water

Article
Case Study of HEC-RAS 1D–2D Coupling Simulation:
2002 Baeksan Flood Event in Korea
Lea Dasallas 1 , Yeonsu Kim 2 and Hyunuk An 1, *
1 Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134,
Korea; [email protected]
2 Water Resources Research Center, K-Water Convergence Institute, Daejeon 34045, Korea;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 26 July 2019; Accepted: 27 September 2019; Published: 30 September 2019


Abstract: Recent studies strongly suggest the possibility of more frequent extreme events as a result
of the changing climate. These weather extremes, such as excessive rainfall, result in debris flow,
river overflow and urban flooding, which can pose a substantial threat to the community. An effective
flood model is therefore a crucial tool in flood disaster control and mitigation. A number of flood
models have been established in recent years. However, the major challenge in developing effective
and accurate flood models is the disadvantage of running multiple models for separate, individual
conditions. Among the solutions in recent research is the development of combined 1D–2D flood
modeling. Coupled 1D–2D flood modeling allows the channel flows to be represented in 1D and the
overbank flow to be modeled in 2D. In order to test the efficiency of the approach, this research aims
to assess the capability of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center River
Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model’s implementation of the combined 1D–2D hydraulic computation
in simulating river overflow inundation. For verification, the simulation is applied to the Baeksan
river levee breach event in South Korea in 2011. The simulation results show similarities of the
observed data and the outputs from widely used flood models. This proves the applicability of
the HEC-RAS 1D–2D coupling method as a powerful tool in simulating accurate inundations for
flood events.

Keywords: flood modeling; 1D–2D coupling method; river overflow; HEC-RAS; extreme
weather events

1. Introduction
In recent times, numerous climate projection research works have predicted changes in the
pattern and intensity of global precipitation by the end of the 21st century. The studies suggest an
expected increase in rainfall in tropical regions and at high latitudes [1], especially in the East Asian
monsoon region [2]. The sudden changes in rainfall patterns and intensity lead to water-related natural
hazards, such as flooding, drought, rainfall-induced landslides and water-related epidemics. Of these
hydro-meteorological hazards, flooding is considered to be the most recurrent and to have the highest
risk [3]. For this reason, there has been a world-wide endeavor in developing the efficient and accurate
flood models which are crucial for flood disaster prevention and mitigation.
Over the past decades, numerous flood models have been developed that utilize different
hydrological approaches. These hydrological model types can be classified as empirical (data driven),
hydro-dynamic and physical process-based [4]. The hydro-dynamic approach uses mathematical
equations to replicate the fluid behavior, which are derived from applying physical laws to fluid
motions. This technique can be grouped dimensionally into 1D, 2D and 3D models. The simplest

Water 2019, 11, 2048; doi:10.3390/w11102048 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 2048 2 of 14

illustration of a floodplain flow is to represent the flow as one-dimensional along the river channel.
One-dimensional flood models simulate flows that are assumed to flow in a longitudinal direction,
such as rivers and confined channels. These models are computationally efficient but are subjected to
modeling limitations, such as the inability to simulate flood wave lateral diffusion, the subjectivity of
cross-section location and orientation, and the discretization of topography as cross-sections rather than
as a continuous surface [4]. In this case, 2D models are used to simulate the floodplain flow, in order to
visualize the extent of floods which 1D models cannot provide. Two-dimensional models simulate
floods with the assumption that the water depth in a vertical direction can be neglected, in comparison
to the other two dimensions. However, to allow the representation of vertical features, vertical
turbulence, vortices and spiral flows [4], 3D models are used. Three-dimensional models can also
overcome the other limitations of 1D and 2D models, such as the inclusion of hydrostatic assumptions,
viscous shear stresses, the bed friction of fluid components, etc. [5]. However, 3D modeling is a fairly
recent development and there are fewer studies regarding this compared to 1D and 2D models.
While 1D models are simpler and more preferred in practice, 2D models are more detailed and
more reliable for complex flow simulations. However, 2D models are computationally heavy and
data intensive, which can impose challenges for real-time flood forecasting [6]. In order to overcome
the long simulation times in 2D modeling, several techniques have been developed by some flood
modelers. Some of these solutions are the adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) implementation in 2D
modeling [6,7]. Another method is the hybrid 1D–2D variable grid sizing technique [8].
The most recent approach is the combined 1D–2D method developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), which is one of the most
widely used 1D river simulation models. The integrated approach allows the linkage between the
1D and 2D models and can dynamically represent the river and floodplain interactions [9]. Since this
update for the 1D–2D coupling simulation is quite recent, only a few researchers have tried this
approach for flood simulation analysis [10–13]. Therefore, this study aims to assess the capability
of the model technique in simulating a river levee break through a comparison with the observed
results and simulated results from previously used 2D flood models, Gerris [6] and Fluvial modelling
engine (FLUMEN) [14,15]. Gerris is an open-source software that solves shallow water computations
using the adaptive quadtree grid technique [7], while FLUMEN (FLUvial Modelling Engine) solves
the depth-averaged shallow water equations on unstructured adaptive meshes, which is used for
modeling hydraulic complex situations [16]. Some of the flood parameters explored and compared are
the flood boundary extent, water level depth, change in inundation and flooded area, flow velocity
and surface water elevation.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 1 discusses the scientific problem, research
background and the proposed solution, and Section 2 provides a definition of the new flood modeling
technique to be used in the simulation and the governing equations, as well as the numerical
methods used. Section 3 contains the domain description, data sources, pre-simulation conditions
and methodology. The results and analysis are discussed in Section 4, and finally, a summary and
conclusion are provided in Section 5.

2. HEC-RAS Flood Model

The HEC-RAS model is one of the most commonly utilized flood modeling pieces of software
in hydrodynamic simulation. This model is designed to perform 1D steady flow and 2D unsteady
flow simulations for a river flow analysis, as well as sediment transport and water temperature/quality
modeling. The model uses geometric data representation and geometric and hydraulic computation
routines for a network of natural and constructed river channels. While there are a large number of
capabilities this model can perform, the research shall only focus on HEC-RAS’s ability to run 1D river
flow and 2D flood inundation and the combined approach, especially the analysis of flood inundation
instigated by a dam or levee breach.
Water 2019, 11, 2048 3 of 14

2.1. One-Dimensional River Flow Modeling

In 1D river hydraulic modeling, all water flows are assumed to flow in a longitudinal direction.
One-dimensional models represent the terrain as a sequence of cross-sections and simulate the flow
in order to provide estimates of flow parameters such as flow velocity and water depth. To simplify
the computation, HEC-RAS assumed a horizontal water surface at each cross-section normal to the
direction of the flow such that the momentum exchange between the channel and the floodplain can be
neglected [9]. The one-dimensional equations of motion then become:

∂A ∂(ΦQ) ∂[(1 − Φ)Q]

+ + =0 (1)
∂t ∂xc ∂x f

∂ (1 − Φ)2 Q2 /A f
  h i
∂Q ∂ Φ Q /Ac
2 2
∂Z ∂z
" # " #
+ + + gAc + S f c + gA f + Sf f = 0 (2)
∂t ∂xc ∂x f ∂xc ∂x f
where Q is the total flow, A is the flow area, Φ is the quotient of channel conveyance over the total
conveyance, z is the elevation of water surface, and S f is the friction slope, in which the subscripts
c and f refers to the channel and floodplain, respectively. The 1D model unsteady flow equations
were solved using a four-point implicit scheme, where the space derivatives and function values were
evaluated at an interior point (n + θ)∆t.

2.2. Two-Dimensional Flood Inundation Modeling

Two-dimensional flood models allow water to move in both longitudinal and lateral directions,
while velocity is assumed to be negligible in the z-direction. However, unlike 1D models, these models
represent the terrain as a continuous surface through a mesh or grid. In order to improve the
computational time, HEC-RAS uses a sub-grid approach, which uses a relatively coarse computational
grid and finer scale information underlying the topography [9]. The sub-grid bathymetry equations
are derived from full shallow water and diffusion wave equations.
Assuming that the governing equation represents an incompressible fluid, the unsteady differential
form of the conservation of mass becomes:

∂H ∂(hu) ∂(hv)
+ + +q = 0 (3)
∂t ∂x ∂y

where t is time, q is the source/sink term, and the u and v are velocity components in x- and y-directions,
respectively. The water surface elevation H is defined as the sum of the surface elevation z(x, y)
and water depth h(x, y, t). The HEC-RAS sub-grid bathymetry mass conservation equation is then
represented as:  
Ω H n+1 − Ω (H n ) X
+ Vk ·nk Ak (H ) + Q = 0 (4)
∆t
k

where Ω is the volumetric three-dimensional space occupied by the fluid, Q represents the source/sink
term that crosses the bottom (infiltration) and top surface (rain/evaporation). The superscript terms n
and n + 1 represent the index time-steps between two consecutive time-steps ∆t, and Vk , and Ak (H )
and nk are the average velocity, area and unit normal vector at face k.

2.3. Coupled 1D–2D Method

The 1D model of HEC-RAS has been widely used in river flood analysis [17–24], as well as their
two-dimensional model [24–28]. In their newest version, HEC-RAS added the ability to perform
combined 1D and 2D unsteady-flow routing within the unsteady flow model, allowing work on a
larger river system, and implementing 2D modeling only in the areas that require a higher level of
hydrodynamic precision. The coupled 1D and 2D solution algorithm allows for direct feedback for
Water 2019, 11, 2048 4 of 14

each step between 1D and 2D flow elements, which enables the more accurate calculation of headwater,
tailwater, flow and any submergence that occurs at the hydraulic structure in a time-step-by-step basis,
as used by Brunner [9].
The HEC-RAS 1D–2D combined method is performed by setting up a lateral connection, in which
the 2D flow areas are coupled to the 1D cross-sections using a lateral structure [11]. The flow over the
structure is determined using the weir equation or 2D flow equations. The standard weir equation
used to calculate the flow over the lateral weir is:

dQ = C( yws − yw )2/3 dx (5)

where dQ is the structural flow over the length element dx, yws is the water surface elevation, yw is the
structure elevation, and C is the weir coefficient.
For the numerical scheme, a hybrid discretization approach is used to take advantage of the
orthogonality of the grids. Finite difference approximation is used to discretize the time derivatives,
while the finite volume approach is utilized to discretize the spatial derivatives for grids that are not
locally orthogonal. For the finite difference scheme, the volume derivatives in time are discretized as
the difference of the volumes at times n and n + 1 divided by the time step ∆t, given by:
 
∂Ω Ω H
n+1 − Ω (H n )
≈ (6)
∂t ∆t
The finite difference in space, however, is defined as:

∂H H2 − H1
∇H·n0 = ≈ (7)
∂n0 ∆n0
where ∆n0 is the distance between the cell centers.
A finite volume approach is used to discretize Equation (4) when the grid is not locally orthogonal.
The value of the grid term ∇H at the grid face is approximated as:
H
L
Hndl
∇H ≈ (8)
A0
where L is the dual grid boundary and A0 is the area of the dual cells.
The hybrid discretization equation can be summarized as

∂H ∂H ∂H
= (n·n0 ) 0 + (n·T0 ) 0 (9)
∂n ∂n ∂T
where T and T0 are the directions orthogonal to n and n + 1, respectively. The first term of Equation (9)
is computed using finite difference approximation, and the second term is computed through finite
volume schemes. For more details about the 1D–2D coupling method in HEC-RAS, the reader can
refer to HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Version 5.0 [9].

3. Data and Methods

To test the efficiency of the technique developed in simulating flood inundation events, the data
gathered from the 2002 Baeksan levee failure event in Nam river, Korea were used for validation.
On the 10 August 2002, continuous torrential rainfall caused one of dams in the concrete embarkment of
the Baeksan water purification plant to collapse, resulting in six villages being inundated by flood [29].
Consequently, approximately 3.5 km2 of agricultural land and 80 houses were flooded [6], and 24 of
those were completely destroyed. The negative effect of the event lead to further interest in developing
efficient dam breach flood models. This event also provides reliable field data suitable for verification,
which previous research has used for flood analysis [6,14,15].
Water 2019, 11, 2048 5 of 14

3.1. Research Domain

Figure 1 shows the geographical location of the study domain, the Baeksan–Nakdong river
catchment. Nakdong river has three water level observation stations—Jeock-po, Jing-dong and
Jeong-am stations—where the upstream and downstream boundary conditions used for this simulation
were computed. The flow domain digital elevation model used for this research was provided by
the National Geographic Information Institute of Korea. The flow rate and water level upstream and
downstream boundary conditions (Figure 2) used as input data were calculated using the5 HEC-RAS
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 14
Water 2019, 11, x river
one-dimensional FOR PEER REVIEW
routing model. The upstream boundary condition is a flow hydrograph 5 of 14 of

discharge
one-dimensional river routing model. The upstream boundary condition is a flow hydrograph of stage
over time, while the downstream boundary condition is a water surface elevation
one-dimensional river routing model. The upstream boundary condition is a flow hydrograph of
discharge over
hydrograph time,
versus while the downstream boundary condition is a water surface elevation stage
time.
discharge over time, while the downstream boundary condition is a water surface elevation stage
hydrograph versus time.
hydrograph versus time.

Figure 1.
1. Geographic
Geographic location
locationofof
the
theBaeksan catchment in Nakdong
Baeksan riverriver
basin,basin,
Korea.Korea.
Figure
Figure 1. Geographic location of the Baeksancatchment
catchment in
in Nakdong
Nakdong river basin, Korea.
River: RIVER-2 Reach: Reach-1 RS: 753.23 River: RIVER-1 Reach: Reach-2 RS: 191.08
1800 River: RIVER-2 Reach: Reach-1 RS: 753.23
Legend 14 River: RIVER-1 Reach: Reach-2 RS: 191.08
Legend
1800 Legend 14 Legend
1600 Flow Stage
12
1600 Flow Stage
1400 12
1400 10
1200
Flow (m3/s)

Stage (m)

10
1200
Flow (m3/s)

Stage (m)

1000 8
1000 8
800
6
800
600 6
600 4
400
4
400
200 2
08 09 10 11 12 13 14 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
200 2002-08-01 2 2002-08-01
08 09 10
Date 11 12 13 14 08 09 10
Date 11 12 13 14
2002-08-01 2002-08-01
Date Date
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. (a) Upstream discharge and (b) downstream water level boundary conditions calculated
Figure 2. (a) Upstream discharge anddownstream
(b) downstream water level boundary conditions calculated
Figure the(a)
using 2. Upstream
U.S. discharge
Army Corps and (b)
of Engineers water level
Hydrologic Engineering boundary
Center conditions
River Analysis calculated
System (HEC- using
using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-
the U.S.1D
RAS) Army
model.Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS)
RAS) 1D model.
1D model.
3.2. Methodology
3.2. Methodology
In order to run the simulation for the HEC-RAS coupled 1D–2D model, the results from the
In order to run the simulation for the HEC-RAS coupled 1D–2D model, the results from the
HEC-RAS one-dimensional model were used for the input data. These 1D data were also used in
HEC-RAS one-dimensional model were used for the input data. These 1D data were also used in
previous research in simulating Baeksan flood inundation. The mesh domain for the 2D flow was set
previous research in simulating Baeksan flood inundation. The mesh domain for the 2D flow was set
up, as well as the lateral structure and boundary conditions. After running the simulation, the
up, as well as the lateral structure and boundary conditions. After running the simulation, the
Water 2019, 11, 2048 6 of 14

3.2. Methodology
In order to run the simulation for the HEC-RAS coupled 1D–2D model, the results from the
HEC-RAS one-dimensional model were used for the input data. These 1D data were also used in
previous research in simulating Baeksan flood inundation. The mesh domain for the 2D flow was set
up, as well as the lateral structure and boundary conditions. After running the simulation, the resulting
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 14
flood data—flood extent, water surface elevation, water depth, change in flooded area and flow
velocity—were
flow velocity—were mapped usingusing
mapped the geographic information
the geographic system
information (GIS) (GIS)
system tool, and
tool,then
andcompared to the
then compared
flood results from the observed data, Gerris and FLUMEN models. In this way, the model’s
to the flood results from the observed data, Gerris and FLUMEN models. In this way, the model’s capability
and accuracy
capability andcan be assessed.
accuracy can be assessed.
3.3. Pre-Simulation Conditions
3.3. Pre-Simulation Conditions
In 2D modeling, a spatial representation of flow can either be constructed through a structured
In 2D modeling, a spatial representation of flow can either be constructed through a structured
mesh (regular grid), unstructured mesh (triangular grid) or flexible mesh. However, difficulties in the
mesh (regular grid), unstructured mesh (triangular grid) or flexible mesh. However, difficulties in
simulation can be encountered in some cases where topographic data is too dense to be realistically
the simulation can be encountered in some cases where topographic data is too dense to be
used as a grid for numerical modelling. This poses challenges when a coarse grid must be used to
realistically used as a grid for numerical modelling. This poses challenges when a coarse grid must
generate an overall fluid simulation, but finer features needed to be incorporated in the computation
be used to generate an overall fluid simulation, but finer features needed to be incorporated in the
as well. To solve this problem, recent advances in two-dimensional modeling include the adaptive
computation as well. To solve this problem, recent advances in two-dimensional modeling include
mesh refinement method [6] and hybrid 1D–2D variable grid sizing technique [8]. HEC-RAS, however,
the adaptive mesh refinement method [6] and hybrid 1D–2D variable grid sizing technique [8]. HEC-
uses the sub-grid bathymetry approach, where the extra information is pre-computed from fine
RAS, however, uses the sub-grid bathymetry approach, where the extra information is pre-computed
bathymetry. The high-resolution details are neglected, but enough data are available so that the coarser
from fine bathymetry. The high-resolution details are neglected, but enough data are available so that
numerical method can account for the fine bathymetry through mass conservation [9]. Equation (4)
the coarser numerical method can account for the fine bathymetry through mass conservation [9].
requires knowledge on the sub-grid bathymetry, such as the cell volume Ω(H ) and face areas A (H )
Equation (4) requires knowledge on the sub-grid bathymetry, such as the cell volume 𝛺(𝐻) and kface
as a function of water elevation H. The construction of the mesh in this simulation can be seen in
areas 𝐴𝑘 (𝐻) as a function of water elevation 𝐻. The construction of the mesh in this simulation can
Figure 3. A hybrid discretization, as discussed in Section 2.3, was used to tackle the challenge in
be seen in Figure 3. A hybrid discretization, as discussed in Section 2.3, was used to tackle the
discretizing orthogonal and un-orthogonal grids. In this research, a grid resolution of 33 by 33 m was
challenge in discretizing orthogonal and un-orthogonal grids. In this research, a grid resolution of 33
used, conforming with the maximum level refinement criteria used by An et al. [6].
by 33 m was used, conforming with the maximum level refinement criteria used by An et al. [6].

Figure
Figure 3. Baeksan
3. Baeksan leveelevee failure
failure floodflood domain
domain showing
showing elevation
elevation and constructed
and constructed mesh
mesh (33 (33
× 33 m ×resolution).
33 m
resolution).

For the levee breach simulation, the upstream and downstream boundary conditions of water
level and stage flow (Figure 2) from the connecting water level observation stations were computed
using the HEC-RAS 1D model. The lateral structure and the breach data of the ruptured levee can be
seen in Figure 4. The width and length of the failure were set as 10.3 m and 15 m, respectively, based
Water 2019, 11, 2048 7 of 14

For the levee breach simulation, the upstream and downstream boundary conditions of water
level and stage flow (Figure 2) from the connecting water level observation stations were computed
using the HEC-RAS 1D model. The lateral structure and the breach data of the ruptured levee can be
seen in Figure 4. The width and length of the failure were set as 10.3 m and 15 m, respectively, based on
the survey conducted by the Korea Ministry of Construction and Transportation after the event.
The homogeneous roughness coefficient is set to η = 0.06 according to the cultivated crop/pasture
manning value in [30], since the flood area is mostly paddy field and vegetable crops [15].
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

HW connections based on XS channel length's - TW connections based on generated XS polyline

733 732
16 Legend

14 Lat Struct
Ground
12
Bank Sta
Elevation (m)

10
TW Cell Min Elev

8 LS Terrain

2
-200 -100 0 100 200 300
Station (m)

(a)

(b)
Figure
Figure 4.4. HEC-RAS
HEC-RAScoupled
coupled 1D–2D
1D–2D lateral
lateral structure
structure (a)breach
(a) and and data
breach
(b) data (b) offlood
of Baeksan Baeksan flood
simulation.
simulation.
The breach formation time was assumed to be 20 h, that is, the time it took for the surface water
levelThe breach
in the formation
flooded time
area side waslevee
of the assumed to be after
to recede 20 h, the
thatbreach.
is, the time it took forreview
Our literature the surface water
stated that
level in the flooded area side of the levee to recede after the breach. Our literature review
the levee break occurred on 10 August 2002 at 1600, and the flood simulation time was therefore set up stated that
the levee
for 10 breakatoccurred
August midnight onto1012August
August2002 at 1600,
at 1600. Theand the floodtimes
simulation simulation
for the time was therefore
FLUMEN, set
Gerris and
up for 10 August
HEC-RAS coupledat1D–2D
midnight
wereto420
12 [29],
August at 1600.
111.95 The1.82
[15] and simulation times for the FLUMEN, Gerris
min, respectively.
and HEC-RAS coupled 1D–2D were 420 [29], 111.95 [15] and 1.82 min, respectively.
4. Results and Analysis
4. Results and Analysis
To analyze the performance of the HEC-RAS 1D–2D coupled method, the resulting flood
simulations outputs
To analyze the were compared
performance of to
thethose of the observed
HEC-RAS values method,
1D–2D coupled (surveyedthe
flood extent flood
resulting trace
map by Korea
simulations Geongnam
outputs Development
were compared Institute,
to those Busan, Korea)
of the observed valuesand the results
(surveyed floodfrom thetrace
extent 2D flood
map
models (Gerris; FLUMEN) in previous research. Figure 5 shows the surveyed flood inundation
by Korea Geongnam Development Institute, Busan, Korea) and the results from the 2D flood models (red
(Gerris; FLUMEN) in previous research. Figure 5 shows the surveyed flood inundation (red line) and
simulated inundation boundaries (Gerris = purple line, FLUMEN = blue line, HEC-RAS = yellow line).
In general, the flood extent simulated using HEC-RAS agrees well with the other models’ results and
the surveyed one. The simulated inundation extents agree with the local topography. However, it
under-estimated the expanse in comparison with the surveyed data, especially towards the
Water 2019, 11, 2048 8 of 14

line) and simulated inundation boundaries (Gerris = purple line, FLUMEN = blue line, HEC-RAS =
yellow line). In general, the flood extent simulated using HEC-RAS agrees well with the other models’
results and the surveyed one. The simulated inundation extents agree with the local topography.
However, it under-estimated the expanse in comparison with the surveyed data, especially towards
the mountainous areas. In terms of the maximum inundation area, HEC-RAS has a slightly greater
value (3.88 km2 ) compared to that of FLUMEN and Gerris (3.13 and 3.51 km2 , respectively).
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

(a) (b)
Figure 5. Extent of flood inundation from (a) observed data (red line), FLUMEN (blue), Gerris (purple)
Figure 5. Extent of flood inundation from (a) observed data (red line), FLUMEN (blue), Gerris (purple)
and (b) HEC-RAS model (yellow).
and (b) HEC-RAS model (yellow).
The flood points within the flooded area can be seen in Figure 6. Points G1 and G2 are assigned
The flood points within the flooded area can be seen in Figure 6. Points G1 and G2 are assigned
on the river side and flooded area side of the levee, respectively. In this way, the simulated increase
on the river side and flooded area side of the levee, respectively. In this way, the simulated increase
and decrease in the water level inside and outside the levee break can be visualized. The simulated
and decrease
change in in thelevel
water water onlevel
pointsinside
G1 andand outside
G2 for the threethemodels
levee break can be
can be seen visualized.
in Figure The simulated
6. The simulation
change in water level on points G1 and G2 for the three models can be seen in Figure
starts as the levee breaks on 10 August at 1600, and the water level in G1 slowly declines and the 6. The simulation
G2
startswater
as the levee
level breaks
sharply on 10 as
increases August at the
water in 1600, and
river theinto
flows water
thelevel
paddyinfield.
G1 slowly
At arounddeclines andthe
22 h after the G2
waterbreach, the waterincreases
level sharply level within the flooded
as water in thearea stabilizes
river and slowly
flows into dropsfield.
the paddy as water starts to 22
At around flow
h after
back into
the breach, thethe river.level
water The HEC-RAS
within the simulated
floodedwater level has the
area stabilizes same
and pattern
slowly as that
drops as of the other
water startstwoto flow
models, especially Gerris, where the water level is briefly stable around 6 to
back into the river. The HEC-RAS simulated water level has the same pattern as that of the other9 h after the breach (13.0
m). The Gerris model reached 14.59 m at 24 h, while FLUMEN and HEC-RAS reached their maximum
two models, especially Gerris, where the water level is briefly stable around 6 to 9 h after the breach
water levels at 22 h at 14.63 m and 14.45 m, respectively. In addition, in HEC-RAS, G1 and G2 water
(13.0 m). The Gerris model reached 14.59 m at 24 h, while FLUMEN and HEC-RAS reached their
levels eventually even out as the water recedes, while for the other two models, the G2 water level is
maximum waterhigher
consistently levelsthan
at 22inhG1.
at 14.63 m andbe14.45
This might due tom,the
respectively. In addition,
direct interaction in HEC-RAS,
of HEC-RAS 1D and 2D G1 and
G2 water levels eventually even out as the water recedes, while for
models, which allows the direct linkage of water flowing back into the river. the other two models, the G2 water
level is consistently higher than in G1. This might be due to the direct interaction of HEC-RAS 1D and
2D models, which allows the direct linkage of water flowing back into the river.
The simulated flood depth comparison of Gerris and HEC-RAS (Figure 7) shows flood depths
simulated by the two models 3, 5, 12 and 48 h after the levee break. The calculated water depth is the
computed difference in the water surface elevation and surface elevation. The model outputs are quite
similar, with minor differences in the depth and extent in some areas. Gerris has a wider and deeper
flood inundation in time compared to HEC-RAS. Both models agree that the flood starts to recede back
into the river after 48 h.
 Water 2019, 11, 2048 9 of 14

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

(b)

(c)(b)

(a) (d)(c)
Figure 6. Topography and location of gauged points (a) (Points G1 and G2 are located in the river side
and flooded area side of the levee, respectively) and water level at points G1 and G2 from Gerris (b),
FLUMEN (c) and HEC-RAS models (d).

The simulated flood depth comparison of Gerris and HEC-RAS (Figure 7) shows flood depths
simulated by the two models 3, 5, 12 and 48 h after the levee break. The calculated water depth is the
computed difference in the water surface elevation and surface elevation. The model outputs are
quite similar, with minor differences in the depth and extent in some areas. Gerris has a wider and
deeper flood inundation in time compared to HEC-RAS. Both models agree that the flood starts to
recede back into the river after (a) 48 h. (d)
Both Gerris and HEC-RAS have the ability to simulate the flow velocity as well. Figure 8 shows
Figure
Figure
the 6. 6.
Topography
Topography
simulated and location
and
flow velocity locationof of
comparisongaugedof points
gauged (a)(a)
thepoints
Gerris (Points G1G1
(Points
and HEC-RASand G2
and G2areare
models.located in in
located
The waterthethe
river side
river
flows side
from
and
theflooded
andlevee
flooded area side of
area within
breach the levee,
side of the
the levee,respectively)
first torespectively) and
fifth hour and water
andstarts level at
watertolevel points G1
at points
recede and
G1 h.
after 48 G2
and from
G2flow
The Gerris
fromvelocity (b),
Gerris (b),
is
FLUMEN
FLUMEN
greatest (c)(c)
and
within andHEC-RAS
the HEC-RAS models
models
levee opening (d).
and (d).
the sudden narrowing regions (Figure 8).

The simulated flood depth comparison of Gerris and HEC-RAS (Figure 7) shows flood depths
simulated by the two models 3, 5, 12 and 48 h after the levee break. The calculated water depth is the
computed difference in the water surface elevation and surface elevation. The model outputs are
quite similar, with minor differences in the depth and extent in some areas. Gerris has a wider and
deeper flood inundation in time compared to HEC-RAS. Both models agree that the flood starts to
recede back into the river after 48 h.
Both Gerris and HEC-RAS have the ability to simulate the flow velocity as well. Figure 8 shows
the simulated
Water 2019,flow velocity
11, x FOR comparison of the Gerris
PEER REVIEW (a) and HEC-RAS models. The water flows from
10 of 14
the levee breach within the first to fifth hour and starts to recede after 48 h. The flow velocity is
greatest within the levee opening and the sudden narrowing regions (Figure 8).

(b)
Figure
Figure 7. Simulated
7. Simulated flood
flood depth(m)
depth (m)comparison
comparison of
ofGerris
Gerris(a)
(a)and
andHEC-RAS
HEC-RASmodels (b) at
models 3, at
(b) 5, 12
3, and
5, 12 and
48 h 48 h after
after the the levee
levee breach.
breach.
(a)
(a) (b)
Water 2019, 11, 2048 10 of 14

Both Gerris and HEC-RAS have the ability to simulate the flow velocity as well. Figure 8 shows
the simulated flow velocity comparison of the Gerris (b) and HEC-RAS models. The water flows from the
levee breach within the first to fifth hour and starts to recede after 48 h. The flow velocity is greatest
Figure 7. Simulated flood depth (m) comparison of Gerris (a) and HEC-RAS models (b) at 3, 5, 12 and
within the levee opening and the sudden narrowing regions (Figure 8).
48 h after the levee breach.

(a) (b)

Figure 8.
Figure 8. Simulated
Simulated flow
flow velocity
velocity vector
vector(m/s)
(m/s)comparison
comparisonofofGerris
Gerris(a)
(a)and
andflow
flowvelocity
velocityparticle
particle
tracking in
tracking in the
the HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS (b)
(b) model
model at
at 3,
3, 5,
5, 12
12 and
and 48
48 hhafter
afterthe
thelevee
leveebreach.
breach.

The change in the flooded area

The area for
for the
thesimulated
simulatedresults
resultswas
wascalculated
calculatedusing
usingGIS.
GIS.AAcomparison
comparison
between
between thethe models can be seen in
in Figure 9. The results show an increasing flooded area forthe
Figure 9. The results show an increasing flooded area for thethree
three
models. Gerris
models. Gerris and
and FLUMEN
FLUMENshow showaasimilar
similartrend:
trend:AAconstant
constantincrease
increaseininarea
areafrom
from0 0toto5 5h h(95%
(95%
flooded) (FLUMEN)
flooded) (FLUMEN) and and 00 to
to 88 h
h (97%)
(97%) (Gerris).
(Gerris). The
Theestimated
estimatedinundation
inundationwas was2.8
2.8kmkm2 2for
forFLUMEN
FLUMEN
and 3.5
and 3.5 km
km22 for
for Gerris,
Gerris, which
which remained
remained constant
constant until
until the
the end
end ofof the
the simulation.
simulation.For ForHEC-RAS,
HEC-RAS,
however, an inconsistent increase in flooded area can be observed, where the
however, an inconsistent increase in flooded area can be observed, where the maximum area simulated maximum area
simulated
is 3.93 km2isat3.93 kmand
2200,
2 at then
2200,this
andstarts
then this starts toin
to decrease decrease in size afterwards.
size afterwards. The floodedThearea
flooded area for
for HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS reached 75% after 7 h and 97% after 16 h. This behavior was not observed
reached 75% after 7 h and 97% after 16 h. This behavior was not observed in the other two models. in the other two
The reason for this might be because Gerris and FLUMEN model simulations considered the levee
break as a topographical misalignment, in which the flow of water is only one way, while the HEC-RAS
1D–2D coupled method considers the interconnection between the 1D river flow and the 2D flood
inundation. The recedence of water back into the river was considered in HEC-RAS, which is more
realistic compared to the other models. Another reason may possibly be the difference in the threshold
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

models. The reason for this might be because Gerris and FLUMEN model simulations considered the
models. The reason for this might be because Gerris and FLUMEN model simulations considered the
levee break as a topographical misalignment, in which the flow of water is only one way, while the
levee break as a topographical misalignment, in which the flow of water is only one way, while the
HEC-RAS
Water 2019, 11,1D–2D
2048 coupled method considers the interconnection between the 1D river flow and 11 ofthe
14
HEC-RAS 1D–2D coupled method considers the interconnection between the 1D river flow and the
2D flood inundation. The recedence of water back into the river was considered in HEC-RAS, which
2D flood inundation. The recedence of water back into the river was considered in HEC-RAS, which
is more realistic compared to the other models. Another reason may possibly be the difference in the
is more
level forrealistic
the three compared
models. to themodels
The other models. Another
have different reason may
threshold possibly
values be the
on which difference
they in the
count the wet
threshold level for the three models. The models have different threshold values on which they count
threshold
and level for the three models. The models have different threshold values on which they count
dry grid.
the wet and dry grid.
the wet and dry grid.

Figure 9. Gerris, FLUMEN and HEC-RAS model-simulated changes in inundation area (km22).
Figure 9.
Figure 9. Gerris,
Gerris, FLUMEN
FLUMEN and
and HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS model-simulated
model-simulatedchanges
changesinininundation
inundationarea
area(km
(km2).).

The surface water elevation values of Gerris, FLUMEN and HEC-RAS (Figure 10) simulated at 1,
The surface
surface water
water elevation
elevation values
values ofof Gerris,
Gerris, FLUMEN
FLUMENand and HEC-RAS(Figure (Figure 10)simulated
simulated at
12, 24The
and 48 h after the breach show similarities. FLUMEN at 1HEC-RAS h shows a slightly10) larger extent atof
1,
1, 12, 24 and
12, 24 and 4848 hh after
after the
the breach
breach show
show similarities.
similarities. FLUMEN
FLUMENat at11hhshows
showsaaslightly
slightlylarger
largerextent
extent of
inundation compared to the other two models. Lee et al. [14] suggested that the difference might ofbe
inundation
inundation compared to
compared to the
the other
other two
two models. Lee Lee etet al.
al. [14]
[14]suggested
suggestedthat thatthe
thedifference
differencemight
might be
due to the fact that the FLUMEN modelmodels.
considers the underflow flooding within the flooded areabe or
due to
due to the
to the fact
the fact that the FLUMEN
thatdifferences.
the FLUMEN model considers
model considers the underflow
the underflow flooding
flooding within the flooded areaoror
due terrain A slightly lower extent of the flood can be within
observedtheinflooded area
the HEC-RAS
due to the
due to the terrain
terrain differences.
differences. A slightly
slightly lower
lower extent
extent of of the
the flood
floodcancanbebeobserved
observedin inthetheHEC-RAS
HEC-RAS
model (Figures 7 and 10) in theAfirst five hours after the breach. This is because of the difference in the
model (Figures
model (Figures 7 and 10) in the first five hours after the breach. This is because of the difference inin
treatment in the 7overtopping
and 10) in the first five
process, wherehours after theutilizes
HEC-RAS breach.a This
moreisdetailed
becausebreaching
of the difference
procedure
the treatment in
the treatment in the
the overtopping
overtopping process,
process, where
where HEC-RAS
HEC-RAS utilizesutilizes aa more
more detailed
detailed breaching
breaching
compared to the other models.
procedure compared to the other
procedure compared to the other models. models.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Gerris,
Gerris, FLUMEN
FLUMEN and
FLUMEN and HEC-RAS
and HEC-RAS models’
HEC-RAS models’simulated
models’ simulatedsurface
simulated surfacewater
surface waterelevation
water elevationvalues
elevation valuesatat
values at1,1,
1,12,
12,
12,
24 and 48 h after the
the levee
levee breach.
breach.
24 and 48 h after the levee breach.
Water 2019, 11, 2048 12 of 14

5. Conclusions
This research utilized the combined 1D–2D flood modeling capability of the HEC-RAS model to
simulate the Baeksan levee break event in Korea in August 2002. The HEC-RAS coupled 1D–2D method
used the sub-grid bathymetry approach and hybrid discretization to simulate the flood inundation.
The accuracy of the simulation results was assessed by comparing them with the observed data, as well
as the simulation results from other previously used 2D models, Gerris and FLUMEN. The flood
results evaluated were the flood inundation boundary extent, water depth, flow velocity, surface water
elevation and change in flooded area. These variables were represented as maps using GIS tools.
The flood simulation results from the HEC-RAS model show a large number of similarities to those
of Gerris and FLUMEN models, with only some minor differences. A slight difference can be observed
in the inundation extent in the first few hours after the breach in the HEC-RAS model, which is due to
the more detailed breaching process of the model. A particular disparity was also observed in the
change in flooded area over time. The resulting HEC-RAS model pattern in the change in flooded area
shows an inconsistent increase in flooded area: 75% and 97% of the total flooded area are inundated 7
and 16 h after the levee breach, respectively, while Gerris and FLUMEN models achieved 95% and 97%
of the inundated area 5 and 8 h after the breach, respectively. The dissimilarity in the results is possibly
due to the difference in the numerical scheme and the treating approaches used by the models, and the
direct connection between the 1D and 2D models in HEC-RAS, which allows direct feedback between
the 1D and 2D flow elements occurring in the hydraulic link structure. The HEC-RAS simulated
flooded area is deemed to be more realistic in terms of the ideal behavior of flood dynamics.
In conclusion, the ability of the latest HEC-RAS model to provide combined numerical
computations of 1D river flow and 2D flood area has shown to be efficient in simulating levee
breach events, which is of utmost importance, as flood events such as this are likely to occur with more
frequency in the future.

Author Contributions: The research conceptualization, model results analysis and overall organization were
done by A.H.; Model simulation, comparison, literature review and research writing were done by D.L.; Review,
editing and model inputs and data were provided by K.Y.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in
Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through Advanced Production Technology Development Program, funded
by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (grant number: 318060-3).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Baek, H.J.; Lee, J.; Lee, H.S.; Hyun, Y.K.; Cho, C.H.; Kwon, W.T.; Marzin, C.; Gan, S.Y.; Kim, M.J.; Lee, J.H.;
et al. Climate Change in the 21st Century Simulated by HadGEM2-AO under Representative Concentration
Pathways. Asia Pac. J. Atmos. Sci. 2013, 49, 5. [CrossRef]
2. Christensen, J.H.; Krishna Kumar, K.; Aldrian, E.; An, S.I.; Cavalcanti, I.F.A.; De Castro, M.; Dong, W.;
Goswami, P.; Hall, A.; Kanyanga, J.K.; et al. Climate phenomena and their relevance for future regional
climate change. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Ed.; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013.
3. Douben, N. Characteristics of river floods and flooding: A global overview, 1985–2003. Irrig. Drain. 2006, 55,
S9–S21. [CrossRef]
4. Teng, J.; Jakeman, A.J.; Vaze, J.; Croke, B.F.W.; Dutta, D.; Kim, S. Flood inundation modelling: A review of
methods, recent advances and uncertainty analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2017, 90, 201–216. [CrossRef]
5. Anees, M.T.; Abdullah, K.; Nordin, M.N.M.; Ab Rahman, N.N.N.; Syakir, M.I.; Kadir, M.O.A. One- and
Two-dimensional Hydrological Modelling and Their Uncertainties. Flood Risk Manag. 2017, 11, 221–244.
6. An, H.; Yu, S.; Lee, G.; Kim, Y. Analysis of an open source quadtree grid shallow water solver for flood
simulation. Q. Int. 2015, 33, 118–128. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 2048 13 of 14

7. An, H.; Yu, S. Well-balanced shallow water flow simulation on quadtree cut cell grids. Adv. Water Resour.
2012, 39, 60–70. [CrossRef]
8. Noh, S.; Lee, J.; Lee, S.; Kawaike, K.; Seo, D. Hyper-resolution 1D–2D urban flood modeling using LiDAR
data and hybrid parallelization. Environ. Model. Softw. 2018, 103, 131–142. [CrossRef]
9. Brunner, G. HEC-RAS River Analysis System Hydraulic Reference Manual Version 5.0; USACE CEC: Davis, CA,
USA, 2016.
10. Patel, D.; Ramirez, J.; Srivastava, P.; Bray, M.; Han, D. Assessment of flood inundation mapping of Surat city
by coupled 1D/2D hydrodynamic modeling: A casse application of the new HEC-RAS 5. Nat. Hazards 2017,
89, 93–130. [CrossRef]
11. Betsholtz, A.; Nordlof, B. Potentials and Limitations of 1D, 2D and Coupled 1D–2D Flood Modeling in
HEC-RAS. Master’s Thesis, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, 2017.
12. Tazin, T. Flood Hazard Mapping of Dharla River Floodplain Using HEC-RAS 1D/2D Coupled Model.
Master’s Thesis, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018.
13. Rubio, F. Flood Risk Assessment in the Vicinity of Kartena Town Using HEC-RAS 1D–2D Models. Master’s
Thesis, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Kaunas, Lithuania, 2018.
14. Lee, G.; Lee, S.; Jung, K. Development of a Raster-based Two-dimensional flood inundation model. J. Korean
Soc. Hazard Mitig. 2010, 10, 155–164.
15. Lee, D.; An, H.; Lee, G.; Jung, K. Applicability Evaluation of Flood Inundation Analysis using Quadtree
Grid-based Model. J. Korea Water Res. Assoc. 2013, 46, 655–666. [CrossRef]
16. Beffa, C. FLUMEN (FLUvial Modelling ENgine). 1996. Available online: https://www.fluvial.ch/p/flumen.
html (accessed on 11 September 2019).
17. Zainalfikry, M.K.; Ab Ghani, A.; Zakaria, N.A.; Weng, C.N. HEC-RAS One-dimensional hydrodynamic
modeling for recent major flood event in Pahang River. In Proceedings of the AWAM International Conference
on Civil Engineering 2019, Penang, Malaysia, 21–22 August 2019.
18. Ahmad, H.F.; Alam, A.; Sultan Bhat, M.; Ahmad, S. One Dimensional steady flow analysis using HEC-RAS–A
case of River Jhelum, Jammu and Kashmir. Eur. Sci. J. 2016, 12, 340–350.
19. Al-Zahrani, M.; Al-Areeq, A.; Sharif, H. Flood analysis using HEC-RAS model: A case study for Hafr Al-Batin,
Saudi Arabia. In Proceedings of the Floodrisk 2016—European Conference on Flood Risk Management,
Lyon, France, 17–21 October 2016.
20. Mehta, D.J.; Ramani, M.; Joshi, M. Application of 1-D HEC-RAS model in design of channels. Int. J. Innov.
Res. Adv. Eng. 2014, 1, 103–107.
21. Prastica, R.M.S.; Maitri, C.; Hermawan, A.; Nugroho, P.; Sutjiningsih, D.; Anggraheni, E. Estimating design
flood and HEC-RAS modelling approach for flood analysis in Bojonegoro city. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
2018, 316, 1–9. [CrossRef]
22. Shayannejad, M.; Ostad-Ali-Askari, K.; Eslamian, S.; Singh, V.P.; Dalezios, N.R. Analyzing of Flow in Open
channels networks using HEC-RAS. J. Ecol. Nat. Res. 2018, 21, 1–7.
23. Traore, V.B.; Sambou, S.; Sambou, H.; Diaw, A.T. Steady flow simulation in Anambe River basin using
HEC-RAS. Int. J. Dev. Res. 2015, 5, 4968–4979.
24. Xiong, Y. A Dam break analysis using HEC-RAS. J. Water Res. Prot. 2011, 3, 370–379. [CrossRef]
25. Quiroga, V.M.; Kure, S.; Udo, K.; Mano, A. Application of 2D numerical simulation for the analysis of the
February 2014 Bolivian Amazonia flood: Application of the new HEC-RAS version 5. RIBAGUA 2016, 3,
25–33. [CrossRef]
26. Azouagh, A.; El Bardai, R.; Hilal, I.; El Messari, J.S. Integration of GIS and HEC-RAS in Flood modeling of
Martil River (Northern Morocco). Eur. Sci. J. 2018, 14, 12. [CrossRef]
27. Kadir, M.A.A.; Abustan, I.; Razak, M.F.A. 2D Flood Inundation Simulation based on a Large-Scale Physical
Model using Course Numerical Grid Method. Int. J. GEOMATE 2019, 17, 230–236.
28. Beretta, R.; Ravazzani, G.; Maiorano, C.; Mancini, M. Simulating the Influence of Buildings on Flood
Inundation in Urban Areas. Geosciences 2018, 8, 77. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 2048 14 of 14

29. Korea Joong Ang Daily. Villages Try to Recover from Flood Devastation, 20 August. Available online:
Koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article (accessed on 11 September 2019).
30. Brunner, G. HEC-RAS River Analysis System 2D Modeling User’s Manual Version 5.0; USACE HEC: Davis, CA,
USA, 2016; pp. 3–26.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).