See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/263351305

Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models in

river flood risk modeling (a case study of Sungai Kayu Ara River basin,
Malaysia)

Article  in  International Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology · January 2012

DOI: 10.1504/IJHST.2012.049187

CITATIONS READS

53 7,006

4 authors:

Sina Alaghmand Rozi Abdullah

Monash University (Australia) Universiti Sains Malaysia
42 PUBLICATIONS   520 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   613 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ismail Abustan Saeid Eslamian

Universiti Sains Malaysia Isfahan University of Technology
73 PUBLICATIONS   1,373 CITATIONS    681 PUBLICATIONS   7,402 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Water Management View project

EURSI (Eutrophication Using Remote Sensing Images) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sina Alaghmand on 15 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

270 Int. J. Hydrology Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2012

Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and

MIKE11 hydraulic models in river flood risk modelling
(a case study of Sungai Kayu Ara River basin,
Malaysia)

Sina Alaghmand*, Rozi bin Abdullah and

Ismail Abustan
School of Civil Engineering,
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM),
14300, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia
E-mail: sina.alaghmand@mymail.unisa.edu.au
E-mail: cerozi@eng.usm.my
E-mail: ceismail@eng.usm.my
*Corresponding author

Saeid Eslamian
Department of Water Engineering,
Collage of Agriculture,
Isfahan University of Technology,
Isfahan 8415683111, Iran
E-mail: saeid@cc.iut.ac.ir

Abstract: River flood risk map prediction is a combination of hydrological

modelling, hydraulic modelling, river flood visualisation and river flood risk
mapping. Two hydraulic models were applied in this research regarding their
capabilities in river flood risk studies. These are MIKE11 developed by Danish
Hydraulic Institute (DHI) and HEC-RAS4.0 by US Army Corps of Engineers.
These two hydraulic models are compared in four aspects including credibility,
available outcomes, usability of the models and the availability. Sungai Kayu
Ara River basin is the case study in this research which is located in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. The results of the models were compared against observed
water level at the outlet of the river basin. The results of this research show that
HEC-RAS has more capabilities for river flood risk mapping in comparison
with MIKE11 in this case study.

Keywords: HEC-RAS; MIKE11; flood risk modelling; Sungai Kayu Ara;

Malaysia.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Alaghmand, S.,

bin Abdullah, R., Abustan, I. and Eslamian, S. (2012) ‘Comparison between
capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models in river flood risk
modelling (a case study of Sungai Kayu Ara River basin, Malaysia)’, Int. J.
Hydrology Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.270–291.

Biographical notes: Sina Alaghmand is a PhD student at SA Water Centre for

Water Management and Reuse (CWMR) of School of Natural and Built
Environments (NBE), University of South Australia (UniSA). He obtained his

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 271

BSc of Irrigation Engineering in Iran from Gorgan University of Agricultural

Sciences and Natural Resources, September 2006. Then he moved to School of
Civil Engineering of Universiti of Sains Malaysia (USM) to continue his study
in River Engineering. His MSc research title was ‘River flood modeling for
flood risk map prediction (A case study on Sungai Kayu Ara River Basin)’.
After receiving his MSc (full research) in July 2009, he worked in Malaysia at
Jurutea Nusantara Bersekutu Sdn. Bhd. Consulting Company for a while until
he awarded scholarship from UniSA. He moved to Australia in July 2010 and
started his PhD research on ‘Conceptual modeling of salinity mobility in the
River Murray Floodplains’.

Rozi bin Abdullah is an Associate Professor of School of Civil Engineering in

Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM).

Ismail Abustanis a Professor of School of Civil Engineering in Universiti Sains

Malaysia (USM).

Saeid Eslamian has undertaken his PhD from School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia under
supervision of Prof. David Pilgrim. He is currently an Associate Professor of
Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering in Isfahan University of
Technology, Iran. He was formerly a Visiting Professor in University of
Princeton and ETH Zurich. He is performing as the Chief Editor of both
International Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology (IJHST) and
Journal of Flood Engineering and has published more than 30 special issues,
books and chapter books and 200 technical papers in international journals and
conferences. Currently, he is the lead author for writing Handbook of
Engineering Hydrology by Francis and Taylor.

1 Introduction

River flood has been known as the most catastrophic phenomena especially in urban
areas. Hence, river flood risk assessment has been considered in recent years around the
world (Bouma et al., 2005; Carter et al., 2009; Fedeski and Gwilliam, 2007; Marchi et al.,
in press; McMinn et al., 2010; Pottier et al., 2005; Robins et al., 2009; Yoshikawa et al.,
2010; Marchi et al., 2010). River flood modelling is a tool for assessment, evaluation and
prediction of river flood risk in various scenarios. River flood risk modelling consists of
four main components: hydrological modelling, hydraulic modelling, river flood
visualisation and river flood risk mapping (Alaghmand, 2009). There are many computer
models exist to simulate the river flood requirements (depth, velocity and, etc.) such as
HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS, MIKE11, MIKE SWMM, MIKE FLOOD and InfoWORKS.
Indubitably, quality and reliability of the simulated processes for each elements of the
river flood risk increase the quality and reliability of the generated river flood risk maps.
A successful river flood model requires a sufficient representation of the river channel
and floodplain geometries, with an accurate description of the model parameters, to make
it possible to predict the flow magnitude and water levels along the reach accurately
(Gichamo et al., 2012). Software tools have been (and are being) developed and updated
to extract spatial features that are useful for hydraulic models, from topographical data
sources, both in GIS (Tesfa et al., 2011; Merwade et al., 2008) and non-GIS
environments (Schwanghart and Kuhn, 2010). However, obtaining detailed topographical
272 S. Alaghmand et al.

data for every river basin under study is a difficult task as the process involves an
expensive and time consuming survey campaign (ground or airborne) and a painstaking
post-processing of the survey data (Merwade et al., 2008). A number of studies have been
carried out that try to deal with topographical data scarcity in river flood modelling. Most
of them rely on the integration of GIS with digital elevation models (DEM) obtained
from remote sensing satellites or other globally available datasets (Asante et al., 2008);
while others try to use data assimilation techniques to identify a (synthetic) cross-section
that is hydraulically equivalent to the real river geometry (Honnorat et al., 2009). In
addition to topographical data for flood propagation modelling, satellite images provide
the locations and types of structures in the area of interest. This is useful for spatially
distributed flood damage quantification, particularly in urban areas (Qi and Altinakar,
2011).
HEC-RAS is one of the most applied hydraulic models in the flood studies (Carling
et al., 2010; Greenbaum et al., 2010; Horritt and Bates, 2002; Knebl et al., 2005;
Koutroulis and Tsanis, 2010; Pappenberger et al., 2005, 2008; Pinar et al., 2010;
Rodriguez et al., 2008). HEC-RAS4.0 is a hydraulic model developed by the Hydrologic
Engineering Centre. The first version of HEC-RAS was developed in 1990 and
evolved from a steady flow model called HEC-2, first developed in 1966 (HEC,
2006). As computer capabilities improved, the HEC-2 software was converted to the
windows-based HEC-RAS software to better assist hydraulic modelling with a graphical
user interface (GUI). HEC-RAS4.0 is an integrated system of software, designed for
interactive use in a multi-tasking environment. The system is comprised of a GUI,
separate analysis components, data storage and management capabilities, graphics and
reporting facilities.
The basic computational procedure is based on the solution of the one-dimensional
energy equation. Energy losses are evaluated by friction (Manning’s equation) and
contraction and expansion (coefficient multiplied by the change in velocity head). The
momentum equation is utilised in situation where the water surface profile is rapidly
varied. These situations include mixed flow regime calculations (i.e., hydraulic jumps),
hydraulics of bridges, and evaluating profiles at river confluences (stream junctions). The
HEC-RAS model was initially used for calculating water surface profiles for 1D steady
state flow. The results from the model have been applied to flood management and flood
insurance studies throughout the USA. Recently, HEC-RAS has incorporated an unsteady
flow model in its version 4.0. The HEC-RAS4.0 version provides the modeller with an
option to use either the steady flow or unsteady flow option.
HEC-RAS is currently capable of performing one-dimensional water surface profile
calculation for steady gradually varied flow in natural or constructed channels.
Subcritical, supercritical and mixed regime water surface profile can be calculated. Along
with the unsteady and steady flow options, the HEC-RAS model also provides the
following capabilities:

• modelling of open channel networks and single rivers (both unsteady and steady
flow options)
• analysis of bridges, weirs, and culverts (unsteady and steady flow options)
• modelling storage areas, navigation dams, tunnels, pumping stations, and levee
failures (unsteady flow option only)
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 273

• Handling of subcritical, supercritical, and mixed-flow regimes (steady flow option

only) (HEC-RAS, 2006).
The Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) developed the MIKE11 hydraulic model in 1987
and it became a widely applied 1D dynamic modelling tool for rivers and channels. There
are many applications of MIKE11 in recent research in water resources engineering
(Hashemi et al., 2008; Liu and Sun, 2010; Luu et al., 2010; Makungo et al., 2010; Kusre
et al., 2010; Ranaee et al., 2009). Its ability to simulate unsteady stream flows for
specified time durations and time steps currently makes it a powerful graphical tool. The
hydrodynamic module (HD) is the core of MIKE11. It provides a library of
computational methods for steady and unsteady flow in branched and looped channel
networks as well as quasi two-dimensional flow simulation on flood plains. MIKE11 HD
is applicable to vertically homogeneous flow conditions ranging from steep river flows to
tidally influenced estuaries. Both subcritical and supercritical flow can be described by a
numerical scheme, which adapts according to the local flow conditions. The complete
non-linear equation of open channel flow (St. Venant) is solved numerically between all
grid points at specified and adaptive time intervals for given boundary conditions.
Typical application areas for MIKE 11 include flood risk analysis and alleviation design,
real-time flood forecasting, dam break analysis, optimisation of reservoir and canal
structure operations and integrated surface water and groundwater.
The MIKE11 covers the entire phase of surface hydrology and river routing (Ahmed,
2010). The MIKE11 model runs from a windows-based interface called MIKE Zero. To
develop a MIKE11 hydrodynamic model, five files are necessary: a river network file, a
cross-section file, a boundary file, a hydrodynamic parameter file, and a simulation file.
The MIKE11 HD uses an implicit, finite difference scheme for the computation
of unsteady flows in rivers. The complete non-linear equations of open channel flow
(Saint-Venant) can be solved numerically at all grid points at specified time intervals for
given boundary conditions. A forward centred six-point Abbott scheme and a double
sweep algorithm are used to solve continuity and momentum equations simultaneously
(DHI, 2005; Ahmed, 2010). In this regard, two well-known and established hydraulic
models were investigated in this research, HEC-RAS from US Army Corps of Engineers
and MIKE11 from DHI. The case study of this research was Sungai Kayu Ara River
basin in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. HEC-RAS and MIKE11 were utilised to simulate the
hydraulic component of the river flood risk modelling of the Sungai Kayu Ara.

2 Study area

Sungai Kayu Ara River basin is the case study in this research which is located in Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia. Sungai Kayu Ara River basin is geographically surrounded within N
3° 6′ to N 3° 11′ and E 101° 35′ to E 101° 39′. Sungai Kayu Ara River basin covers an
area of 23.22 km2.The main river of this river basin originates from the reserved highland
area of Penchala and Segambut. The Sungai Kayu Ara River basin can be a suitable study
river basin for this research because of the reasons such as follows: primarily, a large part
of this river basin area is well developed urban area with different land-use and also high
population density that shows the importance of this river basin. Secondly, the
availability of high density rainfall station network, whereby ten rainfall stations and one
274 S. Alaghmand et al.

water level station are available. Figure 1 shows location and base-map of Sungai Kayu
Ara River basin.

Figure 1 Location and base map of Sungai Kayu Ara River basin in Malaysia (see online version
for colours)
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 275

3 Methodology

Two hydraulic models were applied in this research, MIKE11 developed by DHI and
HEC-RAS4.0 by US Army Corps of Engineers. Since, the main input data for hydraulic
modelling is runoff hydrograph of the river basin, so, HEC-HMS hydrological model was
utilised to generate the runoff hydrographs for various scenarios. In order to conduct the
river flood risk mapping as the ultimate objectives of this research, one of the hydraulic
models must be selected. In the development of flood risk maps either model MIKE11 or
HEC-RAS4.0 which best represent the hydraulic regime of the Sungai Kayu Ara River
basin will be chosen.

3.1 Hydrological modelling

The hydrologic modelling system (HMS) is designed to simulate the precipitation-runoff
processes of dendritic watershed systems. HECHMS provides a suite of hydrological
modelling options, with the main components focusing on determining runoff
hydrographs from sub-basins and routing the hydrographs through channels to the study
outlet (Beighley and Moglen, 2003). Hydrographs produced by the programme are used
directly or in conjunction with other software for studies of water availability, urban
drainage, flood forecasting, future urbanisation impact, reservoir spillway design, flood
damage reduction, floodplain regulation, and systems operation (HEC, 2006). The model
simulates a rainfall-runoff response of a river basin system to a precipitation input by
representing the entire river basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and
hydraulic components, which include river basins, streams and reservoirs. In HEC-HMS
basin model there are four main components for hydrological modelling; loss method,
transform method, base-flow method and routing method. For each of these components
a suitable method must be chosen. According to availability of parameters and past
studies, Green-Ampt, Snyder unit hydrograph, recession and kinematic wave methods are
selected and applied for rainfall-runoff simulation in Sungai Kayu Ara River basin.
The basic step for development and application of a model is establishing of the
credibility of the model which comprises of sensitivity analysis, calibration and
validation processes. In sensitivity analysis process it is appeared that for HEC-HMS
hydrologic model the most sensitive parameters are imperviousness, lag-time and
peaking coefficient. Imperviousness is applied in Green-Ampt loss method and, lag-time
and peaking coefficient are used in Snyder unit hydrograph transformation method. For
calibration and validation of the model, recorded rainfall and water level data of historical
rainfall events of the study river basin are required. As mentioned earlier there are ten
rainfall stations and one water level station in the Sungai Kayu Ara River basin. Among
the recorded rainfall and water level time series obtained from rainfall and water level
stations, 18 rainfall events are selected for calibration and 18 rainfall events for validation
process. By applying the 18 calibration rainfall events dataset the best set of values for
each parameter are identified that best represent the hydrologic model of Sungai Kayu
Ara River basin. The credibility of the hydrological model is evaluated using 18
validation rainfall event dataset. The results of the calibration and validation processes
show acceptable correlations between observed and simulated runoff hydrographs.
The generation of design hydrograph was accomplished using HEC-HMS model. The
IDF polynomial equation (DID, 2000) for, three different ARI, 20 years, 50 years and
100 years, were used to derive the design rainfall as an input to HEC-HMS hydrological
276 S. Alaghmand et al.

model. Duration of rainfall events were selected according to two criteria, first the time of
concentration of the river basin which was equal to 2 hours, secondly with consideration
to the availability of spatial temporal pattern in Storm Water Management Manual for
Malaysia which is used as a reference in this research (rainfall temporal patters are
available only for 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, 180 and 360 min). Therefore, the durations selected
are 60 minutes, 120 minutes, 180 minutes and 360 minutes. Table 1 shows the calculated
rainfall densities and depth values for Sungai Kayu Ara River basin for three different
ARI and three different durations.
Table 1 Design rainfall intensity and depth for Sungai Kayu Ara River basin

20 yrs. ARI 50 yrs. ARI 100 yrs. ARI

Event
duration Intensity Intensity Intensity
Depth (mm) Depth (mm) Depth (mm)
(mm/hr) (mm/hr) (mm/hr)
60 min 91.34 91.34 100.54 100.54 110.21 110.21
120 min 54.47 108.93 59.77 119.53 65.39 130.78
180 min 39.44 118.31 43.22 129.67 47.22 141.66
360 min 22.43 134.56 24.66 147.98 26.83 160.95

Hydrological model such as HEC-HMS simulates the hydrograph of generated runoff

caused by rainfall event. According to this definition of hydrological modelling, the main
input for hydrological model is rainfall event hyetograph. To simulate HEC-HMS for
Sungai Kayu Ara River basin, for each scenario, input design rainfall hyetograph is
required. The input hyetograph for each scenario, totally 36 rainfall hyetographs are
extracted according to the storm water management manual (DID, 2000). Table 2 shows
the results of the HEC-HMS simulation for all 36 scenarios, as it is clear, for each
scenario the runoff peak discharge and runoff volume are calculated.
Table 2 Results of the HEC-HMS3.1.0 for the 36 scenarios

20 yrs. ARI 50 yrs. ARI 100 yrs. ARI

Development Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff
condition Duration peak volume peak volume peak volume
(m3/s) (1,000 m3) (m3/s) (1,000 m3) (m3/s) (1,000 m3)
Existing 1 hr 368.7 1,856 413.1 2,107 460 2,354
2 hr 319.9 2,197 357.6 2,480 397.6 2,761
3 hr 292.2 2,350 326.6 2,640 362.9 2,940
6 hr 246.1 2,426 277 2,697 306.73 3,052
Intermediate 1 hr 396.5 2,088 441.2 2,254 488.1 2,486
2 hr 347.3 2,428 384.9 2,696 425 2,980
3 hr 318 2,639 352.3 2,908 388.5 3,229
6 hr 270.8 2,856 301.5 3,124 331.3 3,472
Ultimate 1 hr 427.9 2,164 472.6 2,417 519.5 2,683
2 hr 378 2,649 416 2,938 456.1 3,225
3 hr 347.1 2,919 381.3 3,210 417.3 3,534
6 hr 298.6 3,280 359 3,892 359 3,960
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 277

3.2 Comparison between HEC-RAS and MIKE11

To meet the main objective of this research, evaluation and comparison must be
performed between MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0 models. In this case, these two hydraulic
models are compared in four aspects, credibility, available outcomes, usability of the
models and the availability, those are presented below.

Figure 2 Correlation between observed and simulated water level during calibration of
HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 for Sungai Kayu Ara River (see online version for colours)
278 S. Alaghmand et al.

3.2.1 Credibility of the model

The performance of the MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0 models during calibration
and validation procedures are evaluated based on the R2 statistics. Calibration
processes for these models are conducted using 20 observed events among available
data. In the calibration process the parameters of both models MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0
are identified using identical 20 historical events. The utilisation of the similar dataset for
calibration of MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0 models will ensure and facilitate the
comparison of the models with similar term. In order to compare MIKE11 and HEC-RAS
the generated water level at the location of the water level station which is located at the
outlet of the Sungai Kayu Ara River basin (chainage 5,100 m) is considered. The
simulation results for the calibration of the MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0 are compared
with the observed water level and are presented in Figure 2 which shows the correlation
of observed and simulated water level for HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11, respectively.
The simulated results from HEC-RAS4.0 gives R2 statistics of 0.9404 which show
higher correlation between observed and simulated water levels in comparison with
MIKE11 with R2 statistics of 0.9073. The R2 statistics indicates that simulated results of
HEC-RAS4.0 are more close to observed water level in comparison with MIKE11. The
other indicator that can be used for the evaluation of these two hydraulic models is
standard deviation (STDEV). The STDEV of the calibration results for HEC-RAS4.0 is
equal to 0.58 which is lower than MIKE11 where the value is 0.63. This shows that the
scattering of the simulated values of the MIKE11 is pronounced than HEC-RAS4.0,
which shows that HEC-RAS4.0 model performance is better.
The HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 models are validated using ten selected historical
events. The simulated results from the validation dataset events can be used to evaluate
the performance of the HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 models. Figure 3 shows the
comparison of the simulated and observed water levels from HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11
models for Sungai Kayu Ara River basin. The maximum and minimum simulated water
levels in validation process for HEC-RAS4.0 are 19.47 m and 16.94 m, respectively,
while these values are 18.27 m and 15.87 for MIKE11, respectively.
Figure 3 demonstrates the correlation between observed and simulated water levels of
the HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 models, respectively, for the validation procedure. A total
of ten rainfall events are utilised for validation of hydraulic models. These generated
surface runoffs which correspond to the rainfall events are recorded by water level
station. Hence, comparison between these water levels with simulated water level can
give an appropriate opportunity to compare the two hydraulic models. The simulated
water levels for HEC-RAS4.0 model exhibits 96% correlation with observed
values, while the correlation for MIKE11 model is 91%. The simulated results from
HEC-RAS4.0 model for both calibration and validation procedures exhibit a higher
correlation with the observed values compared to the MIKE11 model. In addition
STDEV of HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 simulated water levels are equal to 0.76 and 0.78,
respectively. According to these results, it can be concluded that HEC-RAS water level
generation is more reliable compare with MIKE11. The result of HEC-RAS4.0 and
MIKE11 can be assessed for the simulation with different river basin development
scenarios. The simulated water levels by both hydraulic models at the water level station
which is located at the outlet of the Sungai Kayu Ara River basin, for both hydraulic
models for the all 36 scenarios are assessed. Figure 4 illustrates the simulated maximum
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 279

water levels by both hydraulic models in each development conditions and for each
scenario.

Figure 3 Correlation between observed and simulated water levels for validation of HEC-RAS4.0
and MIKE11 for Sungai Kayu Ara (see online version for colours)
 280

Water Levels (m) Water Levels (m) Simulated Water Level (m)
AR AR AR
I2 I2 I2
0- 0- 0-
Du Du Du

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20

0
5
10
15
20
AR ra AR ra AR ra
I2 tio I2 tio I2 tio
0- n6 0- n6 0- n6
Du 0 Du 0 Du 0
AR ra AR rat AR rat
I2 tio I2 io I2 io
n 1 n1 n 1
S. Alaghmand et al.

0- 0- 0-
Du 20 Du 20 Du 20
ra
development condition

AR ra AR AR ra
I2 tio I2 tio I2 tio
0- n1 0- n1 0- n1
Du 80 Du 80 Du 80
AR ra AR ra AR ra
tio tio tio
I5 n3 I5 n3 I5 n3
0- 60 0- 60 0- 60
Du Du Du
AR ra AR ra AR ra
I5 tio I5 tio I5 tio
0- n6 0- n6 0- n6
Du 0 Du 0 Du 0
AR ra AR ra AR ra
I5 tio I5 ti on I5 ti on
0- n 12 0- 12 0- 12
Du 0 Du 0 Du 0
AR ra AR ra AR ra
I5 tio I5 tio I5 tio
0- n1 0- n1 0- n1

HEC-RAS4.0 Simulated WL(m)

HEC-RAS4.0 Simulated WL(m)

HEC-RAS4.0 Simulated WL(m)

Du 80 Du 80 Du 80
AR ra AR ra AR ra
Scenarios

Scenarios

Scenarios
I1 tio I1 tio I1 tio
00 n3 00 n3 00 n3
-D 60 -D 60 -D 60
AR ur AR ur AR ur
I1 at I1 at I1 at
00 io 00 io 00 io
-D n6 -D n6 -D n6
AR ur 0 AR ur 0 AR ur 0
at at I1 at
I1
00 io I1
00 io 00 io
n1 n1 n1
-D 20 -D 20 -D 20
AR ur AR ur AR ur
I1 at I1 at I1 at
00 io 00 io 00 io
n1 n1 n1
-D 80 -D 80 -D 80
ur ur ur
at at at
io io io
n3 n3 n3

MIKE11 Simulated WL(m)

MIKE11 Simulated WL(m)

MIKE11 Simulated WL(m)

60 60 60
Figure 4 Simulation results of HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 for existing, intermediate and ultimate
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 281

According to Figure 4, it can be concluded that the simulated water levels by

HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 does not have significant difference but HEC-RAS4.0 gives
more accurate results. In fact, the HEC-RAS4.0 simulated water levels are 3% higher
than MIKE11 simulations at the location of water level station at the outlet of the Sungai
Kayu Ara River basin. The design rainfall with 20-year ARI and 360 minutes duration
generates the lowest simulated water level for HEC-RAS4.0 with existing development
condition which is 18.01 m, while the water level is 17.56 m for MIKE11. On the other
hand the design rainfall with 100-year ARI and 60 minutes duration generates the highest
water level under ultimate development condition which is 20.23 m and 19.5 m for
HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11, respectively. These results suggest that it can be expected
the flood extends generated by HEC-RAS4.0 is widespread than MIKE11 model, and so,
the computed inundation area from HEC-RAS4.0 is higher than MIKE11. Figure 5
depicts the correlation between simulated water levels by HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11
models for the 36 scenarios in Sungai Kayu Ara River basin. Figure 5 shows that the
simulated water levels with HEC-RAS and MIKE11 have 98.9% similarity.

Figure 5 Correlation between HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 simulated maximum water levels
(corresponded to peak discharge) for the 36 scenarios in Sungai Kayu Ara River basin

3.2.2 Model outcomes

In term of available outcomes, MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0 have significant differences.
Results and outcomes of MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0 consist of primary and processed
results. The primary results include those which are produced in the model and are
available directly such as attribute tables and water surface longitudinal profiles and
cross-sections. The processed results are those which are post-processed in the GIS
environment. For this purpose, MIKE11GIS and HEC-GeoRAS are employed to
visualise the results of hydraulic models in the Sungai Kayu Ara River basin. The
MIKE11GIS and HEC-GeoRAS function as a linkage between the hydraulic models and
GIS environment. This is advantageous in order to visualise the primary results.
However, the variety and availability of the post-processed results directly depend on the
282 S. Alaghmand et al.

primary results. This is due to, MIKE11GIS and HEC-GeoRAS do not perform any
additional simulation or modelling other than MIKE11 and HEC-RAS, the former roles
are to visualise the outcomes of the hydraulic models.
The application of MIKE11GIS is to visualise the primary results of the MIKE11 in
GIS environment. This subjected to capability and available options in MIKE11GIS and
there are four types of flood maps that can be created, flood extent map, flood depth map,
flood duration map and comparison map (note that only flood extents map and flood
depth map are produced and used in this research). Flood maps are produced using the
results from a MIKE11 hydrodynamic simulation. MIKE11GIS main outputs are
inundation maps presented as extends, depth, duration and comparison maps. Flood
extent map represents the boundary of flood events. A flood depth map illustrates the
flood depth distribution, while flood duration maps combine critical and actual
inundation periods. Flood comparison maps are maps of the differences between two
flood maps. For example, a flood comparison map could illustrate the difference between
a 100-year ARI flood as it happens under current state conditions, and the same flood
occurring after implementation of a mitigation measure or, on the contrary, after a
structure failure. Note that, since the main objective of this research is to study on river
flood risk, and the most critical flood condition is under consideration, steady flow model
is applied in hydraulic model in which the peak discharge of the boundary conditions is
modelled. Statistical information on flood or comparison maps can also be obtained
providing a tabular summary of the map. The statistics can be produced summarising
flood map information. Flood maps can be divided into zones and statistics are created
for each zone. The generated tabular statistics lists include the areas of inundation at
different depths. MIKE11GIS statistics outputs are in dBase – or ASCII file format. Both
can be imported into a spreadsheet or word processor for further analysis, chart display
and incorporation into reports. Furthermore, several types of graphs can be displayed in
MIKE11GIS. These are plots that illustrate the MIKE11 hydrodynamic results. It
provides additional interpretative information to the flood maps. The types of graphs are:
flood level versus time, flood level and terrain longitudinal profiles, discharge versus
time and stage-discharge relation (rating curve).
HEC-RAS4.0 is linked to GIS environment using HEC-GeoRAS extension. The
application of HEC-GeoRAS includes pre- and post-processing steps. In pre-processing
step the required input geometric data such as stream centreline, main channel banks,
flow path centreline, land-use, levee and cross-section, while in post processing step, the
result maps such as river flood extent map, river flood water depth distribution map and
river flood flow velocity map are created. The main requirement for pre- and
post-processing of HEC-GeoRAS is digital elevation model (DEM) of the river basin.
The Sungai Kayu Ara River basin is modelled with MIKE11 model and MIKE11GIS
performs two types of river flood maps; river flood extent map and river flood depth
distribution map, while HEC-RAS4.0 creates river flood flow velocity map in addition to
the river flood extent map and flood depth distribution map. Hence, MIKE11 and
HEC-RAS4.0 models give two common maps in steady flow condition, which are river
flood extent map and river flood depth distribution maps. On the other hand,
HEC-RAS4.0 is able to generate river flood flow velocity map which is not available in
MIKE11 simulation results. In order to compare MIKE11 and HEC-RAS model in term
of common outcomes, river flood extent maps generated by these two hydraulic models
can be focused. Figure 6 shows the comparison of flood extends maps created by
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 283

MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0. These maps are related to scenario in ultimate development
condition with 100-year ARI for design rainfall event with duration 60-minute.

Figure 6 Flood extent generated by HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 in ultimate development

condition, 100-year ARI for 60-minute duration in Sungai Kayu Ara (see online version
for colours)
284 S. Alaghmand et al.

Figure 6 Flood extent generated by HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 in ultimate development

condition, 100-year ARI for 60-minute duration in Sungai Kayu Ara (continued)
(see online version for colours)

As it is illustrated in Figure 6, the flood extent created by HEC-RAS4.0 is larger than

MIKE11. This can be attributed to the fact that HEC-RAS4.0 simulated water levels are
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 285

3% higher than MIKE11 simulations at the location of water level station at the outlet of
the Sungai Kayu Ara River basin. Assessments of the estimated flood inundated area by
HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 show that HEC-RAS4.0 flood inundated area is 40%
higher than MIKE11. For instance, Figure 7 shows the inundated area estimated by
HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 for design rainfall with 60 minutes duration in Sungai Kayu
Ara River basin.
The HEC-RAS4.0 provides flood flow velocity map which is not available with the
results of MIKE11. In river flood management, the flood flow velocity is one of the most
important factors that is used for classification and evaluation of river flood risk. Flow
velocity is an important variable in hydraulic analysis that must be considered in flood
mitigation and managements. The potential risk for flood damages and losses is
determined by the water depth and flow velocity of the flood events and frequency of
flooding. As flood flow velocity increases, hydrodynamic forces are added to the
hydrostatic forces from the water depth of still water, significantly increasing the
possibility of structure failure. Greater flow velocities can quickly erode or scour the soil
surrounding structures. These fast-moving waters can also result in failure by erosion,
and their impact may move a structure from its foundation that leads to increase of debris
flow hazard.

Figure 7 Inundated area estimated by HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 for design rainfall with 60
minute duration in Sungai Kayu Ara River basin

800000
700000
Inundated Area (m2)

600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Duration60

Duration60

Duration60

Duration60

Duration60

Duration60

Duration60

Duration60

Duration60
ARI100-

ARI100-

ARI100-
ARI20-

ARI50-

ARI20-

ARI50-

ARI20-

ARI50-

Existing Development Intermediate Ultimate Development

Condition Development Condition
Condition
Scenarios

HEC-RAS4.0 MIKE11

The flood water depth and flow velocity are emphasised in many flood management
manuals such as Flood Plain Manual published by Department of Infrastructure, Planning
and Natural Resources of New South Wales Government, Australia. Flood depth and
flood velocity are used to classify the provisional hydraulic hazard. The availability of
flood velocity map in the outputs of HEC-RAS4.0 is a considerable advantage for the
river flood risk mapping and management.

3.2.3 Usability of the models

In term of usability of HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11 models, five elements can be
discussed; input data extraction; data exchange, flood delineation; river network
286 S. Alaghmand et al.

geo-referencing; and flood visualisation. Input data extraction includes the process of
preparation of the input data for hydraulic models such as geometry data and flow data.
HEC-GeoRAS and MIKE11GIS are applied in order to prepare and extract geometry data
of HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11, respectively. Beside this, input flow data is calculated
using HEC-HMS3.1. The HEC-RAS model’s stream geometry data is extracted from the
DEM using the HEC-GeoRAS extension. This difference in the two modelling methods
is significant to flood visualisation results. A limitation to the HEC-GeoRAS model is the
requirement to pre-process, or extract, stream geometry data from the DEM to develop
flood visualisation images. While, the pre-processing step (for preparation of geometry
data) is not compulsory in MIKE11, in other words, only post-processing can be applied
in MIKE11GIS in order to produce flood visualisation. In conclusion, the accuracy of the
geometry extracted data using HEC-GeoRAS is directly depended on accuracy of the
DEM. In other words, the use of stream geometry data extraction pre-processing in
HEC-GeoRAS is forced to ultimately use the post-processing visualisation tools. Even
when surveyed data is accurate and geo-referenced by the stream network, the geometry
extraction from the terrain model is still required.
The data exchange between hydraulic model and GIS environment is essential to be
considered. Data exchange process between hydraulic model and GIS environment by
MIKE11GIS is easier than HEC-GeoRAS. In pre-processing step of MIKE11GIS and
HEC-GeoRAS which includes the preparation of input geometry data, the MIKE11GIS
and HEC-GeoRAS have the same procedure; both of them export the data. MIKE11GIS
exports the prepared input cross-sections data and river network to .txt and .nwk11 files,
respectively, while HEC-GeoRAS export them to RASexport.sdf. In post-processing
step, instead of creating a separate GIS export file for the MIKE11GIS post-processor,
the interface automatically connects the GIS spatial data to the hydraulic model results.
This is accomplished by the interconnectivity of the river network file to the flow model
and the terrain model. As long as the XY-coordinates of the MIKE11 river network file
correspond to the terrain model coordinates, the flow data is easily imported and
delineated. In the case of using HEC-RAS4.0, the results of hydraulic model have to be
exported to GIS format and then imported into the HEC-GeoRAS.
The flood delineation process is faster using MIKE11GIS than using the
HEC-GeoRAS extension. The MIKE11GIS delineation process finds the difference
between the water surface elevation and the ground elevation for each grid cell in the
model. The delineation is accomplished using inverse distance-weighted interpolation
from known water surface points(known as h-points) located at the centre of each
cross-section along the stream network, whereas the TIN-based delineation (used for the
HEC-RAS model) interpolates using 3D water surface lines along the extent of each
cross-section. Therefore, the HEC-GeoRAS interpolation method would achieve more
accurate results, because the floodplain is delineated using two surfaces (the terrain
model and water surface TIN coverage) instead of by interpolation based on one
h-point elevation value at each cross-section, as in the case for MIKE11GIS.
The stream network referencing method for the MIKE11 model starts from the most
upstream location and increases as moving downstream (chainage values). Not all
upstream stream sources can easily be defined to begin at a specific location. In contrast,
in HEC-RAS4.0 the river station stream network referencing method starts from the most
downstream location of the stream and increases as moving upstream, unlike the
MIKE11 model. This method is easier to define since the most downstream location of a
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 287

stream is easy to spatially define. Figure 8 compares the chainage and river station
network referencing in HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11.

Figure 8 Comparison of chainage and river station network referencing in HEC-RAS4.0 and
MIKE11 (see online version for colours)

Finally, after hydraulic modelling the quality and capability of flood visualisation in GIS
environment is the other important element. An issue with the MIKE11 model is the use
of grid-based coverage (terrain model and water surface) in MIKE11GIS. An advantage
to the grid-based method is it minimises the use of computer memory and processing.
The limitation to grid-based models, especially for smaller study areas, is the intersection
of the terrain model and water surface coverage does not accurately represent flood
delineation as well as using TIN-based coverage (which is used in HEC-GeoRAS). The
TIN-based delineation method creates a more realistic delineation of flood levels from
the terrain model. The TIN-based delineation works well for smaller study areas because
of its high resolution, but can become cumbersome as the study area increases. The
MIKE11GIS post-processing tool would provide better images of flood delineation for
study areas larger than the Sungai Kayu Ara River basin, where resolution becomes less
important as area increases. Note that, in order to optimise the flood visualisation in this
research, the pixel size of the gird-based terrain model is assigned as 1 * 1 m2. Figure 9
illustrates the grid-based and TIN-based terrain model created in MIKE11GIS and
HEC-GeoRAS, respectively.
288 S. Alaghmand et al.

Figure 9 Grid-based terrain model created in MIKE11GIS and TIN-based terrain model created
in HEC-GeoRAS (see online version for colours)

3.2.4 Availability of the models

In term of availability of HEC-RAS4.0 and MIKE11, the HEC-RAS4.0 has a significant
advantage in comparison with MIKE11. The HEC-RAS4.0 software is available to
anyone over the internet free of charge, while MIKE11 package must be purchased. In
addition to the difference in term of cost between MIKE11 and HEC-RAS4.0, it must be
noted that, using HEC-HMS3.1 output results is more compatible with HEC-RAS4.0
rather than MIKE11. This means that, if the hydrological modelling is simulated in the
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 289

HEC-HMS3.1, using these results in HEC-RAS4.0 is more convenient than MIKE11.

This is as expected because the same source of HEC-HMS3.1 and HEC-RAS4.0. Both of
them are the products of US Army Corps of Engineers.

4 Conclusions

According to the findings of this research the following conclusions can be mentioned;

• HEC-GeoRAS and MIKE11GIS can be utilised for preparation of input geometric

data for HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models, respectively, and also for
visualisation of the hydraulic model results

• the mean water depth generated by HEC-RAS is higher than those by MIKE11
which lead to larger river flood extent for HEC-RAS

• the visualised river flood extent and water depth maps by HEC-RAS and
HEC-GeoRAS give more accurate results comparing generated river flood extent
and water depth by MIKE11 and MIKE11GIS

• generally, HEC-RAS provides more accurate results (at least for this study area) and
also more outputs (flood extent, water depth and flow velocity) in comparison with
MIKE11 (flood extent and water depth). It is notable that the results of this research
must be compared with others in different regions to gain a reasonable comparison.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) under research grant.

References
Ahmed, F. (2010) ‘Numerical modeling of the Rideau Valley Watershed’, Natural Hazards,
Vol. 55, No. 1, pp.63–84.
Alaghmand, S. (2009) ‘River modelling for flood risk map prediction (a case study of Sungai Kayu
Ara)’, MSc thesis, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia.
Asante, K.O., Arlan, G.A., Pervez, S. and Rowland, J. (2008) ‘A linear geospatial streamflow
modeling system for data sparse environments’, International Journal of River Basin
Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.233–241.
Beighley, R.E. and Moglen, G.E. (2003) ‘Adjusting measured peak discharges from an urbanizing
watershed to reflect a stationary land use signal’, Water Resour. Res., Vol. 39, No. 4, p.1093.
Bouma, J.J., François, D. and Troch, P. (2005) ‘Risk assessment and water management’,
Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.141–151.
Carling, P., Villanueva, I., Herget, J., Wright, N., Borodavko, P. and Morvan, H. (2010) ‘Unsteady
1D and 2D hydraulic models with ice dam break for Quaternary megaflood, Altai mountains,
Southern Siberia’, Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 70, Nos. 1–4, pp.24–34.
Carter, J.G., White, I. and Richards, J. (2009) ‘Sustainability appraisal and flood risk management’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.7–14.
DHI (2005) MIKE 11 Reference Manual, Danish Hydraulic Institute.
290 S. Alaghmand et al.

DID (2000) Urban Stormwater Management Manual for Malaysia, Department of Irrigation and
Drainage Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Fedeski, M. and Gwilliam, J. (2007) ‘Urban sustainability in the presence of flood and geological
hazards: the development of a GIS-based vulnerability and risk assessment methodology’,
Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp.50–61.
Gichamo, T.Z., Popescu, I., Jonoski, A. and Solomatine, D. (2012) ‘River cross-section extraction
from the ASTER global DEM for flood modeling’, Environmental Modelling & Software,
Vol. 31, pp.37–46.
Greenbaum, N., Schwartz, U. and Bergman, N. (2010) ‘Extreme floods and short-term
hydroclimatological fluctuations in the hyper-arid Dead Sea region, Israel’, Global and
Planetary Change, Vol. 70, Nos. 1–4, pp.125–137.
Hashemi, M.R., Abedini, M.J., Neill, S.P. and Malekzadeh, P. (2008) ‘Tidal and surge modelling
using differential quadrature: a case study in the Bristol Channel’, Coastal Engineering,
Vol. 55, No. 10, pp.811–819.
HEC (2006) Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC) Users Manual, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC.
Honnorat, M., Monnier, J. and Le Dimet, F-X. (2009) ‘Lagrangian data assimilation for river
hydraulics simulations’, Computing and Visualization in Science, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.235–246.
Horritt, M.S. and Bates, P.D. (2002) ‘Evaluation of 1D and 2D numerical models for predicting
river flood inundation’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 268, Nos. 1–4, pp.87–99.
Knebl, M.R., Yang, Z.L., Hutchison, K. and Maidment, D.R. (2005) ‘Regional scale flood
modeling using NEXRAD rainfall, GIS, and HEC-HMS/RAS: a case study for the San
Antonio River Basin Summer 2002 storm event’, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 75, No. 4, pp.325–336.
Koutroulis, A.G. and Tsanis, I.K. (2010) ‘A method for estimating flash flood peak discharge in a
poorly gauged basin: case study for the 13–14 January 1994 flood, Giofiros basin, Crete,
Greece’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 385, Nos. 1–4, pp.150–164.
Kusre, B.C., Baruah, D.C., Bordoloi, P.K. and Patra, S.C. (2010) ‘Assessment of hydropower
potential using GIS and hydrological modeling technique in Kopili River basin in Assam
(India)’, Applied Energy, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp.298–309.
Liu, Y. and Sun, F. (2010) ‘Sensitivity analysis and automatic calibration of a rainfall-runoff model
using multi-objectives’, Ecological Informatics, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.304–310.
Luu, T.N.M., Garnier, J., Billen, G., Orange, D., Némery, J., Le, T.P.Q., Tran, H.T. and Le, L.A.
(2010) ‘Hydrological regime and water budget of the Red River Delta (Northern Vietnam)’,
Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.219–228.
Makungo, R., Odiyo, J.O., Ndiritu, J.G. and Mwaka, B. (2010) ‘Rainfall-runoff modelling approach
for ungauged catchments: a case study of Nzhelele River sub-quaternary catchment’, Physics
and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Vol. 35, Nos. 13–14, pp.596–607.
Marchi, L., Borga, M., Preciso, E. and Gaume, E. (2010) ‘Characterisation of selected extreme
flash floods in Europe and implications for flood risk management’, Journal of Hydrology,
Vol. 394, Nos. 1–2, pp.118–133.
Marchi, L., Borga, M., Preciso, E. and Gaume, E. (in press) ‘Characterisation of selected extreme
flash floods in Europe and implications for flood risk management’, Journal of Hydrology,
Corrected proof.
Mcminn, W.R., Yang, Q. and Scholz, M. (2010) ‘Classification and assessment of water bodies as
adaptive structural measures for flood risk management planning’, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 91, No. 9, pp.1855–1863.
Merwade, V., Cook, A. and Coonrod, J. (2008) ‘GIS techniques for creating river terrain models
for hydrodynamic modeling and flood inundation mapping’, Environmental Modelling &
Software, Vol. 23, Nos. 10–11, pp.1300–1311.
 Comparison between capabilities of HEC-RAS and MIKE11 hydraulic models 291

Pappenberger, F., Beven, K., Horritt, M. and Blazkova, S. (2005) ‘Uncertainty in the calibration of
effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level
observations’, Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 302, Nos. 1–4, pp.46–69.
Pappenberger, F., Beven, K.J., Ratto, M. and Matgen, P. (2008) ‘Multi-method global sensitivity
analysis of flood inundation models’, Advances in Water Resources, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.1–14.
Pinar, E., Paydas, K., Seckin, G., Akilli, H., Sahin, B., Cobaner, M., Kocaman, S. and
Atakan Akar, M. (2010) ’Artificial neural network approaches for prediction of backwater
through arched bridge constrictions’, Advances in Engineering Software, Vol. 41, No. 4,
pp.627–635.
Pottier, N., Penning-Rowsell, E., Tunstall, S. and Hubert, G. (2005) ‘Land use and flood protection:
contrasting approaches and outcomes in France and in England and Wales’, Applied
Geography, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.1–27.
Qi, H. and Altinakar, M.S. (2011) ‘A GIS-based decision support system for integrated flood
management under uncertainty with two dimensional numerical simulations’, Environmental
Modelling & Software, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.817–821.
Ranaee, E., Mahmoodian, M. and Quchani, S.R. (2009) ‘The combination of HEC-Geo-HMS,
HEC-HMS and MIKE11 software utilize in a two branches river flood routing modeling’.
Robins, C.R., Buck, B.J., Williams, A.J., Morton, J.L., House, P.K., Howell, M.S. and
Yonovitz, M.L. (2009) ‘Comparison of flood hazard assessments on desert piedmonts and
playas: a case study in Ivanpah Valley, Nevada’, Geomorphology, Vol. 103, No. 4,
pp.520–532.
Rodriguez, L.B., Cello, P.A., Vionnet, C.A. and Goodrich, D. (2008) ‘Fully conservative coupling
of HEC-RAS with MODFLOW to simulate stream-aquifer interactions in a drainage basin’,
Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 353, Nos. 1–3, pp.129–142.
Schwanghart, W. and Kuhn, N.J. (2010) ‘TopoToolbox: a set of Matlab functions for topographic
analysis’, Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp.770–781.
Tesfa, T.K., Tarboton, D.G., Watson, D.W., Schreuders, K.A.T., Baker, M.E. and Wallace, R.M.
(2011) ‘Extraction of hydrological proximity measures from DEMs using parallel processing’,
Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 26, No. 12, pp.1696–1709.
Yoshikawa, N., Nagao, N. and Misawa, S. (2010) ‘Evaluation of the flood mitigation effect of a
Paddy Field Dam project’, Agricultural Water Management, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp.259–270.

View publication stats