the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Benchmark dataset for hydraulic simulations of flash floods in the French Mediterranean region
Abstract. The absence of validation or comparison data for verifying flood mapping methods poses a significant challenge in developing operational hydraulic approaches. This article aims to address this gap by presenting a benchmark dataset for flash flood mapping in the French Mediterranean region. The dataset described in this paper (Nicolle et al., 2024) includes flood hazard maps and simulation results of three actual flash flood events, all computed in steady regime at a 5-meter resolution using a 2D SWE model (neglecting inertia) named Floodos (Davy et al., 2017). Additionally, it includes the input data necessary (Digital Terrain Models, inflow discharges, hydrographic network) for conducting similar simulations with other hydrodynamic modeling approaches, in both steady and unsteady regimes. A comprehensive validation dataset, comprising observed flood extents, high water marks, and rating curves, is also provided, enabling a detailed evaluation of 2D hydraulic simulation results. The simulation results from Floodos, compared against stage-discharge rating curves available at gauging stations, yielded highly encouraging outcomes. The median error (sim. - obs.) was -0.04 m for the 2-year return period and -0.14 m across all simulated return periods, ranging from 2 to 1000 years.
- Preprint
(24797 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 13 Feb 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-472', Francesco Dottori, 13 Jan 2025
reply
This manuscript describes a comprehensive benchmark dataset related to the study of flash flood events in the Mediterranean region of France. Specifically, the dataset comprises the input and output data used for the hydraulic simulations of three events, as well as a range of data for model validation. I believe that the dataset that might be of interest of other research groups working on flash flood hazard and risk in the Mediterranean Region, and therefore I recommend its publication, after having addressed a few minor remarks:
Page 6 L7: can you please provide a reference or a link for the BD TOPAGE hydrographic network database?
Page 7 L26-36: this paragraphs refers to parts of the dataset that are only describer later on in the manuscript. you might want to move it to Section 3.3, or to incorporate the information in Figure 1
Page 16, L322-324: other possible reasons for the observed differences between rating curves and simulations could be:
- the use of steady state simulations
- the approximation given by the inertia-only version of SWE, which might not reproduce well water depths where there are large changes in flow sectionPage 7 L45:"The rating curves are also subject to uncertainty, as they are derived from measured discharge data". You might want to refer her to the work by Di Baldassarre and Montanari (2009), who provided a quantification of the overall uncertainty of discharge estimates from rating curves
Section 4.2: Could you please elaborate on the potential influence of solid transport and related erosion/deposition processes on flood extent and water depths? Do you think that these processes could have played a role in the three case studies?
Page 19 L383 "...that roughness coefficients should be much lower than the commonly recommended values.." perhaps did you mean higher? (Manning's coefficient increases with increasing roughness)
Page 20 L388, typo: using the Floodos 2D hydraulic model
References
Di Baldassarre, G. and Montanari, A.: Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.,he 13, 913–921, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-913-2009, 2009.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-472-RC1
Data sets
Benchmark dataset for hydraulic simulations of flash floods in the French Mediterranean region Pierre Nicolle et al. https://doi.org/10.57745/IXXNAY
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
240 | 56 | 13 | 309 | 15 | 11 |
- HTML: 240
- PDF: 56
- XML: 13
- Total: 309
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 11
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1