You are on page 1of 36

CE 385 D – Water Resources

Planning and Management

Flood Management - 1

Daene C. McKinney
Floods
• Floods affect the lives of
more than 65 million people
per year

• More than any other type of


disaster, including war,
drought and famine

• In East and Southeast Asia,


during the monsoon season,
rivers swell to over 10 times
the dry season flow

• About 13% (of 45,000) of all


large dams in the world – in
more than 75 countries –
have a flood management
function
USGS - top; www.ci.austin.tx.us - bottom
Precipitation, P(t)
Hydrologic Cycle

Runoff,
streamflow, Q(t)
Flood Damage
• Injuries and loss of life
• Social disruption
• Income loss
• Emergency costs
• Physical damage
– Structures, utilities, autos, crops, etc.
• Lost value of public agency services
– Police & fire protection, hospitals, etc.
• Tax loss
– Property and sales
www.ci.austin.tx.us
Streamflow Hydrograph
Centroid of Basin Lag
Precipitation
Peak

Time
of Rise
Discharge, Q

Inflection Baseflow
Point Recession
Baseflow
Recession Baseflow

Beginning of End of Time


Direct Runoff Direct Runoff
Storm Runoff

Precipitation
P  Pe  I a  Fa

Pe

• Rainfall – Divided Ia Fa
1. Direct runoff (Pe) Time
tp
2. Initial loss (before DRO, Ia)
3. Continuing loss (after DRO, Fa)
Shoal Creek Flood - 1981
20000 0

Precip (in)
18000 1
16000 2

14000 3
Precipitation
Runoff (cfs)

12000

10000

8000

6000 Streamflow
4000

2000

0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (hr)

www.ci.austin.tx.us
Stream Gauging
• Q = VA
• Estimate:
– Cross-sectional area
– ”Average” velocity
• Subdivide cross-section
• Determine "average" flow
for each subdivision
• Sum for total flow
Stage - Discharge Curve
• Stage (height) and discharge (flow rate)
20

18

16

14
Stage (ft) 12

10

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Discharge (cfs)
Extreme Events & Return Period
1
• Extreme events: Magnitude
Frequency of occurence

• Random variable (Q); Realization (q); Threshold qT


• Extreme event

– if Q ≥ qT
• Recurrence interval
t = Time between occurrences of Q ≥ qT
• Return Period
T = E[t] = Average recurrence interval
Guadalupe River near Victoria
qT  50,000 Exceeded 16 times, 16 recurrence intervals in 69 years
Exceedence Recurrence
Year Interval
1936
1940 4
1941 1
1942 1
1958 16
1961 3
1967 6
1972 5
1977 5
1981 4
1987 6
1992 5
1999 7
2002 3
2003 1
2005 2
Number 16
Years (05-36) 69

69
E(t )  t   4.3years
16
1 1
T  E(t ) Pr(Q  qT )  Pr(Q  50,000)   0.23
T 4.3
Return Period Exceedance probability 
Flow Exceedance Distribution
• Q is RV: Annual Maximum Flow
• qT is flow with return period of T years
Pr[Q  q]
• Flow exceedance probability
1
Pr[Q  qT ] 
T
1
• Exceedance Distribution T

Pr[Q  qT ]  1 Pr[Q  qT ]
 qT q
 1 FQ (qT )
Flow exceedance distribution


Events Considered in Design
• Return periods (T)
1 – 100 years (Minor structures)
• Highway culverts & bridges, Farm structures, urban
drainage, air fields, small dams (w/o LOL)
100 – 1000 years (Intermediate structures)
• Major levees, intermediate dams
500 – 100,000 years (Major structures)
• Large dams, intermediate & small dams (w LOL)
• Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP)
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
Flood Damage
• Event damage
– Damage from flood events (e.g., 10-, 50-, 100-year
events)
– Used for emergency planning
• Expected annual damage
– Average annual damage for events that could
occur in any year
– Used for project B/C analyses
US Federal Flood Programs
• Two agencies
– US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
• Focused on reducing flood damage through implementation of
various protection works
– Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• Focused on flood insurance as a means for partial recovery of
losses for property owners
• Floodplains flooded by the 100-year flood are subject to
– land-use management provisions (no development in the floodway,
properties must be elevated, etc.) and
– flood insurance is mandatory for properties located within this zone
if communities are to remain eligible for certain disaster relief
programs.
Flood Damage Reduction
(a US Corps of Engineers Perspective)

• Identify a plan that will reduce flood-damage and contribute to national


economic development (NED) and is consistent with environmental
protection
• Benefits
– Locational (BL): Increase in income from additional floodplain development
– Intensification (BI): Increase in income from existing floodplain activities
– Inundation reduction (BIR): Plan-related reduction in physical economic
damage, income loss and emergency costs
• Costs: Total implementation costs + OM&R costs (C)

NB  BL  BI  BIR  C


Inundation Reduction
• Economic damages With and Without plan

NB  BL  BI  BIR  C
BIR  DamageWithout Plan  DamageWith Plan

• 
Expected Annual Flood Damage
– Risk of various magnitudes of flood damage each year
– Weight damage by probability of event occurring

NB  BL  BI  EDW /O   EDW   C


Flood-Damage Reduction Measures
Measures that Measures that Measures that Measures that
reduce damage by reduce damage by reduce damage by reduce damage by
reducing discharge reducing stage reducing existing reducing future
damage damage
susceptibility susceptibility
Reservoir Channel Levee or floodwall Land-use and
improvement construction
regulation
Diversion Floodproofing Acquisition
Watershed Relocation
management
Flood warning and
preparedness
planning
Effect of Flood Management Measures
Impacted Relationship
Stage - Stage - Discharge - Discharge - Damage -
Discharge Damage Damage Frequency Frequency
Reservoir ✓ ✓
Levee ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Channel mod. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Diversion ✓ ✓
Flood Forecasting ✓ ✓
Flood Proofing ✓ ✓ ✓
Relocation ✓ ✓ ✓
Flood warning ✓ ✓ ✓
Land use control ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Planning Study
• Which measures, Where to locate, What size, How to operate
• Formulate  Evaluate  Compare various alternative plans
• Reconnaissance phase:
– Find at least one plan that
• Has positive Net Benefits
• Satisfies environmental constraints
• Is acceptable to local stakeholders
– Estimate flood damages Without plan
• Feasibility phase:
– Refine and search the set of feasible plans
• Detailed studies of channel capacity, structural configurations, etc.
• Evaluate economic objective, environmental compliance, etc.

• Design phase
Computing Expected Annual Damage
flow-probability stage-discharge stage-damage
p
H H


 
q q Damage

• Compute
– Damage exceedance distribution  
– Probability that Flood Damage
damage-probability
(FD) is ≥ specified level (fdT)
Damage
1
p  Pr[FD  fdT ] 
T
• Expected Annual Flood 
Expected
Damage  Annual
 E[FD]   p(FD)dFD Damage
0 p
Computation of Expected Annual Damage
1. Construct basic relationships for without-plan situation
– Flow exceedance distribution
– Stage-discharge curve
– Stage-damage curve
– Damage exceedance distribution
2. Compute the area beneath the damage-exceedance distribution
(expected annual flood damage) for each location and sum to obtain the
total expected annual flood damage
3. Repeat step (1) for each alternative flood plain management plan under
investigation
4. Repeat step (2)
5. Subtract results of step (4) (with plan) for each plan from without-plan
results. The differences will be expected annual flood damage reduction
for each plan
Expected Annual Flood Damage
Stage-discharge curve Stage-damage curve

E[FD]

Flow exceedance distribution Damage exceedance distribution

Calculating Expected Annual Flood Damage


Benefits of E[FD] Reduction
• Expected Annual Flood Damage reduction
– Difference between E[FD] with and without protection

Calculating Expected Flood Damage Reduction Benefits


Floodplain Protected by a Levee
• Probability of overtopping or geo-
structural failure
– Need stage-discharge relationships in
the channel and on the floodplain
• Flood stage in the floodplain
protected by a levee is a function
of
– Flow in the stream or river channel,
– Crosssectional area of the channel
between the levees on either side,
– Channel slope and roughness,
– Levee height.
• If floodwaters enter the
floodplain
– Water level in the floodplain depends
on the topological characteristics of
the floodplain
Levees
• Probability of levee failure • Probability of levee failure
function of – 15% = probable non-failure
– Levee height point, PNP
– Distribution of flows – 85% = probable failure point,
– Probability of geostructural PFP
failure
Stage Damage
Probable failure point (PFP)

Without
Probable non-failure Project


point (PNP)
Levee
With
Project
0.0 0.15 0.85 1.0
Probability of failure if water
surface reaches stage shown Stage

   


Example
Inundated 130 businesses and
• Urban basin. 732 residences, second-story
flooding, eight lives lost.
• Floods have caused significant
damage
• Flow is measured at a USGS 18
gauge nearby 16

Damage ($million 1978)


14
• communities in the basin have
12
been flooded periodically 10
• Increased development in the 8
upper portion of the basin 6
promises to worsen the flood 4
problem, as urbanization 2
increases the volume and peak 0
0 200 400 600
discharge
Discharge (m3/sec)
Example
• Flood problem analyzed to identify opportunities for damage reduction
• Set of damage reduction alternatives formulated

• Evaluate each alternative in terms of economic performance


• Display the results so that alternatives can be compared
• Identify and recommend a superior plan from amongst the alternatives
• The standard for damage-reduction benefit computation is the without-
project condition. Expected annual damage should be computed
• For the computation, discharge-frequency, stage-discharge, and stage-
damage relationships were developed following standard procedures
Discharge - Probability Function
• The existing, without-project discharge-frequency relationship
was developed from the sample of historical annual maximum
discharge observed at the USGS gauge
1000
Exceedence Discharge 900
Probability (m3/s)
0.002 899 800

0.005 676 700


0.01 539
Discharge (m3/s)

600
0.02 423
0.05 299 500
0.1 223 400
0.2 158
300
0.5 87
0.8 51 200
0.9 39 100
0.95 32
0
0.99 22.9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedence Probability
Stage - Discharge Function
• The present, without project stage-damage relationship at the
USGS gauge index point was developed from water-surface
profiles computed with a computer program
Discharge-Stage 1400.0
Discharge
Stage (m) (m3/s) 1200.0
1.97 84.4
2.39 100.4 1000.0
3.39 168.2
Discharge (m3/s)

4.07 228.4 800.0


4.58 277.5
5.50 383.7 600.0
6.70 538.5
7.13 605.8 400.0
7.47 651.5
7.75 721.7 200.0
8.10 838.2
8.79 1030.8 0.0
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
8.99 1159.1
Stage (m)
9.57 1297.1
Stage - Damage Function
• Developed with the following procedure:
– Categorize structures in the basin
– Define an average-case stage-damage relationships for categories
– Add emergency costs

7000.0
Stage-Damage
Damage 6000.0
Stage (m) ($1,000)
5000.0
3.35 0.0
Damage ($1,000)

4.27 25.7 4000.0


4.57 88.6
5.18 339.3 3000.0
5.49 525.1
6.10 1100.0 2000.0
6.71 2150.6
1000.0
8.23 5132.8
8.53 5654.2 0.0
9.14 6416.5 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00
9.45 6592.2 Stage (m)
Flood Damage – Exceedance Frequency
6000

Exceedence Damage
Probability ($1,000) 5000
0.002 5286
0.005 3830
0.01 2133 4000
0.02 817
Damage ($1000)
0.05 168
3000
0.1 18.2
0.2 0
2000

1000

0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Exceedence Frequency
EAD Integration Procedure
Damage ($)
• Area between Area added as
last step in
integration
each pair of
points is found
by Integration.
Area under
curve is
expected
annual damage
First
exceedance
value should be
at zero damage

Last
exceedance Exceedance Probability
frequency
Expected Annual Flood Damage
Integrating
Mean
Damage
Exceedence Discharge Damage Probability for Weighted
Probability (m3/s) Stage (m) ($1,000) Increment increment Damage
0.002 5286 10,572
0.002 898.8 8.32 5286
0.003 4557.9 13,673.8
0.005 676.1 7.57 3830
0.005 2981.7 14,908.5
0.01 538.5 6.70 2133
0.01 1475.4 14,753.5
0.02 423.0 5.80 817
0.03 492.5 14,773.5
0.05 298.8 4.76 168
0.05 92.9 4,645.0
0.1 222.5 4.00 18.2
0.10 9.1 910.0
0.2 158.4 3.24 0
EAD 74,236

n
E(D)  p0 D0   p j  p j1 
D j  D j1 
Trapezoid Rule:
j1 2
Uncertainty
• In flood damage-reduction planning, uncertainties include
– Future hydrologic events: streamflow and rainfall
• choice of distribution and values of parameters
– Simplified models of complex hydraulic phenomena
• geometric data, misalignment of structure, material variability, and slope
and roughness factors
– Relationship between depth and inundation damage
• structure values and locations, how the public will respond to a flood
– Structural and geotechnical performance when subjected to floods
Introducing Uncertainty
• Assign probability density
functions to evaluation functions
• At any location an orthogonal
slice would yield the PDF of
uncertainty
• EAD and benefits determined in
the same way as before,
however, a Monte Carlo
sampling is used to sample from
the functions to produce
independent probability –
damage functions that are
integrated to compute EAD
• Monte Carlo sampling is
repeated (replicates) until stable
expected values are computed.

Darryl W. Davis, Risk Analysis in Flood Damage Reduction Studies — The


Corps Experience, World Water Congress 2003 118, 306 (2003)