Scholarlink

<p>The accuracy of flood hazard mapping in dam-break modeling depends strongly on the quality of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM). This study evaluates six open-access global DEMs (SRTM, ALOS PALSAR, AW3D30, COPERNICUS, FABDEM, and ANADEM) in dam-break simulations for two Brazilian dams (Negreiros and Copiti), using HEC-RAS 2D and high-resolution LiDAR as reference. Four aspects were analyzed: (1) elevation accuracy; (2) flood wave propagation, including peak discharge and time-to-peak; (3) inundation extent, with over- and underestimation indices; and (4) hydrodynamic risk. Results show that AW3D30 consistently produced flood propagation, extent, and risk estimates that are closest to those from LiDAR. In contrast, SRTM and PALSAR systematically underestimated inundation areas, whereas FABDEM and ANADEM tended to overestimate, resulting in conservative risk scenarios. COPERNICUS and FABDEM achieved the highest altimetric accuracy but only moderate hydraulic performance. Across case studies, dam size, geomorphology, and distance downstream significantly affected DEM reliability, with mismatches becoming more pronounced the further downstream. The findings highlight the influence of DEM choice on flood modeling and guide dam-break risk assessment in semi-arid and data-scarce regions, where high-resolution DEMs are often unavailable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Analysis of Global DEMs for Dam-Break Flood Modeling and Inundation Mapping

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月4日

查看全文
  • Sérgio Ricardo Toledo Salgado,
  • Elsa Maria da Silva Carvalho,
  • Maria Teresa Viseu,
  • Othon Fialho de Oliveira

摘要

The accuracy of flood hazard mapping in dam-break modeling depends strongly on the quality of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM). This study evaluates six open-access global DEMs (SRTM, ALOS PALSAR, AW3D30, COPERNICUS, FABDEM, and ANADEM) in dam-break simulations for two Brazilian dams (Negreiros and Copiti), using HEC-RAS 2D and high-resolution LiDAR as reference. Four aspects were analyzed: (1) elevation accuracy; (2) flood wave propagation, including peak discharge and time-to-peak; (3) inundation extent, with over- and underestimation indices; and (4) hydrodynamic risk. Results show that AW3D30 consistently produced flood propagation, extent, and risk estimates that are closest to those from LiDAR. In contrast, SRTM and PALSAR systematically underestimated inundation areas, whereas FABDEM and ANADEM tended to overestimate, resulting in conservative risk scenarios. COPERNICUS and FABDEM achieved the highest altimetric accuracy but only moderate hydraulic performance. Across case studies, dam size, geomorphology, and distance downstream significantly affected DEM reliability, with mismatches becoming more pronounced the further downstream. The findings highlight the influence of DEM choice on flood modeling and guide dam-break risk assessment in semi-arid and data-scarce regions, where high-resolution DEMs are often unavailable.