Preview of the new Finite-Volume Approach for 1D Reaches

One of the most anticipated new features soon to come in the next major version of HEC-RAS (Version 5.1) is the option of running unsteady 1D reaches with a finite volume solution scheme.  This will be a fantastic addition to HEC-RAS.  Gary Brunner recently gave me a brief overview of the new finite volume feature we can expect.  But before you ask, there is no set release date for Version 5.1 yet.  But I'm hoping we'll see it within the next year or two.

1D Finite Volume Solution Algorithm

By Gary W. Brunner, P.E., D.WRE

Senior Technical Hydraulic Engineer

Hydrologic Engineering Center

A brand new solution algorithm has been developed for 1D modeling.  A Finite-Volume solution approach, similar to what was added for 2D modeling will be available for 1D modeling in HEC-RAS version 5.1.

The current 1D Finite Difference solution scheme has the following deficiencies:

1. Cannot handle starting or going dry in a cross section
2. Low flow model stability issues with irregular cross section data
3. Extremely rapidly rising hydrographs can be difficult to get stable
4. Mixed flow regime (i.e. flow transitions) approach is approximate
5. Stream junctions do not transfer momentum

The new 1D Finite Volume approach has the following positive attributes:

1. Can start with cross sections completely dry, or they can go dry during a simulation (wetting/drying)
2. Very stable for low flow modeling
3. Can handle extremely rapidly rising hydrographs without going unstable
4. Handles subcritical to supercritical flow, and hydraulic jumps better.
5. Junction analysis is performed as a single 2D cell when connecting 1D reaches (continuity and momentum is conserved through the junction).

Additionally, the new 1D Finite Volume approached is solved in the same matrix as the 2D equations.  Solving in the same matrix allows for faster 1D/2D model solutions and more accurate flow transfers between 1D and 2D elements.  The equations are solved together and all hydraulic connections are updated together on an iteration by iteration approach, rather than separately, as in previous versions of HEC-RAS.

My Unsteady HEC-RAS Model is Unstable…Why?

Written by Christopher Goodell, P.E., D.WRE  |  WEST Consultants
Copyright © The RAS Solution 2015.  All rights reserved.

This question (or some variation of it) comes up quite a bit on The RAS Solution:  “I have an unsteady flow model.  When I run it, it goes completely unstable.  What is causing this?”  Many times a screen shot of the computation window with the dreaded “red bar” is attached.  



While the person asking the question genuinely needs help, what he/she doesn't understand is that it is impossible for anyone to troubleshoot his/her model with this limited amount of information or without the model data files.  There are an almost infinite number of possible reasons the model crashed.  

If I could sum up my approach to troubleshooting unsteady HEC-RAS models in one sentence, it would be

“HEC-RAS likes things to change gradually”

If your model is crashing, look for places or times where something is changing drastically.  It could be a sudden and significant change in the size and shape of the main channel from one cross section to the next.  It could be a sudden increase/decrease in flow.  It could be a sudden increase/decrease in stage.  Whatever steps you take to try to stabilize your model, make sure you are confident that the steps you are taking will improve stability without giving up more accuracy then you’re willing to sacrifice.  Haphazardly making changes and adjustments to your model without any forethought or strategy, in an attempt to make it stable could very well make it worse and get you nowhere-and waste a lot of time.  Making methodical, logical, and beneficial changes to your model is a much better approach.  By methodical, I mean understand what you are doing, and why it can improve numerical stability.  Also understand what accuracy (if any) you are sacrificing to achieve the increased stability.  Keep in mind, stabilizing your model may require more than one “change”.  This is why it is important to understand the theory behind the computations in HEC-RAS.  That understanding will allow you to make informed and intelligent decisions on what techniques to use to stabilize your model. 

Here are some very helpful references that deal directly with how to troubleshoot HEC-RAS unsteady flow models that are unstable and/or crashing.  If you’re having trouble with your unsteady flow model, please carefully read through these references.  And consider taking an HEC-RAS training course if you can.  The “Unsteady Flow” and “Dam Breach” classes both cover techniques for troubleshooting an unsteady flow HEC-RAS model. 

• HEC-RAS User’s Manual Chapter 8, Performing an Unsteady Flow Analysis.  Particularly the section on Model Accuracy, Stability, and Sensitivity.  This manual (along with the Hydraulic Reference Manual) comes with the installation of the HEC-RAS software.  You can access it from the main HEC-RAS window under Help…User’s Manual.

• Investigating Instabilities with HEC-RAS Unsteady Flow Modeling for Regulated Rivers at Low Flow Stages, Sharkey 2014.  Master’s Thesis by Jennifer Kay Sharkey.  A great summary of potential causes for instability in HEC-RAS models, especially those with low stages.  

 Stabilizing a Dynamic Unsteady HEC-RAS Model.  Post on The RAS Solution.  Steps taken to stabilize a HEC-RAS model, along with the dataset used.  http://hecrasmodel.blogspot.com/2013/10/stabilizing-dynamic-unsteady-hec-ras.html

• 10 Tips for Troubleshooting Unsteady HEC-RAS.  Post on Ebb and Flow blog.   https://www.freese.com/resources/blog/10-tips-troubleshooting-unsteady-hec-ras

• Common Model Stability Problems with Performing an Unsteady Flow Analysis. Lecture by Gary Brunner.  

Tuesday Tip of the Week–HTAB Headwater Maximum for Bridges

Written by Christopher Goodell, P.E., D.WRE  |  WEST Consultants
Copyright © The RAS Solution 2014.  All rights reserved.



Have you ever looked at your profile plot from an unsteady flow model and found “walls of water” on top of your bridge?  Or just unexplained unrealistically large amounts of energy loss over a bridge?  Take this for example:

Notice the three large “steps” in energy grade line (and water surface elevation).  It’s hard to see in the figure, but these all take place at bridges.  The very first thing you should do in this case is review the HTAB parameters for the bridges. 
 
Notice here the Head water maximum elevation is set to 773 m.  If you look at the cross section of the plot behind it, the bridge deck itself is around 773 m in elevation.  HEC-RAS uses the Head water maximum elevation to put an upper limit on the elevation that the HTAB rating curves are computed to. 

If RAS is limited to rating curves that end abruptly at the bridge deck elevation, then any energy elevations computed during the simulation that are higher than the bridge deck were computed by extrapolation.  By rule of thumb, any time HEC-RAS has to extrapolate, results can get strange, as we see in the first figure above.  But, you don’t want to make your Head water maximum elevation too high, because that will stretch out the rating curves and decrease your resolution-also a bad thing in HEC-RAS unsteady flow. 
The fix:  Increase the Head water maximum elevation for the bridge to an elevation that is slightly greater than the maximum energy elevation that will occur at that bridge during the simulation.  This of course requires an initial guess (we don’t know what the maximum elevation is until we run it), and generally some trial and error afterwards.  In this case, I increased the Head water maximum for this bridge to 780 m.  I also like to increase the Number of Points, Number of Submerged Curves, and Number of Points on each Submerged Curves to improve the resolution.  I did the same thing for the other bridges in the data set.  The result is an expanded range of HTAB rating curves for the bridge and a nice smooth water surface profile.


And you can check the cross section plot for the bridge to make sure your Head water maximum elevation is high enough (but not too high).  Notice here the EG Max WS elevation is 773.99 m.  We could probably lower the Head water maximum elevation to 775 m, but since it’s working fine at 780 m, I’ll leave it here.