Over het archief
In 2012 verloren we Jean Jacques Peters, voormalig ingenieur van het Waterbouwkundig Laboratorium (1964 tot 1979) en internationaal expert in sedimenttransport, rivierhydraulica en -morfologie. Als eerbetoon aan hem hebben we potamology (http://www.potamology.com/) gecreëerd, een virtueel gedenkarchief dat als doel heeft om zijn manier van denken en morfologische aanpak van rivierproblemen in de wereld in stand te houden en te verspreiden.
Het merendeel van z’n werk hebben we toegankelijk gemaakt via onderstaande zoekinterface.
| [ meld een fout in dit record ] | mandje (0): toevoegen | toon |
 |
| Unveiling the consequences of your breach growth model choice Peeters, P.; Heredia Gomez, M.; van Damme, M.; Visser, P.J. (2016). Unveiling the consequences of your breach growth model choice, in: 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016). E3S Web of Conferences, 7: pp. 03005. https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20160703005
In: (2016). 3rd European Conference on Flood Risk Management (FLOODrisk 2016). E3S Web of Conferences, 7. EDP Sciences: [s.l.].
In: E3S Web of Conferences. EDP Sciences. ISSN 2267-1242; e-ISSN 2267-1242
|  |
| Beschikbaar in | Auteurs |
| |
| Documenttype: Congresbijdrage | |
| Auteurs | Top | |
|
| Abstract |
The main use of breaching models includes two tasks: predicting breach characteristics and estimating flow through the breach. The breach growth models considered in this study are the following: breaching module of Mike 11, HR Breach (InfoWorks RS), Verheij-van der Knaap breach formulae, BRES-Visser and AREBA-TUD. Besides a short description on how the dike breaching processes are taken into account by each model, selected model options are explained in the paper. The main conclusion of this modelling exercise would be that useful results can be obtained with all models starting from the same input regarding the soil and strength parameters of the dike. However, in some cases foreknowledge is needed when executing the simulations as well was interpreting the results. In addition, as most models take only a (limited and sometimes different) set of breaching mechanisms into account, the use of today’s state-of-the-art breach growth models is not (yet) dummy proof. Whether and how retrograde surface erosion and/or upstream headcut migration are accounted for will have an important influence on the timing of the peak flow through the breach. Furthermore, even when stated that block failure is included in a model, a stepwise increase of the breach width is never observed in the model output due to implicit assumptions in some models. |
| Top | Auteurs |
