Influence of the concept of subgrid variability and computational mesh dimensions on the performance of HEC-RAS 2D model in simulating river floodplains (Case study: Sarbaz River)

Subject Areas : Farm water management with the aim of improving irrigation management indicators

Amir Samadi ¹ , Asghar Azizian ²

1 - Imam Khomeini International University
2 - Imam Khomeini International University

Received: 2019-04-04 Accepted : 2020-02-17 Published : 2020-05-21

Keywords: Sarbaz River, River Eng, HEC-RAS, Computational Mesh Dimensions, Subgrid-Variability,

Abstract :

The 2D HEC-RAS model uses a new concept called subgrid-variability to include elevation changes within a computational cell and thus has very little dependence on computational cell dimensions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the concept of subgrid-variability on the simulated flood area in the Sarbaz River. The other purposes of this study is to investigate the effect of map scale on the performance of 1D and 2D HEC-RAS model. The results showed that with increasing computational cell dimensions, the model error in simulating flood zones was relatively low compared to small cell dimensions. For example, if using a computing grid with dimensions of 500 meters instead of a 20 meters grid, the simulated flood area in different parts of the Sarbaz River would be less than 15 percent. The run time of the 2D model in the cell dimension of 500 meters is approximately 45 times less than the run time of the model in case of using cell dimensions of 20 meters. The findings clearly indicate to what extent the use of the concept of subgrid variability in modeling can be effective when implementing numerical models, especially in large and complex rivers. The calculations also show that the difference between 1D and 2D models in the simulation of hydraulic parameters in small scales is relatively small and by increasing the map scale, the difference between the two models increases.

References:

عزیزیان، ا.، صمدی، ا.، 1396. شبیه‌سازی دوبعدی سیلاب در بستر مدل عددی HEC-RAS 5. انتشارات پارسیا، 215 ص.

معاونت برنامه‌ریزی و نظارت راهبردی ریاست جمهوری، 1391. راهنمای کاربرد مدل‌های ریاضی و فیزیکی در مطالعات مهندسی و ساماندهی رودخانه، نشریه شماره 584، ایران، 154 ص.

مهندسین مشاور سامان سدرود، 1390. گزارش مطالعات هیدرولیک رودخانه سرباز، مطالعات ساماندهی و تعیین حد بستر و حریم رودخانه سرباز، شرکت سهامی آب منطقه‌ای سیستان و بلوچستان، وزارت نیرو.

Brandt, S. 2005. Resolution issues of elevation data during inundation modeling of river floods. In Proceedings of XXXI International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research Congress (IAHR), 3573–3581.

Brunner, G.W. 2014. Combined 1D and 2D Modeling with HEC‐RAS. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 130 p.

Brunner, G.W. 2016a. HEC-RAS River Analysis System. User’s Manual. Version 5.0. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 962 p.

Brunner, G.W. 2016b. HEC-RAS River Analysis System. 2D Modeling User’s Manual. Version 5.0. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 171 p.

Brunner, G.W. 2016c. HEC-RAS River Analysis System. Hydraulic Reference Manual. Version 5.0. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 547 p.

Cook, A., and Merwade, V. 2009. Effect of topographic data, geometric configuration and modeling approach on flood inundation mapping. J. Hydrol, 377, 131–142.

Gonga-Saholiariliva, N., Gunnell, Y., Petit, C., and Mering, C. 2011. Techniques for quantifying the accuracy of gridded elevation models and for mapping uncertainty in digital terrain analysis. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(6), 739–764.

Moya, Q., Popescu, V., Solomatine, I., and Bociort, L. 2013. Cloud and cluster computing in uncertainty analysis of integrated flood models. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 15, 55–69.

Saksena, S., and Merwade, V. 2015. Incorporating the effect of DEM resolution and accuracy for improved flood inundation mapping. Journal of Hydrology, 530, 180–194.

Sanders, B.F. 2007. Evaluation of on-line DEMs for flood inundation modeling. Advances in Water Resources, 30(8), 1831–1843.

Schumann, G., Matgen, P., Cutler, M.E.J., Black, A., Hoffmann, L., and Pfister, L. 2008. Comparison of remotely sensed water stages from LiDAR, topographic contours and SRTM. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sensing, 63(3), 283–296.

Tarekegn, T.H., Haile, A.T., Rientjes, T., Reggiani, P., and Alkema, D. 2010. Assessment of an ASTER generated DEM for 2D flood modelling. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geo information, 12, 457–465.

Versteeg, H.K., Malalasekera, W. 1995. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics, the Finite Volume Method, Longman, 520 p.

Werner, M.G.F. 2001. Impact of grid size in GIS based flood extent mapping using 1-D flow model. Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (B), 26, 517–522.