Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269168809
CITATIONS
READS
79
3 authors:
Luis Timbe
Patrick Willems
University of Cuenca
University of Leuven
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
J. Berlamont
University of Leuven
124 PUBLICATIONS 831 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Fig. 1 Location of the Dender river basin and overlay with the Dender subbasins,
the main river network and the locations of the hydraulic structures
(1)
Q2
A
h qQ Q
Q
+
+ gA + 2
=0
(2)
t
x
x C AR
where: Q is the discharge, A the flow area, q the lateral inflow, h the stage above datum, C
the Chezy resistance coefficient, R the hydraulic or resistance radius and the momentum
distribution coefficient.
The hydrodynamic module of Mike 11 uses an implicit, finite difference scheme for
computation of unsteady flows in rivers and estuaries. In addition, critical and subcritical flow
conditions can also be described (DHI, 2002).
The quasi-2D approach means that the floodplains along the river are modelled using a
network of 1D river branches (hereafter called floodbranches) and spills (overflows) in
between the main river branch and the floodbranches to represent the river dikes. Spills may
also be used in between different floodplain areas.
In the first stage the potential flood risk zones for the Dender were identified based on the maps
of recent floods ROG for Flanders which describe the maximal spatial extent of historical
floods for the last 12 years (SADL, 2000). To setup the quasi-2D hydrodynamic model for the
Dender a first set of floodbranches were implemented for the floodplains along the ROG regions
(Fig. 2). The cross sections for these floodbranches were extracted from the DEM.
Fig. 2 Overlay of the DEM with the ROG maps for the upstream part of the Dender, together
with an illustration of the implementation of floodbranches in the quasi-2D
hydrodynamic model
To measure the fit between the historical flood maps (observed) and the simulated flood
maps (modelled) the goodness-of-fit index presented by Bates and De Roo (2000) and Horrit
and Bates (2002) was used:
A I Amod
F = obs
(3)
Aobs U Amod
where Aobs and Amod represent the total number of observed and predicted inundated pixels
respectively.
The index F lies in the range [0-1] satisfying the general criterion to measure model
performance. The numerator represents the common pixels in both the observed and predicted
flood maps, while the denominator is the union of both flood maps. F is equal to zero when
there is no overlap between the observed and predicted flooded area, and is equal to one when
both flooded areas are exactly the same.
Fig. 3 Flood maps at the region between chainages 10470 m - 25050 m a) corrected ROG at
the peak moment and ERS-SAR derived flood map at 12/31/1993 23:00, b) Mike
11/Mike GIS at the peak moment
Fig. 5 Flood maps at the region between Idegem and Pollare, a) corrected ROG at the peak
moment, b) Mike 11/Mike GIS at the peak moment
Fig. 6 Flood maps for the floodplain Denderbellebroek, chainages: 43994-46300, a) ROG and
Mike 11/Mike GIS at the peak moment, b) ERS-SAR and Mike 11/Mike GIS at
2/2/1995 23:00
The comparison between the predicted model results at the peak moment and the ROG
derived flood map is shown for the Denderbellebroeck in Fig. 6a. As can be seen the results