應用 hec-ras 一維水理模式評估渠首工構造物之淹水 …‡‰用hec-ras一... ·...

2012 1

HEC-RAS -

[1*] [2] [3] [4] [5]

()(HEC-RAS) 15

HEC-RAS

Application of HEC-RAS model assessment the headworks structure of flood potential - a Case Study of

TaiChung Irrigation District Feng-Wen Chen[1*] Hsiu-Te Lin[2] Tsung-Yi Chen[3] Shyh-Cherng Lan[4] Han-Sheng Tsai[5]

ABSTRACT Most the irrigation water was intake from river in Taichung area. The headworks facilities for the irrigation system was the most vulnerable to flood at the river bank on the grounds that high flow period rainstorm or typhoon events generate high runoff. Headworks for the river water intake is the most critical hydraulic structures, floods caused by submerged obstacle like silt or equipment damage...etc, will affect the operation of the headworks. The purposes of this study understand flood potential with the important headworks in central Taiwan for agricultural irrigation. In this paper the study area to the main flow of three river basins: Daan River, Daja River, and Wu River etc. in central Taiwan; according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) development of the River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), and analysis 16 different places of the headworks at different peak flow conditions of the simulation analysis of flood potential. Finally, this case study can be provided as a reference for the headworks facilities maintenance countermeasures during high flow period. Key Words: HEC-RAS, Flood potential analysis, headworks.

()

HEC-RASFLO-2DSWMM SOBEK (2002) HEC-RAS (2003) HEC-RAS GIS

1 * E-mail: chenfw@aerc.org.tw Assistant Researcher, Agricultural Engineering Research Center, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan 2 Assistant Researcher, Agricultural Engineering Research Center, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan 3 Taichung Irrigation Association, Taichung 404, Taiwan 4 Taichung Irrigation Association, Taichung 404, Taiwan 5 Taichung Irrigation Association, Taichung 404, Taiwan

2012

(Digital T

))

1 Fig.1 Lo

Terrain Mod

)

)( 2 )( 2()

ocation of hea

del, DTM)

15 ( M114( M1

2 M269

1

adworks

15

(

179 L6-1, L6-2 M254, M)( M37

15 (

(2

(200

)()

M254-O)(9

)

006) S

08) HE

7 M169( 1 )

M259) 1

1

SOBEK

C-GeoRAS

) 7 1

M1

))

1 )(184

( M249( M264(

1

2

(

M174)9

M274

2012 3

1 Table 1 The Basic data of headworks

(TM97)

1

X X a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

M144 225699.64 225699.64 230.05 M169 221141.10 221141.10 142.79

M174 218745.78 218745.78 117.00 M179 216210.97 216210.97 82.00 L6-1 212189.97 212189.97 17.00 L6-2 210782.87 210782.87 11.00

M184 214294.33 214294.33 62.00

M249 224055.65 224055.65 229.00 M254 223126.03 223126.03 209.62 M254-O 2 223126.03 223126.03 208.34

M264 213038.47 213038.47 89.00 M269 210195.07 210195.07 52.00

M259 211852.93 211852.93 74.00 M274 211290.38 211290.38 70.00

M379 204286.66 204286.66 0.04

1 a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.

2M245-O (M254)

1. HEC-RAS

HEC-RAS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USACE)- (Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC)HEC (1939-1945) 1964 HEC HEC-1()HEC-2()HEC-3() HEC-4() HEC-RAS 1995 HEC-2 (River Analysis System, RAS)(IWR)(GUI) a.b.c.d.(Brunner, 2010a) 4.1.0 (2010 )

HEC-RAS HEC-RAS (Cross Section Conveyance Calculations)(Standard Step Method)( 1)

ehgVZd

gVZd

22

222

22

211

11

............................................................ (1)

d1d2Z1Z2V1V2()12

ghe

(2)

g

VVCSLhe 2

222

211

.................................................................. (2)

L()SC

L(3)(3) LlLc Lr

QlQc Qr

2012 4

rcl

rrccllQQQ

QLQLQLL

................................................................................................................. (3)

K(Conveyance)

HEC-RAS ( 2)

n (4)(5)

21SKQ ................................................................................................................................. (4)

321 RAn

Kx

........................................................................................................................... (5)

K nxAR

2 HEC-RAS Fig.2 Conveyance of sub-sections of river in the HEC-RAS model

HEC-RAS (New Computational Features)

a.b.

()c.

d. 0.1(Brunner, 2010a)

HEC-RAS 1995 Pistocchi(2002);

(2004); Chuienchooklin etal.(2007); Crawford(2010) HEC-RAS

Shahrokhnia Javan(2005) Doroodzan

20012002

HEC-RAS Shahrokhnia Javan(2007)

HEC-RAS

(2008)(2009) HEC-RAS

(2003) HEC-RAS

HEC-RASHEC-RAS(Brunner,

2010b) a.b.

a.b.()

2012

HEC-RA

2.

( http://

00

24

00

s= 0.0

5 10

2,960-15

Q2=3,

Q200=15,

cmsQ1

Q20=12,0

2 Table 2

S

gic.wra.gov.t

35 ( 22

4 ( 5.021

0- 21-1

0007n = 0

0 20

5,990 cms

150 cmsQ5

,990 cms

100=10,300 cm

000 cmsQ5

Peak flow of

2

* 3,1502,960

2,600 3,800

(2000)

tw )

2.107 km

km

)0

.037 (2

50 100

1,200

=5,620 cms

Q2=

msQ200=11

50=17,000 cm

3~ 5

f each basin f

5 0 5,620 0 5,320 0 4,500 0 7,000 21-

HEC-

)

)

0.036 (

2000)

0 200

-11,500 cms

Q10=7,430 c

2,600 cmsQ

1,500 cms

msQ100=21,

3

for simulation

10 7,430 7,070 5,900 9,400 1

1 23

RAS

03

(s)

23- 3

s 3,800

cmsQ20=9,2

Q5=4,500 cm

Q2=

,000 cmsQ

n

20 5

9,270 11,8,850 11,7,300 8,9

12,000 17,

36-D (

n

35

0-26,000 cm

270 cmsQ50

msQ10=5,900

=3,800 cms

Q200=26,000 c

50 100 820 13,84340 13,34900 10,30000 21,00

20.200 km

s =

) s =

s

0=11,820 cms

0 cmsQ20=7

Q5=7,000 cm

cms

200 0 15,990 0 15,450 0 11,500 0 26,000

Google Ear

)

0.0111n =

= 0.006n =

2

sQ100=13,8

7,300 cmsQ

msQ10=9,4

00- 23-

5

rth

15

0.038 (

0.04

2

840 cms

Q50=8,900

00 cms

15

21-1 35

2012

3 HECFig.3 Cr

4 HECFig.4 Cr

5 HEC

C-RAS ross-section o

C-RAS ross-section o

C-RAS

-of Wu river of

-of Daja river o

-

HEC-RAS mo

of HEC-RAS m

odel

model

6

2012 7Fig.5 Cross-section of Daan river of HEC-RAS model

2012 8

3 HEC-RAS Table 3 Cross-section used for simulation by using HEC-RAS model

No. No. No. 1 -00 0k+000 1 -03 0k+000 1 -15 0k+000 2 -01 0k+479 2 -04 0k+646 2 -16 0k+517 3 -01-1 0k+732 3 -05 1k+339 3 -17 1k+039 4 L6-1 0k+986 4 -06 2k+001 4 -18 1k+594 5 -02 1k+204 5 -07 2k+575 5 -19 2k+110 6 -03 1k+797 6 M269 2k+599 6 M379 2k+444 7 L6-2 2k+101 7 -08 2k+698 7 -20 2k+610 8 -04 2k+415 8 -09 3k+264 8 -21 3k+194 9 -05 2k+998 9 -10 3k+775 9 -22 3k+767 10 -06 3k+683 10 M274 3k+885 10 -23 4k+396 11 -07 4k+277 11 -11 4k+256 11 -24 5k+021 12 -08 4k+874 12 M259 4k+713 13 -09 5k+609 13 -12 4k+815 14 -09-1 5k+910 14 M264 5k+412 15 M184 6k+228 15 -13 5k+609 16 -10 6k+431 16 -14 6k+135 17 M184-1 6k+500 17 -15 6k+692 18 -10-1 6k+782 18 -17 7k+777 19 -11 7k+159 19 -18 8k+424 20 -11-1 7k+579 20 -26 13k+843 21 M179 7k+868 21 -27 14k+386 22 -12 7k+998 22 -28 14k+876 23 -13 8k+576 23 -28-1D 15k+263 24 -13-1 9k+031 24 -29 15k+539 25 -14 9k+289 25 -30 16k+304 26 -14-1 9k+782 26 M254 16k+672 27 -15 10k+153 27 M249 17k+571 28 M174 10k+506 28 -33 17k+915 29 -16 10k+847 29 -34 18k+560 30 -17 11k+505 30 -35D 19k+223 31 -18 11k+994 31 -35-1 19k+343 32 -19 12k+532 32 -36D 20k+200 33 -19-1 12k+912 34 M169 13k+035 35 -20 13k+419 36 -21 13k+904 37 -21-1 14k+495 38 -23 15k+092 39 -24 15k+456 40 -26 16k+635 41 -27 17k+203 42 -28 17k+922 43 -29 18k+330 44 -30 18k+929 45 M144 19k+060 46 -31 19k+606 47 -32 20k+351

-00-032.3 km-36D-158.5 km

48 -33 21k+049 49 -34 21k+467 50 -35 22k+107

2012 9

1.

HEC-RAS 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

(

)(T)(QT) HEC-RAS

2 HEC-RAS

6- 10 4 2 15

2

( 3,150 cms 2,600 cms 3,800 cms)

5 ( 5,620 cms

4,500 cms 7,000 cms)

5

10

7,430 cms 7,300 cms 9,400 cms

10

20

20

20

(2008)

2.

HEC-RAS 2012 610 2

610 6/12 271.5 mm

26,587.7 /(3,077.28 cms)26,592.8 /(3,077.87 cms)

8/2 412.5 mm 22,809.5 /

(2,639.99 cms)22,737.8 /(2,631.69 cms)

(610 11)( 12)

2

5 (Q2=2,600 cms, Q5=4,500 cms)

2012

6 Fig.6 Re

esult of simul

lation of head

(I) dworks in Daa

an river(I)

10

2012

7 Fig.7 Re

8 Fig.8 Re

esult of simul

esult of simul

lation of head

lation of head

(I) dworks in Daa

(I) dworks in Daj

an river(II)

a river(I)

11

2012

9 Fig.9 Re

10 Fig.10 Re

esult of simul

esult of simul

lation of head

lation of head

(II) dworks in Daj

dworks in Wu

a river(II)

river

12

2012 13

11 (610 ) Fig.11 Variation of flow simulation in Napu canal (610 event)

12 () Fig.12 Variation of flow simulation in Napu canal (Event of typhoon Saola)

A.

F. (610 ) E. ()

D. (610 ) C. ()

B. (610 )

A. () B. ()

2012 14

4 Table 4 Simulation on flooded degree of resistance of headworks in Dann river

(m)

HEC-RAS

(T) QT = 2 QT = 5 QT = 10 QT = 20 QT = 50 QT = 100 QT = 200

L6-2 11.00 14.84 15.63 16.08 16.49 16.99 17.34 17.69 15.80 -0.96 -0.17 0.28 0.69 1.19 1.54 1.89

L6-1 17.00 21.28 22.25 22.79 23.45 24 24.4 24.82 23.32 -2.04 -1.07 -0.53 0.13 0.68 1.08 1.50

M184

62.00 65.14 65.69 66.15 66.49 66.95 67.32 67.64 69.21

-4.07 -3.52 -3.06 -2.72 -2.26 -1.89 -1.57 66.70 -1.56 -1.01 -0.55 -0.21 0.25 0.62 0.94

68.70 -3.56 -3.01 -2.55 -2.21 -1.75 -1.38 -1.06 64.00 1.14 1.69 2.15 2.49 2.95 3.32 3.64

M179 82.00 84.56 85.43 85.68 85.91 86.29 86.55 86.9 91.89

-7.33 -6.46 -6.21 -5.98 -5.60 -5.34 -4.99 90.19 -5.63 -4.76 -4.51 -4.28 -3.90 -3.64 -3.29

M174 117.00 120.09 120.23 120.65 121.14 121.56 121.89 122.26 127.16

-7.07 -6.93 -6.51 -6.02 -5.60 -5.27 -4.90 122.93 -2.84 -2.70 -2.28 -1.79 -1.37 -1.04 -0.67

M169

142.79 148.09 150.32 151.62 152.8 154.24 155.29 156.3 162.00

-13.91 -11.68 -10.38 -9.19 -7.76 -6.71 -5.69

157.80 -9.71 -7.48 -6.18 -5.00 -3.56 -2.51 -1.50

M144 230.05 231.87 232.64 233.11 233.57 234.14 234.6 235.02 240.00

-8.13 -7.36 -6.89 -6.43 -5.86 -5.40 -4.98 1 232.00 -0.13 0.64 1.11 1.57 2.14 2.60 3.02

M269 52.00 53.89 54.26 54.44 54.6 54.86 55.06 55.21 63.17

-9.28 -8.91 -8.73 -8.57 -8.31 -8.11 -7.96 59.12 -5.23 -4.86 -4.68 -4.52 -4.26 -4.06 -3.91

M274 70.00 72.78 73.31 73.69 73.91 74.16 74.34 74.49 80.10

-7.32 -6.79 -6.41 -6.19 -5.94 -5.76 -5.61 75.70 -2.92 -2.39 -2.01 -1.79 -1.54 -1.36 -1.21

M259 74.00 78.65 79.5 79.97 80.42 80.8 81.15 81.39 87.95

-9.30 -8.45 -7.98 -7.53 -7.15 -6.80 -6.56 82.90 -4.25 -3.40 -2.93 -2.48 -2.10 -1.75 -1.51

M264 89.00 91.08 91.48 91.72 91.94 92.26 92.44 92.59 96.24

-5.16 -4.76 -4.52 -4.30 -3.98 -3.80 -3.65 93.69 -2.61 -2.21 -1.97 -1.75 -1.43 -1.25 -1.10

M254-O3

208.34 214.98 215.84 216.29 217.09 217.61 217.83 218.02 227.13

-12.15 -11.29 -10.84 -10.04 -9.52 -9.30 -9.11 216.93 -1.95 -1.09 -0.64 0.16 0.68 0.90 1.09

M254 209.62 215.61 216.71 217.34 218.16 218.72 219.03 219.28 217.90

-2.29 -1.19 -0.56 0.26 0.82 1.13 1.38 216.90 -1.29 -0.19 0.44 1.26 1.82 2.13 2.38

M249 229.00 231.78 232.88 233.46 234.06 234.66 235.27 235.56 236.58

-4.80 -3.70 -3.12 -2.52 -1.92 -1.31 -1.02 () 232.68 -0.90 0.20 0.78 1.38 1.98 2.59 2.88

M379

0.04 7.12 8.87 9.88 10.85 12.15 12.96 13.86 16.33

-9.21 -7.46 -6.45 -5.48 -4.18 -3.37 -2.47

16.32 -9.20 -7.45 -6.44 -5.47 -4.17 -3.36 -2.46 12.19 -5.07 -3.32 -2.31 -1.34 -0.04 0.77 1.67

1 2 3M254-O (M254)-30

1. 15 2 5 10 20 50 100 200

HEC-RASModel 3 10 2 ()5 ()

2012 15

610 ( 3,077 cms)( 2,631 cms) 2

2.

1. Brunner, G.W.(2010a), HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic reference manual, USACE-HEC. 2. Brunner, G.W.(2010b), HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic users manual version 4.1,

USACE-HEC. 3. Crawford, D.A.(2010), Flood risk assessment: Proposed development of land at Ballochyle, by

Sandbank, Argyll , TransTech Limited. 4. Chuienchooklin, S., P. Mekprugsawong, P. Chidchob(2007), The river analysis simulation model for

the planning of Retention area and Diversion channel for flood reduction in the lower Yoms river basin, Thailand, 4th INWEPF Steering Meeting and Symposium, Thailand.

5. Pistocchi, A., P. Mazzoli(2002), Use of HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS models with Arcview for hydrologic risk management, 1st iEMSs International Meeting, Switzerland.

6. Shahrokhnia, M. A. and M. Javan(2005), Performance assessment of Doroodzan irrigation network by steady state hydraulic modeling, Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 19(2): 189-206.

7. Shahrokhnia, M. A. and M. Javan(2007), Influence of roughness changes on offtaking discharge in irrigation canals, Water Resources Management, 21(3): 635-647.

8. (2006)

9. (2003) 35 3 pp.291 -308

10. (2004) 52 2 pp.58 -68

11. (2008) 3 4 pp. 297 -306

13. (2003) HEC-RAS GIS -

14. (2008) 15. (2002)

16. (2008) HEC-GeoRAS --

40 4 pp.455 -466 17 (2008)()