200201climate Change Impacts On The Safety of British Reservoirs

In Association with
CEH Wallingford
DEFRA
Climate Change Impacts on the Safety

of British Reservoirs
Research Contract
Final Report
BWA 20123 January 2002
Babtie Group 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7HX

Tel 0141 204 2511 Fax 0141 226 3109
DEFRA
DEFRA
Climate Change Impacts on the Safety of British Reservoirs
Research Contract
Contents
Page Nos.
Executive Summary
1. Introduction 1
2. Review of Reservoir Safety Issues 3
3. Methodologies 8
4. Climate Change 14
5. Presentation of Sensitivity Results 25
6. The Impact of Increased Flood Rise and Wave Run-up on UK Stock

of Reservoirs 30
7. Risk Assessment 36
8. Conclusions and Recommendations 40
Figures
Appendices
A References
B Glossary of Terms
C Dam Population Characteristics (BRE)
D Implications of FEH
E Summary Climate Change Scenarios
F Site Specific Climate Change Sensitivity
G Analysis of Maximum Percentage Changes in Total Surcharge
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Executive Summary
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) now DEFRA, through their
reservoir safety research programme, commissioned Babtie Group (BG) in association with the
Institute of Hydrology (now CEH Wallingford) to examine the impact on safety of projected changes in
magnitude of extreme events, and to consider the scale of precipitation and gale events that might
cause risk of exceeding the capacity of existing dams.
Climate change data were obtained from the UKCIP98 climate scenarios that are based upon the
output of the Hadley Centre Global Climate Model (HadCM2) that has a spatial resolution of
approximately 300km. However the accompanying UKCIP98 10km resolution “Unintelligent
downscaling” data were used in this study to supply a guide to the location specific analysis. This
dataset is based upon the addition of large-scale interpolated changes to the 10km gridded 1961-1990
baseline climatology. Although the downscaling provides extra precision it does not improve the
accuracy of the projections, as this relies on the large-scale climate changes generated by the global
climate model.
There are considerable uncertainties in the application of current climate change scenarios.
Confidence in the projections diminishes as the focus becomes more event specific, decreasing
through regional monthly rainfall averages, and leading to low confidence in projections of storm
event characteristics. There is thus a difficulty in downscaling Global Climate Model outputs and this
presents problems in addressing storm driven impacts such as those required for reservoir safety.
Care is needed in interpreting such predictions.
The general trends emerging from the UKCIP98 work suggest moderate increases to annual rainfall
across the country, but with the north becoming relatively wetter than the south. Distinct seasonal
differences with large increases to Autumn and Winter rainfall and a contrast between spring and
particularly summer rainfalls that are projected to reduce in the south east and slightly increase in the
north west. Average wind speeds are projected to change little with the exception of increases in the
autumn. Very limited quantitative information is supplied describing either daily or event based
climatology. Therefore, in absence of guidance on how extreme event rainfalls and winds are likely to
change in the future, projected changes in monthly rainfall and wind were used as a surrogates. While
other options were considered, at the present time this is the most suitable approach that can be
adopted.
The research project had to consider how these changes might affect reservoirs. Essentially, rainfall
intensity, floods and winds impact on the available freeboard of a dam. This, in turn, is influenced by
overflow discharge capacity.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
The approach followed was to assess the surcharge sensitivity of example reservoirs to incremental
changes in the climatic factors affecting the design estimation of total surcharge. Fourteen example
reservoirs were selected such that their design, hydro-climatic and geographical characteristics were
reasonably representative of the characteristics of the overall population of British dams. However
these reservoirs should be regarded as semi-synthetic i.e. while based on actual reservoirs they were
not precise replicas thus preserving a degree of anonymity. The surcharge estimation procedure
outlined in the third edition of the Floods and Reservoir Safety guide was followed. The key climatic
attributes incrementally changed were: i) storm rainfall depth (in the estimation of flood surcharge),
and ii) wind speed (in the estimation of wave surcharge). Other related climatic factors, such as storm
profile, snowmelt and wind direction, were considered but until more is known about the likely effect
of climate change on these it was considered premature to adjust them. This sensitivity was set in
the context of climate change projections by overlaying the sensitivity charts with site specific
envelopes of climate change scenarios. This work produced charts of sensitivity for both summer and
winter events.
Based on the results of this work, the study has produced the following generalised findings:
• Most reservoirs show approximately +5% sensitivity in total surcharge level to the joint worst
case projection of storm rainfall depth and windspeed changes for the 2050s time horizon. (Some
show a slightly greater response). No regional pattern of risk to reservoirs was evident from the
findings.
This scale of response is considered to be similar to the error range of flood routing and wave run-
up calculations due to the various input parameters, and therefore does not demonstrate
particular sensitivity of UK reservoirs to climate change at this time.
• Large uncertainties are particularly inherent in the climate change understanding of extreme storm
events. These findings should therefore be viewed as providing only a provisional guide. However
the sensitivity analysis may remain valuable to assess the implications of future improved climate
change projections.

DEF
DEFRA
Safety of British Reservoirs
Research Contract
1 Introduction
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) now the
Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), through their reservoir
safety research programme commissioned a study to examine the impact of predicted
changes in frequency of extreme events due to climate change and to consider the scale
of rainfall and gale events that might cause risk of exceeding the capacity of existing
dams.
Based on a proposal dated February 1999, Babtie Group (BG) in association with the
Institute of Hydrology (now CEH Wallingford) was awarded the research study.
Access was given to research data from the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) for
this study (as made available on the UKCIP98 CD-Rom to research groups). This resulted
in the production of scatter diagrams giving envelopes of potential change in wind and
rain for the four UKCIP98 scenarios on a site-specific basis.
The research proposal was further developed during the course of the study and
presented to DEFRA in a series of formal and informal progress meetings.
The work has also been presented, at various stages, to the reservoir safety industry,
principally at the British Dam Society Conference in June 2000. Discussion of the work
was encouraged at these forums and any comments have been noted.
The methodology used for the research was to plot the predicted sensitivity of total
surcharge to incremental (percentage) changes in rainfall depth and windspeed for a
number of representative reservoirs. The predictions were made using multiple Micro
FSR software runs following the guidance given in “Floods and Reservoir Safety, 3rd
Edition” (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1996). For PMF events this was done for both
summer and winter conditions.
The work is presented in this report as advice to DEFRA to inform their reaction to
climate change impacts on reservoir safety. This includes the principal hard output of 28
sensitivity charts for representative UK reservoirs that demonstrate the impact of the
postulated climate change scenarios on reservoir surcharge levels.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 1

DEF
DEFRA
Safety of British Reservoirs
Research Contract
This work comes with a cautionary note in respect of the climate change scenarios
postulated and in particular the regional impact envelopes portrayed as rectangular zones
in this study. These are not well defined at their outer limits and should be regarded as
having fuzzy edges.
It is important to acknowledge the contribution of other organisations whose work has

been made available through DEFRA for this project.
• BRE - Dams Database

• UKCIP - Climate Change Scenarios
The report deals firstly with Reservoir Safety Issues to frame the background to the
impact of rainfall (floods) and wind (waves). This puts the subsequent sections on
Methodologies and Climate Change in context.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
2 Review of Reservoir Safety Issues
2.1 Summary of Present Reservoir Standards and Regulatory Conditions
The response of a reservoir and dam to increased extreme combinations of rainfall and
winds can be expressed as increases in still water flood rise and wave run-up.
In terms of flood and wave surcharge the safety of embankment dams is judged by the
adequacy of freeboard. The responsibility for engineering aspects of the safety of dams
and reservoirs for the protection of the public is placed both on individual engineers
(appointed by the government to panel lists), and on reservoir owners.
Panel Engineers are provided with guidance on acceptable freeboard but ultimately have
to make independent judgements on adequacy. No mandatory standards are imposed by
Government. However the following guidance is given in Chapter 2 of the third edition of
“Floods and Reservoir Safety, (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1996). ” (The Floods and
Reservoir Safety publication is henceforth referred to as FRS in this report).
“For fill embankment dams, the elevation of the top of the dam will be governed by one
of two conditions, the first being that the flood surcharge level should not exceed the top
of the dam, normally the crest roadway level. If the flood peak is particularly prolonged
the flood surcharge level may have to be lower still to avoid harmful leakage through the
road foundations above the dam core. The second condition is that the total surcharge
must not overtop or pass through or round a structurally sound wave wall to an extent
that might lead to a breach of the dam. If there is no wave wall, the top of the dam has
to be high enough to contain the total surcharge (unless the dam is assessed to be
capable of withstanding limited overtopping).” (Institution of Civil Engineers, 1996).
The factors that an engineer will take into account in deciding adequacy are as follows:
• The appropriate flood category

• The attenuation response of the reservoir
• Ultimate capacity and blockage potential of overflow
• Nature of upstream slope
• Presence of wave wall
• Overall margin of freeboard
• Ability to resist overtopping
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 3

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
It is normally accepted that a high hazard dam should have an absolute minimum
freeboard of 600mm with lesser values for lower hazards. It is also accepted that some
dams can tolerate overtopping to some degree but this is normally allowed for by de-
rating the design flood/waves. The range of freeboards recognised as acceptable is
therefore large, ranging from500mm to 5000mm or more. Flood rise and wave run-up
allowances vary tremendously across the range of UK reservoirs and cannot be
effectively summarised. Determination of these is subjective and often calls for/allows
for considerable interpolation. Erosion of present margins by future increases is thus
difficult to express in simple terms.
2.2 Methodologies Currently Used to Predict the Impact of Extreme Events upon
Reservoir Safety
The generally accepted method for determining freeboard adequacy is to follow that
described in FRS. The approach combines predictions of design flood inflow and design
wave height together with the physical characteristics of the specific dam.
Flood estimates in support of reservoir safety should be based on a rainfall-runoff

approach. The only rainfall-runoff method so far generalised for application throughout
the UK is the FSR rainfall-runoff method (NERC, 1975). This method has been restated
with some revisions to input parameter values but no change to the structure of the
model in the recently released Flood Estimation Handbook (Houghton-Carr, 1999). The
implications of the Flood Estimation Handbook to reservoir flood studies are further
discussed in Appendix D.
The highest hazard dams with no reliable overtopping resistance have to be assessed
against the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). This is a notional worst case event based on
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) and a series of interpreted catchment
characteristics judged to be unprecedented. Current estimates of PMP assume a
stationary climate. If this is no longer observed then the theoretical “upper bound” to
rainfall may be changed.
For the UK, the PMF calculated by the Flood Studies Report (FSR, 1975) nearly always
results in a flood event greater than the 1:10,000 year event.
The PMF inflow for a given catchment, routed through a reservoir gives the maximum
flood rise to be used in assessing freeboard. The flood rise calculation is heavily
dependent on the parameters used for the overflow head/discharge relationship.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Lower hazard categories of dam are assessed against more frequent (and lower) flood
flows. These range from 1:150 year floods for remote dams with no infrastructure
downstream, to 1:10,000 year floods for dams where loss of life is circumstantial or
where the dam can withstand some overtopping. This approach reflects the concept of
tolerable risk in relation to the safety of the public. Implicit in this approach is the
acceptance that a low hazard dam will probably fail if exposed to a flood event in excess
of the recommended standard.
In terms of this brief the lowest category might be regarded as academic and of limited
importance.
2.3 Climate Change
The UK is taking a leading role in addressing the threat of climate change. The effects of
climate change, which may be altering the pattern of rainfall and evaporation around the
world, are possibly apparent already in some parts of the United Kingdom, for example in
the apparent increased incidence of flood events.
General findings of the UK Climate Impacts Programme (Hulme & Jenkins, 1998)
suggest that changes in mean climate will also be accompanied by changes in the
frequency of extreme events. Intense daily precipitation events are expected to become
more frequent, especially in winter, but there is little change predicted in the return
periods for daily-mean wind extremes. Changes in storminess are also expected to be
quite modest, although summer gales become a little more frequent as do very severe
winter gales. These modelled changes in wind regimes in the UK are not very robust and
experiments with different climate models yield different results.
Projected changes to extreme rainfall and wind speed characteristics implies that there
may be an impact on reservoir safety through the erosion of current safety margins,
particularly freeboard. This study has attempted to put in context the sensitivity of UK
dams to projected resulting changes to floods and waves.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
2.4 Consideration of Risk in Dam Safety Evaluation
2.4.1 Risk Issues
Risks are present in every human activity and this study is related to the risk associated
with hazards arising from events in the environment external to dams: floods and winds.
The notion of risk is inseparable from the ideas of probability and uncertainty. We can be
certain that a dam will be subjected to wave action in its lifetime, it will almost certainly
spill on an annual basis but we have no real idea whether it will overtop due to wind and
waves, even under present climatic conditions.
Risk is therefore a recognition of future uncertainty and from a dam safety point of view,
the possibility of disaster or loss.
Some consequences are so severe that they should not be tolerated under any
circumstances, for example, failure of a nuclear power station, and therefore very low
probabilities (risks) have to be demonstrated. Other consequences are so insignificant
that they can be tolerated without further justification, for example, being caught in the
rain.
Consequences can be severe and risks tolerable (air crashes) or severe and intolerable eg
gas main explosions, although the probabilities may be similar. Dams and reservoirs
come into the category of potentially serious consequences with little public perception
that there is a risk.
Individual choice and consequences also come into the decision making/tolerability
equation. An individual can choose not to fly but a community cannot move out of the
flood route from a dam.
Current public perception is that dams are low risk structures and current reservoir safety
guidelines seek to maintain this status for high hazard structures.
2.4.2 Hazard Awareness
Hazard is the condition in which there is potential injury, loss or damage. The hazard in
the case of dams is the potential energy of the stored water. The consequences are
flooding damage, destruction of infrastructure, injury and loss of life plus associated
costs
All dams represent a hazard whereas not all are at risk. The safety evaluation of existing
dams depends on factors which are specific and real, such as overtopping, material
damage and deterioration.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
2.4.3 Issues to be addressed
The events of concern in this report are extreme floods and waves and how these might
be affected by climate change. Reservoir safety guidance currently checks design
adequacy against rare events of notional return period (probability). While climate change
scenarios suggest how some of the basic climatic inputs to floods and waves might
change, there is no firm projection of how the probability of particular events in the future
might change. Any detailed risk-based comparison is therefore impossible to present at
this time.
In considering the safety of reservoirs the approach therefore has been to look at the
sensitivity of reservoirs to finite changes in the effect of increased floods and waves i.e.
the sensitivity of dam freeboard to increased total surcharge.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
3. Methodologies
3.1 Introduction
Assessing the possible influence of climate change on extreme flood and flood related
events is at present made very difficult by the limited understanding available of how
climate change may be expected to affect extreme storm characteristics. Guidance given
in the UK Climate Impacts Programme Scientific Report1 (Hulme and Jenkins, 1998) is
mainly restricted to non-quantitative assertions that the mean climate will be
accompanied by changes in frequency of extreme events. Intense daily precipitation
events are suggested to become more frequent; summer gales and winter very severe
gales are both suggested to become a little more frequent. Within neither the UKCIP98
report nor the accompanying CD-ROM is there sufficient information and guidance to
permit the characteristics of future storms to be modelled with much certainty.
The approach followed in this report is therefore to perform a sensitivity analysis upon
the predicted total surcharge levels of a number of representative reservoir spillways to
incremental changes in the design magnitudes of those climatic factors used in the
prediction of total surcharge. Their responsiveness in terms of freeboard adequacy is
then set within the context of our present, albeit incomplete, understanding of climate
change.
3.2 Selection of representative reservoirs
A dam’s design ability to accommodate flood surcharge conditions is dependent on both

the hydro-climatic characteristics of the reservoir\catchment system and on the structural
design of the dam. The hydro-climatic conditions include reservoir and catchment size;
hydrological responsiveness of catchment; and the rainfall, snow and wind (extreme)
characteristics of the catchment. Structural design features include type of spillway, type
of embankment, wave wall design, and reservoir risk category. This dependency on
numerous variables renders the selection of a set of ‘typical’ British reservoirs awkward.
To more clearly understand the population characteristics of British reservoirs the

information held on the BRE Dams Database2 was reviewed. (A graphical summary of
the following pertinent characteristics are found in Appendix C: spillway type; dam type;
dam risk category; reservoir surface area; and age of construction). The BRE information
1
The UK Climate Impacts Programme Technical Report No.1 (Hulme and Jenkins, 1998) presently provides the
most up to date and readily available climate change projections for the UK. The projections for the twenty-first
century draw upon the series of climate modelling experiments performed by the Hadley Centre using their
HadCM2 model.
2
BRE Dams Database – draft version provided by British Research Establishment Ltd.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
was used to help guide the selection of a subset of reservoirs that could be described as
being broadly representative of the general overall population.
The principal criteria used in the final selection process were:
• The targeting of earthfill embankment dams, which are more at risk to changes in
flood rise than concrete or masonry types.
• The targeting of uncontrolled (non-gated) spillway dams, plus the selection of a small
number of bellmouth spillways.
• A bias towards category A high hazard dams.
• The need to select from a range of reservoir sizes. (Although the numbers of small
reservoirs dominate the population (Appendix C), the flood response characteristics
of large reservoirs are different and require investigation. The consequences
associated with a large dam failing are also potentially more far reaching than those
associated with small reservoirs).
• Good geographical coverage so that a reasonable sampling of the broad range of
British hydro-climatic conditions was made, such as sites from both upland and
lowland regions. This also helped to ensure that climate change regional diversity
was also reasonably sampled.
• Reservoirs forming component parts of complex reservoir systems were not
targeted. Such sites were thought more likely to exhibit unique flood characteristics,
raising questions as to how representative the findings from such sites could be.
• Reservoirs with other atypical or complicating features such as significant urban or
artificial drainage areas were not considered.
• The targeting of regions with relatively high reservoir densities.
• The availability of the necessary dam information.
Based upon these criteria, fourteen dams from across England, Wales and Scotland were
selected. Figure 3.1 indicates the regional location of these anonymous case examples,
and Table 3.1 provides a summary of their pertinent design and physical characteristics.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
No. Geographic Category Dam Type Spillway Upland\lowland Reservoir Area* SAAR** (mm)
location
1 Scotland (north) A PMF Gravity/Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Large 1500 - 2000
2 Scotland (east) A PMF Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Medium 1000 - 1500
3 Scotland (west) A PMF Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Small 1500 – 2000
4 Scotland (west) C 1000 year Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Small 1500 – 2000
5 N Eng A PMF Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Large 500 - 1000
6 N Eng A PMF Earthfill Bellmouth Lowland Small 1000 – 1500
7 N Eng A PMF Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Small 1000 – 1500
8 Wales (south) A PMF Rockfill Uncontrolled Upland Medium 1500 - 2000
9 Wales (north) A PMF Earthfill Uncontrolled Upland Small >2000
10 SW Eng A PMF Rockfill Bellmouth Lowland Medium 1000 – 1500
11 SW Eng B 10,000 year Earthfill Uncontrolled Lowland Small 500 - 1000
12 SE Eng A PMF Rockfill Bellmouth Lowland Large 500 - 1000
13 SE Eng A PMF Earthfill Uncontrolled Lowland Medium 500 - 1000
14 SE Eng C 1000 year Earthfill Uncontrolled Lowland Small 500 - 1000
Reservoir area* Small < 1 km2, 1 km2 < Medium < 3 km2, Large > 3 km2
SAAR** – Standard Average Annual Rainfall
Table 3.1 Characteristics of the selected dams and reservoirs

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
It is recognised that the criteria of selecting a site based upon the generic form of the
spillway (ie uncontrolled spillway) perhaps suggests a higher degree of homogeneity than
actually exists. Flood release facilities of dams are usually site specific with seldom any
two structures being identical. Several categories of spillway can be defined but there
remain others which either do not fit conveniently into any category or possess features
of more than one type of spillway category. In addition to the range in spillway shapes,
the period of construction can have an important bearing on the capacity of dam
spillways. For example, many older structures will be of masonry construction with
arched bridges spanning the spillway channel. These bridges can have an important
influence upon crest conditions through submergence effects. In contrast the more
modern structures will either have bridges which do not intrude into the flow or will have
bridges with only slender streamlined piers with minimal influence on flow.
3.3 Sensitivity analysis
Each of the fourteen example reservoirs was subject to flood sensitivity analyses in
which the climatic factors used in the calculation of total surcharge were incrementally
changed. The resulting sensitivity was then placed in the context of the present
understanding of how climate change is likely to affect climatic storm conditions.
3.3.1 Flood surcharge
The sensitivity analysis was based upon the standard procedure for estimating design
total surcharge given in Floods and Reservoir Safety 3rd Ed (ICE, 1996). The procedure for
estimating the flood surcharge component is largely based on the Unit
Hydrograph\Losses rainfall-runoff model originally described in the Flood Studies Report
(NERC, 1975).
The climate factors explicitly required in the flood surcharge modelling procedure are:
• design event rainfall depth

• design event rainfall profile
• standard average annual rainfall (SAAR)
• snow depth and snowmelt rate (where appropriate)
• catchment areal reduction factors
In the sensitivity analysis both the event rainfall depth and SAAR were incrementally
changed. The resulting flood surcharge levels were observed to be about an order of
magnitude more sensitive to changes in event rainfall depth than to equivalent
percentage changes in SAAR. Increases in SAAR of 10% to 20% resulted barely in
significant changes to predicted flood surcharge levels. The analysis was therefore

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
simplified to use only changes in event rainfall depth coupled with a constant increase in
SAAR equal to that of the UKCIP98 Medium-high 2050s scenario. Winter and summer
events were modelled in all cases and the highest levels taken as the design level.
In the sensitivity analysis neither the design event rainfall profile3 nor the snow conditions
were altered since almost no guidance on how these two factors are likely to change in
the future appears to be available.
The modelling used only the methods advocated in ‘Floods and Reservoir Safety’ for the
derivation of input data and parameter values. The revised methods of estimating model
parameters and input data suggested in the ‘Flood Estimation Handbook’ (Houghton-Carr,
1999) were not used. Appendix D describes what the possible implications of using the
Flood Estimation Handbook procedures.
3.3.2 PMP rainfall in context of climate change
It is assumed that the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) rainfall depth can change
with climate. The World Meteorological Organisation definition of PMP is:
“the theoretically greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is physically
possible over a given size storm area at a particular geographical location at a certain time
of year (with no allowance made for long-term climatic trends)” (WMO, 1986).
This definition alludes to the fact that current estimates of PMP assume a stationary
climate. If this assumption is no longer observed (as is fundamentally implied in a climate
change study) then the theoretical “upper bound” to rainfall may be changed and
therefore PMP has been varied in the analysis.
3
In this study it is recognised that compelling evidence exists (Collier and Hardaker, 1996) to suggest that the
FSR symmetrical PMP design rainfall profile may not be particularly suitable for design storms with durations of
between 10 and 24 hours. Collier and Hardaker suggest that asymmetric profiles related to Mesoscale Convective
Systems (MCS) are probably more suitable, particularly in the north of the country. In a personal
communication to the project team Collier suggested that the characteristics of particular very extreme storm
profiles are in fact unlikely to change in the future but that the frequency with which particular storm profiles are
likely to occur is likely to change.
No generalised or industry accepted methodology for the estimation of PMP across the UK using the present
understanding of MCS characteristics has been developed. Although this might represent a valuable
improvement to the estimation of PMFs it is outside the remit of this project.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
3.3.3 Wave surcharge
The wave surcharge analysis advocated in the 3rd Edition of ‘Floods and Reservoir Safety’
was followed for each of the fourteen reservoirs.
The climate factors explicitly required in the wave surcharge modelling procedure which
could more obviously be affected by climate change are:
• Mean annual maximum hourly wind speed.
• The direction adjustment factor (this relates to the direction of present prevailing
extreme winds which in turn is related to storm tracks).
No climate change guidance on how prevailing wind directions may change is available.
Therefore the sensitivity analysis was performed by simply changing incrementally the
existing site specific design wind speeds.
3.3.4 Total surcharge
Total surcharge is calculated by adding the predicted flood and wave surcharges
together. From the sensitivity analyses a matrix of total surcharge was obtained that
provided the predicted total surcharge for any combination of changes to event rainfall
depth and wind speed. The possible changes to total surcharge resulting from projected
future changes in event rainfall depth and extreme wind speeds can then be assessed.
At present these projected changes to storm climate are somewhat speculative.
However, the sensitivity matrices may well remain valuable for the interpretation of
future improved climate change projections.
3.3.5 Summary of methodology
The approach followed was to assess the surcharge sensitivity of example reservoirs to
incremental changes in the climatic factors affecting the design estimation of total
surcharge. Fourteen example reservoirs were selected such that their design, hydro-
climatic and geographical characteristics were reasonably representative of the
characteristics of the overall population of British dams. The surcharge estimation
procedure outlined in the third edition of the Floods and Reservoir Safety guide was
followed. The key climatic attributes incrementally changed were: i) storm rainfall depth
(in the estimation of flood surcharge), and ii) wind speed (in the estimation of wave
surcharge). Other related climatic factors, such as storm profile, snowmelt and wind
direction, were considered but until more is known about the likely effect of climate
change on these it was considered premature to adjust them. The implications of the
resulting site sensitivities could then be framed in terms of the currently available climate
change projections.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
4. Climate Change
4.1 Introduction
This section deals with the issues of climate change scenario construction and the nature
of the scenarios used for this study. The first part is a brief description of the various
methods available for developing climate scenarios, focusing particularly on the issues of
downscaling (creating scenarios at finer time and space scales than currently available
from Global Climate Models). The second part then describes the scenarios used for this
study of reservoir safety, developed from the UKCIP98 CD-ROM.
4.2 Climate change scenarios: uncertainty and construction
With a growing body of evidence suggesting a human-induced influence on global

climate, it is necessary to be able to assess the vulnerability of systems to any
consequent changes in climate. This is one of the primary reasons for construction of
climate change scenarios. Such scenarios present coherent, systematic and internally-
consistent descriptions of a future climate (Hulme and Jenkins, 1998). While it is not
always the case, most climate change scenarios are constructed from the output of
GCMs and are used for sensitivity/vulnerability analyses, impact or adaptation studies.
It is not yet possible to speak in terms of climate change predictions (or forecasts),
largely due to the still significant discrepancy between the climate sensitivities4 of GCMs.
There are other uncertainties associated with climate scenarios:
• the future rates of emission of gases and aerosols responsible for global warming
are unknown;
• the regional patterns within GCMs can be significantly different reflecting both the
way that physical processes are represented and the scale to which they are
modelled
• it is difficult to distinguish between natural climate variability and climate changes
induced by human activity
• incomplete understanding of various feedback processes (for example carbon cycle,
cloud, atmosphere and ocean feedbacks);
• the potential for rapid non-linear change (for example a change in the thermohaline
circulation of the world’s oceans or the break up of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet)
4
For each GCM there is a different response, in terms of the global mean temperature, following a doubling of
carbon dioxide concentrations – this is termed the climate sensitivity.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
There are very many requirements of climate change scenarios depending on the precise
nature of the analysis to be carried out. For some decisions only quite qualitative
scenarios are required whereas for others highly quantitative and complex scenarios are
needed, even with associated probabilities. As well as the nature of the scenarios, the
resolution of scenarios varies. For some applications GCM-scale (3.75° longitude by 2.5°
latitude for the Had CM2 model of the Hadley Centre GCM, as shown in Figure 4.1 over
the UK) are sufficient, but for many, particularly hydrological studies, a finer, catchment-
scale resolution is needed. Equally, some modelling studies require sub-daily or daily
data, whereas others can cope with the monthly changes in climate variables from
GCMs. The following sections outline some of the methods available for constructing
scenarios other than those directly available at the GCM-scale on a monthly time-step.
Broadly, these downscaling methods can be split in four categories (Wilby and Wigley,
1997), although usually no method falls exclusively into just one of these groups. The
fifth group described in this section considers some, fairly limited approaches that do not
directly use GCM output:
(i) Regression and simple statistical methods
These methods were among the first used to provide sub-grid information.
Generally this technique involves developing relationships between finer-scale
(site) parameters and the coarser-scale (GCM) predictor variables. These
relationships can then be used in predictive mode using finer resolution output
from regional climate models to provide the spatial detail. A simpler approach to
producing climate change scenarios at a finer spatial resolution than the GCM
output affords is to use simple interpolation techniques. These techniques use
the single GCM values attributed to the centre of each cell, as the basis for
interpolating a finer mesh of data - no “new” spatial information is provided
through this simple interpolation. The UKCIP 98 scenarios are constructed
following that technique to produce grids at a 10-km resolution (Hulme and
Jenkins, 1998).
(ii) Weather-typing
Typically these methods involve developing relationships to statistically relate

station or local area meteorological information to a given weather classification
scheme, such as Lamb’s Weather Types for the British Isles (Lamb, 1972). The
benefit of this particular method of downscaling is that it is based on sensible,
physical relationships between large-scale climate and more local-scale
weather. Indeed, the dependence of daily (Wilby et al., 1998; Galambosi et al.,
1996) and sub-daily (Svensson et al., 2000) rainfall on indices of large-scale
atmospheric circulation has been demonstrated. However, it is not certain that

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
relationships between climate and weather (and in particular rainfall) will remain
similar under a different climate
(iii) Stochastic weather generators
At the heart of most weather generators are first, or multiple-order Markov

chain processes. These model the probability of precipitation (and sometimes
the depth also) on a given day, based on the information about the previous
day(s). Many climate change impact studies have used such models (Faulkner
et al., 1997; Mearns, et al., 1999; Wilks, 1999) to provide sub-monthly scenarios
of rainfall in particular. The problem with their application, however, is
associated with a lack of knowledge of how to adjust the model parameters in a
physically realistic and internally consistent way to simulate a future climate
(Wilby and Wigley, 1997).
(iv) Regional climate models
This technique for downscaling the output of GCMs involves the use of finer
resolution limited area models, perhaps resolving on to 20-50 km grids. These
regional models are embedded within a limited geographical area of the GCM,
with the GCM being used to set the time-dependent boundary conditions.
Despite some obvious advantages of spatial and temporal scale gained using
regional climate models, they remain computationally demanding and
expensive. Additionally, they are entirely dependent on the quality of the grid-
point GCM data used to drive the models (a deficiency that also applies to the
weather-typing approaches).
(v) Analogue scenarios
An alternative way of understanding the behaviour of extreme events during

abnormally warm periods is to try analogue approaches. These techniques are
not particularly sophisticated and do present a host of problems, which in most
cases (this study included) preclude their use. There follows a brief description
of the techniques and the reasons the methods have not been used in this
analysis.
(a) Temporal analogues – This technique involves the investigation of the

time series at the study location for two periods in the record when
the average temperatures were significantly different. If such periods
are found then the characteristics of the extreme rainfall or wind
speed may be compared to gain an understanding of how these

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
variables behave during periods of relative warmth or cold. The main

issue with this approach is usually the length of record, especially
when studying extremes. Time series of extreme rainfall or wind
speed will be rarely long enough to allow two significantly long (30
years would be ideal) periods with different average temperatures to
be located. This is the case for the current study and meant the
temporal analogue method of scenario construction could not be
used.
(b) Spatial analogues – The method has greater potential for application,
but it is the view of the research team that it presents too many
problems and uncertainties to allow its use. Rather than searching the
site records for two periods with different temperatures, an
alternative, “similar” site is chosen that experiences a climate with a
higher average temperature. This means that the issues of record
length are not so great compared to the temporal analogue, but the
geographical differences between the sites create an array of new
problems. No matter which site is chosen there will always be
fundamental differences in the way extreme events are generated
over the two areas. This means that the climate and associated
weather of the “warm site” will never be re-created at the “cold site”
in a future warmer world. These issues are discussed in more detail,
and an example shown in Reynard et al (1998).
4.3 Climate change scenarios for this project
The objectives of this project make the application of standard climate change scenarios
particularly difficult. An investigation of the implications of climate change for reservoir
safety in Britain necessarily requires scenarios of changes in the frequency and
magnitude of the most extreme weather events. This type of climate scenario
information is not routinely available from the traditional sources such as the output of
Global Climate Models (GCMs).
Given the particular problems posed by the study and the current state-of-the-art of
climate change scenario construction techniques, this project took a slightly different
approach. A sensitivity analysis was carried out for each of the study catchments
whereby the rainfall and wind speed values were systematically changed to assess the
sensitivity of the water levels of each reservoir to changes in climate. These changes in
climate were then framed in terms of the information that was available for changes in
rainfall and wind speed in the UK from the UKCIP98 scenarios. In this way it was
possible to see which of the matrix of changes in water level might (tentatively) be

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
considered more, or less, likely.
The core set of climate change scenarios used were those from the UKCIP98 CD-ROM
produced for the UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) by the Climatic Research Unit,
University of East Anglia (Hulme and Jenkins, 1998). The Technical report for these
scenarios was published in October 1998. All the UKCIP98 scenarios (essentially four)
were derived from the output of the GCM developed at the Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction. The range of these four scenarios reflects the uncertainties in modelling the
global climate in the next century. The various assumptions behind the four UKCIP98
scenarios are briefly described in Table 4.1.
Scenario Greenhouse gas Climate sensitivity Global mean temperature

emission scenario change (∆TºC)
2020 2050s 2080s
Low IS92d 1.5ºC 0.57 0.89 1.13

Medium-low GGd (0.5%pa) 2.5ºC 0.98 1.52 1.94
Medium-high Gga (1%pa) 2.5ºC 1.24 2.11 3.11
High IS92a 4.5ºC 1.38 2.44 3.47
Table 4.1 Summary of assumptions behind the four UKCIP98 scenarios
The IS92a and IS92d emission scenarios are those described by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1996). The GGa and GGd notation relates to two levels
of greenhouse gas emissions used in the HadCM2 experiments. The GGa forcing is an
increase of 1% per annum in the CO2 equivalent5 concentrations from 1990 to 2100. The
GGd forcing is equivalent to a 0.5% per annum increase.
The sensitivity analyses carried out in this project was concerned with three issues
relating to these climate scenarios: changes in extreme rainfall, changes in maximum
annual wind speed and joint changes in both rainfall and wind speed. The following
sections describe the type of information that is available from the UKCIP98 scenarios for
each of these.
5
CO2 equivalent refers to the fact that HadCM2 does not handle the various GHGs individually. It uses a CO2
concentration that is equivalent to the sum of all GHGs. The HadCM3 model can handle the individual GHGs.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
(i) Rainfall
The changes in rainfall that are described are all in percentage terms. These
represent changes from a 30-year baseline period - 1961-1990. Figure 4.2a
shows the annual average rainfall (in mm) on a 10km grid over Britain for this
baseline period.
The changes to this baseline by the 2050s (under the medium-high scenario)
are shown in Figure 4.2b. Annually, rainfall increases across the UK with the
greatest changes (more than 10%) in eastern Scotland, Northern Ireland and
the Midlands. The smallest increases are in the south and parts of Wales.
However, these average annual changes mask the more complex pattern of
monthly changes. Figure 4.3a-d show the changes in average monthly
precipitation for January, April, July and October (used to represent the
seasons), again for the 2050s (medium-high scenario). The temperature
scenarios suggest a warming throughout the year, although the increases in
temperature are slightly higher in the winter than the summer. This means that
the coupling of the rainfall and temperature scenarios suggests milder, wetter
winters and warmer, drier summers.
The scenarios presented in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 only describe changes in the
long-term average rainfall. There is less information available concerning
changes in extreme rainfall. The UKCIP98 technical report (Hulme and Jenkins,
1998) suggests that average precipitation intensities increase in both summer
and winter for northern parts of the UK, with the most intense events several
times more frequent than at present. For the south, rainfall intensities and their
frequency increase only in the winter. In the summer, because of the decrease
in average rainfall, there will be fewer intense events, although the proportion
of the summer rain that falls during storm events may increase. However, only
qualitative information is available. Quantitative scenarios relative to changes in
extremes are not yet adequately modelled by GCM.
It is important to assess the climate change scenarios in the context of current

and future climate variability. The current range of natural variability, particularly
for rainfall, means that it is often difficult to detect the signal due to climate
change from the noise due to the variability.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
This is especially true when looking at climate impacts for time-horizons close
to the present, even when ensemble6 prediction techniques are used. It is also
possible that the impact due to a change in average climate, either for the
climate variable (e.g. rainfall) or the impact indicator (e.g. water level in the
reservoir) does not produce a trend in the time series that shifts the record
beyond the range of current natural variability.
The scenarios provided by the GCMs are not yet accurate enough to give
information on changes in the storm profile and in the design duration, mainly
because of the difficulty to model rainfall at fine time scale. However, changes
in design depth are reflected by the changes in average precipitation intensities
and considered representative of the changes in the design rainfall.
(ii) Wind speed
Some wind speed data are available from the UKCIP98 CD but the mean
maximum daily wind speeds are only available for the baseline period. This
means that for this study the average wind speed changes were used, as with
the precipitation changes. The average daily wind speed, in ms-1, for the 1961-
1990 period is shown in Figure 4.4a, with the annually averaged percentage
change shown in Figure 4.4b.
The wind speed changes are smaller, in percentage terms, than the rainfall
changes, ranging from small decreases (1%) in the south, to slight increases
(1%) in the north. Like rainfall, these annual average changes mask a seasonal
pattern. Figures 4.5 a)-d) show the monthly changes in wind speed for January,
April, July and October. The autumn and winter tend to become windier, while
the spring and summer become less so.
Changes in the average wind speed only provide very limited information for a
study such as this. There is only very limited quantitative information about
changes in extreme daily wind speeds. The frequency of winter and summer
gales is likely to change, depending on the severity of the gale and the time
period selected. Table 4.2 contains these data for the UK from the UKCIP98
report. The high degree of variability in the changes illustrates the difficulty in
developing scenarios for changes in the frequency and magnitude of extreme
events and the problems of detecting a climate change signal in a series with a
6
Ensembles: The model predictions of climate change could depend upon the choice of point on the control run
at which the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are introduced. For this reason in the UKCIP98 scenarios
four identical model experiments, with the same historical changes and future changes in greenhouse gases, are
initiated from four different points on the control run, this is known as an ensemble of predictions.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
great deal of inherent natural variability.
Present 2020s 2050s 2080s

(gales/year) (% change) (% change) (% change)
Gales 10.9 -1 -9 -5
Winter Severe gales 8.5 -1 -10 -5
Very severe gales 1.4 +8 -10 +11
Gales 1.8 +3 0 +14
Summer Severe gales 1.1 0 +2 +15
Very severe gales 0.1 +25 -16 +9
Table 4.2. Changes in the frequency of summer and winter gales under the
medium-high scenario (The present number of gales was determined from the
GCM output for the 1961-1990 period, not from the historical record).
For any of the reservoirs in this study there are likely to be local factors that further
enhance, or even dampen the effect of these scenarios. Local topography might serve to
channel the wind in certain way, so as to exaggerate the changes in the gales
frequencies listed above. Equally, a change in the wind regime of the catchment might
involve a change in the average orientation of storms, which could have either a
beneficial, or a detrimental effect on the vulnerability of the reservoir to extreme events.
(iii) Joint changes in rainfall and windspeed
This section describes how rainfall and wind speed might change jointly. This
leads on to how the climate change envelopes have been derived to provide a
guide for sensitivity analyses.
Figure 4.6 plots the change in average rainfall against the change in average
wind speed for all available scenarios for one of the reservoirs for the 2050s7.
These include the data for each month, season and relative to the whole year
for the low, medium-low, medium-high and high sensitivity scenarios from
UKCIP98. The rectangle that is described by the points defines the climate
change envelop..
The reservoir sensitivity analysis requires information on winter (as defined in

the FSR as the 6-month period November to April) and summer (6-month
7
Only the time horizon 2050s is studied here. Time horizons closer to present (e.g. the 2020s) are usually
considered with caution because of the difficulty to detect the climate change signal from the natural climate
variability. Time horizons further away (e.g. the 2080s) may be less certain if the international community
conforms to agreements such as those decided in Kyoto to reduce gas emissions.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
period May to October) changes. Similar rectangles of seasonal climate change

can be drawn and are used to define the seasonal climatic change envelopes
(see Appendix E). The use of all four scenarios from the range of sensitivities
(low to high) means that the most extreme average monthly changes are
always included. This climate scenario surface is not intended to define the
sensitivity analyses, rather it should be used to frame the findings of the
analyses within the range of changes described by the UKCIP98.
It must be stressed that none of the scenarios have been defined in terms of
either the change in maximum daily rainfall or maximum wind speed. These
data are not currently available. Instead, the scenarios have been developed
from the available data on changes in the average rainfall and wind speed. It is
recognised that this is a compromise, but an unavoidable one.
As described in section 4.2, several methods of downscaling climate change

scenarios from GCMs to finer time and spatial scales are currently used in the
scientific community, some of them having a high degree of complexity. The
use of the UKCIP98 scenarios, including simple downscaling procedures, was
one of the requirements of the study, and no additional downscaling was
considered here. This is a deliberately simple approach, which has the
advantage not to add any further uncertainty to those inherent to GCMs as
opposed to more complex downscaling techniques.
A summary, including similar figures to that of Figure 4.6, for each of the 14
sites is attached at Appendix E.
The use of the entire rectangle described by the UKCIP98 scenarios (the area
defined by the dashed box in Figure 4.6) to describe the climate change
envelope, rather than just a few of the extreme points, is an attempt to include
a factor for some of the additional uncertainties. For example, as already
discussed, the scenarios do not describe changes in the extremes themselves
and the project has not allowed for the development of scenarios that include
changes to the design storm profile as well as the depth.
The rectangle described in Figure 4.6 encloses all the UKCIP98 points, but also
allows for some more extreme scenarios. For example, the most extreme
positive changes, as defined by the UKCIP98 CD-ROM are:
(a) 9.2% increase in rainfall, coupled with a 0.9% increase in

wind speed – UKCIP98 High scenario.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
(b) a 4.6% increase in rainfall, but a 1.9% increase in wind speed -

UKCIP89 Medium-high scenario.
(c) The use of the box allows for a more extreme scenario to be
defined; a 9.2 % increase in rainfall coupled with a 1.9%
increase in wind speed.
(iv) Additional uncertainties
A warmer world will obviously have impact on snow accumulation and melt
rates. It is unclear, however, exactly which way these changes will go and how
they will interact. One might expect the influence of snowmelt events to
decrease in a warmer climate, but with increased winter precipitation the far
north and higher altitudes might actually experience more snowfall, at least for
the early part of the 21st Century. However with higher average temperatures it
is likely that snow will not lie for as long as at present, reducing the potential for
snow pack development. Future warmer conditions may also be more
conducive to rapid melts Any scenarios of snow fall and consequent snow melt
are still difficult to construct and therefore the impact of a change in the snow
regime on extreme events as they affect reservoir safety, must remain one of
the uncertainties.
4.4 Summary
This report makes use of scenarios specially designed by the UK Climate Impact
Programme (UKCIP98) for impact studies in the UK. A core set of scenarios representing
predictions under four different emission scenarios is used, reflecting the uncertainty
inherent to GCM outputs.
Assessing the impact of climate change on the safety of British reservoirs requires
knowing how rainfall and wind speed may change in the future. Information on changes
in the magnitude and frequency of the most extreme events, the design storm profiles,
gale events or on snow melt are not available from GCM at present. Thus, the study
focuses on changes in average daily intensity rainfall and in mean daily wind speed.
Changes to the baseline (1961-1990) by the 2050s indicate increase in annual rainfall
across the UK, with the greatest changes (more than 10 %) in eastern Scotland, Northern
Ireland and the Midlands. Monthly changes in both rainfall and temperature suggest
milder, wetter winters and warmer, drier summers. Wind speed changes are smaller, in
percentage terms, than the rainfall changes, ranging from small decreases (1 %) in the
south to slight increases (1 %) in the north, with the autumn and winter becoming
windier, while the spring and summer become less so. When considered together, those

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
changes define a “climate change surface” providing a guide for the sensitivity analysis,
and also allow for some more extreme scenarios to be considered, such as joint
occurrence of the most extreme changes in both rainfall and wind speed.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
5. Presentation of Sensitivity Results
5.1 Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis based solely upon changes to design rainfall depths does not, in
itself, tie the analysis to any particular time horizon. However, in an attempt to account
for the influence of changes in general wetness, the 2050s Medium-high projected
average annual rainfall was used in the model (Table 5.1). The analysis can therefore be
considered to be most appropriate for the 2050s time horizon, although of relevance to
other time horizons since the predictions are relatively insensitive to the potential
changes in average annual rainfall.
Reservoir site Location Medium-high projected* % change in

reference no. average annual rainfall by the 2050s
1 Scotland 4
2 Scotland 6
3 Scotland 4
4 Scotland 5
5 N. England 3
6 N. England 2
7 N. England 2
8 Wales 2
9 Wales 1
10 SW England 2
11 SW England 2
12 SE England 0
13 SE England 1
14 SE England 1
* Based upon the 10 km grid data provided on the UKCIP 98 CD-ROM
Table 5.1 Projected change in average annual rainfall by the 2050s for each of the
14 example sites. (Based on the Medium-high scenario)
The results of the sensitivity analysis, in which both event rainfall depth and wind speed
were incrementally changed, are given graphically in full in Appendix F. Each reservoir
has two graphs associated with it – one for the winter design conditions and one for the
summer conditions. These graphs allow the limits of the climate change scenario to be
compared with the equivalent %age increase in total surcharge. This is specific to a
reservoir of the size and type represented in that chart for the broad climatic region of the

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
UK to which it is assigned. The X and Y axes mark the percentage changes in storm
rainfall depth and wind speed used in the sensitivity analysis. The numerical spot values
are the estimated total surcharge levels for each combination of rainfall and wind speed
change on a 5% grid. The origin therefore represents the predicted surcharge level
without any imposed change to the design values of either the storm rainfall or wind
speed8. The diagonal lines represent constant levels of percentage increase in total
surcharge level. These have been drawn on in accordance with the background spot
levels of predicted total surcharge. The shaded rectangle represents the seasonal climate
change surface (as defined in Chapter 4).
In all 14 example cases the wave surcharge did not exceed 50 percent of the total
surcharge therefore in accordance with FRS it was not necessary to consider a calculated
wave surcharge resulting from a < 200 year wind speed in any of the cases.
Table 5.2 summarises the largest projected changes to seasonal total surcharge implied
by the climate change envelopes for the 2050s medium-high scenario for the fourteen
reservoirs studied.
Reservoir site Location Maximum % change in total surcharge

reference no. Winter Summer
1 Scotland 7 8
2 Scotland 11 10
3 Scotland 9 7
4 Scotland 7 7
5 N. England 9 8
6 N. England 9 7
7 N. England 8 6
8 Wales 7 5
9 Wales 4 3
10 SW England 7 4
11 SW England 7 5
12 SE England 9 6
13 SE England 9 8
14 SE England 8 8
Table 5.2 Maximum projected percentage change in total surcharge
8
Within the calculations the 2050s projected increase in SAAR has been used. This tends to marginally change
the predicted total surcharge level from the value calculated for the present day situation. Therefore although the
origin value is not strictly the present day design surcharge level, it will be relatively close to it.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
As can be seen the maxima indicated rarely exceed 9% and on average are 6.5%
summer and 7.9% winter. The envelopes shown on the sensitivity charts in Appendix F
however give a better impression of the overall impact of the range of climate change
scenarios for each site.
5.2 Discussion
The FSR rainfall-runoff model was designed and calibrated to simulate present day9
design conditions. The model was not developed with the intent to be able to
accommodate a changing climate. Its use on climatic data that is increasingly removed
from the data set to which it was calibrated will progressively increase the uncertainties
of the output. However if the changes are relatively small and within the range of the
calibration dataset the model will probably reasonably capture the likely response of the
system. The 5% to 15% changes in wind and rainfall that seem to be of most relevance
in this study, are thought to fall within this category.
The suitability of using the projected changes in average annual rainfall within the
seasonal assessments is perhaps more questionable since the climate change
projections suggest marked differences in seasonal rainfalls. However the model
suggests that the systems are an order of magnitude less sensitive to these indices of
wetness than to equivalent changes in storm rainfall depth. The solution of only using the
projected Medium-high change in SAAR was possibly not ideal, but given the predicted
relative sensitivities and the large uncertainties inherent in the climate change
projections, this was not judged to be inappropriate.
For the purpose of trying to ascertain whether the impact of climate change could pose a
significant risk to reservoirs the potential consequences of the worse case combinations
of storm rainfall depth and wind speed are highlighted in Table 5.2. This in some respects
is somewhat misleading but does, within the bounds of the methodology followed,
provide a provisional upper level. Too much reliance upon the detail of the seasonal
climate change envelopes should not be inferred. Rather they should be viewed as
providing an indicative idea of the conceivable magnitudes of change, based upon the
incomplete level of information currently available. As highlighted in Chapter 4 the
scenarios of climate change currently available do not indicate how short-duration rainfall
extremes might be modified in a changed climate. Until a better understanding is
established the changes in average monthly intensity are used as a surrogate, albeit a
somewhat imperfect one.
9
The original FSR model was developed during the 1970s and elements of the model have subsequently been
reviewed. Present day is therefore used here to broadly represent the second half of the twentieth century.
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Although the climate change envelopes are provisional and need improving, the
underlining sensitivities of the reservoir systems to changes in storm rainfall depths and
wind speeds are likely to remain useful for future assessments. However, if the
characteristics of storm profiles are believed to be significantly changed in the future (or
indeed if the present profiles are superseded by significantly different ones (Collier &
Hardaker,1996), a review of the sensitivity analysis would be required. At the moment, it
would appear possible only to make a simple allowance for potential climate change by
adjusting design rainfall depths. In safety evaluations overseen by the Nuclear
Installations Inspectorate, some assessments look at the sensitivity of the final answer
(e.g. the water level adjacent to a critical installation) to a nominal (e.g. 10%) change in
the design rainfall depth. Until more is known about the likely effect of climate change
on spatial and temporal profiles of extreme rainfall events, it appears premature to adjust
the standard temporal profiles and area reduction factors used in reservoir flood
estimations.
5.3 Summary
In the absence of guidance on how storm event characteristics are likely to be affected
by climate change the projected changes in average monthly intensities are used as
provisional surrogates. For the purpose of trying to ascertain whether the impact of
climate change could pose a significant risk to reservoirs the potential consequences of
the worst case combinations of storm rainfall depth and wind speed are highlighted for
the 2050s time horizon. For the fourteen reservoirs studied these worse case
combinations suggest that winter event rainfall may increase within the range 7 - 23%
and winter wind may increase by 1 – 4%. Similarly summer rainfall may increase by 5 –
16% and summer wind speeds by 2-5%. In the context of the total surcharge sensitivity
analysis, the worse case changes in winter surcharge are suggested to be in the range of
4 – 11%, and summer values in a similar range of 3 – 10%. No obvious regional pattern
in terms of changes in total surcharge are observed.
Too much reliance upon the detail of the seasonal climate change envelopes, which
describe the range of potential changes, should not be inferred. The envelopes should
only be viewed as providing, at best, an indicative idea of the conceivable magnitudes of
change that may occur. The projected worse case changes in surcharge must therefore
be treated as provisional.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
The key issue is whether reservoir safety would be seriously compromised by surcharge
sensitivities such as those indicated here. Certainly the impacts are not great in
percentage terms particularly when viewed against the uncertainty involved in the
selection of input parameters for flood work in general. The associated conservatism of
approach in matters of surcharge calculation and freeboard allowance also suggests that
the sensitivity of the scale indicated is not great. However, only inspecting engineers for
specific reservoirs should interpret these findings against the prevailing circumstances.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
6. The Impact of Increased Flood Rise and Wave Run-up on UK Stock of Reservoirs
6.1 Preamble
Having determined the theoretical response of the selection of representative reservoirs

to incremental changes in rainfall and winds in terms of increased total surcharge, and
related that to climate change scenarios, it is necessary to discuss the impact that this
may have on the general stock of UK dams. Most reservoirs show approximately a +5%
sensitivity to the worst case prediction of storm depth and windspeed changes for the
2050 time horizon.
6.2 Total Surcharge Results from Representative Reservoirs
Total surcharge was found to be in the range 1 metre to 4 metres from 12 of the
representative reservoirs selected with two extremely large reservoirs giving total
surcharge of over 5 metres. A five percent change in total surcharge represents an
increase of between 0.05 metre and 0.27 metre in the combined wave and flood
surcharge for the representative dams.
6.3 UK Stock of Reservoirs
6.3.1 Dams
There are approximately 5000 dams of varying size in the UK with around 2600 of these
whose reservoirs are of sufficient storage capacity to fall under the legislation of the
Reservoirs Act 1975 which covers all reservoirs which hold more than 25,000m3.
The majority of the dams in the UK are embankment structures with some 2000 coming
within the ambit of the Act and they fulfil the purpose mainly of providing stable water
supplies but also hydro-electric power and more recently recreational facilities for a
modern social environment. Of these 2000 dams, some 1500 are over fifty years old and
of these more than 1000 are centenarians. Those falling within the ambit of the
Reservoirs Act 1975 are all inspected at least every ten years and are under the regular
supervision of a qualified engineer between inspections. These arrangements are
recognised to be effective in maintaining dam safety.
Large dams comprise about 570 number out of the 2000 embankment stock. Large
dams are defined as dams which retain water to a height greater than fifteen metres
above the lowest point of the foundations of the structure or above the average level of
the surrounding land or ten metres if noteworthy in some other way (ICOLD, 1983).

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
The distribution of dam numbers whose reservoirs are of sufficient capacity to be under
the Act are summarised in Table 6.1.
Embankment Dams and Reservoirs under the Act

Total Number Dams over 50 years Dams over 100 years Large Dams
2000 approx. Some 1500 > 1000 About 570
Table 6.1 - Embankment Dams
6.4 Embankment Dams and Flood and Reservoir Safety
External erosion has been recorded as the main cause of embankment dam incidents in
only 24 percent of the total incidents where earth embankments are concerned (Charles
and Boden, 1985). Whereas over 50 percent of the earth embankment incidents
recorded (Charles and Boden, 1985) in the UK have involved some form of internal
erosion. External erosion refers to events where the dam crest has been overtopped as
a result of floods of extreme return period plus waves running up the upstream face of
the dam, and the resulting overtopping discharge eroding the downstream slope of the
structure.
In terms of the knowledge of dam performance, UK reservoirs can be defined as falling

within the following boundaries:
(a) Large reservoirs with normally large dam structures mainly under the control of major
organisations and probably well-maintained to current standards
(b) Small reservoirs with normally small dam structures in private ownership and
possibly marginally maintained to current standards.
Many dams of all types are marginal in terms of freeboard. Sometimes this is a function
of limited spillway capacity and sometimes the effects of settlement on the crest.
Spillways – the type and configuration of spillway has a major impact on flood rise
but is also sensitive to the selection of hydraulic discharge parameters
in the calculation of this value.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Crest details – all conventional embankment crests are sensitive to increased

surcharge unless they currently have a greater than required freeboard
for the appropriate standard (probably for reasons other than surcharge
provision) in this respect. Parapets and wavewalls can, in some
circumstances, provide greater tolerance to percentage increases in
surcharge.
6.5 Dam Crest Features
Within the broad group of embankment dams crest features have an influence on dam
freeboard. The three most common examples of crest treatments are dams with wave
walls, those with parapet walls and those with conventional crests. Wave walls normally
comprise solid retaining structures and the main design parameters could include wave
forces, run-up levels, overtopping discharges and reflection performance. Parapet walls
on the other hand are used to protect vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the dam, or to
compensate for long-term settlement. They are not normally designed against wave
forces and run-up. A conventional crest design is where there is no wall and the top of
the embankment relates to maximum freeboard level
From experience of estimating flood rise and wave surcharge in reservoir flood studies,
for large dams, flood rise and wave surcharge would both typically exceed 1 metre giving
a total surcharge on average in excess of 2m. Small dams offer typical values of 0.5m
flood rise, with a similar order of magnitude for wave surcharge, making the total
surcharge just over 1m. These generalisations compare closely with the actual findings
from 12 of the 14 representative reservoirs.
6.6 Weightings and Classifications of Embankment Dams Sensitivity with Respect to 5

percent Changes to Combined Surcharge.
Having examined the sensitivity of the sample of representative reservoirs, some work
was carried out to check for any commonality of trends that could be attributed to one or
more of the general characteristics of a reservoir.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
A matrix was created consisting of eight groups with two differentiating between large
dams and small dams and a further sub- group of three considering the crest features.
Sensitivity weightings based on type of crest and susceptibility to overtopping external
erosion were attached to each group and sub-group to determine a total weighting. This
proved to be subjective and inconclusive and accordingly it is not believed to be realistic
to form firm opinions on the basis of the limited sample size used in this study.
6.7 Number of Dams
Large dams comprise about 28% of all embankment dams within the ambit of the
Reservoirs Act, and of these only about 10% will have a conventional crest. Thus in
terms of numbers the dams most sensitive to a 5% increase in total surcharge (i.e. large
dams with conventional crests) number probably less than 50.
6.8 Hazard Control
6.8.1 Dam Categories
The four recommended classes of dams and reservoirs and their associated design
standards are listed in Table 1 of FRS.
The UK approach to high hazard dam safety is based on the concept of the elimination of
the possibility of failure of a dam resulting from flood (and wave) surcharge where there
is a risk to life. Dam engineering is therefore virtually unique in the areas of engineered
structures which aims (for Category A dams) at the total elimination of specific flood risk.
The other dam categories however will have a more definite probability of failure.
6.8.2 Reservoirs Act 1975
The Reservoirs Act 1975 provides for monitoring of every reservoir by Supervising Panel
engineers. In their inspection reports, Inspecting engineers are required to bring to the
attention of the Supervising Engineer any aspects which should be watched over the
period prior to next inspection. One such area could be in reviewing any evidence of
climate change at the site, which might affect the safety of the structure. No change
would be required to legislation to allow this to be done, but it could be highlighted as an
issue in, say, the 2nd edition of the Guide to the Reservoirs Act, when published.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
6.9 State of the Art
6.9.1 Safety Design Standards
No standards are published for the UK but the 3rd edition of the Floods and Reservoir
Safety (FRS) guidance document is used as the de facto standard for assessing
freeboard, although Inspecting Engineers have discretion over the precise application of
the guidance.
6.9.2 Research Programmes and Innovation
The impact of research and innovations within the reservoir industry may have a wide
ranging effect on the results of any climate change predictions over the next 50 years or
so. Risk situations may be introduced which have little historical precedence but on the
other hand there may be less onerous conditions recommended through other published
guidance. Some of these points are illustrated below as a means of demonstrating that
climate change is only one aspect that needs to be considered in future reservoir safety
programmes:
• Snowmelt - Although the UK has few experiences of purely snowmelt floods , melting
snow has often combined with heavy rainfall to produce flooding, such as in the south of
England in 1947. The FSR 100 year melt rate of 42mm/day has provoked much debate.
A physically derived maximum snowmelt was not defined, but 42mm/day was felt to be
suitable for design purposes. The map (Fig.2) in FRS guide indicates hatched areas where
higher rates of snowmelt may be expected but future research may quantify higher (or
lower) snowmelt rates and increase (or decrease) significantly the snowmelt contribution
to large winter floods in the UK.
• The publication of FEH may have severe implications on spillway design standards as
extreme event rainfalls estimated using FEH may exceed the current FSR estimates by a
considerable margin.
• Other research programmes as listed in Appendix 2 of the FRS guide will yield further
results of relevance to the estimation of design floods.
• The working party on FRS (1978) recommended that after ten years experience had been
gained by panel engineers in using the guide, its contents should be reviewed and, if
deemed necessary, it should be revised. No such preface is included in the current Third
Edition. However, DEFRA are now looking at the concept of an integrated reservoir safety
approach which will consider risk and frequency of occurrence for all factors affecting
dam safety e.g. floods, internal erosion, stability, seismic safety etc.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
6.10 Spillway Capacity and Associated Structures
A finding that a spillway will not (safely) pass the flood indicated in the recommended
standards does not necessarily mean that the dam should be classified as unsafe.
The capacity of a spillway is a function of not only the spillway size, shape, dimensions
etc. but also can be influenced by downstream conditions. This is particularly true of
embankment dams. The degree of inadequacy of the spillway to pass the appropriate
flood and the probable adverse impacts (of dam failure) resulting from overtopping must
be considered as an issue
However, in addition to the spillway, water may be released from a reservoir through a
range of outflow facilities. Regulation of the water level by operational measures (eg an
operating requirement to reserve 10% of capacity for the winter periods) may bring
modest benefit to the risk management regime and in certain circumstances will be one
option to be considered to minimise costs in additional overflow works provision.
6.11 Overtopping
Wave overtopping can cause structural damage to embankments resulting in hazardous

conditions on top of the dam. The crest height should ensure that wave overtopping of
the dam is kept to acceptable levels. Guidelines for safe overtopping discharges are
given in the CIRIA/CUR Rock Manual (1991). Figure 10.1 in the Manual gives safe
thresholds of overtopping based on different access requirements and uses.
Overtopping discharge occurs as a result of waves running up the upstream face of a
dam.
If wave run-up levels are high enough water can reach and pass over the crest and this
defines the green water overtopping case. This study has assumed an infinite freeboard
condition for the selected (synthetic) dams. There are some cases where an assessment
of the effective contribution of a wave wall to freeboard may curtail the wave surcharge.
A second form of overtopping occurs when waves break on the upstream face of the
dam and produce significant volumes of spume. These water droplets can then be
carried over the crest under their own momentum as a result of wind. Another less
important method of overtopping is in the form of spray generated by the action of
strong wind on the wave crests but except in strong winds blowing onto the dam this
spray will not contribute to any overtopping volume. Spray and spray volumes are not
included in the surcharge results presented in this report.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
7. Risk Assessment
7.1 Criteria
As expected from the fourteen reservoirs selected, no two dams are identical and few of
the 14 are even similar, thus it is not possible to build up multiple statistics. A more
useful and realistic measure of the potential existence of damage scenarios is the
examination of the sensitive parameters of location, category, size, spillway type, run-up
factors and age. Table 7.1 lists the reservoir criteria and the associated predicted changes
in the total surcharge for the time horizon 2050 for each dam. The maximum, minimum
and mean values for the predicted total surcharge in the 2050s were obtained from the
interception of the total surcharge lines with the extreme right, left and centre points of
the rectangle bounding the UKCIP98 scenarios (See Figures 7.1a,b&c).
7.2 Risk Assessment Framework
7.2.1 Surcharge Predictions
Having established the maximum, minimum and mean predicted changes in total
surcharge for winter and summer PMFs (or other relevant design flood inflow) it is
possible to assess the winter versus summer values as a composite envelope for each
site.
Figure 7.1a shows a plot of maximum predicted percentage change in total surcharge for
winter against summer floods. The envelope of points is skewed at 45 degrees
indicating similar values for predicted total surcharge for winter and summer floods. It is
suggested that the risk span ranges three arbitrary zones of low, medium and high with
two Welsh reservoirs at low risk and one Scottish at the high end of the spectrum, all
others being of medium risk. On the other hand, using the minimum percentage
prediction for total surcharge, Figure 7.1b, the gradient of the envelope is vertical and the
risk is insignificant for this scenario. The mean of the percentage change in predictions
for total surcharge shows a steep slope for the envelope indicating that the
Y.axis (summer PMF % change in total surcharge) exhibits a larger range, Figure 7.1c.
In all three figures, Scottish reservoirs always appear at the high end of the spectrum
associated with greater risk and south east England and/or Wales at the lower end, and
associated with lesser risk.

% Change in Total Surcharge (2050)
Reference Spillway Run-up Maximum Minimum Mean Value
No. Location Category Size Type Factor Winter PMF Summer PMF Winter PMF Summer PMF Winter PMF Summer PMF
1 Scotland A L U 1.44 7 8 -4 -1 1.5 3
2 Scotland A M U 1.95 11 10 -4 -2 3 3.5
3 Scotland A S U 1.55 9 7 -2.5 -1 3.5 3
4 Scotland C* S U 1.66 7 7 -2 0.5 3 4
5 N.England A L U 1.54 9 8 -2 -3 3 3
6 N.England A S B 1.34 9 7 -2 -7 3.5 -0.5
7 N.England A S U 1.33 8 6 -2 -7 3.5 -0.5
8 Wales A M U 1.34 7 5 -1.5 -9.5 3 -2.5
9 Wales A S U 1.55 4 3 -1.5 -4.5 1 -1
10 SW.England A M B 2.1 7 4 -2 -3 2.5 -1.5
11 SW.England B# S U 1.55 8 5 -3 -8.5 3 -2
12 SE.England A L B 1.7 7 6 -3 -14.5 2 -4
13 SE.England A M U 1.05 9 7.5 -1.5 -18.5 4.5 -5
14 SE.England C* S U 1.55 7.5 8 -2.5 -2 3 -2
Table 7.1 - Reservoir criteria and % change in Total Surcharge for the 2050s
Notes * denotes 1 in 10,000 Yr Flood

Size - L - Large ( greater than 3km2) # denotes 1 in 1000 Yr Flood
M - Medium (1 to 3km2)
S - Small (less than 1km2)
Spillway - U - Controlled
Type - B - Bellmouth
Run-up factor (Fig 6 - FRS)
G:\GL\2944\N\ETBC\Jobs\Sec\C200\Final Report\Table 7.1

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
7.2.2 Risk Identification for maximum predicted % change in total surcharge for the
2050s.
Table 7.2 lists the assessment parameters for consideration of the significance of risk
due to the percentage change in total surcharge.
Relationships were sought between the maximum percentage predictions of the total
surcharge for the 2050s and geographic/climatic area, dam category, reservoir size,
spillway type, wave run-up factor and age of dam. The procedure was relatively
subjective due to the process of selection and evaluation of the characteristics and no
apparent relationships were demonstrated. The relationships are included in Appendix G
under figures 1 to 5 inclusive.
This lack of relationship between parameters is likely to be a function of sample size,

complexity of the inter-actions, limited variability and the engineering judgement
involved.
7.3 Summary
Changes in total surcharges help to define an assessment of the risk in the safety of the
reservoirs. The figures and tables summarise much of the findings. In respect of the
maximum, mean and minimum values for predicted total surcharge in 2050s, Scottish
reservoirs always existed at the higher end of the spectra and south-east England and/or
Wales at the lowest end.
No meaningful relationships were found between the maximum predicted percentage

change in total surcharge (worst case chosen) for the 2050s and geographic/climatic
area, dam category and age, reservoir size, spillway type and run-up factor due to
limitations of the procedures.

Reference Maximum % change in
Total Surcharge Spillway R.U.
No. Location Winter Summer Category Size Type Factor Age
1 Scotland 7 8 3 3 2 1.44 3
1 Scotland 11 10 3 2 2 1.95 3
1 Scotland 9 7 3 1 2 1.55 2
1 Scotland 7 7 1 1 2 1.66 1
2 N.England 9 8 3 3 2 1.54 3
2 N.England 9 7 3 1 1 1.34 3
2 N.England 8 6 3 1 2 1.33 2
3 Wales 7 5 3 2 2 1.34 3
3 Wales 4 3 3 1 2 1.55 1
4 SW.England 7 4 3 2 1 2.1 3
4 SW.England 7 5 2 3 2 1.55 1
5 SE.England 9 6 3 1 1 1.7 3
5 SE.England 9 7.5 3 2 2 1.05 3
5 SE.England 7.5 8 1 1 2 1.55 1
Category : 3 - Dam Category A Spillway : 2 - Uncontrolled spillway

2 - Dam Category B type 1 - Bellmouth
1 - Dam Category C
Size - L - Large ( greater than 3km2) Age : 3 - 1950 + * denotes 1 in 10,000 Yr Flood
M - Medium (1 to 3km2) 2 - 1900 - 1949 # denotes 1 in 1000 Yr Flood
S - Small (less than 1km2) 1 - pre 1900
Table 7.2 - Assessment parameters for significance of risk
G:\GL\2944\N\ETBC\Jobs\20123\Sec\C200\Final Report\Table 7.1

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
8 Conclusions and Recommendations
8.1 Conclusions
The approach followed was to assess the surcharge sensitivity of example reservoirs to
incremental changes in the climatic factors affecting the design estimation of total surcharge.
Fourteen example reservoirs were selected such that their design, hydro-climatic and
geographical characteristics were reasonably representative of the characteristics of the
overall population of British dams. The surcharge estimation procedure outlined in the third
edition of the Floods and Reservoir Safety guide was followed. The key climatic attributes
incrementally changed were: i) storm rainfall depth (in the estimation of flood surcharge), and
ii) wind speed (in the estimation of wave surcharge). Other related climatic factors, such as
storm profile, snowmelt and wind direction, were considered but until more is known about
the likely effect of climate change on these it was considered premature to adjust them. The
implications of the resulting site sensitivities could then be framed in terms of the currently
available climate change projections.
The UK Climate Impact Programme takes as a baseline the years 1961 – 1990. It was
considered reasonable to take the planning horizon for this report as the 2050s, by which time
annual rainfall is predicted to increase across the UK with increases of about 5% in northern
Britain and between 2 and 5% in southern Britain. This will be coupled with milder, wetter
winters and warmer and drier summers in the south-east whilst the summers in the north-
west are likely to be warmer and wetter. This will be coupled with milder, wetter winters and
warmer, drier summers. Windspeed changes are predicted to be variable with small
decreases in the South and slight increases in the North. The autumn and winter will become
windier, while the spring and summer will become less so.
The study has considered the joint occurrence of the most extreme changes in both rainfall
and wind speed at a set of reservoirs which provide a guide for the risk of occurrence and the
risk to freeboard at any particular structure.
The study indicates that winter storm event rainfall (November – April) may increase within
the range of 7-23% and winter wind speeds may increase by 1-4%. Similarly, summer storm
event rainfall (May – September) may increase by 5-16% and summer wind speeds by 2-5%.
In terms of total surcharge, winter surcharge changes could be in the range of 4-11% with
summer values being in the range of 3-10%. No obvious regional pattern in terms of changes
in total surcharge could be assessed from the analysis.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
The results indicated that in a medium-high climate change scenario, the total surcharge at
each of the reservoirs studied could increase by approximately 5%. This represented a
change of between 40 and 270mm at the reservoirs analysed. If this is regarded as fairly
representative of the impact in the 2050s of climate change on the UK stock of dams, then it
seems likely that the most significant impact will be at the larger reservoirs, where the
likelihood is that excess water will be retained by large dams.
Concrete and masonry dams should be able to withstand additional overtopping of the
magnitude indicated by the study for the 2050s. However, the UK’s stock of dams includes
around 570 embankment dams that fall under the ICOLD definition of large dams (i.e. over
15m high) and many of these may be at risk from increases in flood surcharge. Many of
these are already protected by wave or parapet walls and in such cases, the relatively modest
increases in surcharge predicted may not have a significant impact on the structures, other
than to increase the length of time where erosion to wave overtopping and wave slop will be
required. In the case of embankment dams without a wave wall or a parapet wall, the
situation may be different and the potential for erosion of the crest could be greater. Analysis
indicates that around 50 of the UK’s stock of dams could be affected in this way.
The dams analysed were too diverse to provide any meaningful statistical analysis of the
results. However, it seems likely that reservoirs in Scotland will be subjected to greater
changes in freeboard requirement than those in the south east of England and Wales, which
fall in the areas of lower risk in the climate change models.
Climate change is only one of a number of impacts which is likely to effect the UK stock of
dams over the next fifty years. Design standards will change for reservoirs and it is possible
that a more risk based approach will be introduced to assessing dam safety. Further research
is being carried out in a number of areas which will have an impact on the freeboard
calculations. While these are complementary to the further research being undertaken on
climate change within the UK and globally, all such aspects need to be considered when
reviewing future improvement works for reservoir overflow provision.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
8.2 Recommendations
It is recommended that consideration be given by DETR, now DEFRA, to the following in

respect of the conclusions reached within this report.
a) An early review based on the UKCIP02 scenarios that are due to be released in 2002.
(b) Supervising engineers should be made aware of the need to assess the impact of
weather patterns on the reservoirs for which they are responsible and to bring to the
attention of the Inspecting Engineers any peculiar incidents that have occurred in terms
of the climate over the period since the previous inspection. It is suggested that one way
this could be undertaken is to include it as one of the areas highlighted for review by the
Supervising Engineer within the Guide to the Reservoirs Act 1975.
c) In any further work being undertaken by DEFRA on floods and reservoir safety
integration, climate change should be clearly identified as one of the areas of risk for the
future. It may be appropriate to add a section to any fourth edition of Floods & Reservoir
Safety regarding the need for consideration of climate change aspects to be taken into
account when assessing future freeboard requirements at a reservoir.
d) This report should be made available to the reservoir profession through the DETR’s,
now DEFRA’s, website or some similar appropriate format. In particular, the fourteen
reservoirs which were analysed give within the graphical representation of percentage
changes in storm depth to percentage changes in windspeed, a useful indication of
climate impacts in different parts of the country. However, it must be emphasised that
each case will be individual, so no precise conclusions can be drawn from the studies
carried out in relation to a specific reservoir in any region, although the sample selected
will give an indication of response from key types of reservoir.
Recognising the scale of the changes in total surcharge indicated it is suggested that
Panel Engineers check for sensitivity to increases of 1-2% in total surcharge in the 10
year period between statutory inspections.
Also, if freeboard is inadequate for other reasons and upgrading work is required,
consideration should be given to adding a 50 year margin in the range 5-10% for climate
change effects. The presentation of the plots for the UK 2050 medium high scenario
will, however, give a good indication of likely changes in rainfall and windspeed in any
particular region.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Figures
3.1 Geographical location of representative dams
4.1 Global Climate Model (UK cells)
4.2 Annual Precipitation
4.3 Seasonal precipitation changes
4.4 Wind Speeds (daily average)
4.5 Wind Speeds (seasonal changes)
4.6 Changes in precipitation/wind
7.1 Surcharge changes (max/min/ mean)

Note
1.Refer also to Table 3.1
2.Selection excludes Northern Ireland
Scotland
3 Category A Dams
1 Category C Dam
Northern England
3 Category A Dams
Wales
2 Category A Dams
Central & SE England

2 Category A Dams
SW England 1 Category C Dam
1 Category A Dam
1 Category B Dam
Figure 3.1 - Geographical Location of Representive Dams

Figure 4.1 – Grid of HadCM2 of the Hadley Centre Global Climate Model (GCM)
Cells Over the UK.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\Final Report - climate change review_Figures.doc

< 700 850 to 1000 1200 to 1400 1600 to 1800 2000 to 2250 < -45 -35 to -35 -15 to -5 5 to 15 25 to 35 > 45
700 to 850 1000 to 1200 1400 to 1600 1800 to 2000 > 2250 -45 to -35 -25 to -15 -5 to 5 15 to 25 35 to 45
Figure 4.2a.Annual precipitation for the Figure 4.2b.Average annual percentage

1961-1990 baseline period change in thel precipitation for the 2050s
under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario

< -45 -35 to -35 -15 to -5 5 to 15 25 to 35 > 45 < -45 -35 to -35 -15 to -5 5 to 15 25 to 35 > 45
-45 to -35 -25 to -15 -5 to 5 15 to 25 35 to 45 -45 to -35 -25 to -15 -5 to 5 15 to 25 35 to 45
Figure 4.3a. Percentage change in the Figure 4.3b. Percentage change in the
average January precipitation for the 2050s average April precipitation for the 2050s
under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario. under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario.
< -45 -35 to -35 -15 to -5 5 to 15 25 to 35 > 45 < -45 -35 to -25 -15 to -5 5 to 15 25 to 35 > 45
-45 to -35 -25 to -15 -5 to 5 15 to 25 35 to 45 -45 to -35 -25 to -15 -5 to 5 15 to 25 35 to 45
Figure 4.3c. Percentage change in the Figure 4.3d. Percentage change in the
average July precipitation for the 2050s average October precipitation for the 2050s
under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario. under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario.

< 3.5 4.0 to 4.5 5.0 to 5.5 6.0 to 6.5 7.0 to 7.5 < -5 -3 to -1 1 to 3 5 to 7 9 to 11 > 13
3.5 to 4.0 4.5 to 5.0 5.5 to 6.0 6.5 to 7.0 > 7.5 -5 to -3 -1 to 1 3 to 5 7 to 9 11 to 13
Figure 4.4a Wind speed (daily average) for Figure 4.4b. Average annual percentage
the 1961-1990 baseline period change in daily wind speed for the 2050s
under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario.

< -5 -3 to -1 1 to 3 5 to 7 9 to 11 > 13 < -5 -3 to -1 1 to 3 5 to 7 9 to 11 > 13
-5 to -3 -1 to 1 3 to 5 7 to 9 11 to 13 -5 to -3 -1 to 1 3 to 5 7 to 9 11 to 13
Figure 4.5a. Percentage change in the Figure 4.5b. Percentage change in the
average January wind speed for the 2050s average April wind speed for the 2050s under
under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario. the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario.
< -5 -3 to -1 1 to 3 5 to 7 9 to 11 > 13 < -5 -3 to -1 1 to 3 5 to 7 9 to 11 > 13

-5 to -3 -1 to 1 3 to 5 7 to 9 11 to 13 -5 to -3 -1 to 1 3 to 5 7 to 9 11 to 13
Figure 4.5c. Percentage change in the Figure 4.5d. Percentage change in the
average July wind speed for the 2050s under average October wind speed for the 2050s
the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario. under the UKCIP98 medium-high scenario.

Figure 4.6. Monthly changes in precipitation wind speed for all available scenarios for the
2050s time horizon for one reservoir.

12
% change in Total Surcharge (summer
10
8
PMF)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
% change in Total Surcharge (winter PMF)
Scotland N.England Wales SW.England SE.England
Figure 7.1a: Association between winter and summer PMF's for the maximum
predicted % change in Total Surcharge ( Time Horizon 2050s )
\\BG_GLA_NW4_ENG\DATA\GL\2944\N\ETBC\Jobs\20123\Sec\C200\Table7.1.xls
5
% change in Total Surcharge
0
(summer PMF)
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Figure 7.1b : Association between winter and summer PMF's for the minimum
predicted % change in Total Surcharge (Time Horizon 2050s)
5
3
% change in Total Surcharge (summer PMF)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Figure 7.1c : Association between winter and summer PMF's for the mean value
% change in Total Surcharge (Time Horizon 2050)
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix A
References

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix A - References
Austin BN, Cluckie ID, Collier CG, and Hardaker PJ, 1995. Radar-based estimation of Probable
Maximum Precipitation and Flood. Meteorological Office, Bracknell.
Babtie, 2000. Reservoir Safety – Floods and Reservoir Safety: Clarification on the use of FEH and FSR
design rainfalls. Report to DETR. Babtie Group, Glasgow.
Bayliss AC, 1999. Catchment descriptors. Volume 5. Flood Estimation Handbook, Institute of
Hydrology Wallingford, UK, 130pp.
Boorman DB, Hollis JM and Lilly A, 1995. Hydrology of soil types: A hydrologically - based
classification of the soils of the United Kingdom. Institute of Hydrology Report 126. Institute of
Hydrology, Wallingford.
Calver A and Lamb R, 1996. Flood frequency estimation using continuous rainfall-runoff modelling.
Physics and Chemistry of Earth, 20, 479-483.
Charles JA, and Boden JB, 1985. The failure of Embankment Dams in the United Kingdom; Failures in
Earthworks, Instituting of Civil Engineers, T Telford, London.
Clark C, 1997. How rare is that storm in south-west England? Meteorol. Appl., 5, 139-48.
Collier CG and Hardaker PJ, 1996. Estimating Probable Maximum Precipitation using a storm model
approach. J. Hydrology, 183, 227-306.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association/Centre for Civil Engineering Research
and Codes, 1991. Manual on the use of rock in coastal and shoreline engineering. CIRIA/CUR.
Special Publication 83/Report 154.
Faulkner DS, Arnell NW and Reynard NS, 1997. Everyday aspects of climate change in Europe. In:
Proceedings 6th BHS National Hydrology Symposium, Salford, September 1997, 8.1-8.8.
Faulkner D, 1999. Rainfall frequency estimation, Volume 2, Flood Estimation Handbook, Institute of
Hydrology Wallingford, UK, 110pp.
Fox NI and Collier CG, 2000. Physical disaggregation of numerical model rainfall. Hydro, Earth
Systems Sci., 4(3), 419-424.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc A1

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Galambosi A, Duckstein L and Bogardi I, 1996. Evaluation and analysis of daily atmospheric circulation
patterns of the 500hPa pressure field over the Western USA. Atmospheric Research 40, 49-76.
Hough MN and Hallis D, 1997. Rare snowmelt estimation in the UK. Meteor. Apps, 5, 127-138.
Houghton-Carr H, 1999. Flood Estimation Handbook - 4: Restatement and application of the Flood
Studies Report rainfall - runoff method. Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, UK, 288pp.
Hulme M and Jenkins GJ, 1998. Climate change scenarios for the UK: scientific report. UKCIP
Technical Report No. 1, Climatic Research Unit, Norwich, 80pp.
Institution of Civil Engineers, 1960. Floods in relation to reservoir practice (Reprint with additional data
on floods recorded in the British Isles between 1932 and 1957). Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Institution of Civil Engineers, 1975. Reservoir Flood Standards: Discussion paper. In: Institution of
Civil Engineers (Ed). Flood Studies Conference. Institution of Civil Engineers, London.
Institution of Civil Engineers. 1996. Floods and Reservoir Safety (3rd Edition). Thomas Telford,
London.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1996. Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate
Change, Houghton JT, Miera Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenburg A and Maskell K (Eds).
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
International Committee of Large Dams (ICOLD), 1983, World Register of Dams, Paris.
Lamb HH, 1972. British Isles weather types and a register of daily sequence of circulation patterns,
1861-1971. Geophysical Memoir 116, London HMSO.
Marshall DCW, 2000. The estimation of flood-response times from digital catchment data. J.CIWEM,
14, October 2000, 335-340.
Mearns LO, Bogardi I, Giogi F, Matyasovsky I and Palecki M, 1999. Comparison of climate change
scenarios generated from regional climate model experiments and statistical downscaling. J
Geophysical Research, 104(6), 6603-6621.
NERC, 1975. Flood Studies Report (5 volumes). Natural Environment Research Council, London.
Reed D, 1999. Overview. Volume 1, Flood Estimation Handbook, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford,
UK, 108 pp.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Reed DW and Field EK, 1992. Reservoir flood estimation: another look. IH Report No 114, Institute of
Hydrology, Wallingford.
Reynard NS, Prudhomme C, Faulkner DS, Robson AJ and Reed DW, 1998. Climate change and the
frequency of short-duration heavy rainfall in central England Report to Severn-Trent Water plc. 48pp.
Svensson C, Jakob D and Reed DW, Diurnal characteristics of heavy precipitation according to
weather type at an upland site in Scotland. Submitted to Int. Journ. of Climatol.
Wilby RL and Wigley TML, 1997. Downscaling general circulation model output: a review of
methods and limitations. Prog. in Phys. Geog, 21, 4, 530-548.
Wilby RL, Hassan H and Hanaki K, 1998. Statistical downscaling of hydrometeorological variables
using general circulation model output. J Hydrol. 205, 1-19.
Wilks DS, 1999. Multisite downscaling of daily precipitation with stochastic weather generator.
Climate Research, 11, 125-136.

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix B
Glossary of Terms

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix B - Glossary of Terms
Several terms used are peculiar to or most often used in rather specialist technical disciplines. Others
are used in special, restricted senses. Some such terms are defined when first used; others are not.
For convenience of the reader a number of those technical terms are defined here.
BRE Building Research Establishment Ltd
Crest of Dam As top of dam
Dam A barrier built across a watercourse for impounding or

diverting the flow of water.
Design Flood The hydrograph of the flood inflow to the reservoir which
produces the maximum level of the reservoir which the dam
is designed or required to accept without fundamental
structural damage.
Earthfill Dam An embankment dam in which more than 50 percent of the

total volume is formed of compacted fire grained material
obtained from a borrow area. Type TE or 1 is the category
used for Earth Fill based on the World Register.
FEH Flood Estimation Handbook
Fetch The maximum uninterrupted straight line length over water

ignoring promontories for a particular wind direction. The
direction of fetch is always away from the dam.
Flood Routing The determination of the modifying or attenuating effect of

passage of a flood through a valley, channel, or reservoir.
Flood Surcharge The maximum rise of still water level above reservoir top
water level (or retention water level) during a design flood.
(Flood surcharge water is not retained in the reservoir but is
discharged until the normal retention level is reached).
Freeboard, dam The vertical height from top water level (or retention water
level) to the top of the dam.

B1
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
FRS Floods and Reservoir Safety Guide. 3rd Edition published in

1996.
FSR Flood Studies Report originally published by the Natural

Environment Research Council in 1975.
GCM Global Climate Model
Hazard A source of danger. In other words, something that has the

potential for creating adverse consequences.
HOST Hydrology of Soil Types
Hydrograph A graphical representation of discharge, stage, or other

hydraulic property with respect to time for a particular point on
a stream (At times the term is applied to the phenomenon the
graphical representation describes; hence, a flood hydrograph
is the passage of a flood discharge past the observation point).
Maximum Water Level The maximum stillwater level of the design flood.
Overtopping Water flowing over the top of the dam, other than over
spillweirs or crests.
Parapet Wall A solid wall located or placed on the upstream (and/or

downstream) edge(s) of the top of the dam section. Used to
protect vehicular and pedestrian traffic across the dam.
Probability The likelihood of an event occurring.
Probable Maximum The flood hydrograph resulting from PMP and , where
Flood (PMF) applicable, snowmelt, coupled with the worst flood-producing
catchment conditions that can be realistically expected in the
prevailing meteorological conditions.

B2
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Probable Maximum The (theoretical) greatest depth of precipitation for a given

Precipitation (PMP) duration meteorologically possible for a given basin at a
particular time of year. It includes rain, sleet, snow and hail as
it occurs, but not snow cover left from previous storms.
Rainfall event depth Total depth of rainfall falling during the storm event
Rainfall event profile The magnitude and sequence of precipitation in equal time
increments during a storm of given duration.
Reservoir Flood The passage of a flood volume through a reservoir. Generally

Routing used to describe the calculation of the attenuation of the
hydrograph of the incoming flood as it passes through storage
and down the spillway.
Return period The average expected time (in terms of probability rather than
forecasting) between floods equal to or greater than a stated
magnitude.
Rip-rap A layer of large random stones, or broken rock, usually placed

on a graded filter.
Risk The likelihood of adverse consequences.
Risk Assessment As applied to dam safety, the process of identifying the

likelihood and consequences of dam failure to provide the
basis for informed decisions on a course of action.
Run-up The maximum vertical height attained by a wave running up a

dam face, relative to the stillwater level without wind action.
SAAR Standard Average Annual Rainfall (1941-1970).
Significant wave The wave height, trough to crest, that is exceeded by only a
height small stated percentage of waves.
SPR Standard Percentage Run-off.

B3
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Stillwater Level The water level in the absence of any wave effects.
Spillway A structure over or through which flood flows are discharged.

If the flow is controlled by gates, it is considered a controlled
spillway; if the elevation of the spillway crest is the only
control, it is considered an uncontrolled spillway.
Spillway Design Flood The largest flood that a given project is designed to pass
(SDF) safely.
Top of dam The top level of the dam structure. (Can be the top of the
wave wall if the wall is solid from abutment to abutment,
without openings and considered able to withstand potential
wave or water loading).
Top water level (a) for a reservoir with a fixed overflow sill, the
lowest crest level of that sill;
(b) for a reservoir from which the overflow is

controlled wholly or partly by movable gates,
siphons or other means, the maximum level at
which water may be stored exclusive to any
provision for flood storage.
At this level the reservoir is “just full” without overflowing.
Total surcharge The maximum level assessed of the flood surcharge level
surmounted by the wave surcharge.
UKCIP United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme
Unit Hydrograph (UH) The run-off hydrograph resulting from unit volume of rainfall
excess in a specified duration of time over a given catchment;
the rainfall is presumed to fall uniformly or characteristically in
both time and space on the catchment in the specified
duration.
Wave set-up The height resulting from mass movement of water due to
waves, by which the mean level of the water surface at the
dam exceeds the mean water level of the reservoir.

B4
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Wave surcharge The rise of water against a dam created solely by the run-up of
waves of specified probability.
Wave surcharge allowance For the particular type and design of dam, the theoretical
component of the flood freeboard sufficient to prevent
overtopping by waves reaching quantities that could threaten
the dam.
Wave wall A solid wall built along the upstream side of the crest of a dam
and designed to withstand or reflect waves

B5
DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix C
British Dam population characteristics obtained from the BRE

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix C - British Dam Population Characteristics
The BRE dams database was used to help identify a subset of broadly representative embankment
dams for the purposes of the project. Figures C.1 a) - e) graphically show the population
characteristics for those attributes considered useful in this selection process. Characteristics such as
fetch, catchment area and average annual rainfall, which would be useful to this project, are not kept
within the database.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc C1

a) Frequency of spillway types
100
90
% of population
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Syphon other Gated Bellmouth None Uncontrolled
Spillway type
b) Frequency of types of embankment dam
100
% of population
80
60
40
20
0
Roller Gravity & Tailings Gravity &
compacted rockfill earthfill
concrete
Embankment dam type
c) Frequency of dam risk catagories
100
90
% of population
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A B C D
Risk Catagory
G\GL\2944\N\ETBC\JOBS\20123\ENG\CALCS\BRE DATBASE\DJP(BRE) Analysis

d) Reservoir surface area distribution
100
90
% of population
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 >20
2
Surface area (km )
e) Age distribution
100
90
% of population
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
<1700 1700-1749 1750-1799 1800-1849 1850-1899 1900-1949 >1949
Date of construction
G\GL\2944\N\ETBC\JOBS\20123\ENG\CALCS\BRE DATBASE\DJP(BRE) Analysis

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix D
The Implications of using the Flood Estimation Handbook for Reservoir Flood Studies

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix D - Implications of using the Flood Estimation Handbook for reservoir flood studies
The Flood Estimation Handbook was published in December 1999. The FEH research programme
was principally aimed at improving flood frequency estimation for river flood design and was not
funded by DETR. In consequence, the research did not set out to explicitly amend or upgrade
methods of reservoir flood estimation. In particular, the FEH leaves most elements of the FSR
rainfall-runoff method unchanged. Nevertheless, the FEH has introduced some important changes
which touch on reservoir flood safety applications. These are now elaborated.
Volume 2 of the Flood Estimation Handbook (Faulkner, 1999) presents a new general procedure for
rainfall depth-duration-frequency estimation in the UK. As stated, the FEH research was not directed
at improving estimations for design rainfalls and floods of the very longest return period, such as the
10000-year events relevant in many reservoir flood safety assessments. However, the method as
published can be used to derive 10000-year, 1000-year and 192-year design rainfall depths that are
relevant in reservoir flood safety assessments. These design rainfall estimates differ from those
given in the Flood Studies Report. As discussed in detail in a recent companion report to DETR
(Babtie, 2000), design rainfall estimates by the FEH and FSR procedures differ principally because of
the different methodologies used. Because the FEH estimates are, in many cases of relevance to
reservoir safety, significantly greater than their FSR counterparts, there is legitimate concern as to
whether the FEH procedure should be adopted in UK reservoir flood assessments. This topic is
beyond the scope of the current report.
A less contentious change introduced by the FEH concerns the new methods provided for estimating
key parameters of the rainfall-runoff method. In particular, software accompanying the FEH allows
users to derive estimates of standard percentage runoff (SPR) based on 1:250000 soil maps (in Great
Britain) and the HOST classification of soil types (Boorman et al., 1995). In addition, the user is now
able to estimate the key catchment response time, Tp, from digital map data (Marshall, 2000; Bayliss,
1999). These new estimation methods for components of the FSR rainfall-runoff method are thought
to provide useful refinements, and it is anticipated that most will be routinely adopted in reservoir
flood safety assessments. Such improvements are based on an analysis of gauged data. Few
reservoired catchments are gauged and, because the size (in particular), wetness and soils of UK
reservoired catchments are “off-centre” to those of UK gauged catchments (see Table 3.1 of Reed
and Field, 1992), the overall effect of these changes is difficult to judge.
A particularly helpful change introduced in the FEH is the comprehensive technical re-write of the
rainfall-runoff method given in Volume 4 (Houghton-Carr), 1999). This helps the new user to
understand both the principles and the detail of the FSR rainfall-runoff method (and its many updates
in the 1980s) with greater clarity. In addition, Houghton-Carr draws attention to some of the research
that has taken place on related matters. The probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimation and
probable maximum flood (PMF) estimation are of particular concern to reservoir flood safety.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc D1

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Reference is made in Volume 4 to research by Salford University and the Met. Office (Austin et al.,
1995; Collier and Hardaker, 1996) to develop new ways of estimating PMP and PMF. It should be
noted that these new procedures have not been generalised. Thus, it was not possible for the FEH to
present new generalised procedures for PMP and PMF estimation. In consequence, it is anticipated
that most PMF assessments for reservoir flood safety will continue to use PMP estimates given in
the FSR (NERC, 1975).
Chapter 10 of FEH Volume 1 (Reed, 1999) presents a brief resume of factors to be borne in mind
when estimating flood frequency in support of public safety. Chapter 7 of that volume provides a
general discussion of climate change issues related to flood frequency. Finally, Appendix B of that
volume presents a detailed review of methodologies used to solve so-called “joint probability”
problems. From this it is possible to gain a clear understanding of why research to develop more
formal solutions to the joint probability problems faced in reservoir flood safety assessment (eg.
snowmelt plus rainfall, flood surcharge) was inconclusive. The main difficulty again lies in the inability
to generalise specialised research methods.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc D2

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix E
Summary Climate Change Scenarios

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix E - Summary Climate Change Scenarios
For each site the following information is given:
• Monthly percentage changes in mean daily wind speed and average monthly
precipitation as predicted by the UKCIP98 scenarios of various sensitivity emissions for
the time horizon 2050s. Seasonal and annual changes are also shown in the graphs.
• Sensitivity range as defined by the combined maximum/minimum monthly changes

predicted by the climate change scenarios. This is done for the winter season
(November to April) and the summer season (May to October).
The derived envelopes are also included in the charts in Appendix F to indicate the scale of potential
climate change relevant to a particular reservoir site.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc E1

Reservoir No.1 - Scotland
2
Change in wind speed (%)
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
Change in precipitation (%)
UKCIP98 Scenario - Highx - 2050 UKCIP98 Scenario - Lowx - 2050 UKCIP98 Scenario - Medhighx - 2050 UKCIP98 Scenario - Medlowx - 2050
Figure a: Changes in rainfall against changes in wind speed for all scenarios – Range of scenarios for the winter
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
Figure b: Changes in rainfall against changes in wind speed for all scenarios – Range of scenarios for the
summer
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\appendix XX.doc 2

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

Reservoir No.5 – North England
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

Reservoir No.8 - Wales
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

Reservoir No.9 - Wales
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

Reservoir No.10 – S.W England
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

Reservoir No.11 – S.W England
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
-8
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
-8
summer

Reservoir No.12 – Central and S.E England
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
2
0
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-2
-4
-6
summer

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix F
Site Specific Climate Change Sensitivity

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix F - Site Specific Climate Change Sensitivity
The following tables (28 No.) present sensitivity plots for winter and summer design storms at each
representative reservoir site.
These tables are the principal output of the study from which conclusions have been drawn and which
should form the basis of interpreting climate change impacts on any reservoir.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc F1

Reservoir No. 1 - Winter PMF
Scotland
Category A
+
+
+
T i u rc h
10 har
Su
5% har
Su
15 har
m
Su
Large reservoir (>3 sq.km)
% ge
rc
e a rg
rc
% ge
rc
th e L
Ho e
th L e
th L e
e
Spillway - Uncontrolled
e
r iz L e
e
g
20 eve
20 vel
on ve
20 vel
50 l
50
Run-up factor - 1.44
50
20 l
s
To
50
To
To
t
To
al
ta
ta
l
ta
l
l
3.421 3.510 3.607 3.707 3.813 3.919 4.029 4.141 4.256 4.373 4.495 4.618 4.743
10
3.318 3.407 3.504 3.604 3.710 3.816 3.926 4.038 4.153 4.270 4.392 4.515 4.640
5
% Change in Wind Speed

3.216 3.305 3.402 3.502 3.608 3.714 3.824 3.936 4.051 4.168 4.290 4.413 4.538
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% Change in Storm Depth
3.114 3.203 3.300 3.400 3.506 3.612 3.722 3.834 3.949 4.066 4.188 4.311 4.436
-5
3.012 3.101 3.198 3.298 3.404 3.510 3.620 3.732 3.847 3.964 4.086 4.209 4.334
-10
Legend
3.824 Modelled total surcharge (m)
+
Seasonal climate change envelope - potential range of

change according to climate change model (Time Horizon 2050)
Line of constant level
Notes: (1) Total surcharge is stillwater flood rise + wave run-up

(2) Infinite freeboard assumed for sensitivity presentationd
(3) Climate change scenarios used were UKCIP98
Reservoir No. 1 - Summer PMF
Scotland + + +
Category A T
S u im e
Su 5%
rc th
Su 10
rc %
Su 15
rc %
h a th h a th
Large reservoir (>3 sq.km) rc H
h a or
rg iz o
ha e
rg 2
e 05
rg e
e 20
rg e
e 20
Le 5 0
Spillway - Uncontrolled e n
L e 20
ve 50
L e 0s
ve T ve s
l To
L e 50
ve s
l To
l ot
Run-up factor - 1.44 l T ot
al ta
l
ta
l
al
3.098 3.168 3.239 3.315 3.385 3.478 3.562 3.657 3.752 3.853 3.955 4.063 4.165
10
2.995 3.065 3.136 3.212 3.282 3.375 3.459 3.554 3.649 3.750 3.852 3.960 4.062
5

2.893 2.963 3.034 3.110 3.180 3.273 3.357 3.452 3.547 3.648 3.750 3.858 3.960
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.791 2.861 2.932 3.008 3.078 3.171 3.255 3.350 3.445 3.546 3.648 3.756 3.858
-5
2.689 2.759 2.830 2.906 2.976 3.069 3.153 3.248 3.343 3.444 3.546 3.654 3.756
-10
Legend
+


(2) Infinite freeboard assumed for sensitivity presentation
Scotland
Category A
Medium resevoir (1 sq. km <medium<
T im
3 sq.km) +
Su 5%
+
Su 10%
+
Su 15 %
rc h th rc h th
Spillway - Uncontrolled Su e H
rc h o
rch th e
arg 2 0 arg e 2
e L 05
a rg e 2
e L 05
e L 50
Run-up factor - 1.95 a r g ri z o
e n2
ev s T
e l o ta
ev 0s
el To
ev 0s
el To
Le 05 l ta ta
ve 0T l l
l ot
al
3.124 3.188 3.250 3.312 3.372 3.434 3.495 3.557 3.619 3.682 3.743 3.806 3.869
10
3.032 3.096 3.158 3.220 3.280 3.342 3.403 3.465 3.527 3.590 3.651 3.714 3.777
5

2.941 3.005 3.067 3.129 3.189 3.251 3.312 3.374 3.436 3.499 3.560 3.623 3.686
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.850 2.914 2.976 3.038 3.098 3.160 3.221 3.283 3.345 3.408 3.469 3.532 3.595
-5
2.759 2.823 2.885 2.947 3.007 3.069 3.130 3.192 3.254 3.317 3.378 3.441 3.504
-10
Legend
+


Scotland
Category A +
Medium resevoir (1 sq. km <medium< 3 sq.km) +
Su 5%
S u 10 %
rc
+
Su 15%
Ti rc th h a the rc
Spillway - Uncontrolled Su me
rc H o
ha e
rg 2 0
rg
e 2 05
ha the
rg
e Le 0 e 20 5
Run-up factor - 1.95 ha ri
rg zo Le 50s ve s T Le 0
e n ve To l ot ve s T
Le 2 l ta al l ot
ve 0 50 l a l
l To
2.911 2.981 3.048 3.115 t a l 3.179 3.250 3.314 3.386 3.455 3.519 3.592 3.660 3.727
10
2.819 2.889 2.956 3.023 3.087 3.158 3.222 3.294 3.363 3.427 3.500 3.568 3.635
5

2.728 2.798 2.865 2.932 2.996 3.067 3.131 3.203 3.272 3.336 3.409 3.477 3.544
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.637 2.707 2.774 2.841 2.905 2.976 3.040 3.112 3.181 3.245 3.318 3.386 3.453
-5
2.546 2.616 2.683 2.750 2.814 2.885 2.949 3.021 3.090 3.154 3.227 3.295 3.362
-10
Legend
+


Scotland
Category A
+
+
Small reservoir (<1 sq.km)
T im r c h
Su
10 har
Su
15 har
Su
5% h ar
Su
% ge
rc
% ge
rc
e a rg e
rc
Ho
th L e
th e L
th L e
e
e
r iz L e v
e 2 ve
g
20 ve l
20 eve
on el
05 l
50
50 l
20
0s
sT
sT
50
T
ot
o
ot
ta
To
al
al
l
ta
l
1.641 1.693 1.744 1.796 1.843 1.894 1.946 1.998 2.049 2.101 2.153 2.205 2.257
10
1.604 1.656 1.707 1.759 1.806 1.857 1.909 1.961 2.012 2.064 2.116 2.168 2.220
5

1.566 1.618 1.669 1.721 1.768 1.819 1.871 1.923 1.974 2.026 2.078 2.130 2.182
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.528 1.580 1.631 1.683 1.730 1.781 1.833 1.885 1.936 1.988 2.040 2.092 2.144
-5
1.491 1.543 1.594 1.646 1.693 1.744 1.796 1.848 1.899 1.951 2.003 2.055 2.107
-10
Legend
+


Scotland
Category A
+
+
T im r c h a
Su
Su
5 % h arg
1 0 h arg
Su
1 5 h a rg
Su
rc
rc
e H rg e
%
rc
%
the e L e
th e L e v
th e L e v
o ri L e v
20 vel
zo
e
20 el
20 el
50
n 2 el
50
50
sT
05
s
o
To
0T
To
tal
ta l
tal
o
1.549 1.600 1.652 1.703 1.757 1.808 1.861 1.913 1.965 2.020 2.072 2.125 2.181
ta l
10
1.512 1.563 1.615 1.666 1.720 1.771 1.824 1.876 1.928 1.983 2.035 2.088 2.144
5

1.474 1.525 1.577 1.628 1.682 1.733 1.786 1.838 1.890 1.945 1.997 2.050 2.106
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.436 1.487 1.539 1.590 1.644 1.695 1.748 1.800 1.852 1.907 1.959 2.012 2.068
-5
1.399 1.450 1.502 1.553 1.607 1.658 1.711 1.763 1.815 1.870 1.922 1.975 2.031
-10
Legend
+


Reservoir No. 4 - Winter 1,000 Year
Scotland
T im rc h a
+
+
+
Su
Su
Su
Su
1 5 h a rg
1 0 h a rg
5% h arg
Category C
e H rg e
rc
rc
rc
%
%
th e e L e
o r Le
th L ev
the L ev
iz o v e
e2 e
2 0 vel
e
e
20 el
n2 l
05 l
50
50
05
0s
sT
s
0T
To
To
o
tal
o
tal
tal
ta l
1.259 1.293 1.329 1.365 1.404 1.437 1.476 1.509 1.545 1.582 1.617 1.653 1.689
10
1.236 1.270 1.306 1.342 1.381 1.414 1.453 1.486 1.522 1.559 1.594 1.630 1.666
5

1.213 1.247 1.283 1.319 1.358 1.391 1.430 1.463 1.499 1.536 1.571 1.607 1.643
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.190 1.224 1.260 1.296 1.335 1.368 1.407 1.440 1.476 1.513 1.548 1.584 1.620
-5
1.167 1.201 1.237 1.273 1.312 1.345 1.384 1.417 1.453 1.490 1.525 1.561 1.597
-10
Legend
+


Reservoir No. 4 - Summer 1,000 Year
Scotland
Category C
+ 5 c h a rg
+ 1 c h a rg
+ 1 c h a rg
T im c h a r g
Su
Su
Su
Su
5%
0%
r
r
r
eH eL
r
th e L e v
th e L e v e
th e L e v e
o riz e v e
20 el
e
e
e
20 l
on
20 l
50
50
50
20
sT
sT
sT
50
l
o
ta l
o ta
o ta
To
l
ta l
l
1.230 1.281 1.325 1.370 1.410 1.459 1.499 1.548 1.592 1.632 1.681 1.726 1.764
10
1.207 1.258 1.302 1.347 1.387 1.436 1.476 1.525 1.569 1.609 1.658 1.703 1.741
5

1.184 1.235 1.279 1.324 1.364 1.413 1.453 1.502 1.546 1.586 1.635 1.680 1.718
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.161 1.212 1.256 1.301 1.341 1.390 1.430 1.479 1.523 1.563 1.612 1.657 1.695
-5
1.138 1.189 1.233 1.278 1.318 1.367 1.407 1.456 1.500 1.540 1.589 1.634 1.672
-10
Legend
+


N England
Category A
+
+
+
T im r c h
1 5 har
Su
5% har
10 har
Su
Su
Su
Large reservoir (>3 sq. km)
e a rg e
% ge
rc
% ge
rc
rc
Ho
th e L
th Le
th L e
e
r iz L e v
e
e
g
20 e ve
20 ve l
on el
20 ve l
50 l
50
50
20
sT
sT
sT
50
ot
ot
ot
To
al
al
al
ta
l
4.530 4.657 4.793 4.934 5.085 5.227 5.378 5.536 5.696 5.864 6.029 6.202 6.383
10
4.423 4.550 4.686 4.827 4.978 5.120 5.271 5.429 5.589 5.757 5.922 6.095 6.276
5

4.315 4.442 4.578 4.719 4.870 5.012 5.163 5.321 5.481 5.649 5.814 5.987 6.168
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
4.207 4.334 4.470 4.611 4.762 4.904 5.055 5.213 5.373 5.541 5.706 5.879 6.060
-5
4.100 4.227 4.363 4.504 4.655 4.797 4.948 5.106 5.266 5.434 5.599 5.772 5.953
-10
Legend
+


N England
Category A
+
+
Ti
1 0 har
Su
Large reservoir (>3 sq. km)
1 5 h ar
Su
m ch a
5% h ar
Su
Su
% ge
rc
% ge
e rg
rc
rc
r
Ho e
th e L
th L e
th L e
e
e
riz L e v
g
20 eve
20 vel
20 ve l
on el
50 l
50
50
20
s
50
To
To
To
t
ta
To
ta
al
l
ta
3.855 3.932 4.001 4.081 4.162 4.270 4.385 4.499 4.628 4.773 4.917 5.077 5.225
l
10
3.748 3.825 3.894 3.974 4.055 4.163 4.278 4.392 4.521 4.666 4.810 4.970 5.118
5

3.640 3.717 3.786 3.866 3.947 4.055 4.170 4.284 4.413 4.558 4.702 4.862 5.010
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3.532 3.609 3.678 3.758 3.839 3.947 4.062 4.176 4.305 4.450 4.594 4.754 4.902
-5
3.425 3.502 3.571 3.651 3.732 3.840 3.955 4.069 4.198 4.343 4.487 4.647 4.795
-10
Legend
+


N England
Category A
+
+ 5 rc h a
+
T im rc h a
Su
1 5 h a rg
Su
Su
1 0 h arg
Su
% rg e
Spillway - Bellmouth
rc
%
rc
e H rg e
%
th e L e
th e L e v
th e L e v
o ri L e v
e
20 vel
zo
20 e l
2 0 el
50
n 2 el
50
50
sT
05
s
s
To
o
To
0T
1.967 2.025 2.086 2.152 2.208 2.269 2.336 2.391 2.452 2.516 2.574 2.635 2.698
ta l
ta l
tal
10
o
ta l
1.925 1.983 2.044 2.110 2.166 2.227 2.294 2.349 2.410 2.474 2.532 2.593 2.656
5

1.884 1.942 2.003 2.069 2.125 2.186 2.253 2.308 2.369 2.433 2.491 2.552 2.615
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% Change in Storm depth
1.843 1.901 1.962 2.028 2.084 2.145 2.212 2.267 2.328 2.392 2.450 2.511 2.574
-5
1.801 1.859 1.920 1.986 2.042 2.103 2.170 2.225 2.286 2.350 2.408 2.469 2.532
-10
Legend
+


N England
Category A
+ 5 c h a rg
T im c h a rg
+ 1 c h a rg
+ 1 c h a rg
Su
Su
Su
Su
%
eH eL
5% e L
r
0% e L
r
r
r
th e L e v
o riz e v e
th e e ve
th e e v e
205 el
e
on
20 l
205 l
0s
205
50s
0s
Tot
l
0
T
T
Tot
o ta
o ta
al
2.143 2.220 2.300 2.380 2.460 2.540 2.623 2.700 2.780 2.862 2.940 3.020 3.105
al
l
l
10
2.101 2.178 2.258 2.338 2.418 2.498 2.581 2.658 2.738 2.820 2.898 2.978 3.063
5

2.060 2.137 2.217 2.297 2.377 2.457 2.540 2.617 2.697 2.779 2.857 2.937 3.022
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.019 2.096 2.176 2.256 2.336 2.416 2.499 2.576 2.656 2.738 2.816 2.896 2.981
-5
1.977 2.054 2.134 2.214 2.294 2.374 2.457 2.534 2.614 2.696 2.774 2.854 2.939
-10
Legend
+


N England
+ 1 rch a
+ 1 rc h a
Category A
+ 5 rc h a
T i m rc h a
Su
Su
Su
Su
5 % rge
0 % rg e
% rg e
e H rg e
Small reservoir (<1 sq. km)
th e L e v
the L e
th e L e v
o ri L e v
zo
20 el
20 ve l
20 el
n 2 el
50
50
50
s
sT
05
To
To
0
ta l
tal
To
ta l
ta l
1.682 1.743 1.806 1.868 1.918 1.985 2.037 2.094 2.145 2.211 2.242 2.288 2.327
10
1.652 1.713 1.776 1.838 1.888 1.955 2.007 2.064 2.115 2.181 2.212 2.258 2.297
5

1.622 1.683 1.746 1.808 1.858 1.925 1.977 2.034 2.085 2.151 2.182 2.228 2.267
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.592 1.653 1.716 1.778 1.828 1.895 1.947 2.004 2.055 2.121 2.152 2.198 2.237
-5
1.562 1.623 1.686 1.748 1.798 1.865 1.917 1.974 2.025 2.091 2.122 2.168 2.207
-10
Legend
+


N England
Category A
+ 5 c ha rg
T im c h a r g
+ 1 c ha rg
+ 1 c h a rg
Sur
Sur
Sur
Sur
%
e H e Le
5% e L
0% e L
the Lev e
o r iz
th e e v e l
the ev e l
205 l
e
on e l
205
205
0s
205
v
0s
0s
T
0
ota
Tot
T
Tot
1.675 1.745 1.810 1.875 1.936 2.005 2.068 2.135 2.200 2.260 2.330 2.395 2.454
ota
l
10
al
al
l
1.645 1.715 1.780 1.845 1.906 1.975 2.038 2.105 2.170 2.230 2.300 2.365 2.424
5

1.615 1.685 1.750 1.815 1.876 1.945 2.008 2.075 2.140 2.200 2.270 2.335 2.394
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.585 1.655 1.720 1.785 1.846 1.915 1.978 2.045 2.110 2.170 2.240 2.305 2.364
-5
1.555 1.625 1.690 1.755 1.816 1.885 1.948 2.015 2.080 2.140 2.210 2.275 2.334
-10
Legend
+


Wales
Category A
Medium reservoir (1 sq.km <medium< 3 sq.km)
+ 1 5 rg e L e ve
T im e r g e L e v e
S u rc
+ 1 0 rg e L e v e
+ 5 % rg e L e ve
S u rc
S u rc
S u rc
% th
ha
% th
ha
ha
ha
H o r iz
th e 2
e 20 l
e 20 l
on 20
050s
50s T
50s T
4.100 4.267 4.440 4.613 4.783 4.959 5.130 5.305 5.478 5.651 5.824 5.997 6.173
l
50 To
l
Tot
10
o tal
o tal
al
tal
4.052 4.219 4.392 4.565 4.735 4.911 5.082 5.257 5.430 5.603 5.776 5.949 6.125
5

4.005 4.172 4.345 4.518 4.688 4.864 5.035 5.210 5.383 5.556 5.729 5.902 6.078
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3.958 4.125 4.298 4.471 4.641 4.817 4.988 5.163 5.336 5.509 5.682 5.855 6.031
-5
3.910 4.077 4.250 4.423 4.593 4.769 4.940 5.115 5.288 5.461 5.634 5.807 5.983
-10
Legend
+


Wales
Category A
+ 1 0 a rg e L e v
+ 1 5 a rg e L e v
T im e a r g e L e v
+ 5 % a rg e L e v
S u rc
S u rc
S u rc
S u rc
% th
% th
h
h
h
h
H o r iz
th e 2
e 20 l
e 20 l
on 2
050s
50s
50s
e
e
el
050
el
To
T o ta
T o ta
3.485 3.655 3.822 3.991 4.155 4.331 4.500 4.675 4.848 5.021 5.198 5.375 5.544
T o ta
tal
10
l
l
3.437 3.607 3.774 3.943 4.107 4.283 4.452 4.627 4.800 4.973 5.150 5.327 5.496
5

3.390 3.560 3.727 3.896 4.060 4.236 4.405 4.580 4.753 4.926 5.103 5.280 5.449
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3.343 3.513 3.680 3.849 4.013 4.189 4.358 4.533 4.706 4.879 5.056 5.233 5.402
-5
3.295 3.465 3.632 3.801 3.965 4.141 4.310 4.485 4.658 4.831 5.008 5.185 5.354
-10
Legend
+


Wales
Category A
+
+
+
T im rc h
10 har
Su
5% har
Su
15 har
Su
Su
% ge
rc
rc
% ge
e a rg
rc
th e L
th L e
Ho e
th L e
e
e
g
r iz L e v
e
20 eve
20 vel
20 ve l
on el
50 l
50
50
s
20
sT
sT
To
50
o
t
o
ta
al
To
ta
l
l
2.857 2.918 2.979 3.040 3.107 3.162 3.227 3.284 3.345 3.410 3.467 3.528 3.593
ta
10
l
2.808 2.869 2.930 2.991 3.058 3.113 3.178 3.235 3.296 3.361 3.418 3.479 3.544
5

2.760 2.821 2.882 2.943 3.010 3.065 3.130 3.187 3.248 3.313 3.370 3.431 3.496
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.712 2.773 2.834 2.895 2.962 3.017 3.082 3.139 3.200 3.265 3.322 3.383 3.448
-5
2.663 2.724 2.785 2.846 2.913 2.968 3.033 3.090 3.151 3.216 3.273 3.334 3.399
-10
Legend
+


Wales
Category A
+
+
+
T im r c h
15 har
Su
1 0 h ar
Su
5% har
Su
Su
% ge
rc
e a rg e
% ge
rc
rc
Ho
th L e
th e L
th L e
e
e
r iz L e v
2 0 vel
g
20 eve
on el
20 ve l
50
50 l
50
20
sT
sT
sT
50
ot
ot
ot
To
al
al
al
ta
2.678 2.745 2.811 2.877 2.947 3.008 3.074 3.137 3.201 3.261 3.327 3.390 3.454
l
10
2.629 2.696 2.762 2.828 2.898 2.959 3.025 3.088 3.152 3.212 3.278 3.341 3.405
5

2.581 2.648 2.714 2.780 2.850 2.911 2.977 3.040 3.104 3.164 3.230 3.293 3.357
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
2.533 2.600 2.666 2.732 2.802 2.863 2.929 2.992 3.056 3.116 3.182 3.245 3.309
-5
2.484 2.551 2.617 2.683 2.753 2.814 2.880 2.943 3.007 3.067 3.133 3.196 3.260
-10
Legend
+


SW England
Category A
+ 1 c h a rg
+ 1 c ha rg
T im c h a r g
+ 5 ch arg
Su
Su
Su
Su
5% e L
0% e L
%
r
e H e Le
r
r
r
th e L e ve
the ev el
o r iz
the ev el
205 l
e
on el
205
205
Run-up factor - 2.1
205
0s
v
0s
0s
Tot
0
Tot
Tot
Tot
al
al
al
1.888 1.950 2.014 2.079 2.149 2.211 2.280 2.342 2.409 2.479 2.546 2.616 2.689
al
10
1.850 1.912 1.976 2.041 2.111 2.173 2.242 2.304 2.371 2.441 2.508 2.578 2.651
5

1.812 1.874 1.938 2.003 2.073 2.135 2.204 2.266 2.333 2.403 2.470 2.540 2.613
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
% Change in Storm depth
1.774 1.836 1.900 1.965 2.035 2.097 2.166 2.228 2.295 2.365 2.432 2.502 2.575
-5
1.736 1.798 1.862 1.927 1.997 2.059 2.128 2.190 2.257 2.327 2.394 2.464 2.537
-10
Legend
+


SW England
Category A
+ 1 c ha rg
+ 5 c h a rg
+ 1 c h a rg
T im c h a r g
Su
Su
Su
Su
5%
r
%
0%
r
e H e Le
r
r
th e Le v e
th e L e v el
o r iz
th e L ev e l
e
205 l
e
205
on el
205
Run-up factor - 2.1
0s
205
0s
v
0s
Tot
Tot
0
Tot
Tot
al
a
al
l
1.762 1.830 1.900 1.971 2.045 2.114 2.188 2.259 2.332 2.405 2.480 2.555 2.635
al
10
1.724 1.792 1.862 1.933 2.007 2.076 2.150 2.221 2.294 2.367 2.442 2.517 2.597
5

1.686 1.754 1.824 1.895 1.969 2.038 2.112 2.183 2.256 2.329 2.404 2.479 2.559
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.648 1.716 1.786 1.857 1.931 2.000 2.074 2.145 2.218 2.291 2.366 2.441 2.521
-5
1.610 1.678 1.748 1.819 1.893 1.962 2.036 2.107 2.180 2.253 2.328 2.403 2.483
-10
Legend
+


SW England
Category B
+
T im r c h
Su
Su
1 0 h ar
5% har
Su
1 5 h ar
Su
e arg e
% ge
rc
rc
% ge
rc
Ho
th e L
th L e
th L e
e
r iz L e v
e
g
2 0 e ve
20 vel
o n el
20 vel
50 l
50
50
20
sT
sT
sT
50
ot
o
ta
To
ta l
al
1.341 1.378 1.415 1.452 1.489 1.525 1.561 1.597 1.633 1.668 1.703 1.738 1.772
l
ta
10
l
1.311 1.348 1.385 1.422 1.459 1.495 1.531 1.567 1.603 1.638 1.673 1.708 1.742
5

1.281 1.318 1.355 1.392 1.429 1.465 1.501 1.537 1.573 1.608 1.643 1.678 1.712
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.251 1.288 1.325 1.362 1.399 1.435 1.471 1.507 1.543 1.578 1.613 1.648 1.682
-5
1.221 1.258 1.295 1.332 1.369 1.405 1.441 1.477 1.513 1.548 1.583 1.618 1.652
-10
Legend
+


SW England
+ 1 u rc
+ 1 urc
+ urc
Category B
T i u rc
5% ha
S
5 % har
S
0% har
S
m ha
S
th g e
th e L
th e L
H rg e
e Le
e
e
or L
r
20 v
g
g
20 eve
20 e ve
iz o e v
50 el
50 l
50 l
n el
s
20
s
To
To
To
50
t
t
al
al
al
To
ta
l
1.037 1.064 1.091 1.118 1.144 1.172 1.198 1.226 1.253 1.280 1.307 1.334 1.361
10
1.007 1.034 1.061 1.088 1.114 1.142 1.168 1.196 1.223 1.250 1.277 1.304 1.331
5

0.977 1.004 1.031 1.058 1.084 1.112 1.138 1.166 1.193 1.220 1.247 1.274 1.301
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.947 0.974 1.001 1.028 1.054 1.082 1.108 1.136 1.163 1.190 1.217 1.244 1.271
-5
0.917 0.944 0.971 0.998 1.024 1.052 1.078 1.106 1.133 1.160 1.187 1.214 1.241
-10
Legend
+


SE England
Category A +1
Large reservoir (>3 sq.km) T im
+
Su 5%
+1
Su 0% Su 5%
rc h th
rc h th e
Spillway - Bellmouth Su e H
rc h o r a rg 2 0
rc h t h
a rg e 2 a rg e 2
e L 05 0
arg izo e L 50 e L 050 ev s T
Run-up factor - 1.7 eL n2 ev s T
el ota
ev s T
el ota
el o ta
ev 0 5 0 l l l
el To
t al
1.498 1.530 1.562 1.594 1.625 1.658 1.690 1.722 1.754 1.785 1.818 1.850 1.883
10
1.452 1.484 1.516 1.548 1.579 1.612 1.644 1.676 1.708 1.739 1.772 1.804 1.837
5

1.406 1.438 1.470 1.502 1.533 1.566 1.598 1.630 1.662 1.693 1.726 1.758 1.791
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.360 1.392 1.424 1.456 1.487 1.520 1.552 1.584 1.616 1.647 1.680 1.712 1.745
-5
1.315 1.347 1.379 1.411 1.442 1.475 1.507 1.539 1.571 1.602 1.635 1.667 1.700
-10
Legend
+


SE England
Category A
Large reservoir (>3 sq.km)
+ u rc
+ u rc
+ u rc
T i u rc
10 ha
5% ha
15 ha
S
S
m ha
S
S
% rg
e
% rg e
th g e
H rg e
th e L
th L
e Le
or L
e ev
r
e ev
Run-up factor - 1.7
20 ve
iz o e v
20 e
20 el
50 l
n el
50 l
50
20
s
To
50
To
To
t al
ta
To
ta
l
l
ta
1.538 1.580 1.622 1.664 1.706 1.749 1.791 1.834 1.878 1.922 1.964 2.012 2.058
l
10
1.492 1.534 1.576 1.618 1.660 1.703 1.745 1.788 1.832 1.876 1.918 1.966 2.012
5

1.446 1.488 1.530 1.572 1.614 1.657 1.699 1.742 1.786 1.830 1.872 1.920 1.966
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.400 1.442 1.484 1.526 1.568 1.611 1.653 1.696 1.740 1.784 1.826 1.874 1.920
-5
1.355 1.397 1.439 1.481 1.523 1.566 1.608 1.651 1.695 1.739 1.781 1.829 1.875
-10
Legend
+


SE England
Category A
Medium reservoir (1 sq.km <medium< 3 sq.km) + +1 +1
Ti Su 5% Su 0% Su 5%
Spillway - Uncontrolled Su m e rc h th rc rc
rc h H o ar e 2 h a th e h a th e
Run-up factor - 1.05 a r r iz o
ge n
L 2
ge 05
Le 0s
rg 2 0
e
Le 50s
rg 2 0
e
Le 50s
ev 0 ve To ve T ve T
el 50 T l ta
l l ot
a
l ot
a
o l l
ta
1.567 1.600 1.632 1.664 l 1.695 1.727 1.759 1.790 1.822 1.852 1.884 1.915 1.945
10
1.527 1.560 1.592 1.624 1.655 1.687 1.719 1.750 1.782 1.812 1.844 1.875 1.905
5

1.487 1.520 1.552 1.584 1.615 1.647 1.679 1.710 1.742 1.772 1.804 1.835 1.865
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.447 1.480 1.512 1.544 1.575 1.607 1.639 1.670 1.702 1.732 1.764 1.795 1.825
-5
1.407 1.440 1.472 1.504 1.535 1.567 1.599 1.630 1.662 1.692 1.724 1.755 1.785
-10
Legend
+


SE England
Category A
+ u rc h
T i u rch
+
15 ar
S
m
5 % h ar
Su
1 0 har
S
Su
% ge
e arg
% ge
rc
rc
Ho e
th e L
th L e
th L e
e
r iz L e
e
e
g
20 e ve
20 vel
on ve
20 vel
50 l
50
20 l
50
s
s
50
s
To
To
1.552 1.601 1.649 1.697 1.745 1.794 1.843 1.892 1.942 1.991 2.041 2.091 2.143
To
To
t
10
ta
al
ta
l
ta
l
l
1.512 1.561 1.609 1.657 1.705 1.754 1.803 1.852 1.902 1.951 2.001 2.051 2.103
5

1.472 1.521 1.569 1.617 1.665 1.714 1.763 1.812 1.862 1.911 1.961 2.011 2.063
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.432 1.481 1.529 1.577 1.625 1.674 1.723 1.772 1.822 1.871 1.921 1.971 2.023
-5
1.392 1.441 1.489 1.537 1.585 1.634 1.683 1.732 1.782 1.831 1.881 1.931 1.983
-10
Legend
+


SE England
Category C
+
Spillway - Uncontrolled T im
Su e H
+
Su 5% Su 10%
rc h t h
rc h th e
Run-up factor - 1.55 rc h or
a r g iz o a rg 2 0 arg e 2
e L 05
eL n2 e L 50
ev 0s
ev 050 ev s T e l To
el To e l ota ta l
ta l
0.909 0.925 0.941 0.958l 0.973 0.988 1.005 1.019 1.035 1.052 1.065 1.080 1.097
10
0.884 0.900 0.916 0.933 0.948 0.963 0.980 0.994 1.010 1.027 1.040 1.055 1.072
5

0.860 0.876 0.892 0.909 0.924 0.939 0.956 0.970 0.986 1.003 1.016 1.031 1.048
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.836 0.852 0.868 0.885 0.900 0.915 0.932 0.946 0.962 0.979 0.992 1.007 1.024
-5
0.812 0.828 0.844 0.861 0.876 0.891 0.908 0.922 0.938 0.955 0.968 0.983 1.000
-10
Legend
+


SE England
Category C
Small reservoir (<1 sq.km) Ti
Su m e
+
Su 5%
+
Su 10 %
+
S u 1 5%
Spillway - Uncontrolled rc H o
ha r
rc th
ha e rc
ha th
rg e 2
rc
h a th
r g iz o rg 2 0 rg e 2
Run-up factor - 1.55 e n
L e 20
e
L e 5 0s
ve T
e
Le 05 0
ve s
e
L e 0 50
ve 50 ot ve s
l T l a l To l To
ot l ta ta
al l l
0.874 0.897 0.917 0.933 0.956 0.975 0.990 1.013 1.032 1.046 1.069 1.087 1.100
10
0.849 0.872 0.892 0.908 0.931 0.950 0.965 0.988 1.007 1.021 1.044 1.062 1.075
5

0.825 0.848 0.868 0.884 0.907 0.926 0.941 0.964 0.983 0.997 1.020 1.038 1.051
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.801 0.824 0.844 0.860 0.883 0.902 0.917 0.940 0.959 0.973 0.996 1.014 1.027
-5
0.777 0.800 0.820 0.836 0.859 0.878 0.893 0.916 0.935 0.949 0.972 0.990 1.003
-10
Legend
+


DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix G
Analysis of Maximum Percentage Changes in Total Surcharge

DEF
DEFRA
Research Contract
Appendix G - Analysis of Maximum Percentage Changes in Total Surcharge
Results of the total surcharge sensitivity analysis for the 2050s are presented, in which the event
rainfall depth and the wind speed were incrementally changed.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between geographic and climatic regions and the maximum
percentage predictions of the total surcharge in the 2050s but the results show a 5 to 10 percentage
change in total surcharge for the 2050s with the majority of sites located in medium risk.
Figure 2 plotting dam category with respect to maximum percentage change and total surcharge
shows no particular relationship.
A comparison of reservoir size with maximum predicted percent change in total surcharge is shown in
Figure 3. This shows a random plot with no significant size of reservoir at high risk.
Figure 4 shows a plot of spillway type against the maximum predicted percentage change in total
surcharge. In general uncontrolled spillways are at least and greatest risk. Bellmouths are free
flowing and not drowned with intermediate risk. Winter and summer floods are of similar behaviour
for spillways.
Figure 5 shows that run-up factor plotted against the maximum predicted percentage change in total
surcharge is not conclusive as again the geographic/climatic location is more significant.
The dams were grouped into three age zones, pre 1900, 1900 to 1945 and 1950 to present.
Fig 6 shows the age of the dam against predicted percentage change in total surcharge. The oldest
stock of dams in the selection do not show a higher percentage change in total surcharge.
It should be noted that only changes in average precipitation intensity and wind speed have been
considered and not changes in the maximum precipitation and wind speed.
C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc G1

Geographical Region
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge for winter
PMF

Geographical Region
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge for summer
PMF
Fig 1: Association between Geographical /Climate Region and maximum

predicted percentage change in Total Surcharge
\\BG_GLA_NW4_ENG\DATA\GL\2944\N\ETBC\Jobs\20123\Sec\C200\Table 7.1.xls
4
3
A
Category
2
B
1
C
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge for winter PMF
3A
Category
B
2
C
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge for summer PMF
Fig 2: Association between Dam Category and maximum

4
L
3
M
Size
1
S
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
3L
Size
2
M
S
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge for summer PMF
Fig 3: Association between reservoir size and the maximum

3
2U
Spillway Type
1B
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2
Spillway Type
B
1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
PMF
Fig 4: Association between spillway type and the maximum

U - Uncontrolled
B - Bellmouth
2.5
2
Run-up Factor
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge (Time Horizon 2050)
for winter PMF
2.5
2
Run-up Factor
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum predicted % change in Total Surcharge (Time Horizon 2050)
for summer PMF
Fig 5: Association between run-up factor and the maximum

4
Age
1950+3
1990 -2
1949
pre 1
1900
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Maximum % change in Total Surcharge for winter PMF
4
Age
1950+3
1900 -
2
1949
pre 1
1900
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
PMF
Fig 6: Association between age and the maximum


200201climate Change Impacts On The Safety of British Reservoirs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

200201climate Change Impacts On The Safety of British Reservoirs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Association with

Climate Change Impacts on the Safety

BWA 20123 January 2002

Babtie Group 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7HX

2. Review of Reservoir Safety Issues 3

5. Presentation of Sensitivity Results 25

6. The Impact of Increased Flood Rise and Wave Run-up on UK Stock

8. Conclusions and Recommendations 40

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 1

It is important to acknowledge the contribution of other organisations whose work has

• BRE - Dams Database

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 2

2 Review of Reservoir Safety Issues

2.1 Summary of Present Reservoir Standards and Regulatory Conditions

• The appropriate flood category

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 3

Flood estimates in support of reservoir safety should be based on a rainfall-runoff

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 4

2.3 Climate Change

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 5

2.4 Consideration of Risk in Dam Safety Evaluation

2.4.1 Risk Issues

2.4.2 Hazard Awareness

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 6

2.4.3 Issues to be addressed

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 7

3.2 Selection of representative reservoirs

A dam’s design ability to accommodate flood surcharge conditions is dependent on both

To more clearly understand the population characteristics of British reservoirs the

The principal criteria used in the final selection process were:

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 9

SAAR** – Standard Average Annual Rainfall

Table 3.1 Characteristics of the selected dams and reservoirs

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 10

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

3.3.1 Flood surcharge

• design event rainfall depth

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 11

3.3.2 PMP rainfall in context of climate change

3.3.3 Wave surcharge

3.3.4 Total surcharge

3.3.5 Summary of methodology

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 13

4.2 Climate change scenarios: uncertainty and construction

With a growing body of evidence suggesting a human-induced influence on global

(i) Regression and simple statistical methods

Typically these methods involve developing relationships to statistically relate

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 15

(iii) Stochastic weather generators

At the heart of most weather generators are first, or multiple-order Markov

(iv) Regional climate models

(v) Analogue scenarios

An alternative way of understanding the behaviour of extreme events during

(a) Temporal analogues – This technique involves the investigation of the

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 16

variables behave during periods of relative warmth or cold. The main

4.3 Climate change scenarios for this project

C:\WINDOWS\Desktop\bill davidson\011122R Climate Change Impacts on British Res(8).doc 17

considered more, or less, likely.

Scenario Greenhouse gas Climate sensitivity Global mean temperature

Low IS92d 1.5ºC 0.57 0.89 1.13