360 likes | 685 Vues
PRESENTATION PLAN. Introduction: Programme of the week Methodology Data used Software 1D (MIK E 11, ISIS, HEC-RAS) Software 2D (MIKE 21, MIKE 21FM, TELEMAC 2D) Co mparison of software C onclusions. 11. 21. 21 FM. PROGRAMME OF THE WEEK. Prepare data. METHODOLOGY. DATA USED.
E N D
PRESENTATION PLAN • Introduction: • Programme of the week • Methodology • Data used • Software 1D (MIKE 11, ISIS, HEC-RAS) • Software 2D (MIKE 21, MIKE 21FM, TELEMAC 2D) • Comparison of software • Conclusions 11 21 21 FM
PROGRAMME OF THE WEEK Prepare data
DATA USED • Study zone → Lower Var (6300 m of river from sea) - Period → Flood event 2011- From 04/11/2011 to 11/11/2011 • DEM → 15m resolution • Upper boundary condition → Hydrograph in La Manda bridge (peak discharge = 1200m3/s) • Lower boundary condition → Sea level • Roughness coefficient → 20 (Strickler) = 0,05 (Manning)
SOFTWARE 1D 11
All based on the equations of mass and momentum conservation SOFTWARE 1D 11 MASCARET
HEC-RAS - Results 05/11/2011 11h00
SOFTWARE 2D 21 FM 21
SOFTWARE 2D 21 21FM Abily et al. 2016
MIKE 21 FM - Results 21 FM
11 COMPARISON OF SOFTWARE 21 FM 21
Comparison of water depth at Napoleon III bridge (1D) Derived from results shown in prior slides
Comparison of water level time-series trend (1D) MIKE 11 ISIS HEC-RAS Quite similar graph shape for all ID model simulations
Comparison of water depth at the same time (2D) Mike 21 Mike 21 FM Telemac
Comparison of velocity at the same time (2D) Mike 21 Mike 21 FM Telemac
Comparison of velocity at the same time (2D) Mike 21 Mike 21 FM Telemac
Flood Location (1D & 2D) 2D Softwares and HEC-RAS HEC-RAS and 2D softwares Telemac 2D and HEC-RAS
11 CONCLUSIONS 21 FM 21
CONCLUSIONS • 2D models are able to represent the floodplain better • Telemac takes more time to simulate but gives more accurate results in comparison to Mike 21 and Mike 21 FM. - Differences between water levels - Differences between the time when the flood occurs - 1D models are greatly affected by cross-section geometry. Real bathymetry data give better results
REFERENCES • Abyli et al (2016). Procedia Engineering / 154 / 2016 “High-resolution Modelling With Bi-dimensional Shallow Water Equations Based Codes – High-Resolution Topographic Data Use for Flood Hazard Assessment Over Urban and Industrial Environments” by Abily Morgan, Delestre Olivier, Bertrand Nathalie, Duluc Claire-Marie and Gourbesville Philippe. • HEC-RAS Manual, Hydrologic Engineering Center, River Analysis System • ISIS help. http://help.floodmodeller.com/isis/ISIS.htm • Roe, P. (1981, October). Approximate riemann solvers, parameter vectors and difference schemes. Journal of Computational Physics 43(2), 357–372. • Abbot et al. (1967). Abbott, M. B. and Ionescu, F.: On The Numerical Computation Of Nearly Horizontal Flows, J. Hydraul. Res., 5, 97–117 • Preissmann, A. (1961). Propagation des intumescences dans les canaux et rivieres. In `1er congres de l’Association Franc¸aise de Calcul`, Grenoble, France. • MIKE 21 & MIKE 3 FLOW MODEL FM. Hydrodynamic and Transport Module. Scientific Documentation • “Review of Hydraulic Flood Modeling Software used in Belgium, The Netherlands, and The United Kingdom” Daniel Gilles and Matthew Moore August 15th, 2010 International Perspectives in Water Resource Management IIHR – Hydroscience & Engineering University of Iowa, College of Engineering. • Brooks (1982).Brooks AN, Hughes TJR. Streamline upwind Petrov {Galerkin formulations for convection dominated ows with particular emphasis on the incompressible Navier{Stokes equations. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 1982; 32: 199-259. • Hervouet (2007). Hydrodynamics of Free Surface Flows, Modelling with the Finite-element Method. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex, England (2007) 340 pp
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION