Australia Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-Site Detention Options On Stormwater Management in The Upper Parramatta River Catchment

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management in the Upper Parramatta River Catchment
Peter Coombes, Andrew Frost and George Kuczera
Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering University of Newcastle on behalf of TUNRA University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia
For Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust
August 2001
SUMMARY
The principal objective of this study is to determine by how much do rainwater tanks reduce the amount of on-site stormwater detention (OSD) storage required to satisfy Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trusts (UPRCT) policy. In pursuit of this objective four tasks were performed: Calibrate the DRIP point rainfall model to a pluviograph record at Parramatta. Using DRIP generate a synthetic 1000-year pluviograph record representative of the Upper Parramatta River (UPR) catchment. Modify an existing allotment water balance model to include OSD storage. Evaluate using continuous simulation the performance of a range of rainwater tank and on-site detention options for several allotment scenarios over a 1000-year synthetic pluviograph record.
Drip rainfall model calibration and validation The DRIP point rainfall model underpins this study because the rainfall regime is the primary factor controlling OSD outcomes. Hence its calibration and validation are key tasks. Several key findings arose from the calibration and validation of DRIP: 1. It was originally envisaged that DRIP would be directly calibrated to a long pluviograph at Parramatta. However, owing to the very short pluviograph record at Parramatta this approach was deemed infeasible and an alternative approach was developed. DRIP was directly calibrated to the 53-year Ryde Pumping Station pluviograph record. The Ryde record was the longest available record for gauges located in and near the UPR catchment. The calibrated model was used to simulate statistics not used in the calibration. Such statistics ranged from annual rainfall distributions to IFD curves. For all the validation statistics considered, DRIP simulations were found to be statistically consistent with the observed statistics. This result engendered confidence in DRIPs ability to simulate the entire rainfall regime from very short to annual timescales. It was found at Ryde that both the DRIP and observed IFD curves produced short duration 100-year intensities about 25% greater than those predicted by AR&R. Examination of observed IFD curves for Guildford showed similar underestimation by AR&R, whereas for Bankstown AR&R IFD curves unsatisfactorily reproduced the overall shape of the observed IFD curves but did manage to reproduce the right tails better than at Ryde or Guildford. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the AR&R IFD curves are in significant error and need revision. The Ryde pluviograph can be used as a master site to transfer DRIP to other shorter pluviograph records within the UPR catchment. The justification for use of the Ryde record as the master site in future work is that it has a similar annual rainfall distribution as Parramatta, is similarly distant from the coast, and has AR&R IFD statistics that only marginally differ across a range of sites in the UPR catchment.
2.
3.
4.
ii
OSD and rainwater tank performance Using an allotment water balance model purposely modified for this study, 1000 years of continuous simulation using the synthetic Ryde record was undertaken for four case studies at the allotment scale: Single dwelling; duplex; townhouse and apartment developments. For each case study the performance of the UPRCT OSD policy along with various rainwater tank scenarios with and without detention storage was considered. Table A summarizes the performance of UPRCTs OSD policy for different allotment scenarios. Allotment scenario Table A. Performance of UPRCT OSD policy. Impervious Total UPRCT PSD OSD storage for ARI at fraction (%) area PSD to be exceeded OSD L/s which (m2) at 100 yr ARI storage PSD is 3 (m3) (m ) exceeded 58 600 28.2 4.8 63 55 83 600 28.2 4.8 12 67 75 1858 87.3 14.9 22 165 67 1200 56.3 9.6 15 119
Single dwelling Duplex Townhouse Apartment
Three important findings are noted: 1. The PSD is exceeded for ARIs well below 100 years. An exceedance was defined as an overflow event in which the volume of stormwater was greater than 2 mm times the allotment area. A corollary of this is that the OSD storage requirement to achieve compliance with the 100 year PSD is almost double that of the UPRCTs current OSD requirement. It is noted that these results are highly sensitive to the choice of time of concentration. In this study a time of concentration of 2 minutes was adopted to be consistent with the experimental observations of Stephens and Kuczera (1999). If the widely used time of concentration of 5 minutes were adopted the complying OSD volume reduces from 55 m3 to 29 m3 for a single dwelling allotment. However, the authors cannot find experimental evidence in support of the 5 minute value and therefore did not consider it. 2. The PSD depends on the allotment type and impervious fraction. It is suggested the OSD policy discriminate according to allotment type and its impervious fraction.
The effectiveness of rainwater tanks as a stormwater management measure was found to increase with housing density. As the proportion of the allotment area (roofs) contributing to the rainwater tank increased the peak allotment discharge for a given ARI decreased further below the peak discharge for an allotment with no OSD or rainwater tanks. Rainwater tanks used to supply in-house uses were found to have storage volumes available for stormwater retention at the beginning of over 90% of annual maximum storm events. In combination with a policy to manage or limit directly connected impervious areas rainwater
iii
tanks could produce similar stormwater management performance as the current UPRCT OSD policy. The average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD site storage is presented in Table B for each allotment scenario. Table B. Average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD site storage Volume of rainwater tank counting as OSD storage (%) Scenario No airspace in tank 50% airspace in tank Allotment 42 65 Duplex 50 72 Townhouses 40 53 Walk up apartments 32 51 The rainwater tank scenarios in which no air space was provided for stormwater detention demonstrated a reduction in required OSD storage volume equivalent to about 41% of the rainwater tank capacity. In contrast, the rainwater tank scenarios with air space for stormwater detention demonstrated a reduction in required OSD storage volume equivalent to 60% of the rainwater tank capacity. The averages presented in Table B are indicative of the rainwater tank contribution to OSD storage. The actual OSD contribution of rainwater tanks depends on the tank volume, the inclusion of airspace and the allotment type. It is recommended that the site-specific values presented in Tables 12, 17, 22 and 27 be used. The true benefits of rainwater tanks for stormwater management may be obscured by focussing on peak discharges at the allotment scale. Rainwater tanks reduce volumes of stormwater discharged into the larger catchment, whereas OSD tanks merely detain the stormwater. It is recommended that the UPRCT undertake a study to analyse the stormwater performance of catchments in which OSD and rainwater tanks are distributed according to their actual location within the catchment.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Generation of a Synthetic Pluviograph Record.................................................................. 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.4.5 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 2.5.3 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.7 3. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 The DRIP Model ........................................................................................................ 2 DRIP Calibration To Parramatta: Regionalisation Approach .................................... 3 DRIP data requirements ..................................................................................... 3 Choice of sites .................................................................................................... 4 Sampling variability of validation statistics ....................................................... 4 Master site Observatory Hill Sydney .............................................................. 4 Target Site - Parramatta/Parramatta North......................................................... 6 DRIP Calibration to Ryde Pumping Station Pluviograph.......................................... 9 Calibration and Validation ................................................................................. 9 Comparison with AR&R IFD .......................................................................... 13 Comparison of DRIP Storm Statistics.............................................................. 14 Discussion ................................................................................................................ 16 Adequacy of AR&R IFD curves ...................................................................... 16 Application of DRIP to other sites within the UPC catchment........................ 18 Conclusion................................................................................................................ 19
Design of Rainwater Tanks .............................................................................................. 21 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Australian Standards ................................................................................................ 21 NSW Department of Health ..................................................................................... 21 Water Authorities ..................................................................................................... 21 Local Councils.......................................................................................................... 22 Design Details .......................................................................................................... 22
4.
Cost Models...................................................................................................................... 24
4.1 4.2 5.
Installation of a Rainwater Tank .............................................................................. 24 Installation of an OSD Tank..................................................................................... 24
The Allotment Water Balance Model .............................................................................. 26 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 Indoor Water Use ..................................................................................................... 28 Pluviograph Rainfall Generation.............................................................................. 29 First Flush Separation............................................................................................... 30 The Rainwater Tank ................................................................................................. 31 The OSD Tank ......................................................................................................... 31 The Infiltration Trench ............................................................................................. 32 Pervious Area ........................................................................................................... 32 Impervious Area....................................................................................................... 33
6.
Allotment Case Studies .................................................................................................... 35 6.1 6.1.1 6.1.2 6.1.3 6.1.4 6.2 6.2.1 6.2.2 6.2.3 6.2.4 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 Single Dwelling Study ............................................................................................. 36 Stormwater impacts.......................................................................................... 36 Water supply impacts ....................................................................................... 40 Costs ................................................................................................................. 41 Summary .......................................................................................................... 41 Duplex Study............................................................................................................ 42 Stormwater impact ........................................................................................... 42 Water supply impacts ....................................................................................... 45 Costs ................................................................................................................. 45 Summary .......................................................................................................... 45 Townhouse Development Study .............................................................................. 46 Stormwater impact ........................................................................................... 46 Water supply impacts ....................................................................................... 49 Costs ................................................................................................................. 49 Summary .......................................................................................................... 49
vi
6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.5 7.
Three-Storey Walk-Up Apartments ......................................................................... 50 Stormwater impact ........................................................................................... 50 Water supply impacts ....................................................................................... 53 Costs ................................................................................................................. 53 Summary .......................................................................................................... 54 Case Study Conclusions ........................................................................................... 54
References ........................................................................................................................ 56
vii
Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management
1. INTRODUCTION
The Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust (UPRCT) commissioned the authors to determine by how much do rainwater tanks reduce the amount of on-site stormwater detention (OSD) storage required to satisfy UPRCTs policy. UPRCT required that continuous simulation be used to evaluate the performance of the rainwater tanks. The rationale for using continuous simulation arises from the intrinsic limitation of the design storm approach to specify initial conditions. It is now accepted that a design storm typically represents a burst of extreme rainfall embedded in a longer storm event. The pre-burst rainfall may significantly affect the performance of the rainwater tank during the design burst. Only continuous simulation can rationally simulate these complex dependencies. In pursuit of this objective UPRCT requested four tasks be performed with the aid of models currently under development in the hydrology research program at the Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle: Calibrate the DRIP point rainfall model to a pluviograph record at Parramatta. Using DRIP generate a synthetic 1000-year pluviograph record representative of the Upper Parramatta River (UPR) catchment. Modify the allotment water balance model to include OSD storage. Evaluate the performance of a range of rainwater tank and on-site detention options for several allotment scenarios using the 1000-year synthetic pluviograph record.
This report is organised as follows: Section 2 describes the application of the DRIP point rainfall model. Owing to an inadequate pluviograph record at Parramatta, a revised methodology is implemented. Validation using statistics not used in the calibration is used to check the performance of the calibrated DRIP model. DRIP intensity-frequency-duration (IFD) curves are compared against Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) and observed IFD curves. A discussion of the results is presented followed by recommendations. Section 3 overviews design requirements for rainwater tanks emphasising the three zones for peaks mains demand reduction, rainwater storage and stormwater detention. Section 4 describes the cost models used to evaluate the economic performance of the various options. Section 5 provides an overview of the allotment water balance model. Section 6 presents the results of 1000 years of continuous simulation using the allotment water balance model for four case studies at the allotment scale: Single dwelling; duplex; townhouse and apartment developments. For each case study the performance of the UPRCT OSD policy is documented. In addition various rainwater tank scenarios with and without detention storage are considered. Combinations of OSD and rainwater tanks which ensure UPRCTs PSD is only exceeded with an ARI of 100 years are presented along with an economic analysis.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
2. GENERATION OF A SYNTHETIC PLUVIOGRAPH RECORD

2.1 Introduction
A 1000-year synthetic pluviograph series was generated for two raingauge locations in the UPR catchment using the event-based rainfall model DRIP. UPRCT nominated the Parramatta gauge as representative of the study region. However, on account, of major limitations in the pluviograph record at Parramatta, the calibration approach was revised. Two independent approaches were implemented: 1. 2. DRIP was calibrated using pluviograph data from Observatory Hill Sydney and a composite daily record based on the Parramatta and Parramatta North gauges. DRIP was calibrated using pluviograph data from the Ryde Pumping Station gauge.
In both cases, the synthetic series were validated using a variety of rainfall statistics and were compared against Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) IFD curves. Following a comparison of the results a recommendation is made with regard to choice of calibrated model and extension of DRIP to other parts of the UPR catchment.
2.2
The DRIP Model
DRIP (Disaggregated Rectangular Intensity Pulse) is a stochastic rainfall simulation package currently under development at the University of Newcastle and the University of Adelaide. The DRIP model is event-based and is capable of representing the inter-event time, storm duration, average event intensity and the within-storm temporal characteristics of point rainfall. It can be used to simulate long sequences of rainfall events at time-scales down to less than 6 minutes. DRIP is able to satisfactorily reproduce rainfall statistics important in urban design given a long length pluviograph. A full description of DRIP can be found in Heneker et al. [2001]. The current version of DRIP incorporates a hidden state Markov model to simulate the occurrence of dry and wet climate states. Frost et al. [2000] show that storm characteristics are different between the dry and wet climate states. They demonstrate that inclusion of a hidden state Markov model is necessary to be able to reproduce annual rainfall statistics. The preferred method for calibrating DRIP is to use a long-term pluviograph record at the site of interest. Unfortunately long-term pluviograph records often are not available. In response to this problem, research currently underway at the Universities of Newcastle and Adelaide is investigating ways of regionalising DRIP. The most promising approach involves transfer of information from a long-term master pluviograph site to the target site. Two techniques have been developed and are currently being assessed for different Australian climate zones: 1. 2. Transfer from the master site to a short (10 to 20 yrs) pluviograph record at the target site. Transfer from the master site to a medium length (approx 50yrs) daily rainfall record at the target site.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
2.3
DRIP Calibration To Parramatta: Regionalisation Approach
Owing to the short pluviograph record at Parramatta, direct calibration of DRIP was not possible. The only possible calibration strategy involves transfer from a master pluviograph site.
2.3.1
DRIP data requirements
DRIP calibration using the regionalisation approach involves two steps: 1. 2. A long master pluviograph record at a site near the desired target site is used to calibrate DRIP. A target site rainfall gauge is then used to calibrate scaling factors that scale the storm characteristics at the master site to reproduce those at the target site.
A schematic of this calibration process is shown below in Figure 1.
Master Site
Long Pluvio
Target Site
Short Pluvio or Long Daily
1. Calibrate DRIP Parameters
2. Calibrate scaling parameters
Figure 1. Drip calibration schematic The scaling is defined as follows: Let xM and xT be random variables corresponding to the same rainfall characteristic at the master and target sites respectively. The rainfall characteristic may be storm duration, dry spell or average intensity conditioned on duration. The scaling factor k for a month k is defined as xT = k xM The probability density function of xT is given by
pT (x T ) = x 1 pM T k k
(1)
(2)
where pM( ) is the density of the master random variable.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
2.3.2
Choice of sites
The master site chosen for this study was Observatory Hill Sydney (066062). This site was chosen due to the pluviographs long length and its close proximity to the target Parramatta site. Indeed Observatory Hill Sydney has the longest pluviograph record in the Sydney region. This is important as there have been distinct dry and wet climate epochs. A short record may only sample climate variability from one climate state and hence bias the long-term extreme rainfall distributions. At the target site, it would be ideal if there existed a pluviograph of sufficient length to be able to calibrate the scaling factors. However, the longest Bureau of Meteorology pluviograph within the Parramatta area (Parramatta North) contained less than three years of data. This was considered insufficient to calibrate the DRIP scaling parameters. Therefore daily rainfall records were used to calibrate the scaling parameters. The use of daily records at the target site only allows calibration of the intensity and dry spell scaling factors. At Observatory Hill Sydney the average storm duration is of the order of 4 hours. As a result it is expected that the daily record contains virtually no information about storm durations. At this stage in the development of the DRIP regionalisation it is necessary to assume that the storm duration probability distribution is the same at the master and target sites; that is, the scaling factor for storm duration k=1 for all months. Parramatta and Parramatta North daily rainfall records were the two obvious choices for the target site data. The Parramatta (066046) and the Parramatta North (066124) sites have continuous daily rainfall records spanning from 1909-1960 and 1965-1998 respectively. Due to the proximity of the sites, it was assumed that the daily distribution of rainfall was the same at both sites. Hence, the two records were added to one another to produce a single augmented Parramatta daily rainfall record to be used as the target site rainfall.
2.3.3
Sampling variability of validation statistics
Repeated simulation using the calibrated parameters was undertaken to quantify sampling variability for validation statistics. This is essential if validation statistics are to be meaningfully compared against DRIP statistics. DRIP simulated a record with the same length as the observed record 1000 times. For each replicate statistics of interest were extracted. The 1000 statistics were then ranked to obtain the median and 90% confidence limits. If the calibrated DRIP model is the correct model of the rainfall process, then there is a 90% chance that the observed statistic will fall within the simulated 90% confidence limits. In fact the 90% confidence limits should be wider than reported because uncertainty in the DRIP calibrate parameters is not accounted for in the current version. In this report the DRIP model is judged not to be inconsistent with the observed data if the observed statistics lie within the 90% confidence limits. Note that because the DRIP model has not been calibrated to the validation statistics, median values do not necessarily follow the observed data.
2.3.4
Master site Observatory Hill Sydney
The DRIP model was calibrated to the 87 years of pluviograph data available at Observatory Hill. Several validation plots for DRIP simulation at the master site are shown below in Figures 2,3 and 4.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
Figure 2 shows that observed annual rainfall is reproduced well by the DRIP simulation. More importantly for this study, Figure 3 shows that short timescale aggregation statistics such as daily and hourly means and standard deviation are also reproduced by DRIP simulation quite well. Figure 4 compares observed and DRIP-simulated IFD curves. For the shorter durations a close match is found. However, for the 72-hour duration, the DRIP simulation produces a downward bias. This was considered unimportant for the current study because 72-hour durations are much greater than catchment response times - significant flooding is triggered by storm events lasting from around 15 minutes to 6 hours. Overall the DRIP simulation was considered to accurately reproduce the rainfall statistics apparent at the master site.
y
3000
Observed
Simulated Median
2500
Sim 90% Confidence Limit
Annual Rainfall Total (mm)
2000
1500
1000
500
0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 2. Sydney observed annual rainfall versus DRIP simulation

Sydney Hourly Aggregated Statistics
0.5 1.5
S y d ne y D ail y A gg re g ate d S ta tist ics

Me a n O b se rve d Me a n S im u la te d Std D e v O b se r ved Std D e v Si m ul a ted Sim 90 % C o nf id en c e L im it
Std Dev Observed 90% Confidence Limit Std Dev Simulated

0.4
S tan dard De viatio n R ainf all (m m)
16
Me an R ain fall ( mm)
1 0.3
12
R ainfall (m m)
0.2 0.5
0.1
Mean Obser ved 90% Confidence Limit Mean Simulated

0 J F M A M J J Month A S O N D
Mo n th
Figure 3. Sydney observed versus simulated (a) hourly and (b) daily mean and standard deviation of rainfall.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

1000
1.00hr Obs 12.00hr Obs 72.00hr Obs Median Simulated Sim 90% Confidence Limit
100
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
0.1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 4. Sydney observed versus simulated intensity-frequency-duration curves
2.4.5
Target Site - Parramatta/Parramatta North
DRIP scaling parameters for dry spell and conditional average intensity were calibrated using the augmented Parramatta record. The scaling parameters produced were then used in a repeated DRIP simulation. Figure 5 shows a comparison between the simulated and observed annual rainfall totals. Although the observed annual rainfall values do not lie on the simulated median curve, the majority of the observed values are within the 90% confidence limits for the model simulation. It is, therefore, concluded that DRIP adequately simulates the annual rainfall distribution at Parramatta.. Figures 2 and 5 highlight differences between the Observatory Hill Sydney and Parramatta locations. The Parramatta gauge has a median annual rainfall of the order of 950 mm whereas Observatory Hill Sydney has an annual median of about 1200 mm. This difference, attributable to coastal effects, forces one to question the assumption that the storm duration probability distributions are identical at both sites. As there is no pluviograph of sufficient length in the Parramatta area, comparison of DRIP simulated statistics with observed variables with a timescale less than 24 hours was impossible. However, observed daily statistics could be calculated using the daily rainfall records. Figure 6 compares the simulated daily means and standard deviations against those calculated from the augmented Parramatta daily record. The DRIP simulated median matches the observed daily mean for the majority of months. From September onwards DRIP slightly overestimates the daily mean, which can explain why the simulated annual rainfall is slightly
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
6
overestimated in Figure 5. The simulated standard deviation of daily rainfall is not as accurate as the daily mean, with some observed values lying outside the confidence limits. Figure 7 shows a close match between the observed and simulated probabilities of a dry day.
2500 Observed Parra/Parra Nth Median Simulated 2000 Annual Rainfall Total (mm) Sim 90% Confidence Limits
1500
1000
500
0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 5. Parramatta observed versus simulated annual rainfall.

Parramatta Daily Aggregated Statistics
16 14 12 10 8 6 Observed Target Daily Mean Median Mean Daily Rain Observed Target Daily Stddev Median Daily Std Dev 90% Confidence Limit
Rainfall (mm)
4 2 0 J F M A M J J Month A S O N D
Figure 6. Parramatta observed vs simulated daily rainfall mean and standard deviation. As mentioned previously, due to the lack of pluviograph data in the Parramatta area, observed statistics based on timescales less than 24 hours cannot be calculated. This presents a problem in validating the DRIP results on the timescales that are most important to this study, around 15 minutes to 6 hours. However, design IFD curves calculated using the methods described in
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) can be used to provide a check against simulated values. Figure 8 shows a comparison between the simulated and AR&R IFD curves for a range of durations. The observed 24 hour IFD curve was also calculated using the daily data.
Parramatta Dry Probability
80
75
Dry Probability (%)
70
65
60 Observed Target Daily Dry prob 90% Confidence Limit Median Daily Dry Prob
55
50 J F M A M J J Month A S O N D
Figure 7. Parramatta observed vs simulated probability of a dry day.

30min AR&R 1hrs AR&R 3hrs AR&R 12hrs AR&R 24hrs AR&R 90% Confidence Limits Median Simulated Observed Corrected Daily
500 yrs 200 yrs 100 yrs 50 yrs 20 yrs 10 yrs 5 yrs 2 yrs ARI = 1yr
100
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 8. Parramatta observed vs simulated vs AR&R IFD curves.

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 8
The AR&R and observed 24-hour IFD curves show good agreement. It is noted that the observed IFD produces higher extreme intensities than does the AR&R curve. However, these differences are judged not be significant. Good agreement between the observed and the upper half of the DRIP 24-hour IFD curve is noted. DRIP overestimates the 24-hour intensities for more frequent events with an Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) less than 2 years with the observed curve lying just below the lower 90% confidence limit. For durations less than 24 hours there are no adequate pluviograph data to check the DRIP IFD curves. As the ARI increases beyond 2 years the DRIP IFD curves consistently produce higher intensities than do the AR&R curves. For example the 100-year 30-minute intensity predicted by AR&R is 100mm/hr whereas DRIP predicts 150mm/hr. It is difficult to ascertain which is closer to the truth. However, three points deserve to be made: 1. For durations less than 12 hours, the DRIP IFD curves closely matched the data from Observatory Hill Sydney. It is stressed that DRIP is not calibrated to IFD data but rather individual storm event data. This engenders confidence in DRIPs ability to simulate extreme rainfall sequences. The AR&R maps for 2 and 50-year short duration intensities are based on limited pluviograph data and reflect the exercise of judgement by experienced hydrometeorolgists. Bias in such circumstances is inevitable. The DRIP IFD curves show weak positive skew for Parramatta, whereas the AR&R curves assume zero skew. At high ARIs such differences in skew exacerbate differences. Interestingly the DRIP 24-hour IFD shows virtually zero skew which is consistent with the 24-hour data. However, at smaller timescales, DRIP simulates skewed IFD curves. The AR&R procedure for deriving IFD curves assumes that one skewness applies to all durations. This assumption may have been necessary at the time of publishing the AR&R maps because of limited pluviograph data. However, such expediency does not assure the assumption is correct.
2.
3.
2.5
DRIP Calibration to Ryde Pumping Station Pluviograph
In view of doubt about the representativeness of the master site at Observatory Hill Sydney, it was decided to directly calibrate DRIP to a medium length pluviograph record considered to be more representative of the Parramatta site. In the search for a suitable site UPRCT provided the list of pluviograph sites, presented in Table 1, located within 10 km of Toongabbie, the centre point of the UPR catchment. From this list Ryde Pumping Station gauge was chosen for two reasons: 1. 2. It had the longest record, namely 53 years. Despite the fact that it is located outside the UPR catchment in a region with higher rainfall intensities, it is located sufficiently far from the coast to have annual rainfall statistics similar to those at Parramatta.
2.5.1
Calibration and Validation
The DRIP model was calibrated to the 53 years of pluviograph data available at Ryde pumping station. This gauge is operated by Sydney Water. The data was provided by
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
Australian Water Technologies. Several validation plots for DRIP simulation at the master site are shown below in Figures 9 to 11. Table 1. List of pluviograph located within 10 km of Toongabbie. Pluviograph Name Years of record as at Oct 20'00 Ryde WPS 52.0 Guildford (Pipehead) 29.3 Potts Hill Reservoir 18.7 South Prospect 17.7 Castle Hill Stp 17.0 Northmead Bowling Club 10.5 Westmead Hospital 10.2 Carlingford Bowling Club 10.0 North Parramatta (Burnside Homes) 10.0 Baulkham Hills Swimming Pool 10.0 Kings Langley (Nsw Soccer Federation) 10.0 Toongabbie Bowling Club 10.0 Parramatta (Masonic Club) 9.9 Rouse Hill (Api Country Club Kellyville) 9.9 Quakers Hill Stp 9.9 Quakers Hill Stp 9.8 Blacktown (Ashlar Golf Club) 9.8 Greystanes (Cumberland Golf Club) 9.7 Cumberland State Forest (Ibm) 9.7 Blacktown (Dog Pound) 9.7 Merrylands West (Canal Road) 9.4 Minchinbury (Pinegrove Memorial Park ) 9.1 Lalor Park (Vardys Rd) 7.8 Prospect Reservoir 7.7 Schofields (Fyfe Rd) 7.2 Blacktown Survey Depot 3.6 Kellyville Stp 2.2
Station 566037 567079 566036 567092 567076 567104 567111 566081 567112 567147 567148 567151 566086 567106 566084 567084 567113 567146 567149 567150 567152 567153 567162 567083 567167 567075 567097
Figure 9 shows that observed annual rainfall is reproduced well by DRIP simulation. It is noted that the annual distributions for Ryde and Parramatta are similar. More importantly for this study, Figure 10 shows that short timescale aggregation statistics such as daily and hourly means and standard deviation are satisfactorily reproduced by the DRIP simulation. Figure 11 shows that the probability of observing a dry hour or day is matched closely by simulated values. Although the simulated aggregation statistics match the observed values well, extreme rainfalls on timescales from around 15 minutes to 6 hours are of most importance to this study. Therefore, the simulated IFD curves for a range of durations were compared to those observed in Figure 12. For the durations shown, simulated IFD curves from 30 min to 3 hours match the observed values well. For durations greater than 12 hours, the simulated median values underestimate those observed for long recurrence interval periods. Nonetheless the observed IFDs lie within
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 10
the simulation 90% confidence limits suggesting that sampling variability can account for the observed discrepancies. It is stressed that DRIP is not calibrated to IFD data but rather individual storm event data. This engenders confidence in DRIPs ability to simulate extreme rainfall sequences.
Ryde Pumping Station Annual Rainfall
2500 Observed 90% Confidence Limits Median Simulated 90% Confidence Limits
2000
Annual Rainfall (mm)
1500
1000
500
0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 Percent 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 9. Ryde observed annual rainfall versus DRIP Simulation

Ryde Hourly Aggregated Statistics
1.4 Obs Hourly Mean Obs Hourly Stddev Median Simulated 90% Confidence Limit
16 14 12
Obs Daily Mean Obs Daily Stddev Sim Median 90% Conf Lim
Ryde Daily Aggregated Statistics
1.2
1 Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
10
0.8
8 6
0.6
0.4
4 2 0
0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12
7 Month
10
11
12
Figure 10. Ryde observed versus simulated (a) hourly and (b) daily mean and standard deviation of rainfall.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
11

RydeWPS Dry Probability
100
90 Dry Prob (%) Daily Dry Prob (%) Median Simulated 90% Confidence Limit 80
Dry Probability (%)
70
60
50 2 4 6 Month 8 10 12
Figure 11. Ryde observed versus simulated dry probability curves
100
0.50hrs Obs 1.00hrs Obs 3.00hrs Obs 12.00hrs Obs 24.00hrs Obs Median Simulated 90% Confidence Limit
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 Percent 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 12. Ryde observed versus simulated IFD curves
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
12
2.5.2
Comparison with AR&R IFD
Design IFD curves calculated using the methods described in AR&R can be used to provide a check against simulated values. Figure 13 compares the observed, median simulated and AR&R IFD curves for a range of timescales.
0.50hrs Obs 1.00hrs Obs 3.00hrs Obs 12.00hrs Obs 24.00hrs Obs Median DRIP Simulation AR&R Estimate
100
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
20yrs 10yrs 5yrs 2yrs 1yr = ARI
500yrs 200yrs 100yrs 50yrs
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 Percent 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 13. Ryde observed vs simulated vs AR&R IFD curves. Figure 13 shows that the AR&R IFD curves underestimate the observed IFD statistics at Ryde in the right tail. This appears to be due to consistent underestimation of the log-standard deviation (which is the slope of the IFD curve on log-normal probability paper) rather than due to shifts in log skewness. The observed IFD curves show only weak evidence of non-zero log skew, which is consistent with the data at Observatory Hill Sydney. The consistent underestimation by AR&R is due to two factors: 1. The AR&R IFD curves are derived from a regional procedure that spatially interpolates between gauge locations with good record lengths. Regionalisation, by its nature, smoothes spatial variability and hence can introduce systematic error. The AR&R curves were derived from a database ending in the late 1970s and early 1980s. This database had a good coverage of 24-hour bulk gauges but few long-term
13
2.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
pluviograph records in the Sydney area. With the availability of up to 20 years more data it is probable, indeed expected, that differences will arise particularly in the right tail of the IFD curve.
2.5.3
Comparison of DRIP Storm Statistics
Given the proximity of the Ryde and Parramatta gauges and the almost identical annual rainfall distributions one would expect similar statistics for storm characteristics such as dry spell, storm duration and storm depth. Table 2 does not bear out this expectation. The reason for this unexpected outcome is related to the apparent unsuitability of the Observatory Hill Sydney gauge as a master pluviograph for the UPR catchment. In calibrating DRIP to the daily rainfall record at Parramatta it was necessary to assume the storm duration distributions at Observatory Hill Sydney and Parramatta were identical. This is why in Table 2 the mean and standard deviation for storm durations are identical for these sites. In contrast Ryde has a mean storm duration which is 55% that of Observatory Hill Sydney. If Parramatta has a storm duration probability distribution similar to that of Ryde (a reasonable assumption) then the imposition of Observatory Hill storm duration characteristics will distort the Parramatta dry spell and storm depth statistics in order that the daily rainfall characteristics at Parramatta be preserved. Hence Parramatta has substantially longer dry spell and greater storm depths than Ryde. Given the evidence presented it is concluded that: 1. 2. Observatory Hill Sydney is not a suitable master pluviograph site for the UPR catchment; and Ryde is a more suitable master pluviograph site. Storm characteristic Dry spell, hr Storm duration, hr Depth, mm Table 2. DRIP simulated storm statistics Statistic Observatory Parramatta Hill Sydney Mean 44.8 56.0 Standard deviation 74.0 94.0 Mean 4.07 4.07 Standard deviation 5.87 5.87 Mean 6.88 7.16 Standard deviation 17.0 16.7 Ryde 40.5 85.5 2.25 4.08 4.55 13.7
Despite the conclusion that the DRIP calibration to Parramatta using Observatory Hill Sydney as the master site is not reliable, it is worth comparing the DRIP IFD curves for Parramatta and Ryde shown in Figure 14. These plots differ from those presented in Figures 4, 8, 12 and 13. In the earlier figures the IFD plots were based on replicated samples with record lengths equal to the historic record length. The objective was to quantify the sampling uncertainty in order to make a judgement about how well the observed data matched the DRIP model. In contrast the IFD curves in Figure 14 are based on a 1000-year simulation and thus accurately define the IFD curves.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
14
100
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
0.5hrs Ryde 1hrs Ryde 3hrs Ryde 9hrs Ryde 24hrs Ryde
0.5hrs Parra 1hrs Parra 3hrs Parra 9hrs Parra 24hrs Parra
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 14. DRIP IFD curves for Ryde and Parramatta. What is striking about Figure 14 is the close agreement between the DRIP Parramatta and Ryde IFD curves. This would suggest that the extreme storm mechanisms at Observatory Hill Sydney and Ryde are similar. Despite the similarity of the IFD curves, it would be erroneous to use the Parramatta DRIP model to simulate OSD and rainwater tank scenarios. This is because the Parramatta DRIP storms are longer on average than the Ryde DRIP storms. Noting that IFD statistics are typically obtained from bursts within storms the Parramatta DRIP storms would on average have higher antecedent rainfalls prior to the critical burst than the Ryde DRIP storms. This conclusion was borne by the finding that OSD requirements were bigger for Parramatta DRIP simulation than for Ryde DRIP simulation. The curves in Figure 14 show that as duration decreases log skewness weakly increases. For the 24-hour duration the IFD curve is virtually a straight line implying the log skew is zero, as is the case for Observatory Hill. With decreasing duration the upward curvature becomes more pronounced implying log skew is becoming more positive, albeit marginally so. This complicates extrapolation of IFD curves to high ARIs for short durations because there are virtually no pluviograph sites with records sufficiently long to meaningfully identify the right tail of the IFD curve see Table 1.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
15
2.6
2.6.1
Discussion
Adequacy of AR&R IFD curves
The credibility of the OSD simulations in this study depend critically on the credibility of DRIP to simulate extreme storms. Figures 12 and 13 show that at Ryde the DRIP IFD curves are consistent with observed IFD curves but overestimate the AR&R IFD curves. It is, therefore, important to establish whether the IFD underestimation by AR&R at Ryde is an isolated occurrence or a reflection of a deeper problem. To this end a comparison of AR&R IFD curves with observed IFD curves was undertaken at three other gauges: Guildford, Bankstown and Liverpool. Figures 15 to 17 shows the IFD curves for Guilford, Bankstown and Liverpool which had records lengths of 29, 23 and 9 years respectively. For Guildford AR&R substantially underestimates the extreme intensities for all durations except 3 hours and poorly reproduces the overall shape of the observed distributions. Indeed there is a distinct upward curvature in the observed IFD curves which contradicts the zero log skew assumption in AR&R. The comparison for Bankstown is more favourable with AR&R tending to fit the upper tails of the IFD curves reasonably well. However, the AR&R reproduction of the overall shape of the distribution was unsatisfactory for durations greater than or equal to 3 hours. The record length for Liverpool is too short to make a judgement about the adequacy of fit.
0.50hrs Obs 1.00hrs Obs 3.00hrs Obs 12.00hrs Obs 24.00hrs Obs 30min AR&R 1hrs AR&R 3hrs AR&R 12hrs AR&R 24hrs AR&R
5yrs 2yrs 1yr = ARI
100
500yrs 200yrs 100yrs 50yrs 20yrs 10yrs
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 Percent 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 15. Comparison of AR&R and observed IFD curve for Guildford gauge.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
16

5yrs 2yrs 1yr = ARI
100
50yrs
500yrs 200yrs 100yrs
20yrs 10yrs
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 Percent 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 16. Comparison of AR&R and observed IFD curve for Bankstown gauge.
5yrs 2yrs 1yr = ARI
100
50yrs
500yrs 200yrs 100yrs
20yrs 10yrs
Intensity (mm/hr)
10
1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 Percent 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Figure 17. Comparison of AR&R and observed IFD curve for Liverpool gauge.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 17
The data for Guildford and Bankstown tend to confirm the Ryde results which suggest that the AR&R IFD curves may be systematically in error. As previously discussed the AR&R IFD method is a regional method based on extensive daily rainfall data and limited pluviograph data ending in the late 1970s. It is not altogether surprising that with the availability of more data discrepancies become apparent. Of significance is the positive log skew, particularly at shorter durations, which tends to amplify differences in the right tail of the distributions. Figure 18 presents a log-Pearson III plot to the 1-hour Guildford annual maximum intensity data. The log skew was 0.85 with a standard deviation of 0.46! Note the large uncertainty in the right tail. For the 100-year intensity the expected intensity is 93 mm/hr with 90% confidence limits of 60 to 176 mm/hr. If a log-normal distribution were fitted to the same data the 100-year intensity the expected intensity is 75 mm/hr with 90% confidence limits of 60 to 100 mm/h, a result more consistent with the AR&R values reported in Table 3. This underscores the inherent difficulty in fitting to 3-parameter distributions to short data. It needs to be emphasised that DRIP does not fit distributions to annual maximum rainfalls. It simulates and disaggregates individual storm events. Given that DRIP fits probability distributions to about 190 events per year the storm probability distributions are well-defined when compared to the log Pearson III in Figure 18. Within DRIP a 100-year annual maximum burst is likely to be the result of the joint occurrence of several random variables which themselves are not extremes. This suggests that DRIP does not extrapolate observed data as in Figure 18 but uses a well-identified probability structure to simulate extremes.
2.500
Gauged flow
2.200
Exp parameter quantile
Expected prob quantile

90% limits
Log10 Flow
1.900
1.600
1.300
1.000
1.5
10
20
50
100
200
ARI (yrs)
Figure 18. logPearson III fit to 1 hour annual maximum intensity at Guildford.
2.6.2
Application of DRIP to other sites within the UPC catchment
It was concluded in Section 2.5.3 that the DRIP calibration at Ryde provides a more representative master site for the UPR catchment than does Observatory Hill Sydney. That said, it is noted that the Ryde calibration represents the rainfall regime at Ryde and not over the whole UPR catchment. Table 3 compares AR&R intensities for several locations within
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
18
UPR catchment. It can be seen that there is little variation in intensity over the UPR catchment. The Ryde intensities are similar to those at Parramatta and marginally lower than at Cumberland State Forest. This suggests that the Ryde gauge could be confidently used as the master gauge to calibrate DRIP to other pluviograph records in the UPR catchment such as those listed in Table 1. It is important to note that the proposed calibration involves a transfer from the Ryde master pluviograph record to a shorter target pluviograph record. Such a calibration enables scaling factors to be estimated for all three DRIP storm characteristics: dry spell storm duration and conditional intensity. This removes the restriction on storm duration scaling factors that affected the calibration of DRIP to the Parramatta daily record. This provides a rational framework for applying DRIP to locations within the UPR catchment at which there are no long pluviograph records. Duration hrs Table 3. Selected AR&R intensities in UPR catchment Toongabbie Parramatta Cumberland SF Blacktown ARI Ryde (north east UPR (south west (middle UPR yrs catchment) catchment) UPR catchment) 100 77 67 70 72 76 50 69 60 63 65 68 100 50 100 50 41 36 18.1 16.1 35 32 15.4 13.8 37 34 16.7 14.9 39 35 17.4 15.5 45 37 18.9 16.8
1 1 3 3 12 12
The evidence based on the observed IFD curves for Ryde and Guildford indicates that the AR&R IFD curves underestimate extreme intensities. This has implications for UPRCTs OSD policy because an increase in extreme intensities is likely to result in increased site storage requirements. Table 4 provides an indication of the change in extreme intensities arising from the use of DRIP in conjunction with pluviograph records longer than those available to AR&R. The table shows that the AR&R intensities for 1 and 3 hour durations at the 100 year ARI are about 20% less than what DRIP predicts for Ryde. Because Table 3 demonstrates that Ryde AR&R intensities are broadly representative of the UPR catchment one can expect that use of DRIP will increase extreme intensities at the shorter durations by about 25%. Duration hrs 1 3 Table 4. Selected Comparison of DRIP and AR&R intensities ARI DRIP intensity at AR&R intensity as % of Ryde DRIP intensity yrs Ryde (from Fig 14) mm/hr Ryde Parramatta Toongabbie 100 92 84 78 76 100 47 87 83 79
2.7
Conclusion
Several important conclusions result from the calibration and validation of DRIP:
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
19
1.
It was originally envisaged that DRIP would be directly calibrated to a long pluviograph at Parramatta. However, owing to the very short pluviograph record at Parramatta this approach was deemed infeasible and an alternative approach was developed. DRIP was directly calibrated to the 53-year Ryde Pumping Station pluviograph record. The Ryde record was the longest available record for gauges located in and near the UPR catchment. The calibrated model was used to simulate statistics not used in the calibration. Such statistics ranged from annual rainfall distributions to IFD curves. For all the validation statistics considered, DRIP simulations were found to be statistically consistent with the observed statistics. This result engendered confidence in DRIPs ability to simulate the entire rainfall regime from very short to annual timescales. It was found at Ryde that the DRIP and observed IFD curves produced short duration 100-year intensities about 25% greater than those predicted by AR&R. Examination of observed IFD curves for Guildford showed a similar underestimation by AR&R, whereas for Bankstown AR&R IFD curves unsatisfactorily reproduced the overall shape of the observed IFD curves but did manage to reproduce the right tails better than at Ryde or Guildford. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the AR&R IFD curves are in error, possibly of the order of 25% for 100-year storms with durations less than 3 hours. The Ryde pluviograph can be used as a master site to transfer DRIP to other shorter pluviograph records within the UPR catchment. The justification for use of the Ryde record as the master site in future work is that it has a similar annual rainfall distribution as Parramatta, is similarly distant from the coast, and has AR&R IFD statistics that only marginally differ across a range of sites in the UPR catchment.
2.
3.
4.
On the CD supplied with this report, a data file is provided with a 1000-year simulated pluviograph record based on the calibration to the Ryde Pumping Station record. In addition FORTRAN90 source code is provided to enable UPRCT to generate its own synthetic rainfall records of any desired length. Prior to simulation the code must read a DRIP parameter file, which contains the results of the DRIP calibration. To this end DRIP parameter files for Observatory Hill Sydney, Ryde Pumping Station and Parramatta have been included on the CD.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
20
3. DESIGN OF RAINWATER TANKS

A dual water supply solution uses rainwater from tanks to supplement the mains water supply for toilet flushing, laundry, hot water and outdoor uses. The use of a dual water supply system enables the designer to maximise the water supply and stormwater management benefits of the rainwater tank. The design requirements imposed by Australian standards, the NSW Department of Health, water authorities and local government for dual water supply using rainwater tanks and mains water are reviewed. This is followed by presentation of a design method.
3.1
Australian Standards
The Standard AS/NZS 3500.1.2: Water Supply - Acceptable Solutions provides guidance for the design of rainwater tanks with dual water supply (rainwater and mains water). It categorises cross connections between mains water supply and premises with a rainwater tank to be low hazard, thereby requiring a non-testable backflow prevention device. Rainwater tanks with dual water supply must maintain an air gap, and be designed and connected in accordance with Figure 19.
3.2
NSW Department of Health
The NSW Department of Health does not prohibit the use of rainwater for drinking or other purposes. The Department recommends proper use and maintenance of rainwater tanks and provides a monograph Guidance on the use of rainwater tanks [Cunliffe, 1998] to assist with this task. The focus of NSW Department of Health guidelines is drinking water quality.
Overflow
Height of water above invert of overflow (AS 3500.1.2 and AS 2845.2)
Rainwater Tank
Pump & pressure vessel
Water supply to house
Figure 19. Design details to prevent backflow for a rainwater tank with mains water top up.
3.3
Water Authorities
Water authorities cannot prohibit the use of rainwater from tanks on private land. Their primary concern is to maintain the quality of mains water. Accordingly, water authorities may
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
21
require the installation of an adequate backflow prevention device to prevent contamination of mains water by tank water if the existing water meter does not already have a backflow prevention device.
3.4
Local Councils
Local councils have varying policies on the installation of rainwater tanks. Tanks are structures, and their erection may require development consent. However, many councils have declared rainwater tanks to be exempt development (which does not require consent) provided that certain requirements relating to tank size, height and siting are satisfied. All tanks should be installed in accordance with The New South Wales Code of Practice: Plumbing and Drainage [Committee on Uniformity of Plumbing and Drainage Regulations in NSW, 1999]. If a development application is required to install a rainwater tank, details should be provided as to the: Location of the tank and relationship to nearby buildings; Configuration of inlet/outlet pipe and the overflow pipe; Tank capacity, dimensions, structural details and proposed materials; and Purposes for which the tank is intended to be used.
Local councils cannot prohibit the use of water derived from a rainwater tank. However, where a council is a water supply authority it can require the installation of an adequate backflow prevention device.
3.5
Design Details
In order to maximise water savings and stormwater management benefits, tank capacity should be between 5 kL and 20 kL for each residential dwelling. The required capacity will depend on number of persons in the household, water use, rainfall and roof area. Design of the rainwater tank (Figure 20) should make provision for: A minimum storage volume (to ensure that water supply is always available); A rainwater storage volume; and An air space for additional stormwater management.
The minimum storage volume is the maximum daily water use that is expected from the tank (about 250-750 litres). If the volume of stored water falls below the minimum storage volume, the shortfall can be overcome by topping up the tank with mains water to the required level. A simple float valve system can be installed to do this automatically. The rainwater storage volume is the total volume available in the tank to store rainwater below the overflow pipe. The air space between the overflow pipe and the top of the tank can be used to provide stormwater detention, thereby delaying the delivery of excess roof water to the drainage system. The rainwater storage volume and the overlying air space both
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
22
provide stormwater management benefits providing both retention and detention. The required volume for the air space will vary according to the selected average recurrence interval (ARI) design storm. The configuration of plumbing required for rainwater tanks is shown in Figure 20. Water supply from the rainwater tank (such as for outdoor, toilet, laundry or hot water uses) is directed to the household via a small pump and pressure vessel. When tank water levels are low, such as during hot, dry periods, the tank is topped up with mains water via a trickle system. The trickle top up system will reduce the daily peak demand on the mains water distribution network. In the event of pump or power failure the rainwater tank can be bypassed.
Trickle top up from mains supply

Air space used for detention
Overflow
Rainwater space
Float
Mains top up volume
Pump & pressure vessel Water supply to house
Mains water supply for other inhouse uses (drinking)

Trickle top up with mains water as required
Bypass in event of power failure
Stop valve Pump & pressure Rainwater vessel tank
Float
Water supply for irrigation, toilet, laundry and hot water uses
Figure 20. Design details for a dual water supply system using rainwater and mains water.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
23
4. COST MODELS
Costs and benefits have been derived to allow comparative analysis of costs and present values of OSD and rainwater tank solutions. The costs and benefits reported below are used in a present equivalence analysis [Coombes et al., 2000e and 2001] with a 6% interest rate to calculate the present value of the OSD and rainwater tank scenarios.
4.1
Installation of a Rainwater Tank
The cost to install a dual water supply system including a 10 kL rainwater tank and a Davy pump at the Maryville demonstration site has been reported in Coombes et al. (2000). The costs for different rainwater tank sizes are shown in Table 5. Table 5. Cost to install a rainwater tank system Cost to install each tank size ($) Item 5 kL 10 kL 15 kL 20 kL Tank 470 670 840 1090 Pump 270 270 270 270 Plumber and fittings 500 500 500 500 Float system 200 200 200 200 Concrete base 200 200 200 200 GST 160 180 200 230 Total 1800 2020 2210 2490 The lifecycle costs of the rainwater tank solutions are: The pump costs $0.002 per day to operate and has a 10 year life; and The rainwater tank has a 50 year life.
The operating and maintenance costs for the pump have been assumed to be $0.10 per kL of rainwater consumed. The price of water is assumed to be $0.92 per kL and the sewage charge is assumed to be $0.2025 per kL of mains water consumed.
4.2
Installation of an OSD Tank
The costs to install an OSD tank has been derived from Figure H1 in the On Site Detention Handbook [Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust, 1999] and are shown in the following Table 6. Table 6. Cost to install an OSD tank Cost ($) per m3 of OSD tank Volume (m3) 10 20 30 40 50 100 Cost ($) 812 551 406 377 352 279
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
24
Tschantz (2000) reported failure rates of over 90% for OSD systems due to partially or completely blocked outlet controls resulting from a lack of routine maintenance. A maintenance cost of $75 per year has been assigned to the OSD scenarios.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
25
5. THE ALLOTMENT WATER BALANCE MODEL

Optimum use of rainwater, stormwater and wastewater at the urban allotment are the urban water supply, sewage and stormwater management strategies of the future. A reliable household water balance model is required to allow accurate assessment of demand reduction, infrastructure provision and water reuse scenarios. The daily water balance model AquaCycle developed by Mitchell et al. (1997) makes a significant contribution to the understanding of the urban water balance. However, assessments of the impact of rainwater reuse on stormwater and water supply infrastructure provision requires analysis at much shorter time steps. For example; a stormwater catchment response time is likely to be between 15 minutes and 6 hours. A water balance model has been developed to simulate the performance of source control measures (rainwater tanks, landscaping, gravel trenches and on site detention) in allotments and clusters. The model works at 2-minute intervals for rainfall and water consumption and one-second intervals for all stormwater discharges. A schematic of the model is shown in Figure 21.
Rainfall
ET
Pluvio data, DRIP or rainfall infill generator
Spill
Roof
First flush device
Pervious area
Impervious area
Trickle top up
Mains water
Infiltration to Soil
Rainwater tank
Infiltration trench
Outdoor uses
Indoor uses
On site detention
toilet, hot water
Other Indoor uses
Street drainage system
Figure 21. Allotment water balance model A new probabilistic behavioural household water use model [Coombes et al., 2000a] has been established to account for water use in the model and a pluviograph rainfall infill generator has been created to allow continuous simulation of the household water balance at small time steps.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
26
The household water balance model has also been combined with the DRIP point rainfall model to develop design curves for the performance of rainwater tanks and on site detention tanks in the Upper Parramatta River Catchment. This section provides a brief description of the components of the water balance model.
5.1 Outdoor Water Use

Outdoor water demand is a large and highly variable portion of total household demand ranging from 8% to 53% of total water use in the Lower Hunter region (Tables 7 and 8). The Hunter Water Corporation (HWC) [Berghout, personal communication, 1999] has monitored indoor and outdoor water use in over 130 houses located in the 9 water supply zones listed in Tables 7 and 8 during the period 1986 to 1998. This data has provided the foundation for the development of the household water use simulation models. Table 7. Water demand zones and related statistics used for the Lower Hunter region
D a ily m a x . Zone I n n e r S E N e w c a s t le H a m ilt o n M a y f ie ld L a m b to n J e s m o n d N W W a lls e n d L a k e M a c q u a r ie E a s t L a k e M a c q u a r ie W e s t M a it la n d C essnock P o rt S tep h e n s A v e . r a in (m m /d a y) 2 .2 1 2 .2 1 2 .2 1 2 .2 1 2 .7 7 3 .2 4 2 .4 7 2 .0 7 3 .4 4 te m p . (0C ) M in M a x A v e 8 .9 8 .9 8 .9 8 .9 8 .9 8 .9 8 .8 8 .8 9 .2 42 42 42 42 42 42 4 7 .8 4 7 .8 45 21 21 21 21 21 21 24 24 23 A v e . m o n th ly M o n th ly A v e . exhouse R a in D a y s d e m a n d (L /d a y) M in M a x A v e M in M a x A v e 1 25 11 44 161 105 1 25 11 28 126 75 1 25 11 19 126 63 1 25 11 56 271 150 1 27 13 32 245 124 1 27 12 57 236 150 1 25 11 107 329 213 1 18 6 56 213 133 1 26 12 54 368 218
Using the HWC outdoor consumption data Coombes et al. (2000a) developed a new outdoor demand model that yielded satisfactory performance with R2 varying from 0.51 to 0.68 for the zones in the Lower Hunter region. The model differs from the current genre of outdoor demand models in that daily outdoor use is modelled probabilistically using behavioural rules. These rules describe the probability of outdoor water use on a given day with the probability affected by the meteorological variables, daily rainfall depth, days since the last rainfall and daily maximum temperature, and the long-term average variables, daily average rainfall and monthly average daily demand. Table 8. Water demand zones and related statistics used for the Lower Hunter region
Zone Inner Newcastle Hamilton Mayfield Lambton Jesmond NWWallsend Lake M East ac. Lake M West ac. M aitland Cessnock Port Stephens Inhouse Exhouse Ave. Rain Incom Rain days e (L/d) (L/d) (m /d) m ($/C) per m onth 337 105 2.21 429 11 454 75 2.21 330 11 290 63 2.21 323 11 498 150 2.21 289 11 553 124 2.77 286 13 517 150 3.24 286 12 351 213 2.47 284 11 426 133 2.07 270 6 441 218 3.44 264 12 Growth Ave. Day (% /A) Tem p Soil Type 1.03 21 sandy loam 0.67 21 sandy loam 2.09 21 sandy clay 3.26 21 silty clay loam 1.24 21 sandy clay loam 2.42 21 silty clay loam 1.16 24 sandy clay loam 0.38 24 sandy clay loam 23 Sand 2.42
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
27
The model was calibrated to HWC outdoor data for each of the nine local water supply zones shown in Tables 7 and 8 using the SCE-UA global optimisation method [Duan et al., 1994]. An example of calibration to outdoor use data for the Mayfield area of the Newcastle zone is shown in Figure 22. The outdoor demand model was able to reliably simulate the strong seasonal trends experienced in the Mayfield area - such seasonality in outdoor demand is typical for all the zones in the Lower Hunter Region.
Mayfield outdoor water use
7000
O bserved versus predicted outdoor water use at M ayfield

7000
6000
Observed demand (L/month)
Demand (L/month)
5000
Predicted Observed
6000
5000
4000
4000
3000
3000
2000
2000
1000
1000
R2 = 0.67
0 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Months since December 1986
Predicted dem (L/m and onth)
Figure 22. Observed and predicted monthly outdoor water use at Mayfield.
5.2
Indoor Water Use
The water balance model uses indoor water use data from the HWC [Berghout, personal communication, 1999], the Figtree Place development [Coombes et al., 2000] and the Stringybark Grove development [Cox et al., 1998] to establish water use categories and patterns (Figures 23 and 24).
Other 13% Hot water 39%
Laundry 23%
Toilet 25%
Figure 23. Household water use categories The water balance model uses the household water use categories and proportions shown in Figure 23 to allocate indoor water use from the rainwater tank.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
28

500 450
Water use (litres/hour)
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hours since midnight
Figure 24. Water use patterns from the Stringybark Grove development The water use patterns from Stringybark Grove, shown in Figure 24, have been transformed into a normalised water use versus normalised time relationship, shown in Figure 25, to enable the water balance model to simulate diurnal indoor and outdoor water use patterns.
1
Normalised water use (consumption/daily consumption)
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Normalised time (time/day)
Figure 25. Normalised diurnal water use pattern.
5.3
Pluviograph Rainfall Generation
The water balance model can use rainfall from pluvio or tipping bucket rain gauges or generate synthetic pluviograph rainfall from daily rainfall data. An outline of the pluvio rainfall generator is shown in Figure 26. In addition the water balance model has been linked with the DRIP point rainfall model. This entails reading a DRIP parameter file, which contains parameters calibrated for the site under study, and then generating synthetic storms for the required length, In this study, 1000 years of synthetic storm data was generated.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
29

Pluvio or tipping bucket rain gauge
Make rainfall intensity and temporal pattern tables Daily rainfall Missing pluvio data? No
Intensities
Temporal patterns
Random selection of temporal pattern and intensity
yes
Month?
Infill missing rainfall data
Determine storm duration
Pluvio rainfall file
Figure 26. Pluvio rainfall generator The pluviograph rainfall generator requires a daily rainfall file with no missing data. This file is used as a reference file to find and infill missing storm events based on temporal patterns and rainfall intensities derived from pluviograph or tipping bucket rain gauge records. The rainfall intensities and temporal patterns are randomly selected from files sorted by month, which is used as a surrogate for season. Rainfall intensity and temporal patterns can be sourced from Australian Rainfall and Runoff [Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1987] if pluviograph or tipping bucket rainfall data is unavailable.
5.4
First Flush Separation
Many authors [including Jenkins and Pearson, 1978, Mitchell et al. 1997 and Cunliffe, 1998] describe the first flush as a fixed amount of roof runoff requiring separation. Design and modelling of the performance of first flush devices has been dominated by this belief. However the number of dry days preceding a rainfall event, rainfall intensity and rainfall depth is an indicator of roofwater quality [Yaziz et al., 1989]. Design of first flush separation devices and simulation of their performance will need to reflect the dynamic nature of roofwater quality and quantity. The first flush pits at Figtree Place were designed to separate the first 2 mm of roofwater from inflow to the rainwater tanks. The design of these first flush pits was based on rainfall volumes from design storms described in Australian Rainfall and Runoff [The Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1987]. The first flush pits proved to be so efficient that no inflow to the rainwater tanks resulted. Design of first flush separation devices needs to maximise conservation of roof water and minimise contaminant transport to the rainwater tank whilst accounting for variation of roof water quality and quantity from all storms.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
30
The design of the first flush device (Figure 27) in the water balance model includes an inlet from the roof, a chamber to capture the first flush of rainwater allowing it to leak through a small hole in the base of the chamber, a mesh screen to separate debris and an overflow to the rainwater tank.
Overflow to tank Mesh screen
Rainwater from roof
Rainwater tank
rainwater leaks through small hole
Figure 27. Diagram of a first flush separation device
5.5
The Rainwater Tank
The design of a rainwater tank in the water balance model is schematised in Figure 28. Rainwater overflows from the first flush device into the rainwater tank, water is drawn from the tank for household use and the tank is topped up with mains water if the water level is less than the minimum water level. Overflow from the rainwater tank is routed via a pipe system to an OSD tank, infiltration trench or the street drainage system. When the rainwater tank is full spills are directed to impervious areas.
Mains water to maintain minimum water level Overflow from first flush pit
Spill to impervious area
minimum water level Minimum storage volume: one day's water supply
Overflow to OSD, infiltration trench or street drainage
Supply for irrigation, hot water and toilet flushing
Figure 28. Schematic of a rainwater tank
5.6
The OSD Tank
The design of the OSD tank used in the water balance model is schematised in Figure 29. Stormwater from roofs or rainwater tanks or infiltration trenches, impervious and pervious
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 31
areas is directed to the discharge control pit in the OSD tank. The OSD tank has two chambers: a discharge control pit and site storage chamber.
Stormwater from roofs or infiltration trench or rainwater tank, impervious and pervious areas Discharge control pit Outlet to street drainage
Overflow Stormwater transfer between chambers
Site storage chamber
Infiltration to soil via weep holes
Spill to street drainage system
Figure 29. Schematic elevation view of OSD tank used in the water balance model Stormwater stored in the discharge pit is discharged via an orifice to the street drainage system. If the pit is full stormwater overflows into the site storage chamber. The site storage chamber discharges to the discharge control pit when the discharge control pit empties. Stormwater infiltrates via weep holes to the soil below the discharge control pit and spills to the street drainage system when the chamber and the pit are full.
5.7
The Infiltration Trench
A schematic of the infiltration trench used in the water balance model is shown in Figure 30. Stormwater from roofs or rainwater tanks is directed to the infiltration trench where it is stored in the gravel void spaces for infiltration to the surrounding soil. When the infiltration trench is full it overflows to the street drainage system or to an OSD tank.
Inflow from roofs or rainwater tanks Overflow to street drainage system
Gravel fill with a given void space
Infiltration to soil
Figure 30. Schematic of the infiltration trench used in the water balance model
5.8
Pervious Area
A schematic of the pervious area water balance is shown in Figure 31. A soil type can be chosen from 4 categories: 1 sand, 2 silty sand, 3 sandy clay and 4 clay. Each soil type has a given initial and saturated infiltration rate, and porosity.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
32
The model has two storages: surface or depression storage and soil moisture storage in the effective root zone of chosen vegetation. Rainfall falls on the soil surface, is stored in the depression storage, infiltrates to the soil moisture store and is transferred to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration. When the depression storage is full it overflows to the OSD tank or the street drainage system.
Evapotranspiration Rainfall Depth of depression storage Ground surface Infiltration Soil type Soil moisture store in the root zone Depth of root zone Infiltration
Depression storage Overflow to OSD or street drainage system
Figure 31. Schematic of the pervious area routing in the water balance model Stormwater stored in the soil moisture store infiltrates to the soil below and is transferred to the atmosphere at a rate dependant on the depth of storage.
5.9
Impervious Area
A schematic of the impervious area water balance is shown in Figure 32. Rainfall falls on the paved surface, is stored in the surface storage overflowing to the OSD tank or the street drainage system and the impervious area. Overflows from the roof gutter system are also directed to the impervious area.
Overflow to OSD tank or street drainage system Rainfall Overflow from roofs
Surface storage
Paved surface
Figure 32. Schematic of impervious area routing in the water balance model In preliminary discussions with UPRCT it was judged that explicit routing of surface flows using the time-area method would not be required. Accordingly, no time-area routing was undertaken - stormwater discharge was computed as the product of the average runoff rate and the contributing area. Because rainfall intensity increases with decreasing duration for a given ARI, it is important that rainfall intensities be averaged over the time of concentration of the allotment. The choice of time of concentration turns out to be crucial in this study. A time of concentration of 2 minutes was adopted for this study. This is at variance with the usual value of 5 minutes but is consistent with the experimental evidence presented by Stephens and Kuczera (1999). These authors instrumented two urban allotments in Newcastle. The allotments had areas of 750 and 800 m2 and were monitored over an 18-month period. During
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 33
this period 16 significant storm events were recorded. A time-area model was fitted to the runoff hydrograph for each storm event. The calibrated times of concentration were found to be 2.070.36 mins for one site and 1.730.23 mins for the other. Given that the case study dealt with 600 m2 allotments a time of concentration of 2 minutes was adopted. The DRIP model was set to simulate rainfall depths for 2-minute intervals. By calculating discharge rates using rainfall intensities averaged over 2-minute intervals, time-area routing is implicitly implemented.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
34
6. ALLOTMENT CASE STUDIES

Four case studies were developed to analyse the performance of rainwater tanks in combination with the Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust [UPRCT, 1999] on-site detention (OSD) policy. The case studies examined include a housing allotment, a duplex, a townhouse development and a three story unit development. The developments are assumed to be on a clay soil type. The performance of the developments was assessed in terms of annual maximum peak discharges and water use using continuous simulation over a 1000-year period using the water balance model described in Section 5. Note that average recurrence intervals (ARIs) derived from discharges generated in continuous simulation are a product of entire storms rather than the storm bursts described in Australian Rainfall and Runoff [The Institution of Engineers, Australia, 1987]. The rainfall input to the water balance model was a synthetic pluvio rainfall record simulated using DRIP calibrated to the Ryde Pumping Station. The UPRCTs on-site detention policy is outlined in On Site Detention Handbook [Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust, 1999]. The policy requires a storage volume of 470 m3 per Ha and a permissible site discharge (PSD) of 80 l/s per Ha of land area. The OSD scenario for each development case is designed in accordance with the On Site Detention Handbook. All stormwater runoff from roofs, impervious and pervious areas is directed to the OSD tanks. The rainwater tank scenario for each development assumes that rainwater from tanks is used to supply hot water, toilet and irrigation uses. Mains water is used to top up the rainwater tanks at a rate of 12 litres per hour in dry periods and for household uses not supplied with rainwater. A linear regression was developed to estimate daily household water use for the Parramatta region using climate, socio-economic and water use data from the Lower Hunter Region zones (Tables 7 and 8). The monthly daily average indoor water use (litres/day) is:
inDem = 27.79 + 145.69 P 0.422 M 10.579 AveR + 6.74 AveRdays 0.162 Inc 12.28 G + 0.49 AveTemp
(3)
where P is the number of occupants in the dwelling, M is a seasonal index ranging from 1 to 6, Inc is average weekly income per person ($), AveR is the average of the monthly daily average rainfall, AveRdays is the mean of the number of rain days in a month, G is annual population growth (%) and AveTemp is the mean of the monthly daily average temperature (C). Equation (3) yielded an R2 value of 0.81. The monthly daily average outdoor water use (litres/day) is:
exDayDem = 251 .5 + 7 . 53 M 11 . 3 AveR 0 .025 Inc 0 .816 Rdays + 24 . 44 G + 19 . 08 AveTemp
(4)
Equation (4) yielded an R2 of 0.69. Another linear regression relationship was developed to estimate actual monthly outdoor water use (litres/month):
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
35
exDem = 10203 977 .6M 4.7 R 3.53Inc 209 .8Rdays + 606 .8G + 14.02 AveTemp
(5)
where R is the rainfall for the month and Rdays is the number of rain days in the month. Equation (5) produced a relatively poor fit to the HWC data yielding an R2 of 0.36. However, its primary purpose is to calibrate the probabilistic behavioural model of daily outdoor water demand described in Section 5.1 to the Parramatta region. The calibration was accomplished simulating monthly outdoor water use using a long sequence of daily climate data in the Parramatta area and searching for parameters that reproduced the total of the monthly average outdoor water use given by equation (5). The estimated average daily water use for the Parramatta area is shown in Table 9. Table 9. Estimated household water use for the Parramatta area Average water use (Litres per day) Exhouse Inhouse Month 1 person 2 people 3 people 4 people 5+ people January 206 166 312 457 603 749 February 209 158 304 450 595 741 March 206 167 312 458 604 749 April 180 149 294 440 586 731 May 141 167 312 458 604 749 June 103 160 306 451 597 743 July 111 155 301 447 593 738 August 152 151 297 442 588 734 September 184 153 299 444 590 736 October 222 164 310 455 601 747 November 250 165 310 456 602 747 December 294 162 307 453 599 744 Two rainwater tank options are considered for each case study. One scenario uses a rainwater tank with no airspace for detention. The other rainwater tank scenario uses a rainwater tank with airspace for detention and an outlet with a 30 mm diameter orifice.
6.1
Single Dwelling Study
The single dwelling scenario consists of a 600 m2 allotment, a house with a roof area of 150 m2 and a paved surface area of 200 m2 (Figure 33). Applying the OSD rules from the On Site Detention Handbook to this site results in a site storage volume of 28.2 m3, a 48 mm diameter orifice plate outlet to provide a PSD of 0.0048 m3/s to the street drainage system.
6.1.1
Stormwater impacts
Stormwater peak discharges from the allotment for the OSD and 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios where tank water is used for hot water, toilet and outdoor supply are shown in Figure 34 and reported in Table 10. The OSD scenario is shown to significantly reduce peak discharges, although the maximum allowable peak discharge prescribed by the On-site Detention Handbook was exceeded for all ARIs greater than 63 years.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
36
When interpreting Figure 34 and other similar figures it is important to understand the limitations of the 1000-year continuous simulation. Because of Monte Carlo sampling variability the discharges at high ARIs, say greater than 200 years, are subject to wide confidence limits. Caution needs to be exercised when interpreting results for high ARIs, say greater than 200 years. Some of the artefacts introduced by sampling variability have been moderated by using the same rainfall record for scenario. Nonetheless, the high ARI discharges should be considered as indicative.
Rainwater tank
Roof area: 150 m2
Paved surfaces area: 2002
Allotment area: 600 m2
Figure 33. Schematic of the single dwelling layout.

0.3
0.25
NoOSDTank OSD
Peak discharge (m3/s)
5 kL tank
0.2
10 kL tank
15 k L tank
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 1 10 100 1000
ARI (year)
Figure 34. Peak discharges from the allotment with rainwater tanks Figure 34 reveals that the 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tanks with no detention did not significantly reduce peak discharges from an allotment with no OSD and rainwater tank. Peak
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
37
discharges from the allotment are dominated by discharges from the impervious area (200 m2) not managed by the rainwater tank. Stormwater peak discharges from the allotment for the 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios with detention and a 30 mm diameter orifice are shown in Figure 35 and reported in Table 10.
0.3
NoOSDTank OSD
0.25
5 kL tank with 2.5 m3 detention 10 kL tank with 5 m3 detention
0.2
15 kL tank with 7.5 m3 detention
0.15
0.1
0.05
0 1 10
ARI (year)
100
1000
Figure 35. Peak discharges from the allotment using rainwater tanks with detention Figure 35 reveals that the 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tanks with detention did not significantly reduce peak discharges below that from an allotment with no OSD or rainwater tank. Table 10. Peak discharges from the allotment Peak discharge (m3/s) at ARI (years) Scenario 1 2 5 100 No OSD & rainwater tank 0.009 0.032 0.056 0.165 OSD 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.049 5 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.006 0.029 0.053 0.163 3 5 kL Rainwater tank with 2.5 m airspace 0.006 0.022 0.049 0.159 10 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.005 0.025 0.050 0.162 3 10 kL Rainwater tank with 5 m airspace 0.005 0.021 0.043 0.156 15 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.005 0.023 0.048 0.160 3 15 kL Rainwater tank with 7.5 m airspace 0.005 0.021 0.041 0.153 Figures 34 and 35 provide limited detail about small ARI discharges, whereas Table 10 summarises peak discharges for 1, 2, 5 and 100 year ARIs. The Table shows that the rainwater tank scenarios significantly reduced peak discharges for the 1 and 2 year ARIs, but were ineffective for higher ARIs.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
38
Table 11 presents for the OSD and rainwater tank scenarios the OSD volumes required to ensure that there are no significant overflows from the allotment up to the 100 year ARI. These volumes were found using a search algorithm. A significant overflow is defined as a volume of stormwater greater than 2 mm times the site area. The scenarios examined include rainwater tanks used to supply hot water, toilet and outdoor uses, rainwater tanks used to supply outdoor uses only, and households with 3 and 5 occupants. Table 11. OSD storage requirements for different scenarios OSD storage requirement (m3) Scenarios Hot water, toilet and outdoor uses Outdoor use 3 people 5 people only OSD only 55 55 55 5 kL tank 54 54 55 5 kL tank + 2.5 m3 detention 52 52 52 10 kL tank 50 49 54 3 10 kL tank + 5 m detention 48 48 53 15 kL tank 48 47 52 3 15 kL tank + 7.5 m detention 45 45 49 Using Table 11 the percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as part of the overall site OSD storage volume when the rainwater tank is used for hot water, toilet and irrigation is calculated and the results are shown in Table 12. Table 12. Percentage of rainwater tank volume contributing to OSD storage volume Occupants Tank size (m3) Airspace for detention (%) 5 10 15 3 0 20 50 47 3 50 60 70 67 5 0 20 60 53 5 50 60 70 67 From Table 12 the average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD storage volume is 42% for the rainwater tank with no airspace for detention and 65% for the rainwater tank with half of its volume for airspace. The rainwater tank scenarios revealed insignificant peak discharge reduction from the allotment and small reductions in OSD site storage requirement for all ARIs greater than 2 years. The reason for this result is simple. Rainwater tanks only intercept roof runoff whereas all stormwater runoff from the roof, pervious and impervious areas is directed to the OSD tank that also provided more storage space than the rainwater tank prior to the annual maximum storms. However, focussing on peak discharge obscures a significant benefit attributable to rainwater tanks. Figure 36 compares the hydrographs from a typical annual maximum storm event for three scenarios. The OSD tank scenario is shown to have a significantly lower peak discharge than the two rainwater tank scenarios. However, the important result is the difference between the volumes of the hydrographs. The rainwater tank reduces the volume of surface runoff discharging from the allotment to the catchment, whereas the OSD solution does not reduce stormwater runoff volumes. The rainwater tank provides retention as well as detention
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
39
storage, while the OSD tank only provides detention storage. Water levels in rainwater tanks used to supply domestic toilet flushing, outdoor and hot water uses are constantly drawn down. This ensures that the rainwater tank regularly has storage capacity available to accept roof runoff resulting in reduced mains water use and stormwater discharge. The importance of reducing stormwater runoff volumes rather than peak discharges from individual allotments for stormwater management in catchments has not been apparent to the stormwater industry. Many authors such as Argue et al., (2000), Andoh et al., (1999) and Scott et al., (1998) report that the cumulative effect of volume reduction provided by site retention techniques such as infiltration measures and rainwater tanks more than compensates for the higher peak discharges from individual sites on catchments. Analysis of urban subdivisions by Coombes et al. (2000c and 2000d) revealed that the use of source control measures including rainwater tanks produced substantial peak discharge reductions from the subdivided catchment that will reduce the need for centralised stormwater infrastructure. A summary of these results is presented in Kuczera et al. (2001). An analysis of the performance of a subcatchment that contains rainwater tanks on individual allotments will be required to determine the larger-scale benefits of different sized rainwater tanks.
0.07
0.06
No OSD & Tank OSD 10kL Tank 0.0 m3 airspace
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (minutes)
Figure 36. Hydrographs of stormwater discharge from rainwater tanks and OSD from a single storm event
6.1.2
Water supply impacts
Other benefits were also estimated for the rainwater tank scenarios. The use of rainwater tanks resulted in reductions in mains water use. The mains water use reductions for a 4 person household are shown in Table 13.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
40
Table 13. Mains water use reductions in a 4 person household Scenario Reduction (kL/year) Reduction (%) 5 kL tank 48 30.5 3 5 kL tank + 2.5 m detention 34 21.8 10 kL tank 60 38.6 3 10 kL tank + 5 m detention 47 30 15 kL tank 67 42.6 15 kL tank + 7.5 m3 detention 55 35
6.1.3
Costs
The construction costs for each scenario, the value of annual water savings and the initial investment required to fund each scenario over a 50 year period at a 6% interest rate are presented in Table 14. The initial investment is calculated using the maintenance and replacement costs, and water savings from each scenario. It is noted that the true water supply savings from adoption of rainwater tanks come from deferral of source augmentation [Coombes et al., 2001]. However, it is beyond the scope of this report to include these savings. Table 14. Construction costs and value of water savings for different scenarios Scenario Construction Annual Investment ($) cost ($) Savings ($) OSD 13800 0 15055 5 kL tank + OSD 15400 44.16 16360 5 kL tank , 2.5 m3 detention + OSD 15200 31.28 16350 10 kl tank + OSD 15420 55.20 16210 10 kL tank , 5 m3 detention + OSD 13790 43.24 14760 15 kL tank + OSD 15200 61.64 15880 3 15 kL tank, 7.5 m detention + OSD 13170 50.60 14030
6.1.4
Summary
The construction of the 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios with detention is shown to be less expensive than the OSD only scenario. The 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios with detention provided site detention in excess of half the tank capacity. At a minimum the use of these two solutions will provide a reduction of the OSD site storage requirement of half the tank capacity. In addition all rainwater tank scenarios provide ongoing water savings to the residents. The different peak discharges from the OSD and rainwater tank scenarios can be attributed to the different contributing areas for each measure. The rainwater tank only intercepted roof runoff whereas all stormwater runoff was directed to the OSD tank. It is suggested that rainwater tanks could be combined with other source control measures such as porous paving, landscaping, retention trenches or a strategy to minimise directly connected impervious areas to form an optimum source control solution. The alternative source control measures delay and slow the discharge of stormwater from allotments or catchments whilst maximising the potential for infiltration (see Coombes and Kuczera, 2000c & 2000d).
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
41
The average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD storage volume is 42% for the rainwater tank with no airspace for detention and 65% for the rainwater tank with half of its volume for airspace. A catchment wide analysis of distributed rainwater tanks and OSD devices should be conducted to determine the true benefits of the strategies. This analysis will need to properly account for rainwater tanks or OSD devices in their actual location in the catchment rather than the current practice of assuming a large detention or storage at the centroid of the catchment. The current practice is likely to produce misleading results.
6.2
Duplex Study
The duplex case study, illustrate din Figure 37, consists of two units, each with a roof areas of 125 m2, garages with a roof area of 50 m2 and a paved area of 200 m2 on an allotment with an area of 600 m2.
6.2.1
Stormwater impact
Stormwater peak discharges from the duplex development for the OSD and 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL scenarios are shown in Figure 38 and reported in Table 15. The OSD scenario is shown to reduce peak discharges, although the maximum allowable peak discharge prescribed by the On-site Detention Handbook was exceeded for all ARIs greater than 12 years.
Unit 1 Area: 125 m2
Rainwater tanks
Garages Area: 50 m2
Paved surfaces Area: 200 m2
Unit 2 Area: 125 m2
OSD tank
Allotment area: 600 m2
Figure 37. Schematic of the duplex layout The rainwater tank scenarios show greater peak discharge reduction for the duplex development than from the allotment scenarios. Nonetheless, peak discharges from the duplex remain dominated by discharges from the impervious area (200 m2) not managed by the rainwater tank. Stormwater peak discharges from the duplex development for the 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios with detention and a 30 mm diameter orifice are shown in Figure 39 and reported in Table 15.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
42
0.3
0.25 NoOSDTank OSD 5 kL tank 0.15 10 kL tank 15 k L tank 0.1
0.2
0.05
0 1 10 100 1000
ARI (year)
Figure 38. Peak discharges from the duplex development with rainwater tanks 0.3 NoOSDTank OSD 5 kL tank with 2.5 m3 detention 10 kL tank with 5 m3 detention 15 kL tank with 7.5 m3 detention
0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1
10
ARI (year)
100
1000
Figure 39. Peak discharges from the duplex using rainwater tanks with detention The 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tanks with detention show significant peak discharge reductions up to the 100 year ARI. Annual maximum peak discharges from the duplex are dominated by discharges from the impervious area (200 m2) not managed by the rainwater tank.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 43
Table 15. Peak discharges from the duplex development Peak discharge (m3/s) at ARI (years) Scenario 1 2 5 100 No OSD & rainwater tank 0.014 0.042 0.066 0.172 OSD 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.128 5 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.009 0.038 0.061 0.166 3 5 kL Rainwater tank with 2.5 m airspace 0.006 0.024 0.051 0.162 10 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.005 0.029 0.054 0.166 3 10 kL Rainwater tank with 5 m airspace 0.005 0.020 0.036 0.159 15 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.005 0.024 0.048 0.163 3 15 kL Rainwater tank with 7.5 m airspace 0.005 0.019 0.033 0.153 Roof areas in the duplex development occupy a greater proportion of the site area than the roofs in the single allotment case study. The improved performance of the rainwater tank scenarios results from a greater proportion of the site area connected to rainwater tanks and an accumulation of detention and retention storages. Table 16 presents for the OSD and rainwater tank scenarios the OSD volumes required to ensure that there are no significant overflows from the allotment up to the 100 year ARI. These volumes were found using a search algorithm. A significant overflow is defined as a volume of stormwater greater than 2 mm times the site area. The scenarios examined includes rainwater tanks used to supply hot water, toilet and outdoor uses, rainwater tanks used to supply outdoor uses only, and households with 3 and 5 occupants. Table 16. OSD site storage required for different scenarios Site storage requirement (m3) Scenarios Hot water, toilet and outdoor uses Outdoor use 3 people 5 people only OSD 67 67 67 5 kL tank 62 61 64 5 kL tank + 2.5 m3 detention 60 59 61 10 kL tank 59 58 60 3 10 kL tank + 5 m detention 53 52 55 15 kL tank 52 50 54 3 15 kL tank + 7.5 m detention 47 46 49 Using Table 16 the percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as part of the overall site OSD storage volume when the rainwater tank is used for hot water, toilet and irrigation is calculated and the results are shown in Table 17. Table 17. Percentage of rainwater tank volume contributing to OSD storage volume Occupants Tank size (m3) Airspace for detention (%) 5 10 15 3 0 50 40 50 3 50 70 70 67 5 0 60 45 57 5 50 80 75 70
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
44
From Table 17 the average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD storage volume is 50% for the rainwater tank with no airspace for detention and 72% for the rainwater tank with half of its volume for airspace.
6.2.2
The water supply benefits derived for the rainwater tanks scenarios are similar to the allotment case study. The benefits are reported in Table 18. Table 18. Mains water use reductions in a 4 person household Scenario Reduction (kL/year) Reduction (%) 5 kL tanks 96 30.5 3 5 kL tanks with 2.5 m detention 68 21.8 10 kL tanks 120 38.6 3 10 kL tanks with 5 m detention 94 30 15 kL tanks 134 42.6 15 kL tanks with 7.5 m3 detention 110 35
6.2.3
Costs
The construction costs for each scenario, the value of annual water savings and the initial investment required to fund each scenario over a 50 year period at an interest rate of 6% are presented in Table 19. The initial investment is calculated using the maintenance and replacement costs, and water savings from each scenario. Table 19. Construction costs and value of water savings for different scenarios Scenario from Table 16 Construction Annual Investment cost ($) Savings ($) ($) OSD 16544 0 17800 5 kL tank + OSD 19440 88.32 20100 5 kL tank , 2.5 m3 detention + OSD 19057 62.56 20100 10 kl tank + OSD 20251 110.40 20580 3 10 kL tank , 5 m detention + OSD 17612 86.48 18300 15 kL tank + OSD 20254 123.28 20390 15 kL tank, 7.5 m3 detention + OSD 17006 101.20 17470
6.2.4
Summary
The rainwater tank scenarios have shown significant peak discharge reductions, although discharges from the impervious surfaces not connected to the rainwater tanks have dominated discharges from the duplex at ARIs up to 10 years. In combination with a policy to manage or minimise directly connected impervious areas rainwater tanks could form an effective stormwater management strategy. The 10 kL rainwater tank with 5 m3 detention and the 15 kL rainwater tank with 7.5 m3 detention are a promising solution with marginally higher construction costs and lower investment costs than the OSD solution. The rainwater tank scenarios without detention produced a reduction in required OSD storage volume equivalent to 50% of the rainwater tank capacity. The rainwater tank scenarios with detention produced a reduction in required OSD site storage volume equivalent to 72% of the rainwater tank capacity.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
45
6.3
Townhouse Development Study
The townhouse case study, illustrated in Figure 40, consists of 9 double story townhouses with roof areas of 98 m2 each and paved surfaces with an area of 519 m2 situated on an allotment with an area of 1858 m2. Applying the UPRCT OSD rules to this site results in a site storage volume of 87.3 m3, a 110 mm diameter orifice plate outlet to provide a PSD of 0.015 m3/s to the street drainage system.
1 2
Rainwater tanks
8
Paved surfaces 2 area: 519 m
3
Two story townhouses roof areas: 2 98 m
7 6
5
OSD tank Allotment area: 2 1858 m
Figure 40. Schematic of the townhouse development.
6.3.1
Stormwater impact
Stormwater peak discharges from the townhouse development for rainwater tanks with no airspace for detention scenarios are shown in Figure 41 and reported in Table 19. The OSD scenario is shown to reduce peak discharges, although the maximum allowable peak discharge prescribed by the UPRCT OSD policy was exceeded for all ARIs greater than 22 years. The rainwater tank with no airspace for detention scenarios exhibited large reductions in peak discharges below that from a townhouse development with no OSD and rainwater tank storage. The greatest reductions occur for ARIs up to 2 years, but the reductions remain appreciable even for large ARIs. Nonetheless, stormwater discharges from the rainwater tank scenarios are dominated by discharges from the impervious areas not connected to the rainwater tanks. In combination with a policy to manage directly connected impervious areas the 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tanks could produce equivalent stormwater management results to the current UPRCT OSD policy. Stormwater peak discharges from the townhouse development for the 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios with detention and a 30 mm diameter orifice are shown in Figure 42 and reported in Table 20.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
46
0.9 0.8
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1
NoOSDTank OSD 5 kL tank 10 kL tank 15 k L tank
10
100
1000
ARI (year)
Figure 41. Comparison between rainwater tanks without detention and UPRCT OSD policy for the townhouse development
0.9 0.8 0.7
NoOSDTank OSD 5 kL tank with 2.5 m3 detention 10 kL tank with 5 m3 detention 15 kL tank with 7.5 m3 detention
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1
10
100
1000
ARI (year)
Figure 42. Comparison between rainwater tanks with detention and UPRCT OSD policy for the townhouse development
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
47
Table 20. Peak discharges from the townhouse development. Peak discharge (m3/s) at ARI (years) Scenario 1 2 5 100 No OSD & rainwater tank 0.043 0.123 0.197 0.528 OSD 0.008 0.015 0.018 0.311 5 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.012 0.083 0.161 0.509 3 5 kL Rainwater tank with 2.5 m airspace 0.009 0.046 0.138 0.481 10 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.012 0.058 0.119 0.494 3 10 kL Rainwater tank with 5 m airspace 0.002 0.024 0.065 0.480 15 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m3 airspace 0.012 0.053 0.100 0.420 3 15 kL Rainwater tank with 7.5 m airspace 0.001 0.021 0.048 0.452 All of the rainwater tank scenarios with airspace for detention showed significant peak discharge reduction. The 10 and 15 kL rainwater tanks with detention show very significant peak discharge reductions for all ARIs and greater peak discharge reductions than the OSD scenario for ARIs greater than about 350 years. Annual maximum peak discharges from the townhouse development up to the 2 year ARI are dominated by discharges from the impervious area (591 m2) not managed by the rainwater tanks. Roof areas in the townhouse development occupy a greater proportion of the site area than the roofs in the single dwelling case study. The improved performance of the rainwater tank scenarios results from a greater proportion of the site area connected to rainwater tanks and an accumulation of detention and retention storages. Table 21 presents for the OSD and rainwater tank scenarios the OSD volumes required to ensure that there are no significant overflows from the allotment up to the 100 year ARI. These volumes were found using a search algorithm. A significant overflow is defined as a volume of stormwater greater than 2 mm times the site area. The scenarios examined includes rainwater tanks used to supply hot water, toilet and outdoor uses, rainwater tanks used to supply outdoor uses only, and households with 3 and 5 occupants. Table 21. Site storage required for different scenarios Site storage requirement (m3) Scenarios Hot water, toilet and outdoor uses Outdoor use 3 people 5 people only OSD 165 165 165 5 kL tank 150 148 153 5 kL tank + 2.5 m3 detention 142 140 141 10 kL tank 133 131 138 3 10 kL tank + 5 m detention 119 117 123 15 kL tank 104 102 113 3 15 kL tank + 7.5 m detention 94 91 106 Using Table 21 the percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as part of the overall site OSD storage volume when the rainwater tank is used for hot water, toilet and irrigation is calculated and the results are shown in Table 22.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
48
Table 22. Percentage of rainwater tank volume contributing to OSD storage volume Airspace for Occupants Tank size (m3) detention (%) 5 10 15 3 0 33 36 45 3 50 52 51 53 5 0 38 38 47 5 50 56 53 55 From Table 22 the average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD storage volume is 40% for the rainwater tank with no airspace for detention and 53% for the rainwater tank with half of its volume for airspace.
6.3.2
Other benefits were also estimated for the rainwater tank scenarios. The use of rainwater tanks resulted in reductions in mains water use. The mains water use reductions for 4 person households in the townhouse development are shown in Table 23. Table 23. Mains water use reductions in a 4 person household. Scenario Reduction (kL/year) Reduction (%) 5 kL tanks 306 26.9 3 5 kL tanks with 2.5 m detention 230 20.2 10 kL tanks 368 32.4 3 10 kL tanks with 5 m detention 302 26.6 15 kL tanks 395 34.8 3 15 kL tanks with 7.5 m detention 341 30
6.3.3
Costs
The construction costs for each scenario, the value of annual water savings and the initial investment required to fund each scenario over a 50 year period at an interest rate of 6% are presented in Table 24. The initial investment is calculated using the maintenance and replacement costs, and water savings from each scenario. Table 24. Construction costs and value of annual savings for different scenarios. Scenario Construction Annual Investment cost ($) Savings ($) ($) OSD 30130 0 31385 5 kL tank + OSD 42147 281.52 42440 5 kL tank , 2.5 m3 detention + OSD 35730 211.60 37070 10 kl tank + OSD 37125 338.56 36570 3 10 kL tank , 5 m detention + OSD 37540 277.84 37890 15 kL tank + OSD 42902 363.40 41980 3 15 kL tank, 7.5 m detention + OSD 38244 313.72 38160
6.3.4
Summary
The rainwater tank scenarios produced significant peak discharge reduction from the townhouse development and annual water savings. In combination with a strategy to manage
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
49
impervious areas rainwater tanks could produce similar stormwater management results to the current UPRCT OSD policy. The rainwater tank scenarios without detention produce a reduction in required OSD site storage volume equivalent to 40% of the rainwater tank capacity. The rainwater tank scenarios with detention produce a reduction in required OSD site storage volume equivalent to 53% of the rainwater tank capacity.
6.4
Three-Storey Walk-Up Apartments
The apartment case study, illustrated in Figure 43, consists of 8 units in a building with a roof area of 600 m2 and paved surfaces with an area of 200 m2 situated on an allotment with an area of 1200 m2. Applying the UPRCT OSD rules to this site results in a site storage volume of 56.3 m3, a 67 mm diameter orifice plate outlet to provide a PSD of 0.0096 m3/s to the street drainage system.
Three story units 2 roof area 600 m
Impervious area 2 200 m
OSD tank
Allotment area 1200 m
Figure 43. Schematic of apartment case study layout.
6.4.1
Stormwater impact
Stormwater peak discharges from the apartment development for rainwater tanks with no airspace for detention scenarios are shown in Figure 44 and reported in Table 25. The OSD scenario is shown to reduce peak discharges, although the maximum allowable peak discharge prescribed by the UPRCT OSD policy was exceeded for all ARIs greater than 20 years. No attempt has been made to optimise the design of the rainwater tank scenarios. Indeed the results indicate that a greater volume of rainwater storage could be used for this type of scenario. However the rainwater tank with no airspace for detention scenarios exhibited reductions in peak discharges from the apartment development for all ARIs. Nonetheless, stormwater discharges from the rainwater tank scenarios are dominated by discharges from the impervious areas not connected to the rainwater tanks. In combination with a policy to
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
50
manage directly connected impervious areas the 15 kL and 20 kL rainwater tanks could produce peak discharge outcomes equivalent to the current UPRCT OSD policy.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
NoOSDTank OSD 5 kL tank 10 kL tank 15 k L tank 20 k L tank
0.2
0.1
0 1 10 100 1000
ARI (year)
Figure 44. Comparison between rainwater tanks without detention and UPRCT OSD policy for the apartment development
0.6
0.5
0.4
NoOSDTank OSD 5 kL tank with 2.5 m3 detention 10 kL tank with 5 m3 detention 15 kL tank with 7.5 m3 detention 20 kL tank with 10 m3 detention
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 1 10 100 1000
ARI (year)
Figure 45. Comparison between rainwater tanks with detention and UPRCT OSD policy for the apartment development
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
51
Stormwater peak discharges from the apartment development for the 5 kL, 10 kL and 15 kL rainwater tank scenarios with detention and a 30 mm diameter orifice are shown in Figure 45 and reported in Table 25. All of the rainwater tank scenarios with detention showed peak discharge reductions. The 15 kL and 20 kL rainwater tank with detention scenarios show very significant peak discharge reductions for all ARIs. Nonetheless, beyond a certain ARI, which is dependant on tank storage, annual maximum peak discharges from the apartment development are dominated by discharges from the impervious area (200 m2) not managed by the rainwater tanks. Table 25. Peak discharges from the apartment development Peak discharge (m3/s) at ARI (years) Scenario 1 2 5 100 No OSD & rainwater tank 0.024 0.073 0.121 0.335 OSD 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.227 3 5 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m airspace 0.009 0.059 0.107 0.328 5 kL Rainwater tank with 2.5 m3 airspace 0.008 0.037 0.091 0.311 3 10 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m airspace 0.005 0.042 0.091 0.322 10 kL Rainwater tank with 5 m3 airspace 0.006 0.028 0.062 0.311 3 15 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m airspace 0.005 0.033 0.075 0.314 15 kL Rainwater tank with 7.5 m3 airspace 0.005 0.026 0.055 0.291 3 20 kL Rainwater tank with 0.0 m airspace 0.005 0.028 0.065 0.299 3 20 kL Rainwater tank with 10 m airspace 0.005 0.025 0.053 0.235 The site storage volume component of OSD required to achieve compliance with the UPRCT OSD policy for each scenario is shown in Table 26. The OSD volumes presented in Table 26 ensure no significant overflows occur from the allotment up to the 100 year ARI event. Table 26. Site storage required for different scenarios. Site storage requirement (m3) Scenarios Hot water, toilet and outdoor uses Outdoor use 3 people 5 people only OSD 119 119 119 5 kL tank 115 114 117 5 kL tank + 2.5 m3 detention 109 108 111 10 kL tank 112 111 115 10 kL tank + 5 m3 detention 99 97 103 15 kL tank 99 97 105 3 15 kL tank + 7.5 m detention 90 89 95 20 kL tank 80 79 84 3 20 kL tank + 10 m detention 80 78 84 Using Table 26 the percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as part of the overall site OSD storage volume when the rainwater tank is used for hot water, toilet and irrigation is calculated and the results are shown in Table 27.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
52
Table 27. Percentage of rainwater tank volume contributing to OSD storage volume Airspace for Occupants Tank size (m3) detention (%) 5 10 15 20 3 0 20 18 33 49 3 50 50 50 48 49 5 0 25 20 37 50 5 50 55 55 50 51 From Table 27 the average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD storage volume is 32% for the rainwater tank with no airspace for detention and 51% for the rainwater tank with half of its volume for airspace. The results show that the larger (15 and 20 kL) rainwater tanks are more successful for stormwater management when no provision for airspace is made.
6.4.2
Other benefits were also estimated for the rainwater tank scenarios. The use of rainwater tanks resulted in reductions in mains water use. The mains water use reductions for 4 person households in the apartment development are shown in Table 28. Table 28. Mains water use reductions in a 4 person household. Scenario Reduction (kL/year) Reduction (%) 5 kL tanks 213 17.1 3 5 kL tanks with 2.5 m detention 150 12 10 kL tanks 274 22 3 10 kL tanks with 5 m detention 211 16.9 15 kL tanks 305 24.4 3 15 kL tanks with 7.5 m detention 247 19.8 20 kL tanks 313 28.7 3 20 kL tanks with 10 m detention 264 24.2
6.4.3
Costs
The construction costs for each scenario, the value of annual water savings and the initial investment required to fund each scenario over a 50 year period at an interest rate of 6% are presented in Table 29. The initial investment is calculated using the maintenance and replacement costs, and water savings from each scenario. Table 29. Construction costs and value of annual savings for different scenarios. Scenario Construction Annual Investment cost ($) Savings ($) ($) OSD 24460 0 25715 5 kL tank + OSD 30860 195.96 30640 5 kL tank , 2.5 m3 detention + OSD 28140 138 28780 10 kl tank + OSD 30890 252.08 29830 3 10 kL tank , 5 m detention + OSD 28070 194.12 27870 15 kL tank + OSD 29780 280.60 28295 15 kL tank, 7.5 m3 detention + OSD 26720 227.24 25710 20 kL tank + OSD 29790 287.96 28195 20 kL tank, 10 m3 detention + OSD 25689 242.88 24765
53
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
6.4.4
Summary
The rainwater tank scenarios have shown significant peak discharge reductions, although discharges from the impervious surfaces not connected to the rainwater tanks dominate discharges from the apartment development at higher ARIs. In combination with a policy to manage or minimise directly connected impervious areas rainwater tanks could form an effective stormwater management strategy. The 15 kL rainwater tank with 7.5 m3 detention and the 20 kL rainwater tank are promising solutions with marginally higher construction costs and lower investment costs than the OSD-only solution. The rainwater tank scenarios without detention produced a reduction in required OSD site storage volume equivalent to 31% of the rainwater tank capacity. The rainwater tank scenarios with detention produced a reduction in required OSD site storage volume equivalent to 51% of the rainwater tank capacity.
6.5
Case Study Conclusions
Continuous simulation using a 1000-year synthetic storm record was used to evaluate the performance of four different types of allotment with different configurations of OSD and rainwater tank storage. Table 30 summarizes the performance of UPRCTs OSD policy for different allotment scenarios. Three important findings are noted: 1. The PSD is exceeded for ARIs well below 100 years. An exceedance was defined as an overflow event in which the volume of stormwater was greater than 2 mm times the allotment area. A corollary of this is that the OSD storage requirement to achieve compliance with the 100 year PSD is almost double that of the UPRCTs current OSD requirement. It is noted that these results are highly sensitive to the choice of time of concentration. In this study a time of concentration of 2 minutes was adopted to be consistent with the experimental observations of Stephens and Kuczera (1999). If the widely used time of concentration of 5 minutes were adopted the complying OSD volume reduces from 55 m3 to 29 m3 for a single dwelling allotment. However, the authors cannot find experimental evidence in support of the 5 minute value and therefore did not consider it. 2. The PSD depends on the allotment type and impervious fraction. It is suggested the OSD policy discriminate according to allotment type and its impervious fraction. Allotment scenario Table 30. Performance of UPRCT OSD policy. Impervious Total UPRCT PSD OSD storage for ARI at fraction (%) area PSD to be exceeded L/s which OSD (m2) at 100 yr ARI PSD is storage 3 (m3) exceeded (m ) 58 600 28.2 4.8 63 55 83 600 28.2 4.8 12 67 75 1858 87.3 14.9 22 165 67 1200 56.3 9.6 15 119
Single dwelling Duplex Townhouse Apartment
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
54
The effectiveness of rainwater tanks as a stormwater management measure was found to increase with housing density. As the proportion of the allotment area (roofs) contributing to the rainwater tank increased the peak allotment discharge for a given ARI decreased further below the peak discharge for an allotment with no OSD or rainwater tanks. Rainwater tanks used to supply in-house uses were found to have storage volumes available for stormwater retention at the beginning of over 90% of annual maximum storm events. In combination with a policy to manage or limit directly connected impervious areas rainwater tanks could produce similar stormwater management performance as the current UPRCT OSD policy. The average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD site storage is presented in Table 31 for each allotment scenario. Table 31. Average percentage of rainwater tank volume that can be counted as OSD site storage Volume of rainwater tank counting as OSD storage (%) Scenario No airspace in tank 50% airspace in tank Allotment 42 65 Duplex 50 72 Townhouses 40 53 Walk up apartments 32 51 The rainwater tank scenarios in which no air space was provided for stormwater detention demonstrated a reduction in required OSD storage volume equivalent to about 41% of the rainwater tank capacity. In contrast, the rainwater tank scenarios with air space for stormwater detention demonstrated a reduction in required OSD storage volume equivalent to 60% of the rainwater tank capacity. The averages presented in Table 31 are indicative of the rainwater tank contribution to OSD storage. The actual OSD contribution of rainwater tanks depends on the tank volume, the inclusion of airspace and the allotment type. It is recommended that the site-specific values presented in Tables 12, 17, 22 and 27 be used. Focussing on peak discharges at the allotment scale may obscure the true benefits of rainwater tanks for stormwater management. Rainwater tanks reduce volumes of stormwater discharged into the larger catchment, whereas OSD tanks merely detain the stormwater. The cumulative effect of volume reduction provided by rainwater tanks may more than compensate for the higher peak discharges from individual allotments. The stormwater hydrograph from larger catchments may be more sensitive to runoff reductions from subcatchments than short delays in subcatchment runoff. The current practice of modelling distributed storage or detention devices within a catchment as a single entity at the centroid of a catchment may produce misleading results. It is recommended that the UPRCT undertake a study to analyse the stormwater performance of catchments in which OSD and rainwater tanks are distributed according to their actual location within the catchment.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
55
7. REFERENCES
Andoh R. Y. G. & Declerck, C. (1999). Source control and distributed storage a cost effective approach to urban drainage in the new millennium. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Urban Storm Drainage.1319-1326. Sydney. Australia. Argue J. R., and Scott P., (2000). On-site stormwater retention (OSR) in residential catchments: a better option? 40th Annual Conference, NSW Floodplain Management Authorities. AS/NZS3500.1.2, (1998). Water supply: acceptable solutions Committee for the Uniformity of Plumbing and Drainage Regulations in NSW., (1999). NSW code of practice. Plumbing and drainage. Coombes, P.J., Kuczera, G., Argue, J. and Kalma, J.D., (2001). An evaluation of the benefits of source control measures at the regional scale. Urban Water Journal, in review. London, UK. Coombes P.J., and Kuczera G., (2001a). Rainwater tank design for water supply and stormwater management. Stormwater Industry Association 2001 Regional Conference, Port Stephens, NSW. Coombes P. J., Argue J. R., & Kuczera, G. (2000). Figtree Place: A case study in Water Sensitive Urban Development. Urban Water Journal, 4(1). London, UK. Coombes P. J., Kuczera G., & Kalma J. D. (2000a). A behavioural model for prediction of exhouse water demand, 3rd International Hydrology and Water Resource Symposium, 793-798, Perth, Australia. Coombes P. J., Kuczera G., Kalma J. D.,& Dunstan R. H., (2000b). Rainwater quality from roofs, tanks and hot water systems at Figtree Place, 3rd International Hydrology and Water Resource Symposium, 1042-1047. Perth, Australia. Coombes P. J. & Kuczera G. (2000c). Tank Paddock: A comparison between WSUD and traditional approaches. Research Report for Newcastle City Council. Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering. University of Newcastle. Coombes P. J. & Kuczera G. (2000d). Nikinba Ridge Fletcher: A comparison between WSUD and traditional approaches. Research Report for Newcastle City Council. Department of Civil, Surveying and Environmental Engineering. University of Newcastle. Coombes P. J., Kuczera G., & Kalma J. D. (2000e). Economic benefits arising from use of Water Sensitive Urban Development source control measures, 3rd International Hydrology and Water Resource Symposium, 152-157. Perth, Australia. Coombes P. J., (1997). Towards sustainable asset management of stormwater drainage systems. Unpublished thesis. University of Newcastle. Cox D., and Cartwright A., (1998). Water usage at Stringybark Grove an environmentally sustainable housing development. Sydney Water Corporation. Cunliffe D. A., (1998). Guidance on the use of rainwater tanks. South Australian health Commission. Adelaide. Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S. & Gupta, V. K. (1994). Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimisation method for calibrating watershed models. Journal of Hydrology, 158, 265284. Heneker, T.M., Lambert, M.F. and Kuczera, G., (2001) A point rainfall model for risk-based design, Journal of Hydrology, 247(1-2), 54-71, 2001. Jenkins D. and Pearson F., (1978). Feasibility of rainwater collection systems in California. California Water Resources Centre, University of California. Contribution No. 173.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM 56
Kuczera G., and Coombes P. J., (2001). A systems perspective of the urban water cycle: new insights, new opportunities. Stormwater Industry Association 2001 Regional Conference, Port Stephens, NSW. Mitchell V.G., Mein R.G., & McMahon T.A., (1997). Evaluating the Resource Potential of Stormwater and Wastewater; an Australian Perspective. Australian Journal of Water Resources. 2(1). 19-22. Scott P., Santos R., and Argue J. R., (1998). Performance, environmental and cost comparisons of OSD and OSR in re-developed residential catchments. Hydrastorm 98. 189-194. Adelaide. Stephens, M.L. and Kuczera, G. Testing the time-area urban runoff model at the allotment scale, 8th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Sydney, August, 1999. The Institution of Engineers, Australia, (1987). Australian rainfall and runoff. A guide to flood estimation. Volumes 1 and 2. Tschantz B. A., (2000). Performance evaluation of constructed urban stormwater detention ponds in the Knoxville area. DM in UCE. Lyon, France. Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust (1999). On site detention manual. Yaziz M. I., Gunting H., Sapari N., and Ghazali A. W., (1989). Variations in rainwater quality from roof catchments. Water Resources. 23, 6. pp.761765.
Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM
57

Australia Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-Site Detention Options On Stormwater Management in The Upper Parramatta River Catchment

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Australia Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-Site Detention Options On Stormwater Management in The Upper Parramatta River Catchment

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management in the Upper Parramatta River Catchment

Peter Coombes, Andrew Frost and George Kuczera

For Upper Parramatta River Catchment Trust

Single dwelling Duplex Townhouse Apartment

Installation of a Rainwater Tank .............................................................................. 24 Installation of an OSD Tank..................................................................................... 24

6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.5 7.

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

2. GENERATION OF A SYNTHETIC PLUVIOGRAPH RECORD

The DRIP Model

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

DRIP Calibration To Parramatta: Regionalisation Approach

DRIP data requirements

A schematic of this calibration process is shown below in Figure 1.

1. Calibrate DRIP Parameters

2. Calibrate scaling parameters

where pM( ) is the density of the master random variable.

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Sampling variability of validation statistics

Master site Observatory Hill Sydney

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Sim 90% Confidence Limit

Annual Rainfall Total (mm)

0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

Figure 2. Sydney observed annual rainfall versus DRIP simulation

S y d ne y D ail y A gg re g ate d S ta tist ics

Std Dev Observed 90% Confidence Limit Std Dev Simulated

Me an R ain fall ( mm)

Mean Obser ved 90% Confidence Limit Mean Simulated

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

0.1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

Figure 4. Sydney observed versus simulated intensity-frequency-duration curves

Target Site - Parramatta/Parramatta North

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

Figure 5. Parramatta observed versus simulated annual rainfall.

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Dry Probability (%)

Figure 7. Parramatta observed vs simulated probability of a dry day.

1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 Percent 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

Figure 8. Parramatta observed vs simulated vs AR&R IFD curves.

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

DRIP Calibration to Ryde Pumping Station Pluviograph

Calibration and Validation

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Annual Rainfall (mm)

0 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 Percent 99 99.9 99.99

Figure 9. Ryde observed annual rainfall versus DRIP Simulation

Ryde Daily Aggregated Statistics

Final 26/06/2003 7:58 AM

Impact of Rainwater Tank and On-site Detention Options on Stormwater Management

Dry Probability (%)

Figure 11. Ryde observed versus simulated dry probability curves

1 .01 .1 1 5 10 20 30 50 Percent 70 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99

Figure 12. Ryde observed versus simulated IFD curves