Two-Dimensional Modeling of Floods to Map Risk-Prone Areas

Leopardi, Angelo; Oliveri, E.; Greco, Massimo

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9496(2002)128:3(168)

Cited by 31 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here we concentrate on a methodology of evaluating uncertain spatial flood inundation maps. Other distributed models, such as TRIM2D, TELEMAC, RMA2 or TUFLOW, could have been used (for a discussion of various raster based models see Leopardi et al, 2002). The reader is referred to Hunter et al (2005b) for a detailed description of the model and its implementation.…”

Section: Implementing Lisflood-fp For the Alzette Catchmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations

Pappenberger

Frodsham²,

Beven

et al. 2007

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The paper presents a methodology for the estimation of uncertainty of inundation extent, which takes account of the uncertainty in the observed spatially distributed information and implements a fuzzy evaluation methodology. The Generalised Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) technique and the 2-D LISFLOOD-FP model were applied to derive the set of uncertain inundation realisations and resulting flood inundation maps. Conditioning of the inundation maps on fuzzified Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images results in much more realistic inundation risk maps which can better depict the variable pattern of inundation extent than previously used methods. It has been shown that the evaluation methodology compares well to traditional approaches and can produce flood hazard maps that reflect the uncertainties in model evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Implementing Lisflood-fp For the Alzette Catchmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations

Pappenberger

Frodsham²,

Beven

et al. 2007

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite this proliferation of 2D hydraulic models applied to urban areas, understanding of the relative merits of different approaches is still limited (the study of Leopardi et al 21 is an exception).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking 2D hydraulic models for urban flooding

Hunter¹,

Bates

Néelz³

et al. 2008

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Water Manag

306

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes benchmark testing of six two-dimensional (2D) hydraulic models (DIVAST, DIVASTTVD, TUFLOW, JFLOW, TRENT and LISFLOOD-FP) in terms of their ability to simulate surface flows in a densely urbanised area. The models are applied to a 1·0 km × 0·4 km urban catchment within the city of Glasgow, Scotland, UK, and are used to simulate a flood event that occurred at this site on 30 July 2002. An identical numerical grid describing the underlying topography is constructed for each model, using a combination of airborne laser altimetry (LiDAR) fused with digital map data, and used to run a benchmark simulation. Two numerical experiments were then conducted to test the response of each model to topographic error and uncertainty over friction parameterisation. While all the models tested produce plausible results, subtle differences between particular groups of codes give considerable insight into both the practice and science of urban hydraulic modelling. In particular, the results show that the terrain data available from modern LiDAR systems are sufficiently accurate and resolved for simulating urban flows, but such data need to be fused with digital map data of building topology and land use to gain maximum benefit from the information contained therein. When such terrain data are available, uncertainty in friction parameters becomes a more dominant factor than topographic error for typical problems. The simulations also show that flows in urban environments are characterised by numerous transitions to supercritical flow and numerical shocks. However, the effects of these are localised and they do not appear to affect overall wave propagation. In contrast, inertia terms are shown to be important in this particular case, but the specific characteristics of the test site may mean that this does not hold more generally.

show abstract

“…The topic has been widely investigated for floods occurring either in urban or rural environment. In the former case, the complex topography may hinder the correct representation of risk scenarios provided by simpler schemes (Leopardi et al 2002, Hunter et al 2008. In the latter one, the application of 2D hydraulic models to rural floodplains flows can be nowadays considered as well understood, based also on the numerous applications found in recent literature (Neal et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flood hazard assessment: comparison of 1D and 2D hydraulic models

Crispino¹,

Gisonni²,

Iervolino³

2014

International Journal of River Basin Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 'Floods Directive' 2007/60/CE by the European Parliament requires the characterization of flood hazard by multi-scenario hydraulic analyses, based on the estimation of flow velocity and water depth or free-surface level over flooded areas. In principle, this evaluation demands a complete analysis of the watershed hydraulics, based on two-or even three-dimensional modelling. Since the latter, however, may hardly be applied at the watershed scale, 1D and 2D analyses represent the usual approaches to hydraulic risk mapping. The present work discusses a comprehensive comparison between 1D and 2D modelling of floods in meandering channels, aimed to guide practitioners in the confident choice of a tradeoff between complexity and accuracy. In particular, both numerical models were applied to a typical river morphology, represented by few shape parameters. Steady-flow conditions have been generally assumed; furthermore selected numerical experiments have been run under unsteady flow to investigate the effect of the time-varying hydrographs. Uniform-flow framework is considered for the 1D analysis, whereas 2D modelling is performed using the CCHE2D code developed at the National Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Mississippi. The models' results are compared in terms of computed stage -discharge hydrograph, shear stress distribution and free-surface elevation.

show abstract

Two-Dimensional Modeling of Floods to Map Risk-Prone Areas

Cited by 31 publications

References 9 publications

Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations

Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations

Benchmarking 2D hydraulic models for urban flooding

Flood hazard assessment: comparison of 1D and 2D hydraulic models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About