the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The role of catchment characteristics, sewer network, SWMM model parameters in urban catchment management based on stormwater flooding: modelling, sensitivity analysis, risk assessment
Abstract. Sustainable development of urban areas creates an increasing demand for computation tools supporting urban management strategies to mitigate the harmful impact of climate changes on the environment and quality of life, which would at the same time adapt coherently to the latest trends in architecture and urban planning. To date, hydrodynamic models of catchments have been used for this purpose. However, their application is limited due to the costs of model construction and problems with data acquisition. In this study an innovative algorithm for modelling specific flood volume is proposed, which can be applied to assess the need for stormwater network modernisation as well as for advanced flood risk assessment. In contrast to the currently used models, the approach adopted in this study includes characteristics of a catchment and of stormwater network, as well as calibrated model parameters expressing catchment retention and the conductivity of the stormwater network. In the proposed computation method, extended sensitivity analysis was conducted. Sensitivity coefficients of calibrated SWMM (Storm Water Management Model) model parameters were determined with regard to rainfall intensity, catchment and stormwater network characteristics. This extended sensitivity analysis enables an evaluation of the spatial variability of specific flood volume and sensitivity coefficients within a catchment, which is extremely important for identifying the most vulnerable areas threatened by flooding. This allows modernisation work to be focused on areas specifically susceptible to stormwater network failure. The measurement results for a catchment area in Kielce, Poland were used for the presentation of subsequent computation stages of the developed algorithm.
The presented computation method facilitates the management of urban catchments and water resources in urban areas, which can be applied at the stage of urban development planning and be used to inform decisions regarding modernisation and operation of stormwater networks. One of such examples is the demonstration of the reduction of the probability of system failure with the threshold of permissible roughness of sewage pipes. The adopted approach also helps to identify the key characteristics of catchment, stormwater network and SWMM model parameters, which have the highest impact on the functioning of a stormwater network, which is extremely relevant in terms of assessing and mitigating uncertainty in simulation results.
- Preprint
(2337 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(10386 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-109', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2022
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', bartosz szeląg, 26 Apr 2022
Response: Ref: HESS_2022_109_review (submitted on 25 April 2022) Title: The role of catchment characteristics, sewer network, SWMM model parameters in urban catchment management based on stormwater flooding: modelling, sensitivity analysis, risk assessment
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', bartosz szeląg, 15 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2022-109/hess-2022-109-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', bartosz szeląg, 26 Apr 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2022-109', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 May 2022
This manuscript presents a computation method for creating an innovative simulator to analyse how stormwater networks operate and evaluate modernisation requirements, based on the specific flood volume. Large sections of the manuscript are based on previously published research. It seems that this resulted in a very complex manuscript that is hard to follow (e.g., many crucial information is in supplementary material; in line 151 the authors mention 11 modules, although 9 modules are presented afterwards). The used research methods and results are interesting; however, the manuscript should be further improved with a better representation of the employed methods and results. I would strongly advise consistent use of terminology throughout the text. I provide specific comments below:
Specific comments:
Title: The title is long, unclear and very descriptive. Furthermore, it does not reflect the main contribution of this research, which I believe is: “In our study, a novel algorithm for creating a simulator to predict specific flood volume is developed.”
Line 42: »One of the main factors leading to hydraulic overloads is associated with the wearing of storm sewers resulting in increased roughness.« Please provide a reference for this statement.
Line 46: You comment that the frequency of stormwater flooding has a typically qualitative character. Can you please explain this? In my opinion, it has a quantitative character, as can be found in the mentioned standards.
Line 65: You state that model calibration consists of two stages: sensitivity analysis and uncertainty. This might be true in mechanistic modelling. However, this is not the case for data-driven methods, which can be also used for model calibration. Please refine this statement.
Line 70: »Sensitivity analysis is limited to sub-catchments, and so it is impossible to predict the impact of catchment characteristics on calculation results.« This sentence is unclear. Since the catchment consists of sub-catchment they should reflect the characteristics of the catchment. Please clarify.
Line 84: “The calibration of such a model is simpler in comparison to hydrodynamic models due to the fact that a number of advanced statistical methods are already implemented in computing packages.« Aren't all of these hydrodynamic models? Please clarify.
Line 145: “A failure was defined as exceedance of certain specific flood volume which points out that modernisation of the stormwater network is necessary.” Maybe replacing old pipes with bigger ones is note the only and the most efficient solution. Perhaps a different rainwater management approach should be used (e.g., SUDS). Please rephrase accordingly.
Line 146: I apologize if I missed this information somewhere earlier. At this point, we do not know yet what a “unit” is/represents. Please add an explanation.
Line 151: “The proposed computation algorithm consists of 11 modules.« It is unclear, which are the 11 modules. In Figure 2 we only see 9 modules. Section 3 also ends with Subsection 3.8. (Module 9). Please clarify.
Line 169: Please add an explanation of what is “zero-one”.
Line 185: Please provide an explanation of what is C.
Lines 180 and 188: Rainfall data for periods 2010 – 2019 and 2010 – 2018 are mentioned. Is this actually the same time period and is this just a mistake? Please clarify.
Line 238: Please better explain the meaning of numbers: 200, 5000, and 9.
Line 319 and 313: If the terms “failure” and “breakdown” are referring to the flooding of the stormwater system, I would propose that you use the same and most clear word everywhere.
Line 323: Please clarify what is MC.
Line 349: Please use the same abbreviation for the likelihood function in Figs. S3- S10, and Section 3.3.
Lines (371-374): It is not clear how equations 9-12 were derived. Please provide an explanation.
Line 384: You refer to Fig. 3, but it seems you are referring to Fig. 4. Please check.
Line 505 – 507: “However, to date, there has been no statistical model that would take into account both hydrodynamic model parameters as well as catchment and stormwater network characteristics.« Please clarify, aren't the parameters of the hydrodynamic models reflecting (i.e., are the same as) catchment and stormwater network characteristics?
Line 548: Please clarify what are lower and upper parts.
Lines 553, 554: You refer to the proposed algorithm as a tool. Please use one word consistently. As mentioned before, if would be beneficial to reconsider the article title accordingly.
Discussion and Conclusions: Some of the results presented in this article are expected and not so novel for the urban drainage modelling community (e.g., impervious area leads to an increase of flooding).
Technical comments:
Line 123: I propose changing dm3 to L.
Line 153: typo: “manhole ordinates”?
Line 175: I would propose you use either a logistic or logic model through the text. Using different words for the same thing does not contribute to the clarity of the text.
Line 457: typo: space after the dot is missing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-109-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', bartosz szeląg, 15 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2022-109/hess-2022-109-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', bartosz szeląg, 15 Jun 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2022-109', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Apr 2022
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', bartosz szeląg, 26 Apr 2022
Response: Ref: HESS_2022_109_review (submitted on 25 April 2022) Title: The role of catchment characteristics, sewer network, SWMM model parameters in urban catchment management based on stormwater flooding: modelling, sensitivity analysis, risk assessment
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', bartosz szeląg, 15 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2022-109/hess-2022-109-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', bartosz szeląg, 26 Apr 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2022-109', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 May 2022
This manuscript presents a computation method for creating an innovative simulator to analyse how stormwater networks operate and evaluate modernisation requirements, based on the specific flood volume. Large sections of the manuscript are based on previously published research. It seems that this resulted in a very complex manuscript that is hard to follow (e.g., many crucial information is in supplementary material; in line 151 the authors mention 11 modules, although 9 modules are presented afterwards). The used research methods and results are interesting; however, the manuscript should be further improved with a better representation of the employed methods and results. I would strongly advise consistent use of terminology throughout the text. I provide specific comments below:
Specific comments:
Title: The title is long, unclear and very descriptive. Furthermore, it does not reflect the main contribution of this research, which I believe is: “In our study, a novel algorithm for creating a simulator to predict specific flood volume is developed.”
Line 42: »One of the main factors leading to hydraulic overloads is associated with the wearing of storm sewers resulting in increased roughness.« Please provide a reference for this statement.
Line 46: You comment that the frequency of stormwater flooding has a typically qualitative character. Can you please explain this? In my opinion, it has a quantitative character, as can be found in the mentioned standards.
Line 65: You state that model calibration consists of two stages: sensitivity analysis and uncertainty. This might be true in mechanistic modelling. However, this is not the case for data-driven methods, which can be also used for model calibration. Please refine this statement.
Line 70: »Sensitivity analysis is limited to sub-catchments, and so it is impossible to predict the impact of catchment characteristics on calculation results.« This sentence is unclear. Since the catchment consists of sub-catchment they should reflect the characteristics of the catchment. Please clarify.
Line 84: “The calibration of such a model is simpler in comparison to hydrodynamic models due to the fact that a number of advanced statistical methods are already implemented in computing packages.« Aren't all of these hydrodynamic models? Please clarify.
Line 145: “A failure was defined as exceedance of certain specific flood volume which points out that modernisation of the stormwater network is necessary.” Maybe replacing old pipes with bigger ones is note the only and the most efficient solution. Perhaps a different rainwater management approach should be used (e.g., SUDS). Please rephrase accordingly.
Line 146: I apologize if I missed this information somewhere earlier. At this point, we do not know yet what a “unit” is/represents. Please add an explanation.
Line 151: “The proposed computation algorithm consists of 11 modules.« It is unclear, which are the 11 modules. In Figure 2 we only see 9 modules. Section 3 also ends with Subsection 3.8. (Module 9). Please clarify.
Line 169: Please add an explanation of what is “zero-one”.
Line 185: Please provide an explanation of what is C.
Lines 180 and 188: Rainfall data for periods 2010 – 2019 and 2010 – 2018 are mentioned. Is this actually the same time period and is this just a mistake? Please clarify.
Line 238: Please better explain the meaning of numbers: 200, 5000, and 9.
Line 319 and 313: If the terms “failure” and “breakdown” are referring to the flooding of the stormwater system, I would propose that you use the same and most clear word everywhere.
Line 323: Please clarify what is MC.
Line 349: Please use the same abbreviation for the likelihood function in Figs. S3- S10, and Section 3.3.
Lines (371-374): It is not clear how equations 9-12 were derived. Please provide an explanation.
Line 384: You refer to Fig. 3, but it seems you are referring to Fig. 4. Please check.
Line 505 – 507: “However, to date, there has been no statistical model that would take into account both hydrodynamic model parameters as well as catchment and stormwater network characteristics.« Please clarify, aren't the parameters of the hydrodynamic models reflecting (i.e., are the same as) catchment and stormwater network characteristics?
Line 548: Please clarify what are lower and upper parts.
Lines 553, 554: You refer to the proposed algorithm as a tool. Please use one word consistently. As mentioned before, if would be beneficial to reconsider the article title accordingly.
Discussion and Conclusions: Some of the results presented in this article are expected and not so novel for the urban drainage modelling community (e.g., impervious area leads to an increase of flooding).
Technical comments:
Line 123: I propose changing dm3 to L.
Line 153: typo: “manhole ordinates”?
Line 175: I would propose you use either a logistic or logic model through the text. Using different words for the same thing does not contribute to the clarity of the text.
Line 457: typo: space after the dot is missing.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-109-RC2 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', bartosz szeląg, 15 Jun 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2022-109/hess-2022-109-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', bartosz szeląg, 15 Jun 2022
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,034 | 431 | 45 | 1,510 | 92 | 37 | 43 |
- HTML: 1,034
- PDF: 431
- XML: 45
- Total: 1,510
- Supplement: 92
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 43
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1