DAM-BREAK FLOOD INUNDATION ANALYSIS FOR LAKE YOUNGS RESERVOIR Henry Hu1 John Howard2 Daniel Huang3 ABSTRACT

A dam failure analysis was conducted for the Seattle Public Utilities to determine the flood inundation extents of a hypothetical failure of the Lake Youngs Reservoir Outlet Dam in King County, Washington. The 690-acre reservoir is unique as it is completely impounded by embankments and perimeter dikes without receiving natural inflows. The lake is filled with water piped from the Cedar River and serves as an intake regulation reservoir for the Metropolitan Seattle Area drinking water supply system. The Outlet Dam is classified as High, Hazard Class 1A and failure could potentially place a large number of people and property along the Soos Creek and Green River valley in danger. An unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was developed for a sunny day failure, a winter failure, and a probable maximum flood failure. This paper discusses the methods and assumptions used to build the HEC-RAS model. The paper presents dam break flood routing results, including the travel time (warning time) of the flood wave to various key locations in the downstream valley and the representative channel/valley cross-sections depicting flow depth and typical flow velocities. It finally presents the elements and information depicted on an inundation map, which is used by stakeholders and public agencies for the purpose of emergency alert and management. INTRODUCTION The Lake Youngs reservoir is located about 5 miles east of the City of Kent on the plateau between the Green and Cedar River Watersheds (Figure 1) in King County, WA. The reservoir covers an area of 690 acres and serves as an intake regulation reservoir for the Seattle Public Utilities drinking water supply system. The reservoir is an enlargement of a natural lake and was formed by the construction of several dikes and levees around the lake perimeter. The lake is filled with water piped from the Cedar River and receives no inflow from the natural watershed because of the perimeter dikes and levees. The Lake Youngs Outlet Dam (Outlet Dam) is a homogenous earth fill structure at the south end of the Lake Youngs reservoir (Figure 2). The primary public safety considerations of any dam failure are the potential for loss of life and damage to property in the downstream valley. Washington State uses a
1

Senior Project Manager, WEST Consultants, Inc., 12509 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005, hhu@westconsultants.com. 2 Project Engineer, WEST Consultants, Inc., 12509 Bel-Red Road, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98005, hhoward@westconsultants.com. 3 Supervising Senior Engineer, Seattle Public utilities, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900, Seattle, WA 98124, Daniel.huang@seattle.gov.

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1411

classification system to describe the general level of development downstream from a dam and uses it as an index of the relative magnitude of the potential consequences to human life and development that could be affected by a flood should the dam fail (Washington State Department of Ecology (WA DOE), 1992). The Outlet Dam is classified as High, Hazard Class 1A, which is defined as more than 300 people at risk, more than 100 inhabited structures impacted and/or extreme economic loss. The WA DOE Dam Safety Office (State Dam Safety Office) recently inspected Lake Youngs Reservoir in 2010 as part of the Washington states 5-year periodic dam inspection program (WA DOE, 2010). Although the likelihood of failure is very remote, the State Dam Safety Office identified the need to update the dam break inundation maps from the 1999 study (MGS Engineering Consultants, 2000) for use in an Emergency Action Plan due to population growth and new developments downstream.

Figure 1. Lake Youngs vicinity map. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dam and Reservoir The Lake Youngs reservoir stores approximately 14,700 acre-feet of water that has been diverted from the Cedar River via a tunnel and pipelines. The reservoir surface elevation is controlled by regulating the inflow from the Cedar River diversion, and the outflow pumped into a treatment plant that treats and delivers water to the distribution system of the greater Seattle Area (Seattle Public Utilities, 2010). The Outlet Dam was initially constructed in 1921 across the natural outlet of Lake Youngs at the headwaters of Little Soos Creek (Seattle Public Utilities, 2010). Later in the 1950s, the dam was raised to

1412

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

increase the storage capacity in the reservoir. The Outlet Dams function is to retain reservoir water during normal reservoir operation. All storm surface water around the reservoir is diverted away from the lake by a continuous road dike known as Lake Youngs Perimeter Dike that surrounds the entire reservoir at approximately 506.4 ft North American Vertical Datum (NAVD88). Water from the drainage basin outside the perimeter dikes is drained into either a diversion system to the east or to Little Soos Creek to the south via a series of catch basins and drain pipes (Seattle Public Utilities, 2010). Due to the diversions, the contributing area to the reservoir is only the surface area of the reservoir itself, 690 acres.

Figure 2. Lake Youngs Outlet Dam. Outlet Dam Dimensions The Outlet Dam has a maximum height of 30 feet, a crest width of 22 to 31 feet, and a crest length of 703 feet. The upstream face of the dam is covered with a 5-inch thick concrete facing for erosion protection. The downstream slope was buttressed in 2001 by adding fill behind a 6-foot high ecology block wall. The original embankment fill is dense silty sand glacial till material, while the 1950s fill that flattened the downstream face slope to 3H:1V is silty gravelly sand. A summary of the outlet dam dimensions can be found in Table 1. Although no spillway is provided for Lake Youngs, a 6-inch steel siphon pipeline crosses over the outlet dam to provide continuous flow to Little Soos Creek. The flow rate in the

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1413

siphon pipeline fluctuates depending on the water surface level in the reservoir, and is normally just a little less than 2 cfs. The original 30-inch diameter outlet into Little Soos Creek was removed from service in 1991 by grouting it full with concrete. In addition to the flow from the siphon, Little Soos Creek receives flow from two drainage springs from the left and right edges of the reservoir. Table 1. Summary of Outlet Dam specifications.
Dam Dimensions Dam Height (downstream toe to top of dam) Length of Dam Width of Dam Crest Upstream Slope Downstream Slope Elevation, Top of Dam Elevation, Invert of Reservoir Contributing Area to Reservoir Outlets Siphon Siphon Inlet, Invert Elevation Siphon Outlet, Invert Elevation Measurement 27 ft 703 ft 30 ft 3:1 2:1 506.4 ft 479.4 ft 690 acres Measurement 6-inch steel pipe 487.0 ft 480.4 ft

Downstream Valley Description Little Soos Creek naturally drains Lake Youngs, although it normally only receives a small amount of water from Lake Youngs. Additional flows from the diversion dikes around Lake Youngs contribute to the flow at the head of the creek. Little Soos Creek travels about four miles before it converges with Big Soos Creek. Jenkins Creek is a small tributary of Big Soos Creek that shares a low topographic divide with Little Soos Creek around the City of Covington. A large flood, such as a dam breach, could cross from the Little Soos Creek basin into the Jenkins Creek basin. Both the Little Soos Creek basin and the Jenkins Creek basin drain into the larger Big Soos Creek. Continuing downstream, Big Soos Creek eventually drains into the Green River just to the east of Auburn. The Green River flows through the cities of Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila before draining into Puget Sound. The areas in the downstream valley have all grown significantly in the past 10 years, increasing the amount of potential property damage and danger to human life if the Outlet Dam failed. HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND CALIBRATION This dam failure analysis utilizes unsteady-flow HEC-RAS, which is a one-dimensional fully dynamic routing model that has the capability of simulating subcritical, supercritical, and mixed flows and lateral split flows, and routing flood water along

1414

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

channel and overbank areas (HEC, 2010). It can extract channel and overbank geometry in a cross-sectional format at user-defined points from digital topographic data and can be used to automate mapping of initial floodplain/inundation boundaries, water depth, and flow velocities. The study approach for this project was to build a basin-wide HEC-RAS model from existing hydraulic models available and extend or modify them where necessary. Unfortunately, the 1986 flood insurance study (FIS) model was not digitized and there has been significant development along that reach of Big Soos Creek. Additionally, the HEC-RAS models recently developed by FEMA for the King County Green River FIS (KCGRFIS) only included the in-channel cross-sections (nhc, 2010 and nhc, 2007). Significant efforts were needed to develop an existing conditions HEC-RAS model that covers all the anticipated inundation areas using the latest topographic data. The following sections describe the process and data used in developing the HEC-RAS model that was used to simulate the dam break from Lake Youngs and compute the flood wave downstream. Cross Section Geometry The topography used to create the cross sections in the study areas upstream of the Green River was the Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC) LiDAR data. Mass points from the LiDAR data were first used to create a representative surface area in ArcGIS known as a TIN. The TIN contains points that have defined x and y coordinates and a z value. TINS were created for the upper reaches: Big Soos Creek, Little Soos Creek and Jenkins Creek. Cross sections were defined based on field surveys and then cut from the TINS using HEC-GeoRAS. We added more cross sections in the areas where significant development has occurred. The hydraulic structures (bridges and culverts) were added manually from data collected during the field surveys. The cross section geometry was then imported into HEC-RAS (Figure 3). Once in HEC-RAS, the cross section geometry was manually refined to better represent the anticipated flow paths. We also added several flow splits and lateral structures to the upper reaches to improve results and to model the peak flow more accurately. The areas where a lateral structure or flow split was added to the HEC-RAS model were highlighted in Figure 3. On the Green River, the instream channel geometry was obtained from the existing KCGRFIS HEC-RAS model. However, the overbank areas were modeled using FLO-2D in the KCGRFIS (nhc, 2007 and nhc, 2010). In order to model the overbanks in the HECRAS model, the cross sections were extended using topographic data and the 500-year floodplain boundary from the KCGRFIS as a guideline for how far to extend the cross sections. Two-foot contour lines were used to create a TIN. The TIN was then used to create newly cut cross sections that now captured the overbank geometry. To preserve the original instream channel cross section geometry from the KCGRFIS HEC-RAS model, the overbank and channel files were blended in Excel by adding the left and right overbank to the existing channel data.

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1415

Note: The red boxes highlight the areas where the channel geometry was manually refined.

Figure 3. HEC-RAS model cross-sections of all of the reaches. Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions define the upstream and downstream ends of the river system. The upstream boundary condition was defined as a flow hydrograph generated by HEC-RAS during the dam breach of the Lake Youngs reservoir outlet. The downstream boundary for the model is on the Green River and is the same as the KCGRFIS. The initial flow for all reaches in Big Soos Creek, Little Soos Creek, and Jenkins Creek was set to 200 cfs. The initial flow in these reaches does not impact the results of the inundation due to the large difference in magnitude between the initial flow and the dam break flow. The initial flow in the Green River is different for each scenario and is discussed in the Dam Failure Scenarios section. Calibration The HEC-RAS model flood profile for the Big Soos Creek reach was calibrated to match the 10-, 50-, 100- and 500-year profiles from the 1987 FIS model. The HEC-RAS model flood profile for Green River reach was previously calibrated in the KCGRFIS (nhc, 2010 and nhc, 2007). The newly built sections of the other reaches (Little Soos Creek, Jenkins Creek, and downstream Big Soos Creek) in the rest of the HEC-RAS model did not have any data that could be used for calibration, and were not calibrated.

1416

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

DAM FAILURE SCENARIOS In the instance of a potential dam failure, the time of year when the project fails has a large influence on the nature of the dam-break flood. The region where Lake Youngs is located is characterized by wet, rainy winters and warm, dry summers. To allow for more freeboard in the winter in case of a large storm, the Lake Youngs Reservoir is operated at a higher elevation during the summer months (May 1-September 30) and at a lower elevation during the winter (October 1-April 30) (Table 2). If the project failed in the summer when the reservoir is at maximum pool, approximately 2,000 acre-feet more water would be released than if the failure occurred during the winter. While the dambreak peak flood would be less in the winter because of the reduced reservoir volume, the concurrent flow in the downstream receiving reaches would likely be higher than in the summer. For this reason a Sunny Day Failure and a Winter Failure were computed in this study to determine the worst case scenario. Additionally, a probable maximum flood (PMF) was calculated and tested as a dam failure scenario. The PMF is the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in a particular drainage area. We used the PMF that was calculated from a previous PMF study of the Lake Youngs watershed (Ebasco Services, Inc., 1987). The design storm used to generate the PMF was the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event, based on HMR-43 (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1966). Since the 1987 study was completed, the National Weather Service has revised the PMP estimates for the Northwest in HMR-57 (NOAA, 1994). The 1997 Lake Youngs Dam Inspection Report (WA DOE, 1997) updates the design storm and water budget computations from the 1987 report (Ebasco Services, Inc., 1987). The updated report finds that the PMP event is likely to increase the reservoir volume by 1,366 acre-feet. The PMP event would most likely occur during winter operation, therefore raising the pool elevation from 499.4 to 501.4 ft. Additionally the streamflow in the receiving rivers would increase during a PMP event. For this reason a Sunny Day Failure, a Winter Failure, and a winter PMF Failure scenario were computed and the scenario that resulted in the worst flooding from a dam-breach was used for mapping. Table 2 lists the initial operating parameters of Lake Youngs during each failure scenario. Table 2. Reservoir operating parameters.
Breach Parameter Reservoir Water Surface Elevation (ft) Reservoir Volume (ac-ft) Reservoir Surface Area (ac) 690.23 Sunny Day Failure 502.4 14,769 Winter Failure 499.4 12,700 686.22 PMF Failure 501.4 14,078 688.89

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1417

Antecedent Flow conditions The initial flow for all of the upper reaches (Big Soos Creek, Little Soos Creek, and Jenkins Creek) was set to 200 cfs at the upstream end of each reach. This was chosen for model stability. The initial flow of the Green River changes with each failure scenario. For the Sunny Day and Winter Failure scenarios, the flow in the Green River at the time of the dam failure was set at the 10-percent exceedance probability for the season when the failure is assumed to occur. For the PMF Failure scenario, the flow in the Green River at the time of the dam failure was set at the 5-percent exceedance probability for the winter season. The daily historic flow records from USGS gage station 12113000, Green River near Auburn, WA, which is located downstream of the Big Soos confluence with the Green River, were used to find the 5- and 10-percent exceedance flows for each scenario. The Green River station uses daily flow statistics for 48 years (from 10/1/1961-9/30/2009). The daily 90th percentile of the mean daily flow values at the gauging station was averaged over each season (summer: May 1-September 30, winter: October 1-April 30) to develop the 10-percent flow exceedance values to be used in the summer and winter failure scenarios (Table 3). The daily 95th percentile of the mean daily flow values at the gauging station was averaged over the winter season (October 1-April 30) to develop the 5-percent flow exceedance values to be used in the PMF scenario (Table 3). Note that flow in the Green River is regulated by Howard Hanson Dam, which is located approximately 20 miles upstream of the confluence with Big Soos Creek. There are no inflows to the Lake Youngs Reservoir at the time of the hypothetical failure because Seattle Public Utility has the ability to turn off the inflow from the Cedar River diversion. Table 3. Antecedent flow of the Green River (cfs).
RAS River Station 31.287 1 Sunny Day Failure Flow 368.6 Winter Failure Flow 3516.6 PMF Failure Flow 5906.6

Dam Breach Parameters Dam breach parameters define the size, shape, and timing of the breach that modify a lateral or inline structure, but are coded into the HEC-RAS model as plan data. This analysis breached a lateral structure. The parameters include the following: Centerline Station. The horizontal location of th e breach within the lateral structure. Final Breach Width. The final bottom width of the breach at full formation. Final Breach Elevation. The f inal bottom elevation of the f ully f ormed breach. Side slopes. Side slope of the breach as it forms in a trapezoidal shape. Breach Weir Coefficient. The coefficient that is us ed for weir fl ow over t he embankment in the standard weir equation. This analysis chose 2.6 due to the

1418

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

expectation that the co mposition of the dam would caus e the weir surface to be relatively smooth. Failure Mode. Failure mode can be set to pipi ng or overtopping. If the piping mode is selected, the user specifies the piping coefficient and the initial p iping elevation. Trigger Mechanism. T he trigger m echanism can be based on tim e, water surface elev ation, o r bo th. For this anal ysis, it was set to initiate the p iping failure 6 hours after the initial start time for the model.

The character of a flood resulting from a dam failure is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the dam, the volume of the reservoir and the mode of failure (WA DOE, 2007). The parameters in Table 4 were used as input to the HEC-RAS model to simulate a dam breach caused by a piping failure. Previous studies verified that the Outlet Dam would be able to withstand a PMP event with sufficient freeboard, so an overtopping failure was not simulated (WA DOE, 1997). Table 4. Dam failure parameters.
Breach Parameter Center Station (ft) Final Bottom Width (ft) Final Bottom Elevation (ft) Left Side Slope Right Side Slope Breach Weir Coefficient Failure Mode Piping Coefficient Initial piping Elevation (ft) Trigger Failure At Sunny Day Failure 370 146.5 479.4 0.5 0.5 2.6 Piping 0.5 479.4 06:00 Winter Failure 370 145 479.4 0.5 0.5 2.6 Piping 0.5 479.4 06:00 PMF Failure 370 146 479.4 0.5 0.5 2.6 Piping 0.5 479.4 06:00

Sensitivity Analysis A sensitivity analysis was performed on the Sunny Day failure model to test the effects of the parameters on the dam breach results. The most significant difference occurs when the Piping Elevation is changed. To be conservative, we chose the lowest elevation for piping failure to occur, which results in a higher peak flood simulated. RESULTS Timing and Flows The unsteady flow HEC-RAS model was used to simulate a dam breach of the Outlet Dam on Lake Youngs. The flow was then routed through the HEC-RAS model to

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1419

simulate flooding in the reaches. The peak flows from the three failure scenarios are shown in Table 5 at the dam breach on Little Soos Creek, the outflow of Little Soos Creek into Big Soos Creek, the outflow of Jenkins Creek into Big Soos Creek, the outflow of Big Soos Creek into the Green River, and after the confluence of Big Soos Creek and the Green River, where the maximum flow on the Green River occurs. Table 5. Peak flow results for each failure scenario (cfs).
Location Dam Breach Outflow Little Soos Creek Outflow Jenkins Creek Outflow Big Soos Creek Outflow Max flow in Green River Sunny Day Failure 36,990 29,493 8,363 6,189 14,175 14,596 6,306 3,789 10,207 13,214 Winter Failure PMF Failure 34,871 8,087 5,352 12,845 17,807

Since the Outlet Dam is an earthen structure, it would take some time to erode if it failed. The flood wave would not be a wall or a wave of water, but the flood would slowly rise to a maximum discharge and then slowly recede. The calculation of the full formation time (WA DOE, 2007) estimates that it would take about an hour to reach full breach formation. For emergency planning purposes, it is important to determine the flood arrival time and the time to maximum discharge in the event of a dam breach. The flood arrival time is the time from the start of the dam breach until the time the impact of the dam breach is measureable at a given location. The time to reach maximum discharge is the length of time from the beginning of the dam failure until the flood wave reaches its maximum discharge and elevation. Table 6 lists the flood wave arrival time and the time to reach maximum discharge at a few select locations in the study area. Table 6. Flood wave arrival and peak time results for each scenario.
Sunny Day Failure
Flood Wave Arrival Time (hrs) Time to Flood Peak (hrs)

Winter Failure
Flood Wave Arrival Time (hrs) Time to Flood Peak (hrs)

PMF Failure
Flood Wave Arrival Time (hrs) Time to Flood Peak (hrs)

Dam Breach Outflow Little Soos Creek Outflow Jenkins Creek Outflow Big Soos Creek Outflow Max flow in Green River

0.07 2.23 2 3.57 4. 3.93 6. 4.20

1.10 0.07 .90 53 10 7.23 1.30 3 3.97 5. 4.37 7. 4.57

1.03 .53 2 23 3. 57 4. 8.60

0.07 1.07 .47 67 03 4.32 3.17 4.63 6.30 7.47

The overflow from Little Soos Creek to Jenkins Creek captured a significant amount of the peak flow. Amongst the four lateral structures between the two reaches, approximately 44% of the peak flow migrated from Little Soos Creek to Jenkins Creek (Table 7).

1420

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

Table 7. Flow in lateral structures from Little Soos Creek to Jenkins Creek (cfs).
Lateral Structure River Station 15223 14305 13918 13625 Total Sunny Day Failure 14,808 1 761 3 305 9 750 3 16,624 1 Winter Failure 0,781 92 8 83 1,654 PMF Failure 13,446 652 246 658 15,002

The storage area on Jenkins Creek also captured a large amount of the peak flow and attenuated the peak flow as it was routed through Jenkins Creek (Table 8). The lateral structure that was at the confluence of Little Soos Creek and Big Soos Creek only captured a small amount of the flow that would back up due to a small culvert near the exit of Little Soos Creek (Table 9). Table 8. Maximum flow captured in Jenkins Creek Storage Area (cfs).
Sunny Day Failure 8,631 6, Winter Failure 742 PMF Failure 8,054

Table 9. Flow in lateral structure near the confluence of Little Soos and Big Soos Creeks.
Lateral Structure River Station 2232 Sunny Day Failure 2,085 1, Winter Failure 486 PMF Failure 1,971

Governing Failure Scenario The governing failure in this analysis was the Sunny Day Failure for the upper reaches (Little Soos Creek, Big Soos Creek, and Jenkins Creek) because the volume from the dam breach during the Sunny Day Failure was 2,000 ac-ft larger in volume than the Winter Failure, and it resulted in a larger peak flow (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The PMF Failure had a lower flow volume throughout the upper reaches, but started with a larger initial flow in the Green River (Table 3), which resulted in a larger peak flow in the Green River (Figure 6). Therefore, the governing failure for the Green River in this analysis is the PMF Failure.

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1421

River: Little Soos Reach: 1 RS: 25681.83

40000 35000 30000 Flow - Winter Failure 25000 Flow (cfs) 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 2400 Legend Flow - Sunny Day Fail Flow - Failure - PMP

0600

1200 01Sep2008

1800

2400 Time

0600

1200 02Sep2008

1800

Figure 4. Flow hydrograph at the dam breach on Little Soos Creek.

River: Big Soos Reach: Lower RS: 5735.162
16000 14000 12000 Flow - Winter Failure 10000 Flow (cfs) 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2400 Legend Flow - Sunny Day Fail Flow - Failure - PMP

0600

1200 01Sep2008

1800

2400 Time

0600

1200 02Sep2008

1800

Figure 5. Flow hydrograph near the outflow from Big Soos Creek.
River: Green River Reach: Lower Mainstem RS: 33.323
18000 16000 14000 12000 Flow (cfs) 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2400 Legend Flow - PMP Fail 2 Flow - Winter Fail Flow - Sunny Day Fail

0600

1200 01Sep2008

1800

2400 Time

0600

1200 02Sep2008

1800

Figure 6. Flow hydrograph on the Green River near the confluence with Big Soos Creek.

1422

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

Floodwater Depth and Velocity Hazards Relating floodwater depth and velocity to hazard was accomplished with the aid of depthvelocity charts published by the US Bureau of Reclamation (1990). These graphs represent the following five categories of hazardous conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Adults attempting evacuation by wading through floodwaters Children attempting evacuation by wading though floodwaters Automobiles attempting to travel through floodwaters Standard frame houses on competent foundations Manufactured homes on dry stack block or unsecured foundations

A flood inundation map was created for each category of human or property that faces danger in the event that the Outlet dam fails. Each map shows the aerial extent of danger as determined by the depth-velocity relationships: high danger zones, judgment zones, and low danger zones. The worst-case scenario was chosen for the Emergency Management Planning maps, and in this case, the worst-case scenario was the Children attempting evacuation by wading though floodwaters hazardous condition. Figure 7 shows an example of the final inundation maps. The inundation areas are color coded to represent different levels of flood risk. At selected key locations, dam breach flood information, including flood warning time, peak elevation, time to peak, and peak discharge, is included on the maps. CONCLUSION A dam failure flood inundation analysis was conducted for the Lake Youngs Outlet Dam using unsteady flow HEC-RAS. The model was developed using the best available topographic data and included all major topographic features and hydraulic structures. The resolution of the cross sections was increased in the populated areas. Flow splits between reaches and flow diversion to the storage area were well captured and simulated in the model. The HEC-RAS model reasonably simulated the propagation and attenuation of the dam break flood through the Soos Creek and Green River valley for three hydrologic scenarios. The results of the HEC-RAS model were used to map the inundation limits. The inundation areas were mapped as zones of high danger, judgment, and low danger based on a combination of flow depth and velocity. In addition, information of the flood warning time, time to peak, peak elevation, and peak discharges were depicted on the inundation maps at key locations, which is important for the purpose of emergency alert and management.

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1423

Figure 7. Example of an inundation map. REFERENCES Bureau of Reclamation (1990). A CER Technical Memorandum No. 11, Downstream Hazard Classification Guidelines. US Department of Interior. Ebasco Services, Inc. (1987). Lake Youngs Dam and Reservoir, Probable Maximum Flood Study, Seattle, WA. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) (2010). HEC-RAS, River Analysis System, Users Manual. Hydrologic Engineering Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA. MGS Engineering Consultants (2000). Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis for Lake Youngs South Dam. Prepared for: The City of Seattle Department of Public Utilities. Olympia, WA nhc (2007). Floodplain Mapping Study for Middle Green River. Prepared for: King County River and Floodplain Management Water and Land Resources Division. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants inc. Seattle, WA. nhc (2010). Floodplain Mapping Study for Lower Green River. Prepared for: King County River and Floodplain Management Water and Land Resources Division. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants inc. Seattle, WA.

1424

Innovative Dam and Levee Design and Construction

NOAA (1994). Hydrometeorological Report No. 57 Probable Maximum Precipitation for Pacific Northwest States, (TP-57). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, MD. U.S. Weather Bureau (1966, Revised in 1981). Hydrometeorological Report No. 43 Probable Maximum Precipitation, Northwest States. U.S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration, Weather Bureau. Washington, November 1966. Seattle Public Utilities (2010). Strategic Asset Management Plan. Lake Youngs Reservoir and Dams Version 0.5 (draft). Seattle, WA. WA DOE (2007). Dam Safety Guidelines. Technical Note 1: Dam Break Inundation Analysis and Downstream Hazard Classification. 92-55E. Olympia, WA. WA DOE (1997). Periodic Dam Safety Inspection Report, Lake Youngs Dams. Report prepared by: Doug Johnson and Jerald LaVassar. Olympia, WA. WA DOE (2010). Third Periodic Inspection Report, Lake Youngs Dams. File No.: KI09209, KI09-254 & KI09-415. Report prepared by: Doug Johnson and Fenggang Ma. Olympia, WA.

Dam-Break Flood Inundation Analysis

1425