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

net/publication/303324677

Flood modeling and simulations using hydrodynamic model and ASTER DEM
—A case study of Kalpani River

Article  in  Arabian Journal of Geosciences · May 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s12517-016-2457-z

CITATIONS READS

20 1,845

5 authors, including:

Sana Ullah Muhammad Farooq

Peking University SUPARCO - The National Space Agency of Pakistan
15 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   86 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Muhammad Javed Tareen

Balochistan Agriculture Research Institute
14 PUBLICATIONS   249 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

The effect of weather and social factors on COVID-19 View project

Flood Hazard Assessment using 2D Flood Model View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sana Ullah on 16 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439
DOI 10.1007/s12517-016-2457-z
ORIGINAL PAPER
Flood modeling and simulations using hydrodynamic model
and ASTER DEM—A case study of Kalpani River
Sana Ullah 1 & Muhammad Farooq 2 & Tahir Sarwar 3 & Mohammad Javed Tareen 1 &
Mirza Abdul Wahid 1
Received: 7 September 2015 / Accepted: 30 March 2016
# Saudi Society for Geosciences 2016
Abstract The study was conducted to model a 30-km section
of the Kalpani River for flood inundation forecasting with the
help of remote sensing, geographical information system (GIS),
HEC-RAS (1D), and HEC-Geo RAS. 3D coordinates were
extracted from ASTER 30 m digital elevation model (DEM).
Model was simulated and calibrated for flood 2010 event of
1901 m3 s−1 (upstream) and 3361 m3 s−1 (downstream) on two
parameters, i.e., contraction and expansion coefficients and
Manning’s “n” values derived from the landuse map of the
study area with the known water surface boundary condition.
The average difference between known and computed water
surface for model’s pre-calibration was 0.64 m, which was re-
duced in calibration up to 0.11 m. Calibrated model was then
validated for flood 2006 event with known discharges, i.e.,
1951 m3 s−1 (upstream) and 2285 m3 s−1 (downstream) with
an average difference of 0.10 m between known and computed
water surface. Calibrated model was further simulated with
critical depth boundary conditions instead of known water sur-
face boundary condition, which confirmed the earlier results of
the same study. The model results revealed that the Kalpani
River, passing through a flat topography of Mardan, with an
average slope of 0.000786 m m−1 had a strong positive corre-
lation coefficient of R2 0.999 and 0.996 between the known and
computed water surfaces for calibration and validation, respec-
tively. Finally, the model was simulated for 5-, 10-, 20-, 50- and
* Sana Ullah
sana_ullah3334@yahoo.com
1
Agriculture Research Institute, Saryab Road, Quetta, Pakistan
2
Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission
(SUPARCO), Peshawar, Pakistan
3
Department of Water Management, The University of Agriculture,
Peshawar , 25130, Pakistan
100-year return periods with critical depth boundary condition.
The risk maps of the study could not be produced owing to the
coarser resolution of the DEM followed by area flatness, and
river width flood inundation risk factors. It is therefore, sug-
gested that the HEC-RAS model can be used for flood risk
management and as decision support tool in the Kalpani
River catchment.
Keywords ASTER . HEC-RAS . HEC-GeoRAS . RD .
DEM . Cross section
Introduction
Flood modeling is practically a new practice; attempts to un-
derstand and deal with the mechanism at work in floodplains
have been made for at least six millennia (Dyhouse et al.
2003). The new developments in computational flood model-
ing have made the engineers able to step away from the tried
and tested approach and its inclination to promote overly
engineered structures and to redesign them properly using
river hydraulics models (Mehta et al. 2014). For a better man-
agement of the hydraulic system, the knowledge of flow dy-
namic is required (Traore et al. 2015).
With the advent of modern technology, the use of sophis-
ticated softwares in flood modeling helps in getting an idea of
extent of flood at its submergence (Kute et al. 2014). Flood
effects determined by computer model generally require four
things, i.e., hydrologic model, which develops rainfall-runoff
from designed storm or historical storm event; the hydraulic
model, which routes the runoff through stream channels to
determine water surface profile at specific locations along
the stream network; a tool for floodplain mapping and visual-
ization; and the extraction of geospatial data for use in models
(Snead and Baldwin 2000). Spatially explicit hydrodynamic
439 Page 2 of 11
flood models can take part in risk reduction of natural hazards
(Zerger and Wealands 2004). Farooq (2007) tested hydrody-
namic model for flood inundation forecasting with the use of
Manning roughness coefficient and channel contraction and
expansion coefficient with high resolution dataset to deter-
mine the inundation extent.
The integration of geographical information system (GIS)
and hydrodynamic model is a well-organized way to get flood
inundation for emergency planning and degree of risk concern
to local community (Yang et al. 2002). The advancement in
GIS technology and improved graphical computer interface
for the output of flood inundation through computer models
provides easy access to stakeholder community, and therefore,
predictions made for flood risk management from such
models can be regularly used as a tool for communication
between the engineers and stakeholders (Pender and Neelz
2007), and these computer-based flood models which are user
friendly can also provide an easy mean of understanding, vi-
sualization, and building query, conducting repetitive and
multiple analytical tasks through graphic user interface for
the model output in the GIS environment as an effective tool
for flood risk analysis and flood mapping (Sinnakaudan and
Abu Bakar 2005; Farooq 2007; Khattak et al. 2015). Patro
et al. (2009) successfully performed flood inundation simula-
tion by coupling of 1D and 2D Mike Flood hydrodynamic
model during the year of 2001, and thus, its inundation extent
simulated by the model was compared with the actual inun-
dation area extracted from IRS-ID WIFS imagery. Mike 11
GIS is specifically tailored for presenting and analyzing model
output which provides a unique tool for flood mapping and
flood impact assessment (Corria et al. 1998). A key aspect of
these flood models is the ability to provide time series inun-
dation about the beginning, interval, and passing of a hazard
event which makes them appropriate for risk reduction man-
agement (Zerger and Wealand 2004).
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439
fertile lands (Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2005). The
floods in 1973, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1997, 2005, 2006, 2008,
2009, and 2010 caused severe damages to human lives, hous-
es, livestock, infrastructure, and communication.
HEC-RAS model
HEC-RAS model is a one-dimensional hydraulic model which
measures the water surface along the stream channel. The sys-
tem consist of a graphical user interface (GUI) with separate
components for hydraulic analysis along with data management,
storage capabilities, and graphical and reporting facilities. The
HEC-RAS system provides four different analysis facilities, i.e.,
steady and unsteady flow computations, movable boundary with
sediment transport computation, and water quality analysis. A
common feature between all four types of analysis is the use of
geometric inputs and hydraulic computation routines.
HEC-RAS calculates water surface for each cross section.
Water depth is calculated between cross sections by interpo-
lating the water surface at upstream and downstream cross
sections by using energy Eq. 1 with an iterative process called
standard step method (Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC),
2010a).
α2 V 22 α1 V 21
Z2 þ Y 2 þ ¼ Z1 þ Y 1 þ þ he ð1Þ
2g 2g
where Z1 and Z2 are the elevations of the main channel inverts,
Y1 and Y2 are the depths of water at each cross section, V1 and
V2 are the average velocities (total discharge/total flow area),
a1 and a2 are the velocity weight coefficients, g is the gravi-
tational acceleration, and he is the energy head loss between
the two cross sections. The energy head loss between the two
cross sections is calculated from Eq. 2 ((Hydraulic
Engineering Center (HEC), 2010a).
 
 α2 V 22 α1 V 21 
he ¼ LS f þ C  −  ð2Þ
Material and methods
Study area
Kalpani River is a major river with a catchment area of
about 2813 km2 that passes through the district Mardan,
and it was modeled using HEC-RAS 1D Model. The
Kalpani River is 70 km long out of which 30 km was
selected for the present study and it flows from North to
South. Floods in the Kalpani River occur more often and
cause substantial losses to the lives and properties of the
dwellers of the area. Precipitation in the catchment area ranges
from 350 mm in the North West of Mardan District to 750 mm
in Malakand Agency, and it generates high surface runoff,
thereby causing the ravaging of Mardan City along with its
suburbs resulting in the inundation of thousands of acres of
2g 2g 
Energy equation is valid for gradually varied flow condi-
tions when the water surface passes through the critical depth.
Then, this equation cannot be used for computation. Flow
regime changes due to changes in channel slope, bridges, drop
structures, and stream junctions. The transformation from sub-
critical to supercritical or supercritical to subcritical is a con-
dition of rapidly varied flow condition. So, in that scenario,
the momentum Eq. 3 is used instead of energy equation
(Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC), 2010b).
P2 −P1 þ W x −F f ¼ QρΔV x ð3Þ
where P is the hydrologic pressure force at locations 1 and 2,
Wx is the force due to weight of water in the x direction, Ff is
the force due to external friction loss from 1 and 2, Q is the
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439
discharge, ρ is the density of water, and ΔVx is the change in
the velocity from 1 and 2 in the x direction.
HEC-RAS model is one dimensional in nature, and it
calculates the friction losses using Eq. 4 and considering
the channel contraction and expansion coefficients all by
default. It also calculates the single mean energy level
and the single water surface at each cross section by
weighing the flow at the three subsection divisions,
i.e., from the left overbank, main channel, and right over
bank. Thus, the channel contraction and expansion coef-
ficient values were changed according to the geometry of
the cross sections (Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC),
2010a).
Page 3 of 11 439
and thermal infrared spectral bands. Stereo image data are
recorded only in band 3, which is the near-infrared wave-
length region from 0.78 to 0.86 μm, using both nadir and after
looking telescopes. From the nominal Terra altitude of
705 km, the “push broom” linear array sensor covers a 60-
km-wide ground track at a 15-m spatial resolution. A major
advantage of the along-track mode of data acquisition (as
compared to cross track) is that the images forming the
stereopairs are acquired a few seconds (rather than days) apart
under uniform environmental and lighting conditions,
resulting in stereo pairs of consistent quality that are well
suited for digital elevation model (DEM) generation by auto-
mated stereo correlation techniques (Colvocoresses 1982;
  Fujisada 1994). The ASTER DEM is a product that is gener-
 α1 V 21 α2 V 22 
hec ¼ C  −  ð4Þ ated from a pair of ASTER Level 1A images. This level 1A
2g 2g  input includes bands 3N (nadir) and 3B (aft-viewing) from the
where C is the contraction or expansion coefficient in the
channel. The HEC-RAS model assumes that a contrac-
tion is occurring whenever the velocity head downstream
is greater than the velocity head upstream. Similarly,
when the velocity head upstream is greater than the ve-
locity downstream, the HEC-RAS model assumes that a
flow expansion is occurring.
HEC-GeoRAS
HEC-GeoRAS is an extension for HEC-RAS, which comprised
of a set of procedures, tools, and utilities for geospatial data
processing in ArcGIS through a graphical user interface
(GUI). The interface allows the user to import the initially pre-
pared geometric data from ArcGIS into HEC-RAS and exports
back HEC-RAS simulated results into ArcGIS. The created file
can be imported with the help of a digital elevation model
(DEM) in TIN or grid format of the river system in the Arc-
Info. User can create a series of line themes relevant to the
development of geometric data for HEC-RAS, which includes
stream centerline (necessary), flow path centerlines (optional),
main channel bank line (optional), and a cross-section cutline,
which is referred to as RAS themes. Additional RAS themes
might also be created for additional geometric data to import
into HEC-RAS. These themes consist of landuse, levee align-
ment, ineffective flow areas, and storage areas. HEC-GeoRAS
involves the processing of water surface profile data and velocity
data, which are exported back from HEC-RAS simulations for
floodplain mapping, flood damage computations, ecosystem
restoration, and flood warning response and preparedness in
ArcGIS (Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC), 2010b).
ASTER DEM
The ASTER sensor is designed to provide image data in 14
bands from visible, near-infrared, short-wavelength infrared,
visible and near-infrared telescope’s along-track stereo data
that is acquired in the spectral range of 0.78 to 0.86 μm having
a vertical accuracy of 7 m and spatial resolution of 30 m. It
was also available in public domain, but in our case, it was
provided by Pakistan Space and Upper Atmosphere and
Research Commission (SUPARCO).
Modeling of the Kalpani River
HEC-RAS analyzes the stream flow as a series of cross sec-
tions along the channel and simulates a steady flow perpen-
dicular to the channel. However, it works very well for those
channels, where water remains inside the channel or remains
parallel to the channel. HEC-RAS requires two types of data,
i.e., geometric data and hydrological data for river modeling.
Data preparation for HEC-RAS was initially prepared in
ArcGIS which was then edited in the HEC-RAS for further
computation. Geometric data is the most important and nec-
essary input data to the HEC-RAS model as it provides spatial
information of the river and its floodplain. One of the most
important components of the geometric data is the floodplain
30 m ASTER DEM, which was used for 3D coordinates’
extraction for layers such as cross sections, river centerline,
and bridge cross sections in HEC-GeoRAS environment, an
extension of HEC-RAS for ArcGIS. Then data was exported
to HEC-RAS for simulation. HEC-RAS reads the RAS GIS
import file in “sdf” and “xml” format, which contains all the
prepared data in ArcGIS through HEC-GeoRAS. The export
file from HEC-GeoRAS to HEC-RAS was not completely
imported especially channel boundary condition, bridge/weir
geometry. Those were edited through actual paper-based cross
sections in HEC-RAS model. Geometric data prepared for the
model includes river centerline; bank line, x section cutline,
and bridge cutlines were entered in all cross sections. Figure 1
shows the methodology for model pre-processing data in
HEC-GeoRAS.
439 Page 4 of 11
Fig. 1 Methodology of geometric data processing in HEC-GeoRAS
River centerline and bank line
River centerline and bank line provide the shape of the river
which was digitized from SPOT 2.5 m pan-sharpened satellite
imagery while ASTER 30 m DEM was used for the extraction
of river 3D coordinates in grid format. River centerline and
bank line were used for river station allocations which are im-
portant for cross-section location.
Cross sections
Cross sections are the main components of the geometric
data for 1D flood model which characterizes the flood-
plain. Surveyed cross sections from RD 3000 to RD
107500 with 152 m step in a hard copy format acquired
from the Provincial Irrigation Department of Khyber
PakhtunKhwa were used in the case study, and besides
that, there are six bridges located on the Kalpani River.
Bridge structure causes contraction and expansion of the
river which directly affects the flood water behavior, i.e.,
from gradually varied flow to rapidly varied flow (which
is a supercritical condition). Digitizing and updating of
those cross sections at the right location into the model
was a hectic job. Those cross sections were not geo ref-
erenced; only river stations were known from the longitu-
dinal cross sections. 2D cross-section cutlines were drawn
in ArcMap from left to right bank while looking down-
stream using the longitudinal cross-section data for accu-
rate location of cross sections. ASTER DEM, 30 m grid
(Fig. 2), was used for the extraction of 3D coordinates
from 2D cross-section cutlines at river stations. The
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439
digitized cross sections were then exported to HEC-
RAS, where the same were edited using paper-based cross
sections for correct stations. By default, HEC-RAS inun-
dates all low-lying areas, even though there is no
overbank flow and this problem was solved by consider-
ing cross sections’ left and right banks as a levee.
Model calibration
Model calibration is a process of matching the computed water
surface with known water surface at each cross section for the
entire study area. Model was calibrated for flood 2010 event of
1901 m3 s−1 (stage of 9.45 m) and 3361 m3 s−1 (stage of 9.45 m)
for two different locations of a single reach because there is a
change in flow where the Muqam River joins Kalpani River at
downstream of Mardan City by Manning’s “n” with Known
Water Surface Boundary condition as known water surface for
all cross sections for the year 2010 event was available on
paper-based cross sections. The Federal Emergency
Management Authority (FEMA) standards were followed for
the model calibration. The model was initially run for
Manning’s “n” of 0.025, and the model was calibrated on the
fifth run with Manning’s “n” value of 0.06. Manning’s “n”
values used in various runs for different cross sections are
shown in Table 1.
Although the Kalpani River passes through the city center
of Mardan, but most of the floodplains are surrounded by
agricultural lands. Manning’s “n” values for the left and right
banks were selected according to land use.
The calibrated model was also simulated for the same flood
event at both locations with critical depth boundary condition
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439 Page 5 of 11 439

Fig. 2 Longitudinal profile of geometric data extraction

in order to check the model’s behavior and its impacts on the surface depth computation through critical depth boundary
results. The HEC-RAS model employed Eq. 5 for water condition (Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC), 2010b).

Table 1 Model calibration with Manning’s “n” values

Manning’s n

0.025 0.030 0.035 0.039 0.060

1st run RD 19000–28000 RD 43000–45000 ———– ———– ———– ———–

2nd run ———– RD 7000–18500 ———– ———– ———–
RD 29000–42500
RD 46000–47500
RD 50500–54000
RD 59500–69000
RD 74500–90000
RD 94500–107500
3rd run ———– ———– RD 48500–50000 ———– ———–
RD 90500–94000
4th run ———– ———– ———– RD 54500–59000 ———–
5th run ———– ———– ———– ———– RD 3000–6500
 439 Page 6 of 11 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439

Fig. 3 Bed profile of the Kalpani River

311 311
306 306
301 301
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)

296 296

291 291

286 286

281 281

276 276
00

00
00

00

50

00

50

00

50

00

50

00

50

00
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

30

75
30

20

12

22

31

41

50

60

69

79

88

98
12

21

30

39

48

57

66

75

84

93

10
10

RDs RDs
Channel bed Known water surface
Channel bed Known water surface Computed water surface Computed water surface FEMA estimated surface

(a) Known and computed water surfaces from (b) Known and computed water surfaces from
model pre-calibration calibrated model

311

306
301
Elevation (m)

296

291

286
281

276
00

00

00

00

0
00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00
30

0
12

21

30

39

48

57

66

75

84

93

2
10

RDs
Channel bed Known water surface Critical depth boundary

(c) Water surface profiles of known water surface and critical depth boundary
Fig. 4 a Known and computed water surfaces from model pre-calibration. b Known and computed water surfaces from calibrated model. c Water
surface profiles of known water surface and critical depth boundary
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439 Page 7 of 11 439

315.00
315
y = 1.0051x - 1.6379
y = 1.0001x - 0.1497 310.00
310 2
2
R = 0.9996

Critical depth boundary (m)

Observed water surface (m)

R = 0.9998
305 305.00

300 300.00

295 295.00

290 290.00

285 285.00

280 280.00
280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315 280 285 290 295 300 305 310 315
Known water surface (m) Known water surface(m)

(a) Relationship between known and computed (b) Relationship between known water surface
water surfaces and critical depth boundary
Fig. 5 a Relationship between the known and computed water surfaces. b Relationship between the known water surface and critical depth boundary

αV 2 passing through the study area. Vertical bars in the plot

H ¼ WS þ ð5Þ show the bridge location on the river. The average slope
2g
of the river was 0.000786 m m−1 which signifies the flat
Critical depth boundary condition does not require known topography of the said river. HEC-RAS model works
water surface height, as it calculates water surface height using very well for low slope gradient (May et al. 2000). At
total energy head equation, where H is the total energy head, RD 19000–50000, the river passes through the Mardan
WS is water surface elevation, and αV
2
2g is the velocity head at
City. Average slope in that particular section of the river
each cross section. was 0.000772 m m−1 which was found comparatively
lower as compared to overall average slope.
If the channel slope is about 0.002 m m−1 (0.2 %) or
more, there should be an addition of extra cross sections.
Result and discussion However, if the slope is gentle between the cross sections
having the similar shape of distance, i.e., less than 300 m
Modeling of the Kalpani River apart, then additional cross sections are not needed
(Dyhouse et al. 2003). The observed slope of the river
The river from its source moves from a high slope gra- was in a permissible limit, and thus, it was found good
dient and reduces as it passes through the study area. for flood simulations in having good results with
Figure 3 shows the bed profiles of the Kalpani River HEC-RAS.
311 315.00
y = 0.9945x + 1.544
306 310.00 2
R = 0.9996
Observed water surface (m)

301
Elevation (m)

305.00
296
300.00
291
295.00
286

281 290.00

276 285.00
00

00
50

00

50

00

50

00

50

00

50

00
30

75

280.00
12

22

31

41

50

60

69

79

88

98

10

RDs 280.00 285.00 290.00 295.00 300.00 305.00 310.00 315.00

Known water surface (m)
Channel bed Known water surface
Computed water surface FEMA estimated surface

(a) Relationship between known and computed (b) Known and computed water surfaces for
water surface validated output
Fig. 6 a Relationship between the known and computed water surfaces. b Known and computed water surfaces for validated output
439 Page 8 of 11 Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439

Kalpani Nullah Mardan section

315
Legend

WS Q100 years

Crit Q100 years

310
WS Q50 years

Crit Q50 years

WS Q20 years
305
Crit Q20 years

WS Q10 years

300 Crit Q10 years

WS Q5 years
Elevation (m)

Crit Q5 years

295 Ground

290

285

280

275
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Main Channel Distance (m)

(a) Water surface profiles of 100-years return periods

(b) 100-years flood water surface at Bughdada Bridge

Fig. 7 a Water surface profiles of 100 years return periods. b 100-years flood water surface at Bughdada Bridge

Model calibration
Pre-calibrated model did not give the satisfactory result in the
first run by assigning Manning “n” value of 0.025 for all cross
sections. However, by slightly varying the Manning’s “n”
values, the model was calibrated in the fifth run which brought
some good results in bringing the simulated water surface to
the known water surface according to the FEMA standards,
i.e., 0.2 m or 20 cm (FEMA 2007). The average known water
surface for the year 2010 flood was 302.07 m from mean sea
level (MSL) while average computed water surface for pre-
calibration simulation was 301.42 m with an average
difference of 0.64 m between the known and computed water
surfaces as shown in Fig. 4a. For this purpose, different
Manning’s “n” values were used for proper calibration
of the model.
The average computed water surface of 301.95 m was ob-
served at the average difference of 0.11 m from the calibrated
model data as shown in Fig. 4b. Therefore, the calibrated
model results showed that the difference between the known
and computed water surfaces was in acceptable limits of
FEMA. But some cross-section results of RD 3000–4000,
53500–56500, 60000, and 98500–102000 showed slightly
higher limits than the acceptable range. However, the overall
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439 Page 9 of 11 439

10
model result showed a strong correlation, R2 = 0.999 (Fig. 5a),
8

Velocity (ms-1)
between the known to computed water surface, and it revealed
that the model was calibrated carefully. 6
The calibrated model results were also checked through 4
critical depth boundary condition. Figure 4c shows the rela- 2
tionship between the output of computed water surface from
0
critical depth boundary condition and known water surface.

11 0
0

27 0
0

43 0
0

59 0
0

75 0
0

91 0
0

10 0
00
0
00

00
00

00
00

00
00

00
00

00
00

00
30

70
Average water surface with critical depth boundary condition

19

35

51

67

83

for the year 2010 was 301.98 m with an average difference of
0.09 m between the known and computed water surfaces, and
it further showed that the results are in acceptable limits of the
FEMA standards. Model results were also plotted in order to
check the correlation between the known and computed water
surfaces (Fig. 5b) which also showed a strong correlation, i.e.,
R2 = 0.999. However, the “n” values were kept the same with
the critical depth boundary condition in model simulations.
Therefore, on the basis of these analyses, the model was final-
ly simulated for 5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year return period
peak flood with critical depth boundary condition.
Model validation
Model was validated for the flood 2006 event using the cali-
brated n values. Model result was slightly on the higher side
for some cross sections, but overall model result was found in
the acceptable limits of FEMA standards. The average known
water surface and computed water surface (Fig. 6a) for the
year 2006 flood was 302.22 and 301.12 m, respectively, while
the FEMA estimated water surface for the year 2006 flood
was 302.02 m. The average difference between the known
and computed water surfaces was 0.10 m, while the
FEMA-estimated difference between the known and com-
puted was 0.2 m. To analyze the gap between the known
and computed water surfaces, a correlation graph between
the data was plotted. However, Fig. 6b showed a correla-
tion of R2 = 0.996 between the known and computed
water surfaces and it was found in the acceptable limits,
as compared to the individual cross sections and it was
found good for model validation as well.
99
RDs
Velocity Average velocity
Fig. 8 Velocity profiles of a 100-year return period
19000–50000) was observed at 305.52, 305.95, 307.15,
308.01, and 308.82 m, respectively.
There are six bridges on the Kalpani River in the study
area. Water surface for historical floods was available on-
ly for the Bughdada and Chowki bridges. It was verified
through field observation that water surface height at the
Bughdada Bridge was 309.75 m from mean sea levels
(MSL) for the year 2006 peak flood having a discharge
of 1950 m3 s−1. Flood in 2006 was a 30-year return period
and submerged the bridge deck by 0.60 m, while gauge
height at this point was measured at 9.45 m; thus, the total
head was at 10.05 m for that flood. Moreover, this was
further compared with 5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year
return periods’ peak flood of 1104, 1558, 1925, 2406,
and 2835 m3 s−1 with water surface height of 307.91,
308.75, 309.36, 310.24 and 311.13 m, respectively, as
shown in Fig. 7b for 100-year peak water surface on the
Bughdada Bridge.
Flood in the year 2010 was a 50-year return period at
Chowki Bridge, and the water surface height was observed
at 284 m with a discharge rate of 3358 m3 s−1. The gauge
height at this point was recorded at 8.23 m with a total head
of 9.45 m. Flood water submerged the gauge about 1.2 m and
was lower about 1 m from the bridge’s lower deck, which was
verified from water marks on the piers of the Bridge. The
estimated water depth of the model at Chowki Bridge for 5-,
10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year return periods was recorded at 281,

306.00
Model simulation for return periods
301.00
Elevation (m)

The model was simulated for five return periods with critical 296.00
depth boundary condition. Therefore, five water surfaces were 291.00
calculated using the model for each cross section for all return 286.00
periods. Figure 7a shows the water surface profile for all re-
281.00
turn periods. Red marks near the bridges in the plots showed a
276.00
critical depth due to water surface contraction and expansion
00
00

22 0
0

42 0
0

55 0
0

81 0
0

94 0
10 0
10 00
00
00
50

00

50
00

50
00

50

00

50
00

50
00
30
95

05
70

near the bridges. The average estimated water surface for 5-,
16

29

35

48

61

68

74

87

10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year return periods was observed at RDs
Cross sections surface DEM surface
300.27, 300.89, 301.72, 302.40, and 302.89 m, respectively,
whereas the average water surface in Mardan City (RD Fig. 9 Cross section vs. DEM surface
439 Page 10 of 11
281.08, 283.20, 284.02, and 284.33 m for the discharge of
1420, 2130, 2635, 3400, and 3940 m3 s−1, respectively.
Velocity profile of different return periods
HEC-RAS model being one dimensional in nature calculates
the velocity along the channel for each cross section. As the
river moves with gentle slope in the study area, the velocity
also decreases. The average velocity observed for 5-, 10-, 20-,
50-, and 100-year return periods was 1.51, 1.59, 1.64, 1.72,
and 1.78 ms−1, respectively, for the entire channel. Since the
Kalpani River passes through the downtown of Mardan City
which is a populated area in the district, so it was necessary to
observe the velocity in that portion of the river. Mardan City
lies between RD 19000 to 50000. The average velocities in
that reach for 5-, 10-, 20-, 50-, and 100-year return periods
was 1.51, 1.54, 1.59, 1.63, and 1.65 ms−1, respectively.
Figure 8 shows the velocities for 100-year return period.
Model output
The output of HEC-RAS model was exported for post-
processing in ArcGIS 9.3, where analysis had to be performed
with the help of HEC-GeoRAS. Two types of maps can be
generated, i.e., depths and velocity. Inundation maps can be
created by extracting water surface grid from HEC-RAS out-
put and DEM (grid), whereas risk maps can be created, if the
building heights are added to DEM. However, flood inunda-
tion map could not be prepared in the ArcGIS environment,
because HEC-GeoRAS failed to extract the grid from ASTER
30 m DEM. An error message appeared at the floodplain
extraction during raster grid conversion to vector.
The reason for that error was due to the flatness of the
geographical extent of the study area in ASTER 30 m DEM.
The floodplain error was further verified by constructing the
graphical relationship (Fig. 9) between DEM surface extent
(TIN) and paper-based cross sections for each river station.
The paper-based cross sections remained to continue in a more
or less liner pattern with the gradual slope from upstream to
downstream, while DEM surface showed abrupt changes
along the channel length and on many point dimensions of
paper-based cross sections beyond the DEM surface which
was the real cause of the error. However, water inundation
extent map was developed for 100-year return period’s water
surface at each cross section with the help of contours in
ArcGIS.
Conclusions
The Kalpani River was successfully modeled using HEC-
RAS due to low slope gradient of the channel. The observed
slope of the river was good enough for flood simulations. The
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439
model was calibrated using Manning’s “n” and calibration
results were within the acceptable limits of the FEMA stan-
dards (±0.20 m). The model was validated for the year 2006
peak flood using the calibrated n values. Model result was
slightly on the higher side for some cross sections, but the
overall model result was within the acceptable limits of
FEMA standards. The model was simulated for a 100-year
return period with critical depth boundary condition. The av-
erage estimated water surface for the 100-year return period
was observed at 302.89 m, while the average water surface in
Mardan City (RD 19000–50000) was observed at 308.82 m.
Flood inundation map could not be prepared, because the
HEC-GeoRAS failed to extract water surface grid from
ASTER 30 m DEM. However, flood water inundation extent
map was developed for water surface at each cross section
with the help of contours in ArcGIS, which can be used as a
decision support tool for flood risk reduction for a certain
return period, i.e., 100-year return period.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge
SUPARCO, the National Space Agency, for providing SPOT satellite
imagery, technical support, and guidance during the study as well as
giving an opportunity for utilizing the SUPARCO lab for data analysis.
Thanks are also extended to the US Corps of Engineering for free avail-
ability of HEC-RAS and HEC-GeoRAS Software on the Internet.
References
Colvocoresses AP (1982) An automated mapping satellite system
(Mapsat). Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing.
48(10):1585–1591
Correia NF, Castro F, Da Graca M, Ramos I (1998) Coupling GIS with
hydrologic and hydraulic flood modeling. Water Resources
Management. 12(3):229–249
Dyhouse, G., J. Hatchett. and J. Benn. 2003. Floodplain modeling using
HEC-RAS. Haestad Press, First Edition, Waterbury (USA). http://
www.haestad.com/library/books/fmras/floodplainonlinebook/
javascript/wwhelp/wwhimpl/java/html/wwhelp.htm (Accessed Mar
4 2007)
Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). 2010a. Reference manual. HEC-
RAS Version 4.1. California, USA. http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/
software/hec-ras/documents/HEC-RAS_4.1_Reference_Manual.
pdf (Accessed on 13 June 2010)
Hydraulic Engineering Center (HEC). 2010b. User manual. HEC-
GeoRAS Version 4.3. California, USA. http://www.hec.usace.
army.mil/software/hec-ras/documents/HEC-GeoRAS_43_Users_
Manual.pdf (Accessed on June 13, 2010)
Farooq M (2007) Flood modeling and simulations using hydrodynamic
model and LIDAR DEM (a case study of River REM). Unpublished
M.Sc Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Stuttgart, Germany
FEMA (2007). Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and
Mapping. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USA.
Fujisada, H. 1994. Overview of ASTER instrument on EOS-AM1 plat-
form. Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 2268. The International Society for
Optical Engineering: 14–36.
Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
(2005) Ten year’s comprehensive flood protection plan Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa. Unpublished, Peshawar, Pakistan
Arab J Geosci (2016) 9:439
Khattak, M. S., F. Anwar., T. U. Saeed., M. Sharif., K. Sheraz. and A.
Ahmed. 2015. Floodplain mapping using HEC-RAS and ArcGIS: a
case study of Kabul River. Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13369-
015-1915-3 (Accessed on 29 November, 2015)
Kute S, Kakad S, Bhoye V, Walunj A (2014) Flood modeling of River
Godavari using HEC-RAS. Int J Res Eng Technol 03(09):81–87
May, D. R., A. Lopez. and L. Brown. 2000. Validation of the Hydraulic-
Open Channel Flow Model HEC-RAS with Observed Data http://
faculty.fortlewis.edu/may_d/dmay_homepage_support/Hecras%
20Paper.DOC (Accessed on 25 May 2010)
Mehta DJ, Ramani M, Joshi M (2014) Application of 1-D HEC-RAS
model in design of channels. Int J Innov Res Adv Eng (IJIRAE)
1(7):103–107
Patro S, Chatterjee C, Singh R, Raghuwanshi NS (2009) Flood inunda-
tion modeling using MIKE FLOOD and remote sensing data. J
Indian Soci Remote Sens 37(1):107–118
View publication stats
Page 11 of 11 439
Pender G, Neelz S (2007) Use of computer models of flood inundation to
facilitate communication in flood risk management. Environ
Hazards Risk Commun 7(2):106–111
Sinnakaudan, S. K. and S. H. Abu Bakar. 2005. Tight coupling of SFlood
and ArcView GIS 3.2 for flood risk analysis. Geo-information for
Disaster Management: 1413–1425.
Snead, Baldwin D (2000) Development and application of unsteady flood
models using geographic information systems. Departmental
Report, Master of Science in Engineering. the University of Texas
at Austin, USA.
Traore VB, Sambou S, Sambou H, Diaw AT (2015) Steady flow simula-
tion in Anambe River Basin using HEC-RAS. Int J Dev Res 5(07):
4968–4979
Yang X, Grnlund A, Tanzilli S (2002) Predicting flood inundation and
risk using geographic information system and hydrodynamic model.
Inform world 8(1):48–57
Zerger A, Wealands S (2004) Beyond modeling: linking models with GIS
for flood risk management. Nat Hazards 33(2):191–208