sewer system rehabilitation project of a urban basin using epa swmm 5.0

Sewer System Rehabilitation Project of a Urban Basin

using EPA SWMM 5.0

Remediation measures on sewerage system

De Giorgis, Juan Alberto (1)Rezende, Osvaldo (2)

FICH – Universidad Nacional del Litoral (1)COPPE /UFRJ – Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro(2)

De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura

Methodology

Presentation of the study basin Discretization and definition of model parametersCalibration & Validation Effective rain determinationDiagnostic of actual drainage capacity Interventions on network drainage proposalConclusions and Recommendations


Principal Objective

Sewer system rehabilitation measures propouses without modification of the network drainage design


La Riereta Basin – Sant Boi de Llobregat

Drainage Area: 18 HaHigh percentage of

impervious areas High averege surface slopesCombined sewer systemConduits with circular seccionMaterial: concrete


Discretization of the basin

Discretization of the basin in 17 subcatchment

Model parameters

• Sub-catchment

• Nodes

• Conduits

• Rain



Calibration & ValidationThe model was calibrated with Santa Cecilia

event and validated with Elias and Martina events.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (min)

Flo

w (

m³/

s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Inte

ns

ity

(m

m/h

)

Measured flow (m³/s) Calculated Flow (m³/s) Intensity (mm/h)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time (min)

Flo

w (

m³/

s)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Inte

nsit

y (

mm

/h)

Measured flow (m³/s) Calculated Flow (m³/s) Intensity (mm/h)


ValidationElias Event and Martina Event

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Time (min)

Flo

w (

m3/s

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Inte

nsi

ty (

mm

)

Measured flow (m³/s) Calculated flow (m³/s) Intensity (mm/h)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Time (m)

Flo

w (

m/s

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

nte

nsi

ty (

mm

)

Measured flow(m³/s) Calculated flow(m³/s) Intensity(mm/h)


Sensitivity AnalysisCccSurface impervious roughness sensitivity (ni)

Increase (%)

Qp (m3/s)

tp (min.) ErQ (%)

ErT (%)

50 0.35 10 12.5 -11.111 -50 0.45 9 -12.5 0

Calibration 0.4 9

Roughness ducts sensitivity (nc)

Increase (%)

Qp (m3/s)

tp (min.) ErQ (%)

ErT (%)

50 0.37 10 7.5 -11.111 -50 0.39 9 2.5 0

Calibration 0.4 9

Runoff width sensitivity (W)

Increase (%)

Qp (m3/s)

tp (min.) ErQ (%)

ErT (%)

50 0.44 9 -10 0 -50 0.34 10 15 -11.111

Calibration 0.4 9

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Flo

w (m

3/s)

Time (min)

Original Flow (m3/s) 50% -50%

Figure 14: Sensitivity analysis results of parameter ni

Roughness ducts (nc), impermeable surface roughness of the basin (ni), and runoff width (W).


Effective rain determination

The effective rain was designed subtracting a cte rate from hietograph (i = 3.0mm/h).

It can be done because the basin has a very high percentage of impervious surface.


Project Rain TR = 10 anos – D = 1 hour – IDF Barcelona - Fabra


Diagnostic of actual drainage capacity

Links with over-capacityFlooding volume 2974 m3

Peak flow = 3.792 m3/ s

vmax < 8 m3/s vmin > 0.5 m3/s


Interventions on network drainage proposalAlternative 1 – simple shift of conduits

Conduito Original Diameter(m) Modified Diameter (m) 34 Ø 0.6 Ø1.2 33 Ø 0.4 Ø1.2 32 Ø 0.4 Ø1.2 49 Ø 0.3 Ø1.2 27 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 0.5 26 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 0.5 25 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 0.5 24 Ø 0.5 □0.8 x 0.5 23 Ø 0.5 □0.8 x 0.5 31 Ø 0.3 □1.0 x 1.5 28 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 1.5 15 Ø 0.5 2Ø0.5 16 Ø 0.5 2Ø0.5 42 Ø 0.5 Ø0.5


Alternative 1 – Profile results

Water Elevation Profile: Node 9N - 77N

07/20/2009 00:36:00

Distance (m)800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500

9N

8N

50N

54N

127N

53N

52N

51N

49N

48N

31N

32N

34N

36N

73N

74N

75N

76N

77N

Ele

vation (

m)

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13


Interventions on network drainage proposalAlternative 2 – shift of conduits - Retangular

Conduit Original diameter (m) Modified diameter (m) 34 Ø 0.6 □1.5 x 1 33 Ø 0.4 □1.5 x 1 32 Ø 0.4 □1.5 x 1 49 Ø 0.3 □1.5 x 1 27 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 0.5 26 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 0.5 25 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 0.5 24 Ø 0.5 □0.8 x 0.5 23 Ø 0.5 □0.8 x 0.5 31 Ø 0.3 □1.0 x 1.5 28 Ø 0.5 □1.0 x 1.5 15 Ø 0.5 □0.8 x 0.5 16 Ø 0.5 □0.8 x 0.5 42 Ø 0.5 Ø0.5


Alternative 2 – Results Profile


07/20/2009 00:34:00

Distance (m)800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500

Ele

vation (

m)

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

9N

8N

50N54N

127N

53N

52N

51N

49N

48N

31N32N33N

34N

36N72N

73N

74N

75N

76N

77N


Interventions on network drainage proposalAlternative 3 – Parallel Drainage line

Conduit Original diameter (m) Modified diameter (m) 34 Ø 0.6 Ø1.2 33 Ø 0.4 Ø1.2 32 Ø 0.4 Ø1.2 49 Ø 0.3 Ø1.2 31 Ø 0.3 Ø1.2 28 Ø 0.5 Ø1.2 27 Ø 0.5 Ø1.0 25 Ø 0.5 Ø1.0 26 Ø 0.5 Ø1.0 25 Ø 0.5 Ø1.0 24 Ø 0.5 Ø0.5 23 Ø 0.5 Ø0.5


Alternative 3 – Profile Results


07/20/2009 00:35:00

Distance (m)800 750 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

77N

76N

75N

74N

73N

72N

34N

33N

31N

48N

49N

51N

52N

53N

127N

54N

50N

8N

9N

Ele

vation (

m)

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13


Conclusions and RecommendationsAs shown above, all 3 alternative are effective in

terms of hydraulics efficiency. Alternatives 2 and 3 require a greater

investment than alternative 1Need of further evaluation in terms of structural,

operational and environmental issues to achieve an integrated rehabilitation plan.

How can this intervention affect downstream? Qproject = 5.048 = 1.33Qactual


Muchas Gracias!!!

Muito Obrigado!!!

Thank you all....

sewer system rehabilitation project of a urban basin using epa swmm 5.0

Documents