Tools to evaluate flood defense policy, which model is acceptable?

Abstract (gewijzigd) The level of flood protection along Dutch rivers has been significantly improved with the Delta Plan Large Rivers (D.G.R. in Dutch). At the moment plans are being made for additional safety in the project Room for Rivers. Policy has always been made on the basis of minimum design water levels for rivers and estuaries. The use of design water levels in policy is an acceptable simplification if dike design remains unchanged. However this is not the case, since dikes are usually constructed for a design period of 50 years. Both design criteria and design water levels have significantly changed in the past 40 years. So many ongoing Dutch studies are flawed. The error margin (in decimeters or in chance of failure) is the same order of magnitude as the effect of the proposed measures. To solve this flaw the whole river and dike system has to be evaluated with one consistent check using the same design criteria and correct data. For most policy issues along the Rhine Branches and Meuse, it does not really matter which model (probabilistic or deterministic) is used, the major threat being extreme discharges. In the deltas this is not the case, storm surges and wave action are as important as the extreme discharges so probabilistic models have to be used in the consistent check. If all flood defenses along rivers, lakes and deltas are to be considered together, the same probabilistic model should be used, using realistic data. The Hydra-B/VIJ model makes this possible. R.M. Slomp, Msc. Rijkswaterstaat, RIZA, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Lelystad, the Netherlands. . . . Since 1953 policy decisions in the Netherlands for flood defences have been based on changes in design water levels and subsequently changes in their return periods. The use of changes in design water levels in policy is an acceptable simplification if dike design remains unchanged. However this is not the case, since dikes are usually constructed for a design period of 50 years. Both design criteria and design water levels have significantly changed in the past 40 years. This paper will show that due to incorrect use of evaluation models and models for dike design the Dutch dike system along the Rhine-braches and the Meuse will not be as safe as decided by law. The dike reinforcement programme of 1996 to 2000, Delta Plan Large Rivers (D.G.R. in Dutch) has left weak spots in the dike system. A number of the weak spots in dike design and evaluation were known during the programme the actual minimum design discharge was 1000 m3/s higher on the Rhine an 150 m3/s higher on the Meuse river, the critical wave overtopping limit was raised during the project from 0,1 lit/s/m to 1 lit/s/m. The minimum design discharge changed on account of the high discharges of 1993 and 1995. The new design discharges however were only published in 2001 [DWW, 2001], after the completion of the programme. Each of these two weak spots was a policy decision and has an effect of about 20 tot 30 centimetres in dike height. The programme Room for Rivers has to solve the first problem, higher minimum design water levels caused by the higher minimum design discharges. Use of probabilistic models like Hydra-B [Slomp et al, 2001] or Pc-ring [Vrouwenvelder et al, 2002] is not necessary to show these weak spots. To demonstrate the

effect of these weak spots in dike design a deterministic model can be used, Hydra-0 (zero) [Steetzel, 2004]. Probabilistic models do however provide insight into the chances of a dike failing on account of these weak spots. Probabilistic models also make the evaluation of uncertainties concerning the minimum design conditions water levels and waves possible. A special problem is the use of flood storage reservoirs and their effect on the chance of dike failure. The most important flaw in policy studies along the Rhine Branches and Meuse will be covered in this paper, the assumption dike design has not changed in the past 40 years. First two models Hydra-B and Hydra-0 will be explained. Hydra-B, a probabilistic tool to evaluate dike heights and reinforcement measures, is the official tool (by law) to evaluate dike heights in the delta of the Rhine and Meuse. Hydra-B is described in detail by its designer in [Geerse, 2003]. Along Dutch lakes and rivers the height of flood defences is based on three major threats river discharges, storm surges and waves and their combinations. On the major rivers Rhine and Meuse the river discharges are the dominant threat (River area, R in the map below). Around the storm surge barrier in Rotterdam the river discharge is insignificant (Sea area, S). On the lakes Haringvliet and Hollandsch Diep and in the IJsseldelta all three threats are important (transitional area, T). In the IJssellake area storm surges and waves are the dominant threat (Lake area, L). In the IJssellake area and IJsseldelta a modification of Hydra-B can be used, Hydra-VIJ. This model will be officially introduced in 2006 along with the new minimum design water levels.

Figure 1, Boundaries between River, lake and the sea influence. Hydra-B calculates: - water levels per return period and specifically the minimum design water levels of 2001 for the Rhine and Meuse delta published in [DWW, 2001] - the minimum necessary dike levels per return period (range 10 to 10 000 years) - the chance of failure due to water levels per dike section and enclosed system of dikes a ring of dikes and higher ground - the chance of failure in height due to water levels and waves - design conditions for the evaluation of the strength of outer layers of dikes.

Hydra-B integrates previous models, can be used in the whole Rhine and Meuse delta and is more precise. The probabilistic Hydra-B model is also valid outside of areas with storm surges. Therefore the reach of the model was extended to Lobith and Borgharen, where the Rhine and Meuse enter the Netherlands and to Zwolle along the IJssel. Since storm surges are not important on the Rhine Branches and Meuse (an effect of 2 to maximum 5 centimetres in the design water level) these could be discarded. This means that 9 flood waves can properly characterize each river, Rhine and Meuse. So in these river dominated areas WAQUA, a 2 dimensional hydrodynamic model, was used to calculate maximum water levels per flood wave along the dikes and not only a the centre of the river [Havinga, 2005]. Hydra-B is usually filled with water levels from SOBEK, a 1 dimensional hydrodynamic model, on account of the large number of different water level calculations, 6768, in the Rhine and Meuse delta. Water levels per flood wave were selected from the calculations for 6 000 locations at the base of the river dikes [van den Bosch, 2005], one every 100 meters, 25 meters from the outer crest. The WAQUA model was modified to accept the large number of locations [Havinga, 2005]. Hydra-B was calibrated for these new river reaches by [Duits, 2005], calibration between Borgharen and Boxmeer is still underway. The research version of Hydra-B was also improved to make the study of uncertainties concerning the minimum design conditions water levels and waves possible. Evaluating the use of flood storage areas has been possible since 2001. This extended research version is called Hydra-BT [Duits, 2005] and was used in this study.

Hydra-B uses the Bretschneider formula to determine the waves [TAW, 1985]. For each of the 6 000 locations for each wind direction the effective fetch and the mean bottom height over the fetch length was determined using GIS. These data were stored in the databases containing the water level information per location. Using the water level, the hydra-B model determines the water depth and subsequently Hydra-B can calculate waves for 5 wind speeds for each of the 16 wind directions. Reduction of wave growth by islands, high levees and dense river forests has been neglected in the current calculations. These aspects are especially important in the deltas, e.g. the nature reserve the Biesbosch. Using Hydra-B on 135 dike cross sections, one every km, of dike ring 43, the Betuwe, a number of cross sections with very low return periods for dike failure were found, between 100 to 500 years. The criterion for failure is the exceedence of wave overtopping with more than 0,1 l/m per s. Such low return periods are astonishing, therefore dike design and dike evaluation methods were verified. Design criteria are described in the Leidraad Bovenrivieren [TAW, 1985]. Dike evaluation criteria are described in [TAW, 2002]. A new model Hydra-0 (zero), a deterministic model, makes it possible to evaluate the dike heights rapidly.

This deterministic model is filled with the same type of data as Hydra-B but water levels are only given for the design discharge of 2001, 16000 m3/s at Lobith for the Rhine and 3600 m3/s for the Meuse at Boxmeer. Waves are determined for only one design wind speed per wind direction. Design wind speeds per wind direction are given in [TAW, 1985] and presented in (figure 2). Hydra-0 uses the water levels, waves and dike cross sections to calculate wave run up height in m + NAP. This wave run up height is a good approximation for design heights of dikes. Soil settling and soil subsidence have to be added to obtain the official design height. This was neglected is this study since these are relatively small in the study area (R, see figure 1). To properly fill the model with cross sections for the Rhine branches and Meuse some 6 000 Figure 2: Design wind speeds Rhine Branches and Meuse
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -40
IJssel km 879-980, Rhine km 858-867, Pannerdens kanaal km 868-878 Waal 869-914 Lek /NedR. km 880-929 Meuse km 150- 200

design wind speeds (potential windl)

Waal km 914-955 en Lek km 929-943, Meuse km 200-235

60

160

260

360

winddirection 360 degrees

cross sections, one for each location every 100 meters along the dike, have been made using the profile generator [Santbergen, 2005]. This was done using the three most important dike characteristics which influence wave run up on a dike [De Waal, 1999]: - the slope of the last section of a dike, almost always 1 in 3, - the dike height, - the dike normal, perpendicular line, A 1 in 3 external slope is a good estimation for river dikes on the Rhine Branches and Meuse. When design discharges occur the rivers are full, water depths usually exceed 3 to 4 meters, even on the fore shore. Wave reduction by dams, raised for shores, flood plains forests can therefore considered minimal along the Rhine and Meuse. About 1 to 2 % of external slopes is 1 in 4 in places where wave action is large, the data has yet not been corrected for this information. Along the sea and lake shores some dikes usually have a flat area shoulder in the dike cross section to reduce wave action, this is not common on rivers. Dike heights were received from the RWS-DWW, [DWW/AGI, 2004], some cuts in the dike, for roads, still have to be removed from the data. This is less than 1% of the data. A detailed verification of dike heights is still underway by Rijkswaterstaat DWW, some data on recent dike reinforcements still has to be included. This is mostly in the transitional areas, the deltas: Lek and Hollandsch Diep.

The dike normal, perpendicular line, was determined through signal filtering [Van den Bosch, 2005]. If the dike normal is chosen for a 50 or 100 meter stretch in stead of a 500 to 1000 meter stretch, the dike normal shows a significant difference of up to 50 (see figure 3). In wide rivers, with a large wave action, an error of 5 in the dike normal results in a 0,07 m error in dike height, an error of 30 results in a maximal error between 0,25 to 0,5 m [Lodder, 2003].
Figure 3: Choice of filter for determining the dike normal, perpindicular line, 0 is north, dike ring 16, Alblasserwaard
150
dike normal every meter normal filtered for (50m) stretches

dike normal

100 50 0 58000 -50 -100

normal fitered for (100m) stretches

58500

59000

59500

60000

normal filtered for (500m) stretches normal filtered for (1000m) stretches

location

The water levels were determined at the base of the dike and not at the centre of the river, local effects and centrifugal force cause differences up to a number of decimetres. In large oxbows (3 to 4 km) along the river differences can be more than half a meter. In the table below for a number of locations along dike ring 52, Oost Veluwe the difference in the water level between the centre of the river and dike is illustrated.
minimum difference between design centre of the river and discharge dike location for the Location 2001 design discharge Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 1_210458_458075 9,908 -0,01 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 2_210376_458133 9,908 -0,01 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 3_210304_458201 9,908 -0,01 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 4_210238_458276 9,908 -0,03 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 5_210170_458350 9,908 -0,04 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 6_210095_458414 9,908 -0,06 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 7_210020_458481 9,908 -0,07 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 8_209945_458547 9,908 -0,10 Dkr 52 IJssel km 924-925 Locatie 9_209869_458612 9,908 -0,11 Dkr 52 IJssel km 930-931 Locatie 9_209708_464579 8,662 -0,31 Dkr 52 IJssel km 930-931 Locatie 10_209691_464677 8,662 -0,36 Table 1: Difference between water levels at the middle of the river and the dike

The use of omni directional wave action on the dike in stead of only perpendicular also has a large effect on the dike height, e.g. up to 0,65m. This is shown at Andelst on the Waal (a wide river) and Culemborg on the Lek (a narrow river).

design height 1996, omni design height directional 1996, actual dike design water wave action perpendicular difference level (in m level 1996 (in (in m + wave action in design (in m + NAP) height Location Rhine Branch dike ring + NAP) m + NAP) NAP) Culemborg Lek 43, Betuwe 8,28 6,99 7,88 7,68 -0,2 Andelst Waal 43, Betuwe 13,49 13,03 14,39 13,75 -0,64 Table 2: Difference in design height due to use of omni directional wave action

In addition to this, the repartition of water over the Rhine Branches at the time of a design discharge is a matter of policy and not a hydraulic calculation. In reality more water (about 150 m3/s) flows to the north (the IJssel) and less to the west (the Waal). This means a rise in design water levels of about 15 cm on the IJssel and a drop of 5 cm on the Waal. Four graphs are shown for a dike ring along the IJssel, the Northern Rhine Branch, Dike ring 52, Eastern Veluwe The first graph, figure 4 concerns the check on the minimum freeboard of 50 cm, almost 40% of the dikes do not meet this criterion in 2001. The second graph, figure 6, shows the check on surplus dike height on account of wave action, only 12% of this dike ring complies to the minimum design criteria in 2001. This is astonishing since most dikes along the east shore of the IJssel, the northern Rhine Branch were built for a design discharge of more than 16 000 m3/s, see figure 5.
Figure 4 the check on minimum freeboard of 50 cm, in m in 2001, dike ring 52, Oost Veluwe 1% free distrubution at bifurcation points
1% 4% 8% 30% 19% 0% 1%4%

-1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8

32%

0,8 < 0.0

Figure 6: The check on surplus dike height in m in 2001, free distribution at bifurcation points, dike ring 52, Oost Veluw e 64 km, 600 cross sections 0% rate 0,1 l/m per s, Hydra-0 (RWS) critical overtopping 0% 1% 1% 3% 7% 9% 25% 28%

-1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6

26%

0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0

Figure 7: the check on surplus dike height in 2001, official m inim um design w ater levels, HR 2001, at the base of the dike. Dike ring 52, Oost Veluw e 64 km, 600 cross sections, critical overtoppingrate 0,1 l/m per s, using Hydra-0 (RWS) 1% 2% 1% 1% 8% 23% 10% -1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 25% 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 29% 0,6 < 0,8

Comparing figures 6 and 7 shows that the official HR2001 minimum design water levels give a much too favourable view of surplus dike height. Almost 10% of the dikes are more than 70 cm too low in 2001 and 90% of dikes are too low in general (figure 6). If the design discharges are lowered through the project Room for Rivers (RvdR), according to the difference between official design water levels (HR2001 and HR 1996), 10% of dikes remain too low (figure 8). Only if the project proposal (VKA, Voor Keurs Alternatief) is completely carried out dike levels with be acceptable (see figure 9) for dike ring 52. The remaining 9% insufficient dike height (less than 0,20 m) is only a problem for dikes with a very steep inner slope e.g. 1 in 2. 0,20 m to 0,30 is also the difference between 0,1 and 1 l/m per s in critical overtopping rate.

Figure 8: the check on surplus dike height in 2015, using HR 1996, design water levels at the base of the dike . Dike ring 52, Oost Veluwe 64 km, 600 cross section, critical overtopping rate 0,1 l/m per s, using Hydra-0 (RWS) -1.0 < -0,8
-0,8 < -0,6 2% 0% 2% 8% 21% 22% 13% -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 32% 0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0

Figure 9: the check on surplus dike height in m in 2015, according to RvdR project proposal VKA, dike ring 52, Oost Veluwe 64 km, 600 cross sections, critical overtopping rate 0,1 l/m per s, using Hydra-0 (RWS)
5% 18%

-1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6

0% 9% 15%

-0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 23%

30%

0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0

For the dike ring 43, Betuwe, Tieler en Culemborger Waarden, 135 km of dikes, similar graphs are shown. The situation with the free distribution at bifurcation points changes the geographical position of dikes which are too low. The general problem does not alter. The dike ring borders both river branches, so if less water goes to the Waal and more to Pannerdens Kanaal/Nederrijn, or vice versa, it does not really change the scope for the dike ring as a whole. In 2001 there is a minor problem for the minimum freeboard, but 20% of the dikes have a real problem (>0,2 m deficiency in dike height) on account of wave overtopping. This problem only diminishes slightly to 18% if RvdR is carried out according to its task, the difference in design water levels of 2001 and 1996. But even after the current proposal (VKA) has been carried out in 2015 14 % of the dikes remain too low.

Figure 10 the check on minimum freeboard of 50 cm, in m, in 2001, dike ring 43, Betuwe, Tieler en Culemborger Waarden .

17%

0%

11%

-1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 17% -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8

26% 29%

Figure 11: The check on surplus dike height in m, in 2001, using official design water levels, dike ring 43 Betuwe, Tieler en Culemborger Waarden 135 km, critical overtopping rate 0,1 l/m per s using Hydra-0 (RWS) -1.0 < -0,8 7% 5% 14% 16% 0% 2% 8% -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 17% 14% 17% 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0

Figure 12: The check on surplus dike height in m in 2015, dike ring 43 (difference in design water levels 2001 - 1996 solved), critical over topping rate 0,1 l/m per s, using Hydra-0 (RWS) 2% 7% 15% 12% 14% 18% 14% 0% 3% 7% 8%

-1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0 >1.0

Figure 13: The check on surplus dike height in m in 2015, RVDR project proposal VKA carried out, free distribution at bifurcation points, dike ring 43, critical over topping rate 0,1 l/m per s, using Hydra-0 (RWS)

-1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4

7% 6% 11%

0% 7% 7% 14%

-0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6

15% 15% 18%

0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0 >1.0

For 2001 the check on surplus dike height has been carried out for all dike rings in the Rhine Branches (580 km) and Meuse (125 km), in total 705 km, excluding the deltas and special structures 7 km. This is illustrated (in figures 14 and 15) for the dike rings with design water levels based on a 1250 year return period. Approximately the same results are obtained using 600 cross section data, chosen randomly every km, instead of the 6000, chosen randomly every 100 meters, presented in the pie charts. Differences between categories of surplus dike heights is less than 2%. Along the Rhine Less than 50% of all dikes have sufficient height in 2001, 10% of dikes in 2015 , this is the dike category , with dike surplus heights of [-0,8 m <-0,6 m], will remain a problem and will have to be reinforced. The 2% category [-1,0 m<-0,80 m] are comprised of cuts in the dikes (for roads, which can be closed), dam type constructions, paved dikes (which both can resist overtopping rates of more than 20 l/m per s) and maybe some erroneous data, not yet filtered out. Almost two thirds of dikes along the Meuse have sufficient height. However it is impossible to predict the situation for 2015 for the Meuse.

The main reasons are: - The design discharge will probably rise by 200 m3/s in 2006, on account of the high discharges in 2003 - The flow wave characteristics will also change on account of the high discharges in 2003 and the possible introduction of a new statistical method - The freeboard of the new dikes 0,30 cm or 0,50 m along the Meuse(from Eijsden to Boxmeer, a stretch of 150 km) is still unknown, this is a policy decision. - The effects of retention reservoirs on the Meuse - The introduction of a new 2 dimentional WAQUA model for the Meuse. This new model includes a larger portion of the valley of the Meuse. Simulation of extreme discharges, above the design discharge of 3800 m3/s, will be more realistic. Each of these items have been evaluated separately but not in conjunction.
Figure 14 Surplus dike heights in m in 2001 Meuse, dijkrings 36, 36a, 37, 38, 39 and 41, approx. 125 km, cross sections every 100 meters, critical overtopping rate 0,1 l/m per s, calculated with Hydra-0 (RWS) -1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 0.0

5% 8% 9%

0% 1%

8%

25% 19%

25%

Figure 15 Surplus dike heights in m in 2001 Rhine Branches, dijkrings 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,53, approx. 580 km, cross sections every 100 meters, critical overtopping rate 0,1 l/m per s, calculated with Hydra-0 (RWS) -1.0 < -0,8 -0,8 < -0,6 3% 6% 10% 11% 20% 1% 3% 10% -0,6 < -0,4 -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8 16% 20% 0,8 < 0.0

After removing cross sections with cuts in roads and dams, the chance of failure of dike rings and cross sections can be determined using the probabilistic model Hydra-B. Surplus dike heights in m in 2001 determined with Hydra-B for dike ring 43 are shown in figure 16. The

return period for water flowing over the dike in 2001, free distribution at bifurcation points, is 4500 years. The return period for wave overtopping, critical over topping rate 0,1 l/m per s is . years. When one evaluates the dike ring with a probabilistic model (figure 16) the situation looks more favorable than with a deterministic model (figure 11). This was to be expected, since each situation is statistically weighed. If the deltas have to be compared with the Rhine branches and Meuse use of the same model is therefore necessary.
Figure 16: The check on surplus dike height in m, in 2001, dike ring 43, Betuwe, Tieler en Culemborger Waarden -1.0 < -0,8 0% 6% 9% 135 km, critical overtopping rate 0,1 6%l/m per s using Hydra-B -0,8 < -0,6 -0,6 < -0,4 17% 16% -0,4 < -0,2 -0,2 < 0.0 0.0 < 0,2 0,2 < 0,4 14% 20% 12% 0,4 < 0,6 0,6 < 0,8 0,8 < 1.0

Conclusions: Using the official design criteria from [TAW, 1985] the following conclusion is reached. 50% of dikes Along the Rhine Branches and 65% of dikes along the Meuse are high enough in 2001. After implementation of Room for Rivers in 2015 at least 10% of dikes along the Rhine Branches still have to be reinforced to accommodate wave action. Large differences were found in surplus dike heights in relation to earlier studies due to four causes: - The fact that new cross sections to evaluate the dike were determined every 100 meters, instead of the usual larger dike stretches up to a number of kilometres. - The dike normal (perpendicular line) was determined through signal filtering for 100 meter sections instead of averages for 500 to 1 km sections, - The use of omni directional wave action instead of only wave action perpendicular to the dike. - The use of water level data at the base of the dike and no longer at the centre of the river. This is common practice in some areas along the Rhine during dike construction, but not in policy studies. So the reason for most projects concerning flood defence policy being flawed is the assumption dike design is correct, without verifying this. Reasons are - Design water levels and design criteria have changed over the last 40 years. - Dike design depends on personal choices of the water board, the consultancies and Rijkswaterstaat. - The continued use of the same cross section data from dike design in dike evaluation and policy studies

To solve this flaw the whole river and dike system has to be evaluated with one consistent check using the same criteria. For most policy issues along the Rhine Branches and Meuse, it does not really matter which model is used, the major threat being extreme discharges in combination with some wave action. Both probabilistic models like Hydra-B or PC-Ring or deterministic models, like Hydra-0 can provide insight into the policy issues. However major assumptions should be verified. Dike design has not been uniform in the last half century. Data should be gathered from scratch if possible. The use of 600 or 6000 cross sections, if both are chosen randomly, delivers approximately the same result, differences between categories of surplus dike heights is less than 2%. This margin of error is acceptable to determine flood defence policy. Use of probabilistic models in stead of deterministic models delivers a more favourable picture on surplus dike height. If all flood defences along rivers, lakes and deltas are to be considered together, the same probabilistic model should be used, using realistic data. Since the R.v.d.R. project covers both the deltas and the rivers a probabilistic model should be used in the whole project area. Recommendations: The following information should be provided centrally using Hydro Dynamic and GIS models. - a random selection of a sufficient number of dike cross sections - calculation of the dike normal for the cross sections filtered for 100 meter stretches - maximum water levels per flood wave for locations at the base of the dike for these cross sections - calculation of effective fetch for all wind directions for these locations - bottom height per effective fetch per wind direction for these locations The following information is still needed from water boards - type of flood defence dike, wall, sheet piling, flood barrier or other structure - cross section data (e.g. e.g. outer crest level, crest level, inner and outer slope, shoulders, fore shores, dams and the types of dike revetment per slope). - Information on soil settling and soil subsidence (very important in the deltas) - Local information on the subsoil, very important for areas prone to piping, this determines the necessary width for the dike (this problem is not covered in this paper)

References [van den Bosch, 2005] Aanpassing Profiel Generator, Hydra Tools, Verslag modelbouw, P. van den Bosch, Alkyon Hydraulic Consultancy & Research, January 2005 [DWW, 2001] Hydraulische Randvoorwaarden 2001 voor het toetsen van primaire waterkeringen, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, DWW, RIZA, RIKZ, 2001 [DWW/AGI, 2004] Hoogte bestand, Rijkswaterstaat DWW/AGI, November 2004 [Geerse, 2003] Probabilistisch model hydraulische randvoorwaarden benedenrivierengebied, C.P.M. Geerse, RIZA - werkdocument 2003.128x. RIZA Lelystad, december 2003. [Lodder, 2003] Berekening implicaties van de invoering van Hydra-B Rapportage van implicatie berekeningen ten behoeve van de introductie van Hydra-B voor actuele dijkprofielen in het benedenrivierengebied, Q.Lodder, december 2003 werkdocument 2003.183x [Rijkoort Wierenga, 1980] Windklimaat van Nederland, KNMI, 1980 [Slomp et al, 2001] Onderbouwing Hydraulische Randvoorwaarden 2001 voor het Benedenrivierengebied, Onderbouwing, toelichting en analyse van verschillen ten op zichte van het verleden. R.M. Slomp, C.P.M. Geerse, H. de Deugd RWS-RIZA-rapport 2001.017 [Steetzel, 2004] Hydra-0, User Manuel, version 1, An evaluation tool for Hydra-models, H.J. Steetzel, Alkyon Hydraulic Consultancy and Research, December 2004. [TAW, 1985] Leidraad voor het ontwerpen van rivierdijken. Deel 1 Bovenrivierengebied. Technische Adviescommissie voor de Waterkeringen. Staatsuitgeverij s Gravenhage, september 1985 [TAW, 2002] Voorschrift Toetsen op Veiligheid, Technische Adviescommissie voor de Waterkeringen. 2002. [De Waal, 1999] Achtergronden Hydraulische Belastingen Dijken IJsselmeergebied. Deelrapport 9: Modellering dammen, voorlanden en golfoploop. J.P. de Waal. RIZA rapport 99.046. RIZA Lelystad, 25 maart 1999.

[Santbergen, 2005] Aanpassing Profiel Generator HYDRA Tools, Gebruikshandleiding. P. Santbergen, Alkyon Hydraulic Consultancy & Research, January 2005 [Vrouwenvelder et al, 2002] Belastingmodellen Benedenrivierengebied - fase 2/Concept met aanvullende berekeningen. A.C.W.M. Vrouwenvelder, H.M.G.M. Steenbergen, F.L.M. Diermanse. TNO-rapport 2001CON-DYN-R8014. TNO-Bouw, september 2002.