the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The UWO dataset – long-term observations from a full-scale field laboratory to better understand urban hydrology at small spatio-temporal scales
Abstract. Urban drainage systems are integral infrastructural components. However, their monitoring poses considerable challenges owing to the intricate, hazardous nature of the process, necessitating substantial resources and expertise. These inherent uncertainties act as deterrents, discouraging active involvement of researchers and sewer operators in the rigorous monitoring and utilization of data for a comprehensive understanding and efficient management of drainage-related processes. Consequently, a notable absence of openly available urban drainage datasets hampers exploring their potential for engineering applications, scientific analysis, and societal benefits. In this study, we present a distinctive dataset from the Urban Water Observatory (UWO) in Fehraltorf, Switzerland. This dataset is unique in terms of its completeness, consistency, extensive observation period, high spatio-temporal resolution and its availability in the public domain. The dataset comprises coherent information from 124 sensors that observe rainfall-runoff processes, wastewater and in-sewer atmosphere temperatures. Of these 124 sensors, 89 transmit their signals via a specifically set-up wireless network using long-range, low-power transmission technologies. Sensor data have a temporal resolution of 1–5 minutes and covers a period of three years from 2019–2021. To make the data interpretable and re-useable we provide systematically collected meta-data, data on sewer infrastructure, associated geo-information including a validated hydrodynamic rainfall-runoff model. Basic data quality checks were performed, and we motivate future research on the dataset with five selected research opportunities from detecting anomalies in the data to assessing groundwater infiltration and the capability of the low-power data transmission. We conclude that robust automated data quality checks, standardized data exchange formats, and a systematic meta-data collection are needed to boost interpretability and usability of urban drainage data. In the future, ontologies and knowledge graphs should be developed to expand the application of sewer observation data in solving scientific and practical problems.
- Preprint
(1616 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(6396 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-47', Agnethe Nedergaard Pedersen, 09 Feb 2025
reply
Dear authors
Thank you for a very well written and descriptive paper of the UWO dataset. The submission describes a three year long comprehensive measuring campaign of the urban drainage system in a Swiss minor city along with an accompanying SWMM model. The dataset is unique and well described in the manuscript with thorough supplementary material. The manuscript highlights well-thought potential application areas of the dataset. Dataset is made accessible and with a link to a data viewer. Translating this viewer would be of high value for the future users not able to read Swiss.
The data structure of the SQL databases are well structured and it is easy to understand data.
I have a few comments and corrections for the manuscript:
Maybe a question of taste, but why do you use both footnotes and references?
Figure 2, top: It seems that the top figure is missing.
Figure 2, buttom: It is not very clear which combination of the letters and numbers that are the naming of the manhole. Suggestion to make bold text for names. The light colors are not clear when being printed.Figure 3, left: It is not easy to read the small text. Please make it larger. The throttle says <75 L/s but in Figure 2 it says 80 L/s. Which one is correct? (Please also correct in text Line143). Are some of the text tagnames of the sensors?
Line 142. What does it mean that the nearby villages are “largely” connected to Fehreltorfs. Please specify.
Figure 4, left: The legends are hard to read. Are groundwater levels also a part of the dataset? Otherwise consider removing on figure, or indicate where to find data. I cannot see the WWTP on the figure. Is it hidden behind the other signatures?
Line 235ff: Is the maintenance information from the utility company available for the specific measuring period?
Line 375ff: You mention the installation of a flow-limiting hardware. Can you clarify where the device is installed or give a reference to the supplementary information. Wouldn’t it affect the measurements?
Line 393: Please clarify what “similar to previous work” means.
Line 444: You mention GWI ranges from 10-15 L/s. But where? At the treatment plant or at all sensor-points?
Line 445ff: How do you know how many manholes the high groundwater table affected? Is it based on traceback assumptions? Please elaborate.
Line 465ff: Great with an example of how redundant sensors can check data quality, but the text could be improved. I am not sure it is an incorrect level sensor processing, but erroneous sensor settings. Please clarify.
Figure 9, left: The triangles are really hard to read in print version.
Figure 9, middle and right: Please give appropriate titles to the figures.Line 488 and 489: Should K (-2 K and 5 K) be replaced with Celsius degree?
Table 2: You have an asterisk, what does it mean?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-47-RC1
Data sets
UWO - Field observations (2019 to 2021) Frank Blumensaat, Simon Bloem, Christian Ebi, Andy Disch, Christian Förster, Max Maurer, Mayra Rodriguez, and Jörg Rieckermann https://doi.org/10.25678/00091Y
UWO - Accompanying data (2019 to 2021) Frank Blumensaat, Simon Bloem, Christian Ebi, Andy Disch, Christian Förster, Max Maurer, Mayra Rodriguez, and Jörg Rieckermann https://doi.org/10.25678/000991
UWO - Data viewer (2019 to 2021) Frank Blumensaat, Simon Bloem, Christian Ebi, Andy Disch, Christian Förster, Max Maurer, Mayra Rodriguez, and Jörg Rieckermann https://doi.org/10.25678/00092Z
Model code and software
UWO - Data access (2019 to 2021) Frank Blumensaat, Simon Bloem, Christian Ebi, Andy Disch, Christian Förster, Max Maurer, Mayra Rodriguez, and Jörg Rieckermann https://doi.org/10.25678/000980
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
198 | 36 | 7 | 241 | 26 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 198
- PDF: 36
- XML: 7
- Total: 241
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1