Sampling-based flood risk analysis for fluvial dike systems

Abstract

A dike system of moderate size has a large number of potential system states, and the loading imposed on the system is inherently random. If the system should fail, in one of its many potential failure modes, the topography of UK floodplains is usually such that hydrodynamic modelling of flood inundation is required to generate realistic estimates of flood depth and hence damage. To do so for all possible failure states may require 1,000s of computationally expensive inundation simulations. A risk-based sampling technique is proposed in order to reduce the computational resources required to estimate flood risk. The approach is novel in that the loading and dike system states (obtained using a simplified reliability analysis) are sampled according to the contribution that a given region of the space of basic variables makes to risk. The methodology is demonstrated in a strategic flood risk assessment for the city of Burton-upon-Trent in the UK. 5,000 inundation model simulations were run although it was shown that the flood risk estimate converged adequately after approximately half this number. The case study demonstrates that, amongst other factors, risk is a complex function of loadings, dike resistance, floodplain topography and the spatial distribution of floodplain assets. The application of this approach allows flood risk managers to obtain an improved understanding of the flooding system, its vulnerabilities and the most efficient means of allocating resource to improve performance. It may also be used to test how the system may respond to future external perturbations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  1. Archer D, Foster M, Faulkner D, Mawdsley J (2000) The synthesis of design flood hydrographs. In: Proc. ICE/CIWEM Conf. Flooding–Risks and Reactions. Terrace Dalton, London

  2. Aronica G, Bates PD, Horritt MS (2002) Assessing the uncertainty in distributed model predictions using observed binary pattern information within GLUE. Hydrol Process 16:2001–2016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bates PD, De Roo APJ (2000) A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. J Hydrol 236:54–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bedford T, Cooke RM (2001) Probabilistic risk analysis: foundations and methods. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bettess R, Reeve CE (1995) Performance of river flood embankments. HR Wallingford Report SR 384

  6. Black and Veatch (2002) Fluvial trent strategy—interim hydrology report. Black and Veatch Ltd

  7. Black and Veatch (2003) Fluvial trent strategy—interim hydraulic modelling report. Black and Veatch Ltd

  8. Bye P, Horner M (1998) Report by the independent review team to the board of the environment agency. Vols 1 and 2, Environment Agency, Bristol

  9. Casciati F, Faravelli L (1991) Fragility analysis of complex structural systems. Research Studies Press, Taunton

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chadwick A, Morfett J (1993) Hydraulics in civil and environmental engineering, 2nd edn. E& FN SPON, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Colemand MD, Mercer JB (2002) NEXTMap Britain: completing phase 1 of Intermap’s global mapping strategy. GeoInformatics December 2002, pp 16–19

  13. Craig RF (1992) Soil mechanics, 5. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cugier P, Le Hir P (2002) Development of a 3D hydrodynamic model for coastal ecosystem modelling. Application to the plume of the Seine River (France). Estur Coast Shelf Sci 55(5):673–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dawson RJ (2003) Performance-based management of flood defence systems. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol

  16. Dawson RJ, Hall JW (2002a) Improved condition characterisation of coastal defences. In: Proc. of ICE conference on coastlines, structures and breakwaters. Thomas Telford, London, pp 123–134

  17. Dawson RJ, Hall JW (2002b) Probabilistic condition characterisation of coastal structures using imprecise information. In: McKee Smith J (ed) Coastal engineering 2002, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference, Cardiff UK, July 8–12, 2002. New Jersey: World Scientific, vol 2, pp 2348–2359

  18. DEFRA (2002) UK climate impacts programme 2002 climate change scenarios: implementation for flood and coastal defence: guidance for users. R&D Technical Report W5B-029/T. DEFRA, London

  19. Environment Agency (2001) Lessons learned: autumn 2000 floods. Environment Agency, Bristol

  20. Halcrow, HR Wallingford, John Chatterton Associates (2001) National appraisal of assets at risk from flooding and coastal erosion including the effects of climate change. DEFRA, London

  21. Hall JW, Dawson RJ, Sayers P, Rosu C, Chatterton J, Deakin R (2003a) A methodology for national-scale flood risk assessment. J Water Maritime Eng 156(3):235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hall JW, Meadowcroft IC, Sayers PB, Bramley ME (2003b) Integrated flood risk management in England and Wales. Nat Hazard Rev 4(3):126–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hall JW, Tarantola S, Bates PD, Horritt MS (2005) Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration. ASCE J Hydraulic Eng 131(2):117–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Harr ME (1995) Accounting for variability (reliability). In: Chen WF (ed) The civil engineering handbook. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 683–704

    Google Scholar 

  25. Horritt MS, Bates PD (2001) Predicting floodplain inundation: raster-based modelling versus the finite-element approach. Hydrol Process 15:825–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. ICE (2001) Final report of the ICE’s presidential commission to review the technical aspects of flood risk management in England and Wales: learning to live with rivers. Institution of Civil Engineers, London

  27. JCSS–Joint Committee on Structural Safety (1981) General principles on reliability for structural design. Int. Assoc. for Bridge and Structural Engineering

  28. Jonkman SN, Van Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling JK (2003) Flood risk calculated with different risk measures. In: McKee Smith J (ed) Coastal Engineering 2002, Proceedings of the 28th international conference, Cardiff UK, July 8–12, 2002. New Jersey: World Scientific, vol 2, pp 2360–2372

  29. Jorissen RE, Stallen PJM (1998) Quantified societal risk and policy making. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  30. Melchers RE (1999) Structural reliability analysis and prediction, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moser DA (1997) The use of risk analysis by the US Army Corps of Engineers. In: Proceedings hydrology and hydraulics workshop on risk-based analysis for flood damage reduction studies. USACE, pp 1–14

  32. NAO (2001) Inland Flood Defence. Report by the comptroller and auditor general of the National Audit Office. HMSO, London

  33. NRC (National Research Council) (2000) Risk analysis and uncertainty in flood damage reduction studies. National Academy Press, Washington DC

  34. Penning-Rowsell EC, Johnson C, Tunstall SM, Tapsell SM, Morris J, Chatterton JB, Coker A, Green C (2003) The benefits of flood and coastal defence: techniques and data for 2003. Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research Centre

  35. Pilarczyk KW (1998) Dykes and revetments: design, maintenance and safety assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sayers PB, Hall JW, Meadowcroft IC (2002) Towards risk-based flood hazard management in the UK. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, 150(Special Issue 1):36–42

  37. Tapsell SM, Penning-Rowsell EC, Tunstall SM, Wilson TL (2002) Vulnerability to flooding: health and social dimensions. Phil Trans Royal Soc Lond A360:1511–1525

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Terzaghi K, Peck RB, Mesri G (1996) Soil mechanics in engineering practice, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. USACE (1996) Risk-based analysis for flood damage reduction studies. Report EM1110–2-1619, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington

  40. USACE (1999) Risk assessment handbook, Volume I: Human health evaluation and risk assessment handbook, Volume II: Environmental evaluation. Engineering manual EM 200–1-4

  41. USACE (2002) Coastal engineering manual. USACE, Manual EM 1110–2-1100 http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/

  42. Van Gelder PHJM, Vrijling JK (1998) The effect of inherent uncertainty in time and space on the reliability of flood protection. In: Lydersen S, Hansen GK, Sandtorv H (eds) Safety and reliability, Proceedings ESREL ’98 Conference, Trondheim, Norway, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 451–456

  43. Visser PJ (1998) Breach Growth in Sand defences. Communication on Hydraulic and Geotechnical Engineering. TU Delft Report no. 98–1

  44. Voortman HG, Van Gelder PHAJM, Vrijling JK (2003) Risk-based design of large-scale flood defence systems. In: McKee Smith J (ed) Coastal Engineering 2002, Proceedings of the 28th international conference, Cardiff UK, July 8–12, 2002. New Jersey: World Scientific, vol 2, pp 2373–2385

  45. Vrijling JK (2001) Probabilistic design of water defence systems in The Netherlands. Reliabil Eng Syst Saf 74:337–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wahl TL (1998) Prediction of embankment dam breach parameters: a literature review and needs assessment. Dams Safety Office: DSO-98–004 http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/twahl/

  47. Wallingford HR (2004a) Performance and Reliability of Flood and Coastal Defences–Phase I: Literature Review, DEFRA/EA R&D Programme R&D Report

  48. Wallingford HR (2004b) Investigation of extreme flood processes& uncertainty (IMPACT) EC Research Project No. EVG1-CT2001–00037- http://www.impact-project.net

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research described in this paper formed part of the “RASP: Risk assessment for flood and coastal defence systems for strategic planning” project, funded by the Environment Agency within the joint DEFRA/EA Flood and Coastal Defence R&D programme. Data used in the case study was provided by The Environment Agency and Black and Veatch Ltd. Dr. Rosu was funded by a European Commission Marie-Curie research fellowship.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Dawson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dawson, R., Hall, J., Sayers, P. et al. Sampling-based flood risk analysis for fluvial dike systems. Stoch Environ Res Ris Assess 19, 388–402 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0010-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Flood risk assessment
  • Reliability analysis
  • Monte Carlo
  • Infrastructure systems
  • Flood management