Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

1 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

Texas A&M University, Department of Civil Engineering

CVEN 689 Applications of GIS to Civil Engineering
Instructor: Dr. Francisco Olivera
In Class Presentation and Final Poster
Author: Jennifer VerWest
Date: April 29, 2002
ABSTRACT . Most hydrologic analysis is designed for average or steep terrain. This can cause problems for area of flat
terrain. Floods are not accurately estimated, so flood damage and loss of life can occur in areas that were not predicted.
This project describes a way to calculate some of the parameters for hydrologic analysis and how to determine how water
will flow for flat terrain. Subbasins are defined as the area closest to the channel, neglecting the digital elevation model
(DEM) since water does not necessarily flow downhill. For the subbasins, the longest flow path is calculated by finding the
furthest distance from the channel within the subbasin. The subbasins and distance properties are calculated from girds, so a
process is described on how to determine the appropriate grid size. Besides the parameters that are calculated, velocities
and routing parameters are estimated based on generalized characteristics of the watershed. A method is also described on
how flow direction in channels will be determined. Since channels in flat terrain can have loops, flow can be bi-directional
in certain channels. By calculating the hydrologic parameters in a different manner, the results of the analysis will be more
reliable for flat terrain.
INTRODUCTION
Flat terrain is a difficult problem when applying hydrologic models. Current models and methods are developed for areas with
greater relief. The current models do not portray an accurate model for flat terrain areas. This project describes a method
being developed to perform hydrologic analysis in flat terrain. With several urban areas located in flat terrain, flooding is
increasingly causing problems. These areas need ways to predict flood conditions more accurately. Flat terrain has problems
such as very slow velocities, flow changing directions, and water not flowing in the direction of the steepest slope. This project
also describes a process to determine the appropriate grid size for analysis. By modeling the hydrologics of flat terrain, flows
can be more accurately determined.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Original attempts to link geographic information systesm (GIS) to hydrologic models began in the mid 1970s (Nunes et al.,
1998). Not until the early 1990s when GIS increased its functionality did hydrology really take advantage of this new
technology. Three different approaches were made to integrate GIS: modeling completely with current GIS tools, bridging data
from GIS to another program, and embedding code into GIS to create new software (Kopp, 1996). GIS expanded the
possibilities of hydrologic models since it can handle such a large amount of data.
GIS is capable of handling large amounts of data for processing and eliminates repetitively (Goonetilleke and Jenkins, 1999).
Because of the large amounts of topographical and geological data stored in maps, GIS lends itself to the perfect tool since it
can handle the quantity of spatial data (Chang et al., 2000). By using GIS to create the data for inputs, estimations improve
since a larger amount of data can be used to calculate the parameters (Schumann et al., 2000) and a more objective view of the
data is taken (Elgy et al., 1993). Some considerations need to be taken into account when using GIS for analysis such as the
problem to be analyzed, the required output, and the data available. This can influence what type of GIS software is used.
Also, whether the model is tightly or loosely coupled is another consideration (Goonetilleke and Jenkins, 1999).
Most current hydrologic models that take advantage of GIS link to other programs to perform the hydrologic analysis. The way
that hydrologic analysis is done using GIS is often referred to as either loosely or tightly coupled with any variation in between.
Loosely coupled data is when GIS is used primarily for data organization, and the data is then transferred to a hydrologic model
for analysis; tightly coupled data is when all analysis is done in one program, either the hydrologic model or GIS, with a link to
the other program to perform limited operations. Tightly coupled analysis, on the other hand, is limited because of the complex
interface, and loosely coupled analysis is more common. Loose coupling is commonly done by performing initial analysis in
GIS, converting this information into a useable form for the hydrologic model, performing the hydrologic analysis, and finally
transferring the information back to GIS for display (Hellwegger and Maidment, 1999).

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

2 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

One example of a loosely coupled hydrologic model is defined in Hellweger and Maidment. The three software components
used were GIS software, software to convert GIS data into hydrologic data, and hydrologic modeling software. The GIS
software is basic commercially available software that is used to gather and analyze the data needed in the hydrologic model.
In order to communicate to the hydrologic model, new software was developed to communicate with both GIS and the
hydrologic modeling software. The software used in this paper was CWR-PREPRO to collect vector properties and prepare an
ASCII file needed for input into the hydrologic model. The final software used was the Hydrologic Modeling System available
through the Hydrologic Engineering Center, which performs the hydrologic analysis. With the type of hydrologic software, and
therefore the type of hydrologic model, defined, a method was developed to automate the process (Hellwegger and Maidment,
1999). The analysis cannot be reasonably applied to areas of flat terrain, so a new hydrologic model and system of processing
data must be developed.

METHODOLOGY
Most hydrologic models are designed for average or steep terrain. Flat terrain has unique problems that make this analysis
unsuitable. A couple of these problems are that water does not always travel downhill and channels can be bi-directional.
Because of this, using the digital elevation model (DEM) to delineate the watershed is not practical and hydrologic models that
can handle only dentritic networks cannot be used.
In flat terrain, water does not necessarily travel downhill because a slight change in elevation, such as a curb or a plant, can
change the direction of steepest slope. Also, friction plays a larger role. Water will take the path of least resistance, so a
slightly lower slope with less friction may be chosen over a higher slope with greater friction. In order to handle the way that
water flows in flat terrain, an existing channel network was used. Water was assumed to flow to the nearest channel in the
network. Using Euclidean distance, the contributing area for each channel was determined. The output of finding the
contributing areas was a grid as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Delineation using Euclidean Distance

Once the subbasins were delineated, some of the parameters of the subbasins were determined. The first one to be considered
was the longest flow path for each subbasin. The traditional definition for the longest flow path is the longest time it takes for
water to travel from the furthest point in the subbasin to the outlet of the subbasin. For the longest flow path, two components
exist, the overland travel time and the channel travel time as seen in Figure 2.

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

3 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

Figure 2. Overland and Channel Flow Paths

In order to calculate the travel time, the length and velocity for the flow must be known. The velocities of overland and
channel flow depend on the slope and friction of the flow path. Overland flow has much greater friction than channel flow,
causing the overland flow to have a much slower velocity than the channel flow. Since the travel time is the length divided by
the velocity, the travel time of overland flow is therefore much greater than the travel time of the channel. The travel time in
the channel is considered to be negligible. Only the length of the overland flow needs to be measured.
In order to measure the overland flow length, the path the flow would take was considered. For the hydrologic model, the flow
was determined to take the most direct path to the channel. The overland flow length would be the longest distance
perpendicular to the channel to the furthest point in the subbasin. A grid was created of the distances from the channels as seen
in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Distance to the Channel

Using the two grids created, the statistics of the distance grid were found based on the zones of the subbasin grids. The
maximum distance for each subbasin was extracted from the statistics as the longest flow path in the channel as seen in Table 1.

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

4 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

Table 1. Maximum Distance to Channel

GIS ID

Area (ft2)

5000

Maximum Distance
(ft)
832

1600

254

5400

917

3200

533

400

70

Since both the subbasins and the longest flow path were determined using a grid, the size of the grid for the study area must be
determined. Two components were considered to establish the grid size: the computer processing time and the detail of study
necessary. For the computer processing time, the amount of time it took to create the subbasin and distance grid were both
measured. For the detail of study, the minimum channel length, and the number of channels with no subbasin area after
analysis were considered. These parameters were gathered for a range of resolutions, and then the grid size for the final
analysis was found. With the subbasins delineated and some hydrologic parameters known, the other properties for final
analysis needed to be calculated.
Most parameters such as velocities will be determined based on general characteristics of the entire watershed. One parameter
that is available is the curve numbers for the area. This can be obtained from a curve number grid for the entire United States.
The study area is then clipped from the larger grid. Once the water is routed into the channels, some consideration needs to be
made about how the water will flow in the channels.
Besides travel time in the reaches of the channel, the direction the water flows in needs to be considered. In flat terrain,
channels can be bi-directional, meaning that depending on the amount of rain in a certain location, water can flow either
direction in a channel as seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Loop in Channel Network

The model has not yet been developed for the bi-directional flow, but that is one of the next steps. In order to determine the
direction of flow in these channels, a rating curve will be developed at the junctions on each side of the channel as seen in
Figure 5.

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

5 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

Figure 5. Flow versus Depth Rating Curve

The rating curve will be for the depth (or elevation) as a function of the flow. This will allow for the elevation at the two
junctions on the sides of the channel to be known for the flow in the upper subbasins. Water will flow in the direction of the
downhill slope in the channel. The higher elevation will be the from node, and the lower junction will be the to node. The
model will automatically determine the direction of flow in the channel. With the parameters and flow direction determined,
the model will be run to get the flow at the junctions and the outlet of the watershed.

APPLICATION, R ESULTS, AND DISCUSSION

Several areas in the United States have flat terrain that need a new hydrologic model for the special considerations of the
topography. One area that is susceptible to floods and has recently experienced the affects of Tropical Storm Allison in June
2001 is Houston, Texas located in Harris County. Within Harris County, the White Oak Creek Bayou watershed was
investigated. White Oak Bayou watershed is located just east of downtown, it covers an area of 108 square miles, and it
contains 545 channel segments. The area is partially urbanized already, and the rest of the watershed is quickly being
developed.
For the model, a channel network, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage stations, and a curve number grid are needed. The
channel network was obtained from the Harris County GIS Task Force and has been field verified by the Property Management
Department. To confirm that the model is accurately replicating the hydrologic properties of the watershed, the USGS gage
stations were used. Four gages stations are within the White Oaks Bayou watershed. The final data used in the analysis is the
curve number grid for the entire U.S. acquired from Dr. Francisco Olivera at Texas A&M University. The grid has a resolution
of 250 meters, it was converted to polygons, and it was clipped to the watershed. All data was converted to the State Plane
projection for South Central Texas.
To begin with, the process of delineating the subbasins and creating the distance grid was performed for several resolutions.
This was done using the entire channel network since neighboring channels are needed to delineate the current watershed. The
results of the grid size determination can be seen in Table 2.

Resolution (ft)

Rows

1000
500

320
641

Table 2. Grid Size Determination

Processing
Columns
Time (mm:ss)
354
708

00:04
00:10

Number of Channels with no

Subbasin Area
699
168

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

6 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

400

801

885

00:12

105

300

1,068

1,180

00:16

59

200

1,602

1,770

00:27

29

100

3,203

3,541

01:19

10

50

6,407

7,081

04:52

25

12,814

14,162

21:00

From Table 2, the processing time can be seen to vary from 4 seconds to 21 minutes. The number of channels that have no
subbasin area vary from 699 to 0. The processing time was balanced against the number of channels that were not assigned an
area. The shortest channel in the study had a length of 71 feet, and only 4 channels in the network are less than 100 feet in
length. Based on this information, a resolution of 100 feet was chosen for the rest of the analysis as seen in Figure 6.

Figure 6. 100-foot Resolution Subbasin Grid

The 100-foot resolution resulted in only 1 channel not receiving a subbasin area for the White Oak Bayou watershed. Out of
545 channels, one subbasin with an area of zero will not have a significant affect. The 100-foot resolution distance grid is also
used for analysis as seen in Figure 7. The statistics of the grid are found to determine the maximum distance from the channel
for the longest flow length. A sample of the results for the subbasins is seen in Table 3.

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

7 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

Figure 7. 100-foot Resolution Distance Grid

Table 3. Attributes of the Subbasins

7,178,310

Curve
Number
71

Maximum Distance
(ft)
2,900

906

13,354,875

70

2,800

918
919

17,169,214
5,014,550

73
70

2,400
2,100

920
922

47,720,120
6,919,442

75
78

5,886
2,400

923
924

3,232,782
9,790,568

86
82

1,910
2,400

GIS ID

Area (ft2)

901

Curve numbers were then found for the subbasins. Using area-weighted average, the curve numbers were calculated for the
subbasins from the polygons. The resulting curve numbers can be seen in Table 3. The next steps would be to create the final
hydrologic model, run the model, and compare the outputs of the model to the gage stations.

CONCLUSIONS
Flat terrain has unique characteristics, which make typical hydrologic analysis impossible. By developing a new way of

9/7/2012 7:39 PM

Hydrologic Analysis in Flat Terrain

8 of 8

https://ceprofs.tamu.edu/folivera/TxAgGIS/Spring2002/verwest/verwest.htm

delineating the watershed, the way in which water flows to channels is redefined. Also, the unique flow velocities of overland
and channel flow is taken into account to find the longest flow path of the subbasin. This process is not compatible with
previous hydrologic models, so a whole new program for final analysis must be created. This takes time to create and test the
new model. Once the model is ready, flat terrain will have a more suitable way of being represented.

REFERENCES
Chang, Tsang-Jung, M.H. Hsu, W.H. Teng, and C.J. Huang. A GIS assisted distributed watershed model for simulating flooding
and inundation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 36, n. 5, Oct 2000, p. 975-988.
Elgy, J., C. Maksimovic, and D. Prodaovic. Matching standard GIS packages with urban storm drainage simulation software.
Application of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management: Proceeding of the
HydroGIS93 Conference in Vienna, Austria. International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) Publication
No. 211, April 1993, p. 151-160.
Goonetilleke, A., and G.A. Jenkins. The role of geographical information systems in urban hydrological modeling. Journal of
the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. Vol. 13, n. 2, Jun 1999, p. 200-206.
Hellwegger, F.L., and D.R. Maidment. Definition and connection of hydrologic elements using geographic data. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering. Vol. 2, n. 1, Jan 1999, p, 10-18.
Kopp, Stephen M. Linking GIS and hydrological models: where we have been, where we are going? Application of
Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management: Proceeding of the HydroGIS96
Conference in Vienna, Austria. International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) Publication No. 235, April
1996, p. 133-139.
Nunes Correia, Francisco, F. Castro Rego, M. da Graca Saraiva, and I. Ramos. Coupling GIS with hydrologic and hydraulic
flood modeling. Water Resources Management. Vol. 12, n. 3, Jun 1998, p. 229-249.
Schumann, A.H., R. Funke, and G.A. Schultz. Application of a geographic information system for conceptual rainfall-runoff
modeling. Journal of Hydrology. Vol. 240, n. 1-2, Dec 2000, p. 45-61.

9/7/2012 7:39 PM