1 / 12

WP4.4 A R apid E mbankment B reach A ssessment (AREBA)

WP4.4 A R apid E mbankment B reach A ssessment (AREBA). Myron van Damme Sept 2011. Goal of the work .

khoi
Télécharger la présentation

WP4.4 A R apid E mbankment B reach A ssessment (AREBA)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP4.4 ARapid Embankment Breach Assessment (AREBA) Myron van Damme Sept 2011

  2. Goal of the work WP4.4 (University of Oxford and HR Wallingford): Rapid breach assessment - will develop simplified equations for the rapid prediction of breach size for a limited range of embankment structures. The methods will be directly applicable to practicing engineers and will replace the default and very approximate breach modelling methods currently included within the RASP family of tools.

  3. Context – system risk needs • System risk models simulate flood risk from many combinations of potential defence failures, inundation etc. • Assumptions for breach are currently crude. • Hence, the need for a more accurate, fast breach model • – simplified breach

  4. Context – Physical processes Failure mechanism for breach depends upon hydraulic loading and soil erodibility Surface erosion Headcut Piping (internal erosion) • Failure mechanism for breach depends upon hydraulic loading and soil properties (erodibility, cohesion) • Surface erosion • Head cut • Piping (internal erosion)...

  5. Creation of the simplified breach model Study physics Study HR Breach Collect breach data Create datasets with HR Breach Derive simplified physical equations Organize data into datasets Estimate inaccuracies input parameters Create the simplified model Estimate inaccuracies datasets Validate model against datasets Are the model predictions within the uncertainty band? Write up the method behind the development of the simplified model. yes no Check the code

  6. Underlying assumptions (1) • 1D flow behaviour • Downstream slope retreats through the embankment before widening (surface erosion) f.e. BRES model (Visser 1997) • No lowering of the crest level before the headcut has reached the upstream slope. (SIMBA) (Temple & Hanson (2005)) Source: TAW (1999) • Breach widening rate is a function of the rate at which the crest lowers. (HR BREACH, SIMBA) Mohamed (2002) • No equilibrium transport conditions (HR BREACH) • Instantaneous failure grass cover (HR BREACH) Source: TAW (1999) • Soil erodibility is equal along the embankment and constant in time (BRES, HR BREACH)

  7. Underlying assumptions (2) • Slope gradient of the inland slope is limited (BRES) • Fixed side slope assumptions (BRES, SIMBA) • Headcut starts at the top of the inland slope (SIMBA) • No erosion below the foundation of the embankment (HR BREACH) • An initial pipe diameter widens in an equal rate due to the flow through the pipe • After slumping of the soil above the pipe, potential further failure of the embankment is described by the surface erosion failure process

  8. Global description: surface erosion

  9. Global description Headcut erosion

  10. Performance and validation • AREBA gives promising results when being bench marked against HR BREACH • Validating AREBA against the IMPACT experiments showed that the model prediction lie within the bounds of uncertainty following from the uncertainty in input parameters • Run speed AREBA is approximately 0.2s per run.

  11. Conclusions A fast running simplified breach model has been developed suitable for the use in system risk models that deals with grass protection failure, surface erosion failure, head cut failure, and piping. The model is able to predict a flood hydrograph that falls within the bounds of uncertainty given by the input parameters. A comparison between the outcomes for system risk analysis using the current method applied in RASP versus this new approach is currently underway. Deliverable = report detailing the modelling methodology (Jan 2012)

  12. The research reported in this presentation was conducted as part of the Flood Risk Management Research Consortium with support from the: Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/Environment Agency Joint Research Programme United Kingdom Water Industry Research Office of Public Works Dublin Northern Ireland Rivers Agency Data were provided by the EA and the Ordnance Survey. Thank you to: Mark Morris, Alistair Borthwick for their ongoing supervision. Mohamed Achmed Ali Mohamed Hassan for his assistance Acknowledgement

More Related