UNESCO-IHE

MSc. Hydraulic Engineering and River

Basin development

Module 7 - RIVER STRUCTURES

LEVEE SYSTEMS
 Learning objectives
1. Be able to classify the main types and components of levee
systems

2. Discuss the approaches used to design a levee system.

3. Analyse the interaction between levee system and river flow

4. Identify the main mechanisms of levee failure

5. Apply statistical method for estimating probability of levee

failure
 Levee system

Interaction flow/structure

Uncertainty

Exercise-Design
 Levee system

Interaction flow/structure

Uncertainty

Exercise-Design
 LEVEE SYSTEMS
A manmade barrier (embankment, floodwall or structure) along a watercourse
constructed for the primary purpose to provide hurricane, storm, and flood protection
relating to seasonal high water, storm surges, precipitation and other weather events;
and that normally is subject to water loading for only a few days or weeks during a
year”. ([Link]
Lock Haven, PA Frankfort, KY

Frankfort, KY West Columbus

Embankment alongside the river Thames, London

Yellow river embankment, Beijing

The embankment along the Dee river in North Wales, England

Embankment along the Neva river in Saint Petersburg, Russia

The embankment used to create polders
 Types of levee system
1. Natural levee
 Types of levee system

The river before the

flood
Silt
The river before the flood at regular
height.

Flood plain

Rainfall

Silt lifted onto the The river

banks in overflowing overflows
water due to heavy
The river during flooding rain

Flood plain
 Types of levee system
There is an increase in friction between the Deposited silt that has
water leaving the channel and the floodplain This forms a levee
built up over time due to
when a river overflows. The water is repeated floods
shallower on the river banks and valley floor,
thus this is why deposition of load occurs.
After repeated flooding causing the deposition
of silt onto the banks, this eventually settles
which over time builds up to form a levee.
The coarser material is deposited first, and is Flood plain
positioned closer to the river.

River above flood plain level

After repeated flooding, the river bed Raised river bed due to silt being Levee
and levees are raised due to the constant deposited in times of flood
process of the deposition of silt. Over
time, this eventually causes the river to
rise above level of flood plain. This is
called an ‘aggraded bed’.
Flood plain
 Types of levee system
2. Artificial homogenous levee

This is the simplest type of earthen levee and consists of a single material and is
homogeneous throughout. A purely homogenous section is used when only one
type of material is economically or locally available. Such sections are used for
low heights.

A purely homogeneous section, made of pervious material, poses problems of

seepage. Due to this, homogeneous section is generally provided with an internal
drainage filter like horizontal filter so that Hydraulic Gradient Line (HGL) is
confined in the section.
Types of levee system
 Types of levee system
3. Artificial zoned levee

It consists of an inner core or section which is impervious and which checks the
HGL. The inner core is used to reduce seepage within the levee system. The
transition zone prevents piping through cracks which may be developed in the
core. The outer zone gives stability to the central impervious core and also
distributed the load over a larger area of foundations.

The core of the levee may be constructed using the clay mixed with the fine sand
or fine gravel. Pure clay is not the best material for the core as it shrinks and
swells too much. Silt or silty-clay may also be used as core
Types of levee system
 Types of levee system
4. Artificial diaphragm type levee

This type of levee has a thin impervious core, which is surrounded by sand. The
impervious core, called as diaphragm, is made of impervious soils, concrete,
steel, timber or any other material. It acts as water barrier to prevent seepage.
The diaphragm must be tied to the bedrock or to a very impervious foundation
material.

The diaphragm type of levee is differentiated from the zoned ones, depending
upon thickness of core. If the thickness of the diaphragm is less than 10m or less
then height of the levee, the levee is to be considered as a diaphragm type.
Types of levee system
Types of levee system
 Components of a levee system

Inner slope k Crest zMAX Outer slope n

(Inward face) (Outward face)

River or coast Berm

Levee height hc
H(t) Levee body (fill material) Landward

Levee toe Levee toe zv

Levee foundation (original material)

Levee width L
 Components of a levee system

Earth
filling

The river bank of the Brahmaputra river in a village in the Kamarjani Union
Components of a levee system
CC block
Geotextile
(permeable fabrics
which, when used in
association with soil,
have the ability to
separate, filter, reinforce,
protect, or drain

Stone used in the

bed level portion
 Components of a levee system

Set Backs

Set backs is the space between actual river bank and riverside toe
of the embankment.

Protected
Area

Levee
embankment
Bank
Protection
QUIZ
 What is the difference between
retention basin and levee systems?
 DETENTION BASIN
VS
LEVEE SYSTEM

- Decrease flood discharge

downstream

- Increase discharge capacity

What are the main components that
need to be design in a levee systems?
 Design of a levee system
For embankment design the major design parameter required is the
selection of the magnitude of the flood flows, corresponding flood
levels and their frequency of occurrence, and levee width.

To accomplish the design of embankment must fulfil the two major

criteria:

a) The embankment must not be overtopped during the passage of

the design flood, i.e. it should have sufficient freeboard
(deterministic approach).
b) The body of the embankment must remain stable against
external forces and foundation failure during normal and
critical conditions of loading
 Design of a levee system
Crest elevation

• Having selected the flood frequency the design flood levels

need to be assessed

• Hydraulic models are now used for obtaining the crest elevation

• The embankment crest levels is to be checked against the

designed return period flood levels and the required free board
 Design of a levee system
Bed slope i= Dh/l
2 1 2 1
Wide rectangular section Q  (Whu ) K (hu ) i 3 2
 ( Lhul ) K (hu l ) i 3 2

5 5
W (hu ) 3
 L(hul ) 3

3
W  5
Assume L=0.7W hu=4m hul  hu   hul= 4.95 m
L
Assume i=0.01% 0.0001
l= m
 Design of a levee system
Crest width

The crest width of the levee should be selected on the basis of the
following criteria:
• Crest width should not be less than 2.50m.
• If the embankment is used as inspection road minimum crest
width should be 4.30m.
• If the embankment is used as road, width shall be selected based
on the type of road structure + 1.00m shoulder on both sides.
Design of a levee system
 Design of a levee system
Side slope

The side slopes are dependent upon the material and height of the levee. The
criteria for selection for side slopes shall be based on:

• Landside slopes remains steady during steady seepage at design high flood
level.
• Riverside slope must be stable during rapid drawdown conditions, must be
protected against erosion by wave action, and the crest and countryside slope
must be protected against erosion by wind and rain
• Levee should be stable against shear failure through its base.
• The side slope should be flatter than the angle of response of the levee
material
The magnitude and path of seepage penetration depends on time water is present,
permeability of the soil, water pressure head between the two sides of the embankment.

\
Design of a levee system
 Design of a levee system

Types of smooth slopes where surface roughness has diverse roughness factors
(source: Eurotop Manual, 2007)
Levee material Soil: lime, clay, sand in
different percentage
Soil with low permeability
safety factor
(10-6 to 10-8 m/s) and high
specific weight
H(Q,Tr)
H(Q)

Both river and land sides:

slope protection from erosion
(riprap, vegetation,..)
 Design of a levee system
Slope stability analysis

Generally the embankment slope stability is determined by the following

methods:

• Swedish Slip Circle Method

• Bishop’s Method
 Design of a levee system
Drainage

For drainage, longitudinal drains should be provided on the berm and cross
drains at suitable places should be provided to drain the water from the
longitudinal drains. Toe drain should be included to prevent sloughing of toe.
The use of geo-textile material is also useful for safe drainage.
 Design of levee system (summary)

H(Q)

-establish Q(Tr) to get crest height

-find soil with appropriate characteristics, soil mechanics (check embankment stabili
seepage-piping, among main cause of levee collapse)
- design appropriate bank protection
- order of magnitude preliminary design:
crest 4-5 m (depending on traffic); 2-3% slope to drain rainwater to the river
average inner slope 2:1; average outer slope (including berms) 4:1
berms large enough to allow maintenance 3-4 m
 Levee system

Interaction flow/structure

Uncertainty

Exercise-Design
 Interaction flow-levee
Levees that constrict the flow of a stream cause water to flow faster. This causes
flooding both upstream and downstream
 1 2 3 4

Q
W L

1 2 3 4

i<ik
 IMPORTANT REMARKS

• In steady flow condition, levees do not have any effect

downstream of the regulated reach

• The water surface profile is increased in the regulated

reach (except for a small reach at the end of the system)

• The backwater effect at the upstream section of the

system might extend long upstream

• In flood condition, the levee does not allow for flow

attenuation, thus there is an increase in flow values both
in the regulated reach and downstream
What are the pros and cons of levee
systems?
 Pros and cons
Pros
• Levees are the main mean of preventing inundation during flood season
• The initial cost of construction is low, although when raised subsequently, they
may become a bit expensive
• Construction is easy and presents no difficulties, as it can be done by using
local resources in unskilled labor and materials. Maintenance is equally simple
and cheap
• They can be executed in parts, provided that’s ends are properly protected.
Cons
• Levees cause rising of high flood levels
• Levees are fragile works. Bore holes caused by small animals may results in
piping.
• Levee breach can cause serious damage in the landside and deposition of sand
making the area infertile
• Low lying areas may become infested with water borne disease if proper
drainage is not provided
• The construction of a levee system might lead to the so called Levee Paradox
 The levee paradox

RISK = PROBABILITY vs CONSEQUENCES

GDP or
“well-being”

damage
caused by
flooding

Time
GDP or Development in flood prone areas:
“well-being” accept risk?

Development in
other areas

Time
Di Baldassarre et al. (2015)
Di Baldassarre et al. (2013)
Di Baldassarre et al. (2013)
Di Baldassarre et al. (2015)
Po River cross section at
Pontelagoscuro
in 1878 and 2005
 What measures would help?

Evaluation of existing

Damage Reach
Damage Reach

Urbanization Fill placement to elevate New Development

affects funoff new development
Discharge

Damage
Stage
Discharge

Damage
Stage

Attrition of damaged
property

Probability
Discharge Stage
Probability
Discharge Stage
 What measures would help?

Future without conditions

Damage Reach
Damage Reach

arge Urbanization Fill placement to elevate New Development

affects funoff new development
Urbanization Fill placement to elevate New Development
affects funoff new development
Discharge

Damage
Stage
Discharge

Damage
Stage

Attrition of
property
Attrition of damaged
property

Probability
Discharge Stage
Probability
Discharge Stage
 What measures would help?

Channel modification

Damage Reach
Damage Reach

e
Discharge

Damage
Discharge

Stage

Damage
Stage

Probability
Probability Discharge Stage
May induce higher flow rates
Discharge Stage
downstream if storage eliminated
May induce higher flow rates
downstream if storage eliminated
 What measures would help?

Reservoir/Detention storage

Damage Reach Damage Reach

ge
Discharge

Damage
Discharge

Stage

Damage
Stage

Probability
Discharge Stage
Probability
Discharge Stage
 What measures would help?

Non-structural measures

Damage Reach Damage Reach

ge
Discharge

Damage
Stage
Discharge

Damage
Stage

Floodproof
Floodproof
Raise

Raise

Probability
Discharge Stage
Probability
Discharge Stage
 What measures would help?

Levee

Damage Reach Damage Reach

HEC-FDA truncate
ge HEC-FDA truncated in EAD
in EAD
Discharge

Damage
Discharge

Stage

Damage
Stage

HEC-FDA S-$ c

HEC-FDA S-$ curve

Probability
Discharge Stage
Probability
Discharge Stage
 Levee system

Interaction flow/structure

Uncertainty

Exercise-Design
Elevation (m asl)
Steady flow profile for Q=Q(Return period 200 years)

Distance (km)
 Steady flow profile for Q=Q(Return period 200 years)

Elevation (m asl)

Distance (km)
Elevation (m asl)
Steady flow profile for Q=Q(Return period 200 years)

Distance (km)
 DETERMINISTIC vs PROBABILISTIC APPROACH

Freeboard Uncertainty bounds

traditional, recently implemented, probabilistic

deterministic approach approach
(complexity?)

one design flood profile ensemble design flood

+ freeboard profiles
FEMA
[Link]
shtm

Freeboard is a factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a

flood level for purposes of floodplain management. "Freeboard" tends
to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute
to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size
flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge openings,
and the hydrological effect of urbanization of the watershed.
Freeboard is not required by NFIP standards, but communities are
encouraged to adopt at least a one-foot freeboard to account for the
one-foot rise built into the concept of designating a floodway and the
encroachment requirements where floodways have not been
designated. Freeboard results in significantly lower flood insurance
rates due to lower flood risk.
FEMA
[Link]
shtm

Freeboard is a factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a

falsefor
flood level perception
purposesofofsafety
floodplain management. "Freeboard" tends
to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute
to flood heights greater than thecompensation not quantified
height calculated for a selected size
flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge openings,
and the hydrological effect of urbanization of the watershed.
Freeboard is not required by NFIP standards, but communities are
arbitrary
encouraged at least a one-foot freeboard to account for the one-foot
subjective
rise built into the concept of designating a floodway and the
encroachment requirements where floodways have not been
designated. Freeboard results in significantly lower flood insurance
rates due to lower flood risk.
 DETERMINISTIC vs PROBABILISTIC APPROACH

Freeboard Uncertainty bounds

traditional, recently implemented, probabilistic

deterministic approach approach
(arbitrarity? subjectivity? false safety?) (complexity?)

one design flood profile ensemble design flood

+ freeboard profiles
How would you estimate the crest
elevation?

What are the main sources of

uncertainty?
Po River between Cremona and Borgoforte (High resolution 2m DTM; LiDAR + MultiBeam)
Step 1. Model calibration
HEC-RAS simulation of the October 2000
flood event and calibration against measured
high water marks

Po River between Cremona and Borgoforte (High resolution 2m DTM; LiDAR + MultiBeam)
Step 1. Model calibration
Results of “best fit” model
45
Bed elevation
Simulated
40 Observed Left
Observed Right
35
Elevation, Z (m asl)

30

25

20

15

10

5
370000 390000 410000 430000 450000 470000
River chainage, X (m)

Model calibration: observed left and right bank

high water marks and results of the best fit model
Step 2. Design flood profile with freeboard

Po river authority: the main levee system of this river reach is

designed by using the 1-in-200 year flood

Gumbel distribution to fit the time series of 45 annual

maximum flows recorded at Cremona (upstream boundary)
 Gumbel distribution to fit the time series of 45 annual
maximum flows recorded at Cremona (upstream boundary)
Step 2. Design flood profile with freeboard

Po river authority: the main levee system of this river reach is

designed by using the 1-in-200 year flood

Gumbel distribution to fit the time series of 45 annual

maximum flows recorded at Cremona (upstream boundary)

Design flood profile is simulated by using the calibrated

HEC-RAS model and having as steady flow condition the
estimated 1-in-200 year flood

The standard (arbitrary) 1m freeboard was then added

to the design flood profile
Step 3. Design flood profile with freeboard

45
Bed elevation

40 1-in-200 year flood

+1 m freeboard
35

30
Z (m asl)

25

20

15

10

5
370000 390000 410000 430000 450000 470000
X (m)

traditional design flood profile

(single simulation with best fit model plus 1m freeboard)
 Accounting for Uncertainty

Different sources of uncertainty!

• model structure
• model parameters
• observed data
• topography
• inflow data (sample size, quality of data, model selection)
• ……………..

Focus on inflow estimation and model parameters

(as the most affecting sources of uncertainty)

Topography and model structural uncertainties neglected as they

provide a less significant contribution to the overall uncertainty
 45 5th percentile
50th percentile
95th percentile
40

35

Z (m asl) 30

25

20

15

10

5
370000 390000 410000 430000 450000 470000
X (m)

uncertain design flood profiles accounting for

model parameter uncertainty only
 45 5th percentile
50th percentile
40 95th percentile

35

Z (m asl) 30

25

20

15

10

5
370000 390000 410000 430000 450000 470000
X (m)

uncertain design flood profiles accounting for

inflow sample data uncertainty only
 45 5th percentile
50th percentile
95th percentile
40

35

Z (m asl) 30

25

20

15

10

5
370000 390000 410000 430000 450000 470000
X (m)

uncertain design flood profiles accounting for

model parameter and design flood uncertainty
 DETERMINISTIC vs PROBABILISTIC APPROACH

Freeboard Uncertainty bounds

Freeboard based approach is: Uncertainty based approach explicitly

ARBITRARY accounts for the main sources of
(recommended) uncertainty

MISLEADING (difficult to communicate and needs

(false perception of extra additional transparent assumptions)
level of safety)

SUBJECTIVE
(different freeboards for different
countries)
 Levee system

Interaction flow/structure

Uncertainty

Exercise-Design