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

TOUS CASE STUDY. TOUS CASE STUDY. MODELLER OVERVIEW MODELLER OVERVIEW

REVIEW. REVIEW. COMPARATION AND COMPARATION AND

ANALYSIS OF ANALYSIS OF MODELLING RESULTSMODELLING RESULTS

4th IMPACT WORKSHOP

3-5 NOVEMBER 2004

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. GENERAL VIEW.THE TOUS CASE STUDY. GENERAL VIEW.

REMAINS OF THE TOUS DAM

THE CITY OF SUMACÁRCEL

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. AVAILABLE DATA.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)

SUMACÁRCEL

CULTIVATED ZONES

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES

SOIL EROSIONURBAN AREA

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

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

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. SIMULATIONS.THE TOUS CASE STUDY. SIMULATIONS.

SIMULATION NUMBER OF CELLS CITY MODEL

CEMAGREF COURSE MESH 2611 VERTICAL WALLS

CEMAGREF FINE MESH ~ 11000 VERTICAL WALLS

UCL R-7 60911 VERTICAL WALLS

UDZ-1 ~ 20000 VERTICAL WALLS

SIMULATION NUMBER OF CELLS CITY MODEL

CEMAGREF COURSE MESH 2611 VERTICAL WALLS

CEMAGREF FINE MESH ~ 11000 VERTICAL WALLS

UCL R-5 60911 VERTICAL WALLS

UDZ-1 ~ 20000 VERTICAL WALLS

UDZ-2 ~ 40000 BOTTOM ELEVATION

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

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. CEMAGREF´S THE TOUS CASE STUDY. CEMAGREF´S MODELLING.MODELLING.

COARSE MESH FINE MESH

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UCL´S MODELLING.THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UCL´S MODELLING.

REFINED MESH AROUND THE BUILDINGS

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-1´S MODELLING.THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-1´S MODELLING.

GENERAL VIEW OF THE MESH

SIMPLIFIED CITY MODEL VIEW

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-2´S MODELLING.THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-2´S MODELLING.

GENERAL MESH VIEW

CITY MODEL VIEW

- LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY

- SLOWER CITY EMPTYING THAN EXPERIMENTAL

- DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 1.URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE 1.

1998 BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY

GAUGE LOCATION PICTURERIVER BED

WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1h 15m



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREOLD CINEMA

- GOOD MAXIMUM RESULTS FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES

- DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE SHAPE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES

- DIFFICULTIES DUE TO GAUGE 2 LOCATION



GAUGE LOCATION PICTURECHURCH STREET

- MISTAKE IN THE GAUGE 3 LOCATION

- UDZ-1 RESULTS WITH THE RIGHT LOCATION

- 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 PICTURECONDES DE ORGAZ STREET



JÚCAR STREET

- ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS

- GAUGE 5 FOR 1998 BATHYMETRY LOCATED JUST OUT OF THE CITY MODEL FOR UDZ-1



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREPROYECTO C STREET

- ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS

- SAME PROBLEM AS IN GAUGE 4 FOR UDZ-1 RESULTS

- POTENCIAL RISK 2m WATER DEPTH AT SAME TIME



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREOLD CITY HALL

- ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS FOR 1982 BATHYMETRY

- WAVE ARRIVAL MORE ACCURATE IN 1998 BATHYMETRY

- LOWER EMPTYING RATES THAN EXPERIMENTAL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1h 15m



GAUGE LOCATION PICTURECLOCK´S SITE

- ~ 1-2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS

- LOWER FILLING UP RATES THAN EXPERIMENTAL

WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

LOWER FILLING UP RATES



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREERA SQUARE

- ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY

- GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREJÚCAR STREET

- ~ 2m DIFFERENCE WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS

- ~ 1m DIFFERENCE WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS



GAUGE LOCATION PICTURESTAIRS STREET


- ~ 1.5m DIFFERENCE WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS



GAUGE LOCATION PICTURECONDES DE ORGAZ STREET

- SAME AND GOOD RESULTS FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREVALENCIA STREET



- UDZ-2 LOWER WATER LEVELS DUE TO CITY MODEL



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREPINTOR SOROLLA STREET


- HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREVALENCIA STREET

- ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREPINTOR SOROLLA STREET

- ~ 1.5m LOWER RESULTS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY




PALLECER STREET





GAUGE LOCATION PICTURESEVERO OCHOA STREET


- ~ 1.5m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY



VIRGEN STREET

- SAME AND GOOD RESULTS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES FOR UCL AND UDZ-1



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREVIRGEN STREET


- BETTER RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY



GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREWEST AVENUE

- GOOD RESULTS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES

GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT A.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT A.


- SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN WATER LEVELS BETWEEN MODELLERS

- LOWER RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

- DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL

WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

~ 3000 s ≈ ~ 50 m

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION 1.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION 1.



- 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

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT B.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT B.


GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREAZUD




GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREAZUD



VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT C.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT C.



- SAME SHAPE OF THE WAVE FOR ALL THE MODELLERS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY

- HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY






VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT D.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT D.


GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREBEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL


VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT E.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT E.


GAUGE LOCATION PICTURERIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL


- SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL

WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW

~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1 h 15 m

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT F.VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT F.


GAUGE LOCATION PICTUREDOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL


- SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL

- DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION EFFECTS

TOUS CASE STUDY. CONCLUSIONS.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

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

Documents