Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, PO Box 11-115, Hamilton, New Zealand
b
Landcare Research, Private Bag 92170, Auckland, New Zealand
Received 3 April 2005; received in revised form 2 December 2005; accepted 13 December 2005
Available online 3 March 2006
Abstract
Low-impact development urban stormwater drainage systems (LID) are an increasingly popular method to reduce the adverse hydrologic and
water quality effects of urbanisation. In this review, ten existing stormwater models are compared in relation to attributes relevant to modelling
LID. The models are all based on conventional methods for runoff generation and routing, but half of the models add a groundwater/baseflow
component and several include infiltration from LID devices. The models also use conventional methods for contaminant generation and treatment such as buildup-washoff conceptual models and first order decay processes, although some models add treatment mechanisms specific to
particular types of LID device. Several models are capable of modelling distributed on-site devices with a fine temporal resolution and continuous simulation, yet the need for such temporal and spatial detail needs to be established. There is a trend towards incorporation of more types of
LID into stormwater models, and some recent models incorporate a wide range of LID devices or measures. Despite this progress, there are
many areas for further model development, many of which relate to stormwater models in general, including: broadening the range of contaminants; improving the representation of contaminant transport in streams and within treatment devices; treating baseflow components and runoff
from pervious surfaces more thoroughly; linkage to habitat and toxicity models; linkage to automated calibration and prediction uncertainty
models; investigating up-scaling for representation of on-site devices at a catchment level; and catchment scale testing of model predictions.
2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stormwater; Catchment; Model; Review; Urban drainage; Low impact
1. Introduction
Worldwide, there is a well documented decline in habitat
and water quality of urban streams. Urbanisation is typically
accompanied by increases in impervious surfaces such as roofs
and roads, construction of hydraulically efficient drainage systems, compaction of soils, and modifications to vegetation.
This results in increased flood flows (Leopold, 1968) and
stream erosion (Hammer, 1972), and the potential for
decreased baseflow (Paul and Meyer, 2001; Schueler, 1994).
Urbanisation also leads to water contamination from
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
395
to represent LID. In this review the focus is urban stormwater models and LID.
396
Table 1
Name and introductory information for the selected models (unless stated otherwise, the source code is not available)
Versions
References
Primary author or
organisation
Cost (USD)
MOUSE
First: 1985.
DHI, 2002aed; http://www.
Latest: MOUSE 2004 dhisoftware.com/mouse
w300
P8-UCM
Free
PURRS (Probabilistic
Urban Rainwater and Wastewater
Reuse Simulator)
RUNQUAL
Latest 1999
Free, including
source code
SLAMM (Source
Loading and Management Model)
200
StormTac
Latest: 2004
2500
UVQ (Urban
Volume and Quality)
First: 2000
Available for a
small charge
Water Balance
Model (WBM)
First: 2004
http://www.waterbalance.ca
http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/
products/software/runqual/
William W.
Walker Jr.
Planning-level assessment of
water quantity. Strong support in British
Columbia
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
Model
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
All the models are capable of long-term continuous simulation (with the exception of StormTac which is based on mean
annual average values). Simulations covering 10 years or more
are computationally feasible, provided that the level of spatial
detail is not excessive (say, less than 200 spatial elements) and
provided that stability constraints do not necessitate very small
timesteps (in the order of one second).
MOUSE, SWMM, and MUSIC are most suited for prediction of flow rates from small catchments, while the daily or annual models (RUNQUAL, SLAMM, StormTac and UVQ) are
unsuited for this purpose. MUSIC has a smallest timestep of
6 min, so it has limited applicability for predicting flow rates
from areas smaller than about 0.01 km2.
For modelling of small on-site LID devices and small
catchments, sub-hourly timesteps may be required as the timescale of variation in the runoff and associated treatment processes is likely to be in the order of minutes (McAlister
et al., 2003). MOUSE and SWMM are suited for this purpose,
while MUSIC (with its smallest timestep of 6 min) is marginally suited. On the other hand, for the purpose of establishing
contaminant loads and annual water balance (rather than the
timing of loads and flow rates), longer timesteps may be adequate. This aspect of temporal resolution requirements warrants further systematic evaluation. In the absence of such
studies, there is likely to be a trend to the use of small timesteps, even though small timesteps may not actually be
required to adequately address a particular management issue.
te
io
ct
se
le
ls
er
ia
at
m
d
an
si
g
yo
ut
de
d
Si
te
la
le
ai
et
D
si
or
n
io
is
iv
bd
su
of
of
gn
si
de
d
le
ai
et
D
sy
ge
na
ai
dr
na
l
io
re
g
a
of
gn
si
de
ar
y
in
im
Pr
el
st
te
n
io
is
iv
bd
su
on
gi
re
of
gn
si
de
ar
y
in
im
el
Pr
or
ls
co
nt
ro
al
hm
tc
ca
in
e
us
of
ng
ni
an
Pl
el
ev
D
si
s
tie
ci
s/
en
t
es
ic
ev
rd
fo
nd
la
zi
si
g
in
op
rc
h
ea
es
R
em
Four models (MOUSE, MUSIC, SWMM and P8) are spatially distributed with a link-node drainage network. Each of
the catchment elements in these models is associated with
a node of the network, and treatment or flow control devices
are also placed at nodes. The nodes are linked by drainage
es
ru
l
ng
n
io
uc
at
ed
ic
bl
Pu
397
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
PURRS
RUNQUAL
SLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
UVQ
WBM
Fig. 1. Potential uses for the selected models. Grey shading indicates that the model is marginally suited to that use.
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
ly
b-
ly
b-
ur
D
is
tri
b
ut
ed
su
ho
D
is
tri
b
ut
ed
ur
ho
d
m
pe
Lu
ho
ur
su
or
ly
ily
da
ut
ed
D
is
tri
b
Lu
Lu
m
pe
m
pe
da
an
ily
nu
al
or
av
ev
er
en
ag
ho
ur
ly
398
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
PURRS
RUNQUAL
SLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
UVQ
WBM
elements (pipes or channels). In MOUSE, the catchment element is divided into a number of different contaminant-generating
surfaces or land uses, whereas in the other link-node models the
catchment element is taken to be homogeneous in relation to
contaminant generation. UVQ has a novel representation of
the catchment, using three nested spatial components (property
or unit block, neighbourhood or land use, and catchment) so that
a range of scales and associated types of water management can
be addressed. These quasi-distributed models allow for explicit
representation of the spatial distribution of LID devices.
The remaining models (PURRS, RUNQUAL, SLAMM,
StormTac and WBM) treat the catchment in a lumped fashion
with no drainage network, except that the catchment may be
broken into a number of land uses or surface classes (with
the exception of PURRS).
All the models except for StormTac divide the catchment
elements (such as subcatchments) into pervious and impervious components for runoff generation.
N
ur
ve
ua
lr
SC
pt
F
(e urth
.g e
.G rr
re uno
en ff
-A ge
m n
pt er
G
) at
ro
io
un
n
dw
op
tio
at
er
ns
/
b
R
a
se
ou
flo
tin
w
g
to
dr
ai
na
ge
R
ou
ne
tin
tw
g
or
th
k
ro
ug
h
H
d
yd
ev
ro
ic
es
lo
gi
c
ro
ut
in
H
g
yd
in
ra
dr
ul
ai
ic
na
ro
ge
ut
ne
in
g
tw
or
k
al
ai
nf
en
t
ffi
ci
C
on
ce
fc
oe
un
of
R
Routing
um
be
r
l-r
un
of
Runoff generation
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
PURRS
RUNQUAL
SLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
UVQ
WBM
Fig. 3. Runoff generation and routing methods for the selected models.
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
399
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
yg
ox
d
ra
m
pe
Te
Pa
th
o
ge
ns
tu
r
ol
ve
BO
D
,D
is
s
H
ea
vy
nt
s
N
ut
rie
Se
d
im
en
m
et
al
s,
ot
he
rt
ox
en
ic
s
400
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
PURRS
RUNQUAL
SLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
UVQ
WBM
Fig. 4. Contaminants included in the selected models. Grey shading indicates models where the contaminant can be modelled only coarsely or indirectly.
nk
s
Bi
Fi o-r
ltr et
at en
io ti
n on
de ,
vi rai
Pe
ce n
rm
s ga
ea
rd
en
bl
e
s
pa
G
vi
re
n
en
g
ro
of
s
401
ta
n
ai
R
un
on
R
Im
pe
r
vi
ou
sn
es
s
Po
re
nd
du
s
ct
an
io
d
n
w
So
et
la
il
nd
pr
ot
s
ec
tio
R
n
e
co du
nt ct
am io
in n o
an f
tg
In
en
fil
tra
er
at
tio
io
n
n
tre
n
ch
O
nes
si
/b
te
or
de
es
te
n
Sw
tio
n
al
ta
es
nk
s
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
MOUSE
MUSIC
P8
PURRS*
RUNQUAL
SLAMM
StormTac
SWMM
UVQ
WBM*
Fig. 5. LID devices and measures included in the selected models. Grey shading indicates that the model does not explicitly address the device, but could be used to
model the device. Models with an asterisk do not address water quality.
402
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
depletion, and even then the emphasis is on wastewater discharges rather than stormwater. Most of the models have limited or no ability to predict pathogenic micro-organisms or
bacterial indicators, yet these are of major concern even for
separated stormwater systems. None of the models are well
suited for the prediction of sediment loads during the earthworks phase of development.
The models we reviewed are not well suited for site or subdivision fingerprinting to maximise the use of absorbent soils
and natural features and to minimise imperviousness, or for
the selection of construction materials on a site and other
emissions controls to reduce the production of contaminants,
yet this is surely where low-impact development approaches
should start. At present such source controls must be modelled
by adjusting soil properties or contaminant load parameters.
The models are not integrated with ecosystem effects
models, limiting their ability to predict the benefits of LID
on the stream ecosystem, which is a key purpose of LID.
None of the models are linked to habitat models such as erosion or baseflow habitat models, none of them predict contaminant accumulation in streams or estuaries (effects are judged
from water column concentrations or load reduction percentages), and none are linked to bioaccumulation models for toxic
contaminants.
There is scope for improving the representation of contaminant transport and removal processes. For example, the effectiveness of various filter media on contaminant removal could
be included. There is no explicit modelling of the effects of
vegetation on settling or sorption of contaminants. The models
incorporate few, if any, chemical or biochemical processes
such as sorption/desorption and complexation, particle interactions, biological uptake reactions, or generation of organic
sediments. None of the models attempt to represent the contribution to sediment load from erosion in streams, yet this can
be a major contributor to sediment loads (Trimble, 1997).
None of the models (except MOUSE) account for storage
and release of contaminants in sediments (especially in
streams) and the associated effects on baseflow concentrations
and timing of storm loads. Incorporation of such process
would certainly increase the number of parameters in the
model, yet without such modelling the representation of transport and treatment processes remains highly empirical.
Most of the models are somewhat limited in relation to prediction of baseflow, reflecting the traditional emphasis on impervious areas and flooding. In MUSIC, SWMM, and
MOUSE, infiltration from devices such as swales or infiltration trenches is not added to the soil or groundwater moisture
stores, which somewhat limits the utility of these models for
assessing baseflow enhancement. All the models exclude
some factors that can affect baseflow, such as leakage from
the water supply network, groundwater interception by stormwater and wastewater drains, the effect of vegetation type on
evapotranspiration or interception, and regional groundwater
flows. Hence the predictions of the effects of urbanisation on
baseflow may be unreliable. Moreover, predictions of changes
in baseflow have rarely been tested. This is relevant to LID, as
maintenance of pre-development baseflow is often a key goal.
403
The models do not incorporate more sophisticated hydrological processes for prediction of storm flow from pervious
areas, such as variable source areas or macropore flow. This
potentially limits the reliability of the models for prediction
of storm runoff from pervious areas, which is of interest as
LID aims to mimic pre-development hydrology. Also, there
is a heavy reliance on calibration of conceptual parameters,
so that for applications at the development scale or smaller
where data collection for calibration would be too expensive,
the modeller must resort to experience or regional parameterisation to obtain parameter values.
Even if suitable data is available for calibration, most of the
models do not incorporate calibration techniques and methodologies, except occasionally for flow components. None of the
models are set up for automated calibration of water quality
parameters. When calibration is incorporated, the techniques
do not allow for calculation of parameter or prediction uncertainty (beyond simple sensitivity analysis).
None of the models integrate the hydrologic and water
quality predictions with costing modules, environmental risk
analysis or receiving-water models, except that StormTac incorporates a simple lake concentration model and MUSIC
compares the predicted frequency distribution of concentrations with concentration criteria.
None of the models are integrated with drawing software
for the preparation of construction drawings or site layout.
We see a role for models that allow visualisation of lowimpact development measures such as rain gardens or narrow
roads into the site layout and landscaping.
There are some unresolved questions about how much spatial detail is needed to represent on-site LID at a catchment
scale. For example, the degree to which models of on-site
devices can be scaled up to the catchment scale using lumped
representations of the devices has not been demonstrated: the
alternative is to represent each device separately. There is
a need for systematic work on the suitability of, and methods
for, such up-scaling. It may be that such distributed systems
are best modelled with a detailed representation of the system
but also by re-using model components to save on setup time
and computational effort (as in the UrbanCylce model being
developed by Kuczera and others at Newcastle University,
Australia).
There are very few documented tests of the ability of stormwater models to predict the actual effect of LID at a subdivision or catchment scale, mainly because there are difficulties
in setting up a suitable study site, especially one including
a spatial control.
Several approaches can be taken to address these limitations. Research into flow and contaminant generation and
transport processes and development of mathematical representation of these processes will improve the fundamental or
empirical representation of processes in the modes. Testing
of the performance of existing or new devices will also lead
to improvements in their representation within models. Some
gaps will require the development of new models (both sophisticated research-level models and simple models), but many
limitations can be overcome through refinement of existing
404
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
indirectly by altering the parameters of other devices or combining other devices. Conventional stormwater drainage
models can be used to approximate the hydraulic aspects of
several types of device. We expect to see more LID devices
becoming incorporated into conventional stormwater models,
gradual refinement of the algorithms for representing LID devices, and extension of the range of devices as new types of
device are developed and better data are collected.
There is a trend towards incorporation of spatial editors,
GIS, and other graphical interface features into stormwater
modelling systems. Such features will likely encourage the
use of models that incorporate LID, which in turn could
encourage the uptake of LID.
There is considerable scope for improving the capabilities of
the models including: improvement of runoff generation and
groundwater components; extending the range of contaminants;
incorporation of more contaminant biochemical and physical
processes; more integration with receiving-water and ecosystem effects models; incorporation of more non-structural stormwater control measures; more linkage to calibration techniques;
testing of model predictions against field data; and investigation
of methods for and suitability of spatial and temporal aggregation methods. Such gaps and deficiencies are likely to be addressed in future model development, as the use of LID and
associated modelling becomes more commonplace.
References
Beecham, S., 2002. Water sensitive urban design and the role of computer
modelling. In: International Conference on Urban Hydrology for the
21st Century. WMO/UNESCO, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp 21e45.
Burton Jr., G.A., Pitt, R., 2001. Stormwater Effects Handbook: A Tool Box for
Watershed Managers, Scientists and Engineers. CRC/Lewis Publishers,
Boca Raton, Florida.
Chiew, F., McMahon, T.A., 1999. Modelling runoff and diffuse pollution loads
in urban areas. Water Science and Technology 39, 241e248.
CIRIA, 2000. Sustainable urban drainage systems. In: Design manual for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London, England.
Coombes, P.J., 2002. Rainwater tanks revisited: new opportunities for urban
water cycle management. Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle, Australia.
Department of Environmental Resources, 1999. Low-impact development
hydrologic analysis. Prince Georges County, Maryland. Department of
Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division, Maryland,
USA.
DHI, 2002a. MOUSE surface runoff models reference manual. DHI Software,
Horsolm, Denmark.
DHI, 2002b. MOUSE RDII reference manual. DHI Software, Horsolm,
Denmark.
DHI, 2002c. MOUSE pipe flow reference manual. DHI Software, Horsolm,
Denmark.
DHI, 2002d. MOUSE TRAP Version 2003 user guide. DHI Software,
Horsolm, Denmark.
Guther, R.T., Schechenberger, R.B., Blackport, W.R., 1996. Use of continuous
simulation for evaluation of stormwater management practices to maintain
base flow and control erosion. In: James, W. (Ed.), Advances in Modeling
the Management of Stormwater Impacts, vol. 5. Computational Hydraulics
International, Guelph, Canada, pp. 77e100.
Hall, M.J., 1984. Urban Hydrology. Elsevier Applied Science Publications,
Northern Ireland.
Hammer, T.R., 1972. Stream channel enlargement due to urbanisation. Water
Resources Research 8, 1530e1540.
A.H. Elliott, S.A. Trowsdale / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 394e405
Huber, W., Dickinson, R.E., 1988. Storm Water Management Model, Version
4: Users Manual. U.S. EPA, Athens, Georgia. EPA/600/3e88/001a.
Kandasamy, J.K., OLoughlin, G.G., 1995. On-site detention in the Sydney
CBD. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Urban
Stormwater Management 1995, Melbourne, Australia. Institution of
Engineers, Australia, pp. 343e348.
Kettle, D., Diyagama, T., Shaw, N., Heijs, J., Wilson, G., 2004. Modelling of
low-impact initiatives. In: New Zealand Water and Wastes Association
Stormwater 2004 Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand. New Zealand Water
and Wastes Association, Wellington.
Larm, T., 2000. Watershed-based design of stormwater treatment facilities:
model development and application. Ph. D. thesis. Royal Institute of
Technology.
Larm, T., 2003. An operative watershed management model for estimating
actual and acceptable pollutant loads on receiving waters and for the
design of the corresponding required treatment facilities. In: 1st International Conference on Urban Drainage and Highway Runoff in Cold Climates, Riksgransen, Sweden, Lulea University of Technology and
Statues of IAHR/IWA Joint Committee on Urban Drainage.
Leopold, L.B., 1968. Hydrology for urban land planning e a guidebook on the
hydrologic effects of urban land use. In: Geological Survey Circular 554.
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
McAlister, T., Mitchell, G., Fletcher, T., Phillips, B., 2003. Modelling urban
stormwater management systems. Chapter 13 in. In: Wong, T.H.F. (Ed.).
Australian Runoff Quality, Draft. Engineers Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Merritt, W.S., Letcher, R.A., Jakeman, A.J., 2003. A review of erosion and
sediment transport models. Environmental Modelling and Software 18,
761e799.
Mitchell, V.G., Diaper, C., Gray, S.R., Rahilly, M., 2003. UVQ: Modelling the
movement of water and contaminants through the total urban water cycle.
In: 28th International Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium,
Wollongong, NSW. Institution of Engineers, Australia.
Mitchell, V.G., Diaper, C., 2006. Simulating the urban water and contaminant
cycle. Environmental Modelling and Software 21, 129e134.
405
MUSIC Development Team, 2003. MUSIC user guide. Version 2.0. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, Melbourne, Australia.
NZWERF, 2004. On-Site Stormwater Management Manual. New Zealand
Water Environment Research Foundation, Wellington, New Zealand.
Paul, M.J., Meyer, J.L., 2001. Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics 32, 333e365.
Palmstrom, N., Walker, W.W., Jr., 1990. P8 urban catchment model: Users
guide. Program documentation, and evaluation of existing models, design
concepts, and Hunt-Potowomut data inventory. The Narragansett Bay
Project Report No. NBP-90-50.
Pitt, R., 1998. Unique features of the Source Loading and Management Model
(SLAMM). In: James, W. (Ed.), Modeling the Management of Stormwater
Impacts, vol. 6. Computational Hydraulic International, Guelph, Ontario,
pp. 13e35.
Rossman, L.A., 2004. Storm Water Management Model. Version 5.0. National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Schueler, T., 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection
Techniques 1, 100e111.
Singh, V.P., 1995. Watershed modelling. In: Singh, V.P. (Ed.), Computer
Models of Watershed Hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Highlands
Ranch, Colorado, pp. 1e22.
Trimble, S.W., 1997. Contribution of stream channel erosion to sediment yield
from an urbanizing watershed. Science 278, 1422e1444.
ul Haq, R., James, W., 2002. Thermal enrichment of stream temperature by
urban storm water. In: Strecker, E.W., Huber, W.C. (Eds.), Global Solutions for Urban Drainage: 9IUC. American Society of Civil Engineers.
Electronic book.
Wong, T.H.F., Fletcher, T.D., Duncan, H.P., Coleman, J.R., Jenkins, G.A.,
2002. A model for urban stormwater improvement conceptualisation.
In: International Environmental Modelling and Software Society Conference. Lugano, Switzerland.
Zoppou, C., 2001. Review of urban storm water models. Environmental
Modelling and Software 16, 195e231.