Natural Hazards

, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 1207–1222 | Cite as

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

  • Basile Lavoie
  • Tew-Fik Mahdi
Original Paper


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.


Model comparison Two-dimensional flow modeling Hydro_AS-2D SRH-2D Automatic calibration 

List of symbols


Hydraulic diameter


Source term


Gravitational acceleration


Water depth


Turbulent kinetic energy


Manning’s roughness coefficient

Sfx, Sfy

Energy slope

Sbx, Sby

Bed slope


Turbulence stress

u, v

Velocity components


Water surface elevation


Bed elevation


Eddy viscosity


Kinematic viscosity of water


Turbulent eddy viscosity


Mass density


Shear stress



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


  1. AQUAVEO (2016) SMS 12.1—the complete surface-water solution. 10 Mar 2016
  2. Berger RC, Tate JN, Brown GL, Savant G (2013) Adaptive hydraulics: users manual.
  3. BMT-WBM (2014) TUFLOW FV user manual. In: Flexible mesh modelling. BMT-WBM, Brisbane, p 183Google Scholar
  4. 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 123:8–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunner GW (2016) HEC-RAS river analysis system user’s manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Davis, p 960Google Scholar
  6. Doherty, J (2008) PEST, model independent parameter estimation. User Manual: 5th Edition. Watermark Numerical Computing, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 277Google Scholar
  8. 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 135:917–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 3158–3164Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Froehlich DC (2002) User’s manual for FESWMS Flo2DH - Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-053Google Scholar
  12. Hydronia (2015) RiverFlow2D plus two-dimensional finite-volume river dynamics model. Hydronia, Pembroke Pines, p 157Google Scholar
  13. Jones DA (2011) The transition from earlier hydrodynamic models to current generation models. Master of Science, Brigham Young University, BrighamGoogle Scholar
  14. Lai YG (2008) SRH-2D version 2: theory and user’s manual. U.S. Department of the interior - Bureau of Reclamation, DenverGoogle Scholar
  15. Lai YG (2010) Two-dimensional depth-averaged flow modeling with an unstructured hybrid mesh. J Hydraul Eng 136:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin Z (2010) Getting started with PEST. The University of Georgia, AthensGoogle Scholar
  17. MacDonald I (1996) Analysis and computation of steady open channel flow. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Reading, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 2359–2366Google Scholar
  19. McKibbon J, Mahdi T-F (2010) Automatic calibration tool for river models based on the MHYSER software. Nat Hazards 54(3):879–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nujic M (2003) Hydro_AS-2D a two-dimensional flow model for water management applications user’s manual. Rosenheim, Deutschland.
  21. Shettar AS, Murthy KK (1996) A numerical study of division of flow in open channels. J Hydraul Res 34(5):651–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 604–611Google Scholar
  25. Vetsch D (2015) System manuals of basement. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Zurich, p 178Google Scholar
  26. Zarrati AR, Tamai N, Jin YC (2005) Mathematical modeling of meandering channels with a generalized depth averaged model. J Hydraul Eng 131(6):467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département des génies Civil, Géologique et des Mines (CGM)École Polytechnique de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations