Hydrological Sciences Journal

ISSN: 0262-6667 (Print) 2150-3435 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj20

Comparing 1D- and combined 1D/2D hydraulic

simulations using high resolution topographic
data, the case study of the Koiliaris basin, Greece

Anthi-Eirini K. Vozinaki, Giasemi G. Morianou, Dimitrios D. Alexakis & Ioannis

K. Tsanis

To cite this article: Anthi-Eirini K. Vozinaki, Giasemi G. Morianou, Dimitrios D. Alexakis &
Ioannis K. Tsanis (2016): Comparing 1D- and combined 1D/2D hydraulic simulations using
high resolution topographic data, the case study of the Koiliaris basin, Greece, Hydrological
Sciences Journal, DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2016.1255746

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1255746

Accepted author version posted online: 07

Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj20

Download by: [University of Otago] Date: 08 November 2016, At: 07:49

Publisher: Taylor & Francis & IAHS

Journal: Hydrological Sciences Journal

DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2016.1255746

Comparing 1D- and combined 1D/2D hydraulic simulations using high resolution
topographic data, the case study of the Koiliaris basin, Greece

Anthi-Eirini K. Vozinaki1, Giasemi G. Morianou1, Dimitrios D. Alexakis1, and

Ioannis K. Tsanis1,2
1
School of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Greece, e-mail:
tsanis@hydromech.gr, Tel: +302821037799
2
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

Abstract The development of high spatial resolution Digital Elevation Models takes place via
the use of GeoEye-1 stereo-pair imagery, providing high accurate geometry representation of a
complex riverine system. The combination of geographic information systems with hydraulic
models facilitates the exploitation of the satellite extracted topographic information throughout
the cross-section extraction process. 1D HEC-RAS and combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS model are
adjusted making use of the produced high-resolution input. Several hydraulic simulations are
effectuated in order to test how significantly DEM resolution affects hydraulic modelling results,
regarding also the model dimensionality. The ability of the combined 1D/2D model, based
mainly on the high accuracy input data, provides the accurate estimation of the flood hazard
area. Flood prone areas could take advantage of high accurate results and facilitate the
effective management of extreme events and sufficient decision making.

Keywords 1D HEC-RAS; combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS; satellite stereo pair; extreme events

1. INTRODUCTION

Floods research at hydrological basin scale requires high resolution data, particularly for using
the most robust hydrologic models that have been recently developed (Koutroulis and Tsanis
2010). The most significant part in hydraulic analysis determining flood inundation patterns is
the topography representation that is the development of an accurate geometric description for
the river channel and the surrounding floodplain topography (Horritt and Bates 2002). River
cross-sections measurements are important for the channel geometry representation. However,
in most developing countries the availability of measured channel cross-sections is scanty,
since the process of extracting cross-section information from field measurements is labor
intensive and expensive (Pramanik et al. 2010). Alternatively, topographic (elevation) data may

1
contribute to the representation of the channel geometry, the water pathways and the floodplain
area and can greatly influence the hydraulic model outputs in flood inundation modelling (Dutta
and Herath 2001). Technology for measuring surface topography has no longer evolved from
traditional contour surveys to remote sensing techniques (Merwade et al. 2008). Furthermore,
with the growing availability of remotely sensed topographic data, there has been a shift from a
data-poor to a data-rich environment in relation to channel and floodplain flow modelling (Marks
and Bates 2000). Therefore, sophisticated remote sensing systems are used, alternatively, in
order to accurately represent both channel and floodplain geometry, affecting indirectly
hydraulic simulations. Remote sensing techniques are now widely used in several scientific
research topics regarding flood hydrology (Alexakis et al. 2014, Bates et al. 1997, Knebl et al.
2005, Tayefi et al. 2007, Tsanis et al. 2014).
Nevertheless, hydraulic simulations are not only affected by channel and floodplain
topography, but also by model type, i.e. one-dimensional (1D), two-dimensional (2D) or
combined (1D/2D) types (Timbadiya et al. 2012). Both 1D and 2D models require geometric
data for the accurate representation of the river system and the floodplain area, however their
use differs according to the dimensionality (Tayefi et al. 2007). The traditional approach to
simulate flow in river channels is through 1D hydraulic modelling, which is widely used but it can
describe only the main channel processes. However, there are cases where a 1D approach is
very effective in predicting flood extent (Horritt and Bates 2002). Certainly, in order to improve
our understanding of river hydrodynamics and processes, the use of 1D hydraulic models in
many applications is being augmented or replaced by 2D models (Merwade et al. 2008). The
optimal approach to modelling complex floodplains involves the combination οf a 1D treatment
of the main channel and a 2D treatment of the floodplain (Finaud-Guyol et al. 2011, Liu et al.
2015).
In this study the presence of high-resolution topographic data, generated from remotely
sensed data, in both 1D and combined 1D/2D hydraulic analysis is analyzed extensively.
Several extreme high discharge hydraulic events are examined downstream the Koiliaris River
basin, in Chania, Crete. First, topographic data, necessary for the accurate channel and
floodplain geometry representation, were derived using the available GeoEye-1 stereo-pair
imagery. Two high accuracy DEMs in different spatial resolutions (5 m and 1 m, respectively)
were produced from our research team, for the study area. The topographic data delivered
cross-section data, instead of field measurements, via the integration of geographic information
system (GIS) with hydraulic models (i.e. HEC-GeoRAS). In this way, the most important input
for hydraulic models (i.e. the accurate geometry of the river cross-sections and the floodplain
area) was defined. 1D HEC-RAS and combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS models were adjusted for
both DEMs. In the 1D model the domain was defined as series of extended cross-sections,
whereas in the 2D model the domain was explicitly represented by floodplain features.
Furthermore, the available satellite imagery was used for the development of detailed Land
Use/Land Cover (LULC) map of the study area for the hydraulic calibration process. An extreme
hydrologic event was selected as calibration event, whereas two other events verified the clarity
of the model results. The comparison among the results of the 1D and the coupled 1D/2D
hydraulic models, using both DEMs, examined the effect of DEM resolution in hydraulic
modelling, regarding also the dimensionality of the model. Finally, the best combination among
the dimension of the hydraulic model and the DEM resolution used, was selected for the specific
case study. The best results regarding the propagation of extreme events along the studied river
and the respective floodplain area were depicted.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Satellite remote sensing analysis

2
A GeoEye-1 stereo-pair imagery with four multispectral bands and an image acquisition date of
August 2009 in the study. GeoEye-1 provides panchromatic image at 0.46 m resolution and
four-band multispectral imagery with 1.84 m resolution. The spectral ranges of the four bands
are 0.45–0.51 μm (blue), 0.51–0.58 μm (green), 0.655–0.69 μm (red) and 0.78–0.92 μm (near
infrared). The available satellite imagery were used for the development of a high resolution
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) in different spatial resolutions (5 m and 1 m) in order to deliver
cross-section data to be used in hydraulic simulation. Furthermore it was employed for the
development of detailed land use/land cover (LULC) map of the study area.

2.1.1 DEM extraction

The first requirement for a DEM from satellite imagery is a satellite stereo-pair product
accompanied by a sensor model that describes the geometric relationship between the 3D
object space Ob(X, Y, Z) and 2D image space Im(r, c) (Tsanis et al. 2014). The abstract sensor
model was used to define rational polynomial coefficients (RPCs) approximating the specific
sensor model information to map geodetic ground points to the imaging system’s pixel
coordinates. The collected GCPs were used in refinement of the RPC solution. However, the
selection of GCPs on stereo-pair images is usually a subjective process and the extracted DEM
quality is highly dependent on them. For the ground-to-image transformation, the defined ratios
of polynomials have the forward form:

( × × … × ) × ( × … )
= (1)
( × × … × ) × ( × … )
( × × … × ) × ( × … )
= (2)
( × × … × ) × ( × … )

where , are image space coordinates, , , are ground coordinates and , , are the
respective RPCs provided by the satellite product vendor.

2.1.2 Land use / land cover map

The current and future development in water resources is very sensitive to land use and
intensification of human activities. Classification is a common procedure in order to retrieve
valuable information regarding LULC from multispectral images data such as GeoEye-1. For the
needs of the study a final thematic map of 6 classes was derived after applying Maximum
Likelihood Classification (MLC) algorithm to satellite imagery. The derived thematic map was
used as input to hydraulic modelling process. MLC is a method for determining a known class of
distributions as the maximum for a given statistic. The algorithm builds the probability density
functions for each category. During classification, all unclassified pixels are assigned
membership based on the relative likelihood (probability) of that pixel occurring within each
category’s probability density function (Sun and Zhang 2013). Suppose there are predefined
classes, the class probability is defined as:

( ) ( | )
( | ) = (3)
∑ ( ) ( | )

where ( ) is the prior probability of class , ( | ) is the conditional probability of observing

from class (probability density function) (Liu et al. 2011).

3
2.2 Hydraulic modelling

In this study, 1D HEC-RAS and combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS models were adjusted for the
analysis of several extreme high discharge events. Both high resolution DEMs were used for
both models in order to examine the effect of DEM resolution and hydraulic model
dimensionality in the extreme events’ propagation along the studied river and the respective
floodplain area.

2.2.1 1D HEC-RAS hydraulic model

The one-dimensional (1D) HEC-RAS hydraulic model is designed to perform 1D hydraulic

calculations for a full network of natural channels (HEC-RAS 2010). The unsteady flow
simulation component of the HEC-RAS modelling system is capable of simulating 1D unsteady
flow through a full network of open channels. The physical laws that govern the flow of water in
a stream are the principle of conservation of mass (continuity), and the principle of conservation
of momentum. These laws are expressed mathematically in the form of partial differential
equations, the continuity and momentum equations, respectively. Conservation of mass for a
control volume states that the net rate of flow into the volume be equal to the rate of change of
storage inside the volume and is described by continuity equation:

+ − =0 (4)

where is the total flow area (m2), is the total flow (m3/s) as a function of distance, , and
time, , and is the lateral inflow per unit length (m2/s).
Conservation of momentum is expressed by Newton’s second law which states for a control
volume that the net rate of momentum entering the volume plus the sum of all external forces
acting on the volume be equal to the rate of accumulation of momentum. The final form of the
momentum equation is given as:

+ + + =0 (5)

where is the total flow (m3 s-1) as a function of the distance, , and time, , is the control
volume (m3), is the gravity acceleration (m s-2), is the total area (m2), the water surface
slope (dimensionless), and is the friction slope (dimensionless).
The unsteady flow computational program in 1D HEC-RAS model solves the above
equations using a unique skyline matrix solver developed by Dr. Robert Barkau (HEC-RAS
2010).

2.2.2 Combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS model

The HEC model has recently added the ability to perform 2D hydrodynamic flow routing within
the unsteady flow analysis portion of HEC-RAS (HEC-RAS 2015). The 2D flow modelling
algorithm in HEC-RAS has the advantage to perform combined one/two dimensional (1D/2D)
modelling within the same unsteady flow on larger river systems, utilizing 1D modelling for the
main river system and 2D modelling in areas that require higher hydrodynamic accuracy. One of
the greatest advantages of the combined 1D/2D modelling over 1D in HEC-RAS is the direct

4
feedback each time step between the 1D and 2D flow elements in order to accurately estimate
the maximum floodwater depth at every model grid cell. Nevertheless, the disadvantage of the
2D model is that it requires substantial computational time and a fine computational grid.
The 2D HEC-RAS model solves either the 2D Saint-Venant equations or the 2D diffusion
wave equations. The 2D diffusion wave equations, used in this study, allow the software to run
faster, and have greater stability properties (HEC-RAS 2015). Floodplain flow is thus
approximated as a two-dimensional diffusion wave:

∙Δ
= ≤ 2.0 (with a max = 5.0) (6)
Δ

where C is the courant number (dimensionless), V the velocity of the flood wave (m/s), ΔΤ the
computational time step (s) and ΔΧ the average cell size (m) (HEC-RAS 2015). Water can flow
in any direction across the floodplain according to the local topography and the resistance to
flow caused by the land use (Bates and De Roo 2000).
The 2D unsteady flow equations solver in HEC-RAS uses an implicit finite volume algorithm.
This algorithm allows more computational time steps than an explicit methods and provides an
increment of improved stability over traditional finite difference and finite element techniques
which demand a smaller computational time (Kourgialas and Karatzas 2013). Another capability
of combined 1D/2D modelling in HEC-RAS is the 1D and 2D coupled solution algorithm. The
two algorithms are tightly coupled on a time step by time step basis with an option to iterate
between 1D and 2D flow transfers within a time step. This allows the direct feedback each time
step between the 1D and 2D flow elements (HEC-RAS 2015).

2.3 Model results analysis and comparison

The good agreement between observed water depth data and model simulation results was
ensured by Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE; equation (7)). The NSE is a measure of
the model quality with respect to the representation of the variance of the data. A value of 1
means that the representation is perfect (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970).

∑ ( − )
NSE = 1 − (7)
∑ ( − )

In addition to NSE, the root mean squared error (RMSE) was used to evaluate the goodness
of fit of the model simulations to the observed data (equation (8)). The basic objective is to
minimize the error when comparing the simulated values with the observed data; hence, values
of RMSE close to zero indicate perfect fit and a satisfactory model performance.

1
RMSE = ( − ) (8)

In equations (7) and (8), is the total number of observations, is the observed ith value,
is the respective simulated ith value and is the mean value of the observations.

3. CASE STUDY

3.1 Study area and study extreme events

5
The above methodology is applied in the Koiliaris River basin, located in the eastern part of the
Prefecture of Chania, in Crete, Greece. The Koiliaris River basin is a complex Mediterranean
Critical Zone Observatory (CZO) watershed. Due to its special geomorphologic and hydrologic
characteristics (Moraetis et al. 2010, Nikolaidis et al. 2012), it has been the domain for several
environmental issues (Kourgialas and Karatzas 2011, Moraetis et al. 2011, Nerantzaki et al.
2015, Vozinaki et al. 2015). The total area of the watershed is 130 km2. The development of
high resolution DEMs in different spatial resolutions (5 m and 1 m) using the available GeoEye-
1 stereo-pair took place in order to deliver accurate topographic data to be used in hydraulic
simulations in the Koiliaris River segment which lies from the location Agios Georgios to the
Koiliaris estuaries, that means in a segment extending approximately 3.5 km from the river
outlet (Fig. 1). The average width of the channel cross-sections is about 20 m, hence the use of
high resolution topographic data adds greater accuracy in the channel cross-section derivation
process.
Three extreme high discharge events were simulated using both 1D HEC-RAS and combined
1D/2D HEC-RAS. An extreme high discharge event was considered as the calibration event
(first event) for both models. The calibration event took place on 24–25 February 2009.
Subsequently, two additional extreme events were used as verification events, the one (second
event) took place on 25 February–2 March 2011 and the other (third event) on 12–14 March
2012. The verification events were used in order to examine the good performance of the
calibrated model when simulating other extreme events. The specifications of the studied
extreme events are presented in Table 1. It is observed that the second extreme event is
characterized by lower discharge values, however it was considered to be a verification event
because of the spontaneous flow activity during that period.

3.2 Pre-processing techniques

Initially, geometric corrections were carried out using standard techniques with several ground
Control Points (GCPs). The GCPs were collected within the study area, at open areas with bare
terrain, using a pair of differential GPS (DGPS) Leica GS20 Professional Data Mappers. DGPS
measurements were corrected offline using the L1 pseudo-range in combination with station
TUC2 from the Reference Frame Sub-Commission for Europe (EUREF) Permanent Network
(EPN), located within the Technical University of Crete campus.
At a next step, radiometric corrections were applied to GeoEye-1 images. Radiometric
corrections are essential for satellite images, since illumination changes (e.g., Earth to Sun
distance correction) and changes in viewing geometry (e.g. Sun elevation correction) should be
minimized in multi-temporal analysis. Thus, the digital number (DV) values of satellite images
were converted to reflectance values (Alexakis et al. 2012). Atmospheric correction is
considered to be one of the most difficult techniques since the distributions and intensities of
these effects are often inadequately known. Despite the variety of techniques used to estimate
the atmospheric effect, atmospheric correction remains a hard task in the preprocessing of
image data. As it is shown by several studies (Agapiou et al. 2011), the darkest pixel (DP)
atmospheric correction method can be easily and accurately applied either by using dark and
non-variant targets located in the image or by conducting in situ measurements. In the present
study, lakes were used as dark targets, and the darkest pixel correction was applied to both
images.

3.3 DEM extraction

For the needs of this study the Leica Photogrammetry Suite (LPS) eATE (enhanced Automatic
Terrain Extraction) was implemented to extract the terrain surface in both 5 m (Fig. 2) and 1 m

6
resolution. The final product was tested in terms of accuracy validation with the remaining GCPs
that were considered as ground truth check points. Thus, the validation was performed in terms
of root mean square (RMSE) and mean error (ME). The ME depicts whether set of
measurements consistently underestimate (negative ME) or overestimate (positive ME) the real
values (Mukherjee et al. 2013). The ME is calculated by:

1
ME = (DEM − ) (9)

where is the total number of observations, DEM is the height of the developed digital terrain
surface and is the reference value from GPS measurements. The RMS error calculated for
terrain surfaces at 1 m and 5 m resolution is 1.42 m and 1.12 m, respectively. The ME for 1 m
and 5 m is –0.011 and –0.453, highlighting the fact that the produced DEMs slightly
underestimate the height compared to the real values. Finally, the level of agreement (r2)
between GPS values and terrain surfaces of 1 m and 5 m ranges between 0.998 and 0.997,
respectively.
Specifically, both DEMs (1 m and 5 m) accuracy is thoroughly described in Table 2. However,
the elevation information about vegetation over the actual topography had to be removed
manually.

3.4 Land Use / Land Cover map

For the needs of this study the final thematic map of six classes, which was derived after
applying maximum likelihood classification (MLC) algorithm to satellite imagery, was used as
input to hydraulic modelling process. The final processing step concerned the validation process
of LULC map accuracy. The kappa coefficient is well suited for accuracy assessment of LULC
maps. In that term, a value of 0 corresponds to a total random classification, while a kappa
value of 1 represents a perfect agreement between the classification and reference data. The
results denoted a kappa coefficient of 0.8 highlighting the accuracy of the exported thematic
map.
The detailed LULC map of the study area (Fig. 3) was used for the hydraulic modelling
calibration needs and the extraction of the accurate calibration parameter, Manning’s roughness
coefficient, , for both the channel and the floodplain study area.

3.5 Geometry representation of the study river segment

The 1D HEC-RAS model allows the description of the river channel and the surrounding
floodplains as a series of discrete extended cross-sections perpendicular to the flow direction.
1D models strongly depend on the geometric data at selected locations and the floodplains
(Ramesh 2013). The cross-section data were derived from the stereo-pair imagery topographic
data and the two high accuracy DEMs in different spatial resolutions (5 m and 1 m,
respectively), via the integration of geographic information system (GIS) with hydraulic models,
i.e the HEC-GeoRAS ArcGIS tool. First, the channel and the floodplain geometry characteristics
were created in ArcGIS environment, according to the existing DEMs, that is the stream
centerline, the bank lines, the flow path centrelines and the cross-section cut lines.
Consequently, a RAS GIS import file was generated based on the defined geometric
characteristics, which was used as input file, in the Geometric Data Editor of the 1D HEC-RAS
model. The 1D hydraulic model was adjusted for the two different geometry files, produced by
the respective DEMs, 5 m and 1 m. The defined cross-sections for both 1 m and 5 m hydraulic
models represent the channel width and bed elevations of the studied reach (the average

7
channel width is 20 m). However, the cross-sections were extended on both sides of the river
channel to represent the floodplain topography and the average extended cross-section width
was about 300 m. The comparison of two typical cross-sections extracted from the 1 m DEM
and the 5 m DEM is presented in Fig. 4. The first cross-section (Fig. 1, DCM) is close to the
downstream part of the Koiliaris River basin, an area at significant flood risk, whereas the
second cross-section (Fig. 1, UCS) is close to the river upstream. Figure 4(a) and (b) depicts
the downstream cross-section extracted by the 5-m DEM and 1-m DEM, respectively. In
addition, Fig. 4(c) and (d) depicts the upstream cross-section extracted by the 5-m DEM and 1-
m DEM, respectively. The x-axis represents the point of the cross-section in which the elevation
value was automatically extracted by GeoRAS tool, whereas the y-axis represents the elevation
value. The red cross-section area depicts the section of the main channel. The detail in river
cross-sections extraction process from the 1-m DEM is more obvious, since more points are
adopted to represent the same cross-section comparing to the extraction process from the 5 m
DEM. All the cross-sections were selected using the criterion that any extra edit required could
take place manually. Hence, the topography of the extended cross-sections where the broad
canopy was an obstacle for the obtained topographic data, as well as the cross-sections’ parts
under surface water, were corrected through channel and floodplain geometry surveying and
measurements. The accurate topography of the channel bottom in the two typical cross-sections
is also depicted in Fig. 4. Finally, interpolation was applied per 0.25 m among the HEC-
GeoRAS-derived cross-sections for both models ensuring stability in the models. Following the
above interpolation process, 155 cross-sections were finally defined for the 1-m hydraulic model
and 163 cross-sections for the 5-m hydraulic model. These produced geometry files are inputs
of high importance for the 1D hydraulic simulation analysis.
In addition, the produced 5-m and 1-m high-resolution DEMs provided both the cross-section
data and the floodplain features for the combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS hydraulic simulation. First,
about a hundred cross-sections were created for the study of the Koiliaris River segment. The
most important process in HEC-RAS 1D/2D hydraulic model was the development of the
suitable terrain model representing the landscape of the floodplains and the stream bathymetry.
The terrain model was created using high accuracy DEM data in RAS Mapper tool, whereas the
channel terrain model was created from the cross-section interpolation surface combined with
the general surface terrain model giving an improved terrain model for hydraulic modelling and
mapping (Fig. 5(a)). The 2D flow areas were added in both models, beyond the left and the right
banks of the river, by drawing a 2D flow area polygon and developing the 2D computational
mesh according to terrain accuracy. The combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS modelling capability uses
a finite-volume solution scheme. This algorithm was developed to allow the use of a structured
or unstructured computational mesh (Fig. 5(b)). Lateral structures were used in order to connect
the river (1D) with the area behind a levee that is modelled in 2D (Fig. 5(b)). Flow over the levee
(lateral structure) was computed with a headwater from the 1D river and a tailwater from the 2D
flow area to which it was connected. A spatially varying land-use dataset was also created in
RAS Mapper, and was then associated with the geometry dataset. The land polygons were
created in ArcGIS according to the information derived from the detailed LULC map of the study
area extracted from the available satellite imagery.

3.6 Boundary conditions and calibration process

Boundary conditions for both models (1D HEC-RAS and combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS) were
applied at all of the external boundaries of the system. The flow hydrograph option was used as
an upstream boundary condition at the upstream end of the reach, in Agios Georgios (Fig. 1).
Therefore, the hourly discharge data for every studied extreme event, derived from the gauge
located in Agios Georgios, were used. Furthermore, the normal depth approximation, that is the

8
average slope of the channel, was used as downstream boundary condition at the river outlet
for both models.
Concerning the calibration process, Manning’s roughness coefficient, , was considered as
calibration parameter for both hydraulic models. It was used to describe the resistance to flow
due to channel roughness caused by sand or gravel bed, bank vegetation and other
obstructions. Manning’s parameter values were based on the data extracted from the
available satellite imagery and the extracted detailed LULC map. The values for each land-use
type were assigned based on the specified intervals of Table 3.
Manning’s roughness coefficients of the 1D HEC-RAS model were limited to one value for
the channel and two values for the floodplain (left and right floodplain areas). Channel values
varied between 0.035 and 0.045 m-1/3 s whereas floodplain values ranged between 0.08 and
0.15 m-1/3 s for both 1D HEC-RAS with DEM in 5 m and 1 m resolution. Higher values were
assigned for the downstream area. Other parameters like expansion and contraction
coefficients, had less impact for the 1D calibration process.
For the combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS, except from the Manning’s roughness coefficients, the
Weir coefficient was also selected as model calibration parameter along the downstream river
reach. The Weir coefficient (lateral structure) is used to transfer flow from the river (1D region)
to the floodplain (2D flow area). If the lateral structure is really just an overland flow interface
between the 1D river and the 2D floodplain, then a Weir coefficient in the range of 0.06 to 0.55
(SI Units) should be used. In this study, the calibration parameters values of Manning’s and
Weir coefficient that gave the best performance between observed data and simulation results
were equal to 0.055 m-1/3 s and 0.06, respectively, for the model with 5 m DEM. For the model in
1 m resolution the Manning’s value was estimated at 0.050 m-1/3 s for the main channel and
0.150 m-1/3 s in some specific locations, whereas Weir coefficient was set at 0.06.
The model was calibrated and verified using water depth observation data at the downstream
end of the Koiliaris river segment (Fig. 1). These data consisted of a good source of calibration
input for the first extreme event and a good source of validation data for the verification events.
In this work, the comparison among the use of high-resolution 1-m and 5-m DEMs in hydraulic
simulation of the extreme high discharge events was effected both by 1D HEC-RAS and
combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS models.

4. RESULTS

The 1D HEC-RAS model was adjusted separately for the two DEMs. The models were
calibrated according to Manning’s values for both channel and the floodplains. Calibration
took place against the water depth in the downstream end of the study river segment. First the
results for the 5-m DEM are presented. The first extreme event was calibrated, giving NSE and
RMSE values of 0.883 and 0.161, respectively. For the verification events, the second and third
events, the two statistical indexes were estimated at NSE = 0.890, RMSE = 0.073 and NSE =
0.834, RMSE = 0.100, respectively (Fig. 6). The calibration performance of the 1D model was
sufficiently adequate (Fig. 6(a)) and the two other extreme events further verified good
performance (Fig. 6(b) and (c)).
The calibration and validation results for the 1D model with DEM resolution of 1 m are
presented in Fig. 7. The first extreme event was calibrated, giving NSE and RMSE values of
0.926 and 0.128, respectively (Fig. 7(a)). For the verification events, the two statistical indexes
were estimated at NSE = 0.915, RMSE = 0.064 (Fig. 7(b)) and NSE = 0.876, RMSE = 0.087
(Fig. 7(c)), for the second and third events, respectively. It is observed that the performance of
the three extreme events (calibration and verification) for the 1-m resolution model was better
compared to the results of the 1D model with 5-m DEM resolution. This is justified by NSE and
RMSE values which both establish the predominance of the more accurate DEM resolution (i.e.
1 m) towards 1D HEC-RAS model hydraulic simulations. The differences between the two

9
models with different resolution DEMs lay in the better accuracy of the cross-section and
floodplain data derived from the DEM at the higher resolution.
For the 1D/2D simulation of the first extreme calibration event with 5-m DEM, on 25–26
February, the NSE was estimated at 0.92 and the RMSE at 0.130 (Fig. 8(a)). The model with 5-
m DEM was further validated for the time periods 25–28 February 2011 (Fig. 8(b)) and 12–14
March 2012 (Fig. 8(c)). The simulated results were compared with the existing observation data
and a good agreement was found as the NSE values were equal to 0.82 and 0.91, respectively,
and RMSE values of 0.111 and 0.124, respectively.
The combined 1D/2D model with 1-m DEM resolution was also calibrated and validated. For
the calibration event of the 1-m DEM model the NSE was 0.96 and RMSE = 0.097 (Fig. 9(a)).
The 1-m DEM was validated for the same extreme events, 25–28 February 2011 (Fig. 9(b)) and
12–14 March 2012 (Fig. 9(c)) giving NSE values of 0.95 and 0.91, respectively, and RMSE
values of 0.057 and 0.079, respectively.
Table 4 shows in summary the results of the statistical indexes for both DEM files which were
used as input in the two hydraulic models, 1D HEC-RAS and combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS. It is
obvious when comparing the indexes among the different simulations that the 1D/2D coupled
HEC-RAS model with 1-m DEM resolution gave systematically the best results for the three
extreme events in the specific study area.
For both hydraulic models, the simulations with the highest resolution DEM (1 m), showed
better results than the calibration and verification process of the models at 5-m resolution. The
pre-eminence of the 1-m high-resolution DEM over the 5-m lower-resolution DEM establishes
the significance of using highly accurate topographic systems in hydraulic modelling.
In addition, Fig. 10 presents the simulated results for the calibration extreme event along the
river for both hydraulic models. Figure 10(a) presents the results of the maximum extent of the
flood simulation at 5-m DEM resolution, whereas Fig. 10(b) shows the results at 1-m resolution,
using the 1D HEC-RAS model. The specific option for the 1D model is a three-dimensional plot
of the multiple cross-sections within the studied reach, depicting the maximum width of the flood
area. The 1D HEC-RAS model, although it performs adequately, fails to provide detailed two-
dimensional information, especially for the floodplain area, compared to the results from the
combined 1D/2D model, which provides two-dimensional information maps. Figure 10(c) and (d)
shows not only the flood extent at peak flow for 5-m and 1-m resolution DEMs, respectively, but
also the maximum water depth values simulated at all locations of the model grid. The two
models in different dimensionality had not produced similar results, the 1 m x 1 m DEM
resolution can give a better representation of the flow in areas close to the banks due to the
finer computational mesh which is based on terrain accuracy. The differences between the
hydraulic simulations using the two models are not only based on the accuracy of the cross-
section data and floodplain surface resolution delivered from each DEM. They are also based
on the greatest advantage of combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS model in results visualization that is
the development of a terrain. Furthermore, the capability of combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS to write
the model results to a static map layer at all locations of the model grid is significant, and can be
further used for the analysis of several flood inundation topics. Finally, it should be pointed out
that the greatest advantage of mapping the 2D flow areas using detailed and highly accurate
DEM data ensured high level of accuracy in the hydraulic simulation results for the specific case
study.

5. CONCLUSIONS

10
In this study hydraulic simulations took place for the Koiliaris River segment in Chania, Crete.
Two high-accuracy digital elevation models (DEMs) at different spatial resolution (5 m and 1 m)
were developed using the available GeoEye-1 stereo-pair. This high accuracy topographic
information delivered accurate cross-section data for the channel and the surrounding floodplain
area, used as a key input in hydraulic simulations via the 1D HEC-RAS and combined 1D/2D
HEC-RAS models. Comparison of the hydraulic modelling results took place among the DEM
files at different spatial resolution and the hydraulic models in different dimensionality,
demonstrating the ability of the models in modelling inundation extent for an extreme high
discharge event. The floodplain and channel friction was used as the main calibration
parameter. The employment of the available GeoEye-1 stereo-pair for the development of a
detailed land use/land cover (LULC) map of the study area was crucial for the calibration
process for both hydraulic models. The performance of the calibrated model was validated using
additional extreme events.
Regarding the calibration and verification processes, the hydraulic simulation results were
generally in good agreement with the corresponding observations for both models. In addition,
for both HEC-RAS 1D and combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS, the simulations with DEM in 1 m
resolution showed better performance than the calibration and verification process of the
models with DEM in 5-m resolution. Since river channel and floodplain geometry is the most
significant input in hydraulic simulation, the accuracy of the cross-section and the floodplain
information delivered from DEM in the highest resolution (i.e. 1 m) provided better hydraulic
results for both models. It is evident that the high resolution of remotely sensed data has
encouraged the integration of high resolution DEMs into hydraulic models.
In addition, the quite simple 1D HEC-RAS model, although it performed adequately, especially
when using the high accuracy DEM at 1-m resolution, failed to provide detailed two-dimensional
information for the floodplain area, when compared to the results from the combined 1D/2D
model (Fig. 10). It is effective, therefore, to use coupled 1D/2D modelling, which includes both
1D modelling for the main river and 2D modelling for the floodplain; therefore, the use of the
new 2D capabilities of 1D/2D HEC-RAS consists of an innovation in the specific work. The
detailed visualization of combined 1D/2D hydraulic modelling at any location of the model grid
may provide significant information about the extent and the severity of the flooding in areas
prone to this hazard. The accurate flood extent definition, based mainly on the use of very high
accuracy topographic data, is a key feature for developing detailed flood hazard maps. The
incorporation of remote sensing data in hydraulic models can effectively support decision
making and risk management of the extreme events impacts in flood-prone areas.
This study indicates that the combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS model performs better than the 1D
HEC-RAS model for the specific study reach when using topographic data at high spatial
resolution. It is important though to treat the results of this work with caution, since the extension
of the above methodology to other reaches and extreme events may reveal different behaviour.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the scientific researchers of the

Hydrogeochemical Engineering and Soil Remediation Laboratory and especially Prof. Nikolaos
P. Nikolaidis for the data provided to authors.

Funding
This research was fully supported by the “ARISTEIA II” Action (“REINFORCE” programme) of
the “Operational Education and Life Long Learning programme” and was co-funded by the
European Social Fund (ESF) and National Resources.

REFERENCES

11
Agapiou, A., Hadjimitsis, D.G., Papoutsa, C., Alexakis, D.D., Papadavid, G., 2011. The
Importance of accounting for atmospheric effects in the application of NDVI and
interpretation of satellite imagery supporting archaeological research: The case studies of
Palaepaphos and Nea Paphos sites in Cyprus. Remote Sensing, 3 (12), 2605–2629.
Alexakis, D.D., Agapiou, A., Hadjimitsis, D.G., Retalis, A., 2012. Optimizing statistical
classification accuracy of satellite remotely sensed imagery for supporting fast flood
hydrological analysis. Acta Geophysica 60 (3), 959–984.
Alexakis, D.D., Gryllakis, M.G., Koutroulis, A.G., Agapiou, A., Themistocleous, K., Tsanis, I.K.,
Michaelides, S., Pashiardis, S., Demetriou, C., Aristeidou, K., Retalis, A., Tymvios, F.,
Hadjimitsis, D.G., 2014. GIS and remote sensing techniques for the assessment of land use
changes impact on flood hydrology: the case study of Yialias Basin in Cyprus. Natural
Hazards and Earth System Sciences,14, 413-426.
Bates, P.D., Horritt, M.S., Smith, C.N., Mason, D., 1997. Integrating remote sensing
observations of flood hydrology and hydraulic modelling. Hydrological Processes, 11 (14),
1777-1795.
Bates, P.D., De Roo, A., 2000. A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation.
Journal of Hydrology, 236 (1), 54-77.
Chow, V.T., 1959. Open channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Dutta, D., Herath, S., 2001. GIS based flood loss estimation modelling in Japan. In: US-Japan
1st workshop on comparative study on urban disaster management proceedings, Port
Island, Kobe, Japan.
Finaud-Guyol, P., Delenne, C., Guinot, V., Llovel, C., 2011. 1D-2D couplin for river flow
modelling. Comptes Rendus Mechanique, 339 (4), 226-234.
HEC-RAS, 2010. River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual Version 4.1. US Army
Corps of Engineers.
HEC-RAS, 2015. River Analysis System 2D Modeling User’s Manual Version 5.0. US Army
Corps of Engineers.
Horritt, M.S., Bates, P.D., 2002. Evaluation of 1-D and 2-D numerical models for predicting river
flood inundation. Journal of Hydrology 268, 87-99.
Knebl, M.R., Yang, Z.L., Hutchison, K., Maidment, D.R., 2005. Regional scale flood modelling
using NEXRAD rainfall, GIS, and HEC-HMS/RAS: a case study for the San Antonio River
Basin Summer 2002 storm event. Journal of Environmental Management, 75 (4), 325-336.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2011. Flood management and a GIS modelling method to
assess flood-hazard areas-a case study. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56 (2), 212-225.
Kourgialas, N.N., Karatzas, G.P., 2013. A hydro‐economic modelling framework for flood
damage estimation and the role of riparian vegetation. Hydrological Processes, 27 (4), 515-
531.
Koutroulis, A.G., Tsanis, I.K., 2010. A method for estimating flash flood peak discharge in a
poorly gauged basin: Case study for the 13-14 January 1994 flood, Giofiros basin, Crete,
Greece. Journal of Hydrology, 385, 150–164.
Liu, K., Shi, W., Zhang, H., 2011. A fuzzy topology-based maximum likelihood classification.
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 66 (1), 103–114.
Liu, Q., Qin, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., 2015. A coupled 1D-2D hydrodynamic model for flood
simulation in flood detention basin. Natural Hazards, 75 (2), 1303-1325.
Marks, K., Bates, P., 2000. Integration of high-resolution topographic data with floodplain flow
models. Hydrological Processes, 14 (11-12), 2109-2122.
Merwade, V., Cook, A., Coonrod, J., 2008. GIS techniques for creating river terrain models for
hydrodynamic modelling and flood inundation mapping. Environmental Modeling and
Software, 23 (10-11), 1300-1311.

12
Moraetis, D., Efstathiou, D., Stamati, F., Tzoraki, O., Nikolaidis, N.P., Schnoor, J.L., Vozinakis,
K., 2010. High frequency monitoring for the identification of hydrological and biochemical
processes in a Mediterranean river basin. Journal of Hydrology, 389, 127-136.
Moraetis, D., Stamati, F., Kotronakis, M., Fragia, T., Paranychianakis, N., Nikolaidis, N.P., 2011.
Identification of hydrologic and geochemical pathways using high frequency sampling, REE
aqueous sampling and soil characterization at Koiliaris Critical Zone Observatory, Crete.
Applied Geochemistry, 26, S101-S104.
Mukherjee, S., Joshi, P.K., Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, A., Garg, R.D., Mukhopadhyay, A., 2013.
Evaluation of vertical accuracy of open source Digital Elevation Model (DEM). International
Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 21, 205-217.
Nash, J., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I-A
discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282-290.
Nerantzaki, S.D., Giannakis, G.V., Efstathiou, D., Nikolaidis, N.P., Sibetheros, I.Α., Karatzas,
G.P., Zacharias, I., 2015. Modeling suspended sediment transport and assessing the
impacts of climate change in a karstic Mediterranean watershed. Science of Total
Environment, 538, 288-297.
Nikolaidis, N.P., Bouraoui, F., Bidoglio, G., 2012. Hydrologic and geochemical modelling of a
karstic Mediterranean watershed. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 9, 1-27.
Phillips, J.V., Tadayon, S., 2006. Selection of Manning's roughness coefficient for natural and
constructed vegetated and non-vegetated channels, and vegetation maintenance plan
guidelines for vegetaded channels in central Arizona. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2006.
Pramanik, N., Panda, R.K., Sen, D., 2010. One Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling of River
Flow Using DEM Extracted River Cross-sections. Water Resources Management, 24 (5),
835-852.
Ramesh, A., 2013. Response of Flood Events to Land Use and Climate Change. Springer
Theses. Springer.
Sun, J., Yang, J., Zhang, C., Yun, W., Qu, J., 2013. Automatic remotely sensed image
classification in a grid environment based on the maximum likelihood method. Mathematical
and Computer Modeling, 58 (3-4), 573–581.
Tayefi, V., Lane, S.N., Hardy, R.J., Yu, D., 2007. A comparison of 1D and 2D approaches to
modelling flood inundation over complex upland floodplains. Hydrological Processes, 21
(23), 3190-3202.
Timbadiya, P.V., Patel, P.L., Porey, P.D., 2012. Calibration of HEC-RAS model on prediction of
flood for Lower Tapi River, India, Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 3 (11), 805-
811.
Tsanis, I.K., Seiradakis, K.D., Daliakopoulos, I.N., Grillakis, M.G., Koutroulis, A.G., 2014.
Assessment of GeoEye-1 stereo-pair-generated DEM in flood mapping of an ungauged
basin. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 16 (1), 1-18.
Vozinaki, A.-E.K., Karatzas, G.P., Sibetheros, I.A., Varouchakis, E.A., 2015. An agricultural
flash flood loss estimation methodology: the case study of the Koiliaris basin (Greece),
February 2003 flood. Natural Hazards, 79 (2), 899-920.

13
Table 1 Specifications of the studied extreme high discharge events.
Event Period Maximum observed
discharge
First (calibration event) 24–25 February 2009 70.93 m3/s (25/2/2009,
17:00)
Second (verification event) 25 February–2 March 2011 46.96 m3/s (27/2/2011,
03:00)
Third (verification event) 12–14 March 2012 60.34 m3/s (13/3/2012,
13:00)

Table 2 Error in 1-m DEM and 5-m DEM with respect to GCPs.
UTM Coordinates
GPS Z Z
points Z Error Z Error Z
X Y GPS (m)
1-m DEM
1-m DEM (m)
5-m DEM
5-m DEM (m)
(m) (m)
Point 1 234745.294 3931292.062 80.0352 79.4553 -0.57994 79.4114 -0.62384
Point 2 231655.250 3932270.543 28.7149 27.117 -1.5979 27.8686 -0.84630
Point 3 240455.623 3928400.761 197.0131 196.849 -0.16407 194.141 -2.87207
Point 4 241216.267 3928769.901 17.4264 17.285 -0.14141 17.1664 -0.26001
Point 5 238817.101 3926662.431 32.8910 32.4292 -0.46184 32.7335 -0.15754
Point 6 238891.537 3924777.195 17.0414 17.1056 0.064169 17.6722 0.63077
Point 7 228681.707 3929664.590 26.5544 26.9695 0.41508 27.0167 0.46228
Point 8 231516.223 3929371.202 8.82266 10.246 1.423338 9.17303 0.35037
Point 9 232156.005 3928166.855 1.27898 10.246 8.967023 1.28645 0.00747
Point 10 231715.124 3927133.094 40.7269 40.4091 -0.31779 36.7257 -4.00119
Point 11 235402.389 3927333.502 32.5530 32.6913 0.138271 31.9273 -0.62573
Point 12 233003.887 3933055.933 15.7886 12.991 -2.79764 11.4855 -4.30314
Point 13 230532.827 3932302.612 13.0822 13.1822 0.100017 9.98293 -3.09925
Point 14 228916.801 3931658.574 6.53546 10.246 3.710542 5.97985 -0.55561
Point 15 231405.045 3931634.742 56.1748 56.0747 -0.10008 55.9365 -0.23828
Point 16 230295.764 3931477.694 49.0626 49.0657 0.003145 48.4839 -0.57866
Point 17 232915.432 3931052.056 115.0444 114.457 -0.58744 114.961 -0.08344
Point 18 234795.109 3931270.680 86.6415 86.8003 0.158797 86.6355 -0.006
Point 19 229624.611 3931014.758 296.8193 296.706 -0.11333 297.021 0.20167
Point 20 230382.187 3930864.461 158.5392 158.252 -0.2872 158.795 0.25580
Point 21 232941.976 3930995.912 290.3509 290.475 0.124105 289.409 -0.94189
Point 22 233156.427 3930884.003 425.7848 425.808 0.023249 425.571 -0.21375
Point 23 234085.821 3930935.105 142.3525 142.239 -0.11354 142.533 0.18046
Point 24 234379.330 3929857.553 495.4195 495.714 0.294474 497.379 1.95947
Point 25 234090.692 3929824.283 481.8250 481.69 -0.13497 481.612 -0.21297
Point 26 228334.338 3929045.823 475.0123 474.712 -0.30025 474.306 -0.70625
Point 27 231547.534 3929280.310 419.8966 419.939 0.042445 419.808 -0.08855
Point 28 235573.513 3929283.471 116.7429 116.705 -0.03787 116.65 -0.09287
Point 29 232402.145 3928991.240 12.85105 12.6307 -0.22035 12.3916 -0.45945
Point 30 231215.133 3928243.174 59.70066 59.6094 -0.09126 59.7062 0.00554
Point 31 234165.472 3927643.928 451.5740 451.517 -0.05697 452.844 1.27003
Point 32 238962.425 3927467.661 353.2452 353.09 -0.15516 353.079 -0.16616
Point 33 230329.004 3927209.658 421.7396 421.819 0.0794 421.852 0.1124
Point 34 230403.851 3927193.391 65.6698 65.7025 0.032664 65.6358 -0.03404

14
Point 35 230305.813 3927027.805 26.7774 26.4947 -0.28267 26.4783 -0.29907
Point 36 235792.993 3927105.454 16.1351 18.9594 2.824326 15.847 -0.28807

Table 3 Manning’s n value for each land use type (Chow 1959, Phillips and Tadayon 2006).
Land use classification n
Complex cultivation systems 0.030-0.040
Pasture 0.030-0.035
Water bodies (channel) 0.030-0.050
Trees 0.050-0.150
Urban areas 0.100-0.150

Table 4 Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) values
for the extreme events and the two hydraulic models.
Event 1D HEC-RAS 1D/2D coupled HEC-RAS
1-m DEM 5-m DEM 1-m DEM 5-m DEM
NSE RMSE NSE RMSE NSE RMSE NSE RMSE
1 (2009) 0.926 0.128 0.883 0.161 0.960 0.097 0.920 0.130
2 (2011) 0.915 0.064 0.889 0.073 0.950 0.057 0.820 0.111
3 (2012) 0.876 0.087 0.834 0.100 0.910 0.079 0.910 0.124

15
Fig. 1 Study area.

16
Fig. 2 A DEM of 5-m spatial resolution overlays a GeoEye-1 image.

17
Fig. 3 Land use/land cover map of the study area.

18
Fig. 4 Typical extended downstream cross-section (a) from 5-m DEM, (b) from 1-m DEM, and
upstream of cross-section (c) from 5-m DEM, and (d) from 1-m DEM.

19
Fig. 5 (a) The original terrain model (1 m) with channel data, and (b) channel section with
floodplain computational grids and application of lateral structures.

20
Fig. 6 Observed and simulated water depth by 1D HEC-RAS with 5-m DEM resolution: (a) for
the calibration event of 25–26 February 2009, and the verification events of (b) 25–28 February
2011, and (c) 12–14 March 2012.

21
Fig. 7 Observed and simulated water depth by 1D HEC-RAS with 1-m DEM resolution: (a) for
the calibration event of 25–26 February 2009, and the verification events of (b) 25–28 February
2011, and (c) 12–14 March 2012.

22
Fig. 8 Observed and simulated water depth by 1D/2D HEC-RAS with 5-m DEM resolution: (a)
for the calibration event of 25–26 February 2009, and the verification events of (b) 25–28
February 2011, and (c) 12–14 March 2012.

23
Fig. 9 Observed and simulated water depth by 1D/2D HEC-RAS with 1-m DEM resolution: (a)
for the calibration event of 25–26 February 2009, and the verification events of (b) 25–28
February 2011, and (c) 12–14 March 2012.

24
Fig. 10 Flood extent using HEC-RAS based on the (a) 5-m DEM, and (b) 1-m DEM and using
combined 1D/2D HEC-RAS based on the (c) 5-m DEM, and (d) 1-m DEM.

25