1 / 38

Uncertainty Analysis in Flood Propagation Models Using Bathymetry Data Comparison

This study examines the uncertainty in flood propagation simulations utilizing fixed bathymetry data from 1982 and 1998. A basic uncertainty approach is applied to analyze three hydrographs extracted from different breach analyses. The results detail water depth histories at gauge locations, discharge hydrograph variations, and the water depth envelope differences between the two bathymetries. Key findings include significant discharge variations and modeled water levels, highlighting the impact of bathymetric differences on flood simulations.

satin
Download Presentation

Uncertainty Analysis in Flood Propagation Models Using Bathymetry Data Comparison

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FLOOD PROPAGATION UNCERTAINTY J. Mulet – F. Alcrudo Area de Mecánica de Fluidos, CPS-Universidad de Zaragoza

  2. BASIC UNCERTAINTY APPROACH • Run models on the three (upper, mid, lower) hydrographs provided in breach analysis • Fixed bathymetry (1982) • Added comparison with 1998 bathymetry • Different models/modellers

  3. UNCERTAINTY SIMULATIONS. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY REQUESTED RESULTS: - WATER DEPTH HISTORY AT GAUGE/POINTS LOCATIONS - DISCHARGE HYDROGRAPH THROUGH SECTIONS - WATER DEPTH ENVELOPE OF 0.5 m AND 2 m

  4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES.

  5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES.

  6. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 1. 1982 MAX - MIN 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (4.77m) EXPERIMENTAL SPIKE LIKE PEAK BETTER REPRODUCED PLATEAU LIKE EMPTYING NOT BIG DIFFERENCES IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES

  7. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 2. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (2.67m) DIFFERENCES ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTERPOLATION IN STEEP SLOPE AREA GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CINEMA

  8. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 4. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (0.71m) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CONDES DE ORGAZ STREET

  9. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 6. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (1.24m) • DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES STRESSED GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PROYECTO C STREET

  10. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 7. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (~0m) • SPIKE LIKE PEAK BETTER REPRODUCED • SIMILAR WATER ELEVATION FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CITY HALL

  11. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 8. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (1.29m) RISE RATES ARE BETTER REPRODUCED WITH THE UPPER HYDROGRAPH GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CLOCK´S SITE

  12. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 10. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (0.41m) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE JÚCAR STREET

  13. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 13. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (-1.12m) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VALENCIA STREET

  14. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT A. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (-1.17m) IMPORTANT BATHYMETRY EFFECT (EVEN IF DIFFERENCES IN BOTOTM ELEVATION AT GAUGE ARE SMALL) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  15. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 1. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY IMPORTANT DISCHARGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 2 BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  16. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT B. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (3.45m) STRONG SCATTERING BETWEEN MODELS/MODELERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

  17. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 2. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

  18. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT C. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (4.4m) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  19. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 3. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  20. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT D. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (1.7m) NEARLY NO DISPERSION AT ALL GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE BEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

  21. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT E. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (5.9m) NEARLY NO DISPERSION IN WATER ELEVATION BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL

  22. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT F. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (4.1m) NEARLY NO DISPERSION IN WATER ELEVATION BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE DOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

  23. ADDED RUNS 1982 BATHYMETRY

  24. UNCERTAINTY 0.5m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 UPPER UDZ-1 LOWER CESI

  25. UNCERTAINTY 0.5m ISOLINES. CESI UDZ-1 UPPER UDZ-1 LOWER

  26. UNCERTAINTY 0.5m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 LOWER UDZ-1 UPPER CESI

  27. UNCERTAINTY 2m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 LOWER UDZ-1 UPPER CESI

  28. UNCERTAINTY 2m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 UPPER CEM UPPER CESI

  29. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT A. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT INFLUENCE OF ADDED UNCERTAINTY EFFECTS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  30. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 1. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  31. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT B. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 EXTRA FRICTION EFFECTS ARE INCREASED DOWNSTREAM GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

  32. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 2. 1982 BATHYMETRY 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

  33. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT C. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 FURTHER INCREASE DOWNSTREAM MAINLY DUE TO THE FRICTION ZONING (NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OF BASELINE FRICTION) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  34. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 3. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 • SAME WATER FLOW RATE FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES THROUGH SECTION 3 DESPITE THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER LEVEL • SAME PEAK AS IN THE OUTFLOW TOUS DAM HYDROGRAPH GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

  35. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT D. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE BEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

  36. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT E. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL

  37. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT F. BETWEEN MODELLERS UDZ-1 NO FURTHER INCREASE IN THE EFFECT GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE DOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

  38. CONCLUSIONS (Preliminary) • Uncertainty sources considered (and proved relevant) • Model / Modeler • Bathymetry • Friction levels • Specifically friction distribution/zoning • Baseline friction level not significant • Uncertainty in urban area • Overall 2m (either water depth / water elevation) • Uncertainty in valley • Considerably higher with strong differences • No clear indications as to comparative influence of considered parameters/effects

More Related