29 4B · 2009 7 − 347 −
29 4B·2009 7
Dam Break Analysis with HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS
*·**·***·****
·····························································································································································································································
Abstract
This study simulates the dam break situation by a probable maximum
precipitation of Soyang-River Dam using HEC-HMS
model and HEC-RAS model and compares the simulated results. The
probable maximum precipitation was calculated using the
flood event of the typhoon Rusa occurred in 2002 and using the mean
areal precipitation of the Gangreung region and the
moisture maximization method. The estimated probable maximum
precipitations were compared for the duration of 6, 12, 18,
and 24 hrs and were used as input data for the HEC-HMS model.
Moreover, the inflow data calculated by HEC-HMS were uti-
lized as ones for HEC-RAS, and then unsteady flow analysis was
conducted. The two models were used for the dam break
analysis with the same conditions and the peak flow estimated by
HEC-HMS was larger than that of the HEC-RAS model. The
applicability of two models was performed from the dam break
analysis then we found that we could simulate more realistic
peak flow by HEC-RAS than HEC-HMS. However, when we need more fast
simulation results we could use HEC-HMS.
Therefore, we may need the guidelines for the different
utilizations with different purposes of two models. Furthermore,
since
the two models still include uncertainties, it is important to
establish more detailed topographical factors and data
reflecting
actual rivers.
·····························································································································································································································
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
.
. (6 hr, 12 hr, 18
hr, 24 hr) , HEC-HMS , HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS . ,
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS . HEC-RAS HEC-HMS
, HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
. HEC-HMS
.
.
.
: , , HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS
·····························································································································································································································
,
. 2002 (RUSA)
,
(, 2007).
(Probable Maximum Flood,
PMF)
.
(Probable
Maximum Precipitation, PMP) (Probable
* (E-mail :
[email protected])
** (E-mail :
[email protected])
*** (E-mail :
[email protected])
**** (E-mail :
[email protected])
− 348 −
. (HMR)
HMR Report
. HMR51
, HMR52 “HMR51 Report”
.
HMR53, 54 10 mi2~400 mi2
. 1970
FSR(Flood Studies Report)
.
. 1980
(, 1988),
, 2004)
. , (2004)
(, )
. (2006)
,
.
(2006) 131
.
(, 2007)
.
. ,
Garicia-Navarro (1999)
, Sharghi (2000) 2 Navier-
Stokes
. (USACE) HEC(Hydrologic
.
(1988)
DAMBRK
Monte-Carlo DAMBRK-U
(1992)
DAMBRK .
(1992)
. (2001) HEC-
HMS, DAMBRK, HEC-RAS
,
(2005)
2 . (2008)
DAMBRK HEC-RAS
, HEC-
RAS HEC-HMS
.
HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
.
(hydrometeorological method)
(statistical method)
(, 2007).
.
,
1.
29 4B · 2009 7 − 349 −
PMP-DAD .
,
DAD
PMP-DAD .
.
.
, RGF OP .
--(DAD) ,
,
.
1000 mb 12
1000 mb ,
12 1000 mb 15
.
(mm), 12 1,000
hpa (mm) .
3)
12
.
(3)
12 1000 mb ,
12
1000 mb .
4)
.
300 m 1/2
12 1000 mb
.
5)
,
. ,
24 100
.
100 24 ,
(100yr−23yr)si 100 24
.
6)
.
.
2.2
2.2.1
Huff , Yen-Cow ,
.
Huff
.
4
4 . ,
1/4 1,
2/4 2 3, 4
.
.
(6)
(7)
RIP
Wpm ti se 300±( ),,
--------------------------------------=
PR i( ) R i( ) RO --------- 100%×=
− 350 −
T(i) (%) i
i=10 , PR(i) TO
(mm) T(i)
(%). PT(i) PR(i)
.
factor; ARF) ,
(storm-centered) (fixed-
.
.
, R2
. R1
R2
(, 1991).
DAD(depth-area-duration)
,
.
and Langridge-Monopolis(1984), Froehlich(1995), Von Thun
& Gillette(1990)
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
Overtop
Breach Piping Failure
.
.
.
3.1 MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis
.
.
0.5 .
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
(hour) , BREACHsize
. ,
.
(26)
Wb , hb , C
, Zb (h:v); MacDonald
0.5 , Z1 (h:v), z2
(h:v), z3 .
3.2 Froehlich
.
,
Overtop Breach 1.4(h:v), (Piping
Breach) 0.9 .
(m), K0 Overtop Breach : 1.4 Otherwise(Piping
Failure) : 1.0 , hb
(m) ,
Vw (m3) , tf
.
Von Thun and Gillette(1990)
,
.
(29)
(30)
(31)
(m), Cb , tf
.
.
Earthfill–=
Non– Earthfill–=
tf 0.015hw easilyerodible–=
(32)
(33)
1:1(h:v) ,
0.33~0.5(h:v) .
.
HEC-HMS .
,
. HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
Flow Hydrograph
. (2005)
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
HEC-HMS
.
Flow Hydrograph
. 2
.
.
Dam Failure Method, Trigger Method, Progression
Method .
HEC-HMS
, HEC-RAS
HEC-HMS
.
4.
28%.
, 3
(923.3 km2),
(1069.3 km2), (709.9 km2) .
.
. 123
m 530 m, 9,591(m3).
4.2.
DAD
PMP-DAD
PMP (, 2004)
.
- , (2004)
-
tf
Bavg
tf
Bavg
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
Trigger Method Elevation WS Elevation
198m(EL) 198m(EL)
O
X O 3.
− 352 −
-
DAD .
DAD PMP-DAD
( 5) . PMP
PMP
.
PMP (, 2004)
. , ,
.
(2004) (:, 2:1)
. 6
, 7
.
4. DAD (, 2004) 5. PMP-DAD
6. 7.
29 4B · 2009 7 − 353 −
.
,
.
HEC-
HMS ,
SCS,
Muskingum . HEC-HMS
HEC-HMS Dam-Break Tool
.
6 hr, 12 hr, 18 hr, 24 hr
.
, 8~ 11
.
2
8~ 11 .
HEC-HMS
1 94
HEC-RAS .
7
6
(EL 198 m)
.
(EL) .
12 hr 18 hr
, 12 hr HEC-
HMS
.
HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
.
, HEC-HMS
.
HEC-RAS HEC-HMS
HEC-HMS
. HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
. HEC-HMS
2. (HEC-HMS)
8. 6 hr (HEC-HMS)
9. 12 hr (HEC-HMS)
10. 18 hr (HEC-HMS)
11. 24 hr (HEC-HMS)
− 354 −
HEC-RAS
.
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
.
HEC-RAS HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
. HEC-RAS HEC-
HMS ,
198 m(EL).
12~ 15 HEC-RAS
. HEC-RAS
HEC-
HMS
.
, 2000
.
(, 2004) 48
hr (810 mm)
( 4) 13~25 mm ,
9 mm .
(2004)
810 mm 710 mm ,
(2004)
8
,
3
.
12. 6 hr (HEC-RAS)
13. 12 hr (HEC-RAS)
14. 18 hr (HEC-RAS)
15. 24 hr (HEC-RAS)
4.
4.5.2 HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
(6 hr~24 hr)
( 16 ). HEC-HMS
6 hr
. 12
hr~24 hr
. HEC-RAS
6 hr~24 hr
. 6 hr HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
. HEC-RAS
.
12 hr, 18 hr HEC-RAS
24 hr
. ,
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
. HEC-HMS
, HEC-
RAS
. Christopher(2005) HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
,
.
. HEC-
HMS
.
4.5.3
2004 5 22
Vladivostok Partizansk
160,000 m3(Robinson,
2004) 2,300,000 m3
.
1,000,000 m3
10
.
.
1986
( , 2002)
()
2,300,000CMS .
,
,
.
Kapahi HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS (HEC, 2007)
Kapahi
( 100 )
. Kapahi
8,500CMS ( 6.97 km2)
.
,
.
5.
.
HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
.
. HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS HEC-HMS
HEC-RAS
. HEC-HMS
.
,
.
16. HEC-HMS HEC-RAS
− 356 −
.
, 1.
, 2.
, 2.
·(2004)
.
, 04
, , pp. 599-603.
, , pp. 833-838.
, 04
, , pp. 287-291.
, , 37, 5, pp. 437-
448.
609.
05 , , pp.
710-714.
1207.
, , 12 2, pp. 109-122.
, (2005) 2
: I. , ,
, 25 2B, pp. 135-142.
, (2005) 2
: II. , , ,
25 2B, pp. 143-149.
1 , 08
, , pp. 1765-1769.
, , , 2002 5(
161).
.
break flow simulation, International Journal of Numerical
Methods in Fluids, Vol. 33, Issue 1, pp. 35-57.
Christopher R.G. (2005) Dam Break Modeling for Tandem Reser-
voirs-a Case Study using HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS, America
Society of Civil Engineering.
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 2261.
Francis, K.S. and John, F.M. (1983) Probable Maximum
Precipita-
tion and Snowmelt Criteria for Southeast Alaska, National
Weather Service, Silver Spring.
Francis, P.H. and John, T.R. (1980) Seasonal Variation of 10-
Square-Mile Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates,
United States East of the 10th Merdian, National Weather Ser-
vice, Washington D.C.
105th Meridian, Hydrometeorological Report No. 52, National
Weather Service, Washington D.C.
for Upper Kapahi Reservoir(HI00013), Kaua'i Country,
Hawai'i, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Huff, F.A, (1967) Time Distribution of Rainfall in Heavy
Storms,
Water Resources Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1007-1019.
Louis, C.S. and John, T.R. (1978) Probable Maximum Precipita-
tion Estimates, United States East of the 105th Meridian,
Hydrometeorological Report No. 51, National Weather Ser-
vice, Washington D.C.
Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55, USDA.
National Research Council of Canada (NRCC, 1989) Hydrology of
Floods in Canada : A Guide of Planning and Design, Edited
by Watt, W. E.
Paul Robinson (2004) Partizansk Coal Ash Dam Break and Spill
-
Observation, Southwest Research and Information Center.
Garicia-Navarro, Fras, A. and Villanueva, I. (1999) Dam-break
flow
simulation : somne results for one-dimensional models of real
cases, Journal of Hydrology 216, pp. 227-247.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (US/SCS, 1972) Hydrology, Sec-
tion 4 : National Engineering Handbook, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Estimates of Probable Maximum Precipitation With Greatest
Observed Rainfall, NOAA, Technical Report NWS 25, Wash-
ington, D.C.
