The river Vamsadhara runs through the states of Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Odisha along a stretch of coastline that is prone to cyclonic storms. Riverine flow, along with cyclonic gales, is a crucial issue for most of India's coastal districts. As a result, a developed flood forecasting model is required to mitigate the danger of flooding to a certain level. For evaluating maximum water depth and inundation of flood plains induced by storms under existing and future land use circumstances, hydrological and hydraulic models are more prominently studied. The current work employs hydrological and hydrodynamic models to simulate a real flood inundation model for unsteady flow conditions. The technique involves the processing of the digital elevation models (DEM) to generate flood hydrographs that serve as boundary conditions for the reaches. In the present analysis, Manning's roughness coefficient is used as a sensitive parameter. Calibration and validation of extreme flood events that occurred in 2006, 2010, and 2013 using observed water levels yielded good results, with model performances of 0.79, 0.68, and 0.84, respectively. The findings of the generated depth, velocity, and flood extent maps are presented. These maps can be used to plan for flood disasters and long-term watershed management.

  • To develop a calibrated rainfall-runoff model for a large river basin.

  • Interactions between hydrologic and hydrodynamic models.

  • Simulations of two-dimensional unsteady flow hydrodynamic model.

  • The high-risk zones generated by this model may help to plan flood prevention, mitigation, relief, and restoration efforts by related government agencies.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract
     
  • Abbreviation

    Description

  •  
  • 1D

    One-dimensional

  •  
  • 2D

    Two-dimensional

  •  
  • CWC

    Central Water Commission

  •  
  • DEM

    Digital elevation model

  •  
  • DGPS

    Differential Geographical Positioning System

  •  
  • DTM

    Digital Terrain Model

  •  
  • GCP

    Ground Control Points

  •  
  • GD

    Gauge discharge

  •  
  • GIS

    Geographic Information System

  •  
  • HEC-HMS

    Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System

  •  
  • HEC-RAS

    Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System

  •  
  • HFL

    High flood level

  •  
  • IMD

    Indian Meteorological Department

  •  
  • LISS

    Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor

  •  
  • LULC

    Land Use Land Cover

  •  
  • MIKE-SHE

    Generalized River Modeling Package- Systeme Hydroloque Europeen

  •  
  • NRSC

    National Remote Sensing Centre

  •  
  • NSE

    Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient

  •  
  • R2

    Coefficient of determination

  •  
  • SANDRP

    South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers, and People

  •  
  • SCS-CN

    The Soil Conservation Service Curve Number

  •  
  • SCS-UH

    The Soil Conservation Service Unit Hydrograph

  •  
  • SRTM

    Shuttle Radar Topography Mission

  •  
  • TIN

    Triangular Irregular Networks

  •  
  • USACE

    United States Army Corps of Engineers

  •  
  • USDA

    United States Department Of Agriculture

  •  
  • UTM

    Universal Transverse Mercator

  •  
  • VRB

    Vamsadhara river basin

  •  
  • WGS 1984

    World Geodetic System84

  •  
  • WSEL/WSE

    Water surface elevation

In a tropical country like India, floods are the most frequent and extensive natural catastrophes (Sahoo & Sreeja 2015). The coastal area surrounding India's east coast is a densely populated stretch that is vulnerable to natural calamities such as tropical cyclones (Sahoo & Bhaskaran 2018). According to a report by the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), the Andhra Pradesh (AP) coast ranks as the second most cyclone-prone area after Odisha and has the second-largest vulnerable region to floods after Kerala. Tropical cyclones bring heavy rain and strong winds, causing devastation on most of the east-flowing rivers like Vamsadhara and Nagavalli, which record high daily rainfall. While such hydro-meteorological calamities as floods cannot be totally controlled, they may be regulated through the application of advanced geospatial tools and decision support systems to reduce risk and prevent it (Khan et al. 2014). The hydrological modeling system (HMS) is vital in analyzing the hydrological components and flood hydrographs by utilizing geospatial data to extract the input parameters essential for modeling from resources such as digital elevation models (DEM) and land use land cover (LULC). Furthermore, these pre-acquired flood hydrographs are integrated into hydraulic models to help in understanding the complexities of flood prediction and analysis. As a result, flood damage may be reduced by establishing an early warning system in advance and delivering a flood forecasting service to the public (Borsch & Simonov 2016). In a conventional flood warning system, the stream water levels are monitored and warnings are issued with maps of the area that correlate to the river water levels (Fang et al. 2008; Ostheimer 2012; Krajewski et al. 2016).

To construct a fully functioning hydraulic model, it is necessary to choose an acceptable hydrodynamic model as well as the input variables and boundary conditions that will be employed in the model. Researchers have differing perspectives on the choosing and selecting of hydrodynamic models, which include one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) models, which have been a focus of study in recent years. Horritt et al. (2007), Anees et al. (2016), and Montané et al. (2017) demonstrated the benefit of hydraulic modeling in simulating flood events, estimating vulnerable areas, and identifying flood hazard zones, all of which are required components of developing any flood and risk management strategy involving 1D or 2D flow. Earlier studies have shown that a continuously simulated hydrological and hydrodynamic 1D steady-flow model can predict flood hazard zones (Sindhu & Rao 2016; Mahapatra et al. 2021). As floods are so unpredictable, an unsteady flow analysis seems to be the best technique to visualize flood hazard zones. The unsteady flow analysis was used for inundation mapping because water can flow in both directions once it reaches the floodplain (Patel et al. 2017; Mihu-Pintilie et al. 2019; Shustikova et al. 2019). The hydrodynamic models solve shallow water equations and provide more accurate estimates of inundation time and duration (Teng et al. 2017). They can also anticipate flood velocity, water surface elevation (WSE), and flooded areas, laying the basis for mitigation strategies. Such an unsteady flow simulation can quantify the spatial risk by converting the flood depth and duration to meaningful and perceptible data. The flood depth is a significant factor in determining the extent to which the flood plain gets inundated (Neelz & Pender 2013). Villazon et al. (2009) employed Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) to evaluate the unsteady flow process in the Pirai river during flood events and to quantify the peak discharge.

Two prerequisites for risk evaluation studies are flood mapping and hazard assessment. Previous studies (Bhandari et al. 2017; Kayyun & Dagher 2018; Pathan & Agnihotri 2020) assessed the computational approaches to use for flood hazard and stream flow modeling. Mani et al. (2014) and Kalimisetty et al. (2021) developed a method for estimating floods by combining 1D and 2D flow simulations using MIKE-SHE. Sarchani et al. (2020) found that combining 1D/2D hydraulic models gives a more realistic depiction of floodplain area, flow rates, and water depths at high peak discharge. Ongdas et al. (2020) discovered submerged regions during flood occurrences with varying return times on the river Yesil in Kazakhstan. Following the flow of inundation mapping, hazard quantification through the generation of flood maps that regulate flood risk management techniques plays a critical role. These flood inundation maps developed in the Geographic Information System (GIS) are regarded to be reliant on the output provided by hydraulic model simulation results used to assess flood hazards. The development of the digital terrain model (DTM) and GIS had a profound influence on the ability to characterize and comprehend the consequences of extremely varied boundary conditions on the hydrologic response (Ramírez 2000). Several previous studies (Dewan et al. 2007; Giardino et al. 2012) evaluated, verified, and assessed flood extent and damage using remote sensing techniques in combination with auxiliary field measurements in GIS platforms. With improved processing capabilities and meteorological and terrain data, the usage of hydrological and hydrodynamic models for inundation zone identification and hazard assessment has expanded significantly (Andrysiak & Maidment 2000). Talukdar et al. (2021) investigated the Baitarani river basin in Odisha using a dynamic wave momentum equation to combine hydrologic and FLOW-2D models. The study found that the Bhadrak district is most susceptible to Baitarani river flooding during major floods, showing that the 2D model mapping was adequately accurate. Surwase et al. (2019) utilized HEC-RAS to model flooding along the Mahanadi River in Odisha in 2008. The model's flood extent and flood hazard map were verified using a satellite image, which produced good results. Khattak et al.’s (2016) study demonstrates the use of hydraulic models and the GIS to construct flood extent maps for a stretch of Pakistan's Kabul river. GIS approaches, HEC-RAS, and multi-criteria decision analysis are promising for developing realistic flood extent predictions that are more effective in flood risk zonation (Ouma & Tateishi 2014; Rahmati et al. 2015; Mishra & Satapathy 2021). Based on literature reviews, it may be stated that combining hydrological and hydrodynamic models enhances flood hazard response and management. This strategy is based on flood predictions to minimize loss of life and property. Flood risk analyses on large scales are rare and suffer from constraints due to a lack of data and methods to accurately reflect hydrodynamic processes (Vorogushyn et al. 2018). In this context, acquiring high-resolution elevation data and satellite data during storm occurrences for calibration and validation is a challenging and crucial component of the study.

Floods are frequent in the Vamsadhara river basin (VRB) and have caused havoc in 1999, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2014, and 2018 (https://www.cwcvsk.gov.in/strmlist.html). The severity of rains that occurred in 2006, 2010 (Jal), and 2013 (Phallin) was exceptionally high, affecting both the Odisha and AP coasts. According to reports, floods in 2006 affected 18,912 villages, 67.39 lakh people, and 4.90 lakh acres of agricultural land. These floods hit all major rivers, including Vamsadhara, which were flooded, posing a threat to life and property in 27 districts (https://health.odisha.gov.in/PDF/Disaster_Management.pdf). The 2010 Jal cyclone brought heavy rainfall to the region, affecting 2,73,483 people and causing major agricultural damage in AP (https://apsdma.ap.gov.in/common_mns/DM_plans/DDMP_pdf/District%20DM%20plan-Srikakulam%20District%202015.pdf). The extremely violent cyclone storm ‘Phailin’ that battered Odisha's coast in 2013 severely destroyed houses, agriculture, and communication infrastructure. (https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/168471468257979992/pdf/838860WP0P14880Box0382116B00PUBLIC0.pdf). However, no substantial hydrological studies have been conducted in the majority of the VRB so far. This necessitates the construction of a watershed model and the categorization of flood-inundated areas in the watershed in order to evaluate and forecast flood risk. The significance of this research is to generate the simplest and most reliable model for predicting the affected region of the large flood plain in future emergency scenarios.

To fill this void, the research aims to investigate flood forecasting and analysis approaches by integrating hydrological and hydrodynamic models for stream flow in the VRB and mapping flood-prone areas. The hydrological modeling system (HEC-HMS) was utilized to generate peak flood flow hydrographs at defined sites. These hydrographs were then used to run a hydrodynamic model, notably in the HEC-RAS, to anticipate floods. These two models were computed and verified individually for these three major storm events from 2006, 2010, and 2013, utilizing input datasets, observation data, simulation techniques, and statistical model performances. The integrated applications are being used to simulate floods and determine the degree of flooding. Thus, this method is used in the VRB, which has historical significance when it comes to flooding events.

The research methodology comprises three major stages, which have been discussed. (1) HEC-GeoHMS is a GIS extension that is used to preprocess the drainage networks and basin characteristics before calibrating and validating flood discharges at gauge stations in HEC-HMS in order to generate a calibrated hydrological flood forecasting model using various approaches such as loss, transform, and routing methods. (2) Generating hydrodynamic models in HEC-RAS by creating river geometrics, applying roughness coefficients, and peak discharges as input to steady-flow analysis, and then calibrating and validating with the measured water levels. (3) As floods are so unpredictable, an unsteady flow analysis is carried out to determine the flood-related hazard zones in the research area. Figure 1 depicts the schematic representation of the flow chart for the development of the flood model.
Figure 1

A schematic representation of the flow chart for the development of the HEC-RAS model.

Figure 1

A schematic representation of the flow chart for the development of the HEC-RAS model.

Close modal

To calculate the excess rainfall for each basin, it was necessary to use a mathematical equation that represented rainfall loss or to transform the excess rainfall into direct runoff. HEC-HMS has a total of 12 distinct loss models, some of which are intended particularly for event simulation and others for continuous simulation (USACE 2008). Among the methods for simulation investigations, gridded loss methods and soil moisture accounting loss methods are not favored since they need a large number of parameters. The Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) technique was chosen from the other loss methods for event-based simulation studies. As Sardoii et al. (2012) suggest, SCS-CN yields better outcomes than the other loss methods. The watershed coefficient is referred to as the curve number (CN). It is based on the characteristics of a watershed, such as land use and land cover (wasteland, agriculture, forest, and, more recently, urban (USDA-SCS 1986)). It has a range of 0–100, and it is employed to calculate the amount of rain that falls on the catchment. This method is simple to apply because it requires only a few watershed parameters, such as the CN number and initial abstraction (Wagener & Wheater 2006). Less optimized parameters have a key influence in increasing the accuracy of any model. The model performs better because there are fewer parameters that increase accuracy. The risk of uncertainty and the number of predictor variables go up when there are more parameters, which might result in over-parameterization. In Table 1, Equations (1) and (2) provide information on how much rain penetrates the surface and when it flows off.

Table 1

Equations used in the present study

EquationFormulaeDescription
formula
 
where Q denotes runoff depth, P represents monthly rainfall, S denotes maximum possible retention, and CN indicates curve number 
formula
 
formula
 
where Qpeak denotes peak discharge, C denotes conversion constant, Tpeak denotes time to peak, D denotes duration, Tlag denotes time lag, S denotes slope, CN denotes curve number, A denotes area, and L denotes hydraulic length 
formula
 
formula
 
formula
 
where S denotes storage in the river reach, K denotes travel time, and x denotes weighting factor varied between 0 and 0.5. 
formula
 
where Z1 and Z2 refer to the height of the main channel inverts, Y1 and Y2 refer to the water level at cross-sections, V1 and V2 refer to average velocities, and refer to velocity weighing coefficients, g refers to gravity acceleration, and he energy head loss 
formula
 
where t denotes time, H denotes the water surface elevation, h denotes the water depth, q denotes a source or sinks term, and u and v denote the X and Y velocity components, respectively 
formula
 
where V denotes velocity equation given by Manning's roughness coefficient (n), R denotes the hydraulic radius, and H denotes the water surface elevation 
EquationFormulaeDescription
formula
 
where Q denotes runoff depth, P represents monthly rainfall, S denotes maximum possible retention, and CN indicates curve number 
formula
 
formula
 
where Qpeak denotes peak discharge, C denotes conversion constant, Tpeak denotes time to peak, D denotes duration, Tlag denotes time lag, S denotes slope, CN denotes curve number, A denotes area, and L denotes hydraulic length 
formula
 
formula
 
formula
 
where S denotes storage in the river reach, K denotes travel time, and x denotes weighting factor varied between 0 and 0.5. 
formula
 
where Z1 and Z2 refer to the height of the main channel inverts, Y1 and Y2 refer to the water level at cross-sections, V1 and V2 refer to average velocities, and refer to velocity weighing coefficients, g refers to gravity acceleration, and he energy head loss 
formula
 
where t denotes time, H denotes the water surface elevation, h denotes the water depth, q denotes a source or sinks term, and u and v denote the X and Y velocity components, respectively 
formula
 
where V denotes velocity equation given by Manning's roughness coefficient (n), R denotes the hydraulic radius, and H denotes the water surface elevation 
Table 2

Data and their sources used for creating modeling system

S. No.Data typeSource
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM (30 m resolution) Earth Explorer, http://eros.usgs.gov 
Annual rainfall data grids from 2001 to 2013, Land use and Land cover map of the study area National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), Hyderabad 
River discharge and gauge data at Gunupur, Kashinagar CWC, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 
Resourcesat-1, Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS) III image Bhuvan website 
S. No.Data typeSource
Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM (30 m resolution) Earth Explorer, http://eros.usgs.gov 
Annual rainfall data grids from 2001 to 2013, Land use and Land cover map of the study area National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC), Hyderabad 
River discharge and gauge data at Gunupur, Kashinagar CWC, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 
Resourcesat-1, Linear Imaging Self-scanning Sensor (LISS) III image Bhuvan website 

The transform model replicates the process of excess precipitation into direct runoff from a watershed. This excess precipitation has a uniform geographical distribution and a steady intensity throughout time (USACE 2008). HEC-HMS provides a total of eight distinct transformation models. Among them, the SCS Unit Hydrograph (UH) model was selected since it is extensively used and requires minimal parameters to calculate runoff rates. When compared to other models that are more difficult and need more inputs for most catchments, it simply takes one input, i.e., lag time. Ramly & Tahir (2015) conclude that this SCS-UH approach requires fewer parameters and can be used to accurately simulate stream flows in different watersheds around the world. Equations (3)–(5) and Table 1 are used to calculate the peak discharge for each basin using the SCS-UH. Khodaparast et al. (2010) suggest that SCS-UH is more consistent and yields superior results over other transform models. The Muskingum routing technique is a lumped flow routing methodology derived for eight basin reaches using Equation (6) and (Table 1). Since its debut in 1930, this approach has been mostly used to analyze river engineering in order to determine hydrologic routing variables (Tewolde & Smithers 2006). One of the drawbacks of using the aforementioned approaches to construct a hydrological model is the unavailability of data.

The standard step approach for uniform flow analysis in HEC-RAS is used to construct water surface profiles from one cross-section to the next by resolving the energy equation using an iterative process termed the standard step method, as presented in Equation (7) and Table 1. Most of the flood flows are somewhat diffusive, so they may be modeled using the diffusive-wave method (Ponce 1989). To compute 2D unsteady flow in HEC-RAS, there are two methods, the Diffusive-wave method and the Full momentum method. The 2D diffusive-wave method was chosen over the other method because it enables computations to run faster and steadily. This approach allows for realistic modeling of the majority of 2D modeling scenarios, such as flood modeling, where inertial forces predominate over frictional and other forces. Typically, the diffusive-wave equation may be applied to larger river systems. The use of the diffusive-wave model provides a sufficiently precise answer if the underlying assumptions are met; it mostly computes approximate global estimations (i.e., flood extents). HEC-RAS will employ both continuity and diffusive-wave versions of the momentum equation to compute WSE at a point in time. Equations (8) and (9) and (Table 1) indicate the unsteady differential mass conservation (continuity) form and Manning's formula in the diffusion-wave equation.

Efficiency measures of the model are determined by assessing its performance both before and after calibration, as well as its accuracy during validation, using the criteria mentioned below (Moriasi et al. 2013). Equation (10) shows the Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency (NSE), and the coefficient of determination (R2) in Equation (11) is used in evaluating the model's overall performance.

The NSE is an indicator of the effectiveness of the model in terms of its ability to predict variation (Nash & Sutcliffe 1970). The NSE indicates the degree to which the line fits into 1:1. NSE values vary from −infinity to 1, with 1 being the best fit and values between 0.5 and 1 signifying satisfactory performance (Moriasi et al. 2013).
formula
(10)
The R2 quantifies the variance ratio and the correlation between simulated and observed values in the model.
formula
(11)

Study area and data used

The river Vamsadhara flows between the Rushikulya river in Odisha and the river Godavari in AP. It covers 8,015 km2 in Odisha and 2,815 km2 in AP, with a total aerial extent of 10,830 km2 (https://sandrp.in/2017/05/23/rivers-profile-of-andhra-pradesh-and-telangana-states/). The river starts on the border of Kalahandi and Rayagada districts in Odisha. It flows through Odisha's Rayagada and Gajapati districts and into AP's Srikakulam district, where it meets the Bay of Bengal at Kalingapatnam. It is located between latitudes 18°15′N and 19°57′N and longitudes 83°25′E and 84°57′E, as shown in Figure 2. During the southwest monsoon season, the basin gets most of its rain from June to December. An annual rainfall in the basin reaches a high of 2,591 mm and a low of 410 mm. A field survey is carried out using a Differential Geographical Positioning System (DGPS) to determine the Geographical Coordinate Points (GCPs) of gauge stations and high flood levels (HFLs) at diverse locations. The GCPs of the gauge stations (point data) are represented in the GIS as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2

Geographic position of the VRB.

Figure 2

Geographic position of the VRB.

Close modal
Figure 3

Location of CWC gauging stations.

Figure 3

Location of CWC gauging stations.

Close modal

Hydrologic model setup and basin delineation

The ArcGIS stream generation tool was used to delineate the VRB and sub-basins using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of 30 m resolution projected in Universal Transverse Mercator (i.e., UTM) of zone 44, WGS84. This basin model was divided into 17 sub-basins using a series of trials to enhance the accuracy of the model (Hromadka et al. 1988). Parameters like the CN grid derived from a soil land use polygon and hydrological soil groups are categorized as inputs into HEC-GeoHMS. As part of a simulation, a basin is imported into HEC-HMS after it has been set up for basin features, parameters, and hydrologic modeling processes (HMS). HEC-HMS combines basin, meteorological, time-series data, and controls specifications for each model run. The hydrologic components of the basin model comprise 17 sub-basins, 8 junctions, and 8 main reaches. The meteorological model, on the other hand, specifies the daily rainfall supplied as an input. In the control specification for simulation, the beginning date and the ending date are specified for a period of 90 days. Gauge discharge (GD) data at Junction 91 (J91) (Gunupur) and Junction 81 (J81) (Kashinagar) are incorporated into real-time-series data with all meteorological components to calibrate and simulate the created model (Table 2). Thus, the hydrological model is further calibrated and validated in HEC-HMS, as illustrated in Figure 4. The SCS-CN (loss method) approach is used for estimating rainfall excess, while the transform method is used for converting direct runoff to point runoff, and the Muskingum method for hydrologic routing. HMS determined the flood flows at each reach of the river during flood occurrences in 2006, 2010, and 2013. So, the model's performance was checked and found to be good (Mahapatra et al. 2021).
Figure 4

HEC-HMS hydrological model setup of the VRB.

Figure 4

HEC-HMS hydrological model setup of the VRB.

Close modal

HEC-HMS simulation and calibration/validation approach

The HEC-HMS modeling system was used to simulate 90 days of daily rainfall over 3 years (2006 for calibration, 2010 and 2013 for validation). The hydrologic parameters in the model were subjected to sensitivity analysis, and three parameters were shown to be the most sensitive. CN, travel time (K), and runoff coefficient (x) were also shown to be the most sensitive parameters in other studies based on the parameter sensitivity analysis (Sardoii et al. 2012; Tahmasbinejad et al. 2012). During the calibration process, the pre-set values for these parameters were fine-tuned to the measured value by comparing simulated results with real-time data that had acceptable range indicators that were confirmed by the model's statistical performance (Mahapatra et al. 2021), while fitting the computed discharge values with historical data at gauge stations in the basin. In Table 3, the calibrated parameters CN, K, and x were computed for the run in 2006. The NSE and R2 indices were utilized to do statistical analysis. It was determined that the calibration procedure was effective in terms of both visual and statistical comparisons. The model was run using predefined values of the calibrated model in the validation phase, and the corresponding values obtained were evaluated statistically in the same way as the calibration process was done. Thus, the model can be utilized as a real-time flood forecast model because it is calibrated and further evaluated with 2 years of real-time data that corresponded well with the observed data.

Table 3

Computed and calibrated hydrological parameters of the VRB

S. No.Basin details
Main reachesKxCalibrated
Sub-basinsA (km2)CNCNKx
W340 1,011.0 76.6 R170 10.3 0.2 76.6 10.3 0.20 
W330 1,016.6 45.3 R150 7.2 0.2 38.5 7.23 0.19 
W320 1,226.8 47.9    40.7   
W310 22.2 55.3 R140 0.44 0.2 47.0 0.46 0.20 
W300 471.2 45.3    38.5   
W290 502.8 99.0 R110 3.95 0.2 91.0 3.96 0.19 
W280 1,312.0 37.0    34.8   
W270 80.3 53.9 R100 1.2 0.2 49.6 2.7 0.20 
W260 369.3 48.0    44.2   
10 W250 609.2 41.6 R90 4.46 0.2 38.3 5.0 0.19 
11 W240 0.59 51 R40 0.05 0.2 46.9 0.05 0.30 
12 W230 1,289.5 37    34   
13 W220 363.8 46.3    42.6   
14 W210 584.0 41    37.7   
15 W200 288.9 45.7 R60 4.7 0.2 42.0 7.0 0.19 
16 W190 845.8 41.5    38.2   
17 W180 681.8 70.7    65.1   
S. No.Basin details
Main reachesKxCalibrated
Sub-basinsA (km2)CNCNKx
W340 1,011.0 76.6 R170 10.3 0.2 76.6 10.3 0.20 
W330 1,016.6 45.3 R150 7.2 0.2 38.5 7.23 0.19 
W320 1,226.8 47.9    40.7   
W310 22.2 55.3 R140 0.44 0.2 47.0 0.46 0.20 
W300 471.2 45.3    38.5   
W290 502.8 99.0 R110 3.95 0.2 91.0 3.96 0.19 
W280 1,312.0 37.0    34.8   
W270 80.3 53.9 R100 1.2 0.2 49.6 2.7 0.20 
W260 369.3 48.0    44.2   
10 W250 609.2 41.6 R90 4.46 0.2 38.3 5.0 0.19 
11 W240 0.59 51 R40 0.05 0.2 46.9 0.05 0.30 
12 W230 1,289.5 37    34   
13 W220 363.8 46.3    42.6   
14 W210 584.0 41    37.7   
15 W200 288.9 45.7 R60 4.7 0.2 42.0 7.0 0.19 
16 W190 845.8 41.5    38.2   
17 W180 681.8 70.7    65.1   

Hydrodynamic model setup

1D hydrodynamic model

The following are the essential input data for running a hydraulic steady model and simulating water levels in a river: geometry data, boundary conditions, Manning's roughness coefficient (n), and flow hydrograph data for the VRB, with a total of 544 river cross-sections, generated using the Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) in HEC-GeoRAS. Figure 5 depicts the cross-sections of VRB created in HEC-GeoRAS. These pre-processed DTM files containing geometric data are further used in HEC-RAS to input the requisite steady-flow data. Three profiles were evaluated using flow data, and the river station (RS) boundary conditions were inputs for the calculation of steady-flow analysis. The land use information was collected by the NSRC, which is an essential spatial information used in computing roughness coefficient. As seen in Figure 6, the river basin has 75.02 km2 of forest area, 45.28 km2 of cultivated land, 47.25 km2 of wasteland, 9.738 km2 of built-up area, and 9.76 km2 of maximum water bodies. Manning's roughness coefficient is determined for each of the catchment's river stations. Since the study region is largely covered with dense forest, the roughness coefficient (n) was set to 0.035 in this study. The model was calibrated for 2006 using many trials of Manning's value. It was then checked at the R140 and R150 reaches, where the 2010 and 2013 floods happened, to verify the accuracy of the model.
Figure 5

River cross-sections generated in HEC-GeoRAS.

Figure 5

River cross-sections generated in HEC-GeoRAS.

Close modal
Figure 6

Land use land cover map of the VRB.

Figure 6

Land use land cover map of the VRB.

Close modal

2D hydrodynamic model

While for setting the model calculations in 2D unsteady flow analysis that incorporates 2D flow areas (mesh network), the DEM is processed to build a terrain model using the RAS-Mappers tool in HEC-RAS. The DTM improves by taking into account the linear features of the visible soil surface. It includes updated terrain data as well as natural topography features like breaklines and ridges (Hirt 2014). The terrain 2D mesh network was constructed for the study region using the SRTM 30-m DEM as shown in Figure 7. At the beginning of the simulation, the initial flow, storage area conditions, and boundary conditions are assigned to the 2D flow area to perform the unsteady flow analysis. The upstream Boundary Condition (BC) is often a known inflow hydrograph, while the downstream BC is described as a known stage or flow hydrograph, rating curve, or normal depth. For the river of 254 km reach length, the flow hydrograph for a period of 90 days from 15 August 2006 to 15 November 2006, consisting of a flooding event, was routed. The following are the major reaches R10, R60, R90, R100, R110, R140, R150, and R170 with flow hydrographs serving as boundary conditions. In the downstream BC, the normal depth with a friction slope was set at 0.031. Figure 8(a)–8(c) illustrates the inflow hydrographs attributed to the river reaches during the 2006, 2010, and 2013 floods.
Figure 7

Boundary condition along with 2D flow area and flow mesh of the VRB.

Figure 7

Boundary condition along with 2D flow area and flow mesh of the VRB.

Close modal
Figure 8

Inflow hydrograph from HMS for the flood events occurring in (a) 2006; (b) 2010; and (c) 2013.

Figure 8

Inflow hydrograph from HMS for the flood events occurring in (a) 2006; (b) 2010; and (c) 2013.

Close modal

In HEC-RAS Mapper, a spatially varying land classification data set is created and then connected to the 2D flow area mesh using Manning's n values. Despite the widespread availability of traditional Manning's n values, predicting the value that should be utilized to simulate the flood on a large scale is difficult. This is mostly due to the diversity of roughness levels, which may vary by region (Schumann et al. 2007). As a consequence, this model must be simulated against a genuine flood occurrence before producing the necessary results, or an actual survey of the area must be conducted to determine the friction coefficient (Hunter et al. 2007), while the latter is unsuitable for large regions. Several studies, however, approximated Manning's roughness coefficient (n) with a respectable degree of precision using a look-up database of land use land cover applied to a hydrodynamic numerical model (Hossain et al. 2009; Lumbroso & Gaume 2012). Manning's roughness coefficient (n) is optimized in 10% increments from its base value throughout each simulation to produce calibrated roughness values ranging from 0.030 to 0.050, as mentioned in Table 4.

Table 4

Manning's roughness was calibrated and used in the 2D HEC-RAS model

S. No.Land use land cover (LULC)n-Value
Built-up 0.045 
Kharif crop 0.05 
Rabi crop 0.05 
Zaid crop 0.05 
Double/triple crop 0.05 
Current fallow 0.03 
Plantation 0.05 
Evergreen forest 0.11 
Deciduous forest 0.11 
10 Degraded/scrub forest 0.11 
12 Wasteland 0.04 
13 Waterbodies max 0.09 
14 Waterbodies min 0.05 
S. No.Land use land cover (LULC)n-Value
Built-up 0.045 
Kharif crop 0.05 
Rabi crop 0.05 
Zaid crop 0.05 
Double/triple crop 0.05 
Current fallow 0.03 
Plantation 0.05 
Evergreen forest 0.11 
Deciduous forest 0.11 
10 Degraded/scrub forest 0.11 
12 Wasteland 0.04 
13 Waterbodies max 0.09 
14 Waterbodies min 0.05 

After providing the model with inputs, including unsteady flow data, it is then made to run for simulation. The theta (θ) parameters are examined, i.e., a weighting factor of 1.0 is selected for the research area, which varies from 0.6 to 1.0. As stated by Pappenberger et al. (2005), the probability of obtaining a successful model result is significantly increased when the weighting factor is set to 1.0. Water surface tolerance is set to 0.003 m, and the algorithm is run for 20 iterations with an initial condition ramp-up fraction of 0.1. After simulation, the velocity, depth, and WSE profiles are imported into Arc GIS to generate flood inundation mapping for the three flood events.

Hydrological model calibration and validation

The hydrological model for the VRB has been calibrated using historical data from the two CWC GD stations located on J91 and J81 within the river basin (Gunupur and Kashinagar). Each hydrologic model was simulated and calibrated using a set of possible combinations of all parameters CN, K, and x values, as listed in Table 3. Calibration was conducted for the 2006 flood event, and Figure 9(a) and 9(b) illustrates the hydrograph of computed and observed discharge at Gunupur and Kashinagar gauge stations. As indicated in Table 5, the disparity between actual and simulated discharge is within an acceptable range. Sabzevari et al. (2009) define the acceptable level for relative % errors between actual and computed values as ±20%. The model's efficiency was estimated for the 2006 flood model at two gauge stations with NSE (E) values of 0.78 and 0.77. The R2 values found for the model were 0.703 and 0.707, which are within the acceptable range according to Moriasi et al. (2013).
Table 5

Model calibration results for the 30 September 2006 flood event in HEC-HMS

MeasureGauge discharge stationSimulated discharge (cumecs)Observed discharge (cumecs)DifferencePercent difference
Volume (MM) (Gunupur) 325 406 −81 −19.9 
Kashinagar 277 347 −70 −20 
Peak flow (m3/s) (Gunupur) 3,598.9 3,127.2 471.7 15.1 
Kashinagar 3,883.9 3,830.3 53.6 1.4 
Time of peak  30 September 2006, 00:00 30 September 2006, 00:00   
MeasureGauge discharge stationSimulated discharge (cumecs)Observed discharge (cumecs)DifferencePercent difference
Volume (MM) (Gunupur) 325 406 −81 −19.9 
Kashinagar 277 347 −70 −20 
Peak flow (m3/s) (Gunupur) 3,598.9 3,127.2 471.7 15.1 
Kashinagar 3,883.9 3,830.3 53.6 1.4 
Time of peak  30 September 2006, 00:00 30 September 2006, 00:00   
Figure 9

Observed and simulated discharge of the VRB: (a) and (b) 2006 flood hydrograph at Gunupur and Kashinagar; (c) and (d) 2010 flood hydrograph at Gunupur and Kashinagar; and (e) and (f) 2013 flood hydrograph at Gunupur and Kashinagar.

Figure 9

Observed and simulated discharge of the VRB: (a) and (b) 2006 flood hydrograph at Gunupur and Kashinagar; (c) and (d) 2010 flood hydrograph at Gunupur and Kashinagar; and (e) and (f) 2013 flood hydrograph at Gunupur and Kashinagar.

Close modal

The model was validated at two GD stations during the 2010 and 2013 floods, as shown in Table 6. Figure 9(c) and 9(d) compare the computed and actual discharge at both the GD stations during the 2010 flood event, which match well at the peak. Similarly, the hydrograph generated between the calculated and observed discharge during the 2013 flood event is shown in Figure 9(e) and 9(f), and it is very similar to historical data at both the Gunupur and Kashinagar gauges. In Table 6, the findings exhibit a low degree of variance within ±20% acceptable level (Sabzevari et al. 2009) from the observed data, which is acceptable. The validated model performances in 2010 with E were 0.81 and 0.80. However, the 2013 model's performance is E equal to 0.84 and 0.82, which are satisfactory and acceptable. For the 2010 flood, R2 values of 0.72 and 0.75 were obtained. However, they were 0.70 and 0.73 for the 2013 flood, which is deemed to be acceptable. Furthermore, the HEC-RAS model was fed with peak flow data derived from the standardized model at designated locations within the watershed.

Table 6

Validation results for the 19 September 2010 and 28 October 2013 flood events in HEC-HMS

MeasureFlood eventGauge discharge stationSimulated discharge (cumecs)Observed discharge (cumecs)DifferencePercent difference
Volume (MM) 2010 Gunupur 195.92 197.42 −1.5 −0.76 
Kashinagar 197.39 186.39 11 5.90 
2013 Gunupur 220.62 251.15 −30.53 −12.1 
Kashinagar 231.33 238.91 −7.58 −3.17 
Peak flow (m3/s) 2010 Gunupur 756.8 700 56.8 8.11 
Kashinagar 856.9 750 106.9 14.2 
2013 Gunupur 1,308.8 1,211.4 97.4 8.04 
Kashinagar 2,033.9 1,998.9 35 1.75 
MeasureFlood eventGauge discharge stationSimulated discharge (cumecs)Observed discharge (cumecs)DifferencePercent difference
Volume (MM) 2010 Gunupur 195.92 197.42 −1.5 −0.76 
Kashinagar 197.39 186.39 11 5.90 
2013 Gunupur 220.62 251.15 −30.53 −12.1 
Kashinagar 231.33 238.91 −7.58 −3.17 
Peak flow (m3/s) 2010 Gunupur 756.8 700 56.8 8.11 
Kashinagar 856.9 750 106.9 14.2 
2013 Gunupur 1,308.8 1,211.4 97.4 8.04 
Kashinagar 2,033.9 1,998.9 35 1.75 

Hydrodynamic model calibration and validation

The HEC-RAS model created for the VRB was calibrated and verified at two gauging stations on reaches R140 and R150 at cross-sections RS 3000 and RS 24000 for flow by comparing simulated values with observed data. Chow et al. (1988) recommended a roughness range of 0.035–0.065 for the river stretch and 0.08–0.15 for the overflow area. In the modeling process, the roughness coefficient (n) value of 0.035 is employed until the final fitted values nearly match the values at gauge stations. Table 7 shows the results of the calibration for the floods on 30 September 2006. The statistical indicators NSE and R2 show that correlations for both calibration and validation are within an acceptable range of the values listed in Tables 7 and 8. The validation phase was carried out for two peak occurrences: the floods of 19 September 2010 and 28 October 2013. As shown in Table 8, the discrepancy between actual and simulated water surface levels was slight, so the findings are regarded as good. Thus, it can be said that the RAS model was able to accurately predict stream flow in the Vamsadhara river watershed.

Table 7

Model calibration results for the 30 September 2006 flood event in HEC-RAS

S. No.Gauge discharge stationComputed discharge (cumecs)Calculated water depth (m)Observed water depth (m)Difference in water depthNSER2
Gunupur 3,598.9 3.76 3.69 −0.07 0.76 0.71 
Kashinagar 3,883.9 6.25 5.47 −0.78 0.79 0.73 
S. No.Gauge discharge stationComputed discharge (cumecs)Calculated water depth (m)Observed water depth (m)Difference in water depthNSER2
Gunupur 3,598.9 3.76 3.69 −0.07 0.76 0.71 
Kashinagar 3,883.9 6.25 5.47 −0.78 0.79 0.73 
Table 8

Validation results for the 19 September 2010 and 28 October 2013 flood events in HEC-RAS

S. No.Gauge discharge stationFlood eventComputed discharge (cumecs)Calculated water depth (m)Observed water depth (m)Difference in water depthNSER2
Gunupur 2010 756.8 2.87 2.42 −0.45 0.65 0.51 
Gunupur 2013 1,308.8 3.62 3.57 −0.05 0.82 0.84 
Kashinagar 2010 856.9 5.17 4.90 −0.27 0.68 0.52 
Kashinagar 2013 2,033.9 5.91 5.38 −0.53 0.79 0.75 
S. No.Gauge discharge stationFlood eventComputed discharge (cumecs)Calculated water depth (m)Observed water depth (m)Difference in water depthNSER2
Gunupur 2010 756.8 2.87 2.42 −0.45 0.65 0.51 
Gunupur 2013 1,308.8 3.62 3.57 −0.05 0.82 0.84 
Kashinagar 2010 856.9 5.17 4.90 −0.27 0.68 0.52 
Kashinagar 2013 2,033.9 5.91 5.38 −0.53 0.79 0.75 

Flood depth estimation and risk mapping

2D unsteady flood inundation models have been developed for the VRB for main reaches of length 254 km from upstream to downstream ends using the hydrodynamic model approach. The values in Table 4 are calibrated Manning's coefficients that are employed in the modeling process in acquiring the simulation results, i.e., the area of spatial flood inundation, for flood occurrences. Figure 10(a) and 10(b) illustrates the flood inundation region for the flood event that occurred on 30 September 2006, which covered a maximum depth of 22.5 m and a maximum WSE of 273.9 m. The maximum inundation depth and the maximum WSE for the cyclone that occurred on 19 September 2010 are shown in Figure 10(c) and 10(d). They are 21.9 and 190.5 m, respectively. The maximum flood inundation depth and WSE for the cyclone on 28 October 2013 are 20.1 m and 250.78 m as shown in Figure 10(e) and 10(f), respectively.
Figure 10

Flood inundation extent in the VRB generated as a result of the storms. The following are the inundations: In 2006, (a and b) depth (max) and water surface elevation (WSE Max). In 2010, (c and d) depth (max) and water surface elevation (WSE max). In 2013, (e and f) depth (max) and water surface elevation (WSE max).

Figure 10

Flood inundation extent in the VRB generated as a result of the storms. The following are the inundations: In 2006, (a and b) depth (max) and water surface elevation (WSE Max). In 2010, (c and d) depth (max) and water surface elevation (WSE max). In 2013, (e and f) depth (max) and water surface elevation (WSE max).

Close modal

After examining flood inundation extents in Ras Mapper, flood risk maps are generated for flood occurrences by exporting the raster inundation layers and processing them in Arc GIS. Flood risk maps show the geographical distribution of risk, which is considered as the likelihood of occurrence of an event multiplied by the consequences. These maps of flooding may be created using deterministic or probabilistic approaches (Bates et al. 2004; Merz et al. 2007; Baldassarre et al. 2009a). The VRB, with its braided rivers and frequent flash floods, requires the adoption of a probabilistic depiction of flood extent (Alfonso et al. 2016).

The flood inundation areas of the two states of AP (blue) and Odisha (red) caused by the 2006 cyclone are seen in Figure 11. As depicted in Tables 9 and 10, the total area inundated by the storm is 1,322.07 km2, comprising 380.56 km2 in the upstream river basin (Odisha) and 941.49 km2 in the downstream river basin (AP). Table 11 illustrates the basin's flood inundation area and danger level, which have been divided into six categories: H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, and H6. H1, H2, and H3 represent minor flooding that inundates low-lying regions near water bodies. As shown in Tables 9 and 10, H1 covers an inundated area of 11.82 and 44.7 km2 during the 2006 flood event in Odisha and AP states, whereas H2 covers an area of 12.93 and 42.23 km2, respectively. For the H3 zone, the inundated areas are 15.11 and 47.43 km2. H4 flood risk is a moderate zone with an inundated area of 16.47 and 52.23 km2, which is more significant. It is likely that major travel routes may be disrupted. Some structures may be impacted above the floor level, which is a concern. Flood-affected areas may necessitate evacuation. H5 and H6 are extreme and major flood hazard zones where single-storey houses may be submerged, and people are not safe even if they make their way to the roof. The inundation areas for both states are shown in Tables 9 and 10. Table 12 shows the areas inundated and the maximum depths obtained during the 2010 and 2013 flood events. A flood extent map of the VRB with flood hazard zones is shown in Figure 12.
Table 9

Inundated areas of the VRB (Odisha) during the 2006 flood event

S. No.Water depth (m)Total flood area (km2)
Area%
<2 m 11.82 3.1 
2–3 m (below minor) 12.93 3.3 
3–4 m (minor) 15.11 3.9 
4–5 m (moderate) 16.47 4.3 
5–6 m (major) 17.14 4.5 
>6 m (above major) 307.09 80.56 
 Total 380.56  
S. No.Water depth (m)Total flood area (km2)
Area%
<2 m 11.82 3.1 
2–3 m (below minor) 12.93 3.3 
3–4 m (minor) 15.11 3.9 
4–5 m (moderate) 16.47 4.3 
5–6 m (major) 17.14 4.5 
>6 m (above major) 307.09 80.56 
 Total 380.56  
Table 10

Inundated areas of the VRB (AP) during the 2006 flood event

S. No.Water depth (m)Total flood area (km2)
Area%
<2 m 44.70 4.6 
2–3 m (below minor) 42.23 4.4 
3–4 m (minor) 47.43 5.0 
4–5 m (moderate) 52.23 5.5 
5–6 m (major) 54.53 5.7 
>6 m (above major) 700.37 74.2 
 Total 941.49  
S. No.Water depth (m)Total flood area (km2)
Area%
<2 m 44.70 4.6 
2–3 m (below minor) 42.23 4.4 
3–4 m (minor) 47.43 5.0 
4–5 m (moderate) 52.23 5.5 
5–6 m (major) 54.53 5.7 
>6 m (above major) 700.37 74.2 
 Total 941.49  
S. No.Flood hazardDepth (m)Hazard
H1 <2 Very low 
H2 2–3 Below minor 
H3 3–4 Minor 
H4 4–5 Moderate 
H5 5–6 Major 
H6 >6 Major 
S. No.Flood hazardDepth (m)Hazard
H1 <2 Very low 
H2 2–3 Below minor 
H3 3–4 Minor 
H4 4–5 Moderate 
H5 5–6 Major 
H6 >6 Major 
Table 12

Inundated areas and maximum depths obtained for various flood events

Flood eventMaximum flood depth (m)Total flood area (km2)
H1H2H3 H4H5H6
2006 22.5 56.522 55.169 62.543 68.70 71.671 1007.46 
2010 21.9 58.320 61.840 65.510 70.33 88.490 408.30 
2013 (Phallin) 20.1 60.950 95.742 96.511 97.07 93.420 474.05 
Flood eventMaximum flood depth (m)Total flood area (km2)
H1H2H3 H4H5H6
2006 22.5 56.522 55.169 62.543 68.70 71.671 1007.46 
2010 21.9 58.320 61.840 65.510 70.33 88.490 408.30 
2013 (Phallin) 20.1 60.950 95.742 96.511 97.07 93.420 474.05 
Figure 11

Flood-inundated extent map of the VRB falls in Odisha and AP states showing the flood-affected mandals.

Figure 11

Flood-inundated extent map of the VRB falls in Odisha and AP states showing the flood-affected mandals.

Close modal
Figure 12

Flood extent map of the VRB showing flood danger zones.

Figure 12

Flood extent map of the VRB showing flood danger zones.

Close modal
Figure 13 depicts a total of 87 villages from 10 mandals impacted by the 2006 flood. These villages include Bramini, Kotturu, Gara, Polaki, Narasannapeta, Jalumuru, Srikakulam, Hiramandalam, Sarubujjili, and Amadalavalasa, which are mostly flood-affected villages along the downstream of the Vamsadhara river, which fall in Srikakulam district (AP). The aforementioned findings have been confirmed in line with Srikakulam Collectorate's disaster management strategy (https://apsdma.ap.gov.in/common_mns/DM_plans/DDMP_pdf/Srikakulam/Srikakulam-DDMP-Volume%20II%20Disaster%20Prevention%20and%20Prepardness%20Plan.pdf). In Odisha, the Gunupur, Gudari, Padmapur, and Ramanguda tehsils/blocks of Rayagada district, as well as the Kashinagar tehsil of Gajapati district, are also impacted. As stated in Table 13, roughly 38 villages are mostly impacted in Odisha's Rayagada and Gajapati districts.
Table 13

List of most affected villages in Odisha's Rayagada and Gajapati districts due to the 2006 flood event

S. No.VillageS. No.VillageS. No.VillageS. No.Village
Palasing 11 Kashinagar 21 Laxmipur 31 Limameda 
Badigam 12 Kidigam 22 Khalagumuda 32 Dhepo Kalama 
Sahara 13 Hadubhangi 23 Limapadar 33 Kalama 
Khandava 14 Bainaguda 24 Serema 34 Kotturu 
Purtiguda 15 Sanahuma 25 Bhamini 35 Bikrampur 
Vannal 16 Kareiguda 26 Bhaleri 36 Gadiakhala 
Kitting 17 Naira 27 Amiti 37 Turkaniguda 
Bathava 18 Derigam 28 Bharising 38 Pradhaniguda 
R.K.Pur 19 Radhu 29 Bagasala   
10 Budura 20 Radhuguda 30 Chalakamba   
S. No.VillageS. No.VillageS. No.VillageS. No.Village
Palasing 11 Kashinagar 21 Laxmipur 31 Limameda 
Badigam 12 Kidigam 22 Khalagumuda 32 Dhepo Kalama 
Sahara 13 Hadubhangi 23 Limapadar 33 Kalama 
Khandava 14 Bainaguda 24 Serema 34 Kotturu 
Purtiguda 15 Sanahuma 25 Bhamini 35 Bikrampur 
Vannal 16 Kareiguda 26 Bhaleri 36 Gadiakhala 
Kitting 17 Naira 27 Amiti 37 Turkaniguda 
Bathava 18 Derigam 28 Bharising 38 Pradhaniguda 
R.K.Pur 19 Radhu 29 Bagasala   
10 Budura 20 Radhuguda 30 Chalakamba   
Figure 13

Villages inundated in AP and Odisha states impacted by the 2006 flood event.

Figure 13

Villages inundated in AP and Odisha states impacted by the 2006 flood event.

Close modal

Model application

The suitability of different models will vary depending on the required degree of precision and the complexities of the region to be depicted. If the goal of the work is to find the inundated area that will be flooded at each cross-section, a 1D model may be enough, like the Vamsadhara river. However, the 1D method's usefulness depends on the modeled region. A 1D model is unlikely to accurately estimate the maximum inundation extent in more complex regions or for large river basins since the inundation extent is determined by how flow propagates along floodplain boundaries. To predict the maximum flood extent, 2D or 1D–2D models can be used. These models will need more time to set up and compute than the 1D model, but they may be essential in more complex regions. When it comes to flooding dynamics and comprehensive information about velocities on the floodplain, a 2D or 1D–2D model is necessary. This is owing to the intrinsic limits of 1D modeling, such as the stability concerns with the 1D Vamsadhara river model, which were connected to cross-sectional spacing, substantial energy losses within the river channel, and flow being limited between channel banks.

The features of the floodplain, such as the floodplain behind the levee, its shape, and rural and urban floods, will have a significant influence on whatever model is chosen and how this model is developed.

Case I: The 1D model is difficult to use to represent flow in a river if the main channel is constrained by a levee, but both 1D–2D and 2D models may be used to describe the channel–floodplain interaction where the floodplain and river are separated by a levee or other barrier. The results utilizing a purely 2D model will probably be quite sensitive to the breaklines used to capture the barriers. The banks are represented clearly in the 1D–2D case with the lateral structures, and there is no risk of leakage due to 2D cell displacement, as is the case with pure 2D models. However, for this type of case, the model's performance and stability would be significantly impacted by the parameters defining the lateral structures.

Case II: If the landscape around the river is V-shaped and there is no barrier separating the floodplain from the river, it is probable that a less complex model is required. One of the limitations of 1D modeling is that for each cross-section, a single water surface is calculated. This simplification will be more realistic if the floodplain is V-shaped than if it is confined by a levee. Thus, V-shaped floodplains are best represented by a 1D modeling technique. A 2D model may also be used as an alternative. It is not necessary to use breaklines or smaller cell sizes to record the bank elevations if there are no obstructions between the river and the floodplain. In some situations, the sub-grid approach makes it possible to use very large computational mesh sizes. This means that calculation times can be kept under control even at the catchment scale. Using a 1D–2D technique for a V-shaped catchment might be challenging since there is no apparent demarcation between the main channel (which should be represented in 1D) and the floodplain. As a result, locating acceptable places for the lateral structures will be problematic. The flow will likely be predominant in the direction of the stream in a V-shaped valley, so a combined 1D–2D method is not required to represent this sort of terrain.

Case III: In the case of a simple or rural floodplain with few obstructions to the flow of water, it may be modeled using a 2D or 1D–2D model with a large cell size (>20 m). Important topographical features may be defined using breaklines. A 1D model may be enough if there are few obstacles to the flow and the friction coefficient can be used to find the obstacles.

Case IV: Multiple barriers slow the flow and influence the flood propagation in urban floodplains. This research does not investigate urban flooding caused by rivers. Literature suggests that 2D models of urban floodplains are sensitive to mesh resolution and that the use of larger cell sizes may reduce model precision because obstacles cannot be accurately modeled (Yu & Lane 2006a). Studies show that using sub-grid terrain representation could make it possible for cells to be bigger (Yu & Lane 2006b, 2011).

This Vamsadhara model may be utilized instantaneously for similar types of basins where rapid forecasting is required in a short time span to prevent losses on the ground. A similar investigation might be performed on different river basins in the future to evaluate river flow modeling using different 2D models. In addition, future studies should focus on 2D models of meandering rivers.

The work proposes a conceptual method for merging the hydrologic model HEC-HMS with the hydrodynamic model and delineating flood inundation zones in a 2D unsteady flow for the VRB using HEC-RAS. The research also showed that the 2D diffusion-wave approach is extremely effective for determining WSE, depth, and velocity. Its animation capabilities aid in visual comprehension. The HMS and RAS models were calibrated and validated using three flood events from 2006, 2010, and 2013. As a result, based on statistical analyses, the generated models may be considered to have provided an acceptable quantified output. The study also examined the feasibility of using HEC-RAS for flood risk assessments. The expected flood regions for upstream and downstream of the basin allocated to danger zones were computed and found to be reasonable based on visual observation and historical data. Further vulnerability assessments could not be performed owing to a lack of data for the areas. Although it is possible to verify the accuracy of flood risk maps by delineating inundated areas over historical data (e.g., satellite images), this could not be done during flood events due to a lack of available satellite images. The Srikakulam district collectorate's (AP) data were utilized to verify the accuracy of the maps of the villages downstream of the basin, and the findings indicate that the maps are reasonably good. Thus, for flood forecasting in the VRB and for other hydro-meteorologically similar river basins, this calibrated model can be used as a reference model. Using this proposed model, stakeholders may examine various mitigation measures and approaches in response to anticipated flooding situations.

Despite continuous research, flood modeling at high spatial and temporal resolutions remains a substantial difficulty in hydrologic and hydraulic studies. Modeling applications provided for employing hydrologic models have significant drawbacks, including: (a) during flood events, model findings also revealed that simulated values were somewhat higher than observed levels; this discrepancy may be due to input data (DEM, rainfall, soil, and LULC) and a small subset of observation data (stage and discharge). Second, delineating the basin model into more than 17 sub-basins may aid in improving model accuracy (Hromadka et al. 1988). (b) Simulated data are exported and used as input in the hydrodynamic model: flow hydrographs derived from the hydrological model can be used as boundary conditions in hydrodynamic modeling. As a result, hydrodynamic modeling has its own set of inherent uncertainties, such as the quality of topographical data and the effect of roughness coefficient on flow levels, velocity, etc. Numerous investigations have proven that even small topographic inaccuracies may significantly affect model findings (Bates et al. 1997; Aronica et al. 1998; Nicholas & Walling 1998; Wilson 2004). Each model is simply a rough approximation of the actual geometry, which depends on the effective roughness coefficient. Minimizing the uncertainty in surface roughness can considerably improve the calculation of flood extent on landscapes (Aronica et al. 1998; Marks & Bates 2000). According to Hunter et al. (2007), an actual survey of river cross-sections in the area is required to quantify the friction coefficient and hence increases the model's accuracy relative to the projected value. Large-scale surveys are becoming more difficult and impractical to undertake. (c) Flood-inundated regions’ delineation in unsteady flow analysis: simulated hydrographs generated by calibrated models were used as input for hydrodynamic modeling. Uncertainties include the need for a high-resolution DEM to adequately depict the river flood plain, setting up the model, and model parameters such as friction, flow data, and geometry inputs for the model (e.g., flood plain and channel). It is also important to consider how long the computations will take when selecting mesh size and DEM resolution (Shustikova et al. 2019). Flood risk assessment is complex owing to the enormous number of variables that must be evaluated, as well as the fact that risk is dynamic, influenced by various factors such as climate change, model setup, and so on (Costabile et al. 2015).

Furthermore, as previously stated, the inaccuracies in the simulations from the integrated modeling system of flooding assessment derive from a variety of sources of uncertainty, which most likely spread in an uncertain and quasi-way. The next step of investigation must be focused on the evaluation and measurement of these flaws, as well as how they spread across the modeling system.

The authors are grateful to the officials and members of the India Meteorological Department, Survey of India (Bhubaneswar), Central Water Commission (Bhubaneswar), NRSC (Hyderabad), Srikakulam Collectorate Office (Disaster Management Plan), and Water Resources Department (Visakhapatnam) for providing data and other pertinent information.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Alfonso
L.
,
Mukolwe
M.
&
Baldassarre
G. D.
2016
Probabilistic flood maps to support decision-making: mapping the value of information
.
Water Resour. Res.
52
,
1026
1043
.
http://doi/10.1002/2015WR017378
.
Andrysiak
P. B.
Jr.
&
Maidment
D.
2000
Visual Floodplain Modeling with Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
.
PhD Thesis
,
Austin Center for Research in Water Resources, the University of Texas
.
Anees
M. T.
,
Abdullah
K.
,
Nawawi
M. N. M.
,
Ab Rahman
N. N. N.
,
Piah
A. R. M.
,
Zakaria
N. A.
,
Syakir
M. I.
&
Mohd. Omar
A. K.
2016
Numerical modeling techniques for flood analysis
.
J. Afr. Earth. Sci.
http://doi/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.10.001
.
Baldassarre
D.
,
Castellarin
G.
,
Montanari
A.
&
Brath
A.
2009a
Probability weighted hazard maps for comparing different flood risk management strategies: a case study
.
Nat. Hazards
.
http://doi/10.1007/s11069-009-9355-6
.
Bates
P. D.
,
Anderson
M. G.
,
Hervouet
J. M.
&
Hawkes
J. C.
1997
Investigating the behaviour of two-dimensional finite element models of compound channel flow
.
Earth Surf. Process. Landf.
22
(
1
),
3
17
.
Bates
P. D.
,
Horritt
M. S.
,
Aronica
G.
&
Beven
K.
2004
Bayesian updating of flood inundation likelihoods conditioned on flood extent data
.
Hydrol. Process.
18
,
3347
3370
.
Bhandari
M.
,
Nyaupane
N.
,
Mote
S.
,
Kalra
A.
&
Ahmad
S.
2017
2D unsteady routing and flood inundation mapping for lower region of Brazos river watershed
.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2017, Sacramento, CA, 292–303. http://doi/10.1061/9780784480625.027
Borsch
S.
&
Simonov
Y.
2016
Operational hydrologic forecast system in Russia
.
Flood Forecast.
169
181
.
http://doi/10.1016/b978-0-12-801884-2.00007-4
.
Chow
V. T.
,
Maidment
D. R.
&
Mays
L. W.
1988
Development of Hydrology
.
Costabile
P.
,
Macchione
F.
,
Natale
L.
&
Petaccia
G.
2015
Flood mapping using LIDAR DEM. Limitations of the 1-D modeling highlighted by the 2-D approach
.
Nat. Hazards
77
,
181
204
.
Dewan
A. M.
,
Islam
M. M.
,
Kumamoto
T.
&
Nishigaki
M.
2007
Evaluating flood hazard for land-use planning in Greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques
.
Water Resour. Manage.
21
,
1601
1612
.
Fang
Z.
,
Bedient
P. B.
,
Benavides
J.
&
Zimmer
A. L.
2008
Enhanced radar-based flood alert system and floodplain map library
.
J. Hydrol. Eng.
13
(
10
),
926
938
.
http://doi/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2008)13:10(926)
.
Giardino
M.
,
Perotti
L.
,
Lanfranco
M.
&
Perrone
G.
2012
GIS and geomatics for disaster management and emergency relief: a proactive response to natural hazards
.
Appl. Geomatics.
4
(
1
),
33
46
.
http://doi/10.1007/s12518-011-0071-z
.
Hirt
C.
2014
Digital terrain models
.
Encycl. Geod.
1
6
.
https://doi/10.1007/978-3-319-02370-0_31-1
.
Horritt
M. S.
,
Di Baldassarre
G.
,
Bates
P. D.
&
Brath
A.
2007
Comparing the performance of a 2-D finite element and a 2-D finite volume model of floodplain inundation using airborne SAR imagery
.
Hydrol. Process.
21
(
20
),
2745
2759
.
http://doi/10.1002/hyp.6486
.
Hossain
A. K. M. A.
,
Jia
Y.
&
Chao
X.
2009
Estimation of manning roughness coefficient distribution for the hydrodynamic model using remotely sensed land cover features
.
Geoinformatics
635
638
.
Hromadka
T. V.
II.
,
McCuen
R. H.
&
Yen
C. C.
1988
Effect of watershed subdivision on prediction accuracy of hydrologic models
.
Hydrosoft
1
(
1
),
19
28
.
http://doi/10.1016/j.apgeog.2017.01.002
.
Hunter
N. M.
,
Bates
P. D.
,
Horritt
M. S.
&
Wilson
M. D.
2007
Simple spatially-distributed models for predicting flood inundation: a review
.
Geomorphology
90
(
3–4
),
208
225
.
http://doi/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.02
.
Kalimisetty
S.
,
Singh
A.
,
DurgaRao
K. H. V.
&
Mahammood
V.
2021
1D and 2D model coupling approach for the development of operational spatial flood early warning system
.
Geocarto Int.
1
16
.
http://doi/10.1080/10106049.2021.1886335
.
Kayyun
T. S.
&
Dagher
D. H.
2018
2D-Unsteady flow within a reach in Tigris River
.
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.
9
(
5
),
2246
2251
.
Khan
S. I.
,
Hong
Y.
,
Gourley
J. J.
,
Khattak
M. U.
&
De Groeve
T.
2014
Multi-sensor imaging and space-ground cross-validation for 2010 flood along Indus River, Pakistan
.
Remote Sens.
6
,
2393
2407
.
Khattak
M. S.
,
Anwar
F.
,
Saeed
T. U.
,
Sharif
M.
,
Sheraz
K.
&
Ahmed
A.
2016
Floodplain mapping using HEC-RAS and ArcGIS: a case study of Kabul River, Arab
.
J. Sci. Eng.
41
(
4
),
1375
1390
.
http://doi/10.1007/s13369-015-1915-3
.
Khodaparast
R.
,
Dastorani
M. T.
,
Vafakhah
M.
,
Talebi
A.
&
Dashti
J.
2010
The comparison between SCS Unit hydrograph and Snyder Unit hydrograph in runoff rate estimation by HEC-HMS model (Case study: Sadde torogh watershed, Mashhad)
. In
6th National Conference of Science and Engineering Watershed Management
.
University of Tarbiat Modares
, pp.
1
8
.
Krajewski
W. F.
,
Ceynar
D.
,
Demir
I.
,
Goska
R.
,
Kruger
A.
,
Langel
C.
,
Mantilla
R.
,
Niemeier
J.
,
Quintero
F.
,
Seo
B.-C.
,
Small
S. J.
,
Weber
L. J.
&
Young
N. C.
2016
Real-time flood forecasting and information system for the state of Iowa
.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
98
(
3
),
539
554
.
http://doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00243.1
.
Mahapatra
A.
,
Mahammood
V.
&
DurgaRao
K. H. V.
2021
Development of real-time flood forecast model for Vamsadhara river through hydrological approach
.
Int. J. Adv. Technol. Eng. Explor.
81
(
8
),
1059
1079
.
http://doi/10.19101/IJATEE.2021.874272
.
Mani
P.
,
Chatterjee
C.
&
Kumar
R.
2014
Flood hazard assessment with multiparameter approach derived from coupled 1D and 2D hydrodynamic flow model
.
Nat. Hazards
70
(
2
),
1553
1574
.
http://doi/10.1007/s11069-013-0891-8
.
Marks
K.
&
Bates
P.
2000
Integration of high-resolution topographic data with floodplain flow models
.
Hydrol. Process.
14
(
11–12
),
2109
.
Merz
B.
,
Thieken
A. H.
,
Gocht
M.
,
2007
Flood risk mapping at the local scale: concepts and challenges, Ch. 13
. In:
Flood Risk Management in Europe: Innovation in Policy and Practice
(
Begum
S.
,
Stive
M. J. F.
&
Hall
J. W.
, eds).
Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research Series no. 25
.
Springer
,
Dordrecht
,
The Netherlands
, pp.
231
251
.
Mishra
D.
&
Satapathy
S.
2021
MCDM approach for mitigation of flooding risks in Odisha (India) based on information retrieval
.
Int. J. Cognit. Inf. Nat. Intell.
14
(
2
),
77
91
.
https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCINI.2020040105
.
Montané
A.
,
Buffin-Bélanger
T.
,
Vinet
F.
&
Vento
O.
2017
Mappings extreme floods with numerical floodplain models (NFM) in France
.
Appl. Geogr.
80
,
15
22
.
Moriasi
D. N.
,
Arnold
J. G.
,
Van Liew
M. W.
,
Bingner
R. L.
,
Harmel
R. D.
&
Veith
T. L.
2013
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations
.
Trans. ASABE
50
(
3
),
885
900
.
Ongdas
N.
,
Akiyanova
F.
,
Karakulov
Y.
&
Muratbayeva
A.
2020
Application of HEC-RAS (2D) for Flood Hazard Maps
.
Water
12
,
2672
.
Ostheimer
C. J.
2012
‘Development of a flood-warning system and flood-inundation mapping in Licking County, Ohio.’ Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5137, U.S. Geological Survey, 13
.
Pappenberger
F.
,
Beven
K.
,
Horritt
M.
&
Blazkova
S.
2005
Uncertainty in the calibration of effective roughness parameters in HEC-RAS using inundation and downstream level observations
.
J. Hydrol.
302
,
46
69
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.06.036
.
Pathan
A. K. I.
&
Agnihotri
P. G.
2020
2-D unsteady flow modelling and inundation mapping for lower region of Purna Basin using HEC-RAS
.
Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol.
19
(
1
),
277
285
.
Ponce, V. M. 1989 Engineering Hydrology Principles and Practice. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Rahmati
O.
,
Zeinivand
H.
&
Besharat
M.
2015
Flood hazard zoning in Yasooj region, Iran, using GIS and multi-criteria decision analysis
.
Geomatics Nat. Hazards Risk
37
41
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2015.1045043
.
Ramírez
J. A.
2000
Prediction and Modeling of Flood Hydrology and Hydraulics
. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ramly
S.
&
Tahir
W.
2015
Application of HEC-GeoHMS and HECHMS as rainfall–runoff model for flood simulation
. In:
ISFRAM 2015
.
Springer
,
Singapore
, pp.
181
192
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-10-0500-8_15
.
Sabzevari
T.
,
Ardakanian
R.
,
Shamsaee
A.
&
Talebi
A.
2009
Estimation of flood hydrograph in no statistical watersheds using HEC-HMS model and GIS (Case study: Kasilian watershed)
.
J. Water Eng.
4
,
1
11
.
Sahoo
B.
&
Bhaskaran
P. K.
2018
Multi-hazard risk assessment of coastal vulnerability from tropical cyclones – a GIS-based approach for the Odisha coast
.
J. Environ. Manage.
206
,
1166
1178
.
http://doi/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.10.075
.
Sahoo
S. N.
&
Sreeja
P.
2015
Development of flood inundation maps and quantification of flood risk in an urban catchment of Brahmaputra river
.
J. Risk Uncertainty Eng. Syst. Part A: Civ. Eng.
3
(
1
),
1
11
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/AJRUA6.0000822
.
Sarchani
S.
,
Seiradakis
K.
,
Coulibaly
P.
&
Tsanis
I.
2020
Flood inundation mapping in an ungauged basin
.
Water
12
(
6
),
1532
.
http://doi/10.3390/w12061532
.
Sardoii
E. R.
,
Rostami
N.
,
Sigaroudi
S. K.
&
Taheri
S.
2012
Calibration of loss estimation methods in HEC-HMS for simulation of surface runoff (case study: Amirkabir dam watershed, Iran)
.
Adv. Environ. Biol.
6
(
1
),
343
348
.
Schumann
G.
,
Matgen
P.
,
Hoffmann
L.
,
Hostache
R.
,
Pappenberger
F.
&
Pfister
L.
2007
Deriving distributed roughness values from satellite radar data for flood inundation modelling
.
J. Hydrol.
344
(
1–2
),
96
111
.
Shustikova
I.
,
Domeneghetti
A.
,
Neal
J. C.
,
Bates
P.
&
Castellarin
A.
2019
Comparing 2D capabilities of HEC-RAS and LISFLOOD-FP on complex topography
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
64
,
1769
1782
.
Sindhu
K.
&
Rao
K. H. V. D.
2016
Hydrological and hydrodynamic modeling for flood damage mitigation in Brahmani-Baitarani river basin, India
.
Geocarto Int.
6049
(
April
).
http://doi/10.1080/10106049.2016.1178818
.
Surwase
T.
,
Srinivasarao
G.
,
Manjusree
P.
,
Begum
A.
,
Nagamani
P. V.
&
Jaisankar
G.
2019
Proceedings of International Conference on Remote Sensing for Disaster Management
.
In Proceedings of International Conference on Remote Sensing for Disaster Management, Springer Series in Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 2019, no. September 2008, pp. 851–863. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77276-9_77
Tahmasbinejad
F. Z. H.
,
Feyzolahpour
M.
&
Murnipour
M.
2012
Rainfall-runoff simulation and modeling of Karun river using HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS models, Izeh district, Iran
.
J. Appl. Sci.
12
(
18
),
1900
1908
.
Talukdar
G. J.
,
Swain
B.
&
Patra
K. C.
2021
Flood inundation mapping and hazard assessment of Baitarani river basin using hydrologic and hydraulic model
.
Nat. Hazards
109
(
1
),
389
403
.
http://doi/10.1007/s11069-021-04841-3
.
Teng
J.
,
Jakeman
A. J.
,
Vaze
J.
,
Croke
B. F. W.
,
Dutta
D.
&
Kim
S.
2017
Flood inundation modelling: a review of methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis
.
Environ. Modell. Software
90
,
201
216
.
Tewolde
M. H.
&
Smithers
J.
2006
Flood routing in ungauged catchments using Muskingum methods
.
Water SA
32
,
379
388
.
USDA-SCS 1986 Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Tech. Release No. 55, USDA-SCS, Washington, DC. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1044171.pdf
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2008
Hydrologic Modeling System User's Manual
,
no. September. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, CA
.
Villazon
M. F.
,
Aranibar
C.
&
Willams
P.
2009
Hydrodynamics unsteady flow model applied to river Piraifor flood events estimation in Santa Cruz-Bolivia
. In:
Proceedings at 1st International Congress of Hydro-Climatology
,
24–28 August
,
CD-ROM PP.1-12
. SENAMHI
,
Cochabamba
,
Bolivia
.
Vorogushyn
S.
,
Bates
P. D.
,
de Bruijn
K.
,
Castellarin
A.
,
Kreibich
H.
,
Priest
S.
&
Merz
B.
2018
Evolutionary leap in large-scale flood risk assessment needed
.
Water
5
(
2
),
e1266
.
https://doi/10.1002/wat2.1266
.
Wagener
T.
&
Wheater
H. S.
2006
Parameter estimation and regionalization for continuous rainfall-runoff models including uncertainty
.
J. Hydrol.
320
(
1–2
),
132
154
.
https://doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jhydrol. 2005. 07. 015
.
Wilson
M. D.
2004
Evaluating the Effect of Data and Data Uncertainty on Predictions of Flood Inundation
.
University of Southampton
,
Southampton
, p.
276
.
Yu, D. & Lane, S. N. 2006b Urban fluvial flood modelling using a two-dimensional diffusion-wave treatment, part 2: Development of a sub-grid-scale treatment. Hydrological Processes 20 (7), 1567–1583.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).