Next Article in Journal
Experimental Evaluation of the Performance of a Flat Sheet Reverse Osmosis Membrane Under Variable and Intermittent Operation Emulating a Photovoltaic-Driven Desalination System
Previous Article in Journal
Probabilistic Prediction of Local Scour at Bridge Piers with Interpretable Machine Learning
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Article

Applicability of the HC-SURF Dual Drainage Model for Urban Flood Forecasting: A Quantitative Comparison with PC-SWMM and InfoWorks ICM

Department of Hydro Science and Engineering Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, Goyang 10223, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(24), 3575; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243575
Submission received: 5 November 2025 / Revised: 11 December 2025 / Accepted: 12 December 2025 / Published: 16 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Urban Water Management)

Abstract

This study evaluated the applicability of the dual drainage model, Hyper Connected–Solution for Urban Flood (HC-SURF), for real-time urban flood forecasting. The model was applied to the extreme rainfall event of August 2022 in the Sillim and Daerim drainage basins in Seoul. Its accuracy and computational efficiency were quantitatively compared with those of two widely used commercial models, the Personal Computer Storm Water Management Model (PC-SWMM) and InfoWorks Integrated Catchment Modelling (ICM). Accuracy was assessed by measuring spatial agreement with observed inundation trace maps using binary indicators, including the Critical Success Index (CSI), Probability of Detection (POD), and False Alarm Ratio (FAR). Computational efficiency was evaluated by comparing simulation times under identical conditions. In terms of accuracy against observations, HC-SURF achieved CSI values ranging from 0.26 to 0.45, with POD values from 0.37 to 0.81 and FAR values from 0.49 to 0.53 across the two basins. In inter-model comparisons, the model showed high hydraulic consistency, demonstrating CSI values between 0.72 and 0.88, POD between 0.82 and 0.99, and FAR between 0.08 and 0.15. In terms of computational efficiency, HC-SURF reduced calculation times by approximately 9% and 44% compared with InfoWorks ICM and PC-SWMM, respectively, for a 48 h simulation. The model also completed a 6 h rainfall simulation in approximately 8 min, meeting the lead time requirements for rapid urban flood forecasting. Overall, these findings show that HC-SURF effectively balances simulation accuracy with computational efficiency, demonstrating its suitability for real-time urban flood forecasting.
Keywords: dual drainage; urban flood forecasting; fixed-time synchronization; model validation dual drainage; urban flood forecasting; fixed-time synchronization; model validation

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sim, S.-B.; Kim, H.-J. Applicability of the HC-SURF Dual Drainage Model for Urban Flood Forecasting: A Quantitative Comparison with PC-SWMM and InfoWorks ICM. Water 2025, 17, 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243575

AMA Style

Sim S-B, Kim H-J. Applicability of the HC-SURF Dual Drainage Model for Urban Flood Forecasting: A Quantitative Comparison with PC-SWMM and InfoWorks ICM. Water. 2025; 17(24):3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243575

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sim, Sang-Bo, and Hyung-Jun Kim. 2025. "Applicability of the HC-SURF Dual Drainage Model for Urban Flood Forecasting: A Quantitative Comparison with PC-SWMM and InfoWorks ICM" Water 17, no. 24: 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243575

APA Style

Sim, S.-B., & Kim, H.-J. (2025). Applicability of the HC-SURF Dual Drainage Model for Urban Flood Forecasting: A Quantitative Comparison with PC-SWMM and InfoWorks ICM. Water, 17(24), 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243575

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop