Probabilistic flood hazard mapping: Effects of uncertain boundary conditions

113Citations
Citations of this article
193Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Comprehensive flood risk assessment studies should quantify the global uncertainty in flood hazard estimation, for instance by mapping inundation extents together with their confidence intervals. This appears of particular importance in the case of flood hazard assessments along dike-protected reaches, where the possibility of occurrence of dike failures may considerably enhance the uncertainty. We present a methodology to derive probabilistic flood maps in dike-protected flood prone areas, where several sources of uncertainty are taken into account. In particular, this paper focuses on a 50 km reach of River Po (Italy) and three major sources of uncertainty in hydraulic modelling and flood mapping: uncertainties in the (i) upstream and (ii) downstream boundary conditions, and (iii) uncertainties in dike failures. Uncertainties in the definition of upstream boundary conditions (i.e. design-hydrographs) are assessed through a copula-based bivariate analysis of flood peaks and volumes. Uncertainties in the definition of downstream boundary conditions are characterised by uncertainty in the rating curve with confidence intervals which reflect discharge measurement and interpolation errors. The effects of uncertainties in boundary conditions and randomness of dike failures are assessed by means of the Inundation Hazard Assessment Model (IHAM), a recently proposed hybrid probabilistic-deterministic model that considers three different dike failure mechanisms: overtopping, piping and micro-instability due to seepage. The results of the study show that the IHAM-based analysis enables probabilistic flood hazard mapping and provides decision-makers with a fundamental piece of information for devising and implementing flood risk mitigation strategies in the presence of various sources of uncertainty. © 2013 Author(s).

Figures

  • Fig. 1. Study area. Upper left panel: Po River basin and study area (box); lower left panel: river cross-sections (grey lines) and levee system discretization for the left (green dots) and right (red dots) side; right panel: 2-D raster-based model extension (grey box) and floodplain area (yellow).
  • Table 1. Sources of uncertainty in flood hazard mapping grouped into natural and epistemic uncertainty (adapted from Apel et al., 2004); sources in italic are directly considered into the presented analysis.
  • Fig. 2. Schematic structure of the IHAM model adopted for flood hazard estimation under uncertainty conditions.
  • Fig. 3. Rating curves estimated at the Cremona cross-section: normal rating curve (blue line), median rating curve (red dashed line), and corresponding 90 % confidence intervals (black lines) for Traditional (left panel) and Constrained (right panel) approaches (Domeneghetti et al., 2012).
  • Table 2. Width of dike breaches, Bw: statistics observed along the Po River in the period 1800–1951 (data from Coratza, 2005)
  • Fig. 4. Empirical frequency distribution of breach widths, Bw, observed along the Po River in the period 1800–1951 (bars) and fitted probability density distribution (blue line; log-normal).
  • Fig. 5. Bivariate analysis: (a) level curves for the Gumbel copula for different return periods (black lines) and (q, v) pairs adopted for the 200 yr event (red dots); (b) flow hydrographs corresponding to copula-based (Q, V ) pairs.
  • Fig. 6. Monte Carlo simulations; upper panel: range of variation (grey dashed line) and median (black line) water elevation profiles simulated for the RandomT subset along the Po River, compared with the minimum dike-crest elevation (red dashed line). Lower panel: water depth variability simulated along the Po River for RandomT (black line) and RandomC (dashed line) subsets.

References Powered by Scopus

Goodness-of-fit tests for copulas: A review and a power study

1051Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Uncertainty in river discharge observations: A quantitative analysis

520Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty

420Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Flood hazard mapping methods: A review

173Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Deep learning methods for flood mapping: a review of existing applications and future research directions

164Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Enhancing river model set-up for 2-D dynamic flood modelling

148Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Domeneghetti, A., Vorogushyn, S., Castellarin, A., Merz, B., & Brath, A. (2013). Probabilistic flood hazard mapping: Effects of uncertain boundary conditions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(8), 3127–3140. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3127-2013

Readers over time

‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2508162432

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 88

67%

Researcher 26

20%

Professor / Associate Prof. 9

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 8

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 72

55%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 36

28%

Environmental Science 17

13%

Social Sciences 5

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0