English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

. Flash floods observed in headwater catchments often cause catastrophic material and human damage worldwide. Considering the large number of smallwatercourses possibly affected, the use of automated methods for flood inundation mapping at a regional scale can be of great help for theidentification of threatened areas and the prediction of potential impacts of these floods. An application of three mapping methods of increasinglevel of complexity is presented herein, including a digital terrain model (DTM) filling approach (height above nearest drainage/Manning–Strickleror HAND/MS) and two hydrodynamic methods (caRtino 1D and Floodos 2D). These methods are used to estimate the flooded areas of three major flashfloods observed during the last 10 years in southeastern France, i.e., the 15 June 2010 flooding of the Argens river and its tributaries (585 km ofriver reaches), the 3 October 2015 flooding of small coastal rivers of the French Riviera (131 km of river reaches) and the 15 October 2018flooding of the Aude river and its tributaries (561 km of river reaches). The common features of the three mapping approaches are their highlevel of automation, their application based on a high-resolution (5 m) DTM, and their reasonable computation times. Hydraulic simulationsare run in steady-state regime, based on peak discharges estimated using a rainfall–runoff model preliminarily adjusted for each event. The simulationresults are compared with the reported flood extent maps and the high water level marks. A clear grading of the tested methods is revealed,illustrating some limits of the HAND/MS approach and an overall better performance of hydraulic models which solve the shallow water equations. Withthese methods, a good retrieval of the inundated areas is illustrated by critical success index (CSI) median values close to 80 %, and theerrors on water levels remain mostly below 80 cm for the 2D Floodos approach. The most important remaining errors are related to limits ofthe DTM, such as the lack of bathymetric information, uncertainties on embankment elevation, and possible bridge blockages not accounted for inthe models.

hydrology and earth system sciences

Performance of automated methods for flash flood inundation mapping: a comparison of a digital terrain model (DTM) filling and two hydrodynamic methods