Multi-Objective Optimization of Urban Drainage System by Integrating Rule-Based Control with Permeable Pavement
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study offers valuable insights into optimizing UDSs through the integration of RBC and permeable pavement, thereby enhancing sustainability and efficiency. The research methodology and results presented in this manuscript hold significant implications for the optimization and management of UDSs. The manuscript is recommended for publication following the implementation of the following revisions and enhancements:
1. The introduction should more effectively highlight the shortcomings of current research to better contextualize the goals of the manuscript. In the Introduction section, the shortcomings of previous studies and the innovation and motivation of this study should be emphasized. Please refer to the following literature.
García-Haba, E., Hernández-Crespo, C., Martín, M., & Andrés-Doménech, I. (2023). The role of different sustainable urban drainage systems in removing microplastics from urban runoff: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 411, 137197.
Liu, Y., Huang, X., & Qi, X. (2023). Spatiotemporal dynamics and anthropogenic drivers of geological hazard prevention efficiency in China. Cities, 143, 104607.
Farina A, Di Nardo A, Gargano R, et al. A simplified approach for the hydrological simulation of urban drainage systems with SWMM[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2023, 623: 129757.
Zhang, Z., Wang, X., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Li, J., ... & Yang, H. (2024). River ecosystem health assessment in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A novel hybrid method based on artificial intelligence and multi-source data fusion. Expert Systems with Applications, 251, 124078.
2. It is recommended to provide a detailed explanation of the specific conditions and trigger conditions for each rule in the RBC strategy, as well as how to adjust the operation parameters of the pump station according to the rules.
3. It is suggested that a more in-depth analysis of the research results be conducted in the discussion section, such as the impact mechanism of RBC parameters on CSO volume and energy consumption.
4. It is recommended to summarize the main findings and conclusions of the research more concisely in the conclusion section, and emphasize the significance and value of the research.
5. It is suggested to carefully polish the language of the article, such as checking for grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and punctuation usage, to improve the language quality of the article.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Comments 1: The introduction should more effectively highlight the shortcomings of current research to better contextualize the goals of the manuscript. In the Introduction section, the shortcomings of previous studies and the innovation and motivation of this study should be emphasized. Please refer to the following literature.
García-Haba, E., Hernández-Crespo, C., Martín, M., & Andrés-Doménech, I. (2023). The role of different sustainable urban drainage systems in removing microplastics from urban runoff: A review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 411, 137197.
Liu, Y., Huang, X., & Qi, X. (2023). Spatiotemporal dynamics and anthropogenic drivers of geological hazard prevention efficiency in China. Cities, 143, 104607.
Farina A, Di Nardo A, Gargano R, et al. A simplified approach for the hydrological simulation of urban drainage systems with SWMM[J]. Journal of Hydrology, 2023, 623: 129757.
Zhang, Z., Wang, X., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Xu, Y., Li, J., ... & Yang, H. (2024). River ecosystem health assessment in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau: A novel hybrid method based on artificial intelligence and multi-source data fusion. Expert Systems with Applications, 251, 124078.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment and the references provided; they have been invaluable to us. Based on your comment, we have rewritten the section "1. Introduction" to address the shortcomings of previous research (page 3 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 62-71). The shortcomings are as follows:
(1) There is insufficient research on the mutual impact between RTC and LID when they are ap-plied integrally in UDS.
(2) There is insufficient research on the variations in RTC energy consumption under the com-prehensive implementation of RTC and LID.
(3) Quantitative analytical methods for assessing the contribution of LID installations in different locations to cost-effectiveness are still lacking.
Comments 2: It is recommended to provide a detailed explanation of the specific conditions and trigger conditions for each rule in the RBC strategy, as well as how to adjust the operation parameters of the pump station according to the rules.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the detailed description of how the pump station operates based on rules of the RBC strategy in the section “2.3. Optimization of RBC strategy” (page 4 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 143-149). The revised description of the RBC strategy operation is as follows:
“When the inflow into the reservoir surpasses the pump station’s flow rate (set at L[i]), the water depth in the reservoir will increase. Once the water depth reaches up[i], the pump station’s flow setting is stepped up to L[i+1], with the integer i varying from 0 to 2. In contrast, when the reservoir’s inflow is lower than the pump station’s flow rate (set at L[i]), the water depth in the reservoir will decrease. Once the water depth drops to down[i-1], the pump station’s flow setting is then reduced to L[i-1], where the integer i ranges from 1 to 3.”
Comments 3: It is suggested that a more in-depth analysis of the research results be conducted in the discussion section, such as the impact mechanism of RBC parameters on CSO volume and energy consumption.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The impact mechanism of RBC parameters on CSO volume and energy consumption has been explained in the section “4. Discussion” (page 11 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 328-338). Additionally, we have added more content to the section “4. Discussion” (page 10 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 310-315; page 12 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 356-360).
Comments 4: It is recommended to summarize the main findings and conclusions of the research more concisely in the conclusion section, and emphasize the significance and value of the research.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have rewritten the section “5. Conclusion”. Additionally, we have added a new paragraph to the section “5. Conclusion”, in which the significance and value of the research are explained (page 13 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 398-400).
Comments 5: It is suggested to carefully polish the language of the article, such as checking for grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and punctuation usage, to improve the language quality of the article.
Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion to refine the language of the article by checking for grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and punctuation usage. I will ensure thorough polishing to enhance the overall language quality of the article. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript conducts a multiobjective optimization by integrated rule-based control and permeable pavement. Non-dominated sorting was employed to search for the optimal rule-based control parameters, aiming to minimize both combined sewer overflow volume and pump station energy consumption in the urban drainage system. The topic is interesting and the research is helpful for the readers. There are some minor concerns should be addressed before it can be accepted.
1. Line 11, ”USD” ->”UDS”.
2. Line 17, re-duction -> reduction
3. Line 83, within Wuxi, should be “in Yixing of Wuxi City”
4. Figure 1, the figure is not clear enough to read. The colour of manhole and inflow node should be changed. The colour of drainage pipe in Legend is different from that in the figure.
5. Figure 1, the range of small figure in figure a is not introduced.
6. Line 123, periods -> period
7. Line 133, 2.2->2.3
8. Line 155, “equal” -> “equal. ”
9. Line 184, 2.3 -> 2.4
10. Line 245, displays->display
11. Line 249, sv2 and RE, font should be italic
12. Line 272, in-stalling, -> installing
13. Line 290, Figure 8 -> Figure 6
Author Response
Comments 1: Line 11, ”USD” ->”UDS”.
Response 1: Thank you for your sharp eye in catching the typo. We have revised the “Abstract” section and have corrected the typo. The sentence has been modified as follows (page 1 of 15, line 10-12):
“Non-dominated sorting was employed to identify the optimal RBC preset parameters under varying rainfall intensities and permeable pavement installation proportion.”
Comments 2: Line 17, re-duction -> reduction
Response 2: Thank you for your sharp eye in catching the typo. We have revised the section “Abstract” and have corrected the typo. The sentence has been modified as follows (page 1 of 15, line 17-18):
“Optimization of RBC preset parameters can reduce CSO volume and energy consumption, but the
effectiveness is limited by the capacity of the UDS.”
Comments 3: Line 83, within Wuxi, should be “in Yixing of Wuxi City”
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised “within Wuxi” to “in Yixing of Wuxi City” to ensure accuracy (page 2 of 15, 5th paragraph, line 91).
Comments 4: Figure 1, the figure is not clear enough to read. The colour of manhole and inflow node should be changed. The colour of drainage pipe in Legend is different from that in the figure.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. To enhance readability, we have modified the colors of the manhole and inflow node. Additionally, we have aligned the color of the drainage pipes in the legend with those in the figure (page 3 of 15, line 102).
Comments 5: Figure 1, the range of small figure in figure a is not introduced.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. The small diagram within Figure 1(a) is designed to highlight the precise location of the study area within Jiangsu Province. In response to this, we have redone Figure 1(a) to enhance its clarity and detail (page 3 of 15, line 102).
Comments 6: Line 123, periods -> period
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this grammar error. We have corrected “periods” to “period” (page 4 of 15, 1st paragraph, line 125).
Comments 7: Line 133, 2.2->2.3
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this error. We have corrected “2.2” to “2.3.” (page 4 of 15, line 133).
Comments 8: Line 155, “equal” -> “equal. ”
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this error. We have corrected “equal” to “equal.” (page 4 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 162).
Comments 9: Line 184, 2.3 -> 2.4
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this error. We have corrected “2.3” to “2.4.” (page 5 of 15, line 191).
Comments 10: Line 245, displays->display
Response 10: Thank you for alerting us to the grammar error. We will make the correction by changing “displays” to “display” (page 8 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 265).
Comments 11: Line 249, sv2 and RE, font should be italic
Response 11: Thank you for your moment. We have italicized “sv2” and “RE” (page 8 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 269).
Comments 12: Line 272, in-stalling, -> installing
Response 12: Thank you for catching this mistake. We have corrected “in-stalling” to “installing” (page 10 of 15, 1st paragraph, line 294).
Comments 13: Line 290, Figure 8 -> Figure 6
Response 13: Thank you for pointing out this mistake. We have corrected “Figure 8” to “Figure 6” (page 10 of 15, line 316).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article titled "Multi-objective Optimization of Urban Drainage System by Integrating Rule-based Control with Permeable Pavement" is very interesting and fits well within the journal's scope. However, there are several aspects that need clarification to enhance the quality of the article:
a. The choice of the SWMM method appears in the methodology section. This method should be introduced earlier, in the introduction, along with the rationale for selecting it.
b. The MOO (Multi-Objective Optimization) model features two objective functions, namely the minimization of V and E (Equations 3 and 4). How are these two functions integrated? Is there a weighting system for each function?
c. The optimization process typically involves setting initial conditions/values for the parameters. The determination of these initial parameter values has not been explained. Please provide an explanation.
d. The article mentions 8 RBC strategies. Why were exactly 8 strategies chosen? Please explain the reasoning behind selecting this number and why not more or fewer strategies were considered.
e. The basis for dividing the area into 12 sub-catchment areas needs to be explained.
Additionally, there are minor issues that need to be addressed:
a. In the Abstract, it mentions "USD." Is this correct, or should it be "UDS"?
b. The Abstract should quantify the percentage reduction in CSO volume and energy consumption. What is the percentage reduction from existing conditions?
c. The objectives in the Introduction need to be stated more clearly, as they are addressed in the Conclusion.
d. In Figure 1b, the land use is unclear. A table showing the area and percentage of buildings, greenlands, and water bodies should be included.
e. The reasons for choosing the SWMM method should be explained in the Introduction.
f. A reference to Equation 1 (determination of q) should be mentioned.
g. The choice of the Chicago method needs to be explained the reason and reference.
h. The calibration of the SWMM should be presented in the "Results" section.
i. Conclusions should be written to address the objectives, not merely as summaries.
Author Response
Comments 1: The choice of the SWMM method appears in the methodology section. This method should be introduced earlier, in the introduction, along with the rationale for selecting it.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript by shortening the detailed rationale for selecting SWMM in the section ”2.2 Modelling” (page 3 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 115 to 116). Additionally, we have added a brief description of the rationale for selecting SWMM in the section ”1. Introduction” (page 2 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 73 to 75), and the brief description is as follows:
"SWMM was selected for UDS simulation because it is an open-source rainfall-runoff model that supports secondary development and can incorporate permeable pavement and RBC strategy."
Comments 2: The MOO (Multi-Objective Optimization) model features two objective functions, namely the minimization of V and E (Equations 3 and 4). How are these two functions integrated? Is there a weighting system for each function?
Response 2: Thank you for your question; we will provide a detailed answer. To achieve multi-objective optimization, we applied Pareto optimality through non-dominated sorting to filter out the non-dominated solution set from all combinations of RBC parameters, forming the Pareto frontier (Figure 4). Each point on the Pareto frontier represents a solution set where these solutions are superior to or equal to all other feasible solutions in at least one objective and are not worse in any other objective. The Pareto frontier is not affected by weights; however, setting weights allows selecting individual solutions on the Pareto frontier.
The selection process of sv1 and sv2 in section “3.3 Classification of Different Scenarios” (page 8 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 261-264) can be seen as considering weights: choosing the solution with the minimal V on the Pareto front corresponds to weight (1, 0) for V and E, and minimal E on the Pareto fronts corresponds to weight (0, 1) for V and E, respectively.
Comments 3: The optimization process typically involves setting initial conditions/values for the parameters. The determination of these initial parameter values has not been explained. Please provide an explanation.
Response 3: Thank you for your question; we will further refine the manuscript accordingly. In our study, we established a series of constraints and limitations for the RBC parameters in section “2.3. Optimization of RBC strategy” (page 4 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 150-162). Based on these constraints and limitations, we listed all possible combinations of RBC parameters and applied non-dominated sorting to these combinations to optimize the objective min(V, E), thereby filtering out the non-dominated solution set known as the Pareto front.
Comments 4: The article mentions 8 RBC strategies. Why were exactly 8 strategies chosen? Please explain the reasoning behind selecting this number and why not more or fewer strategies were considered.
Response 4: Thank you for your question. We will provide as detailed an answer as possible. We have set the pump station flow rates in increments ranging from L[0] to L[5], comprising five levels. These levels are adjusted based on the real-time water depth in the pump station reservoir. To ensure stable operation of the pump station, flow rates can only increase or decrease to the adjacent levels. Therefore, based on changes in the reservoir water depth (Depth), L[0] can only increase to adjacent L[1], L[5] can only decrease to adjacent L[4], and L[1] to L[4] can increase or decrease to adjacent levels. This results in a total of eight RBC rules. We have revised the explanation of the RBC strategy in section “2.3. Optimization of RBC strategy” (page 4 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 139-149).
Comments 5: The basis for dividing the area into 12 sub-catchment areas needs to be explained.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out the shortcoming in the manuscript. Based on your comment, we have revised the manuscript. We have added the following sentence in the section “2.2. Modelling“ (page 3 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 118-119) to explain the criteria for dividing the sub-catchments: "All the sub-catchments were divided based on the drainage network and road distribution within the study area."
Comments 6: In the Abstract, it mentions "USD." Is this correct, or should it be "UDS"?
Response 6: Thank you for pointing out the spelling error. We have corrected this mistake in the revised manuscript and rewritten the section “Abstract”.
Comments 7: The Abstract should quantify the percentage reduction in CSO volume and energy consumption. What is the percentage reduction from existing conditions?
Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have rewritten the section “Abstract”, and the reduction rate mentioned in the section (page 1 of 15, 1st paragraph, line 14-16) is as follow:
“The combined effectiveness of RBC and LID achieved maximum reduction rates of 51.12% to 72.46% in CSO volume and 14.75% to 33.89% in energy consumption across return periods from 2yr to 20yr.”
Comments 8: The objectives in the Introduction need to be stated more clearly, as they are addressed in the Conclusion.
Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the last paragraph in the section “1. Introduction” (page 2 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 72-88) and rewritten the section “5. Conclusion” (page 13 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 377-407). The last paragraph of the revised section “1. Introduction” first described our research objectives followed by an introduction to the research content and methods proposed to address these objectives.
Comments 9: In Figure 1b, the land use is unclear. A table showing the area and percentage of buildings, greenlands, and water bodies should be included.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have added “Table 2. The land use of the study area.” (page 6 of 15, line 198) to provide a detailed display of the area and proportion of green lands, water bodies, buildings, and impermeable grounds in each sub-catchment.
Comments 10: The reasons for choosing the SWMM method should be explained in the Introduction.
Response 10: Thank you for your valuable comment, and we have revised the manuscript, and added a brief explanation of the rationale for selecting SWMM in the section ”1. Introduction” (page 2 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 73 to 75), and the explanation is as follows:
"SWMM was selected for UDS simulation because it is an open-source rainfall-runoff model that supports secondary development and can incorporate permeable pavement and RBC strategy."
Comments 11: A reference to Equation 1 (determination of q) should be mentioned.
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. Equation (1) is the rainstorm intensity formula for Wuxi City (page 3 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 121). We got the Wuxi City rainstorm intensity formula from the following website:
https://gyj.wuxi.gov.cn/doc/2014/09/05/194649.shtml
Comments 12: The choice of the Chicago method needs to be explained the reason and reference.
Response 12: Thank you for your comment. We have added a brief explanation of selecting Chicago method in the section “2.2 Modelling” (page 3 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 125-127) as follows:
“The design rainfall pattern utilized the Chicago method, which is a short-duration rainfall design method commonly used for designing urban stormwater infrastructure.”
Additionally, we have also added 2 references to support the explanation of selecting Chicago method, and the references are as follows:
Yang, J.; Xiang, Y.; Xu, X.; Sun, J. Design Hyetograph for Short-Duration Rainstorm in Jiangsu. Atmosphere 2022, 13, doi:10.3390/atmos13060899.
Keifer, C.J.; Chu, H.H. Synthetic Storm Pattern for Drainage Design. J. Hydraul. Div. 1957, 83, 1332-1-1332–25, 505, doi:10.1061/JYCEAJ.0000104
Comments 13: The calibration of the SWMM should be presented in the "Results" section.
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. We have moved the related content of calibration and validation of the SWMM model to the section “3. Results” as section “3.1. Calibration and Validation of the SWMM Model” (page 7 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 225-233).
Comments 14: Conclusions should be written to address the objectives, not merely as summaries.
Response 14: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have rewritten the section “5. Conclusion” (page 13 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 377-407).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMy detailed comments are listed below:
Abstract:
Line 17-18: which RBC parameters are significantly impacted by the total volume entering the UDS? Please clarify
Introduction:
Line 35-36: please add a transition sentence (RTC to LID) before this sentence. The sudden occurrence of LID makes this paragraph looks weird.
Methodology:
Line 131: please add justification or reference regarding why the NSE over 0.7 makes the SWMM model reliable.
Line 185-187: why only consider the costs for different scenarios of the permeable pavement installation, but excluding the RTC installation due to different parameter settings? Your NSGA-II algorithm is designed to optimize the RBC rules, not to optimize the permeable pavement layout. Please clarify this argument as detailed as possible.
Results:
Line 230-231: this sentence should be moved to discussion section
Figure 4: how many sample do you have in the parent front for each color group?
Discussions:
Line 287-288: referring to the curves of depth and flow rate, can you discuss the correlations between changes of operation settings and depth or flow rate?
Conclusions:
Line 358-359: For your future work, I suggest considering the integrated installation scenarios of permeable pavement and RTC for analyzing the cost-effectiveness, not just for the pavement installation scenarios.
Line 366-367: Again, for your future work, you need to include the RTC implementation for your cost-effectiveness and explore the changes of cost-effectiveness as rainfall intensity increases. You will find different results /insights in that way.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English lanaguge is ok, but some sentences need to be placed in the right section.
Author Response
Comments 1: Abstract: Line 17-18: which RBC parameters are significantly impacted by the total volume entering the UDS? Please clarify
Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the shortcomings in the abstract. In this study, the RBC strategy adjusts the pump station's flow rate as the reservoir water depth reaches different preset water depths. These preset depths are referred to as RBC parameters.
Comments 2: Introduction: Line 35-36: please add a transition sentence (RTC to LID) before this sentence. The sudden occurrence of LID makes this paragraph looks weird.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We fully concur with your perspective and are pleased to incorporate your suggestion into our manuscript. To facilitate a smoother transition and to clarify the distinctiveness of the LID measures in optimizing UDS performance, we have revised the sentence as follows (page 1 of 15, 1st paragraph, line 35-38):
“Distinguished from the two aforementioned approaches that emphasize the storage and conveyance capacity of UDS, Low-Impact Development (LID) strategies are geared towards mitigating storm-water runoff at its source, thereby alleviating the burden on UDS.”
Comments 3: Methodology: Line 131: please add justification or reference regarding why the NSE over 0.7 makes the SWMM model reliable.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this issue. Regarding the NSE values, we referenced two papers:
[1] Ritter, A.; Muñoz-Carpena, R. Performance Evaluation of Hydrological Models: Statistical Significance for Reducing Subjectivity in Goodness-of-Fit Assessments. J. Hydrol. 2013, 480, 33–45, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.004.
[2] Xie, X.; Chu, Q.; Qiu, Z.; Liu, G.; Jia, S. Identifying the Optimal Layout of Low-Impact Development Measures at an Urban Watershed Scale Using a Multi-Objective Decision-Making Framework. Water 2024, 16, doi:10.3390/w16141969.
The figure below is from paper [1], indicating that an NSE in the range of 0.65 to 0.8 suggests the model is acceptable. Additionally, paper [2] suggests in its calibration and validation section that an NSE > 0.7 indicates an acceptable model. A higher NSE value approaching 1 signifies greater accuracy, thus we chose 0.7 as our criterion. However, we found that paper [2] did not specify the NSE standard or cite a reference. Therefore, we have decided to adopt the criterion（NSE>0.65） from paper [1] and cite it as our reference (page 7 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 231-232).
Comments 4: Methodology: Line 185-187: why only consider the costs for different scenarios of the permeable pavement installation, but excluding the RTC installation due to different parameter settings? Your NSGA-II algorithm is designed to optimize the RBC rules, not to optimize the permeable pavement layout. Please clarify this argument as detailed as possible.
Response 4: Thank you for your question, and I will answer as detailed as possible.
Energy consumption during the operation of the pump station is a significant component of the cost. Secondly, permeable pavement can also reduce the energy consumption of the pump station. If both RBC and permeable pavement are considered using expenses as the cost, it may lead to confusion when analyzing the cost-effectiveness of energy consumption reduction.
We have listed all possible sets of RBC parameters based on all the restrictions and constraints of RBC, and we have used non-dominated sorting to list all non-dominated solutions. If we consistently use the same method to handle different scenarios of permeable pavement installation and to identify their sets of non-dominated solutions, it may lead to inaccurate subsequent frequency statistical assessments in the section “3.4. Feature Importance Ranking” due to the insufficient number of samples.
Comments 5: Results: Line 230-231: this sentence should be moved to discussion section.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have moved this sentence to the appropriate section '4. Discussion' and added analysis (page 12 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 356-360).
Comments 6: Results: Figure 4: how many samples do you have in the pareto front for each color group?
Response 6: Thank you for your question. I have listed the sample number of each Pareto frontier in Figure 4(a)-(d) in the following table.
|
Return periods |
The installation percentage of permeable pavement |
||||
|
0% |
25% |
50% |
75% |
100% |
|
|
2yr |
38 |
38 |
42 |
42 |
36 |
|
5yr |
31 |
37 |
25 |
30 |
34 |
|
10yr |
46 |
39 |
31 |
30 |
36 |
|
20yr |
47 |
36 |
40 |
36 |
34 |
Comments 7: Discussions: Line 287-288: referring to the curves of depth and flow rate, can you discuss the correlations between changes of operation settings and depth or flow rate?
Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have added a paragraph to explain the correlations in section “4. Discussion” (page 10 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 310-315).
Comments 8: Conclusions: Line 358-359: For your future work, I suggest considering the integrated installation scenarios of permeable pavement and RTC for analyzing the cost-effectiveness, not just for the pavement installation scenarios.
Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comment, which will provide important direction for our subsequent research. We have added your idea to paragraph in the section “5. Conclusion' to discuss research limitations and future work (page 13 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 398-407).
Comments 9: Conclusions: Line 366-367: Again, for your future work, you need to include the RTC implementation for your cost-effectiveness and explore the changes of cost-effectiveness as rainfall intensity increases. You will find different results /insights in that way.
Response 9: Thank you for your comment, and we sincerely appreciate. We have considered your idea in the research limitations and future work in 'Section 5. Conclusion' (page 13 of 15, 3rd paragraph, line 398-407).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has been revised in accordance with the given suggestions, with several questions now answered clearly and comprehensively. However, two minor points remain:
- The study's contribution should be discussed in the discussion section rather than the introduction (lines 86-88).
- The conclusion is still too lengthy and should be condensed to focus solely on addressing the objectives
Author Response
Comments 1: The study's contribution should be discussed in the discussion section rather than the introduction (lines 86-88).
Response 1: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have moved this sentence to the “4. Discussion” section and revised it accordingly (page 12 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 374-375). Additionally, we have added a discussion on the limitations of this study following the sentence (page 12 of 15, 4th paragraph, line 375-381).
Comments 2: The conclusion is still too lengthy and should be condensed to focus solely on addressing the objectives
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the Conclusion section and simplified it. We have restructured the section to align with the three objectives of this study:
(1) For the objective of “optimizing RBC parameters to minimize CSO volume and pump energy consumption in UDS”, the revised conclusion is: “To achieve the best trade-off in minimizing CSO volume and pump station energy consumption, the non-dominated sorting method can identify the optimal RBC parameters. However, the effectiveness of RBC is ultimately limited by the storage and conveyance capacity of the UDS.” (page 13 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 384-387)
(2) For the objective of “assessing the mutual influence between RBC strategy and the permeable pavement installation”, the revised conclusion is: “Furthermore, there are mutual impacts when implementing RBC and permeable pavement integrally. The permeable pavement installation area can influence the number of Pareto solutions for RBC parameters under different return periods, whereas variations in RBC parameters have a relatively minor impact on various permeable pavement installation scenarios.” (page 13 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 387-391)
(3) For the objective of “evaluating the contribution of installing permeable pavement within different sub-catchments to cost-effectiveness”, the revised conclusion is: ”Additionally, the contribution of installing permeable pavement in different sub-catchments to the overall cost-effectiveness varies across various sub-catchments, and it is almost unaffected by RBC parameters.” (page 13 of 15, 2nd paragraph, line 391-393)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
