The Arno River Flood Study Meander Quietly on Wide Alluvial Plains
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
# View of Ponte Vecchio in Florence before the 1966 flood. The Arno River Flood The Arno River Flood Phenomena On the morning of November 4,1966, the residents of Study (1971-1976) Florence, Italy, awoke to find themselves the victims of a major flood. Thirty-six people were drowned in Florence, and replaceable real property damage has Lorenzo Panattoni been estimated at $640,000,000 (C. Pandolfi, personal communication, 1977). In addition, art treasures of IBM Scientific Center of Pisa, Pisa, Italy inestimable value were lost, and the cleanup operation attracted worldwide attention, sympathy, and help James R. Wallis [Judge, 1967]. As an illustration of the amount of damage caused by this catastrophic flood, we have IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown reproduced a photograph of Ponte Vecchio (Figure 1) Heights, New York taken on the morning of November 5,1966. Engineering structures and land use zoning The Arno River in Italy intermittently inundates measures can usually be designed so as to prevent most downstream flood damages, but the protection is large areas of the Arno River basin. This paper rarely absolute and may become prohibitively expen investigates flood phenomena and evaluates sive as one designs to protect against ever larger and some of the proposals that have been made to rarer catastrophic events. For a rational evaluation of alleviate the flood hazard using procedures alternative flood control measures it is helpful to have developed at the IBM Pisa Scientific Center. an accurate flood frequency analysis that is an estimate of the probabilities of flood events of various mag nitudes. Customarily, these flood probabilities are expressed as recurrence interval Tfor floods of a given Cover The design on the cover is the new AGU logo. magnitude. To estimate Tfor a major flood, it is custom The logo is the culmination of the work of the staff art ary to consider only the highest annual flow recorded department, Dae Sung Kim, Pamela Thompson, and Ed for each year at a convenient stream-gaging station. A Pitts, supervisor. In the spirit of de gustibus non dispu- little upstream from Florence, at Nave di Rosano, there tandum, the logo was presented to the Council last is a stream-gaging station that was established in month in San Francisco, where it was not disapproved. 1920. The records are discontinuous during the war 0096-3941/79/0001/0001 $01.00 Copyright 1979 by the American Geophysical Union. years, but the instantaneous peak flow for each of 35 gaging program was initiated. Spurred by the 1966 years is known. These data were ranked and plotted on flood, the historical evidence for past major floods has Gumbel extreme value probability paper (Figure 2). The been the subject of extensive investigations [Losacco, data were fitted to a Gumbel extreme value distribution 1967; Cawna, 1969]. For the 1333 and 1557 flood using both the method of moments (line A, Figure 2) and events the water levels reached were marked on many the method of maximum likelihood (line B, Figure 2). By of the buildings of Florence. Some of these markers still the method of moments the 1966 flood is estimated at T exist (Figures 3 and 4). Villani, a prominent writer of the = 633, while the method of maximum likelihood yields T period, stated that the flood of 1333 was less than that = 3675. While Gumbel extreme value procedures are of 1269, although the damage in the city was reported commonly used in Europe, they are not favored by the to have been greater. No markers exist for the 1269 or U.S. Water Resources Council, which has recom 1171 inundation levels, but they are both believed to mended using a Pearson type III distribution with the have been at least comparable to those of 1333 and method of moments and the calculations conducted in 1557. logarithmic space [U.S. Water Resources Council, This exogenous information on the frequency of past 1976,1978]. large Arno River floods can be incorporated into the If this procedure is followed for the Nave di Rosano flood frequency analysis in the manner suggested by data, the third moment in logarithmic space is +0.1, the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC). Their report, which leads to very high probabilities for extremely Bulletin 17A, contains additional procedural adjust large floods. As can be seen from line C in Figure 2, the ments that are recommended when it is known that a recurrence interval for the 1966 flood is estimated at T large flood in a short record has not been exceeded in a = 200 years, and several even more extreme floods longer historical period. For the Arno River it appears could be expected in a 1000-year interval, but as we certain beyond reasonable doubt that no flood since shall see, the historic information does not accord well 1 270 has exceeded the 1966 event. Using the WRC with such a supposition. procedures and assigning T = 700 for the 1966 event It is clear from the above analyses that the 1966 flood yield a negative third moment in log space (—0.1), was an extreme event, but there have been many other which assures that a maximum certain flood can be cal floods in Florence before the Nave di Rosano stream- culated from the data and that extreme events will be < I Fig. 1. View of Ponte Vecchio in Florence after the 1966 flood.This photograph was taken on the morning of Novem ber 5,1966. The boutiques that line both sides of the bridge were totally destroyed. Three bridges have occupied this site. The first, a Roman bridge, disappeared sometime before 1080. The second, built in 1080, withstood major floods in 1171 and 1269 and was destroyed by the flood of 1333. The present bridge was designed by Tad- deo Gaddi and completed in 1345; it has withstood major floods in 1557 as well as in 1966. CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY P 0.0I 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.99 0.995 0.999 ~i—i i i i i—i—i 1 1 1 1 1 r Fig. 2. Plot of the available 24 years of o highest instantaneous peak flows for the Nave di Rosano Gaging Station. The graph paper is Gumbel extreme value type 1, and a ro Weibull plotting position was used. A, E Gumbel method of moments; B, Gumbel method of maximum likelihood; C, log Pear 5 son III, and D, log Pearson III 'adjusted' for O WRC historic procedures. 2 5 10 20 50 I00 200 500 I000 RECURRENCE INTERVAL T assigned extremely low probability of occurrence (line The Arno River Basin D, Figure 2). In fact, by following the WRC Bulletin 1 7 A 2 procedures for historic floods, one is led to an The Arno River basin has an area of about 8229 km , erroneous and inconsistent estimate of T = 200,000 for with a main channel of approximately 245-km length the 1966 event. from its source on the slopes of Mount Falterona to the Tyrrhenian Sea below Pisa. Proceeding downstream, It is evident that the WRC procedures lead to either the Arno River receives several major tributaries as well ridiculously high or incredibly low estimates of the Arno as many minor ones (Figure 5). River flood hazard, and they should therefore be dis For the purpose of flood forecasting at Florence, the regarded. However, the Gumbel extreme value pro major contributors are the Sieve and Casentino regions, cedures and the historical evidence confirm that the both of which are steep mountainous regions that can flood hazard in the Arno River basin is severe and that experience heavy fall and winter rains and have shallow while floods of the 1 966 magnitude may be rare, others impermeable soils developed from calcarious marine of only slightly less severity have occurred on four sediments. In particular, the disastrous flood at occasions within the last 800 years. It was the flood of Florence on November 4,1966, was precipitated by the 1966, however, which initiated and gave impetus to the nearly contemporaneous arrival of major flood waves Arno River flood study which is to be described in the from both the Sieve and Casentino regions. The other following sections. subregions of the Arno River basin have a more rolling topography with verdant hills that are largely devoted to agriculture and gently sloping rivers that usually Overview of the Arno River Flood Study meander quietly on wide alluvial plains. To predict, control, and evaluate the Arno River flood hazard, it would be useful to have an accurate, easy to The Data Base use model of the flood phenomena. With this goal in mind a group of scientists at the IBM Scientific Center A hydrologic model is only as good as the data that of Pisa and the Istituto di Idraulica of the Universita di are available to calibrate and operate it, and for the Arno Pavia set up a joint research study that lasted 6 years River the data were far from optimal. In fact, model and took approximately 15 man-years of work. While choice was often restricted by the deficiencies in the the initial and the final goal always remained the con existing data base and by the prohibitive costs in time struction of a computer-based model of the Arno River and money associated with obtaining more and better flood phenomena, the study also included a critical machine readable data. examination of theory and experimental evaluation of The main channel from Levane (Figure 5) to the sea many numerical alternatives. Computer programs for was surveyed at intervals of —200 m in the period most of these alternative algorithms did not exist and 1952-1963 by the Ufficio Idrografico.