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

net/publication/280293710

HYDRAULIC MODELING OF MAGDALENA RIVER USING SOBEK

Conference Paper · July 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3001.0724

CITATIONS READS

4 519

9 authors, including:

Jorge Luis Sanchez Lozano Felipe Ardila

Brigham Young University - Provo Main Campus Center for Scientific Research of the Magdalena River
16 PUBLICATIONS   19 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jose Javier Oliveros-Acosta Wendy Dayana Ramirez Morales

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Center for Scientific Research of the Magdalena River
10 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Programa de Modelación Permanente del Río Magdalena View project

Delta Engineering: Drowning or Emerging View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge Luis Sanchez Lozano on 22 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

HYDRAULIC MODELING OF MAGDALENA RIVER USING SOBEK

JORGE LUIS SÁNCHEZ LOZANO(1), FELIPE ARDILA CAMELO(2), JOSÉ JAVIER OLIVEROS ACOSTA(3), WENDY DAYANA RAMIREZ
MORALES(4), CÉSAR ANTONIO CARDONA ALMEIDA(5), CÉSAR IGNACIO GARAY BOHORQEZ(6), EELCO VERSCHELLING(7), ANKE
BECKER(8) & MIGENA ZAGONJOLLI(9)
(1)
Corporación Centro de Investigación Científica del Río Magdalena “Alfonso Palacios Rudas”, Honda, Colombia,
Jorge.Sanchez@cormagdalena.gov.co
(2)
Corporación Centro de Investigación Científica del Río Magdalena “Alfonso Palacios Rudas”, Honda, Colombia,
Felipe.Ardila@cormagdalena.gov.co
(3)
Corporación Centro de Investigación Científica del Río Magdalena “Alfonso Palacios Rudas”, Honda, Colombia,
Jose.Oliveros@cormagdalena.gov.co
(4)
Corporación Centro de Investigación Científica del Río Magdalena “Alfonso Palacios Rudas”, Honda, Colombia,
Wendy.Ramirez@cormagdalena.gov.co
(5)
Corporación Centro de Investigación Científica del Río Magdalena “Alfonso Palacios Rudas”, Honda, Colombia,
Cesar.Cardona@cormagdalena.gov.co
(6)
Corporación Centro de Investigación Científica del Río Magdalena “Alfonso Palacios Rudas”, Honda, Colombia,
Cesar.Garay@cormagdalena.gov.co
(7)
Deltares, Delft, Netherlands, Eelco.Verschelling@deltares.nl
(8)
Deltares, Delft, Netherlands, Anke.Becker@deltares.nl
(9)
Deltares, Delft, Netherlands, Migena.Zagonjolli@deltares.nl

ABSTRACT
This paper presents a model of the complex Magdalena River system, as an important step towards knowledge-based
river management and flood risk management in Colombia, with due attention for both human and ecosystem interests.
Rio Magdalena is the largest river of Colombia. It drains a catchment of 257,000 square kilometers and is home to 38
million people. Anthropogenic use of the floodplain areas conflicts with the natural value of these areas. On the one hand
there are the extended ecosystems with unique wildlife species such as Crocodylus acutus, Iguana iguana and
Prochilodus magdalenae. These natural habitats, especially the wetlands, partly depend on regular river floodings for their
continued survival. On the other hand more and more human settlements are constructed in the floodplains, attracted by
the many goods and services that the river provides (fertile land, navigation, fisheries, flat land for construction). This has
led to a lower acceptance of river related floodings. In the past, decision making with respect to flood management (either
by prevention or adaptation) in Colombia has not always been based on sound knowledge of the river system as a whole,
but rather on observations at a limited number of locations. To facilitate a transition towards a more knowledge-based
decision making process, not only for flood management but also for issues related to navigability, the Magdalena river
authority, Cormagdalena, has conducted a research project in order to improve their understanding of this river system.
This research project focused on identifying and quantifying the major physical processes responsible for the inundations,
as well as evaluating several mitigating flood reduction strategies. For the first time in Colombian history, a numerical
model of the entire Magdalena river (800 kilometers) and its major tributaries was constructed and calibrated. The model
consists of a one-dimensional component that represents the main channel system and a two-dimensional component for
the floodplains and other inundation areas. This model was then used to analyze water balances and hydrodynamics
during different stages of the major floodings that occurred in 2010 and 2011. A number of different strategies to reduce
vulnerability to flooding were evaluated using the model. These steps provided the authorities involved with insight into the
physical processes involved in the floodings and the feasibility of the proposed strategies. Furthermore, the modeling
endeavor has revealed gaps in data collection and in the organization of the data collection process. This can guide future
efforts to improve the model and its application for flood risk management. The numerical model seems to be an ideal tool
to facilitate objective and knowledge based discussions with other stakeholders on the management of the river to
reconcile wetland requirements and human needs.
Keywords: 1D-2D Hydraulic Modeling, Magdalena River, SOBEK®
1. INTRODUCTION
Magdalena River is the most important river in Colombia. It flows from South to North with a length of around 1536 km and
an average discharge of 7100 m³/s. The tributaries area of the basin is around 257,000 square kilometers, which
corresponds to 28% of the total surface of Colombia. The average yearly precipitation is estimated at 2000 mm with a
variation in the inner basin from 800 mm to 5000 mm. With respect to flood risk, Magdalena River is one of the major
sources of damage in Colombia, responsible for around 90% of damage and 70% of human losses (CORMAGDALENA,
2007; Hoyos Goez, 2005).
According to the law 161 of 1994 CORMAGDALENA has to ensure both the management of the basin and the use of
water resources in Magdalena River. This requires a deep knowledge of the specific changing dynamics of the river and
its watershed. Furthermore the modeling is the first step for the integrated management of water resources and the
decision-making; this orientation is enhanced by the guidelines of the National Policy on Integrated Water Resource
Management that aims for the vision of an integrated management of resources based on an integrated knowledge of
actors, decisions and its effects (Colombia, Congreso de la República, 1994; Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y
Desarrollo Territorial, 2010).

1
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

CORMAGDALENA’s Action Plan 2012-2014 includes the hydraulic modeling for the Magdalena River on a stretch of 800
km and other strategic lines related to technical and scientific capacity as the creation of the Research Center of the
Magdalena River and River Information System. All these horizons and efforts aim to develop a high technical and
scientific capability allowing implementing knowledge, certainty and research as main arguments to support decisions
related to understanding of the potentialities, advantages and restrictions of the use of the resources of
CORMAGDALENA’s constitutional order (CORMAGDALENA, 2012a).
In order to achieve this aim, an interagency agreement was signed with Deltares, a civil non-profit Corporation,
established in accordance with the laws in the Netherlands which aims to research and technology development. Deltares
has experience in hydraulic research in the delta of the Rhine River, its experience and technical capability meets the
expectations and needs of the Magdalena River Modeling Program. This agreement is the way to develop the project of
hydraulic modeling of the Magdalena River in a stretch of 800 km from Puerto Salgar to the mouth in Barranquilla, the
proposed includes technology transfer activities, information gathering, construction and calibration of the model, analysis
of the current situation and selected scenarios, morphological modeling of selected pilot areas and water quality pilot study
(CORMAGDALENA, 2012b).
Therefore the Hydraulic Model SOBEK® is used. SOBEK is a 1D/2D numerical modeling software of flow in rivers, urban
and/or rural channels, pipes; able to solve the equations that describe unsteady flow, salt intrusion, sediment transport,
morphology and water quality. SOBEK can simulate and solve problems in river management, flood protection, channel
design, irrigation systems, water quality, navigation and dredging (Deltares System, 2013; JI, de VRIEND, & HU, 2003).
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Basic Theory
The flow in one dimension is described by two equations: the continuity equation and the momentum equation (Chow,
1994).
Continuity Equation [1]
+ =
Momentum Equation [2]
1 1
+ + − − =0
where,
A is the total cross-section area,
qlat is the lateral discharge per unit length,
Q is the discharge,
y is the water level,
g is acceleration due to gravity,
S0 is the channel bottom slope and
Sf is the slope of the energy grade line.
As the flow in one dimension, two dimensional flow is described by two equations: momentum equation and continuity
equation (Kundu, Cohen, & Dowling, 2011).
Continuity Equation
( ) ( )
[3]
+ + =0
Momentum Equation [4]
( ) 1 ( ) #
+ + "+ =−
2
( ) ( ) 1 #
+ + + "=−
2
where,
u is the velocity in the x-axis,
v is the velocity in the y-axis,
η is the total fluid column height,
H is the water depth if the surface is at rest and
g is acceleration due to gravity.

2.2 Spatial Data

The Cross Sections are available in plain text files with a defined structure XYZ based on point measurements
perpendicular to the flow direction as much as possible, in coordinate system Magna Sirgas Bogotá EPSG 3116 (See
Figure 1a). The Center Line was constructed based on the surveyed bathymetry XYZ point clouds – a curving vector was
fitted through the centre points of every cross section, the model network follows centreline of the main channel getting a
high accuracy for modeling low and medium flow conditions with the drawback of low performance with the high

2
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

computation time. A model network that follows the thalweg of the river and the centerline of the floodplains were
considered, Table 1 shows an evaluation of pros and cons of each approach. The Digital Elevation Model of the Shuttle
Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) is available with a 30mx30m pixel resolution and clipped for the flooded area in 2010-
2011. Also is known the zero level and the XY location in coordinate system Magna Sirgas Bogotá (EPSG 3116) for
Hydrological Gauging Stations of the Magdalena River (See Figure 1b).

2.1 Temporal Data

Daily measurements of water levels of Hydrometric Gauging Stations on the Magdalena River and some tributaries are
available. The water levels were converted into discharges by means of rating curves. The ungauged tributaries were
defined based on the results of a water balance analysis. The water balance consists of adding lateral discharge nodes to
the 1D branches that represent missing discharge from tributaries. The discharge nodes were defined with discharge time
series. This step resulted in a model that more or less simulates accurately the discharge waves through the 1D2D model
for the chosen historical periods.

(a) (b)
Figure 1 – (a) Cross sections (b) Hydrological Gauging Stations and Center Line of Magdalena River.

Table 1. Score matrix for evaluating possible model setup possibilities.

2.2 Sobek Model Construction – Part I

The 1D-2D Hydraulic Model in Sobek is mostly based on the processing and subsequent importation of GIS source files to
Sobek®, the Center Line is imported as the Network, the Cross Sections are imported from intersection points shape file
and .def and .dat files that contains the geometry of the cross sections and were generated with python algorithms that
recognize the original XYZ files. The 2D grid domain is imported as 2D nodes from ascii raster files based on the 30x30m

3
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

SRTM with a cell size varying between 500 m (for calibration purposes) and 1000 m in size (for model tests and sensitivity
analysis). The Fixed Calculation points and the Boundaries are imported from the point shape file of Hydrometric Gauging
Stations. The lateral flows are introduced as Flow Connection Node with Storage and Lateral Flow and were located
manually using the background map. The upstream boundary is defined with discharge time series, the downstream
boundary is defined with water level time series, the lateral discharges (tributaries) are defined by means of the water
balance analysis or measurements available. The time series were introduced manually in sobek.
The overall 1D2D model was needed to be splitted into separate models to be manageable in terms of computational
speed. This way, the separate models can be run simultaneously on different computers, which will speed up the process
of the water balance analysis and calibration considerably. The split location between two models was chosen at the
location of a gauging station. The gauging stations at the split locations have sufficient amount and good quality of water
level measurements, as well as a reliable rating curve. Based on these criteria, it was decided to split the overall model
into three subdomain models (See Figure 2);
• From Puerto Salgar to Regidor (some 40 kilometres upstream of the confluence of Zapatosa)
• From Regidor to Calamar (just upstream of the bifurcation of Magdalena and Canal del Dique) including Brazo de
Loba, Brazo de Mompox and the last 50km of Cauca River.
• From Calamar to the mouth in Caribe Sea by Canal del Dique (until Cartagena) and Magdalena River (until
Barranquilla).

(a) Model 1 (b) Model 2 (c) Model 3

Figure 2 – Three subdomain models after split (a) Puerto Salgar - Regidor (b) Regidor – Calamar (c) Calamar – Barranquilla/Cartagena

The roughness of the main channel was obtained from previous CORMAGDALENA’s studies and literature. The 2D
roughness grids based in land use weren’t used in model construction part I. A roughness Manning’s coefficient “n” of 0.03
was used for the main channel and the entire floodplain.

2.3 Sobek Model Construction – Part II

The historical flood computation results revealed that exists a big uncertainty around the model input (especially cross-
sections, 2D DEM and dikes/levees/embankments) as well as the measurements (zero level of the gauging stations and
rating curves). Thus, to determine the correct inundation pattern it is crucial to implement elevated line elements such as
dikes, levees and roads are blocking the flow until a certain water level is reached.
Together CORMAGDALENA and DELTARES experts identified extra branches, road dams and dikes as well as flood
protection walls. The selection is based on knowledge of the region and expert judgement and might not cover all elevated
line elements in the region. The crest level of these line elements is not known. Therefore, they were assumed to be 3 m
above the 2D elevation grid used in the models, with the exception of few road elements in model 2 that were raised only
1 m above the original 2D DEM.
The roughness of the 1D river network was used as calibration parameter for fine tuning the model. At this stage,
however, we rather consider this step as a sensitivity analysis. The land cover data “Corine_Data_2007” is available for
the entire model area. Based on this data, the 2D roughness grids for use in the SOBEK models were created. The
roughness Manning’s coefficient “n” is defined for the floodplain area based on the land use data and on literature. Various
authors offer Manning’s n lookup tables for channels and floodplains, e.g., Chow (2009). The Corine data includes
information about different land use categories which are first grouped in fewer classes. Each category is given the
Manning “n”. Table 2 presents Manning “n” that is given to the land use categories on the floodplain

4
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

Table 2. Manning Coefficient “n” given to the land use categories on the floodplain.
Land use type Given Manning Coefficient “n”
Grass 0.040
Crops 0.045
Shrubs 0.060
Forest 0.150
River 0.030
Wetlands and lakes. 0.035
Urban 0.500
Beaches, sand dunes, mud and bare soil 0.035

During construction model part II, extra branches were added to the system, such as:
• Río Magdalena branch that leaves the river main branch in Don Toribio to join again in San Pablo
• Río Magdalena branch that leaves the river main branch in San Pablo to join again in Sitio Nuevo
• System of side branches of the Río Magdalena between Badillo and La Gloria
3. RESULTS
The comparison between model results and field measurements or observations is shown for the two steps in model
2
construction. Root Square Mean Error (RMSE) and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (R ) were calculated
for the modeling results in model construction part I.
3.1 Modeling phase (Model Construction – Part I)
SOBEK model had a good performance when the discharges of Magdalena River at 2010 were reproduced (See Table 3
and Figure 3), future events, the lateral discharge time series are physically correct and probable, but unfortunately it is
calculated in a time window. It is important to use a hydrological model of subcatchments.
SOBEK model didn’t have a good performance when the water levels of Magdalena River at 2010 were reproduced. It
was necessary to include road dams and dikes, flood protection walls and the 2D roughness Manning’s coefficient “n”
based on the land use (See Table 3 and Figure 3).
Table 3. – SOBEK® performance in Discharges and Water Levels time series for upper Magdalena (Model 1)
DISCHARGES WATER LEVELS
GAUGIN STATION RMSE m3/s R2 RMSE m R2
PTO INMARCO 1.260857 0.870942
PTO BERRIO-AUTOMAT 470.1835 0.930117 0.358722 0.934107
PENAS BLANCAS 465.2680 0.951844
BARRANCABERMEJA 1.589945 0.906264
PTO WILCHES 0.741801 0.965391
SAN PABLO-AUTOMATI 1.577379 0.955345
SITIO NUEVO R-11 655.3267 0.959996 2.742999 0.972187
BADILLO 3.978797 0.923308
CONTENTO EL 818.4373 0.959834 0.641027 0.866464
GAMARRA 0.854296 0.870865
GLORIA LA 0.492497 0.991592
REGIDOR 714.6917 0.956200

3.2 Calibration phase (Model Construction – Part II)

3.2.1 Model 1
The first results obtained with model 1 were not satisfactory. Especially in the downstream part with rather flat inundation
areas and many wetlands, flooding of the 2D inundation areas happened far too early and flow was far too strong. As a
consequence, the modeled water levels at many gauging stations were too low or showed too little variation in time.
Furthermore, the water level and discharge signal at most stations seemed to lag behind the measurements significantly.
Several changes to the model set-up were tested in order to show which of the model elements should or could be
improved in which way in the future.
1. On a long river stretch around Sitio Nuevo and Badillo, the measured 1D cross sections were replaced by trapezoidal
ones. The idea behind this was to better represent the total conveyance capacity of the river. In this way, the 1D river
network is able to convey more discharge, and flooding of the inundation areas occurs only at higher discharges.
2. In another model set-up, bank levels were added to all cross sections of the main course of Río Magdalena. The
levels were derived from the SRTM data by searching for the highest elevation within a buffer zone around the cross
section line and adding that as last point to the cross section definition in Sobek.
3. Around Sitio Nuevo and Badillo, the elevation of the 2D inundation area at the Eastern side of Río Magdalena was
raised at few locations in order to prevent inundation at low discharges. The locations were selected based on the
SRTM data, which shows narrow stretches of higher grounds in that area. The elevation of the 2D DEM was raised by
3 m compared to the DEM used initially. This number is not based on the SRTM data but seems reasonable given the
high uncertainty in the SRTM data and the fact that narrow stretches of high grounds are averaged out in the coarse
2D DEM used for modelling.
4. The roughness of the 1D river network and the 2D inundation area was lowered in order to remove the time lag in the
water level and discharge signal. Eventually, the roughness should be used as calibration parameter for fine tuning
the model. At this stage, however, we rather consider this step as a sensitivity analysis.

5
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

5. Extra side branches of the Río Magdalena were added to the 1D river network in order to increase its conveyance
capacity

(a) Discharges in Puerto Berrío (b) Water Levels in Puerto Berrío

(c) Discharges in Sitio Nuevo R-11 (d) Water Levels in Sitio Nuevo R-11

(e) Discharges in El Contento (f) Water Levels in El Contento

Figure 3 – Performance of Hydraulic Model in upper Magdalena – Model 1 (Discharges and Water Levels)

6
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

By all these actions together, modeled water level and discharge time series were improved considerably. However, the
results also revealed that the uncertainty around the model input (especially cross-sections, 2D DEM and
dikes/levees/embankments) as well as the measurements (zero level of the gauging stations) remains high. Due to that it
is not possible to identify the “perfect” model set-up. Several options remain possible. Further investigations should be
made in future in order to reduce the uncertainties and improve the model.
Figure 4a compares the observed water levels at gauging station Puerto Inmarco to levels calculated with different model
set-ups. This part of the model is characterized by a narrow and steep river valley. Flooding of the 2D part of our model is
not very relevant here. Adding bank levels to the 1D cross sections therefore has only little effect. A lower roughness does
not seem appropriate.

(a) Water Levels in Puerto Inmarco (b) WaterLevels in Badillo

(c) Water Levels in La Gloria (d) Water Levels in Sitio Nuevo

Figure 4 – Performance of Hydraulic Model in upper Magdalena – Model 1 (Water Levels)

The calculated water levels at station Badillo (Figure 4b) show how important the implementation of dikes and bank levels
is in the downstream part of the model. With only few dikes in the model (dark blue line), the 2D inundation area is flooded
almost immediately after the start of the simulation in January 2010. Adding more dikes (pink line) helps to raise the water
levels, but their variation in time stays limited. This is only improved by raising the 2D DEM for areas with narrow stretches
of higher grounds between Sitio Nuevo and Badillo and improving the cross sections (light blue and green lines). The fact
that the calculated water levels match the observations well during low flow periods (e.g. January and February 2010)
indicates that the cross sections have improved significantly and that the discharges stays confined in the 1D part of the
model much longer than before. At this station, the measured cross sections with bank level from post-processing perform
even better than the trapezoidal cross sections. The water levels variations in time become even better with a lower
roughness. However, it is not clear whether this indicates that we should use a lower roughness or that we still have too
much flooding in the model at high water levels. The timing of the signal does get significantly better with lower roughness.
The modeled water levels at Regidor are – supposedly – perfect, since it is our downstream boundary. Although station La
Gloria is very close to Regidor, the water levels at La Gloria are 2 m too high (Figure 4c). This deviation seems rather
improbable and might indicate that there is still some uncertainty around the zero levels for the gauging stations. On the
other hand, it can be solved by lowering the roughness. In that case, however, water levels at the next station upstream
(Gamarra) become far too low. Furthermore, the lower roughness increases the water level variation in time a bit too
much.
At most stations, water levels calculated with the new cross-sections that include bank levels look better than with the
simple trapezium cross-sections. That is not the case for all stations, though. Sitio Nuevo (Figure 4d) is an exception.
Checking the cross sections with bank levels reveals that in that area, lots of cross sections did not have a bank level. The

7
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

bad results for this river section underline the absolute necessity of adding these levels to the cross sections. Another
station, at which results get worse after implementing the cross sections that include bank levels, is Puerto Berrío. In that
area, the added bank levels are far higher than the highest cross-section levels before adding bank levels. This might be
unrealistic and needs to be checked.
Figure 5a compares observed flood extents from December 2010 (Quiñones, 2013; Quiñones, Hoekman, & Pedraza,
2014) and modeled water depths for 31st December 2010. Note that it is not known which day in December 2010 the
observed flood extent belongs to. In general, the main inundation areas are captured well by the model, but the overall
flood extent seems to be overestimated, especially in the upstream part of model 1. Figure 5b compares modeled water
depths with the new cross sections that include bank levels and with the simple trapezium cross sections. In general, with
the new cross sections including the bank levels, more water flows into the flood plains and inundation areas and less
water stays in the main channel.
Figure 6 compares observed and calculated discharges for the model version with trapezium cross sections. It is clearly
visible that at the downstream end of the model (station Regidor) there is a time lag in the calculation results. Further
upstream (station Puerto Berrio), the time lag is already visible but less extreme.

(a) Flood extent observed in December 2010 (pink) and modeled water depths (b) Flood extent observed in December 2010 (pink) and difference between
at December 31st 2010 (blue). water depths at December 31st 2010 modeled with cross sections that include
an extra point for the bank level and with trapezium cross sections.
Figure 5 – Performance of Hydraulic Model in upper Magdalena – Model 1 (Water Levels)

(a) Discharges in Puerto Berrío (b) Dischargesin Regidor

Figure 6 – Performance of Hydraulic Model in upper Magdalena – Model 1 (Water Levels)

3.2.2 Model 2
The first computation with model 2 showed significant deviation between the estimated water levels and the recorded
ones. This indicated that further improvement of the model input was necessary before starting the calibration process of
fine tuning the roughness in the 1D or 2D part of the model. The sensitivity analysis was carried out to identify how
uncertainty in the model output can be attributed to different sources of uncertainty in the model input, and how the model
depends on the information fed into it. The sensitivity analysis consisted in varying one parameter at a time and observing

8
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

its influence on the output. Computations were carried out for the year 2010 except the “including river banks” computation
which was carried out for the period 2009-2010. Computations were made with the 2D DEM grid size of 1920m .The
computed water levels were compared with the observed water levels for the stations where the measurements seem to
be reliable. In all computations a constant Manning roughness of 0.045 was used in the floodplains. Main input variations
in our model are:
1. River cross sections. The river cross sections are originally created using the multibeam measurement data that is
limited to the deepest part of the river channel. The bank levels for the river cross sections were included. Bank levels
were obtained from the SRTM data. The result of the computation “incl. river banks” represents the influence of the
river cross section adaptation in the overall results. As it can be seen in Figure 7, the computed water levels are
typically higher in the computations “incl. river banks” specially during the low to medium flow (begin 2010). This is
due to higher conveyance capacity in the “incl. river banks” computation. Water remains longer within the 1D network
unlike in other computations when it enters the floodplain much faster. The computation “incl. river banks” is done for
the period 2009-2010 (thus, including high flows at the end of 2009), while the other computations are carried out only
for year 2010. This results in higher initial water levels in the “incl. river banks” computation.
2. Presence of High Elevation features. The 2D DEM is created based on the available SRTM data that has ±10m
accuracy in the vertical. The high elevation features, which would normally block or delay the flood propagation on the
floodplain such as roads, dikes, bridge abutments are not easily distinguishable in the SRTM data. The location of the
dikes and roads was assessed based on expert judgment and Google Earth maps. Since no information was
available about the crest elevation, the crest elevation of the dike between Mojana and Cauca/Brazo de Loba was
assumed very high (50m above DEM), while the crest of road embankments and other dikes was assumed 1m and
3m above DEM respectively. Results of the computations “Base scenario” and “Base scenario with raised DEM
around wetlands” show the influence of including these elements in the model. Increasing the DEM around wetlands
leads to a better fit of the measured and computed water levels.
3. Model resolution. An extra computation has been made with the 2D DEM grid size of 480 m. The computation time
is 10 hours for 1 year simulation time. It is worth to mention here, that the river cross sections and the location of the
manually added high elevation features were not reviewed based on the finer grid. The water levels computed with
the finer grid did not necessarily lead to a better agreement with the measurements. However, as shown in Figure 8
the simulated flood extent is similar to the inundation extent in December 2010 as shown in the flood images
(Quiñones, 2013; Quiñones et al., 2014).

(a) Water Levels in Regidor (b) WaterLevels in El Banco

(c) Water Levels in San Roque (d) Water Levels in Magangue-Esperanza

Figure 7 – Performance of Hydraulic Model in middle Magdalena – Model 2 (Water Levels)

9
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

The changes in the computed water levels between the “base scenario” and other computations at the location of Regidor
are due to the computation grid used in the 1D network (i.e. the significant distance between the upstream boundary and
the first computation point). In the other computations, an extra computation point was added near the upstream boundary
and the very narrow cross section was removed. During the periods of high discharge, the computed water levels are
lower than the measured water levels for all computations except in the computation with fine 2D grid size. The 2D
inundation pattern resembles quite well the flood images of December 2010 as it can be seen in Figure 8.
Based on these results it can be concluded that the model can still be improved by
1. Checking the river cross sections. In some branches, there are a large number of cross sections that are not
necessary considering the computational grid and the fact that many of these cross sections are incorrect
representation of the real river conveyance capacity.
2. Include the river dikes either in 2D DEM or in river cross sections.
3. Properly schematising the wetlands.
4. Refine the 1D and 2D computation grid.
5. Calibrating the roughness of the 1D branches (after implementing roughness based on land cover data for the 2D
inundation areas).
6. Considering the on-going projects in the Río Magdalena basin, it is possible that some of the data (such as high
elevation features, water level-volume relations for the wetlands, etc.) are readily available.

Figure 8 – Computed inundation map on 31st of December 2010 (blue) compared to SAR vision inundation map of December 2010
(pink). Computation results belong to the ones with 480 m grid.

3.2.3 Model 3
Only two gauging stations provide water level data for 2010: Calamar and Incora-K7. Both of them are at the upstream
end of the model. Therefore, the rest of the model cannot be calibrated simply on water levels. And for discharges, there
are rating curves available for this area, but because of the influence of the sea and because of the dike break that
occurred during the flood of 2010 they are not considered suitable for calibration. However, the water levels in this area
obviously depend on the discharge distribution between Canal del Dique and the downstream end of Magdalena River.
According to an expert of the Río Magdalena river system, Canal del Dique should take around 5 % of the total discharge
during low flows (January/February 2010) and around 1.200 m3/s during the flood in October – December 2010.
The first simulation with model 3 was made after implementing the dikes around the upstream part of Canal del Dique and
the road dikes around Magdalena River (with an assumed height of 4 m above the elevation taken from the SRTM data).

10
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

In the period with low discharges (January – March 2010), the discharge distribution was correct, with Canal del Dique
getting approximately 120 m³/s out of 2.500 m³/s (approximately 5 %) and all discharge staying within the 1D branches.
However, the discharge through Canal del Dique (1D + 2D part) did not increase during the following months. Assuming
that the downstream boundary conditions are correct, this can be caused by a lack of conveyance or higher roughness in
Canal del Dique. Therefore, the simulation was repeated with an increased conveyance. The 2D elevations between the
Canal del Dique dikes were lowered to 4 m above sea level upstream and 3 m above sea level downstream, respectively.
With this model set-up, the discharge distribution represents the 2010 flood event better, approximately 1.100 m³/s
through Canal del Dique and some water lost due to flooding of 2D inundation areas. However, these elevations seem too
low if compared with the SRTM data. This issue needs to be investigated further in the future.
The water levels calculated with lowered elevations between the Canal del Dique dikes are about 2-3 m too high
compared to measurements (Figure 9). This can be solved especially for the lower discharges by applying a lower
roughness to the 1D river network (n = 0.02 s/m1/3 instead of 0.03 s/m1/3). For higher discharges, lowering the roughness
of the 2D inundation areas might help.
Another simulation was made with lower roughness in the 1D branches of Canal del Dique (n = 0.01 s/m1/3) and
Magdalena River (n = 0.02 s/m1/3). This improves the discharge distribution (approximately 700 m³/s through Canal del
Dique during flood period) by significantly reducing the water level at the upstream end of Canal del Dique. This, however,
means that the water levels at gauge Incora-K7 become significantly worse. It can be concluded that the model should be
improved by
1. checking the elevations around the bifurcation and
2. calibrating the roughness of the 1D branches (after implementing roughness based on land cover data for the 2D
inundation areas).

Furthermore, the zero levels of the gauging stations should be checked. The implementation of roughness based on land
cover data for the 2D inundation areas does not lead to significant changes in the water levels or the discharge
distribution.

(a) Discharge distribution between Canal del Dique and Magdalena River (b) Discharge distribution between Canal del Dique and Magdalena River.
(January – May 2010)

(c) Water Levels in Calamar (d) Water Levels in Incora-K7

Figure 9 – Performance of Hydraulic Model in lower Magdalena – Model 3

4. CONCLUSIONS
The beginning is the most difficult step because this project represents an unprecedented commitment in Colombia, a bet
to tools whose use we don’t see common or relevant. Cormagdalena has advanced in a pioneering effort to seize the
knowledge of its management object: The Magdalena River. This implies an overall institutional transformation, from an

11
E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress,
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

entity created in the last decade of the twentieth century, focused on the investment of state resources to an entity with
intent to learn and decide their work based on knowledge. An entity that uses technical and technological tools in aid of
colombian citizens. And mostly a state entity that takes responsibility to know as much as possible its management object.
Despite the lack of data and the poor quality of some input information, it’s important in the general overview of the
resource management, break the inertia of the technical inability starting processes as this modeling work. That inertia of
rest in which institutions cannot advance projects of significant technical and/or scientific ambition because of lack of data,
poor information and insufficient expert knowledge.
In general, technology transfer projects are not direct processes, but rather multiple and various complications arise in
their development. In this particular case of Magdalena River modeling, the difficulties are partly due to the complexity of
the River, partly because there is no institutional habit of making use of these technologies and partly because the entity
does not have a structure that join and relate this kind of projects. For example essential activities like finding information
from previous studies or data from other projects are not a technical task if not an administrative task, because the
corporation information structures are not designed to develop knowledge and streamline information systems, if not to
manage and store information from executed projects. This creates difficulties in creating institutional knowledge.
The historical flood computation results revealed that the uncertainty around the model input (especially cross-sections,
2D DEM and dikes/levees/embankments) as well as the measurements (zero level of the gauging stations) remains high.
Due to that it is not possible to identify the “perfect” model set-up. Several options remain possible. Further investigations
should be made in the future in order to reduce the uncertainties and improve the model.
The following is highly recommended for future work with the developed models, before fine tuning the roughness in the
1D river channel.
1. Include all line elements with high elevation (e.g. river dikes, roads, embankments).
2. Check and adjust the 1D river cross sections including bank levels. Note that a smaller number of good cross sections
would be better than the present large number of cross sections that lack bank levels and do not cover the entire
width of the river.
3. Find out the reason why the model does not calculate the proper discharge distribution between Río Magdalena and
Canal del Dique for high discharges
4. Schematize the wetlands properly. (e.g. schematisation of wetlands as 1D storage nodes).
5. Refine the 1D and 2D computation grid.
6. Implement the roughness based on land cover data in all three models
7. Reduce the uncertainty around observed water levels and discharges (e.g. zero levels of gauging stations)
Considering the on-going projects in the Río Magdalena basin, it is possible that some of the data (such as Lidar data,
high elevation features, wetlands characteristics, etc.) are readily available within other projects. It will be of crucial benefit
for this project, if the the links and the possibility of data exchange with the other projects in the area is explored.
The further improvements of the models can be carried out within the framework of a follow up project.
Currently, there are discussions between CORMAGDALENA, IDEAM and IGAC about cooperation in developing a
geodesic network for the Magdalena river (similar as for Cauca River) in order to link all the zero levels of the gauging
stations. Also, cooperation with Fondo de Adaptación on modeling efforts is being considered.
This calibration effort might not have led to perfect model results. However, it helped in understanding the complex river
system of Río Magdalena, Cauca and Canal del Dique, and showed the way ahead for getting better measurement data
and improving the current models.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank to CORMAGDALENA, DELTARES, IDEAM, IGAC and Fondo de Adaptación, its employees and contractors,
because they made possible the development of this research.

REFERENCES
Chow, V. T. (1994). Hidráulica de los canales abiertos. McGraw-Hill.
Chow, V. T. (2009). Open-channel Hydraulics. Blackburn Press.
Colombia, Congreso de la República. Ley 161 de 1994, Pub. L. No. 194 (1994).
Corporación Autónoma Regional para el Río Grande de La Magdalena -CORMAGDALENA-. (2007). Atlas - Cuenca del
Río Grande de la Magdalena.
Corporación Autónoma Regional para el Río Grande de La Magdalena -CORMAGDALENA-. (2012a). Plan de Acción
2012-2014. La Gran Vía del Transporte Nacional. Retrieved from
http://fs03eja1.cormagdalena.com.co/php/cormagdalena/%5Cattachments%5Ctransparencia%5CPlan%20de%2
0Accion_2012-2014-19-01-2012.pdf
Corporación Autónoma Regional para el Río Grande de La Magdalena -CORMAGDALENA-. (2012b, July). Proyecto:
Estructuración y puesta en marcha del Programa de Modelación Permanente del Río Magdalena.
Deltares System. (2013, April 8). SOBEK. Hydrodynamics, Rainfall Runoff and Real Time Control. User Manual. Retrieved
from http://content.oss.deltares.nl/delft3d/manuals/SOBEK_User_Manual.pdf
Hoyos Goez, H. (2005). Flood management and slums formation in Magdalena?s River Basin-Colombia. Retrieved from
http://www.monografias.com/trabajos43/magdalena-river-basin/magdalena-river-basin.shtml

12
 E-proceedings of the 36th IAHR World Congress
28 June – 3 July, 2015, The Hague, the Netherlands

JI, Z., de VRIEND, H., & HU, C. (2003). APPLICATION OF SOBEK MODEL IN THE YELLOW RIVER ESTUARY.
Presented at the International Conference on Estuaries and Coasts, Hangzhou, China. Retrieved from
http://www.irtces.org/pdf-hekou/114.pdf
Kundu, P. K., Cohen, I. M., & Dowling, D. R. (2011). Fluid Mechanics, Fifth Edition (5 edition). Waltham, MA: Academic
Press.
Ministerio de Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral del Recurso Hídrico
(2010). Retrieved from
http://www.minambiente.gov.co/documentos/5774_240610_libro_pol_nal_rec_hidrico.pdf.pdf
Quiñones, M. J. (2013, May 15). Mapas de Frecuencias de inundación y tipos de vegetación para las cuencas del Río
Magdalena y Cauca en Colombia. Reporte SarVision: SV-TNC-SEI Mapa Magdalena Vegetación/Inundaciones #
80105.
Quiñones, M. J., Hoekman, D. H., & Pedraza, C. A. (2014). Flooding frequency Map/ Mapa de frecuencia de Inundaciones
2007-2010. Product of JAXA, Alos Kyoto & Carbon (K&C). SarVision-SEI-TNC collaborations. Within the JAXA-
Wageningen University, agreement.

13

View publication stats