EGU24-6064, updated on 08 Mar 2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6064
EGU General Assembly 2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

How appropriate is the alternating block method to represent flooding from extreme precipitation events?

Sonja Jankowfsky1, Mohammad Sharifian2, Edom Moges3, Ludovico Nicotina2, Shuangcai Li3, and Arno Hilberts2
Sonja Jankowfsky et al.
  • 1Moody's Analytics RMS, Model Development, Lyon, France (sonja.jankowfsky@rms.com)
  • 2Moody's Analytics RMS, Model Development, London, UK
  • 3Moody's Analytics RMS, Model Development, Newark, CA, USA

Running inundation on a stochastic event set with thousands of events can be quite time consuming, especially if physically based methods such as the shallow water equations are used. In order to optimize runtime and to keep a high spatial resolution, event footprints are often reconstructed using return period maps. However, this means that design storm events need to be constructed for each return period which should ideally be representative for different event durations.

Here, we compare the alternating block method, a popular design storm model, to actual event hyetographs from a selection of storm events in Florida. The hyetographs are input to a 10m grid-based Green-and-Ampt infiltration model which is coupled to a two-dimensional shallow-water inundation model. The difference between the alternating block method and the actual event hyetograph is measured based on the flood extent and depth.

How to cite: Jankowfsky, S., Sharifian, M., Moges, E., Nicotina, L., Li, S., and Hilberts, A.: How appropriate is the alternating block method to represent flooding from extreme precipitation events?, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-6064, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-6064, 2024.