Flood analysis in the Var catchment

1
Flood analysis in the Var catchment

Viktoria Bondarets (Cottbus), Benoit Brugeilles
(Nice), Jocelyn Fortune (Nice), Julien Frachisse
(Nice), Iglika Gentcheva (Cottbus), Celine Noel
(Nice)
2
Introduction

• Var flooding
• Hydro-europe cooperation
• Modelling software

MIKE 11 MIKE SHE ?
3
Monday, 24/02/03

• General description
• life seemed to be sweet (probably thanks to
• the delicious Belgium chocolate and the
• starting optimism of the participants)

4
Monday, 24/02/03

• Activities Comparison the real discharges
  measured on the
• var during the flooding of november 1994 with the
  ones
• obtained in the MikeShe simulation on a 300 m
  dimension
• DEM

Conclusion cell dimensions of the grid are too
big to obtain the precise results recomputation
is necessary
5
Monday, 24/02/03
6
Tuesday, 25/02/03

• General description
• we understood what PROBLEM meant. We
• did not like it!

7
Tuesday, 25/02/03

• Activities Usage of Digital Elevation Model
  (DEM) of the
• Topography (MIKE SHE) to design the rivers cross
  sections
• according to the relief and elevation data.

• Methodology
• Identification of the relation between MIKE11 and
  MIKE SHE geographical references.
• In MIKE 11, quotation of the (xy) coordinates of
  the cross section with the necessity of redesign
• In MIKE SHE elevation model, select the (xyz)
  coordinates of each pixel around the profile to
  calculate its two slopes and its minimum
  elevation.

8
Topography DEM (300 m) from MIKE SHE
9
Tuesday, 25/02/03
Cross-sections are located in the lowest
intersection point with the vertical Two average
slopes calculated for each side and applied to
the cross-sections
10
Tuesday, 25/02/03
Cross-section definition in EXCEL (according to
the local topography)
11
Tuesday, 25/02/03
12
Wednesday, 26/02/03

• General description
• first dawn- to- dusk day.
• The team was kept busy by calculations from
• 9 a.m. till 7 p. m. (here we will not mention
• that we had a 1,5-hour break and that Team 4
• stayed much longer.Just to produce more
• dramatic effect!)

13
Wednesday, 26/02/03

• Activities division in two different groups to
  compare different
• ways of cross- section derivation
• The first sub team - the upstream slope,
• The second - the downstream slope
  

14
Wednesday, 26/02/03
Final results
15
Thursday, 27/02/03

• General description
• the number of participants in our team has
• pleasantly increased. The amount of work
• needed to be done increased as well. Not very
• pleasantly...

16
Thursday, 27/02/03

• Activities based on the existing network the
  previously
• defined cross-sections were inserted at the
  places chosen as
• being the most representative for the
  longititudinal profile of
• the network.

17
Thursday, 27/02/03

• One point at each change of the slope was
  selected

18
Thursday, 27/02/03

• Method
• - Simulation with only 6 sections
• - Increase the number of Cross-Sections (17)

19
Thursday, 27/02/03

• Simulation conditions
• - Time step dt10 s.
• - Space step dx300 m.
• - Initial Conditions
• . Qo 300 m3/s
• . Ho 0 m.
• - Simulation using SteadyParameter
• - Kinematic wave

20
Thursday, 27/02/03

• MIKE11 Results

21
Thursday, 27/02/03
Discharge results
22
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)