1

CE 6130: HEC-RAS Project

Harry Vaslo ft9873

Professor Tim Calappi

4/13/2019

Introduction
My goal in this project was to calibrate a HEC-RAS model of the Detroit River to see how close its two-
dimensional model is to the true conditions around Belle Isle. I begin this report by presenting the HEC-
RAS model I created for this simulation. I then describe where and how I got my boundary conditions
and calibration times for running the model, and how I applied them. Finally, I discuss the results of my
calibration.

Geometry
I initially planned on building my own model for this project; however, my model would not function
properly due to Piers 15 and 16 of my simulated MacArthur Bridge overlapping with one another. I could
not figure out how to resolve this issue as the values I implemented for these piers in HEC-RAS were
given to me by Professor Tim Calappi, and any changes I made only exacerbated the number of errors I
had. The following are screenshots of my initial HEC-RAS model:

Figure 1: Names of files used in initial HEC-RAS model.

 2

Figure 2. Initial HEC-RAS model as seen from RAS Mapper.

Figure 3. Initial HEC-RAS model as seen from RAS Mapper.

Close-up of Belle Isle.
 3

Figure 3. Initial HEC-RAS model as seen from Geometric Data Editor.

Figure 4. Initial HEC-RAS model as seen from Geometric Data Editor.

Close-up of Belle Isle.
 4

Figure 5. Simulation of MacArthur Bridge in HEC-RAS.

 5

Figure 6. Results of running the model at steady-state.

In my initial HEC-RAS model I implemented 17 cross-sections and two junctions. The names of my
reaches were Reach 1, Reach 2, Reach 1-Lower, and Reach 1-Lower-Lo. There were three cross-sections
in Reach 1, four in Reach 2, six in Reach 1-Lower, and 4 in Reach 1-Lower-Lo. My junctions were put
immediately before and directly after Belle Isle, to simulate where the flow of the Detroit River would
split and meet up again.

Do to being unable to fix the errors of my model, I used geometry given to me by Professor Calappi for
the rest of this project. The data for the model was obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers 2012
Bathymetric Survey. Data is in metric units. The following figures are from the new geometry:
 6

Figure 7. Names of files in new HEC-RAS model.

Figure 8. New HEC-RAS model as seen from Geometric

Data Editor.
 7

Figure 9. Cross-section of the location of gauge on the

Canadian side of Belle Isle.
 8

Figure 10. Results of running new model at steady-state

conditions. Boundary conditions and flows for this model
are discussed in later sections.
 9

Source of Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions and calibration data for this model were obtained from the NOAA and USGS gauge.
The date I chose for my boundary conditions and calibration data was September 15th, 2015. The
following is a summary of data from that day:

Boundary Conditions for 9/15/15

Fort Wayne Elevation (m) 175.121
Windmill Point Elevation (m) 175.348
Discharge (m3/s) 6026

September 15th, 2015 was chosen as the date for no other reason than it was a date that did not fall into
winter months, where ice could affect flow rates.

Figure 11 is a hydrograph of elevations at Windmill Point between August 15th, 2015 and October 15th,
2015. As evidenced in the figure, the date I chose is amid a calm period of the Detroit River, as the
elevations of the water are not spiking.

Hydrograph: Elevations of Windmill Point

175.55
175.5
175.45
175.4
175.348
Elevation (m)

175.35
175.3
175.25
175.2
175.15
175.1
175.05
8/4/2015 8/14/2015 8/24/2015 9/3/2015 9/13/2015 9/23/2015 10/3/2015 10/13/2015 10/23/2015
Date

Figure 11. Hydrograph of gauge in Detroit River.

Elevations taken at Windmill Point. The elevation of
Windmill Point on the day I chose my data (September
15th, 2015) is shown with an elevation of 175.348 meters.
 10

Results of Calibration
As seen in Figure 10, my model ran successfully at steady state conditions. To see how close the results
of my model came to the gauge at Belle Isle, we must compare the average elevations of the gauge on
September 15th, 2015 with the actual gauge given in the HEC-RAS model:

Figure 12. The gauge at Belle Isle is located at Cross-

Section 15005 in the HEC-RAS model. The target elevation
we want our average elevation to be near is 175.44
meters.

Upon taking the average of all the six-minute elevation data provided on September 15th, 2015, we see
the average elevation of the gauge is 175.3003 meters. While this is close to the 175.44 meters
measured in HEC-RAS, they are far enough apart that we need to adjust our HEC-RAS model to make our
simulation closer to the actual conditions in the Detroit River. To accomplish this, we adjust the
Manning’s values of the river:
 11

Figure 13. Manning’s values were changed from 0.03 to

0.021 at all cross sections in the river.
 12

Figure 14. Elevation at the cross-section representing the

gauge on Belle Isle. When compared with Figure 12, one
can see it is lower with a Manning’s value of 0.021 than
with a value of 0.03.

With a Manning’s value of 0.021 the elevation of water at the gauge in HEC-RAS is 175.31 meters, much
closer to the actual average elevation of 175.30 meters. We can conclude that, for our model to be as
accurate as possible, Manning’s values may need to be changed throughout the model to better
represent the conditions found along the edges of the Detroit River.