My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04994
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
FLOOD04994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:47:55 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 1:10:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
na
Basin
Statewide
Title
Guidelines on Selection of Acceptable Flood Capacity for Dams
Date
3/1/2000
Prepared By
Australian National Committee on Large Dams
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />j <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />It should be noted that fallback proposals by <br />the owner would still be subject to regulations <br />and regulatory authorities as applicable. <br /> <br />8.1. Application of a Fallback Option. <br />(Refer Appendix 2. sub-section A2. 7.) <br /> <br />. Reference should be made to the <br />current individual risk to life criteria to <br />check the group most at risk, as <br />individual risk could be more <br />restrictive and if so should take <br />precedence. <br /> <br />8.1.1. General <br />The potential for larger floods than the <br />fallback option must be recognised, with the <br />possibility then of dam failure. No selected <br />flood capacity can provide an absolutely safe <br />solution. <br /> <br />8.1.2. Business Risk. <br /> <br />. High B and C IFHC have alternative <br />upper limits, whichever is less to <br />apply, to take into account that the <br />range of assigned AEP relative to <br />catchment area for the PMP Design <br />Flood could otherwise require a <br />relatively higher safety standard for <br />small catchments (refer Appendix 2, <br />sub-section A2.7.2). <br />TABLE 8.1. <br />FALLBACK FLOOD CAPACITY. <br /> <br />It should be noted that ,a fallback option (or <br />any adopted option) only provides basic safety <br />to the selected flood AEP. <br /> <br />An owner could see a fallback solution as an <br />easy option, saving a costly risk study, without <br />making a critical assessment whether it was <br />the priority or a responsible business risk. A <br />more conservative risk solution than a <br />deterministic fallback solution could be <br />appropriate in consideration of business risks. <br /> <br />IFHC RATING(i) <br /> <br />FLOOD AEP <br /> <br />Extreme <br /> <br />PMF(ii) <br /> <br />High A <br /> <br />PMP Design <br />, Flood (ii) <br /> <br />HighB <br /> <br />10-4 to PMP <br />Design Flood or <br />10-6, (ii) <br /> <br />10.4 to PMP <br />Design Flood or <br />10", (iii) <br /> <br />8.2. Fallback Alternative. <br /> <br />The following Table 8.1 can be considered as a <br />deterministic fallback alternative to risk <br />assessment, noting the above comments and <br />with the following qualifications: <br /> <br />HighC <br /> <br />. The selection of the flood AEP is to be <br />taken within the continuum, with the <br />flood capacity selected from the <br />conservative end of the range, relative <br />to the order of consequences, <br />particularly the assessment of potential <br />fatalities, within the appropriate broad <br />IFHC classification. <br /> <br />Significant# <br /> <br />10.3 to 10.4 <br /> <br />Low. N ery Low <br /> <br />10.2 to 10-3 <br /> <br />. If loss of life is expected, change to High C <br />IFHC. <br />· If loss of life is possible, then consider as <br />Significant IFHC. <br /> <br />Notes: <br /> <br />. Full traditional freeboard should be <br />provided for relevant wind set-up and <br />run-up and other factors, as previously <br />required in Chap 9, 1986 Guidelines <br />(Refer Appendix 2, sub-section A2.5). <br /> <br />(i) The IFHC shown in Table 8.1 should <br />be based on the ANCOLD Guidelines <br />on Assessment of the Consequences <br />of Dam Failure. <br />(Ii) Pre flood reservoir level to be taken <br />as FSL. <br />(iii) A joint probability assessment can be <br />made for reservoir level as <br />appropriate. <br /> <br />. Any regulator requirement or <br />subsequent risk study indicating a <br />lower risk AFC should take precedent, <br /> <br />ANCOLD Guidelines on Selection of an Acceptable flood Capacity for Dams 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.