International collaboration between research institutes and universities is a promising way to reach consensus on hydrological model development. Although model comparison studies are very valuable for international cooperation, they do often not lead to very clear new insights regarding the relevance of the modelled processes. We hypothesise that this is partly caused by model complexity and the comparison methods used, which focus too much on a good overall performance instead of focusing on a variety of specific events. In this study, we use an approach that focuses on the evaluation of specific events and characteristics. Eight international research groups calibrated their hourly model on the Ourthe catchment in Belgium and carried out a validation in time for the Ourthe catchment and a validation in space for nested and neighbouring catchments. The same protocol was followed for each model and an ensemble of best-performing parameter sets was selected. Although the models showed similar performances based on general metrics (i.e. the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency), clear differences could be observed for specific events. We analysed the hydrographs of these specific events and conducted three types of statistical analyses on the entire time series: cumulative discharges, empirical extreme value distribution of the peak flows and flow duration curves for low flows. The results illustrate the relevance of including a very quick flow reservoir preceding the root zone storage to model peaks during low flows and including a slow reservoir in parallel with the fast reservoir to model the recession for the studied catchments. This intercomparison enhanced the understanding of the hydrological functioning of the catchment, in particular for low flows, and enabled to identify present knowledge gaps for other parts of the hydrograph. Above all, it helped to evaluate each model against a set of alternative models.

Urban hydrological applications require high resolution precipitation and catchment information in order to well represent the spatial variability, fast runoff processes and short response times of urban catchments (Berne et al., 2004). Although fast progress has been made over the last few decades in high resolution measurement of rainfall at urban scales, including increasing use of weather radars, recent studies suggest that the resolution of the currently available rainfall estimates (typically 1 × 1 km² in space and 5 min in time) may still be too coarse to meet the stringent requirements of urban hydrology (Gires et al., 2012). What is more, current evidence is still insufficient to provide a concrete answer regarding the added value of higher resolution rainfall estimates and actual rainfall input resolution requirements for urban hydrological applications. With the aim of providing further evidence in this regard, a collaborative study was conducted which investigated the impact of rainfall input resolutions on the outputs of the operational urban drainage models of four urban catchments in the UK and Belgium (Figure 1).