Fully probabilistic assessment of safety against flooding along the Dutch coast

Vuik, Vincent; Balen, W. van; Vuren, Saskia van

doi:10.1111/jfr3.12153

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vrijling (2001); Voortman (2003); Steenbergen et al (2004)), with applications in for example the Netherlands (Jonkman et al, 2008), the UK (Buijs et al, 2004) and China (Zhang and Xu, 2011). Some studies have applied probabilistic methods to sandy shorelines, to describe coastal cliff recession (Hall et al, 2002) and dune erosion (Den Heijer et al, 2012;Vuik et al, 2017). Uncertainties are even more relevant for more complex flood defense systems like hybrid solutions, which combine ecological and engineering features.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing safety of nature-based flood defenses: Dealing with extremes and uncertainties

Vuik

Vuren

Borsje

et al. 2018

Coastal Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetated foreshores adjacent to engineered structures (so-called hybrid flood defenses), are considered to have high potential in reducing flood risk, even in the face of sea level rise and increasing storminess. However, foreshores such as salt marshes and mangrove forests are generally characterized by relatively strong temporal and spatial variations in geometry and vegetation characteristics (e.g., stem height and density), which causes uncertainties with regards to their protective value under extreme storm conditions. Currently, no method is available to assess the failure probability of a hybrid flood defense, taking into account the aforementioned uncertainties. This paper presents a method to determine the failure probability of a hybrid flood defense, integrating models and stochastic parameters that describe dike failure and wave propagation over a vegetated foreshore. Two dike failure mechanisms are considered: failure due to (i) wave overtopping and (ii) wave impact on revetments. Results show that vegetated foreshores cause a reduction in failure probability for both mechanisms. This effect is more pronounced for wave impact on revetments than for wave overtopping, since revetment failure occurs at relatively low water levels. The relevance of different uncertainties depends on the protection level and associated dike height and strength. For relatively low dikes (i.e., low protection levels), vegetation remains stable in design conditions, and plays an important role in reducing wave loads. In case of higher protection levels, hence for more robust dikes, vegetation is less important than foreshore geometry, because of expected stem breakage of the vegetation under these more extreme conditions. The integrated analysis of uncertainties in hydraulic loads, dike geometry and foreshore characteristics in this paper enables the comparison between nature-based flood defenses and traditionally engineered solutions, and allows coastal engineers to design hybrid flood defenses worldwide.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing safety of nature-based flood defenses: Dealing with extremes and uncertainties

Vuik

Vuren

Borsje

et al. 2018

Coastal Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vegetated foreshore component of the system is a salt marsh-mudflat feature of varying width that serves to dampen waves before they impact the earthen dike while the dike serves as a barrier to higher surge water levels. The two components combined provide a greater degree of FRM performance as compared to earthen dike alone (Vuik et al, 2017). The vegetated foreshore also reduces wave overtopping and erosion of the dike, increasing its efficacy during surge events.…”

Section: Vegetated Foreshore Life Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle management of natural infrastructure: assessment of state of practice and current tools

Kurth,

Piercy,

Jackson

et al. 2024

Front. Built Environ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Design alternatives for traditional infrastructure are often compared in terms of expected–and often narrowly defined–costs and benefits to justify the selected plan. Taking a broader life cycle perspective in the benefit-cost evaluation process helps account for potentially rare, indirect, or accruing project benefits. Natural infrastructure design alternatives are generally difficult to compare to conventional alternatives due to their distinctly different costs and benefits. Natural infrastructure differs from conventional infrastructure in terms of performance and benefit development over time, lifespan, materials, intensity of intervention needs, and social and environmental benefits. This paper presents a life cycle framework that expands conventional life cycle analysis to capture other important and relevant aspects of natural and conventional infrastructure, enabling a more complete and equitable comparison of project costs and benefits. The framework consists of four dimensions: risk mitigation performance (e.g., traditional benefit of flood risk management), co-benefits, financial costs (life cycle cost analysis), and environmental costs (life cycle assessment). The framework takes current benefit cost analysis practice for both infrastructure types into account, is informed by existing life cycle evaluation methods and tools and is responsive to the unique needs and characteristics of natural infrastructure. Components of this framework have been advanced elsewhere, including in business product management, asset management, building code development, environmental certifications, ecosystem goods and services accounting, and others, but are generally not developed for natural infrastructure. Our proposed framework provides a roadmap for development of supporting resources to conduct life cycle evaluation for natural infrastructure. Systematically grasping the temporal flow of costs and benefits of natural infrastructure, in comparison to conventional flood risk management projects, will be important as societies address vast infrastructure needs in the face of climate change.

show abstract

“…Another widely used approach is probabilistic risk analysis, described in the following literature. Kubal et al, 2009 describe integrated flood risk based on the concept of multicriteria assessment as it was developed in Europe and Vuik et al, 2017 describe the national scaled integrated flood risk method such as used in the United Kingdom (UK) (Hall et al, 2003) or the Netherlands (Vrijling, 2001). However, national‐scaled integrated flood risk assessment method has issues related to the geographic scale for analysis that stems from the transition of local to national‐scaled assessments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This scale presents its own set of challenges: the uncertainties made at a national scale may not apply at a regional scale, and the choice of failure mechanism may differ due to regional conditions. Vuik et al (2017) present a semi‐probabilistic approach with probabilistic hydraulic loads and deterministic levees and dunes strength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Julínek et al (2020) provided an application of uplift failure mapping and described uplift failure downstream of the levee as a mode of failure that occurs mainly in the presence of a permeable layer in the foundation topped by a layer of more impermeable materials of small thickness. Vuik et al (2017) describe the assessment of sea levees considering overflow and overtopping. Fry (2016) shows that concentrated leak erosion is the most dangerous internal erosion mechanism for dams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A probabilistic approach to levee reliability based on sliding, backward erosion and overflowing mechanisms: Application to an inspired Canadian case study

Mainguenaud

Peyras

Khan

et al. 2023

J Flood Risk Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving protection against fluvial floods requires a better estimation of levee failure. We developed an assessment method of levee failure probabilities for sliding, backward erosion, and overflowing each represented by fragility curves. We tested two approaches to aggregate those fragility curves into a global fragility curve respectively using: an enveloping curve and Monte‐Carlo simulations. We implemented this approach to earthen levee reliability for several flood return periods to the Bow River in Calgary, Canada. We used limit equilibrium method to estimate the safety factor of the levee segment and Monte‐Carlo simulations to estimate sliding probabilities. We used Terzaghi's critical hydraulic gradient to estimate backward erosion failure probabilities. The estimation of overflowing probabilities required expert judgment. We discussed how the choice of the hydraulic gradient area and the consideration of a steady state or transient model impact backward erosion failure probabilities. The results showed for our study case that, even though the transient model is a closer representation of reality, the levee saturation parameter has little impact on hydraulic gradient values, by extension, on sliding and backward erosion failure probabilities. The Monte‐Carlo aggregated fragility curve is more realistic than the envelop curve of the failure mechanisms for an equivalent computation time.

show abstract

Fully probabilistic assessment of safety against flooding along the Dutch coast

Cited by 4 publications

References 22 publications

Assessing safety of nature-based flood defenses: Dealing with extremes and uncertainties

Assessing safety of nature-based flood defenses: Dealing with extremes and uncertainties

Life cycle management of natural infrastructure: assessment of state of practice and current tools

A probabilistic approach to levee reliability based on sliding, backward erosion and overflowing mechanisms: Application to an inspired Canadian case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About