A new methodology for flood hazard assessment considering dike breaches

[1] This study focuses on development and application of a new modeling approach for a comprehensive flood hazard assessment along protected river reaches considering dike failures. The proposed Inundation Hazard Assessment Model (IHAM) represents a hybrid probabilistic-deterministic model. It comprises three models that are coupled in a dynamic way: (1) 1D unsteady hydrodynamic model for river channel and floodplain between dikes; (2) probabilistic dike breach model which determines possible dike breach locations, breach widths and breach outflow discharges; and (3) 2D raster-based inundation model for the dike-protected floodplain areas. Due to the unsteady nature of the 1D and 2D models and runtime coupling, the interdependence between the hydraulic loads on dikes at various locations along the reach is explicitly considered. This ensures a more realistic representation of the fluvial system dynamics under extreme conditions compared to the steady approaches. The probabilistic dike breach model describes dike failures due to three failure mechanisms: overtopping, piping and slope instability caused by seepage flow through the dike core (micro-instability). The 2D storage cell model computes various flood intensity indicators such as water depth, flow velocity, and inundation duration. IHAM is embedded in a Monte Carlo simulation in order to account for the natural variability of the input hydrograph form and the randomness of dike failures. Besides binary (wet/dry) inundation patterns, IHAM generates new probabilistic flood hazard maps for each intensity indicator and the associated uncertainty bounds. Furthermore, the novel probabilistic dike hazard maps indicate the failure probability of dikes for each considered breach mechanism.

[1]  Guus S. Stelling,et al.  Inundation of a Dutch river polder, sensitivity analysis of a physically based inundation model using historic data , 2003 .

[2]  Hope A. Seligson,et al.  HAZUS-MH Flood Loss Estimation Methodology. I: Overview and Flood Hazard Characterization , 2006 .

[3]  R. Oberstadler,et al.  Assessment of the mapping capabilities of ERS-1 SAR data for flood mapping: a case study in Germany , 1997 .

[4]  Gregory J. Hanson,et al.  Breach Morphology Observations of Embankment Overtopping Tests , 2000 .

[5]  Attilio Castellarin,et al.  Probability-weighted hazard maps for comparing different flood risk management strategies: a case study , 2009 .

[6]  A.C.W.M. Vrouwenvelder,et al.  Assessment of flood risk accounting for river system behaviour , 2007 .

[7]  P. Bates,et al.  Utility of different data types for calibrating flood inundation models within a GLUE framework , 2005 .

[8]  Jim W. Hall,et al.  Adaptive importance sampling for risk analysis of complex infrastructure systems , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[9]  Simon Waller,et al.  National Floodplain Mapping: Datasets and Methods – 160,000 km in 12 months , 2005 .

[10]  Stephanie E. Chang,et al.  HAZUS-MH Flood Loss Estimation Methodology. II. Damage and Loss Assessment , 2006 .

[11]  P. Bates,et al.  Identifiability of distributed floodplain roughness values in flood extent estimation , 2005 .

[12]  Jim W. Hall,et al.  Handling uncertainty in extreme or unrepeatable hydrological processes: the need for an alternative paradigm , 2002 .

[13]  B. Merz,et al.  Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty , 2003 .

[14]  B. Merz,et al.  Flood Risk Mapping At The Local Scale: Concepts and Challenges , 2007 .

[15]  Lucien Duckstein,et al.  Levee System Reliability Along a Confluence Reach , 1975 .

[16]  S. Blazková,et al.  Spatially distributed observations in constraining inundation modelling uncertainties , 2005 .

[17]  Alberto Guadagnini,et al.  Convergence assessment of numerical Monte Carlo simulations in groundwater hydrology , 2004 .

[18]  Bruno Merz,et al.  Flood risk analysis: Concepts and challenges , 2004 .

[19]  Jim W. Hall,et al.  Handling uncertainty in the hydroinformatic process , 2003 .

[20]  Eric F. Wood,et al.  An analysis of flood levee reliability , 1977 .

[21]  Shengxiang Gui,et al.  Overtopping Reliability Models for River Levee , 1998 .

[22]  Dinand Alkema,et al.  The Influence of Floodplain Compartmentalization on Flood Risk Within the Rhine-Meuse Delta* , 2005 .

[23]  Paolo Mignosa,et al.  Flooding scenarios due to levee breaking in the Po river , 2004 .

[24]  Jim W. Hall,et al.  National-scale Assessment of Current and Future Flood Risk in England and Wales , 2005 .

[25]  Paul D. Bates,et al.  Assessing the uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE , 2002 .

[26]  Frans Klijn,et al.  Risky places in the Netherlands: a first approximation for floods , 2009 .

[27]  Martin F. Lambert,et al.  Comparison of modelling approaches used in practical flood extent modelling , 2007 .

[28]  V. T. Chow Open-channel hydraulics , 1959 .

[29]  Paul D. Bates,et al.  Sampling-based flood risk analysis for fluvial dike systems , 2005 .

[30]  T. Sugii,et al.  Logit model for river levee stability evaluation considering the flood return period , 1994 .

[31]  A.C.W.M. Vrouwenvelder,et al.  Reliability analysis of flood defence systems in the Netherlands , 2003 .

[32]  Jae-Hong Park,et al.  Flood inundation analysis resulting from Levee-break , 1998 .

[33]  Keith Beven,et al.  Bayesian updating of flood inundation likelihoods conditioned on flood extent data , 2004 .

[34]  R. Dawson,et al.  A methodology for national-scale flood risk assessment , 2003 .

[35]  Bruno Merz,et al.  Development of dike fragility curves for piping and micro-instability breach mechanisms , 2009 .

[36]  Bruno Merz,et al.  A Probabilistic Modelling System for Assessing Flood Risks , 2006 .

[37]  Bruno Merz,et al.  Influence of dike breaches on flood frequency estimation , 2009, Comput. Geosci..

[38]  H. Moel,et al.  Flood maps in Europe – methods, availability and use , 2009 .