At-Site Versus Regional Frequency Analysis of Sub-Hourly Rainfall for Urban Hydrology Applications During Recent Extreme Events

Accurate rainfall quantile estimation is critical for urban flood management, particularly given the escalating climate change impacts. This study comprehensively compared at-site frequency analysis and regional frequency analysis for sub-hourly rainfall quantile estimation, using data from 27 sites across Seoul. The analysis focused on Seoul’s disaster prevention framework (30-year and 100-year return periods). Employing L-moment statistics and Monte Carlo simulations, the rainfall quantiles were estimated, the methodological performance was evaluated, and Seoul’s current disaster prevention standards were assessed. The analysis revealed significant spatio-temporal variability in Seoul’s precipitation, causing considerable uncertainty in individual site estimates. A performance evaluation, including the relative root mean square error and confidence interval, consistently showed regional frequency analysis superiority over at-site frequency analysis. While at-site frequency analysis demonstrated better performance only for short return periods (e.g., 2 years), regional frequency analysis exhibited a substantially lower relative root mean square error and significantly narrower confidence intervals for larger return periods (e.g., 10, 30, 100 years). This methodology reduced the average 95% confidence interval width by a factor of approximately 2.7 (26.98 mm versus 73.99 mm). This enhanced reliability stems from the information-pooling capabilities of regional frequency analysis, mitigating uncertainties due to limited record lengths and localized variabilities. Critically, regionally derived 100-year rainfall estimates consistently exceeded Seoul’s 100 mm disaster prevention threshold across most areas, suggesting that the current infrastructure may be substantially under-designed. The use of minute-scale data underscored its necessity for urban hydrological modeling, highlighting the inadequacy of conventional daily rainfall analyses.