ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering

ISSN: 0971-5010 (Print) 2164-3040 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tish20

Effects of climate change in winter ice cover and

ice thickness in flooding: a case study of Grand
River, Ohio, USA

Niraj Lamichhane, Suresh Sharma & Abhijit Sharma Subedi

To cite this article: Niraj Lamichhane, Suresh Sharma & Abhijit Sharma Subedi (2020): Effects of
climate change in winter ice cover and ice thickness in flooding: a case study of Grand River, Ohio,
USA, ISH Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/09715010.2020.1721339

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2020.1721339

View supplementary material

Published online: 04 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tish20
ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09715010.2020.1721339

CASE REPORT

Effects of climate change in winter ice cover and ice thickness in flooding: a case
study of Grand River, Ohio, USA
Niraj Lamichhanea, Suresh Sharmaa and Abhijit Sharma Subedia
a
Civil and Environmental Engineering Program, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The major objective of this research is to assess the effects of winter ice cover and simulate the Received 17 June 2019
flooding within bridge vicinity of the Grand River, Ohio, the USA for both in the historical period Accepted 22 January 2020
(1959–2014) and future period (2015–2098). The LiDAR data along with field-verified survey data were KEYWORDS
utilized for the calibration and validation of HEC-RAS. The stage increments up to 6.75 ft were AFDD; ice jam; flooding;
detected at the upstream section of the Bridge due to historical ice jams. Moreover, the increment inundation mapping
in the inundation area varied from 24% to 52% for various percentile winter flows. The percentage
increase in the inundation area was highest for the 25-percentile flow than the higher percentile flow
when the same thickness of ice cover was used in the simulation. The estimated ice thickness using
Stefan’s equation for various emission scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) for three climate
models were found to be decreasing in the future period.
As per the standard practice in the United States, authors have used U.S. Customary Unit System (fps
unit system) in this paper.

1. Introduction Ice jam breakup, transport and jamming is the complex

process; hence, the development of a generalized and ana-
The ice jam is destructive, and it has a devastating effect
lytical method, which can be transferred across the globe,
on river flooding, including ecological and economic
is fairly difficult. Ice jam development depends upon the
impact (Carlson et al. 1989; Gerard and Davar 1995;
various factors including the location, width and slope of
Brown et al. 2001; Morse and Hicks 2005). The annual
the river (Eliasson and Gröndal 2008). The models devel-
losses due to ice jams have been estimated to be 100 to
oped so far are primarily location specific and vary from
135 million USD (Mahabir et al. 2006; White et al. 2007a)
one location to the other. Therefore, the robust scientific
in the United States alone, which includes potential losses
tool that could be used to forecast the possible future
of human lives, property, structural and environment
flooding due to ice jams in advance is still not available
damages.
at present (Mahabir et al. 2002). More importantly, it is
Winter flooding in the northern part of the USA is often challenging to predict the location and time of ice jam
frequently associated with ice jam. Ice jam can lead to a events as ice jam events are spatially variable, dependent
sudden increase in the river stage, which can be much higher on river discharge, hydraulics and river geomorphology
compared to open-water events (Ashton 1986; White 2003). (Wuebben and Gagnon 1995).
While discharge during the ice jam events is lower than that While advanced modeling tools are available for flood
of the open water flow, the stage might become higher than forecasting, limited information is available for the forecast
the stage in open water flow (Lindenschmidt et al. 2015). in ice-prone rivers. On top of this, it is not that much
Dynamic ice breakup events may lead to the greatest varia- convenient to predict whether or not an ice jam will occur
tion in river discharge and stage with time (Ferrick et al. at a specific location in the future. In such conditions, mod-
1992). Also, there are several effects especially on bridge eling tools such as HEC-RAS have been most suitable to
structures due to ice jam breakup event associated with predict the water levels caused due to ice jam as long as the
higher river flow, velocities and hydrodynamic forces during location and extent of ice jam along with river section and
breakup time (Beltaos et al. 2007) leading to the situation of flow discharge can be approximated (Beltaos et al. 2012).
potential disaster with socio-economic and environmental HEC-RAS is one of the most appropriate models for ice
effects (Beltaos 2011; Carlson et al. 1989; Brown et al. 2001). jam simulation even though there are several ice jam simula-
Since ice jam conditions in winter have a significant impact tion models such as rivjam and ice jam (Tang and Beltaos
on flooding, several attempts have been made for ice jam 2008, Beltaos and Tang 2013; Sui et al. 2005).
prediction using a simple one-variable threshold model Moreover, river-ice progressions are sensitive to climatic
(Shuli︠ak︡ ovskiĭ 1966) to relatively complex ice jam prediction conditions. Since ice jam flooding is dependent upon several
models (Shen 2010). White (2004) reviewed some of the ice factors such as river flow, thickness, and strength of the
jam breakup methods and reported various methods from a winter ice cover and atmospheric temperature, climate
single variable threshold or simple empirical model to artificial change has a potential to change the frequency and severity
intelligence (Massie and Kreider 2001; Massie et al. 2002) and of ice jams because of projected impacts of climate change on
Fuzzy logic approach (Mahabir et al. 2006). river flow, ice thickness and atmospheric temperature as

CONTACT Niraj Lamichhane [email protected]

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2020 Indian Society for Hydraulics
2 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

suggested in various studies. However, there have been very sheet-ice cover and ice jam condition. The jam water level
few studies that were performed to understand the climate can be reproduced (modeled) in HEC-RAS using the wide-
change impacts on ice jam flooding. Rivers in this region are jam option of HEC-RAS. The model input to simulate ice
expected to experience increasing temperatures and midwin- jam in HEC-RAS would be ice jam location, jam length,
ter breakup due to precipitation events, which are more angle of internal friction, max velocity, and Manning’s coef-
unpredictable compared to a single spring breakup. ficient to represent the characteristics of river ice in Grand
Midwinter events are more severe as they occur during River. The model was run for a number of days based on
cold times of the year and difficult in terms of mitigation historical data.
(Beltaos 2002). In addition, it has been found that the rates of Even though it is difficult to predict the exact location and
change in river-ice characteristics, such as breakup timing, timing of river-ice jam, HEC-RAS still can be utilized with
look to be increasing in later years which may be due to the some realistic jam in order to simulate the potential flooding
increased levels of atmospheric temperature in cold regions) by linking GIS and high-resolution LiDAR data.
and are likely to change even more dramatically in the future HEC-RAS simulates ice jams by modifying the jam thick-
(Prowse et al. 2007). ness until the ice jam force balances the equation and the
Our analysis shows that the potential duration of ice in standard step backwater equations are satisfied. This method
the river is shrinking indicating no formation of ice by the of calculating ice jam in the river is called global convergence
late March, which is consistent with the earlier findings on (Brunner 2010). The equations involved in the ice jam simu-
the mid-west region of USA which suggests that ice jam lation process are given below (Equations (1–4)), which have
events are changing from spring breakup regime to midwin- been obtained from Brunner (2010).
ter breakups followed by freeze-ups at high flows (White et
dt 1 h 0 τ i i k0 k1 t
al. 2007b). Based on the recent changes in the existence and ¼ ρ gSw þ  ¼F (1)
intenseness of ice jams, scientists are expecting the future dx 2kx Υ e t B
trends of ice jams as earlier breakup and later freeze up  
because of the shorter ice cover seasons (White et al. 2007). Φ
kx ¼ tan 2
45 þ (2)
Our study not only indicates the shorter ice cover seasons but 2
also predicts very nominal ice thickness in the future with a
possible ending of an ice jam in future. There are some Υ e ¼ 0:5ρ0 g ð1  sÞð1  eÞ (3)
documented studies (Spyros Beltaos 2002) of climate change
impact on ice jam flooding. Recently, there are some studies k0 ¼ tan Φ (4)
performed to understand the impacts of climate change on
river-ice breakup and ice jam (Janowicz 2017; Das et al. 2017; where t is accumulated thickness, x is longitudinal distance,
Turcotte et al. 2019). As climate change may have potential Φ is an angle of internal friction, e is the jam porosity, s is
for advance breakup (Zachrisson 1989) including its domi- specific gravity of ice, ρ0 is ice density, g is acceleration due to
nant influence on breakup and jamming processes (Goulding gravity, Sw is water surface slope, τ i is shear stress applied to
et al. 2009; Das et al. 2017; Turcotte et al. 2019), scientists the underside of the ice by the flowing water, k1 is a coeffi-
have some concerns over the potential impact of climate cient of lateral thrust, B is accumulation width, and F is a
change on future ice jam and associated flooding. A small shorthand description of the force balance equation.
change in winter temperature can have significant changes in The phenomenon of ice growth is a complex process,
the ice jam breakup (Beltaos 2002). As discussed earlier, which depends on several physical and environmental fac-
while ice jam flooding is a function of precipitation pattern, tors; however, all these factors are not identified yet (White
streamflow, snowfall, ice strength, geomorphological charac- 2004). Some of these factors include physical parameters like
teristics of the river and several other factors, it becomes climatic variations, evaporation and snow cover radiations.
complex but significantly important to predict the changing Nevertheless, ice growth and its thickness can be predicted
pattern of all these variables in future (Janowicz 2017; Das et based on the potential climatic conditions and heat transfer
al. 2017; Turcotte et al. 2019). However, our study will focus mechanisms (Ashton 1986). The heat transfer from the ice
on understanding the winter ice cover and thickness in the surface to the atmosphere assists to grow the ice cover,
historical period and future climatic conditions based on the whereas, the warming period in wintertime leads snow/ice
atmospheric temperature utilizing Stefan’s equation. to melt. Warming period in winter is defined as a period
Therefore, the major objective of this study is to analyze when the average daily temperature of the air is above the
the effects of ice thickness in the flood level of the Grand freezing temperature (32℉) for at least 3 consecutive days
River, Ohio, for historical and future climatic conditions. Ice (Carr and Vuyovich 2014). For most of the engineering
thickness estimated through modified Stefan’s equation for purposes, ice growth and ice thickness can be estimated
both historical and future climate will be applied in HEC- within a reasonable range by using simplified Stefan’s equa-
RAS for different winter flood discharges. Finally, the effects tion (Ashton 1986; Beltaos 1995). The modified Stefan’s
of ice thickness in the river and within the bridge vicinity will equation is represented by following equations as follows:
be reported for historical and future climate. p
ti ¼ α AFDD (5)
where AFDD ¼ ð32  Ta Þ, ti is the height of ice cover thick-
2. Theoretical description
ness in inches, α is a coefficient for wind exposure and snow
HEC-RAS, a software developed by the United States Army cover, AFDD is Accumulated Freezing Degree-Days and Ta
Corps of Engineers-Hydrologic Engineering Center is the daily average air temperature in ℉.
(USACE-HEC), has been selected due to its user-friendly The values of coefficient ‘α’ vary for different environ-
application and its applicability to either of the open water, mental conditions and its typical value is 0.3 for the small
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 3

sheltered river. Similarly, the AFDD is a term that provides stream gage station 04211820) to Fairport Harbor, which
an index of winter severity (Carr and Vuyovich 2014). It is includes the City of Painesville (near stream gage station
worthwhile to note that its application is limited to calculate 04212100), was specifically considered as a study site to per-
the ice thickness at the point of maximum annual AFDD form the hydraulic analysis in HEC-RAS.
(White 2004). Beyond the point of peak AFDD, when thaw- While most of the jams have occurred in February, some
ing days start and ice starts to melt, these values of coeffi- occurred in late January and the rest in early March leading
cients are not feasible to estimate the ice thickness (Bilello to the closure of many roads and flooding of many properties
1980). Thawing degree days (TDD) is fundamentally defined in the past along the river. There was an extension of ice jam
as negative freezing degree-days, which are taken as an about a mile between the Richmond and St. Clair St. Bridges
indicator of ice thickness and rate of snowmelt (White et in 1978. Consequently, 150 people from Fairport harbor
al. 2006). were evacuated and the estimated damage of 1.52 million
The ice thickness at the downstream end of the river is USD was reported. Also, from the historical analysis of
typically calculated based on the user given upstream ice average freezing degree-days (AFDD), the highest ice was
thickness (Brunner 2010). formed in the 1977/1978 period. Therefore, this study area
The estimation of Manning’s roughness values for the was selected particularly to see the probable effects of ice jam
Grand River covered with a single layer of sheet ice was flooding and generate flood inundation maps separately for
taken from the recommended values given by White (1999) the winter season to protect human lives and reduce property
and Brunner (2010). The channel roughness at a place where damages. An appropriate representation of such flood
ice jam occurs depends on the total depth of flowing water hazards in this region can be accomplished by preparing
(Brunner 2010). The roughness value is normally calculated flood maps for the winter season to represent the spatial
using the empirical relationship given by Nezhikovsky’s variability of hazard and provide a direct and robust under-
(1964) as follows: standing of flood extents (Merz et al. 2007; Leedal et al.
2010).
ni ¼ 0:0690H 0:23 ti 0:40 for ti 1:5 ft (7)

ni ¼ 0:0593H 0:23 ti 0:77 for ti < 1:5 ft (8) 3.2. Overall modeling approach

where ni is Manning’s roughness value during ice jam, H is The HEC-RAS was used to study the effect of an ice jam in
total water depth and ti is the accumulated ice thickness. the Grand River. Ice-covered channel can be modeled in
HEC-RAS by providing the ice thickness and ice jam infor-
mation. However, the locations of jams have to be provided
3. Material and methodology manually as HEC-RAS cannot identify the locations of an ice
jam in the river (Brunner 2010).
3.1. Study area
The estimation of Manning’s roughness values for the
Ice jam–related flooding during winter is one of the major Grand River covered with a single layer of sheet ice was
problems in the Northern region of the United States. considered from the recommended ranges provided by
Therefore, this study was conducted in the Grand River, White (1999) and Brunner (2010). Furthermore, the hydrau-
near the City of Painesville, where ice jams have frequently lic roughness was also calculated independently using
occurred in the past at various locations (USACE 2015) Nezhikovsky’s (1964) equation to provide the input. Since
leading to the winter flooding. the calculated Manning’s roughness value for various ice jam
The Grand River is located in the Northeastern region of locations varied from 0.022 to 0.025, we adopted 0.025 for
Ohio (Figure 1). The river consists of three major tributaries simplicity. This value was consistent with the adopted value
(Mill Creek, Paine Creek, and Big Creek) and has a length of by Wuebben and Gagnon (1995) to model ice jam flooding
102.7 miles with an average width of 275 ft and finally meets on the Missouri River, North Dakota. Since HEC-RAS simu-
Lake Erie. The Grand River watershed experiences a greater lation requires a separate set of Manning’s roughness for
variation of precipitation because of the combined effect of channel/flood plain and ice cover, the roughness value for
lake influence and topographical features. In addition, river topography was adopted as 0.035 for channel sections
because of the humid continental climate nature of the and 0.15 for floodplains after thorough model calibration
surroundings, the Grand River receives a large seasonal and validation for various flood events.
temperature fluctuation leading to warm summer and freez- Initially, the AFDD was calculated for the winter period of
ing winters that leads to ice jam during winter periods. each year starting from 1949 to 2013. In the next step, the
Therefore, the River has been frequently threatened by win- AFDD was used in modified Stefan’s equation to estimate ice
ter flooding due to ice jam in several locations along the river thickness for the historical period. Finally, the maximum
(USACE 2015). The highest winter discharge recorded possible thickness of ice cover in the Grand River based on
between the time periods of 1975 to 2015 was 15,200 cfs in the historical data was selected for the hydraulic analysis.
20 February 1981, with an estimated ice thickness of 9.62 The bias-corrected downscaled future climate data were
inches using Stefan’s equation. downloaded from the link, http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/down
The locations of ice jam, which occurred at various times scaled_cmip_projections, for three emission scenarios of
in the Grand River are presented in Figure 1 and the other Representation Concentration Pathways (RCP) 2.6, RCP
details of ice jam are presented in Table 1. The major interest 4.5 and RCP 8.5 for the future period from 2016 to 2098.
of this study was particularly focused near the City of We selected three climate models namely mpiesm-lr,
Painesville and its surrounding area, where ice jams have canesm2 and ccsm4 based on their performance with histor-
been frequently observed in the past. Therefore, a river sec- ical data. We tested the downscaled bias-corrected climate
tion of approximately 32.2 miles from Harpersfield (near data from 19 climate models for one station and compared it
4 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

Figure 1. Upper panel shows the ice jam locations in the Grand River as reported by CRREL Ice Jam Database (USACE 2015). The lower panel shows the location of
the bridges in the River. Note: The details of the ice jam locations are given in Table 1.

with the actual observed record of that station. The hindcast conventional purposes, the two historical periods were
from these three models for the historical period had the best named as 1970s (1959–1986) and 2000s (1987–2014).
R2 when compared with past observed records. We estimated Similarly, the early, mid and future time periods were
the ice thickness for the future using the predicted tempera- named as 2035s, 2055s and 2085s, respectively. Since we
ture from these climate models for three emission scenarios. wanted to compare the flooding both in the historical and
The estimated ice thickness was provided for the entire future, we divided the time periods into equal periods com-
reach of the Grand River in HEC-RAS in order to evaluate prising 28 years in order to ensure the realistic comparison.
the impact of ice cover. The steady-state HEC-RAS model In the next step, the flooding incorporating ice thickness was
was run for the mean ice thickness of historical (1959–2014) simulated in HEC-RAS for each time periods. For historical
and future time periods (2015–1998). The future time peri- time periods, three different scenarios were simulated: simu-
ods were divided into three equal time periods of early lation including both bridges and ice cover (scenario I);
(2015–2042), mid (2043–2070) and late (2071–2098) century simulation including bridges but excluding ice cover (sce-
and the two historical periods (1959–1986, 1987–2014). For nario II – for warm winter period when there is no freezing);
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 5

Table 1. Location, date and description of historical ice jam in the Grand River.
S.N. Locations Dates of occurrence Description
1. 0.1 mile upstream of Main street bridge, 02/22/2014 Breakup jam
Painesville
2. Upstream section of Grand River near East 1981, 1982, 1984, 1988, 2003, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, Most of them were breakup jams
Walnut Ave. 2011 and
some were releasing jams
3. Near Main street bridge, Painesville 1961, 1978
4. Just upstream of Vrooman bridge, Vrooman road 2014 Blockage of Vrooman road
5. Near Water street, Fairport Harbor 2014 -
6. Near High street bridge, Painesville - -
7. Near 4842 Bailey Rd, Madison, OH - -
The detail description of ice jam, location and damages due to ice jam related flooding can be found by using text query option in USACE CRREL online Ice Jam
Database.
Source: Map View and Query-Ice Jam Database, US Army Corps of Engineers.

simulation including ice cover but excluding bridges (sce- available bathymetry data from National Oceanic and
nario III). The need for the third scenario (Scenario III) is to Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and USACE were
determine if there is any localized effect of the presence of used (Lamichhane and Sharma 2017, 2018).
hydraulic structures in the river stage during winter period Temperature data required to calculate AFDD were
because majority of the ice jams have occurred at bridge pier downloaded from the National Oceanic Atmospheric
locations along the Grand River as per the historical ice jam Administration – National Climatic Data Center
data (refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for ice jam location which (NOAA-NCDC). Other data required for ice jam simula-
are downloaded from CRREL Ice Jam Database). These three tion like internal friction angle of jam, ice jam porosity,
analyses were conducted for historical periods to see the coefficient of lateral thrust (k1), maximum mean velocity
effect of hydraulic structures in increased flooding especially under ice cover,and ice cohesion were adopted from the
due to ice. However, for the future, we implemented only the default values provided in HEC-RAS. The ice thickness
first scenario (Scenario I), which simulates flooding includ- data needed for ice jam simulation in HEC-RAS were
ing both bridges and ice cover. The ice jam locations were calculated using modified Stefan’s equation. The steady
chosen based on the historical ice jam data along the Grand flow data for winter simulation were obtained from the
River. The water surface elevation at the bridge sections was historical records. The historical winter discharge
compared for three different simulation scenarios using five recorded in USGS was analyzed with various percentile
different discharge values. values, which are presented in Table 2.
Similarly, separate flood inundation maps were generated
for three different scenarios to observe the difference in
inundation areas due to ice jam, especially in bridge loca- 3.4. Model calibration and validation
tions. However, for future time periods, we did not compute
The HEC-RAS model calibration and validation was per-
the inundation area. We simply simulated with estimated ice
formed for both stage (at upstream gage station 04211820)
thickness in three time periods (early, mid and late century)
and discharge (at downstream gage station 04212100) for the
as there was not a significant difference in the inundation
period of 1996 to 1998 using various events. Since Manning’s
area for the future. This will be discussed later in Section 4.
roughness was the only calibrating parameter, the initial
selection of Manning’s roughness was based on the land
use/land cover and the literature value (Chow et al. 1988).
3.3. HEC-GeoRAS/HEC-RAS model input
Manning’s roughness was calibrated for channel and flood
LiDAR data were downloaded from the Ohio Geographically plain, separately.
Referenced Information Program (OGRIP) website to gener-
ate geospatial data and perform hydraulic analysis in HEC-
RAS. This LiDAR data, consisting of a million points within 3.5. Model evaluation criteria
the study area, was used to generate a Digital Elevation Model
The evaluation of the calibrated and validated hydraulic
(DEM) of 1 ft. resolution. Geometric input features including
model has been performed using several statistical indices
streamlines, cross-sections, bank stations, storage areas were
such as Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), R-squared (R2),
first created in HEC-GeoRAS and then exported to HEC-
percent bias (PBIAS) and root-mean-square error (RMSE).
RAS. Since LiDAR data cannot be expected to penetrate the
These statistical indicators were used to test how accurately
waterbodies, the topographical survey was performed at an
the model was predicting (ASCE 1993; Gupta et al. 1999;
interval of half a mile to a mile depending upon the site
Moriasi et al. 2007).
conditions in order to represent the accurate cross-section
of the river. Altogether, a detail survey in 77 different sections
was carried out using a highly accurate Global Positioning
System (GPS) instrument that uses Virtual Reference Station Table 2. Various winter discharge values obtained from historical data.
(VRS) System and allows Real-Time Kinetic (RTK) position- Percentile Value Approximate return periods Discharge (cfs)
ing using a single rover in the field with no need to set up a 25 1 7598
50 2 10600
base station. This bathymetric survey was conducted from 75 3 12175
Harpersfield to North St. Clair Bridge. For the remaining 90 4 13400
portion from North St. Clair Bridge to Fairport Harbor, the 100 8 15200
6 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

4. Results and discussions from 1949 to 2013. The value of the coefficient ‘α’ in modified
Stefan’s equation was adopted as 0.3 (Carr et al. 2014). Since
4.1. Simulation of hydraulic model
ice thickness is directly proportional to AFDD, the estimated
The performance of the model was found to be satisfactory in thickness (10.88 inches) was also the highest for the 1977/
calibration and validation for different time periods of 1996– 1978 period (Figure 2). The maximum value of ice thickness
1998, which was evaluated both using the graphical plot was used to simulate winter discharge in HEC-RAS to quan-
(visual inspection method) and statistical criteria like NSE, tify the effect of ice cover in the river stage and near bridge
R2, PBIAS, RSR, and RMSE. The calculated value of all structures. Additionally, flood inundation maps were gener-
statistical indicators using the calibrated/validated hydraulic ated considering ice jam conditions.
model was greater than the recommended values (NSE >
0.50, PBIAS ±25%, and RSR ≤ 0.70) by Moriasi et al.
(2007). The calibration and validation results for stage and 4.3. Ice thickness calculation for future climate
discharge are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The estimated ice thickness using modified Stefan’s equation
While the objective of the study was to make a relative
based on the future climate output from three climate models
comparison in water surface level with and without ice
(canesm2, ccsm4 and mpiesm-lr) has been plotted in the box
cover/ice jam especially for historical and future climate,
plot (Figure 3). Figure 3 shows that the estimated ice thickness
the comparative study of ice cove effect in river hydraulics
can be expected to decrease continuously in the future. While
was conducted for historical and future climate. For histor-
the decreasing trend of ice thickness was observed in both
ical climate, as mentioned earlier, possible affected regions
historical periods of 1959–1986 and 1987–2014, this trend
due to ice jam flooding were computed for three different
could be expected to decrease in the future from each emission
scenarios.
scenario especially up to mid-century. The decreasing trend of
ice thickness was not distinct for RCP 2.6 from mid-century
(2043–2070) to late century (2071–2098), whereas the decreas-
4.2. AFDD and ice thickness calculation for historical
ing trend was more distinct and significant for RCP 8.5. Figure
climate
4 shows the trend of estimated ice thickness for RCP 2.6 using
Since AFDD is the accumulation of freezing degree-days, it these three climate models. While some decreasing trend was
increases as the temperature decreases. AFDD was estimated experienced from early to mid-century, the trend is not dis-
when the temperature goes below 32°F. This approach is tinct from the mid to late century. Similarly, Figure 5 shows
discussed in Murfitt et al. (2018) and Jobe et al. (2017). The the estimated ice thickness for the future compared to histori-
maximum AFDD was encountered for 1977/1978 (Figure 2) cally estimated ice thickness for RCP 4.5, whereas Figure 6
based on the analysis of historical data for the period of 1949 shows the estimated ice thickness for the future while using
to 2013. The ice thickness was estimated using modified RCP 8.5. The decreasing trend was expected to be significant
Stefan’s equation for winter periods for the entire period in the future especially in the highest emission scenario (RCP

Table 3. Calibration/validation for stage at upstream gage station 04211820.

Date Statistical parameter
S.N From To NSE R2 PBIAS RSR RMSE (ft)
Calibration
1 3/1/1996 0:00 3/30/1996 0:00 0.74 1.00 0.05 0.51 0.53
2 4/15/1996 0:00 5/12/1996 23:00 0.84 1.00 0.00 0.39 0.60
3 10/20/1996 0:00 11/28/1996 23:00 0.84 1.00 0.03 0.40 0.58
4 2/4/1997 0:00 2/10/1997 23:30 0.83 1.00 0.02 0.41 0.53
Validation
5 2/26/1997 0:00 3/3/1997 23:30 0.81 1.00 −0.07 0.43 0.89
6 3/5/1997 0:00 3/19/1997 23:30 0.82 1.00 0.00 0.43 0.37
7 5/15/1997 0:00 6/6/1997 23:00 0.85 0.99 0.02 0.39 0.98
8 4/10/1998 0:00 4/30/1998 0:00 0.89 1.00 0.02 0.33 0.50
Source: Lamichhane and Sharma (2017). Lamichhane and Sharma (2018).

Table 4. Calibration/validation for discharge at downstream gage station 04212100.

Date Statistical parameter
S.N From To NSE R2 PBIAS RSR RMSE (cfs)
Calibration
1 3/1/1996 0:00 3/30/1996 0:00 0.74 0.88 11.04 0.51 589.73
2 4/15/1996 0:00 5/12/1996 23:00 0.72 0.86 9.18 0.53 1254.49
3 10/20/1996 0:00 11/28/1996 23:00 0.90 0.96 8.85 0.31 612.91
4 2/4/1997 0:00 2/10/1997 23:30 0.84 0.92 1.26 0.40 614.34
Validation
5 2/26/1997 0:00 3/3/1997 23:30 0.33 0.70 5.20 0.82 2683.32
6 3/5/1997 0:00 3/19/1997 23:30 0.69 0.85 7.37 0.56 723.70
7 5/15/1997 0:00 6/6/1997 23:00 0.80 0.92 −3.34 0.45 1722.91
8 4/10/1998 0:00 4/30/1998 0:00 0.83 0.92 3.24 0.41 784.87
Source: Lamichhane and Sharma (2017). Lamichhane and Sharma (2018).
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 7

1200 12
1100
1000 Accumulated freezing degree days (AFDD) 10

Ice Thickness (in)

900 Ice thickness (in)
800 8
AFDD (0F)
700
600 6
500
400 4
300
200 2
100
0 0

Date

Figure 2. Calculated AFDD and estimated ice thickness for various winter periods.

708 582
703 581
Elevation (ft)

698 580

Elevation (ft)
693 579
688 578
683 577
678 576

Station number Station number

(a) Bridge at South Madison road
(b) Bridge at St. Clair Street
670
643
665
Elevation (ft)

641
Elevation (ft)

660
639
655
637
650
635
645
633

Station number
(c) Bridge at Blair road (d) Bridge at Vrooman road
607
605
Elevation (ft)

603 Simulation with ice cover and ice jam with bridge
601
Simulation with ice covers and jams without bridges
599
Simulation with no ice covers and jams but with
597
bridge

Station number
(e) Bridge at Main street
Figure 3. Estimated ice thickness for various emission scenarios for two historical and three future time periods comprising 28 years in each period.

8.5) compared to the other emission scenarios such as RCP 2.6 4.4. Ice jam flooding in historical climate
and RCP 4.5 (Figure 7). Moreover, our analysis indicates the
The relationship between the historical discharge of Grand
decreasing winter period; that is, the starting period of AFDD
River, AFDD and precipitation was explored. Some events of
will shift to January from December over the twenty-first
flooding were noticed due to the melting of ice and the
century and the maximum date of AFDD will move from
release of breakup jams in the Grand River. This is consistent
March to February indicating the shorter duration of the
with the finding suggested by White et al. (2006) as the ice
winter period in future (not shown).
8 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

5.00 60%
Simulation without ice cover and ice jam but with bridges

Percentage increase in inundation area

Simulation with ice cover and ice jam with bridges
50%
4.00 Percentage increase

Inundation area (mi2)

40%
3.00
30%
2.00
20%

1.00
10%

0.00 0%
25 35 45 55 65 75 85 95
Percentile flow

Figure 4. Estimated ice thickness in historical period and ensemble estimated ice thickness for emission scenario RCP 2.6 for two historical and three future time
periods, comprising 28 years in each period, using three climate models (canesm2, ccsm4 and mpiesmlr).

12
10
8
Inch

6
4
2
0
Historical Historical RCP 2.6 RCP 2.6 RCP 2.6 RCP 4.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 8.5 RCP 8.5

1959 - 1987 - 2015 - 2043- 2071 - 2015 - 2043- 2071 - 2015 - 2043- 2071 -
1986 2014 2042 2070 2098 2042 2070 2098 2042 2070 2098

Minimum outlier Maximum outlier

Figure 5. Estimated ice thickness in historical period and ensemble estimated ice thickness for emission scenario RCP 4.5 for two historical and three future time
periods, comprising 28 years in each period, using three climate models (canesm2, ccsm4 and mpiesmlr).

12
Observed | Projected
10
|
8 |
|
Inch

6 |
|
4 |
|
2 |
|
0

canesm2 ccsm4 ensemble mpiesm-lr

Figure 6. Estimated ice thickness in historical period and ensemble estimated ice thickness for emission scenarios RCP 8.5 for two historical and three future time
periods, comprising 28 years in each period, using three climate models (canesm2, ccsm4 and mpiesmlr).

jam events can bring several types of impact in the river such figures which show the relationship between AFDD, dis-
as increased river stage resulting in flooding due to freeze-up charge and precipitation for the year of 1976/1977 and
jams and breakup jams. The increase in the discharge of the 1978/1979. It is clear from these figures that there is an
river in winter periods of 1976/1977, 1977/1978, 1978/1979, increase in river discharge in March 1977 and March 1979
1979/1980, 1984/1985, 2004/2005 and 2008/2009 was while the precipitation is minimum.
noticed. The increase in discharge during these periods did Lindenschmidt et al. (2015) stated that the river stage
not correspond to the precipitation events indicating the during ice jam events could be higher than the stage during
potential effect of ice jam breakup. Figures 8 and 9 are sample open water flow without ice although the discharge is less
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 9

12
|
Observed | Projected
10
|
|
8
|
|
Inch

6
|
|
4
|
|
2

canesm2 ccsm4 Model ensemble mpiesmlr

Figure 7. Estimated ice thickness in historical period and ensemble estimated ice jam thickness from emission scenarios for three future time periods, comprising
28 years in each period, from three climate models (canesm2, ccsm4 and mpiesmlr).

12 |
Observed Projected
10 |
|
8 |
|
Inch

6
|
4 |
|
2 |
|
0

Canesm2 CCSm4 Model ensemble mpiesm-lr

Figure 8. Relationship between AFDD, discharge and precipitation in 1976/1977.

12
Observed | Projected
10 |
|
8 |
|
6
Inch

|
|
4
|
|
2
|
0
|

rcp 2.6 rcp 4.5 rcp 8.5

Figure 9. Relationship between AFDD, discharge and precipitation in 1978/1979.

during ice jam events. The river stage considering ice cover Furthermore, this study found out the considerable effect
and ice jam in the river was compared with the stage during of an ice jam on the upstream section of the bridges. Based
open water flow for five different flow conditions (Table 5). on the historical information of ice jam location, the ice jam
The average increment in stage for all sections of the river scenario was provided in five different locations (Figure 1)
was 2.02 ft, with the maximum increment up to 6.75 ft, just at and run for three scenarios as discussed earlier. The river
the upstream of South Madison Bridge for the flow of 15,200 stage was found to be the highest for a scenario modeled with
cfs. The increment in the stage was higher mostly at the ice jam near bridges in the model (scenario I). The increase
upstream section of the bridges. in the stage due to ice jam was highest for the South Madison
10 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

Table 5. Increase in river stage due to the presence of ice cover and ice jam for The effect of an ice jam in Vrooman Bridge was found to
historical period with bridges.
be crucial as the simulated water level crossed the bridge
Increase in river stage (ft)
Discharge deck level for several different flow scenarios (see Figure 11).
Percentile flow (cfs) Average Maximum Therefore, the Vrooman Bridge is more susceptible to flood-
25 7598 1.81 5.89 ing if the ice jam occurs in this location. The water level in
50 10600 1.93 5.73
75 12175 1.96 5.80 Vrooman Bridge has increased to significant height due to
90 13400 1.99 6.08 ice jam flooding several times in the past such as in 2007,
100 15200 2.02 6.75 2010, 2011, and 2014 leading to the closure of the road. The
The increases in river stage were calculated by subtracting the stage of river flood inundation maps for various winter flows were also
analyzed excluding ice cover and jam from the stage of river analyzed
including ice cover and ice jam. produced to see the aerial extents of floods along the Grand
River. These flood inundation maps along the Grand River
considering ice cover and ice jam effects for various percen-
Bridge, Madison. When South Madison Bridge was consid- tile flows are shown in Figure 18 through Figure 22 and
ered in HEC-RAS, the river stage just at the upstream of the Figure 19 under the supplementary figures section. From
bridge was approximately 4.16 ft higher for the highest flow the inundation maps, it can be concluded that winter flood-
than that of the stage without the bridge. A similar trend of ing has a significant impact near the Grand River in
increase in the stage was consistently observed in all bridges Painesville. The graphical plot of the inundation area for
for all flow scenarios in other bridges as well even though the various winter flows including/excluding ice jam is shown
increase in the stage in other bridges was not significant in Figure 12 and Table 7. The increase in the inundation area
(Table 6). While a significant increase in water surface level after incorporating ice covers and ice jam was the highest
was detected near the bridge, it did not depict significant (52%) for the 25 percentile flow (Figure 12 and Table 7). The
effects in the overall inundation extents over the entire river percentage increase in the inundation area decreased when
reach. Therefore, it can be concluded that the presence of the higher values of winter discharges were considered.
hydraulic structures has the localized effect in the increase in The large volume of ice blocks was observed from the
water level and flood inundation area. This result agrees with simulation, where there were an ice cover and ice jam in
the conclusion drawn out by the study of Cook and Merwade some sections of the river. The result was based on the
(2009). The water surface levels for various other bridges estimated ice thickness and historical jam information,
using different flow scenarios are shown in Figure 10 and which can vary depending upon the variation in winter
its detail increment in river stage is presented in Table 6. temperature and climatic conditions. When the temperature

Table 6. Increase in river stage when bridge is considered in ice jam location for historical time period.
Increase in river stage due to the presence of bridge (ft)
Bridge location 25 percentile flow 50 percentile flow 75 percentile flow 90 percentile flow 100 percentile flow
South Madison Road 2.33 2.89 3.11 3.44 4.16
St. Clair Street 0.27 0.39 0.45 0.35 0.17
Blair Road 1.04 1.12 1.16 1.18 1.21
Vrooman Road 0.03 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.28
Main Street 0.06 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.15

(a) RCP 2.6 (b) RCP 4.5

18 18
17 17
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

16 16
15 15
14 14
13 13
12 12
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s
2085s
(c) RCP 8.5
18
17
Depth (ft)

16
15
14
13
12
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

Figure 10. Water surface elevation for various scenarios at South Madison road (a), St. Clair street (b), Blair road (c), Vrooman road (d), and Main street (e) along the
Grand River.
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 11

(a) RCP 2.6 (b) RCP 4.5

20 18

18 17

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
16
16
15
14
14
12 13
10 12
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s 1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

(c) RCP 8.5

18

16
Depth (ft)

14

12

10
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

Figure 11. Water Surface level in Vrooman Bridge for different flow conditions – cross-sectional view (a), longitudinal view (b).

(a) RCP 2.6 (b) RCP 4.5

16 16
15 15
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s 1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

(c) RCP 8.5

16

15
Depth (ft)

14

13

12

11
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

Figure 12. Inundation area and percentage increase in inundation area for various winter flows and simulation scenarios for historical period (see Table 7 for actual values).

Table 7. Inundation area and percentage increase in inundation area for thickness from modified Stefan’s equation. For this, once again
various winter flows and simulation scenarios for historical period.
calibrated and validated HEC-RAS was run using estimated
Inundation area (sq. mi.)
mean ice thickness. The mean ice thickness as reported in
Percentile Without ice cover and With ice cover and Percentage
flow jam jam increase boxplot (Figure 3) for various emission scenarios at different
25 1.85 2.82 52% time periods was considered as input in HEC-RAS and the
50 2.43 3.30 36% flooding depth at various periods with three different emission
75 2.69 3.50 30% scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5) was simulated using
90 2.86 3.65 28%
100 3.08 3.83 24% such mean ice thickness. The simulated flooding depth corre-
sponding with the mean ice thickness of the respective periods
are plotted in five bridge locations from Figures 13–17. These
starts increasing above the freezing point after the mid- results corroborate the hypothesis that the decrease in ice
winter season, ice starts melting, which might lead to ice thickness can be anticipated in future with potential decrease
breakup events. This might bring significant ice jam flooding in ice-related flowing even though the decrease in ice jam
and potentially disastrous condition. flooding cannot be declared because it depends upon several
variables including, precipitation intensity, flow, velocity and
other hydroclimatic variables, which are beyond the scope of
4.5. Ice jam flooding in future climate this research. The pattern of the result is almost similar in all
We analyzed the potential flooding depth along these bridges bridges except in Vrooman Road Bridge, where the decreasing
with ice jam conditions for future climate using estimated ice trend is more distinct especially in RCP 8.5. It is interesting to
12 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

(a) RCP 2.6 (b) RCP 4.5

15.9 16

15.4 15.5

Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
15
14.9
14.5
14.4
14
13.9 13.5
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s 1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

(c) RCP 8.5

15.5

15
Depth (ft)

14.5

14

13.5
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

Figure 13. Simulated water depth due to ice jam near the South Madison Road Bridge with historical and future climate for various emission scenarios: (a) RCP 2.6;
(b) RCP 4.5; and (c) RCP 8.5 from three climate models (ensembled).

(a) RCP 2.6 (b) RCP 4.5

18 18

16 16
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

14 14

12 12

10 10
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s 1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s 2085s

(c) RCP 8.5

18

16
Depth (ft)

14

12

10
1970s 2000s 2030s 2055s
2085s

Figure 14. Simulated water depth due to ice jam near the St. Clair Street Bridge with historical and future climate for various emission scenarios: (a) RCP 2.6; (b)
RCP 4.5; and (c) RCP 8.5 from three climate models (ensembled).

note that the flooding depth significantly increased during the due to ice jam flooding was not significant as it was more
historical period and overtopped this bridge several times. The localized near to the hydraulic structure.
bridge is located at the most downstream region of the Grand This analysis of ice jam flooding in the future was solely
River and seems to be sensitive to any change in the hydraulic based on the simulated ice thickness. There are reported studies
properties of the channel. The overall trend of flooding depth of increased precipitation/flooding in the future due to climate
tends to decrease from historical period to future period for change, which may have an additional effect on ice jam flood-
the various percentiles of flow (25, 50, 75, 90 and 100 percen- ing. Therefore, the combined effect of decreased ice thickness
tile). However, the decreasing trend of simulated depth is not and increased rate of precipitation pattern on ice jam flooding
so distinct in comparison to the decreasing trend of ice thick- for the future is essential.
ness. As expected, the flooding depth corresponding to the
higher percentile flow is higher than that of the lower percen-
5. Conclusion
tile flow. Since the flooding depth was simulated based on the
ice thickness, the decreasing trend of flooding depth was not The hydrological and hydraulic process of any river in cold
distinct in RCP 2.6, whereas it was more distinct for RCP 8.5. regions is greatly affected by river-ice processes, which might
Overall, the flooding depth due to ice jams can be expected to lead to the situation of potential ice jam flooding resulting in
decrease in the future. Since the flooding depth was not sig- property, structural and environmental damages. In this
nificantly reduced for ice thickness in the future, we did not paper, the effects of ice cover to the river stage and to the
reanalyze the inundation area. Moreover, the inundation area winter flooding pattern were discussed. Additionally, the
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 13

Figure 15. Simulated water depth due to ice jam near the Blair Road Bridge with historical and future climate for various emission scenarios: (a) RCP 2.6; (b) RCP
4.5; and (c) RCP 8.5 from three climate models (ensembled).

Figure 16. Simulated water depth due to ice jam near the Vrooman Road Bridge with historical and future climate for various emission scenarios: (a) RCP 2.6; (b)
RCP 4.5; and (c) RCP 8.5 from three climate models (ensembled).

Figure 17. Simulated water depth due to ice jam near the Main Street Bridge with historical and future climate for various emission scenarios: (a) RCP 2.6; (b) RCP
4.5; and (c) RCP 8.5 from three climate models (ensembled).

effects of ice jam to the river stage, especially at the bridge The significant effect of ice cover was detected in most of
locations for the historical and future climate, were discussed the river sections. The average increment in the river stage
using HEC-RAS. Various historical winter discharges with due to the presence of ice cover in the Grand River was
ice thickness were analyzed to see the probable winter dis- approximately 2 ft, with the maximum increment of 6.75 ft
aster and its effects. at the upstream section of South Madison Bridge.
14 N. LAMICHHANE ET AL.

Furthermore, the effect of ice jam was also noticed consider- Irrigation and Drainage Division. (1993). “Criteria for evaluation
ably in the upstream section of the bridge. The analysis was of watershed models.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 119(3), 429–442.
conducted with and without a bridge. The river stage at the doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1993)119:3(429)
upstream of the bridge was approximately 4.16 ft higher for Ashton, G.D. (1986). River and lake ice engineering, Water Resources
Publication, Littleton, Colo., U.S.A.
100 percentile flow than that of the river stage without con- Beltaos, S. (1995). River ice jams, Water Resources Publications,
sidering a bridge. While the discrepancies exist in the quan- Highlands Ranch, Co., États-Unis.
titative results of the modeling study due to uncertainties Beltaos, S. (2002). “Effects of climate on mid-winter ice jams.” Hydrol.
associated with the data and model, the river stage is Process., 16(4), 789–804. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
expected to increase due to ice cover and ice jam. Beltaos, S. (2011, September). “Alternative method for synthetic fre-
quency analysis of breakup-jam floods.” 16th Workshop on River Ice
The ice thickness was estimated for the future using organized by CRIPE-Committee on River Ice Processes and the
modified Stefan’s equation based on the bias-corrected Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 18–22.
downscaled temperature in the Grand River. The future ice Beltaos, S., Miller, L., Burrell, B.C., and Sullivan, D. (2007). “Hydraulic
jam flooding was simulated with HEC-RAS using estimated effects of ice breakup on bridges.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 34(4), 539–548.
ice thickness. The simulation result shows that the estimated doi:10.1139/l06-145
Beltaos, S., and Tang, P. (2013, July). “Applying HEC-RAS to simulate
ice thickness is expected to decrease in the future especially river ice jams: Snags and practical hints.” Proc. 17th Workshop on
with RCP 8.5. Since ice jam flooding is very complicated and River Ice, held at Edmonton, 21–24. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2013.10.014
depends on various factors including precipitation intensity, Beltaos, S., Tang, P., and Rowsell, R. (2012). “Ice jam modelling and
flow velocity, flow discharge, width, slope and location of the field data collection for flood forecasting in the Saint John River,
river, ice jam flooding may or may not decrease in the future. Canada.” Hydrol. Process., 26(17), 2535–2545. doi:10.1002/hyp.
This is because lower magnitude (say 5 inches) of ice thick- v26.17
Bilello, M.A. (1980). Maximum thickness and subsequent decay of lake,
ness might be crucial than the higher magnitude of (say 10 river, and fast sea ice in Canada and Alaska (Vols. 80, No. 6), US
inches) ice thickness depending upon the site characteristics. Army, Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering
Therefore, more researches are needed for ice jam flooding. Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
Based on our analysis using historical information, many Brown, R.S., Power, G., and Beltaoa, S. (2001). “Winter movements and
places along the River are vulnerable to winter floods. The careful habitat use of riverine brown trout, white sucker and common carp
in relation to flooding and ice break-up.” J. Fish Biol., 59(5), 1126–
analysis of ice jam conditions is needed for planning and prepar- 1141. doi:10.1111/jfb.2001.59.issue-5
ing for the emergency phase by predicting reliable flood risk. Brunner, G.W. (2010). “HEC-RAS river analysis system.” Hydraulic
While ice thickness is expected to decrease in the late century, as reference manual. Version 4.1 (Page 11-2 to 11-7), US Army Coprs
mentioned before, the ice jam flooding may still be vulnerable. of Engineers, Hydrologic engineering center, Davis CA.
Therefore, it is anticipated that this information will be useful to Carlson, R.F., Zarling, J.P., and Link, L.E. (1989). “Cold regions engi-
neering research—Strategic plan.” J. Cold Reg. Eng., 3(4), 172–190.
decision-makers and flood management agencies to plan, act and doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-381X(1989)3:4(172)
prepare for probable affected places during the winter flooding. Carr, M.L., and Vuyovich, C.M. (2014). “Investigating the effects of
While this study is exclusively based on HEC-RAS modeling long-term hydro-climatic trends on Midwest ice jam events.” Cold
using estimated ice thickness, more research is needed to see Reg. Sci. Technol., 106, 66–81. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2014.06.003
the combined effect of increased precipitation pattern/flooding Chow, V. T., Maidment, D. R., and Larry, W. (1988). Mays. Applied
Hydrology. International edition, MacGraw-Hill, Inc, 149
and decreased ice thickness on ice jam flooding. Cook, A., and Merwade, V. (2009). “Effect of topographic data, geo-
metric configuration and modeling approach on flood inundation
mapping.” J. Hydrol., 377(1–2), 131–142. doi:10.1016/j.
6. Limitation of the study jhydrol.2009.08.015
Das, A., Rokaya, P., and Lindenschmidt, K.E. (2017, July). “Assessing
The study was performed in the reach of Grand River in the impacts of climate change on ice jams along the Athabasca River
between Harpersfield and Fairport Harbor. There were no at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada.” 19th CRIPE workshop on the
proper official records of the historical ice thickness for the Hydraulics of Ice Covered Rivers, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada.
river that could be used for the validation of the calculated Eliasson, J., and Gröndal, G.O. (2008). “Development of a river ice jam
ice thickness using AFDD. Therefore, we could not calculate by a combined heat loss and hydraulic model.” Hydrol. Earth Syst.
Sci. Discuss., 5(2), 1021–1042. doi:10.5194/hessd-5-1021-2008
R-squared for the observed ice thickness. Therefore, this Ferrick, M.G., Weyrick, P.B., and Hunnewell, S.T. (1992). “Analysis of
study is completely based on the calculated AFDD using river ice motion near a breaking front.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 19(1), 105–
historical temperature as discussed in the earlier sections of 116. doi:10.1139/l92-011
the manuscript. Gerard, R., and Davar, K.S. (1995). “Chapter 1: Introduction.” River Ice
Jams. Spyros Beltaos (pp.1–26), Water Resource Engineering, LLC
Goulding, H.L., Prowse, T.D., and Beltaos, S. (2009). “Spatial and
Disclosure statement temporal patterns of break-up and ice-jam flooding in the
Mackenzie Delta, NWT.” Hydrol. Process., 23(18), 2654–2670.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. doi:10.1002/hyp.v23:18
Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P.O. (1999). “Status of auto-
matic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel
Funding expert calibration.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 4(2), 135–143. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135)
The authors would like to acknowledge the support from the Ohio Sea Janowicz, J.R. (2017, July). “Impacts of climate warming on river ice
Grant System through Ohio State University to conduct this research break-up and snowmelt freshet processes on the porcupine river in
(R/EM-032) [Grant No. 60055607]. Northern Yukon.” 19th CRIPE Workshop on the Hydraulics of Ice
Covered Rivers, Whitehorse, Yukon, 9–12.
Jobe, A., Bhandari, S., Kalra, A., and Ahmad, S. (2017). “Ice-cover and
References jamming effects on inline structures and upstream water levels.”
World Environ. Water Resour. Congr., 2017, 270–279.
ASCE Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Lamichhane, N., and Sharma, S. (2017). “Development of flood warning
Watershed Models of the Watershed Management Committee, system and flood inundation mapping using field survey and LiDAR
 ISH JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 15

data for the Grand River near the city of Painesville, Ohio.” trends and future predictions.” Ann. Glaciol., 46, 443–451.
Hydrology, 4(2), 24. doi:10.3390/hydrology4020024 doi:10.3189/172756407782871431
Lamichhane, N., and Sharma, S. (2018). Effect of input data in hydraulic Shen, H.T. (2010). “Mathematical modeling of river ice processes.” Cold
modeling for flood warning systems. Hydrological Sciences Journal, Reg. Sci. Technol., 62(1), 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2010.02.007
63(6),938–956. Shuli︠a︡kovskiĭ, L.G., ed. (1966). Manual of forecasting ice-formation for
Leedal, D., Neal, J., Beven, K., Young, P., and Bates, P. (2010). rivers and inland lakes (Vol. 4), Israel Program for Scientific
“Visualization approaches for communicating real-time flood fore- Translations, Jersualem, Israel.
casting level and inundation information.” J. Flood Risk Manag., 3 Sui, J. Y., Karney, B. W., and FANG, D. X. (2005). Ice jams in a small river and
(2), 140–150. doi:10.1111/jfrm.2010.3.issue-2 the hec-ras modeling [j]. journal of hydrodynamics, Ser. B, 17(2),127–133.
Lindenschmidt, K.E., Das, A., Rokaya, P., Chun, K.P., and Chu, T. Tang, P., and Beltaos, S.P.Y.R.O.S. (2008, May). “Modeling of river ice
(2015, August). “Ice jam flood hazard assessment and mapping of jams for flood forecasting in New Brunswick.” Proceedings, 65th
the Peace River at the Town of Peace River.” 18th Workshop on the Eastern Snow Conference, Bridgewater State College and ERDC-
Hydraulics of Ice Covered Rivers, Quebec City, QC, Canada, 18–21. CRREL, Fairlee (Lake Morey) Vermont, USA, 167–178.
doi:10.3389/fphar.2015.00018 Turcotte, B., Burrell, B.C., and Beltaos, S. (2019). “The impact of climate
Mahabir, C., Hicks, F., and Fayek, A.R. (2006). “Neuro-fuzzy river ice change on breakup ice jams in Canada: State of knowledge and
breakup forecasting system.” Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 46(2), 100–112. research approaches.” 20th CRIPE Workshop on the Hydraulics of
doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2006.08.009 Ice Covered Rivers, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Mahabir, C., Hicks, F.E., and Fayek, A.R. (2002, December). USACE. (2015). “CRREL ice jam database for gage station 04212100 in
“Forecasting ice jam risk at Fort McMurray, AB, using fuzzy logic.” Grand River, OH.” <http://rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/apex/f?p=
Proc.16th IAHR International Symposium on Ice, 6 (Vol. 2), 524:5:0::NO> (Mar. 2, 2015).
Dunedin, New Zealand. White, K.D. (1999). Hydraulic and physical properties affecting ice jams
Massie, D.D., and Kreider, J.F. (2001). “Comparison of and discrepan- (No. CRREL-99-11), COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND
cies between tmy and tmy2s predictions for simple photovoltaic and ENGINEERING LAB, Hanover, New Hamshire, U.S.A.
wind energy simulations.” J. Sol. Energy Eng., 123(1),6–9. doi: White, K.D. (2003). “Review of prediction methods for breakup ice
10.1115/1.1345843 jams.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 30(1), 89–100. doi:10.1139/l02-047
Massie, D.D., White, K.D., Daly, S.F., and McDonald, R. (2002, White, K.D. (2004). Method to estimate river ice thickness based on
January). “Predicting ice jams with neural networks.” ASME 2002 meteorological data. ERDC-CRREL Technical Note, 04-3.
21st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic White, K.D., Tuthill, A.M., and FURMAN, L. (2006). “Studies of ice jam
Engineering, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital flooding in the United States.” In: Vasiliev O., van Gelder P., Plate E.,
Collection, 669–673. Bolgov M. (eds) Extreme hydrological events: New concepts for secur-
Merz, B., Thieken, A.H., and Gocht, M. (2007). “Flood risk mapping at ity. NATO Sceince Series, Springer, Dordrecht, 255–268.
the local scale: Concepts and challenges.” In: Begum S., Stive M.J.F., White, K.D., Tuthill, A.M., Vuyovich, C.M., and Weyrick, P.B. (2007).
Hall J.W. (eds) Flood risk management in Europe. Advances in “Observed climate variability impacts and river ice in the United
Natural and Technological Hazards Research, Vol 25. Springer, States.” Proc. 14th Workshop on the Hydraulics of Ice Covered Rivers,
Dordrecht, 231–251. Quebec City, Canada. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R. White, K.D., Tuthill, A.M., and Furman, L. (2007a). “Studies of ice jam
D., and Veith, T.L. (2007). “Model evaluation guidelines for systema- flooding in the United States.” Extreme hydrological events: New
tic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.” Trans. concepts for security, NATO Science Series, vol 78.Springer,
ASABE, 50(3), 885–900. doi:10.13031/2013.23153 Dordrecht, 255–268.
Morse, B., and Hicks, F. (2005). “Advances in river ice hydrology 1999– White, K.D., Tuthill, A.M., Vuyovich, C.M., and Weyrick, P.B. (2007b).
2003.” Hydrol. Process., 19(1), 247–263. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099- “Observed climate variability impacts and river ice in the United
1085 States.” Proc. 14th Workshop on the Hydraulics of Ice Covered Rivers,
Murfitt, J.C., Brown, L.C., and Howell, S.E. (2018). “Estimating lake ice Quebec City, Canada.
thickness in Central Ontario.” PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0208519. Wuebben, J.L., and Gagnon, J.J. (1995). Ice jam flooding on the Missouri
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208519 River near Williston, North Dakota (No. CRREL-95-19), COLD
Nezhikhovskiy, R. A. (1964). Coefficients of roughness of bottom sur- REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LAB, Hanover, New
face of slush-ice cover. In Soviet hydrology (Vol.2, pp. 127–150). Hamshire, U.S.A.
Washington, DC.: American Geophysical Union Zachrisson, G. (1989). “Climate variation and ice conditions in the
Prowse, T.D., Bonsal, B.R., Duguay, C.R., and Lacroix, M.P. (2007). River Tornealven.” Conference on Climate and Water, Academy of
“River-ice break-up/freeze-up: A review of climatic drivers, historical Finland, Helsinki, vol. 1, 353–364