Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
2 Addition of New Sub-catchment ........................................................................................ 4
2.1 Flooding Problems Caused by Addition of New Sub-catchment ............................... 4
2.2 Options available to reduce flood risk: ....................................................................... 5
2.3 Chosen Solution ........................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Weir Overflow........................................................................................................... 12
3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 12
1 Introduction
This exercise covers the modelling of a combined sewer system. Figure 1 shows a map of an
urban area which is split into a series of sub-catchments that are drained by the combined
sewerage system. The conduit network drains under gravity to a treatment works, shown as
an outfall at Node 08 in Figure 1. There is an orifice plate limiting the flow into the treatment
works to 0.082 m3/s. Node 07 forms a junction which can divert the flow to a CSO if the flow
overtops a control weir in high flow.

Figure 1: Map of network with outfall link highlighted

Basic System Information:

- Conduits: Circular 600mm diameter

- Orifice plate: 600mm diameter with 0.082 m3/s maximum flow
- Dry Weather Flow (DWF): 0.08187 m3/s
- Design storm: 20-year storm
Figure 2 shows the flow over the CSO weir for the 20-year design storm. The curves are
typical of urban catchments where the peak flows are greatest with short, high intensity
storms. The system shows a short response time to high-intensity storms and a short
attenuation period.

Figure 2: Graph of flow for 20 year storm simulation

2 Addition of New Sub-catchment

2.1 Flooding Problems Caused by Addition of New Sub-catchment

Figure 3 shows the network with a new sub-catchment added. This may cause flooding
problems as the capacity of the treatment works remains the same and additional load may
cause flooding at nodes.

Figure 3: Network with additional catchment

Table 1 shows the comparison between weir flows with and without the additional sub-
catchment. It is clear that the addition of another sub-catchment has largely increased the
quantity of water passing the CSO weir.

Storm Weir overflow volume Weir overflow volume

without added sub- with added sub-catchment
catchment (m3) (m3)
M20-15 917.651 1522.557
M20-30 1178.060 1951.484
M20-60 1433.338 2431.802
M20-120 1602.620 2833.402
M20-240 1596.981 3046.031

Table 1: Comparison of weir flow volumes with and without new catchment added
Table 2 shows the flood volumes at flooded nodes. It is clear that the problem is more acute
for shorter storms of high intensity, which is typical for urban flooding. The greatest problem
occurs at Node 11, which is the connection of the new sub-catchment to the network.

Node M20-15 M20-30 M20-60 M20-120 M20-240

ID Flood/Lost Flood/Lost Flood/Lost Flood/Lost Flood/Lost
Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3) Volume (m3)
4 50 93 58.3 0.0 0.0
6 16.7 61.5 76.7 4.1 0.0
11 166.7 207.2 145.2 0.0 0.0

Table 2: Nodes flooded and volumes for given storm durations

2.2 Options available to reduce flood risk:

 Install larger pipes to increase in-line storage capacity:

Figure 4: Network with increased in-line storage

This conduits highlighted in Figure 4 are increased to 1200mm. This requires replacing some
of the existing conduits. This results in no flooding at any of the nodes.
The increase in in-line storage results in a slight reduction of flow of the weir, as shown in
Figure 5 and Table 3. A possible negative side effect of increasing the in-line storage capacity
is the possibility of increased sedimentation during DWF. However, using a diameter of
1200mm allows cleaning of the pipe.

Figure 5: Flow over weir with increased in-line storage

Table 3: Weir flow quantities with increased in-line storage

This option does prevent flooding at nodes, but does little to reduce the flow over the weir to
CSO because it is only a measure to the storage and does not restrict limit the flow.
 Install larger pipes to increase in-line storage capacity and increase capacity of
treatment works thus allows less restriction at orifice plate:

Figure 6: Network with increased link diameter and increased orifice capacity

The conduits and the orifice highlighted in Figure 6 have an increased diameter of 850mm.
The orifice limit flow is increased to 0.1 m3/s. This assumes that there is an increased in
treatment capacity.

Figure 7: Flow over weir with increased in-line storage and increased orifice capacity
 Table 4: Weir flow quantities with increased in-line storage and increased orifice plate capacity

This solution results in no flooding at any nodes and a reduction in flow over the weir.
However, this solution is likely to be costly as in requires upgrading conduits, the orifice
plate and treatment works.

 Tank storage at connection of new sub-catchment with limited discharge to

drainage network:

A storage tank is installed at the connection of the new sub-catchment to the drainage
network, as shown in Figure 8. The characteristics of the storage tank are:

- Length = 66 m
- Width = 6.0 m
- Depth = 3.0 m
- Volume ≈ 1200 m3

Downstream from the orifice is an orifice plate with diameter 0.1 m and limit flow 0.001m3/s.

Figure 8: Network with storage tank highlighted

This solution results in no flooding at nodes during the 600 minute simulation period. Error!
Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. show the nature of
weir flow to CSO. The solution results CSO discharge slightly greater than before the
addition of the new sub-catchment.

Figure 9: Weir overflow to CSO for storage tank solution

Table 5: Weir overflow volumes to CSO with storage tank

The reduction in CSO discharge is only due to the orifice plate limiting flow from the new
sub-catchment. The tank must have sufficient capacity to store the excess flow upstream of
the orifice plate. The storage tank has sufficient capacity to store the excess flow upstream of
the orifice plate, as shown in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference
source not found..

Figure 10: Depth and volume of storage tank during 600 minute simulation period

Table 6: Minimum and maximum depths and volumes of storage tanks for design storms
2.3 Chosen Solution
The use of a storage tank appears the most viable option as it eliminates flooding at nodes
during the 600 minute simulation period and reduces the CSO discharge to levels similar to
before the addition of the new sub-catchment. Another advantage of this solution is that it
requires no significant alterations to the existing system.

In-line storage prevents flooding at nodes however it does not prevent CSO discharge for the
design storm. This may be acceptable provided that spills are not too frequent from normal
weather events. In-line storage may be a cheap solution as the only additional costs are using
larger diameter conduits and replacement of some existing conduits. However, in-line storage
may result in increased sedimentation during dry periods, which could reduce the system
capacity.

The increasing of treatment works capacity and in-line storage is an expensive and ineffective
solution. The reason for node flooding is upstream constrictions more than a lack of
downstream capacity. However, if there is planned future expansion of the settlement, this
solution may be warranted.
2.4 Weir Overflow
The figures in Table 7 show that the additional sub-catchment results in a large increase in
weir overflow to the CSO. Further, in-line storage does little to reduce the flow over the weir
and subsequent discharge. This may be deemed as acceptable because the majority of this
overflow will be relatively clean storm water, with wastewater effluent highly diluted.
However, if this is not deemed acceptable a solution would be to use a storage tank to reduce
increase the storage capacity before the CSO discharge is required.

Increasing the treatment capacity is unlikely to be an economic or efficient solution to weir

overflow to CSO. This is because the overflow period is relatively short and a large increase
in treatment capacity would be required to cope with storm periods, which would then result
in redundant capacity during normal weather conditions.

Storm Weir overflow volume Weir overflow Weir overflow volume

without added sub- volume with added with added sub-
catchment (m3) sub-catchment (m3) catchment and storage
tank (m3)
M20-15 917.651 1522.557 934.670
M20-30 1178.060 1951.484 1206.421
M20-60 1433.338 2431.802 1491.794
M20-120 1602.620 2833.402 1732.366
M20-240 1596.981 3046.031 1868.109

Table 7: Weir overflow volumes for different scenarios

3 Conclusion
The addition of a new catchment resulted in a large increase of weir overflow and caused
nodal flooding close to the catchment for the 20-year design storm. More severe flooding
resulted from short, high intensity storms. Analysis showed that the flooding issue was a
result of upstream capacity being too small. The most appropriate solution was to limit the
discharge from the catchment to 0.001m3/s, thus reducing the weir overflow to levels similar
those before the addition of a new sub-catchment. To prevent nodal flooding a storage tank
was installed at the catchment, which would drain after the storm had subsided.