Advertisement

The Effects of Topographic Map Scale and Costs of Land Surveying on Geometric Model and Flood Inundation Mapping

  • Asghar AzizianEmail author
Article
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

The quality of topographic datasets plays a key role in deriving terrain model and hydraulic simulation. In developing countries, data-sparse regions and most parts of the world, accessing to high-quality datasets is almost impossible and topographic maps with a specific scale should be used to derive the geometry of river bed and floodplains. For these areas, understanding the effects of map scale on the costs of land surveying/river projects and flood inundation mapping may lead to an appropriate flood modeling and reduce huge amounts of financial resources. This research addresses the effect of using topographic maps with different scales on the hydraulic properties and focuses on using the relationship between topographic map scale, the costs of land surveying and hydraulic properties. The results from the three river reaches (SojasRood and SafaRood rivers in Zanjan and Mazandaran provinces, respectively and Sarbaz river in Sistan-Baluchistan province, Iran) used in this study show that in small-scale rivers (SojasRood and SafaRood rivers), the effect of topographic map’s scale on water surface elevation (WSE) isn’t meaningful up to 1:4000 (4 K) map scale, while in the case of Sarbaz river WSE is approximately scale independent (even up to 1:10000 (10 K) map) and there is no considerable discrepancy between low and high-quality maps in predicting this important variable. For example, in SojasRood river the mean absolute error (MAE) in simulation of WSE for low-quality maps (5 K and 6 K maps) varies between 0.79 m and 1.78 m, while for high-quality maps (1 K, 2 K and 3 K) it restricts to only 0.25 m. Also, in the case of Sarbaz river, for maps with the scale of higher than 5 K (high resolution maps) the maximum values of MAE and RMSE statistics limit to 0.13 m and 0.16 m, respectively. Moreover, findings demonstrate that using the topographic maps with the scales of 2 K and 7 K instead of high quality maps (1 K and 2 K maps in small-scale rivers and Sarbaz river, respectively as base maps) lead to the same geometric model and the mean relative error (MRE) in simulating inundation extents is lower than 10%. These outcomes clearly indicate that by accepting some reasonable errors the low quality maps, that are cost-effective and not time-consuming, can be considered as alternative maps for flood simulation in low budget projects. Furthermore, assessing the costs of ground surveying shows that it highly depends on the scale of topographic maps and by using low quality instead of high quality maps the costs of topographic maps’ production significantly decreases. In addition, changes in hydraulic properties due to using these maps are not considerable when compared to the significant saved financial resources.

Keywords

Topographic map scale Costs of land surveying Flood inundation extent Developing countries Hydraulic modeling 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

  1. Ali AM, Solomatine DP, Baldassarre GD (2015) Assessing the impact of different sources of topographic data on 1-D hydraulic modeling of floods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:631–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azizian A, Shokoohi AR (2014) DEM resolution and stream delineation threshold effects on the results of geomorphologic-based rainfall runoff models. Turk J Eng Environ Sci 38(1):64–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azizian A, Shokoohi AR (2015a) Investigation of the effects of DEM creation methods on the performance of a semi distributed model: TOPMODEL. J Hydrol Eng 20(11):05015005(1-9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azizian A, Shokoohi AR (2015b) Effects of data resolution and stream delineation threshold effects on the results of a kinematic wave based GIUH model. Water SA 4(9):61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates PD, De Roo APJ (2000) A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. J Hydrol 236(1–2):54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandt S (2005) Resolution issues of elevation data during inundation modeling of river floods. In: Proceedings of the XXXI International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research Congress (IAHR), p 3573–3581Google Scholar
  7. Casas A, Benito G, Thorndycraft VR, Rico M (2006) The topographic data source of digital terrain models as a key element in the accuracy of hydraulic flood modeling. Earth Surf Process Landf 31:444–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cook A, Merwade V (2009) Effect of topographic data, geometric configuration and modeling approach on flood inundation mapping. J Hydrol 377:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haile A, Rientjes T (2005) Effects of LiDAR DEM Resolution in Flood Modelling: A Model Sensitivity Study for the City of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. ISPRS WG III/3, III/4 V/3 Workshop “Laser Scanning 2005”, p 168–173Google Scholar
  10. Hall JW, Tarantola S, Bates PD, Horritt MS (2005) Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration. J Hydraul Eng 131(February):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardy RJ, Bates PD, Anderson MG (1999) The importance of spatial resolution in hydraulic models for floodplain environments. J Hydrol 216(1–2):124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Horritt MS, Bates PD, Mattinson MJ (2006) Effects of mesh resolution and topographic representation in 2D finite volume models of shallow water fluvial flow. J Hydrol 329(1–2):306–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iranian National Cartographic Centre (2017) The guideline of land surveying, Tehran, 78ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Jena PP, Panigrahi B, Chatterjee C (2016) Assessment of Cartosat-1 DEM for modeling floods in data scarce regions. Water Resour Manag 30(3):1293–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jung Y, Merwade V (2011) Uncertainty quantification in flood inundation mapping using generalized likelihood uncertainty estimate and sensitivity analysis. J Hydrol Eng 17(4):507–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kavanagh BF, Glenn Bird SJ (1996) Surveying principles and applications, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, pp 257–264Google Scholar
  17. Laks I, Sojka M, Walczak Z, Wrózynski R (2017) Possibilities of using low-quality digital elevation models of floodplains in hydraulic numerical models. Water 9:283–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin S, Jing C, Coles NA, Chaplot V, Moore NJ, Wu J (2012) Evaluating DEM source and resolution uncertainties in the soil and water assessment tool. Stoch Env Res Risk A 27(1):209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moya Q, Popescu V, Solomatine I, Bociort L (2013) Cloud and cluster computing in uncertainty analysis of integrated flood models. J Hydroinf 15:55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pappenberger F, Matgen P, Beven KJ, Henry J-B, Pfister L, Fraipont P (2006) Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation predictions. Adv Water Resour 29(10):1430–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patro S, Chatterjee C, Singh R, Raghuwanshi NS (2009) Hydrodynamic modeling of a large flood-prone system in India with limited data. Hydrol Process 23:2774–2791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pinho J, Ferreira R, Vieira L, Schawanenberg D (2015) Comparison between two hydrodynamic models for flooding simulations at river Lima Basin. Water Resour Manag 29(2):431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saksena S, Merwade V (2015) Incorporating the effect of DEM resolution and accuracy for improved flood inundation mapping. J Hydrol 530:180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sanders BF (2007) Evaluation of on-line DEMs for flood inundation modeling. Adv Water Resour 30(8):1831–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schumann G, Matgen P, Cutler MEJ, Black A, Hoffmann L, Pfister L (2008) Comparison of remotely sensed water stages from LiDAR, topographic contours and SRTM. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 63(3):283–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Srinivas K, Werner M, Wright N (2009) Comparing forecast skill of inundation models of differing complexity: the case of Upton upon Severn. In: Samuels et al. (eds) Flood Risk Manage: Reasearch and Practice. Taylor & Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Tarekegn TH, Haile AT, Rientjes T, Reggiani P, Alkema D (2010) Assessment of an ASTER generated DEM for 2D flood modeling. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 12:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tayefi V, Lane SN, Hardy RJ, Yu D (2007) A comparison of one- and two-dimensional approaches to modelling flood inundation over complex upland floodplains. Hydrol Process 21(23):3190–3202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Teng J, Vaze J, Dutta D, Marvanek S (2015) Rapid inundation modelling in large floodplains using LiDAR DEM. Water Resour Manag 29(8):2619–2636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2010) HEC-RAS river analysis system hydraulic reference manual. Version 4.1. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, 411pGoogle Scholar
  31. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2015) HEC-RAS river analysis system 2D modeling user’s manual. Version 5.0. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, 171pGoogle Scholar
  32. Vaze J, Teng J, Spencer G (2010) Impact of DEM accuracy and resolution on topographic indices. Environ Model Softw 25:1086–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Werner MGF (2001) Impact of grid size in GIS-based flood extent mapping using 1-D flow model. Phys Chem Earth B 26:517–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson MD, Atkinson PM (2005) The use of elevation data in flood inundation modeling: a comparison of ERS interferometric SAR and combined contour and differential GPS data. Intl J River Basin Management 3:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Engineering DepartmentImam Khomeini International University (IKIU)QazvinIran

Personalised recommendations