FLASH FLOODS: UNDERSTANDING THE RUNOFF GENERATION

PROCESSES AND THE USE OF SATELLITE-RAINFALL IN

HYDROLOGIC SIMULATIONS

EFTHYMIOS IOANNIS NIKOLOPOULOS

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, 2010

EW
Flash floods pose a threat to human lives and economies worldwide.

tremendous societal and economical impact of this natural hazard necessitates the

development of accurate warning systems that can help to mitigate the flash flood risk.
I The
EV
The inadequate understanding of the hydrologic processes leading to flash floods and the

lack of observations associated with flash flood inducing storms are the main reasons that

hamper the development of effective monitoring systems. The objectives of this thesis
PR

are to a) advance our understanding on the physical mechanisms and controls of runoff

generation during flash floods and b) investigate the use of space-based precipitation

observations as a way of improving our current monitoring strategies over remote and

complex environments. The study takes place over the alpine region of northeastern

Italy, an area that suffers from frequent flash floods. The backbone of this research is the

integration of detailed ground and remote sensing observations with a physics-based

distributed hydrologic model for simulating a series of major flash flood events. Results

show that runoff generation mechanisms during flash floods follow a similar pattern with

intense type of floods. An interesting and counterintuitive finding is that initial soil

moisture conditions can play an important role in flash flood evolution and magnitude for

i
the case of basins with high soil moisture capacity. It is shown that the error in rainfall

derived from remote sensing magnifies as it propagates through the nonlinear rainfall-to-

runoff transformation and exhibits a definite dependence on basin scale. Results also

suggest that the rainfall-to-runoff error magnification is greater for drier soil moisture

conditions. The hydrologic simulations based on satellite-rainfall forcing revealed some

potential, but the predicted hydrographs are generally associated with large uncertainties

that depend, among other factors, on the relationship between satellite product's

resolution and the scale of application. Overall, the findings suggest that the current state

W
of satellite-based flood prediction suffers from the inability of satellite precipitation
IE
observations to accurately estimate the magnitude of high rainfall rates and that

improvement of current precipitation products is needed to allow us to invest towards that

EV
direction.
PR

ii
 FLASH FLOODS: UNDERSTANDING THE RUNOFF
GENERATION PROCESSES AND THE USE OF SATELLITE-
RAINFALL IN HYDROLOGIC SIMULATIONS

EFTHYMIOS IOANNIS NIKOLOPOULOS

W
B.S. TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE, 2002
IE
M.S. THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, 2004
EV
PR

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

2010

iii
 UMI Number: 3415561

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMT
W
IE
Dissertation Publishing
EV
UMI 3415561
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
PR

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
 Copyright by
Eythymios Ioannis Nikolopoulos

I EW
EV
PR

2010
All Rights Reserved

iv
 APPROVAL PAGE

Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation

FLASH FLOODS: UNDERSTANDING THE RUNOFF GENERATION PROCESSES AND THE USE OF

SATELLITE-RAINFALL IN HYDROLOGIC SIMULATIONS

by

Efthymios Ioannis Nikolopoulos

W
IE
EV
Major Advisor

Associate Advisor
PR

Amvrossios C. Bagtzoglou

Associate Advisor ^

Mekonnen Gebremichael

Associate Advisor

Associate Advisor
Glenn Warner

University of Connecticut

2010

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

PhD for me was a journey and now that I am reaching the end of it, I finally understand
why it is all about the journey and not the destination. It has been a very interesting and
extremely challenging "trip", which was made possible to complete only due to the
guidance and support I had from a number of people. This section is dedicated to them.
My acknowledgments of course go first to my adviser, Prof. Manos Anagnostou.
Manos have been an excellent adviser and I feel lucky for being his student. I was

W
always taking advantage of the fact that he kept his office door open, to jump in and
release all my frustration and agony about my progress. He was always very patient and
IE
supportive and all these years have been a pleasure. Perhaps the only "bad" thing about
Manos is his influence regarding cigar smoking that made me end up with an unhealthy
and expensive habit.
EV

A person who is very dear to me and has an indirect but very significant contribution
to the completion of this PhD is my former adviser Prof. Witek Krajewski. My two years
PR

working with Witek for my MS degree were the most important years because under
Witek's direction and training (pretty tough one to be honest) I created my scientific
foundation. Besides a great mentor, Witek has been a great friend and I feel honored for
being able to say that I was his student but most importantly that I am his friend.

My deepest gratitude belongs to my father Ioannis, my mother Sofia and my two

sisters Theano and Vaso for their love and support all these years. My family is the most
sacred thing to me and without them I would have never been able to endure all the
difficulties associated with PhD studies in a foreign country. Having mentioned that, I
have to admit that I was lucky to have a second family in US, the Lengas family, that
treated me like their son and made me feel like home. Costa, Stacia and their daughter
Tina are my second family and I will never forget all the things they did for me. I feel
blessed for having met such wonderful people and I hope I made them proud.

vi
 I also wish to acknowledge my best friends Alex Ntelekos, Platonas Panagopoulos,
Artemis Mamas, Aristotelis Pagoulatos, Giorgos Lykokanelos, Thanasis Zakopoulos,
Vassilis Christopoulos, and Andreas Panousis because they are an important part of my
life, and each one of them has contributed on each own way to this achievement.
Last but definitely not least I want to acknowledge my fiancee Mary for constantly
being at my side and for tolerating me and my stress during all this time. She has been a
source of inspiration and a reason for me to continuously try to become a better person. I
dedicate this dissertation to her and I promise that now that PhD is completed I will

W
finally concentrate on our wedding preparations...

IE
EV
PR

vii
 W
To my love, Mary
IE
EV
PR

viii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 2: EXAMINING RUNOFF RESPONSE AND MECHANISMS OF TWO

CONTRASTING FLOODS IN A MOUNTAINOUS BASIN IN ITALY

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Study Area and Data 11

EW
2.3 The Flood Events 14

2.3.1. Rainfall Analysis 15

2.3.2. Hydro logic Analysis 16

I
2.4 Hydrologic Modeling 20
EV
2.4.1 Model Description 21

2.4.2. Model Setup 22

PR

2.4.3 Model Calibration and Validation 24

2.4.4. Runoff Generation Mechanisms 28

2.5 Conclusions 33

CHAPTER 3: SENSITIVITY OF A MOUNTAIN BASIN FLASH FLOOD TO INITIAL SOIL

MOISTURE AND RAINFALL VARIABILITY

3.1 Introduction 36

3.2 Study Area and Data 39

3.3 The 2003 Fella Flash Flood Event 42

3.4 Hydrologic Modeling 44

3.4.1 Model Description 44

IX
 3.4.2. Model Setup 45

3.4.3 Model Calibration and Validation 47

3.5 Sensitivity to Initial Soil Moisture 50

3.6 Sensitivity to Rainfall Variability 55

3.7 Combined Sensitivity to Initial Soil Moisture and Rainfall

Variability 62

3.8 Conclusions 64

W
CHAPTER 4: UNDERSTANDING THE SCALE RELATIONSHIPS OF UNCERTAINTY

PROPAGATION OF SATELLITE RAINFALL THROUGH A DISTRIBUTED

HYDROLOGIC MODEL
IE
4.1 Introduction 67
EV
4.2 Study Area and Data 72

4.3 Satellite-Rainfall Ensembles 74

PR

4.4 Hydrologic Simulations 80

4.6 Analysis of Error Propagation 84

4.7 Conclusions 90

CHAPTER 5: ON THE USE OF HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE-RAINFALL PRODUCTS

FOR FLASH FLOOD SIMULATIONS

5.1 Introduction 93

5.2. Study Area and Data 97

5.3. Rainfall Analysis 98

5.4. Hydrologic Simulations 103

5.5. Conclusions 109

x
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

6.1 Conclusions Summary 110

6.2 Future Research Directions 113

APPENDIX 116

BIBLIOGRAPHY 117

W
IE
EV
PR

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Topographic characteristics of Posina and its two sub-basins 11

Table 2.2. Rainfall and runoff characteristics for the 1992 and 1999 event 20

Table 2.3. Error metrics, correlation and efficiency score between observed and

simulated hydrographs. Note that positive sign means overestimation of the

model. 26

W
Table 3.1. Characteristics of the Fella basin and its sub-basins 41
IE
Table 3.2. Results from the calibration/validation exercise for the 2003 flash flood

event. Note that minus denote underestimation of the model 49

EV

Table 3.3. Runoff contribution of each generation mechanism for different initial
PR

soil moisture conditions 54

Table 3.4. Total basin-averaged rainfall for different aggregation levels 56

Table 3.5. Same as Table 3.3 but for different rainfall resolutions 61

Table 4.1. Nominal spatial and temporal resolution of the precipitation data used 74

Table 4.2. List of size and topography slope information of the basins used in this
study 78

xii
Table 4.3. Calibrated parameters of saturated hydraulic conductivity, conductivity

decay coefficient and anisotropy ratio for the three soil classes of Bacchglione

basin 82

Table 5.1. Nominal spatial and temporal resolution of radar and satellite

precipitation data used in this study 97

Table 5.2. Bias and correlation coefficient between radar (reference) and satellite

products before and after adjustment for mean field bias. Mean field bias

W
adjustment coefficients derived from quantile-quantile plots are also shown 100
IE
Table 5.3. Error metrics based on the comparison of radar simulated and satellite

simulated hydrographs before and after the mean field bias adjustment. Note
EV
that the simulated hydrographs were based on the radar-calibrated parameters. ...105

Table 5.4. Same as Table 5.3 but for parameters calibrated separately for each
PR

satellite product before and after the adjustment 106

Table 5.5. Values for saturated hydraulic conductivity obtained after individual

calibration for each product. Note that the values shown correspond to the

dominant soil class that occupies over 80% of the basin area 107

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Map showing the location of Posina River basin in Northeastern Italy.

The 20 m digital elevation model shows the high differences in elevation

within the basin. Rain and stream gauge locations are also shown in the map.

Note that the stream gauge numbers (1,2,3) correspond to the outlet at

Stancari, Bazzoni and Rio Freddo at Valoje respectively 12

EW
Figure 2.2. Land use (left) and soil type (right) map for the Posina basin 14

Figure 2.3. Temporal (left) and spatial (right) distribution of rainfall during the

flood events of 1992 (upper panel) and 1999 (lower panel). Left panel shows
I
EV
both the hourly mean areal rainfall accumulation time series (black bars) and

the total mean areal rainfall accumulation series (grey line) for Posina basin.

Right panel shows the spatial map of total rainfall accumulation derived from
PR

the rain gauge observations by applying an inverse distance interpolation.

Green circles corresponds to the locations of the rain gauges used to derive

the rainfall field. Black triangles correspond to the location of the stream

gauges 16

Figure 2.4. Observed rainfall-runoff time series for 1992 (left) and 1999 (right)

event. The flood hydrograph (grey) and the mean areal rainfall (black) is

shown for Stancari (a,d), Bazzoni (b,e) and Rio Freddo (c,f) 18

Figure 2.5. Flow duration curve derived from 13 years of half hourly averaged data

from Posina's outlet station. The inset magnifies a part of the curve to help

xiv
 display the initial baseflow for 1992 and 1999 event. Note that peak flows for

1992 and 1999 are associated with probability of exceedance equal to 0.003

and < 0.001 percent respectively 19

Figure 2.6. Simulated hydrographs based on the calibrated parameters (solid)

versus observed (dashed) for the 1992 (left) and 1999 (right) flood. Results

are shown for the outlet at Stancari (a,b), Bazzoni (c,d) and Rio Freddo (e,f).

Note that only the 1999 hydrograph at Stancari (b) was used for the

W
calibration of the model 27

Figure 2.7. Time series of simulated runoff components for the 1992 (left) and
IE
1999 (right) flood. The different runoff types include infiltration excess
EV
(solid black), saturation excess (solid grey), perched return flow (dashed

black) and groundwater exfiltration (dashed grey) 30

PR

Figure 2.8. Occurrence (percentage of total simulation time) of different runoff

generation mechanism as a function of the topographic index ln(A</tanP) 31

Figure 2.9. Spatial map of the calculated topographic index ln(Ac/tanP) over Posina

basin 32

Figure 3.1. Location map of the Fella river basin. The topographic representation is

based on 20-m digital elevation model. Numbers 1-4 correspond to the outlets

of the basins examined in this study (see Table 3.1) 40

Figure 3.2. Left: Time series of basin-averaged half-hourly rainfall accumulation

for the Fella basin and sub-basins. Right: Total rainfall accumulation map for

xv
 Fella basin. Both plots are based on radar-rainfall data during the 2003 flash

flood inducing storm .43

Figure 3.3. Groundwater rating curve for the Fella basin expressed as a relation

between baseflow and basin-averaged depth to groundwater table (measured

from the surface). The curve was constructed from a simulation-based

drainage experiment .46

Figure 3.4. Observed versus simulated hydrographs at the outlet of each basin. Note

W
that calibration was based on (a) and validation on (b,c,d) .49
IE
Figure 3.5. Left panel: Peak discharge (top) and runoff ratio (bottom) versus basin

scale for different initial wetness conditions. Right panel: Difference of peak
EV
discharge (top) and runoff ratio (bottom) relative to control simulation (Qt>=2)

versus basin scale .51

PR

Figure 3.6. Relative difference in peak discharge (left) and runoff ratio (right)

versus relative difference in average depth to water table (used to express the

difference in saturation level) for each basin. Note that fitted lines were based

on least-squares linear regression and aim only in aiding visualization of the

scale effect (different slopes) on the sensitivity to initial soil moisture

conditions 53

Figure 3.7. Hourly radar-rainfall accumulation map at the original spatial resolution

(0.5 km) and at 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 km resolutions after aggregation. Data

correspond to 17:00 UTC during the flash flood event 57

xvi
Figure 3.8. Left panel: Peak discharge (top) and total runoff volume (bottom)

versus basin scale for different rainfall aggregation resolutions. Right panel:

Difference of peak discharge (top) and total runoff volume (bottom) relative

to control simulation (0.5km resolution) versus basin scale 58

Figure 3.9. Effect of bias in basin-averaged rainfall volume due to aggregation

(left) and effect of variability smoothing due to coarsening of resolution

(right) expressed as relative differences of peak discharge (top) and runoff

W
volume (bottom) for different basin scales 60

Figure 3.10. Relative difference of peak discharge for different aggregation levels
IE
and different initial wetness conditions for each basin examined. Note that
EV
white, grey and black symbols correspond to initial wetness conditions of Qb

=2, 20 and 120 respectively 62

PR

Figure 3.11. Same as Fig. 3.10 but for total runoff volume 63

Figure 4.1. Map showing the locations of the Posina and Bacchiglione basins in the

northeastern Italian Alps. Note that the thin (4km) and thick (25km) grid

shown, provide a visual comparison between the spatial resolution of the

satellite products used and the basin scales 73

Figure 4.2. Top: Mean areal rainfall accumulation curves for Bacchiglione basin

calculated from radar (black) and SREM2D ensembles for 3B42 (left),

KIDD-25km (middle) and KIDD-4km (right). Bottom: Bias (left), relative

xvn
 RMSE (middle) and Nash-Sutcliffe score (right) between MAP time series

derived from SREM2D ensembles and the reference rainfall (radar) 76

Figure 4.3. Same as Figure 4.2 but for Posina basin 77

Figure 4.4. Stream network of Bacchiglione basin and the locations (black dots) of

the basin outlets analyzed in this study. Note that the numeric IDs correspond

to the IDs presented in Table 4.2 81

W
Figure 4.5. Top: Observed (black) and simulated (blue) hydrographs for the Posina

basin during the Oct. 1996 flood event. Bottom: Mean areal precipitation over
IE
Posina basin based on radar-rainfall data 83

Figure 4.6. Top: Simulated hydrographs based on radar (black) and SREM2D
EV

(grey) rainfall ensembles for 3B42 (left), KIDD-25km (middle) and KIDD-

4km (right), for Bacchiglione basin. Bottom: Bias (left), rel. RMSE (middle)
PR

and N-S score (right) between reference (radar) and SREM2D hydrographs 85

Figure 4.7. Same as Figure 4.6 but for Posina basin 86

Figure 4.8. Error propagation metrics: Top panel shows the relative error in total

runoff versus relative error in total rainfall for Bacchiglione (left) and Posina

(right) basin. Middle panel shows relative RMSE in discharge versus relative

RMSE in rainfall, and bottom panel shows relative error in peak runoff versus

relative error in total rainfall respectively. Errors were calculated between

SREM2D ensembles and the reference (radar). Note that blue black and red

xviii
 triangle corresponds to the ensemble average of KIDD 4km, KIDD 25km and

3B42 respectively 88

Figure 4.9. Ratios of relative error in i) total runoff (left) and ii) peak runoff (right)

over relative error in total rainfall. Ratios of relative RMSE in runoff (middle)

over relative RMSE in rainfall. All ratios are shown for different basin scales.

Blue, black and red circles correspond to the average of the 20 realizations for

the KIDD 4km, KIDD 25km and 3B42 respectively. Error bars are equal to

W
plus/minus one standard deviation 89

Figure 5.1. Elevation map of North-Eastern Italian region (highlighted in the inset
IE
map of Italy) derived from the NASA Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission
EV
(SRTM) 90m digital elevation dataset. Map also shows the location of the

OSMER radar and the boundaries of Fella river basin 98

PR

Figure 5.2. Left: Time series of basin-averaged hourly rainfall over Fella basin

based on radar, CMORPH and PERSIANN data. Right: Time series of basin-

averaged 3-hourly rainfall over Fella basin based on radar and 3B42. All data

were collected during the 2003 flash flood induced storm 99

Figure 5.3. Radar-rainfall quantiles vs satellite-rainfall quantiles for CMORPH

(left), PERSIANN (middle) and 3B42 (right). Solid line corresponds to the

slope =1 line and dash line corresponds to the linear regression applied 102

Figure 5.4. Same as Figure 5.2 but adjusted based on the mean-field bias factor

derived from quantile-quantile plots 102

xix
Figure 5.5. Observed and simulated hydrographs at the outlet of Fella basin based

on radar (reference) and satellite rainfall input before and after the bias

adjustment 104

Figure 5.6. Simulated hydrographs based on individual calibration of radar input

and each satellite product before (left) and after (right) bias adjustment 106

Figure 5.7. Same as Figure 5.6 (right) but for fully saturated initial soil moisture

conditions 108

I EW
EV
PR

xx
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

A flash flood is defined by the American Meteorological Society as "a flood that

rises and falls quite rapidly with little or no advance warning, usually as the result of

intense rainfall over a relatively small area". It is considered as one of the most

devastating natural hazards, responsible for significant loss of life and property

worldwide. The tremendous societal and economical impact of this hazard necessitates

W
the development of effective monitoring systems in order to mitigate the flash flood risk.

In spite of all the scientific work and progress done so far, flood prediction still poses a
IE
great challenge for hydrologists. Predicting the amount of runoff generated after rainfall,

traces back to the fundamental question "where water goes when it rains". This
EV

simplified question, involves all the complex physical mechanisms that govern water

flow on the surface and subsurface. Over the years hydrologists have improved their
PR

understanding on the physical processes that drive runoff generation and along with the

simultaneous computational advancements have developed a number of modeling tools to

describe and predict the rainfall transformation to runoff.

Hydrological models have served as the main tool for rainfall-to-runoff prediction

and currently form the basis for flash flood warning and forecasting systems, which

include the integration of quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) with hydrological

models that simulate the hydrologic processes at watershed scale. Successful modeling

of flash floods relates to the understanding of the hydrological processes that govern

these phenomena. However, flash floods develop at space and time scales that

1
conventional observational systems of rainfall and river discharges are not able to capture

(Creutin and Borga, 2003), thus the runoff generation mechanisms during flash floods are

still poorly understood. As a result, the inadequate understanding of those mechanisms is

embedded in the current modeling systems and limits their ability to efficiently represent

the hydrologic response during flash floods. Recent efforts that aim at improving

techniques for predicting flash flood have revealed the potential for the use of physically-

based distributed hydrologic models (DHM) (Ogden et al, 2000; Vivoni et al., 2007;

Borga et al., 2007, among others). Distributed hydrologic modeling, which is the state of

the art in hydrologic modeling, is considered the most accurate in terms of describing the

W
physical processes because it involves the solution of the continuity equations of mass
IE
and energy as opposed to the currently widely used lumped conceptual models that are

based on the concept of interrelated storages to represent the physical elements in a

EV
catchment. Furthermore, due to the distributed nature, DHM can provide information on

the spatial dynamics of the hydrologic variables, which is essential for successful flash

flood prediction due to the high spatial variability that this hazard exhibits (Gaume et al.,
PR

2004).

Nevertheless, even if we assume that we possess a perfect modeling system that

could describe with certainty all the physical watershed processes, the outcome of the

prediction of such model would still depend on the accuracy of the forcing variables

applied to the system. Consequently, an important issue for the effective application of

DHM in flood warning systems is the apprehension of the model's sensitivity to the

different sources of input uncertainty. Soil moisture and rainfall are the two most

important variables that control runoff generation. Thus, assessing the effect of their

2
uncertainty in hydrologic prediction is necessary for designing modeling strategies and

decision making procedures. The sensitivity of runoff response to rainfall and initial soil

moisture conditions is a subject that has been well recognized by the research

community. Most of the studies so far have focused on the sensitivity effect of each

variable independently (Woods and Sivapalan 1999; Bell and Moore 2000; Castillo et al.

2003; Nicotina et al. 2008, among others) and only few have analyzed the combined

effect of rainfall and antecedent wetness to runoff generation (Zehe et al. 2005; Vivoni et

al. 2007, Noto et al. 2008). The influence of rainfall representation on modeling the

hydrologic response during flash floods is of high importance due to the high space-time

W
variability that characterizes the storms causing those floods (Creutin and Borga, 2003).

Regarding the effect of initial soil moisture conditions, it is generally recognized that
IE
antecedent soil moisture is of little importance in determining the magnitude of extreme
EV
floods (Wood et al. 1990), but other studies have provided counterexamples of the

possible role of antecedent soil moisture conditions when combined with high soil

moisture capacity (Borga et al. 2007). Despite the extensive literature on this subject,
PR

results do not converge to a unified conclusion and sometimes are even contradictory, as

Segond et al. (2007) points out, which highlight the complexity of the problem and the

need for more systematic investigations.

Besides the requirement for improvement in the modeling aspect, effectiveness of

flash flood warning systems is highly dependent on the advancement of QPE systems.

Limitations of current QPE sensors (radars and gauges) to provide information at large

spatial scales and especially over mountainous regions (which are prone to flash floods)

necessitate the integration of new observational systems that can overcome these