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

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.

(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	1917	Wave profiles; depth at the dam section as a function of hu	Metal 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 m	0.4 m	Research Institute of Hydraulic Engineering, Leningrad, Russia	1933	Wave profiles	N.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 m	N.A.	Hydro-electric Laboratory, Leningrad, Russia	1935	Negative 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 = 0–0.75	N.A.	Belgrade Polytechnic, Serbia	1952	Flow depth at the dam site and at some representative sections of the wave profile	N.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 m	0.057 m	N.A.	1952	Wave front position; stage hydrographs	Video 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 m	US Bureau Standard, USA	1954	Front 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 m	0.07–1.22 m	Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA	1960	Stage and discharge hydrographs	Video 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 m	Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA	1961	Stage and discharge hydrographs	Video 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 m	0.25 m	Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique de Chatou, France	1961	Water depth time series; front propagation	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	0.25, 0.5 m	N.A.	1967	Wave 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 m	Kyoto University, Japan	1969	Wave 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 m	0.3 m	Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology, Zurich, Switzerland	1970	Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front position and velocity	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	National Laboratory of Hydraulics, Chatou, France	1970	Water depth hydrographs; propagation path and discontinuity height	N.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 m	University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA	1976	Wave motion; maximum wave amplitude; qualitative wave profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	0.25 m	Aristoteles University, Thessaloniki, Greece	1976	Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front propagation	Video cameras	✗	2D 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	1980	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles; front trajectories	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK	1981	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles; front trajectories	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	0.05 m	National Technical University of Athens, Greece	1983	Front propagation, velocity of the front along the x axis, flow profile near the dam	Video 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 m	University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK	1989	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	University of Buenos Aires, Argentina	1990	Flow 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 m3	2 m	H.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 wave	Ultrasonic 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 m	University of Coimbra, Portugal	1993	Water depth hydrographs at four positions	Water depth gauges	✗	2D 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 m	0.1 m	Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand	1993	Wave front propagation; water depth hydrographs at selected positions	Video camera; water depth gauges; mini-current meter	✗	2D 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	1994	Contour maps of water depth at different times	Video 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	1994	Discharge hydrograph at the gate section; front celerity hydrographs; water depth time series at the gate section; wave front propagation	Video 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 m	1 m	University of Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela	1995	Wave front propagation; wave profile at selected times; flow depth time series at selected locations	Video 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 m	University of Trento, Italy	1995	Bottom 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 meters	✗	2D 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 m	0.15 m	University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia	1995	Water depth hydrographs, water depth profiles	Water depth capacity probes and video camera	✗	2D 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 m	0.1 m	University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia	1995	Water depth hydrographs, water depth profiles	Water depth capacity probes and video camera	✗	2D 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 m	N.A.	University of Tokyo, Japan	1996	Water 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 m	0.5 m	ETH Zurich, Switzerland	1998	Free 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 m	0.5 m	ETH Zurich, Switzerland	1998	Surface profiles velocity distribution at fixed positions; discharge hydrographs	Video 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 m	University of Manchester, UK	1998	Water 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 m	0.5 m	ETH Zurich, Switzerland	1999	Wave front velocity and location	N.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 m	0.3 m	Université de Savoie, Cedex, France	2000	Flow depth time series at a selected section; front wave propagation	Video 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2000	Water 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2001	Front 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2002	Water 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 hu–hd	1.0 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water depth hydrographs at six positions	Water level gauges	✗	1D 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 m	0.5 m	Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan	2003	Wave front position, flow depths and surface velocity hydrographs at six points	Digital video tape recorder; PTV	✗	2D 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 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2003	Water depth hydrographs; front position and velocity	Water 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 m	University of Manchester, UK	2004	Flow field and velocity	Particle 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 m	0.155 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2004	Images of the flow field in the flood plain at different time steps	Video 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 m	Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary	2004	Water 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia	2005	Water level profiles	Wavemeters, 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 m	University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, Canada	2005	Water surface profiles and velocities	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France	2005	Wave front position with time; flow depth profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	0.4 m	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	2006	Shear stress; free surface elevation; velocity	Shear 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 m	0.4 m	Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain	2006	Water surface profiles	Video 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, 2Lr	0.228 m	University of Santiago, Chile	2007	Water depth time series at selected sections; wave front position	Video cameras	✗	2D 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 m	0.18 m	University of Brescia, Italy	2007	Water surface profiles; Water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2008	Water 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 m	University of Hawaii at Manoa	2008	Water surface profiles in time, bore height, shape and speed	Video 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2009	Free surface (imaging technique) and flow depth profiles at selected times; front position with time	Video 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 m	Tsinghua University, Beijing, China	2010	Water depth hydrographs; velocity fields at fixed times	Pressure probes, PIV, video cameras	✗	3D 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 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2010	Water depth profiles at different time steps	Video 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2011	Video 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 l	0.1 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2011	Wave front position and velocity; water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs at two positions	Video 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 m	0.25	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2011	Flow 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	0.51m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran	2012	Water depth, velocity and discharge hydrographs at different positions; water surface profile at different times	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.3 m	Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany	2012	Water depth in seven measuring points; water depth profiles at selected times; velocity field at selected times	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.18 m	University of South Carolina, USA	2013	Water 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 m	Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy	2013	Water depth hydrographs at 10 locations	Ultrasonic distance meters	✗	1D 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 m	0.51 m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran	2015	Water depth hydrographs at 11 points; velocity and discharge hydrographs at six locations	Ultrasonic distance meters, ADV	✗	3D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia	2015	Flow depth and bottom shear stress time series	Acoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV	✗	2D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia	2015	Flow depth and bottom shear stress time series	Acoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV	✗	2D 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 m	University of Nottingham, UK	2015	Wave front position in time; wave profiles at selected times; horizontal and vertical velocity at selected times and positions	Video cameras, PIV	✗	2D 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 m	Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw, Poland	2015	Water 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 m	National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, Mississippi, USA	2016	Velocity fields	Video 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 m	0.4 m	University of South Carolina, USA	2016	Pressure head at the bottom in nine points; water surface elevations and surface velocity; velocity profile at the center of the gate section	Pressure 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 m	0.2 m	Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran	2016	Water 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 m	0.51 m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran	2017	Water depth and flow velocity time series at selected locations	Ultrasonic 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 m	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	2017	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series; flow velocity time series	Video 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 m	2hu (triang. 1H:1V slope)	Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy	2018	Water 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2018	Water surface and average flow velocity profiles at selected times; wave front celerities	Video 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 m	0.3048 m	University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan	2018	Water depth and flood wave velocity time series at selected sections	Point 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2018	Water depth time series at four locations; flow velocity at a selected location; wave front arrival time	Capacitance 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Video 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 m	Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy	2019	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	Adana Science and Technology University, Turkey	2019	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at four locations	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locations	Video 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 m	Dalian University of Technology, China	2019	Water depth hydrographs at 12 locations; flow velocity time series at four locations	Wave gauges; ADV	✗	2D 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2020	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Technical University of Applied Sciences, Luebeck, Germany	2020	Water 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 m	National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan	2020	Water 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 m	University of Shiraz, Iran	2020	Video images; water surface profiles; water and sediment depth time series at 16 points	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2020	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locations; wave front celerity	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2020	Water surface profiles at selected times; water level hydrographs at selected locations	Video 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 m	0.2, 0.3 m	Tokai University, Kanagawa, Japan	2021	Water 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 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.15 m	Columbia University, New York, USA	2021	Wave 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 m	Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil	2021	Water surface profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	Iskenderun Technical University, Turkey	2021	Water surface at selected times; water depth time series at five points	Video camera (50 fps); ultrasonic distance meters	✗	3D 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 m	Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.38 m	Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan	2021	Bottom pressure time series at four points along the channel centerline; water surface profiles	Pressure 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2021	Water surface profiles; water level hydrographs, wave front celerity	Video 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 m	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	2021	Shear stress; water depth hydrographs	Shear 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 m	0.2 m	Adana Science and Technology University, Turkey	2022	Water surface profiles, water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China	2022	Water depth hydrographs; wave front celerity; flow velocity	Wave gauges; ADV	✗	2D 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 m	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	2022	Water depth and bottom shear stresses hydrographs; dam-break front celerity	Acoustic 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2022	Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographs	Video 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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	1917	Wave profiles; depth at the dam section as a function of hu	Metal 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 m	0.4 m	Research Institute of Hydraulic Engineering, Leningrad, Russia	1933	Wave profiles	N.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 m	N.A.	Hydro-electric Laboratory, Leningrad, Russia	1935	Negative 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 = 0–0.75	N.A.	Belgrade Polytechnic, Serbia	1952	Flow depth at the dam site and at some representative sections of the wave profile	N.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 m	0.057 m	N.A.	1952	Wave front position; stage hydrographs	Video 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 m	US Bureau Standard, USA	1954	Front 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 m	0.07–1.22 m	Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA	1960	Stage and discharge hydrographs	Video 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 m	Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA	1961	Stage and discharge hydrographs	Video 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 m	0.25 m	Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique de Chatou, France	1961	Water depth time series; front propagation	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	0.25, 0.5 m	N.A.	1967	Wave 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 m	Kyoto University, Japan	1969	Wave 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 m	0.3 m	Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology, Zurich, Switzerland	1970	Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front position and velocity	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	National Laboratory of Hydraulics, Chatou, France	1970	Water depth hydrographs; propagation path and discontinuity height	N.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 m	University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA	1976	Wave motion; maximum wave amplitude; qualitative wave profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	0.25 m	Aristoteles University, Thessaloniki, Greece	1976	Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front propagation	Video cameras	✗	2D 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	1980	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles; front trajectories	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK	1981	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles; front trajectories	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	0.05 m	National Technical University of Athens, Greece	1983	Front propagation, velocity of the front along the x axis, flow profile near the dam	Video 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 m	University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK	1989	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	University of Buenos Aires, Argentina	1990	Flow 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 m3	2 m	H.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 wave	Ultrasonic 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 m	University of Coimbra, Portugal	1993	Water depth hydrographs at four positions	Water depth gauges	✗	2D 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 m	0.1 m	Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand	1993	Wave front propagation; water depth hydrographs at selected positions	Video camera; water depth gauges; mini-current meter	✗	2D 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	1994	Contour maps of water depth at different times	Video 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	1994	Discharge hydrograph at the gate section; front celerity hydrographs; water depth time series at the gate section; wave front propagation	Video 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 m	1 m	University of Los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela	1995	Wave front propagation; wave profile at selected times; flow depth time series at selected locations	Video 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 m	University of Trento, Italy	1995	Bottom 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 meters	✗	2D 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 m	0.15 m	University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia	1995	Water depth hydrographs, water depth profiles	Water depth capacity probes and video camera	✗	2D 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 m	0.1 m	University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia	1995	Water depth hydrographs, water depth profiles	Water depth capacity probes and video camera	✗	2D 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 m	N.A.	University of Tokyo, Japan	1996	Water 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 m	0.5 m	ETH Zurich, Switzerland	1998	Free 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 m	0.5 m	ETH Zurich, Switzerland	1998	Surface profiles velocity distribution at fixed positions; discharge hydrographs	Video 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 m	University of Manchester, UK	1998	Water 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 m	0.5 m	ETH Zurich, Switzerland	1999	Wave front velocity and location	N.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 m	0.3 m	Université de Savoie, Cedex, France	2000	Flow depth time series at a selected section; front wave propagation	Video 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2000	Water 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2001	Front 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2002	Water 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 hu–hd	1.0 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water depth hydrographs at six positions	Water level gauges	✗	1D 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 m	0.5 m	Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan	2003	Wave front position, flow depths and surface velocity hydrographs at six points	Digital video tape recorder; PTV	✗	2D 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 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2003	Water depth hydrographs; front position and velocity	Water 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 m	University of Manchester, UK	2004	Flow field and velocity	Particle 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 m	0.155 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2004	Images of the flow field in the flood plain at different time steps	Video 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 m	Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary	2004	Water 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia	2005	Water level profiles	Wavemeters, 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 m	University of Alberta, Edmonton AB, Canada	2005	Water surface profiles and velocities	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France	2005	Wave front position with time; flow depth profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	0.4 m	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	2006	Shear stress; free surface elevation; velocity	Shear 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 m	0.4 m	Technical University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain	2006	Water surface profiles	Video 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, 2Lr	0.228 m	University of Santiago, Chile	2007	Water depth time series at selected sections; wave front position	Video cameras	✗	2D 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 m	0.18 m	University of Brescia, Italy	2007	Water surface profiles; Water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2008	Water 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 m	University of Hawaii at Manoa	2008	Water surface profiles in time, bore height, shape and speed	Video 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2009	Free surface (imaging technique) and flow depth profiles at selected times; front position with time	Video 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 m	Tsinghua University, Beijing, China	2010	Water depth hydrographs; velocity fields at fixed times	Pressure probes, PIV, video cameras	✗	3D 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 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2010	Water depth profiles at different time steps	Video 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2011	Video 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 l	0.1 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2011	Wave front position and velocity; water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs at two positions	Video 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 m	0.25	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2011	Flow 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	0.51m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran	2012	Water depth, velocity and discharge hydrographs at different positions; water surface profile at different times	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.3 m	Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Germany	2012	Water depth in seven measuring points; water depth profiles at selected times; velocity field at selected times	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.18 m	University of South Carolina, USA	2013	Water 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 m	Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy	2013	Water depth hydrographs at 10 locations	Ultrasonic distance meters	✗	1D 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 m	0.51 m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran	2015	Water depth hydrographs at 11 points; velocity and discharge hydrographs at six locations	Ultrasonic distance meters, ADV	✗	3D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia	2015	Flow depth and bottom shear stress time series	Acoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV	✗	2D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia	2015	Flow depth and bottom shear stress time series	Acoustic displacement sensors; shear plate; PIV	✗	2D 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 m	University of Nottingham, UK	2015	Wave front position in time; wave profiles at selected times; horizontal and vertical velocity at selected times and positions	Video cameras, PIV	✗	2D 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 m	Polish Academy of Science, Warsaw, Poland	2015	Water 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 m	National Sedimentation Laboratory, Oxford, Mississippi, USA	2016	Velocity fields	Video 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 m	0.4 m	University of South Carolina, USA	2016	Pressure head at the bottom in nine points; water surface elevations and surface velocity; velocity profile at the center of the gate section	Pressure 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 m	0.2 m	Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran	2016	Water 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 m	0.51 m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran	2017	Water depth and flow velocity time series at selected locations	Ultrasonic 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 m	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	2017	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series; flow velocity time series	Video 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 m	2hu (triang. 1H:1V slope)	Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy	2018	Water 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2018	Water surface and average flow velocity profiles at selected times; wave front celerities	Video 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 m	0.3048 m	University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan	2018	Water depth and flood wave velocity time series at selected sections	Point 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2018	Water depth time series at four locations; flow velocity at a selected location; wave front arrival time	Capacitance 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Video 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 m	Polytechnic University of Turin, Italy	2019	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	Adana Science and Technology University, Turkey	2019	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at four locations	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locations	Video 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 m	Dalian University of Technology, China	2019	Water depth hydrographs at 12 locations; flow velocity time series at four locations	Wave gauges; ADV	✗	2D 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2020	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Technical University of Applied Sciences, Luebeck, Germany	2020	Water 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 m	National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan	2020	Water 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 m	University of Shiraz, Iran	2020	Video images; water surface profiles; water and sediment depth time series at 16 points	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2020	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth time series at selected locations; wave front celerity	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2020	Water surface profiles at selected times; water level hydrographs at selected locations	Video 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 m	0.2, 0.3 m	Tokai University, Kanagawa, Japan	2021	Water 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 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.15 m	Columbia University, New York, USA	2021	Wave 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 m	Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil	2021	Water surface profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	Iskenderun Technical University, Turkey	2021	Water surface at selected times; water depth time series at five points	Video camera (50 fps); ultrasonic distance meters	✗	3D 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 m	Université de Picardie Jules Verne, Amiens, France	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.38 m	Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan	2021	Bottom pressure time series at four points along the channel centerline; water surface profiles	Pressure 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2021	Water surface profiles; water level hydrographs, wave front celerity	Video 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 m	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	2021	Shear stress; water depth hydrographs	Shear 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 m	0.2 m	Adana Science and Technology University, Turkey	2022	Water surface profiles, water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China	2022	Water depth hydrographs; wave front celerity; flow velocity	Wave gauges; ADV	✗	2D 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 m	University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia	2022	Water depth and bottom shear stresses hydrographs; dam-break front celerity	Acoustic 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2022	Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographs	Video 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology, Zurich, Switzerland	1970	Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front position and velocity	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	0.3 m	University of Akita, Japan	1983	Wave front trajectories	N.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 m	r × θ variable	Dresden Technical University, Germany	1983	Discharge hydrograph at the dam position; water surface profile; water level hydrographs	Photographic film sheeting; oscillograph; photogrammetric plotting	✗	1D 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 m	State University of Moscow, Russia	1983	Water depth hydrographs at four locations; water depth profiles at three times	N.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 m	State University of Washington, USA	1988	Water depth hydrographs at three points in the channel and five points in the reservoir	Capacitance 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 m	University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK	1989	Water depth hydrographs; wave front position; water surface profiles	High 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 m	State University of Washington, USA	1992	Water depth hydrographs; wave front position	Capacitance 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 m	University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece	1992	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles at 10 positions	Wave meters, pressure transducers	✗	2D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Skopje, North Macedonia	1994	Water depth time series in 31 points; longitudinal and cross-sectional water surface profiles; flow velocity time series at selected points	Capacitance wave gauges; velocity probes	✗	2D 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	1994	Discharge 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	1999	Water depth and velocity hydrographs	Video 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	1999	Water depth time series at six locations; wave front velocity	Water level probes	✓	2D 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	1999	Water depth time series at nine locations; wave front velocity	Water level probes	✓	2D 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2000	Water depth and velocity hydrographs	Video 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 m	Istituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal	2000	Water 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 m	Laboratoire de Recherches Hydrauliques, Châtelet, Belgium	2000	Water 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.495 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2003	Dimensionless height of water impingement on a vertical wall	Powder 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2003	Dimensional 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 m	0.12 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2003	Water depth time series at five locations; surface-velocity fields at selected times	Water level gauges; water-level follower; digital imaging	✗	2D 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2004	Water-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 m	University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece	2004	Water depth time series at ten positions	Pressure transducers	✗	2D 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 m	0.48 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2004	Water depth profiles	Video 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2005	Water-level profiles	Piezometers; 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2006	Water-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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2008	Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2008	Free-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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2008	Dimensionless 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 m	0.4 m	University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Italy	2011	Water 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2011	Water 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2012	Water 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2012	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs at six points	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2014	Water 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 m	State University of Novosibirsk, Russia	2014	Water depth hydrographs at three points	Conductive 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 m	0.29 m	University of Huston, Texas, USA	2015	Water depth hydrographs at four points	Resistance-type water level measurements	✗	2D 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 m	0.51 m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran	2015	Water depth hydrographs at 11 points; velocity and discharge hydrographs at six locations	Ultrasonic distance meters, ADV	✗	3D 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 m	0.3 m	Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	2015	Water 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China;	2019	Water depth and pressure hydrographs; velocity field	Video cameras; PIV; pressure gauges	✗	3D 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 m	University of Hiroshima, Japan	2019	Flow depth transversal profiles in eight cross-sections	Wave gauges	✗	1D 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 m	University of Ahvaz, Iran	2020	Wave front celerity; wave height al the bend sides	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2020	Free 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 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA	2021	Outflow hydrographs downstream of the junction; water surface elevation at the outlet	Ultrasonic 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 m	University of Córdoba, Spain	2022	Piezometric 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, Japan	2022	Wave height time series in eight cross-sections; free surface profiles at selected times	Wave gauges	✗	2D 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 m	University of Shiraz, Iran	2022	Water surface profiles; profile of the saturated sediment layer	Video 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	Laboratory of Hydraulics, Hydrology and Glaciology, Zurich, Switzerland	1970	Water depth and discharge hydrographs; front position and velocity	Video cameras	✗	1D 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 m	0.3 m	University of Akita, Japan	1983	Wave front trajectories	N.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 m	r × θ variable	Dresden Technical University, Germany	1983	Discharge hydrograph at the dam position; water surface profile; water level hydrographs	Photographic film sheeting; oscillograph; photogrammetric plotting	✗	1D 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 m	State University of Moscow, Russia	1983	Water depth hydrographs at four locations; water depth profiles at three times	N.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 m	State University of Washington, USA	1988	Water depth hydrographs at three points in the channel and five points in the reservoir	Capacitance 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 m	University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK	1989	Water depth hydrographs; wave front position; water surface profiles	High 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 m	State University of Washington, USA	1992	Water depth hydrographs; wave front position	Capacitance 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 m	University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece	1992	Water depth hydrographs; water surface profiles at 10 positions	Wave meters, pressure transducers	✗	2D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Skopje, North Macedonia	1994	Water depth time series in 31 points; longitudinal and cross-sectional water surface profiles; flow velocity time series at selected points	Capacitance wave gauges; velocity probes	✗	2D 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	1994	Discharge 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	1999	Water depth and velocity hydrographs	Video 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	1999	Water depth time series at six locations; wave front velocity	Water level probes	✓	2D 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	1999	Water depth time series at nine locations; wave front velocity	Water level probes	✓	2D 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2000	Water depth and velocity hydrographs	Video 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 m	Istituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal	2000	Water 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 m	Laboratoire de Recherches Hydrauliques, Châtelet, Belgium	2000	Water 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.495 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2003	Dimensionless height of water impingement on a vertical wall	Powder 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2003	Dimensional 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 m	0.12 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2003	Water depth time series at five locations; surface-velocity fields at selected times	Water level gauges; water-level follower; digital imaging	✗	2D 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2004	Water-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 m	University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece	2004	Water depth time series at ten positions	Pressure transducers	✗	2D 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 m	0.48 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2004	Water depth profiles	Video 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2005	Water-level profiles	Piezometers; 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2006	Water-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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2008	Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2008	Free-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 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2008	Dimensionless 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 m	0.4 m	University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Italy	2011	Water 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2011	Water 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2012	Water 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2012	Water surface profiles at selected times; water depth hydrographs at six points	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2014	Water 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 m	State University of Novosibirsk, Russia	2014	Water depth hydrographs at three points	Conductive 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 m	0.29 m	University of Huston, Texas, USA	2015	Water depth hydrographs at four points	Resistance-type water level measurements	✗	2D 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 m	0.51 m	Amirkabir University of Technology, Iran	2015	Water depth hydrographs at 11 points; velocity and discharge hydrographs at six locations	Ultrasonic distance meters, ADV	✗	3D 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 m	0.3 m	Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	2015	Water 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China;	2019	Water depth and pressure hydrographs; velocity field	Video cameras; PIV; pressure gauges	✗	3D 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 m	University of Hiroshima, Japan	2019	Flow depth transversal profiles in eight cross-sections	Wave gauges	✗	1D 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 m	University of Ahvaz, Iran	2020	Wave front celerity; wave height al the bend sides	Video 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 m	0.3 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2020	Free 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 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA	2021	Outflow hydrographs downstream of the junction; water surface elevation at the outlet	Ultrasonic 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 m	University of Córdoba, Spain	2022	Piezometric 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, Japan	2022	Wave height time series in eight cross-sections; free surface profiles at selected times	Wave gauges	✗	2D 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 m	University of Shiraz, Iran	2022	Water surface profiles; profile of the saturated sediment layer	Video 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	0.23 m	Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA	1978	Spillage 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 m	Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique, Chatou, France	1983	Water depth and celerity of the incoming wave; pressure time series on the wall at seven elevations	Piezoresistive 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 m	California Institute of Technology, USA	1996	Impact force; pressure at the wall; position of the wave; 2D profiles near the wall	Force 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 m	Cornell University, Ithaca, USA	1999	Water 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2000	Water surface profiles	Video 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 ≤ (hu–hd)/hd ≤ 1.4 hd = 0.03, 0.04 m	0.06 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2001	Maximum 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water 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 m	University of La Coruña, Spain	2002	Water depth time series at several points	N.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 m	0.61 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2003	Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs, free surface profile at mid-channel	Load cell; LDV; PIV	✗	3D 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 m	University of Trento, Italy	2003	Maximum run-up, pressure at the wall, toe velocity and depth, wall force	Pressure 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 m	0.15 m	University of Catania, Italy	2004	Water depth hydrographs, sediment bed profiles	Video 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 m	0.155 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2004	Images of the flow field in the flood plain at different time steps	Video 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 = 0.12	0.12 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2004	Pressure hydrograph at the wall	Pressure transducers; video camera	✗	2D 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 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2005	Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs	Load cell; LDV	✗	3D 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 m	0.61 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2005	Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs; free surface profiles	Load 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 m	1.0 m	MARIN (Maritime Research Institute The Netherlands)	2005	Water depth, pressure and force hydrographs	Height probes; pressure transducers	✗	3D 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 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2007	Water depth hydrographs; front position and velocity	Video 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2008	Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	Canadian Hydraulics Center, Ottawa, Canada	2008	Pressures, water level and impact force hydrographs; point velocities	Capacitance 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, 0.605	0.2 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2008	Water depth and force hydrographs, velocity in the vertical plane	Wavemeters; 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 (Δh = 0.025m) hd = 0.02 m	0.6 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2009	Water 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 m	0.228 m	University of Santiago, Chile	2009	Water depth profiles at different times	Video camera	✗	2D 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 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2010	Wave front position; water surface profiles at different times	Video camera	✗	2D 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 m	0.3 m	Tsinghua University, Beijing, China	2010	Critical reservoir depth hu causing brick movement	N.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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2011	Water depth hydrographs; free surface	Video 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2012	Base 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 m	Bergische University Wuppertal, Germany	2012	Drag force on the obstacle; water depth profiles and velocity field at selected times	Ultrasonic 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 m	University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain	2012	Flow velocity time series at a selected point; time history of the net force on the prism	LDV; load cell	✗	3D 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 m	Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia	2012	Water depth hydrographs; force on the structure	Wave 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 m	Texas A&M University, Kingsville, USA	2013	Maximum 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 m	Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan	2013	Tsunami height and reaction force in time; dynamic pressure at the girder	Video 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 m	0.6 m	Technical University of Madrid, Spain	2014	Water surface profiles; wave front propagation; water level hydrographs at four locations; pressure hydrographs at five points	Video 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 m	University of Zaragoza, Spain	2014	Water depth hydrographs in two positions	Water depth gauges	✓	2D 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 m	0.3 m	University of Parma, Italy	2015	Impact force	Load cell	✓	2D 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 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2015	Water 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2015	Water surface profiles and deformation of the structure (three markers); longitudinal marker displacement hydrographs	Video 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 m	Hohai University, Nanjing, China	2016	Water depth and flow velocity time series in seven locations; pressure time series on the bridge piers	Wave gauges; ADV; pressure sensors	✗	2D 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2017	Flow images; wave front celerity; water depth hydrographs	Video cameras	✗	3D 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2018	Water surface profiles; pressure hydrographs; wave front position	Pressure sensors	✗	3D 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 m	0.8 m	Tsinghua University, Beijing, China	2018	Water level hydrographs	Pressure 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 m	0.24 m	University of Zaragoza, Spain	2018	Free surface; free surface profiles; flow depth time series	RGB-D sensor	✓	2D 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 m	1.2 m	University College London, UK	2018	Water depth and hydrodynamic force hydrographs; wave front celerity	Wave 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 m	Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan	2018	Water 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 m	0.2 m	Technical University of Erzurum, Turkey	2019	Free surface profiles; tip displacement of the plate; pressure in time at the downstream end	Video 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2019	Water depth time series at three locations; wave front celerity; flow velocity at a location; time series of the hydrodynamic force on the pipe	Capacitance 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2019	Flow 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 m	National Hydraulic Research Institute, Selangor, Malaysia	2019	Wave depth and pressure hydrographs; flow velocity hydrographs; flow images	Resistance 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 m	0.3 m	Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur	2020	Flow velocity at two locations; water surface profiles	ADV; 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 m	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia	2020	Flow 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 m	0.1 m	Iskenderun Technical University, Turkey	2020	Wave 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 m	1 m	Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia	2020	Water depth and flow velocity at five locations	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.4 m	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	2020	Pressure 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 m	0.6 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.5 m	Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles at selected times	Video camera	✗	3D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Naples Federico II, Italy	2022	Water surface profiles at selected times; pressure time series at six locations on the end wall	Video 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 m	0.8 m	Tongji University, Shanghai, China	2022	Water depth time series at fourlocations; flow velocity at a gauge point; impact force on the building; pressure distribution on the impact front	Ultrasonic 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 m	École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada	2022	Water surface profiles; impact pressures on the downstream wall	Video 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 m	Tainan Hydraulics Laboratory, Taiwan	2022	Images of the bore impact on the boulder; boulder transportation process and boulder final posture	Video 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 m	0.44 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Images of the wave propagation; water depth time series at the vertical wall; dynamic pressure time series at ten points on the wall	Video 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 m	0.616 m	Princeton University, USA	2022	Hydrodynamic 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 m	0.42 m	University of Tokyo, Japan	2022	Dam-break wave front celerity; dam-break wave front slope; impact pressure on a vertical wall	Video 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 m	Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China	2022	Water 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 pier	Wave 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	0.23 m	Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA	1978	Spillage 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 m	Laboratoire National d’Hydraulique, Chatou, France	1983	Water depth and celerity of the incoming wave; pressure time series on the wall at seven elevations	Piezoresistive 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 m	California Institute of Technology, USA	1996	Impact force; pressure at the wall; position of the wave; 2D profiles near the wall	Force 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 m	Cornell University, Ithaca, USA	1999	Water 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 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2000	Water surface profiles	Video 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 ≤ (hu–hd)/hd ≤ 1.4 hd = 0.03, 0.04 m	0.06 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2001	Maximum 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2002	Water 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 m	University of La Coruña, Spain	2002	Water depth time series at several points	N.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 m	0.61 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2003	Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs, free surface profile at mid-channel	Load cell; LDV; PIV	✗	3D 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 m	University of Trento, Italy	2003	Maximum run-up, pressure at the wall, toe velocity and depth, wall force	Pressure 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 m	0.15 m	University of Catania, Italy	2004	Water depth hydrographs, sediment bed profiles	Video 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 m	0.155 m	University of Pavia, Italy	2004	Images of the flow field in the flood plain at different time steps	Video 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 = 0.12	0.12 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2004	Pressure hydrograph at the wall	Pressure transducers; video camera	✗	2D 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 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2005	Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs	Load cell; LDV	✗	3D 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 m	0.61 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2005	Net force on the structure and velocity hydrographs; free surface profiles	Load 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 m	1.0 m	MARIN (Maritime Research Institute The Netherlands)	2005	Water depth, pressure and force hydrographs	Height probes; pressure transducers	✗	3D 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 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2007	Water depth hydrographs; front position and velocity	Video 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2008	Water surface profiles; water depth hydrographs	Video 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 m	Canadian Hydraulics Center, Ottawa, Canada	2008	Pressures, water level and impact force hydrographs; point velocities	Capacitance 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, 0.605	0.2 m	Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk	2008	Water depth and force hydrographs, velocity in the vertical plane	Wavemeters; 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 (Δh = 0.025m) hd = 0.02 m	0.6 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2009	Water 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 m	0.228 m	University of Santiago, Chile	2009	Water depth profiles at different times	Video camera	✗	2D 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 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2010	Wave front position; water surface profiles at different times	Video camera	✗	2D 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 m	0.3 m	Tsinghua University, Beijing, China	2010	Critical reservoir depth hu causing brick movement	N.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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2011	Water depth hydrographs; free surface	Video 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2012	Base 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 m	Bergische University Wuppertal, Germany	2012	Drag force on the obstacle; water depth profiles and velocity field at selected times	Ultrasonic 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 m	University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain	2012	Flow velocity time series at a selected point; time history of the net force on the prism	LDV; load cell	✗	3D 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 m	Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia	2012	Water depth hydrographs; force on the structure	Wave 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 m	Texas A&M University, Kingsville, USA	2013	Maximum 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 m	Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan	2013	Tsunami height and reaction force in time; dynamic pressure at the girder	Video 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 m	0.6 m	Technical University of Madrid, Spain	2014	Water surface profiles; wave front propagation; water level hydrographs at four locations; pressure hydrographs at five points	Video 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 m	University of Zaragoza, Spain	2014	Water depth hydrographs in two positions	Water depth gauges	✓	2D 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 m	0.3 m	University of Parma, Italy	2015	Impact force	Load cell	✓	2D 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 m	Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey	2015	Water 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2015	Water surface profiles and deformation of the structure (three markers); longitudinal marker displacement hydrographs	Video 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 m	Hohai University, Nanjing, China	2016	Water depth and flow velocity time series in seven locations; pressure time series on the bridge piers	Wave gauges; ADV; pressure sensors	✗	2D 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2017	Flow images; wave front celerity; water depth hydrographs	Video cameras	✗	3D 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2018	Water surface profiles; pressure hydrographs; wave front position	Pressure sensors	✗	3D 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 m	0.8 m	Tsinghua University, Beijing, China	2018	Water level hydrographs	Pressure 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 m	0.24 m	University of Zaragoza, Spain	2018	Free surface; free surface profiles; flow depth time series	RGB-D sensor	✓	2D 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 m	1.2 m	University College London, UK	2018	Water depth and hydrodynamic force hydrographs; wave front celerity	Wave 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 m	Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan	2018	Water 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 m	0.2 m	Technical University of Erzurum, Turkey	2019	Free surface profiles; tip displacement of the plate; pressure in time at the downstream end	Video 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2019	Water depth time series at three locations; wave front celerity; flow velocity at a location; time series of the hydrodynamic force on the pipe	Capacitance 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 m	0.2 m	Kyushu University, Japan	2019	Flow 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 m	National Hydraulic Research Institute, Selangor, Malaysia	2019	Wave depth and pressure hydrographs; flow velocity hydrographs; flow images	Resistance 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 m	0.3 m	Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur	2020	Flow velocity at two locations; water surface profiles	ADV; 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 m	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia	2020	Flow 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 m	0.1 m	Iskenderun Technical University, Turkey	2020	Wave 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 m	1 m	Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia	2020	Water depth and flow velocity at five locations	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.4 m	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	2020	Pressure 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 m	0.6 m	University of Zanjan, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles	Video 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 m	0.5 m	Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran	2021	Water surface profiles at selected times	Video camera	✗	3D 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 m	0.4 m	University of Naples Federico II, Italy	2022	Water surface profiles at selected times; pressure time series at six locations on the end wall	Video 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 m	0.8 m	Tongji University, Shanghai, China	2022	Water depth time series at fourlocations; flow velocity at a gauge point; impact force on the building; pressure distribution on the impact front	Ultrasonic 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 m	École Polytechnique de Montréal, Canada	2022	Water surface profiles; impact pressures on the downstream wall	Video 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 m	Tainan Hydraulics Laboratory, Taiwan	2022	Images of the bore impact on the boulder; boulder transportation process and boulder final posture	Video 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 m	0.44 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Images of the wave propagation; water depth time series at the vertical wall; dynamic pressure time series at ten points on the wall	Video 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 m	0.616 m	Princeton University, USA	2022	Hydrodynamic 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 m	0.42 m	University of Tokyo, Japan	2022	Dam-break wave front celerity; dam-break wave front slope; impact pressure on a vertical wall	Video 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 m	Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China	2022	Water 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 pier	Wave 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	0.5 m	Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan	2003	Wave 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2006	Water levels time series at 64 points; water surface profiles; surface velocity measurements	Resistive water level gauges; digital imaging technique; Voronoï PTV technique	✗	2D 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 m	0.5 m	Gdansk University of Technology, Poland	2006	Water depth time series at 11 locations	Pressure transducers; depth-control gauge	✗	2D 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 m	1 m	Urban Flood Disaster Management Research Center, Seoul, South Korea	2007	Water 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 m	0.5 m	Basilicata University, Italy	2016	Water 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 m	1.39 m	Scientific Research Institute of Power Structures, Russia	2017	Water level time series at two points; flow velocity profiles	Water level gauges; flow meters	✗	2D 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 m	1 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2018	Water depth time series at selected locations	Ultrasonic distance meters	✗	1D 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 m	1 m	Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia	2019	Water depth profiles at selected times; water depth and flow velocity hydrographs at selected locations	Wave 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 m	0.1 m	Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand	2020	Flow 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 m	1 m	North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, China	2021	Water hydrographs at seven points; flow velocity time series at three points; drainage discharge time series at inlets	Ultrasonic distance meters; electromagnetic velocity meter; electromagnetic flowmeters	✗	2D 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	0.5 m	Kyushu Institute of Technology, Kitakyushu, Japan	2003	Wave 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 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2006	Water levels time series at 64 points; water surface profiles; surface velocity measurements	Resistive water level gauges; digital imaging technique; Voronoï PTV technique	✗	2D 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 m	0.5 m	Gdansk University of Technology, Poland	2006	Water depth time series at 11 locations	Pressure transducers; depth-control gauge	✗	2D 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 m	1 m	Urban Flood Disaster Management Research Center, Seoul, South Korea	2007	Water 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 m	0.5 m	Basilicata University, Italy	2016	Water 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 m	1.39 m	Scientific Research Institute of Power Structures, Russia	2017	Water level time series at two points; flow velocity profiles	Water level gauges; flow meters	✗	2D 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 m	1 m	Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium	2018	Water depth time series at selected locations	Ultrasonic distance meters	✗	1D 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 m	1 m	Institut Teknologi Bandung, Indonesia	2019	Water depth profiles at selected times; water depth and flow velocity hydrographs at selected locations	Wave 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 m	0.1 m	Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand	2020	Flow 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 m	1 m	North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, China	2021	Water hydrographs at seven points; flow velocity time series at three points; drainage discharge time series at inlets	Ultrasonic distance meters; electromagnetic velocity meter; electromagnetic flowmeters	✗	2D 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	1988	Longitudinal 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 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2001	Advection 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 m	0.4 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2007	Water depth hydrographs; overtopping discharge	Pressure 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 m	University of Aberdeen, UK	2009	Flow depth, bottom shear stress, and flow velocity time series	Acoustic 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 m	1 m	École Centrale Nantes, France	2010	Flow depth time series at 2 gauge points	N.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 m	University of Aberdeen, UK	2010	Water depth time series at 25 locations; runup; flow velocity profiles at five cross-sections	Capacitance depth gauges; PIV	✗	1D 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 m	University of Aberdeen, UK	2012	Flow depth time series and velocity profiles at six cross-sections	Laser 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 m	Liverpool John Moores University, UK	2014	Wave front velocity	Video 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 m	University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia	2014	Wave 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 m	University of Mataram, Indonesia	2015	Water 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 m	Hong Kong University of the Science and Technology	2016	Water depth hydrographs at five locations; velocity profiles and water surface elevation	Acoustic 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2016	Water level hydrographs at two locations; bore velocities; time series of uplift pressures at eight points on the wharf	Wave 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2017	Water level hydrographs at three locations; bore velocities; pressure time series on the wharf and the wall	Wave 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 m	Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan	2017	Wave depth hydrographs at six locations; overtopping flow velocity; bore impact images	Wave 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 m	Hong Kong University of the Science and Technology	2017	Flow 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 m	University of Osaka, Japan	2017	Flow velocity upstream and downstream of the flexible pipes; hydrodynamic force on the tank model; flow images	Electromagnetic velocity meters; load cell; video camera	✗	3D 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2018	Water level time series at three locations; bore velocities; pressure time series on the piles and deck	Wave 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2018	Force and momentum acting on the bridge; pressure time series on the bridge deck; wave height time series	Load 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 m	Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan	2018	Flow vortices behind the structure	Load 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 m	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	2018	Wave front position; maximum run-up; flow images	Video 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 m	University of Fuzhou, China	2020	Water surface profiles; ball climbing height	Video 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 m	University of Fuzhou, China	2020	Tsunami wave height; shift of the container model; flow images	Water 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 m	0.38 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2020	Wave front motion and wave height over the canal; wave profiles; water level hydrographs at four locations; flow velocity time series at three points	Video cameras; capacitance wave gauge and ultrasonic distance meters; ADV	✗	3D 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 m	National University of Singapore	2021	Water depth time series at seven locations; run-up on the adverse slope	Capacitance 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 m	University of Fuzhou, China	2022	Wave maximum height at a location; wave celerity; ball climbing height	Water 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 m	0.44 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Wave runup on the vertical wall; images of the wave propagation; free surface profiles at selected times; time history of the wave front	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.44 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Dynamic pressure time series at five points on the wall	Pressure transducers	✗	3D 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Water depth time series at two locations and in front of the structure; flow velocity time series at a gauge point	Capacitance 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 m	2 m	Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany	2022	Water depth time series at four locations	Capacitance wave gauges	✗	3D 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; S_b = beach (adverse) slope; l = obstacle characteristic length; ² h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	1988	Longitudinal 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 m	University of Washington, Seattle, USA	2001	Advection 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 m	0.4 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2007	Water depth hydrographs; overtopping discharge	Pressure 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 m	University of Aberdeen, UK	2009	Flow depth, bottom shear stress, and flow velocity time series	Acoustic 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 m	1 m	École Centrale Nantes, France	2010	Flow depth time series at 2 gauge points	N.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 m	University of Aberdeen, UK	2010	Water depth time series at 25 locations; runup; flow velocity profiles at five cross-sections	Capacitance depth gauges; PIV	✗	1D 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 m	University of Aberdeen, UK	2012	Flow depth time series and velocity profiles at six cross-sections	Laser 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 m	Liverpool John Moores University, UK	2014	Wave front velocity	Video 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 m	University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia	2014	Wave 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 m	University of Mataram, Indonesia	2015	Water 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 m	Hong Kong University of the Science and Technology	2016	Water depth hydrographs at five locations; velocity profiles and water surface elevation	Acoustic 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2016	Water level hydrographs at two locations; bore velocities; time series of uplift pressures at eight points on the wharf	Wave 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2017	Water level hydrographs at three locations; bore velocities; pressure time series on the wharf and the wall	Wave 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 m	Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan	2017	Wave depth hydrographs at six locations; overtopping flow velocity; bore impact images	Wave 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 m	Hong Kong University of the Science and Technology	2017	Flow 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 m	University of Osaka, Japan	2017	Flow velocity upstream and downstream of the flexible pipes; hydrodynamic force on the tank model; flow images	Electromagnetic velocity meters; load cell; video camera	✗	3D 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2018	Water level time series at three locations; bore velocities; pressure time series on the piles and deck	Wave 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 m	University of Auckland, New Zealand	2018	Force and momentum acting on the bridge; pressure time series on the bridge deck; wave height time series	Load 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 m	Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan	2018	Flow vortices behind the structure	Load 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 m	Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China	2018	Wave front position; maximum run-up; flow images	Video 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 m	University of Fuzhou, China	2020	Water surface profiles; ball climbing height	Video 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 m	University of Fuzhou, China	2020	Tsunami wave height; shift of the container model; flow images	Water 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 m	0.38 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2020	Wave front motion and wave height over the canal; wave profiles; water level hydrographs at four locations; flow velocity time series at three points	Video cameras; capacitance wave gauge and ultrasonic distance meters; ADV	✗	3D 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 m	National University of Singapore	2021	Water depth time series at seven locations; run-up on the adverse slope	Capacitance 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 m	University of Fuzhou, China	2022	Wave maximum height at a location; wave celerity; ball climbing height	Water 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 m	0.44 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Wave runup on the vertical wall; images of the wave propagation; free surface profiles at selected times; time history of the wave front	Ultrasonic 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 m	0.44 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Dynamic pressure time series at five points on the wall	Pressure transducers	✗	3D 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 m	University of Ottawa, Canada	2022	Water depth time series at two locations and in front of the structure; flow velocity time series at a gauge point	Capacitance 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 m	2 m	Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany	2022	Water depth time series at four locations	Capacitance wave gauges	✗	3D 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; S_b = beach (adverse) slope; l = obstacle characteristic length; ² h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	1 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2002	Water depth hydrographs at four locations; time series of impact loads on the panel in different areas	Force 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2017	Water elevation hydrographs at two locations; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2019	Freeboard 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020	Water elevation hydrographs at four locations; freeboard exceedance time series; vertical load on the structure deck; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020	Water elevation hydrographs at five locations; freeboard exceedance time series; vertical load on the structure deck; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020	Water elevation hydrographs at five locations; water surface profiles; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Ocean University, Qingdao, China	2022	Pressure hydrographs at two points on the box upstream face; water surface hydrographs at two locations; motion of the floating structure	Pressure 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	1 m	Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands	2002	Water depth hydrographs at four locations; time series of impact loads on the panel in different areas	Force 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2017	Water elevation hydrographs at two locations; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2019	Freeboard 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020	Water elevation hydrographs at four locations; freeboard exceedance time series; vertical load on the structure deck; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020	Water elevation hydrographs at five locations; freeboard exceedance time series; vertical load on the structure deck; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020	Water elevation hydrographs at five locations; water surface profiles; video-images of green water flow	Conductive 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 m	Ocean University, Qingdao, China	2022	Pressure hydrographs at two points on the box upstream face; water surface hydrographs at two locations; motion of the floating structure	Pressure 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	0.34 m	Laboratory of Materials and Structures in Civil Engineering, Champs sur Marne, France	2004	Free surface; wave front propagation; wave front profiles	Video 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 m	Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary	2004	Water 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 m	0.155 m	University of Belgrade, Serbia & Montenegro	2004	Flow 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2006	Free surface and flow depth profiles at different times	Video 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 m	0.1 m	N.A.	2007	Wave front position	Video 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2009	Free surface and flow depth profiles at selected times; front position with time	Video 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 m	0.3 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2009	Free 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 m	0.32 m	Paulista State University, Ilha Solteira, Brazil	2012	Free surface at selected times; wave front position	Video camera	✗	2D 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 kg	0.1 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2017	Wave front position; water surface profiles; velocity field	PIV; 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 m	0.3 m	University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China	2019	Flow depth, velocity and pressure hydrographs at four locations	Video 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 m	0.05 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2019	Flow images; flow depth profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2022	Flow depth and bottom pressure hydrographs at two locations	Pressure 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	0.34 m	Laboratory of Materials and Structures in Civil Engineering, Champs sur Marne, France	2004	Free surface; wave front propagation; wave front profiles	Video 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 m	Eötvös University, Budapest, Hungary	2004	Water 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 m	0.155 m	University of Belgrade, Serbia & Montenegro	2004	Flow 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2006	Free surface and flow depth profiles at different times	Video 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 m	0.1 m	N.A.	2007	Wave front position	Video 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 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2009	Free surface and flow depth profiles at selected times; front position with time	Video 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 m	0.3 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2009	Free 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 m	0.32 m	Paulista State University, Ilha Solteira, Brazil	2012	Free surface at selected times; wave front position	Video camera	✗	2D 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 kg	0.1 m	EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland	2017	Wave front position; water surface profiles; velocity field	PIV; 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 m	0.3 m	University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China	2019	Flow depth, velocity and pressure hydrographs at four locations	Video 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 m	0.05 m	Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2019	Flow images; flow depth profiles at selected times	Video 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2022	Flow depth and bottom pressure hydrographs at two locations	Pressure 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	0.5 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2011	Water depth hydrographs in 10 positions	Water 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2014	Pressure hydrographs 20 positions at five different elevations on the downstream dam	Pressure 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 m	Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan, China	2017	Water depth hydrographs at six locations	Ultrasonic 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2017	Pressure 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Flow images; water depth and pressure hydrographs at three points	N.A	✗	3D 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Flow images; water depth hydrograph at six points	N.A	✗	3D 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)	0.25	Iskenderun Technical University, Turkey	2020	Water 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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 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 m	0.5 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2011	Water depth hydrographs in 10 positions	Water 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2014	Pressure hydrographs 20 positions at five different elevations on the downstream dam	Pressure 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 m	Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan, China	2017	Water depth hydrographs at six locations	Ultrasonic 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2017	Pressure 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Flow images; water depth and pressure hydrographs at three points	N.A	✗	3D 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 m	Sichuan University, Chengdu, China	2019	Flow images; water depth hydrograph at six points	N.A	✗	3D 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)	0.25	Iskenderun Technical University, Turkey	2020	Water 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 h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

(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 m	0.5 m	University of German Federal Armed Forces, Munich Germany	1992	Pressure hydrographs at 29 locations; flooded area perimeter	Pressure transducers; video camera	✗	2D 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	1999	Water levels hydrographs in 72 points; front wave propagation	Electrode system; capacity sensors	✗	(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Aureli and Mignosa [317,318]	Sudden opening	Rectangular 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2002	Water depth hydrographs at nine locations; transverse velocity profiles; discharge flowing through the breach	Ultrasonic distance meters; ADV; triangular weir	✗	2D SWE FD (n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Sarma and Das [319]	Sudden opening	Compound 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	2003	Wave 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 opening	Rectangular 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2004	Water depth hydrographs; wave front position and velocity	Ultrasonic 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 m	Bergische University Wuppertal, Germany	2008	Water depth contour maps	Ultrasonic distance meters	✗
Roger et al. [325]	Sudden opening	Rectangular 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2009	Surface 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 breaching	Rectangular 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/s	1 m	University of Tsinghua, Beijing, China	2017	Water 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 breaching	Rectangular 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 m	University of South Carolina, USA	2022	Water 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 m	Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Korea	2022	Water depth hydrographs; propagation of the wave front	Wave 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 h_u = 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 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 m	0.5 m	University of German Federal Armed Forces, Munich Germany	1992	Pressure hydrographs at 29 locations; flooded area perimeter	Pressure transducers; video camera	✗	2D 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	1999	Water levels hydrographs in 72 points; front wave propagation	Electrode system; capacity sensors	✗	(n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Aureli and Mignosa [317,318]	Sudden opening	Rectangular 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 m	University of Parma, Italy	2002	Water depth hydrographs at nine locations; transverse velocity profiles; discharge flowing through the breach	Ultrasonic distance meters; ADV; triangular weir	✗	2D SWE FD (n = 0.01 s m−1/3)
Sarma and Das [319]	Sudden opening	Compound 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	2003	Wave 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 opening	Rectangular 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2004	Water depth hydrographs; wave front position and velocity	Ultrasonic 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 m	Bergische University Wuppertal, Germany	2008	Water depth contour maps	Ultrasonic distance meters	✗
Roger et al. [325]	Sudden opening	Rectangular 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 m	Aachen University of Technology, Germany	2009	Surface 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 breaching	Rectangular 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/s	1 m	University of Tsinghua, Beijing, China	2017	Water 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 breaching	Rectangular 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 m	University of South Carolina, USA	2022	Water 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 m	Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Korea	2022	Water depth hydrographs; propagation of the wave front	Wave 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 h_u = 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.

(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	1981	Overtopping 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	1987	Water 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	1992	Arrival time at the wall; time of maximum height; maximum height at the container wall; time of maximum height; maximum height at pool center	Video 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 m	Circular: 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	2001	Time 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 m	Circular: 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	2005	Dynamic 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 m	Circular: bund radius = 0.497–1.407 m; bund inclination = 90°; bund height = 0.006–0.24 m	Liverpool John Moores University, UK	2008	Dynamic 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	2017	Fluid 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 m	Square: 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	2017	Fluid 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 m	Circular: 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	2018	Dynamic 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 ratios	Circular: 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, China	2022	Dynamic pressure time series at selected points on the bunds overtopping fraction	Pressure sensors; balance; video camera	✗	3D RANS, VOF FV

Note(s): ¹ D = diameter of the cylindrical tank; S = bottom slope; ² h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.

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	1981	Overtopping 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	1987	Water 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	1992	Arrival time at the wall; time of maximum height; maximum height at the container wall; time of maximum height; maximum height at pool center	Video 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 m	Circular: 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	2001	Time 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 m	Circular: 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	2005	Dynamic 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 m	Circular: bund radius = 0.497–1.407 m; bund inclination = 90°; bund height = 0.006–0.24 m	Liverpool John Moores University, UK	2008	Dynamic 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	2017	Fluid 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 m	Square: 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	2017	Fluid 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 m	Circular: 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	2018	Dynamic 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 ratios	Circular: 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, China	2022	Dynamic pressure time series at selected points on the bunds overtopping fraction	Pressure sensors; balance; video camera	✗	3D RANS, VOF FV

Note(s): ¹ D = diameter of the cylindrical tank; S = bottom slope; ² h_u = upstream water depth; h_d = 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.