Full Text:   <1485>

Summary:  <1241>

CLC number: TV122

On-line Access: 2018-11-02

Received: 2018-03-14

Revision Accepted: 2018-08-06

Crosschecked: 2018-10-18

Cited: 0

Clicked: 2339

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

 ORCID:

Jun-qiang Xia

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7613-3457

-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 2018 Vol.19 No.11 P.864-877

http://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A1800124


Modelling of flood risks to people and property in a flood diversion zone


Author(s):  Jun-qiang Xia, Peng Guo, Mei-rong Zhou, Roger A. Falconer, Zeng-hui Wang, Qian Chen

Affiliation(s):  State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China; more

Corresponding email(s):   xiajq@whu.edu.cn

Key Words:  People hazard, Property hazard, Flood risk assessment, Numerical modelling, Jingjiang flood diversion zone


Jun-qiang Xia, Peng Guo, Mei-rong Zhou, Roger A. Falconer, Zeng-hui Wang, Qian Chen. Modelling of flood risks to people and property in a flood diversion zone[J]. Journal of Zhejiang University Science A, 2018, 19(11): 864-877.

@article{title="Modelling of flood risks to people and property in a flood diversion zone",
author="Jun-qiang Xia, Peng Guo, Mei-rong Zhou, Roger A. Falconer, Zeng-hui Wang, Qian Chen",
journal="Journal of Zhejiang University Science A",
volume="19",
number="11",
pages="864-877",
year="2018",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/jzus.A1800124"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T Modelling of flood risks to people and property in a flood diversion zone
%A Jun-qiang Xia
%A Peng Guo
%A Mei-rong Zhou
%A Roger A. Falconer
%A Zeng-hui Wang
%A Qian Chen
%J Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A
%V 19
%N 11
%P 864-877
%@ 1673-565X
%D 2018
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/jzus.A1800124

TY - JOUR
T1 - Modelling of flood risks to people and property in a flood diversion zone
A1 - Jun-qiang Xia
A1 - Peng Guo
A1 - Mei-rong Zhou
A1 - Roger A. Falconer
A1 - Zeng-hui Wang
A1 - Qian Chen
J0 - Journal of Zhejiang University Science A
VL - 19
IS - 11
SP - 864
EP - 877
%@ 1673-565X
Y1 - 2018
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/jzus.A1800124


Abstract: 
Extreme floods often occur in the middle Yangtze River. The jingjiang flood diversion zone needs to be operated during these events to protect the safety of the levees along the Jingjiang Reach. Therefore, it is important to be able to predict the potential flood risks to people and property in such an area for the purpose of flood management. In this study, an integrated numerical model for estimating the flood risks in a flood diversion zone is proposed, including a module for predicting the 2D hydrodynamic processes of flood inundation in a study area with complex topography, and a special module for estimating the flood risks to people (children and adults) and property (vehicles, buildings, and crops) using newly developed safety criteria. The proposed model was used to predict the flood inundation process and variation in hazard degrees of people and property, based on a hypothetical discharge hydrograph during the operation of the jingjiang flood diversion zone. The model predictions show high flood loss rates for various flooded objects such as people, vehicles, buildings, and crops, with a mean loss rate for these subjects of 75% after 140 h. This suggests that the operation of a flood diversion zone should be cautiously considered, as it would likely result in a huge loss of people and property. Furthermore, an investigation was conducted into the effects of different roughness coefficients and people stability criteria on the model predictions. The results show that variable Manning’s roughness coefficients need to be used in the hydrodynamic module according to different underlying surface conditions, and a mechanics-based criterion for the stability of people in floodwaters should be adopted to assess the potential hazard degrees.

This paper presented a 2D numerical model for the simulation of flood propagation processes and the assessment of associated potential damages to people and properties. The numerical model was validated with experimental data and was applied to simulate the flood risks in the Jingjiang flood diversion zone along the Middle Yangtze River. Sensitivity analyses were also made on the Manning's roughness coefficients and stability criteria of human body. The paper is well-structured and easy-understanding. The results are valuable for the flood management in the Middle Yangtze River.

分洪区群众生命与财产的洪水风险模拟

目的:分洪工程的启用具有非常重要的防洪效益,但同时也将严重威胁分洪区群众的生命财产安全. 为定量计算洪水中人体(成人与儿童)、车辆、房屋、农作物(水稻和棉花)的洪水风险与洪灾损失,考虑受淹对象的失稳机理,提出分洪区群众生命与财产的洪水风险模拟模型.
创新点:1. 基于力学过程中的洪水中人体与车辆失稳的计算公式,建立相应洪水风险等级评定的新方法,并提出4类受淹对象平均损失率的计算方法; 2. 结合二维水动力学模型的计算结果,分析4类受淹对象洪水风险的时空变化情况,同时讨论根据不同下垫面类型取不同糙率值以模拟洪水演进过程的必要性,并比较文献中提出的洪水中人体风险等级计算结果的差异.
方法:1. 分析现有洪水中人体、车辆、房屋和农作物风险或损失的计算方法,提出相应洪水风险计算关系或计算曲线(公式(3)~(6),图1和2); 2. 参考1954年荆江分洪工程北闸第一次的分洪情况,通过计算分洪区140 h的洪水演进过程和4类受淹对象洪水风险的时空分布(图8),同时得到4类受淹对象平均损失率随时间的变化情况(图10); 3. 在荆江分洪区洪水演进过程模拟中,讨论根据不同下垫面类型确定相应糙率值的方法与计算区域糙率统一取值0.04、0.05或0.06的3种工况下洪水要素变化的差异(图11和12),并采用文献中提出的洪水中人体风险等级计算方法,比较洪水中人体风险等级变化的异同(图13).
结论:1. 一旦荆江分洪工程启用,截止至北闸开启140 h时,洪水中人体、车辆、房屋、农作物的平均损失率达到75%以上,即分洪工程的启用将造成重大的生命财产损失; 2. 糙率取值方法的不同,导致洪水演进过程不同,进而影响各类受淹对象的洪水风险评估,因此需要根据不同下垫面类型确定相应的糙率值; 3. 文献中提出的洪水中人体风险等级计算方法考虑了人体失稳的力学过程,综合考虑了水深和流速的影响,可以更安全可靠地应用于实际洪水中人体的风险等级评价.

关键词:人体;财产;洪水风险评估;数学模型;荆江分洪区

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]Abt SR, Wittier RJ, Taylor A, et al., 1989. Human stability in a high flood hazard zone. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 25(4):881-890.

[2]Alfieri L, Salamon P, Bianchi A, et al., 2014. Advances in pan-European flood hazard mapping. Hydrological Processes, 28(13):4067-4077.

[3]Bates PD, de Roo APJ, 2000. A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. Journal of Hydrology, 236(1-2):54-77.

[4]Bates PD, Wilson MD, Horritt MS, 2006. Reach scale floodplain inundation dynamics observed using airborne synthetic aperture radar imagery: data analysis and modelling. Journal of Hydrology, 328(1-2):306-318.

[5]Chanson H, Brown R, 2015. New criterion for the stability of a human body in floodwaters. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 53(4):540-541.

[6]Cheung RWK, Shao SD, 2010. Revisiting a flood simulation model based on PIC techniques. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering and Computational Mechanics, 163(4):235-242.

[7]Conesa-García C, García-Lorenzo R, Pérez-Cutillas P, 2017. Flood hazards at ford stream crossings on ephemeral channels (south-east coast of Spain). Hydrological Processes, 31(3):731-749.

[8]Cox RJ, Shand TD, Blacka MJ, 2010. Australian Rainfall and Runoff Project 10: Appropriate Safety Criteria for People. Technical Report No. P10/S1/006, Water Research Laboratory, Manly Vale, Australia.

[9]di Mauro M, Lumbroso D, 2008. Hydrodynamic and loss of life modelling for the 1953 Canvey Island flood. Proceedings of the International Conference on Flood Risk, p.1117-1126.

[10]Dutta D, Herath S, Musiake K, 2003. A mathematical model for flood loss estimation. Journal of Hydrology, 277(1-2):24-49.

[11]EA (Environment Agency), 2006. Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme, R&D Outputs: Flood Risks to People (Phase 2). Technical Report No. FD2321/PR, Environment Agency, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.

[12]Hunter NM, Bates PD, Neelz S, et al., 2008. Benchmarking 2D hydraulic models for urban flooding. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, 161(1):13-30.

[13]Johnstone WM, Sakamoto D, Assaf H, et al., 2005. Architecture, modelling framework and validation of BC hydro’s virtual reality life safety model. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Stochastic Hydraulics, p.23-24.

[14]Jonkman SN, Penning-Rowsell E, 2008. Human instability in flood flows. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 44(5):1208-1218.

[15]Jonkman SN, Vrijling JK, Vrouwenvelder ACWM, 2008. Methods for the estimation of loss of life due to floods: a literature review and a proposal for a new method. Natural Hazards, 46(3):353-389.

[16]Karvonen RA, Hepojoki A, Huhta HK, et al., 2000. The Use of Physical Models in Dam-Break Analysis. RESCDAM Final Report, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.

[17]Keller RJ, Mitsch B, 1993. Safety Aspects of Design Roadways as Floodways. Research Report No. 69, Urban Water Research Association, Melbourne, Australia.

[18]Kelman I, 2002. Physical Flood Vulnerability of Residential Properties in Coastal Eastern England. PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

[19]Kelman I, Spence R, 2004. An overview of flood actions on buildings. Engineering Geology, 73(3-4):297-309.

[20]Liu Q, Qin Y, Zhang Y, et al., 2015. A coupled 1D-2D hydrodynamic model for flood simulation in flood detention basin. Natural Hazards, 75(2):1303-1325.

[21]Liu SK, Song YS, Cheng XT, et al., 1999. Flood Risk Assessment and Disaster Mitigation Countermeasures for the Floodplain and Flood Detension Areas in the Lower Yellow River. Yellow River Water Conservancy Press, Zhengzhou, China (in Chinese).

[22]Martínez-Gomariz E, Gómez M, Russo B, 2016. Experimental study of the stability of pedestrians exposed to urban pluvial flooding. Natural Hazards, 82(2):1259-1278.

[23]Martínez-Gomariz E, Gómez M, Russo B, et al., 2017. A new experiments-based methodology to define the stability threshold for any vehicle exposed to flooding. Urban Water Journal, 14(9):930-939.

[24]Mei YD, Ji CM, 2000. Flood Risk Analysis. Science & Tecnology Press, Wuhan, China (in Chinese).

[25]Metcalfe P, Beven K, Hankin B, et al., 2017. A modelling framework for evaluation of the hydrological impacts of nature-based approaches to flood risk management, with application to in-channel interventions across a 29-km2 scale catchment in the United Kingdom. Hydrological Processes, 31(9):1734-1748.

[26]Milanesi L, Pilotti M, Ranzi R, 2015. A conceptual model of people’s vulnerability to floods. Water Resources Research, 51(1):182-197.

[27]Neal J, Fewtrell T, Trigg M, 2009. Parallelisation of storage cell flood models using OpenMP. Environmental Modelling & Software, 24(7):872-877.

[28]Ni JR, Xue A, 2003. Application of artificial neural network to the rapid feedback of potential ecological risk in flood diversion zone. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 16(2):105-119.

[29]Shand TD, Cox RJ, Blacka MJ, et al., 2011. Australian Rainfall and Runoff Project 10: Appropriate Safety Criteria for Vehicles-Literature Review (Stage 2). Technical Report No. P10/S2/020, Water Research Laboratory, Manly Vale, Australia.

[30]Soares-Frazao S, Testa G, 1999. The Toce River test case: numerical results analysis. Proceedings of the 3rd CADAM Workshop.

[31]Song LX, Zhou JZ, Li QQ, et al., 2011. An unstructured finite volume model for dam-break floods with wet/dry fronts over complex topography. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 67(8):960-980.

[32]Wang GQ, Shao SD, Fei XJ, 1998. Particle model for simulating flow over large areas. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 124(5):554-557.

[33]Xia JQ, Falconer RA, Lin BL, et al., 2010. Modelling flood routing on initially dry beds with the refined treatment of wetting and drying. International Journal of River Basin Management, 8(3-4):225-243.

[34]Xia JQ, Falconer RA, Lin BL, et al., 2011a. Modelling flash flood risk in urban areas. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management, 164(6):267-282.

[35]Xia JQ, Falconer RA, Lin BL, et al., 2011b. Numerical assessment of flood hazard risk to people and vehicles in flash floods. Environmental Modelling & Software, 26(8):987-998.

[36]Xia JQ, Falconer RA, Xiao XW, et al., 2014a. Criterion of vehicle stability in floodwaters based on theoretical and experimental studies. Natural Hazards, 70(2):1619-1630.

[37]Xia JQ, Falconer RA, Wang YJ, et al., 2014b. New criterion for the stability of a human body in floodwaters. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 52(1):93-104.

[38]Zou Q, Zhou JZ, Zhou C, et al., 2013. Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 27(2):525-546.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2022 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE