Real-time forecasting urban drainage models: full or simplified networks?

Lead time between rainfall prediction results and flood prediction results obtained by hydraulic simulations is one of the crucial factors in the implementation of real-time flood forecasting systems. Therefore, hydraulic simulation times must be as short as possible, with sufficient spatial and temporal flood distribution modelling accuracy. One of the ways to reduce the time required to run hydraulic model simulations is increasing computational speed by simplifying the model networks. This simplification can be conducted by removing and changing some secondary elements using network simplification techniques. The emphasis of this paper is to assess how the level of urban drainage network simplification influences the computational time and overall simulation results' accuracy. The models used in this paper comprise a sewer network and an overland flow drainage system in both 1D/1D and 1D/2D approaches. The 1D/1D model is used as the reference model to generate several models with different levels of simplifications. The results presented in this paper suggest that the 1D/2D models are not yet suitable to be used in real-time flood prediction applications due to long simulation time, while on the other hand, the simplified 1D/1D models show that considerable reductions in simulation time can be achieved without compromising simulation results (flow and water depth) accuracy.

[1]  T. Tucciarelli,et al.  Dual Multilevel Urban Drainage Model , 2005 .

[2]  B Chocat,et al.  Flooding flows in city crossroads: experiments and 1-D modelling. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[3]  B. Gouldby,et al.  Recent development and application of a rapid flood spreading method , 2008 .

[4]  Dušan Prodanović,et al.  Overland flow and pathway analysis for modelling of urban pluvial flooding , 2009 .

[5]  D. Legates,et al.  Evaluating the use of “goodness‐of‐fit” Measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation , 1999 .

[6]  Matthew D. Wilson,et al.  Improved simulation of flood flows using storage cell models , 2006 .

[7]  Christopher Zoppou,et al.  Review of urban storm water models , 2001, Environ. Model. Softw..

[8]  W Rauch,et al.  Urban drainage redefined: from stormwater removal to integrated management. , 2001, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[9]  C. Maksimovic,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of surface runoff generation in urban flood forecasting. , 2010, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[10]  Flash flood risk management: Advances in hydrological forecasting and warning , 2009 .

[11]  Dragan Savic,et al.  Comparison of 1D/1D and 1D/2D Coupled (Sewer/Surface) Hydraulic Models for Urban Flood Simulation , 2009 .

[12]  E. Stephens,et al.  An integrated approach to modelling surface water flood risk in urban areas , 2008 .

[13]  G Lipeme Kouyi,et al.  One-dimensional modelling of the interactions between heavy rainfall-runoff in an urban area and flooding flows from sewer networks and rivers. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[14]  W. Schilling,et al.  Preliminary uncertainty analysis — a prerequisite for assessing the predictive uncertainty of hydrologic models , 1996 .

[15]  M. Pitt Learning lessons from the 2007 floods , 2008 .

[16]  S Djordjević,et al.  SIPSON--simulation of interaction between pipe flow and surface overland flow in networks. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[17]  P. D. Batesa,et al.  A simple raster-based model for flood inundation simulation , 2000 .