عنوان مقاله [English]
Introduction: The greatest part of constructed dams belongs to embankment dams and there are many examples of their failures throughout history. About one-third of the world’s dam failures have been caused by flood overtopping, which indicates that flood overtopping is an important factor affecting reservoir projects’ safety. Moreover, because of a poor understanding of the randomness of floods, reservoir water levels during flood seasons are often lowered artificially in order to avoid overtopping and protect the lives and property of downstream residents. So, estimation of dam overtopping risk with regard to uncertainties is more important than achieving the dam’s safety. This study presents the procedure for risk evaluation of dam overtopping due to various uncertaintiess in inﬂows and reservoir initial condition.
Materials and Methods: This study aims to present a practical approach and compare the different uncertainty analysis methods in the evaluation of dam overtopping risk due to flood. For this purpose, Monte Carlo simulation and Latin hypercube sampling methods were used to calculate the overtopping risk, evaluate the uncertainty, and calculate the highest water level during different flood events. To assess these methods from a practical point of view, the Maroon dam was chosen for the case study. Figure. 1 indicates the work procedure, including three parts: 1) Identification and evaluation of effective factors on flood routing and dam overtopping, 2) Data collection and analysis for reservoir routing and uncertainty analysis, 3) Uncertainty and risk analysis.
Figure 1- Diagram of dam overtopping risk evaluation
Results and Discussion: Figure 2 shows the results of the computed overtopping risks for the Maroon Dam without considering the wind effect, for the initial water level of 504 m as an example. As it is shown in Figure. 2, the trends of the risk curves computed by the different uncertainty analysis methods are similar. As it can be seen, the risk curves computed by the LHS are slightly higher than those curves computed by the MCS method. Also as it is observed, the differences between risk values of the two methods increase in longer return periods. Variations of overtopping risk with increasing the initial water level and return period related to overtopping risk in the 2-year return period for the initial water level of 470 m are shown in Table1. The results show that elongation of return period plays a more important role in increasing the risk, than the increase of initial water level.
T Method 2→2 2→50 2→100 2→1000 2→5000 2→10000
470→470 MCS 1 5 9 23 42.36 58
470→478 2 7 15.6 37 58.34 79
470→485 5.6 13.6 28.6 55.6 85.67 112.6
470→493 10.3 32.6 54 95.6 127.34 152
470→504 40.3 83 117.3 165 200.34 224.3
470→470 LHS 1 5.34 11 25.3 43 60.3
470→478 2.3 8.6 18 39.3 60.67 84
470→485 5.3 17.3 32.6 58.3 89 114.6
470→493 13.3 37.6 57.6 97 133.34 160.3
470→504 41.6 87.3 119.6 173 205 233.3
Figure 2- Overtopping risk in the initial water level of 504 m, without considering the wind effect
Conclusions: This study applies MCS and LHS methods to analyze the uncertainty and evaluate the dam overtopping risk consideringthe uncertainties in input variables, such as quintile of ﬂood peak discharge, initial levels of water and spill coeﬃcients. The results show that the uncertainty of water level calculated by MCS is higher than that calculated by LHS. In addition, the overtopping risk calculated by LHS is higher than that calculated by MCS. Furthermore, the increase of inflow rate influences the variations of the overtopping risk more than the increase of the return period. In addition, evaluation of the results indicates that the overtopping risk is an important issue in the Maroon dam. So, a comprehensiverisk analysis procedure in conjunction with uncertainty gives very important information for decision makers to make better judgments in dam operation based on uncertainty in inputs.