Open access peer-reviewed chapter

A Unique Volume Balance Approach for Verifying the Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Numerical Models in Surface Waterbody Simulation

Written By

Hussein A.M. Al-Zubaidi and Scott A. Wells

Submitted: February 6th, 2019 Reviewed: September 12th, 2019 Published: October 19th, 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.89691

Chapter metrics overview

596 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

The hydrodynamic numerical modeling is increasingly becoming a widely used tool for simulating the surface waterbodies including rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. A challenging step in any model development is the verification tests, especially at the early stage of development. In this study, a unique approach was developed by implementing the volume balance principle in order to verify the three-dimensional hydrodynamic models for surface waterbody simulation. A developed and verified three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model, called W3, was employed by setting a case study model to be verified using the volume balance technique. The model was qualified by calculating the error in the accumulated water volume within the domain every time step. Results showed that the volume balance reached a constant error over the simulation period, indicating a robust model setup.

Keywords

  • hydrodynamic model
  • lakes and reservoirs
  • model verification
  • model simulation
  • numerical model
  • volume balance
  • water quality modeling
  • W3 model

1. Introduction

Many 3D hydrodynamic and water quality models have been developed since the 1960s, and different numerical solution techniques have been used to solve the governing equations. The most popular numerical models and the basis that other models has been built based on are POM [1, 2], ECOM [1, 3], NCOM [4, 5], FVCOM [6, 7], EFDC [8], TRIM-3D [9], UnTRIM [10], GLLVHT [11], and DNS [12].

During the development stage of any numerical model, verification tests need to be performed to ensure that model foundations are valid. The 3D simulation models available in market have been tested either by comparing the predictions with the analytical solution, field data, or both. As a result, each verification approach has its advantages and disadvantages depending on the model complexity (governing equations used to develop the model and assumptions used to simplify the problem).

All three-dimensional models available to simulate surface waterbodies do not have outputs related to the model of volume balance performance (see the user manuals of the above popular models). Therefore, the user does not know the model preserves volume or not during the simulation period even though the model gives results. In addition, most 3D users run the simulation for a very short time (even for seconds), thinking the model is stable, since the 3D numerical models require long computation time to run. Thus, the need to develop a new volume balance tool arises based on these issues related to 3D hydrodynamic numerical models used in practice for surface waterbodies.

In this work, the volume balance approach was used as a tool to measure how a model preserves volume during the simulation time by calculating the accumulated error over time as a percent. Therefore, the modeler can monitor the model performance over time and decide whether the model is robust or not while running the model rather than waiting until the end of simulation.

Advertisement

2. Methods

To implement the volume balance approach, the three-dimensional model W3 developed by [13] for modeling hydrodynamics, temperature, and water quality in surface waterbodies was employed. Using the finite differences, the model solves the governing equations of continuity, free surface, momentums, and mass transport. Comparisons with analytical solutions and field data were carried out for verifying and validating the W3 model [13, 14, 15, 16, 17].

The model of volume balance was performed by comparing the water volume in the model domain during a time period with the water volume entering and leaving the same domain during the same period of time.

Let Vol be the accumulated water volume in the model domain over time. Then,

Vol=Volinitial+VolinVoloutE1

where Volinitial = the initial water volume within the domain; Volin = the accumulated water volume entering the domain; and Volout = the accumulated water volume leaving the domain.

Thus, the error over time can be calculated as follows:

%Error=absVolVolinternal/Volinternal×100E2

where Volinternal is the water volume within the domain at any time during the simulation period.

A subroutine was added to the model to check the volume preservation by calculating % error at every time step. A lower % error represents more accurate model predictions. The error should reach a constant value with time and should not grow with time. If % error grows with time exponentially, this implies that the model goes unstable (blows up). Two tests implementing the volume balance check were performed. One of these tests examined the volume balance over a rectangular domain, and the other tests evaluated the volume balance over an irregular domain. Both tests were performed over a period of 100 days based on the same real meteorological data, calculated solar short radiation, and constant inflow and outflow. The meteorological data are shown in Figures 15.

Figure 1.

Wind speed input data.

Figure 2.

Wind direction input data.

Figure 3.

Air temperature input data.

Figure 4.

Dew point input data.

Figure 5.

Cloud cover input data.

Advertisement

3. Results and discussion

The physical domain was divided into computational cells of 1000 × 500 × 1 (x,y,z) m and oriented perpendicular to the north direction as shown in Figure 6, in which there are bends at the boundaries to check how the model catches the flow field variability. The code was run without assuming a frictionless fluid, with the Coriolis force, with wind variable in magnitude and direction at 10 m height above the water surface, with a constant inflow and outflow of 0.8 m3/s, and with variable water temperature over time by solving the heat transport equation. Additionally, the adding/subtracting layers algorithm (see [18]) was turned on to examine the surface layer thickness over the simulation period.

Figure 6.

Irregular physical domain and the input bathymetry.

Using a time step of 35 s and a degree of implicitness (θ) of 1, the code was run for the simulation period. Figure 7 presents the model predictions of the surface velocity field at Julian day 100. The model results showed good performance in following the bends at the boundaries. Furthermore, the volume balance error gave a good agreement in preserving volume in which the percent error reached a constant low value over time as shown in Figure 8, which is a semilog plot of the percent error with time. The corresponding water levels at three locations over time were shown in Figure 9, denoting a very small change (≅0.005 m) in the surface layer thickness resulting from the free water surface waves.

Figure 7.

Surface velocity field for the irregular domain at Julian day 100.

Figure 8.

Volume balance for the irregular domain using θ = 1.

Figure 9.

Surface layer thickness over time for the irregular domain using θ = 1.

Since the W3 model uses the degree of implicitness to switch between the fully implicit numerical scheme and the fully explicit scheme, the effect of the degree of implicitness on the accumulated error was evaluated by running the code using θ = 0.5 with the same inputs that were used with θ = 1. The results showed that using the semi-implicit scheme of θ = 0.5 produces less percent error than using θ = 1. Figure 10 shows the percent error after running the code for day 100 using two degrees of implicitness (θ = 1 and θ = 0.5).

Figure 10.

The volume balance for the irregular domain using θ = 1 and θ = 0.5.

In addition and in order to make sure that the numerical answers do not depend on the grid resolution, a grid refinement was performed, and the associated volume error was assessed. The code was run using θ = 0.5 with three horizontal grid resolutions 1000 × 500, 500 × 500, and 500 × 125 (x,y) m in which the model was stable numerically. To maintain the stability, three different time steps were chosen to run the code because the refinement lowers the time step (∆t). All resolutions were applied on the same initial water volume in Figure 6. Therefore, the initial water volume of the waterbody was fixed, while the grid resolution was varied. Figure 11 shows the percent error over time for the three considered grid resolutions, indicating that the error in volume has the same order of magnitude for the three resolutions.

Figure 11.

The effect of grid refinement.

Advertisement

4. Conclusions

Model verification is the first step after building any new hydrodynamic numerical model for surface waterbody simulation. In this chapter, a new volume balance approach was introduced for verifying the three-dimensional hydrodynamic numerical models in surface waterbody simulation. This technique provides information about whether the code preserves fluid mass or not by calculating the volume balance percent error over time during a model simulation. The model results indicated that the model is considered numerically stable if the volume balance error reaches a constant value over time. In addition, even though the model degree of implicitness had a reasonable volume balance error (less than 0.1%), the semi-implicit numerical scheme had slightly better volume balance error than the fully implicit scheme.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA, for their help in doing this research in association with the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, University of Babylon.

References

  1. 1. Blumberg AF, Mellor GL. A description of a three-dimensional coastal ocean circulation model. In: Heaps NS, editor. Three-Dimensional Coastal Ocean Models. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union; 1987. pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.1029/co004p0001
  2. 2. Mellor GL. Users Guide for a Three-Dimensional, Primitive Equation, Numerical Ocean Model (October 2002 Version). Princeton, NJ: Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University; 2002
  3. 3. Blumberg AF. A coastal ocean numerical model. In: Mellor GL, editor. Proceedings of International Symposium on Mathematical Modelling of Estuarine Physics. Berlin: Springer; 1980. pp. 202-219
  4. 4. Barron CN, Kara AB, Martin PJ, Rhodes RC, Smedstad LF. Formulation, implementation and examination of vertical coordinate choices in the Global Navy Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM). Ocean Modelling. 2006;11(3-4):347-375. DOI: 10.1016/j.ocemod.2005.01.004
  5. 5. Martin PJ, Barron CN, Smedstad LF, Campbell AJ, Rhodes RC, Rowley C, et al. User’s Manual for the Navy Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM) Version 4.0. MS: Naval Research Laboratory, Oceanography Division, Stennis Space Center; 2009. Report No. NRL/MR/7320-08-9151
  6. 6. Chen C, Beardsley RC, Cowles G, Qi J, Lai Z, Gao G, et al. An Unstructured-Grid, Finite-Volume Community Ocean Model FVCOM User Manual. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2011. Report No. 11-1101
  7. 7. Chen C, Liu H, Beardsley RC. An unstructured grid, finite-volume, three-dimensional, primitive equations ocean model: Application to coastal ocean and estuaries. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 2003;20:159-186. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0426(2003)020<0159:AUGFVT>2.0.CO;2
  8. 8. Hamrick JM. A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects. In: Special Report 317 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering. VA: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of Marine Science, College of William and Mary; 1992
  9. 9. Casulli V, Cheng RT. Semi-implicit finite difference methods for three-dimensional shallow water flow. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids. 1992;15(6):629-648. DOI: 10.1002/fld.1650150602
  10. 10. Casulli V, Walters RA. An unstructured grid, three dimensional model based on the shallow water equations. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids. 2000;32:331-348. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)10970363(20000215)32:3<331::AID-FLD941>3.0.CO;2-C
  11. 11. Edinger JE. Waterbody Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Modeling: An Introductory Workbook and CD-ROM on Three-Dimensional Waterbody Modeling. VA: ASCE; 2001
  12. 12. Moin P, Mahesh K. Direct numerical simulation: A tool in turbulence research. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics. 1998;30(1):539-578. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.539
  13. 13. Al-Zubaidi HAM, Wells SA. Analytical and field verification of a 3D hydrodynamic and water quality numerical scheme based on the 2D formulation in CE-QUAL-W2. Journal of Hydraulic Research. 2018. DOI: 10.1080/00221686.2018.1499051.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00221686.2018.1499051
  14. 14. Al-Zubaidi HAM, Wells SA. 3D numerical temperature model development and calibration for lakes and reservoirs: A case study. In: Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2017. Sacramento, CA: ASCE; 2017. DOI: 10.1061/9780784480601.051
  15. 15. Al-Zubaidi HAM, Wells SA. 2D and 3D numerical modeling of water level and temperature in lakes and reservoirs based on the numerical scheme in CE-QUAL-W2: A case study. In: Proceedings, the 37th International Symposium of the North American Lakes Management Society. Westminster, Colorado: NALMS; 2017
  16. 16. Al-Zubaidi HAM, Wells SA. Comparison of a 2D and 3D hydrodynamic and water quality model for lake systems. In: Proceedings, World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2018. Minneapolis, Minnesota: ASCE; 2018. DOI: 10.1061/9780784481400.007
  17. 17. Al-Zubaidi HAM, Wells SA. Water level, temperature, and water quality numerical predictions of a 3D semi-implicit scheme for lakes and reservoirs: An analytical and field case study. In: Proceedings, the 9th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software (iEMSs 2018). Ft. Collins, Colorado: iEMSs; 2018
  18. 18. Cole T, Wells SA. CE-QUAL-W2: A Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged, Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model (Version 4.1). Portland, OR: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Portland State University; 2017. Available from:http://www.cee.pdx.edu/w2/

Written By

Hussein A.M. Al-Zubaidi and Scott A. Wells

Submitted: February 6th, 2019 Reviewed: September 12th, 2019 Published: October 19th, 2019