You are on page 1of 11

# Team 1 Hydro-Europe 2014/2015

## Hydrological statistics: Excel

Team members :
PIZEPAN Marie
SANZ RAMOS Marcos
TACCONE Florent
TAY XinYing
SAUVAGE Csar

## Team 1 Hydro-Europe 2014/2015

Introduction:
The aim of this part is to understand what is the cause of the 1994 flood. we can make two
hypothesis : in 1994 the rainfall was important or the flood wasnt created by the volume of
rainfall but by the runoff.

## 1. The return period of Discharge

Utilizing the Var_discharges_month_day.xls, we calculate the return period for the discharge of
1994.
With the discharge of the Var every day, and the graph representing the discharge in relation to
the time, we observe that the years from 1977 to 1984 do not have values. So, our study will go
from 1974 to 1977 and 1985 to 2001. We need the maximum discharge of each year to use the
Gumbel method and we obtain this table.

Date
1990
1974
1992
1995
1989
1998
1975
1999
1986
1987
1997
1985
1976
2000
1988
1991
1996
1993
1994

flow max/
year
84,9
164
190
193
207
219
223
248
351
352
459
481
530
652
714
778
916
1050
1460

Tableau 1 : Max discharge of each year from 1974 to 1976 and 1985 to 2000

## Team 1 Hydro-Europe 2014/2015

We calculated the average and the standard deviation to have the gardex and the mode to
apply the Gumbel method.

xo , the mode :

With

## the standard deviation.

We obtain:
average
)
487,99
362,7246131 282,925198 324,746897
Tableau 2 : Table of parameter of Gumbel method for the discharge

After we calculate the return period of the daily flow max of 1994. The flow max is : 1460m/s.
We calculated the gumbel variable :

)))= 0,98207548

55,7894941.

## 2. The return period of rainfall.

a. The return period of max rainfall of 1994.
We asked if the flood was only caused by an heavy rainfall. For that, we calculated the return
period of 3 rainfalls on 3 gauges stations.

## Team 1 Hydro-Europe 2014/2015

We have the data of rainfall of 3 gauges stations : Saint Dalmas le Selvage, Tende st dalmas
and st sauveur de tine. As we can see on the picture below.

Figure 1 : Map representing the three gauges station to calculate the return period.

For Tende, we have the rainfall of 1950 at 1995, for St dalmas we have of 1931 at 1995 and st
sauveur 1931 at 1995.
We had the possibility to use the rainfall of Nice, but according to us this was unnecessary
because it was the location of the flood and so the rainfall of Nice is not the major reason of the
flood. Indeed, it was the rainfall and the runoff in upstream of the Var catchment which created
an increase of its water level. The rainfall of Nice accentuate the phenomenon of flooding.
We know that the flood occurred on the 5th of November 1994 with the maximum
discharges.With the files: st dalmas le selvage 1931_1995.xls, st sauveur_tinee 1932-1995.xls
and tende st dalmas 1950_1995.xls, we have sorted the datas taking the max rainfall for each

## Team 1 Hydro-Europe 2014/2015

month. Applying Hydrolab2010 and the Gumbel method we search the return period of max
rainfall of 1994 according to the other max rainfall of each years.

## Figure 7 : Return period of rainfall of 1994 on Tende St Dalmas.

With this study we can see that the max rainfall which has fallen in 1994 is not an extreme
rainfall. Because the return period are between 3 and 8 years. So, its not the height of rainfall
which has caused the flood.

## b. The return period of accumulation rainfall of September and

October.
After, we have calculated the return period of accumulate rainfall of month September and
October 1994 according to the other September and October of each years.
For St dalmas :
For September :
7

For October :

For St Sauveur:
For September:

For October:

For st Tende :
For September:

For October:

## 3. Impact of Nices rainfall

We said that the rainfall of Nice did not create the flood because Nice is the outlet of river Var.
But we calculated the return period of rainfall to see if this rainfall was an exceptional event.

10

## Team 1 Hydro-Europe 2014/2015

The rainfall of 1994 has a return period of around 2 years. Its not a big rainfall.

## Figure 16 : Return period of rainfall of September 1994 on Nice.

The rainfall of September is less important than some other rainfalls of septembers from other
gauges stations.

## The rainfall of October isnt huge.

The rainfall of Nice did not cause the flood, it just added a runoff. Indeed, the major part of
Nices rainfall is transformed in runoff because, it is a place very urbanized.

Conclusion
In September, the accumulation of rainfall is significant of 33 at 107 years. For October, the
rainfall is less important with return period around 2 years.
With this study, we can ask ourselves if the strong rainfall of September have saturated the soil,
the rainfall of October has maintained the saturation of the soil, and the runoff increasing is
caused by this saturation. Finally, it creates the flood at the beginning of November.

11