bs_bs_banner

Improving flood preparedness using hydrodynamic levee-breach

and inundation modelling: Middle Mississippi River, USA
F. Huthoff1, J.W.F. Remo2 and N. Pinter3
1 Rivers and Coasts Group, HKV Consultants, Lelystad, The Netherlands
2 Department of Geography, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA
3 Department of Geology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA

Correspondence Abstract
Dr. Fredrik Huthoff, Rivers and Coasts
Group, HKV Consultants, Botter 1129, There is growing concern in the United States over the ‘residual’ flood risk
8232 JN Lelystad, The Netherlands behind leveed floodplains, which is commonly assessed based on one-
Email: huthoff@hkv.nl dimensional (1D) river flow models. These models fail to capture the complex
flow dynamics that typically characterise floodplain inundation. Here, we dem-
DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12066 onstrate methodologies for mechanistically simulating a levee breach and flow
into a levee district along the Middle Mississippi River using a hybrid 1D/two-
Key words dimensional (1D2D) flow model that combines a 1D model of the river channel
Dam breach; flood mapping; flood
with a two-dimensional (2D) overland-flow model for the leveed floodplain.
preparedness; floodplain inundation;
Mississippi River.
This 2D modelling documents the complexity of flow over a large and topo-
graphically diverse leveed floodplain, including distribution and timing of
inundation as well as the resulting public-safety threats. In relation to safety
threats, three distinct flood phases can be recognised: (1) a flash flood phase, (2)
a flow redistribution phase and (3) an equilibrium phase. The flash flood phase
presents imminent threats to human life and safety, whereas subsequent phases
determine inundation areas and depths, and therefore infrastructure damages.
2D modelling of levee-breach flooding provides input data necessary for: (1)
specific local evacuation and mitigation planning in the Metro East area, and (2)
methodologies for analyses of residual risk facing other levee-protected flood-
plain areas.

Introduction tained levee systems, has led to efforts to officially recognise

An estimated 160 000 km of levees have been constructed
on US floodplains, protecting tens of millions of people
[National Committee on Levee Safety (NCLS), 2009].
Following the catastrophic failure and/or overtopping of
floodwalls in New Orleans, Louisiana in 2005, US Congress
passed the National Levee Safety Act as part of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007. This Act authorised
the development of a nationwide inventory of levees and
enhanced and systematised inspection of many levees
(Federally authorised levees and those participating in the
Federal Rehabilitation and Inspection Program). Subse-
quent inspections nationwide have shown that the condition
of US levees varies widely, and the American Society of Civil
Engineers estimates 5-year costs of levee rehabilitation at $50
billion (ASCE, 2009), including up to $30 billion in the state
of California alone (NCLS, 2009).
There is growing recognition that flood risk exists not
only in unprotected floodplain areas but also in areas behind
levees. Recognition of limitations, even for the best main-
this ‘residual risk’ of inundation in public policy and policy
tools such as the US National Flood Insurance Program
(ASFPM, 2007; NCLS, 2011). Simulation studies of flood
events may help in identifying crucial flood processes during
a levee failure or overtopping event, crucial information for
guiding evacuation planning, and other emergency response
and mitigation strategies.
This study presents results of hydrodynamic flood simu-
lations for the Metro East Sanitary District (MESD), which is
situated along the Illinois floodplain of the Middle Missis-
sippi River, opposite the St. Louis, Missouri metropolitan
area. The MESD levees protect an estimated 57 000 residents
and were designed to the 1/500-year standard (probability of
recurrence estimated at once per 500 years or 0.002% annual
exceedance probability). MESD is one of five levee districts
on the Illinois floodplain opposite St. Louis where significant
deficiencies were identified, initiating both local and
national debates regarding flood-hazard mapping, residual
risk and flood-insurance requirements behind levees under-
going repairs.

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling 3

Failure or overtopping of large man-made levees can be Table 1 Hydrological conditions for the 1/20 year and the 1/500-
catastrophic events that trigger both significant geomorphic year flood at St. Louis gage (RM179.60)

change as well as damage to infrastructure, or even fatalities, Water level

during inundation of the floodplain behind the failed levee Exceedance Discharge UMRSFFS
probability Recurrence m3/s m
(e.g. Izenberg et al., 1996; Magilligan et al., 1998; Rogers,
2009). Although the large majority of applied flood-hazard 5% 1/20 years 21 000 128.32
modelling in the United States is done using one- 0.2% 1/500 years 31 700 131.22

dimensional (1D) models, the nature of 1D simulation –
involving flow orthogonal between all cross-sections – is
incapable of capturing the complex patterns and timing of
floodplain flow (e.g. Chatterjee et al., 2008; Cook and
Merwade, 2009; Meitzen, 2011). This study applied method-
ologies for simulating levee failures and the resulting flood-
plain inundation, including sensitivities analyses testing the
effects of levee erodibility and of floodplain topography and
roughness. This modelling documents the complexity of
flow after a levee breach and provides estimates of flood
arrival times and maximum flood depths and other infor-
mation necessary for identifying disaster response and miti-
gation strategies.
Study area
The MESD levee system is about 32 km from north to south
and up to 13 km east to west. The levee system lies along the
eastern bank of the Mississippi River and runs from River
Mile 195 (RM195) in the north to RM174 in the south. The
main hydrological measurement stations on this part of the
Mississippi are at Hartford (RM196.8), St. Louis (RM179.6)
and at Engineers Depot (RM176.8). At the St. Louis gage, the
Upper Mississippi River Flow Frequency Study (UMRFFS)
estimates a 500-year flood elevation of 131.22 m [U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2004a; Table 1]. The estimated
discharge at St. Louis that corresponds with this water level is
31 700 m3/s (Table 1). The levees around the MESD are
designed with a protection level up to this 500-year flood.
However, if a levee breach were to occur, most of the Metro
East levee cell would become flooded as ground elevations
are below the 500-year flood elevation (<131.2 m) in the
most of the MESD.
Three levee breach locations were selected for the flood
scenarios to approximately bracket potential inundation
impacts in the levee system (Figure 1):
1. A breach at the north end of the levee cell (RM 194.5),
2. A breach near the centre of the levee cell (RM 183.5), and
3. A breach at the south end of the levee cell (RM 178.5).
These breach locations were chosen to capture extremes
in flood impact as related to the potential geographical loca-
tions of the levee breach. Additional extremes in inundation
impacts were investigated by varying the key breach-erosion
parameter (critical velocity vcrit, see Dam-break modeling
section) and floodplain land cover (floodplain roughness,
see Model development section). To evaluate flood evolution
RM179.60, River Mile 179.60; UMRSFFS, Upper Mississippi River System
Flow Frequency Study.
Table 2 Locations of representative stations in the levee cell
ID Description Easting (m) Northing (m) H (m)
HisN Station North 750 528 4 296 529 126.50
HisC Station Central 745 786 4 285 873 126.49
HisS Station South 746 837 4 277 293 126.50
within the levee cell, we also picked three representative sta-
tions to characterise flooding in the northern, central and
southern part of the area (see Table 2 for coordinates; differ-
ent from the three breach locations). These three stations
were chosen at similar surface elevations of around 126.5 m.
Methods
The flood simulations in this study were hybrid 1D/two-
dimensional (1D2D) model runs implemented with the
SOBEK software package (Deltares System, 2011; see also
Verwey, 2001). SOBEK is an integrated software package for
river, urban and rural water management that combines a
2D overland flow module with a 1D channel flow module to
simulate conditions in a hybrid 1D2D mode. The flow cal-
culations in SOBEK are based on the Saint-Venant equa-
tions, which represent the spatially averaged momentum
balance and mass conservation of flows in unsteady and
nonuniform settings. In the current study, we make use of
the hybrid 1D2D mode by coupling a 1D channel flow
module for the Mississippi River with a 2D flow module
within the Metro East levee cell. The coupling between the
two flow modules takes place at predefined levee-breach
connection points, where a breach development function
governs how much water from the flood wave in the Missis-
sippi is transferred into the levee cell. Further details on the
setup of the 1D and 2D flow modules, on the flood wave, and
on the levee-breach function are provided in the following
sections.
Hydrological conditions
In any levee-breach simulation, the hydrological conditions
at the start of the flood must be specified. The Metro East
levee cell has a protection standard of 1/500 years. Therefore,
we selected the 500-year discharge – 31 700 m3/s – of the

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
4 Huthoff et al.

Figure 1 The study area showing breach locations and three representative flood stations in the levee cell.

Table 3 The three breach locations together with flood water levels as reported in the UMRSFFS (USACE 2004a) and the water levels from
the SOBEK model used in this study
Discharge Water level
3
Breach location Flood event m /s UMRSFFS (m) SOBEK (m)
North (RM194.5) 1/20 years 21 000 130.45 130.13
1/500 years 31 700 133.50 133.60
Central (RM183.5) 1/20 years 21 000 129.02 128.46
1/500 years 31 700 132.19 132.10
South (RM178.5) 1/20 years 21 000 128.14 127.54
1/500 years 31 700 131.00 131.20

RM, River Mile; UMRSFFS, Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study.

Mississippi River at the study site, as calculated in the Upper
Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study (UMRSFFS;
USACE, 2004a). Note that Pinter (2010) found that
31 700 m3/s represents a significant underestimate of the
actual 500-year flow, but the current regulatory flow volume
was used here (Table 3). Next, the shape of the flood
hydrograph was defined based on the shape of the flood
wave near St. Louis in July–August 1993 (Figure 2). After the
peak discharge on August 1st of 1993, discharge dropped
over the next 9 days at a maximum rate of ∼1400 m3/s per

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling
Figure 2 Flood wave used in the simulation based on the historical 1993 flood wave measured at the St. Louis gage.
day. We constructed a model flood wave that starts at
31 700 m3/s (∼500-year level), maintains this peak discharge
for 2 days after the levee breach and then drops by 1400 m3/s
per day thereafter. Table 1 provides an overview of the flow
conditions used in the flood simulations here. As a validation
of the 1D model, estimated water levels from the UMRSFFS
were compared with the corresponding values from the
SOBEK model. These water levels for the 500-year event
were only 10 cm apart (Table 3).
A reference SOBEK simulation run without inclusion of a
levee breach shows that the travel time of a flood wave along
the Mississippi River channel (outside the levee) from the
northern breach to the central breach is approximately 2 h
and ∼2.5 h to reach the southern breach location. These
travel times were used in selecting the start-of-breach time
for the flood wave as shown in Figure 2.
Dam-break modeling
There are two ways to model a levee breach in SOBEK1D2D.
One is a user-defined approach, in which maximum breach
widths, heights and growth rate of the breach opening
are defined by the modeller. The second approach in
SOBEK1D2D uses an automated levee-breach calculation
module. Without availability of empirical data to manually
define the levee breaches, we employed the SOBEK breach-
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
5
calculation module. This module estimates breach charac-
teristics based on levee strength and flow conditions present
near the breach opening, and this approach has become the
technical standard in studies in the Netherlands (e.g.
Leenders et al., 2007; van Mierlo et al., 2007; Van Mierlo
et al., 2008; Markus et al., 2010). Saucier et al. (2009) point
out that this method has the practical advantage that it con-
verges to a sensible maximum breach size. The breach cal-
culation module is based on work by Verheij (2002) and
requires specification of an initial breach width, an initial
breach timescale and a critical velocity, the latter represent-
ing the levee’s resistance against flow erosion. The standard
recommended value for the initial breach width is 10 m, and
the initial breach timescale should be short compared with
the duration of the flood wave. We have chosen 1 h for the
breach timescale, which is much shorter than the 2-day peak
of the considered flood wave (see Figure 2). Within this first
hour of breach development, the breach has a constant width
of 10 m, and the base of the breach opening linearly drops to
the height of the land behind the levee. From that time
forward, the breach grows laterally in size based on the cal-
culated flow velocity in the breach and based on the defined
critical flow velocity. We adopted a value of 0.5 m/s for the
critical flow velocity (vcrit), which is the recommended value
for a clay-type levee (for sand a critical velocity of 0.3 m/s is
recommended; Verheij, 2002). To make sure that no water
6 Huthoff et al.

enters the levee cell before moment of breach, initial crest Table 4 Land-cover types and associated Manning’s n roughness
level heights were set at least 0.6 m above the 1/500-year values

water level. Land cover Manning’s n Reference

Agriculture 0.100 Ree and Crow (1977)
Developed 0.110 Remo and Pinter (2007)
Model development Forest 0.150 Arcement and Schneider (1989)
For this investigation, the Mississippi River was modelled Grass/forbs 0.040 Chow (1959)
Marsh 0.160 Tsihrintzis and Madiedo (2000)
using SOBEK’s 1D channel flow hydraulic module, and the
Open water 0.040 Chow (1959)
filling of the floodplain after the levee breach was modelled Sand/mud 0.040 Chow (1959)
using SOBEK’s 2D overland flow module. The parameters
for the 1D model were imported from the existing USACE
thus identified 20 floodplain bridges and culverts, which we
Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System
then included in the SOBEK model (see Figure 1 for location
(HEC-RAS) model constructed for the UMRSFFS (USACE,
of bridges and culverts). The dimensions for these structures
2004a). After completion of the flow frequency study, the
were determined using the USDOT database.
USACE computed a floodway for the Upper Mississippi
We employed the USGS’s Upper Midwest Environmental
River by converting hydraulic data from the Corps’ UNET
Sciences Center (UMESC) (2002) land-cover data to esti-
model (1-dimensional Unsteady flow through a NETwork of
mate hydraulic roughness (Manning’s n) on the floodplain.
open channels) to HEC-RAS format (USACE, 2004b). The
We rasterised the UMESC land-cover data file and then
Upper Mississippi River Floodway Computation (UMRFC)
extracted the land-cover type for each of the 2D grid cells
was a steady-flow HEC-RAS model that was constructed
(Figure 3). Then, using the land-cover classification, we
and calibrated to the 100-year UMRSFFS profile (USACE,
assigned an appropriate n value for each grid cell (Table 4).
2004a). The original UMRFC model for the Mississippi
Finally, we exported the full 2D array of Manning’s n values
River through the USACE St. Louis District was shortened
into SOBEK.
for this investigation to the reach from Missouri River con-
Our model had three boundary conditions: (1) an
fluence to Chester, IL (Figure 1). The HEC-RAS model was
upstream discharge boundary near the confluence of the
then imported into SOBEK 1D2D.
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (RM195.55), (2) a down-
The 2D overland flow module used for floodplain inun-
stream boundary at Chester, IL (RM109.9), and (3) lateral
dation here required input data for three key parameters: (1)
inflow for the addition of the Meramec River at RM160.71.
floodplain topography, (2) the location and dimensions of
For the upstream boundary, a discharge hydrograph was
bridges and culverts on the floodplain, and (3) land cover for
employed (see Hydrologic Conditions section for details).
estimation of hydraulic roughness. Elevation data were from
For the downstream boundary, a fixed water-surface eleva-
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) (2011) 1/9- and 1/3-
tion was used. Because of the large distance of the down-
arc-second digital elevation models (DEMs). The higher
stream boundary from the study area here, the static
resolution 1/9-arc-second DEM was only available for
downstream boundary condition did not affect the model
approximately the northern ∼25% of the MESD. In the rest
results near the MESD. A fixed discharge equal to mean
of the levee cell, the 1/3-arc-second DEM was used. From
annual flow was employed for the lateral inflow representing
these data, DEMs were subsampled to grid-cell sizes of 25, 50
the Meramec River in the model.
and 100 m for use within SOBEK. Because of the elevation
averaging that can occur when higher resolution DEMs are
resampled to larger grid-cell sizes, we sampled key linear
features that would act as obstructions to flood flows, includ-
Results
ing levees, road embankments and railroad grades. These
Effects of grid-cell size
features were checked and corrected at their crest elevations
to ensure these key features were represented as realistically Preliminary flood simulations were carried out using three
as possible in the DEMs (note that these crest heights were different grid sizes in order to establish an appropriate grid-
necessarily modelled at the chosen horizontal resolution of cell size for the remainder of the study. Using grid-cell sizes
25, 50 or 100 m). For other portions of the floodplain, the of 25 × 25 m, 50 × 50 m and 100 × 100 m, the characteristics
high-resolution DEMs were subsampled using an averaging of the inundation event are shown in Figures 4 and 5, using
algorithm. the central breach as an example. Figure 4 shows that the
After the construction of the DEMs, we used the U.S. breach characteristics using the 25 × 25 m and 50 × 50 m
Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) (2007) bridge grids are practically identical, but the 100 × 100 m grid leads
database to identify bridges and culverts (openings beneath to a significantly smaller discharge through the breach
elevated roadways) that could act as conduits for flow. We opening [Figure 4(d)]. At the three representative stations in

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling
Figure 3 Land cover within the Metro East Sanitary District (data from UMESC, 2002).
the levee cell, Figure 5 shows that simulated water depths
were almost equal using the 25 × 25 m or 50 × 50 m grids,
but again, the 100 × 100 m grid produces significantly dif-
ferent results.
Apparently, increasing the grid-cell size from 50 to 100 m
loses some important terrain properties in the DEM and the
resulting flood simulation. In contrast, going from a 50 m
grid to 25 m added more detail to the flood simulation
without changing the simulated flood characteristics or out-
comes. Another practical constraint to consider when choos-
ing an appropriate grid-cell size is the calculation time of the
simulation. For the modelling here, using a desktop com-
puter with Intel Core i7 3.4 GHz processor, the simulation
with a 25 × 25 m grid took more than 4 days, the 50 × 50 m
grid less than 1 day and the 100 × 100 m grid only a couple
of hours. Therefore, to limit computation time but to still get
reliable simulation results, the remainder of this study was
carried out using the 50 × 50 m grid. Note that Hesselink
et al. (2003) and Chatterjee et al. (2008) also found that a
50 × 50 m grid-cell size was appropriate in their flood simu-
lations. The considered cases in those works were quite dif-
ferent from the MESD, but they also included rivers with
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
7
extensive floodplains having widths of order kilometres. It
thus seems that for such situations, a 50 m cell size may be
generally acceptable.
Breach characteristics
Figure 6 shows flood depths at the three levee breach loca-
tions. The breach initiates at 1.0 day of simulation time. It
can be seen that the crest level of the levee drops (is eroded)
down to the base elevation behind the levee within 1 h after
initiation of the breach. The water-level difference between
upstream and downstream of the breach (‘water level up’ –
‘water level down’) largely determines the flow velocity in the
opening and thereby how the breach develops and how
much water flows into the levee cell.
For the northern breach [Figure 6(a)], a water-level dif-
ference is still evident even after 12 days of simulation time,
indicating that water was still flowing into the levee cell at
that time. For the central and southern breach locations, the
water-level difference approached zero after 8 days and flow
into the levee cell came to a (near) stop [Figure 6(b) and
6(c)]. For the southern breach scenario, the flow even
8 Huthoff et al.

(a) Breach Flow Velocity (b) Breach Width

8 80
7 100 m grid
50 m grid
6
25 m grid 60
5
Velocity (m/s)

Width (m)
4
3 40
2
1
20
0
−1
−2 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days) Time (days)

(c) Breach Flow Area (d) Breach Discharge

300 1400

1200
250
Discharge (m3/s) 1000
200
800
Area (m2)

150 600

400
100
200
50
0

0 −200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days) Time (days)
Figure 4 Modelled levee breach characteristics for the central breach scenario using grid-cell sizes of 25, 50 and 100 m.

station North station Central station South

4 4 4
3.5 100 m grid 3.5 3.5
50 m grid
3 25 m grid 3 3
2.5 2.5 2.5
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

Depth (m)

2 2 2
1.5 1.5 1.5
1 1 1
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time after breach (days) Time after breach (days) Time after breach (days)
Figure 5 Flood depths over time for three grid-cell sizes using the central breach scenario (evaluated at three representative stations in
the levee cell; see Table 2).

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling 9

(a) Relative heights, breach North

8
7 Crest level
6 Water level up
Depth (m)

5 Water level down

4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days)
(b) Relative heights, breach Central
8
7
6
Depth (m)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days)
(c) Relative heights, breach South
8
7
6
Depth (m)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days)
Figure 6 Water depths at the three levee breach locations.

reversed after about 8.5 days [Figure 6(c)]. Figure 7(d)
further shows that discharge into the levee cell after 11 days
was ∼0 for the central breach scenario. In contrast, for the
southern breach scenario, about 550 m3/s flowed back into
the Mississippi channel after day 11, while for the northern
breach scenario still about 280 m3/s was flowing into the
levee cell.
In terms of breach widths, the northern breach grew wider
than 70 m, while the other two breaches grew to widths of
about 60 m [Figure 7(b)]. The large breach width at the
northern location was due to the terrain behind the breach
location, which allowed water to easily enter into the levee
cell. As a result, the flow velocity in the northern breach
was high [Figure 7(a)], promoting breach erosion. Note,
however, that the breach flow area was greatest for the south-
ern breach location [Figure 7(c)] because of the relatively
low lying to land behind the breach [Figure 6(c)]. As a result,
the height of the breach opening was about 6 m. The north-
ern and central scenarios had higher land behind those
breaches, leading to smaller heights of the breach opening of
around 5.5 m [Figure 6(a); Figure 6(b)].
Flood development at representative stations
The development of the inundation in the levee cell follows
a complex 2D pattern, as governed by local topographical
and land cover characteristics. Results of the inundation
simulation for the northern breach scenario are shown in
Figure 8, depicting the situation at 1 and 4 days after
moment of the levee breach. Because of the difficulty to
extract general flood characteristics from such complex flow
patterns, we present results of the simulated flood character-
istics at the three selected stations in the levee cell for the
three breach scenarios.
In addition to considering the flood arrival times and
maximum water depths, we also review flood development

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
10 Huthoff et al.

(a) Breach Flow Velocity (b) Breach Width

8 80
7 Breach N
70
6 Breach C
Breach S 60
5
Velocity (m/s)

4 50

Width (m)
3
40
2
1 30
0 20
−1
10
−2
−3 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days) Time (days)

(c) Breach Flow Area (d) Breach Discharge

1800
300
1500
250
1200
Discharge (m3/s)
Area (m2)

200 900

150 600
300
100
0
50
−300
0 −600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days) Time (days)
Figure 7 Breach development and flow characteristics at the three breach locations: North (N), Central (C) and South (S).

over time. Following levee overtopping or failure, three char-
acteristic flood phases can be distinguished (see Figure 9):
1. A first ‘flash flood’ phase, characterised by arrival of a
flood front and then a rapid rise in water depths and
relatively high flow velocities.
2. A second ‘filling’ or ‘redistribution’ phase follows the flash
flood phase and is associated with inundated areas at
higher elevations conveying flow to areas at lower eleva-
tion. In this phase, flow velocities are nonzero but much
lower than in the first phase because lower elevation loca-
tions already have water on them, which impedes subse-
quent flow. The shapes of the depth and velocity curves
vary broadly depending on the inflow rate at the breach
and (local) floodplain topography.
3. A third ‘equilibrium’ or ‘bathtub’ phase, in which water has
already moved into all low-lying regions of the levee cell
and has become practically stagnant. During this phase,
discharges into or out of the levee cell cause almost sim-
ultaneous changes in water depths over the entire levee
cell (as in the filling or emptying of a bathtub). Note that
in Figure 9, this phase is indicated for the conditions that
flow velocity is nearly zero and that water depth remains
constant. This latter condition (constant depth) need not
always be satisfied in phase 3, for example if the levee cell
has continuing inflow or outflow (see, for example,
Figure 12).
Figure 10 shows flow depths and flow velocities for the
northern breach scenario at the three stations (North,
Central and South). Results for the central and southern
breach scenarios are shown in Figures 11 and 12. It is note-
worthy that apart from in the direct vicinity of the breach,
the maximum water depths for the central breach scenario
were lower than for the northern and southern breaches.
These reduced water depths compared with the other
simulations were due to the small total volumes of water
that entered the levee cell in the central breach scenario

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling 11

Figure 8 Floodplain inundation 1 and 4 days after breach for the northern breach scenario. Red dots mark connections of subgrid model
elements such as bridges and culverts.

5 1 away from the breach because of spreading of the flood

Velocity front. The considered stations in Figures 10–12 were all
4 Phase 1 0.8 located at least 700 m away from the breach (see Table 6).
Phase 2 In the three breach scenarios, the flow velocities at these
Velocity (m/s)

Phase 3 stations reached maximum values of 0.15–0.35 m/s. The

Depth (m)

3 0.6
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time after breach (days)
Figure 9 Sketch to illustrate typical flow depths and velocities
during the three flood phases: (1) flash flood phase, (2) redistri-
bution phase and (3) equilibrium phase.
(Figure 7). Only locations in the direct vicinity of the central
breach got higher flood levels in the first two phases of the
flood (compare Figure 11 with Figure 10 and Figure 12).
For all breach scenarios, the maximum flow velocities
at the breach can reach magnitudes up to 6 m/s [see
Figure 7(a)], but these quickly reduce at locations further
highest flow velocities occurred at the station closest to the
breach, although high flow velocities also occurred locally
throughout the levee cell in regions of converging flow.
The three flood phases at the chosen stations varied in
timing and effects depending on the location of the levee
breach relative to locations within the levee cell.
For the northern breach simulation (Figure 10):
1. The first flood phase (flash flood phase) occurs after 2 h at
the northern levee station, after 118 h (∼5 days) at the
central station and after 169 h (∼7 days) at the southern
station. The average travel speed of the flood front
decreased from north to south within the levee cell
because of dispersal of the flood front. At the northern
and central stations, the first flood phase lasted about
8–12 h after which flow velocities decreased by about
50%. It is noteworthy that the first flood phase in the
southern part of the levee cell lasted much longer (about
1 day longer) because of flow convergence from different
parts of the levee cell.

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
12 Huthoff et al.

Breach location: North Breach location: North

5 0.4
4.5 station North (N) station North (N)
station Central (C) 0.35 station Central (C)
4 station South (S) station South (S)
0.3
3.5

Velocity (m/s)
0.25
Depth (m)

3
2.5 0.2
2 0.15
Phase 3
1.5
0.1
1
0.5 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time after breach (days) Time after breach (days)
Figure 10 Depths and flow velocities for the northern breach scenario as observed at stations in the north (N), centre (C) and southern
(S) stations of the levee cell.

Breach location: Central Breach location: Central

5 0.4
4.5 station North (N) station North (N)
station Central (C) 0.35 station Central (C)
4 station South (S) station South (S)
0.3
3.5
Velocity (m/s)

0.25
Depth (m)

3
2.5 Phase 3 0.2
2 0.15
1.5
0.1
1
0.5 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time after breach (days) Time after breach (days)
Figure 11 Depths and flow velocities for the central breach scenario as observed at stations in the north (N), centre (C) and southern (S)
stations of the levee cell.

2. The second flood phase (inundation phase) lasted up to 8
days after the breach, after which flow velocities further
decreased. Only in the northern part of the cell did redis-
tribution of flow last another ∼2 days in response to con-
tinued inflow at the breach.
3. The third flood phase (bathtub phase) occurred after ∼8
days for most parts of the levee cell when the water
reached all low-lying regions. Note the continuing simul-
taneous rise in water depths at the central and southern
stations because of continued inflow at the breach.
For the central breach simulation (Figure 11):
1. The flood front arrived ∼6 h after the breach at the central
station, which was located about 700 m away from the
breach location. Here, the first flood phase lasted about
5 h, after which flow velocities quickly declined. Interest-
ingly, the flood front arrived at the southern station at
nearly the same time as it did for the northern breach
(∼4.5 days after breach), even though the distance to the
northern breach is much greater than to the central
breach (20.8 versus 8.2 km). The reason for this delayed
arrival of the flood front at the southern station during
the central breach scenario is that locally elevated terrain
shields the southern station from flooding until a thresh-
old inundation depth has been reached. A similar effect is
also observed around the central station where higher
topography diverts initial flow away from that location.
Another interesting observation in the central breach sce-
nario is that the flash flood phase at the northern station

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling 13

Breach location: South Breach location: South

5 0.4
4.5 station North (N) station North (N)
station Central (C) 0.35 station Central (C)
4 station South (S) station South (S)
0.3
3.5

Velocity (m/s)
0.25
Depth (m)

3
Phase 3
2.5 0.2
2 0.15
1.5
0.1
1
0.5 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time after breach (days) Time after breach (days)
Figure 12 Depths and flow velocities for the southern breach scenario as observed at stations in the north (N), central (C) and southern
(S) stations of the levee cell.

Table 5 Inundation characteristics of the three breach scenarios evaluated at the three selected stations
Distance to breach (km) Max. depth (m) Flood arrival time, start phase 1 (h) Start phase 3 (h)
Station N C S N C S N C S All stations
Breach N 1.2 12.8 20.8 4.71 2.52 2.51 2 51 108 ∼190 (∼8 days)
Breach C 12.4 0.7 8.2 1.76 3.56 1.76 118 6 108 ∼210 (∼9 days)
Breach S 20.0 8.7 1.0 2.26 2.33 2.33 169 105 8 ∼190 (∼8 days)

N, North; C, Central; S, South.

is associated with rather low flow velocities. This is due to
the topography north of the central breach, which shows
a gentle increase in floodplain elevations moving north-
wards. Water flowing from the central breach to the
northern part of the cell is largely travelling uphill, result-
ing in a decrease in flow velocity.
2. The second flood phase is practically absent at the north-
ern station (note the low flow velocitites). At the central
station, redistribution of flow lasted about 8 days.
3. The third flood phase occurred after ∼9 days (∼210 h)
when water levels equilibrated across the levee cell.
For the southern breach simulation (Figure 12):
1. Arrival of the flood front at the southern station (1 km
away from the breach location) occurred ∼8 h after the
breach and lasted about 24 h. The first flood phase lasted
only a few hours at the other two stations and smoothly
transitioned to the second flood phase.
2. The second flood phase was marked by a sudden drop in
flow velocities and lasted until day 8.
3. The third flood phase occurred after day 8 (∼190 h) in
this scenario when water levels across the levee cell
equilibrated, changing approximately simultaneously
thereafter.
In Table 5, inundation characteristics at the three stations
are shown for each of the three breach scenarios. For each
scenario, the maximum flood depth occurred near the
breach location. Also, average travel speeds of the flood front
decreased at locations further away from breach because of
dispersal of the flood front.
Sensitivity of inundation results to
model parameters
A typical shortcoming of flood simulation studies for
extreme flood events is the lack of validation data, which is
also the case in the current study. In order to assess the
reliability of the results presented here, the sensitivity of the
simulations and the results to input data and modelling
choices was assessed and quantified. Two key model compo-
nents in the flood simulation were associated with signifi-
cant uncertainties: (1) hydraulic roughness of the land cover
(Table 4) and (2) the development and final dimensions of
the levee breach.
First, the hydraulic roughness values used here, as in any
large-scale flood modelling study, have significant uncer-
tainty, in this case because the nine land-cover types in the
study area (UMESC, 2002) necessarily represents a simplifi-
cation of real-world land cover. Also, for land cover with
relatively large roughness values (such as tall vegetation,
houses and fences), several studies have shown that Man-
ning’s n value may change over time with changing flow
depths (e.g. James et al., 2004; Green, 2005, 2006). Fixed n

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14 Huthoff et al.

(a) Breach Flow Velocity (b) Breach Width

8 90
7 Ref 80
n −50%
6 70
n +50%
5 vcrit −50% 60
Velocity (m/s)

Width (m)
4 vcrit +50%
50
3
40
2
30
1
0 20
−1 10
−2 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days) Time (days)

(c) Breach Flow Area (d) Breach Discharge

350 1800

300 1500
Discharge (m3/s)
250 1200
Area (m2)

200 900

150 600

100 300

50 0

0 −300
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (days) Time (days)
Figure 13 Sensitivity of breach development to variations in floodplain roughness (Manning’s n values) and critical velocity (vcrit; breach
erosion parameter) for the central breach scenario.

values are widely utilised but do not realistically describe
the full range of flood development from initial wetting to
the final flood phase (Huthoff et al., 2007). We quantified the
uncertainties of the outcomes of the flood simulations by
varying roughness values by ±50%. Higher roughness values
led to decreases in flow velocities and thus longer flood
arrival times; the opposite was true for lower roughness
values.
The second major source of uncertainty was the size of the
levee breach. Breach size was modelled using a deterministic
algorithm, as described in the Methods section. The breach
calculation depends on the flow velocity in the levee breach
and on a predefined critical flow velocity that represents
the levee’s susceptibility to erosion. We varied this critical
velocity value by ±50% (reference vcrit = 0.5 m/s) to bracket
potential flood impacts und significant differences in breach
development.
It is important to note that the variations in floodplain
roughness also influence breach development. If the rough-
ness of the land immediately behind the breach is increased,
water enters the breach more slowly and with less erosional
energy. A lower erosion rate leads to a smaller breach
opening and subsequently to a smaller volume of water and
lower maximum flood depths in the levee cell. Conversely,
lower floodplain roughness values increase inflow at the
breach opening and lead to greater maximum flood depths.
Therefore, a decrease in floodplain roughness has the same
effect on breach development as lower elevations behind the
levee; in both cases, the water through the breach flows more
rapidly and therefore leading to greater total flood volumes
and depths within the levee cell.
The chosen variations in floodplain roughness and critical
velocity had quite different impacts on breach development,
most notably seen in the final breach widths (see Figure 13),

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling 15

(a) Sensitivity to floodplain roughness (b) Sensitivity to critical velocity

5 5
station North (N)
station Central (C)
4 station South (S)
4
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time after breach (days) Time after breach (days)
Figure 14 Sensitivity of flood depths to (a) floodplain roughness and (b) critical velocities at the three stations for the central breach
scenario (dashed line: n or vcrit = −50%; dash-dot: n or vcrit = +50%).

Table 6 Sensitivity of inundation characteristics to floodplain roughness and breach erosion parameter (critical velocity vcrit) for the
central breach scenario
Flood arrival time, start
Breach Land cover Max. depth (m) phase 1 (h)
scenario roughness N C S N C S Start phase 3 (h)
Breach C n − 50% 2.35 3.33 2.35 81 6 85 ∼160 (∼7 days)
Breach C n ref 1.76 3.56 1.76 118 6 108 ∼210 (∼9 days)
Breach C n + 50% 1.12 3.67 1.18 160 6 136 ∼260 (∼11 days)
Breach C vcrit − 50% 2.31 3.76 2.31 90 6 80 ∼165 (∼7 days)
Breach C vcrit ref 1.76 3.56 1.76 118 6 108 ∼210 (∼9 days)
Breach C vcrit + 50% 1.10 3.40 1.36 150 6 140 ∼280 (12 days)

but had quite similar impacts on the inundation patterns in
the levee cell. When land-cover roughness behind the central
levee breach was changed by ±50%, the resulting flow veloc-
ities in the breach [Figure 13(a)] led to final breach widths
that varied from 50 to 75 m [Figure 13(b)] and maximum
inflow rates from 900 to 1400 m3/s [Figure 13(d)]. A ±50%
change in critical velocity yielded breach widths between 45
and 87 m, and inflow rates between 900 and 1500 m3/s. For
the lowered roughness values (n −50%) as well as for the
lowered critical velocity (vcrit −50%), the high inflow rate at
the breach filled up the levee cell to an extent that eventually
reversed flow in the breach after about 10 days [9 days after
moment of breach; negative values in Figure 13(a) and
Figure 13(d)].
Looking at the inundation characteristics at the three sta-
tions in the levee cell (Figure 14; Table 6), it can be seen that
the sensitivity of flood depths to land-cover roughness or
critical velocity was small near the breach location. Flood
depths varied at most 0.3 m at the central station (which was
located at 700 m from the breach). Also, the flood arrival
time remained practically the same at the central station
(∼6 h) for all roughness and critical velocity values tested.
For locations farther away in the levee cell, the effects of
changing land-cover roughness or critical velocity were
larger, as outlined as follows.
Effects on flood arrival times (start of flash
flood phase)
Changes in breach opening and in land-cover roughness had
large effects on flow velocities during the flash-flood phase
and thus on the arrival times of the flood wave at relatively
distant locations in the levee cell (at locations several kilo-
metres away from breach). Flood arrival times at locations
10 km away were reduced by 30% when Manning’s rough-
ness was reduced by 50% or if a 50% lower critical velocity
allowed a much larger breach opening (∼40 h, or almost 2
days, change in flood arrival time; see Table 6). Likewise,
increasing roughness or vcrit by 50% increased flood arrival
times by 30%.

J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
16
Effects on equilibrium flood phase (start of
‘bathtub’ phase)
The start of the equilibrium flood phase shifted together
with flood arrival time. At locations 10 km away from the
breach, increasing or decreasing surface roughness or
critical-velocity values by ±50% changed the start of this
flood phase by ±2 days (Table 6).
Effects on maximum flood levels
The inflow velocity at the levee breach influences the growth
of the breach and therefore determines the amount of water
that enters the levee cell. Especially after day 3 (2 days after
the breach; Figure 13), differences in the amount of water
entering the levee cell, relative to the reference situation,
became significant. This change in water volume may have
large influences on flood development at more distant loca-
tions in the levee cell. For example, flood development is
quite different at the southern station 2 days after arrival of
the flood front, and maximum water levels varied by more
than 1 m in the equilibrium phase (Figure 14).
Discussion
The MESD levee cell is large and topographically diverse,
and 2D modelling shows complex patterns of floodplain
flow following levee failure. Depending on the location of
the original breach, flow pathways and rates were strongly
influenced by presence of roads, railways, flow conduits and
local topographic lows. These floodplain features lead to
local flow paths, which at times were perpendicular or even
opposite to channel flow. None of the complexity and details
earlier would be simulated by a 1D model of the same area,
underlining that inundation depths and extent based on 1D
modelling may not be realistic.
The 2D floodplain modelling here suggests a three-stage
classification of flood phases that may aid in identifying
flood response and mitigation measures, including for
example evacuation planning in areas protected by levees.
1. The first flood phase is associated with the greatest threat
to human populations as it is characterised by high flow
velocities and rapid increases in water depths. The arrival
time of the flood front is a crucial quantity for mitigating
loss in this destructive flood phase. A complicating factor
in predicting arrival times is that travel times are func-
tions of breach characteristics and terrain properties of
the levee cell. The sensitivity analysis here showed that
increased land-cover roughness or more sturdy levees can
reduce flood arrival times.
2. During the second flood phase, water depths may
increase or decrease at a particular location depending on
the local elevation and the distance from that location to
© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Huthoff et al.
the breach. In general, in areas near the breach, water
levels drop during the second flood phase, whereas
water levels increase at locations farther away (several
kilometres).
3. The third flood phase is hydraulically the most easily
understood and thus poses the least threat in terms of
unexpected flood effects in the levee cell. Flow velocities
are low, and water-level changes in the levee cell are
directly related to the inflow or outflow quantities at the
levee breach.
The sensitivity analysis here showed that the start of the
three flood phases and the flow depths in each of phases are
significantly affected by breach development and by changes
in floodplain land cover and associated roughness. For reli-
able predictions of potential flood events, accurate breach
models and accurate land-cover roughness maps are impor-
tant. With respect to levee breach models, various research
efforts have led to different models, each associated with
large uncertainties in their predicted outcomes and each
with apparent limited regions of applicability (e.g. Wahl,
2004; Thornton et al., 2011). In our inundation study, we
adopted just one of such empirically based breach-growth
functions but tried to capture a wide range of potential
inundation impacts by strongly varying the key input
parameter vcrit (variation ±50%). The range of outcomes
from this study can be narrowed if more information about
the local geotechnical dike parameters are taken into account
in conjunction with a levee breach model fitting to the situa-
tion under investigation.
Also, the sensitivity analysis showed that increased rough-
ness near the levee breach reduces flood damage in two ways.
First, a higher roughness slows migration of the flood front,
giving more time for emergency response measures in the
entire levee cell. Second, higher roughness results in lower
flow velocities in the breach, which leads to less erosion and,
hence, a smaller final breach opening. Because of the smaller
opening, less water will flow into the levee cell. Therefore,
intentionally increasing land-cover roughness behind the
levees, for example by planting trees, could be an effective
measure to mitigate the effects of a levee breach in a large
and high-risk leveed floodplain area.
Conclusions
This study showed that a DEM and hybrid 1D2D hydrody-
namic model can be used to realistically simulate a large-
scale levee breach and subsequent inundation of a large
floodplain area. The modelling here was based on extensive
verification of the floodplain DEM, including manual cor-
rections for obstacles to flow such as highway and railroad
embankments as well as flow conduits such as embankment
underpasses and bridges. Sensitivity analyses showed that
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18
Hydrodynamic levee-breach and inundation modelling
50 × 50 m resolution of topographic data is sufficient to
resolve flood response, with little or no gain from smaller
grid-cell sizes. The flood simulation was sensitive to breach
characteristics and land-cover roughness, so that changing
levee erodibility and Manning’s n values impacted a broad
range of model results including arrival time of the flood
front and maximum inundation depths. Changes in flood-
plain roughness (50% change in Manning roughness) or
changes in levee erodibility (50% change in critical velocity)
changed the resulting flood arrival times at locations
10 km from the breach by 30–40 h (30% change) and the
maximum water depths by ∼0.5 m.
The modelling here also showed that breach characteris-
tics and subsequent flood conditions within the levee cell
differ significantly depending on breach location. The
maximum breach size determines the amount of water that
flows into the levee cell, and this total volume of water is a
function of peak stage (water-surface elevation) outside the
levee, ground elevation inside the levee at the point of
failure, size of the breach, and topography and land cover
within the levee cell near the breach. Breach development
simulations showed a maximum breach width of about 55 m
reached for the central breach simulation up to 60 m for the
southern breach and about 70 m wide for the northern
breach. These widths could grow an additional 20 m or more
depending on the erodibility of the levees.
Finally, the 2D flood inundation modelling here demon-
strates that flow patterns across a large and topographically
diverse floodplain such as the MESD are highly complex.
These patterns and inundation timings are strongly
influenced by breach location, topography and roughness
near the breach, interior obstacles to flow such as highway
and railroad embankments, and proper characterisation
in the model DEM of flow conduits through such obsta-
cles. 1D models are inherently incapable of simulating
such complex flow. The 2D modelling here indicate the
range of effects of a large levee-failure event and suggests
a three-stage classification of levee-breach-related flooding:
(1) a flash flood phase, (2) a flow redistribution phase, and
(3) an equilibrium phase, each associated with typical
flood characteristics and potential hazards Recognising
and quantifying these effects is crucial for improving
flood-preparedness and planning of flood response in
levee-protected areas, which may suggest a sense of safety
but are oftentimes susceptible to largest flood-damages
and public-safety threats if the flood-protection system
fails.
Acknowledgements
We thank Chris Krebs and Dutko Global Risk Management
for facilitating this research, and we thank Susanne Groot
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
17
and Bertus de Graaff from HKV Consultants for their tech-
nical assistance with SOBEK.
References
American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE]. 2009 report card
for America’s infrastructure. Washington, DC: American
Society of Civil Engineers, 2009.
Arcement G.J. & Schneider V.R. Guide for selecting Manning’s
roughness coefficients for natural channels and floodplains.
US Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper, 2339, 1989.
Association of State Floodplain Managers [ASFPM].
National flood programs and policies in review 2007.
Available at http://www.floods.org/PDF/NFPPR_2007/
ASFPM_NFPPR_2007.pdf [accessed 12 December 2011].
Chatterjee C., Förster S. & Bronstert A. Comparison of hydro-
dynamic models of different complexities to model floods
with emergency storage areas. Hydrol Process 2008, 22, 4695–
4709.
Chow V.T. Open-channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1959.
Cook A. & Merwade V. Effect of topographic data, geometric
configuration and modeling approach on flood inundation
mapping. J Hydrol 2009, 377, 131–142.
Deltares Systems. SOBEK technical reference manual.
Version 2.12.003. SOBEK Suite, 2011. Available at http://
www.deltaressystems.com/hydro/product/108282/sobek-suite
[accessed 12 December 2011].
Green J.C. Modelling flow resistance in vegetated stream: review
and development of new theory. Hydrol Process 2005, 19, (6),
1245–1259.
Green J.C. Effect of macrophyte spatial variability on channel
resistance. Adv Water Resour 2006, 29, 426–438.
Hesselink A.W., Stelling G.S., Kwadijk J.C.J. & Middelkoop H.
Inundation of a Dutch river polder, sensitivity analysis of a
physically based inundation model using historic data. Water
Resour Res 2003, 39, (9), 1234. doi: 10.1029/2002WR001334.
Huthoff F., Augustijn D.C.M. & Hulscher S.J.M.H. Analytical
solution of the depth-averaged flow velocity in case of sub-
merged rigid cylindrical vegetation. Water Resour Res 2007,
43, W06413.
Izenberg N.R., Arvidson R.E., Brackett R.A., Saatchi S.S.,
Osburn G.R. & Dohrenwend J. Erosional and depositional
patterns associated with the 1993 Missouri River floods
inferred from SIR-C and TOPSAR radar data. J Geophys Res
1996, 101, (E10), 23149–23167.
James C.S., Birkhead A.L., Jordanova A.A. & O’Sullivan J.J. Flow
resistance of emergent vegetation. J Hydraulic Res 2004, 42,
(4), 390–398.
Leenders J.K., Groot S.M., Kolen B. & Van Hemert H. Assessing
the effects of compartmentalization of dike-ring areas on the
amount of economic damage and the number of casualties
related to a flood. In: Proceedings of the International
18
Conference on Water & Flood management (ICWFM-2007).
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007.
Magilligan F.J., Phillips J.D., James L.A. & Gomez B.
Geomorphic and sedimentological controls on the effective-
ness of an extreme flood. J Geol 1998, 106, 87–95.
Markus A.A., Courage W.M.G. & Van Mierlo M.C.L.M. A com-
putational framework for flood risk assessment in the Neth-
erlands. Sci Program 2010, 18, (2), 93–105.
Meitzen K.M. Flood processes, forest dynamics, and disturbance
in the Congaree River floodplain, South Carolina. PhD Dis-
sertation, University of South Carolina, Colombia, SC, 2011.
National Committee on Levee Safety [NCLS]. Draft: recommen-
dations for a National Levee Safety Program: a report to con-
gress from the National Committee on Levee Safety, 2009.
Available at http://leveesafety.org/rec_reporttocongress.cfm
[accessed 12 December 2011].
National Committee on Levee Safety [NCLS]. Levee safety in
the U.S., 2011. Available at http://leveesafety.org/
abt_legislativehistory.cfm [accessed 12 December 2011].
Pinter N. Historical discharge measurements on the Middle
Mississippi River, USA: no basis for ‘changing history’.
Hydrol Process 2010, 24, (8), 1088–1093.
Ree W.O. & Crow F.R. Friction factors for vegetated waterways of
small slope. Agricultural Research Service ARS-S-151, U.S.
Washington, DC: Department of Agriculture, 1977.
Remo J.W.F. & Pinter N. Retro-modeling the Middle Mississippi
River. J Hydrol 2007, 337, 421–435. doi: 10.1016/
j.hydrol.2007.02.008.
Rogers J.D. Overview of post-flood surveys of the upper Missis-
sippi River Valley in the summer of 2008. In: R.E. Criss &
T.M. Kusky, eds. Finding the balance between floods, flood
protection, and river navigation, Proceedings of a conference
held November 11, 2008 at St. Louis University. St. Louis, MO:
St. Louis University Center for Environmental Sciences, 2009,
41–46.
Saucier C.L., Howard I.L. & Tom Jr J.G. Levee breach geometries
and algorithms to simulate breach closure. SERRI Report
70015-001, Mississippi State University. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, 2009.
Thornton C.I., Pierce M.W. & Abt S.R. Enhanced predictions
for peak outflow from breached embankment dams. J Hydrol
Eng 2011, 16, (1), 81–88.
© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Huthoff et al.
Tsihrintzis V.A. & Madiedo E.E. Hydraulic resistance determina-
tion in marsh wetlands. Water Resour Manag 2000, 14, 285–
309.
Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC).
2002. 2000 LCU data for the Upper Mississippi River System.
Available at http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/data_library/
land_cover_use/2000_lcu_umesc.html [accessed 12
December 2011].
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. Upper Mississippi River
System Flow Frequency Study [UMRSFFS]: hydrologic and
hydraulics appendix D St. Louis District. St. Louis, MO: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers St. Louis District, 2004a.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]. Upper Mississippi
River Floodway Computation [UMRFC]. USACE St. Paul
District, Rock Island District, St. Louis District, 2004b.
U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT]. National bridge
inventory ASCII files, 2007. Available at http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/ascii.cfm [accessed 26
December 2007].
United States Geological Survey [USGS]. The National Map
Viewer and Download Platform, 2011. Available at http://
nationalmap.gov/viewer.html [accessed 1 August 2011].
Van Mierlo M.C.L., Schweckendiek T. & Courage W.G.M.
Importance of river system behavior in assessing flood risk.
In: P. Samuels, S. Huntington, W. Allsop & J. Harrop, eds.
Proceedings of the European Conference on Flood Risk Manage-
ment ‘floodrisk 2008’: research into practice. Leiden, The Neth-
erlands: CRC Press/Balkema, 2008, 327–337.
van Mierlo M.C.L., Vrouwenvelder A.C.W.M., Calle E.O.F.,
Vrijling J.K., Jonkman S.N., De Bruijn K.M. & Weerts A.W.
Assessment of flood risk accounting for river system behav-
ior. Int J River Basin Manag 2007, 5, (2), 93–104.
Verheij H.J. Modification breach growth model in HIS-OM.
Deltares technical report Q3299, November 2002, 2002 (in
Dutch).
Verwey A. Latest developments in floodplain modelling 1D/2D
integration. Keynote lecture 6th Conference on Hydraulics in
Civil Engineering Hobart 28–30 November 2001, Australia,
2001.
Wahl T.L. Uncertainty of predictions of embankment dam
breach parameters. J Hydraul Eng 2004, 130, (5),
389–397.
J Flood Risk Management 8 (2015) 2–18