Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 835–852 | Cite as

One Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling of River Flow Using DEM Extracted River Cross-sections

  • Niranjan Pramanik
  • Rabindra Kumar Panda
  • Dhrubajyoti Sen


River cross-sections are the prime input to any river hydraulic model for simulation of water level and discharge. Field measurements of river cross-sections are labour intensive and expensive activities. Availability of measured river cross-sections is scanty in most of the developing countries, thereby making it difficult to simulate the water level and discharge using hydraulic models. A methodology for extracting river cross-sections from Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission digital elevation model (SRTM DEM) of 3-arc second has been proposed in the reported study. The extracted river cross-sections were used to simulate the magnitude of flood in the deltaic reaches of Brahmani river basin located in the eastern India. Forty cross-sections along the reaches of the rivers were extracted from the DEM and were used in the MIKE 11 hydrodynamic (MIKE 11HD) model. Prior to using the DEM-extracted river cross-sections in the model, the cross-sections were modified based on the results of the DEM error analysis. Four available measured river cross-sections were compared with the DEM-extracted modified cross-sections to examine their geometric and hydraulic similarity. By changing Manning’s roughness coefficient (n), same stage-discharge relationship could be obtained in both types of cross-sections. Subsequently, the DEM-extracted cross-sections were used in the MIKE 11HD model for the simulation of discharge and water levels at various sections of the rivers. The model was calibrated for the period of June 15–October 31 of the year 1999 and validated for the year 2003. The model validation results showed a close agreement between the simulated and observed stage hydrographs. The calibrated values of Manning’s n were found to vary within the range of 0.02 to 0.033. The study revealed that freely available SRTM DEM-extracted river cross-sections could be used in hydraulic models to simulate stage and discharge hydrographs with considerable accuracy under the scarcity of measured cross-section data.


Hydrodynamic model SRTM DEM MIKE 11 Hydraulic parameters 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbott MB (1979) Computational hydraulics. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbott MB, Ionescu F (1967) On the numerical computation of nearly horizontal flows. J Hydraul Res 5:97–117Google Scholar
  3. Abbott MB, Petersen HM, Skovgaard O et al (1978) On the numerical modelling of short waves in shallow water. J Hydraul Res 16:173–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates PD, De Roo APJ (2000) A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation. J Hydrol (Amst) 236:54–77. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00278-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates PD, Horrit MS, Smith CN, Dason D et al (1997) Integrating remote sensing observations of flood hydrology and hydraulic modeling. Hydrol Process 11:1777–11795. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199711)11:14<1777::AID-HYP543>3.0.CO;2-E CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blake SH (2001) An unsteady hydraulic surface water model of the lower cosumnes river, California, for the investigation of floodplain dynamics. University of California Davis, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  7. Chow VT (1959) Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chowdhury S, Kjeld J (2002) Simulation of coastal flooding with MIKE 11 and HEC-UNET. Solutions to coastal disasters, pp 205–214Google Scholar
  9. Cunge JA, Holly FM, Verwey A et al (1980) Practical aspects of computational river hydraulics. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutta D, Herath S, Musiake K et al (2000) Flood inundation simulation in a river basin using a physically distributed hydrological model. Hydrol Process 14:497–519. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(20000228)14:3<497::AID-HYP951>3.0.CO;2-U CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottardi G, Venutelli M (2004) Central scheme for two-dimensional dam-break flow simulation. Adv Water Resour 27:259–268. doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2003.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammersmark CT, Fleenor WE, Schladow SG et al (2005) Simulation of flood impact and habitat extent for a tidal freshwater marsh restoration. Ecol Eng 25:137–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hardy T, Panja P, Mathias D et al (2005) WinXSPRO, a channel cross section analyzer, user’s manual, version 3.0. USDA. Mountain Research StationGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunter NM, Bates PD, Matthew S, Horritt MS, Wilson MD et al (2007) Simple spatially-distributed models for predicting flood inundation: a review. Geomorphology 90:208–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jain SK, Agarwal PK, Singh VP et al (2007) Hydrology and water resources of India. Springer, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  16. Kale VS (1997) Flood studies in India: a brief review. J Geol Soc India 49:359–370Google Scholar
  17. Meng J, Cao Z, Carling PA et al (2006) pointwise and upwind discretizations of source terms in open-channel flood routing. J Hydrodynam 18(4):397–386. doi: 10.1016/S1001-6058(06)60111-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merwade V, Cook A, Coonrod J et al (2008) GIS techniques for creating river terrain models for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping. Environ Model Softw 23:1300–1311. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mishra A, Anand A, Singh R, Raghuwanshi NS et al (2001) Hydraulic modeling of Kangsbati main canal for performance assessment. J Irrig Drain Eng 127:27–34. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2001)127:1(27) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunes CF, Rego FC, Saraiva MDG et al (1998) Coupling GIS with hydrologic and hydraulic flood modelling. Water Resour Manag 12:229–249. doi: 10.1023/A:1008068426567 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramesh R, Datta B, Bhallamudi SN, Narayana A et al (2000) Optimal estimation of roughness in open channel flows. J Hydraul Eng 126:299–303. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2000)126:4(299) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Renyi L, Nan L (2002) Flood area and damage estimation in Zhejiang, China. J Environ Manag 66:1–8. doi: 10.1006/jema.2002.0544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shumuk Y, Zabil D, Ward P, Millar R, Kjelds JT, Henry R et al (2000) Updating the design flood profile for the Fraser River gravel reach with the Mike 11 hydrodynamic model. Presentation to the CWRA 53rd annual conference, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh SK (2004) Analysis of uncertainties in digital elevation models in flood (hydraulic) modeling. Masters thesis, International Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, India.
  25. Strelkoff T (1970) Numerical solution of Saint-Venant equations. J Hydraul Div 96:223–252Google Scholar
  26. Tayfur G, Kavvas ML, Govindaraju RS, Storm DE et al (1993) Applicability of St. Venant equations for two dimensional overland flows over infiltrating rough surfaces. J Hydraul 119:51–63. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1993)119:1(51) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vijay R, Aabha S, Apurba G et al (2007) Hydrodynamic simulation of river Yamuna for riverbed assessment: a case study of Delhi region. Environ Monit Assess 130:381–387. doi: 10.1007/s10661-006-9405-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang JS, Ni HG, He YS et al (2000) Finite-difference TVD scheme for computation of dam-break problems. J Hydraul Eng 126:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang GT, Yao C, Okoren C, Chen S et al (2006) 4-Point FDF of Muskingum method based on the complete St Venant equations. J Hydrol (Amst) 324(1–4):339–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.10.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niranjan Pramanik
    • 1
  • Rabindra Kumar Panda
    • 1
  • Dhrubajyoti Sen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Food EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations