2017.6.17.Sat.
ᒣ㝜㜵⅏䝣䜷䞊䝷䝮 2017ᖺ᫓䛾ㅮ₇఍ᓥ᰿኱Ꮫ䠄ᯇỤ䠅Ẽ㇟䞉ὥỈ⅏ᐖ◊✲䜾䝹䞊䝥䛾⤂௓䝬䝹䝏ᣦᶆ䛻䜘䜛ὥỈ䝝䝄䞊䝗䝬䝑䝥䛾㛤Ⓨᓥ᰿኱Ꮫ ⏕≀㈨※⛉Ꮫ㒊బ⸨ ⿱࿴
satohiro@life.shimane-u.ac.jpẼ㇟䞉ὥỈ⅏ᐖ◊✲䜾䝹䞊䝥䛾⤂௓䝭䝑䝅䝵䞁䠖䛂㏆ᖺ䛾ᒣ㝜ᆅᇦ䛾Ẽ㇟䞉ὥỈ⅏ᐖ䛾≉ᚩ䜢ᩚ⌮䛧䚸ලయⓗ䛺㑊㞴ᨭ᥼䜔㉸㐣ὥỈᑐ⟇䛺䛹䛻䛴䛔䛶䜒⌧ᆅㄪᰝ䚸ᩘ್䝅䝭䝳䝺䞊䝅䝵䞁䚸ᐊෆᐇ㦂䛺䛹䛛䜙᳨ウ䛩䜛䛸䛸䜒䛻䚸Ἑᕝ⟶⌮ἲ䚸⿕ᐖ⪅ᩆ῭䛻㛵䛩䜛ㅖไᗘ䛸䛭䛾ᐇែ䜢ྵ䜑䛯䝋䝣䝖㠃䛾୙㊊Ⅼ䜢ᢕᥱ䛩䜛䚹䛃⏣ᆏ㑳ኵ䠄Ẽ㇟⅏ᐖᏛ䠅䠖㏆ᖺ䛻䛚䛡䜛Ẽ㇟⅏ᐖ⿕ᐖ䝕䞊䝍䛾ᩚ⌮Ẽ㇟⅏ᐖ䝕䞊䝍䝧䞊䝇䛾᭦᪂ቑᮏΎ䠄Ỉᩥᆅ㉁Ꮫ䠅䠖ᆅୗỈὶືゎᯒ䛸ὥỈ⅏ᐖ䛾㛵㐃ᛶゎ᫂
㏫ゎᯒ䛻䜘䜛ᆅୗᆅ┙䛾㏱Ỉᛶホ౯▼஭ᑗᖾ䠄ᆅᇦᇶ┙ᕤᏛ䠅䠖ᾐỈ᝿ᐃ༊ᇦ䛻ᣦᐃ䛥䜜䛶䛔䛺䛔୰ᒣ㛫ᆅᇦ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ὥỈ⅏ᐖ䛾༴㝤ᗘホ౯䛸ఫẸ䜈䛾ᥦ♧ᡭἲ䛾㛤Ⓨᆅᙧ➼䛻ᇶ䛵䛔䛶⟬ฟ䛜ྍ⬟䛺䚸ὥỈ䛾༴㝤ᗘ䜢ホ౯䛩䜛ᣦᶆ䛾᳨ウ䞉ᥦ᱌బ⸨⿱࿴䠄ἙᕝᕤᏛ䠅䠖㉸㐣ὥỈ䜢๓ᥦ䛻䛧䛯䝝䞊䝗䞉䝋䝣䝖䛾᳨ウỈᐖ㜵ഛᯘ䛾ᅵ◁ᤕᤊຠᯝ䛺䛹䛻㛵䛩䜛᳨ウ☾ᮧ⠜⠊䠄බἲᏛ䠅䠖Ἑᕝ⅏ᐖ䛻ᑐ䛩䜛ἲⓗᨭ᥼⟇䛾ᵓ⠏බຓ䞉ඹຓ䞉⮬ຓ䛸⅏ᐖ♫఍ⓗ෌㓄ศ䚸ᩆ῭ไᗘ䛾᳨ウỌᯇṇ๎䠄බἲᏛ䠅䠖㜵⅏䛾ほⅬ䛛䜙㛤Ⓨチྍつไ䛜⾜䜟䜜䜛஦౛䛸தゴ஦౛䛾ᩚ⌮䡡᳨ウ㛤Ⓨチྍ䛻䜘䜚⅏ᐖⓎ⏕䛾༴㝤䛜䛒䜛࿘㎶ᆅᇦఫẸ䛾ᶒ฼ᩆ῭䛻㛵䛩䜛⿢ุ౛䛾᳨ウ

Thu., March 16 2017
61st Conference on Hydraulic Engineering, JSCEKyusyu University, Fukuoka

No.215䝬䝹䝏ᣦᶆ䛻䜘䜛ὥỈ䝝䝄䞊䝗䝬䝑䝥䛾㛤ⓎNEW FLOOD HAZARD MAP WITH MULTIPLE INDICATORSబ⸨ ⿱࿴1䞉䖂㐲⸨ 㞞ᐇ2䞉◁ཎ ၨே3䞉㯤 ග೧4䞉☾㒊 㞞ᙪ5SATO Hirokazu 1, 䖂ENDO Masanori2, SUNAHARA Hiroto3,HUANG Guangwei4 and ISOBE Masahiko51ᓥ᰿኱Ꮫ, 2ᮾி኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔, 3ඖᮾி኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔, 4ୖᬛ኱Ꮫ኱Ꮫ㝔, 5㧗▱ᕤ⛉኱Ꮫ
1Shimane University, 2The University of Tokyo, 3former The University of Tokyo,4Sophia University, 5Kochi University of Technology

IntroductionBackground• Municipalities in Japan have been obliged to make a flood hazard map(FHM) since 1994
achievement is 98% around as of Mar., 2015(MLIT, 2017)• Most of these expressions on a FHM are used only inundation water depth• However, actual evacuees in the case of inundation need more information
velocity, force, reaching time, etc. by inundation(Katada et al.(1999), Katada et al.(2000), Islam & Sado(2000), Tingsanchali & Karim(2005),
EXCIMAP(2007), Onishi et al.(2008), Matsuo et al.(2012), Kawanaka & Ishigaki(2012),
Nojima et al.(2014), You & Kondo(2015))
new technics using animations or movies on a display are being developed(Yokotsuka(2006), Kodama et al.(2013), Kawasaki & Suzuki(2013))

Purpose• To provide a new FHM integrated with multiple indicators(MFHM = Multi-indicator FloodHazard Map) in a leaflet or a booklet
using animations are effective, but is currently not universal for every user

Methodology; expansion to MFHM
䐟 Normalization of parameters• Different units cannot be combined
[m] + [m/s] + [N] + 䞉䞉䞉 ? ?
[m] × [m/s] × [N] × 䞉䞉䞉 =? ?

• Each index is normalized by its criterion for evacuation limit
due to age, sex, mental and physical conditions and so on• Considering later procedure, this normalized value is subtracted from 1

 = =,  >,  

 impossible to evacuate 1

: number of parameters(=1, 2 ,…,N) : normalized point (0    1)
 : value of th indicatorex.) water depth, velocity, force, time, etc.
 : criterion value of th indicator

0Which isbetter…?

Premise: Linear
Nonlinear is a future workMethodology; expansion to MFHM
䐠 Integration of normalized points•  + 䞉䞉䞉 +  increses the total points as the number of indicators increases• Its arithmetical mean causes a contradiction that evacuation may be possible evenwhen  = 0•  × 䞉䞉䞉 ×  approaches 0 as the number of indicators increases• The geometrical mean was adopted to calculate integrated value (0    1).

 =  × 䞉䞉䞉 ×  / If there is even one 0 of  ,  = 0
䐡 Scoring•  is safety/dangerous for 1/0, but it’s reverse to existing FMS• To resolve this reverse,  is subtracted from 1• To promote intuitive understanding of residents, the final degree of danger  wasexpressed with scores of up to 100

=



 0   100
safetyяdangerous

 is used on a MFHM!

Methodology; expansion to MFHM
䐢 Indexes used in this study• Inundation water depth for breathing in a still state• Rise time of inundation water depth for evacuation possibility from facing to inundation
defined as time to evacuation limit of water depth from just after inundation has arrived• Velocity of inundation for swimming evacuation• Fluid force by inundation water for evacuation on footCriteria of normalization• Target here is healthy adult males with 170cm average height(MHLW, 2016)
Index

Criterion

Reference

Depth

1.445mRise Time

1.5km/45min Biwako Office, MLIT(2007)

Velocity

1m/s

The slowest criterion of crawl by JASF(2016)

Fluid Force

1.2m3/s2

Ishigaki et al.(2006)

1.7m㽢0.85mouth position

Preliminary numerical experimentCalculation••••

The purpose is to understand fundamental properties of the MFHM
2D dynamic wave model, leap-frog method,  =  = 25m, calculation time is 48h
4 model terrains(mountain, alluvial fun, natural levee and delta)
Inundation hydrograph is a one-peak triangular = 100 m" !s , # = 1.08 × 10$ m" , % & 1m
' = 6h, ' = 0, 0.5, 1, … , 5.5, 6[h](13 patterns of ' )108Discharge
Accum.

000Tp6Time[h]㽢1km100Accum. Inandation
Inundation
Discharge[㽢104m3]

Discharge[m33/s]/s]
Inundation Discharge[m• The longest path to evacuate is 2km(A to A’), so rise time criterion is 60min

River A A 㽢 Inun. point䞊 Boundary䞊 BottomRoughness: 0.067s/m1/3

1km
A’

Slope
Mountain: 1/50
Alluvial fan: 1/250
Natural levee: 1/2,000
Delta: 1/5,000

Preliminary numerical experiment
Maximum scores of water depth and rise time' = 0

0.5

1

1.5

22.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6 []

• Same distributions ineach terrain regardlessto shape of hydrographs

MountainAlluvial fan

# is common• The milder, the morediffusive

Natural levee
Delta

Dangerous

SafetyWater depth
0100• Some dangerous scores
have occurred in 2 steep
terrains as ' earlier• No dangers in 2mild
terrains

Rise timePreliminary numerical experiment
Maximum scores of velocity and fluid force' = 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6 []

• The steepest one shows
dangerous along theriver regardless to hydro.
• Dangers in other 3 ones
have almost concentrated only around theinundation point

MountainAlluvial fan
Natural levee
Delta

Dangerous

SafetyVelocity
0100• Dangers have appeared
around the inundation
point in all cases

Fluid force

Preliminary numerical experiment
Maximum scores of velocity & fluid force and total' = 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6 []

• Similar to velocity

MountainAlluvial fan
Natural levee
Delta

Dangerous

SafetyVelocity & fluid force
0100• Dangers were extracted
around the inundation
point comparison with
only depthmay need to consider
about external forces
except water depthTotal(MFHM)

Actual case in central Mitoya, Shimane䕧 Sakayama-bashi sat.(Pref. Shimne䠅ͤ No. means inun. pointsConditions

䐥• Central Mitoya is located in eastern part of Shimane, whereis a typical medium city in San-in region• Elevation(5mDEM) and land use(2009) were obtained fromGSI, Japan䐤

Hii R.
䐨City Gym 䐡

䖩B’䐠

䐟

Kisuki
StationCity Center
Mitoya High School

Mitoya Junior High School

55.5

34.5

300m

Elevation[T.P.m]

the longest path for evacuation is also 2km from lower part to higher
along the Hii river(B to B’)

Discharge
Accum.

13515090100

B & C ×  D <@45500001234Time[h]567Accum. Inundation
Inandation Discharge[㽢104m33](added to 1/25,000 national topographic map, GSI)
180
200
9 & ; <@ !A
Inundation Discharge[m3/s]
Inundation• Inundation points are 10 including the Hii R. every 500m
pitch with the same hydrograph䐧䐢• Criterion for rise time here is also 60min

duration is 7h, height of levee break is 1.8m

䐦䐣*--mesh was made by I.D.W. after conversion into UTM-planestandard vales were applied to Manning’s roughness• Hydrograph was made using past water levels, elevation
deference between land and river, design-flood discharge,levee-constriction stage slope, etc. at Sakayama-bashi sta.

Un-nanCity Office䖩BActual case in central Mitoya, Shimane
Results

Devise of expression for MFHM

• Enveloped maximum values of 10 cases
Water Depth

Un-nanCity Office

Velocity

Un-nanCity Office

Hii R.

City Gym

City Gym

Kisuki
StationMitoya Junior High School

1-0300m

Score of Depth

Un-nanCity Office

Score of all Indexes; Un-nan
City Office
MFHMHii R.

Hii R.

City Gym

Velocity[m/s]City Gym

Kisuki
StationCity Center
Mitoya High School

300m

Kisuki
StationCity Center
Mitoya High School

Mitoya Junior High School

100

300m

Score

Fluid Force[m3/s2]

300m

Differences ofscore 100

Un-nanCity Office• Especially, Katada et al.(2007)
suggested “Rough Map” for FHM• Applied it to MHFM below
Zones to be careful of flow
and force of inundation

Hii R.

City Gym

Un-nanCity Office

Kisuki
StationHii R.

Mitoya Junior High School

100

0Safety

1.2-0 Katada et al.(2007), Tanaka & Kato(2011),
and the guideline(MLIT, 2013) also haspointed it out

City Center
Mitoya High School

Mitoya Junior High School

DangerousKisuki
StationCity Center
Mitoya High School

Mitoya Junior High School

1.445-Score

City Gym

Kisuki
StationInundation water depth[m]0Hii R.

City Center
Mitoya High School

Mitoya Junior High School

0Un-nan
City Office

Hii R.

City Center
Mitoya High School

SafetyFluid Force• There may be fear of misunderstandings for MFHM users becauseof a lot of information

Dangerous

300m

Including water depth
Excluding water depth

City Gym300m(added to 1/25,000 national topographic map, GSI)

• 12% of areas with score 100 excluding water
depth were revealed with MFHM!

Kisuki
StationCity Center
Mitoya High School

Mitoya Junior High School

1000Safety

Score

Dangerous300m(added to 1/25,000
national topographicmap, GSI)

Conclusion
Achievements• Integrated some indicators against conventional FHM using only inundation water depth• Suggested MFHM expressed with scores up to 100• Numerical simulations were executed with 4 model terrains and 13-peak hydrographand in Mitoya as an actual case
• Using only inundation water depth could not provide enough information for evacuees• MFHM has potential to give users more effective information with appropriate indicatorsand expressions

Future••••Nonlinear normalized points
More effective way to express of MFHM
How do actual users feel MFHM?
Is MFHM truly better than FHM?

Acknowledgment
We sincerely appreciate Mr. SEO Tatsuki and Mr. SASAKI
Takayuki who are civil engineers of Shimane prefecture
for helping information arrangements.
And we must thank Project Center on Natural Disaster
Reduction established in Shimane University for financial
support.
ͤͤᓥ᰿኱Ꮫ⮬↛⅏ᐖ㍍ῶ䝥䝻䝆䜵䜽䝖䝉䞁䝍䞊

Thanks for your attention!!

Examples of FHM
Typical type of FHM; only water depth

Rare; reaching time and walking difficulty(reaching time)within 10minwithin 30minwithin 60min
more than 60min(inundation water depth)
more than 5.0m
2.0 – 5.0m
1.0 – 2.0m
0.5 – 1.0m
less than 0.5m

(difficulty of walkingevacuation)difficultpossible(added to Mitoya City HP)

Indexes are independently provided!

(added to Itoigawa City HP)

Example of conversion to MFHM
Criteria :  = 1.445m, H = 45min, " = 1.0m/s, I = 1.2m3/s2
Ex.1 :  = 1.0m
, H = 60min , " = 0.5m/s , I = 0.6m3/s2Ex.2 :  = 1.0m, H = 60min , " = 1.1m/s , I = 0.6m3/s2

䐟 Normalization of parameters = ,  F=,  <Ex.1Ex.2

 = 1

1.0/1.445 & 0.31

 = 1

1.0/1.445 & 0.31

H = 1(1/60)/(1/45) = 0.25

H = 1(1/60)/(1/45) = 0.25

" = 1

0.5/1.0 = 0.50

" = 1

1.1/1.0 =I = 1

0.6/1.2 = 0.50

I = 1

0.6/1.2 = 0.50

䐠 Integration of normalized points
 = (0.31 × 0.25 × 0.50 × 0.50)/I =  × 䞉䞉䞉 ×  /
& 0.37

䐡 Scoring=

 = 100 × 1

0.37 = 63

0.1  " = 0 = (0.31 × 0.25 × 0 × 0.50)/I=0 = 100 × 1

0 = 100

Procedure to make hydrograph in Mitoya
Rise Period
Recession Period

Water Level
Difference[m]31.820y = 䡬0.0536x + 3.6348

y = 0.0338x + 2.2378

Inundation

11018Time[h]1051015202518030200

Inundation Discharge[mDischarge[m33/s]/s]

Time[h]Duration[h]2418y = 8.9605x - 18.814
R² = 0.5562

126Discharge
Accum.

135150901004550

0002.32.93.5

Peak Water Level[m]

4.1

0123

4

Time[h]567Accum.
Accum.Inundation
Inandation Discharge[㽢10Discharge[㽢1044mm3]3]

Water Level[m]4