04/18/2005

Hydrologic Design and Design

Storms
Readings: Applied Hydrology Sections 13.1-13.2
 Hydrologic extremes
• Extreme events
– Floods
– Droughts
• Magnitude of extreme events is related to their
frequency of occurrence
1
Magnitude 
Frequency of occurence
• The objective of frequency analysis is to relate the
magnitude of events to their frequency of
occurrence through probability distribution
• It is assumed the events (data) are independent and
come from identical distribution

2
 Hydrologic design
• Water control
– Peak flows, erosion, pollution, etc.
• Water management
– Domestic and industrial use, irrigation, instream flows, etc
• Tasks
– Determine design inflow
– Route the design inflow
– Find the output
• check if it is sufficient to meet the demands (for management)
• Check if the outflow is at safe level (for control)

3
 Hydrologic design scale
• Hydrologic design scale – range in magnitude of the
design variable within which a value must be
selected
• Design considerations
– Safety
– Cost
• Do not design small structures for large peak values
(not cost effective)
• Do not design large structures for small peak values
(unsafe)
• Balance between safety and cost.

4
 Estimated Limiting Value (ELV)
• Lower limit on design value – 0
• Upper limit on design value – ELV
• ELV – largest magnitude possible for a hydrologic
event at a given location, based on the best available
hydrologic information.
– Length of record
– Reliability of information
– Accuracy of analysis
• Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) / Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF)
5
6
TxDOT Recommendations
Recommended Design Frequencies (years)
- Design Check
Flood
Functional Classification and Structure Type 2 5 10 25 50 100
Freeways (main lanes): - - - - - -
 culverts - - - - X X
 bridges - - - - X X
Principal arterials: - - - - - -
 culverts - - X (X) X X
 small bridges - - X (X) X X
 major river crossings - - - - (X) X
Minor arterials and collectors (including frontage roads): - - - - - -
 culverts - X (X) X - X
 small bridges - - X (X) X X
 major river crossings - - - X (X) X
Local roads and streets (off-system projects): - - - - - -
 culverts X X X - - X
 small bridges X X X - - X
Storm drain systems on interstate and controlled access - - - - - -
highways (main lanes):
 inlets and drain pipe - - X - - X
 inlets for depressed roadways* - - - - X X
Storm drain systems on other highways and frontage: - - - - - -
 inlets and drain pipe X (X) - - - X
 inlets for depressed roadways* - - - (X) X X
Notes.
* A depressed roadway provides nowhere for water to drain even when the curb height is
exceeded.
( ) Parentheses indicate desirable frequency.
7
 Hydrologic design level
• Hydrologic design level – magnitude of the
hydrologic event to be considered for the
design or a structure or project.
• Three approaches for determining design level
– Empirical/probabilistic
– Risk analysis
– Hydroeconomic analysis

8
 Empirical/Probabilitic
• P(most extreme event of last N years will be
exceeded once in next n years) P( N , n)  n
N n

• P(largest flood of last N years will be exceeded in

n=N years) = 0.5
• Drought lasting m years is worst in N year record.
What is the probability that a worse drought will
occur in next n years?
– # sequences of length m in N years = N-m+1
– # sequences of length m in n years = n-m+1
n  m 1
P ( N , n, m ) 
( N  m  1)  (n  m  1) 9
 Example 13.2.1
• If the critical drought of the record, as
determined from 40 yrs of data, lasted 5 yrs,
what is the chance that a more severe drought
will occur during the next 20 yrs?
• Solution:
N = 40, m = 5 and n = 20
20  5  1
P(40,5,20)   0.308
40  20  2  5  2

10
 Risk Analysis
• Uncertainty in hydrology
– Inherent - stochastic nature of hydrologic phenomena
– Model – approximations in equations
– Parameter – estimation of coefficients in equations
• Consideration of Risk
– Structure may fail if event exceeds T–year design
magnitude
n
 1
R  1  1  
 T
– R = P(event occurs at least once in n years)
• Natural inherent risk of failure

11
 Example 13.2.2
n
 1
• Expected life of culvert = 10 yrs R  1  1  
 T
• Acceptable risk of 10 % for the culvert 10
capacity  1
0.10  1  1  
 T
• Find the design return period
T  95 yrs

 What is the chance that the culvert designed for an event of

95 yr return period will not have its capacity exceeded for 50
yrs?
The risk associated with failure of culvert when the flow exceed 95 yr flood
in the next 95 years is:  1
50

R  1  1  
 95 
R  0.41

The chance that the capacity will not be exceeded during the next 50 yrs is 1-
0.41 = 0.59 12
 Hydroeconomic Analysis
• Probability distribution of hydrologic event
and damage associated with its occurrence
are known
• As the design period increases, capital cost
increases, but the cost associated with
expected damages decreases.
• In hydroeconomic analysis, find return period
that has minimum total (capital + damage)
cost.

13
14
 Beargrass Creek Case Study
• Description of the Study Area
• Hydrology & Hydraulics
• Economic Analysis
• Project Planning
• Assessment of the Risk Based Analysis
Methodology

From “Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies”, NRC Report:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9971
Beargrass Creek Study Area

North Fork

Middle Fork

South Fork 61 mi2

Drainage Area
Buechel Br
Levee on the Ohio River
 Pump
Station at
the Levee
(Capacity
7800 cfs!)
Concrete-Lined Channel
Detention Pond

Inlet Weir
Beargrass Creek at the Detention Pond

Pond Outlet Pipe

 Damage Reaches

1
15
14
13
12
11
2
10

3 9 5

4 6 7 8 4
3
5 2
1
 Beargrass Creek Case Study
• Description of the Study Area
• Hydrology & Hydraulics
• Economic Analysis
• Project Planning
• Assessment of the Risk Based Analysis
Methodology
 Flood Frequency Curve (SF-9)
Separate curve for each reach and each plan
Uncertainty in Frequency Curve
Reach SF-9, Without Plan Conditions

Prob Mean Mean Mean Log10

(cfs) +2 SD -2 SD (SD)
0.01 4310 3008 6176 0.0781
0.5 1220 1098 1356 0.0229

log 10 Q   log 10 Q  K * log10 Q

 Water Surface Profiles

1
15
14
13
12
11
2
10

3 9 5

4 6 7 8 4
3
5 2
1
Water Surface Profiles
Uncertainty in Stage-Discharge

Constant
Reduces prop.
to depth

SD= 0.5 ft at 100 yr flow

 Beargrass Creek Case Study
• Description of the Study Area
• Hydrology & Hydraulics
• Economic Analysis
• Project Planning
• Assessment of the Risk Based Analysis
Methodology
 Computation of Expected Annual Damage (EAD)
Discharge (Q)

Discharge (Q)
Stage (H) Exceedance Probability (p)
Damage (D)

Damage (D)
Stage (H) Exceedance Probability (p)
1
EAD   D( p )dp
0
 Damage Categories

• Single-family residential
• Multi-family residential
• Commercial buildings
• Public buildings
• Automobiles
• Cemeteries
• Traffic disruption
• Utilities
 Structures
p=0.002 p=0.01
p=0.1

p=0.999
 Index Location
• Each damage reach has
an index location Index for SF-9 p=0.01

• All structures are p=0.1

p=0.5
assumed to exist there
• First floor elevation Invert
adjusted to reflect the
Rm 10.363
change in location
within the reach Rm 10.124
Rm 9.960
 Building Damage
D  r1 hV  r2 (h)C
• Value of the structure, V
• Value of the contents,
h
C = kV
• k=V/C, contents to value First Floor Elevation

ratio (~40%)
Depth, h r1(h) r2(h)
• Damage is a function of
depth of flooding, 3ft 27% 35%
expressed as ratio,r(h), of 6ft 40% 45%
value
 Uncertainty in Building Damage
• Value of structure,
– SD=10% of V for
residential
– Commercial distribution
described by
• Value of contents (SD of
k in C=kV) h

• Uncertainty in first floor First Floor Elevation

elevation, SD=0.2ft
• Uncertainty in damage D  r1 hV  r2 (h)C
ratios, r(h)
 Stage-Damage Curve

Multi-family Residential, Reach SF-9

 Stage-Damage Curves
• Each structure is treated individually
• Stage-damage curve with uncertainty is
produced for each damage category for each
reach
• Added together to give the total stage-
damage curve for the reach(?)
 Beargrass Creek Case Study
• Description of the Study Area
• Hydrology & Hydraulics
• Economic Analysis
• Project Planning
• Assessment of the Risk Based Analysis
Methodology
 Planning Team
• Three key people:
– Planner: formulates project alternatives, works
with local sponsor
– Hydraulic Engineer: determines discharge and
stage data
– Economist: estimates damage, costs, benefits and
does the risk analysis
 Planning Methodology

• Identify potential project components (detention

ponds, levees, …)
– 22 initially proposed, 11 on Beargrass Creek, and 11 on
Buechel Branch
• Evaluate them all individually to see if net benefits
are positive
– 8 components on Buechel Branch eliminated
• Combine components into plans, incrementally
– 10 components in NED plan: 8 detention ponds,
1 floodwall, 1 channel improvement
Three Plan Development Reaches

1
1
15
14
13
12
2
10
11
2
3
3 9 5

4 6 7 8 4
3
5 2
1
 Risk of Flooding
• Establish a target stage
at each damage reach
index point
• Find annual probability Target Stage

of exceeding that stage

• Find reliability of
passing design floods
 Assessment of Engineering Risk
F(h)
• Conditional probability
– Assumes a particular flood 1
severity Exceedance probability

• Annual probability
– Integrates over all flood
Nonexceedance
severities probability
• Risk measures actually used
– Annual exceedance probability 0
Target Stage H
– Conditional nonexceedance
probability
 Computation of Engineering Risk Measures
from the Stage-Frequency Curve
Q H H
Q*
Target Stage
f1(Q|p) H*
H*
f2(H|Q) f3(H|p)
p Q p

p* Q* p* pe

Annual exceedance probability Conditional nonexceedance probability

– Find pe for target stage at each
Monte Carlo replicate
– Get expected value and median of pe
values over all simulations
– Get long term risk as 1-(1-pe)n
– Find H* for given p* at each
replicate
– Find % of replicates for which
H* < Target stage
 Beargrass Creek Case Study
• Description of the Study Area
• Hydrology & Hydraulics
• Economic Analysis
• Project Planning
• Assessment of the Risk Based Analysis
Methodology
 Overall Assessment

• The core methodology is solid and is an advance in

engineering practice of flood risk assessment
• Focus is completely on damage reaches considered
as statistically independent entities
• Whole project risk and 25%,50%,75% damage values
cannot be built up this way
• Can specification of standard deviations of analysis
variables be improved?
Beargrass Creek 100 year Flood Plain Map

Middle Fork

South Fork
Spatial Subdivision of the Region

Spatial Unit Used for

Whole River Expected Annual Damage
(EAD), Benefit-Cost
analysis
3 Main River Reaches Incremental analysis to get
NED plan
22 Damage Reaches Basic unit for analysis
using HEC-FDA
263 Hydraulic Cross- Water surface elevation
sections profile computation
2150 Structures Structure inventory
 Whole Project Risk Assessment
• Take a flood of severity, p, and integrate the damage
along the reach
– Without any plan (o)
– With a plan (w)
– Benefit of plan is B = Do - Dw
• Randomize the flood discharge and stage for the
whole project rather than for each reach
• Compute project-based damage values for each
randomization and use them to get B25, B75 values