Hydropower Engineering

Hydropower Engineering
Hydrological Analysis and Modeling
Drill
24 Dec 2012
Exercise
Your Dam
Datin Prof Ir. Dr. Lariyah Mohd Sidek
Involve to Solve Copyright 2013 TNB Research

WHAT IS DISASTER?
Disaster can be defined as an incident that occurs in a
sudden manner, complex in nature, resulting in the loss
of lives, damages to property or the environment as well
as affecting the daily activities of local community.
Such incident requires the handling of resources,
equipment, frequency and extensive manpower from
various agencies as well as effective coordination and
the possibility of demanding complex actions over a
long period of time.
WHAT IS DISASTER?
Natural Disaster is hard to
prevent, but mitigation measures
can be done to reduce the impact
of disaster.
Disaster Management is end-

to-end system.
INTEGRATED NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME
MITIGATION & RELIEF
FOREST FIRE
FLOOD
LANDSLIDE
OIL SPILL
HOT INSTALLATION
TSUNAMI
DISASTROUS INCIDENTS
1.Natural Disasters i.e. Floods, Storm, Drought, Beach Erosion and
Landslides
2.Industrial Disasters such as Explosions, Fire Outbreak, Pollution
and Emission of Hazardous Materials
3.Accidents Involving Hazardous Materials
4.Collapse of High Rise Buildings or Special Structures
5.Air Accidents Occur in Buildings Area and Many People
6.Train Collisions and Derailments
7.Fire Outbreak in Large Areas/ High Rise Buildings/ Special
Structures/ Many People
8.The Burst of a Hydro Dam or Reservoir
9.Nuclear and Radiology Mishaps Which May Probably Spread and
Cause the Loss of Lives and Pollute the Environment
10.Emission of Poisonous Gas in Public Places
11.Haze Which Cause an Emergency Situation to the Environment
and Jeopardizes Public Orderand Countrys Economic Activities
12.Air Disasters
13.Sea Disasters
Dam, like all structures, will be
broken in the end just as all
people will die in the future. It is
the purpose of the medicine and
engineering to postpone these
occurrence for a decent interval.
(J. F. Gordon, 1998)
DISASTER EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
These can be accomplished through emergency
management which begins with hazard identification
and planning for disaster mitigation but
encompasses other activities as risk analysis, risk
response and recovery.
Therefore, an emergency management system with
capacity to:
i) forecast critical situations;
ii) warn the population as well as the authorities; and
iii) support the civil protection system to deal with an
emergency, is a most helpful tool to minimize the
impact of an accident
PHASES OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT
Risk Management
Preparedness
Mitigation - Prediction and Early
Warning System
Prevention
Protection DISASTER
Recovery
Recovery and Response
Rehabilitation - Search and
- Analysis Rescue
- Recontruction - Relief
Impact Assessment
Crisis Management
WHAT IS DAM BREAK ANALYSIS?
Assess extent of damage and analyze hydraulic
characteristics (velocity, depth, flood wave arrival
time) due to failure of dam embankment
Part of Emergency Response Plan (ERP) Requirement
For Dam Operators
To prepare an ERP for planning and remedial actions if
dam break is inevitable.
Socio economic impact resulting from occurrence of
dam break
Dam break modeling results provide emergency
information, emergency operation, warning for
residents, flood warning
WHY DO DAMS FAIL?
Around 200 notable dam and reservoir
failures worldwide in the 20th century
Common causes of dam failure include:
Spillway design error
Geological instability caused by changes
to water levels during filling or poor
surveying
Poor maintenance, especially of outlet
pipes
Extreme rainfall and inflow events
Human, computer or design error
CAUSES OF DAM FAILURE
overtopping during extreme flood
event
Dam Failure
piping & seepage
weakness in foundation / outlet works
sabotage, terrorism, criminal actions
Hydrologic Non-hydrologic
PMF Overtopping Failure (PMF) Clear Day Failure (CDF)
Slide No. 13
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF
DAM FAILURE?
Severe devastation in the valleys and
floodplains downstream both in terms of lives
lost and widespread damage to infrastructure
and property
Generally catastrophic
Loss of life
Severe damage to property
Need to:
Minimise risk of failure
Know how and when to get people out of the
way
DAM BREAK CASES (1990-2010)
Dam/
Location Type of dam Year failure Type of failure Cause Impact
Reservoir
Jaswant India Earthen dam 2007 Overtopping Failure of Water level rose
Sagar Dam protection wall from 4 to 10 feet,
7 people injured
Taum Sauk USA Concrete 2005 Overtopping Failure of Property

embankment damage,
sedimentation
Pratappura India Earthen Dam 2005 Piping Heavy rainfall More than 94
Dam deaths
Big Bay USA Earthen 2004 Overtopping Failure of 100 homes

Dam spillway damaged
Foisom USA Concrete 1995 Spillway Gate failure 22 deaths

Dam
WORST DAM COLLAPSES IN THE WORLD
EXAMPLES OF DAM BREAK FAILURE
Teton Dam (USA)
Teton river, Madison county, Southeast Idaho,
U.S.A.
305-foot high earthfill dam
Storage: 356 MCM
Failed at 11:57 AM, 5 June, 1976 (Piping
Failure)
Damage
Loss of 14 lives
Losses are estimated to be nearly $2 billion
TETON DAM (USA)
EAP
How do you know

you have an
emergency?
Slide No. 20
Of course Im
worried. Hes
one of the
engineers who
designed the
dam!!!!
Why do we need ERPs?

DAM OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Detection
Decision-making
Notification
Warning
Evacuation
TYPICAL QUESTIONS?
Will dam failure occur?
What are the loading thresholds that
cause failure?
What is the probability of failure given
a particular loading?
What are the consequences of failure
in terms of loss of life and property
damages?
HYDROLOGICAL
STUDY, PMP AND
PMF
ESTABLISHMENT PMP
OF PMP & PMF
FOR CAMERON
HIGHLANDS PMF
Continue.
Construction of dams and reservoirs across rivers to
conserve runoff water to serve the needs of the
people has been in vogue for many centuries;
In all these dams a spillway or spillway system is
built to not only allow water to flow over the dam
structure in normal day to day operations but also as
a safety feature to let pass the largest flood waters
that may arise from the heavy rainfall when full
reservoir storage capacity is exceeded;
The magnitude of this largest flood that could be
expected from the heavy rainfall at the dam site is
called the spillway design flood.
Continue.
With the latest enhancement of knowledge in

engineering hydrology it became possible to
estimate flood runoff from the storm rainfall;
The design of major dams began to be based
upon the analysis of major recorded
rainstorms within a region;
The question then arising is whether records
on heavy rainfalls will always continue to be
superseded or whether there is a physical
upper limit to the rainfall.
Continue.
The water resources engineers and hydrologists
therefore looked to the science of meteorology to
logically decide if the upper limit to the precipitation
could indeed be established rationally;
This resulted in the concept of the maximum possible
precipitation which subsequently was termed as the
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP);
The PMP values will of course vary over the earths
surface according to the climatic or rainfall regime.
The statistical and hydrometeorological methods to
estimate the magnitude of PMP were then developed
(WMO, 1986).
Continue.
The estimation of PMP for designing dams and
spillways in Malaysian practice thus far uses
the Statistical and Hydrometeorological
Methods, which were developed based on
overseas experience and data such as the
United States and Australia.
Thus, there was a need to study PMP estimates
using the above methods based on local
observed extreme storms in Malaysia
Consequently, NAHRIM embarked on the local
PMP study at the end of 2004 and successfully
completed it in early 2008.
Historical Storms used for the Various PMP Studies in Malaysia (NWRS, 2000)
PMP VALUES BASED ON PREVIOUS STUDIES
Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

NAHRIM, 2009

NAHRIM, 2009

NAHRIM, 2009

NAHRIM, 2009

PMP METHODOLOGY
METHOD
METEOROLOGICAL
STATISTICAL APPROACH
APPROACH (STORM
(HERSHFIELDS METHOD)
TRANSPOSITION METHOD)
- needs less data - more efficient

- area less than 100 km - easy to estimate PMP
(small catchment) for large catchment
HERSHFIELD
METHOD
Rainfall data collection
Analysis of the rainfall data
Determine X1
FLOWCHART FOR
HERSHFIELDS
Determine X n-1
METHOD
Determine n-1
Calculate K , K = (X1 X n-1) / n-1
Determine K m
Determine n
Determine n
Calculate PMP for the station

XPMP = n + K m . n
Establish generalised 5-day PMP map

NAHRIM, 2009

REVIEWS ON THE PMP ESTIMATION
PRACTICES
REVIEWS ON THE OVERSEA PMP ESTIMATION
PRACTICES
PMP Estimation in the United States of America and Australia
REVIEWS ON MALAYSIA PMP ESTIMATION

PRACTICES
Sg. Selangor Dam, National Water Resources (NWRS), Pahang-
Selangor Raw Water Transfer Study, Sg. Kelalong Dam, Sg. Kinta
Dam, Sg. Kelantan Flood Mitigation Study, Sg. Klang Flood Mitigation
Project, Putrajaya Dam, Malut Dam , Bekok and Sembrong Dam ,
Bukit Merah Dam , Padang Saga Dam , Ahning, Muda and Pedu Dam ,
Bukit Kwong Dam , Labong Dam , Langat Dam , Paya Peda Dam , Sg.
Aur Dam , Storm Models, Use of Hershfield Method for PMP
Estimation in Malaysia.
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATION & REVIEW
OF LITERATURE
SELECTION OF PMP STORMS
The PMP for specific basin is based on general
storms (frontal cyclone type) or local storm
(thunderstorm) depending upon the size of the
area.
A general storm normally lasts more than 6 hours
and is associated with a major synoptic weather
system producing precipitation over a large area.
A local storm seldom lasts more than 6 hours and
covers areas up to 1300 sq km or 500 square
miles.
OF LITERATURE (Contd)
METHODS FOR PMP ESTIMATION

Two main methods that were reviewed and
used to estimate PMP in this study:
(i) Physical or hydrometeorological method of
maximization and transposition of major
storm events; and
(ii) Statistical analysis of extreme rainfalls.
PHYSICAL OR
HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL METHOD
The main assumption in the physical or
hydrometeorological method is that the PMP
will result from a storm in which there is the
optimum combination of the available moisture
in the atmosphere and the efficiency of the
storm mechanism;
Factors which influence the storm efficiency
include horizontal mass convergence, frontal or
topographically induced lifting, vertical
velocities and the rate of condensation of water
vapour into droplets.
STATISTICAL METHOD
Statistical procedures for estimating PMP are
mainly used wherever sufficient precipitation data
are available, and are particularly useful for making
quick estimates or where other meteorological data,
such as dew point and wind records, are lacking;
The procedure that shall be used in this study is
known as Hershfield Method, which has received
the widest acceptance throughout the world;
It is used mostly for making quick estimates for
watersheds of no more than about 1000 km2, but
has been used for much larger areas.
DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
Collection of Relevant Reports, Manuals, and
Journals;
Topographic Maps;
Hydrometeorological Data:
Station Network, Rainfall Data, Temperature
Data, Relative Humidity Data, Dew Point
Temperature
Data Quality Control;
Gridding of Hydrological Network and Selection
of Stations;
Analysis for Basic Statistical Parameters;
Analysis for Data Homogeneity
Results for Statistical Method (NAHRIM, 2009)
Hydro-Meteorological Method - Transposition Regions
Results for Hydro-Meteorological Method
(NAHRIM, 2009)
COMPARISON OF PMP RESULTS BY
STATISTICAL AND HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL
METHODS (NAHRIM, 2009)
Generally the PMP derived by physical

method is more than the PMP derived
by statistical method even though
some exceptions are evident due to the
data records and several climatic and
geographical factors
WORKED OUT EXAMPLE AT PAYA PEDA DAM
SITE USING HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL AND
STATISTICAL METHODS (NAHRIM, 2009)
PMP FOR CAMERON
HIGHLAND
ESTABLISHMENT OF PMP FOR
CAMERON HIGHLANDS
Rainfall Data from DID & TNB
Data Collection
Rainfall Station
Time Series Analysis
Maximum Rainfall
Observed
1 day = 730
PMP Value 3 days = 966
Data Analysis 5 days = 969
PMP Comparisons
PMP Isohyets
Temporal pattern for Storm

Events Hourly
Hyetograph
DID Rainfall Station in Cameron Highland
Data
Station No. Name Open Close Longlitude Latitude
(years)
Stn Kaji Cuaca Cameron
4413034 1955 2000 45 10122'40"E 428'25"N
Highland. Sg Bertam
4414036 Ldg Boh( Kaw. Kilang ) 1947 2009 62 10125'30"E 427'05"N
4414037 Ldg Boh( Bhg. Boh ) 1948 2009 61 10126'40"E 426'30"N
4414038 Ldg Boh( Bhg. Selatan ) 1948 2009 61 10127'10"E 426'55"N
Gunung Brinchang( data
4513033 1975 2008 33 10123'00"E 431'00"N
logger telemetry)
4514032 LDG. TEH SG. PALAS 1964 2009 45 10125'10"E 431'00"N
4514031 LDG. TEH Blue Valley 1948 2009 61 10125'00"E 431'00"N
DID Rainfall Station Downstream of Sungai Batang Padang

Data
Station No. Name Open Close Longlitude Latitude
(years)
4212133 Hospital Tapah 1945 1997 52 10115'35"E 412'00"N
Sek Ren Keb Sri Kinjang, 10114'20"E 416'00"N
4212128 1953 2008 55
Chenderiang
4112141 Ldg. Gedong 1959 2009 50 10117'47"E 407'06"N

Location Map of DID Rainfall Station in Cameron Highland

TNB Rainfall Station in Cameron Highland
Station No. Name Open Closed Longlitude Latitude
Sg. Plauur at
6001 1964 NA 10124'20"E 0436'46"N
Outfall
Sg. Telom at Batu
6002 1956 NA 10125'28"E 0432'35"N
49, Pahang
Sg. Bertam at
6003 R.Falls Intake, 1963 NA 10123'14"E 0427'55"N
Pahang
Sg. Batang Padang
6045 1963 NA 10114'45"E 0411'50"N
at Jln Tapah
Sg. Woh Abo ve
6048 1987 NA 10123'21"E 0414'42"N
Intake
Blue Valley Tea
1948
9001 Estate at C. NA 10125'10"E 0435'10"N
2007
Highlands, Pahang
Kg. Raja at C. 1962
9002 NA 10125'00"E 0433'05"N
Highlands, Pahang 2006
Telom Intake at C. 1964
9003 NA 10125'30"E 0432'32"N
Sg. Palas Tea
9004 Estate at C. 1954 NA 10125'00"E 0431'00"N
Highlands, Pahang
Sg. Ruil at C. 1954
9006 NA 10125'30"E 0429'40"N
Kajiklim T. Rata at
9007 C. Highlands, 1964 NA 10123'00"E 0428'00"N
Pahang
TNB Rainfall Station in Cameron Highland
Station No. Name Open Closed Longlitude Latitude
MARDI C. Highlands
9008 NA NA NA NA
at Pahang
Kajiklim Habu at C. 1964
9009 NA 10123'00"E 0425'00"N
Boh Tea
9010 Estate(factory), 1953 NA 10125'30"E 0427'05"N
C.Highlands, Pahang
Cameron Highlands
9111 at (Tanah Rata), NA NA NA NA
Pahang
Kajiklim Jor at 19th 1960
9016 NA 10123'00"E 0422'00"N
Miles 2006
1966
9017 Jor Dam at 17th Miles NA 10120'40"E 0421'40"N
2006
Kajiklim Jor at 7th 1964
9019 NA 10120'00"E 0414'00"N
Miles 2006
Cameron Highlands
1030 (7) at (Tanah Rata), NA NA NA NA
Pahang
Kajiklim Habu at C.
2002 1964 NA 10123'00"E 0425'00"N
Highlands, Pahang
Kajiklim Utama
48631 1968 NA 10123'00"E 0428'00"N
Tanah Rata
Kajicuaca Cameron
48632 1983 NA 10122'00"E 0428'00"N
Highlands
Kajiklim Jor at 19th
1003/2003 1960 NA 10122'00"E 0422'00"N
Miles
Kajiklim Woh at 7th
1004/2004 1964 NA 10120'00"E 0414'00"N
Miles
Location Map of TNB Rainfall Station in Cameron Highland

Rainfall Data for DID Rainfall Station
Rainfall Data for TNB Rainfall Station
Maximum Rainfall Observed
Maximum Rainfall Observed at Different Rainfall Station ( mm )
Station No. Location UNITEN NAHRIM
1 day 3 day 5day 1 day 3 day 5 day
Gunung
4513033 363 690 720 545 697 724
Brinchang
Ladang. Teh Sg.
4514032 128.8 200.1 246.4 190 207.5 273.5
Palas
Ladang Boh
4414038 (Bahagian 99.4 246.5 324.9 128.2 248.2 346.7
Selatan )
Ladang Boh
4414036 72.8 170 286.6 110.0 187.8 276.7
(Kwsn Kilang )
Stesen Kajicuaca
4413034 87.3 168.8 228.1 123.2 175.1 230.4
C.Highlands
SRK Sri Kinjang,

4212128 159.7 331.7 462 200 384 455
Chenderiang
Ladang Gedong
4112141 117.9 251.2 366.5 154.5 280.5 351
1 Day PMP
Station Max RF Mean, xn Std Dev, n n-1 xn-1 Km 1-day PMP 24 hrPMP/highest Nahrim 1-day 24hr-PMP
4413034 87.3 59.2 12.53 11.88 58.53 2.42 159.82 2.07 294 180.59
4414036 78.2 54.32 10.63 10.26 53.89 2.37 139.68 2.02 250 157.84
4414037 79.1 54.81 11.43 11.08 54.41 2.23 146.59 2.09 N/A 165.65
4414038 99.4 57.65 13.26 12.22 56.97 3.47 164.13 1.87 296 185.46
4514031 228.7 63.85 30.44 21.39 60.96 7.84 308.28 1.52 N/A 348.36
4514032 128.8 55.74 15.01 10.32 54.11 7.24 176.27 1.55 382 199.19
4513033 363 83.91 70.01 50.46 75.45 5.70 646.09 2.01 288 730.08
4112141 117.9 82.26 17.79 17.22 81.55 2.11 225.11 2.16 N/A 254.38
4212128 159.7 82.23 25.38 23.17 80.74 3.41 286.03 2.02 N/A 323.22
4212133 159.7 82.23 25.38 19.34 86.26 3.80 286.03 2.02 N/A 323.22
9001 330 83.30 44.14 31.21 79.26 8.03 437.74 1.50 N/A 494.65
9002 116.3 75.82 17.09 16.19 74.96 2.55 213.05 2.07 N/A 240.75
9003 115 69.85 18.54 17.41 68.82 2.65 218.73 2.15 N/A 247.16
9004 190 72.93 22.09 15.44 70.8 7.72 250.31 1.49 N/A 282.85
9006 123.2 80.04 16.63 15.55 78.68 2.86 213.58 1.96 N/A 241.34
9007 123.2 77.03 14.33 12.67 76 3.73 192.10 1.76 N/A 217.07
9008 106.8 78.7 12.35 11.7 78.05 2.46 177.87 1.88 N/A 200.99
9010 110 72.15 15.21 14.26 71.31 2.71 194.29 2.00 N/A 219.54
9011 115.3 70.31 16.01 14.67 69.31 3.13 198.87 1.95 N/A 224.72
9012 129.5 79.9 16.02 13.91 79.11 3.62 208.54 1.82 N/A 235.65
9017 108.4 71.14 17.09 17.15 70.27 2.22 208.37 2.17 N/A 235.46
9018 104.9 65.14 22.05 20.02 62.49 2.12 242.20 2.61 N/A 273.69
9019 185.8 118.08 26.1 24.29 116.58 2.85 327.66 1.99 N/A 370.26
9022 227.1 119.25 33.46 29.48 117 3.73 387.93 1.93 N/A 438.37
9122 117.5 90.5 18.55 16.62 87.13 1.83 239.46 2.30 N/A 270.59
8.03
Highest Km
JPS RAINFALL STATION

TNB RAINFALL STATION
Highest 1 day PMP : 730 mm

3 Days PMP
Station Max RF Mean, xn Std Dev, n n-1 xn-1 Km 3-day PMP 3-day PMP/highest Nahrim 3-day
4413034 168.8 117.7 30.16 29.41 11.46 3.61 306.80 1.82 418
4414036 170 110.91 23.21 22.1 109.94 2.72 256.44 1.51 427
4414037 174.8 114.76 25.17 24.14 114.3 2.51 272.58 1.56
4414038 246.5 118.63 33.15 28.99 116.53 4.48 326.49 1.32 524
4514031 368.7 132.27 51.56 41.33 128.19 5.82 455.55 1.24
4514032 200.1 116.32 26.45 23.5 114.46 3.64 282.16 1.41 476
4513033 690 139.91 131.78 90.37 123.25 6.27 966.17 1.40 1757
4212128 331.7 161.45 52.71 43.33 158.18 4.00 491.94 1.48
4112141 251.2 160.83 38.21 36.32 159.03 2.54 400.41 1.59
4212133 240.7 171.79 38.84 37.99 170.47 1.85 415.32 1.73
9001 374 140.05 54.61 45.72 136.15 5.20 482.45 1.29
9002 302.7 127.5 39.71 30.49 123.77 5.87 376.48 1.24
9003 208.2 117.5 33.04 30.35 115.43 3.06 324.66 1.56
9004 207.5 121.31 27.35 24.93 121.83 3.44 292.79 1.41
9006 202.6 133.25 24.9 23 131.28 3.10 289.37 1.43
9007 175.2 124.77 19.92 18.62 123.64 2.77 249.67 1.43
9008 175.6 126.18 22.15 21.04 125.03 2.40 265.06 1.51
9010 187.9 121.1 24.22 22.28 119.61 3.07 272.96 1.45
9011 147.4 97.17 27.95 27.21 96.06 1.89 272.42 1.85
9012 176.7 127.62 22.5 21.25 126.29 2.37 268.70 1.52
9017 212.5 117.75 32.07 28.88 115.55 3.36 318.83 1.50
9018 166.34 110.22 33.07 30.52 106.47 1.96 317.57 1.91
9019 251 172.83 30.93 28.92 171.09 2.76 366.76 1.46
9022 267.6 178.02 38.84 36.96 176.16 2.47 421.55 1.58
9122 188.5 152.5 34.11 33.49 148 1.21 366.37 1.94
Highest Km 6.27

Highest 3 days PMP : 966 mm

5 Days PMP
Station Max RF Mean, xn Std Dev, n n-1 xn-1 Km 5-day PMP 5day/highest Nahrim 5-day
4413034 228.1 158.3 33.81 32.36 156.60 2.21 356 1.56 526
4414036 286.6 147.35 34.72 33.07 145.92 4.25 351 1.22 552
4414037 174.8 115.39 25.95 25.92 114.95 2.31 267 1.53
4414038 324.90 154.85 37.98 31.26 152.06 5.53 377 1.16 673
4514031 369.3 177.70 66.79 60.71 173.93 3.22 569 1.54
4514032 246.4 151.8 32.47 29.51 149.70 3.28 342 1.39 654
4513033 720 174.99 134.12 94.79 158.47 5.92 969 1.35 1888
4212128 462 207.97 74.25 53.06 203.30 4.88 643 1.39
4112141 366.5 203.81 48.65 43.17 200.56 3.84 489 1.33
9001 424.6 186.04 72.83 66.43 182.06 3.65 613 1.44
9002 459.7 169.44 65.78 50.5 163.27 5.87 555 1.21
9003 307.6 151.25 52.22 46.99 147.7 3.40 457 1.49
9004 273.5 158.62 36.94 33.77 156.53 3.46 375 1.37
9006 236 157.59 46.83 45.99 157.19 1.71 432 1.83
9007 230.6 156.98 27.05 24.94 155.34 3.02 315 1.37
9008 228.1 161.44 30.41 28.96 159.89 2.36 340 1.49
9010 276.8 155.69 31.94 26.5 153 4.67 343 1.24
9011 216.2 118.9 38.56 36.07 116.83 2.75 345 1.60
9012 196.4 157.34 23.66 23.06 156.28 1.74 296 1.51
9017 288.6 153.77 45.34 40.76 154.79 3.28 419 1.45
9018 208.6 143.04 40.04 37.28 138.67 1.88 378 1.81
9019 364.4 218.17 43.85 38.34 214.92 3.90 475 1.30
9022 290.8 211.88 39.91 38.62 210.24 2.09 446 1.53
9122 245 192.39 37.73 34.38 185.81 1.72 413 1.69
Highest Km 5.86

Highest 5 days PMP : 969mm

RANGE OF DESIGN RAINFALL TO PMP
COMPARISON OF MOST EXTREME RAINFALL EVENTS OF
MALAYSIA WITH THE WORLDS EXTREME EVENTS
PMP VALUES (NAHRIM, 2009)
CALCULATED PMP
Calculated PMP in Different Rainfall Station ( mm )
Station No. Location UNITEN NAHRIM
1 day 3 day 5day 1 day 3 day 5 day
Gunung
4513033 646.09 966.17 956 288 1,757 1,888
Brinchang
Ladang. Teh Sg.
4514032 176.27 282.16 342 382 476 645
Palas
Ladang Boh
4414038 (Bahagian 164.13 326.49 377 296 524 673
Selatan )
Ladang Boh
4414036 139.68 256.44 351 250 427 552
( Kwsn Kilang )
Stesen
4413034 Kajicuaca 159.82 306.8 356 294 418 526
C.Highlands
SRK Sri Kinjang,
4212128 286.03 491.94 643 476 806 985
Chenderiang
Ladang Gedong,
4112141 225.11 400.41 489 374 620 764
Bidor

PMP COMPARISON
Station PMP (mm)
Location Source
No. 1 day 3 day 5 day
Ladang Teh 176
4514032 UNITEN
Sungai Palas (Km 8.03)
382
Ladang Teh
4514032 NAHRIM (Km 6.2-
Sungai Palas
12.5)
4513033 Gunung 966

UNITEN
Brinchang (Km 6.27)
Gunung 1757
4513033 NAHRIM
Brinchang (Km 6.9- 12.6)
4513033 Gunung
UNITEN 969
Brinchang
(Km 5.92)
Gunung 1888
4513033 NAHRIM
Brinchang (Km 7.9-13.00)

ISOHYETS PMP
1 day 5 days
33 days
days
ISOHYETS MAXIMUM RAINFALL
11day
day 3 days 55days
day

TEMPORAL PATTERN FOR STORM EVENTS
Hourly Average Temporal Pattern
16.00
14.00
Percentage (%)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time Period (hr)

72 Hour Average Temporal Pattern
16.00
14.00
Percentage (%)
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time Period ( 6 hour )

120 Hour Average Temporal Pattern
12.00
10.00
Percentage (%)
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time Period ( 6 hour )

RAINFALL HYETOGRAPH FOR 1DAY PMP
i. Historical Storm Event Method
Rainfall Hyetograph 24 hour

120
PMP = 730.08
100
80
Rainfall (mm)
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time Period ( hourly)
TEMPORAL PATTERN 24 HRS (1 DAY)

RAINFALL HYETOGRAPH FOR 3 DAYS PMP
Rainfall Hyetograph 72 Hour
160
140
PMP = 966
120
100
Rainfall
(mm)
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time Period( 6 hr interval )
TEMPORAL PATTERN 72 HRS (3 DAYS)

RAINFALL HYETOGRAPH FOR 5 DAYS PMP
Rainfall Hyetograph 120 Hour
100
90 PMP = 969
80
70
60
Rainfall
(mm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time Period( 6hr interval)
TEMPORAL PATTERN 120 HRS (5 DAYS)

ii. Type 2 PMP- Nested Bell Shaped (Alternating
Block Method)
TEMPORAL PATTERN 1440 MINUTE (1 DAY)

Block Method)
TEMPORAL PATTERN 4320 MINUTE (3 DAYS)

Block Method)
TEMPORAL PATTERN 7200 MINUTE (5 DAYS)

CONCLUSIONS
The annual rainfall decreases at much higher elevation thus
indicates the orographic effect.
The consistency and reliability of records at Gunung Brinchang

station is found to be consistent by double mass curve
technique.
The maximum values for 1 day, 3 days and 5 days PMP values
are found to be 730.08mm, 966.17mm and 969.0mm respectively
at Station number 4513033 Gunung Brinchang.
The PMP values obtained were compared with previous study

results undertaken by NAHRIM
The temporal pattern for 1 day, 3 days and 5 days have been
developed based on observed extreme rainfall at station 4513033
Gunung Brinchang.
The hyetograph developed will be used as an input in the

computation of PMF in this study.
TYPE OF BREACH
1. Overtopping
2. Piping
DAM BREACH FORMATION
Dam Breach Formation
BREACH CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON
GUIDELINES
Compilations of Dam Breach Parameters. (Steven E. Yochum et.al, 2008, K. Broich, 1999, M.J.
Franca 2004, Tony L. Wahl, 1998, Mikko Huokuna, 2001)
SIDE SLOPE
BREACH WIDTH FAILURE TIME FACTOR, Z
REFERENCES PEAK FLOW EQUATIONS
EQUATIONS EQUATIONS (Z Horizontal : 1
Vertical)
Bureau of Reclamation (1988) Bavg = 3hw tf=0.011(Bavg) Qp=19.1(hw)1.85 envelope eq. -
Ver=0.0261(Vwhw)0.769
MacDonald andLangridge-
earthfill tf=0.0179Ver0.364 Qp=1.154(Vwhw)0.412
Monopolis
(1984) Ver=0.00348(Vwhw)0.852
0.5
nonearthfills (e.g., Qp=3.85(VwhW)0.411envelope eq.
rockfills)
tf=0.015hw highly erodible

tf=0.020hw+ 0.25 erosion
1 for most dams
resistant
0.33 to 0.5 for dam
Von Thun and Gillette (1990) Bavg=2.5hw+Cb tf=Bavg /(4hw) erosion -
with cohesive shell or
resistant
wide cohesive clay core
tf=Bavg/(4hw+61) highly
erodible
1.4 for overtopping
failure
Froehlich (1995a) Bavg=0.1803KoVw0.32hb0.19 tf=0.00254(Vw)0.53hb-0.9 Qp=0.607(Vw0.295hw1.24) 0.9 for other failure
modes
Average 1.0
Kirkpatrick (1977) - - Qp=1.268(hw+ 0.3)2.5 -
SCS (1981) - - Qp=16.6(hw)1.85 -
Hagen (1982) - - Qp=0.54(S.hd)0.5 -
Qp=13.4(hd)1.89 0.176 to 1.2
Singh and Snorrason (1984)
- - Qp=1.776(S)0.47
Qp=1.122(S)0.57
Costa (1985) Q =0.981(S.hd)0.42 -
WHERE DOES MODELLING FIT IN?
If a dam fails:
Where the water will go?
How long it will take to flow downstream?
Which areas are at most risk?
Important information needed to plan for and respond to
emergency?
Monitoring:
As part of monitoring / warning system
A key tool to determine when disaster is imminent
Objectives:
To simulate accurate outflow for flood mapping and risk
assessment analysis
To support crisis management (including a potential evacuation
action) during a dam incident with a threat of dam overtopping or
piping Involve to Solve
OVERVIEW OF MODELLING
Introduction
What is modelling?
How is it applied to dambreak, flood management and mitigation?
Examples of modelling applications
Types of models and applications
1D, 2D, etc
Methodology
Data requirements
Model setup and calibration
Outputs and applications
Practical Applications
floodplain mapping, forecasting, etc
Could route peak breach outflows to determine inundation depths, flood consequences
Could determine peak breach outflow, given a description of how a breach would
Slide No. 94 Copyrights 2008 TNB Research Involve to Solve
develop
AVAILABLE DAM BREAK MODELS
MIKE11 MIKE21 DAM BREAK MODULE
(Based on NWS dambreak equation or energy eq.)
HEC -1
HECRAS VER 3.1.3
DAMBRK UK
SMPDBK Model by NWS
HydroCAD
INFOWORKS
Involve to Solve
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR
MODELLING
Dambreak mechanism
Breach formation (breach width, time
and shape)
Outflow hydrograph
Scenarios
Different flood hydrograph types and
flood peak values (including PMF)
reservoir water level before dambreak
96 Involve to Solve
Dam breaks
Two breach algorithms

Crest failure (breach-structure)
Piping failure of the dam (pipe failure structure) Followed

by collapse of crest
Breach development
Linear
Time dependent
Erosion based
Involve to Solve
MODELLING TOOLS
MIKE 11
Important for dambreak:
Linked to hydrologic models / rainfall gauges
Can model reservoir volumes and reservoirs
Can do sophisticated structures
Can model mechanisms of dam failure
Can be linked to telemetry / forecasting systems
MIKE 21
Important for dambreak:
Can model flood maps accurately
MIKE FLOOD
Links MIKE 11 and MIKE 21
Best of both models! Involve to Solve
Slide No. 98
WHY MIKE 21?
WHERE AND WHEN THE FLOOD

HAPPEN?
HOW BIG IS THE AREA AFFECTED?
WHO ARE AFFECTED FLOOD ?
Slide No. 99
MIKE 21
Slide No. 100

BENEFITS OF 2D
Flow paths determined by Topographic Characteristics
Variation in levels and velocity across the floodplain
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 103
INPUT DATA FOR DAM BREAK
ANALYSIS
Information Required For Dam Break Modeling
- Type of dam rock fill earth core dam, concrete face

rockfill dam, concrete dam, etc,
- Stage Storage Curve
- Type of failure overtopping and piping
- Climatic conditions sunny day and probable
maximum flood
- Breach parameters - breach bottom width and
elevation, side slope, initial piping, breach
formation time,
By International guidelines
Check using published equations
DAM BREAK ANALYSIS FLOW CHART
Set up MIKE 11 Model

Methodology of MIKE 21
Prepare and convert the DTM database to MIKE-21 format.
Ensure all data files are compatible and error-free
Convert the breach outflow hydrograph from the dam break model to MIKE-21 input
files.
Prepare the Mannings map in MIKE 21 format for river channels and floodplain.
Specify appropriate initial condition for the model such as initial water level and
discharge.
Check the Courant number of the MIKE 21 model to ensure stability.
Specify the result files and Run the simulation.
Review the results of the simulation (inundation area, flood depth, flow velocity and
flood arrival time) at several pre-selected locations.
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 108
MODEL OUTPUTS
Time of arrival of flood wave
Generation of flood maps
Maximum flood extents
Maximum water depths
Maximum velocities
Flood hazard
Function of depth and velocity
Floodplain management
Land use planning and urban drainage
Forecasting and warning systems
Flood forecasting
Involve to Solve
DSS
Slide No. 109
FLOOD INUNDATION MAPS
Each map contains the following:
Potential inundation areas
Time to maximum flood wave
Distance along the river from the
Dam
Maximum water surface elevation
Maximum flooding depth
Maximum flood discharge
Maximum flood velocity
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 110
Involve to Solve
CAMERON HIGHLANDS HYDROELECTRIC SCHEME-
DAM DETAILS
SAB DAM JOR DAM MAHANG DAM
Type of dam Concrete Buttress Gravity Earthfill Earthfill
Height of Main Dam 40m(131.2ft) 44.8m (147 ft.) 21m (69 ft.)
Crest Level 1074.42m (3525 ft.) 496.83m (1630 ft.) 73.15m (240 ft.)
Crest Length 135m (442.9 ft.) 210m (689 ft.) 230m (689 ft.)
Dam Crest Width - 6.0m (19.7 ft.)
Type of Spillway Controlled Gated Spillway (3 radial Bellmouth Spillway (Uncontrolled 2 Overflow Spillway Culverts
gates+1 tilting gate) Spillway) (Uncontrolled Spillway)
Size/Diameter of Spillway Tilting gate: 6.1m wide x 3.3m 10.9m diameter -
high
Radial Gate: 12.2m wide x 5.0m
high
Length of spillway - 34.38m 15m
circumference
Spillway Crest Level - 493.5m (1619 ft.) 71.7m (235.25 ft.)
Spillway Gates Tilting gate: - -
-bottom hinged at EL. 1068m
(3504.0 ft.)
-opens at RWL 1070.7m (3513
ft.)
-fully open at RWL 1071m
(3514 ft.) ~ 65.1m3/s
Radial gate:
-opens at RWL 1071.1m
(3514.08 ft.)
-fully open at RWL 1071.4m
(3515 ft.) ~ 300.2m3/s/gate
Total Spillway Discharge 965.6 1104 @ 494.5m (1622.5 ft.) 50
(m3/s)
CAMERON HIGHLANDS HYDROELECTRIC SCHEME-
RESERVOIR DETAILS
SAB DAM JOR DAM MAHANG DAM
Catchment Area 183.4 sq. km 393.9 sq. km 359 sq. km
Reservoir Area 0.5 sq. km 0.3 sq. km 0.1 sq. km
Gross Storage @ FSL 6.7 million m3 3.85 million m3 0.46 million m3
Live Storage @ FSL 3820 acre ft. 2.1 million m3 -
FSL/Max. OL 1070.4m (3512 ft.) 493.3m (1618.5 ft.) 71.6m (235 ft.)
TWL/NOL 1068.3m (3505 ft.) 492.5m (1616 ft.) 70.7m (232 ft.)
BWL/Min. OL 1065.2m (3495 ft.) 486.1m (1595 ft.) 69.5m (228 ft.)
Involve to Solve
Compilations of dam breach parameters. (Steven E. Yochum et.al, 2008, K. Broich,
1999, M.J. Franca 2004, Tony L. Wahl, 1998, Mikko Huokuna, 2001)
SIDE SLOPE
BREACH WIDTH FAILURE TIME FACTOR, Z
REFERENCES PEAK FLOW EQUATIONS
EQUATIONS EQUATIONS (Z Horizontal : 1
Vertical)
Bureau of Reclamation (1988) Bavg = 3hw tf=0.011(Bavg) Qp=19.1(hw)1.85 envelope eq. -
Ver=0.0261(Vwhw)0.769
MacDonald and Langridge-
earthfill tf=0.0179Ver0.364 Qp=1.154(Vwhw)0.412
Monopolis
(1984) Ver=0.00348(Vwhw)0.852
0.5
nonearthfills (e.g., Qp=3.85(VwhW)0.411envelope eq.
rockfills)
tf=0.015hw highly erodible

tf=0.020hw+ 0.25 erosion
1 for most dams
resistant
0.33 to 0.5 for dam
Von Thun and Gillette (1990) Bavg=2.5hw+Cb tf=Bavg /(4hw) erosion -
with cohesive shell or
resistant
wide cohesive clay core
tf=Bavg/(4hw+61) highly
erodible
1.4 for overtopping
failure
Froehlich (1995a) Bavg=0.1803KoVw0.32hb0.19 tf=0.00254(Vw)0.53hb-0.9 Qp=0.607(Vw0.295hw1.24) 0.9 for other failure
modes
Average 1.0
Kirkpatrick (1977) - - Qp=1.268(hw+ 0.3)2.5 -
SCS (1981) - - Qp=16.6(hw)1.85 -
Hagen (1982) - - Qp=0.54(S.hd)0.5 -
Qp=13.4(hd)1.89 0.176 to 1.2
Singh and Snorrason (1984)
- - Qp=1.776(S)0.47
Qp=1.122(S)0.57
Costa (1985) Qp=0.981(S.hd)0.42 -
Involve to Solve
- - Qp=2.634(S.hd)0.44
Evans (1986) - - Qp=0.72(Vw)0.53 -
Involve to Solve
MODELLING SCENARIOS
Need to define a range of possible scenarios
that capture all possible failure mechanisms
and consequences
What causes dam failure?
Extreme rainfall event PMP
Structural failure
more likely to happen when dam at design limits (ie
at PMP)
What different ways can dam fail?
Cascading dam failure
Are downstream dams designed to absorb shock
wave from upstream dam failure event?
Involve to Solve
MODELLING SCENARIOS
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (Hollow jet valve 4.5 m3/s) - actual site
1 condition
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (Hollow jet valve 36 m3/s)
2
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (Tilting gate 65 m3/s)
3
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (3 Radial gate and Tilting gate 965 m3/s)
4
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Clear Day Failure (CDF) - Piping/Seepage Failure
5
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure

6
Jor Dam Clear Day Failure (CDF) - Piping/Seepage Failure

7
Jor Dam Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure

8
Mahang Dam Clear Day Failure (CDF) - Piping/Seepage Failure

9
Mahang Dam Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure Involve to Solve

10
PMF Hydrograph inputs for MIKE 11 for
SAB Dam
PMF HYDROGRAPH OF 1 DAY PMP
PMF HYDROGRAPH OF 5 DAYS PMP

Slide No. 119 Involve to Solve
PMF Hydrograph inputs for MIKE11 for Jor
Dam

Calibration and Verification
PMF Hydrograph Process
inputs for Mahangfor
for MIKE11 Dam
Mahang Dam

STORAGE CAPACITY OF RINGLET FALLS
RESERVOIR
STORAGE CAPACITY OF RINGLET FALLS RESERVOIR
SURFACE AREA (M2)
250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0
1075 40
1070 35
1065
30
1060
WATER LEVEL (M)
25
1055
20
1050
15
1045
10
1040
1035 5
1030 0
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000
CUMULATIVE VOLUME (M 3)
Involve to Solve
Involve to Solve
Breach Outflow Hydrograph for Sultan Abu Bakar Dam
CDF Failure
Qpeak = 4485.897m3/s
Involve to Solve
Breach Outflow Hydrograph for SAB Dam
PMF scenario
Qpeak = 5439.014 m3/s
Involve to Solve
Breach Outflow Hydrograph for Jor Dam CDF
scenario
Qpeak = 10793.4 m3/s
Involve to Solve
Breach Outflow Hydrograph for Mahang
Dam CDF scenario
Qpeak = 3102.347 m3/s
Involve to Solve
Outflow Breach Hydrograph for Mahang
Dam PMF Scenario
Qpeak = 9712.83 m3/s
Involve to Solve
DAM BREACH PARAMETER AND DAM
BREAK MODELING RESULTS
Clear Day Failure Probable Maximum
(CDF) Flood (PMF)
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam (Type: Concrete &Rockfill)
Initial condition-reservoir water level (EL, m) 1071 (FSL)
Time to full breach, tf (hr) 0.409
Maximum depth of breach, dmax (m) 38.1
Breach width, B (m) 78.370
Breach side slope (1:x) 1V:1H
Peak discharge, Qpeak (m3/s) 4,485.90 5,439.01
Jor Dam (Type: Earthfill)
Initial condition-reservoir water level (EL, m) 493.47 (FSL)
Maximum depth of breach, dmax (m) 43
Peak discharge, Qpeak (m3/s) 10,793.4 13,005.70
Mahang Dam (Type: Earthfill)
Initial condition-reservoir water level (EL, m) 71.63 (FSL)
Maximum depth of breach, dmax (m) 15.24
Peak discharge, Qpeak (m3/s) 3,102.35 Involve to9,712.83
Solve
Slide No. 132
CONCLUSIONS
Peak Breach Outflow Hydrograph for SAB Dam
CDF Scenario is 4,485.90 m3/s
PMF Scenario is 5,439.01 m3/s
Peak Breach Outflow Hydrograph for Jor Dam

CDF Scenario is 10,793.4m3/s
Peak Breach Outflow Hydrograph for Mahang Dam

CDF Scenario is 3,102.35 m3/s
The values will be used in MIKE 21 to develop flood inundation map for SAB Dam, Jor Dam and
Mahang Dam.
Flood Inundation Map can be used to develop EAP and early warning system to allow the timely
evacuation of people from possible affected sites; this represents a useful tool for TNB.
Involve to Solve
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 134
MODELLING SCENARIOS
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (Hollow jet valve 4.5 m3/s) - actual site
1 condition
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (Hollow jet valve 36 m3/s)
2
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (Tilting gate 65 m3/s)
3
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Operational Release Mechanism Failure (3 Radial gate and Tilting gate 965 m3/s)
4
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Clear Day Failure (CDF) - Piping/Seepage Failure
5
Sultan Abu Bakar Dam Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure

6
Jor Dam Clear Day Failure (CDF) - Piping/Seepage Failure

7
Jor Dam Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure

8
Mahang Dam Clear Day Failure (CDF) - Piping/Seepage Failure

9
Mahang Dam Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure Involve to Solve

10
Slide No. 135
Key locations in towns under Sultan Abu Bakar
CDF and PMF Failure
Clear Day Failure Probable Maximum Flood Failure
Distance Flood Time to Sub. Flood Time to Sub. Time
Reference
from Dam Hmax Arrival Maximum Vmax Time Hmax Arrival Maximum (day)
Location Vmax (m/s)
(km) (m) Time Water (m/s) (day) (m) Time Water
(min) Level (m) (min) Level (m)
Surau 0.98 25.025 4.97 25.025 0.41 >3 26.725 3.83 26.725 0.59 >3
Library 1.01 25.409 4.97 24.844 0.53 >3 27.000 3.87 27.764 2.00 >3
Wet Market 1.21 24.844 6.20 25.399 0.87 >3 27.764 5.33 27.800 2.34 >3
SJK (C)
1.16 25.399 5.63 25.409 0.31 >3 27.800 4.63 27.000 2.64 >3
Bertam Valley
Fire Station 1.07 23.538 6.23 18.594 0.91 >3 25.844 5.40 20.313 1.62 >3
Community
1.24 24.503 6.03 23.538 0.20 >3 26.847 5.13 25.844 2.20 >3
Hall
Leela Clinic 1.22 25.073 6.07 24.503 0.20 1.41hrs 27.382 5.13 26.847 2.20 >3
Kindergarten 0.88 18.594 7.70 25.073 0.28 >3 20.313 7.93 27.382 0.76 >3
Temple 0.88 18.776 7.73 18.776 0.67 >3 20.398 8.00 20.398 0.47 >3
Kg. Sg. Tiang 6.65 18.833 21.17 18.833 0.71 >3 21.351 21.20 21.351 0.91 >3
Kg. Mensun 17.37 2.782 46.63 2.782 4.40 3.97hrs 3.850 41.57 3.850 4.75 >3
Kg. Leryar 21.29 7.593 50.93 7.593 1.27 >3 9.152 44.70 9.152 2.36 >3
Kg. Susu 21.29 9.710 58.80 65.37 4.12 >3 13.056 51.80 56.97 5.28 >3
Kg. Teji 24.54 5.549 70.80 77.00 3.02 5.09hrs 6.537 60.77 66.53 3.59 4.95hrs
Kg. Abu 25.09 1.558 71.80 77.87 2.53 5.09hrs 3.301 61.67 66.60 2.69 4.95hrs
Kg. Telanuk 26.42 3.321 74.23 78.57 4.99 5.10hrs 4.040 Involve 64.40
63.87 to Solve 6.77 5.00hrs
Kg.Slide No. 137
Renglas 27.29 2.524 76.93 82.17 0.91 5.15hrs 3.505 65.60 69.53 0.86 5.10hrs
Key locations in towns under Jor Dam CDF and
PMF Failure
Distance Time to Time to
Flood Flood
Reference from Maximum Sub. Maximum Sub.
Hmax Arrival Vmax Hmax Arrival Vmax
Location Dam Water Time Water Time
(m) Time (m/s) (m) Time (m/s)
(km) Level (day) Level (day)
(min) (min)
(min) (min)
Kg. Batu 15 3.59 - - - - - 13.036 11.90 13.33 0.05 2.25
Kg. Semai 4.41 11.366 13.17 16.37 0.08 2.06 14.582 16.27 16.27 0.08 1.94hrs
Kg. Batu 13 5.70 8.827 15.50 11.49 0.07 2.10 8.763 19.00 19.00 0.05 2.20hrs
Kg. Batu 12 6.57 12.158 16.37 17.10 0.03 1.12 12.522 18.77 18.77 0.03 1.13hrs
Kg. Batu 8 12.59 1.644 30.23 33.77 0.04x10-3 1.05 2.592 32.40 32.40 0.04x10-3 1.06hrs
Kg. Berumin 20.26 5.693 1.06hrs 4.84hrs 0.003 >3 days 6.572 77.20 77.20 0.003 >3
Kg. Jambai 23.91 3.134 3.02hrs 290.43hrs 0.86 >3 days 5.734 1.86hrs 2.48hrs 1.42 >3
Kg. Sunut 24.69 3.146 3.27hrs 5.09hrs 0.22 >3 days 4.130 1.93hrs 2.70hrs 0.32 >3
Kg. Batu
25.86 3.517 4.64hrs 10.73hrs 0.37 >3 days 5.551 2.44hrs 4.21hrs 0.73 >3
Melintang
Kg. Lubok Katak 27.90 - - - - - 1.189 1.86hrs 5.56hrs 0.02 >3
District Mosque 29.30 - - - - - 1.579 5.11hrs 11.29hrs 0.12 >3
SK Satu 29.30 - - - - - 2.048 5.28hrs 11.50hrs 0.28 >3
Tapah Hospital 29.30 - - - - - 0.61 8.81hrs 11.05hrs 0.13 >3
St. Mary Church 29.30 - - - - - 2.954 6.09hrs 11.35hrs 0.11 >3
Sri Involve to Solve
Thandayuthapani
Slide No. 141
29.30 - - - - - 3.089 6.20hrs 11.34hrs 0.10 >3
Temple
Key locations in towns under Mahang Dam CDF
and PMF Failure
Distance Time to
Flood Time to Flood
Reference Location from Dam Sub. Maximum Sub.
Arrival Maximum Vmax Arrival Vmax
(km) Hmax (m) Time Hmax (m) Water Time
Time Water Level (m/s) Time (m/s)
(day) Level (day)
(min) (min) (hour)
(hour)
Kg. Berumin 2.90 9.238 12.87 29.73 0.009 >3 19.674 1.16 2.06 0.68 >3
Kg. Jambai 6.76 8.714 37.73 56.27 4.00 >3 18.910 1.50 2.19 0.99 >3
Kg. Sunut 7.34 5.886 41.40 60.10 1.24 >3 14.578 1.54 2.22 1.76 >3
Kg. Batu Melintang
8.53 7.971 51.23 83.77 0.95 >3 15.791 1.62 2.26 2.26 >3
Kg. Lubok Katak 10.58 3.729 76.2 104.03 0.01 >3 17.750 1.76 2.44 0.78 >3
Kg. Kenoh 4.59 - - - - - 8.315 1.46 2.19 1.16 3.87hrs
Kg. Dusun Muda 10.00 - - - - - 9.534 1.82 2.57 0.27 1.53hrs
District Mosque 11.75 7.581 1.41hrs 8.67hrs 0.34 >3 21.603 1.83 3.25 0.78 >3
SK Satu 11.91 7.464 1.52hrs 8.96hrs 1.45 >3 21.463 1.87 3.32 1.73 >3
Tapah Hospital 11.99 6.646 1.56hrs 8.66hrs 0.001 >3 21.792 1.86 3.31 1.16 >3
St. Mary Church 12.13 8.889 1.55hrs 8.65hrs 7.90 >3 22.157 1.90 3.33 2.60 >3
Sri Thandayuthapani
Temple 12.27 5.589 1.83hrs 8.65hrs 1.04 >3 20.184 1.93 3.34 2.94 >3
Taman Kenari 12.37 3.227 2.38hrs 8.94hrs 0.24 >3 17.869 1.94 3.30 4.37 >3
Taman Melor 11.33 5.642 2.16hrs 8.95hrs 0.76 >3 19.495 2.03 3.21 2.61 >3
Kg. Pahang 9.97 - - - - - 15.358 2.30 3.21 0.56 >3
Taman Anson 11.78 - - - - - 0.874 2.92 3.30 0.17 1.04hrs
Taman Tapah Baru 11.21 - - - - - 6.837 2.27 3.21 0.16 1.32hrs
Taman Tapah 10.58 - - - - - 8.540 2.19 3.20 0.15 1.39hrs
Kg. S. Selinsing 12.64 - - - - - 9.356 2.29 3.29 1.55 1.43hrs
Perkuburan Islam
11.48 - - - - - 13.104
Involve
1.86
to Solve
3.33 0.57 >3
Kg. Dato
Slide No. 145
MARDEC Factory 15.51 - - - - - 3.501 2.55 3.85 0.01 1.41hrs
Key locations in towns under Mahang Dam PMF Failure
(Hilir Perak)
Key Location Distance Flood Time to Maximum Subsidence
(Exceed Tapah from Dam Arrival Maximum Depth (m) Time (day)
Town) (km) Time Water Level
(hour) (hour)
Kg. Changkat
27.72 7.29 11.70 2.753 >3
Petai
2.6
Kg. Tg. Keramat 27.80 6.67 19.63 2.904
Kg. Degong 32.11 11.06 21.11 4.293 >3
Langkap 34.59 12.53 22.02 1.752 1.50
Air Kuning 33.80 9.46 20.00 2.509 1.21
Chikus 38.66 15.25 22.16 1.084 1.70
Chenderong
37.26 13.26 21.76 1.529 >3
Balai Involve to Solve
Slide No. 146
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 147
Flood Inundation Map- SAB Clear Day Failure
Total Inundated area = 2.410 km2
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 148
Flood Inundation Map- SAB Clear Day Failure
Slide No. 149

BERTAM VALLEY Involve to Solve
Flood Inundation Map- SAB PMF Failure
Total Inundated area = 2.685 km2
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 150
Flood Inundation Map- SAB PMF Failure
Slide No. 151

BERTAM VALLEY Involve to Solve
Flood Inundation Map- Jor Dam CDF
Total
Inundated
area = 2.48
km2
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 152
Flood Inundation Map- Jor Dam PMF
Total
Inundated
area = 3.41
km2
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 153
Flood Inundation Map- Jor Dam PMF
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 154
Flood Inundation Map- Mahang Dam CDF
Total
Inundated
area =
3.550 km2
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 155
Flood Inundation Map- Mahang Dam CDF
Slide No. 156

TAPAH TOWN
Involve to Solve
Flood Inundation Map- Mahang Dam PMF
Total
Inundated
area =
191.67 km2
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 157
Flood Inundation Map- Mahang Dam PMF
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 158
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 159
Video for CDF SAB
2D animation
3D animation Tour
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 160
Video for PMF SAB
2D animation
3D animation Tour
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 161
Video for CDF JOR
2D animation
3D animation Tour
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 162
Video for PMF JOR
2D animation
3D animation Tour
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 163
Video for CDF MAHANG
2D animation
3D animation Tour
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 164
Video for PMF MAHANG
2D animation
3D animation Tour
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 165
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 166
Automated detection systems
Rain gauges
Reservoir level gauges
Upstream river stage gauges
Downstream river gauges
Visual observations &

inspections
How do you know that your
Dam isnt performing well?
Performance parameters
Inspection reports
Deficiency verification analysis
Hazard analysis/risk assessment
Security assessments
Hazardous materials inventories
Decision Making
When an unusual situation is detected
Initiating Conditions
("Triggers Points" or Decision Criteria)
Under a hypothetical condition of no dam break at any three dam, all the
downstream area will be safe against overtopping risk because the outflow
from each dam is regulated and limited by its spillway capacity as follows :
Jor Dam : 1,104 m3/s
Mahang Dam : 50 m3/s
SAB Dam : 965 m3/s
Results of PMF Routing for Jor, Mahang and SAB dams
Jor Mahang SAB
Initial Water Level (m) 493.47 71.63 1071

(1619 ft) (235 ft) (3513.8ft)
Peak Inflow (m3/s) 2,985.1 3,102.35 4,259
Peak Outflow (m3/s) 13,005.69 9,712.83 5,439.01
Maximum Outflow Capacity (m3/s) 1,104 50 965

Involve to Solve
Slide No. 172
FLOOD LOADING DAM SAFETY EVENTS
Flood Dam Safety Event is initiated Dam Safety Emergency is declared if
under one of the following conditions: the following conditions exist:
The water level of

Jor reservoir reaches EL 1619.6 ft water level continues to rise above:
(EL 493.65m) EL 1626.7 ft (EL 495.82m) (1m
Mahang reservoir reaches EL 235.6 ft below the crest level) For Jor
(EL 71.8 m) Dam
SAB reservoir reaches EL 3508.5 ft EL 236.7 ft (EL 72.15m) (1m
(EL 1069.4 m) below crest level) For Mahang
Dam
Release from EL 3510.5 ft (EL 1070m) For
Jor Dam into River in excess of SAB Dam
60.61 m3/s (when RWL rises to 1m)
Mahang Dam into River in excess of
33.50 m3/s (when RWL rises to 1m) spillway discharge of :
SAB Dam into River in excess of 1 m3/77.10s (Jor Dam)
0.092 m3/s (when RWL rises to 1m) 8.76 m3/s (Mahang Dam)
0.092 m3/s (SAB Dam)
Wherever reservoir level rises more than
1 meter in 3.2 hours ( Jor Reservoir)
1 meter in 0.5 hours (Mahang serious structural damage to the dam
Reservoir) is suspected or confirmed
1 meter in 0.5 hours (Ringlet Reservoir)
*assuming from FSL
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 173
Triggering Water Level for Dam Safety
Event and Dam Safety Emergency
Dam Safety Dam Safety Dam Breach
Dam
Event Emergency Level
Jor EL 1619.6 ft EL 1626.7 ft EL 1630 ft
(EL 493.65 m) (EL 495.82 m) (EL 496.82 m)
Mahang EL 235.6 ft EL 236.7 ft EL 240 ft
(EL 71.8 m) (EL 72.15 m) (EL 73.15 m)
SAB EL 3508.5 ft EL 3510.5 ft EL 3524 ft

(EL 1069.4 m) (EL 1070 m) (EL 1074.12 m)
Basis of Water Level Selection of Proposed for Dam Safety Event : Maximum
Design Flood (For Jor and Mahang) (For SAB, based on PTK SAB Dam)
Basis of Water Level Selection of Proposed for Dam Safety Emergency : Water Level
in Reservoir is 1m below dam crest (For Jor and Mahang) (For SAB, based on PTK
SAB Dam)
(According to Melbourne Water, 2003 and US Department of Agriculture, 2007, Dam Safety
Emergency is declared when water level reach 0.3m below dam crest)
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 174
CRITICAL LEVEL FOR JOR DAM
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 175
CRITICAL LEVEL FOR MAHANG DAM
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 176
CRITICAL LEVEL FOR SAB DAM
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 177
Figure from PTK for SAB
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 178
INUNDATION MAPS
Why do we need
inundation maps?
Major flood and

dam failure areas
ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY
EVACUATION/PLANNING ZONES
COULD HELP:
Pre-identify
high hazard
areas
Pre-identify
high priority ZONE 1
areas ZONE 2
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Jor Dam & Mahang Dam Location Map and Site Access
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 190 Copyrights 2010 TNB Research
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
SAB Dam Location Map and Site Access
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 191 Copyrights 2010 TNB Research
SUPPORTING
INFORMATION
Escape Routes for Jor

Dam
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 192
SUPPORTING
INFORMATION
Escape Routes for

Mahang Dam
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 193
SUPPORTING
INFORMATION
Escape Routes for

SAB Dam
Involve to Solve
Slide No. 194
EMERGENCY EXERCISE
An activity designed to:
1. Promote emergency preparedness
2. Evaluate emergency operations
3. Evaluate emergency policies, plans,
procedures & facilities
4. Train personnel in emergency
management duties
5. Demonstrate operational capability
Types of Emergency Exercises
Orientation
Seminar for
Your Dam
Orientation Drill
Seminar
EOC
Tabletop Exercise
Functional Exercise Full-scale Exercise

SOCIO-ECONOMIC
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ANALYSIS

LOSS OF LIFE (LOL)
LOL
Scenario Simulation
1 hr 3 hrs
(1) Operation Release Mechanism Failure (Hollow jet valve 4.5 m3/s) 1 3
No Warning 1 2
15-60 minutes - 1
> 60 minutes - -
(2) Operation Release Mechanism Failure (Hollow jet valve 36 m3/s) 3 10
No Warning 2 7
15-60 minutes 1 2
> 60 minutes - 1
(3) Operation Release Mechanism Failure (Tilting gate 65 m3/s) 16 24
No Warning 12 18
15-60 minutes 3 4
> 60 minutes 1 2
(4) Operation Release Mechanism Failure
385 N/A
(3Radial &Tilting gate 965 m3/s)
No Warning 289 N/A
15-60 minutes 58 N/A
> 60 minutes 38 N/A
(5) Clear Day (CDF) Failure 233 N/A
No Warning 175 N/A
> 60 minutes 23 N/A
(6) Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Failure 444 N/A
No Warning 333 N/A
> 60 minutes 44 N/A

VALUE OF PHYSICAL ASSETS EXPOSED TO DAM-BREAK RISK FOR 6 SCENARIOS
Simulate
Physical Assets
Percentage
Scenario House hold Industries/ Infrastructure Utilities TOTAL
Housing Agriculture (%)
Items Commercial and Facilities

(Hollow jet valve 4.5 m3/s)
1 hr
VER (RM) 11,352,000 3,479,160 12,744,000 22,803,000 10,370,832 60,748,992

13
EV (RM) 1,135,200 347,916 1,274,400 2,940,300 2,571,336 8,269,152
VER (RM) 13,020,000 2,451,480 12,780,000 26,964,000 14,033,395 69,248,875
3 hr
14
EV (RM) 1,374,000 261,480 1,316,400 3,543,600 3,241,164 9,737,111
(Hollow jet valve 36 m3/s)
1 hr
VER (RM) 15,840,000 3,569,160 12,780,000 34,128,000 12,104,179 78,421,339

13
EV (RM) 1,670,400 385,716 1,326,000 4,490,400 2,507,263 10,379,779
3 hr
VER (RM) 17,544,000 2,847,600 13,200,000 39,579,000 21,419,395 94,589,995

19
EV (RM) 2,186,400 313,560 1,368,000 8,493,900 5,162,868 17,524,728
(Tilting gate 65 m3/s)
1 hr
VER (RM) 19,404,000 5,679,720 13,224,000 38,235,000 16,619,395 93,162,115

27
EV (RM) 3,380,400 1,131,540 4,442,400 11,859,900 4,323,348 25,137,588
VER (RM) 20,304,000 5,901,360 13,380,000 33,915,000 24,299,395 97,799,755
3 hr
29
EV (RM) 3,470,400 1,189,080 3,320,400 12,627,900 7,301,268 27,909,048

(3Radial &Tilting gate 965 m3/s)
1 hr
VER (RM) 37,824,000 8,454,240 17,424,000 48,837,000 15,459,643 139,958,635

54
EV (RM) 19,180,800 4,407,936 10,152,000 13,692,000 27,419,395 75,257,479
(5) Clear Day Failure (CDF)
1 day
VER (RM) 36,966,000 8,049,840 15,024,000 48,033,000 28,259,395 136,332,235

41
EV (RM) 18,079,800 3,760,680 5,112,000 19,490,100 9,276,571 55,719,151
(6) Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
1 day
Failure
VER (RM) 38,646,000 8,586,600 17,424,000 50,433,000 28,259,395 143,348,995
57
EV (RM) 24,996,600 5,808,276 9,201,600 29,724,900 11,364,053 81,095,429
VER = Value Exposed to Risk EV = Expected Value of Damage

RISK CLASSIFICATION FOR LOL AT MAHANG DAM (CDF Scenario, 1 day simulation)
Risk classification for loss of life at 4.5m/s scenario

DAM BREAK INFORMATION SYSTEM

CONCLUSIONS
Modelling has place in dam risk assessment
and management process
A component of an overall plan to
Minimise risks of dam failure
Prepare for the unexpected emergency
response plan
Modelling requirements relatively
straightforward
Inputs and decisions on scenarios more
difficult
Made simpler when considering overall process
What is possible in terms of risk management
Prepare for the worst conservative decisions!
Contact:-
Assoc Prof Dr Ir Lariyah Mohd. Sidek

UNITEN
Tel: +603-8928 7289 Fax: +603-89212116
RANGE OF DESIGN RAINFALL TO PMP
COMPARISON OF MOST EXTREME RAINFALL EVENTS OF
MALAYSIA WITH THE WORLDS EXTREME EVENTS
PMF ESTIMATES IN MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA
(SOURCES: SMEC, MALAYSIA SDN.BHD, 1997)
Project Site Country Catchment Area (km2) PMF (m3/s)

Nenggiri Malaysia 3740 12500
*Pergau Malaysia 89 2924
*Kenyir Malaysia 2600 21400
*Temenggor Malaysia 6553 13580
Klang gates Malaysia 77 1610
Ulu Ai Malaysia 355 5550
Batang Ai Malaysia 1200 6122
Liwagu Malaysia 2318 17400
Bakun Malaysia 14750 44800
Pelagas Malaysia 21020 42500
Jatigede Indonesia 1460 10500
*Puah Malaysia 410 6690
*Tembat Malaysia 101 2050
Sultan Abu Bakar Malaysia 180 4259.7
Jor Malaysia 275 2,985.1
Mahang Malaysia 359.6 2,552.5
Slide No. 208
Distribution of PMF for TNB dams, Sultan Abu Bakar dam,
Jor dam and Mahang dam
Distribution of PMF for TNB Dams, Sultan Abu Bakar Dam, Jor
Dam and Mahang Dam
25000 Pergau
Kenyir
20000
Puah
Tembat
PMF (m3/s)
15000
Sultan Abu Bakar
Jor
10000
Mahang
5000 Bersia
Kenering
0 Chenderoh
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500
Catchment Area (km2)
*Sources: SMEC, Malaysia Sdn.Bhd, 1997; Ranhill Consulting Sdn.Bhd, 2005
Slide No. 209

DISTRIBUTION OF REGIONAL PMF ESTIMATES IN MALAYSIA AND
INDONESIA
Distribution of Regional PMF estimates in Malaysia and

Indonesia
50000
Bakun
45000
Pelagas
40000
y = 1.9989x + 4249.4
35000
PMF (m3/s)
30000
25000
Kenyir
20000
Liwagu
15000
Temenggor
Nenggiri
Jatigede
10000 Chenderoh
Kedong Ombo Kenering
5000 SAB Btg Ai Bersia
Jor
Pergau
Mahang
0 Tembat
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Catchment Area (km2)
*Sources: SMEC, Malaysia Sdn.Bhd, 1997; Ranhill Consulting Sdn.Bhd, 2005
Slide No. 210

Comparison with Established Dam Break Studies
Dam Ratio (with Storage Height Peak Reference

reference to Volume (m) Discharge
Kenyir Dam) (m3) (m3/s)
Andong 1.86 (with 1,248 x 106 83 530,206 (28% Soontak Lee
(Korea) respect to higher than
height) Kenyir PMF)
Imha 2.12 (with 595 x 106 73 352,876 (14% Soontak Lee

(Korea) respect to lower than
height) Kenyir PMF)
La Josefina 42.5 (with 320 x 106 - 412,250 Mohamed A.

(Ecuador) respect to (0.17% lower A. Mohamed
storage volume) than Kenyir
PMF)
Breach Parameters Equations (cont)
Breach Width Equations Dataset Reference

B = 3 (hw) 80 USBR (1988)
B = 2.5hw + Cb 36 Von Thune and Gillete (1990)
B = 0.1803KoVw0.32hb0.19 75 Froehlich (1995b)
B = 13.3(Vw.H)0.25 43 Froehlich (1987)
0.5 hd < B > 3 hd - Johnson & Illes (1976)
2 hd < B > 5 hd 20 Singh & Snorrason (1982)

Breach Parameters Equations (cont)
Side Slope Factor, Z

References
(Z Horizontal: 1 Vertical)
MacDonald & Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 0.5
1.4 for overtopping failure

Froehlich (1995) 0.9 for other failure modes
Average 1.0 (63 cases)
Singh & Scarlatos (1988) 0.l76 to 1.2

1 for most dams
Von Thun & Gillette (1990) 0.33 to 0.5 for dam with cohesive shell or
wide cohesive clay core.
KENYIR RESERVOIR
Full supply level EL 145 m
Maximum water level EL 153 m
Maximum operating level EL 120 m
Gross storage (at F.S.L.) 13.6 X 109 m3
Live storage capacity 7.4 X 109 m3
Reservoir surface area (at F.S.L) 36,900 ha
PMF FOR KENYIR MAIN DAM

Hydropower Engineering - Dam Break Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydropower Engineering - Dam Break Analysis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrological Analysis and Modeling

Datin Prof Ir. Dr. Lariyah Mohd Sidek

Involve to Solve Copyright 2013 TNB Research

Disaster Management is end-

sabotage, terrorism, criminal actions

PMF Overtopping Failure (PMF) Clear Day Failure (CDF)

Taum Sauk USA Concrete 2005 Overtopping Failure of Property

Big Bay USA Earthen 2004 Overtopping Failure of 100 homes

Foisom USA Concrete 1995 Spillway Gate failure 22 deaths

How do you know

Why do we need ERPs?

With the latest enhancement of knowledge in

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

- needs less data - more efficient

Analysis of the rainfall data

Calculate K , K = (X1 X n-1) / n-1

Calculate PMP for the station

Establish generalised 5-day PMP map

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

REVIEWS ON MALAYSIA PMP ESTIMATION

METHODS FOR PMP ESTIMATION

Generally the PMP derived by physical

Time Series Analysis

Temporal pattern for Storm

DID Rainfall Station Downstream of Sungai Batang Padang

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

SRK Sri Kinjang,

JPS RAINFALL STATION

Highest 1 day PMP : 730 mm

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

JPS RAINFALL STATION

Highest 3 days PMP : 966 mm

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

JPS RAINFALL STATION

Highest 5 days PMP : 969mm

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

4513033 Gunung 966

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Hourly Average Temporal Pattern

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

72 Hour Average Temporal Pattern

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

120 Hour Average Temporal Pattern

Copyrights 2005 TNB Research

Rainfall Hyetograph 24 hour

TEMPORAL PATTERN 24 HRS (1 DAY)

TEMPORAL PATTERN 72 HRS (3 DAYS)

TEMPORAL PATTERN 120 HRS (5 DAYS)

TEMPORAL PATTERN 1440 MINUTE (1 DAY)

TEMPORAL PATTERN 4320 MINUTE (3 DAYS)

TEMPORAL PATTERN 7200 MINUTE (5 DAYS)

The consistency and reliability of records at Gunung Brinchang

The PMP values obtained were compared with previous study

The hyetograph developed will be used as an input in the