Abstract
Flooding is a major threat that presents a significant risk to human survival and development worldwide. Regarding flood risk management, flood modeling enables understanding, assessing, and forecasting flood conditions and their impact. This paper gives an overview of prevailing flood simulation models given their potentials and limitations for reflecting pluvial floods in watershed settings. The existing models are categorized into hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and coupled hydrologic-hydrodynamic models. The coupled hydrologic-hydrodynamic model can be further classified into full, external, and internal coupling models. The definitions, advantages, and limitations of each coupling model are discussed. It is found that the existing coupling types cannot accurately reflect the flood evolution processes. A dynamic bidirectional coupled hydrologic-hydrodynamic model is then detailed, where the watershed is spatially divided into inundation and non-inundation regions. These two regions are connected by a coupling moving interface. Only 2D hydrodynamic models are applied to the local inundation regions to ensure numerical accuracy, whereas the fully distributed hydrologic model is applied to non-inundation regions to improve computational efficiency. Future investigation should focus on the development of a dynamic bidirectional coupling procedure that can accurately represent the complex physical interactions between upstream rainfall-runoff and the local inundation process. This paper would help flood managers and potential users undertake effective flood modeling tasks, balancing their needs, model complexity, and requirements of input data and time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- DBCM:
-
Dynamic bidirectional coupled hydrologic-hydrodynamic model
- USLE:
-
Universal soil loss equation
- RUSL:
-
Revised universal soil loss equation
- MUSLE:
-
Modified universal soil loss equation
- Ann AGNPS:
-
Annualized agricultural non-point pollutant loading model
- SCS-CN:
-
Soil conservation service curve number
- SWMM:
-
Storm water management model
- SWAT:
-
Soil and water assessment tool
- HEC:
-
Hydrologic Engineering Center
- HSPF:
-
Hydrological simulation program-Fortran
- TOPMODEL:
-
Topography-based hydrologic model
- INCA:
-
Integrated nitrogen model for catchments
- HYPE:
-
Hydrological predictions for the environment
- GSSHA:
-
Gridded surface/subsurface hydrologic analysis
- WAM:
-
Watershed assessment model
- ANSWERS:
-
Areal nonpoint source watershed environment response simulation
- HM2D:
-
Full 2D hydrodynamic model
- BMI:
-
Basic model interface
- LARSIM:
-
Large area runoff simulation model
- HEC-RAS:
-
Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
- HEC-HMS:
-
Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System
- GEMSS:
-
Generalized environmental modeling system for surface waters
- SCS-LR:
-
Soil conservation service and a lag-and-route (LR) model
- EFDC:
-
Environmental fluid dynamics code
- WASP:
-
Water quality analysis simulation program
- WATLAC:
-
A water flow model for lake catchments
- HIMS:
-
Hydroinformatic modeling system
References
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour As 34:73–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x
Ambrose RB, Wool TA (2017) WASP8 stream transport model theory and user’s guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201805/documents/streamtransport-user-guide.pdf
Audusse E, Bristeau MO (2007) Finite-volume solvers for a multilayer Saint-Venant system. Int J Appl Math Comput Sci 17(3):311–320. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10006-007-0025-0
Ada MPA, Suidan MT, Shuster WD (2010) Modeling techniques of best management practices: rain barrels and rain gardens using EPA SWMM-5. J Hydrol Eng 15(6):434–443. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000136
Arnold JG, Allen PM, Volk M, Williams JR, Bosch DD (2010) Assessment of different representations of spatial variability on SWAT model performance. Trans ASABE 53(5):1433–1443. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.34913
Beasley DB, Huggins LF, Monke EJ (1980) ANSWERS: a model for watershed planning. Trans ASAE 23(4):938–944. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.34692
Becknell BR, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL, Donigian AS, Johanson RC (1993) Hydrological simulation program—Fortran user's manual for release 12. Us EPA
Beven K, Freer J (2001) A dynamic TOPMODEL. Hydrol Process 15(10):1993–2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.252
Bingner RL, Theurer FD (2002) AnnAGNPS Technical processes: documentation Version 2. Available at www.sedlab.olemiss.edu/AGNPS.html.
Betrie GD, van Griensven A, Mohamed YA, Popescu I, Mynett AE, Humme S (2011) Linking SWAT and Sobek using open modeling interface (OPENMI) for sediment transport simulation in the Blue Nile River Basin. Trans Asabe 54(5):1749–1757
Beven KJ (2012) Rainfall-runoff modelling: the primer, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken
Bottcher AB, Whiteley BJ, James AI, Hiscock JG (2012) Watershed assessment model (WAM): model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1367–1383. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.42248
Bravo JM, Allasia D, Paz AR, Collischonn W, Tucci CEM (2012) Coupled hydrologic-hydraulic modeling of the Upper Paraguay River Basin. J Hydrol Eng 17:635–646. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000494
Bhola PK, Leandro J, Disse M (2018) Framework for offline flood inundation forecasts for two-dimensional hydrodynamic models. Geosciences (switzerland) 8(9):346. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8090346
Brewer SK, Worthington TA, Mollenhauer R, Stewart DR, Mcmanamay RA, Guertault L, Moore D (2018) Synthesizing models useful for ecohydrology and ecohydraulic approaches: an emphasis on integrating models to address complex research questions. Ecohydrology 11(7):e1996. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1966
Bulti DT, Abebe BG (2020) A review of flood modeling methods for urban pluvial flood application. Model Earth Syst Environ 6(3):1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00803-z
Brendel CE, Dymond RL, Aguilar MF (2021) Modeling storm sewer networks and urban flooding in Roanoke, Virginia, with SWMM and GSSHA. J Hydrol Eng 26(1):05020044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0002021
Bates PD (2022) Flood inundation prediction. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 54:287–315. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-fluid-030121-113138
Chávarri E, Crave A, Bonnet MP, Mejia A, Da Silva JS, Guyot JL (2013) Hydrodynamic modelling of the amazon river: factors of uncertainty. J S Am Earth Sci 44:94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2012.10.010
Chen W, Huang G, Han Z (2017) Urban stormwater inundation simulation based on SWMM and diffusive overland-flow model. Water Sci Technol J Int As Water Pollut Res 76(12):3392. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.504
Chen W, Huang G, Han Z, Wang W (2018) Urban inundation response to rainstorm patterns with a coupled hydrodynamic model: a case study in Haidian Island, China. J Hydrol 564:1022–1035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.069
Cea L, Lopez-Nunez A (2021) Extension of the two-component pressure approach for modeling mixed free-surface-pressurized flows with the two-dimensional shallow water equations. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 93(3):628–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.4902
Costabile P, Costanzo C (2021) A 2D-SWEs framework for efficient catchment-scale simulations: hydrodynamic scaling properties of river networks and implications for non-uniform grids generation. J Hydrol 599(6402):126306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126306
Downer CW, Ogden FL (2004) GSSHA: model to simulate diverse stream flow producing processes. J Hydrol Eng 9(3):161–174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2004)9:3(161)
Debele B, Srinivasan R, Parlange JY (2006) Coupling upland watershed and downstream waterbody hydrodynamic and water quality models (SWAT and CE-QUAL-W2) for better water resources management in complex river basins. Environ Model Assess 13(1):135–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-006-9075-1
Danish Hydraulic Institute (2009) The MIKE SHE user and technical reference manual. Danish Hydraulic Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
Dargahi B, Setegn SG (2011) Combined 3D hydrodynamic and watershed modeling of Lake Tana, Ethiopia. J Hydrol 398:44–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.009
Evans E, Ashley R, Hall J, Penning-Rowsell E, Sayers P, Thome C, Watkinson A (2004) Foresight: future flooding volume II: managing future risks. Department of Trade and Industry, London
Feldman AD (2000) Hydrologic modeling system HEC-HMS, technical reference manual. Davis, CA, USA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC
Feistl T, Bebi P, Dreier L, Hanewinkel M, Bartelt P (2014) A coupling of hydrologic and hydraulic models appropriate for the fast floods of the Gardon river basin (France). Nat Hazard 14(11):2899–2920. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-14-2899-2014
Felder G, Zischg A, Weingartner R (2017) The effect of coupling hydrologic and hydrodynamic models on probable maximum flood estimation. J Hydrol 550:157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.052
Garcia-Navarro P, Murillo J, Fernandez-Pato J, Echeverribar I, Morales-Hernandez M (2019) The shallow water equations and their application to realistic cases. Environ Fluid Mech 19(5):1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-018-09657-7
Gomes MMD, Verçosa LFD, Cirilo JA (2021) Hydrologic models coupled with 2D hydrodynamic model for high-resolution urban flood simulation. Nat Hazards 108:3121–3157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04817-3
Gwapedza D, Nyamela N, Hughes DA, Slaughter AR, Mantel SK, Waal B (2021) Prediction of sediment yield of the Inxu river catchment (South Africa) using the MUSLE. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 9(1):37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2020.10.003
Hamrick JM (1992) A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: theoretical and computational aspects. In: Special report 317, The College of William and Mary. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA
Hsu MH, Chen SH, Chang TJ (2000) Inundation simulation for urban drainage basin with storm sewer system. J Hydrol 234(1–2):21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00237-7
Hunter NM, Bates PD, Horritt MS, Wilson MD (2007) Simple spatially-distributed models for predicting flood inundation: a review. Geomorphology 90(3–4):208–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.021
Henonin J, Russo B, Mark O, Gourbesville P (2013) Real-time urban flood forecasting and modelling—a state of the art. J Hydroinf 15(3):717–736. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2013.132
Hou J, Liu F, Tong Y, Guo K, Li D (2020) Numerical simulation for runoff regulation in rain garden using 2D hydrodynamic model. Ecol Eng 153(2):105794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105794
Hoch JM, Haag AV, Dam AV, Winsemius HC, Beek LPHV, Bierkens MFP (2018) Assessing the impact of hydrodynamics on large-scale flood wave propagation—a case study for the Amazon Basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(1):117–132. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-117-2017
Hdeib R, Abdallah C, Colin F, Brocca L, Moussa R (2018) Constraining coupled hydrological-hydraulic flood model by past storm events and post-event measurements in data-sparse regions. J Hydrol 540(565):160–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.08.008
Jiang C, Zhou Q, Yu W, Yang C, Lin B (2021) A dynamic bidirectional coupled surface flow model for flood inundation simulation. Nat Hazard 21(2):497–515. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhes-21-497-2021
Kniselw G (1980) CREAMS, a field scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from agricultural management systems. Conservation Research Report USDA, Washington D C. vol 1980, p 44
Kuiry SN, Sen D, Bates PD (2010) Coupled 1D–quasi-2D flood inundation model with unstructured grids. J Hydraul Eng 136(8):493–506. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000211
Kim J, Warnock A, Ivanov VY, Katopodes ND (2012) Coupled modeling of hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes including overland and channel flow. Adv Water Resour 37:104–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.11.009
Lindstrom G, Pers C, Rosberg J, Stromqvist J, Arheimer B (2010) Development and testing of the HYPE (Hydrological Predictions for the Environment) water quality model for different spatial scales. Hydrol Res 41(3–4):295–319. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2010.007
Liang Q (2010) Flood simulation using a well-balanced shallow flow model. J Hydraul Eng 136(9):669–675. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000219
Li YL, Zhang Q, Yao J, Werner AD, Li XH (2014) Hydrodynamic and hydrological modeling of the Poyang Lake catchment system in China. J Hydrol Eng 19(3):607–616. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000835
Liang Q, Smith LS (2015) A high-performance integrated hydrodynamic modelling system for urban flood simulations. J Hydroinf 17(4):518–533. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2015.029
Liu Q, Qin Y, Zhang Y, Li Z (2015) A coupled 1D–2D hydrodynamic model for flood simulation in flood detention basin. Nat Hazards 75(2):1303–1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1373-3
Liu Z, Zhang H, Liang Q (2019) A coupled hydrological and hydrodynamic model for flood simulation. Hydrol Res 50(2):580–606. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2018.090
Li WJ, Lin KR, Zhao TTG, Lan T, Chen XH, Du HW, Chen HY (2019) Risk assessment and sensitivity analysis of flash floods in ungauged basins using coupled hydrologic and hydrodynamic models. J Hydrol 572:108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.002
Li Z, Chen MY, Gao S, Luo XY, Gourley JJ, Kirstetter P, Yang TT, Kolar R, McGovern A, Wen YX, Rao B, Yami T, Hong Y (2021) CREST-IMAP v10: a fully coupled hydrologic-hydraulic modeling framework dedicated to flood inundation mapping and prediction. Environ Model Softw 141(1):105051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105051
Marsik M, Waylen P (2006) An application of the distributed hydrologic model CASC2D to a tropical montane watershed. J Hydrol 330(3–4):481–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.04.003
Munar AM, Cavalcanti JR, Bravo JM, Fan FM, da Motta-Marques D, Fragos CR (2018) Coupling large-scale hydrological and hydrodynamic modeling: toward a better comprehension of watershed-shallow lake processes. J Hydrol 564:424–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.045
Nguyen P, Thorstensen A, Sorooshian S, Hsu K, AghaKouchak A, Sanders B, Koren V, Cui Z, Smith M (2016) A high resolution coupled hydrologic hydraulic. J Hydrol 541:401–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.10.047
Parajuli PB, Nelson NO, Frees LD, Mankin KR (2009) Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT model simulation results in USDA-CEAP agricultural watersheds in south-central Kansas. Hydrol Process 23:748–763. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7174
Peckham SD, Hutton E, Norris B (2013) A component-based approach to integrated modeling in the geosciences: the design of CSDMS. Comput Geosci 53:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2012.04.002
Pilotti M, Milanesi L, Bacchi V, Tomirotti M, Maranzoni A (2020) Dam-break wave propagation in alpine valley with HEC-RAS 2D: experimental cancano test case. J Hydraul Eng 146(6):05020003. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001779
Rankinen K, Lepisto A, Granlund K (2002) (2002) Hydrological application of the INCA model with varying spatial resolution and nitrogen dynamics in a northern river basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6(3):339–350. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-6-339-2002
Rinsema JG (2014) Comparison of rainfall runoff models for the Florentine Catchment. University of Tasmania. Retrieved from http://essay.utwente.nl/66526/1/Rinsema_Jan_Gert.pdf
Rossman LA (2015) Storm water management model user’s manual version 5.1; EPA/600/R-14/413b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Cincinnati, OH, USA
SCS (1972) Hydrology. Section 4 in National Engineering Handbook. USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington
Singh VP (1995) Computer models of watershed hydrology highlands ranch. Water Resources Publications, CO
Spaeth KE, Pierson FB, Weltz MA, Blackburn WH (2003) Evaluation of USLE and RUSLE estimated soil loss on rangeland. J Range Manag 56(3):234–246. https://doi.org/10.2307/4003812
Singh J, Altinakar MS, Yan D (2011) Two-dimensional numerical modeling of dam-break flows over natural terrain using a central explicit scheme. Adv Water Resour 34(10):1366–1375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.07.007
Seyoum SD, Vojinovic Z, Price RK, Weesakul S (2012) Coupled 1D and noninertia 2D flood inundation model for simulation of urban flooding. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 138(1):23–34. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000485
Sitterson J, Knightes C, Parmar R, Wolfe K, Muche M, Avant B (2017) An Overview of Rainfall-Runoff Model Types. EPA EPA/600/R-14/152 www.epa.gov/research
Shin S, Her Y, Song JH, Kang MS (2019) Integrated sediment transport process modeling by coupling soil and water assessment tool and environmental fluid dynamics code. Environ Model Softw 116(JUN):26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.02.002
Shen Y, Jiang C, Zhou Q, Zhu D, Zhang D (2021) A multigrid dynamic bidirectional coupled surface flow routing model for flood simulation. Water 13:3454. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233454
Sindhu K, Singh A, Rao KHVD, Rao VV, Mohammood V (2021) 1D and 2D model coupling approach for the development of operational spatial flood early warning system. Geocarto Int 37(15):4390–4405. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2021.1886335
Shabani A, Woznicki SA, Mehaffey M, Butcher J, Wool Tim A, Whung PY (2021) A coupled hydrodynamic (HEC-RAS) and water quality model (WASP) for simulating flood-induced soil, sediment, and contaminant transport. J Flood Risk Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12747
Toro EF (2001) Shock-capturing methods for free-surface shallow flows. John Wiley
Thompson JR, Sørenson HR, Gavin H, Refsgaard A (2004) Application of the coupled MIKE SHE/MIKE 11 modelling system to a lowland wet grassland in southeast England. J Hydrol 590(293):151–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.01.017
Timbadiya PV, Patel PL, Porey PD (2014) A 1D–2D coupled hydrodynamic model for river flood prediction in a coastal urban floodplain. J Hydrol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001029
Tansar H, Babur M, Karnchanapaiboon SL (2020) Flood inundation modeling and hazard assessment in lower ping river basin using mike flood. Arab J Geosci 13(18):934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05891-w
UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (2020) The human cost of disasters: an overview of the last 20 years (2000–2019).
Vacondio R, Aureli F, Ferrari A, Mignosa P, Dal Palu A (2016) Simulation of the january 2014 flood on the secchia river using a fast and high-resolution 2d parallel shallow-water numerical scheme. Nat Hazards 80(1):103–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1959-4
Vacondio R, Dal Palu A, Ferrari A, Mignosa P, Aureli F, Dazzi S (2017) A non-uniform efficient grid type for GPU-parallel Shallow Water Equations models. Environ Model Softw 88:119–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.11.012
Wang JP, Liang Q (2011) Testing a new adaptive grid-based shallow flow model for different types of flood simulations. J Flood Risk Manag 4(2):96–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-318X.2011.01094.x
Wu B, Wang G, Wang Z, Liu C, Ma J (2017) Integrated hydrologic and hydrodynamic modeling to assess water exchange in a data-scarce reservoir. J Hydrol 555:15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.057
Wang J, Yun X, Pokhrel Y, Yamazaki D, Zhao Q, Chen A, Tang Q (2021) Modeling daily floods in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin using an improved hydrological hydrodynamic model. Water Resour Res 57:e2021WR029734. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR0297341
Xu Z, Godrej AN, Grizzard TJ (2007) The hydrological calibration and validation of a complexly linked watershed-reservoir model for the Occoquan watershed. Va J Hydrol 345(3–4):167–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.07.015
Yamazaki D, Sato T, Kanae S, Hirabayashi Y, Bates PD (2014) Regional flood dynamics in a bifurcating mega delta simulated in a global river model. Geophys Res Lett 41(9):3127–3135. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl059744
Yu C, Duan J (2014) Two-dimensional hydrodynamic model for surface-flow routing. J Hydraul Eng 140(9):04014045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000913
Yu C, Duan JG (2017) Simulation of surface runoff using hydrodynamic model. J Hydrol Eng (ASCE) 22(6):04017006. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001497
Zhang X, Long W, Xie H, Zhu J, Wang J (2007) Numerical simulation of flood inundation processes by 2D shallow water equations. Front Arch Civ Eng China 1(1):107–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-007-0011-5
Zhao WJ, Sun W, Li ZL, Fan YW, Song JS, Wang LR (2013) A Review on SWAT model for stream flow simulation. Adv Mater Res 726–731:3792–3798. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr
Zhang LH, Jin X, He CS, Zhang BQ, Zhang XF, Li JL, Zhao C, Tian J, DeMarchi C (2016) Comparison of SWAT and DLBRM for hydrological modeling of a mountainous watershed in Arid Northwest China. J Hydrol Eng 21(5):04016007. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001313
Zhang L, Lu JZ, Chen XL, Liang D, Fu XK, Sauvage S, Perez JMS (2017) Stream flow simulation and verification in ungauged zones by coupling hydrological and hydrodynamic models: a case study of the Poyang Lake ungauged zone. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(11):5847–5861. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5847-2017
Zhang C, Wang L, Zhu H, Tang H (2020) Integrated hydrodynamic model for simulation of river-lake-sluice interactions. Appl Math Model 83:90–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2020.02.019
Zhang H, Wu W, Hu C, Hu C, Liu S (2021) A distributed hydrodynamic model for urban storm flood risk assessment. J Hydrol 600:126513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126513
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52179068) and the Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering (Grant No. 2021-KY-04). The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
Funding
This study was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 52179068) and the Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering (Grant No. 2021-KY-04).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
All authors declare that no conflict of interest exists.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Shen, Y., Jiang, C. A comprehensive review of watershed flood simulation model. Nat Hazards 118, 875–902 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06047-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-06047-1