The classical ‘decoupled’ approach for fluvial flooding makes use of hydrographs as input boundary conditions. The catchment hydrology is determined by empirical semi‐distributed rainfall–runoff models, the flood processes by the use of hydrodynamic models. However, for urban floods, the distributed rainfall is set directly as input (‘direct rainfall modelling’ – DRM) to the elements of the 2D model. This ‘integrated approach’ aims to include hydrological and hydraulic processes in one single model. In this study, both modelling approaches are applied and evaluated for their suitability to determine flood hazards in small, rural catchments. The resulting flood maps and flow hydrographs are compared for selected rainfall–runoff events in a catchment located in Central Germany. In the first approach, the hydrological model (HEC‐HMS) from the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) is used to generate the inflow boundary hydrographs for the 2D model (HEC‐RAS), which is then used to simulate the flow variables for the river network and its floodplains. For the second approach, the DRM is applied over the whole catchment by the use of HEC‐RAS. Special focus is given for the integrated approach to the difficulties occurring during the model optimisation and calibration. The comparison of the results and modelling processes of both approaches give insights into the advantages, disadvantages and difficulties or limitations of each presented approach.

A large number of 2D models were originally developed as 1D models for the calculation of water levels along the main course of a river. Due to their development as 2D distributed models, the majority have added precipitation as a source term. The models can now be used as quasi-2D hydrodynamic rainfall–runoff models (‘HDRRM’). Within the direct rainfall method (‘DRM’), there is an approach, referred to as ‘rain-on-grid’, in which input precipitation is applied to the entire catchment area. The study contains a systematic analysis of the model behavior of HEC-RAS (‘Hydrologic Engineering Center—River Analysis System’) with a special focus on spatial resolution. The rain-on-grid approach is applied in a small, ungauged, low-mountain-range study area (Messbach catchment, 2.13 km²) in Central Germany. Suitable model settings and recommendations on model discretization and parametrization are derived therefrom. The sensitivity analysis focuses on the influence of the mesh resolution’s interaction with the spatial resolution of the underlying terrain model (‘subgrid’). Furthermore, the sensitivity of the parameters interplaying with spatial resolution, like the height of the laminar depth, surface roughness, model specific filter-settings and the precipitation input-data temporal distribution, is analyzed. The results are evaluated against a high-resolution benchmark run, and further criteria, such as 1. Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency, 2. water-surface elevation, 3. flooded area, 4. volume deficit, 5. volume balance and 6. computational time. The investigation showed that, based on the chosen criteria for this size and type of catchment, a mesh resolution between 3 m to 5 m, in combination with a DEM resolution from 0.25 m to 1 m, are recommendable. Furthermore, we show considerable scale effects on flooded areas for coarser meshing, due to low water levels in relation to topographic height.

In recent years, many two‐dimensional (2D) hydrodynamic models have been extended to include the direct rainfall method (DRM). This allows their application as a hydrological‐hydrodynamic model for the determination of floodplains in one model system. In previous studies on DRM, the role of catchment hydrological processes (CaHyPro) and its interaction with the calibration process was not investigated in detail. In the present, case‐oriented study, the influence of the spatiotemporal distribution of the processes precipitation and runoff formation in combination with the 2D model HEC‐RAS is investigated. In a further step, a conceptual approach for event‐based interflow is integrated. The study is performed on the basis of a single storm event in a small rural catchment (low mountain range, 38 km²) in Hesse (Germany). The model results are evaluated against six quality criteria and compared to a simplified baseline model. Finally, the calibrated improved model is contrasted with a calibrated baseline model. The results show the enhancement of the model results due to the integration of the CaHyPro and highlight its interplay with the calibrated model parameters.

In this study, 17 hydrologists with different experience in hydrological modelling applied the same conceptual catchment model (HBV) to a Greek catchment, using identical data and model code. Calibration was performed manually. Subsequently, the modellers were asked for their experience, their calibration strategy, and whether they enjoyed the exercise. The exercise revealed that there is considerable modellers’ uncertainty even among the experienced modellers. It seemed to be equally important whether the modellers followed a good calibration strategy, and whether they enjoyed modelling. The exercise confirmed previous studies about the benefit of model ensembles: Different combinations of the simulation results (median, mean) outperformed the individual model simulations, while filtering the simulations even improved the quality of the model ensembles. Modellers’ experience, decisions, and attitude, therefore, have an impact on the hydrological model application and should be considered as part of hydrological modelling uncertainty.