Hydrological Sciences Journal

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

Effect of input data in hydraulic modeling for flood

warning systems

Niraj Lamichhane & Suresh Sharma

To cite this article: Niraj Lamichhane & Suresh Sharma (2018) Effect of input data in hydraulic
modeling for flood warning systems, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63:6, 938-956, DOI:
10.1080/02626667.2018.1464166

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1464166

Accepted author version posted online: 13

Apr 2018.
Published online: 29 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 324

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj20
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL
2018, VOL. 63, NO. 6, 938–956
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1464166

Effect of input data in hydraulic modeling for flood warning systems

Niraj Lamichhane and Suresh Sharma
Civil and Environmental Program, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The main objective of this study was to quantify the error associated with input data, including Received 19 April 2016
various resolutions of elevation datasets and Manning’s roughness for travel time computation Accepted 21 February 2018
and floodplain mapping. This was accomplished on the test bed, the Grand River (Ohio, USA) EDITOR
using the HEC-RAS model. LiDAR data integrated with survey data provided conservative predic- A. Castellarin
tions, whereas coarser elevation datasets provided a positive difference in the travel time (11.03–
15.01%) and inundation area (32.56–44.52%). The minimum differences in travel time and ASSOCIATE EDITOR
inundation area were 0.50–4.33% and 3.55–7.16%, respectively, when the result from LiDAR G. Di Baldassarre
integrated with survey data was compared with a 10-m DEM integrated with survey data. The KEYWORDS
results suggest that a 10-m DEM in the channel and LiDAR data in the floodplain combined with floodplain mapping;
survey data would be appropriate for a flood warning system. Additionally, Manning’s roughness topographic dataset; river
of the channel section was found to be more sensitive than that of the floodplain. The decrease in bathymetry; HEC-RAS; HEC-
inundation area was highest (8.97%) for the lower value of Manning’s roughness. GeoRAS

1 Introduction there has been significant advancement in hydrological

and hydraulic models to generate floodplain maps,
Flooding is one of the most common natural hazards
uncertainties associated with topography, flow dis-
in many countries across the world; it causes millions
charge and modeling approach still exist in the flood-
of dollars of damage to property and may take the lives
plain mapping process (Marks and Bates 2000,
of thousands of people every year (Lowe 2003, Basha
Crosetto and Tarantola 2001, Smemoe et al. 2012,
and Daniela 2007, King 2009). The NatCat service of
Merwade et al. 2008, Bales and Wagner 2009). Since
Munich Re (2011) provides a list of the 10 costliest
the floodplain mapping process is not an exact science
floods from 1980 to 2011, with a cumulative loss of
(Smemoe et al. 2012), probabilistic floodplain maps
about US$200 billion. Floods have caused more human
generated considering uncertainties in modeling are
deaths and property losses (90% of all property losses)
more appropriate than deterministic maps when plan-
than any other form of natural hazard in the 20th
ning for the future rescue operations and quantifica-
century in the United States (Krimm 1996, Perry
tion of flood insurance rates in probable affected areas
2000). One of the ways to minimize the losses from
(Di Baldassarre 2012).
such hazards is to develop a flood warning system and
Various studies have been conducted to study the
inform the people in the community for evacuation
uncertainties associated with the flood inundation map-
with sufficient lead time. Therefore, the determination
ping process. Merwade et al. (2008) conducted a study of
and communication of flood travel (evacuation) time is
floodplain mapping in Strouds Creek, North Carolina,
essential for the timely evacuation of people from
USA, and reported the uncertainties due to hydrological
probable inundation areas and to minimize the adverse
flow, including the complex interaction of individual
consequences of such hazards (Krzysztofowicz et al.
inputs in the hydraulic model. Similarly, another study
1994). However, it is equally important to make such
was conducted in Strouds Creek and Brazos River in
floodplain maps easily accessible and comprehensible
Texas (Cook and Merwade 2009) to study the effects of
to the public (Holtzclaw et al. 2005). Floodplain maps
topographic data and the geometric configuration on
are very important tools that represent the spatial
flood inundation maps. These studies concluded that
variability of flood hazards and provide more direct
the predicted area decreases with higher resolution of
and robust understanding of floods than any other
topographic data. Similarly, other studies (Horritt and
forms (Merz et al. 2007, Leedal et al. 2010). While
Bates 2001, Bates et al. 2004, Domeneghetti et al. 2013,

CONTACT Suresh Sharma ssharma06@ysu.edu

© 2018 IAHS

Dottori et al. 2013) have been conducted to comprehend
the uncertainties in flood inundation maps. However, to
the best of our knowledge, quantification of the potential
uncertainties in flood travel time of various return peri-
ods for different elevation datasets and Manning’s rough-
ness values have not been studied significantly. The
motivation of this research was to explore the implica-
tions of input data for evacuation time and flood area
prediction for the possible improvement of flood warning
systems. Therefore, the major objective of this research
was to calculate the flood travel time and then generate
floodplain maps corresponding to different return period
floods in the City of Painesville, located along the Grand
River of Lake County, Ohio. The travel time was com-
puted using predicted steady flow velocity and longitudi-
nal distance of river sections. The steady flow approach
was used, which is reasonable for high flows, although the
travel time is somewhat nonlinear at low flows (Pilgrim
1976). The uncertainties associated with flood travel time
and the extent of flood inundation maps when using
various resolutions of elevation datasets and different
values of Manning’s roughness are also reported. Hence,
the HEC-RAS model was developed for flood magnitudes
of different return periods. Finally, the effects of elevation
data resolution and Manning’s roughness are reported for
the appropriate representation of flood travel time and
flood extents.
2 Theoretical description
The hydraulic modeling software, HEC-RAS, was used
in this study for steady and unsteady flow analysis. The
HEC-RAS model was developed by the US Army
Corps of Engineers – Hydrologic Engineering Center
(USACE-HEC), and has been widely used for steady
flow analysis, unsteady flow simulation, movable
boundary sediment transport computations and water
quality analysis (Brunner 1995). Usually, the steady
flow approach is used for floodplain management and
flood insurance studies (Cook and Merwade 2009),
whereas the unsteady flow approach is used especially
for dam break analysis and pressurized flow modules
(Brunner 1995, 2002). The effects of various obstruc-
tions such as culverts, bridges, dams and weirs can be
considered in the analysis to see their impacts in the
water surface profiles. The HEC-RAS model solves
one-dimensional Saint Venant equations, using a
four-point implicit method developed for natural chan-
nels (Brunner 2002) to simulate unsteady flow, which
is derived from the continuity and momentum equa-
tions. The continuity and momentum equations are as
follows:
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 939
@A @Q
þ ¼0 (1)
@t @x

2
@Q @
A
Q
@H  
þ þ gA þ gA S0  Sf ¼ 0 (2)
@t @x @x
where Q is discharge of the river; A is cross-sectional
area normal to the flow; t is any time; x is longitudinal
distance in the river; g is acceleration due to gravity; H
is elevation of water surface in the river above an
assumed datum level; S0 is slope of the river bed, and
Sf is energy slope of water.
The Saint Venant equations are solved using the
four-point implicit finite difference scheme. This
scheme is completely non-destructive but marginally
stable (Fread 1974, Liggett and Jean 1975) when it is
run in semi-implicit form (corresponds to a weighting
factor θ of 0.5).
In steady flow simulation, HEC-RAS solves the
energy equation (Equation (3)) to calculate water sur-
face profiles from one cross-section to another with an
iterative procedure called the standard step method
(Brunner 1995):
a1 V12 a2 V22
Z1 þ Y1 þ þ He ¼ Z2 þ Y2 þ (3)
2g 2g
where Z1 and Z2 are elevations of the main channel; Y1
and Y2 are depths of water; V1 and V2 are average
velocities; a1 and a2 are velocity weighting coefficients
at sections one and two, respectively; g is acceleration
due to gravity; and He is energy head loss from section
one to section two.
3 Materials and methodology
3.1 Study area
This study was conducted in the Grand River
watershed, which consists of major three tributaries:
the Mill, Paine and Big Creeks. The watershed is
located in northeastern Ohio and has an area of 705
square miles (1826 km2), with an elevation range from
a minimum of 564 feet (172 m) to a maximum of
1385 feet (422 m) a.m.s.l. (Fig. 1). It has 28 HUC-14
(Hydrologic Unit Code) watersheds and six HUC-11
watersheds, which cover five counties: Lake, Ashtabula,
Trumbull, Geauga and Portage. The watershed is geo-
graphically within 41°22′–41°51′N and 80°35′–81°18′E.
The Grand River originates from the southern part of
Middlefield and flows through Orwell, Rock Creek,
Austinburg, Harpersfield, Madison, Perry, Painesville
and Fairport Harbor, and finally discharges into Lake
Erie. The river is approximately 102.7 miles (165 km)
940 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA
Figure 1. Study area of the Grand River, Ohio, USA (Grand River watershed).
long, with an average slope of 1:900 and an average
width of approximately 84 feet, varying from 150 to
500 feet (46–152 m) in width at various locations. The
mean annual precipitation in the watershed is 38
inches (96.5 cm) based on historical records. In this
study, a river section of approximately 32.2 miles
(52 km) between Harpersfield and Fairport Harbor,
which includes the City of Painesville, was considered
as a study site to perform the hydraulic analysis.
The City of Painesville along the Grand River experi-
enced flooding in 2006, 2008 and 2011. The disastrous
flood of 27–28 July 2006 on the Grand River was caused
by more than 11 inches (28 cm) of rainfall, and overtopped
the embankments, leading to the destruction of 100 homes
and businesses, five bridges and 13 roads. Property worth
US$30 million was damaged and there was one death in
Lake County. Consequently, hundreds of people were evac-
uated and three counties (Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula)
were declared Federal and State disaster areas (Ebner et al.
2006). This flood was reported to have a peak flow of 35 000
cfs (991 m3/s) (500-year return period) and the highest
historic stage of 19.35 feet (5.9 m) (Ebner et al. 2006) as
recorded by USGS gage station 04212100 near the City of
Painesville.
3.2 Overall modeling approach
To calculate accurate flood travel time and generate flood-
plain maps, the calibrated and validated one-dimensional
hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, was developed by importing
the geospatial data of river cross-sections and bridges from
HEC-GeoRAS. The HEC-GeoRAS is a tool for processing
geospatial data in ArcGIS using a graphical user interface.
One-dimensional (1D) unsteady flow simulation for dif-
ferent flood events for the period 1996–1998 was per-
formed for model calibration and validation. The 1D
method of hydraulic modeling is considered to be compu-
tationally efficient to calculate the floodplain and flood
extents, especially for higher flows, regardless of limited
topographical datasets (Horritt and Bates 2001). However,
the 1D model may have some limitations in overestimating
or underestimating the floodplain extents, as volume infor-
mation is not included in the floodplain delineation, lead-
ing to the importance of modern 2D modeling methods
(Bates and De Roo 2000, Cook and Merwade 2009, Jung
et al. 2011). There have been mixed responses regarding the
use of 1D and 2D models. For example, some studies
suggest that simulation through 1D and 2D models is not
significantly different (Horritt and Bates 2002), whereas
Cook and Merwade (2009) reported that the 1D model
slightly underpredicts the inundation area. However, Alho
and Aaltonen (2008) reported that 1D modeling provided
comparable results to data derived from 2D simulation.
Similarly, Costabile et al. (2015) reported that using LiDAR
data can provide detailed topographic information, which
can significantly improve the 1D computations. Also, they
reported that the 1D model can be used with greater
hydraulic skillfulness. Tayefi et al. (2007) reported that a
coupled 1D–2D treatment could be the best modeling
approach.
Nevertheless, 1D steady flow simulation is still typically
performed during peak flood periods (Hicks and Peacock
2005, Cook 2008, Whitehead and Ostheimer 2009,
Ostheimer 2012) to calculate the flood extents. Peak flood
was simulated in steady flow conditions to calculate the
flood travel time and water surface elevations. Two-dimen-
sional unsteady flow simulation was also performed to
compare the results obtained from 1D unsteady flow simu-
lation. As mentioned earlier, the travel time was computed
using predicted steady flow velocity and longitudinal dis-
tance of river sections. These calculated water surface ele-
vations/extents were then exported back to HEC-GeoRAS
to produce floodplain maps. Typically, elevation datasets
such as National Elevation Datasets (NED) and LiDAR do
not include the river bathymetry, leading to the require-
ment of field verification through a topographical survey.
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 941

Therefore, the river was surveyed using a highly accurate
Global Positioning System (GPS) Rover, which uses the
state Virtual Reference Station (VRS) System and allows
real time kinematic (RTK) positioning using a single rover
in the field, with no need to set up a base station. The survey
was conducted from Harpersfield to North St. Clair Bridge.
For the remaining portion, up to Lake Erie near Fairport
Harbor, a bathymetry survey using the sounding method
produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and USACE was used. Six differ-
ent topographical datasets were used in this study: LiDAR-
derived DEM, 10-m DEM, 30-m DEM, and integration of
field-verified cross-sections with each dataset of LiDAR-
derived DEM, 10-m DEM and 30-m DEM. The integration
of field-verified cross-sections with LiDAR-derived DEM,
10-m DEM and 30-m DEM was performed in a similar way
as described in Merwade et al. (2008). The sources for the
various DEMs are presented in Table 1. The differences in
travel time and floodplain extent were compared and
reported using the different datasets.
3.3 HEC-GeoRAS/HEC-RAS model input
Elevation datasets are needed to generate geospatial data
and perform hydraulic analysis in HEC-RAS. Therefore,
high-quality datasets were used in this study in order to
compute travel times and produce better flood inunda-
tion maps. LiDAR data were downloaded from the Ohio
Geographically Referenced Information Program
(OGRIP) website. Similarly, DEMs of 10- and 30-m reso-
lution were downloaded from the National Resource
Conservation Service – US Department of Agriculture
(NRCS-USDA), Geospatial Data Gateway. The elevation
data for the Grand River from those DEMs were extracted
using HEC-GeoRAS, an extension of ArcGIS. Typically,
LiDAR data are more accurate compared to 10-m and 30-
m DEM. Sanders (2007) reported the vertical accuracy of
LiDAR as ±0.2–0.25 m, that of 10-m DEM as ±7 m and of
30-m DEM as ±7–15 m. However, this range of error was
reported based on a study conducted throughout the
continental United States and the higher discrepancy is
typically near waterbodies. For the study area, the error
level was not significant even for the 30-m DEM based on
the comparison of cross-sections generated by 30-m
DEM with field-verified cross-sections.
Land-use data at 30-m resolution were downloaded
from National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD
2011). The Grand River watershed includes forest
(41.86%), cultivated land (24.57%), waterbodies and
wetlands (7.67%) and developed/urban land (10.21%).
The remaining 15.70% is covered by other land, such as
herbaceous (4.2%), barren land (0.08%), hay/pasture
(9.29%) and shrub/scrub (2.13%) as per NLCD 2011
(Fig. 2).
Geometric input feature classes needed for HEC-RAS,
such as stream lines, cross-sections, bank stations and
storage areas, were first created in HEC-GeoRAS and
then exported to HEC-RAS. In order to represent the
river cross-section accurately in the model, the topogra-
phical survey was performed at 77 different sections of
the river (Fig. 3) and the cross-sections between surveyed
cross-sections were interpolated. The cross-sections were
surveyed at intervals of half a mile to a mile depending
upon the site conditions. Readers can find a detail dis-
cussion about the selection of cross-section locations in
various journal articles (Samuels 1990, Castellarin et al.
2009). The hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, developed for the
Grand River after incorporating river cross-sections is
shown in Figure 4. Discharge and stage data for stations
04211820 (upstream gage station near Harpersfield) and
04212100 (downstream gage station near the City of
Painesville) were obtained from the USGS website to

Table 1. Datasets used in the study.

Type of data Data Source
GIS LiDAR derived DEM OGRIP
http://gis3.oit.ohio.gov/geodatadownload/osip.aspx
National Land Cover Datasets 2011 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA, NRCS)
Geospatial Data Gateway
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/
Digital georeferenced aerial Ohio Statewide Imagery Program (Ohio Department of Administrative Services 2007)
photography http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/
DEMs 10-m, 30-m USDA, NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway
https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/
Hydrology Streamflow (discharge) and water United States Geological Survey (USGS)
surface stage http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?04212100
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/sw
Climate Precipitation and temperature NOAA/National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
Bridge data Engineering drawing of bridges Lake County Office
http://www.lakecountyohio.gov/
Ohio Department of Transportation
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/
942 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA

Figure 2. Land-use data (30-m resolution) map of the Grand River watershed, Ohio. NLCD (2011).

Harpersfield
Lake Erie
Fairport Harbor
Grand River
City of
Painesville

Mill Creek
Paine Creek

Big Creek

Figure 3. LiDAR DEM with cross-section configurations of the Grand River. Red dots show where cross-sections from different
elevation datasets are compared (as shown in Fig. 7); green dots show surveyed sections along the Grand River.

perform unsteady hydraulic analysis and calibrate
Manning’s roughness for study reaches in HEC-RAS.
Peak discharge data for the recurrence intervals of 10,
50, 100 and 500 years for the Grand River were obtained
from Koltun and Roberts (1990), which were determined
based on log-Pearson Type III distribution. For other
ungauged stream reaches including Mill, Paine and Big
Creek, peak discharges from 10- to 500-year return per-
iods were obtained from the streamstat web application
(Guthrie et al. 2008). The streamstat calculates the peak
discharge based on different regression equations (Koltun
and Roberts 1990) depending upon the river basin
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 943

04211820

0412100

Figure 4. Hydraulic model of the Grand River as developed in HEC-RAS.

characteristics. There are 10 bridges within the study area,
and the data for these bridges were obtained from Lake
County Office and Ohio Department of Transportation
(ODOT). Similarly, the data for high flood levels for Lake
Erie have been obtained from a report by USACE
(USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers) 2000). A sum-
mary of input data including their types and sources is
presented in Table 1.
3.4 Model calibration and validation
The unsteady HEC-RAS model was calibrated by an
iterative process to obtain a suitable value of
Manning’s roughness for river reaches by comparing
simulated stage and discharge with the observed
data. The preliminary selection criterion of
Manning’s roughness was recommended by various
approaches including visual inspection, land use/land
cover and optimization techniques rather than select-
ing it just intuitively (Kalyanapu et al. 2009).
Channel roughness is highly variable as it depends
3.5 Model evaluation criteria
Various statistical parameters, namely Nash-Sutcliffe effi-
ciency (NSE), correlation coefficient (R2), percent bias
(PBIAS), root mean square error (RMSE) and ratio of
RMSE and standard deviation (RSR), were used to test
the accuracy and predictive power of the model (ASCE
1993, Gupta et al. 1999, Moriasi et al. 2007).
The NSE is a normalized statistic that determines the
relative magnitude of the residual variance (“noise”) com-
pared to the measured data variance (Nash and Sutcliffe
1970). The NSE is recommended for model evaluation as it
has been found to be the best objective function for reflect-
ing the overall fit of a hydrograph (Moriasi et al. 2007).
Typically, it indicates the wellness of observed and simu-
lated data fitting the 1:1 line. Its value ranges from −∞ to 1,
and values from 0 to 1 are acceptable. An NSE value of 1 is
rare and considered to be the perfect value for an ideal
model. NSE is calculated by:
" Pn  2 #
obs
 Yi sim
i¼1 Yi
NSE ¼ 1  Pn   (4)
mean 2
i¼1 Y i
obs
 Y
obs

on many factors such as channel alignment, surface where Yi obs is the ith value of observed data, Yi sim is the ith
roughness, bed material, nature of sediments and value of simulated data,Ymean
obs is the mean value of observed
obstruction present in the channel (Pappenberger
data, and n is the total number of observations.
et al. 2005, Timbadiya et al. 2011, Parhi et al.
The correlation coefficient, R2, measures the fitness of
2012). Chow et al. (1988) illustrated that Manning’s
observed and simulated data; R2 varies from 0 to 1, indicat-
roughness varies from 0.035 to 0.065 for the main
ing 1 as the perfect fitness of data, and is calculated by:
channel and 0.08 to 0.15 in the floodplains.
Regardless, it needs to be calibrated using the R2
known years’ flood data; therefore, eight different 0 12
Pn   sim 
flood events from 1996 to 1998 were used in HEC- B Yi Yobs
obs
mean
Yi Ysim
mean
C
¼ @hP  i¼1   i0:5 A
P n  sim
RAS simulation. Finally, the calibrated Manning’s n mean 2 mean 2
roughness values were used to calculate travel time i¼1 Yi
obs
Yobs i¼1 Yi Ysim
and develop the flood inundation maps. (5)
944 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA
mean
where Ysim is the mean of simulated data.
The RSR is the ratio of RMSE and standard devia-
tion of the observed data. The lower the value of RSR,
the lower is the RMSE and the better is the model
performance. The ideal value of RSR is 0. The RSR is
calculated by:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn  obs
RMSE i¼1 Yi  Yisim
RSR ¼ ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn  obs
SDobs mean 2
i¼1 Y i  Y obs
where SD is the standard deviation.
The percentage deviation in simulated data from the
observed data (PBIAS) (Moriasi et al. 2007) with value
0 is considered as the perfect model harmonizing with
the observed data. Negative values of PBIAS specify
overestimation bias, whereas positive values of PBIAS
indicate underestimation bias. PBIAS is calculated by:
"P   #
n
i¼1 Yi
obs
 Yi sim  100
PBIAS ¼ Pn  obs  (7)
i¼1 Yi
4 Uncertainties associated with floodplain
modeling
A large number of uncertainties accompanying numer-
ous variables including topography, Manning’s rough-
ness, flow and modeling technique are still associated
with floodplain mapping, regardless of the advancements
in hydrological and hydraulic modeling tools (Oegema
and McBean 1987, Smemoe et al. 2012, Merwade et al.
2008). Therefore, the accuracy of the floodplain maps
depends on how these uncertain variables have been
incorporated in hydraulic and hydrological models
(Merwade et al. 2008). Two important variables (topo-
graphy and Manning’s roughness), which may impose
errors in flood travel time and inundation area, are dis-
cussed in this study.
4.1 Effect of topography
Reliable elevation datasets are essential for the generation
of accurate flood inundation maps. The use of high-resolu-
tion LiDAR data might somewhat improve the accuracy of
floodplain mapping as it provides highly accurate elevation
data. However, it does not represent the exact river bathy-
metry, which may still pose serious errors in travel time
calculation and flood inundation mapping. According to
Merwade et al. (2008), the poor quality of terrain data can
impose errors in the flood inundation mapping process in
three ways. First, it affects the discharge values estimated
from hydrological models. Second, it affects water surface
elevation calculated from hydraulic models, and finally, it
affects the horizontal extent of floods. More importantly,
errors in channel topography impact upon channel con-
veyance and connectivity of flow pathways. So, the field-
verified cross-sections of river reaches are absolutely essen-
tial to get the better bathymetry of the river needed for
travel time computation and floodplain mapping.
2
ffi (6) 4.2 Effect of Manning’s roughness
Since the complete characteristics of a terrain are reflected
in the effective roughness value, it plays a significant role in
model calibration and floodplain delineation. The rough-
ness value varies spatially along the river depending upon
the river bed material and surrounding floodplain charac-
teristics. It is essential to adequately represent the rough-
ness characteristics of the floodplain and channel in order
to reduce the uncertainties involved in the flood travel time
and floodplain mappings. The preliminary selection of
Manning’s roughness in the Grand River was based on
terrain properties of other similar rivers. as presented in
Arcement and Verne (1989) and Barnes (1849). The
hydraulic model in this study was simulated for different
values of channel roughness to study the uncertainties
associated with it.
4.3 Effect of discharge
River discharge is also considered as one of the uncertain
variables that has to be considered in floodplain mapping
(Oegema and McBean 1987, Pappenberger et al. 2006,
Merwade et al. 2008, Di Baldassarre and Montanari 2009)
even though uncertainty in river discharge is typically
related to the discharge that arises at a particular return
period or flood event. The discharge values for various
return period floods were generated from the regression
equation derived by USGS (Koltun and Roberts 1990).
Errors associated with discharge prediction for tributaries
can be dissipated in water surface elevation and the flood
extents calculated from the hydraulic model (Merwade
et al. 2008).
5 Results and discussion
5.1 Simulation of hydraulic model
The performance of the model was good in calibration
and validation based on an evaluation measured through
different statistical criteria. The calculated values of all
statistical parameters were higher than the recommended
values (NSE > 0.50, PBIAS ±25% and RSR ≤ 0.70) of
Moriasi et al. (2007). The detailed results of calibration/
validation for the stage at upstream gage station 04211820
are presented in Table 2. Similarly, the detailed results of
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 945

Table 2. Calibration/validation for stage at upstream gage station 04211820.

Date range Statistical parameter
2
From To NSE R PBIAS RSR RMSE (cfs)
Calibration
1 3/1/1996 0:00 3/30/1996 00:00 0.74 1.00 0.05 0.51 0.53
2 4/15/1996 0:00 5/12/1996 23:00 0.84 1.00 0.00 0.39 0.60
3 10/20/1996 0:00 11/28/1996 23:00 0.84 1.00 0.03 0.40 0.58
4 2/4/1997 0:00 2/10/1997 23:30 0.83 1.00 0.02 0.41 0.53
Validation
5 2/26/1997 0:00 3/3/1997 23:30 0.81 1.00 −0.07 0.43 0.89
6 3/5/1997 0:00 3/19/1997 23:30 0.82 1.00 0.00 0.43 0.37
7 5/15/1997 0:00 6/6/1997 23:00 0.85 0.99 0.02 0.39 0.98
8 4/10/1998 0:00 4/30/1998 00:00 0.89 1.00 0.02 0.33 0.50

calibration/validation for discharge at downstream gage
station 04212100 are presented in Table 3. In this study,
NSE for stage calibration/validation varied from 0.74 to
0.89 (Table 3), and NSE for discharge calibration/valida-
tion varied from 0.69 to 0.96 (Table 3), except for the
period 26 February to 3 March 1997. The model perfor-
mance was tested with RMSE, which tends to be high for
significantly higher flows.
Furthermore, the performance of the model was also
evaluated through visual inspection using the graphical
plot of observed and simulated stage/discharge. The
calibration/validation of stage at upstream gage station
04211820 is shown in Figure 5. Similarly, the calibra-
tion/validation of discharge at downstream gage station
04212100 is shown in Figure 6. The model efficiency
was assessed for several possible values of Manning’s
roughness, and the roughness value was calibrated
based on the performance efficiency of simulated result
with observed data. Overall, the model performance
was satisfactory, as calculated values of statistical para-
meters were well above the recommended range. The
calibrated/validated value of Manning’s roughness
adopted was 0.035 for channels and 0.15 for banks/
floodplain regions.
5.2 Effect of discharge variation
From the hydraulic analysis for flood discharge of
varying return period along with certain variation in
discharge, it was found that variation in discharge has a
noticeable effect on flood travel time. The variation in
discharge was taken to be ±25%, as shown in Table 4.
The change in travel time due to the discharge varia-
tion was found to be more for negative variation than
for positive variation. The detailed results of the ana-
lysis are shown in Table 4.
5.3 Effect of topography
The effect of topography on flood inundation extent
depends on the size of the river, bathymetry of the
river, and the hydraulic modeling approach (Merwade
et al. 2008). The elevation of rivers at different cross-
sections varied greatly when different elevation datasets
were used. The cross-sections for 10 different locations
generated from four different elevation datasets are
shown in Figure 7. It was found that, in the majority
of those cross-sections, the topographic data repre-
sented by the 10-m DEM was better than LiDAR
data, particularly in channel sections, indicating that
cross-sections generated from the 10-m DEM were
better at representing the actual cross-sections. This is
not surprising as airborne LiDAR cannot penetrate
water (Allouis et al. 2007), especially in the channel
sections, which leads to the necessity of bathymetric
LiDAR technology. However, LiDAR data are expected
to represent the floodplain well, as these data are pre-
pared in high resolution.

Table 3. Calibration/validation for discharge at downstream gage station 04212100.

Date range Statistical parameters
From To NSE R2 PBIAS RSR RMSE (cfs)
Calibration
1 3/1/1996 0:00 3/30/1996 00:00 0.74 0.88 11.04 0.51 589.73
2 4/15/1996 0:00 5/12/1996 23:00 0.72 0.86 9.18 0.53 1254.49
3 10/20/1996 0:00 11/28/1996 23:00 0.90 0.96 8.85 0.31 612.91
4 2/4/1997 0:00 2/10/1997 23:30 0.84 0.92 1.26 0.40 614.34
Validation
5 2/26/1997 0:00 3/3/1997 23:30 0.33 0.70 5.20 0.82 2683.32
6 3/5/1997 0:00 3/19/1997 23:30 0.69 0.85 7.37 0.56 723.70
7 5/15/1997 0:00 6/6/1997 23:00 0.80 0.92 −3.34 0.45 1722.91
8 4/10/1998 0:00 4/30/1998 00:00 0.83 0.92 3.24 0.41 784.87
946 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA

742
Observed stage
740 Simulated stage

Stage (ft)
738
736
734

(a) Date

747
Observed stage
744 Simulated stage
Stage (ft)

741
738
735
732

Date
(b)

742
Observed stage
740 Simulated stage
Stage (ft)

738

736

(c) Date

Figure 5. Stage calibration (a) 1–31 March 1996 and (b) 15 April–14 May 1996, and (c) validation 5–19 March 1997 at upstream gage
station 04211820.

The study found that the travel time for different
return period floods varied based on the resolution of
the datasets used in the hydraulic analysis. Travel times
to reach the City of Painesville and Fairport Harbor for
four different return period floods and the 2006 flood
were calculated using six different elevation datasets.
The graphical representation of travel time and percen-
tage difference in travel time for various return period
floods to reach the City of Painesville are shown in
Figure 8. The calculated travel time was found to be
highest for the most coarse elevation dataset (30-m
DEM without survey) and was of decreasing order for
finer elevation datasets with the exception of LiDAR
data. For example, the maximum difference in calcu-
lated travel time for various return period floods was
11.03–15.01% for the 30-m DEM without integration
of survey data and the minimum was 1.19–3.35% for
the 10-m DEM integrated with survey data. It is inter-
esting to note that the 10-m DEM without integrating
the survey data revealed small differences in travel time
to the City of Painesville when compared to the travel
time computed using LiDAR data without survey. The
percentage difference for the 10-m DEM without sur-
vey was 3.67–4.87%, whereas it was 10.24–11.75% for
LiDAR without survey. A similar pattern was detected
for the case of travel time from Harpersfield to Fairport
Harbor. The graphical representation of travel time
and percentage error in travel time for different return
period floods to reach Fairport Harbor is shown in
Figure 9. There was a maximum difference of 13.29–
14.28% in calculated travel time for the 30 m DEM
without integration of survey data for various return
period floods. However, a minimum difference of 0.50–
4.33% was detected for the 10-m DEM integrated with
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 947

6000
Observed discharge

Discharge (cfs)
5000
4000 Simulated discharge
3000
2000
1000
0

Date
(a)

12000
Discharge (cfs)

10000 Observed discharge

8000 Simulated discharge
6000
4000
2000
0

Date

(b)
7000
6000 Observed discharge
Discharge (cfs)

5000 Simulated discharge

4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Date
(c)
Figure 6. Discharge calibration (a) 1–31 March 1996 and (b) 15 April–14 May 1996, and (c) validation 5–19 March 1997 at
downstream gage station 04212100.

survey data (Fig. 9). The calculated travel time for
LiDAR data without integration of survey data was
relatively higher. One of the reasons for this could be
the coarser elevation data in channel sections as air-
borne LiDAR data cannot penetrate water bodies to
accurately portray the river bed elevation. Similarly, the
water surface elevation and total flow area for LiDAR
data without integration of survey data were also found
to be higher than some other coarser elevation datasets.
Consequently, the flow and computed velocity were
relatively smaller, resulting in higher travel time.
Therefore, we also conclude, as did earlier findings,
that bathymetric data are absolutely needed for the
appropriate representation of river profiles. Since
bathymetric LiDAR data were not available, a detailed
survey was conducted along the channel sections to
modify the cross-section, and best represent the site
conditions in the model. The river cross-sections after
detailed survey were incorporated in the LiDAR data in
channel sections. This decreased the travel time to
reach the City of Painesville by 10.24–11.75% (Fig. 8)
and by 2.33–6.84% to reach Fairport Harbor for var-
ious return period floods (Fig. 9).
Furthermore, inundation maps were also generated for
five different return period floods using six elevation data-
sets. The graphical representation of inundation area,
including its percentage difference for different return per-
iod floods and different elevation datasets, is shown in
Figure 10. It was found that the inundation area increased
with the coarser resolutions of elevation datasets. For
example, the inundation area for the 500-year return per-
iod flood using LiDAR data with survey was 4.10 square
948 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA

Table 4. Effect on travel time due to the variation in river discharge.

Change in travel time
Discharge 2006 500-year return 100-year return 50-year return 10-year return Average change in travel
variation flood period period period period time
−25% 15.71% 16.45% 17.26% 17.85% 19.16% 17.29%
−20% 12.12% 12.47% 13.08% 13.44% 14.44% 13.11%
−15% 8.44% 8.89% 9.27% 9.58% 10.29% 9.29%
−10% 5.38% 5.70% 5.85% 6.06% 6.55% 5.91%
−5% 2.56% 2.66% 2.79% 2.89% 3.12% 2.81%
0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
5% −2.36% −2.47% −2.55% −2.63% −2.79% −2.56%
10% −4.54% −4.73% −4.98% −5.03% −5.42% −4.94%
15% −6.55% −6.81% −7.01% −7.26% −7.80% −7.09%
20% −8.43% −8.76% −9.21% −9.39% −10.01% −9.16%
25% −10.17% −10.55% −11.09% −11.16% −12.06% −11.01%

miles (10.62 km2), and using the 30-m DEM without
survey it was 5.55 square miles (14.4 km2), with an area
difference of 35.37%. The maximum difference in inunda-
tion was found to be 32.56–44.52% for the 30-m DEM
without integration of survey data for various return period
floods, and the minimum difference was 3.55–7.80% for
the 10-m DEM when integrated with survey data (Fig. 10).
The flood inundation maps of the 2006 flood period were
generated using various elevation datasets to have a clear
picture of inundation area difference. These flood maps
were generated in HEC-GeoRAS and the difference in
inundation area is shown in Figure 11. The primary reason
for the inundation difference was found to be because of
higher predicted water surface elevation for elevation data-
sets having coarse resolution (which is the 30-m DEM
without integration of survey in this study). The impor-
tance of detail bathymetry data to generate inundation
maps was clearly observed. When the bathymetry data
(survey data) were incorporated in the DEM, a decrease
in predicted inundation area was observed. The average
reduction in inundation area of five different return period
floods was found to be highest (17%) for the 30-m DEM
and least (9%) for LiDAR (Table 5). This finding was
consistent with the results presented by Merwade et al.
(2008).
Also, we compared the top width and the flow area for
the 2006 flood at several locations on the river. In most
cases, there was a decrement in top width and flow area
after the integration of bathymetry data. The decrement
percentage was higher for the 30-m DEM and least for
LiDAR data. Moreover, there was an increase in channel
velocity and total average velocity which resulted in
decreasing travel time for various return period floods
when survey data were incorporated.
5.4 Effect of Manning’s roughness
As stated earlier, the results showed the difference in
travel time and inundation maps when series of differ-
ent Manning’s roughness values were used. In this
study, five different return period floods on the
Grand River were analyzed in two different ways.
First, we considered the constant value of roughness
in the channel section while varying the roughness
value in the floodplains. Four different roughness
values (0.15, 0.10, 0.09 and 0.07) within acceptable
range were chosen to see the variation. The detailed
results of travel time to the City of Painesville for
different values of Manning’s roughness are presented
in Table 6. The lower values of Manning’s roughness in
the floodplains resulted in increased travel times
although the increment was not significant. The max-
imum increment was found to be 3.45% for the 2006
flood when the roughness value was the lowest (0.07)
among the four different values (Table 6). Second, a
constant value of roughness was considered in the
floodplains and a varied value in channel sections.
For this, four different possible roughness values
(0.035, 0.030, 0.025 and 0.020) in channel sections
were chosen. As the roughness value was lowered in
channel sections, there was a significant decrease in
travel time for different return period floods. The max-
imum decrement ranged from 20.72 to 22.35% when
the roughness value was 0.020 at a channel section
(Table 6). The main reason for the decrement was an
increase in channel flow velocity due to a decrease in
roughness value. The travel time to reach the City of
Painesville and Fairport Harbor for the various flood
stages at gage station 04212100 is shown in Figure 12.
The graph shows how the flood travel time varies
depending upon the nature of flood magnitude. We
simply computed travel time using velocity and cross-
sectional area. This is one limitation of the steady state
approach.
Similarly, the effect of Manning’s roughness was
observed in inundation area as well. Floodplain maps
were produced for different sets of roughness values in
channel and floodplain regions. There was a decrease in
flood inundation area for lower values of Manning’s
roughness than those of the calibrated/validated values.
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 949

(a) 746 (b) 742

LiDAR data LiDAR data
Survey data 740 Survey data
744
10m DEM 10m DEM
30m DEM 738
742 30m DEM

Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)
736
740
734
738
732
736 730
734 728
732 726
400 500 600 700 800 900 0 100 200 300 400 500
Station (ft) Station (ft)

(c) 734
(d) 725 LiDAR data
LiDAR data
732 Survey data 720 Survey data
10m DEM 10m DEM
730 30m DEM
30m DEM 715
728

Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)

726 710
724
705
722
720 700
718
695
716
714 690
850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Station (ft) Station (ft)

(e) 685 (f) 662 LiDAR data

LiDAR data Survey data
660
680 Survey data 10m DEM
10m DEM 658
30m DEM
675 30m DEM 656
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

654
670
652
665 650
648
660
646
655 644
1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Station (ft) Station (ft)

(g) (h)
630 LiDAR data LiDAR data
Survey data 606 Survey data
627 10m DEM
603 10m DEM
Elevation (ft)

30m DEM
Elevation (ft)

30m DEM
624 600

621 597
594
618
591
615 588
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900
Station (ft) Station (ft)

(i) 583 LiDAR data (j) LiDAR data

Survey data 585 Survey data
10m DEM 10m DEM
578 30m DEM 30m DEM
Elevation (ft)

575
Elevation (ft)

573
565
568

563 555

558 545
2800 2950 3100 3250 3400 1930 2080 2230 2380 2530 2680
Station (ft) Station (ft)

Figure 7. Cross-sections at different points along the Grand River: (a) 170 766.4, (b) 167 516.6, (c) 160 741, (d) 146 411.3, (e)
117 638.8, (f) 100 566.7, (g) 71 922.68, (h) 42 626.06, (i) 10 210.82 and (j) 3803.34. Survey data for 10 210.82 and 3803.34 cross-
sections have been taken from the survey documents of US Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District. Survey was performed by a
sounding method.
950 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA

2006 flood 500 yr. return period flood 100 yr. return period flood
50 yr. return period flood 10 yr. return period flood

Travel time (hrs) -Bar graph

7.11
8

6.85
6.75

6.42
6.35
6.27
6.25

6.22
6.17
7

6.07
6.04

5.96

5.82

5.74
5.72
5.70

5.63
5.62
5.56

5.50

5.40
5.39

5.36

5.32
5.27
5.19
5.10
6

4.99
4.87
4.81
5
4
3
2
1
0
LiDAR with 10m DEM with 30m DEM with Lidar DEM 10m DEM 30m DEM
survey survey survey without survey without survey without survey
Elevation data resolution

Figure 8. Travel time and difference in travel time for different return period floods to reach the City of Painesville using different
elevation datasets. Percentage decrease/increase in travel time and inundation area for different elevation datasets was computed
by comparing with the results calculated using LiDAR with survey.

2006 flood 500 yr. return period flood 100 yr. return period flood
50 yr. return period flood 10 yr. return period flood
Travel time (hrs) - Bar graph

11.01
10.88

12
9.86

9.83
9.66

9.65
9.63
9.44

9.30
9.22

8.81
8.75

8.59
8.51

8.48
8.47

8.43
8.35

10
8.11
7.99

7.91
7.89

7.89
7.78
7.50
7.41

7.34

7.28
6.87
6.84

0
LiDAR with 10m DEM with 30m DEM with Lidar DEM 10m DEM 30m DEM
survey survey survey without survey without survey without survey
Elevation data resolution

Figure 9. Travel time and percentage difference in travel time for different return period floods to reach Fairport Harbor using
different elevation datasets.

The percentage decrease in inundation area when using larger difference in inundation area. Therefore, the
different values of Manning’s roughness is shown in appropriate calibration of Manning’s roughness at chan-
Figure 13. In the first case (roughness value was lowered nel sections is more crucial. The difference in predicted
in the floodplain region but kept constant at the channel), inundation area for different Manning’s roughness is
the decrease in inundation area was less than 1.49%. shown in Figure 14. While we conducted 2D unsteady
However, in the second case (roughness value was low- flow simulation and compared it with a 1D model, the
ered in the channel but kept constant in the floodplain average difference in predicted discharge was less than
region), the decrease in inundation area was 8.97% 5% in most of the periods (1997–1998).
(Fig. 13). The sensitivity of roughness in floodplain map-
ping was found to be higher in the second case. The
decrease in inundation area was noticed mostly in the
6 Conclusion
flat regions along the river. This does not necessarily Accurate floodplain maps are essential tools for flood-
mean a large decrement of water surface level in flat plain managers and insurance actuaries to make appro-
regions, but the major reason for a noticeable decrement priate decisions to plan rescue operations in affected
in inundation area in flat regions was because a small areas during flooding periods. In this paper, the effects
drop of water surface level in flat regions results in a of the resolution of topographic datasets and Manning’s
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 951

7 40
2006 flood 500 yr. return period flood 100 yr. return period flood

% Incrase in inundation area -Line graph

5.74
35

5.55
6 50 yr. return period flood 10 yr. return period flood

Inundation area (mi2) -Bar graph

5.20
5.14

5.03
4.85
4.80
30

4.68
4.64

4.64

4.50

4.48
5

4.43
4.42
4.33

4.32

4.26
4.15

4.15
4.10

4.03

3.99
25

3.80

3.78

3.68

3.66
3.63

3.58
4

3.21
3.10
20
3
15
2
10

1 5

0 0
LiDAR data 10mDEM with 30m DEM with Lidar DEM 10m DEM 30m DEM
with survey survey survey without survey without survey without survey
Elevation data resolution

Figure 10. Inundation area and percentage difference in inundation area for different return period floods and elevation datasets.
Percentage decrease/increase in travel time and inundation area for different elevation datasets was computed by comparing with
the results calculated using LiDAR with survey.

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane

Ohio North FIPS 3401 Feet

0 1.75 3.5 7 10.5 14

Miles

City of Painesville

Fairport
Harbor

LiDAR_with_survey
10mDEM_with_survey
30mDEM_with_survey
Lidar_without_survey
10mDEM_without_survey
30mDEM_without_survey
0 0.425 0.85 1.7 2.55 3.4 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles Miles

Figure 11. Difference in inundation area due to 2006 flooding in the Grand River generated using different elevation datasets. Note:
The pink on the map covers all areas shaded in pink as well as blue; the yellow covers all areas in blue, pink and yellow, and the red
represents the 30-m DEM without survey showing areas shaded in red and all the areas that are included in all other cases.

Table 5. Decrease in inundation area when survey data are incorporated.

Return period flood LiDAR data 10-m DEM 30-m DEM
2006 flood 7.48% 9.73% 16.38%
500-year 7.45% 8.87% 16.40%
100-year 8.43% 10.44% 16.92%
50-year 9.02% 11.27% 17.50%
10-year 13.41% 12.30% 17.86%
Average decrease 9.16% 10.52% 17.01%
952 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA

Table 6. Travel time to City of Painesville for different Manning’s roughness (n) values.
Percentage increase or decrease in n (channel, floodplain)a.b
Return period flood Travel time (h) for n = 0.035, 0.15 0.035, 0.10 0.035, 0.09 0.035, 0.07 0.030, 0.15 0.025, 0.15 0.020, 0.15
2006 flood 4.81 1.52 2.02 3.45 –7.48 –14.32 –20.72
500-year 5.10 1.04 1.55 2.75 –7.59 –14.48 –20.98
100-year 5.39 0.95 1.32 2.27 –7.61 –14.60 –21.12
50-years 5.56 0.82 1.13 2.00 –7.67 –14.74 –21.42
10-year 6.04 0.60 0.84 1.48 –7.77 –15.19 –22.35
a
In percentage increase/decrease, the first three columns show the results when n is varied in the floodplain while constant in the channel; the last three
columns show the results when n is varied in the channel while constant in the floodplain.
b
Negative sign indicates the percentage decrease.

12
Time to reach City of Painesville
11
Time to reach Fairport Harbor
10
9
Travel time (hrs.)

8
y = 64.548x-0.777
7 R² = 0.9989

6
5
4
y = 25.978x-0.602
3 R² = 1
2
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Flood stage at 04212100 (ft.)

Figure 12. Travel times for various flood stages in the Grand River to reach the City of Painesville and Fairport Harbor.
Decrease in inundation area

1.6%
Decrease in inundation area

10%
1.49%
1.4% 8.97%
1.2% 8%
1.0% 6%
0.8% 5.05%
0.6% 4%
0.53%
0.4%
2% 1.71%
0.2% 0.20%
0.0% 0%
0.035, 0.10 0.035, 0.09 0.035, 0.07 0.030,0.15 0.025,0.15 0.020,0.15
Manning's roughness varying in floodplain Manning's roughness varying in channel
and keeping constant in channel and keeping constant in floodplain

Figure 13. Percentage decrease in inundation area for different values of Manning’s roughness.

roughness values in the prediction of flood travel time LiDAR data. Among all the elevation datasets, the travel
and inundation areas have been discussed. Five different time was highest for the coarse data (30-m DEM with-
floods were considered for analysis: 10-, 50-, 100- and out integration of survey data) and had a decreasing
500-year return period floods and the 2006 flood. These trend for the high-resolution data. However, the calcu-
different floods were simulated in a widely recognized lated travel time obtained from 10-m DEM without
hydraulic model, HEC-RAS, using various topographic integration of survey data showed less difference than
datasets and a wide range of Manning’s roughness. A the result obtained from LiDAR without integration of
topographic survey was carried out to represent an survey. Therefore, it can be concluded that the elevation
accurate elevation dataset in the river channel sections, data in channel section may be better represented by the
assuming that LiDAR data give the correct elevation 10-m DEM than LiDAR when field survey data are not
representation, especially in the floodplain. The surveyed available. However, the predicted inundation area from
elevation datasets were integrated with high-resolution LiDAR without survey had less area difference than that
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 953

Fairport
Harbor

City of 0.020_0.15
0.025_0.15
Painesville 0.030_0.15
0.035_0.07
0.035_0.09
0.035_0.10
0.035_0.15
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 World Imagery
Miles

Figure 14. Differences in flood inundation maps for different Manning’s roughness values.

of the 10-m DEM without survey. Nevertheless, a topo-
graphic survey is required to get an actual representation
of the land surfaces in channel sections.
In this study, LiDAR with the integration of survey
data gave conservative travel times. Since it is always
safe to make a decision based on the worst case sce-
nario, lesser travel times would be appropriate for
planning evacuation from the possible inundation
areas. Similarly, the predicted area of inundation also
increased as the coarser resolution of datasets was used,
and the percentage difference was very high for the 30-
m DEM without integration of survey. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the very coarse dataset considered in
this study (30-m DEM without integration of survey
data) is not appropriate for the calculation of travel
times and the generation of flood inundation maps.
The differences in travel time and inundation area
results were substantial in the 30-m DEM even after
the integration of survey data. It was also found that
there were decrements in travel time, inundation area,
flow area and top width flow and an increment in the
velocity of flow when the bathymetry data were inte-
grated to any resolution of dataset. Therefore, when
coarse datasets are used for travel time computation
and generation of flood inundation maps, some factor
of safety should be considered to take into account the
possible errors that may be related to travel time,
inundation area, flow velocity and top flow width.
The effect of Manning’s roughness was found to be
more crucial in flood travel time computation and pre-
diction of inundation area, especially in channel sections.
As the value of roughness in the channel sections was
decreased, there was a significant decrease in flood travel
time (up to 22.35%) and decrease in inundation area (up
to 8.97%). The effect of Manning’s roughness on flood
travel time and inundation area was studied only for the
2006 flood event in the City of Painesville, assuming a
similar effect in other flood events.
Many other uncertainties might be associated with tra-
vel time computation and floodplain mapping. From this
perspective, it would be wise to use probabilistic floodplain
maps as only part of flood mitigation strategies. Since flood
travel time computation is essential to evacuate people
from probable inundation areas, it may be appropriate to
remain on the conservative side when calculating travel
time for early evacuation using calibrated Manning’s
954 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA
roughness and higher resolution data . On the other hand,
it would be better to generate flood inundation maps based
on a slightly higher value of roughness and higher resolu-
tion data so that the affected areas are not underestimated.
Hence, slightly underestimated results in travel time and
slightly overestimated results in inundation area mapping
might be helpful when planning and making flood warn-
ing decisions.
It should be noted that the calibration of Manning’s
roughness for this study was performed based on
unsteady flow simulation. However, the entire results
for travel time and inundation maps were obtained
based on the steady flow assumption in the HEC-RAS
model. The steady flow assumption made in this study,
particularly for the high flow period, is valid, and this is
general practice in simulating flows in steady state con-
ditions during peak flow time. This study also utilized 2D
analysis of unsteady flow using HEC-RAS; however, this
did not show a significant difference compared to the
result (prediction of discharge) obtained from 1D HEC-
RAS. The average difference in predicted discharge was
insignificant. This study did not perform 2D steady flow
analyses for peak flows because of the limitation of the 2D
steady flow capacities of HEC-RAS. Therefore, in future,
2D steady hydraulic models could be developed to find
out if there are any discrepancies compared to results
obtained from 1D steady flow analysis, if discharge/
stage data for all creeks and time series data for Lake
Erie level can be obtained. In addition, the possibility of
variation of Manning’s roughness with varying floods
could be addressed in future to see probable differences
in travel times and inundation area. Some errors might be
associated with the calculated flows in tributaries of the
Grand River, as flows in tributaries were computed using
regression equations. This error might be transferred to
the hydraulic model resulting in dissipation of further
errors in water surface elevation and flood extents.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors would like to acknowledge support from Ohio
Sea Grant System through Ohio State University to conduct
this research (R/EM-032) [Grant No. 60055607].
References
Alho, P. and Aaltonen, J., 2008. Comparing a 1D hydraulic
model with a 2D hydraulic model for the simulation of
extreme glacial outburst floods. Hydrological Processes, 22
(10), 1537–1547. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
Allouis, T., Bailly, J., and Feurer, D., 2007. Assessing water
surface effects on LiDAR bathymetry measurements in
very shallow rivers: a theoretical study. In: Second ESA
space for hydrology workshop [online], Geneva, CHE, 12–
14. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Denis_Feurer/publication/268260522_Assessing_water_
surface_effects_on_LiDAR_bathymetry_measurements_
in_very_shallow_rivers_a_theoretical_study/links/
54bcd6f30cf29e0cb04c390b.pdf
Arcement, G.J. and Verne, R.S., 1989. Guide for selecting
Manning’s roughness coefficients for natural channels and
flood plains [online]. Available from: http://dpw.lacounty.
gov/lacfcd/wdr/files/WG/041615/Guide%20for %
20Selecting%20n-Value.pdf
ASCE Task Committee, 1993. The ASCE task committee on
definition of criteria for evaluation of watershed models of
the watershed management committee Irrigation and
Drainage Division, Criteria for evaluation of watershed
models. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,
ASCE, 119 (3), 429–442.
Bales, J.D. and Wagner, C.R., 2009. Sources of uncertainty in
flood inundation maps. Journal of Flood Risk
Management, 2.2, 139–147. doi:10.1111/j.1753-
318X.2009.01029.x
Barnes Jr., H.H., 1849. Roughness characteristics of natural
streams [online]. US Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper. Available from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/wsp_
1849/pdf/wsp_1849.pdf
Basha, E. and Daniela, R., 2007. Design of early warning flood
detection systems for developing countries. In: Information
and Communication Technologies and Development, 2007.
ICTD 2007. International Conference on Information and
Communication Technologies and Development, 15–16
December, Bangalore, India, 1–10.
Bates, P.D., et al., 2004. Bayesian updating of flood inunda-
tion likelihoods conditioned on flood extent data.
Hydrological Processes, 18 (17), 3347–3370. doi:10.1002/
(ISSN)1099-1085
Bates, P.D. and De Roo, A.P.J., 2000. A simple raster-based
model for floodplain inundation. Journal of Hydrology,
236, 54–77. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00278-X
Brunner, G.W., 1995. HEC-RAS River Analysis System
[online]. Hydraulic Reference Manual. Version 1.0.
Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic
Engineering Center. Available from: http://www.dtic.mil/
dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a311952.pdf
Brunner, G.W., 2002. HEC-RAS river analysis system: user’s
manual. Davis, CA: US Army Corps of Engineers,
Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering
Center.
Castellarin, A., et al., 2009. Optimal cross-sectional spacing
in Preissmann scheme 1D hydrodynamic models. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, 135 (2), 96–105. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9429(2009)135:2(96)
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W., 1988. Applied
hydrology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cook, A. and Merwade, V., 2009. Effect of topographic data,
geometric configuration and modeling approach on flood
inundation mapping. Journal of Hydrology, 377 (1), 131–
142. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.015

Cook, A.C., 2008. Comparison of one-dimensional HEC-RAS
with two-dimensional FESWMS model in flood inundation
mapping. Dissertation. Purdue University West Lafayette.
Costabile, P., et al., 2015. Flood mapping using LIDAR DEM.
Limitations of the 1D modeling highlighted by the 2-D
approach. Natural Hazards, 77 (1), 181–204. doi:10.1007/
s11069-015-1606-0
Crosetto, M. and Tarantola, S., 2001. Uncertainty and sensi-
tivity analysis: tools for GIS-based model implementation.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science,
15 (5), 415–437. doi:10.1080/13658810110053125
Di Baldassarre, G., 2012. Flood trends and population
dynamics. In: EGU General Assembly Conference
Abstracts, 22–27 April, Vienna, Austria.
Di Baldassarre, G. and Montanari, A., 2009. Uncertainty in
river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 13 (6), 913.
doi:10.5194/hess-13-913-2009
Domeneghetti, A., et al., 2013. Probabilistic flood hazard
mapping: effects of uncertain boundary conditions.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17 (8), 3127–3140.
doi:10.5194/hess-17-3127-2013
Dottori, F., Baldassarre, G.D., and Todini, E., 2013. Detailed
data is welcome, but with a pinch of salt: accuracy, preci-
sion, and uncertainty in flood inundation modeling. Water
Resources Research, 49 (9), 6079–6085. doi:10.1002/
wrcr.20406
Ebner, A.D., et al., 2006. Flood of July 27–31, 2006, on the
Grand River near Painesville, Ohio. Reston, VA: US
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2007–1164.
Fread, D.L., 1974. Numerical properties of implicit four-point
finite difference equations of unsteady flow [online].
Washington, DC: Office of Hydrology. Available from:
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/hsmb/docs/hydraulics/
papers_before_2009/hl_51.pdf
Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, O.P., 1999. Status of
automatic calibration for hydrologic models: comparison
with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering, 4 (2), 135–143. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699
(1999)4:2(135)
Guthrie, J.D., et al., 2008. Stewart.StreamStats: a water
resources web application. Reston, VA: US Department of
the Interior, US Geological Survey.
Hicks, F.E. and Peacock, T., 2005. Suitability of HEC-RAS for
flood forecasting. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30
(2), 159–174. doi:10.4296/cwrj3002159
Holtzclaw, E., Leite, B., and Myrick, R., 2005. Floodplain
modeling applications for emergency management and sta-
keholder involvement a case study. New Braunfels, TX:
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Horritt, M.S. and Bates, P.D., 2001. Effects of spatial resolu-
tion on a raster based model of flood flow. Journal of
Hydrology, 253 (1), 239–249. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)
00490-5
Horritt, M.S. and Bates, P.D., 2002. Evaluation of 1D and 2D
numerical models for predicting river flood inundation.
Journal of Hydrology, 268 (1–4), 87–99. doi:10.1016/S0022-
1694(02)00121-X
Jung, H.C., et al., 2011. Analysis of the relationship between
flooding area and water height in the Logone floodplain.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36 (7–8),
232–240. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.01.010
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 955
Kalyanapu, A.J., Burian, S.J., and McPherson, T.N., 2009.
Effect of land use-based surface roughness on hydrologic
model output. Journal of Spatial Hydrology, 9 (2), 51–71.
King, R.O., 2009. National flood insurance program: back-
ground, challenges, and financial status. Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Koltun, G.F. and Roberts, J.W., 1990. Techniques for estimating
flood-peak discharges of rural, unregulated streams in Ohio.
Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, 89, 4126.
Krimm, R.W., 1996. Reducing flood losses in the United
States. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on
Floodplain Risk Management, 11–13 November,
Hiroshima.
Krzysztofowicz, R., Karen, S.K., and Dou, L., 1994. Reliability
of flood warning systems. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 120 (6), 906–926.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1994)120:6(906)
Leedal, D., et al., 2010. Visualization approaches for commu-
nicating real-time flood forecasting level and inundation
information. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 3 (2),
140–150. doi:10.1111/jfrm.2010.3.issue-2
Liggett, J.A. and Jean, A.C., 1975. Numerical methods of
solution of the unsteady flow equations. Unsteady Flow
in Open Channels, 1 (89), 182.
Lowe, A.S., 2003. The federal emergency management agency’s
multi-hazard flood map modernization and the national map.
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 69 (10),
1133–1135. doi:10.14358/PERS.69.10.1133
Marks, K. and Bates, P., 2000. Integration of high-resolution
topographic data with floodplain flow models. Hydrological
Processes, 14 (11–12), 2109–2122. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-
1085
Merwade, V., et al., 2008. Uncertainty in flood inundation
mapping: current issues and future directions. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 13 (7), 608–620. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:7(608)
Merwade, V., Cook, A., and Coonrod, J., 2008. GIS techni-
ques for creating river terrain models for hydrodynamic
modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environmental
Modelling & Software, 23 (10–11), 1300–1311.
Merz, B.A., Thieken, H., and Gocht, M., 2007. Flood risk
mapping at the local scale: concepts and challenges. In:
Flood risk management in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer,
231–251.
Moriasi, D., et al., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for
systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simula-
tions. Transactions of the ASABE, 50 (3), 885–900.
doi:10.13031/2013.23153
Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting
through conceptual models part I—A discussion of prin-
ciples. Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282–290. doi:10.1016/
0022-1694(70)90255-6
Oegema, B.W. and McBean, E., 1987. A. Uncertainties in
flood plain mapping. In: Application of frequency and
risk in water resources. Dordrecht: Springer, 293–303.
Ohio Department of Administrative Services, 2007. Ohio
Statewide Imagery Program [online]. Available from:
http://ogrip.oit.ohio.gov/
Ostheimer, C.J., 2012. Development of a flood-warning system
and flood-inundation mapping in Licking county, Ohio.
Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, No. FHWA/OH-
2012/4.
956 N. LAMICHHANE AND S. SHARMA
Pappenberger, F., et al., 2005. Uncertainty in the calibration
of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using
inundation and downstream level observations. Journal
of Hydrology, 302 (1–4), 46–69. doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2004.06.036
Pappenberger, F., et al., 2006. Influence of uncertain bound-
ary conditions and model structure on flood inundation
predictions. Advances in Water Resources, 29 (10), 1430–
1449.
Parhi, P.K., Sankhua, R.N., and Roy, G.P., 2012. Calibration
of channel roughness for Mahanadi River, (India) using
HEC-RAS model. Journal of Water Resource and
Protection, 4 (10), 847. doi:10.4236/jwarp.2012.410098
Perry, C.A., 2000. Significant floods in the United States
during the 20th century-USGS measures a century of floods.
Reston, VA: US Geological Survey, No. 024-00.
Pilgrim, D.H., 1976. Travel times and nonlinearity of flood
runoff from tracer measurements on a small watershed.
Water Resources Research, 12 (3), 487–496.
Re, M., 2011. Great natural catastrophes worldwide 1950–
2010. Munich, Germany: Münchener Rückversicherungs-
Gesellschaft, Geo Risks Research, NatCatSERVICE.
Samuels, P.G., 1990. Cross-section location in 1D models. In:
W.R. White, ed. Proceedings of International Conference on
River Flood Hydraulics. Chichester: John Wiley, 339–350.
Sanders, B.F., 2007. Evaluation of on-line DEMs for flood
inundation modeling. Advances in Water Resources, 30
(8), 1831–1843.
Smemoe, C., Nelson, J., and Zundel, A., 2012. Developing a
probabilistic flood plain boundary using HEC-1 and HEC-
RAS. In: World Water and Environmental Resources
Congress 2003, 23–26 June 2003, Philadelphia, PA.
doi:10.1061/40685(2003)286
Tayefi, V., et al., 2007. A comparison of one-and two-dimensional
approaches to modelling flood inundation over complex
upland floodplains. Hydrological Processes, 21 (23), 3190–
3202. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
Timbadiya, P.V., Patel, P.L., and Porey, P.D., 2011. Calibration of
HEC-RAS model on prediction of flood for lower Tapi River,
India. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 3 (11), 805.
doi:10.4236/jwarp.2011.311090
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers), 2000. Revised report
on Great Lakes open-coast flood levels [online]. Detroit,
MI: USACE. Available from: https://www.michigan.gov/
documents/deq/wrd-nfip-great-lakes-flood-levels-part1_
564793_7.pdf
Whitehead, M.T. and Ostheimer, C.J., 2009. Development
of a flood-warning system and flood-inundation mapping
for the Blanchard river in Findlay, Ohio. Reston, VA: US
Geological Survey, No. 2008-5234.