~by: C L Cheong~

In the article posted on TOC on January 19, I have attempted to provide, and to share, a perspective of flood problems. 

To recap, there are several fundamental aspects to it.  First, floods are caused by two types of heavy storms with different characteristics, one giving rise to localized flash floods and the other widespread, prolonged flooding.

Second, urbanisation is perhaps the most significant factor that contributes to the worsening of flooding conditions as it results in a significant increase in surface runoff in a storm event.  (Since writing the article, I read of the news in the January 11, 2012 edition of The Straits Time that rainfall intensity has been increasing over the last three decades.  This, I think, has also contributed to an increase in surface runoff to aggravate flooding conditions.)  

Third, space constraint and prohibitive cost would preclude constructing drainage systems capable of completely preventing the occurrence of floods; a range of known measures can be applied in conjunction with existing canals and drains to mitigate floods and to minimize flood damage, and some typical examples of these are cited. 

Lastly, effective measures can be designed based on a good understanding of flood behaviors. Modeling techniques can be employed to simulate flooding conditions due to large and extreme storm events, or resulting from urban development and urban renewal activities.  The simulated results can then be used as the basis for evaluating options of flood mitigation, which can be engineering measures or non-engineering measures or both.     

It would be useful to clarify that these aspects are discussed in generalized, conceptual terms.  The discussion is meant, for instance, to throw light on the underlying causes of flooding, and what measures are generally employed to mitigate floods and their effects.  There is therefore no pretence to suggest solutions for specific flood problems.  A sound engineering solution will be found through a feasibility study going through the process and rigor of engineering survey and investigations, engineering analyses, comparison and evaluation of alternatives.

I would like to make two other brief comments. 

Mr Peter Sellers asked: what is the pump capacity at the Marina Barrage and how this compares with peak runoffs during heavy storms?

As I understand it, there are seven pumps installed at the barrage, each having a pump capacity of 40 cubic meters per second and an aggregate of 280 cubic meters per second for the seven pumps.  To give some physical idea of its size, one pump is capable of evacuating, in one minute, a volume of water equivalent to that of an Olympic swimming pool (Also see information posted by Mr Ethen Jin-Chew on January 23, 2012). 

I would not be able to comment on the second part of the question as I do not have the information and data.  It was reported that the size of the detention storage required for resolving the flood problems at Orchard Road is of the order of 40 to 50 Olympic-size pools (January 10 2012 edition of TODAY).  This would indicate the volume of water spilling out of the Stamford Canal during a flash flood.  Using this as a basis for comparison, the entire body of water of the detention storage can be evacuated in about seven minutes with all seven pumps running simultaneously.  The pumps are said to be the largest of their kind in the world.  

There was a question asked (Comment No 17): What about the afflux caused by the completion of the Marina Barrage?

When a drain discharges into a pool of water, the flow is retarded, and water level at the lower end of the drain will be ‘pushed up’ resulting in a backing up effect.  This effect will extend upstream up to a point where the condition of continuity of flow (i.e., ‘what flows in flows out’) is attained.  This phenomenon of the backing up of water level is termed afflux. 

Let us first consider the ‘without barrage’ scenario.  At high tide a drain will discharge against a high water level, while at low tide, a low water level.  Next consider the ‘with barrage’ scenario in which the reservoir is maintained at a water level above the low tide but below the high tide so as to avoid inundation of the low lying areas in the city centre (See information posted by Mr Ethen Jin-Chew on January 23, 2011).  The drain will now discharge against a water level intermediate between high tide and low tide. This would suggest that the extent of backing up effect in the ‘with barrage case’ would be intermediate between the extent of backing up effect due to high tide and that due to low tide in the ‘without barrage’ case, all things being equal.

In passing it would be of interest to note a piece of news, posted in the October 7 2011 edition of The Straits Times, that a panel of experts ‘used a computer program to recreate the storm conditions during the Orchard Road floods but removed the barrage from the picture.  It found that the floods would still have occurred even without the barrage.’  This means that the backing up effect is not felt at Orchard Road, which correlates with the observation that flood waters here recede within a short space of time. 

Finally on a personal note (as a response to a comment by Mr Peter Sellers), I am a visitor to Singapore, and have no connections with PUB or any other governmental bodies. 

I had worked in the field of water resources engineering since the beginning of 1960s, starting as an apprentice engineer learning how hydraulic structures are constructed.  I then progressed to the level of operating and managing water resources systems, and later to planning and review of water resources projects, along with the review and upgrade of engineering standards and procedures.  In the later part of my career, I did short-term engineering assignments for international organizations, which added more continuing learning and excitement in my working life.  Six years ago, I retired completely from engineering practice, spending time with my family with a bit of travel.  

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

对政府呈《防假消息法》感“失望和惊讶” 刘程强抨击为阻吓异议者

《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》于今日在国会进行二读辩论。工人党前党魁暨阿裕尼集选区议员刘程强直言,对政府提呈有关草案感到“非常失望和惊讶”。 刘程强表态工人党反对上述《防假消息法》,“虽然我们认同有必要立法对付网络假消息,避免破坏现有政治体系和多元种族和谐,或影响选举结果。也应强制网络公司撤下可造成社会分裂的言论。” 但他指出,政府提呈该法案,不仅是为应付上述挑战,其背后动机,乃是为了对社交媒体的批评者起阻吓作用。“政府只要选择性处罚一些初犯者,就能达到杀鸡儆猴的作用,令人不寒而栗,造成言论自我审查。” 他不违言,这是为保护执政党,进行政治垄断的政策目标。 他也不认同律政部长尚穆根的解释,指出其他法令中赋予政府的权限,仅针对网站或公司,但是《防假消息法》枪口却针对个人在社交媒体发表的言论,令人担忧。 网络和社媒乃平民论政、问责之空间 他认为,网络假消息固然为社会管理带来新挑战,需要有新策略应对,然而不应忽略,市井小民讨论政治,已不局限于咖啡店,网络和社交媒体也是论政和问责政府的平台,这是科技进步为民主带来的正面发展。 他说,如今人民若对政府和政治人物质疑,不必躲在街头巷尾窃窃私语,已走出过去内安法令下,部长决定就可未审讯扣留的白色恐怖,这是我国迈向开放民主的一大步。 民众可以透过网络监督政府和反映对政策的意见,政府和人民可直接沟通和回应,知晓人民的需要,有助改善民生。”民意体现已不仅限于选举时,能善用网络平台的政府,更能推出体恤民情合民意的政策。 工人党表示,无法接受把人民论政和言论自由的权利,交给部长裁决。他列举工人党反对《防假消息法》的原因包括:第一,法案让部长拥有绝对的权力判断什么是假信息,并决定采取什么行动。这就像在一场球赛中,让部长同时扮演球员和裁判的角色。 “李显龙总理近日指出,科技和社交媒体的普及,让仇恨言论和假新闻非常容易散播,也让恶意人士更容易操纵观点,甚至影响选举。但我们怎么能肯定,执政党的部长就不会为了赢得选举,而操纵观点和散播假信息? 虽然法案规定在大选时部长必需委任一名政府官员来替代部长执行任务,在表面上看来是避免利益冲突。但又有谁能确保这位由部长所委任的政府官员不会为了自己和部长的利益而做出有损公众利益的事?”…

The “YouTube style of politics” in S’pore?

Is S’pore ready for the “Youtube style of politics”, as mentioned by MCYS minister Vivian Balakrishnan? Is the government ready to allow multimedia to be used for political or election campaigning?

SingPost investigating case of unopened parcels being disposed at Ang Mo Kio rubbish bin

Just two weeks ago Singapore Post (SingPost) apologised for its “service failures”…