Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving Manning's n in Flood Models Using 3D Point Clouds, Flume Experiments, and Deep Learning

Haces‐Garcia, Francisco, Kotzamanis, Vasileios, Glennie, Craig L., Rifai, Hanadi S.·2025·Water Resources Research
DOI 10.1029/2024wr037665
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Friction is one of the cruxes of hydrodynamic modeling; flood conditions are highly sensitive to the Friction Factors (FFs) used to calculate momentum losses. However, empirical FFs are challenging to derive, causing flood models to rely on surrogate observations (such as land cover) and introducing uncertainty. This research presents a laboratory‐trained Deep Neural Network (DNN), developed using flume experiments, to estimate Manning's n based on Point Cloud (PC) data. The DNN was deployed on real‐world lidar PCs to directly estimate Manning's n under regulatory and extreme storm events, showing improved modeling capabilities in both 1D and 2D hydrodynamic models. For 1D models, the lidar estimates decreased differences with values assigned by experts through engineering judgment. For 1D/2D coupled models, the lidar values produced better agreement with flood extents obtained from airborne imagery, while better matching flood insurance claim data for Hurricane Harvey. In both 1D and 1D/2D coupled models, lidar resulted in better agreement with validation gauges. For these reasons, the lidar values of Manning's n were found to improve both regulatory models and forecasts for extreme storm events, while simultaneously providing a pathway to standardize the estimation of FFs. Changing from land cover to lidar estimates significantly affected fluvial and pluvial flood models, while surge flooding was generally unaffected. Downstream flow conditions were found to change the impacts of FFs to fluvial models. This manuscript introduces a reliable, repeatable, and readily accessible avenue for high‐resolution friction estimation based on 3D PCs, improving flood prediction, and removing uncertainty from hydrodynamic modeling.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2024wr037665

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Isometric and side view of weir system used for uniform flow distribution. A dual weir was implemented to ensure near-zero velocity at hydraulic jump, and to remove flow turbulence from the final weir.
Figure 1 Isometric and side view of weir system used for uniform flow distribution. A dual weir was implemented to ensure near-zero velocity at hydraulic jump, and to remove flow turbulence from the final weir.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 2 Experimental setup to measure Manning's n . As shown, the smooth surface had low water depths, resulting in difficulties measuring water velocity with the Channel Velocity meter. Therefore, PTV was used. Figure modified from [21]
Figure 2 Experimental setup to measure Manning's n . As shown, the smooth surface had low water depths, resulting in difficulties measuring water velocity with the Channel Velocity meter. Therefore, PTV was used. Figure modified from [21]CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 3 Implementation of PointNet architecture. Conv1D stands for a 1D convolution with a Batch Normalization layer, and linear for linear layers with rectified linear unit nonlinearities. Figure adapted from [21].
Figure 3 Implementation of PointNet architecture. Conv1D stands for a 1D convolution with a Batch Normalization layer, and linear for linear layers with rectified linear unit nonlinearities. Figure adapted from [21].CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 4 Relevant watersheds for hydrodynamic model setups in Harris County.
Figure 4 Relevant watersheds for hydrodynamic model setups in Harris County.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 5 1D Model Setup to study Riverine Flooding in Spring Creek.
Figure 5 1D Model Setup to study Riverine Flooding in Spring Creek.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 6 1D/2D Coupled Model Setup to study Riverine Flooding in Buffalo Bayou.
Figure 6 1D/2D Coupled Model Setup to study Riverine Flooding in Buffalo Bayou.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 7 2D Model Setup to study surge and pluvial flooding upstream of Barker Reservoir.
Figure 7 2D Model Setup to study surge and pluvial flooding upstream of Barker Reservoir.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 8 Manning's n measurements across different surfaces. The boxplots represent variation in instantaneous water elevation measurements across the measurement time.
Figure 8 Manning's n measurements across different surfaces. The boxplots represent variation in instantaneous water elevation measurements across the measurement time.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 9 DNN performance for the test dataset (n=804,000).
Figure 9 DNN performance for the test dataset (n=804,000).CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 10 Comparison of Manning's n values obtained from DNN, NLCD, and Engineering Judgement. Engineering judgement values are solely from overbanks regions.
Figure 10 Comparison of Manning's n values obtained from DNN, NLCD, and Engineering Judgement. Engineering judgement values are solely from overbanks regions.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 11 Difference in flow depth across various friction conditions for the 1D regulatory model. The reference flooding depth is that calculated using the original model Manning's n from HCFCD. [27]
Figure 11 Difference in flow depth across various friction conditions for the 1D regulatory model. The reference flooding depth is that calculated using the original model Manning's n from HCFCD. [27]CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 12 Comparison of 1D unsteady model timeseries for Spring Creek at validation gauges.
Figure 12 Comparison of 1D unsteady model timeseries for Spring Creek at validation gauges.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 13 Comparison of flood extents at time of imagery (08/30/17 10:00 AM) in 1D/2D coupled models of Buffalo Bayou during Hurricane Harvey. FEMA National Flood Insurance Program claims in 2D area are also shown.
Figure 13 Comparison of flood extents at time of imagery (08/30/17 10:00 AM) in 1D/2D coupled models of Buffalo Bayou during Hurricane Harvey. FEMA National Flood Insurance Program claims in 2D area are also shown.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 14 Flood elevation difference in 2D model of subdivisions upstream of Barker Reservoir using the HEC RAS Full Momentum Equations. While surge flooding shows no change in extents or depth, street networks further away from reservoir show clear differences in rainfall flooding depth.
Figure 14 Flood elevation difference in 2D model of subdivisions upstream of Barker Reservoir using the HEC RAS Full Momentum Equations. While surge flooding shows no change in extents or depth, street networks further away from reservoir show clear differences in rainfall flooding depth.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Figure 15 Flood elevation difference in 2D model of subdivisions upstream of Barker Reservoir using the HEC RAS Full Momentum Equations. While surge flooding shows no change in extents or depth, street networks further away from reservoir show clear differences in rainfall flooding depth.
Figure 15 Flood elevation difference in 2D model of subdivisions upstream of Barker Reservoir using the HEC RAS Full Momentum Equations. While surge flooding shows no change in extents or depth, street networks further away from reservoir show clear differences in rainfall flooding depth.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.10.017 · DOI
  2. AECOM, 2018, 2018 coastal Texas Lidar final qa/qc report (Tech. Rep.)
  3. 10.1029/2023ef004257 · DOI
  4. 10.1029/2009wr008318 · DOI
  5. 10.1029/2023gl105588 · DOI
  6. 10.15233/gfz.2020.37.9 · DOI
  7. 10.3390/rs6021739 · DOI
  8. Dulin M., 2022, From rainfall totals to oral histories, hurricane harvey data offers multiple portraits of a disaster, Rice Kinder Institute for Urban Research
  9. 10.1111/jfr3.12716 · DOI
  10. Einstein H., 1934, Der hydraulische oder profil‐radius, Schweizerische Bauzeitung, 103, 89
  11. 10.1029/2022wr032404 · DOI
  12. Fischenich C. (2000).Robert Manning (a historical perspective). Retrieved fromhttps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c57512d641968e4e21700f0018bbc95e2f3a4371 · DOI
  13. 10.3390/rs14030454 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s12040‐015‐0644‐z · DOI
  15. 10.3390/w12082259 · DOI
  16. 10.3390/app11199267 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/01431161.2010.531788 · DOI
  18. Haces‐Garcia F., 2023, American geophysical union
  19. HCFCD, 2009 hydrology and hydraulics guidance manual, (Section II.2.3)
  20. HCFCD, 2019 policy criteria and procedure manual, (Section 4.3)
  21. 10.1016/s0341‐8162(03)00058‐4 · DOI
  22. Horton R. E., 1933, Separate roughness coefficients for channel bottom and sides, Engineering News Record, 111, 652
  23. HR Wallingford, Twin wire wave probes
  24. 10.1002/esp.1208 · DOI
  25. Limerinos J. T., 1970, Determination of the Manning coefficient from measured bed roughness in natural channels
  26. 10.1109/tit.1982.1056489 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1016/j.geomorph.2022.108334 · DOI
  28. 10.3390/jmse11112053 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.043 · DOI
  30. 10.1109/JSTARS.2015.2419817 · DOI
  31. 10.1080/00221686.2008.9521855 · DOI
  32. Musleh F. A., 2004, Geo Jordan 2004: Advances in geotechnical engineering with emphasis on dams, highway materials, and soil improvement, 145, 10.1061/40735(143)12 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s11269‐018‐2141‐z · DOI
  34. 10.5194/hess‐17‐4015‐2013 · DOI
  35. 10.1109/cvpr.2017.16 · DOI
  36. Schmidt O. J., 1959, Measurement of Manning’s roughness coefficient, Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 31, 995
  37. 10.1007/s11069‐021‐04922‐3 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.catena.2023.107093 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/0309133307081289 · DOI
  40. 10.1016/j.rse.2007.07.012 · DOI
  41. Te Chow V., 1959, Open‐channel hydraulics
  42. Whatmore S. &Landstrom C.(2011).Manning’s n – Putting roughness to work.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511762154 · DOI
  43. 10.1002/hyp.1049 · DOI
  44. 10.1016/j.hydroa.2019.100039 · DOI
  45. 10.1007/s11269‐023‐03514‐z · DOI
  46. Zhang M., 2021, Adaptive risk minimization: Learning to adapt to domain shift, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 23664
  47. 10.1038/s41586‐018‐0676‐z · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Haces‐Garcia, F., Kotzamanis, V., Glennie, C. L., & Rifai, H. S.
Affiliations
  • National Center for Airborne Laser Mapping Houston TX USA
  • Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Houston Houston TX USA
ORCID
Venue
Water Resources Research
Publisher
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Published
2025-03
Volume
61
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0043-1397
  • 1944-7973
DOI
10.1029/2024wr037665
Cited by
6
References
1
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (vor, 24 d)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1830734)
  • University of Houston

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.