Technical Papers
Feb 25, 2012

Structural Damage Prediction in a High-Velocity Urban Dam-Break Flood: Field-Scale Assessment of Predictive Skill

Publication: Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Volume 138, Issue 10

Abstract

Dam safety and flood risk management programs are dependent on damage predictions that are difficult to validate and subject to considerable uncertainty. The 1963 Baldwin Hills dam-break flood caused high-velocity flows exceeding 5 m/s and structural failure of 41 wood-framed residences built in the mid-1940s, 16 of which were completely washed out. The flood is revisited here to examine the predictive skill and variability of established structural damage models when coupled with a hydraulic flood model that predicts parcel-scale depths and velocities. Two-way coupling is introduced so that predictions of structural failure affect localized flood predictions, which in turn affects damage predictions, in contrast to one-way coupling where structural failure has no impact on flood predictions. Two damage states defined by structural failure (Level 2) and washout (Level 3) are considered, along with 10 different structural damage models. One damage model considers flood depth alone, while the remaining nine consider a combination of depth and velocity defined by a constant discharge, energy, or force. Two-way coupling is shown to yield predictions with 30% higher skill and 10% higher false alarms than one-way coupled models. Hence, there is a tradeoff between skill and false alarms that favors two-way coupling. Predictive skill is also shown to be sensitive to the structural damage classification and the damage model. Depth-based damage predictions yield low predictive skill as expected; however, across the nine velocity-based damage models, skill varies from 50 to 78% for structural failure and from 79 to 95% for washout. These results reveal a similar level of predictive uncertainty from the hydraulic model implementation, damage model, and damage classification. Results also point to flow force as a good predictor of both moderate (Level 2) and severe (Level 3) levels of damage. Through calibration, force thresholds of 0.75 and 9.5 m3/s2 are found to maximize model skill at 85 and 95% for Level 2 and 3 damage, respectively, and these values compare well with previously published thresholds for similar building types. Finally, the results reveal a model bias toward a relatively wide damage zone compared with the observations; therefore, the high skill predictions are accompanied by a high rate of false alarms.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (CMMI-0825165), whose support is gratefully acknowledged. The writers also thank LADWP, LACDPW, LAR-IAC, the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, and the USACE (Los Angeles District) for their cooperation.

References

Apel, H., Aronica, G. T., Kreibich, H., and Thieken, A. H. (2009). “Flood risk analyses—How detailed do we need to be?” Nat. Hazards, 49(1), 79–98.
Aronica, G. T., and Lanza, L. (2005). “Drainage efficiency in urban areas: A case study.” Hydrolog. Process., 19(5), 1105–1119.
Baldwin, M., and Kain, J. (2006). “Sensitivity of several performance measures to displacement error, bias and event frequency.” Weather Forecast., 21(4), 636–648.
Begnudelli, L., and Sanders, B. F. (2006). “Unstructured grid finite-volume algorithm for shallow-water flow and scalar transport with wetting and drying.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 132(4), 371–384.
Begnudelli, L., Sanders, B. F., and Bradford, S. F. (2008). “Adaptive Godunov-based model for flood simulation.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 134(6), 714–725.
Black, R. (1975). “Flood proofing rural residences.” A Project Agnes Rep., Pennsylvania, Economic Development Administration, Washington, DC.
Brown, J. D., Spencer, T., and Moeller, I. (2007). “Modeling storm surge flooding of an urban area with particular reference to modeling uncertainties: A case study of Canvey Island, United Kingdom.” Water Resour. Res., 43, W06402.
CH2M Hill. (1974). Potential flood damages, Willamette River system, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.
Chow, V.-T. (1959). Open-channel hydraulics, McGraw Hill, New York.
Clausen, L. (1989). “Potential dam failure: Estimation of consequences and implications for planning.” M.S. thesis, School of Geography and Planning, Middlesex Polytechnic, Middlesex, London.
Clausen, L., and Clark, P. (1990). “The development of criteria for predicting dambreak flood damages using modeling of historical dam failures.” Proc., Int. Conf. on River Flood Hydraulics, W. White, ed., Wiley, Chichester, U.K, 369–380.
Dale, K., Edwards, M., Middelmann, M., and Zoppou, C. (2004). “Structural flood vulnerability and the Australianisation of Black’s curves.” Proc., Risk Conf., Risk Engineering Society, Barton, Australia.
Doswell, C., Davies-Jones, R., and Keller, D. (1990). “On summary measures of skill in rare event forecasting based on contingency tables.” Weather Forecast., 5(4), 576–585.
Ernst, J., Dewals, B. J., Detrembleur, S., Archambeau, P., Erpicum, S., and Pirotton, M. (2010). “Micro-scale flood risk analysis based on detailed 2D hydraulic modelling and high resolution geographic data.” Nat. Hazards, 55(2), 181–209.
FEMA. (2009). “Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: Flood model.” HAZUS-MH MR4 technical manual, FEMA, Washington, DC.
Fewtrell, T. J., Duncan, A., Sampson, C. C., Neal, J. C., and Bates, P. D. (2011). “Benchmarking urban flood models of varying complexity and scale using high resolution terrestrial LiDAR data.” Phys. Chem. Earth, 36(7-8), 281–291.
Gallegos, H. A., Schubert, J. E., and Sanders, B. F. (2009). “Two-dimensional, high-resolution modeling of urban dam-break flooding: A case study of Baldwin Hills, California.” Adv. Water Resour., 32(8), 1323–1335.
Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). (2008). HEC-FDA flood damage reduction analysis, version 1.2.4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydraulic Engineering Center, Davis, CA.
Hunter, N. M., et al. (2008). “Benchmarking 2D hydraulic models for urban flooding.” Proc. ICE Water Manage., 161(1), 13–30.
Interagency Committee on Dam Safety (ICDS). (1998). Federal guidelines for dam safety, emergency action planning for dam owners, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
Kelman, I., and Spence, R. (2003). “A flood failure flowchart for buildings.” Proc. ICE Municipal Eng., 156(3), 207–214.
Kelman, I., and Spence, R. (2004). “An overview of flood actions on buildings.” Eng. Geol., 73(3-4), 297–309.
Kreibich, H., et al. (2009). “Is flow velocity a significant parameter in flood damage modelling?” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9(5), 1679–1692.
Kreibich, H., Seifert, I., Merz, B., and Thieken, A. H. (2010). “Development of FLEMOcs—A new model for the estimation of flood losses in the commercial sector.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 55(8), 1302–1314.
McBean, E. A., Gorrie, J., Fortin, M., Ding, J., and Moulton, R. (1988a). “Adjustment factors for flood damage curves.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 114(6), 635–646.
McBean, E. A., Gorrie, J., Fortin, M., Ding, J., and Moulton, R. (1988b). “Flood depth damage curves by interview survey.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 114(6), 613–634.
Merz, B., Kreibich, H., Schwarze, R., and Thieken, A. (2010). “Review article ‘assessment of economic flood damage’.” Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10(8), 1697–1724.
Middelmann-Fernandes, M. H. (2010). “Flood damage estimation beyond stage-damage functions: An Australian example.” J. Flood Risk Manage., 3(1), 88–96.
Multihazard Mitigation Council (MMC). (2005). Natural hazard mitigation saves: An independent study to assess the future savings from mitigation activities, National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington, DC.
RESCDAM. (2000). “The use of physical models in dam break flood analysis.” Final Rep., Helsinki Univ. of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.
Samuels, P., Klijn, F., and Dijkman, J. (2006). “An analysis of the current practice of policies on river flood risk management in different countries.” Irrig. Drain., 55(1), S141–S150.
Sanders, B. F. (2008). “Integration of a shallow water model with a local time step.” J. Hydraul. Res., 46(4), 466–475.
Sanders, B. F., Schubert, J. E., and Gallegos, H. A. (2008). “Integral formulation of shallow-water equations with anisotropic porosity for urban flood modeling.” J. Hydrol., 362(1-2), 19–38.
Schubert, J. E., and Sanders, B. F. (2012). “Building treatments for urban flood inundation models and implications for predictive skill and modeling efficiency.” Adv. Water Resour., 41, 49–64.
Schubert, J. E., Sanders, B. F., Smith, M. J., and Wright, N. G. (2008). “Unstructured mesh generation and landcover-based resistance for hydrodynamic modeling of urban flooding.” Adv. Water Resour., 31(12), 1603–1621.
Shewchuk, J. R. (1996). “Triangle: Engineering a 2D quality mesh generator and delaunay triangulator.” Applied computational geometry: Towards geometric engineering, Vol. 1148, M. C. Lin and D. Manocha, eds., Springer, Berlin, 203–222.
Silva, R., et al. (2009). “The cost of rehabilitating our nation’s dams.” Rep., Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Lexington, KY.
Smith, D. I. (1994). “Flood damage estimation—A review of urban stage-damage curves and loss functions.” Water SA, 20(3), 231–238.
Soares-Frazão, S., Lhomme, J., Guinot, V., and Zech, Y. (2008). “Two-dimensional shallow-water model with porosity for urban flood modelling.” J. Hydraul. Res., 46(1), 45–64.
Tsubaki, R., and Fujita, I. (2010). “Unstructured grid generation using LiDAR data for urban flood inundation modelling.” Hydrolog. Process., 24(11), 1404–1420.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1964). “Report on flood damage and disaster assistance.” Rep., USACE, Los Angeles.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1981). “Interim guidelines for estimating n values of flood plains.” Rep., USACE, Los Angeles.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1985). “Business depth-damage analysis procedures.” Research Rep. 85-R-5, Institute for Water Resources, USACE, Alexandria, VA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1996). “Risk-based analysis for flood damage reduction studies.” Rep., USACE, Washington, DC.
Yu, D., and Lane, S. N. (2006). “Urban fluvial flood modeling using a two-dimensional diffusive-wave treatment, Part 2: Development of a sub-grid scale treatment.” Hydrolog. Process., 20(7), 1567–1583.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Volume 138Issue 10October 2012
Pages: 1249 - 1262

History

Received: Aug 4, 2011
Accepted: Feb 23, 2012
Published online: Feb 25, 2012
Published in print: Oct 1, 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Humberto A. Gallegos, Ph.D., M.ASCE [email protected]
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, East Los Angeles College, Monterey Park, CA 91754. E-mail: [email protected]
Jochen E. Schubert, Ph.D. [email protected]
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2175. E-mail: [email protected]
Brett F. Sanders, Ph.D., M.ASCE [email protected]
Professor and Chair, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of California, Irvine, CA 92697-2175 (corresponding author). E-mail: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Get Access

Access content

Please select your options to get access

Log in/Register Log in via your institution (Shibboleth)
ASCE Members: Please log in to see member pricing

Purchase

Save for later Information on ASCE Library Cards
ASCE Library Cards let you download journal articles, proceedings papers, and available book chapters across the entire ASCE Library platform. ASCE Library Cards remain active for 24 months or until all downloads are used. Note: This content will be debited as one download at time of checkout.

Terms of Use: ASCE Library Cards are for individual, personal use only. Reselling, republishing, or forwarding the materials to libraries or reading rooms is prohibited.
ASCE Library Card (5 downloads)
$105.00
Add to cart
ASCE Library Card (20 downloads)
$280.00
Add to cart
Buy Single Article
$35.00
Add to cart

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share