C. B. S. Dotto

Comparison of different uncertainty techniques in urban stormwater quantity and quality modelling

Urban drainage models are important tools used by both practitioners and scientists in the field of stormwater management. These models are often conceptual and usually require calibration using local datasets. The quantification of the uncertainty associated with the models is a must, although it is rarely practiced. The International Working Group on Data and Models, which works under the IWA/IAHR Joint Committee on Urban Drainage, has been working on the development of a framework for defining and assessing uncertainties in the field of urban drainage modelling. A part of that work is the assessment and comparison of different techniques generally used in the uncertainty assessment of the parameters of water models. This paper compares a number of these techniques: the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE), the Shuffled Complex Evolution Metropolis algorithm (SCEM-UA), an approach based on a multi-objective auto-calibration (a multialgorithm, genetically adaptive multi-objective method, AMALGAM) and a Bayesian approach based on a simplified Markov Chain Monte Carlo method (implemented in the software MICA). To allow a meaningful comparison among the different uncertainty techniques, common criteria have been set for the likelihood formulation, defining the number of simulations, and the measure of uncertainty bounds. Moreover, all the uncertainty techniques were implemented for the same case study, in which the same stormwater quantity and quality model was used alongside the same dataset. The comparison results for a well-posed rainfall/runoff model showed that the four methods provide similar probability distributions of model parameters, and model prediction intervals. For ill-posed water quality model the differences between the results were much wider; and the paper provides the specific advantages and disadvantages of each method. In relation to computational efficiency (i.e. number of iterations required to generate the probability distribution of parameters), it was found that SCEM-UA and AMALGAM produce results quicker than GLUE in terms of required number of simulations. However, GLUE requires the lowest modelling skills and is easy to implement. All non-Bayesian methods have problems with the way they accept behavioural parameter sets, e.g. GLUE, SCEM-UA and AMALGAM have subjective acceptance thresholds, while MICA has usually problem with its hypothesis on normality of residuals. It is concluded that modellers should select the method which is most suitable for the system they are modelling (e.g. complexity of the models structure including the number of parameters), their skill/knowledge level, the available information, and the purpose of their study.

Performance and sensitivity analysis of stormwater models using a Bayesian approach and long-term high resolution data

Stormwater models are important tools in the design and management of urban drainage systems. Understanding the sources of uncertainty in these models and their consequences on the model outputs is essential so that subsequent decisions are based on reliable information. Model calibration and sensitivity analysis of such models are critical to evaluate model performance. The aim of this paper is to present the performance and parameter sensitivity of stormwater models with different levels of complexities, using the formal Bayesian approach. The rather complex MUSIC and simple KAREN models were compared in terms of predicting catchment runoff, while an empirical regression model was compared to a process-based build-up/wash-off model for stormwater pollutant prediction. A large dataset was collected at five catchments of different land-uses in Melbourne, Australia. In general, results suggested that, once calibrated, the rainfall/runoff models performed similarly and were both able to reproduce the measured data. It was found that the effective impervious fraction is the most important parameter in both models while both were insensitive to dry weather related parameters. The tested water quality models poorly represented the observed data, and both resulted in high levels of parameter uncertainty.

Stormwater quality models: performance and sensitivity analysis.

The complex nature of pollutant accumulation and washoff, along with high temporal and spatial variations, pose challenges for the development and establishment of accurate and reliable models of the pollution generation process in urban environments. Therefore, the search for reliable stormwater quality models remains an important area of research. Model calibration and sensitivity analysis of such models are essential in order to evaluate model performance; it is very unlikely that non-calibrated models will lead to reasonable results. This paper reports on the testing of three models which aim to represent pollutant generation from urban catchments. Assessment of the models was undertaken using a simplified Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) method. Results are presented in terms of performance, sensitivity to the parameters and correlation between these parameters. In general, it was suggested that the tested models poorly represent reality and result in a high level of uncertainty. The conclusions provide useful information for the improvement of existing models and insights for the development of new model formulations.

Analysis of parameter uncertainty of a flow and quality stormwater model.

Uncertainty is intrinsic to all monitoring programs and all models. It cannot realistically be eliminated, but it is necessary to understand the sources of uncertainty, and their consequences on models and decisions. The aim of this paper is to evaluate uncertainty in a flow and water quality stormwater model, due to the model parameters and the availability of data for calibration and validation of the flow model. The MUSIC model, widely used in Australian stormwater practice, has been investigated. Frequentist and Bayesian methods were used for calibration and sensitivity analysis, respectively. It was found that out of 13 calibration parameters of the rainfall/runoff model, only two matter (the model results were not sensitive to the other 11). This suggests that the model can be simplified without losing its accuracy. The evaluation of the water quality models proved to be much more difficult. For the specific catchment and model tested, we argue that for rainfall/runoff, 6 months of data for calibration and 6 months of data for validation are required to produce reliable predictions. Further work is needed to make similar recommendations for modelling water quality.

Calibration and sensitivity analysis of urban drainage models: MUSIC rainfall/runoff module and a simple stormwater quality model

Abstract Model calibration and sensitivity analysis of stormwater models are required to assess model performance; it is very unlikely that non-calibrated models will lead to reasonable results. The aim of this paper is to present results of the calibration and sensitivity analysis of the key parameters used in flow modelling by MUSIC and parameters of a simple stormwater quality model. The assessment of the models is undertaken using a Monte Carlo Markov Chain approach. We describe the models’ performance, provide information on their sensitivity to parameters and also discuss the correlation between these parameters. This work will help practitioners to understand importance of the MUSIC parameters that they usually use without calibration. The information reported in the results will also help to guide future development of stormwater quality models and the data needed to support it.