Team Members

1. Evaluation of Hydraulic Models July 2007 Office of Hydrologic Development Hydraulics Group Team Members Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

2. Why did we do this evaluation? FLDWAV • Model is unstable • Projects now DORMANT • Need troubleshooting techniques. Drop it and support HEC-RAS • More resources should be invested in supporting an operational HEC-RAS • Difficulties due to inadequate documentation and tutorials • Too many glitches • PC version different to AWIPS version • Not enough workshops and those that happened, not effective Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

3. Why Hydraulics Models are here to stay? They are needed to simulate/forecast river water levels under the following conditions: flat terrain tidal influence backwater effect dam break scenarios dynamic inundation maps. Hydraulic Models will NOT go away! Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

4. NWS Hydraulic Model Development Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

5. Time to move on ? • Field issues: • Development has been limited at NWS offices • Training somewhat not effective: Intentions different than reality. More focused on learning how to debug software than how to build a hydraulic model. Result: Expertise at field offices is weak Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

6. Evaluation Objective: Review most commonly used hydraulic models and make a recommendation for its use in the field offices in addition to or in place of FLDWAV. Team Members: Representing field offices Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

7. Team Members P Ed Capone Lori Schultz John Halquist Brian Astifan Don Laurine Joanne Salerno Thea Minsk OHD Sanja Perica Cecile Aschwanden Reggina Cabrera Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Janet McCormick Mike Shultz

8. Steps followed: Step 1. Training on the use of different models Step 2. Evaluate complexity or simplicity on setting up each model Step 3. Selection of data sets Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

9. Steps followed: Step 4. Compilation of capabilities and limitations of each model Step 5. Testing models execution Step 6. Submit report with recommendations Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

10. Selection of Hydraulic Models FLDWAV………….…. NWS SOBEK………………. DELFT MIKE-11……………... DHI HEC-RAS……………. COE Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

11. Strategy to select items to test Training Operations 1-D, 2-D,… RFC’s Feedback Licenses Inundation Maps Dam break Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

12. Criteria for Evaluation RFCs Feedback Matrix of Needs MON Developers/Providers Matrix of Capabilities MOC Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

13. MON Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

14. MOC F M R S Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

15. Training for team members • To help understand each model • Install the model software for each team member • Work through examples • Establish a relationship with the vendors/providers Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

16. Selection of Data Sets • Tidal Boundaries • Ice Jams • Dam break • Structures • Bridges • Levees • others Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

17. Difficulties encountered Discrepancy in cross-section data. Geometrical data from FLDWAV different than other models Difficulties in converting data sets between models • Transformation of data, Manning’s n • Missing structures Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

18. Cross-Section Difference Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

19. ? HEC-RAS to FLDWAV Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

20. ? FLDWAV to HEC-RAS Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

21. Team Member’s Work • Some team members worked on the transformation of data • Frequent conference calls among the team members • Maintained communication with vendors/providers • Availability of testing licenses: 1 year Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

22. Criteria for Evaluation • Documentation • Data Entry / Data Editing • Computational Methods • Model Stability • Troubleshooting • Tabular output • Graphical output Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

23. Final Testing Testing of the models: The team members worked in pairs and one model was assigned to each group, but the evaluation was individual. We tried to select those who had acquired the most experience in the given model. At the end, grades and comments were turned in. OHD did not grade Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

24. Main Graded Topics • GENERAL MODEL SETUP AND MANIPULATION • Ease of use • Model run • Input information • Output information • MODELING TRIBUTARIES, JUNCTIONS AND SPLIT FLOW • BRIDGES AND CULVERTS • GATES, WEIRS AND LATERAL STRUCTURES • LEVEES/ LEVEE BREACH • DAMS/ DAMBREAK ANALYSIS • TIDES • ICE JAM • FLOODPLAIN MODELING Grading scale 1 to 5: 5- excellent, 1-poor Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

25. Example Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

26. Findings during the evaluation… • All tested models are very powerful, well developed hydraulic models, based on sound hydraulic engineering principles. • All models are capable of analyzing and solving nearly all typical hydraulic modeling applications but there are specific advanced hydraulic applications that cannot be resolved by all models. For example, HEC-RAS cannot model wind effects, SOBEK and FLDWAV cannot model ice jam, etc. • Major differences are in ease of use, quality of graphical user interface, availability of documentation, technical support and cost. Team members evaluated HEC-RAS to be a superior model based on those criteria. • All models have been used by different agencies for real-time forecasting. • In the USA, HEC-RAS is the most widely utilized model. It has been used extensively by private industry, state and federal agencies. It has been adopted by many federal government agencies as their official hydraulic model. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

27. Support Other considerations…. • During the evaluation • How fast did the vendors respond? • How much support was provided? • Was the support available when needed? • Was the support provided by a team or an individual? • Future Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

28. Availability of Training This was geared towards the future, once the model would be recommended and implemented • How often would training be available? • How much would it cost? • Where could it happen? Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

29. Interface • Does it have a Graphical User Interface? • Is it user friendly? Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

30. Cost of software? Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

31. Recommendation #1 The team recommends that the AWIPS version of FLDWAV continues to be available to NWS hydrologists at the River Forecast Centers and that it should be included into the new operational architecture. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

32. Recommendation #2 It is the consensus of the evaluation team that HEC-RAS be considered for inclusion into the suite of NWS hydraulic models. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

33. Recommendation #3 The team recommends performing a test focusing on comparing development of FLDWAV and HEC-RAS models using identical data sets, assessing difficulties in converting data sets from one program to another and differences in results. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

34. Recommendation #4 Critical modeling functionalities not available in either HEC-RAS or FLDWAV models should be documented and resolved. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

35. Report: Finished and now what? Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

36. What is OHD doing? • Working toward the transition: Comparison between models to assess the transition... Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

37. Recommendation for the RFCs • Need to get ready… RFCs need staff prepared to handle hydraulics • Should training be in FLDWAV or HEC-RAS or both? • Should we continue developing with FLDWAV? • Will FLDWAV be supported? Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

38. QUESTIONS ? Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics