Skip to content

Flood Modeling Challenges

The flood modeling industry has a workflow problem. Engineers spend far more of their time on setup, data wrangling and reporting than on the engineering decisions that actually matter.

Where Time Goes

The table below is Hydrata's own estimate of where effort goes on a typical 2D flood study. It is not taken from a published survey, and we have not measured it. The shares are rounded to the nearest 5% and are offered as an order-of-magnitude picture, not as data.

Activity Share of project time (Hydrata estimate) Notes
Model setup & data processing about 40% DEM processing, mesh generation, boundary definition, friction mapping
Calibration & validation about 15% Adjusting parameters to match observed data
Quality assurance about 15% Checking inputs, reviewing outputs, documentation
Reporting about 10% Formatting results for regulators, clients, stakeholders
Running simulations about 10% The actual compute, often the easiest part
Project management and coordination about 10% Meetings, handovers, chasing data

The shape matters more than the digits. On this estimate the simulation itself is about a tenth of the work and everything around it is the other nine tenths. Cloud compute makes the tenth faster. Hydrata is built to shrink the rest.

Pain Points

Mesh Generation Takes Days, Not Hours

Mesh generation is usually the most important and the most time-consuming task in 2D flood modeling. It relies on repetitive manual work and subjective judgement, and when the mesh is regenerated, hand editing is lost.

How Hydrata helps: Upload a DEM and define mesh regions in the browser. ANUGA generates the triangular mesh automatically. Adjust resolution per region without starting over.

The Learning Curve Is Measured in Years

Becoming genuinely expert in a hydraulic modeling package takes years, and the learning does not transfer cleanly from one package to the next. Junior engineers can make serious mistakes, such as incorrect boundary conditions or ignored friction values, without knowing they have made them.

How Hydrata helps: Guided scenario configuration with sensible defaults. Input validation before simulation. The same senior engineer's workflow, accessible to a team.

Collaboration Means Emailing Files

Flood modeling has no standardized way for stakeholders to exchange data. Models are files on individual machines. A single incorrect number can change model outputs. Knowledge leaves when staff leave.

How Hydrata helps: Team members work on the same project. Every input versioned, every result published as a WMS layer with a shareable URL. No "which DEM did you use?" confusion.

Report Generation Is Manual

Consultants must produce extensive documentation for regulatory submissions. Current tools produce raw output, not submission-ready reports. Engineers spend significant time manually formatting results.

How Hydrata helps: Results are published as OGC WMS layers and downloadable datasets. Flood depth maps, velocity fields, and extent polygons are ready to embed in reports or share with stakeholders.

Data-Scarce Regions Need Modeling Most

Low- and middle-income countries are home to 89% of the world's flood-exposed people (Rentschler, Salhab and Jafino, 2022, listed under Sources). Those are the places with the least data, the fewest tools, and the most expensive software licences.

How Hydrata helps: Cloud-based, no expensive desktop licences. Works with available data, even coarse DEMs. Create an account at hydrata.com to get started.

The Workflow Hydrata Replaces

Before (Traditional Desktop Workflow)

  1. Download DEM from data provider, convert format in GIS
  2. Export DEM to modeling software's proprietary format
  3. Define computational domain and boundary conditions manually
  4. Generate mesh, iterating for days until quality is acceptable
  5. Set friction values by hand-drawing polygons
  6. Transfer files to compute machine
  7. Run simulation (hours to days on local hardware)
  8. Transfer results back, import into GIS
  9. Create maps, extract statistics, format for report
  10. Email files to team for review

After (Hydrata)

  1. Upload DEM. Hydrata handles format and projection
  2. Define boundaries and friction maps in the browser
  3. Configure scenario parameters
  4. Submit to cloud compute, results in minutes
  5. Results published as WMS layers, share via URL
  6. Team reviews in the same platform

Ten steps become six, and the slowest of them (mesh iteration, file transfer, report formatting) move into the browser or onto cloud compute. Every step is tracked and reproducible.

Sources

  • The 89% figure. Rentschler, J., Salhab, M. and Jafino, B. A. (2022). Flood exposure and poverty in 188 countries. Nature Communications 13, 3527. nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30727-4. The paper states that low- and middle-income countries are home to 89% of the world's flood-exposed people, out of 1.81 billion people exposed to a 1-in-100-year flood.
  • The project-time shares. Hydrata's own estimate, as stated above. There is no published source behind them. If you need defensible figures for a business case, measure your own projects rather than quoting ours.
  • Prices and allowances. None are quoted on this page. See hydrata.com/plans for the current figures.