1 / 14

COMRISK Sub-Project 8 Lincshore: Risk Management Options

Pete Floyd, Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd., working with Halcrow and the Environment Agency. COMRISK Sub-Project 8 Lincshore: Risk Management Options. RPA Approach. Step 1: Review Halcrow Strategy Review Step 2: Explore key risk issues

jgrundy
Télécharger la présentation

COMRISK Sub-Project 8 Lincshore: Risk Management Options

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pete Floyd, Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd., working with Halcrow and the Environment Agency COMRISK Sub-Project 8 Lincshore: Risk Management Options

  2. RPA Approach • Step 1: Review Halcrow Strategy Review • Step 2: Explore key risk issues • Step 3: Develop refined risk assessment methodology • Step 4: Disseminate results

  3. What has happened

  4. Why? Grain Size! • Simply stated: 0.2 mm (before) + 0.6 mm (emplaced) = 0.4 mm by 2001 • But mixture of grain sizes leads to natural sorting with mean sizes of 0.42 mm, 1.2 mm and 0.27 mm on upper, middle and lower beaches respectively • Slopes can be readily predicted using Dean expressions: h = A x 2/3 where A = 0.21 D0.48 • to give slopes of 1:19 and 1:52 for middle and lower beaches (as previous slide)

  5. Current Proposals

  6. Where do you place the sand? (Risk Management Options) • Locations of dVmax • Minimum standard of defence • Risks to people • Risks to property • Combination of above

  7. Standard of Defence • Essentially, standard is function of wave climate, berm width, sea wall, etc. • Reviewed profiles from April 2002 and associated overtopping calculations (for 1 in 200 year event) • Difficult to reconcile!

  8. Variations in Key Parameters

  9. Is Likelihood of Flooding a Function of Berm Width?

  10. Risks to People • Risks to people function of flood likelihood, wave depths/velocity, area vulnerability (type of housing), people vulnerability, etc. • Methodology being developed in parallel research for Environment Agency • BUT also need to resolve earlier issues relating to flood likelihoods

  11. Risks to Property • In Strategy Review, used ‘Risk Reservoirs’ • Damages calculated for residential, caravans, industrial and agricultural damages for each reservoir for each option under different conditions

  12. Sample Damages by Reservoir

  13. Difficulties • Risk management of frontages will rely on being able to determine damages of events from each frontage rather than across whole coast • Clearly, would require extensive modelling work to generate ‘damage risk contours’ • As before still need to relate flood potential to beach profiles

  14. Conclusions • 10 years on, beach profiles are not as designed due, primarily, to grain size distribution of emplaced sand • Modified profile accounted for in current proposals • However, developing practical risk management options has proved to be a complex process

More Related