4.7 Article

Estimating the impact of satellite observations on the predictability of large-scale hydraulic models

Journal

ADVANCES IN WATER RESOURCES
Volume 73, Issue -, Pages 44-54

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2014.06.006

Keywords

Hydraulic modeling; Forecasting; Data assimilation; Remote sensing; Floods; Large-scale

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large-scale hydraulic models are able to predict flood characteristics, and are being used in forecasting applications. In this work, the potential value of satellite observations to initialize hydraulic forecasts is explored, using the Ensemble Sensitivity method. The impact estimation is based on the Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter, allowing for the forecast error reductions to be computed without additional model runs. The experimental design consisted of two configurations of the LISFLOOD-FP model over the Ohio River basin: a baseline simulation represents a best effort model using observations for parameters and boundary conditions, whereas the second simulation consists of erroneous parameters and boundary conditions. Results showed that the forecast skill was improved for water heights up to lead times of 11 days (error reductions ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 m/km), while even partial observations of the river contained information for the entire river's water surface profile and allowed forecasting 5 to 7 days ahead. Moreover, water height observations had a negative impact on discharge forecasts for longer lead times although they did improve forecast skill for 1 and 3 days (up to 60 m(3)/s/km). Lastly, the inundated area forecast errors were reduced overall for all examined lead times. Albeit, when examining a specific flood event the limitations of predictability were revealed suggesting that model errors or inflows were more important than initial conditions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available