.7 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 0.6 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m0.6 mUniversity of Zanjan, Iran2021Water surface profilesVideo camera
(60fps)
3D
(Molecular dynamics software)
SPH
Memarzadeh et al. [236]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
impact against an overtoppable vertical wall (0.33 m from the gate)
Rectangular channel
L = 1 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 0.32 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.5 mShahid
Bahonar
University, Kerman, Iran
2021Water surface profiles at selected timesVideo camera3D
NSE
SPH;
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
(ε = 0.3 × 10−5 m)
Del Gaudio et al. [237]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on the end
vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 3 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 1.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m0.4 mUniversity of Naples
Federico II, Italy
2022Water surface profiles at selected times; pressure time series at six locations on the end wallVideo cameras
(164 fps);
pressure transducers
1D
SWE
FV
(C/g1/2 = 22)
Fang et al. [238]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
effect of front buildings on the wave impact on buildings
Rectangular channel
L = 17.3 m, W = 0.8 m,
Lr = 0.625 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.35, 0.5, 0.65 m0.8 mTongji
University,
Shanghai, China
2022Water depth time series at fourlocations; flow velocity at a gauge point; impact force on the building; pressure distribution on the impact frontUltrasonic distance meters; ADV; multiaxial dynamometer; uniaxial force
transducers
Garoosi et al. [239]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
closed downstream end;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 0.7 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 0.25 m, S = 0; smooth
(dry bottom case);
L = 1 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 0.25 m,
S = 0; smooth
(wet bottom case)
hu = 0.15 m
(dry bottom case);
hu = 0.20 m
(wet bottom case)
hd = 0.02 m
0.4 mÉcole
Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada
2022Water surface profiles; impact pressures on the downstream wallVideo camera
(480 fps);
pressure sensors
2D
NSE, VOF
FV;
2D
NSE
MPS
Lin et al. [240]Total;
wet bottom;
movable boulder (placed 1.87 m from the gate)
Rectangular channel
L = 25 m, W = 0.3 m
Lr = 0.25 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.23–0.35 m
hd = 0.03–0.06 m
0.3 mTainan
Hydraulics Laboratory,
Taiwan
2022Images of the bore impact on the boulder; boulder transportation process and boulder final postureVideo camera
(1000 fps);
inertial measurement unit
Liu et al. [241]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a vertical wall
(placed 0.85 m
from the gate)
Tank
L = 1.2 m, W = 0.44 m,
Lr = 0.25 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.25, 0.3 m0.44 mUniversity
of Ottawa,
Canada
2022Images of the wave propagation; water depth time series at the vertical wall; dynamic pressure time series at ten points on the wallVideo camera
(60 fps);
ultrasonic distance meters; pressure transducers
Wang et al. [242]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on flood barriers (kinetic umbrellas,
placed 1.11 m
from the gate)
Tank
L = 3 m, W = 0.56 m,
Lr = 0.616 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 m0.616 mPrinceton
University, USA
2022Hydrodynamic force time history;
flow images
Resistive load cell;
video cameras
3D
NSE
Coupled
SPH–FE
(interaction
fluid–structure)
Xie and
Shimozono [243]
Total;
dry bottom;
closed downstream end;
impact on a vertical wall
Rectangular channel
L = 1.52 m, W = 0.42 m,
Lr = 0.51 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.08–0.14 m0.42 mUniversity of Tokyo, Japan2022Dam-break wave front celerity; dam-break wave front slope; impact pressure on a vertical wallVideo camera
(500 fps);
pressure sensors
Yang et al. [131]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
impact on a circular pier
(D = 0.08 m) located 4 m
downstream of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 10.72 m, W = 1.485 m,
Lr = 4.58 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.13–0.483 m
(dry bottom cases);
hu = 0.13–0.487 m
(wet bottom cases);
hd = 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.1, 0.12, 0.14 m
1.485 mSouthwest Jiaotong
University, Chengdu, China
2022Water depth hydrographs at five locations; forces and moments on the pier; pressure time series on 16 points on the front, back, and lateral sides of the pierWave gauges;
load cell;
pressure sensors
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; θ = inclination angle; D = diameter; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 ADV = acoustic Doppler velocimeter; LDV = laser Doppler velocimeter; PIV = particle image velocimetry; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: BOU = Boussinesq equations; ETILT = edge-tracked interface locator technique; EUL = Euler equations; LBM = lattice Boltzmann method; NSE = Navier–Stokes equations; RANS = Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations; SWE = shallow water equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: CIP = constrained interpolation profile; ELMMC = Eulerian–Lagrangian marker and micro cell method; FD = finite difference; FE = finite element; FV = finite volume; MOC = method of characteristics; MPS = moving particle semi-implicit; PFEM = particle finite element method; SPH = smoothed particle hydrodynamics–n = Manning roughness coefficient; ε = surface roughness; C = Chézy’s resistance factor; g = gravity acceleration; N.A. = not available.
Table 4. Experimental investigations of the dam-break wave propagation in idealized urban areas.
Table 4. Experimental investigations of the dam-break wave propagation in idealized urban areas.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Shige-eda and Akiyama [59]Partial (asymmetric);
dry bottom;
impact on square pillars
(0.06 m × 0.06 m)
Tank
L = 4.8 m, Wr = 2.98 m
Lr = 1.93 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m0.5 mKyushu
Institute of Technology,
Kitakyushu,
Japan
2003Wave front position, flow depths and
surface velocity
hydrographs at
four positions, forces on selected pillars
Digital video tape recorder; particle tracking velocimetry;
load cells
2D
SWE
FV
(n < 0.07 s m−1/3)
Soares-Frazão
et al. [244];
Soares-Frazão and Zech [245]
Partial;
wet bottom;
three urban district
layouts (blocks: 0.3 m × 0.3 m; streets: 0.1 wide)
Trapezoidal channel
L = 35.8 m, W = 3.6 m,
Lr = 6.75 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.40 m
hd = 0.011 m
1 mUniversité
Catholique
de Louvain, Belgium
2006Water levels time
series at 64 points;
water surface profiles; surface velocity
measurements
Resistive water level gauges; digital imaging technique; Voronoï PTV technique2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Szydlowski and Twarog [246]Partial;
dry bottom;
urban district layout with aligned buildings
(0.1 m sides)
Tank
L = 6.75 m, W = 3 m,
Lr = 3.0 m, Wr = 3.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.21 m0.5 mGdansk
University of Technology, Poland
2006Water depth
time series at
11 locations
Pressure transducers; depth-control gauge2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.018 s m−1/3)
Yoon [247]
Kim et al. [248]
Partial;
dry bottom;
0.2 m × 0.2 m block
arranged as two
3 × 3 groups
Plane
L =30 m, W = 30 m, Lr = 5 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.45 m1 mUrban Flood Disaster
Management Research
Center, Seoul, South Korea
2007Water depth
time series at
17 points
Capacitance
wave gauges
2D
SWE
(with porosity)
FV
(ε = 0.3–3 × 10−3 m)
Albano et al. [249]Total;
dry bottom;
two fixed buildings
(0.3 m × 0.15 m × 0.3 m);
three floating bodies
(0.118 m × 0.045 m ×
0.043 m, mass: 0.025 kg)
Rectangular channel
L = 2.5 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 0.5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.1 m0.5 mBasilicata
University, Italy
2016Water depth time
series at two locations
(in front of the
fixed obstacles);
displacement of
movable bodies
Resistive water
depth gauges;
cameras
3D
EUL
(Euler-Newton equations for
the rigid body dynamics)
SPH
Norin et al. [250]Total;
dry bottom;
staggered
0.1 m × 0.1 m
parallelepipeds
Rectangular channel
L = 7 m, W = 1.39 m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.225 m1.39 mScientific
Research
Institute of Power
Structures, Russia
2017Water level time series at two points;
flow velocity profiles
Water level gauges; flow meters2D
SWE
FV
Guinot et al. [251,252]Total;
dry bottom;
blocks (0.5 m × 0.75 m);
two configurations
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 1 m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.35 m1 mUniversité
Catholique
de Louvain, Belgium
2018Water depth time series at selected locationsUltrasonic distance meters1D
SWE
(with porosity)
FV
Kusuma et al. [253]Partial;
dry bottom;
blocks (0.1 m × 0.1 m);
four configurations
(1, 3, 5, 8 blocks)
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 1 m,
S = 0; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 2 m, Wr = 4 m
hu = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 m1 mInstitut Teknologi Bandung,
Indonesia
2019Water depth profiles at selected times; water depth and flow velocity hydrographs at selected locationsWave probe
and piezometers;
current meter
Chumchan and
Rattanadecho [254]
Partial;
dry bottom;
blocks (0.085 m sides);
two configurations
Tank
L = 0.984 m, W = 0.484 m,
Lr = 0.24 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15 m0.1 mThammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand2020Flow images;
wave front
Video camera
(240 fps)
3D
RANS, VOF
FV, LB
Dong et al. [255]Partial;
dry bottom;
idealized urban street;
six configurations
(with buildings, greenbelt sections, sidewalks, and an underground sewer
system)
Rectangular channel
L = 20.5 m, W = 3 m,
Lr = 4.5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.09, 0.19, 0.29 m1 mNorth China University of Water
Resources and Electric Power, China
2021Water hydrographs at seven points; flow velocity time series at three points; drainage discharge time series at inletsUltrasonic distance meters; electromagnetic velocity meter; electromagnetic flowmeters2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.009–0.011 s m−1/3)
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 PTV = particle tracking velocimetry; 4 ✗ = not freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: EUL = Euler equations; RANS = Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations; SWE = shallow water equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: FV = finite volume; LB = lattice Boltzmann; SPH = smoothed particle hydrodynamics–n = Manning roughness coefficient; ε = surface roughness; N.A. = not available.
Table 5. Experimental investigations of the propagation of tsunami bores (generated by the removal of a gate) in the swash zone.
Table 5. Experimental investigations of the propagation of tsunami bores (generated by the removal of a gate) in the swash zone.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Yeh and Ghazali [256], Yeh et al. [257]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach starting
0.4 m downstream
of the gate
Tank
L = 9 m, W = 1.2 m, Lr = 2.97 m,
Sb = 7.5°; smooth
hu/hd= 2.31
hd = 0.0975 m
(fully developed bore);
hu/hd= 1.72
hd = 0.0975 m
(undular bore)
1.2 mUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA1988Longitudinal profile of the bore; maximum run-up height;
bore celerity
Video camcorder
and photo camera
(laser-induced
fluorescence);
water sensors
Petroff et al. [258]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach;
prismatic movable
obstacles of different
sizes and orientations
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 7 m;
Sb = 0.1; smooth and rough
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.02 m
0.61 mUniversity of Washington, Seattle, USA2001Advection distance
of obstacles
Video camera
(18 fps)
(beach roughened with sand: d50 = 0.84 × 10−3 m)
Anh [259]Total;
dry bottom;
adverse slope; Vetiver hedge 0.5 m thick
(160–530 stems/m2)
Tank
L > 12.5 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 6 m,
Sb = 1/30; smooth
hu = 0.35–0.5 m0.4 mDelft
University of Technology, The Netherlands
2007Water depth hydrographs; overtopping dischargePressure transducers, water depth gauges
Barnes et al. [260]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach starting
4 m downstream of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.45 m, Lr = 1 m,
Sb = 0.1; smooth and rough
hu = 0.65 m
hd = 0.065 m
0.45 mUniversity of Aberdeen,
UK
2009Flow depth, bottom shear stress, and flow velocity time seriesAcoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV
De Leffe et al. [261]Total;
dry bottom;
sloping beach starting
1.15 m downstream of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 8 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 2.25 m,
Sb = 0.1; smooth
hu = 0.25 m1 mÉcole Centrale Nantes, France2010Flow depth time series at 2 gauge pointsN.A.1D, 2D
SWE
SPH
(n = 0.001 s m−1/3)
O’Donoghue
et al. [262]
Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach starting
3.8 m downstream
of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.45 m, Lr = 1 m,
Sb = 0.1; smooth and rough
hu = 0.65 m
hd = 0.06 m
0.45 mUniversity of Aberdeen,
UK
2010Water depth time series at 25 locations; runup; flow velocity profiles at five cross-sectionsCapacitance depth gauges; PIV1D
SWE
FV
(λ = 0.064,
λ = 0.16)
Kikkert et al. [263]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach starting
4.82 m downstream
of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.45 m; Lr = 1 m,
Sb = 1/10; rough
hu = 0.6 m
hd = 0.062 m
0.45 mUniversity of Aberdeen,
UK
2012Flow depth time series and velocity profiles at six cross-sectionsLaser induced
fluorescence and
video camera; PIV
Adegoke et al. [264]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
sloping beach starting
2.7 m downstream
of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 4.7 m, W = 0.4 m,
Lr = 1 m, Sb = N.A.; smooth
hu = 0.15–0.55 m
hd =0.05, 0.10, 0.15 m
0.4 mLiverpool
John Moores University,
UK
2014Wave front velocityVideo Camera
(40 fps);
wave probes;
pressure transducers
Rahman et al. [265]Total;
dry bottom;
building model
(cubic, l = 0.08 m) placed 4 m from the gate;
effect of solid and
perforated sea walls
(at various distances from the building model)
Rectangular channel
L = 17.5 m, W = 0.6 m
Lr = 5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.15, 0.2,
0.25, 0.3 m
0.6 mUniversity of
Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2014Wave height
time series
at four positions;
force time series
on the building model
Wave probes;
load cell
Hartana and
Murakami [266]
Total;
wet bottom;
adverse slope starting 5.5 m from the gate
building models
(0.2 × 0.2 × 0.26 m):
solid and with 40% opening ratio
Rectangular channel
L = 12 m, W = 0.4 m
Lr = 5 m, S = 0,
Sb = 1/40; smooth
hu = 0.15, 0.2,
0.25, 0.3 m
hd = 0.05 m
0.4 mUniversity of Mataram,
Indonesia
2015Water depth hydrographs at three locations;
flow velocity hydrographs at two locations;
pressure time series at 15 points on the building faces
Video cameras;
wave gauges;
propeller current
meters; pressure gauges
3D
NSE, VOF
FV, FE
Chen et al. [267]Total; two-dam-break systems (1 m apart)
wet bottom;
adverse slope of starting 3.006 m downstream of the first gate;
swash-swash interaction
Rectangular channel
L = 12.5 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 2.443 m, S = 0, Sb =1/10;
smooth, rough adverse slope
hu1 = 0.35 m, hu2 = 0.5 m, hd =0.035 m;
hu1 = 0.4 m, hu2 = 0.4 m, hd =0.04 m
(time delay between the opening of the two gates: 1.5–6.5 s)
0.3 mHong Kong University of the Science and
Technology
2016Water depth hydrographs at five locations; velocity profiles and water surface elevationAcoustic distance sensors; PIV
Chen et al. [268]Total;
dry bottom (wet bottom in the foreshore area);
impact on a wharf model (three deck heights and
eight wharf slopes)
Reservoir
area 77 m2, capacity 50 m3
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 1.2 m,
S = 0, Sb = 30°; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6 m (hd = 0.05 m); (different gate openings)
1.2 mUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand2016Water level hydrographs at two locations; bore velocities; time series of uplift pressures at eight points on the wharfWave gauges;
video camera
(210 fps);
pressure sensors
Chen et al. [269]Total;
dry bottom (wet bottom in the foreshore area);
impact on a wharf model and a protective vertical wall (four positions and three wall heights)
Reservoir
Lr = 11 m, Wr = 7.3 m
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 1.2 m,
S = 0, Sb = 30°; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.6 m
(hd = 0.05 m);
(different gate openings)
1.2 mUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand2017Water level hydrographs at three locations; bore velocities; pressure time series on the wharf and the wallWave gauges;
pressure sensors
Esteban et al. [270]Total;
dry bottom (wet bottom in the foreshore area); sloping beach; impact on different overtoppable structures (high vertical wall, low block, dyke)
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 0.41 m, Lr = 4.5 m;
S = 0, Sb = 1/10; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.6 m
(hd = 0, 0.1, 0.2 m)
0.41 mWaseda
University, Tokyo, Japan
2017Wave depth hydrographs at six locations; overtopping flow velocity; bore impact imagesWave gauges; electromagnetic current meters; video camera
Dai et al. [271]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach starting 3.006 m downstream of the first gate
Rectangular channel
L = 12.5 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 1.006 m, Wr = 0.279 m;
S = 0, Sb = 1/10; smooth, rough adverse slope
hu = 0.5 m
hd =0.05 m
0.3 mHong Kong University of the Science and
Technology
2017Flow depth and
velocity hydrographs at five locations;
entrained air
Combined
laser-induced
fluorescence and PIV;
phase detection
optical probe system; bubble image velocimetry
Tar et al. [272]Total;
wet bottom; sloping beach; impact on a oil storage tank model and protective multiple flexible pipes
Rectangular channel
L = 44 m, W = 0.7 m, Lr = 7.9 m;
S = 0, Sb = 1/40 and 1/100; smooth
hu = 0.65 m
hd = 0.4 m
0.7 mUniversity of Osaka, Japan2017Flow velocity upstream and downstream of the flexible pipes; hydrodynamic force on the tank model; flow imagesElectromagnetic velocity meters; load cell; video camera3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Chen et al. [273]Total;
dry bottom (wet bottom in the foreshore area);
impact on the piles of a wharf model; protective effect of a vertical wall
(four positions and three wall heights)
Reservoir
Lr = 11 m, Wr = 7.3 m
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 1.2 m,
S = 0, Sb = 30°; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.6 m
(hd = 0.05 m);
(different gate openings)
1.2 mUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand2018Water level time series at three locations; bore velocities; pressure time series on the piles and deckWave gauges;
pressure sensors
Chen et al. [274]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a bridge model (four different contraction ratios)
Reservoir: 50 m3
Rectangular channel
L = 14 m, W = 1.2 m,
S = 0, Sb = 30°; smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.4, 0.6 m
(different gate openings)
1.2 mUniversity of Auckland, New Zealand2018Force and momentum acting on the bridge; pressure time series on the bridge deck; wave height time seriesLoad cell;
pressure transducers; capacitance wave gauges;
video camera
(30 fps)
Ishii et al. [275]Total;
dry bottom (wet bottom in the foreshore area); sloping beach starting 4.45 m downstream of the upstream end; impact on a vertical structure
Tank
L = 9 m, W = 4 m, Lr = N.A.,
S = 0, Sb ≈ 8.5°; smooth
hu = N.A.
(hd = 0.2 m)
4 mWaseda
University, Tokyo, Japan
2018Flow vortices behind the structureLoad cell;
wave gauges, PIV
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Lu et al. [276]Total;
dry and wet (in the foreshore area) bottom; sloping beach starting 1.8 m downstream of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 6.5 m, W = 0.4 m, Lr = 1.5 m,
S = 0, Sb = 1/7.5; smooth
hu = 0.08–0.24 m
(hd = 0, 0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08 m)
0.4 mZhejiang
University, Hangzhou, China
2018Wave front position; maximum run-up; flow imagesVideo camera
(150 fps)
Chen et al. [277]Total;
dry bottom;
sloping beach starting 0.76 m downstream of the dam; run-up height of balls with different diameters and densities
Rectangular channel
L = 4.4 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 1.29 m, S = 0; Sb = 15–90°; smooth
hu = 0.06, 0.1, 0.14,
0.18, 0.22 m
0.3 mUniversity of Fuzhou, China2020Water surface profiles; ball climbing heightVideo camera
Chen et al. [278]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a
container model
Rectangular channel
L = 4.4 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 1.27 m, S = 0, −1°; smooth
hu = 0.13, 0.14, 0.15,
0.16, 0.17 m
0.3 mUniversity of Fuzhou, China2020Tsunami wave height; shift of the container model; flow imagesWater level gauge; video camera
Elsheikh et al. [279,280]Total;
dry bottom;
interaction with a transverse canal located 3 m
downstream of the gate
(three different depths
and widths)
Rectangular channel
L = 15.56 m, W = 0.38 m,
Lr = 7.76 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 m0.38 mUniversity of Ottawa,
Canada
2020Wave front motion and wave height over the canal; wave profiles; water level hydrographs at four locations; flow velocity time series at three pointsVideo cameras; capacitance wave gauge and ultrasonic distance meters; ADV3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Barranco and Liu [281]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping beach starting 11.1 m downstream
of the gate
Rectangular channel
L = 36 m, W = 0.9 m,
Lr = 2, 4, 8, 17.6 m;
S = 0; Sb = 1/10; smooth
hu = 0.128, 0.157, 0.188, 0.221, 0.256, 0.292, 0.329, 0.368, 0.408 m
hd =0.1 m
0.9 mNational
University of Singapore
2021Water depth time series at seven locations; run-up on the adverse slopeCapacitance gauges; ultrasonic distance meters;
video camera
(100fps)
2D
SWE
(non-hydrostatic)
FD
Chen and
Wang [282]
Total;
dry bottom; sloping beach starting 0.76 m downstream of the gate
energy dissipation
effect of grasses;
run-up height of steel balls
Rectangular channel
L = 4.4 m, W = 0.3 m,
Lr = 1.29 m, S = 0, Sb = 30°; smooth, rough reach
(artificial grasses)
hu = 0.06, 0.1, 0.14,
0.18, 0.22 m
0.3 mUniversity of Fuzhou, China2022Wave maximum height at a location; wave celerity; ball climbing heightWater level gauges
Liu et al. [283]Total;
dry bottom;
sloping channel starting 0.45 m downstream of the gate; impact on a vertical wall placed 0.85 m from the gate
Tank
L = 1.2 m, W = 0.44 m,
Lr = 0.25 m, S = 0; Sb =5°, 10°, 15°; smooth
hu = 0.25 m0.44 mUniversity of Ottawa,
Canada
2022Wave runup on the vertical wall; images of the wave propagation; free surface profiles at selected times; time history of the wave frontUltrasonic distance meters;
video camera
(60 fps)
Liu et al. [284]Total;
dry bottom;
sloping channel starting 0.45 m downstream of the gate; impact on a vertical wall placed 0.85 m from the gate
Tank
L = 1.2 m, W = 0.44 m,
Lr = 0.25 m, S = 0, Sb = 5°, 10°, 15°; smooth
hu = 0.3 m0.44 mUniversity of Ottawa,
Canada
2022Dynamic pressure time series at five points on the wallPressure transducers3D
RANS, VOF
FV;
3D
NSE
SPH
Rajaie et al. [285]Total;
wet bottom;
sloping channel starting 4.3 m downstream of the gate insubmersible structure
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 1.5 m,
Lr = 21.55 m, S = 0, Sb = 5%; smooth, rough reach
(sand bed)
hu = 0.25, 0.3,
0.35, 0.4 m
hd = 0.03, 0.1 m
1.5 mUniversity of Ottawa,
Canada
2022Water depth time series at two locations and in front of the structure; flow velocity time series at a gauge pointCapacitance wave gauges and ultrasonic distance meters; ADV
von Häfen et al. [286]Total;
dry bottom; sloping beach starting 10 m downstream of the (swing) gate
composite bathymetry (horizontal inland)
Rectangular channel
L = 100 m, W = 2 m, Lr = 80 m,
S = 0, Sb =5%, followed by a horizontal bottom; smooth
hu = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 m2 mTechnische Universität Braunschweig, Germany2022Water depth time series at four locationsCapacitance wave gauges3D
RANS, LSM
FD;
2D
SWE
(non-hydrostatic)
FD
(ε = 0.001 m)
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; Sb = beach (adverse) slope; l = obstacle characteristic length; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 ADV = acoustic Doppler velocimeter; PIV = particle image velocimetry; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional; 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: LSM = level set method; NSE = Navier–Stokes equations; RANS = Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations; SWE = shallow water equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: FD = finite difference; FE = finite element; FV = finite volume; SPH = smoothed-particle hydrodynamics–n = Manning roughness coefficient; ε = surface roughness; λ = friction factor; N.A. = not available.
Table 6. Experimental investigations on green water events using dam-break waves.
Table 6. Experimental investigations on green water events using dam-break waves.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Buchner [287]Total;
dry bottom;
impact on a rigid panel
Tank
L = 3.22 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 1.2 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.6 m1 mDelft
University of Technology, The Netherlands
2002Water depth hydrographs at four locations; time series of impact loads on the panel in different areasForce and pressure transducers
Hernández-Fontes
et al. [288,289]
Total;
wet bottom;
vessel structure located 0.505 m downstream
of the gate
Tank
L = 1 m, W = 0.355 m, Lr = 0.3 m,
S = 0; smooth;
f = 0.006, 0.024, 0.042 m
hu = 0.18, 0.2, 0.21, 0.22, 0.24 m
hd/hu = 0.6
0.355 mFederal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2017Water elevation hydrographs at two locations; video-images of green water flowConductive wave probes; video cameras (500 fps)
Hernández-Fontes
et al. [290]
Total;
wet bottom;
vessel structure located 1.258 m downstream
of the gate
Tank
L = 1.95 m, W = 0.5 m,
Lr = 0.3 m, S = 0; smooth;
f = 0.006–0.042 m
hu = 0.18, 0.21, 0.24 m
hd/hu = 0.6
0.5 mFederal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2019Freeboard exceedance time series;
vertical load on the structure deck
Load cells;
video cameras
(500 fps);
1D
SWE
Hernández-Fontes
et al. [291]
Total;
wet bottom;
vessel structure located 0.505 m downstream
of the gate
Tank
L = 1 m, W = 0.355 m, Lr = 0.3 m,
S = 0; smooth;
f = 0.03–0.042 m
hd = 0.108, 0.12 m
hd/hu = 0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4
0.355 mFederal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2020Water elevation hydrographs at four locations; freeboard exceedance time series; vertical load on the structure deck; video-images of green water flowConductive wave probes); load cells; video cameras
(500 fps)
Hernández-Fontes
et al. [292]
Total;
wet bottom;
vessel structure located 1.455 m downstream
of the gate
Tank
L = 1.95 m, W = 0.5 m, Lr = 0.3 m, S = 0; smooth;
f = 0.006–0.042 m
hu = 0.18, 0.2, 0.21, 0.22, 0.24, 0.27, 0.3 m
hd/hu = 0.6, 0.5, 0.4
0.5 mFederal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2020Water elevation hydrographs at five locations; freeboard exceedance time series; vertical load on the structure deck; video-images of green water flowConductive wave probes); load cells; video cameras
(500 fps)
Hernández-Fontes
et al. [293]
Total;
wet bottom;
vessel structure located 0.505 m downstream
of the gate
Tank
L = 1 m, W = 0.355 m, Lr = 0.3 m,
S = 0; smooth;
f = 0.03 m
hu = 0.3 m
hd = 0.12 m
0.355 mFederal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2020Water elevation hydrographs at five locations; water surface profiles; video-images of green water flowConductive wave probes; video cameras (250 fps)
Wang and Dong [294]Total;
wet bottom; interaction with a floating box
(0.3 m × 0.595 m × 0.1 m, placed 0.75 m or 1.2 m from the gate)
Tank
L = 2 m, W = 0.6 m, Lr = 0.5 m,
S = 0; smooth;
f = 0.07 m
hu = 0.25, 0.3, 0.35 m
hd = 0.15 m
0.6 mOcean
University, Qingdao,
China
2022Pressure hydrographs at two points on the box upstream face; water surface hydrographs at two locations; motion of the floating structurePressure probes;
wave gauges; motion capture system
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; f = freeboard; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 –; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional–Mathematical model: SWE = shallow water equations; N.A. = not available.
Table 7. Experimental investigations of dam-break waves of non-Newtonian fluids.
Table 7. Experimental investigations of dam-break waves of non-Newtonian fluids.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Chanson et al. [295]; Chanson et al. [296]Total;
dry bottom;
thixotropic fluid
(bentonite suspension)
Rectangular channel
L = 2 m, W = 0.34 m,
Lr = hu/sin(15°),
S = 15°; rough
hu = 0.0472–0.0784 m0.34 mLaboratory of Materials
and Structures in Civil
Engineering,
Champs sur Marne, France
2004Free surface; wave front propagation; wave front profilesVideo cameras
(25 fps)
Jánosi et al. [64]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
polyethylene-oxide;
different concentrations
Tank
L = 9.93 m, W = 0.15 m,
Lr = 0.38 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.11–0.25 m
hd = 0–0.005 m
0.15 mEötvös
University, Budapest,
Hungary
2004Water profiles;
front position and velocity
Video cameras
Komatina and Đorđević [297]Total;
dry bottom;
mixture of water and copper tailings;
different volumetric
concentrations of the solid phase
Rectangular channel
L = 4.5 m, W = 0.15 m, Lr = 2 m, Wr = 0.155 m, S = 0–0.01; smooth
hu = 0.1–0.3 m0.155 mUniversity of Belgrade,
Serbia &
Montenegro
2004Flow depth profiles
at different times
Video camera
(5 fps)
1D
SWE
FD
Cochard and
Ancey [298];
Cochard [299];
Cochard and
Ancey [300]
Total;
dry bottom;
viscoplastic fluid
(Carbopol Ultrez 10)
Plane
L = 6 m, W = 1.8 m,
S = 0–18°; smooth
Reservoir
Wr = 1.8 m, Mass = 120 kg
N.A.1.6 mEPFL,
Lausanne, Switzerland
2006Free surface and flow depth profiles at different timesVideo camera
Balmforth et al. [301]Total;
dry bottom;
Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids (corn syrup and aqueous suspensions of xanthan gum, kaolin, Carbopol, and cornstarch)
Rectangular channel
L > 1 m, W = 0.1 m, Lr = 0.4 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.02–0.0435 m0.1 mN.A.2007Wave front positionVideo camera
Ancey and Cochard [302]Total;
dry bottom;
viscoplastic (Herschel–Bulkley) fluid
(Carbopol Ultrez 10)
Rectangular channel
L = 4 m, W = 0.3 m, Lr = 0.51 m,
S = 6, 12, 18, 24°; smooth
Mass in the
reservoir:
23–43 kg
0.3 mEPFL,
Lausanne, Switzerland
2009Free surface and flow depth profiles at selected times; front position with timeVideo camera
Cochard and
Ancey [303]
Partial;
dry bottom;
viscoplastic (Herschel–Bulkley) fluid
(Carbopol Ultrez 10)
Plane
L = 5.5 m, W = 1.8 m,
S = 0–18°; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 0.51 m, Wr = 0.3 m
hu = 0.3–0.36 m0.3 mEPFL,
Lausanne, Switzerland
2009Free surface
at selected times
Video camera
(45 fps)
Brondani Minussi and de Freitas Maciel [304]Total;
dry bottom;
viscoplastic (Herschel–Bulkley) fluid
(Carbopol 940,
different concentrations)
Rectangular channel
L = 1.91 m, W = 0.32 m,
Lr = 0.5 m, S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.07, 0.1, 0.13 m0.32 mPaulista State University, Ilha Solteira,
Brazil
2012Free surface
at selected times; wave front position
Video camera2D
NSE, VOF
FV
Bates and Ancey [305]Total;
dry bottom;
viscoplastic (Herschel–Bulkley) fluid;
contact with a stationary layer of the same fluid
Rectangular channel
L = 3.5 m, W = 0.1 m, Lr = 0.3 m;
S = 12°, 16°, 20°, 24°; smooth
Fluid mass: 3 kg0.1 mEPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland2017Wave front position; water surface profiles; velocity fieldPIV;
video cameras
1D
(lubrification theory)
GM
Jing et al. [306]Total;
dry bottom;
mudflow (three different grain sizes)
Rectangular channel
L = 6 m, W = 0.3 m;
S = 0.02; smooth
Reservoir
Lr = 2 m, Wr = 0.6 m
hu = 0.30 m0.3 mUniversity of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China2019Flow depth, velocity and pressure hydrographs at four locationsVideo cameras
(300 fps);
pressure sensors
Modolo et al. [307]Total;
dry bottom;
Bingham fluid
(different solutions)
Tank
L = 1.52 m, W = 0.05 m,
Lr = 0.4 m, S = 0;
smooth and rough
hu = 0.24 m0.05 mFederal
University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2019Flow images; flow depth profiles at selected timesVideo camera; PIV
Tang et al. [308]Total;
dry bottom;
mud flow (Herschel–Bulkley fluid)
Rectangular channel
L = 3 m, W = 0.23 m, Lr = 0.48 m,
S = 0, 5°, 10°; smooth
Mud volume:
38.6, 36.3, 34 l
0.23 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2022Flow depth and bottom pressure hydrographs at two locationsPressure sensors;
laser sensors
2D
NSE, VOF
FD
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 PIV = particle image velocimetry; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 1D = one-dimensional; 2D = two-dimensional–Mathematical model: NSE = Navier–Stokes equations; SWE = shallow water equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: FD = finite difference; FV = finite volume; GM = Galerkin method; N.A. = not available.
Table 8. Experimental investigations of dam-breaks in cascade reservoirs.
Table 8. Experimental investigations of dam-breaks in cascade reservoirs.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Yang et al. [309]Two total dam-breaks;
three different distances between the two dams
(7.8, 9.8, 11.8 m);
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.5 m,
S = 12°; smooth
hu = 0.184–0.531 m0.5 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2011Water depth hydrographs in 10 positionsWater probes; high resolution camera
Chen et al. [310]Total dam-break;
pressure load on a downstream dam;
dry bottom
Upstream reservoir
Lr = 2 m, Wr = 0.4 m, S = 0
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 0.4 m
S = 4, 8, 12°; smooth
hu = 0.1–0.3 m
(upstream reservoir);
hd = 0–0.3 m
(downstream
reservoir)
0.4 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2014Pressure hydrographs 20 positions at five different elevations on the downstream damPressure sensors
Liu et al. [311]Two total dam-breaks;
dry bottom
(dam height: 0.4 m)
Reservoirs
Lr = 2 m, W = 0.8 m
Rectangular channel
L = 12 m, W = 0.4 m,
S = 1/12.5, smooth;
hu1 = hu2 = 0.3 m
(downstream dam breaks 0, 2, 4 s after the upstream one);
hu1 = hu2 = 0.2 m
(downstream dam breaks due to overtopping)
0.4 mChangjiang River Scientific Research
Institute,
Wuhan, China
2017Water depth hydrographs at six locationsUltrasonic distance meters
Zhang and Xu [312]Three dams;
total break of the upstream dam;
dry bottom;
retarding effects of an intermediate intact dam
(dam height: 0–0.6 m)
Upstream reservoir
Lr = 2.97 m, Wr = 1.93 m
Rectangular channel
L = 20 m, W = 0.5 m,
S = 12°, smooth;
hu = 0.1–0.3 m
(upstream dam);
hu = 0.1–0.5 m
(downstream dam);
hu = 0–0.6 m
(intermediate dam)
0.5 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2017Pressure time series
on the face of the
intermediate dam;
flow images
Pressure sensors;
video cameras
Luo et al. [313]Two dams;
total break of the upstream dam;
dry bottom; flow in the downstream reservoir
Rectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 0.4 m,
S = 4°; smooth
hu = 0.2 m
(upstream dam);
hu = 0.15, 0.3 m
(downstream dam)
0.4 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2019Flow images;
water depth and pressure hydrographs at three points
N.A3D
NSE
SPH
Luo et al. [313]Three dam-breaks;
dry bottom
Rectangular channel
L = 15.6 m, W = 0.5 m,
S = 4°; smooth
hu = 0.5 m
(upstream dam);
hu = 0.5 m
(downstream dams)
0.5 mSichuan
University, Chengdu, China
2019Flow images;
water depth hydrograph at six points
N.A3D
NSE
SPH
Kocaman and Dal [314]Two dams;
total break of the upstream dam on the reservoir of the downstream one; overtopping of the downstream dam
Rectangular channel
L = 2.5 m, W = 0.25 m,
Lr = 0.75 m (both dams)
S = 1/5, smooth
hu = 0.15 m
(both dams)
0.25Iskenderun Technical
University, Turkey
2020Water depth hydrographs;
images of the
free surface profiles
Video cameras
(120 and 50 fps)
3D
NSE
SPH
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 –; 4 ✗ = not freely available; ✓ = freely available; 5 Approach: 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: NSE = Navier–Stokes equations–Numerical method: SPH = smoothed particle hydrodynamics; N.A. = not available.
Table 9. Experimental investigations of dike-break induced flows on a lateral floodplain.
Table 9. Experimental investigations of dike-break induced flows on a lateral floodplain.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dike-Break type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Breach Width
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Bechteler et al. [315]Sudden trapezoidal opening
(1V:1.11H
slope)
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 2 m, S = 0
Floodplain
L = 5 m, W = 10 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.2 m0.5 mUniversity of German
Federal Armed Forces, Munich Germany
1992Pressure hydrographs at 29 locations; flooded area perimeterPressure transducers; video camera2D
SWE
FV
(n = 0.001 s m−1/3)
Liem and Köngeter [316]N.A.Rectangular channel
L = N.A., W = N.A., S = N.A.
Floodplain
L = 8.5 m, W = 3.5 m, S = 0.05;
smooth
N.A.0.6 mAachen
University of Technology, Germany
1999Water levels hydrographs in 72 points; front wave propagationElectrode system;
capacity sensors
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Aureli and Mignosa [317,318]Sudden openingRectangular channel
L = 10 m, W = 0.3 m, S = 0.001
Floodplain
L = 1.5 m, W = 2.6 m;
smooth
Steady flow
5–15 l/s
0.28 mUniversity of Parma, Italy2002Water depth hydrographs at nine locations; transverse velocity profiles; discharge flowing through the breachUltrasonic distance meters; ADV;
triangular weir
2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Sarma and Das [319]Sudden openingCompound channel
L = 9.2 m, W = N.A., S = N.A.
Floodplain
L = 2 m, W = 2.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
N.A.N.A.Indian Institute
of Technology, Guwahati,
India
2003Wave front in the flooding plane
at three times
N.A.(n = 0.013 s m−1/3)
Briechle et al. [320]; Briechle [321];
Harms et al. [322]
Sudden openingRectangular channel
L = N.A., W = 1 m, S = N.A.
Floodplain
L = 3.5 m, W = 4 m, S = N.A.; smooth
Steady flow:
300 l/s
hu = 0.3–0.5 m
0.5 mAachen
University of Technology, Germany
2004Water depth hydrographs; wave front position and velocityUltrasonic distance meters; Video cameras
(>50 fps)
2D
SWE
DG
(n = 0.0083 s m−1/3)
Oertel and Schlenkhoff [323];
Oertel [324]
N.A.Rectangular channel
W ≈ 0.6 m
Floodplain
L = 4 m, W = 5.6 m,
S = 0; smooth
N.A.0.5 mBergische
University Wuppertal,
Germany
2008Water depth
contour maps
Ultrasonic distance meters
Roger et al. [325]Sudden openingRectangular channel
L = N.A., W = 1 m, S = N.A.
Floodplain
L = 4 m, W = 3.5 m, S = 0; smooth
Steady flow:
100–300 l/s
hu = 0.3–0.5 m
0.3–0.7 mAachen
University of Technology, Germany
2009Surface profiles at different times;
breach discharge
Ultrasonic distance meters;
LDA
2D
SWE
DG, FV
(n = 0.005–0.02 s m−1/3)
Sun et al. [326]Sudden breachingRectangular channel
L = 40 m, W = 1 m, Lr = 15.5 m
Floodplain
L = 25 m, W = 2.5 m,
S = 0; smooth
Steady flow: 80 l/s1 mUniversity of Tsinghua,
Beijing, China
2017Water depth and flow velocity hydrographs at several locations;Pressure gauges;
ADV
2D
SWE
FD
(n = 0.012 s m−1/3)
Al-Hafidh et al. [327]Sudden breachingRectangular channel
L = 11 m, W = 0.4 m, S = 0
Floodplain
L = 1.83 m, W = 4.87 m;
smooth
Different inflow
hydrographs
0.2, 0.4, 0.8 mUniversity of South Carolina, USA2022Water depth
hydrographs at eight locations
Ultrasonic distance meters
Yoon et al. [328]Gradual trapezoidal breaching
(sliding opening)
1V:0.3H
Rectangular channel
L = 30 m, W = 5 m, S = 0;
Floodplain
L = 25 m, W = 30 m;
smooth
hu = 0.3, 0.35, 0.4,
0.45, 0.5, 0.55 m
0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 mInstitute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Korea2022Water depth hydrographs; propagation of the wave frontWave height meters
Note(s): 1 L = facility length; W = facility width; Lr = reservoir length; Wr = reservoir width (if different from W); S = bottom slope; 2 hu = water depth in the channel; 3 ADV = acoustic Doppler velocimeter; LDA = laser Doppler anemometer; 4 ✗ = not freely available; 5 Approach: 2D = two-dimensional–Mathematical model: SWE = shallow water equations–Numerical method: DG = discontinuous Galerkin; FD = finite difference; FV = finite volume–n = Manning roughness coefficient; N.A. = not available.
Table 10. Experimental investigations of collapses of storage tanks and bunds or dike overtopping.
Table 10. Experimental investigations of collapses of storage tanks and bunds or dike overtopping.
(1)
Reference
(2)
Dam-Break Type
(3)
Setup
Characteristics 1
(4)
Initial
Conditions 2
(5)
Bund
Characteristics
(6)
Laboratory
(7)
Year
(8)
Measured
Data
(9)
Measuring
Technique 3
(10)
Data 4
(11)
Numerical
Simulation 5
Greenspan and
Johansson [329]
Total and partial
(orifice over a 30° arc:
0.0254 m wide,
h = 0.076 m high);
dry bottom
Cylindrical tank
D = 0.19 m,
S = 0; smooth
0.05 m < hu <
0.22 m
Circular:
bund radius = 0.127, 0.178, 0.229, 0.279 m;
bund inclination =
30°, 60°, 90°;
bund height = 0.033,
0.038, 0.051, 0.064 m
Massachusetts
Institute
of Technology,
USA
1981Overtopping fraction
(as a function of the dike characteristics)
Needle depth gauge; video camera
Sharifi [330]Total;
dry bottom;
three configurations: unconfined flow, barrier flow, and confined flow
(wall height = 0.25hu)
Cylindrical tank
D = 0.087 m,
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.5D,
0.75D, D
Circular:
bund radius = 0.175, 0.24, 0.258, 0.3, 0.34 m;
bund inclination =
40°, 90°
bund height = 0.022,
0.032, 0.044 0.065 m
Imperial
College
of Science and
Technology,
London, UK
1987Water depth hydrographs at eight positions; wave front
propagation
Light-sensitive
photodiodes;
video camera
(128 fps)
Maschek et al. [331]Total;
dry and wet bottom;
symmetric and
asymmetric water
column (off-centeredness = 0.055, 0.0825, 0.11 m);
effect of obstacles
in the flow: rings,
rods, and particles
Cylindrical tanks
Inner
D = 0.11, 0.19 m;
Outer
D = 0.44 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.22,
0.23 m
hd = 0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.05,
0.1 m
Circular:
bund height =
0.02, 0.03 m
Karlsruhe
Nuclear
Research
Centre,
Germany
1992Arrival time at the wall; time of maximum height; maximum height at the container wall; time of maximum height; maximum height at pool centerVideo camera
Cleaver et al. [332];
Cronin and Evans [333]
Total;
dry bottom;
different bunding
arrangements;
impact on an additional cylindrical tank
(D = 3.5 m)
Quarter
of cylinder tank
D = 3.5 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 1.45, 1.6, 1.75 mCircular:
bund radius =
5, 7.1, 10 m;
bund inclination =
30°; 45°, 90°;
bund height = 0.05,
0.1, 0.2 m;
Square:
bund distance =
6.27, 4.43, 8.89 m;
bund inclination = 90°;
bund height = 0.05, 0.2 m
Advantica Technologies Ltd. (for Health and Safety
Executive),
Loughborough, UK
2001Time of water arrival at 60 positions; water head in the tank;
overtopping volume
Video camera
(125 fps);
pressure transducer;
depth resistance probes; calibrated container
Atherton [334]Total;
dry bottom;
different bunding
arrangements
Quarter
of cylinder tank,
D = 0.6 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.12, 0.3, 0.6 mCircular:
bund radius =
0.315–1.9 m;
bund inclination = 90°;
bund height =
0.006–0.72 m;
Triangular and
Rectangular:
bund distance = 0.441, 1.247 m;
bund inclination = 90°; bund height = 0.012,
0.12 m
Liverpool
John Moores University,
UK
2005Dynamic pressure
vertical profiles on the bund; wave heights; fluid mass
overtopping the bund
Piezotronic pressure transducers; resistive wave gauges;
water balance;
video camera
Atherton [335]Partial;
(orifice: 0.019–0.084 m diameter;
slot: 0.157 m wide,
0.007–0.18 m high)
Quarter
of cylinder tank,
D = 0.6 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.12, 0.3, 0.6 mCircular:
bund radius =
0.497–1.407 m;
bund inclination = 90°;
bund height =
0.006–0.24 m
Liverpool
John Moores University, UK
2008Dynamic pressure
vertical profiles on the bund; wave heights; fluid mass
overtopping the bund
Piezotronic pressure transducers; resistive wave gauges;
water balance;
video camera
Zhang et al. [336]Total;
dry bottom;
straight and curved dikes
Cylindrical tank
D = 0.1, 0.2 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu > 0.3 m (for D = 0.1 m);
hu > 0.2 m (for D = 0.2 m)
Circular:
bund radius =
0.1–0.15 m;
bund inclination = 90°;
bund height =
0.022-0.051 m;
Square:
bund distance (equivalent radius) = 0.11–0.23 m;
bund inclination = 90°;
bund height =
0.022–0.045 m
Mary Kay O’Connor
Process Safety
Center,
Texas A&M University, USA
2017Fluid mass
overtopping the bund
Balance;
video camera
Zhang et al. [336]Total;
dry bottom;
straight and curved dikes
Cylindrical tank
D = 0.229 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.5 mSquare:
bund distance (equivalent radius) = 0.516 m; bund inclination = 90°;
bund height =
0.08–0.098 m
Mary Kay O’Connor
Process Safety
Center,
Texas A&M University, USA
2017Fluid mass
overtopping the bund
Balance;
video camera
Megdiche [337]Total and partial
(slot: 0.157 m wide,
0.018–0.09 m high);
dry bottom;
different bunding
arrangements;
viscous fluid (olive oil)
Quarter
of cylinder tank,
D = 0.6 m;
S = 0; smooth
hu = 0.12, 0.3, 0.6 mCircular:
bund radius =
0.497–1.9 m;
bund inclination = 90°;
bund height =
0.03–0.72 m;
Triangular, square,
and rectangular:
bund distance =
0.324–1.095 m;
bund inclination = 90°; bund height = 0.012,
0.12 m
Liverpool
John Moores University, UK
2018Dynamic pressure
vertical profiles on the bunds; wave heights; fluid mass overtopping the bund
Piezotronic pressure transducers; resistive wave gauges;
water balance,
video camera
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Zhao et al. [338]Total;
dry bottom;
bunds with different shapes, inclinations and breakwaters
Cylindrical tank
D = 0.27 m;
S = 0; smooth
Various tank filling ratiosCircular:
bund radius =
0.272 m;
bund inclination =
45°, 60°, 90°, 120°;
bund height = 0.1 m;
Square:
(0.483 m × 0.483 m)
and rectangular
(0.341 m × 0.683 m):
bund inclination =
45°, 60°, 90°, 120°;
bund height = 0.1 m
Nanjing Tech University, China2022Dynamic pressure time series at selected points on the bunds overtopping fractionPressure sensors;
balance;
video camera
3D
RANS, VOF
FV
Note(s): 1 D = diameter of the cylindrical tank; S = bottom slope; 2 hu = upstream water depth; hd = downstream water depth; 3 –; 4 ✗ = not freely available; 5 Approach: 3D = three-dimensional–Mathematical model: RANS = Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations; VOF = volume of fluid–Numerical method: FV = finite volume; N.A. = not available.

3. Discussion and Advances

Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10 show the considerable amount of experimental investigations performed, covering a broad spectrum of dam-break flow conditions. The first laboratory tests dated back even more than 100 years ago [19,20], but more than 70% of the dam-break experiments reviewed here were carried out in the last 20 years, suggesting an increasing interest worldwide in experimental research on dam-break flows.
Basic features of dam-break flows (wave profile, wavefront motion, etc.) have been the most investigated, especially in the past, as indicated by Table 1. To this end, capacitive or resistive probes and pressure gauges were used in most investigations before 2000. The former probes are very easy to implement in laboratory facilities, but they are intrusive devices locally disturbing the flow [150]. Accordingly, non-intrusive pressure gauges or ultrasonic distance meters have sometimes been preferred (e.g., [46,95,207]), even if they may show spurious dynamic oscillations in fast transient flows, especially when the slope of the free surface is high [207]. The limitation of such gauges is that they provide a local flow depth measure. Therefore, since earlier times, there has been an interest in measurements over extended areas of the flow. Martin and Moyce [23] and Dressler [13] were pioneers in using video cameras to record images of a dam-break flow from which quantitative information about the wave motion, especially wave profiles at fixed times, can be extracted. In particular, Dressler [13] used five electrically synchronized cameras with an impressive acquisition speed for the time (1800 frames per second). Experimental wave profiles are of utmost relevance to understanding the characteristics of the flow and verifying the capability of the classic analytical solutions of the dam-break problem (i.e., Ritter’s [339] and Stoker’s [340] solutions) or numerical solutions of dam-break models to predict the dam-break wave profile (e.g., [52,76]). Recent optical and image-processing techniques overcome the limitations of the punctual gauges and the cumbersome post-treatment of analogic video records, allowing for the accurate non-intrusive measurement of the free surface on an area of selected extension with a suitable time rate [4].
In addition to the wave profile, the velocity field is a flow characteristic of interest in dam-break experiments. Earlier investigations focused only on the wavefront velocity, tracking its position on flow images (e.g., [26,29]). Local flow velocity has often been measured using acoustic Doppler velocimetry (ADV) [186], despite the disturbances induced by the measuring device on the flow. Moreover, the fast variation in time of the free-surface elevation implies that the probe’s position below the free surface does not remain constant, making it difficult to interpret the measures [186]. Velocity fields are efficiently measured on selected regions of the flow using non-intrusive imaging techniques (e.g., particle imaging velocimetry-PIV or particle tracking velocimetry-PTV) based on the tracking of particles floating on the flow surface [245] or buoyant within the flow [82]. The measurement of the surface velocity field provides insight into the flow features because it allows the reconstruction of flow trajectories on the flow surface. Moreover, surface velocities are a good approximation of depth-averaged flow velocities in fast transient shallow flows, where the turbulent velocity profile is not yet established. The measurement of the vertical velocity field (e.g., [82]) further enhances the understanding of the flow dynamics allowing the validity of the basic assumptions of the numerical simulation tools to be checked.
Experimental investigations on the effect of geometrical singularities and the impact of dam-break flows against obstacles have gradually taken hold alongside research on basic features of the dam-break flow. Experiments listed in Table 2 concern flows in more complex geometries than a simple straight channel due to the presence of contractions, bottom sills, bends, etc. The variety of cases reported in Table 2 demonstrates the need for an in-depth understanding of complex flow features generated by geometric singularities, each isolated in well-defined experimental situations. Accordingly, such test cases should not be considered scale physical models of real situations but prototype cases highlighting specific flow features. The availability of experimental data allows for modelers to check the treatment of each type of singularity in numerical models. The key challenge for new numerical approaches is indeed to reproduce the effects of the geometric singularities in the best possible way, especially in the context of shallow water models, because most of the considered singularities induce local deviations from the hydrostatic pressure assumption.
Table 3 reports test cases and laboratory investigations of the effects of isolated obstacles or structures on a dam-break flow. The experimental analysis of such situations is of practical interest. Indeed, natural and artificial obstacles are commonly present in real-field applications, and flooding propagation in flood-prone areas can be strongly influenced by such singularities, which may act as barriers to the flow. Obstacles of different sizes, shapes, and orientations were considered in the dam-break experiments. Prismatic blocks, vertical columns (of a square, rectangular, circular, but also pyramidal shape [187]), and solid walls (simulating protective barriers) were mainly used as obstacles, but occasionally also bridge models [214,218,222]. Furthermore, the obstacle’s position and distance from the gate are crucial to defining the test conditions. A few tests involved obstacles overtopped by the flow [87,236] or deformable structures [217,225], which induce complex flow features and wave-structure interactions, respectively. Moreover, the impact of the dam-break wave against a structure was investigated in detail by some studies (e.g., [215]). Other applications concern the effect of mitigation walls placed in front of model structures for protection purposes [208,210] or the performance of new flood protection structures [242]; others concern permeable structures (i.e., buildings with openings [221,266] or perforated walls [229], and even the presence of movable obstacles carried away by the flow [240,258]. Despite this variety of cases investigated in the literature, the experimental analysis of flood scenarios in which a structure is destroyed by the flow is lacking. Flow depth and velocity were typically measured at selected locations to describe the features of the flow, especially near the obstacles (e.g., [186]). In recent years, the use of imaging techniques to capture wave propagation and measure the free surface over an extended area (e.g., [63,207]) has become widespread. The hydrodynamic load acting on the whole structure (e.g., [215,223]) or impact pressures at selected gauge points on the structure faces (e.g., [218,228]) were also measured. These data are valuable for the validation of numerical models used for evaluating hydrodynamic forces and other hydraulic variables useful for the structural design and verification of structural reliability.
Flood inundation of urban areas (possibly induced by a dam-break or a tsunami invading a city) is a research topic that arouses considerable interest nowadays due to the high exposure of residential or industrial settlements close to waterways, dams, or coastal areas [341,342]. Table 4 lists the studies on urban flooding conducted through experimental modelling. In these models, dam-break experiments were performed using idealized urban districts constituted by arrays of solid blocks with different configurations and orientations, which simulate the idealized layouts of buildings and cannot be considered scale models of existing urban areas [245]. Complex flow processes occur in these experiments, with multiple flow paths (dictated by the arrangement of buildings and streets) and high flow velocities. Hydraulic variables describing flow dynamics and directly involved in flood impact assessment were typically measured. Accordingly, flow depth and velocity time series were usually provided at selected locations both inside and around the city layout (e.g., [245,252,253]). Moreover, the measurement of hydrodynamic loads on buildings has received less attention [59]. More insight into urban flooding could come from considering quasi-realistic urban district models [255], taking into account additional events associated with urban floods [342], such as the penetration of water into buildings through openings [221], the flow exchange between the streets and the sewer system, the transport of cars or urban debris [249], and the diffusion of pollutants. Experimental data from such experiments would better support the validation of urban flood simulation models, which have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years [341]. Among these numerical models, the coarse-grid ones (for example based on the porosity approach [248,252]) can provide accurate results preserving computational efficiency. Models of that type require such experiments in an idealized urban environment for their validation.
Wave runup prediction on sloping beaches is one of the main concerns in the swash zone studies. Wave runup and overtopping on coastal structures have historically been investigated through physical models, since storm waves occur infrequently, and field measurements are expensive and difficult during storms. Laboratory investigations of waves normally incident on structures and beaches were usually conducted in wave flumes. More in-depth investigations of the wave dynamics require large basins equipped with more complex and expensive facilities due to the nearshore non-uniformity. In laboratory investigations, a single bore was often generated by lifting a gate separating the initially quiescent water on the beach from the deeper water behind the gate, exploiting the strict similarity between tsunami and dam-break waves. Table 5 includes only experiments in which single bores were generated through a dam-break. In addition to basic investigations of the characteristics of waves propagating on simple sloping beaches, advanced ones considered the presence of vegetation, moving objects, wharves, overtoppable or insubmersible structures, floating tanks, bridges, crossing canals, vertical walls, or composite bathymetries. Flow depth hydrographs and velocity profiles at selected positions were often measured, as well as the wavefront position in time and the maximum run-up height, thanks to the analysis of images acquired through video cameras. Wave profiles at selected times were measured less frequently (e.g., [283]). Time series of pressure and force against structures hit by the bore were measured in several studies (e.g., [269,274]), whereas data related to overtopping phenomena are seldom recorded [270]. Only a few works focused on bottom shear stress data, flow vortices behind structures, and phenomena related to moving objects transported by the flow (e.g., [277,278]).
Vessels and offshore structures can be affected by extreme waves causing green water run-up and wave impingement, with consequent extensive damage and failure to superstructures, deck plating, hatches, and topside equipment. Moreover, green water represents a serious concern for the safety of personnel. In past years, a significant resemblance was recognized between the green water event and dam-break flow [343]. Therefore, as shown by Table 6, many studies applied the dam-break theory to green water predictions [344], and the use of dam-break solutions has become the standard design analysis approach to estimate the front velocity in green water phenomena. For at least two decades, researchers have tried to obtain experimental data useful for the validation of theories and numerical codes through laboratory investigations of green water phenomena caused by dam-breaks (e.g., [287,343,345]), taking advantage of the relative simplicity of dam-break setups. Conditions characterized by different freeboards were usually considered. The interaction between a dam-break flow and a floating box was also investigated [294]. Loads and pressures exerted on structures are of primary interest in such applications and were acquired through force and pressure transducers, respectively. Moreover, measures of free surface elevation at selected positions were often performed using conventional wave probes. In recent years, the availability of high-speed video cameras has allowed a more in-depth investigation of the initial phases of the phenomenon (e.g., [291,292]).
The dam-break flow of non-Newtonian fluids has recently received considerable attention due to environmental and industrial applications, such as the flood hazard assessments associated with tailings dam failures. Experimental data are even more valuable given the complex rheological behavior of such fluids and the scarcity of analytical solutions available. As shown in Table 7, experiments were conducted in simple laboratory facilities (planforms or rectangular channels), sometimes with steep bottom slopes [302]. Typically, the liquids used were aqueous suspensions or mudflows with viscoplastic behavior, but also Bingham fluids are used [307]. Moreover, the test conditions usually considered are characterized by a total dam-break and dry downstream bottom, with few exceptions [64,303]. Non-intrusive imaging techniques were preferably used to record data.
Table 8 lists experimental investigations of dam-break flows in cascade reservoirs. This line of research has recently been developed, motivated by the significant number of cascade dams built in recent years along several rivers. In this case, the channel bottom downstream of the dam is always assumed to be dry in the experiments. The influence of the initial reservoir levels and the distances between the dams are analyzed to highlight the attenuation effect on the dam-break flood in case the downstream dam does not fail. Flow depths time series were typically measured at selected positions. Sometimes, pressure time series were recorded on the upstream face of the dam hit by the flood wave [310]. Numerical simulations accompanying the experimental investigations were usually performed through 3D models.
In experimental investigations of a dike-break induced flow presented in Table 9, the laboratory facilities consisted of an initially dry, smooth lateral floodplain linked to a straight main channel. A gate on the side wall of the channel was lifted to simulate the dike failure and induce the flooding of the lateral floodplain. In most cases, the gate opening was sudden, and the breach was rectangular or trapezoidal. Seldom was the gate removed gradually to represent the typical progressive failure of earth-fill embankments [328]. The flow in the main channel was typically assumed to be steady, even if a river embankment realistically fails during a flood event [327]. The wavefront propagation and flood depth time series at different positions in the floodplain were usually measured with non-intrusive devices. The experimental data acquired are particularly useful for validating 2D depth-averaged numerical models.
Dangerous liquids for industrial applications are often stored in large tanks built above ground. The failure of such storage tanks can lead to disastrous consequences for people, assets, and the surrounding environment, due to the sudden and uncontrolled release of large volumes of impounded materials, sometimes potentially flammable. Many major incidents occurred in recent years due to natural disasters, atmospheric phenomena, maintenance or operational errors, equipment failures, or corrosion [337]. A containment system formed by dikes or bunds is crucial (and required by technical regulations) to mitigate the risk associated with these catastrophic events. The bund system must be designed to prevent massive liquid overflow and withstand the dynamic pressures generated by the wave impact. Table 10 shows that in the past 40 years, several experimental studies have dealt with the problem of predicting the bund overtopping fraction as a function of the level of the impounded liquid, as well as the bund shape and characteristic parameters (distance from the tank, height, inclination, presence of breakwaters, etc.). To this end, small-scale experimental investigations have typically been conducted in dam-break setups by suddenly releasing fixed volumes of water or oil stored in cylindrical or quarter-cylinder-shaped tanks. Few medium-scale experimental investigations have so far been conducted [332,333]. Sometimes, the liquid release resulting from the opening of fractures or holes in the tank walls is considered [335]. In recent years, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has increasingly been used in this context, since it gives the possibility to study in detail the phenomenon. The accuracy of the CFD models is assessed through validation against experimental data [337,338].
In over half of the total entries of Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9 and Table 10, a numerical analysis was coupled with the laboratory investigation, and the experimental data were immediately used to validate the numerical models. The information about those numerical simulations provided in Column 11 of the tables indicates that the most adopted solution approach is the two-dimensional one (approximately 50% of cases); the one- and three-dimensional approaches are equally adopted in about 25% of cases. One- and two-dimensional numerical models are usually based on the depth-averaged shallow water equations (SWE), while three-dimensional models on the Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS), coupled with the volume of fluid (VOF) technique for the tracking of the free surface. In the examined studies, the most used numerical method for the solution of the governing equations is the finite volume method (over 50% of cases), followed by the finite difference method (over 20% of cases, especially before 2000). The mesh-free particle methods, such as the smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) and the moving particle semi-implicit (MPS) ones, have spread rapidly more recently and were used in about 15% of the cases considered.
The impact of scale effects in open channel flow physical models deserves special attention [346,347]. Some analyses in the literature have confirmed that the Froude number is dominant in dam-break flows over a fixed bed (e.g., [150]). However, the validation of numerical simulation tools designed for real applications against small-scale laboratory tests must take into account the distortions introduced by the scale effects.
In all experiments listed in the previous tables, the waves were generated by the sudden removal of a gate. In most cases, a lift gate moving upward is used, but there are also examples of downward-moving lift gates [82] or flap gates (e.g., [104]). Experimental and numerical studies have compared gate-opening modalities, investigating the gate motion effect on the dam-break flow [105,348]. However, none of these systems mimics exactly the instantaneous disappearance of the gate assumed in the classic theoretical approach to the dam-break problem, nor a real dam collapse. Technical regulations on dam-break flood risk assessment adopted worldwide prescribe that the structural failure of concrete gravity and arch dams is assumed to occur practically instantaneously (e.g., [349,350]). If this assumption is made, the gate opening time in dam-break experiments should be short enough to represent a ‘nearly-instantaneous’ dam collapse. To this end, suitable criteria for the gate opening timing have been presented in the literature [50,351] and are usually checked at the beginning of the experimental investigations. However, in the hydraulics laboratory, the question of the ‘instantaneous’ removal of the gate (or of the actual non-presence of the gate itself) remains a subject of debate, and often suggestive and imaginative hypotheses are formulated in the breaks between the experimental tests to remove the gate as quickly as possible.
The large number of articles reviewed here demonstrates that an impressive amount of experimental work has been carried out on dam-break flows, considering a variety of test conditions covering a wide range of flow situations. Many aspects of the physical process having practical implications have been investigated, including the effects of obstacles and structures that interfere with the flow. Nevertheless, the dam-break flow remains a topic of current research that continues to attract considerable interest, also from an experimental point of view [352]. Non-intrusive techniques appear preferable in dam-break flow measurements as they do not disturb the flow. In particular, digital imagery enables the acquisition of flow data (such as free surface profiles or flow depth and velocity fields at selected times) over an extended area, but requires optical access and often free surface seeding or the use of a coloring agent, as well as laborious calibration procedures [4].
The literature review shows that no systematic experimental investigations have been conducted on floods caused by a partial dam collapse in the vertical direction, producing a breach in the upper portion of the dam. To the authors’ knowledge, this dam-break scenario was only hypothesized in a historical study based on a physical model [5,353]. Therefore, it could be considered for future research to collect experimental data to support the development of hybrid 3D-2D numerical models simulating the breach outflow with a 3D model and the downstream flooding with a depth-averaged 2D model (e.g., [354]). Furthermore, the movement of the pieces of a breached dam within the flow has never been experimentally studied since the release of the impounded water is usually simulated by removing (and not breaking) a retaining plate. This aspect related to the collapse of a concrete or masonry dam could also be the subject of future experimental research; after all, the modeling capabilities of current CFD software include the possibility of handling moving objects which dynamically interact with the flow and rigid body interactions (e.g., [355]).

4. Conclusions

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art experimental investigations on unsteady, rapidly varying flows generated by the sudden removal of a retaining structure. Only experiments performed in schematic laboratory setups with a fixed, non-erodible bottom were considered. This review, based on journal papers, reports, theses, and documents published until the end of 2022, was carried out with passion and dedication by four researchers who share the experience of conducting physical experimentation of dam-break phenomena for over twenty years. Although the authors tried to conduct an extensive and meticulous review, it may not be exhaustive. Some studies on the subject, especially the older ones, may be missing since they were published in journals of local diffusion or not written in a vehicular language, or those in which the experimental data are marginal and do not represent the focus of the research.
A large number of references was reviewed and divided into tables according to the investigation’s purposes. These tables report extensive information on test conditions, datasets, measuring techniques, relevant bibliographic references, and data availability.
This review may guide researchers to compare existing datasets and identify remaining knowledge gaps deserving additional experimental investigation. Moreover, it may help modelers select suitable test cases for validating their numerical models and testing new numerical approaches. Indeed, most experiments aimed at collecting benchmark data were expressly designed to highlight specific computational difficulties for numerical schemes. This review may also support practitioners looking for new technical solutions for mitigating the destructive effects of dam-break flood waves.
Unfortunately, most datasets are not directly accessible in digital format as supplemental material linked to the original works. Therefore, we hope a public repository will soon be made available, where experimental data can be freely uploaded to form a comprehensive open-access database for all researchers interested in dam-break flows.
An impressive amount of laboratory investigations was carried out on dam-break flows, and a variety of test conditions were considered in the literature. However, experimental studies on flows caused by dam breaches with height and width lower than those of the dam and on the movement of the blocks resulting from the dam collapse are still lacking and may be the subject of future research.

Author Contributions

F.A., A.M., G.P. and S.S.-F. contributed equally to the conceptualization and implementation of the research, to the revision of the existing literature, and to the writing of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research through the PRIN 2017 Project RELAID (REnaissance of LArge Italian Dams), project number 2017T4JC5K. The support from Italian Ministry of University and Research and University of Pavia (Italy) within the program “Dipartimenti di Eccellenza 2023–2027” is acknowledged.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Friedrich, H.; Ravazzolo, D.; Ruiz-Villanueva, V.; Schalko, I.; Spreitzer, G.; Tunnicliffe, J.; Weitbrecht, V. Physical Modelling of Large Wood (LW) Processes Relevant for River Management: Perspectives from New Zealand and Switzerland. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 2022, 47, 32–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nezu, I.; Sanjou, M. PIV and PTV Measurements in Hydro-Sciences with Focus on Turbulent Open-Channel Flows. J. Hydro-environ. Res. 2011, 5, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Soares-Frazão, S. Review of Imaging-Based Measurement Techniques for Free Surface Flows Involving Sediment Transport and Morphological Changes. J. Hydroinform. 2020, 22, 958–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gomit, G.; Chatellier, L.; David, L. Free-Surface Flow Measurements by Non-Intrusive Methods: A Survey. Exp. Fluids 2022, 63, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Petaccia, G. Review of Historical Dam-Break Events and Laboratory Tests on Real Topography for the Validation of Numerical Models. Water 2021, 13, 1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Testa, G.; Zuccalà, D.; Alcrudo, F.; Mulet, J.; Soares-Frazão, S. Flash Flood Flow Experiment in a Simplified Urban District. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45 (Suppl. 1), 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Levin, L. Mouvement Non Permanent sur les Cours d’Eau à la Suite de Rupture de Barrage [Unsteady River Flow Caused by a Dam-Break]. Rev. Gén. Hydr. 1952, 18, 297–315. (In French) [Google Scholar]
  8. Escande, L.; Nougaro, J.; Castex, L.; Barthet, H. Influence de Quelques Paramètres sur une Onde de Crue Subite à l’Aval d’un Barrage [The Influence of Certain parameters on a Sudden Flood Wave Downstream from a Dam]. Houille Blanche 1961, 5, 565–575. Available online: https://www.shf-lhb.org/articles/lhb/pdf/1961/07/lhb1961043.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023). (In French). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Özgenç Aksoy, A.; Doğan, M.; Oğuzhan Güven, S.; Tanır, G.; Güney, M.Ş. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Flood Waves due to Partial Dam Break. Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Civ. Eng. 2022, 46, 4689–4704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chanson, H. Application of the Method of Characteristics to the Dam Break Wave Problem. J. Hydraul. Res. 2009, 47, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hager, W.H.; Lauber, G. Hydraulische Experimente zum Talsperrenbruchproblem [Hydraulic Experiments on the Dam-Break Problem]. Schweiz. Ing. Archit. 1996, 114, 515–524. (In German) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hager, W.H.; Chervet, A. Geschichte der Dammbruchwelle [Hystory of dam-break wave]. Wasser Energ. Luft 1996, 88, 49–54. Available online: https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=wel-004%3A1996%3A88%3A%3A61#67 (accessed on 25 January 2023). (In German).
  13. Dressler, R. Comparison of Theories and Experiments for the Hydraulic Dam-Break Wave. In Proceedings of the International Association of Scientific Hydrology, Assemblée Générale, Rome, Italy, 14–25 September 1954; Volume 3, pp. 319–328. [Google Scholar]
  14. Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Mignosa, P.; Ziveri, C. Dam-Break Flows: Acquisition of Experimental Data through an Imaging Technique and 2D Numerical Modeling. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2008, 134, 1089–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Toro, E.F.; Garcia-Navarro, P. Godunov-Type Methods for Free-Surface Shallow Flows: A Review. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45, 736–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hui Pu, J.; Shao, S.; Huang, Y.; Hussain, K. Evaluations of SWEs and SPH Numerical Modelling Techniques for Dam Break Flows. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2013, 7, 544–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Teng, J.; Jakeman, A.J.; Vaze, J.; Croke, B.F.W.; Dutta, D.; Kim, S. Flood Inundation Modelling: A Review of Methods, Recent Advances and Uncertainty Analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 90, 201–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bates, P.D. Flood Inundation Prediction. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2022, 54, 287–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schoklitsch, A. Über Dambruchwellen [On Waves Produced by Broken Dams]. In Sitzungsberichte, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse; Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien: Vienna, Austria, 1917; Volume 126 (IIa), pp. 1489–1514. (In German) [Google Scholar]
  20. Trifonov, E.K. Experimental Investigation of Positive Wave’s Propagation along Dry Bottom. Sci. Research Inst. Hydrotechnics Trans. 1933, 10, 169–188. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  21. Trifonov, E.K. Étude Expérimental de la Propagation d’une Onde Positive le Long d’un Fond Sec [Experimental Investigation of the Propagation of a Positive Wave over a Dry Bottom]. Bull. Congr. Navig. 1935, 10, 66–77. (In French) [Google Scholar]
  22. Eguiazaroff, J.B. Réglage du Niveau de l’Eau dans les Biefs des Rivières Canaliséès et Réglage du Débit en Aval du Dernier Barrage Selon que la Puissance Hydraulique Est, ou Non, Utilisée [Regulation of the Water Level in the Reaches of Canalized Rivers and Regulation of the Flow Below the Last Lock Dam According to Whether the Water Power Is or Is Not Used]. In Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Navigation, Brussels, Belgium, 3–10 September 1935. (In French). [Google Scholar]
  23. Martin, J.C.; Moyce, W.J. An Experimental Study of the Collapse of Liquid Columns on a Rigid Horizontal Plane. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 1952, 244, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). Floods Resulting from Suddenly Breached Dams. Conditions of Minimum Resistance. Hydraulic Model Investigation; Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-374, Report I; U.S. Corps of Engineers: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
  25. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). Floods Resulting from Suddenly Breached Dams. Conditions of High Resistance. Hydraulic Model Investigation; Miscellaneous Paper No. 2-374, Report II; U.S. Corps of Engineers: Vicksburg, MS, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
  26. Faure, J.; Nahas, N. Étude Numérique et Expérimentale d’Intumescences à Forte Courbure du Front [A Numerical and Experimental Study of Steep-Fronted Solitary Waves]. La Houille Blanche 1961, 47, 576–587. (In French) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Estrade, J. Contribution à l’Étude de la Suppression d’un Barrage—Phase Initial de l’Écoulement (Contribution to the Study of Dam-Break—Initial Flow Phase). Dir. Etudes Rech. Bullet 1967, 1, 5–90. (In French) [Google Scholar]
  28. Nakagawa, H.; Nakamura, S.; Ichihashi, K. Generation and Development of a Hydraulic Bore Due to the Breaking of a Dam (1). Bull. Disas. Prev. Res. Inst. Kyoto Univ. 1969, 19, 1–17. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39254633.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2023).
  29. Chervet, A.; Dallèves, P. Calcul de l’Onde de Submersion Consécutive à la Rupture d’un Barrage. Deuxième Partie: Comparaisons Entre Observations et Calculs [Calculation of a Dam-Break Wave. Second Part: Comparison Between Observations and Numerical Results]. Schweiz. Bauztg. 1970, 88, 425–432. (In French) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cunge, J.-A. Calcul de Propagation des Ondes de Rupture de Barrage [Dam-Break Wave Propagation Modelling]. Houille Blanche 1970, 56, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cavaillé, Y. Contribution à l’Étude de l’Écoulement Variable Accompagnant la Vidange Brusque d’une Retenue [Contribution to the Analysis of Dam-Break Flow]. In Aeronautical Documentation and Technical Information Service (No. 410); Service de Documentation et D’information Technique de L’aéronautique: Paris, France, 1965. (In French) [Google Scholar]
  32. Maxworthy, T. Experiments on Collisions Between Solitary Waves. J. Fluid Mech. 1976, 76, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xanthopoulos, T.; Koutitas, C. Numerical simulation of a two dimensional flood wave propagation due to dam failure. J. Hydraul. Res. 1976, 14, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Barr, D.I.H.; Das, M.M. Numerical Simulation of Dam-Burst and Reflections, with Verification against Laboratory Data. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1980, 69, 359–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Barr, D.I.H.; Das, M.M. Simulation of Surges After Removal of a Separating Barrier Between Shallower and Deeper Bodies of Water. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 1981, 71, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Memos, C.D.; Georgakakos, A.; Vomvoris, S. Some Experimental Results of the Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Problem. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of International Association for Hydraulic Research, Moscow, Russia, 5–9 September 1983; Volume 2, pp. 555–563. [Google Scholar]
  37. Townson, J.M.; Al-Salihi, A.H. Models of Dam-Break Flow in R-T Space. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1989, 115, 561–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Menendez, A.N.; Navarro, F. An Experimental Study on the Continuous Breaking of a Dam. J. Hydraul. Res. 1990, 28, 753–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Iverson, R.M.; Costa, J.E.; LaHusen, R.G. Debris-Flow Flume at H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon; Open-File Report 92-483; U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior: Reston, VA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Logan, M.; Iverson, R.M.; Obryk, M.K. Video Documentation of Experiments at the USGS Debris-Flow Flume 1992–2017 (Ver. 1.4, January 2018); Open-File Report 2007-1315; U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior: Reston, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Antunes Do Carmo, J.S.; Seabra Santos, F.J.; Almeida, A.B. Numerical Solution of the Generalized Serre Equations with the MacCormack Finite-Difference Scheme. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 1993, 16, 725–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tingsanchali, T.; Rattanapitikon, W. 2-D Mathematical Modelling for Dam Break Wave Propagation in Supercritical and Subcritical Flows. In Proceedings of the 25th IAHR World Congress, Tokyo, Japan, 30 August–9 September 1993; pp. 25–32. [Google Scholar]
  43. Braschi, G.; Dadone, F.; Gallati, M. Plain Flooding: Near Field and Far Fields Simulations. In Modelling of Flood Propagation over Initially Dry Areas, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference, Milan, Italy, 29 June–1 July 1994; Molinaro, P., Natale, L., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 45–59. [Google Scholar]
  44. Manciola, P.; Mazzoni, A.; Savi, F. Formation and Propagation of Steep Wave: An Investigative Experimental Interpretation. In Modelling of Flood Propagation over Initially Dry Areas, Proceedings of the specialty Conference, Milan, Italy, 29 June–1 July 1994; Molinaro, P., Natale, L., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 283–297. [Google Scholar]
  45. Aguirre-Pe, J.; Plachco, F.P.; Quisca, S. Tests and Numerical One-Dimensional Modelling of a High-Viscosity Fluid Dam-Break Wave. J. Hydraul. Res. 1995, 33, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fraccarollo, L.; Toro, E.F. Experimental and Numerical Assessment of the Shallow Water Model for Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Type Problems. J. Hydraul. Res. 1995, 33, 843–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jovanović, M.; Djordjević, D. Experimental Verification of the MacCormack Numerical Scheme. Adv. Eng. Softw. 1995, 23, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Koshizuka, S.; Oka, Y. Moving-Particle Semi-Implicit Method for Fragmentation of Incompressible Fluid. Nucl. Sci. Eng. 1996, 123, 421–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Koshizuka, S.; Tamako, H.; Oka, Y. A Particle Method for Incompressible Viscous Flow with Fluid Fragmentation. Comput. Fluid Dyn. J. 1995, 4, 29–46. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lauber, G.; Hager, W.H. Experiments to Dambreak Wave: Horizontal Channel. J. Hydraul. Res. 1998, 36, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lauber, G.; Hager, W.H. Experiments to Dambreak Wave: Sloping Channel. J. Hydraul. Res. 1998, 36, 761–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stansby, P.K.; Chegini, A.; Barnes, T.C.D. The initial stages of dam-break flow. J. Fluid Mech. 1998, 374, 407–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Blaser, F.; Hager, W.H. Positive Front of Dambreak Wave on Rough Bottom. In Proceedings of the 28th IAHR World Congress, Graz, Austria, 22–27 August 1999; Technical University Graz: Graz, Austria, 1999. Available online: https://www.iahr.org/library/infor?pid=13612 (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  54. Nsom, B.; Debiane, K.; Piau, J.-M. Bed Slope Effect on the Dam Break Problem. J. Hydraul. Res. 2000, 38, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Gallati, M.; Braschi, G. Simulazione Lagrangiana di Flussi con Superficie Libera in Problemi di Idraulica [Lagrangian Simulation of Free Surface Flows in Hydraulic Problems]. L’Acqua 2000, 5, 7–18. Available online: https://www.idrotecnicaitaliana.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Gallati-et-al-LAcqua-n.-5-2000.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2022). (In Italian).
  56. Liem, R.; Schramm, J.; Köngeter, J. Evaluating the Implementation of Shallow Water Equations within Numerical Models Focusing the Propagation of Dambreak Waves. WIT Trans. Modelling Simul. 2001, 30, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Briechle, S.; Köngeter, J. Experimental Data for Dike-Break Waves. In River Flow 2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002; Bousmar, D., Zech, Y., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 467–473. [Google Scholar]
  58. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Undular Bores and Secondary Waves–Experiments and Hybrid Finite-Volume Modelling. J. Hydraul. Res. 2002, 40, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. 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]
  60. Stelling, G.S.; Duinmeijer, S.P.A. A Staggered Conservative Scheme for Every Froude Number in Rapidly Varied Shallow Water Flows. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 2003, 43, 1329–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Duinmeijer, A. Verification of Delft FLS; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chegini, A.H.N.; Pender, G.; Slaouti, A.; Tait, S.J. Velocity Measurements in Dam-Break Flow Using Imaging System. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 859–866. [Google Scholar]
  63. Gallati, M.; Sturla, D. SPH Simulation of Dam-Break Flow in Shallow Water Approximation. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 919–928. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jánosi, M.I.; Jan, D.; Szabó, K.G.; Tél, T. Turbulent Drag Reduction in Dam-Break Flows. Exp. Fluids 2004, 37, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Bukreev, V.I.; Gusev, A.V. Initial Stage of the Generation of Dam-Break Waves. Dokl. Phys. 2005, 50, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Eaket, J.; Hicks, F.E.; Peterson, A.E. Use of Stereoscopy for Dam Break Flow Measurement. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2005, 131, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Piau, J.-M.; Debiane, K. Consistometers Rheometry of Power-Law Viscous Fluids. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 2005, 127, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Barnes, M.P.; Baldock, T.E. Bed Shear Stress Measurements in Dam Break and Swash Flows. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hiroshima, Japan, 28–29 September 2006; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37620092_Bed_shear_stress_measurements_in_dam_break_and_swash_flows (accessed on 14 June 2022).
  69. Bateman, A.; Granados, A.; Medina, V.; Velasco, D.; Nalesso, M. Experimental Procedure to Obtain 2D Time-Space High-Speed Water Surfaces. In River Flow 2006, International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–8 September 2006; Ferreira, R., Alves, E., Leal, J., Cardoso, A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; Volume 2, pp. 1879–1888. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cruchaga, M.A.; Celentano, D.J.; Tezduyar, T.E. Collapse of a Liquid Column: Numerical Simulation and Experimental Validation. Comput. Mech. 2007, 39, 453–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Maranzoni, A.; Pilotti, M.; Tomirotti, M.; Valerio, G. Modellazione Numerica e Sperimentale dei Primi Istanti di Moto Conseguenti alla Rapida Rimozione di uno Sbarramento [Numerical and Experimental Modelling of the Early Stages of a Dam-Break Flow]. In AIMETA 2007, Proceedings of 18th Congress of Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Brescia, 11–14 September 2007; Carini, A., Mimmi, G., Piva, R., Eds.; Starrylink: Brescia, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  72. Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Mignosa, P. Experimental Modeling of Rapidly Varying Flows on Wet Bed and in Presence of Submersible Obstacles. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 849–858. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mohamed, A. Characterization of Tsunami-Like Bores in Support of Loading Structures. Master’s Thesis, University of Hawaii, Manoa, HI, USA, 2008. Available online: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/a7b0cee7-82fe-47ad-abbd-03a5a07705ee (accessed on 19 October 2022).
  74. Ancey, C.; Cochard, S.; Andreini, N. The Dam-Break Problem for Viscous Fluids in the High-Capillary-Number Limit. J. Fluid Mech. 2009, 624, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yang, C.; Lin, B.; Jiang, C.; Liu, Y. Predicting Near-Field Dam-Break Flow and Impact Force using a 3D Model. J. Hydraul. Res. 2010, 48, 784–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Kocaman, S. Dam-Break Flows During Initial Stage Using SWE and RANS Approaches. J. Hydraul. Res. 2010, 48, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Çağatay, H.; Kocaman, S. Experimental Study of Tailwater Level Effects on Dam-Break Flood Wave Propagation. In River Flow 2008, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Çeşme, Izmir, Turkey, 3–5 September 2008; Altinakar, M.S., Kokpinar, M.A., Aydin, I., Cokgor, S., Kirkgoz, S., Eds.; Kubaba Congress Department and Travel Services: Ankara, Turkey, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 635–644. [Google Scholar]
  78. Duarte, R.; Ribeiro, J.; Boillat, J.-L.; Schleiss, A. Experimental Study on Dam-Break Waves for Silted-Up Reservoirs. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011, 137, 1385–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Boillat, J.-L.; Ribeiro, J.; Duarte, R.; Darbre, G. Dam Break in Case of Silted-Up Reservoirs. In River Flow 2008, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Çeşme, Izmir, Turkey, 3–5 September 2008; Altinakar, M.S., Kokpinar, M.A., Aydin, I., Cokgor, S., Kirkgoz, S., Eds.; Kubaba Congress Department and Travel Services: Ankara, Turkey, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 689–695. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ribeiro, J.; Boillat, J.-L.; Duarte, R.; Darbre, G. Front Wave Propagation in Case of Dam Break. Comparison of Water Filled and Silted-Up Reservoirs. In Proceedings of the 33th IAHR World Congress, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–14 August 2009; pp. 6010–6017. [Google Scholar]
  81. Marra, D.; Earl, T.; Ancey, C. Experimental Investigations of Dam Break Flows down an Inclined Channel. In Proceedings of the 34th IAHR World Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 June–1 July 2011; pp. 623–630. [Google Scholar]
  82. Aleixo, R.; Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Velocity-Field Measurements in a Dam-Break Flow Using a PTV Voronoï Imaging Technique. Exp. Fluids 2011, 50, 1633–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Aleixo, R.; Zech, Y.; Soares-Frazão, S. Turbulence Measurements in Dam-Break Flows. In River Flow 2012, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, San José, Costa Rica, 5–7 September 2012; Murillo Muñoz, R.E., Ed.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 311–318. [Google Scholar]
  84. Aleixo, R.; Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Before the Dam Breaks: Analysis of the Flow Behind a Downward Moving Gate. In River Flow 2016, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Iowa City, IA, USA, 11–14 July 2016; Constantinescu, G., Garcia, M., Hanes, D., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2016; pp. 436–442. [Google Scholar]
  85. Aleixo, R.; Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Statistical Analysis Methods for Transient Flows–The Dam-Break Case. J. Hydraul. Res. 2018, 57, 688–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Feizi Khankandi, A.; Tahershamsi, A.; Soares-Frazão, S. Experimental Investigation of Reservoir Geometry Effect on Dam-Break Flow. J. Hydraul. Res. 2012, 50, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Oertel, M.; Bung, D.B. Initial Stage of Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Waves: Laboratory versus VOF. J. Hydraul. Res. 2012, 50, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. LaRocque, L.A.; Imran, J.; Chaudhry, M.H. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Miani, M.; Consoli, S.; Rossi, E.; Galliano, D.; Annunziato, A. Physical and Numerical Simulation of a Scaled Tsunami Wave; Technical Report EUR 26079 EN; Joint Research Centre–Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hooshyaripor, F.; Tahershamsi, A. Effect of Reservoir Side Slopes on Dam-Break Flood Waves. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2015, 9, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Jiang, Z.; Baldock, T.E. Direct Bed Shear Measurements under Loose Bed Swash Flows. Coast. Eng. 2015, 100, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. McMullin, N. Numerical and Experimental Modelling of Dam Break Interaction with a Sediment Bed. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, 2015. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33573992.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2023).
  93. Mrokowska, M.M.; Rowiński, P.M.; Kalinowska, M.B. Evaluation of Friction Velocity in Unsteady Flow Experiments. J. Hydraul. Res. 2015, 53, 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Aleixo, R.; Ozeren, Y.; Altinakar, M. PIV-PTV Measurements of a Tailings Dam-Break Flow. In Hydrodynamic and Mass Transport at Freshwater Aquatic Interfaces; Rowiński, P.M., Marion, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Elkholy, M.; LaRocque, L.A.; Chaudhry, M.H.; Imran, J. Experimental Investigations of Partial-Breach Dam-Break Flows. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2016, 142, 04016042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Javadian, M.; Kaveh, R.; Mahmoodinasab, F. A Study on Experimental Model of Dam Break Problem and Comparison Experimental Results with Analytical Solution of Saint-Venant Equations. Int. J. Adv. Biotechnol. Res. 2016, 7, 1239–1245. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hooshyaripor, F.; Tahershamsi, A.; Razi, S. Dam Break Flood Wave under Different Reservoir’s Capacities and Lengths. Sādhanā 2017, 42, 1557–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Liu, H.; Liu, H.; Guo, L.; Lu, S. Experimental Study on Dam-Break Hydrodynamic Characteristics under Different Conditions. J. Disaster Res. 2017, 12, 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Liu, H.; Liu, H. Experimental Study on the Dam-Break Hydrographs at the Gate Location. J. Ocean Univ. China 2017, 16, 697–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cordero, S.; Cagninei, A.; Poggi, D. Dam-Break on an Idealised Hill Side: Preliminary Results of a Physical Model. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 40, 05002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, W.; Wang, B.; Chen, Y.; Wu, C.; Liu, X. Assessing the Analytical Solution of One-Dimensional Gravity Wave Model Equations Using Dam-Break Experimental Measurements. Water 2018, 10, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Hamid, H.; Khan, M.; Mehmood, M.; Ahmed, F. Experimental Modeling of Dam Break Flood Wave Depth Propagation on a Fixed Bed. Tech. J. UET Taxila 2018, 23, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  103. Hamid, H.; Khan, F.A.; Khan, M.; Ajmal, M.; Mahmood, M.; Aslam, M.S.; Tufail, M. Dam Break Wave Propagation on a Non-Erodible Bed–Comparison of Experimental and Numerical Results. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Res. 2021, 9, 733–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Stolle, J.; Ghodoosipour, B.; Derschum, C.; Nistor, I.; Petriu, E.; Goseberg, N. Swing Gate Generated Dam-Break Waves. J. Hydraul. Res. 2018, 57, 675–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. von Häfen, H.; Goseberg, N.; Stolle, J.; Nistor, I. Gate-Opening Criteria for Generating Dam-Break Waves. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2019, 145, 04019002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Liu, W.; Wang, B.; Wang, H.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Peng, Y.; Liu, X.; Yang, S. Experimental and Numerical Modeling of Dam-Break Flows in Wet Downstream Conditions. In Proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress, Panama City, Panama, 1–6 September 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Melis, M.; Poggi, D.; Giovanni; Fasanella, O.D.; Cordero, S.; Katul, G.G. Resistance to Flow on a Sloping Channel Covered by Dense Vegetation Following a Dam Break. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 1040–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Turhan, E.; Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Tantekin, A. Modeling Flood Shock Wave Propagation with the Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) Method: An Experimental Comparison Study. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17, 3033–3047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Turhan, E.; Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Kocaman, S. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Shock Wave Propagation Due to Dam-Break Over a Wet Channel. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 2877–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wang, B.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Peng, Y.; Liu, X.; Liu, W. Comparison of Measured Dam-Break Flood Waves in Triangular and Rectangular Channels. J. Hydrol. 2019, 575, 690–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wu, K.F.J.; Liu, Z.; Sun, J. Numerical Simulation of Undular Bore Using a Shock-Capturing Boussinesq Model. In Proceedings of the 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 16–21 June 2019; pp. 3568–3573. Available online: https://onepetro.org/ISOPEIOPEC/proceedings-abstract/ISOPE19/All-ISOPE19/ISOPE-I-19-003/20847?redirectedFrom=PDF (accessed on 27 June 2022).
  112. Liu, W.; Wang, B.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y. Experimental Investigation on the Effects of Bed Slope and Tailwater on Dam-Break Flows. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Oertel, M.; Süfke, F. Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Wave Analysis: Particle Image Velocimetry Versus Optical Flow. J. Hydraul. Res. 2020, 58, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Shugan, I.V.; Chen, Y.-Y.; Hsu, C.-J. Experimental and Theoretical Study on Flood Bore Propagation and Forerunner Generation in Dam-Break Flow. Phys. Wave Phenom. 2020, 28, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Vosoughi, F.; Rakhshandehroo, G.; Nikoo, M.R.; Sadegh, M. Experimental Study and Numerical Verification of Silted-Up Dam Break. J. Hydrol. 2020, 590, 125267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Vosoughi, F.; Nikoo, M.R.; Rakhshandehroo, G.; Gandomi, A.H. Experimental Videos in Studying the Influences of Dry- and Wet-Bed Downstream Conditions on Dam Break Multiphase Flood Waves in a Reservoir with 7.5 cm Sediment Depth (25% silted-up). Mendeley Data, V3. Available online: https://doi.org/10.17632/p6bsdz7xch.3 (accessed on 21 June 2022).
  117. Vosoughi, F.; Nikoo, M.R.; Rakhshandehroo, G.; Gandomi, A.H. Experimental Dataset on Water Levels, Sediment Depths and Wave Front Celerity Values in the Study of Multiphase Shock Wave for Different Initial Up- and Down-Stream Conditions. Data Brief 2021, 36, 107082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wang, B.; Liu, X.; Zhang, J.; Guo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Peng, Y.; Liu, W.; Yang, S.; Zhang, F. Analytical and Experimental Investigations of Dam-Break Flows in Triangular Channels with Wet-Bed Conditions. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2020, 146, 04020070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wang, B.; Liu, W.; Wang, W.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Peng, Y.; Liu, X.; Yang, S. Experimental and numerical investigations of similarity for dam-break flows on wet bed. J. Hydrol. 2020, 583, 124598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Ahmadi, S.M.; Yamamoto, Y. A New Dam-Break Outflow-Rate Concept and Its Installation to a Hydro-Morphodynamics Simulation Model Based on FDM (An Example on Amagase Dam of Japan). Water 2021, 13, 1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ansari, A.; Khavasi, E.; Ghazanfarian, J. Experimental and SPH Studies of Reciprocal Wet-Bed Dam-Break Flow over Obstacles. Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 2021, 32, 2150098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Birnbaum, J.; Lev, E.; Llewellin, E.W. Rheology of Three-Phase Suspensions Determined via Dam-Break Experiments. Proc. R. Soc. A 2021, 477, 20210394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Espartel, L.; Manica, R. Experiments on Initial Stages of Development of Dam-Break Waves. Rev. Bras. Recur. Hidr. 2021, 26, e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kocaman, S.; Evangelista, S.; Guzel, H.; Dal, K.; Yilmaz, A.; Viccione, G. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of 3D Dam-Break Wave Propagation in an Enclosed Domain with Dry and Wet Bottom. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nguyen-Thi, L.-Q.; Nguyen, V.-D.; Pierens, X.; Coorevits, P. An Experimental and Numerical Study of the Influence of Viscosity on the Behavior of Dam-Break Flow. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2021, 35, 345–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Takagi, H.; Furukawa, F. Stochastic Uncertainty in a Dam-Break Experiment with Varying Gate Speeds. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Wang, B.; Zhang, F.; Liu, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, J.; Peng, Y. Approximate Analytical Solution and Laboratory Experiments for Dam-Break Wave Tip Region in Triangular Channels. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2021, 147, 06021015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Xu, B.; Zhang, S.; Nielsen, P.; Wüthrich, D. Measurements of Bed Shear Stresses Near the Tip of Dam-Break Waves on a Rough Bed. Exp. Fluids 2021, 62, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Turhan, E.; Kocaman, S. An Experimental Investigation of Dam-Break Induced Flood Waves for Different Density Fluids. Ocean Eng. 2022, 243, 110227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Yang, S.; Yang, W.; Zhang, C.; Qin, S.; Wei, K.; Zhang, J. Experimental and Numerical Study on the Evolution of Wave Front Profile of Dam-Break Waves. Ocean Eng. 2022, 247, 110681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Yang, S.; Tan, Z.; Yang, W.; Imani, H.; Song, D.; Luo, J.; Zhang, J. Experimental Study on Hydrodynamic Interaction between Dam-Break Waves and Circular Pier. Ocean Eng. 2022, 266, 113093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Nielsen, P.; Xu, B.; Wüthrich, D.; Zhang, S. Friction Effects on Quasi-Steady Dam-Break Wave Propagation on Horizontal Beds. J. Fluid Mech. 2022, 939, A21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Zhang, F.; Wang, B.; Guo, Y. Experimental Study of the Dam-Break Waves in Triangular Channels with a Sloped Wet Bed. Ocean Eng. 2022, 255, 111399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Matsutomi, H. Numerical Computations of Two-Dimensional Inundation of Rapidly Varied Flows due to Breaking of Dams. In Proceedings of the 20th IAHR Congress, Moscow, Russia, 5–9 September 1983; Volume 2, pp. 479–493. [Google Scholar]
  135. Martin, H. Dam-Break Wave in Horizontal Channels with Parallel and Divergent Side Walls. In Proceedings of the 20th IAHR Congress, Moscow, Russia, 5–9 September 1983; Volume 2, pp. 494–505. [Google Scholar]
  136. Michouev, A.V.; Sladkevich, M. Écoulement Dans le Bief Aval Dans le Cas d’une Rupture Partielle d’un Barrage [Flow Downstream in the Event of a Partial Dam-Break]. In Proceedings of the 20th IAHR Congress, Moscow, Russia, 5–9 September 1983; Volume 2, pp. 512–519. (In French). [Google Scholar]
  137. Miller, S.; Chaudhry, M.H. Dam-Break Flows in Curved Channel. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1989, 115, 1465–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Bell, S.W.; Elliot, R.C.; Chaudhry, M.H. Experimental Results of Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Flows. J. Hydraul. Res. 1992, 30, 225–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bellos, C.V.; Soulis, V.; Sakkas, J.G. Experimental Investigation of Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Induced Flows. J. Hydraul. Res. 1992, 30, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Četina, M.; Rajar, R. Two-Dimensional Dam-Break Flow Simulation in a Sudden Enlargement. In Modelling of Flood Propagation Over Initially Dry Areas, Proceedings of the Specialty Conference Co-Sponsored by ASC-CNR/GNDCI-ENEL Spa, Milan, Italy, 29 June–1 July 1994; Molinaro, P., Natale, L., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 268–282. [Google Scholar]
  141. Aureli, F.; Mignosa, P.; Tomirotti, M. Dam-break flows in presence of abrupt bottom variations. In Proceedings of the 28th IAHR World Congress, Graz, Austria, 22–27 August 1999; Technical University Graz: Graz, Austria, 1999. Available online: https://www.iahr.org/library/infor?pid=13679 (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  142. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Effects of a Sharp Bend on Dam-Break Flow. In Proceedings of the 28th IAHR World Congress, Graz, Austria, 22–27 August 1999; Technical University Graz: Graz, Austria, 1999. Available online: https://www.iahr.org/library/infor?pid=13631 (accessed on 17 February 2023).
  143. Soares-Frazão, S.; Sillen, X.; Zech, Y. Dam-Break Flow through Sharp Bends Physical Model and 2D Boltzmann Model Validation. In Proceedings of the 1st CADAM Workshop, Wallingford, UK, 2–3 March 1998. [Google Scholar]
  144. Aureli, F.; Mignosa, P.; Tomirotti, M. Numerical Simulation and Experimental Verification of Dam-Break Flows with Shocks. J. Hydraul. Res. 2000, 38, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Aureli, F.; Belicchi, M.; Maione, U.; Mignosa, P.; Tomirotti, M. Fenomeni di Moto Vario Conseguenti al Crollo di Opere di Ritenuta. Parte II: Indagini Sperimentali e Modellazione Numerica in Presenza di Onde di Shock [Dam-Break Flows. Part II: Experimental and Numerical Modelling in the Presence of Shocks]. L’Acqua 1998, 5, 27–36. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  146. Bento Franco, A.; Betâmio de Almeida, A. Dam-break in a channel. In Concerted Action on Dam Break Modelling: Objectives, Project, Report, Test Cases, Meeting Proceedings; Soares Frazão, S., Morris, M., Zech, Y., Eds.; Université Catholique de Louvain: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  147. Viseu, T.; Bento Franco, A.; Betâmio de Almeida, A. Numerical and Computational Results of the 2D BIPLAN Model. In Proceedings of the 1st CADAM Workshop, Wallingford, UK, 2–3 March 1998. [Google Scholar]
  148. Hiver, J. Adverse-Slope and Slope (Bump). In Concerted Action on Dam Break Modelling: Objectives, Project, Report, Test Cases, Meeting Proceedings; Soares Frazão, S., Morris, M., Zech, Y., Eds.; Université Catholique de Louvain: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  149. Soares-Frazão, S.; de Bueger, C.; Dourson, V.; Zech, Y. Dam-Break Wave Over a Triangular Bottom Sill. In River Flow 2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002; Bousmar, D., Zech, Y., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 437–442. [Google Scholar]
  150. Soares-Frazão, S. Experiments of Dam-Break Wave Over a Triangular Bottom Sill. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45 (Suppl. 1), 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Dam Break in Channels with 90° Bend. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2002, 128, 956–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bukreev, V.I. Water Impingement on a Vertical Wall Due to Discontinuity Decay Above a Drop. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2003, 44, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Bukreev, V.I.; Gusev, A.V. Gravity Waves Due to Discontinuity Decay Over an Open-Channel Bottom Drop. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2003, 44, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Soares-Frazão, S.; Lories, D.; Taminiau, D.; Zech, Y. Dam-Break Flow in a Channel with a Sudden Enlargement. In Proceedings of the 30th IAHR Congress, Thessaloniki, Greece, 25–27 August 2003. [Google Scholar]
  155. Bukreev, V.I.; Gusev, A.V.; Malysheva, A.A.; Malysheva, I.A. Experimental Verification of the Gas-Hydraulic Analogy with Reference to the Dam-Break Problem. Fluid Dyn. 2004, 39, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Bellos, C. Experimental Measurements of Flood Wave Created by a Dam Break. Eur. Water 2004, 7, 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  157. Natale, L.; Petaccia, G.; Savi, F. Mathematical Simulation of the Effects of Bridges and Structures on Flood Waves Propagation. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 895–901. [Google Scholar]
  158. Bukreev, V.I. On the Water Depth in the Breach during a Partial Dam Break. Fluid Dyn. 2005, 40, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Bukreev, V.I. On the discharge characteristic at the dam site after dam break. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2006, 47, 679–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Gusev, A.V.; Ostapenko, V.V.; Malysheva, A.A.; Malysheva, I.A. Open-Channel Waves Generated by Propagation of a Discontinuous Wave over a Bottom Step. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2008, 49, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Bukreev, V.I.; Degtyarev, V.V.; Chebotnikov, A.V. Experimental Verification of Methods for Calculating Partial Dam-Break Waves. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2008, 49, 754–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Evangelista, S.; Di Cristo, C.; De Marinis, G. Experiments and Simulations of Dam Break over Fixed and Granular Beds. In Proceedings of the 34th IAHR World Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 June–1 July 2011; pp. 3450–3457. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273060021_Experiments_and_simulations_of_dam_break_over_fixed_and_granular_beds#fullTextFileContent (accessed on 23 December 2022).
  163. Evangelista, S. Esperimenti e Simulazioni Numeriche di Dam Break su Letto Fisso e Mobile [Experiments and Numerical Simulations of Dam Break on Fixed and Movable Beds]. L’Acqua 2014, 3, 9–21. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  164. Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Kocaman, S. Dam-Break Flow in the Presence of Obstacle: Experiment and CFD Simulation. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2011, 5, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Kocaman, S. Investigation of Dam-Break Flow Over Abruptly Contracting Channel with Trapezoidal-Shaped Lateral Obstacles. J. Fluids Eng. 2012, 134, 081204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Kocaman, S.; Ozmen-Cagatay, H. The Effect of Lateral Channel Contraction on Dam Break Flows: Laboratory Experiment. J. Hydrol. 2012, 432–433, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Kocaman, S.; Guzel, H. Investigation of Dam-Break Flood Waves in a Dry Channel with a Hump. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2014, 8, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Degtyarev, V.V.; Ostapenko, V.V.; Kovyrkina, O.A.; Zolotykh, A.V. Comparison of Theory and Experiment in Simulation of Dam Break in a Rectangular Channel with a Sudden Change in Cross-Sectional Area. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2014, 55, 999–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Wood, A.; Wang, K.H. Modeling Dam-Break Flows in Channels with 90 Degree Bend Using an Alternating-Direction Implicit Based Curvilinear Hydrodynamic Solver. Comput. Fluids 2015, 114, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Kikkert, G.A.; Liyanage, T.; Shang, C. Dam-Break Generated Flow from an Infinite Reservoir into a Positively Inclined Channel of Limited Width. J. Hydro-Environ. Res. 2015, 9, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Chen, S.; Li, Y.; Tian, Z.; Fan, Q. On Dam-Break Flow Routing in Confluent Channels. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  172. Kobayashi, D.; Uchida, T.; Kawahara, Y. The Characteristics of Dam Break Flows in a Meandering Channel. In Proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress, Panama City, Panama, 1–6 September 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Kavand, R.; Ghomeshi, M.; Daryaee, M. Experimental Study of the Effect of Bed Roughness on Wave Characteristics Resulting from Dam Break in Curve Channel. J. Hydraul. 2020, 14, 111–122. (In Arabic) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Kocaman, S.; Güzel, H.; Evangelista, S.; Ozmen-Cagatay, H.; Viccione, G. Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a Dam-Break Flow through Different Contraction Geometries of the Channel. Water 2020, 12, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Ismail, H.; Larocque, L.A.; Bastianon, E.; Chaudhry, M.H.; Imran, J. Propagation of Tributary Dam-Break Flows through a Channel Junction. J. Hydraul. Res. 2021, 59, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Gamero, P.; Cantero-Chinchilla, F.N.; Bergillos, R.J.; Castro-Orgaz, O.; Dey, S. Shallow-Water Lee-Side Waves at Obstacles: Experimental Characterization and Turbulent Non-Hydrostatic Modeling Using Weighted-Averaged Residual Equations. Environ. Model. Softw. 2022, 155, 105422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kobayashi, D.; Uchida, T. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Breaking Bores in Straight and Meandering Channels with Different Froude Numbers. Coast. Eng. J. 2022, 64, 442–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Vosoughi, F.; Nikoo, M.R.; Rakhshandehroo, G.; Adamowski, J.F.; Gandomi, A.H. Downstream Semi-Circular Obstacles’ Influence on Floods Arising from the Failure of Dams with Different Levels of Reservoir Silting. Phys. Fluids 2022, 34, 013312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Vosoughi, F.; Nikoo, M.R.; Rakhshandehroo, G.; Alamdari, N.; Gandomi, A.H.; Al-Wardy, M. The Application of Bayesian Model Averaging Based on Artificial Intelligent Models in Estimating Multiphase Shock Flood Waves. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 20411–20429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Greenspan, H.P.; Young, R.E. Flow Over a Containment Dyke. J. Fluid Mech. 1978, 87, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Sicard, J.; Nicollet, G. Effets d’une onde de rupture sur un barrage aval [Effects of a dam-break wave on a downstream dam]. In Proceedings of the 20th IAHR Congress, Moscow, Russia, 5–9 September 1983; Volume 2, pp. 564–570. [Google Scholar]
  182. Ramsden, J.D. Forces on a Vertical Wall Due to Long Waves, Bores, and Dry-Bed Surges. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean. Eng. 1996, 122, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Liu, P.L.-F.; Lin, P.; Chang, K.-A.; Sakakiyama, T. Numerical Modeling of Wave Interaction with Porous Structures. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 1999, 125, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Barakhnin, V.B.; Krasnoshchekova, T.V.; Potapov, I.N. Reflection of a Dam–Break Wave at a Vertical Wall. Numerical Modeling and Experiment. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2001, 42, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Dam Break Flow Experiment: The Isolated Building Test Case. In Proceedings of the 2nd IMPACT Workshop, Mo i Rana, Norway, 12–13 September 2002. [Google Scholar]
  186. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Experimental Study of Dam-Break Flow against an Isolated Obstacle. J. Hydraul. Res. 2007, 45 (Suppl. 1), 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Brufau, P.; Garcia-Navarro, P.; Vásquez-Cendón, M.E.; Méndez, A.; Puertas, J. Numerical Model Validation with Experimental Data on Dam Break Problems Involving Wetting/Drying Fronts over Initially Dry Bed Adverse Slopes. In River Flow 2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002; Bousmar, D., Zech, Y., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 487–494. [Google Scholar]
  188. Méndez, A.; Pena, L.; Brufau, P.; Puertas, J. An Experimental Approach to the Dam Break Problem. Real Data to Check Numerical Models. In Proceedings of the 29th Congress of International Association for Hydraulic Research, Beijing, China, 16–21 September 2001; Li, G., Ed.; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2001. Theme C. pp. 184–189. [Google Scholar]
  189. Ciobotaru, R.M.; Bidoae, R.; Raad, P.E. Interaction of a Single Large Wave with a Tall Fixed Structure: A Numerical Study. In Proceedings of the FEDSM’03, 4th ASME-JSME Joint Fluids Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 6–10 July 2003; pp. 437–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Trivellato, F. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Bore Impact on a Wall. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2003, 71, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Bertolazzi, E.; Trivellato, F. Numerical Modeling of Clear Water Bore Impact; University of Trento: Trento, Italy, 2003; Available online: https://e.bertolazzi.dii.unitn.it/files/2002-DIMS-18.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2022).
  192. Campisano, A.; Creaco, E.; Modica, C. Experimental and Numerical Analysis of the Scouring Effects of Flushing Waves on Sediment Deposits. J. Hydrol. 2004, 299, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Hu, C.; Kashiwagi, M. A CIP-based method for numerical simulations of violent free-surface flows. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2004, 9, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Raad, P.E.; Bidoae, R. The Three-Dimensional Eulerian–Lagrangian Marker and Micro Cell Method for the Simulation of Free Surface Flows. J. Comput. Phys. 2005, 203, 668–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Arnason, H. Interactions between an Incident Bore and a Free-Standing Coastal Structure. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  196. Kleefsman, K.M.T.; Fekken, G.; Veldman, A.E.P.; Iwanowski, B.; Buchner, B. A Volume-of-Fluid Based Simulation Method for Wave Impact Problems. J. Comput. Phys. 2005, 206, 363–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  197. Issa, R.; Violeau, D. 3D Dambreaking-Test-Case 2. EDF-Ercoftac-SPH European Research Interest Community SIG. 2006. Available online: https://docplayer.net/63169198-Ercoftac-test-case-2-3d-dambreaking-release-1-1-march-reza-issa-and-damien-violeau-electricite-de-france.html (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  198. Larese, A.; Rossi, R.; Oñate, E.; Idelsohn, S.R. Validation of the Particle Finite Element Method (PFEM) for Simulation of Free Surface Flows. Eng. Comput. 2008, 25, 385–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Liang, D.; Falconer, R.A.; Jiang, C.; Wang, X. Numerical Simulation of Flood Flows Due to Levee Breaches. In Proceedings of the 32nd IAHR Congress, Venice, Italy, 1–6 July 2007; CORILA: Venice, Italy, 2007. Available online: https://www.iahr.org/library/infor?pid=15794 (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  200. Nouri, Y. The Impact of Hydraulic Bores and Debris on Free Standing Structures. Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  201. Nistor, I.; Nouri, Y.; Palermo, D.; Cornett, A. Experimental Investigation of the Impact of a Tsunami-Induced Bore on Structures. In Coastal Engineering 2008, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 31 August–5 September 2008; McKee Smith, J., Ed.; World Scientific Publishing: Singapore, 2008; pp. 3324–3336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Nouri, Y.; Nistor, I.; Palermo, D.; Cornett, A. Experimental Investigation of Tsunami Impact on Free Standing Structures. Coast. Eng. J. 2010, 52, 43–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Bukreev, V.I.; Zykov, V.V. Bore Impact on a Vertical Plate. J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys. 2008, 49, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Arnason, H.; Petroff, C.; Yeh, H. Tsunami bore impingement onto a vertical column. J. Disaster Res. 2009, 4, 391–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Cruchaga, M.A.; Celentano, D.J.; Tezduyar, T.E. Computational modeling of the collapse of a liquid column over an obstacle and experimental validation. J. Appl. Mech. 2009, 76, 021202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Hu, C.; Sueyoshi, M. Numerical Simulation and Experiment on Dam Break Problem. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 2010, 9, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Mignosa, P.; Ziveri, C. An Image Processing Technique for Measuring Free Surface of Dam-Break Flows. Exp. Fluids 2011, 50, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Al-Faesly, T.; Palermo, D.; Nistor, I.; Cornett, A. Experimental Modeling of Extreme Hydrodynamic Forces on Structural Models. Int. J. Prot. Struct. 2012, 3, 477–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Lara, J.L.; del Jesus, M.; Losada, I.J. Three-Dimensional Interaction of Waves and Porous Coastal Structures: Part II: Experimental Validation. Coast. Eng. 2012, 64, 26–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Triatmadja, R.; Nurhasanah, A. Tsunami Force on Buildings with Openings and Protection. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2012, 6, 1250024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  211. Aguíñiga, F.; Jaiswal, M.; Sai, J.O.; Cox, D.T.; Gupta, R.; van de Lindt, J.W. Experimental Study of Tsunami Forces on Structures. In Coastal Hazards; Huang, W., Wang, K., Cehng, Q.J., Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Resto, VA, USA, 2013; pp. 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  212. Nakao, H.; Zhang, G.; Sumimura, T.; Hoshikuma, J. Numerical Assessment of Tsunami-Induced Effect on Bridge Behavior. In Proceedings of the 29th US–Japan Bridge Engineering Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, 11–13 November 2013; Available online: https://www.pwri.go.jp/eng/ujnr/tc/g/pdf/29/29-1-3_Nakao.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  213. Lobovský, L.; Botia-Vera, E.; Castellana, F.; Mas-Soler, J.; Souto-Iglesias, A. Experimental Investigation of Dynamic Pressure Loads During Dam Break. J. Fluids Struct. 2014, 48, 407–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  214. Ratia, H.; Murillo, J.; García-Navarro, P. Numerical Modelling of Bridges in 2D Shallow Water Flow Simulations. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 2014, 75, 250–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Aureli, F.; Dazzi, S.; 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]
  216. Kocaman, S.; Ozmen-Cagatay, H. Investigation of Dam-Break Induced Shock Waves Impact on a Vertical Wall. J. Hydrol. 2015, 525, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Liao, K.; Hu, C.; Sueyoshi, M. Free Surface Flow Impacting on an Elastic Structure: Experiment versus Numerical Simulation. Appl. Ocean Res. 2015, 50, 192–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Liang, Q.; Chen, K.-C.; Hou, J.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, G.; Qiang, J. Hydrodynamic Modelling of Flow Impact on Structures under Extreme Flow Conditions. J. Hydrodynam. B 2016, 28, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Mohd, N.; Kamra, M.M.; Sueyoshi, M.; Hu, C. Lattice Boltzmann Method for Free Surface Impacting on Vertical Cylinder: A Comparison with Experimental Data. Evergreen 2017, 4, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Kamra, M.M.; Mohd, N.; Liu, C.; Sueyoshi, M.; Hu, C. Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Three-Dimensionality in the Dam-Break Flow Against a Vertical Wall. J. Hydrodyn. 2018, 30, 682–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Liu, L.; Sun, J.; Lin, B.; Lu, L. Building Performance in Dam-Break Flow–An Experimental Study. Urban Water J. 2018, 15, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Martínez-Aranda, S.; Fernández-Pato, J.; Caviedes-Voullième, D.; García-Palacín, I.; García-Navarro, P. Towards Transient Experimental Water Surfaces: A New Benchmark Dataset for 2D Shallow Water Solvers. Adv. Water Resour. 2018, 121, 130–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Stamataki, I.; Zang, J.; Buldakov, E.; Kjeldsen, T.; Stagonas, D. Study of Dam Break Flow Interaction with Urban Settlements over a Sloping Channel. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 40, 06006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Tinh, N.X.; Mitobe, Y.; Tanaka, H. Laboratory Experiment Study on the Building Relative Angle against Tsunami Waves. Tohoku J. Nat. Disaster Sci. 2018, 54, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  225. Demir, A.; Dincer, A.E.; Bozkus, Z.; Tijsseling, A.S. Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Damping in a Dam-Break Problem with Fluid-Structure Interaction. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 2019, 20, 258–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Ghodoosipour, B.; Stolle, J.; Nistor, I.; Mohammadian, A.; Goseberg, N. Experimental Study on Extreme Hydrodynamic Loading on Pipelines. Part 1: Flow Hydrodynamics. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  227. Ghodoosipour, B.; Stolle, J.; Nistor, I.; Mohammadian, A.; Goseberg, N. Experimental Study on Extreme Hydrodynamic Loading on Pipelines Part 2: Induced Force Analysis. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  228. Kamra, M.M.; Al Salami, J.; Sueyoshi, M.; Hu, C. Experimental Study of the Interaction of Dambreak with a Vertical Cylinder. J. Fluids Struct. 2019, 86, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Mokhtar, Z.A.; Mohammed, T.A.; Yusuf, B.; Lau, T.L. Experimental Investigation of Tsunami Bore Impact Pressure on a Perforated Seawall. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 84, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Dutta, D.; Kumar, L.; Saud Afzal, M.; Rathore, P. Hydrodynamic Study of the Flows Caused by Dam Break Around a Rectangular Obstacle. In Proceeding of ICRACEM 2020, 1st Online International Conference on Recent Advances in Computational and Experimental Mechanics, Kharagpur, India, 4–6 September 2020. SM-20-046. [Google Scholar]
  231. Dutta, D.; Kumar, L.; Saud Afzal, M.; Rathore, P. Hydrodynamic Study of the Flows Caused by Dam Break Around a Rectangular Obstacle. In Recent Advances in Computational and Experimental Mechanics, Vol II. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Farahmandpour, O.; Marsono, A.K.; Forouzani, P.; Tap, M.M.; Abu Bakar, S. Experimental Simulation of Tsunami Surge and Its Interaction with Coastal Structure. Int. J. Prot. Struct. 2020, 11, 258–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Kocaman, S.; Evangelista, S.; Viccione, G.; Güzel, H. Experimental and Numerical Analysis of 3D Dam-Break Waves in an Enclosed Domain with a Single Oriented Obstacle. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2020, 2, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Pratiwi, V.; Kusuma, M.S.B.; Kardhana, H.; Farid, M. Experimental Study of Dam Break Flow Generated by the Flap Gate in Horizontal Channel. Int. J. GEOMATE 2020, 19, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Shen, J.; Wei, L.; Wu, D.; Liu, H.; Huangfu, J. Spatiotemporal Characteristics of the Dam-Break Induced Surge Pressure on a Vertical Wall. Coast. Eng. J. 2020, 62, 566–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Memarzadeh, R.; Sheybanifard, H.; Zounemat-Kermani, M. Numerical and Experimental Study of Abrupt Wave Interaction with Vertical and Inclined Rectangular Obstacles. J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 2021, 14, 921–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Del Gaudio, A.; De Paola, F.; Di Cristo, C.; La Forgia, G.; Leopardi, A.; Vacca, A. Experimental Investigation and Numerical Evaluation of the Free Surface of a Dam Break Wave in the Presence of an Obstacle. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2022, 21, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Fang, Q.; Liu, S.; Zhong, G.; Liang, J.; Zhen, Y. Experimental Investigation of Extreme Flood Loading on Buildings Considering the Shadowing Effect of the Front Building. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Garoosi, F.; Mellado-Cusicahua, A.N.; Shademani, M.; Shakibaeinia, A. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Dam Break Flow over Dry and Wet Beds. Int. J. Mech. Sci. 2022, 215, 106946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Lin, J.-H.; Chang, Y.-W.; Chen, G.-Y. Boulder Transportation on the Flat Bed by Dam Break. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2022, 16, 2241002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Liu, S.; Nistor, I.; Mohammadian, A.; Azimi, A.H. Experimental Investigation on the Impact of Dam-Break Induced Surges on a Vertical Wall. Fluids 2022, 7, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Wang, S.; Garlock, M.; Deike, L.; Glisic, B. Feasibility of Kinetic Umbrellas as Deployable Flood Barriers During Landfalling Hurricanes. J. Struct. Eng. 2022, 148, 04022047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Xie, W.; Shimozono, T. Water Surge Impingement onto a Vertical Wall: Laboratory Experiments and Stochastic Analysis on Impact Pressure. Ocean Eng. 2022, 248, 110422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Soares-Frazão, S.; Spinewine, B.; Duthoit, A.; Deswijsen, J.F.; Zech, Y. Dam-Break Flow Experiments in Simplified City Layouts. In River Flow 2006, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–8 September 2006; Ferreira, R., Alves, E., Leal, J., Cardoso, A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; Volume 1, pp. 513–521. [Google Scholar]
  245. Soares-Frazão, S.; Zech, Y. Dam-Break Flow Through an Idealised City. J. Hydraul. Res. 2008, 46, 648–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  246. Szydłowski, M.; Twaróg, B. Numerical Investigation of Flooding of Real-Topography Developed Areas Following River Embankment Failure. Task Q. 2006, 10, 321–338. [Google Scholar]
  247. Yoon, K. Experimental Study on Flood Inundation Considering Urban Characteristics (FFC06-05); Urban Flood Disaster Management Research Center: Seoul, Korea, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  248. Kim, B.; Sanders, B.F.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Guinot, V. Urban Flood Modeling with Porous Shallow-Water Equations: A Case Study of Model Errors in the Presence of Anisotropic Porosity. J. Hydrol. 2015, 523, 680–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  249. Albano, R.; Sole, A.; Mirauda, D.; Adamowski, J. Modelling Large Floating Bodies in Urban Area Flash-Floods via a Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics Model. J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 344–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Norin, S.V.; Belikov, V.V.; Aleksyuk, A.I. Simulating Flood Waves in Residential Areas. Power Technol. Eng. 2017, 51, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Guinot, V.; Soares-Frazão, S.; Delenne, C. Experimental Validation of Transient Source Term in Porosity-Based Shallow Water Models. E3S Web Conf. 2018, 40, 06033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Guinot, V.; Delenne, C.; Soares-Frazão, S. Self-Similar Solutions of Shallow Water Equations with Porosity. J. Hydraul. Res. 2022, 61, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Kusuma, M.S.B.; Setiawati, T.; Farid, M. Experimental Model of Dam Break Flow Around Several Blockages Configurations. Int. J. GEOMATE 2019, 16, 26–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Chumchan, C.; Rattanadecho, P. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Dam Break Flow Propagation Passed through Complex Obstacles Using LES Model Based on FVM and LBM. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2020, 42, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Dong, B.; Xia, J.; Zhou, M.; Deng, S.; Ahmadian, R.; Falconer, R.A. Experimental and Numerical Model Studies on Flash Flood Inundation Processes Over a Typical Urban Street. Adv. Water Resour. 2021, 147, 103824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Yeh, H.H.; Ghazali, A. On Bore Collapse. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 1988, 93, 6930–6936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Yeh, H.H.; Ghazali, A.; Marton, I. Experimental Study of Bore Run-Up. J. Fluid Mech. 1989, 206, 563–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Petroff, C.M.; Moore, A.L.; Arnason, H. Particle Advection by Turbulent Bores–Orientation Effects. In Proceedings of the International Tsunami Symposium, Seattle, WA, 7–10 August 2001; NOAA/PMEL: Seattle, WA, USA, 2001; pp. 897–904. [Google Scholar]
  259. Anh, V.M. Reduction of Wave Overtopping by Vetiver Grass. Master’s Thesis, Delft University, Delft, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  260. Barnes, M.P.; O’Donoghue, T.; Alsina, J.M.; Baldock, T.E. Direct Bed Shear Stress Measurements in Bore-Driven Swash. Coast. Eng. 2009, 56, 853–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  261. De Leffe, M.; Le Touzé, D.; Alessandrini, B. SPH Modeling of Shallow-Water Coastal Flows. J. Hydraul. Res. 2010, 48 (Suppl. S1), 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. O’Donoghue, T.; Pokrajac, D.; Hondebrink, L.J. Laboratory and Numerical Study of Dambreak-Generated Swash on Impermeable Slopes. Coast. Eng. 2010, 57, 513–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Kikkert, G.A.; O’Donoghue, T.; Pokrajac, D.; Dodd, N. Experimental Study of Bore-Driven Swash Hydrodynamics on Impermeable Rough Slopes. Coast. Eng. 2012, 60, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  264. Adegoke, P.B.; Atherton, W.; Al Khaddar, R.M. A Novel Simple Method for Measuring the Velocity of Dam-Break Flow. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2014, 184, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  265. Rahman, S.; Akib, S.; Khan, M.T.R.; Shirazi, S.M. Experimental Study on Tsunami Risk Reduction on Coastal Building Fronted by Sea Wall. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 729357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  266. Hartana; Murakami, K. Numerical and Experimental Simulation of Two-Phase Tsunami Flow Through Buildings with Openings. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2015, 9, 1550007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Chen, B.-T.; Kikkert, G.A.; Pokrajac, D.; Dai, H.-J. Experimental Study of Bore-Driven Swash–Swash Interactions on an Impermeable Rough Slope. Coast. Eng. 2016, 108, 10–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Chen, C.; Melville, B.W.; Nandasena, N.A.K.; Shamseldin, A.Y.; Wotherspoon, L. Experimental Study of Uplift Loads Due to Tsunami Bore Impact on a Wharf Model. Coast. Eng. 2016, 117, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Chen, C.; Melville, B.W.; Nandasena, N.A.K.; Shamseldin, A.Y.; Wotherspoon, L. Mitigation Effect of Vertical Walls on a Wharf Model Subjected to Tsunami Bores. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2017, 11, 1750004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  270. Esteban, M.; Glasbergen, T.; Takabatake, T.; Hofland, B.; Nishizaki, S.; Nishida, Y.; Stolle, J.; Nistor, I.; Bricker, J.; Takagi, H.; et al. Overtopping of Coastal Structures by Tsunami Waves. Geosciences 2017, 7, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  271. Dai, H.-J.; Kikkert, G.A.; Chen, B.-T.; Pokrajac, D. Entrained Air in Bore-Driven Swash on an Impermeable Rough Slope. Coast. Eng. 2017, 121, 26–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  272. Tar, T.; Kato, N.; Suzuki, H.; Nagai, Y.; Ohnishi, K.; Okubayashi, T. Experimental and Numerical Study on the Reduction of Tsunami Flow Using Multiple Flexible Pipes. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2017, 50, 364–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Chen, C.; Melville, B.W.; Nandasena, N.A.K. Investigations of reduction Effect of Vertical Wall on Dam-Break-Simulated Tsunami Surge Exerted on Wharf Piles. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2018, 12, 1840006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Chen, C.; Melville, B.W.; Nandasena, N.A.K.; Farvizi, F. An Experimental Investigation of Tsunami Bore Impacts on a Coastal Bridge Model with Different Contraction Ratios. J. Coast. Res. 2018, 34, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Ishii, H.; Shibayama, T.; Stolles, J. Physical and Numerical Modelling of the Flow Structure behind Structure in Tsunami-like Flow. Coast. Eng. Proc. 2018, 1, currents17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  276. Lu, S.; Liu, H.; Deng, X. An Experimental Study of the Run-Up Process of Breaking Bores Generated by Dam-Break under Dry- and Wet-Bed Conditions. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2018, 12, 1840005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Chen, C.; Wang, F.; Lin, H. Experimental Study on Dam-Break-Like Tsunami Surge Impacts on Small Balls Climbing on Different Slopes. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2020, 14, 2050022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Chen, C.; Chen, J.; Lin, P.; Chen, C.; Chen, H. Experimental Study of Dam-Break-Like Tsunami Bore Impact Mechanism on a Container Model. Pol. Marit. Res. 2020, 27, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Elsheikh, N.; Azimi, A.H.; Nistor, I.; Mohammadian, A. Experimental Investigations of Hydraulic Surges Passing over a Rectangular Canal. J. Earthq. Tsunami 2020, 14, 2040004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Elsheikh, N.; Nistor, I.; Azimi, A.H.; Mohammadian, A. Tsunami-Induced Bore Propagating over a Canal—Part 1: Laboratory Experiments and Numerical Validation. Fluids 2022, 7, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Barranco, I.; Liu, P.L.-F. Run-Up and Inundation Generated by Non-Decaying Dam-Break Bores on a Planar Beach. J. Fluid Mech. 2021, 915, A81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Chen, C.; Wang, F. An Experimental Study of Energy Dissipation of Sea Grass in a Dam Break Flume. Glob. NEST J. 2022, 24, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Liu, S.; Nistor, I.; Mohammadian, A.; Azimi, A. Experimental Investigation of Beach Slope Effects on the Kinematic Behaviors of Dam Break Flow. In Proceedings of the 39th IAHR World Congress, Granada, Spain, 19–24 June 2022; Ortega-Sánchez, M., Ed.; IAHR: Madrid, Spain, 2022; pp. 6194–6202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Liu, S.; Nistor, I.; Mohammadian, A.; Azimi, A.H. Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Beach Slope Effects on the Hydrodynamic Loading of Tsunami-like Surges on a Vertical Wall. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Rajaie, M.; Azimi, A.H.; Nistor, I.; Rennie, C.D. Experimental Investigations on Hydrodynamic Characteristics of Tsunami-Like Hydraulic Bores Impacting a Square Structure. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2022, 148, 04021061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. von Häfen, H.; Krautwald, C.; Bihs, H.; Goseberg, N. Dam-Break Waves’ Hydrodynamics on Composite Bathymetry. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 8, 877378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Buchner, B. Green Water on Ship-Type Offshore Structures. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2002. Available online: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid:e383a7ef-43b5-4137-93d1-d5ab8fc75568/datastream/OBJ/download (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  288. Hernández-Fontes, J.V.; Vitola, M.A.; Silva, M.C.; Esperança, P.D.T.T.; Sphaier, S.H. Use of Wet Dam-Break to Study Green Water Problem. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Trondheim, Norway, 25–30 June 2017; American Society of Mechanical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2017. OMAE2017-62113, V07AT06A065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Hernández-Fontes, J.V.; Vitola, M.A.; Silva, M.C.; Esperança, P.D.T.T.; Sphaier, S.H. On the Generation of Isolated Green Water Events Using Wet Dam-Break. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2018, 140, 051101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Hernández-Fontes, J.V.; Vitola, M.A.; Esperança, P.D.T.T.; Sphaier, S.H. Assessing Shipping Water Vertical Loads on a Fixed Structure by Convolution Model and Wet Dam-Break Tests. Appl. Ocean Res. 2019, 82, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Hernández-Fontes, J.V.; Vitola, M.A.; Esperança, P.D.T.T.; Sphaier, S.H.; Silva, R. Patterns and Vertical Loads in Water Shipping in Systematic Wet Dam-Break Experiments. Ocean Eng. 2020, 197, 106891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Hernández-Fontes, J.V.; Esperança, P.D.T.T.; Silva, R.; Mendoza, E.; Sphaier, S.H. Violent Water-Structure Interaction: Overtopping Features and Vertical Loads on a Fixed Structure Due to Broken Incident Flows. Mar. Struct. 2020, 74, 102816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Hernández-Fontes, J.V.; Hernández, I.D.; Silva, R.; Mendoza, E.; Esperança, P.D.T.T. A Simplified and Open-Source Approach for Multiple-Valued Water Surface Measurements in 2D Hydrodynamic Experiments. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2020, 42, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Wang, D.; Dong, S. Experimental Investigation on the Interactions Between Dam-Break Flow and a Floating Box. J. Ocean Univ. China 2022, 21, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Chanson, H.; Coussot, P.; Jarny, S.; Tocquer, L. A Study of Dam Break Wave of Thixotropic Fluid: Bentonite Surges Down an Inclined Plane; Rep. No. CH54/04; Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2004; Available online: https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:9437 (accessed on 12 December 2022).
  296. Komatina, D.; Đorđević, D. Numerical Simulation of Hyper-Concentrated Flows. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 1111–1120. [Google Scholar]
  297. Cochard, S.; Ancey, C. Accurate Measurements of Free-Surface in the Dam-Break Problem. In River Flow 2006, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Lisbon, Portugal, 6–8 September 2006; Ferreira, R., Alves, E., Leal, J., Cardoso, A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2006; Volume 2, pp. 1863–1872. [Google Scholar]
  298. Cochard, S. Measurements of Time-Dependent, Free-Surface Viscoplastic Flows Down Steep Slopes. Ph.D. Thesis, École Polytechnique Fédéral de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  299. Cochard, S.; Ancey, C. Tracking The Free Surface of Time-Dependent Flows: Image Processing for the Dam-Break Problem. Exp. Fluids 2008, 44, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  300. Chanson, H.; Jarny, S.; Coussot, P. Dam Break Wave of Thixotropic Fluid. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2006, 132, 280–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  301. Balmforth, N.J.; Craster, R.V.; Perona, P.; Rust, A.C.; Sassi, R. Viscoplastic Dam Breaks and the Bostwick Consistometer. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 2007, 142, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  302. Ancey, C.; Cochard, S. The Dam-Break Problem for Herschel–Bulkley Viscoplastic Fluids Down Steep Flumes. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 2009, 158, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Cochard, S.; Ancey, C. Experimental Investigation of the Spreading of Viscoplastic Fluids on Inclined Planes. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 2009, 158, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Brondani Minussi, R.; de Freitas Maciel, G. Numerical Experimental Comparison of Dam Break Flows with Non-Newtonian Fluids. J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 2012, 34, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  305. Bates, B.M.; Ancey, C. The Dam-Break Problem for Eroding Viscoplastic Fluids. J. Non-Newton. Fluid Mech. 2017, 243, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  306. Jing, X.; Chen, Y.; Xie, D.; Williams, D.J.; Wu, S.; Wang, W.; Yin, T. The Effect of Grain Size on the Hydrodynamics of Mudflow Surge from a Tailings Dam-Break. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  307. Modolo, A.V.F.; Loureiro, B.V.; Soares, E.J.; Thompson, R.L. Influence of the Plastic Number on the Evolution of a Yield Stress Material Subjected to a Dam Break. J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 2019, 12, 1967–1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Tang, J.B.; Lin, P.Z.; Cui, P. Depth-Resolved Numerical Model of Dam Break Mud Flows with Herschel-Bulkley Rheology. J. Mt. Sci. 2022, 19, 1001–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Xue, Y.; Xu, W.-L.; Luo, S.-J.; Chen, H.-Y.; Li, N.-W.; Xu, L.-J. Experimental Study of Dam-Break Flow in Cascade Reservoirs with Steep Bottom Slope. J. Hydrodyn. 2011, 23, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Chen, H.Y.; Xu, W.L.; Deng, J.; Xue, Y.; Li, J. Experimental Investigation of Pressure Load Exerted on a Downstream Dam by Dam-Break Flow. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2014, 140, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  311. Liu, H.J.; Li, Y.; Wang, X.G.; Xuan, G.X.; Zhu, L. Experimental Study of the Flood Superposition Effect Due to Cascade Dam Break. In Proceedings of the 37th IAHR World Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 13–18 August 2017; Ghani, A.A., Chan, N.W., Ariffin, J., Wahab, A.K.A., Harun, S., Kassim, A.H.M., Karim, O.A., Eds.; IAHR: Madrid, Spain, 2017; pp. 2299–2306. [Google Scholar]
  312. Zhang, Y.; Xu, W. Retarding Effects of an Intermediate Intact Dam on the Dam-Break Flow in Cascade Reservoirs. J. Hydraul. Res. 2017, 55, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  313. Luo, J.; Xu, W.; Tian, Z.; Chen, H. Numerical Simulation of Cascaded Dam-Break Flow in Downstream Reservoir. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.–Water Manag. 2019, 172, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Kocaman, S.; Dal, K. A New Experimental Study and SPH Comparison for the Sequential Dam-Break Problem. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  315. Bechteler, W.; Kulisch, H.; Nujic, M. 2-D Dam-Break Flooding Waves – Comparison Between Experimental and Calculated Results. In Floods and Flood Management; Saul, A.J., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1992; Volume 15, pp. 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Liem, R.; Köngeter, J. The Influence of Initial Flow Conditions on the Propagation of Dam Break Wave. In Proceedings of the 28th IAHR World Congress, Graz, Austria, 22–27 August 1999; Available online: https://www.iahr.org/library/infor?pid=13676 (accessed on 3 October 2022).
  317. Aureli, F.; Mignosa, P. Rapidly Varying Flows Due to Levee-Breaking. In River Flow 2002, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 4–6 September 2002; Bousmar, D., Zech, Y., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 459–466. [Google Scholar]
  318. Aureli, F.; Mignosa, P. Comparison Between Experimental and Numerical Results of 2D Flows Due to Levee Breaking. In Proceedings of the 29th IAHR World Congress, Beijing, China, 16–21 September 2001; Li, G., Ed.; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2001. Theme C. pp. 252–258. [Google Scholar]
  319. Sarma, A.K.; Das, M.M. Analytical Solution of a Flood Wave Resulting from Dike Failure. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.—Water Marit. Eng. 2003, 156, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  320. Briechle, S.; Joeppen, A.; Köngeter, J. Physical Model Tests for Dike-Break Induced, Two-Dimensional Flood Wave Propagation. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 959–966. [Google Scholar]
  321. Briechle, S.R. Die flachenhafte Ausbreitung der Flutwellenach Versagen von Hochwasserschutzeinrichtungen an Fliesgewassern [Flood Wave Generated by the Collapse of a Flood Protection]. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2006. Available online: https://d-nb.info/98060897x/34 (accessed on 19 October 2022). (In German).
  322. Harms, M.; Briechle, S.; Köngeter, J.; Schwanenberg, D. Dike-Break Induced Flow: Validation of Numerical Simulations and Case Study. In River Flow 2004, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Naples, Italy, 23–25 June 2004; Greco, M., Carravetta, A., Della Morte, R., Eds.; Balkema: Lisse, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 937–944. [Google Scholar]
  323. Oertel, M.; Schlenkhoff, A. Flood Wave Propagation and Flooding of Underground Facilities. In River Flow 2008, Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Çeşme, Izmir, Turkey, 3–5 September 2008; Altinakar, M.S., Kokpinar, M.A., Aydin, I., Cokgor, S., Kirkgoz, S., Eds.; Kubaba Congress Department and Travel Services: Ankara, Turkey, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 595–600. [Google Scholar]
  324. Oertel, M. Analyse der Flutung Unterirdischer Bauwerke in Flussnahen Urbanen Regionen Nach Versagen von Hochwasserschutzeinrichtungen [Analyzing Flooding Processes of Underground Facilities in Urban River Areas after Malfunction of Flood Protection Measures]. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany, 2008. Available online: https://www.hydro.uni-wuppertal.de/fileadmin/bauing/hydro/berichte/Nr.15_Oertel.pdf (accessed on 19 October 2022). (In German).
  325. Roger, S.; Dewals, B.J.; Erpicum, S.; Schwanenberg, D.; Schüttrumpf, H.; Köngeter, J.; Pirotton, M. Experimental and Numerical Investigations of Dike-Break Induced Flows. J. Hydraul. Res. 2009, 47, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  326. Sun, J.; Lu, L.; Lin, B.; Liu, L. Processes of Dike-Break Induced Flows: A Combined Experimental and Numerical Model Study. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2017, 32, 465–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  327. Al-Hafidh, I.A.I.; Calamak, M.; LaRocque, L.A.; Chaudhry, M.H.; Imran, J. Experimental Investigation of Flood Management by an Instantaneous Levee Breach. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2022, 148, 04021056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  328. Yoon, K.S.; Rehman, K.; Yoo, H.J.; Lee, S.O.; Hong, S.H. Large Scale Laboratory Experiment: The Impact of the Hydraulic Characteristics of Flood Waves Caused by Gradual Levee Failure on Inundation Areas. Water 2022, 14, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  329. Greenspan, H.P.; Johansson, A.V. An Experimental Study of Flow over an Impounding Dike. Stud. Appl. Math. 1981, 64, 211–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  330. Sharifi, T. An Experimental Study of Catastrophic Failure of Liquid Storage Tanks. Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London, London, UK, 1987. Available online: https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/46527/2/Sharifi-T-1987-PhD-Thesis.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  331. Maschek, W.; Roth, A.; Kirstahler, M.; Meyer, L. Simulation Experiments for Centralized Liquid Sloshing Motions; Report KfK-5090; Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe: Karlsruhe, Germany, 1992; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/197569152.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  332. Cleaver, R.P.; Cronin, P.S.; Evans, J.A.; Hirst, I.L. An Experimental Study of Spreading Liquid Pools. In Institution of Chemical Engineers Symposium Series No. 148; Institution of Chemical Engineers: Yarraville, Australia, 2001; pp. 167–179. Available online: https://www.icheme.org/media/10158/xvi-paper-13.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  333. Cronin, P.S.; Evans, J.A. A Series of Experiments to Study the Spreading of Liquid Pools with Different Bund Arrangements; Contract Research Report 405/2002; Advantica Technologies Limited for the Health and Safety Executive: Leicestershire, UK, 2002. Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/crr_pdf/2002/crr02405.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  334. Atherton, W. An Experimental Investigation of Bund Wall Overtopping and Dynamic Pressures on the Bund Wall Following Catastrophic Failure of a Storage Vessel; Research Report 333; Liverpool John Moores University for the Health and Safety Executive: Liverpool, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  335. Atherton, W. An Empirical Investigation of Catastrophic and Partial Failures of Bulk Storage Vessels and Subsequent Bund Wall Overtopping and Dynamic Pressures. Ph.D. Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK, 2008. Available online: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/5866/1/446356.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  336. Zhang, B.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, W.; Gopalaswami, N.; Mannan, M.S. Experimental Study of Bund Overtopping Caused by a Catastrophic Failure of Tanks. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017, 56, 12227–12235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  337. Megdiche, I. Evaluation of the Mechanical Strength of Bund Walls under the Catastrophic Failure of Storage Tanks via Fluid Structure Interaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK, 2018. Available online: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/10217/7/2019MegdichePhD.pdf (accessed on 7 February 2023).
  338. Zhao, S.; Huo, J.; Xu, R.; Liu, Y.; Jing, M.; Zhang, B. Prevention of Bund Overtopping after a Catastrophic Tank Failure Accident: Effects of Bund Design, Liquids and Scale-Up. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2022, 166, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  339. Ritter, A. Die Fortpflanzung der Wasserwellen [Propagation of Water Waves]. Z. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. 1892, 36, 947–954. (In German) [Google Scholar]
  340. Stoker, J.J. Water Waves: The Mathematical Theory with Applications; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  341. Mignot, E.; Dewals, B. Hydraulic Modelling of Inland Urban Flooding: Recent Advances. J. Hydrol. 2022, 609, 127763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  342. Mignot, E.; Li, X.; Dewals, B. Experimental Modelling of Urban Flooding: A Review. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 334–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  343. Buchner, B. The Impact of Green Water on FPSO Design. In OTC 95, Proceedings of the 27th Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 1–4 May 1995; OTC 7698; OnePetro: Richardson, TX, USA, 1995; Volume 2, pp. 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  344. Schønberg, T.; Rainey, R.T.C. A Hydrodynamic Model of Green Water Incidents. Appl. Ocean Res. 2002, 24, 299–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  345. Chuang, W.-L.; Chang, K.-A.; Mercier, R. Review of Experimental Modeling of Green Water in Laboratories. In ISOPE 2019, Proceedings of the 29th International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, USA, 16–21 June 2019; Chung, J.S., Akselsen, O.M., Jin, H.W., Kawai, H., Lee, Y., Matskevitch, D., Van, S.H., Wan, D., Wang, A.M., Yamaguchi, S., Eds.; International Society of Ocean and Polar Engineers: Cupertino, CA, USA, 2019; Volume 3, pp. 2466–2472. [Google Scholar]
  346. Henderson, F.M. Open Channel Flow; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1966; pp. 491–493. [Google Scholar]
  347. Heller, V. Scale Effects in Physical Hydraulic Engineering Models. J. Hydraul. Res. 2011, 49, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  348. Ye, Z.; Zhao, X.; Deng, Z. Numerical Investigation of the Gate Motion Effect on a Dam Break Flow. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2016, 21, 579–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  349. FEMA. Federal Guidelines for Inundation Mapping of Flood Risks Associated with Dam Incidents and Failures; FEMA P-946; U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. Available online: https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/fema_dam-safety_inundation-mapping-flood-risks.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  350. NZSOLD. New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines; New Zealand Society on Large Dams (NZSOLD): Wellington, New Zealand, 2015; Available online: https://nzsold.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/nzsold_dam_safety_guidelines-may-2015-1.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  351. Vischer, D.L.; Hager, W.H. Dam Hydraulics; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1998; pp. 287–288. [Google Scholar]
  352. Tan, T.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, J.; Niu, X.; Chang, K.-A. Experimental Study on Flow Kinematics of Dam-Break Induced Surge Impacting onto a Vertical Wall. Phys. Fluids 2023, 35, 025127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  353. De Marchi, G. Sull’Onda di Piena che Seguirebbe al Crollo della Diga di Cancano. Prove su Modello per il Tronco Fluviale dalla Diga a Ponte Cepina–Calcolo per il Tronco da Ponte Cepina a Tirano [On the Dam-Break Wave Resulting from the Collapse of the Cancano Dam. Physical Model for the River Reach from the Dam to Ponte Cepina–Numerical Model for the River Reach from Ponte Cepina to Tirano]. L’Energia Elettr. 1945, 22, 319–340. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  354. FLOW-3D Modeling Capabilities. Hybrid Shallow Water/3D Flow. Available online: https://www.flow3d.com/modeling-capabilities/hybrid-shallow-water-3d-flow/ (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  355. FLOW-3D Modeling Capabilities. Moving Objects. Available online: https://www.flow3d.com/modeling-capabilities/moving-objects/ (accessed on 10 March 2023).
Figure 1. Pictures of typical experimental facilities for dam-break flow investigations. (a) Total dam-break in a rectangular channel (reprinted with permission from Ref. [13]; courtesy of International Association of Hydrological Sciences). (b) Prismatic tank for partial dam-break experiments (reprinted with permission from Ref. [14]).
Figure 1. Pictures of typical experimental facilities for dam-break flow investigations. (a) Total dam-break in a rectangular channel (reprinted with permission from Ref. [13]; courtesy of International Association of Hydrological Sciences). (b) Prismatic tank for partial dam-break experiments (reprinted with permission from Ref. [14]).
Water 15 01229 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aureli, F.; Maranzoni, A.; Petaccia, G.; Soares-Frazão, S. Review of Experimental Investigations of Dam-Break Flows over Fixed Bottom. Water 2023, 15, 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061229

AMA Style

Aureli F, Maranzoni A, Petaccia G, Soares-Frazão S. Review of Experimental Investigations of Dam-Break Flows over Fixed Bottom. Water. 2023; 15(6):1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aureli, Francesca, Andrea Maranzoni, Gabriella Petaccia, and Sandra Soares-Frazão. 2023. "Review of Experimental Investigations of Dam-Break Flows over Fixed Bottom" Water 15, no. 6: 1229. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061229

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics