19 Floodplain-Hydraulics

19.
FLOODPLAIN HYDRAULICS
Roy D. Dodson
Dodson & Associates, Inc.
Houston, Texas.
This chapter deals with the practical considerations involved in identifying the floodplain for a stream channel, and analyzing
the flow characteristics of the channel system, including its floodplain. In general, any land area that is susceptible to
inundation by rising or flowing flood waters from any source could be considered to be a floodplain area. This would include
areas affected by coastal or lacustrine (lake) flooding. However, the emphasis of this chapter will be on riverine floodplains,
which are affected by flood waters from a stream or river.
The determination of flood elevations and floodplain boundaries along stream channels has become increasingly important as
more development has occurred in floodplain areas, or in areas that have been reclaimed from the floodplain.
A floodplain analysis requires a large amount of data in order to be accurate and complete. Cross sections of the stream
channel and detailed geometric descriptions of bridges and other structures are required. In addition, experience is usually
required to accurately assess the roughness characteristics of a channel, to properly lay out cross sections, and to adequately
address many other aspects of a good flood plain analysis. Sophisticated computer programs are available to analyze the data
and produce detailed computations of water surface elevations, floodplain boundaries, and other results. However, these
programs can produce misleading results without a properly planned and executed analysis.
Because of the subjective judgments required for some of the input data and the uncertainty associated with certain values
such as flow rates, some people have the attitude that "there is no right answer" to the question of determining floodplain
elevations and boundaries. However, it is important not to allow this to degenerate into the attitude that "one answer is as good
as another." This is clearly not true. A floodplain study performed well produces superior results.
This chapter describes an approach toward floodplain studies that emphasizes quality control and thoroughness in all aspects
of the study effort. The effort is focused on those aspects of the study that will produce the best overall results within given
constraints of time and budget. This chapter provides guidance in the following areas:
Sources of information for the floodplain analysis;
Planning data collection operations to obtain required information;
Selecting the analytical approach for a particular floodplain situation;
Performing the analysis and assessing the results.
19.1. LOCATING EXISTING DATA SOURCES FOR

FLOODPLAIN STUDIES
The first step in any floodplain analysis is to collect all available information that might be useful in the analysis. Available
mapping and/or cross section data should be pursued before requesting new surveys. One or two weeks of contacting key
government agencies, as well as local engineers, surveyors, aerial photographers, and mapping companies could save
significant project funds. The principal sources of information which may be available include previous studies, topographic
data, aerial photography, highway or street maps, construction drawings, stream gage data, and personal observations from
local residents.
© McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use, Privacy Notice and copyright information.
Within the United States, federal agencies should be contacted to determine if they have data pertinent to the project being
initiated. Table 19.1 lists the chief types of floodplain study data typically available from each of the major federal government
agencies. In addition, local and state agencies often have study data available.
Table 19.1 Federal Government Data Sources
The types of information which may be derived from previous studies include
Surveyed cross section data
Data on channel structures such as bridges and culverts
Survey benchmarks used in previous field survey work
Computed or measured flow rates
Accounts of previous flooding, including high-water marks
An assessment of the usability and technical accuracy should be made of all available information, including historical
hydrologic data, high-water marks, flooding problems within the community, flood control measures, hydraulic structures that
affect flooding, available community maps showing and naming all roads in the floodplains, topographic maps, digital data
files, and elevation control data (including consideration of land subsidence[*] where applicable). Photographs of past major
floods, if available, should be obtained.
Within the United States, federal flood insurance studies are often valuable sources of information on floodplain hydraulics. It is
always advisable to obtain the data from previous flood insurance studies whenever it is available. In fact, if a study is being
prepared for submittal to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to replace or revise an existing flood insurance
study, the data from the existing flood insurance study must be used as much as possible.
Flood insurance study information may include hydrologic and hydraulic models, engineering and construction plans, floodplain
maps, and flood profiles. In addition, any information should be obtained that may provide data for evaluating changes to the
effective hydrologic or hydraulic models. Flood insurance study data may be requested from FEMA.
If the original hydraulic models and work maps used in the Flood Insurance Study are not available, FEMA requires that the
flood insurance study results be recreated from the information in the flood insurance study report book and the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps. The data available from the published Flood Insurance Study report should be supplemented as needed
and entered into the same hydrologic and/or hydraulic model used to create the original Flood Insurance Study. This model
should then be calibrated to the Flood Insurance Study flood profiles to obtain 100-year water-surface elevations within an 0.1-
ft tolerance, if possible. FEMA requires this to ensure a logical transition between revised and unrevised data.
19.1.1. Sources of Topographic Data

Topographic maps for the area should be obtained whenever available. Although local and state governments sometimes
compile detailed topographic maps, the most widely available topographic maps within the United States are the U.S.
Geological Survey's (USGS) 7.5- minute or 15-minute quadrangle maps. USGS quadrangle maps may provide all the following
information:
1. Survey control points. The locations of permanent vertical and horizontal control points (monuments or benchmarks) are
indicated on the maps.
2. Topography. Topography is prepared to national standards and the accuracy of each map is keyed to the contour interval.
The contour interval will vary depending on the amount of relief at the individual locations.
3. Ground cover. The color coding indicates the general type of ground cover, which may be useful in planning survey
operations and in confirming estimates of roughness coefficients.
4. Development features. The locations of road crossings, developments, and other features are indicated on the maps.
In the United States, the USGS is actively converting existing maps to digital form. Planimetric information is represented using
digital raster graphics (DRG), digital orthophoto quads (DOQ), or digital line graphs (DLG).
A digital raster graphic is a carefully scanned image of a USGS topographic map, including the borders. The map image is
georeferenced to the surface of the Earth, so that most geographic information system (GIS) software can automatically
position the DRG image correctly with respect to other types of geographic data. Figure 19.1 illustrates a portion of a USGS DRG
file.
A digital orthophoto quad is a digital image of an aerial photograph in which displacements caused by camera orientation and
terrain have been removed. Orthophotos combine the image characteristics of a photograph with the geometric qualities of a
map. The standard digital orthophoto produced by the USGS is a black-and-white or colorinfrared 1–m ground resolution
quarter quadrangle (3.75-minute) image. Figure 19.2 illustrates a portion of a USGS DOQ File.
Digital line graphs are vector files containing line data, such as roads and streams, digitized from USGS topographic maps.
DLGs offer a full range of attribute codes, are highly accurate, and are topologically structured, which makes them ideal for use
in GIS.
A digital elevation model (DEM) is a digital file consisting of terrain elevations for ground positions at regularly spaced
horizontal intervals. DEMs are developed from stereo models or digital contour line files derived from USGS topographic
quadrangle maps. The USGS produces five different digital elevation products. The most useful for floodplain studies consists
of 7.5 minute × 7.5 minute blocks corresponding to the standard 1:24,000 scale USGS quadrangle maps. The data have a
resolution (grid interval) of 30 m (approximately 100 ft). Figure 19.3 illustrates ground elevation contours computed using the
data from a USGS DEM file.
Figure 19.1 Example portion of USGS DRG file.
Figure 19.2 Example of USGS DOQ file.
Figure 19.3 Example of elevation contours derived from USGS DEM file.
Canada and most Western European nations are undertaking similar programs for the development of digital elevation data
from existing topographic data. Digital data are also being developed for other regions of the earth.
Digital terrain data have two major applications to floodplain hydraulics. First, if the data are sufficiently detailed, they may be
used as a basis for the channel and floodplain cross sections for hydraulic studies. This is emerging as a common practice
when digital terrain models (DTMS) are available. However, the grid-based data available from a digital elevation model may not
be suitable for use as channel cross section data, because the spacing between adjacent points (at least about 30 m for most
DEM data) is not dense enough to provide a sufficiently detailed channel cross section. The use of DEM data for extending
field-surveyed cross sections into floodplain areas is more promising, because less detail is generally needed in these areas.
Digital topographic data may also be used for floodplain mapping. The results of a hydraulic model analysis only provides the
floodplain boundaries at the locations where cross sections are available. Between these cross sections, the floodplain must be
mapped using available topographic data. The availability of digital topographic data is dramatically improving the efficiency
and accuracy of floodplain mapping, through links between GIS software and hydraulic analysis software. Figure 19.4
illustrates a stream channel for which two floodplains have been automatically calculated and displayed using software that
links GIS software with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC)-RAS
water surface profiles computer program.
Figure 19.4 Example of floodplain computed and mapped using data from digital terrain model
(DTM).
Figure 19.5 Example of USGS National Aerial Photography Project photograph.
19.1.2. Aerial Photography

Aerial photography and topographic mapping may also be available from commercial aerial survey and mapping companies.
Some local and state government agencies, such as transportation departments or taxing authorities, may obtain a complete
set of aerial photographs on a regular basis. Aerial photography may also be available through the National Aerial Photography
Project (NAPP), distributed through the USGS (Fig. 19.5).
Up-to-date aerial photographs may indicate recent channel improvements, road crossings and other special structures, channel
condition, land uses in the floodplain, and other information. It is important to note that areas and distances measured from
aerial photographs may not be accurate unless the photograph has been orthorectified to correct for the effects of the camera
angle, the curvature of the earth, and the apparent displacement of points resulting from differences in elevation at different
locations in the photograph.
19.1.3. Highway or Street Maps

Highway maps from state or local highway agencies or street maps from private map companies may contain information
which may be missing from the USGS quadrangle maps, including recently constructed road crossings or other structures. Like
topographic data and aerial photographs, highway and street data are also becoming available in digital form.
19.1.4. Construction Drawings

Construction drawings may be available for channel modifications, bridges, or other projects affecting the stream channel or
floodplain. Local or state transportation agencies and railroad companies generally retain the construction drawings for all
bridges and many other types of projects.
Figure 19.6 Example of digital street map (Census Bureau TIGER File).
As-built construction drawings are those that have been revised to reflect the actual dimensions of a completed construction
project. As-built drawings for existing bridges are normally available from local or state transportation agencies. Local or
federal agencies normally have as-built construction drawings for channel modification projects.
The use of information from as-built construction drawings can greatly reduce the amount of survey information required for
existing bridges or channel modifications. However, the survey benchmark used for each set of construction drawings should
be determined, to be sure that all information is based on the same horizontal and vertical datum.
19.1.5. Stream Gage Data
Stream gage data from stream gages operated by the USGS or other agencies can provide good estimates of the floodplain
elevation at a particular point. Many floodplain analysis computer programs can accept a channel rating curve constructed
from the stream gage data for use in computing the water surface elevation corresponding to a given flow rate. Figure 19.7
illustrates a channel rating curve.
If the purpose of the analysis is to model a very extreme event, it is important to note that the rating curve available for the
stream gage location may not have any historical basis for the stages at extremely high flow rates. These stages may simply
be extrapolated from the historical record of lower flow rates.
Figure 19.7 Channel rating curve.
19.1.6. Personal Observations

Personal observations by local residents, such as high-water marks, can be valuable in estimating the floodplain elevation for
calibration of the computed water surface profile. Often the best observations are available from employees of city or county
engineering departments, or other agencies with responsibilities for public facilities such as drainage channels, roads, or utility
systems.
19.2. OBTAINING FIELD SURVEY DATA FOR FLOODPLAIN

STUDIES
Even though considerable information may be available from previous studies and other sources, it is often necessary to
perform field surveys to provide additional information. Survey operations can be difficult to manage, but they often determine
the success of a floodplain study.
The following steps should be completed before field survey operations are initiated:
1. Channel stationing. The stream length should be accurately determined from the mouth (or other beginning point). Normally,
this is done using a recent aerial photograph or other map which indicates the current channel morphology. Channel stationing
should begin with 0 + 00 and increase in the upstream direction. Stationing should be measured along the thalweg. [*]
2. Locate structures. The stream stations of all pertinent stream crossings, tributaries, and all other significant features should
be summarized in table form, including those features found on only one map. The stream stations should be transferred to a
topographic "work map" for the analysis.
3. Preliminary stream profile. If a stream profile showing the channel flow-line is not already available from a previous analysis,
it may be useful to prepare a preliminary flowing profile from the contours on the topographic map.
4. Preliminary floodplain map. If a floodplain map is not already available from a previous analysis, the floodplain width at
various points along the channel should be estimated. The estimate may be based on the readings of stream flow gages,
preliminary computations using data from the topographic work map, or observations by local residents. For major studies, it
may even be advisable to set up a preliminary hydraulic analysis using data from the topographic work map only.
5. Survey control points. The location and elevation of all known survey benchmarks in the area of the study should be indicated
on the topographic work map.
6. Site reconnaissance. The engineer should then visit the study area, using the work map as a reference. Each road crossing
and other structure should be inspected, photographed, and measured with a tape, if possible. Channel and floodplain
conditions should be noted. Special notes and photograph locations should be recorded on the topographic work map.
7. Preliminary cross section locations. The proposed location and alignment of all surveyed cross sections should be indicated
on the topographic work map.
Finally, the engineer should meet with the survey coordinator to discuss the data requirements for the project, using the
topographic work map, photographs, and the engineer's knowledge of the project area and computer program data
requirements. Even after the survey work begins, the engineer should maintain frequent contact with those performing the
survey work to be aware of their progress and any special problems.
19.2.1. Vertical and Horizontal Control for Field Surveys

The Global Positioning System (GPS), when used in the differential mode, is currently the best method for extending any survey
control network unless satellite visibility is obscured (e.g., because dense forest) or severe radiofrequency disturbances are
present. Differential GPS or third-order leveling[*] can be used to tie temporary benchmarks to an established datum; to
determine the elevation of high-water marks; and, where needed, to establish horizontal and vertical control for aerial survey
work. Whenever possible, available benchmarks should be used instead of field surveys, to reduce the survey cost. In particular,
benchmarks shown on official floodplain maps should be used if possible. As a general rule, there should be approximately two
temporary benchmarks per mile of stream length or four per square mile of floodplain, as appropriate (FEMA, 1995).
Most benchmarks established in North America are referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29),
which was formerly referred to as Mean Sea Level of 1929. This datum was originally established as a vertical reference
representing the average sea level as measured at a series of tide gages throughout North America. As a result of additional
work since 1929, a revised vertical reference has been established which better represents the actual gravitation force of the
earth as it exists in various locations throughout the North American continent. This reference is called the North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). FEMA and other federal government agencies are adopting NAVD88 as the standard vertical
datum for new studies. The significance of the conversion from NGVD29 to NAVD88 depends on the particular location. The
National Geodetic Survey has produced a computer program called VERTCON which will compute the conversion from NGVD29
to NAVD88 at any location in North America, given the coordinates of latitude and longitude.
Field surveys should normally be accomplished by differential leveling or differential GPS methods, with vertical error
tolerances of ± 0.5 ft across the 100-year floodplain.
Horizontal control may be unnecessary since cross sections can be located simply by visual reference to identifiable points on
a map or aerial photograph. However, if cross-sectional data will be combined with other data sets, it is necessary to establish
and maintain adequate horizontal control.
19.2.2. Cross Section Locations
The survey information required for a floodplain analysis generally consists of cross sections of the channel and floodplain
along the stream. These cross sections may be field-surveyed or taken from digital terrain models. Some water surface profile
computer programs treat each cross-section as representing a reach of the river and use only one section at the midpoint of the
reach to calculate losses through the entire reach. [*] However, the most commonly used computer programs use cross sections
to define break points in the geometry, and properties of adjacent sections are averaged to calculate losses through the reach.
The objective of either computation scheme is to describe flow boundaries accurately enough to predict energy losses due to
friction and changes in flow velocity. If only a few cross sections are available and they are located far apart, a greater amount
of engineering judgment is required to satisfactorily analyze the problem. Any deviation from a smooth profile must be
explained, and in some cases it can be traced back to inadequate cross-sectional data.
A water surface profile in nature is really a curvilinear surface that follows the general slope of the channel. When the water
surface profile is computed, the shape of this curvilinear surface is approximated by a series of straight-line segments. The
endpoints of these line segments are the channel cross section locations. If many channel cross sections are included, the line
segments will be short, and the true curvilinear shape of the natural water surface profile can be better represented. If only a few
channel cross sections are used, the line segments will be long, and the true curvilinear shape of the natural water surface
profile will not be represented well. Figure 19.8 illustrates a water surface profile that is well represented (using many channel
cross sections) and the same profile that is poorly represented (using only a few channel cross sections). As indicated, if an
adequate number of cross sections are not provided for the hydraulic analysis, the computed water surface elevation can vary
considerably from the actual value, especially in areas in which there is a sudden change in the channel slope.
One study indicated that reach lengths should be limited to a maximum of 800 m (about 0.5 mi) for wide floodplains and for
slopes less than about 0.04 percent, 550 m (about 1800 ft) for slopes equal to or less than 0.06 percent, and 350 m (about
1200 ft) for slopes greater than 0.06 percent (Beasley, 1973). For flood insurance studies, maximum spacing is generally 150 m
(about 500 ft) for unimproved channels and 600 m (about 2000 ft) for improved, regular channels. However, the actual spacing
requirements vary according to energy considerations. A preliminary computer run using cross sections from topographic
maps can be very valuable in determining the required spacing of surveyed cross sections. These cross section spacings are
only guidelines, and should not be used as fixed spacing requirements. Instead, cross sections should be placed at all of the
following locations along the stream channel:
Figure 19.8 Example of profile plot.
Changes in slope. Cross-sections are needed at distinct changes in bed slope.
Changes in flow area. Cross-sections are needed at points of contraction or expansion of the channel.
Changes in flow rate. Cross-sections are needed in the main channel immediately above and below a confluence and in the
main stream. A tributary cross section may also be obtained just above the confluence if the tributary is to be studied.
Changes in roughness. Additional cross-sections are needed at the upstream and downstream ends of each channel
segment that has a significantly different Manning’s roughness coefficient, such as changes in plant cover, channel
improvements, and so on.
Control sections. Cross sections are usually required immediately above and below control sections (such as bridges, drop
structures, weirs, and so on) to adequately model the changing conditions in these flow transitions. A weir is a low-overflow
dam or sill for measuring, diverting, or checking flow.
Encroachments. For encroachments into the floodplain (such as landfills, bridges, road embankments, dams, or levees),
cross sections are needed at the upstream and downstream ends of the encroachment, and at regular intervals within the
reach of the encroachment.
Bends. Additional cross sections may be required in and around channel bends to properly represent the reach lengths in
the chanwnel overbank areas.
If an elevated road or dam is found in the field that was not indicated on the cross section layout map, the survey field crew
should insert additional cross sections to represent these additional structures. However, this does not apply to roads that are
not elevated and will not block large amounts of flow.
After cross sections are placed at all of the locations identified above, then additional cross sections may be placed between
these as needed to reduce the spacing between adjacent cross sections to the values recommended above. Laying out cross
sections in this way, rather than at a fixed spacing, generally provides a superior analysis.
19.2.3. Cross Section Alignment and Orientation

Cross sections should tie into high ground, so that the maximum elevation of each end of a cross section should be at least 1 ft
higher than the anticipated maximum water surface elevation, if possible. In addition, the cross section locations should be
accessible and practical. For example, pipeline and power line crossings make good locations for surveyed cross sections in
wooded areas, because the right-of-way is usually cleared. However, cross sections must represent the average ground profile.
Roadside ditches, washouts, gravel pits, raised areas, and other nonrepresentative conditions should be avoided. The actual
orientation and extent of the surveyed cross section should be indicated on work maps.
Most computer programs used for floodplain analysis require that cross sections should be surveyed from left to right, with
these directions determined while looking downstream. The ground elevation as well as the distance from the channel flowline
should be determined and recorded for each point on the cross section.
Figure 19.9 Example of work map showing cross section locations for field survey.
Negative cross section stationing may be unacceptable to the computer programs used for floodplain analysis. Therefore, it is
advisable to begin cross section stationing at 10 + 00 or 100 + 0 + so that the cross section can be extended later without
having to restation the entire cross section.
Cross sections should be placed perpendicular to the direction of flow. Cross sections can and should have angles or "doglegs"
in them as needed so that the channel portion of the cross section can be perpendicular to the flow in the channel while the
floodplain portions of the cross section can be perpendicular to the flow in the floodplain. Figure 19.10 provides an example.
In the case of wide floodplains in very flat areas, where flows exceed the channel capacity and spill into the floodplains, the
effective cross section is not easily defined. One way to solve this problem is to shape the cross section alignment so that the
floodplain portions curve upstream. This curvature will contain the water in a reasonable width since the cross section
elevations on the edge of the flow will be higher than in the case of the straight cross section alignment.
A minimum of five points is usually required for the channel portion of a surveyed cross-section. This includes one point at the
top of each channel bank, one point at the toe of each side slope, and one point at the channel flowline, as illustrated in Fig.
19.11. Additional points may be required when discontinuities in channel cross sections are encountered.
The number of cross section points required for floodplain areas is dependent on the width of the cross section and on the
character of the terrain in the floodplain. As a general rule, enough points should be shot to give a true representation of the
floodplain terrain and to define any breaks in topography.
Valley cross sections that are intended to show the typical floodplain may be relocated in the field by the survey party to avoid
heavy brush or to take advantage of power line or pipeline easements, fence lines, or pasture lands. Any cross sections that are
relocated must be clearly marked on the work maps.
The channel station at which the cross-section intersects the channel center-line should be determined for each cross section.
The stream stations determined using aerial photographs or other maps for major structures such as bridges can be used as a
reference in determining the stream stations of individual cross sections between the structures. Distance measurement to the
nearest foot or meter is usually acceptable.
Figure 19.10 Cross-sectional layout and reach lengths for meandering channel.
Figure 19.11 Minimum survey points for channel only.
The measured distances between cross sections are defined with reach lengths. Three reach lengths are required: left
floodplain, right floodplain, and channel, which are measured from the current cross section to the previous cross section
looking downstream. Channel reach lengths are measured along the channel invert. The floodplain reach lengths are measured
along the anticipated flow path of the center of mass of flow in the floodplain area. This is generally assumed to be 1/3 the
distance from the channel bank to the edge of the floodplain.
The channel and floodplain reach lengths will often equal each other if the reach contains a straight channel with parallel flood
plains. Reach lengths will not equal each other in channel bends. One floodplain reach length will be greater than the channel
reach length while the other floodplain reach length will be less than the channel reach length (Fig. 19.12).
Reach lengths for the channel and flood plains may be unequal where the flood plains are parallel and the channel meanders
(Fig. 19.12). The reach lengths may vary depending on the severity of the flood event. Therefore, a preliminary hydraulic analysis
may be required. If multiple profiles (different flow rates or storm frequencies) are analyzed using the same reach lengths, the
reach lengths for all the profiles should be determined by the most important profile, which is usually the 100-year profile.
If the reach lengths of floodplains and channel differ, the most commonly used stream analysis computer programs calculate
one effective reach length that is used in the Standard Step Method. This is a discharge-weighted reach length based on the
discharges in the main channel and the two floodplains over the whole reach.
(19.1)
Figure 19.12 Cross-sectional layout and reach lengths for channel bends.
where = the weighted average reach length QLOB = the total flow in the left floodplain XLOB = the specified reach length for
the left floodplain QCH = the total flow in the channelXLCH = the specified reach length for the channelQROB = the total flow in
the right floodplain XLOBR = the specified reach length for the right floodplain Q = the total flow in the entire cross section.
19.2.4. Use of Aerial Topography and Contour Map Data

Field survey costs for a flood plainstudy may be reduced in several ways. For example, the spacing of cross sections along the
stream channel could be increased so as to reduce the number of cross sections required. As an alternative, the width of each
cross section could be reduced.
Studies have indicated that one of the best ways to improve the accuracy of a computed water surface profile is to provide
more cross sections (HEC, 1986). This implies that one of the worst ways to save money on a floodplain study is to reduce the
number of cross sections. In general, it is better to reduce the number of survey points within each cross section rather than to
eliminate some cross sections entirely and thus extend the reach lengths between adjacent cross sections.
Several methods may be used to maintain the required density of cross sections along the stream channel. For example,
surveyed cross sections could be used more than once in the analysis. These repeated cross sections may be acceptable if
field observations indicate that the channel and floodplain conditions are highly uniform through the stream reach represented
by the repeated cross sections. Intermediate cross sections may also be synthesized (interpolated) from field-survey cross
sections. Interpolated cross sections are described later in this chapter. During the data collection phase of the project,
however, the most common method of reducing the cost of obtaining cross section data is to obtain all or part of the data
points for the cross-section from aerial topography or contour maps.
In some circumstances, aerial topography or contour maps can be used for the entire cross section, including the channel
portion. Usually, however, the accuracy and level of detail available from aerial topography or contour maps are not sufficient
for channel data. It is preferable to obtain at least the channel portion of the cross section by field survey methods, if at all
possible. Sometimes, with little or no increase in field survey costs, some additional ground shots can also be made in the
floodplain, using the same setup of the survey instrument already used for the channel survey. FEMA generally recommends the
use of aerial topography or contour maps for obtaining cross sections (instead of section) for the portion of the cross section
between the 100- and 500-year floodplain boundaries (FEMA, 1995).
Aerial topography is very cost-effective if the size of the project justifies the fixed costs of mobilizing the aircraft and other
related activities. Usually, the mapping data obtained by aerial photography are useful for many purposes other than the
floodplain analysis, and therefore the full cost may be shared with other projects, departments, or even other organizational
entities. Newer technologies such as LIDAR (Light Imaging raDAR) may also be very cost–effective,
If a contour map meets commonly accepted accuracy standards, then the contour accuracy is slightly better than half of the
contour interval while the accuracy of spot elevations is approximately 20 to 30 percent of the contour interval of the map being
prepared. Therefore, cross sections developed using contours from topographic maps will not be as accurate as cross sections
prepared from spot elevations. Whenever possible, spot elevations along the cross section should be determined directly using
the source data set, rather than indirectly using contours.
19.2.5. Road Crossing Data

Necessary dimensions and elevations of all hydraulic structures and underwater sections along the streams should be obtained
from available sources or by field survey where necessary. Dimensions and elevations of hydraulic structures should not be
established by aerial survey methods.
Most computer programs used for floodplain analysis require four user-defined cross sections in the computations of energy
losses due to the structure. These cross sections may be identified by number (1 through 4), beginning downstream of the
bridge. A plan view of the basic cross section layout is shown in Fig. 19.13.
Cross section 1 is located sufficiently downstream from the structure so that the flow is not affected by the structure (i.e., the
flow has fully expanded from the narrow bridge opening). This distance should generally be determined by field investigation
during high flows. If field investigation is not possible, there are two sets of criteria for locating the downstream section. The
USGS has established a criterion for locating cross section 1 a distance downstream from the bridge equal to one times the
bridge opening width (the distance between points B and C on Fig. 19.13). Traditionally, the Corps of Engineers criterion has
been to locate the downstream cross section about four times the average length of the side constriction caused by the
structure abutments (the average of the distance from A to B and C to D on Fig. 19.13). The expansion distance will vary
depending on the degree of constriction, the shape of the constriction, the magnitude of the flow, and the velocity of the flow. (A
constriction is a local obstruction narrowing a waterway.) Both criteria should be used as rough guidance for placing cross
section 1. Cross sections 1 and 2 should be close enough to one another so that friction losses can be adequately modeled. If
the expansion reach requires a long distance, intermediate cross sections should be placed within the expansion reach to
adequately model friction losses.
Figure 19.13 Cross section locations at a bridge or culvert.
Cross section 2 is located immediately downstream from the bridge (within a few feet). This cross section should represent the
effective flow area of the natural channel just below the roadway crossing. It should not include the road fills, road ditches,
mounds, or depressions that are not typical of the floodplain.
Cross section 3 should be located just upstream from the bridge. The distance between cross section 3 and the bridge should
be relatively short. This distance should only reflect the length required for the abrupt acceleration and contraction of the flow
that occurs in the immediate area of the opening. Cross section 3 should represent the effective flow area of the natural
channel just above the roadway crossing. Like cross section 2, it should not include the road fills, road ditches, mounds, or
depressions that are not typical of the floodplain.
Cross section 4 is an upstream cross section where the flow lines are approximately parallel and the cross section is fully
effective. The USGS recommends that the distance between cross section 3 and 4 should be roughly the same as the average
width of the bridge opening. However, this criteria for locating the upstream cross section may result in too short a reach length
for situations where the width of the bridge opening is very small in comparison to the floodplain. The Corps of Engineers
generally recommends that cross-section 4 be located a distance upstream equal to the average contraction width (the average
of the distance from A to B and C to D on Fig. 19.13). According to the Corps of Engineers, the distance between cross sections
3 and 4 should be less than the distance between cross sections 1 and 2 for constricted flow conditions, because flow
contractions can occur over a shorter distance than flow expansions. Both of these recommendations should be considered;
the Corps of Engineers recommendation is probably better when the bridge opening is narrow compared with the width of the
floodplain; the USGS recommendation is probably acceptable for all other cases.
19.2.6. Using Repeated Cross Sections for Roadway Crossings

The engineer directing the floodplain analysis should determine, during a preliminary visit to the study area, if the channel is
relatively uniform in the area of each road crossing structure. If the channel is highly uniform in the area of a particular road
crossing, it may be possible to survey a single channel and floodplain cross section at the upstream or downstream face of the
bridge, and repeat this cross section for the other three or more cross sections in the bridge model.
If the channel is relatively uniform through the bridge itself, but changes upstream or downstream of the structure, a single field
surveyed cross section may be used to represent the channel at both faces of the bridge, but different field-surveyed cross
sections may be needed at other locations through the bridge model.
If the channel is not uniform through the bridge, separate cross sections are required at the downstream face of the bridge and
at the upstream face of the bridge. It may even be necessary to survey a cross section of the channel at the centerline of the
bridge (underneath the bridge superstructure), where special conditions cause the channel underneath the bridge to differ
significantly from the cross section at the upstream or downstream face.
19.2.7. Obtaining Bridge Survey Data

Plan and profile sketches of the bridge on which all pertinent data are illustrated and identified should always be included in the
survey notes. Figure 19.14 is a representative sketch of the type of data that will be required by the hydraulic engineer.
Several pieces of information about the actual bridge itself are required. Two of the most important of these are top of road and
low chord elevations.
The top of road is the highest part of the roadway that forms a significant obstruction to flow over the roadway. The top of road
can be the crest of the bridge roadway, the top of a sidewalk, or the crest of a solid bridge railing. When taking a cross-section
on a multi-lane highway, the cross section should be obtained along the higher lane. If the median or shoulder is higher than the
centerline, the high points should be located by side shots on the median or shoulder. Cross sections on railroads should be
obtained on top of the rail. If the track is superelevated, the highest rail should be shot.
The low chord (or low steel) of a bridge refers to the lowest part of the bridge that forms a significant obstruction to flow under
the bridge. The low chord of most bridges is formed by the bottom of the bridge girders.
Whenever any doubt exists as to the identification of the top of road and low chord of a bridge, elevations defining the shapes
of all structures which form obstructions to flow should be determined and recorded. For example, if a water main or other pipe
is suspended from the bridge, this condition should be recorded.
Figure 19.14 Example of sketch of bridge cross section.
Natural ground elevations should be used instead of top of road elevations when the roadway is in a cut; that is, when natural
ground is higher than the top of the roadway. In such cases, it is necessary to visualize the total obstruction to flood flow at the
road. This will be a combination of the roadway and natural ground. Figure 19.15 illustrates this situation.
Bridge railings or curbs should sometimes be considered when defining the top of roadway. If a railing or curb forms a
substantial obstruction to flow over the bridge, the top of the rail or curb should be considered as the effective top-of-road.
Figures 19.15 and 19.16 illustrate bridge decks with solid and open rails.
Other important bridge data include the following:
Channel station: the channel station at which the bridge center-line (or one of the bridge faces) intersects the channel
flowline.
Figure 19.15 Defining the bridge deck for roadways in open cuts.
Figure 19.16 Defining the bridge deck for bridges with solid rails.
Figure 19.17 Defining the bridge deck for bridges with open rails.
Bridge dimensions: the length and width of the bridge.
Skew angle: the angle between the bridge roadway centerline and the flowline of the channel.
Piers: the size, shape, number, and location of piers supporting the bridge.
19.2.8. Culvert Data

Data requirements for culvert crossings are very similar to those for bridges. Channel cross section locations for culvert
crossings are the same as those for single bridges. The top of road of a culvert crossing is determined in the same way. For
each culvert, the culvert size and shape, length, the downstream and upstream flowline elevations and centerline stations, and
the type of headwall and wingwalls, and their angle with the main axis of the culvert should be recorded. If a culvert contains an
accumulation of silt, the depth of silt at the upstream and downstream ends, and the consistency of the accumulated silt
(compacted, loose, and so forth) should also be noted.
19.2.9. Channel Structures

Channel structures such as weirs, drop structures, and sections of slope paving can have very significant effects on channel
hydraulics. The locations, sizes, and configurations of these structures should therefore be carefully measured and recorded.
If a channel section is fully or partially lined with concrete or some other type of slope paving, the survey information should
record the type of paving (concrete lining, riprap, and so on), the beginning and ending channel station for the slope paving, and
the vertical extent of the slope paving (that is, how far up the sides of the channel the paving extends).
19.3. SELECTING THE BEST APPROACH FOR A FLOODPLAIN

STUDY
There are three alternative approaches that are generally available for the computation of water surface elevations in a stream
channel system:
One-dimensional steady, gradually varied flow conditions;
Two-dimensional, steady, gradually varied flow conditions;
One-dimensional unsteady flow conditions.
It is also possible to model two-dimensional unsteady-flow conditions, although this approach is not common. The following
sections describe these various approaches.
19.3.1. One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Flows

In a constructed channel with a regular cross section, most of the lines of flow will be roughly parallel to the channel's
longitudinal axis (the axis that follows the alignment of the channel from upstream to downstream). This is one-dimensional
flow. However, in natural channels with irregular cross-sections, and especially when flow overtops the channel and enters the
floodplain, there may be significant components of flow in other directions at certain locations. For example, flow may travel in
a vertical direction for a short distance to overtop a roadway surface and spill into a lower area on the downstream side. Flow
may also travel in a lateral direction from the floodplain into the channel to pass through a narrow culvert opening.
Energy is required to set water in motion in any direction and overcome friction losses. The computer programs used for
floodplain studies account for friction losses and other changes in energy potential. In fact, the computation of water surface
elevation is really a by-product of the computation of the total energy level (often called the "energy grade line") at each location
in the stream channel and floodplain. For those situations where energy losses are not the primary consideration, such as at a
weir or a hydraulic jump, the programs use alternate solutions. (A hydraulic jump is a sudden transition from supercritical flow
to the complementary subcritical flow, conserving momentum and dissipating energy.)
One-dimensional computer programs used for floodplain studies account for energy losses in the downstream direction only
(longitudinal flows). Two-dimensional computer programs consider lateral flows as well as longitudinal flows. Therefore, they
analyze flow in both dimensions of the horizontal plane.
A one-dimensional analysis is adequate for most purposes. Two–dimensional computer models are useful at complex
roadway crossings, in shallow flooding areas, and whenever there is significant flow in more than one direction.
19.3.2. Changes in Flow Depth With Respect to Time and Distance

Steady flow occurs whenever the depth of flow at a cross section, for a given discharge, is constant with respect to time.
Unsteady flow occurs whenever the depth of flow at a cross-section varies with respect to time, for a given discharge.
During a flood event, the flow depth in a stream channel increases from base flow conditions, reaches a peak value, and
declines to the base flow again, generally within the span of a few hours or less. However, at any one moment, an observer
standing on the edge of the floodplain would see what appears to be a steady flow condition.
Steady flow can further be classified as uniform or nonuniform. Uniform flow occurs when the depth of flow and quantity of
water are constant at every section of the channel under consideration. Under these conditions, the water surface and flowlines
will be parallel to the stream bed and a hydrostatic pressure condition will exist (the pressure at a given section will vary linearly
with depth). Uniform flow conditions are rarely attained in natural channels.
Gradually varied flow occurs whenever the depth of water changes slowly over the length of the channel. Under this condition,
the streamlines of flow are practically parallel. Therefore, uniform flow principles can be used to analyze the flow conditions,
even though the flow is nonuniform. With rapidly varied flow conditions, there is a pronounced curvature of the flow streamlines.
The assumption of hydrostatic pressure distribution is not valid. Therefore, uniform-flow principles are not adequate for the
analysis of rapidly varied flow.
Most computer programs used for floodplain analysis are based on the analysis of steady, gradually varied flow conditions.
Some programs have special capabilities to analyze rapidly varied flow conditions, such as hydraulic jumps.
A floodplain analysis that assumes steady flow is a "snapshot" of the channel system, usually at peak flow conditions.
However, some channel flow situations are dominated by rapidly changing flow rates or other dynamic conditions. For example,
a floodplain area may have substantial floodplain storage capacity that affects the flow rate in the stream channel; streams
may experience a reversal of flow under certain conditions; the stream may be subject to sudden changes in flow rate due to
the opening or closing of gates or other similar structures; streams may discharge into marine bodies that are affected by tidal
movements; or the stream may be a part of a complex system of pipes, channels, ponds, and reservoirs. All of these situations
may produce sudden changes in flow rate which are not adequately represented by the assumption of steady flow. The
capability to analyze unsteady flow conditions is sometimes required.
19.3.3. Critical Flow and Critical Depth
Critical depth is an important hydraulic parameter because it is always a hydraulic control. (Critical depth occurs when the
specific energy is a minimum for a given discharge.) Hydraulic controls are points along the channel where the water level or
depth of flow is limited to a predetermined level or can be computed directly from the quantity of flow. When the depth of flow is
greater than critical depth, the velocity of flow is less than critical velocity for a given discharge and hence, the flow regime is
subcritical. Conversely, when the depth of flow is less than critical depth, the flow regime issupercritical. Flow must pass
through critical depth in going from a subcritical flow regime to a supercritical flow regime. Typical locations of critical depth
are at
(1). abrupt changes in channel slope when a flat (subcritical) slope is sharply increase to a steep (supercritical) slope, (2). a
channel constriction such as a culvert entrance under some conditions, (3). the unsubmerged outlet of a culvert on subcritical
slope, discharging into a widechannel or with a free fall at the outlet, and (4). the crest of an overflow dam or weir.
Critical depth for a given channel is dependent on the channel geometry and discharge only, and is independent of channel
slope and roughness.
19.3.4. Types of Stream Systems

Stream systems may be divided into three main categories according to the complexity of the interconnections among the
various flow paths within the stream system:
Simple channels. These are single-stream reaches with no tributary streams. Therefore, there are no confluences or
junctions. The flow rates may vary from one cross section to the next along the length of the stream channel, because of
local inflows or stream channel losses. The direction of flow in the channel is known. However, the flow regime within the
channel is not known, and in fact, may vary along the length of the channel (changing from subcritical to supercritical or
from supercritical to subcritical).(Fig. 19.18).
Dendritic channel systems. These include tributary streams that combine at confluences or junctions to form major
streams. This process may be repeated through several steps. Streams within a dendritic channel system are sometimes
identified by their “order.” First-order streams are the smallest tributaries, while higher-order streams are larger streams and
rivers. In a dendritic system, each of the individual streams is analyzed as a simple channel (as described in the category
above) (Fig. 19.19).
Network channel systems. These include all of the features of dendritic channel system. In addition, full network systems
(sometimes called fully–looped systems) can have flow splits, where flow in a single channel (or a group of channels) can
be divided among two or more flow paths which may either recombine downstream or discharge at completely different
destinations. In some network channel systems, the direction of flow may be known in advance for each stream; for others,
the direction of flow may be determined during the analysis and may even change during the analysis. A full network model
can also include storage areas that can either provide water to, or divert water from, a channel. A full network model is
required to properly deal with storage areas, because they represent flow splits (since water can be diverted into the storage
area). See Fig. 19.20.
Figure 19.18 Example of simple channel system.
Figure 19.19 Example of dendritic channel system.
19.3.5. Computer Programs Widely Used in Floodplain Analysis

Flood elevations for riverine areas are normally determined by step-backwater[*] computer models, including HEC-RAS, HEC-2,
WSPRO, and WSP-2.
HEC-RAS River Analysis System [developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrologic Engineering Center]
computes water surface profiles for one-dimensional steady, gradually varied flow in rivers of any cross section (HEC, 1998a–
c). HEC-RAS can simulate flow through a single channel, a dendritic system of channels, or a full network of open channels
(sometimes called a fully looped system). However, HECRAS cannot currently determine how much flow follows each flow path
at a flow split. In addition, the direction of flow in each stream must be provided to HEC-RAS as part of the input data.
HEC-RAS can easily model sub– or supercritical flow, or a mixture of each within the same analysis. A graphical user interface
provides input data entry, data modifications, and plots of stream cross sections, profiles, and other data. Program options
include floodway computations, inserting trapezoidal excavations on cross sections, and analyzing the potential for bridge
scour. The water surface profile through structures such as bridges, culverts, weirs, and gates can be computed. The program
includes sophisticated routines for the analysis of roadways with multiple bridges and culverts. Variable channel roughness and
variable reach length between adjacent cross sections can be accommodated.
Figure 19.20 Example of network channel system.
HEC-2 (developed by the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center) was the predecessor to HEC-RAS, and has some of the same
capabilities (HEC, 1990a). However, HEC-2 does not accommodate multiple bridge or culvert openings in most situations, and
is restricted to either subcritical or supercritical flow computations in a single analysis. Because HEC-2 was widely used for
almost 30 years, many existing floodplain studies were performed using HEC-2. HEC-RAS will read HEC-2 input data files and
produce very similar results under most situations, but HEC-2 may still continue to be used for some time because of the need
to match existing study results. HEC-2 is generally restricted to simple channel systems, but may be used for dendritic channel
systems under limited circumstances.
WSPRO Water Surface Profile [developed by the U.S. Geological Survey for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)] is a
step backwater program for natural channels with an orientation to bridge constrictions (USGS, 1990). The water surface profile
computation model has been designed to provide a water surface profile for six major types of open–channel flow situations:
unconstricted flow, single opening bridge, bridge opening(s) with spur dikes, single opening embankment overflow, multiple
alternatives for a single job, and multiple openings. WSPRO was developed for use primarily around roadway crossings. The
bridge analysis routines originally used in WSPRO have now been incorporated into the HEC-RAS computer program.
WSP2 Water Surface Profile 2 (developed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) is a step backwater program
for natural channels [Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 1993)]. WSP2 estimates head loss at restrictive sections,
including roadways with either bridge openings or culverts.
19.3.6. Two-Dimensional Water-Surface Computer Models

The most commonly used two-dimensional models include TABS-MD (developed by ACE Waterways Experiment Station) and
FESWMS-2DH Two-Dimensional Flow in a Horizontal Plane computer program (developed by USGS).The TABS-MD
(Multidimensional) Numerical Modeling System is a collection of generalized computer programs and utility codes, designed
for studying multidimensional hydrodynamics in rivers, reservoirs, bays, and estuaries. The primary computational program in
the TABS-MD system is the RMA-2 model [Waterways Experiment Station (WES) Hydraulic Laboratory, 1997]. The TABS-MD
system can be used to study project impacts on flows, sedimentation, constituent transport, and salinity. FESWMS-2DH Finite
Element Surface Water Modeling System–Two–Dimensional Flow in a Horizontal Plane simulates steady and unsteady flow
and is useful for simulating two-dimensional flow at width constrictions and highway crossings of rivers and floodplains
(FHWA, 1989). FESWMS-2DH is based on the momentum balance approach, with consideration of shear stresses due to friction
between the moving water and the fixed boundaries.
19.3.7. One-Dimensional Unsteady-Flow Models

There are several computer programs available for simulating one–dimensional unsteadyflow conditions in stream channels.
These include UNET, Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), DAMBRK, and NETWORK.
UNET (supported and maintained by USACE HEC is a one-dimensional unsteady flow model that can simulate flow through a
single channel, a dendritic system of channels, or a full network of open channels (HEC, 1990b). In UNET, storage areas can be
the upstream or downstream boundaries for a river reach. In addition, the river can overflow laterally into the storage areas over
a gated spillway, weir, levee, through a culvert, or a pumped diversion.
In addition to solving the one-dimensional unsteady flow equations in a network system, UNET One–Dimensional Unsteady
Flow Through a Full Network of Open Channels provides the user with the ability to apply several external and internal boundary
conditions, including flow and stage hydrographs, gated and uncontrolled spillways, bridges, culverts, and levee systems. UNET
can read channel cross sections that are input in a modified HEC-2 format.
Future versions of the HEC-RAS computer program are expected to incorporate most of the functions of the UNET computer
program, and will likely provide access to these functions through a user interface that is more convenient to use than the
original UNET user interface, which relies heavily on the HEC-DSS (Data Storage System) for data entry and output.
Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) (developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) is a comprehensive water
quantity and quality simulation model developed primarily for urban areas. SWMM is a complete hydrology and hydraulics
model that is most commonly applied to urban areas with closed storm sewer systems (Huber and Dickinson, 1988). The model
uses different modules (or “blocks”) for different types of computations. SWMM is not widely used for floodplain studies on
natural stream channels. However, the Extran and Transport blocks of the SWMM program can use natural channel cross
section data in the same form as required by the HEC-2 computer program. The Transport block provides simple hydraulic
computations, but the more sophisticated Extran block can perform a dynamic backwater analysis (Roesner et al., 1988). This
can be useful when a sophisticated hydraulic analysis is required, particularly when the open channel is a part of an urban
drainage network.
Dam Break Flood Forecasting Model (DAMBRK) (developed by the National Weather Service) is an unsteady flow dynamic
routing model which develops an outflow discharge hydrograph due to spillway and/or dam failure flows (Fread, 1982). This
hydrograph is routed through the downstream river valley. This can be a useful method of floodplain analysis for such events.
NETWORK: Enhanced Dynamic Wave Model (developed by the National Weather Service) is an unsteady flow dynamic routing
model for a single channel or network (dendritic and/or bifurcated) of channels for free surface or pressurized flow (Fread &
Lewis, 1986, Fread & Lewis, 1988 and Fread, 1993).
19.3.8. Selecting a Computer Program for a Floodplain Analysis

A computer program that is suitable for one-dimensional steady, gradually varied flow conditions is adequate for most
floodplain studies. The most widely used programs in this category are the Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS and the older HEC-2
computer programs. If conditions dictate, a two-dimensional analysis or a dynamic analysis (or, in some cases, a two-
dimensional dynamic analysis) may be required.
If a floodplain study is being done to revise a FEMA flood insurance study, FEMA normally requires that revised study be
completed using the same computer program used for the original study. However, a different computer program may be
accepted if documentation can be submitted justifying why a change would be an improvement. It is important to discuss such
issues with FEMA in advance (FEMA, 1995).
19.4. PERFORMING A FLOODPLAIN STUDY

Water flowing in an open channel possesses two kinds of energy: (1) potential energy and (2) kinetic energy.Potential energy is
due to the position of the water surface above some datum. Kinetic energy is caused by the movement of the water. The key to
water surface profile calculation is the maintenance of an energy budget from cross section to cross section. All of the energy
at one cross section, including potential energy and kinetic energy, must be accounted for at the next cross section. The
difference in total energy level between one cross section and the next must be attributable to energy losses due to friction and
to flow expansion or contraction. It is the determination of energy losses that imposes constraints on the permissible distance
between cross sections and consequently on the number of cross sections required for a study.
19.4.1. Computing Water Surface Profiles

For the gradually varied flow condition, the depth of flow may be established through a water surface profile analysis. The basic
principles in water surface profile analysis are as follows:
(1) The water surface approaches the uniform depth line asymptotically; (2) The water surface approaches the critical depth
line at a finite angle; (3) Subcritical flow is controlled from the downstream end of the stream reach; and (4) Supercritical flow is
controlled from the upstream end of the stream reach.
19.4.2. Starting Conditions for Water Surface Computations

The starting conditions at the upstream and/or downstream ends of each stream reach are called “boundary conditions.”
These are sometimes difficult to determine. There are four common methods for determining the starting conditions for water
surface profile computations:
1. Known or assumed elevation. If the purpose of the floodplain analysis is to reconstruct conditions that existed during a
historical flood, for example, the analysis might begin with a water surface elevation that was observed or measured during that
flood event. Streams that discharge into lakes or marine bodies of water may also start with a known water surface elevation in
the body of water under certain conditions.
2. Rating curve. A water surface elevation may be computed from a rating curve representing the hydraulic capacity of a
particular channel section (e.g., at the location of a stream flow gage). Alternatively, the rating curve may represent the
hydraulic characteristics of a channel structure such as a weir.
3. Normal depth. Uniform flow may be assumed, based on the average slope of the energy grade line in the reach of channel
near the beginning point. This is sometimes called the “slope-area” method.
4. Critical depth. A control section may be identified in which flow must pass through critical depth. This could provide a
convenient starting condition for the water surface profile.
The best method of starting a water surface profile is to use a known water surface elevation. A rating curve is also a good
option, if one is available. However, it is common for neither of these sources to be available. Therefore, the normal depth and
critical depth options are frequently used.
Natural channels do not usually operate under uniform flow conditions, because of variations in channel slope, roughness, and
cross sectional shape. However, if the variations are not excessive, normal depth is often a reasonable estimate of the actual
water surface elevation. It is important to obtain a good estimate for the slope of the energy grade line, because this has a large
effect on the computed value of normal depth. It is common to assume that the slope of the energy grade line will equal the
average slope of the channel bed. This average slope could be measured in several ways, and then the most representative
slope value could be selected. For example, the channel bed slope between the starting cross section and the next cross
section in the analysis could be used, if this represents typical conditions throughout the stream reach close to the starting
location.
If possible, the floodplain analysis should be arranged so that the results are relatively independent of assumed starting
conditions. This may be done by starting the water surface profile several cross sections away from the area of interest. The
computed water surface profiles resulting from a wide range of starting conditions will converge to the same profile after
several cross sections.
The channel length required for computed water surface elevations to converge at a particular location depends on the flow
rate, the roughness coefficients, and the slope and shape of the cross section. Studies (HEC, 1986) have indicated that the
channel length required for water surface profiles to converge from different starting elevations to a single profile may be
estimated by the following equations:
(19.2)
(19.3)
where Ldc = the channel length for a critical depth starting condition (m or ft),Ldn = the channel length for a normal depth
starting condition (m or ft), HD = the average hydraulic depth for the 100-year flood event (ft or m) = the cross sectional flow
area (m2 or ft2 ) divided by the top width of flow (m or ft), S = the average reach slope (percent), and K = constant = 120 for m;
150 for ft.
Consider the stream profile illustrated in Fig. 19.21. If the purpose of the analysis is to determine the 100-year water surface
elevation at the bridge, it is then important to verify that the starting water surface elevation downstream is adequate. Assume
that the preliminary hydraulic analysis indicates that the top width of the 100-year floodplain at the five cross sections below the
bridge ranges from about 500 m (about 1600 ft) to about 600 m (about 1900 ft), with an average top width of about 530 m
(about 1750 ft). The cross sectional area of flow for these five cross sections ranges from about 465 m2 (about 5000 ft2 ) to
about 880 m2 (9500 ft2 ), with an average value of about 700 m2 (7000 ft2 ). Therefore, the average hydraulic depth (HD) in this
reach is about 700/530 = 1.3 m (about 4 ft).
The first three cross-sections of the stream profile indicate that the channel bed is horizontal. Therefore, the fourth and fifth
cross sections must be used to determine the channel bed slope. The average channel bed slope from the fourth cross section
to the downstream end of the profile is (201.83 − 199.9)/(1265.3) = 0.153 percent. The average channel bed slope from the
fifth cross section to the downstream end of the profile is (202.7 − 199.9)/(2043) = 0.137 percent. Therefore, a reasonable
value for the starting slope of the energy grade line is about 0.15 percent.
Using Eq. (19.2) and (19.3), the distance needed from the start of the profile to the bridge is about 125 × (1.3/0.15) = 125 × 8.67
= 1080 m (about 3300 ft), for starting conditions based on critical depth. For starting conditions based on normal depth, the
distance is estimated to be about 120 × (1.30.8/0.15) = 120 × (1.23/0.15) = 990 m (about 3000 ft). However, since the available
channel length downstream of the bridge is only about 600 m (about 2000 ft), it appears that the channel distance downstream
of the bridge is not long enough to ensure a stable water surface elevation at the bridge location, for either starting condition.
As Fig. 19.21 indicates, the starting water surface affects the computed water surface elevation at the bridge. However, asFig.
19.22 shows, starting the analysis further downstream isolates the bridge from the effects of the starting conditions.
19.4.3. Starting Conditions for Tributary Stream Analysis

19.4.3. Starting Conditions for Tributary Stream Analysis
The computed normal depth at the mouth of a tributary channel may be well below the computed depth of flow in the receiving
stream for the storm event of the same frequency. In such a case, the tributary profile computations could be started using the
computed depth of flow in the receiving channel. However, this would only be appropriate if the peak flow conditions for the
tributary channel coincide with those on the receiving stream. The assumption of coincident peaks may be appropriate if the
following conditions are all met: (1) the ratio of the drainage areas lies between 0.6 and 1.4; (2) the times of peak flows are
similar for the two combining watersheds; and (3) the likelihood of both watersheds being covered by the storm being modeled
are high.
Figure 19.23 provides some guidelines for coincidental occurrence of storms over the watershed of a tributary channel and the
receiving stream for a 100-year design storm. This figure can be used to establish an appropriate design tailwater elevation for
a tributary channel based on the expected coincident storm frequency of the receiving stream channel. For example, if the
receiving stream has a drainage area of 200 ha and the tributary channel has a drainage area of 2 ha, the ratio of receiving area
to storm drainage area is 200:2 which equals 100:1.
From Fig. 19.23 and considering a 100-year design storm occurring over both areas, the flow rate in the main stream will be
equal to that of a 25-year storm when the drainage system flow rate reaches its 100-year peak flow at the outfall. Conversely,
when the flow rate in the main channel reaches its 100-year peak flow rate, the flow rate from the storm drainage system will
have fallen to the 25-year peak flow rate discharge. This is because the drainage areas are different sizes, and the time to peak
for each drainage area is different.
Figure 19.21 Example of inadequate distance from starting conditions.
Figure 19.22 Example of adequate distance from starting conditions.
Figure 19.23 Storm frequencies for coincidental occurrence for 100-year analysis of tributary
channel. (From: FHWA, 1996)
When the peak flow rates for the main channel and the tributary stream do not coincide, it is more appropriate to compute the
two streams separately. The tributary channel profile is computed using normal depth or other appropriate starting condition at
the downstream end, rather than starting with the main channel water surface elevation. Figure 19.24 illustrates a profile plot
for a typical tributary stream.
As shown, the controlling water surface profile for the tributary channel is plotted using the higher of the following two
elevations: (1). Main channel backwater. the water surface elevation from the main channel, extended horizontally back up the
channel of the tributary stream; (2). Independent tributary profile. the water surface elevations independently computed for the
tributary.
When a stream discharges into a standing body of water, the normal pool elevation should be used as a starting condition.
Mean high tide[*] is generally used as a starting condition for streams that discharge into a body of water that is tidally
influenced. In both cases, the cross-section data for the stream channel should extend far enough down into the standing body
of water so that the cross sectional area of at least the first two cross sections is very large. This will make the flow velocity,
and therefore the energy loss, very low at these cross sections. The full area of each cross section should be included; cross
sections should never be truncated below the pool elevation of the water body.
Figure 19.24 Profile plot for tributary stream.
19.4.4. Standard Step Computations

All of the computer programs commonly used for determining water surface elevations in stream channels use the “standard
step method” of computation. This is an iterative method, in which the program works from one end of the stream channel to
the other, one cross section at a time. At the first cross section, a starting condition is specified as part of the input data. At
each succeeding cross section, the program uses the following steps:
• A water surface elevation is estimated and used to compute the cross-sectional flow area. This allows the computation of the
flow velocity and velocity head. The total energy head is the sum of the water surface elevation and the velocity head. [*]
The estimated water surface elevation is also used to compute the wetted perimeter, conveyance, and friction slope.
The friction slope values of the current and preceding cross section are averaged (by any one of several different methods,
as described below).
The average friction slope is multiplied by the weighted average reach length to obtain the total energy loss in this stream
reach.
The energy loss is added to the total energy at the preceding cross section to produce a revised estimate of the total energy
at the current cross-section.
The computed total energy elevation is compared to the assumed total energy elevation from the first step.
The steps above are repeated (with additional details to ensure computational stability and convergence, and to account for
other factors) until the program determines that no further adjustments are necessary in the energy head at the current cross
section. The program then computes various other output values before beginning the same procedure for the next cross
section.
19.4.5. Roughness Coefficients

The roughness coefficient, Manning’s n value, is an experimentally derived constant which represents the effect of channel
roughness in Manning’s equation. Considerable care must be given to the selection of an appropriate n value for a given
channel due to its significant effect on the results of Manning’s equation. Even experienced engineers may produce estimated
roughness coefficients that vary by 25 percent or more for some channels and floodplains. The estimates should include the
consideration that roughness may vary with flood stages, depending on such factors as the width-to-depth ratio of streams,
vegetation in the channel and floodplains, and materials of the channel bed.
The n values selected should be typical of the stream reach, and not just the particular location of the cross section itself. Often,
land use in the immediate area of the cross section may be cropland; however, immediately downstream, the area may revert to
woodland and brush. Here the appropriate n value would reflect the woodland and brush rather than the agricultural area. Aerial
photographs and field inspections can be important in avoiding errors in n values. Recording the land use and n value across
the floodplain on the plotted cross section and/or work maps is helpful in documentation.
Tables 19.2 through 19.5 provide a listing of n values for various channel conditions. (Chow, 1959). Photographs and other
information is available for stream channels with various values of n (Arcement and Schneider, 1984; Barnes, 1967).
19.4.6. Representative Friction Slope For a Channel Reach

Most computer programs used for floodplain analysis compute the friction loss between adjacent cross sections as the
product of and L, where is the representative friction slope for a reach andL is the weighted average reach length defined
by Eq. (19.1). The representative rate of friction loss is an average of the computed friction slope at each of the adjacent cross
sections. Many programs provide more than one method of averaging the friction slope. The following averaging methods are
typically available:
(19.4)
(19.5)
(19.6)
(19.7)
Table 19.2 Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for Floodplains
Type of Channel and Description Minimum Normal Maximum
Source: From Chow (1959).
Pasture, no brush
Short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035
High grass 0.030 0.035 0.050
Cultivated areas
No crop 0.020 0.030 0.040
Mature row crops 0.025 0.035 0.045
Mature field crops 0.030 0.040 0.050
Brush
Scattered brush, heavy weeds 0.035 0.050 0.070
Light brush and trees, in winter 0.035 0.050 0.060
Light brush and trees, in summer 0.040 0.060 0.080
Medium to dense brush, in winter 0.045 0.070 0.110
Medium to dense brush, in summer 0.070 0.100 0.160
Trees
Dense willows, summer, straight 0.110 0.150 0.200
Cleared land with tree stumps, no sprouts 0.030 0.040 0.050
Same as above, but with heavy growth of sprouts 0.050 0.060 0.080
Heavy stand of timber, a few down trees, little undergrowth, flood stage below branches 0.080 0.100 0.120
Same as above, but with flood stage reaching branches 0.100 0.120 0.160
Table 19.3 Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for Excavated Channels
Type of Channel and Description Min Norm Max
Earth, straight and uniform
Clean, recently completed 0.016 0.018 0.020
Clean, after weathering 0.019 0.022 0.025
Gravel, uniform section, clean 0.022 0.025 0.030
With short grass, few weeds 0.022 0.027 0.033
Earth, winding and sluggish
No vegetation 0.023 0.025 0.030
Grass, some weeds 0.025 0.030 0.033
Dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels 0.030 0.035 0.040
Earth bottom and rubble sides 0.028 0.030 0.035
Stony bottom and weedy banks 0.025 0.035 0.040
Cobble bottom and clean sides 0.030 0.040 0.050
Dragline-excavated or dredged
No vegetation 0.025 0.028 0.033
Light brush or banks 0.035 0.050 0.060
Rock cuts
Smooth and uniform 0.025 0.035 0.040
Jagged and irregular 0.035 0.040 0.050
Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut
Dense weeds, high as flow depth 0.050 0.080 0.012
Clean bottom, brush on sides 0.040 0.050 0.080
Same, highest stage of flow 0.045 0.070 0.110
Dense brush, high stage 0.080 0.100 0.140
[*]
Table 19.4 Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for Minor Natural Streams[*].
Streams on plain
1. Clean, straight, full stage, no rifts or deep pools 0.025 0.030 0.033
2. Same as (1), but some stones and weeds 0.030 0.035 0.040
3. Clean, winding, some pools and shoals 0.033 0.040 0.045
4. Same as (3), but some weeds and stones 0.035 0.045 0.050
5. Same as (4), lower stages, more ineffective slopes and sections 0.040 0.048 0.055
6. Same as (4), but more stones 0.045 0.050 0.060
7. Sluggish reaches, weedy, deep pools 0.050 0.070 0.080
8. Very weedy reaches, deep pools, or floodways with heavy stands of timber and underbrush 0.075 0.100 0.150
Mountain streams, no vegetation in channel, banks usually steep, trees and brush along banks submerged
at high stages
Bottom: gravels, cobbles, and few boulders 0.030 0.040 0.050
Bottom: cobbles with large boulders 0.040 0.050 0.070
[*] A minor stream is one that has a top width of less than 100 ft at flood stage.
Table 19.5 Manning’s Roughness Coefficient for Major Natural StreamsA minor stream is one that has a top width of less than
100 ft at flood stage.
Regular section with no boulders or brush 0.025 — 0.060
Irregular and rough section 0.035 — 0.100
where = the average friction slope; Q1 and Q2 = the flow rates at each of the two cross sections; respectively andS f1 and S f2 =
the computed friction slope at each of the two cross sections, respectively.
The average conveyance equation is commonly used, because it gives good results across a wide range of flow regimes and
profile conditions. Actually, any of these friction loss equations will produce satisfactory estimates if the reach lengths between
cross sections are not too long. However, some equations provide better results for a certain flow regime (sub or supercritical)
or for a certain type of profile.[†]
Research indicates that the average friction slope equation provides the most accurate determination of a known profile with
the least number of cross sections for a "backwater" profile in a channel with a subcritical slope (Reed and Wolfkill, 1976). This
equation is also preferred for some supercritical flow profiles (HEC, 1997c). The harmonic mean friction slope equation is the
most suitable for drawdown[*] profiles in a subcritical channel (Reed and Wolfkill, 1976). The geometric mean friction slope
equation is the most suitable for certain types of supercritical flow profiles (HEC, 1997c).
19.4.7. Cross Section Interpolation

Occasionally it is necessary to supplement surveyed cross section data by interpolating cross sections between two surveyed
sections. Interpolated cross sections are often required when the change in velocity head is too large. However, other criteria
such as considering the percentage change in energy slope can also be useful. An adequate depiction of the change in energy
gradient is necessary to accurately model friction losses as well as contraction and expansion losses. When cross sections are
spaced too far apart, the program may end up defaulting to critical depth.
Some of the computer programs available for floodplain studies can generate interpolated cross sections quickly and easily.
However, interpolated cross sections should be used with caution. The interpolated cross section is based on the shape of the
upstream and downstream cross sections. Because of this, interpolated cross sections often appear so realistic that it is easy
to forget that they do not include any “real-world” data. Whenever an interpolated cross section is generated, it should be
carefully reviewed and documented.
Some computer programs allow the interpolated cross sections to be adjusted manually to better depict the information from
the topographic map.
19.4.8. Supercritical Flow Regime Calculations

Channel reaches that operate under a supercritical flow regime present special challenges in floodplain analysis. Because of
the unstable nature of supercritical flow, especially in natural streams, critical depth should be computed and used for plotting
the computed water surface profile. In a constructed channel, the supercritical flow condition may be more common (because
of the more uniform slope, cross section, and roughness characteristics of most constructed channels). However, it is
important for the designer to project possible future channel conditions, such as the condition that occurs when sediment
accumulates on the bottom of a concrete-lined channel. Such a condition may change the composite roughness of the channel
section enough to disturb the supercritical flow regime and cause a hydraulic jump under certain flow conditions.
19.4.9. Mixed-Flow Regime Calculations

Some floodplain analysis computer programs have the ability to perform subcritical, supercritical, or mixed-flow regime
calculations. A mixed-flow regime occurs when a reach contains sections with both supercritical and subcritical flows. The
change from sub- to supercritical flow occurs in a drawdown curve, while the transition from super- to subcritical occurs in a
hydraulic jump.
The concept of "specific force" is used to determine which flow regime is controlling, as well as locating any hydraulic jumps.
The total specific force of a particle of water is the sum of a dynamic component (the momentum of the flow passing through
the channel cross section per unit time) and a static component (the force exerted by the hydrostatic pressure of the water)
(Chow, 1959).
Mixed-flow regime calculations are generally performed as follows:
1. Subcritical analysis. First, a subcritical water surface profile is computed starting from a known downstream boundary
condition. During the subcritical calculations, all locations where the program defaults to critical depth are flagged for further
analysis.
2. Supercritical boundary condition. Next the program begins a supercritical profile calculation beginning with the upstream
boundary condition. If the boundary condition is supercritical, the program checks to see if it has a greater specific force than
the previously computed subcritical water surface at this location. If so, then it is assumed to control, and the program will
begin calculating a supercritical profile from this section.
3. Supercritical reaches. If the subcritical answer has a greater specific force, then the program begins searching downstream to
find a location where the program defaulted to critical depth in the subcritical run. When a critical depth is located, the program
uses it as a boundary condition to begin a supercritical profile calculation.
4. The program calculates a supercritical profile in the downstream direction until it reaches a cross section that has both a
valid sub- and supercritical answer. When this occurs, the program calculates the specific force of both computed water
surface elevations. Whichever answer has the greater specific force is considered to be the correct solution. If the supercritical
answer has a greater specific force, the program continues making super-critical calculations in the program reaches a cross
section whose subcritical answer has a greater specific force than the supercritical answer, the program assumes that a
hydraulic jump occurred between that section and the previous cross-section.
5. The program then goes to the next downstream location that has a critical depth answer and continues the process.
An example of a mixed-flow profile is shown in Fig. 19.25. The most downstream section of channel, which discharges into a
reservoir, has a supercritical slope. However, subcritical flow is maintained in the lower part of this reach by the water level in
the reservoir.
The middle reach of the channel is subcritical, but there is a supercritical reach just above it. Where these two reaches meet, the
flow passes through a hydraulic jump, which changes the flow regime from super- to subcritical. The most upstream reach of
channel is subcritical. The transition between this reach and the super-critical reach just below it provides an example of a
drawdown.
Before a mixed-flow run can be made, the appropriate boundary conditions must be set at both the upstream and downstream
ends of the stream. For example, the known water surface elevation in the reservoir provides the downstream boundary
condition for the example described above. The upstream boundary condition could be a known water surface elevation,
normal depth, or critical depth.
Figure 19.25 Example of mixed–flow regimes.
19.5. ENSURING THE QUALITY OF A FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS
A high-quality floodplain analysis is never achieved by simply checking the results; it is achieved only by a consistent devotion
to quality throughout the process of data collection and analysis. However, a final check of the results can eliminate some types
of problems.
19.5.1. Reviewing Program Messages

Most computer programs used for floodplain analysis can generate notes, warnings, and error messages during the analysis.
Error messages describe problems that prevent the program from being able to complete the run. Warning messages identify
conditions that require attention and possible correction. Notes simply provide more detailed information; they do not
necessarily indicate problems in the analysis.
In general, whenever a warning is set at a location, the hydraulic results should be reviewed at that location to ensure that the
results are reasonable. If the hydraulic results are found to be reasonable, then the message can be ignored. However, in many
instances, a warning level message may require some action to eliminate the message. Many of the warning messages are
caused by inadequate or incorrect data. Some common problems that cause warning messages to occur are the following:
Cross-sections too far apart. This can be the root cause of several different warnings and error messages. The distance
between cross-sections is too long if hydraulic properties of the flow change too radically from cross section to cross
section. If, from one cross section to the next, the slope of the energy grade line decreases by
more than 50 percent or increases by more than 100 percent, the reach length may be too long for accurate determination
of energy losses caused by boundary friction. For example, Fig. 19.26 illustrates a plot of energy slope versus channel
station. Each point on the chart represents the energy slope computed at a particular cross section along the stream
channel. Note that there are three cross section locations (including the starting cross section) at which there are “spikes”
in the computed energy grade line slope. Inserting additional cross sections reduces one of these “spikes” considerably, as
the figure also indicates.
Bad starting water surface elevation. If the user specifies a boundary condition that is not physically possible for the
specified flow regime, the program will take action and set an appropriate warning message. However, even if the specified
boundary condition is possible, it may still be inappropriate, as illustrated in Fig. 19.26. In this profile plot, the assumed value
of the energy slope for the downstream boundary condition appears to be too high.
Cross-section starting and ending stations not high enough. If a computed water surface is higher than either endpoint of the
cross section, a warning message will appear. A small vertical extension may not affect the results of the analysis
significantly. However, excessive extensions can lead to serious errors in the analysis, because the program is not able to
consider the additional flow area and capacity which may be available beyond the range of cross section data. No
significant cross section extensions should be allowed if floodway computations are to be performed, because the
conveyance capacity beyond the point of extension should be considered in the floodway computations (Fig. 19.27).
Bad cross section data. This can cause several problems, but most often the program will not be able to balance the energy
equation and will default to critical depth.
Critical depth. During water surface profile calculations, the computer program may default to critical depth at a cross
section to continue the calculations. Critical depth can occur for several reasons, including bad cross section data,
excessively long reach lengths, or specification of the wrong flow regime (i.e., specifying subcritical flow when the flow is
actually supercritical). On occasion, when the program is balancing a water surface that is close to the top of a levee or
similar structure, the program may go back and forth (above and below the levee) without being able to balance the energy
equation. When this occurs, most computer programs will default to critical depth. With some computer programs, it is
possible to suppress the critical depth warning messages by using a mixed-flow regime analysis. However, this should not
be used unless the accuracy of the cross section data and reach lengths, and other common sources of isolated critical
depth messages, have first been investigated.
Figure 19.26 Example of excessive cross section spacing.
Figure 19.27 Example of extended water surface elevations.
Divided flow conditions. Divided–flow messages indicate that a portion of the cross section extends above the water
surface, between areas of flow on either side. If several consecutive divided flow messages occur, the input data may have
to be revised through this reach to provide a separate analysis for each flow area. Using two separate analyses, the profiles
for this “island flow” situation may be determined (Fig. 19.28).
By reviewing these messages, it should be possible to correct all of the obvious errors in a preliminary floodplain analysis. It
may not be possible to eliminate all warning messages under all conditions. For example, some computer programs for
floodplain analysis issue a warning message when the conveyance changes more than about 40 percent from one cross
section to the next. Whenever this warning message is encountered, the cross section data and reach lengths should be
checked. However, even with accurate cross section data and very short reach lengths, it is not possible to fully eliminate such
a warning message for cross sections that represent sudden changes in the cross sectional area (at a roadway crossing, for
example).
19.5.2. Reviewing the Stream Profile
To evaluate the analysis further, examine a stream profile plot that shows the computed water surface elevation, energy grade
line, and critical depth at each cross section along the length of the channel. If the profile indicates large changes in either the
water surface elevation or the energy grade line, these changes should be investigated. Are such changes physically possible?
Does the channel profile appear reasonable? Are there portions where the computed water surface coincides with the critical
depth elevation? Does the flow regime (subcritical, supercritical, or mixed) appear to be correct? Examine the profile at all
structures; are the structures correctly analyzed?
Figure 19.28 Example of divided– flow conditions.
19.5.3. Reviewing Output Summary Tables

Most computer programs used for floodplain analysis also provide summary tables listing the computed results at each cross
section. Examine these summary tables and note locations where critical depth occurs, where there are significant changes in
top width or flow distribution from one cross section to the next, where the energy slope (or water surface elevation) changes
significantly from one cross section to the next, where there are crossing profiles (multiple profiles in which the computed
water surface profile for a lower flow rate equals or exceeds the water surface profile for a higher flow rate, at one or more
cross sections), and where there are other unusual conditions.
If there is a large change in the water surface elevation or velocity head between consecutive cross sections, examine the
distribution of discharge in the channel and floodplains. The distribution of flow in the cross section should also not vary too
greatly from one cross section to the next. For example, it may be unreasonable for 80 percent of the flow to be in the channel
at one cross section and only 20 percent of the flow to be in the channel at the next cross section.
Check the minimum elevation in the cross section and the bank elevations; a large change in these elevations may explain a
large change in water surface elevation.
At locations where radical changes in top width of flow occur from one cross section to the next, determine with the aid of a
topographic map the paths that the flow is likely to follow between the two cross sections. Flow cannot generally contract at a
rate greater than 1:1, or expand at a rate greater than 4:1. In other words, the top width of flow should not decrease at a rate
greater than 1 ft laterally for each foot flow travels in the downstream direction. Similarly, the top width of flow should not
increase at a rate greater than 1 ft laterally for each 4 ft flow travels in the downstream direction. If the results of the floodplain
analysis indicates that the top width of flow is changing at a greater rate, the cross sections or reach lengths may need to be
modified accordingly.
At locations where radical changes in energy slope occur (e.q., a change of 50 percent to 100 percent from one cross section
to the next), the computation for friction loss may be inaccurate. It is probable that cross section geometry is not properly
described and/or additional cross sections are required to limit the change in energy slope to acceptable levels.
19.5.4. Reviewing the Input Data

A detailed review of the input data for the floodplain analysis should be performed on a section-by-section basis. The input data
should be checked for accuracy and completeness, including the geometric data used for cross sections and structures, the
reach lengths, the methods used to analyze bridges and other structures, the locations of all changes in flow rates, and the
values of all loss coefficients. Some computer programs provide specialized output tables that list certain input data values
(such as reach lengths or loss coefficients), to facilitate quick checking of these important data values. Loss coefficients
should be consistent throughout the analysis. This does not mean that the loss coefficients should not vary; it means that the
same physical conditions should be represented by the same loss coefficients throughout the entire analysis.
Normal values of 0.1 to 0.3 should be used for the contraction and expansion loss coefficients at most cross sections. Values
should generally be increased at bridges or at other locations where drastic increases or decreases in the floodplain cross
section geometry occur. Extremely abrupt contractions or expansions, such as at culverts, should be represented using values
of 0.6 to 0.8 or even higher.
The graphical output provided by some floodplain analysis computer programs should be used as much as possible to get a
quick view of the results. All cross sections should be plotted and reviewed, at least on the computer screen. The cross section
plots will help find mistakes in the input data and in the approach used for the analysis.
19.5.5. Skewed Cross Sections

In some cases, the surveyed cross section may not represent the actual cross sectional area of the channel perpendicular to
the direction of flow, because the cross section was surveyed at a skew. Skew is corrected by multiplying each cross section
station value by the cosine of the skew angle, which reduces the distance between adjacent cross section points. In effect, the
cross section is projected onto a plane that is perpendicular to the direction of flow in the stream. An adjustment should be
made where the angle of the cross section is 18 degrees or more different from perpendicular to the flow.
There may be cross sections in which the direction of flow in the floodplains differs from the direction of flow in the channel. If
so, only a portion of the channel cross section may have to be adjusted for skew.
19.5.6. Detailed Analysis of Roadway Crossings

Roadway crossings are the source of many difficulties and errors in floodplain analysis. Although the capabilities of floodplain
analysis computer programs have improved substantially, it is occasionally extremely difficult, if not impossible, to exactly
model flow patterns through a roadway crossing. For all roadway crossings, the reasonableness of the computed energy losses
should be reviewed. In addition, the various items of input data, including loss coefficients, roadway profiles, bank stations,
effective area option, and reach lengths should be checked again after the analysis. If cross sections have been repeated
through the stream reach around the roadway crossing, the uniformity of the channel through this reach should be checked.
19.5.7. Verification and Adjustment of Floodplain Analysis
Where the data exist, a floodplain analysis should be verified against high water marks from actual past floods and/or the
recorded rating curve at each stream gage in the study. Where no data exist, a sensitivity test should be performed to determine
how critical the n value estimate and other key input variables might be. The following changes should be considered to allow
the floodplain analysis to better match actual data:
1. Roughness coefficients. Change channel or floodplain roughness coefficients (within reasonable limits; if it is necessary to
set roughness coefficients to unreasonable values to match historical results, there must be unresolved problems with other
input data values, as listed below).
2. Cross section errors. Revise survey data to correct for errors.
3. Ineffective flow areas. Eliminate flow from ineffective areas.
4. Starting conditions. Use a different starting water surface elevation or conditions to better match observed conditions.
5. Cross sections. Insert additional cross sections to better reflect the true channel shape, or to eliminate excessive reach
lengths.
6. Bridge models. Correct the bridge models.
7. Special conditions. Modify the input data to reflect special conditions during the observed flood (such as debris at bridge,
levee or dam failures, diversions, and so on).
8. Revised conditions. Modify the input data to reflect changed conditions since the recording of the data (such as a new bridge,
channel clean-out, encroachment, land use changes, and the like).
9. Flow rates. Adjust the flow rates according to the results of a hydrologic analysis. Carefully consider how to apply available
rainfall gage data to different portions of the watershed. Use weather radar data, if available, to provide more detailed
information on rainfall distributions. (Weather radar data must generally be calibrated against actual rainfall gage readings to
provide adequate accuracy for a hydrologic analysis.)
10 Evaluate observed data. Consider the possibility that data supplied by local residents concerning actual flooding conditions
may be faulty.
19.6. FLOODWAY DETERMINATION

A floodway is a corridor of effective flow area. It usually consists of the stream channel and any adjacent floodplain areas
needed to convey a particular flood event within acceptable limits of water surface elevation and flow velocity. However, an
overland flow path with no defined channel may also be called a floodway. An example of a floodway with no defined channel
would be an overflow zone where flows spill over from one watershed to another during a flood event.
For a floodway to be effective, it must be relatively clear of obstructions that would interfere with flows during a flood event.
This may be accomplished in several ways. A public agency may obtain ownership of the floodway to preserve or enhance its
conveyance capacity, or the public agency may obtain an easement that allows the periodic inundation of the floodway as
needed. However, within the United States, the most common method of maintaining the conveyance capacity of floodways is
by land use restrictions enacted through local floodplain management regulations. These regulations are required for local
communities that desire to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
In the NFIP, a specific definition of the floodway is used for stream channel systems. This definition requires that the
conveyance capacity of the floodway be sufficient for the 100-year storm event. However, the NFIP regulations recognize that it
is neither practical nor desirable to preserve the entire 100-year floodplain as a floodway in all locations. Therefore, some
obstructions in the 100-year floodplain are allowable under NFIP regulations. These obstructions, called encroachments, might
include fill or structures associated with private development or public works projects such as roadways. Under NFIP
regulations, three limits on encroachments are imposed:
1. The cumulative effect of all encroachments must not result in an increase of more than 1.00 ft in the 100-year water surface
profile. It should be noted that local communities have the right to enact floodplain management regulations that are more
stringent than the minimum NFIP requirements.
2. Encroachments cannot extend into the channel.
3. Encroachments must be represented as an equal loss of conveyance on both sides of the stream channel. Figure 19.29
illustrates this concept.
The conveyance capacity is based on Manning’s equation described in Chap. 3. It may be represented as follows:
(19.8)
where K is the conveyance (more properly called “Manning’s conveyance”) in flow units, for SI units and 1.49 for
American units, n is the Manning roughness coefficient, A is the cross-sectional area, and R is the hydraulic radius of the cross
section (equal to the cross-sectional area of flow divided by the wetted perimeter of flow) in length units.
Figure 19.29 Illustration of floodway.
The Manning’s conveyance value includes every term from Manning’s equation that pertains to the characteristics of the cross
section. Only the slope of the energy grade line is omitted, because it depends on conditions downstream. Therefore, the
Manning’s conveyance values serve as a measure of the flow-carrying capacity of a particular cross section or segment of a
cross section, disregarding downstream or upstream conditions.
Various computer programs can be used to assist in determining a floodway, but the HEC-RAS and HEC-2 programs are the
most commonly used. The following steps are involved:
1. Natural conditions profile. Compute a water surface profile for conditions existing prior to encroachment.
2. Floodway profile. Compute another (higher) water surface profile representing the floodway, with encroachments.
Using the multiple-profile capability of HEC-RAS or HEC-2, both these profiles can be computed in the same run, and the
software will automatically provide a constant comparison of the two profiles.
Both HEC-RAS and HEC-2 provide several methods of specifying encroachments for floodway studies. The two most
commonly used are called Method 4 and Method 1.
Method 4 provides the most direct means for delineating a floodway. The user prepares program input that specifies a target
incremental increase in water surface elevation (normally 1 ft) at each cross section. This is often called the “target surcharge”
The computer program then inserts an artificial encroachment into the left and right floodplain portions of each cross section,
to remove enough total conveyance from each cross section to compensate for the increased channel conveyance provided by
the increased water surface elevation. The program will not encroach into the channel as defined by the left and right bank
stations.
Because the program considers only the cross section conveyance in its determination of the encroachment stations, a water
surface profile computed for the encroached floodway will not have elevations exactly equal to the desired value (natural
elevation plus specified incremental amount). Flow rate and velocity are often redistributed whenever a cross section is
modified. These changes, plus the backwater effects from downstream encroachments, can produce a result significantly
different than the specified incremental change in water surface elevation. Therefore, it is generally necessary to make several
trial runs using Method 4, making adjustments to the target surcharges with each run. At cross sections where the floodway
profile exceeds the natural conditions profile by more than the desired amount, the target surcharge must be reduced.
Conversely, where the program was not able to achieve the desired surcharge, the target should be increased for the next trial.
Because the results at a cross section can be affected by downstream results, it is important to make adjustments to the target
surcharge beginning from the downstream end of the stream system.
After the floodway profile meets the desired conditions as closely as possible, the floodway computations can be completed
with Method 1. In Method 1, the user simply specifies the stations for the encroachment limits on the left and right side of the
stream channel. Initially, these would be set to the values computed in the final Method 4 analysis, but might be adjusted to
make the floodway boundary more uniform.
The stations of encroachment should be plotted in plan view and also on cross section plots to further evaluate the results. The
encroachment stations must be between the channel bank station and the limit of the floodplain for each cross-section, without
exception. Plotting or mapping of the floodway is crucial at this stage because the floodway must be a “smooth” corridor with
fairly gradual transitions in its width and orientation, and no great undulations. The floodway is also subject to the 4:1
expansion and 1:1 contraction limitations. Additionally, since the floodway is defined as a zone of relatively high flow, this zone
should be able to sustain high flow and not be blocked with obstacles such as dense development.(Fig. 19.30).
The floodway surcharge should be close to but never greater than the maximum limit of 1.00 ft. Acceptable surcharges are
usually not less than 0.8 ft as long as the floodway boundary is “smooth” and reasonable. Negative surcharge values may be
caused by excessive encroachment, errors in the bridge modeling, or insufficient encroachment at the downstream section.
Floodway encroachments must not be located outside the base 100-year floodplain boundaries, or within the channel bank
stations. To ensure against these errors, the floodway stations should be checked against the floodplain stations and the
channel bank stations.
Figure 19.30 Floodway Method 4 and Method 1
Flow velocities should not greatly increase in the floodway run. In channels with high velocities it is possible to encroach the
floodway boundaries and force very high velocities. This, in turn, can lower the floodway profile below the base 100-year profile
by creating extremely high-velocity heads. This is not a valid floodway model and the encroachments should be widened to
remove the anomaly.
When flow is in the supercritical regime, or where velocity conditions are such that normal encroachment analyses are not
possible or are inappropriate, the allowable rise should be applied to the energy grade line instead of the water-surface
elevation.
When performing a flood insurance restudy, the existing floodway configuration should be retained wherever possible. The
floodway shown on the map, for most communities, has been adopted via ordinances and, thus, has gained regulatory status.
This regulatory floodway is intended to remain static. However, floodway revisions are justifiable and necessary if restudy data
indicate an increase in surcharge above the maximum limit, or if, as a result of improved data, the width or configuration of the
floodway necessitates a change from that shown on the effective map. Note that while topographic mapping may guide the
configuration of the floodway, it does not entirely dictate it and will not typically override the regulatory status of an adopted
floodway.
Floodway profiles must start with a known water surface elevation. Normally, this will be 1 ft above the base flood elevation at
the starting cross section. However, if the base 100-year water surface profile is contained within the banks of the channel at its
mouth, then the starting water surface elevation for the floodway will equal the base 100-year water surface elevation (because
no encroachment—and therefore no surcharge—is possible). Even if the base 100-year starting water surface elevation is out of
its banks at the mouth, the starting water surface elevation for the floodway will be the result of encroaching the base floodplain
to either the maximum allowable surcharge (usually 1 ft) or the banks of the channel, whichever occurs first.
The computation of a floodway on a tributary stream should be based on the 100-year flood discharge and elevation of that
stream only and normally should not include consideration of any backwater flooding from the main stream. Therefore, the
floodway elevations in the lower reach of a tributary subject to backwater flooding may be lower than those used to plot the
flood profiles.
19.7. CONCLUSION
This chapter has provided a fairly detailed overview of the practical considerations involved in identifying the floodplain for a
stream channel. The following steps have been included:
Identifying and obtaining sources of information already available
Planning field data collection operations
Identifying the computer program best suited to the analysis
Performing the analysis and assessing the results
Flooding worldwide is a serious problem. It causes more deaths and property damage worldwide than any other type of natural
disaster. Flooding causes twice as many deaths worldwide as tropical cyclones, and as many as earthquakes, drought, and
other disasters combined (McDonald and Kay, 1988).
In the United States alone, approximately 7 percent of the land area is within the 100year floodplain. However, the percentage of
urban area within the floodplain is much higher: about 16 percent. The total property value within the floodplain, already
hundreds of billions of dollars, is growing at a rate of about 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent per year (McDonald and Kay, 1988).
Flooding is not a temporary problem; it is a permanent feature of the environment that human society is learning to accept,
understand, and accommodate. The techniques described in this chapter should allow for a better understanding of the extent
and characteristics of flooding along stream channels. Through this improved understanding, better decisions concerning the
appropriate use of floodplain property should be possible.
19.8. REFERENCES
1. Arcement, G. J. Jr., and V. R. Schneider, Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for Natural Channels and
Flood Plains, Report No. FHWA-TS-84-204, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
AdministrationWashington, DC.
2. Barnes, H. H., Jr., “Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels,” Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1849, U.S.
Department of the Interior, USGS, Washington, DC, 1967.
3. Beasley, J. G., “An Investigation of the Data Requirements of Ohio for the HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles Model,” master's
thesis, Ohio State University, 1973.Columbus OH.
4. Brown, S. A., S. M. Stein, and J. C. Warner, Urban Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, Federal
Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1996.
5. Chow, V. T., Open Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1959.
6. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FESWMS-2DH Finite Element Surface-Water Modeling System: Two-Dimensional
Flow in a Horizontal Plane Users Manual, Publication No. FHWA-RD-88-177, 1989.Washington, DC
7. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Guidelines And Specifications for Study Contractors, 1995.Washington,
DC
8. Federal Highway Administration, Urban Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington, DC, 1996.
9. Fread, D. L., DAMBRK: The NWS Dam-Break Flood Forecasting Model, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology,
Silver Spring, MD, 1982.
10. Fread, D. L., and J. M. Lewis, “FLDWAV: A Generalized Flood Routing Model,” Proceedings of National Conference on
Hydraulic Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, 1988.
11. Fread, D. L., and J. M. Lewis, “Parameter Optimization for Dynamic Flood Routing Applications with Minimal Cross-
Sectional Data,” Proceedings: ASCE Water Forum '86, World Water Issues in Evolution, Long Beach, CA, 1986, pp. 443–
450.
12. Fread, D. L., and J. M. Lewis, “FLDWAV: A Generalized Flood Routing Model,” Proceedings of National Conference on
Hydraulic Engineering, Colorado Springs, CO, 1988.
13. Fread, D. L., “NWS FLDWAV Model: The Replacement of DAMBRK for Dam-Break Flood Prediction,” Proceedings: 10th
Annual Conference of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Inc., Kansas City, Mo, 1993, pp. 177–184.
14. Huber, W. C., and R. E. Dickinson, Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: User's Manual, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, 1988.
15. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Accuracy of Computed Water Surface Profiles, Research Document 26, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center, Davis, CA, 1986.
16. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles Users Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water
Resources Support Center, Davis, CA, 1990a.
17. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), UNET: One-Dimensional Unsteady Flow Through a Full Network of Open Channels,
Users Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center, Davis, CA, 1990b.
18. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), HEC-RAS River System Analysis System,User’s Manual, Version 2.2, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center, Davis, CA, 1998a, 1998b, and 1998c
19. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 2.0, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Support Center, Davis, CA, 1997b.
20. Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), HEC-RAS River Analysis System, Applications Guide, Version 2.0, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Water Resources Support Center, Davis, CA, 1997c.
21. McDonald, A. T., and D. Kay, Water Resources Issues & Strategies, Longman Scientific & Technical, Essex, UK, 1988.
22. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), “Computer Program for Water Surface Profiles.” Part 630, inNational
Engineering Handbook, 1993.Washington, DC.
23. Reed, J. R. and A. J. Wolfkill1976, “Evaluation of Friction Slope Models”, River ‘76 Symposium on Inland Waterways for
Navigation Flood Control and Water Diversions, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
24. Roesner, L. A., et al., Storm Water Management Model User's Manual Version 4: EXTRAN Addendum, EPA/600/3-88/001b,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Protection Agency, Athens, GA, 1988.
25. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Surface PROfiles, WSPRO, User's Manual, Reston, VA, 1990.
26. Waterways Experiment Station (WES) Hydraulics Laboratory, Users Guide to RMA2 WES Version 4.3, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Vicksburg, MS, 1997.
[*] Land subsidence is the sinking or settling of land to a lower level in response to various factors, both natural and of human orign, such
as earth movements, lowering of fluid pressure (or lowering of ground water level), removal of underlying supporting materials by
mining or solution of solids, either artificially or from natural causes, compaction caused by wetting, oxidation of organic matter in
soils, or added load on the land surface.
[*] The thalweg is the line following the lowest part of a valley, whether under water or not. Usually this is the line following the deepest
part of the bed or channel of a river.
[*] Closures within ± 0.05 ft × square root of distance in miles.
[*] A reach is a length of a channel that is fairly uniform with respect to discharge, depth, area, and slope; more generally, any length of a
river or drainage course.
[*] Backwater is an unnaturally high stage in stream caused by obstruction or confirnement of flow, as by a dam, a bridge, or a levee. Its
measure is the excess of unnatural over natural stage, not the difference in stage upstream and downstream from its cause.
[*] The mean high tide is also called the mean high water (MHW). It is the average height of the maximum elevation reached by each rising
tide over a specific 19-year period. MHW is the reference base for structure heights, bridge clearances, and so on.
[*] Head represents an available force equivalent to a certain depth of water. This is the motivating force in effecting the movement of
water. It is the height of water above any datum.
[†] A major stream is one with a top width of more than 100 ft at flood stage. The n value is less for major streams than for minor streams
of similar description because banks offer less effective resistance.
[*] Drawdown occurs at changes from mild to steep channel slopes and weirs or vertical spillways.

19 Floodplain-Hydraulics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

19 Floodplain-Hydraulics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19.

Dodson & Associates, Inc.

Sources of information for the floodplain analysis;

Planning data collection operations to obtain required information;

Selecting the analytical approach for a particular floodplain situation;

Performing the analysis and assessing the results.

19.1. LOCATING EXISTING DATA SOURCES FOR

Table 19.1 Federal Government Data Sources

Surveyed cross section data

Data on channel structures such as bridges and culverts

Survey benchmarks used in previous field survey work

Computed or measured flow rates

Accounts of previous flooding, including high-water marks

19.1.1. Sources of Topographic Data

Figure 19.2 Example of USGS DOQ file.

Figure 19.5 Example of USGS National Aerial Photography Project photograph.

19.1.2. Aerial Photography

19.1.3. Highway or Street Maps

19.1.4. Construction Drawings

19.1.5. Stream Gage Data

Figure 19.7 Channel rating curve.

19.1.6. Personal Observations

19.2. OBTAINING FIELD SURVEY DATA FOR FLOODPLAIN

19.2.1. Vertical and Horizontal Control for Field Surveys

19.2.2. Cross Section Locations

Figure 19.8 Example of profile plot.

Changes in slope. Cross-sections are needed at distinct changes in bed slope.

19.2.3. Cross Section Alignment and Orientation

Figure 19.11 Minimum survey points for channel only.

19.2.4. Use of Aerial Topography and Contour Map Data

19.2.5. Road Crossing Data

Figure 19.13 Cross section locations at a bridge or culvert.

19.2.6. Using Repeated Cross Sections for Roadway Crossings

19.2.7. Obtaining Bridge Survey Data

Other important bridge data include the following:

Bridge dimensions: the length and width of the bridge.

19.2.8. Culvert Data

19.2.9. Channel Structures

19.3. SELECTING THE BEST APPROACH FOR A FLOODPLAIN

One-dimensional steady, gradually varied flow conditions;

Two-dimensional, steady, gradually varied flow conditions;

One-dimensional unsteady flow conditions.

19.3.1. One-Dimensional and Two-Dimensional Flows

19.3.2. Changes in Flow Depth With Respect to Time and Distance

19.3.4. Types of Stream Systems

Figure 19.19 Example of dendritic channel system.

19.3.5. Computer Programs Widely Used in Floodplain Analysis

Figure 19.20 Example of network channel system.

19.3.6. Two-Dimensional Water-Surface Computer Models

19.3.7. One-Dimensional Unsteady-Flow Models

19.3.8. Selecting a Computer Program for a Floodplain Analysis

19.4. PERFORMING A FLOODPLAIN STUDY

19.4.1. Computing Water Surface Profiles

19.4.2. Starting Conditions for Water Surface Computations

19.4.3. Starting Conditions for Tributary Stream Analysis

Figure 19.21 Example of inadequate distance from starting conditions.

19.4.4. Standard Step Computations

19.4.5. Roughness Coefficients

19.4.6. Representative Friction Slope For a Channel Reach

Type of Channel and Description Minimum Normal Maximum

Source: From Chow (1959).

Short grass 0.025 0.030 0.035

High grass 0.030 0.035 0.050