Modelling urban areas in dam-break flood-wave numerical simulations

Jean-Michel Hervouet*, Ren Samie*, Benot Moreau**

* Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et Environnement, Electricit de France
** Ecole Centrale de Paris

I. Introduction
Computer programs solving Shallow Water Equations in 2 dimensions are now a
common practice for dealing with a large range of free surface flows such as tides, floods and
dam-breaks. Telemac, the hydroinformatic system built and used at Electricit de France
includes such a program called Telemac-2D, which is based on the finite element theory. For a
given computational domain, given boundary conditions and a given initial condition, a twodimensional solver will compute the free surface elevation and the depth-averaged velocity
vector in the domain. The quality of the results will depend on one hand on the quality of the
numerical scheme, on the other hand on the quality and accuracy of the data. Finite element
meshes allow local refinements of the geometry and enable an accurate description of rivers,
shores, roads and levees, etc. However, reproducing every building in a city or every tree in a
forest is far beyond reach of our models. Moreover, friction is a major unknown and one of
the most important parameters in the field of dam-break computations (see reference [5]).
In this paper we shall see how large forests or urban areas can be taken into account
into 2-dimensional domains. The approach will consist of finding homogenised laws and
averaged properties of the medium which will account for details which are not captured by
the grid size. More precisely we shall introduce two important new features: the first one is
adding a porosity in Shallow Water Equations for representing constriction effects and the
volume occupied by obstacles, the second one is a specific law of friction for vertical
structures. After a short description of Telemac-2D and its solution procedure, the theory
underlying the two new features will be explained, then schematic test-cases will validate the
approach. At last, a first application to the Seinjoki case will be presented.

II. Telemac-2D and the modelling method

We use the 2-dimensional model Telemac-2D, solving Shallow Water (also called
Saint-Venant) Equations. This model is currently used at Electricit de France for dam-break
studies when application of 1-dimensional tools would not be valid, e.g. for complex and
winding valleys, large flat areas or flooding in coastal zones. Recent studies are the dam-break
flood waves of Serre-Ponon, Vassivires and La Couze. The numerical simulation of the
Malpasset accident was also used as a test-case in the PCECOWATER European project on
Parallelism.
Telemac-2D solves the primitive Shallow Water Equations written in the nonconservative depth-velocity form. Mass-conservative schemes such as S.U.P.G. (Streamline
Upwind Petrov Galerkin) may be used to solve the continuity equation, which means that the

test functions in finite elements are modified to take into account the difference between
upstream and downstream for the discretisation of transport terms. Other important features of
TELEMAC-2D are the use of Cartesian or spherical co-ordinates (for very large maritime
domains), the possibility of sub-critical or supercritical regimes, a number of source terms
such as wind stress, atmospheric pressure and Coriolis force, an equation of a tracer
concentration, a treatment of tidal flats and many types of boundary conditions including free
slip condition and incident waves. Other applications at Laboratoire National d'Hydraulique et
Environnement are the computation of floods in rivers, thermal plumes, impact of intakes and
out-falls. The results, velocity fields and depth, are used by other modules in the system for
dealing with water quality, sediment transport, and also for coupling with wave models.
The numerical algorithm has been designed to cope with the many fields of applications
encompassed at EDF, it is rather complex but robust. We give hereafter a short overview of
the solution procedure.
The following equations are solved simultaneously:
h
Continuity:
=+=u . grad(h) + h div(u) = 0
t
Momentum:
Z
u
=+ u.grad(u)== - g =+ F x + 1 div ( h t grad u )
h
x
t

v
t

=+ u.grad(v)== - g

=+ Fy + 1 div ( h t grad v )
h
y

Here h is the depth, u and v the two components of the depth-averaged horizontal velocity, Z
the free surface, Fx and Fy are source terms (friction, etc), and t is the turbulent viscosity.
Detailed explanations on the numerical algorithm are given in [1]. Let us just say here that the
h
continuity equation is written in the form
+ div(hn u) = 0, where hn is the depth at the
t
previous time-step. This form ensures a perfect mass-conservation.
After variational formulation and discretisation in time, we eventually solve a linear system
coupling the 2 components of velocity u and v and the depth h, of the form A X = B, with:

A =

AM1

BM1

BM2

CM1

AM2

CM2

AM3

H
X =

U
V

CV1

and B = CV2 , where AM1, AM2, AM3 are square matrices, BM1, BM2,
CV3

CM1, CM2 are also generally square matrices but may be rectangular if velocity and depth are
not discretised in the same way. CV1, CV2 and CV3 are right hand side terms. H is the
vector made of the increment of depth in one time-step, i.e. hn+1 - hn, for every point in the
mesh. This is a large system to solve but all the problems due to fractional steps or modified

equations such as the wave equation are avoided. u and v are not coupled (this is due to the
use of weak boundary conditions for ensuring u.n = 0 on the solid boundaries).
The method used for solving the linear systems is the Generalised Minimum RESidual
(G.M.RES).
III. Adding a porosity in Shallow Water Equations
III.1 theoretical background

A local porosity can be used for representing a local density of buildings in an area, without
discretising precisely every building. This is the general idea of "homogenisation" where
discrete details of geometry are modelled by a continuous property of the medium. This
porosity can also be used for dealing with dry zones ; in this latter case, a finite element which
is partly covered with water will have a porosity equal to the percentage of wet area.
The only reference to a use of porosity in Shallow Water Equations was published by Defina
et al. (reference [2]). However, the mass conservation was not considered in the original paper
by Defina and we had to modify the technique. We now solve the continuity equation in the
(h)
form:
+ div( h u) = 0 where is the local porosity (it was outside the derivative in
t
time in Defina paper, whereas can vary in time, as is the case when is used for tidal flats).
In the original paper there was also no porosity within the divergence term.
The derivative in time is discretised in the form

n+1 n+1
h

- hn . The index n+1 represents the

t
new time step and n the old one. The quantity of water in a domain at time tn+1 is thus for

example:

n+1 n+1
h

d. If the porosity is only 70%, the total water in the domain will thus

be 70% of what it would be with the normal equations. It accounts for buildings that occupy
30% of the area.
In Telemac-2D, the real unknown in the equations is in fact the increment of depth hn+1 - hn.
n+1
n+1 n
n n
(h)
(hn+1 - hn )
We had then to write
in the form
+ h - h , where the first term
t
t
t
contains our unknown and the second term is known and is added to the right hand side of our
equation.
The question of adding the porosity in the momentum equation was raised and the following
derivation was done:
Having in mind the physical meaning of the porosity in our case (a limiting factor of the area
offered to the flow), the conservative momentum equation must be written:
(hu)
t

+ div( h u u) = - g h

Z
x

+ h Fx + div( h grad(u))

i.e. h is replaced by h everywhere in the classical conservative momentum equation. If we

perform the usual derivation for getting the non conservative momentum equation, dividing
by h instead of h and using our new continuity equation leads to:
u
t

+ u. grad(u) = - g

+ Fx + 1 div( h grad(u))
x
h

The diffusion term is often simplified into:

div(grad(u))

and if we do so again, the momentum equation is left unchanged by porosity.

III.2 A schematic test-case

This very simple test-case has been designed to validate the implementation of
porosity and show the effect on the flow in a rectangular channel. The geometry and main data
are summarised on figure 1. It is in fact a 1-dimensional test-case and the curves on the figure
are cross-sections in the main axis of the channel. The length is 300 m and the width 40 m.
The refinement in the middle of the channel is useless here and has been used in other tests
studying the effect of a pier. The discharge is 100 m3/s and the depth at the exit 5 m, so that
the velocity in the channel without porosity should be around 0.5 m/s. The Manning friction
coefficient is 0.025 and the k-epsilon turbulence model was used. The porosity is 1
everywhere, except in the area between x=-50 m and x=50 m where it varies linearly from 1 to
0.5 (at x=0) and again from 0.5 to 1, as is shown in the sketch at the bottom of figure 1. The
main effect of the porosity is that the velocity in that zone increases from 0.5 to 1 m/s, so that
the discharge remains equal to 100 m3/s. A second order effect is that the free surface slightly
decreases to ensure the conservation of the head.
We see here that we reproduce the constriction effect of obstacles that would take half
of the cross section. We can also remark that in regions of constant porosity, the Shallow
Water Equations are unchanged, because the continuity equation can be divided by the
constant porosity to retrieve the classical equation. The porosity will do visible modifications
only in zones of varying porosity. For example when a flood-wave enters a urban zone the
flow is rearranged for adaptation to the new porosity. It is however clear that the head-losses
due to the obstacles in the urban zones are not taken into account by this technique. Moreover,
the friction on the vertical structures is not taken into account either.
In the real world, the obstacles would also trigger head-losses due to the drag forces.
We shall now in the next paragraph tackle the problem of these drag forces.
IV. Drag force on vertical structures
IV.1 theoretical background

We now want to enter into the computation the dynamic effect of trees, houses and
other vertical structures. The basic idea is that, following the action-reaction principle, the
effort of the flow on the structures is opposed to the effect of the structures on the flow. Let us
suppose that we have n vertical cylinders in a domain of area A, every cylinder with a

diameter D, with a height larger than the highest waters. For every structure the dragging force
is:
F = 1 U 2 D h CD, where h is the water depth. This is the classical formula for dragging
2
forces. CD is the drag coefficient. It depends on the Reynolds number and the shape of the
obstacle and can be found in tables.

If we want to take into account the dragging force of n structures in an area A as an

averaged constant stress in all the area, the stress would thus be:

= nF
A
If we now want to take into account this stress in Shallow Water Equations in their non
conservative form, the stress will appear in the momentum equations as follows:
u

+ u.grad(u) = - + other terms

h
t
The effect of the structures thus appears to be a term Fx =

n D
CD U2
A 2

which we

g
U 2 , where C is the Chzy coefficient and g the
hC 2
gm2 2
gravity acceleration, and the Manning-Strickler law Fx = 4 / 3 U , where m is the Manning
h
coefficient.

can compare to the Chzy law Fx =

If we had to translate the effect of structures into a Manning coefficient, it would give a value
n D
depending on the depth. We prefer to propose to add the new force Fx =
C U2
A 2 D
directly into the momentum equation. The data required would thus be:
* the number of structures per unit area n/A.
* the diameter of structures.
* the drag coefficient CD.
If there are different structures, the term n D would be simply replaced by the sum of all
diameters. In terms of hydraulic resistance, the local resistance due to obstacles is changed
n
U2
into a friction resistance DC D . Any other local resistance k, causing a head-loss h = k
2g
A
k
could in the same way be changed into a friction resistance
which, applied on a length x,
x
n
would give the same head-loss. The head-loss in our case is DC D x .
A
The theory has been presented for structures which are not fully submerged but can be easily
extended. For a submerged structure of height d, the approach remains valid if the drag force

is multiplied by d/h in our momentum equation. A coefficient

min( h, d )
would thus cover all
h

cases, but this was not considered in the present paper.

IV.2 A first test-case

The new kind of friction law was added in Telemac-2D and tested on the case of
bridge piers in a river. This case is well documented and the head-losses due to one cylinder in
a channel are given in reference [3] in chapter 10. Figure 2 shows a case similar to the one
presented in paragraph III.2, but we now assume that there is a pier with a diameter of 2 m
centred on the point of co-ordinates (0,0). The computation is done either with the pier in the
mesh (see the mesh on top of figure 2), or without pier but with a drag force added in the
momentum equations. This drag force is applied to the zone lying between x=-10 m and
x=+10 m. Cross sections of the free surface are given on figure 2 for 3 different cases:
- computation with the pier.
- computation without pier, without drag force (this reference is needed for computing the
head-loss, without including the effect of bottom friction).
- computation with a drag force and coefficient CD of 1.56 (this value will be discussed
hereafter).
Some preliminary explanations on the different head-losses in our case and on the velocity
profile are necessary here. The computation without pier, without drag force, but only with
friction yields a head loss of 9,1 mm. It is due to, on one hand, the bottom friction, and, on the
other hand, the friction on the lateral boundaries. As a matter of fact, with a laminar flow and
a free slip condition on solid boundaries the difference of free surface elevation between the
entrance and the output of the channel would be in theory only 7,78 mm and this is verified by
Telemac-2D which finds in this case 7.73 mm. The extra head-loss due to the friction on the
solid boundaries is triggered by the k-epsilon model which computes the lateral friction
coefficient with the assumption of a smooth boundary. The turbulence model thus gives a
velocity profile, as is observed in reality. According to Idel'cik (see reference [3]), the velocity
2y
profile in a turbulent channel is in the form U = 115
. U 0 (1 ) 1/ 3 , where L is the width of the
L
channel and y the distance from the longitudinal axis. The 9.1 mm of water elevation due to
both types of friction will be now taken as a reference for computing the head-loss due to the
pier itself.
In our procedure, we take for granted that the head-losses given by Telemac-2D in the
presence of bridge piers are correct, because it has already been extensively verified (see
reference [4]). As a matter of fact, the computed head-loss is here 1.5 mm, whereas Bradley's
formulas in [6] give a value of 1.32 mm, but for piers evenly spaced on a cross section. A
correction factor of 1.15 taking into account the velocity profile and the central position of our
only pier would give 1.52 mm, which is well within the 10% accuracy generally observed
with Shallow Water Equations for such flows.
We see on figure 2 that, except of course in the zone near the pier, the free surface elevation is
perfectly reproduced by the drag force. However we must admit that the drag coefficient has
been tuned to get this result and the value of 1.56 is too high. The value recommended for a

cylinder in real applications is in the range 1. to 1.2, depending on the degree of turbulence.
The first relevant explanation of this high value of CD is the fact that the formula giving the
drag force is a function of U, U being the mean velocity of the flow, whereas in our case the
local velocity at every point is taken. A first practical consequence for our approach is that the
drag force added must be spread on a sufficiently large area. A correct effect can be however
obtained with small areas, but the coefficient CD must in this case be artificially higher. In
tests where the drag force was put only at the location of the pier, a correct result could be
obtained, but with a very high, virtually infinite, value of CD. In the case of our channel, the
drag force is spread on all the width but it is not enough because the constriction factor is
missing. If we study the formulas for hydraulic resistance due to bridge piers as described in
Idel'cik's book, we see that in the expression of the force added to our momentum equation,
the drag coefficient should be multiplied by 1.15 / c3, where c is the constriction effect, i.e. the
ratio between the sections available to the flow with and without the obstacles. The number c
is less than 1. Coefficient 1.15 is due to the turbulent velocity profile: velocities impinging the
pier are higher than the mean velocity, as already mentioned above, whereas in our approach
the effect is averaged on all the profile. Coefficient 1/c3 takes into account the constriction
effect and is based on considerations on power. As a matter of fact, if Uloc is the local velocity
due to the constriction and Uupstream the velocity far from the obstacle in the channel, the power
needed to fight against the drag force F is on one hand P = F Uloc , and on the other hand P =
g h h L Uupstream, where h is the head-loss, h the depth, and L the width of the channel. If
U 2upstream
, it gives, using our
we assume that the hydraulic resistance k is such that h = k
2g
D 1 3
D U loc 3
formula for F, that k = C D (
) . Without using
) which is also k = C D (
L U upstream
L 1 DL
porosity, our approach leads to a coefficient k = C D

D
only and we miss the constriction
L

effect.
IV.3 Coupling porosity and drag forces

The previous test-case leads to the conclusion that the constriction effect has to be
taken into account. Following our test-case in paragraph III.2, the idea is now to use the effect
of porosity to obtain an acceleration of flow in areas with obstacles. Exponent 3 in the formula
D 1 3
k = CD (
) is rather surprising as one would intuitively think in view of the drag force
L 1 DL
expression that it should be 2, but preliminary tests have shown that Idel'Cik's theory is rather
well verified. For example if we add a porosity of 0.9 in the area between x=-10 m and
x=+10 m in our last test-case, with the same drag coefficient 1.56, the head-loss becomes
2.1 mm. Without porosity the head-loss is 1.5 mm. 2.1/1.5 is 1.4, which is close to
1
= 137
. . This was only for testing and the real constriction factor in our case is 19/20.
(0.9) 3
We now choose this value and we accordingly choose a drag coefficient CD =1.34, i.e. 1.56
multiplied by (19/20)3. Figure 3 shows the result and can be compared with figure 2. We get
again a good result with a more realistic drag coefficient, however we cannot go further and
the factor 1.15 due to the velocity profile is beyond reach of our method, and should be taken

into account in the value of the drag coefficient itself. Our CD = 1.34 is in fact 1.16 multiplied
by the correction factor 1.15, and 1.16 is indeed in the correct range 1. - 1.2.
In practical applications, we may choose to multiply the drag coefficient by a
correction factor taking into account the constriction and the velocity profile. We have shown
here that the constriction effect may also be reproduced by a porosity. However, we must state
here that the porosity computed with the area occupied by the obstacles may be different from
the porosity based on the constriction factor. In our case the first one depends on the area
where the drag force is spread. We may thus have to choose whether the porosity will
reproduce a correct storage effect or a correct dynamic effect.
A series of other computations has shown that the main uncertainty in the simulation
of real cases is probably due to turbulence. The exact value of the Reynolds number in
numerical simulation and when using a k-epsilon model is difficult to estimate and may be
different from what is expected, due to numerical diffusion for example. Strictly speaking, the
Reynolds number in our test-cases was greater than 106 and our recommended value of CD is
however more relevant to Reynolds numbers ranging from 103 to 5.105 . Tests with laminar
flows and Reynolds from 1 to 250, with corresponding drag coefficients which can be as high
as 10, have always given excellent results, with a maximum error of 10% on the head-loss.
We can conclude from all our tests that all the mechanisms of the porosity and the drag forces
are well understood and correctly implemented in Shallow Water Equations, but that high
Reynolds numbers are subject to the general problem of turbulence.
V. Application to the Seinjoki

We show here only a first application of porosity in the numerical simulation of the
Kyrkosjrvi dam-break flood simulation in the Seinjoki area. This case has been studied in
the framework of the Rescdam European project. A full account of the computations with
Telemac-2D will be given in the final report of the project and in other papers. The following
procedure was used for testing the effect of porosity in a urban area. A quadrilateral with
buildings on the way of the flood was selected and was given a porosity of 50%. In the
purpose of using it as an initial condition, a first computation was done and stopped just
before the flooding, i.e. at time t=6600 s. Then continuations of the computation were done
without (figure 4) or with porosity (figure 5) and the results compared. The water depth
upstream and around the zone is higher in figure 5 because less water could enter the zone
with porosity. The porosity triggers an acceleration of the flow, which was expected according
to our schematic test-cases (see again figure 1). A visible effect of the porosity is that the
inundation extent is larger. The water spreads more as their is less space available, despite the
fact that probably less water is entering the zone. Consequently, we are not on the safe side for
computing inundation areas if we neglect the effect of the presence of buildings and obstacles.
VI. Conclusion

We have shown in this paper that the presence of obstacles such as buildings or high
trees in a forest at a sub-grid level can be taken into account into Shallow Water Equations at
the cost of two new features:

- adding a local porosity in the 2-dimensional domain,

- adding a friction law specially designed for vertical structures, unlike the Manning-Strickler
law which is only relevant to bottom friction.
The test cases presented here show that the usually recommended values of drag coefficients
(between 1 and 1.2) can be used but that they can be corrected to take into account velocity
profiles, if they are known, and constriction factors. Constriction factors can also be simulated
with a porosity. The effects of the two new features fit quite well the theory and the main
uncertainties of the approach will certainly be in the choice of parameters: correction factors
for the drag coefficient, evaluation of the porosity in terms of constriction factor or storage
capacity of the area. More tests on real cases are now necessary to validate the method. A first
step will be to use the measurements done at the Helsinki University of Technology in the
framework of the Rescdam project, which include an evaluation of head-losses due to rows of
trees in a channel.

VII. Bibliography

[1] Hervouet J.-M., van Haren L. 1996. Recent advances in numerical methods for fluid
flows. Chapter 6 of "Floodplain processes" Editors Anderson, Walling & Bates. Wiley & sons
1996.
[2] Defina A., D'Alpaos L., Matticchio B., 1994. A new set of equations for very shallow
water and partially dry areas suitable to 2D numerical domains. Proceedings of the specialty
conference "Modelling of Flood Propagation over initially dry areas" held in Milano, Italy. 29
June - 1 July 1994.
[3] Idel'cik I.E. 1960. Memento des pertes de charge. Eyrolles editor (french translation from
russian).
[4] Hervouet J.-M. 1989. Comparison of experimental data and laser measurements with the
computational results of Telemac. Proceedings of the "Hydrocomp 89" conference.
Dubrovnik. 13-16 June 1989.
[5] Hervouet J.-M., Petitjean A. 1999. Malpasset dam-break revisited with two-dimensional
computations. Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 37, n6 1999.
[6] Bradley J.N. 1978. Hydraulics of bridge waterways. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Washington D.C. 1978

Figure 1: effect of porosity in a rectangular channel

depth : 5 m

discharge : 100 m3/s

direction of flow

20
10
0
-10
-20
-150

5.1
5.075
5.05
5.025
5
4.975
4.95
4.925

-100

-50

50

100

150

150

200

250

300

area with porosity

(see variations in sketch below)

free surface

50

100

porosity

0.75
0.5

velocity

0.25
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 2: effect of a drag force for simulating a bridge pier

20

10

-10

-20
-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

4.015

4.0125

free surface in
the axis of the channel

4.01

4.0075
with drag force, with Cd=1.56
4.005
with pier
4.0025
friction only
4
0

50

100

150

200

Figure 3: effect of a drag force coupled with porosity

20

10

-10

-20
-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

80

100

4.01

free surface in
the axis of the channel

4.0075

with pier
4.005

with porosity 19/20 and Cd=1.34

4.0025

friction only
4

50

100

150

200

Figure 4: simulation of urban areas by porosity.

Application to the Seinajoki area

Water depth at t=6600 s

Reference case without porosity

Constant friction, Strickler coefficient 15

water depth
7.05

6.55
6.05
5.55
5.05
4.55
4.05
3.55
3.05
2.55
2.05

flooded area at t=7800 s

1.55
1.05
0.55
0.05

Figure 5: simulation of urban areas by porosity.

Application to the Seinajoki area

Water depth at t=6600 s

Case with porosity 50% inside the red quadrilateral

Constant friction, Strickler coefficient 15

water depth
7.05

6.55
6.05
5.55
5.05
4.55
4.05
3.55
3.05
2.55
2.05

flooded area at t=7800 s

1.55
1.05
0.55
0.05