10/6/2015 1 Comparison of XP-SWMM 2D & HEC-RAS v5.0 for the Woodlawn Area 10/6/2015 Matt Manges, PE, CFM Chad Cormack, PE, CFM Luis Alday, PE, CFM Presentation Agenda • Project Introduction • XP-SWMM Results • HEC-RAS Conversion & Comparison • Observations & Takeaways 10/6/2015 Presentation Title 2 Project Introduction 3 • Woodlawn Hills Subdivision • Upper San Antonio River Basin • Apache Creek Project Location
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
10/6/2015
1
Comparison of XP-SWMM 2D &
HEC-RAS v5.0 for the Woodlawn
Area10/6/2015
Matt Manges, PE, CFM
Chad Cormack, PE, CFM
Luis Alday, PE, CFM
Presentation Agenda
• Project Introduction
• XP-SWMM Results
• HEC-RAS Conversion & Comparison
• Observations & Takeaways
10/6/2015Presentation Title 2
Project Introduction
3
• Woodlawn Hills
Subdivision
• Upper San Antonio
River Basin
• Apache Creek
Project
Location
10/6/2015
2
Project Introduction
4
• Woodlawn Hills
Subdivision
• Upper San Antonio
River Basin
• Apache Creek
Project
Location
Project Background
5
• 2,200LF 2-9’x7’ RCB
• Inadequate capacity
• Frequent flooding in
the neighborhood
Project Background
6
• 2,200LF 2-9’x7’ RCB
• Inadequate capacity
• Frequent flooding in
the neighborhood
10/6/2015
3
Project Background
7
• 2,200LF 2-9’x7’ RCB
• Inadequate capacity
• Frequent flooding in
the neighborhood
Effective
100-Yr FP
Regular Channel US/DS
8
Why a 1D/2D Model?
9
• Multi-directional flow
• Out of bank flooding
• Long Culvert
• Local Storm Sewer
• Timing Matters
• Surface Storage
• Impact determination
10/6/2015
4
XP-SWMM Existing Conditions Results
10
• Significant Flooding
• 117 Homes at Risk
• High Velocities
XP-SWMM Existing Conditions Results
11
• Significant Flooding
• 117 Homes at Risk
• High Velocities
Why Convert it to HEC-RAS?
12
• Technical curiosity
• It’s free
• Open channel
“standard”
• New 2D Module
10/6/2015
5
HEC-RAS Limitations
• Long Culverts
– Not RAS’ strong suite
– Lidded sections are an option
• Neighborhood storm sewer
– Not possible to represent at inlet level
• Mesh interaction points
• Limited import options
• Unstable 1D solver with many bridges
13
Conversion Process
14
• Shared Data
– Northern inflow
– Roughness zones
– Topographic data
– 10’x10’ grid
• Different Data
– Storm sewer
– Truncated model
– Pure 2D RAS
– Elevation Adjustments
Ponding Depth Comparison
15XP-SWMM HEC-RAS
10/6/2015
6
Ponding Depth Comparison
16
3.32’
2.24’
3.57’
2.91’
3.22’
2.94’
2.44’
3.75’
3.25’
3.25’
2.55’ 2.88’
XP-SWMM HEC-RAS
Ponding Extent Comparison
17
• Very similar extents
• Very similar depths
Velocity Comparison
18XP-SWMM HEC-RAS
10/6/2015
7
Velocity Comparison
19
6.5
5.85
7.9
5.35
2.94
5.38
4.8
7.13
3.19
2.88
6.06 5.75
XP-SWMM HEC-RAS
Velocity Comparison
20
6.5
5.85
7.9
5.35
2.94
5.38
4.8
7.13
3.19
2.88
6.06 5.75
XP-SWMM HEC-RAS
Velocity Comparison - Detail
21XP-SWMM HEC-RAS
10/6/2015
8
HEC-RAS Particle Tracing
22
Why the Differences?
23
• Geometry
• Storm Sewer
• Hydrology
• Difference in Surface
Creation
• 2D Solver
Other Observations
• HEC-RAS v5.0….still a beta
• Save often
• GIS exports are iffy
• Limited 2D reporting
• Limited error message reporting
24
10/6/2015
9
Takeaways
• RAS 2D
– Powerful new tool
– Legitimate quick analysis option
• Other Coupled 1D/2D Platforms
– Still relevant
– Required for combined storm/open channel
25
Thank YouMatt Manges, PE, CFM
713-821-0366
Related Documents
