Simulation of 300 years return period and comparison with 1994 event

1. Simulation of 300 years return period and comparison with 1994 event Team H Presentation 24/02/2016 Elise BOURRU, Carlos CASANOVAS, Mamady DOUMBOUYA, Dimitra KOUVARITAKI, Eduardo MARTINEZ GOMARIZ, Maria PREGNOLATO, Morgane TERRIER, Xuan Manh TRINH

2. Simulation of 300 years return period and comparison with 1994 event Introduction February 2016 Team H

3. Progress February 2016 Team H

4. Management Research and Excel analysis of a 300 years period return Maximum Waterdepth and velocity for Building hazard map February 2016 Team H

5. Return Period: Gumbel law Gumbel Law: With the Gumbel’s Variable: Figure: Gumbel law applied to the Napoleon’s bridge Discharge from 1985 to 2000 February 2016 Team H

6. Return Period: Results • Return Period of 300 years: Peak Flow: 3984 m3/s • Flood event of 1994: Peak Flow: 3680 m3/s Return Period: 187 years February 2016 Team H

7. Return Period: Hydrograph Ratio: 1.08 February 2016 Team H

8. Mike 21 FM 1-Model setup 1.1 Bathymetry -The DEM of 5m and 25 m resolution - Maximum element: 3000 m2 - Number of nodes: 9310 1.2 Boundary conditions - Upstream BC: 1994 and 300 years return-period flood events - Downstream BC: Constant value of 0 m of sea level. 1.3 Model parameters - Using default values for all of parameters - Manning number (M): 32 m^(1/3)/s Upstream BC Downstream BC February 2016 Team H

9. Mike 21 FM 2- Results discussion Maximum Waterdepth and surface elevation of 1994 flood event Maximum Waterdepth and surface elevation of 300 return-year flood event February 2016 Team H

10. IBER February 2016 Team H

11. IBER February 2016 Team H

12. IBER 7 Hours of computation February 2016 Team H

13. IBER VS MIKE21 FM • The assignment of Manning’s values is easier and flexible than in Mike21. • Iber shows hazard maps according to either a default criterion or a user’s criterion, which can be exported. • The flooded area and flood depth are quiet similar in the two models for both simulation. • The simulation time is a big difference between two models due to the various meshes February 2016 Team H

14. Hazard Analysis Depth (y) Variables Velocity (v) February 2016 Team H

15. Hazard Analysis February 2016 Team H

16. Flood Resilience | FRI_city-scale STRATEGY • SOCIAL • INSTITUTIONAL • combination February 2016 Team H

17. Flood Resilience | FRI_building-scale 300-ys 1994-event Flood depth classes 0.1: 0-0.1 m 0.2: 0.1-0.2 m 0.5: 0.2-0.5 m 1:0.5-1 m >1: >1 m February 2016 Team H

18. Flood Resilience | FRI_building-scale Urban Function housing working safety&administration health food leisure&tourism religion&cimitery education 1994/300-ys event February 2016 Team H

19. Flood Resilience | FRI_building-scale 300-ys 1994-event February 2016 Team H

20. Conclusions • The 1994 flood and the 300 year return period give similar hydrographs • Similar simulations were obtained with both softwares • IBER can provide a hazard map, is open source software, (not on server) gives a better resolution but IBER requires more simulation time • Resilience analysis confirms the similarty of the two events February 2016 Team H