Enhancing MIKE11 Updating Kernel and Evaluating Its Performance Using Numerical Experiments
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 17, Issue 2
Abstract
A drainage basin is a flood-prone area in many parts of the world, especially in areas in which major urban development is underway, creating numerous social, economical, and psychological problems in both developed and developing countries. As a result, the use of flood forecasting and early warning systems is mandatory to reduce the economic losses and the risk incurred on people. The MIKE11 Flood Forecasting (FF) updating procedure can identify two different types of errors between measured and simulated data, namely amplitude and phase error, ignoring the nonuniform amplitude error around the flood peak region tentatively called shape error. In this paper, after making a clear distinction of such terms as simulation with and without an updating kernel (UK) and coupled versus decoupled calibration, the conventional UK incorporated into the MIKE11 FF hydrodynamic model is synthesized in some detail regarding the nature of amplitude and phase errors. In light of the nonuniform nature of amplitude error around the peak region, a three-parameter UK either coupled or decoupled is proposed for possible incorporation into MIKE11 FF. A highly controlled numerical experiment is devised to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology compared with the conventional two-parameter UK implemented in MIKE11. Altogether, four different UKs are constructed and the forecasting results are compared and contrasted with plain simulation without any updating. Computed performance error indices clearly indicate the superiority of three-parameter UK to the two-parameter one. In summary, the proposed three-parameter UK could be regarded as a suitable alternative for adaptive forecasting of flood in drainage basins using MIKE11 or any other hydraulic and/or hydrologic simulation model.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abedini, M. J., and Hashemi, M. R. (2006). “Effect of convective term suppression in numerical simulation of trans-critical open channel flow.” Iran. J. Sci. Technol., Trans. B, Eng., 30(B1), 85–96.
Abedini, M. J., and Karimaghaee, P. (2007). “On line, continuous water level measurement using laser sensor: A useful tool for flood monitoring, forecasting and warning.” 7th Int. River Engineering Conf., Hassuni H. Zadeh, ed., Shahid Chamran Univ., Khuzestan Water and Power Authority, Ahvaz, Iran.
Aronica, G., Hankin, B., and Beven, K. J. (1998). “Uncertainty and equifinality in calibrating distributed roughness coefficients in a flood propagation model with limited data.” Adv. Water Resour., 22(4), 349–365.
Bao, W., Zhang, X., Yu, Z., and Qu, S. (2011). “Real-time equivalent conversion correction on river stage forecasting with manning formula.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 16(1), 1–9.
Beck, M. B. (1987). “Water quality modeling: A review of the analysis of uncertainty.” Water Resour. Res., 23(8), 1393–1442.
Brocca, L., Melone, F., Moramarco, T., and Singh, V. P. (2009). “Assimilation of observed soil moisture data in storm rainfall-runoff modeling.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 14(2), 153–165.
Cunge, J. A. (2003). “Of data and models.” J. Hydroinformatics, 5(2), 75–98.
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI). Modelling system for rivers and channels reference manual, 2009 Ed., Hørsholm, Denmark.
Dessalegne, T., Nicklow, J., and Minder, E. (2004). “Evolutionary computation to control unnatural water level fluctuations in multi-reservoir river systems.” River Res. Appl., 20(6), 619–634.
Freeze, R. A. (1980). “A stochastic-conceptual analysis of rainfall-runoff processes on a hillslope.” Water Resour. Res., 16(2), 391–407.
Hsu, M. H., Fu, J. C., and Liu, W. C. (2006). “Dynamic routing model with real-time roughness updating for flood forecasting.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 132(6), 605–619.
Komma, J., Bloschl, G., and Reszler, C. (2008). “Soil moisture updating by ensemble Kalman filtering in real-time flood forecasting.” J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 357(3), 228–242.
Krzysztofowicz, R. (1993). “A theory of flood warning systems.” Water Resour. Res., 29(12), 3981–3994.
Liu, W. C., Chen, W. B., Hsu, M. H., and Fu, J. C. (2010). “Dynamic routing modeling for flash flood forecast in river system.” Nat. Hazards, 52(3), 519–537.
Merwade, V., Olivera, F., Arabi, M., and Edleman, S. (2008). “Uncertainty in flood inundation mapping: Current issues and future directions.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(7), 608–620.
Mukhopadhyay, B., Nouri, F., Penland, C., and Dutta, A. (2009). “Model flood alert system: Development and application for the Theater District within Downtown Houston, Tex.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 14(5), 475–489.
Pappenberger, F., Beven, K. J., Horritt, M., and Blazkova, S. (2005). “Uncertainty in the calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observations.” J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 302(1–4), 46–69.
Paudyal, G. N. (2002). “Forecasting and warning of water-related disasters in a complex hydraulic setting—The case of Bangladesh.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 47(S), S5–S18.
Refsgaard, J. C. (1997). “Validation and intercomparison of different updating procedures for real-time forecasting.” Nord. Hydrol., 28(2), 65–84.
Sene, K. (2008). Flood warning, forecasting and emergency response, Springer, London, 303.
Shamir, E., Lee, B. J., Bae, D. H., and Georgakakos, K. P. (2010). “Flood forecasting in regulated basins using the ensemble extended Kalman filter with the storage function method.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 15(12), 1030–1044.
Shamseldin, A. Y., and O’Connor, K. M. (2001). “A non-linear neural network technique for updating of river flow forecasts.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5(4), 577–597.
Shaygani, S., and Abedini, M. J. (2007). “Investigating the impact of local and convective term suppression in numerical solution of unsteady supercritical free surface flow.” Proc., 7th Int. River Engineering Conf., Hassuni H. Zadeh, ed., Shahid Chamran Univ., Khuzestan Water and Power Authority, Ahvaz, Iran.
Shiiba, M., Laurenson, X., and Tachikawa, Y. (2000). “Real-time stage and discharge estimation by a stochastic-dynamic flood routing model.” Hydrol. Processes, 14(3), 481–495.
Srinivasulu, S., and Jain, A. (2009). “River flow prediction using an integrated approach.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 14(1), 75–83.
Wang, C. H., and Bai, Y. L. (2008). “Algorithm for real time correction of stream flow concentration based on Kalman filter.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(5), 290–296.
Woolhiser, D. A. (1996). “Search for physically based runoff model—A hydrologic El Dorado?” J. Hydraul. Eng., 122(3), 122–129.
Xiong, L., and O’Connor, K. M. (2002). “Comparison of four updating models for real-time river flow forecasting.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 47(4), 621–639.
Xiong, L., O’Connor, K. M., and Guo, S. (2004). “Comparison of three updating schemes using artificial neural network in flow forecasting.” Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8(2), 247–255.
Young, P. C. (2002). “Advances in real-time flood forecasting.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, 360(1796), 1433–1450.
Yu, P. S., and Chen, S. T. (2005). “Updating real-time flood forecasting using a fuzzy rule-based model.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 50(2), 265–278.
Zhao, C., Hong, H. S., Bao, W. M., and Zhang, L. P. (2008). “Robust recursive estimation of auto-regressive updating model parameters for real-time flood forecasting.” J. Hydrol., 349(3–4), 376–382.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 17 • Issue 2 • February 2012
Pages: 252 - 261
Copyright
© 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Mar 5, 2011
Accepted: May 9, 2011
Published online: May 11, 2011
Published in print: Feb 1, 2012
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.