1. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Team Members Evaluation of Hydraulic Models July 2007 Office of Hydrologic Development Hydraulics Group

2. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Why did we do this evaluation?  Model is unstable  Projects now DORMANT  Need troubleshooting techniques. Drop it and support HEC-RAS  More resources should be invested in supporting an operational HEC-RAS  Difficulties due to inadequate documentation and tutorials  Too many glitches  PC version different to AWIPS version  Not enough workshops and those that happened, not effective

3. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Why Hydraulics Models are here to stay? They are needed to simulate/forecast river water levels under the following conditions: flat terrain tidal influence tidal influence backwater effect dam break scenarios dynamic inundation maps. Hydraulic Models will NOT go away!

4. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics NWS Hydraulic Model Development

5. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Time to move on ?  Field issues: Development has been limited at NWS officesDevelopment has been limited at NWS offices Training somewhat not effective: Intentions different than reality. More focused on learning how to debug software than how to build a hydraulic model.Training somewhat not effective: Intentions different than reality. More focused on learning how to debug software than how to build a hydraulic model. Result: Expertise at field offices is weak Result: Expertise at field offices is weak

6. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Evaluation Objective: Review most commonly used hydraulic models and make a recommendation for its use in the field offices in addition to or in place of FLDWAV. Team Members: Representing field offices

7. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Ed Capone Brian Astifan Mike Shultz John Halquist Thea Minsk Don Laurine Joanne Salerno Janet McCormick OHD Sanja Perica Cecile Aschwanden Reggina Cabrera Lori Schultz Team Members P

8. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Steps followed: Step 1. Training on the use of different models Step 2. Evaluate complexity or simplicity on setting up each model Step 3. Selection of data sets

9. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Steps followed: Step 4. Compilation of capabilities and limitations of each model Step 5. Testing models execution Step 6. Submit report with recommendations

10. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Selection of Hydraulic Models FLDWAV………….…. NWS SOBEK………………. DELFT MIKE-11……………... DHI HEC-RAS……………. COE

11. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Strategy to select items to test RFC’s Feedback Dam break Operations Inundation Maps Licenses Training 1-D, 2-D,…

12. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Criteria for Evaluation RFCs Feedback Matrix of Needs MON Developers/Providers Matrix of Capabilities MOC

13. Our River Forecasting is in HydraulicsFunctionalityRFCMODEL ABRFCABRFCABRFCABRFC APRFCAPRFCAPRFCAPRFC CBRFCCBRFCCBRFCCBRFC CNRFCCNRFCCNRFCCNRFC LMRFCLMRFCLMRFCLMRFC MARFCMARFCMARFCMARFC MBRFCMBRFCMBRFCMBRFC NCRFCNCRFCNCRFCNCRFC NERFCNERFCNERFCNERFC NWRFCNWRFCNWRFCNWRFC OHRFCOHRFCOHRFCOHRFC SERFCSERFCSERFCSERFC WGRFCWGRFCWGRFCWGRFC TOTALTOTALTOTALTOTAL FLDWAVFLDWAVFLDWAVFLDWAV MIKEMIKEMIKEMIKE RASRASRASRAS SOBEKSOBEKSOBEKSOBEK General modeling capabilities River sinuosity 2200300233323 23232323√√√√ Multiple rivers 2213300333323 28282828√√√√ Braided rivers 1300203223322 23232323√√√√ Split flow 2203300333322 26262626√√√√ Flow diversions 3223303333313 32323232√√√√ Wind effects 1122321230030 20202020√√X√ Ice jam buildup/breakup hydraulics 1300212232300 19191919X■√X Floodplain mapping 1213232322332 29292929$√$$

14. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics MOC F M R S

15. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Training for team members  To help understand each model  Install the model software for each team member  Work through examples  Establish a relationship with the vendors/providers

16. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics  Tidal Boundaries  Ice Jams  Dam break  Structures o Bridges o Levees o others Selection of Data Sets

17. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Difficulties encountered Discrepancy in cross-section data. Geometrical data from FLDWAV different than other models Difficulties in converting data sets between models Transformation of data, Manning’s nTransformation of data, Manning’s n Missing structuresMissing structures

18. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Cross-Section Difference

19. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics HEC-RAS to FLDWAV ?

20. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics FLDWAV to HEC-RAS ?

21. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Team Member’s Work  Some team members worked on the transformation of data  Frequent conference calls among the team members  Maintained communication with vendors/providers  Availability of testing licenses: 1 year

22. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Criteria for Evaluation   Documentation   Data Entry / Data Editing   Computational Methods   Model Stability   Troubleshooting   Tabular output   Graphical output

23. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Final Testing Testing of the models: The team members worked in pairs and one model was assigned to each group, but the evaluation was individual. We tried to select those who had acquired the most experience in the given model. At the end, grades and comments were turned in. OHD did not grade

24. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Main Graded Topics 1. GENERAL MODEL SETUP AND MANIPULATION a. Ease of use b. Model run c. Input information d. Output information 2. MODELING TRIBUTARIES, JUNCTIONS AND SPLIT FLOW 3. BRIDGES AND CULVERTS 4. GATES, WEIRS AND LATERAL STRUCTURES 5. LEVEES/ LEVEE BREACH 6. DAMS/ DAMBREAK ANALYSIS 7. TIDES 8. ICE JAM 9. FLOODPLAIN MODELING Grading scale 1 to 5: 5- excellent, 1-poor

25. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics

26. Findings during the evaluation…  All tested models are very powerful, well developed hydraulic models, based on sound hydraulic engineering principles.  All models are capable of analyzing and solving nearly all typical hydraulic modeling applications but there are specific advanced hydraulic applications that cannot be resolved by all models. For example, HEC-RAS cannot model wind effects, SOBEK and FLDWAV cannot model ice jam, etc.  Major differences are in ease of use, quality of graphical user interface, availability of documentation, technical support and cost. Team members evaluated HEC-RAS to be a superior model based on those criteria.  All models have been used by different agencies for real-time forecasting.  In the USA, HEC-RAS is the most widely utilized model. It has been used extensively by private industry, state and federal agencies. It has been adopted by many federal government agencies as their official hydraulic model.

27. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Support  During the evaluation How fast did the vendors respond?How fast did the vendors respond? How much support was provided?How much support was provided? Was the support available when needed?Was the support available when needed? Was the support provided by a team or an individual?Was the support provided by a team or an individual?  Future Other considerations….

28. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Availability of Training This was geared towards the future, once the model would be recommended and implemented o How often would training be available? o How much would it cost? o Where could it happen?

29. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Interface  Does it have a Graphical User Interface?  Is it user friendly?

30. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Cost of software? Cost of software?

31. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Recommendation #1 The team recommends that the AWIPS version of FLDWAV continues to be available to NWS hydrologists at the River Forecast Centers and that it should be included into the new operational architecture.

32. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Recommendation #2 It is the consensus of the evaluation team that HEC-RAS be considered for inclusion into the suite of NWS hydraulic models.

33. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Recommendation #3 The team recommends performing a test focusing on comparing development of FLDWAV and HEC-RAS models using identical data sets, assessing difficulties in converting data sets from one program to another and differences in results.

34. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Recommendation #4 Critical modeling functionalities not available in either HEC-RAS or FLDWAV models should be documented and resolved.

35. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Report: Finished and now what?

36. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics What is OHD doing?  Working toward the transition: Comparison between models to assess the transition...

37. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics Recommendation for the RFCs  Need to get ready… RFCs need staff prepared to handle hydraulics Should training be in FLDWAV or HEC-RAS or both? Should training be in FLDWAV or HEC-RAS or both? Should we continue developing with FLDWAV? Should we continue developing with FLDWAV? Will FLDWAV be supported? Will FLDWAV be supported?

38. Our River Forecasting is in Hydraulics