Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

Gio Papio

Lab 3- Flood Routing Problem


Dr. Lichtensteiger
FABE 3150- System Dynamics
and Electricity
2/9/2017
Simulink Block Diagram:

Figure 1: Simulink Block Diagram- Created using equations 1-5 of attached


guide.
MATLAB Code:
clc
clear
disp('Gio Papio')
disp('FABE 3150')
disp('Lab 3')
disp('2/9/2017')
b=9;
c=3;
L=115;
A=4.91; %for 30 inch pipe
AoverK=23.85; %for 30 inch pipe
d=6.5;
g=32.2;
time=[0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.87 1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.3 3.6 4 4.7
5.7 7 10];
in=[0 23 46 80 120 144 180 188 190 186 160 140 120 98 80 66 51 40 28 16 6 1
0];
Time=[0 .25 .5 .75 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 8 9 10];
h=[0 .44 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.1 3.8 4 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.9
6.2];
sim('SimulinkFloodProblem')
figure (1)
plot(time,in)
xlabel('Time (hrs)')
ylabel('Inflow Rate (ft^3/sec)')
title('Inflow Hydrograph')

figure(2)
plot(Time,h)
axis([0 10 0 10])
xlabel('Storage (in hundreds of thousand ft^3)')
ylabel('Elevation above Spillway Crest (ft)')
title('Storage Capacity of Reservoir')

figure(3)
hold on
plot(time,in)
[AX,H1,H2]=plotyy(t,output,t,storage);
axes(AX(1));ylabel('Inflow Rate and Outflow(ft^3/sec)');
axis([0 10 0 200]);set(gca,'YTick',([0:20:200])),legend('Inflow','Outflow')
axes(AX(2));ylabel('Reservoir Stage (ft)');axis([0 10 0 10]);set(gca,'YTick',
([0:1:10])),legend('Reservoir Stage')
xlabel('Time (hrs)')
title('Effect of Flowrate on Inflow, Resevoir Stage and Discharge')
hold off

figure(4)
for d=[5.0 6.5 8]
AoverK=22.36;
sim('SimulinkFloodProblem')
plot(t,input,t,output);
hold on
end
for AoverK=[13.17 34.16];
d=6.5;
sim('SimulinkFloodProblem')
plot(t,input, t, output);
end
hold off

xlabel('Time (hrs)')
axis([0 10 0 200])
ylabel('Flowrate (ft^3/sec)')
title('Effect of Pipe Size and Depth on System Performance')
%%
figure(5)
hold on
for AoK=[13.17 34.16]
d=6.5;
sim('SimulinkFloodProblem')
plot(t,storage)
end
for d=[5.0 6.5 8]
AoK=22.36;
sim('SimulinkFloodProblem')
plot(t,storage)
end
for d=6.5
AoK=[13.17 34.16]
sim('SimulinkFloodProblem')
plot(t,storage)
end
hold off
xlabel('Time (hrs)')
axis([0 10 0 10])
ylabel('Reservoir Stage (ft)')
title('Effect of Pipe Diameter and Discharge Height on the Reservoir Stage')

Integration Method and Time Interval:


For my simulation, ode1 (Euler) method was used. The simulation time
went from 0-10 seconds with a fixed-step size of 0.0001.
Graphs 1 and 2:

Figure 2: This graph displays inflow vs. time through a reservoir


Figure 3: This graph shows storage capacity vs. spillway crest
Table of Gains:
Case Constant Block Variable Block Notes
7b-1 Constant (d) Gain (AoverK) Block differs from
24 inches, 30
inches, and 36
inches
7b-2 Gain2 (AoverK) Constant(d) Varies between 5,
6.5 and 8 foot
depths
Graphs (continued)

Inflow Hydrograph, i(t) (ft3 / sec

Reservoir Stage, h (ft)

Discharge q (ft3/ sec)

Figure 4: This graph displays the effects of inflow on a reservoir

Inflow Hydrograph, i(t) (ft3


/ sec

d=6.5 ft (36
pipe)
d=8 ft (30
pipe)
d=6.5 ft (30
pipe) d=6.5 ft (30
pipe)
d=6.5 ft (24
pipe)
Figure 5: This graph shows different performances based on pipe size

Figure 6: Though missing 2 parts this graph compares

Discussion of Results:
Graph 1 displays the relationship between the inflow rate for the
reservoir system in regards to time. Near hour 2, there is a heavy inflow rate,
but it decreases rapidly shortly after.
Graph 2 indicates the relationship of storage capacity and the
elevation above the spillway crest. As storage capacity increases, so does
the spillway crest elevation.
Graph 3 shows inflow, reservoir stage, and discharge. Regarding inflow,
the graph showed an instant spike, which decreased rapidly after only 2
hours. The reservoir stage showed a less drastic climb, taking about 3 hours
to reach its maximum flow rate. It also had a slower decrease in flow. The
discharge showed a pattern similar to the inflow regarding its rapid increase.
However, it plateaued around a flow rate of 70 ft^3/sec, and stayed there for
nearly 5 hours, then it rapidly decreased.
Graph 4 demonstrates the relationship between pipe size and flow
rate. As pipe size increases, the flow rate shows a similar trend, as expected.
However, with smaller flow rates, there is a more controlled flow, allowing
flow to continue at a steady rate for a much longer period of time. As shown
with the graph, the 24 inch pipe with a 6.5 foot diameter has the most
steady, constant flow.
Graph 5, though missing two of the functions, shows a similar pattern
to Graph 4. With d=5 for a 30 inch pipe, a larger storage time was
demonstrated. With d=8ft for a 30 inch pipe, it had a slightly lower storage
time. For d=6.5 in a 24 inch pipe, there would be the largest storage time.
Time Base Change:
As given, the rates were in ft^3/second. However, when finding results,
they were to be in cubic feet per hour, which required conversion. Also, the
sheer size of the storage allowed for an additional conversion as follows:

ft 3
3600 s
s
105 ft 3
h 0.036105 ft 3
=
105 ft 3 hour

Equation 1 Assumptions:
1) Water velocity is negligible
2) Surface is horizontal
3) Spillway outlet is 6.5 ft below spillway crest and not submerged
Equation 4 Assumptions and Advantages
1) q increases rapidly with h before it reaches the channel downstream
2) Little water is backed up into the reservoir
These assumptions have many advantages for the flood routing system.
First, this saves storage capacity. With saved storage capacity, this ensures
that water will not overflow during periods of heavy runoff while also making
sure the reservoir never runs out of water.