Interpretive Flood Report RevA Final

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................3
1.1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................................................3
1.2
PURPOSE .....................................................................................................................................................................................3
1.3
REPORT AND RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................................3
1.4
HOW TO USE THIS REPORT ...................................................................................................................................................4
EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS (ER)............................................................................................................4
CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................................................................5
FREEBOARD...................................................................................................................................................5
4.1
RISK-BASED FREEBOARD ALLOCATION ..............................................................................................................................5
FLOOD DESIGN STANDARDS ADOPTED BY BACS ................................................................................7
FLOOD MAPS.................................................................................................................................................. 7
6.1
HARD COPIES (*.PDF FORMAT ...........................................................................................................................................7
6.2
SOFT COPIES (*.TIFF FORMAT ...........................................................................................................................................7
6.3
USING THE GIS MODEL OUTPUT FILES ..............................................................................................................................8
RECOMMENDED DESIGN FLOOD LEVELS............................................................................................ 10
DESIGN CENTRE RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................................... 11
FLOOD ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................... 11
Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

Interpretive Flood Report
Page 2 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15
2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Electronic documents once printed, are uncontrolled and may become out-dated. Refer to Aconex for current revision.
Introduction
1.1
Background
BACS have appointed consultants Buro Happold (BH) to carry out an assessment of the flood risk
to key Riyadh Metro Project (RMP) infrastructure within Package 1, resulting from rainfall-runoff
and overland flow. As per the Employer Requirements, the assessment considers the 1 in 100 year
Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood event, including an allowance for climate change
(hereafter referred to as the design flood event).
The assessment concluded that a number of the RMP items are at risk of flooding from overland
flow in the design flood event. In each case, the estimated depths of flooding and peak velocities
have been provided such that the Design Centres can consider flood mitigation measures to
protect RMP infrastructure from this risk.
1.2
Purpose
The purpose of this interpretive report is to communicate the following information to the respective
design teams in order to inform flood protection and mitigation designs:
available flood risk information
available tools Design Centres can use to inform their designs
recommended freeboard allowances and resulting design flood levels (derived at specific
locations only).
1.3
Report and Resources
The final BH report, entitled Riyadh Metro Package 1 - Assessment of Flood Risk, Final Report,
RevB dated 27-Nov-2015 is available on ACONEX. Appendices B & C, flood maps and velocity
maps respectively, were uploaded as separate documents due to file size restrictions.
Soft-copy GIS-compatible model output files are also available for flood depths, velocities and
hazards, and are available on ACONEX in a zipped format.
Table 1 Available Information
Document
ACONEX Number
Final Flood Assessment Report, RevB (*.pdf)
M-BBH-000000-CG00-RPT-000001
Appendix B Flood Depth Maps (.*zip)
M-BBH-000000-CG00-RPT-000002
Appendix C Velocity Maps (.*zip)
M-BBH-000000-CG00-RPT-000003
GIS Model Output Files Flood Depths (.*zip)
M-BBH-000000-CG00-RPT-000004
GIS Model Output Files Flow Velocities (.*zip)
M-BBH-000000-CG00-RPT-000005
GIS Model Output Files Flood Hazards (.*zip)
M-BBH-000000-CG00-RPT-000006
The BH report provides context regarding flood risk in Riyadh and known flood mechanisms,
information on the methodology adopted for hydrologic and hydraulic modelling and the modelling
assumptions and limitations.
Page 3 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

1.4
How to Use This Report
This interpretive report is issued as a guide to Design Centres on how to interpret and use the
available flood risk information to inform their respective designs. Whilst the BH report contains
generic information and recommendations, this interpretative report aims to provide more specific
guidance to Design Centres.
When studying and interpreting the BH report, it is important to note that:
the BH report recommends a blanket freeboard allowance of 500mm. This interpretive
report recommends location-specific freeboard allowances, as reported in Table 6; and
the BH report estimates flood levels (i.e. elevations) at specific locations. However,
because of a datum difference between the flood studys surface model and the project
topographical data the flood levels reported by BH in their report cannot be used for design
purposes. Instead, the approach outlined in this report should be used to derive design
flood elevations.
Employer Requirements (ER)
The technical specifications for flood protection and stormwater drainage for RMP are provided in
the RMP Tender Documentation - Volume 2: Employers Requirements. Sections of the
requirements relevant to flood protection and drainage design are provided in Table 2.
Table 2 Employers Requirements Relevant to Flood Protection and Stormwater Drainage
Relevant ER
Volume
Relevant ER
Section
Section 2.1.4
Rainfall
Volume 2.2, Part 3 Environmental

Specification
Section 2.1.5
Flood Zones
Section 5.2.5
Station Access
Volume 2.3 WPS
2.01 Civil Works &
Infrastructure Design
Requirements
Section 3.3.3
Basis of Design

Requirements
Rainfall and storm waters: the metro Lines shall be
able to evacuate the water to the city storm water
network in sufficient time not to disturb operation.
The metro may be able to run even when parts of the
track are over flooded with a maximum 10cm height of
water along 200m
All underground parts shall be ensured that no flooding
will disturb the functioning of any metro System
Components.
The system shall be capable of surviving flooding (100year) with minimal damage to structure and equipment.
Equipment and facility elements that can be damaged
by flooding shall be protected or installed above the
flood plain elevation.
The Contractor shall carry out the design of the
interface with the street area in close co-operation with
the public authorities, and shall consider all constraints
due to climatic conditions, risks of flooding, etc
For the design of the project drainage system, a storm
recurrence period of 10 years shall be considered for
all drainage elements except for the flood protection
elements which shall be designed for a storm
recurrence period of 100 years.
Page 4 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Climate Change
The ER doesnt specifically address climate change; however, the contract (Exhibit D) stipulates a
specified design life of 100 years for all permanent civil engineering structures and that the
design subcontractor shall carefully identify the requirements to the design and construction that
will secure the stated service life (Section 5.3.1, Page 18). As such, an allowance for climate
change over the life of the RMP system was taken into account to ensure that infrastructure with a
present day 1 in 100yr ARI flood protection standard will have that same standard towards the end
of its design life. The assessment of the effects of climate change has been informed by the
findings of Al Zawad1, which estimates that for the range of emissions scenarios, the impacts of
climate change on rainfall is likely to be between a -7% and +40% change in rainfall intensity. A
median value of +20% has been adopted which is in line with the recommendations of the Arriyadh
Stormwater Masterplan Review, as agreed with the Arriyadh Development Agency (ADA).
Freeboard
Freeboard is often defined as the difference between the design flood level and the ultimate flood
protection level. Its an additional level allowance which is added to an estimated design flood level
to accommodate uncertainty. Freeboard is an industry recognised design allowance to account for
the inherent uncertainties associated with flood estimation and physical imponderables such as
post-construction settlement or wave action.
Appropriate freeboard allowances for design purposes were selected by BACS, as reported in
Table 5 of this report. These freeboard recommendations are underpinned by a risk-based
assessment, taking into account the consequences of flooding on the protected asset, as well as
the degree of uncertainty involved in the flood estimation process. The risk-based assessment has
been issued to RMTC for endorsement (Aconex Document No: M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT000003).
4.1
Risk-based Freeboard Allocation
BACS have adopted a risk-based approach in setting freeboard allowances for the various RMP
design components, by considering the following factors:
flood source
flood depth, velocity, and resulting flood hazard (flood hazard is a metric for determining the
level of danger to pedestrians and vehicles based on a combination of flood depth and
velocity)
potential consequences of flooding and intended use of RMP design component (e.g.
flooding of a station versus flooding of a park-and-ride)
existing stormwater drainage provisions in the area
nature of the surrounding land and flow paths (e.g. where land slopes away from a station a
minimal freeboard will be required)
Al Zawad, F. M., 2008, Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources in Saudi Arabia, 3rd International
Conference on Water Resources and Arid Environments and the 1st Arab Water Forum
Page 5 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

An estimated flood hazard was calculated for each RMP Package 1 design component using the
Flood Risk to People Best Practice Guide2. The equation for calculating flood hazard is:
Hazard Rating = depth x (velocity + 0.5) + debris factor
The debris factor considers the ability of the flow to mobilise debris that may pose a risk to people
or vehicles. Table 3 provides a summary of resultant hazard classifications, whilst
Table 4 presents hazard rating values for combinations of depth (m) and velocity (m/s).
Table 3 Flood Hazard Rating
Hazard Rating
Flood Hazard
Less than 0.75
Low
Description
Caution
0.75 1.25
Moderate
Danger for some pedestrians (i.e. children and the elderly)
1.25 2.50
Significant
Danger for most pedestrians and some vehicles
More than 2.50
Extreme
Danger for all pedestrians and vehicles
Table 4 Hazard Rating Matrix

Velocity (m/s)
Flood Depth (m)
FLOOD
HAZARD
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
0.0
0.55
0.60
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
1.60
1.65
1.70
1.75
1.80
1.85
1.90
1.95
2.00
0.5
0.60
0.70
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
1.0
0.65
0.80
1.45
1.60
1.75
1.90
2.05
2.20
2.35
2.50
2.65
2.80
2.95
3.10
3.25
3.40
3.55
3.70
3.85
4.00
1.5
0.70
0.90
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
4.60
4.80
5.00
2.0
0.75
1.00
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
4.50
4.75
5.00
5.25
5.50
5.75
6.00
2.5
0.80
1.10
1.90
2.20
2.50
2.80
3.10
3.40
3.70
4.00
4.30
4.60
4.90
5.20
5.50
5.80
6.10
6.40
6.70
7.00
3.0
0.85
1.20
2.05
2.40
2.75
3.10
3.45
3.80
4.15
4.50
4.85
5.20
5.55
5.90
6.25
6.60
6.95
7.30
7.65
8.00
3.5
0.90
1.30
2.20
2.60
3.00
3.40
3.80
4.20
4.60
5.00
5.40
5.80
6.20
6.60
7.00
7.40
7.80
8.20
8.60
9.00
4.0
0.95
1.40
2.35
2.80
3.25
3.70
4.15
4.60
5.05
5.50
5.95
6.40
6.85
7.30
7.75
8.20
8.65
9.10
9.55
10.00
4.5
1.00
1.50
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00
9.50
10.00
10.50
11.00
5.0
1.05
1.60
2.65
3.20
3.75
4.30
4.85
5.40
5.95
6.50
7.05
7.60
8.15
8.70
9.25
9.80
10.35
10.90
11.45
12.00
DEFRA/Environment Agency, 2006, Flood Risks to People Phase 2 FD2321/TR2

Page 6 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

The following risk-based freeboard allowances are recommended by BACS:

Table 5 Risk-based Freeboard Allowances
Modelled Flood Depth
(1:100yr ARI + 20% climate change
allowance)
Standard Freeboard
(mm)
Additional Freeboard*
(mm)
0mm - 100mm
50
50
100mm - 200mm
100
100
200mm - 500mm
200
100
500mm - 1m
250
150
>1m
350
150
*Additional freeboard allowances are required in areas of significant/extreme flood hazard areas, or
where flood impacts on critical infrastructure are deemed significant.
Flood Design Standards Adopted by BACS
The following basis of design was adopted for Package 1 in relation to flood protection:
Flood protection: 1:100yr ARI + 20% climate change + freeboard (refer to Table 5).
Stormwater drainage design: 1:10yr ARI.
Flood Maps
6.1
Hard Copies (*.PDF format)
Flood maps, showing the indicative flood depth in the vicinity of stations, portals, access shafts,
depots and TBM launch locations were produced and are presented in Appendix B of the flood
report. Flood velocity, also indicating the direction of flow, is presented in Appendix C of the flood
report. Hard copies of the flood maps can be downloaded from ACONEX (refer to Table 1).
6.2
Soft Copies (*.TIFF format)
Soft copy, GIS-compatible model output files that represent flood depth, velocity and hazard are
also available from ACONEX (refer to Table 1). Seven flood models were developed to represent
the wider Riyadh area. Model 1GHJ however is currently being reviewed, and outputs from this
model will be made available as part of Revision B of this report, anticipated to be issued during
w/e 30th Jan 2015. As a result, six separate GIS model outputs files are currently available,
covering the catchments overlapping with Lines 1 and 2, as shown on Figure 1.

Page 7 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Model C15
Model 1A3
Model 2F2
Model 2A1
Model 1F8
Model L1S
Model 1GHJ
Figure 1 Flood Model Extents
Note: Models C15 and 2F2 overlap in coverage. Please refer to Section 6.3for guidance on which
GIS output file to use for assessment purposes.
6.3
Using the GIS Model Output Files
The GIS model output files provide the flood modelling outputs. The format is a raster dataset with
a resolution (grid cell size) of 5x5m for 6 of the models and a 15x15m resolution for one of the
models (C15). As explained in Section 6.2 a 15m grid had to be adopted for Model C15 due to the
size of its associated catchment, to limit model run times.
Each 5x5m (or 15x15m in the case of Model C15) cell represents a uniform result i.e. regardless of
where one clicks within a cell it will produce the same flood result (depth, velocity or hazard).
The GIS model output files are georeferenced and as such can be imported directly into most GIS
software applications such as ArcGIS, as well as some CAD software packages. By overlaying
these layers onto project design information, associated flood risk information can be extracted at
any point of interest. When first imported the TIFF files will display in monochrome, and the
GIS/CAD operator must set the layer properties (e.g. symbology, colour ramp) manually to suit.

Page 8 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Each of these
cells
represents a
5x5 m area (or
in the case of
Model C15 a
15x15m area)
Figure 2 Typical Flood Depth Map Extract, showing 5x5 m Grid
Modelled flood level information (i.e. water surface elevation) is not currently available. Design
flood levels, as reported in Table 6 were derived by adding the modelled flood depth at a specific
location to the topographical spot elevation at that location, including an allowance for freeboard.
The indicative nature of flood modelling must be borne in mind when Design Centres interpret the
results, and a conservative approach should be adopted where possible. Freeboard allowances
must be incorporated in the any flood protection design to accommodate uncertainty.
Model Overlap - C15 and 2F2
As noted in Section 6.2 Models C15 and 2F2 overlap in their geographic coverage. C15 is a large
catchment, for which a larger resolution (grid cell size) of 15x15m was adopted to make model run
times more manageable. The 2F2 area was run with a finer resolution (5m grid) in order to gain
greater clarity on the overland flow route which is known to come through the Ghirnatah and
Ishniliyah neighbourhoods via Al Imam Abdullah Ibn Saud Ibn Abdulaziz Road.
Although Model C15 identifies these flow paths, it was considered that the additional detail
provided by Model 2F2 would be of use in identifying the risk to Stations 2F1 and 2F2 from this
flow path.
As such, for the stations covered by Model 2F2, the GIS model output files for Model 2F2 should
be used for assessment/design purposes because it provides greater detail on the flood
mechanisms for this area.

Page 9 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Recommended Design Flood Levels
Based on the approach outlined in Section 6.3, design flood levels were derived at a specific spot
location for each station, shaft, portal, depot, park-and-ride, TBM launch shaft and at-grade
location within depressed underpasses. Recommended design flood levels at these specific
locations are presented in Table 6.
It is important to note that the design flood levels provided in Table 6 are only applicable to the spot
location shown, and it is the Design Centres responsibility to use the GIS model output files
provided to ensure that all critical points of access are adequately protected against the design
flood event (incl. an allowance for freeboard). Recommended freeboard allowances as provided in
Table 6 are applicable to the whole facility (station, depot etc.) it refers to.
Topographical Spot Levels
The nature of the spot level is provided in Table 6, using the following abbreviations:
AS:
AS+CS:
AS+JB:
MY:
NGL:
Road Asphalt
Bottom of Road Kerb Stone
Bottom of Jersey Barrier, on Asphalt Level
Road Marking Lane Line Yellow
Natural Ground Level
Interpreting the Flood Depth Maps in Table 6

The following legend should be used to interpret the flood map extracts shown in the last column of
Table 6, and refers to the indicative depth of flooding.
Figure 3 Legend for interpreting the flood depths shown in Table 6

Page 10 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Design Centre Responsibilities
The Design Centres are responsible for the final designs, and that appropriate and adequate flood
protection measures are incorporated into the final designs. The recommended design flood levels
provided in Table 6 is a guide only, and Design Centres should use all the tools available to ensure
that critical and vulnerable infrastructure is adequately raised or protected against flooding.
Given the varying nature of the terrain in many places, one single recommended design flood level
(as provided in Table 6) may not be adequate for large facilities such as depots. As such the GIS
model output files should be superimposed onto the relevant design, and design flood levels
estimated at all locations that have the potential to allow flood water ingress. Freeboard
allowances, in accordance with Table 6 should be applied to account for uncertainty.
Flood Assessment Assumptions and Limitations

The effects of any local drainage infrastructure have been ignored in the flood modelling.
Where underpasses are concerned, the modelling has been carried out on the assumption
that the installed pumping infrastructure serving the underpass does not contribute to the
evacuation of water entering the underpasses.
The metro stations, access shafts and TBM launch pits were all assessed as being
designed to exclude flood water. In this manner, it is possible to determine from the model
the flood level against which these items should be designed.

Page 11 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Table 6 Recommended Flood Design Levels

Recommended Freeboard
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Moderate
The flood depths are unlikely to

affect the station as the station is
elevated, but there may be
impacts on the ground level
infrastructure such as electrical
equipment. Flooding may also
prevent access to and from the
station.
A park-and-ride facility is being
proposed at 1Y1 which may be
subject to flood risk, subject to its
location and nature.
Significant
The general slope of the

catchment at this location directs
water towards the junction from
the north along Olaya Street and
from the east along Anas Ibn
Malik Road.
The central median on Anas Ibn
Malik Road will prevent water
draining to the road from the north
from crossing the road until the
water reaches the junction.
Low

equipment.
Flooding may also prevent access
to and from the station.
STATIONS
1Y1
0.35
(NGL, west
of track)
652.98
653.33
0.2
0.2
653.5
0.03
1Z1
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
intersection)
0.40
646.72
647.12
0.2
0.1
0.3
647.4
0.8
1A1
<0.01
638.58
638.58
0.05

Page 12 of 40
0.05
0.1
638.7
(NGL)
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.01
Flood depth, ground level and recommended design flood

level are provided for a specific spot location, represented by a
red dot on flood map extracts below. Designers should overlay
the GIS modelling outputs onto their designs to approximate
flood depths at other locations of interest please refer to
Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low
Despite its low flood hazard a

freeboard
allowance
slightly
higher that whats stated in Table
5 is recommended due to this
piece of infrastructure being
underground; to cater for localised
runoff or unexpected incidents
such as burst water mains.
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1A2
(MY, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.01
633.86
633.87
0.2
0.1
0.3
634.2
0.15
1B1
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
northbound
lane)
<0.1
627.75
627.78
0.2
0.1
0.3
628.1
0.6
1B2
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
northbound
lane)
<0.01
634.91
634.91
0.2

Page 13 of 40
0.1
0.3
635.2
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.2

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Significant
This flood hazard is unlikely to

occur within the station site once
the station has been raised,
however, this risk will still occur in
the vicinity of the site and should
be taken into account when
considering the movement of
some vulnerable people around
the roads adjacent to the station.
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1B3
0.50
619.95
620.35
0.25
0.15
0.4
620.8
0.05
(NGL)
1B4
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
intersection)
<0.1
628.66
628.67
0.2
0.1
0.3
629.0
0.16
1C1
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
northbound
lane)
<0.01
630.43
630.43
0.2

Page 14 of 40
0.1
0.3
630.7
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.1

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
1C2
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
southbound
lane)
<0.01
616.13
616.14
0.2
0.1
0.3
616.4
0.11
Low
<0.01
612.57
612.57
0.2
0.1
0.3
612.9
0.25
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
There is a noticeable slope on
Olaya Street from the north to the
south, draining water towards the
intersection.
1C4
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Also, There are anecdotal reports
of flooding at this intersection,
with ponding at the west side of
Olaya Street affecting local
businesses and causing traffic
disruption.
1C3
(AC+CS,
centre of
road,
southbound
lane)
Notes
<0.1
603.90
603.96
0.2

Page 15 of 40
0.1
0.3
604.3
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.37
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
such as burst water mains. The
current
stormwater database
shows drainage along Prince
Sultan Ibn Abdulaziz Rd draining
to King Fahd Rd, although the BH
site visit noted that a number of
the gullies draining to this sewer
were blocked with sediment.
There are proposals to enlarge
the culvert along Prince Sultan ibn
Abdulaziz to provide a 125yr
standard of protection.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1D2
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)
<0.01
611.78
611.78
0.2
0.1
0.3
612.1
0.07
1D5
(AS, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.1
596.36
596.41
0.2
0.1
0.3
596.7
0.4

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1E2
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)
<0.1
589.50
589.52
0.2
0.1
0.3
589.8
0.5
Low
There are currently no proposals
to construct and new drainage
infrastructure at the station
location
in
the
Arriyadh
Stormwater Masterplan, although
there are proposals to enlarge the
Altabari Rd culvert 300m to the
south-east of the station.

Page 16 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15


Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1F2
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)
<0.1
586.50
586.56
0.2
0.1
0.3
586.9
0.09

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1F4
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)
<0.1
584.70
584.74
0.2
0.1
0.3
585.0
0.04
Low
The velocities around the station
location range between 0.11m/s
and 0.35m/s resulting in a low to
significant flood hazard. The fast
flowing water on King Saud Rd
near to the station location may
pose a risk to most pedestrians
and some vehicles.
1F5
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound)
lane
<0.1
582.95
582.98
0.2

Page 17 of 40
0.1
0.3
583.3
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.35
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Significant
Station 1F8 is located at the

intersection of Al Batha and Al
Ras
Streets.
The
current
stormwater database shows a box
culvert on Al Batha Street. There
are proposals to upgrade this
culvert to provide a 1:25yr
standard of protection. The
velocities around the station
location are in the order of 0.8m/s
resulting in a significant flood
hazard. The fast flowing water at
the station location will pose a risk
to most pedestrians and some
vehicles.
1F7
(AS, parking
lot, NE
corner)
<0.01
580.73
580.73
0.2
0.1
0.3
581.0
0.03
1F8
(AS+CS, side
of road,
northbound
lane)
0.70
578.37
579.07
0.25
0.15
0.4
579.5
0.7
Note: Flood Model 1GHJ is currently being revised which is likely to result in changes in flood levels at Station 1F9. Flood
risk information for this location will be included in Revision B of this report, anticipated to be issued during w/e 30th Jan15.
1F9
1G1
(AS, centre
of road,
westbound
lane)
1G2
0.65
576.29
576.94
0.25
0.15
0.4
577.3
0.18
Note: Flood Model 1GHJ is currently being revised which is likely to result in changes in flood levels at Station 1G2. Flood
risk information for this location will be included in Revision B of this report, anticipated to be issued during w/e 30th Jan15.

Page 18 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Significant

equipment. Flooding may also
prevent access to and from the
station.
Flood risk and hazard is much
increased within the underpass on
Al Batha St as it passes
underneath Al Amir Mohammed
Ibn Abdul Rahman Rd, with the
flood hazard significant.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes

proposed at 1H2 which may be
1H2
(AS, centre
of road,
westbound
lane)
0.15
580.30
580.45
0.1
0.1
580.5
0.5
Low
1J1
(AS, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.1
586.43
586.45
0.05
0.05
586.5
0.3
Low

equipment.

equipment.

proposed at 1J2 which may be
1J2
(AS, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.1
584.71
584.78
0.05

Page 19 of 40
0.05
584.8
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.4
Low

equipment.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
2A1
(AS, centre
of road, NEbound lane)
<0.1
637.88
637.92
0.05
0.05
638.0
0.6
Low
<0.1
653.54
653.64
0.05
0.05
653.7
0.11
Moderate
2A2
(AS, centre
of road, SWbound lane)
2A3
(AS+CS, side
of NE-bound
lane, within
underpass)
0.90
619.40
620.30
0.25

Page 20 of 40
0.15
0.4
620.7
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.6
Significant
Notes

equipment.
To the SW of the station flood
depths on King Abdullah Rd reach
~0.5m. If the track remains
elevated at this location as
currently shown in the design
drawings, it is not considered that
this will pose a risk.
proposed at 2A2 which may be
equipment.
Flood depths in the vicinity of the
station location at ground level
are generally < 0.1m based on the
local topography levels. For the
underpass level at which the
station and track are located, the
depths of flooding are ~1m.This
depth of water is close to
impacting on the track level within
the King Abdullah Rd underpass,
and even if the metro construction
detail showing a 1.1m high jersey
barrier is sufficient to exclude the
still water flood level, it will not
provide a sufficient freeboard to
achieve the design level.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Extreme
Further, more detailed flood

assessment
work
may
be
required for 2B1, which is located
in a historic Wadi-valley, and
affected by overland flow from the
north. The effects of pumps and
the drainage network were not
considered
in
the
flood
assessment, potentially resulting
in a conservative design flood
level estimate. It is understood
that the current design flood level
is ~612.68m (~2m below the
recommended design level).
Significant
This flood hazard is unlikely to

occur within the station site once
the station has been raised,
however, this risk will still occur in
the vicinity of the site and should
be taken into account when
considering the movement of
some vulnerable people around
the roads adjacent to the station.
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
2B1
(AS+CS, side
of NE-bound
lane, within
underpass)
4.70
609.58
614.28
0.35
0.15
0.5
614.8
2.5
2B2
0.50
619.95
620.35
0.25
0.15
0.4
620.8
0.05
(NGL)
2B4
626.34
0.2

Page 21 of 40
(AS, centre
<0.01
626.33
0.1
0.3
626.6
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.03

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Extreme
The current drainage network

shows existing drainage along
King Abdullah Road, which
discharge into the network on
King Abdulaziz Rd. A further
expansion to the network to the
north of the station is proposed as
part of the Arriyadh Stormwater
Masterplan. It is anticipated that
this will increase the storm flows
being carried by the network in
King Abdulaziz Rd. At street level
the flood hazard may pose a
danger to most pedestrians and
some vehicles.
Low

shows existing drainage in King
Abdullah Rd at the station
location. Enlargement of this
culvert is proposed as part of the
Arriyadh Stormwater Masterplan
as well as a new line on Prince
Nasser Bin Farhan Street.
2C1
(AS+JB,
centre of
road within
underpass,
NE-bound
lane)
4.50
617.18
621.68
0.35
0.15
0.5
622.2
0.8
2C2
(AS, centre
<0.01
630.77
630.78
0.05
0.05
630.8
0.02
2C3
660.16
0.1

Page 22 of 40
(AS, centre
0.20
659.96
0.1
660.3
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.05
Low

equipment.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

shows no existing drainage at the
station location but there are
networks currently in tendering to
the north of the station location.
No expansion to the network is
proposed as part of the Arriyadh
Stormwater Masterplan.
Extreme

shows no existing drainage at the
station
location.
A
further
expansion to the network is
proposed to the north of King
Abdullah Rd along the Eastern
Ring Rd and Khalid Ibn Al Walid
St as part of the Stormwater
Masterplan. This will drain water
towards
Wadi
Sulay.
The
estimated depth of water is likely
to flood the station and the metro
line, despite the presence of the
jersey barriers.
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
An expansion to the drainage
network is proposed along King
Abdullah Rd and south along Ash
Sheikh Hasan Ibn Hussain Ibn Ali
Rd. This will receive water from
2D2 and drain towards Wadi
Sulay. Estimated depth of water in
the underpass is below the jersey
barrier levels.
2C4
(AS, centre
<0.1
653.11
653.13
0.05
0.05
653.2
0.14
2D2
(AS+JB,
centre of
road within
underpass,
SW-bound
lane)
3.87
609.57
613.44
0.35
0.15
0.5
613.9
0.3
2E1
(AS in
parking area
south of main
road)
<0.1
608.15
608.24
0.2

Page 23 of 40
0.1
0.3
608.5
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.3

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
An expansion to the drainage
network is proposed along
Salman Al Farsi Rd as part of the
Arriyadh Stormwater Masterplan,
although this is 300m to the SE of
the station location.
Low
There is ponding on land adjacent

to King Abdullah Road to the
north of the station, up to depths
of ~1.9m (considered to be
extreme hazard) and therefore it
is recommended that users of the
station are not directed to the land
to the north of the station
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
There is significant ponding
observed to the north of the
station up to depths of ~1.5m
(categorised as extreme hazard)
although this does not appear to
affect the station due to the
difference in ground levels.
2E2
(AS+CS,
centre of
road, SWbound lane)
<0.1
596.89
596.95
0.2
0.1
0.3
597.2
0.4
2F1
(AS+JB,
centre of
road, SWbound lane)
<0.1
588.76
588.78
0.05
0.05
588.8
<0.1
2F2
<0.1
585.16
585.17
0.2

Page 24 of 40
0.1
0.3
585.5
(NGL)
Printed: 25-Jan-15

<0.1

Sections 6 to 8)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
578.6
0.2
Moderate

proposed at 2G1 which may be
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
0.30
577.97
578.27
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
0.2
0.1
0.3
2G1
(NGL)
ACCESS SHAFTS
1A2-1B1
(AS+CS, side
of
northbound
lane)
<0.01
631.26
631.28
0.2
0.1
0.3
631.6
0.2
1B1-1B2
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
northbound
lane)
0.05
631.64
631.69
0.2

Page 25 of 40
0.1
0.3
632.0
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.5

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1B2-1B3
(AS, side of
northbound
lane)
<0.1
628.36
628.38
0.2
0.1
0.3
628.7
0.25
1B4-1C1
(MY, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.1
628.35
628.44
0.2
0.1
0.3
628.7
0.1
1C1-1C2
(MY, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.01
622.38
622.39
0.2

Page 26 of 40
0.1
0.3
622.7
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.3

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1C2-1C3
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
southbound
lane)
<0.01
615.42
615.42
0.2
0.1
0.3
615.7
0.2
1C3-1C4
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
northbound
lane)
<0.01
611.20
611.20
0.2
0.1
0.3
611.5
0.3
1C4-1D2
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
southbound
lane)
<0.1
603.47
603.49
0.2
0.1
0.3
603.8
0.2
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
To the NE of the access shafts
there are areas of significant flood
hazard. Evacuation from the
shafts should not direct people
towards this area.

Page 27 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15


Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
The model shows that there are
significant flood depths in the
underpass north of the access
shafts, with depths reaching up to
2.7m. Outside of the underpass
where the shafts are located,
expected flood depths are
shallower.
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1D2-1D5
(AS, centre
of road, SEbound lane)
0.2
602.95
603.13
0.2
0.1
0.3
603.4
0.3
1E2-1F2
(MY, centre
of road, SEbound lane)
<0.01
587.76
587.78
0.2
0.1
0.3
588.1
0.3
1F4-1F5
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)
<0.1
584.14
584.23
0.2

Page 28 of 40
0.1
0.3
584.5
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.35

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
1F5-1F7
(AS, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
<0.1
581.33
581.43
0.2
0.1
0.3
581.7
0.6
2B1-2B2
(AS+JB,
centre of
road, SWbound lane)
<0.1
621.15
621.15
0.2
0.1
0.3
621.5
< 0.1
2B2-2B4
(AS+JB,
centre of
road, SWbound lane)
<0.1
628.97
629.00
0.2

Page 29 of 40
0.1
0.3
629.3
Printed: 25-Jan-15

< 0.1

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
DEPOTS
L1 Primary
Depot
South
0.79
580.52
581.31
0.25
0.15
0.4
581.7
0.11
Significant
0.96
657.26
658.22
0.25
0.15
0.4
658.6
0.6
Significant

Page 30 of 40
(NG in low
spot on site)
L1
Secondary
Depot
North
(NGL in
northern
section of
site)
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Flood depths across the site

range from 0.1m to 0.45m, with
one area in the south-east
experiencing depths of 0.88m. It
is considered that re-profiling of
the land levels will eliminate local
ponding to these depths, although
the potential effect of altering the
flood and flow characteristics on
third party land should be
considered by the Design Centre.
The significant flood hazard only
refers to the low spot, general the
hazard across the site is low.
The depot is located in the path of
a significant overland flow route
which drains the land to the north
and NE of the depot, originating
from flow collecting on King
Abdulaziz Rd. Water flows
overland until it reaches the
interchange
between
Prince
Salman Rd and King Fahd Rd. A
secondary, smaller flow route
enters the depot site from the
east, and discharging into the
major flow route from the north.
Flood depths within the site vary
significantly. Flood depths along
the major flow route from the
north are between 0.8m and
1.2m, whilst outside of this flow
route the depths are generally
<0.3m. If works are undertaken to
raise the site in order to remove
the risk associated with the flow
route from the north, diversion of
the overland flow route will be
required, and the potential
impacts on third parties will need
to be assessed by the Design
Centre. Along this flow route the
peak flow rate is 17.75m 3/s

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Significant
Part of the site is covered by

construction waste that has been
dumped on the open land, whilst
part of the site is currently
subdivided with constructed roads
~0.75m above existing land
levels. The current flood risk to
this location arises from two
sources: flow along the historical
bed of Wadi Sulay which passes
through along the eastern edge of
the site and overland flow from
the urban areas to the west and
NW. Please refer to page 52 of
the BH report for more detailed
information.
Low

freeboard allowance higher that
whats stated in Table 5 is
recommended due to this piece of
infrastructure being a tunnel
portal; to cater for localised runoff
or unexpected incidents such as
burst water mains.
The modelling shows the depths
on Olaya Street at this location
generally <0.1m. North of the
portal location are a number of
underpasses underneath the
Northern Ring Road and its
branch roads. The flood depths in
these underpasses are up to
4.6m, which may flood the track
and prevent operation of the
metro. This needs to be taken into
account during the finalisation of
the vertical alignment of the metro
tracks through this section of the
city.
Line 2 East
Depot
(NGL
between
raised tracks)
0.55
578.81
579.36
0.25
0.15
0.4
579.8
0.05
PORTALS
Portal 1A1
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
northbound
lane)
<0.01
634.31
634.32
0.35

Page 31 of 40
0.15
0.5
634.8
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.1

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Significant
The track alignment shows the

track passing along the route of
the current median along Al Batha
Street. The modelling shows the
depths on Al Batha Street at this
location between 0.5m and 0.6m.
Extreme
Further, more detailed flood

assessment
work
may
be
required for the 2B1 location,
which is located in a historic
Wadi-valley, and affected by
overland flow from the north. The
effects of pumps and the drainage
network were not considered in
the flood assessment, potentially
resulting in a conservative design
flood level estimate. It is
understood that the current
design level is ~612.68m (~2m
below the recommended design
level).
Moderate
To the east of the portal, the flood

depth within the underpass is
estimated at 4.9m. Providing that
the track at this location is
adequately protected then water
will not be able to flow from
Station 2C1 towards the portal
and into the deep underground
station. Track drainage will be
required to deal with any local
runoff generated in the immediate
vicinity of the portal, and the
section of the track sloping
towards the portal.
Portal 1F8
(AS, centre
of road,
southbound
lane)
0.53
578.02
578.55
0.35
0.15
0.5
579.0
0.9
Portal 2B1
(AS+CS, side
of NE-bound
lane, within
underpass)
4.70
609.58
614.28
0.35
0.15
0.5
614.8
2.5
Portal 2B4
(AS+JB,
centre of
road, NEbound lane)
<0.01
625.33
625.33
0.35

Page 32 of 40
0.15
0.5
625.8
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.6

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Portal 2F2
<0.1
584.21
584.22
0.35
0.15
0.5
584.7
<0.1
Low
(NGL)
Portal 2G1
<0.1
582.80
582.82
0.35

Page 33 of 40
0.15
0.5
583.3
(NGL)
Printed: 25-Jan-15

<0.1
Low
Notes

burst water mains.
The flood depths within the
vicinity of the proposed portal are
generally less than 0.15m.

burst water mains.
The flood depths at the location of
the proposed portal are generally
less than 0.1m. Approximately
80m west of the portal is an area
experiencing depths of up to
0.5m; however, the current levels
in this location are lower than the
portal.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
LINE 1 TBM LAUNCH LOCATIONS
TBM Launch
1B3
<0.1
622.16
622.22
0.2
0.1
0.3
622.5
0.1
Low

freeboard
allowance
slightly
The model results for the area
around the perimeter of the TBM
launch pit range from 0.1m to
0.17m, with velocities between
0.11m/s and 0.23m/s. Despite this
low hazard, the excavation for the
TBM will act as a sink for water if
water is allowed to enter the site
and the excavation as well as
providing a route for water to
enter the constructed tunnel. It is
likely that flood water, laden with
sediment and trash could severely
affect the operation of the TBM.
Moderate
The model results for the area

around the perimeter of the TBM
launch pit range from 0.06m to
0.13m, with velocities between
0.09m/s and 0.13m/s. Despite this
low hazard, the excavation for the
TBM will act as a sink for water if
water is allowed to enter the site
and the excavation as well as
providing a route for water to
enter the constructed tunnel. It is
likely that flood water, laden with
sediment and load could severely
affect the operation of the TBM.
(NGL)
TBM Launch
1F2
0.64
584.69
585.33
0.25

Page 34 of 40
0.15
0.4
585.7
(NGL)
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.25

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
PARK-AND-RIDES
1-1 @
Station 1Y1
0.35
652.98
653.33
0.2
0.2
653.5
0.03
Moderate
Refer to Station 1Y1 notes
0.15
580.30
580.45
0.1
0.1
580.5
0.5
Low
Refer to Station 1H2 notes
<0.1
584.71
584.78
0.05
0.05
584.8
0.4
Low
Refer to Station 1J2 notes

Page 35 of 40
(NGL, west
of track)
1-2 @
Station1H2
(AS, centre
of road,
westbound
lane)
1-3 @
Station 1J2
(AS, centre
of road,
northbound
lane)
Printed: 25-Jan-15


Sections 6 to 8)
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
2-1 @
Station 2G1
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
0.30
577.97
<0.1
653.54
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Notes
Standard
Additional
Total
578.27
0.2
0.1
0.3
578.6
0.2
Moderate
Refer to Station 2G1 notes
653.64
0.05
0.05
653.7
0.11
Moderate
Refer to Station 1A2 notes
(NGL)
2-2 @
Station 2A2
(AS, centre
OVERLAND FLOW PATHS & FLOODED UNDERPASSES AT GRADE SECTION
Underpass at
Abi Bakr As
Siddiq
625.97
0.35

Page 36 of 40
(AS+CS, side
of SW-bound
lane, within
underpass)
3.97
621.99
0.15
0.5
626.5
Printed: 25-Jan-15

Extreme
Metro Line 2 passes underneath

Abi Bakr As Siddiq Rd to the east
of Station 2C2. The model shows
that the depths in the vicinity of
the station at ground level are
generally less than 0.1m based
on the local topography levels.
There is flow along Abi Bakr As
Siddiq Rd towards the underpass.
On Abi Bakr As Siddiq Rd there is
significant flood hazard posing a
danger to so most vehicles and
pedestrians.
Within
the
underpass, water ponds up to
depths of 3.97m. This depth of
water will overtop the jersey
barriers installed along the line.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Notes
Extreme
Metro line 2 passes underneath

Othman Ibn Affan Rd to the east
of Station 2C4. The model shows
that the depths in the vicinity of
the station at ground level are
generally less than 0.1m based
on the local topography levels.
Within the underpass, water
ponds up to depths of 3.7m. This
depth of water will flood the metro
line, despite the presence of the
jersey barriers.
Water flows across King Abdullah

Road at a low point; this was
observed in the Nov13 event.
The 1:100yr peak flow at this
location is ~12m3/s and occurs
approximately 2.5 hrs into the
storm event. Work to improve the
stormwater network in the areas
to the north of this location will
provide partial mitigation incl.
connecting this area into the Abi
Bakr Culvert. However, this is
unlikely to remove this risk.
Underpass at
Othman Ibn
Affan
(AS+CS, side
of road, NEbound, within
underpass)
King
Abdullah
Road
(between
2C2 and
2C3)
3.7
653.84
657.52
0.35
0.15
0.5
658.0
0.2
0.64
625.00
625.64
0.25
0.15
0.4
626.0
0.5
Significant
1.16
613.29
614.46
0.35
0.15
0.5
615.0
0.2
Significant

Page 37 of 40
(AS+CS on
side road adj.
to SW-bound
lane)
Area NE of
Station 2D2
Printed: 25-Jan-15


Sections 6 to 8)
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
578.2
0.25
Significant
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
0.55
577.22
577.78
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
0.25
0.15
0.4
Notes
Northeast of
Station 2G1
(AS+CS, side
of SW-bound
lane)
OVERLAND FLOW PATHS ELEVATED SECTIONS
Area around
Station 1Y1
654.10
0.2

Page 38 of 40
(NGL to the
west of the
track)
0.34
653.76
0.1
0.3
654.4
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.2
Moderate
Elevated tracks and stations are

likely to be sufficiently raised to be
protected
against
flooding.
However,
due
consideration
should be given to access and
egress
requirements,
scour
protection for support structures,
and flood protection of at-grade
equipment.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Area around
Station 1Z1
(AS+CS,
centre of
road,
southern part
of
intersection)
0.38
646.72
647.10
0.2
0.1
0.3
647.4
0.8
Significant
Area around
Station 1A1
(AS+CS, side
road next to
northbound
lane)
Area around
Station 1F9
Area around
Station 1G2
0.70
636.51
637.21
0.25
0.15
0.4
637.6
0.3
Significant

protected
against
flooding.
However,
due
consideration
egress
requirements,
scour
equipment.

protected
against
flooding.
However,
due
consideration
egress
requirements,
scour
equipment.
Note: Flood Model 1GHJ is currently being revised which is likely to result in changes in flood levels at Station 1F9. Flood risk
information for this location will be included in Revision B of this report, anticipated to be issued during w/e 30th Jan 2015.
Note: Flood Model 1GHJ is currently being revised which is likely to result in changes in flood levels at Station 1G2. Flood risk
th
information for this location will be included in Revision B of this report, anticipated to be issued during w/e 30 Jan 2015.
Area around
Station 2A1
635.45
0.25

Page 39 of 40
(AS, centre
Notes
0.60
634.85
0.15
0.4
635.9
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.05
Moderate

protected
against
flooding.
However,
due
consideration
egress
requirements,
scour
equipment.

Sections 6 to 8)
B
Location
(Spot Level
Location#)
Estimated
Flood
Depth*
(m)
Estimated
Existing
Ground Level
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood Level
Recommended
Design Level
(m)
(m AEA)
A+B
Standard
Additional
Total
(m AEA)
Estimated
Flood
Velocity
(m/s)
Flood
Hazard
(Highest
Category
Stated at
General
Location)
Area around
Station 2C3
(AS+JB,
centre of
road, NEbound lane)
2.39
AS:
AS+CS:
AS+JB:
MY:
NGL:
636.59
638.98
0.35
0.15
0.5
639.5
Road Asphalt
Bottom of Road Kerb Stone
Bottom of Jersey Barrier, on Asphalt Level
Road Marking Lane Line Yellow
Natural Ground Level

Page 40 of 40
Printed: 25-Jan-15

0.7
Extreme
Notes

protected
against
flooding.
However,
due
consideration
egress
requirements,
scour
equipment.

Sections 6 to 8)

Interpretive Flood Report RevA Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Interpretive Flood Report RevA Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Table of Contents

EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS (ER)............................................................................................................4

CLIMATE CHANGE ........................................................................................................................................5

FLOOD DESIGN STANDARDS ADOPTED BY BACS ................................................................................7

RECOMMENDED DESIGN FLOOD LEVELS............................................................................................ 10

DESIGN CENTRE RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................................................................... 11

FLOOD ASSESSMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................... 11

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Report and Resources

Final Flood Assessment Report, RevB (*.pdf)

Appendix B Flood Depth Maps (.*zip)

Appendix C Velocity Maps (.*zip)

GIS Model Output Files Flood Depths (.*zip)

GIS Model Output Files Flow Velocities (.*zip)

GIS Model Output Files Flood Hazards (.*zip)

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

How to Use This Report

Employer Requirements (ER)

Volume 2.2, Part 3 Environmental

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Risk-based Freeboard Allocation

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Less than 0.75

Danger for some pedestrians (i.e. children and the elderly)

Danger for most pedestrians and some vehicles

More than 2.50

Danger for all pedestrians and vehicles

Table 4 Hazard Rating Matrix

Flood Depth (m)

DEFRA/Environment Agency, 2006, Flood Risks to People Phase 2 FD2321/TR2

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

The following risk-based freeboard allowances are recommended by BACS:

Flood Design Standards Adopted by BACS

Hard Copies (*.PDF format)

Soft Copies (*.TIFF format)

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Figure 1 Flood Model Extents

Using the GIS Model Output Files

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Figure 2 Typical Flood Depth Map Extract, showing 5x5 m Grid

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Recommended Design Flood Levels

Interpreting the Flood Depth Maps in Table 6

Figure 3 Legend for interpreting the flood depths shown in Table 6

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Design Centre Responsibilities

Flood Assessment Assumptions and Limitations

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Table 6 Recommended Flood Design Levels

The flood depths are unlikely to

The general slope of the

The flood depths are unlikely to

Document No. M-BAC-000000-CG00-RPT-000004 Rev 00A

2013 High Commission for the Development of ArRiyadh

Flood depth, ground level and recommended design flood

Despite its low flood hazard a

Despite its low flood hazard a