Abstract. The calibration of urban drainage models is typically performed based on a limited number of observed rainfall–runoff events, which may be selected from a larger dataset in different ways. In this study, 14 single- and two-stage strategies for selecting the calibration events were tested in calibration of a high- and low-resolution Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) of a predominantly green urban area. The two-stage strategies used events with runoff only from impervious areas to calibrate the associated parameters, prior to using larger events to calibrate the parameters relating to green areas. Even though all 14 strategies resulted in successful model calibration (Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency; NSE >0.5), the difference between the best and worst strategies reached 0.2 in the NSE, and the calibrated parameter values notably varied. The various calibration strategies satisfactorily predicted 7 to 13 out of 19 validation events. The two-stage strategies reproduced more validation events poorly (NSE <0) than the single-stage strategies, but they also reproduced more events well (NSE >0.5) and performed better than the single-stage strategies in terms of total runoff volume and peak flow rates, particularly when using a low spatial model resolution. The results show that various strategies for selecting calibration events may lead in some cases to different results in the validation phase and that calibrating impervious and green-area parameters in two separate steps in two-stage strategies may increase the effectiveness of model calibration and validation by reducing the computational demand in the calibration phase and improving model performance in the validation phase.

No abstract

No abstract

Traditional hydrological objective functions may penalize models that reproduce hydrograph shapes well, but with some shift in time; especially for urban catchments with a fast hydrological response. Hydrograph timing is not always critical, so this paper investigates alternative objective functions (based on the Hydrograph Matching Algorithm) that try to mimic visual hydrograph comparison. A modified version of the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation is proposed to compare regular objective functions with those that account for timing errors. This is applied to 2-year calibration and validation data sets from an urban catchment. Results show that such objective functions provide equally reliable model predictions (they envelop the same fraction of observations), but with more precision, i.e. smaller estimated uncertainty of model predictions. Additionally, identifiability of some model parameters improved. Therefore objective functions based on the Hydrograph Matching Algorithm can be useful to reduce uncertainties in urban drainage modelling.

Abstract. Calibration of urban drainage models is typically performed based on a limited number of observed rainfall-runoff events, which may be selected from a longer time-series of measurements in different ways. In this study, 14 single- and two-stage strategies for selecting these events were tested for calibration of a SWMM model of a predominantly green urban area. The event selection was considered in relation to other sources of uncertainty such as measurement uncertainties, objective functions, and catchment discretization. Even though all 14 strategies resulted in successful model calibration, the difference between the best and worst strategies reached 0.2 in Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) and the calibrated parameter values notably varied. Most, but not all, calibration strategies were robust to changes in objective function, perturbations in calibration data and the use of a low spatial resolution model in the calibration phase. The various calibration strategies satisfactorily predicted 7 to 13 out of 19 validation events. The two-stage strategies performed better than the single-stage strategies when measuring performance using the Root Mean Square Error, flow volume error or peak flow error (but not using NSE); when flow data in the calibration period had been perturbed by ±40 %; and when using a lower model resolution. The two calibration strategies that performed best in the validation period were two-stage strategies. The findings in this paper show that different strategies for selecting calibration events may lead in some cases to different results for the validation period, and that calibrating impermeable and green area parameters in two separate steps may improve model performance in the validation period, while also reducing the computational demand in the calibration phase.