the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 09 Jul 2021
The catastrophe of the Niedów dam – the causes of the dam's breach, its development and consequences
Abstract. Due to extreme rainfall in 2010 in the Lusatian Neisse River catchment area, a flood event with a return period of over 100 years occurred, leading to the failure of the Niedów dam. The earth-type dam was washed away, resulting in the rapid release of nearly 8.5 million m3 of water and the flooding of the downstream area with substantial material losses. The paper analyses the conditions and causes of the dam’s failure, with special attention given to the mechanism and dynamics of the compound breaching process, in which the dam’s upstreeam slope reinforcement played a remarkable role. The paper also describes a numerical approach for simulating a combined flood event along the Lusatian Neisse River with the use of a two-dimensional hydrodynamic model (MIKE21). The flood event occurred downstream from the dam. Considering the specific local conditions and available data set, an iterative solution of the unsteady state problem is proposed. This approach enables realistic flood propagation estimates to be delivered, the dam breach outflow to be reconstructed, and several important answers concerning the consequences of the dam’s failure to be provided.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(16128 KB)
-
Supplement
(1830 KB)
-
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(16128 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1830 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-199', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-199/nhess-2021-199-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Robert Banasiak, 12 Aug 2021
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Robert Banasiak, 25 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-199/nhess-2021-199-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-199', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2021
The problem is very interesting, but its discussion is sadly incomplete. Analysing the current version of the article, clear conclusions for the ICOLD cannot be drawn, and thus the acceptance of the submitted description for publication in an international journal is problematic.
I wish to analyse a diagram that is crucial for a discussion of disasters affecting hydraulic structures, such as dams. Key details for an analysis include:
- Functions to be performed by the structure – a description
- Geomorphological and hydrological conditions
- Design guidelines (applicable during design work), data adopted for designing purposes, obtained final flow capacity parameters of the structure, geotechnical parameters of the structure, device output curves
- A short operational description of the structure, technical assessments made, hydrological events, structure condition (maintenance status), changes in geotechnical parameters, dislocation of land-surveying points, filtration through the structure and results of control operations
- complete probabilistic and physical characteristics of the input function that directly caused the disaster
- indirect conditions, here e.g. instructions for water management in the reservoir as a principal document binding upon the operator and deviations in control processes with their reasons
- An analysis of simulation results and an assessment of potential differences compared to ICOLD data, applicable assessment methods that were used (e.g. empirical formulae)
- If a structure with the same cross-section is to be reconstructed, a rationale must be given with applicable regulations and new characteristics of devices
The items indicated above are not explained in the article (items 3, 5, 7, 8) or are incompletely explained (all remaining items). The title indicates that the article was aimed to describe the causes of disaster, its development and consequences. All those elements can be identified but cannot be characterized as scientific. The article is structured as a superficial report on a failure, without any scientific commentary and references to formulas that are currently used to assess and analyse disasters (an attempt to analyse the problem scientifically was made in the previous version). The manuscript lacks a scientific commentary substantiated by calculations.
The proposed formula (1) ignores the physics of the phenomenon and is erroneous. Additionally, the concept of iteration is introduced without a precise equation / system of equations explaining that concept.
One of the most important tasks in analysing this type of disasters is to compare inflows with throughput capabilities of the structure (a capacity curve of discharge and spill devices - here omitted). In the description of hydrological background (precipitation and flow rates), hyetograph information is omitted, and there is no reference to the probability of maximum annual flow rates being exceeded. The discharge and spill devices in the structure were designed for a 1,000-year flood (estimated in the 1960s at about 650 m3/s). There was no applicable regulation then in force, other guidelines were followed, namely Soviet standards). The guidelines in force at present (Journal of Laws Dz.U. 2007 no. 86 item 579) require that the structure be designed with parameters meeting the requirements for Class 1: a 5,000-year flood (WpÅyw stanu technicznego na katastrofÄ zapory zbiornika wodnego Niedów, Kostecki S., RÄdowicz W., Machajski J., Politechnika WrocÅawska, PrzeglÄ d Budowlany – 2012) – but is designed for a 1,000-year flood. There is no information about this aspect, and no comment explaining the reason for a reduced class of that hydraulic structure. The key cross-sections, referring to Figure 10, do not contain flow hydrographs. Table 2 contains a surprising example of consistency between calculation results and measurements, unattainable in bivariate modelling. This requires comments, especially considering that the measurements were not taken during the process but after some time.
The article is unsuitable for publication in its current version, it has to be supplemented and thoroughly restructured. Its technical language must be corrected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-199-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Robert Banasiak, 12 Aug 2021
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Robert Banasiak, 25 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-199/nhess-2021-199-AC4-supplement.pdf
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2021-199', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-199/nhess-2021-199-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Robert Banasiak, 12 Aug 2021
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Robert Banasiak, 25 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-199/nhess-2021-199-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2021-199', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2021
The problem is very interesting, but its discussion is sadly incomplete. Analysing the current version of the article, clear conclusions for the ICOLD cannot be drawn, and thus the acceptance of the submitted description for publication in an international journal is problematic.
I wish to analyse a diagram that is crucial for a discussion of disasters affecting hydraulic structures, such as dams. Key details for an analysis include:
- Functions to be performed by the structure – a description
- Geomorphological and hydrological conditions
- Design guidelines (applicable during design work), data adopted for designing purposes, obtained final flow capacity parameters of the structure, geotechnical parameters of the structure, device output curves
- A short operational description of the structure, technical assessments made, hydrological events, structure condition (maintenance status), changes in geotechnical parameters, dislocation of land-surveying points, filtration through the structure and results of control operations
- complete probabilistic and physical characteristics of the input function that directly caused the disaster
- indirect conditions, here e.g. instructions for water management in the reservoir as a principal document binding upon the operator and deviations in control processes with their reasons
- An analysis of simulation results and an assessment of potential differences compared to ICOLD data, applicable assessment methods that were used (e.g. empirical formulae)
- If a structure with the same cross-section is to be reconstructed, a rationale must be given with applicable regulations and new characteristics of devices
The items indicated above are not explained in the article (items 3, 5, 7, 8) or are incompletely explained (all remaining items). The title indicates that the article was aimed to describe the causes of disaster, its development and consequences. All those elements can be identified but cannot be characterized as scientific. The article is structured as a superficial report on a failure, without any scientific commentary and references to formulas that are currently used to assess and analyse disasters (an attempt to analyse the problem scientifically was made in the previous version). The manuscript lacks a scientific commentary substantiated by calculations.
The proposed formula (1) ignores the physics of the phenomenon and is erroneous. Additionally, the concept of iteration is introduced without a precise equation / system of equations explaining that concept.
One of the most important tasks in analysing this type of disasters is to compare inflows with throughput capabilities of the structure (a capacity curve of discharge and spill devices - here omitted). In the description of hydrological background (precipitation and flow rates), hyetograph information is omitted, and there is no reference to the probability of maximum annual flow rates being exceeded. The discharge and spill devices in the structure were designed for a 1,000-year flood (estimated in the 1960s at about 650 m3/s). There was no applicable regulation then in force, other guidelines were followed, namely Soviet standards). The guidelines in force at present (Journal of Laws Dz.U. 2007 no. 86 item 579) require that the structure be designed with parameters meeting the requirements for Class 1: a 5,000-year flood (WpÅyw stanu technicznego na katastrofÄ zapory zbiornika wodnego Niedów, Kostecki S., RÄdowicz W., Machajski J., Politechnika WrocÅawska, PrzeglÄ d Budowlany – 2012) – but is designed for a 1,000-year flood. There is no information about this aspect, and no comment explaining the reason for a reduced class of that hydraulic structure. The key cross-sections, referring to Figure 10, do not contain flow hydrographs. Table 2 contains a surprising example of consistency between calculation results and measurements, unattainable in bivariate modelling. This requires comments, especially considering that the measurements were not taken during the process but after some time.
The article is unsuitable for publication in its current version, it has to be supplemented and thoroughly restructured. Its technical language must be corrected.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-199-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Robert Banasiak, 12 Aug 2021
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Robert Banasiak, 25 Aug 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2021-199/nhess-2021-199-AC4-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 659 | 452 | 57 | 1,168 | 79 | 50 | 53 |
- HTML: 659
- PDF: 452
- XML: 57
- Total: 1,168
- Supplement: 79
- BibTeX: 50
- EndNote: 53
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 407 | 37 |
| Germany | 2 | 114 | 10 |
| China | 3 | 79 | 7 |
| South Korea | 4 | 40 | 3 |
| Ireland | 5 | 36 | 3 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 407
Cited
5 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Climate Water Balance in the Warm Half-Year and Its Circulation Conditions in the Sudetes Mountains and Their Foreland (Poland and Czechia) B. Miszuk 10.3390/w15040795
- Assessment of the Breaching Event, Breach Parameters and Failure Mechanisms of the Spillway Collapse in the Swa Dam, Myanmar P. Kyaw & T. Uchida 10.3390/w15081513
- Modeling and Risk Analysis of Dam-Break Flooding in a Semi-Arid Montane Watershed: A Case Study of the Yabous Dam, Northeastern Algeria A. Gaagai et al. 10.3390/w14050767
- Large-Scale Two-Dimensional Cascade Modeling of the Odra River for Flood Hazard Management R. Banasiak 10.3390/w16010039
- Uncertainty Estimation in the Modeling of a Flood Wave Caused by a Dam Failure in a Hydropower System with Pumped Hydro Energy Storage J. Kriaučiūnienė & D. Šarauskienė 10.3390/su16093528
Stanisław Kostecki
This preprint has been withdrawn.
- Preprint
(16128 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1830 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote