TOUS CASE STUDY. MODELLER OVERVIEW REVIEW. COMPARATION AND ANALYSIS OF MODELLING RESULTS 4th IMPACT WORKSHOP 3-5 NOVEMBER 2004

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. GENERAL VIEW. REMAINS OF THE TOUS DAM THE CITY OF SUMACÁRCEL

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. AVAILABLE DATA. - UPSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION → TOUS DAM OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPH - DOMWSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION → NOT FIXED - FRICTION PARAMETERS ● VALLEY FRICTION → MANNING – ● CULTIVATED ZONES FRICTION → MANNING 0.05 – BATHYMETRY 1982 / BATHYMETRY CITY OF SUMACÁRCEL ● LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGS ● HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS - MAXIMUM WATER LEVELS AT SOME LOCATIONS (CITY AREA) SUMACÁRCEL CULTIVATED ZONES DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES SOIL EROSION URBAN AREA

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. FLOOD PROPAGATION GAUGE AND SECTION LOCATIONS.

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. URBAN FLOODING GAUGE LOCATIONS.

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. SIMULATIONS. SIMULATION NUMBER OF CELLSCITY MODEL CEMAGREF COURSE MESH2611VERTICAL WALLS CEMAGREF FINE MESH~ 11000VERTICAL WALLS UCL R VERTICAL WALLS UDZ-1~ 20000VERTICAL WALLS SIMULATION NUMBER OF CELLSCITY MODEL CEMAGREF COURSE MESH2611VERTICAL WALLS CEMAGREF FINE MESH~ 11000VERTICAL WALLS UCL R VERTICAL WALLS UDZ-1~ 20000VERTICAL WALLS UDZ-2~ 40000BOTTOM ELEVATION 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY REQUESTED RESULTS: - WATER DEPTH HISTORY AT GAUGE LOCATIONS - DISCHARGE HYDROGRAPH THROUGH SECTIONS - WATER DEPTH ENVELOPE OF 0.5 m AND 2 m

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. CEMAGREF´S MODELLING. COARSE MESHFINE MESH

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UCL´S MODELLING. REFINED MESH AROUND THE BUILDINGS

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-1´S MODELLING. GENERAL VIEW OF THE MESH SIMPLIFIED CITY MODEL VIEW

THE TOUS CASE STUDY. UDZ-2´S MODELLING. GENERAL MESH VIEW CITY MODEL VIEW

- LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - SLOWER CITY EMPTYING THAN EXPERIMENTAL - DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BED WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW ~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1h 15m

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CINEMA - GOOD MAXIMUM RESULTS FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES - DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE SHAPE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES - DIFFICULTIES DUE TO GAUGE 2 LOCATION

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CHURCH STREET - MISTAKE IN THE GAUGE 3 LOCATION - UDZ-1 RESULTS WITH THE RIGHT LOCATION

- DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL TIME AND SHAPE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES AND MODELLERS - UDZ-1 HIGHER LEVEL DUE TO AN UNKNOWN SET UP ERROR. URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CONDES DE ORGAZ STREET

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY JÚCAR STREET - ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS - GAUGE 5 FOR 1998 BATHYMETRY LOCATED JUST OUT OF THE CITY MODEL FOR UDZ-1

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PROYECTO C STREET - ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS - SAME PROBLEM AS IN GAUGE 4 FOR UDZ-1 RESULTS - POTENCIAL RISK 2m WATER DEPTH AT SAME TIME

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CITY HALL - ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS FOR 1982 BATHYMETRY - WAVE ARRIVAL MORE ACCURATE IN 1998 BATHYMETRY - LOWER EMPTYING RATES THAN EXPERIMENTAL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW ~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1h 15m

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CLOCK´S SITE - ~ 1-2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS - LOWER FILLING UP RATES THAN EXPERIMENTAL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW LOWER FILLING UP RATES

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE ERA SQUARE - ~ 1m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE JÚCAR STREET - ~ 2m DIFFERENCE WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS - ~ 1m DIFFERENCE WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE STAIRS STREET - ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - ~ 1.5m DIFFERENCE WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY BETWEEN MODELLERS

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CONDES DE ORGAZ STREET - SAME AND GOOD RESULTS FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VALENCIA STREET - ~ 3m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY - UDZ-2 LOWER WATER LEVELS DUE TO CITY MODEL

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PINTOR SOROLLA STREET - LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VALENCIA STREET - ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PINTOR SOROLLA STREET - ~ 1.5m LOWER RESULTS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY PALLECER STREET - ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - GOOD RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE SEVERO OCHOA STREET - GOOD RESULTS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - ~ 1.5m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY VIRGEN STREET - SAME AND GOOD RESULTS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES FOR UCL AND UDZ-1

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VIRGEN STREET - LOWER WATER LEVELS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - BETTER RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

URBAN FLOODING RESULTS. GAUGE BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE WEST AVENUE - GOOD RESULTS WITH BOTH BATHYMETRIES

GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT A BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY - SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN WATER LEVELS BETWEEN MODELLERS - LOWER RESULTS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY - DIFFERENCE IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW ~ 3000 s ≈ ~ 50 m

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM - SAME WATER FLOW RATE FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES THROUGH SECTION 1 DESPITE THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER LEVEL - SAME PEAK AS IN THE OUTFLOW TOUS DAM HYDROGRAPH

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT B BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD - ~ 3m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD - SAME WATER FLOW RATE FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES THROUGH SECTION 2 DESPITE THE DIFFERENCE IN WATER LEVEL - SAME PEAK AS IN THE OUTFLOW TOUS DAM HYDROGRAPH

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT C BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM - SAME SHAPE OF THE WAVE FOR ALL THE MODELLERS WITH 1982 BATHYMETRY - HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. SECTION BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM - 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

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT D BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE BEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL - ~ 2m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT E BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL - ~ 4m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY - SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL WAVE ARRIVAL VIEW ~ 5000 s ≈ ~ 1 h 15 m

VALLEY FLOODING RESULTS. POINT F BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE DOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL - ~ 3m HIGHER WATER LEVELS WITH 1998 BATHYMETRY - SUBSTANCIAL DIFFERENCES IN THE WAVE FRONT ARRIVAL - DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION EFFECTS

TOUS CASE STUDY. CONCLUSIONS. - COMPROMISE SOLUTION BETWEEN CELL SIZE AND TOPOGRAPHY CHARACTERISTICS - WATER LEVELS ADJUSTED TO THE TOUS OUTFLOW HIDROGRAPH OVER THE VALLEY - THE MOST “ECONOMICAL” CITY MODEL: VERTICAL WALLS ● MESHING DIFFICULTIES ● LONG DURATION OF SIMULATIONS - PROBLEMS WITH THE SELECTION OF DOWNSTREAM BOUNDARY CONDITION - MODELS SEEM TO REPRODUCE URBAN FLOODING SLOWER THAN IT WAS (FILLING UP AND CITY EMPTYING). - UNCERTAINTY IN THE RESULTS UP TO 5m IN THE VALLEY AND AROUND 2m IN THE URBAN AREA BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES AND MODELLERS