Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    4676 Dam Breach Modeling With Unsteady Hec Ras Common Techniques and Assumptions Compared - 1 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Nguyen Ngo Quang Trung
    This document compares common techniques and assumptions used in unsteady dam breach modeling with HEC-RAS. It analyzes differences between using HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS to compute breach hydrographs, and level pool versus dynamic reservoir routing methods in HEC-RAS. It also discusses the effects of assumptions related to breach parameters, bridge modeling, tributary modeling, and concurrent flows on model results. The conclusions emphasize checking sensitivity to assumptions and applying more detailed techniques where model results are most impacted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    4676 Dam Breach Modeling With Unsteady Hec Ras Common Techniques and Assumptions Compared - 1 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Nguyen Ngo Quang Trung
    110 views29 pages
    This document compares common techniques and assumptions used in unsteady dam breach modeling with HEC-RAS. It analyzes differences between using HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS to compute breach hydrographs, and level pool versus dynamic reservoir routing methods in HEC-RAS. It also discusses the effects of assumptions related to breach parameters, bridge modeling, tributary modeling, and concurrent flows on model results. The conclusions emphasize checking sensitivity to assumptions and applying more detailed techniques where model results are most impacted.

    Original Title

    4676-dam-breach-modeling-with-unsteady-hec-ras-common-techniques-and-assumptions-compared_1.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document compares common techniques and assumptions used in unsteady dam breach modeling with HEC-RAS. It analyzes differences between using HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS to compute breach hydrographs, and level pool versus dynamic reservoir routing methods in HEC-RAS. It also discusses the effects of assumptions related to breach parameters, bridge modeling, tributary modeling, and concurrent flows on model results. The conclusions emphasize checking sensitivity to assumptions and applying more detailed techniques where model results are most impacted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    110 views29 pages

    4676 Dam Breach Modeling With Unsteady Hec Ras Common Techniques and Assumptions Compared - 1 PDF

    Uploaded by

    Nguyen Ngo Quang Trung
    This document compares common techniques and assumptions used in unsteady dam breach modeling with HEC-RAS. It analyzes differences between using HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS to compute breach hydrographs, and level pool versus dynamic reservoir routing methods in HEC-RAS. It also discusses the effects of assumptions related to breach parameters, bridge modeling, tributary modeling, and concurrent flows on model results. The conclusions emphasize checking sensitivity to assumptions and applying more detailed techniques where model results are most impacted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 29
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The presentation discusses various techniques and assumptions used in dam breach modeling with HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS including reservoir routing methods, modeling bridges and tributaries.

    The main techniques and assumptions discussed are reservoir routing methods, breach hydrograph modeling methods, modeling bridges and tributaries.

    Factors like data requirements, model stability, and accuracy are important to consider when choosing between level pool and dynamic reservoir routing. Level pool requires less data but may be less accurate while dynamic routing requires more data like bathymetry but is often considered more accurate.

    Dam Breach Modeling with Unsteady HEC-RAS:

    Common Techniques and Assumptions Compared

    Scott Muchard, PE, CFM


    Sunit Deo, PE, CFM

    Wrap-up

    Overview

    Background Dam Safety in Texas


    Rules updated 2009
    EAP required
    High- and significant-hazard dams

    TCEQ H&H guidelines updated 2007


    Dynamic breach analysis required
    Existing and proposed large dams
    Proposed intermediate dams

    Breach Analysis Case Study Dams


    Dam
    ID

    Dam Size
    Watershed Dam
    Classification
    Area
    Height
    (sq mi)
    (ft)

    Maximum
    Impoundment
    (acft)

    Event
    Modeled

    Down-stream
    Reach Length
    Modeled
    (mi)

    Dam 1

    Large

    839

    73

    1,045,000

    100%
    PMF

    79

    Dam 2

    Large

    471

    93

    198,940

    75% PMF

    54

    Dam 3

    Large

    68

    99

    73,920

    75% PMF

    16

    Dam 4

    Small

    0.5

    29

    320

    100-Year

    Dam 5

    Intermediate

    21.2

    17

    1,680

    100-Year

    ALL DAMS EARTHEN

    Model Used for Computing Breach Outflow Hydrograph


    Why is it important?
    HEC-HMS or HEC-RAS
    Model Complexity
    Model Stability
    Accuracy

    Model Used for Computing Breach Outflow Hydrograph

    Differences in HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS

    HEC-HMS

    HEC-RAS

    Level pool routing only


    Simplified assumptions for
    backwater on breach
    Simple to run
    Stable

    Level pool or dynamic routing


    Full backwater analysis
    Often considered more
    accurate
    Potential model instability

    Model Used for Computing Breach Outflow Hydrograph

    Peak Breach Discharges for HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS

    Peak Discharge (cfs)

    Dam 1 Breach Peak Discharges


    450,000
    400,000
    350,000
    300,000
    250,000
    200,000
    150,000
    100,000
    50,000
    -

    HEC-HMS
    HEC-RAS

    Design Storm

    Sunny Day

    Dam 2 Breach Peak Discharges

    Peak Discharge (cfs)

    900,000
    800,000

    HEC-HMS

    700,000

    HEC-RAS
    HEC-HMS with Tailwater

    600,000
    500,000
    400,000
    300,000
    200,000
    100,000
    Design Storm

    DAMS 1 & 2 (LARGE SIZE DAMS)

    Sunny Day

    Reservoir Routing Method in HEC-RAS


    Why is it important?
    Level pool or fully dynamic
    Data requirements (reservoir bathymetry,
    stage-storage curve, etc.)
    Model stability
    Accuracy

    Reservoir Routing in HEC-RAS

    Methods
    Inline Structure

    Cross Sections

    Storage Area

    Inline Structure

    Cross Sections

    Full Dynamic Wave Routing

    Level Pool Routing

    Cross sections upstream of


    dam
    Inflow hydrograph boundary
    condition
    Cross sections must represent
    stage-storage characteristics
    Bathymetry data required
    Often considered more
    accurate
    May cause model instability

    Reservoir is storage element


    Inflow hydrograph input to
    storage element
    Stage-storage curve required
    Less data intensive
    Potentially more stable model

    Reservoir Routing in HEC-RAS

    Breach Hydrograph Comparison


    11,000
    Level Pool Routing
    10,500
    Fully Dynamic Routing
    10,000

    Flow (cfs)

    9,500

    9,000

    8,500

    8,000

    7,500

    7,000
    200

    250

    300

    350
    Time (Min)

    DAM 5 (INTERMEDIATE SIZE DAM)

    400

    450

    500

    Reservoir Routing in HEC-RAS

    Maximum Water Surface Profile Comparison


    725
    Level Pool Routing
    720
    Dynamic Routing

    Elevation (ft-msl)

    715

    Ground

    710
    705
    Dam
    Location

    700
    695
    690
    685
    680
    675
    10,000

    15,000

    20,000

    25,000
    Distance (ft)

    DAM 5 (INTERMEDIATE SIZE DAM)

    30,000

    35,000

    40,000

    Breach Parameter Estimation


    Why is it important?
    Time to peak
    Peak discharge and stage
    The most uncertain in breach analysis

    Breach Parameter Estimation

    Parameters

    Breach Parameter Estimation

    Bavg
    V
    H

    Breach Height

    Parameters

    Bottom Width

    Wb = Breach Bottom Width


    Tf = Breach Formation Time

    Breach Parameters

    Breach Bottom Width

    Dam
    Dam 2
    Dam 3

    DAMS 2 & 3 (LARGE SIZE DAMS)

    Breach
    Bottom
    Width (Wb)

    Breach
    Peak
    Discharge

    Breach Parameters

    Breach Formation Time

    Dam

    Breach
    Breach
    Formation
    Peak
    Time
    Discharge

    Dam 2
    Dam 3

    DAMS 2 & 3 (LARGE SIZE DAMS)

    Time
    To
    Peak

    Modeling Bridges
    Why is it important?
    Requires additional bridge geometry data
    Creates obstruction to flow affecting peak
    stage, discharge and time to peak
    Could get washed out
    Affects model stability
    Graphic Source: FHWA HEC
    No. 9

    Modeling Bridges

    Include Bridge or Not?


    Overtopping?
    How much
    How long?

    Bridge location?
    Major obstruction to flow due to bridge elements?
    Model stability?

    Modeling Bridges

    Bridge vs. No Bridge

    Location

    Peak Q

    Upstream of
    Bridge
    Downstream of
    Bridge

    DAM 1 (LARGE SIZE DAM) AND DAM 4 (SMALL SIZE DAM)

    Water
    Surface
    Elevation

    Modeling Tributaries
    Why is it important?
    Add storage volume
    Attenuate breach flood wave
    Affect peak flow, WSEL, and peak timing for
    downstream areas
    Accuracy of floodplain delineation on the
    tributary

    Modeling Tributaries

    Methods - Ignore

    Tributary

    Main Stem

    HEC-RAS
    Cross
    Section

    Modeling Tributaries

    Methods Extend Cross Sections

    Tributary

    Main Stem

    Modeling Tributaries

    Methods Storage Area

    Tributary

    Lateral Structure

    Main Stem

    Modeling Tributaries

    Methods Separate Reach

    Tributary

    Main Stem

    Modeling Tributaries

    Downstream Effects of Adding Tributary Storage

    Dam

    Peak Q

    Peak
    Stage

    Time to
    Peak

    1
    2
    Storage methods: cross section extension and storage element
    Results similar for both methods

    DAMS 1 & 2 (LARGE SIZE DAMS)

    Concurrent Flow in Receiving Stream


    Why is it important?
    Peak stage and time to peak
    Establishing downstream limit to inundation
    mapping
    Method for estimating flow in receiving
    stream

    Concurrent Flow in Receiving Stream

    Model Results

    Change in
    Concurrent
    Flow

    DAM 3 (LARGE SIZE DAM)

    Peak Q

    Peak
    Stage

    Time to
    Peak

    Conclusions
    Different techniques and assumptions are available for key
    components of an unsteady dam breach model
    Level of effort varies
    Worthwhile to check sensitivity of results to assumptions
    Keep overall goal of analysis in mind
    Apply effort where it matters

    Wrap-up

    References
    TCEQ. (2007). Hydrologic and Hydraulic Guidelines for
    Dams in Texas.
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2007). Risk Assessment
    for Dam Safety Dam Failure Analysis Toolbox, Draft
    Report.
    Wahl, T. L. (1998). Prediction of Embankment Dam Breach
    Parameters, A Literature Review and Needs Assessment,
    Report No. DSO-98-04. U.S. Department of the Interior
    Bureau of Reclamation Dam Safety Office.
    Wahl, T. L. (2004). Uncertainty of Predictions of
    Embankment Dam Breach Parameters. Journal of
    Hydraulic Engineering.

    You might also like