ANALYSIS OF FLOW CONDITIONS AT THE IHNC-GIWW SECTOR GATESLFPA-E

October 2016

© Arcadis 2016

Motivation• SLFPA-E has observed high velocities within the

opening of the GIWW sector gate at the surge barrier.

• Concern about impact on safe navigation.

• The barge gate has been closed for repairs, thus altering the flow conditions.

• Existing gaging may not adequately inform SLFPA-E of flow conditions in the navigation channels.

© Arcadis 2016

Questions:1. What are the regional and local conditions that generate

the high velocities?

2. How often are the high velocities likely to occur?

3. What can the original modeling studies explain?

4. What is the consequence of keeping the barge gate closed?

5. How can gaging network be improved?

6. What additional modeling is needed?

© Arcadis 2016

IHNC Structures

© Arcadis 2016

IHNC Structures

GIWW Sector Gate

Barge Gate

© Arcadis 2016

Data Inventory• 24 water level data locations

• 11 wind data locations

• 2 velocity data locations

• GIWW sector gate at surge barrier• Seabrook

© Arcadis 2016

ADCP Data at the GIWW Sector Gate

Max ebb = 4.35 fpsMax flood = -5.19 fps

© Arcadis 2016

Data Analysis• Extensive review of data quality

• Some errors and mis-labeling identified• Issues with earlier ADCP data

• Correlations between different gages

• Analysis of regional scale hydrodynamics

What are conditions of concern?

What should we monitor to warn of impending high velocities?

© Arcadis 2016

Velocity at Seabrook

© Arcadis 2016

Correlation of Seabrook and GIWW

© Arcadis 2016

Example of Regional Dynamics

Wind and stage dataduring the Nov 2008 event

Strong north and northwest wind on Nov 15

© Arcadis 2016

Example of Regional Dynamics

Results = hydrodynamic gradient across the IHNC barrier(shown in red)

© Arcadis 2016

Summary of Data Inventory & Analysis• Linear relationship between velocity at Seabrook and

GIWW gate.

• Moderate relationship of velocity and gradient at the GIWW gate, but gage data affected by set-up due to placement.

• Good data for regional dynamics, but inadequate at the structure.

• Recommend improvements to existing gages and placement of additional gages.

© Arcadis 2016

Inventory of Previous Modeling • Several modeling studies performed during design

• TABS-MD (ERDC TR-10-9)

• ADH (ERDC TR-10-10 and TR-10-12)

• ADCIRC (Arcadis look at surge reduction for USACE-HPO)

• RMA2 (AECOM look at hydraulics for GIWW Gate Design)

• HEC-RAS (Gerwick to examine post-storm re-opening and scour potential)

• HEC-RAS (Haskoning and Arcadis look at System-Wide operational guidance)

• Plus additional Seabrook modeling.

© Arcadis 2016

Inventory of Previous Modeling • Differences in modeling approaches include:

• Surrounding marshes• Guide walls• Gate dimensions and IHNC footprint• Spatial extent and regional dynamics• Range of conditions (storm vs tides)• Extent of met forcing

© Arcadis 2016

Comparison of Model Validation Model:

ERDC TR-10-10 ERDC-10-12 AECOM

ADH ADH RMA2

Calibration Period Previous study Previous study December 1, 2008 to January 17, 2008

Water Level Gages -- -- 8

Velocity Gages -- -- 3

ADCP Transects -- -- 2 sets, 4-6 in vicinity of GIWW gate locations

Verification/Validation Period

March 2006, July and August 2008

January through October 2008

June through October 2008

Water Level Gages 1 9 --

Velocity Gages -- -- --

ADCP Transects 2 sets, 3 locations in vicinity of GIWW gate location

2 sets, 7 locations in vicinity of GIWW gate location, 1 set, 6 locations vicinity of Seabrook

4 sets, 7-13 locations in vicinity of GIWW gate location , 1 set, 7 locations vicinity of Seabrook

© Arcadis 2016

Regional Dynamics and Model Results

hydrodynamic gradient across the IHNC barrier(shown in red)

Model results Nov 15barge open = peak ebb velocity 4.4 fps barge closed = peak ebb velocity almost 7 fps, velocity > 4 fps for 12 hours

© Arcadis 2016

Conclusion from Model Review• Previous modeling confirms potential for high velocities.

• Velocity is higher at GIWW sector gate when barge gate is closed. Velocity is lower at Seabrook.

• ADH reveals eddying details, but neglects adjacent marsh and many regional scale effects (wind & waves).

• Need updated modeling study.

Barge Open

PercentTR-10-10 AECOM AECOM TR-10-12 TR-10-12Annual March November March September

1 4.66 4.20 4.20 3.50 3.50

50 2.20 1.90 1.80 2.00 1.90

90 0.59 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.50Barge Closed

PercentTR-10-10 AECOM AECOM DataAnnual March November July

1 6.52 6.80 6.70 4.4050 3.08 3.30 3.00 2.32

90 0.83 0.80 0.75 0.50

© Arcadis 2016

ADCIRC/SWAN Update• As part of this work, we compiled the latest available bathymetric

and structure data.

• Performed update to ADCIRC SL16 mesh within the IHNC corridor including:

• Resolution increased from 40m to 15m,• Mesh carefully aligned to shore parallel contours,• Re-interpolation of most recent bathy survey,• Implementation of Seabrook and GIWW structures and MRGO closure.

Orig

inal

Upd

ated

© Arcadis 2016

ADCIRC/SWAN Update• Previous modeling used single (inland) wind data point and did not

account for wave setup across Lake Borgne.

• To overcome limitations of previous modeling efforts:

• Fully coupled with SWAN wave model. Wave setup can increase hydraulic gradient for westerly winds.

• Developed a methodology to extract spatially and temporally variable NAM wind fields (North American Mesoscale Forecast System)

• Updated model and wind methodology tested and stable. NAM Wind Water Currents

© Arcadis 2016

Recommended Next StepsPhase 2:

• Use the updated ADCIRC/SWAN/NAM system• Explore regional scale dynamics for variety of scenarios,• Identify locations for remote monitoring/gaging to warn of

potentially dangerous conditions,• Provide boundary conditions for Phase 3.

Phase 3:• Develop fully three dimensional Flow3D model,• Use Flow3D to explore eddying and guide walls,• Identify optimal locations for ADCP and local gaging.

© Arcadis 2016

Thank You!

28 October 2016 22