Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4387
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4387
06 Nov 2025
 | 06 Nov 2025
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).

Validation of the Open-Source Hydrodynamic Model SFINCS on Historical River Floods at the Global Scale

Tarun Sadana, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, Dirk Eilander, Bruno Merz, Hans de Moel, Tim Busker, Veerle Bril, and Jens de Bruijn

Abstract. We evaluate the performance of the Super-Fast INundation of CoastS (SFINCS) hydrodynamic model for simulating riverine floods, combined with a fully automated open-source data preprocessing pipeline. To do this, we assessed the simulated extent of 499 historic flood events against the satellite derived flood extents using the Critical Success Index (CSI) as a performance metric. We utilised simulated discharges from the Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) hydrological model and found that SFINCS performance improved with upstream basin size, with a global mean CSI of 0.42 for basins with large upstream area (>1,000 km²) and a CSI of 0.29 for basins with small upstream area (<50 km²). Our results illustrate the importance of accurate discharge data input to flood hazard simulations. When the (globally simulated) GloFAS data replaced with observed discharge data for ten events in the US, the CSI improved from 0.39 to 0.67. These results suggest that global hydrological model performance limits the accuracy of the flood hazard simulations. Our findings also showed a significant improvement in the CSI (from 0.37 to 0.57) when changing to a higher-resolution elevation input by contrasting a ~1 m digital elevation model (DEM; 3DEP) with our default ~30 m global DEM (FABDEM) in six U.S. events. Sensitivity analysis of bathymetric calculations revealed a systematic underestimation of the default 2-year return period estimated by GloFAS discharge, likely driven by underrepresentation of annual block maxima, which resulted in underestimated channel dimensions. All of these factors resulted in a loss of detail, which impacted model performance, especially in smaller headwater rivers. We recommend to improve the estimation of bathymetry, for instance by employing the "gradually varying solver" method or using data from the SWOT mission. Furthermore, incorporating additional validation data which ideally includes flood depth measurements can largely enhance our understanding of the model performance.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Tarun Sadana, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, Dirk Eilander, Bruno Merz, Hans de Moel, Tim Busker, Veerle Bril, and Jens de Bruijn

Status: open (until 18 Dec 2025)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Tarun Sadana, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, Dirk Eilander, Bruno Merz, Hans de Moel, Tim Busker, Veerle Bril, and Jens de Bruijn
Tarun Sadana, Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts, Dirk Eilander, Bruno Merz, Hans de Moel, Tim Busker, Veerle Bril, and Jens de Bruijn
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 06 Nov 2025
Download
Short summary
We evaluated a global flood model using satellite data from 499 historical flood events across 96 countries. Our study shows that larger upstream river basins are modelled more accurately, while using observed river gauges and high-resolution elevation data can improve results. Our findings highlight the importance of large-scale validation and sensitivity analyses to enhance future global flood hazard assessments and prediction accuracy.
Share