Estimation of possible damages due to catastrophic flooding for long-term disaster mitigation planning

Risk and Planet Earth Conference 2009, Leipzig

Saqib Ehsan, M. Sc.

Lehrstuhl fr Wasserbau und Wassermengenwirtschaft Prof. Dr.-Ing. Silke Wieprecht

Universitt Stuttgart Institut fr Wasserbau

Contents
- Introduction
- 1D-Hydrodynamic modeling with MIKE 11 - Development of an improved method for loss of life (LOL) estimation - Loss of life (LOL) estimation for different scenarios - Conclusions and Suggestions

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Introduction
- Role of climate change in disaster management - Possible extreme changes in climate as guidelines
for the development of new concepts for disaster mitigation

Drastic weather change Heavy rainfall Catastrophic flooding downstream of the dam Risk to people and property
Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Introduction contd

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Introduction contd
- Jhelum river valley downstream of Mangla dam in Pakistan - One of largest earth and rock-fill dams in world - Main dam height ~125 m high above riverbed

(by Google earth)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Introduction contd
Gross storage (original) Net storage (original) Catchment area of reservoir (original) Water surface area of reservoir (original)
(at maximum conservation level)

7.25 E+9 m3 6.59 E+9 m3 33,360 km2 253 km2 1,000 MW 2,561 m 28,583 m3/s 6,452 m3/s

Power generation Crest length of main dam Design capacity of main spillway Design capacity of emergency spillway

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

1D-Hydrodynamic modeling with MIKE 11

Mangla dam Jhelum Bridges Kahan River Bunha River Rasul Barrage Malikwal Bridge Khushab Bridge Suketar Nallah Bandar Kas Jabba Kas

-Project Reach: about 329km

-Different Hydraulic structures

-Five tributaries between

Chenab River Confluence Point Upstream Trimmu Barrrage

Mangla and Rasul Barrage; No gauges are existing there

-1D-modeling for unsteady flow conditions

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

1D-Hydrodynamic modeling with MIKE 11contd

Maximum Discharges
70000 65000 60000 55000 50000 45000
40000 m3/s (with bridges) 40000 m3/s (without bridges) 50000 m3/s (with bridges) 50000 m3/s (without bridges) MDF (61977 m3/s: with bridges) MDF (61977 m3/s: without bridges)

Max. Q (m3/s)

40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000

Downstream chainage (m)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

1D-Hydrodynamic modeling with MIKE 11contd

High Flooding Scenarios (maximum water level)
290 280 270 260 250

Max. water level (m)

Rasul Barrage
40000 m3/s (with bridges) 50000 m3/s (with bridges) MDF (61977 m3/s: with bridges) 40000 m3/s (without bridges)

240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000 180000 210000 240000 270000 300000

50000 m3/s (without bridges) MDF (61977 m3/s: without bridges)

Downstream chainage (m)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

1D-Hydrodynamic Modeling with MIKE 11contd

Dam break Flood Routing (maximum discharges)
320000 300000 280000 260000 240000 220000
Case1 (with bridges)

Max. Q (m /s)

200000 180000

Case2 (with bridges)

Case3 (with bridges)

160000 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 0 30000 60000 90000 120000 150000 180000 210000 240000 270000 300000
Case3 (without bridges) Case2 (without bridges) Case1 (without bridges)

Downstream chainage (m) Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

1D-Hydrodynamic Modeling with MIKE 11contd

Dam break Flood Routing (maximum water level)
310 300 290 280 270

Max. water level (m)

260 250 240 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 0 30000

Rasul Barrage
Case1 (with bridges) Case2 (with bridges) Case3 (with bridges) Case1 (without bridges) Case2 (without bridges) Case3 (without bridges)

60000

90000

120000

150000

180000

210000

240000

270000

300000

Downstream chainage (m) Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Development an improved LOL estimation method

LOLi = PARi x FATBASE x Fsv x Fage x Fmt x Fst x Fh x Fwar x Fev LOLi = loss of life at a particular location i`` downstream of the dam PARi = Population at risk at a particular location i`` downstream of the dam FATBASE = Base Fatality rate of 0.15 (worst case of medium severity) (Graham, 1999), assuming an average value of 1.0 for all other factors with average conditions.

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Development an improved LOL estimation method

Fsv = Flood Severity factor High Severity Medium Severity Low Severity very likely unlikely very unlikely 1.0 0.3 0.1

Fage = Age risk factor A (<10yrs+ (>=65yrs)),B (10-15)yrs and C (15-64)yrs Fage = 1.25 *A% +1.1* B%+ 0.8* C% Fmt = Material risk factor Fmt = 1 * X % + 1.5 * Y % (general form) Where, X= % of other type of houses, Y= % very low strength houses
Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

(general form)

Development an improved LOL estimation method

Fst = Storey risk factor Fst = 1 (for high severity and all house types) Fst = 1- S % (for medium and low severity) Where, S= % of more storey houses

Fh = Health risk factor; 3% disabled people Fh = 1 *H % + 1.25*D % (general form) Where, H= % of PAR with avg. health, D= % of disabled PAR

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Development an improved LOL estimation method

Fwar = Warning factor (Graham,1999) Fwar 1 0.7 0.3

Warning Flood Severity understanding No No Some (15-60min) Vague/unclear Adequate (>60min) Precise/clear Fev = Ease of evacuation factor Warning Ease of evacuation No No Some (15-60min) Some Adequate(>60min) Good

Fev 1 0.7 0.3

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Loss of Life estimation

PAR downstream of Mangla dam (98-Census data)
200000

Estimated PAR is related to the highest flood event in the past

180000 Total PAR : 1178038 160000 Rural PAR : 63% 140000 Urban PAR : 37% 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 PAR

PAR (No. of People at risk)

0 67 54 18 18 26 9 47 31 9 90 46 4 13 50 0 38 55 2 94 63 7 65 68 4 30 73 4 70 78 3 37 83 5 45 90 4 2 10 05 27 11 11 01 11 38 58 12 56 21 13 84 52 14 57 24 15 42 25 16 75 40 17 39 86 18 97 91 19 27 63 20 88 69 21 75 69 22 66 81 23 96 79 24 66 67 25 80 65 26 48 63 28 70 09 16

Downstream chainage (m)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Loss of Life estimation

Estimated Total Loss of Life downstream of Mangla dam (98-Census data)
Total Loss of Life
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

1- Warning Initiation 30min after Failure 2- Warning Initiation 15min after Failure 3- Warning Initiation at Failure 4- Warning Initiation 1hr before Failure 5- Warning Initiation 2hrs before Failure

Selected Scenarios

LOL (MDF 61977 m3/s: without bridges)

4
LOL (MDF 61977 m3/s: with bridges) LOL (50000 m3/s: without bridges)

LOL (50000 m3/s: with bridges)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Loss of Life estimation

% Total Loss of Life for Different Failure Cases
4.5

% Total LOL (% dead people)

3.5

Worst Case for Warning Initiation: 30 minutes after Failure

3 %LOL (with bridges) %LOL (without bridges)

2.5

1.5

1 0 50000 100000 150000 200000

3

250000

300000

350000

Max. Discharge (m /s)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Loss of Life estimation

Cumulative Loss of Life due to Dam Failure
100000 90000
% Cum. LOL up to 50Km: about 80% of Total LOL % Cum. LOL up to 100Km: about 90% of Total LOL Total LOL

% Cum. LOL up to 25Km: 80000 about 68% of Total LOL

Worst Case for Warning Initiation: 30 minutes after Failure

70000

Cumulative LOL

60000
Failure Case1

50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000 175000 200000 225000 250000 275000 300000

Failure Case2 Failure Case3

Downstream chainage (m)

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Conclusions and Suggestions

- Severe climate change can cause extreme flooding downstream of a dam - Estimation of possible damages is an important part of any dam safety study - Loss of life increases with the delay in warning initiation with respect to dam failure - For all dam failure cases, maximum LOL (~80%) occurs in first 50 km downstream of Mangla dam - % total LOL for the worst case of Mangla dam failure is close to 4% which seems to be very high
Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

Conclusions and Suggestions

- LOL results clearly show the need of improvement in existing risk Reduction measures in order to reduce possible LOL due to Mangla

dam failure
- More research is required to estimate - ease of evacuation - risks posed by age groups - very low strength houses and more storey houses - Realistic estimation of possible LOL due to natural hazards like floods helps in long-term disaster mitigation planning

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION QUESTIONS??

Saqib.Ehsan@iws.uni-stuttgart.de www.iws.uni-stuttgart.de Lehrstuhl fr Wasserbau und Wassermengenwirtschaft
Institut fr Wasserbau, Universitt Stuttgart

Risk and Planet Earth Conference, Panel 2 for Junior Scientists, 4th March 2009, Leipzig