Flood hazard and Risk maps using two-dimensional hydraulic model LISFLOOD-FP (Case Study: Araz Kooseh region)

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Water Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran.

2 Corresponding Author, Associate Prof., Dept. of Rangeland Management, Faculty of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran.

3 Assistant Prof., Dept. of Water Engineering, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran.

4 Professor, Dept. of Watershed Management, Faculty of Rangeland and Watershed Management, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, Gorgan, Iran

Abstract

Background and objectives: Predicting the hydraulic behavior of the river in the face of possible floods is of particular importance to reduce the risk and damage to urban areas, facilities under construction, farms and other uses around the river. Hydraulic models are the most efficient tool for planning and developing structural and non-structural methods of flood management and reduction. Simulation of river hydraulic behavior is necessary to predict hazardous points and determine flood damage in different conditions as well as flood insurance. The purpose of this study was to use the LISFLOOD-FP two-dimensional hydraulic model and a 5m high digital elevation model to provide a flood zone with a return period of 500 years and then hazard and damage maps for the Araz Kooseh area on the southwest side of Gonbad city.
Materials and methods: In this study, the area of Chehel Chay River located at Araz Kooseh was studied. The LISFLOOD-FP two-dimensional hydraulic model outputs were used to calculate the risks associated with flooding, including the risks of water flooding, its severity, and the depth of water flooding that affects people or the environment. After collecting the data and using a series of equations, the risk was calculated and the data were graphically represented as hazard maps. The calculated risk included flood risk to people, buildings, infrastructure, and a building damage map.
Results: In this study, for floods with a return period of 500 years, the highest probability of mortality was 10.08% and the highest probability of bodily injury was 34.81% and the highest amount of damage to buildings was estimated at 8300 million Rials.
Conclusion: Based on theoretical experiences, one of the appropriate methods for flood management is to determine the extent of flood progress and its height relative to the ground and also to determine the characteristics of floods. These characteristics include the speed and direction of flood progress in different return periods, which are called hazard maps. Determining these criteria can lead to a reduction in flood damage in different areas. All four hazard maps including Risk of fatality, Risk of injury to people and Physical Risk Assessment for buildings as well as Economic flood risk to buildings maps showed that the northeast side of the river is the most vulnerable part of the study area. Due to high density construction in those areas, weakness in the strength of buildings and the antiquity of some buildings, awareness of the people and municipalities about the severity of flood risk and understanding the hydraulic behavior of the river is important.

Keywords

References

1.Alfieri, L., Feyen, L., Dottori, F., AND Bianchi, A. 2015. Ensemble flood risk assessment in Europe under high end climate scenarios. Global Environmental Change. 35: 199-212.
2.Alfieri, L., Feyen, L., and Di Baldassarre, G. 2016. Increasing flood risk under climate change: a pan-European assessment of the benefits of four adaptation strategies. Climatic Change, 136: 3. 507-521.
3.Alfieri, L., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Neal, J., Bates, P.D., and Feyen, L. 2014. Advances in pan- European flood
hazard mapping, Hydrol. Process.28: 18. 4928-4937, doi:10.1002/hyp.9947.
4.Amarnath, G., Umer, Y.M., Alahacoon, N., and Inada, Y. 2015. Modelling the flood-risk extent using LISFLOOD-FP in a complex watershed: case study of Mundeni Aru River Basin, Sri Lanka. Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences, 370: 131-138.
5.Barredo, J.I., de Roo, A., and Lavalle, C. 2007. Flood risk mapping at European scale. Water Science and Technology,
56: 11-17.
6.Bates, P.D., and De Roo, A.P.J. 2000. A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. Journal of hydrology, 236: 1-2. 54-77.
7.DEFRA and UK Environment Agency. 2006. Flood and Coastal Defense R&D Program: Flood Risk to People, Phase 2. FD2321/TR2 Guidance Document,
pp. 1-82.
8.DEFRA, E. 2006. R&D outputs: Flood risks to people. Phase 2. FD2321/TR1 The flood risks to people methodology, pp. 1-52.
9.Dottori, F., Kalas, M., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Alfieri, L., and Feyen, L. 2017. An operational procedure for rapid flood risk assessment in Europe. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 17: 1111-1126.
10.Dottori, F., Alfieri, L., Bianchi, A., Skoien, J., and Salamon, P. 2021. A new dataset of river flood hazard maps for Europe and the Mediterranean Basin region. Earth System Science Data Discussions, pp. 1-35.
11.European Commission (EC). 2007. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks, Official Journal of the European Communities, Brussels, available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/ TXT/?uri = CELEX%3A32007L0060 (accessed on 13/5/2020).
12.Feyen, L., Dankers, R., Bódis, K., Salamon, P., and Barredo, J.I. 2012. Fluvial floodrisk in Europe in 725 present and future climates. Climatic Change: 112: 1. 47-62, doi:10.1007/ s10584-011-0339-7.
13.Gallina, V., Torresan, S., Critto, A., Zabeo, A., Semenzin, E., Marcomini, A., Balbi, S., Gain, A., Giupponi, C., and Mojtahed, V. 2013. Development of a risk assessment methodology to estimate risk levels. KULTURisk Project Deliverable, 1.
14.Peyravi, M., Peyvandi, A.A., Khodadadi, A., and Marzaleh, M.A. 2019. Flood in the South-West of Iran in 2019; causes, problems, actions and lesson learned. Bulletin of Emergency & Trauma, 7: 2. p.199.
15.Peyravi, M., Peyvandi, A.A., and Marzaleh, M.A. 2019. Donations in the Great Flood of Iran, 2019: strengths and challenges. Iran Red Crescent Med J, 21(5), p. e92904.
16.Plate, E.J. 2002. Flood risk and flood management. Journal of hydrology,267: 1-2. 2-11.
17.Poorzaman, S., Sadoddin, A., and Bahremand, A. 2021. Flood hazard mapping using the CCHE2D numerical model in the Hable-rud River-areach located downstream ofBone-Kuh Village. Journal of Natural Environmental Hazards, pp. 1-1.
18.Rahimzadeh, O., Bahremand, A., Noura, N., and Mukolwe, M. 2019. Evaluating flood extent mapping of two hydraulic models, 1D HEC‐RAS and 2D LISFLOOD‐FP in comparison with aerial imagery observations in Gorgan flood plain, Iran. Natural resource modeling, 32(4), p.e12214.
19.Sadeghian, K., Bahremand, A., and Amir, S. 2020. Two-Dimetional Hydraulic Simulation of Floods using the LISFLOOD-FP Raster Model(A Case Study: The Shemshak Watershed, Tehran Province). Jwmr.11: 22. 165-174. (In Persian)
20.Sanderson, D., and Sharma, A. 2016. World disasters report 2016: Resilience: Saving lives today, investing for tomorrow. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
21.VahabI, J. 2006. Flood hazard zonation using and hydraulic models. pajouhesh-va-sazandegi, [online] 19(2 (71 IN NATURAL RESOURCES)), pp. 33-40. (In Persian)
22.Wing, O.E., Bates, P.D., Sampson, C.C., Smith, A.M., Johnson, K.A., and Erickson, T.A. 2017. Validation of a 30 m resolution flood hazard model of the conterminous United States. Water Resources Research, 53(9), 7968-7986, doi:10.1002/2017WR020917.
23.Zare, M., Schumann, G.J.P., Teferle, F.N., and Mansorian, R. 2021. Generating Flood Hazard Maps Based on an Innovative Spatial Interpolation Methodology for Precipitation. Atmosphere, 12(10), p. 1336.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 28, Issue 4
March 2022
Pages 1-25

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics