View
33
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Sewer System Rehabilitation Project of a Urban Basin using EPA SWMM 5.0. Remediation measures on sewerage system. Methodology Presentation of the study basin Discretization and definition of model parameters Calibration & Validation Effective rain determination - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
Principal Objective
Sewer system rehabilitation measures propouses without modification of the network drainage design
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
Discretization of the basin
Discretization of the basin in 17 subcatchment
Model parameters
• Sub-catchment
• Nodes
• Conduits
• Rain
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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)
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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)
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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).
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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.
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
Project Rain TR = 10 anos – D = 1 hour – IDF Barcelona - Fabra
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
Alternative 2 – Results Profile
Water Elevation Profile: Node 9N - 77N
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
Alternative 3 – Profile Results
Water Elevation Profile: Node 77N - 9N
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
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
De Giorgis, Juan AlbertoRezende, Osvaldo Moura
Muchas Gracias!!!
Muito Obrigado!!!
Thank you all....
Recommended