1. FLOOD PROPAGATION UNCERTAINTY J. Mulet – F. Alcrudo Area de Mecánica de Fluidos, CPS-Universidad de Zaragoza

2. BASIC UNCERTAINTY APPROACH Run models on the three (upper, mid, lower) hydrographs provided in breach analysis Fixed bathymetry (1982) –Added comparison with 1998 bathymetry Different models/modellers

3. UNCERTAINTY SIMULATIONS. SIMULATION NUMBER OF CELLSCITY MODEL CEMAGREF COURSE MESH2611VERTICAL WALLS* UCL R-760911VERTICAL WALLS UDZ-1 (Mulet)~ 20000VERTICAL WALLS SIMULATION NUMBER OF CELLSCITY MODEL UDZ-2 (Murillo)~ 40000BOTTOM ELEVATION 1982 BATHYMETRY 1998 BATHYMETRY REQUESTED RESULTS: - WATER DEPTH HISTORY AT GAUGE/POINTS LOCATIONS - DISCHARGE HYDROGRAPH THROUGH SECTIONS - WATER DEPTH ENVELOPE OF 0.5 m AND 2 m

4. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES.

6. EXPERIMENTAL SPIKE LIKE PEAK BETTER REPRODUCED PLATEAU LIKE EMPTYING NOT BIG DIFFERENCES IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 1. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (4.77m)1982 MAX - MIN

7. DIFFERENCES ATTRIBUTABLE TO INTERPOLATION IN STEEP SLOPE AREA UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 2. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (2.67m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CINEMA

8. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 4. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (0.71m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CONDES DE ORGAZ STREET

9. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 6. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (1.24m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE PROYECTO C STREET - DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES STRESSED

10. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 7. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (~0m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE OLD CITY HALL - SPIKE LIKE PEAK BETTER REPRODUCED - SIMILAR WATER ELEVATION FOR BOTH BATHYMETRIES

11. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 8. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (1.29m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE CLOCK´S SITE RISE RATES ARE BETTER REPRODUCED WITH THE UPPER HYDROGRAPH

12. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 10. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (0.41m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE JÚCAR STREET

13. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. GAUGE 13. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (-1.12m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE VALENCIA STREET

14. IMPORTANT BATHYMETRY EFFECT (EVEN IF DIFFERENCES IN BOTOTM ELEVATION AT GAUGE ARE SMALL) GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT A. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (-1.17m)1982 BATHYMETRY

15. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 1. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM IMPORTANT DISCHARGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 2 BATHYMETRIES

16. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT B. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (3.45m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD STRONG SCATTERING BETWEEN MODELS/MODELERS

17. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 2. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

18. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT C. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (4.4m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

19. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 3. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

20. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT D. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (1.7m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE BEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL NEARLY NO DISPERSION AT ALL

21. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT E. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (5.9m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL NEARLY NO DISPERSION IN WATER ELEVATION BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES

22. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT F. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY (4.1m)1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE DOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL NEARLY NO DISPERSION IN WATER ELEVATION BETWEEN BATHYMETRIES

23. ADDED RUNS HID NUMBER OF CELLS VALLEY FRICTIONZONES FRICTIONCITY MODEL UPPER- U~ 200000.0450.1NONE BASIC~ 200000.0250.1VERTICAL WALLS LOW-L~ 200000.025 NONE 1982 BATHYMETRY

24. UNCERTAINTY 0.5m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 UPPER UDZ-1 LOWER CESI

25. UNCERTAINTY 0.5m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 UPPER UDZ-1 LOWER CESI

26. UNCERTAINTY 0.5m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 UPPER UDZ-1 LOWER CESI

27. UNCERTAINTY 2m ISOLINES. UDZ-1 UPPERUDZ-1 LOWER CESI

28. UNCERTAINTY 2m ISOLINES. CEM UPPER UDZ-1 UPPER CESI

29. NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT INFLUENCE OF ADDED UNCERTAINTY EFFECTS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT A. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS

30. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 1. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 1 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM

31. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT B. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD EXTRA FRICTION EFFECTS ARE INCREASED DOWNSTREAM

32. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 2. 1982-1998 BATHYMETRY1982 BATHYMETRY GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE AZUD

33. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT C. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE 3 KM DOWNSTREAM TOUS DAM FURTHER INCREASE DOWNSTREAM MAINLY DUE TO THE FRICTION ZONING (NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT OF BASELINE FRICTION)

34. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. SECTION 3. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS 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

35. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT D. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE BEFORE HILL UPSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL

36. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT E. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE RIVER BANK OPPOSITE SUMACÁRCEL

37. UNCERTAINTY RESULTS. POINT F. UDZ-1BETWEEN MODELLERS GAUGE LOCATION PICTURE DOWNSTREAM SUMACÁRCEL NO FURTHER INCREASE IN THE EFFECT

38. CONCLUSIONS (Preliminary) Uncertainty sources considered (and proved relevant) –Model / Modeler –Bathymetry –Friction levels Specifically friction distribution/zoning Baseline friction level not significant Uncertainty in urban area –Overall 2m (either water depth / water elevation) Uncertainty in valley –Considerably higher with strong differences –No clear indications as to comparative influence of considered parameters/effects