A Case Study on the Estimation of Flood Flows in Rivers with Different Methods

Öz

The estimation of the flood discharges of rivers that do not have streamflow measurements is one of the important issues in hydraulic engineering. For the safety of the structures to be built on these rivers, it is necessary to accurately estimate the possible flood discharges for some periods. Many methods have been developed on this subject. With the methods developed based on the catchment and rainfall characteristics, it is possible to make accurate estimations about the catchment without flow measurement. In this study, an evaluation was made on the estimation success of the methods by trying to determine the flood discharges of a river flowing through a 336 km2 catchment area with indirect and direct methods based on rainfall. Compared rainfall-runoff estimation methods showed that Synthetic Method was the least reliable one among all other estimations. On the other hand, with the discharges of Q10 = 77 m3/s, Q100 = 193 m3/s and Q500 = 273 m3/s, Mockus emerged as the most consistent one through all evaluated peak flow discharges methods. It is also intended that this study will be a guide for those who work on the subject.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• flood discharge estimation
• rainfall-runoff relationship
• runoff estimations
• probability distributions

Teşekkür

We thank “ACR Planning Consultancy Company” for their support and contributions to the study.

Kaynakça

1. Bayazıt, M. (2011). Hidroloji, Birsen Press.
2. Bayazıt, M., Avcı İ., & Şen Z. (2009). Hidroloji uygulamaları. Birsen Press.
3. Chen, C. L. (1983). Rainfall intensity-duration-frequency formulas. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 109(12), 1603-1621. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733- 9429(1983)109:12(1603)
4. Chow, W. T., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. http://ponce.sdsu.edu/Applied_Hydrology_Chow_1988.pdf
5. DSİ. (1994). Türkiye akarsu havzaları maksimum akımlar frekans analizi (MAFA). Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı, Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Etüt ve Plan Dairesi Başkanlığı Press.
6. Ekinci, R., Büyüksaraç, A., Ekinci, L. Y., & Işik, E. (2020). Natural disaster diversity assessment of Bitlis Province. Journal of Natural Hazards and Environment, 6(1), 1 - 11. https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.535189
7. Gao, Z., Long, D., Tang, G., Zeng, C., Huang, J., & Hong, Y. (2017). Assessing the potential of satellite-based precipitation estimates for flood frequency analysis in ungauged or poorly gauged tributaries of China’s Yangtze River basin. Journal of Hydrology, 550, 478-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.025
8. Gulbahar, N. (2016). A comparison study of some flood estimation methods in terms of design of water structures. International Journal of Engineering Technologies IJET, 2(1), 8-13.

9. Işık, E., & Özlük, M. H. (2012). Bitlis ilinin doğal afetler açısından incelenmesi ve öneriler: Proceedings of the International Conference on Science, Technology and Engineering. Dubai.
10. Kadıoğlu, M. (2008) Sel, heyelan ve çığ için risk yönetimi. In M. Kadıoğlu & E. Özdamar (Eds.), Afet zararlarını azaltmanın temel ilkeleri (pp. 251-276). JICA Türkiye Ofisi Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258108315_Sel_Heyelan_ve_Cig_icin_Risk_Yoneti mi
11. Koutsoyiannis, D., Kozonis, D., & Manetas, A. (1998). A mathematical framework for studying rainfall intensity-duration-frequency relationships. Journal of Hydrology, 206(1-2), 118-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00097-3
12. Kumanlıoğlu, A. A., & Ersoy, S. B. (2018). Akım gözlemi olmayan havzalarda taşkın akımlarının belirlenmesi: Kızıldere Havzası. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi-Mühendislik Fakültesi, Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 20(60), 890 – 904. https://doi.org/10.21205/deufmd. 2018206070 Linsley, R. K. (1986). Flood estimates: how good are they?, Water Resour. Res., vol. 22, no. 9, supplement, pp. 159S-164S, 1986.
13. Litt, T., Krastel, S., Sturm, M., Kipfer, R., Örcen, S., Heumann, G., Frans, O. S., Ülge, B. U., & Niessen, F. (2009). ‘PALEOVAN’, International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP) site survey results and perspectives. Quaternary Science Reviews, 28(15-16), 1555-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.03.002
14. McCuen, R. H. (1998). Hydrologic Analysis and Design, Pearson Education.
15. McMath, R. E. (1887). Determination of the size of sewers. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 16(1), 179-190.
16. MGM, (2022). Ahlat ilçesi saatlik toplam yağış verileri. Çevre Şehircilik ve İklim Değişikliği Bakanlığı Meteoroloji genel Müdürlüğü, Bitlis İl Müdürlüğü.
17. Mockus. V. (1949). Estimation of total (and peak rates of) surface runoff for individual storms. Interim Survey Rep. Grand (Neosho) River Watershed, Exhibit A in Appendix B, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
18. Özbek, T. (1989). Hidroloji. Gazi Üniversitesi Press.
19. Pilgrim, D. H. (1986). Bridging the gap between flood research and design practice, Water Resources Res., vol. 22, no. 9, supplement, pp. 165S-176S, August 1986.
20. Samantaray, S., & Sahoo, A. (2020). Estimation of flood frequency using statistical method: Mahanadi River basin, India. H2Open Journal, 3(1), 189-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/h2oj.2020.004
21. Semerci, A., Tayfur, G., & Pulat, H. F. (2020). Obtaining of the unit hydrograph by selecting appropriate flood prediction method for designing Filyos river levees. IV. ICONTRENDS, St. Petersburg/Russia-2020.
22. Snyder, F. F. (1938). Synthetic unit‐ graphs. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 19(1), 447-454.
23. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), (1972). Hydrology. In: National Engineering Handbook, Section 4. USDA Soil Conservation Service Washington, D.C.
24. Soil Conservation Service (SCS), (1986). Technical Release 55: Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). Available at
25. Wenzel, H. G. (1982). Rainfall for urban stormwater design, in Urban Storm Water Hydrology, ed. By David F. Kibler, Water Resources Monograph 7, Washington, D. C: American Geophysical Union