Abstract: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 model's structure including the number of parameters), their skill/knowledge level, the available information, and the purpose of their study.

Comparative Assessment of Two Global Sensitivity Approaches Considering Model and Parameter Uncertainty

A Two-Step Sensitivity Analysis for Hydrological Signatures in Jinhua River Basin, East China

Increasing Parameter Identifiability Through Clustered Time-Varying Sensitivity Analysis

Investigating Dynamic Parameter Importance of a High-Complexity Hydrological Model and Implications for Parameterization

A global sensitivity analysis approach for identifying critical sources of uncertainty in non-identifiable, spatially distributed environmental models: A holistic analysis applied to SWAT for input datasets and model parameters

Understanding Parameter Sensitivity and Its Management Implications in Watershed‐scale Water Quality Modeling

Assessment of Parametric Uncertainty for Groundwater Reactive Transport Modeling

On Approaches To Analyze The Sensitivity Of Simulated Hydrologic Fluxes To Model Parameters In The Community Land Model

A geostatistics‐informed hierarchical sensitivity analysis method for complex groundwater flow and transport modeling

Uncertainty Assessment of Urban Hydrological Modelling from a Multiple Objective Perspective

Evaluating Two Sparse Grid Surrogates and Two Adaptation Criteria for Groundwater Bayesian Uncertainty Quantification

Robustness of design flood estimates under nonstationary conditions: parameter sensitivity perspective

An Improved Copula‐Based Framework for Efficient Global Sensitivity Analysis

[Parameters Identification and Uncertainty Analysis for Environmental Model].

Holistic Parameter Sensitivity: A New Perspective to Address the Risk Brought by Multi-Source Deep Uncertainty on Watershed Management

An Improved Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis Approach Using a Multicriteria Sequential Algorithm for Hydrological Modeling

Bayesian framework of parameter sensitivity, uncertainty, and identifiability analysis in complex water quality models.

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

Parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis in hydrological modeling

How to perform global sensitivity analysis of a catchment-scale, distributed pesticide transfer model? Application to the PESHMELBA model

Uncertainty analysis of groundwater flow conceptual model