30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium

4 - 7 December 2006
Launceston, TAS

Design flood estimation in small catchments using twodimensional hydraulic modelling A case study
Steve Muncaster
Associate Water Technology 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168
Email: steve.muncaster@watech.com.au
Warwick Bishop,
Associate Water Technology 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168, Email:
warwick.bishop@watech.com.au
Andrew McCowan
Director Water Technology 15 Business Park Drive, Notting Hill VIC 3168, Email:
Andrew.mccowan@watech.com.au
Abstract:
Design flood estimates are often required for small catchments as part of
development planning and/or infrastructure design. Traditionally, the probabilistic Rational Method has
been the principal approach to estimate design peak flow with simple hydraulic calculations employed
to size culverts and bridge waterways. The application of the Rational Method, while well ingrained in
engineering practice, relies on significant simplifications of the catchment runoff process. These
simplifications can lead to uncertainty surrounding design flood estimates. More sophisticated
analysis is possible through the use of runoff routing models such as RORB, Rafts or Urbs. Such
models allow greater detail to be incorporated into the analysis at a subcatchment level, although
some simplifications of the runoff process are still necessary. Recent developments in twodimensional hydraulic models enable the direct application of rainfall excess onto the computational
grid. Increasingly high resolution topographic data is becoming available, often associated with
proposed development of a particular area. These two developments facilitate the application of twodimensional hydraulic models as a runoff routing model in small catchments. This paper discusses the
key aspects of this application including appropriate topographic data sources, computational grid
resolution and effective roughness values. Results from a preliminary application to small rural
catchments in the Geelong region are presented and used to illustrate key aspects. In particular, the
selection of appropriate hydraulic roughness is critical. Better representation of catchment storage is
provided through the use of topographic data in the computational grid. The use of a two-dimensional
hydraulic model integrates the hydrologic and hydraulic aspects into a single model. Further
investigation is required to assess the role of hydraulic roughness in determining surface runoff rates.
Keywords:
1

runoff routing, hydraulic roughness, catchment storage, flood estimation

INTRODUCTION

The flood behaviour analysis of small

catchments is commonly undertaken as part of
infrastructure and development conceptual
design. This flood analysis typically consists of
two
components:
hydrologic
analysis
(determination of peak flows and flood
hydrographs) and a hydraulic analysis
(determination of flood depths, extents and
conceptual design of hydraulic structures).
Historically, the common approach employed
the Rational Method and simple culvert routines
as the two principal analysis tools. A more
refined approach may employ a runoff routing
model (e.g. RORB (Laurenson and Mein
1997)).
Key catchment characteristics for determining
flood response are runoff production (i.e.

catchment losses) and the available catchment

storage. The Rational Method lumps the loss
characteristic into the runoff co-efficient and the
storage catchment is reflected in the time of
concentration. Runoff routing models (RORB,
(Laurenson and Mein 1997), WBNM (Boyd et al
1994), & URBS (Carroll 2003), etc) split these
two characteristics with the runoff production
dealt with by the loss model. The catchment
storage is reflected by the use of a power
relationship between catchment storage and
m
outlet. The familiar S = KQ is found in various
forms in RORB, WBNM and URBS.
More rigorous analysis of catchment response,
particularly catchment storage, have been in
the past limited by the lack of available data
required to construct such models.

30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium

4 - 7 December 2006
Launceston, TAS

Assessment of the variation of available

catchment storage within small catchments can
be aided by available topographic data. Twodimensional hydraulic models can utilise
available topographic data in the analysis of
available catchment storage and its role in flood
response.
Recent developments in the cost effective
collection of topographic data, such as Airborne
Laser Scanning (ALS), has lead to increased
availability of detailed topographic information
and the potential use of two-dimensional
hydraulic analysis. Further, two-dimensional
hydraulic models have evolved significantly
over recent years (McCowan et al 2002).
Generally the use of two-dimensional (2D)
hydraulic
models
has
been
for
the
determination of flood extents and levels over
large floodplains. With this approach, a
hydrologic model/analysis has provided a flood
hydrograph as a boundary condition to the
hydraulic model. However, many 2D hydraulic
models are now capable of modelling the effect
of net rainfall on the computational grid.
This development has enabled the integration
of the hydrologic and hydraulic components of
flood behaviour analysis for small catchments.
This paper discusses the critical aspects of the
application of 2D hydraulic models as a tool for
runoff routing in small catchments. Particular
attention is paid to the following:
o Analysis of catchment storage
o Role of hydraulic roughness (Mannings n)
in determining catchment response
o Conservation
of
mass
within
two
dimensional models when applied with direct
net rainfall.
A case study for several small catchments to
the south of Geelong is provided to illustrate
this approach.
This paper aims to provide an initial insight to
the application of 2D hydraulic models to runoff
routing and is not intended as a rigorous review
of this application.
2

APPLICATION
OF
HYDRAULIC
MODELLING TO RUNOFF ROUTING AT
CATCHMENT SCALE

A number of hydraulic based models have been

developed for routing of surface runoff at the
catchment
scale.
These
models
use
topographic information at various resolutions,
and hydraulic solution techniques as the basis
to evaluate the connectivity and conveyance of

overland flow paths. These models include Liu

et al (2003), Jain and Singh (2005), and Fortin
et al. (2001). A review of similar applications is
provided in Singh and Woolhiser (2002).
Typically these models have employed the
kinematic wave and/or diffusive wave approach
to the solution of the Saint Venant equations.
These approaches overcome the computational
demands of the full dynamic wave hydraulic
model (Singh 1996).
The kinematic wave
and/or diffusive wave approach typically uses a
lower spatial resolution (larger computational
grid size). This lower spatial resolution
facilitates the use of more coarse topographic
data as the basis for the computational grid.
Further these models typically simulate the
runoff generation component as well as the
runoff routing component of surface flows.
Fully-dynamic wave 2D hydraulic models have
generally been employed for floodplain
hydraulic analysis. Recent developments have
seen dynamic wave hydraulic models, as such
MIKEFlood (DHI 2005) and TUFLOW (WBM
2006), able to have direct net rainfall on the
computational grid. The fully-dynamic wave
models are generally employed with a high
spatial resolution (smaller computational grid
size) than the diffusive wave models discussed
above. This high spatial resolution allows for
small features which influence catchment
storage characteristics to be adequately
schematised and resolved (Horritt and Bates
2001). The increased availability of high
resolution topographic data has the potential to
aid the application of fully-dynamic wave
models to runoff routing.
Various formulations of hydraulic roughness
have been employed in the 2D hydraulic
models. Determination of hydraulic roughness
parameters is well developed for floodplain
applications of 2D hydraulic models. For these
floodplain applications, hydraulic roughness
values are ideally determined through model
calibration against observed flood levels and
extents. However, in the absence of observed
flood data, many references (e.g. Chow 1959)
provide guidance.
In typical floodplain applications of 2D hydraulic
models, flow depths are generally in order of
tens of centimetres to several metres. When
applied for the purposes of runoff routing, flow
depths away from the main waterways are
small (< 0.1 m). At such shallow flow depths,
the effective roughness may increase due to
the effect and type of ground cover. As a result,
the roughness value applied to the same type
of ground cover may vary as the flow depth

30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium

4 - 7 December 2006
Launceston, TAS

increases. Further investigation of appropriate

roughness values away the watercourses is
required to refine the application of dynamic
wave 2D hydraulic models to runoff routing.

3 CASE STUDY ARMSTRONG CREEK,

GEELONG
3.1

External inflow catchments:- MIKE

Flood model was applied as per the
enclosed catchments for the portion of
the catchment within the study area.
Runoff
contributions
from
the
catchment external to the study area
were then determined by a RORB
model.

Study area

The case study focuses on 6 small catchments

located to the south west of Geelong. The study
area has been identified as a possible future
urban growth area for Geelong. Figure 1
(provided at the end of the paper) shows the
general location of the study area and
catchment delineation. The naming convention
for the catchments was taken as the City of
Greater Geelong specification. The catchment
areas are: C253&C254 442 ha, C255C 324
ha , C257 2833 ha, C267A - 74 ha, C267C
45 ha and C267D -32 ha.
The study area consists mainly of rural land.
The associated drainage is via a number of
drainage depressions and larger watercourses.
Generally the watercourses in the study area
are not well defined with extensive shallow
flooding occurring frequently.
The seven catchments can be divided into the
following two groups
o
o

3.2

Enclosed catchments catchments

entirely contained within the study area.
External
inflow
catchments

Catchments not fully enclosed in the

study area and have catchment inflows
from outside the study area.
General model application

The 2D hydraulic modelling package employed

for this study was MIKE Flood. The MIKE Flood
package is a state of the art tool for floodplain
modelling that has been formed by the dynamic
coupling of Danish Hydraulics Institutes well
proven MIKE 11 river modelling and MIKE 21
fully two-dimensional modelling systems. (DHI
2005)
Two approaches have been used for the
application of MIKE Flood. These two
approaches were developed to reflect the two
catchment types as follows:
o

Enclosed catchments:- MIKE Flood

was applied as an integrated hydrologic
and hydraulic model to the entire
catchment. Direct net rainfall was
applied to the computational grid.

The MIKE Flood models employed a 5 m

computational grid for all the catchments in this
case study.
Both the MIKE Flood and RORB models were
run for a range of design storm durations in
order to assess the critical durations.
3.3

Available input model data

There is no streamflow data available for the

catchments in the study area. As such, formal
calibration of the hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses has not been possible.
A photogrammetric survey covered the entire
study area consisting of a regular grid of spot
elevation, contours and breaklines to define
linear features. Further, the details of culverts,
bridges and retarding basins were incorporated
into the model.
3.4

Design rainfall and losses

Design rainfall depths and temporal patterns

were obtained from Australian Rainfall and
Runoff (IEAust 1999). A uniform design rainfall
spatial pattern was applied. To determine net
100 year design rainfalls for input into the MIKE
Flood, an initial loss of 10 mm and continuing
loss of 2 mm/hour were adopted for the rural
areas.
3.5

External catchment design inflow

hydrographs

For the external inflow catchments, the RORB

models were developed for the entire
catchments. The RORB parameter kc was
determined using a regional prediction formula
(Pearse et al 2002).
The RORB models
incorporated the existing retarding basins.
The design losses, for the RORB models, were
adopted as an initial loss of 10 mm and
continuing loss of 2 mm/hour. In urban areas, a
fraction impervious of 0.45 was adopted.

30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium

4 - 7 December 2006
Launceston, TAS

Hydraulic roughness

4.2

As discussed, the estimation of hydraulic

roughness is complicated by the shallow flow
depths occurring in catchments away from the
formal watercourses. To assess the impact of
roughness on computed peak flow at the
catchment outlet, the following two hydraulic
roughness scenarios were tested:
1. Uniform roughness
across the entire
catchment (Mannings n = 0.04)
2. Varied roughness with higher roughness in
areas away from the watercourses.
(Mannings n = 0.04 for watercourses and
n = 0.1 for remainder of catchment)
4 RESULTS

Flood hydrograph shape

As RORB models were developed for the two

external inflow catchments, design 100 year
flood
hydrographs
were
available
for
comparison to the MIKEFlood hydrographs.
Figures 2 and 3 shows the RORB model and
MIKEFlood 100 year design flood hydrographs
for the C253&C254, and C257 catchments for
the uniform roughness scenario.
16

RORB model

14

MIKEFlood
12

Flow (m3/s)

3.6

10
8
6
4

100 year peak flow

For the enclosed catchments, the subcatchment peak flows obtained from the MIKE
Flood models were compared to peak flows
obtained from the Rational Method.
The
Rational Method as outlined by VicRoads
(1999) was applied with a 10 year runoff coefficient (C10) of 0.1. The 10 year runoff coefficient was obtained from Australian Rainfall
and Runoff (IEAust 1999).
Table 1 Design 100 year peak flow
estimates: Enclosed catchments
Catchment

C255 C

Rational
Method
peak flow
(m3/s)
8.6

C267 A

2.9

MIKEFlood peak flow (m3/s)

Uniform
Varied
roughness
roughness
(floodplain 0.1)
19.6

13.3

4.4

2.6

C267 C

2.0

4.6

3.4

C267 D

1.6

4.8

3.8

For the external inflow catchments, Table 2

shows the MIKEFlood 100 year peak flows
compared to the RORB model peaks flows.
Table 2 Design 100 year peak flow
estimates: External inflow catchments
Catchment

C253
&C254
C257

RORB
model
(m3/s)

MIKEFlood peak flow (m3/s)

Uniform
Varied roughness
roughness
(floodplain 0.1)

12.7

14.8

13.6

44

66

48

0
0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00 11:00 12:00

Time (h)

Figure 2 C253&C254 100 year design flood

hydrographs
70

60

50

Flow (m3/s)

4.1

RORB
Mike Flood

40

30

20

10

0
0:00

2:00

4:00

6:00

8:00

10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00

Time (h)

Figure 3 C257 100 year design flood

hydrographs
4.3

Mass conservation

To ensure the MIKEFlood model was

adequately conserving mass, a comparison of
the net rainfall volume to the computed runoff
volume was made with the results shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 Mass conservation comparison
Catchment

Mass error (% of total inflow)

C255 C

2.7

C267 A

1.8

C267 C

1.0

C267 D

1.0

0:00

30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium

4 - 7 December 2006
Launceston, TAS

4.4

Catchment storage

1 in 5 to 10. It is considered that this higher

slope results in the MIKE Flood model
producing larger peak flow estimates. The
routing of overland flow in MIKE Flood accounts
for the slope of the terrain. The Rational
Method has no allowance for terrain slope in its
application.

For enclosed catchments over the duration of

the 100 year design flood, the flood storage
within the catchment and flow rate at the outlet
was determined at 5 minute intervals during the
hydrograph recession. Figure 4 shows the
storage-outflow relationships for the uniform
roughness scenario configuration discussed in
Section 3.6.

Similarly, for the C253&254, and C257

catchments, the MIKE Flood peak estimates
are larger than the RORB model estimates.

90000

For both sets of catchments, the use of the

varied roughness scenario has lead to a
decrease in the MIKEflood peak flow estimates.
These reductions range from 8% (C253/254) to
41 % (C267A). As expected, the increase in
Mannings n for overland flow areas, leads to
a decrease in flow velocity, increased
attenuation of the runoff and in turn lower peak
flows.

80000
70000

Storage (m3)

60000

C255C
C267A

50000

C267C
C267D

40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0

10

15

20

Flow (m3/s)

Figure 4 Catchment storage relationships

4.5

Overland path delineation

As the 2D hydraulic model calculates flow

depths across the entire catchment, the flood
extent and overland flow path can be
determined. Figure 1 displays the 100 year
flood extents. This has particular benefit in flat
terrain where the overland flow paths are illdefined.
5 DISCUSSION
For the enclosed catchments, 100 year peak
flows from the MIKE Flood models exceed the
Rational Method, except for C267A with the
varied roughness scenario. As there is no
calibration data available, an assessment of the
reliability of the peak estimates is not possible.
However, MIKE Flood peak flows appear to be
of the same order as the RORB and Rational
method.
The MIKE flood model peak flow estimate for
C255C is significantly higher than the Rational
Method estimate. The catchment for C255C is
relatively linear in shape. It is considered that
the shape of the catchment results in a shorter
overland flow paths to the main watercourse.
These shorter overland flow paths then result in
a higher peak flow.
The MIKE Flood models yield significantly
higher peak flows for C267C and C267D than
the Rational Method. These sub-catchments
are located in the upper part of the C267. As a
result, the slope of the terrain is of the order of

25

Ideally, through model calibration against

observed streamflow data, appropriate values
and spatial variation of Mannings n could be
quantified. The variation of Mannings n from
the watercourse to overland flow areas is likely
related to ground cover/vegetation and flow
depth. Further, a parallel could be drawn in
hydrological runoff routing, as such URBS
(Carroll 2002), with the division of channel and
sub-catchment routing parameters.
The mass balance errors of 1 - 2.7 % are
considered reasonable for this type of
application and reflect the stability of the
computational scheme.
The catchment discharge storage relationships
shown in Figure 4 display a high degree of
linearity across a range of flows with an
apparent non-linear response in the lower flow
range. Further investigation is required to
assess whether the non-linear response is
related to in-channel flow, while the linear
response is related to extensive overland flow.
6 CONCLUSIONS
This paper outlines an application of a 2D
hydraulic model to routing of surface runoff
within a small catchment. The functionality of
direct net rainfall of the computational grid has
enabled such application.
The increased
availability of high resolution topographic data
has further added to the development of such
models.
Particularly, the spatial variation of hydraulic
roughness is seen as an important model
parameter. The suitability of standard hydraulic
roughness (Mannings n) values in shallow

30th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium

4 - 7 December 2006
Launceston, TAS

overland
flow
investigation.

areas

requires

further

The application allows the evaluation of

catchment discharge storage relationships.
Further investigation of these relationships may
yield refinements of the relationships currently
in the use by hydrological runoff routing models.
REFERENCES
Boyd, M.J., E.H. Rigby, M.G. Sharpin and R.
VanDrie, Enhanced runoff routing model
WBNM.
Instn. Engineers Australia, Water
Down Under Conference, pp.445-448. 1994.
Carroll D, URBS a catchment management
and flood forecasting rainfall runoff routing
model. Version 3.94 User manual. Brisbane
2002
Chow, V.T., Open channel hydraulics. McGraw
Hill, New York. 1959.
DHI, MIKEFlood, Technical Reference and
Model Documentation. 2005.
Fortin, J.P., R. Turcotte, S. Massicote, R.
Moussa and J. Fitzback, A distributed
watershed model compatible with remote
sensing and GIS data. Part -1. Description of
the model, J. Hydrol. Eng., ASCE 6 (2), 91-99.
2001.
Horritt, M.S and P.D. Bates, Effect of spatial
resolution on raster based model of flood flow.
Journal of Hydrology, 253, 239-249, 2001.
Institution of Engineers Australia, Australian
Rainfall and Runoff, Vols 1&2. (Ed: Pilgrim
D.H.) 1999.

Jain, M.K.,
and V.P. Singh, DEM-based
modelling of surface runoff using diffusion wave
equation, Journal of Hydrology, 302, 107-126,
2005.
Laurenson, E.M. and R.G. Mein, RORB
Version 4, Runoff Routing Program User
Manual, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Monash
University 1997.
Liu, Y.B., S. Gebremeskel, F. De Smedt, L.
Hoffmann, and L. Pfister, A diffusive transport
approach for flow routing in GIS-based flood
modelling, Jour. of Hydrology, 283, 91-106,
2003.
McCowan, A.D., E.B. Ramussen and P.E. Berg,
Improving the performance of a two
dimensional hydraulic model for floodplain
application, Proc. Conf. on Hydraulics in civil
Engineering, Hobart, 2002.
Pearse M., P. Jordan and Y. Collins, A simple
method for estimating RORB model parameters
for ungauged rural catchments. 27th Hydrology
and Water Resources Symposium, Melbourne.
Institution of Engineers, Australia. 2002
Singh, V.P. and D.A. Woolhiser, Mathematical
modelling of watershed hydrology. J. Hydrol.
Eng., ASCE 7 (4), 270-292. 2002.
VicRoads, Road Design Guidelines Part 7
Drainage. VicRoads. Melbourne. 1999.
WBM, TUFLOW User Manual, June 2006.

Figure 1 Catchments and flood extents