Uncertainty analysis of the HEC-RAS results in hydraulic simulation of Karoon River flow by Monte-Carlo approach

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Water Science & Engineering, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

2 PhD. Student of Water Structures Engineering, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran

Abstract

Introduction
The roughness parameter in hydraulic modelling of natural river and channel flows is not measurable easily and accurate point determination of roughness coefficient, its spatial and temporal variations includes several uncertainties that acts as the main source of error and uncertainties in hydraulic modeling. These drawbacks restricts the applicability of hydraulic modelling in river engineering projects, flood control and management, re-habitation and river restoration. Due to the uncertainties in rating curve, stage, top water width, stream power, shear stress, Froude number and velocity. Because of these drawbacks, in the current study uncertainty analysis by Monte-Carlo Simulation (MCS) combined with HEC-RAS model.

Methodology
In the current study uncertainty analysis, by Monte-Carlo Simulation (MCS) combined with HEC-RAS model is used to study a 105 km reach of Karoon River from Mollasani to Farsiat as shown in Fig. 1. The model is calibrated and verified using two year daily data of river flow and stage levels in Ahvaz station at the middle of the river reach. A computational control module is developed and combined with computational core of HEC-RAS to perform MCS automatically and the flowchart of modeling strategy and uncertainty analysis is presented in Fig.2. The MCS approach is coupled with computational core of HEC-RAS model by developing a subprogram that create and modifies the input files of HEC-RAS, run it automatically based on random samples of n Manning, and extracting the results of HEC-RAS model in each execution for further analysis in an automatic procedure. By using probability distribution of Manning roughness, 3000 simulations performed and graphical and quantitative indices used to evaluate the uncertainties of model results. In order to refine proper MCS from non-proper ones, the NSE>0.75 index is used to objectively sample n Manning from uncertainty analysis. The uncertainty analysis of proper MCS evaluated by 5 and 95% uncertainty bounds. The uncertainty analysis of model results are evaluated based on the six parameters of water surface elevation, top width of water, flow velocity, Froude number, stream power and shear stress in 3000 runs of peak flow and mean flow discharges respectively and quantified by two indices of 95PPU and d-factor.
Results and Discussion
The calibration and verification results of the HEC-RAS model in Figs 3-4 shows that in the calibration data set the R2 and RMSE of model in discharge are 0.94 and 21 (m3/s); and 093 and 0.6 (m) for water stage respectively. These values in the verification stage were 0.94 and 25.2(m3/s) for discharge; and 0.91 and 0.1(m) for water stage respectively. The results in 105 km length of Karoon River reveals high level of uncertainties with d-factor greater than 1 up to 11 in peak discharge of 3000 and mean daily discharge of 457 m3/s. These results revealed that using conditional evaluations based on NSE>0.75 reduced the uncertainty of d-factor in results of rating curve, stage, top water width, stream power, shear stress, Froude number and velocity. The d-factor of water stage reduced from 2 to 0.07 in peak discharge, and from 0.96 to 0.02 in average flows. These uncertainty reductions in top width of water were 2.5 to 0.19 in peak discharge and 1.3 to 0.078 in average flows of Karoon river. The highest uncertainty of HEC-RAS model results observed in water velocity and Froude number with di-factor 10.85 and 7.44 in peak discharge respectively. This trend of uncertainty reduction observed for water velocity, Froude number, stream power and shear stress along the river, as provided in Tables 1-3. The spectral responses of hydraulic parameters in model result that presented in Figs 5-10, indicate that although the HEC-RAS model produced high uncertainty values, especially in the complex domain of Karoon river, but these uncertainties dos not deviates the hydraulic patters of river flow in the study reach. The peak and maximum values and the zones of high vales of parameters, show high level of uncertainty than the small or moderate hydraulic situations. These indicates the inherent uncertainty in model results that causes high extents of spectral responses for model simulations. The provided findings necessitates the accurate determination of roughness coefficient according to its spatial and dynamic variations along the river reach.
Conclusion
The uncertainty results revealed high level of latent uncertainties in HEC-RAS model results and probabilistic analysis of models results is required for river re-habitation and management practices of large rivers such as Karoon River to provide certain and reliable results. The presented methodology and framer in the current study that uses automatic control and automation of HEC-RAS runs, strengths the modeling capability of one dimensional river flows for probabilistic analysis and automatic calibration of this mode.

Keywords

References

Abbaspour, K.C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J. and Srinivasan, R. (2007). Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. Journal of hydrology, 333(2-4), 413-430.
Ahmed, I. and Freeman, G.E. (2004). Estimating Stage Discharge Uncertainty for Flood Damage Assessment. In Critical Transitions in Water and Environmental Resources Management, pp. 1-8.
Bates, B.C., and Townley, L.R. (1988). Nonlinear, discrete flood event models, 3. Analysis of prediction uncertainty. Journal of Hydrology, 99, 91–101.
Bautista, E., Clemmens, A.J., Strelkoff, T.S., and Schlegel, J. (2009). Modern analysis of surface irrigation systems with WinSRFR. Agricultural Water Management, 96(7), 1146-1154.
Bessar, M.A., Matte, P., and Anctil, F. (2020). Uncertainty Analysis of a 1D River Hydraulic Model with Adaptive Calibration. Water, 12(2), 561.
Couto, P.R.G., Damasceno, J.C., Oliveira, S.D., and Chan, W.K. (2013). Monte Carlo simulations applied to uncertainty in measurement. Theory and applications of Monte Carlo simulations, 27-51.
Dalledonne, G., Kopmann, R. and Brudy-Zippelius, T. (2019).  Uncertainty analysis of floodplain friction in hydrodynamic models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., doi: 10.5194/hess-2019-159.
Di Baldassarre, G. and Montanari, A. (2009). Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences, 13(6), 913-921.
Dung, N.V., Merz, B., Bárdossy, A., and Apel, H. (2015). Handling uncertainty in bivariate quantile estimation–An application to flood hazard analysis in the Mekong Delta. Journal of Hydrology, 527, 704-717.
Dysarz, T., Wicher-Dysarz, J., Sojka, M. and Jaskuła, J. (2019). Analysis of extreme flow uncertainty impact on size of flood hazard zones for the Wronki gauge station in the Warta river. Acta Geophysica, 67(2), 661-676.
Ebtehaj, I., Bonakdari, H., Safari, M.J.S., Gharabaghi, B., Zaji, A.H., Madavar, H.R. and Mehr, A.D. (2020). Combination of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses for sediment transport modeling in sewer pipes. International Journal of Sediment Research, 35(2), 157-170.
 Eftekharian, L., Abrishamchi, A. and Tajrishi, M. (2005). Uncertainty Analysis of Water Levels of Sistan River and Reliability Analysis of Flood Control System. Journal of Hydraulics, 1(1), 39-54. (in Persian).
Faghih, M., Mirzaei, M., Adamowski, J., Lee, J. and El‐Shafie, A. (2017). Uncertainty estimation in flood inundation mapping: an application of non‐parametric Bootstrapping. River research and Applications, 33(4), 611-619.
Fakouri, B., Mazaheri, M., and Samani, J.M. (2019). Management scenarios methodology for salinity control in rivers (case study: Karoon River, Iran). Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua. 68(1), 74-86.
Fakouri Dekahi, B., Mazaheri, M. and Mohammad Vali Samani, J. (2018). Evaluation of Karun River Water Salinity Reduction Strategies Using Management Scenarios. Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering, 50(2), 245-256. (in Persian).
Fakouri Dekahi, B., Samani, J. and Mazahari, M. (2016). Effect of floods and management of pollution sources on temporal and spatial variations in water salinity of Karun River (Mollasani to Farsiat). Water and Irrigation Management, 6(2), 295-314. (in Persian)
Ganji Nowrouzi, Z., Shokoohi, A., and Singh, V. (2016). Evaluating the effect of discharge - probability function uncertainty on the risk of agricultural loss due to flood using Monte Carlo method. Iran-Water Resources Research, 12(2), 13-23. (in Persian).
Guo, A., Chang, J., Wang, Y., Huang, Q. and Li, Y. (2020). Uncertainty quantification and propagation in bivariate design flood estimation using a Bayesian information-theoretic approach. Journal of Hydrology, 584, 124677.
Heckert N.A., Filliben, J.J., Croarkin, C.M., Hembree, B., Guthrie, W.F., Tobias, P., and Prinz, J. (2002). Handbook 151: NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook ofStatistical Methods. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR).
Heydari, A., Saghafian, B. and Maknoun, R. (2007). Application of Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation Approach in Real Time Updating of Flood Forecasting Model. Journal of Hydraulics, 2(2), 17-32. (in Persian).
Huang, Y. and Qin, X. (2014). Uncertainty analysis for flood inundation modelling with a random floodplain roughness field. Environmental Systems Research, 3(1), 1-7.
Jacquin, A.P. and Shamseldin, A.Y. (2007). Development of a possibilistic method for the evaluation of predictive uncertainty in rainfall-runoff modeling. Water Resources Research, W04425.
Kahe, M.S., Javadi, S., Roozbahani, A. and Mohammadi, K. (2021). Parametric uncertainty analysis on hydrodynamic coefficients in groundwater numerical models using Monte Carlo method and RPEM. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-24.
Kiang, J.E., Gazoorian, C., McMillan, H., Coxon, G., Le Coz, J., Westerberg, I.K., Belleville, A., Sevrez, D., Sikorska, A.E., Petersen-Øverleir, A., and Reitan, T. (2018). A comparison of methods for Streamflow uncertainty estimation. Water Resour Res, 54(10), 7149–7176.
Koo, H., Chen, M., Jakeman, A.J. and Zhang, F. (2020a). A global sensitivity analysis approach for identifying critical sources of uncertainty in non-identifiable, spatially distributed environmental models: A holistic analysis applied to SWAT for input datasets and model parameters. Environmental modelling & software, 127, 104676.
Koo, H., Iwanaga, T., Croke, B.F., Jakeman, A.J., Yang, J., Wang, H.H. and Chen, M. (2020b). Position paper: Sensitivity analysis of spatially distributed environmental models-a pragmatic framework for the exploration of uncertainty sources. Environmental modelling & software, 104857.
Le Coz, J., Renard, B., Bonnifait, L., Branger, F. and Le Boursicaud, R. (2014). Combining hydraulic knowledge and uncertain gaugings in the estimation of hydrometric rating curves: A Bayesian approach. Journal of Hydrology, 509, 573-587.
Liu, Z. and Merwade, V. (2019). Separation and prioritization of uncertainty sources in a raster based flood inundation model using hierarchical Bayesian model averaging. Journal of Hydrology, 578, 124100.
Mansanarez, V., Westerberg, I.K., Lam, N. and Lyon, S.W. (2019). Rapid Stage‐Discharge Rating Curve Assessment Using Hydraulic Modeling in an Uncertainty Framework. Water Resources Research, 55(11), 9765-9787.
Marcé, R., Comerma, M., García, J.C. and Armengol, J. (2004). A neuro‐fuzzy modeling tool to estimate fluvial nutrient loads in watersheds under time varying human impact. Limnology and Oceanography: Methods, 2(11), 342-355.
Masoumi, F., Najjar-Ghabel, S. and Salimi, N. (2021). Automatic calibration of the two-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model using sequential uncertainty fitting approach. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 193(2), 1-15.
Mohammadi, S. and Kashefipour, M. (2011). Numerical modeling of flow using an improved dynamic roughness coefficient (Case study: Karun River). Irrigation and Water Engineering, 2(1), 99-110.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D. and Veith, T.L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885-900.
Mukolwe, M.M., Baldassarre, G.D., Werner, M. and Solomatine, D.P. (2014). Flood modelling: parameterization and inflow uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Water Management. 167(1), 51-60.
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A discussion of principles. Journal of hydrology, 10(3), 282-290.
Nikmanesh, M.R. (2011).  Predicting the effect of vegetation on the coefficient of hydraulic roughness of the Shiraz river bed. Water Science and Engineering. 1(3), 41-54. (in Persian).
Pappenberger, F., Beven, K., Horritt, M. and Blazkova, S. (2005). Uncertainty in the calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observations. Journal of Hydrology, 302(1-4), 46-69.
Pinheiro, V.B., Naghettini, M. and Palmier, L.R. (2019). Uncertainty estimation in hydrodynamic modeling using Bayesian techniques. RBRH, 24.
Rathod, P. and Manekar, V.L. (2020). Parameter uncertainty in HEC-RAS 1D CSU scour model. Current Science, 118(8), 1227.
Reichstetter,  M.  (2011) .Hydraulic  Modelling  of  Unsteady  Open  Channel  Flow:  Physical  and  Analytical  Validation  of  Numerical  Models  of  Positive  and  Negative  Surges.  MPhil  thesis,  School of Civil Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 112 p.
Riahi-Madvar, H., Ayyoubzadeh, S., Namin, M. and Seifi, A. (2011). Uncertainty analysis of quasi-two-dimensional flow simulation in compound channels with overbank flows. Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics, 59(3), 171-183.
Riahi-Madvar, H. and Seifi, A. (2018). Uncertainty analysis in bed load transport prediction of gravel bed rivers by ANN and ANFIS. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11(21), 1-20.
Saberi Tanasvan, M., Ganji Noroozi, Z., Delghandi, M. and Dorostkar, V. (2020). Sensitivity analysis of flood parameters to roughness variation. Irrigation and Water Engineering, 10(4), 167-180. (in Persian)
Scharffenberg, W.A. and Kavvas, M.L. (2011). Uncertainty in flood wave routing in a lateral-inflow-dominated stream. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 16(2), 165-175.
Seifi, A., Dehghani, M. and Singh, V.P. (2020). Uncertainty analysis of water quality index (WQI) for groundwater quality evaluation: Application of Monte-Carlo method for weight allocation. Ecological Indicators, 117, 106653. doi: 10.1016/j. ecolind.2020.106653
Seifi, A., Ehteram, M. and Soroush, F. (2020). Uncertainties of instantaneous influent flow predictions by intelligence models hybridized with multi-objective shark smell optimization algorithm. Journal of Hydrology, 587, 124977.   
Serinaldi, F. (2013). An uncertain journey around the tails of multivariate hydrological distributions. Water Resources Research, 49(10), 6527-6547.
Shafaei Bajestan, M. (2005). Sediment hydraulics, Shahid Chamran University, Ahwaz, Iran. (in Persian).
Soroush, F. and Riahi, H. (2019). Uncertainty Analysis of Infiltration Parameters of WinSRFR Furrow Irrigation Simulation Model with Monte Carlo Method. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 50(4), 1007-991. (in Persian)
Stephens, T.A. and Bledsoe, B.P. (2020). Probabilistic mapping of flood hazards: Depicting uncertainty in streamflow, land use, and geomorphic adjustment. Anthropocene, 29, 100231.
Teng, J., Jakeman, A.J., Vaze, J., Croke, B.F., Dutta, D. and Kim, S. (2017). Flood inundation modelling: A review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environmental Modelling & Software, 90, 201-216.
Tschiedel, A.D.F. and Paiva, R.C.D.D. (2018). Uncertainty assessment in hydrodynamic modeling of floods generated by dam break. RBRH, 23.
Vatanchi, S.M. and Maghrebi, M.F. (2019). Uncertainty in Rating-Curves Due to Manning Roughness Coefficient. Water Resources Management, 33(15), 5153-5167.
Wohl, E.E. (1998). Uncertainty in flood estimates associated with roughness coefficient. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 124(2), 219-223.
Zheng, Y. and Han, F. (2016). Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) uncertainty analysis for watershed water quality modeling and management. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 30(1), 293-308.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 October 2020
  • Revise Date: 18 February 2021
  • Accept Date: 20 April 2021

Share

How to cite

Statistics