Compare and evaluate the performance of structural flood risk management options

• Autorzy: Dwijendra Ngakan K.A. , Majdi Ali

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/jwld.2022.141569

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

One of the most important natural phenomena that causes harmful damage around the world is the occurrence of sudden and severe floods. There are various solutions to deal with floods. Among the structural measures of flood risk management, we can mention the construction of levee, detention basin, channel modification, and a combination of the mentioned measures. Manafwa is a flood-prone area in Uganda currently protected by a 6.6 m high levee. Unfortunately, the existing levee does not have ideal performance, and the probability of failure is very high. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to compare seven flood management measures in the flood-prone area of Manafwa and to select the best flood risk management proposal. These management measures are: 1) construction of a levee with a height of 6.5 m, 2) construction of a levee with a height of 7 m, 3) construction of a levee with a height of 7.5 m, 4) construction of a levee with a height of 8 m, 5) channel modification, 6) detention basin and 7) a combination of structural measures of channel modification and detention basin. The results show that although building a levee with a height of 8 m is more expensive than other options, but it reduces the expected annual flood damage to about USD30.5 thous.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

annual expected damage; assurance; flood; risk management

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo ITP
• Czasopismo: Journal of Water and Land Development
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: no. 54
• Strony: 172--176
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 20 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Dwijendra Ngakan K.A.

• Udayana University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Architecture, Bali 80361, Indonesia

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0070-4254

autor

Majdi Ali

• Al-Mustaqbal University College, Department of Building and Construction Techniques Engineering, Hilla, Iraq

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0528-6696

Bibliografia

• AFSHAR A., KHOSRAVI M., MOLAJOU A. 2021. Assessing adaptability of cyclic and non-cyclic approach to conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water for sustainable management plans under climate change. Water Resources Management. Vol. 35 p. 3463–3479. DOI 10.1007/s11269-021-02887-3.
• ALIAN N., AHMADI M.M. 2019. Uncertainty analysis of expected annual flood damage for flood risk assessment (A case study: Zayande Roud Basin). Journal of Water and Soil Science. Vol. 23(4) p. 141–152. [In Persian].
• DAVIS D.W. 2003. Risk analysis in flood damage reduction studies – The corps experience. In: World Water & Environmental Resources Congress 2003. Eds. P. Bizier, P. DeBarry. 23–26.06.2003 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania p. 1–10. DOI 10.1061/40685(2003)306.
• FILZ G., ADAMS T., NAVIN M., TEMPLETON A.E. 2012. Design of deep mixing for support of levees and floodwalls. In: Grouting and Deep Mixing 2012. Eds. L.F. Johnsen, D.A. Bruce, M.J. Byle. 15–18.02.2012 New Orleans, Louisiana p. 89–133. DOI 10.1061/9780784412350.0004.
• HAJIBABAEI E., GHASEMI A. 2017. Flood management, flood forecasting and warning system. International Journal of Science and Engineering Applications. Vol. 6(2) p. 33–38. DOI 10.7753/IJSEA0602.1001.
• KHOSRAVI M., AFSHAR A., MOLAJOU A., SOLIS S.S. 2022. Joint operation of surface and groundwater to improve sustainability index as irrigation system performance: Cyclic storage and standard conjunctive use strategies. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management. Vol. 148(9), 04022046. DOI 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001591.
• KOSZEWSKA J., KUZAK Ł. 2021. The problems of spatial planning and natural determinants of urban development – the Case of Powiśle in Warsaw. Journal of Water and Land Development. No. 50 p. 1–9. DOI 10.24425/jwld.2021.137688.
• LAI J.S., CHANG W.Y., CHAN Y.C., KANG S.C., TAN Y.C. 2011. Development of a 3D virtual environment for improving public participation: Case study – The Yuansantze flood diversion works project. Advanced Engineering Informatics. Vol. 25(2) p. 208–223. DOI 10.1016/j.aei.2010.05.008.
• LIU B., SIU Y.L., MITCHELL G., XU W. 2013. Exceedance probability of multiple natural hazards: Risk assessment in China’s Yangtze River Delta. Natural Hazards. Vol. 69(3) p. 2039–2055. DOI 10.1007/s11069-013-0794-8.
• LIU S., HUANG S., XIE Y., WANG H., LENG G., HUANG Q., ... WANG L. 2019. Identification of the non-stationarity of floods: Changing patterns, causes, and implications. Water Resources Management. Vol. 33(3) p. 939–953. DOI 10.1007/s11269-018-2150-y.
• LODGE M. 2019. Flood crisis management in England. In: Societal security and crisis management. Eds. P. Lægreid, L.H. Rykkja. Cham. Palgrave Macmillan p. 95–114.
• LYU H.M., SHEN S.L., ZHOU A., YANG J. 2019. Perspectives for flood risk assessment and management for mega-city metro system. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. Vol. 84 p. 31–44. DOI 10.1016/j.tust.2018.10.019.
• MOGLEN G.E., MCCUEN R.H. 1990. Economic framework for flood and sediment control with detention basins 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 26(1) p. 145–156. DOI 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1990.tb01359.x.
• NATHAN R., WEINMANN E., HILL P. 2003. Use of Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the expected probability of large to extreme floods. In: 28th International Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium: About Water. Symposium Proceedings. Eds. M.J. Boyd, J.E. Ball, M.K Babister, J. Green. Barton ACT, Australia. Institution of Engineers p. 105–112.
• NKWUNONWO U.C., WHITWORTH M., BAILY B. 2020. A review of the current status of flood modelling for urban flood risk management in the developing countries. Scientific African. No. 7, e00269. DOI 10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00269.
• ROMALI N.S., YUSOP Z., SULAIMAN M., ISMAIL Z. 2018. Flood risk assessment: A review of flood damage estimation model for Malaysia. Jurnal Teknologi. Vol. 80(3) p. 15–31. DOI 10.11113/jt.v80.11189.
• SHARIOR S., MCDONALD W., PAROLARI A.J. 2019. Improved reliability of stormwater detention basin performance through water quality data-informed real-time control. Journal of Hydrology. Vol. 573 p. 422–431. DOI 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.012.
• STEDINGER J.R., GRIFFIS V.W. 2006. Evolution of Bulletin 17B for flood frequency analysis in the United States. In: World Environmental and Water Resource Congress 2006: Examining the Confluence of Environmental and Water Concerns. Omaha, Nebraska, U.S. 21–25.05.2006 p. 1–10. DOI 10.1061/40856(200)205.
• XU Y., BOOIJ M.J., MYNETT A.E. 2007. Propagation of discharge uncertainty in a flood damage model for the Meuse River. In: Flood risk management in Europe. Innovation in policy and practice. Eds. S. Begum, M.J.F. Stive, J.W. Hall. Dordrecht. Springer p. 293–310.
• YAVARI F., SALEHI NEYSHABOURI S. A., YAZDI J., MOLAJOU A., BRYSIEWICZ A. 2022. A novel framework for urban flood damage assessment. Water Resources Management. Vol. 36(6) p. 1991–2011. DOI 10.1007/s11269-022-03122-3.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MEiN, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2022-2023).