Hydrological Sciences Journal

ISSN: 0262-6667 (Print) 2150-3435 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj20

FluBiDi – a model to estimate flood based on

runoff: validation using extreme and natural basin
conditions

Faustino De Luna-Cruz, J.G. Ramos-Hernández, O.A. Fuentes-Mariles & J.

Gracia-Sánchez

To cite this article: Faustino De Luna-Cruz, J.G. Ramos-Hernández, O.A. Fuentes-Mariles

& J. Gracia-Sánchez (2019) FluBiDi – a model to estimate flood based on runoff: validation
using extreme and natural basin conditions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 64:3, 297-317, DOI:
10.1080/02626667.2019.1578464

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1578464

Accepted author version posted online: 04

Feb 2019.
Published online: 27 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 99

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj20
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL
2019, VOL. 64, NO. 3, 297–317
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2019.1578464

FluBiDi – a model to estimate flood based on runoff: validation using extreme

and natural basin conditions
Faustino De Luna-Cruza,b, J.G. Ramos-Hernándezb, O.A. Fuentes-Marilesb and J. Gracia-Sánchezb
a
Programa de Maestría y Doctorado en Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM-CU, Ciudad de México, México;
b
Instituto de Ingeniería, Coordinación de Hidráulica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, UNAM-CU, Ciudad de México, México

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

FluBiDi is a two-dimensional model created to simulate real events that can take days and Received 29 May 2018
months, as well as short events (minutes or hours) and inclusive laboratory tests. To verify the Accepted 22 November
robustness of FluBiDi, it was tested using a previous study with both designed and real digital 2018
elevation models. The results highlight good agreement between the models (i.e. Mike Flood, EDITOR
SOBEK, ISIS 2D, and others) tested and FluBiDi (around 90% for a specific instant and 95% for the A. Castellarin
complete time simulation). In the simulated hydrographs, the discharge peak value, time to peak,
and water level results were accurate, reproducing them with an error of less than 5%. The ASSOCIATE EDITOR
H. Kreibich
velocity differences observed in a couple of tests in FluBiDi were associated with very short
periods of time (seconds). However, FluBiDi is highly accurate for simulating floods under real KEYWORDS
topographical conditions with differences of around 2 cm when water depth is around 150 cm. FluBiDi; flood risk prediction;
The average water depth and velocities are precise, and the model describes with high accuracy shallow water equations;
the pattern and extent of floods. FluBiDi has the capability to be adjusted to different types of momentum and mass
events and only requires limited input data. conservation; flood
management

1 Introduction are no available records, in contrast to rainfall records,

which are accessible in several time series: daily, fortnightly
The main characteristics of basins exposed to floods are
or seasonal. Thus, the inter-annual variability in peak dis-
that they favour localized rainfall and rapid surface runoff,
charge needs to be efficiently correlated with the mean
and that tributary flood peaks reach the main stem in a
annual precipitation or the mean annual runoff (Wohl
time-synchronized manner (Robinson et al. 1995, Gupta
2007). Additionally, to determine how easy it is for rain-
and Waymire 1998, Kusumastuti et al. 2007). The flood
water falling on the land to reach a given stream, a fill–spill
impact can be local, affecting a community, or large, dis-
approach, the generation of preferential flows and surface
turbing the entire river basin, whether the flood is large
runoff connectivity thresholds, can be used (Beven and
(quite rare) or small (common). In particular, the recur-
Davies 2015). At this point, high connectivity represents a
rence of large floods in a river is a function of meteorolo-
major flood risk because larger volumes of water will reach
gical and physiographical conditions. Thus, a change in
streams and rivers rapidly, generating a high level of dis-
climate modifies flood potential in both magnitude and
charge. Also, the relationship between the shape of the
frequency, although Blum (2007) considered that it is not
hillslope and the stream, as well as steep slopes with no
directly proportional to the increase or decrease in precipi-
flat area next to the stream, represent a higher level of
tation, since basin physiography could accelerate flooding
connectivity compared with smooth slopes or flat lands.
as a result of alignment of highlands, drainage patterns and
Thus, there is a need to understand the hydrological con-
types of landforms, and the amount of moisture presented.
nectivity between a river and its floodplain, which requires
In general, river basins exposed to high rainfall events
knowledge of the interplay between the climate, ecological,
present an organized drainage net, increasing the water
geomorphological and hydrological processes in the eco-
flow at the mainstream according to the amount and
system (Hudson et al. 2013). Furthermore, runoff and
intensity of precipitation and the topography of the basin
floods are also nonlinear, threshold-driven processes as a
(Gupta 2010). Flow discharges also depend on the river
result of the interactions between climate and catchment
geometry and roughness of the channel, which are some of
characteristics, such as surface and subsurface pathways,
the nonlinear relationships present in a hydrological sys-
which are dynamic and heterogeneous and have highly
tem. However, even if flood discharges are common, there

CONTACT J.G. Ramos-Hernández jramosh@iingen.unam.mx

© 2019 IAHS
298 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.
nonlinear relationships with other variables and para-
meters (Kusumastuti 2006).
The nonlinearities of the system also imply, among
other characteristics, different volumes of rainfall
inputs for different pristine conditions; thus, they mod-
ify the unit hydrograph of a river since there is not a
linear relationship transforming effective precipitation
depths into the rainfall–runoff hydrograph (Sherman
1932, 1942). However, runoff varies with the spatial
and temporal patterns of rainfall and the topographic
and hydrological characteristics of a catchment, and
preferential and non-preferential flows are generated
travelling at different distances and speeds (Robinson
and Sivapalan 1997, Jothityangkoon et al. 2001, Spence
and Woo 2006, Kusumastuti et al. 2007). Thus, in
order to predict the rainfall–runoff hydrograph, it is
necessary to recognize that different rainfall, drainage
basin size and form, topography, vegetation and cli-
mate generate a characteristic rainfall hydrograph of a
given duration similar to the unit hydrograph, and
different flood responses are expected between seasons
or over a period of many years in the same region.
Strahler (1964) pointed out that the drainage basin
morphometry has a direct effect on the flood hydro-
graph. Also, Gupta (2010) mentioned other conditions
such as basin shape and bifurcation ratio. Additionally,
it is important to consider the scale of temporal varia-
bility – inside and between a storm, as well as seasonal
(annual), inter-decadal and inter-annual – and to
establish a hydrological connection from the main
channel at the basin to the drainage network.
Commonly, hydrograph users ignore the nonlinearities
of rainfall, runoff and floods, although they could
introduce intermittency to the rainfall–runoff process.
This is because natural or artificial reservoirs could
attenuate or terminate the runoff response and produce
runoff via overflow (Kusumastuti 2006).
Moreover, Blöschl and Sivapalan (1997) showed that
the coefficient of variation of a flood frequency curve
increases by a factor of four when nonlinearity is not
introduced into the rainfall–runoff relationship.
According to Balthazar et al. (2009), nonlinear dyna-
mical systems are highly complex, since real systems
are imperfect and uncertainties are present in both
system parameters and modelling stage. Basically,
uncertainties are related to the lack of precise knowl-
edge of the system parameters, random or noisy exter-
nal loading, operating conditions, and variabilities in
the processes, among others. Also, Balthazar et al.
(2009) mentioned that these uncertainties are not
important and may be overlooked in the mathematical
modelling. This is the case when rainfall is not forecast,
the basin size is small, the hydrogram or limnigram is
known, and there are no losses by infiltration. Thus,
uncertainties could be related to the use of nonlinear
aspects for both rainfall and runoff and in the flood
boundary delineation based on the topography (slope,
digital elevation model – DEM). In this way, a fine grid
enables accurate prediction of the pattern of flood
depth, whether or not a wide range of flood discharge
is being tested, without the need for recalibration of the
roughness coefficient.
Fiorentino and Iacobellis (2001) analysed the effect
of runoff thresholds that reinforce different generation
mechanisms on the resulting flood frequency distribu-
tions and established the concept of variable runoff
contribution area. Nippgen et al. (2015) recognized
that it is necessary to differentiate between active and
contributing areas because they are not interchange-
able. For Ambroise (2004), active areas have no
hydraulic connection to the stream network, thus
they do not contribute to watershed runoff when the
downhill flow paths are discontinuous. In this way,
lateral connectivity of rivers and floodplains, as well
as peak discharges have been studied in more detail; for
example, Middelkoop and Asselman (1998) examined
embankment floodplains. Hudson et al. (2013) pointed
out that using only a conventional cross-sectional
channel approach to explain connectivity is limited.
They proposed a longitudinal perspective that reduces
the restriction between the river and floodplain, calcu-
lating the area of floodplain inundation associated with
different discharge magnitudes and flow durations, and
relating the pattern of inundation to the floodplain
geomorphology. Also, authors have noticed that coarse
floodplain elevation data are sometimes used, which
makes it difficult to estimate the exact threshold of
connectivity accurately. Other studies have considered
differences in the floodplain geomorphology to under-
stand the pattern and spatial extent of inundation. In
some cases, studies have used the same return period
or flow duration without taking into account that the
river stage varies longitudinally as a result of a non-
linear downstream profile (Hudson et al. 2013).
To simulate theoretical distributed floods favouring
the use of numerical simulation models, the variable
runoff contribution area is fundamental (Fiorentino et
al. 2006). Some of these models, from empirical to
physically-based, or with stochastic to distributed para-
meters, have failed to reproduce the way in which a
basin responds to precipitation (i.e. typical features of
the runoff process) because they consider the beha-
viour to be linear. A stream hydrograph alone has
limited value in assessing whether the simulation
obtained fits the water flow accurately within the
basin in both space and time. To understand the

water flow effect in a flood, McDonnell and Beven
(2014) mentioned that it is necessary to test models
to settle multiple working hypotheses for different
catchment responses, as was done by Néelz and
Pender (2013).
Mathematical models, as distinct from hydrological
ones, can represent a flood by using only cross-sec-
tions, or by including the development of the mixing
layer between the main channel and floodplain in two-
dimensional (2D) models. Such 2D models also include
features of the components of the drainage net. Bates
and De Roo (2000) indicated that topography needs to
be considered in particular detail to model the water
levels achieved, in order to avoid significant errors in
the estimation of flooding when using 2D models. For
instance, the use of DEMs or remote sensing data such
as LiDAR helps in understanding the floodplain pro-
cesses and allowing utilization of 2D models, such as
finite elements, due to the accuracy of the topography
data (Marks and Bates 2000).
The main purpose of this research is to propose a
distributed, physically-based model called FluBiDi
(“Bidimensional Distributed Flow”), as an alternative
to the commercial models already used worldwide As
with other 2D codes that predict runoff and flooding in
large river basins, FluBiDi simulates both historical and
statistical flood events from several recurrence times.
The time step is determined as function of the pixel
size: hour or minutes for 1 km to 1 second for 10 m to
achieve accurate rainfall–runoff hydrographs. To com-
pare the accuracy and robustness of the model, several
tests were replicated from the benchmark report of
Néelz and Pender (2013) to simulate (1) water flow
movement under extreme conditions (initial and
boundary, and designed topography), and (2) quasi-
natural flood events considering hydraulic input
(boundary conditions and initial condition) and a com-
plex topography (i.e. a real ecosystem). In Section 2,
the FluBIDi model derivation and numerical integra-
tion are presented together with the test of its applica-
tion, while the tests of accuracy and robustness are
described in Sections 3 and 4, with the results of an
existing DEM being provided in Section 4; concluding
remarks are presented in Section 5.
2 FluBiDi model
The FluBiDi model is a fourth-generation modelling sys-
tem for forecasting runoff developed by Fuentes and
Franco (1997) and complemented by De Luna (2015) at
the Institute of Engineering of the Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México (UNAM). First, FluBiDi seeks to
establish runoff for a given site within a basin under study
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 299
and determines the contribution volume of this site to the
total basin runoff (including local rain). To do this, the
analysis performed with the model uses rainfall data to
develop a rainfall–runoff hydraulic model. Second, as a
distributed, physically-based model, FluBidDi provides
an interpretation closer to reality, since it incorporates
several variables and parameters of the hydrological cycle
and basin characteristics. This is possible because the
mathematical model is founded on physical principles
that consider equations at a small scale, assuming that
scale changes are possible using parametric values.
The FluBiDi model is a hydraulic model; it includes a
subroutine that incorporates complex analysis involving
temporal and spatial variations of input (precipitation)
and output parameters (runoff, evapotranspiration and
infiltration) for long-term events (months). For the out-
put parameters, the US SCS (Soil Conservation Service)
curve number (CN) method is used with the premise that
the soil dries out after each rain event. Basically, the
model involves the momentum and mass conservation
equations; thus, to calculate water flow of the drainage
network and floodplain in a basin, it is necessary to solve
a differential equation system under certain initial and
boundary conditions. For this, the model uses the finite
difference method because there is no analytical method
for the solution of the equations mentioned (De Luna
2015). Therefore, to model the process of transformation
of rainfall into runoff, it is assumed that (1) part of the
rain does not become runoff (loss) while the remainder
does (differences) (production module), and (2) runoff
movement is observed through the basin until it reaches
the site of interest (transfer module) Additionally,
FluBiDi simulates runoff in the surrounding plains and
at hydraulic structures (i.e. bridges) in order to obtain the
extent of flooded area, magnitude of water levels and
water velocity reached during the discharge. The dynamic
character of floods and the influence of water displace-
ment downstream requires the use of mathematical mod-
els that, at least, include flow equations in two horizontal
dimensions, in which water velocity corresponds to the
average vertical value. This allows FluBiDi to define dif-
ferent types of risk associated with either the velocity of
the stream or the level of water surface reached.
The first FluBiDi version was coded in VisualBasic
(Fuentes and Franco 1997), so the user could follow the
model in a graphical way as the simulation process
proceeded. This version was tested on the low basin
area of the La Sierra River, Tabasco State, Mexico, and
in this case “n” hydrographs were used as input data
(Fuentes-Mariles et al. 2000). This means that hydro-
grams from upstream input basins are considered, even
if they are not modelled. In 2009, “generalized rainfall”
was included; this means a single precipitation record
300 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.

was considered for the whole basin (González et al. Fsx and Fsy are force by mass unit associated with the
2009). After some field measurements, the model was movement resistance in the x and y directions (m s−2),
shown to have the ability to process surface water levels u and v are the flow velocities in the x and y directions,
as boundary conditions. Thus, the model uses known respectively (m s−2), and x and y are the horizontal and
values, taking records from flood limnigrams from vertical directions in the Cartesian system. Fsx and Fsy
hydrometric stations when the discharge is into the can be written in terms of friction slopes Sfx and Sfy:
continental land, or mareograms if the discharge goes
1 @p du
to the sea (Fuentes et al. 2010). Once the reliability of
þ X
gSfx ¼ (3)
ρ @x dt
the model was tested, precipitation records from sev-
eral climatological weather stations were considered in 1 @p dv

þ Y
gSfy ¼ (4)
2011. Currently, the FluBiDi model uses hydrographs, ρ @y dt
but in 2013 mathematical modelling was performed
using only surface water levels as a variable for the Also, it is necessary to consider that velocity (u and v)
boundary conditions. Two reservoirs connected by a changes in time and space; thus Equations (3) and (4)
single channel were considered in order to compute the are re-written as:
transference discharge (Domínguez-Mora et al. 2014). 1 @p @u @u @u
This was an innovative contribution, since very few
þ X
gSfx ¼ þu þv (5)
ρ @x @t @x @y
models have the ability to establish boundary condi-
tions and most of them require as input both the 1 @p @v @v @v

þ Y
gSfy ¼ þu þv (6)
discharge and water level. FluBiDi can input two ρ @y @t @x @y
water levels to compute peak discharges since it uses
Due to gravitational acceleration, X and Y are equal to the
an intrinsic variable of the differential equations. The
gravitational potential derived on x and y, respectively. If
2013 version of FluBiDi was used to map the risk level
the gravitational potential is defined as the gravity accel-
for housing (severity as depth per velocity) during a
eration on the z axis (perpendicular to x and y):
flood, and a validation of the flood surface water levels
was performed using remote sensing (Fuentes-Mariles @
X¼
ðgzÞ ¼
gð@=@xÞðzÞ (7)
et al. 2013). FluBiDi is a promising flood simulation @x
model that has already been calibrated and validated on @
real events in several river basins in Mexico and could Y¼
ðgzÞ ¼
gð@=@yÞðzÞ (8)
@y
be useful in other regions.
It is considered that, for water flows on broad terrain
with little gradient background, the convective accel-
2.1 Model theoretical derivation eration is negligible. Thus, this model is applicable in
As already stated, for the mathematical models, the situations where the Froude number is small (Ogden et
flow equations need to be included in two horizontal al. 2015).
dimensions. Here, the depth-averaged 2D shallow Equations (7) and (8) are similar if one considers the
water equations (SWE) are derived by integrating the bed slope (S0x and S0y). p = ρ g h (fluid density, gravity
Navier-Stokes equations (based on the study of the acceleration and water depth) substituted in Equations
motion of viscous fluids involving parametrization at (3) and (4) provides:
a macroscale from the basic microscale equation) 1 @u @h

assuming that hydrostatic pressure distribution and þ ¼ S0x
Sfx (9)
g @t @x
uniform velocity profiles take place in the vertical
direction. As the model involves the momentum and 1 @v @h

þ ¼ S0y
Sfy (10)
mass conservation equations, the governing equations g @t @y
for momentum are (Mahmood and Yevjevich 1975):
For friction slopes, it is important to introduce the
1 @p du Manning-Strickler equation, where n is Manning’s

þ X
Fsx ¼ (1)
ρ @x dt roughness coefficient:
1 @p dv n2 juju

þ Y
Fsy ¼ (2) Sfx ¼ (11)
ρ @y dt h4=3
where p is hydrostatic pressure (kg m−2), X and Y are n2 jvjv
Sfy ¼ (12)
forces by mass unit in the x and y directions (m s−2), h4=3
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 301

Regrouping, considering Z as surface water level vectors, which link microscopic to macroscopic cir-
related to the land topography, these equations are culation via the Navier-Stokes theorem. These surface
written as: integrals represent the conversion of the lineal inte-
gral into area integrals, this implies changing the
1 @u n2 juju @h @Z
þ 4=3 ¼

(13) boundary conditions of the region (Green´s theo-
g @t h @x @x rem). Some schemes consider the homogeneous, con-
1 @v n2 jvjv @h @Z servative part of the system, and a discretization of
þ 4=3 ¼

(14) the non-conservative term with a “lateralization”
g @t h @y @y
(Costabile et al. 2012). Thus, velocities are located
Finally, the governing mass continuity equation needs in half of the cell sides and the surface water and
to consider rain contributions and infiltration losses; topography are at the centre of the cells (Fuentes and
thus: Franco 1997). In this case, the flood basin area (in
@h @hu @hv horizontal projection mesh) is divided into rectangu-
þu þv ¼ r
f (15) lar cells, with length Δx and width Δy, and equations
@t @x @y
are solved for each variable at the centre of the model
where r is the rain intensity and f is the infiltration domain (Fig. 1) (Fuentes and Franco 1997, Costabile
losses. et al. 2012). Under this scheme, the momentum
equations may be written as:
 
1 @u @h @Z
2.2 Numerical integration scheme juju þ α ¼
α þ (16)
g @t @x @x
The finite volume method was used for the numerical  
integration of the governing equations. It considers 1 @v @h @Z
jvjv þ α ¼
α þ (17)
the integral form of the SWE to define schemes on g @t @y @y
different mesh types. The system of equations is
4=3
integrated over an arbitrary control volume to obtain with α ¼ hn2 . Thus, Equations (1) and (2) can be
surface integrals for each component of the flux expressed in terms of finite differences as:

Figure 1. Zone in which the flood area is allocated in the model.

302 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.

  pþ1 p
uiþ1=2;j
uiþ1=2;j As the solution of Equation (23) considers two values for
 pþ1  pþ1 p
uiþ1=2;j uiþ1=2;j þ αiþ1=2;j the numerical fluxes, it is necessary to consider initial and
gΔt
" p p
# boundary conditions. Initial boundaries consider an initial
p hiþ1;j
hi;j ziþ1;j
zi;j time, t0, in order to assign values to the variables u, v and h;
¼
αiþ1;j þ (18)
2 Δx Δx in this case, the floodplain is dry, so these variables are zero.
If there is a water body (source/sink, q), depth values (h) in
  pþ1 p
vi;jþ1=2
vi;jþ1=2
 pþ1  pþ1 p some cells will be zero, but others will correspond to a
vi;jþ1=2 vi;jþ1=2 þ βi;jþ1=2
gΔt known surface water level. Thus, it is necessary to take
p p
!
h
h ziþ1;j
zi;j into account that the mesh could have known depth and
p iþ1;j i;j
¼
βi;jþ1 þ (19) velocity values (Fig. 2).
2 Δy Δy
The border conditions consider four points from the
centre of the cell: for the right side (R), for the left side
where
(L), and for above and below. The first assumption is for
!4=3
p
hiþ1;j þ hi;j
p
1 null velocity. Thus, looking at Figure 2, if i is equal to 1,
p
αiþ1=2;j ¼ (20) the velocity is ui-1/2,j = u1/2,j = 0; otherwise, for a max-
2 n2iþ1=2;j
imum value of i (i = M), the velocity is ui-1/2,j = uM-1/2,j.
p p
!4=3 Above the cell, if j = N, the velocity is vi,j-1/2 = vi,N-1/2 = 0,
hi;jþ1 þ hi;j 1
p
βi;jþ1=2 ¼ (21) and below the cell, for j = 1, the velocity is vi,j−1/2 = vi,1/
2 n2i;jþ1=2 2 = 0. The final equations for the left (i = 1), right (i = M),
above and below are, respectively, Equations (24), (25),
ni;j þ niþ1;j
niþ1=2;j ¼ (22) (26) and (27):
2
p pþ1
hpþ1 ¼ hi;j þ qi;j ΔxΔyΔt
Subscripts i and j are used to geolocate the variables and p i;j

represents the moment in which these variables are con- Δt h pþ1  p p


pþ1

p p
i

uiþ1;j hiþ1;j þ hi;j
ui
1;j hi;j þ hi
1;j
sidered. Also, some considerations, such as whether the 2Δx 2 2

Δt h pþ1  p p

pþ1

p p
i
surface water level is positive or null on the basis of the
vi;jþ1 hi;jþ1 þ hi;j
vi;j
1;j hi;j þ hi;j
1
2Δy 2 2
mass equation, provide Equation (23) as the final equation:
(24)
pþ1 p pþ1
hi;j ¼ hi;j þ qi;j ΔxΔyΔt pþ1 p pþ1
hM;j ¼ hM;j þ qM;j ΔxΔyΔt
Δt h pþ1  p   i
Δt h pþ1  p i
p pþ1 p p

uiþ1;j hiþ1;j þ hi;j
ui
1;j hi;j þ hi
1;j p
2Δx 2 2

uM
1;j hM;j þ hM
1;j
Δt h pþ1  p   i 2Δx
Δt h pþ1  p   i
2
p pþ1 p p

vi;jþ1 hi;jþ1 þ hi;j
vi;j
1;j hi;j þ hi;j
1

p pþ1 p p
vM;jþ1 hM;jþ1 þ hM;j
vM;j
1 hM;j þ hM;j
1
2Δy 2 2
2Δy 2 2

(23) (25)

Figure 2. Frontier boundaries considered in the mathematical modelling.

 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 303

pþ1 p pþ1
hi;N ¼ hi;N þ qi;N ΔxΔyΔt the latest generation of 2D hydraulic modelling
Δt h pþ1  p p

pþ1

p p
i packages” developed by Néelz and Pender (2013). In

uiþ1;N hiþ1;N þ hi;N
ui
1;N hi;N þ hi
1;N
2Δx this report, several 2D simulation models were selected
Δt h pþ1  p i
2 2

p

vi;N
1 hi;N þ hi;N
1
2Δy 2
(26)
pþ1 p pþ1
hi;1 ¼ hi;1 þ qi;j ΔxΔyΔt
    
Δt pþ1 p p pþ1 p p

u 1 h þ hi;j
ui
1 hi;1 þ hi
1;1
2Δx iþ2;1 iþ1;1 2;1
h
Δt pþ1 p  i
p

v 3 hi;2 þ hi;j
2Δy i;2
(27)
As noted by Costabile et al. (2012), some controls are
necessary in order to prevent instability problems con-
sidering fully dynamic equations, particularly when
small depths are computed over complex topography
and at wet–dry interfaces. They identified three possi-
ble sources of problems: the interface between dry and
wet cells, steep bed levels and friction slope. The first
problem requires a temporary modification of the right
cell bed level, and the wet cell velocity component
normal to the wet–dry cell interface is set to zero to
ensure a no-flow condition. This temporary modifica-
tion does not consider that a wet cell next to a dry cell
on the right (R) is defined by hL > 0, hR = 0, so the
surface water level is other than hR > hL. For the second
problem, it is necessary to avoid negative water depths
because more water than that actually contained in the
wet cell may be computed as flowing into the dry cell.
In this case, a minimum water depth hs has to be
considered and, when a lower value is computed, the
cell is considered dry with the velocity components set
to zero and the cell itself is filled up to hs. Then, to
ensure the mass conservation, water is subtracted from
the adjacent cell containing most water and, in the
same cell, the variables hu and hv are also modified in
such a way to maintain u and v the same as before.
Finally, the friction slopes effect can be removed using
an implicit or semi-implicit treatment of the friction
source term (bed friction), trying to achieve a discreti-
zation of the independent term of the equation. This
guarantees that the bed friction does not result in
errors when simulating runoff if the water depth
becomes very small. For small water depths, the bed
friction term dominates over other terms in the
momentum equation as the term h4/3 appears in the
denominator.
to represent different theoretical 2D models for pre-
dicting real or hypothetical flood events, some consid-
ering a flash response and others a slow response. The
main benefit of performing this benchmark compari-
son was the accessibility of data for all cases of flood
situations. The simplified characteristics of the 2D
models maybe found revised in Neal et al. (2012).
The SWE model involves terms for convective accel-
eration, pressure, bottom slope, friction slope and
boundary conditions. As a full SWE model, FluBiDi
has the following characteristics:
● The first version, which was created for research
purposes, corresponds to a 1.0 Beta version in
Visual Basic, and the hardware platform is an
Intel Core i7 at 3.60 GHz, with a 32 GB RAM
desktop system and 64 bit Windows 8.1
Enterprise operating system.
● The minimum recommended hardware for run-
ning a FluBiDi simulation is a desktop with Intel
Core i5 at 3 GHz and 16 GB RAM, with a 64 bit
Windows 8 operating system.
● For distribution and use by the international com-
munity FluBiDi will be presented in Fortran C
and will be available from the website of the
UNAM Engineering Institute (www.iingen.
unam.mx).
● FluBidi is different from other models because it
does not use sub-menus to input data; it only
requires four files in txt format: a DEM, rainfall
or input runoff to the basin, limnigrams and sur-
face roughness (Manning’s n). Also, the initial
hydrodynamic conditions (velocity and water
depth) need to be introduced. Another character-
istic is that the user can monitor any stage of the
process, in parallel with the calculations, through
raster and vector files that provide limnigrams or
hydrograms, respectively, for each cell or section
of interest. The advantage in this is that the user
does not need to wait until the simulation finishes
to obtain useful information. The grid resolution
(or number of nodes in the area being modelled)
and total simulation time are specified for each
test.

Néelz and Pender (2013) carried out 10 hydraulic tests

2.3 Model application test
To test the reliability of the FluBiDi model, its perfor-
mance was checked against the report “Benchmarking
using 2D models with designed and existing DEMs
(Crowder et al. 2004, Néelz and Pender 2010), but here
only seven tests were replicated. Test 1 and Test 6 (A and B)
of Néelz and Pender (2013) were removed based on the
304 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.
conclusion of the report: the first because it was a trivial test
and covers the capability tested in Test 2, and the second
because of the difficulty to replicate real data (6A) and the
alteration to the data required to accomplish the boundary
conditions (6B). Test 7 “river to floodplain linking” was not
used as it will be further studied considering floods of
longer than 48 h duration. The FluBiDi model was set up
for the seven tests as a hydraulic model without the appli-
cation of any hydrological subroutine, since the initial
conditions correspond to events of short duration (sec-
onds, minutes, hours and some days) and only consecutive
rainfall events were considered.
3 Results for a designed DEM
In order to replicate accurately the benchmark of 2D
hydraulic modelling packages reported by Néelz and
Pender (2013), FluBiDi was initially set up to use a
similar DEM resolution in each test. Then the point
source hydrograph was established. This results section
briefly presents the objective of each test, the histogram
and the initial and boundary conditions. For more
Figure 3. (a) Inflow hydrograph and map of the area showing the 16 output point locations with the dashed (red) line indicating
the upstream boundary condition, and (b) water level results as a function of the flood characteristics, obtained using FluBiDi.
detail, the reader is referred to Néelz and Pender
(2013).
3.1 Filling of floodplain depressions (Test 2)
The objective of this test is “to assess the ability to
handle disconnected water bodies, wetting and drying
of floodplains, and to predict the inundation extent due
to low momentum flooding on a complex topography,
with an emphasis on the final distribution of flood water
rather than peak levels” (Néelz and Pender 2013).
Smooth topographic transitions in a hydrograph with
a peak flow of 20 m3 s−1 and time base of approx.
85 min were applied at the top left corner of the
domain where the bed is dry. The total processing
time was 48 h, offering the opportunity to allow
water levels to become stabilized in the 16 output
points (holes). The boundary conditions implied a
closed system with uniform cover (Manning’s
n = 0.03).
Figure 3(b) presents the fan distribution obtained
using FluBiDi with a preferential flow direction

towards the east by conservation of momentum. In
general, FluBiDi predicts the same behaviour as almost
all the SWE models for Points 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, where
the same water levels were achieved. This is expected,
because all the points present a maximum value com-
pared with later decreases, as a response to the
entrance hydrogram at Point 4. As the water flow
through the cells loses energy, it is distributed to the
lower levels, which absorb the wave, including Point 2
where the increase in flow is no longer reflected. In
fact, one characteristic of the 2D flows is the wave
regulation, as was observed for Points 1, 5 and 6
(Fig. 3). These points are located at the greatest dis-
tance from the origin; thus, less water arrives in
response to, as a function of, the roughness in the
topography. In the case of Point 5, FluBiDi starts to
fill the hole at 5 h, in contrast to the other points where
it took up to 13 h. For this reason, water reaches the
predicted water level faster and the low is towards
Point 9. At Points 12, 11, 10 and 9 we observed a
large amount of water arriving in the holes, in parti-
cular in the first three, due to the fan distribution in
FluBiDi overestimating the amount with respect to the
other models. Point 9 received almost no water in the
other models, although, thanks to the water available in
Point 5, there is more water at Point 9 in the FluBiDi
model. In general, in the FluBiDi model, the holes
could be filled in a few hours, but if the purpose is to
delay filling, Manning’s n needs to be modified, as this
is the roughness in the topography and is an important
aspect to consider in this test.
The FluBiDi modelling parameters were: ΔT = 0.5 s,
with a grid resolution of 20 m and a run time of 1210 s;
the total water volume was 97 238 m3 and the mean
water volume (for all the models including FluBiDi)
was 97 085.4 m3, with a standard deviation (SD) of
4713.5 m3. For two of the 20 models (Flowroute-iTM
and ISIS 2D) at least one value was outside the range of
mean ±2SD. Thus, the mean tendency followed by the
models without the outliers was 97 200 m3. Since
FluBiDi was 0.04% higher, it demonstrates that this
model can achieve reliable values (practically no water
loss or gain was observed), improving the process
knowledge.
3.2 Momentum conservation over a small
obstruction (Test 3)
The objective of this test is “to evaluate the channel
conservation of momentum considering an obstruction
of 100 m width in the sloping bed topography between
two depressions (point 1 at 150 m and point 2 at 250m)”
(Néelz and Pender 2013). The boundaries include an
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 305
initial dry bed. Moreover, upstream boundary condi-
tions consider a varying inflow discharge causing a
flood wave to travel down along a 1:200 slope. As a
function of the conservative momentum models, codes
were expected to predict a water level rise at Point 2
due to the acceleration terms. Manning’s coefficient n
is uniform at 0.01 and the grid resolution is 5 m.
It can be seen from Figure 4 that FluBiDi predicted a
less rapidly moving wave front at Point 1, starting with
an initial velocity of 0 m s−1 at t ≈ 80 s, whereas for the
other models velocity started at an average of t ≈ 60 s.
The generation of this slow moving wave means that
for FluBiDi the water level of 9.75 m is reached from
t ≈ 90 s, with a maximum value of 9.95–9.97 m at
t ≈ 200 s. This differs from the other models, which
reached the same initial water level at t ≈ 60 s and the
maximum water levels of 9.98–9.99 m at t ≈ 120 s. In
all cases there is some oscillatory behaviour, which was
related to two probable causes:
a. the wave energy is not completely absorbed in
the channel walls; for FluBiDi this implies a small
water level height in comparison with the other
models of almost 0.025–0.030 m, which is insig-
nificant, so there is not a major risk of flood; and
b. as the initial varying inflow is dependent on the
slope, when the slope increases a supercritical
flow is created, which is difficult to reproduce
by FluBiDi.
At Point 2, a contrasting rapid rise in the level was
seen after 140 s for FluBiDi compared to 180 s for the
other models, except for ISIS 2D, where the height rise
started at t ≈ 90 s. The ISIS 2D and FluBiDi models
achieved quite similar responses, obtaining water levels
of 9.89 and 9.88 m, respectively, whereas for the other
models the level was in the range 9.79–9.83 m. The
overall model response (referring to those tested by
Néelz and Pender 2013) could be divided into three
groups:
(i) Overestimating: in the ISIS 2D and FluBiDi
models, the main reason is because the accel-
eration term is not included in either model due
to the flash flow generated, although the total
volume is at the initial condition. The ISIS 2D
model was improved to reduce the flash flow
effect by introducing the MacCormack-TVD
scheme. In the case of FluBiDi, the oscillation
could be reduced by decreasing DT.
(ii) Underestimating: e.g. in Flowroute-iTM, where
the lowest Manning’s n value was 0.03 instead
of 0.01, due to stability of the model, and
306 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.
Figure 4. (a) Profile of the DEM and inflow hydrograph used as upstream boundary conditions, and results of (b) velocity (Point 1)
and (c) water level (Points 2 and 1) obtained by FluBiDi compared with the models tested by Néelz and Pender (2013).
(iii) Average: the remainder of the models is in this
group.
In general, the results presented in Test 3 in Néelz
and Pender (2013) are pretty poor, considering that the
test run time is a matter of seconds. However, the aim
was to show how FluBiDi behaves as it was created to
simulate the rainfall–runoff phenomenon in a real
basin; this means the run time may be minutes, hours
or days. Based on this premise, the FluBiDi results are
not as poor as they seem. This is because FluBiDi
simplifies equations and, for this test in particular, the
model’s equations do not need to be simplified. In
conclusion, even in this case, the FluBiDi model may
provide a close idea of the flood, which is very impor-
tant in flood risk analysis. The miscalculations were
due to the original condition, where the energy wave
is absorbed at the walls of the channel, as this was not
truly replicated. Also, the impact of the grid size and
Manning’s n coefficient are determinant aspects to be
considered.
The FluBiDi model parameters in Test 3 were a grid
resolution of 1 m with ΔT = 0.01 s and a run time of
2100 s. A large-resolution grid provides a better under-
standing of the wave movement in the channel. In
addition, it is highly probable that, if Manning’s n
were changed to represent more surface roughness,
the ISIS 2D and FluBiDi models could provide more
similar values to the majority of the other models.
3.3 Speed of flood propagation over an extended
floodplain (Test 4)
This test assessed “the code’s ability to simulate the
celerity of propagation of a flood wave and predict
transient velocities and depths in a flat horizontal flood-
plain” (Néelz and Pender 2013). Celerity implies the
speed with which perturbations are transmitted, con-
trolled by the hydrograph. The inflow boundary con-
dition simulates the failure of an embankment by
breaching or overtopping, with a peak flow of 20 m3 s−1
and the model run time is t = 5 h (Fig. 5). The

Figure 5. (a) Modelled domain, showing the location of the 20-m inflow and six output points, and (b) the hydrograph applied as
inflow boundary conditions. Source: Néelz and Pender (2013).
boundary condition is applied along a 20-m line in the
middle of the western side of the floodplain. Manning’s
n is uniform at 0.05 and the grid resolution is 5 m.
Water levels and velocity as tested by Néelz and
Pender (2013) are presented in Figure 6 showing the
FluBiDi response to each point superimposed. All the
full SWE models, including FluBiDi, predict water level
with a small percentage difference, and the difference
in run time between the models is also small. This
implies the need to identify the parameter model
against values of stream discharge, in order to optimize
the simulation. However, a stream hydrograph alone
has limited value in assessing whether the simulation
obtained accurately fits the water flow within the basin
in both space and time (McDonnell and Beven 2014).
Thus, Points 1 and 2 receive almost the same amount
of energy. At Point 5, the FluBiDi wave arrives late
(after 1 h) compared with the other models and, as a
consequence, the water level reached is low but still
within the expected interval.
In terms of velocity, FluBiDi presented a mean value
of 0.38 m s−1, which is comparable with the other
models. Differences observed at Point 1 were explained
by Néelz and Pender (2013) as the ability of all the
models to implement the boundary condition. This is
because the velocity is a fast phenomenon and, to
represent this, the model input parameters need to be
adjusted. The advantage of the FluBiDi model is that
there are few parameters to adjust, in contrast to the
other models which require several parameters to run
the simulation. As a result of these adjustments, the
flood wave arrives at the same time for all the models,
but there is a variation in the velocities reached, ran-
ging from 0.3 to 0.51 m s−1. As the energy wave
advances, it was observed for FluBiDi that it arrives
delayed by 10–15 min, although its prediction is within
the interval for all the codes; only at Point 6 was
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 307
FluBiDi slightly higher than the other codes except
for SOBEK. One probable reason for the differences
in wave arrival time and in velocity is the accuracy of
the simplification (adjustment) carried out for each
model.
As the benchmark allows one to test how water
levels and velocity are affected by the distance from
the boundary to the distance reached in 1 h of run
time, the FluBiDi model was tested using cross-sec-
tions across the domain (1000 m) (Fig. 7). The
findings show that FluBiDi presents similar beha-
viour to all the SWE models tested by Néelz and
Pender (2013), whose modelling parameters were
ΔT = 0.5 s, with a grid resolution of 5 m and a
run time of 3800 s. The only difference was that, in
the case of both depth and velocity, FluBiDi started
at a high value of 0.5 m depth and 1.6 m s−1 velo-
city, and reached the lower heights close to 360 and
380 m next to Points 4 and 5, respectively. This
confirms the findings of Néelz and Pender (2013),
who concluded that “advective acceleration (the
momentum equation of the hydraulic theory of free
surface flow) is not the dominant process since the
slope angle is not small enough to maintain the
condition of flood spreading arising from a rupture”.
On the contrary, both the laminar and transitional
flows under the boundary conditions are the ones
that define the dominant process since small differ-
ences in the floodplain result in a smooth surface
where u  at z = h is not small. Results agree very well
with the Néelz and Pender (2013) obtained values,
and they provide an opportunity to understand the
system and to identify the model parameters when
the exit condition at the basin is unknown. Thus, as
the event does not reach supercritical flows in less
than 1 s, then FluBiDi’s simulation provides optimal
results.
308 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.

Figure 6. Water levels (depths) and velocities showing the results of FluBiDi compared with those of the models tested by Néelz
and Pender (2013).

4 Results for an existing DEM low resolution are used. However, use of such DEMs
may result in limitations of omitting or generalizing
Commonly, hydrodynamic models are successful in some of the important features affecting flow dynamics
topographically homogeneous areas, where DEMs of in heterogeneous zones (Erpicum et al. 2010). The use

Figure 7. Cross-section of depths and velocities at 0.15-depth contour lines (t = 1 h) showing the results of FluBiDi compared with
those of the models tested by Néelz and Pender (2013).
of a fine grid enables the accurate prediction of the
pattern of flood depth, especially where a wide range of
flood discharges is being tested, without the need for
recalibration of the roughness coefficient (Haile 2005,
Erpicum et al. 2010, Brandt 2016). Some examples are
presented below. For more detail, the reader is referred
to Néelz and Pender (2013).
4.1 Valley flooding (Test 5)
To simulate a major flood inundation and predict the
flood hazard arising from a dam failure (peak levels,
velocities and travel times), a valley was defined with a
designed skewed trapezoidal inflow hydrograph and a
short early peak at 3000 m3 s−1 and a length of ~260 m
(Fig. 8). The upstream end was designed to account for a
typical failure of a small embankment dam and to ensure
that both supercritical and subcritical flows will occur in
different parts of the flow field. Other boundaries are
closed and the initial condition is dry. The DEM of the
valley is approx. 0.8 km × 17 km with a slope of approx.
0.01 in its upper region to approx. 0.001 in its lower
region. Manning’s coefficient, n is 0.04 (uniform). The
model is run until time t = 30 h to allow the flood to settle
in the lower parts of the valley. The NB Direct RFSM and
ISIS Fast models were used to fix the “final water level”
(horizontal lines), as shown in Figure 8.
In general, the differences in peak water levels for almost
all codes were around 0.4 m, which represents approx. 10%
of the predicted peak depth in the deeper areas of the
channel. As may be observed, FluBiDi had a similar
response in predicting the peak depth level at Points 1, 3
and 5 compared with the other models predicting flood
arrival times (Fig. 8). Points 1, 3 and 5 correspond to
depressions, so some water could be retained. As Néelz
and Pender (2013) pointed out, the differences in water
levels at Point 5 correspond to variances further upstream
associated with depressions and the ability of the DEM to
represent this. Our modelling agrees with this, but it is also
noted that the flow at Points 1, 3 and 5 could correspond to
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 309
a unidimensional model and that the downstream border
condition determines the value. Thus, FluBiDi matches
very well with the proposed water level of between 148.7
and 148.9 m for the simulation time. A difference in water
depth was obtained at Point 7, where it was 0.3 m lower
than the predicted value. This is because FluBiDi does not
consider the exact position of Point 7; for this reason it
starts at 153 m, whereas the initial values for the models
tested by Néelz and Pender (2013) were between 152.7 and
153.2 m. Also, the final water level is slightly higher than for
the other models, in which it agrees more with the pre-
dicted values, because for them there is still water in the
depression, whereas in FluBiDi it is already dry. It was
interesting to note that, even though FluBiDi has some
limitations when representing supercritical flows in a
short run time, the response at Point 1 seems not to be
affected because the run time is more than a few seconds.
The velocities shown in Figure 9 present a significant
variation over time for all models, being more similar at
Point 1. The FluBiDi model presented similar behaviour to
TUFLOW FV1, rising at 0.38 h, and then to TUFLOW
FV2, reaching almost 2.4 m s−1. It is important to mention
that the TUFLOW FV model was enhanced in 2015 in
order to cope with supercritical flows, and the number of
iterations was increased to guarantee convergence (Néelz
and Pender 2013).
At Points 3, 4 and 7, there are important variations
in velocity values, but not in shape, it being difficult to
establish an optimum velocity. In all test cases, FluBiDi
discharged earlier than the other models, the wave
arriving sooner. These differences could be associated
with the location of each site.
However, the most important consideration is that
some models were applied as 1D, but in Point 4, given
the geometrical characteristics of the river bed, there is a 2D
flow with components in ʋ (x) and v (y), which cannot be
represented by 1D models. FluBiDi as a 2D model could be
adjusted to work as 1D as well as RFSM, a quasi-2D model
version, the only difference between these codes is that for
RFSM the wave arrives faster than for FluBiDi because
310 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.
Figure 8. (a) Scheme of the valley used for the valley flooding test (Test 5): DEM with cross-section along the centre line and
location of the output points (top); and inflow hydrographs (below). (b) Results (at Points 1, 3, 5 and 7) of FluBiDi water level time
series compared with the models tested by Néelz and Pender (2013).
RFSM code corresponds to a simplified flood routing
hydraulic model.
At Point 7, FluBiDi discharge arrived earlier than the
other codes, with a velocity of 1.7 m s−1, while the max-
imum values reported for the models tested by Néelz and
Pender (2013) were >2, 1.95 and 1.82 m s−1 (ISIS 2D GPU,
LISFLOOD FP and UIM, respectively). As occurred at
Point 4, the change of direction led to some differences
associated with the cross-sections of Points 3 and 7; this was
the major change at Point 3 for the depression. Some water
remained at Point 7 because it was not completely dry.
Additionally, a comparison test was carried out to ana-
lyse water level and velocity cross-sections in the valley
centre line 0–15 km down from the location of the dam
break. Here, FluBiDi demonstrated that water level and
velocity results could be reproducible with high accuracy
as well as the talweg obtained from the DEM This supplies
a model with high capability to represent different events
and its limitations (i.e. fast floods) could be solved since, as
it uses a real topography, the model could cope with the
hydraulic boundary conditions improving the simulation.
The FluBiDi modelling parameters were ΔT = 5 s, with a
grid resolution of 50 m and a run time of 1500 s.
4.2 Flooding in urban areas (Test 8)
In Test 8, Néelz and Pender (2013) present the condi-
tion for a surface water flood that arises from two
situations after intense rainfall: (A) a precise location
(release of water after its use) and (B) overwhelming of
the drainage system. In some cases, the second
approach requires the linking of a 1D pipe model to a
2D overland flow model.
4.2.1 Rainfall and point source surface flow in urban
areas (Test 8A)
This test simulated a shallow inundation originating from a
point source and from rainfall applied directly to the model
grid, at relatively high resolution. The flood came from two
sources: a uniformly distributed rainfall event with a peak
at 400 mm h−1 over a time base of 3 min, and a point source
at the location occurring over a time base of ~15 min, with a
peak at 5 m s−1 occurring ~35 min after the rainfall event
(see Fig. 10). In this case, a DTM (no vegetation or build-
ings) was used with a resolution of 0.5 m created from
LiDAR data (grid resolution of 2 m or ~97 000 nodes). A
land-cover-dependent roughness value was applied, with
two categories: roads and pavements (Manning’s n = 0.02)
and any other land-cover type (Manning’s n = 0.05). The
model was run until t = 5 h to allow the flood to settle in the
lower parts of the modelled domain. The “final water level”
(Fig. 10, horizontal dashed lines) was predicted by NB
Direct RFSM and ISIS Fast (Néelz and Pender 2013).
In general, the FluBiDi model behaved similarly to
the other models, predicting water levels similar to ISIS
Fast. In the second peak at Point 1, after rainfall

Figure 9. Velocity time series (at Points 1, 3, 4 and 7) showing the results of the FluBiDi model compared with the models tested by
Néelz and Pender (2013).
(~35 min) when the inflow is presented from the point
source, surface roughness conditions change due to the
moisture associated with the rain, thus for FluBiDi
water arrives 4 min earlier than for the other codes,
presenting a 2 cm difference as result of the different
Manning’s n values. The friction coefficient and the
topography of the street are sufficient to lose energy.
The FluBiDi model exhibited interesting behaviour at
Point 2 because the flow remained in a depressed area
just before Point 2, so the second peak was almost 2 cm
less than that for the other models. After this point,
FluBiDi showed similar behaviour to the other models.
However, some oscillations were observed at Point 6
for all models, which corresponds to certain numerical
instability, since flow is forced to go within the con-
fines of the street.
Velocity in this test was addressed as modules,
where the component y is so small that in practice
only velocity in the x direction is significant. All mod-
els followed the same behaviour and the oscillations
observed were significant (see Fig. 10(b). According to
Néelz and Pender (2013), the grid resolution is a
restriction since it introduces a local variability in the
topography and to the surface roughness that modifies
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 311
the dry areas, affecting the beginning of each graph.
However, it is interesting that, at all points, the SOBEK
model seemed to provide a curve with fewer variations
(Fig. 10) (Néelz and Pender 2013). Looking at the
characteristics of the SOBEK model, it is possible that
it makes different simplifications and adjustments to
different factors, since it uses a square grid without
considering the detail, in contrast to the other models,
including FluBiDi. Other models, such as TUFLOW,
were improved to cope with flood events, but still
showed some restrictions in running the test using
finite numbers in the initial conditions. The FluBiDi
model has the ability to introduce an initial water level,
achieving quick stabilization afterwards. This allows
the FluBiDi performance to be quite similar to that of
the SOBEK model.
At Point 2, the velocity increased 3 or 4 min after
reaching the first peak, thus the local rainfall was
enough to generate a velocity close to 0.8 m s−1. This
was followed by a dry period until the point source
surface flow started to increase to reach the second
peak at 44 min after the rainfall was presented; finally,
the water was lost as drainage. The topography chan-
ged from 26 m at Point 6 to 29 m at Point 7, thus, at
312 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.

Figure 10. (a) DTM used, with the location of the point source, the hyetograph and the inflow hydrograph at point location. (b)
Water level time series at Points 1, 2, 3 and 6 (left) and velocity time series at Points 2 and 6 (right). Results of FluBiDi compared
with the models tested by Néelz and Pender (2013).

Point 6, SOBEK and FluBiDi respond to the topogra-
phy variation. Similarly to the SOBEK model (Néelz
and Pender 2013), the FluBiDi model responded to the
variation in topography. As the velocity reduced from
1.15 to 0.42 m s−1 during the dry period between the
rainfall and the point source there was more water
storage in the FluBiDi model. It is important to note
that FluBiDi predicted that Point 1 has a high water
level contributing with the flow towards Point 6 and
Point 7. As there is water available at the start of the

point source surface flow (at 35 min), the FluBiDi
model increases the flow velocity to reach a maximum
of 1.22 m s−1, on average, in the second peak, finally
reducing to 0.36 m s−1, with some inundated area
remaining after 80-min run time.
4.2.2 Surface flow from a surcharging sewer in
urban areas (Test 8B)
This test simulates “a shallow inundation originating
from a surcharging underground pipe with a single man-
hole, without effect in the manhole outflow. The inflow
boundary condition is applied at the upstream end of the
pipe, with a surcharge expected to occur at the manhole
that spread water across the whole surface defined by a
DTM at 2 m resolution” (Néelz and Pender 2013). The
other conditions are similar to Test 8A, but, as an
urban area is going to be considered in this case, the
introduction of the biophysical and human factors that
modify the water flow, such as buildings, streets (i.e.
Point 1) and low topographical elevation locations (i.e.
Point 3), is significant. Thus, a land-cover roughness
value for each cover needs to be applied (Néelz and
Pender 2013, Jenkins et al. 2016, Courty et al. 2018). As
a consequence of there being paved areas, infiltration is
not possible due to the low permeability of the different
areas, favouring surface runoff. This extra runoff satu-
rates the drainage system network that conveys water
out of the cities and changes the distribution of the
runoff. Only nine models were tested, as in the original
report, and the “final water level” was predicted by ISIS
Fast (horizontal dashed lines), as shown in Figure 11,
in which the water levels at Points 1, 2 and 3, and the
velocity at Point 3 are plotted (Néelz and Pender 2013).
After leaving the pipe, flow was favoured moving
towards Point 1, which was immediately inundated. In
the FluBiDi model, the wave of water moved faster,
reaching a peak 20 min before the majority of models;
although after 200 min all the models followed the
water level predicted. This is because the topography
of the streets marks a lower point than the surface
water level presented. Close to Point 2, FluBiDi pre-
sents a low inundated area, which makes the shallow
flow slow down, and results in final peak values at
Point 2 of 0.03 m (lower than that of the other models)
to finally dry the surface after 180 min. Less variation
was observed at Point 3, which is related to the change
in topography and roughness following the trajectory
of the pipe. In this case, Point 3 corresponds to a
location of lower topographical elevation, so there is a
major impact of the inundation water remaining for
more than 300 min, with a difference in the water level
of the FluBiDi model being 0.3% lower than in the
other models. The best model observed by Néelz and
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 313
Pender (2013) was TUFLOW. In part, this good per-
formance was due to the enhancements realized for the
2012.05 version, providing it with better velocity out-
puts, increasing the running time and, as a conse-
quence, improving stability. These enhancements are
shown in the velocity graph in Figure 11, in which the
FluBiDi model is compared with the models tested by
Néelz and Pender (2013) using different approaches to
represent the initial conditions after the dry surface.
The FluBiDi model started to inundate 4 min later than
TUFLOW, which implies that the surface is drier, so it
has the energy to achieve an instantaneous velocity
peak of 0.95 m s−1, which dropped to 0.55 m s−1 as a
maximum value; and it was dry again after 190 min of
run time. The pipe changed direction twice, with build-
ings transverse to the street where Point 3 is located.
Introducing a different value of Manning’s coefficient
could probably reduce the variation at the moment of
discharge, although this could also generate a slow
response of the flow which could demand more run-
ning time to start increasing the water level.
The manhole flow predictions were generally similar
between codes, with a difference of around 15% range
including FluBiDi with a total volume of 5393 m3
(Néelz and Pender 2013). In general, FluBiDi provides
a value 2% (110 m3) higher than the mean total volume
of 5283 m3, very close to the ISIS Fast Dynamic pre-
diction of 5234 m3. These small differences are asso-
ciated with the fact that FluBiDi, as well as ISIS FAST
Dynamic, as a 2D model did not carried out a 1D–2D
link-up simulation. Thus, the hydrogram is FluBiDi’s
input volume value, which corresponds to 5393m3.
A final comparison of the results obtained using
FluBiDi with those of Néelz and Pender (2013) is pre-
sented in Figure 12.
For Test 8A, local rainfall and a DTM without
buildings provides a better idea of the inundated sites
according to the street network showing the intercon-
necting lines and points for the given area. This net-
work analysis allows one to identify preferential flows
that follow the topography according to the surface
roughness proposed for the type of land cover. In
Test 8B, the preferential flow (Points 1, 6, 3) is more
evident due to the buildings allocated. Water level
values were more constant for the flow at Points 7, 2,
8 and 4, since the street geometry is quasi-regular. For
the velocity, this does not apply since velocity depends
on the drainage (pluvial and sewage) network to effi-
ciently release runoff coming from several sources. In
this case, peak velocity magnitudes change rapidly
(within seconds), so methods that take infrequent
snapshots of model state variables may not capture
maximum velocities. This is an advantage of FluBiDi,
314 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.
Figure 11. (a) The DTM used, showing the location of the manhole, and the inflow hydrograph at the upstream end of the culvert.
(b) Water level time series (results at Points 1, 2 and 3) and velocity time series at Point 3 showing the results of the FluBiDi model
compared with the models tested by Néelz and Pender (2013).
since it integrates the computation with the post-pro-
cessing, providing graphic output that allows the flood
phenomenon to be followed step by step. Although it
demands greater computation resources, making the
whole process slow, the run time for FluBiDi is only
1.5 times greater than that of the other codes.
The final FluBiDi modelling parameters were
ΔT = 0.01 s, with a grid resolution of 1 m (instead
the 2 m proposed originally) and a run time of 4200 s.
The change in the grid resolution in the simulation of
an urban flood (Tests 8A and 8B) indicates the need to
know the effect of buildings, streets and low topogra-
phical elevation locations within an urban area. The
increment of surface runoff reduces the basin charac-
teristics, such as retention time, along with the flow
concentration time in a drain section. Thus, it is neces-
sary to take into account the upstream contribution to
runoff and the impact of the urbanized area down-
stream, but also there is a need to consider the changes
generated by the heterogeneous urban catchment with
impermeable, semi-impermeable or infiltration zones.
As FluBiDi takes into account all the aspects of runoff
contributions or losses, and these can be followed step-
by-step due to the facility to generate outputs at any
moment in the simulation, the capability of the model
is highly improved.
5 Conclusions
Today, there are different systems that provide high-
resolution topographic data which could be used in
flood simulation models. The accuracy in representing
an event from these models defines their success,
allowing to study them and understand how to achieve

Figure 12. Flood water level and travel time. The dashed rectangle shows the similar output contours of peak depth between
FluBiDi and the real flood for Test 8A at 10, 50 and 120 min (2 h) and Test 8B at 50, 120 and 200 min (3.3 h).
integrated river management. The software used in the
FluBiDi model is user friendly, and has been improved
over the years since it was first designed.
Also, FluBiDi is a reliable system that has the ability
to simulate real events lasting days and months, as well
as short events (of minutes or hours) and laboratory
tests (of seconds). In the laboratory tests, the capacity
of FluBiDi to cope with flash flows is low, but this has
been solved by reducing the time step (ΔT) and the
grid size.
The numerical results obtained from each ideal DEM
test show considerable agreement between FluBiDi and
other models in terms of discharge peak value, time to
peak and water level. In a couple of tests, the FluBiDi
velocities did not compare adequately with the other mod-
els, which was, in part, associated with the fast flood show-
ing in Test 6 and with the fact that FluBiDi did not consider
a perfect wave (where the energy of displacement is
absorbed at the walls of the channel, as shown in Test 3).
The effect of the back-wave changes some of the initial
conditions, and, as a consequence, generates oscillation, as
was observed in FluBiDi. However, the results demonstrate
that FluBiDi is a reliable model for the simulation of flood
events using real topography and run times of more than
seconds. There are peak velocity oscillations but the average
values of water depth and velocities are accurate, since in all
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 315
cases they are in the average with the other models tested by
Néelz and Pender (2013), and the model describes with
high accuracy (2%) the pattern and extent of floods. There
is less than 10% difference for a specific instant and less
than 5% for the complete time simulation, with respect to
the average values of the other models. This is possible
since FluBiDi is a model that takes into account several
aspects, such as topography, geomorphological and geo-
metrical characteristics, climate, channel and floodplain
conditions and hydraulic structures. Thus FluBiDi is a
good model to choose for use in flood management.
In addition to the robustness of the model, in all
cases the quality of the input data and DEM are deci-
sive. For that it is important to have a suitable grid that
represents the conditions and provides a water level
and velocity that fit each pixel; it also relies on the
experience of the modeller to represent conditions
that have a physical meaning without forcing the mod-
els to solve situations that do not exist.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr Ismene Libertad America
Rosales-Plascencia (PhD), CEO of Proyectos Multidisciplinarios
del Centro, S.A. de C.V., for the continued discussions helping to
improve this paper.
316 F. DE LUNA-CRUZ ET AL.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ambroise, B., 2004. Variable ‘active’ versus ‘contributing’
areas or periods: a necessary distinction. Hydrological
Processes, 18, 1149–1155. doi:10.1002/hyp.5536/abstract
Balthazar, J.M., Batista Goncalves, P., and Brasil, R.M.R.L.F.,
2009. Uncertainties in nonlinear structural dynamics.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2008, 1–4.
doi:10.1155/2008/538725
Bates, P.D. and De Roo, A.P.J., 2000. A simple raster-based model
for flood inundation simulation. Journal of Hydrology, 236, 54–
77. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00278-X
Beven, K. and Davies, J., 2015. Velocities, celerities and the
basin of attraction in catchment Response. Hydrological
Processes, 29, 5214–5226. doi:10.1002/hyp.10699
Blöschl, G. and Sivapalan, M., 1997. Process controls on
regional flood frequency: coefficient of variation and
basin scale. Water Resources Research, 33 (12), 2967–
2980. doi:10.1029/97WR00568
Blum, M.D., 2007. Large river systems and climate change.
In: A. Gupta, ed. Large rivers: geomorphology and
Management. Chichester: Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 627–656.
Brandt, S.A., 2016. Modeling and visualizing uncertainties of
flood boundary delineation: algorithm for slope and DEM
resolution dependencies of 1D hydraulic models.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment,
30, 1677–1690. doi:10.1007/s00477-016-1212-z
Costabile, P., et al., 2012. Two-dimensional model for over-
land flow simulations: A case study. European Water, 38,
13–23, ISSN (electronic version) 1792-085X.
Courty, L.G., Rico-Ramirez, M.A., and Pedrozo-Acuña, A.,
2018. The significance of the spatial variability of rainfall
on the numerical simulation of urban floods. Water, 10,
207. doi:10.3390/w10020207
Crowder, R.A., et al., 2004. Benchmarking hydraulic river
modelling software packages. Results – test C (triangular
channels). Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal
Defence R&D Programme. R&D Technical Report: W5-
105/TR2C, Product Code SCHO0305BIXR-E-P, Bristol.
De Luna, F., 2015. Modelo hidráulico de flujo bidimensional
para estimar el escurrimiento a partir de la precipitación.
Thesis (PhD Candidate). Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, Mexico (in Spanish).
Domínguez-Mora, R., De Luna, F., and Gómez-Aguilar, E.,
2014. Simulación Numérica del Comportamiento
Hidráulico del canal Pescaditos. Mexico (in Spanish):
XXIII Congreso Nacional de Hidráulica Puerto Vallarta.
Erpicum, S., et al., 2010. Detailed inundation modelling
using high resolution DEMs. Engineering Applications of
Computational Fluid Mechanics, 4 (2), 196–208.
doi:10.1080/19942060.2010.11015310
Fiorentino, M., et al., 2006. Analysis on flood generation
processes by means of a continuous simulation model.
Advances in Geosciences, 7, 231–236. doi:10.5194/adgeo-
7-231-2006
Fiorentino, M. and Iacobellis, V., 2001. New insights about
the climatic and geologic control on the probability
distribution of floods. Water Resources Research, 37 (3),
721–730. doi:10.1029/2000WR900315
Fuentes, O.A., De Luna, F., and Cruz, J.A., 2010. Revisión
Hidráulica Mediante Simulación Matemática del Flujo en
los ríos Zanapa, Blasillo y Naranjeño: capítulo 2. México
City (in Spanish): Instituto de Ingenieria Project for the
Comisión Nacional del Agua.
Fuentes, O.A. and Franco, L.E., 1997. Modelo Matemático de
Áreas de Inundación. Cuadernos de Investigación. No. 41.
Mexico City: Mexico Centro Nacional de Prevención de
Desastres (in Spanish).
Fuentes-Mariles, O.A., et al., 2000. Simulación numérica del
flujo en cauces y en las planicies que se podrían inundar de
la cuenca baja del río Grijalva, Estado de Tabasco. Mexico
City (in Spanish): Instituto de Ingenieria Project for the
Comisión Nacional del Agua.
Fuentes-Mariles, O.A., et al., 2013. Estudio de Inundaciones
Fluviales y Mapas de Peligro para el Atlas Nacional de Riesgo
por Inundaciones Instituto de Ingenieria Project for the
Subdirección General Técnica. México City (in Spanish):
Comisión Nacional del Agua.
González, F.J., et al., 2009. Plan Hídrico Integral de Tabasco dentro
del cual se inscribe la ejecución del Plan de Acción Urgente
(PAU) y la formulación del Plan de Acción Inmediata (PAI),
para la rehabilitación de la infraestructura dañada por las
lluvias atípicas. Mexico City SGIH-GDTT-OP-IIUNAM-
20.07.09-04 (in Spanish): Instituto de Ingenieria Project for
the Comisión Nacional del Agua.
Gupta, A., 2010. The hazardouness of high-magnitude floods. In:
I. Alcántara-Ayala and A.S. Goudie, eds. Geomorphological
Hazards and disaster prevention. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 97–107.
Gupta, V. and Waymire, E., 1998. Some mathematical aspects of
rainfall landforms and floods. In: O.E. Barndorff-Nielsen, et al.,
eds. Stochastic methods in hydrology, rainfall, landforms and
flood. Advanced series on statistical science & applied probabil-
ity. 7. Singapore: World Scientific, 129–171.
Haile, A.T., 2005. Integrating hydrodynamic models and high
resolution DEM (LIDAR) for flood modelling, master of science
in geo-information science and earth observation, specialisation:
watershed management, conservation and river basin planning
March. Enschede: International Institute For Geo-Information
Science And Earth Observation.
Hudson, P.F., Sounny-Slitine, M.A., and LaFevor, M., 2013.
A new longitudinal approach to assess hydrologic connec-
tivity: embanked floodplain inundation along the lower
Mississippi River. Hydrological Processes, 27, 2187–2196.
doi:10.1002/hyp.9838
Jenkins, K., et al, 2016. Assessing surface water flood risk and
management strategies under future climate change: an
agent-based model approach [online]. Centre for Climate
Change Economics and Policy (Working Paper No. 252)
and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and
the Environment (Working Paper No. 223). Available
from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publica
tion/assessing-surface-water-flood-risk-and-management-
strategies-under-future-climate-change-an-agent-based-
model-approach/ [Accessed 24 November 2016].
Jothityangkoon, C., Sivapalan, M., and Farmer, D.L., 2001.
Process controls of water balance variability in large semi-
arid catchment: downward approach to hydrological model

development. Journal of Hydrology, 254 (1–4), 174–198.d.
doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00496-611fc9b06b923&acd-
nat=1540575040_0dd58e8c3b70c6cd48f1e6827c5aeb20
Kusumastuti, D.I., 2006. Effects of threshold nonlinearities on
the transformation of rainfall to runoff to flood in a lake
dominated catchment system. Thesis (PhD), University of
Western Australia.
Kusumastuti, D.I., et al., 2007. Threshold effects in catchment
storm response and the occurrence and magnitude of flood
events: implications for flood frequency. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences, 11, 1515–1528. doi:10.5194/hess-11-1515-
2007
Mahmood, K. and Yevjevich, V., 1975. Unsteady flow in open
channels, Vol 1. Fort Collins, CO: Water Resources
Publications.
Marks, K. and Bates, P.D., 2000. Integration of high-resolution
topographic data with floodplain flow models. Hydrological
Processes, 14, 2109–2122. doi:10.1002/1099-1085(20000815/
30)14:11/12<2109::AID-HYP58>3.0.CO;2-1
McDonnell, J.J. and Beven, K., 2014. Debates – the future of
hydrological sciences: A (common) path forward? A call to
action aimed at understanding velocities, celerities, and
residence time distributions of the headwater hydrograph.
Water Resources Research, 50, 342–5350. doi:10.1002/
2013WR015141
Middelkoop, H. and Asselman, N.E.M., 1998. Spatial varia-
bility of floodplain sedimentation at the event scale in the
rhine–meuse Delta, The Netherlands. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms, 23, 561–573. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1096-9837(199806)23:6<561::AID-ESP870>3.0.CO;2-5
Neal, J., et al., 2012. How much physical complexity is needed to
model flood inundation? Hydrological Processes, 26 (15), 2264–
2282. doi:10.1002/hyp.8339
Néelz, S. and Pender, G., 2010. Benchmarking of 2D hydraulic
modelling packages. Environment Agency/Defra Flood and
Coastal Erosion Risk Management Research and
Development Programme, Department for Environment
Food and Affairs. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency,
Report SC080035/R2.
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 317
Néelz, S. and Pender, G., 2013. Delivering benefits through
evidence. Benchmarking the latest generation of 2D hydrau-
lic modelling packages. Environment Agency/Defra Flood
and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Research and
Development Programme, Department for Environment
Food and Affairs. Bristol, UK: Environment Agency,
Report SC120002.
Nippgen, F., McGlynn, B.L., and Emanuel, R.E., 2015. The
spatial and temporal evolution of contributing areas.
Water Resources Research, 51, 4550–4573. doi:10.1002/
2014WR016719
Ogden, F.L., 2015. A new general 1-D vadose zone flow
solution method. Water Resources Research, 51.
doi:10.1002/2015WR017126
Robinson, J.S. and Sivapalan, M., 1997. Temporal scales and
hydrological regimes: implications for flood frequency
scaling. Water Resources Research, 33 (12), 2981–2999.
doi:10.1029/97WR01964
Robinson, J.S., Sivapalan, M., and Snell, J.D., 1995. On the
relative roles of hillslope processes, channel routing, and
network geomorphology in the hydrologic response of
natural catchments. Water Resources Research, 31 (12),
3089–3101. doi:10.1029/95WR01948
Sherman, L.K., 1932. Streamflow from rainfall by unit-graph
method. Engineering News-Record, 108, 501–505.
Sherman, L.K., 1942. Hydrograph of runoff. In: O.E.
Meinzer, ed. Physics of the Earth, IX, Hydrology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Spence, C. and Woo, M.K., 2006. Hydrology of subarctic
Canadian Shield: heterogeneous headwater basins.
Journal of Hydrology, 317, 138–154. doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2005.05.014
Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drai-
nage basins and cannel networks. In: V.T. Chow, ed.
Handboodk of applied hydrology. New York: McGraw
Hill, 4.40–4.74.
Wohl, E.E., 2007. Hydrology and discharge. In: A. Gupta, ed.
Large rivers: geomorphology and management. Chichester:
Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 27–44.