Upload
bethanie-stanley
View
218
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FLOOD ANALYSIS STUDY of INCHEON GYO CATCHMENT
2010
1August 20th, 2010CONTENTIntroduction
Data and Characteristics
Flood analysisMOUSESOBEKARC-SWAT
Conclusions and suggestions
2INCHEONLocated in the mid-west Korea peninsula near Yellow seaWith both international port and international airportThe third biggest city in KoreaPopulation : 2,730,000INTRODUCTION
3
INTRODUCTION
4
Reclamatation area used for industry and residenceTotal area : 34 kmMost of the present Incheon Gyo watershed has been sea before reclamatation was completed in 1985DATA AND CHARACTERISTICS
5Annual mean precipitation in Incheon in the last 30 years
64% of annual precipitationDATA AND CHARACTERISTICS
6Time (h)Rainfall (mm)4:00:00 AM05:00:00 AM06:00:00 AM127:00:00 AM178:00:00 AM559:00:00 AM7510:00:00 AM4511:00:00 AM812:00:00 PM91:00:00 PM82:00:00 PM73:00:00 PM54:00:00 PM15:00:00 PM06:00:00 PM0Flood event : 4th August 1997, 04 AM~06 PM
DATA AND CHARACTERISTICS
7
PRECIPITATIONS4th August 1997
Rainfall intensity20 years50 years80 years100 yearsPRECIPITATIONS4th August 1997
Rainfall intensity20 years50 years80 years100 yearsDATA AND CHARACTERISTICS
8DATA AND CHARACTERISTICS
9Peak : 78.29 mm/hPeak : 96.67 mm/hPeak : 111.99 mm/hPeak : 107.07 mm/hDATA AND CHARACTERISTICS
10Gate Data
Tidal difference about 9 mWhen sea level up to EL.(+) 2.3 m(gate height) must be close during 6 hours twice of dayMain culvert outlet invertlevel is EL.(-) 0.09 mTo drain rainwater effected by reservoir water level (Backwater)
1D modelAnalysis of pipe network
Steps:1. Imput data to the software 2. Flooding analysis 3. Improvements on the pipe network to reduce flooding11
11MOUSE
12
1250 years return period
FLOOD ANALYSIS
13
1380 years return period
FLOOD ANALYSIS
14
14100 years return period
FLOOD ANALYSIS
15
15
FLOOD ANALYSISComparison between 20 and 50 years return period
16
16
FLOOD ANALYSISComparison between 80 and 100 years return period
17
17Reason of Flooding FLOOD ANALYSIS
80 years Comparison of change in pipe diameter and run-off coefficient 0.6
18IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE FLOODING
IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE FLOODING
19
20IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE FLOODING
Connecting pipe system at one node Result: shows before and after
21IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE FLOODING1D vs 2D models
22
Manholes (1D)1D can not represent flooding in depressed areas where there are no manholes. 1D can not represent flooding between structures or buildings, where there are no manholes1D models can study the pipes capacity. However:Moreover a 2D model can be very useful to distribute the manholes in a good way.232D Hydraulic and Hydrological study with SOBEKRain as a direct input of the model
Proposal: Study of Overland flooding caused by inadequate storm water drainage systems.
Advantages:A separate hydrological model is not required. The hydraulic model is used for rainfall runoff routing.
2324SOBEK characteristicsCoupled 1D-2D model.2D grid with square elements.Solve Saint-Venant equations
2425 2D model of terrain, buildings and structures Hydrological Study for sub-basin delimitation
High resolution of the modelHigh computational cost (time consuming)LimitationReduction of the Study area to a sub-basin.
ARC-SWAT
2525
2526
Processing of theDEM interpolating:Manholes elevationContour
Digital Elevation Model (DEM): SWAT & SOBEK inputs
2627ARC-SWATArcGIS-ArcView extension. SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) is a river basin scale model developed to predict the impact of land management practices on water, sediment, and agriculture.
We use:Generation of the sub-basins with the DEM as a unique input.
2728
Selection of the sub-basin with:Reported flooding in 1997Downstream bond. Condition known No drainage system (manholes)Does not recieve water from other sub-basins
Flooded Areas (1997)Main flowdischargeManholesSub-basin selection
2829
Yellow seaFlooded Area in 1996Basin characteristics:AREA = 42 km2Soil use: URBANInfiltration will not be considered.
2930
Modeling of the 2D structures is important in order to evaluate flooding in the area.The structure of the railway is modifying the natural flow.Flooded area in 1996
3031
Modeling of the buildings Option 1: Elevation of the DEM overlapping the buildings shape file (resolution=5x5m)
3132 Option 2: Increase the roughness of buildings
Manning Coeff.0.03Building Manning Coeff.=0.1Other = 0.014
3233
33Comparison of the two methodsElevate buildingsIncrease roughness
Volume entering the buildingsnoYes
Modify flow directionYes
Yes
What is better?Secure sideIt is ok if one knows that water can enter the buildings34
34Sobek Interface
Input 2D and 1D schemesInput PrecipitationSimulation Settings35But after two days trying to run the model..
SOBEK didnt RUN!
We suppose that is a software problem with the server cause it didnt run even for the most simplified case in 1D.
The expected results will be similar than the video showed:
3536
Conclusions and improvementsDifferent software were used to generate results (Arc-GIS, MOUSE, SOBEK, SWAT)Several succesful simultaion were run in MOUSE for different return periods.Some pipe modifications were proposed to reduce flooding in some areas.No result was generated by SOBEK. However it is necessary to evaluate flooding with a 2D.Different approaches were worked out to reduce flooding in the future.
37
37
38
38Thank you
Chart126.436.859.878.780.2138.9252.9218.4116.550.247.125.4
MonthMonthly precipitation (mm)
Sheet1Jan26.4Feb36.8Mar59.8Apr78.7May80.2Jun138.9Jul252.9Aug218.4Sep116.5Oct50.2Nov47.1Dec25.4
Sheet1
MonthMonthly precipitation (mm)
Sheet2
Sheet3