1 / 33

Model uncertainty

Model uncertainty. How uncertain are your modelling results?. This Session (#19):. Session 19 divides into two sections:. Overview of uncertainty analysis aims & objectives Analysis of uncertainty in breach modelling Findings and conclusions for breach modelling Mark Morris ~ 25 mins.

oberon
Download Presentation

Model uncertainty

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. Model uncertainty How uncertain are your modelling results?

  2. This Session (#19): Session 19 divides into two sections: • Overview of uncertainty analysis aims & objectives • Analysis of uncertainty in breach modelling • Findings and conclusions for breach modelling Mark Morris ~ 25 mins • Analysis of uncertainty in flood propagation • Findings and conclusions for propagation modelling • Overall conclusions & observations • Q&A Francisco Alcrudo ~ 25+10 mins 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  3. IMPACT: Modelling uncertainty: Breach Formation [WP2] Flood Propagation [WP3] Sediment Movement [WP4] Geophysics / Field Data [WP6] Assessment of modelling uncertainty Implications for End User Applications [WP5] 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  4. Why do this? • Dambreak modelling requires a high degree of modelling expertise / experience. Uncertainties in the modelling process are higher than for ‘normal’ river modelling work. • Flood risk management may be performed more effectively if additional information is given supporting ‘best estimates’. 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  5. Aims & objectives: • Investigate uncertainty within modelling predictions for breach, flood propagation and sediment transport • Demonstrate how uncertainty within each of these modelling domains contributes towards overall uncertainty in predicting final conditions (e.g. water levels at specific locations) • Consider the implications of the magnitude of uncertainty found in terms of use by ‘end users’ 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  6. Scope of work under IMPACT The scope of work under IMPACT: • does not allow for an investigation of uncertainty in the impact of flooding or the assessment / management of flood risk • does not allow for development of extensive, statistical analysis techniques [Simple, practical assessment of likely order of magnitude of uncertainty] 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  7. Progress to date (!) • Understanding the problem • Development of approach • Recognition of limitations for sediment modelling • Selection of case studies • Implementation for breach modelling • Implementation for propagation modelling • Analysis and conclusions     .... ? 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  8. Development of approach... • A slow process that ended with a simple practicable but perhaps non rigorous approach balancing the need to analyse the problem with limitations in time and budget (the real world!) • The main arguments: • Fully rigorous statistically based analysis model by model and also linking of models • Removal of subjective - expert judgement type stages • Simple, practicable approach allowing indicative answer within acceptable time / budgets • Natural  4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  9. Approach taken... Sediments: • Recognition that current ability to model sediment movement under dambreak / extreme flood conditions was limited • Progress has been made (Yves Zech / Sandra Soares) but not sufficient to allow assessment of uncertainty 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  10. (Simple) Overview of approach 1 Adopt the concept of using upper, mid and lower estimates of modelling results parameter (e.g. flood hydrograph, water level) 2 Assess uncertainty in breach model leading to upper / mid / lower flood hydrographs 3 Assess uncertainty in propagation models using 3 flood hydrographs from breach modelling as input conditions (leading to nine propagation predictions) 4 Select upper, mid, lower estimates for presentation of results to end user 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  11. Some issues • Need to balance expert judgement (subjectivity): • What does upper, mid, lower mean? • What model parameters do you vary to create these? • Different models use different parameters - how do you compare these? • Run time and flexibility of models dictates approach: • Differences between similar model types (rel small) • Differences between breach and propagation (significant) 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  12. Selection of case studies: • Very difficult to find extensive, reliable data sets… • Ongoing problem…forensics team? • Two case studies selected: • Tous Dam Failure (breach & propagation) • Lake Ha!Ha! (sediments) 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  13. Uncertainty in breach modelling Basic process: • Sensitivity analysis to modelling parameters • Selection of top 3-5 parameters; identification of realistic parameter range and distribution • Monte Carlo analysis • Review and selection of upper, mid & lower hydrographs • Modelling undertaken by 3 organisations / 3 different models • Selection of overall upper, mid, lower 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  14. Modelling with HR BREACH • 1D flow model - piping and overtopping • Soil erosion through shear stress / sediment transport; no predefinition of breach growth • Integrated soil mechanics for lateral and longitudinal discreet slope failure (undercutting etc) • Surface protection simulation • Composite structure and associated failure mechanisms • Variable sediment equations, adjustable probability distribution for slope failure (uncertainty in soils), • Monte Carlo facility 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  15. Sensitivity analysis 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  16. Failure distribution Monte Carlo simulations • 5 parameters varied for MC analysis • 1600 MC runs undertaken • < than statistical requirement • little difference in results from 3 parameter MC analysis No failure - only overtopping 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  17. All upper-mid-lower results 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  18. Modelling with Rupro (Cemagref) • Aim: providing an outflow hydrograph from piping or overtopping • Simplified assumptions: average breach cross-section, sediment transport using Meyer Peter Müller equation with sediment described by only one representative diameter and one friction coefficient • Advantages: • very rapid calculation, few parameters to test • can be integrated in 1-D and 2-D propagation models thus cascade breaching or dike breaching easy to calculate • Disadvantages: difficulty to assess parameters in case of complex structure of the dam 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  19. Parameter considered Values of parameter Peak outflow (m3/s) Time of peak outflow Breach bottom elevation (m) 53 / 70 20300 / 15300 21 : 36 / 20 : 53 Breach Strickler friction coefficient 26.5 / 20 17070 / 20300 24 : 19 / 21 : 36 sediment diameter (mm) 250 / 0.08 6196 / 16700 21 : 51 / 25 : 02 Maximum breach width not limited / 36 m 24924 / 13600 18 : 45 /19 : 33 Modelling with Rupro (Cemagref) Uncertainty calculations • Step 1: what are the parameters to which outflow hydrograph is sensitive? • Step 2: select the three main parameters and 5 values for each (very low, low, average, high, very high) to which a probability is associated 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  20. Modelling with Rupro (Cemagref) Uncertainty calculations • Step 3: calculation for all combinations (125) and ranking hydrographs by peak outflows to obtain 5, 10, 50, 90 and 95 % occurrences. 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  21. Breach Model DEICH_P Breach Formation 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  22. Breach Model DEICH_P Breach Formation without core 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  23. Breach Model DEICH_P Breach Formation with core 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  24. Selected upper-mid-lower results 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  25. Some observations… • Qp varies between +50% (~22,500m3/s) and -17% (~12,500m3/s) • BUT, what don’t forget that non failed data has been removed • Timing influenced by inflow data, but upper-lower still shows ~2.75hr difference 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  26. Some observations… • How do our best estimate results compare to mid values? • Mid  Best estimate 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  27. Some observations… • Choice of sediment transport equation worth a closer look… • analysis was prompted by a bug in our MC routine - looking for way to model in homogeneous rather than composite form • considered 2 sediment transport equations (cohesive / non cohesive); core and outer layer material parameters • highlights the importance of selecting the right sediment relationship • highlights the effect of assuming a homogeneous bank 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  28. Some conclusions (breach uncertainty) • Uncertainty range for Qp for Tous study was ~ +50% -17% • Note - this includes uncertainty from 3 models / modellers. Range from 1 model / modeller will appear less. • Modeller best estimate was better than ‘mid’ estimate (for this case). • Skill of modeller will play a significant part • Routine use of mid value not necessarily the best 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  29. Some conclusions (breach uncertainty) • Understanding the sensitivity of models to different parameters is essential • different models will include different parameters • model sensitivity to parameters will vary from model to model • All breach models have one or more parameters relating distribution of shear stress / sediment / erosion / breach growth. • This parameter is usually hidden but has a major influence on results • Care is required to validate particular parameter values for each application 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  30. Some conclusions (breach uncertainty) • Application of Monte Carlo approach is ‘better’ than sensitivity analysis, but the process requires a quick running model for practicality • Current breach models are on the limit of practicability for MC analysis • Current breach models are not well designed to predict the timing of breach initiation • current models are very sensitive to boundary conditions (ie defined flow, water level etc) rather than actually predicting the onset of breach 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  31. Some conclusions (breach uncertainty) • Breach model results are highly dependent upon choice of sediment transport equation • No existing equations are ideal (steady state, long term…) • selection of most appropriate equation for case application should be done (look at conditions that equation was developed for) 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  32. Some conclusions (breach uncertainty) • Simulation of composite or homogeneous structures and assumptions of averaged soil properties can significantly affect results • Variations in Qp of >300% can be seen when different assumptions / sed equations are made (compared to +- 50% for earlier uncertainty range) • Therefore use appropriate model (composite or homogeneous) & appropriate equation. Be wary of assuming homogeneous for a composite structure... 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

  33. Beyond IMPACT… • Awaiting DSIG work with interest • FLOODsite - Task 20 “Development of framework for the influence and impact of uncertainty” “…develop an approach and prototype software for propagating uncertainty through integrated flood risk models…” • University Bristol (UK) & IHE (Delft) under theme lead from HR - > 60 mm research • www.floodsite.net ---------- 4th IMPACT Workshop - Zaragoza

More Related