The Manning’s Roughness Coefficient Calibration Method to Improve Flood Hazard Analysis in the Absence of River Bathymetric Data: Application to the Urban Historical Zamora City Centre in Spain
Source abstract
Abstract
The accurate estimation of flood risk depends on, among other factors, a correct delineation of the floodable area and its associated hydrodynamic parameters. This characterization becomes fundamental in the flood hazard analyses that are carried out in urban areas. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to have a correct characterization of the topography, both inside the riverbed (bathymetry) and outside it. Outside the riverbed, the LiDAR data led to an important improvement, but not so inside the riverbed. To overcome these deficiencies, different models with simplified bathymetry or modified inflow hydrographs were used. Here, we present a model that is based upon the calibration of the Manning’s n value inside the riverbed. The use of abnormally low Manning’s n values made it possible to reproduce both the extent of the flooded area and the flow depth value within it (outside the riverbed) in an acceptable manner. The reduction in the average error in the flow depth value from 50–75 cm (models without bathymetry and “natural” Manning’s n values) to only about 10 cm (models without bathymetry and “calibrated” Manning’s n values), was propagated towards a reduction in the estimation of direct flood damage, which fell from 25–30% to about 5%.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Flood Risk Assessment and Management · Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes · Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Geodynamics, Stratigraphy, and Paleontology, Faculty of Geology, Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Geological Hazards Division, Geological Survey of Spain (IGME, CSIC), 28003 Madrid, Spain
Funding
Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España
References (70)
Show source-provided references
1. (2020, October 30). Istituto Centrale per il Restauro, Carta del Rischio, versione 2.1.1, Direzione Generale Sicurezza del Patrimonio Culturale (MIBACT). Available online: http://www.cartadelrischio.beniculturali.it/webgis/.
2. (2020, October 30). Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, NOAH’s Ark project, CORDIS EU research results. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/501837.
3. Flood hazard threat on cultural heritage in the town of Genoa (Italy)10.1016/S1296-2074(03)00042-6 ↗
4. Valuing cultural heritage in a multi-attribute framework microeconomic perspectives and policy implications10.1016/j.socec.2003.08.009 ↗
5. A new approach to the assessment of flooding and dampness hazards in cultural heritage, applied to the historic centre of Seville (Spain)10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.207 ↗
6. Flood risk assessment in art cities: The exemplary case of Florence (Italy)10.1111/jfr3.12226 ↗
7. Flood risk assessment of cultural heritage at large spatial scales: Framework and application to mainland Portugal10.1016/j.culher.2019.11.007 ↗
8. CRED (2021, April 10). The International Disaster Database [online], Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Available online: http://emdat.be/emdat_db/.
9. Munich RE (2020, July 17). NatCatSERVICE Database. Available online: https://natcatservice.munichre.com/.
10. Assessing flood risk at the global scale: Model setup, results, and sensitivity10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044019 ↗
11. Visser, H., Bouwman, A., Petersen, A., and Ligtvoet, W. (2012). A Statistical Study of Weather–Related Disasters: Past, Present and Future.
12. Assessment of economic flood damage10.5194/nhess-10-1697-2010 ↗
13. USACE (2003). Economic Guidance Memorandum (EGM) 04-01, Generic Depth-Damage Relationships for Residential Structures with Basements, USACE.
14. Quantification of flash flood economic risk using ultra-detailed stage–damage functions and 2-D hydraulic models10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.02.006 ↗
15. Huizinga, J., De Moel, H., and Szewczyk, W. (2017). Global Flood Depth–Damage Functions: Methodology and the Database with Guidelines, Joint Research Centre.
16. Flood loss models for residential buildings, based on the 2013 Colorado floods10.1007/s11069-016-2615-3 ↗
17. Development of model for the estimation of direct flood damage including the movable property10.1111/jfr3.12255 ↗
18. Probabilistic flood loss models for companies10.1029/2020WR027649 ↗
19. Exposure and vulnerability estimation for modelling flood losses to commercial assets in Europe10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140011 ↗
20. Díez-Herrero, A., Lain-Huerta, L., and Llorente-Isidro, M. (2009). A Handbook on Flood Hazard Mapping Methodologies, Publications of the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME).
21. The topographic data source of digital terrain models as a key element in the accuracy of hydraulic flood modelling10.1002/esp.1278 ↗
22. Sensitivity of flood loss estimates to building representation and flow depth attribution methods in micro–scale flood modelling10.1007/s11069-018-3270-7 ↗
23. Assessing the effect of different bathymetric models on hydraulic simulation of rivers in data sparse regions10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.085 ↗
24. Effects of digital terrain model uncertainties on high resolution urban flood damage assessment10.1111/jfr3.12530 ↗
25. Vieux, B.E. (2016). Hydraulic Roughness. Distributed Hydrologic Modeling Using GIS, Springer.10.1007/978-94-024-0930-7 ↗
26. Estimating the Manning coefficient from an average bed roughness in open channels10.1029/TR035i006p00957 ↗
27. Hydraulic model calibration for extreme floods in bedrock-confined channels: Case study from northern Thailand10.1002/hyp.6086 ↗
28. Calibration of floodplain roughness and estimation of flood discharge based on treering evidence and hydraulic modelling10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.03.045 ↗
29. Effect of topographic data, geometric configuration and modeling approach on flood inundation mapping10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.015 ↗
30. About the influence of elevation model quality and small-scale damage functions on flood damage estimation10.5194/nhess-11-3327-2011 ↗
31. Mapping River Bathymetry with a Small Footprint Green LiDAR: Applications and Challenges10.1111/jawr.12008 ↗
32. Comparison of LiDAR Waveform Processing Methods for Very Shallow Water Bathymetry Using Raman, Near-Infrared and Green Signals10.1002/esp.1959 ↗
33. A methodological intercomparison of topographic survey techniques for characterizing wadeable streams and rivers10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.10.010 ↗
34. A drifting GPS buoy for retrieving effective riverbed bathymetry10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.11.018 ↗
35. Remote sensing of stream depths with hydraulically assisted bathymetry (HAB) models10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.06.005 ↗
36. Amazon flood wave hydraulics10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.004 ↗
37. River cross-section extraction from the ASTER global DEM for flood modeling10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.12.003 ↗
38. Effective representation of river geometry in hydraulic flood forecast models10.1002/2017WR021765 ↗
39. Two dimensional diffusion wave modelling of flood inundation using a simplified channel representation10.1080/15715124.2004.9635233 ↗
40. Choné, G., Biron, P.M., and Buffin-Bélanger, T. (2018). Flood hazard mapping techniques with LiDAR in the absence of river bathymetry data. E3S Web of Conferences, Proceedings of the River Flow 2018—Ninth International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, Lyon, France, 5–8 September 2018, EDP Science. Abstract 06005.10.1051/e3sconf/20184006005 ↗
41. Magnitude and Frequency of Forces in Geomorphic Processes10.1086/626637 ↗
42. Calibration of channel roughness in intermittent rivers using HEC-RAS model: Case of Sarimsakli creek, Turkey10.1007/s42452-019-1141-9 ↗
43. Perspectives on Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Simulation for Flood Modeling in the Absence of a High-Accuracy Open Access Global DEM10.3389/feart.2018.00233 ↗
44. (2020, October 30). Instituto Geográfico Nacional, LiDAR PNOA. Available online: https://pnoa.ign.es/el-proyecto-pnoa-lidar.
45. Arcement, G.J., and Schneider, V.R. (1989). Guide for Selecting Manning’s Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and Flood Plains.
46. Brunner, G.W. (2010). HEC-RAS, River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 4.1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
47. Iber: Herramienta de simulación numérica del flujo en ríos
48. ESRI (2020, October 30). ArcMap. Available online: https://desktop.arcgis.com/es/arcmap/.
49. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 ↗
50. A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00278-X ↗
51. Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood inundation10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X ↗
52. A comparison of one- and two dimensional approaches to modelling flood inundation over complex upland floodplains10.1002/hyp.6523 ↗
53. Impact of river bed morphology on discharge and water levels simulated by a 1D Saint—Venant hydraulic model at regional scale
54. Reconstruction of subgrid-scale topographic variability and its effect upon the spatial structure of three-dimensional river flow10.1029/2009WR007756 ↗
55. A method for parameterising roughness and topographic sub-grid scale effects in hydraulic modelling from LiDAR data10.5194/hess-14-1567-2010 ↗
56. Paron, P., and Di Baldassarre, G. (2015). Palaeoflood Hydrology: Reconstructing Rare Events and Extreme Flood Discharges. Hydro-Meteorological Hazards, Risks, and Disasters, Elsevier.
57. Estimating hydraulic roughness coefficients
58. Chow, V.T. (1959). Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
59. Scaling and self-similarity in two-dimensional hydrodynamics10.1063/1.4913852 ↗
60. How Important Is Connectivity for Surface Water Fluxes? A Generalized Expression for Flow Through Heterogeneous Landscapes10.1002/2017GL075432 ↗
61. Prior, E.M., Aquilina, C.A., Czuba, J.A., Pingel, T.J., and Hession, W.C. (2021). Estimating Floodplain Vegetative Roughness Using Drone-Based Laser Scanning and Structure from Motion Photogrammetry. Remote Sens., 13.10.3390/rs13132616 ↗
62. Limerinos, J.T. (1970). Determination of the Manning Coefficient from Measured Bed Roughness in Natural Channels.
63. Simons, D.B., and Richardson, E.V. (1966). Resistance to Flow in Alluvial Channels.10.3133/pp422J ↗
64. A linearized approach to flow resistance uncertainty in a 2-D finite volume model of flood flow10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.04.009 ↗
65. Calibration of HEC-RAS model on prediction of flood for lower Tapi River, India10.4236/jwarp.2011.311090 ↗
66. A simple innovative method for calibration of Manning’s roughness coefficient in rivers using a similarity concept10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.083 ↗
67. Uncertainty in flood damage estimates and its potential effect on investment decisions10.5194/nhess-16-1-2016 ↗
68. FEMA (2020, October 30). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Map, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Available online: https://floodpartners.com/fema-flood-map/.
69. (2020, October 25). Dirección General del Agua, Sistema Nacional de Cartografía de Zonas Inundables (SNCZI). Available online: https://sig.mapama.gob.es/snczi/index.html?herramienta=DPHZI.
70. (2020, October 27). First Street Foundation, Flood Factor. Available online: https://floodfactor.com/.