Uncertainty estimation of a complex water quality model: GLUE vs Bayesian approach applied with Box – Cox transformation

In urban drainage modelling, uncertainty analysis is of undoubted necessity; however, several methodological aspects need to be clarified and deserve to be investigated in the future, especially in water quality modelling. The use of the Bayesian approach to uncertainty analysis has been stimulated by its rigorous theoretical framework and by the possibility of evaluating the impact of new knowledge on the modelling estimates. Nevertheless, the Bayesian approach relies on some restrictive hypotheses that are not present in less formal methods like GLUE. One crucial point in the application of Bayesian methods is the formulation of a likelihood function that is conditioned by the hypotheses made regarding model residuals. Statistical transformations, such as by the use of the Box– Cox equation, are generally used to ensure the homoscedasticity of residuals but this practice may affect the reliability of the analysis leading to a wrong estimation of the uncertainty. The present paper aims to study the impact of such a transformation considering five cases one of which is the “real” residuals distributions (drawn from available data). The analysis was applied to the Nocella experimental catchment (Italy) which is an agricultural and semi-urbanised basin where two sewer systems, two wastewater treatment plants and a river reach were monitored during both dry and wet weather periods. The results show that the uncertainty estimation is greatly affected by residual transformation and a wrong assumption may also affect the evaluation of model uncertainty. The use of less formal methods always provide an overestimation of modelling uncertainty with respect to Bayesian method but such effect is reduced if a wrong assumption is made regarding the residuals distribution. If residuals are not normally distributed, the uncertainty is over-estimated if Box-Cox transformation is not applied or non calibrated parameter is used.

[1]  P. Reichert,et al.  Identifiability and uncertainty analysis of the river water quality model no. 1 (RWQM1). , 2001, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[2]  P. Willems.  Quantification and relative comparison of different types of uncertainties in sewer water quality modeling. , 2008, Water research.

[3]  G. Freni,et al.  Uncertainty in urban stormwater quality modelling: the effect of acceptability threshold in the GLUE methodology. , 2008, Water research.

[4]  E Lindblom,et al.  How uncertain is model-based prediction of copper loads in stormwater runoff? , 2007, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[5]  S. Haydon,et al.  Model output uncertainty of a coupled pathogen indicator-hydrologic catchment model due to input data uncertainty , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[6]  Gabriele Freni,et al.  Urban water quality modelling: a parsimonious holistic approach for a complex real case study. , 2010, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[7]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations Revisited, Rebutted , 1982 .

[8]  E. Lindblom,et al.  Uncertainty in model-based prediction of copper loads in stormwater runoff / Incertitude des prédictions basées sur les modèles des charges de cuivre dans les ruissellements des eaux pluviales , 2007 .

[9]  P. Mantovan,et al.  Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: Incoherence of the GLUE methodology , 2006 .

[10]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[11]  A Deletic,et al.  Uncertainties in stormwater E. coli levels. , 2008, Water research.

[12]  Gabriele Freni,et al.  Urban runoff modelling uncertainty: Comparison among Bayesian and pseudo-Bayesian methods , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[13]  I. Takács.  A dynamic model of the clarification-thickening process , 1991 .

[14]  Søren Liedtke Thorndahl,et al.  Event based uncertainty assessment in urban drainage modelling applying the GLUE methodology , 2008 .

[15]  A Deletic,et al.  Impact of input data uncertainties on urban stormwater model parameters. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[16]  Thorkild Hvitved-Jacobsen,et al.  Solids in Sewers , 2003 .

[17]  R M Ashley,et al.  Estimation of uncertainty in long term combined sewer sediment behaviour predictions, a UK case study. , 2008, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[18]  Keith Beven,et al.  The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. , 1992 .

[19]  Jing Yang,et al.  Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China , 2008 .

[20]  P Willems,et al.  Probabilistic modelling of overflow, surcharge and flooding in urban drainage using the first-order reliability method and parameterization of local rain series. , 2008, Water research.

[21]  Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava,et al.  Uncertainty Analysis of Conventional Water Treatment Plant Design for Suspended Solids Removal , 2006 .

[22]  Ghassan Chebbo,et al.  Application of MCMC-GSA model calibration method to urban runoff quality modeling , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[23]  P. E. O'connell,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part III - The Ray catchment at Grendon Underwood , 1970 .

[24]  T. D. Fletcher,et al.  Analysis of parameter uncertainty of a flow and quality stormwater model. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.