Comparing 1D and 2D modelling and implications of outcomes for development planning and approvals

David Whyte Senior Engineer, Aurecon Nina Barich Program Leader, Develop Works,
Waterways, Melbourne Water

INTRODUCTION

Overview

A brief discussion of some of the available 1D and 2D flood modelling software Required data input, the model set-up and assumptions The importance of good data Differences in defining flood model extents Case Study comparison Assessing impacts of development

FLOOD MODELLING BASICS

Flood Modelling

Hydrology model and a Hydraulic model Catchment routing hydrology software RORB, XPRAFTS, WBNM, URBS 1D hydraulic software HEC-RAS, MIKE-11, XPSWMM, DRAINS 2D and 1D-2D coupled hydraulic software MIKE-21 (MIKE Flood), TUFLOW, XP-2D, SOBEK, RMA-2

Data requirements/Model Set-up

Topographic and bathymetric information Information about the channel/waterway and overbank areas Flow information Hydraulic structures and storages Boundary conditions Existing properties and future developments

Importance of good data

Models are an approximation. The more accurate the data, the closer the simulation will be to representing reality.

Common Issues Inaccurate LiDAR/survey Poor identification or definition of important features Lack of calibration data Unknown dimensions for hydraulic structures Lack of stage-storage information for dams

Example of good and poor survey definition

Well defined levee

Poorly defined embankment and road Well defined channel

Comparing 1D, 2D and 1D-2D coupled modelling

1D models
well defined channel and floodplain flow predictable and predominantly in one direction

2D models
complex interactions between main channel and floodplain multi-directional and numerous flowpaths within the floodplain

1D-2D coupled models

allows a 1D representation of channels and pipes with a 2D model grid for floodplain topography

Comparing 1D, 2D and 1D-2D coupled modelling

1D (left) and 2D (right) Representations of Open Channel Flow

(Source: USACE Engineering and Design: River Hydraulics 1994)

Comparing 1D, 2D and 1D-2D coupled modelling

The choice of model will depend on: The purpose of and desired outcome of the study The level of accuracy required The available data Available budget; and Available skills to use or interpret the software.

CASE STUDY

Case Study
Rural catchment in western Melbourne Several dams, grassed channels and road culverts Catchment Area = 3.2km2 Hydrology Modelled using RORB Hydraulics Modelled using HEC-RAS Comparison Model using MIKE FLOOD

Case Study

Catchment Overview

Case Study

1D Model Network

Case Study
.05 251 250
Elevation (m)

.05

.05 Legend EG PF#1 WS PF#1

88 930 958 1020 1046 1081 1105 1119 114
Br
Ma i n

721 807777 841 30 60 547 407 635 235 381 672

249 248 247 246 245

Crit PF#1 Ground Bank Sta

S t r ea m

88 Down stream

50

100 Station (m)

150

200

250

1951 2023 2076 2119 2169

S

1855 1884

Resevoir

2238 2276 2306 2357 2514 2932 2872 2988 Up stream 2551 2812 27522633
ea m 6 5 65

Elevation (m)

n Ma i

2205
tr

.05 236.8 236.6 236.4 236.2 236.0 235.8 235.6 235.4 235.2 0 100 200

.05

Station (m)

65 6 5

.05 Legend EG PF#1 WS PF#1 Crit PF#1 Ground Levee Bank Sta

300

400

500

Case Study

2D Model Grid

Case Study

1D Network 2D Model Grid Coupled

Case Study

1D Model Flood Extents Results

Case Study

1D 2D Coupled Model Flood Extents

Case Study

Comparison of Flood Extents

Evaluating development proposals and/or flood mitigation measures

1D alter a portion of the cross-section 2D insert the footprint of the design in the model grid Whether 1D or 2D - the ability to accurately represent the development proposal will ultimately depend on the resolution of the model set-up

Evaluating development proposals and/or flood mitigation measures

Example Development Area

88

1D Model Setup
700 721 807 900870 841 930 958 985 1020 753 777 522441 407 578 635 672 30 60 90 270 210 381

1046 1081 1105

Ma i n

1119 114
Br
234.0 233.8 233.6
Elevation (m)

S t r ea m 6 56 5

88

Down stream

.05

. 0 5

.05 Legend EG PF#1 WS PF#1 Crit PF#1 Ground Levee Bank Sta

1833 1855 1901

Resevoir
233.2 233.0 232.8 232.6 232.4 0 200 400 Station (m) 600 800

233.4

Evaluating development proposals and/or flood mitigation measures Larger 1D cross-section spacing 2D Model Setup

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

Good data is important Choice of model must be fit for purpose Model set-up and resolution is important Future use of the model should be considered Greater understanding leads to better outcomes

Question And Answer