Hungarian Part of Raba Model development
description
Transcript of Hungarian Part of Raba Model development
Güssing am 31.5/1.6.2011
PRORAAB(A)Hochwasserprognosemodell RAAB
Rába előrejelző modell
Dieses Projekt wird von der Europäischen Union kofinanziertAz Európai Unió társfinanszírozásávalmegvalósuló projekt.
Hungarian Part of Raba Model development
Dr. Michal Veverka
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
RAAB(A)…. Flood Forecasting model
FFS Development of Hungarian Part
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
setup for calibration of HU part setup of merged model
Points 10891 21900.00Branches total 87 120.00
River Branches Parts 19.00 44.00Branches - Connection Links 66.00 69.00
Flood Plain Branches 7.00 7.00Boundary Conditions 15.00 34.00
Setup of Hydraulical Part of Model
• Setup of important valey obstruction
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
• Setup of links
• Setup of cross profiles
• Setup of floodplain chanels
• Setup of river net - basic branches
• Final setup in network editor view.
Calibration example
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
Ragyogohit
Calibration – Hydrologicall Model
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
• Setup of roughness based onfield inspectionCORINE LanduseMethodology
Meteo data(rainfall and evap, teper,)Hydro data Q
Hydrological Model
• The qualityof calibration is depend on quality of input data.
• Daily precipitation can’t catch the short events so some of the peaks are missing in results of calibration
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
• The optimal is to have 3-4 station for catchment in case we don’t have them is preferable to calibrate bigger parts of catchments together
• Calibration of very small catchment is not suitable for future system running as well
RR1
RR2
RR3
RR4
RR5
RR6
RR7
RR8
RR9
RR10
RR11
RR12
Merging of Forecasting Models AT -HU
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
Border – geograficall probles
Elevation problems
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
A
Austrian cross profile
B - Real distance between profiles Hungarian cross profile
C
A – Real elevation differenceB – Real distance between profiles C – The difference between Hu and Au reference level
B (m) C (m)mistake in
slope %500 0.5 0.001200 0.5 0.0025100 0.5 0.005
Merging of Forecasting Models AT -HU
Elevation problems – TR – BG experience
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
Conclusion: The calculated difference between Baltic leveling system (Bulgaria) and Leveling system in Turkey is 0,526 m in the border area. This difference may be valid for the area around Edirne.
№ B L H (Z)Baltic leveling
system (m)
H (Z)Leveling system
Turkey (m)Point 1 border
41°43'00.5 26°21'13.1 48,863 49,389
Point 2 BG
41°43'08.0 26°20'37.9 45,266 45,792
Point 3 TR
41°42'52.4 26°21'47.7 45,947 46,473
Model Merging
• Relativelly short project period• Data distribution and data collection• Producing DEM for flood plains
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
Dewelopment of Web Pages
Thresholds systems in AUThreshold system in CZ
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
Language versions connected to methodology of thresholds
Forecasting profiles
Thresholds Hungaria
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011
Training
• HD model building– Branches NWK editor– Cross profiles editor– Data management– Floodplains– Objects – structures– NAM model– 2D modeling
• Next Training– NAM modeling – Flood Forecasting System– 2D modeling– Data flow management
Güssing am 31.5./1.6.2011