Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Development and evaluation of a Sustainable Drainage System module into TEB (v 9.0) model
José Manuel Tunqui Neira,Katia Chancibault,Marie-Christine Gromaire,and Ghassan Chebbo
Abstract. Addressing urban stormwater management challenges, this study integrates a novel Sustainable Drainage System (SUDS) module into the Town Energy Balance (TEB) model to enhance urban hydro energetic simulations. The SUDS module is developed using the Equivalent Sustainable Drainage System (E–SUDS) approach, which aggregates various SUDS based on their hydrological processes and compatibility with TEB, providing a simplified representation for large-scale urban models. This study successfully develops this module, focusing on the hydrological conceptualization tailored to specific SUDS processes. A rigorous evaluation was conducted, including a comparison with the bioretention module of the SWMM model, to validate the accuracy of hydrological process dynamics and water balance simulated by the TEB SUDS module. The initial results demonstrated that the TEB SUDS module effectively simulates most of the targeted hydrological processes and the key parameters involved in water balance calculations. This module offers a comprehensive tool for analysing the cumulative and spatial effects of different SUDS at an urban scale.
Received: 30 Aug 2025 – Discussion started: 29 Sep 2025
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Reviewing of the manuscript ‘Development and evaluation of a Sustainable Drainage System module into TEB (V9.0) model’ by Jose Manuel Tunqui Neira et al. (2025) submitted to Geoscientific Model Development (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-2831).
This work focuses on incorporate more elaborate urban drainage system SUDS module into the popular TEB model to better represent the hydrological processes under the combined climate change and anthropogenic effects. The authors have shown the equations and diagrams related to the SUDS module in a detailed and well represented way. The methodology and presentation are well defined, clearly stated, and properly validated. The work would be great beneficial to the hydro-climate modeling community. Therefore, I would recommend it be published after Minor Revision. The following are specific comments and suggestions that may help improve the manuscript quality:
The reviewer would suggest reducing the amount of abbreviations in this section unless they are necessary. In addition, the abbreviation should be given its full name so that the readers are easy to follow, e.g., SWMM.
Starting from this Section and the following Sections, the authors please consider keeping some space at the start of the new paragraph, or keeping some line space between the last paragraph and the following one. By doing so, the readers could better follow the meaning of the represented contents in a coherent way.
Line 21: ‘…… SUDS are ……’ may change to ‘…… SUDS is ……’.
Line 44: ‘…… SUDS model’ may change to ‘SUDS module ……’.
Line 61: Please add the full name of TEB, I guess ‘Town Energy Balance’, when it is first appeared.
Line 71: ‘The project’s objective …..’. In this manuscript intending for publication, the authors may better focus on the manuscript or this article’s objective.
Line 190: ‘Table 1 …… Figure 1 [and] Figure 2’.
Line 197: ‘…… portion of the mesh (Figure A.1 in Appendix A) ……’. Adding a bracket before ‘Figure A.1’.
Line 205: Is it proper to adding Figure 3 in the Section’s title? Please consider revising it.
The subsection’s title may better be more detailed. For example, ‘Section 4.4.1 Scenario 1 and Section 4.4.2 Scenario 2’ could not provide sufficient information for the readers to follow this article and the following contents under these subsections. Please consider revise it.
The percolations and exfiltration in Figure 5 and those corresponding yellow dots in Figure 7 show some abnormal results. For example, the E-SUDSSa at 25 mm/h while the LID-SWMM could range from 0-25 mm/h. Could you explain it and the similar issues in these two figures? Could the module be fixed to be better consistent between SWMM and TEB models for the SUDS hydrological processes?
The values at the left panels of Figure 6 and 8 may be changed to be in a more formal way.
This part should be revised. Firstly, the future research direction may be switched to somewhere else. Then, the results of this work better be summarized in the form of listing bulletin points, e.g., (1) ….., (2), ….. (3)….. etc. Instead of put all together.
For the validation of the new module results, more statistical or skill metrics should be included, in addition to R2. For example, root-mean-square error, mean bias, relative bias, total sample number, and others etc. Please consider adding them to evaluate the model performance more carefully.
We developed and evaluated a computer model that supports sustainable urban stormwater management. It simulates how green areas and drainage systems capture, store, and release rainwater, and performs well when compared with an established model. The results show it can reliably reproduce key water processes, providing a practical tool to help improve urban rainwater management.
We developed and evaluated a computer model that supports sustainable urban stormwater...
Reviewing of the manuscript ‘Development and evaluation of a Sustainable Drainage System module into TEB (V9.0) model’ by Jose Manuel Tunqui Neira et al. (2025) submitted to Geoscientific Model Development (Manuscript ID: egusphere-2025-2831).
This work focuses on incorporate more elaborate urban drainage system SUDS module into the popular TEB model to better represent the hydrological processes under the combined climate change and anthropogenic effects. The authors have shown the equations and diagrams related to the SUDS module in a detailed and well represented way. The methodology and presentation are well defined, clearly stated, and properly validated. The work would be great beneficial to the hydro-climate modeling community. Therefore, I would recommend it be published after Minor Revision. The following are specific comments and suggestions that may help improve the manuscript quality: