CVFED FLO 2D Project Guidelines

FLO-2D Software, Inc.
CVFED FLO-2D Guidelines i

GUIDELINES FOR APPLYING
THE FLO-2D MODEL TO THE
CENTRAL VALLEY
FLOODPLAIN EVALUATION
DELINEATION PROGRAM

Submitted to:
CA Department of Water Resources
Sacramento, CA

Submitted By:
FLO-2D/Riada Engineering, Inc.
Nutrioso, AZ

Wood Rogers, Inc.
Sacramento, CA

October 9, 2009

CVFED FLO-2D Guidelines i
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
FLO-2D Model Guidelines ............................................................................................................................. 1
1. Hardware and Software Requirements ................................................................................................................. 1
Hardware and System Requirements .................................................................................................................... 1
Software Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. DTM Data and Elevation Interpolation ............................................................................................................... 3
The LAS Binary and ASCII Format ..................................................................................................................... 3
DTM Data Interpolation ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Out-of-core interpolation algorithm ...................................................................................................................... 5
DTM point sampling procedure ............................................................................................................................ 5
New GDS tools to interpolate large LiDAR point data bases. .............................................................................. 6
3. Getting Started ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
Grid System Size and Elevation............................................................................................................................ 9
Grid Element Flow Directions ............................................................................................................................ 10
FLO-2D Grid System Project Boundary ............................................................................................................. 11
Flood Detail Components ................................................................................................................................... 11
Create a Project Folder........................................................................................................................................ 12
Saving data .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Build the Project Files ......................................................................................................................................... 12
Run the FLO-2D model ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Data Input ........................................................................................................................................................... 13
File Management ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Graphics Mode .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Simulating Channel Flow ................................................................................................................................... 13
Modeling Sediment Transport ............................................................................................................................ 13
Units .................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4. Overland and Channel Flow Roughness ............................................................................................................ 15
5. Running the Flood Model ................................................................................................................................... 18
Basic Overland Flow Simulation ........................................................................................................................ 18
Volume Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Possible Causes and Corrections - NOFLOCs Elements ................................................................................... 19
Possible Causes and Corrections - Hydraulic structures ..................................................................................... 19
Possible Causes and Corrections - Outflow elements ......................................................................................... 20
Numerical Stability ............................................................................................................................................. 20
How can WAVEMAX be used to speed up the FLO-2D model or be used to make the model more stable?.... 21
6. River Channel Component ................................................................................................................................. 23
7. Hydraulic Structures .......................................................................................................................................... 29
8. Levees, Levee Breach, Fragility Curves and Safe Storage ................................................................................. 32
FLO-2D Levee Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 32
Levee Profile ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Levee Overtopping ............................................................................................................................................. 33
Levee Breach Failure .......................................................................................................................................... 35
CVFED FLO-2D Guidelines ii
Using Fragility Curves to Locate and Initial Levee Breaches ............................................................................. 39
Benefits of Applying the Levee Fragility Curves to Flood Hazard Mapping ..................................................... 42
Safe Storage Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 43
9. Floodplain Urban Details .................................................................................................................................. 44
Buildings and Flow Obstructions ........................................................................................................................ 44
Street Flow .......................................................................................................................................................... 46
Embankments...................................................................................................................................................... 48
Interior Drainage ................................................................................................................................................. 50
10. Sediment Bulking .............................................................................................................................................. 52
11. Reviewing FLO-2D Results ............................................................................................................................... 53
Volume Conservation ......................................................................................................................................... 54
Numerical Surging .............................................................................................................................................. 54
'Sticky' Grid Elements ......................................................................................................................................... 54
12. Guidelines for Flood Hazard Tools .................................................................................................................. 56
Flood Inundation Maps ....................................................................................................................................... 56
Flood Damage Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 57
Flood Hazard Mapping ....................................................................................................................................... 60
DFIRM Mapping ................................................................................................................................................ 63
CVFED Review Procedures ............................................................................................................................... 64

List of Figures
Figure 1. GDS grid system display the extent of an 8 million DTM point tile for a 250 ft grid system ................... 4
Figure 2. Enlarged grid element display of the LiDAR points .................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Conceptual octagon for the boundary widths and flow lengths ............................................................ 10
Figure 4. Grid System Boundary ............................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5. VELTIMEC.OUT Example ......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 6. Channel conveyance is a minor portion of the entire flood volume. ..................................................... 24
Figure 7. Overbank flooding is extensive with channel-floodplain exchange for the entire reach. ..................... 25
Figure 8. Multiple channels are exchanging flow with the floodplain. ................................................................. 25
Figure 9. Interior drainage channels contribute to the flow exchange with the main river channel. .................. 25
Figure 10. Levee overtopping or breach failure is extensive for the entire reach. ................................................. 26
Figure 11. Significant return flow to the channel downstream (potential overtopping from the landside of the
levee). ..................................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 12. GDS channel editor dialog box. .............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 13. Plugged Bridge with Sediment and Debris ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 14. Levee flow directions are depicted in red; the left bank of the river is shown in blue and the right bank
of the river is shown in magenta. ........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 15. Levee Profile ........................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 16. Levee Freeboard Deficit Plot in Mapper ................................................................................................ 34
Figure 17. Example of levee breach urban flooding................................................................................................ 35
Figure 18. Pipe breach failure ................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 19. Overtopping and channel breach erosion .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 20. Example of Sacramento River Basin levee fragility curves ..................................................................... 40
Figure 21. Levee breach with Variable Fragility Curves .......................................................................................... 41
Figure 22. Safe Storage for Levee ........................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 23. Area (yellow) and Width Reduction Factors (as lines within the yellow grid elements)........................ 44
Figure 24. ARF value grid elements outlined in yellow (zoomed view). ................................................................. 44
CVFED FLO-2D Guidelines iii
Figure 25. Street are shown as green lines in the GDS. .......................................................................................... 47
Figure 26. A number of canal and roadway features that may control the floodwave distribution. ..................... 48
Figure 27. Discharge and Suspended Sediment Load for the Sacramento River at Freeport, California ................ 52
Figure 28. Numerical Channel Surging Example. .................................................................................................... 55
Figure 29. Urban Flooding with Channel. ................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 30. Mapper Damage Assessment Table with a Cost Per Foot of Depth for Each Building Type. ................. 58
Figure 31. Mapper Displayed Color Coded Assignment of Damage Costs to Individual Buildings. ........................ 59
Figure 32. Interpolated Damage Inundation Cost for Individual Structures Computed by Mapper. ...................... 59
Figure 33. Flood Hazard Levels Based on Flood Frequency and Intensity. ............................................................. 60
Figure 34. Flood Hazard for Adults (Bureau of Reclamation). ................................................................................ 61
Figure 35. A typical flood hazard map delineating high hazard (red), medium hazard (orange) and low hazard
(yellow). .................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 36. Alluvial fan flood hazard compared with an actual rainfall flood event. ............................................... 63
Figure 37. Typical DFIRM Panel ............................................................................................................................... 63

List of Tables
Table 1: Computer Specification Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 1
Table 2: Grid System Size .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 3: English Metric Conversion ......................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4: Overland Flow Manning's n Roughness Values
1
........................................................................................ 15
Table 5: Channel Flow Manning's n Roughness Values
2
.......................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Froude Number ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 7: Cohesive Strength and Friction Angle
1
...................................................................................................... 38
Table 8: Area/Width Reduction Factor .................................................................................................................... 46
Table 9: Criteria for Simulating Street Flow ............................................................................................................ 47
Table 10: Output files and Uses ................................................................................................................................. 53
Table 11: Flood Hazard Definition ............................................................................................................................. 61
Table 12. Definition of Water Flood Intensity ........................................................................................................... 61
Table 13. Definition of Mud or Debris Flow .............................................................................................................. 62
Table14: Guidelines for the Review of Project Submittals ....................................................................................... 64
CVFED FLO-2D Guidelines 1
Guidelines for Applying the FLO-2D
Model to the Central Valley Flood
Evaluation and Delineation Program
Introduction
Guidelines are presented to apply the FLO-2D model to the California Central Valley Flood Evaluation
and Delineation Program (CVFED). These guidelines will assist the CVFED AEC project teams to have
consistent approach to the hydraulic modeling and flood hazard delineation of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River floodplains. This document includes:
Outline of basic model tasks and procedures;
Guidelines to facilitate hydraulic modeling by the AEC Teams;
Standards for selecting and applying modeling components and attributes;
Overview of FLO-2D modeling system tools to enhance flood hazard delineation.
The FLO-2D model was selected along with Corps of Engineers HEC-RAS model to conduct the flood
hazard delineation analyses and mapping for the CVFED Program. The HEC-RAS model would be applied
to the Sacramento and San Joaquin River channels and the FLO-2D model would be used to simulate
two-dimensional unconfined flow on the floodplain in response to overbank flooding and prescribed
levee breaches. There may be reach with complex flooding that may require integrated channel flow
exchange with the floodplain (including return flow to the channel) for accurate prediction of
downstream floodwave attenuation and in these cases, the FLO-2D model can be considered for the
combined river channel and floodplain routing.

Guideline Limitations: These guidelines are presented to
help the CVFED AEC project teams make decisions regarding
the application of the FLO-2D model to the Central Valley
river systems. A few of the guidelines may not be appropriate
for some project conditions. Using these guidelines will
require engineering judgment and ultimately the AEC project
teams are responsible for the FLO-2D components and
parameters selected in a model. The guidelines do not
represent a step-by-step method or procedure for applying the
FLO-2D model. The FLO-2D manuals, tutorials and lessons
should be used for that purpose.
FLO-2D Model Guidelines
These guidelines are organized according to the order of the modeling task that would be required to
develop a CVFED FLO-2D model. The guidelines first discuss hardware and software requirements and
then address project tasks starting with compiling and assimilating the digital terrain model (DTM) data
bases and corresponding aerial images. The document is divided by tabs that represent the FLO-2D
model channel component or feature that will be simulated in the flood hydraulics analysis. The
following sections (tabs) are presented in this document.
Hardware and Software Requirements
DTM Data and Aerial Images
Getting Started
Overland Flow Roughness
Running the Flood Model
River Channel Component
Hydraulic Structures
Levees and Levee Breach
Floodplain Urban Details
Interior Drainage and Embankments
Sediment Bulking
Reviewing FLO-2D Results
Creating Flood Hazard Maps

1. Hardware and Software Requirements
Hardware and System Requirements
FLO-2D can be run on any MS Windows operating system. As a general rule of thumb with most
computationally intensive software programs, bigger and faster is better when it comes to computer
hardware. For the FLO-2D model, flood simulation runtimes can range from a few minutes to several
hours. Runtimes for large projects and long duration floods may be eight hours or more. Suggested
minimum hardware requirements are at least 4 Gigabytes of RAM and as many processors as can be
cost justified. Computer hard drive storage is both plentiful and cheap and there is no need to specify
minimum hard drive space. FLO-2D Version 2009 will be optimized for 64-bit multiple processor
computers and both 32-bit and 64-bit FLO-2D programs will be available. While network servers are big
and fast, a typical 64-bit multiple processor computer with 8 Gigabytes of RAM off-the-shelf computer
will be sufficient for most FLO-2D projects. The following general guidelines are suggested.

Table 1: Computer Specification Guidelines
Type of Project Grid System Elements Flood Duration
Minimum Computer
Specifications
River & Floodplain Flooding <100,000 < 10 days 4 Gigs RAM, 32-Bit
Off the shelf
Limited Detail >100,000 >10 days 8 Gigs RAM, 64-Bit
Multiple processor
Many Features >200,000 > 30 days Server
Floodplain Only <200,000 < 30 days 4 Gigs RAM, 32-Bit
Off the shelf
Many Features
(Levee Breach)
>200,000 > 30 days 8 Gigs RAM, 64-bit
Multiple processor
Alluvial Fan >100,000 < 2 days 4 Gigs RAM, 32-Bit
Off the shelf

Software Recommendations
The FLO-2D model and processor programs constitute a standalone system and no other software is
required. All the input data files are ASCII space delimited format. The FLO-2D modeling system has
both pre-processor programs to facilitate graphical input data assignment and post-processor programs
to plot and map output data. It also has a graphical user interface (GUI) to assist in the data input.
There are several ASCII data editor programs that can be used to data or reviewing output. These
include:
MicroSoft WordPad

TextPad
(www.textpad.com)
UltraEdit
(www.ultraedit.com)
Microsoft Vista
TM
Excel

These programs have some unique features for editing large data files including column operations
(delete, insert columns or add to columns), advanced sorting options, and search functions. TextPad

and UltraEdit
are also noteworthy for their fast assimilation of unlimited file sizes.

In addition to text editor programs, a computer aided design and drafting (CADD) program or graphical
information system (GIS) program such as ArcGIS can be useful. Specifically ArcGIS 9.2 or higher may
be valuable because the FLO-2D graphical processor programs Grid Developer System (GDS) and the
mapping software (MAPPER) are integrated with ArcGIS components and features such as shape files.
For example, MAPPER automatically generates shape files of all contour plots including contour plots.
Essentially all of the FLO-2D output data files can be imported into ArcGIS for spatial or temporal
graphical displays. For advanced ArcGIS mapping and integration the Mapper_NET processor program is
also available with features such as breaklines and more flood contour controls.
2. DTM Data and Elevation Interpolation
The LiDAR DTM data base for individual AEC projects could be very large perhaps as large as 1 gigabyte
or more for some projects. To reduce the computer time required for loading data, creating layers, and
interpolating a large DTM data base, three programming tasks were outlined as part of the Guidelines
scope of work. The Large LiDAR DTM data bases associated with CVFED Program areas necessitated an
investigation of methods to streamline the process of loading and analyzing the DTM data in the Grid
Developer System (GDS). The GDS is the software system used to create the FLO-2D grid system and to
enter and graphically edit data for the FLO-2D model. The following tasks were completed:
1. Expand GDS Capabilities to Read Various LiDAR Data Formats. Both the published ASCII DTM
data and LAS binary data can be read by the GDS program. This will eliminate the need to
reformat the data into the space delimited x-, y- and z- format previously required by the GDS.
2. Speed Up GDS DTM Point Interpolation. A GDS integrated routine was developed to perform
the DTM interpolation outside the GDS. This will eliminate the need to load large DTM point
data sets into the GDS. DTM point filter criteria and the assignment of the grid element
elevations will occur in a subroutine called by the GDS that will save computer time and
resources associated with loading large volumes of data, assigning array space, creating layers
and swapping RAM and hard drive computer memory. The AEC project team effort in
processing the DTM data will be significantly reduced and will allow a virtually unlimited number
of DTM points to be used to in the grid element elevation interpolation.
3. Develop a DTM Point Sampling Routine. A point sampling routine was created to limit the DTM
points used in the grid element elevation interpolation. A statistic analysis was conducted to
insure the sampled points accurately reflect a mean DTM elevation for the grid element. This
will routine will reduce the computer runtime of the assigning grid element elevations to a large
grid system.
The LAS Binary and ASCII Format
DTM LiDAR data for the CVFED Program will be provided in the LAS data public exchange format. It is a
binary file format proposed as an alternative to proprietary data systems that are extensively used.
These files contain the X Y Z data for each LiDAR point but also include a substantial amount of
information related to data collection that is not required for the interpolation to the FLO-2D grid. To
avoid processing this extraneous data, it is more efficient to convert the LAS binary files to ASCII format
files that only have the X Y Z data. This approach is faster than directly reading the binary files with the
additional data.
In order to convert LAS binary format to ASCII format, we used LASTools: a set of programs developed
by Martin Isenburg and Jonathan Shew of the Department of Computer Science of University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~isenburg/lastools/). LASTools provide C++ classes and
executable programs that implement reading and writing of LiDAR points from and to the binary LAS
format 1.0/1.1/1.2 (as described in the April 2008 specification). This tool has been verified and is used
extensively to manipulate LAS files.
Recommendation: Use the LASTools to
convert LAS binary format to ASCII format prior
to using the DTM data in the GDS program.
The concern that ASCII files are larger than binary files is mitigated by the fact that the extraneous data
in the LAS files is not included in the ASCII files. Tests performed with the provided CVFED data showed
that the resulting ASCII file size is not substantially larger than that of the LAS binary file. For example, a
typical 8 million point tile has a size of 241,925,971
bytes in binary format and 257,398,271 bytes in ASCII
format, an increase of only 6%.
DTM Data Interpolation
Due to memory limitations in most off-the-shelf computers, the maximum number of DTM points that
could be previously loaded into the GDS was approximately 15 million points. The LiDAR data will be
provided in tiles of 5000 x 5000 ft, each containing more than 8 million points in LAS binary format. For a
typical grid system consisting of 250 x 250 ft square elements, each grid element will contain more than
20,000 points or a point density of approximately 0.3 points per square foot. Present memory limits
would permit just a few tiles to be imported for a particular project. Interpolating this LiDAR data to
assign the elevation to the 250 ft grid elements using the complete data base is both computationally
demanding and unnecessary. Figure 1 shows a 250 x 250 ft element grid and a boundary around a
typical LiDAR tile.

Figure 1. GDS grid system display the extent of an 8 million DTM point tile for a 250 ft grid system
Zooming in to one grid element shows the LiDAR point density:

Figure 2. Enlarged grid element display of the LiDAR points
The grid element elevation is represented by a single value based on an interpolation of all the DTM
points within a prescribed area whose diameter is a multiple of the grid element side (in the case one
grid element is the prescribed area). Using all DTM points within the grid element in the elevation
interpolation is represents extraneous and repetitious computations, and a small subset of points would
result in an accurate interpolated value. A new computational procedure was developed and
implemented in the GDS program to handle large LiDAR point data bases while maintaining reasonable
interpolation accuracy.

Out-of-core interpolation algorithm
To facilitate the GDS grid element elevation interpolation using the large CVFED DTM data bases, an out-
of-core algorithm was developed. This new routine will read and process the LiDAR data base without
requiring the GDS to import the data files. The algorithm was divided in two steps: 1) A data sampling
procedure will determine the number of DTM points inside a grid element that would constitute an
accurate approximation of the element elevation as measured by a user defined error. The optimized
number of points will be significantly smaller than the actual LiDAR points inside a grid element. 2) The
LiDAR tile of data will be processed outside the GDS environment avoiding the memory size limitations
that may exist if all the DTM points would be imported at once. Combined these two steps will reduce
the interpolation computational time by about ten times.

DTM point sampling procedure
The GDS point sampling procedure will reduce the number of DTM points processed for the
interpolation of the grid element elevation. Using fewer DTM points to perform the interpolation could
results in the deviation from a true representative grid element elevation. To optimize the computing
speed and concomitantly limit the potential interpolation errors, a sampling algorithm was developed as
follows:
1. Select at random a number of target locations inside the area covered by the LiDAR DTM tiles.
2. Compute the interpolated elevations at the target locations using a gradually reduced number
of points (NP), for example:
a. NP = TNP. (TNP are all available points on a grid element located at each target point)
b. NP=TNP /1000
c. NP=TNP/100
d. NP=TNP/10
3. Compute the interpolation error Err(NP) for each case. The case of NP = TNP is assumed to be
error free.
4. For each NP, compare the computed errors Err(NP) with a user selected error limit Eu.
5. If the computed error Err(NP) is less than the user selected error Eu, then use NP number of
points will be used to compute all interpolations.
6. If Err(NP) is always larger than E
u
, then the total number of points TNP will be used for the
interpolation.
The interpolation algorithm was implemented in through a set of Fortran 95 routines in a MS-Windows
dynamic link library DLL called FLO2DLIDAR.DLL that is installed with the FLO-2D system. This library
contains subroutines that perform the following tasks:
1. Read DTM points from any number of LiDAR files.
2. Determine the optimum number of points to use in the interpolation.
3. Compute the interpolated elevations on the FLO-2D grid elements based on multiple LiDAR files.

New GDS tools to interpolate large LiDAR point data bases.
To implement the out-of-core interpolation algorithm, new dialog menu items and dialog boxes were
developed for the GDS. To perform the interpolation from multiple LiDAR files, the following steps are
necessary:
1. Use the GDS to create the FLO-2D model grid in the usual form.
2. Select the new Interpolate from LiDAR ASCII Files in the Grid Menu:

3. Select the LiDAR files that are going to be used to perform the interpolation:

Any number of LiDAR files can be selected from the dialog box.
4. By clicking the Open button, the routine will perform a preliminary evaluation of the files and
report the results in the interpolation dialog box:

Note that there are two radio buttons. The first button is an option to assign the maximum
number of DTM points used in the elevation interpolation of each grid element, regardless of
the potential error that may result in the grid element elevation. The maximum value of points
that can be used in the interpolation is project dependent, but a typical value for most
interpolations is 1,000. The second button provides the option to limit the Maximum relative
error in interpolation E
u
to a user prescribed value that will define and may increase the number
of DTM points used in the interpolation. A typical value for the maximum relative error used in
the interpolation is 0.2 ft.
5. Clicking OK will perform the sampling evaluation and interpolation resulting in an elevation for
each grid element.
Recommendation: For the CVFED project, it is
suggested that a 250 ft grid size be used unless the
number of grid elements is greater than 200,000, then a
400 ft grid element size is recommended.
3. Getting Started
Grid System Size and Elevation
Consistent selection of grid size is important for potential FEMA submittals, future map use by the
communities and project t integration between the AEC Teams. Most of the CVFED flood projects will
involve major flood events (100,000 cfs to 400,000 cfs for the 200-yr flood based on the Corps 2002
Comp Study) and 100 to 500 ft wide grid elements will be appropriate. The flood delineation map
resolution and the computer flood simulation runtime should be balanced. Once the overall project
area has been identified, estimate the grid system size area (as a rough rectangle) and determine the
approximate number of grid elements that would be required for different size grid elements such as
100 ft, 250 ft, etc. The grid elements are square and estimating the maximum number of grid elements
is relatively easy. Refer to Table 2 to determine the relative flood simulation runtime.
Table 2: Grid System Size
Number of Grid Elements Model Simulation Speed
1,000 15,000 Very Fast (minutes)
15,000 30,000 Fast (~ hour)
30,000 60,000 Moderate (several hours)
60,000 150,000 Slow (< 24 hour)
> 150,000 Very Slow (a day or more)

Selecting the grid element size will control how fast the FLO-2D flood simulation will run. Often a grid
element is chosen for a project that is smaller than necessary. A small grid element combined with a
high flood discharge can result in long flood simulations times. To select the grid element size, the
following criteria are suggested: The estimated peak discharge Q
peak
divided by the surface area of one
grid element A
surf
should be in the range:
1.0 cfs/ft
2
< Q
peak
/A
surf
< 2.0 cfs/ft
2

or in metric:
0.3 cms/m
2
< Q
peak
/A
surf
< 0.67 cms/m
2

The closer Qpeak/Asurf is to 1.0 cfs/ft2 (0.3 cms/m2), the faster the model will run. If the Q
peak
/A
surf
is
greater than 2.0 cfs/ft2 or 0.67 cms/m2, the model should be expected to run more slowly.
As a general rule of thumb, for peak discharges on the order of 300,000 cfs or higher, a minimum grid
element size should be 250 ft. If a project application requires the analysis of a range of return period
floods, it is suggest that the 100-year flood be
used to select the grid size. The larger flood
events will run slower, but ultimately this will
balance the map resolution for the more
frequent return period floods.
Recommendation: Use the DTM points low filter
(3 ft or 1 m) to interpolate the grid element elevations
when it is apparent that a significant number of DTM
points are inside the channel top of banks.

The GDS has an option for filtering both high and low DTM points when interpolating the grid element
elevations. Given the number and accuracy of available DTM points for Central Valley, the grid element
elevation assignment in the GDS will be representative. The LiDAR will also be pre-processed to exclude
DTM points that reflect buildings, bridges, trees or other features that do not represent the ground
surface. For these reasons, the application of the GDS high filter to assign grid element elevation is
unnecessary.
A low DTM point filter is necessary when the DTM data includes the river channel below top of bank. If
the bathymetric data is included in the DTM point file in sufficient numbers, it may lower the assigned
channel bank grid element elevation. This would cause some of the floodplain elevations to be
depressed along the bank and they may not compare favorably with the cross section survey top-of-
bank. To exclude the channel bed DTM elevations when interpolating the channel bank element
floodplain elevations, it is advisable to use a lower filter. For
example, if a low filter of 3 ft or 1 m is assigned in the GDS grid
element elevation interpolation dialog box, all those points 3
ft below the mean grid element elevation will be eliminated
and the grid element elevation will be re-interpolated.
Grid Element Flow Directions
FLO-2D routes flows in eight directions as shown in Figure 3. The four compass directions are numbered
1 to 4 and the four diagonal directions are numbered 5 to 8. Some components such as levees are
placed on boundaries of the grid element. The grid element boundaries create an octagon in this case.
The simplest FLO-2D model is overland flow on an alluvial fan or floodplain. It requires only the
topography files and a hydrograph along with the two control files CONT.DAT and TOLER.DAT. The
conceptualized grid element octagonal geometry is primarily important for the flow width across the
grid element boundaries and diagonal flow lengths. The grid element surface area is still a square.

Figure 3. Conceptual octagon for the boundary widths and flow lengths

The FPLAIN.DAT file defines the potential flow surface and the contiguous grid elements. It contains the
data that identify the grid elements and their neighbors, hydraulic roughness and elevations. The
horizontal position of the grid elements is defined by the CADPTS.DAT file that lists the grid element
Recommendation: A minimum of 5 grid elements
should exist between the flow domain boundary and
critical project features. If the flow contacts the grid
system boundary during the first overland flow simulation,
expand the grid system. To have the outflow nodes
function as normal flow at the boundary, make sure that
the grid system boundary is not located downstream of a
hydraulic control.
number and x- and y-coordinates. With these two data files all the coordinate geometry (including
elevation) of the entire grid system is defined. If the FPLAIN.DAT and CADPTS.DAT file were created
with the GDS processor, these data files will be error free and no further modifications to these data
files are necessary to start a simulation.
FLO-2D Grid System Project Boundary
When the DTM points are imported to the GDS and a grid system is overlaid, the grid element fills the
screen window. At this point there is no project boundary or project area. The user selects the grid size
and then outlines the boundary using a polygon. When the polygon is completed or closed, the project
area is outlined by red boundary elements (see Figure 4). The area inside the polygon represents the
project flow domain. The red boundary elements are
not included as part of the project grid system. The
boundary should be created with the aerial image in
the background to avoid creating a boundary to close
to the project area. The boundary acts like a solid wall
and no flow leaves the project area unless channel or
floodplain outflow elements are assigned. The
following guidelines for constructing the flow domain
boundary are very important:
i. Provide enough distance between the boundary and the important project features to eliminate
any potential boundary affects on the flow through the project area.
ii. If the flow reaches the boundary in locations other than the proposed outflow locations, then
either re-establish a larger grid system or assign outflow nodes. Flow against the model
boundary will result in flow containment and artificially higher flow depths.
iii. Assign outflow nodes along the boundary where the flow is expected to leave the grid system.

Figure 4. Grid System Boundary
Flood Detail Components
The first flood simulation for any project will be a simple overland flow model which will constitute a
base model upon which a more detailed flood simulation will be built. A suggested order of component
construction is as follows:
Inflow and outflow nodes
Rainfall
Infiltration
Channels
Levees and levee breach
Streets
Buildings
Hydraulic structures (culverts, weirs and bridges)
Multiple channels (rills and gullies)
Mud and debris flows/sediment transport
Evaporation and groundwater
Floodways
As new components are added to a model and tested, other components switches can be turned off in
the CONT.DAT file. The six data files necessary to conduct a simple overland flow simulation are:
FPLAIN.DAT CADPTS.DAT CONT.DAT
TOLER.DAT INFLOW.DAT OUTFLOW.DAT
The INFLOW.DAT and OUTFLOW.DAT files are optional, but almost all project applications will require
these two data files with inflow hydrographs and outflow grid elements respectively.
Create a Project Folder
Start by creating a subdirectory for the project data files and import the DTM data base files, map
images and aerial photos. This folder should be the main GDS editing subdirectory. By keeping the
editor data files and map data together, the time spent browsing for the files needed to create and edit
FLO-2D project will be minimized.
Saving data
When you are creating or editing the data files, it is suggested that you save the data files frequently and
use one folder for testing your project and one for editing your project.
Build the Project Files
Use the GDS to build a grid system. Most data files can be graphically created in the GDS. You can follow
the GDS Getting Started lesson to initiate a project. For easy access, put the GDS icon on the desktop.
Run the FLO-2D model
Once the six required basic data files have been created (CADPTS.DAT, FPLAIN.DAT, CONT.DAT,
TOLER.DAT, INFLOW.DAT and OUTFLOW.DAT), an overland flood can be simulated. You can run a FLO-
2D simulation by:
1. GUI - click on the Execute pull down menu.
2. GDS - click on Run FLO-2D command in the File menu.
3. Copy the FLO.EXE into the project subdirectory and double click it.

Data Input
When the data format seems confusing, review the example project data files provided in the Example
Projects subdirectory of the FLO-2D folder.
File Management
The output files in the project folder will be overwritten during subsequent model runs. To save any
output files that might be overwritten, rename the file or create a new folder, copy all the *.DAT files
into it and then run the new flood simulation in that folder.
Graphics Mode
To view a graphical flood progression over your project flow domain, follow these steps:
1. Click the GUI (FLO-2D icon) to turn on the graphics switch (LGPLOT = 2) in the CONT.DAT file
form. Set Graphics Display to Detail Graphics.
2. Assign an update screen refresh time (GRAPHTIM) in the lower left hand corner of the
CONT.DAT file form to 0.05 or 0.10.

Simulating Channel Flow
To add a main channel to an overland flood routing routine, follow this procedure:
Review workshop lesson 4 and 5 and the section on channel modeling in the Pocket Guide.
If surveyed cross section data is available, create the XSEC.DAT file first. Then generate the
CHAN.DAT file in the GDS.
Interpolate the cross section data in the GDS or in PROFILES.
Set the Main Channel check box switch (ICHANNEL = 1) in the CONT.DAT file.
Prepare any channel inflow hydrographs for the INFLOW.DAT file.
Select a channel inflow hydrograph to be plotted (IDEPLT) in INFLOW.DAT file.
Assign channel outflow node(s) in OUTFLOW.DAT.
Review the Channel Hints and Guidelines section.
Modeling Sediment Transport
Mobile bed simulation is complicated and should be attempted only after a rigid bed model is fully
functional. The following procedure is required for sediment transport:
Turn on sediment transport switch (ISED = 1) in the CONT.DAT file form.
Turn off the mudflow switch (MUD = 0) and set XCONC = 0.00 in the CONT.DAT file form.
Assign the SED.DAT file sediment parameters.
For channel sediment transport, set ISEDN = 1 for each channel segment in CHAN.DAT.
Read the Sediment Transport Total Load section in the FLO-2D Reference Manual.

Units
The following units are used in the FLO-2D model. These are the units that are entered in *.DAT input
files.
Table 3: English Metric Conversion
Variable English Metric
discharge cfs m
3
/s (cms)
length (depth) ft m
hydraulic conductivity (infil) inches/hr mm\hr
rainfall and abstraction inches mm
soil suction inches mm
velocity fps mps
volume acre-ft m
3

viscosity poise (dynes-s/cm
2
) poise
yield stress dynes/cm
2
dynes/cm
2

Recommendation: The typical range of channel roughness for
the mainstem river reaches in the CVFED project area is 0.035 to
0.065. A suggested generic n-value for overland flow is 0.085. For
crops and cultivated fields a n-value of 0.125 and higher is
recommended. Note: The GDS floodplain n-value default is 0.040.
4. Overland and Channel Flow Roughness
Spatially variable roughness will support realistic floodwave movement as well as improve numerical
stability. Typically Mannings n-values that represent steady, uniform flow conditions are assigned to
represent variable flooding such as unsteady flow, expansion and contraction, variable flow directions,
bed forms, variable topography and vegetation. The Corps Comprehensive Study (2002) applied 0.06
floodplain n-values and 0.035 channel n-values with adjustments based on observed field conditions.
The n-value data presented in this chapter encompasses a more realistic range of flow resistance.
Additional tools (limiting Froude numbers and depth variable roughness) are also available in the FLO-2D
model to assess n-value variation during a flood event.
Typical n-values for overland flow are
shown in the following tables. For the
Central Valley much of the floodplain is
cultivated throughout the year even
during the midwinter high flood season.

Table 4: Overland Flow Manning's n Roughness Values
1

Surface n-value
Dense turf 0.17 - 0.80
Bermuda and dense grass, dense vegetation 0.17 - 0.48
Shrubs and forest litter, pasture 0.30 - 0.40
Average grass cover 0.20 - 0.40
Poor grass cover on rough surface 0.20 - 0.30
Short prairie grass 0.10 - 0.20
Sparse vegetation 0.05 - 0.13
Sparse rangeland with debris
0% cover
20 % cover
0.09 - 0.34
0.05 - 0.25
Plowed or tilled fields
Fallow - no residue
Conventional tillage
Chisel plow
Fall disking
No till - no residue
No till (20 - 40% residue cover)
No till (60 - 100% residue cover)

0.08 - 0.12
0.06 - 0.22
0.06 - 0.16
0.30 - 0.50
0.04 - 0.10
0.07 - 0.17
0.17 - 0.47
Open ground with debris 0.10 - 0.20
Shallow glow on asphalt or concrete (0.25" to 1.0") 0.10 - 0.15
Fallow fields 0.08 - 0.12
Open ground, no debris 0.04 - 0.10
Asphalt or concrete 0.02 - 0.05
1
Adapted from COE, HEC-1 Manual, 1990 and the COE, Technical Engineering and Design Guide, No. 19,
1997 with modifications.

Spatial variation in floodplain roughness can be assigned with the GDS processor program. There are
several ways to edit the grid element n-values. In the GDS, individual floodplain n-values can be
modified by point and click selection and editing. Groups of floodplain grid elements can be selected
by polygon and assigned a global n-value. Finally, the GDS can interpolate and assign n-values from GIS
shape files and the corresponding tables. Also any ASCII editor can be used to edit the n-values in
FPLAIN.DAT or CHAN.DAT files.
The FLO-2D model has options to adjust n-values at runtime including depth variable roughness and
limiting Froude numbers. Shallow overland flow roughness (less 0.2 ft or 0.06 m) is defined by the
SHALLOWN value in the CONT.DAT file. To improve the timing of the floodwave progression through
the grid system, a depth variable roughness can be assigned. The basic equation for the grid element
roughness n
d
as function of flow depth is:
n
d
= n
b
*1.5 * e
-(0.4 depth/dmax)

where:
n
b
= bankfull discharge roughness
depth = flow depth
dmax = flow depth for drowning the roughness elements and vegetation (3 ft or 1 m)
This equation prescribes that the variable depth floodplain roughness is equal to the assigned flow
roughness for complete submergence of all roughness (assumed to be 3 ft or 1 meter). This equation is
applied by the model as default and the user can off the depth roughness adjustment coefficient for all
grid elements by assigning AMANN = -99. This roughness adjustment will slow the progression of the
floodwave. It is valid for flow depths ranging from 0.5 ft (0.15 m) to 3 ft (1 m). For example, at 1 ft (0.3
m), the computed roughness will be 1.31 times the assigned roughness for a flow depth of 3 ft. The
depth variable roughness will reduce high floodplain Froude numbers. When using the combined
shallow roughness value and the depth variable roughness, the following values are computed:
0.0 < flow depth < 0.2 ft (0.06 m) n = SHALLOWN value
0.2 ft (0.06 m) < flow depth < 0.5 ft (0.15 m) n = SHALLOWN/2.
0.5 ft (0.15 m) < flow depth < 3 ft (1 m) n = n
b
*1.5 * e
-(0.4 depth/dmax)

3 ft (1 m) < flow depth n = n-value in FPLAIN.DAT
Table 5: Channel Flow Manning's n Roughness Values
2

Channel Type n-value
Main Channel Shallow Slope 0.020 - 0.045
Tributary Channel Moderate Slope 0.030 - 0.065
Lower Watershed 0.040 - 0.075
Upper Watershed Steep Slope 0.065 - 0.15
Alluvial Fan 0.06 - 0.15
2
Adapted from USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4004, Determination of Roughness
Coefficients for Streams in Colorado, 1985 and the USGS Water Supply Paper 1849, Roughness
Characteristics for Natural Channels, 1967 with modifications.
A similar equation can be used for the channel only the user can both control the adjustment factor
(ROUGHADJ) and its application on a reach basis.
A limiting Froude number for the channel, floodplain and streets can be assigned to modify the flow
roughness values. The Froude number has several physical implications; it delineates subcritical and
supercritical flow, it is the ratio of average flow velocity to shallow wave celerity and it relates the
movement of a translational wave to the average stream velocity. If there is a mismatch between these
physical variables in a flood routing model, then high velocities can occur that may result in flow surging.
Establishing a limiting Froude number in a flood routing model will help maintain the average velocity
within a reasonable range and help sustain the model numerical stability.
To use the limiting Froude number, estimate a reasonable maximum Froude number for your flood
simulation as shown in the following table and assign the value to either FROUDL (floodplain), FROUDC
(channels), or STRFNO (streets) variables. When the computed Froude number exceeds the limiting
Froude number, the n-value is increased by a small value (~ 0.001) for the next timestep. This change in
n-value will evolve a better match between the slope, flow area and n-value during the simulation.
When the limiting Froude number is no longer exceeded, the n-value is gradually decreased to the
original value. The changes in the n-values during the simulation are reported in the ROUGH.OUT file.
Table 6: Froude Number
Flow Type
Reasonable Limiting
Froude Number
Main Channel 0.4 - 0.6
Lined Channel 0.8 - 1.2
Floodplain 0.4 - 0.8
Steep Floodplain 0.6 - 1.0
Street 1.2 - 1.5
Alluvial Fans 0.9 - 1.0

A review of the increased n-values in ROUGH.OUT will identify any trouble spots where the flow velocity
exceeds a reasonable value. For the next FLO-2D simulation, the maximum n-value adjustments in
ROUGH.OUT can be made permanent for subsequent simulations by renaming the *.RGH files to *.DAT
for the next flood simulation (e.g. FPLAIN.RGH = FPLAIN.DAT). The final n-values used in a simulation
should be carefully reviewed for reasonableness. In a practical sense, the final ROUGH.OUT should not
report any n-value changes, but engineering judgment on the final n-values used in the project is critical.
The limiting Froude numbers can be set to 0 for the final simulation to avoid any additional
adjustments in the n-values.
In summary, it is common modeling practice to underestimate flow roughness. Avoid using n-values that
represent idealized prismatic channel flow conditions. Poor selection of n-values and failure to provide
spatial variation in roughness can result in numerical surging in the model. By using the depth variable
n-values adjustment and limiting a Froude number assignment, n-values modification during a flood
simulation will result in more realistic floodwave movement through the river system.
5. Running the Flood Model
Basic Overland Flow Simulation
The CVFED Program will delineate the area of inundation on the floodplain for various return period
flood events. A basic overland flow simulation will require the following steps.
1. Compile the DTM and aerial images for the project area.
2. In the GDS, overlay a grid system and interpolate the grid element elevations.
3. Identify inflow nodes and assign inflow hydrographs/rainfall.
4. Locate and assign outflow nodes.
5. Run the basic overland flow simulation.
When the first overland flow simulation is completed, review the area of inundation. When river
channels are added to the model, the base area of inundation will be revised. The area of inundation will
be an indication of where floodplain details such as buildings or streets are necessary. Recognizing the
base area of inundation at the outset will save time and effort when adding floodplain detail.
Engineering judgment plays a role in determining which conveyance and containment features on the
Central Valley floodplain need to be simulated. The focus should be on those features that are going to
affect the area of inundation. These features may:
i. Have a significant design discharge;
ii. Involve a large storage volume;
iii. Impede flow to a substantial portion of the floodplain;
iv. Redirect flow to other portions of the floodplain not inundated.
These hydraulic control or drainage features may include: tributary channels, drainage and irrigation
canals; flood by-pass channels; streets or highways with curb and gutters; levees and berms; road,
railroad and highway embankments; bridges and culverts; flood detention facilities; diversion and
impoundment structures; and natural features such as oxbow lakes.
The CVFED flood areas are extensive with many potential floodplain hydraulic structures and large urban
areas. One of the project tasks will be to select those floodplain features for the model to accurately
delineate the area of inundation. For the large CVFED flood project areas this is a substantial task when
buildings, streets, and levees are considered. Guidelines for floodplain modeling are:
If the area of inundation is covered by three feet or more of flow depth, minor embankments,
streets, and drainage canals can be ignored.
First focus on the features with the greatest potential impact on distribution such as levees and
by-pass or other channels.
Initially work on only those areas within the initial flooded area and then determine what
additional areas need to be addressed from subsequent flood simulations.
Consider modeling the largest return period flood first.
Simulate only the largest streets and avenues with curbs as conveyance features. The remaining
streets can be represented by reducing grid element roughness values.
For shallow flow areas, buildings and internal drainage should be considered.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Review the SUMMARY.OUT file (for channels
CHVOLUME.OUT) to determine how well the
model conserves volume for a given flood
simulation. If a simulation does not conserve
volume, the user should determine the location of
the data problem by alternately turning off
components and rerunning the model.
Volume Conservation
Volume conservation is a measure of model accuracy. Failure to conserve volume is an indication of
data input errors. The inflow volume, outflow volume (including infiltration and evaporation losses) and
change in storage are summed at the end of each time step. The difference between the total inflow
volume and the outflow volume plus the storage is the volume conservation. Overall model volume
conservation is reported in the SUMMARY.OUT file and channel volume conservation is reported in
CHVOLUME.OUT file. By reviewing the difference between the two files, it is possible to tell if there are
data errors in the channel or on the floodplain. Data errors, numerical instability, inappropriate or
inconsistent simulation techniques will cause a loss of volume conservation.
It should be noted that volume conservation in any flood simulation is not exact. While some numerical
error is introduced by rounding numbers, approximations
or interpolations (such as with rating tables), volume will
generally be conserved within a fraction of a cubic meter.
The user must decide on an acceptable level of error in the
volume conservation. Most simulations are accurate for
volume conservation within a few millionths of a percent.
Generally, volume conservation within 0.001 percent or less
will be sufficiently accurate.
Possible Causes and Corrections - NOFLOCs Elements
Channel elements that are contiguous but do not share discharge must be identified with the NOFLOC
variable at the end of the CHAN.DAT file. NOFLOC pairs must be identified near confluences, along
parallel channels, or where channels make a sharp bend. List each pair of non-sharing contiguous
channel elements only once. Review the CONFLUENCE.OUT file to make sure that you have identified all
the appropriate NOFLOCs. This file should have exactly the right number of confluence or split flow
locations. If there are more grid elements listed in this file than there are confluences or split flow
locations, more NOFLOCs are necessary. If an insufficient number of NOFLOCs pairs are assigned,
volume conservation may not be observed. It should be noted that the GDS automatically identifies and
assigns all NOFLOCs and it is only necessary to review these to make sure that only the correct number
of confluences or split flow locations are listed in CONFLUENCE.OUT.
Possible Causes and Corrections - Hydraulic structures
Each hydraulic structure (bridge, culvert, weirs, etc.) can be assigned a rating curve or table. The stage
discharge data is based on the headwater depth above the bed for either a floodplain or channel
element. Both the inflow and outflow elements must be assigned. If the hydraulic rating table or
equation is assigned incorrectly or if the data contains errors, volume conservation may not occur.
If the hydraulic structure can be isolated as the source of the volume conservation problem, check the
assignment of the inflow and outflow nodes in the HYSTRUCT.DAT file. If the structure nodes are
correct, review the rating curve or table for the lower depths. A linear interpolation for shallow depths
can result in an unreasonable high discharge and if this is the case, simply expand the table to account
for the nonlinear table or curve at depths less than 3 ft.

Possible Causes and Corrections - Outflow elements
Inappropriately assigned outflow nodes are a possible source of volume conservation error. Outflow
elements should not be doubled-up along a boundary. Each outflow element must have access to a
floodplain grid element upstream that is not an outflow element to estimate a uniform flow depth at
the boundary outflow nodes. This will be a possible cause of volume conservation error. Unless a
channel terminates on the grid system, the channel will also require an outflow node to predict the flow
off the grid system. Channel outflow nodes should also be assigned as a floodplain outflow node to
avoid overland flow to be forced into the channel to become outflow discharge off the grid system.
Numerical Stability
Numerical surging or model numerical instability are inherent in all flood routing models as a product of
having timesteps that are too large for the discharge fluxes in or out of a grid element. Numerical
stability criteria are used to the control the timestep. It is possible for volume to be conserved during a
flood simulation and still have numerical surging. Numerical surging is the result of a mismatch between
flow area, slope and roughness variables. Typically surging occurs because the modeler applies an n-
value representing the grid element or channel roughness that is too low. Low n-values can result in
maximum velocities that are too high resulting in spikes in the channel hydrographs. There are several
ways to identify numerical surging:
The maximum velocities can be reviewed in the MAXPLOT or Mapper post-processor programs;
The CHANMAX.OUT file lists channel element maximum discharges;
Every channel element hydrograph can be reviewed in the HYDROG program;
The VELTIMC.OUT (channel) or VELTIMFP.OUT (floodplain) files list maximum velocities sorted in
decreasing magnitude (Figure 5).

Figure 5. VELTIMEC.OUT Example
Surging can be reduced or eliminated by adjusting the individual floodplain or channel element
roughness, slope (topography) or flow area. For floodplain flow, adjustments can be accomplished in
the GDS. For channel flow, the PROFILES program can be used to make adjustments to the cross section
data. Increasing the flow roughness will generally reduce or eliminate flow surging. Abrupt transitions in
channel cross section may be a source of numerical instability. Setting a lower limiting Froude number
for a channel reach may help to resolve a surging problem. For the floodplain, the global limiting Froude
number (FROUDL) is found in the CONT.DAT file. On occasion, the grid elevations assigned by the GDS
may not be representative of the field condition. In this case, change the grid element elevations to
make the channel or floodplain slope more uniform.
The FLO-2D model uses the Courant criteria and the dynamic wave stability criteria (WAVEMAX) to
control the magnitude of the computational timestep. For most river flooding projects, the Courant
stability criterion is usually sufficient to avoid numerical instability. This Courant criteria is hard-wired in
the model using a coefficient = 1.0 and there is nothing for the user to adjust. The dynamic wave sta-
bility criteria is an extension of the Courant criteria used and includes a slope term and specific
discharge for more complex flows:
t
w
< S
o
x
2
/ q
o

where:
t
w
= computation timestep (seconds)
= dynamic wave stability coefficient (WAVEMAX)
S
o
= bed slope
x = grid element width or channel length within the grid element (ft or m)
q
o
= specific discharge
When the model timestep exceeds the WAVEMAX timestep t
w
, the model timestep is decreased. The
purpose of the WAVEMAX parameter is to provide more strict control of the timestep when analyzing
complex and rapidly varying flow in channels such as channel transitions, confluences and split flow
reaches. Lowering the WAVEMAX value decreases the timesteps. A detailed discussion of the WAVEMAX
assignment is provided in the Data Input Manual in the TOLER.DAT file description. For a floodplain,
channel or street grid element, the WAVEMAX value will increment or decrement based with the
numerical stability of the model.
How can WAVEMAX be used to speed up the FLO-2D model or be used to make the model more stable?
There are three options for applying the dynamic wave stability criteria:
1) Dynamic wave stability criteria controls the model timestep when WAVEMAX is set within the
range 0.10 to 1.00 (typical value = 0.25). This makes the model run slower, but it will be more
numerically stable.
2) Assign WAVEMAX as a negative number using same range of values -0.10 to -1.00 (typical value
= -0.25). The floodplain Mannings n-values will be incremented when the dynamic wave
stability criteria is exceeded, but the timestep is not decreased. The runtime changes in the n-
value will be written to the ROUGH.OUT file. The n-value variation occurs according to the
following relationships:
i. n = n + 0.0006616 e (-10.9 n) when the limiting timestep is exceeded.
ii. n = n 0.00005 when the limiting timestep is not exceeded.
This approach uses WAVEMAX to identify problem elements and uses increased n-values to
resolve the numerical instability instead of reducing the time step.
Recommendations:
For the CVFED project, if the Q
peak
/A
surf
< 1.0:
Set DEPTOL = 0.2 WAVEMAX = 1.0
For the CVFED project, if the 1.0 < Q
peak
/A
surf
< 2.0:
For the CVFED project, if the 2.0 < Q
peak
/A
surf

These recommendations can be adjusted based on the project
numerical stability results.
3) The dynamic wave numerical stability criteria are turned off when WAVEMAX is assigned a value
of 100 or more. Assign WAVEMAX = WAVEMAX + 100. The timesteps are varied only by the
change in depth (DEPTOL variable) or the Courant stability criteria.
The guidelines for applying these options are as follows:
Run the model with WAVEMAX = 0.25 and an appropriate limiting Froude number (e.g. FROUDL
= 0.9 subcritical flow on an alluvial surface). This will calibrate the model n-values for
reasonable Froude numbers. Review the maximum velocities in MAXPLOT or MAPPER to
determine the location of any unreasonable high velocities related to numerical surging and
increase the n-values of the grid elements in the vicinity.
Review the n-values in ROUGH.OUT. Make any necessary n-value adjustments in FPLAIN.RGH or
CHAN.RGH for high n-values reported in ROUGH.OUT. Also make roughness adjustments for
any observed high maximum velocities, and then replace FPLAIN.DAT with FPLAIN.RGH or
replace CHAN.RGH with CHAN.DAT.
Run the simulation and continue to replace FPLAIN.DAT with FPLAIN.RGH until ROUGH.OUT is
essentially empty. A few incremental n-values changes in ROUGH.OUT will not affect the
simulation. Adjustments can be made to WAVEMAX and FROUDL to decrease the number of
reported n-value adjustments.
Set WAVEMAX = WAVEMAX + 100 and run the model again. The model will run faster. Check the
maximum velocities for any inappropriate high velocities and make n-value adjustments. If the
model has numerical surging, set WAVEMAX = 0.25 and run the model. The model will run
slower, but should eliminate the numerical surging.
What are the results of applying different options?
You should notice an increase in model speed when selecting either option 2 or 3 above. Choosing
option 2 has the effect of improving the spatial distribution of reasonable n-values and reducing the
number of choke points associated with numerical instability. Varying n-values will help to control the
grid element discharge flux to accommodate the movement of the floodwave. Choosing option 3
essentially results in the timestep being controlled only by the Courant criteria and the model runs much
faster. The result of following this procedure will be:
A calibrated model for overland and channel roughness values which will more accurately
simulate the movement of the floodwave.
The floodwave speed will be bounded by
a reasonable limiting Froude number.
The model will run fast without
numerical surging or oversteepening of
the floodwave.

6. River Channel Component
In the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive Study (Corps, 2002), the FLO-2D model
was applied primarily for two-dimension flood distribution on the floodplains. For the Sacramento River
Basin, the report indicated that the channels were clearly defined and overbank flooding was
infrequent. Conversely, the channels in the San Joaquin River Basin had less conveyance capacity and
overbank flooding was more common. For this reason, the FLO-2D model simulated both the channel
and floodplain routing for selected reaches of the San Joaquin River Basin (Corps, 2002). There may be
reaches where the integrated channel and floodplain routing is appropriate. These include:
Channel return flow to the river;
Water surface elevations in the river channel that limit return flow;
Overtopping of levees from the land side;
Interior drainage connected to the river channel;
Multiple flood by-pass channels on the floodplain;
Floodplain storage that reaches equilibrium with the river flow between the levees;
Multiple locations of levee failure.
In these cases, it is necessary to have a fully integrated flood routing model to accurately track the flood
volume as it progresses downstream. This coupling will ensure that the prediction of levee breach
failures and overbank flows accurately reflect river and floodplain water surface elevations as the flood
is distributed on the floodplain and is correctly timed with other upstream and downstream levee
breaches. Since the HEC-RAS model is not capable of predicting integrated channel and floodplain
exchange (including return flow) on timestep basis, the FLO-2D model should be used for both river and
floodplain routing for these complex flooding reaches.
In a typical FLO-2D river flood application, the channel is defined by the same cross sections that are
used or would be used in a HEC-RAS model (steady or unsteady). The channel routing is performed with
a one-dimensional solution to the full dynamic wave momentum equation similar to the UNET model
(HEC-RAS unsteady). Also similar to UNET, the FLO-2D model uses vertical slices of the cross section to
generate a channel geometry rating table. Whereas the basic channel routing unit is the distance
between cross sections in the UNET model, the FLO-2D model uses a grid element to assess the channel
storage volume on a smaller scale. It has been verified that the UNET and FLO-2D models will predict
similar hydraulic results for in-channel flows.
The primarily advantage of the FLO-2D channel component over UNET, is the channel-floodplain flow
exchange which occurs on a channel element (bank element) basis. Both overbank flow and return flow
to the channel can be simulated during computational timestep. This channel-floodplain exchange
discharge is computed with the diffusive wave momentum equation (acceleration terms are ignored). In
the HEC-RAS unsteady model, the overbank flooding occurs as lateral weirs at prescribed locations with
estimated floodplain storage units. In FLO-2D, the flow between the channel and floodplain is
analogous to breathing for a more accurate simulation of the floodwave attenuation due to floodplain
storage than HEC-RAS.
Similar to the HEC-RAS unsteady model, FLO-2D can simulate levees and levee breaches, simulate
hydraulic structures and have imposed downstream stage control. FLO-2D also has a number of other
features that constitute an enhancement over the HEC-RAS channel routing. These include:
Depth variable roughness
Limiting Froude number roughness variation
Unlimited confluences and split flow channels
In those reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers where the channel storage is a relatively
minor portion of the flood volume (~10% or less), the potential floodwave attenuation due to floodplain
storage will be significant. In this case, the accuracy of the flood hazard delineation will be based on the
models ability to compute the flow exchange between the channel and the floodplain including the
return flow to the channel over the levees from the landside. As noted by the Corps (2002), use of the
FLO-2D model is more appropriate in these instances. Channel routing using the FLO-2D model should
be applied for the conditions shown in the following figures:

Figure 6. Channel conveyance is a minor portion of the entire flood volume.

Figure 7. Overbank flooding is extensive with channel-floodplain exchange for the entire reach.

Figure 8. Multiple channels are exchanging flow with the floodplain.

Figure 9. Interior drainage channels contribute to the flow exchange with the main river channel.

Figure 10. Levee overtopping or breach failure is extensive for the entire reach.

Figure 11. Significant return flow to the channel downstream (potential overtopping from the landside of the levee).
Each of the above figures represents a complex flood condition requiring volume tracking. These cases
can be accurately simulated with the FLO-2D model. Modeling these flood cases with HEC-RAS requires
a number of subjective assumptions and decisions such as prescribing the location of the levee breach,
assigning the floodplain storage area, and assuming level pool storage with no floodwave timing. These
HEC-RAS assumptions also breakdown when it is necessary to predict return flow to the channel or have
internal drainage flood routing.
It is recommended that the FLO-2D channel component be developed in conjunction with the HEC-RAS
model in the event that it is necessary to account for the both the flood volume and timing of the
floodwave movement over the floodplain. This will enable the option of running the FLO-2D model for
the channel-floodplain exchange at a late time to accurately assess water surface elevations if return
flow to the channel downstream is required for the flood hazard mapping.

Recommendation: Use the FLO-2D model to conduct the
channel-floodplain exchange flows. If necessary, calibrate the FLO-
2D channel model to the HEC-RAS model for a discharge less than
bankfull.
The following procedure is recommended for channel flow simulation for the CVFED Program:
Where a HEC-RAS model for the main river channel exists or is developed, the FLO-2D channel
should also be prepared from the HEC-RAS data.
Calibrate FLO-2D in-channel flows to the HEC-RAS model by spatially varying the n-values with
the limiting Froude number, depth-variable roughness and stability criteria.
Run the FLO-2D model with the complete channel-floodplain flow exchange as well as the levee
overtopping or levee breach to define the area of inundation.
Failure to have the option of using the FLO-2D to assess the channel-floodplain interaction may result in
having to do this task during the mapping phase of the project. For example, a consulting firm was
tasked with predicting the area of inundation in Sacramento for the American River flooding through a
prescribed levee breach. The Corps provided the breach hydrograph predicted with HEC-RAS at the
selected location and the floodplain flood routing was predicted with the FLO-2D model. Flooding for a
given return period flood was predicted to reach the levee near the confluence of the American and
Sacramento Rivers. The predicted water surface on the landside of the levee exceeded the levee crest.
Without the combined channel and floodplain flooding being routing in the FLO-2D, there was no
opportunity to assess the potential return flow to the channel. As a result, two FLO-2D model scenarios
were considered: 1) No return flow to the river; and 2) All the return flow over levee into the river was
contained in the river (river was a sink). The difference in the areas of inundation was approximately
70,000 acres (no return flow) compared to 40,000 acres (return enters a sink) indicating that the
combined channel and floodplain model was indispensible. The actual maximum area of inundation the
flood was between the two extremes, but determining the flooded area in this amounted to little more
than a guess. The FLO-2D model in this case
should have simulated the channel and
floodplain exchange.

The method for developing a FLO-2D main
channel component requires using the GDS to set up the channel data file, interpolate the cross sections
to the grid elements, and calibrate the water surface elevation. The procedure would be to use the GDS
manual, follow the Channel Lessons and review the FLO-2D Pocket guide to complete the following
steps:
1. Import the HEC-RAS cross sections to in the GDS.
2. Edit the cross sections to the top of the bank stations in the PROFILES program.
3. Outline the channel location in the GDS.
4. Establish the channel element data (channel length, n-value, cross section number, Figure 12).
5. Interpolate the cross section shape and slope to the channel elements
6. Assign reach segment limiting Froude number and depth variable roughness coefficient

Figure 12. GDS channel editor dialog box.
Several guidelines in using the FLO-2D model channel component are highlighted. Typically, HEC-RAS
average n-values for 1-D long reaches between cross sections are relatively low. For example, the n-
values assigned for the Corps 2002 Comprehensive Study were 0.035 for the channel. FLO-2D channel
reach n-value variation can be significant to account for cross section variation, flow in bends, flow
acceleration and deceleration, and bed forms. A reasonable range of CVFED channel n-values is from
0.035 to 0.06. The n-value variation can be determined by assigning a reasonable limiting Froude
number as previously discussed. Other guidelines include:
The channel should be continuous and organized from upstream to downstream in CHAN.DAT.
At a channel confluence, the downstream main channel grid element must be lower in elevation
than the confluence element.
Eliminate channel elements with a channel length (XLEN) less than 50% of the grid element side
width. Connect the channel elements across the diagonal instead.
Create a positive bed slope at channel inflow and outflow nodes.
Refer to the Pocket Guide for additional hints and guidelines, comments on channel surging and
numerical stability and a discussion on troubleshooting.
7. Hydraulic Structures
Hydraulic structures may include bridges, culverts, weirs, spillways, outlet works, lateral weirs, or any
flood conveyance facility that controls or affects the water surface elevation. These structures could
control flow conveyance in the channel, from the floodplain to the channel or from one portion of the
floodplain to another. The hydraulic structure can be combined with roadway, levees or other
embankments or with flood detention release facilities. Modeling hydraulics structures in the CVFED
area will assist DWR to identify potential additional structural and nonstructural facilities that could be
incorporated into the State Plan of Flood Control.
In FLO-2D hydraulic structures are simulated by specifying either discharge rating curves or rating tables.
The hydraulic structure in the model can be any hydraulic facility whose discharge can be specified by a
rating curve or table. Backwater effects upstream of bridges or culverts as well as blockage of a culvert
or overtopping of a bridge or any deviation from upstream normal depth are simulated through the
application of the full dynamic wave momentum equation. (Figure 13). Hydraulic structures can be
simulated in channels or on floodplains by appropriately identifying the structure location in the
HYDRSTRUCT.DAT file. A hydraulic structure can control the discharge between channel or floodplain
grid elements that are not contiguous and may be separated by several grid elements. For example, a
culvert under an interstate highway may span several grid elements.
A hydraulic structure rating curve specifies discharge as a function of the headwater depth h:
Q = a h
b

where: (a) is a regression coefficient and (b) is a regression exponent. More than one power regression
relationship may be used for a hydraulic structure by specifying the maximum depth for which the
relationship is valid. For example, one depth relationship can represent culvert inlet control and a
second relationship can be used for the outlet control. In the case of bridge flow, blockage can
simulated with a second regression that has a zero coefficient for the height of the bridge low chord.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
HEC-RAS cross sections for
establishing the bridge rating curves
or tables should be limited to the
bridge abutments. The rating curve
or table should only reflect the
discharge through bridge in the
channel (as free surface or pressure
flow) or over the top of the bridge
within the vertical extension of the
channel banks at the abutments.
FLO-2D will compute the floodplain
flow with the two-dimensional
component.

Figure 13. Bridge Plugged with Sediment and Debris
By specifying a hydraulic structure rating table, the model interpolates between the headwater depth
and discharge pairs of data to calculate the discharge. A typical rating curve will start with zero depth
and zero discharge and can increase in non-uniform increments to a discharge higher than the maximum
anticipated flood discharge. The rating table is typical more accurate than the regression relationship
(rating curve) if the regression is nonlinear on a log-log plot of the depth and discharge. Flow blockages
by debris can be simulated by setting the discharge equal to zero corresponding to a prescribed depth.
This blockage option may be useful in simulating a worst case mudflow scenario where alluvial fan
bridges or culverts become plugged with debris. Each bridge over an alluvial fan channel can be
simulated for blockage forcing all the discharge to flow over the fan surface.
Rating curves or tables for all structures are created outside the FLO-2D model environment. The rating
curve or table data can be entered in the GUI or GDS, but must be generated through the users
knowledge of the type of structure. For example, culvert rating table data can be generated from
culvert tables or programs. Bridge rating table data can be developed using HEC-RAS and 4 cross
sections; two upstream and two downstream of the bridge. Spillway or weir rating curve data can be
determined from hydraulic reference manuals.
Mismatching the rating curve or table with the upstream channel conditions is one possible cause of
numerical surging in the FLO-2D model. For example, if normal depth in the channel for a discharge of
1,000 cfs (30 cms) is 3 ft (1 m) and the rating table at the same depth has a corresponding discharge of
only 500 cfs (15 cms) or conversely 2,000 cfs (60 cms), the resulting backwater effect or acceleration of
the flow would not only significantly slow the model down, but may cause numerical surging if the slope
and n-value did not correspond to such a severe change in flow velocity. Realistic backwater effects or
channel contraction can be simulated with rating curves or tables without numerical surging.
As with other attributes, the model should initially be run without adding any hydraulic structures.
Before adding the hydraulic structures, the baseline model should conserve volume, and be free of any
sticky grid elements that may be slowing the model down. This baseline model can be used to
estimate the area of inundation and determine what hydraulic structure may impact the flood
conveyance or distribution.
HINT: The levee is created and
edited graphically in the GDS
program. When the levee is situ-
ated diagonally across a series of
grid elements, use one side of one
grid element and the opposite of
the next grid element so that
there is an equal amount of the
floodplain on each side of the
levee.
8. Levees, Levee Breach, Fragility Curves and Safe Storage
FLO-2D Levee Introduction
Levees represent a major flood control feature in the project basin bordering most of the major
channels within the valley. The levees both confine the extent of floodplain inundation and force more
of the floodwave downstream. Historically unconfined flooding along the river attenuated the
floodwave as it moved downstream. Limited flood storage between levees now forces more of the
flood volume downstream. As levees were developed, levee overtopping and breaching occurred
frequently during the large floods. A map showing the extent of levees in the Sacramento River system
was presented in the Corps 2002 Comprehensive Study. Along the Sacramento River levees range from
20 to 30 feet high with 3 to 5 feet of freeboard and are set back from the riverbank. In the San Joaquin
Basin, levees are only 6 to 8 ft and were designed for snowmelt flooding instead of the winter storm
runoff for the Sacramento River. Flood bypasses in the San Joaquin system also have levees. Riprap
bank protection is discontinuous along the rivers as noted in Comprehensive Study.

Accurate levee modeling is critical to the CVFED Program. A major portion of the flood volume could be
confined to the river corridor between levees or stored on the floodplain with levee breaches. The flood
storage on the interior floodplain could return to the channel or be limited by internal levees from
reaching outlying areas of the floodplain. There are numerous levees in the CVFED Program area that
extend into the interior floodplain. These levees may protect urban areas or structures and may or may
not be accredited. River levees have to be considered as flood retention structures in both directions
(riverside and landside) and the analyses needs to include the water surface elevations on both sides of
the river channel for potential overtopping of the levee or levee breaches. Levee overtopping and
breaches could return flow to the river from the floodplain resulting in the need for an integrated
channel and floodplain model.
Any interior floodplain embankment can simulated with the levee component. Embankments may
include roadway, railroad, berms, canal spoils piles and levees. These embankments may control the
distribution of floodwaters across the floodplain including agricultural areas. Embankments that are not
considered to be levees are addressed in a later section of this report.
The FLO-2D levee component confines flow on the floodplain surface by blocking one of the eight flow
directions. Levees are designated at the grid element boundaries (shown by the red lines in Figure 14).
If a levee runs through the center of a grid element, the model
levee position is represented by one or more of the eight grid
element boundaries. Levees often follow the boundaries along a
series of consecutive elements. A levee crest elevation can be
assigned for each of the eight flow directions in a given grid
element.

Figure 14. Levee flow directions are depicted in red; the left bank of the river is shown in blue and the right bank of the river
is shown in magenta.
The levee data requirements include the crest elevation and the blocked flow direction. The levee
length within the grid element is based on the length of the side of the octagon that may be modified by
the width reduction value WRF. This length should be close to the levee length with the grid element if
the levee is overtopped and the overtopping discharge is computed. It should be noted that the model
assumes that the levee does not eliminate any storage in the grid element containing the levee. If the
levee is very large, then the area reduction values ARF can be assigned to reduce the available flood
storage in the grid element to account for the levee.
Levee Profile
A profile of the levee elevation can be viewed in comparison to the floodplain grid element elevation
using GDS Levee Profile tool. Figure 15 displays a levee profile comparing the levee crest elevation with
the grid element ground elevation. This tool identifies locations where the levee crest elevation or grid
element elevation need to be adjusted along the levee.
Levee Overtopping
The model will predict levee overtopping without failure. When the flow depth exceeds the levee
height, the discharge over the levee is computed as weir flow with a 2.85 coefficient. Weir flow occurs
until the tailwater depth is 85% of the headwater depth. At higher flows, the water is exchanged across
the levees using the difference in water surface elevation across the grid boundary. The levee output
file, LEVOVERTOP.OUT, reports the discharge hydrograph overtopping the levee element. The discharge
is combined for all the levee directions that are being overtopped. Levee overtopping will not cause
levee failure unless the failure or breach option is invoked.

Figure 15. Levee Profile
FLO-2D spatially identifies the loss of freeboard so that the user does not have to search and compare
water surface elevations with the levee crest elevation to determine the remaining freeboard. The
LEVEEDIFIC.OUT file lists the levee elements with loss of freeboard during the flood event. Five levels of
freeboard deficit are reported:
0 = freeboard > 3 ft (0.9 m)
1 = 2 ft (0.6 m) < freeboard < 3 ft (0.9 m)
2 = 1 ft (0.3 m) < freeboard < 2 ft (0.6 m)
3 = freeboard < 1 ft (0.3 m)
4 = levee is overtopped by flow.
The levee freeboard deficit can be displayed graphically in MAXPLOT and MAPPER as shown below.

Figure 16. Levee Freeboard Deficit Plot in Mapper

Levee Breach Failure
Since 1900 there have been over 160 levee breaches in the Sacramento Basin including 17 since 1990
(As noted in a Poster Prepared by URS and DWR, 2007). The list of potential levee failure modes is
extensive:
Overtopping leading to a breach channel;
Underseepage resulting in internal erosion;
Slope stability failure;
Levee structural collapse due water force or high pore water pressure;
Piping;
Wave attack;
Animal burrows, cracking, or other structure defects;
Earthquake soil liquefaction.
Historically, most of the Central Valley levee failures are initiated by slope instability or piping including
underseepage. These failures occur rapidly whereas levee overtopping failures tend to progress more
slowly. For the CVFED Program, the levee breach can initiate from flood storage on the landside as well
as the riverside of the levee and flow through the breach can occur in either direction.
FLO-2D can both locate and simulate levee breach failures (Figure 17). There are two failure modes; one
is a simple uniform rate of breach expansion and the other predicts the breach erosion. For both cases,
the breach timestep is controlled by the flood routing model. FLO-2D computes the discharge through
the breach in either direction, the change in upstream storage, the tailwater and backwater effects, and
the downstream flood routing. Each failure option generates a series of output files to assist the user in
analyzing the response to the dam or levee breach. LEVEE.OUT contains the levee elements that failed.
Failure width, failure elevation, discharge from the levee breach and the time of failure occurrence are
reported. Additional output includes the time of breach or overtopping, peak discharge through the
breach, and breach parameters as a function of time. Output files that define the breach flood hazard
include the time-to-flow-depth output files that report the time to the maximum flow depth, the time to
one foot flow depth and time to two foot flow depth which are useful for delineating evacuation routes.

Figure 17. Example of levee breach urban flooding
For the simplified levee failure method, the breach can enlarge both vertically or horizontally. Rates of
breach expansion in feet or meters per hour can be specified. A final levee base elevation that is higher
than the floodplain elevation can also be prescribed. The levee failure can occur for the entire grid
element width for a given flow direction. Discharge through the breach is based on the breach width
and the difference in water surface elevations on the two sides of the levee. Levee failure can also be
initiated by a prescribed specified water surface elevation for a given duration. The flow through the
levee breach is computed as broadcrested weir flow using a weir coefficient of 2.85.
The breach erosion component was added to the FLO-2D model to combine the river-floodplain
exchange and unconfined flooding components with a realistic assessment of a levee or dam failure.
The BREACH code developed Fread in 1988 that is publically available from the National Weather
Service was the basis for the breach component (NWS Breach model). The code extensively was
revised, corrected and enhanced. The basic mechanisms of levee breach failure are overtopping, piping
and slope stability failure by sliding, slumping or collapse. In the FLO-2D model, a dam or levee breach
can fail as follows:
Overtopping and development of a breach channel;
Piping failure;
Piping failure and roof collapse and development of a breach channel;
Breach channel enlargement through side slope slumping;
Breach enlargement by wedge collapse.
The user has the option to specify the breach element and breach elevation or to assign global
parameters and the model will determine the breach location. During a flood simulation, the flood
water ponds against the levee until the water surface elevation is either higher than the levee crest
(overtopping) or exceeds a prescribed breach or pipe elevation. The global breach elevation can be
specified as a depth below the crest elevation. When the water surface elevation exceeds the breach
elevation for a user prescribed duration, piping is initiated. If the pipe roof collapses, then the discharge
is computed through the resultant breach channel. A breach channel is also simulated if the levee is
overtopped. A description of the breach enlargement routine follows.
If the user specifies a breach elevation and duration, then piping will be initiated when the upstream
water surface exceeds the pipe bottom elevation for a cumulative duration. The breach discharge is
computed as weir flow with a user specified weir coefficient. The discharge is then used to compute
velocity and depth in a rectangular pipe channel. With the pipe hydraulics, the sediment transport
capacity is computed using an assigned sediment transport equation. The pipe walls, bed and roof are
assumed to uniformly erode (Figure 18). When the pipe height is larger than the material remaining in
the embankment above, the roof of the pipe collapses and channel flow through the breach ensues.
The channel discharge is also calculated by the weir equation and similar to the pipe failure the eroded
sediment is distributed on the walls and bed of the rectangular channel (see Figure 19). As the channel
width and depth increases, the slope stability is checked and if the slope stability criteria is exceeded,
the sides of the channel are assumed to slump and the rectangular channel transitions to a trapezoidal
channel. The breach continues to widen until the top width of the channel equals or exceeds the
octagon width of the grid element. At this point the breach is assumed to be stable.

Figure 18. Pipe breach failure

Figure 19. Overtopping and channel breach erosion
Breach enlargement is also possible by sudden collapse of the levee. The collapse is represented by a
wedge shaped mass of embankment material. This collapse is caused by the water force on the
upstream side of the wedge exceeding the friction forces of shear and cohesion that resist sliding.
When the breach collapse occurs, it is assumed that the breach enlargement ceases until all the wedge
material is transported downstream.
Flow through the breach is accounted by the volume conservation routines in the FLO-2D model that
tracks the storage along with the discharge in and out of every grid element according to the FLO-2D
timesteps. The breach component also assesses the sediment volume conservation and the water
discharge through the breach is bulked by the sediment eroded during the breach failure. Routing water
through the breach continues until the water surface elevation no longer exceeds the bottom breach
elevations, the upstream and downstream water surfaces at equilibrated or until all the ponded water is
gone.
Recommendation: Use high n-values for the breach pipe or
channel in the range from 0.10 to 0.25.
One of the reasons for selecting the NSW BREACH model is that the program had sufficient geotechnical
detail to mathematically represent the physical process of dam breach failure. The breach model
includes the following features:
The embankment can have an impervious core and a non-cohesive shell with different
materials;
Embankment material properties include sediment size, specific weight, cohesive strength,
internal friction angle, porosity and Mannings n-value;
Breach channel initiation through piping failure;
Enlargement of the breach through sudden structural collapse;
Riprap material or grass on the downstream face;
Sediment transport for different size sediment in the embankment core or shell.
The list of levee breach parameters in the FLO-2D model is extensive, but only few parameters control
the rate of breach erosion such as sediment size, cohesive strength, slope and Mannings n-value.
Of these parameters, those which are the most difficult to evaluate are the cohesive strength, internal
friction angle and the breach pipe or channel roughness n-value. The flow through breach will be highly
turbulent. The breach channel will not be a uniform, prismatic flume-like channel. There will be blocks
of sediment obstructing the flow and
frequent wall or roof caving resulting in
a high roughness n-value.

The cohesive strength is highly variable depending on the size fraction, percent clay and water content
and pore water pressure. As general guide, the following range of values can be considered:
Table 7: Cohesive Strength and Friction Angle
1
Soil Type Cohesive Strength
(lb/ft
2
)
Friction Angle
(degrees)
Gravelly or Poorly
Graded Sand
20-100 38-46
Silty Sand 250-400 34-36
Silty-Clayey Sand 190-400 30-36
Clayey Sand 100-360 30-34
Silty-Clayey Fine Sand 100-250 28-34
Sandy Clay 100-360 30-34
Silty Clay 230-310 28-32
1
Bureau of Reclamation, 1974. Design of Small Dams, Washington, D.C.

It should be noted that cohesive strength for consolidated, undrained clayey soils in varying degrees of
stiffness can range as high as 5,000 lb/ft
2
. In the absence of site data, a sensitivity analysis can be
performed using a range of cohesive strength from 100 to 300 lb/ft
2
and a friction angle of 32 to 38
o
.
There are several important assumptions have been hardwired into the breach model. These are:
Initial breach width to depth ratio (BRATIO) if the assigned breach width to depth ratio is 0.,
then BRATIO = 2.
The initial pipe width is assumed to be 0.5 ft (0.15 m).
The minimum and maximum Mannings n-values permitted for the breach flow resistance are
0.02 and 0.25, respectively.
The downstream pipe outlet at the toe of the dam or levee is the grid element floodplain
elevation plus 1 ft (0.3 m).
Breach discharge is computed if the upstream water surface elevation exceeds the upstream
breach pipe or channel bottom elevation plus the tolerance value (TOL ~ 0.1 ft or 0.3 m).
If the specified initial breach elevation in the BREACHDATA.DAT file is less than 10.0 ft (3.0 m),
then the initial piping breach elevation is assumed to be the dam or levee crest elevation minus
the assigned breach elevation (Initial Breach Elevation = Levee Crest BRBOTTOMEL).

Using Fragility Curves to Locate and Initial Levee Breaches
Fragility curves are used in a number of different scientific fields of risk and uncertainty failure analysis
ranging from seismic geotechnical structure failure to pipe network damage. While the levee fragility
analysis is not currently within the scope of the CVFED Program, it could be used in the future to refine
the flood hazard maps. An algorithm using the Corps levee fragility curves has been coded in the FLO-
2D model to automatically predict breach failure anywhere in the levee system. This FLO-2D levee
breach component with fragility curves represents a link between a geotechnical risk model and the
prediction of the water surface elevations. It links levee geotechnical performance and flood routing
hydraulics. It also implicitly defines failure probability for hazard mapping.
Levee core and shell material may vary significantly in levee systems especially where older levee
reaches do not conform to existing construction standards. As a result, levee failure is difficult to predict
in both time and space. Levees often fail before the flood waters reach the levee crest elevation due to
geotechnical flaws that initiate piping. Often a piping failure may expand to a complete breach in a
relatively short period of time while the flood is still rising. The Corps uses a levee fragility curve as a
failure risk model that incorporates the probability of levee geotechnical failure as function of flood
water surface elevation (Figure 20).
The levee fragility curves specify the relationship between the probability of levee failure and the water
surface elevation (or likely failure stage) below the levee crest. For example, the likely failure point (LFP)
can be selected corresponding to a 50% failure probability and this would establish the water surface
elevation at which the levee failure would be initiated. The fragility curves are based on a geotechnical
investigation of the existing levee system involving construction methods, levee soil composition,
foundation conditions, and other factors. At the present time, existing Central Valley fragility curves are
based primarily on engineering judgment and represent a qualitative approach to evaluating levee
integrity. Future fragility curves should be based on levee geotechnical investigations including field
inspection, in situ (borings), and laboratory testing. The extent of in-situ testing and laboratory testing
(cohesive strength, compaction and other tests) will determine the reliability of the fragility curves.

Figure 20. Example of Sacramento River Basin levee fragility curves
The FLO-2D model was uniquely suited to utilizing the levee fragility curves. It has a levee breach
erosion component that can initiate breach failure anywhere in the levee system based on water surface
elevation. When the water surface reaches a prescribed distance below the crest for a specified
duration, pipe failure will initiate. Through the physical process of sediment transport, the pipe breach
will expand to a channel breach and collapse as the levee erodes. When these fragility curves are
applied with the FLO-2D flood routing model using the levee breach erosion component, levee failure
location and time of occurrence can be predicted.

The levee fragility curves shown in Figure 20 are read directly by the FLO-2D model in a discretized
rating table format. In the data presented below, the first column is the curve reference name (two
fragility curves are listed); the second column is the probability of failure (x-axis Figure 20); and third
column is the distance below the levee crest in feet or meters (y-axis Figure 20):
FS1 0.03 6.0
FS1 0.15 3.5
FS1 0.50 2.5
FS1 0.85 1.0
FS1 0.95 0.0
FS2 0.03 9.0
FS2 0.15 5.5
FS2 0.50 4.0
FS2 0.85 2.0
FS2 0.98 0.0
Recommendation: A relationship between the
inundation duration (above the LFP) versus the LFP should
be considered for the levee geotechnical investigation.
Once the levee fragility curve data is enter, the user has the option of assigning a global or individual
fragility curve to levee grid element. The following levee fragility curve data assigned by the user is:
Global Levee Data: Line ID, Fragility Curve ID, Probability of Failure (e.g. 0.50)
Individual Levee Data: Line ID, Grid Element, Fragility Curve ID, Probability of Failure
Example: C FS3 0.5 (global data)
(individual data)
P 3450 FS1 0.5
P 3558 FS1 0.9
P 3559 FS2 0.7
P 3669 FS3 0.5
P 3670 FS4 0.5
P 3782 FC1 0.3
P 3783 FS1 0.5
By assigning fragility curves to the individual levee elements, the user is essentially specifying the
potential beach. In addition, the user can assign a duration of inundation prior to breaching. This
saturation time is a key parameter in the modeling levee breach. The cumulative time of the water
surface above the fragility curve elevation (elevation below the levee crest) is tracked and the levee
breach is not initiated until the duration is exceeded. The duration might range from 0.5 to 24 hours or
more. For example, if the selected duration is 0.5
hours, the time that the water surface exceeds the
LFP elevation must be greater than 0.5 hours (not
continuous, but cumulative) for the breach to start.
When the levee fragility curves are applied to a levee system, the results show that the levee breach can
occur anywhere in the system at varying times depending of the selection of the fragility curve and the
prescribed probability of failure. After piping initiates, the pipe erosion expands to a breach channel
when the pipe roof collapses and escalates to a full breach when breach the channel side slopes
collapse. The breach expands in the FLO-2D model until the rate of sediment transport from the breach
decreases. Figure 21 shows a FLO-2D simulation of levee breach progressing at two locations at the
same time based on variable assignment of the levee fragility curves. In this figure, the levee
embankment extends from the red FLO-2D grid system boundary to the urban area in the image.

Figure 21. Levee breach with Variable Fragility Curves
Benefits of Applying the Levee Fragility Curves to Flood Hazard Mapping
For the CVFED Program, the AEC teams are required to estimate of the risk of levee failure. This is levee
failure could occur from river to floodplain or floodplain to river. The FLO-2D fragility curve method
combines geotechnical levee probability and flood routing for a spatial assessment of levee failure
corresponding with the floodwave progression. This represents a significant step in accurate hazard
mapping. The procedure for using the levee fragility curves in the FLO-2D model to locate breaches and
map the flood hazards is as follows:
1. Develop the FLO-2D with the channel and levee components.
2. Run the various return period flood simulations (e.g. 2-yr, 5-yr, 100-yr etc.).
3. Generate the levee fragility curves from the geotechnical data being collected for the CVFED
Program t for the given project river reach.
4. Enter the fragility curve data for the levees in the BREACH.DAT file.
5. Enter the selected global or individual levee grid element fragility curve assignments.
6. Select different LFP such as 10%, 50% and 90% and run the FLO-2D model for the return period
flood simulations.
The series of FLO-2D simulations for the various return periods with the failure probability assignments
(e.g. LFP = 10%, 50% and 90%) will identify the area of inundation associated with the geotechnical
confidence of the levee. If there are 6 return period flood events, there will be a total of 18 flood
simulations with the FLO-2D model. Clearly, the area of inundation will be much greater if the likely
failure point LFP was assumed to be 10% than 50%. For some of the more frequent flood events (2-yr or
5-yr), it is possible that there were would no levee breach. For the less frequent flood events, a breach
of the levee upstream might result in significant floodwave attenuation due to the floodplain storage
reducing the potential for a downstream levee breach in a reach of levee that was in poor condition.
Through volume conservation in the FLO-2D model, the flooding through a levee breach in one location
may reduce the potential for a complete levee breach or even breach initiation elsewhere in the levee
system where the levee may be weak. The different return period floods and different LFP scenarios
would result in significant different areas of mapped flood hazard. The area of predicted area
inundation could then be evaluated for flood damages.
Central Valley communities need to rehabilitate levees to provide both FEMA-level protection and
protection against the 200-year return period flood. The 200-year flood protection is required by State
Bill 5 to allow urban areas to continue to develop in the floodplain. The proposed Interim Levee Design
Criteria Modified Corps Approach stipulates that the upstream and downstream levees would be
modeled to the 1955/57 Corps design profiles and would not be allowed to overtop or breach in the
hydraulic models. By using the fragility curve methodology to achieve this level of protection:
DWR will have hydraulic model with a risk and uncertainty analysis to predict the water surface
for the Interim Levee Design Criteria for Urban and Urbanizing Area State-Federal Project
Levees.
The Modified Corps Levee Design Water Surface Elevation (DWSE which may be higher and
require more freeboard), would be minimized for the appropriate upstream flooding conditions.
The floodwave attenuation associated with a fragility curve 90 or 95% LFP provided by the FLO-
2D model will provide more confidence for the 90 or 95% assurance water surface elevation
used in the design. It may eliminate the need to consider adding height to DWSE.
The flood hazard mapping with the 90 or 95% LFP can be used to establish the flood damage
cost to justify levee restoration.

Safe Storage Criteria
The concept of unaccredited levee removal is conservative from a flood water surface perspective and it
can significant impact flood storage volume and floodwave movement through the river system on large
floodplain. It can also create significant problems for floodplain communities where the flood potential
may be non-existent. If the flood volume controls the area of inundation, the relationship between the
volume in the channel and the volume on the floodplain is critical to accurate hazard assessment. The
concept that the levees will melt away when the water contacts the levee is also conservative. The
volume of water represented by a water depth of two or three feet between setback levees can be
substantial in some locations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River systems.
All embankments, even levees in the poorest condition, will store some water safely. This safe storage
behind levees may be only a foot or two of water above the toe of a levee (Figure 22). The concept of
safe storage is applicable to both the river and landside of the levee. On a large floodplain area, this
could represent a large volume of water that would not contribute to downstream flooding. The actual
safe storage water surface elevation on the levee would have to be determined by geotechnical
investigation of the levee, but could be related to the LFP for the levee fragility curves. For water
surface above the LFP, the levee breach would initiate. For water surface below the LFP, the levee
would be assumed to have safe storage. Levees in reasonably good condition, could store water to the
50% LFP, whereas levees in bad condition may have a 10% LFP (perhaps only a foot above the levee toe).

Figure 22. Safe Storage for Levee
Developing levee safe storage criteria would require input from both agencies and consultants, but at a
minimum, a levee safe storage of 1 or 2 ft might be considered which may have a significant impact on
the flood hazard mapping. Combined with the levee fragility curves, safe storage may result in more
accurate hazard mapping and reduce levels of flood uncertainty. The concept of safe storage can also
be used on alluvial fan embankments. On Tortolita alluvial fan near Tucson, Arizona the safe storage
provided by the spoils pile created by the excavation of the Central Arizona Canal crossing the fan stored
the entire flood hydrograph from some small watersheds. This resulted in FEMA approved DFIRM maps
that eliminated some urban areas from the flood hazard.

9. Floodplain Urban Details
Buildings and Flow Obstructions
One of the unique features the FLO-2D model is its ability to simulate flow through urban areas with
flow obstructions and loss of flood storage. Area reduction factors (ARFs) and width reduction factors
(WRFs) are coefficients that modify the individual grid element surface area storage and flow width
between elements respectively. ARFs can be used to reduce the flood volume storage on grid elements
due to buildings or topography. WRFs can be assigned to any of the eight flow directions in a grid
element and can partially or completely obstruct flow paths simulating floodwalls, buildings or berms
(Figures 23 and 24). The ARFs (less than or equal to 1.0) are specified as a percentage of the total grid
element surface area. It is possible to specify individual grid elements that are totally blocked (ARF = 1.0)
from receiving any flow. Width reduction factors (less than or equal to 1.0) are specified as a percentage
of the grid element flow width (one side of the octagon = 0.41412 x grid element side). A wall might
obstruct 40% of the flow width and a building could cover 75% of the same grid element.

Figure 23. Area (yellow) and Width Reduction Factors (as lines within the yellow grid elements)

Figure 24. ARF value grid elements outlined in yellow (zoomed view).
Note: Completely blocking a
grid element flow direction (WRF
= 1.0) creates a obstruction that
cannot be overtopped. If there is a
potential for the obstruction to be
overtopped it should be modeled
using a levee not a WRF value.

Recommendation: Only esti-
mate the reduction values within
plus or minus 10%.
Initially the model should be run without any ARF or WRF values to identify where the flooding may
occur. This initial simulation will determine the approximate area of inundation for assigning the ARFs
and WRFs. ARFs and WRFs can be assigned to grid elements either by grid element, polygon, or painting
a series of elements. The user should then identify the various obstructions to the primary flow paths.
For large urban areas, significant flow obstruction and storage loss detail may have to be added to the
model to accurately define the flood distribution. For example, subdivisions, industrial parks, and
shopping centers can significantly impact the flood mapping.
It is usually sufficient to estimate the area or width reduction on a
map by visual inspection. A detailed measurement is not
necessary because each building will have a relatively minor
impact on the flood area of inundation. Visualizing the area or
width reduction factors can be facilitated by inspecting grid system
over an imported background image in the GDS to locate the
buildings and obstructions. Only four width reduction factors
need to be specified for the eight possible flow directions. The
other four flow directions are assigned automatically by grid
element correlation. Two of the specified width reduction factors
are for flow across the diagonals.
The key issues regarding buildings and obstructions are:
When is it necessary to simulate storage loss and flow obstruction;
Which type of building should be simulated;
How much details should be used in modeling buildings?
Following a review of the area of inundation with the buildings, it can be discerned which urban areas
are important to simulate loss of storage and flow obstruction. Rural areas with barns or single
residential structures can be ignored as their effects on the storage loss are negligible. It is not necessary
to simulate buildings in areas where there is no flooding or the flooding is minor or just ponded shallow
flow. Not every building in a flooded urban area needs to be modeled. Buildings that are essentially
shells such as warehouses or storage units can be ignored (see the table below). Dense urban areas with
significant flooding such as a downtown city blocks should be assigned ARF values. Flood prone building
construction that should be considered for loss of flood storage would include both the foundation
system and the superstructure that are linked together for structural integrity. Consideration should
also be given to buildings that can effectively avoid inundation such as elevated buildings, flood proof
structures or large concrete structures. Irregular topography (mounds), dense vegetation (trees and
agriculture), subdivision walls (with and without pressure relief openings), and landscaped features
should all be reviewed when adding area and width reduction flood detail.

Table 8: Area/Width Reduction Factor
Building Type
Range of Potential Loss
of Flood Storage
Manufactured Buildings: Trailers, Temporary Housing, Sheds 0.0 - 0.1
Wood Frame, Open Foundations with Basements/Crawl Space 0.1 - 0.5
Slab on Grade Building 0.2 - 0.5
Wood Frame Buildings on Solid Foundation Walls 0.3 - 0.7
Masonry (Brick or Concrete) Residential Buildings 0.4 - 0.8
Commercial Warehouses, Storage Units at Grade 0.1 - 0.4
Large Commercial Masonry Building at Grade 0.6 - 1.0
Masonry Buildings with Raised First Floor 1.0
Elevated Buildings on Fill 1.0
Floodproof Structures 0.9 - 1.0
By initially running the model without a lot of urban detail, the area of maximum inundation can be
outlined. Within this outline, the level of urban detail can be established based on flow patterns and
development characteristics. Urban neighborhoods or subdivisions that are flooded but are not
considered in the floodplain path can be model for flood storage loss as a unit. In this case, loss of flood
storage is more important than obstruction of the floodwave path.
Street Flow
Streets can be important conveyance features that distribute flow to the outer portions of the floodplain
increasing the area of inundation. Street flow is simulated as flow in shallow rectangular channels with
a curb height. The channel routing algorithm is used to compute the street discharge. The data input
file (STREET.DAT) is organized by street. The user specifies a street name followed by the number of grid
elements that constitute a given section of street. A given grid element may contain one or more streets
and the streets may intersect.
The street segments within a grid element are assumed to emanate from the center of the element and
extend to the element boundary in the eight flow directions (Figure 25). For example, an east-west
street across a grid element would be assigned two street segments. Each segment has a length of one-
half the grid element side or diagonal. The flow direction, street width, curb height and roughness are
specified for each street segment within the grid element and can be modified by the GDS program.
Street and overland flow discharge exchange is computed in the channel-floodplain flow exchange
subroutine. When the flow exceeds the curb height, the discharge to floodplain portion of the grid
element is computed. Return flow to the streets is also simulated.

Figure 25. Street are shown as green lines in the GDS.
Similar to assigning other urban attributes such as ARF and WRF values, the project model should
initially be run without streets to determine the baseline area of inundation. The impact of adding the
streets to the project model can then be assessed. The baseline model should conserve volume and be
analyzed for sticky grid elements so that the simulation runs quickly. Streets that would distribute the
flow to the outer reaches of the model and expand the area of inundation should then be added. There
are a number of streets parallel to the channel in the Figure 25 that are not simulated because there
impact on redistributing the flooding from the channel is limited.
Table 9: Criteria for Simulating Street Flow
Street Type
Criterion
Unpaved or Paved Streets without Curbs (at grade)
Do not model with street component. Reduce grid element n-
values containing roadway.
Cul-de-Sacs (paved or unpaved) Generally cul-de-sacs and dead end streets can be ignored.
Streets with Curbs Perpendicular to the Primary
Flow Path
If streets distribute flow to another portion of the grid system,
then those streets should be simulated. Exercise judgment.
Neighborhood, Subdivision or Short Paved Street
with Curbs
May impact local flooding, but may not redistribute large
flood volumes. Generally only a few limited subdivision
streets are modeled in a project.
Main Avenues or Streets with Curbs
Should be modeled for street conveyance if they are located
in the area of inundation.
Elevated Streets and Highways
Should not be modeled as street conveyance. Should be
simulated for flow blockage as WRFs, levees, or elevated grid
elevations.
Elevated streets, highways and agricultural roads should be considered for their potential flow
obstruction and perhaps modeled as embankments as described in the following section.
Embankments
The Central Valley floodplain outside of the levees has extensive embankment and drainage features.
Often the irrigation and drainage features (canals and ditches) have corresponding spoils piles or
constructed berms associated with roadways along canals. For that reason, the discussion of interior
floodplain embankments and drainage are combined in this section.
Embankments may include roadway, railroad, drainage canal spoils piles or other berms, and interior
levees. These embankments can control the distribution of floodwaters across the floodplain. In Figure
8 (p. 30) and 9 (p. 31), there are a number of embankments (roadways, levees and drainage canal spoils
piles) that are exposed above the flood water surface that should be included in the model for this reach
of river. To establish the potential impact on flood distribution by embankments, consideration should
be given to crest height, crest materials (pavement), embankment materials and design, and structural
integrity. Embankments that are unaccredited may have to be removed for FEMA mapping. If FEMA
flood insurance study maps are a product of this flood analysis, unaccredited levees and embankments
will probably not be simulated in the FLO-2D model.
Throughout the Central Valley there are canals, flood by-pass channels, irrigation drainage ditches or
conveyance control structures that will may affect the flood movement downstream and to other
portions of the floodplain. The DWR and the CVFED AEC teams have the responsibility to evaluate if
flood bypasses and floodways would reduce flood stage. The conveyance discharge may constitute
return flow to the river or redistribute the floodwater from the river to the interior portions of the
floodplain. The following figure illustrates the complexity of embankments, drainage canals and flood
by-pass channels.

Figure 26. A number of canal and roadway features that may control the floodwave distribution.
Roadway Embankments
Drains
When is it necessary to consider interior floodplain embankments? The following procedure is
suggested:
1. Run the model for the two return period simulations that bracket the full range of potential
flooding.
2. Identify those embankments within a given area of floodplain.
3. Initially ignore embankments less than 1 ft.
4. Start with the embankments that appear to have the greatest impact on the potential flood
distributions. Run one or more of the selected flood hydrographs and note the difference with
and without the embankments.
5. Based on the results discern whether additional similar embankments (in terms of crest
elevation and location) are required to accurately simulate the flooding.
Possible embankment impacts on flooding include:
Changes in the maximum area of inundation (mapping). Flooding may be eliminated in some
floodplain areas.
Increase in maximum and final flow depths in storage areas behind embankments.
Ponded storage may reduce flow velocities through a certain area.
Delayed flooding in certain areas initially protected by embankments.
Embankments including roadways, railroad grades, berms, spoils piles and even fencing can be modeled
with the FLO-2D levee component. The embankment (levee) data assignment for the eight potential
flow directions in any given grid element was described in a previous section of this report. Often
embankments in the interior drainage have a variable crest elevation which can be checked for accuracy
with the GDS levee profile tool (Figure 15, p. 38). The embankment crest elevation can be defined using
one of three methods:
1. GDS DTM elevation query
2. Assumed height above floodplain
3. Crest elevation survey
If detailed and accurate elevation data is available, the DTM points can be imported into the model and
queried where they coincide with the embankment using the GDS levee express editor. If the feature
has a relatively uniform height, the embankment elevation can be assumed as a specific height above
the floodplain elevation. If the elevation data is not detailed or accurate and the feature is not uniform,
a survey of the embankment crest elevation can be performed at intervals that are multiple of the grid
element size.
An embankment such as highway fill may be modeled by simply raising the grid element elevation. As
long as the extra loss of floodplain storage because the grid element is larger than the embankment, this
is a simple method to simulate embankments that are not anticipated to fail. If interior floodplain
embankment consists of spoils piles or poorly constructed berms, failure of the embankment during
flooding will add another level of complexity to the floodplain mapping. For large floodplain storage
areas, this may be necessary.
Interior Drainage
Guidelines for determining which drainage canal or facility should be included in the flood model are
presented. The primary focus is the flood volume moving across the interior flood floodplain and the
facility conveyance capacity. If the entire floodplain is inundated by 3 ft of flow depth, the impact of
small conveyance channels on the flood distribution will be negligible. If a given floodplain area has
shallow flooding, a drainageway and berm may capture and redirect the flow to back the river system.
When is it necessary to consider interior irrigation and drainage conveyance features? The following
procedure is suggested:
1. Run the model for the two simulations that bracket the full range of potential flooding (e.g. 2-
year and 250-year flood hydrographs).
2. Locate drainage features in the area of inundation that have significant conveyance capacity.
3. Initially ignore canals or ditches that have a capacity of less than 100 cfs or whatever discharge
capacity that might be considered negligible for the flow crossing the floodplain.
4. Start with one or more of the larger canals that appear to have the greatest impact on the
potential flood distributions and run one or more of the selected flood hydrographs. Note the
area of inundation difference with and without the canal.
5. Based on the results determine whether additional similar canals (in terms of conveyance
capacity) are required to more accurately simulate the flooding.
Possible conveyance feature impacts on flooding include:
Changes in the maximum area of inundation (mapping). Flooding may be eliminated in some
floodplain areas with increased return flow to the river system.
Decrease in the maximum and final flow depths in storage areas with conveyance features.
More flood volume in the river system downstream.
Canals and drainageways are simulated with the FLO-2D channel component. Most irrigation and
drainage canals and laterals have either a rectangular or trapezoidal cross section. These are relatively
straight forward to enter into the CHAN.DAT file using the GDS program. The channel course is graphical
outlined in the GDS, and the channel geometry data (width, depth and side slope) is entered in the
Window's dialog box. The channel length within each grid element is computed automatically. To
finalize the canal data set, the user should complete the following steps:
1. Add spatially variable n-values;
2. Confirm the canal reach channel length;
3. Check the canal profile slope and make adjustments.
To add detail to the interior irrigation and drainage network, conveyance hydraulic control can be added
to the model.
The hydraulic control in the canals, drainage ways and flood by-pass channels including gates, weirs,
spillways, pumps and other structures should be modeled if their operation results in the control the
water surface elevation or restricts the discharge to the river. If modeling the conveyance channel was
important to the distribution of the flooding on the interior floodplain, then it is likely that the hydraulic
structure will also have some flood impact. The hydraulic structures are simulated with a rating curve or
table (headwater depth vs. discharge) that is developed outside the FLO-2D model. The structures may
control return flow to the river or be blocked with debris resulting in local flooding during the
recessional limb of the flood hydrograph.
NOTE: A sediment load bulking
factor (BF) is given by:
BF = 1./(1. - C
v
)
where C
v
= concentration by volume.
Recommendation: Use 5% maximum concentration
by volume for a bulking factor of 1.053.
10. Sediment Bulking
Infrequent large flood events in major rivers carry sediment loads with concentrations ranging from 2%
to 20% by volume. A flood with a 20% concentration by volume represents an increase (bulking factor)
in the flood volume and peak discharge of 25%. A 25% increase in
flood volume may affect the flood area of inundation and impact
the operation of flood control structures and bridges. Limited
sediment records were examined to determine the potential range
of sediment loading (Figure 27).

Figure 27. Discharge and Suspended Sediment Load for the Sacramento River at Freeport, California
For discharges of up to 100,000 cfs in the Sacramento River, measured suspended sediment loads were
less than 1.0 percent concentration by volume. Higher sediment concentrations can be expected for
higher floods. The low measured suspended load may be the result of upstream storage and the
sediment load may be supply limited. Sediment
bulking may not significantly impact the flood
volumes. In the absence of data to justify a lower
or higher bulking factor, a conservative estimate of
5% concentration by volume is suggested.

11. Reviewing FLO-2D Results
Project review key questions are whether the flood simulation was accurately performed and whether
the flood maps represent a reasonable depiction of the flood of the flood hazard. The FLO-2D model
has a number of output files to help the user view the results. Floodplain, channel and, street hydraulics
are written to file. Hydraulic output data include water surface elevation, flow depth and velocities in
the eight flow directions. Several options are available to format the output files as either temporally or
spatially varied results. Discharge for specified output intervals (hydrographs) are written to various
files. Most of the critical FLO-2D model results can be reviewed graphically using the Mapper, Maxplot
or Mapper.NET programs which will plot area of inundation, maximum flow depth and velocity, and
other results over background aerial images.
The output files can be used to discern model performance. Before reviewing the project output files
the user should determine if the model is running fast enough and if the results are satisfactory. Table
10 lists the most important output data files when reviewing the model results. A mass conservation
summary table comparing the inflow, outflow and storage in the system is presented in the
SUMMARY.OUT file and at the end of the BASE.OUT file. Some output files are created by simply
initiating the various flow components (e.g. STREET.OUT is created when street flow is simulated).
Complete descriptions of all the output files are presented in the Data Input Manual.
Table 10: Output files and Uses
File File Use
SUMMARY.OUT
Verifies volume conservation. Percentage of volume loss should be less
than .001%
CHVOLUME.OUT
Reports on the disposition of the channel volume.
TIME.OUT
Lists those grid elements that are frequently exceeding stability criteria.
The user should determine which grid elements are frequently exceeding
stability criteria. The user should review the top 2 to 5 grid elements in
the listing. If any grid element has time step decrements greater by an
order of magnitude than the following element listed in this file; grid
attributes such as topography, slope, or roughness should be adjusted.
ROUGH.OUT

The runtime Mannings n-value changes when the maximum Froude
number is exceeded are listed in this file. Use the file to refine the n-
value spatial variability.
STREET.RGH
FPLAIN.RGH
CHAN.RGH
These files contain the changes in street, floodplain, and channel element
Manning's n-values when the maximum Froude number is exceeded.
After verifying that the n-value runtime changes are reasonable, these
files can be renamed STREET.DAT, FPLAIN.DAT, and CHAN.DAT. This will
overwrite all n values in the *.DAT files.
VELTIMEFP.OUT
Lists maximum floodplain flow velocity in decreasing order of magnitude.
Any floodplain velocities greater than 6-8 fps should be reviewed.
VELTIMEC.OUT
Lists the maximum channel flow velocity in decreasing order of
magnitude. Channel velocities greater than 8 fps for unlined channels
and greater than about 15 fps for lined channels should be reviewed.

There are several output files that identify modeling problems. The most important one is volume
conservation file (SUMMARY.OUT). The FLO-2D results should be reviewed for volume conservation,
surging, and timestep decrements.
Volume Conservation
Volume conservation is a key factor in the accuracy of any flood routing model. The SUMMARY.OUT file
will display the time when the volume conservation error began to appear during the simulation.
Typically a volume conservation error greater 0.001 percent is an indication that the model could be
improved. The file CHVOLUME.OUT will indicate if the volume conservation error occurred in the
channel routing instead of the overland flow component. By switching 'off' model components and the
volume conservation problem can be isolated. Some volume conservation problems may be eliminated
by slowing the model down (decreasing the timesteps) using the stability criteria. Volume conservation
problems are an indication of errors in the data files.
Numerical Surging
Numerical surging is the result of a mismatch between flow area, slope and roughness and can occur in
a simulation that conserved volume. It can cause an over-steepening of the floodwave identified by
numerous spikes in the output hydrographs (Figure 28). Surging can also be identified by excessively
high velocities in the VELTIMC.OUT (channel) or VELTIMFP.OUT (floodplain) files. Surging can be reduced
or eliminated by adjusting the stability criteria to reduce the timestep size. If the decreasing the
timesteps fails to eliminate the surging, then individual floodplain or channel element topography (cross
section), slope or roughness should be adjusted. Setting a lower limiting Froude number for a channel
reach may also help to eliminate the surging. For channel flow, the PROFILES program can be used to
make cross section adjustments. Increasing the flow roughness will reduce or eliminate most of the
numerical surging. Abrupt flow area transition between contiguous channel elements should be
avoided.
'Sticky' Grid Elements
Sticky grid elements (floodplain or channel elements) are those that are causing the most timestep
decreases forcing the model to run slowly. The TIME.OUT file lists the top twenty floodplain, channel or
street elements that caused the model to slow down. The file also lists which stability criteria is being
exceeded resulting in the timestep decreases. Adjustments can be made in the stability criteria to more
equitably distribute the timestep decreases. The model is designed to advance and decrement the
computational timesteps, so there have to be grid elements listed in the TIME.OUT file. If one or two
grid elements have significantly more timestep decreases (by an order of magnitude) than the other ele-
ments listed in the file, the attributes of the sticky grid elements such as topography, slope or
roughness should be adjusted. The goal is to make the model run as fast as possible while still avoiding
numerical surging.


Figure 28. Numerical Channel Surging Example.
12. Guidelines for Flood Hazard Tools
Flood Inundation Maps
The FLO-2D modeling system has a number of flood analysis and mapping tools to enhance the flood
hazard delineation and risk assessment. A brief overview of these tools is provided so that the AEC team
is aware some of the tools for CVFED Program complex modeling issues. The FLO-2D Mapper and
Mapper_NET post-processor programs can generate a diverse array of high resolution graphical plots
and maps including:
Ground surface elevation
Maximum water surface elevation
Maximum depth (area of inundation)
Maximum velocity
Final depth
Final velocity
Specific Energy
Impact Pressure
Static Pressure
Time-to-Peak Discharge (dam and levee break)
Time-to-One Foot (dam and levee break)
Time-to-Two Foot (dam and levee break)
Temporally variable depth and velocity (flood animations)
Flow depth over DTM points
Flood hazard maps
Shape files
DFIRMs

Maps can be generated for floodplain, channel and street flow and combined channel and floodplain
maximum depths. The maps can be displayed as either grid element plots, line contour maps, and
shaded contour maps. Shape files for importing results to GIS are automatically generated for most of
the Mapper plots. General guidelines to consider when developing flood maps are:
The flood hazard map resolution is only as good as that of the topographic data base. If the
topographic contour map resolution is plus or minus one ft, then the flood contour map
cannot be more accurate than plus or minus one ft.
Use background aerial images to enhance the maps;
Contour line width and shaded contour splash over floodplain features;
Interpolating and plotting flow depths over the DTM points to improve map resolution;
Using map resolution controls such as prescribed contour intervals, deleting the lowest
contour, and contour smoothing can improve the map appearance;
Mapper_NET has advanced mapping features to improve map resolution including
breaklines.
All CADD and GIS programs have to accommodate topographic data base resolution and contour splash
(e.g. flood contours that cover levees, buildings, bluffs or other features) when creating maps. Mapper
and Mapper_NET have options to address these mapping issues including maximum flood depth
computation over DTM points, shape file generation and breaklines and other mapping controls.
Maximum flood depth computation over DTM points. By importing the DTM ground elevation points into
Mapper and subtracting the ground elevation from the predicted maximum grid element water surface
elevation, flow depths are computed for every DTM point. Creating flood contours maps from the
interpolated DTM point flow depths will greatly enhance the flood map resolution. A file
(FLO2DGIS.OUT) of these DTM point flow depths can also be created for importing to GIS.
Shape file generation. Mapper and Mapper_NET automatically create shape files in the project folder
whenever a flood contour map is generated. These shape files can be imported to GIS or CADD
programs for further editing.
Breaklines and other map controls. Mapper_NET is integrated with ArcGIS Runtime Engine Controls. It
has a number of contour enhancements including a vast array of color combinations. There are
breakline options to limit contours from crossing topographic features.
Creating high resolution flood maps may require several rounds of review and adjustment of your
mapping controls.
To support the AEC Team cost estimates for flood damage and hazard mapping, the Mapper program
can generate shaded contour maps with background aerial images. This will enable the flood inundation
to be reviewed with respect to urban development, river channels, levees and embankments, streets,
hydraulic structures, internal drainage or irrigation water conveyance, and by-pass channels and flood
retention facilities. The flood contour maps may have to be adjusted and edited to reflect more
accurate flooding around these features. In the Figure 29 below the shaded contours are drawn over the
levee.

Figure 29. Urban Flooding with Channel.

Flood Damage Assessment
Levee
The important urban features in Figure 29 include the channel and levees, two main streets or avenues
running east to west, several north-south streets, and large buildings that reduce the flood storage.
Once the final inundation maps with these features have been completed, reviewed and edited, it may
be necessary to assign flood damage cost. This can be accomplished automatically in the Mapper if the
damage cost tables and building shape files have been created.
A true measure of flood risk is the actual damage cost resulting from the exposure of vulnerable
structures to a given return period flood. This flood risk is represented by linking the flood hazard map
and a damage cost assessment. A significant effort in the field is required to evaluate the potential cost
of inundation as function of flood depth. Similar to the Corps of Engineers Flood Damage Assessment
(FDA) program, a tool for estimating the total flood and individual structure damage cost has been
developed in the FLO-2D Mapper post-processor program. It can be used to estimate the cost of flood
damage for any type of structure or land use (e.g. agricultural crops). To apply this method in the
Mapper program, the following data must be available:
A polygon shape file where each polygon represents a structure or field.
A table file containing damage cost data as function of flood depth for each building type in the
polygon shape file. The file will have a code that will correspond to a shape file polygon and cost
data for damage per foot of flow depth.
The Mapper damage assessment table (Figure 30) is comparable to that used by the Corps FDA program
and can easily accommodate other depth-damage curves similar to the Federal Insurance
Administrations (FIA) credibility weighted curves used in the HAZUS model. For each building identified
by a polygon ID, the table provides damage cost for up to 10 user specified depths (D1-D10). The
Mapper program will compute and interpolate the flood damage according the portion of the building
area covered by each FLO-2D grid element flow depth. It will also create a GIS polygon shape file of the
damage cost for each flooded building (Figure 31 and Figure 32).

Figure 30. Mapper Damage Assessment Table with a Cost Per Foot of Depth for Each Building Type.

Figure 31. Mapper Displayed Color Coded Assignment of Damage Costs to Individual Buildings.

Figure 32. Interpolated Damage Inundation Cost for Individual Structures Computed by Mapper.
To calculate the flood damage in Mapper, import the building polygon shape and cost table as shown
above and click on the appropriate commands buttons. Mapper will determine building (or crop)
polygon intersections with the FLO-2D grid elements and compute the total damage $$ using a weighted
average interpolation. The final product for the damage assessment module is the total flood damage
cost:

Typically the Corps damage cost assessment tables are established for conventional clear water
floodplain inundation. For the CVFED Program, the damage cost tables may have to reflect alluvial fan
flooding, mud or debris damages, or damages associated with high velocities, high impact pressure or
long duration inundation. The damage tables also have to be appropriate for the different types of
structures that may be designed to withstand debris flows including higher first floors, masonry walls,
and lack of windows and doors on the upfan side. The structure details represented in the damage
tables will increase the reliability of the risk mapping.
For the CVFED Program the primarily tasks that need to be completed for the flood damage assessment
are digitizing the structure shape files and creating the building damage tables. Each building within the
flood inundation areas would have to be digitized. It may be possible to burn the outline of buildings
from the pixel tones on digital aerial photographs into shape files. Methods to automate this digitizing
procedure should be considered. The field effort perform by the Corps in generating flood damage
assessment tables is extensive and time-consuming. This inventory of building flood damage as a
function of depth is required by the AEC teams to assess flood damage, so the automated damage
interpolation routine in Mapper will expedite the accurate computation of the total flood damage.
Flood Hazard Mapping
In the United States, most of the flood mapping is prepared to establish flood insurance rates. In many
communities this mapping is based on very inaccurate one-dimensional, single discharge analyses that
ignores the spatially variable floodwave attenuation associated with floodplain storage. The digital flood
insurance rate maps (DFRIMS) are also a very poor tool to communicate the flood hazard to the public.
Countries worldwide are adopting a mapping standard that accurately conveys the flood hazard to the
public when linked to a two-dimensional flood routing model. This mapping method is described below.
Flood hazard at a specific location is a function of both flood intensity and probability (flood frequency).
Flood intensity is determined by the flow depth and velocity. Flood probability is inversely related to
flood magnitude; i.e. large flood events occur less frequently. Flood hazard is defined as a discrete
combined function of the event intensity (severity of the event) and return period (frequency). This
approach follows European standards that delineate three flood hazard zones (Figure 33).
High
Medium
Low
High Medium Low
High Hazard (Red)
Medium Hazard (Orange)
Low Hazard (Yellow)
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
Probability of Excedence

Figure 33. Flood Hazard Levels Based on Flood Frequency and Intensity.
These map colors translate into specific potential hazard areas as shown in Table 11. To define an
events intensity, most methods use a combination of flow depths and velocities. One method (Austrian)
uses a total energy defined as h + v
2
/2g, where h is the flow depth, v is the velocity and g is the
gravitational acceleration. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation identifies hazard as a combination of depth
and velocity (Figure 34) with different relationships for structures and cars. Other methods define the
intensity in terms of a combination of h and the product of h and v.
Table 11: Flood Hazard Definition
Hazard
Level
Map
Color Description
High Red
Persons are in danger both inside and outside their houses. Structures are in
danger of being destroyed.
Medium Orange
Persons are in danger outside their houses. Buildings may suffer damage and
possible destruction depending on construction characteristics.
Low Yellow
Danger to persons is low or non-existent. Buildings may suffer little damages,
but flooding or sedimentation may affect structure interiors.

Figure 34. Flood Hazard for Adults (Bureau of Reclamation).
In the FLO-2D MAPPER program a distinction is made between water flooding and mudflows. Flood
intensities are defined in terms of the maximum water depth and the product of the maximum velocity
multiplied by the maximum depth. For the CVFED Program, it may necessary to reach consensus on the
hazard level thresholds in the following tables. These flow depth and velocities x depth thresholds can
be varied by the user but should be consistently applied for the entire CVFED Program area. For water
flooding, the flood intensities could be defined by the values in Table 12. Mudflows are more destructive
than water floods, thus the mudflow intensity criteria are more conservative (Table 13).
Table 12. Definition of Water Flood Intensity
Flood
Intensity
Maximum depth
h (m)
Product of maximum
depth h times maximum
velocity v (m
2
/s)
High h > 1.5 m OR v h > 1.5 m
2
/s
Medium 0.5 m < h < 1.5 m OR 0.5 m
2
/s < v h < 1.5 m
2
/s
Low 0.1 m < h < 0.5 m AND 0.1 m
2
/s < v h < 0.5 m
2
/s

Recommendation: For the CVFED Program, the three return
period floods are 100-year, 200-year events and 500-year return
period floods.
Table 13. Definition of Mud or Debris Flow
Intensity
Flood
Intensity
Maximum
depth h (m)
Product of maximum
depth h times maximum
velocity v (m
2
/s)
High h > 1.0 m OR v h > 1.0 m
2
/s
Medium 0.2 m < h < 1.0 m AND 0.2 m
2
/s < v h < 1.0 m
2
/s
Low 0.2 m< h < 1.0 m v h < 0.2 m
2
/s

The resulting flood hazard maps reflect the probability of occurrence of a water or mudflow event for
three selected returns periods. This requires a FLO-2D simulation of each of the three flood frequency
events. The FLO-2D model will predict the maximum depths and velocities for each return period flood.
For each grid element, the event intensity for a given return period flood determines the hazard based
on the above criteria. An interpolated shaded color contour map based on the grid elements hydraulics
depicts the low, medium and high flood
hazards in Figure 35. A comparison of the
flood hazard with actual flooding from a
recent storm is shown in Figure 36.

Figure 35. A typical flood hazard map delineating high hazard (red), medium hazard (orange) and low hazard (yellow).
This mapping method represents a true measure of the flood hazard and has been effectively used in
other countries to communicate the hazard to the public. The advantages of this method is that is not
necessary to interpret the base flood elevations or flood contours from a FEMA flood insurance rate
with the building elevation to assess a potential flood hazard. In addition, the DFIRM flood elevation
alone is not necessarily an indication of flood hazard. The Mapper flood hazard maps provide a clear
depiction for the public whether a given building or neighborhood is within a high flood hazard area.
The floodplain manager can decisively plan, regulate and zone based on this flood hazard map and can
easily communicate the planning process and hazard to the community. The three sets of maps (area of
inundation shaded contours, flood damage assessment and flood hazard) developed with the FLO-2D
Mapper program and supporting FLO-2D modeling results provide the floodplain manager with all the
tools necessary to regulate alluvial fan development through zoning, mitigation or accurate flood
insurance rates based on actual damage cost risk.

Figure 36. Alluvial fan flood hazard compared with an actual rainfall flood event.
DFIRM Mapping
DFIRM maps can be prepared through the FLO-2D Mapper program using the add-on DFIRM tool
developed by Anderson Consulting Engineers of Fort Collins, Colorado for the Colorado Water
Conservation Board. This tool was embedded in Mapper program to facilitate the DFIRM mapping
directly from FLO-2D results. The DFIRM tool has the commands to post process the FLO-2D results,
perform QA/QC, create the panels and collars, annotate, and export the map (Figure 37). The FEMA
guidelines for generating the DFIRM maps can be applied.

Figure 37. Typical DFIRM Panel
CVFED Review Procedures
Some general guidelines are presented for DWR and the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the accuracy
and map resolution of the AEC project team FLO-2D submittals. The following information should be
provided in the submittal.
Table14: Guidelines for the Review of Project Submittals
Topic Guideline
Project Purpose
Statement of the project goal and objections, project location, type of flood analysis project
(alluvial fan or river overbank flooding; channel or overland flow).
Review of DTM Data
Base
Does the DTM data cover the entire project area? Was supplement topographic data used?
Was the resolution of the DTM data? Was the DTM data suspect in certain areas and what
was the data density? Were there corresponding geo-referenced aerial images?
Review of Hydrologic
Data Base
The flood inflow hydrograph(s) and/or the rainfall controls the area of inundation. Was there
consensus on the inflow hydrology?
Model Calibration
Was the data base sufficient for the model calibration? Was the model calibrated to both
water surface elevation and discharge hydrographs
Model Results
Did the model conserve volume? Did the model include a channel and was volume conserved
for the channel (CHVOLUME.OUT)? What urban or floodplain details were simulated in the
model? Was the channel flow modeled? Streets, levees, hydraulic structures, interior
drainage canals were any important flood features left out?
Mapping Results
Review the maximum flow depths in Mapper. Were there any significant depressions? If so,
why? Are the depressions represented in the DTM data? Review the maximum velocities in
Mapper and VELTIMEC.OUT and VELTIMEFP.OUT. Are the maximum velocities unreasonable?
Are there only a few grid elements with unreasonable high maximum velocities or are there
many elements with high velocities? Does the area of inundation contact the grid element
boundary without outflow? If so, either the grid system should be expanded or more outflow
nodes should be added. Were the DTM points imported in Mapper to improve the mapping
resolution.
Model Error Checks
Check the ERROR.CHK file for any data input warnings or errors? Review the SUMMARY.OUT
file for both volume conservation and model runtime. If the model had an extremely long
simulation time, then the review the TIME.OUT file and determine which grid elements were
slowing the model down and why? Is the model running slow because of only one or two grid
elements listed in TIME.OUT?
Model Details
Were Mannings n-values spatially variable on the floodplain and for the channels? Were the
n-values adjusted during runtime using the limiting Froude number or numerical stability
criteria (ROUGH.OUT)? Did the user just use the default n-values which would result in a
poor simulation? Were the limiting Froude numbers reasonable (FROUDC in CHAN.DAT for
the channels and FROUDL in CONT.DAT for the floodplain)?
Numerical Surging
Review the channel or cross section discharge hydrographs in the HYDROG program for spikes
indicating numerical surging. The CHANMAX.OUT file and the VELTIMEC.OUT file will also
indicate discharge surging and high channel velocities.
Model Features
What model features were simulated and how did they affect the results? Review the
hydraulic structures, streets, outflow discharge or stage controls, levees (embankments and
berms), buildings (ARF and WRF factors), sediment transport, rainfall, infiltration, mudflow,
and groundwater.

CVFED FLO 2D Project Guidelines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CVFED FLO 2D Project Guidelines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FLO-2D Software, Inc.

CVFED FLO-2D Guidelines i

You might also like