water

Article
A New Flash Flood Warning Scheme Based on
Hydrodynamic Modelling
Wei Huang 1,2, *, Zhixian Cao 1, *, Minghai Huang 2 , Wengang Duan 2 , Yufang Ni 1 and
Wenjun Yang 2
1 State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University,
Wuhan 430072, China; yufangni@whu.edu.cn
2 Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan 430010, China; hmh_hk@126.com (M.H.);
ckydwg@163.com (W.D.); yangwj@mail.crsri.cn (W.Y.)
* Correspondence: huangvy@whu.edu.cn (W.H.); zxcao@whu.edu.cn (Z.C.); Tel.: +86-27-82927332 (W.H.);
+86-27-68774409 (Z.C.)




Received: 29 April 2019; Accepted: 10 June 2019; Published: 11 June 2019


Abstract: Flash flooding is one of the most severe natural hazards and commonly occurs in
mountainous and hilly areas. Due to the rapid onset of flash floods, early warnings are critical for
disaster mitigation and adaptation. In this paper, a flash flood warning scheme is proposed based on
hydrodynamic modelling and critical rainfall. Hydrodynamic modelling considers different rainfall
and initial soil moisture conditions. The critical rainfall is calculated from the critical hazard, which
is based on the flood flow depth and velocity. After the critical rainfall is calculated for each cell
in the catchment, a critical rainfall database is built for flash flood warning. Finally, a case study is
presented to show the operating procedure of the new flash flood warning scheme.

Keywords: flash flood warning; hydrodynamic modelling; critical rainfall; hazard index

1. Introduction
Flash floods are one of the most severe natural hazards worldwide. Due to the impact of climate
change, the frequency and severity of flash flood hazards increase [1,2]. Furthermore, anthropogenic
activity increases in the mountain and hill areas, which adds the risk of humans being exposed to flash
floods. Thus, identifying effective measures that reduce the hazard damage triggered by flash floods is
important. Flood warning systems are commonly recognized as vital risk mitigation measures [3]. One
of the key problems of flash flood warning schemes is how to judge when and whether to send alarms
to the targeted people, especially in catchments without hydrometric stations at the cross section of the
outlet. Threshold analysis can be used as one of the emerging approaches in flash flood forecasting [4].
Two types of thresholds are usually used. The first threshold is the critical rainfall related to discharge
or stage at certain cross sections of the catchment [5–7]. The second threshold is the critical rainfall
directly related to the depth and/or velocity of the considered cell [8,9], and this threshold better
considers the physical background of the hydrodynamics of flash floods.
Bracken et al. (2008) [10] and Norbiato et al. (2008) [11] correlated the rainfall input with the
runoff thresholds and identified the critical rainfall conditions necessary to produce flooding in their
study areas. Martina et al. (2006) [12] and Golian et al. (2010) [4] showed that flood warnings can be
produced by identifying the rainfall conditions necessary to generate flooding. The authors defined the
thresholds as the cumulative volume of rainfall for a given soil moisture condition during a storm that
could generate critical discharge. Amadio et al. (2003) [13] and Martina et al. (2006) [12] proposed flash
flood warning systems based on comparisons between critical thresholds and real-time monitoring
rainfall or precipitation forecasts. Amadio et al. (2003) [13] also investigated the reliability of a flood
warning system based on rainfall thresholds using historical data.

Water 2019, 11, 1221; doi:10.3390/w11061221 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 1221 2 of 15

Because rainfall thresholds are non-trivial, the generation and run-off processes of flash floods,
which provide the basis of the definition of thresholds, are also important. Models for flash floods can
be categorized into three kinds: data-driven models, lumped hydrological models, and distributed
hydrological models [14]. Data-driven models use statistical relationships derived from precipitation
and river flow data to generate flow forecasts. These models are widely used in flood forecasting due to
their simplicity. However, these models require long-term data records for training or calibration; thus,
these models are inappropriate for flash flood forecasting because flash floods usually occur in small
catchments in which gauged data are rare or unavailable. Lumped hydrological models are primarily
used for flood forecasting with the hypothesis that the parameters are invariant in space [15]. In general,
the usefulness of lumped hydrological models for flash floods is limited by their coarse resolution, their
need for long-term historical data for calibration, and their poor performance in catchments with few
gauges [14]. Distributed models are gaining popularity among hydrologists, who use them to simulate
the non-linear response of a catchment to rainfall events [16–20]. The basic physical principles include
the conservation of mass and momentum for shallow water flows. With different approximations to
the shallow flow equations, the distributed models are divided into kinematic wave [21,22], diffusion
wave [23,24], adaptive kinematic-dynamic [25], and full hydrodynamic models [8,26–30]. Comparative
studies have shown how difficult it is for kinematic and diffusion wave models to accurately resolve
flash floods [28,31]. Although some simplified models have been confirmed by the agreement between
modelling results and observations, complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of
affirming the consequences and by incomplete access to natural phenomena [32]. Consequently, it is
critical to develop flash flood models incorporating as much physical mechanism as possible, which
seems to be the most viable way of improving the reliability of numerical modelling [8,30,33].
Full hydrodynamic models can provide detailed hydrodynamic information (e.g., depth and
velocity) for each cell and can accurately model the rainfall-runoff process. Therefore, it is the best
choice for calculating critical rainfall. Only a few studies have proposed critical rainfall based on full
hydrodynamic models [8]. In this previous work, the critical rainfall was related only to depth, which
neglects the fact that the combination of low depth and high velocity can also put people in danger in
mountainous areas. Therefore, it is necessary to include velocity in the definition of rainfall thresholds.
In the present paper, we present a new warning scheme based on hydrodynamic modelling results
and a new method for calculating the critical rainfall related to the critical hazard index from flood flow
depth and velocity. A case study of the Lengkou catchment is provided to demonstrate the operational
flowchart of the new warning scheme.

2. Hydrodynamic Model
The full 2D hydrodynamic model proposed in Huang et al. (2015) [33] was employed in the
present work. This model was built upon the 2D shallow water hydrodynamic model and incorporated
rainfall and infiltration. Manning’s roughness coefficient n is used to calculate the bed stresses. The
original Green–Ampt infiltration equation [34] is used to calculate the infiltration rate. In this model, the
saturated hydraulic conductivity ks and Green–Ampt capillary head Hs , which was mainly determined
by the soil type, are assumed to be uniform and constant when field data are not available. The
saturated volumetric water content θs is usually equal to the soil porosity. The initial volumetric
water content θi may vary spatially. However, it is difficult to obtain information about the spatial
distribution of the initial water content for real flash floods. Following Martina et al. (2006) [12], the
three values of the initial volumetric water content (θs ) that were adopted were 1/3, 2/3 and 1.0, which
corresponded to dry, moderate wet, and wet soil conditions, respectively.
The governing equations were solved using the Godunov-type finite volume method in conjunction
with the Harten-Lax-van Leer-contact (HLLC) approximate Riemann solver [35]. Details of the
numerical scheme can be referenced in [33]. The hydrodynamic model has a 2nd order accuracy in space
and a 1st order accuracy in time. The model was validated by several laboratory experiments [36,37]
and realistic flash flood events in small catchments (i.e., two flash flood events in the Lengkou
Water 2019, 11, 1221 3 of 15

catchment) [33]. It was concluded that the present model had the capacity to reproduce flash floods,
which meets the objective of calculating the thresholds to be used in flash flood warning systems.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Hazard Index

The critical rainfall was adopted as the warning index. The critical rainfall was calculated from
the hazard index based on the hydrodynamic modelling results. The hazard index is the basis of the
critical rainfall and the decision of whether to send a warning alarm. In previous research (Cao et al.
2010) [8], the critical depth was adopted as a hazard index, i.e., 0.3 m and 1.0 m, which corresponded
to “preparing evacuation” (PE) and “immediate evacuation” (IE), respectively. However, it should be
noted that the bed slope is relatively large in the mountain and hill areas, which means that even a
low flood depth can expose people to high flood risks. Methods for evaluating flood hazard risks to
people can be referenced in Xia et al. (2011) [38]. The widely used method proposed by the Defra and
Environment Agency [9] was modified in the current study to quantify the flood hazard rating. The
Defra and Environment Agency [9] used depth, velocity, and debris presence as indexes to quantify
the flood hazard rating, as shown in the following
√ equation: HI = h(U + 1.5) + DF, where HI is the
hazard index, h is the water depth, m, U = u2 + v2 is the velocity, m/s, and DF is the debris factor
(=0, 1, 2, depending on the possibility that debris will lead to a significantly greater hazard). The value
for the parameter HI is divided into four ranges, i.e., HR < 0.75, 0.75 < HR < 1.25, 1.25 < HR < 2.0, and
HR > 2.0, and the rating of the flood hazard is divided into four levels: very low hazard (caution),
danger for some groups (including children, elderly and sick), danger for most groups (including the
general public), and danger for all groups (including the emergency services). Considering that debris
is usually found in flash floods, the default value of the debris factor DF is 1.0. Thus, the resulting
empirical relationship HI = h(U + 1.5) is adopted in the present study for simplicity. For flash flood
warnings, only the last two levels of flood risk are considered. In the present work, two critical hazard
indexes are adopted, i.e., HIc equals 0.5 and 1.0 (which are 1.5 and 2.0, respectively, in the Defra and
Environment Agency [9]), which correspond to the “preparing evacuation” (PE) and “immediate
evacuation” (IE) warning levels, respectively.

3.2. Building Database of Critical Threshold Rainfalls

Rainfall intensity and duration have been extensively recognized as factors that play an important
role in flood-generation mechanisms [10,39,40]. Meanwhile, the initial soil moisture conditions
represent critical inputs for the infiltration process; thus, these conditions impact rainfall runoff
modelling [41]. Therefore, these conditions should be considered in the scenarios. A uniform rainfall
intensity was used during the rainfall processes and spatially for the catchment.

3.2.1. Modelling Scenarios

The National Weather Service (NWS) has defined a flash flood as a flood that occurs within
6 h [42] or within minutes to multiple hours of the causative event [43]. In the present work, three
rainfall durations were considered, i.e., 1 h, 3 h, and 6 h. According to Department of Water Resources
of Shanxi Province(DWRSP) (2010) [44], the peak rainfalls for 1 h and 6 h were 38 mm and 75 mm,
respectively. To ensure that all the rainfall conditions were included in the database, the maximum
rainfalls were chosen to be 80 mm, 100 mm and 170 mm for 1 h, 3 h, and 6 h, respectively. To build the
database of critical rainfall, the number of scenarios that consider rainfall intensity should be as high
as possible. Because uniform rainfall intensity in time and space is assumed, the rainfall intensity is
determined by the total rainfall. Therefore, the minimum total rainfall for all rainfall durations was
set to 10 mm, and the maximum total rainfall was different under scenarios with different rainfall
durations. Considering that overland flows require a certain amount of time to converge into lower
lands and rivers and to reach their maximum hazard index values, the simulation time should be
Water 2019, 11, 1221 4 of 15

extended. Specifically, the rainfall scenarios were designed as follows: the simulation time is 3 h, and
the total rainfall increment is 10 mm, which results in 8 scenarios for the 1-h rainfall duration condition
(Table 1). If the simulation time is 6 h and the rainfall increment is 15 mm, then there are 7 scenarios for
the 3-h rainfall duration condition. If the simulation time is 12 h and the rainfall increment is 20 mm,
then there are 9 scenarios for the 6-h rainfall duration condition. Meanwhile, three kinds of initial soil
saturation conditions should be considered for each rainfall condition. Overall, 72 scenarios were
modelled to build the critical rainfall database (Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of hydrodynamic modelling scenarios.

Rainfall Modelling Number of

Total Rainfall (mm) Notes
Duration (h) Duration (h) Scenarios
1 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 3 8 Initial soil moistures
3 10, 25, 40, 55, 70, 85, 100 6 7 are dry, medium, and
6 10, 30, 50, 70, 90, 110, 130, 150, 170 12 9 saturated.

3.2.2. Calculation of Critical Rainfall

First, we extracted the hydraulic data (i.e., depth and velocity) for every cell from the database to
calculate its hazard index, HI, for all scenarios.
Second, we compared the critical hazard index HIc (i.e., 0.5 and 1.0) and the maximum hazard
indexes in each rainfall duration scenario: (HI )k < (HI )c ≤ (HI )k+1 . The rainfalls are Rk and Rk+1 in
relation to (HI )k and (HI )k+1 , respectively.
Third, the critical rainfall Rc was obtained through linear interpolation from Rk and Rk+1 .
The critical rainfall database was built through the calculation of critical rainfalls for all
combinations of rainfall durations and initial soil saturation conditions. For each cell, there were up to
18 critical rainfalls considered for different rainfall durations, initial soil saturation levels, and warning
rating levels.

3.3. Flood Warning Operation Flow

The procedure for flood warning is listed as follows (see Figure 1):

(1) Determine the rainfall duration time according to the rainfall forecast.
(2) Determine the antecedent soil moisture type according to the 5-day accumulated rainfall (Table 2).
(3) Based on the rainfall duration and antecedent soil type determination, determine the
corresponding critical rainfall from the database.
t=
Ptd
(4) Calculate the accumulated rainfall at the decision moment, rd = ro . Calculate the accumulated
t=0
rainfall at the warning moment, rw = rp + rd . The calculation time steps for both rd and rw are
15 min for a 1-h rainfall duration, while they are 30 min for both 3-h and 6-h rainfall durations.
(5) Compare the rainfall at the warning time, rw , and the critical rainfall, rc ; if rw > rc , send the
warning information to the target community.

Table 2. Antecedent soil moisture classes according to the 5-day accumulated rainfall [45].

Antecedent Moisture Total 5-day Antecedent Accumulated Rainfall (mm)

θi /θs Ratio
Classes (AMC) Dormant Season Growing Season
Dry <12.7 <35.5 1.0/3.0
Medium 12.7~28.0 35.5~53.3 2.0/3.0
Saturated >28 >53.3 1.0
 Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 17

rd and rw are 15 min for a 1-hour rainfall duration, while they are 30 min for both 3-hour and
6-hour rainfall durations.

Water 2019,5)11, 1221

Compare the rainfall at the warning time, rw , and the critical rainfall, rc ; if rw > rc , send5 of
the15
warning information to the target community.

Antecedent Rainfall
rainfall forecast

Initial soil Rainfall

saturation duration

Critical
Accumulated
threshold
rainfall rainfall

Yes No
rw > rc

Warning Safe

Figure 1. Sketch of flood warning operation procedure.

Figure 1. Sketch of flood warning operation procedure.
3.4. Comparison with Existing Systems and Limitations
Table 2. Antecedent soil moisture classes according to the 5-day accumulated rainfall [45].
In the traditional flash flood warning system, the flash flood guidance method is widely used in
Total 5-day Antecedent Accumulated
Europe and the USA.Antecedent
The flash flood guidance is the rainfall of a given duration, assuming uniformity
Moisture Classes Rainfall (mm) θ / θ Ratio
in space and time in a specific catchment, that is necessary to cause floodingi at sthe outlet of the
(AMC) Dormant Season Growing Season
considered catchment at a certain frequency. The relationship between rainfall and discharge at the
Dry <12.7 <35.5 1.0/3.0
outlet is the key informationMedium
used in this type of method. If there35.5~53.3
12.7~28.0
is a long record of 2.0/3.0
rainfall, antecedent
soil moisture, and outlet discharge,
Saturated the flash flood
>28 guidance method is
>53.3sufficiently robust.
1.0 However, the
following limitations of flash flood guidance have been concluded by Hapuarachchi et al. (2011) [14]:
(a) by providing a lumped
3.4. Comparison value for
with Existing a given
Systems andcatchment,
Limitations the flash flood risks for critical areas inside a
catchment are missed; (b) the threshold of runoff varies at different river cross sections, which makes
In the traditional flash flood warning system, the flash flood guidance method is widely used
the determination
in Europe and of threshold
the USA. runoff
The flashusing
flood1–2 year flood
guidance is thefrequency
rainfall ofunrealistic; and (c)assuming
a given duration, the flash
flood method does not consider the impact of topographical characteristics on the
uniformity in space and time in a specific catchment, that is necessary to cause flooding at the outlet overland flow.
Compared to the
of the flash flood
considered guidance
catchment method,
at a certain the earlyThe
frequency. warning scheme
relationship presented
between rainfallinand
thisdischarge
research
has noneatof thethese
outletlimitations. First, the critical
is the key information used in rainfall
this typevaries in space,
of method. which
If there considers
is a long record the spatial
of rainfall,
antecedent soil
rainfall distribution moisture,
in the and outlet
operational discharge,
process. Second,thetheflash flood operation
warning guidance method
directly is sufficiently
compares the
robust. However, the following limitations of flash flood guidance have
accumulated rainfall and the critical rainfall, and there is no need to determine the threshold of runoff, been concluded by
Hapuarachchi et al. (2011) [14]: (a) by providing a lumped value for a given
avoiding the difficulties caused by the variations at different cross sections. Third, the overland flow catchment, the flash
and runoff are calculated using a full hydrodynamic model, which can consider the influence of rainfall
intensity, bed topography, soil moisture, and infiltration.
Although the present warning scheme is efficient and robust, there are still some limitations. First,
the resolution of the digital elevation model (DEM) is coarse due to the availability of the DEM, which
may decrease the accuracy of depth and velocity. However, it should be noted that the workflow of
the early warning system will not be changed. Second, uniform rainfall is assumed in time and space
following flash flood guidance in the modelling scenarios, and this assumption may differ from the
actual conditions of realistic rainfall events.
 moisture, and infiltration.
Although the present warning scheme is efficient and robust, there are still some limitations.
First, the resolution of the digital elevation model (DEM) is coarse due to the availability of the
DEM, which may decrease the accuracy of depth and velocity. However, it should be noted that the
workflow
Water 2019, 11, 1221 of the early warning system will not be changed. Second, uniform rainfall is assumed
6 ofin
15
time and space following flash flood guidance in the modelling scenarios, and this assumption may
differ from the actual conditions of realistic rainfall events.
4. Case Study
4. Case Study
4.1. Introduction of Lengkou Catchment
4.1. Introduction of Lengkou Catchment
The Lengkou catchment (35◦ 210 ~35◦ 260 N; 110◦ 310 ~110◦ 390 E) is in Yuncheng, Shanxi, China
The Lengkou catchment (35°21′~35°26′ N; 110°31′~110°39′ E) is in Yuncheng, Shanxi, China
(Figure 2). The catchment is in a semi-humid area, and most of its soil consists of loess (DWRSP 2010).
(Figure 2). The catchment is in a semi-humid area, and most of its soil consists of loess (DWRSP
The area of the catchment is approximately 76 km2 , the main channel upstream of the outlet cross
2010). The area of the catchment is approximately 76 km2, the main channel upstream of the outlet
section (Lengkouxiang) is 17 km long, and the average longitudinal bed slope of the main channel is
cross section (Lengkouxiang) is 17 km long, and the average longitudinal bed slope of the main
2 ), forest
1/400. There
channel areis three
1/400.types
Thereofare land cover
three typesinofthe Lengkou
land cover incatchment:
the Lengkou bust wood (14.1
catchment: bustkm
wood (14.1
(61.4 km 2 2 and these values correspond to Manning roughness values of 0.075,
km),2),and loess
forest (0.5km
(61.4 km2), ),
and loess (0.5 km2), and these values correspond to Manning roughness
0.12, and 0.05 m 1/3 /s, respectively. The resolution of the DEM
values of 0.075, 0.12, and 0.05 m1/3/s, respectively. Theadopted for hydrodynamic
resolution modelling
of the DEM adopted for
was 30 m × 30 m.
hydrodynamic modelling was 30 m × 30 m.

Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure
Figure 2. Graph
2. Graph of Lengkou
of the the Lengkou catchment.
catchment. (a) Location
(a) Location in Shanxi
in Shanxi Province,
Province, (b) digital
(b) digital elevation
elevation model
model
(DEM), and(DEM), and (c) topography
(c) topography with villages.
with villages.

4.2. Results
In this section, the impacts of the critical hazard index, rainfall duration and antecedent rainfall
on critical rainfall are demonstrated in the Lengkou catchment.
Based on the hydrodynamic modelling results, the critical rainfall was obtained for each cell
with different combinations of rainfall duration and initial soil condition.
Water 2019, 11, 1221 7 of 15

4.2. Results
In this section, the impacts of the critical hazard index, rainfall duration and antecedent rainfall
on critical rainfall are demonstrated in the Lengkou catchment.
Based on the hydrodynamic modelling results, the critical rainfall was obtained for each cell with
different combinations of rainfall duration and initial soil condition.

4.2.1. Impact of Critical Hazard Index

Using 1-h rainfall duration as an example, the distributions of critical rainfall for both PE and IE
are shown for the initial dry soil conditions in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Figure 3 shows the critical
rainfall distribution for PE. The critical rainfall for PE was greater than 100 mm in most domains of
the catchment. The domain whose critical rainfall was less than 80 mm is mainly located along the
valley. In some communities, the critical rainfall was less than 40 mm, e.g., Xinnongcun, Taoshuling,
Cangcanggou, Daqianzhuang, Xigouyu, and Zuolin, which implies that these domains suffer high
risks of flash flooding. Figure 4 shows the critical rainfall distribution for IE. The critical rainfall was
also larger than 100 mm. The domains with low critical rainfall were similar to those for PE. However,
the critical
Water rainfall
2019, 11, wasREVIEW
x FOR PEER greater than that for PE, e.g., the critical rainfall along the valley upstream
8 of of
17
Xinnongcun was 60 mm for PE, while it was 80 mm for IE.

Figure 3. Distribution
Figure 3. Distribution of
of critical
critical rainfall
rainfall of
of “Preparing
“Preparing Evacuation”
Evacuation” (PE)
(PE) for
for the
the case
case of
of initial
initial dry
dry soil
soil
condition (for the 1-h rainfall duration).
condition (for the 1-hour rainfall duration).
Water 2019, 11, 1221 Figure 3. Distribution of critical rainfall of “Preparing Evacuation” (PE) for the case of initial dry soil 8 of 15
condition (for the 1-hour rainfall duration).

Figure 4. Distribution of critical

Figure 4. Distribution rainfall
of critical of of
rainfall “immediate evacuation”
“immediate evacuation” (IE)
(IE) for the for
case the casedry
of initial ofsoil
initial dry soil
condition (for the 1-h(forrainfall
condition duration).
the 1-hour rainfall duration).

4.2.2. Impact of Rainfall Duration

BecauseWater
the2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW
rainfall duration can affect the infiltration and runoff processes, the9 critical of 17
rainfalls
may be different for different rainfall
4.2.2. Impact of Rainfall Duration durations. We can use the critical rainfall for IE under initial
wet soil conditions as an
Because example
the rainfall to illustrate
duration can affect thethe impactand
infiltration of runoff
rainfall duration
processes, on the
the critical critical rainfall.
rainfalls
Figure 5 showsmaythe critical for
be different rainfall
differentdistribution for IE
rainfall durations. Wein canthe
use1-h
the rainfall duration.
critical rainfall The critical
for IE under initial rainfall of
most domains wet soil conditions
along the valley as anisexample
less thanto illustrate
80 mm.theThe impact of rainfall
runoff durationin
converges onthe
the critical
valleyrainfall.
and forms a flash
Figure 5 shows the critical rainfall distribution for IE in the 1-hour rainfall duration. The critical
flood that is limited
rainfall of to
most the area upstream
domains of Taoshulin.
along the valley TheThe
is less than 80 mm. scattered local low
runoff converges critical
in the rainfall values
valley and
in the valleyforms
downstream
a flash floodof Taoshulin
that is limited toare mainly
the area dueoftoTaoshulin.
upstream local rainfall. A comparison
The scattered of the critical
local low critical
rainfall the
rainfalls between values 3-h in the valley downstream
rainfall duration of Taoshulin
and are mainly
6-h rainfall due to local
duration rainfall.that
shows A comparison
the critical rainfall
of the critical rainfalls between the 3-hour rainfall duration and 6-hour rainfall duration shows that
along the valley is smaller
the critical rainfallthan
alongthat for a islonger
the valley smallerrainfall
than thatduration
for a longer because the contribution
rainfall duration because the of overland
flow converges when the
contribution criticalflow
of overland rainfall is larger
converges when the (Figures 6 andis larger
critical rainfall 7). (Figures 6 and 7).

Figure 5. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial wet soil conditions
Figure 5. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial wet soil
(for the 1-h rainfall duration).
conditions (for the 1-hour rainfall duration).
 Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17
Water 2019, 11, 1221 9 of 15
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

Figure 6. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial wet soil
Figure 6. Critical
Figure rainfall
6. Critical distribution
rainfall for “immediate
distribution evacuation”
for “immediate (IE) under
evacuation” initialinitial
(IE) under wet soil
wetconditions
soil
conditions (for the 3-hour rainfall duration).
(for the 3-h rainfall
conditions duration).
(for the 3-hour rainfall duration).

Figure 7. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial wet soil conditions
Figure 7. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial wet soil
(for the 6-h rainfall
Figure duration).
7. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial wet soil
conditions (for the 6-hour rainfall duration).
conditions (for the 6-hour rainfall duration).
4.2.3. Impact of Antecedent Rainfall
For example, for the 3-h rainfall duration, the critical rainfall distributions for PE are shown under
the initial dry, medium wet, and wet soil conditions in Figures 8–10, respectively. The figures show
that the critical rainfall is lower in relation to lower initial moisture, i.e., the critical rainfall for any cell
ranges as follows: initial dry > medium wet > wet. For example, the critical rainfalls of the domain
 Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

4.2.3. Impact of Antecedent Rainfall

For example, for the 3-hour rainfall duration, the critical rainfall distributions for PE are shown
Water 2019, 11, 1221 10 of 15
under the initial dry, medium wet, and wet soil conditions in Figures 8–10, respectively. The figures
show that the critical rainfall is lower in relation to lower initial moisture, i.e., the critical rainfall for
any cell ranges as follows: initial dry > medium wet > wet. For example, the critical rainfalls of the
near Xingnongcun are 40 mm, 20 mm, and less than 20 mm for the initial dry, medium wet, and wet
domain near Xingnongcun are 40 mm, 20 mm, and less than 20 mm for the initial dry, medium wet,
soil conditions, respectively.
and wet soil conditions, respectively.

Figure 8. Critical rainfall distribution for “preparing evacuation” (PE) under initial dry soil conditions
Figure
Water 2019, 8. Critical
11, x FOR rainfall distribution for “preparing evacuation” (PE) under initial dry soil 12 of 17
PEER REVIEW
(for the 3-h rainfall
conditions duration).
(for the 3-hour rainfall duration).

Figure Critical
9. 9.
Figure Criticalrainfall
rainfalldistribution
distribution for
for “preparing evacuation”(PE)
“preparing evacuation” (PE)under
underinitial
initial medium
medium wet
wet soilsoil
conditions
conditions (for the
(for the3-h rainfall
3-hour duration).
rainfall duration).
 Figure 9. Critical rainfall distribution for “preparing evacuation” (PE) under initial medium wet soil
Water 2019, 11, 1221 11 of 15
conditions (for the 3-hour rainfall duration).

Figure 10. Critical

Figure 10. rainfall
Critical distribution for “preparing
rainfall distribution evacuation”
for “preparing (PE) under
evacuation” initialinitial
(PE) under wet soil
wet conditions
soil
(for the 3-h rainfall(for
conditions duration).
the 3-hour rainfall duration).

4.3. Example of Flood Warning Operation

If a flash flood lasts for 3 h, its 5-day accumulated rainfall is 30 mm, and the forecasting rainfall
process is presented in Table 3:

(1) According to the rainfall forecast (Table 3), the rainfall duration can be determined to be 3 h.
(2) As the flood season of the Lengkou catchment occurs in the growing season and the antecedent
rainfall is 30 mm, the initial soil saturation is classified as dry (Table 2).
(3) Choose the critical rainfall for the catchment in relation to a 3-h rainfall duration and initial dry
soil conditions from the critical rainfall database.
(4) Compute the accumulative rainfall at the warning moment, such as the last row of Table 3.
(5) Taking location Pa as an example, the critical rainfalls are 35 mm and 40 mm for PE and IE,
respectively. At decision time td = t3 = 1.0 h, the cumulative rainfall is 25 mm, and the rainfall
forecasted for the next 30 min is 15 mm. Therefore, the cumulative rainfall at the warning time
is 40 mm. If the rainfall intensity is assumed to be uniform during the next 30 min (i.e., from
t = 1.0 to 1.5 h), the cumulative rainfall will reach 35 mm at t = 1.17 h (as shown in Figure 11).
Thus, a PE warning will be sent to the people at Pa . The cumulative rainfall will reach 40 mm
at tw = 1.5 h (as shown in Figure 12). Therefore, an IE warning should be sent to people at both
locations Pa and Pb .

Table 3. Information about the rainfall process.

Time t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7
Decision time td (h) 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Warning time tw (h) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Forecasted rainfall rp (mm) (tk ∼ tk+1 ) 10 10 15 10 15 5 0
Observed rainfall ro (mm) (tk−1 ∼ tk ) 0 15 10 10 15 8 2
Cumulative rainfall at decision time rw (mm) 0 15 25 35 50 58 60
Cumulative rainfall at warning time: rw = rp + rd 10 25 40 45 65 63 60
 respectively. At decision time t d = t3 = 1.0 h, the cumulative rainfall is 25 mm, and the rainfall
forecasted for the next 30 min is 15 mm. Therefore, the cumulative rainfall at the warning time
is 40 mm. If the rainfall intensity is assumed to be uniform during the next 30 min (i.e., from t =
1.0 to 1.5 h), the cumulative rainfall will reach 35 mm at t = 1.17 h (as shown in Figure 11). Thus,
a PE warning will be sent to the people at Pa. The cumulative rainfall will reach 40 mm at t w =
Water 2019, 11, 1221 12 of 15
1.5 h (as shown in Figure 12). Therefore, an IE warning should be sent to people at both
locations Pa and Pb.

Figure 11. Critical

Figure rainfallrainfall
11. Critical distribution for “preparing
distribution evacuation”
for “preparing (PE) (PE)
evacuation” under initial
under dry soil
initial dry conditions
soil
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 17
(zoomedconditions
in from Figure
(zoomed8).in from Figure 8).

Figure 12. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial dry soil conditions
Figure 12. Critical rainfall distribution for “immediate evacuation” (IE) under initial dry soil
(for the conditions
3-h rainfall
(forduration).
the 3-hour rainfall duration)

5. Conclusions Table 3. Information about the rainfall process.

A new flash flood warning

Time t2basedt3on thet4 critical
scheme was proposed
t1 t5 rainfall
t6 at tany
7
cell of a
catchment calculated from hydrodynamic modelling results and a hazard index. In contrast to existing
Decision time td (h) 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
warning systems, there is no need to monitor discharge/water level at certain cross sections in the
Warning time tw (h) 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Forecasted rainfall rp (mm) ( t k ~ t k +1 ) 10 10 15 10 15 5 0
Observed rainfall ro (mm) ( t k −1 ~ t k ) 0 15 10 10 15 8 2
Cumulative rainfall at decision time rw
0 15 25 35 50 58 60
(mm)
Water 2019, 11, 1221 13 of 15

catchment to judge whether and when to trigger an alarm. Moreover, the velocity was considered in
addition to the hazard index calculation, and this approach is more reasonable than using only the
water depth. The impacts of rainfall duration, initial water soil content, and hazard index on critical
rainfall were also demonstrated. The operational flowchart of the warning scheme was demonstrated
using a flash flood event case study of the Lengkou catchment. To make the present system more
predictable, the basic information (e.g., high resolution DEM) of a catchment should be collected to
build a more precise database on critical rainfall. Furthermore, real-time hydrodynamic modelling of
rainfall-runoff processes and the subsequent hazard calculations is possible as the development of
computer technology and resources progress, especially for small, ungauged catchments.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization & Methodology, W.H. and Z.C.; Software, W.H.; Validation, W.H.;
Writing-Original Draft Preparation, W.H. and Y.N.; Writing-Review & Editing, W.D. and W.Y.; Visualization, M.H.;
Supervision, Z.C. and W.D.; Funding Acquisition, Z.C., W.H. and W.D.
Funding: This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China
(Nos. 2018YFC1508002 and 2018YFC1508601) and the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants Nos. 11502032
and 11432015).
Acknowledgments: The authors are indebted to Shanxi Provincial Department of Water Resources and Shanxi
Hydrological Resources Survey Bureau for their support during the work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Kleinen, T.; Petschel-Held, G. Integrated assessment of changes in flooding probabilities due to climate
change. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81, 283–312. [CrossRef]
2. Beniston, M.; Stoffel, M.; Hill, M. Impacts of climatic change on water and natural hazards in the Alps: Can
current water governance cope with future challenges? Examples from the European “ACQWA” project.
Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 734–743. [CrossRef]
3. Liu, C.J.; Guo, L.; Ye, L.; Zhang, S.F.; Zhao, Y.Z.; Song, T.Y. A review of advances in China’s flash flood
early-warning system. Nat. Hazards 2018, 92, 619–634. [CrossRef]
4. Golian, S.; Saghafian, B.; Maknoon, R. Derivation of Probabilistic Thresholds of Spatially Distributed Rainfall
for Flood Forecasting. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 3547–3559. [CrossRef]
5. Martina, M.L.V.; Todini, E.; Libralon, A. Hydrological Modelling and the Water Cycle; Sorooshian, S., Hsu, K.-L.,
Coppola, E., Tomassetti, B., Verdecchia, M., Visconti, G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008;
pp. 203–227.
6. Montesarchio, V.; Lombardo, F.; Napolitano, F. Rainfall thresholds and flood warning: An operative case
study. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 9, 135–144. [CrossRef]
7. Ma, M.H.; Zhang, J.N.; Su, H.D.; Wang, D.C.; Wang, Z.L. Update of Early Warning Indicators of Flash Floods:
A Case Study of Hunjiang District, Northeastern China. Water 2019, 11, 314. [CrossRef]
8. Cao, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Pender, G. Hydrodynamic modelling in support of flash flood warning. Proc.
ICE Water Manag. 2010, 163, 327–340. [CrossRef]
9. Defra and Environment Agency (DEA). Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme, R&D Outputs: Flood Risks
to People. (Phase 2 Project Record, FD2321/PR); DEA: London, UK, 2006.
10. Bracken, L.J.; Cox, N.J.; Shannon, J. The relationship between rainfall inputs and flood generation in south-east
Spain. Hydrol. Process. 2008, 22, 683–696. [CrossRef]
11. Norbiato, D.; Borga, M.; Degli Esposti, S.; Gaume, E.; Anquetin, S. Flash flood warning based on rainfall
thresholds and soil moisture conditions: An assessment for gauged and ungauged basins. J. Hydrol. 2008,
362, 274–290. [CrossRef]
12. Martina, M.L.V.; Todini, E.; Libralon, A. A Bayesian decision approach to rainfall thresholds based flood
warning. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2006, 10, 413–426. [CrossRef]
13. Amadio, P.; Mancini, M.; Menduni, G.; Rabuffetti, D.; Ravazzani, G. A real time flood forecasting system based
on rainfall thresholds working on the Arno watershed: Definition and reliability analysis. In Proceedings of
the 5th EGS Plinius Conference, Corsica, France, 1–3 October 2003.
Water 2019, 11, 1221 14 of 15

14. Hapuarachchi, H.A.P.; Wang, Q.J.; Pagano, T.C. A review of advances in flash flood forecasting. Hydrol.
Process. 2011, 25, 2771–2784. [CrossRef]
15. Carpenter, T.; Sperfslage, J.; Georgakakos, K.; Sweeney, T.; Fread, D. National threshold runoff estimation
utilizing GIS in support of operational flash flood warning systems. J. Hydrol. 1999, 224, 21–44. [CrossRef]
16. Hunter, N.M.; Bates, P.D.; Horritt, M.S.; Wilson, M.D. Simple spatially-distributed models for predicting
flood inundation: A review. Geomorphology 2007, 90, 208–225. [CrossRef]
17. Reed, S.; Schaake, J.; Zhang, Z. A distributed hydrologic model and threshold frequency-based method for
flash flood forecasting at ungauged locations. J. Hydrol. 2007, 337, 402–420. [CrossRef]
18. Javelle, P.; Fouchier, C.; Arnaud, P.; Lavabre, J. Flash flood warning at ungauged locations using radar rainfall
and antecedent soil moisture estimations. J. Hydrol. 2010, 394, 267–274. [CrossRef]
19. Cools, J.; Vanderkimpen, P.; El Afandi, G.; Abdelkhalek, A.; Fockedey, S.; El Sammany, M.; Abdallah, G.; El
Bihery, M.; Bauwens, W.; Huygens, M. An early warning system for flash floods in hyper-arid Egypt. Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 12, 443–457. [CrossRef]
20. Biondi, D.; De Luca, D.L. Performance assessment of a Bayesian Forecasting System (BFS) for real-time flood
forecasting. J. Hydrol. 2013, 479, 51–63. [CrossRef]
21. Woolhiser, D.A.; Liggett, J.A. Unsteady, one-dimensional flow over a plane–the rising hydrograph. Water
Resour. Res. 1967, 3, 753–771. [CrossRef]
22. Liu, Q.Q.; Singh, V.P. Effect of microtopography, slope length and gradient, and vegetative cover on overland
flow through simulation. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2004, 9, 375–382. [CrossRef]
23. Ogden, F.L.; Julien, P.Y. Runoff sensitivity to temporal and spatial rainfall variability at runoff plane and
small basin scales. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 2589–2597. [CrossRef]
24. Philipp, A.; Grundmann, J. Integrated modeling system for flash flood routing in ephemeral rivers under the
influence of groundwater recharge dams. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2013, 139, 1234–1246. [CrossRef]
25. Warnock, A.; Kim, J.; Ivanov, V.; Katopodes, N.D. Self-Adaptive Kinematic-Dynamic Model for Overland
Flow. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2014, 140, 169–181. [CrossRef]
26. Cea, L.; Garrido, M.; Puertas, J.; Suarez, J. Overland flow computations in urban and industrial catchments
from direct precipitation data using a two-dimensional shallow water model. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62,
1998–2008. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Kim, J.; Warnock, A.; Ivanov, V.Y.; Katopodes, N.D. Coupled modeling of hydrologic and hydrodynamic
processes including overland and channel flow. Adv. Water Resour. 2012, 37, 104–126. [CrossRef]
28. Rousseau, M.; Cerdan, O.; Delestre, O.; Dupros, F.; James, F.; Cordier, S. Overland Flow Modelling with
the Shallow Water Equation using a Well Balanced Numerical Scheme: Adding Efficiency or just More
Complexity? 2012. Available online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00664535/ (accessed on 12 May
2019).
29. Berardi, L.; Laucelli, D.; Simeone, V.; Giustolisi, O. Simulating floods in ephemeral streams in Southern Italy
by full-2D hydraulic models. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 2013, 11, 1–17. [CrossRef]
30. Costabile, P.; Costanzo, C.; Macchione, F. A storm event watershed model for surface runoff based on 2D
fully dynamic wave equations. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 27, 554–569. [CrossRef]
31. Pan, J.J.; Cao, Z.X.; Wang, X.K.; Cao, S.Y. Comparative study of simplified and full hydrodynamic models for
flash floods. J. Sichuan Univ. (Eng. Sci. Ed.) 2012, 44, 1–6. (In Chinese)
32. Oreskes, N.; Shrader-Frechette, K.; Belitz, K. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models
in the earth sciences. Science 1994, 263, 641–646. [CrossRef]
33. Huang, W.; Cao, Z.X.; Qi, W.J.; Pender, G.; Zhao, K. Full 2D hydrodynamic modelling of rainfall-induced
flash floods. J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 1203–1218. [CrossRef]
34. Green, W.H.; Ampt, G. Studies on soil physics, part 1: The flow of air and water through soils. J. Agric. Sci.
1911, 4, 1–24.
35. Toro, E. Shock-Capturing Methods for Free-Surface Shallow Flows; John Wiley: London, UK, 2001.
36. Iwagaki, Y. Fundamental Studies on the Runoff by Characteristics; Bulletins—Disaster Prevention Research
Institute, Kyoto University: Kyoto, Japan, 1955; Volume 10, pp. 1–25.
37. De Lima, J.L.M.P. Model KININF for overland flow on pervious surfaces. In Overland Flow: Hydraulics and
Erosion Mechanics; Parson, T., Abrahams, A., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 1992; pp. 69–88.
38. Xia, J.; Falconer, R.A.; Lin, B.; Tan, G. Numerical assessment of flood hazard risk to people and vehicles in
flash floods. Environ. Model. Softw. 2011, 26, 987–998. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 1221 15 of 15

39. Fowler, A.M.; Hennessy, K.J. Potential impacts of global warming on the frequency and magnitude of heavy
precipitation. Nat. Hazards 1995, 11, 283–303. [CrossRef]
40. Cannon, S.H.; Gartner, J.E.; Wilson, R.C.; Bowers, J.C.; Laber, J.L. Storm rainfall conditions for floods and
debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern California. Geomorphology
2008, 96, 250–269. [CrossRef]
41. Zhai, X.; Guo, L.; Liu, R.; Zhang, Y. Rainfall threshold determination for flash flood warning in mountainous
catchments with consideration of antecedent soil moisture and rainfall pattern. Nat. Hazards 2018, 94,
605–625. [CrossRef]
42. NWS Manual 10-950. 2002. Available online: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/010/pd01009050a.pdf
(accessed on 12 May 2019).
43. NWS Manual 10-950. 2017. Available online: https://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/sym/pd01009050curr.pdf
(accessed on 12 May 2019).
44. DWRSP (Department of Water Resources of Shanxi Province). Handbook of Hydrological Calculation of Shanxi
Province; Yellow River Conservancy Press: Zhengzhou, China, 2010. (In Chinese)
45. SCS. National Engineering Handbook, Section 4: Hydrology; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC,
USA, 1972.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).