Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hydrodynamic modelling of a flood-prone tidal river using the 1D model MIKE HYDRO River: calibration and sensitivity analysis

  • Published:
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hydrodynamic modelling is a powerful tool to gain understanding of river conditions. However, as widely known, models vary in terms of how they respond to changes and uncertainty in their input parameters. A hydrodynamic river model (MIKE HYDRO River) was developed and calibrated for a flood-prone tidal river located in South East Queensland, Australia. The model was calibrated using Manning’s roughness coefficient for the normal dry and flood periods. The model performance was assessed by comparing observed and simulated water level, and estimating performance indices. Results indicated a satisfactory agreement between the observed and simulated results. The hydrodynamic modelling results revealed that the calibrated Manning’s roughness coefficient ranged between 0.011 and 0.013. The impacts of tidal variation at the river mouth and the river discharge from upstream are the major driving force for the hydrodynamic process. To investigate the impacts of the boundary conditions, a new sensitivity analysis approach, based on adding stochastic terms (random noise) to the time series of boundary conditions, was conducted. The main purpose of such new sensitivity analysis was to impose changes in magnitude and time of boundary conditions randomly, which is more similar to the real and natural water level variations compared to impose constant changes of water level. In this new approach, the possible number of variations in simulated results was separately evaluated for both downstream and upstream boundaries under 5%, 10%, and 15% perturbation. The sensitivity analysis results revealed that in the river under study, the middle parts of the river were shown to be more sensitive to downstream boundary condition as maximum water level variations can reach 8%, 12%, and 15% under 5%, 10%, and 15% changes in the downstream boundary, respectively. The outcomes of the present paper will benefit future modelling efforts through provision of a robust tool to enable prediction of water levels at ungauged points of the river under various scenarios of flooding and climate change for the purpose of city planning and decision-making.

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
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

References

  • Ardıçlıoğlu, M., & Kuriqi, A. (2019). Calibration of channel roughness in intermittent rivers using HEC-RAS model: case of Sarimsakli creek, Turkey. SN Applied Science, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1141-9.

  • Abbs, D., McInnes, K. & Raftar, T. (2007) The impact of climate change on extreme rainfall and coastal sea levels over South-East Queensland. Part 2: a high-resolution Modelling study of the effect of climate change on the intensity of extreme rainfall events. CSIRO.

  • Adair, L., & Rahman, A. (2003). Identification of erosion potential in an urban river in North Australia using GIS and hydrodynamic model. Proceeding of the modeling and simulation Society of Australia and Newzealand Inc. Townsville, Australia: Jupiter Hotel and Casino.

    Google Scholar 

  • BOM (Bureau of Meteorology). (2017). Flood warning system for the Nerang river. Australia: Gold Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, P. D. (2004) Computationally efficient modelling of flood inundation extent, proceedings of the hydrological risk, Cosenza, Italy, Brath, A., Montanari, A., Toth, E., Eds.

  • Bruce, L. C., Frassl, M. A., Arhonditsis, G. B., Gal, G., Hamilton, D. P., Hanson, P. C., et al. (2018). A multi-lake comparative analysis of the General Lake model (GLM): Stress-testing across a global observatory network. Environmental Modelling and Software, 102, 274–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunton, E. A., Srivastava, S. K., Schoeman, D. S., & Burnett, S. (2018). Quantifying trends and predictors of decline in eastern grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus) populations in a rapidly urbanising landscape. Pacific Conservation Biology, 24(1), 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulomytis, V. T. G., Zuffo, A. C., Filho, J. G. D., & Imteaz, M. A. (2017). Estimation and calibration of Manning’s roughness coefficients for ungauged watersheds on coastal floodplains. International Journal of River Basin Management, 15(2), 199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, R., Zhang, D., & Jia, H. (2011). Factor sensitivity analysis with neural network simulation based on perturbation system. Journal of Computers, 6(7), 1402–1407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, J., Bosch, D., Vellidis, G., Lowrance, R., & Strickland, T. (2013). Multi-site evaluation of hydrology component of SWAT in the coastal plain of Southwest Georgia. Hydrological Processes, 27(12), 1691–1700.

  • Chen, W. B., & Liu, W. C. (2017). Modeling the influence of river cross-section data on a river stage using a two-dimensional/three-dimensional hydrodynamic model. Water, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9030203.

  • DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute). (2016). MIKE 11 hydrodynamic reference manual. Denmark: Horsholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douben, K. J. (2006). Characteristics of river floods and flooding: A global overview, 1985-2003. Irrigation and Drainage, 55, S9–S21.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Paiva, R. C. D., Buarque, D. C., Collischonn, W., Bonnet, M. P., Frappart, F., Calmant, S., et al. (2013). Large-scale hydrologic and hydrodynamic modeling of the Amazon River basin. Water Resources Research, 49(3), 1226–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, I., Chronopoulos, J., Chronopoulou-Sereli, A., & Lek, S. (1999). Neural network models to study relationships between lead concentration in grasses and permanent urban descriptors in Athens city (Greece). Ecological Modelling, 120(2–3), 157–165.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dung, N. V., Merz, B., Bardossy, A., Thang, T. D., & Apel, H. (2011). Multi-objective automatic calibration of hydrodynamic models utilizing inundation maps and gauge data. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(4), 1339–1354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabio, P., Aronica, G. T., & Apel, H. (2010). Towards automatic calibration of 2-D flood propagation models. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14(6), 911–924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garson, G. D. (1991). Interpreting neural network connection weights. Artificial Intelligence Expert, 6(4), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • GCCC (Gold Coast City Council). (2006). Nerang River integrated catchment and waterway management plan. Gold Coast, Australia: Mtchell, C., & Oldridge, S.

    Google Scholar 

  • GCCC (Gold Coast City Council). (2007). Hinze dam stage 3, environmental impact statement supplementary report. Australia: Gold Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • GCCC (Gold Coast City Council). (2011). The Nerang River catchment study guide. Australia: Gold Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • GCCC (Gold Coast City Council). (2015). Nerang River catchment, hydrological study. Australia: Gold Coast.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. W., Boyce, S. A., Wang, Y., Dawson, R. J., Tarantola, S., & Saltelli, A. (2009). Sensitivity analysis for hydraulic models. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 135(11), 959–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnegger, M., Nachtnebel, H. P., & Schulz, K. (2015). From runoff to rainfall: Inverse rainfall-runoff modelling in a high temporal resolution. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(11), 4619–4639.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, M. M. M., Hofstra, N., & Sokolova, E. (2018). Modelling the present and future water level and discharge of the tidal Betna River. Geosciences, 8(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8080271.

  • Jahandideh-Tehrani, M., Bozorg-Haddad, O., & Loáiciga, H. A. (2019). Application of non-animal–inspired evolutionary algorithms to reservoir operation: an overview. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191, 191–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7581-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M. (2018). River flow simulation using MIKE11 and SRTM DEM data: case of Mahanadi Delta region in India. Annals of Plant and Soil Research, 20(2), 130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Choi, S. Y., & Han, K. Y. (2019). Integrated real-time flood forecasting and inundation analysis in small-medium streams. Water, 11(5), 919–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leandro, J., Chen, A. A., Djordjevic, S., & Savic, D. A. (2009). Comparison of 1D/2D coupled (sewer/surface) hydraulic models for urban flood simulation. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 135(6), 495–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lek, S., Delacoste, M., Baran, P., Dimopoulos, I., Lauga, J., & Aulagnier, S. (1996). Application of neural networks to modelling nonlinear relationships in ecology. Ecological Modelling, 90(1), 39–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirfenderesk, H. (2009). Flood emergency management decision support system on the Gold Coast, Australia. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 24(2), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merwade, V., Cook, A., & Coonrod, J. (2008). GIS techniques for creating river terrain models for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environmental Modelling & Software, 23(10–11), 1300–1311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, S., Rahman, A., & Shaw, R. (2019). Spatial appraisal of flood risk assessment and evaluation using integrated hydro-probabilistic approach in Panjkora River basin, Pakistan. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-7746-z.

  • Moradkhani, H., Sorooshian, S., Gupta, H. V., & Houser, P. R. (2005). Dual state-parameter estimation of hydrological models using ensemble Kalman filter. Advances in Water Resources, 28(2), 135–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, G. E., & Bradford, A. (2009). Comparison of two stream temperature models and evaluation of potential management alternatives for the speed river, southern Ontario. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 866–878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models, part I - A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappenberger, F., Beven, K., Horritt, M., & Blazkova, S. (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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panda, R. K., Pramanik, N., & Bala, B. (2010). Simulation of river stage using artificial neural network and MIKE 11 hydrodynamic model. Computers & Geosciences, 36(6), 735–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parhi, P. K., Sankhua, R. N., & Roy, G. P. (2012). Calibration of channel roughness for Mahanadi river, (India) using HEC-RAS model. Journal of Water Resources and Protection, 4(10), 847–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, T., Wu, S., Dai, E., & Liu, Y. (2013). Estimating the daily global solar radiation spatial distribution from diurnal temperature ranges over the Tibetan plateau in China. Applied Energy, 107, 384–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahman, M. M., Arya, D. S., Goel, N. K., & Dhamy, A. P. (2011). Design flow and stage computations in the Teesta River, Bangladesh, using frequency analysis and MIKE 11 modeling. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 16(2), 176–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radwan, M., Willems, P., & Berlamont, J. (2004). Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for river quality modelling. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 6(2), 83–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strelkoff, T. (1970). Numerical solution of saint-Venant equations. Journal of Hydraulic Division, 96(1), 223–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santhi, C., Arnold, J. G., Williams, J. R., Dugas, W. A., Srinivasan, R., & Hauck, L. M. (2001). Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 37(5), 1169–1188.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scardi, M., & Harding, L. W. (1999). Developing an empirical model of phytoplankton primary production: A neural network case study. Ecological Modelling, 120(2–3), 213–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarvia, J. P., Lima, B. S., Gomes, V. M., Flores, P. H. R., Gomes, F. A., Assis, A. O., et al. (2017). Calculation of sensitivity index using one-at-a-time measure based on graphical analysis. In Proceeding of the 18th International Scientific Conference on Electric Power Engineering (EPE), Kouty nad Desnou. IEEE: Czech Republic, Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, X. Y., Newham, L. T. H., Croke, B. F. W., & Norton, J. P. (2012). Three complementary methods for sensitivity analysis for water quality model. Environmental Modelling and Software, 37, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, L. Y., Chen, C. F., Fan, C. H., & Lin, J. Y. (2017). Using HSPF and SWMM models in a high previous watershed and estimating their parameter sensitivity. Water, 9(10), 780–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teng, J., Jakeman, A. J., Vaze, J., Croke, B. F. W., Dutta, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Flood inundation modelling: a review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environmental Modelling and Software, 90, 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tayfur, G., Kavvas, M. L., Govindaraju, R. S., & Storm, D. E. (1993). Applicability of St. Venant equations for two dimensional overland flows over infiltrating rough surface. Journal of Hydraulic, 119(1), 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Liew, M. W., Arnold, J. G., & Garbrecht, J. D. (2003). Hydrologic simulation on agricultural watersheds: choosing between two models. Transaction of the ASABE, 46(6), 1539–1551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, J. P., Moisan, S., Faure, J. B., & Dartus, D. (2005). Toward a reasoned 1D river model calibration. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 7(2), 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vijay, R., Sargoakar, A., & Gupta, A. (2007). Hydrodynamic simulation of river Yamuna for riverbed assessment: a case study of Delhi region. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 130(1–3), 381–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Liu, T., Shang, S., Yang, D., Melesse, M., & A. (2010). Estimation of design discharge for an ungauged overflow-receiving watershed using one-dimensional hydrodynamic model. International Journal of River Basin Management, 8(1), 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. S., Ni, H. G., & He, Y. S. (2000). Finite-difference TVD scheme for computation of dam-break problems. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126(4), 252–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W., Rodi, W., & Wenka, T. (2000). 3d numerical modelling of flow and sediment transport in open channels. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 126(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, A., & Solomatine, D. P. (2019). Practical experience of sensitivity analysis: comparing six models, on three hydrological models, with three performance criteria. Water, 11(5), 1062–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, P., & Young, P. (1979). Water quality in river systems: Mont Carlo analysis. Water Resources Research, 15(2), 451–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warmink, J. J., Van der Klis, H., Booij, M. J., & Hulscher, S. J. M. H. (2011). Identification and quantification of uncertainties in a hydrodynamic river model using expert opinions. Water Resources Management, 25(2), 601–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, Z., Xiong, L., Xu, J., Cai, X., Chen, K., & Wu, J. (2019). Runoff simulation of two typical urban green land types with the stormwater management model (SWMM): sensitivity analysis and calibration of runoff parameters. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191, 343–358.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Water level records at Evandale Alert site and DEM data have been provided by the Department of Environment and Resources Management and Geoscience Australia, respectively. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Water Monitoring Information Portal, Queensland Government, Australia, in their provision of the water level data, and of the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia, for providing Gold Coast Seaway tidal data and Carrara Water level data. The authors would also like to thank DHI for the freely provision of MIKE software for the current research.

Funding

Funding for this project has been provided by Griffith University Postgraduate Research School through the GUPRS scholarship and Griffith University International Postgraduate Research School through the GUIPRS scholarship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

    Mahsa Jahandideh-Tehrani, Fernanda Helfer, Hong Zhang & Graham Jenkins

  2. CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia

    Yingying Yu

Authors
  1. Mahsa Jahandideh-Tehrani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fernanda Helfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Graham Jenkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yingying Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahsa Jahandideh-Tehrani.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jahandideh-Tehrani, M., Helfer, F., Zhang, H. et al. Hydrodynamic modelling of a flood-prone tidal river using the 1D model MIKE HYDRO River: calibration and sensitivity analysis. Environ Monit Assess 192, 97 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-8049-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-019-8049-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation