WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 36, NO.

11, PAGES 3279-3291, NOVEMBER 2000

Calibration of a two-dimensional finite element flood flow model

using satellite radar imagery
Matthew S. Horritt
Schoolof GeographicalSciences,Universityof Bristol,Bristol,England,United Kingdom

Abstract. The applicationof numericalmodelsof free surfaceflow to fluvial flood

predictionis currentlyhamperedby the lack of distributedcalibrationand validationdata.
We addressthis shortcomingby the use of satellite-bornesyntheticaperture radar imagery
to map a flood on a 15-km reach of the river Thames,England.A finite element
numericalmodel of shallowwater flow is constructedover the reach, and analysisshows
that floodplainfriction is the dominantfactor affectinginundationextentwhen compared
to channelfriction, turbulenceparameterization,and downstreamboundaryconditions.
The area of the domaincorrectlyclassifiedby the model is maximizedwith the constraint
of uniformfloodplainfriction(77% at maximum),comparedwith 70% for a simpleplanar
model of the water free surface.A simpledistributedcalibrationschemeis also tested,
with a minor improvementover the uniform parameterization.

1. Introduction occurringasthe flow depthtendsto zero,havealsobeenmade

[BatesandHervouet,1999;Definaet al., 1994].Althoughthree-
Two-dimensional finite element and finite volume models of
dimensionalmodelsare capableof representing morecomplex
shallowwater flow are currentlythe most sophisticated tools hydraulicflow processes, suchas secondarycirculationin the
availablefor the analysis of overbankfluvialflowsat reach channeland its effect upon the verticalvariationof velocity,
lengthsof up to 20 km. While one-dimensionalmodels are the increasein computationaleffort requiredto deal with the
usedroutinelyfor flood-routing studies[Chow,1988]andare higherdimensionality has limited their use to the analysisof
capable of reproducingsome of the features of real flood in-bankflowsover shortreachlengths.There are often also
phenomena(the propagationand diffusionof the floodwave, problemsassociated with the movingboundaryfor thesemod-
for example)[Moussaand Bocquillon,1996;Rutschmannand els,aselement depths gotozeroatthe•shoreline [Hervouet and
Hager, 1996],they are incapableof representingthe spatially Van Haren, 1996].The complexthree-dimenõional approach
complexflow patternsand topographypertinentto overbank may alsonot be necessary for the relativelysh•illowflowsover
flows.Topographicinformationis limited to the channelbed the floodplain, and some three-dimensionaleffects can be
slope and channel cross-sectioninformation, the effects of modeledasenergylossprocesses [Sellinand Willets,1996]and
hydraulicprocesses in the meanderingchannelarelumpedinto hencelumpedinto the bed friction term.
the model friction parameterization,and the effects of the The chiefhandicapin the furtherapplication of two-
floodplainare limited to simplestorageand routingschemes dimensional modelsis the lackof appropriatedistributedval-
[Rashidand Chaudhry,1995]. Two-dimensionalmodels are idation andcalibration data.Previous studieshaveuse d point
capableof differentiatingbetweenthe differenthydrauliccon- hydrometricdata to calibratethesemodels[e.g.,Bateset al.,
ditionsin the channeland over the floodplainand can incor- 1998],generally aimingto maximize thefit betweenthemea-
porate spatiallyvariable topographyand friction, although sured flow rate at the downstreamboundaryof the model
some lumping of processesis still applied in the depth- (chosento coincidewith a gaugingstation)and the model-
averaging process but to a lesser degree than for one- predictedoutflow throughadjustmentof model friction pa-
dimensionalmodels.Someprocesses recognizedasimportant rameters.Validation is limited to stagemeasurements within
for compoundchannelflows, suchas the lateral transfer of
the reach.The use of point (essentiallyzero-dimensional in
momentum between channel andfloodplain fluid[Knight,space)data to validatetwo-dimensionalmodelsis fundamen-
1989;Knightand Shiono,1996],can alsobe representedin a tallysuspect, asthereis no indicationthat spatialflowpatterns
two-dimensional formulation.This transferis, however,highly
are beingapproximated reasonably by the model.It alsocalls
three-dimensionalin nature, and correctparameterizationof
into questionthe use of a two-dimensional strategy,when a
this effect will be necessaryfor an effectiverepresentation. one-dimensional model could be used to make the same kind
Numerical schemesoperatingon irregularmeshescan repre-
.

of predictions,althoughthe two-dimensionalrepresentation
sent channeland floodplainareasat different spatialresolu-
may improvehydraulicpredictionsat a point. This disparity
tions appropriateto local processgradientsand concentrate
betweenthe dimensionalityof hydraulicmodel structureand
computationalresourcesin regionsof complexflow. As the validation data must be addressed.
modelingof a dynamicflood shorelineis a movingboundary
Three techniquesfor the investigationof the validation
problem,recentdevelopments in algorithmsfor the treatment
problempresentthemselves. The modelcanbe testedagainst
of domain wetting and drying, and the hydraulicprocesses
analyticalsolutionsof the governingequations[Horritt,2000;
Copyright2000by the AmericanGeophysical Union. Batesand Hervouet,1999]. This teststhe numericalability of
Paper number2000WR900206. the model to deliverapproximatesolutionsof theseequations,
0043-1397/00/2000 WR900206509.00 while avoidingthe issueof processrepresentation.This ap-
3279
3280 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL

proachis thereforeideallysuitedto testingnumericalaspects flood extent.Low floodplaingradientsmean that the position

of the modelingproblem(suchas distinguishing betweendif- of the shorelineis very sensitiveto changesin water level
ferent finite element solution schemes and mesh resolution predictionsand shouldprovide a stern test of model perfor-
effects),but the total modelerror is the sumof theseeffects mance. There is the potential to make other measurements
and the approximatenature of the representationof the hy- from space,suchaswater levels,throughradar altimetry[Kob-
draulicprocesses presentin nature.Theseprocessrepresenta- linskyet al., 1993], and this may also be possiblewith laser
tion errors are neglected,and so suchtechniquesonly shed altimetry [Gomes-Pereira and Wicherson,1999] and informa-
light on one part of the model error. Situationswhere the tion on flowvelocitiesby usingsuspended sedimentsasnatural
governingequations(generallysimultaneous nonlinearpartial tracers[Currey,1977].In thispaper,however,the mappingof
differential)are solubleanalyticallyalsotend to be somewhat flood extent is the focus,being the easiestway of obtaining
simplisticand thereforeoften neglectcertainaspects(dynamic spatialdatawhileprovidingmostusefulinformationfor model
behaviorand turbulence)of the flow physics.Natural field validation. The meteorologicalconditions associatedwith
situationsare complicatedby a combinationof processrepre- manyflood eventswouldseemto precludethe useof imagery
sentationerrors, uncertaintyin model parameterizationand usingvisible,infrared, and other wavelengthsof the electro-
boundaryconditions, and complextopography, whichare ne- magneticspectrumthat are incapableof penetratingcloud
glected by this approach.Another approachis to test the cover.Active microwavetechniques,suchassyntheticaperture
model againstthe results of physicalexperiments,such as radar (SAR), wouldseemthereforeto be the wayforwardin
flume studies[Bateset al., 1999; Thomasand 14511iams, 1995; flood mappingfrom space,and the use of SAR imageryis
Sofialidisand Prinos, 1999; Cokljat and Kralj, 1997; Lin and exploredfurther.
Shiono, 1995; Ye and McCorquodale,1998]. This has the ad- SAR is an imagingradarsystem[Ulabyet al., 1982]that gives
vantageof testingboth the numericaland physicalrepresen- highgroundresolution(25 m for the EuropeanSpaceAgency's
tation aspectsof the modelingprocessagainstdetailedmea- EuropeanremotesensingsatellitesERS-1 and ERS-2 SARs)
surementsof flow velocities,water depths, and turbulence and is capableof both cloudcoverpenetrationand day/night
parameters.The main disadvantages are that flume studies operation.In the simplestmodel of SAR imagingof flooded
againtendto usea simplifiedchannelandfloodplaingeometry, areas,smoothwater actsas a specularreflector(i.e., it has a
and scalingproblemswill arisein tryingto applyresultsfrom low radar backscattering coefficient)and returnslittle energy
flume data to real river channels,which are generallyat least back to the side-lookingsensor.Land areasare rougherand
an order of magnitudelarger.A third approachis to compare have higherbackscattering coefficients,and so water appears
models with distributed field data acquired for real river dark in the image, and land appearsbrighter.This is the ra-
reaches.Measurementsof flow depthsand velocitiescan be tionale behind many previous mapping strategies[Tholey,
usedto validatehydraulicmodels[e.g.,Nicholasand Sambrook- 1995;Bonansea,1995;Imhoff et al., 1987],where the flooded
Smith,1999],but thisis a labor-intensiveexerciseandthuslimited region has either been delineatedmanually or identifiedby
to shortreachlengths.Field surveymayalsobecomeimpractical usingsimplethresholdingtechniques.
duringfloodeventsbecauseof difficulties in accessandplanning. The simple model may not apply, however,as the water
There are alsofundamentaldifficultiesdue to the highlevelsof surfacemay be roughenedby wind or broken by protruding
uncertainty andcomplexity presentin fielddata,whichmaymake vegetation.Both of thesewill tend to increasebackscatterfrom
modelvalidationin the usualsenseimpossible. the water surface,whichmayapproachvaluessimilarto those
Remotesensing,from either aircraftor satelliteplatforms,is from the surrounding land.The effectof protrudingvegetation
capableof providingsynopticviewsof floodhydrology[Schultz, on backscatter values from the water surface has been well
1988;Bateset al., 1997;Smith, 1997] at a resolutioncommen- explored[Richardset al., 1987; Ormsbyet al., 1985;Ramsey,
suratewith currentnumericalmodelingtechniques. The useof 1995; Wanget al., 1995], the general effect being increased
remote sensingallowsmodelsto be testedin the environment backscatterdue to multiplereflectionsfrom the (approximate-
where they are to be applied, rather than in the idealized ly) perpendicularwater surfaceand vegetation.The effect is
geometryof theflumeor the conceptual flowsfor whichanalytical complexanddependson bothvegetationpropertiesandsensor
solutionsare available.Furthermore,the useof satelliteimagery parametersand remainsa major researchissue,but it is not
to validatehydraulicmodelsof flood flow obviatesthe needfor exploredfurtherat thisstage.Wind rougheningof inlandwater
costlydedicatedair surveys, wayof gath- bodies,however,has only so far been exploredin a cursory
offeringa cost-effective
eringsynoptic datafor floodmodelvalidationandcalibration. fashion[Horritt, 1998].Anecdotalevidenceseemsto indicate,
This paper describesthe use of syntheticaperture radar however,that this is a seriousproblem that commonlyin-
(SAR) imageryfor floodmappingandits applicationto a flood creases backscatter to levels that will hinder the discrimination
event on a reach of the river Thames, England. A two- betweendry land andwater.Althoughthe windwaslight at the
dimensional finite element model of the reach is constructed, timeof SARacquisition
(3 m s-• measured
at RoyalAir Force
and floodplainand channelfriction are identifiedas the most BaseLyneham,30 km southwest of the reach), there is still
importantunconstrained parameters.Theseare usedin a dis- evidence of considerable wind-induced backscatter.
tributed calibrationmethodologywhich maximizesthe fit be- Given thesedifficultiesand their dependenceon unknown
tween model predictionsand observationsand givesan ap- environmental parameters(detailedvegetationmapsandme-
proximateerror figurefor the model predictions. teorologicalconditions),we insteadadopta heuristicapproach
to the floodmappingproblem,aimingto identifythe floodas
a regionof homogeneous imagestatistics.
The centralproblem
2. Flood Mapping From Satellite Radar of SAR imageprocessing is that of combatingthe highlevelof
Imagery noise(or speckle)due to the coherentnature of the imaging
The chief way in which remote sensingwill enhancethe system,without the degradationin spatialresolutionassoci-
provisionof distributedvalidation data is through maps of atedwith manylocalaveragingtechniques.We solvethe prob-
 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE
Figure 1. Syntheticapertureradar (SAR) (white) and air
photograph(black)shorelines
overlaidon a 3 km x 3 km SAR
image.
lem here by use of an activecontourmodel (also known as a
snake),whichusesa dynamiccurvilinearcontourto searchthe
imagespaceuntil it settleson featureboundaries.Rather than
operatingon a previouslyedge-detected imagelike mostsnake
techniques[Cohen,1991;Williamsand Shah,1992;Masonand
Davenport,1996], a statisticalapproachis used[Ivinsand Por-
rill, 1994],wherebylocal image statisticsare measuredalong
the contour,reducingthe effectsof specklebut without lossof
spatialresolutionperpendicularto the contour.Curvaturecon-
straintsare alsoincludedin the model to favor the production
of a smooth contour and further reduce the effects of noise.
This image-processing strategyis describedfully by Horritt
[1999]and is capableof segmenting noisyimagesto within ---1
pixel (12.5 m for ERS-1 SAR), when testedon syntheticim-
agery and comparedwith a manual segmentationof a real
SAR image.
This algorithmhasbeenfurther testedon two reachesof the
river Thames,both approximately10 km in length, for which
obliqueaerialphotographyof a 1-in-5-yearfloodeventis avail-
able,simultaneous(within2 hours)with a ERS-1 SAR over-
pass [Bigginand Blyth, 1996]. The time differencebetween
aerial and satellitedata acquisitionis unlikely to causesignif-
icant problems,given the relativelyslowlychangingflood hy-
drograph
(rateof change
of 0.3m3 s-• h-•). Thefloodbound-
ary was delineatedmanually,then an orthographictransform
wasappliedto give a vectorshorelinein map coordinates.The
obliquenature of the photographymeansthat there is consid-
erable overlap, and in many regionsthe shorelinecan be de-
rived from more than one photograph.Other linear features
(roadsand field boundaries)whoselocationsare known are
also fed through the processingchain, and along with the
multiple shorelinestheseindicatean error of ---10m for fea-
tures in near-field and ---25 m for far-field views. Results
applyingthe snakealgorithmto a ---3km x 3 km subimageare
shownin white in Figure 1, alongwith the shorelinederived
from the obliqueaerial photography.The algorithmperforms
well, but certain problemsare evident.Wind rougheninghas,
indeed, producedsignificantbackscatterfrom the water sur-
face,and a complexof hedgerows in the top right off the image
hasgeneratedhigh returns,causingthe area to be misclassified
ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL 3281
as dry. Another problem is that the SAR imageryhas com-
pletelymissedan islandidentifiedin the air photographdata,
becausethe backscatterfrom this type of land cover (rough
meadow)is the sameas that from the water surface,causing
the floodedarea to be overestimated.This land covertype is
alsorelativelycommonon the floodplainand thereforecauses
a significantproblemin the flood mappingprocedure.Despite
these complicationsa comparisonbetweenthe SAR and air
photographshorelinesmade over two 10-km reachesshows
that 70% of the length of the shorelinescoincidesto within
---20m. This is calculatedby traversingthe SAR shorelineand
measuringthe distanceto the nearest point on the aerial-
derivedshorelineto compilethe distributionof distanceerrors.
The distribution of shoreline location errors does, however,
exhibita large tail, becauseof regionswhere the algorithmhas
misplacedthe shorelineby the order of a field length.
3. Numerical Modeling
We now aim to -reproducethe shorelineextractedfrom the
SAR imageryof the flood on the river Thames discussedin
section2, usinga two-dimensionalnumericalmodel of shallow
water flow. A comparisonwith the aerial photographydata is
alsogiven,but it is expectedthat SAR data setswill be more
commonlyavailable,and future studieswill rely on satellite
data. The overpassoccurred at near-peak flow, capturing
floodingovermostof the upperThamescatchment,in whicha
15-km reach has been identified for modeling.The reach is
boundedat the upstreamend by the gaugingstationat Buscot
weir, and at the downstreamend the flow is reasonablywell
confined(althoughover bank) by the floodplaintopography.
The boundarieswere chosenasthey simplifythe model setup.
The TELEMAC-2D (a genericfinite elementshallowwater
flow code developedby Electricite de France) [Batesand
Anderson,1993;Hervouetand Van Haren, 1996]model is used
throughoutthis study,as it has been used extensivelyin cali-
brationstudies(againstpoint hydrometricdata) for a number
of river reachesand events [Bateset al., 1998]. The model
solvesthe two-dimensional shallowwater (alsoknownasSaint-
Venant or depthaveraged)equationsof fluid flow:
0v (• + •) F
Ot+ (v-V)v+ #V(z0
+ h)- ph V(hV-v)
+ • = 0,
(1)
Oh
--+ V(hv) = 0, (2)
Ot
wherev is a two-dimensional depth-averaged velocityvector,h
is the flow depth,z0 is the bed elevation,!7 is the acceleration
due to gravity, tx is the moleculardynamicviscosity,• is the
dynamicturbulenteddyviscosity,p is the water density,and F
is a sourceterm, which in this caseis solelydue to bed friction
accordingto Chezy'slaw:
of
F = C2
h. (3)
Thesedepth-averaged equationsassumethatverticalvelocities
are negligible,bed slopesare small,and vertical accelerations
are smallenoughfor the assumptionof a hydrostaticpressure
fieldto be valid.The fourthterm of (1) is a turbulentdiffusion
term (effectively,as IX << e) that is includedso asto caterto
turbulent momentumtransfereffectsand is often adoptedas
3282 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL

Spuriousfree surfaceslope ents betweenwet and dry nodes (Figure 2a), but these are
eliminatedin the model and replacedwith a zero free surface
(b) h <0
slope(Figure2b). The heightderivativeterm in the continuity
equation(2) [Definaet al., 1994;Batesand Hervouet,1999]is
alsoscaledto reflectthe volumeof the partiallywet element
availablefor flow, but this will not affect the steadystate
solutionsdevelopedhere.
A finite elementmesh(Figure 3) for the modelhas been
developedusingthe "cheesymesh mesh generator"[Horritt,
1998]. A curvature-dependent discretizationstrategyis used
for the channel,which has been found to give good results
when comparedto analyticalsolutionsof meanderingflow
Computationalnodo [Horritt,2000].This useselongatedstructuredelementsin the
Figure 2. (a) Partiallywet elementsmaygeneratea spurious channel,which allow the model to representcross-channel
water free surfaceslopenear the shoreline.(b) This is cor- velocityand depth gradientswith fewer elementsthan would
rectedfor by cancelingthe Vh term in the momentumequa- be required using a more equilateral discretization.Shorter
tion, equivalentto fixinga horizontalfree surface. elementsare used in regions of high streamlinecurvature,
which promotesthe accuraterepresentationof the velocity
advection term with a minimum number of elements, but this
the simplestmethod of turbulenceclosure(this is discussed will still fail to deal with dispersionterms generatedby the
further below). The TELEMAC-2D model uses Galerkin's depth-averaging processoverthe deeperflowsin the channel.
method of weightedresidualsto solve(1) and (2) over an The generator aims to produce approximatelyequilateral
unstructuredmeshof triangularfinite elements.A streamline floodplainelements,whosesizeincreases linearlywith distance
upwindPetrovGalerkintechniqueis usedfor the advectionof from the channel. The variable mesh resolution raises issues of
flow depthto reducethe spuriousspatialoscillations in depth representationof the shorelinefeaturesat differentscalesand
that Galerkin'smethod is predisposedto and the method of the resolutionof the observeddata, but at this stageit is the
characteristics is used for the advectionof velocity.An ele- large-scalestructureof the inundatedarea that is of interest,
ment-by-elementsolveris usedto solvethe nonlinearsystem, and this shouldbe fairly well representedby the meshused
and the time developmentof the solutionsis dealtwith using here. An inflow control structureis added at the upstream
an implicitfinite differencescheme.For thisstudy,onlysteady boundaryto allow the flow to developfrom any instabilities
state solutionsare sought,so the time stepis usedas a surro- imposedby the boundaryconditionsbefore enteringthe main
gatefor the developmentof an iterativescheme,wherebythe bodyof the mesh.The main difficultyin meshdiscretization is
model is "woundup" to a stablestate.Dynamicsolutionsare a pragmaticone:The floodplainelementsizenearthe channel
not investigatedhere, giventhe slowlychanginginput hydro- is determinedby the channelelementlength,andgivena linear
graph.The movingboundarynatureof the problemis treated increasein elementsize awayfrom the channel,this fixesthe
with a simplewettinganddryingalgorithm(Figure2). Partially minimum total number of elements. This mesh contains 17,000
wet elementscan generatespuriouslyhigh free surfacegradi- elements and is the smallest feasible with the constraint of

4000

2000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Figure 3. Finite element mesh for the Thames model, with detail showingcurvature-dependentchannel
meshing.
 HORRITI': CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL 3283

,-;.•,.::..•
,:.'-•.•.•
"'.... . Elevation
4000
•. /2
,./ .
,_...
'•'-•.•(m
above
80
sea
level)
.......
,•....,•....... -•":••:i•:
":'•.......• .....
•:,.. .........
••; .... .•
:•-• .•.....
.......
..•.• ;:•..
_5:'½
'%;.::.:'½"•
76
';:?" ': :';.':0
'• =:,.'.,
,..::,, ,,,., ,,,,,----,...
, .:;;:.:;;;;/
72
"• "•'•""
....
' ........
; :''•" '" ' ' ::"-'- '"" ß '; '" •'•'' 68
2000
ß
z'*
.• ....
.;:
..,,;;
...'"':'"•-..;;;'
......
':........
.'":,.
,7.-.'
;,½..
_,:..'.:•-
•
'z,,,..'....•
.....
-:.:;;..:..•.-•-•
....
;,..."..•,.
'.•
......
-...;•
•
:::,•,,. ,:'-.
'.',•'" , .. ,.....':•:.
-;..:.:.:
.....
'..' ....... .::•',;• 64

• 2m
contours
o .......................... / .......
o ,ooo ooo 6oooooo ,oo%,,ooo,,o m
68
67
66
65
64 .•½"
..,•.:,"

0 50 100 150 200 250

Figure 4. (top) Digital elevationmodelsampledontofinite elementmesh.(bottom)The topography(line)

is modifiedin channelregions,with bank nodesdroppingby 50 cm and at leastone reasonablyflat element
nextto the channel(lower solidline).

channelwidth, channelelementaspectratio, and a reasonable provided by a rated sectionat the top of the reach, which
transitionfrom smallelementsnear the channelto larger ones providesmeasurementsof flow at 3-hourlyintervals.This fig-
near the domainboundary. ure shouldbe interpretedwith caution,however,as no error
Topographicinformationis providedby a combinationof informationis available,and this error will probablyincrease
channelcrosssections(every 50 m) and a stereophotogram- for highflows. A constant valueof 73m3 s- • (thevalueat the
metric digital elevationmodel (DEM) with a resolutionof time of the ERS-1 overpass)is usedfor the steadystatesim-
50 m and a heightprecisionof _+25cm (Figure 4), sampled ulations.The free surfaceheight at the downstreamboundary
onto the computationalnodesof the mesh using a nearest- is determinedby projectingthe SAR shorelineonto the air
neighborsscheme.This topographicrepresentation,however, photographDEM. The effect on model predictionsof these
wasfoundto generatemodel stabilityproblems,and a there is two conditionswill be fundamentallydifferent.While the mag-
a trade-offto be madebetweenthe accuraterepresentationof nitudeof the upstreaminflowwill affectthe wholereach(since
the bathymetryand the promotionof stable(and physically massof water is conserved),we would expectthe effect of the
realistic)modelsolutions.Theseproblemsmanifestthemselves downstreamboundaryconditionto diminishfarther upstream.
as large cross-channel velocities,generatedby the high bed A simpleanalysisof the equationfor one-dimensionalsteady
slopeson the banksof the channeland alsogeneratedwhere flow vindicatesthis intuitiveresult.With flow depthh, depth-
the channelrunscloseby regionsof steeprelief (alsoshownin averagedvelocityv, andx the downstreamdistance,thiscanbe
Figure 4). This problem is solvedby first droppingall bank written [Chow,1988] as
nodesby 50 cm andby ensuringthat the channelisborderedby
at least one reasonablyflat element. This modification of
modeltopographyis fairly arbitraryand is basedon pragmatic
dx 5 v2 +g•-gSø+•-• =0' d(1) dh gv
2 (4)
arguments,but it can be viewed as sacrificingtopographic
So representsa uniform down-reachbed slope, and C is
accuracyfor the sakeof model solutionstability.While chan-
Chezy'sfriction coefficient.If the x derivativesare eliminated
nel/floodplaininteraction has been identified as important
(uniformflow), a flow depthof 2.2 m and a velocityof 1.66 m
[KnightandSh•ono,1996],we havealreadysacrificed
an accu-
s- zgivesa discharge
of 73m3 s- • overa channel
20m inwidth
rate topographicrepresentationof the channel region by
withChezy's C - 40 mm s-z. Addingsmallperturbations to
adoptinga relativelycoarsemesh(only three elementsacross
this uniform solution,so that h = ho(1 + K(x)) etc., while
the channel).How this affectsthe representationof hydraulic
keeping vh a constantand linearizing,we gain the following
processes in the channelbank region has yet to be assessed,
solutionsfor K(x):
and it is unclear how accuratea representationof channel/
floodplaininteractionis possibleat this resolution. 3gvo
Provisionof an imposedupstreamvolumetricflow rate and • =Ae•x, a = C2ho(gho
_ 2%2). (5)
an imposedfree surfaceheight at the downstreamend of the
reach are adequateto constrainthe flow accordingto the A is a constantgivenby the sizeof the perturbation(and the
methodof characteristics.The upstreamboundaryconditionis lengthof the reach), and 1/a is the characteristiclengthover
3284 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL

Water depth (m)

10
300-

......•,•j•
1.5
200-

'••0.5
0

100'
Flow Velocity
ß 1 m/s

o
o 1 oo 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

2OO

lOO

o
o 1 oo 200 300 400 500 600

Figure 5. (top) Water depthsand velocitiesin two near-channelregions.Routing of flow throughboth

branchesof a bifurcationis achieved(the greaterdensityof arrowsin the bifurcationregionsis due to the
fine-scaleunstructured
meshusedthere). (bottom)Flowis physically realisticin regionsof bothhighandlow
channelcurvature.Flow can alsobe observedcrossing over a meanderloop (lowerleft).

which perturbationsin depth imposed at the downstream [Sellinand Willets,1996]and thereforeto someextentlumped
boundary will decay upstream, and for this situation a • into the bed frictionterm. Thisvaluemayhaveimplicationsfor
1000 m. We would therefore expectthe effect of the down- other termsin the momentumequationsuchas the advection
stream boundary condition to extend only a few kilometers term, which has been shownto be importantfor meandering
upstreamand not to significantlyaffectthe wholeof the reach.flows [Hordtt, 2000], and the issueof channelprocessrepre-
However, we should bear in mind that the accuracyof the sentationmay be cloudedby the value used.
solutionsnear the downstreamboundary may be a stronger Beforethe provisionof frictionvaluesis discussed in section
functionof thisboundaryconditionthan of model formulation 4 aspart of the calibrationproblem,we'first examinesomeof
or calibration.The effect of downstreamboundarycondition the generalpropertiesof the modelsolutionsand somepoten-
will, of course,be different for dynamicsituations,and its tial sourcesof error. One possiblesourceof the differences
influencemay extendfarther upstream,as wavesmay propa- betweensimulationscould be causedby varyingconvergence
gate throughoutthe reach as flowsare generallysubcritical. properties,rather than differencesin the steadystate flows
Provisionof model boundary conditionsand topography themselves.Since at steady state the outflow at the down-
leaves the bed friction coefficientsand the turbulent eddy streamendof the reachshouldbe equalto the imposedinflow,
viscosityas unconstrainedparametersin this case.The eddy the differencebetweeninflow and outflow(i.e., the rate of
viscositywasfixedat a valueof 1.0m2 s-• (themedianof the changeof volume in the domain,neglectingmassbalanceer-
rangeof valuesusedby Bateset al. [1998]),a (perhaps)artifi- rors) is a usefulcheckof model convergence. All simulations
ciallyhighvalue but one that tendsto promotemodel stability were run until the magnitudeof this differencewaslessthan 1
in caseswhere numerical oscillationsare likely. High bank ms s-2,andthiswasfoundto ensure adequate convergence of
slopescan generate instabilitiesin the channel region, and the solutions. There is one caveat: Some simulations exhibit
guidelinesfor acceptablevalues are discussedby Bates and dampedoscillationsin this observable,so the flow difference
Anderson[1993], a lateral slope of 0.03 being given as the mustbe lessthan1 m3 s- • andbe decreasing, andthe rateof
maximumacceptable.This value is exceededin this casebe- changemust also be decreasing.This thresholdis essentially
causeof the channelgeometryand meshresolution,but this is arbitrarybut is probablylessthanthe error in the imposedflow
to someextentcounteractedby the highvalueof eddyviscosity rate (takenfrom the rated sectionat the upstreamend of the
used.This is a fundamentalproblemwith somefinite element reach),andsoconvergence errorsare likelyto be smallerthan
codes,and the use of an artificiallyhigh eddy viscosityis a thoseinducedby uncertaintyin the upstreamboundarycondi-
simpleway of overcomingthe problem.Previousstudieshave tion.
shownlittle sensitivity
to thisparameter[Bateset al., 1996]in A visual check on predictedwater levelsand velocitiesis
comparisonto bed friction, and this has been confirmedby a usefulin detectingphysicallyunrealisticflowsgeneratedby the
preliminary sensitivityanalysis.The effect of turbulent mo- model (like the spuriousvelocitiesgeneratedby topography
mentumdiffusioncanalsobe modeledasenergylossprocesses mentionedin section3). Figure5 showspredictedwaterlevels
 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL 3285

and velocitiesfor a number of regionsof the model including someinterestingflow processes not apparentwith more tightly
severalfeatureswe might expectto causeproblems:a bifurca- constrainedfriction values.This simplisticassumptionof uni-
tion, a transition between structured and unstructured ele- form frictionsoverthe channelandthe floodplainis unrealistic
ments,and regionsof high channelcurvature.The water sur- but does make for a manageablecalibrationproblem. One
face generatedis relativelysmooth,and the velocitiesare all strategywouldbe to perform simulationsat a numberof points
downstreamand approximatelyparallelwith the channel.Wa- spanningthe completeparameterspace,but giventhe compu-
ter is also flowing from the channelonto the floodplain and tationallyintensivenatureof the modelingproblemon thissize
crossingover some meanders, indicating that the model is of mesh, a more informed approachis adopted.We first in-
representingover-bankmassand momentumflow in the near- vestigateparameterizationswhere channelfriction coefficient
channelregion.Meanderingflowsin simplechannelstypically is generallydoublethat for the floodplain,and then we inves-
exhibitlowervelocitieson the outsideof bends[Horritt,2000], tigate the individualroles of the two parameters.Some mea-
and there is someevidencefor this in Figure 5, althoughthe sureof fit is alsorequiredto comparethe resultsof the simu-
situationis complicatedby the coarse-mesh resolution,channel lations and the SAR-derived flood map, and the calibration
topography,and interactionwith floodplainflows. processusedhere is to searchthroughthe parameterspacefor
A measure of mass conservation is another useful check on a global extremumof some objectivefunction, basedon the
the validityof model resultsfor two reasons.First, it is easyto correspondencebetween the model predictionsand the ob-
verify (comparedwith conservation of momentum),and, sec- serveddata. The choiceof this objectivefunction is a crucial
ond, it is more likely to be satisfiedby the real-worldsystem part of the calibrationprocess,as its form maywell affect the
under consideration.Most of the errorsin model processrep- optimum calibrationresult.
resentationoccurin the momentumequation(friction,turbu- Given that the flood boundaryis extractedfrom the SAR
lence, numericaltreatment of advection,etc.), whereasthe imagery,someform of regionalor area-basedmeasureof fit
continuityequationis more likely to be correct(althoughin- would seem to be an obviouschoice, but the exact formulation
filtration processesmay represent a loss of water from the of sucha measureis problematic.If, for example,the fraction
surfacesystem,and errorsin the imposedflow rate may mean of the model domain for which the model predictsthe flood
we are trying to conservethe wrong quantity).A measureof state (flooded or unflooded)correctlyis used, bias may be
mass balance error as a function of time, rather than over a introduced.A verylargemodelcontaininga smallfloodedarea
whole simulation,is useful,asit enablesus to ignoreregionsof will generallyappearto be successful, as it is easyto predict
(understandably) high error, suchas at the start of the simu- correctlythe large dry regions,generatinga goodfit between
lation where the initial conditionsare highly unphysicalor model predictionsand observations.A similar bias will occur
when friction coefficients are changed suddenly. A time- for a flood that almostfills the model domain.Fortunately,in
variant measurecalculatedat eachtime stepis givenby thiscasethe floodoccupies48% of the modeldomain,sobias
introducedby theseconsiderations shouldbe minimal, but a
bias-free measure will be useful when results from different
Qe
....(t) -- Qin-Qout-A-•-' (6) reachesand eventsare compared.Even so, an estimateof the
fraction of the domain correctlyclassifiedwill still be usefulin
This is the discrepancybetween the net flow entering the
the contextof practicalflood management,even if the bias
domain(Q inandQ outbeingthe volumetricflowsin andout of introduced clouds the calibration issue.
the reach,respectively)and the rate of changeof volumeV in
Area-based statisticsfor the model simulationsare gener-
the domain over the time step zXt,which givesa flow error
ated (Table 1), where eachsimulationis associated with four
Q erroras a functionof time. For all simulationsused in this
areavalues,expressedas a fractionof the model domainarea.
study,IQe•o•lwasfoundtobelessthan1 m3s-l, whichisagain Classes1 and 2 representareas correctlyidentified by the
probablylessthan the error in the imposedflow rate, and this
model, whereas classes3 and 4 represent misclassifications.
indicatesthat the solutionsare adequatelymassconservative.
The modelhascorrectlyidentified-75% of the domain.Pre-
The continuityequationitselfis subjectto processes represen-
dictingthe domainto be either completelydry or completely
tation errors,omittingthe effectsof groundwaterflow,rainfall,
inundatedwould give a figure of around 50%. This value is
and runoff from boundinghillslopes,and is thereforeunlikely
relatively insensitiveto different friction parameterizations,
to be satisfiedby real floodplainflows.Mass balancefigures
but the areas of classes3 and 4 do vary considerablywith
can, however,be a useful indicationof numericalproblems,
changesin friction,with a steadyshift from overpredictionto
and this analysisshowsthat they are an insignificantsourceof
underpredictionas friction parametersare increased(bed
uncertaintyin the model solutionswhen comparedto uncer-
sheardecreased).We mightexpectsomeintermediateparam-
tainty in friction parameterizationand boundaryconditions.
eterizationto exhibit a strongmaximumin the area correctly
predicted,but thisis not evident;asin simulations3 and 6, for
example,thereis considerable randomerror despitethe lackof
4. Model Calibration and Validation
net overpredictionor underprediction.Figure 6 showsthe
The main unconstraincd
parametersin the modelingprob- shorelinesfor simulations3 and 6, demonstratingthat the two
lem are the friction coefficients, and these are now used as differentpredictedshorelinescorrespondequallywell with the
calibrationparameters.Simulationswere performedwith val- SAR shoreline.An obviousquestioniswhetherthe differences
uesof Chezy's
C in therange20-150m1/2s-• for thechannel in modelpredictionsare due chieflyto sensitivityto floodplain
and5-75 m•/2s-• for thefloodplain.
Whilethesevaluesspan friction, channel friction, bank friction, or a combination of
a greaterrangethan that usedin previousstudies[Bateset al., these(the simulations
of Table1 usedthe samevaluesfor bank
1998]and indicatedin manualsof hydraulicdesign[e.g.,Chow, and floodplainnode friction). The sensitivityto theseparam-
1959],they do representa full transitionbetweenoverpredic- eters is explored in Table 2, which showsthat the channel
tion and underpredictionof inundationextentand mayreveal friction parameterhasrelativelylittle effect on the predicted
3286 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL

Table 1. Area-Based Statistics for the First Six Model Simulations a

SAR or Model Class

Channel Floodplain Area
Friction, Friction, 1 2 3 4 Correct,
Simulation m1/2S-1 m1/2s-1 (ww) (dd) (wd) (dw) %
1 50 5 46.8 24.1 1.4 27.9 70.9
2 20 10 44.8 30.5 3.2 21.4 75.3
3 50 25 38.9 37.7 9.1 14.1 76.6
4 75 37.5 37.7 39.5 10.2 12.5 77.2
5 100 50 36.6 40.5 11.6 11.6 77.1
6 150 75 34.1 42.3 14.1 9.8 76.4

aThe classesrepresentthe possiblecombinations of flood stateas found in the syntheticapertureradar (SAR) imageryand by the model
(wet-wet(ww), dry-dry(dd), etc.). Valuesare expressed as a percentageof the modeldomain.

inundatedarea (simulations7 and 9), whereasfloodplainand
bank friction exert a strongerinfluenceon shorelinelocation.
The responses due to perturbationsin floodplainfriction are
roughlydoublein magnitudecomparedto thosedue to bank
friction. This is not reflectedwell in the area correctlyidenti-
fied as floodedbut is more obviousin the changesin classes3
and 4. This is potentiallyuseful,as it effectivelyreducesthe
dimensionalityof the parameterspaceinvolvedin the calibra-
tion problem:We haveto varythe floodplainandbankfriction,
but the valueof channelfrictionis relativelyunimportant.The
functionaldependenceof friction term on the value of C will
have a role in this sensitivity,but a normalizedsensitivity(1/
F)(OF/OC) will be proportionalto 1/C (the casefor anypower
law dependence),and this is reflectedin the choiceof larger
perturbationsfor larger valuesof C. Channel friction may
becomemore important for different flowswhere hydraulic
processes in the channelmay be more influential.It may also
be partly a functionof the modifiedbank topographyusedto
promotenumericalstability,and a more realisticrepresenta-
tion of channel/floodplaininteraction may reveal a greater
sensitivityof floodplainflowsto channelhydraulics.It is inter-
estingto note that the model givesreasonableresultseven for
simulation6, which usesextremelylow valuesfor bed shear.
This couldbe dueto the interactionbetweenthe relativelyhigh
value of eddy viscosityand low bed shear, and simulations
usinga lower value for the eddyviscositymay exhibitgreater
sensitivityto friction as the bed shear is decreasedat the
expenseof numericalstability.
The area correctlyidentified can also be evaluated as a
function of along-reachdistanceto give a one-dimensionally
distributedmeasureof fit, whichis shownin Figure 7 for three
of the simulations listed in Table 1. The surface shows a num-
ber of interestingfeatures.The correctlyidentifiedareavaries
along the reach, as does the sensitivityto friction. The most

4OOO

2000

0
0 20'00 4600 60'00 80b0 ' ' '•'0600' ' '12600' ' 'i4600"

4OOO

2000

0
0 2600 4600 6600 80'o0 • 0600 126oo 14600'

Figure 6. Model-predictedinundationextent for simulations(top) 3 and (bottom) 6, with SAR-derived

shoreline.
 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL 3287

Table 2. Statisticsfor SimulationsDemonstratingthe Difference BetweenSensitivityto Floodplain,Bank, and Channel

Friction

SAR or Model Class

Channel Bank Floodplain Area
Simulation Friction, Friction, Friction, 1 2 3 4 Correct,
Number m•/2s-• m•/2s-• m•/2s-• (ww) (dd) (wd) (dw) %
7 50 20 20 40.0 36.6 8.0 15.2 76.6
8 50 15 15 42.5 34.1 5.7 18.0 76.6
9 40 20 20 40.0 36.6 8.2 15.0 76.6
10 50 25 20 39.3 37.5 9.5 14.5 76.8

significantfeatureis that the optimalfrictionvaluevariesalong modelthe water free surfaceheightasbeingplanar,i.e., having

the reach, and this impliesthat we may achievean improve- uniform down-reachslope and zero slope acrossthe reach.
ment in model performanceby usingsome form of spatially This can be parameterizedfrom the SAR imageryby project-
distributedfriction parameterization.This is implementedby ing the shorelineonto the DEM (the techniqueusedto deter-
assigningeach 1-km length of the reach with the optimum mine the model downstreamboundaryconditions)at the up-
frictionvalue as found from Figure 7. Theseresultsof model- stream and downstream ends of the reach to find the water free
ing usingthis and the uniform parameterizationsare givenin surfaceheightsat these points. Of course,we have used a
Table 3 and Figure 8. Table 3 indicatesthat the distributed priori knowledgeof the water heightsat thesepointsgained
friction parameterizationhas only improved model perfor- from the SAR imageryin the generationof this surface,but
manceslightly(by 0.3%); however,Figure 8 showsthat the assuming sucha surfacecouldbe parameterized(possiblyfrom
distributedfrictionsimulationhascapturedsomedetailsof the stagemeasurements), we can compareit to the predictions
flood that the uniform parameterizationmisses,suchas rout- from the finite element model. Figure 9 comparesthe best fit
ing of flood waters around the island in the region 4-6 km (distributedfriction) finite element model depth predictions
alongthe reach.Of course,thisis a verysimplisticapproachto with the SAR shorelineand the intersectionof the planar
the distributedcalibrationproblem.Abrupt changesin friction surfacewith the DEM. The planarsurfaceclassifies 68% of the
may well introducesignificantwater surfacegradients.Corre- modeldomaincorrectly,overpredicting inundationextentover
lation between sectionsof the reach has been neglected,as most of the reach, and especiallyin the 4- to 6-km region. It
they will not behave as independenthydraulicunits, and also indicates that the true water surface is convex, as water
changesin friction over one sectioncanbe expectedto havean levelsare below the planar surfacein the middle of the reach
effect on both upstreamand downstreamsections.The possi- andapproximately
levelat the ends.The planarsurfacewill be
bility that a more sophisticated(but still one-dimensional)
dis-
relatively sensitiveto the precisewater levels at the points
tributedcalibrationschemewill producebetter resultsshould where they are measured,and the overpredictionmay be due
not thereforebe discounted, but further investigation
would to the relativelyconstrainednature of the flow at eachend of
require a muchlarger numberof simulations. the reach, which will tend to raise water levels. This can be
After lookinginto the calibrationprocess,what can be said testedthrougha calibrationprocess,with upstreamand down-
for model validation? The model has classified 77% of its
streamstageasthe unknownparameters,and thiscan improve
domain correctly,but this figure is fairly meaninglessuntil the planar fit slightlyto 70%, but the problemcausedby the
comparedwith the resultsof someother modelingstrategy. convexityof the water surfaceis still evident.In thisrespectthe
One of the simplestapproaches to predictingflood extentis to finite element model representsa significantimprovementin
inundationpredictionfor all but the most extremevaluesof
floodplainfriction.

100
1 '
<)--(>C•= 5.0m•/•s -• , A comparisonbetween model predictionsand the aerial
photographyis also useful, as it is unclearhow much of the
90•- A-• • C,,=57.5m'/•s-' _ discrepancy betweenmodelandSAR shorelinesis due to error
in the model or error in the flood mappingprocedure.Aerial
photography
is available
for approximately
halfof thereach,
8o andthiscanbe usedto generatemeasures of fit for the model
shorelineswhencomparedto both SAR and aerial data for the
[2 70 subdomaincoveredby the aerial photography.Forty-nineper-
cent of this subdomainis flooded, so again the correct pre-
dicted area should make for an unbiased measure of fit. The
60 •
resultsfor three model simulationsare givenin Table 4, along
with a directcomparison betweenSAR andaerialdata,andthe
50 ............ main results are similar for all simulations. The measures of fit
0 5 10 15
are approximately3.5% lessthan for the SAR imagery,which
Along-reachdistance (km) canbe partlyexplainedby the 2.6% overpredictionof flooded
Figure ?. •e•ce•ta•e of modeldomai• classifiedcorrectlyby area apparentwhenthe SAR floodmap is comparedwith the
the model,asa •ctio• of •oodplai• frictio• pammetedzatio• aerial data (also shownin Table 4). If we regard the area
a•d alo•-•eack distance.•ke •esuitso[ tk•ee simulationso•]y predictedincorrectlyby the modeland the SAR flood map (as
am skow• [o• cladS. comparedwith the aerialdata) asa measureof the error, then
3288 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL

Table 3. Statisticsfor SimulationUsing Distributed Friction Parameterization

SAR or Model Class
Area
Parameterization 1 2 3 4 Correct,
Simulation Strategy (ww) (dd) (wd) (dw) %
3 best uniform 37.7 39.5 10.2 12.5 77.2
11 best at each section 42.5 35.0 5.7 17.0 77.5

the error in the modelpredictionsEmod (29% for simulation3) resolutionand streamlinecurvaturecan have a large effect on
is approximately
givenbyEmod
2 ----ES2^R 2 SAR,
+ Emod, where predicteddepths,and if thiswasto be compensatedfor in the
Es^R(18%)andEmod, SAR(23%)aretheerrorsbetween
the calibration process,it would result in an optimum friction
SAR and aerial data and between the model and the SAR
coefficientwith a strong correlationwith channel sinuosity.
data, respectively.Two conclusionscan be drawn from this Although this is partially evidentin this study(a particularly
analysis.First, there is only a weak correlationbetween the low value for bed shearis required in the 7- to 9-km region
errorswhen the model is comparedwith SAR and aerial data, wherechannelsinuosity
is high),the uniformchannelelement
and so model errors and observation errors are uncorrelated.
curvaturemesh generationstrategyused here shouldensure
Second,it showsthat the total model error (betweenmodel that errors in predicteddepthsdue to this phenomenonare
and "ground" truth) can be (approximately)equally parti- <20%. This would require a changein Chezy'sC of around
tionedbetweenobservationerrors(betweenSAR and ground
30% to compensate,whereasthe optimum friction valuesare
truth) andmodelingerrors(betweenmodelandSAR), but the
seen here to vary by a factor of --•7 along the reach. This
modelingerrorsare larger than the observationerrors.
indicates(togetherwith the apparentinsensitivityto channel
friction) that althoughthis may be part of the explanation,
5. Discussion other sourcesof variation are present.These could be more
The resultsindicate that spatiallyvariable friction coeffi- numerical errors (poor solutionsof the shallowwater equa-
cients are required to improve model performance, but tions) or processrepresentationerrors (hydraulicprocesses
whetherthe variationssuggested by this calibrationstudyare a poorlyrepresentedby the shallowwater equations).For exam-
result of genuine heterogeneoushydraulicpropertiesor an ple, highchannelsinuositycouldinteractwith the highvalueof
artefactof the modelingprocessremainsunclear.Validation of turbulent eddy viscosityto increasewater levelsin the 7- to
the model usedin this studyagainstanalyticalsolutionsof the 9-km region,and thismay requirean artificiallylow bed shear
shallowwater equations[Hordtt, 2000] indicatesthat mesh to compensate.The variationsmay be a genuinereflectionof

4OOO

2000

0
0 20'00 40'00 60'00 80'00 10000 12600 14600'

4000

2000

0
0 ' 20'00 40'00 60'00 80'00 10600 12600 14600'

Figure 8. (top) Bestuniformfrictionand (bottom) distributedfrictioncomparedwith SAR shoreline

 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL 3289

4000

2000

0 20'00 40'00 60'00 80'00 10600 12600 14600'

4000

2000

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

Figure
9. (top)
Distributed
friction
and(bottom)
simple
plan•r
freesurface
model.

floodplainroughness, and giventhe obviousheterogeneity of parts of the domainwould indicatethat the differencesin
floodplainvegetation,thiswouldseemto be the obviousline of shorelinelocationare due to genuinechangesin water levels
enquiryfor futureresearch.While the effectsof frictioncoef-rather than the random errors that would be expectedfrom
ficientshave been explored,the inundatedarea may alsobe uncorrelatedtopographicnoise. Again, this points to poor
affectedby the bed shear-velocity-depth
relationshipused.For friction parameterization(whichwill affect water levels) as
example,usingManning'sequation(frictiontermproportional causingmost of the model error. The influenceof the mor-
toh-4/3) leadsto bedshearthatfallswithdepthmorerapidly phologyof the near-channelregion is alsoworthy of future
than Chezy'slaw. There is also evidencethat bed shearis a investigation,as it will be expectedto exert an effect on chan-
functionof Reynoldsnumber[Falconerand Chen, 1996],and nel/floodplain interactions,especiallyi.nthe light of the mod-
thereforea more sophisticated bed shearformulamaybe use- ificationsof the bank topographymade here.
ful in the spatiallyheterogeneous
flowsoverthe floodplain.A The dynamicbehavior of these models also needs to be
less simplisticapproachmay also be required for dynamic investigated (thisstudyis limitedto steadystatesimulations).
simulations,where different hydraulicconditionsexistduring For example,if we use a dynamicflood hydrographas the
the wetting and dryingphasesas the flood wave propagates model upstreamboundarycondition,it is at presentunclear
downstream. how much of the hydrographhistorymust be modeled, and
Topographyalsoexertsa stronginfluenceon the inundated suchquestionsof temporalcorrelationsin modelpredictions
area, and errorsin the predictedshorelinemaybe (partially) must be addressed.Given likely errors in the provisionof
due to noisein the DEM and interactionsbetweentopography boundaryconditions(whichmaybe largefor a ratedsectionat
andthe finite elementmesh(relativelycrudenearest-neighbor overbank-fullflow),we alsoneedto investigate theireffectson
samplingwasusedto samplegroundheightsonto the mesh). modelpredictions.The passageof a floodwavedownthe reach
The systematicunderpredictionand overpredictionseen in wouldbe expectedto manifestitselfasa convexwater surface,

Table 4. Comparisonof StatisticsUsingSAR and Aerial PhotographyData

Air or Model Class //k•rea Area
Correct Correct
1 2 3 4 Air Photograph, SAR,
Simulation (ww) (dd) (wd) (dw) % %

1 47.7 19.9 1.8 30.6 67.6 70.9

3 40.0 31.2 9.5 19.4 71.2 76.6
6 35.2 36.6 14.2 14.0 71.8 77.1
SAR 41.8 40.2 7.6 10.3 82.0 100.0
3290 HORRITT: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL

as opposedto the concavesurfaceseenhere. We would also observationarbitrarilywell usinga more heterogeneous fric-
expecthydraulicconditionsover the reach to be reasonably tion parameterization,but thiswould do little for the model's
well representedby the steadystatesolutionusedhere. Long- predictivecapabilityand providelittle informationon the im-
wavelengthwaveswill take approximately 1 hour to propagate portanthydraulicprocesses, which are the originalreasonsfor
alongthe reach(lesswhen advectionis takeninto account), modelingthe problem.By adoptingcalibrationtechniques, we
and for the rate of changeof the input hydrograph(of the are thereforenot makingthe mostof the informationpresent
orderof 10-4 m3 s-2) thisrepresents a change of only0.3m3 in the satelliteimagery.Introducingmore data (manyflood
s-• in flowbeforeeffectshavepropagated out of the reach. eventsover many reaches)into the calibrationprocessmay
The slowrate of changeof the hydraulicconditionsalsojusti- help in identifyingfeaturescommonto floodplainsystems and
fiesthe assumption that the air photographandSAR datawere henceincreasethe model'spredictivepower.However,given
effectivelysimultaneous, when,in fact, theywere separatedby the transient nature of flood events combined with the rela-
2 hours. Previousstudiesusing point hydrometricdata for tivelypoor temporalcoverageofferedby currentsatelliteSAR
validationand calibrationhave generallyperformeddynamic missions, thismaybe impossible.The alternativeis to abandon
simulationsin order to make use of the availabledata (zero- (to some extent) the calibrationmethodology,breakingthe
dimensional in spaceand one-dimensional (i-D) in time), but link betweenparameterizationand validationdata, and pro-
dynamiceffectsare unlikelyto have a large effect on model vide independentinformationon floodplainfrictionalproper-
predictionsfor this reach and event. Effectswill be greater ties (whetherthroughremotesensing,groundsurvey,labora-
when modelinga narrow hydrographover a long reach and tory measurements, etc.). In additionto modelimprovements,
maythen becomeimportant,and the effectsof massand mo- further work is also requiredto improvethe satellite-derived
mentum conservationerrors may be exacerbatedover long floodmapsif furthermodeldevelopments are to be adequately
dynamicsimulations. evaluated.
The problemof dealingwith uncertainty(in processrepre-
sentation,parameterizationdata, and validationdata) in the
modelingprocessis a difficultone. One of the simpleststrat- 6. Conclusions
egieshasbeen adoptedhere,whereit is assumedthat there is This work has servedto demonstratethe use of remotely
a singleoptimalfrictionparameterization (whetheruniformor sensed data for the calibration and validation of two-
distributed)whichminimizesthe discrepancy betweenmodel dimensionalflood flow models.The model has provedto be
predictionsand observations. Given the uncertaintiespresent relativelyrobustwith respectto friction parameterizationfor
in the data, it may be more usefulto work with a far greater this reach and event when an area-based measure of fit is used
number of simulationsand describeeach parameterization to compareits predictionswith the SAR imagery,but an op-
with a likelihoodfigurebasedon the fit betweenobservations timum friction value is still evident.Spatiallyvariablemodel
and predictions,rather than definingoptimumvaluesof each sensitivityand predictionaccuracypoint to a distributedfric-
parameter.This is the aim of the generalizedlikelihoodun- tion parameterization,whichperformsaswell asthe bestuni-
certaintyestimationprocedure[Bevenand Binley,1992], and form friction simulation in terms of the measure of fit, and also
the procedurehasbeenusedto assess the effectsof uncertainty capturessome other floodplain flow processes.Most finite
in flood flow models[Aronicaet al., 1998;Romanowicz et al., element simuiationsperform betterthana simple planar
1996].While this is certainlya rigorousand usefulway to go model of the water free surface,which tendsto greatlyover-
forward,the need for a largenumberof simulationsto covera predict inundationextent.
parameterspaceof high dimensionality is a disadvantage, es- This studyhas providedonly a very limited validationof
peciallywith complexfinite elementcodeswhich are compu- model performance,as is to be expectedwithout accessto a
tationallyintensive.The simplerapproachadoptedhere relies validationdata set independentof that used for calibration.
on a relatively small number of simulations,and while the The resultsdo indicate,however,that the modelis capableof
effectsof uncertaintyare not fully explored,it does allow a reproducingsignificantfeatures of the observedinundation
rapid assessment of sensitivityto importantparametersand extent,andfurthermorethesefeaturesare not predictedby the
givesa good indicationof parametervalueslikely to lead to simplerplanar water surfacemodel. Thus the finite element
realisticmodel predictions. approachhas provedusefulin making more accuratepredic-
The discussion above reveals three areas of future research:
tionsthan thoseof the simplerapproach.
distributedfriction parameterization,dynamiceffects,and in-
fluenceof topography.Of theseeffects,frictionis certainlystill
the leastwell understood.While the methodologyusedhere Acknowledgments.This work wasfundedby the U.K. Natural En-
has givensomeinsightinto the nature of floodplainfrictional vironmentResearchCouncil,grant GR3 CO/030. Thanksgo to Ken
Blythof the Instituteof Hydrology,Wallingford,U.K., for provisionof
properties,the success of calibrationtechniques
will alwaysbe satellite imageryand aerial photographyand to Paul Bates of the
a function of the uncertainties in the observed data. While Universityof Bristolfor commentson the manuscript.The authoralso
usingpointhydrometric
data,uniformfloodplainfrictionwas wishesto thank the refereesfor the commentsgivenon this paper.
usuallyfound to be adequate.Satellitedata now indicatethat
a distributedfrictionparameterizationis required(or wouldbe
advantageous), andthishasincreasedthe dimensionality of the References
parameterspacein whichthe optimumfrictionvalue mustbe Aronica,G., B. Hankin, and K. Beven,Uncertaintyandequifinalityin
found.The friction distributionusedhere is essentially1-D in calibratingdistributedroughnesscoefficients
in a floodpropagation
nature,but it maywell varyacrossthe reach(especiallyasthere modelwith limiteddata,Adv. WaterResour.,22(4), 349-365, 1998.
Bates, P. D., and M. G. Anderson, A two-dimensionalfinite element
maywell be a correlationbetween!and covertype and eleva- model for river flood inundation, Proc. R. Soc. London A, 440,
tion abovechannel),and againthe calibrationproblemis ill- 481-491, 1993.
posed. We could be able to match model predictionsand Bates,P. D., and J.-M. Hervouet, A new methodfor moving-boundary
 HORRITF: CALIBRATION OF A 2-D FINITE ELEMENT FLOOD FLOW MODEL 3291

hydrodynamicproblemsin shallowwater, Proc.R. Soc.LondonA, in FloodplainProcesses, editedby M. G. Anderson,D. E. Walling,

455, 3107-3128, 1999. and P. D. Bates,pp. 139-181, JohnWiley, New York, 1996.
Bates, P. D., M. G. Anderson, D. Price, R. Hardy, and C. Smith, Koblinsky,C. J., R. T. Clarke,A. C. Brenner,and H. Frey, Measure-
Analysisand developmentof hydraulicmodelsfor floodplainflows, ment of river level variationswith satellitealtimetry,WaterResour.
in FloodplainProcesses, edited by M. G. Anderson,D. E. Walling, Res.,29(6), 1839-1848, 1993.
and P. D. Bates,pp. 215-254, John Wiley, New York, 1996. Lin, B., and K. Shiono,Numericalmodellingof solutetransportin
Bates,P. D., M. S. Horritt, C. N. Smith,and D.C. Mason,Integrating compoundchannelflows,J. Hydraul.Res.,33(6), 773-787, 1995.
remotesensingobservations of floodhydrologyand hydraulicmod- Mason, D.C., and I. J. Davenport,Accurate and efficientdetermina-
elling,Hydrol.Processes, 11, 1777-1795,1997. tion of the shorelinein ERS-1 images,IEEE Trans.Geosci.Remote
Bates,P. D., M.D. Stewart,G. B. Siggers,C. N. Smith,J.-M. Hervouet, Sens.,34(5), 1243-1253,1996.
and R. J. H. Sellin, Internal and external validation of a two- Moussa,R., andC. Bocquillon,Criteriafor the choiceof flood-routing
dimensionalfinite element code for river flood simulations,Proc. methodsin naturalchannels,J. Hydrol.,186, 1-30, 1996.
Inst. Civ. Eng. WaterMar. Energy,130, 127-141, 1998. Nicholas, A. P., and G. H. Sambrook-Smith,Numerical simulation of
Bates, P. D., C. A.M. E. Wilson, J.-M. Hervouet, and M.D. Stewart, three-dimensional flowhydraulicsin a braidedchannel,Hydrol.Pro-
Two-dimensionalfinite element modellingof floodplainflow, La cesses,13, 913-929, 1999.
Houille Blanche, 3/4, 82- 88, 1999. Ormsby, J.P., B. J. Blanchard,and A. J. Blanchard,Detection of
Beven, K., and A. Binley, The future of distributedmodels:Model lowland flooding using active microwavesystems,Int. J. Remote
calibrationanduncertaintyprediction,Hydrol.Processes, 6, 279-298, Sens.,5, 317-328, 1985.
1992. Ramsey,E. W., Monitoringfloodingin coastalwetlandsby usingradar
Biggin,D. S., andK. Blyth,A comparisonof ERS-1 satelliteradar and imageryand groundbasedmeasurements, Int. J. RemoteSens.,16,
aerialphotography for riverfloodmapping,J. Chart.Inst. WaterEng. 2495-2502, 1995.
Managers,10(1), 59-64, 1996. Rashid,R. S.S. M., and M. H. Chaudhry,Flood routingin channels
Bonansea,E., Mapping 1994 floods in PiedmonteRegion, Italy: An with floodplains,J. Hydrol.,171, 75-91, 1995.
exampleof remotesensingand GIS application,paperpresentedat Richards,J. A., P. W. Woodgate,andA. K. Skidmore,An explanation
1st ERS ThematicWorking Group Meeting on Flood Monitoring, of enhancedradar backscatteringfrom flooded forests,Int. J. Re-
Eur. SpaceAgency,Frascati,Italy, 1995. mote Sens.,8, 1093-1100, 1987.
Chow, V. T., Open ChannelHydraulics,680 pp., McGraw-Hill, New Romanowicz,W., K. J. Beven, and J. Tawn, Bayesiancalibrationof
York, 1959. flood inundationmodels,in FloodplainProcesses, editedby M. G.
Chow, V. T., Applied Hydrology,572 pp., McGraw-Hill, New York, Anderson,D. E. Walling,and P. D. Bates,pp. 333-360,JohnWiley,
1988. New York, 1996.
Cohen,L. D., On activecontourmodelsand balloons,Comput.Vision Rutschmann,P., and W. Hager, Diffusion of floodwaves,J. Hydrol.,
GraphicsImageProcess. Image Understand.,
53(2), 211-218, 1991. 178, 19-32, 1996.
Cokljat, D., and C. Kralj, On the choice of turbulencemodel for Schultz,G. A., Remote sensingin hydrology,J. Hydrol.,100, 239-265,
predictionof flows over river bed forms,J. Hydraul.Res., 35(3), 1988.
355-361, 1997. Sellin, R. H. J., and B. B. Willetts, Three-dimensional structures,
Currey,B., Identifyingwater flood movement,RemoteSens.Environ., memoryand energydissipationin meanderingcompoundchannel
6, 51-61, 1977. flow, in FloodplainProcesses, edited by M. G. Anderson, D. E.
Defina, A., L. D'Alpos, and B. Matticchio,A new set of equationsfor Walling,andP. D. Bates,pp. 255-297,JohnWiley, New York, 1996.
very shallowwater and partially dry areassuitableto 2D numerical Smith, L. C., Satelliteremote sensingof river inundationarea, stage
models,in ModellingFlood PropagationOver Initially Dry Areas, and discharge:A review,Hydrol.Processes, 11, 1427-1439, 1997.
editedby P. Molinaro and L. Natale, pp. 72-81, Am. Soc. of Civ. Sofialidis,D., and P. Prinos,Numericalstudyof momentumexchange
Eng., Reston, Va., 1994. in compoundopen channelflow,J. Hydraul.Eng., 125(2), 152-165,
Falconer,R. A., andY. Chen,Modellingsedimenttransportandwater 1999.
qualityprocesses on tidal floodplains,in FloodplainProcesses,edited Tholey, N., Monitoring flood eventswith remote sensingdata: An
by M. G. Anderson,D. E. Walling, and P. D. Bates,pp. 361-398, example of ERS-I's contribution to flood eventsin northern and
John Wiley, New York, 1996. southernFrance regions,paper presentedat 1st ERS Thematic
Gomes-Pereira,L. M., and R. J. Wicherson,Suitabilityof laserdatafor Working Group Meeting on Flood Monitoring,Eur. SpaceAgency,
derivinggeographicaldata:A casestudyin the contextof manage- Frascati,Italy, 1995.
ment of fluvialzones,Photogramm.Eng. RemoteSens.,54, 105-114, Thomas,T. G., and J. J. R. Williams, Large eddysimulationof turbu-
1999. lent flow in an asymmetriccompoundchannel,J. Hydraul. Res.,
Hervouet, J.-M., and L. Van Haren, Recent advancesin numerical 33(1), 27-41, 1995.
methodsfor fluid flows, in FloodplainProcesses, edited by M. G. Ulaby, F. T., R. K. Moore, andA. K. Fung,MicrowaveRemoteSensing:
Anderson,D. E. Walling, and P. D. Bates,pp. 183-214,JohnWiley, Activeand Passive,vol. 2, 607 pp., Artech House,Norwood,Mass.,
New York, 1996. 1982.
Horritt, M. S., Enhancedflood flow modellingusingremote sensing Wang, Y., L. L. Hess,S. Filoso,and J. M. Melack, Understandingthe
techniques,Ph.D. thesis,180 pp., Univ. of Reading, Reading, En- radar backscattering from floodedand non-floodedAmazonianfor-
gland, 1998. ests:Resultsfrom canopybackscattermodelling,RemoteSens.En-
Horritt, M. S., A statisticalactive contour model for SAR image viron., 54, 324-332, 1995.
segmentation, Image VisionComput.,17, 213-224, 1999. Williams,D. J., and M. Shah,A fast algorithmfor activecontoursand
Horritt, M. S., Development of physicallybased meshesfor two- curvatureestimation,CVGIP: Image Understanding, 55(1), 14-26,
a•.... •,•,•l models ,,• ,•,,,•,4,,g channel !992.
MethodsEng., 47, 2019-2037, 2000. Ye, J., and J. A. McCorquodale,Simulationof curvedopen channel
Imhoff, M. L., C. Vermillion, M. H. Story, A.M. Choudhury,A. flow by 3D hydrodynamic model,J. Hydraul.Eng.,124(7), 687-698,
Gafoor, and F. Polcyn,Monsoon flood boundarydelineationand 1998.
damageassessment usingspaceborne imagingradar and Landsat
data,Photogramm. Eng.RemoteSens.,53(4), 405-413, 1987. M. S. Horritt, Schoolof GeographicalSciences,Universityof Bris-
Ivins, J., and J. Porrill, Statisticalsnakes:Active region models,in tol, UniversityRoad, Bristol BS8 1SS,England,UK (Matt.Horritt@
Proceedings of Fifth BritishMachine VisionConference, vol. 2, pp. Bristol.ac.uk)
377-386, Br. Mach. Vision Assoc., London, 1994.
Knight, D. W., Hydraulicsof flood channels,in Floods:Hydrological,
Sedimentological and Geomorphological Implications,edited by K.
Bevenand P. Carling, pp. 83-105, John Wiley, New York, 1989. (ReceivedDecember2, 1999;revisedJune 7, 2000;
Knight,D. W., andK. Shiono,River channelandfloodplainhydraulics, acceptedJuly7, 2000.)