water
Article
Parameter Optimization of SWMM Model Using Integrated
Morris and GLUE Methods
Baoling Zhong 1,2 , Zongmin Wang 1,2 , Haibo Yang 1,2, * , Hongshi Xu 1,2 , Meiyan Gao 1,2 and Qiuhua Liang 1,3
Citation: Zhong, B.; Wang, Z.; Yang,
H.; Xu, H.; Gao, M.; Liang, Q.
Parameter Optimization of SWMM
Model Using Integrated Morris and
GLUE Methods. Water 2023, 15, 149.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010149
Academic Editor: Zhenyao Shen
Received: 10 November 2022
Revised: 21 December 2022
Accepted: 28 December 2022
Published: 30 December 2022
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Water 2023, 15, 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010149
1 Yellow River Laboratory, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
2 School of Water Conservancy Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, China
3 School of Architecture, Building and Civil Engineering, Loughborough University,
Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK
* Correspondence: yanghb@zzu.edu.cn
Abstract: The USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Storm Water Management
Model (SWMM) is one of the most extensively implemented numerical models for simulating urban
runoff. Parameter optimization is essential for reliable SWMM model simulation results, which
are heterogeneously sensitive to a variety of parameters, especially when involving complicated
simulation conditions. This study proposed a Genetic Algorithm-based parameter optimization
method that combines the Morris screening method with the generalized likelihood uncertainty
estimation (GLUE) method. In this integrated methodology framework, the Morris screening method
is used to determine the parameters for calibration, the GLUE method is employed to narrow
down the range of parameter values, and the Genetic Algorithm is applied to further optimize the
model parameters by considering objective constraints. The results show that the set of calibrated
parameters, obtained by the integrated Morris and GLUE methods, can reduce the peak error by
9% for a simulation, and then the multi-objective constrained Genetic Algorithm reduces the model
parameters’ peak error in the optimization process by up to 6%. During the validation process, the
parameter set determined from the combination of both is used to obtain the optimal values of the
parameters by the Genetic Algorithm. The proposed integrated method shows superior applicability
for different rainfall intensities and rain-type events. These findings imply that the automated
calibration of the SWMM model utilizing a Genetic Algorithm based on the combined parameter set
of both has enhanced model simulation performance.
Keywords: SWMM model; parameter optimization; Morris screening method; GLUE method
1. Introduction
The Sixth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
highlighted the growing threat of climate change and the frequent occurrence of urban
flooding [1]. Urban flood models provide essential tools to understand the urban flooding
process and support flood risk management. These models are generally classified into
empirical, conceptual, and physical models [2]. SWMM is an open-source model that has
been widely used to simulate hydrological processes and water quality in urban areas
with promising results [3–5]. The SWMM model contains some essential parameters for
describing hydrological processes, and these parameters may contribute to the model
output uncertainties [6–9]. Therefore, model parameter optimization is a fundamental
strategy commonly employed by hydrologists to decrease uncertainty in simulation results.
The parameter uncertainty analysis approach is based on parametric error, with the premise
that the model input data, model structure, and other uncertainties may be ignored using
specific criteria to produce more objective estimations of the actual value of parameters [10].
In addition, the variations in rainfall intensity and pattern may also cause changes in the
model’s parameter settings for a specific study area. Consequently, the calibration of model
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water
Water 2023, 15, 149 2 of 17

parameters is an indispensable step to improve the applicability and accuracy of model

simulation [11].
The prerequisite for parameter optimization is to determine the parameters that need
to be optimized and the range of parameter values. Parametric sensitivity analysis is
commonly used to perform a dimensionality reduction operation on the model parameters.
Selecting relatively critical parameters as calibration parameters can decrease the burden
of model parameter optimization [12]. Many studies involving SWMM models have
performed a parametric sensitivity analysis, and generally sensitivity analysis for one
parameter at a time (i.e., changing the value of one input parameter while holding all
other parameters constant) has been widely studied and applied [13–16]. Choosing a
smaller range of parameter variations is more conducive to the calibration of the model
parameters [17]. A bigger range of parameter values widens the search space of the
parameter set, which may reduce the optimization algorithm effectiveness in finding the
best parameter values. The GLUE (generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation) approach
is simple to apply and has been employed as a technical approach for model uncertainty
analysis [18–21]. Furthermore, the comprehensive model simulations in the GLUE approach
allow for the qualitative study of parameter sensitivity and for narrowing the parameter
value interval [22].
Many studies of parameter calibration did not combine sensitivity analysis and un-
certainty analysis simultaneously in this process, giving rise to specific problems. On one
hand, particular research is more likely to use a single sampling technique for perturbation
analysis (i.e., the Morris screening method), even without a sensitivity analysis. It excludes
sensitive parameters and increases the uncertainty of model output findings, resulting in
lower model simulation accuracy after parameter optimization [23–25]. In other studies,
multiple methods are selected for sensitivity analysis. After comparing the sensitivity
results, the calibration parameters are determined. Unfortunately, few studies consider the
influence of the range of parameter values on the optimization of model parameters [26–28].
Therefore, the usefulness of integrated Morris and GLUE methods is worth exploring.
In this study, considering that both the parameters’ complexity and the optimization
algorithm may affect the SWMM model parameter optimization, an integrated method-
ological framework is proposed. A single perturbation sensitivity analysis method often
misses vital parameters during the selection of optimization parameters. Model parameter
optimization intervals usually employ a priori ranges, and broad optimization intervals
are not conducive to parameter optimization. A standard Genetic Algorithm often adopts
single objective constraints, and the model optimization accuracy is poor. The main ob-
jective of this paper is to (1) propose a parameter optimization approach for SWMM by
combining the Morris screening method with the GLUE method, and (2) further improve
the algorithm’s optimization-seeking ability by using a Genetic Algorithm with increasing
objective function constraint.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Data
The Zhengzhou National High-Tech Industrial Development Zone is located in the
northwestern part of Zhengzhou City, with a catchment area of 99 km2 . Urban precipitation
is mainly discharged through river networks, nullahs, and culverts across the city. The
terrain is flat, with an average slope of 0.29% and an altitude range of 67 to 110 m. As shown
in Figure 1, the region is predominated by temperate continental monsoon climate with
four distinct seasons and an average annual rainfall of 542.1 mm. Precipitation is unevenly
distributed throughout the seasons and mainly concentrated in summer, resulting in severe
spring droughts and summer floods. The land cover may be classified into four categories:
buildings, roads, vegetation, and bare ground, with an impervious ratio of about 62.08%.
 stations in the Zhengzhou High-tech Zone. For the validation of the model, discharge
flows with a time step of 10 min were collected. The land use data were extracted from
Landsat 8 remote sensing images. Domain elevation is described by the DEM (12.5 m ×
12.5 m) collected by ALOS satellite. The data were obtained from the ASF website
(https://search.asf.alaska.edu), accessed on 6 April 2021. The slope was extracted using the
Water 2023, 15, 149 3 of 17
Hydrological Analysis module to process the data, analyze the “slope” function to obtain
a slope map, and then superimpose it on the sub-catchments to obtain the average slope.

Figure 1. 1.
Figure Study
Studyarea.
area.

2.2. Methods
The data requirements for SWMM model setup include rainfall data, slope and el-
evation,
Figureland use data, the
2 illustrates stormwater
flowchart pipe system,
of the and discharge
proposed research data. The rainfall
procedure in the data
study,
include 1-h interval rainfall data from May to August 2018, available
including SWMM modeling and model parameter optimization. Model parameter opti- from meteorolog-
ical stations
mization in the
consists Zhengzhou
of three High-tech
steps: (1) Zone.
sensitivity For the
analysis validation
to select of the model,
the optimization dis-
parame-
charge flows with a time step of 10 min were collected. The land use data were ex-
ters by using Morris screening method, (2) uncertainty analysis to narrow the parameter
tracted from Landsat 8 remote sensing images. Domain elevation is described by the DEM
optimization interval using the GLUE method, and (3) finally using the Genetic Algorithm
(12.5 m × 12.5 m) collected by ALOS satellite. The data were obtained from the ASF website
to(https://search.asf.alaska.edu),
further optimize the model parameters
accessed onby considering
6 April objective
2021. The slope wasconstraints.
extracted using the
Hydrological Analysis module to process the data, analyze the “slope” function to obtain a
slope map, and then superimpose it on the sub-catchments to obtain the average slope.

2.2. Methods
Figure 2 illustrates the flowchart of the proposed research procedure in the study,
including SWMM modeling and model parameter optimization. Model parameter opti-
mization consists of three steps: (1) sensitivity analysis to select the optimization parameters
by using Morris screening method, (2) uncertainty analysis to narrow the parameter opti-
mization interval using the GLUE method, and (3) finally using the Genetic Algorithm to
further optimize the model parameters by considering objective constraints.
ter 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of

Water 2023, 15, 149 4 of 17

Figure 2. Flow chart of the research methods. The first step of the red dashed box symbolizes
Figure
the2.process
Flow of chart of the the
identifying research methods.
parameters The first the
to be optimized, step of the
second red
step dashed
depicts box symbolizes
the process of
process of identifying
narrowing the rangethe parameters
of sensitive to bevalues,
parameter optimized, the
and the second
third step depicts
step represents the process
the process of of n
rowing the range of sensitive parameter values, and the third step represents the process of au
automatic model parameter optimization utilizing the Genetic Algorithm.
matic model parameter optimization utilizing the Genetic Algorithm.
2.2.1. SWMM Model
The USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) Storm Water Manage-
2.2.1.ment
SWMM Model
Model (SWMM) is an urban hydrological model developed in 1971 by the United
States
The USEPAEnvironmental
(UnitedProtection
States Agency to handle the
Environmental expandingAgency)
Protection urban drainage
Stormproblem.
Water Mana
ment Model (SWMM) is an urban hydrological model developed in 1971 bytothe Uni
It is a hydrological hydrodynamics-based urban storm water model primarily used
simulate both water quantity and quality during a single rainfall event or continuous
Statesrainfall
Environmental Protection Agency to handle the expanding urban drainage pro
process in cities [29–32]. The model parameters of SWMM can be divided into two
lem. categories:
It is a hydrological
nonempiricalhydrodynamics-based urban storm
parameters and empirical parameters. water model
Nonempirical primarily us
parameters
to simulate both water quantity and quality during a single rainfall event or continuo
such as characteristic width, slope, and percent imperviousness area can be measured
from
rainfall field data,
process in while
citiesempirical
[29–32].parameters
The model such as permeable
parameters ofarea,
SWMM roughness
can becoefficient,
divided into t
impervious area, roughness coefficient, and Horton infiltration parameter should be con-
categories: nonempirical parameters and empirical parameters. Nonempirical paramet
sidered with the actual conditions of the study area and relevant literature to determine the
such ranges
as characteristic width,
of parameter values slope,
[33–36]. It isand percent
noted imperviousness
that a broader area variation
range of parameter can be measur
fromprovides
field data,morewhile empiricalabout
vital information parameters
the effectsuch
of theas permeable
parameters area,
on the roughness
model coefficie
output [17].
Table 1 summarizes the main parameters of the model under study.
impervious area, roughness coefficient, and Horton infiltration parameter should be co
sidered with the actual conditions of the study area and relevant literature to determ
the ranges of parameter values [33–36]. It is noted that a broader range of parameter v
iation provides more vital information about the effect of the parameters on the mo
output [17]. Table 1 summarizes the main parameters of the model under study.
Water 2023, 15, 149 5 of 17

Table 1. SWMM model’s hydrological and hydraulic parameters.

Symbol Parameter Description Domain

Ni N-imperv Manning’s n for impervious areas (0.011, 0.05)
Np N-perv Manning’s n for pervious areas (0.01, 0.8)
Di Destore-imperv Depression storage for impervious areas (mm) (0.2, 10)
Dp Destore-perv Depression storage for pervious areas (mm) (2, 10)
Percent of impervious area without
Zi Zero-imperv (5, 85)
depression storage (%)
Max_r Maxrate Maximum infiltration rate (mm.h−1 ) (20, 127)
Min_r Minrate Minimum infiltration rate (mm.h−1 ) (0.1, 10)
Dc Decay-constant Infiltration attenuation coefficient (h−1 ) (2, 7)
Nc N-conduit Manning’s n for conduits (0.009, 0.024)

Different rainfall intensities lead to different results from parameter sensitivity analysis,
causing specific differences in model output performance. As shown in Table 2, rainfall
events with different rainfall intensities are selected and tested in this study. Among them,
events 0819 and 0515 are used to complete the rainfall input for the model calibration
period, while 0801 and 0730 are used as the rainfall input for the model validation period.

Table 2. Rainfall event information.

Max Intensity
Event Data Total Rainfall (mm) Duration (h) Time Step (h)
(mm/h)
0819 19 August 2018 41.5 13 1 11
0515 15 March 2018 64.5 12 1 26.5
0801 1 August 2018 63 2 1 60
0730 30 July 2017 34.5 12 1 7.5

2.2.2. Morris Screening Method

The Morris screening method [37,38] entails choosing one of the variables, xi , from
the examined parameters, holding the remaining parameter values fixed, and altering the
variable xi at random within the variable’s value range. The model is then run to acquire the
outcomes of various xi corresponding to the goal function y(x) = y(x1 ,x2 ,x3 , . . . ,xn ). Finally,
the influence value, ei , is employed to calculate the effect of input parameter changes on
model output:
ei = (y∗ − y)/∆i (1)
where y* is the output value after the parameter change, y is the output value before the
parameter change, and ∆i is the value of the magnitude of the parameter i change.
The modified Morris screening method employs independent variables to vary in
fixed steps, and the final sensitivity discriminant is taken as the average of multiple Morris
coefficients, calculated as follows:
(Yi+1 −Yi )/Y0
∑in=−01 Pi+1 − Pi
S = (2)
n−1
where S is the parameter sensitivity index; Yi is the output value of the ith run of the
model; Yi + 1 is the output value of the i + 1th run of the model; Y0 is the initial value of the
calculated result after parameter calibration; Pi is the percentage change in the ith model
operation relative to the parameter value after calibration; Pi + 1 is the percentage change in
the i + 1th model operation relative to the parameter value after calibration; n is the number
of model runs.
When the value of |S| is less than 0.05, the parameter is insensitive. The parameter is
moderately sensitive if the value of |S| ranges between 0.05 and 0.2. If the value of |S|
ranges between 0.2 and 1.0, the parameter is considered sensitive. A value of |S| greater
than 1.0 indicates that the parameter is very sensitive [39]. However, the modified Morris
Water 2023, 15, 149 6 of 17

screening method usually selects the parameter’s initial value. It then varies a parameter by
a fixed step and perturbation range [16], so the sensitivity analysis results may be affected
by the initial value of the parameter and the perturbation range. If only a single sampling
technique is used for the Morris screening method, the ideal parameter identification and
ranking often cannot be obtained, which may cause misclassification. Therefore, this study
sets three sampling methods with 2% step changes. The initial calibration is used as the
initial parameter value, using a perturbation in the same range on both sides of the initial
value. The initial value selects the median value of the parameter range, and perturbation
is performed within the same range on both sides of the initial value (e.g., ±10%). The
initial calibration is used as the initial parameter value, and the initial value is perturbed in
different ranges on both sides (e.g., +10% and −30%). Each parameter has the same number
of perturbations in the three sampling methods (Calibration value_sr, Median value_sr,
and Calibration value_dr).

2.2.3. GLUE Method

GLUE is one of the widely used methods to evaluate model uncertainty based on
Bayesian theory [40,41]. Generally, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is performed by pa-
rameter prior-distribution and post-distribution. The distance, D, between the overall
distribution of the sample is calculated, then the model parameter sensitivity sort can be
achieved [42,43]. When the two distributions are close to each other, the distance naturally
decreases, and the sensitivity of the corresponding parameter is small, and vice versa. The
analysis process generally consists of the following steps:
Step 1—Selecting the likelihood function for the model simulation calculation.
Step 2—Selecting the initial range of the model parameters and the prior distribution
of parameters. The random combination of parameters is then obtained by Latin hyper-
cube sampling.
Step 3—Simulating the likelihood values of each combination by running the model to
obtain the posterior distribution of the parameters.
Because the prior distribution of the parameters is hard to determine, uniform distribu-
tion is usually assumed. In addition, this approach does not filter sensitive parameters from
non-sensitive parameters. A significant interaction effect between the input parameters
leads to a change in the model output results, whereas the D value is zero at this time [44].
In this study, the GLUE method is mainly used to narrow the range of parameters further.
It is combined with sensitivity analysis to reduce the solution space of parameters in the
next step of model optimization. The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index is selected as the
likelihood measure for constructing the posterior distribution of the parameters [45]. In
the hydraulic modeling of urban drainage systems, the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency index is
frequently selected as a threshold value of 0.7 [46].

2.2.4. Coupling Based on Genetic Algorithm

The integration of Morris and GLUE involves several steps: (1) the parameters to be
calibrated are screened by multiple Morris syntheses, (2) the GLUE uncertainty analysis
is used to narrow down the range of essential parameters, and (3) the set of parameters
obtained by combining the two is used for model parameter optimization. Currently,
the Genetic Algorithm [47,48] has been widely used. A standard Genetic Algorithm is
used to compare and analyze the effectiveness of the coupled methods, considering single
and multi-objectives to construct the fitness function. Therefore, two objective formulas
are considered, minimizing the sum of the squared difference objective at each moment
and minimizing the peak flow error objective. These formulas have motivated a series
of numerical experiments involving: (1) a single-objective calibration that considers only
Water 2023, 15, 149 7 of 17

the sum of squared difference at each moment (Y1 ); (2) a multi-objective calibration that
considers both objectives (Y1 and Y2 ).
n
minY1 (x) = ∑ (Qo (i) − Qs (i))2 (3)
i =1
 
minY2 (x) =  Qps − Q po  (4)
where Y1 and Y2 are the two target minima; Qo(i) is the observed value at the moment i;
Qs(i) is the simulated value at the moment i; Qps is the peak value of the flow simulation
process; Qpo is the peak value of the flow observation process.

3. Results
3.1. Parameter Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 3 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis of the Morris screening method
for different sampling methods and various rainfall intensities. The sensitivity analysis
results show that different objective functions yield different sensitivity parameters for the
same rainfall event. For changes in rainfall events, the number of sensitive parameters
also differs. As shown in Figure 3a, the Nc parameter has a substantially higher sensitivity
index than other parameters, significantly influencing the model simulation outcomes. In
the Median value_sr technique, the Di parameter is considered sensitive only when the
index value surpasses 0.05. Although the rest of the parameters do not meet the sensitivity
discriminant, the sensitivity values fluctuate dramatically between the different sampling
methods (e.g., Zi, Max_r, and Min_r). When looking at the flood peak simulation (Figure 3b),
the sensitivity index value of the Ni parameter changes from 0.02 to 0.07, and the parameter
sensitivity changes from insensitive to sensitive. The contribution of the parameter Ni
to the model is significantly higher than the Di parameter, which is below the threshold
value. As the intensity of the rainfall increases, the differences in parameter sensitivity
between the approaches become greater. As in Figure 3c, the parameter Dc sensitivity index
is below the threshold of 0.05, but the results in the other methods reach 0.12 and 0.19,
respectively. Meanwhile, the Max_r parameter only meets the discriminatory criteria for
sensitive parameters in the Calibration value_sr approach and is considered insensitive in
the other two techniques. Although the differences in the sensitivity S values of different
methods are minor for other parameters, there are still changes in the identification of
sensitive and insensitive parameters (e.g., Ni, Dp, and Min_r). Thus, for the SWMM model
selection optimization parameters, it is recommended to use the Morris screening method
of multiple perturbation ways.
Table 3 lists the group of sensitive parameters and synthetically selected parameters
for each mode. The sensitive parameters identified by various sampling methods differ,
and the number of sensitive parameters identified increases with rainfall intensity. In
particular, Calibration value_sr exposes sensitivity to only two parameters (Ni and Nc)
for rainfall event 0819 but identifies four sensitive parameters (Ni, Nc, Dc, and Max_r)
for rainfall event 0515. Ordinarily, parameters are considered to be insensitive below a
threshold of 0.05. Nevertheless, this insensitivity is relative to the more sensitive parame-
ters. Insensitivity parameters are considered to have little effect on the model. Their role in
parameter optimization is often neglected; inconsistent results are easily obtained when
only a single perturbation approach is used. This study comprehensively selects the cali-
bration parameters through the sensitivity analysis results of three perturbation methods.
The sensitivity index, S, of the parameters will remain consistent below the threshold value,
but the index S fluctuates widely between the different ways, even close to the threshold
value. For instance, the parameters Zi, Max r, Min r, and Dp in the rainfall events of 0819
and 0515 are compatible with the phenomenon mentioned above. It is similar to using a
ranking approach to select the optimization parameters. In addition, two parameters are
consistently identified as sensitive in this study area (Ni and Nc) despite the differences in
sampling methods and rainfall events.
Water
Water 2023,
2023, 15,
15, x149
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof18
17

Comparing three
Figure 3. Comparing
Figure three sample
sample techniques’
techniques’ parameter
parameter sensitivity
sensitivity using
using the
the Morris
Morris screening
screening
method:
method:(a) (a)Average
Averageflow
flowparameter
parameter sensitivity forfor
sensitivity rainfall event
rainfall 0819;
event (b) Max
0819; flow flow
(b) Max parameter sen-
parameter
sitivity for rainfall
sensitivity eventevent
for rainfall 0819; 0819;
(c) Average flow parameter
(c) Average sensitivity
flow parameter for rainfall
sensitivity for event 0515;
rainfall (d) 0515;
event Max
flow parameter
(d) Max sensitivity
flow parameter for rainfall
sensitivity event 0515.
for rainfall eventThe gray
0515. Thedashed line denotes
gray dashed the parameter
line denotes sen-
the parameter
sitivity threshold.
sensitivity threshold.

TableTable 3 lists
3. Three the group
sampling of sensitive
methods: parameters
SA screening andparameters
sensitive synthetically
and selected
a combinedparameters
relatively
for each mode. The
sensitive parameter. sensitive parameters identified by various sampling methods differ,
and the number of sensitive parameters identified increases with rainfall intensity. In par-
Group value_sr exposes sensitivity
ticular, Calibration 0819 to only two parameters 0515 (Ni and Nc) for
rainfallCalibration
event 0819 but identifies four sensitive
value_sr Nc, Ni parameters (Ni, Nc, Nc,Dc,
Dc, and
Max_r,Max_r)
Ni for
rainfall event
Median0515. Ordinarily, parameters
value_sr Nc,are
Ni,considered
Di to be insensitive
Nc, Ni,below
Min_ra thresh-
old ofCalibration value_dr this insensitivity
0.05. Nevertheless, Nc,isNi Nc, Ni, Dc
relative to the more sensitive parameters.
Multiple Morris Ni, Di, Nc, Zi, Max_r, Min_r
Insensitivity parameters are considered to have little effect on the model.Nc, Dc, Ni, Max_r, Min_r,
Their Dpin
role
parameter optimization is often neglected; inconsistent results are easily obtained when
3.2. Uncertainty
only Analysis of approach
a single perturbation Parameter isValue
used.Range
This study comprehensively selects the cali-
bration parameters
Figure 4 showsthrough the sensitivity
the posterior analysis
distribution results of three
of parameters and theperturbation
correlationmethods.
informa-
The
tion sensitivity
between theindex, S, of parameter
behavioral the parameters
valueswillandremain
the NSE. consistent
The Latinbelow the threshold
hypercube sampling
value, but the was
(LSH) method index S fluctuates
employed in thewidely
study tobetween
generatethe different
a random ways, even
combination of close to the
2000 sample
threshold value. For instance, the parameters Zi, Max r, Min r, and
groups. The objective function values were acquired after numerous parameter replace- Dp in the rainfall
events
ments ofand0819 andruns.
model 0515 are
Thecompatible
parameter Nc,withfollowed
the phenomenon mentioned
by the parameter Ni,above. It is sim-
was discovered
to be
ilar tothe most
using crucial calibration
a ranking approach parameter.
to select theThe parameter Dc
optimization has almostInno
parameters. shape peaks
addition, two
compared toare
parameters theconsistently
other two parameters.
identified as sensitive in this study area (Ni and Nc) despite
the differences in sampling methods and rainfall events.
 Figure 4 shows the posterior distribution of parameters and the correlation infor-
mation between the behavioral parameter values and the NSE. The Latin hypercube sam-
pling (LSH) method was employed in the study to generate a random combination of 2000
sample groups. The objective function values were acquired after numerous parameter
replacements and model runs. The parameter Nc, followed by the parameter Ni, was dis-
Water 2023, 15, 149 9 of 17
covered to be the most crucial calibration parameter. The parameter Dc has almost no
shape peaks compared to the other two parameters.

Figure 4. Likelihood
Figure scatters
4. Likelihood plot
scatters of of
plot parameters:
parameters:(a)(a)
Relationship
Relationshipofofparameter
parameterNc
Ncand
andNSE;
NSE;(b)
(b)Re-
Rela-
lationship of parameter Ni and NSE; (c) Relationship of parameter Dc and NSE. The x-axis
tionship of parameter Ni and NSE; (c) Relationship of parameter Dc and NSE. The x-axis represents repre-
sents
thethe posterior
posterior distribution
distribution of the
of the parameters.
parameters.

Table
Table4 4reports
reportsthe
theparameters’
parameters’mean,
mean, standard deviation, and
standard deviation, andcorrelation
correlationmatrix
matrixofofthe
theposterior
posterior distribution. There is a weak correlation between the parameters. The pa-
distribution. There is a weak correlation between the parameters. The parameter
rameter
NC hasNC has a negative
a negative correlation
correlation with
with the the remaining
remaining two parameters,
two parameters, while
while there is there is
a positive
a positive correlation
correlation betweenbetween the parameter
the parameter Ni parameter
Ni and the and the parameter
Dc. Dc.

Table
Table4. 4.
Mean, standard
Mean, standarddeviation, coefficient
deviation, of of
coefficient variation, and
variation, correlation
and matrix
correlation of of
matrix thethe
posterior
posterior
distributions forfor
distributions thethe
parameters.
parameters.
Correlation Coefficient,
Correlation R
Coefficient, R
Parameter Mean Parameter
σ Mean Cov σ Cov
Nc Ni Dc
Nc Ni Dc
Nc 0.014 0.003 23% 1
Nc 0.014 0.003 23% 1
Ni 0.027 Ni 0.011 0.027 40%0.011 −0.32
40% −0.32 1 1
Dc 4.412 Dc 1.444 4.412 33%1.444 −0.03
33% −0.030.01 0.01 1 1

Figure 5 shows the probability density plot and cumulative distribution plot of the
behavioral parameter values and the Nash efficiency coefficients. The viable parameter
groups that satisfy the probability objective function (NSE > 0.7) are then tallied. The
remaining seven parameters have similar uniform distribution phenomena, except for Nc
and Ni. Therefore, only Nc, Ni, and Dc are listed for analysis in this study. In a probability
density plot, the shape of the parameter distribution indicates the frequency of the estimated
uncertainty, and the lower frequency of a parameter at a certain value indicates that
the parameter has more uncertainty. Nc and Ni show a trapezoidal distribution. The
remaining parameters are more uniformly distributed in their respective ranges, with
an extensive range of uncertainties, which often exist in the actual model simulation
process with heterogeneous parameters and homogeneity. Because the more concentrated
intervals cannot be obtained from the posterior distribution, the range of parameter values
remains uniformly distributed, increasing parameter optimization’s difficulty. The posterior
distribution differs from the prior distribution more noticeably when the parameter Nc
is studied, and it is thought to be an extremely sensitive parameter. When the parameter
is chosen from the interval (0.009, 0.018), the cumulative probability density of NSE > 0.7
approaches 0.93. A more intensive range of parameter values is obtained, which can be
 with heterogeneous parameters and homogeneity. Because the more concentrated inter-
vals cannot be obtained from the posterior distribution, the range of parameter values
remains uniformly distributed, increasing parameter optimization’s difficulty. The poste-
rior distribution differs from the prior distribution more noticeably when the parameter
Nc is studied, and it is thought to be an extremely sensitive parameter. When the param-
Water 2023, 15, 149 eter is chosen from the interval (0.009, 0.018), the cumulative probability density of NSE 10 of 17
>
0.7 approaches 0.93. A more intensive range of parameter values is obtained, which can
be narrowed down from (0.009, 0.024) to (0.009, 0.018). The posterior distribution differs
from the prior
narrowed down distribution when
from (0.009, the parameter
0.024) Nc is studied,
to (0.009, 0.018). and it isdistribution
The posterior considered to be a
differs
weakly sensitive parameter. When the parameter is taken from the interval (0.011,
from the prior distribution when the parameter Nc is studied, and it is considered to be a 0.042),
the cumulative
weakly sensitiveprobability
parameter.density
When theof NSE > 0.7 reaches
parameter is taken0.91.
fromLikewise, a more
the interval intensive
(0.011, 0.042),
range of parameter
the cumulative values isdensity
probability obtained, which
of NSE canreaches
> 0.7 be narrowed down from
0.91. Likewise, (0.011,
a more 0.05) to
intensive
(0.011,
range of 0.042). Nonetheless,
parameter the
values is parameter
obtained, Dc iscan
which approximately
be narroweduniformly
down from distributed over
(0.011, 0.05) to
their range,
(0.011, 0.042).and a concentration
Nonetheless, range ofDc
the parameter values cannot be obtained.
is approximately uniformly This phenomenon
distributed over
exists for seven
their range, andofa the nine parameters
concentration rangeselected
of valuesforcannot
the model, further indicating
be obtained. the insta-
This phenomenon
bility
exists of solutions
for seven ofobtained
the ninewhen performing
parameters SWMM
selected for model parameter
the model, optimization.
further indicating the
instability of solutions obtained when performing SWMM model parameter optimization.

Figure 5. Parameter probability density plots and cumulative distribution plots: (a) (a) Parameter
Parameter Nc;
Nc;
(b) Parameter Ni; (c) Parameter Dc. The x-axis represents the posterior distribution of the parame-
(b) Parameter Ni; (c) Parameter Dc. The x-axis represents the posterior distribution of the parameters.
ters.
3.3. Parameter Calibration
Figure 6 shows the improvement of the model simulation accuracy with parameter
optimization interval reduction and also compares the effect of the Genetic Algorithm
on the flood flow before and after adding the objective function constraint. This study
used the Genetic Algorithm to examine the advantages of the parameter set determined
by integrating Morris and GLUE methods during model parameter optimization. In
the sensitivity analysis, comparative optimization experiments were also carried out for
the combination of parameters to be calibrated under each perturbation approach. For
the optimization of SWMM model parameters, the combined three perturbation ways
sensitivity analysis screening parameters always dominate a certain position, even in the
case of a single-objective constraint algorithm. By comparing (a,b) in Figure 6, the increase
in the target constraint significantly improves the accuracy of the model flow simulation,
with a maximum reduction in flood error of 5.1% and 3.2% for both multiple Morris and
combined GLUE, respectively. For the combined GLUE method, the parameter set after
narrowing the parameter value range always reduces the peak flow error during calibration.
In (d) of Figure 6, the SWMM model flow simulation, combined with the GLUE method
to narrow the range of the parameters, reduced the flood peak errors by 1.2% and 9% in
the two flood peaks, respectively. There are still some inevitable discrepancies between the
 target constraint significantly improves the accuracy of the model flow simulation, with a
maximum reduction in flood error of 5.1% and 3.2% for both multiple Morris and com-
bined GLUE, respectively. For the combined GLUE method, the parameter set after nar-
rowing the parameter value range always reduces the peak flow error during calibration.
Water 2023, 15, 149 In (d) of Figure 6, the SWMM model flow simulation, combined with the GLUE method 11 of 17
to narrow the range of the parameters, reduced the flood peak errors by 1.2% and 9% in
the two flood peaks, respectively. There are still some inevitable discrepancies between
the optimization of model parameters and observed flows for different rainfall events,
optimization of model parameters and observed flows for different rainfall events, which
which may be caused by the pursuit of more accurate peak flow, as in Figure 6c. In gen-
may be caused by the pursuit of more accurate peak flow, as in Figure 6c. In general, these
eral, these deviations are within a relatively small range. There are no significant differ-
deviations are within a relatively small range. There are no significant differences between
ences between the
the parameters parameters
determined determined
by Morris by Morris
combined combined
with the with theand
GLUE method GLUE method
the observed
and the observed flow results during the optimization of
flow results during the optimization of model parameters. model parameters.

Figure 6. Model flow simulation results during the calibration period: (a) Genetic Algorithm with a
single-objective for rainfall event 0819; (b) Genetic Algorithm with multi-objective for rainfall event
0819; (c) Genetic Algorithm with a single-objective for rainfall event 0515; (d) Genetic Algorithm with
multi-objective for rainfall event 0515.

Figure 7 further visualizes the difference in peak flows under the two rainfall events.
It is noticeable that the number of objective constraints and the narrowing of the parameter
value range have a significant effect on the calibration of the model parameters. For the
single-objective constraint algorithm in the 0515 rainfall event, the simulated peak flood
errors of the models with different optimized parameter sets reached a high of 13.5% and a
low of 7.4%. In comparison, the peak error decreases from a maximum of 11.1% to 1.5%
with the addition of the objective function constraint. Compared with the single-objective
optimization function, the Genetic Algorithm with the addition of flooding error reduces
the peak error overall to a certain extent. At the same time, the enhancement of the model
flow simulation accuracy by narrowing the parameter optimization interval can also be
observed after combining the GLUE method compared to the synthesized Morris-screened
parameters, reducing the peak error by 4.2% and 9% for the single-objective and multi-
objective cases, respectively. Meanwhile, for the single-objective constraint algorithm in
rainfall event 0819, the simulated peak flood errors of the models with different optimized
parameter sets reached a high of 12.2% and a low of 3.8%. In comparison, the peak error
 the model flow simulation accuracy by narrowing the parameter optimization interval
can also be observed after combining the GLUE method compared to the synthesized
Morris-screened parameters, reducing the peak error by 4.2% and 9% for the single-objec-
tive and multi-objective cases, respectively. Meanwhile, for the single-objective constraint
Water 2023, 15, 149 algorithm in rainfall event 0819, the simulated peak flood errors of the models with dif-
12 of 17
ferent optimized parameter sets reached a high of 12.2% and a low of 3.8%. In comparison,
the peak error decreases from a maximum of 11.8% to 0.4% with the addition of the objec-
tive function
decreases constraint.
from a maximum Therefore, attention
of 11.8% to 0.4% should
with thebeaddition
paid to of
thethe
possible impact
objective of a
function
more accurate parameter optimization space on algorithm optimization search during
constraint. Therefore, attention should be paid to the possible impact of a more accurate the
study.
parameter optimization space on algorithm optimization search during the study.

Figure 7.
Figure 7. Error
Error charts
charts for
for single-objective
single-objective versus
versus multi-objective
multi-objective constraint
constraint algorithms
algorithms inin model
model flow
flow
simulation. Each name corresponds to two groups of two bar charts; the group of bar charts on the
simulation. Each name corresponds to two groups of two bar charts; the group of bar charts on
left corresponds to the top peak of rainfall event 0819, and the group of bar charts on the right cor-
the left corresponds to the top peak of rainfall event 0819, and the group of bar charts on the right
responds to the top peak of rainfall event 0515. The length of the vertical lines on the bar graphs
corresponds
represents thetopeak
the top peak error
relative of rainfall
of theevent
model0515. The length of the vertical lines on the bar graphs
simulation.
represents the peak relative error of the model simulation.
Table 5 shows the optimized parameter values of the model parameters for the two
Table 5 shows the optimized parameter values of the model parameters for the two
rainfall events with the original parameter values. The model’s simulation results opti-
rainfall events with the original parameter values. The model’s simulation results optimized
mized by the Genetic Algorithm are more satisfactory than the calibration values of the
by the Genetic Algorithm are more satisfactory than the calibration values of the parameters
parameters obtained by the manual trial-and-error method in the early stages. Certain
obtained by the manual trial-and-error method in the early stages. Certain parameters’
parameters’ values are taken with a greater degree of uncertainty, perhaps due to the
values are taken with a greater degree of uncertainty, perhaps due to the manual trial-
manual trial-and-error technique being changed based on the sensitivity of the parame-
and-error technique being changed based on the sensitivity of the parameters, which
ters, which
cannot cannot
predict predict the
the nonlinear nonlinear between
connection connection
thebetween
parametersthe and
parameters andvariables
the output the out-
put variables throughout the whole extraction space and is very subjective.
throughout the whole extraction space and is very subjective. In contrast, the Genetic In contrast,
the Geneticcan
Algorithm Algorithm can use implicit
use its powerful its powerful implicit
parallelism parallelism
and and global optimization-
global optimization-seeking ability
seeking ability to find the best value of the parameters in the extraction
to find the best value of the parameters in the extraction space. Thus, the space. Thus, the
optimization
results of model parameters differ for different rainfall, and the model parameters should
be calibrated for different event types.

Table 5. Values set before and after parameter optimization.

0819 Before After 0515 Before After

Parameter Calibration Calibration Parameter Calibration Calibration
Ni 0.013 0.0207 Ni 0.013 0.021
Di 2.54 5.1 Dp 7 5.9
Zi 0 47.6 Max_r 114.4 116.4
Max_r 114.4 27.5 Min_r 3.8 1.3
Min_r 3.8 0.7 Dc 2 4
Nc 0.01 0.011 Nc 0.01 0.012

3.4. Validation Result

The two remaining rainfall events in the study (i.e., 0801 and 0730) were used for
validation to test the applicability of the final parameter set obtained from previous experi-
ments from the integrated Morris and GLUE method. Figure 8 shows the simulated flows
received using the optimized parameter pickups for rainfall events 0819 and 0515, respec-
tively, and the observed flows for that period. During the validation period, the parameter
set determined by the integrated method can capture the same process of experimental
flow under different rainfall events through a Genetic Algorithm with added objective
 The two remaining rainfall events in the study (i.e., 0801 and 0730) were used for
validation to test the applicability of the final parameter set obtained from previous ex-
periments from the integrated Morris and GLUE method. Figure 8 shows the simulated
flows received using the optimized parameter pickups for rainfall events 0819 and 0515,
respectively, and the observed flows for that period. During the validation period, the
Water 2023, 15, 149 13 of 17
parameter set determined by the integrated method can capture the same process of ex-
perimental flow under different rainfall events through a Genetic Algorithm with added
objective constraints. Note that the optimized values of the parameters of different rainfall
constraints.
event modelsNote
havethatsomethedifferences
optimizedinvalues of the parameters
adaptability. As shown of in different
Figure 8a,rainfall event
the relative
models have some differences in adaptability. As shown in Figure 8a, the relative
errors of the two sets of parameters taken at the flood position reach 0.9% and 7.7%. How- errors
of thethere
ever, two sets
are of parameters
still taken at the
some unavoidable flood position
discrepancies reach optimal
between 0.9% andparameter
7.7%. However,
value
there are still some unavoidable discrepancies between optimal parameter value model
model simulations and observed flows, which overestimate or underestimate the flow
simulations and observed flows, which overestimate or underestimate the flow values
values to some extent. For Figure 8b, using the 0515 parameter group does not have obvi-
to some extent. For Figure 8b, using the 0515 parameter group does not have obvious
ous advantages compared with the 0801 rainfall event simulation. The simulated process
advantages compared with the 0801 rainfall event simulation. The simulated process flow
flow error is as high as 20% after the peak, possibly due to the difference in precipitation.
error is as high as 20% after the peak, possibly due to the difference in precipitation. In
In general, it is expected to see such differences as rainfall intensity and patterns change.
general, it is expected to see such differences as rainfall intensity and patterns change. The
The model’s optimal parameter values may need to adapt for different rainfall events.
model’s optimal parameter values may need to adapt for different rainfall events.

Figure
Figure 8.
8. Flow
Flowsimulation
simulationresults
resultsusing
usingtwo
twosets
setsof
ofparameter
parameterduring
duringthe
thevalidation
validationperiod:
period:(a)
(a)Rain-
Rain-
fall
fall event
event 0801;
0801; (b)
(b) Rainfall
Rainfall event
event 0730.
0730.

4. Discussion
4. Discussion
Parameter uncertainty
Parameter uncertainty is
is aa common
common problem
problem in
in complex
complex model
model applications.
applications. In
In order
order
to improve the simulation performance of SWMM, this study used a Genetic
to improve the simulation performance of SWMM, this study used a Genetic Algorithm Algorithm
optimization process
optimization process combining
combining Morris
Morris and
and GLUE
GLUE methods.
methods. OnOn one
one hand,
hand, the
the results
results
from the
from the Morris
Morris screening
screening sensitivity
sensitivity analysis
analysis by
by combining
combining thethe three
three sample
sample techniques
techniques
reduce the uncertainty associated with the selection of optimization parameters. For sensi-
tivity analysis, differences in the results of parameter sensitivity analysis between different
sampling methods and objective functions can be found, and even sudden changes in
parameter sensitivity may occur. Some researchers concluded that the main relevant factors
affecting the SWMM model results were the Manning coefficients for impervious zone
and pipes, whereas Horton’s infiltration coefficient was recognized as a particularly sen-
sitive parameter [49,50]. The optimized parameters selected in this study by combining
the results of the three sensitivity analyses coincide with these conclusions. For rainfall
event 0819, only the sensitive parameter set is considered for optimization, ignoring the
parameters related to Horton’s infiltration coefficient that significantly impact the model.
Although several of the parameters are classified as insensitive parameters (e.g., Zi, Max_r,
Min_r), leaving them out will produce worse model simulation results. Even though it will
increase part of the parameter optimization workload (e.g., Zi), the overall benefits still
outweigh the disadvantages. For this reason, the Morris screening method only considers
the screening results under a single perturbation approach, increasing the uncertainty in
parameter selection [51–54]. In addition, wider parameter optimization intervals tend to
expand the scope of algorithm search during optimization, leading to more significant
model simulation errors and reducing algorithm search efficiency. From the parameter opti-
mization results, the peak error reduction of 9% achieved by combining the GLUE method
to narrow the parameter range improves the algorithm’s accuracy for model parameter
optimization. The parameter optimization interval may be one of the influencing factors
for the poor simulation accuracy of the model after optimization using the algorithm [55].
Therefore, it is necessary to optimize the model parameters using a combination of sensitiv-
Water 2023, 15, 149 14 of 17

ity analysis and uncertainty analysis to determine the parameters to be optimized. In this
study, after determining the parameters involved in optimization, the Genetic Algorithm
with a single-objective function constraint and the multi-objective constraint case were
used for comparative analysis, respectively. During the optimization of model parameters
for different rainfall events, the overall trend of model simulation error decreases when the
objective function constraint is added in constructing the fitness function. Generally, the
Genetic Algorithm with multi-objective constraints has better performance [56].
There are still some limitations in this study. Only two of the nine parameters involved
in the model optimization obtained a reduced range of values using the GLUE method in
combination with the sensitivity analysis process. Nevertheless, for a complex hydrological
model, it is common to involve more parameters in model optimization. Often more
than one parameter in different models and study areas can be used to obtain more
accurate parameter intervals by uncertainty analysis [57–59]. Considering a suitable range
of uncertainty parameter values after sensitivity analysis for model parameter optimization
will further improve the model simulation accuracy. Adding the objective constraint
function in constructing the fitness function may not be perfect compared with other multi-
objective Genetic Algorithms. Despite the limitations in this study, the optimization process
of the Genetic Algorithm based on the integrated Morris and GLUE method still improves
SWMM’s simulation accuracy. The uncertainty involving the selection of optimization
parameters is reduced, and the algorithm’s optimization-seeking interval is narrowed. In
particular, the N-conduit is reduced from (0.009, 0.024) to (0.009, 0018), and the N-imperv
is reduced from (0.011, 0.05) to (0.011, 0.042). This study’s threshold value is 0.7 for NSE,
widely selected in urban hydraulic modeling. Selecting different thresholds results in
distinct sets of behavioral parameters. As the threshold value selected for the likelihood
objective function increases, the range of practical parameter sets taken is smaller. Although
the reduction in the range of values is insignificant, it reduces the average 3.2% peak error of
the model simulation during the optimization period (Table 6). Furthermore, after adding
the objective function constraint, the Genetic Algorithm further reduces the error of the
model flow simulation process.

Table 6. Peak flow relative error of model simulations during the calibration and validation periods.

Peak 1 Error (%) Peak 2 Error (%)

Rainfall Event Method
Single-Objective Multi-Objective Single-Objective Multi-Objective
Calibration value_sr 11.42 11.26 22.66 22.61
Median value_sr 12.17 11.71 22.76 22.72
0819 Calibration value_sr 11.51 11.27 22.55 22.39
Multiple Morris 5.22 3.09 8.77 3.71
Combine GLUE 3.77 0.36 5.36 2.18
Calibration value_sr 10.30 9.44 5.14 2.17
Median value_sr 12.83 9.81 15.72 12.83
0515 Calibration value_sr 13.46 11.08 13.12 6.95
Multiple Morris 11.60 10.31 4.90 1.76
Combine GLUE 7.40 1.49 2.40 0.57
0819 Parameter 0.89
0801
0515 Parameter 7.77
0819 Parameter 3.34 6.31
0730
0515 Parameter 0.66 12.46

5. Conclusions
This study proposed a SWMM model parameter optimization procedure including
parameters sensitivity analysis, uncertainty analysis, and Genetic Algorithms to enhance
flow simulation results. By combining three sampling methods, the parameters to be
optimized are selected through the Morris screening method. The ideal range of values of
Water 2023, 15, 149 15 of 17

the parameters were analyzed with the GLUE method. In addition, single-objective and
multi-objective constrained Genetic Algorithms for constructing the fitness function are
used to optimize the model parameters, respectively. The main conclusions are as follows:
(1) The parameter sensitivity analysis results varied with the different objective functions
utilized. The sensitive factors are also observed to change with the rainfall intensity.
These indicate that it is essential to consider multiple operating conditions in the
parameter sensitivity analysis. In addition, the perturbation analysis of multiple
modalities shows that the sensitivity of the parameters is highly susceptible to sudden
changes among different modalities, and the results of the screening method for a
single perturbation modality possess considerable uncertainty.
(2) Although the GLUE method only reduced the range of the values for two parameters
in the research, the peak error was reduced by up to 9%. For the optimization of
complex model parameters, using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in combination
with each other, satisfactory model simulation results can be achieved.
(3) When the Genetic Algorithm was used to optimize parameter sets with different
combinations, the model parameter optimization process varied with the increase
in the number of constraints on the fitness function. Compared with constructing
the fitness function using a single-objective constraint, the Genetic Algorithm for
multi-objective constraints shows a decreasing trend in the overall peak error of the
model simulations.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.Y. and B.Z.; methodology, Z.W. and B.Z.; writing—original
draft preparation, B.Z.; writing—review and editing, Z.W., Q.L., H.X., M.G. and B.Z.; supervision, H.Y.;
project administration, H.Y.; funding acquisition, H.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (grant number
2022YFC3004402), the Henan provincial key research and development program (221111321100), and
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No: 51739009).
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful
comments.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Veal, A.J. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis, 6th report. World Leis. J. 2021, 63, 443–444. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, L.; Jin, X.; He, C.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Zhao, C.; Tian, J.; DeMarchi, C. Comparison of SWAT and DLBRM for
Hydrological Modeling of a Mountainous Watershed in Arid Northwest China. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2016, 21, 1313. [CrossRef]
3. Iffland, R.; Förster, K.; Westerholt, D.; Pesci, M.; Lösken, G. Robust Vegetation Parameterization for Green Roofs in the EPA
Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). Hydrology 2021, 8, 12. [CrossRef]
4. Ballinas-González, H.; Alcocer-Yamanaka, V.; Canto-Rios, J.; Simuta-Champo, R. Sensitivity Analysis of the Rainfall–Runoff
Modeling Parameters in Data-Scarce Urban Catchment. Hydrology 2020, 7, 73. [CrossRef]
5. Szelag,
˛ B.; Kiczko, A.; Łagód, G.; De Paola, F. Relationship Between Rainfall Duration and Sewer System Performance Measures
Within the Context of Uncertainty. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 5073–5087. [CrossRef]
6. Hussain, S.N.; Zwain, H.M.; Nile, B.K. Modeling the effects of land-use and climate change on the performance of stormwater
sewer system using SWMM simulation: Case study. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2021, 13, 125–138. [CrossRef]
7. Cukier, R.I.; Levine, H.B.; Shuler, K.E. Nonlinear sensitivity analysis of multiparameter model systems. J. Phys. Chem. 1977, 81,
2365–2366. [CrossRef]
8. Lei, J.; Schilling, W. Parameter Uncertainty Propagation Analysis for Urban Rainfall Runoff Modelling. Water Sci. Technol. 1994,
29, 145–154. [CrossRef]
9. Knighton, J.; White, E.; Lennon, E.; Rajan, R. Development of probability distributions for urban hydrologic model parameters
and a Monte Carlo analysis of model sensitivity. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 28, 5131–5139. [CrossRef]
10. Dong, Q.; Lu, F. Performance Assessment of Hydrological Models Considering Acceptable Forecast Error Threshold. Water 2015,
7, 6173–6189. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 149 16 of 17

11. Liu, Z.J.; Li, L.H. An Evaluation Method of Water Quality Based on Improved PSO-BP Network. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 846,
1243–1246. [CrossRef]
12. Zhou, L.; Liu, P.; Gui, Z.; Zhang, X.; Liu, W.; Cheng, L.; Xia, J. Diagnosing structural deficiencies of a hydrological model by
time-varying parameters. J. Hydrol. 2022, 605, 127305. [CrossRef]
13. Confalonieri, R.; Bellocchi, G.; Tarantola, S.; Acutis, M.; Donatelli, M.; Genovese, G. Sensitivity analysis of the rice model WARM
in Europe: Exploring the effects of different locations, climates and methods of analysis on model sensitivity to crop parameters.
Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25, 479–488. [CrossRef]
14. van der Sterren, M.; Rahman, A.; Ryan, G. Modeling of a lot scale rainwater tank system in XP-SWMM: A case study in Western
Sydney, Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 141, 177–189. [CrossRef]
15. Sreedevi, S.; Eldho, T.I. A two-stage sensitivity analysis for parameter identification and calibration of a physically-based
distributed model in a river basin. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64, 701–719. [CrossRef]
16. Lin, J.; Zou, X.; Huang, F. Quantitative analysis of the factors influencing the dispersion of thermal pollution caused by coastal
power plants. Water Res. 2020, 188, 116558. [CrossRef]
17. Freni, G.; Mannina, G.; Viviani, G. Uncertainty in urban stormwater quality modelling: The influence of likelihood measure
formulation in the GLUE methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 408, 138–145. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, H.; Chang, J.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Ming, B. Calibration and uncertainty analysis of a hydrological model based on cuckoo
search and the M-GLUE method. Arch. Meteorol. Geophys. Bioclimatol. Ser. B 2018, 137, 165–176. [CrossRef]
19. Liang, Y.; Cai, Y.; Sun, L.; Wang, X.; Li, C.; Liu, Q. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction based on multiple
optimization algorithms in Yalong River Basin of southwestern China. J. Hydrol. 2021, 601, 126598. [CrossRef]
20. Muronda, M.T.; Marofi, S.; Nozari, H.; Babamiri, O. Uncertainty Analysis of Reservoir Operation Based on Stochastic Optimization
Approach Using the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation Method. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 3179–3201. [CrossRef]
21. Chen, X.; Yang, T.; Wang, X.; Xu, C.-Y.; Yu, Z. Uncertainty Intercomparison of Different Hydrological Models in Simulating
Extreme Flows. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 27, 1393–1409. [CrossRef]
22. Moges, E.; Demissie, Y.; Larsen, L.; Yassin, F. Review: Sources of Hydrological Model Uncertainties and Advances in Their
Analysis. Water 2020, 13, 28. [CrossRef]
23. Xue, F.; Tian, J.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Ali, G. Parameter Calibration of SWMM Model Based on Optimization Algorithm. Comput.
Mater. Contin. 2020, 65, 2189–2199. [CrossRef]
24. Xu, Z.; Xiong, L.; Li, H.; Xu, J.; Cai, X.; Chen, K.; Wu, J. Runoff simulation of two typical urban green land types with the
Stormwater Management Model (SWMM): Sensitivity analysis and calibration of runoff parameters. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019,
191, 343. [CrossRef]
25. Behrouz, M.S.; Zhu, Z.; Matott, L.S.; Rabideau, A.J. A new tool for automatic calibration of the Storm Water Management Model
(SWMM). J. Hydrol. 2019, 581, 124436. [CrossRef]
26. Li, S.; Wang, Z.; Wu, X.; Zeng, Z.; Shen, P.; Lai, C. A novel spatial optimization approach for the cost-effectiveness improvement
of LID practices based on SWMM-FTC. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 307, 114574. [CrossRef]
27. Perin, R.; Trigatti, M.; Nicolini, M.; Campolo, M.; Goi, D. Automated calibration of the EPA-SWMM model for a small suburban
catchment using PEST: A case study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 1–17. [CrossRef]
28. Eckart, K.; McPhee, Z.; Bolisetti, T. Multiobjective optimization of low impact development stormwater controls. J. Hydrol. 2018,
562, 564–576. [CrossRef]
29. Gironás, J.; Roesner, L.A.; Rossman, L.A.; Davis, J. A new applications manual for the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).
Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25, 813–814. [CrossRef]
30. Liang, J.; Hu, Z.; Liu, S.; Zhong, G.; Zhen, Y.; Makhinov, A.N.; Araruna, J.T. Residual-Oriented Optimization of Antecedent
Precipitation Index and Its Impact on Flood Prediction Uncertainty. Water 2022, 14, 3222. [CrossRef]
31. Annus, I.; Vassiljev, A.; Kändler, N.; Kaur, K. Automatic Calibration Module for an Urban Drainage System Model. Water 2021, 13,
1419. [CrossRef]
32. Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Lee, J.M.; Jang, H.S.; Park, M.; Min, J.H.; Na, E.H. Analyzing the Impacts of Sewer Type and Spatial Distribution of
LID Facilities on Urban Runoff and Non-Point Source Pollution Using the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM). Water 2022,
14, 2776. [CrossRef]
33. Shi, R.; Zhao, G.; Pang, B.; Jiang, Q.; Zhen, T. Uncertainty Analysis of SWMM Model Parameters Based on GLUE Method. J.
China Hydrol. 2016, 36, 1–6.
34. Chang, X.; Xu, Z.; Zhao, G.; Li, H. Sensitivity analysis on SWMM model parameters based on Sobol method. J. Hydro-Electr.
Engineering. 2018, 37, 59–68.
35. Li, M.; Yang, X. Global Sensitivity Analysis of SWMM Parameters Based on Sobol Method. China Water Wastewater 2020, 36,
95–102.
36. Rossman, L.A.; Simon, M.A. Storm Water Management Model User's Manual Version 5.2; EPA: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2022.
37. Morris, M.D. Factorial Sampling Plans for Preliminary Computational Experiments. Technometrics 1991, 33, 161–174. [CrossRef]
38. Zádor, J.; Zsély, I.; Turányi, T. Local and global uncertainty analysis of complex chemical kinetic systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2006, 91, 1232–1240. [CrossRef]
39. Lenhart, T.; Eckhardt, K.; Fohrer, N.; Frede, H.-G. Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Phys. Chem.
Earth Parts A/B/C 2002, 27, 645–654. [CrossRef]
Water 2023, 15, 149 17 of 17

40. Beven, K.; Binley, A. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process. 1992, 6,
279–298. [CrossRef]
41. Mirzaei, M.; Huang, Y.F.; El-Shafie, A.; Shatirah, A. Application of the generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE)
approach for assessing uncertainty in hydrological models: A review. Stoch. Hydrol. Hydraul. 2015, 29, 1265–1273. [CrossRef]
42. Thorndahl, S.; Beven, K.; Jensen, J.; Schaarup-Jensen, K. Event based uncertainty assessment in urban drainage modelling,
applying the GLUE methodology. J. Hydrol. 2008, 357, 421–437. [CrossRef]
43. Lee, D.; Beste, M.T.; Anderson, N.R.; Koretzky, G.A.; Hammer, D.A. Identifying Key Pathways and Components in Chemokine-
Triggered T Lymphocyte Arrest Dynamics Using a Multi-Parametric Global Sensitivity Analysis. Cell. Mol. Bioeng. 2019, 12,
193–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Andres, T.; Campolongo, F.; Cariboni, J.; Gatelli, D.; Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S. Global Sensitivity Analysis.
The Primer, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd: West Sussex, UK, 2007; pp. 1–292.
45. Dotto, C.B.; Mannina, G.; Kleidorfer, M.; Vezzaro, L.; Henrichs, M.; McCarthy, D.T.; Freni, G.; Rauch, W.; Deletic, A. Comparison of
different uncertainty techniques in urban stormwater quantity and quality modelling. Water Res. 2012, 46, 2545–2558. [CrossRef]
46. Zhang, W.; Li, T. The Influence of Objective Function and Acceptability Threshold on Uncertainty Assessment of an Urban
Drainage Hydraulic Model with Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation Methodology. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29,
2059–2072. [CrossRef]
47. Kang, C.; Liu, Z.; Shirinzadeh, B.; Zhou, H.; Shi, Y.; Yu, T.; Zhao, P. Parametric optimization for multi-layered filament-wound
cylinder based on hybrid method of GA-PSO coupled with local sensitivity analysis. Compos. Struct. 2021, 267, 113861. [CrossRef]
48. Peng, Z.; Jin, X.; Sang, W.; Zhang, X. Optimal Design of Combined Sewer Overflows Interception Facilities Based on the NSGA-III
Algorithm. Water 2021, 13, 3440. [CrossRef]
49. Randall, M.; Sun, F.; Zhang, Y.; Jensen, M.B. Evaluating Sponge City volume capture ratio at the catchment scale using SWMM. J.
Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 745–757. [CrossRef]
50. Baek, S.-S.; Choi, D.-H.; Jung, J.-W.; Lee, H.-J.; Lee, H.; Yoon, K.-S.; Cho, K.H. Optimizing low impact development (LID) for
stormwater runoff treatment in urban area, Korea: Experimental and modeling approach. Water Res. 2015, 86, 122–131. [CrossRef]
51. Wu, Z.; Ma, B.; Wang, H.; Hu, C.; Lv, H.; Zhang, X. Identification of Sensitive Parameters of Urban Flood Model Based on Artificial
Neural Network. Water Resour. Manag. 2021, 35, 2115–2128. [CrossRef]
52. Peng, J.; Yu, L.; Cui, Y.; Yuan, X. Application of SWMM 5.1 in flood simulation of sponge airport facilities. Water Sci. Technol. 2020,
81, 1264–1272. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, X.; Kang, F.; Li, J.; Wang, X. Inverse Parametric Analysis of Seismic Permanent Deformation for Earth-Rockfill Dams Using
Artificial Neural Networks. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012, 2012, 383749. [CrossRef]
54. Sang, X.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, H.; Qin, D.; Zhai, Z.; Chen, Q. Development of Soil and Water Assessment Tool Model on Human
Water Use and Application in the Area of High Human Activities, Tianjin, China. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2010, 136, 23–30. [CrossRef]
55. Hashemi, M.; Mahjouri, N. Global Sensitivity Analysis-based Design of Low Impact Development Practices for Urban Runoff
Management Under Uncertainty. Water Resour. Manag. 2022, 36, 2953–2972. [CrossRef]
56. Ogidan, O.; Giacomoni, M. Multiobjective Genetic Optimization Approach to Identify Pipe Segment Replacements and Inline
Storages to Reduce Sanitary Sewer Overflows. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 3707–3722. [CrossRef]
57. Zhao, D.; Wang, H.; Chen, J.; Wang, H. Parameters uncertainty analysis of urban rainfall-runoff simulation. Adv. Water Sci. 2009,
20, 45–51.
58. Seong, Y.; Choi, C.-K.; Jung, Y. Assessment of Uncertainty in Grid-Based Rainfall-Runoff Model Based on Formal and Informal
Likelihood Measures. Water 2022, 14, 2210. [CrossRef]
59. Blasone, R.-S.; Madsen, H.; Rosbjerg, D. Uncertainty assessment of integrated distributed hydrological models using GLUE with
Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling. J. Hydrol. 2008, 353, 18–32. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.