1 / 9

Natural Flood Management, in context

Natural Flood Management, in context. Evaluating and enhancing the impact. Peter Metcalfe (1) , Keith Beven (1)(2) , Barry Hankin (3) and Rob Lamb (4). (1) Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University (2) Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University

markbmoore
Télécharger la présentation

Natural Flood Management, in context

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. Natural Flood Management, in context Evaluating and enhancing the impact. Peter Metcalfe (1), Keith Beven(1)(2), Barry Hankin (3) and Rob Lamb (4) (1) Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University (2) Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University (3) JBA Consulting, Warrington, UK (4) JBA Trust, Skipton, UK

  2. Water End, Nov 26th 2012 (Jan Hodgson) Target catchment Agricultural catchment North Yorkshire, UK, ~ 26km² History of severe flooding, most recently in 2012 Intensive arable farming: heavily modified channel network, extensive subsurface drainage; high land-channel connectivity Apply Natural Flood Management to mitigate flood risk w/o hard-engineered structures? Regulatory, land-use and access constraints = in-channel features only allowed, in one subcatchment

  3. Runoff / routing model Depth averaged 1D diffusion wave formulation Hillslope runoff and base flows = r using semi-distributed hydrological model (Dynamic TOPMODEL) Trapezoidal, prismatic composite channel sections, flow area = A In-channel features represented using stage-discharge (h - Q) relationship for structure Underflow barriers significantly attenuate open channel flow and add channel storage Swamee (1992), Figure 1. Free discharge through underflow sluice

  4. Testing model response Double-peaked storm event November 2012 Hydrological parameters calibrated against discharges reconstructed from stage gauge at outlet. Hydraulic parameters calibrated to match observed timings and magnitudes of flood peaks: NSE > 0.9 Underflow barriers applied in batches from highest reaches downstream until network filled Examine effect on flood wave timing and attenuation

  5. Results - run 1 All barriers same geometry: hmax=1.6m, hb=0.4m. Separation = 300m Most barriers in upper reaches never used…. ... whilst many of those further downstream are overflowing. How can such a large intervention reduced the peak by only 0.16mm/hr?

  6. Results – run 2 Main channel peak arrives after tributary Consider confluence of un-named tributary with main channel of Ing Beck Adding 40 barriers has synchronised the flood peaks!

  7. Alternative approach Marginal land identified upstream of railway viaduct Storage potential enhanced by small bund Divert flow into area by afflux from large feature ~ 5m high Or use the viaduct as the barrier! Halstead flood storage basin, Essex, UK

  8. Results with larger barrier We have attenuated the main peak sufficiently to just avoid flooding in Water End At the cost of a large area flooded for 36 hours….

  9. Conclusions? NFM may be difficult to implement effectively in some types of catchment. Interventions may cause subcatchment flood peaks to synchronise. Fewer, larger features may be more beneficial, and cost-effective, than many smaller features.

More Related