Rapid SWMM Catchment Prototyping Using Fuzzy Logic: Analyzing Catchment Features for Enhanced Efficiency
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript submitted for review presents the problem of rapid prototyping of catchments to accelerate hydrological modeling in SWMM. The analysis was carried out using fuzzy logic, processing three variables: “Area”, “Landscape type” and “Land cover type”, using catchments added directly to SWMM data files. The focus was on the influence of “width”, “slope” and “impermeability” on runoff and infiltration.
The manuscript is a typical good hydrological research report. It is written relatively well, but contains some inaccuracies, perhaps resulting from the translation into English. Considering that the recipient is a wide circle of engineers, this should be corrected to a more understandable language. This particularly applies to determining whether the calculations are of a hydrological or hydraulic nature. Please correct this.
The manuscript contains all the elements typical of a scientific article. It begins with an introduction with a review of the literature, then presents the data and research methods used, characterizes the adopted simulation model and finally very extensive conclusions. Can such conclusions be drawn based on the analysis of one real catchment? The rest of the data is from the literature. Please refer to it.
The bibliography contains 60 items. The literature is selected correctly, and the citations in the text are also correct in terms of content. Since the editors are working on the technical aspects of the text, the reviewer does not refer to the technical aspects.
Author Response
Comment:
The manuscript submitted for review presents the problem of rapid prototyping of catchments to accelerate hydrological modeling in SWMM. The analysis was carried out using fuzzy logic, processing three variables: “Area”, “Landscape type” and “Land cover type”, using catchments added directly to SWMM data files. The focus was on the influence of “width”, “slope” and “impermeability” on runoff and infiltration.
The manuscript is a typical good hydrological research report. It is written relatively well, but contains some inaccuracies, perhaps resulting from the translation into English. Considering that the recipient is a wide circle of engineers, this should be corrected to a more understandable language. This particularly applies to determining whether the calculations are of a hydrological or hydraulic nature. Please correct this.
The manuscript contains all the elements typical of a scientific article. It begins with an introduction with a review of the literature, then presents the data and research methods used, characterizes the adopted simulation model and finally very extensive conclusions. Can such conclusions be drawn based on the analysis of one real catchment? The rest of the data is from the literature. Please refer to it.
The bibliography contains 60 items. The literature is selected correctly, and the citations in the text are also correct in terms of content. Since the editors are working on the technical aspects of the text, the reviewer does not refer to the technical aspects.
Repsonse:
Thank you for your constructive feedback. The manuscript has been revised to improve clarity and readability, with corrections to grammar, syntax, and technical terminology to better suit a broad engineering audience. The distinction between hydrological and hydraulic concepts has been clarified throughout the text, and terminology has been made consistent. Regarding the scope of conclusions, we agree that they are extensive relative to a single case study; however, this is necessary to fully present the tool’s intended functionality and practical implications. The discussion now explicitly acknowledges the limitation of basing results on one real catchment and emphasizes the need for further validation in future research.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The abstract needs to be revised to clearly define the research problem, highlight the significance of the research topic, outline the methodology, and present the main results of the study.
- In the introduction, I suggest summarizing the history of the SWMM revolution. Instead of solely reviewing previous research, it would be beneficial to specify the knowledge gaps and the novelty of this research.
- Sections 2-1 and 2-2, which explain the functions of SWMM and fuzzy logic, could be summarized for clarity. It would be more effective to focus on the research methodology.
- From my understanding, the authors have chosen general values for the inputs without specific case studies. For instance, the rainfall event parameters (3-year return period, 120-minute duration, peak intensity of 102.259 mm/h) seem quite broad. Why did the authors not apply their methodology to a specific case study or real-world scenarios? I have no issues with the general range of values used for the inputs.
- The feature section could benefit from insights derived from previous studies since they clearly indicate which parameters have the most significant impact on runoff in SWMM.
- It is unclear how the Rapid Catchment Generator works, as illustrated in Fig. 5, and what its advantages are. Additionally, the relationship between the catchment labeled 'Pn' and the generated equivalent labeled 'Gn' is not well explained.
- How the LID can be implemented in the fuzzy logic modeling.
- The total runoff per hectare for the test catchment exceeds that of the generated catchments shown in Figs. 10-11. How do the authors validate these findings? Which estimates are more accurate? There is insufficient discussion regarding the results, their validity, and the practical implications for similar urban areas. It seems that the manuscript loses momentum towards the end.
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their detailed and constructive comments, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript. Below we provide specific responses to each point:
Comments 1:
The abstract needs to be revised to clearly define the research problem, highlight the significance of the research topic, outline the methodology, and present the main results of the study.
Response 1:
The abstract has been comprehensively revised. It now clearly states the research problem, highlights the significance of rapid SWMM model configuration, outlines the fuzzy logic-based methodology, and presents the main results, including key error metrics and time-saving benefits.
Comments 2:
In the introduction, I suggest summarizing the history of the SWMM revolution. Instead of solely reviewing previous research, it would be beneficial to specify the knowledge gaps and the novelty of this research.
Response 2:
The introduction was revised to include a concise summary of the historical development of SWMM (lines 58–69). The research gap and the novelty of this work are now explicitly discussed (lines 145–163), with emphasis on the limitations of manual subcatchment parameterization and the innovation introduced by the Rapid Catchment Generator.
Comments 3:
Sections 2-1 and 2-2, which explain the functions of SWMM and fuzzy logic, could be summarized for clarity. It would be more effective to focus on the research methodology.
Response 3:
Sections 2-1 and 2-2 have been merged into a single, concise subsection (“2.1 Storm Water Management Model and Sub-catchment Parameters”). The theoretical background was reduced to essential information, with greater emphasis on the research methodology and the key parameters modified in the study (lines 165–188).
Comments 4:
From my understanding, the authors have chosen general values for the inputs without specific case studies. For instance, the rainfall event parameters (3-year return period, 120-minute duration, peak intensity of 102.259 mm/h) seem quite broad. Why did the authors not apply their methodology to a specific case study or real-world scenarios? I have no issues with the general range of values used for the inputs.
Response 4:
The selected rainfall event was adopted in accordance with the PN-EN 752 standard and had been previously validated [28]. This approach aligns with the concept of “rapid prototyping” of catchments, allowing for tool evaluation under conditions consistent with engineering practice.
Comments 5:
The feature section could benefit from insights derived from previous studies since they clearly indicate which parameters have the most significant impact on runoff in SWMM.
Response 5:
The feature selection section now explicitly references previous SWMM studies, which consistently identify width, slope, and imperviousness as key parameters influencing runoff. This strengthens the connection between our findings and established literature (lines 283–296).
Comments 6:
It is unclear how the Rapid Catchment Generator works, as illustrated in Fig. 5, and what its advantages are. Additionally, the relationship between the catchment labeled ‘Pn’ and the generated equivalent labeled ‘Gn’ is not well explained.
Response 6:
Section 2.4.2.5 (lines 298–316) has been expanded to clarify each step of the Rapid Catchment Generator and its practical advantages. The relationship between Pn and Gn catchments is now explicitly described, highlighting that each calibrated catchment Pn is paired with a generated catchment Gn of identical area and outlet for direct comparison.
Comments 7:
How the LID can be implemented in the fuzzy logic modeling.
Response 7:
The Discussion section now addresses the potential for LID implementation. The simplest approach is to add an input variable such as “LID type” to the RCG system, allowing the fuzzy logic controller to adjust output parameters accordingly. Future development will include this functionality (lines 549–555).
Comments 8:
The total runoff per hectare for the test catchment exceeds that of the generated catchments shown in Figs. 10-11. How do the authors validate these findings? Which estimates are more accurate? There is insufficient discussion regarding the results, their validity, and the practical implications for similar urban areas. It seems that the manuscript loses momentum towards the end.
Response 8:
The manuscript now includes a summary of runoff, infiltration, and peak flow values for both scenarios, as well as a new section on statistical validation and discussion of peak-flow bias. Practical implications are clarified in the Conclusions. These additions address the accuracy, validation, and relevance of the results for similar urban areas (lines 446–477, 512–514).
