A COMPARISON OF 1D AND 2D HEC-RAS MODELS OF THE NAPA RIVER

THROUGH THE CITY OF ST HELENA, CALIFORNIA

A Project

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of

the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Civil Engineering

(Water Resources Engineering)

by

Allison Jane Bratton

FALL
2017
 © 2017

Allison Jane Bratton

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ii
 A COMPARISON OF 1D AND 2D HEC-RAS MODELS OF THE NAPA RIVER

THROUGH THE CITY OF ST HELENA, CALIFORNIA

A Project

by

Allison Jane Bratton

Approved by:

__________________________________, Committee Chair

Dr. Saad M. Merayyan

____________________________
Date

iii
Student: Allison Jane Bratton

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University

format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to

be awarded for the project.

__________________________, Department Chair ___________________

Dr. Benjamin Fell Date

Department of Civil Engineering

iv
 Abstract

of

A COMPARISON OF 1D AND 2D HEC-RAS MODELS OF THE NAPA RIVER

THROUGH THE CITY OF ST HELENA, CALIFORNIA

by

Allison Jane Bratton

Floods are the leading cause of loss of property and loss of life due to natural disasters in

the United States. Flood inundation mapping is a critical tool for developing emergency

action plans that can help lessen flood related losses. Flood inundation maps are

developed using hydraulic models to provide information necessary for predicting the

impacts of a given flood event based on inundation extents and maximum water surface

elevations at critical locations. With this information, local agencies can develop

emergency action plans to make informed decisions based on forecasts and real time

stream gage data. Recent advances in hydraulic modeling provide the ability to develop

flood inundation maps using one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) models.

For this study 1D and 2D hydraulic models were developed using the United States Army

Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis Software

(HEC-RAS) version 5.0.3 to compare and contrast the two types of models and to

determine which type of model was better suited for flood inundation mapping. The

models were developed for a 4-mile reach of the Napa River, through the City of St.

v
Helena, California. The following data sources were used to develop the 1D and 2D

model files: terrain data was created using LiDAR data of the Napa River collected in

2014, land cover values and model boundary conditions were determined from the Napa

River Federal Insurance Study published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) and the flow data was developed from the United States Geological Survey’s

(USGS) rating curve for gage 11456000 ‘Napa R Nr St Helena CA’. The 1D and 2D

models were each calibrated to gage heights within a 5% difference from the measured

data to ensure acceptable accuracy of the flood inundation extents. The 1D and 2D

models were also calibrated to within a 0.33% difference from each other to provide an

accurate comparison.

The results of the 1D and 2D models were compared based on the following: calibration,

run time, velocity, water surface elevation and inundation extents. Calibration results

showed that the 1D model required Manning’s n-values 25-34% higher than the 2D

model to achieve the same calibration results. This is because the hydraulic roughness

factor in the 1D model is used to account for most hydraulic losses, while the 2D model

accounts for some of those losses within the computation. The run time of the 1D model

was 96% faster than the 2D model due to the significantly larger number of computation

nodes within the 2D model grid. The 1D model calculated lower velocities in the

overbank and higher velocities in the channel when compared to the 2D model at

maximum velocity. The most compelling reason for this difference is because the

velocities are averaged over the entire overbank section of each 1D cross section while
vi
the velocities are calculated for each grid cell of the 2D model. The grid cells of the 2D

model are significantly smaller than the overbank area of the 1D cross section, allowing

for more accurate and detailed calculations in the 2D model. The water surface elevations

of the 1D model were lower than those of the 2D model by more than 2 feet in some

areas. The differences were mostly attributed to the calculation of expansion and

contraction losses within the models. The methods used in the 1D model typically lead to

an underestimation in losses, causing an underestimation in the resulting water surface

elevations. The final point of comparison was the inundation extents which are

determined based on the water surface elevations of the model. The differences varied,

but overall the inundation extents of the 1D model was less than the inundation extent the

1D model.

Based on all model comparisons it was evident that the 2D model was better suited for

flood inundation mapping as it pertained to this study. The results provided by the 2D

model were more detailed and therefore more accurate in the overbank areas of the

model, which is an indication of floodplain extent potential. The 2D results for water

surface elevation and inundation extents were also more conservative than the 1D model.

The differences are largely attributed to the greater number of computation points in the

2D model which allow for more detailed results as well as the computation methods that

more accurately represent hydraulic losses within the model. The 2D model also accounts

vii
for lateral flow as well as longitudinal flow allowing for a more accurate representation

of overbank flow paths in the floodplain of the model.

_______________________, Committee Chair

Dr. Saad Merayyan

_______________________
Date

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people:

- Ryan Greif for his mentorship and support through the development of this

project as well as Mead & Hunt for providing me the opportunity to learn and

advance my technical skills in a supportive working environment.

- Napa County for allowing me to use the 2D Napa River model, which I developed

for them under the guidance of Ryan Grief. Their support made this study

possible.

- My advisor and committee chair, Dr. Merayyan for his feedback and guidance

through my education as well as this project.

- Finally, my friends and family, especially my boyfriend, whose love, support and

encouragement made the challenges of this process easier to conquer.

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xiii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ xiii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1

2. BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................3

Study Area .........................................................................................................3

Flood Inundation Mapping ................................................................................5

Hydraulic Modeling: 1D vs 2D HEC-RAS .......................................................6

Introduction to HEC-RAS ..........................................................................6

1D vs 2D HEC-RAS Models ......................................................................7

HEC-RAS Hydraulic Analysis ..........................................................................9

1D Computation Methods: Unsteady Flow ................................................9

2D Computation Methods.........................................................................13

3. MODELING METHODS ......................................................................................17

Elevation Data ..................................................................................................17

Land Cover Delineation ...................................................................................17

Flow Data .........................................................................................................18

2D Model Set-up ..............................................................................................20

HEC-RAS Geometry Set-up .....................................................................20

x
 1D Model Set-up ..............................................................................................22

HEC-GeoRAS Geometry Set-up ..............................................................23

Model Plan Files ..............................................................................................25

Calibration........................................................................................................26

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................29

Calibration........................................................................................................29

Run Time .........................................................................................................34

Velocity ............................................................................................................35

Water Surface Elevation ..................................................................................40

Inundation Extents ...........................................................................................44

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................48

Appendix A. Model Input Data ...................................................................................51

Appendix B. Additional Results ..................................................................................59

References ....................................................................................................................69

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

1. Project study area and modeled Napa River Reach Through St. Helena................ 4

2. USGS Rating Curve: Napa River at Pope Street .................................................. 19

3. 2D Geometry set-up .............................................................................................. 22

4. Calculated water surface elevation comparison of calibrated and un-calibrated

1D models ............................................................................................................. 28

5. Rating curve comparison of critical calibration points for measured and modeled

gage heights .......................................................................................................... 31

6. Maximum velocity distribution for 1D model ...................................................... 36

7. Maximum velocity distribution for 2D model ...................................................... 37

8. Right overbank subsections for 1D cross section transposed with the 2D grid .... 38

9. Maximum water surface profile through Napa River centerline .......................... 41

10. Maximum water surface elevation comparison at cross section 11526 ................ 43

11. Inundation extents of 1D and 2D models at 14,200 cfs ........................................ 45

12. Water surface elevation comparison at cross section 9352 .................................. 47

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

1. Project study area and modeled Napa River Reach Through St. Helena................ 4

2. USGS Rating Curve: Napa River at Pope Street .................................................. 19

3. 2D Geometry set-up .............................................................................................. 22

4. Calculated water surface elevation comparison of calibrated and un-calibrated

1D models ............................................................................................................. 28

5. Rating curve comparison of critical calibration points for measured and modeled

gage heights .......................................................................................................... 31

6. Maximum velocity distribution for 1D model ...................................................... 36

7. Maximum velocity distribution for 2D model ...................................................... 37

8. Right overbank subsections for 1D cross section transposed with the 2D grid .... 38

9. Maximum water surface profile through Napa River centerline .......................... 41

10. Maximum water surface elevation comparison at cross section 11526 ................ 43

11. Inundation extents of 1D and 2D models at 14,200 cfs ........................................ 45

12. Water surface elevation comparison at cross section 9352 .................................. 47

xiii
 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Flood inundation maps are developed by hydraulic models and used for predicting

important information related to flood events such as inundation extents and water

surface elevations at critical locations. Predicting floodplain extent is crucial in protecting

property and reducing loss of life potential. Hydraulic models are a representation of the

hydraulic processes that take place during a flood event (Cook, 2008). The quality of a

flood inundation map is dependent on the model’s ability to accurately represent the

hydraulic processes over the river’s floodplain. Over the last thirty years, developments

in hydraulic modeling have allowed for more accurate predictions of the potential

impacts of large flood events using both one-dimensional(1D) and two-dimensional(2D)

models (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

There are various types of software available for development of 1D and 2D models, but

the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis Software (HEC-RAS) is

widely preferred among engineers. HEC-RAS was created to perform 1D and 2D

computations for a network of natural and constructed channels, floodplain areas and

levee protected areas (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016). There are

advantages/disadvantages to both 1D and 2D hydraulic models. Advantages to 1D

models when compared to 2D models are that they require less data, they have shorter

computation times, they compute channel flow more efficiently and the file sizes are

more manageable. Whereas 2D model advantages include faster model set-up, better
 2

computational accounting of hydraulic losses and output that is easier to interpret and

present. Determining whether to use a 1D or 2D model for a flood inundation mapping

project is dependent on multiple factors, such as study area, available data, project

schedule and budget, regulatory requirements and the modelers experience level.

This study will construct 1D and 2D hydraulic models of the Napa River through the City

of St. Helena, California using HEC-RAS version 5.0.3. The models will be calibrated

and compared based on the following results: calibration, run time, velocity, water

surface elevation and inundation extents. The most significant points of comparison will

be used to determine whether the 1D or 2D model is better suited for flood inundation

mapping.

Although this report discusses the applications of flood inundation mapping using the

City of St. Helena as a case study to demonstrate the suitability of 1D and 2D models in

floodplain mapping. The main focus of this project is to compare the models and make

recommendations on the use of 1D versus 2D HEC-RAS models for flood inundation

studies, not provide an assessment of flood inundation risk for the City of St. Helena.
 3

CHAPTER 2

BACKGROUND

Study Area

The drainage basin of the Napa River is approximately 50 miles long (north to south) and

10 miles wide covering a total area of 426 square miles. Numerous tributaries feed into

the Napa River from the adjacent foothills as it winds its way through Napa County and

ends in tidal sloughs approximately 9 miles north of the San Pablo Bay. For the purpose

of this study a 4-mile reach of the Napa River is modeled through the City of St. Helena

(St. Helena) extending from Pratt Avenue upstream to Zinfandel Avenue downstream

(FEMA, 2016). The study area is shown in Figure 1.

The Napa River flows along the eastern edge of St. Helena in the northern region of the

Napa Valley. Due to the river’s proximity, St. Helena has a required flood response when

the river reaches a specified stage. The stage information is provided by a flow gage

(USGS 11456000 Napa R NR ST HELENA CA) at the Pope Street Bridge; operated by

the United States Geological Survey in collaboration with The National Weather Service

(NWS). The gage station provides year-round forecasting and flood stage monitoring.

Figure 1 shows the project study areas and modeled river reach through St. Helena.

The Napa River through St. Helena has a maximum recorded flow of 18,300 cubic feet

per second (cfs) based on the available period of record of 75 years (USGS, 2017). The

average bed slope through the study area is 0.26%. The reach is bounded by Howell
 4

Mountain to the northeast, which rises quickly from the valley floor, and a relatively

narrow floodplain to the southwest that expands downstream through the Napa Valley.

The region is at risk of slow rise flooding during peak rainfall events producing heavy

runoff (NWS, 2012).

Figure 1 Project study area and modeled Napa River Reach Through St. Helena
 5

Flood Inundation Mapping

Flood inundation mapping is performed to predict important information related to flood

events, specifically the extents of inundation and the maximum water surface elevations

at specific locations, such as roads and emergency response facilities. The information

gathered from this process is extremely important for development of emergency action

plans. Floods are the leading cause of loss due to natural disaster in the United States. Of

all Federally declared natural disaster, 75% of them are related to floods. Average flood

losses in the United States include nearly $8 billion and over 90 fatalities per year. Over

time the average annual number of fatalities has declined which is in large part due to

improved warning systems created by better information provided by flood inundation

mapping. On the other hand, economic losses continue to rise as increased urbanization

causes development to expand into floodplains, further supporting the need for flood

inundation mapping (USGS, 2017).

Due to the importance of flood inundation mapping as an emergency response tool,

multiple federal agencies collaborate by sharing data to provide current inundation maps

in an effort to assist local agencies in assessing flood risk. The major federal agencies

include: The National Weather Service (NWS), the United States Geological Survey

(USGS), The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), The United States Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

NWS provides the Inundation Mapping Interface, a web based tool that combines all

collaborative inundation data, indicating when roadways, buildings, airports and other
 6

critical facilities are likely to see the impacts of floodwaters during different storm

scenarios. With this information, local agencies can develop emergency action plans and

make informed operational decisions during a flood event based on NWS flood forecasts

and real-time gauge data provided by USGS (NWS, 2012).

As one of the collaborative partners to NWS, USGS works with communities to identify

appropriate stream sections where flooding is likely to occur and gather necessary data to

build models and produce inundation maps ensuring scientific integrity. Scientific

integrity is achieved by carefully calibrating the hydraulic model used to produce the

inundation maps (USGS, 2017). Model calibration is achieved by adjusting estimated

hydraulic model parameters such as Manning’s n-values and expansion contraction

coefficients to match the modeled water surface elevations to within one half foot of

previously recorder flood events (Colorado Water Conservation Board, 2006). Reliable

flood data from an established stream gage is crucial to producing a calibrated model that

accurately represents incremental flooding heights. Combined with detailed ground

surface elevation data the hydraulic model produces a gridded surface defining the

probable extents of floodwater inundation (USGS, 2017).

Hydraulic Modeling: 1D vs 2D HEC-RAS

Introduction to HEC-RAS

There are multiple software options when it comes to hydraulic model development, but

HEC-RAS is preferred among most engineers. The United States Army Corps of
 7

Engineers released HEC-RAS version 1.0 in July of 1995. Since the original release there

have been several major updates leading up to the current version, 5.0.3. Software

version 5.0 introduced the capabilities for 2D hydraulic modeling. The following sections

give an overview of 1D verses 2D unsteady flow modeling in HEC-RAS (USACE

Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

1D vs 2D HEC-RAS Models

1D and 2D unsteady HEC-RAS models are both solved using the fully dynamic St.

Venant equations of conservation of mass and momentum. For 1D models, the equation

is solved along a singular dimension, which is defined by the modeler. This means the

modeler must determine the flow direction during model set-up which can be a time

consuming iterative process. 2D models simply require the definition of a mesh over the

model area and the hydraulic computations are completed in two dimensions. The flow

direction is determined by the model (West Consultants Inc., 2017). The assumptions for

1D and 2D models are compared in Table 1.

 8

Table 1 Differences between 1D and 2D modeling assumptions (Colorado Department of Water

Resources, 2006))

Property of Factor 1D Modeling 2D Modeling

Flow Direction prescribed computed
Transverse Velocity and neglected computed
Momentum
Vertical Velocity and neglected neglected
Momentum
Velocity averaged over… cross sectional area depth at a point
Transverse Velocity assumed proportional to computed
Distribution conveyance
Transverse Variations in neglected computed
Water Surface
Vertical Variations neglected neglected
Unsteady Flow Routing can be included can be included
Eddy Viscosity Needs to be included in the Modeled separately from
friction parameter the friction

1D model geometry development requires a defined reach, cross-section data consisting

of: surveyed station-elevation data, reach lengths, Manning’s n-values, main channel

bank stations and contraction and expansion coefficients (USACE Hydrologic

Engineering Center, 2016). As mentioned above the 2D model geometry development

only requires mesh definition. However, the 2D model requires a digital elevation model

(DEM) for the defined mesh area. The model uses the DEM to determine where the water

will go, so its quality/resolution are critical for model accuracy (West Consultants Inc.,

2017). There are various sources for DEM data and it is becoming easier to find, but in
 9

many areas DEMs aren’t available and data the collection required to produce a high-

quality DEM can be time consuming and expensive to obtain.

The applications of 1D verses 2D models vary. 1D models are typically best for

channelized flow like canals or mountain streams while 2D models are much better for

areas with dynamic flow patterns, such as alluvial fans or estuaries (Colorado Water

Conservation Board, 2006). Ultimately the type of model used will be dependent on the

objectives of the project and the amount of detail required (West Consultants Inc., 2017).

HEC-RAS Hydraulic Analysis

1D Computation Methods: Unsteady Flow

- The governing principles of streamflow are mass conservation (continuity) and

momentum conservation, expressed mathematically as partial differential equations.

HEC-RAS utilizes the continuity and momentum equations to calculate conveyance in

1D unsteady models (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

- Conservation of mass or continuity is calculated based on a control volume, stating the

net rate of flow into the control volume must be equal to the rate of change within the

control volume. The continuity equation is shown in Equation 2.7 with the simplified

final form of the equation presented in Equation 2.8 USACE Hydrologic Engineering

Center, 2016).
 10

𝜕𝐴 𝜕𝑄 ∆𝑥 𝜕𝑄 ∆𝑥
𝜌 𝜕𝑡 ∆𝑥 = 𝜌[(𝑄 − 𝜕𝑥 ) − (𝑄 + 𝜕𝑥 ) + 𝑄𝑙 ] Equation 2.7
2 2

Where:

𝜕𝐴
∆𝑥 = Rate of change in storage
𝜕𝑡

𝜕𝑄 ∆𝑥
(𝑄 − 𝜕𝑥 ) = Rate of inflow
2

𝜕𝑄 ∆𝑥
(𝑄 + 𝜕𝑥 ) = Rate of outflow
2

𝑄𝑙 = Later flow entering the control volume

𝜌 = Fluid density

𝜕𝐴 𝜕𝑄
= ( 𝜕𝑥 ) − 𝑞𝑙 =0 Equation 2.8
𝜕𝑡

- Conservation of momentum is expressed with Newton’s second law, Equation 2.9,

stating that the momentum flux (net rate of momentum flow into the control volume)

plus the sum of all external forces acting on the volume must be equal to the rate at

which the momentum accumulates. The equation is a vector equation. For 1D flow, it is

applied in the direction of flow (x-direction). The external forces considered are gravity,

pressure and boundary drag (friction) (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

-
→
∑ 𝐹𝑥 = 𝑑𝑀 Equation 2.9
𝑑𝑡

The external force on the fluid in the control volume due to gravity is defined in Equation

2.10.
 11

𝜕𝑧𝑜
𝐹𝑔 = −𝜌𝑔𝐴 ∆𝑥 Equation 2.10
𝜕𝑥

Where:

𝑧𝑜 = the channel invert elevation

- The total external pressure force is the integral of the product of pressure and area over

the cross section, which is assumed to be hydrostatic (varying linearly with depth)

USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016). The net pressure force equation is

presented in Equation 2.11.

𝜕ℎ
𝐹𝑃𝑛 = −𝜌𝑔𝐴 𝜕𝑥 ∆𝑥 Equation 2.11

Where:

h = depth

The external drag force is due to the frictional forces between the channel and the fluid,

defined in Equation 2.12.

𝐹𝑓 = −𝜌𝑔𝐴𝑆𝑓 ∆𝑥 Equation 2.12

Where:

𝑆𝑓 = Friction slope

𝑄|𝑄|𝑛2
𝑆𝑓 = Equation 2.13
2.208𝑅 4/3 𝐴2
 12

- Equation 2.13 defines the friction slop using the Manning equation instead of the Chezy

equation. It is the form used most predominantly in the United States and therefore used

in HEC-RAS (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

The momentum flux entering the control volume is defined in Equation 2.14 and the

momentum flux or rate of accumulation of momentum is defined in Equation 2.15.

𝜕𝑄𝑉
−𝜌 ∆𝑥 Equation 2.14
𝜕𝑥

𝜕 𝜕𝑄
(𝜌𝑄∆𝑥) = 𝜌∆𝑥 Equation 2.15
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡

The sum of the external forces (Equations 2.10-2.12) plus the momentum flux into the

control volume (Equation 2.14) is equal to the rate of accumulation of momentum

(Equation 2.15). All equations combine to form the momentum equation (Equation 2.16).

𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝑄𝑉 𝜕ℎ 𝜕𝑧𝑜
𝜌∆𝑥 𝜕𝑡 = −𝜌 ∆𝑥 − 𝜌𝑔𝐴𝑆𝑓 ∆𝑥 − 𝜌𝑔𝐴 𝜕𝑥 ∆𝑥 − 𝜌𝑔𝐴 ∆𝑥 Equation 2.16
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥

Equation 2.16 can be further simplified based on Equation 2.17 since the elevation of the

water surface z is equal to zo +h. The final form of the momentum equation is presented

in Equation 2.18.

𝜕𝑧 𝜕ℎ 𝜕𝑧𝑜
= 𝜕𝑥 + Equation 2.17
𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥
 13

𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝑄𝑉 𝜕𝑧
+ + 𝑔𝐴 (𝜕𝑥 + 𝑆𝑓 ) = 0 Equation 2.18
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥

2D Computation Methods

- HEC-RAS utilizes simplified versions of the Navier-Stokes equations to describe flow in

three directions. When considering channels and floodplains in 2D models, the equations

are further simplified. As with 1D models, 2D models utilize the principles of mass and

momentum conservation. All equations related to 2D analysis assume the bottom surface

elevation is z(x,y), the water depth is h(x,y,t), (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center,

2016) and the water surface elevation is defined by Equation 2.19.

𝐻(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑡) = 𝑧(𝑥, 𝑦) + ℎ(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑡) Equation 2.19

The unsteady differential form of the continuity equation is presented in Equation 2.20,

assuming flow is incompressible.

𝜕𝐻 𝜕(ℎ𝑢) 𝜕(ℎ𝑣)
+ + +𝑞 =0 Equation 2.20
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦

Where:

u = velocity in the x direction

v = velodity in the y direction

q = source/sink flux term

 14

The integral form of the equation is defined in Equation 2.21. This form of the equation is

used when a sub-grid bathymetry approach is followed.

𝜕
𝜕𝑡
∭𝛺 𝛺 + ∬𝑆 𝑉 ∙ 𝑛𝑑𝑆 + 𝑄 = 0 Equation 2.21

Where:

𝛺 = The three-dimensional space occupied by the fluid

V = (u,v) the velocity vector

n = boundary normal vector

S = side boundaries

Q = source/sink flow term

HEC-RAS uses the sub-grid bathymetry approach to incorporate features of fine

bathymetry detail into the relatively coarse grid required to calculate the numeric model.

The grid cells contain hydraulic radius, volume and cross-sectional area information that

is pre-computed using the fine bathymetry thus preserving some of the information from

the high-resolution grid which can be accounted for in the numerical method of the

coarser grid through mass conservation. Since the free water surface is smoother than the

detailed bathymetry the coarse grid can effectively compute the variability in the free

surface elevation (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016). The sub-grid

bathymetry equation is presented in Equation 2.22.

 15

𝛺(𝐻 𝑛+1 )−𝛺(𝐻 𝑛 )

+ ∑𝑘 𝑉𝑘 ∙ 𝑛𝑘 𝐴𝑘 (𝐻) + 𝑄 = 0 Equation
∆𝑡

2.22

Where:

k = cell face

The horizontal length scales in 2D models are much larger than the vertical length scale,

volume conservation implies that the vertical velocity is small. In this case the Navier

Stokes vertical momentum equation justifies pressure as nearly hydrostatic. Without non-

hydrostatic pressure, variable density and wind a vertically averaged form of the

momentum equation is sufficient (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

Neglecting vertical velocity and derivative equations the momentum equation is

represented in Equations 2.23 and 2.24. The left-hand sides of the equations contain the

acceleration terms and the right-hand sides the internal and external forces acting on the

fluid.

𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝐻 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
+ 𝑢 𝜕𝑥 + 𝑣 𝜕𝑦 = −𝑔 𝜕𝑥 + 𝑣𝑡 (𝜕𝑥 2 + 𝜕𝑦 2 ) − 𝑐𝑓 𝑢 + 𝑓𝑣 Equation 2.23
𝜕𝑡

𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝐻 𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕2 𝑣
+ 𝑢 𝜕𝑥 + 𝑣 𝜕𝑦 = −𝑔 𝜕𝑦 + 𝑣𝑡 (𝜕𝑥 2 + 𝜕𝑦 2 ) − 𝑐𝑓 𝑣 + 𝑓𝑢 Equation 2.24
𝜕𝑡

Where:

u and v = Velocities in the Cartesian directions

𝑣𝑡 = Horizontal eddy viscosity coefficient

 16

𝑐𝑓 = Bottom Friction Coefficient

R = Hydraulic Radius

f = Coriolis parameter
 17

CHAPTER 3

MODELING METHODS

This section discusses the modeling methods used to develop the 1D and 2D models. The

sub-sections are presented in the order of the workflow used to develop the models.

Model development began with data gathering (elevation data), land cover delineation,

flow data set-up, 2D model set-up followed by 1D model set-up, plan file creation and

finally model calibration.

Elevation Data

The 1D and 2D model geometries are based on a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the

Napa River created using LiDAR data collected on June 19-20, 2014 (Napa County,

2014). The DEM was clipped to the model extents in order to decrease file size and

model computation time. The DEM grid cell size is 3 feet by 3 feet.

Land Cover Delineation

The major land use categories in St. Helena are: residential, commercial and mixed use,

business and industrial and community and natural resource. Of the total land in St.

Helena, 74.3% falls into the community and natural resources category, 48.3% of which

is agricultural land (City of St. Helena, 2015). The land use categories for the model

geometry were simplified into three categories: trees and dense brush, agriculture and

buildings/residential and floodplain/river channel, the corresponding base Manning’s n

values used for land use classification are shown in Table 2. The values were determined
 18

from the n-values used in the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FEMA, 2016) for Napa

County dated August 3, 2016. Once the categories and n-values were established, the

model area was delineated using ArcGIS. The final n-values for each model differ from

the base values and are further discussed in the calibration section of the results.

Table 2 Base Manning's n-values

Land Use Type Manning’s n-value

Floodplain/River Channel 0.04
Agriculture and Buildings 0.05
Trees and/or Dense Brush 0.06

Flow Data

The model flow file was developed using data from the USGS rating curve for gage

11456000 ‘Napa R Nr St Helena CA. Seven steady state flow rates were determined from

the rating curve based corresponding gage heights from 14-26 feet at 2 foot intervals. The

rating curve ends at 24 feet, so the flow rate for gage height 26 feet was extrapolated

from the curve, shown in Figure 2. The curve was extrapolated to include this maximum

flow rate in order to include an extreme case of flood inundation. Flow rates were

determined in this manner to simplify the calibration process for each model which will

be further discussed in the following calibration section. The HEC-RAS unsteady flow

input file is provided in Appendix A.

 19

Napa River at Pope Street Rating Curve

USGS

30

25

20
Gage Height (feet)

15

10

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Flow (cfs)

Figure 2 USGS Rating Curve: Napa River at Pope Street

Each flow rate was maintained for 8 hours of simulation time in order to allow the

models to equilibrate before ramping up the inflow to the next flow rate over another 8-

hour period. In order to simplify the model computations and eliminate the need for each

flow rate to ramp up from zero all flows were simulated in succession using a single

hydrograph (Greif, 2017).

The boundary conditions for the models were developed based on the FIS report. Two

upstream boundary conditions were used, one on the Napa River at Pratt Avenue and one

on Sulphur Creek. The assumed energy grade slopes were determined by the average
 20

slope of the 100-year water surface profiles upstream of the boundary condition location,

based on the FIS. The boundary conditions were used by the model to distribute the

inflow across the flow boundary line. The portion of total inflow assigned to the Sulphur

Creek inflow boundary for each simulation was assigned based on the ratio of 100-year

peak flow rates between Sulphur Creek at the confluence with the Napa River and the

Napa River at Zinfandel Lane as listed in the FIS. The downstream model boundary at

Zinfandel is a normal depth-type condition. The slope was calculated from the average

slope of the 100-year water surface profile extending downstream from Zinfandel

Avenue as depicted on the flood profiles in the FIS (Greif, 2016). All FIS report data

used for model development is included in Appendix A.

2D Model Set-up

The 2D model was created before the 1D model and is therefore discussed first. Many of

the model parameters of the 2D model were used to create the 1D model.

HEC-RAS Geometry Set-up

The 2D model geometry was created in the HEC-RAS geometry editor. First the DEM

was imported into RAS mapper to create the model terrain. Next, the perimeter of the 2D

grid area was drawn using the 500-year floodplain of the FIS as a guide, extending

laterally far enough to encompass the inundation areas along the Napa River, with the

exception of Sulphur Creek. As previously discussed the length of Sulphur Creek

included in the model was limited to 1,380 feet and only included to represent the
 21

inundation area around its confluence with the Napa River. The grid area along the right

bank of the Napa River upstream of the Sulphur Creek confluence was drawn along the

Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park Floodwall which was designed to withstand

maximum flood conditions. The finished grid was then associated with the previously

created terrain in RAS mapper

Once the 2D perimeter was established, the boundary conditions were drawn in at the

previously discussed locations and the computational mesh was created with an initial

grid spacing of 50 feet by 50 feet. The mesh was further refined using breaklines, which

force the computational cell faces of the mesh to align along high points in the terrain that

acted as barriers to flow or controlled the flow direction (USACE Hydrologic

Engineering Center, 2016). Figure 3 shows the 2D geometry set-up: the perimeter is

represented by the bold black line and the breaklines are represented by the pink lines.

The 2D flow area computation points are presented in Table 3.

 22

Figure 3 2D Geometry set-up

Table 3 2D Flow Area Computation Points

Mesh Max Cell Area Min Cell Area Average Cell Area
(# of cells) (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft)
24,725 21,775.4 979.7 2,522.09

1D Model Set-up

The geometry set-up for a 1D model is more involved than a 2D model as it requires

thoughtful planning of cross sections and flow paths while the 2D model simply requires

a grid boundary around the potential inundation extent. 1D model set-up was completed

using HEC-GeoRAS (GeoRAS), a graphical user interface in ArcGIS containing a set of

 23

procedures, tools and utilities for processing geospatial data (USACE Hydrologic

Engineering Center, 2009). Geometric data was prepared in ArcGIS and imported into

HEC-RAS. The 2D model geometry and resulting flow paths were used to guide the 1D

model set-up in order to create an equivalent model that could be used for comparison.

HEC-GeoRAS Geometry Set-up

The previously created DEM was imported into GeoRAS and used as a base to create the

series of layers required for developing the HEC-RAS import file. The pertinent line

layers included the Stream Centerline (reach), Main Channel Banks (bank points), Cross

Section Cut Lines (cross sections), Flow Path Centerlines (flow lines), Land Cover and

Ineffective Areas.

The Stream Centerline layer was created first as is recommended since it establishes the

river reaches that tether the remaining geometry layers (USACE Hydrologic Engineering

Center, 2009). Three reaches were drawn from upstream to downstream, listed in order:

Napa River-St. Helena, Sulphur Creek and Napa River-St. Helena_ds. The confluence of

Sulphur Creek creates a connection that requires the main reach of the Napa River be

split into two sections, upstream and downstream of the confluence. Next the Main

Channel Banks layer was created to establish the left and right bank stations along each

reach.
 24

Using the established reaches and bank stations as a guide, the cross sections were drawn

from the left overbank to the right overbank, looking downstream. The cross sections

were drawn at an average interval of 200 feet to represent the flow carrying capacity of

the channel and adjacent floodplain. The left and right extents of the cross sections were

drawn perpendicular to the anticipated flow lines extended across the floodplain to match

the extents of the previously developed 2D grid perimeter. Adjustments were made to all

cross sections after the flow lines were drawn.

Flow Path Centerlines were drawn through the centroid of flow of the left overbank,

channel and right overbank of each reach which when imported into HEC-RAS provided

the downstream reach lengths between cross sections. This layer is optional, but if

omitted the reach lengths for the entire cross section are considered uniform and

determined by the Stream Centerline (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2009).

Relying only on the Stream Centerline layer decreases the accuracy of overbank flow

conveyance in the model.

Additional optional layers included in the GeoRAS set-up were the Land Cover layer and

the Ineffective Areas layer. Creation of the land cover layer was previously described in

section 3.2 and used in the GeoRAS set-up to apply the base Manning’s n values to each

cross section. The ineffective areas were drawn to define areas of inundation that are not

actively conveying water (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016). The 2D model

results were used as a guide to determine the ineffective areas throughout the model. In
 25

GeoRAS the ineffective areas are only defined in the horizontal plane, the elevation

assigned is not based on the terrain. Since ineffective areas typically change as the water

surface elevation changes, increased water surface elevations result in less ineffective

area, the ineffective area elevations were manually adjusted once they were imported into

HEC-RAS.

Model Plan Files

The final step in the model set-up required the creation of plan files, which determine the

overall calculation settings for each model run. The plan file is used to set the geometry

and flow files, the simulation time window and the computation settings. All of which

were discussed in previous sections except for the computation settings, which determine

the computational interval, the mapping output interval, the hydrograph output interval

and the detailed output interval. The computation interval is a critical component of

HEC-RAS model set-up as an incorrect time step can lead to model instability issues.

This is because the unsteady flow equations are derivatives calculated with respect to

distance and time. If hydraulic properties are changing quickly and the computation

interval is too large the model becomes unstable. In contrast if the computational interval

is too small the leading edge of the flood wave will steepen, which could cause

oscillation which also causes instability (Brunner, 2016).

 26

For the purpose of these models the computational interval was determined using the

courant number, the equation 3.1. The courant number is a function of the velocity and

the cell size for 2D models and cross-section distance for 1D models.

𝑉𝑆 ∆𝑇
𝐶= Equation 3.1
∆𝑋

For the 2D model, two plans were created. One was for model calibration and the other

was for the final model results, both used the full momentum equation. It is

recommended for the Courant number to be less than or equal to 1 with a maximum of 3

for the full momentum equation (West Consultants Inc., 2017). All 2D model plans were

run with a computational interval of 30 seconds to satisfy the Courant condition

Two plan files were created for the 1D model, one for the calibration and one for the final

model. Both models also utilized a computational interval of 30 seconds since the cross-

section spacing was comparable to the mesh size and there were no instability issues

when the 2D models were initially run.

Calibration

Calibration is the reasonable adjustment of model parameters to reproduce measured

values with acceptable accuracy (West Consultants Inc., 2017). For the purpose of this

project, the goal of calibration was two-fold. First was to produce results that could be

used to accurately assess flood inundation risk by modeling water surface elevations that
 27

matched measured water surface elevations. Second was to create modeled results that

could be accurately compared to each other by calibrating the 1D model to the previously

calibrated water surface elevations of the 2D model.

The USGS gage at Pope Street was used as the point of calibration because it provided

the necessary measured values. As previously discussed in the flow section, the flow data

was set-up to support efficient calibration. Since each of the seven flow rates corresponds

to an even interval of the USGS rating curve the models were adjusted to the measured

stage at each flow rate. Calibration was achieved by changing the models’ Manning’s n-

values until the water surface elevations at the Pope Street gage location closely matched

the gage height of the rating curve. Based on the Manning’s equation (Equation 3.2)

(USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016):

1.468 2⁄
𝐾= 𝐴𝑅 3 Equation 3.2
𝑛

modeled n-values are inversely related to conveyance and directly proportional to the

calculated water surface elevations. Therefore, an increase in the modeled n-values

resulted in an increase in the calculated water surface elevations and vice versa. Figure 4

shows the modeled water surface elevations of the calibrated vs. uncalibrated 1D model

at Pope Street. The figure supports the aforementioned correlation because the calibrated

n-values for the 1D model were increased from the base values and the resulting water
 28

surface also increased. Final n-values for both models differ from the base values and are

further discussed in the following calibration section of the results.

1D Calibration Comparison at Pope St. Gage

225
Water Surface Elevation (feet NAVD88)

220

215

210

205

200

195

190
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Station (feet)

1D_Uncal 1D_Cal Terrain

Figure 4 Calculated water surface elevation comparison of calibrated and un-calibrated 1D models
 29

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will compare the results of the HEC-RAS 5.0.3 1D and 2D models of the

Napa River through the City of St. Helena. The model results are compared based on

calibration, run time, velocity, water surface elevation profiles and inundation extents.

Within each category, the significant model differences are determined, the causes of

those differences are explained and recommendations are made as to which model is

better suited for flood inundation mapping. For the purpose of this report only the

significant points of comparison are discussed, the additional results for water surface

elevations and inundation extents are provided in Appendix B.

Calibration

Upon final calibration, the Manning’s n-values for the 1D model were 25-34% greater

than the n-values of the 2D model, depending on the land use type. Table 4 shows the

resulting n-values for each model. The final column of the table shows the calculated

percent increase of the 1D n-values from the 2D n-values.

 30

Table 4 Calibrated Manning's n-values for 1D and 2D models

Base 2D 1D %
n-value Calibrated Calibrated Increase
Land Use Type
n-value n-value of 1D
from 2D
Floodplain/River 0.04 0.0376 0.0505 34%
Channel
Agriculture and 0.05 0.0470 0.0605 29%
Buildings
Trees and/or 0.06 0.0564 0.0705 25%
Dense Brush

Table 5 presents the results of the calibration based on comparison of the measured and

modeled gage heights at the Pope Street gage location. All resulting gage heights for the

1D and 2D models are less than 5.5% different from the measured values. This is

considered an acceptable range, making both models acceptable flood inundation

mapping tools.

The final column of Table 5 shows the calculated percent difference between the 1D and

2D modeled gage heights. The differences range from 0.33-0.01%. The highlighted

values in Table 5, gage heights 20-24, are the points of critical calibration because the

flooding extents at these gage heights become much more significant and therefore model

accuracy is most important. Figure 5 shows these points graphically compared with the

USGS rating curve. The difference between these points ranges from 0.01-0.03% which

is considered negligible. This means the 1D and 2D models are well suited for an

accurate comparison. This also means the previously mentioned percent increase of
 31

Manning’s n-values from 2D to 1D cannot be explained by the calibration and must be a

result of the model computations.

Table 5 Comparison of measured and modeled gage heights at Pope Street gage

2D 1D
% % %
HEC-RAS HEC-RAS
USGS Gage Difference Difference Difference
Gage Gage
Height (ft) of USGS of USGS of
Height Height
and 2D and 1D 1D and 2D
(ft) (ft)
14 14.75 5.4% 14.68 4.9% 0.33%
16 16.02 0.1% 15.96 -0.2% -0.02%
18 17.52 -2.7% 17.52 -2.7% -0.15%
20 19.87 -0.6% 19.88 -0.6% -0.03%
22 22.18 0.8% 22.04 0.2% 0.01%
24 23.97 -0.1% 23.93 -0.3% -0.01%
26 24.72 -4.9% 24.71 -5.0% -0.20%

Napa River at Pope Street Rating Curve

USGS HEC-RAS 1D HEC-RAS 2D

25

24
Gage Height (feet)

23

22

21

20

19
10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000
Flow (cfs)

Figure 5 Rating curve comparison of critical calibration points for measured and modeled gage
heights
 32

The difference in Manning’s n-values (hydraulic roughness) can be explained by the

methods used to calculate loss in 1D and 2D models. The calculation processes of 1D and

2D models are closely related, but not exactly the same. The hydraulic roughness

parameter for the 1D model is used to account for the following: friction losses due to the

bed material of the channel or floodplain, form losses due to turbulence in a channel or

floodplain caused by channel geometry, drag losses caused by obstructions in the channel

or floodplain, form losses between cross sections due to variations in geometry and losses

due to channel bends. In the 2D model computation most of these losses are included in

the calculations (West Consultants Inc., 2017). Table 6 summarizes the forms of the

conservation of mass and momentum equations used to calculate 1D versus 2D models.

The bed friction (cf), viscosity/turbulence (vt) and Coriolis effect (fv) terms in the 2D

conservation of momentum equation account for some of the previously discussed losses

that have to be included in the hydraulic roughness parameter of the 1D model (USACE

Hydrologic Engineering Center, 2016).

 33

Table 6 Conservation of mass and momentum equation comparison between 1D and 2D models

Conservation of Mass Conservation of Momentum

1D 2D
𝝏𝑨 𝝏𝑸 𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝑄𝑉 𝜕𝑧
+ ( 𝝏𝒙 ) − 𝒒𝒍 =0 + + 𝑔𝐴 (𝜕𝑥 + 𝑆𝑓 ) = 0
𝝏𝒕 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥

𝝏𝑯 𝝏(𝒉𝒖) 𝝏(𝒉𝒗) 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢
+ + +𝒒=𝟎 + 𝑢 𝜕𝑥 + 𝑣 𝜕𝑦 =
𝝏𝒕 𝝏𝒙 𝝏𝒚 𝜕𝑡

𝜕𝐻 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
−𝑔 𝜕𝑥 + 𝑣𝑡 (𝜕𝑥 2 + 𝜕𝑦 2 ) − 𝑐𝑓 𝑢 + 𝑓𝑣

𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣 𝜕𝑣
+ 𝑢 𝜕𝑥 + 𝑣 𝜕𝑦 =
𝜕𝑡

𝜕𝐻 𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕2 𝑣
−𝑔 𝜕𝑦 + 𝑣𝑡 (𝜕𝑥 2 + 𝜕𝑦 2 ) − 𝑐𝑓 𝑣 + 𝑓𝑢

Although the final Manning’s n-values vary significantly between the 1D and 2D models,

the difference does not necessarily make one model better suited for flood inundation

mapping than the other. The critical component of calibration is the quality of the

observed/measured data and the models’ ability to accurately represent those values. As

long as the appropriate steps are taken to calibrate the model to the observed data within

an acceptable range, both 1D and 2D models produce extremely similar calibration

results. However, if using a 1D model the calibration process will be considerably faster,

due to less calibration model runs, if the base Manning’s n-values are increased slightly

from the determined land use values.

 34

Run Time

As was expected the run time for the 1D model was much faster than the 2D model.

Table 7 summarizes the model run times based on each computational task with the total

run time summarized in the final column. The 2D model took twenty-two minutes and

three seconds, while the 1D model only took forty-nine seconds. The largest difference in

run time (include percent difference between the run time of 1D and 2D) between the two

models is the computation of unsteady flow, which is the most significant task. The run

time for larger and more complicated projects is expected to be longer for 2D model

compared to 1D model, which makes this comparison a more significant factor during

flood events.

Table 7 Run time comparison between 1D and 2D models

Model Computation Task Run Times (mm:ss)
Geometry Unsteady Writing Post- Total %
Flow to DSS Processing Time Difference
1D 0:02 0:14 0:06 0:27 0:49
2D Full 0:31 21:30 0:01 0:01 22:03 96%
Momentum

The significant increase in run time for the 2D model is explained by the inherently more

complex nature of the 2D model computations. There are multiple model factors that are

assumed, neglected or pre-determined in a 1D model that are computed in 2D

computations. Those factors include: flow direction (pre-determined in 1D), transverse

velocity and momentum (neglected in 1D), transverse velocity distribution (assumed in

1D) and transverse variations in water surface elevation (neglected in 1D) (Colorado
 35

Water Resources Board, 2006). Although the calculation of these factors increases the

model run time it also provides a more accurate and detailed model.

When considered on run time alone, it is clear that the 1D model is more favorable for a

flood inundation mapping project because a project that takes less time to complete is

typically a more budget friendly project. A faster model also allows for quicker

calibration. However, the computation factors that cause a 2D model to run slower are

factors that provide a more detailed model result; especially in areas where flow is

expected to spread out into the floodplain, as it would in a model for flood inundation

mapping. The difference in run time between 1D and 2D models raises important

questions. On one hand, the 1D model is likely better for the budget/scope of the project,

while the 2D model is likely to predict the flood inundation extents more accurately. This

idea is further explored in the following results sections.

Velocity

The significant differences in the velocities of the 1D and 2D model are most evident

when the velocities are at their maximum values. This occurs in the final time step of the

model when the flow rate and resulting flood inundation extents are also at their

maximum. There are three locations in the models that present significant differences

between the 1D and 2D velocities; they are indicated with black ovals in Figures 6 and 7.

In these locations, the 1D velocities are higher than the 2D velocities through the main
 36

channel while the 2D velocities are higher in the overbank areas. There are two potential

causes for these differences.

Figure 6 Maximum velocity distribution for 1D model

 37

Figure 7 Maximum velocity distribution for 2D model

The first potential cause for this difference and likely the most significant is the way in

which model velocity is averaged in a 1D model. The conveyance and velocity of a 1D

model are calculated based on cross sections that are sub-divided into three categories:

left overbank, right overbank and channel. The overbank sections are further subdivided

into sections based on the n-value break points (USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center,

2016). By averaging the velocities in this way, the velocity gradients are smoothed over,

which can lead to slower velocities in the overbank area of the model. The 2D model
 38

velocity is calculated for each individual cell which results in a more detailed depiction of

the overbank model velocity.

Figure 8 shows three 1D cross sections with the 2D model grid transposed over the top.

The figure shows the right overbank subsections of the top cross section with their

corresponding lengths. The total length of the right overbank is approximately 5,750 feet.

Based on that length and an average 2D cell width of 50 feet there are approximately 115

cells in the 2D grid, each calculating its own velocity, while the 1D velocity is calculated

for the three subsections that are then averaged to provide the right overbank velocity.

With this example, it is easy to see how the velocity can be underestimated in the

overbank area of the 1D model due to averaging, especially when there is minimal

variation in the overbank n-values.

Subsection 1 Subsection 2
~3670 ft ~1988 ft

Subsection 3
~92 ft

Right Overbank Subsections for 1D Cross Section

Figure 8 Right overbank subsections for 1D cross section transposed with the 2D grid

The second cause for lower overbank velocities in the 1D model is a result of

inaccurately defined ineffective areas. The ineffective areas define parts of the cross
 39

section that contain water that is not being actively conveyed. They are defined in areas

of the model where water was likely to pond, however in many of these areas the

effectiveness of the flow is dependent on the water surface elevation. For example, a low

spot along a cross section may be ineffective until the upstream water surface elevation is

high enough to create a flow path through that low spot, turning it into effective flow.

Due to the varying nature of ineffective flow areas, setting them up can be tedious and

time consuming. Upon further review of the ineffective areas in the model, it is evident

that the elevations of some ineffective areas are too high, causing a decrease in

conveyance which explains the lower velocity in some overbank areas of the 1D model.

The higher channel velocities in the 1D model are a result of the lower velocities in the

overbank area. The flow conveyed at these points is the same in the 1D and 2D models.

So, if the overbank velocity and conveyance are underestimated in the 1D model then the

conveyance through the channel has to increase to satisfy the continuity of mass. The

higher velocities calculated in the channel of the 1D model create further implications for

other model variables. Due to the way water surface elevations are calculated in areas of

contraction and expansion a higher velocity can result in a lower water surface. This will

be further discussed in the following water surface elevation section.

Based on the differences between overbank velocities in 1D and 2D models, caused by

cross section averaging in 1D models, it is clear that the 2D model is better suited for

flood inundation mapping. The velocity results provided by the 2D model are more
 40

detailed and therefor more accurate than the 1D model results. For the purposes of flood

inundation mapping, velocity is not a critical variable to report, but it is consequent to the

calculated water surface elevation which is critical to the accurate representation of flood

inundation extents. Even though, the velocity is not a critical variable to report in a flood

event, it can indicate the velocity of the flood wave which might have flood damage

strength implications.

The lower velocities in the 1D model that were caused by inaccurately defined ineffective

areas provides an additional argument for the use of a 2D model. The proper

determination of ineffective areas in a 1D model takes time and a considerable amount of

engineering judgement during the set-up of model geometry. The 2D model geometry

set-up is faster and doesn’t require the same level of expertise since the areas of

ineffective flow are calculated inherently within the model. Therefore, the use of a 2D

model is more effective for the project scope and budget as well as the model results. In

addition, the time saved during model set-up could make up for the time lost due to

model run time.

Water Surface Elevation

Modeled water surface elevations are the most important results produced during a flood

inundation mapping project, along with inundation extents, which will be discussed in the

following section. The water surface elevations produced by the model are used to predict

the maximum water depths at critical locations during a given flood event. The results
 41

provided by this study show that on average, the maximum water surface elevations in

the 2D model are greater than the 1D model, with some exception. The maximum water

surface profile through the Napa River centerline in Figure 9 provides the evidence.

Max Water Surface Profile through Napa River

Centerline
240
Pratt Ave.
Pope St

XS 11526
230

XS 7540

Zinfandel Ln.
220
Elevation (NAVD88)

210

200

190

180

170

160
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000
Station (feet)

2D 1D Terrain

Figure 9 Maximum water surface profile through Napa River centerline

Table 8 presents the average difference in water surface elevation between the 1D and 2D

models at four model cross sections, from upstream to downstream: Pratt Avenue, Cross

Section 11526, Cross Section 7540 and Zinfandel Avenue calculated for each of the

seven modeled flow rates.

 42

Table 8 Average difference between 1D and 2D water surface elevations

Average Difference of Cross Section Water Surface Elevation

4,730 5,930 7,610 10,600 14,200 18,600 23,161
Location cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs Avg.
Pratt Avenue 0.059 0.066 0.086 0.211 0.461 0.646 0.709 0.320
Pope Street 0.001 0.001 -0.002 -0.004 0.004 -0.077 -0.125 -0.029
XS 11526 -0.003 -0.006 -0.009 -0.026 -0.013 0.024 -0.019 -0.007
XS 7540 0.003 0.004 -0.004 -0.014 0.003 0.381 0.444 0.117
Zinfandel
Avenue -0.238 -0.270 -0.218 0.581 1.452 1.819 2.012 0.734

The negative values in the table represent the exceptions, when the water surface

elevations of the 1D model are greater the 2D model. These instances occur at cross

sections 11526 and 7540, which are used to represent the section of the models

downstream from the Pope Street gage location used for calibration. The average

differences in these cases can be considered negligible for the purpose of comparing the

1D and 2D model results in this study because they are less than a tenth of a foot and

occur mostly at lower flow rates when flooding is minimal. However, it is important to

note that the profile view in Figure 9 shows the 1D water surface elevation to be

somewhat significantly higher than the 2D model at cross section 11526. This is true if

only the centerline profile is considered, however Figure 10 below shows the cross-

section view at this location where one can see that the 1D model’s water surface is

higher in the channel, but the 2D model is higher in the overbank. This is why the

average difference at this location is only -0.019 feet. The results appear this way because

the 1D model water surface elevation is calculated as one value for the entire cross

section, while the 2D model calculates the water surface elevation based on each
 43

individual grid cell making the 2D model better suited for calculating flow in the

overbank areas of a model.

Max Water Surface Elevation

Comparison at XS 11526
215
Water Surface Elevation (NAVD88)

210

205

200

195

190

185
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Station (feet)

2D - 7 1D - 7 Terrain

Figure 10 Maximum water surface elevation comparison at cross section 11526

The average increase in the 2D model water surface elevations can be mostly explained

by expansion and contraction. The 2D model accounts for expansion and contraction

using the model terrain. The 1D model calculates headloss due to expansion and

contraction with the following equation (Equation 4.1), where C is the

contraction/expansion coefficient pre-determined by the modeler (USACE Hydrologic

Engineering Center,2016):
 44

𝛼1 𝑉12 𝛼2 𝑉22
ℎ =𝐶| − | Equation 4.1
2𝑔 2𝑔

When there are high velocities in the channel of the 1D model and headloss due to

expansion/contraction is assumed, it is typically underestimated because the 1D cross

sections don’t capture all the nuanced detail in the terrain. Although it is possible to

adjust the coefficients of contraction/expansion in the 1D model to better estimate the

headloss, it still won’t be as accurate as the losses determined by the grid computations of

the 2D model. When the headloss due to contraction and expansion is underestimated the

resulting water surface elevations are also underestimated.

The evidence provided by the differences in water surface elevations between the 1D and

2D models demonstrates that the 2D model is better suited for the application of flood

inundation mapping. A 2D model will provide more accurate results necessary for

determining the severity and potential impacts of a flood event.

Inundation Extents

The differences in the inundation extents of the 1D and 2D models vary, as is evident in

Figure 11, which distinguishes the areas of significant difference between the 1D and 2D

model inundation extents with red ovals. These differences are due to the manner in

which the water surface elevations are calculated in the 1D and 2D models. Since the

model inundation extents are determined by the computed water surface elevations, the

same reasoning of the previous section also applies here.

 45

Figure 11 Inundation extents of 1D and 2D models at 14,200 cfs

The first significant difference in the inundation extents is seen in the downstream end of

the study area where the 1D model inundation extents are greater than the 2D model. The

second significant difference is shown in the middle part of the study area where the 2D

model inundation extents exceed those of the 1D model. The differences in both of these

cases are attributed to the calculation of a single water surface elevation at each cross

section in the 1D model. Previously explained by Figure 10, a single water surface

elevation is calculated at each cross section in the 1D model and that value is extended
 46

along the cross section until it intersects with the terrain. This causes the inundation

extents in the overbank to be misrepresented either overestimating or underestimating the

inundation extents depending on the terrain. This misrepresentation is avoided in the 2D

model because the inundation extent is based on the water surface elevations calculated

in each cell. By calculating the water surface elevation in each cell, the 2D model is able

to more accurately determine overbank flow paths in the model which is further

supported by Figure 12. Figure 12 is a comparison of the water surface elevations for the

1D and 2D models at cross section 9352, which is shown in Figure 11. The comparison

shows the overbank flow paths determined by the 2D model calculation which result in

additional inundation area that isn’t represented by the 1D model.

 47

Water Surface Elevation Comparison

at XS 9352
214
Water Surface Elevation (NAVD88)

209

204

199

194

189

184
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Station (feet)

2D - 5 1D - 5 Terrain

Figure 12 Water surface elevation comparison at cross section 9352

Comparison of the 1D and 2D models based on their inundation extents provides further

support that the 2D model is better suited for flood inundation mapping projects. The 2D

model provides more detailed and therefore more accurate representation of the overbank

areas of the model which is critical for producing accurate flood inundation maps.
 48

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of the 1D/2D model comparison, discussed in chapter 4, demonstrate that the

2D model provides a more accurate representation of the Napa River floodplain and in

this case, is better suited for flood inundation mapping. Based on the five parameters used

for comparison: calibration, run time, velocity, water surface elevation and inundation

extents the 1D model provided some advantage over the 2D model, but ultimately the

detail provided by the 2D model results was more favorable. The Manning’s n-values of

the 1D model were on average 29% higher than the 2D model in order to produce the

same calibrated results. This is because the manning’s n-values of the 1D model are used

to account for a significant portion of the hydraulic losses within the model, while the 2D

model computation scheme accounts for those same losses allowing for a more accurate

computation of hydraulic losses within the model.

The computation time for the 1D model was 21 minutes and 14 seconds faster than the

2D model, providing much quicker results. This is an advantage of the 1D model and an

important consideration when it comes to the schedule and budget of a project. A quicker

run time allows more time for sensitivity analysis and calibration of a model. However,

the time and level of expertise required to develop a quality 1D model can sometimes

outweigh the benefits of computational run time. This was made evident by the

inaccuracies in the set-up the ineffective flow areas of the 1D model that led to some

error in the overbank velocities of the model.

 49

The 2D model provided a more detailed representation of the floodplain velocities. This

is because of the way the conveyance and velocity are calculated in each of the models.

In the floodplain of the 2D model, the velocities were calculated across each 50 foot grid

cell. In the 1D model, the velocities were computed along each cross section based on

sub-sections determined by the assigned Manning’s n-values. The sub-section velocities

were then averaged across the entire overbank region of each cross section which ranged

from approximately 1,100-5,600 feet in the right overbank of the model. This is

significantly larger than the 2D grid cell size A better representation of the floodplain by

more detailed velocity and conveyance calculations makes the 2D model a better tool for

flood inundation mapping.

The modeled water surface elevations and inundation extents are variables of the velocity

and conveyance of the model which means the 2D model also provides more detailed

water surface elevation and inundation results. In the 1D model the water surface

elevation is calculated for each cross section and then linearly interpolated between cross

sections to determine the inundation extents. As previously discussed for velocity, the

water surface elevation and inundation extents for the 2D model are calculated for each

gird cell. The more detailed results of the 2D model computed water surface elevations to

be more than 2 feet higher than the 1D model in some areas. A 2 foot decrease in water

surface elevation could significantly impact the inundation extents of a model which

would create a much less conservative flood inundation map.

 50

The goal of hydraulic model development for flood inundation mapping is to produce

results that can be used to predict important information related to flood events and use

that information to develop emergency action plans that can be used to lessen the impacts

on the surrounding community. The accuracy of the maximum water surface elevations

and inundation extents provided by the model, coupled with real time USGS gage data

and NWS forecasts are critical to making informed operational decisions during a flood

event. For the purpose of this study the 2D model is best suited to inform this process.

The models produced by this study address a specific application of hydraulic modeling

for the development of flood inundation maps. The 1D and 2D models were developed

using high resolution terrain data and the resulting computations showed that the 2D

model provided more detailed results. The quality of the terrain data used for model

development is critical to the accuracy of 2D model results. In the absence of high quality

terrain data, a 1D model can provide better results. Beyond flood inundation mapping

there are other applications that can be modeled using 1D or 2D hydraulic models, such

as canals or levee breaches. Developing a model for a canal or any other application with

a well-defined channel is best for a 1D model. Modeling a levee breach where flow

spreads over a wide flat area without a clearly defined flow path is best represented by a

2D model (West Consultants Inc., 2017). Ultimately, the type of model used is dependent

on the objective of the study, the quality of the data and the experience of the modeler.
 51

APPENDIX A
MODEL INPUT DATA
 52

FIS report Manning's n-values (FEMA, 2016)

 53

HEC-RAS Unsteady Flow Input

Napa Sulphur
Total River Creek
Discharge Discharge Discharge
Date Time (cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
12/1/2016 0:00 14 4730 4083 647
12/1/2016 8:00 4730 4083 647
12/1/2016 16:00 16 5930 5118 812
12/2/2016 0:00 5930 5118 812
12/2/2016 8:00 18 7610 6568 1042
12/2/2016 16:00 7610 6568 1042
12/3/2016 0:00 20 10600 9149 1451
12/3/2016 8:00 10600 9149 1451
12/3/2016 16:00 22 14200 12256 1944

12/4/2016 0:00 14200 12256 1944

12/4/2016 8:00 24 18600 16054 2546
12/4/2016 16:00 18600 16054 2546
12/5/2016 0:00 26 21415 18484 2931
12/5/2016 8:00 21415 18484 2931
Flow Split Multiplier: 0.8631 0.1369
 54

FIS report peak discharge values for Napa River (FEMA, 2016)
 55

FIS report peak discharge values for Sulphur Creek (FEMA, 2016)
 56

FIS report Napa River 100 year flood profile , upstream end of model (FEMA, 2016)
 57

FIS report Napa River 100 year flood profile, downstream end of model (FEMA, 2016)
 58

FIS report Sulphur Creek 100 year flood profile (FEMA, 2016)
 59

APPENDIX B
ADDITIONAL RESULTS
 60

Water Surface Elevation Comparisonat Pratt Ave

240

235
Water Surface Elevation (NAVD88)

230

225

220

215

210

205

200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Station (feet)
2D - 1 1D - 1 2D - 4 1D - 4 2D - 7 1D - 7 Terrain

Water Surface Elevation Comparison at Pope St

for Each Model Flow Rate
225
Water Surface Elevation (NAVD88)

220

215

210

205

200

195

190
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Station (feet)

2D WSE 1D WSE Terrain

 61

Water Surface Elevation Comparison at Zinfandel Avenue

205

200
Water Surface Elevation (NAVD88)

195

190

185

180

175

170

165

160
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Station (feet)

2D - 1 1D - 1 2D - 4 1D - 4 2D - 7 1D - 7 Terrain
62
63
64
65
66
67
 68

Inundation Extents at 23,161 cfs

 69

REFERENCES

Brunner, G. W., P.E. (n.d.). Common Model Stability Problems When Performing an

Unsteady Flow Analysis(Rep.). Davis, CA: USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center.

City of St. Helena Draft General Plan(Rep.). (2015). St. Helena, CA: City of St. Helena.

Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual(Chapter 10 Hydraulic Analysis ed.,

Section 1 Detailed Method, Rep.). (2006). Denver, CO: Colorado Water Conservation

Board.

Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater Criteria Manual(Chapter 12 Unique Hydraulic

Conditions ed., Section 1 Alluvial Fan Hazards, Rep.). (2006). Denver, CO: Colorado

Water Conservation Board.

Cook, A. C. (2008). Comparison of One-Dimensional HEC-RAS with Two-Dimensional

FESWMS Model in Flood Inundation Mapping(Rep.). West Lafayettte, IN: Purdue

University.

Flood Insurance Study Napa County, California and Incorporated Areas(Rep. No.

06055CV000C). (2016). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Greif, R. (2016). Technical Memorandum: Flood Response Operations for Napa River in St.

Helena(Tech.). Sacramento, CA: Mead & Hunt.

National Weather Service Corporate Image Web Team. (2000, January 01). California

Nevada River Forecast Center. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/graphicalRVF.php?id=SHEC1
 70

The National Weather Service, & The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

(2012). Inundation Mapping(Vol. 2.0, Rep.). Office of Hydrologic Development/Office

of Climate Water and Weather Services.

U.S. Geological Survey Flood Inundation Mapping Science. (n.d.). Flood Inundation

Mapping (FIM) Program. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from

https://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/

US Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Weather Service. (n.d.). National Weather

Service Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service. Retrieved November 12, 2017, from

http://water.weather.gov/ahps2/hydrograph.php?gage=shec1&wfo=mtr

USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center. (2009). HEC-GeoRAS GIS Tools for Support of

HEC-RAS using ArcGIS(Rep.). Davis, CA.

USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center. (2016). HEC-RAS 5.0 Hydraulic Reference

Manual(Rep.). Davis, CA.

USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center. (2016). HEC-RAS River Analysis System User's

Manual(Version 5.0, Rep.). Davis, CA.

USGS 11456000 Napa R Nr St Helena CA. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2017, from

https://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/uv?site_no=11456000

West Consultants Inc. (2017). Two Dimensional Modeling Using HEC-RAS(3-Day Course,

Rep.). San Diego, CA.