EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 7 (2016) E3S Web Conf., 7 (2016) 11003 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 7, 2016
3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016)
Article Number 11003
Number of page(s) 8
Section Risk evaluation and assessment
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160711003
Published online 20 October 2016
  1. Federal Coordinating Council for Science and Technology, (1979). “Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety,” Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1996). “Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies,” EM 1110-2-1619, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  3. National Research Council, (2000). “Risk Analysis and Uncertainty in Flood Damage Reduction Studies,” prepared by the Committee on Committee on Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  4. American Society of Mechanical Engineers/American Nuclear Society, (2013). “Addendum B to ASME/ANS RA-S-2008 Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications”. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Commission, (2012). “Practical Implementation Guidelines for SSHAC Level 3 and 4 Hazard Studies”, NUREG-2117, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  6. EPRI, (1994). “Methodology for Developing Seismic Fragilities,” Prepared by Jack R. Benjamin & Associates, Inc. and RPK Structural Mechanics Consulting. TR–103959. [Google Scholar]
  7. Froehlich D.C. (2008). “Dam Breach Parameters and their Uncertainties,” ASCE Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 12. [Google Scholar]
  8. Xu Y. and Zhang L.M., (2009). “Breaching Parameters for Earth and Rockfill Dams,” ASCE, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, pp. 1957–1970. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bowles D.S., Xu Y., Ehasz J.L., Briaud J.L., and Ey J.C., (2014). “Obtaining Reasonable Breach Hydrographs Based on Breach Parameter Estimates from Regression Methods,” Proceedings of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials Conference, San Diego, CA. [Google Scholar]
  10. Freeman G.E. R.R. Copeland, and M.A. Cowan, (1995). “Quantifying Stage-Discharge Uncertainty at Gaging Stations”, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Water Resources Engineering, San Antonio, TX. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  11. National Research Council, (2015). “Tying Flood Insurance to Flood Risk for Low-Lying Structures in the Floodplain,” prepared by the Committee on Risk-Based Methods for Insurance Premiums of Negatively Elevated Structures in the National Flood Insurance Program, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) (2010), “HEC–RAS,” Version 4.1.0., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, CA. [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodell C.R. (2013). “Moving Towards Risk-Informed Dam Breach Modeling,” Dam Safety 2013, Association of State Dam Safety Officials, September. [Google Scholar]
  14. Grigg N.S. and Helweg O.J. (1975). State-of-the-Art of Estimating Flood Damage in Urban Areas, Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association, Vol. 11, No. 2. [Google Scholar]
  15. U.S. Federal Insurance Administration (1970). Flood Hazard Factors, Depth-Damage Curves, Elevation Frequency Curves, Standard Rate Tables. [Google Scholar]
  16. McBean E., Gorrie J., Fortin M., Ding J., and Moulton R. (1988). “Flood Depth—Damage Curves By Interview Survey.” J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 114(6), 613–634. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Thieken A.H., Mueller M., Kkreibich H., Merz B., (2005). Flood damage and influencing factors: New insights from the August 2002 flood in Germany, Water Resources Research, Vol. 41. [Google Scholar]
  18. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (2014). “RCEM – Reclamation Consequence Estimating Methodology (Interim), Guidelines for Estimating Life Loss for Dam Safety Risk Analysis,” February. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.