Comparison of 1D/1D and 1D/2D Coupled „Sewer/Surface…

Hydraulic Models for Urban Flood Simulation

Jorge Leandro1; Albert S. Chen2; Slobodan Djordjević3; and Dragan A. Savić4

Abstract: Recent developments in flood modeling have led to the concept of coupled 共sewer/surface兲 hydraulic models. In this paper two
coupled models are examined; a one-dimensional 共1D兲 sewer model coupled with a 1D surface network model 共1D/1D兲 and a 1D sewer
model coupled with a two-dimensional 共2D兲 surface flow model 共1D/2D兲. Flow over the terrain is better modeled by 2D models, whereas
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in confined channels 1D models provide a good approximation with less computational effort. This paper presents a comparison of the
simulation results of 1D/1D model and a 1D/2D model. The methodology adopted for setting up the models is outlined and explained in
detail as well as the 1D/1D modeling techniques used for reproducing the 1D/2D model results. The surface flow comparison clarifies the
limitations of the 1D/1D model and indicates that the definition of the surface pathways, the linking elements sewer/surface, and inclusion
of virtual manholes are key factors for setting up a more accurate 1D/1D model.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲HY.1943-7900.0000037
CE Database subject headings: Floods; Hydraulic models; Two-dimensional; Overland flow; Sewers; Urban areas.

Introduction The choice between using a 1D surface network model or a 2D

The floods that occurred in the autumn of 2000 across Europe and
the recent events in the United Kingdom during the summer of
2007 reinforced the need for using accurate models to simulate
flooding, i.e., surface flow propagation and water levels. In order
to simulate flooding in a realistic manner, urban flood models
need to couple the minor and the major system in what is referred
to as the dual drainage concept 共Djordjevic et al. 2005兲. Several
commercial tools already can apply this concept 共DHI 2007;
Wallingford Software 2006兲. Although a number of studies have
compared one-dimensional 共1D兲 and two-dimensional 共2D兲 ap-
proaches in river modeling 共Horritt and Bates 2002; Lin et al.
2006兲, in urban flooding these are scarce. Spry and Zhang 共2006兲
used the 1D/1D models XP-SWMM and DRAINS to model two
distinct case studies; the study suggested the use of integrated
models, but there is no reference to 2D modeling or coupled
1D/2D modeling being done to compare and support such re-
marks. Here we present a methodology to enable an objective
comparison between two coupled models based on the surface
flow propagation and water level results. This will aid in clarify-
ing some of the limitations of the 1D/1D modeling approach in
urban flooding 共Mark et al. 2004兲.
1
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology, Rua
Luís Reis Santos - Pólo II Univ. Coimbra, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
共corresponding author兲. E-mail: leandro@dec.uc.pt
2
Centre for Water Systems, Univ. of Exeter, Harrison Building,
North Park Rd., Exeter EX4 4QF, U.K.
3
Centre for Water Systems, Univ. of Exeter, Harrison Building,
North Park Rd., Exeter EX4 4QF, U.K.
4
Centre for Water Systems, Univ. of Exeter, Harrison Building,
North Park Rd., Exeter EX4 4QF, U.K.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 3, 2008; approved on
December 10, 2008; published online on February 25, 2009. Discussion
period open until November 1, 2009; separate discussions must be sub-
mitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrau-
lic Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 6, June 1, 2009. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9429/2009/6-495–504/$25.00.
surface system model 共depending on the case study and models
parameterization兲 determines the reliability of the results and the
computational time required to obtain them. In confined channels,
the 1D model is seen as a good approximation as long as the
water remains within the street profile 共Mark et al. 2004兲. When
the flow overtops the curbs in the streets, the flow may change
direction, at this stage the 2D model may become a preferred tool.
Paquier et al. 共2003兲 compared the 1D model REM U with the 2D
model RUBAR 20 in an urban study and concluded that the 1D
model is a preferred tool for modeling the one-dimensional flow
on the streets. The study suggests the need for developing coupled
1D-2D models, where 1D models should be used for simulating
the flow on the streets and 2D models should be used at specific
locations like street crossings, parking areas, and other wide
areas. Lhomme et al. 共2006兲 compared a 1D geographic informa-
tion system 共GIS兲 based model 共kinematic wave兲 with a 2D
model and concluded that the former is suitable to model the
steepest streets but found some disagreement where the street
slopes were weak. Depending on the scale and on the problem
spatial resolution, lower dimensionality 共1D兲 models may prove
to be more realistic than 2D models, as shown by Horritt and
Bates 共2002兲. Though in a river flooding study, the model HEC-
RAS produced flood extents better than the other two 2D models
LISFLOOD-FP and TELEMAC-2D, the writers argued that the
main factors were the confined and relatively narrow river, and
the need to calibrate the models due to lack of parameterization
data. As long as the overland flow paths can be identified, 1D
surface models are an economical and robust alternative to 2D
models 共Spry and Zhang 2006兲. The 2D models are computation-
ally more expensive than 1D; Paquier et al. 共2003兲 reported 4 h of
simulation time with 2D model RUBAR 20, Lhomme et al.
共2006兲 reported 20 min 共1D兲 versus many hours 共2D兲, and in the
study presented herein the 1D model takes 1 min versus 3 h of
the 2D model to complete a full run.
Introduced in 1971, the storm water management model
共SWWM兲 is considered a landmark of urban hydrologic models
共Delleur 2003兲. However, early sewer network models did not

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 495

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.

 allow the flow surcharging from manholes to move across the
surface. The surcharged flow was kept atop of the manholes and
only allowed to be drained back to the sewer once the sewer
capacity was made available, e.g., as in the SWWM model 共Ross-
man 2005兲 and others 共Zhong 1998兲. The next generation of mod-
els managed to overcome this weakness by connecting the major
system with the minor system through links. Commercial pack-
ages such as MIKE-Urban 共DHI 2007兲 or Infoworks CS 共Wall-
ingford Software 2006兲 are examples of these 1D/1D models.
Most of the models developed so far modeled the linkage be-
tween subsurface and surface networks as a weir or as an orifice
共Kawaike and Nakagawa 2007; Mark et al. 2004; Nasello and
Tucciarelli 2005兲, a combination of both or simply as a sink
共Aronica and Lanza 2005兲. Recently, the multiple-linking element
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
共MLE兲 concept was implemented to model the linkage between
the sewer manhole and the surface 共Leandro et al. 2007兲.
Recently 1D/2D models have emerged, such as MOUSE—
MIKE 21 that couples the 1D MOUSE sewer model with the 2D
MIKE 21 overland model 共Carr and Smith 2006兲, Sobek Urban
that couples 1D SOBEK flow and 2D Delft FLS 共Bolle et al.
2006兲, or TUFLOW 共Phillips et al. 2005兲. Research studies have
attempted to compare the performance of these two types of mod-
els either by using commercial software 共Kaushik 2006兲, or by
focusing on research applications such as SIPSON/UIM 共Chen et
al. 2007兲.
In this paper a comprehensive comparison of a 1D/1D model
and a 1D/2D model is presented based on the surface flow propa-
gation and water level results on a real case study. This study
focuses on the surface flow as the major 1D/1D simplifications
take place there; in fact the two coupled models use the same
sewer network and sewer hydraulic model for the subsurface
flow, which is essential for an objective comparison between a
1D/1D model and a 1D/2D model.
The objective of this paper is to compare the 1D/1D model to
the 1D/2D model, and to validate the developed methodology for
setting up an accurate 1D/1D model based on the more demand-
ing 1D/2D model. This will allow us to use faster models when-
ever the available time constrains the use of the latter 共1D/2D兲. In
relatively flat areas 共e.g., floodplains兲 overland flows possess slow
varying dynamics, hence the use of 1D/2D models based on the
full St. Venant or the noninertia wave model should not alter the
conclusions presented here, however the use of kinematic wave
models may not produce similar results 共Ponce et al. 1977兲. Be-
cause our aim is not to determine which models gives better re-
sults, the nonexistence of real data in the sites studied does not
naturally affect the conclusions in this paper. However, having
that data available would allow both models to be calibrated and
further conclusions could be reached on the practical application
of both models and their validation.
The following section presents the methodology, the modeling
details specific to the 1D/1D model, and a short description of the
two coupled models. The next two following sections present the
two model results and the discussion. The final section summa-
rizes and concludes the work.
Methodology, Modeling Details, and Coupled
Models
Case Study Site
The site selected for comparison of the two models is Keighley,
which is located in the region of West Yorkshire 共Bradford,
496 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
Fig. 1. Map of sewer network and boundaries of study area
United Kingdom兲. The River Aire and the railroad bound the area
on the north and on the south, respectively. On the west and east,
it is limited by the A269 road and by a tributary of the River Aire.
The combined sewer network divided into the main and the sub-
network is located in a relatively flat area with mainly residential
dwellings. Due to topographical features, the area is likely to
flood and therefore represents an interesting urban flooding study
case.
The main subnetwork consists of 45 sewer pipes with a total
length of 6 km. The main subnetwork covers an area of approxi-
mately 3.5 km2. The sewer pipe diameters range from
300 to 1,500 mm and the slopes range from 0 to 10% 共with an
average of 1%兲. The detailed subnetwork has a total of 74 sewer
pipes with a length of 3.0 km distributed in an area of 0.2 km2.
The diameters in the detailed subnetwork range from 100 to
900 mm, while the slopes range from 0 to 15% 共with an average
of 2%兲. Fig. 1 shows the sewer network and boundaries of the
study area.
1D/1D Modeling
The 1D/1D coupled hydraulic model used is simulation of inter-
action between pipe flow and overland flow in networks 共SIP-
SON兲 共Djordjevic et al. 2004兲. It simultaneously solves the
continuity equation for network nodes, the complete St. Venant
equations for the 1D sewer and 1D surface networks, and the
links equations. SIPSON is a fully coupled hydraulic model and
uses the Preissmann four-point implicit finite-difference scheme,
which is unconditionally stable as long as the time weighting
coefficient is greater than 0.5.
The MLE links the 1D sewer network to the 1D surface net-
work. This element is designed for modeling the complex inter-
action between sewer and surface networks. The MLE determines
the discharge exchanged based on the flow characteristics. Lean-
dro et al. 共2007兲 defines the discharge for a given single-linking
element 共SLE兲 link j at a given time k as a function of five control
sections 共Fig. 2兲:
1. CS1—from the gutter to the inlet
Qcs1 = Cd · 3 · hskj · Li冑 3 · g · hskj
2 2
共1兲
2. CS2 and CS4—from the inlet to the vertical pipe and vice
versa 共CS4兲
 Table 1. Summary of Methodology Steps for Enabling Model
Comparison
Steps 1D/1D 1D/2D
共1兲 Data acquisition 1D sewer network ⫻ ⫻
3D DEM ⫻ ⫻
共2兲 Run modules GIS tools — —
Pathways ⫻ —
Links ⫻ —
Ponds ⫻ —
共3兲 Linking elements MLE ⫻ —
Weirs ⫻ ⫻
Orifice — ⫻
共4兲 Rainfall inputs Sub catchments delineation ⫻ ⫻
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rainfall events ⫻ ⫻
共5兲 Calibration DOF ⫻ —

共2007兲 for further reading on the details of these coefficients兴. The

advantage of using the MLE over the SLE is the reduction of the
total number of connections between sewer and surface, hence
reducing the number of loops in the network.
Fig. 2. Single-linking-element 共SLE兲 geometry schematization: side
Links in the 1D surface network, other than the 1D open chan-
view 共top兲; plan view 共bottom兲
nels, are modeled using weir equations. Djordjevic et al. 共2004兲
define the weir discharge as a function of four variables
共HsK.D
j j j
, w j兲. HsK.D
j j
Qcs2 = Cd · A p冑2 · g · 共hskj + Hi兲
, Hsk.U , zlevel and Hsk.U are the dependent vari-
共2兲 ables, water level downstream, and upstream of the link j, at the
j
surface nodes. zlevel is the crest elevation considered and w j is the
Qcs4 = − Cd · A p冑2 · g · 共hpkj − hskj − Hi − Hsh兲 共3兲 weir crest width.
3. CS3 and CS5—from the orifice to the manhole and vice
versa 共CS5兲 1D/2D Modeling

Qcs3 = K · A p · R2/3 冑共hskj + Hi + Hsh − hpkj兲

Lp
共4兲
The 1D/2D coupled hydraulic model integrates SIPSON with the
2D urban inundation model 共UIM兲 共Chen et al. 2007兲. UIM is a
2D overland-flow model, that solves the noninertia wave 共or dif-

冑
共hpkj − hskj − Hi − Hsh兲
Qcs5 = − K · A p · R2/3
Lp
where Qcsi = discharge flow through the control section i;
hskj = water depth at the surface; hpkj = water depth at the sewer;
Li = perimeter length of inlet box 共0.8 m兲; Hi = inlet box height
共0.40 m兲; Hsh = height of the vertical shaft connecting the inlet
box to the manhole 共0.60 m兲; L p = length of the horizontal shaft
共5 m兲, A p = area of the connecting pipe; R = hydraulic radius
共80 mm of diameter兲; Cd = discharge coefficient 共0.5兲; and K
= Strickler roughness coefficient 共80 m1/3 / s兲. The values in paren-
theses are used as defaults because that information is not avail-
able. The discharge Qkj of the SLE is determined by
Qkj = min兵Qcs1,Qcs2,Qcs3其
Qkj = max兵Qcs4,Qcs5其
Eq. 共6兲 or Eq. 共7兲 is selected depending on the flow direction. The
first is used if the flow is from the surface to the sewer, and
the second is used if the flow is from the sewer to the surface. The
MLE is obtained as the product of Qkj and the number of connec-
tions 共SLEs兲 to each manhole. In sum, the MLE is a function
of four main variables: 共Hskj , Hpkj , Neq j j
, Rcd 兲. Hskj and Hpkj
= dependent variables, water levels at the surface nodes, and at the
j j
sewer pipe. Neq and Rcd = two parameters of the MLE, respec-
tively, the number of equivalent SLE and the coefficient to reduce
instability 关the reader is referred to the work of Leandro et al.
fusion wave兲 flow equations 共Chen et al. 2005兲. The UIM uses a
two-step alternating direction explicit numerical scheme which is
共5兲
conditionally stable, such that the time step is limited by the
Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy 共CFL兲 condition. Because the 1D/2D
model is not fully coupled, a time synchronization technique is
used for accounting for the different time steps in both models. In
this way the exact variable values are exchanged at the same time.
A weir or an orifice links the 1D sewer network to the 2D surface
system, depending on the flow direction. Chen et al. 共2007兲 define
the orifice/weir discharge as a function of five variables:
共HpK.D
j j
, Hsk.U j
, zlevel , Amj , w j兲, HpK.D
j j
and Hsk.U are the dependent
variables, water level downstream, and upstream of the link j,
respectively, at the sewer pipe and at the surface nodes, where Amj
is the manhole area at a given link j.
共6兲 Table 2 summarizes the main characteristics of the two mod-
els. The two models have features common to available commer-
共7兲 cial and academic software 共e.g., the models mentioned in the
“Introduction”兲 such that the qualitative conclusions of this paper
should also apply to those models.
Methodology
In order to enable a meaningful comparison between the 1D/1D
and the 1D/2D, the models are built consistently. Table 1 summa-
rizes the steps followed, where the cross indicates the need to use
the corresponding modeling element.
1. The first step deals with acquisition and handling of data.
The same sewer network is used in both 1D/1D and 1D/2D

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 497

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Three-dimensional view of DEM 共2 ⫻ 2 m resolution兲 with
vertical scale amplified 共5 ⫻ 兲; study area delineated by white line
models. Ideally these should match the surface elevations of
the corresponding grid cells in the 2D digital elevation model
共DEM兲. The manhole cover levels should coincide with the
surface elevations of the corresponding grid cells in the DEM
obtained from the LiDAR data, however in practice this is
not the case for a number of manholes. Although the original
DEM has a resolution of 1 m ⫻ 1 m it was averaged as
2 m ⫻ 2 m for both models. The averaging has the benefit of
reducing the computational effort of the 2D surface model
and increasing the efficiency of the GIS tools used for the 1D
surface network. Maksimovic and Prodanovic 共2001兲 suggest
values between 1 and 2 m and Mark et al. 共2004兲 suggest
values between 1 and 5 m. A 2 m ⫻ 2 m grid is within the
suggested limits to capture all the main topographic features
such as buildings and main roads. Coarser grids would lead
to inaccuracies due to averaging of these features. Fig. 3
shows the 2D surface system used in the 1D/2D model given
by a 2 m ⫻ 2 m resolution with the study area delineated by
a white line set on top of the DEM and the detailed sewer
network;
2. The second step runs a set of algorithms included in the GIS
tool to define the surface network. This is only necessary for
the 1D/1D model. The GIS tool developed generates the
pathways, ponds, and their interactions with the sewer net-
work 共Boonya-Aroonnet et al. 2007兲 based on the previously
obtained DEM. The linking elements between sewer and sur-
face are set based on the criterion of proximity of the man-
hole to the pathway node. These are the same manholes
connected to the surface system in the 1D/2D model. Fig. 4
shows the 1D surface network and the link interactions with
the sewer network. The upstream manhole ID 共UpsID兲 iden-
tifies the surface link. The 1D surface network has 34 irregu-
lar cross-section channels with a total length of 2.4 km. The
slopes range from −0.08 to 7% 共with an average of 1%兲.
There are ten MLE links between ponds and manholes, seven
weir links between ponds and ponds or ponds and pathways,
and 22 ponds;
3. The third step defines the linking elements. In this study the
sewer is connected to the surface network using the MLE.
When setting up the MLE parameters in the 1D/1D model,
number of equivalent elements 共Neq j
兲 should be equal to the
number of inlets for each manhole. However, since this data
are not available, four inlets per manhole are assumed as an
initial guess. This value will only influence the time taken by
the calibration algorithm to find the best fit for the 1D/1D
498 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
Fig. 4. Top zoomed view of study area; sewer network and 1D
surface network
model; after calibration the new values obtained will replace
the initial guess. The weir crests and lengths are retrieved by
the GIS tools. In the 1D/2D model the weir crests and
lengths are assigned by inspecting the DEM;
4. The next step defines the single rainfall event to be applied in
the methodology. The rainfall should be selected as follows:
a. Large enough to overwhelm the manholes such that in
the fifth step the parameters of the selected linking ele-
ments can be properly calibrated; and
b. To be greater than or equal to the rainfall event共s兲 the
user would wish to model using the 1D/1D model such
that the whole working range of the linking elements can
be calibrated.
A synthetic block rainfall of 52 mm in 1 h is selected which
corresponds to a 200 year return period event. The runoff
hydrographs calculated by SIPSON are introduced directly to
the pipe network nodes, assuming that the capacity of the
inlets is sufficient to collect the entire runoff. This assump-
tion may be incorrect for those manholes that surcharge
while runoff hydrographs still have significant values. How-
ever the assumption is purposely kept in order to enable a
consistent comparison between results of the two modeling
approaches; and
5. In the fifth and last step the calibration procedure is applied
to the 1D/1D model to ensure the same boundary conditions
for the surface modeling in both models. The calibration con-
siders as the objective function 共between the two coupled
models兲 the absolute difference in terms of cumulative vol-
umes surcharged from the sewer 共f kj兲, and uses the Neq j
as the
calibration parameter. In this study we use the dynamic ob-
jective function 共DOF兲 calibration algorithm 共see section: the
“Calibration Procedure”兲. The calibration parameters are de-
fined as:
a. ␣kj = 4 in the ten MLEs 共i.e., the Neq j
defined in Step 3兲;
¯ j j ¯
b. ␭k → 兵f k ⬎ 6,000, ␭k = 0.3; j
f kj ⬎ 3,600, ¯␭kj = 0.2; f kj ⬍ 3,600, ¯␭kj = 0.1其;
c. ␤ = max兵5 , k − 1其; and
d. MS= 100, TS= 0.95, and ␪ = 5.
j
The final calibrated model is obtained by replacing Neq
with the values of ␣kj obtained at the end of calibration.
In Step 2, if the GIS tool is not available, the pathways and
ponds can be determined by inspecting the DEM. The pathways
 can be defined by first looking at the neighboring cell elevations,
where water is assumed to flow from the highest to the lowest
elevation, and second, based on the street network where these
should serve as preferential flow paths. The cross-section profile
should be extended perpendicularly to the paths, up to form a
confined cross section 共preventing water depths higher than the
cross-section height兲. Ponds can be defined by building the stage-
area curves from the lowest points identified in the DEM; ponds
with a volume less than a threshold 共e.g., 1.0– 5.0 m3兲 lying in-
side a larger pond are aggregated in the latter, otherwise they are
modeled separately and connected by a weir at the pond exit point
with the lowest crest elevation. In Step 3 in the case where the
coupled model does not include the MLE linking element, other
less realistic types of elements can also be used. As discussed in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the “Introduction,” the most commonly used elements are weirs

and orifices. If these are used, the suggested calibration parameter
should be changed in Step 5 to a different variable to match those
connecting elements, e.g., the manhole area 共A兲 in the case of Fig. 5. Modeling details for connecting manholes with pond 共1兲
orifices or the weir crest width 共W兲 in the case of weirs. Also
in Step 5, it is possible to replace the DOF with a different
calibration algorithm, however, the objective function should be
kept unchanged 共this will be further discussed in the calibration and the pond are ensured realistic by considering a water
procedure兲. level and a ground elevation in a location closer to the man-
hole 共like in the 2D model兲. These form the second modeling
case illustrated in Fig. 6. This figure shows the connection
Modeling Details between Pond 8031 and Manhole 3092.
3. The third and last case is used for modeling a small pond
One of the major drawbacks of 1D/1D models is their inherent
within a larger one. This case is modeled by connecting
vulnerability to schematization 共Verwey 2007兲. These errors arise
ponds with weir equations, either submerged or nonsub-
during the model setup whenever the modeler misjudges the flow
merged 共depending on the levels in both ponds兲. Different
complexity and fails to capture its hydraulic behavior. Three cases
crest levels are needed depending on the exit levels of each
that are particularly difficult to model are analyzed in this study
pond. Fig. 7 illustrates the case where Pond 8015 is located
and will be explained in detail. The first and second cases deal
within Pond 8020. The first connection uses the MLE from
with modeling the connection between manholes and ponds, as a
the manhole with ID 3096 to the Pond 8015. The second
function of their ground elevations and proximity to the edge of
connection uses a weir to connect Pond 8015 to Pond 8020.
the pond. The third case models the connection of a small pond
The third and last connection is a weir connection from Pond
within a larger one. In the first two cases the virtual manhole
8020 to Pond 8022. The weir connections are justified by the
共VM兲 concept is adopted. VM is a manhole artificially introduced
short distance between the ponds edges.
on the 1D surface network with the purpose of ensuring realistic
It is important to note that the use of VM in this context has
discharges by the sewer. The three cases are discussed further as
the sole objective of bringing the discharge rates from the sur-
follows:
charged manholes closer to the 1D/2D model 共presumably more
1. If the distance between a manhole and the edge of a pond is
realistic兲 and is not aimed at controlling a possible unstable be-
long enough to require a flow routing of the surcharged hy-
drograph from the manhole, then a VM is created between
the two. The MLE is used to connect the manhole to the VM
and a channel is used to convey the flow from the VM to the
pond. The VM is set with an intermediate bottom elevation.
The VM bottom elevation controls the discharge rate in the
MLE, which otherwise would become unrealistically large if
the pond bottom elevation was used instead. The channel
connecting the VM to the pond will provide the necessary
flow routing. Fig. 5 illustrates the modeling details for con-
necting manholes with ponds. This figure shows the connec-
tions between Pond 8050 and Manholes 3079 and 3085.
2. If the distance between a manhole and the edge of the pond
is considered short 共a few meters兲 and the bottom elevation
of the pond is close to the top elevation of the manhole 共e.g.,
a few centimeters兲, then a VM is created between the two.
The MLE is used to connect the manhole to the VM and a
weir is used to connect the VM to the pond. As in the previ-
ous case, if the two were connected without the VM, the
discharge rate would be calculated based on the water level
at the pond instead of the water level at the surface next to
the manhole. In this way discharges between the manhole Fig. 6. Modeling details for connecting manholes with pond 共2兲

JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 499

J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Modeling details for connecting ponds to pond 共3兲
havior of the linking element nor to enable more connections to
the sewer network as in Schmitt et al. 共2004兲 where the VM
concept was also applied.
Calibration Procedure
Due to the lack of dynamically measured flood data, it has been
assumed that the results of the 1D/2D model are used as a refer-
ence for evaluating the 1D/1D model. This argument is based on
fewer assumptions and simplifications in the development of the
1D/2D model, and the fine grid resolution 共2 m ⫻ 2 m兲 used.
However if real data were available, the calibration should be
applied to both models.
In the calibration procedure, an objective function needs to be
defined. This study defines the objective function as the absolute
difference of the cumulative volumes discharged by the sewer
between the two coupled models. Therefore, the peak flow and
the time to peak are allowed to differ, but the total volume trans-
ferred between surface network and sewer should agree as closely
as possible 共this is, however, inherently constrained by the limits
of each model as given in Table 2兲.
This ensures that the boundary conditions on the interfaces
between the sewer network and the ground surface are consistent
in both models. No calibration on the friction parameter is done at
any time in any of the models.
The calibration of the 1D/1D model uses the DOF algorithm.
This algorithm is based on the linear search algorithm 共Bazaraa
et al. 1993兲, which is the backbone of many optimization meth-
ods. The DOF algorithm as defined in Leandro 共2008兲 uses the
following set of parameters:
Table 2. Summary Two Models Coupling, Linkage, Governing Equations, Numerical Scheme, and Stability at Surface
Model Governing equations Numerical scheme
1D/1D Full St. Venant equations Implicit Preissmann
1D/2D Full St. Venant equations Implicit Preissmann
共sewer兲 共sewer兲
Noninertia flow equations Explicit two step level AD
共surface兲 共surface兲
500 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
The first two terms in parentheses are calibration parameters al-
lowed to vary in time for each link. The remaining four are the
algorithm variables, which are determined by experimentation
and set constant throughout the calibration run. The calibration
parameter ␣kj = 1D / 1D linking element parameter; and ¯␭kj = grid
length, of a given link j at a given iteration k of the DOF run.
␤ = number of previous iterations, and MS, TS, and ␪ = control
variables to adjust the DOF search. The reader is referred to Le-
andro 共2008兲 for the DOF algorithm theory, and an explanation of
the parameters and variables.
Results
The calibration procedure has the objective of assuring similar
inflow and outflow discharges from/to the manholes in both mod-
els 共i.e., 1D/1D and 1D/2D兲, thus allowing a meaningful compari-
son between the 2D surface-system and the 1D surface-network
schematizations, complementing the previous four steps of the
methodology. Therefore, the results before calibration are only
presented for the discharges from/to the manholes for validation
purposes of the fifth step. Fig. 8 shows the results for discharge
obtained at three out of ten linking points before and after cali-
bration, identified by the UPsID. The improved agreement be-
tween the two models after applying the calibration algorithm is
clear. It should be noted that the flow from surface to sewer in
1D/2D model is determined by a weir equation 共commonly to
other software兲. When the hydraulic gradient approaches “zero”
the discharge derivatives approaches infinity, hence spikes of high
flows can be generated, for example, when the flow switches
direction from sewer to surface 共Fig. 8 UPsID3079兲.
The 1D/2D results allow identifying two major flooded areas
located at the southwest and northeast sections of the detailed
area 关Figs. 9共d兲 and 10共d兲兴. These areas are selected for compar-
ing the surface flow propagation and water levels between both
models.
Figs. 9 and 10 show a comparison of water levels and time of
peak flows at the lowest point of the major ponds in the 1D/1D
and the 1D/2D models. Each figure is divided into four sections.
Sections 共a兲 and 共b兲 show the resulting levels from the 1D/1D and
1D/2D models; section 共c兲 shows the differences in peak eleva-
tions; time of occurrence, and the filling sequence order numbers.
Section 共d兲 shows the geographic location of the nodes, terrain
level elevations 共TLelev兲, and flooded areas from the 1D/2D
model calculation.
Discussion
During a flooding event the two main variables of interest are
water depth and velocity. Depths are commonly used to produce
flood risk maps and for assessing flood damage costs based on a
Stability Coupling Linkage
Unconditionally stable Fully coupled MLE and weir
Unconditionally stable Partially coupled Weir and orifice
共sewer兲
Conditionally stable CFL
共surface兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 8. Discharges at three selected linking points, before 共top row兲 and after 共bottom row兲 calibration
damage curve 共Dawson et al. 2008兲. Velocities enable creation of
“flood hazard” maps where flood hazard is rated as low/moderate/
high as a function of unit discharge 共product of depth and veloc-
ity兲. Depths are readily available from results of both models,
hence these are directly usable for comparison. However, velocity
is much more difficult to use for comparison because in the
1D/2D model it is defined by two components and typically var-
ies more distinctly 共in space兲 than the velocity in the 1D/1D
model; therefore, the arrival times of flood waves will be used
instead to infer the flood flow dynamics. The terms “lagging” and
“overshooting” will be used, respectively, to refer to the delay or
early arrival of the flood wave.
Fig. 9 shows the water levels at Ponds 8050 and 8043, and the
surcharged Manholes 3024, 3079, and 3085 共the first two man-
holes coincide with the UPsID’s of the links shown in Fig. 8兲. The
time and peak levels are well captured in both ponds and good
agreement is observed in the general shape of the water level
profile. The length of the channels modeled downstream of the
surcharged manholes accurately predict the routing flood hy-
drograph from the manhole to the pond. Therefore, both models
reproduced the timing of flood propagation well. The locations of
ponds are in agreement with the flooded areas 关Fig. 9共d兲兴. Focus-
ing on Pond 8050, the analysis shows that after surcharging and a
maximum peak is attained, the sewer starts to drain the water
back. It also shows that the crest levels in both models are in good
agreement. Pond 8043 similarly shows good agreement; however
in this case the water just remains on the surface and does not
return to the sewer. Pond 8052 does not receive any water, be-
cause neither manhole 3025 surcharges, nor the weir connection
with the neighboring Pond 8043 overflows. This figure shows
that, for the selected ponds, the 1D schematization of the ponds
and channels, as well as the modeling discretization used 共Fig. 5兲
were indeed effective in reproducing the 2D features of the
1D/2D model.
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 501
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
Fig. 10 shows water levels at Ponds 8031, 8027, 8015, 8020,
and 8022. This figure shows that the peak levels were generally in
better agreement than the times of peak. The selected area is
severely flooded during the simulations as can be seen in Fig.
10共d兲. The flow spreads over the whole area 共i.e., it is distinctly
two dimensional兲. The 1D/1D model fails to predict the correct
flow paths and, therefore, the filling sequence of ponds.
For Ponds 8015 and 8020 共Fig. 7 shows the modeling details兲
the time and peak level for the first pond are both well predicted.
The 1D/1D model in the second pond shows the water level
slightly underestimated and a lagged peak time when compared to
the 1D/2D model. One of the possible explanations for the dis-
crepancy in Pond 8020 is the overestimation of the stage-area
curve 共during the aggregation of smaller ponds, done by the GIS
procedure兲, which would cause a peak delay and consequently
prevent one from obtaining the correct peak level.
Pond 8022 in the 1D/1D model shows an overshoot of both
peak time and water level. At first it may appear that an incorrect
modeling assumption was used for linking Ponds 8020 and 8022
共Fig. 7兲. However, if a channel is used for connecting the two
ponds, it would result in an overlap of flooding areas due to their
edge proximity. The schematization error in this case may have
resulted from failing to consider the delay effect of filling up the
smaller ponds. The error could also be exaggerated due to the
absence of multiple exit points at Ponds 8020 and 8022 in the
1D/1D model. A closer look into the 1D/2D results supports this
explanation, showing that the filling of several small ponds pre-
cedes the filling of the lowest point in the 2D model, where Pond
8022 is located in the 1D/1D model. Since only one large pond
was identified in the 1D/1D model 共i.e., Pond 8022兲 it directly
starts filling without having the delay effect caused by the sur-
rounding smaller ponds.
The modeling details type used for Pond 8027 are similar to
those shown in Fig. 5 共i.e., the first type兲. The figure shows the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. 1D/1D and 1D/2D model results in Flooded area 1 共south-
west兲: 共a兲 1D/1D water levels; 共b兲 1D/2D water levels; 共c兲 difference
in wave peaks time of occurrence; and 共d兲 location of nodes and
flooded area 1
time to peak and the peak levels reasonably well predicted, how-
ever, the instant when the pond starts to fill is overshot in the
1D/1D model. In this case, it may be concluded that a schemati-
zation error similar to that made earlier for Pond 8022 has again
been made. Nevertheless, the modeling detail used here seems to
allow a good prediction of peak time and the volume-depth curve
to enable a good agreement on the peak level.
Pond 8031 shows a good general agreement in the profile
shape for both models. This pond illustrates the second case in the
502 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
Fig. 10. 1D/1D and 1D/2D model results in Flooded area 2 共north-
east兲: 共a兲 1D/1D water levels; 共b兲 1D/2D water levels; 共c兲 difference
in wave peaks time of occurrence; and 共d兲 location of nodes and
flooded area 2
modeling details 共Fig. 6兲. Because of the short distance between
the pond exit and the manhole, the VM connects to the pond
using a weir. The good prediction of the exact moment when the
flooding starts is an indicator that there was no need to consider a
channel for connecting the manhole and the pond. However, an
overshoot of the peak level in the 1D/1D model indicates either
an underestimation of the volume-depth curve or a need to in-
clude an extra exit point in Pond 8031.
 Conclusions
In this paper, a comparison between the 1D/1D and 1D/2D mod-
els has been presented. The two models’ ability to model the
surcharged flood flow has been demonstrated by comparing water
levels and time of peak flows at the lowest point of major ponds.
This paper also shows that care has to be taken in the setting up
and calibration of the lower order model. A methodology to con-
struct two consistent models has been presented to assure a mean-
ingful comparison as well as specific modeling details necessary
for the 1D/1D model to capture the surface flow dynamics. Fur-
thermore, in both models the dual drainage concept has been
adopted, allowing modeling the bidirectional interaction of the
discharge exchange surface/sewer.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In order to impose consistent boundary conditions for the sur-
face flow domain in both 1D/1D and 1D/2D approaches through-
out the entire simulation, the flows discharged from the manholes
in both models are adjusted in a calibration procedure that makes
use of the MLEs potential to control and regulate the flows dis-
charged from the sewer network. Due to the absence of dynami-
cally measured flood data, we assumed that the use of a 2 m
⫻ 2 m grid in the DEM is sufficient to enable accurate modeling
using the 1D/2D model. Thereby the results of the 1D/2D could
be used as data for calibrating the 1D/1D model.
The comparison results presented strong evidence for what the
key factors and recommendations in setting up an accurate 1D/1D
model are. These can be summarized as follows:
1. The definition of a 1D surface network of pathways and
ponds based on a DEM:
a. Ponds defined by stage-area curves 共by aggregation of
ponds within ponds if below a specified threshold兲, bot-
tom levels 共lowest point of the pond兲, and crest levels
共the first exit point of a pond兲; and
b. Flow pathways defined by lengths, paths, and slopes,
based on analyzing the elevations of the neighboring
cells 共from highest to lowest兲, and cross-sectional profile
defined by extending it perpendicular to the paths up to
form a confined cross section 共according with the DEM兲;
2. To apply sensible elements for linking the sewer with surface
共MLE兲, and that connection identified based on the proximity
between manholes and pathways, and linking ponds to ponds
and to pathways 共weirs兲 based on the shortest distances; and
3. The inclusion of virtual manholes to bring the topographic
features in the 1D/2D model that control the sewer dis-
charges into the 1D/1D model.
The outlined methodology has been successfully tested on a
detailed area of the Keighley sewer network. In this study case,
the results obtained by the 1D/1D model have shown consistency
with the 1D/2D model. However, they have also highlighted po-
tential weaknesses suggesting questions that should be considered
in future research, such as the cost-benefit of lowering the DEM
resolution while keeping some of the main topographic features
and maintaining an acceptable computational requirement, and
how to develop better visualization tools for representing the
1D/1D results.
Acknowledgments
The research presented in this paper was funded by the UK
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council project
Flood Risk Management Research Consortium 共FRMRC兲 Work
Package 6.1 共Grant No. GR/S76304/01兲. The writers are grateful
JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009 / 503
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
to Surajate Boonya-aroonnet for generating the 1D surface net-
work of the case study, to Adrian Saul and John Blanksby for
numerous fruitful discussions, to Barry Evans for improving the
clarity of the paper, and to anonymous reviewers for their helpful
comments.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Amj ⫽ manhole area;
A p ⫽ area of pipe connecting inlet box to manhole;
Cd ⫽ discharge coefficient;
f kj ⫽ objective function;
g ⫽ gravity force;
Hi ⫽ inlet box height;
Hpkj ⫽ water level at subsurface network nodes;
j
HpK.D ⫽ water level downstream of link at sewer pipe;
Hskj ⫽ water level at surface network nodes;
Hsk.Dj
⫽ water level downstream of link at surface;
Hsk.Uj
⫽ water level upstream of link at surface;
Hsh ⫽ height of vertical shaft connecting inlet box to
manhole;
hpkj ⫽ water depth at subsurface network nodes;
hskj ⫽ water depth at surface network nodes;
i ⫽ link ID;
K ⫽ Strickler roughness coefficient;
k ⫽ iteration number of DOF;
Li ⫽ perimeter length of inlet box;
Lp ⫽ length of vertical shaft 共of pipe connecting inlet
box to manhole兲;
MS,TS,␪ ⫽ control parameters of DOF;
Neq j
⫽ number of equivalent single-linking-elements;
Qcsi ⫽ discharge for given control section i;
Qkj ⫽ discharge for given multiple-linking element;
R ⫽ hydraulic radius of pipe connecting inlet box to
manhole;
Rcd j ⫽ coefficient to reduce instability;
w j ⫽ weir crest width;
zlevel ⫽ weir crest level;
j
␣kj ⫽ calibration parameter of DOF;
␤ ⫽ number of previous iterations of DOF;
⌬x ⫽ grid size; and
¯␭ j ⫽ grid length of DOF.
k
References
Aronica, G. T., and Lanza, L. G. 共2005兲. “Drainage efficiency in urban
areas: A case study.” Hydrolog. Process., 19共5兲, 1105–1119.
Bazaraa, M. S., Sherali, H. D., and Shetty, C. M. 共1993兲. Nonlinear
programming, 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York.
Bolle, A., et al. 共2006兲. “Hydraulic modelling of the two-directional in-
teraction between sewer and river systems.” Proc., Urban Drainage
Modelling and Water Sensitive Urban Design, Monash Univ., Mel-
bourne, Australia.
Boonya-Aroonnet, S., Maksimović, Č., Prodanović, D., and Djordjević,
S. 共2007兲. “Urban pluvial flooding: Development of GIS based path-
ways model for surface flooding and interface with surcharged sewer
model.” Proc., 6th NOVATECH International Conf., Workshop I,
Graie, Lyon, France, 481–488.
Carr, R. S., and Smith, G. P. 共2006兲. “Linking of 2D and pipe hydraulic
 models at fine spatial scales.” Urban drainage modelling and water
sensitive urban design, Monash Univ., Melbourne, Australia.
Chen, A. S., Djordjevic, S., Leandro, J., and Savic, D. 共2007兲. “The urban
inundation model with bidirectional flow interaction between 2D
overland surface and 1D sewer networks.” Proc., 6th NOVATECH Int.
Conf., Workshop I, Graie, Lyon, France, 465–472.
Chen, A. S., Hsu, M. H., Chen, T. S., and Chang, T. J. 共2005兲. “An
integrated inundation model for highly developed urban areas.” Water
Sci. Technol., 51共2兲, 221–229.
Dawson, R. J., Speight, L., Hall, J. W., Djordjević, S., Savić, D., and
Leandro, J. 共2008兲. “Attribution of flood risk in urban areas.” J. Hy-
droinform., 10共4兲, 275–288.
Delleur, J. W. 共2003兲. “The evolution of urban hydrology: Past, present,
and future.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 129共8兲, 563–573.
Danish Hydraulic Institute 共DHI兲. 共2007兲. “MIKE—Urban.” 具http://
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by DAPS LIBRARY on 08/17/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
www.dhigroup.com/典.
Djordjević, S., Prodanović, D., Maksimović, Č., Ivetić, M., and Savić, D.
共2005兲. “SIPSON-Simulation of interaction between pipe flow and
surface overland flow in networks.” Water Sci. Technol., 52共5兲, 275–
283.
Djordjević, S., Prodanović, D., and Walters, G. A. 共2004兲. “Simulation of
transcritical flow in pipe/channel networks.” J. Hydraul. Eng.,
130共12兲, 1167–1178.
Horritt, M., and Bates, P. D. 共2002兲. “Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical
models for predicting river flood inundation.” J. Hydrol., 268, 87–99.
Kaushik, C. 共2006兲. Urban flood modelling—A comparative study for 1D
and 2D models, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, The Netherlands.
Kawaike, K., and Nakagawa, H. 共2007兲. “Flood disaster in July 2006 in
the Matsue city area and its numerical simulation.” 32nd Congress of
IAHR—Harmonizing the Demands of Art and Nature in Hydraulics,
IAHR, Venice, Italy.
Leandro, J. 共2008兲. “A dynamic objective function algorithm to calibrate
a 1D/1D coupled hydraulic model versus a 1D/2D model.” Proc., Int.
Conf. on Urban Drainage 共CD-ROM兲, Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K.
Leandro, J., Djordjevic, S., Chen, A. S., and Savic, D. 共2007兲. “The use
of multiple-linking-element for connecting surface and subsurface
networks.” Proc., 32nd Congress of IAHR—Harmonizing the De-
mands of Art and Nature in Hydraulics, IAHR, Venice, Italy.
Lhomme, J., Bouvier, C., Mignot, E., and Paquier, A. 共2006兲. “One-
dimensional GIS-based model compared to two-dimensional model in
504 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2009
J. Hydraul. Eng. 2009.135:495-504.
urban floods simulations.” Water Sci. Technol., 54共6–7兲, 83–91.
Lin, B., Wicks, J. M., Falconer, R. A., and Adams, K. 共2006兲. “Integrat-
ing 1D and 2D hydrodynamic models for flood simulation.” Water
Management, 159, 19–25.
Maksimovic, C., and Prodanovic, D. 共2001兲. “Modelling of urban
flooding—Breakthrough or recycling of outdated concepts.” UDM’01,
ASCW, Orlando, Fla.
Mark, O., Weesakul, S., Apirumanekul, C., Aroonnet, S. B., and
Djordjević, S. 共2004兲. “Potential and limitations of 1D modelling of
urban flooding.” J. Hydrol., 299共3–4兲, 284–299.
Nasello, C., and Tucciarelli, T. 共2005兲. “Dual multilevel urban drainage
model.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 131共9兲, 748–754.
Paquier, A., Tanguy, J. M., Haider, S., and Zhang, B. 共2003兲. “Estimation
des niveaux d’inondation pour une crue éclair en milieu urbain: Com-
paraison de deux modèles hydrodynamiques sur la crue de Nîmes
d’Octobre 1988.” Rev. Sci. Eau., 16共1兲, 79–102.
Phillips, B. C., Yu, S., Thompson, G. R., and de Silva, N. 共2005兲. “1D
and 2D modelling of urban drainage systems using XP-SWMM and
TUFLOW.” Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Urban Storm Drainage, DTU,
Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ponce, V. M., and Simons, D. B. 共1977兲. “Applicability of kinematic and
diffusion models.” J. Hydr. Div., 104共3兲, 1461–1476.
Rossman, L. A. 共2005兲. Storm water management model—User’s manual,
version 5.0, EPA—United States, 具http://www.epa.gov/ednnrmrl/
models/swmm/epaswmm5_manual.pdf典.
Schmitt, T. G., Thomas, M., and Ettrich, N. 共2004兲. “Analysis and mod-
eling of flooding in urban drainage systems.” J. Hydrol., 299共3–4兲,
300–311.
Spry, R., and Zhang, S. 共2006兲. “Modelling of drainage systems and
overland flow paths at catchment’s scales.” Proc., Urban Drainage
Modelling and Water Sensitive Urban Design, Monash Univ., Mel-
bourne, Australia.
Verwey, A. 共2007兲. “Numerical modelling support to flood studies.”
Proc., 32nd Congress of IAHR—Harmonizing the Demands of Art and
Nature in Hydraulics, IAHR, Venice, Italy.
Wallingford Software. 共2006兲. Infoworks CS, version 7.5, documentation,
Wallingford.
Zhong, Z. 共1998兲. “General hydrodynamic model for sewer/channel net-
work systems.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 123共3兲, 307–315.