Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of two-dimensional flood propagation models: SRH-2D and Hydro_AS-2D

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a comparison between two two-dimensional finite volume flood propagation models: SRH-2D and Hydro_AS-2D. The models are compared using an experimental dam-break test case provided by Soares-Frazão (J Hydraul Res, 2007. doi:10.1080/00221686.2007.9521829). Four progressively refined meshes are used, and both models react adequately to mesh and time step refinement. Hydro_AS-2D shows some unphysical oscillations with the finest mesh and a certain loss of accuracy. For that test case, Hydro_AS-2D is more accurate for all meshes and generally faster than SRH-2D. Hydro_AS-2D reacts well to automatic calibration with PEST, whereas SRH-2D has some difficulties in retrieving the suggested Manning’s roughness coefficient.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Lin (2010)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

D :

Hydraulic diameter

e :

Source term

g :

Gravitational acceleration

h :

Water depth

k :

Turbulent kinetic energy

n :

Manning’s roughness coefficient

S fx , S fy :

Energy slope

S bx , S by :

Bed slope

T :

Turbulence stress

u, v :

Velocity components

z :

Water surface elevation

z b :

Bed elevation

μ :

Eddy viscosity

μ 0 :

Kinematic viscosity of water

μ t :

Turbulent eddy viscosity

ρ :

Mass density

τ :

Shear stress

References

  • AQUAVEO (2016) SMS 12.1—the complete surface-water solution. http://www.aquaveo.com/software/sms-surface-water-modeling-system-introduction. 10 Mar 2016

  • Berger RC, Tate JN, Brown GL, Savant G (2013) Adaptive hydraulics: users manual. http://adh.usace.army.mil

  • BMT-WBM (2014) TUFLOW FV user manual. In: Flexible mesh modelling. BMT-WBM, Brisbane, p 183

  • Boz Z, Erdoğdu F, Tutar M (2014) Effects of mesh refinement, time step size and numerical scheme on the computational modeling of temperature evolution during natural-convection heating. J Food Eng 123:8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner GW (2016) HEC-RAS river analysis system user’s manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, p 960

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, J (2008) PEST, model independent parameter estimation. User Manual: 5th Edition. Watermark Numerical Computing, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnell BP (2006) RMA2 WES version 4.5. In: King I, Letter JV, McAnally WH, Thomas WA (eds) US army. Engineer Research and Development Center, p 277

  • Družeta S, Sopta L, Maćešić S, Črnjarić-Žic N (2009) Investigation of the importance of spatial resolution for two-dimensional shallow-water model accuracy. J Hydraul Eng 135:917–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis RJI, Doherty J, Searle RD, Moodie K (2009) Applying PEST (Parameter ESTimation) to improve parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis in WaterCAST models. In: 18th world IMACS/MODSIM congress. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New-Zealand Inc., pp 3158–3164

  • Fabio P, Aronica GT, Apel H (2010) Towards automatic calibration of 2-D flood propagation models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. doi:10.5194/hess-14-911-2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Froehlich DC (2002) User’s manual for FESWMS Flo2DH - Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-053

  • Hydronia (2015) RiverFlow2D plus two-dimensional finite-volume river dynamics model. Hydronia, Pembroke Pines, p 157

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones DA (2011) The transition from earlier hydrodynamic models to current generation models. Master of Science, Brigham Young University, Brigham

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai YG (2008) SRH-2D version 2: theory and user’s manual. U.S. Department of the interior - Bureau of Reclamation, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai YG (2010) Two-dimensional depth-averaged flow modeling with an unstructured hybrid mesh. J Hydraul Eng 136:12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z (2010) Getting started with PEST. The University of Georgia, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald I (1996) Analysis and computation of steady open channel flow. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Reading, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey GL, Ellis RJ, Waters DK, Stewart J (2011) PEST hydrology calibration process for source catchments—applied to the Great Barrier Reef, Queensland. In: 19th international congress on modelling and simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New-Zealand Inc., pp 2359–2366

  • McKibbon J, Mahdi T-F (2010) Automatic calibration tool for river models based on the MHYSER software. Nat Hazards 54(3):879–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nujic M (2003) Hydro_AS-2D a two-dimensional flow model for water management applications user’s manual. Rosenheim, Deutschland. http://www.ib-nujic.de/

  • Shettar AS, Murthy KK (1996) A numerical study of division of flow in open channels. J Hydraul Res 34(5):651–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares-Frazão S (2007) Experiments of dam-break wave over a triangular bottom sill. J Hydraul Res. doi:10.1080/00221686.2007.9521829

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolossa GH (2008) Comparison of 2D Hydrodynamic models in River Reaches of Ecological Importance: Hydro_AS-2D and SRH-W. Institut für Wasserbau, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolossa HG, Tuhtan J, Schneider M, Wieprecht S (2009) Comparison of 2D hydrodynamic models in river reaches of ecological importance: HYDRO_AS-2D and SRH-W. In: 33rd IAHR World Congress Vancouver, Canada, pp 604–611

  • Vetsch D (2015) System manuals of basement. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, p 178

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarrati AR, Tamai N, Jin YC (2005) Mathematical modeling of meandering channels with a generalized depth averaged model. J Hydraul Eng 131(6):467–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by a National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant, Application No: RGPIN-2016-06413.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département des génies Civil, Géologique et des Mines (CGM), École Polytechnique de Montréal, C.P. 6079, succursale Centre-Ville, Montreal, QC, H3C 3A7, Canada

    Basile Lavoie & Tew-Fik Mahdi

Authors
  1. Basile Lavoie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tew-Fik Mahdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tew-Fik Mahdi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lavoie, B., Mahdi, TF. Comparison of two-dimensional flood propagation models: SRH-2D and Hydro_AS-2D. Nat Hazards 86, 1207–1222 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2737-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2737-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation