ICCBT2008

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Kenyir Catchment,

Malaysia

F. C. Ros*, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA

L. M. Sidek, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, MALAYSIA
N. N. N. Ibrahim, TNB Research Sdn. Bhd., MALAYSIA
A. Abdul Razad, TNB Research Sdn. Bhd., MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a method of obtaining the right PMF hydrograph for a Kenyir catchment,
which, in the case of a dam safety study, is the hydrological step, of determining the input
hydrograph. Design floods for Kenyir dam is based on the probable maximum flood (PMF)
which results from the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) using hydrometeorological
method involving maximisation and transposition of historic storms. The PMF is defined as
the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorological
and hydrologic conditions. The method used to determine the PMF is deterministic approach,
which uses Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) as the meteorological input. The
deterministic method of calculation of PMF consists of the transformation of the PMP with a
rainfall-runoff deterministic model into a runoff hydrograph. For the hydrologic modeling
studies the new version of HEC-HMS hydrologic modeling software released in April 2006 by
US Army Corps of Engineers is used. The inputs of the model in determination of PMF are the
sub-basin physical parameters such as area and the length of the stream, reach parameters,
reservoir parameters and meteorological parameters which are Type I-PMP, Pseudo Mersing
Storm and Type II-PMP, Nested Bell Shaped. As a result of model application studies,
infiltration loss and baseflow parameters of each subbasin are calibrated. Both type of PMP
gives a PMF value which is below the designed value 21,400m3/s. The Type II-PMP gives
higher value of PMF which is 18,889.7m3/s compared to Type 1-PMP which is 16,051.1m3/s.
Therefore, the hydrological review indicated that the dam is safely design under PMF
condition with adequate capacity of the spillway to discharge the PMF to the downstream in
the event of extreme rainfall.

Keywords: Probable Maximum Flood, Inflow Hydrograph, Rainfall-Runoff Modeling, Dam

Break Analysis.

*Correspondence Author: Faizah Che Ros, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. Tel: +60389212020 ext 6230,
Fax: +60389212116. E-mail: faie@uniten.edu.my

ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Kenyir Catchment, Malaysia

1. INTRODUCTION

The benefits of dams are numerous such as flood mitigation, domestic and industrial water
supplies, hydropower generation, irrigation and it also create lake for recreation and fishing.
However, dams pose risk to communities in the downstream area if not designed, operated
and maintained properly. With the increasing value of safety, especially in developed and
developing countries, dams have been recognized as latent hazards. This makes it necessary to
put extra effort in ensuring the safety of dams through out the dam’s life cycle. Thus, existing
dams and reservoirs should be reanalyzed periodically to ensure that they still meet the test of
safety by current standard, seeing that knowledge of hydrology, seismicity, and the geological
environment accumulates, and technology advances, facilities once regarded as safe may need
modifications.

The PMF is defined as the flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of
critical meteorological and hydrologic conditions (Robert E. Swain et.al, 1998). PMF also has
physical meanings which provide an upper limit of the interval within the engineer must
operate and design. Today, the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is generally accepted as the
standard for the safety design of dams where the incremental consequences of failure have
been determined to be intolerable. Therefore, there is a need to do a hydrological analysis on
Kenyir catchment to evaluate the risk of overtopping.

The estimation and prediction of extreme floods is a central theme in hydrologic engineering
and dam safety (Swain et al., 2004). Mathematical watershed models are used to describe or
simulate extreme floods. The watershed models that are extensively used to simulate extreme
floods and Probable Maximum Floods (PMFs) are, in most cases, unit hydrograph or storage
routing models. In the United States, the HEC-1 (HEC, 1998) and HEC-HMS models (HEC,
2006) are used by the Corps of Engineers, and the Flood Hydrograph and Runoff (FHAR)
model (Reclamation, 1990) is used by the Bureau of Reclamation. These models based on unit
hydrographs are used nearly exclusively for dam safety. In the United Kingdom, the national
flood guidelines specify the use of a unit hydrograph model for extreme flood runoff and PMF
calculations (IH, 1999). Similarly, the Australian Rainfall- Runoff guidelines for extreme
flood estimation, published in 1987, have been revised (ARR, 2001). They recommend using
unit hydrograph or storage routing models such as RORB (Laurenson et al., 2006).

There are numerous studies done using HEC-HMS such as evaluation of Rainfall-Runoff in
Southern California and a study of spillway adequacy and dam break analysis of Ka Loko
Dam, Hawaii in 2007. For the evaluation of rainfall-runoff in Southern California, two
previously-calibrated HEC-HMS models (Beighley et al. 2003) were used to predict runoff
characteristics under a variety of climatic conditions and impervious coverage reduction
scenarios.The HEC-HMS modeling framework was specifically chosen for this study because
of its ability to accurately represent the flashy nature of Santa Barbara area meteorological
conditions. For the Ka Loko dam break analysis, HEC-HMS together with HEC-RAS is
chosen to determine downstream inundation areas resulting from dam failure. HEC-HMS is
the best choice to compute rainfall-runoff at each hydraulic component in large basins and
behaves better in pure channels with short culvert lengths while HEC-RAS is run for
hydraulics (Manuel et.al, 2007)

326 ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334

 F. C. Ros et. al.

Basically there are two methods to determine the PMF. The first one is to use the PMP
estimate using rainfall-runoff models, which involves many assumptions about the PMP,
including the conditions of the catchment and physical features for its upper bound. Due to the
methods used in developing safety evaluation flood estimates, the criteria based on PMP and
PMF estimates are termed as deterministic approach. The other method is known as
probabilistic approach applied on either floods or rainfalls which have specified probabilities
or average return periods.

2. PROJECT LOCATION AND CATCHMENT DESCRIPTION

Kenyir reservoir is the biggest man-made lake in Southeast Asia. Kenyir dam and reservoir
are mainly designed for hydroelectric power generation and flood mitigation purposes. Its
history of construction spanned for 15 years, from the planning stage to the completion. Even
though the original survey was in 1972, the construction started only in 1978 and completed
in 1985. The Kenyir catchment was created by damming the Sg. Terengganu; 15km west of
Kuala Berang and 50km upstream of Kuala Terengganu.The catchment is formed by high
hills from the south to west but north-east side was formed by a low ridge with a number of
saddles that are below the FSL of EL 145.00m (Figure 1). These are bunged by separate eight
saddle dams which is A, B & C, D, E, F, G & H. The area of Kenyir Catchment is 2600 km2
and has a surface area of 369km2 with a gross storage capacity of 13.6 x 109 m3 with live
capacity of 7.4 x 109 m3 above the minimum operating level of EL 120.0m

Figure 1. Index map of Kenyir

3. CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION PROCESS

In this study, the deterministic approach has been chosen in determination of PMF for the
Kenyir catchment. The HEC-HMS software developed by US Army Corps has been chosen in
this project. It is hydrologic modeling software developed by US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center. It includes many of the well-known and well applicable
hydrologic methods to be used to simulate rainfall-runoff processes in river basins [USACE-
HEC, 2006]. This approach attempts to represent the most severe combination of
meteorologic and hydrologic conditions considered reasonably possible for a given drainage
basin. Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) is used as meteorological input. In

ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334 327

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Kenyir Catchment, Malaysia

determination of PMF value for the Kenyir Catchment, to compute the runoff volume, Initial
and Constant Rate method is chosen. Synder’s UH method is used to model the direct runoff
and Constant Monthly for baseflow method. In addition, Lag method is used to model the
routing. As for calibration process for Kenyir case study, Sungai Galong has been selected.
The objective of calibration is to determine the most compatible value of Ct and Cp of
Synder’s UH method. In this method, the basin lag, tp was calculated by:

tp = CCt(LLc)0.3 (1)

where C = a conversion constant (0.75 for SI and 1.00 for foot-pound system); Ct = basin
coefficient; L = length of the main stream from the outlet to the divide; and Lc = length along
the main stream from the outlet to a point nearest the watershed centroid. The value of Ct and
CP are best found via calibration as they are not physically-based parameters. Bedient and
Huber (1992) reported that Ct typically ranges from 1.8 to 2.2 although it has been found to
vary from 0.4 in mountainous areas to 8.0 along the Gulf of Mexico. Cp ranges from 0.4 to 0.8
where larger values of Cp are associated with smaller values of Ct.

In this study area major storm happened between December 1982 and January 1983. The
initial and constant method is used in loss method and the initial loss is 50mm for dry
condition and 10mm for wet condition and constant rate is 4 mm/hr, both values are the
typical values used in Malaysia such as Perak Hydro River Scheme Study. Figure 2 shows the
calibrated value of Ct is 1.5. This value maybe out of ranges by Bedient and Huber (1992) but
it is reasonable as Kenyir Catchment’s is mountainous in terms of its topography as shown in
the topomap. The value of Cp for Kenyir catchment is 0.8.

Figure 2. Calibration Hydrograph of Sungai Galong

For verification process, the same location is used in this study. The observed data was taken
between November to December 1981 where 5 minor storms event happened in a very short
period. As for the first storm, the value of Cp and Ct ensemble perfectly with the Qpeak. (Figure
3). The second storm event happened right after the first storms when the initial loss and the
constant rate values may be less than the input value. The lower loss value is possible because
of saturated soil conditions (wet antecedent moisture conditions). HEC-HMS is an event

328 ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334

 F. C. Ros et. al.

based software model so it cannot cater for variable baseflow. Based on the calibration and
validation processes, the absolute value for Ct is 1.5 and Cp is 0.8.

Figure 3. Verification hydrograph of Sungai Galong

4. PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (PMF) ANALYSIS

The 2600km2 of upper bound of Kenyir catchment area was delineated into six sub-catchment
which is Puah, Tembat, Petuang, Middle Kenyir, National Park I and National Park II. The
delineation was based on the stream network and land use due to the big catchment and non-
homogenous of soil type and land use. The catchment was delineated using AutoCAD derived
from topographic and boundary map. For this analysis, the same models in calibration and
verification processes were used. All the physical parameters were obtained via AutoCAD
such as the area of sub-catchment, stream length, imperviousness area and etc. The basin
model was developed in HEC-HMS (Figure 4), which consist of hydrologic elements such as
sub-basin, reach, junction and reservoir representing a physical process such as catchment,
stream reach and confluence. Table 1 summarizes the sub-basin’s parameter used in the
modeling of PMF based on the data collection and assumptions made by the researchers.

Figure 4: Basin model of Kenyir Catchment

ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334 329

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Kenyir Catchment, Malaysia

Table 1. Sub-basin parameter

Loss Method Transform Method Baseflow
Method
Initial and Constant Synder’s UH Constant
Sub- Area
Monthly
Catchment (km2)
Initial Constant Impervi- Ct Cp tp Baseflow
Loss Rate ousness (m3/s)
(mm) (mm/hr) (%)
Mid. of 1318.74 10 2 28 1.5 0.8 9.9543 950
Kenyir
Puah 405.56 10 2 2 1.5 0.8 9.4425 950
Tembat 101.88 10 2 2 1.5 0.8 6.421 950
Petuang 276.98 10 2 2 1.5 0.8 8.1503 950
National 392.65 10 2 2 1.5 0.8 7.4983 950
Park I
National 104.522 10 2 2 1.5 0.8 5.9745 950
Park II

In determination of reach parameters for routing models, Lag Method was used to calculate
lag by using equation (2):

Length (m)
Lag (min) = (2)
Flood Velocity (m / s )
This method routes channel flow with translation and no attenuation. There are four reaches in
this catchment model. They are R-1 connected to J-1 that gathered inflows from Puah, Tembat
and Petuang; R-2 connected with J-2, inflow from National Park; R-3 connected with J-3,
inflow from National Park II; R-4 connected with J-4 which confluence all the sub-basin,
junction and reach to the reservoir elements. Table 2 shows the reach parameters for each
reach.
Table 2. Reach parameter
Reach Length (km) Lag (min)
R-1 32.80 182.21
R-2 28.47 158.15
R-3 10.57 58.71
R-4 8.57 47.63

For reservoir parameters, the elevation–storage outflow method was chosen for this study.
The elevation-storage curve and the elevation-discharge curve for Kenyir Dam were obtained
from TNB-GAD. Reservoir elements for Kenyir dam consist of one outlet, one spillway and
six saddle dams of Kenyir Catchment. As for Meteorologic model, the Specified Hyetograph
method was used in computing the PMP design storm to the spillway flood hydrograph. There
are two types of PMP which is Type I PMP-Pseudo Mersing Storm and Type II PMP-Nested
Bell Shaped adopted from SMHB 2007 with the interval of 2 hours storm duration in Figure
5.The Mersing storm profile was adopted because it exhibited high rainfall intensity and was
used in designing severe storm condition. Meanwhile the bell shaped profile also produce
high flood discharge due to the pyramid arrangement of the rainfall.

330 ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334

 F. C. Ros et. al.

Figure 5. Graph of Type I PMP-Pesudo Mersing Storm and Type II PMP-Nested

Bell Shaped (SMHB, 2007)

5. RESULTS

The result of the simulated model was used to recheck the current condition in terms of
hydrology review whether the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) calculated from the model
exceeded the PMF design for Kenyir Dam which is 21,400m3/s. The PMF results and spillway
routing of Type I PMP and Type II PMP are shown in Figure 6 and 7 respectively. The
summary of the results can be referred to Table 3 and 4.

Figure 6: PMF hydrograph of Type I PMP for Kenyir Catchment

ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334 331

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Kenyir Catchment, Malaysia

Table 3. Results summary of PMF hydrograph of Type I PMP

Peak Inflow 16 051.1 m3/s

Peak Outflow 3830.4 m3/s
Total Inflow 852.87 mm
Total Outflow 179.7 mm
Peak Storage 15358605.4 (1000 m3)
Peak Elevation 150.0 m
Spillway Discharge 3,075 m3/s

Figure 7: PMF hydrograph of Type II PMP for Kenyir Catchment

Table 4. Results summary of PMF Hydrograph of Type II PMP

Peak Inflow 18,899.7 m3/s

Peak Outflow 6,442.9 m3/s
Total Inflow 1,329.96 mm
Total Outflow 320.37 mm
Peak Storage 16,237,489.1 (1000 m3)
Peak Elevation 152.5 m
Spillway Discharge 5,647.4 m3/s

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Kenyir Dam started operating in 1986 when the original flood study for Kenyir Dam was done
based on PMP and using hydrometeorological approach. The spillway capacity of Kenyir

332 ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334

 F. C. Ros et. al.

Dam was designed for the PMF discharge of 15,000m3/s (SMEC, 1986). Later, the spillway
design flood was revised to 21,200m3/s in Surveillance Report and Safety Review (SMEC,
1996). From a study conducted by SMHB in January 2007, the PMF value for Kenyir is
20,352m3/s. These moderate design decisions produced a dam that is still safe when tested
against today’s design criteria.

The calibrated HEC-HMS model was then used to simulate the catchment response given a
PMP design storm for Kenyir Dam. From the results obtained from both types of PMP; the
Type 2 gave a higher peak discharge which is 18,899.7m3/s while the Type 1 gave
16,051.1m3/s. Both values were below the designed value, 21,400m3/s. For spillway routing,
the Type 2 PMP yielded a higher spillway discharge of 5,647.4m3/s compared to Type I PMP,
3,075 m3/s. Both values are lower than the design flow, 6,500m3/s. The reservoir water level
reached an elevation of 152.5 m, indicated that there is still a remaining freeboard of 2.5 m
from the top dam crest elevation of 155 m.

Since the value of PMF for Kenyir catchment is lower than the designed value, and the
spillway discharge is less than 6,500m3/s in the event of PMF occurrence, Kenyir Dam will
not be overtopped. Hence, there is still sufficient freeboard to handle future wave action
normally associated with the storm.

Results indicated that the model was stable and can be used to estimate an extreme flood
based on the PMP. HEC-HMS results based on the PMP were generally comparable in terms
of peak flow to a published PMF hydrograph at Kenyir catchment, but runoff volumes were
lower. Initial soil moisture changes had little effects on model peak flow predictions and
hydrograph shape, but affected the total runoff volume. Overall, it was shown that the HEC-
HMS model can successfully be applied to a large catchment of this scale (2,600 km2) and
simulate extreme floods including that resulting from the Probable Maximum Precipitation.

REFERENCES

[1]. Australian Rainfall and Runoff (ARR), 2001. Volume One: A Guide to Flood
Estimation (in eight books). The Institution of Engineers, Australia.

[2]. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 1990. Flood Hydrograph and Routing System
(FHAR) Computer Model version 4.14, Technical Service Center, Denver, CO.

[3]. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 2002. Interim guidance for addressing the risk
of extreme hydrologic events. Dam Safety Office and Technical Service Center,
Denver, CO, 3 p.

[4]. Center (HEC), 1998. HEC-1 Flood HydrographPackage, User’s Manual, CPD-1A,
version 4.1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA, 434 p.

[5]. C.R Neill & W.E. Watt. 2001. Report on Six Case Studies of Flood Frequency
Analyses. Ontario: Alberta Transportation.

[6]. FEMA. 2004. Selecting and Accomodating Inflow design Floods for Dams. New York:
Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety

ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334 333

Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for the Kenyir Catchment, Malaysia

[7]. F. Frances & B.A Botero. 1994. Probable Maximum Flood Estimation Using
Systematic and Non-Systematic Information. Stochastic Hydrology and
Hydraulics.Volume 12(4), 267 – 283

[8]. Flood Hydrology Group, Technical Service Center. 2004. PMF Hydrograph of San
Joaquin River New Dam at River Mile 286. California: US. Department of Interior

[9]. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC),. 2001. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS
User’s Manual, Davis CA: Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Engineering

[10]. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), 2006. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-
HMS, User’s Manual, CPD-74A, version 3.0.1. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Davis,
CA, 248.

[11]. Institute of Hydrology (IH), 1999. Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) – Procedures for
Flood Frequency Estimation (in five volumes). Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford,
Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.

[12]. Mark S. Woodbury, Douglas T. Eberlain & Nicholas Pansic. 1994. Minimizing the
Probable Maximum Flood. Inform Global Magazine: 64

[13]. Robert B. Jansen. 1983. Dams and Public Safety. Denver: A Water Resources
Technical Publication, U.S Department of the Interior

[14]. Robert E. Swain. 2000. Evolution of the Hoover Dam Inflow Design Flood – A Study in
Changing Methodologies. New York.

[15]. Robert E. Swain, David Bowles & Dean Ostenaa. 1998. A Framework of
Characterization of Extreme Floods for Dam Safety Risk Assessments. Proc. USCOLD
Annual Lecture (August 1998), Buffalo, New York.

[16]. Simona Matreata. 2005. Dynamic-Statistical Model for the Determination of Probable
Maximum Flood. Bucharest, Romania: National Institute of Hydrology and Water
Management (NIHWM).

[17]. SMEC Malaysia. 1997. Re-appraisal of Feasibility Study Report for Ulu Terengganu
Hydroelectric Project. Volume 3, Final Report. Kuala Lumpur: Tenaga Nasional
Berhad (TNB)

[18]. SMHB Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia. 2007. Engineering Services for Kenyir Dam Safety
Review. Interim Report. Kuala Lumpur: Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB)

334 ICCBT 2008 - D - (31) – pp325-334