UK Modelling The Hydrological Performance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems - Bradford University

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University
3.0
Methods of Modelling the Hydrological Performance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems
3.1
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature and identify existing methods for assessing the performance of RWH systems at the single building scale in terms of their water saving reliability. That is, methods that are used to determine the volume of potable mains water that can be substituted by harvested rainwater. Techniques for investigating other potential hydrological benefits, such as a reduction in peak sewer flows, do exist (e.g. Vaes & Berlamont, 2001; Shaaban & Appan, 2003; Hardy et al, 2004) but these are not considered here. The concepts presented in this chapter, coupled with financial information presented in chapter four, were used as the basis for a new modelling tool with which to investigate the hydrological and financial performance of contemporary RWH systems in the UK.
There are numerous methods available for predicting the performance of RWH systems and these range from the relatively simple, such as rule-of-thumb approaches to the more complex, such as statistical methods and sophisticated computer programs. Existing techniques vary in comprehensiveness. Some explicitly consider only one or a small number of RWH system components, such as the catchment area (rainfall/runoff characteristics) or the primary storage tank, whilst others include the explicit assessment of a wider range of components. Evaluation at different spatial scales is also possible. Some methodologies are concerned only with RWH system performance at the level
67
Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com
of a single building whilst others seek to investigate the impacts of wider implementation, such as at the development or catchment scale (e.g. Liu et al, 2005; Sakellari et al, 2005; Sekar & Randhir, 2006), often with the aid of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), for instance Prakash & Abrol (2005); Kahinda et al (2006). Some methodologies focus solely on hydrological performance whilst others include additional elements such as
economic/financial measures (e.g. Coombes et al, 2002, 2003b; Liaw & Tsai, 2004; Ghisi & Oliveira, 2007) and in some instances an assessment of system sustainability, for example see Parkinson et al (2001); Vleuten-Balkema (2003); Anderson (2005); Sakellari et al (2005).
The use of computer software for modelling the hydraulic behaviour of both traditional (piped) urban drainage systems and SUDS is now common practice amongst drainage engineers and researchers (e.g. Swan et al, 2001; Kellagher et al, 2003; Millerick, 2005a). Computer based methods offer a number of advantages over manual calculations, such as much greater speed and flexibility, sophisticated data handling capabilities, simulation of specific designs under a wide range of circumstances, optimisation, assessment of associated risk and identification of potential failure routes. Many RWH system models are also computer based and the majority of the existing research reviewed made reference to the use of software-based techniques. Given the advantages of this approach, coupled with the ready availability of computing power and suitable applications (e.g. spreadsheets), it would have made little sense to employ manual calculation methods and therefore the model developed as part of the thesis was also computer (spreadsheet) based. Given the wide-spread
68
use of computer orientated approaches, any future reference in this thesis to RWH models should be assumed to refer to those that are either wholly or largely software based. For any that use a different approach, for example manual calculations, this fact will be stated explicitly in order to clarify the format that was used.
3.2
Modelling concepts
Wainwright & Mulligan (2004) state that models can be classified hierarchically, with mathematical and physical (or hardware) models located at the top. Physical models are scaled down versions of real-world situations and are used where mathematical variants would be too complex, too uncertain or not possible due to a lack of knowledge. Examples are given as including laboratory channel flumes, wind tunnels and the Eden project in the UK. Mathematical models are abstractions of actual systems and are created by using the formal language of mathematics to describe their behaviour. They are much more common than the physical variants and can be further sub-divided into three broad categories: 1. Empirical models describe the behaviour of a system on the basis of observation alone and provide no information regarding the physical laws that dictate the processes occurring within a system. They have high predictive power but do not provide a great deal of information regarding how a system works. Therefore they are usually specific to the conditions under which data were collected and the results cannot easily be generalised to other circumstances. Examples of empirical models include those that use coefficients in order to adjust values so that they
69
better represent those observed in nature and regression analysis which fits a mathematical function to the observed relationship between variables. 2. Conceptual models are similar to empirical ones in that they describe the observed relationship between variables and not the underlying processes. They also include preconceived notions of how a system functions, for example a hydrological model may be divided into separate components such as rainfall, runoff, river flow and subsurface flow. Each of the individual components would still be empirically based but the technique provides a greater depth of understanding. As with the purely empirical approach the results obtained from one location cannot easily be transferred to others. 3. Physically based models are derived deductively from established physical principles and results should be consistent with observations. However, predicted system behaviour often diverges from that seen in practice. Because of this these models tend to require calibration against observations, for example by using empirical coefficients. This is often the case when there are gaps in knowledge regarding the fundamental processes that drive a system. They have good explanatory depth (i.e. why does this particular result occur?) but low predictive power. It is often the case that a model does not fall exclusively into one particular category. There is a continuum of models which include elements of all three of the sub-categories defined here. Providing that a high degree of calibration is not required then physically based models can offer a
70
higher degree of generalisation than the empirical and conceptual varieties.
Further subdivision is possible according to the mathematic techniques employed. For example there are deterministic models which have a fixed output for a specific input. That is, for a given input x the corresponding output y will always be the same (Skidmore, 2002). The alternative to this is a stochastic approach in which a given set of inputs can produce different outputs according to some random process (Wainwright & Mulligan, 2004). Another important distinction is how a model manages the passage of time. Static models exclude time altogether whereas dynamic models include it explicitly. Time can be considered as either passing continuously, and therefore represented using differential equations, or in discrete packets such as one hour or one day. In the latter case the system can be represented by using difference equations. There are also hybrid systems which contain both continuous and discrete components (Dabney & Harman, 2001).
A flow diagram is presented in figure 3.1 that shows the steps involved in the creation of a simulation model (after James, 1984). Concerning model accuracy, an important point to remember is that it is unrealistic to expect that they will ever represent reality with complete fidelity. Thomas (2002a) states that it is only possible to roughly predict the performance of a RWH system because many of the factors upon which predictions are based, such as future water demand and climate, are uncertain and hard to forecast accurately. However, it has been noted that all models are wrong, but some are useful
71
(Box, 1984) and so the fact that a given model cannot mimic the real world with complete accuracy does not mean that it cannot be useful as a predictive tool. Further, although field studies have the advantages of realism and tangibility, the investment in terms of time and money can be significant (Wainwright & Mulligan, 2004). Models offer an alternative that is flexible and that do not involve an excessive investment of resources (Dixon, 1999).
If the steps described in figure 3.1 are followed then the resulting simulation model should tend towards the useful (Dixon, 1999). This chapter covers the first two stages in detail: problem definition and review of theoretical background. Step three, formulation of equations, is covered in somewhat less detail by presenting key equations that are commonly used with existing and accepted modelling approaches.
Figure 3.1
Diagrammatic representation of model development After James (1984).

Problem definition Review of theoretical background Formulation of equations
Formulation of computational methods
Formulation of methods for solving
Creation of model structure
Iterative improvement Validation of model Analysis of sensitivity
72
3.2.1 Problem definition It was proposed, as part of this research project, to investigate existing modelling methods applicable to contemporary RWH systems in the UK. Particular attention was given to methods for modelling both the hydrological and financial performance of these systems. Techniques suitable for use in this thesis required identification. Key questions that required answers included: What are the existing methods for assessing the hydrological aspects of contemporary RWH systems at the single building scale? What are the existing methods for assessing the financial aspects of contemporary RWH systems at the single building scale? Which of these methodologies is the most suitable for meeting the objectives of this research project? If the existing methods cannot satisfactorily meet these objectives, how is this problem to be overcome? Can new methods be created or transposed from another research area or discipline?
This chapter is primarily concerned with addressing the first question. That is, the identification of existing methodologies for assessing the hydrological performance of contemporary RWH systems in the UK. This consisted mainly of reviewing the theoretical background and so the formulation of equations (stage three in figure 3.1) was kept to a minimum at this juncture. See chapter four for a review of the financial modelling aspects. Chapter five provides details of the underlying equations and algorithms used in the thesis model.
73
3.3
General modelling considerations
Numerous methods exist for predicting the hydrological performance of RWH systems. But what is meant by performance and what is it that we are trying to measure and why? The literature refers to the use of various performance indicators. Those that are applicable here include predictions of system reliability and efficiency. The reliability of a rainwater store can be expressed using either a time or volumetric basis (Fewkes & Butler, 1999). Reliability is defined by Liaw & Tsai (2004) as either the total volume of harvested water supplied divided by the total water demand (volumetric reliability, essentially the portion of demand that is met) or the fraction of time that demand is fully met. Thomas (2002a) also defines the volumetric reliability but labels it as the satisfaction and adds the indicator of efficiency, defined as the fraction of runoff from the contributing catchment that is utilised. Fewkes and Warm (2000) describe the performance of a RWH system by its water saving efficiency as shown in equation 3.1. This is the same as the volumetric reliability, as previously discussed. However it is defined, a reliability of 100% indicates complete security of supply provision (Fewkes & Butler, 1999).
T
Yt ET
t 1 T t
100 Dt 1
(3.1)
where: ET Yt Dt T = water saving efficiency (%) = yield from system in time t (m3) = demand from system in time t (m3) = total time under consideration
74
One limitation of the time reliability indicator is that it can give seemingly poor results even for systems that meet a high percentage of demand. For example, a system that is able to consistently supply 99% of the required water would nevertheless have a time reliability of zero since it would always fail to meet all of the demand. It also makes it difficult to distinguish between systems that perform badly and those that perform well. Liaw & Tsai (2004) advise against the use of time reliability as a performance indicator for domestic systems precisely for this reason. Instead they recommend the use of the volumetric reliability indicator.
Measuring performance using time reliability may be the rational choice for critical systems that provide the only source of drinking water, such as those in developing countries and rural areas of the developed world. However, for urban systems supplying water for non-potable uses, and that almost always have a mains top-up function, the volumetric reliability provides a more useful measure of system performance. Therefore, unless otherwise stated, hydrological performance relates to the volumetric reliability of a RWH system.
3.3.1 Why model RWH systems? Mathematical models can be useful because they may be the only realistic means of representing our understanding of the complex behaviour of a given system (Jakeman et al, 1993). Wainwright & Mulligan (2004) provide a general overview of the purpose of modelling from an environmental systems perspective. They outline a total of seven purposes to which models are usually put: research aids, tools for understanding, tools for simulation and prediction,
75
as virtual laboratories, as integrators within and between disciplines, as a research product and as a means of communicating science and the results of science. The primary aims of this thesis were to create a computer model of a contemporary RWH system, and to simulate the behaviour under a range of conditions so that system performance (both hydrological and financial) could be predicted. The purpose of the model can therefore be considered to fall within the tools for simulation and prediction category.
When assessing a RWH system there is a number of issues that require consideration. For instance the associated costs and benefits, and whether the objectives of the system could not be better met by investing in an alternative option. Depending on the purpose of the system, questions regarding performance could include: What percentage of existing water demand is likely to be met by harvested rainwater? What is the unit cost of water supplied from the system and how does this compare with the cost of other water conservation measures? How long will the system take to pay for itself? What will the ultimate return on investment be? What are the associated risks? For example, what if the level of rainfall is less than expected?
System behaviour depends upon a number of interrelated processes, some of which are largely anthropogenic in origin (e.g. catchment characteristics, water demand, system costs) and some of which are largely due to natural processes,
76
such as precipitation patterns. How well or how badly a RWH system performs depends upon the interaction of these processes and the way that this will proceed is not always obvious if one simply considers the constituent parts in isolation. Modelling provides a way to enhance our understanding of how a set of interrelated components behave as a unit (Chapra, 1997), thus facilitating a higher level of learning about that unit than may have occurred from a simpler reductionist-based investigation (Dixon, 1999).
3.3.2 Data requirements Thomas (2002a) lists the minimum data requirements for RWH performance models. These are given as: Roof area and runoff coefficient. Average daily water demand. A historic rainfall record long enough to act as a reliable guide to future precipitation patterns. Proposed tank size.
Some assessment methods utilise more data than listed above. Fewkes (1997) accounts for rainfall losses due to depression storage (water retained in small depressions in the catchment surface) as well as using a catchment runoff coefficient, Leggett et al (2001b) present a method which includes filter losses, and Liaw & Tsai (2004) consider a number of financial performance indicators. Conversely, some methods utilise less data such as many of the commonly used rule-of-thumb approaches. Despite some differences, all of the assessment methods investigated included at least three basic elements:
77
rainfall, catchment area and water demand. It is assumed that these parameters represent the minimum data required to perform an objective, albeit basic, assessment.
3.4
RWH system components: modelling considerations
Modern RWH systems consist of a variety of components which are integrated in such a way as to provide a functional system, as discussed in chapter two. In order to predict how a given system will perform it is necessary to consider at least some of these components and to determine a suitable method for simulating their behaviour. Clearly it is not feasible to construct a model that includes every minor detail, nor is it realistic to expect that those elements that are included will be modelled with complete accuracy. A more rational approach is to limit the range of elements to those that represent the key components in terms of their effect on the hydrological and financial performance. Then select ways of modelling the behaviour of these in a way that gives reasonably accurate and reliable results.
Wainwright & Mulligan (2004) state that the optimal model is one that contains sufficient complexity to explain the observed behaviour, but no more. A set of selection criteria were therefore required in order to determine which components to include and which to exclude. Further, for those components which were included it was necessary to determine which characteristics to reproduce and to select a suitable method for modelling them.
78
For the hydrological model, the following selection criteria were used in order to determine which elements required explicit consideration. For a component to be included within the hydrological model, it was required to: 1. Directly affect the volume of harvested water or potable mains water within, or to and from, the system, and/or: 2. Have a cost component dependent on a variable or variables other than time alone1, and also: 3. Have a large enough effect on the hydrological and/or financial performance to be worthwhile taking into account.
Following on from the information presented in chapter two and using the selection rules outlined above, figure 3.2 presents those components selected for explicit inclusion within the thesis model. The components consist of rainfall, catchment surface, first-flush diverter, coarse filter, pump, potable (mains) water supply and sewerage system (volumes to and from), storage tank and nonpotable supply and demand.
The criteria other than time alone was added in relation to costs because
some components have associated expenditures that depend only on time and do not affect the hydrological performance. For example, a system with a UV unit will require replacement of the UV bulb at regular intervals. Clearly this will have a cost but will not affect the water saving reliability in any noticeable way and hence does not require inclusion in the hydrological model. Rather, it would be taken into account by the financial model, which is discussed in the next chapter.
79
Figure 3.2
RWH system components explicitly included within the thesis model
Key
Usable water Discarded water Catchment surface
Rainfall Mains top-up
First flush diverter
Non-potable supply & demand
Coarse filter
Water meter Storage tank Volume of grey/black water to foul sewer system Potable (mains) water supply
Pump
Overflow
3.5
Modelling system components: review of theoretical background
Sections 3.6-3.12 consider each of the RWH components shown above and describe how they can be represented within a conceptual RWH system hydrological model.
3.6
Rainfall
Rainfall varies with location, season and year. Its spatial variability is strongly influenced by local topology and factors such as distance from coast (Thomas, 2002a). Annual rainfall depths in the UK vary from between 550mm and 3,000mm, with the bulk of the population living in areas that receive just 600-
80
800mm (Hassell, 2005). The south and south-east receive comparatively lower rainfall than most other areas of the country whilst the north receives comparatively more (Millerick, 2005b). Given that rainfall is a key factor in the performance of RWH systems, in order for the thesis model to be functional, a suitable method had to be found with which to represent the actual rainfall profile in the region of interest (West Yorkshire). Existing methods for incorporating rainfall data into the analysis can be placed into two broad categories: historic and stochastic. The historic category consists of empirical rainfall data series obtained from weather monitoring stations whilst the stochastic category consists of rainfall data generated using some technique that has a random/probabilistic element.
3.6.1 Historic rainfall data One commonly applied technique is the use of historic time series rainfall. That is, a continuous data set that has been gathered by recording the depth of rain falling at a given location within a specified time frame. The data is presented in the form of depth per unit time, for example mm/hour or mm/day. This would then be collated, edited so as to be in a suitable format and then used directly in a RWH model without the generation of any new information. This approach has been used by a number of researchers such as Dixon (1999), Fewkes (1999a), Rahman & Yusaf (2000), Dominguez et al (2001), Liaw & Tsia (2004), Ghisi et al (2006, 2007), amongst others.
In the UK, rainfall data of this type is often available from a variety of sources such as the Met. Office, British Atmospheric Data Centre (BADC), universities
81
and research institutions. The collection of short-duration rainfall data (in the region of 1-5 minutes) is rare compared to the collection of data at an hourly or daily timescale (Kellagher, 2005).
3.6.2 Stochastic rainfall data Synthetic rainfall data series can be generated from a statistical analysis of historic rainfall records. Various researchers have generated synthetic rainfall data sets for use with RWH models. Fewkes & Ferris (1982) used a Monte Carlo simulation technique to generate daily rainfall profiles for the Nottingham area of the UK. The resulting rainfall data was used in conjunction with a massbalance model in order to investigate the performance of a RWH system supplying water to a WC. In Australia, Coombes (2002) used the stochasticallybased Disaggregated Rectangular Intensity Pulse (DRIP) rainfall event model of Heneker et al (2001) as part of a computer based allotment water balance model to predict the performance of domestic systems.
Stochastic methods are useful for generating synthetic rainfall time series for areas that have no historic data or where such data is limited, for example to a few years or less, when a longer time series is required (Kellagher, 2005). Calibration and validation against observed data is required in order to have confidence in the accuracy of synthetic rainfall profiles generated for a given location (Lanza et al, 2001). However, this will not be possible if directly measured historic rainfall data is not available in the first place. There are a number of stochastic rainfall generation programs available for the UK, for
82
example RainSim from the University of Newcastle Upon Tyne and both TSRsim and StormPAC from HR Wallingford Ltd (Kellagher, 2005).
3.6.3 Criteria for assessing suitability of historic rainfall data If a historic rainfall time series is to be used then three questions need to be asked: 1. what is a suitable timestep? 2. what is a suitable length of rainfall record? 3. how close does the RWH system need to be to the location of rain depth measurement?
The first of these questions has implications beyond the selection of an appropriate rainfall data set and is discussed in more detail in section 3.14. With regards to the second and third questions, there are a number of sources of advice and these are summarised in table 3.1. The length of rainfall record is important since the data set needs to reflect local climatic variations if it is to more accurately predict system performance. If a short data set were to be used then there would be a greater risk that the information collected would not reflect typical conditions. For example, if data were collected during a period of abnormally low rainfall then this could potentially lead to an underestimation of average system performance (e.g. see MJA, 2007). The distance of the RWH system from the location that the rainfall depth was measured is also important since precipitation conditions often vary geographically and rainfall patterns can differ even over short distances (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999).
83
Table 3.1
Summary of advice for selecting historic rainfall data

Max. distance from RWH system
Reference Environment Agency, 2003b Heggen, 2000 Konig, 2001 Mitchell, 2007 Schiller & Latham, 1982 Gould & NissenPeterson, 1999 Liaw & Tsai, 2004 Thomas, 2004
Recommended/min. record length A rainwater catchment system can often be reasonably assessed from five years of data 10 years of daily rainfall data 10 years gives satisfactory results At least 10 years of data preferable At least 10 years of accurate local data. 20-30 years preferable (especially for drought-prone areas) Minimum of 50 years data For large RWH systems in arid areas that constitute critical water supplies, use long data sequences (say 25 years). Low-security systems can be usefully modelled with 5-10 years worth off rainfall data
Within 10 miles Obtain data from nearest location Closest location that has similar climate and topography -
Table 3.1 demonstrates that there is no definitive guidance concerning suitable spatial and temporal scales for historic rainfall data when assessing RWH systems. However, the information presented would suggest that a minimum of ten years worth of rainfall records ought to be used. These should be obtained from a weather station subject to a similar climate, and that is located close to, the site under investigation.
It needs to be noted that historic rainfall data cannot in itself account for the potential effects of climate change. Whenever possible it would be prudent to adjust the data in line with expected changes in order to provide a more realistic representation of future precipitation patterns.
84
3.7
Catchment surface (rainfall/runoff characteristics)
Runoff can be harvested from a number of different surface types including pavements, roads and car parks but in urban areas the majority of rainwater catchment surfaces tend to be restricted to roofs (see chapter two). Therefore, the discussion here is limited to the rainfall/runoff characteristics of roofs only. Unless otherwise stated the use of the word catchment should be taken to mean roof.
Not all of the rain falling on a roof will flow from the surface. Surface wetting, ponding in depressions, absorption, evaporation and the type of surface material all influence the level of actual runoff (Wilson, 1990; Gould & NissenPeterson, 1999; Leggett et al, 2001b; Butler & Davies, 2004). Water that flows from the roof and can be collected is termed the effective runoff whilst water that cannot be collected is termed the runoff losses. Various methods exist for estimating the volume of water which is translated into effective runoff. In practice the most commonly applied are the dimensionless runoff coefficient and the initial losses (the latter is also sometimes referred to as the depression storage). Empirical modelling work conducted by Fewkes (1999a) found that the consideration of rainfall losses was necessary in order for system behaviour to be accurately reproduced. Models that used runoff coefficients or runoff coefficients and initial losses were both found to give acceptable results.
Other techniques have been used to estimate the volume of runoff, such as the Kinematic Wave Equation (Heggen, 1995; Giakoumakis & Tsakiris, 2001) and the Dynamic Equations (Boers & Ben-Asher, 1982). However, the use of these
85
appears to be limited to a small number of academic studies with no empirical verification of their accuracy with regards to modelling RWH systems. For this reason they were not considered for the thesis model and are not discussed further.
3.7.1 Runoff coefficients The runoff coefficient is the ratio of the volume of water that runs off a surface compared to the total volume of rain falling on it (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999). Fewkes (2006) defines it as representing the proportion of rainwater collected from an actual roof compared with an idealised roof from which no losses occur. In order to calculate the coefficient, data is gathered for several months or years and can include a large number of storm events. The runoff coefficient value for each storm event are then combined to give an average value. For example, see Zhu & Liu (1998) and Fewkes (1999a). The dimensionless runoff coefficient, CR, can be expressed as shown in equation 3.2 (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999).
CR
Volume of runoff in t Volume of rainfall in t
(3.2)
where t is the time period over which the measurements are made. The volume of rain falling on a catchment surface in time period t is given by multiplying the depth of rainfall in time t by the effective catchment area, which is commonly calculated by multiplying the horizontal length of the catchment by the horizontal width (Environment Agency, 2003b) as shown in figure 3.3. This yields the plan
86
area, not the actual surface area, and this method assumes that the rainfall falls vertically onto the roof surface.
Figure 3.3
Calculating the plan area of a catchment Adapted from Environment Agency (2003b), p7.
W
Catchment area, A = L x W
Building
Once the effective area of the catchment has been calculated and a suitable runoff coefficient determined, the volume of runoff occurring in time period t can be calculated using equation 3.3.
ERt
Rt A CR
(3.3)
where: ERt Rt A CR = effective runoff in time t (m3) = rainfall depth in time t (m) = effective catchment area (m2) = catchment runoff coefficient
87
Other factors which may occasionally reduce the collection efficiency of roof catchments are when precipitation occurs as snow or hail or is affected by very strong winds (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999), although studies by both Fewkes (1999a) and Schemenauer & Cereceda (1993) found only a weak correlation between the level of runoff and wind speed and direction.
Runoff coefficients have the advantage that they are easy to apply, simply requiring that the volume of rain falling on a catchment in a specified time period be multiplied by the runoff coefficient to yield the effective runoff volume.
Numerous researchers have used coefficients when estimating the volume of effective runoff, such as Fewkes (1995, 1999a), Zhu & Liu (1998), Liaw & Tsai (2004), Lau et al (2005) and Ghisi et al (2006), amongst others. The type of material that a surface is constructed from, as well as the pitch, has been found to strongly influence the resulting runoff coefficient (see table 3.2). Building roofs are generally designed to shed rainwater as quickly as possible, for instance by constructing sloped surfaces made from smooth materials such as tiles or slate, and so most have a relatively high runoff coefficient.
88
Table 3.2
Examples of runoff coefficients for various roof types

Range of coefficients High Average Low 1.00 0.90 0.50 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.70 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.90 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.84 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.82 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.75 0.80 0.75 0.40
Reference BS EN 752-4 (1998)
DEHAA (1999) Dharmabalan (1989)
Environment Agency (2003) Fewkes & Warm (2000) Herrmann & Hasse (1997) Leggett et al (2001b)
Surface Type Steeply sloping roofs Large flat roofs (>10,000m2) Small flat roofs (<100m2) Pitched roof, domestic dwelling Roof tiles Corrugated sheets Plastic sheets Thatched roof Pitched roof tiles Flat roof, smooth tiles Flat roof with gravel layer Pitched roof, tiles or slates Flat roof, impervious membrane Green roof, flat Domestic roof Pitched roof tiles Flat roof, smooth surface Flat roof with gravel layer or thin turf (<150mm) Iron and cement roofs Pitched roof, domestic dwelling Corrugated sheets
Liaw & Tsai (2004) Martin (1980) Rahman & Yusaf (2000) Woods-Ballard et al (2007)
Pitched roof tiles Flat roof Flat roof, gravel Extensive green roof Intensive green roof Yusuf (1999) Corrugated sheets 0.85 Note: coefficient of 0 = 0% runoff, coefficient of 1 = 100% runoff
3.7.2 Initial losses Rainfall losses occurring due to depression storage, absorption and wind effects can be accounted for by defining a minimum depth of rainfall below which no runoff is assumed to occur (Fewkes, 1999a). For depths greater than this threshold runoff is produced, but the threshold value is subtracted from the total rainfall depth occurring during the time period in question. The type of material that a roof surface is constructed from has been found to influence the corresponding initial loss value, as shown in table 3.3.
89
Table 3.3
Examples of initial loss values for various roof types

Initial losses (mm) 0.25 0.32 0.10 0.20 0.90 1.00 0.50 0.50-1.00
Reference Fewkes, 1999a Pratt & Parker, 1987 Li et al, 2004
Mitchell, 2007 MJA, 2007 NSWG, 2006
Surface type Pitched roof, concrete tiles Bungalow roofs, combination of pitched and flat surfaces Asphalt-fibreglass Plastic film Gravel covered plastic film Typical urban roof catchment, Australia (assumed value) Typical domestic roof (Australia) Domestic roof (Australia)
3.7.3 Roof areas for new-build residential houses In order to conduct simulations of domestic RWH systems installed in new-build houses it was necessary to obtain a range of realistic roof (plan) areas as a function of household occupancy. This was because the level of occupancy has been found to strongly influence the total water demand within a dwelling (Butler, 1991; Butler & Memon, 2007; Jeffrey & Gearey, 2007). Other researchers have used roof areas based on a limited number of empirical modelling studies (e.g. Fewkes, 1997; Coombes et al, 2000a) or have used figures derived from existing residential buildings, e.g. Liaw & Tsai (2004); Ghisi et al (2006); Mitchell (2007); MJA (2007). There appears to have been no studies that have included an attempt to derive probable roof areas for new housing in the UK and it cannot be assumed that values for established housing stock will be applicable to more recent dwellings. A methodology was devised which produced a set of feasible roof areas as a function of household occupancy for dwellings with 1-5 people. The methodology is described in detail in appendix one. The main results are shown below in table 3.4. The average figures presented here were used in the simulations of domestic RWH systems conducted as part of the thesis research.
90
Table 3.4
Generated data for occupancy rate versus roof area

Average roof area (m2) 57 76 69 76 72
Occupancy 1 2 3 4 5
3.8
First flush diverters
Mitchell et al (1997) and also Cunliffe (1998) describe the first flush as a fixed amount of roof runoff requiring separation. The recommended volume is often given as a set figure for a given building type or a variable figure based on the catchment area. For example, for domestic dwellings remove the first 20-25 litres of effective runoff, for commercial/industrial buildings remove the first 2mm of rain falling on the roof surface. However, there is no universally agreed volume of that should be captured. For small roofs Yaziz et al (1989) recommend diverting the first 5 litres of runoff. For an average Australian domestic roof Cunliffe (1998) states that 20-25 litres should be captured from the initial flow. Coombes (2002) describes the development of 27 residential units in Australia that were fitted with first flush devices designed to divert the first 2mm of roof runoff away from the storage tank. However, it was also stated that this was a conservative figure and was chosen due to concerns over the possibility of industrial atmospheric fallout being washed from roofs, and to gain planning permission for the development from the local authority. The modelling and design of first-flush devices has been dominated by these types of approaches (Coombes, 2002).
91
Only one relevant academic paper was located that discussed the use of a firstflush device in a UK setting (Fewkes, 1989). This was in conjunction with a proprietary system now almost two decades old and it does not appear to be a feature which has been retained in this particular country. For this reason the simple methodology described in Mitchell et al (1997) and Cunliffe (1998) was used in the thesis model.
3.9
Coarse filters
Some types of filter are rarely if ever included in models of RWH systems. Filters belonging to this category include screen, floating, cartridge, sand, gravity, carbon and membrane (see chapter two). These require occasional maintenance (i.e. cleaning or replacement) but this would be taken into account as a financial item and therefore they are not considered further in terms of hydrological modelling.
Crossflow filters are a common component in modern systems and these do affect the volume of water entering the storage tank. They contain mesh screens which water flows across and separates the flow into two fractions. The portion that passes through the mesh is cleaned of all debris larger than the mesh size (typically 0.2-1.0mm) and enters the storage tank. The residual debris is washed from the mesh by the remaining fraction of water and diverted away from the tank, typically to the sewer system or an infiltration device. The filters are considered to be self-cleansing since debris is automatically washed from the mesh screen but occasional manual cleaning is often recommended (Shaffer et al, 2004).
92
The efficiency of crossflow filters is defined as the percentage of water filtered and sent to the tank compared to the total amount of water entering the device. A single average figure is usually given, with modern units achieving an average efficiency of about 90% (Konig, 2001; Leggett et al, 2001b). Literature provided by manufacturers would indicate that most modern varieties operate in the 80-90% efficiency range, e.g. WISY vortex models. This is an approximation however and the actual performance efficiency varies with the flow rate of the incoming water, with higher flow rates leading to lower efficiencies. Figure 3.4 shows a graph of flow rate versus efficiency for a range of crossflow filters, based on data supplied by the manufacturers (Herrmann & Schmida, 1999).
93
Figure 3.4
Crossflow filter efficiency versus incoming flow rate Adapted from Herrmann & Schmida (1999).
100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Flow rate (litres/sec)
Key = filter 1 = filter 2 = filter 3 = filter 4
Filter efficiency (%).
1.5
2.0
A common method of modelling the performance of crossflow filters is to multiply the volume of water entering the filter in a given time period by the average filter efficiency, often called the filter coefficient, as shown by equation 3.4. This splits the flow into two components, the filtered component (routed into the storage tank) and the unfiltered component (diverted away from the tank).
Ft
EFt CF
(3.4)
where: Ft EFt CF = course filter pass forward flow to the storage tank in time t (m3) = effective flow entering the coarse filter in time t (either directly from the catchment surface or via a first flush device, if present) (m3) = coarse filter coefficient
Table 3.5 shows a range of typical crossflow filter coefficients and demonstrates that a figure of 0.9 (i.e. 90% efficiency) is a commonly assumed value.
94
Table 3.5
Typical crossflow filter coefficients

Comments CIRIA best practice guidance. Figure refers to self-cleansing mesh filters Recommended value from "most" manufacturers All suppliers contacted quoted the same value Modern German-made filters Refers to downpipe and vortex type crossflow filters Coefficient 0.90 0.90 0.90
Reference Leggett et al (2001b) Environment Agency (2003b) Various UK RWH system suppliers (via email & telephone contact) Konig (2001) Gould & Nissen-Peterson (1999)
0.90 0.90
3.10
Pumps
Hydraulically a pump can be modelled in a simple fashion by considering the amount of water that requires pumping per unit time and the rate at which it is able to pump that water. Pump performance data is typically given by manufacturers in the form a head versus discharge relationship for a pump of a given type and power rating (see table 3.6 and figure 3.5). This can be used to calculate the required operating period and from this the energy usage of the pump can be determined, as demonstrated in equation 3.5.
PuEnt = PuPOW x PuTIME
(3.5)
where PuEnt PuPOW PuTIME = pump energy usage in time t (kWhrs) = pump power rating (kW) = pump operating period in time t (hrs)
From this the operating cost per unit time can be calculated by simply multiplying PuEnt by the unit cost of electricity, which will depend on the amount charged by the relevant energy utility.
95
Table 3.6
Typical domestic RWH pump performance data (Adapted from information courtesy of Rainharvesting Ltd).
Power Rating (kW) 0.80 1.00 1.33 1.25 1.42 Pumping output in: l/min 20 cu.m/hr 1.4 32.5 With 43.3 pumping 47.0 height of 54.1 (m) 64.9
Pump ID 40/06 40/08 80/12 40/10 40/12
30 1.8 30.0 40.2 45.6 50.2 60.2
40 2.4 27.0 36.3 44.0 45.4 54.5
60 3.6 19.5 26.1 38.8 32.6 39.2
80 4.8 10.0 13.4 32.0 16.8 20.2
The pump algorithm used in the thesis model assumes that the power consumption and flow rate are constant for a given head. In practice variable speed pumps are available in which the power consumption versus flow rate can vary but this level of detail was not considered necessary for the model.
Figure 3.5
Typical head versus discharge relationship for RWH pump (Courtesy of Rainharvesting Ltd)
The behaviour of pump units are not generally included in RWH system models. Only a small number of examples could be found that explicitly included
96
consideration of a pump (Dixon, 1999; Ghisi & Oliveira, 2007). Both of these used a similar method to that outlined above.
3.11
Potable (mains) water supply and sewerage systems
The extent to which the public water supply system is incorporated into RWH models is usually restricted to measuring the amount of mains top-up water required when there is insufficient harvested rainwater available to meet demand. For models that incorporate a financial assessment this would also include the associated volumetric mains supply and sewerage charges. Most of the RWH system case studies reviewed as part of the literature survey included a mains top-up function (e.g. Fewkes, 1999a; Coombes et al, 2003b; Villarreal & Dixon, 2005) as did the majority of models created for research into contemporary systems (e.g. Fewkes, 1999b; Dominguez et al, 2001; Ghisi & Ferreira, 2007; Mitchell, 2007).
Models that included a financial element typically used the value of the mains supply substituted by harvested water as the primary indicator of financial performance (known as avoided costs) as this is the primary way in which RWH systems are potentially able to save money. For example see Appan (1991); Dominguez et al (2001); Coombes et al (2003); Shaaban & Appan (2003); Ghisi & Ferreira (2007); Ghisi & Oliveira (2007) and MJA (2007), amongst others. Financial aspects relevant to this thesis are discussed in greater detail in chapter four.
97
3.11.1 Disposal of used rainwater to the foul sewer system Presently the UK water utilities do not impose charges for harvested water that has undergone some use (e.g. WC flushing) and is then disposed of to the foul sewer. There is no device in place with which to measure or estimate the volume of used harvested water entering the sewer system, although this is possible (e.g. see Konig, 2001). Essentially this means that the owner/operator of a RWH system will not incur any associated sewerage charges even though the water utility will incur some cost because they are still required to treat the effluent.
Some people have argued that the tariff structures in the water industry may have to change if demand for RWH systems grows in the UK (Utility Week, 2006). However, no evidence could be found that any water utility is considering introducing such a charging scheme at present or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, although the ability to include such charges was included within the thesis model, a disposal cost of zero was assumed for all simulations.
3.12
Storage tanks
The hydrological performance of a rainwater tank is related to the size and characteristics of the contributing catchment, level of rainfall and demand on the system (Fewkes, 2006). Fewkes & Butler (2000) state that the capacity of the RWH tank is important both economically and operationally since it influences the following variables: Volume of water conserved. Installation costs.
98
Length of time rainwater is retained, which affects the final quality of the water supplied. Frequency of system overflow, which affects the removal rate of surface pollutants. Volume of water overflowing into the surface drain or soakaway.
A rainwater tank can be considered as a storage reservoir that receives stochastic inflows (effective runoff) over time and is sized to satisfy the demand on the system (Fewkes, 2006). Tank size is the one parameter controlled by the designer (Fewkes, 1997) who therefore requires some technique with which to determine the size that will provide the optimum level of service. The sizing of storage reservoirs has been reviewed by McMahon & Mein (1978) who identify two general categories of sizing techniques: Moran related methods and critical period methods.
3.12.1 Moran related methods Moran related methods are a development of Morans theory of storage (Moran, 1959) in which a system of simultaneous equations are used to relate reservoir capacity, water demand and water supply. The analysis is based upon queuing theory (Fewkes & Butler, 2000) and Moran initially derived an integral equation relating inflow to reservoir capacity and outflow such that the probable state of the reservoir could be defined at any given time. However, when using this approach solutions were only possible for idealised conditions. Practical applications were developed by Moran by considering both time and flows as discrete variables. The reservoir capacity, inflows and outflows could then be
99
related to each other by a series of simultaneous equations (Fewkes, 2006). This method was subsequently modified by Gould (1961) to allow for simultaneous inflows and outflows, seasonality of flows and serial correlation of inflows (Ragab et al, 2001). This method, known as the Gould matrix or Gould probability matrix, is of more direct practical use to engineers although it has not been widely applied to rainwater tanks (Fewkes, 2006).
3.12.2 Critical period methods In reservoir terminology a critical period is one during which a reservoir goes from full to empty (Ragab et al, 2001). Critical period methods use sequences of flows, which are usually derived from historic data, where demand exceeds supply to determine the required storage capacity (Fewkes & Butler, 2000). These methods can be subdivided into two categories: mass curve and behavioural analysis (Fewkes, 2006).
3.12.3 Mass curve analysis The mass curve method was originally described by Rippl (1883) and has subsequently formed the basis of many adaptations (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999) such as in sizing fresh water supply reservoirs (McGhee, 1991). The method involves the identification of critical periods in the data where the difference between cumulative inflows (rainfall) and cumulative outflows (demand) are at a maximum. This difference represents the maximum volume available for future use and hence the necessary storage capacity required to maximise supply (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999). With regards to RWH, a
100
storage system will perform adequately provided that the relationship shown in equation 3.6 is satisfied (Fewkes, 2006):
t2
Max
t1
Dt Qt dt
(3.6)
where t1 < t2 and: S Dt Qt = storage capacity (m3) = demand during time interval t (m3) = inflow during time interval t (m3)
A more obvious graphical demonstration is provided in Gould & NissenPeterson (1999), as shown in figure 3.6. This particular example uses monthly data but daily and weekly data can be used if a more accurate assessment is required.
Figure 3.6
Application of mass curve analysis for sizing RWH tanks Adapted from Gould & Nissen-Peterson (1999), p57.
101
where in figure 3.6: A = the minimum volume required for maximum efficiency, i.e. to store and utilise 100% of the incoming water, which in this example equates to 27m3. B = The residual storage in the tank at the start of the analysis period (5m3 assumed in this instance). C = residual storage in the tank at the end of the analysis period (5m 3 assumed in this instance).
The main limitation of the mass curve method as demonstrated in the previous example is that it is not possible to compute a storage size for a given reliability of supply or, in other words, probability of failure (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999; Fewkes, 2006). Ree et al (1971) describe a statistical approach that is able to facilitate this based on an analysis of the frequency of occurrence of minimum rainfall amounts for periods between 2 to 84 months in a 75-year rainfall record. By applying standard statistical techniques, the minimum rainfall for a given probability can be determined for various time periods. If the cumulative minimum rainfall values are plotted against time, a mass curve can be derived and mass curve analysis conducted (Gould & Nissen-Peterson, 1999; Fewkes, 2006).
3.12.4 Behavioural analysis Within the general category of critical period methods McMahon & Mein (1978) also include behavioural (or simulation) analysis. Here the changes in storage content of a finite reservoir (one that can overflow and empty) are computed
102
using the water balance equation as shown in equation 3.7 (McMahon et al, 2007).
Vt = Vt-1 + Qt Dt Et Lt
(3.7)
Subject to 0 Vt S
where: Vt Vt-1 Qt Dt Et Lt S = storage content at time t (m3) = storage content at time t-1 (m3) = flow into the reservoir during time interval t (m3) = controlled release during time interval t (m3) = net evaporation loss from the reservoir during time interval t (m3) = other losses during time interval t, e.g. seepage (m3) = active reservoir capacity (m3)
With regards to contemporary RWH systems, the most commonly used storage device is the underground tank (Hassell, 2005). These are watertight and also essentially airtight so the net evaporation loss term, Et, and the other losses term, Lt, can both be ignored (Chu et al, 1997). Equation 3.7 then becomes:
Vt = Vt-1 + Qt Dt
(3.8)
Subject to 0 Vt S
where the terms are as previously defined. The water in storage at the end of a prescribed time interval is therefore equal to the volume of water remaining in the storage from the previous interval plus any inflow and less any demand
103
during the time period. Provided, that is, the computed volume in the store does not exceed the capacity of the store. Behavioural models therefore simulate the operation of a reservoir with respect to time by routing simulated mass flows through an algorithm which describes the operation of the reservoir (Fewkes, 2006). The advantages of behavioural models are that they are relatively simple to develop, easily understood and mimic the behaviour of the physical system. They are also flexible, able to use data based on any timestep and can simulate variable demand patterns, for example seasonal variations in water use (Fewkes & Butler, 2000). Figure 3.7 shows a diagrammatic sketch of the storage tank water fluxes typically modelled as part of a behavioural analysis.
Figure 3.7
Typical RWH storage tank configuration used in behavioural models (Adapted from Mitchell, 2007).
Runoff into tank, Qt Water demand, Dt
Tank
Overflow, Ot Capacity of tank, S Water in tank, Vt
Mains topup, Mt Yield from tank, Yt
where: Yt Ot Mt = yield (withdrawal) from the tank in time t (m3) = overflow from the tank in time t (m3) = volume of mains top-up required in time t (m3)
and Vt, Qt, Dt and S are as previously defined. It can be seen from figure 3.7 that, in relation to the operation of the storage device, the fundamental water
104
flux elements consist of the runoff into tank (inflow), overflow from the tank and the yield extracted from the tank. At any specific moment in time it is possible that none, all, or any combination of these elements may be operating simultaneously, giving a total of 8 possible states as demonstrated in figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8
Possible states of fundamental water fluxes occurring simultaneously within a RWH storage tank
Note that in figure 3.8, the horizontal bars indicate that an event is occurring and do not represent any associated volumes.
Behavioural analysis models use a mass-balance-transfer principle and are based upon a discrete time interval of either a minute, hour, day or month (Fewkes & Butler, 2000). Behavioural models based on discrete timesteps have a number of fundamental limitations which go beyond the accuracy of the data input into them. For instance they cannot know what is happening on a timescale smaller than the selected timestep and also cannot conduct
105
simultaneous computations on the water fluxes. By way of illustration, suppose that the inflow, overflow and extract yield events are all occurring at the same time, an eventuality which is possible in reality. The events are interrelated because the rate of overflow at any specific moment in time is affected by both the rate of inflow and yield occurring at that same moment. However, a massbalance model based on discrete timesteps is not able to compute the outcome of these simultaneous events as this would require the application and solution of differential equations, i.e. the simulation of continuous and not discrete time. Therefore the model aggregates the occurrences of each water flux (inflow, overflow and yield extracted) that occur during the selected time period and assumes that they occur instantaneously at the end of that time period and also in a predefined sequence, i.e. the assumption is that events do not overlap chronologically. The order in which events are assumed to occur has been shown to be an important factor in determining how a behavioural model of a rainwater tank performs and influences the predicted reliability of supply (Chu et al, 1997; Fewkes & Butler, 2000; Liaw & Tsai, 2004; Mitchell, 2007). However, despite these limitations the methodology is still capable of modelling actual tank behaviour with an acceptable degree of accuracy, as will be discussed later in this chapter.
Three fundamental water fluxes have been identified thus far, namely runoff into tank (inflow), overflow and extract yield. The yield cannot be extracted until its magnitude has been calculated, therefore another term needs to be added to the list and that is determine yield. This is the volume of harvested water available to meet the demand in a given timestep and also has to be calculated
106
in sequence. This gives a total of four variables that need to be accounted for and in terms of possible combinations there are now 4! = 24 unique ways to arrange the sequence of events. Therefore a pertinent question to ask is: how should the four water fluxes be arranged in order to produce a model that reflects the actual behaviour of a rainwater tank?
The possible sequence of events were investigated by Jenkins et al (1978) who identified two fundamental algorithms with which to describe the operation of a rainwater tank: 1. yield after spillage (YAS) algorithm, and 2. yield before spillage (YBS) algorithm.
A number of researchers have investigated the YAS/YBS operating algorithms for the sizing of rainwater tanks, including Jenkins et al (1978); Chu et al (1997); Fewkes & Butler (2000); Fewkes & Warm (2000); Liaw & Tsai (2004) and Mitchell (2007), amongst others.
3.12.4.1
Yield after spillage (YAS) algorithm
In the YAS algorithm the order of operations occurring in time interval t is given as: determine yield, runoff into tank (inflow), overflow, extract yield. The YAS operating rules are given in equations 3.9 and 3.10.
Yt
min
Dt Vt
1
(3.9)
107
Vt
min
Vt
Qt Yt
S Yt
(3.10)
where the terms are as previously defined. In the YAS algorithm, the yield is determined by comparing the demand in time interval t with the volume in the tank at time interval t-1 (the end of the previous time interval). The yield is assigned to the smaller of the two values. The runoff into the tank (inflow) in the current time interval t is then added to the volume of rainwater in the tank from time interval t-1. If the capacity of the tank is exceeded then any surplus exits via the overflow, and then finally the yield is extracted. The process is demonstrated graphically in figure 3.9. Note that in this example it is assumed that all demand can be met for this particular time interval.
Figure 3.9
Graphical representation of YAS algorithm Adapted from Mitchell (2007).
2: Inflow in t
3: Overflow in t
4: Extract yield, Yt
Maximum storage level
Tank
1: Volume at t-1, determine yield Yt Volume, Vt, at end of time t Minimum storage level
108
3.12.4.2
Yield before spillage (YBS) algorithm
In the YBS algorithm the order of operations is given as: runoff into tank (inflow), determine yield, extract yield, overflow. The YBS operating rules are given in equations 3.11 and 3.12.
Yt
min
Dt Vt
1
Qt
(3.11)
Vt
min
Vt S
Qt Yt
(3.12)
where the terms are as previously defined. In the YBS algorithm, the yield is determined by comparing the demand in time interval t with the volume of water in the tank at time interval t-1 plus the runoff into the tank in time interval t. The yield is assigned to the smaller of the two values. The runoff into the tank (inflow) in the current time interval t is then added to the volume of rainwater in the tank from time interval t-1 and the yield is extracted. If the capacity of the tank is exceeded after the yield has been extracted then any surplus exits via the overflow. The process is demonstrated graphically in figure 3.10. Note that in this example it is assumed that all demand can be met for this particular time interval.
109
Figure 3.10 Graphical representation of YBS algorithm Adapted from Mitchell (2007).
1: Inflow in t 2:determine yield Yt
3: Extract yield, Yt
4:Overflow in t
Maximum storage level
Tank
Volume at t-1
Volume, Vt, at end of time t
Minimum storage level
The YAS and YBS algorithms represent opposite ends of the behavioural model spectrum (YAS, overflow first then withdrawal; YBS, withdrawal first then overflow). In reality it is unlikely that any RWH tank will operate at either end of these two extremes and a combination of YAS/YBS-style behaviour is more likely. From the information presented thus far it would be reasonable to conclude that the YAS algorithm has a tendency to underestimate the available supply whilst the YBS algorithm tends to produce an overestimate. A number of researchers have found this to be true when comparing the performance of the two operating rules, for example Chu et al (1997, 1999); Liaw & Tsai (2004); Mitchell (2007).
110
3.12.4.3
Adapting the YAS and YBS algorithms: the storage operating parameter
The use of a large rainfall timestep such as one month will result in a compact and economical data set (Fewkes, 2006). However, the use of rainfall data on such a large temporal scale has been shown to result in an inaccurate prediction of system performance (Fewkes & Frampton, 1993). Latham (1983) developed a model based on the YAS operating rule that used a monthly time interval. He then used the model to predict the performance of RWH systems in North America but discovered that it tended to significantly overestimate the tank size required to provide a given volumetric reliability. Latham managed to increase the accuracy of the monthly model to a level comparable with a daily time step model by adapting the YAS and YBS algorithms to represent the more general form shown in equations 3.13 and 3.14.
Yt
min
Dt Vt Qt
(3.13)
Vt
min
(Vt
Qt )Yt
Yt ) (1
)Yt
S (1
(3.14)
where represents a coefficient known as the storage operating parameter which can be assigned any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. The remaining terms are as previously defined. If = 0 then the equations are the same as the YAS operating rule and if = 1 then the equations are the same as the YBS operating rule. Latham (1983) found a location-specific value for such that a model based on monthly data gave similar results to that of a daily model, which
111
have been shown to be more accurate (Heggen, 1993; Thomas, 2002a). The shorter timesteps of the daily model were in effect replicated in the monthly model by the storage operating parameter (Fewkes, 1999b). This approach provides a simple and versatile method of modelling the performance of RWH systems using monthly rainfall data (Fewkes, 2006). However, it still requires the use of a model with a smaller timestep (e.g. daily) with which to determine a suitable value of for a given location. In the UK these were investigated for five different locations by Fewkes (1999b) using a behavioural model with daily and monthly timesteps.
3.12.5
Other design methods
Fewkes (2006) identifies a range of other critical period methods that have been developed for the sizing of storage reservoirs. These are the semi-infinite reservoir method (Hazen, 1914); Hursts procedure (Hurst et al, 1965); sequent peak algorithms (Thomas & Burden, 1963) and Alexanders method (Alexander, 1962). A comprehensive review of these methods is given in McMahon & Mein (1978). Fewkes (2006) states that none of these methods have been widely adopted for the sizing of rainwater stores and so they are not considered further.
3.13
Selection of storage tank modelling approach
Of the techniques discussed in section 3.12 that could be used to model a RWH storage tank (Moran related methods, mass curve analysis and behavioural analysis) it was decided that a behavioural approach was the logical choice. Moran methods and their derivatives (e.g. Gould matrix) were rejected because
112
they are primarily used for predicting the probability of failure associated with a reservoir of a given capacity, or for sizing reservoirs to meet a given security of supply, again using a probabilistic approach (e.g. see Ragab et al, 2001). However, this approach is not particularly relevant for contemporary urban RWH systems intended for non-potable uses. It is highly unlikely that such systems would need to be designed to meet a given security of supply since the uses are non-critical, and in any case it can be assumed that there will be a mains top-up function available during times of short supply. It is not the intention of this thesis to assess failure rates per se. Hydrological performance is only of concern insofar as it effects the financial performance, the primary focus of this research project. Sizing tanks to meet pre-defined water saving reliability targets is not a valid approach in this context.
Further, the original approach as described in Moran (1959) is not capable of taking into account within-year seasonality. A constant demand pattern is also assumed throughout the analysis period (McMahon & Mein, 1978). These limitations would mean that seasonal variations in rainfall patterns as well as water demand (e.g. increased usage in summer for garden irrigation) could not be simulated, which would limit the usefulness of the model. Gould (1961) modified the basic method so that within-year variations in season and demand could accounted for (Ragab et al, 2001). However, he did this by incorporating elements of behavioural analysis. Since the probabilistic elements of the Moran related methods are not required, it would make little sense to use the Gouldmodified approach in order to account for variations in season and demand
113
when a purely behavioural analysis approach could be used from the outset in order to achieve this.
Application of Moran related methods to the sizing of rainwater stores appears to have been limited and there are few examples of their use in this area (e.g. Piggott et al, 1982). Even if these methods were compatible with the aims of this thesis there is a lack of sufficient research with which to judge their ability to accurately model RWH systems in a UK context.
With regards to mass curve analysis, in the original form one limitation is that the approach is used to determine the storage capacity required to meet 100% of the demand (Gould & Nissan-Peterson, 1999). Techniques exist for adapting the method so that a statistical probability can be attached to meeting a given percentage of demand which is less than 100%, for example see Ree et al (1971). However, as previously stated, neither of these approaches is relevant to this thesis. Further, McMahon & Mein (1978) state that seasonal variations in demand are difficult to incorporate. This limits the usefulness of the approach with regards to simulating RWH systems with a garden irrigation component. Finally, it does not appear to be a popular approach amongst researchers for sizing rainwater tanks and there are limited examples of its application. For example see Ngigi (1999), but this paper relates to Kenya. Therefore it cannot be validated as an accurate technique for simulating the performance of rainwater tanks in the UK.
114
Behavioural analysis has a number of advantages compared to the Moran related and mass curve methods and is a technique more suited to the thesis research area. Importantly, it is an approach that does not assume that any given level of water saving reliability is in itself preferable to any other. In other words, behavioural analysis is not driven by a requirement to size the storage reservoir based on the probability of meeting a predetermined level of demand. As such it is a more flexible approach and allows the analysis to be guided by criteria other than hydrological performance, which in this instance would be the financial aspects.
It is also an established technique that has been used by a relatively large number of researchers investigating RWH system performance, e.g. Jenkins et al (1978); Latham (1983); Chu (1997); Fewkes (1999b); Fewkes & Butler (1999, 2000); Fewkes & Warm (2000); Coombes et al (2001); Liaw & Tsai (2004); Ghisi et al (2007); Mitchell (2007) and MJA (2007), amongst others. The validity of behavioural models has also been confirmed in a number of monitoring studies, for example see Fewkes (1999a) and Coombes et al (2000a). Fewkes (1999a) concerns the modelling of a domestic RWH system installed in a UK property which was used for WC flushing. A behavioural model of the system was created and simulation outputs were compared to data collected from the RWH system over a twelve month monitoring period. The predicted behaviour was found to be in good agreement with actual system performance and this study provides empirical validation of a behavioural approach in a domestic UK context.
115
Seasonal variations and changing demand patterns can also be accounted for. If data is available, or can be generated, that reflects these variations then it is a relatively simple matter to input this into the model, e.g. historic time series rainfall data, results from domestic water consumption studies and so forth. Behavioural models can also be programmed to take into account different future conditions, for example rainfall time series data can be modified to take into account the effects of climate change and then input into the model. Future demand patterns that reflect changing consumer behaviour can be modelled. A behavioural approach provides the researcher with a greater degree of flexibility than the Moran related or mass curve analysis methods.
Having decided on a behavioural analysis approach a choice had to be made between either the YAS or YBS operating rule. Fewkes & Butler (2000) recommend the use of YAS for design purposes because it gives a conservative estimate of system performance. Liaw & Tsai (2004) used the YBS rule in preference to YAS because when investigating time reliability they found that it resulted in less predictions of failure (<100% demand met), however this appeared to be a case of the researchers choosing the modelling approach based on a predefined notion of what results would be acceptable. In an Australian study, Mitchell (2007) recommend the use of YAS because the results of the investigation showed that it provided more accurate predictions of yield than did YBS.
The generalised YAS/YBS algorithm was incorporated into the thesis model with the storage operating parameter set to zero (YAS) as the default mode of
116
operation. It is acknowledged that the use of the YAS setting will have led to a more conservative prediction of system performance than use of YBS. However, work conducted by Fewkes & Butler (2000) suggests that as long as certain constraints regarding the selected timestep are employed then YAS models are capable of modelling system performance within 10% of that predicted by a more accurate hourly timestep model and this was considered to be an acceptable margin of error. The YAS model constraints are discussed in the following section.
3.14
Implications of the behavioural model timestep
The selected timestep of a behavioural model is often dictated by the temporal resolution of the available rainfall data and a range of different timesteps has been utilised by researchers in the field, such as six minutes (Coombes, 2002; Mitchell, 2007), one hour (Fewkes & Butler, 1999), one day (Fewkes, 2001), three, five, seven, ten days (Liaw & Tsai, 2004) and one month (Jenkins et al, 1978).
Behavioural models tend to increase in accuracy the smaller the timestep of the input data (Fewkes & Butler, 2000), for example a model which uses hourly rainfall data is more accurate than a model using daily rainfall data. Whatever data is employed it must be sufficiently precise for the purpose of the design (Heggen,1993). However, as Thomas (2002a) highlights, meteorological data is rarely detailed, reliable and free and as acquisition may be costly there is an inefficiency in gathering more data than is needed (Heggen, 1993). Ideally a
117
researcher wants rainfall data that has low acquisition costs but that is accurate enough and uses a timestep small enough to produce useful results.
A number of international researchers have investigated the implications of using rainfall data with different temporal scales and this work is summarised in table 3.7. It should be noted that most of this work relates to countries other than the UK and its transferability to this country is unknown.
With regards to work relating specifically to the UK, key research has been conducted by one researcher in particular (Fewkes), often in conjunction with various others. The relevant research outputs (with regards to selection of an appropriate behavioural mode timestep) produced by Fewkes and Fewkes et al are discussed in more detail in section 3.14.1.
118
Table 3.7
Reference Heggen (1993)
Range of timesteps used in existing international RWH system models

Description of work/comments Compared the performance of RWH systems (time reliability) in New Mexico using YAS/YBS algorithms with timesteps between one day and one month. Using a daily timestep and 7 years of daily rainfall data, found little difference between YAS/YBS. Used a daily YAS model as the benchmark against which to compare timesteps of 2, 3, 7, 14 and 31 days. As temporal scale increased, model accuracy decreased. Simulations with weekly data found to give results differing by up to 50% from the benchmark daily YAS model. Results for monthly timesteps differed by up to 90% from the daily YAS model. Heggen concluded that if daily rainfall data is available then there is no justification for using weekly or monthly time intervals. Compared the performance (time reliability) of daily models to monthly models for four different regions (Kenya, Bangkok, Panama and Brazil). For large tanks the differences between the daily and monthly models was small. For small tanks the use of monthly data was found to introduce large errors. Investigated the performance of domestic systems for WC flushing in Taiwan. Used YAS and YBS models with 84 years worth of rainfall data. Timesteps of 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 days were used. Daily timesteps found to give results close to that of actual systems. YAS approach found underestimate actual supply to authors recommended the YBS approach. However, other researchers have shown that YBS tends to overestimate the water saving reliability (e.g. Liaw & Tsai, 2004; Mitchell, 2007) Modelled RWH systems in Taiwan using timesteps of 1,3 5, 7 and 10 days using both YAS and YBS algorithms. Found that longer time intervals gave less accurate results, especially when modelling small tank sizes. Consequently the authors recommended the use of short timesteps and for the remainder of the study the authors used a timestep of 1 day. Investigated the impact of computations timestep, tank operating rule, initial tank storage volume and length of simulation period on the accuracy of the storage-yield-reliability relationship for a wide range of RWH system configuration in three Australian cities (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane). Four timesteps were used: 6mins, 30mins, 3hrs and 24hrs in conjunction with both YAS and YBS models. A 50-year 6min YAS configuration was used as the benchmark model. For all combinations of timestep, demand level, demand pattern and location is was found that for tank sizes greater than 6,300 litres the difference in results was with 1% of the benchmark model, indicating that large tank sizes are insensitive to the characteristics of the input data used to model them. YAS was found to underestimate performance, YBS to overestimate. Guidance was presented on selecting an appropriate timestep for a given set of system characteristics, notably the average demand per timestep and the proposed storage tank capacity. This approach was similar to that in Fewkes and Butler (2000) (see section 3.14.1)
Thomas (2002a) Chu et al (1997)
Liaw & Tsai, 2004 Mitchell, 2007
119
3.14.1
Review of relevant work by Fewkes et al
A significant body of original work relating to RWH systems has been produced by Fewkes and Fewkes et al over approximately the last 25 years (Fewkes & Ferris, 1982; Fewkes, 1989; Fewkes & Tarran, 1992; Fewkes, 1993; Fewkes & Frampton, 1993; Fewkes, 1995; Fewkes, 1997; Fewkes, 1999a; Fewkes, 1999b; Fewkes & Butler, 1999; Fewkes & Butler, 2000; Fewkes & Warm, 2000, Fewkes & Warm, 2001). Much of this research was concerned with using behavioural analysis to predict the performance of domestic rainwater tanks and is noteworthy because it represents a significant portion of the limited number of academically rigorous studies that relate specifically to the UK. The behavioural models created by Fewkes are also worthy of mention because they were validated using data collected from the monitoring of an actual domestic RWH system (Fewkes, 1993, 1995, 1997, 1999a). The work by Fewkes and Fewkes et al consists of at least twelve peer-reviewed papers but for the sake of brevity only one key paper of direct relevance to the thesis is discussed in this chapter (Fewkes & Butler, 2000) as this summarises findings and conclusions from the earlier work that are relevant to this section of the thesis.
Earlier empirical work (Fewkes, 1999a) indicated that a YAS model using either hourly or daily timesteps could be used to predict system performance. The analysis undertaken in Fewkes & Butler (2000) extended this work and proposed constraints for the application of hourly, daily and monthly models. Different combinations of roof areas, tank storage capacities and water demand were expressed in terms of two dimensionless ratios, namely the demand fraction and the storage fraction, as shown in equations 3.15 and 3.16.
120
DF
Dyr A Ryr
(3.15)
SF
S A Ryr
(3.16)
where: DF Dyr A Ryr SF S = demand fraction = annual demand (m3/yr) = roof plan area (m2) = annual rainfall (m/yr) = storage fraction = storage capacity (m3)
Demand fractions of 0.27, 1.25 and 2.5 were investigated along with storage fractions ranging from 0.0015 to 1.08. The analysis suggested that both YAS and YBS behavioural models would be capable of modelling system performance within 10% of that predicted by a more accurate hourly model providing that the following storage fraction constraints were applied: 1. Hourly models: S/A.Ryr 0.01 2. Daily models: 0.125 S/A.Ryr > 0.01 3. Monthly models: S/A.Ryr > 0.125
The constraints apply to all demand fractions. It was recommended that hourly models are required for the sizing of small tanks whilst monthly models should only be used to predict the performance of large capacity storage devices.
One limitation of the study was that only twelve months of historic rainfall data were used in the model. From table 3.1 it can be seen that an historic rainfall
121
record length of at least 10 years is generally recommended. A further limitation was that water demand was limited to WC flushing which has been shown to relatively constant over time (Butler, 1991; Fewkes, 1999a). It did not investigate the implications of seasonal variations such as the summer peak which occurs due to garden watering (Herrington, 2006; Alegre et al, 2004) and use of external taps (Environment Agency, 2003a). Therefore the applicability of the above constraints for other than relatively constant uses such as WC flushing have yet to be established. However, they were still nevertheless applied to the thesis model as they currently represent the state of the art.
3.14.2
Selection of an appropriate model timestep
Prior to implementation of the selected YAS behavioural model a decision had to be made regarding a suitable timestep. Theoretically any timestep can be used but intervals based on a minute, hour, day or month are typically employed (Fewkes & Butler, 2000). Wainwright & Mulligan (2004) state that the optimal model is one that contains sufficient complexity to explain the observed behaviour, but no more. The data requirements (and therefore complexity) of RWH models tends to increase as the timestep decreases, therefore the optimum approach is to use the largest timestep possible that is still capable of producing acceptably accurate results.
With a daily model it is only necessary to obtain rainfall and water demand data at daily intervals. The availability of information at this temporal scale is relatively high. The Met. Office has extensive daily rainfall data sets for many locations throughout the UK, and it is common for per capita water consumption
122
to be reported on a daily basis (e.g. Herrington, 1996; POST, 2000; Environment Agency, 2001a; Downing et al, 2003; DCLG, 2006c; Ofwat, 2006a). With sub-daily timesteps such as hours or minutes it is necessary to either know or estimate at what times during the day events occur and this adds another level of complexity to the modelling process (e.g. see Dixon et al, 1999; Wong & Mui, 2005). Water consumption data at the sub-daily scale is also more limited than at the daily scale, although some research does exist (Butler, 1991; Chambers et al, 2005).
At the opposite end of the scale are monthly models which use temporally coarse data that is generally more readily available than either daily or sub-daily information. Fewkes (2006) states that monthly models are also likely to be compact and economical. However, models that use such long timesteps have been found to produce inaccurate results (Latham, 1983; see also table 3.7) and are only recommended for use when sizing large stores (Fewkes & Butler, 2000). This essentially precludes their use for modelling domestic RWH systems as these generally utilize relatively small storage tanks.
Given the increased data requirements (and therefore complexity) of sub-daily models, and the noted inaccuracies of the monthly variants, the rational choice was judged to be a daily timestep. The availability of good quality daily rainfall time series as well as per capita water consumption data was also a determining factor in this decision. It was necessary to validate this choice with the constraints proposed by Fewkes & Butler (2000) for selecting a suitable timestep. In order for a daily model to produce results within 10% of a more
123
accurate benchmark hourly model, the storage fraction S/A.Ryr needs to be greater than 0.01. A smaller value than this indicates that an hourly timestep should be used. The smallest possible storage fraction value that could occur with the thesis simulations of domestic systems was calculated using the following information: Smallest domestic tank size for which cost data was available = 1.2m 3. Largest predicted roof area for new-building houses = 106m2. Greatest annual rainfall depth (after accounting for climate change, see section 3.16) = 0.950m/yr.
Inputting these values into the storage fraction equation gave a figure of 0.0108 which is close to but still greater than the threshold value. Therefore the use of a daily YAS behavioural model was a valid approach.
3.15
Climate change
The Earth's climate has been relatively stable since the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago but is currently undergoing a period of rapid warming (UKCIP, 2007). The majority of current scientific opinion supports the view that human activities are contributing to this change and that likely future changes present a serious threat to human society and the natural environment (HMSO, 2006). Recent publications from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are predicting that climatic changes are set to continue. The trend is towards generally warmer temperatures and an increased risk of extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, greater cyclone activity and higher sea levels (IPCC, 2007). Variations in the global rate and distribution of
124
precipitation are also expected and it is believed that changes in rainfall patterns could have more profound impacts on humans and ecosystems than changes in temperature (Treydte et al, 2006). McEvoy et al (2006) state that climate change is now widely recognised as the biggest global challenge facing humanity.
The United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) is a research organisation funded by the British Government that helps organisations assess how they might be affected by climate change so that they can prepare for its impact. It has undertaken a number of studies investigating likely regional and sectoral effects. The latest UKCIP (2002a,b) results are based on outputs from the Hadley Centre climate models which were used to create a high-resolution (50x50km grid) atmospheric regional model of Europe. Four climate change scenarios were investigated, each one using different assumptions regarding future global emissions of greenhouse gases and associated impacts on the UK climate over the next hundred years. The four scenarios relate to low, mediumlow, medium-high and high emission levels. Changes in climate for three 30 year periods were investigated with the first period centred on the 2020s and running from 2011 to 2040, the second centred on the 2050s (2041 to 2070) and the third centred on the 2080s (2071 to 2100).
The main results from the study are presented in UKCIP (2002b) as a series of colour coded maps showing the UK divided into a grid array of 50x50km parcels of land. Maps are available for each emission scenario and for each 30 year time period and show, amongst various other results, predicted changes in the
125
mean temperature and precipitation. As an example, the predicted range of impacts on Englands northwest region were obtained from the maps and are presented in table 3.8.
Table 3.8
Predicted range of climate change impacts on the northwest region of England (from UKCIP dataset).
2020s (2011-2040) 2050s (2041-2070) 1-2OC 1-3OC 10-30% decrease 0-20% increase 30-60% decrease 10-25% decrease 7-36cm 2080s (2071-2100) 1-4OC 2-6OC 15-50% decrease 15-30% increase 40-100% decrease 20-40% decrease 7-67cm
Change in average annual temperature Change in maximum summer temperature Change in summer rainfall Change in winter rainfall Change in winter snowfall Change in summer and autumn soil moisture Change in sea level
0-1OC 0-1OC 5-15% decrease 5-10% increase 20-25% decrease 0-10% decrease Not available
Seasonal changes in precipitation and temperature will have implications for RWH systems. The amount of rainfall and its temporal distribution directly affects how effective a system will be at supplying water to the end user. The level of demand can itself be influenced by the temperature. Herrington (1996) suggests that variations in peak [demand] factors over timeare largely associated with climate. The UKCIP reports predict a general trend towards drier summers (UKCIP, 2002a). This implies that in the future there will be comparatively less rainfall for RWH systems to collect during the summer months and that this will occur during a time of year when demand is traditionally higher than average, for example due to greater occurrences of
126
garden watering (CC:DW, 2001). Conversely, winters are predicted to become wetter but demand at this time will be lower than in the summer.
The effects of climate change should be considered when predicting the medium and long-term performance of RWH systems. However, there appears to be no UK studies that have investigated or included the effects of climate change on RWH systems. A number have incorporated intra-year climatic effects, for example modelling the peak summer demand that occurs largely due to increased garden watering (Alegre et al, 2004), but long-term climate change has not been accounted for. This research project will, where possible, take climate change effects into account in an explicit manner, particularly with regards to the expected changes in temperature and precipitation.
3.16
Rainfall data used in the thesis model
The thesis model operates on a daily timestep and so historic rainfall data with the same temporal scale was required. The information presented previously in table 3.1 suggested that a minimum record length of ten years was advisable. The distance of weather monitoring station from the site of interest was not a criteria that could easily be assessed since the thesis is primarily concerned with analysing domestic RWH systems in the West Yorkshire region, hence there was no specific location (site) to investigate. For this reason the primary selection criteria with regards to the selected weather station was that the location should be representative of typical weather patterns in the West Yorkshire area, i.e. the average annual rainfall depth should not be significantly higher or lower than would be expected for the region as a whole.
127
Rainfall data was available from the Met. Office via the BADC. A continuous 37 year daily rainfall record covering the years 1964-2000 was obtained for the Emley Moor weather station located in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. Details of the raw data set are given in table 3.9.
Table 3.9
Emley Moor historic rainfall data details
Parameter Value Station name Emley Moor Location Huddersfield, West Yorkshire OS grid reference SE222130 Elevation 272m AOD Data type Daily rainfall data (mm/day) Record length 37 years, 1964-2000 inclusive % missing data 13% Average annual rainfall depth 794mm/yr Typical SAAR1 range for Yorkshire region 460-800mm/yr 1 Standard annual average rainfall 1971-2000. Figures in table are Met. Office data obtained from Thornton (2005)
The available records were longer than the recommended minimum of ten years and had an average annual depth of 794mm. Standard annual average rainfall (SAAR) values for the Yorkshire region are in the range of 460-800mm (Thornton, 2005). The Emley Moor average was towards the upper end of this range but was still deemed to be within acceptable limits.
Some rainfall depth entries were missing and overall these accounted for approximately 13% of the data set. Gaps were filled by interpolating between the data points on either side of the missing entries. For example if the 1st January 1990 data point was missing then a new value was generated by taking the average of the 1st January 1989 and 1st January 1991 entries.
128
Figure 3.11 shows a graph of the annual rainfall depths contained within the data set (post editing). Note the two extremes marked on the graph. These correspond to the 1975 drought and 1998 floods which affected large parts of the Yorkshire region.
Figure 3.11 Emley Moor historic annual rainfall depths 1964-2000
1000 900
1998 flood
Rainfall (mm/yr)
800 700 600 500 400 1964

1975 drought
1969
1974
1979
1984
1989
1994
1999
Year
In order to take climate change effects into account the edited rainfall data set was adjusted in accordance with the methodology presented in the UKCIP (2002b) report. The work to date has not yet attached probabilities of occurrence to each of the climate change scenarios (low, medium-low, mediumhigh and high emissions) so there is currently no way to know which is more likely to occur. An arbitrary decision was taken to use the medium-high emissions scenario.
In UKCIP (2002b) the predicted regional changes in precipitation are given as seasonal percentage variations from the historic rainfall record. Predicted
129
changes for the Yorkshire region corresponding to the medium-high emissions scenario were extracted from the report and are presented in table 3.10.
Table 3.10
Predicted precipitation changes for the Yorkshire region based on the UKCIP02 medium-high emissions scenario
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Period and predicted % change in precipitation 2020s 2050s 2080s 5.00 12.50 22.50 5.00 12.50 22.50 0.00 0.00 -5.00 0.00 0.00 -5.00 0.00 0.00 -5.00 -15.00 -25.00 -45.00 -15.00 -25.00 -45.00 -15.00 -25.00 -45.00 0.00 -5.00 -5.00 0.00 -5.00 -5.00 0.00 -5.00 -5.00 5.00 12.50 22.50
The above percentage changes in rainfall were then applied to the historic rainfall record for Emley Moor. This gave a climate change adjusted data set of daily rainfall covering the period 2007-2100 as shown in figure 3.12. This rainfall data set was used in all RWH system simulations performed as part of this research project.
130
Figure 3.12 Climate change adjusted annual rainfall depths for Emley Moor (UKCIP02 medium-high emissions scenario)
1000 900
Rainfall (mm/yr)
800 700 600 500 400 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99
Historic 1964-2000
UKCIP02 Med-High scenario
Year
The graph shows an overall decrease in the annual rainfall depth. On average, for the 2020s period (2011-2040) this was equal to 33mm/yr (4.3%), for the 2050s period (2041-2070) 20mm/yr (2.5%) and for the 2080s (2071-2100) 47mm/yr (5.9%).
3.17
Predicting non-potable domestic demand
Average per capita water use in the UK domestic sector has risen from about 100 litres/day in 1970 (Thornton, 2005) to approximately 150 litres/day (Ofwat, 2006a). Per capita consumption varies with household size, type of property, ages of household residents and time of year (Butler & Memon, 2006). Research has shown that increases in household demand are primarily driven by population growth, household occupancy and levels of affluence
(Environment Agency, 2001a; Sim et al, 2005). Average consumption levels

131
continue to rise with the EA predicting a demand of over 160 litres per capita per day by 2030 (Thornton, 2005).
A pattern of rising demand in new-build houses is by no means certain. The recently introduced Code For Sustainable Homes standard (DCLG, 2007) may act as a significant driver for a reduction in domestic water use in modern developments. For internal water use, a maximum per-capita consumption of 120 litres per day is required in order to achieve the lowest level of compliance so this may come to represent the minimum standard for new housing stock. Research conducted by Mactavish & Hill (2007) suggests that meeting this target might in fact incur no additional cost to the developer since it may be achieved simply by installing water efficient fixtures, fittings and appliances of comparable cost to less efficient types. Compliance with the intermediate level of no more than 105 litres per person per day was estimated to cost only an additional 125 per dwelling, a very small fraction of the value of most new houses. Therefore, from the developers perspective, there would seem to be no real disincentive in complying with at least the lowest level of the Code. Further, the Government is currently consulting on new water performance standards either within a new Building Regulation or by amendment to the Water Supply Regulations (DCLG, 2006e). New mandatory regulations would act to reduce water usage in new buildings. For these reasons a value of 120 litres was used throughout this thesis whenever the internal daily per capita consumption required consideration.
132
Domestic RWH systems could potentially meet about 55% of total household demand if used for non-potable applications such WC flushing, laundry washing and garden irrigation (see chapter two). In order to model these uses some methodology was required that was able to predict how often they occur and how much water is consumed per use. Herrington (1987) states that demand forecasting based on rules of thumb or nave extrapolation is now recognised as being inappropriate, since estimates obtained this way have been shown to deviate significantly from what happens in reality. A micro-component approach to water demand forecasting is often recommended (Environment Agency, 2001a). That is, the study of individual uses of water within a household such as for WC flushing, personal washing etc (Butler & Memon, 2006). This approach has been used in numerous studies for predicting future demand, e.g. Environment Agency (2001a); Williamson et al (2002); Chambers et al (2005). However, it is important to acknowledge that there can be no definitive conclusions drawn regarding future water demand (Downing et al, 2003), only more or less reasoned and transparent investigations (Alegre et al, 2004).
An understanding of the nature of domestic demand for water can be obtained by examining information on household ownership of appliances, frequencies of use and the volumes of water required per use (Downing et al, 2003). The range of non-potable applications considered in this thesis consists of WC flushing, laundry cleaning (washing machines) and garden irrigation. Feasible values for future usage frequencies and associated volumes are presented in the following subsections.
133
With regards to climate change it can be assumed that WC and washing machine usage are not sensitive to long-term variations in climate (Downing et al, 2003; Alegre et al, 2004). For garden irrigation climate sensitivity has been assumed as this is in line with current research recommendations, e.g. Downing et al (2003).
3.17.1
Water closet demand
Table 3.11 shows a range of WC usage frequencies. This data was based on past monitoring studies. There is no reason to believe that WC usage frequency will increase or decrease significantly and so the existing data was used as an acceptable indicator of future behaviour. The average of the values in table 3.11 is equal to 4.59 flushes per person per day. Clearly it is not possible to flush a toilet 4.59 times so it was assumed that weekday (Monday-Friday) per capita usage was 4 times/day and weekend (Saturday and Sunday) usage was 6 times/day. This assumes higher weekend usage, which is not unreasonable, and gives an average rate of 4.57/person/day which is close to the actual average of 4.59. Butler (1991) found an essentially linear relationship between household occupancy and frequency of WC flush. Therefore an acceptable approach for calculating the household usage is to multiply the per capita usage frequency by the household occupancy rate.
134
Table 3.11
Range of domestic WC usage frequencies
Uses/person/day References 3.3 Thackray et al (1978) 3.7 Butler (1991) 5.25 SODCON (1994) 6-8* Fewkes (1999a) 4.3 Environment Agency (2001a) 4.8 Chambers et al (2005) 4.8 DCLG (2007) 4.59 Average from above *Fewkes notes that the one of the WCs monitored often required two flushes to clear the pan which may explain the higher than average values. The higher value was ignored when calculating the average figure
Current regulations permit a maximum flush volume of 6 litres for single-flush WCs (HMSO, 1999). A range of dual-flush toilets are available, e.g. 6/4, 6/3, as well as lower volume single flush such as 4.5 litres. Table 3.12 summarises the range of existing and possible future flush volumes for modern domestic WCs.
Table 3.12
Range of modern domestic WC flush volumes
Volume/use (litres) 6 single flush. Max. allowable flush volume (HMSO, 1999)
References HMSO (1999); Grant (2003, 2006); Environment Agency (2001a); DCLG (2007) 6/4 dual flush Grant (2003) 6/3 dual flush Grant (2003, 2006) 4.5 single flush Grant (2006) 4 single flush1 Grant (2003, 2006); Environment Agency (2001a) 4/2 dual flush Grant (2003); Environment Agency (2001a) 2 2-3 single flush Grant (2006) 1.5-2 litre single flush3 Millan (2007); Millan et al (2007) 1.2 (vacuum toilet)4 Grant (2006) 0 (composting toilet) Environment Agency (2001a) 1 Considered to be probable lower limit for gravity drainage without flush boosters 2 May be feasible with designs that collect a number of flushes and discharge them as a single larger flush to ensure good drain carry 3 Prototype ultra-low flush design utilising air pressure to aid flushing 4 Normally only recommended for use in extreme situations, e.g. aircraft and trains
135
The last three items in the table were included in order to demonstrate the technical lower limit for flush volumes but there is no suggestion that these methods are likely to see widespread implementation in the short to medium term. The choice was therefore between flush volumes ranging from 6-litre single to 4/2-litre dual. It was decided that installation of the 6/3 dual flush variety would be assumed for all new houses.
The use of dual-flush WCs also raises the issue of how many uses will involve a full flush and how many only a part flush. Grant (2003) reports that it is often assumed that the ratio of full to part flush will be 1:3 or 1:4. However, he goes on to state that monitoring trials have shown the actual flush ratio to be in the range of 1:0 (i.e. only full flush used) and 1:2 (1 full to 2 part flushes). In this thesis a flush ratio of 1:2 has been adopted.
3.17.2
Washing machine demand
Table 3.13 shows a range of washing machine (WM) use frequencies. It is not anticipated that future per capita use frequencies will differ significantly from those occurring at present. The average of the figures presented in table 3.13 is 0.21 uses per person per day. This is close to a rate of once every 5 days and so this latter figure was used as the standard value for domestic simulations. Butler (1991) found a reasonably linear relationship between household occupancy and frequency of washing machine usage. Therefore in order to determine household usage the per capita frequency can simply be multiplied by the household occupancy rate.
136
Table 3.13
Range of domestic washing machine usage frequencies

References Butler (1991) SODCON (1994) Environment Agency (2001a) DCLG (2007) Average from above
Uses/person/day 0.16 0.18 0.157 0.34 0.21
Table 3.14 presents data regarding the volume of water used by modern washing machines for a typical wash cycle.
Table 3.14
Range of modern domestic washing machine water usage volumes
Volume/use (litres) References 100 SODCON (1994) 27/kg of wash load* HMSO (1999) 45 Lallana et al (2001) 80 Butler & Memon (2006) 49 DCLG (2007) 40-80 Environment Agency (2001a) ** 35-40 Grant (2006) *Maximum allowable under current regulations **30-40 litres per 5kg load probably technical limit due to rinse performance requirements
Grant (2006) reports that the energy and water efficiency of washing machines has improved considerably over the past decade. It is also stated that research has shown that wash performance is not correlated with water consumption, i.e. high water use does not necessarily mean cleaner clothes. The most efficient machines were generally as good as, if not better, than their less efficient counterparts. Therefore there would appear to be little justification for the future installation of the less efficient variants. Washing machines are already available that use on average about 50 litres per cycle. In the Code for Sustainable Homes documentation the standard volume for new machines is
137
taken as 49 litres/use (DCLG, 2007). Grant (2006) states that the technical limit is probably in the range of 30-40 litres due to rinse performance requirements. In this thesis a value of 50 litres per use was assumed as this is in line with current practice and reasonably close to the lowest technically achievable level.
3.17.3
Garden irrigation
Water use in the garden has been reported to be sensitive to seasonal variations in climate (Butler & Memon, 2006; Herrington, 2006) and usage peaks in the summer relative to other times of the year (Environment Agency, 2001a; Sim et al, 2005). Herrington (1996) suggested that additional water demand for lawn sprinkling and other garden uses would be predominantly driven by temperature. A study in the Hastings area of England found a strong correlation between the maximum daily temperature, rainfall and hours of sunshine. Significant increases in outdoor water use were found to occur during the peak demand period of July and August (Environment Agency, 2003a). Garden irrigation only accounts for a small percentage of the total annual domestic water use, typically between 4-6% (POST, 2000; CC:DW. 2001; Environment Agency, 2001a; Herrington, 2006). However, it peaks at a time of highest water stress (Grant, 2006). On hot, dry summer evenings up to 50% of the public water supply may be used for garden watering (Environment Agency, 1999b).
Climate sensitive micro-components such as garden irrigation may vary over a number of years due to the effects of climate change (Alegre et al, 2004). Whilst total domestic demand has been projected to be fairly constant over the next
138
decade (Environment Agency, 2001a), garden watering is expected to increase and be particularly sensitive to climate change. Downing et al (2003) state that an increasing number of households are using hose pipes and sprinklers. It is also noted that there is a trend towards garden designs and plant varieties that require more water during warm, dry weather.
The approach used for predicting future garden irrigation requirements was based on a methodology described in Downing et al (2003) (Climate Change and the Demand for Water). This project began in 2000 with a review of the benchmark study conducted by Herrington (1996). One of the key aims was to update the methodologies and findings in Herrington (1996) taking into account new data, updated UKCIP climate change scenarios (UKCIP, 2002b) and demand scenarios developed by the Environment Agency (Environment Agency, 2001a).
The method for estimating garden irrigation requirements was based on soil moisture deficits, which in turn depend on the level of rainfall and air temperature. This approach was therefore able to take into account the changes in precipitation and temperature predicted in the UKCIP (2002b) climate change scenarios report. A more detailed explanation of how the methodology was implemented in the thesis model is provided in appendix one. Briefly, the approach taken allows the volume of water required to irrigate a given garden area to be calculated based on the predicted soil moisture deficit. This is location-specific and depends upon the potential evapotranspiration, average monthly temperature and average monthly rainfall for a given area. The
139
method employed allows the user to specify how many irrigation sessions occur per week and so is able to take into account different user behaviour.
Figure 3.13 shows the predicted requirements for a garden of plan area 60m2 when one irrigation session per week is specified. The data corresponds to the year 2007 and shows the predicted demand before climate change effects have been factored in (UKCIP scenarios start in 2011). The chart shows that peak usage occurs in July when 1,041 litres per weekly session are required. For the months just before and after the peak period (June and August) usage is slightly under 1,000 litres/week (921 and 973 litres respectively). Herrington (1996) reports that garden watering in the south and east of England, using sprinklers, took place once every six days during May to August in an average year in the early 1990s. The estimated average volume for each irrigation session was in the range of 1,000-1,200 litres. The results presented here are in reasonable agreement with these findings for the months of June to August. The figures for May are somewhat lower at 482 litres. However, it is argued that this is more realistic than simply assuming the same rate for all months May to August inclusive. A gradual increase in watering requirements as summer approaches is more likely than an instant change from zero at the end of April to peak usage at the beginning of May. Likewise, the reduction in garden watering that occurs after July is more realistic than a sudden cessation of all irrigation activities. A similar approach for the phasing in and out of garden irrigation activities was used by Alegre et al (2004).
140
Figure 3.13 Predicted weekly garden irrigation requirements for 2007 (one irrigation session per week)
1200
Water usage (litres/session)
Jul
Aug Sep
1000 800 600 400 200 0 1

May
Jun
Oct
23 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199 221 243 265 287 309 331 353 Day
Notes: temperature and rainfall data refer to West Yorkshire region, irrigation area = 60m2
A report by Three Valleys Water Services (Three Valleys, 1991) found that about 40% of households use hosepipes an average of three times per week in hot, dry weather. It was reported that approximately 315 litres were used during each session. Figure 3.14 shows the results from the thesis garden irrigation model when three watering sessions per week are specified for an irrigation area of 60m2. The predicted peak demand in July is in reasonable agreement with the Three Valleys study at 347 litres. June and August show the strongest agreement at 307 and 324 litres respectively. Again there is a phasing in and out of water usage which is more realistic than assuming an all or nothing approach.
141
Figure 3.14 Predicted annual garden irrigation requirements for 2007 (three irrigation sessions per week)
400
Water usage (litres/session)
Jul
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1

May
Aug Sep
Jun
Oct
23 45 67 89 111 133 155 177 199 221 243 265 287 309 331 353 Day
Notes: temperature and rainfall data refer to West Yorkshire region, irrigation area = 60m2
A garden/irrigation area of 60m2 was found to produce results in good agreement with those reported by Herrington (1996) and Three Valleys (1991). Assuming a garden area of this size was found to be a realistic approach for new-build residential dwellings (see appendix one). This value was used for all subsequent simulations in the thesis in which garden irrigation was a component. Figure 3.15 shows the predicted irrigation demand data used in the thesis model (in m3/yr aggregated from m3/day) for those simulations in which garden watering was a component. The chart shows that, although volumes vary from year to year, there is a clear trend towards increasing irrigation requirements (note the upward slope of the trend line).
142
Figure 3.15 Predicted annual water demand for a typical West Yorkshire garden (new-build) for the period 2007-2100
40
Irrigation volume (cu.m/year)
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 Year
The approaches to water demand estimation discussed in sections 3.17.13.17.3 were incorporated into the thesis model in a Demand Generator module. The user is required to enter the necessary data in terms of appliance usage frequencies and volumes. The application then generates a 100 year long daily demand profile for the selected uses. Whenever a simulation is run the computer then automatically extracts the generated demand profile for each year over the selected analysis horizon.
3.18
Methods of modelling the hydrological performance of RWH systems: summary
This chapter began with a broad overview of modelling and associated concepts. A range of different model types were identified including physical and mathematical, with the latter broadly consisting of empirical, conceptual and physically based. General advice on the process of model development and implementation was presented. Reasons for modelling RWH systems were
143
identified along with a range of commonly employed performance indicators with which to judge the predicted hydrological performance.
The range of RWH system components requiring explicit consideration within the thesis model were identified and their selection justified. This list of components consisted of rainfall, catchment surface (roof), first flush diverter, coarse filter, pump, potable (mains) water supply and sewerage system (volumes to and from), storage tank and non-potable supply and demand. A range of existing methodologies for simulating the physical behaviour of these components were discussed and suitable approaches selected.
With regards to the storage tank three important modelling techniques were identified, namely Moran related methods, mass curve analysis and behavioural analysis. The latter of these approaches was considered to offer a number of advantages over the others and was selected as the basis for the thesis model. Two fundamental behavioural algorithms with which to describe the operation of a storage tank were identified, namely the Yield After Spillage (YAS) and Yield Before Spillage (YBS) algorithms. The YAS variant was selected for implementation and this choice was justified, as was the decision to use a daily timestep.
The possible future effects of climate change on the UK weather system were discussed, primarily with reference to the latest UKCIP climate change scenario reports. A suitable source of rainfall data for use within the thesis model was identified. Thirty seven years of historic daily rainfall statistics were obtained
144
from the Met. Office for the Emley Moor weather station in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire. The historic rainfall time series was then adjusted for climate change in line with the latest UKCIP recommendations. This gave a continuous rainfall record ranging from 2007-2100 for use within the thesis simulations.
Methods for predicting non-potable domestic water demand were discussed. Appliance usage data were presented for modern WCs and washing machines and reasoned assumptions were made regarding probable future use volumes and frequencies. For garden irrigation an existing methodology relating watering requirements to temperature and precipitation (via soil moisture deficits) was implemented. This allowed for possible climate change impacts to be accounted for in the outdoor use component.
In the next chapter the financial aspects of RWH systems and the methods available for performing a financial assessment are discussed.
145

UK Modelling The Hydrological Performance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems - Bradford University

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UK Modelling The Hydrological Performance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems - Bradford University

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University

Methods of Modelling the Hydrological Performance of Rainwater Harvesting Systems

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

higher degree of generalisation than the empirical and conceptual varieties.

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Diagrammatic representation of model development After James (1984).

Formulation of computational methods

Formulation of methods for solving

Creation of model structure

Iterative improvement Validation of model Analysis of sensitivity

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

General modelling considerations

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

RWH system components: modelling considerations

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

RWH system components explicitly included within the thesis model

Rainfall Mains top-up

First flush diverter

Non-potable supply & demand

Modelling system components: review of theoretical background

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Summary of advice for selecting historic rainfall data

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Catchment surface (rainfall/runoff characteristics)

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Volume of runoff in t Volume of rainfall in t

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Examples of runoff coefficients for various roof types

Reference BS EN 752-4 (1998)

DEHAA (1999) Dharmabalan (1989)

Examples of initial loss values for various roof types

Reference Fewkes, 1999a Pratt & Parker, 1987 Li et al, 2004

Mitchell, 2007 MJA, 2007 NSWG, 2006

Generated data for occupancy rate versus roof area

First flush diverters

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

100 80 60 40 20 0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Key = filter 1 = filter 2 = filter 3 = filter 4

Filter efficiency (%).

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Typical crossflow filter coefficients

PuEnt = PuPOW x PuTIME

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Pump ID 40/06 40/08 80/12 40/10 40/12

30 1.8 30.0 40.2 45.6 50.2 60.2

40 2.4 27.0 36.3 44.0 45.4 54.5

60 3.6 19.5 26.1 38.8 32.6 39.2

80 4.8 10.0 13.4 32.0 16.8 20.2