Water Resources Management

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 831–845 | Cite as

Enhancing the Capability of a Simple, Computationally Efficient, Conceptual Flood Inundation Model in Hydrologically Complex Terrain

  • J. TengEmail author
  • J. Vaze
  • S. Kim
  • D. Dutta
  • A. J. Jakeman
  • B. F. W. Croke


The simple conceptual flood inundation model TVD (Teng-Vaze-Dutta) is more computationally efficient and cost-effective than traditional hydrodynamic models. It is especially useful for applications that do not require velocity output and have low demands on flood dynamic representation. In this study, we have addressed the main inherent limitations of the original TVD model including: the assumption that all the floodplain depressions connected to the river are instantly filled up to the in-stream water level at each time step; the lack of information sharing at the boundary of two modelling reaches; and insufficient soil moisture processes. All of these can affect the model’s applicability and accuracy, especially in very flat and hydrologically complex floodplains. A number of improvements to the model structure have been implemented to address mass conservation, reach connectivity and water balance issues. The revised model was set up to simulate a number of flood events in Australia’s lower Balonne River and Darling River to test for its enhanced capability. The modelled inundation extents before and after the improvements were assessed against remote sensing water maps. The model developments have improved the accuracy of modelled flood extent. Nevertheless, there are still remaining issues that require the model to be used with caution when simulating flood inundation in difficult-to-model topographies, largely, the demand for reliable input of overbank flow volume and the extrapolating issue with weighting schemes.


Flood modelling Floodplain Inundation Antecedent soil moisture content 



This work was carried out as part of a PhD program of research involving the first author. The authors thank CSIRO Land and Water (Water Resource Management Program) and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for funding this research. We also thank Catherine Ticehurst and Steve Marvanek for modelling support. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that have greatly improved this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest



  1. Brunner GW (2016) HEC-RES river analysis system - user's manual version 5.0. US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC)Google Scholar
  2. Chiew FHS, McMahon TA (1991) The applicability of Morton and Penman evapotranspiration estimates in rainfall-runoff modeling. Water Resour Bull 27(4):611–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DHI (2012) MIKE 21 - 2D modelling of coast and sea. DHI Water & Environment Pty LtdGoogle Scholar
  4. Dutta D et al (2013) Building flood inundation modelling capability in river system models for water resources planning and accounting. IAHS-AISH publication, vol 359, pp 205–212Google Scholar
  5. Frazier PS, Page KJ (2000) Water body detection and delineation with Landsat TM data. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 66(12):1461–1467Google Scholar
  6. Horton RE (1941) An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration-capacity. Proc Soil Sci Soc Am 1940(5):399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones DA, Wang W, Fawcett R (2009) High-quality spatial climate data-sets for Australia. Aust Meteorol Ocean 58(4):233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. L'homme J et al (2008) Recent development and application of a rapid flood spreading method. Proceedings of FLOODrisk 2008. Keble College, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Maidment DR (1993) Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Marvanek S, Mateo C, Vaze J, Dutta D, Teng J, Gallant J (2017) A method for gap filling river channel bathymetry in a high-resolution digital elevation model for use in flood inundation modelling using measured river profile data. Extended Abstract. In: 2017 MODSIM Abstracts, p 517. The Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc.Google Scholar
  11. McFeeters SK (1996) The use of the normalized difference water index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. Int J Remote Sens 17(7):1425–1432. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKenzie NJ, Gallant JC (2006) Chapter 24 digital soil mapping with improved environmental predictors and models of pedogenesis. In: Lagacherie P, McBratney AB, Voltz M (eds) Developments in soil science. Elsevier, pp 327–349Google Scholar
  13. Moulinec C, Denis C, Pham CT, Rouge D, Hervouet JM (2011) TELEMAC: an efficient hydrodynamics suite for massively parallel architectures. Comput Fluids 51(1):30–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nobre AD, Cuartas LA, Hodnett M, Renno CD, Rodrigues G, Silveira A, Waterloo M, Saleska S (2011) Height above the nearest drainage - a hydrologically relevant new terrain model. J Hydrol 404(1–2):13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Prakash M, Rothauge K, Cleary PW (2014) Modelling the impact of dam failure scenarios on flood inundation using SPH. Appl Math Model 38(23):5515–5534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schumann G, Bates PD, Horritt MS, Matgen P, Pappenberger F (2009) Progress in integration of remote sensing–derived flood extent and stage data and hydraulic models. Rev Geophys 47(4):RG4001. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith LC (1997) Satellite remote sensing of river inundation area, stage, and discharge: a review. Hydrol Process 11(10):1427–1439.<1427::AID-HYP473>3.0.CO;2-S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Teng J, Vaze J, Dutta D, Marvanek S (2015) Rapid inundation modelling in large floodplains using LiDAR DEM. Water Resour Manag 29(8):2619–2636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Teng J, Jakeman AJ, Vaze J, Croke BFW, Dutta D, Kim S (2017) Flood inundation modelling: a review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environ Model Softw 90:201–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ticehurst C, Dutta D, Vaze J (2015) A comparison of Landsat and MODIS flood inundation maps for hydrodynamic modelling in the Murray-Darling Basin 21st International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Gold Coast, Australia, 29 Nov to 4 Dec 2015 Gold Coast, pp 2144–2150Google Scholar
  21. Vaze J, Mateo CM, Crosbie R, Marvanek S, Peeters L, Wang B, Ticehurst C, Hughes J (2016) AWRA-L input spatial layers at 1 km and 5 km resolutions - source data and comparison between 1 km and 5 km resolutions, 115 pages, CSIRO, Australia. Available at: Accessed 23 Oct 2018
  22. Vacondio R, Rogers B, Stansby P, Mignosa P (2011) SPH modeling of shallow flow with open boundaries for practical flood simulation. J Hydraul Eng 138(6):530–541. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhang Y, Wei H, Nearing MA (2011) Effects of antecedent soil moisture on runoff modeling in small semiarid watersheds of southeastern Arizona. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:3171–3179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSIRO Land and WaterCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.The Fenner School of Environment and SocietyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Mathematical Sciences InstituteThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations