1 / 41

TOUS CASE STUDY. MODELLER OVERVIEW REVIEW. COMPARATION AND ANALYSIS OF MODELLING RESULTS

TOUS CASE STUDY. MODELLER OVERVIEW REVIEW. COMPARATION AND ANALYSIS OF MODELLING RESULTS. 4th IMPACT WORKSHOP 3-5 NOVEMBER 2004. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. GENERAL VIEW. REMAINS OF THE TOUS DAM. THE CITY OF SUMACÁRCEL. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. AVAILABLE DATA.

socorro-xovi
Download Presentation

TOUS CASE STUDY. MODELLER OVERVIEW REVIEW. COMPARATION AND ANALYSIS OF MODELLING RESULTS

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. TOUS CASE STUDY. MODELLER OVERVIEW REVIEW. COMPARATION AND ANALYSIS OF MODELLING RESULTS 4th IMPACT WORKSHOP 3-5 NOVEMBER 2004

  2. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. GENERAL VIEW. REMAINS OF THE TOUS DAM THE CITY OF SUMACÁRCEL

  3. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. AVAILABLE DATA. • UPSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION → TOUS DAM OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH • DOMWSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION → NOT FIXED • FRICTION PARAMETERS • ● VALLEY FRICTION → MANNING 0.025 – 0.045 • ● CULTIVATED ZONES FRICTION → MANNING 0.05 – 0.1 • BATHYMETRY 1982 / BATHYMETRY 1998 • CITY OF SUMACÁRCEL • ● LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS • ● HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS • - MAXIMUM WATER LEVELS AT SOME LOCATIONS (CITY AREA) CULTIVATED ZONES URBAN AREA SOIL EROSION SUMACÁRCEL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES

  4. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. FLOOD PROPAGATION GAUGE AND SECTION LOCATIONS.

  5. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. URBAN FLOODING GAUGE LOCATIONS.

  6. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. SIMULATIONS. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY REQUESTED RESULTS: - WATER DEPTH HISTORY AT GAUGE LOCATIONS - DISCHARGE HYDROGRAPH THROUGH SECTIONS - WATER DEPTH ENVELOPE OF 0.5 m AND 2 m

  7. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. CEMAGREF´S MODELLING. COARSE MESH FINE MESH

  8. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UCL´S MODELLING. REFINED MESH AROUND THE BUILDINGS

  9. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-1´S MODELLING. SIMPLIFIED CITY MODEL VIEW GENERAL VIEW OF THE MESH

  10. THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-2´S MODELLING. GENERAL MESH VIEW CITY MODEL VIEW

  11. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 1. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY ~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1h 15m • LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • SLOWER CITY EMPTYING THAN EXPERIMENTAL • DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BED WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

  12. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 2. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • GOOD MAXIMUM RESULTS FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES • DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE SHAPE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES • DIFFICULTIES DUE TO GAUGE 2 LOCATION GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CINEMA

  13. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 3. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • MISTAKE IN THE GAUGE 3 LOCATION • UDZ-1 RESULTS WITH THE RIGHT LOCATION GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CHURCH STREET

  14. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 4. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL TIME AND SHAPE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES AND MODELLERS • UDZ-1 HIGHER LEVEL DUE TO AN UNKNOWN SET UP ERROR. GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CONDES DE ORGAZ STREET

  15. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 5. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS • GAUGE 5 FOR 1998 BATHYMETRY LOCATED JUST OUT OF THE CITY MODEL FOR UDZ-1 JÚCAR STREET

  16. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 6. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS • SAME PROBLEM AS IN GAUGE 4 FOR UDZ-1 RESULTS • POTENCIAL RISK 2m WATER DEPTH AT SAME TIME GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PROYECTO C STREET

  17. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 7. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY ~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1h 15m • ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS FOR 1982 BATHYMETRY • WAVE ARRIVAL MORE ACCURATE IN 1998 BATHYMETRY • LOWER EMPTYING RATES THAN EXPERIMENTAL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CITY HALL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

  18. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 8. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY LOWER FILLING UP RATES • ~ 1-2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS • LOWER FILLING UP RATES THAN EXPERIMENTAL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CLOCK´S SITE WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

  19. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 9. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE ERA SQUARE

  20. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 10. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 2m DIFFERENCE WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS • ~ 1m DIFFERENCE WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE JÚCAR STREET

  21. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 11. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • ~ 1.5m DIFFERENCE WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE STAIRS STREET

  22. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 12. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • SAME AND GOOD RESULTS FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CONDES DE ORGAZ STREET

  23. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 13. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 3m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY • UDZ-2 LOWER WATER LEVELS DUE TO CITY MODEL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VALENCIA STREET

  24. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 14. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PINTOR SOROLLA STREET

  25. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 15. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VALENCIA STREET

  26. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 16. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 1.5m LOWER RESULTS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PINTOR SOROLLA STREET

  27. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 17. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY PALLECER STREET

  28. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 18. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • GOOD RESULTS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • ~ 1.5m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE SEVERO OCHOA STREET

  29. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 19. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • SAME AND GOOD RESULTS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES FOR UCL AND UDZ-1 VIRGEN STREET

  30. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 20. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • BETTER RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VIRGEN STREET

  31. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 21. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • GOOD RESULTS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE WEST AVENUE

  32. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT A. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY ~ 3000 s ≈ ~ 50 m • SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN WATER LEVELS BETWEEN MODELLERS • LOWER RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY • DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

  33. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION 1. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • SAME WATER FLOW RATE FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES THROUGH SECTION 1 DESPITE THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER LEVEL • SAME PEAK AS IN THE OUTFLOW TOUS DAM HYDROGRAPH GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  34. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT B. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 3m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

  35. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION 2. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • SAME WATER FLOW RATE FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES THROUGH SECTION 2 DESPITE THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER LEVEL • SAME PEAK AS IN THE OUTFLOW TOUS DAM HYDROGRAPH GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

  36. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT C. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • SAME SHAPE OF THE WAVE FOR ALL THE MODELLERS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY • HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  37. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION 3. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • SAME WATER FLOW RATE FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES THROUGH SECTION 3 DESPITE THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER LEVEL • SAME PEAK AS IN THE OUTFLOW TOUS DAM HYDROGRAPH GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  38. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT D. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY - ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE BEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

  39. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT E. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY ~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1 h 15 m • ~ 4m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY • SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

  40. VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT F. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY • ~ 3m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY • SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL • DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION EFFECTS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE DOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

  41. TOUS CASE STUDY. CONCLUSIONS. • COMPROMISE SOLUTION BETWEEN CELL SIZE AND TOPOGRAPHY CHARACTERISTICS • WATER LEVELS ADJUSTED TO THE TOUS OUTFLOW HIDROGRAPH OVER THE VALLEY • THE MOST “ECONOMICAL” CITY MODEL: VERTICAL WALLS • ● MESHING DIFFICULTIES • ● LONG DURATION OF SIMULATIONS • PROBLEMS WITH THE SELECTION OF DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION • MODELS SEEM TO REPRODUCE URBAN FLOODING SLOWER THAN IT WAS (FILLING UP AND CITY EMPTYING). • UNCERTAINTY IN THE RESULTS UP TO 5m IN THE VALLEY AND AROUND 2m IN THE URBAN AREA BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES AND MODELLERS

More Related