See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361758756

Flood Inundation Modeling: A Brief Review

Conference Paper · July 2022

CITATIONS READS
0 118

2 authors, including:

Komal Vashist
National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra
3 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Flood Inundation Modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Komal Vashist on 05 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Flood Inundation Modeling: A Brief Review
Komal Vashist1 and K. K. Singh2
1
Research Scholar, komal_61900039@nitkkr.ac.in
2
Professor and Head, kksinghunitech@gmail.com
1, 2
Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Kurukshetra, India
Abstract
Numerous mathematical models were developed for flood hazard mapping, flood inundation modeling and flood risk
assessment. This study aims to have a comprehensive literature review of various mathematical models available in
literature for flood modeling. For this study a total of 42 research articles are reviewed from year 1995 to 2020. The
assessment is carried out on the basis of the model’s dimensionality i.e.; one dimensional (1-D), two dimensional (2-
D), coupled 1-D/2-D or three dimensional (3-D) and numerical solutions available in literature i.e.; Finite element,
Finite difference, Finite volume or some others methods for the models. The study reviewed the literature for flood
modeling and prepared a table of various models used for flood modeling. It was concluded that coupled models are
more preferable than other models because they had the strength of both 1-D and 2-D models and computationally
efficient with less computational time. For open channel modeling models based on finite difference method are
preferred over numerical solution techniques.

Keywords: Flood modeling, Finite element, Finite difference, Finite volume,

1. Introduction
Information on the devastating events has a vital role in improving our decision making, planning design and
construction activities in the food prone area. Such information can be inferred from the mathematical modeling which
simulates the spatial and temporal characteristics of the flood events. Mathematical models solve a set of governing
equations for flood simulations and provide specific information on flood characteristics. The equations governing the
flow of water are conservation of mass, momentum and energy and have form of nonlinear, partial differential
equation. The solution of these equation requires to replace them with a set of algebraic equation, which in turn must
be solved with the aid of computers. A major advantage of flood simulation models is that alternative schemes for
development or flood control can be quickly tested and compared.

Models were developed for flood hazard mapping, flood inundation modeling and flood risk assessment to compute
the risk associated with the devastating events of various return periods[1]–[4],. Some decades ago, the famous
statistician George Box pointed out, ‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’. In fact, although a model can never
be perfect, models can be ranked, depending on the specific application, as very useful, somewhat useful or essentially
useless (Burnham and Anderson, 2002). This ranking exercise is the essence of model selection [6] There are models
having less data requirement and are computationally cost-effective but have flaw of dropping out important features
during simulation but on the other hand there are complex models that have a high quality data requirements and high
computational cost and difficulties in parameterization [7].

It is impossible to cover all the research articles in one and summarize them but for this study a
comprehensive review of various mathematical models available in literature has been done to evaluate further scope
of action to improve modeling of flood affected areas. For this study a total of 42 research articles are reviewed from
year 1995 to 2020. After the contribution of various researchers [7]–[9] in this field, this area is getting importance
day by day. Number of research articles published in various years in flood inundation area is shown in Figure 1. In
recent years with the advancement of technology numerous 1-D, 2-D and coupled1-D/2-D models were developed for
riverine and urban flood modeling.[10]–[17], tabulated in Table 1 in the next section.
 Figure1. Number of research articles published in 5-year gap

2. Governing equation
The equations describing the unsteady open channel flow were derived by de Saint Venant (1871). The Saint-
Venant equations representing conservation of mass and momentum are
𝜕𝑄 𝜕𝐴
+ =𝑞 (1)
𝜕𝑋 𝜕𝑡

𝑄2
𝜕𝑄 𝜕[ϒ 𝐴 ] 𝜕𝐻1 𝑔𝑄ǀ𝑄ǀ
+ + 𝑔𝐴 + =0 (2)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑋 𝑐 2 𝐴𝑅

Where: -

Q= Discharge in cubic meter/second

A= Area in sq. meter

q= Lateral inflow in meter2/ second

ϒ= Momentum distribution coefficient

 g= Acceleration due to gravity in meter2/ second

𝐻1 = Stage above the datum

c= Chezy’s roughness coefficient in meter1/2/second

R= Hydraulic radius in meter

x= Distance in flow direction

t= Elapsed time.

In the current technical literature, there are 3 major types of statistical solutions: finite-element-method (FEM),
method-of-characteristics, and finite-difference-method (FDM). Since the complexities involved with the nonlinearity
of equations, the characteristics method was used at first to solve the system of Saint Venant equations. This method
was practically dismissed for non-equally spaced nodes, which are common in rivers. Finite element method determine
the property of an element based on integral form of the governing equation whilst the finite difference method
determines property of a single point/node and based on differential form of governing equation. The finite difference
method is used in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) because CFD problems usually require discretization of the
problem into a large number of cells/grid points, so the cost of solution favors simpler, lower order approximation
within each cell [18]. The finite difference method now a day’s stand over the other solving techniques in open channel
modelling.

Numerical solution by method of finite difference can be explicit or implicit. Schemes which uses the nearby points
data to calculate the flow variable at any location are explicit schemes. Whereas implicit schemes solve for all points
concurrently at time tn+1. Explicit numerical schemes are straightforward, but they necessitate tiny temporal
increments. Problems are compared with implicit schemes, which allow numerical solution over large time steps but
require the solution of a large number of simultaneous equations at each step because of their stability. The explicit
approaches convert the Saint-Venant equations into a set of algebraic equations that are represented in space and time
at each discretization point. One by one, these equations are solved. The implicit methods simultaneously solve the
generated algebraic equations at all computing sites at a given time. One by one, these equations are solved. The
implicit methods simultaneously solve the generated algebraic equations at all computing sites at a given time. Explicit
schemes are helpful in conceptual explanation of numerical concepts and the best known explicit schemes are: the lax
scheme, the Leap–Frog scheme. The Leap-Frog scheme was the earliest one ever used for numerical solution of one-
dimensional wave equation. There is one explicit scheme which is widely used in flood routing i.e. Mac Cormack
scheme, which is based on predictor and correction functions.

In the Preissmann scheme (Figure 2) the value of an arbitrary function fp (x, t) at point P can be approximated by

∂f fn+1 n
j−1 −fj−1 fn+1
j −fn
j
= [ψ + (1 − ψ) ] (3)
∂t ∆t ∆t

∂f fn n
j −fj−1 fn+1
j −fn+1
j−1
= [(1 − θ) +θ ] (4)
∂x ∆x ∆x
 t
Δx

(1-ψ) Δx ψΔx

n+1 (1-θ) Δt
P Δt
θΔt
n

j-1 j

Figure 2. Preissmann Scheme.

Where, n, n+1, j-1, and j are the corresponding nodes for the point P, θ and ψ are the weighing coefficients.

When ψ=1/2, the equation becomes Preissmann 4-point implicit scheme of finite difference or commonly known as
box scheme. Some of the problems are solved using explicit scheme and some are solved by implicit schemes. Model
with their description are tabulated in Table 1.

Table 1. Models available in literature

Model name Dimensionality Numerical Solution Implicit/Explicit

DIVAST 2D Finite difference Implicit
DELFT-3D 3D Finite volume Implicit/Explicit
FESWMS 2-D Finite element -
HEC-RAS 1-D Finite difference Implicit
HYDRO-2E 2-D Finite volume Explicit
LISFLOOD-FP coupled 1-D/2-D Storage cell concept
MIKE HYDRO 1-D Finite difference Implicit
(new version of
MIKE 11)
MIKE 21 2-D Finite difference Implicit
MIKE-FLOOD coupled 1-D/2D coupled solution of 1- Implicit
D/2-D equations
MIKE URBAN coupled 1-D/2D Finite Difference -
RMA-2 2- D Finite element -
RUBER 20 Code 2- D Finite volume Explicit
SOBEK 1-D/ 2-D 1-D/2-D Finite difference Implicit
TELEMAC 2-D 2-D Finite element Implicit/Explicit
TELEMAC 3-D 3-D Finite element or Finite Implicit/Explicit
volume
TUFLOW 2-D Finite difference -
 3. Literature Review
Model Review: Nowadays several numerical tools are available for modelling inundation process. These tools can be
1-D,2-D. 3-D, and coupled 1D-2D models. In general, as a model's dimension (or complexity) rises, the bias tends to
diminish, while the uncertainty tends to rise. As a result, a viable approach of 2D shallow water equations is the most
physically realistic code that is used in practice. TELEMAC-2D [19], which solves the 2-D SWE for a system of
piecewise linear triangle finite elements using a fractional step technique, is an example of completely 2-D model
code, as is RUBER20, which solves 2D SWE using an explicit second-order finite volume [20] . An example for
model based on implicit finite difference scheme is MIKE 21 hydrodynamic model that solves the full, time-
dependent, non- linear equation of continuity and conservation of momentum. There are variety of such models some
based on finite element method, some based on finite difference method which are available in literature [21]–[23].
Models based on finite element method, finite difference method, finite volume method are discussed below:

3.1 Finite Difference based methods

 Implicit method

[24] – studied the performance of 1-D and 2-D models and found that there is difference in predictive performance of
the models because each model give different response to chanage in friction parametres.

[25] - find out problem of stablity in the model and this stability is influenced by many factors such as boundary-
conditions, bed-resistance, Courant number and flooding\drying conditions.

[26] -said that obtaining a reliable simulation result from a 1-D model is a function of how accurately the model
domain is represented. Study gives a good indication of magnitude of flood events and their characteristics in the study
area and implications of high resolutions DEM for flood modelling but the recent advances in high resolution
topographic data acquisition encourages modelers to use and develop more complex models with the disadvantage of
using excessive computational time and difficulty in defining the optimum parameter set

[27] - the model predicted inundation over the entire course of the canal across time quite satisfactorily but results that
were derived for analysis by the model was not so accurate by 1D model. 2D model is also tried but that shows run
time error due to greater size of DEM

[28] - the results show that if distributed observations of levels in the floodplain are used to constrain model
uncertainties, the integrated 1D–2D approach is slightly superior to the 1D approach in predicting distributed levels,
and the results show that flood inundation reliability can be greatly improved.

[29]- discussed about the use of implicit 2D hydrodynamic model to predict flood waves with abrupt surface-gradients
has been studied, and the results are comparable to that obtained using an explicit numerical model. The advection
terms have little effect on simulation projections, but ignoring both the advective and local acceleration terms will
result in a huge decrease in flood-wave speed.

[30] - discerned that the 1-D model appear quite sensitive to uncertainties over the representation of embankment
heights and tends to under predict the inundation extent but have a very less run time

[31] - concluded that because of the modest range in its forecasts for varied topo-graphic and geometric-configurations,
the inundation limit projected by a 2D model is more representative and accurate than a 1D model

[32] –found that calibration and validation findings of 1-D reveal that the model performs admirably in replicating
river flow for the Mahanadi river basin's delta zone. The floodplain elevations, rainfall at various sites, and Manning's
n values for the floodplain are all included in the 2-D model. Although the performance of the coupled 1D-2D
hydrodynamic model in modelling flood inundation extent was determined to be good, differences in simulated water
levels were noticed because structural features were not taken into account

[33] – concluded that the locations and patterns of flooding are found to be very similar, but the variation in flood
inundation extent is due to coarser DEM resolution, lack of precise cross section placement, or embankment breaching
by flood water. The most critical factor for a successful simulation of the connected model is a stable 1-D and 2-D
model, and the computational time was reduced to keep the Courant number smaller than or equal to 1.

[34] - revealed that the overestimation of flooded areas and volumes using the 1-D model in combination with Mike-
GIS can be corrected by constraining the flooded surface area to given flood compartments

[16] – found that the floodplain is less responsive to Manning's roughness coefficient in the floodplain, according to
sensitivity analysis. Manning's roughness coefficient was found to work satisfactorily in a 1-D model created using
surveyed cross sections. The calibrated coupled 1D–2D model accurately predicted water levels in some zones, but
the model's performance was determined to be inadequate due to constraints in the data available for the analyses.

[35] - developed a rainfall runoff model to generate the flood inundation extent for known precipitation: HEC-HMS
and HEC-RAS and found sensitive for curve number as compared to that of manning’s n and is not region sensitive

[36]- revealed from his study that in the absence of observed cross-section data, his research indicated that freely
available SRTM DEM-extracted river cross-sections may be employed in hydraulic models to recreate stage and
discharge hydrographs with considerable accuracy.

 Explicit methods

[20] -worked out that the ability of 2D codes to simulate flow around or through various obstacles only described by
their shape was demonstrated by demonstrating that utilising the code generates water levels that are near to
measurements. One limitation is the cell size, which makes computing nearly impossible, and another is the interaction
between close-by barriers, which causes waves and necessitates 3D processes that cannot be directly represented by a
2D model.

[37]- discovered that the event's numerical results have a large standard deviation, which represents the uncertainty
in the flood markings, the inadequacy of the topographical data presented, and the local influence of catastrophic
events.

[2]- provides an alternative to direct streamflow measurements as well as an inventive technique for producing
accurate assessment curves by using hydro-dynamic models restricted by data measured in-field to imitate the full
range of flows at an urban-gauge site, as well as the ability to regenerate complex stage discharge relationships in
small urban streams.

3.2 Finite Element based methods

[38] -the results show that finite element techniques can accurately predict inundation in large-scale floodplain
applications and are resistant to field variability in floodplain roughness assessment.

[24]- find that the model cannot be used at its maximum level of resolution while sustaining numerical stability in
most complicated topographic situations, and the model has affirmed the major findings in past studies, providing
additional evidence of the suitability of this approach to large-scale floodplain modelling

[39], [40] – observed that 2-dimensional finite-element-schemes have a lot of potential, especially in the realm of
flood plain inundation limits, and investigations show that a 2-D finite element model with simple turbulence closure
and a restrained density computational mesh can apprehend many aspects of commonly accessible river flow data.

[41] - observed that the code incurs the lower computaional cost due to the use of a relatively long time step and raises
the possibility that other aspects of the model parameterization other than boundary friction may also be important at
particular spatial and temporal locations or for particular model predicted variables

[8], [24] - the model produces the most complex calibration surface hence take time for calibration process and results
obtained barely depends on the data provided for calibration, as it provides similar results to as when calibrated against
different travel times of the inundated areas.
[23] – the model is considered to yield optimum measures of fit that are roughly equivalent to level of skills, but that
as flow grows, the model becomes less sensitive to Manning's n value and more sensitive to mesh resolution.

[31]- used a model developed by Federal Highway Administration that approximates the depth averaged flow equation
using finite-element approach. Overall disparity in inundation limits for different topo-graphic datasets and mesh
resolution is minor in the 2-D model compared to inundation extents determined by the 1-D model, reducing overall
uncertainty.

3.3 Other methods

 Finite Volume:

[42] - improved the accuracy of the digital terrain model would bring the largest improvement to the accuracy of the
results, as per the two-dimensional modelling provided in the study. The study revealed that when the same common
parameters were employed for the 1-D and 2-D models, the 1-D model's results were found to be less reliable than the
2-D model's.

[20] - found that employing the code results in water levels that are comparable to measurements, proving the capacity
of 2D codes to simulate flow around or over numerous obstacles that are merely represented by their geometry. One
limitation is the cell size, which makes computing nearly impossible, and another is the interaction between nearby
obstructions, which generates waves and necessitates 3D processes that cannot be directly represented by a 2D model.

[37]- find out that the numerical findings have a considerable standard deviation, which emphasizes the uncertainty
in the flood markings, the inadequacy of topographical data provided, and the local influence of disaster scenarios

 Storage cell concept:

[7]- proved that the model's predictive capability for flood inundation scenarios is at its limit, and the model should
be used within the uncertainty analysis framework to complement the level of accuracy.

[30]- found that in case the remote sensing data is used, integration of data from different sources need to be done and
the integrated data be used for construction of model as well as validation of the data. The authors concluded that 1d
nd 2d models were found to be of little significance in remote sensing data.

[8], [24]- concluded in their work that model is found simple to use and adequate for inundation prediction with
resolution of model and water storage in low lying areas are found the important parameters for predicting the flood
wave travel time but the model is significantly poorer when calibrated against flood wave travel time compared with
when calibrated against inundated area

4. Conclusion:

In this study numerous mathematical models were studied for flood modeling. Although the 1-D models are
computationally efficient, they have a number of shortcomings, including the incapability to represent lateral flood
wave diffusion, the discretization of topography as cross sections rather than a continuous surface, and the subjectivity
of cross-section configuration. Studies [43] have shown that 2D models can forecast factors like velocity, flood extent,
and water level explicitly which are used to make flood risk management decisions. However, there are discrepancies
in modelling findings, particularly for predictions based on 1D river to 2D floodplain linkages. The review carried out
on current flood modeling techniques it can be perceived that coupled models are more preferable than other models
because they had the strength of both 1-D and 2-D models and computationally efficient with less computational time
and effort. Also for open channel modeling models based on finite difference method are preferred over other
numerical solution techniques

References:
[1] M. Farooq, M. Shafique, and M. S. Khattak, “Flood hazard assessment and mapping of River Swat using
HEC-RAS 2D model and high-resolution 12-m TanDEM-X DEM (WorldDEM),” Nat. Hazards, vol. 97, no.
2, pp. 477–492, Jun. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11069-019-03638-9.
[2] G. A. Lindner and A. J. Miller, “Numerical Modeling of Stage-Discharge Relationships in Urban Streams,”
J. Hydrol. Eng., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 590–596, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000459.
[3] Z. L. V Merwade, “Investigating the role of model structure and surface roughness in generating flood
inundation extents using one- and two- dimensional hydraulic models,” no. March 2017, 2019, doi:
10.1111/jfr3.12347.
[4] Y. Zhang, J. Zhou, and C. Lu, “Integrated Hydrologic and Hydrodynamic Models to Improve Flood
Simulation Capability in the Data-Scarce Three Gorges Reservoir Region,” Water, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 1462,
May 2020, doi: 10.3390/w12051462.
[5] A. D. R. Burnham K.P, Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. new york: Elsevier, 2002.
[6] F. Laio, G. Di Baldassarre, and A. Montanari, “Model selection techniques for the frequency analysis of
hydrological extremes,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1–11, 2009, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006666.
[7] P. D. Bates and A. P. J. De Roo, “A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation,” J. Hydrol.,
vol. 236, no. 1–2, pp. 54–77, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00278-X.
[8] M. . Horritt and P. . Bates, “Effects of spatial resolution on a raster based model of flood flow,” J. Hydrol.,
vol. 253, no. 1–4, pp. 239–249, Nov. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00490-5.
[9] M. S. Horritt and P. D. Bates, “Predicting floodplain inundation: raster-based modelling versus the finite-
element approach,” Hydrol. Process., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 825–842, Apr. 2001, doi: 10.1002/hyp.188.
[10] Y. Fan, T. Ao, H. Yu, G. Huang, and X. Li, “A coupled 1D-2D hydrodynamic model for urban flood
inundation,” Adv. Meteorol., vol. 2017, pp. 1–12, 2017, doi: 10.1155/2017/2819308.
[11] T. J. Fewtrell, P. D. Bates, M. Horritt, and N. M. Hunter, “Evaluating the effect of scale in flood inundation
modelling in urban environments,” vol. 5118, no. November, pp. 5107–5118, 2008, doi: 10.1002/hyp.
[12] D. Yu and S. N. Lane, “Urban fluvial flood modelling using a two-dimensional diffusion-wave treatment,
part 1: mesh resolution effects,” Hydrol. Process., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1541–1565, Apr. 2006, doi:
10.1002/hyp.5935.
[13] M. K. Zainalfikry, A. Ab Ghani, N. A. Zakaria, and N. W. Chan, “HEC-RAS One-Dimensional
Hydrodynamic Modelling for Recent Major Flood Events in Pahang River,” in Lecture Notes in Civil
Engineering, vol. 53, Springer, 2020, pp. 1099–1115.
[14] J. L. Carrivick, “Application of 2D hydrodynamic modelling to high-magnitude outburst floods: An
example from Kverkfjöll, Iceland,” J. Hydrol., vol. 321, no. 1–4, pp. 187–199, Apr. 2006, doi:
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.042.
[15] S. D. Seyoum, Z. Vojinovic, R. K. Price, and S. Weesakul, “Coupled 1D and Noninertia 2D Flood
Inundation Model for Simulation of Urban Flooding,” J. Hydraul. Eng., vol. 138, no. 1, pp. 23–34, Jan.
2012, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000485.
[16] P. V. Timbadiya, P. L. Patel, and P. D. Porey, “A 1D-2D coupled hydrodynamic model for river flood
prediction in a coastal urban floodplain,” J. Hydrol. Eng., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 2267–2274, 2015, doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001029.
[17] X. K. Jacob, D. S. Bisht, C. Chatterjee, and N. S. Raghuwanshi, “Hydrodynamic Modeling for Flood Hazard
Assessment in a Data Scarce Region: a Case Study of Bharathapuzha River Basin,” Environ. Model. Assess.,
vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 97–114, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10666-019-09664-y.
[18] R. Garcia and R. A. Kahawita, “Numerical solution of the St. Venant equations with the MacCormack
finite‐difference scheme,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 259–274, May 1986, doi:
10.1002/fld.1650060502.
[19] J. Galland, N. Goutal, and J. Hervouet, “TELEMAC : A new numerical model for solving shallow water
equations,” vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 138–148, 1991.
[20] S. Haider, A. Paquier, R. Morel, and J. Y. Champagne, “Urban flood modelling using computational fluid
dynamics,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Marit. Eng., vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 129–135, 2003, doi:
10.1680/wame.2003.156.2.129.
[21] U. C. Nkwunonwo, M. Whitworth, and B. Baily, “A review of the current status of flood modelling for
urban flood risk management in the developing countries,” Sci. African, vol. 7, p. e00269, Mar. 2020, doi:
10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00269.
[22] J. Teng, A. J. Jakeman, J. Vaze, B. F. W. Croke, D. Dutta, and S. Kim, “Environmental Modelling &
Software Flood inundation modelling : A review of methods , recent advances and uncertainty analysis,”
Environ. Model. Softw., vol. 90, pp. 201–216, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.01.006.
[23] N. M. Hunter, P. D. Bates, M. S. Horritt, and M. D. Wilson, “Simple spatially-distributed models for
predicting flood inundation: A review,” Geomorphology, vol. 90, no. 3–4, pp. 208–225, 2007, doi:
10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.021.
[24] M. S. Horritt and P. D. Bates, “Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting river flood
inundation,” J. Hydrol., vol. 268, no. 1–4, pp. 87–99, Nov. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00121-X.
[25] X. Yang and B. Rystedt, “Predicting Flood Inundation and Risk Using GIS and Hydrodynamic Model : A
Case Study at Eskilstuna , Sweden,” Indian Cartogr., pp. 183–191, 2002.
[26] A. T. Haile and A. Tamiru Haile, “Integarting Hydrodynamic Models and High Resolution DEM (LiDAR)
For Flood Modelling,” Itc, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1689–1699, 2005, doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
[27] S. K. Singh, “Analysis of Uncertainties In Digital Elevation Models in Flood ( Hydraulic ) Modelling,” Geo-
Information Sci., pp. 1–87, 2005.
[28] M. Werner, S. Blazkova, and J. Petr, “Spatially distributed observations in constraining inundation
modelling uncertainties,” vol. 3096, no. May, pp. 3081–3096, 2005, doi: 10.1002/hyp.5833.
[29] B. Lin, J. M. Wicks, R. A. Falconer, and K. Adams, “Integrating 1D and 2D hydrodynamic models for flood
simulation,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water Manag., vol. 159, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2006, doi:
10.1680/wama.2006.159.1.19.
[30] N. G. Wright et al., “Case Study of the Use of Remotely Sensed Data for Modeling Flood Inundation on the
River Severn , U . K .,” vol. 134, no. May, pp. 533–540, 2008, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2008)134.
[31] A. Cook and V. Merwade, “Effect of topographic data, geometric configuration and modeling approach on
flood inundation mapping,” J. Hydrol., vol. 377, no. 1–2, pp. 131–142, 2009, doi:
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.015.
[32] S. Patro, C. Chatterjee, S. Mohanty, R. Singh, and N. S. Raghuwanshi, “Flood inundation modeling using
MIKE FLOOD and remote sensing data,” J. Indian Soc. Remote Sens., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 107–118, 2009,
doi: 10.1007/s12524-009-0002-1.
[33] P. Kadam and D. Sen, “Flood inundation simulation in Ajoy River using MIKE-FLOOD,” ISH J. Hydraul.
Eng., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 129–141, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1080/09715010.2012.695449.
[34] M. Villazón, L. Timbe, and P. Willems, “Comparative analysis of 1-D river flow models applied in a quasi
2-D approach for floodplain inundation prediction,” MASKANA, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 107–126, Jun. 2013, doi:
10.18537/mskn.04.01.08.
[35] Balbhadra Thakur1; Ranjan Parajuli2; Ajay Kalra3; Sajjad Ahmad4; and Ritu Gupta5, “Coupling HEC-RAS
and HEC-HMS in Precipitation Runoff Modelling and Evaluating Flood Plain Inundation Map,” p. 489,
2018.
[36] N. Pramanik, R. K. Panda, and D. Sen, “One dimensional hydrodynamic modeling of river flow using DEM
extracted river cross-sections,” Water Resour. Manag., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 835–852, 2010, doi:
10.1007/s11269-009-9474-6.
 [37] E. Mignot, A. Paquier, and S. Haider, “Modeling floods in a dense urban area using 2D shallow water
equations,” J. Hydrol., vol. 327, no. 1–2, pp. 186–199, Jul. 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.11.026.
[38] D. M. Gee, M. G. Anderson, and L. Baird, “Large‐scale floodplain modelling,” Earth Surf. Process.
Landforms, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 513–523, 1990, doi: 10.1002/esp.3290150604.
[39] P. D. Bates, M. Horritt, and J. M. Hervouet, “Investigating two-dimensional, finite element predictions of
floodplain inundation using fractal generated topography,” Hydrol. Process., vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1257–1277,
1998, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19980630)12:8<1257::AID-HYP672>3.0.CO;2-P.
[40] P. D. Bates, M. G. Anderson, and J. M. Hervouet, “Initial comparison of two two-dimensional finite element
codes for river flood simulation,” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Water, Marit. Energy, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 238–248,
1995, doi: 10.1680/iwtme.1995.27886.
[41] P. D. Bates, M. G. Anderson, J. M. Hervouet, and J. C. Hawkes, “Investigating the behaviour of two-
dimensional finite element models of compound channel flow,” Earth Surf. Process. Landforms, vol. 22, no.
1, pp. 3–17, 1997, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9837(199701)22:1<3::AID-ESP667>3.0.CO;2-U.
[42] 1 By Robert J. Connell and 2 and Cornel Beffa3 David J. Painter, “TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLOOD PLAIN
FLOW. II: MODEL VALIDATION,” vol. 6, no. October, pp. 406–415, 2001.

View publication stats