Cl1895 Flood Evaluation and Dam Safety-Report

FLOOD EVALUATION
AND DAM SAFETY

Foreword
Hydrology and dams are two fields that are obviously closely related. Yet each topic can be
largely studied without consideration to the other. The fact is that most of the analyses
developed in a hydrological study for dams are not dependent from the type of the structure
nor its characteristics. Its location is just important to determine the quantity and variability
of the water inflow available for useful use (irrigation, energy production) and the properties
of the unusual hydrological events threatening the dam (floods and their intensity). But the
hydrological studies do not address the dam structure itself.
Four bulletins have so far been published by this Committee : Selection of Design Flood –
Current methods (#82, 1992), Dams and Floods – Guidelines and cases histories (#125,
2003), Role of Dams in Flood Mitigation – A review (#131, 2006) and Integrated Flood
Management (#156, 2010). These texts have essentially addressed floods, the risks they
represent and their significance for the concerned populations. Examples were given of the
observed beneficial role of dams, as well as conceptual approaches for evaluating extreme
situations. The experiences made with integration of flood management in the reservoir
operation were described as well, along with other considerations related to climate change
and real case experiences.
The present Bulletin deviates slightly from this path, adopting a somewhat more technical
perspective. The text consists of three chapters, conceived to be accessible to the
practitioners. The first one is a useful vade mecum of usually applied "classical"
hydrological methods; these methods are briefly summarized, their key features highlighted.
The second chapter describes a promising original approach to cope with the uncertainties of
extreme floods; this method is tailored to makes use of the enormous capacity of computers.
The last one focuses on the various criteria applied throughout the world to decide which
flood severity must be considered as a reference for designing a flood evacuation system.
All Committee members contributed to the preparation of these chapters. They are thanked
for their efforts and active cooperation. A few persons ensured that the chapters would
properly take shape. They have been the spirit and the soul of this Bulletin. These authors
committed themselves with energy and perspicacity to the collection of information, its
treatment and the writing of the text. They wrote a few specific recommendations at the end
of their chapter. I am highly grateful for the quality of their work. They are:
Chapter 1 Jun Kyung Soo, Republic of Korea
Chapter 2 Roderic Nathan, Australia
Chapter 3 Douglas Sparks, Canada
Michel Tremblay, Canada
Ozcan Dalkir, Turkey
Our common wish is that the ideas developed in this Bulletin help the practitioners in their
work, be it by the use of traditional methods, the implementation of new approaches or the
proper selection of project and check floods.
Bernard Joos
Chairman, Technical Committee on
Flood Evaluation and Dam Safety
December 2015
Introduction
Hydrology and uncertainties

Like other sciences, hydrology is a discipline that evolves over time. The first studies of this
discipline can be traced back to Aristoteles, who had the intuition of the water cycle in the
4th century BC. Several centuries later, Leonardo da Vinci formulated the first quantitative
statements about water in nature; the extension of quantitative hydrology progressed then
during the 18th century (Castelli, Mariotte, Father François). Between these first, rather
hesitant steps and the sophisticated techniques currently applied, a world of development
and improvements found place over centuries. Nowadays, even though the fundamental
principles and the main conceptual axes of hydrology are widely accepted, this science is
still subject to local variations and interpretations, offering here and there significant
differences between countries. One of the objectives of this Bulletin is to remind the
common core of knowledge on which all agree and to highlight some of these differences.
The constantly refined techniques and the ever more efficient applied technologies doubtless
allow significant quality progress in the hydrological field. The automation of data
collection, the improvement of the dependability of data transmission, the electronic
processing of interminable series of numbers, considerably lighten the tedious work of the
hydrologist and speed up his quantitative analyses. They also considerably contribute to
raising the overall quality of the basis material – the long lists of numbers and statistics
expressing the reality of water flow in a river, for instance – on which hydrological models
are based.
One should however refrain from considering that any progress of the performances in data
processing is necessarily synonymous of a quality improvement of the calculations.
Similarly to what happens in many other fields related to dams, the correctness of flood
estimations is not so much due to "numericians" of extreme events than to experienced
specialists capable of wearing a secure and balanced look at these phenomena. An electronic
"elaborator" can handle tens – hundreds! – of parameters and variables simultaneously... but
how can all this information be collected in reality? How to make sure that it is not biased,
that the modelled variables correctly participate in the studied phenomenon, and that
estimations that must be made to redeem the inevitable lack of data (they are so many to be
provided!) do not impact negatively on the quality of the method? For practical purposes, a
pinch of common sense indeed oftentimes plays a contribution more valuable than the over-
refinement of numerical models.
The sources of uncertainties are in fact so numerous in hydrology that the indefinite
decomposition of the reality into ever and ever tinier elements, rendered possible thanks to
formidably efficient calculation techniques, does not necessarily bring convincing
improvement to the final quality of a study. At any rate, it is a priori not more reliable than a
simpler approach, proceeding in an admittedly more empirical way, but not omitting any
important phenomenon and weighing them in a judicious and coherent way. The final
quality of the process is thus in essence more the outcome of a succession of sound
reasoning rather than the result of a myriad of mechanically realised blind calculations,
whatever their grade of optimisation and sophistication.
Furthermore, one should keep in mind that hydrology rests on bases that are different from
those of many other sciences; the earth sciences for instance, where – theoretically at least –
it is possible at any time to obtain complementary data if required. It is sufficient to perform
additional drilling and measurements to verify this or that aspect of bedrock, for instance.
For his part, the hydrologist is oftentimes completely dependent on data collected decades
before he even thought of working on a particular problem. He can only trust that his
predecessors made a good job, and can simply check some key aspects of the available time
series. Organizing a fifty-year flood is still beyond his capability!
The data quality is thus primordial for the realisation of dependable analyses. It is of course
out of question to wait a few decades just to obtain confirmation of the rightness of
measurements of the annual peak flow, for instance. One is therefore bound to live with the
imprecision and possible errors made in the past, and to admit de facto a possible (if not
likely) non-negligible historical uncertainty. The hydrologist is of course invited to avoid
committing additional errors on top of that!
The Bulletin
The Chapter 1 of the present Bulletin presents a reminder of the classical methods of flood
estimation. It addresses the existing approaches and describes them succinctly. The style is
simple, focusing on the essential features of each method and avoiding dwelling on the
details. This Bulletin not being meant to be an encyclopaedia but rather a practical tool
helping the practitioner in his day-to-day activities, only the most largely recognized and
applied methods are presented. The main theories developed since the end of the 19th
century and still applied are mentioned.
Through its structure and contents, this chapter may become a very useful reference for the
practitioner, who will find in a condensed form a description of the most important
approaches and techniques traditionally applied in hydrology. Basic equations and
definitions, reference graphs, flow charts and typical values of key hydrological parameters
are logically presented. The chapter is concluded by a few recommendations that prevent the
beginner (and possibly the more experienced practitioner!) from committing common errors.
A list of references complete the presentation and invite the reader to further investigations.
The Chapter 2 discursively confronts the issue of extreme floods and new approaches
attempting to cope with the large uncertainties implied in their estimation. An extreme
precipitation causes for sure an extreme flood, but is it legitimate to pretend that an extreme
flood is necessarily the result of an extreme rainfall event? Is there a perfect coincidence
between the return period of a precipitation and that of the resulting flood? It is true that a
difference of a few years in the return period estimate of a rare event is not harmful... but
what if this difference relates to a more frequent flood? These questions indeed evade the
role of snow, which in northern countries can significantly contribute to the formation of
very large floods during the thaw season.
The uncertainties surrounding the majority of parameters involved in a hydrological process
influence considerably the quality of the determination of the flood hydrograph and the
estimation of the flood consequences. A simulation technique based on a stochastic
approach enables to efficiently apprehend this difficulty. It provides the means of
determining the return period of floods from the probability of occurrence of meteorological
events. More important, the method discussed in this Bulletin allows to determine the
distribution function of flood indicators in specific situations (e.g. resulting maximal
reservoir level, duration of spilling, etc.). Of course, it relies on particularly efficient
numerical tools, which enable generating very large quantities of random variables and
processing them. This is achieved by using the Monte-Carlo method.
A few recommendations are made for the readers interested in applying these techniques at
the cutting edge of current hydrology. A generous list of references is proposed for those
eager to reading more about this promising approach.
By its nature, the Chapter 3 is not as purely hydrological as the preceding ones; it is rather
focused on floods and dams. It is particularly important, insofar as it summarizes the current
practice followed in some thirty countries about dam safety directives related to floods. It is
indeed highly important to know how to estimate the key characteristics of an extreme
hydrological event (peak flow, duration, volume, etc.).
The current approaches can be grouped in two main categories, with a few nuances:
- The first one is an indirect method: it considers the dam and its characteristics. It
derives the potential risk and defines the magnitude of the flood to be mastered.
- The second one is a direct method: it takes into account the consequences of a dam
failure, focusing on the damages occurring in the region downstream the dam.
The presentation of the principles adopted in various countries is complemented by a
realistic example of dam and reservoir. This exercise aims at determining the critical event
that would have to be considered as design flood, as analysed through the thirty directives.
This simple comparison demonstrates clearly that, for the time being, no doctrine unity
prevails and the range of the various estimates is quite wide. A few recommendations are
also emitted this regarding. A list of references, particularly on the origin of the national
directives, round up this chapter.
To conclude
A few questions remain open at the end of this Bulletin: for instance, which approach shall
be selected to estimate the intensity of critical floods? A statistical method based only on
discharges measured in the river or a statistical method based on precipitations? Should the
latter be preferred, how can one be sure whether the return period estimated for a
meteorological event is the same as for the resulting flood (see Chapter 2)? Finally, what to
do if two types of floods do not form a consistent duo (e.g. project and check floods), if
these events have been estimated with different methods?
A theme that plays a role less negligible than usually considered, is that of the river base
flow at the beginning of a flood. Which influence can this discharge exert on the intensity of
the flood peak? Two identical rainfalls on a given watershed will indeed not lead to an
identical peak flow, if the initial filling state of the various aquifers of the watershed and the
resulting discharge in the river differ.
Another point frequently observed by the determination of extreme floods is the very high
attention put on the flood hydrograph (in particular its peak flow) and the generally much
smaller consideration attributed to the ratio of the rainfall volume to that of the resulting
flood. A re-balancing of these views can at any rate only be beneficial to the consistency of
the estimates made by the hydrologist.
A last word yet on the mastering of uncertainties, which represents a major challenge of
hydrology, as seen above. In the realm of rare events, uncertainties are particularly marked.
On one hand, there are "natural" uncertainties related to the observed floods (magnitude and
shape of the flood hydrograph, snow melt, response of the water catchment, seasonality
effect, imprecision of peak flow measurements, etc.). There are of course also the
uncertainties simply related to the measurement of the river flow. On the other, there are the
additional uncertainties of extrapolation methods used for estimating the magnitude of
extreme events (partial or strong inadequacy of the adopted distribution with respect to the
considered sample).
The random uncertainties due to the natural variability of processes combine with the
epistemic imprecision of the extrapolation; this leads in general to an important uncertainty
in the determination of the extreme events. The hydrologist faces then the delicate task of
driving safely his modest boat on the oftentimes treacherous sea of uncertainties. Here,
consistency and robustness of the approach must prevail over the illusion of precision.
In this context, these few thoughts incite to rephrase an almost bicentennial advice (*). Let
us address the following injunction to this Bulletin: "Go, little book, and choose your
audience; since to uncertain situations, who believe in them is bold, who doubt about them is
not wrong, who dives into them gets lost and who properly balances them is master".
(*)
Rodolphe Töpfer (1799-1846), inventor of comics (not a hydrologist!)
Chapter 1
Flood Hydrograph
1.1 Estimation of Design Hyetograph

For hydrologic design, the temporal distribution of precipitation is generally used.
Hydrologic design problems require the storm input to the design method to be expressed as
a hyetograph, and not just as a total volume of precipitation.
1.1.1 Design precipitation
 Rainfall frequency analysis

The primary purpose of rainfall frequency analysis is to relate the magnitude of extreme
events to their frequency of occurrence. Accurate results of frequency analysis are
estimated under assumption of any outer perturbation does not change statistical
homogeneity and independence of variables of concern. Once preliminary tests of
randomness, independence and homogeneity of rainfall data is conducted, return
period,T is calculated from rainfall amount, X, which is greater than or equal to some
amount of rainfall, xT (Chow, V.T. et al, 1988; Maidment, 1993).
1
𝑃(𝑋 ≥ 𝑥𝑇 ) = 𝑇 (1.1)
 Intensity–Duration–Frequency relationship
The most common approach of determining the design storm event involves a
relationship between precipitation intensity (or depth), duration, and the frequency (or
return period) appropriate for the facility and site location. Such designs are based on
estimates of worst-case scenarios of precipitation intensity and duration during a given
interval of time.
1. Select a design storm duration 𝐷.
2. Collect the annual maximum precipitation depth of the selected duration from n
years of historic data.
3. Determine the probability distribution of the 𝐷-hr annual maximum precipitation.
The mean and standard deviation of the 𝐷-hr annual maximum precipitation are
estimated.
4. Calculate the 𝐷-hr 𝑇-yr design precipitation depth from the probability
distribution for a number of T (return period) values.
5. Calculate the average precipitation intensity (precipitation depth divided by storm
durations)
6. Repeat steps 1 through 5 for various design storm durations.
7. Construct the I-D-F curves.
Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 7

Figure 1.1 I-D-F curves
 Estimation of areal precipitation

For hydrologic design involving areas larger than a few square kilometers, average
precipitation depth over the watershed area may be necessary. The methods of
extending point precipitation are follows:
- Arithmetic mean
This simple method calculates the mean areal precipitation (MAP) by adding up
design precipitations for each station and dividing the sum by the number of
stations. It yields plausible MAP values, provided that the precipitation amounts at
each station are not different more than 10 %.
- Thiessen polygon method

Thiessen polygon approach is commonly used in hydrometeorology to determine
areal precipitation over a drainage basin when several rain gauge sites are available.
The basic concept is to divide the drainage basin into several polygons. Each
subarea is determined as the area bounded by the perpendicular bisectrices between
stations and those surrounding it (Figure 1.2).
1
𝑃̅ = 𝐴 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝐴𝑖 𝑃𝑖 (1.2)
Figure 1.2 Thiessen polygon method Figure 1.3 Inverse distance method

- Inverse distance method
The inverse distance method is equally simple as Thiessen method in principle, but
it is easier to implement. It is based on the assumption that the precipitation at any
given point is influenced by all stations in the area, each weighted by the inverse of
a power of its distance from the point.
1 −2 −1
𝑃̅ = 𝐴 ∑𝑚 𝑛 −2 𝑛
𝑗=1 𝐴𝑗 ∑𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖𝑗 𝑃𝑖 (∑𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖𝑗 ) (1.3)
- Isohyetal method
Isohyetal method consists of drawing isohyets or contour lines of equal
precipitation, by interpolation between the measured values at the rain gage
stations. The method can be applied with Equation (1.2).
Figure 1.4 Isohyetal method
Table 1.1 Methods for estimating areal precipitation (Dingman, 2002)
Method Source for full description

Polynomial surface Tabios & Salas (1985)
PRISM Daly & Taylor (1996)
Spline surface Creutin & Obled (1982), Lebel et al. (1987)
Multiquadric interpolation Shaw (1988)
Creutin & Obled (1982), Tabios & Salas
Optimal interpolation/Kriging (1985)
Lebel et al. (1986)
Empirical orthogonal
Creutin & Obled (1982)
function
 Area reduction factor

The reduction of the precipitation depth from a design storm for a point to an effective
(mean) depth over a watershed is often important for cost-effective design of hydraulic.
A design storm for a point is the precipitation depth that has a particular duration and
frequency. The effective depth can be calculated by multiplying the design-storm depth
by an area reduction factor (ARF; Asquith, 1999).

Figure 1.5 Area reduction factor
ARF can be determined by two methods, namely storm-centered ARF and fixed-area
ARF. The storm-centered ARF are associated with rainfall intensity within the rainfall
isohyets of specific storm events, they represent the ratio of average storm depths over
an area (defined by rainfall isohyets) and the maximum rainfall depths for the storm (at
storm-centered). The fixed-area ARF relate rainfall estimation at point to the average
over catchment which is fixed in space. They are estimated by constructing from all
available rainfall data at station, the time series of catchment average rainfall,
performing the same types of extreme value analyses described above for constructing
point IDF curves, and finally relating the catchment rainfall intensities to the point
values, for the same return period and duration (Svensson and David, 2010).
1.1.2 Probable Maximum Precipitation

The probable maximum precipitation (PMP) is defined as “the greatest depth of
precipitation for given duration meteorologically possible for a design watershed or a given
storm area at a particular location, a particular time of year, with no allowance made for
long-term climatic trends” by WMO (World Meteorological Organization, 2009).
 Hydro-meteorological method
The hydro-meteorological method estimates the PMP using basin average rainfall,
moisture maximization ratio, storm transposition and topographic influence ratio. PMP
is estimated by the following equation.
𝑃𝑀𝑃 = 𝑂𝑃 ∙ 𝑅𝐼𝑃 ∙ 𝑅𝐻𝑇 ∙ 𝑅𝑉𝑇 ∙ 𝑅𝐺𝐹 (1.4)
where 𝑂𝑃 = basin average rainfall by extreme storm transposition;
𝑅𝐼𝑃 = moisture maximization ratio;
𝑅𝐻𝑇 = horizontality transposition ratio;
𝑅𝑉𝑇 = verticality transposition ratio;
𝑅𝐺𝐹 = topographic influence ratio.
 Maximum rainfall envelope curve method

The envelope curve method entails selection of the storm which has the largest
maximized storm rainfall for a given time interval. Figure 1.6 shows the world’s
extreme rainfalls to estimate PMP by Wang et al (2006).

Figure 1.6 World’s greatest known point rainfalls (Wang et al, 2006)

 Statistical method
The statistical method for PMP was proposed by Hershfield (1962). This method is
widely used when enough rainfall data sets are available
PMP (mm) = 𝑃̅ + 𝐾 ∙ 𝑆 (1.6)
where 𝑃̅ and 𝑆 is the mean and the standard deviation of annual maximum rainfall. 𝐾 is
12 when enough data sets are available and 15 when enough data sets are not available.
Care should be taken as to the extrapolation of observed storms for getting a PMP.
 Storm models
The application of storm model is effective where rainfall data is insufficient or non-
representative, and where uneven surface of elevation complicates rainfall phenomenon.
For instance, convective cell model is one of the storm models and it is applicable
model for thunderstorm (Wiesner, 1970). Storm models are recommend in which the
area is large.
 Generalized PMP charts

U.S. National Weather Service hydrometeological report no.51 notes that generalized
PMP chart has used the most widely in the United States east of the 105th meridian.
These maps specify the PMP depth for anytime of the year as a function of storm area
between 10 and 20,000 𝑚𝑖 2 and storm duration of 6 to 72 hours(Chow, V.T. et al.,
1988).
1.1.3 Design hyetograph

The temporal distribution of the design precipitation is defined by the design hyetograph.
The design precipitation hyetograph is developed by several methods for temporal
precipitation distribution such as Huff’s, Triangular hyetograph method, and alternating
block method. The design precipitation (or design storm) is the precipitation pattern defined
for use in the design of hydrologic system. It serves as an input to the hydrologic system.
Figure 1.8 Triangular

Figure 1.7 Huff distribution hyetograph method

 Huff distribution
Huff method distributes precipitation using non-dimensional mass curve which has been
proposed using statistical analysis of storm events (Huff, 1967). The storms were
classified as four groups (Figure 1.7) depending on the quartile. Statistical
characteristics of temporal distribution of storms need to be analyzed to choose a
quantile for a specific region. However, development of Huff method was originated at
east-central Illinois (Akan and Houghtalen, 2003).
 Triangular hyetograph method

This method assumes that the temporal variation of precipitation intensity has a
triangular shape as depicted in Figure 1.8. A triangle is a simple shape for a design
hyetograph. Once the design precipitation depth 𝑃 and total duration 𝑇𝑑 are known, the
base length and height of the triangle are determined. The base length is 𝑇𝑑 and the
height h, so the total depth of precipitation in the hyetograph is given by 𝑃 = 0.5𝑇𝑑 ℎ
(Chow et al., 1988).
2𝑃
ℎ=𝑇 (1.7)
𝑑
Figure 1.9 Procedure for estimating design precipitation

 Alternating block method
The alternating block method is a simple way of developing a design hyetograph from
an intensity-duration-frequency curve. The design hyetograph produced by this
method specifies the precipitation depth occurring in n successive time intervals of
duration ∆𝑡 over a total duration 𝑇𝑑 = 𝑛∆𝑡. After selecting the design return period,
the intensity is read from the IDF curve for each of the durations ∆𝑡, 2∆𝑡, 3∆𝑡, …, and
the corresponding precipitation depth found as the product of intensity and duration.
(Chow et al., 1988).
1.2 Flood Hydrograph
1.2.1 Estimation of losses
 Runoff Curve Number method

The US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2004) has developed a widely
used curve number (CN) procedure for estimating runoff. The NRCS CN model
estimates rainfall excess as a function of cumulative rainfall, soil cover, land use, and
antecedent moisture, using the following equation:
(𝑃−𝐼 )2
𝑃𝑒 = 𝑃−𝐼 𝑎+𝑆 (1.8)
𝑎
where 𝑃𝑒 = accumulated rainfall excess at time t;

𝑃 = accumulated rainfall depth at time 𝑡;
𝐼𝑎 = the initial abstraction (initial loss);
𝑆 = potential maximum retention, a measure of the ability of a watershed to
abstract and retain storm rainfall.
From analysis of results from many small experimental watersheds, the NRCS
developed an empirical relationship of Ia and S:
Ia = 0.2S (1.9)
Therefore, Equation (1.8) becomes:
(P−0.2S)2
Pe = (1.10)
P+0.8S
Incremental excess for a time interval is computed as the difference between the
accumulated excess at the end of and beginning of the period. The maximum retention,
S, and watershed characteristics are related through an intermediate parameter, the curve
number (commonly abbreviated CN) as:
25400−254CN
S= (1.11)
CN
1.2.2 Unit hydrograph

 Unit hydrograph theory
The concept of a unit hydrograph was first introduced by Sherman in 1932. He defined
a unit graph as follows:
If a given one-day rainfall produces a 1-in. depth of runoff over the given drainage
area, the hydrograph showing the rates at which the runoff occurred can be considered
a unit graph for that watershed.
Thus, a unit hydrograph (UH) is the hydrograph of direct runoff (excluding base flow)
for any storm that produces exactly unit depth (1.0 cm or 1.0 inch) of net rainfall.
Assumptions in the unit hydrograph approach are follows:
1. Principle of equal base time

- Rainfall excesses of equal duration are assumed to produce hydrographs with
equivalent base time regardless of the intensity of the rain. (Figure 1.10a)
2. Principle of proportionality
- Direct runoff ordinates for a storm of given duration are assumed directly
proportional to rainfall excess volumes. Thus, twice the rainfall produces a
doubling of hydrograph ordinates. (Figure 1.10a)
3. Principle of superposition
- Complex storm hydrographs can be produced by adding up individual unit
hydrographs. (Figure 1.10b)
4. Other principles
- The time distribution of direct runoff is assumed independent of antecedent
rainfall.
- Rainfall distribution is assumed to be the same for all storms of equal duration,
both spatially and temporally.
(a) (b)
Figure 1.10 Unit hydrograph assumptions

 Application of UH
UH can be used to estimate the direct runoff hydrograph shape and duration for virtually
any rain event. Applications of the X-hr unit hydrograph to other storms begin with
lagging procedures, used for storms having durations that are integer multiples of the
derived duration.
- Lagging method
A UH for a particular watershed is defined for a specific duration 𝐷 of rainfall
excess. The linear property of UH can be used to generate a UH of larger or smaller
duration(Figure 1.11). This lagging procedure is restricted to integer multiples of
original duration.
Figure 1.11 Unit hydrograph lagging
- S-curve method
The S-curve method overcomes restrictions imposed by the lagging method and
allows construction of UH of any duration. It assumes that a UH of duration D is
known and that we intend to generate a UH for the same watershed with duration
D′ . The first step is to generate the S-curve hydrograph by adding a series of UHs
of duration D, each lagged by time Period D (Figure 1.12a). By lagging the S-curve
in time by D′ hr and subtracting ordinates between the two S-curves, the resulting
hydrograph must be due to rainfall of 1/ D cm/hr that occurs for D′ hr. Thus, to
convert curve b to a UH, we must multiply all the hydrograph ordinates by D/
D′ (Figure 1.12b).
(a) (b)
Figure 1.12 S-curve hydrograph method

 Instantaneous unit hydrograph
A main disadvantage of the UH is that it is dependent on the duration of the excess
rainfall. It is difficult to arrive at a UH of a different duration. To overcome this
difficulty the concept of instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH) is proposed. Limiting the
duration of a UH to zero an IUH is obtained.
To develop an IUH, an i cm/hr S-hydrograph must first be obtained. The resulting S-
curve is lagged by interval ∆t to develop a ∆t-hour unit hydrograph. The resulting ∆t-
hour UH becomes an IUH when ∆t set to 0 in the limit.
QA −QB 1 dQ
Qt (IUH) = lim = (1.12)
∆t→0 I∆t I dt
Figure 1.13 Use of the IUH to Figure 1.14 Baseflow separation methods
generate a hydrograph
 Base flow separation

Base flow separation or hydrograph analysis is the process of separating the direct
runoff (surface runoff and quick interflow) from the base flow. Separation of direct
runoff is essential for the derivation of unit hydrogragh as it is described in section 1.3.
This separation is somewhat arbitrary, but corresponds to theoretical concepts of basin
response (Ramirez, 2000).
- Subjective methods
Several subjective methods are shown in Figure 1.14. The simplest one consists in
arbitrarily selecting the discharge marking the beginning of the rising limb as the
value of the base flow and assuming that this base flow discharge remains constant
throughout the storm duration.
- Area method
The area method of base flow separation consists in determining the beginning of
the base flow on the falling limb with the following empirical equation, relating the
time in days from the peak discharge, N, to the basin area, A.

N = bA0.2 (1.13)
- Master recession curve method

This method consists in modeling the response of the groundwater aquifer as a
linear reservoir of parameter k. This assumption leads to the following equation for
the groundwater recession hydrograph,
Q(t) = Q(t 0 )e−(t−t0 )/k (1.14)
where 𝑄(𝑡) is the base flow at time 𝑡;
𝑄(𝑡0 ) is a reference base flow discharge at time to;
k is the recession constant for the base flow.
This method is based on a linear reservoir model of unforced basin response.
1.2.3 Runoff and hydrograph

A hydrograph is a continuous plot of instantaneous discharge vs. time. It results from
combination of physiographic and meteorological conditions in a watershed and represents
the integrated effects of climate, hydrologic losses, surface runoff, and base flow (Bedient
and Huber, 2003).
 Hydrograph components
The total stream flow during a storm event includes the base flow existing in the basin
prior to the storm and the runoff due to the given storm rainfall. The total stream flow
hydrographs are usually conceptualized as being composed of direct runoff and base
flow. Direct runoff is composed of contributions from surface runoff and quick
interflow. The base flow is composed of contributions from delayed interflow and
groundwater runoff (Ramirez, 2000).
1. Surface runoff includes all overland flow as well as all rainfall falling directly onto
stream channels. Surface runoff is the main contributor to the peak discharge.
2. Interflow is the portion of the stream flow contributed by infiltrated water that
moves laterally in the subsurface until it reaches a channel. Interflow is a slower
process than surface runoff. Components of interflow are quick interflow, which
contributes to direct runoff, and delayed interflow, which contributes to base flow.
3. Groundwater runoff is the flow component contributed to the channel by
groundwater. This process is extremely slow compared to surface runoff.
Hydrographs can also be described in terms of the time characteristics. The main timing
aspects of the hydrograph can be characterized by the following parameters:
1. Lag time (tL)

- The time from the center of mass of rainfall excess to the peak of the
hydrograph.
2. Time of peak (tp)
- The time from the start of rainfall excess to the peak of the hydrograph.
3. Time of concentration (tc)

- The time for a wave (of water) to propagate from the most distant point in the
watershed to the outlet. One estimate is the time from the end of net rainfall to
the inflection point of the hydrograph.
4. Base time (tB)
- The total duration of the direct runoff hydrograph.
Figure 1.15 Schematic description of Figure 1.16 Time of concentration

hydrograph and lag
1.2.4 Time of concentration and lag

 Time of concentration
As one of the required watershed characteristics in a rainfall-runoff model, it represents
the longest flow path in terms of travel time not the longest flow distance. The
hydrologic response time of a watershed is depicted by time of concentration (Akan and
Houghtalen, 2003). Numerous equations relating time of concentration to watershed
parameters have been developed. Table 1.2 summarizes several popular version.
Table 1.2 Concentration formulas (Viessman and Lewis, 2003)
Method Formula
𝐿 = length of channel, ft
Kirpich 𝑡𝑐 = 0.0078𝐿0.77 𝑆 −0.385 𝑆 = average watershed slope, ft/ft
L = length of longest watercourse,
USBR Design 11.9𝐿3 0.385 mi
of Small Dams 𝑡𝑐 = 60( ) H = elevation difference between
𝐻
divide and outlet, ft
i= rainfall intensity, in/hr
41.025(0.0007𝑖 + 𝑐)𝐿 0.33 c= retardance coefficient
Izzard 𝑡𝑐 = L= length of flow path, ft
𝑆 0.333 𝑖 0.667
S= slope of flow path, ft/ft
C = rational method runoff
Federal Aviation coefficient
𝑡𝑐 = 1.8(1.1. −C)𝐿0.5 𝑆 −0.333
Administration L = length of overland flow, ft

S = surface slope, %
L = length of overland flow, ft
n = Manning roughness
Aron and 0.94𝐿0.6 𝑛0.6 coefficient
Erborge 𝑡𝑐 =
𝑖 0.4 𝑆 0.3 i = rainfall intensity, in/hr
S = average overland slope, ft/ft
L = length of flow path, ft
SCS Lag 1.67𝐿0.8 [(1000/𝐶𝑁) − 9]0.7 CN = SCS curve number
Equation 𝑡𝑐 =
1900 𝑆 0.5 S = average watershed slope, %
SCS Average 1 𝐿 L = length of flow path, ft

Velocity Charts 𝑡𝑐 = ∑ V = average velocity, ft/s
60 𝑉
 Lag time
Delaying time of which a flow caused by excess rainfall over a watershed reaches point
of maximum peak of runoff. Conceptual way to explain lag time comprise of bands
which divide area into several subarea. Lag time is a weighted time of each travel time
from the centroid of individual bands to outlet of main watershed.
t L = 0.6t C (1.15)
where t L is the lag time and t c is the time of concentration.
1.3 Synthetic Unit Hydrograph

Generally, stream flow and rainfall data are not available to allow construction of a unit
hydrograph except for relatively few watersheds; therefore, techniques have evolved that
allow generation of synthetic unit hydrograph. The linear characteristics exhibited by unit
hydrographs for a watershed are a distinct advantage in constructing more complex storm
discharge hydrographs.
1.3.1 Snyder method

One technique employed by the Corps of Engineering (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1959) and many others is based on methods developed by Snyder (1938) and expanded by
Taylor and Schwartz (1952). It allows computation of lag time, time base, unit hydrograph
duration, peak discharge, and hydrograph time widths at 50 and 75 percent of peak flow. By
using these seven points, a sketch of the unit hydrograph is obtained (Figure 1.17) and
checked to see if contains 1 in (or cm) of direct runoff. Snyder’s method of synthesizing a
unit hydrograph assumes that the peak flow rate occurs at the watershed lag, estimated from:
t L = CCt (LLc )0.3 (1.16)
where 𝑡𝐿 = lag time (hour);
𝐿 = length of the main stream from the outlet to the divide (km);
𝐿𝑐 = length along main stream to a point nearest the watershed centroid (km);
𝐶 = conversion constant (0.75 for SI, 1.00 for foot-pound system);
𝐶𝑡 = coefficient representing variations of types and locations of streams.

The peak discharge is estimated by (0.4~8.0):
Qp = CCp A / t L (1.17)
where 𝑄𝑝 = peak discharge of the unit hydrograph;

𝐴 = drainage area;
𝐶 = conversion constant (2.75 for SI, 640 for foot-pound system);
𝐶𝑝 = storage coefficient (0.4~0.8).
Table 1.3 Typical Snyder’s coefficients for U.S locations (Viessman and Lewis, 2003)
Location Range of 𝑪𝒕 Average 𝑪𝒕 Range of 𝑪𝒑 Average 𝑪𝒑
Appalachian Highlands 1.8-2.2 2.0 0.4-0.8 0.6
Western Iowa 0.2-0.6 0.4 0.7-1.0 0.8
Southern California - 0.4 - 0.9
Ohio 0.6-0.8 0.7 0.9-0.7 0.6
Eastern Gulf of Mexico - 8.0 - 0.6
Central Texas 0.4-2.3 1.1 0.3-1.2 0.8
North/mid-Atlantic
- 0.6/√𝑆 - -
States
Sewered urban areas 0.2-0.5 0.3 0.1-0.6 0.3
Mountainous watersheds - 1.2 - -
Foothills areas - 0.7 - -
Valley areas - 0.4 - -
Eastern Nebraska 0.4-1.0 0.8 0.5-1.0 0.8
Corps of Engineers
0.4-8.0 0.3-0.9 - -
training course
Great Plain 0.8-2.0 1.3 - -
Rocky Mountains 1.5-8.8 5.4 - -
SW desert 0.7-1.9 1.4 - -
NW coast and Cascades 2.0-4.4 3.1 - -
21 urban basins 0.3-0.9 0.6 - -

Location Range of 𝑪𝒕 Average 𝑪𝒕 Range of 𝑪𝒑 Average 𝑪𝒑
Storm-sewered areas 0.2-0.3 0.2 - -
t B = 3 + t L /8 (1.18)
where t B is time base of the hydrograph (days) and t L is lag time (hr).
The duration (D) of rainfall excess for Snyder’s synthetic UH development is a function of
lag time:
D = t L / 5.5 (1.19)
For other rainfall excess duration D', an adjusted formula for t L becomes
t ′L = t L + 0.25(D′ − D) (1.20)
where t ′L = adjusted lag time (hr) for duration D′ (hr).
Figure 1.17 Snyder’s synthetic UH Figure 1.18 SCS dimensionless unit

hydrograph
1.3.2 SCS method

The method developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, 1957, 1964) is based on a
dimensionless hydrograph. The SCS is now called the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). This dimensionless graph is the result of an analysis of a large number of
natural unit hydrographs from a wide range in size and geographic locations. The method
requires only the determination of the time to peak and the peak discharge as follows:
D
tP = + tL (1.21)
2
where t P = the time to peak;

D = rainfall duration;
t L = lag time from centroid of rainfall to QP (Figure 1.18).
The peak flow for the hydrograph is developed by approximating the UH as a triangular
shape with base time of 8/3 and unit area. Therefore, the peak discharge is estimates as :

A
QP = C (1.22)
tP
where QP = peak discharge;

C = peak rate factor (2.08 for SI, 484 for foot-pound system);
A = drainage area.
The shape of the dimensionless unit hydrograph (DUH) determines the peak rate factor
(PRF). The higher the PRF, the higher the peak discharge will be from the watershed. In
general, PRF is used 484, but the PRF has a much wider range from below 100 to more than
600 for foot-pound system (NRCS, 2004).
Lag time t L is estimated from any one of several empirical equations used by the SCS, and
the one that is often reported is
L0.8 (2540−22.86CN)0.7
tL = or t L = 0.6t c (1.23)
14104CN0.7 y0.5
where tL = lag time (hour);

l = length to divide (m);
y = average watershed slope (%);
CN = curve number for various soil/land use.
tc = time of concentration.
The average lag time is of 0.6t c , where t c is the time of concentration, defined by SCS as
either the time for runoff to travel from the furthermost point in the watershed or the time
form the end of excess rain to the inflection of the UH. For the first case:
t C = 1.7t P − D (1.24)
Equation (1.21), (1.23) and (1.24) give:
D = 0.2t P or D = 0.133t C (1.25)
1.3.3 Clark method

A synthetic unit hydrograph that utilizes an instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH) was
developed by Clark (1945). It has been widely used, is often called the time-area method
(Figure 1.19), and has appeared in several computer programs for hydrograph analysis.
Clark's model derives a UH by explicitly representing two critical processes in the
transformation of excess rainfall to runoff:
- Translation or movement of the excess from its origin throughout the drainage to the
watershed outlet.
- Attenuation or reduction of the magnitude of the discharge as the excess is stored
throughout the watershed.

(a) (b)
Figure 1.19 Development of time-area histogram for use with method
(a) Isochrones spaced ∆𝒕 apart (dashed lines) (b) Time-area histogram
Short-term storage of water throughout a watershed-in the soil, on the surface, and in the
channels-plays an important role in the transformation of rainfall excess to runoff. The linear
reservoir model is a common representation of the effects of this storage. With Clark's
model, the linear reservoir represents the aggregated impacts of all watershed storage. Thus,
conceptually, the reservoir may be considered to be located at the watershed outlet.
1.3.4 Geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph

The geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph (GIUH) was introduced by Rodriguez-
Iturbe, and Valdes (1979). GIUH can be used as a transfer function for modeling the
transformation of excess rainfall into surface runoff, in which excess rainfall is an excitation
(i.e. production function) to the hydrologic system. These models can be used to predict /
forecast the temporal variation of the surface runoff at the outlet of ungauged basin.
(a) DEM (b) Hill slope (c) Flow accumulation (d) Flow distances
Figure 1. 20 Feature of watershed (Loesch, 2000)
1.4 Flood Routing

Flood routing is the technique of determining the flood hydrograph at a section of a river by
utilizing the data of flood flow at one or more upstream sections. The hydrologic analysis of
problems such as flood forecasting, flood protection, reservoir design and spillway design
invariably include flood routing. In these applications two broad categories of routing can be
recognized. These are:
1. Reservoir routing
2. Channel routing
A variety of routing methods are available and they can be broadly classified into two
categories as:
1. Hydrologic routing and
2. Hydraulic routing
Hydrologic-routing methods employ essentially the equation of continuity. Hydraulic
methods, on the other hand, employ the continuity equation together with the equation of
motion of unsteady.

1.4.1 Basic equation
The equation of continuity used in all hydrologic routing as the primary equation states that
the difference between the inflow and outflow rate is equal to the rate of change of storage,
i.e.
ΔS
I−Q= (1.26)
Δt
Where 𝐼 = inflow rate;

𝑄 = outflow rate;
Δ𝑆 = change in storage;
Δt = change in time.
1.4.2 Hydrologic river routing

As a flood wave passes through a river reach, the peak of the outflow hydrograph is usually
attenuated and delayed due to channel resistance and storage capacity. Considering a limped
storage approach for the reach, the difference between the ordinate of the inflow and outflow
hydrographs, represented by shaded area in Figure 1.21, is equal to the rate of change of
storage in the reach. The value of ΔS/Δt is positive when storage is increasing and negative
when storage is decreasing and S can be plotted as a function of time. We can be written in
finite-difference form as
1 1 S2 −S1
(I1 + I2 ) − 2 (Q1 + Q2 ) = (1.27)
2 ∆t
If the storage is plotted against outflow for a river reach, the resulting curve will generally
take the form of a loop. This loop effect implies greater storage for given outflow during
falling stages than during rising stages. If one considers water surface profile at various
times during passage of the flood wave, the concept of prism and wedge storage is useful.
Figure 1.21 Storage in a river reach Figure 1.22 Prism and wedge storage
concepts

1.4.3 Muskingum method
Storage in a stable river reach can be expected to depend primarily on the discharge into and
out of a reach and on hydraulic characteristics of the channel section. The storage within the
reach at a given time can be expressed as:
b
S = a [XI m⁄n + (1 − X)Om⁄n ] (1.28)
to produce the Muskingum routing equation for a river reach:

Q2 = C0 I2 + C1 I10 + C2 Q1 (1.29)
−KX+0.5 ∆t KX+0.5 ∆t K−KX−0.5 ∆t
where C0 = , C1 = , C2 = , D = K − KX + 0.5∆t
D D D
To determine Muskingum 𝐾 and 𝑋, Storage Sis plotted against weighted discharge, 𝑋𝐼 +

(1 + 𝑋)𝑄.For several selected values of 𝑋, and the plot that yields the most linear single-
valued curve provides the best value for 𝑋. The Muskingum method assumes that this curve
is a straight line with reciprocal slope 𝐾. Figure 1.23 illustrates the concept of selecting 𝑋
and 𝐾.
Figure 1.23 Selection of Muskingum coefficients
1.4.4 Hydrologic reservoir routing

Reservoir or detention basin routing is generally easier to perform than river routing because
storage-discharge relations for pipes, weirs and spillways are single-valued functions
independent of inflow. Thus, a simple storage indication method or modified Puls method
uses the finite-difference form of the continuity equation combined with a storage indication
curve (2S/ ∆t +Q vs. Q). Equation (1.27) can be generalized to the following finite-
difference equation for two points in time:
2Sn 2Sn+1
(In + In+1 ) + ( − Qn ) = ( + Qn+1 ) (1.30)
∆t ∆t
1.4.5 Hydraulic method

The most general hydraulic routing method employs the full dynamic wave (St. Venant)
equations. These are the following continuity equation (1.31) and the momentum equation
(1.32), which takes the place of the storage-discharge relationship used in hydrologic
routing.
∂A ∂Q
+ ∂x = q (1.31)
∂t

∂y V ∂V 1 ∂V
Sf = S0 − ( ) − ( )−( ) (1.32)
∂x g ∂x g ∂t
where A = cross-sectional area;

Q = channel flow;
q = lateral inflow;
y = water depth;
V = cross-sectional mean velocity;
Sf = friction slope (frictional forces);
S0 = channel bed.
1.5 Design Flood Determination
1.5.1 Peak discharge

Many methods are available to estimate the peak rates and volumes of runoff from urban
watersheds. Some of the peak flow methods incorporate equations describing the rainfall-
runoff process, whereas others predict peak runoff rates by correlating the flow rates with
simple drainage basin characteristics such as total area, impervious area, slope, and other
factors (Viessman and Lewis, 2003).
 Rational method
Rational method is one of the simplest and best-known methods routinely applied in
urban hydrology, although it contains subtleties that are not always appreciated. Peak
flows are predicted by the simple product
Qp = C · I · A (I = in/hr, A = acres) (1.33 a)
Qp = 0.2278 · C · I · A (I = mm/hr, A = km2) (1.33 b)
where Qp = peak flow;

C = runoff coefficient (assumed to be dimensionless);
I = rainfall intensity for storm with duration equal to critical time period t c ;
A = catchment area.
The rational method is based on the false assumption that losses may be treated as a constant
fraction of rainfall regardless of the amount of rainfall or of the antecedent conditions.
Fortunately, this assumption gets better as the degree of urbanization increases, and
intelligent use of the rational method should yield a reasonable approximation to the desired
peak flow (Bedient and Huber, 2002).
 Other peak flow methods

- Peak flow methods for small watersheds (several thousand acres)
· SCS TP-149 Method
· FHWA HDS-2 Peak flow design method
· Discharge-Area and regression formula
· Cyprus creek formula
· USGS regional peak flow regression equations

- Peak flow methods for urban area
· SCS TR-55 graphical peak flow method
· USGS urban peak flow regression equations
1.5.2 Design hydrograph

Procedures for estimating design flood flows include methods that examine historical or
projected flood flows to arrive at a suitable estimate, and methods that evaluate the storms
that produce floods, and then convert the storms to flood flow rates. In each case, the
analysis can be based on selecting a design frequency and determining the associated flood,
or design on the basis of an estimate of the probable maximum storm or maximum flood that
could occur at the site (Viessman and Lewis, 2003).
 Flow-based method
For design locations where records of stream flows are available, or where flows from
another basin can be transposed to the design location, a design flood magnitude can be
estimated directly from the stream flows by any of the following methods:
1. Frequency analysis of flood flows at the design location or from a similar basin in
the region.
2. Use of regional flood frequency equations normally developed from regression
analysis of gauged flood data.
3. Examination of the stream and floodplain for signs of highest historical floods and
estimation of the flow rates using measurements of the cross section and slope of
the stream.
 Precipitation-based method
Where stream-gauging records are unavailable or inadequate for streamflow estimation,
design floods can be estimated by evaluating the precipitation that would produce the
flood, and then the precipitation is converted into runoff. Typical methods include:
1. Design using the greatest storm of record at the site, by converting the
precipitation to runoff.
2. Transposition of a severe historical storm another similar watershed in the region.
3. Frequency analysis of precipitation and conversion of the design storm to runoff.
4. Use of a theoretical probable maximum precipitation (PMP), or fraction of PMP,
based on meteorological analyses.
 Critical-event method
Due to the high risk to lives or properties below major structures, the design of these
structures generally includes precisions for a flood caused by combination of the most
sever meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are possible. Instead of a design for
some frequency or the least expected total cost, flood-handling facilities for the

structures are sized to safely store or pass the most critical storm or flood possible.
Methods to design using critical event techniques include:
1. Estimating the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) and determining the

associated flood flow rates and volumes by transforming the precipitation to
runoff.
2. Determining the probable maximum flood (PMF) by determining the PMP and
converting it to a flood by application of a rainfall-runoff model, including
snowmelt runoff if pertinent.
3. Examining the floodplain and stream to identify palaeo-flood evidence such as
high-water marks, boulder marks on trees or banks, debris lines, historical
accounts by local residents, or geologic or geomorphologic evidence.
4. In some cases, the critical-event method involves estimating the magnitude of the
500-yr event by various frequency or approximate methods. Often, such as in
mapping floodplains, the 500-yr flood is estimated as a multiple of the 100-yr
event, ranging from 1.5 to 2.5, with 1.7 in common use. Due to lack of longer-
term records, frequency-based estimates are seldom attempted for recurrence
intervals exceeding 500 years.
Figure 1.24 Procedure for estimating design hydrograph

Table 1.4 Features of simulation programs (Bosley, 2008)
Watershe
Overland
d Minimal Evapotran Channel Pond
Model name flow routing
conceptua time step -spiration routing routing
method
l-ization
Plan M, M-C,
User-
HEC-HMS 1 min UH, KW mod Puls, Mod Puls
/ channel supplied
lag, KW
Plan Non-linear Non-linear

User-
EPA-SWMM 1 sec reservoir, Mod Puls
/ channel reservoir supplied
KW, st.V
Plan Any Non-linear User- Rating Rating

HSPF
/ channel (typ. 1 hr) reservoir supplied curve curve
ANSWERS Grid 30 sec / 24 hr KW Ritchie KW None
CASE2D Grid 1 sec / 1 hr DW P-M DW, St.V None
Plan 0.01min Linear

User-
DR3M KW KW reservoir,
/ channel / 1 day supplied
Mod Puls
Lumped Constant
AnnAGNPS Lumped 1 day Penman Manning’s
travel time outflow
DHSVM Grid 1 hour Instance P-M M-C None
Thomthwai
Grid or sub KW or te, H-Q, KW, DW, KW, DW,
HYDROTEL 1 hour
watershed GIUH Linacre, P- Mod Puls Mod Puls
M, P-T
Table
Rational /
P8 Lumped 1 hour Hamon’s Crude interpolati
NRCS
on
KW, Linear Mod Puls, Mod Puls,

Plan / P-M, P-T,
PRMS 1min / 1 day or nonlinear Linear Linear
Channel Hargeaves
reservoir Reservoir Reservoir
Grid or Daily
Mod. P-M, P-T, Muskingum
SWAT subbasin / 1 day water
Rational Hargreaves , Manning’s
channel balance
Time-delay User- Constant

TOPMODEL Grid Varies None
histogram supplied velocity
WEPP Hillslope, Varies KW Ritchie, KW Mod Puls

Subbasin / Penman, P-

Watershe
Overland
d Minimal Evapotran Channel Pond
Model name flow routing
conceptua time step -spiration routing routing
method
l-ization
channel T
Notes: KW = Kinematic wave, DW = Diffusive wave, UH = Unit hydrograph, GIUH =

Geomorphological Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph, Instance = Transferred immediately to
adjacent grid cell. Velocity is dependent on grid cell dimension and time step, H-Q = Hydro-
Quebec, M = Muskingum, P-M = Penman-Monteith, P-T = Priestley-Taylor, K-J =
Kristensen-Jensen, M-C = Muskingum-Cunge, St.V = Full St.Venant’s equations
1.6 Snow Hydrology

Snowmelt runoff is a major component of the hydrologic cycle in many regions. That is an
important concern for water supply and design flood analysis. It is important to understand
the nature, distributions of snowfalls and the mechanisms involved in the snowmelt process
(Viessman and Lewis, 2003).
Two basic approaches are used to model snowmelt for daily or shorter time steps. The most
thorough method is to measure or estimate each term in the energy balance equation and to
simulate the energy fluxes within the snowpack. (NRCS, 2004)
1.6.1 1.6.1 Energy balance approach

If all the heat fluxes toward the snowpack are considered positive and those away
considered negative, the sum of these fluxes is equal to the change in heat content of the
snowpack (ΔH) for a given time period. That is,
∆H = Hrs + Hrt + Hs + Hl + Hg + Hp (1.62)
with 𝐻𝑟𝑠 = net solar radiation;

𝐻𝑟𝑡 = net thermal radiation;
Hs = sensible heat transfer from air;
Hl = latent vaporization heat from condensation or evaporation/sublimation;
Hg = conducted heat from underlying ground;
Hp = advection heat from precipitation.
1.6.2 1.6.2 Degree-day method

The degree-day method is a temperature index approach that equates the total daily melt to a
coefficient times the temperature difference between the mean daily temperature and a base
temperature (generally 32 °F or 0 °C; NRCS, 2004).
M = CM (Ta − Tb ) (1.64)
where M = snowmelt in in/d (mm/d);
𝐶𝑀 = the degree-day coefficient in in/degree-day F (mm/degree-day C);
Ta = mean daily air temperature °F (°C);
Tb = base temperature °F (°C).

The coefficient 𝐶𝑀 varies seasonally and regionally. The typical values range from 0.035 to
0.13 inches per degree-day Fahrenheit (1.6 to 6.0 mm/degree-day C). A value of 0.060
inches per degree-day Fahrenheit (2.74 mm/degree-day C) is often used when other
information is not sufficient. 𝐶𝑀 is related to snow density and wind speed (Martinec, 1960)
and to accumulated degree-days and elevation as well (Rosa, 1956).
1.7 Recommendations
The application of the methods and approaches presented in this chapter is in general
relatively straightforward. The reader is referred to the literature listed below to clarify
points that still need more thoughts. A few recommendations are nevertheless formulated,
which are worth keeping in mind while dealing with hydrology :
 Hydrology cannot be properly managed without consideration to all its uncertainties and
biases. While solving an hydrological problem, it is recommended to consider various
approaches and mobilize several, if possible clearly different methods.
 The hydrologist should aim at reaching a reasonable consistency between the various
applied approaches rather than focusing on just one method and painstakingly
attempting to apply it down to its tiniest details.
 There are well known inherent difficulties to precisely quantify hydrological processes,
as well as additional uncertainties introduced by extrapolation methods (for flood
estimation in particular). The key characteristics of floods (peak flow, duration, volume)
are inevitably imbedded in a wide range of uncertainties. A minimum number of
significant digits is sufficient to express these quantities.
 The existing methods presented in this chapter are not the alpha and omega of
hydrology. New methods appear regularly, some adopting simple, original approaches,
others relying on heavily numerical solutions. These new procedures are possibly not as
intuitive as the classic ones, but offer interesting perspectives worth the hydrologist's
attention.
References
 Akan, A. O., and Houghtalen, R. J. (2003). Urban hydrology, hydraulics, and stormwater
quality: engineering applications and computer modeling. John Wiley & Sons.
 Asquith, W.H. (1999). “Areal-reduction factors for the precipitation of the 1-day design
storm in Texas.” Report, USGS, Austin, USA.
 Bedient, P.B., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology & floodplain analysis. Prentive Hall,
USA.
 Chow, W.T., Maidment D.R., and Mays L.W. (1988). Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill,
USA.
 Clark, C.O. (1945). “Storage and the unit hydrograph.” Transactions, ASCE, 110, 1419-
1446.
 Creutin, J. D., & Obled, C. (1982). “Objective analyses and mapping techniques for
rainfall fields: an objective comparison.” Water resources research, 18(2), 413-431.

 Daly, C., & Taylor, G. H. (1996). “Development of a new Oregon precipitation map
using the PRISM model.” GIS and Environmental Modeling: Progress and Research
Issues, 91-92.
 Dingman, S. L. (2015). Physical hydrology. Waveland press.
 Hershfield, D.M. (1962). “Rainfall frequency atlas of the United States for durations from
30 minutes to 24 hours and return periods from 1 to 100 years.” Technical Paper 40, U.S.
Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C., USA.
 Huff, F.A. (1967). “Time distribution of rainfall in heavy storms.” Water Resources
Research, 3, 1007-1019.
 Lebel, T., Bastin, G., Obled, C., & Creutin, J. D. (1987). “On the accuracy of areal
rainfall estimation: a case study.” Water Resources Research, 23(11), 2123-2134.
 Loesch, N.M. (2000), Watershed modeling using arcview, Lecture note.
 Maidment D.R. (1993). Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, USA.
 Martinec, J. (1960). “The degree-day factor for snowmelt runoff forecasting.” IUGG
General Assembly of Helsinki, IAHS Commission of Surface Waters, 51, 468-477.
 NRCS (2004). National Engineering Handbook: Part 630-Hydrology. USDA Soil
Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA.
 Raghunath, H.M. (2007). Hydrology: principles, analysis and design. New Age
International, INDIA.
 Ramirez, J.A. (2000). Prediction and modeling of flood hydrology and hydraulics. Inland
flood hazards: Human, riparian and aquatic communities.
 Rodriguez‐Iturbe, I., and Valdes, J. B. (1979). “The geomorphologic structure of
hydrologic response.” Water resources research, 15(6), 1409-1420.
 Rosa, J. M. (1956). "Forest snowmelt and spring floods." Journal of Forestry, 54(4): 231-
235.
 Shaw Elizabeth, M. (1988). Hydrology in practice. Londen, U.K.
 Sherman, L.K. (1932). “Streamflow from Rainfall by the Unit-Graph Method,” Eng.
News-Rec., 108, 501-505.
 Snyder, F.F. (1938). “Synthetic unit graphs,” Trans. AGU, 19, 447-454.
 Svensson, Cecilia, and David A. Jones (2010). "Review of methods for deriving areal
reduction factors." Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3(3), 232-245.
 Tabios, G. Q., & Salas, J. D. (1985). “A comparative analysis of techniques for spatial
interpolation of precipitation.” Water resources Bulletin, 21, 365-380.
 Taylor, A. B., and Schwarz, H. E. (1952). “Unit‐hydrograph lag and peak flow related to
basin characteristics. Eos.” Transactions American Geophysical Union, 33(2), 235-246.
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1956). Snow hydrology. Portland, OR.
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1959). Flood-hydrograph analysis and computations,
Engineering and Design Manuals, EM 1110-2-1405, Washington, D.C.
 U.S.D.A.- SCS (1984). Engineering field handbook. Washington, D.C. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
 Viessman, W.J., and Lewis, G.L. (2003). Introduction to Hydrology. Prentice Hall, USA.
 Wang, G. A., Li, B. G., and Wang, J. L. (2006). “World's greatest known point rainfalls
and their enveloping curve formula.” Advances in Water Science, 17(6), 824.
 Wiesner, C. J. (1970). Hydrometeorology. London, Chapman and Hall.
 World Meteorological Organization (2009). Manual on estimation of probable maximum
precipitation, WMO No. 1045. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Chapter 2
Current Trends in the Evaluation of Extreme Floods
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of current trends in the estimation of extreme floods
relevant to dam safety. Given this context, emphasis is given to the estimation of floods with
annual exceedance probabilities rarer than 1 in 100, up to the Probable Maximum Flood.
Such estimates are required to assess the adequacy of the flood capacity of dams, and for
assessing the (incremental) impacts of dam outflows on downstream areas. The severity of
floods relevant to dam safety may be one or more orders of magnitude more extreme than
has been observed in the historic record. As such, the estimation of this range of floods
presents special difficulties that are not generally encountered when dealing with floodplain
management and planning.
The hydrologic criteria relevant to the design of flood mitigation dams is generally based on
two design conditions (ICOLD, 2003), namely 1) the maximum inflow flood that can be
safely passed by the dam, and 2) the optimum degree of flood mitigation achieved under
controlled operations.
Traditionally, standards-based approaches have been used to define these design conditions,
where the upper limit of interest is defined by the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The
details of how PMFs should be estimated vary with region, but a common attribute has been
to consider the most severe combination of conditions that are reasonably likely to occur (eg
ICOLD, 1992). The focus here is on the magnitude of the flood, where consideration is
given to both the peak and the volume of the hydrograph, as these two characteristics
influence the degree of flood mitigation achievable by the dam.
More recently, attention is being given to risk-based approaches to design criteria, in which
it is necessary to characterise the relationship between both the magnitude of the flood and
its probability of exceedance. Thus, rather than consider a single extreme storm event (such
as the Probable Maximum Precipitation) it is necessary to derive a distribution of floods,
ranging over the whole probability domain of interest.
The two different approaches to specifying design criteria lend themselves to different
estimation methodologies. For the derivation of many standards-based criteria it is sufficient
to use deterministic approaches, in which the floods of interest are derived using a fixed
combination of hydrometeorological inputs. By contrast, the derivation of risk-based criteria
are best undertaken using stochastic approaches, in which the selected factors controlling the
conversion of rainfall into floods are sampled from their associated probability distributions.
In practice, however, there are a range of methods applicable to both risk-based and
standards-based assessments. The next section categorises the various approaches that are
applicable, and this is followed by more detailed descriptions of the main approaches
applicable to dam safety. These are followed by a brief description of how the impacts of
climate change can be incorporated into the required design estimates.

2.2 Approaches to Flood Estimation
The different approaches to flood estimation can be broadly divided into those based on
statistical analysis of flood data, and those based on the transformation of rainfall via some
transfer function or simulation model.
Flood frequency analysis is the most common example of the former approach. Here, a
frequency distribution is fitted to flood maxima that occur above some threshold or within a
fixed time interval; the annual exceedance probability of the desired flood characteristic is
then determined from the fitted distribution. Flood frequency methods are particularly
attractive as they avoid the need to consider the complex joint probabilities involved in the
transformation of rainfall into flood. However, the utility of these methods is heavily
dependent on both the length of available record and its representativeness to the catchment
and climatic conditions of interest. Limitations on the length of record at the site of interest
can be partially overcome by the analysis of paleoflood records (eg Baker, 2008), and by
combining data from two or more sites using regional pooling techniques (Castellarin et al,
2012).
For the latter, rainfall-based group of approaches, there are a plethora of different techniques
that can be used. When considering how to characterise these different approaches it is
useful to discriminate between the hydrologic transfer function (or model) used to transform
the rainfall into some characteristic of streamflow, and the simulation framework that is used
to implement the model. In essence the transfer function controls the magnitude of the
streamflow characteristic, and the simulation framework controls how the exceedance
probability of the event is determined.
Different transfer functions can be developed with differing degrees of hydrologic
defensibility, the most complex of which are physically-based simulation models in which
the land phase of the hydrologic cycle is represented by mathematical equations that govern
water movement. While some transfer functions are more easily implemented within a
particular simulation framework, in general all transfer functions can be adapted to run in
any simulation framework. Details on procedures relevant to formulation of typical transfer
functions are provided in Chapter 1.
The different simulation frameworks can be divided into three broad approaches, namely (i)
deterministic, (ii) stochastic, and (iii) comprehensive. The basic elements of these three
approaches are illustrated in Figure 2.1, and are briefly described below.
Deterministic methods represent common industry practice in many countries of the world.
With this approach, a rainfall event of specified annual exceedance probability or magnitude
(such as the Probable Maximum Precipitation) is transformed into a flood hydrograph by a
hydrologic model. The approach is termed “deterministic” in the sense that the flood output
is derived from a set of inputs that are explicitly selected. The transformation often involves
the application of two modelling steps, namely:
(i) a runoff production model to convert the storm rainfall input at any point in the
catchment into rainfall excess (or runoff) at that location, and
(ii) a hydrograph formation model to simulate the conversion of rainfall excess into a
flood hydrograph at the point of interest.

Deterministic Stochastic Comprehensive
Simulation
Approach Design Event Approach Monte Carlo simulation Continuous Simulation
Design rainfall event of specified Stochastic sample of rainfall Time series of daily (or shorter)
Rainfall events (based on rainfall
annual exceedance probability historic (or synthetic) rainfalls
input frequency curve)
Hydrologic transfer function
Most important flood modifying

Storm runoff The flood modifying factors
factors sampled from probability
production controlling runoff production are distribution, with minor factors Rainfall-runoff models used to
set to fixed (“average”) values simulate (with varying degrees
set to fixed values
of complexity) the physical
processes that govern the
infiltration, recharge, and
Flood model used to route Flood model used to route movement of water to the
Hydrograph rainfall excess to catchment rainfall excess to catchment catchment outlet
formation outlet (eg unit hydrograph and outlet (eg unit hydrograph and
runoff routing models) runoff routing models)
Flood
characteristic Resulting flood hydrograph Distribution of flood events, Time series of daily (or shorter)
of known assumed to have same annual where total probability theorem streamflows, where statistical
annual exceedance probability as input used to derive flood distribution is fitted to extracted
exceedance design rainfall characteristic of specific annual maxima
probability exceedance probability
Figure 2.1 Different simulation frameworks used for the estimation of design floods
When used to estimate floods with a specified annual exceedance probability, deterministic
techniques make the assumption that the exceedance probability of the derived flood is the
same as the input rainfall. This assumption is made on the basis that the hydrologic factors
that control runoff production are set to be “probability-neutral”.
In practice this means that factors related to the temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall,
antecedent conditions and losses, are set to “typical” values that are associated with the input
rainfall. Factors related to formation of the hydrograph are generally assumed to be invariant
with rainfall. The assumption of probability-neutrality is not relevant when estimating the
Probable Maximum Flood, as here the design objective is to derive a flood that is the
maximum “reasonably” possible, where no account is given to its exceedance probability.
Stochastic techniques offer an alternative to the design event method (eg Rahman et al,
2002; Weinmann et al, 2002; Nathan et al, 2002). These techniques recognise that any
design flood characteristics (e.g. peakflow) could result from a variety of combinations of
flood producing factors, rather than from a single combination. For example, the same peak
flood could result from a moderate storm on a saturated basin, or a large storm on a dry
basin.
An illustration of this is provided in Figure 2.2, where the grey points represent the flood
peaks arising from the stochastic combination of key flood-producing factors for a
catchment with an area of 7000 km2. The vertical range of these flood peaks for a given
annual exceedance probability reflects the sensitivity of the floods to stochastic factors for a
given rainfall depth (in this case, the spatial and temporal patterns of rainfall, and initial and
continuing losses).
Such approaches attempt to mimic “mother nature” in that the influence of all important
stochastic inputs are explicitly considered, thereby providing a more realistic representation

of the flood generation processes. The method is easily adapted to focus on only those
aspects that are most relevant to the problem. To this end, it is possible to adopt single
“probability-neutral” values for factors that have only a small influence on runoff
production, and full distributions for other more important inputs, such as losses and
temporal patterns.
The approach involves undertaking numerous simulations where the stochastic factors are
sampled in accordance with the variation observed in nature. The exceedance probability of
the desired flood characteristic may be computed using the Total Probability Theorem
(Nathan and Weinmann, 2013); this is a statistical analysis which accounts for the overlap of
flood distributions for successive ranges of rainfalls, which results in the derivation of a
frequency curve within the central tendency of the distribution of floods (red curve, Figure
2.2).
Figure 2.2 Illustration of the variability in flood peaks arising from combination
of stochastic factors and their relationship to the derived frequency curve
using the total probability theorem
Further details regarding the practicalities of this approach are described in a later section,
but it is worth noting here that this approach can use exactly the same types of hydrologic
inputs and models that are used in deterministic approaches. The deterministic and
stochastic approaches are well suited to event-based models, where it is assumed that the
probability of storm rainfall is the primary variable that controls the exceedance probability
of the outflow floods. In some situations that are more volume-dependent – such as a
cascade of dams or seasonal snowmelt conditions – this may not be an appropriate
assumption, and it may be better to adopt a continuous simulation, or hybrid approach.
With the comprehensive approach (see review by Boughton and Droop, 2003), continuous
simulation techniques are used to convert input time series of rainfall and evaporation into
an output time series of streamflow; the flood events of interest are extracted from the

simulated streamflow record and analysed by conventional frequency analysis. The models
used to transform the input rainfall into streamflow tend to be rather more complex than
those commonly used in the design event or stochastic approaches. The main reason for this
complexity is the ability of the models to account for changes in soil moisture (and other
catchment stores) during the simulation period.
The continuous simulation approach has the major advantage that it implicitly allows for the
correlations between the different factors that control the flood formation process. Its major
drawback (in the context of flood estimation) is that the accurate simulation of rainfall-
runoff and flow routing processes over the range from dry-weather flows to large floods
poses a significant challenge for the model development. In addition, in order to estimate
flood exceedance probabilities of relevance to dam safety, it is necessary to use stochastic
rainfall generation techniques to produce synthetic sequences that are many times longer
than what is available in the historic record.
There are many variants to the above, and in practice it may be desirable to develop hybrid
approaches that take advantage of different elements of each (see Section 2.5).
The different approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, and the selection of the
most appropriate method is somewhat dependent on the design objective of interest. In
particular, the approaches differ in their ability to take advantage of different types of
information. This concept is illustrated in Figure 2.3, where it is seen for example that at-site
frequency analysis is well suited to characterising flood risk using information within the
observed flood record, but that regional frequency techniques are required to extrapolate
beyond limits justified by local data availability. At-site and regional frequency analyses
provide valuable independent evidence to help support application of other techniques, but
these are only directly suited to dam safety in a minority of cases (ie for low hazard dams
where the flood risk of interest is comparable to the credible limit of extrapolation).
The relative efficacy between stochastic and deterministic techniques for rarer events is
somewhat arguable, and is dependent on the characteristics of the system of interest. With
deterministic approaches the assumption of probability-neutrality can really only be tested
using independent estimates (such as obtained from frequency analyses); by contrast,
stochastic approaches are able to account explicitly for the joint probabilities involved in the
production of flood flows (both into and out from dams), and thus extrapolations are more
easily justified. That said, our understanding of the dependencies in behaviour of flood
producing factors beyond the observable record becomes increasingly uncertain, and thus at
some point it is necessary to condition sampling schemes by physical reasoning.

Figure 2.3 The applicability of different approaches
to the probability domain of interest
2.3 Empirical Methods

Empirical methods provide a useful means to estimate flood characteristics from readily
accessible information. The first global catalogue of extreme floods which related peak
flows against catchment area was compiled by Rodier and Roche (1984), and this was
updated with new case histories by Herschy (2003). There are also numerous examples of
envelope curves being derived for specific regions (eg Nathan et al, 1994).

Traditionally, such estimates are useful for preliminary design purposes, and as independent
checks for site-specific analyses. The obvious limitation of such estimates is that they do not
take into account the site-specific factors that may cause floods to be lower or higher than
the expected value for the region of interest. More recently (eg Castellarin et al, 2007;
Castellarin, 2007 ; Vogel et al, 2007) efforts have been made to use such information to
infer the exceedance probability of extreme events.
In essence such techniques represent the means to trade space for time, whereby the
occurrence of flood maxima over a wide region can be used to infer the likelihood that a
flood may be exceeded at a particular site. The assumptions of homogeneity and scaling that
are required to estimate the corresponding exceedance probabilities are more easily
accommodated with rainfall maxima (eg Viglione et al, 2102), but this represents an
emerging approach that has considerable potential for utility.
2.4 Deterministic Approaches

The most traditional approach to rainfall-based flood estimation is based on the
deterministic application of flood event models. This approach involves the input of a
“design rainfall” event (ie a rainfall of specified annual exceedance probability and duration,
or a specified design input such as the Probable Maximum Precipitation) into a flood model
to yield a design hydrograph for the catchment. The various flood producing factors related
to the temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall, the estimation of rainfall excess, and its
subsequent routing through the catchment and channel network are determined by the
structure, configuration, and parameterisation of the model. For each set of inputs the model
produces a single flood estimate.
The deterministic, or “design event” approach is used to derive estimates suitable for use in
both standards- and risk-based design. The major difference between these two types of
design practice is that in standards-based design we are only interested in deriving the
magnitude of the flood loading of interest (e.g. the Probable Maximum Flood), whereas in
risk-based design we need to derive a relationship between flood magnitude and annual
exceedance probability over a broad range of flood magnitudes.
When the deterministic approach is used to derive floods with an estimated annual
exceedance probability, it embodies the important assumption that for each rainfall duration,
there is a unique (typical) combination of all the model inputs and model parameters such
that the exceedance probability of the flood is assumed to be the same as its causative
rainfall.
The selection of inputs and parameters to ensure a probability-neutral transformation
between rainfall and flood presents a difficult technical challenge. The task of defining a
typical combination of flood producing factors for application in the design event approach
is made particularly difficult by the fact that flood response to rainfall is generally non-
linear, and can be highly non-linear. This means that average conditions of rainfall or loss
are unlikely to produce average flood conditions. While this approach represents current
practice in most parts of the world, it does suffer from the limitations that:
 the probability-neutrality of some inputs can only be tested on frequent events for which
independent estimates are available;
 for more extreme events, the adopted values of probability-neutral inputs must be
conditioned by physical and theoretical reasoning; and,

 the treatment of more complex interactions (such as the seasonal variation of inputs)
becomes rapidly more complex and less easy to defend.
Thus, while the stated intent of the design event approach (the probability-neutral
transformation of design rainfalls into their corresponding floods) is quite clear and
plausible, its practical implementation is fraught with difficulties.
It could be argued that estimation of the PMF does not rely on explicit consideration of the
exceedance probabilities involved, and thus is well suited to deterministic approaches.
However, the concept of “reasonableness” implicitly requires consideration of the likelihood
with which flood producing factors are combined. A number of authors (eg Newton, 1983;
Zielinksi, 2009; Nathan et al, 2011) have stressed the difficulty of characterising the degree
of “reasonableness” in the estimation of the PMF, and without explicit consideration of the
joint probabilities involved the deterministic estimation of the PMF represents a very
subjective standard.
2.5 Stochastic Event-Based Approaches

Flood-event models as used in traditional deterministic approaches can be incorporated into
a stochastic simulation framework, such that all important flood producing factors can be
treated as stochastic variables, and the less important ones can be fixed. The approach is
ideally suited to flood estimation problems as these typically involve both a stochastic and a
deterministic component in the manner described by Laurenson (1974).
The stochastic component comprises the (notionally random) occurrence of rainfall, its
temporal and spatial distribution, and antecedent conditions such as losses, depth of
snowpack, and initial reservoir level. These random factors are represented in the simulation
by probabilistic sampling of model inputs (and possibly parameter values) from their
respective distributions.
The deterministic component is the transformation (via an appropriate hydrologic model) of
rainfall into rainfall excess, and its subsequent routing through the catchment and the flood
control dam, to yield a catchment outflow hydrograph. This transformation is deterministic
in the sense that, for a given set of conditions and events of similar magnitude, the
catchment response (or dam outflow) can be assumed to remain essentially unchanged. The
deterministic catchment model will thus always predict the same outflow hydrograph for a
given set of rainfall inputs, antecedent conditions, storage levels and parameter values.
In the most general Monte Carlo simulation approach for design flood estimation, rainfall
events of different duration are sampled stochastically from their distribution. The simulated
design floods are then weighted in accordance with the observed frequency of occurrence of
rainfall events of different durations that produced them. This avoids any positive bias of
estimated flood probabilities which may be associated with the application of the critical
rainfall duration concept (Weinmann et al., 2002).
The application of this generalised approach relies on the derivation of new design data for
rainfall events that are consistent with a new probabilistic definition of storm ‘cores’ or
complete storms (Hoang et al., 1999). The alternative, more direct approach, is to simply
adopt rainfall events of fixed durations, and stochastically sample all other major flood-
producing factors (eg Schaefer and Barker, 2002; Nathan and Weinmann, 2003; Joos et al,
2005) this avoids the problem of ensuring that the generated rainfalls are consistent with

design rainfall data, and is a direct extension of the critical storm approach used in
deterministic procedures.
The main elements involved in application of a stochastic simulation approach can be
summarized by the following steps:
Select an appropriate flood event simulation model - The criteria for selection are the same
as those used with the traditional deterministic approach (see Chapter 1) and indeed the
same flood model can be used for either approach.
Identify the model inputs and parameters to be stochastically generated - The stochastic
representation of model inputs should focus on those inputs and parameters that are
characterized by a high degree of natural variability and a non-linear flood response.
Examples include rainfall temporal pattern, initial loss, depth of snowpack, and initial
starting level in the reservoir.
Define the model inputs and parameters using appropriate probability distributions and
correlations - The distributions used to generate the stochastic inputs can be defined by
parametric probability distributions or using an empirical or non-parametric approach.
Monte Carlo simulation of flood events - The flood model is run many times where at each
simulation step the set of required inputs are stochastically generated by sampling from their
probability distributions and the results are saved. Only those inputs that have a significant
influence on the results need to be stochastically generated, and other inputs can be treated
as fixed (usually average or median) values. Generally many thousands of simulations are
required to adequately sample the inherent variability in the system.
Construction of derived flood frequency curve - Once the selected number of runs has been
completed, the saved results are analysed to derive the required annual exceedance
probability estimates for the flood characteristics of interest. Where very simple models are
used, or the probabilities of interest are not extreme, the results can be analysed directly by
construction of a derived frequency curve. Alternatively, to estimate rarer annual
exceedance probabilities it may be necessary to use a stratified sampling approach.
The main elements involved in Monte Carlo simulation are illustrated in Figure 2.4. The
shaded cells represent the steps involved in the traditional deterministic simulation of flood
runoff for a given set of inputs. The natural variability of the flood-producing process is
illustrated by the cells with italic text, which outline the repeated stochastic sampling of the
key factors that influence the transformation of rainfall into flood runoff. The outer loop of
simulation, as illustrated by white, framed cells, represents the additional steps that would be
necessary if the epistemic uncertainty in the estimates is to be quantified beyond those listed
above.

Figure 2.4 Simplified view of concepts involved in traditional (“deterministic”)
and joint probability (“Monte Carlo”) approaches
In essence, Monte Carlo simulation provides the means to transform a frequency curve of
rainfall into a corresponding frequency curve of some desired flood characteristic (Figure
2.5). The outputs of such an analysis can be compared directly to independent information
on flood frequencies, and be used to derive frequency curves over the full probability
domain of interest (Figure 2.6). The fundamental rationale for this approach is that there is
considerably more data available on rainfall (especially regionally) than for streamflows,
and thus we are able to estimate the probability of floods that are much rarer than can be
found in the historic streamflow record, including consideration of the variations in other
flood-producing characteristics that can be included in the Monte Carlo simulation.

Figure 2.5 Use of a Monte Carlo simulation to transform a frequency distribution
of rainfall into a frequency distribution of a desired flood characteristic
Figure 2.6 Outputs from a Monte Carlo analysis

(a) Reconciliation with independent flood frequency estimates
(b) Characterisation of flood risk downstream of two dams
exhibiting correlated storage behaviour (Mittega et al, 2007)
It should be noted that the Monte Carlo approach provides information on flood likelihood
or AEPs that is not available from a deterministic estimate of the Probable Maximum Flood
(PMF) based on the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP). Thus, the PMP is treated as
merely one point on the rainfall frequency curve, and Monte Carlo simulation allows the
estimation of annual exceedance probabilities for floods with magnitudes between those that
may have been observed in the historic record and those represented by, or even exceeding,
the PMF.
Adapting models to run in a stochastic environment allows the practitioner to take advantage
of existing design information and experience. If industry-accepted models are used, the vast
body of experience and empirical relationships available concerning model configuration
and parameterisation are still largely applicable. Less important parameters can be fixed at
values deemed appropriate from previous experience and available design guidance, and
average values of stochastically varying inputs can be expected to fall within a range
previously considered for use in deterministic design.
The information available for specifying input distributions is often the same as that used to
derive typical or average values of fixed inputs, and many inputs can easily be non-

dimensionalised and pooled from regional observations. For example it is common to
represent temporal patterns in a dimensionless form and suitable empirical samples can
easily be extracted from pluviograph data. Of course some thought and care is required to
ensure that the distributions being used are relevant to the design problem of interest, and
that correlations between inputs are handled appropriately, but the concepts involved in the
preparation and treatment of design data are very similar to those used in traditional design
practice.
Monte Carlo simulation is particularly suitable in cases where design flood characteristics
need to be determined at multiple locations within a system. Using the design event
approach with fixed input values, the probability-neutral transformation from design rainfall
to design flood would require a separate model run for each location of interest, each run
using the appropriately selected input value for that location. With Monte Carlo simulation,
the sampling of input values over a wide range ensures that the changing influence of
different factors is automatically allowed for when moving from sites of interest within the
catchment.
2.6 Continuous Simulation

Continuous simulation models have also been used to derive flood frequency distributions
relevant to extreme events (e.g. Boughton and Droop, 2003; Chetty and Smithers, 2005;
Faulkner and Wass, 2005; Lamb, 2005). With this approach, continuous simulation
techniques are used to convert input time series of rainfall and evaporation into an output
time series of streamflow; the flood events of interest are then extracted from the simulated
streamflow record and analysed by conventional frequency analysis. The models used to
transform the input rainfall into streamflow tend to be rather more complex than those
commonly used in the design event or stochastic approaches. The main reason for this
complexity is the ability of the models to account for changes in soil moisture (and other
catchment stores) during the simulation period.
The continuous simulation approach has the major advantage that it implicitly allows for the
correlations between the different factors that control the flood formation process. This is
particularly useful when considering a cascade of dams, which are more sensitive to the
volume of a sequence events rather than the peak of an individual flood. Its major drawback
(in the context of flood estimation) is that the accurate simulation of rainfall-runoff and flow
routing processes over the range from dry-weather flows to large floods poses a significant
challenge for the model development.
An immensely large body of literature has been written on the development and application
of continuous simulation models, and on the appropriateness of different conceptual and
simulation frameworks. The focus of such papers is generally on the ability of the models to
reproduce catchment yields, that is on their ability to simulate all components of the
streamflow regime. However, there are two particular issues of importance that should be
noted when using such models to derive flood frequency curves over a probability range of
relevance to dam safety.
Firstly, the tail of the derived frequency curve is heavily dependent on the length of the
simulation period, which in turn is primarily dependent on the length of the available rainfall
series. For many parts of the world it is reasonably straightforward to derive daily rainfall
data from published sources for record lengths approaching 100 years. The length of
available record and spatial extent of sub-daily rainfall data is more limited, but in principle

there are a variety of ways that the required information can be derived. With appropriately
calibrated simulation models, it is thus reasonably straightforward to derive quantile
estimates of the required flood characteristics for annual exceedance probabilities
approaching 1 in 100. For rarer events, it is necessary to stochastically generate the required
rainfall.
There are many established methods for generating long-duration rainfalls at single or
multiple sites (see review by Srikanthan and McMahon, 2001) though in the context of flood
estimation such methods are probably most useful for the largest catchments of interest, and
in constraining the stochastic generation of sub-daily rainfalls. The stochastic generation of
sub-daily rainfalls is still an active area of research, but one model suitable for use by
practitioners (only at the point scale) is the DRIP model (Heneker et al, 2001). While the
coupling of continuous simulation models with stochastic rainfall data is an attractive
concept for the estimation of floods rarer than 1 in 100, for the purposes of risk-based design
it is essential that the frequency of the critical (stochastically generated) rainfall
characteristics are consistent with the corresponding information published on rainfall
bursts.
Secondly, the structure of continuous simulation models is geared towards reproduction of
the complete streamflow regime, and not on the reproduction of a rare number of extreme
events. This has implications for how the model is parameterised and calibrated. The vast
majority of the information used to inform model parameterisation is not relevant to extreme
events, other than to ensure that the right antecedent conditions prevail before onset of the
storm. In addition, under extreme conditions, many state variables inherent to the model
structure might be bounded, and the process descriptions relevant to such states may be
poorly formulated and yield outcomes that are not consistent with physical reasoning.
Continuous simulation models are well able to accommodate the joint probabilities involved
in how the various flood modifying factors combine to produce frequent floods. However,
with increasing rainfall magnitude these joint probabilities are of decreasing importance, and
instead focus must shift to the manner in which rainfall excess is transformed into a flood
hydrograph. Flood event models have a small number of parameters and their efficacy is
heavily dependent on how they are configured to represent the distribution of flood storage
within the catchment. While flood event models are not well suited to handling the joint
probabilities involved in simulating runoff production, particularly when this represents a
minor proportion of the incident rainfall, they are well suited to characterising the flood
response of a catchment.
The implications of the changing influence of joint probability behaviour and the non-
linearities involved in flood generation with event magnitude are well known research
problems. An experienced modeller will examine the behaviour of the model under a variety
of streamflow conditions, and will be aware of the markedly differing levels of information
available to parameterise the model for different ranges of flow magnitude. While such
issues take on a heightened importance when used for practical design flood estimation,
there are design contexts where this approach provides a practical tool (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7 Schematic of simulation approach used to calculate the design flood
for a dam required to pass an inflow flood with an annual exceedance probability
of 1 in 100 (Swedenergy et al, 2007)
2.7 Hybrid Statistical Methods

There are a range of “hybrid” approaches that do not fit neatly into the foregoing categories.
Typically, hybrid approaches use statistical information on rainfall storms in combination
with continuous simulation and event-based models. With this approach, long term recorded
(or stochastic) climate sequences might be used in combination with a continuous simulation
model to generate a time series of catchment soil moisture and streamflows (which also may
include simulation of snowpack conditions). This information is used to specify antecedent
conditions for an event-based model, which is then used in combination with statistical
information on rainfall storms to generate extreme flood hydrographs.
For example, the SEFM model (MGS Engineering, 2009) undertakes soil moisture
accounting and snowpack modelling for an extended period prior to the onset of an event to
establish antecedent conditions, then uses a flood-event model in combination with
probabilistic design rainfall intensities to simulate the flood hydrographs.
SCHADEX (Paquet et al, 2013) is also an example of a hybrid approach. SCHADEX is a
semi-continuous rainfall–runoff model in which a continuous hydrological simulation model
is used to generate the possible hydrological states of the catchment, and floods are
simulated on an event basis. The method incorporates a statistical model to characterise the

distribution of rainfalls, where the observed rainfall series is split into several homogeneous
sub-samples based on a classification of regional weather characteristics.
The MORDOR hydrological model is used to convert rainfalls into floods; this is a
conceptual, lumped, reservoir model with daily areal rainfall and air temperature as the
driving input data. The principal hydrological processes represented are evapotranspiration,
direct and indirect runoff, ground water, snow accumulation and melt, and routing. Selected
daily rainfalls are replaced by a synthetic generator for extreme rainfall estimation
(Garavaglia et al., 2010), and the resulting daily discharge volumes are converted to peak
flows using empirical function derived from observed hydrographs. The results are fitted to
a frequency distribution and used to derive flood quantiles typically out to annual
exceedance probabilities of 1 in 1000.
Figure 2.8 Steps involved in application of the SHADEX method

(Paquet et al, 2013)
Another method is the SHYREG Method. The SHYREG method is a version of the
SHYPRE (Simulated HYdrographs for flood PRobability Estimation) method (Arnaud and
Lavabre, 2002), adapted for the purposes of regional flood studies. SHYPRE was first
developed to simulate catchment flood scenarios. It couples a stochastic hourly rainfall
generator (Arnaud and Lavabre, 1999; Arnaud et al., 2006; Cantet et al., 2010; Cernesson et

al., 1996) with a rainfall-runoff model, so that the model generates a set of flood
hydrographs, which can then be used to empirically deduce the frequency distribution of
peak and maximum mean flows over different durations. These simulated series can also be
used to test the failure of hydraulic structures when subjected to extreme events (Lavabre et
al., 2010).
The method was also evaluated in comparison to other frequency analysis methods, as part
of a nationwide research project (Kochanek et al., 2013). The results show that the
SHYREG method is highly stable. The method’s stability is linked to the fact that it relies on
statistical data for regional rainfall and on a simple rainfall-runoff model. Calibrating the
method on a catchment is done using a single parameter. The other parameters are set a
priori on a regional basis, independently of the rainfall data that is available for the
catchment under consideration.
2.8 Model Intercomparison

It needs to be recognised that, as illustrated in Figure 2.3, our understanding of the
dependencies in behaviour of flood producing factors beyond the observable record becomes
increasingly uncertain. Important insights can be gained by examining the differences in
estimates obtained using alternative methods; such differences provide some indication of
the contribution of model structure to estimation uncertainty, but also can highlight the
relative importance of assumptions used to underpin their application.
Figure 2.9 illustrates differences in results arising from different classes of methods applied
to a catchment in Canada: it is seen that flood estimates based on the fitting of different
distributions to historic maxima (as described in Section 2.2) yield a range of results that are
below the estimates obtained using two rainfall-based techniques (SEFM and SCHADEX,
as described above). The flood frequency estimates are constrained by the short length of
observed flood maxima (47 years), whereas the rainfall-based methods are able to take
advantage of rainfall data obtained over a much larger region; this larger region supports the
application of statistical techniques that enable the trading of space for time to estimate
rainfall depths of much lower exceedance probability than is possible using local streamflow
data.
Also of interest, are the results obtained from deterministic procedures, as described in
Section 2.4. The result presented here is for the Probable Maximum Flood, which suggests
(in this case) that its annual exceedance probability is in excess of 1 in 10,000. This estimate
of the PMF is about half the magnitude of the envelope of observed world maxima
(Herschy, 2003), which is consistent with the physical understanding of the catchment and
its temperate location.

5000
Observed 24-hour peak inflows (1963-2010)
Gumbel frequency distribution PMF (24-hour peak inflow)
4500
Gamma frequency distribution
Compound Poisson/Exponential frequency distribution
Log-Normal (3 parameter) frequency distribution
4000
GEV (3 parameter) frequency distribution
Log-Pearson type 3 frequency distribution
3500 Weibull frequency distribution
Inflow into Upper Campbell Lake (m³/s)
SCHADEX (24-hour peak inflow)

SEFM (24-hour peak inflow)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Return Period (years)
Figure 2.9 Estimation of extreme floods using different methods

including fitting of different distributions to historic maxima, deterministic estimates
of the Probable Maximum Flood, stochastic flood event model using SEFM
and a hybrid procedure using SCHADEX (Micovic, 2013)
2.9 Incorporating Climate Change

Over the past several years, the science of climate change has advanced significantly,
confirming earlier projections that global temperatures will continue to increase over the
next 100 years (IPCC, 2007). These projected changes in climate are generally expected to
increase flood risk in many parts of the world. However, while there is good evidence for
the projected rises in global temperatures and average seasonal rainfalls, our understanding
for how these changes impact on flood risk is subject to considerable uncertainty (eg Kay et
al, 2009; Barsugli et al, 2009). Indeed, one of the main impacts of climate change will be to
increase the uncertainty associated with the estimation of extreme floods.
The factors that impact on flood risk are varied, and will vary with catchment type and
region. The main factors involved in incorporating the influence of climate change include
changes in rainfall intensities for a given exceedance probability (ie shifts in rainfall
frequency curves), changes in antecedent conditions (eg catchment losses and initial
snowpack conditions), and operating conditions (that lead to likelihood of storages being at
a particular starting level). Lower lying areas might also be influenced by higher tides, and
thus the boundary conditions on hydraulic models used to estimate inundation will require
consideration.
The hydrological steps involved in propagating the impacts of climate change on flood
hydrology is relatively straightforward compared to the difficulties of characterising the
expected changes in hydrometeorological conditions. Changes in rainfall frequencies can

easily be assessed by making the requisite changes to the model inputs, or else through use
of stochastic climate generators (eg Semenov, 1997; Kilsby et al, 2007). Estimates of
changes in antecedent catchment conditions can be determined through rainfall-runoff (and
snowpack) modelling under different climate scenarios, and impacts on operating conditions
can likewise be assessed using the appropriate system simulation models that reflect
changing demands under changed climatic conditions. Examples of studies which have
assessed impacts in a reasonably holistic manner include Bergström et al (2008), Darsch and
Jones (2010), Fowler et al (2010).
References
 Arnaud, P., and J. Lavabre (1999): Using a stochastic model for generating hourly
hyetographs to study extreme rainfalls., Hydrological Sciences Journal, 44(3), 433-446.
 Arnaud, P., and J. Lavabre (2002): Coupled rainfall model and discharge model for flood
frequency estimation. Water Resources Research, 38(6).
 Arnaud, P., J.-A. Fine, and J. Lavabre (2006): An hourly rainfall generation model
adapted to all types of climate. Atmospheric Research, 85(2), 230-242.
 Baker, V. (2008): Paleoflood hydrology: Origin, progress, prospects. Geomorphology
101, pp 1–13.
 Barsugli, J., Anderson, C., Smith, J.B., and Vogel, J.M. (2009). Options for Improving
Climate Modeling to Assist Water Utility Planning for Climate Change. Water Utility
Climate Alliance. USA.
 Bergström, S., Hellström, S., Lindström, G., and Wern, L. (2008). Follow-Up of the
Swedish Guidelines for Design Flood Determination for Dams, Svenska Kraftnät Report
No.1. 2008, BE90.
 Boughton, W and Droop, O, (2003): Continuous simulation for design flood estimation -
a review, Environmental Modelling and Software, 18:309-318.
 Cantet, P., J.-N. Bacro, and P. Arnaud (2010): Using a rainfall stochastic generator to
detect trends in extreme rainfall, Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess, 13 p.
 Castellarin, A., Vogel, R., Matalas, N.C. (2007): Multivariate probabilistic regional
envelopes of extreme floods. J. Hydrol. 336, 376– 390
 Castellarin (2007): probabilistic envelope curves for design flood estimation at ungauged
sites. Water Resour. Res. 43, W04406, 12 pp.
 Castellarin, A., Kohnová, S, Gaál, L., Fleig, A., Salinas, J.L., Toumazis, A., Kjeldsen,
T.R., Macdonald, N. (2012): Review of Applied European Flood Frequency Analysis
Methods, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Natural Environment Research Council, UK.
 Cernesson, F., J. Lavabre, and J.-M. Masson (1996): Stochastic model for generating
hourly hyetographs. , Atmospheric Research, 42, 149-161
 Chetty, K and Smithers, J, (2005): Continuous simulation modelling for design flood
estimation in South Africa, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 30:634-638.
 Darch, G.J.C. and P.D.Jones, P.D. (2010): From sensitivity to scenarios: assessing future
flood risk through the application of climate model output in operational hydrological-
hydraulic models. Proc. British Hydrological Society, Third International Symposium,
Managing Consequences of a Changing Global Environment, Newcastle 2010.

 Faulkner D., and Wass P. (2005): Flood estimation by continuous simulation in the Don
catchment, South Yorkshire, UK. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and
Environmental Management, 19(2), 78–84
 Fowler, K., Hill, P.I., Jordan, P.W., Nathan, R.J., Sih, K. (2010) Application of Available
Climate Science to Assess the Impact of Climate Change on Spillway Adequacy.
ANCOLD 2010 Conference on Dams. Hobart.
 Heneker, T.M., Lambert, M.F. and Kuczera, G. (2001): A point rainfall model for risk-
based design, J Hydrology, 247(1-2), 54-71.
 Herschy, R. (2003): World Catalogue of Maximum Observed Floods, International
Association of Hydrological Sciences, IAHS Publ., 284, 285 pp.
 Garavaglia, F., Gailhard, J., Paquet E., Lang, M., Garcon, R.¸ and Bernardara, P. (2010):
Introducing a rainfall compound distribution model based on weather patterns sub-
sampling Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 951–964.
 Hoang, T., Rahman, A., Weinmann, P.E., Laurenson, E. and Nathan, R. (1999): Joint
probability description of design rainfalls. Water 99 Joint Congress, Brisbane, Australia,
Institution of Engineers (ISBN 185 825 7165), 379-384.
 Kochanek, K., Renard, B., Arnaud, P., Aubert, Y., Lang, M., Cipriani, T., and Sauquet, E.
(2014): A data-based comparison of flood frequency analysis methods used in France,
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 295-308, doi:10.5194/nhess-14-295-2014.
 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007): Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report. International Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007.
 International Committee on Large Dams (1992): Selection of design flood: current
methods. Bulletin 82, ICOLD, Paris.
 International Committee on Large Dams (2003): Dams and floods, guidelines and case
histories. Bulletin 125, ICOLD, Paris.
 International Committee on Large Dams (2005): Risk Assessment in Dam Safety
Management A Reconnaissance of Benefits, Methods and Current Applications. Bulletin
130, ICOLD, Paris.
 Joos, B., Darakhani, J., Mouvet, L., Mehinrad, A. (2005): An integrated probabilistic
approach for determining the effects of extreme hydrological events on a flood
evacuation system. Proc. 73rd Annual Meeting of ICOLD, Tehran, Iran, Paper No.: 147-
S2.
 Kay, A. L.; Davies, H. N.; Bell, V. A.; Jones, R. G. (2009): Comparison of uncertainty
sources for climate change impacts: flood frequency in England. Climatic Change, 92 (1-
2). 41-63.
 Kilsby, C.G., Jones, P.D., Burton, A., Ford, A.C., Fowler, H.J., Harpham, C., James, P.,
Smith, A., Wilby, R.L. (2007): A daily weather generator for use in climate change
studies, Environmental Modelling & Software, 22 (12), 1705-1719.
 Lavabre, J., P. Arnaud, P. Royet, J.-A. Fine, S. Delichère, F. Zhong-Xue, and F. Foussard
(2010): Crues de projet ou cotes de projet ? Exemple des barrages écrêteurs de crue du
département du Gard, La Houille Blanche, 2-2010, 58-64

 Lamb, R. (2005). Rainfall-runoff Modeling for Flood Frequency Estimation.
Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. Edited by M G Anderson. Publisher John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.
 Laurenson EM 1974. ‘Modelling of stochastic-deterministic hydrologic systems’. Water
Resources Research, Vol. 10, No. 5, 955-961.
 Micovic, Z. (2013). An Overview of Three Hydrologic Flood Hazard Estimation
Methods Used by BC Hydro. Proc. of ICOLD Technical Symposium, Seattle, USA,
August 2013.
 MGS Engineering Consultants (2009): General Stochastic Event Flood Model (SEFM),
Technical Support Model. Manual prepared for the United States Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation Flood Hydrology Group.
 Mittiga, L., Nathan R.J., Hill, P., Weinmann, E., (2007): Treatment of correlated storage
drawdown and uncertainty in the flood hydrology for dams. Aus J Water Resour 11(2):
169-176.
 Nathan, R.J., Weinmann, P.E. and Hill, P.I. (2002): Use Of A Monte Carlo Framework
To Characterise Hydrological Risk, ANCOLD Bulletin - Issue No. 122, 55-64 .
 Nathan, R.J., Weinmann, P.E., and Gato, S (1994): A quick method for estimation of the
probable maximum flood in southe-east Australia. International Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium: Water Down Under, November, Adelaide, I.E. Aust. Natl. Conf.
Publ. No. /94, 229-234
 Nathan RJ and Weinmann PE, (2003), Use of Monte Carlo Simulation to Estimate the
Expected Probability of Large to Extreme Floods, Proc. 2003 Hydrology and Water
Resources Symposium, Wollongong, Australia, I.E.Aust, pp 1.105-1.112.
 Nathan, R., Hill, P, and Weinmann, E. (2011): Achieving consistency in derivation of the
Probable Maximum Flood, Proc. ANCOLD 2011 Conference on Dams. Melbourne.
 National Research Council (NRC) (1988): Estimating Probabilities of Extreme Floods,
Methods and Recommended Research, Report by the Committee on Techniques for
Estimating Probabilities of Extreme Floods, National Academy Press, Washington D. C.
 Newton, D.W. (1983): Realistic assessment of maximum flood potentials. J. Hydraul.
Eng. 109(6), 905-918.
 Paquet, E., Garavaglia, F., Gailhard, J. and Garçon, R. (2013), The SCHADEX method: a
semi-continuous rainfall-runoff simulation for extreme flood estimation, J Hydrol Vol
495, 23–37.
 Rahman A, Weinmann PE, Hoang TMT and Laurenson, EM, (2002b) Monte Carlo
simulation of flood frequency curves, J. Hydrology, 256(3-4), 196-210, 2002.
 Rodier, J.A. and Roche, M. (1984): World catalogue of maximum observed floods,
International Association of Hydrological Sciences, IAHS Publ. No. 143.
 Schaefer, M.G., and Barker, B.L. (2002): Stochastic Event Flood Model, In Mathematical
models of small watershed hydrology and applications, chapter 20, edited by V.P. Singh
and D. Frevert, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, pp. 707-748.
 Semenov M.A. and Barrow. E.M. (1997) Use of a stochastic weather generator in the
development of climate change scenarios Climatic Change, 35:397-414

 Srikanthan, R., McMahon, T.A. (2001): Stochastic generation of annual, monthly and
daily climate data: a review. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 5 (4), 653–670.
 Swedenergy, Svenska Kraftnät and SveMin (2007): Swedish guidelines for design flood
determination for Dams - New edition. Swedenergy, Svenska Kraftnät and SveMin.
 Viglione, A., A. Castellarin, M. Rogger, R. Merz, and G. Blöschl (2012), Extreme
rainstorms: Comparing regional envelope curves to stochastically generated events,
Water Resour. Res., 48, W01509.
 Vogel, R. M., N. C. Matalas, J. F. England Jr., and A. Castellarin (2007): An assessment
of exceedance probabilities of envelope curves, Water Resour. Res., 43, W07403, 11 pp..
 Weinmann PE, Rahman A, Hoang TMT, Laurenson EM, and Nathan RJ. (2002), Monte
Carlo simulation of flood frequency curves from rainfall - the way ahead, Aust J Water
Resour, IEAust, 6(1):71-80.
 World Meteorological Organisation (1986): Manual for estimation of probable maximum
precipitation, Second Edition, Operational Hydrology Report No. 1, WMO - No. 332,
Geneva.
 Zhirkevich, A. N. and Asarin, A. E. (2010): Probable Maximum Flood: Basic
Information and Problems with the Procedure Used for Its Calculation in Russia, Power
Technology and Engineering Vol. 44, No. 3, 2010
 Zielinski, P.A. (2009): Safety of dams, probable maximum flood, and the selection of
inflow design floods. Annual Conference, Canadian Dam Association, Whistler, BC,
Canada.

Chapter 3
New Methods in Selecting Design Floods and Risk Analysis
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 Background
Most countries have defined criteria and methods to select the design flood for dams to
protect their population. Approaches to select the IDF varied considerably along time and
along countries. In the United States, for example, the evaluation of the IDF by the Bureau
of Reclamation has evolved this way1:
For dams constructed before the early 1940s, the IDFs were based on a combination of flood
frequency curve extrapolations, envelope curves, and maximum flood ratios (e.g., 50 percent
greater than the flood of record);
In the 1940s, the Bureau of Reclamation has developed deterministic approaches to estimate
design floods based on the PMF or some variants;
Prior to 1980, an equivalent deterministic approach was used, where the Maximum Probable
Flood (MPF) was typically selected as the IDF for most storage dams. The MPF is roughly
equivalent to the PMF, except that site-specific PMP rainfall information was used, rather
than PMP estimates from the HMR series.
Subsequently adopted PMF nomenclature in the early 1980s, along with most Federal
agencies.
During the early 1980s and into the mid-1990s, IDF selection criteria were used which were
based on downstream hazard classification and potential loss of project operations.
The methods to select the IDF have evolved over time and continue to evolve with the
availability and development of new tools and new approaches which give a better
evaluation and understanding of the possible consequences of a dam failure.
3.1.2 Context
ICOLD Bulletin 125 on Dams and Floods: Guidelines and case histories (ICOLD 2003)
define three generations of approaches for specifying or selecting design floods, as follows:
 First generation – based on empirical and general considerations, and applicable to
any dam and in any situation, without taking into account size or type of the dam,
volume of reservoir, nor downstream consequences hazard2.
1
USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards no 14 – Appurtenant Structures for Dams (Spillway and
Outlet Works) - Chapter 2: Hydrologic Considerations - Draft: Phase 3 (Public Review), December 2012.
2
In English-speaking countries the terms hazard or potential hazard are widely used in dam engineering
circles to describe the consequences of a dam failure. This use is at odds with the use of the term in the
field risk assessment where a hazard is defined as a source of potential harm or a situation with a potential
to cause loss (ICOLD 2005).

 Second generation – based principally on the classification of dams according to the
incremental consequences [hazard] that a potential failure poses (loss of life, economic
losses, services affected, and social and environmental impacts). Some countries used
deterministic criteria and methods to calculate the “Probable Maximum Flood” (PMF).
The roots of this approach have been traced back to Snyder (1964) by Zielinski (2009)
but it was adopted into practice in the 1980’s beginning with the US Army Corps of
Engineers (1979).
 Third generation – the selection of the design flood(s) is based on risk and the needs of
a risk analysis. Although an approach using risk analysis has been discussed by the
dam safety profession for many years (e.g. ASCE 1973, NRC 1983), it was not until
later that it began to see application to real world decision making for design floods.
For example: PRC/RAC (1986), ECI/RAC (1988a and b), Reclamation (1997), and Von
Thun (1999) in the US; TAW-CUR (1990) in The Netherlands; Salmon and Hartford
(1995a and b) in Canada; and ANCOLD (1993) in Australia.
3.1.3 Terminology
 Inflow Design Flood (IDF): The flood used to design and/or modify a specific dam and
its appurtenant works; particularly for sizing the spillway and outlet works, and for
determining surcharge storage and height of dam requirements. (USBR)
 Hazard Potential Classification: The hazard potential is determined through an
assessment of the greatest incremental losses that could result from an uncontrolled
release of the reservoir due to the failure of a dam or its appurtenances. Potential
incremental losses are to be assessed with respect to life, property, the environment and
heritage sites at the dam site, upstream, downstream, or at other areas influenced by the
dam. (Canada - Ontario)
 Incremental: Under the same conditions (e.g., flood, earthquake, or other event), the
difference in impact that would occur with or without failure or mis-operation of the
dam. (FEMA);
 Loss of Life (LOL): The number of persons who could die if the dam, or the proposed
dam after its construction, fails. The evaluation of the LOL is based on theoretical
approaches;
 Maximum Experience (Historical) Flood: Maximum flood observed at the project site
or maximum flood that could be observed based on flood experienced in the basin;
 Population at Risk (PAR): The number of persons whose safety will be at risk if the
dam, or the proposed dam after its construction, fails;
 Probable Maximum Flood (PMF): The largest flood that may occur at a given point on a
drainage area from the most severe combination of critical meteorological and
hydrological conditions reasonably possible on a particular watershed.
 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP): The greatest depth of precipitation for a given
duration that is physically possible over a given storm area at a particular geographical
location at a certain time of the year.
 Safety Check Flood (SCF): This is an extreme flood condition that a dam must be
capable of withstanding while continuing to operate safely, accepting some damage and
a reduction in safety factors but without causing dam failure (Canada-Quebec).

3.2 Inflow Design Flood for Dam
3.2.1 Generalities
The consequences following a dam failure can take various forms, such as:
 Possible loss of life, injuries to persons at risk;
 Economic impacts
o Loss of property, transportation infrastructure, energy production, water supply,
navigation, irrigation, other economic activities, …
 Social impacts
o Consequences on “human” life after a dam failure;
o Cultural – built heritage;
o Fear of such event occurring in the future;
o Relocation of the population;
 Environmental impacts
o Impact on living organisms in general and wildlife particularly,
o Modification of the topography/bathymetry along the river area;
o Pollution related to human activities (fuel, chemical, tailings, …).
The determination of the IDF depends in most countries on a Dam Hazard Classification
System, which examines the risk related to the dam and/or structures; the greater the risk,
the greater the requirement to reduce, contain or manage this risk.
3.2.2 Dam hazard classification system

The dam hazard classification takes into account the potential consequences of a dam failure
implicitly or explicitly. Even if most countries have their own ways to classify the dams, the
different methods of classification can be divided in two main approaches:
 Dam classification based on the system’s characteristics, such as dam height and type,
reservoir volume, … This approach takes implicitly into account the possible impacts of
a dam failure and the risk associated to such event;
 Dam classification based on the dam failure consequences. This explicit approach takes
into account explicitly the evaluation (quantitative or qualitative) of the one or several
types of consequences of a dam failure. The economical aspect of the consequence of a
dam failure can be part of the classification, but the construction cost of the dam related
to the choice of the IDF is normally excluded.
Sometimes a hybrid approach is used for the dam classification, combining the
characteristics of the dam and the consequences of the dam failure.
3.2.3 Dam classification based on the system characteristics

The potential loss of life and damages following a dam failure are related to the flow
velocity, the water depth and the warning time following the event. Since these parameters
are related to the main characteristics of the system (dam height, reservoir volume, …), the

easiest approach to evaluate the risk associated to a dam failure consists in classifying the
dam hazard based on the system’s characteristics.
This “implicit” approach to evaluate the consequence of a dam failure, does not take into
account the specificity of the system and the situation downstream of the dam or the
evolution of the downstream conditions with time (in the case of revaluation of the IDF for
an existing dam).
The following presents the main characteristics considered for the dam hazard classification
based on the system’s characteristics.
Dam height
The dam height is one of the main parameters consider for the dam classification since the
energy released during a dam failure is directly related to the dam height or more
specifically to the water head upstream from the dam
Volume of reservoir
Another important parameter is the volume of the reservoir which has a direct impact on the
duration of the flood as well as the energy released ant the downstream water depth after a
dam failure. Sometimes, a relation between the dam height and the reservoir volume is
considered to classify the dam. For example, ICOLD considers as a “Large Dam” any dam
over 15 m high or between 5 m and 15 m high and with a reservoir capacity of 3 000 000 m3
or more.
Dam type
The dam type can also affect the dam hazard classification, since the mode of failure will be
different.
For a concrete and/or masonry dam it is generally assumed that the dam can withstand
overtopping. Failure will occur when the water depth over the crest of the dam would cause
instability or after erosion of the foundation3.
For an embankment dam (including rockfill dams, earth dams, …), it is generally assumed
that the dam failure will occur when the water level exceeds the crest of the dam. It should
also be noted that most dam failures have been observed on embankment dams (80% - ref
ICOLD Bull. 99).
Other parameters are considered for the dam hazard classification. These parameters are not
always contributing in the determination of the IDF, but are considered for the frequency
and type of inspection required for existing dams, such as :
 The age of the dam (or time since the last major rehabilitation);
 The type of dam foundation;
 The general dam and structures conditions;
 The seismicity in the dam area;
 The reliability of the discharge facilities.
3
If a concrete dam is located on an erodible foundation, it should not be designed to be overtopped.

3.2.3.1 Dam classification based on consequences
The second approach for dam classification is based on an explicit evaluation of the
consequences and risks of a dam failure. Depending on the countries’ guidelines, the type of
consequences to be considered for the dam classification and ultimately for the choice of the
IDF differs.
The following parameters are considered in the dam classification:
Persons at risk (PAR)

The evaluation of the number of persons at risk is very often considered as a parameter for
the dam classification. It is sometimes used in parallel with the evaluation of the potential
loss of life, but most of the time only one of these two is considered. The evaluation of the
persons at risk is usually based on the results of a dam break study which evaluates the
flooded area and the number of dwellings or infrastructures impacted.
For example, in Norway, where the PAR is the main criteria used for the dam hazard
classification, the number of dwellings affected by a dam failure is used.
Loss of life (LOL)

The risk of loss of life could also be considered for the dam classification. The evaluation of
the potential loss of life depends most of the time of empirical approaches considering the
number of persons at risk, the warning time and other parameters related to the flood. The
LOL has normally a very significant impact in the determination of the classification of the
dam and the IDF, since it is frequently considered that a LOL higher than zero will
correspond to the highest dam classification.
For example, in Panama4, three categories are considered. If no LOL is expected, the dam
can be considered as Low potential risk. If the risk of LOL is uncertain (rural location with
few homes), the dam can be considered as Moderate potential risk. However, if the risk of
LOL is almost certain, the dam is considered as High potential risk.
Economical damages and impact on infrastructures

Excluding the dam itself, a dam failure can caused extensive damages to the affected area.
These damages can have significant consequences (direct and indirect) on the economical
activities of the area, the region and the country (and sometimes other countries).
The following elements are considered in various countries for the dam classification :
 Cost of Damages;
 Transportation (local, regional or national roads, railways, etc.);
 Water supply (municipal and industrial);
 Hospital and other community infrastructure;
 Irrigation;
 Industrial activities;
4
Autoridad nacional de los servicios Publicos - Republica de Panama. NORMAS PARA LA SEGURIDAD
DE PRESAS, Septiembre de 2010

 Hydroelectricity production;
 Navigation.
Depending on their importance, these elements can be regrouped in one single category
(economical damages) or some of these elements can be considered independently as a
function of their importance on the economical activity of the region or country.
Table 3.1 illustrates the main economical parameters used in China to evaluate the
economical impact of a dam failure.
Table 3.1 – China – Main economical parameters to characterize a hydro project
Water Irriga- Water Water

Flood prevention
logging tion supply power
Storage
Rank of
capacity
project Cities and Logged Installed
(hm³) Farmland Area Cities and
industrial area capacity
(10³ ha) (10³ ha) mines
areas (10³ ha) (MW)
I > 1 000 Very > 333 > 133.3 > 100 Very > 750
important important
II 100 - Important 67 – 333 40 – 33.3 – Important 250 –

1 000 133.3 100 750
III 10 – 100 Moderately 20 – 67 10 – 40 3.3 – Moderately 25- 250

important 33.3 important
IV 1 – 10 Less 3.3 – 20 2.0 – 10 0.3 – Less 0.5 – 25

V Less < 3.3 < 2.0 < 0.3 < 0.5

than 1
Notes: - The irrigation and waterlogged areas refer to design areas

- The rank of tide prevention projects may be defined referring to the stipulations for
flood prevention. Where disasters of tide are very serious, the rank may be raised
properly
- The importance of water supply works are defined according to their scale, economic
and social benefits
Environmental consequences
Environmental consequences are sometimes considered in the dam classification. Most of
the time, the consequences are measured related to the loss of fish, wildlife and their habitat;
the hazard potential is estimated based on the potential damages and the possibility to
regenerate these habitats. However, other aspects are also considered, such as the potential
contaminated area and the impact on the potential loss of cultural and historical heritage
sites, as well as pollution created by the inundation and damage of hazardous waste
detention sites.

Table 3.2 presents a typical example of dam classification based on environmental dam
consequences 5.
Table 3.2 – Canada (Ontario) – Dam classification based on environmental consequence
Hazard
Environmental losses
potential
Extensive loss of fish and/ or wildlife habitat or significant deterioration

of critical fish and/ or wildlife habitat with very little or no feasibility of
being able to apply natural or assisted recovery activities to promote
Very high species recovery to viable population levels.
Loss of a viable portion of the population of a species classified under
the Ontario Endangered Species Act as Extirpated, Threatened or
Endangered or irreversible damage to the habitat of that species.
Appreciable loss of fish and/ or wildlife habitat or significant

deterioration of critical fish and/ or wildlife habitat with reasonable
likelihood of being able to apply natural or assisted recovery activities to
High promote species recovery to viable population levels.
Loss of a portion of the population of a species classified under the
Ontario Endangered Species Act as Extirpated, Threatened or
Endangered, or reversible damage to the habitat of that species.
Moderate loss or deterioration of fish and/or wildlife habitat with

Moderate moderate capability of natural restoration resulting in a low likelihood of
negatively affecting the status of the population.
Minimal loss of fish and/or wildlife habitat with high capability of

Low natural restoration resulting in a very low likelihood of negatively
affecting the status of the population.
To evaluate the consequences of a dam failure for a specific flood, a complete dam break
study is normally required, which includes the evaluation of the cascade effects when a river
or drainage basin has a series of dams. The incremental or the total consequences related to
a dam failure can be considered for the dam classification. The incremental consequences
for a specific flood are estimated considering the difference of damages occurring with and
without the dam failure; normally the larger the flood, the lower the incremental damages
related to a dam failure (also depends on the storage volume of upstream reservoirs).
5
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Classification and Inflow Design Flood Criteria – Technical
Bulletin, August 2011, Canada.

3.2.4 Design floods and other design parameters
The determination of the IDF is a major factor to be considered for the design of a dam and
its hydraulic works. However, other design parameters are often considered as shown
hereafter.
3.2.4.1 Safety check flood

To complement the IDF, a “safety check flood” is sometimes added to the design criteria. In
this case, it is considered an acceptable practice to accept damages and to present marginally
safe performance and acceptable risk of damage without a total failure of one of its main
components.
Depending of the system’s characteristics, the safety check flood can be more restrictive
than the IDF (from a design point of view).
3.2.4.2 Gate availability and reliability

The operation of the spillway gates during major flood events can be a significant element to
be considered during the design of the dam. The access to the site, problems at site,
maintenance of one or several gates or any other type of problems can have an impact on the
spillway capacity.
In some countries, it is recommended to design the spillway considering that the gate with
the highest capacity will not be available during the design flood. In Norway, the number of
gates available during the design flood depends of the total number of gates available at site;
as example, three gates most be considered unavailable if the spillway facilities as seven
gates or more.
In some other cases, all gates are considered available for the IDF, but, as a safety factor, it
could be recommended that the system must be able to handle a lower flood if the gate with
the highest capacity is out of service.
3.2.4.3 Initial conditions for flood routing

The initial conditions for flood routing are also an important factor for the determination of
the capacity of the system. It appears to be a normal practice to consider the reservoir at its
full supply level (FSL) before the arrival of the flood. However, if the flood is mainly
caused by snowmelt (as it happens in northern countries), the reservoir is normally not at the
FSL at the beginning of the flood period and “conservative” assumptions must be used to
determine the initial level of the reservoir.
3.2.4.4 Freeboard
The freeboard reduces the risk that the structures will be submerged and can be considered
as a safety factor against the uncertainty related to the flood. It is normally higher for
embankment dams than for concrete dam since the latter can often be submerged without
major damages. A minimum freeboard is defined in the country guidelines of some
countries, such as Italy, Japan and Switzerland.
3.2.4.5 Guidelines and good practice to determine the IDF

The present section presents an overview of the current practices used in different countries
to determine the IDF. Guidelines for about thirty countries were described and analyzed.
Since the guidelines of some countries may be under review, this overview must not be
considered as a total picture of the practice at the time of publication but an overview of the
main approaches reflecting the good practices in the most significant countries in dam
design, construction and operation.
Instead of presenting the various approaches depending on the countries, the following
sections regroup the approaches depending on the parameters used for the dam classification
and the determination of the IDF. A more detailed summary of the guidelines for each
country with available information is presented in Appendix A.
3.2.5 Dam classification based on system characteristics
3.2.5.1 Dam height and reservoir capacity

In some countries, such as Austria, Germany and India, the dam classification is based on
the dam height and the reservoir volume. In Austria, dams higher than 15 m and/or a
reservoir with a capacity of 500 000 m³ or more are considered as large dams and the IDF is
the 1:5000-yr flood. This approach was adopted since most of the large dams in Austria pose
a risk of loss of life and consequences analyses are therefore not required.
In Germany, dams higher than 15 m and/or reservoir with reservoir capacity of 1.0 hm³ or
more are considered as class 1 dams. For these dams the IDF (called Design Flood 1) is the
1:1 000-yr flood and for smaller dams (class 2) the IDF is the 1:500-yr flood. A safety
check flood (called Design Flood 2) should also be considered, bur for which damages are
accepted. The safety check floods are the 1:10 000-yr flood and the 1:5 000-yr flood for
class 1 and class 2 dams respectively.
In India, there are three categories of dams. For the small dams (hydraulic head of 12 m or
less and reservoir capacity of 10 hm³ or less), the IDF is the 1:100-yr flood. For large dams
(hydraulic head of 30 m or more or reservoir capacity of 60 hm³ or more), the IDF is the
PMF. For intermediate dams, the IDF is defined as the Standard Project Flood (SPF). The
SPF is the flood that may be expected using the Standard Project Storm (SPS), In general,
the SPS rainfall is equal to about 40 to 60 percent of the probable maximum precipitation
(PMP)6, which implies that the SPF generally corresponds to a probability between
1:1 000-yr to 1:10 000-yr.
3.2.5.2 Dam type

In Italy and Japan, the determination of the IDF is essentially based on the type of dam. In
Japan, the minimum IDF for a concrete dam is the 1:200-yr flood. However, if a higher
flood was observed at the dam site or can be expected based experience in other regions
with similar conditions, this flood must be considered as the IDF. For an embankment dam,
the IDF should be 1.2 times the value for a concrete dam. The IDF for an embankment dam
corresponds approximately to the 1/1 000-yr flood. The minimum freeboard depends also of
the dam type.
6
Central Water & Power Commission – Ministry of Irrigation & Power – Government of India,
Estimation of Design Flood – Recommended procedures.

In Italy, the IDF is the 1:1 000-yr flood for a concrete dam and the 1:3 000-yr flood for an
embankment dam. The freeboard depends of the dam type and the dam height in case of
embankment dam.
3.2.5.3 Other combinations of system characteristics

In countries such as Turkey and France other combinations of system’s characteristics are
used to determine the IDF.
In Turkey, for dams of 25 m or more, the IDF for embankment dams will be the PMF; the
maximum level during the passage of the PMF must be 1.0 m lower than the crest and not
higher than the impervious core. For concrete dams, the IDF will be the 1:1 000-yr flood at
the full supply level and the safety check flood will be the 1:10 000-yr flood for which
overtopping of the dam is tolerated (without any dam failure).
For dams smaller than 25 m, the IDF for concrete dams is the 1:500-yr flood and it is the
1:1 000-yr flood for embankment dams. However, if the reservoir volume is larger than 10
hm3 or if downstream risks are important, larger floods may be selected depending on the
judgment of the engineer.
In France, the classification of a dam depends on the dam height (in m) and the product of
the square of the dam height with the square root of the volume (in hm³); four categories are
therefore considered. As example, dam higher than 20 m are corresponds to class A and
dams higher than 10 m with a value of H2√V higher than 200 is considered as class B.
Based on the dam classification, the IDF depends of the type of dams as shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 – France – Dam classification based on height and reservoir volume
IDF
Dam Safety
Classification criteria
class Embankment check flood
Concrete dams
dams
A H ≥ 20m 1 000 to 3 000 dams
10 000 100 000
B H≥10m and H2√V ≥ 200 1 000 3 000 30 000
C H≥5m and H2√V ≥ 20 300 1 000 10 000
D H≥2m 100 300 1 000
In Russia, dam classification is based on the dam height, dam type, reservoir volume and the
use of the dam (which is representative of the economical impact following a dam failure).
The IDF can vary from the 1:-20-yr flood to the 1:1 000-yr flood and the safety check flood
can be the 1:10 000-yr flood. However, Russian design practice considers a guarantee
correction to the maximum flow of exceedance probability of 1:10 000-yr; the shorter the
hydrological record series is, the larger the guarantee correction will be.

3.2.6 Dam classification based on consequences
3.2.6.1 Loss of life and/or persons at risk

In some countries, the IDF is almost exclusively based on the risk of loss of life and/or the
number of persons at risks.
In Ireland, there is no national standard for design floods for dams. The Electricity Supply
Board (ESB), a state utility, owns and operates most of the large dams in Ireland (10 of 16
dams). The dams should be able to pass the 1:1 000-yr flood with one spillway gate
unavailable. However, if there is possibility of LOL after a dam failure, the dam must be
designed to pass the 1:10 000-yr flood with all the gates available.
The other large dams in Ireland are owned by Local Authorities for water supply purposes.
These Local Authorities generally follow the same practices as the United Kingdom.
In Norway, as mentioned earlier, the dam classification depends of the number of dwellings
downstream the dam. The design flood can vary from the 1:200-yr to the 1:1 000-yr flood
and the safety check flood can be the PMF as shown on Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 – Norway – Dam classification based on consequences
Safety check
Dam class Classification criteria Design flood flood
H < 2m, V < 10 000 m3 NA
0 1:200-yr
Minimal consequence
Low consequence PMF or
1 1:500-yr 1,5 * 1:500-yr
(no permanent dwelling)
Medium consequence PMF or
2 1:1 000-yr 1,5 * 1:1 000-yr
(1 to 20 dwellings)
High consequence PMF
3 1:1 000-yr
(21 to 150 dwellings)
Very high consequence
4 (more than 150 1:1 000-yr PMF
dwellings)
Norwegian rules specified also the minimum freeboard acceptable for concrete dam and
embankment dam depending of the type of dam and the number of gates to be considered
not available for the routing of the design flood.
3.2.6.2 Combined consequences criteria

In several countries, the determination of the IDF is not only based on the consequences on
the persons or the economical damages, but on a combination of these consequences. This
situation prevails in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, New Zealand, Spain,
Sweden, UK and USA.
In Australia, the Acceptable Flood Capacity (AFC) for a specific dam is defined as "the
overall flood capacity, including freeboard as relevant, which provides an appropriate level
of safety against a flood initiated dam failure to protect the community and environment, to

acceptable overall risk levels, within the total context of overall dam safety from all load
cases". In cases where a detailed risk process is too costly and not practical the guidelines
include an alternative based on a hazard classification based on the population at risk and the
severity of damage and loss.
The population at risk is defined as the number of persons whose safety will be at risk if the
dam, if the proposed dam after its construction, fails.
In Canada, dams are usually classified based on the potential hazards presented by the dam.
Potential incremental losses are to be assessed with respect to the population at risk, loss of
life, the environment and cultural values and economic aspect at the dam site, upstream,
downstream, or at other areas influenced by the dam. The IDF can vary from the 1:100-yr
flood for the lowest category to the PMF for the “Extreme” category. It is interesting to note
that the maximum value of the statistical frequency analysis is limited to the 1:1 000-yr
flood considering that the extrapolation to the 1:10 000-yr flood can vary significantly
depending of the statistical distribution and the length of the sample available for the
analysis (often limited). For High and Very High dam class, the IDF is estimated to be
respectively 1/3 and 2/3 of the “distance” between the 1:1 000-yr flood and the PMF.
In the province of Quebec, the design flood is defined as the safety check flood, i.e. the dam
must be capable of withstanding this flood while continuing to operate safely, accepting
some damage and a reduction in safety factors but without causing dam failure. The choice
of the safety check flood depends of the population at risk and the impact on several types of
infrastructure. The safety check flood can vary from the 1:100-yr flood to the PMF.
In the Czech Republic, four classes of dams are defined. The class of dams and the
corresponding design flood depends of the consequences related to dam failure, such as the
number of persons at risk, the possibility of loss of life, the expected damages to residential,
industrial and public structures, the economic losses and the environmental damages. The
design flood can vary for the 1:10 000-yr flood for a class I dam to a 1:100-yr flood for a
class IV dam and even a 1:20-yr flood if the consequences are negligible.
In Finland, three classes of dams are considered, based on the possible consequences of the
dam failure on the danger on human life or their health and/or the danger on environment
and properties. The design flood varies from the 1:100-yr to the 1:10 000-yr flood.
In New Zealand, the dam classification is based on the potential incremental consequence of
a dam failure, i.e. on the number of fatalities and the socio-economic, financial and
environmental impact. There are three main classes of dams for which the IDF can vary
from the 1:100-yr flood and the PMF when a large number of fatalities would result from
the dam failure.
In Spain, dams are classified according to size, type of dam and potential hazard. Two
different floods are used, the design flood and the extreme flood (safety check flood). The
design flood can vary from the 1:100-yr flood to the 1:1 000-yr flood and the extreme flood
for dams in the highest hazard class varies between the 5 000 and 10 000 year flood, where
the higher value is used for embankment dams.
In the UK, the IDF will be the 150-yr flood if there is no risk to life and very limited
damages, but it could be the 1:10 000-yr flood or the PMF if more than 10 persons are at
risk. The spillway should be able to release the 1:150-yr flood with one gate unavailable
and the reservoir conditions are specified for the flood routing evaluation.

In USA, guidelines and approaches to determine the design flood differ depending of the
dam owners. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses different safety
standards, depending on the consequences of a dam failure when determining the design
flood. Dams placing human life at risk shall be able to safely pass the PMF. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) uses similar approaches to determine the IDF for
dams.
The US Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies use risk assessment to determine the
design flood of a dam. Consequences and probabilities of a dam failure are considered in the
approach to evaluate the IDF.
3.2.7 Dam classification based on combined approaches

For several other countries, the determination of the IDF is based on a combination of
criteria taking into account characteristics of the system and various consequences.
In Brazil, for dams higher than 30 m or if a dam failure can cause risk of loss of human lives
(i.e. with permanent dwellings downstream), the IDF will be the PMF. For dams lower than
30 m, with reservoir volume less than 50 hm3 and without risk of loss of life (no permanent
dwellings downstream), the full project will be set through a risk analysis, with a minimum
design flood of at least 1 000 years.
In China, the dam classification is based on the reservoir capacity as well as economical
impact indicators on flood prevention, water supply, irrigation, water power and area
flooded. The design flood can vary from the 1:20-yr flood to the 1:500-yr flood and the
safety check flood can vary from the 1:200-yr flood to the PMF for embankment dams and
from the 1:100-yr flood to the 1:5 000-yr flood for concrete dams.
In Portugal, the Portuguese Dam Safety Regulation (PDSR) applies to dams 15 m high or
more and to smaller dams with reservoir capacity larger than 100 000 m3 independently of
the height of the dam. The dams hazard classification considered three classes of dams:
 Class I (high hazard) -dams whose failure will affect 25 or more residents.
 Class II (significant hazard) -dams whose failure will affect at least one resident or
existence of significant infrastructures, environmental patrimony, or storage
installations for hazardous substances.
 Class III (low hazard) -dams whose failure will not affect any human live nor significant
infrastructures, environmental patrimony or storage installations for hazardous
substances.
Depending of the dam classification, dam type and dam height, the IDF can vary between
the 1:500-yr flood to the 1:10 000-yr flood.
In Romania, four classes of dams are considered depending of the dam height, reservoir
volume and the economical impact of a dam failure; the IDF can vary from the 1:100-yr
flood to the 1:10 000-yr flood.
In South Africa, the dam classification is based on the dam height, LOL and economical
losses. The Recommended Design Discharge (equivalent to the IDF) can vary from the
1:20-yr flood to the 1:200-yr flood. However the SED (equivalent to the safety check flood)
can vary from the 1:900-yr flood to a flood exceeding the 1:10 000-yr flood.

3.2.8 Summary
Table A-1 (see the end of appendix A) shows the type of parameters considered for the dam
classification in each country as well as the minimum and maximum value of the IDF. It
also indicates if a safety check flood is considered for the design of the structures and if
criteria are specified to define the minimum freeboard.
The regulations to determine the IDF vary significantly from each country. The overview of
the current practices shows 30 regulations from 28 countries. In the majority of the data the
criteria for dam hazard classification is based in the consequences of the potential dam
failure (15 cases), 8 cases are based in system´s characteristics, and in 7 cases the
classification is based in a combination of consequences and system characteristics.
In the majority of the countries the methods used for the determination of the Inflow Design
Flood are probabilistic (20 cases), and in 10 cases are deterministic (PMF). In the cases
using probabilistic methods, the return period is in the majority of the cases between 5 000
years and 10 000 years (12 cases), 3 000 years (1 case), 1 000 years (6 cases) and 1 case 1.5
* 1 000 years.
The safety check flood is also used in seven cases.
3.3 Risk-Based Analysis

Risk assessment methods have been emerging as new and more sophisticated tools for
assessing existing dam safety, and proposed for designing and upgrading dams. ICOLD
Bulletin 130 Risk –Assessment in Dam Safety Management is dedicated entirely to this
subject.
In the present bulletin, the risk-based approach will only be briefly presented. We will then
see where and in what circumstances these tools are being used for dams spillways and
outlet works.
3.3.1 Risk assessment - an overview

Risk is defined as the product of the consequence of an event and its probability of
occurring. Risk assessment methods for floods generally try to capture the total risk a
structure such as a dam poses to upstream and downstream riparian over its lifetime. This
implies looking carefully at how the dam and its operation behave under flood loading and
then assessing how failure can occur. Given a set of failure modes, consequences for each
are assessed as is their probability of occurring. The total risk of the dam is then the sum of
the risks associated with each of the ways the dam can fail. When risk assessment tools are
used for design this implies that at least one design parameter is considered variable and that
for different values of this parameter, risk assessments are made and the choice of the
parameter is made on the basis of a comparison of the total risk for each value of the
parameter. The risk can be measured on more than one basis; human lives, economic and
environmental risks. Ideally, acceptable levels of risk are predetermined for each type of
risk.
3.3.1.1 Qualitative risk assessment

Qualitative Risk Assessment tries to compare the risks associated using qualitative tools
rather than quantitative ones. Often, for consequences this is done by comparing quantitative
values that can be roughly equated to increasing consequences (eg. breach outflow; volume
released, dam height, etc). Probabilities are also treated on a relative scale, or by using lists
of aggravating and mitigating factors.
Often a qualitative risk matrix is developed with columns and lines associated respectively
with differing qualitative levels of probability and consequences. Reducing risk consists of
promoting actions that reduce either the consequences or the probability of occurrence,
without trying to actually calculate it.
3.3.1.2 Quantitative risk assessment

Quantitative Risk Assessment tries to model the risks associated using simulation tools
rather than qualitative ones. This implies combining models that determine quantitatively
descriptors of consequences with probability theory and models to estimate the probability
of occurrences for diverse failure modes such as overtopping due to the flood hazard itself,
but also operational problems that could lead to overtopping such as loss of access, loss of
power, mechanical failure, etc. The quantification of consequences and probabilities requires
significant effort (sometimes leading to Monte-Carlo simulations) and a considerable
investment to obtain the required data (outage rates, failure rates, etc.). This has often been a
hindrance for wider application of these techniques to dams and floods.
3.3.1.3 Current uses of risk assessment

Qualitative Risk Assessment on dams and floods is often a component of screening and
prioritisation tools for asset management of existing dams. The flood risk results help
identify which CAPEX projects will drive down the portfolio risk of a set of dams. This is
done in many countries (Canada, UK, Holland, France, United States, Norway). Some
typical examples from publications are included in the bibliography.
Quantitative Risk Assessment has been used in several countries for assess the safety of
existing dams. It is used to evaluate their compliance with f-N curves to justify measures to
reduce risk as well as for orienting the choice of methods available for risk reduction
(USACE, 2011). The USBR has used quantitative risk assessment to aid in design and have
published for Public Review a draft of their Guidelines (USBR, December 2012). The
examples in the manual show how risk-based analysis is deployed to orient refurbishing or
upgrading of existing facilities (both as a design tool and as a screen for robustness), as well
as for the choice of an IDF less than the PMF. It should be noted that the robustness analysis
use the consequence tools to assess performance without explicitly calculating the
probabilities. This shows another ancillary advantage of risk-based tools: they are an
excellent way of identifying important factors at a site, existing or new.
3.3.1.4 Research and documentation of risk assessment techniques

For risk-based tools to better penetrate the field of design and assessment for floods, several
aspects of the method will require better documentation and the development of a body of
working examples. These tools will drive down the cost of using risk assessment and help
justify incremental investment in data to move from Standards Based Analysis to Risk
Based Analysis.
One area is that of acceptable societal risks for dams. Currently, few publications do more
than repeat f-N curves created in the 1990’s. They do not consider other categories of

consequences such as environmental and economic damage. This situation means that LOL
is the only consequence actually driving the application of risk-based design. Better f-N
curves as well as environmental and economic loss curves are required to get a more global
description of risk.
Another area is that of gate reliability. Little actual data is available for evaluating the
probability of gates not being able to operate during a flood event. Gates are one part of an
operating system. Many components can contribute to a partial failure of the system.
Designs should be based on reliability data.
Finally, recent publications by USBR, FEMA and USACE contribute to a body of
knowledge and working examples. This effort needs to be pursued.
3.3.2 Using risk analysis

Risk-informed decision making requires development of a full flood frequency including
extreme events, where scenarios of different hazards (not just overtopping) with different
occurrence frequencies can be combined and assessed. The PMP/PMF concept is a
deterministic approach and as such cannot be “directly” used in risk analysis for dam safety.
However, PMP estimates are derived from a rather large array of variables and calculation
techniques, many of which have rather high degrees of uncertainty. As a result, PMP, often
reported as a single number, could be characterized as a range of values (Micovic et al.
2015).
Within the risk analysis framework for Dam Safety, probabilistic assessment of dam
outflows and reservoir levels is more important than probabilities of inflows which are
typically (and almost universally) used as design parameters, hence “inflow design flood”
term. From the risk analysis stand point, inflows into reservoirs are irrelevant since they and
their probabilities are modified by a combination of various factors such as reservoir
storage, reservoir operating rules and availability of flood discharge facilities. Therefore the
focus should be placed on determining probabilities of peak reservoir levels and outflows
since they provide information required to assess various downstream risks. One way to
derive probabilities of peak reservoir levels and outflows is through a stochastic simulation
framework that includes reservoir operating rules.
Current methods of risk analysis are usually based on the assumptions of linearity and
superposition, and the independence of the flood, earthquake and other major hazards.
Another implicit assumption is the chance of accidents occurring at times other than those
involving extreme events. These assumptions could be inadequate for dams over the full
spectrum of design basis and operational considerations.
Accounting for other considerations is rather more complex than can be modelled using
standard event-tree type approaches. Such approach needs to consider and capture the other
aspects of complex infrastructures such as dams and reservoirs, including sensor systems,
human operators, operating rules, ... Due to extreme complexity and interactions among
various components, the analytical solution is unlikely in the foreseeable future and the only
practical alternative will have to be some kind of stochastic simulation framework.
Naturally, the amount of effort spent on the analysis will depend on the complexity of the
risk decision.
For the low complexity risk analysis (i.e. the decision would remain the same despite the
uncertainty in risk estimate) then a relatively simple analysis may be considered reliable.

However, for the more complex risk decisions, an additional reduction of the uncertainty in
risk estimate through more complex analyses will typically be required.
3.4 Application of the Guidelines to a Specific Project

An example was prepared to compare the various approaches used in different countries for
the evaluation of the IDF. The proposed example (Project β) is representative of a large
dam, but not large enough to make the IDF the maximum expected in each country.
A sensitivity analysis of some of the main parameters is also presented.
3.4.1 Project main characteristics

The project characteristics presented hereafter were initially based on an existing project, but
most of them were modified for the purpose of this exercise. The following project
characteristics give the basis required to determine the inflow design flood taking into
account the criteria considered in different countries.
 Type of dam Embankment
 Maximum height above foundation 20 m
 Reservoir capacity at FSL 260 x106m³
 Reservoir area at FSL 190 km²
 Foundation On Rock
Typical floods
 PMF 2 250 m³/s
 SDF 1 600 m³/s
 1.5 x 1 000-yr flood 1 560 m³/s
 1:10 000-yr flood 1 500 m³/s
 1:5 000-yr flood 1 345 m³/s
 1:2 000-yr flood 1 155 m³/s
 1:1 200-yr flood 1 070 m³/s
 1:1 000-yr flood 1 040 m³/s
 1:200-yr flood 810 m³/s
 1:100-yr flood 725 m³/s
There is no other reservoir on the river (upstream or downstream).
3.4.2 Reservoir main purposes

Project β is a multipurpose project. It will be used mainly for irrigation purposes and
hydroelectric production and as a limited impact on flood control as described below:
 Irrigation The reservoir is used to irrigate about 600 ha;
 Hydro production The installed hydro production capacity at the site is 30 MW;
 Flood Control The reservoir has limited impact on flood control;
 Water Supply The reservoir has limited impact on water supply (industrial and
municipal);
 Other activities No other major activity performed on the river (logging, tourism, …).

3.4.3 Consequences of the potential damages resulting from a dam failure
After evaluation of the incremental damage from dam break analysis for three floods (PMF,
10 000-year and 1 000-year) the consequences were estimated as below.
Persons at Risk and Loss of life

The number of houses located in the incremental inundation area is estimated at:
 1 000-year flood 5
 10 000-year flood 10
 PMF 15
Assuming an average occupancy of 5 persons per houses, the number of persons at risk
(PAR) is 25, 50 and 75 respectively.
Fatalities have been estimated from the tables established by Graham7. Depending on the
assumptions made about the severity of the dam break flood wave, the number for loss of
life (LOL) varies from 1 to 3.
For the present case, it is considered that without a dam failure there is no PAR or potential
LOL; the incremental values of the PAR or the LOL are also the total values.
Economical Damages
The most significant economical damages would consist of the crops that would be
temporarily submerged and probably lost, plus the value of the inundated houses. No
significant industrial or commercial facilities or transportation infrastructure are located in
the incremental area. However, the loss of energy production will have a regional impact.
The value of the incremental damages is therefore considered low.
Environmental Damages
No significant wildlife habitat would suffer permanent damage from the temporary
submergence by the dam break flood wave.
3.4.4 Selection of the IDF – Base case

Based on the system’s characteristics and the consequence of a dam failure, the IDF was
estimated for each country, the inflow design floods vary from the 1:100-yr flood to the
PMF. Figure 3.1 illustrates the results obtained for each country. The figure shows that the
majority of the IDF for the majority of the countries stands between the 1:1 000-yr flood to
the 1:10 000-yr flood. However, there is no clear trend in the results, since there is almost
the same number of countries for which the IDF will be the 1:1 000-yr flood, the 1:10 000-
yr flood or the PMF. About 10% of the countries will consider an IDF lower than the
1:1 000-yr flood and about 20% of the countries will use the PMF.
It should also be noted that the IDF is not necessarily the only design parameter consider in
the design. For example, in South Africa, the IDF correspond to the 1:100-yr flood, but the
7
Graham, W.J., September 1999, “A Procedure for Estimating Loss of Life Caused by Dam Failure”,
DSO-99-06, US Bureau of Reclamation

Safety Evaluation Discharge (SED) is also used to evaluate the adequacy of the spillway
system of a new or existing dam under extreme flood conditions. Substantial damages may
result from the occurrence of the SED, but the design must be such that the dam will not fail.
In this case, the SED will exceed the 1:1000-yr flood.
A summary table of the criteria for each country and the corresponding PMF for the Project
β is presented in Appendix B.
Figure 3.1 Project β – Inflow Design Flood – Base case
3.4.5 Selection of the IDF – Concrete dam

The same exercise was performed considering a concrete dam instead of an embankment
dam (all the other characteristics and consequences remaining identical). Since the risk of
failure of a concrete dam is normally lower than an embankment dam, the IDF could be less
than the results obtained for the similar embankment dam. Figure 3.2 illustrates the variation
of the IDF between the base case (embankment dam) and a case with concrete dam.
For some countries the IDF for a concrete dam is less than the IDF for the embankment
alternative. However, for most of the countries the IDF remains the same, more specifically
all the countries where the Dam Hazard Classification is based on the consequence of the
dam failure since only the type of dam changes.

Figure 3.2 Project β – Inflow Design Flood – Embankment dam vs concrete dam
3.4.6 Selection of the IDF – Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed on some parameters to determine their impact on the
determination of the IDF. These parameters are:
- the dam height;
- the reservoir volume;
- the estimated loss of life (LOL) in case of a dam break.
Each of these parameters was modified once at a time considering a lower value and a
higher value than the value used in the example. Table 3.5 shows the results of the
sensitivity analysis. The results for each country can be reviewed separately and indicates
the sensitivity to these parameters.
It is also interesting to see for the sample available the impact of a variation of the system’s
characteristics on the choice of the IDF. A modification of the system’s characteristics
(such as the type of dam, the dam height or the volume of the reservoir) causes a change of
the IDF for 10% to 20% of the countries. However, a change in the consequences of a dam
break (mainly the LOL) has an impact on the choice of the IDF for about 50% of the cases.
This is an indication of the present trend in the evaluation of the IDF. Figure 3.3 presents
the difference between the base case and a case for which no person is at risk
(PAR=LOL=0).
Evaluation of the IDF based on risk analysis was not considered for the present example,
since much more details should have been needed to perform the analysis.

Figure 3.3 Project β – Inflow Design Flood – Base case vs. LOL=PAR=0
Table 3.5 – Example – Project β – Evaluation of the IDF – Sensitivity analysis
BASE CASE Dam height Reservoir volume

COUNT-
RIES Embank- Concrete 1 010
8m 50 m 0.5 hm3
ment dam dam hm3
Australia 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
Austria 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr
Brazil (*) PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF
Bulgaria 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/3

Canada – between between between between between between
CDA 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
and PMF and PMF and PMF and PMF and PMF and PMF
Canada –
1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Quebec
China 2 000-yr 2 000-yr 2 000-yr 2 000-yr 200-yr PMF
Czech 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr

Republic
Finland 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
France 10 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
Germany 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 5 000-yr 10 000-yr
India PMF PMF PMF PMF 1 000-yr PMF
Ireland (*) 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
Italy 3 000-yr 1 000-yr 3 000-yr 3 000-yr 3 000-yr 3 000-yr
Not 200*1.2- 200*1.2- 200*1.2-

Japan 200*1.2-yr 200-yr
specified yr yr yr
New
10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
Zealand
Norway 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Panama 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr
Poland 1 000-yr 200-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 500-yr 1 000-yr
Portugal 5 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 10 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr
Romania 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Russia 100-yr 100-yr 100-yr 100-yr 200-yr 1 000-yr
South
100-yr 100-yr 100-yr 200-yr 100-yr 100-yr
Africa
Spain 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Sweden SDF SDF SDF SDF SDF SDF
Switzerland 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Turkey 1 000-yr 500-yr 1 000-yr PMF 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
UK PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF
USA -
PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF
FEMA
USA -
PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF PMF
USACE

Note: Only the IDF is presented in this table. Some of these countries considered also other
parameters increasing the safety factor of the dam, such as a minimum freeboard and/or a
safety check flood for which the flood must be released safely, but damages are acceptable
to the dam(s) and/or its main structures.
Table 3.5 – Example – Project β – Evaluation of the IDF – Sensitivity analysis (cont’d)
BASE CASE LOL

COUNTRIES
Embankment LOL = 0
LOL=1 000
dam (PAR = 0)
Australia 10 000-yr 100-yr 10 000-yr
Austria 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 5 000-yr
Brazil (*) PMF 1 000-yr PMF
Bulgaria 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
1/3 between
Canada - CDA 1 000-yr 1 000-yr PMF
and PMF
Canada -
1 000-yr 100-yr PMF
Quebec
China 2 000-yr 2 000-yr 2 000-yr
Czech
1 000-yr 100-yr 10 000-yr
Republic
Finland 10 000-yr 500-yr 10 000-yr
France 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
Germany 10 000-yr 10 000-yr 10 000-yr
India PMF PMF PMF
Ireland (*) 10 000-yr 1 000-yr 10 000-yr
Italy 3 000-yr 3 000-yr 3 000-yr
Japan 200*1.2-yr 200*1.2-yr 200*1.2-yr
New Zealand 10 000-yr 1 000-yr 10 000-yr
Norway 1 000-yr 500-yr 1 000-yr
Panama 5 000-yr 1 000-yr 5 000-yr

Poland 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Portugal 5 000-yr 5 000-yr 10 000-yr
Romania 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Russia 100-yr 100-yr 100-yr
South Africa 100-yr 100-yr 200-yr
Spain 1 000-yr 100-yr 1 000-yr
Sweden SDF 100-yr SDF
Switzerland 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
Turkey 1 000-yr 1 000-yr 1 000-yr
UK PMF 1 000-yr PMF
USA - FEMA PMF 100-yr PMF
USA - USACE PMF PMF PMF
3.5 Recommendations
Based on the overview of the guidelines from different countries and the results obtained for
the proposed example, a few recommendations are proposed. They shall serve for the
determination of the inflow designs floods (IDF) :
 The determination of the IDF depends on the consequences of a failure of the dam in a
specific area (persons at risk or loss of life, economical, environmental, social, ...). The
determination of the IDF based on the system characteristics takes implicitly into account
the consequences of a failure, but the evaluation of the IDF based directly on the
consequences appears to be a better approach. An alternative option could be to use a
conservative value of the IDF (high value) based on the system characteristics and perform
an evaluation of the consequences, should the owner wants to reduce the value of the IDF.
 The large majority of all current national selection rules of the IDF consider a return period
larger than or equal to 1 000 years. Only a few are more severe than 10 000 years. A
reasonable return period for the IDF would be located in this range. More stringent IDF
may be required, depending on local conditions and risks associated to each site.
 To increase the safety, structural or operational constraints may be imposed independently
from the IDF, as proposed in various countries. For instance, a N-1 rule (or N-x rule) for the
gates operation and/or a minimum freeboard to be guaranteed at all time can be imposed.
Particular local, legal, technical or administrative conditions may require other types of
constraints.

 Risk assessment should give a better overview of the risk related to a dam. Different
approaches for performing such analyses are considered at the moment and research must
continue in this field.
References
1. ASARIN, A.E. Estimation of the Design Flood in the Design of Russian dams,
Hydropower & Dams, Issue Three, 2007
2. Autoridad nacional de los servicios Publicos - Republica de Panama. NORMAS
PARA LA SEGURIDAD DE PRESAS, Septiembre de 2010
3. Bradlow, D. D., Palmieri, A., and Salman, S. M. A. (2002). Regulatory frameworks
for dam safety , The World Bank, Washington DC.
4. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), Guidelines for Fixing Spillway Capacity – IS
11223-1985, Govt. of India, 10 pages
5. Canadian Dam Association, Dam Safety Guidelines, 2007
6. CEATI International inc., COMPARISON OF FLOOD HAZARD ESTIMATION
METHODS FOR DAM SAFETY – Phase 1: TASK 1, Draft, 20 December 2012
7. Central Water & Power Commission – Ministry of Irrigation & Power – Government
of India, Estimation of Design Flood – Recommended procedures.
8. Central Water Commission – Ministry of Water Resources – Govt. of India,
Development of Hydrological Design Aids (Surface Water) under Hydrology Project –
II – State of the Art Report, July 2010, 362 pages
9. Central Water Commission – Ministry of Water Resources – Govt. of India,
Guidelines for Safety Inspection of Dams, June 1987 (revised), 59 pages
10. ELETROBRAS, Critérios de projeto de usinas hidrelétricas, Outubro/2003
11. France, G DEGOUTTE, P ROYET, P CRUCHON, P LE DELLIOU, N MONIE
(France), « Nouvelle réglementation française concernant la sécurité des barrages et
des digues », 23rd ICOLD Congress, Brasilia (2009),
12. France, « recommandations pour le dimensionnement des évacuateurs de crues de
barrages », Juin 2012, rapport du groupe de travail « dimensionnement des
évacuateurs de crues de barrages » du Comité Français des Barrages et Retenues
13. Fridolf, T, Design flood for dams - analysis of the Swedish guidelines, Dams in a
European Context, 2001
14. Gouvernement du Québec, Loi sur la sécurité des barrages, 2000
15. Gouvernement du Québec, Règlement sur la sécurité des barrages, 2002, Décret D.
300-2002, 2002, G.O. 2, 2043
16. Graham, W.J., September 1999, “A Procedure for Estimating Loss of Life Caused by
Dam Failure”, DSO-99-06, US Bureau of Reclamation
17. ICOLD, Selection of Design Flood – Current Method, Bulletin 82, 1982, 233 pages
18. ICOLD, Dams and Floods - Guidelines and cases histories, Bulletin 82, 2003, 229
pages
19. Liu, J. (2002). "Selection of Design Floods in Southeast Asia." In: 5th International
Conference on Hydro -Science & -Engineering (ICHE-2002) , Warsaw.

20. Mathur, S.N.K., Singh, B. Hydrologic Safety of Dams in India, India Water Week
2012 – Water, Energy and Food Security : Call for Solutions, 10-14 April 2012, New
Delhi
21. Micovic, Z., Schaefer, M.G. and Taylor, G.H., 2015. “Uncertainty analysis for
Probable Maximum Precipitation estimates.” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 521, pp. 360-
373.
22. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Classification and Inflow Design Flood
Criteria – Technical Bulletin, August 2011, Canada.
23. Radzicki, K., Szczesny, J., Tourment, R., Comparison of laws, procedures,
organizations and technical rules for dams and dikes safety in Poland and France,
Selected problems of water engineering, Politecknika Krakowska Cemagref: results of
cooperation, Krakow, POL, 9-11 October 2003
24. Republica de Panama, Autoridad Nacional de los Servicios Publicos, Normas para la
Seguridad de Presas, Septiembre de 2010.
25. Republic of Bulgaria – Ministry of Regional Development – Ministry of Energy and
Energy Resources, Ordinance no 14 - Technical rules and norms for design,
construction and utilisation of the projects and the facilities for generation,
transformation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy, June 15, 2005
26. Confédération suisse - Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports de
l’énergie et de la communication DETEC - Office fédéral de l’énergie OFEN - Section
Barrages, Sécurité des ouvrages d’accumulation – Documentation de base relative à la
vérification de la sécurité en cas de crue, juin 2008.
27. Swedenergy, Svenska Kraftnät and SveMin - Swedish Guidelines for Design Flood
Determination for Dams New edition 2015, ISBN 978-91-7622-198-3
28. The New Zealand Society on Large Dams, New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines, 2000
29. USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Dam Safety Office, A Procedure for Estimating Loss
of Life Caused by Dam Failure, DSO-99-06, September 1999.
30. USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 14 Appurtenant Structures for
Dams (Spillways and Outlet Works), Chapter 2: Hydrologic Considerations, draft
December 2012.

ICOLD – INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES BY COUNTRY
APPENDIX A
DETERMINATION OF THE INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD (IDF)
SUMMARY GUIDELINES BY COUNTRIES Page 81

Note
The Appendix A presents a summary of the guidelines in use in different countries to
determine the Inflow Design Flood (IDF) of a project. The objective of this appendix
consists in showing the various approaches considered over the world to establish the IDF.
It must be understood that the information presented hereafter is based on guidelines, papers
and personal contributions made available to the Committee during the preparation of the
Bulletin. Since this time, the information may have been updated; it may also have been
misinterpreted. It must therefore be verified before being used for any specific purpose.

1. AUSTRALIA 8 9 10
In 2000 the new Guidelines on Selection of an Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams were
published (ANCOLD 2000). In these new guidelines risk assessment is integrated in the
determination of design flood. The Acceptable Flood Capacity, AFC, for a specific dam is
defined as "the overall flood capacity, including freeboard as relevant, which provides an
appropriate level of safety against a flood initiated dam failure to protect the community and
environment, to acceptable overall risk levels, within the total context of overall dam safety
from all load cases".
The risk process requires the owner, or other decision-maker, to take the responsibility to set
the risk management criteria and then to make the decisions on the overall management,
community and environment and political and legal issues, using the information provided
by the risk study.
According to the AFC Guidelines the hydrologic safety should be assessed within the total
load context, and not as a separate case, in order to achieve optimum safety and economy
and not just concentrate on flood safety. In cases where a detailed risk process is too costly
and not practical the guidelines include an alternative based on a hazard classification based
on the population at risk and the severity of damage and loss.
The population at risk is defined as the number of persons whose safety will be at risk if the
dam, if the proposed dam after its construction, fails. Unless otherwise indicated, PAR is the
incremental PAR due to the failure event, that is, the difference in the PAR for the same
event with dam failure relative to the event without dam failure.
Three approaches are defined to evaluate the AFC.
Small Dams
The following approach can be used for dams for :
 a zoned or relatively homogeneous earthen embankment less than 12 meters high and
 a PAR of 15 or less and
 uncontrolled spillways and
 depths of flooding of PAR of less than three meters and the product of the depth of
flooding and the average flow velocity is less than 4.6 m2/sec.
For a dam under this situation, the annual exceedance probability (AEP) is defined by the
following relation:
AEP = (1/PAR) x 10-3
8
Fridolf, T. Design flood for dams - analysis of the Swedish guidelines, Dams in a European
Context, Midttomme et al (eds), ©2001 Swets & Zeitiinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 196 1
9
Dam Safety Committee, DSC 13 – Consequences Categories for Dams, March 2002
10
Queensland Government, Guidelines on Acceptable Flood Capacity for Water Dams, January
2013

Hazard Category
The second approach is based on the hazard category rating of a dam is done, which will be
determine in accordance with table A1-1 :
Table A1-1 Australia - Hazard category for dams
Population at Severity of Damage and Loss

Risk (PAR) Negligible Minor Medium Major
Low Significant Significant High C
2 to 10
(note 1) (note 5) (note 5) (note 6)
Significant High C High B
11 to 100
(note 2 to 5) (note 6) (note 6)
High C High A
101 to 1000 Note 1
(note 6) (note 6)
Note 2
Extreme
> 1000 Note 3
(note 6)
Note 1 It is unlikely that the severity of damage and loss will be ‘negligible’ where one
or more houses are damaged.
Note 2 Minor damage and loss would be unlikely when PAR exceeds 10.
Note 3 Medium damage and loss would be unlikely when the PAR exceeds 1000.
Note 4 Not used.
Note 5 Change to High C where there is the potential for one or more lives being lost.
Note 6 See section 2.7 and 1.6 in the ANCOLD Guidelines on Assessment of the
Consequences of Dam Failure (ANCOLD, 2000) for an explanation of the range
of high hazard categories
The corresponding AEP can be determined from table A1-2.

Table A1-2 Australia - Acceptable flood capacity based on PAR and damages
Risk assessment procedure

The risk assessment procedure is based on the ALARP principle which requires that risks
should be as low as reasonably practicable. The methodology for demonstrating risks is to
be applied to all assessments where the risk assessment procedure is used for determining
the Acceptable Flood capacity (AFC).
Figure A1-1 Australia - Application of ALARP to bring societal risk profile

below limit of tolerability

11
2. AUSTRIA
Since most of the dams in Austria pose a risk of loss of life, the large dams have not been
classified based on the consequences of a dam failure, but depending of their characteristics.
For dams higher than 15 m above the foundation level and/or reservoir with capacity of
500 000 m³ or more, the IDF should be the 1:5000-yr flood. The reservoir must be assumed
to be at the maximum operation level at the beginning of the event and the discharge
capacity of the bottom outlets and the power plant are not taken into account in the flood
routing. For embankment dams with gated spillways, the (n-1)-gates condition should be
respected. 12
11
12
R. Melbinger, The Austrian approach to dam safety: A symbiosis of rules and engineering
judgement, Dam Safety, Berga (ed.)© 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 974 2

3. BRAZIL
Ref : ELETROBRAS, Critérios de projeto de usinas hidrelétricas, Outubro/2003
Determination of the IDF

For dams higher than 30 m or if a dam failure can cause risk of loss of human lives (i.e. with
permanent dwellings downstream), the IDF will be the PMF.
For dams lower than 30 m and with reservoir volume less than 50 000 000 m3 and with no
risk of loss of life (no permanent dwellings downstream), the full project will be set through
a risk analysis, with a minimum design flood of at least 1000 years.
Bypass Flows
The bypass flow rates for each stage of the management of the River, will be defined by
recurrence time resulting from a risk analysis, comparing the cost of diversion works with
the expected value of the cost of the damage resulting from its floods. In the calculation of
the damages will be considered local, costs damages due to delay in the schedule and any
upstream and downstream damage.
Risk of flooding during construction

For each management stage of the River during construction, the sizing flow diversion
works shall be defined according to the risk of flooding the area ensecada, taking into
account the exposure time to this risk.
In the definition of the risk to be adopted, the following points should be considered:
the estimated cost of the damage caused to the work, resulting from higher than
considered filled, including losses arising from delays in schedule and replacement
costs of the enterprise to the previous situation;
the estimated cost of the damage caused to the works and communities downstream or
upstream, including the loss of human lives. The study should consider each phase of
deviation and be guided by the criteria outlined in Table A3-1:
Table A3-1 – Brazil - Acceptable risk of flooding during construction
Category Annual risk of

damage
No risk of human lives nor provides for serious damage occurring 5% to 20%
in the work and its progress
No danger of human lives but already provide significant damage 2% to 5%
on the work and its progress
Some danger of loss of life and significant damage to the planned 1% to 2%
work and its progress
Real danger of loss of human lives and are provided for major < 1%
damage to the work and its progress

For structures in which the exposure is greater than one year, the risk in the total period is
defined by the relation:
where:
r = risk taken;
Tr = time to recurrence of the flood outflow in years (inverse of annual risk);
n = duration of phase deviation, in years.
Bypass operations and final closure for filling the tank will be the flow characteristics of the
time scheduled for its operations.

4. BULGARIA
In Bulgaria, the criteria to determine the “design non-exceedance of the maximal water
flow-rate” are described in an ordinance published by the Ministry of Energy and Energy
Resources13. This ordinance is valid for hydro project with capacity higher than 5 MW, but
is not valid for the hydropower projects on the Danube River and on the Black Sea Coast.
The design non-exceedance of the maximal water flow-rates to define the maximal water
levels and to size the evacuation (spillway) structures is defined depending on the category
of the structure according to Table A4-1, considering the flood routing in the reservoir.
Table A4-1 Bulgaria - Design flood based on category of the structure
Category of the structure І ІІ ІІІ ІV V
Non-exceedance of water flow-rates [%] 0,01 0,1 0,5 1,0 3,0
Period of recurrence, year 10 000 1 000 200 100 33,33
The design non-exceedance of the maximum water flow-rates for the river diversion
structures for construction of hydropower projects is adopted as 5%, considering the flood
routing. It is acceptable to adopt higher non-exceedance (e.g. 10%) based on technical and
economical justification and an assessment of the consequences.
According to their purpose, the components of the hydropower projects are classified as
permanent or temporary and the permanent components are classified as main or secondary.
The main components are the ones used to retain, keep, transmit and utilise the hydropower
resource, such as :
- the dams;
- the spillway, outlet and intake structures;
- the intakes;
- the derivation channel and hydropower tunnels;
- the pressure basins and daily regulating reservoirs;
- the surge tanks;
- the penstocks;
- the powerhouses of HPP and SHPP.
- the structures and the equipment whose failure leads to cease of the operation of the
components mentioned above;
- the structures whose failure or cease of operation can cause important damage to the
environment or threat to human life.
The secondary components are all permanent components not corresponding to the
definition of the main components.
13
Republic of Bulgaria – Ministry of Regional Development – Ministry of Energy and Energy
Resources, Ordinance no 14 - Technical rules and norms for design, construction and utilisation
of the projects and the facilities for generation, transformation, transmission and distribution of
electrical energy, June 15, 2005

The temporary components are the components which are used only during the construction
period or during an upgrade of the main objects.
Table A4-2 presents the category of a structure based on its characteristics and the installed
capacity of the project.
Table A4-2 Bulgaria - Category of the structures
Installed capacity of
>100 25-100 10-25 5-10 <5
the hydropower project, MW
Permanent Main structures І ІІ ІІІ ІV V
Category
structures
(class) of the Secondary structures ІІІ ІІІ ІV ІV V
structure
Temporary structures V V V V V
The category of the dams is defined as the higher one of the following :
- the category defined according to Table A4-2 as a structure (object, element) of a
hydropower project;
- the category defined according to Table A4-3 depending on the foundation conditions.
If the component is part of a scheme of complex purpose (hydropower, water supply,
irrigation, etc.), its category is defined depending on the purpose of the project requiring the
highest category of the respective structure.
The class defined can be increased, if the damage or the failure of the structure can threaten
people’s life or can cause catastrophic consequences to the populated areas or infrastructure
and/or are related to trans-border impact.
Table A4-3 Bulgaria - Category of a dam
Category of dam
Dam type Foundation type І ІІ ІІІ ІV
Height of Structure, m
Rock >100 50-100 15-50 <15
Sand, stones, clays in hard or
> 70 35-70 15-35 <15
Embankment dams semi-hard condition
Saturated clays in plastic
>40 20-40 10-20 <10
state, fine sands
Concrete and reinforced Rock >100 50-100 20-50 <20
concrete dams, underwater
Sand, stones, clays in hard or
structures of the HPP/SHPP >40 20-40 10-20 <10
semi-hard condition
powerhouses, fish passages,
retaining and other Saturated clays in plastic
>20 15-20 10-15 <10
structures that create head state, fine sands

14 15
5. CANADA
In Canada, the dams are classified using the Hazard Potential Classification (HPC) system.
The HPC system categorizes dams according to the potential hazards presented by the dam.
The hazard potential is determined through an assessment of the greatest incremental losses
that could result from an uncontrolled release of the reservoir due to the failure of a dam or
its appurtenances. Potential incremental losses are to be assessed with respect to the
population at risk, loss of life, the environment and cultural values and economic aspect at
the dam site, upstream, downstream, or at other areas influenced by the dam.
Table A5-1 outlines the criteria for determining the dam classification.
Table A5-1 Canada – Dam classification

Incremental losses
Population
Dam class Environmental and Infrastructure and
at risk Loss of life
cultural values economic
 Minimal short-term  Low economic losses;
loss area contains limited
Low None 0
 No long-term loss infrastructure or
services
 No significant loss or  Losses to recreational
deterioration of fish facilities, seasonal
or wildlife habitat workplaces, and
Significant
Temporary
Unspecified  Loss of marginal infrequently used
only habitat only transportation routes
 Restoration or
compensation in kind
highly possible
 Significant loss or  High economic losses
deterioration of affecting infrastructure,
important fish or public transportation,
High Permanent 10 or fewer wildlife habitat and commercial
 Restoration or facilities
compensation in kind
highly possible
14
Canadian Dam Association, Dam Safety Guidelines, 2007
15
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Classification and Inflow Design Flood Criteria,
Technical Bulletin, August 2011

Incremental losses
Dam Population
class at risk Environmental and Infrastructure and
Loss of life
cultural values economic
 Significant loss or  Very high economic
deterioration of losses affecting
critical fish or important infrastructure
100 or wildlife habitat or services (e.g.,
Very high Permanent
fewer  Restoration or highway, industrial
compensation in kind facility, storage
possible but facilities for dangerous
impractical substances)
 Major loss of critical  Extreme losses
fish or wildlife habitat affecting critical
 Restoration or infrastructure or
More than compensation in kind services (e.g., hospital,
Extreme Permanent major industrial
100 impossible
complex, major storage
facilities for dangerous
substances)
Note: where several dams are situated along the same watercourse, consideration must be
given to the cascade effect of failures when classifying the structures, such that if failure of
an upstream dam could contribute to failure of a downstream dam, then the classification of
the upstream dam must be the same as or greater than that of the downstream structure.
Flood Analysis
Statistical analysis is required for estimating the flood peaks and volumes associated with a
range of annual exceedance probabilities. In addition to the peaks, the volumes and the
associated hydrographs for the floods of interest are usually required for reservoir routing or
dam breach and downstream channel routing. This analysis is done on a seasonal basis and
is of greater significance for storage reservoirs that have large fluctuations in water levels
and are designed to capture spring runoff. For run-of-the-river facilities, only the peak
annual flood is usually required.
Flood statistics are subject to a wide margin of uncertainty, which should be taken into
account in decision-making. In particular, the following should be noted:
 Results obtained may vary significantly from one statistical distribution to another, and
no reliable method exists for the selection of the most appropriate distribution. This task
relies entirely on the hydrologist's judgment.
 The evaluation of the highest floods on record often depends on the extrapolation of the
rating curve at the station, which may be subject to a large degree of uncertainty.
 Beyond an AEP in the order of 1/500 year, statistics give only an "order of magnitude"
estimate. For the purpose of flood evaluation in the dam safety process, extrapolation
beyond the 1/1000 year flood is discouraged.
 Evaluation of the confidence limits on the statistical estimate is recommended.

The PMF is defined as the most severe flood that may reasonably be expected to occur at a
particular location. The PMF is generated by the probable maximum precipitation (PMP)
and is combined during the spring season with the snow cover.
Two PMFs are considered :
 The summer-autumn PMF, which is generated by the summer-autumn PMP;
 The spring PMF, which is defined as the maximum of the following two cases:
- PMF computed with spring PMP and snow accumulation with frequency of 1/100
year
- PMF computed with probable maximum snow accumulation and rainstorm with
frequency of 1/100 year.
The reason for computing two separate PMFs for the spring season is that it would not be
reasonable to assume that snow accumulation and a spring rainstorm, which are two
independent phenomena, are simultaneously extreme.
Based on the results of the statistical flood analysis, the estimation of the PMF and the dam
classification, the Inflow Design Floods (IDF) can be determined based on Table A5-2:
Table A5-2 Canada – Suggested design flood
Dam class Inflow design flood (1)

Low 1:100-yr
Significant 1:100-yr to 1:1 000-yr
1/3 between the 1:1 000-yr
High
and the PMF
2/3 between the 1:1 000-yr
Very High
and the PMF
Extreme PMF
Some canadian provinces, such as Ontario, as based their dam classification system and the
determination of the design flood on the CDA guidelines by adapting the approach to their
particluar needsd and concerns.

6. CANADA – Quebec 16 17
In the province of Quebec, the Dam Safety Regulation (2002) applies to all dams governed
by the Dam Safety Act (2000).
Safety Check Flood

In Quebec, the characteristics of every dam must ensure that it can withstand as a minimum
the safety check flood that corresponds to the failure consequence category of the dam. The
safety check flood is the flood that a dam must be capable of withstanding under extreme
conditions while continuing to operate safely, accepting some damage and a reduction in
safety factors but without causing dam failure. The applicable safety check flood may then
be the minimum flood for which there are no incremental damages attributable to the dam
failure but it may not be less than a 100-yr flood. Table A6-1 shows the elements to
consider to evaluate the consequence category of a dam.
Table A6-1 Canada-Quebec – Consequence category of the dam based on incremental

impact of a dam failure
Consequence Incremental impact

category Population at risk Infrastructure
 second dam in the Very Low
Consequence category
 resources access road
Very low None
 farmland
 commercial facility without
accommodations
 second dam in the Low Consequence
Less than 10 cottages or
Low category
seasonal residence
 local road
 second dam in the Moderate
Consequence category ;
 feeder road
 railway line (local or regional)
Less than 10 permanent
Moderate
residence  enterprise with less than 50
employees
 main water intake upstream or
downstream of the dam that supplies
a municipality
16
Gouvernement du Québec, Loi sur la sécurité des barrages, 2000
17
Gouvernement du Québec, Règlement sur la sécurité des barrages, 2002, Décret D. 300-2002,
2002, G.O. 2, 2043

Consequence Incremental impact

category Population at risk Infrastructure
 second dam in the High
 regional road
 railway line (transcontinental or
High Less than 1 000 residents
transborder)
 school
 enterprise that has 50 to 499
employees
 second dam in the Very High
 national highway
Very high Less than 10 000 residents  enterprise that has 500 or more
employees
 industrial park
 dangerous substances storage site
 second dam in the Severe
 hospital
Severe More than 10 000 residents
 major industrial complex
 large dangerous substances storage
site
If the dam failure consequences were assessed on the basis of a dam failure analysis, the
category to be considered for the purposes of the table is the highest consequence category
resulting from the examination of dam failure scenarios in flood conditions.
The safety check flood corresponding to the consequence category of the dam can be
determined based on Table A6-2.
Table A6-2 Canada-Quebec - Safety check flood vs. consequence category of the dam
Safety check flood
Consequence
(recurrence
category
interval)
Very low 1:100-yr
Low 1:100-yr
Moderate 1:1 000-yr
High 1:1 000-yr
1:10 000-yr or ½
Very high PMF
(highest value)
Severe PMF

The crest of an “erodible dam”18 at its lowest point must not be less than one meter above
the safety check flood level, unless the owner demonstrates to the Minister’s satisfaction that
all hydrologic and hydraulic uncertainties and flood management uncertainties have been
taken into account in the determination of the safety check flood. Any impervious
component of an erodible dam must be at least as high as the safety check flood level.
For a dam of which at least half the inflow is controlled by another dam operated upstream,
the safety check flood is the greater of the safety check flood determined or the lesser of the
10 000-year flood and the inflow equivalent to the discharge capacity of the upstream dam
together with the local inflows.
Dam classification
Every dam must also be classified on the basis of the degree of risk it poses to persons and
property, measured by multiplying the numerical value of its vulnerability (V) by the
numerical value of the potential consequences of a dam failure (C), to which “P” is the
assigned value in the formula
P=VxC
The vulnerability (V) of a dam is measured by multiplying the arithmetic mean value of the
constant physical parameters by the arithmetic mean value of the variable parameters. The
constant physical parameters to be considered are the dam height, dam type, impounding
capacity and dam foundation type.
The variable parameters to be considered are :
(1) the dam age, which is the number of years since its construction or, as the case may
be, as determined by the engineer in charge of the safety review on the basis of the
useful life of the dam ;
(2) the seismic zone in which the dam is located according to the seismic zone map;
(3) the dam condition, which is assessed by considering the physical state and structural
condition of the dam, the quality and effectiveness of maintenance, aging, possible
effects of external factors such as frost or earthquakes and any dam design or
structural defects. At the completion of the assessment, the dam condition is rated
“very good”, “good”, “acceptable” or “poor or unknown”; and
(4) the reliability of the discharge facilities of the dam, which must be capable of passing
the inflow design flood. The reliability is assessed on the basis of the design of the
discharge facilities and the procedures established by the owner to ensure that they
operate effectively during floods. At the completion of the assessment, the reliability
of the discharge facilities is rated “satisfactory”, “acceptable” or “unsatisfactory or
unknown”.
18
“erodible dam” means a dam with an earthfill or rockfill component that is not designed for
overflow and the erosion of which would cause a dam failure in a flood

7. CHINA
In China, dam classification is based on the main characteristics of the system and on the
potential consequences on the regional and national economy. Tables A7-1 to A7-3
summarize the elements considered for the dam classification in China. (Liu, 2002).
Table A7-1 China - Classification of water conservancy and hydropower projects

Water Water Water
Flood prevention Irrigation
Storage logging supply power
Rank of
capacity Cities and Logged Installed
project Farmland Area Cities and
(hm³) industrial area capacity
(10³ ha) (10³ ha) mines
areas (10³ ha) (MW)
I > 1 000 Very > 333 > 133.3 > 100 Very > 750
important important
II 100 - Important 67 – 333 40 – 33.3 – Important 250 –
1 000 133.3 100 750
III 10 – 100 Moderately 20 – 67 10 – 40 3.3 – Moderately 25- 250
IV 1 – 10 Less 3.3 – 20 2.0 – 10 0.3 – 3.3 Less 0.5 – 25
important important
V <1 < 3.3 < 2.0 < 0.3 < 0.5
Notes
- The storage capacity of reservoir means the storage of reservoir below check flood level
- The irrigation and waterlogged areas refer to design areas
- The rank of tide prevention projects may be defined referring to the stipulations for
flood prevention. Where disasters of tide are very serious, the rank may be raised
properly
- The importance of water supply works are defined according to their scale, economic
and social benefits.
Table A7-2 - China - Classification of hydraulic structures
Rank of Grade of permanent structures Grade of temporary

projects Main structures Less important one structures
I 1 3 4
II 2 3 4
III 3 4 5
IV 4 5 5
V 5 5 ---
Notes
1. Permanent structures are the structures used for operation of the project, and are
divided into two categories in accordance with their importance : Main structures that

will cause a catastrophe in downstream areas in case of failure or seriously damage the
function of project, such as dams, sluices, pump station and hydropower houses. Less
important structures that will not cause a catastrophe in downstream areas in case of
failure and not cause serious influent to project benefits, such as retaining walls,
diversion walls, and bank-protection works.
2. The temporary structures are the structures using during constructions, such as
diversion structures, cofferdams etc.
3. For projects of Rank II to V and temporary structures, the grade of their structures may
be raised or lowered in the following situations through evaluation :
a. The location of projects is of vital importance and failure of structures may cause
a serious catastrophe. The grade of the structures may be raised by one grade.
b. Where the engineering geological conditions of the hydraulic structure are very
complicated, or new type of structures are used. The grade of the structures may
be raised by one grade.
c. The grade of temporary hydraulic structures, if their failure will cause serious
catastrophe, or influence seriously the construction program the grade may be
raised by one or two.
d. For the projects which will not cause considerable influence after failure, the
grade of their structures may be lowered properly through elevation.
The following table presents the design standards for the determination of the IDF and the
check flood for permanent dams.
Table A7-3 China - Design flood and check flood criteria for permanent structures
Return period of Grade of hydraulic structures

flood 1 2 3 4 5
Design flood 500 100 50 30 20

Check flood
- Embankment dams 10 000/PMF 2 000 1 000 500 200
- Concrete dams 5 000 1 000 500 200 100
Notes
• The standards of powerhouse and irrigation structures (Classes 4 and 5) may be lowered
according to actual situations
• For Class 1 embankment dam, PMF should be considered if its failure will cause
catastrophe in downstream area, and for Classes 2 to 4 embankment dams, the check
design floods may be raised by one grade
• For concrete dams that cause serious damage in case of overtopping, 1000-yr flood may
be adopted as check design flood after examination and approval by competent
authorities
• For low water head structures and the structures that do not cause serious damage,
check design flood may be lowered by one grade after examination and approval by
competent authorities

19 20
8. CZECH REPUBLIC
The issue of dams‘ safety in Czech Republic is projected on many legal acts of several
levels, from laws, government orders and decrees, through technical standards and
methodical instructions, up to specific developed documents, like flood plans, programmes
for dam safety supervision, operational rules and others.
Four classes of dams are defined. The class of dams and the corresponding design flood
depends of the following consequences related to the dam failure :
 Number of persons at risk;
 Possibility of loss of life;
 Expected damages to residential, industrial and public structures;
 Economic losses;
 Environmental damages.
The design flood can vary for the 1:10 000-yr flood for a class I dam to a 1:100-yr flood for
a class IV dam and even a 1:20-yr flood if the consequences are negligible. Table A8-1
presents a summary of the criteria considered for the dam classification.
Table A8-1 Czech Republic - Dam classification
Damages
Persons
Class Loss of life Economical Environment
at risk
aspect consequence
Large Extensive
I > 1 000 Whole country
amount damages
Damages to
II > 100 Anticipated essential Autonomous district
structures
Important
III > 10 Possible damages but Autonomous region
could be repair
Limited material
IV < 10 Improbable Negligible
damages
The following rules deal with specific issues of dam supervision related to hydrological
conditions, and mainly concerning flood load:
Act No. 254/2001 Coll. – The Water Act
The Water Act deals with all kind of water issues. Its purpose is to protect superficial water
and groundwater, to make a cost-effective use of water sources, to ensure the safety of dams,
19
R. Kucera – Personal communication - 2012
20

to reduce the adverse effects of floods and droughts, etc. The law governs the legal
relationships in that area.
Operational Rule No. 471/2001 Coll. – on dam safety supervision

Defines the dams subject to dam supervision, determines the extent and frequency of
supervision in all phases of preparation of a dam, during its construction and operation.
Among other, it determines the obligation of regularly review the safety of dams on
outbreak of floods, according to current hydrological supporting documents.
Operational Rule No. 590/2002 Coll. – on technical requirements for dams

Besides construction-technical, hydraulic and other aspects, this rule determines the required
safety of dams when passing extreme floods. The category of dams is determined according
to the extent of damages, caused by accident (loss of human lives, material loses in the area
below the dam, loss of benefits of dam operation, etc.) Dams are divided into 4 categories,
according to their ability to safe pass a control flood, defined as a n-year flood. The highest
category requires to pass a Q 10 000, followed by Q 2000, Q 1000, Q 500, Q 100, or
exceptionally lower.
Technical standard No. 75 2340 Designing Dams – Main parameters and equipment
This is a basic technical standard in the field of dam construction. The standard is valid for
design of dams (weirs, safety spillways, water outlets, hydropower constructions, etc.) and
their equipment. The standard defines basic general requirements for a project, and deals
with the main parameters of the dam and the safety premises. The requirements for
hydraulic dimensioning and the principles for design of functional constructions and
equipment, concern to safety spillways (whose capacity is determined by the water
management project and by fulfilling the conditions of the Technical standard No. 75 2935),
as well as to bottom outlets and to intake equipment. The Czech State Standard No. 75 2340
determines, that the basic role of a dam design, is to ensure its safety at supposed limit flood
situations, according to Technical standard No. 75 2935, including the determination of
emergency measures in case of extreme situation.
Methodical instruction of the Ministry of the Environment ZP11/2000 – to determine effects

of special floods and to include them into flood plans
A special flood is that flood, caused by a failure of a dam. The Methodical instruction deals
with establishing the parameters for these floods (a scenario of a weir failure, volume and
size of a flood wave), the limits of levels of flood activity for these cases, and it finally deals
with calculating and determining the territory, endangered by a special flood along the
watercourse below the dam.
Technical standard No. 75 2935 – Assessment of safety of dams in case of floods

This technical standard is entirely dedicated to dam safety, related to control extreme
floods. It is taken in consideration the relationship between the Safe limit level in the
reservoir and the Control level in the reservoir, derived from the transformed Control flood
wave in the reservoir. The size of the flood wave, i.e. its time to recurrence, is determined by
the category of dam and it shall not exceed Q 10 000 for dams of 1st category.
Relating to flood management activities, the Czech Republic now carry out the duties
assigned by the Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

assessment and management of flood risk. As the first step we used existing digital maps of
flooded areas and in accordance with adopted methodology we undertook there a
Preliminary flood risk assessment. The results of this assessment – identified areas with
existing significant flood risks – have been published since June 2011. Consequently we
prepared so call Flood hazard maps and Flood risk maps within above mentioned areas with
significant flood risks. These maps were completed by the end of October 2013 and have
been made publicly available on website http://hydro.chmi.cz/cds. After that as a final step
we shall create and establish Flood risk management plans, which must be completed and
published by 22nd December 2015. The first drafts of national Flood risk management plans
for Elbe, Oder and Danube river basin districts will be published and made available for
comments to the public since 15th December 2014.

21
9. FINLAND
In Finland, three classes of dams are considered, based on the possible consequences of the
dam failure on the danger on human life or their health and/or the danger on environment
and properties. These dam classes are presented hereafter :
Class P If in the event of an accident, the dam may endanger human life or health or
seriously endanger the environment or property. The dam classification is
based on a hazard risk assessment.
Class N If in the event of an accident, the dam represents a smaller risk than a class P
dam, but cannot be considered an O dam.
Class O If in the event of an accident, the dam constitutes only a minor hazard risk.
The design flood can vary between the 1:5 000-yr to the 1:10 000-yr flood for a class P dam,
from the 1:500-yr to the 1:1 000-yr flood for a class N dam and from the 100-yr flood to the
500-yr flood for a class O dam.
21
E.Loukola & T.Maijala, New dam safety guidelines in Finland, Dam Safety, Berga (ed.)© 1998
Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 974 2

22
10. FRANCE
Until 2007
Until 2007 the design flood standard was set according to the factor H2√V where H (m) is
the height of the dam and V (hm3) is its storage capacity.
The parameter H2√V does not appear to have any particular theoretical basis but expresses
the need to consider store volume as well as impounded water depth as a contributor to the
overall hazard posed by the dam. Table A10-1 shows the design flood related to the height-
volume parameter.
Table A10-1 France - Design flood based on the H2√V parameter – Until December 2007
H2√V <5 5 to 30 30 to 100 100 to 700 > 700
Probability of the design flood [%] 1 0,5 0,1 0,05 0,01
Flood return period (years) 100 200 1 000 2 000 10 000
When frequency analysis is required, the Gradex method is used, i.e. and apply on
precipitation data instead of runoff data.
Revised approach
Dam classification
According a decree issued in December 11th 2007, a revised approach is considered for the
classification of the dam and the determination of the design flood.
The revised approach for the dam classification is based on the height of the dam and on the
H2√V parameters as shown in the following table.
Table A10-2 France - Design flood based on the H2√V parameter – From December 2007
Class A B C D
H (m) and V H ≥ 10 and H ≥ 5 and
H ≥ 20 H≥2
(hm3) H2√V ≥ 200 H2√V ≥ 20
The parameter H2√V is considered by the regulation as an indicator of the general potential
of risk.
Design flood
Recent recommendations (June 2013) propose a double approach for the design of spillways.
These recommendations insist on the fact that they are proposed for French dams, taking
into account the general regulations, the existing dams, the general organization. For class D
dams, the recommendations are limited to dams with a capacity greater than 50 000 m3.
22
Radzicki, K., Szczesny, J., Tourment, R., Comparison of laws, procedures, organizations and
technical rules for dams and dikes safety in Poland and France, Selected problems of water
engineering, Politecknika Krakowska Cemagref: results of cooperation, Krakow, POL, 9-11
October 2003

Design criteria are proposed for exceptional and extreme situations.
 An exceptional flood situation produces a water level that still leaves freeboard to
protect from the effects of waves and irregularities in the water line but is shorter than
under normal operating circumstances. For this flood situation, the structure must meet
all safety standards, whether in structural terms (shearing strength, resistance against
sliding, foundation strength, resistance against internal erosion, resistance against
scouring) or in hydraulic terms (margin with respect to spillway overflow, properly
dimensioned stilling works). This provides margins before reaching failure thresholds.
 For extreme flood situation, the danger level is reached. It’s defined as the level above
witch the stability of the dam is no longer guarantied. It can be the result of an extreme
flood with nominal spillway operation, or of a milder flood combined with a spillway
malfunction.
It is recommended to apply these two criteria for all dams.
For existing dams, it is recommended applying as a priority the extreme-situation criteria.
An audit will be systematically done for every exceptional situation, and if needed and
depending on the risks and on what is at stake, this will make it possible to appreciate how
much of a priority it is to upgrade flood-evacuation capacities or to enforce the reliability of
the spillway
In addition, and in order to take existing structures in the French portfolio of dams into
account, it has been decided to differentiate, for exceptional situations, the case of rigid
dams (concrete gravity and masonry dams, arch dams, buttress dams, etc.) and that of
embankment dams in order to remain as close as possible to the previously used rules.
Exceptional situation
It is recommended that auditing in an exceptional situation should be conducted with the
following assumptions:
 possible rolling from the reservoir and upstream structures and for an initial water level
elevation equivalent to the maximum water level elevation under a normal operating
situation;
 account taken of the flow capacity of the spillways with no reduction due to
malfunction;
 account taken of a flood return period depending on the type of dam and its class
(defined by decree 2007-1735 of December 11th 2007) according to Table A10-3:
Table A10-3 - France - Flood recurrence intervals in exceptional situation
Rigid dams Embankment

Dam class
dams
A 1000 to 10000
3000
B 1000 3000
C 300 1000
D 100 300

For Class A rigid dams there can therefore be some latitude in judging on the need to
recalibrate a spillway (the low value of the range) or for a new design using the higher value.
For mixed dams having for instance a concrete centre block surrounded by two fill dikes, the
most unfavourable flood will be the benchmark.
For non-classed dams, it will still be necessary to have spillway components, with free flow
weirs if possible, as well as a suitable freeboard or even a wave shield. It does not seem
reasonable to design these dams for a flood with a return period less than 100-years.
Extreme situation
The recommendations in this subparagraph apply to conventional dams. The purpose of the
extreme-situation audit is to ensure that, beyond a situation already considered as
exceptional or in case of malfunction of the spillway components, the dam, its spillway
system and possibly ancillary hydrological components (provided that they remain
operational), possibly even taking account of the flow discharged over the crest, still have a
sufficient safety margin before an accident event. The latter is meant to happen when in one
way or another, the reservoir reaches the danger water elevation level.
The target probabilities associated with these events are shown on Table A10-4.
Table A10-4 - France - Annual overrun probabilities in an extreme situation

Annual overrun
Dam class
probability
A23 10-5
B 3·10-5
C 10-4
D 10-3
In some cases, it is possible to consider that, for a given hydrological situation, the
additional downstream impact on persons and property due to dam failure is negligible.
Provided that this assumption is demonstrated, this can allow an increased target probability
for the dam in question (see 5.6).
Flood estimates for an overrun probability lower than 10-4 are considered very uncertain. At
this stage it is recommended to raise the flood likely to occur every 10 000 years by a
multiplying factor on the flows: of the order of 1.3 for Class A dams and of 1.15 for Class B
dams.
Audits are conducted by taking account of rolling by the reservoir and the upstream
structures and for an initial retention level equivalent to the maximum level under a normal
operation situation (NWL).
Auditing is to be carried out on the basis of two sets of assumptions:
23
Class A comprises in particular all the dams with a height greater than 20 metres above the
natural ground, hence with very different hazard potentials. Reducing the target probability for
the highest of these should not be ruled out.

1/ With a nominal spillway operation: the conveyance, or flow capacity, of the hydraulic
components is the theoretical conveyance at the danger level with no reduction due to
malfunction.
2/ With a spillway malfunction.
Specific study of the spillway reliability

If the study of the spillway reliability is possible, the flood to take into account is such that
the overall probability of the occurrence of this flood combined with the spillway
malfunction is equivalent to that displayed on Table A10-4. Attention is drawn to the
possible connection between the flood level and the possibilities of spillway failure.
There can be several audits with several levels of spillway malfunction or obstruction.
This approach is in principle that recommended when such an analysis seems possible, most
particularly for dams for which a safety report including risk analysis (Classes A and B) is
required by regulations. Notwithstanding, greatest care should be directed to justifying the
parameters used for such a study (possible failure rate, in connection with maintenance
procedures, testing, etc., connection between this rate and the flood level, etc.).
No specific study of spillway reliability

A check is performed to ensure that the reservoir level does not exceed the danger level with
a flood having an exceptional-flood return period but with the spillway deprived of the
opening with the highest throughput capacity and subject to checking that the same non-
operational status doesn`t affects several spillways simultaneously.
For gated spillways, it is necessary to consider the possibility of complete blockage of all the
gates in their closed position, a situation that could generate higher, incremental risks.

11. GERMANY
Laws, regulations, guidelines

Recommendations and guidelines concerning floods and dam safety are specified in the
German Technical Standard (Deutsche Norm) DIN 19700. There are two parts which are
relevant for dam safety regulations:
DIN 19700 - part 10 contains general definitions about water-retaining structures
DIN 19700 - part 11 is focused on dams
Classification of dams
According to the German Technical Standard dams are classified in two classes
Class 1 Large dams : damming structure higher than 15 m or reservoir’s storage capacity is
greater than 1 hm3;
Class 2 Middle/small dams that do not conform with class 1 dam conditions.
Design Floods
According to the German Technical Standard three design floods are specified:
- Design flood 1 (BHQ1) is used for spillway design and safety against spillway
overloading. In case of this flood event no disturbance of structural safety, service
ability or durability are allowed. The flood peak discharge of BHQ1 has an exceeding
probability of 10-3 (return period: T = 1 000 years) for dams of class 1 and 2x10-3 (T =
500 years) for dams of the second category.
- Design flood 2 (BHQ2) is used to ensure that no disturbance of structural safety exists
caused by extreme floods. Here damages of structural parts, operating or measuring
equipments are accepted. The discharge of BHQ2 has an exceeding probability of 10-4
(return period: T = 10 000 years) for class 1 (class 2: exceeding probability of 2x10-4 (T
= 5 000 years).
- Design flood 3 (BHQ3) is applied to design the regular flood storage capacity (see figure
1). It characterizes the flood protection ensured by the dam. It has to be selected
according to downstream protection requirements downstream.
It is possible but not mandatory to consider flood routing within reservoirs. For design
problems without flood routing, the flood peaks are sufficient to specify the design floods.
The Technical Standard recommends to consider flood hydrographs, whose shapes and
volumes result in maximizing the reservoir’s storage content during floods, even if the peak
stays below the thresholds mentioned above.
To consider residual risks the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) can be used.
The initial and boundary conditions of flood design are specified in Table A11-1. Figure
A11-1 shows the storage segments and the thresholds of water levels which are used to
specify them.

Table A11-1 - Germany - Initial and boundary conditions for flood design reservoirs
Impact start /
Design flood 1 and 3 Design flood 2
Boundary conditions
Design flood discharge BHQ1 and 3 BHQ2
Effect of retention To be considered, in general, in calculations
Water level at beginning Water level in general equal to design water level
of flood event (Zs, see figure 1); seasonal differences of design water levels
have to be taken into account
Freeboard Compliance of freeboard f1 Compliance of freeboard f2
ahead of the flood storage ahead of the flood storage
level 1 (ZH1) level 2 (ZH2)
Pre-release (before Allowed by bottom-outlets if Allowed by bottom-outlets and
reaching top of joint use (n-1)-rule is adhered and through flood spillways
capacity ZV, see figure 1) through flood spillway under operating-outlets can be
usually after starting to fill compliance with (n-1) and considered
the exclusive flood control (n-a) rule If pre-release is taken into
If pre-release is taken into account, it has to be verify that
account, it has to be verify the resulting discharge remains
that the resulting discharge below the maximum allowed
remains below the maximum downstream discharge
allowed downstream
discharge
Simultaneous release Allowed by bottom-outlets if Allowed by bottom-outlets and
(after reaching top of joint (n-1)-rule is adhered and through flood-spillways
use capacity ZV) through flood-spillway under operating-outlets can be
compliance with (n-1)- and considered
(n-a)-rule
Flood alleviation Flood spillway operative Flood spillway operative
multi-gate spillways which (without constraints)
are under water level
constantly have to be
considered with compliance
to the (n-1)- and (n-a)-rule
Emergency alleviation No emergency alleviation Allowed (under specific
allowed conditions and if existent)
Resulting water level Flood storage level 1 (ZH1) Flood storage level 2 (ZH2)

ZK 4
IF2 ZH2 f2
IF1 f1
ZH1
IAHR2 7
IAHR1
ZV
ZS IGHR
6
5 1
IBR
2
ZA
ZT IR 3
IT
Figure A11-1 Germany - Storage rooms and water levels
Legend
1 damming structure ZV top of joint use capacity
2 operating-outlet ZS design water level
3 bottom-outlet ZA drawdown elevation
4 crest elevation ZT deepest drawdown elevation
5 flood storage capacity 1 (BHQ1) IF2 head space BHQ2
6 flood storage capacity 2 (BHQ2) IF1 head space BHQ1
7 spillway crest IAHR2 surcharge flood storage 2 (BHQ2)
f1 freeboard 1 (BHQ1) IAHR1 surcharge flood storage 1 (BHQ1)
f2 freeboard 2 (BHQ2) IGHR flood absorption storage
ZK crest water level IBR operating storage
ZH2 flood storage level 2 IR reserve storage
ZH1 flood storage level 1 IT dead storage

24
12. INDIA
According to the “Guidelines for fixing Spillway Capacity” (IS: 11223:1985), the
hydrologic design criteria for fixing the spillway capacity, depends of the classification of
the dams based on gross storage behind the dam and the hydraulic head at the minimum tail
water level. The classification of the dams and the inflow design flood depends of the most
critical of these two parameters:
Table A12-1 India - Dam classification and IDF

Gross Storage Hydraulic head IDF
Classification
(hm³) (m)
Small 10 > S > 0.5 12 > H > 7.5 100
Intermediate 60 > S > 10 30 > H > 12 SPF(*)
Large S > 60 H > 30 PMF
(*) SPF : Standard Project Flood

Floods of larger or smaller magnitudes may be used if the hazards involved is high or low.
The relevant parameters to be considered in judging the hazard in addition to the size would
be:
(i) distance to and location of the human habitations on the downstream after considering
the likely future developments
(ii) maximum hydraulic capacity of the downstream channel at the level at which
catastrophic damage is not expected.
For more important projects dam break studies may be done as an aid to the judgment in
deciding whether PMF needs to be used. Where the studies or judgment indicate an
imminent danger to present or future human settlements, the PMF should be used. Any
departure from the general criteria as above on account of larger or smaller hazards should
be clearly brought out and recorded.
As defined in “Guidelines for fixing Spillway Capacity”, the SPF is the flood that may be
expected from the most severe combination of hydrological and meteorological factors that
are considered reasonably characteristics of the region and is computed by using the
Standard Project Storm (SPS), While transposition of storms from outside the basin is
permissible, very rare storms which are « not characteristics » of the region concerned are
excluded in arriving at the SPS rainfall for the basin.
In general, the SPS rainfall is equal to about 40 to 60 percent of the probable maximum
precipitation (PMP)25, which means that the SPF should correspond to a probability of about
1:1000-yr to 1:10 000-yr.
24
Mathur, SH N.K., & Singh B., HYDROLOGIC SAFETY OF DAMS IN INDIA, India Water
Week 2012 – Water, Energy and Food Security : Call for Solutions, 10-14 April 2012, New Delhi
25
Central Water & Power Commission – Ministry of Irrigation & Power – Government of
India, Estimation of Design Flood – Recommended procedures.

13. IRELAND
In Ireland, there is no legislation or national standards in relation to design floods for dams.
Owners of dams in Ireland have applied different design flood standards to their dams. The
Electricity Supply Board (ESB), a state utility, owns and operates most of the large dams in
Ireland. The following describes the standard that has been applied to Electricity Supply
Board’s dams.
During floods the top priority is the proper management of the flood to avoid any risk to
dam safety. ESB has categorized its dams in a similar manner to the Institution of Civil
Engineers (UK) guide; “Floods and Reservoir Safety”. Dams are categorised based on the
consequences of a breach.
Two categories are considered. The first one, “Category A”, includes dams where a breach
could endanger lives in a community. The following are the design flood standards used for
Category A dams:
 Ability to pass the 10 000 year flood without overtopping the dam crest when all
spillway gates are in operation and
 Ability to pass the 1 000 year flood with one spillway gate unavailable and with a
freeboard allowance for wave run-up
For lower categories, i.e. for negligible risk to human life in the case of a dam breach, the
following design flood standard is used:
 Ability to pass the 1 000 year flood with one spillway gate unavailable and with a
freeboard allowance for wave run-up
The above standards and their associated design flood levels are also applied to any
embankments, including headrace canals, associated with each dam.
Where necessary to safely pass the design floods, reservoir or spillway capacities were
increased. In addition, downstream channel protection and improvement works were carried
out as required to ensure the safe passage of extreme floods.

26
14. ITALY
The spillways of the dam have to be dimensioned for the wave with peak flood discharge
corresponding to the return period of 1 000 years for concrete dams and 3 000 years for the
embankment dams, taking into account the regulation effect developed by the reservoir.
The flood discharge will have to be evaluated with probabilistic methods founded on the
complete rainfall and hydrometric information, deducible by the historical series and their
updates, for the watershed subtended by the dam section.
In absence or lack of information, it will be possible to make reference to data of adjacent
watersheds with homogeneous hydrological characteristics, using appropriate and justified
calculation methodologies.
The verifications have to include also the estimate of the flood discharge with return period
of 50, 100, 200 and 500 years.
The spillways of the dam have to be dimensioned so that the net freeboard respects the rules
presented on Table A14-1.
Table A14-1 - Italy - Freeboard vs. dam characteristics
Type of dam Concrete Embankment

Height of dam (m) Any height 15 90 or more
Net Freeboard (m) 1,0 1,5 3,5
For the intermediate values of the height of the dam, the net freeboard is determined by
interpolation.
For every dam, the return period of the flood event corresponding to a net freeboard of 0 m
has to be estimated.
For concrete dams, the spillway can consist of free sills or gated sills. For embankment
dams, the spillway has to consist of free sills or partially gated sills; in the second case, the
free sills will have to be dimensioned to discharge, at the maximum water level, at least 50%
of the design flow, taking into account the regulation effect developed by the reservoir.
In case of gated sills, the hypothesis of non-operation will have to be considered for at least
50 % of the gates, in case of embankment dams, and of at least 20 % of the gates, in case of
concrete dams, verifying that in such condition the net freeboard comes down, at worst, to
one third of the above mentioned values. The calculation can consider the contribution of the
discharge which flows over the closed gates, if these can be overtopped.
26
Email from E. Baldovin, 2013-04-08

27
15. JAPAN
In Japan, the inflow design floods for dams higher than 15 m are stipulated in the Structural
Standards for River Protective Facilities (Cabinet Order), which was drawn up on the basis
of River Law.
For a concrete dam, the inflow design floods must be taken as the largest value among the
following three cases:
 The 200-year flood at the dam site;
 The maximum flood discharge observed at the dam site, and
 The maximum flood discharge that can be expected at the dam site based on the
maximum experienced flood discharge in the basins with similar hydrological
conditions or climate. The discharge is estimated based on the Creager equation as
shown in Figure A15-1.
For an embankment dam, the design flood will be 1.2 times the discharge values for a
concrete dam. The return period of the design flood for an embankment dam is not estimated
but it is believed that it will be around 1:1000 years. Figure A15-1 presents the specific
discharge to be considered for each area of Japan and Figure A15-2 illustrates the location of
each area.
The minimum freeboard of the dam is estimated taking into account the type of dam, the
wave height caused by wind and/or earthquake and an allowance for gate operation. Table
A15-1 presents the approach considered to estimate the freeboard of dams in Japan.
Table A15-1 Japan - Estimation of freeboard (Hf)
Reservoir water level Concrete gravity dam Embankment dam

Arch dam
Normal high water H f  hw  he  ha H f  hw  he  ha  1
level
Hf  2 Hf 3
Surcharge water level H f  hw  he / 2  ha H f  hw  he / 2  ha  1
Hf  2 Hf 3
Design flood water H f  hw  ha H f  hw  ha
level
H f 1 Hf  2
Hf Freeboard (m)
hw Wave height due to wind (m)
he Wave height due to earthquake (m)
ha Allowance for gate operation (m)
(with gate: 0.5m, without gate: 0m)
27
Mathur, SH N.K., & Singh B., HYDROLOGIC SAFETY OF DAMS IN INDIA, India Water
Week 2012 – Water, Energy and Food Security : Call for Solutions, 10-14 April 2012, New Delhi

q  C  A A 
 0 . 05
Area No. 1
Where,
q : Spesific discharge (m3 /sec/km2)
A : Catchment area (km2)
C : Coefficient for each area
Specific discharge, q (m /sec/km )

2
3
Coefficient for each area

No. Area C
1 Hokaido 17
2 Tohoku 34
3 Kanto 48
4 Hokuriku 43
5 Chubu 44
6 Kinki 41
7 South Kii 80
8 Sanin 44
9 Setouchi 37
10 South Shikoku 84
11 Kyushu, Okinawa 56
Catchment area, A (km2)
Figure A15-1 Japan - Specific flood discharge vs area
Boundary of areas
1 Hokkaido
2 Tohoku
4 Hokuriku
2
Boundary of areas
8 Sanin
3 Kanto
11
9
6
5 Chubu
10 7 South Kii
South Shikoku
6 Kinki
9 Setiuchi
11 Kyushu, Okinawa
Figure A15-2 Japan - Divisions for specific flood discharge
Reference
(1) Description of the law of Ministry of Construction Ordinance for Structural Standard
for River Administration Facilities, 2007

28
16. NEW ZEALAND
The New Zealand guidelines are intended for dams where the potential impacts of failure
include loss of life and damages beyond the owners property. Dams which would be
classified in the very low category are generally outside the scope of these Guidelines. The
dam classification is based on the potential incremental consequence of a dam failure, i.e on
the number of fatalities and the socio-economic, financial and environmental impact.
The dam height and reservoir volume parameters while useful for an initial screening of
potential impact classification should not control the potential impact classification where
the consequences of a dam failure are not consistent with such an initial screening. For
example, a 10 - 15 metre high dam whose failure can lead to fatalities should be classified
with a high potential impact. Similarly, a 25 metre high dam whose failure would not cause
fatalities and where damages are moderate can be classified as Low Potential Impact.
Table A16-1 New Zealand - Potential impact categories for dams

in terms of failure consequences
Very Low Potential Impact dams are likely to be those that are exempt under the Building
Act, being those dams that retain not more than 3 metres depth, and not more than 20 000
cubic metres volume of water. The dam height would generally be less than 4 metres.
Low Potential Impact dams are likely to have dam heights less than 10 metres, and less than
6 metres if the storage exceeds 50 000 cubic metres. For this category of dams the minimum
IDF is usually between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1 000 AEP.
Medium Potential Impact dams are likely to have dam heights in the 10 - 20 metre range,
but not exceeding 15 metres if the stored volume of water exceeds 1 000 000 cubic metres.
For medium potential impact dams the minimum IDF is usually between a 1 in 1 000 and 1
in 10 000 AEP.
If the dam height and storage exceeds those for other categories then a high potential impact
classification is probable. For this category of dams, the minimum IDF is usually between 1
in 10 000 AEP and the PMF. The PMF is usually selected if a large number of fatalities
would result from failure of the dam. If collapse of the dam has little incremental damage
potential the design flood may be reduced.
28
The New Zealand Society on Large Dams, New Zealand Dam Safety Guidelines, 2000

17. NORWAY 29
The Norwegian Dam Safety Regulation considered five classes of dams based on the
possible consequences after a dam failure. Based on this classification, a design flood and a
safety check flood is defined. The approach for the PMF is to use hydrological modeling
based on pessimistic assumptions of extreme precipitation, heavy snowmelt and saturated
soils to generate the PMF. Table A17-1 presents a summary of the dam classification and
the corresponding design flood and safety check flood.
Table A17-1 Norway – Dam classification criteria and design flood
Safety check
Dam class Classification criteria Design flood
flood
H < 2m;
0 V < 10 000 m3 1:200-yr NA
minimal consequence
Low consequence (no PMF or
1 1:500-yr
permanent dwelling) 1,5x1:500-yr
PMF or
Medium consequence
2 1:1 000-yr 1,5x1:1 000-
(1 to 20 dwellings)
yr
High consequence
3 1:1 000-yr PMF
(21 to 150 dwellings)
Very high consequence
4 (more than 150 1:1 000-yr PMF
dwellings)
The application of the design flood and the safety check flood depends of the type of dams.
For concrete dams :
 Class 0 to 4 no overtopping is allowed for the design flood;
 Class 1 to 4  overtopping is allowed for the safety check flood, subject to verification
of the resistance to erosion of the foundation
For embankment dams with central core :
 Class 0  no overtopping is allowed for the design flood;
 Class 1 to 3  the freeboard must be at least equal to the water level during the design
flood, plus the wave height and a safety margin of 0.5 m. For the safety flood, the core
level could be slightly exceeded as well as the crest of the dam if the downstream face
can resist to erosion;
 Class 4  same criteria than the previous case, but minimal difference of 6 m between
the maximal normal operating level and the crest of the dam
29
Norwegian Dam Safety Regulation, Water Ressources Act, Jan 2010

Spillway availability
For gated spillway, the previous criteria defined for the safety flood are applied to the design
flood with the following operating constraints:
• One gate non operational for a system with one to three gates;
• Two gates non operational for a system with four to six gates;
• Three gates non operational for a system with seven gates or more; ;
Clogging of the spillway by floating debris shall be considered in the evaluation if the
watershed is heavily forested. Under these conditions, a reduction of 25% of the discharge
capacity of the spillway is used for the design flood.

30
18. PANAMA
In Panama, the dam classification is based on risk evaluation of the incremental losses due
to a of dam failure (LOL, economic losses and environmental losses). Three categories are
considered :
High Potential Risk: These dams are classified as category "A" and are those where failure
or misoperation will most probably cause loss of human life and/or major economic or
environmental damages.
Significant potential risk: These dams are classified as category "B" and are those where
failure or misoperation results in an unlikely loss of life, but can cause economic loss,
localized damage to the environment, interrupt and communications facilities. These dams
may be located in rural areas but with population and associated infrastructure.
These Low hazard potential: dams are classified as category "C" and are those where
failure or misoperation results in an unlikely loss of human life and low economic and
environmental losses. Significant losses are limited to structural closure.
Table A18-1 shows a summary of these criteria and the corresponding design flood:
Table A18-1 - Panama – Dams Category and Design Flood
Category A B C
Risk High Significant Low
Certain (in one or Uncertain (rural Not expected (due to
more residential, location with few the rural location
Direct loss of lives commercial or homes and only without housing)
industrial) transient or industrial
development)
Interruption of Interruption of Any break in
Loss of essential essential facilities essential facilities service, repairs of
services and roads to critical and roads damage is simple or
levels quickly repairable
Extensive on public Greater public Private agricultural
Loss properties and private facilities involvement and land, equipment and
private facilities buildings isolated
High cost of Important mitigation Damage minimal
Environmental mitigation or is required incremental
losses impossible to
mitigate
Qd = %PMF or Qd = % CMP or Qd = Q100
Design flood Q1 000 to Q5 000 Q 500 to Q1 000 or
ERA
30
Autoridad nacional de los servicios Publicos - Republica de Panama. NORMAS PARA LA
SEGURIDAD DE PRESAS, Septiembre de 2010

Where Qd Design Flood

PMF Probable Maximum Flood
Q1 000 Flood with period of recurrence of 1 000-yr
ERA Economic Risk Analysis
The percentage of the PMF which is usually used as design flow can vary between 75% and
100% for dams of category A and from 50% to the 100% for Category B. This percentage is
determined by the designer depending on conditions at the project site and the surrounding
environment.

31 32
19. POLAND
In Poland, dams and dikes are classified into one of four classes of hydraulic structures. A
structure belongs to the class which has the lowest indicator pointed by any of the nine
indicators. The five most important indicators are related to public safety and are presented
hereafter on Table A19-1.
Table A19-1 - Poland - Simplified classification dams and dikes
Name, Value of Value of Value of Value of

profile or Description of indicator indicator indicator indicator
function of indicator for class for class for class for class
structure I II III IV
Type of 15< H 5< H ≤15 2< H ≤5
H>30 m
foundation: ≤30 m m m
Maximum water level
a) bed-rock
H [m] 10< H 5< H ≤10 2< H ≤5
b) not bed- H>20 m
≤20 m m m
rock
Capacity of reservoir 20< V 5< V ≤20 0,2< H ≤
V>50 hm3
Structures V [hm3] ≤50 hm3 hm3 5 hm3
whose failure Submersion area caused
can cause by the wave for Normal 10< F ≤50 1< F ≤10
emptying of F>50 m2 F ≤ 1 km2
Water Level km2 km2
reservoir and F [km2]
flood wave Number of people in 80< F
L > 300 10< L ≤80 L ≤ 10
submersion area ≤300
persons persons persons
L [amount of persons] persons
Structures for
150< H 10< H
flood Protected area F [km2] F>20 km2 F ≤10 km2
≤300 km2 ≤150 km2
protection
The design standards are set by law as a base flood (design flood) which is used to set the
spillway capacity for normal operation without damage and a control flood (safety flood)
which must be passed without failure but some damage may be experienced. Table A19-2
presents the base flood and the control flood for which of the four dam classes depending if
the dam will be destroyed in case of overtopping
31
Radzicki, K., Szczesny, J., Tourment, R., Comparison of laws, procedures, organizations and
technical rules for dams and dikes safety in Poland and France, Selected problems of water
engineering, Politecknika Krakowska Cemagref: results of cooperation, Krakow, POL, 9-11
October 2003
32
Central Water Commission – Ministry of Water Resources – Govt. of India, Development of
Hydrological Design Aids (Surface Water) under Hydrology Project – II – State of the Art
Report, July 2010, 362 pages

Table A19-2 - Poland – Flood return period vs. type of hydraulic structure
Flood return period in years,

Type of hydraulic structure Flood for different structures class
I II III IV
Dams which will be destroyed Base flood Qm 1 000 333 200 100
if overflowing (for example
earth dam) but not dike Control flood Qk 5 000 2 000 500 200
a) Dam that will not be
Base flood Qm 200 100 50 33
destroyed in case of
overflowing
b) Dike Control flood Qk 1 000 333 200 100

33 34
20. PORTUGAL
The Portuguese Dam Safety Regulation (PDSR) applies to large dams (H ≥ 15 m following
the ICOLD definition) and to smaller dams with reservoir capacity larger than 100 000 m3
independently of the height of the dam 35. A revised version published in October, 2007
replaced the previous regulation published in 1990.
According to the PDSR, the dams hazard classification considered three classes of dams :
 Class I(high hazard) -dams whose failure will affect 25 or more residents.
 Class II(significant hazard) -dams whose failure will affect at least one resident or
existence of significant infrastructures, environmental patrimony difficult to recover
destruction caused by dam-break wave or storage installations for hazardous substances.
 Class III(low hazard) -dams whose failure will not affect any human live nor significant
infrastructures, environmental patrimony difficult to recover destruction caused by dam-
break wave or storage installations for hazardous substances.
The national regulation considers downstream risk as the basis for the selection of the design
flood as well as the dam type and size as shown on Table A20-1. The return period for the
design flood varies between 1:500 and 1:10 000-yr. A comparison with the PMF value is
also recommended when the return period exceeds the 1 000-yr flood.
Hydrologic studies shall be completed with the evaluation of the inundated areas and the
downstream flow propagation based on dam-break scenarios.. For the two major risk level
dams (A and B), a dam-break flood downstream wave propagation study shall be done.
Table A20-1 Portugal - Flood return period based on dam classification
Dam type Potential risk

Concrete Embankment High Significant
H (m) H (m) T (years) T (years)
H ≥ 100 H ≥ 50 10 000 to 5 000 5 000 to 1 000
50 ≤ H < 100 15 ≤ H < 50 5 000 to 1 000 1 000
15 ≤ H < 50 15 < H 1 000 1 000
15 < H 1 000 500
The potential risk definition grades used on those regulations are similar, based on loss of
life and downstream material damages.
The regulation states that the spillway flood design shall attend to flood attenuation due to
the reservoir and the ones upstream. It also states that the spillway capacity shall be
sufficient to discharge the flood, without any other auxiliary discharge appurtenances.
33
Pinheiro A. N., Portuguese Dam Safety Legislation - Existing framework and practical aspects of
its implementation, Workshop on Regulatory Framework on Dam Safety, June, 2011
34
Maia, R. & Ribeiro, A.A., Dam safety criteria on international rivers: Portugal and Spain case,
Dam Safety, Berga (ed.) © 1998 Ba/kerna, Rotterdam, /SBN 90 5410 9742
35
The dam projects that are not covered by the Portuguese regulation shall refer to a specific
regulation on small dams.

36
21. ROMANIA
In Romania the standard STAS 4068/2 – 87 establishes the maximum flows whose
evacuation must be carried out in normal operation conditions (design flows) and in special
operation conditions (check – up flows) that take into account the classification of hydraulic
structures in classes of importance (standard STAS 4273 – 83).
The class of importance of a dam is established depending on dam height, stored volume
and the output for which it is used (economic measurement unit expressed as installed power
in case of dams for hydroelectricity and flows for water supply, irrigated area etc., in case of
dams for other uses) working duration and degree of importance within the hydro-technical
scheme
Table A21-1 shows the characterization of constructions and hydraulic structures, the
corresponding annual probabilities of exceeding the maximum flows and their IDF
equivalent.
Table A21-1 Romania - IDF selection criteria
Annual IDF
Class of Characterization of constructions and
probability of equivalent
importance hydraulic structures
exceeding (%) (yr)
Hydraulic structures of exceptional
importance whose damaging has
I 0.01 10 000
catastrophic consequences or where the
interruptions in working are unacceptable
Hydraulic structures of special importance
whose damaging has serious effects or
II 0.1 1 000
whose functioning can be only interrupted
exceptionally, for a short time
Hydraulic structures of medium
III importance whose damaging endangers 0.5 200
social – economic objectives
Hydraulic structures whose damaging has
IV little influence on other social – economic 1* 100
objectives
* Based on a technical and economic justification approved at the same time with the
project, the check–up at special conditions of operation can be dropped
Romanian standards take also into account the dam height and the degree of inhabitance and
economic development, but neglect the vulnerability and the accepted risk
For a number of years there is a discussion among specialists for the updating of the
standards but it was not yet finalized and implemented. So the design activity continues to
use the standards in force but will adopt the new regulations as soon as the legislation will
be updated.
36
Communication from O. Gabor

37
22. RUSSIA
In Russia, the Building Code 33-01-2003 "Hydraulic Structures. Basic Provisions" defined
the design flood for four classes of dams. The dam classification is based on the main
characteristics of the reservoir and structures, such as the reservoir volume and utilization,
the dam of dam and the type of foundation, ..., as well as their utilization. Tables A22-1 and
A22-2 are used for the classification of the dams
Table A22-1 Russia - Dam categories based on dam characteristics
Height of dam (m)

Type of
Type of dam foundation Class of dam
(1)
1 2 3 4
A >80 50 to 80 20 to 50 < 20
Embankment dams B >65 35 to 65 15 to 35 < 15
C >50 25 to 50 15 to 25 < 15
Plain concrete, reinforced
concrete dams, substructures of A >100 60 to 100 25 to 60 <25
powerhouses, navigation locks, B >50 25 to 50 10 to 25 <10
ship elevators and other water C >25 20 to 25 10 to 20 <10
retaining structures
A >40 25 to 40 15 to 25 < 15
Retaining walls B >30 20 to 30 12 to 20 < 12
C >25 18 to 25 10 to 18 < 10
Protective Structures for liquid
waste storage, ash storages, A, B,C >50 20 to 50 10 to 20 < 10
tailing storages and so on.
(1) Type A  Rock

Type B  Sand, coarse fragmental rock and solid and semisolid clay
Type C  Water saturated clay
Table A22-2 Russia - Dam categories based on hydraulic structures characteristics
Class of structures
Hydraulic structures and their
parameters
1 2 3 4
Impoundments with storage volume of 200 to 50 to
>1000 <50
(106 m3) 1000 200
Hydraulic structures for conventional 300 to 10 to
>1000 <10
HPPs, pumped storage plants, tidal 1000 300
37
Asarin. A.E. Estimation of the design flood in the design of Russian Dams, Hydropower & Dams,
Issue Three, 2007

barrages and thermal power plants
with installed capacity of (MW)
Hydraulic structures at nuclear power
X
plants independent of their capacity
Hydraulic structures and navigation
canals at domestic water ways
(excluding river ports):
Extra main X X
Main and local
Hydraulic structures at irrigation sys-
100 to 50 to
tems with irrigated and drained areas >300 <50
300 100
controlled by these structures (103 ha)
Multipurpose water management
100 to 20 to
canals and appurtenant structures with 003E200 <20
200 100
total water delivery of (106 m3')
If a dam failure could cause human casualties, the category of the hydraulic structure is
classified as "first class". Dams where a failure could cause damage to more than 3000
people living permanently downstream are also classified as 'first class' structures.
Table A22-3 - Russia – Annual probability of flood exceedance
Design Annual probability of flood exceedance (%)

conditions Structures risk category
1 2 3 4
Design flood 0.1% 1.0% 3.0% 5.0%
Safety check 0.01% with a
flood guarantee 0.1% 1.0%
correction
The most important factor affecting the quality of the engineering decisions taken for the
design of a spillway is the accuracy of hydrological data, which depends on the duration of
the available hydrological records. In Russian design practice, to consider this factor in
developing the maximum inflow to a high risk structure, the guarantee correction is
introduced to the maximum flow of exceedance probability of 1:10 000-yr. The shorter the
hydrological record series is, the larger this correction will be.
For dams in cascade, the design flow for the proposed dam projects should be specified
taking into account its structural category but should not be lower than values equal to the
sum of the discharge capacities of the upstream dam and the maximum lateral inflows at the
river stretch.

38 39
23. SOUTH AFRICA
Dam classification
In South Africa, dams at least five meters high are classified depending of their height and
their potential risk. The size classification of the dams, as defined in the SANCOLD
guidelines, is presented in Table A23-1 :
Table A23-1 South Africa - Dam size classification

Size Class Maximum wall height (m)
Small 5 ≤ H < 12 m
Medium 12 ≤ H < 30 m
High H ≥ 30 m
The hazard classification of a dam is based on the potential loss of life and the economical
damages following the dam failure as shown in the following table :
Table A23-2 South Africa - Dam hazard potential rating

Hazard Potential loss
Potential economical loss
potential of life
Low None Minimal (< R2 million)
Not more than
Significant Significant (< R20 million)
10
High More than 10 Severe (> R20 million)
Based on these two types of classification, the dam the category of each dam is determined
according to Table A23-3.
Table A23-3 South Africa - Determination of the dam category

Hazard potential rating
Size Class
Low Significant High
Small Category I Category II Category II
Medium Category II Category II Category III
High Category III Category III Category III
Design Flood
In South Africa, envelope curves are used for the determination of design floods. Maximum
flood peaks observed in a hydrologically homogeneous region are plotted against catchment
38
39
Cullis, J. Gorgens A. Lyons S. Review of the Selection of Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams in
South Africa in the Context of Dam Safety, WRC Report no 1420/1/07

area and an envelope curve is drawn. The curve is considered as the upper limit of expected
flood peaks for the considered region. The corresponding flood peak, called Regional
Maximum Flood, RMF, is used when evaluating the safety of a dam.
Two design floods are used in South Africa, the Recommended Design Discharge (RDD)
and the Safety Evaluation Discharge (SED). The RDD is the peak discharge which provides
the preliminary basis to check the design of the spillway system for a new or an existing
dam. The spillway must accommodate the RDD without damage. The RDD for different
categories of dams are presented in Table A23-4:
Table A23-4 South Africa - Return period for the RDD
Size Hazard potential

class Low Significant High
Small 20 - 50 100 100
Medium 100 100 200
High 200 200 200
The SED is the peak discharge which is used to evaluate the adequacy of the spillway
system of a new or existing dam under extreme flood conditions. Substantial damages may
result from the occurrence of the SED, but the design must be such that the dam will not fail.
The SED is defined in terms of the RMF, which is calculated according DWA Technical
Report 137 (Kovacs, 1988). The SED for different categories of dams is determined by
scaling the RMF one step up or down depending of the K-value region in which the dam site
is located.
Table A23-5 South Africa - Return period for the SED

Hazard potential
Size Class
Low Significant High
Small RMF-∆ RMF-∆ RMF
Medium RMF-∆ RMF RMF+∆
High RMF RMF+∆ RMF+∆
The recurrence for the RMF related floods depends of the probability distribution used.
Table A23-6 shows an estimate of the recurrence.
Table A23-6 South Africa - Estimated recurrence intervals (RI) for the RMF related floods
Probability Median RI Lower 95%
Design flood
distribution (years) RI (years)
RMF 6 000 100
Log-Pearson
RMF+∆ 18 800 200
type III
RMF-∆ 1 200 50
RMF 3 000 200
GEVpwrn RMF+∆ 6 000 400
RMF-∆ 900 50

40 41
24. SPAIN
In Spain the dams are classified according to size, potential hazard and type of dam. Two
different floods are used, the design Flood and the extreme Flood or safety check Flood. For
dams in the highest hazard class the 1000-year flood is used as design flood. The extreme
Flood for dams in the highest hazard class varies between the 5 000 and 10 000 year flood,
where the higher values should be used for embankment dams.
Table A24-1 presents the dam classification criteria in Spain (Maia & Ribeiro) and Table
A24-2 the IDF corresponding to each category.
Table A24-1 Spain - Dam classification criteria
Essential Material Environmental

Dam category Population
services damages damages
Serious effects
A (high hazard Serious effect
on essential Very serious Very serious
potential) on towns
services
B (significant
Would affect a
hazard - Serious Serious
few of dwellings
potential)
Circumstantial
C (low hazard
loss of human - Moderate -
potential)
life
Table A24-2 Spain - Dam classification criteria
Dam Design Safety check

category flood flood *
A 1 000-yr 5 000 to 10 000-yr
B 500-yr 1 000 to 5 000-yr
C 100-yr 100 to 500-yr
* The highest value is recommended for embankment dams
40
41
Maia, R. & Ribeiro, A.A., Dam safety criteria on international rivers: Portugal and Spain case,
Dam Safety, Berga (ed.) © 1998 Ba/kerna, Rotterdam, /SBN 90 5410 9742

42
25. SWEDEN
In Sweden, the determination of design floods is based on statistical methods or on
simulations, using hydrological models. Both methods contain elements of uncertainty
which should be accounted for when the results are evaluated. The selection of a time period
providing the basis for the calculations is most important and should be taken into special
consideration.
When determining design floods for dams, a classification according to flood design
categories is applied. This classification is made according to which consequences a dam
failure could produce as a result of large floods (Table A25-1). The guidelines are not
applicable to dams that in case of a dam failure would not cause damage to anyone, except
the dam owner.
Table A25-1 Sweden - Flood design categories when determining design floods
Dam failure consequences

Flood design
(beside consequences of the flood as Discharge requirements
category
such, apart from a dam failure)
 Not negligible probability of risk of  The dam should, without
loss of human life or injury to person, serious damage to the dam, be
or able to withstand and pass a
 Noteworthy probability of serious design flood based on
damage to important traffic routes, hydrological modeling.
I
dams or comparable constructions, or  The dam should at normal
important environmental values, or retention water level be able to
 High probability of major economic pass an inflow flood with a
damage return period of at least 100
years.
 Not negligible probability of damage  The dam should at normal
to highways, dams or comparable retention water level be able to
constructions, environmental values pass an inflow flood with a
or property owned by someone other return period of at least 100
II years.
than the dam owner in cases not
stated in Design Flood Category I.  The dam should furthermore be
adapted to a flood determined
through a cost/benefit analysis.
III  Negligible likelihood of damages  Not considered in the guidelines
(*) The approach is to use hydrological modeling based on pessimistic assumptions of extreme
precipitation, heavy snowmelt and saturated soils. Comparisons with frequency analysis
indicate that floods calculated this way have return periods of more than 10 000 years, at an
average.
42
Swedenergy, Svenska Kraftnät and SveMin - Swedish Guidelines for Design Flood Determination for
Dams New edition 2015, ISBN 978-91-7622-198-3

Design flood calculation for dams in Flood Design Category I

Dams classified in Flood Design Category I should withstand and be able to pass a design
flood calculated according to the guidelines of this section without serious damage to the
dam. If nothing else is prescribed, it should also be able to pass an inflow flood with a return
period of 100 years at normal retention water level. This requirement has been added
primarily to diminish the risk of high water levels that could cause inundation damages
along the banks of the reservoir. This requirement may be conceded at existing dams to the
extent that, in view of the safety of the dam and the risk of damage to the dam, it is
considered enough that this flood could be passed at a water level surpassing the normal
retention level.
The described method is applicable to catchment areas down to the size of 1 sq. km. For the
smallest catchment areas there is however reason to study the effects of using a time
resolution higher than 24 hours in the calculations.
The method to determine the design flood for dams in Flood Design Category I is based on
hydrological model simulations describing the consequences of extreme precipitation under
particularly unfavourable conditions. The generation of the design flood is simulated using
established hydrological modelling techniques. In the calculations, extreme precipitation is
assumed to coincide with the effects of a snowy winter with late snowmelt, preceded by an
autumn with heavy precipitation. The calculations will simulate the critical flows and water
levels as the actually observed precipitation during various periods is exchanged for a design
precipitation sequence. Figure 1 describes the execution of the design calculations.
Figure A25-1 – Sweden - Approach to evaluate design flood for a dam

in the flood design category I

Design flood determination for dams in Flood Design Category II

Dams designed according to Flood Design Category II should be able to pass an incoming
flood with a return period of a minimum 100 years at normal retention water level. At
existing dams this requirement may be conceded to the extent that, considering the safety of
the dam and the risk of damage to the dam, it is considered adequate that this flood can be
passed at a water level surpassing the normal retention water level.
The calculation of the 100 year flood is based on time series of inflow data at the dam.
Extrapolation to the required return period of the flood is made with frequency analysis.
Furthermore, dams classified in Flood Design Category II should also be adapted to a flood
determined through cost-benefit analysis. In this, a flood greater than the 100 year flood
should preferably be chosen if this added cost does not considerably surpass the benefit, i.e.
the estimated value of avoiding the risk of a dam failure because of the design flood being
surpassed.
At existing reservoirs where a possible failure in any dam of the system would imply only
limited damages, those exceptions may be made from a strict application of the flood design
guidelines that are considered reasonable and proper when comparing reconstruction costs
and disturbances on one hand, and the risk of damages on the other.

43
26. SWITZERLAND
In Switzerland, the design flood (Qb(t)) is the 1:1 000-yr flood, The design flood should be
released without the capacity of the powerplant (if any) and the gate with the highest
capacity which is considered not operational (N-1 gates). The minimum freeboard of the
dam is defined based on the type of dam (concrete or embankment) and the height of the
dam; the minimum freeboard can vary from 0.50 m to 3.0 m as shown on Table A26-1.
Table A26-1 Switzerland – Minimum Freeboard
Dam height H < 10 m 10 m ≤ H < 40 m H ≥ 40 m

Concrete dam 0,50 m 1,00 m 1,00 m
1,00 m 2,00 m 3,00 m
Embankment dam
1,00 m 1,50 m 2,00 m
Safety flood
The safety flood safety corresponds to the discharge that the system must be able to manage
(to retain or to spill) in extreme conditions. During such event, the water level in the
reservoir must not exceed the danger (or critical) elevation of the dam. The danger elevation
corresponds to the water level for which the safety of the dam (or structure) could be
compromised due to a lack of stability or because of the possible damages).
In the case of homogeneous embankment dams, the danger elevation correspond to the crest
of the dam, in the case of the other embankment dams it is at the top of the impervious level
of the dam. For concrete dams, the danger elevation corresponds to the crest of the dam
The following criteria apply for the safety flood:
• The danger elevation must not be exceeded based on the hydrograph of the safety flood
Qs(t);
• Limited damages to the dam are acceptable, but any partial or total rupture of the dam is
excluded;
• For concrete dams, all hydraulic passages are considered operational during the flood,
but the powerplant (if any) is not operational.
• For embankment dams, the gate with the highest capacity is considered not operational
("n-1" rule) and the powerplant (if any) is also not operational.
• The water supply flows are taken into account in accordance with paragraph 3.1.
In Switzerland, the safety flood (Qs(t)) is corresponding to 1.5 times Qb(t) for existing dams
or 1.5 times the Qb(2/3t) for new dams. It is also acceptable to consider the PMF, which are
based on the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) already defined for any region in
Switzerland.
43
Confédération suisse - Département fédéral de l’environnement, des transports de l’énergie et de
la communication DETEC - Office fédéral de l’énergie OFEN - Section Barrages, Sécurité des
ouvrages d’accumulation – Documentation de base relative à la vérification de la sécurité en cas
de crue, juin 2008.

44
27. TURKEY
Proper dimensioning of spillways must take into account both the security and economic
point of view. Different design floods shall be selected for the embankment and concrete
dams. The basic principles that have to be followed are summarized in the following.
1- In the selection of the Project Design Flood, the type of dam shall always be taken into
account. For large dams, i.e. dam higher than 25 m :
a. For embankment dams, the dimensions of the spillways shall be determined by using
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) and by performing flood routing for all the
spillways, gated or ungated.
During the calculations of flood routing the entire freeboard shall be used, i.e. it is
accepted that the reservoir water level may rise up to the crest level of the dam.
At the first stage of the flood routing, the preliminarily determined freeboard will be
used. Afterwards, an optimization shall be performed between the spillway
dimensions and the dam height. The most economical spillway dimensions shall be
decided after the optimization.
In case the hydrological data does not cover a long enough period and, as a result one
is not confident enough in the flood calculations, the engineer, according to his
engineering judgment, may not use the entire freeboard during the flood routing and
may allow the reservoir water level to rise only until 1.0 m below the dam crest or,
alternatively, up to the crest level of the impervious core.
b. For concrete dams, the spillway capacity shall be equal to the peak discharge of the
1 000-year flood with the Full Supply Level. 10 000-year flood shall be used as the
Safety Check Flood with routing. During the occurrences of the 10 000-year flood
and Probable Maximum Flood the overtopping of concrete dams may be tolerated.
In some projects the engineer may choose a different flood as the Project Design
Flood, with the condition that he or she justifies his or her selection.
In Turkey IDF for concrete dams higher than 25 m is:
• 10 000-year flood with flood routing, or
• 1 000-year flood without flood routing, whichever is greater.
2- In small dams, the height of which is less than 25 m from thalweg, the Project Design
Flood shall be selected as follows:
a) For embankment dams, depending on the judgment of the engineer, 1 000-year flood
with routing.
b) For concrete dams, depending on the judgment of the engineer, 500-year or smaller
flood;
However, if the reservoir volume is larger than 10 million m3 or downstream risks are
important, depending on the judgment of the engineer, larger floods may be selected.
3- In the determination of the capacities of spillways, the attenuation of floods through the
reservoirs of the upstream dams (existing, under construction and projected in the short
term) shall be taken into account.
44
T. R. Ministry of Forestry and Water Resources, State Hydraulic Works, Ankara, Turkey, Official
Circular - 2005

45 46
28. UNITED KINGDOM
In the UK, all dams with normal impounded volume exceeding 25 000 m3 are regulated
under the 1975 Reservoirs Act. However, proposals to reduce this limit were considered in
2010-11 following incidents caused by intense rainfall on drainage areas controlled by small
dams.
The present dam classification is based on the consequences of a dam failure and the dam
are classified in four categories; for each of these categories a normal design flood and a
minimum design flood, if overtopping is permitted, are defined as shown in Table A28-1 :
Table A28-1 UK – Design floods
Minimum
Normal Initial Wind speed and
Categ Consequence of standard if
design reservoir minimum wave
ory a dam breach overtopping
standard condition surcharge
tolerable
Endangers lives Spilling Mean annual
in a community 10 000-yr long-term maximum wind speed
A PMF
(more than 10 flood average Minimum 0.6 m wave
persons) inflow surcharge
Endangers lives Full to
of individuals or 10 000- 1 000-yr spillway
B As Category A
Causes extensive yr flood flood crest (no
damage spill)
Full to Mean annual
Negligible risk to maximum wind speed
1 000-yr 150-yr spillway
C life and limited
flood flood crest (no Minimum 0.4 m wave
damage
spill) surcharge
No risk to life and Spilling Average annual
very limited 150-yr 150-yr long-term maximum wind speed
D
additional flood flood flood average Minimum 0.3 m wave
damage inflow surcharge
A gated spillway should have at least two gates and if one of them is out-of-order, the
remaining gate(s) shall release at least the 150-yr flood. If the dam is from Category A, the
gates must be automated.
45
Fridolf, T. Design flood for dams - analysis of the Swedish guidelines, Dams in a European Context,
Midttomme et al (eds), ©2001 Swets & Zeitiinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 196 1
46
Central Water Commission – Ministry of Water Resources – Govt. of India, Development of
Hydrological Design Aids (Surface Water) under Hydrology Project – II – State of the Art Report, July 2010,
362 pages

47 48 49
29. USA
Generalities
In the US, the different dam owners, including different US agencies, use different
guidelines for the determination of the design flood. Most of these approaches are based on
the probability of loss of life and the PMF (or a percentage of the PMF) is often considered
as the maximum value of the IDF. A review of some of these guidelines is presented
hereafter.
FEMA
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published in 2004 the federal
guidelines for dam safety. One of the four documents, Guidelines for Selecting and
Accommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, covers the selection of the Inflow Design
Floods (IDF) for dams. FEMA published an updated version of the federal guidelines on
inflow design flood for dams in 2013, in which it recommends alternative approaches for
selecting and accommodating IDF, recognizing that the wide variety of dams and
watersheds requires a variety of approaches to achieve a reasonable balance of public
protection, efficiency of evaluation, and efficiency of project operation.
According to FEMA, the goal of selecting the IDF should be to balance the risks of a
hydrologic failure of a dam with the potential downstream consequences and the benefits
derived from the dam.
Selection of an IDF can involve tradeoffs in trying to satisfy multiple objectives including:
1. Providing acceptable safety to the public.
2. Effectively applying the resources of the dam owner.
3. Maintaining the credibility of the regulator in representing the interest of the public.
4. Assessing the desire of the public for the benefits of a dam in exchange for the inherent
risks that come from living downstream of a dam.
The following alternative approaches to defining the IDF are recommended to accommodate
the wide variety of situations, available resources, and conditions which might be
encountered in practice:
Prescriptive Approach – In this initial phase, a planned dam is designed or an existing dam
is evaluated for a prescribed standard based on the hazard potential classification of the dam.
This approach is intended to be conservative to allow for efficiency of resource utilization
while providing reasonable assurance of the safety of the public. It is not intended to assure
that there is an economical marginal benefit from designing for a conservative IDF. Table
A29-1 summarises the IDF requirements for the three hazard potential classes.
47
FEMA. "Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety - Hazard Potential Classification System for
Dams ", Federal Emergency Management Agency. April 2004
48
FEMA. " Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety - Selecting and Accommodating Inflow
Design Floods for Dams", Federal Emergency Management Agency, August 2013
49
Central Water & Power Commission – Ministry of Irrigation & Power – Government of
India, Estimation of Design Flood – Recommended procedures.

Site-specific PMP Studies (Refinement of the Prescriptive Approach) – The prescriptive
approach relies upon determination of a PMF for high hazard dams which requires
assessment of the PMP. The most common sources of the PMP information are the regional
HMRs published by the NWS. These reports provide generalized rainfall values that are not
basin-specific and tend to represent the largest PMP values across broad regions. Most of
these reports have not been updated to reflect current state-of-the-art knowledge and
technology. A site specific study of the PMP/PMF using current techniques can result in a
more appropriate estimate of the PMF for consideration as the IDF.
Incremental Consequence Analysis – The volume of many reservoirs may be small in
comparison to the volume of the hydrologic events to which they may be subjected. In these
cases, the IDF can be established by identifying the flood for which the downstream
consequences with and without failure are not significantly different.
Risk-informed Decision Making – This method allows a dam owner or regulator to consider
the risk associated with hydrologic performance of dams relative to other dam safety risks at
the same dam, across a portfolio of dams, or in comparison to societal risks in general. In
this method, the IDF is selected as the design flood which assures that a given level of
“tolerable risk” is not exceeded. The strengths of this method include providing dam owners
and regulators the ability to assess the marginal value of increasing levels of flood
protection, balancing capital investment in risk reduction across a number of different failure
modes, and prioritizing risk reduction actions across a portfolio of dams.
Table A29-1 USA – IDF requirements for dams using a prescriptive approach
Hazard potential Definition of hazard potential

Inflow design flood
classification classification
Probable loss of life due to dam failure or
misoperation (economic loss, environmental
High damage, or disruption of lifeline facilities PMF1
may also be probable, but are not necessary
for this classification)
No probable loss of human life but can
0.1% annual chance
cause economic loss, environmental
Significant exceedance flood
damage, or disruption of lifeline facilities
(1,000-year Flood)2
due to dam failure or misoperation
1% annual chance
No probable loss of human life and low exceedance flood
Low economic and/or environmental losses due (100-year Flood) or a
to dam failure or misoperation smaller flood justified
by rationale
1
Incremental consequence analysis or risk-informed decision making may be used to evaluate the
potential for selecting an IDF lower than the prescribed standard. An IDF less than the 0.2% annual
chance exceedance flood (500-year flood) is not recommended.
2
Incremental consequence analysis or risk-informed decision making studies may be used to
evaluate the potential for selecting an IDF lower than the prescribed standard. An IDF less than the
1% annual chance exceedance flood (100-year flood) is not recommended.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The guidelines of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers use different safety standards,
depending on the consequences of a dam failure when determining the design flood. Dams
placing human life at risk shall be able to safely pass the PMF.
USACE issued Regulation No. 1110-2-1156, Safety of Dams – Policies and Procedures, on
31 March 2014, which states that USACE has moved from a solely standards-based
approach to a dam safety portfolio risk management approach. The regulation provides
guidelines for assessing tolerable risk.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
The US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) considers a risk assessment approach to determine
the design flood for a dam. The consequences and probability of dam failure is considered
and the design flood is determined by back-calculation.
The approach required a Hydrologic Hazard Curve (HHC) that is developed from a
Hydrologic Hazard Analysis (HHA). HHCs are peak flow and volume probability
relationships. These HHCs are presented as graphs and tables of peak flow and volume (for
specified durations) versus AEP. The range of AEPs that is displayed on these graphs is
intended to be sufficient to support the decision-making needs of the organization.
Presently, suites of frequency flood hydrographs ranging from 0.01 AEP (1/100-year return
period) to approximately 0.00001 AEP (1/100 000-year return period) are developed to help
size existing modifications to dams and their appurtenant structures, along with sizing new
dams and their appurtenant structures. Frequency flood hydrographs for AEPs less than this
range are developed as needed for specific PFMs or for particular hydrologic risk
evaluations. The maximum frequency flood peak and/or volume should not exceed the
current critical PMF peak and/or volume.
As mentioned in the latest version of Design Standards No. 14 of USBR50, “Reclamation’s
approach to portraying risks employs an f-N ”event” chart which is composed of individual
f-N pairs, where each pair typically represents one potential failure mode (PFM) - or in the
case of total risk, the summation of all PFMs. On the f-N chart, “f” represents the annualized
failure probability over all loading ranges. “N” represents the estimated life loss or number
of fatalities associated with an individual PFM, or the weighted equivalent number of
fatalities associated with the summation of the PFMs.
Refer to Chapter 30, “Public Risk Tolerance and Risk Guidelines,” of Reclamation’s Dam
Safety Risk Analysis Best Practices Training Manual for further information and examples
of f-N charts. Figure 1 for an illustration of Reclamation’s f-N chart.”
50
USDI – Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 14 - Appurtenant Structures for Dams
(Spillways and Outlet Works) - Chapter 2: Hydrologic Considerations - Draft: Phase 3 (Public
Review), December 2012.

Figure A29-1 USA – Reclamation dam safety – Risk guidelines Reclamation’s f-N chart
US Department of Agriculture
Earth Dams and Reservoirs, Natural Resources Conservation Services TR–60/ July 2005
NRCS Technical Release 60 (TR-60) specifies the minimum requirements for planning and
designing earth dams and associated spillways for USDA dams that are classified as Low
Hazard Class dams with a product of storage times the effective height of the dam of 3,000
acre-feet2 or more, those more than 35 feet (10.7 m) in effective height, and all Significant

and High Hazard Class dams. Dams less than 35 feet in height of hazard class that have a
product of storage times height of less than 3000 acre-feet2 are covered under NRCS
Practice Standard 378, which has less stringent hydrologic and hydraulic requirements.
It should be added that under specific circumstances, TR-60 permits the use of IDF
approaches provided in the FEMA guidelines (FEMA-94).
The minimum hydrologic criteria for the principal and auxiliary spillways in TR-60 are
listed in Tables A29-2 and A29-3, respectively.
Table A29-2 USA – Minimum principal spillway hydrologic criteria
1
Precipitation amounts by return period in years.
2
Applies to irrigation dams on ephemeral streams in areas where the annual rainfall is less the
25 inches (635 mm).
3
The minimum criteria are to be increased from P25 to P100 for a ramp spillway.
4
Low Hazard Class dams involving industrial or municipal water are to be designed with a
minimum criteria equivalent to that of Significant Hazard Class.
5
Applies when the upstream dam is located so that its failure could endanger the lower dam.

Table A29-3 Minimum auxiliary spillway hydrologic criteria
1
P100 = Precipitation for 100-year return period. PMP = Probable maximum precipitation
2
Dams involving industrial or municipal water are to use minimum criteria equivalent to that of
Significant Hazard Class.
3
Applies when the upstream dam is located so that its failure could endanger the lower dam
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

FERC’s guidelines for selecting and accommodating inflow design floods for dams are
provided in Chapter 2 of Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects
(August 2015). It provides technical guidance for the selection of the appropriate IDF for a
dam is related to the hazard classification for the dam. The upper limit of flood magnitude to
be considered in an IDF evaluation is the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The lower limit
for the IDF is typically the One Percent (100 year) flood as determined from historic river
flow data or other accepted methods.
The IDF is determined through an iterative process known as an incremental hazard
evaluation. The PMF should be adopted as the IDF in those situations where consequences
attributable to dam failure for flood conditions less than the PMF are unacceptable. A flood
less than the PMF may be adopted as the IDF in those situations where the consequences of
dam failure at flood flows larger than the selected IDF are acceptable.
State Level
The vast majority of dams in the USA are regulated by state dam safety programs. Alabama
is the only state that lacks a dam safety program; all other states, plus Puerto Rico, have
legislative authority to administer dam safety regulatory programs. The Association of State
Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) compiles the dam safety policies and standards for selected
states, which include the inflow design flood requirements for high and significant hazard
potential dams, and spillway design requirements for low hazard potentials dams of selected
states. Majority of the states requires an IDF equal to the PMF or a percentage of it for high
hazard potential dams.
Main characteristics considered in the determination of the IDF

As shown in this appendix, the regulations to determine the IDF vary significantly from each
country. The following table present a summary of the main characteristics considered by
each country to define the IDF as well as the minimum and the maximum values.

ICOLD – INFLOW DESIGN FLOOD – SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES BY COUNTRY
TABLE A-1 - COMPARISON OF THE CHARARCTERISTICS CONSIDERED TO EVALUTE THE DESIGN FLOOD
System characteristics Consequences of dam failure Design flood

Perma- Check Free
Country Type Eco- Environ- Flooded
Height Volume nent/ LOL PAR Social Min Max flood board
of dam nomic ment area
temporary
Australia X X 100-yr PMF
Austria X X 5 000-yr
Brazil X X X 1 000-yr PMF
Bulgaria X X 33-yr 10 000-yr
Canada X X X 100-yr PMF
Canada-Quebec X X 100-yr PMF X
China X X X X X 100-yr 10 000-yr X
Czech Republic X X X X 20-yr 10 000-yr
Finland X X X 100-yr 10 000-yr
France X X X 1 000-yr 10 000-yr
Germany X X 1 000-yr 10 000-yr X
India X X 100-yr PMF
Ireland X 1 000-yr 10 000-yr
Italy X 1 000-yr 3 000-yr X
Japan X 200-yr 1 000-yr X
New Zealand X X 100-yr 10 000-yr
Norway X 500-yr 1 000-yr X X
Panama X X 100-yr 5 000-yr
Poland X X X X 200-yr 1 000-yr
Portugal X X X X 1 000-yr
Romania X X X 100-yr 10 000-yr
Russia X X X X 20-yr 1 000-yr X
South Africa X X X 1200-yr 6 000-yr X
Spain X X X 100-yr 1 000-yr X
Sweden X X X 100-yr SDF
Switzerland X X X 1 000-yr 1.5x1 000-yr X X
Turkey X X X 500-yr PMF X X
UK X X X 150-yr PMF
USA/FEMA X X X 100-yr PMF
USA/USBR X 100 yr PMF

APPENDIX B
EXAMPLE – PROJECT β
RESULTS FOR EACH COUNTRY
Table B-1 – I DF Selection criteria per selected

countries regulations / Guidelines
RESULT FOR EACH COUNTRY Page 142

AUSTRALIA
Class name Definition Risk IDF
High LOL expected Extreme Damage 10 000-yr to PMF
Significant LOL possible Appreciable losses 1 000-yr to
10 000-yr
Low No expected LOL Minimal losses 100-yr to 1 000-yr
IDF Criteria for conditions 10 000-yr
equivalent to Project β
AUSTRIA
BRAZIL 51
Class A More than 30 m and/or PMF
storage exceeding 50 hm³ or
dam involving risk of loss of
life
Class B Otherwise 1 000-yr or more
IDF Criteria for conditions PMF
BULGARIA
I Project more than 100 MW 10 000-yr
Depending on dam type and
foundation
II Project more than 25 MW 1 000-yr
foundation
III Project more than 10 MW 200-yr
foundation
51
In Brazil, it appears there is no legislation or national standards in relation to design floods for
dams. This criteria is the one used by Eletrobras, the state owned electricity utility.

BULGARIA (cont'd)
IV Project more than 5 MW 100-yr
foundation
V Project less than 5 MW 33,33-yr
foundation
CANADA / Canadian Dam Association

Extreme More than 100 LOL Major loss of PMF
critical wildlife
Very High Less than 100 LOL Significant loss of 2/3 between 1 000-
critical wildlife yr and PMF
High Less than 10 LOL Significant loss of 1/3 between 1 000-
important wildlife yr and PMF
Significant Unspecified Loss of marginal 100-yr to 1 000-yr
habitat
Low No LOL No long term loss 100-yr
of habitat
IDF Criteria for conditions 1/3 between 1 000-
equivalent to Project β yr and PMF
CANADA / Province of Quebec

Extreme More than 10 000 persons at Major Industrial PMF
risk park, hospital or
dangerous material
Very High 1 000 to 10 000 persons at Industrial park 10 000-yr or 50%
risk PMF
High More than 10 residences, School, Small 1 000-yr
less than 1 000 PAR industry
Significant Less than 10 residences 1 000-yr
Low Occasionally inhabited 100-yr

CHINA
I Storage > 1 000 hm³ (Embankment) 10 000-yr to PMF
(Concrete) 5 000-yr
II Storage > 100 hm³ (Embankment) 2 000-yr
(Concrete) 1 000-yr
III Storage > 10 hm³ (Embankment) 1 000-yr
(Concrete) 500-yr
IV Storage > 1 hm³ (Embankment) 1 000-yr
(Concrete) 500-yr
V Storage < 1 hm³ (Embankment) 200-yr
(Concrete) 100-yr
CZECH REPUBLIC
I More than 1 000 persons at 10 000-yr
risk – Large amount of
LOL anticipated – Extensive
damage – Environmental
consequence for the country
II More than 100 persons at 2 000-yr if losses of 2 000-yr to
risk – LOL anticipated human life are 10 000-yr
Extensive damage – unlikely
higher than the autonomous
district
III More than 10 persons at risk 200-yr if losses of 200-yr to 1 000-yr
– LOL could result – human life are
Important damage – unlikely
for the autonomous district
IV LOL Improbable – Some 20-yr to 100-yr
damages – Environmental
consequences are small

FINLAND
P Endanger life or 5 000-yr to
environment 10 000-yr
N In between 500-yr to 1 000-yr
O Cannot endanger life or 100-yr to 500-yr
environment
FRANCE
A H ≥ 20 m Exceptional
H: Height (m) situation:
 Concrete dams 1 000 - 3 000 yr
 Embankment 10 000 yr
Extreme situation 100 000 yr
B H(m) ≥ 10 m and Exceptional
H2√V ≥ 200 situation:
V: volume of reservoir  Concrete dams 1 000 yr
(hm³)  Embankment 3 000 yr
C H ≥ 5 m and H2√V ≥ 20 Exceptional
situation:
 Concrete dams 300 yr
 Embankment 1 000 yr
D H ≥ 2m Exceptional
situation:
 Concrete dams 100 yr
 Embankment 300 yr

GERMANY
Large dams Storage > 1 hm³ or 10 000-yr
H >15 m
Medium and small Storage < 1 hm³ and 5 000-yr
H < 15 m
Very Small 1 000-yr
INDIA
Large dams Storage > 60 hm³ or PMF
Height > 30 m
Intermediate Storage > 10 hm³ or 1 000-yr or SPF 52
Height > 12 m
Small Storage < 10 hm³ or 100-yr
Height < 12 m
IRELAND 53
Class name Definition Risk Class Name
Class A Can endanger life 10 000-yr or 1 000-
yr with N-1 gates
Otherwise Negligible risk to human life 1 000-yr with N-1
gates
ITALY
Large dams H > 15 m or V > 1hm³
- Embankment 3 000-yr
- Concrete 1 000-yr
52
Standard Project Flood
53
In Ireland, it appears there is no legislation or national standards in relation to design floods for
dams. This criteria is the one used by Electricity Supply Board (ESB), the state owned electricity
utility

JAPAN
Concrete dam 200-yr flood or 200-yr
Maximum experienced flood
or
Maximum that can occur
based on max. flood
experienced on the basin
Embankment dam 1.2 times of the discharge About 1 000-yr
for concrete dam
Return period of design
flood for embankment dam
is equivalent to 1 000 years
or more (CWC, 2010)
NEW ZEALAND
High LOL Catastrophic 10 000-yr to PMF
damages
Medium A few LOL Major damages 1 000-yr to
10 000-yr
Low No LOL expected Moderate damages 100-yr to 1 000-yr
Very low No LOL Minimal damages
IDF Criteria for conditions 10 000-yr to PMF
NORWAY
Very High More than 150 houses Inflow Design Flood 1 000-yr
Safety Check Flood
PMF
High More than 20 houses Inflow Design Flood 1 000-yr
Safety Check Flood
PMF
Medium 1 to 20 houses Inflow Design Flood 1 000-yr
Safety Check Flood
1.5x1 000-yr or
PMF
Low 0 houses Inflow Design Flood 500-yr
Safety Check Flood 1.5x1 000-yr or
PMF
IDF Criteria for conditions Inflow Design Flood 1 000-yr

PANAMA
High (A) Risk of LOL 1 000-yr to
5000-yr
Significant (B) Unlikely LOL but economic 500-yr to 1 000-yr
loss
Low (C) Unlikely LOL or economic 100-yr
or environmental loss
IDF Criteria for conditions
POLAND
I H > 30 m, or; 1 000-yr
V > 50 hm³, or;
Submersion area > 50 km²;
Number of people > 300
II H > 15 m, or; 500-yr
V > 20 hm³, or;
III H > 5 m, or; 333-yr
V > 5 hm³, or;
IV H > 2 m, or; 200-yr
V > 0.2 hm³, or;
Submersion area <= 1 km²;
Number of people <= 10
PORTUGAL
High Dam failure will affect 25 or Depends of the type 1 000-yr to
more residents of dam and dam 10 000-yr
height
Significant Dam failure affect at least Depends of the type 500-yr to 5 000-yr
one resident and have of dam and dam
significant impact on height
infrastructure
Low No loss of life little damage NA
IDF Criteria for 5 000-yr

conditions equivalent to
Project β

ROMANIA
I Hydraulic structures of Catastrophic 10 000-yr
exceptional importance damages and/or
unacceptable
interruption
II Hydraulic structures of Serious damages 1 000-yr
special importance and/or interruptions
acceptable for short
period
III Medium importance Social – economic 200-yr
damages
IV Low importance Little influence on 100-yr
other social –
economic aspects
RUSSIA
I V > 1 000 hm³ Inflow Design 1 000-yr
Flood
Safety Check Flood 10 000-yr
II V > 200 hm³ Inflow Design 100-yr
Flood
III V > 50 hm³ Inflow Design 33.3-yr
Flood
Safety Check Flood 100-yr
IV V < 50 hm³ Inflow Design 20-yr
Flood
Safety Check Flood N/A
IDF Criteria for conditions Inflow Design 1 000-yr
equivalent to Project β Flood

SOUTH AFRICA
High More than 10 LOL Severe economical 200-yr (IDF)
losses >10 000-yr(Safety)
Medium 10 or less LOL Significant 100-yr (IDF)
economical losses >6 000-yr(Safety)
Low No LOL Minimal 100-yr (IDF)
economical losses >1,200-yr(Safety)
IDF Criteria for conditions 100-yr (IDF)
equivalent to Project β >6 000-yr(Safety)
SPAIN
Inflow Design 1 000-yr
A More than 5 houses Flood
Inflow Design 500-yr
B 1 to 5 houses Flood
Inflow Design 100-yr
C Incidental loss of life Flood
Safety Check Flood 500-yr
IDF Criteria for conditions Inflow Design 1 000-yr
equivalent to Project β Flood
SWEDEN
High Significant risk Human Life, environment, SDF 2
economic
Low 100-yr
IDF Criteria for conditions SDF
SWITZERLAND
Design Flood 1 000-yr
Check Flood 1.5x1 000-yr or
PMF

TURKEY
High – Embankment H > 25 m PMF
High – Concrete H > 25 m 10 000-yr with 1 000 yr
flood routing or
1 000-yr without
Low – Embankment H < 25 m 10 000-yr with 1 000 yr
Storage < 10 000 m³ flood routing or
1 000-yr without
flood routing
Low – Concrete H < 25 m 500 yr
IDF Criteria for conditions 1 000 yr
UK
A More than 10 persons at risk PMF
(community)
B Limited LOL Extensive damages 10 000-yr
C Negligible risk of LOL Limited damage 1 000-yr
D No LOL Very limited 150-yr
damage
USA / FEMA
High Clear danger of LOL Serious danger to PMF
industries and
important activities
Significant Possible danger of LOL Significant danger 0,75 PMF
to industries and
important activities
Low No expected LOL Some danger to 100-yr
agricultural
activities

USA / USACE
High More than few LOL Excessive losses PMF
Significant Few LOL Appreciable losses PMF
Low No expected LOL Minimal losses 0,5 to PMF
Standard Project Flood

This is the flood resulting from the most severe combination of meteorological and
hydrological conditions considered reasonably characteristic of the region. The SPF is
computed from the standard project rainfall over the basin in question and may be taken as
the largest storm observed in the region of the basin. It is not maximized for the most critical
atmospheric condition but it may be transposed from an adjacent region to the watershed
under consideration (BIS, 1971).

Cl1895 Flood Evaluation and Dam Safety-Report

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cl1895 Flood Evaluation and Dam Safety-Report

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

FLOOD EVALUATION

AND DAM SAFETY

Hydrology and uncertainties

1.1 Estimation of Design Hyetograph

1.1.1 Design precipitation

 Rainfall frequency analysis

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 7

 Estimation of areal precipitation

- Thiessen polygon method

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 8

Figure 1.4 Isohyetal method

Table 1.1 Methods for estimating areal precipitation (Dingman, 2002)

Method Source for full description

 Area reduction factor

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 9

1.1.2 Probable Maximum Precipitation

 Maximum rainfall envelope curve method

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 10

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 11

 Generalized PMP charts

1.1.3 Design hyetograph

Figure 1.8 Triangular

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 12

 Triangular hyetograph method

Figure 1.9 Procedure for estimating design precipitation

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 13

1.2 Flood Hydrograph

1.2.1 Estimation of losses

 Runoff Curve Number method

where 𝑃𝑒 = accumulated rainfall excess at time t;

1.2.2 Unit hydrograph

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 14

1. Principle of equal base time

Figure 1.10 Unit hydrograph assumptions

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 15

Figure 1.11 Unit hydrograph lagging

Figure 1.12 S-curve hydrograph method

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 16

 Base flow separation

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 17

- Master recession curve method

1.2.3 Runoff and hydrograph

1. Lag time (tL)

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 18

Figure 1.15 Schematic description of Figure 1.16 Time of concentration

1.2.4 Time of concentration and lag

Table 1.2 Concentration formulas (Viessman and Lewis, 2003)

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 19

SCS Average 1 𝐿 L = length of flow path, ft

1.3 Synthetic Unit Hydrograph

1.3.1 Snyder method

Chapter 1 – 2015 Page 20

where 𝑄𝑝 = peak discharge of the unit hydrograph;

Location Range of 𝑪𝒕 Average 𝑪𝒕 Range of 𝑪𝒑 Average 𝑪𝒑

Appalachian Highlands 1.8-2.2 2.0 0.4-0.8 0.6

Western Iowa 0.2-0.6 0.4 0.7-1.0 0.8

Southern California - 0.4 - 0.9

Ohio 0.6-0.8 0.7 0.9-0.7 0.6

Eastern Gulf of Mexico - 8.0 - 0.6

Central Texas 0.4-2.3 1.1 0.3-1.2 0.8

Sewered urban areas 0.2-0.5 0.3 0.1-0.6 0.3

Mountainous watersheds - 1.2 - -

Foothills areas - 0.7 - -