Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Team Members Evaluation of Hydraulic Models July 2007 Office...

Our River Forecasting is in HydraulicsOur River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

Team MembersTeam MembersEvaluation of Hydraulic Models

July 2007Office of Hydrologic Development

Hydraulics Group


Why did we do this evaluation?Why did we do this evaluation?

Model is unstable Model is unstable Projects now DORMANTProjects now DORMANT Need troubleshooting techniques. Drop it and support Need troubleshooting techniques. Drop it and support

HEC-RAS HEC-RAS More resources should be invested in supporting an More resources should be invested in supporting an

operational HEC-RASoperational HEC-RAS Difficulties due to inadequate documentation and Difficulties due to inadequate documentation and

tutorialstutorials Too many glitchesToo many glitches PC version different to AWIPS versionPC version different to AWIPS version Not enough workshops and those that happened, not Not enough workshops and those that happened, not

effectiveeffective


Why Hydraulics Models are Why Hydraulics Models are here to stay?here to stay?

They are needed to simulate/forecast river water They are needed to simulate/forecast river water levels under the following conditions: levels under the following conditions:

flat terrainflat terrain

tidal influencetidal influence

backwater effectbackwater effect

dam break scenariosdam break scenarios

dynamic inundation maps.dynamic inundation maps.

Hydraulic Models will NOT go away!


NWS Hydraulic Model DevelopmentNWS Hydraulic Model Development


Time to move on ?Time to move on ?

Field issues:Field issues:• Development has been limited at NWS Development has been limited at NWS

officesoffices

• Training somewhat not effective: Intentions Training somewhat not effective: Intentions different than reality. More focused on different than reality. More focused on learning how to debug software than how to learning how to debug software than how to build a hydraulic model.build a hydraulic model.

ResultResult: Expertise at field offices is weak: Expertise at field offices is weak


EvaluationEvaluation

Objective:Objective:

Review most commonly used hydraulic Review most commonly used hydraulic models and make a recommendation for its models and make a recommendation for its use in the field offices in addition to or in use in the field offices in addition to or in place of FLDWAV.place of FLDWAV.

Team Members:Team Members:

Representing field officesRepresenting field offices


Ed Capone

Brian Astifan

Mike Shultz

John Halquist

Thea Minsk

Don LaurineJoanne Salerno

Janet McCormick

OHDSanja PericaCecile AschwandenReggina Cabrera

Lori Schultz

Team MembersTeam MembersP


Steps followed:Steps followed:Step 1.Step 1.

Training on the use of different modelsTraining on the use of different models

Step 2. Step 2.

Evaluate complexity or simplicity on setting up Evaluate complexity or simplicity on setting up each modeleach model

Step 3.Step 3.

Selection of data setsSelection of data sets


Steps followed:Steps followed: Step 4.Step 4.

Compilation of capabilities and Compilation of capabilities and limitations of each modellimitations of each model

Step 5.Step 5.

Testing models executionTesting models execution

Step 6.Step 6.

Submit report with recommendationsSubmit report with recommendations


Selection of Hydraulic ModelsSelection of Hydraulic Models

FLDWAV………….…. NWSFLDWAV………….…. NWS

SOBEK………………. DELFTSOBEK………………. DELFT

MIKE-11……………... DHIMIKE-11……………... DHI

HEC-RAS……………. COEHEC-RAS……………. COE


Strategy to select items to testStrategy to select items to test

RFC’s Feedback

Dam break

Operations

Inundation MapsLicenses

Training

1-D, 2-D,…


Criteria for EvaluationCriteria for Evaluation

RFCs Feedback Matrix of Needs RFCs Feedback Matrix of Needs

MONMON

Developers/Providers Matrix of Developers/Providers Matrix of CapabilitiesCapabilities

MOCMOC


FunctionalityFunctionality RFCRFC MODELMODEL

AABBRRFFCC

AAPPRRFFCC

CCBBRRFFCC

CCNNRRFFCC

LLMMRRFFCC

MMAARRFFCC

MMBBRRFFCC

NNCCRRFFCC

NNEERRFFCC

NNWWRRFFCC

OOHHRRFFCC

SSEERRFFCC

WWGGRRFFCC

TTOOTTAALL

FFLLDDWWAAVV

MMIIKKEE

RRAASS

SSOOBBEEKK

GeneralGeneralmodeling modeling capabilitiescapabilities

River sinuosityRiver sinuosity22 22 00 00 33 00 00 22 33 33 33 22 33

2233

√√ √√ √√ √√

Multiple riversMultiple rivers22 22 11 33 33 00 00 33 33 33 33 22 33

2288

√√ √√ √√ √√

Braided riversBraided rivers11 33 00 00 22 00 33 22 22 33 33 22 22

2233

√√ √√ √√ √√

Split flowSplit flow 22 22 00 33 33 00 00 33 33 33 33 22 222266

√√ √√ √√ √√

Flow diversionsFlow diversions 33 22 22 33 33 00 33 33 33 33 33 11 333322

√√ √√ √√ √√

Wind effectsWind effects 11 11 22 22 33 22 11 22 33 00 00 33 002200

√√ √√ XX √√

Ice jam buildup/breakup hydraulicsIce jam buildup/breakup hydraulics 11 33 00 00 22 11 22 22 33 22 33 00 001199

XX ■■ √√ XX

Floodplain mappingFloodplain mapping 11 22 11 33 22 33 22 33 22 22 33 33 222299

$$ √√ $$ $


MOCMOC

8. DOCUMENTATION AND SUPPORT Documentation adequate for debugging calibration and operational troubles

√ √ √ √

Model developer could provide calibration and model setup support? NA $25) $25) $25)

Technical support available for operations? NA $25) $25) √26)

NWS can request for changes in the code? $25) $25) $25) $25)

Can provide model setup support within the NWS AWIPS/LINUX environment? NA $25) $25) $26)

Can provide support for model inclusion into the RFS environment NA $23) $23) $26) Comments: 25) Available for a fee 26) Support is available for model schematization, not GUI (information from SOBEK

support team) Model: F – FLDWAV, M – MIKE 11, R – RAS, S – SOBEK Model capabilities: √ - yes/has capability; X– no/ no capability; $ – has capability with licensed add-on module; □ – current version has no capability, but well under development, NA – not answered

F M R S


Training for team membersTraining for team members

To help understand each model To help understand each model Install the model software for each team Install the model software for each team

membermember Work through examplesWork through examples Establish a relationship with the Establish a relationship with the

vendors/providersvendors/providers


Tidal BoundariesTidal Boundaries Ice JamsIce Jams Dam breakDam break StructuresStructures

o BridgesBridgeso LeveesLeveeso othersothers

Selection of Data SetsSelection of Data Sets


Difficulties encounteredDifficulties encountered

Discrepancy in cross-section data. Discrepancy in cross-section data. Geometrical data from FLDWAV different Geometrical data from FLDWAV different than other modelsthan other models

Difficulties in converting data sets between Difficulties in converting data sets between modelsmodels

• Transformation of data, Manning’s nTransformation of data, Manning’s n• Missing structuresMissing structures


Cross-Section DifferenceCross-Section Difference

Input in Hydraulic Models

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

Distance (ft)

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

FLDWAV HEC-RAS

Cross Sections and levees


HEC-RAS to FLDWAVHEC-RAS to FLDWAV

??


FLDWAV to HEC-RASFLDWAV to HEC-RAS

??


Team Member’s WorkTeam Member’s Work

Some team members worked on the Some team members worked on the transformation of datatransformation of data

Frequent conference calls among the Frequent conference calls among the team membersteam members

Maintained communication with Maintained communication with vendors/providersvendors/providers

Availability of testing licenses: 1 yearAvailability of testing licenses: 1 year


Criteria for EvaluationCriteria for Evaluation

Documentation Data Entry / Data Editing Computational Methods Model Stability Troubleshooting Tabular output Graphical output


Final TestingFinal Testing

Testing of the modelsTesting of the models::

The team members worked in pairs and one The team members worked in pairs and one model was assigned to each group, but the evaluation model was assigned to each group, but the evaluation was individual. We tried to select those who had was individual. We tried to select those who had acquired the most experience in the given model.acquired the most experience in the given model.

At the end, grades and comments were turned in.At the end, grades and comments were turned in.

OHD OHD did notdid not grade grade


Main Graded TopicsMain Graded Topics

1.1. GENERAL MODEL SETUP AND MANIPULATIONGENERAL MODEL SETUP AND MANIPULATION

a.a. Ease of useEase of use

b.b. Model runModel run

c.c. Input informationInput information

d.d. Output informationOutput information2.2. MODELING TRIBUTARIES, JUNCTIONS AND SPLIT FLOWMODELING TRIBUTARIES, JUNCTIONS AND SPLIT FLOW

3.3. BRIDGES AND CULVERTSBRIDGES AND CULVERTS

4.4. GATES, WEIRS AND LATERAL STRUCTURESGATES, WEIRS AND LATERAL STRUCTURES

5.5. LEVEES/ LEVEE BREACHLEVEES/ LEVEE BREACH

6.6. DAMS/ DAMBREAK ANALYSISDAMS/ DAMBREAK ANALYSIS

7.7. TIDESTIDES

8.8. ICE JAMICE JAM

9.9. FLOODPLAIN MODELINGFLOODPLAIN MODELING

Grading scale 1 to 5: 5- excellent, 1-poorGrading scale 1 to 5: 5- excellent, 1-poor


MODEL

TOPIC EVALUATED

FL

DW

AV

MIK

E

RA

S

SO

BE

K

1. GENERAL MODEL SETUP AND MANIPULATION 1.1. EASE OF USE

1.1. Availability and quality of documentation 1.7 3.5 4.8 2.5

1.2. Understandable / user friendly 1.7 3.3 4.7 2.7

1.3. Training and support 1.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

1.2. MODEL RUN

1.2.1. Computational methods NE 5.0 5.0 4.0

1.2.2. Model stability 3.5 4.5 4.7 5.0

1.2.3. Convergence 3.5 NE 4 NE

1.2.4. Run time acceptable for operations? 4.8 5.0 5.0 3.0

1.2.5. Troubleshooting 1.3 3.3 4.8 2.0

1.2.6. Can various geometries/plans be set up within the model for comparison?

1.5 4.0 4.6 3.0

1.3. INPUT INFORMATION

1.3.1. Units 3.0 4.0 5.0 1.0

1.3.2. Can it import data from other programs? 2.8 3.0 3.5 2.7

1.3.3. Data entry 2.5 4.0 5.0 3.5

1.3.4. Cross section edits 3.0 4.3 5.0 2.5

1.3.5. Cross section interpolation 2.5 4.0 5.0 2.0

1.3.6. Manning’s coefficient. Variable roughness (by HG and Q) 4.0 2.3 4.8 4.0

1.3.7. Lateral inflow 3.0 4.0 4.7 4.0

1.3.8. Boundary conditions 3.3 4.5 4.7 3.0

1.4. OUTPUT INFORMATION

1.4.1. Output table detail 3.3 3.3 5.0 2.0

1.4.2. Output detail for individual cross section? 3.3 3.7 5.0 3.0

1.4.3. Can output time series be exported? 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0

1.4.4. Graphical output and animation NE 4.5 5.0 3.0

1.4.5. Can graphical model outputs be extracted for web use? 3.5 4.7 4.0 4.5


Findings during the evaluation…Findings during the evaluation… All tested models are very powerful, well developed hydraulic models, All tested models are very powerful, well developed hydraulic models,

based on sound hydraulic engineering principles. based on sound hydraulic engineering principles. All models are capable of analyzing and solving nearly all typical hydraulic All models are capable of analyzing and solving nearly all typical hydraulic

modeling applications but there are specific advanced hydraulic applications modeling applications but there are specific advanced hydraulic applications that cannot be resolved by all models. For example, HEC-RAS cannot that cannot be resolved by all models. For example, HEC-RAS cannot model wind effects, SOBEK and FLDWAV cannot model ice jam, etc.model wind effects, SOBEK and FLDWAV cannot model ice jam, etc.

Major differences are in ease of use, quality of graphical user interface, Major differences are in ease of use, quality of graphical user interface, availability of documentation, technical support and cost. Team members availability of documentation, technical support and cost. Team members evaluated HEC-RAS to be a superior model based on those criteria.evaluated HEC-RAS to be a superior model based on those criteria.

All models have been used by different agencies for real-time forecasting.All models have been used by different agencies for real-time forecasting. In the USA, HEC-RAS is the most widely utilized model. It has been used In the USA, HEC-RAS is the most widely utilized model. It has been used

extensively by private industry, state and federal agencies. It has been extensively by private industry, state and federal agencies. It has been adopted by many federal government agencies as their official hydraulic adopted by many federal government agencies as their official hydraulic model.model.


SupportSupport

During the evaluationDuring the evaluation• How fast did the vendors respond? How fast did the vendors respond? • How much support was provided?How much support was provided?• Was the support available when needed?Was the support available when needed?• Was the support provided by a team or an Was the support provided by a team or an

individual?individual?

Future Future

Other considerations….Other considerations….


Availability of TrainingAvailability of Training

This was geared towards the future, once This was geared towards the future, once the model would be recommended and the model would be recommended and implementedimplemented

o How often would training be available?How often would training be available?o How much would it cost?How much would it cost?o Where could it happen?Where could it happen?


InterfaceInterface

Does it have a Graphical User Interface? Does it have a Graphical User Interface?

Is it user friendly?Is it user friendly?


Cost of software?Cost of software?


Recommendation #1Recommendation #1

The team recommends that the AWIPS The team recommends that the AWIPS version of FLDWAV continues to be version of FLDWAV continues to be available to NWS hydrologists at the available to NWS hydrologists at the River Forecast Centers and that it River Forecast Centers and that it should be included into the new should be included into the new operational architecture.operational architecture.



It is the consensus of the evaluation It is the consensus of the evaluation team that HEC-RAS be considered for team that HEC-RAS be considered for inclusion into the suite of NWS inclusion into the suite of NWS hydraulic models.hydraulic models.



The team recommends performing a test The team recommends performing a test focusing on comparing development of focusing on comparing development of FLDWAV and HEC-RAS models using FLDWAV and HEC-RAS models using identical data sets, assessing identical data sets, assessing difficulties in converting data sets from difficulties in converting data sets from one program to another and differences one program to another and differences in results. in results.



Critical modeling functionalities not Critical modeling functionalities not available in either HEC-RAS or available in either HEC-RAS or FLDWAV models should be FLDWAV models should be documented and resolved.documented and resolved.


Report: FinishedReport: Finished

and now what?and now what?


What is OHD doing?What is OHD doing?

Working toward the transition:Working toward the transition:

Comparison between models to assess the Comparison between models to assess the transition...transition...


Recommendation for the RFCsRecommendation for the RFCs

Need to get ready… RFCs need staff Need to get ready… RFCs need staff prepared to handle hydraulicsprepared to handle hydraulics

Should training be in FLDWAV or HEC-RAS Should training be in FLDWAV or HEC-RAS or both?or both?

Should we continue developing with Should we continue developing with FLDWAV?FLDWAV?

Will FLDWAV be supported?Will FLDWAV be supported?

Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Team Members Evaluation of Hydraulic Models July 2007 Office...

Documents

Transcript of Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Team Members Evaluation of Hydraulic Models July 2007 Office...