Cet ouvrage et des milliers d'autres font partie de la bibliothèque YouScribe
Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour les lire en ligne
En savoir plus

Partagez cette publication

A Shallow Water model for the numerical simulation of overland flow
on surfaces with ridges and furrows
∗,a b c d b bUlrich Razafison , Ste´phane Cordier , Olivier Delestre , Fre´de´ric Darboux , Carine Lucas , Franc¸ois James
aUniversite´ de Franche-Comte´, Laboratoire de Mathe´matiques, CNRS UMR 6623, 16 route de Gray, 25030 Besanc¸on Cedex, France
bUniversite´ d’Orle´ans, Laboratoire MAPMO, CNRS UMR 6628, Fe´de´ration Denis Poisson, B. P. 6759, 45067 Orle´ans Cedex 2, France
cUniversite´ de Nice - Sophia Antipolis, Laboratoire de Mathe´matiques J. A. Dieudonne´, UMR 6621 CNRS UNSA, Parc Valrose, 06108 Nice Cedex 2, France
dINRA, UR 0272 Science du sol, Centre de recherche d’Orle´ans, CS 40001, F-45075 Orle´ans Cedex 2, France
We introduce a new Shallow Water model for the numerical simulation of overland flow with furrow effects without representing
them explicitly. The model is obtained by adding an anisotropic friction term that takes into account these effects to the classical
Shallow Water equations.
We validate the model with numerical tests, and we compare it with the classical Shallow Water model where the furrows are
explicitly and precisely described.
Key words: Overland flow, Shallow Water equations, Furrows, Friction
1. Introduction lands. This interaction can be seen as the interaction between
three types of roughness. The topography is the roughness of
During rainfall, overland flow on cultivated lands induces the Earth and is described on Digital Elevation Maps with a
problems at the watershed scale for soil conservation (decreases horizontal resolution larger than one meter and commonly of
soil thickness by erosion and causes nutrient loss), infrastruc- ten meters and more. Furrows are the roughness due to agri-
tures (flooding and destruction of roads and buildings), preser- cultural practices and create a strong directional heterogeneity
vation of water quality (drinking water) and sustainability of inside a field. They are characterized by their wavelength (one
aquatic ecosystems (chemical pollution). to a few decimeters), their amplitude (a few centimeters to one
These troubles can be prevented by improving watershed decimeter) and their direction. Finally, the random roughness
management in connection with overland flow. Thus, the water due to soil aggregates and clods is homogeneous in space and
flux at the outlet not only must be simulated well but also must has an amplitude of a few millimeters to about one decimeter.
predict the spatial distribution of the water flux and velocity To our knowledge, most of the research on the interaction be-
over the whole watershed well. However, current hydrological tween roughness and flow have been dedicated to topography
models predict overland flow within small watersheds ineffi- [5, 6] or to random roughness [7, 8, 9].
ciently [1, 2, 3]. In agricultural watersheds, one of the main Few studies have addressed furrows, and most are concerned
difficulties is that flow directions are controlled not only by the with the storage capacity of the furrows, i.e., the amount of
topography but also by ditches along the field boundaries and water stored in the puddles created by the furrows (e.g., [10]).
by ridges and furrows created by tillage operations inside the These studies do not consider the water flowing on the soil sur-
fields. The flow pattern is clearly the result of the interaction faces but rather the water stored in puddles. The few studies
between these objects [4], but the way they interact remains considering both overland flow and the furrows-topography in-
mostly unspecified. Therefore, this interaction must be better teraction are empirical studies [4, 11]. They lead to empirical
understood to better predict the spatial and temporal distribu- laws giving an on/off prediction: the predicted flow direction is
tions of overland flow and to improve the decisions made by either the direction of the topographic slope or the furrow direc-
watershed managers. tion, while water can flow in both directions at the same time
In this paper, we focus on the interaction between topogra- in reality. Moreover, these laws are limited by their empirical
phy and furrows, a feature encountered in almost all cultivated basis.
To be of practical use, a model accounting for the effects of
∗ furrows on overland flow direction must not require an explicitCorresponding author. Tel: +33 381666397; fax: +33 381666623
Email addresses: ulrich.razafison@math.cnrs.fr (Ulrich representation of the furrows: such a requirement would require
Razafison), stephane.cordier@univ-orleans.fr (Ste´phane Cordier), the use of a digital topographic map with a horizontal resolution
olivierdelestre41@yahoo.fr (Olivier Delestre),
of about one centimeter for the whole watershed, and a small
frederic.darboux@orleans.inra.fr (Fre´de´ric Darboux),
watershed covers approximately one square kilometer. Suchcarine.lucas@univ-orleans.fr (Carine Lucas),
francois.james@univ-orleans.fr (Franc¸ois James) digital maps are not available and, even if available, require too
Preprint submitted to European Journal of Mechanics-B/Fluids December 2, 2011free surface
many computational resources.
The purpose of this study is to propose a model that can ac-
count for the effects of the furrows on overland flow. Numerical
results are presented. The model is a first step in an attempt to h(t,x)
predict overland flow directions controlled by furrows and to-
pography without representing the furrows explicitly. Indeed,
only average amplitude, wavelength and direction are used to
characterize the furrows. In this paper, the furrow direction is
kept perpendicular to the slope. Our model is based on the Shal-
low Water equations that are widely used to describe flows in
rivers and ocean and overland, among other applications. Figure 1: Notations for a 1D Shallow Water flow.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In the next section,
we first present the Shallow Water model. Then, we propose a
topographynew model in which we add a new friction term to account for
the effects of the furrows on overland flow. Section 3 describes z
the numerical scheme used to solve the model, and in Section 4,
0.02we present and discuss the numerical results that we obtain with 0
our model. Conclusions are outlined in Section 5. -0.04
-0.122. Mathematical models -0.14
The starting point is the 2D classic Shallow Water sys-
tem [12] in a bounded domainΩ: 0.15
 0 0.1
0.5 ∂h ∂(hu) ∂(hv) x ∈ [0;ℓ] 1 1.5 0.05 + + = R, 2 2.5 ∂t ∂x ∂y y ∈ [0; L] 3 0 3.5 2 ∂(hu) ∂(hu ) ∂(huv) ∂h + + + gh ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x Figure 2: An example of topography with furrows. ∂Z 2 −1/3 (2.1) +gh + gk h |u|u= 0, ∂x 2 ∂(hv) ∂(huv) ∂(hv ) ∂h 1. The direction of the flow is parallel to the length of the + + + gh ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂y domainΩ with respect to y (pseudo-1D case) and, conse- ∂Z 2 −1/3 quently, perpendicular to the furrows. +gh + gk h |u|v= 0. ∂y 2. We only consider fluvial flows, which means that |u| <p
gh.For t > 0 and x = (x, y) ∈ Ω, the unknowns are the water
height h= h(t, x) and the horizontal flow velocity u= u(t, x)= 3. Infiltration and soil erosion are not taken into account.
T(u(t, x), v(t, x)) . Furthermore, Z(x) describes the bottom to-
Under such assumptions, the furrows overflow at the same time
pography of the domain; therefore, h+ Z is the level of the wa-
during rainfall events or one after the other during inflow from
ter surface (Figure 1). In equations (2.1), g is the acceleration
due to the gravity and R is the rainfall intensity. Several studies
We propose a model that takes into account the effects of the
have shown a derivation of the Shallow Water system originat-
furrows without explicitly representing them in the topography
ing from the free surface Navier-Stokes equations [13, 14, 15].
Z. In other words, we want to find an equivalent model to the
For the friction term, we choose the Manning law with
Shallow Water system onΩ that can be used at a macroscopic
k as the Manning coefficient. We also denote q(t, x) =
scale, i.e., on a topography that is only an inclined plane. WeT(q (t, x), q (t, x)) = h(t, x)u(t, x) as the water flux.x y want to force the flow to slow down when its depth is smaller
Now, we consider a rectangular domainΩ= ℓ × L and a to-
than the value corresponding to the water height that can be
pography Z with furrows. We suppose that the topography is an
trapped in the furrows. The idea of this article is to model this
inclined plane with sinus furrows and that the geometry of the
effect of the furrows through an additional friction term that
furrows is known through their amplitude and their wavelength.
forces the flow to slow down for a low water depth. To that end,
Note that realistic (measured) furrows are shaped slightly dif-
we first introducehh i the average height of the water trappedF
ferently due to the existence of random roughness. However,
in the furrows. This value is given by
random roughness, because it is isotropic, does not affect flow
direction at the scale of the furrows. We also suppose that the hh i= V/(L ×ℓ) (m), (2.2)F F
furrows are perpendicular to the length ofΩ with respect to y.
An example of such topography is illustrated in Figure 2. where V is the volume of trapped water in a furrow, L is itsF
Next, we complement the problem with the following as- wavelength (see Figure 3) and ℓ is the length of the domainΩ
sumptions. (with respect to x). Note that the value ofhh i only depends onF
Trapped water (volume V) Finally, we propose the following new Shallow Water modelz
with a “furrows-friction” coefficient:
h(t,y) ∂h ∂(hu) ∂(hv)Z(y) + + = R, ∂t ∂x ∂y 2 ∂(hu) ∂(hu ) ∂(huv) ∂h + + + gh ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂xy yy +L0 0 F  ∂Z 2 −1/3 (2.4) +gh + gk h |u|u= 0, ∂xFigure 3: Water trapped in a furrow. 2 ∂(hv) ∂(huv) ∂(hv ) ∂h + + + gh ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂Z 2 −1/3 +gh + gk h |u|v+ K(h)hv= 0.
0.25 ∂y
Remark 2.2. 1. Note that, because the furrows are perpen-
dicular to the slope, the additional friction law K(h)hv only
0.15 appears in the third equation of (2.4), and therefore, it only
acts on the flow in the y-axis direction. This assumption is
not restrictive: in general, the direction of the furrows is0.10
constant on each agricultural field, and, if necessary, we
apply a rotation to obtain the equations for an arbitrary di-
0.05 rection of the furrows.
2. The form of the new friction law is chosen arbitrarily. The
α β
0.00 general form of friction laws is Kh |u| u whereα andβ are
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
positive real numbers. For example, we obtain the Man-h
ning law for (α,β) = (−1/3, 1) and Darcy-Weisbach law
for (α,β) = (1, 1). Note that these laws are empirical and
Figure 4: Shape of the friction term K(h) forhh i= 0.01 m.F are obtained considering stationary flows, and their valid-
ity is still discussed among hydrologists (e.g., [16]).
For the numerical experiments presented in Section 4 withthree parameters: the slope of the domain, the furrows average
system (2.4), we chose (α,β) = (1, 0) but we could haveamplitude and the furrows average wavelength.
made another choice, should we change the value of K or0Next, we consider the following additional friction coeffi-
the form of K(h).cient: !
−h+hh iF
K(h)= K exp , (2.3)0 Because shallow water flows can also be described by the
Chh iF
so-called multi-layer Shallow Water system (e.g., [17, 18, 19]
where C is a characteristic constant increasing function of the for a derivation and numerical studies), we can propose another
small random variations of the height of the furrows, and K is0 approach based on multi-layer models to take into account the
a coefficient we determine in the following. effects of the furrows on overland flows.
In Figure 4, the general shape of K(h) is plotted for hh i =F In this work, we introduce the following two-layer like
0.01 m. We clearly see that K(h) is large for h ≤ hh i. Thus,F model:
when the water height h is lower than the average height of the 
 if h(t, x) ≤ hh i, then u(t, x)= 0 and h(t, x)= Rt,furrowshh i, the flow slows as a result of K(h),. FF 
(2.5) if h(t, x) > hh i, FRemark 2.1. 1. In (2.3), if hh i tends to 0, then K(h) alsoF  then solve (2.1) with an inclined plane topography.
tends to 0 for any h > 0. In other words, the additional
friction coefficient disappears when there are no furrows. In (2.5), the lower layer corresponds to the filling up of the fur-
2. If C tends to 0, then we obtain the empirical models rows; note that the upper layer is active only when the furrows
that are usually used. These models consist in giving overflow. The initial conditions for the upper layer are then
an on/off prediction of the furrows-topography interaction ˆ ˆu(0, x)= 0 and h(0, x)= h−hh i, where h is the water height atF
(see [4, 11]); more precisely, while the critical water height the overflow time. Note that in one dimension, this model pro-
is not attained, there is no flow, and after this threshold, the vides more satisfactory results than the model (2.4) (Section 4).
furrows are not taken into account. However, its extension to more complex two-dimensional prob-
The new Shallow Water model we introduce here (2.4) can lems requires modeling the coupling between the two layers
be seen as an improvement of these models. carefully, and it is more difficult than extending the model (2.4).

K !
3. Numerical scheme
where c < c are given by c = inf inf λ (U) , c =1 2 1 j 2
U=U ,U j=1,2l r 
In this section, we explain the numerical scheme we used in p    sup sup λ (U) and where λ (U) = u − gh, λ (U) = j  1 2our numerical simulations. The Shallow Water system is not
U=U ,U j=1,2l rpas easy to solve. In hydrology, the Mac Cormack scheme is ′u+ gh are the eigenvalues of the Jabobian matrix F (U). A
usually used for overland flow simulation (e.g., [20, 21]). How-
study compared different numerical fluxes for (3.6) and showed
ever, it is not well adapted to this system because of several
that, in the framework of overland flow, the HLL flux is the
problems, such as the preservation of the positivity of the water
best compromise between the accuracy of the approximation
height and of the steady states or the behavior at the wet/dry in-
and the computational cost [27]. To have a second order ac-
terface. To that end, we used well-balanced schemes [22] based
curacy scheme, we use the modified ENO reconstruction [28]
on the hydrostatic reconstruction [23, 24]. This finite volume
defined as follows
scheme has shown to be adapted to overland flow simulation at
small scales [25, 26, 27]. Δx Δx
h = h − D h , h = h + D h ,i−1/2+ i enom i i+1/2− i enom iTo make this presentation simpler, we describe the numeri- 2 2
cal scheme on the classical the one-dimensional Shallow Water h Δxi+1/2−
u = u − D u ,i−1/2+ i enom imodel with variable topography and Manning’s friction law : h 2i
h Δxi−1/2+ u = u + D u∂h ∂(hu) i+1/2− i enom i h 2+ = R i ∂t ∂x
! (3.6) 2 with, for a spatially discretized function s, ∂(hu) ∂ h ∂Z 2 2 −1/3 + hu + g = −gh − gk h |u|u.
∂t ∂x 2 ∂x
D s = minmod(D s , 2θ D s )enom i eno i enom mm i
The model (3.6) can be written into a conservative form
∂U ∂F(U) + = S (U)+ S (U), (3.7)0 f  min(x, y) if x, y> 0∂t ∂x 
minmod(x, y)= max(x, y) if x, y6 0where   0 otherwise, ! !  hu  h h   2  U = = , F(U)=  ,h 2  s − s Δxhu q i i−1hu + g 2D s = minmod +θ D s ,eno i eno i−1/22 Δx 2!  ! s − s Δx R  i+1 i  20  −θ D s ,  eno i+1/2 S (U)= ∂Z and S (U)= .0   f 2 −1/3 Δx 2  −gk h |u|u !−gh
∂x s − 2s + s s − 2s + si+1 i i−1 i+2 i+1 i2D s = minmod , ,i+1/2 2 2System (3.7) is discretized using the finite volume method for Δx Δx
s − s s − si i−1 i+1 ihyperbolic conservation laws. We introduce a space-time grid D s = minmod ,mm i
Δx Δxin which the space and the time steps are, respectivelyΔx and
nΔt. We set x = iΔx, t = nΔt and C = x , x . We with θ ,θ ∈ [0, 1]. Note that for θ = 0, this reconstruc-eno enom enoi i i−1/2 i+1/2
n ndenote by U the approximation of the average of U(t , x) over tion is exactly the usual MUSCL reconstruction.i
the cell C , namely, To take into account the topography while preserving the steadyi
state of a lake at rest, i.e.,Z
1n nU ≃ U(t , x)dx.i Δx h+ Z = cst and u= 0,Ci
Considering only the homogeneous part of (3.7), then the finite we use a hydrostatic reconstruction described elsewhere [23,
volume scheme is of the form 24]. First, we need to define the reconstructed values Zi+1/2−
and Z that can be deduced from the reconstructed valuesi−1/2+Δtn+1 n n nU − U + (F − F )= 0,i i i+1/2 i−1/2 h , h and the following reconstruction of Z+ h:i−1/2− i−1/2+Δx
n n n Δxwhere F = F (U , U ) is the HLL numerical flux (e.g.,i+1/2 i i+1 (Z+ h) = Z + h − D (Z + h )i−1/2+ i i enom i i
[24]) through the interface between C and C . Note that the 2i i+1
HLL flux is defined by
 Δx
 F(U ) if 0 < c ,l 1 (Z+ h) = Z + h + D (Z + h ). i+1/2− i i enom i i 2 c F(U )− c F(U ) c c2 l 1 r 1 2 Next the hydrostatic reconstruction requires the following new + (U − U )r l
F (U , U )= c − c c − cl r  2 1 2 1 values to be defined: if c < 0 < c , 1 2 h = max(0, h + Z − max(Z , Z )),F(U ) if c < 0, i+1/2 l i+1/2− i+1/2− i+1/2− i+1/2+r 2
4 n+2 h h = max(0, h + Z − max(Z , Z )),  i−1/2 r i+1/2+ i+1/2+ i+1/2− i+1/2+ in+2  e  • Compute U =   by solving the Manning fric- i ! ! n+1 n+2h eu
i ih hi+1/2 l i−1/2 r
U = , U = . tion termi+1/2 l i−1/2 r  h u h ui+1/2 l i+1/2− i−1/2 r i−1/2+ n+2h  i    ∗∗ n+2 ∗∗ = S f (U ).The positive parts in the definitions of h and h (we  eu − u  Δti+1/2 l i−1/2 r i i i ∗∗ hihave max(0,·)) ensure the positivity of the water height. There- Δt
fore, the scheme can be written into the form
n+2• Compute U using the Heun method defined by (3.8).
Δtn+1 n n n nU − U + (F − F − Fc )= 0,i i i+1/2 l i−1/2 r i We now describe the treatment of the boundary conditions atΔx
the inflow and the outflow. We denote by b subscript the values
where on the (fictive) boundary cell and by the index “in” the values in
the first cell inside the domain. The normal n is equal to -1 on 
0   the left boundary (x= 0) and 1 on the right boundary (x= ℓ).n n n    gF = F (U , U )+ , n 2 n 2i−1/2 r i−1/2 l i−1/2 r  (h ) − (h )i−1/2+ i−1/2 r2 • A solid wall is modeled by imposing u = −u , h = h ,b in b in
on the condition that the topography be extended horizon- 
0  n n n   tally on the fictive cells. g F = F (U , U )+ , n 2 n 2i+1/2 l i+1/2 l i+1/2 r  (h ) − (h )i+1/2− i+1/2 l2 • At the inflow boundary, we impose the discharge q sat-b
isfying nq < 0. Because we only consider fluvial flows,and b
the water height h is computed using Riemann invariantsb  p
0   (e.g., [29, 30]). More precisely, assume that c = gh.n    gFc = . n n n ni  − h + h Z − Z It is well known that for the Shallow Water system (3.6),i−1/2+ i+1/2− i+1/2− i−1/2+2
the quantity u ∓ 2c is constant along the characteristic
dxn = u∓ c. Thus we haveThe term Fc is added to obtain a well-balanced and consistent dti
scheme [23]. Now, to have a second order scheme in time, we
u + n× 2c = u + n× 2c . (3.9)b b in inuse the Heun method,
Multiplying (3.9) by h , we obtainn+1 bn neU = U +ΔtΦ(U )i i i √ 3/2
n+2 n+1 n+1 −n× 2 gh + (u + n× 2c )h − q = 0.e e e in in b bU = U +ΔtΦ(U ) bi i i (3.8)
n n+2eU + U Newton method is used to solve the last equation and ton+1 i i
U = ,i get h .2 b
• At the outflow boundary, we always impose the waterwhere
1 height h and we use Riemann invariants to compute then n n n bΦ(U )= − (F − F − Fc ).i i+1/2 l i−1/2 r iΔx discharge. We obtain
Concerning the Manning friction term, we introduce a semi-
u = u + n× 2(c − c )b in in bimplicit treatment of this term [21, 29]. Then, the scheme is
modified as follows and we can easily deduce q = h u .b b b
• Solve the Shallow Water system All the previous steps are usual for the resolution of the Shal-
low Water system (2.1). Note that, for our new 2D model (2.4),
∗ n nU = U +ΔtΦ(U ). the additional friction term is treated in an explicitly. As thei i i
obtained results are satisfactory, we did not try to use a semi-
 n+1 implicit treatment of the additional friction term. Keeping the h  in+1  e  • Compute U =   by solving the Manning fric- explicit treatment also allows the numerical model to be ex-i  n+1 n+1h eui i tended easily to more complex two-dimensional flows.
tion term
   ∗n+1 h h   i  4. Numerical results i         ∗ n+1 ∗   n+1 ∗ = S f (U ) ≡  eq |q | . eu − u  Δt  i i i   2 i i ∗   −gk In Section 2, we introduced several models: the usual Shal- h n n+1i 4/3h (h )Δt i i low Water system (2.1), the Shallow Water system with an ad-
ditional friction coefficient that represents the furrows when we
• Solve the Shallow Water system consider plane topography (2.4) and a two-layer model (2.5).
In this section, we present several results obtained with these
∗∗ n+1 n+1e eU = U +ΔtΦ(U ).i i i three models in order to show the ability of our new model (2.4)
5 0.05to approximate the exact solution. Namely, we consider two
water heighttypes of test cases: in the first one, we only take into account
rainfalls, and in the second one, the water comes from up- 0
stream. For these two numerical experiments, the “exact” (or
reference) solution is that from the Shallow Water system (2.1)
with a precise description of a topography with furrows. The
domain Ω we consider here is Ω = ℓ × L, where ℓ = 0.2 m
and L = 4 m (Figure 2). We assume that the plane topography
has a constant slope of 5%. The amplitude of the furrows is
0.01 m (0.02 m peak-to-peak), and their wavelength is 0.1 m.
1/3 −1We choose a friction coefficient k = 0.04 m s . For the
-0.2following computations, we use a time stepΔt = 0.001 s (this
time step is imposed by the resolution of (2.1), because we need
a small space step to get a good representation of the furrows). -0.25
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
y (m)We note that all the numerical results are obtained using C++
software for the resolution of the Shallow Water system, and a
Figure 5: Side-view of the water height at the final time for the rainfall test case.
new library for the new friction coefficient.
water height
4.1. Reference solutions and description of the test cases
This paragraph describes how the solutions of the Shallow
Water model (2.1) are computed when the geometry of the fur- -0.05
rows is known explicitly. These solutions will be considered
here as reference solutions. According to the parameters given
above, the topography is modeled by the equation:
Z(x, y)= −0.05 y+ 0.01 cos(20π y). (4.10)
The space steps (with respect to x and y) are equal to 0.01 m,
which means that each furrow is described by 200 cells. We
-0.25assume that the domain is initially empty, i.e., u(0, x) = 0 and 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
y (m)h(0, x)= 0.
Let h, u, and q denote these reference solutions at the small
Figure 6: Side-view of the water height at the final time for the inflow test case.
4.2. Numerical comparisons of the models
4.1.1. Rainfall test case
We perform numerical tests on the new model (2.4). TheIn this case, we impose rainfall on the whole domain with
−4 −1 furrows are removed from the topography defined by (4.10).a constant permanent rain intensity R = 8 × 10 m s . The
−3 2 −1 Thus, the topography is now reduced to an inclined plane withrain discharge is then Q = 3.2 × 10 m s . The final timeR
the same general slope:is T = 22.5 s. Note that because we are interested in the ef-
fects of the furrows, we focus on the transitional stage of the
Z(x, y)= −0.05 y. (4.11)flow. Therefore, the final time T is chosen such that the outflow
discharge is approximately equal to half of the rain discharge.
The space step with respect to y is set equal to the wave-We assume here that the upstream boundary is a solid wall. We
length of the furrows, i.e., 0.1 m. The initial conditions remainshow the side-view of the water height at the final time in Fig-
unchanged: u(0, x) = 0 and h(0, x) = 0. The capital lettersure 5 .
(H, U and Q) denote the solutions of (2.4) at the large scale.
To improve the comparison in the rainfall test, we also com-
pute the solution (h,u,q) of the two-layer system (2.5). The dis-4.1.2. Inflow test case
cretization parameters and the topography we use are the sameWe also consider a permanent inflow from upstream. We set
−2 2 −1 as for the system (2.4).Q = 3.132× 10 m s as discharge on the inflow boundary.I
To compare the three models (2.1), (2.4) and (2.5), we con-The final time is T = 27.75 s. As for the rainfall test case, the
sider the water height (h, H and h, respectively) and the dis-final time was chosen such that the outflow discharge at T was
charge (q, Q and q, respectively) at the outflow. For this pur-approximately equal to half of the inflow discharge. We show
nthe side-view of the water height at the final time in Figure 6. pose, we first introduce h as the average of the reference water
Z, Z+ h (m) Z, Z+ h (m)nheight h contained in the furrow i at the time t . We also con- which corresponds to K = 0.02 and C = 0.4. The correspond-0
n n Q −2sider H , the water height in the furrow i at time t , which is ing discharge error is e ≃ 5.8× 10 . We notice that the newi
2computed with the model (2.4) for a given K and a given C, model (2.4) allows the L error on the water height to diminish0
nand H in the case K = 0 (i.e., the Shallow Water system by a factor of 7 with respect to the case K = 0, which indicates0 0 0i
on the coarser grid with plane topography and without the new that the furrow effects are taken into account satisfactorily.
Hfriction term). Next, we denote by e the relative water height We now report the results obtained with the two-layer
error defined by model (2.5), for the rainfall test. For different Manning coef-
hficients k, Figure 8 shows the water height error e (obtained 1/2N XX 2  i

Un pour Un
Permettre à tous d'accéder à la lecture
Pour chaque accès à la bibliothèque, YouScribe donne un accès à une personne dans le besoin