Retarding effects of an intermediate intact dam on the dam-break flow in cascade reservoirs

Figures & data

Figure 1 Dimensions (in m) of the experimental set-up: (a) side view, (b) plan view

Figure 2 Schematic cross-section dimensions of the intermediate dam (unit: m)

Figure 3 Front view showing the locations of pressure sensors on the downstream dam (unit: m)

Figure 4 Time evolution of pressure loads from all four pressure sensors for three repeated tests and the mean (D = 0.40 m, h_u = 0.30 m, h = 0.40 m, h_d = 0.30 m): (a) P₁, (b) P₂, (c) P₃, (d) P₄

Table 1 Experimental scenarios with different heights of intermediate dam and initial water depths

	Initial water depths
Variables	D = 0 m	D = 0.20 m	D = 0.30 m	D = 0.40 m	D = 0.50 m	D = 0.60 m
hu (m)	0.10–0.30	0.10–0.30	0.10–0.30	0.10–0.30	0.10–0.30	0.10–0.30
hd (m)	0.10–0.50	0.10–0.50	0.10–0.50	0.10–0.50	0.10–0.50	0.10–0.50
h (m)	–	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
	–	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10	0.10
	–	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
	–	–	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
	–	–	–	0.40	0.40	0.40
	–	–	–	–	0.50	0.50
		–	–	–	–	0.60

Figure 5 Snapshots of the leap pattern

Figure 6 Snapshots of the overflow pattern

Figure 7 Time evolution of relative pressure loads for different cases: (a) intermediate dam removed (D = 0, h_u = 0.20 m, h_d = 0.30 m), (b) leap pattern (D = 0.40 m, h_u = 0.20 m, h = 0.30 m, h_d = 0.30 m), (c) overflow pattern (D = 0.60 m, h_u = 0.20 m, h = 0.10 m, h_d = 0.30 m)

Figure 8 Relation of β and α for different water depths in front of the upstream and downstream dams: (a) h_u = 0.15 m, h_d = 0.10 m, (b) h_u = 0.15 m, h_d = 0.30 m, (c) h_u = 0.30 m, h_d = 0.10 m, (d) h_u = 0.30 m, h_d = 0.30 m (see Supplemental data)