Dam Break Webinar Final

Use of FLOW-3D to Model Catastrophic Dam Breaches
FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches
05/15/2014
Todays Agenda
Brief historical context: what happened?
How does FLOW-3D handle dam breach simulations?
Shallow Water model (St Venant equations)

Full 3D Navier Stokes solution
Hybrid SW / 3D model
General Moving Object Model
Simple models: FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water Model vs FLOW-3Ds

full Navier Stokes 3D solution.
Real life! St Francis Dam Break Model
Conclusions
Any questions do not hesitate!

john.wendelbo@flow3d.com
05/15/2014
Brief historical context: what happened?
05/15/2014

The St Francis Dam Break Event
Dam collapse near midnight of March 12th
1928
Flood wave killed up to 600 people
The flood wave initially travelled down
the San Francisquito Canyon
Then travelled down the Santa Clara
River bed all the way to the Pacific
Ocean.
Initial flood wave on the 100 ft scale
05/15/2014

Timeline of wave
impact:
1. Dam failure March 12th
1928 @ 11.57pm
2. 12:02 Powerhouse #2
3. 12.40 Saugus
Substation
4. 1:18 Edison Camp
5. 2:25 Fillmore Bridge
6. 3.05 Santa Paula
Bridge
7. 4.05 Saticoy Bridge
8. 5:25 Pacific Ocean
Reconstructed Map of Flooded Area

(Charles Lee circa 1928)
05/15/2014

Actual mechanics of the
failure not the focus of
todays presentation.
Focus today on the hydraulic
aspects of the flood wave.
05/15/2014

05/15/2014
How does FLOW-3D handle dam breach

simulations?
05/15/2014
At the Core:
A Transient Full 3D Free Surface Modeler
FLOW-3D s Volume of Fluid method yields a fast,
accurate and robust code that captures fully threedimensional complex free surfaces.
Flow Science invented the Volume of Fluid method
over 30 years ago and still develops its most
sophisticated version called TruVOF.
05/15/2014
Free surface example: a duct outflow jet
05/15/2014
10
Free surface example: dam break
05/15/2014
11
Beyond the Core:

Advanced Water Engineering & Environmental Models
05/15/2014
12
Beyond the Core:

Shallow Water Equations

St Venant Equations
Vertically integrated
representation of momentum
balance
05/15/2014
13
Beyond the Core:

Moving and Simple

Deforming Objects
General Moving Objects
(GMO Model)
05/15/2014
14
Beyond the Core:

Free Meshing modeling
approach
FAVOR object
representation: solids and
topography float in space,
no tedious boundary fitted
meshing, no poor mesh
pressure convergence
issues.
Seamless nesting of
mesh blocks
Automatic Conformal
Meshing
FLOW-3D
Seamless
nesting
of
- Modeling
Dam Breaches
05/15/2014
15
Dam Break Modeling Tools in FLOW-3D
Shallow Water Equations: FLOW-3Ds implementation is robust,

fast and accurate even in the presence of strong hydraulic
jumps.
Full 3D Navier Stokes with advanced turbulence models
Hybrid approach: 3D near the dam coupled with shallow water

solution on the regional scales. The coupling of the solutions is
seamless.
Coupling of 3D solutions to General Moving Object model
05/15/2014
16
Simple Cases
FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water Model
vs
FLOW-3Ds full Navier Stokes 3D solution.
05/15/2014
17
Simple Test Models:

Dam break using FLOW-3Ds Navier Stokes 3D
solution
05/15/2014
18
Simple Test Models:

Dam break using FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water solution
05/15/2014
19
Simple Test Models:

Dam break using FLOW-3Ds Navier Stokes 3D
solution
Excellent Laboratory
Validation by OzmenCagatay & Kocaman!
05/15/2014
20
Simple Test Models:

S Channel using FLOW-3Ds Navier Stokes 3D
solution
05/15/2014
21
Simple Test Models:

S Channel using FLOW-3Ds Navier Stokes 3D
solution
Begin of reflected sub-critical wave
Back propagation of reflected sub-critical wave
Maximum Flooding occurs upon reflection of subcritical wave.

Does not occur during initial front propagation.
05/15/2014
22
Simple Test Models:

S Channel using FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water solution
05/15/2014
23
Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3Ds core 3D model is well known to capture hydraulic
jumps very accurately
Decades of laboratory, built and numerical environment
validations.
From these simple examples, it would seem FLOW-3Ds
Shallow Water Model does very well on tracking
hydraulic jumps!
There are reasons for this:
FLOW-3Ds core models (VOF, FAVOR) are ideally suited to

the implementation of very accurate Shallow Water
schemes.
Hirt & Richardson (1999 FSI technical note 48) developed a

correction to the Shallow Water Model for strong hydraulic
05/15/2014
jumps, making the model extremely accurate
even in the
24

Generally FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water Model performs extremely
well in speed, accuracy and robustness, even for very complex
flows and geometries.
However they are different equations: lets not get too comfortable with
the idea that a shallow water model can capture the full momentum
balances that are found in the Navier Stokes solutions.
3D vs Shallow Water Flood Wave Height at 500m
(before obstacle)

(after obstacle)
12
12
10
10
2
0
0
0
50
100
3D solution
150
200
Shallow Water
250
300
50
100
3D solution
150
200
250
300
Shallow Water
05/15/2014
25

Generally FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water Model performs
extremely well in speed, accuracy and robustness, even for
very complex flows and geometries.
However they are different equations: lets not get too
comfortable with the idea that a shallow water model can capture
the full momentum balances that are found in the Navier Stokes
3D vs Shallow Water Flood Wave Height at solutions.
500m
(before obstacle)
(after obstacle)
12
12
Reflected Waves Upstream of Obstacles

10
10
8
2
0
0
0
50
100
3D solution
150
200
Shallow Water
250
300
50
100
150
3D solution
200
250
300
Shallow Water
Wave height difference of order 10%

05/15/2014
26
Todays Agenda
Real life! St Francis Dam Break Model
05/15/2014
27
St Francis Dam
(catastrophic failure March 12 th 1928)
Domain is ~ 80km x 50km
Topography resolved on cells 15mx15m
05/15/2014
28
St Francis Dam
Domain is ~ 80km x 50km
Reservoir and site of dam failure
Pacific Ocean
Topography resolved on cells 15mx15m
05/15/2014
29
St Francis Dam
05/15/2014
30
St Francis Dam
05/15/2014
31
St Francis Dam
(catastrophic failure March 12th 1928)
05/15/2014
32
St Francis Dam
05/15/2014
33
St Francis Dam
05/15/2014
34
St Francis Dam Shallow Water

Shallow Water Model in FLOW-3D
The extent to which the topography is able to slow down the

water column above is governed by a drag coefficient
Alternative formulation is to define a surface roughness

coefficient.
Either way these equations parameterize the effect of the

grounds surface on the flows progression
In this case it turns out default roughness values worked

extremely well
A special treatment of the conservation of momentum rather than

energy across hydraulic jumps allows for accurate jump modeling
(Hirt & Richardson 1999 FSI technical note 48)
05/15/2014
35

Multiple experiments for the Shallow water case

Range of drag coefficients (0.0026 to 0.0040)
Range of surface roughness (0.005 to 0.1)
Looked at arrival times at different stations downstream
Looked at grid convergence (effect of grid refinement)
(120m x 120m, 60m x 60m, 30m x 30m, 15m x 15m)
Looked at wave height (extent of flood zone!)

Full presentation at the Association of State Dam Safety Officials 2014
conference September 21-25 2014.
05/15/2014
36

05/15/2014
37

Overlay of FLOW-3D Shallow Water Solution over Charles Lee Map (circa 1928, caution!)
05/15/2014
38

Final ortho-rectified map by Rogers & Jame

05/15/2014
39

Hydrograph at Station E for Shallow Water Model using fixed Cd = 0.0026
Grid / Mesh Size Convergence Study
Actual observed wave arrival tim

At Santa Paula Bridge
5.0
4.5
4.0
(about of the way to the coast)
3.5
Water depth (meters)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Time after Dam failure (seconds)

15m cells
30m cells
60m cells
120m cells
Observed E
05/15/2014
40

Arrival times using Shallow Water Equations
Fixed Cd = 0.0026, grid 15m x 15m
45.0
40.0
35.0
reliable data point
reliable data point
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Time (seconds)
Dam
Station A
Station B
Station C
Station D
Station E
Station F
Station G
Observed A
Observed B
Observed C
Observed D
Observed E
Observed F
Observed G
05/15/2014
41

Volume Flow Rate at Dam and Powerstation 2
(cu-f / s)
800,000
700,000
Note historical estimate was ~

400,000 cu-ft/s peak discharge at
power station 2
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
0
500
1,000
1,500
volume flow rate at dam
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
volume flow rate at powerstation 2
05/15/2014
42
St Francis Dam Full 3D

FULL 3D MODELING OF THE DAM FAILURE
05/15/2014
43

05/15/2014
44

05/15/2014
45

05/15/2014
46

05/15/2014
47
05/15/2014
48
St Francis Dam Full 3D vs Shallow Water

Shallow Water 30m mesh t = 1200s

Hybrid 3D solution t = 1200s

05/15/2014
49


Hybrid 3D solution t = 1200s

05/15/2014
50


3D solution t = 600s
05/15/2014
51


3D solution t = 600s
05/15/2014
52
St Francis Dam with General Moving Object

05/15/2014
53

05/15/2014
54
St Francis Dam
05/15/2014
55

05/15/2014
56

At this point still a little anecdotal!

The possibilities are intriguing.
Deserves more experimentation!
Combining with the scour model particularly promising
05/15/2014
57
Beyond the Core:

Sediment Scour and

Deposition Model
(completely updated in
FLOW-3D v11)
Includes multi-species driftflux, deposition,
entrainement and scour
05/15/2014
58
Addition of Sediment and Scour Model
05/15/2014
59
St Francis Dam Hybrid Model

YBRID 3D MODELING OF THE DAM FAILUR
05/15/2014
60

The domain is split between a high resolution 3D solution near

the Dam (reaching approximately 5km downstream of the
breach)
The remainder of the domain is resolved using FLOW-3Ds
Shallow Water model
05/15/2014
61

05/15/2014
62

05/15/2014
63

05/15/2014
64
St Francis Dam
Hydrograph at Station E for Shallow Water Model using fixed Cd = 0.026
Grid / Mesh Size Convergence Study
(With Additional Data: Hybrid (60m) Model 3D (6m) / Shallow Water)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Time after Dam failure (seconds)

15m cells
30m cells
60m cells
120m cells
Observed E
Hybrid
05/15/2014
65
St Francis Dam
Hydrograph at Station B
Shallow Water 30m / 3D Hybrid 5m x 40m
Hydrograph at Station A
Shallow Water 30m / 3D Hybrid 5m x 40m
30
25
20
15
10
0
0
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

5 40
SW 30
0
1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600
SW 30
5 40
05/15/2014
66
Conclusions
Overview of different modeling options in FLOW-3D to tackle dam break

events.
In many cases FLOW-3Ds shallow water model will do an excellent job.
FLOW-3Ds shallow water model does very well on capturing hydraulic jumps
and wave reflections.
FLOW-3D displays a strong consistency across models: 3D, Shallow Water,

Hybrid they interface seamlessly, are fast and accurate, the results are
consistent!
Caution! For the detail of spillways, weirs, energy dissipaters, penstocks etc
there are no good shortcuts, highly resolved 3D models are a must!
05/15/2014
67
Thank you!
See you in San Diego for ASDSO 2014!
05/15/2014
68

Dam Break Webinar Final

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Dam Break Webinar Final

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Use of FLOW-3D to Model Catastrophic Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Brief historical context: what happened?

How does FLOW-3D handle dam breach simulations?

Shallow Water model (St Venant equations)

Simple models: FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water Model vs FLOW-3Ds

Real life! St Francis Dam Break Model

Any questions do not hesitate!

Brief historical context: what happened?

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Use of FLOW-3D to Model Catastrophic Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Use of FLOW-3D to Model Catastrophic Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Reconstructed Map of Flooded Area

Use of FLOW-3D to Model Catastrophic Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Use of FLOW-3D to Model Catastrophic Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

How does FLOW-3D handle dam breach

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Free surface example: a duct outflow jet

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Free surface example: dam break

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Beyond the Core:

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Beyond the Core:

Shallow Water Equations

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Beyond the Core:

Moving and Simple

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Beyond the Core:

Dam Break Modeling Tools in FLOW-3D

Shallow Water Equations: FLOW-3Ds implementation is robust,

Full 3D Navier Stokes with advanced turbulence models

Hybrid approach: 3D near the dam coupled with shallow water

Coupling of 3D solutions to General Moving Object model

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Simple Test Models:

Begin of reflected sub-critical wave

Back propagation of reflected sub-critical wave

Maximum Flooding occurs upon reflection of subcritical wave.

Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches

Simple Test Models:

FLOW-3Ds core models (VOF, FAVOR) are ideally suited to

Hirt & Richardson (1999 FSI technical note 48) developed a

FLOW-3Ds Shallow Water Model

3D vs Shallow Water Flood Wave Height at 750m

FLOW-3D - Modeling Dam Breaches