4.6 Article

Probabilistic flood risk analysis considering morphological dynamics and dike failure

期刊

NATURAL HAZARDS
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 287-307

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11069-017-3126-6

关键词

Aggradation; Flood risk; Dike failure; MIKE1D; MIKE SHE

资金

  1. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)
  2. World Bank
  3. Economic Development Board (EDB), Singapore (IPP Scholarship)
  4. DHI-NTU Research Centre and Education Hub

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive flood risk assessment should aim not only at quantifying uncertainties but also the variability of risk over time. In this study, an efficient modelling framework was proposed to perform probabilistic hazard and risk analysis in dike-protected river systems accounting for morphological variability and uncertainty. The modelling framework combined the use of: (1) continuous synthetic discharge forcing, (2) a stochastic dike breach model dynamically coupled to a stochastic unsteady one-dimensional hydraulic model (MIKE1D) describing river flows, (3) a catalogue of pre-run probabilistic inundation maps (MIKE SHE) and (4) a damage and loss model (CAPRA). The methodology was applied using continuous simulations to a 45-km reach of the Upper Koshi River, Nepal, to investigate the changes in breach and flood hazards and subsequent risks after 2 and 5 years of probable river bed aggradation. The study results indicated an increase in annual average loss of 4% per year driven by changes in loss distribution in the most frequent loss return periods (20-500 years). The use of continuous simulations and dike breach model also provided a more robust estimation of risk metrics as compared to traditional binary treatment of flood defence and/or the direct association of flow with loss return periods. The results were helpful to illustrate the potential impacts of dynamic river morphology, dike failure and continuous simulation and their significance when devising flood risk study methodologies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据