analysis of flow conditions at the ihnc-giww … 10 20 - analysis...• rma2 (aecom look at...
TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONDITIONS AT THE IHNC-GIWW SECTOR GATESLFPA-E
October 2016
© Arcadis 2016
Motivation• SLFPA-E has observed high velocities within the
opening of the GIWW sector gate at the surge barrier.
• Concern about impact on safe navigation.
• The barge gate has been closed for repairs, thus altering the flow conditions.
• Existing gaging may not adequately inform SLFPA-E of flow conditions in the navigation channels.
© Arcadis 2016
Questions:1. What are the regional and local conditions that generate
the high velocities?
2. How often are the high velocities likely to occur?
3. What can the original modeling studies explain?
4. What is the consequence of keeping the barge gate closed?
5. How can gaging network be improved?
6. What additional modeling is needed?
© Arcadis 2016
IHNC Structures
© Arcadis 2016
IHNC Structures
GIWW Sector Gate
Barge Gate
© Arcadis 2016
Data Inventory• 24 water level data locations
• 11 wind data locations
• 2 velocity data locations
• GIWW sector gate at surge barrier• Seabrook
© Arcadis 2016
ADCP Data at the GIWW Sector Gate
Max ebb = 4.35 fpsMax flood = -5.19 fps
© Arcadis 2016
Data Analysis• Extensive review of data quality
• Some errors and mis-labeling identified• Issues with earlier ADCP data
• Correlations between different gages
• Analysis of regional scale hydrodynamics
What are conditions of concern?
What should we monitor to warn of impending high velocities?
© Arcadis 2016
Velocity at Seabrook
© Arcadis 2016
Correlation of Seabrook and GIWW
© Arcadis 2016
Example of Regional Dynamics
Wind and stage dataduring the Nov 2008 event
Strong north and northwest wind on Nov 15
© Arcadis 2016
Example of Regional Dynamics
Results = hydrodynamic gradient across the IHNC barrier(shown in red)
© Arcadis 2016
Summary of Data Inventory & Analysis• Linear relationship between velocity at Seabrook and
GIWW gate.
• Moderate relationship of velocity and gradient at the GIWW gate, but gage data affected by set-up due to placement.
• Good data for regional dynamics, but inadequate at the structure.
• Recommend improvements to existing gages and placement of additional gages.
© Arcadis 2016
Inventory of Previous Modeling • Several modeling studies performed during design
• TABS-MD (ERDC TR-10-9)
• ADH (ERDC TR-10-10 and TR-10-12)
• ADCIRC (Arcadis look at surge reduction for USACE-HPO)
• RMA2 (AECOM look at hydraulics for GIWW Gate Design)
• HEC-RAS (Gerwick to examine post-storm re-opening and scour potential)
• HEC-RAS (Haskoning and Arcadis look at System-Wide operational guidance)
• Plus additional Seabrook modeling.
© Arcadis 2016
Inventory of Previous Modeling • Differences in modeling approaches include:
• Surrounding marshes• Guide walls• Gate dimensions and IHNC footprint• Spatial extent and regional dynamics• Range of conditions (storm vs tides)• Extent of met forcing
© Arcadis 2016
Comparison of Model Validation Model:
ERDC TR-10-10 ERDC-10-12 AECOM
ADH ADH RMA2
Calibration Period Previous study Previous study December 1, 2008 to January 17, 2008
Water Level Gages -- -- 8
Velocity Gages -- -- 3
ADCP Transects -- -- 2 sets, 4-6 in vicinity of GIWW gate locations
Verification/Validation Period
March 2006, July and August 2008
January through October 2008
June through October 2008
Water Level Gages 1 9 --
Velocity Gages -- -- --
ADCP Transects 2 sets, 3 locations in vicinity of GIWW gate location
2 sets, 7 locations in vicinity of GIWW gate location, 1 set, 6 locations vicinity of Seabrook
4 sets, 7-13 locations in vicinity of GIWW gate location , 1 set, 7 locations vicinity of Seabrook
© Arcadis 2016
Regional Dynamics and Model Results
hydrodynamic gradient across the IHNC barrier(shown in red)
Model results Nov 15barge open = peak ebb velocity 4.4 fps barge closed = peak ebb velocity almost 7 fps, velocity > 4 fps for 12 hours
© Arcadis 2016
Conclusion from Model Review• Previous modeling confirms potential for high velocities.
• Velocity is higher at GIWW sector gate when barge gate is closed. Velocity is lower at Seabrook.
• ADH reveals eddying details, but neglects adjacent marsh and many regional scale effects (wind & waves).
• Need updated modeling study.
Barge Open
PercentTR-10-10 AECOM AECOM TR-10-12 TR-10-12Annual March November March September
1 4.66 4.20 4.20 3.50 3.50
50 2.20 1.90 1.80 2.00 1.90
90 0.59 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.50Barge Closed
PercentTR-10-10 AECOM AECOM DataAnnual March November July
1 6.52 6.80 6.70 4.4050 3.08 3.30 3.00 2.32
90 0.83 0.80 0.75 0.50
© Arcadis 2016
ADCIRC/SWAN Update• As part of this work, we compiled the latest available bathymetric
and structure data.
• Performed update to ADCIRC SL16 mesh within the IHNC corridor including:
• Resolution increased from 40m to 15m,• Mesh carefully aligned to shore parallel contours,• Re-interpolation of most recent bathy survey,• Implementation of Seabrook and GIWW structures and MRGO closure.
Orig
inal
Upd
ated
© Arcadis 2016
ADCIRC/SWAN Update• Previous modeling used single (inland) wind data point and did not
account for wave setup across Lake Borgne.
• To overcome limitations of previous modeling efforts:
• Fully coupled with SWAN wave model. Wave setup can increase hydraulic gradient for westerly winds.
• Developed a methodology to extract spatially and temporally variable NAM wind fields (North American Mesoscale Forecast System)
• Updated model and wind methodology tested and stable. NAM Wind Water Currents
© Arcadis 2016
Recommended Next StepsPhase 2:
• Use the updated ADCIRC/SWAN/NAM system• Explore regional scale dynamics for variety of scenarios,• Identify locations for remote monitoring/gaging to warn of
potentially dangerous conditions,• Provide boundary conditions for Phase 3.
Phase 3:• Develop fully three dimensional Flow3D model,• Use Flow3D to explore eddying and guide walls,• Identify optimal locations for ADCP and local gaging.
© Arcadis 2016
Thank You!
28 October 2016 22