DAM OPERATION DURING EXTREME FLOODS

H. Haufe, H.-B. Horlacher, J. Stamm

Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Technical Hydromechanics
Department of Civil Engineering
Technische Universitt Dresden
Germany

ABSTRACT
In the 19th and 20th century safe drinking and industrial water supply and flood protection issues were the main reasons
for the construction of dams in the Ore Mountains of Saxony (Germany). Due to these still existing multi-purpose
requirements Saxon dams today are in the centre of various conflicts of interests. These conflicts are particularly visible
during extreme floods as those which occurred in the past. In August 2002 strong precipitation led to the excess of the
spillway design flood at numerous dams. The combination of extremely high reservoir inflows, limited outlet works
capacities and short lead times inevitably led to the rapid filling of the flood control space. Spillways started operation
and created flooding along the rivers downstream with partial catastrophic effects. Rising reservoir levels endangered
the dam crests fortunately not affecting dam safety. Since 2002 flood storage capacities were increased to reduce critical
situations in future flood events. According to new hydrological predictions rising reservoir inflows and the effect of the
ongoing climate change must be considered. Efficient reservoir operation strategies require modern outlet works at the
existing dams. Extensive reservoir routing calculations show that flood protection effects of dams can be optimised by
using additional outlets which allow the release of significant discharges right at the beginning of the flood or even
before. The paper will focus on these complex issues, considering both hydrological and structural aspects and will
present first results and recommendations for adequate reservoir operation during extreme floods and dam
modernisation in the 21st century.

INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM

Reservoirs in the Eastern Ore Mountains and historical floods
In the 19th and 20th century safe drinking and industrial water supply and flood protection issues were the main reasons
for the construction of dams in the Ore Mountains of Saxony (Germany). Due to these still existing multi-purpose
requirements Saxon dams today are in the centre of various conflicts of interests. These conflicts are particularly visible
during extreme floods as those which occurred in the past (1897, 1927, 1957, 2002).
Flood of 2002
In August 2002 in the Eastern Ore Mountains a daily precipitation sum of 343 mm was registered (86% of the probable
maximum precipitation (PMP)). The combination of extremely high reservoir inflows, limited outlet works capacities
and short lead times inevitably led to the rapid filling of the flood control spaces. Spillways started to operate (Figure 1
& 2) and created flooding along the rivers downstream with partial catastrophic effects. In the Eastern Ore Mountains
12 people died and damage sum exceeded 1 billion Euros. Rising reservoir levels endangered the dam crests fortunately
not affecting dam safety. The public discussion about appropriate reservoir operation started immediately after the
flood. The relationship of cumulated inflow to the available flood storage capacity led to problems. Some reservoirs
were not able to reduce the flood significantly.

Figure 1: Malter Dam Spillway operation 2002

Figure 2: Malter Dam Reservoir flood outflow 2002

Recent changes and further need for action

Since 2002 flood storage capacities were increased to reduce critical situations in future flood events. According to new
hydrological predictions rising reservoir inflows and the effect of the ongoing climate change must be considered.
Efficient reservoir operation strategies require modern outlet works at the existing dams.
The flood of 2002 had also dramatic effects on the water supply by the substantial entry of suspended sediments
originating from fields, settlements and forests. At some drinking water reservoirs with typical summer thermal
stratification the warm flood inflow with its polluting load was stored in an upper layer (approx. 10 m) under
displacement of the existing water. Some days later the mixture of both layers started and caused substantial problems
for the water treatment. Many of the existing dams have a lack of facilities for an effective release of wasted water
layers in upper reservoir zones. Today the only solution for reservoir level draw down is the use of bottom outlets. In
this case high quality water has to be released.
Table 1: Operating data of selected reservoirs in Saxony (2002-08-12/13) [1]
Reservoir
name

Spillway
capacity

Design
inflow
BHQ1
HQ1,000

[m/s]

[m/s]

[m/s]

[m/s]

[m/s]

Lehnmhle

94.2

85.4

125

130

120

Klingenberg

86

90

150

160

150

156.3

147

200

220

220

Lichtenberg

43

39.2

60

60

48

Saidenbach

98

39.8

45

63

20

Malter

Design
inflow
BHQ2
HQ10,000

Peak inflow Peak

Precipitation Watershed
2002-08-13 spillway
outflow
2002-08-13
[mm/48h]
[mm/24h]
295.3
239.5
313.6
280.6
250.9
219
227.9
201.4
204.5
178.8

HQinflow HQinflow HQoutflow Return

2002-08-13 2002-08-13 2002-08-13 period
vs BHQ1
vs BHQ2
vs spillway
capacity

[km]

[%]

[%]

[%]

[a]

60.4

152

104

127

10,000

90.4

178

107

174

10,000

130.5

150

110

141

10,000

38.4

153

100

112

10,000

60.7

158

140

20

10,000

Considering the existing outlet works, it can be analysed whether these are still up-to-date and allow sufficient
operational options for flood management or not. Deficits can be diagnosed by comparing the hydrological impacts to
the existing discharge capacities with consideration of flood routing processes. Antiquated outlet works should be
replaced if they are no longer able to meet operational requirements for flood releases. This rehabilitation often does not
lead to a discharge increase due to the limited space available in narrow galleries or gate houses/chambers for the new
installations. Then the implementation of additional outlets has to be checked.
The investigation for an optimal solution must consider different aspects (hydrology, hydraulic, economy). The
prioritisation of increased spillway capacity to guarantee dam safety against overtopping will not satisfy the
expectations of people living downstream concerning risk reduction and damage minimisation.
In this case a fast filling of the flood control zone up to the full reservoir level and the following spillway operation with
fast discharge rise would only improve dam safety but creates new and higher threats to the downstream area causing
damage to the public acceptance of dams. Therefore an optimisation should be achieved within the technical limitations.
Minimisation of peak outflow and thus the highest possible flood protection are major objectives of reservoir flood
operation. The peak outflows result however not only from the dam outflows but also from the discharges which are
generated in the intermediate catchment (IC) downstream of reservoirs. Depending upon size of the IC it can have a
significant influence on the discharge. If the IC is small the discharge from the dam dominates and in reverse the
influence of the dam can become negligibly small since a large IC can generate large discharges. This factor can not be
investigated separately, but have to be examined in relevant combinations.

INVESTIGATIONS
Questions
Against the background of the experiences from the flood of 2002 two key questions arise.
- How can the safety against dam overtopping be ensured?
- To what extent is it possible to reduce the reservoir peak outflow and therefore flood damage?
Considering aspects of reservoir operation one solution might be an optimal utilisation of the existing flood control
space. This depends on physical limitations of outlet works and quality of flood management.
Of course an ideal operation is not realistic due to the mountainous character of the watershed with extreme short time
of runoff formation finally reducing flood forecast options. Nonetheless efficient operating equipment could be installed
for a more effective outflow (pre- and parallel-releases). Definitions for pre- and parallel-releases according to the
German Standard DIN 19700-11 [2] are:
Pre-release = water release by outlet works before spillway operation starts
Parallel-release = water release by outlet works after spillway operation was started

Todays operation
At the beginning of a flood the outflow usually will be increased by using bottom outlets or other outlets for limitation
of reservoir water levels. The discharges of the installed outlets are limited by the hydraulic capacity. The outlet
capacity depends on the hydraulic head and dimensions. Since the pre-discharge is not the primary function of bottom
outlets, often the bankfull flow (allowed) of river downstream can not be used with this operating equipment. Bankfull
flow is the discharge at which flow from the main channel begins to spill over into the floodplain. Valuable storage
volume in the reservoir can not be cleared. In this case the reservoir water level rises rapidly. After the filling of flood
control storage volume the spillway operation causes increased releases. At dams with ungated spillways the rate at
which water is released to the river downstream can not be controlled.
Flood routing
Usually reservoirs with existing flood control storage have an absorbing effect on a flood, so the inflow hydrograph
curve is transformed into an outflow hydrograph curve with a reduced and deferred peak value. Usually the inflow
hydrograph can be derived from a design rainfall or snowmelt model. The outflow hydrograph is not known in advance.
Both are linked by the reservoir routing equation which is based on the conservation of mass. The inflow (QIN), outflow
(QOUT) and storage (S) are related by: Inflow (QIN) - Outflow (QOUT) = S/t (Figure 3). Where S is the change in
storage during time increment t. Both QIN and QOUT vary with time and are defined by inflow and outflow
hydrographs. This equation is the basis for all possible options for action. Finally the outflow hydrograph and the
decrease of the peak discharge from HQIN to HQOUT is needed. To determine is the type and physical characteristics of
the outlet structure, the storage volume vs. time relationship and the depth-discharge relationship. A stage-storage curve
defines the relationship between the depth of water and the associated storage volume in a storage facility and can be
derived by e.g. frustum of a pyramid formula, prismoidal formula for trapezoidal basins, circular conic section formula
or analytically. A stage-discharge curve defines the relationship between the depth of water and the discharge or
outflow from a storage facility and can be computed for various values of h once the physical characteristics of the weir
or orifice are defined.

Figure 3: Reservoir routing

Approaches
If additional outlet works without limitations of discharge capacities would be available a significant pre-release would
be possible. The potential of bankfull flow could be used or even be exceeded. The exceeding can be useful if peak
outflow reduction could be achieved. In addition the question arises at what time pre-release should start. Furthermore
the concept of outflow operation must be differentiated (e.g. constant outflow or adaptive outflow adjustment).
Option 1 Pre-release starts before flood begins
On the basis of reliable precipitation prognoses the time of the beginning of major reservoir releases could be shifted to
the time before the flood begins. The flood begin in this investigation is at 0 h (Figure 4). At present large efforts
towards an increased reliability of precipitation prognoses are undertaken so in the future better forecasts are to be
expected. Figure 4 and Table 2 show results of such an operation of a given reservoir with constant outflow through
fictitious outlets and following unregulated spillway operation for a 1,000 year flood. IC-generated flow is 28% of QIN
and bankfull flow is 17% of HQIN. The gauge is downstream of IC.
Table 2: Results of reservoir routing simulation - option 1
Operation

Peak flow reduction at the gauge to

constant outflow
adaptive outflow

47%
53%

Minimum time to start pre-release for

lowest peak flow at the gauge
-10h
-20h

1.0

BHQ1 = HQ1,000
QIC(t) = 0.28 QIN(t)
QPRE = 0.17 HQIN = QBankfull
QPRE =const. vs. QPRE =adapt.

Full reservoir water level

(Spillway operation)

QIN(t)

-2

h [m]

0.8
h(t)
Present
0h

Normal operating water level

0.6

-4
-6

QOUT(t)+QIC(t)
Present

-20h

0h

-8
-5h

QOUT(t)+QIC(t)
QPRE=const.

Q/HQIN

0.4

QOUT(t)+QIC(t)
QPRE=adapt.

0.2

-10

-10h

0h
-5h
-10h
-15h

-15h
-12

-20h
-20h

-14
-16

0.0
-20

-10

-18
0

t [h]

10

20

30

40

Figure 4: Option 1 Results of reservoir routing calculations for QPRE = const = 0.17 HQIN
BHQ1 = HQ1,000

(QOUT+QIC)/HQIN

Start of 0
-5
Pre-10
-15
release
-20
[h]

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1
1
nkfull
QPRE/QBa

1.2

1.3

0
1.4

Figure 5: Option 1 Results of reservoir routing calculations for 0.6 < QPRE/QBankfull < 1.4 (QPRE = const.)
Figure 5 shows possible peak-flow reduction at downstream gauge for different ratios QPRE/QBankfull.
Major results of a reservoir simulation for option 1 considering an IC-influence are:
- significant reduction of peak discharge
- early flood damages if QPRE > QBankfull (due to constant release and IC-influence)
New questions would arise about the appropriateness of such a flood operation.
Option 2 - Pre-release starts after flood begins
Comparing option 1 & 2 it can be stated that advantage of option 2 is the unnecessary head start of the flood-forecast
since the water release begins with increasing reservoir inflows. Thus one of the main points of criticism that operators
would not empty the reservoirs on basis of uncertain precipitation and discharge prognoses can be eliminated.
Figure 6 left part shows the inflow hydrograph curve for HQ1,000 of a given reservoir (stage-storage-function and
spillway capacity invariably with a single fictitious additional outlet (D=2.05m) situated approx. 14 m under operating
water level and 18 m under full reservoir water level) and resulting outflow with variable flood control storage and
adaptive outflow operation. Figure 6 right part shows for HQ100, HQ200, HQ1,000 and HQ10,000 the reservoir
outflow for variable flood control storage. Left of the inflexion point of each graph spillway operation starts. Then
outflow values increase rapidly. For low outflow rates spillway operation should be avoided. This requires greater
available flood control storage capacities.

220

180

Qin
Qout FCS=0.0 Mio.m
Qout FCS=2.0 Mio.m
Qout FCS=4.0 Mio.m
Qout FCS=6.0 Mio.m
Qout FCS=8.0 Mio.m
Qout FCS=10.0 Mio.m

160
140
120

FCS vs. HQout Spillway + Add. Outlet 2.05 m QPRE adapt.

200

100

Present FCS
HQ100
HQ1,000

180

140
120
100

80

80

60

60

40

40
20

20

Q Bankfull
HQ200
HQ10,000

160

HQout [m/s]

200

Q [m/s]

220

HQ1,000 Spillway + Add.Outlet 2.05m QPRE=>adapt.

with variable Flood Control Storage (FCS)

FCS [Mio. m]

t [h]
0

0
0

10

20

30

40

10

Figure 6: Results of reservoir routing calculations for variable flood control storage

FIRST RESULTS
For the optimisation (minimisation) of reservoir peak outflow for any given:
- stage storage curve (reservoir)
- inflow hydrograph curve
- available flood control storage
- bankfull discharge of downstream river (with restrictions)
an optimal pre-release value (option 1 & option 2) and an optimal starting time (option 1) can be derived!
Considering this fictitious possibility of an exhaustion of the pre-release deficit by efficient operating equipment the
following facts arise:
- more effective usage of flood storage capacities
- reduction of reservoir peak outflow
- reduction of dam overtopping risk
- increased time delay of the maximum water level downstream (extended emergency evacuation time, later
damage occurrence)
- reduction of necessary flood protection investments
Pre-releases as primarily water-quantity determined issue can positively affect aspects of water-quality if additional
operating equipment also creates the technical possibilities for post-releases. Thus after a flood hit a reservoir water can
be released from different horizons without bottom outlet operation.

CURRENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND PERSPECTIVES

Analytical optimisation
Apart from the presented example an analytical optimisation must consider different variability:
- Reservoir
o inflow hydrograph
o stage-storage-function
o existing flood control storage
- Dam
o discharge functions of existing and additional operating equipment (spillways, outlets)
- Downstream river
o bankfull discharge capacity
- Management objectives
o peak outflow minimisation vs. damage occurrence time
These input-data can be partly adapted to the nature values with analytical approaches (Table 3).
The variability regarding number, dimensions and altitude of additional operating equipment influences its discharge
function.

Table 3: Input data for analytical approach

Inflow
hydrograph

qZ (T) = Tn en(1 T)

n=2
n=5
n = 10

qz
0.8

[3]

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

Stagestoragefunction

0.5

1.5

2.5

V(H) = a Hb

40

[4]

H [m]

30

real
analytical

20

a = 0.0047
b = 2.2492

10
[Mio. m]
0
0

Discharge
functions

10

15

20
3

QSpillway

2
2
= b 2g h3
3

Q Add.Outlet = A

QBott.Outlet = A

2g h2
L
1+
+
d
2g h3
L
1+
+
d

[5]

Perspectives
The analytical optimisation with consideration of risk aspects forms the emphasis of further research activities.
Subsequently technical-structural aspects with special consideration of the existing dam-type are regarded
(concrete/masonry gravity dam or embankment dam). Fundamental construction principles for outlet works are to be
considered. That includes intakes (incl. screens), outlets, the number of vales/gates, the operating reliability
(vibrations/cavitation) as well as energy dissipation. The integration into the existing dams is a technological challenge.
On the basis of the described need for action at some Saxon dams, this investigation creates a tool which can be used as
basis for the modernisation of operating equipment. The improvement of the flood protection effect of dams represents
an important component for an up-to-date flood management. There is good evidence of the benefits of additional mid
level outlets in being able to optimise reservoir operation at the beginning of the flood and thus reducing risks,
protecting people and averting severe damage downstream of dams in the 21st century.

REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Sieber, H.-U.: Hochwasser 2002 Kurzbericht, http://www.smul.sachsen.de, read on 2008-19-05

DIN 19700 Stauanlagen - Teil 11: Talsperren, Beuth-Verlag Berlin, 2004
Sinniger, R.; Hager, W. H.: Retentionsvorgnge in Speicherseen, Schweizer Ingenieur u. Architekt, 26/1984
Khne, A.: Charakteristische Kenngren schweizerischer Speicherseen, Geographica Helvetica, 4/1978
Bollrich, G.: Technische Hydromechanik Band 1 Grundlagen, 4. Auflage, Verlag fr Bauwesen Berlin, 1996