Flood Hazard Mapping in Malaysia: Case Study Sg.

Kelantan river basin

Dato’ Ir. Hj. Nor Hisham bin Mohd Ghazali1) and Sazali bin Osman1)
1) Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia

Abstract:
One of the critical issues in Malaysia, which is mostly reflected in the Sg. Kelantan river basin, is flooding
which occurs almost every year. This paper aims to present the result of the study on developing flood
maps consisting of flood hazard map, flood evacuation map, and flood risk map. The contents will describe
the development, calibration and validation of a flood model for the 100 ARI design flood. Calibration and
validation involved comparison between observed and model simulated discharge hydrographs, as well as
observed and model simulated flood inundation extents. The use of hydrodynamic model using InfoWorks
1D and 2D techniques and utilizing DEM data from IFSAR significantly improve the results. The
hydrodynamic model was applied to reconstruct the recent flood events, as well as to simulate flood
inundation due to rainfall events of varying recurrence intervals. The generated flood inundation map helps
the preparedness for disaster agency to have proper planning and early evacuation during monsoon flood
season. Meanwhile, the flood risk maps will be used as guidance to local government for planning
guidelines in line with national development policies and planning principles.

1. Introduction
1.1 Flood disaster statistics
Floods are known as one of the world‟s most frequent and devastating events including
Malaysia (Osti et al., 2008). A substantial amount of the nation‟s annual expenditure has
been allocated to the development of strategies to reduce the effects of flooding. In
particular, the impact of flooding in terms of infrastructure damages, human causalities,
and long-term economic downturn has been rapidly increasing. This scenario is brought
about by the ballooning global population, unsystematic urbanization, and climate change
in the form of higher sea levels and more intense cyclones weather systems and
precipitation (Sanders, 2007). The damage on agriculture, households, and public utilities
caused by floods amounts to billions of dollars each year worldwide, in addition to the loss
of human and animal life (Sharma and Priya, 2001).
In Malaysia, floods occur almost every year, especially in areas located in flood plains.
These annual flood events have been classified as normal flood which occur during the
northeast monsoon season between November and March. Normal flood often inundates
the lowland areas in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Meanwhile, major floods occur

1
 once every few years, and sometimes, even consecutively, like the 1970 and 1971 flooding
in Pekan, Pahang (Chan, 1997). The major flood in Johor (located at the southern part of
Peninsular Malaysia) involved more than 110,000 evacuees and 18 casualties. The
damages from these disasters amounted to RM 1.5 billion (excluding losses caused by the
economic downturn) (Sulaiman, 2007). The flooding in Johor has been classified as
“abnormal” as it occurred twice in two months, namely, in December 2006 and January
2007.
Meanwhile, based on Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia in 2012, about
33,298 km2 or 10.1 percent of the country is prone to flooding. It represent 5.67 million of
peoples affected and annual loss more than RM 1 billion. The amounts of losses
substantially increase once major flood occurred. As reported, December 2014 flood which
hits badly in three states namely Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang cause more than
500,000 peoples evacuated, 25 casualties and RM2.85 billion losses (not include intangible
loss). Malaysia laid on equator and has been categorized humid-tropic region, flash flood
almost occurred every month which is in 2018, 450 floods event recorded and 90% is flash
flood.

1.2 Purpose of flood hazard mapping

There are various methods to mitigate the damages caused by floods, such as flood
prevention, flood protection, flood preparedness, and emergency response. These methods
must be objectively approached to reduce the effect of floods and subsequently avoid the
loss of human life and damages to infrastructure and agriculture. In Malaysia, flood control
has been managed through structural and nonstructural measures. The structural measures
concentrated on building dams, reservoirs, embankments, levees, and artificial channels.
Major rivers, where building structures are not economically suitable, are widened and
deepened through dredging. However, dredging is expensive and resources are not always
available.
Another structural measure to protect rivers for short periods is creating a wall out of
concrete, bamboo, or wood. For low-lying areas along rivers, a retention pond is built to
store floodwater temporarily. The stored water is released only after the river flow returns
to its normal level. The retention pond also serves as a multifunctional pond where a certain
volume of water is permanently stored. The riverine habitats in the pond could improve the
quality of the remaining floodwater, as well as the other habitats in the area. In flood-prone
areas where floodwater remains for very long periods, water pumps can be strategically
installed along the rivers or flooded areas. These water pumps can either be mobile or
permanently installed depending on the volume of floodwater.
While most structural methods attempt to control floods, nonstructural methods largely
focus on preventive efforts. Currently, the Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID)

2
 has emphasized the strengthening of a nonstructural approach by introducing more
comprehensive solutions to manage flooding. A new Urban Storm Water Management
manual (MSMA), published by DID in 2000 (Sulaiman, 2007). This manual emphasizes
the management of peak discharge using the concept of “control at source,” which means
that the time before the runoff water enters the river is lengthened. Therefore, the existing
river capacity can accommodate floodwater, eliminating the need for exorbitant-costing
structural remedies.
There are others non-structural flood control measures such as flood forecasting and
warning system and flood hazard mapping. Conceptually, four stages of flood hazard
mapping requires includes flood map, flood hazard map, flood evacuation map and flood
risk map. Flood map or flood inundation map defines the location of flood or area of
flooding drawn on a map. It draws based on the records of flooding occurred through field
observation or satellite imaginaries.
Meanwhile, flood hazard map generated using the hydrodynamic flood model which
contains the map of likelihood of the future flood events, which is normally based on
Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) of floods. The flood hazard map output includes flood
area, flood depth, flood velocity and flood extent. These results will help to generate flood
evacuation maps at the particular flooding area. Although, the flood evacuation map
subject to time of updated information of evacuation centre and the accessibility of roads
during the flood events, this will give guidance on how to act once floods occurred.
The existence of flood hazard map will further enrich with flood risk map. Flood risk is the
combination of the probability of a flood event and the potential adverse consequences to
human health, the environment and economics activities associated with a flood event. To
generate flood risk maps, three components involved which is the value of risk at
probability scenarios, the probability of exposure and the vulnerability of objects at
probability scenarios. The main target output for flood risk map is to obtain assets
information at zone of risk. Flood risk map also used to assist local peoples and
governments to develop effective methods of reducing flood-related damages in the
community over the long run. It is clear that the least costly and most effective solution is to
adopt a preventive approach which emphasizes longer range planning in flood prone areas.
Measures such as zoning by-laws, building codes and subdivision regulations can be used
to control and direct land use within the flood hazard areas.

2. Flood Mapping
The Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia responsible to prepare flood map in
inundation area at the whole country. Currently, there are 39 flood hazard maps and 3
Flood Risk Maps has been established and this paper will present the methodology for
developing the flood maps at Kelantan River Basin (Sg. Kelantan).

3
2.1 Catchment Background
Kelantan river basin covers an area of about 13,000 km2 together with its other tributaries,
namely Sg. Lebir, Sg. Galas, Sg. Pergau and Sg. Nenggiri. The Kelantan river is
approximately 105 km and it includes Lebir and Galas River at Kuala Krai. Kelantan
river passes through the several urban areas namely Kuala Krai, Tanah Merah, Pasir Mas
and Kota Bharu. Downstream of Kelantan river has a population around 0.5 million
which can be in a medium level of population. The river is the principal cause of flooding
because it is constricted at its lower reaches. The capacity of the river at downstream area
is less than 10,000 m3/s, therefore flood that exceeds this capacity will overspill the banks
and inundation flood water at land surface area and finally moving to the sea. Since 1965,
there have been more than 20 floods that exceed the capacity limit. During December
2014 flood events, it was reported that the total damage cost to property, agriculture and
infrastructure amounted to more than RM 1 billion, with 319,156 people evacuated and
14 deaths counted. In term of hydrological records, the total rainfall occurs in 10 days
about 1898 mm had made this the wettest December on record for the state. This amount
is almost 50% of the total annual rainfall (4,000 mm) and a clear indication that the
rainfall received during the period was extreme.

2.2 Method to develop flood maps

The study method consists of four stages as below:
Stage 1 – Data preparation and analysis of catchment characteristics
Stage 2 – Hydrological analysis
Stage 3 – Hydrodynamic analysis
Stage 4 – Flood Hazard Map
Stage 5 – Flood Evacuation Map
Stage 6 – Flood Risk Map

2.2.1 Stage 1 – Data preparation and analysis of catchments characteristics.

The study is focused on compilation the availability of documents and pre-existing data
that collected from multiple sources including federal and local agencies. There are
includes topography and hydrological data, river morphology, spatial data and landuse for
current and future scenario. Details of the types of data as follow:

4
Table 2.1: Details Types of Data for Analysis

No. Type of Data Description

1. Previous study  Hydrological Procedure for Design Rainfall and
reports Design Flow (HP1 (2010), HP11(1976),
HP27(2010)
 DID Manual (Flood Management) (2008)
 Urban Storm Water Management Manual for
Malaysia (2010)
 Flood Hazard Mapping, FEMA (2015)
 Handbook on Good Practices for Flood Mapping
in Europe (2007)
 Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and Management
Methodologies – Review of Flood Hazard
Mapping (2008)
2. Flooding reports Flood reports 2000 to 2015
3. Rainfall, water level Hydrological data between 2000 to 2015
and streamflow,
evaporation records
4. Tidal information Kuala Kelantan tidal gauge
5. Flooding extents and Flood extents for extreme flood event 2011, 2012,
lists 2013, 2014
6. River cross-section Various interval between 400, 500, 1000 meter
7. Topographic maps 20m- interval contour line and IFSAR
8. Soil Map Hydrological Soil Group and soil type
9. Landuse map Current land use and future landuse in 2020
10. Satellite imaginaries Archive data 2000 to 2013
11. On-site observe data Flood mark and water assets
collection
12. Climate Change Technical guide-Estimation of Future Design
Factor Rainstorm under the Climate Scenario in Peninsular
Malaysia; National Hydraulic Institute Malaysia
(NAHRIM)

For the purpose to delineate the catchment and sub-catchment boundary and slope, DEM
data at 20m interval and IFSAR data has been used. Analysis to merge all data has been
carry out using ArcGIS software. The IFSAR data was merged with the interpolated DEM
points result from contour line for the area is not covered by IFSAR. There are 13‟s
5
Ground Control Point (GCP) stations used for model comparison using RMSE to measure
the accuracy. It was found DEM dataset is 4.5 meter more lower compare to IFSAR.
Therefore, raster adjustment has been done in order match IFSAR data.
In term of river cross section, Sg. Kelantan carry out recent survey and provide cross
section data at 400, 500 or 1000 meter interval subject to the river morphology and the
existence of river facilities such as bridges, water intake, weir, pump house on the others.

2.2.2 Stage 2 – Hydrological analysis

The purpose of carrying out the hydrological analysis is to investigate in detail the
response of the catchment to rainfall and to derive the design flood hydrographs with
reasonable accuracy using an appropriate rainfall-runoff model from the rainfall data.
This design flood hydrograph will be routed through a model of river channels in order to
evaluate the conveyance capacity of the river concerned. The resulting flows from Sg.
Kelantan will then be used in the derivation of flood inundation area.
All rainfall, water level, streamflow and rating curve data had been obtained from the
Water Resources Management and Hydrology Division of DID. For the rainfall data set, a
quality assessment was conducted by plotting double mass curves for all stations and
identifying stations which are not suitable for analysis. The double mass plot/curve is
commonly carried out to verify the integrity and consistency of the rain gauge data
recordings. As for the water level and streamflow data, a yearly plot was conducted to
assess and identify large gaps of missing data.
The hydrological modeling was completed by utilizing the InfoWorks ICM Software,
using SCS Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method. This was then calibrated with 8 extreme
rainfall events. A flood frequency analysis of the streamflow data had also been
completed. For the purposes of this Study, an adopted rainfall temporal pattern was used
as Hydrological Procedure No. 1 (HP1). The design rainfalls obtained were then applied
onto the calibrated rainfall-runoff model in order to produce design flood hydrographs of
various return periods and durations for present and future land use conditions. These
hydrographs would later serve as input boundary conditions of the hydraulic model.

6
 Figure 2.1: Flow diagram of the Hydrological Analysis

2.2.3 Stage 3 – Hydraulic and Hydrodynamic analysis

The hydrodynamic analysis in this study was carried out to evaluate the capacity and the
conveyance of the existing Sg. Kelantan river system for various input hydrographs
obtained from the hydrological analysis. Hence, the main purposes for the hydraulic
analysis are:
 To obtain the design discharges of Sg. Kelantan river system using the input flood
hydrographs at various Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) from the Rainfall Runoff
(RR) model.
 To obtain the design water surface profiles along the rivers

The flood simulation modeling software used in this study is InfoWorks Integrated
Catchments Model (ICM). In preparing the flood maps and deciding the best flood
mitigation solution, integrated use of one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D)
hydrodynamic models is utilised as this can simulate the river and flood plain interaction.
InfoWorks ICM enables hydraulics and hydrology of natural and man-made environments
to be incorporated into a single model. “The 2D engine used in InfoWorks ICM is based
on the procedures describes in Alcrudo and Mulet-Marti (2005). The shallow water
equations (SWE), that is, the depth-average version of the Navier – Stokes equations, are
used for the mathematical representation of the 2D flow. The hydrological output data and

7
the cross-sections derived from digital terrain model were used in the hydraulic analysis.
The SWE assume that the flow is predominantly horizontal and that the variation of the
velocity over the vertical coordinate can be neglected”. (ICM Help, 2015). Bridges, low
weirs and river confluences along the river were also used as inputs in the model to
simulate the real conditions. The hydraulic model was also calibrated to the 2013 flood
event, and subsequently validated to the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 events.
“The 2D mesh is generated using Shewchuk Triangle meshing functionality. Heights at
the vertices of the generated mesh elements are calculated by interpolation from a
specified Ground Model. A single mesh element may be made up of more than one
triangle, if a triangle has an area less than the minimum element area specified for the 2D
Zone. Triangles will be aggregated with adjacent triangles until the minimum area is met.
The ground level for a mesh element is calculated by sampling the ground model within
2D triangles making up the element and then taking the average of the sample point
levels”. (ICM Help, 2015)
“The number of sample points for each triangle is determined by subdividing the triangle
until the minimum element area or, (when using a Gridded Ground Model), the ground
resolution model resolution is reached. The sample points are the centroids of the
resulting triangles. If a triangle is smaller than the minimum element area or ground
model resolution, the centroid of the triangle will be the only point sampled. The same
method is used when recalculating mesh element ground levels by resampling elevations
from a different model.” (ICM Help, 2015).
In the model setup for hydrodynamics analysis, the basic formulae used in 1D
Hydrodynamics Models are based on the one-dimensional unsteady state gradually varies
flow equations, which are termed as “the St. Venant Equations”. In the modeling of floods,
flows often take short cuts through flood plains where the 1D description may become
quite inaccurate. For this reason, the 2D shallow water equations are introduced. The
hydraulic analysis will be done using the combination of 1D and 2D hydrodynamic
modeling. The basic data required are river cross-section, structural details and digital
terrain model. The setting up the basic 1D hydrodynamic modeling uses the river
cross-section surveys data. For 2D floodplain modeling, comprehensive dot grid with grid
spacing of digital terrain model namely IFSAR will be used instead.
The following assumptions used in this study:
i. Design flood hydrographs – All the inflow hydrographs into the Sg. Kelantan river
system were obtained from the hydrographs derived the rainfall - runoff model. Two
catchments conditions were evaluated: the present and future land use conditions:
ii. Since the survey cross-sections were limited within the river channels, floodplains
that have substantial influence on the flood levels and flow discharges could not be
ignored in the simulation. The floodplains located on both riverbanks and the widths

8
 of the floodplains were based on IFSAR survey, aerial photographs and flood maps
available from the JPS records.
iii. Channel and Flood Plain Roughness – The channel roughness n of 0.035 and
0.05-0.07 were assumed for all main river channels and floodplains respectively
from the model calibration and validation results.
iv. Tide Levels – Hydrodynamics modeling using Infoworks (ICM) model and for
reaches under tidal influences required tidal information at the river mouth. Tidal
data was obtained from the Royal Malaysia Navy at Kuala Kelantan secondary port;
v. River Mouth Tail Water Level – the Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) was used as
the design tail water level for floods of various ARIs due to its fairly frequent
occurrences as compared to the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT)
vi. River Mouth Tail Water Level for Critical Velocity – for evaluating bank erosion
potential where the critical parameter is the flow velocity, the Mean Lower Low
Water (MLLW) was used as the design tail water level at the river mouth
vii. In all cases, tide cycle was adopted as the tailwater at the rivermouth instead of
water level. Possible rise in the sea level due to storm surge was considered to be
negligible and hence ignored in the analysis. Other causes such as greenhouse effect
that may increase the sea level etc. were also ignored; and
viii. It was assumed that rainstorm of the same ARI and duration occurred
simultaneously over the whole river basin for all simulations.
ix. The critical storm duration has been determined to be 3 and 5 days.

Figure 2.2: Sub-catchments division of Sg. Kelantan

9
2.2.4 Stage 4 – Flood Hazard Maps
The generation flood hazard maps for Sg. Kelantan based on flood hazard degree. The
flood hazard maps include the details of flood extent with flood depth classification and
the Point of Interest (POI). Table 2.2 shows the classification of flood hazard degree.

Table 2.2: Classification of flood hazard degree

Degree of Flood Depth Desciption

Flood (m)
Hazard
Low < 0.5 Caution
“Caution: Flood zone with shallow flowing water
or deep standing water”
Note: It is still possible to walk through the water.
Moderate 0.5 – 1.2 Dangerous
“Danger: Flood Zone with deep or fast flowing
water”.
Note: The ground floor of the buildings will be
flooded and inhabitants have either to move to the
first floor evacuate.
High 1.2 – 2.5 Dangerous for all (Level 1)
“Extreme Danger: Flood zone with deep fast
flowing water:
Note: The ground floor and possible also the roof
will be covered by water. Evacuation is a
compulsory action.
Very High  2.5 Dangerous for all (Level 2)
“Extreme Danger: Flood zone with deep fast
flowing water:
Note: The ground floor and possible also the roof
will be covered by water. Evacuation is a
compulsory action.

Flood hazard maps were produced based on 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100-year ARI‟s at the scale
of 1:25,000 for present and future land use conditions. The flood hazard maps for the
specified ARIs must clearly indicate:
a) Flood depth; and
b) Flood extent
10
The flood depths were denoted by the colour scheme below;

 The hardcopy of Size : A1 printed maps

 Scale: 1:25,000
 The flood extent shall be overlaid on top of the cadastral maps, river network,
transportation network and flood evacuations centres‟ locations
 The flood hazard map clearly mark the major towns, flooded areas and point of
interest.

2.2.5 Stage 5 – Flood Evacuation Maps

The flood evacuation maps for the Sg. Kelantan river basin were drawn based on the
flood hazard maps of 100 year ARI for present and future land use conditions. Among the
important details included in the maps are:
a) Flood extent (with flood depth classification)
b) Location of primary evacuation centres
c) Maximum capacity of the evacuation centres
d) Major towns
e) Emergency contact numbers
f) Transportation network
g) Point of Interest (POI)
h) Size of inundation area
i) Estimated number of people affected

The flood evacuation centres are denoted by the colour scheme below:

The standards as set by DID for the production of flood evacuation maps are:
 Size : A1 printed maps
 Scale: 1:25,000
 The flood extent shall be overlaid on top of the cadastral maps, river network,
transportation network and flood evacuations centres‟ locations
 The flood evacuation map shall clearly mark the major towns, flooded areas and point
of interest.

11
2.2.4 Stage 6 – Flood Risk Maps
In development flood risk maps, flood damage assessment is crucial to obtain the losses
value once flood occurs. The flood damage will include direct and indirect tangible
damages. Among the important details included in the maps are;
a) Flood risk zone
b) Flood extent
c) Location of primary evacuation centres
d) Major Towns
e) Transportation Network
f) Point of Interest (POI)
The flood risk zones are denoted by the colour scheme below:

The standards as set by DID for the production of flood risk maps are:
 Size : A1 printed maps
 Scale: 1:25,000
 The flood extent shall be overlaid on top of the cadastral maps, river network,
transportation network and flood evacuations centres‟ locations
 The flood risk map shall clearly mark the major towns, flooded areas and point of
interest.

Development of Risk index

Flood risk is a measure of the statistical probability of flooding combined with the
adverse consequences of the flooding. The practical determination of future flood risk is
made up of four major components: (i) the probability of flooding (ii) the exposure of the
receptors-at-risk to different flood characteristics (iii) the value of receptors-at-risk and
(iv) the vulnerability of these receptors-at-risk. This brief information outlines the
procedure on how the flood risk can be computed and mapped out using GIS software.

In its most general form, flood risk can be computed using the following formula:

12
 The computation and mapping of flood risk involves 6 steps. For each flooded pixel
(location), say 100m x 100m, the following computational steps can be adopted in order
to produce the flood risk map.

i. Step 1 – Determine the unit damage rates that are relevant for each pixel.
The unit damage rates were calculated based on applicable rates covered under 11
different catagories and their applications depend on the relevant characteristics and
features of each pixel.
ii. Step 2 – For each return period (2-, 5-, 10-, 20- and 100-year ARIs) multiply the
computed unit damage rates with the relevant damage factors to produce the
estimated damage for each pixel.
The damage factors to be applied shall include flood depth, duration and strata (rural
and urban). In this sense the application of the appropriate factors depends on the
flood characteristics / severity.
iii. Step 3 – Multiply the estimated flood damage for each return period (2-, 5-, 10-, 20-,
50-, and 100-year ARIs with the probability occurrence.
The probability occurrence is, equal to 1/Return Period. For each return period,
multiply the probability with the corresponding estimated flood damage.
iv. Step 4 – Sum the results of the multiplication in step 3 to produce the weighted
average damage for each pixel.
Sum the product of probability of occurrence and estimated flood damage computed
in Step 3 to produce the weighted average damage.
v. Step 5 – Classify the estimated damage into several flood risk classes.
Five risk classes are proposed : Very Low, Low, Medium, High and Very High.
vi. Step 6 – Colour-code the classes to produce flood risk map.
Produce flood risk map by colour-coding the risk classes into 5 catagories. The
proposed ranges to be adopted are as described in step 5.
In general, the flood risk map that eventually be produced provides a graphical
representation of the magnitude of potential impact of floods by combining the
probability of occurrence and size of dmage.

The explanation in flood risk category is being described in Table 2.3 below.

13
 Table 2.3: Flood risk classification

Risk Class Index Range Representative Description of Typical Areas

Very Low < 50  Oil palm or rubber land that are infrequently and
less severely flooded
 Any type of land use with very low probablity of
occurenceand very low damage
Low 51-1,000  Rice fields or sparsely populated rural areas that
may be subjected to frequent, but low severity
flood
 Any type of land use with potentially moderate
damage when flood occurs
Moderate 1,001-5,000  Moderately dense rural residential areas with
good infrastructure that are subjected to frequent
floods
 Any type of land use with potentially moderate
damage when flood occurs
High 5,001 – 25,000  Densely populated areas with good infrastructure
that are subjected to frequent floods.
 Any built up area with potentially high damage
when flood occurs.
Very High >25,000  Densely populated urban areas with plenty of
commercial/industrial establishments and served
by extensive infrastructure with frequent flooding
of various magnitude and occasionally very
severe flood
 Any built up area with potentially very high
damage when flood occurs
Note: Flood risk range is developed based on 2-, 5-, 10-, 20-, 50- and 100-year ARIs
floods in the Sg. Kelantan river basin.

3. Results and Application of Flood Hazard Map

3.1 Hydrodynamic Simulation

The hydrodynamic (HD) model was calibrated by comparing model simulation results of
the existing conditions with measured data. In this case, the December 2013 Kelantan
flood event was chosen for the model calibration. The model parameters were then
adjusted to give the best estimates. The HD model was calibrated using measured water
14
level at Sg. Nenggiri at Jambatan Kusial stations. Predicted tidal levels time series at the
river mouth of Sg. Kelantan tidak stations served as the downstream boundary condition.
Figure 3.1 shows the comparison between simulated and measured river levels at
recorded water level station for December 2013 flood.

Figure 3.1: Calibration hydrograph for hydrodynamics analysis

15
The hydrodynamic model was then, being validated using measured water level data for
different flood records. In this case, data from 1st to 9th Dec 2013, data 21st Nov to 2nd Dec
2011, data 20th Dec 2012 to 9th Jan 2013 and data 22nd Dec 2014 to 6th Jan 2015 were
used for model validation.

1st to 9th December 2013 21st November to 2nd December 2011

flood events flood events

Figure 3.2: Validation hydrographs for December 2013 and December 2011 flood events

16
 20th December 2012 to 9th January 2013 22nd December 2014 to 6th January 2015
flood events flood events

Figure 3.3: Validation hydrographs for January 2013 and December 2014 flood events

From the calibration and validation analysis, it shows the model give reasonable results
particularly for the hydrograph peak but less accurate for the time of peak.

17
3.2 Flood Maps

The calibrated hydrodynamic model was used to simulate various scenario of flood
condition at multiple design flood condition which consists of 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100
ARI. The flood maps for Sg. Kelantan river basin was divided to 17 box plot to represent
appropriate scale of map area. The flood hazard map, flood evacuation map and flood risk
map for 100 ARI current conditions at H3 Grid location presented in Figure 3.4 to Figure
3.6. Other maps for 100ARI condition at current and future condition were include in
Appendixes;

Figure 3.4: Flood Hazard Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage
Condition (Present Land Use) at H3 Grid Location

18
(b) Figure 3.5: Flood Evacuation Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present
Drainage Condition (Present Land Use) at E3 Grid Location

Figure 3.6: Flood Risk Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage

19
4. Challenges and Recommendations

4.1 Lesson Learned and Challenges

It can be deduce that the coverage of the Study is very comprehensive and detailed.
Besides the extensive coverage, the challenges confronting this Study are further
compounded by (i) time constraints (ii) technical challenges (iii) data availability as
further details below;

a. Insufficient data
The availability of historical and real-time meteo-hydrological data is critical to the
success of this Study. With insufficient data, the model can only be calibrated and
validated for hydrological analysis only. For example, all the hydrographs stations in the
Study Area are located in the upstream reach, whereas the critical areas that are being
flooded are located in the downstream reaches. The water level and discharge station is
located Kuala Krai. Therefore, there is insufficient observed water level and discharges
data needed for model calibration in the downstream reach. In this case, the parameter set
for the downstream reach was extrapolated from the hydrograph from the upstream reach.

b. Digital Elevation Model Data

One of the major concerns of this Study is related to the accuracy of the DEM data. It
should be noted that the DEM forms the backbone of the hydrological model, whereby
the level of accuracy of the DEM will have a direct linkage to the accuracy of the flood
hazard maps that are produced. Even though IFSAR data available in this Study, the
accuracies of 2D simulation particularly for depth of water at inundation area not very
accurate. The need to use higher accuracies DEM data such LiDAR will improve the
accuracy and reliability of flood maps. The existing LiDAR data coverage is minimal,
with coverage limited to only approximately 10 percent of the whole river system. As a
result, IFSAR data was used to cover the potential flooded area. This will inadvertently
degrade the accuracy of the simulated results.
As the Study area is relatively flat in the downstream floodplain, a slight change in the
elevation of the flood level will invoke a substantial change in the area coverage of the
flood. However, the differences of flood coverage for different ARIs are not so obvious in
the upstream part due to the area being surrounded by hills.

20
c. River Cross-Section Survey Data
The river survey data made available for this Study was sufficient to complete the
modeling setup. However, for the certain river stretch, interpolated dataset from IFSAR
data was used to set up the hydraulic model. Smaller interval cross-section data will result
more accurate presentation of actual ground elevation to be well match with IFSAR data.
The amount of water spill to the flood plain is much depends on the chainage intervals of
the river and the accuracy of the IFSAR data.

d. Data collection
Data collection is therefore needed to enhance existing body of knowledge about previous
flood events. The collection pre-existing information, which may seem to be a very
simple task, however, actually it was very time-consuming, costly and laborious.
Furthermore, this information exists in various forms, standards and data format and also
kept by various private and public agencies. Having collated all the existing information,
it must also identify if there is any data gap. If there is, then dummy dataset has to be
created. This will involve determining the extent of the data required, collection activities,
cost estimate and time frame or scheduling of the data collection.

e. Computation time of 2D modeling

A practical computation time is derived by compromising accuracy. Factors affecting
computation time include:
 The specification of workstation
 Accuracy of processed Digital Terrain Model
 Mesh Size during development of ground model
 Representation of infrastructure ground model

f. Study case for Flood Risk Index

The categorization of flood risk values into five risk classes requires end values (range) to
be determined from a large set of data points (pixels of weighted average damage). In
order to ensure that the range for all risk classes is valid, the set of data points must not
only represent a variety of return periods, but also derived from river basins that cover all
land uses. This is especially pertinent since the end values obtained in this Study will be
used as a basis for classification of flood risk for the entire country. The end values
(range) must be determined using a rich enough data set that covers all land uses of
interest. Unfortunately, the Sg. Kelantan river basin does not cover sufficiently diverse
land uses that allows for a determination of end values for national application.

21
4.2 Recommendation

a. Calculation of Risk Index by Incorporating Shorter Return Period

The initial return period considered for risk index calculation did not include the 2-year
return period. In the course of conducting the study, it was considered wise to include
2-year return period in flood risk calculation. This is because relatively small floods (but
with relatively high probability of occurrence) do inflict some real damage that must be
incorporated in the risk index calculation. Hence, omitting 2-year period flood events
would undermine the risk index in a systematic manner.
The risk index is made up of two components i.e. the magnitude of damage and the
corresponding probability of occurrence. The second component (probability of
occurrence) may be viewed as the „weight‟ attached to the corresponding flood damage
for each return period. In this sense, it is unwise not to include the 2-year return period
since it has the highest weight of 0.5, followed by 0.2 for 5-year return period, 0.1 for
10-year return period and so on.

b. Periodic Updating of Flood Risk index

This study recommends that the flood risk index be updated on a periodic basis. Periodic
update is necessary to ensure that the flood risk maps reflect the continually changing
land uses, economic development status, property values, cost of operations, construction
costs and general price levels. Since resources and fund have to allocated for updating
purposes, it is recommended that updating interval one every five years is implemented. A
shorter between updates maybe costly (or even unnecessary, given that some of the
updating factors evolve gradually over time) while too long an interval may render the
flood risk map significantly outdated. A five year interval appears to be an optimal
balance between the need for the most current flood risk map and the cost (both financial
and human resources) of conducting update.

c. Flood Evacuation Zones Maps

This study also recommends that flood evacuation zone maps should be adopted in
upcoming studies. Flood evacuation zones map is a zonal map that is produced based on
combination of flood extent boundaries for various ARIs. The zone are proposed to be six
(6) Zone category according to the degree of flood risk (highest to lower risk) based on
the flood recurrence interval. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 shows a good example practices in
the United States of America that can applies in generating flood evacuation zone map for
the usage of the response agencies and residents to plan for evacuation.

22
Table 4.1: Example of Evacuation Guidelines

Figure 4.1: Example of New York City Evacaution Zones Map

23
 d. Real-time Flood Hazard Maps
The hydrodynamic model shall further enhance for use of flood forecasting and warning
purposes. It can be done through integration with real-time hydrological data such as
rainfall and water level. The simulation result will depend on the computation time and
the availability of observe hydrological data. Further, output of flood hazard map for the
Point of Interest (POI) shall have more accurate classification. The POI can be divided to
three groups which are Key Forecast Point, Forecast Point and Target Point. Details for
each group show in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2: The classification of Point of Interest

Point of Interest Description

Key Forecast Point The main forecast point that means the location that have
water level station or streamflow station with the water level
threshold
Forecast Point The location that have the cross sections with the water level
threshold.
Target Point The forecast location in the flood plain with threshold base on
flood depth

5. Conclusion
This study was conducted after the extreme flood in December 2014 with the objective to
assess the possible impact of risk due to flood. Flood risk with the combination of the
probability of a flood event and the potential adverse consequences to human health, the
environment economics activities associated with a flood. In line with the Integrated Flood
Management (IFM) concept, the structural and non-structural measures are needed to manage
flood risk. The technique used in this study is generally acceptable and shall be further
enhanced using up-to-date methods and to adopt few recommendation in this paper. In order
to expand the similar study for others river basin, involvement from research agencies and
university were encourages.

24
6. References

1. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2017). Final Report: Kajian

Rekabentuk Terperinci Lembangan Sungai Kelantan, Kelantan Darul Naim.
2. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2015). Final Report: Generation of
Flood Hazard for Sungai Linggi River Basin, in the state of Melaka.
3. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2012). Updating of Condition of
Flooding and Damage Assesment in Malaysia.
4. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Malaysia (2017). Final Report: The
Development of National Flood Forecasting and Warning System for Kelantan River
Basin.
5. Chan, N.W. (1997). Increasing flood risk in Malaysia:causes and solution. Disaster
Prevention and Management, Vol 6 No. 2 pp.72-86, MCB University Press
6. Sharma, V.K. and Priya, t. (2001). “Development strategies for flood prone areas,
case study: Patna, India”, Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp.
101-109.
7. ESRI, F. (2000). Catchment delineation and characeterisation. A Review.
EuroLandscape-Catchment charaterisation and modeling (CCM), Report No. 1, p36.
http://jrc.ec.europa.eu/punlications/pdfs/CatchRev.pdf
8. Sulaiman, A.H. (2007). Flood and Drought Management in Malaysia. Keynote
Lecture 2. National Seminar on Socio-Economic Impacts of Extreme Weather and
Climate Change, 21-22 June 2007, Putrajaya. http://www.met.gov.my/index.php.
9. W.Vanneuvile, R. Gamanya, K. De Rouck, K. Maeghe, P. De Maeyer, F. Mostaert.
(2005). Development of a Flood Risk Model and applications in the management of
hydrographical catchments, Proceedings of the Cartographic Cutting – Edge
technology for Natural Hazard Management, Eds M Buchroitner, page 169-18

25
APPENDIXES

Figures consist of Flood Hazard Maps, Flood Evacuation Maps and Flood Risk Maps for
Kelantan river basin for 100 ARI design flood.

Figure 1: Flood Hazard Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage
Condition (Present Land Use)

Figure 2: Flood Hazard Map for 100 Years ARI 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present
Drainage Condition (Future Land Use)

26
Figure 3: Flood Hazard Map for 100 Years ARI + Climate Change Factor (CCF) Design
Flood with Present Drainage Condition (Future Land Use)

Figure 4: 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage Condition (Future Land
Use) at H3 Grid location

27
Figure 5: Flood Hazard Map for 100 Years ARI + Climate Change Factor (CCF) Design
Flood with Present Drainage Condition (Present Land Use) at H3 Grid Location

Figure 6: Flood Hazard Map for 100 Years ARI + Climate Change Factor (CCF) Design
Flood with Present Drainage Condition (Future Land Use) at H3 Grid Location

28
Figure 6: Flood Evacuation Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage
Condition (Present Land Use)

Figure 7: Flood Evacuation Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present
Drainage Condition (Future Land Use)

29
Figure 8: Flood Evacuation Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage
Condition (Future Land Use) at E3 Grid Location

Figure 9: Flood Risk Map for 100 Years ARI Design Flood with Present Drainage
Condition (Future Land Use) at R3 Grid Location.

30