The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types
Abstract Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) act as an essential input to hydraulic models for the simulation of flood hazard maps. Coarser resolution DEMs are subject to higher levels of uncertainty, particularly in capturing river‐bed bathymetry. The principal aim of the present study was to assess th...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Flood Risk Management |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12871 |
| _version_ | 1811164523837521920 |
|---|---|
| author | Amir Mohammad Arash Mehdi Yasi |
| author_facet | Amir Mohammad Arash Mehdi Yasi |
| author_sort | Amir Mohammad Arash |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) act as an essential input to hydraulic models for the simulation of flood hazard maps. Coarser resolution DEMs are subject to higher levels of uncertainty, particularly in capturing river‐bed bathymetry. The principal aim of the present study was to assess the potential use of freely available DEMs and the 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS modeling approaches for flood mapping in four different types of river morphology. The DEM created from direct river survey (Surveyed DEM) was used as a benchmark to assess three remote sensing‐based DEMs (i.e., ALOS, SRTM, and ASTER). The results indicated that ALOS is more accurate. However, the regeneration of main‐channel bathymetry was poor for floodplain‐meandering and braided river reaches. The DEMs were then corrected by optimizing the number and layout of representative sections. A total of 144 tests were carried out. The results indicated that the flood‐mapping index F of ALOS increased from 86% to 91%. The flood mapping with a 1D model was sufficient in straight reaches (F‐index 84%). In floodplain‐meandering rivers, a 2D model had to be used to reach an F‐index up to 81%. The responses of both 1D and 2D models were almost identical in the case of wide‐braided rivers. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:22:43Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-816d4c26739a45a9b24c3b508525ecf5 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1753-318X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-10T15:22:43Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Flood Risk Management |
| spelling | doaj.art-816d4c26739a45a9b24c3b508525ecf52023-02-14T12:22:52ZengWileyJournal of Flood Risk Management1753-318X2023-03-01161n/an/a10.1111/jfr3.12871The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river typesAmir Mohammad Arash0Mehdi Yasi1Department of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Tehran Karaj IranDepartment of Irrigation and Reclamation Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Tehran Karaj IranAbstract Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) act as an essential input to hydraulic models for the simulation of flood hazard maps. Coarser resolution DEMs are subject to higher levels of uncertainty, particularly in capturing river‐bed bathymetry. The principal aim of the present study was to assess the potential use of freely available DEMs and the 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS modeling approaches for flood mapping in four different types of river morphology. The DEM created from direct river survey (Surveyed DEM) was used as a benchmark to assess three remote sensing‐based DEMs (i.e., ALOS, SRTM, and ASTER). The results indicated that ALOS is more accurate. However, the regeneration of main‐channel bathymetry was poor for floodplain‐meandering and braided river reaches. The DEMs were then corrected by optimizing the number and layout of representative sections. A total of 144 tests were carried out. The results indicated that the flood‐mapping index F of ALOS increased from 86% to 91%. The flood mapping with a 1D model was sufficient in straight reaches (F‐index 84%). In floodplain‐meandering rivers, a 2D model had to be used to reach an F‐index up to 81%. The responses of both 1D and 2D models were almost identical in the case of wide‐braided rivers.https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12871DEMsflood mappingHEC‐RAShydraulic modelingriver bathymetry |
| spellingShingle | Amir Mohammad Arash Mehdi Yasi The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types Journal of Flood Risk Management DEMs flood mapping HEC‐RAS hydraulic modeling river bathymetry |
| title | The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types |
| title_full | The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types |
| title_fullStr | The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types |
| title_full_unstemmed | The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types |
| title_short | The assessment for selection and correction of RS‐based DEMs and 1D and 2D HEC‐RAS models for flood mapping in different river types |
| title_sort | assessment for selection and correction of rs based dems and 1d and 2d hec ras models for flood mapping in different river types |
| topic | DEMs flood mapping HEC‐RAS hydraulic modeling river bathymetry |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12871 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT amirmohammadarash theassessmentforselectionandcorrectionofrsbaseddemsand1dand2dhecrasmodelsforfloodmappingindifferentrivertypes AT mehdiyasi theassessmentforselectionandcorrectionofrsbaseddemsand1dand2dhecrasmodelsforfloodmappingindifferentrivertypes AT amirmohammadarash assessmentforselectionandcorrectionofrsbaseddemsand1dand2dhecrasmodelsforfloodmappingindifferentrivertypes AT mehdiyasi assessmentforselectionandcorrectionofrsbaseddemsand1dand2dhecrasmodelsforfloodmappingindifferentrivertypes |