27
The Demise of Stationarity Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of Global Climate Change for Design of Hydraulic Structures Dr. Eric Loucks, P.E. October 29, 2008

Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

The Demise of StationarityFormulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of Global Climate Change for Design of Hydraulic Structures

Dr. Eric Loucks, P.E. October 29, 2008

Page 2: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Science Vol 319, p. 573, 1 February 2008

Page 3: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

What does Stationarity mean?

Stationarity is a consistency of a time series over times. At a minimum, fixed Mean and Variance.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 4: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Why is it important?

Flood frequency/ flood risk is usually expressed by:

Qn = mq + Kn sq

Qn = n-year flood quantilemq = mean annual floodsq = standard deviation

K = factor based on distribution

Procedure assumes Stationarity.

Page 5: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Flood Estimates: How Good Are they? Ray K. Linsley, Water Resources Research 22:9, August 1986

Page 6: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Milwaukee River at Milwaukee Historical Annual Floods 1915-2007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 7: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Milwaukee River at Milwaukee Historical Annual Floods 1915-2007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Mean = 5190 cfs Mean = 5220 cfs

Page 8: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

DuPage River at Shorewood Historical Annual Floods 1941-2008

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 9: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

DuPage River at Shorewood Historical Annual Floods 1941-2008

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Mean = 4160 cfs

Cv = 0.616

Mean = 4550 cfs

Cv = 0.617

Page 10: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Menomonee River at Milwaukee Historical Annual Floods 1962-2007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 11: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Menomonee River at Milwaukee Historical Annual Floods 1962-2007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 12: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Menomonee River at Milwaukee Historical Annual Floods 1962-2007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Mean = 3950 cfs Mean = 4870 cfs

Page 13: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Buffalo Bayou Historical Annual Floods 1937-2007

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 14: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Sea Level at Galveston 1909-2005

Mean Annual Sea Level at Galveston Texas

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Wat

er L

evel

in F

eet

Page 15: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

P. J. Webster et al., Science 309, 1844 -1846 (2005)

Page 16: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Sea-surface Temperature Trends

Page 17: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Global/Regional Climate Models

Page 18: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Published by AAAS

R. P. Allan et al., Science 321, 1481 -1484 (2008)

Page 19: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Published by AAAS

R. P. Allan et al., Science 321, 1481 -1484 (2008)

Page 20: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Chicago Illinois, Sept. 13, 2008

8 to 10 inches of Rainfall

Page 21: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Baraboo River at Baraboo Wisconsin

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Page 22: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Baraboo River at Baraboo Wisconsin

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year

Max

imum

Flo

w (c

fs)

Baraboo River June 8, 2008 - 19,000 cfs

Page 23: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Baraboo River June 8, 2008 - 19,000 cfs

Page 24: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Marble Falls – June 28, 2007

16 inches of rain in 6 hours

Page 25: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Hurricane Charley Track- 1986

Page 26: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of

Stationarity is not dead, but it’s in deep, deep trouble.

• The profession(s) are not prepared to manage design risk in the face of changing hydrology.

- Changes are not understood

- No uniform/accepted techniques for frequency analysis

- GCM’s aren’t ready to replace historical records

• Immediate need to revise the practice of risk-based design in Water Resources Engineering

Page 27: Formulating an Engineering Response to the Effects of