You are on page 1of 242

WRC RESEARCH REPORT NO.

112

ADVANCED METHODOLOGIES FOR DESIGN OF STORM SEWER SYSTEMS

Ben Chie Yen


Harry G. Wenzel, J r .
L a r r y W. Mays
Wilson H. Tang
Department of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g
U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign

F I N A L R E P O R T
P r o j e c t No. C-4123

The work upon which t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n i s b a s e d was s u p p o r t e d by funds


p r o v i d e d by t h e U. S. Department o f t h e I n t e r i o r as a u t h o r i z e d under
t h e Water Resources Research Act of 1964, P. L. 88-379
Agreement No. 14-31-0001-9023

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
WATER RESOURCES CENTER
25 35 Hydrosys terns L a b o r a t o r y
Urbana, I l l i n o i s 61801

Augus t 19 76
ABSTRACT

ADVANCED METHODOLOGIES FOR DESIGN OF STORM SEWER SYSTEMS

This r e p o r t d e s c r i b e s t h e development of a s e r i e s of computer models c a p a b l e


of determining t h e d i a m e t e r , s l o p e and crown e l e v a t i o n s of each sewer i n
a s t o r m d r a i n a g e system i n which t h e l a y o u t and manhole l o c a t i o n s a r e pre-
determined. The c r i t e r i o n f o r d e s i g n d e c i s i o n s i s t h e g e n e r a t i o n of a
l e a s t - c o s t system. The b a s i s f o r a l l of t h e models i s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of
d i s c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a l dynamic p r o g r a m i n g (DDDP) a s t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n t o o l .
Two i m p o r t a n t concepts a r e i n t r o d u c e d a s o p t i m a l model components: hydrograph
r o u t i n g and r i s k s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n d e s i g n s . Three r o u t i n g pro-
cedures a r e adopted, each w i t h i t s own advantages. Expected f l o o d damage
c o s t s a r e e v a l u a t e d through t h e a n a l y s i s of numerous r i s k s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e design. T h i s a n a l y s i s p e r m i t s t h e e s t i m a t i o n of t h e
p r o b a b i l i t y of exceeding t h e c a p a c i t y and t h e corresponding expected a s s e s s e d
damage of any sewer i n t h e system. The expected damage c o s t i s added t o t h e
i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t t o o b t a i n t h e t o t a l c o s t which i s t h e n minimized i n t h e
DDDP procedure. Two example sewer systems a r e used a s a b a s i s f o r i l l u s t r a t -
i n g d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of t h e v a r i o u s l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models and developing .
user guidelines.

Yen, Ben Chie, Wenzel, J r . , Harry G . , Mays, Larry W . , and Tang, Wilson H.
ADVANCED METHODOLOGIES FOR DESIGN OF STORM SEWER SYSTEMS I
F i n a l Report t o O f f i c e of Water Research and Technology, Department of t h e
I n t e r i o r , Washington, D . C . , Research Report No. 112, Water Resources
C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , Urbana, I l l i n o i s , August 1976, xiv+224 pp.
KEYWORDS--cost/cost analysisldesign-hydraulics/*drainage systems/dynamic
programming/effluents-waste w a t e r / f l o o d damage/flood r o u t i n g / h y d r a u l i c
d e s i g n / h y d r a u l i c s /hydrograph r o u t i n g / m a t h e m a t i c a l models /methodology/
o p e r a t i o n s research/*optimization/probability analysis/*risks/safety-factor/
*sewers/sewer systems/*storm d r a i n s l s t o r m r u n o f f / s y s t e m s a n a l y s i s / u n c e r t a i n -
t i e s /*urban drainage/*urban runoff
FOREWORD

There h a s been a l o n g h i s t o r y of r e s e a r c h on urban d r a i n a g e prob-

lems i n t h e Department of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s

a t Urbana-Champaign. I n 1887 P r o f e s s o r A r t h u r N. T a l b o t proposed h i s

renowned waterway a r e a formula which was widely used u n t i l t h e 1950's.

More r e c e n t l y P r o f e s s o r Ven Te Chow made v a r i o u s s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s

r e g a r d i n g r a i n f a l l frequency a n a l y s i s and r a i n f a l l - r u n o f f relationships

u s e f u l i n s o l v i n g urban w a t e r problems.

The r e s e a r c h s t u d y d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s r e p o r t i s p a r t of an on-

going r e s e a r c h program s p e c i f i c a l l y aimed a t t h e development of improved

methods f o r design of urban s t o r m d r a i n a g e systems. I n 1969 OWRR s p o n s o r e d .

a p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d "Methodologies f o r Flow P r e d i c t i o n i n Urban Storm

Drainage Systems," P r o j e c t No. B-043-ILL. Under t h a t p r o j e c t an improved

h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n model f o r s t o r m sewers, t h e I l l i n o i s Storm Sewer System

S i m u l a t i o n Model, was developed and t h e philosophy on d e s i g n of urban

d r a i n a g e f a c i l i t i e s was re-examined.

The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , e n t i t l e d "Advanced Methodologies f o r

Design of Storm Sewer Systems," OWRT P r o j e c t C-4123 began on October 1,

1972. The major o b j e c t i v e was t o u t i l i z e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t s , namely,

h y d r a u l i c s , r i s k a n a l y s i s , and o p t i m i z a t i o n , t o develop new sewer d e s i g n

methods and t o demonstrate t h e s a v i n g s t h a t can b e achieved through

cost-effective d e s i g n methods o v e r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l d e s i g n methods.

The r e s e a r c h p r o d u c t s of t h i s p r o j e c t a r e t h e r e s u l t of a team

effort. The a u t h o r s wish t o thank t h o s e , b o t h w i t h i n and o u t s i d e of t h e

U n i v e r s i t y , who c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s t u d y e i t h e r through t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n

o r i n furnishing refreshing ideas. Those who w e r e s u p p o r t e d under t h e

p r o j e c t a r e l i s t e d i n Appendix G. The a u t h o r s a r e g r a t e f u l t o P r o f e s s o r

Jon C. Liebman of t h e Department of C i v i l Engineering f o r h i s v a l u a b l e

iii
advice concerning operations research. Appreciation is a l s o expressed f o r

t h e c o o p e r a t i o n and encouragement of D r . Glenn E . S t o u t , D i r e c t o r , and t h e

s t a f f of t h e Water Resources C e n t e r of t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s . Special

t h a n k s a r e a l s o due M r s . Norma J . B a r t o n and Miss Hazel Dillman f o r t h e i r

p a t i e n t , p a i n s t a k i n g typing e f f o r t s throughout t h e p r o j e c t .
A c o n t i n u o u s phase of t h i s r e s e a r c h program i s c u r r e n t l y i n pro-

g r e s s t h r o u g h OWRT P r o j e c t B-098-ILL, " ~ i s kBased Methodology f o r Cost-

E f f e c t i v e Design o f Storm Sewer System - Phase 11." T h i s s t u d y i s devoted

t o s u p p l e m e n t i n g and improving t h e work p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t . I n view

of t h e l a r g e amount of money devoted e a c h y e a r t o sewer d e s i g n s , c o s t -

e f f e c t i v e d e s i g n models s u c h a s t h o s e developed i n t h i s r e s e a r c h can p r o v i d e

s u b s t a n t i a l savings i n public expenditures. However, i n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e

t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t i n t h e F e d e r a l Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act Amendments of

1972, P.L. 92-500, much more r e s e a r c h i s needed t o f o r m u l a t e and implement

new methods u s i n g c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e t e c h n o l o g i c knowledge and t o d e v e l o p

new t e c h n o l o g i e s a s w e l l .
CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF FIGURES......................... viii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NOTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii

CHAPTER
.
1 INTRODUCTION .......................
2 . DESIGN PHILOSOPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Systemoptimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Uncertainties andRisks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. Sewer F l o w R o u t i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.4. C o n s t r a i n t s and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 . REVIEW OF EXISTING SEWER DESIGN METHODS . . . . . . . . . .


3.1. H y d r a u l i c Design Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.1. S t e a d y FlowMethods . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.2. Chicago Hydrograph Method . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.3. T r a n s p o r t and Road R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.4. I l l i n o i s Urban D r a i n a g e Area S i m u l a t o r . . .
3.1.5. Kinematic Wave Model . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1.6. EPA Storm Water Management Model . . . . . .
3.1.7. I l l i n o i s Storm Sewer System S i m u l a t i o n
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2. Design O p t i m i z a t i o n Models . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.1. Models f o r Least-Cost Design of Sewer
1
S l o p e s and S i z e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.2. Models f o r Least-Cost S e l e c t i o n o f
Sewer System Layouts . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3. Models f o r Least-Cost Design of
Sewer S l o p e s , S i z e s , and Layout . . . . . . .
3.2.4. System O p t i m i z a t i o n Models f o r Design
o f Sewer S i z e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 . APPLICATION OF OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES . . . . . . . . . .


4.1. Problem S t a t e m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. S e l e c t i o n and D e s c r i p t i o n of O p t i m i z a t i o n
Technique - DDDP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. N o n s e r i a l O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach and Its
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4. S e r i a l O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.1. Network R e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r S e r i a l
O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.2. System Components of S e r i a l Approach . . . .
4.4.3. DDDP S o l u t i o n Scheme f o r S e r i a l
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.4. Connection of S t a t e s a t Manholes . . . . . .
4.4.5. Trace-Back R o u t i n e . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4.6. Advantages of S e r i a l Approach ........
Page

CONSIDERATIONS OF RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES .........


5.1. B a s i c Concepts and Theory ..............
5.1.1. Risk Function ................
5.1.2. .....
A n a l y s i s of Component U n c e r t a i n t i e s
5.1.3. Safety Factor ................
5.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Rainstorm Runoff and Sewer
Capacity ......................
5.2.1. U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Design Discharge ......
5.2.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Sewer Capacity.......
5.3. Procedure t o E s t a b l i s h Risk-Safety F a c t o r
Relationship ....................
5.4. Development of Risk-Safety F a c t o r Curves ......
5.4.1. A n a l y s i s of U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n R a i n f a l l
Intensity ..................
5.4.2. A n a l y s i s of U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Design
Discharge ..................
5.4.3'. A n a l y s i s of U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Sewer
Capacity ..................
5.4.4. C o n s t r u c t i o n of Risk-Safety F a c t o r
Curves ...................
5.5. Use of Risk-Safety F a c t o r Curves f o r Design .....
6 . HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1. TheoreticalConsiderations . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2. RoutingMethods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.2.1. Steady Flow Approximations . . . . . . .
6.2.2. L i n e a r Kinematic Wave Approximations . .
6.2.3. Nonlinear Kinematic Wave Approximations .
6.3. S e l e c t i o n of Routing Methods . . . . . . . . . .
6.3.1. No Time Lag Steady Flow Method . . . . .
6.3.2. Hydrograph Time Lag Method . . . . . . .
6.3.3. Nonlinear Kinematic Wave Method . . . . .
6.3.4. Muskingum-Cunge Method . . . . . . . . .

7 . DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . .


7.1. Design Models Without Considering Risks . . . . .
7.1.1. Model A - N o R o u t i n g ..........
7.1.2. Model B - I n c o r p o r a t i o n of Routing
Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.2. Design Models I n c o r p o r a t i n g Risks . . . . . . . .
7.2.1. Expected Damage Costs . . . . . . . . . .
7.2.2. Model C - Risk Component Without Routing
7.2.3. Model D - Risk Component With Hydrograph
Time Lag Routing ............
8 . EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF DESIGN MODELS . . . . . . . . .
8.1. Model I n p u t Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2. Example I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.1. Sewer System D e s c r i p t i o n . . . . . . . .
8.2.2. O p t i m i z a t i o n Component Parameter
Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.2.3. Comparison of Example I R e s u l t s Using
Various Design Models . . . . . . . . . .
Page

8.3. ......................
Example I1
8.3.1. ...........
Sewer System D e s c r i p t i o n
8.3.2. ..............
Example I1 R e s u l t s

9 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


9.1. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9.2. Recommendations f o r Future S t u d i e s . . . . . . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPEND1CES
A. .....
Values of Cumulative Normal D i s t r i b u t i o n Function
B. ............
Model E r r o r f o r t h e R a t i o n a l Formula
C. ..........
S t a t i s t i c s of Five Simple D i s t r i b u t i o n s
D. .....
Computer Program L i s t i n g f o r Design Models A and C
E. Computer Program L i s t i n g f o r Design Models B-1, B.2.
B-3. and D .........................
F. ....................
Project Publications
G. .....................
P r o j e c t Personnel

vii
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure

3.1. CircularSewerFlowCrossSection ............


3.2. C o m p u t a t i o n a l Grid f o r Four-Point Implicit Finite
D i f f e r e n c e Scheme .....................
4.1. Five-Lattice-Point C o r r i d o r Showing Drops i n Crown
Elevations .......................
4.2. DP Flow C h a r t W i t h i n C o r r i d o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3. Flow C h a r t of Design O p t i m i z a t i o n P r o c e d u r e f o r


Sewersystems ......................
4.4. Example of S t a g e - C o r r i d o r R e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r
N o n s e r i a l O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach .............
4.5. Flow C h a r t f o r Each I t e r a t i o n o f N o n s e r i a l
Approach ........................
4.6. I s o n o d a l L i n e s f o r a Simple Sewer System ........
4.7. P o s s i b l e Manhole Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.8. Flow C h a r t f o r Each I t e r a t i o n o f S e r i a l Approach . . . .

4.9. C o n n e c t i v i t y of S t a t e s a t Manhole J u n c t i o n s f o r
S e r i a l Approach .....................
4.10. Trace-Back a t L a s t Two S t a g e s of a Sewer System . . . . .

5.1. R i s k - S a f e t y F a c t o r Curve f o r 10-yr Design P e r i o d


a t Urbana. I l l i n o i s ...................
5.2. R i s k - S a f e t y F a c t o r R e l a t i o n s h i p f o r Sewer Design
a t Urbana. I l l i n o i s ...................
6.1. HydravlicRouting Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2. S h i f t i n g of Hydrographs f o r S t e a d y Flow Time Lag


Method .........................
7.1. Hydrographs f o r S t a t e s a t Manholes . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2. Flow C h a r t f o r S e r i a l DDDP S o l u t i o n Scheme f o r Each


I t e r a t i o n With R o u t i n g .................
7.3. Flow C h a r t f o r Hydrograph Time Lag R o u t i n g . . . . . . .

7.4. Flow C h a r t f o r N o n l i n e a r K i n e m a t i c Wave R o u t i n g . . . . .

viii
Page

7.5. Flow C h a r t f o r Muskingum-Cunge R o u t i n g Technique .....


7.6. DP Computations W i t h i n C o r r i d o r C o n s i d e r i n g
Risks ..........................
7.7. Flow C h a r t f o r Sewer Diameter S e l e c t i o n C o n s i d e r i n g
Risks ..........................
8.1. Example I Sewer System Layout With I s o n o d a l L i n e s . . . .

8.2. D e f i n i t i o n o f I n f l o w Hydrograph P a r a m e t e r s . . . . . . . .

8.3. S e n s i t i v i t y of Design t o I n i t i a l C o r r i d o r Width and


Number o f - L a t t i c e P o i n t s.................
8.4. V a r i a t i o n s of Computer E x e c u t i o n Time With I n i t i a l
C o r r i d o r Width and Number of L a t t i c e P o i n t s .......
8.5. S e n s i t i v i t y of Design t o I n i t i a l C o r r i d o r Width
WithRouting .......................
8.6. Computer E x e c u t i o n Time f o r Designs With R o u t i n g . . . . .

8.7. Example I1 Sewer System Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.8. Example I1 I s o n o d a l L i n e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE

3.1. Summary of Sewer Hydraulic Design Models ....,.... 13

3.2. Summary of Least-Cost Sewer System Design Models . . . . . 26

5.1. Component E r r o r s f o r Runoff C o e f f i c i e n t . . . . . . . . . 83

5.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r an Example Sewer . . . . . . . . . . ' . . 88

7.1. Least-Cost Sewer System Design Models . . . . . . . . . . 110

8.1. Example I Layout Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 31

8.2. Example I Inflow Hydrograph Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

8.3. R e s u l t s f o r Example I Using Model A ........... 134

8.4. R e s u l t s f o r Example I Using Model B With Routing Components 141

8.5. H y p o t h e t i c a l Assessed Damage S c a l e s . ........... 144

8.6. R e s u l t s f o r Example I Using Model C With Risk


Component ........................ 145

R e s u l t s f o r Example I Using Model D With Risk and


Hydrograph Time Lag Routing Components .......... 146

Least-Cost Designs of Example I Sewer System Without


Considering Risks .................... 149

Least-Cost Designs of Example I Sewer System Using


Model C .......................... 151

Least-Cost Designs of Example I Sewer System Using


ModelD ......................... 152

Risks Associated With Example I Designs Using


VariousModels. ..................... 154

Cost Comparison f o r Example I Designs . . . . . . . . . . 156

Example I1 Sewer System Input Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Least-Cost Designs of Example I1 Sewer System Without


Considering Risks .................... 161

Least-Cost Designs of Example I1 Sewer System


Considering Risks .................... 163

Design of Example I1 Sewer System a s Given i n ASCE


Manual 37 ........................ 163
NOTATION

A = area

A = f u l l p i p e flow a r e a
f
B = water s u r f a c e width

C = c o s t ; a l s o , runoff coefficient; also, coefficient

CD = e x p e c t e d damage c o s t
,
C = installation cost
I
Cm = manhole c o s t

C = pipe cost
P
c = celerity

D = decision, i.e., drop i n e l e v a t i o n i n optimization procedure

d = pipe diameter

E = elevation

E = a c c e p t a b l e e r r o r (Eq. 4 . 4 )
r
F = f u n c t i o n ; a l s o , cumulative c o s t f u n c t i o n

f = Weisbach r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t I

G = function

g = gravitational acceleration

R = sewer i n v e r t d e p t h below ground s u r f a c e

h = d e p t h of flow; a l s o , h e i g h t of manhole below ground s u r f a c e

I = inflow

i = r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y ; a l s o an i n d e x

i = referrence r a i n f a l l intensity
0

j =anindex

I< = c o n s t a n t ; a l s o , s t o r a g e c o n s t a n t i n Eqs. 6-10 and 6 . 1 1

k = s u r f a c e r o u g h n e s s ; a l s o , an exponent (Eq. 5.21) ; a l s o , an i n d e x

L = l e n g t h of sewer

xii
M = number of manholes on i s o n o d a l l i n e n
n
m = an exponent ( E q . 5.21)

m = manhole on i s o n o d a l l i n e n
n
N = number of s t a g e s i n PDDP p r o c e d u r e s ; a l s o , number

n = Manning's roughness f a c t o r ; a l s o , s t a g e

P = probability

Q = discharge

Q C = sewer c a p a c i t y

Qf = f u l l pipe flow r a t e

QL = a r e f e r e n c e d i s c h a r g e

Qo = d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e

Q = peak d i s c h a r g e
P
R = hydraulic radius

r = return f o r stage n
n
r = c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n
ij
S = slope; also, s t a t e

Sf = f r i c t i o n s l o p e

S = ith state
i
S = input s t a t e
n
-
S = output s t a t e
n
S = sewer s l o p e
0

SF = s a f e t y f a c t o r

s = storage

T = design period; a l s o , r e t u r n p e r i o d ; a l s o , inflow hydrograph base l i n e

T = c o n n e c t i o n v e c t o r between manholes m and m


m n n+l
n yrnn+l
t =time

t = d u r a t i o n of r a i n f a l l
d

xiii
t = sewer flow t r a v e l time
f
V = flow v e l o c i t y

Wt = time weight f a c t o r i n Eq. 3.10

W = space weight f a c t o r i n Eq. 3.10


X

X = i n f l o w weight f a c t o r i n E q . 6.10

x = d i s t a n c e along t h e sewer; a l s o , a v a r i a b l e

. .
z = e l e v a t i o n of i n v e r t

a = a factor or a coefficient

A = increment

As = s t a t e increment

6 = c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

9 = a n g l e between sewer a x i s and a h o r z o n t a l plane

A = correction factor

v = kinematic v i s c o s i t y

-c = time

@ = c e n t r a l a n g l e of w a t e r s u r f a c e i n sewer (Fig. 3.1)

= cumulative s t a n d a r d normal p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n

= c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

xiv
C h a p t e r 1. INTRODUCTION

One of t h e v i t a l f a c i l i t i e s i n p r e s e r v i n g and improving t h e u r b a n

environment i s an a d e q u a t e and p r o p e r l y f u n c t i o n i n g s t o r m w a t e r d r a i n a g e

system. E s t i m a t e s from v a r i o u s s o u r c e s a l l i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t o t a l c o s t

i n t h e N a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of new s t o r m s e w e r s and of m a i n t e n a n c e and

o p e r a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s t o r m and combined sewer s y s t e m s w e l l e x c e e d s one

b i l l i o n d o l l a r s annually. Atop of t h i s e x p e n d i t u r e a r e t h e t a n g i b l e and

i n t a n g i b l e l o S s e s due t o i n a d e q u a t e o r i m p r o p e r d r a i n a g e of s t o r m w a t e r .

D e s p i t e t h e l a r g e amount o f money i n v o l v e d i n u r b a n s t o r m w a t e r d r a i n a g e ,

and c o n t r a r y t o t h e g e n e r a l b e l i e f of t h e p u b l i c , t h e p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e

t e c h n o l o g i c a l t o o l s a r e n o t b e i n g a p p l i e d t o t h i s problem e x c e p t i n

isolated instances. I n f a c t , t h e m a j o r i t y of d e s i g n e n g i n e e r s working on

s t o r m w a t e r d r a i n a g e problems have n o t gone beyond t h e s t a g e o f u s i n g t h e

w i d e l y c r i t i c i z e d r a t i o n a l method and t h e r e i s v e r y l i t t l e p o s t e v a l u a t i o n

done once t h e s y s t e m i s i n t h e ground.

From an e n g i n e e r i n g v i e w p o i n t t h e d r a i n a g e problem c a n b e d i v i d e d

i n t o two a s p e c t s : r u n o f f p r e d i c t i o n and s y s t e m d e s i g n . Considerable

e f f o r t h a s been d e v o t e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s t o r u n o f f p r e d i c t i o n i n u r b a n a r e a s ,

encouraged i n p a r t by t h e enactment of t h e F e d e r a l Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Act

Amendments o f 1 9 7 2 , P.L. 92-500. Rainfall-runoff model b u i l d i n g h a s become

a p o p u l a r a c t i v i t y and a v a r i e t y o f s u c h t o o l s a r e now a v a i l a b l e , and t h e

state-of-the-art of t h i s a s p e c t of u r b a n d r a i n a g e h a s b e e n r e p o r t e d by

Chow and Yen (1976), James F. MacLaren, L t d . (19 75) Y Heeps and Mein (1974) ,
B r a n d s t e t t e r (1974) and McPherson (1975). However, d e s p i t e t h e e x i s t e n c e

of s u c h t e c h n i q u e s t h e y are n o t b e i n g e x t e n s i v e l y u s e d . P a r t of t h e

problem l i e s i n t h e need f o r u r b a n r u n o f f q u a l i t y - q u a n t i t y d a t a f o r use i n -

model c a l i b r a t i o n . Another d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n t h e c o n f u s i o n which e x i s t s

c o n c e r n i n g which model i s e c o n o m i c a l l y a n d / o r t e c h n i c a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r

a specific situation.

1
The second a s p e c t o f t h e d r a i n a g e problem, d e s i g n methodology,

has received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e attention. T h i s i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s re-

port. The d e s i g n o f new sewer systems o r f o r e x t e n s i o n of e x i s t i n g s y s t e m s

may b e f o r t h e p u r p o s e of urban f l o o d m i t i g a t i o n , o r i t may b e i n con-

j u n c t i o n w i t h o t h e r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l f a c i l i t i e s s u c h as t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s

and o v e r f l o w r e g u l a t o r s , o r b o t h . Urban s t o r m w a t e r d r a i n a g e actua1l.y

c o n s i s t s of two d i s t i n c t and s e q u e n t i a l l y c o n n e c t e d s y s t e m s ; namely, t h e

l a n d s u r f a c e d r a i n a g e s y s t e m from r e c e i v i n g t h e w a t e r ( p r e c i p i t a t i o n ) t o

t h e i n l e t c a t c h b a s i n s , and t h e sewer s y s t e m downstream from t h e i n l e t

catch basins. OAly t h e l a t t e r p a r t , t h e d e s i g n a s p e c t o f t h e sewer

systems,is considered i n t h i s r e p o r t . S e v e r a l t e c h n i q u e s o r t o o l s have

been i n v e s t i g a t e d and f o u r d e s i g n models have b e e n d e v e l o p e d . The frame-

work of t h e s e models i s t h e u s e of a p a r t i c u l a r form of dynamic programming

t o p e r f o r m a s e a r c h f o r a minimum c o s t combination of p i p e s i z e s , s l o p e s

and e l e v a t i o n s . Two t y p e s o f c o s t s a r e c o n s i d e r e d : the installation

c o s t and t h e damage c o s t i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e s y s t e m i s

exceeded. The l a t t e r c o s t i s u s u a l l y n o t f o r m a l l y c o n s i d e r e d i n urban

d r a i n a g e d e s i g n work.

Another d e s i g n a s p e c t t h a t i s u s u a l l y g i v e n s u p e r f i c i a l a t t e n t i o n

i s t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of u n c e r t a i n t i e s . Conventional. t e c h n i q u e s b e g i n w i t h

t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a r e t u r n p e r i o d t o b e u s e d i n s e l e c t i n g a " d e s i g n

storm" o r r a i n f a l l . The r u n o f f from t h i s d e s i g n s t o r m i s t h e n used to,

d e s i g n t h e s y s t e m which i s t h e n assumed t o a c q u i r e t h e same performance

r e t u r n p e r i o d a s assumed f o r t h e r a i n f a l l . F u r t h e r m o r e , no a d d i t i o n a l con-

s i d e r a t i o n of u n c e r t a i n t y is given. There a r e , i n f a c t , many s o u r c e s of

u n c e r t a i n t y i n any d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e and t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f e x c e e d i n g t h e

c a p a c i t y o f t h e s y s t e m s h o u l d i n c l u d e a l l of them. Chapter 5 of t h i s

r e p o r t p r e s e n t s a n approach f o r a c c o u n t i n g f o r u n c e r t a i n t i e s and t h u s h a s

been adopted f o r u s e i n s e v e r a l of t h e d e s i g n models.


A f i n a l technique given c o n s i d e r a t i o n is flood r o u t i n g i n t h e

sewer s y s t e m . The r a t i o n a l mbthod of d e s i g n u s e s no r o u t i n g s i n c e e a c h

p i p e i s independently designed. However, t h e p i p e s d o n o t p e r f o r m independ-

e n t l y and f l o o d r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s p r o v i d e a more r e a l i s t i c p i c t u r e of t h e

t r a n s l a t i o n and a t t e n u a t i o n of i n - s y s t e m h y d r o g r a p h s . This can l e a d t o

more economical d e s i g n s s i n c e t h e o v e r a l l e f f e c t i s t o r e d u c e t h e computed

peak f l o w s . S e v e r a l r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s h a v e been e v a l u a t e d a s d e s c r i b e d

i n C h a p t e r 6 and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e d e s i g n models.

The work d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s r e p o r t r e p r e s e n t s one p o s s i b l e i n i t i a l

s t e p i n t h e development o f a comprehensive method f o r d e s i g n o f u r b a n

d r a i n a g e systems. S e v e r a l o f t h e t e c h n i q u e s are r e l a t i v e l y new as f a r as

d e s i g n methodology i s c o n c e r n e d , b u t i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e i r c o n s i d e r a -

tion has considerable merit.


Chapter 2. DESIGN PHILOSOPHY

I d e a l l y , an o p t i m a l d e s i g n method f o r s t o r m sewer systems should

produce a d e s i g n p r o v i d i n g maximum economic b e n e f i t s , c o n s i d e r i n g

r e a l i s t i c a l l y and a c c u r a t e l y t h e p e r t i n e n t h y d r o l o g i c , h y d r a u l i c , con-

s t r u c t i o n , and economic f a c t o r s . The o p t i m i z a t i o n should b e c a r r i e d o u t

c o n s i d e r i n g n o t s o l e l y t h e sewer system i t s e l f b u t a l s o t h e d r a i n a g e

f a c i l i t i e s immediately connected t o and c l o s e l y i n t e r f a c e d w i t h i t . These

f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e t h e land s u r f a c e d r a i n a g e system upstream from t h e

sewer system and t h e t r e a t m e n t system and r e c e i v i n g w a t e r b o d i e s downstream.

To i n c l u d e t h e s u r f a c y d r a i n a g e system, t r e a t m e n t system, r e c e i v i n g w a t e r

body and s t o r m sewer system t o g e t h e r f o r w a t e r q u a l i t y and q u a l i t y

management s t r a t e g i c planning i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f i c u l t i n view of t o d a y ' s

computer c a p a b i l i t y . To c o n s i d e r s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a l l t h e s e systems f o r

o p t i m a l d e s i g n of l a y o u t , s l o p e , and s i z e of a s t o r m sewer system i s a

t a s k t h a t h a s y e t t o b e attempted. A s a f i r s t s t e p towards t h i s g e n e r a l

g o a l , i t i s worthwhile t o f i r s t d e f i n e t h e philosophy f o r o p t i m a l d e s i g n

of t h e s t o r m sewer system i t s e l f . From t h e methodology development and

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n v i e w p o i n t , t h e d e s i g n philosophy can b e d i s c u s s e d from f o u r

d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s ; namely, system o p t i m i z a t i o n , u n c e r t a i n t i e s and r i s k s ,

r o u t i n g of sewer flow, and t h e c o n s t r a i n t s and assumptions involved.

2.1. System O p t i m i z a t i o n

The key p o i n t s involved i n t h e i d e a of o p t i m i z a t i o n a r e t h e

following:

(a) The o p t i m i z a t i o n i s c a r r i e d o u t f o r t h e e n t i r e sewer system,

i n c l u d i n g n o t j u s t t h e sewers b u t a l s o manholes, j u n c t i o n s ,

and o t h e r a u x i l i a r y f a c i l i t i k such a s d e t e n t i o n r e s e r v o i r s ,

overflow d e v i c e s , pumps, and o t h e r flow r e g u l a t o r s .

4
(b) The o b j e c t i v e of o p t i m i z a t i o n i s t o produce a d e s i g n of t h e

e n t i r e sewer system p r o v i d i n g t h e b e s t , b e n e f i t - c o s t

r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h i n t h e p h y s i c a l , economical, s o c i a l , and

environmental c o n s t r a i n t s and assumptions. Ideally the

measure of b e n e f i t should i n c l u d e n o t only t h e t a n g i b l e

ones such a s r e d u c t i o n of damages b u t a l s o t h e i n t a n g i b l e s

such a s improvement of t h e environmental h e a l t h and r e d u c t i o n

of r i s k of l o s s of human l i v e s . The c o s t should i n c l u d e n o t

only t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t b u t a l s o o t h e r c o s t s such a s

those f o r o p e r a t i o n and maintenance.

The optimal d e s i g n of t h e system should g i v e n o t only t h e .


(c)

s i z e s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l sewers and manholes b u t a l s o t h e

sewer s l o p e s and l a y o u t .

2.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s and Risks

U n c e r t a i n t i e s a r i s e i n almost every a s p e c t and every f a c t o r i n -

volved i n urban storm sewer systems. These u n c e r t a i n t i e s should be

accounted f o r i n an optimal design. I n f a c t , t h e d e s i g n methodology should

b e a b l e t o produce a d e s i g n g i v i n g t h e b e s t b e n e f i t - c o s t relationship with

t h e corresponding r i s k l e v e l s f o r t h e sewers t h a t a r e w i t h i n t h e s p e c i f i e d

a c c e p t a b l e maximum r i s k l e v e l s f o r t h e p r o j e c t . I n t h e design a t l e a s t t h e

f o l l o w i n g u n c e r t a i n t i e s should be accounted f o r :

(a) Hydrologic u n c e r t a i n t i e s - These i n c l u d e u n c e r t a i n t i e s on

t h e accuracy of t h e i n l e t hydrographs which a r e t h e i n p u t

i n t o t h e sewer system, t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence of

f u t u r e f l o o d s more s e v e r e t h a n t h e d e s i g n i n l e t hydrographs,

and t h e u n c e r t a i n t y on t h e f u t u r e change of t h e p h y s i c a l

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n .
(b) Hydraulic u n c e r t a i n t i e s - These i n c l u d e t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n

t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l s i m u l a t i o n model i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e f l o w i n

t h e s e w e r s and t h r o u g h t h e j u n c t i o n s . Particularly, i f

s i m p l e f l o w f o r m u l a s s u c h a s Manning's f o r m u l a and t h e

B e r n o u l l i e q u a t i o n are u s e d , t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n u s i n g t h e s e

f o r m u l a s t o d e s c r i b e u n s t e a d y f l o w , u p s t r e a m and downstream

b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t s , sewer s u r c h a r g e s , and j u n c t i o n l o s s e s

should b e accounted f o r . A l s o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y o n change o f

sewer p i p e r o u g h n e s s w i t h t i m e s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d .

(c) Material uncertainties - These i n c l u d e t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s o n

t h e q u a l i t y c o n t r o l of t h e m a t e r i a l s u s e d i n t h e sewer

s y s t e m , s u c h a s t h e d i a m e t e r , s t r a i g h t n e s s , and u n i f o r m i t y

of s u r f a c e roughness of t h e s e w e r p i p e s .

(d) Construction uncertainties - These i n c l u d e t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s

i n t h e a c c u r a c y i n l a y i n g t h e s e w e r p i p e s , s e t t l e m e n t of

t h e b e d d i n g s o i l , and sewer d e f l e c t i o n u n d e r l o a d .

(e) U n c e r t a i n t i e s on c o s t s and damages - These i n c l u d e t h e un-

c e r t a i n t i e s i n the cost estimation functions f o r installation,

o p e r a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e , damages, and changes o f i n t e r e s t

and i n f l a t i o n r a t e s .

(f) U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e e x p e c t e d sewer s y s t e m s e r v i c e l i f e and

t h e d e s i g n r e t u r n p e r i o d , o r , more r a t i o n a l l y , t h e a c c e p t a b l e

failure risk level.

2.3. Sewer Flow R o u t i n g

T h e o r e t i c a l l y , a r e l i a b l e h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g method s h o u l d b e u s e d

i n d e s i g n i n g sewers. Sewer f l o w s are g e n e r a l l y u n s t e a d y , nonuniform when

t h e p i p e i s n o t f l o w i n g f u l l and u n d e r p r e s s u r e , and s u b j e c t t o b a c k w a t e r

e f f e c t s from b o t h u p s t r e a m and downstream of t h e p i p e . As d i s c u s s e d by


Yen ( 1 9 7 3 ) , a h i g h a c c u r a c y h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g method u s i n g t h e f u l l dynamic

e q u a t i o n s f o r s e w e r s and j u n c t i o n s a c c o u n t i n g f o r f l o w u n s t e a d i n e s s and

backwater e f f e c t s r e q u i r e s a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of computer time

on a l a r g e d i g i t a l computer. I t i s most u n l i k e l y t h a t s u c h a s o p h i s t i c a t e d

r o u t i n g scheme can b e i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h i n a n o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e t o

p r o v i d e a new d e s i g n method which i s w i t h i n t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s of e x i s t i n g

computers. I n f a c t , as s u g g e s t e d by Yen and Sevuk ( 1 9 7 5 ) , even f o r

h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n of s e w e r s w i t h o u t a c c o u n t i n g f o r u n c e r t a i n t i e s and c o s t

o p t i m i z a t i o n , t h e s o p h i s t i c a t e d r o u t i n g scheme u s i n g t h e f u l l dynamic

e q u a t i o n s f o r sewer s y s t e m d e s i g n i s needed and j u s t i f i a b l e i n most c a s e s

o n l y f o r t h e f i n a l c h e c k i n g of t h e h y d r a u l i c a c c u r a c y of t h e d e s i g n . They

showed t h a t i n view of t h e d i s c r e t e s i z e s of commercially a v a i l a b l e p i p e s ,

s i m p l e r approximate h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g methods a r e u s e f u l i n sewer d e s i g n s .

Yen and Sevuk (1975) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t u s i n g e i t h e r t h e Manning's

f o r m u l a f o r sewer f l o w w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e s h i f t i n g o f t h e h y d r o g r a p h s

o r a n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave a p p r o x i m a t i o n u s u a l l y g i v e a c c e p t a b l e d e s i g n s

w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e s a v i n g s i n computer t i m e . I n a d d i t i o n , a modified

k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g scheme, c a l l e d t h e Muskingum-Cunge method (Cunge,

1 9 6 9 ) , a l s o g i v e r e s u l t s c l o s e t o t h o s e g i v e n by t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c

wave a p p r o x i m a t i o n w h i l e r e q u i r i n g less computer t i m e .

It i s d i f f i c u l t t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i o r i which, i f any, r o u t i n g

technique is b e s t . T h e r e f o r e t h e above t h r e e methods have a l l b e e n con-

sidered. A d i s c u s s i o n of each i s i n c l u d e d i n C h a p t e r 6. Presumably, t h e

i d e a l r o u t i n g method f o r t h e o p t i m a l d e s i g n s h o u l d be t h e one t h a t g i v i n g

s u f f i c i e n t a c c u r a c y y e t n o t r e q u i r i n g e x c e s s i v e computer t i m e and c a p a c i t y .

2.4. C o n s t r a i n t s and Assumptions

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a d e s i g n methodology

must i n c l u d e a number of c o n s t r a i n t s and a s s u m p t i o n s which a r e commonly


u s e d i n e n g i n e e r i n g p r a c t i c e s u c h a s t h o s e p r e s e n t e d by t h e ASCE Urban Water

Resources R e s e a r c h Program (1968) and ASCE and Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l

F e d e r a t i o n (1969). The c o n s t r a i n t s and a s s u m p t i o n s u s e d i n t h e v a r i o u s de-

s i g n models i n t h i s s t u d y a r e a s f o l l o w s :

(a) F r e e - s u r f a c e flow e x i s t s f o r t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e s o r

hydrographs, i . e . , t h e sewer s y s t e m i s " g r a v i t y flow" s o

t h a t pumping s t a t i o n s and p r e s s u r i z e d s e w e r s a r e n o t

considered.

(b) The s e w e r s a r e commercially a v a i l a b l e c i r c u l a r s i z e s no

s m a l l e r than 8 i n . i n diameter. Flows t h a t r e q u i r e p i p e s

s m a l l e r t h a n 8 i n . i n d i a m e t e r c a n b e c a r r i e d by street

g u t t e r s e l i m i n a t i n g t h e need o f s e w e r s . The commercial

s i z e s i n i n c h e s a r e 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , from 1 5 t o 30 w i t h a 3 i n .

i n c r e m e n t and from 36 t o 120 w i t h an i n c r e m e n t o f 6 i n .

(c) The d e s i g n d i a m e t e r i s t h e s m a l l e s t commercially a v a i l a b l e

p i p e t h a t has flow c a p a c i t y e q u a l t o o r g r e a t e r than t h e

d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e and s a t i s f i e s a l l t h e a p p r o p r i a t e

constraints.

(d) Storm sewers must b e p l a c e d a t a d e p t h t h a t w i l l n o t b e

s u s c e p t i b l e t o f r o s t , d r a i n b a s e m e n t s , and a l l o w s u f f i c i e n t

c u s h i o n i n g t o p r e v e n t b r e a k a g e due t o ground s u r f a c e l o a d i n g .

T h e r e f o r e , minimum c o v e r d e p t h s must b e s p e c i f i e d .

(e) The s e w e r s a r e j o i n e d a t j u n c t i o n s s u c h t h a t t h e crown

e l e v a t i o n of t h e u p s t r e a m sewer i s no l o w e r t h a n t h a t of t h e

downstream sewer.

(f) To p r e v e n t o r r e d u c e permanant d e p o s i t i o n i n t h e s e w e r s , a

minimum p e r m i s s i b l e f l o w v e l o c i t y a t d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e o r a t

b a r e l y f u l l - p i p e g r a v i t y flow i s s p e c i f i e d . A minimum
full-conduit f l o w v e l o c i t y o f 2 f p s i s r e q u i r e d o r recommended

by most h e a l t h d e p a r t m e n t s .

(g) To p r e v e n t o c c u r r e n c e of s c o u r and o t h e r u n d e s i r a b l e e f f e c t s

of h i g h v e l o c i t y flow, a maximum p e r m i s s i b l e f l o w v e l o c i t y i s

also specified. The most commonly used v a l u e i s 1 0 'fps.

However, r e c e n t s t u d i e s h a v e shown w i t h t h e q u a l i t y of modern

c o n c r e t e and o t h e r sewer p i p e s t h e a c c e p t a b l e maximum

v e l o c i t y can be c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r .

(h) A t any j u n c t i o n o r manhole t h e downstream sewer c a n n o t b e

s m a l l e r t h a n any of t h e upstream s e w e r s a t t h a t j u n c t i o n .

(i) The d e s i g n i n f l o w s i n t o t h e sewer s y s t e m are t h e i n l e t hydro-

g r a p h s o r peak d i s c h a r g e s .

Furthermore, f o r t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n models, t h e f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l

a s s u m p t i o n s a r e made:

(a) The sewer s y s t e m i s a d e n d r i t i c network c o n v e r g i n g towards

downst ream.

(b) No n e g a t i v e s l o p e i s a l l o w e d f o r any s e w e r s i n t h e d e n d r i t i c

network.

(c) The d i r e c t i o n of t h e f l o w i n a sewer i s u n i q u e l y d e t e r m i n e d


from t o p o g r a p h i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

(d) Presumably t h e c o s t f u n c t i o n f o r i n s t a l l a t i o n v a r i e s w i t h

g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n s and time. For i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes a

s e t of s i m p l e c o s t f u n c t i o n s proposed by Alan M. Voorhees

(1969) i s a d o p t e d i n t h i s s t u d y . The p i p e i n s t a l l a t i o n

c o s t i n d o l l a r s p e r l i n e a r f o o t of s e w e r , C i s
P
i n which d i s sewer d i a m e t e r i n f e e t and H i s t h e sewer i n v e r t

d e p t h i n f e e t below t h e ground s u r f a c e . The d e p t h H of e a c h

sewer i s computed a s t h e a v e r a g e o f t h e i n v e r t d e p t h s a t t h e

u p s t r e a m and downstream e n d s of t h e sewer. The u n i t c o s t of

a manhole,
m
' ' in dollars is

i n which h i s t h e d e p t h o f t h e manhole i n f e e t which i s


/

d e t e r m i n e d by t h e l o w e s t i n v e r t of t h e sewers j o i n i n g t h e man-

hole.
C h a p t e r 3. REVIEW OF EXISTING SEWER DESIGN METHODS

Most of t h e p r e v i o u s l y d e v e l o p e d sewer d e s i g n models t h a t have

b e e n a d o p t e d i n e n g i n e e r i n g p r a c t i c e are h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n models. I n the

l a s t decade a few s t u d i e s have b e e n r e p o r t e d d e a l i n g w i t h d e s i g n of s e w e r s

on t h e b a s i s o f minimum c o s t . A b r i e f r e v i e w of t h e s e two t y p e s of sewer

d e s i g n models i s g i v e n i n t h i s c h a p t e r .

3.1. H y d r a u l i c Design Models

The sewer h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n models d e t e r m i n e t h e sewer s i z e s

using only hydraulic considerations. No c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s g i v e n t o c o s t

m i n i m i z a t i o n n o r are r i s k s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s a c c o u n t e d f o r . The sewer

s y s t e m l a y o u t i s p r e d e t e r m i n e d and t h e s e w e r s l o p e g e n e r a l l y i s assumed t o

f o l l o w t h e ground s l o p e o r i s s p e c i f i e d . The b a s i c d e s i g n c o n c e p t i s t o

d e t e r m i n e t h e minimum sewer s i z e t h a t h a s a c a p a c i t y t o c a r r y t h e d e s i g n

d i s c h a r g e under f u l l p i p e g r a v i t y f l o w c o n d i t i o n s .

The d e s i g n models c o n s i d e r e d h e r e a r e t h o s e h a v i n g a b u i l t - i n

mechanism f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of sewer s i z e s . Many o f t h e s o c a l l e d "sewer

d e s i g n methods" a r e a c t u a l l y f l o w s i m u l a t i o n o r p r e d i c t i o n methods t o

provide t h e design hydrographs. They r e q u i r e t h e l a y o u t , s l o p e , l e n g t h and

s i z e of t h e s e w e r s t o b e known o r assumed. They d o n o t have a means f o r

d i r e c t d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f sewer s i z e s . Hence, t h e y a r e n o t r e g a r d e d h e r e i n

a s t r u e sewer d e s i g n methods and n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s r e v i e w .

The i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e s of t h e m a j o r sewer h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n models

are summarized i n T a b l e 3.1.

3.1.1. S t e a d y Flow Methods

The most commonly used model i s t h e r a t i o n a l method o r i t s v a r i a -

t i o n s which c a n b e c o l l e c t i v e l y c a l l e d s t e a d y flow methods. The sewer

d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e i s o b t a i n e d by a d d i n g t h e h y d r o g r a p h s o r peak f l o w s from
t h e upstream sewers w i t h o r w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g l a g e f f e c t s . The r e q u i r e d

sewer s i z e i s subsequent1.y computed by u s i n g t h e Manning, Darcy-Weisbach,

Hazen-Williams, o r s i m i l a r formula assuming f u l l p i p e flow w i t h a pre-

determined sewer s l o p e . The adopted sewer s i z e i s t h e n e x t commercially

a v a i l a b l e p i p e s i z e t h a t i s e q u a l t o o r g r e a t e r than t h e r e q u i r e d s i z e . No

r o u t i n g of t h e flow i s i n v o l v e d and no c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given t o t h e un-

s t e a d y and nonuniform n a t u r e of t h e sewer flow. The e f f e c t of i n - l i n e

storage is neglected. Using t h e Manning formula, t h e minimum r e q u i r e d

sewer d i a m e t e r d f o r t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e Q i s (Yen and Sevuk, 1975)


P

i n which n i s t h e Manning's roughness f a c t o r and S i s t h e sewer s l o p e .


0

3.1.2. Chicago Hydrograph Method

This method (Tholin and K e i f e r , 1960) i s a s t e a d y flow hydro-

graph r o u t i n g approach which c o n s i d e r s i n - l i n e s t o r a g e . Two approaches

were recommended by Tholin and K e i f e r . The s i m p l e r one i s a t i m e - o f f s e t

scheme i n which a sewer i n f l o w hydrograph i s s u b d i v i d e d i n t o a number of

component hydrographs, each s h i f t e d by a time e q u a l t o an assumed time of

travel. The sum of t h e s e s h i f t e d component hydrographs g i v e s t h e outflow

hydrograph of t h e sewer. This technique lacks t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n

and t h e r e s u l t depends on t h e number of component hydrographs used and

consequently t h e s o l u t i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y unique.

The o t h e r approach c o n s i d e r e d i s a s t o r a g e r o u t i n g scheme u s i n g

Manning's formula and t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n f o r flow i n t h e sewer. From

t h e h y d r a u l i c viewpoint , t h i s i s a l i n e a r kinematic-wave approximation

(Yen, 1973a). I n t h i s approach, t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n e x p r e s s i n g mass

conservation i s w r i t t e n as
TABLE 3.1. Summary of Sewer H y d r a u l i c Design Models

Model Sewer Sewer Junction Backwater Design Output Ref.


Sys tem Hydraulics Hydraulics Effect Sequence
Input Considered in Network

Rational Inlet No r o u t i n g , n o Continuity No Cascading Sewer d i a m e t e r s and Yen and Sevuk


peak time l a g of d i s - equation design discharges (1975) ; ASCE
discharges charges and WPCF (1969)

Rational Inlet No r o u t i n g , time Continuity No Cascading .Sewer d i a m e t e r s and Yen and Sevuk
hydrographs l a g of hydro- equation design discharges (1975)
graphs

Chicago Inlet ' Storage routing Continuity No Cascading Sewer d i a m e t e r s and Tholin and
Hydrograph hydrographs o r time-of f s e t equation d e s i g n hydrographs K e i f e r (1960) ;
w without routing Yen and Sevuk
G,
(1975)

TRRL Inlet Reservoir routing Continuity No Cascading Sewer d i a m e t e r s and Watkins (1963)
hydrographs lagged by time equation b a s i n runoff hydro-
of t r a v e l graph

ILLUDAS Inlet Reservoir routing Continuity No Cascading Sewer d i a m e t e r s and Ters t r i e p and
hydrographs lagged by time equation d e s i g n hydrographs S t a l l (1974)
of t r a v e l

Kinematic Inlet Nonlinear kine- Continuity Upstream Cascading Sewer d i a m e t e r s , Yen .and Sevuk
Wave hydrographs m a t i c wave and only d i s c h a r g e hydrographs (1975)
routing dynami c and depth
equations

EPA SWMM Inlet Improved non- Continuity Upstream Cascading Sewer d i a m e t e r s , Metcalf & Eddy
hydrographs l i n e a r kinematic equation and d e s i g n hydrographs e t a l . (1971);
wave r o u t i n g partial and flow v e l o c i t i e s Huber e t a l .
downstream (19 75)

ISS Inlet Dynamic wave C o n t i n u i t y Both up- Y-segment Sewer d i a m e t e r s and Yen and Sevuk
hydrographs ( S t . Venant eqs .) and dynamic s t r e a m and sequence d i s c h a r g e , d e p t h and (1975) ; Sevuk
routing equations downstream v e l o c i t y graphs e t a l . (1973)
i n which I i s t h e i n f l o w r a t e i n t o t h e s e w e r ; Q i s t h e o u t f l o w r a t e a t t h e

e x i t of t h e s e w e r ; s i s t h e s t o r a g e of w a t e r i n t h e s e w e r ; t i s t i m e ; and

s u b s c r i p t s 1 and 2 r e p r e s e n t t h e q u a n t i t i e s a t t h e b e g i n n i n g and end o f

t h e time i n t e r v a l , A t , b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d .

F o l l o w i n g T h o l i n and K e i f e r ' s a s s u m p t i o n s and u s i n g ~ a n n i n g ' s

formula, t h e s t o r a g e f u n c t i o n can b e obtained a s

i n which L i s t h e sewer l e n g t h and 0 i s t h e c e n t r a l a n g l e o f t h e w a t e r

s u r f a c e a s shown i n F i g . 3.1. Thus, t h e i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h f o r a sewer can

b e r o u t e d u s i n g Eqs. 3.2 and 3.3 t o o b t a i n t h e o u t f l o w h y d r o g r a p h f o r t h e

sewer.

The s e w e r d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e f o r t h i s method i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e

same a s t h a t f o r t h e s t e a d y - f l o w method w i t h t h e t i m e s h i f t i n g of hydro-

graphs discussed i n S e c t i o n 3.1.1, e x c e p t t h a t t h e h y d r o g r a p h s a r e now

r o u t e d through t h e sewers i n s t e a d of simply lagged. Once t h e peak f l o w ,

, i s e v a l u a t e d f o r a s e w e r , i t s d i a m e t e r c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d by u s i n g
P
E q . 3.1.

3.1.3. T r a n s p o r t and Road Research L a b o r a t o r y Xethod

The B r i t i s h T r a n s p o r t and Road R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y (TRRL) method

(Watkins, 1 9 6 2 , 1 9 6 3 ; T e r s t r i e p and S t a l l , 1969) i s a n o t h e r s t e a d y - f low

h y d r o g r a p h r o u t i n g method known i n t h e United S t a t e s by i t s o r i g i n a l name,

t h e RRL method. The method was d e v e l o p e d m a i n l y t o c a l c u l a t e " t h e r a t e s

o f s t o r m r u n o f f i n s e w e r systems" (Watkins, 1962) a l t h o u g h a scheme f o r


sewer s i z e computation w a s added. The i n l e t hydrographs a r e r o u t e d t h r o u g h

t h e sewers u s i n g a r e s e r v o i r r o u t i n g technique. The time o f t r a v e l i n a

sewer i s computed a s t = L / V , where L i s t h e l e n g t h o f t h e sewer and V i s

t h e f u l l p i p e f l o w v e l o c i t y computed by u s i n g t h e Darcy-Weisbach f o r m u l a

i n which g i s t h e g r a v i t a t i o n a l a c c e l e r a t i o n ; R i s t h e h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s ,
Sf
i s t h e f r i c t i o n s l o p e , and t h e Weisbach r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t f i s g i v e n

by t h e Colebrook-White formula

where k i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t p i p e roughness and v i s t h e k i n e m a t i c v i s c o s i t y .

The i n f l o w hydrograph of a sewer i s t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e o u t -

flow hydrograph from t h e upstream system and t h e l o c a l i n l e t h ~ d r o g r a p h s .

The sewer d i a m e t e r can t h e n b e computed f o r t h e peak d i s c h a r g e u s i n g t h e

Darcy-Weisbach formula

i n which d i s i n f t and Q i n c f s .
P
The i n f l o w hydrograph f o r a sewer i s r o u t e d u s i n g t h e c o n t i n u i t y

r e l a t i o n s h i p , Eq. 3.2 and a s t o r a g e - d i s c h a r g e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s supplemented

t o Eq. 3.2 t o g i v e t h e o u t f l o w r a t e . O r i g i n a l l y , Watkins s u g g e s t e d t h e

u s e o f t h e r e c e s s i o n p a r t of r e c o r d e d r u n o f f hydrograph t o e s t a b l i s h t h e

storage-discharge relationship. I n a l a t e r v e r s i o n , i t was s u g g e s t e d t o

approximate t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p u s i n g t h e Darcy-Weisbach formula (Eq. 3 . 4 )

w i t h f g i v e n by Eq. 3 . 5 assuming i n s t a n t a n e o u s l y t h e sewer flow i s s t e a d y


and uniform. A l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n between t h e v a l u e s of h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s

and flow a r e a was suggested t o avoid a time consuming i n t e r a t i v e s o l u t i o n .

B a s i c a l l y , from a r o u t i n g v i e w p o i n t , t h e sewer d e s i g n scheme of

t h e TRRL method i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h a t of t h e Chicago hydrograph

method. The o n l y d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two methods i s t h a t i n s t e a d of

u s i n g Eq. 3.3 which i s based on t h e Manning formula, Eq. 3.4 w i t h f being

e s t i m a t e d by a s i m p l i f i e d Colebrook-White formula i s used t o g i v e t h e

storage function. Consequently, t h e two methods g i v e i d e n t i c a l d e s i g n s

when t h e flow i s t u r b u l e n t and f u l l y developed f o r which ~ e i s b a c h ' s f and

Manning ' s n a r e e q u i v a l e n t .
3.1.4. I l l i n o i s Urban Drainage Area S i m u l a t o r (ILLUDAS)

ILLUDAS ( T e r s t r i e p ' a n d S t a l l , 1974) i s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of TRRZ,

method t o account f o r t h e s u r f a c e runoff f r o m p e r v i o u s a r e a s . Its sewer

flow r o u t i n g concept i s t h e same a s TRlU method. S i n c e ~ a n n i n g ' sformula

i n s t e a d of D a r c y - ~ e i s b a c h ' s i s used i n t h e computation, t h e sewer d e s i g n

a s p e c t of ILLUDAS i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e Chicago hydrograph method

w i t h i t s s t o r a g e r o u t i n g scheme.

3.1.5. Kinematic Wave Methbd

I n t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method, t h e unsteady sewer flow

i s d e s c r i b e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g two e q u a t i o n s (Yen and Sevuk, 1975)

i n which x i s t h e d i s t a n c e along t h e sewer; A i s t h e flow c r o s s s e c t i o n a l

a r e a normal t o x ; and t i s time. The f r i c t i o n s l o p e , S f , i s approximated


by Planning's o r Darcy-Weisbach's formula. E q u a t i o n s 3 . 7 and 3 . 8 a r e t h e n

s o l v e d n u m e r i c a l l y w i t h i n i t i a l and u p s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d . No

downstream boundary c o n d i t i o n i s r e q u i r e d and c o n s e q u e n t l y downstream back-

water e f f e c t s cannot b e accounted f o r .

Yen and Sevuk (1975) f o r m u l a t e d a n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave sewer

d e s i g n model u s i n g a f o u r - p o i n t n o n c e n t r a l i m p l i c i t f i n i t e - d i f f e r e n c e

n u m e r i c a l scheme. Manning's f o r m u l a i s used t o e v a l u a t e S The j u n c t i o n


f'
o r manhole c o n d i t i o n i s a c c o u n t e d f o r by t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n

i n which s = s t o r a g e i n t h e manhole o r j u n c t i o n ; Q . = s u r f a c e i n f l o w i n t o
3
t h e j u n c t i o n ; s u b s c r i p t s 1 and 2 r e p r e s e n t t h e i n f l o w s e w e r s ; and s u b s c r i p t

3 i n d i c a t e s t h e o u t f l o w sewer from t h e j u n c t i o n . I f t h e s t o r a g e of t h e

manhole o r j u n c t i o n i s n e g l i g i b l e , t h e r i g h t - h a n d s i d e o f Eq. 3.9 i s e q u a l

t o zero.

3.1.6. EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)

The EPk SWMM (Metcalf & Eddy, I n c . e t a l . , 1 9 7 1 ) , i s a r e l a t i v e l y

comprehensive u r b a n s t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y p r e d i c t i o n and

management s i m u l a t i o n model. I n one of t h e r e c e n t SWMM m o d i f i c a t i o n s , a

h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n c a p a b i l i t y was i n c l u d e d (Huber e t a l . , 1975).

For sewer f l o w s c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e T r a n s p o r t Block p o r t i o n of t h e

SWMM, a m o d i f i e d n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave a p p r o x i m a t i o n i s u s e d . Con-

t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n (Eq. 3.7) and Manning's formula a r e u s e d w i t h t h e s l o p e

assumed e q u a l t o t h e f r i c t i o n s l o p e , and t h e f l o w i s assumed t o b e s t e a d y

w i t h i n each time i n t e r v a l . The c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n i s e x p r e s s e d i n f i n i t e

18
d i f f e r e n c e form, u s i n g t h e x-t p l a n e shown i n Fig. 3.2 w i t h Ax = L = sewer

length, as follows

i n which Q i s t h e d i s c h a r g e ; and A i s t h e flow c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a . The

t i m e d e r i v a t i v e i s weighted W a t t h e downstream s t a t i o n and t h e s p a t i a l


t
d e r i v a t i v e i s weighted W a t t h e end of A t . Subsequently Eq. 3.10 i s
X

normalized by t h e f u l l c o n d u i t flow a r e a and d i s c h a r g e Af and Q f , re-

spectively. By assuming s t e a d y uniform c o n d i t i o n and u s i n g ~ a n n i n g ' s

formula a s i n g l e curve r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between Q / Q and A / A


f f
f o r t h e c o n d u i t can be e s t a b l i s h e d . With t h i s nondimensional d i s c h a r g e -

a r e a c u r v e r e p l a c i n g Manning's formula and t h e normalized ( o n l y f o r A and Q )

form of Eq. 3.10, numerical s o l u t i o n s a r e t h e n o b t a i n e d w i t h known i n i t i a l

and upstream boundary c o n d i t i o n s u s i n g a f o u r - p o i n t i m p l i c i t f i n i t e

d i f f e r e n c e scheme.

S i n c e no downstream boundary c o n d i t i o n i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e s o l u -

t i o n , SWMM cannot account f o r t h e downstream backwater e f f e c t when t h e

sewer flow i s s u b c r i t i c a l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t o improve t h e s o l u t i o n a c c u r a c y ,

an ingenuous approximation i s i n t r o d u c e d . Although t h e Q / Q f - A/A


f
curve i s

e s t a b l i s h e d assuming s t e a d y uniform flow, i n s e e k i n g t h e s o l u t i o n t h e v a l u e

of Qf i s a c t u a l l y computed by u s i n g Manning's formula w i t h t h e f r i c t i o n

s l o p e S e s t i m a t e d by u s i n g a q u a s i - s t e a d y dynamic-wave approximation (Yen,


f
1973a) of t h e S t . Venant e q u a t i o n , i . e . , dropping t h e l o c a l a c c e l e r a t i o n

term i n t h e S t . Venant momentum e q u a t i o n . Thus, u s i n g t h e x-t p l a n e shown

i n Fig. 3 . 2 , t h e f r i c t i o n s l o p e f o r Q is
f
The u s e o f Eq. 3 . 1 1 t o e s t i m a t e Q p a r t i a l l y accounts f o r the
f
downstream b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t a t some l a t e r time s t e p s . Nonetheless, since

t h e downstream boundary c o n d i t i o n i s n o t t r u l y a c c o u n t e d f o r , i t i s

recommended i n SWMM t h a t f o r a s e w e r w i t h a l a r g e downstream s t o r a g e e l e m e n t

f o r which t h e b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t i s s e v e r e , t h e w a t e r s u r f a c e i s assumed a s

h o r i z o n t a l from t h e s t o r a g e e l e m e n t g o i n g backward u n t i l i t i n t e r c e p t s t h e

sewer i n v e r t . Moreover, when t h e sewer s l o p e i s s t e e p , presumably i m p l y i n g

h i g h v e l o c i t y s u p e r c r i t i c a l f l o w , t h e f l o o d may s i m p l y b e t r a n s l a t e d t h r o u g h

t h e sewer without r o u t i n g . Also, i f t h e backwater e f f e c t i s expected t o b e

s n a l l and t h e sewer i s c i r c u l a r i n c r b s s s e c t i o n , t h e g u t t e r f l o w r o u t i n g

n e t h o d may be a p p l i e d t o t h e s e w e r a s an a p p r o x i m a t i o n . IJo h y d r a u l i c jump

o r drop i s considered w i t h i n a sewer.

In SWMM l a r g e j u n c t i o n s w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y and

storzge f a c i l i t i e s a r e called storage elements, equivalent t o the case with

junction storage ( i . e . , ds/dt # 0) d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r f o r t h e k i n e m a t i c wave

mcdel. Only t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n (Eq. 3.9) i s u s e d i n s t o r a g e e l e m e n t

rcuting. No dynamic e q u a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d e x c e p t f o r t h e c a s e s w i t h w e i r

or orifice outlets. Snall junctions a r e treated as t h e point-type junctions '

with ds/dt = 0 i n Eq. 3.9 as d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r i n t h e k i n e m a t i c wave model.

I n t h e d e s i g n v e r s i o n , s m a l l d i a m e t e r s a r e f i r s t assumed f o r t h e

s e w e r s t h a t would e n s u r e f u l l p i p e f l o w . The s i z e of t h e sewer i s t h e n

i n c r e a s e d a d t h e computation i s r e p e a t e d u n t i l f r e e - s u r f a c e flow occurs.

T h i s s m a l l e s t commercial p i p e g i v i n g f r e e - s u r f a c e f l o w i s t h u s a d o p t e d a s

t h e sewer s i z e . The s e w e r s a r e d e s i g n e d f o l l o w i n g a d o w ~ l s t r e a nc a s c a d i n g

s e q u e n c e , t h e same as f o r t h e k i n e m a t i c wave model.

3.1.7. I l l i n o i s Storm Sewer System S i i n u l a t i o n Yodel (ISS Model)

The ISS model (Sevuk e t a l . , 197'3) i s a h i g h l y a c c u r a t e s i m u l a t i o n

model c o n s i d e r i n g t h e u n s t e a d y and b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t s i n t h e s e w e r s a s w e l l
Time, t
a s t h e e f f e c t s of j u n c t i o n s and manholes. The model. can b e used f o r

d e s i g n of sewer s i z e s a s w e l l a s f l o w p r e d i c t i o n . Only t h e d e s i g n o p t i o n

is discussed here.

The t i m e - v a r y i n g s t o r m r u n o f f i n g r a v i t y - f l o w s e w e r s can b e

d e s c r i b e d m a t h e m a t i c a l l y by t h e S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s (Sevuk, 1 9 7 3 ; Yen,

1973a,b)

i n which A , B , and h a r e t h e c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a , w a t e r s u r f a c e w i d t h , and

d e p t h above i n v e r t of t h e f l o w i n t h e s e w e r , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; V = ? / A is the

mean flow v e l o c i t y ; x i s t h e d i s t a n c e a l o n g t h e s e w e r ; t i s t i m e ; S is the


0

sewer s l o p e ; and S i s t h e f r i c t i o n s l o p e of t h e f l o w . E q u a t i o n 3.12 i s


f
s i m p l y a c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n h a v i n g a d i f f e r e n t form of Eq. 3 . 7 . The v a l u e

of Sf c a n b e e v a l u a t e d by u s i n g e i t h e r Darcy-Weisbach's formula or

Manning's f o r m u l a . I n t h e ISS Model, Darcy-Weisbach's f o r m u l a i s u s e d and

t h e Moody diagram i s a d o p t e d t o g i v e t h e v a l u e of t h e Weisbach r e s i s t a n c e

coefficient f .

I n s o l v i n g Eqs. 3.12 and 3;13 f o r s u b c r i t i c a l f l o w i n a s e w e r ,

a downstream boundary c o n d i t i o n i s r e q u i r e d which r e f l e c t s t h e b a c k w a t e r

e f f e c t .from t h e downstream j u n c t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , a j u n c t i o n dynamic e q u a t i o n

i s needed i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e j u n c t i o n c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n ( E q . 3 . 9 ) . The

dynamic e q u a t i o n f o r a j u n c t i o n i s f o r m u l a t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n t i n u i t y

of t h e w a t e r s u r f a c e a t t h e j u n c t i o n . Thus, a t a p o i n t - t y p e j u n c t i o n w i t h

negligible storage
i n which z i s t h e e l e v a t i o n of t h e sewer i n v e r t above a r e f e r e n c e h o r i z o n t a l

datum and h i s t h e depth of t h e sewer flow a t t h e e x i t o r e n t r a n c e of t h e

j o i n i n g sewers, and t h e s u b s c r i p t s a r e a s d e f i n e d i n Eq. 3.9. At a

reservoir-type junction with l a r g e storage

For b o t h t y p e s of j u n c t i o n s , i f t h e i n f l o w i n g sewer h a s a drop producing a

f r e e - f a l l of t h e f l o w , t h e n t h e flow depth a t t h e e x i t of t h a t sewer i s

e q u a l t o the c r i t i c a l depth corresponding t o t h e i n s t a n t a n e o u s d i s c h a r g e .

P r e s e n t l y t h e ISS Model c o n s i d e r s t h e d i r e c t backwater e f f e c t s

of o n l y up t o t h r e e sewers a t a j u n c t i o n o r manhole. For j u n c t i o n s o r

manholes w i t h more than t h r e e j o i n i n g s e w e r s , t h e a d d i t i o n a l sewers (pre-

f e r a b l y t h o s e w i t h s m a l l backwater e f f e c t s from t h e j u n c t i o n ) can b e

t r e a t e d as d i r e c t i n f l o w s , i . e . , a s Q j i n Eq. 3.9.

Equations 3.12 and 3.13 a p p l i e d t o each sewer coupled w i t h Eqs.

3.9 and 3.14 o r 3.15 f o r t h e j u n c t i o n s and manholes can b e s o l v e d

n u m e r i c a l l y w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e i n i t i a l and boundary c o n d i t i o n s on a l a r g e

d i g i t a l computer u s i n g a f i r s t - o r d e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s method t o g e t h e r w i t h

an o v e r l a p p i n g segment scheme (Sevuk e t a l . , 1973). The sewer system i s

s u b d i v i d e d i n t o a number of o v e r l a p p i n g Y-segments and s o l u t i o n i s o b t a i n e d

through i t e r a t i o n s t o s a t i s f y t h e j u n c t i o n and sewer dynamic c o n d i t i o n s .

The d e t a i l e d procedure of t h e ISS Model f o r sewer s i z e d e s i g n can b e found

i n Sevuk e t a l . (1973) and Yen and Sevuk (1975). It i s t h e only

sewer system h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n model t h a t accounts f o r b o t h upstream and

downstream backwater e f f e c t s and a u t o m a t i c a l l y computes t h e r e v e r s a l flow

23
when i t occurs. It i s a l s o t h e o n l y model t h a t determines t h e sewer dia-

meter by maximum flow depth r a t h e r than maximum d i s c h a r g e . A comparison

of t h e d e s i g n of a h y p o t h e t i c a l 14-pipe sewer system f o r t h e ISS, EPA SWMM,

Kinematic wave, TRRI,, Chicago hydrograph, and s t e a d y flow methods h a s been

p r e s e n t e d elsewhere (Yen and Sevuk, 1975).

3 . 2 . Design O p t i m i z a t i o n Models

With t h e advancements i n computer technology and o p e r a t i o n s r e s e a r c h

d u r i n g t h e p a s t q u a r t e r of a c e n t u r y , i t i s l o g i c a l t h a t a t t e m p t s would b e

made t o a c h i e v e o p t i m i z a t i o n i n sewer d e s i g n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e sewers as a

system. I n t h e p a s t decade s e v e r a l p u b l i c a t i o n s have appeared d e a l i n g w i t h

o p t i m a l d e s i g n of sewer systems on t h e b a s i s of l e a s t c o s t . Linear o r

n o n l i n e a r c o s t formulas were used which can b e s o l v e d by u s i n g a v a i l a b l e

s t a n d a r d computer a l g o r i t h m s . These s t u d i e s can b e c l a s s i f i e d a s ( a ) optimiza-

t i o n f o r d e s i g n of sewer s l o p e s and s i z e s w i t h predetermined l a y o u t ; (b) o p t i -

m i z a t i o n f o r d e s i g n of sewer system l a y o u t ; ( c ) o p t i m i z a t i o n f o r d e s i g n of

sewer l a y o u t , s l o p e s , and s i z e s s i m u l t ~ a n e o u s l y ; and (d) o p t i m i z a t i o n f o r sewer

s i z e o n l y , b u t i n c l u d i n g o t h e r components of t h e o v e r a l l d r a i n a g e system such

as t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s . The important f e a t u r e s of t h e major l e a s t - c o s t sewer

system d e s i g n models a r e summarized i n Table 3 . 2 .

3.2.1. Models f o r Least-Cost Design of Sewer S l o p e s and S i z e s

Most of t h e models r e p o r t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e f o r l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n

a r e d i r e c t e d a t t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of sewer s i z e s arid s l o p e s of a system w i t h a

specified layout. T h i s group of models i n c l u d e t h e t h i r d t o t h e t w e l f t h

models l i s t e d i n Table 3 . 2 . A l l b u t one use Manning's formula t o determine

p i p e s i z e , i g n o r i n g unsteady e f f e c t s on t h e flow and u t i l i z i n g no hydrograph

routing. O f t e n t h e sewer s l o p e i s e x p r e s s e d i n terms of t h e upstream and

downstream i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s and t h e g i v e n sewer l e n g t h .


Holland (1966) developed a model f o r s e l e c t i n g sewer d i a m e t e r s

and s o i l cover d e p t h s t o minimize t h e c o s t of a sewer system w i t h a g i v e n

l a y o u t s a t i s f y i n g c o n v e n t i o n a l d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s and assumptions. In

t h i s model t h e o b j e c t i v e i s t o minimize

2
COST = 1 ( C ~ T + C ~ X ~ + C ~ ) L ~ Cd(Ei
+ - E.) 1 (3.16)
commercial P l manholes J
s i z e pipes

subject t o

i n which C C and C . a r e c o s t c o e f f i c i e n t s of m a t e r i a l s , e x c a v a t i o n ,
p' cx' 0 J
l a y i n g t h e p i p e i n p l a c e , and manholes, r e s p e c t i v e l y ; di, Xi, and Soi a r e

t h e d i a m e t e r , average d e p t h , and s l o p e of t h e i - t h sewer, r e s p e c t i v e l y ;

Ei
- E . i s t h e drop i n p i p e e l e v a t i o n between t h e manholes;
J
z is i n v e r t
i
depth; z i s t h e minimum cover d e p t h ; V. d e n o t e s sewer flow v e l o c i t y ; Q is
C 1 i
flow r a t e ; n i s Manning's roughness f a c t o r , K i s a c o n s t a n t which depends

on t h e measurement u n i t s i n which t h e v a r i a b l e s a r e g i v e n ; and a i s a

shape f a c t o r t h a t r e l a t e s t h e a r e a t o t h e nominal dimension of t h e p i p e .


TABLE 3 . 2 . Summary Leas t-Cos t Sewer System Design Models
Coneideratian
-.-. --
- - -- - --- - of

Optimization Variables Sewer f l w commercial pipe Form of


3del techdaue Desim Decision State hydraulics diameters cost function Ramarks
Liebman Heuristic pro- Laputs N /A MIA Ignorsd. Yes Any form of Begins with a t r i a l layout 8nd at-
(1967) cedure (fixed f l w cost function tempts t o find cheaper layout.. All
assumed i n pipe d i m a r e fixed.
each pipe
Lovaley Uetwrk tbcory Layout Fl /A NIA Ignored. Yes, but cannot Nonlinear Optimization based on concept of
(1973) procedure (fixed flow wnsider network trunk. where a trunk i s that
based on an assumed i n multiple pipe chain i n a rooted spanning t r e e
Implicit each pipe) sizes having the l a r g e s t excavation and
mn-ration pipe cost.
algorithm

, Bollmd Yonlinear M m snd depth Size and in- RIA Warming's D i m are, wn- Nonlinear Suggest a rcmdom search as means of
(1966) separable pro- of sewers f o r v e r t eleva- formula tinuoua and s e l e c t i n g commercial pipe sizes.
8 r d 8 given layout t i o n of pipes rounded up t o
c-rcial sizes

b l I.~ Dynamic pro- , M m rmd depth Size, slope. Pas


b ~ ~ l i ~ ' ~ Linear and Conceptual m d e l intended as a long
voorh~s P d n g of severs. and depth of f onoula nonlinear range planning tool. Never pro-
k hmoc- location of pipes gratmned o r verified.
iatem P-s.
(1969) pressurlred
aCVCT MIUS
f o r given lay-
out

Zepp and Dynmic pro- Mam and depth Yes Linear and Based on Voorheea .model, s e l e c t the
Leary g r d n g of severs, nonlinear least-cost a l t e r n a t i v e f o r each
(1969) location of succeeding l i n k and c a r r i e s t h a t
pumps f o r given single a l t e r n a t i v e foruard a~ the
layout opthal.

DeiniDger Linear pro- Diam and i n v e r t S i r e md invert NIA Manning s ' No Linear Limited t o nonbrcmching systems.
(1970) graming elevations of elevation of fonoula Sow constraints a r e nonlinear which
severs f o r
given layout
pipes
imations .
a r e linearized by successive approx-

lkredith Dgnadc pro- Mam and depth Drop in eleva- Invert Ihrming's Yes Linear and l o r nonbranching a y a t c a only. Two
(1971) sr- of s-rs for t i o n across elevations formula nonlinear, can approachen of handling mauholcs:
given layouts pipe incorporate all pipen conmeting t o apnholc a r e
other f o r m of a t the same elevation, o r relaxa- .
cost function tion of t h i s elevation conatralnt.

Dajmi Convex separ- Dim and depth Tro decision U /A Uanuing's D i m a r e contin- Quadratic Use equations f o r cost of excava-
and able pro- of sewern f o r variables: formula uoua then uae tion and pipe component developed
kmmz11 g r d n g cmd given layout sum and dif- Bolland's random by multiple regrassion.
(1971) random ference of sanpling approach
sawling upstream and to s e l e c t c o w
dwnstream merciai s i z a s
invert eleva-
tions of
sewers

llerritt Dynamic pro- Mam and depth Pipe mizen and Pipe sizen Manning ' a Yes Any form of Two hydraulic m d e l s : (a) conven-
ad gr-8 of sewers and e x i s t i n g in- and invert fo m l a cost function t i o n a l Ikinning's formula f o r which
Bogan p u q stations v e r t elevation elevations limiting slopes a r e s e t by f u l l -
(1973) f o r given a t a mauhole pipe flow conditions. (b) kuming's
layout f o d a i n which specified maximum
and minimum velocities a r e met a t
- actual depths f o r design f l w r a t e s .
TABLE 3 . 2 . (Continued)

Consideration of
Optirization Variables Sewer flow c-ercial pipe Form of
Cddel technique Design Decision State hydraulics diameters c o s t function Remarks

Dajlml -vex separ- Mam and depth Ilanning' s Yen Piecevise Three model formulations a r e given.
and a b l e mixed of sewers f o r formula linearization F i r s t i s Dajani and &muell's and
aaSit i n t e g e r prc- given layout of Dajani and other two a r e Dajani and Hnait's
(1974) g r d - GBaaell's formulated f o r f u l l p i p e flow and
f 1971) c o s t p a r t i a l pipe f l w .
functions

Froise, D y n J c pro- Diam and deptb Pipe s i z e s . Invert Kinematic Yea Any form of Extension of t h e e a r l i e r model by
Burges, g r m of severs, slopes, l i f t elevations wave o r coat function kkrritt and Bogan (1973). In
and pump s t a t i o n stations, d y n d c wave routing uniform f l w i s a s s m d a t
routing entrance and e x i t of each pipe.
Bogan capacities, s t o r a g e vol-
(1975) l i f t heights, m s , and using Darcy-
r etention n a d n u m dis- Yeisbach
basin con- charges formula f o r
figurations pipe design
and volums

Barlw Bcuriatic ~ a y o u tand U/A Dar cy- Yes Nonlinear


(1972) search prc- sRier d i m Yeiabach's .
cedure. t o limited formula
shortest eztent
SP-g
t r e e and
shortest
path through
"enp p o ~ -
techniquen

kg-. Dynamic pro- Mam and depth Upstream m d Invert Manning's Yes Any form of Considers main and l o c a l pipes. i.e.
Shamir gr-ng of sewers and dametream eleva- formula and c o s t function t h e upstream end e i t h e r connects o r
and layout to a i n v e r t eleva- tions, Powroy 'a doesn't connect t o a manhole. Opti-
Spivak very l i m i t e d t i o n s and connect- formula mization of layout determines whether
(1973) extent drainage ivity each pipe i s l o c a l or main.
directions

Battelle Dynamic p r w Sewer d i m . Pipe s i z e s , N /A tionlinear Yea Intended f o r optimum design and con-
Borth- g r d n g regulators, storage sizes. tinematic t r o l of metropolitan wastewater
weat Labs fmdified trea-nt regulator wave routing management s y s t e m , primarily f o r .
(Brand- gradient p l a n t s , and sizea by character- simulation of major sewer systenm
stetter, tedmique) storage i s t i c method components, such as trunk and
Bogel, facilities for i n t e r c e p t o r s , treatment p l a n t s .
a d given layout
Cearlock, and sewer
1973) elopes

WlT Linear pro- Optimal oper- Pipe s i z e s , NlA Nonlinear Yes Linear The m d e l is designed t o be used
&lrshen gr-ng a t i n g policy, s t o r a g e tank kinematic wave i n t e r a c t i v e l y v i t h EPA SWlM which
and
Ilarb
1974)
. sever d i m .
storage tank
sizes w d
sizes, t r e a t -
aent plant
s i z e s , eod
routing determines major arena of flooding
and magnitudes and q u a n t i t i e s of
o v e r f l w f o r use on combined s w e r
treamnt f lor -mts systems t o screen c o n t r o l a l t e r -
plant s i z e s natives and choose t h e l e a s t
expensive combination s a t h a t t h e r e
a r e no overflows o r excessive
l o c a l flooding.
The g e n e r a l i z e d s u b s c r i p t s i and j r e f e r t o u p s t r e a m and downstream l o c a -

tions respectively, with respect t o a pipe. The d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e

p i p e s i z e s and t h e i r i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s . The p r o b l e m i s a r r a n g e d i n s u c h a

manner t h a t a l l t h e c o n s t r a i n t s a r e l i n e a r i n terms o f e l e v a t i o n s and t h e

o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i s n o n l i n e a r and s e p a r a b l e . The d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e i n a

g i v e n p i p e i s c o n s i d e r e d a s c o n s t a n t and t h e d i a m e t e r i s computed by u s i n g

t h e Manning f o r m u l a a s s u m i n g j u s t f u l l p i p e f l o w . The p i p e d i a m e t e r s which

are c o n s i d e r e d as c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s a r e a r b i t r a r i l y r o u n d e d up t o

c o m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e s i z e s ; a p r o c e s s t h a t may r e s u l t i n a n o n - o p t i n a l

system design. A -random s e a r c h a r o u n d t h e optimum i s s u g g e s t e d a s a means

o f l o c a t i n g t h e b e s t s o l u t i o n h a v i n g commercial p i p e d i a m e t e r s .

A l a n M. Voorhees and A s s o c i a t e s (1969) p r o p o s e d a w a s t e w a t e r

c o l l e c t i o n c o s t e s t i m a t i o n model. T h i s model was i n t e n d e d t o b e a l o n g

r a n g e p l a n n i n g t o o l t o e s t i m a t e t h e p r e s e n t wo,rth o f i n v e s t m e n t a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h i n s t a l l i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g a s e w e r s y s t e m o r s u b s y s t e m s t o s e r v e a

proposed land use configuration. Land u s e d a t a i s c o n v e r t e d i n t o e x p e c t e d

wastewater f l o w s which a r e u s e d by t h e n o d e l t o p r o j e c t t h e minimum c o s t

o f s a t i s f y i n g demands f o r e a c h segmenE of a s y s t e m u s i n g a dynamic p r o -

gramming a l g o r i t h m t o d e t e r m i n e o p t i m a l s i z e s , s l o p e s and i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s

of the sewer pipes. At i n t e r i o r n o d e s ( j u n c t i o n s ) o f t h e sewer s y s t e n

( t r e e ) , t h e s u b t r e e c o s t o f a l l n o d e s f o r f e a s i b l e e l e v a t i o n s and p i p e

s i z e s are d e f i n e d b y t h e f u n c t i o n a l e q u a t i o n

w h e r e t . ( d , z ) i s t h e o p t i m a l s u b t r e e c o s t of node j a t d e p t h z and p i p e
J \

s i z e d ; I . i s node j ' s s e t o f c o n n e c t i n g n o d e s ; k i s an i n d e x of f e a s i b l e
J
d e p t h - p i p e s i z e c o m b i n a t i o n s ; K . i s t h e s e t of f e a s i b l e d e p t h - p i p e s i z e
1

c o m b i n a t i o n s a t node i; and a k ( i , j ) i s t h e c o s t of c o n n e c t i n g node i a t

d e p t h zk by a p i p e of d i a m e t e r d k t o node j a t ( o r above) d e p t h z and

size d . The o u t p u t of t h e model i n c l u d e s t h e c o v e r d e p t h , s l o p e , and s i z e o f

e a c h p i p e i n t h e s y s t e m ; l o c a t i o n s o f pumps; and t o t a l p r e s e n t w o r t h of t h e

s y s t e m i n c l u d i n g m a i n t e n a n c e and o p e r a t i o n c o s t s . The Voorhees model was

d e v e l o p e d i n some d e t a i l s b u t was n e v e r programmed o r v e r i f i e d .

Zepp and L e a r y (1969) d e v e l o p e d a sewer c o s t e s t i m a t i o n computer

program t h a t was p a t t e r n e d somewhat a f t e r t h e Voorhees model. T h e i r model

i n c o r p o r a t e s a l i m i t e d o p t i m i z a t i o n procedure i n t h a t i t s e l e c t s t h e least

Cost a l t e r n a t i v e f o r e a c h s u c c e e d i n g p i p e d u r i n g t h e d e s i g n and c a r r i e s t h a t

a l t e r n a t i v e forward as t h e o p t i m a l f o r t h e system. D e i n i n g e r (1970)

f o r m u l a t e d a l i n e a r programming model f o r t h e minimum c o s t d e s i g n of sewer

s y s t e m s assuming t h e e x c a v a t i o n and sewer c o s t s t o b e l i n e a r . T h i s formu-

l a t i o n r e s u l t s i n some o f t h e c o n s t r a i n t s b e i n g n o n l i n e a r which are

t r a n s f o r m e d i n t o l i n e a r c o n s t r a i n t s by s u c c e s s i v e a p p r o x i m a t i o n s .

M e r e d i t h (1971) d e v e l o p e d a dynamic programming model t o d e t e r m i n e

t h e components o f minimum c o s t non-branching sewer s y s t e m s i n which o n l y

commercially a v a i l a b l e p i p e s i z e s were c o n s i d e r e d . A s i m p l i f i e d approach

and a more r e a l i s t i c approach were e a c h c o n s i d e r e d . The s i m p l i f i e d

approach assumes t h a t t h e i n v e r t a t t h e e x i t of t h e o u t f l o w i n g sewer i s a t t h e

same e l e v a t i o n as t h e i n v e r t a t t h e e n t r a n c e of t h e i n f l o w sewer j o i n i n g

a t t h e same manhole. The more r e a l i s t i c approach r e l a x e s t h i s c o n s t r a i n t .

For t h e s i m p l i f i e d approach e a c h s t a g e r e p r e s e n t s a p i p e p l u s t h e down-

s t r e a m manhole. The i n p u t and o u t p u t s t a t e s a t e a c h s t a g e i r e p r e s e n t t h e

i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e u p s t r e a m and downstream e n d s o f e a c h p i p e . The

d e c i s i o n a t e a c h s t a g e r e p r e s e n t s t h e d r o p i n e l e v a t i o n between t h e two

ends of t h e pipe. For t h e more r e a l i s t i c a p p r o a c h , e a c h s t a g e r e p r e s e n t s


a s i n g l e component (manhole o r p i p e ) of t h e system. The d e c i s i o n i s t h e

drop i n e l e v a t i o n f o r each s t a g e . The r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n f o r t h e stage-by-

s t a g e o p t i m i z a t i o n from u p s t r e a m t o downstream i s s t a t e d as

where F . ( S . ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimun c o s t of t h e sewer s y s t e E t h r o u g h s t a g e i


1 1

and Fo(So) = 0. The r e t u r n , r a t each s t a g e f o r t h e s i m p l i f i e d approach


i'
i s t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e p i p e and t h e downstream manhole. For che

more r e a l i s t i c a p p r o a c h , t h e r e t u r n i s t h e c o s t of i n s t a l l a t i o n of e i t h e r

t h e p i p e o r t h e manhole. A comparison of t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s u s i n g a c o s t

f u n c t i o n proposed by Alan M. Voorhees and A s s o c i a t e s (1969) i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t

a l l o w i n g a d r o p a c r o s s a manhole r e s u l t s i n much c h e a p e r sewer s y s t e m

designs.

Another a p p l i c a t i o n of dynamic p r o g r a m i n g t o t h e o p t i m a l d e s i g n

of sewer s y s t e m s i s r e p o r t e d by M e r r i t t and Bogan ( 1 9 7 3 ) . I n t h i s model

t h e s t a g e s a r e manholes; t h e s t a t e v a r i a b l e s a r e p i p e s i z e s and i n v e r t

e l e v a t i o n s ; and t h e d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e p i p e s i z e s and t h e e x i s t i n g

i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n a t t h e manhole. The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n between s t a g e s i s

g i v e n by t h e Manning f o r m u l a . S i m i l a r t o M e r e d i t h ' s model, t h e stage-by-

s t a g e r e c u r s i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d e s from t h e u p s t r e a m t o t h e d o w n s t r e a m

end ~ f t h e sewer system. Drop manholes a r e c o n s i d e r e d when t h e maximum

a l l o w a b l e v e l o c i t y c o n s t r a i n t i s exceeded. Also when a g r a v i t y f l o w

s o l u t i o n v i o l a t e s t h e maximum d e p t h c o n s t r a i n t , a pumping s t a t i o n i s added.

S i m i l a r t o t h e o t h e r d y n a i i c programming a p p l i c a t i o n s , t h i s mcdel c c n s i d e r s

commercial p i p e s i z e s .

D a j a n l and Gemrnell (1971) d e v e l o p e d m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n s

f o r t h e c o s t of t h e e x c a v a t i o n and p i p e components b a s e d upon c u n s t r u c t i o n

bidding. The r e s u l t i n g g e n e r a l form of t h e c o s t f u n c t i o n i s


where C i s t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t p e r f o o t of sewer; d i s t h e sewer d i a m e t e r ;

X i s t h e average d e p t h of e x c a v a t i o n ; and a , b , and c a r e t h e r e g r e s s i o n

coefficients . Based upon t h i s c o s t f u n c t i o n , an o v e r a l l n o n l i n e a r o b j e c t i v e

f u n c t i o n was formulated a s

where C i s t h e t o t a l c o s t of t h e p i p e o r i g i n a t i n g from node i ; n i s


ti
Manning's roughness f a c t o r ; K i s t h e measurement u n i t . c o n s t a n t , i n Manning's
2
formula a s d e f i n e d i n Eq. 3.17; K = Q/d V; Qdi i s t h e average d a i l y f l o w ;
1
i s t h e s l o p e of p i p e i; and Li i s t h e l e n g t h of p i p e i. By s u b s t i t u t i n g
'oi
i n e q u a t i o n s f o r t h e s l o p e and depth of e x c a v a t i o n , Eq. 3.21 i s reduced t o

c o n t a i n two d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s which a r e t h e summation o f , and t h e

d i f f e r e n c e between, t h e upstream and downstream i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s of each

p i p e i n t h e sewer network. It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e d i a m e t e r

h a s been e l i m i n a t e d a s a d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e because of r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r t h e

average d a i l y flow. S i x l i n e a r c o n s t r a i n t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e minimum a l l o w a b l e

d i a m e t e r , t h e minimum and maximum v e l o c i t y l i m i t s , t h e minimum p i p e c o v e r ,

and d i a m e t e r and i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n p r o g r e s s i o n c o n s t r a i n t s , were formulated

i n terms of t h e two d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s . Convex s e p a r a b l e programming was

used t o s o l v e t h i s model and Planning's formula was used t o s o l v e f o r t h e

diameter. T h i s procedure assumes t h a t sewer p i p e s a r e a v a i l a b l e i n any

t h e o r e t i c a l s i z e s o t h e y recommend t h e u s e of H o l l a n d ' s random sampling

approach t o s e l e c t commercially a v a i l a b l e s i z e s .

Dajani and H a s i t (1974) have extended t h e model of D a j a n i and

Gemmell t o account f o r d i s c r e t e p i p e s i z e s . The n o n l i n e a r o b j e c t i v e


f u n c t i o n , Eq. 3 . 2 1 , i s l i n e a r i z e d u s i n g p i e c e w i s e l i n e a r i z a t i o n which adds

s i x sets o f p i e c e w i s e a p p r o x i m a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s f o r e a c h p i p e i n t h e sewer

network. I n a d d i t i o n two sets o f c o n s t r a i n t s h a v i n g 0-1 i n t e g e r v a r i a b l e s

are added t o t h e f o r m u l a t i o n t o o b t a i n commercially a v a i l a b l e p i p e s i z e s .

These c o n s t r a i n t s c o m p l e t e t h e f o r m u l a t i o n a s a c o n v e x - s e p a r a b l e , mixed-

i n t e g e r programming problem, h a v i n g t h e c o n t i n u o u s v a r i a b l e s of e x c a v a t i o n

d e p t h s and i n t e g e r v a r i a b l e s w i t h a t o t a l of 1 4 c o n s t r a i n t s f o r e a c h p i p e

i n t h e network. T h r e e model f o r m u l a t i o n s w e r e compared. The f i r s t i s

D a j a n i and Gemmell's (1971) model c o n s i d e r i n g a c o n t i n u o u s r a n g e of

d i a m e t e r s and i s f o r m u l a t e d assuming f u l l p i p e flow. The s e c o n d model

d e a l s w i t h d i s c r e t e commercial p i p e s i z e f o r p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d p i p e flow.

The t h i r d model i s a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e f i r s t two models f o r m u l a t e d f o r

f u l l and p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d f l o w s i n commercial s i z e p i p e s .

F r o i s e , Burges, and Bogan (1975) r e c e n t l y proposed a model t o

d e t e r m i n e l e a s t - c o s t s t r a t e g i e s f o r sewer s y s t e m d e s i g n u s i n g dynamic pro-

gramming i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a h y d r a u l i c s i m u l a t i o n model. T h i s model i s

a n e x t e n s i o n of t h e e a r l i e r model developed b y Merritt and Bogan (1973)

f o r which e a c h s t a g e i s r e p r e s e n t e d b y a node i n t h e network. A t each

s t a g e of t h e s y s t e m t h e s t a t e v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e h y d r o g r a p h s , s t o r a g e

volumes, p i p e s i z e s , pump s t a t i o n c a p a c i t i e s , i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s and s o l u -

t i o n c o s t s . The c o n t r o l o p t i o n s o r v a r i a b l e s a r e maximum d i s c h a r g e s , p i p e

s i z e s and s l o p e s , l i f t s t a t i o n s , and s t o r a g e volumes. Each p i p e s i z e i s

o n l y c o n s i d e r e d a t o n e s p e c i f i c s l o p e f o r e a c h s t a t e and f o r e a c h q u a n t i z e d

i n c r e m e n t of flow. T h i s s l o p e i s t h e one t h a t r e s u l t s i.n t h e c o n d u i t

f l o w i n g f u l l a t t h e maximum d i s c h a r g e , o r , i f t h i s d e c i s i o n v i o l a t e s t h e

minimum v e l o c i t y c o n s t r a i n t , t h e s l o p e t h a t r e s u l t s i n t h e minimum allow-

a b l e v e l o c i t y of flow i s . u s e d . When a s o l u t i o n v i o l a t e s t h e downstream


c o v e r depth c o n s t r a i n t s , s o l u t i o n s which i n c l u d e drop s t r u c t u r e s o r pump

s t a t i o n s a t t h e upstream j u n c t i o n a r e s e l e c t e d . When t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n

phase h a s been completed a t each s t a g e t h e i n l e t hydrograph i s r o u t e d t o

t h e n e x t downstream s t a g e . E i t h e r t h e k i n e m a t i c wave o r t h e dynamic wave

e q u a t i o n s a r e used f o r r o u t i n g by an i m p l i c i t numerical scheme. The

s e l e c t i o n of r o u t i n g model i s based upon t h e p i p e d i a m e t e r and s l o p e . Uni-

form flow c o n d i t i o n s a r e assumed a t t h e upstream and downstream ends of

each p i p e .

3.2.2. Models f o r Least-Cost S e l e c t i o n of Sewer System Layouts

The f i r s t formal approach t o t h e l e a s t - c o s t s e l e c t i o n of t h e l a y -

o u t f o r sewer systems i s a s t u d y by Liebman (1967). A h e u r i s t i c procedure

was developed which u s e s a simple s e a r c h method f o r s e e k i n g improved l a y o u t s

i n g r a v i t y flow sewer systems. T h i s method b e g i n s w i t h a d e s i g n e r s e l e c t e d

t r i a l l a y o u t and a t t e m p t s t o f i n d l a y o u t s having s m a l l e r ' t o t a l c o s t s . The

sewer d i a m e t e r s a r e assumed t o b e f i x e d and t h e b e s t l a y o u t i s found by t h e

s e a r c h procedure. A t each s t e p of t h e procedure one branch of t h e network

i s changed. The change i s r e t a i n e d i f i t r e s u l t s i n a d e c r e a s e i n t h e t o t a l

cost. A major drawback w i t h t h i s method i s t h a t f i x e d v a l u e s of d i s c h a r g e

a r e assumed f o r each p i p e of t h e system, i g n o r i n g t h e h y d r a u l i c s of t h e

sewer network.

Another l a y o u t model was proposed by Lowsley (1973) u s i n g a n e t -

work t h e o r y procedure t o o b t a i n a l a y o u t g i v i n g minimum t o t a l c o s t of sewers

and e x c a v a t i o n . The a l g o r i t h m i s a n i m p l i c i t enumeration p r o c e s s based on

t h e concept of a network t r u n k , where a t r u n k i s d e f i n e d a s t h a t c h a i n i n

a r o o t e d spanning t r e e having t h e l a r g e s t e x c a v a t i o n and p i p e c o s t . Like

Liebman's model, t h e sewer d i a m e t e r s a r e assumed unchanged and t h e

h y d r a u l i c s of t h e sewer flow i s ignored. Moreover, t h e model cannot


c o n s i d e r m u l t i p l e p i p e s i z e s , i n s t e a d s p e c i f i e s minimum and maximum s l o p e s

f o r single pipe sizes.

3.2.3. Models f o r Least-Cost Design of Sewer S l o p e s , S i z e s and Layout

Simultaneous o p t i m a l d e s i g n of t h e s i z e s , s l o p e s and l a y o u t of

t h e sewers i n a sewer system i s a more complicated t a s k t h a n t h e o p t i m a l

d e s i g n f o r o n l y t h e s i z e s , t h e l a y o u t , o r t h e s i z e s and s l o p e s . Only two

s t u d i e s have r e c e n t l y been r e p o r t e d on l i m i t e d s c o p e s o f t h e s i m u l t a n e o u s

o p t i m a l d e s i g n problem. Barlow (1972) proposed a h e u r i s t i c s e a r c h

procedure which chooses t h e major t r u n k sewers and t h e n u s e s t h e s h o r t e s t -

path-through-many-points t e c h n i q u e and t h e s h o r t e s t - s p a n n i n g - t r e e technique

t o d e t e r m i n e t h e f i n a l l a y o u t and t h e sewer d i a m e t e r s t o a l i m i t e d e x t e n t .

The sewer s l o p e i s i m p l i c i t l y i n c l u d e d by r e s t r i c t i n g i t w i t h i n a

s p e c i f i e d maximum and minimum and w i t h i n t h i s r a n g e u s i n g t h e s l o p e com-

p u t e d by ~ a m i n g ' sformula t h a t g i v e s j u s t f u l l p i p e f l o w f o r t h e sewer

diameter.

Another model proposed by Argaman, Shamir, and Spivak (1973)

u s i n g dynamic programming c o n s i d e r s b o t h l o c a l p i p e s which s t a r t n e x t t o a

manhole b u t do n o t connect t o i t and main p i p e s which l e a d o u t of a node

(manhole). Both l o c a l and main p i p e s c o l l e c t l o c a l d r a i n a g e a l o n g

t h e i r routes. The o p t i m i z a t i o n of t h e l a y o u t o n l y d e t e r m i n e s whether each

p i p e i s a l o c a l o r main p i p e . The model i s f o r m u l a t e d t o minimize o v e r

t h e c o n n e c t i v i t y of t h e network and t h e i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s of each p i p e .

The o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i s s t a t e d a s

fin [ 1 (Cpi(di9HUi9Hdi.1 T.) + 1 (cdi(di)1 (3.22)


T . ,1
Hui9Hdi a l l pipes a l l drops
i n which T = 1 when p i p e i i s a main p i p e and T = 0 f o r l o c a l p i p e s ;
i i Hui
and H a r e t h e upstream and downstream i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,
di
of p i p e i; d . i s t h e diameter of p i p e i ; i s t h e c o s t of p i p e i ; and Cdi
1

i s t h e c o s t of t h e drop s t r u c t u r e a t t h e end of p i p e i. The independent

d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s a r e t h e d r a i n a g e d i r e c t i o n s of a l l nodes and upstream

and downstream i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s of a l l p i p e s . The system i s d i v i d e d i n t o

s t a g e s by i s o n o d a l l i n e s ( c a l l e d d r a i n a g e l i n e s by Argaman e t a l . , 1973)

which a r e t h e imaginary l i n e s p a s s i n g through a l l nodes having t h e same

l i n k - d i s t a n c e from t h e o u t l e t . A l l nodes on i s o n o d a l l i n e n can d r a i n

o n l y t o nodes on l i n e n+l. The r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n f o r t h e stage-by-stage

dynamic programming o p t i m i z a t i o n i s

i n which F
* (H
n+l
) i s t h e minimum c o s t of t h e system from i s o n o d a l l i n e s
n+l
.EC n+l
1 t o n + l ; fi[H:,H , ~ ( i , n + l ) l i s t h e c o s t of t h e c h e a p e s t f e a s i b l e p i p e s

between node i on l i n e n and t h e nodes on l i n e n+l; Hn ,Hn+' a r e v e c t o r s of


n
q u a n t i z e d node e l e v a t i o n s on i s o n o d a l l i n e s n and n + l ; H . i s t h e e l e v a t i o n
1

of node i on i s o n o d a l l i n e n ; and T ( i , n + l ) i s t h e v e c t o r of c o n n e c t i v i t y

between node i on i s o n o d a l l i n e n and nodes on l i n e n+l. A l a r g e sewer

system must b e decomposed i n t o s m a l l e r subsystems which a r e optimized

s e p a r a t e l y and then recombined. This technique is n o t p r a c t i c a l a t t h e

p r e s e n t due t o l i m i t a t i o n s i n computer s i z e and computation time.

3.2.4. System Optimization Models f o r Design of Sewer S i z e s

The o p t i m i z a t i o n models t h a t determine o n l y t h e s i z e of sewers

w i t h s p e c i f i e d sewer l a y o u t and s l o p e s a c t u a l l y a r e models i n t e n d e d t o

a c h i e v e o p t i m i z a t i o n c o n s i d e r i n g n o t o n l y t h e sewers i n t h e system b u t
a l s o o t h e r components i n t h e o v e r a l l u r b a n d r a i n a g e s y s t e m , a c o n c e p t t h a t

h a s b e e n d i s c u s s e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of C h a p t e r 2. understandably, because

of t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f e x i s t i n g computers, t h e two models t h a t have b e e n

proposed and l i s t e d a t t h e end of T a b l e 3.2 c o n s i d e r c o n j u n c t i v e l y o n l y

t h e s e l e c t e d subsystems o f t h e o v e r a l l u r b a n d r a i n a g e s y s t e m and d e s i g n

o n l y f o r t h e d i a m e t e r of t h e s e w e r s . A group o f r e s e a r c h e r s a t B a t t e l l e

P a c i f i c Northwest L a b o r a t o r i e s (Brands t e e t e r , E n g e l , and C e a r l o c k , 1973)

developed a model i n t e n d e d f o r o p t i m a l management of u r b a n w a s t e w a t e r

, d i s p o s a l s y s t e m s , p r i m a r i l y f o r s i m u l a t i o n o f major s y s t e m components s u c h

a s sewer t r u n k s , i n t e r c e p t o r s , and t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f

a u t o m a t i c o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r o l of s t o r m w a t e r r u n o f f . For design s t u d i e s

w i t h g i v e n l a y o u t and sewer s l o p e s , s i z e s of s e w e r s , o v e r f l o w s t o r a g e

f a c i l i t i e s , t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s , and o v e r f l o w t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s a r e computed

which minimizes t h e c o s t f o r s p e c i f i e d c o n s t r a i n t s o n t h e q u a l i t y of over-

f l o w s and t r e a t m e n t p l a n t e f f l u e n t s . The o p t i m i z a t i o n i s performed t h r o u g h

a m o d i f i e d g r a d i e n t t e c h n i q u e of dynamic programming. The f l o w i s r o u t e d

t h r o u g h s e w e r s u s i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s method a p p l i e d t o n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c

wave e q u a t i o n s . Downstream f l o w c o n t r o l , b a c k w a t e r , f l o w r e v e r s a l , j u n c t i o n

s u r c h a r g i n g and sewer p r e s s u r i z e d flow are n o t c o n s i d e r e d .

A group of r e s e a r c h e r s a t MIT developed a s c r e e n i n g model f o r

s t o r m w a t e r c o n t r o l ( K i r s h e n and Marks, 1974) which w a s l a t e r m o d i f i e d and

became p r o p r i e t a r y . The model h a s b e e n under c o n s i d e r a b l e a l t e r n a t i o n s i n c e

i t s i n i t i a l development. However, t h e r e e x i s t s n o comprehensive r e p o r t

which d e s c r i b e s c o l l e c t i v e l y i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l t h e model as u s e d f o r

u r b a n storrnwater d r a i n a g e management p u r p o s e s . The v e r s i o n t h a t i n v o l v e s

sewer d e s i g n i s a c o n j u n c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n model which c o n s i d e r s combined

s e w e r s , d e t e n t i o n s t o r a g e d e v i c e s , and s p e c i a l s t o r m w a t e r t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s .

The o b j e c t i v e i s t o s e a r c h f o r t h e l e a s t - c o s t s o l u t i o n w i t h n o o v e r f l o w s o r
excessive l o c a l flooding. O p t i m i z a t i o n i s pursued t h r o u g h a s c r e e n i n g

t e c h n i q u e u s i n g l i n e a r programming. For t h e sewer s y s t e m p a r t t h e l a y o u t and

sewer s l o p e s are p r e d e t e r m i n e d and t h e d e s i g n i n v o l v e s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of

t h e sewer s i z e s t h a t s a t i s f y t h e o b j e c t i v e f u n c t i o n and s p e c i f i e d c o n s t r a i n t s .

The s c r e e n i n g model i s f o r m u l a t e d t o b e u s e d i n t e r a c t i v e l y w i t h EPA SWMM

which r o u t e s t h e f l o w through sewers and d e t e r m i n e s m a j o r a r e a s o f f l o o d i n g

and q u a n t i t i e s o f o v e r f l o w s . P r e v i o u s l y , H a r l e y e t a l . (1970) proposed a


model t o r o u t e t h e s t o r m w a t e r f l o w through d r a i n a g e systems u s i n g a n o n l i n e a r

k i n e m a t i c wave scheme. L i n e a r d i f f u s i o n and dynamic wave schemes were a l s o

discussed. However, t h e r e i s no p u b l i s h e d r e c o r d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e

h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g schemes have been a d o p t e d c o n j u n c t i v e l y w i t h t h e o p t i m i z a -

t i o n model f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of sewer d i a m e t e r s .

C l e a r l y , t h e sewer s i z e d e s i g n models w i t h c o n j u n c t i v e o p t i m i z a t i o n

w i t h o t h e r d r a i n a g e f a c i l i t i e s , as w e l l as t h e o p t i m a l d e s i g n models f o r l a y -

o u t , s l o p e s and s i z e s of s e w e r s , are i n t h e i r e a r l y s t a g e s of development and

c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h e f f o r t i s needed f o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n .
Chapter 4. APPLICATION OF OPTIMIZATION TECHNIQUES

I n t h i s c h a p t e r t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n techniques adopted t o o b t a i n t h e

least-cost d e s i g n of sewer s l o p e s and d i a m e t e r s f o r a sewer system a r e d i s -

cussed. The c o n s t r a i n t s and assumptions i n v o l v e d i n t h e l e a s t - c o s t

sewer d e s i g n have been d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 3.4. However, t h e c o s t f u n c t i o n s

g i v e n i n Eq. 2 . 1 a r e only examples, o t h e r c o s t f u n c t i o n s may a l s o b e used

instead.

4.1. Problem Statement

The problem under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s how t o determine t h e l e a s t - c o s t

combination of s i z e s and s l o p e s of t h e sewers and t h e d e p t h s of t h e manholes

f o r a sewer network t o c o l l e c t and d r a i n t h e wastewater from an urban d r a i n -

age b a s i n . S i n c e f o r a given sewer l e n g t h t h e s l o p e depends on t h e end

e l e v a t i o n s of t h e sewer, t h e d e s i g n v a r i a b l e s can b e c o n s i d e r e d a s t h e

d i a m e t e r s and upstream and downstream end crown e l e v a t i o n s of t h e sewers and

t h e depths of t h e manholes. Given i s a s e t of manhole l o c a t i o n s a t v a r i o u s

p o i n t s w i t h i n t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n w i t h t h e network l a y o u t connecting t h e s e

manholes known. The d e s i g n i n f l o w s i n t o t h e s e manholes a r e a l s o pre-

determined. The p r i n c i p a l t a s k s i n t h e development and f o r m u l a t i o n of an

o p t i m i z a t i o n model f o r t h e d e s i g n of storm sewer systems a r e twofold.

(a) R e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e s e t of manholes i n a form s u i t a b l e f o r

d i g i t a l manipulation.

(b) S e l e c t i n g o p t i m i z a t i o n techniques f o r t h e o v e r a l l model which

a r e f l e x i b l e enough t o h a n d l e d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s and

assumptions, v a r i o u s forms of c o s t f u n c t i o n s , r i s k models,

and h y d r a u l i c o r h y d r o l o g i c models, and t o i n c o r p o r a t e a l l

design information.

These p r i n c i p a l t a s k s must b e c o n s i d e r e d c o n j u n c t i v e l y t o a r r i v e a t a
s o l u t i o n scheme t h a t can b e c o n s t r u c t e d e f f i c i e n t l y and used t o d e s i g n l a r g e

s c a l e sewer networks.

Most storm sewer systems a r e converging-branch o r simply t r e e - t y p e

systems, which a r e t o p o l o g i c a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by

(a) a r o o t node, i . e . , t h e o u t l e t of t h e sewer system;

(b) i n t e r n a l nodes which a r e manholes o r j u n c t i o n s of sewers

where two o r more branches meet;

(c) e x t e r n a l nodes which a r e manholes where only one branch i s

connected, i . e . , manholes where a branch of t h e sewer system

begins ;

(d) branches which l i n k nodes w i t h o u t forming c l o s e d p a t h s o r

loops w i t h i n t h e network, i . e . , t h e sewers i n t h e system.

The node-link (manhole-sewer) r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a t y p i c a l d e n d r i t i c sewer

system i s important i n f o r m u l a t i n g t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n model.

The manner of r e p r e s e n t i n g manholes t o d e s c r i b e t h e sewer system

l a y o u t f o r t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n procedures w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n s 4 . 3 and

4.4. The o p t i m i z a t i o n schemes developed i n t h i s s t u d y do n o t allow c l o s e d

loops. Inflows a r e p e r m i t t e d a t a l l manholes of t h e system; however i t i s

n o t n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e r e b e an i n f l o w t o each manhole. This i s i n

accordance w i t h d e s i g n because some manholes a r e f o r c l e a n i n g purposes o r

changes i n ground s l o p e s where changes i n p i p e s i z e s may r e s u l t .

A s t o r m sewer system may c o n s i s t of a l a r g e number of sewers,

j u n c t i o n s , manholes and i n l e t s i n a d d i t i o n t o o t h e r r e g u l a t i n g o r o p e r a t i o n a l

d e v i c e s such a s g a t e s , v a l v e s , w e i r s , overflows, r e g u l a t o r s , and pumping

stations. These d e v i c e s do have an e f f e c t upon t h e system, h y d r a u l i c a l l y

d i v i d i n g i t i n t o a number of subsystems. However f o r t h e s a k e of s i m p l i c i t y ,

a t t h e p r e s e n t s t a g e t h e s e s p e c i a l d e v i c e s a r e n o t considered i n t h e

o p t i m i z a t i o n scheme.
The b a s i c o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e used t o develop t h e s t o r m sewer

d e s i g n models i s d i s c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a l dynamic programming (DDDP). Two

d e s i g n models, each r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e nodes and l i n k s of a sewer system i n a

d i f f e r e n t manner f o r t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n , have been developed. The f i r s t model

c o n s i d e r s t h e sewer system a s a n o n s e r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n problem i n which t h e

b a s i c s t r a t e g y i s t o decompose t h e converging branched s y s tem i n t o

e q u i v a l e n t s e r i a l subsystems f o r s o l u t i o n . This model h a s been d e s c r i b e d

i n d e t a i l by Mays and Yen (1975) s o t h a t only a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n i s g i v e n

i n t h i s report. The second model consi.ders t h e sewer system a s a s e r i a l

o p t i m i z a t i o n problem such t h a t m u l t i - l e v e l branching sewer systems can b e

handled more e a s i l y (Mays and Wenzel, 1977). A d e t a f l e d d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s

second model i s g i v e n i n t h i s c h a p t e r .

As a p r e l u d e t o t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n of a p p l i c a t i o n s of DDDP

t o t h e d e s i g n of l e a s t - c o s t sewer systems, i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o d e f i n e t h e

terms s t a g e , s t a t e , d e c i s i o n , r e t u r n , and t r a n s f o r m a t i o n and t o i n d i c a t e

t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s i n sewer systems.

(a) Stages: A s t a g e i s analogous t o a component of t h e system;

f o r t h e n o n s e r i a l approach a s t a g e i s a sewer p i p e ( l i n k ) o r

a manhole (node), f o r t h e s e r i a l approach a s t a g e i s a s e t

of sewers a l l l o c a t e d a t t h e same number of l i n k s upstream

from t h e o u t l e t of t h e system.

(b) States: The s t a t e s of a s t a g e r e p r e s e n t t h e v a r i a b l e s of

that stage; e.g., t h e s t a t e s a t each sewer s t a g e a r e

analogous t o t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s of t h e p i p e o r p i p e s , t h e

i n p u t s t a t e S f o r a s t a g e i s t h e crown e l e v a t i o n of
n
t h e upstream end of t h e s t a g e , and t h e o u t p u t s t a t e is
n
t h e crown e l e v a t i o n of t h e downstream end of t h e s t a g e .

(c) Decisions: The d e c i s i o n D a t each s t a g e i s t h e e l e v a t i o n


n
drop a c r o s s t h e s t a g e .
(d) Returns: The r e t u r n r of a s t a g e i s analogous t o t h e c o s t of
n
i n s t a l l a t i o n f o r t h a t s t a g e , and a l s o damage c o s t s i f considered.

(e) Transformation: The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n of a s t a g e n d e f i n e s

t h e manner i n which an i n p u t s t a t e i s transformed i n t o an o u t p u t

s t a t e by t h e d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e g i v e n by

No n e g a t i v e s l o p e i s allowed i n t h e sewer system, t h e r e f o r e a t

any s t a g e n , Sn 2 S
-.
n
I t should be remarked h e r e t h a t c o n v e n t i o n a l l y i n sewer design t h e

i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n r a t h e r than t h e crown e l e v a t i o n i s used i n p i p e design. For

s m a l l s l o p e s t h e former i s simply t h e l a t t e r deducted by t h e p i p e diameter.

There i s no c l e a r advantage of using t h e i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n a s many engineers

thought. The i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n does n o t g i v e d i r e c t l y t h e t r e n c h depth i n

c o n s t r u c t i o n because of t h e t h i c k n e s s e s of t h e p i p e w a l l and of t h e bedding.

I n f a c t sometimes t h i s i s t h e s o u r c e of e r r o r i n c o n s t r u c t i o n a s t h e t r e n c h

is dug w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e t h i c k n e s s e s of t h e i n v e r t and i s measured

erroneously. Also, using t h e i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n i n t h e d e s i g n , o f t e n t h e

checking of t h e c o n s t r a i n t of minimum s o i l cover requirement i s f o r g o t t e n .

I n j o i n i n g sewers a t a manhole, having t h e i n v e r t s a l i g n e d , though p r e f e r e n c e

t o crowns a l i g n e d , h y d r a u l i c a l l y does n o t o f f e r t h e b e s t performance. AS

p o i n t e d o u t by Yen e t a l . (1974), a l i g n i n g t h e c e n t e r l i n e s of t h e j o i n i n g

sewers p r o v i d e s an improved h y d r a u l i c performance. Since t h e r e i s no d i f f i -

c u l t y i n conversion between t h e crown and i n v e r t e l e v a t i o n s once t h e diameter

i s known, and t h a t t h e minimum s o i l cover depth i s one of t h e important d e s i g n

c o n s t r a i n t s , t h e crown e l e v a t i o n i s used because of i t s s i m p l i c i t y t o b e

adopted as t h e s t a t e i n t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n .

P r i o r t o d i s c u s s i n g t h e n o n s e r i a l and s e r i a l approaches of repre-

s e n t i n g a sewer network f o r t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n procedure, a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n

of DDDP a p p l i e d t o s t o m sewer design i s given i n t h e n e x t s e c t i o n .

41
4.2. S e l e c t i o n and D e s c r i p t i o n of Optimization Technique - DDDP

A review of t h e e x i s t i n g l e a s t - c o s t sewer d e s i g n methods p o i n t s o u t

t h e advantages of u s i n g dynamic programming (DP) techniques over o t h e r op ti-

m i z a t i o n techniques f o r t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n of sewer systems. The f l e x i -

b i l i t y of DP a p p r o a c l ~ e st o h a n d l e v a r i o u s forms of c o s t f u n c t i o n s , d e s i g n

c o n s t r a i n t s , e t c . i s of extreme importance. I n a d d i t i o n , f o r t h e models

d e s c r i b e d l a t e r i n t h i s r e p o r t , DP has been found t o b e s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r

o p t i m i z a t i o n techniques because of i t s f l e x i b i l i t y t o i n c o r p o r a t e r i s k and

h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g models. However, when DP i s a p p l i e d t o l a r g e systems, t h e r e

a r e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n o b t a i n i n g an o p t i m a l s o l u t i o n w i t h o u t a c o n s i d e r a b l e

i n c r e a s e i n computer time (Mays and Yen, 1975). The i n c r e a s e i n computer time

i s even more s i g n i f i c a n t when r i s k and h y d r a u l i c r o u t i n g models a r e incorpo-

r a t e d i n t o t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n scheme. Consequently, o t h e r techniques based upon

DP t h a t could p o s s i b l y reduce t h e computer time were i n v e s t i g a t e d .

A s p e c i a l type of dynamic programming, d i s c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a l

dynamic programming (DDDP), has been proven t o b e a very e f f e c t i v e method i n

t h e a n a l y s i s of v a r i o u s t y p e s of w a t e r r e s o u r c e s systems (Chow e t a l . , 1975).

This method i s a b l e t o overcome t h e c h i e f l i m i t a t i o n s of DP, namely, t h e

number of s t a t e v a r i a b l e s and t h e l e v e l of d i s c r e t i z a t i o n of t h e s t a t e

variable. I n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of DP and DDDP t o o b t a i n l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n s of

branched sewer systems, t h e u s e of DDDP has been shown t o b e v e r y e f f e c t i v e

i n d e c r e a s i n g computation time o v e r t h a t of DP (Mays and Yen, 1975). This i s

mainly due t o t h e l e v e l of d i s c r e t i z a t i o n of t h e s t a t e v a r i a b l e r e q u i r e d i n

DP t o o b t a i n e q u i v a l e n t r e s u l t s u s i n g DDDP .
DDDP i s d e f i n e d by H e i d a r i (1970) and H e i d a r i e t a l . (1971) a s an
II
i t e r a t i v e t e c h n i q u e i n which t h e r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n of dynamic programming

i s used t o s e a r c h f o r an improved t r a j e c t o r y among t h e d i s c r e t e s t a t e s i n

t h e neighborhood of a t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y . " This o p t i m i z a t i o n procedure i s

s o l v e d through i t e r a t i o n s of t r i a l s t a t e s and d e c i s i o n s t o f i n d t h e o p t i m a l
r e t u r n s (minimum c o s t ) f o r a system s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t t h e

t r i a l s t a t e s and d e c i s i o n s s h o u l d b e w i t h i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e a d m i s s i b l e domain

of t h e s t a t e and d e c i s i o n s p a c e s .

I n DDDP t h e f i r s t s t e p i s t o assume a t r i a l sequence of a d m i s s i b l e

decisions D c a l l e d t h e t r i a l p o l i c y , and t h e s t a t e v e c t o r s of each s t a g e n


n
a r e computed a c c o r d i n g l y . T h i s sequence of s t a t e s w i t h i n t h e a d m i s s i b l e

s t a t e domain f o r d i f f e r e n t s t a g e s i s c a l l e d t h e t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y and can b e

designated Sn f o r n = 1,2,. ..,N where N i s t h e t o t a l number of s t a g e s .

A c t u a l l y f o r a s t o r m sewer system a complex network of t r a j e c t o r i e s r e p r e -

s e n t i n g t h e upstream and downstream crown e l e v a t i o n s of each s t a g e a r e formed.

An a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e above p r o c e d u r e , which can be used f o r t h e problem

p r e s e n t e d h e r e i n , i s f i r s t t o assume a system of t r i a l t r a j e c t o r i e s and then

u s e i t t o compute t h e t r i a l p o l i c y ( i . e . , a t r i a l s e t of d e c i s i o n s o r drops

i n crown e l e v a t i o n s , Eq. 4.1). The procedure would f i r s t s p e c i f y t h e i n i t i a l

t r i a l s t a t e s f o r t h e f i r s t and l a s t s t a g e s of t h e e n t i r e sewer system. This

procedure i s used t o compute s l o p e s f o r t h e f i r s t t r i a l s e t of p i p e s based on

which t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s , and t h e corresponding d e c i s i o n s f o r each s t a g e

of t h e system f o r t h e f i r s t t r i a l t r a j e c t o r i e s can be computed.

S e v e r a l crown e l e v a t i o n s i n t h e neighborhood of a t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y

can b e i n t r o d u c e d t o form a band c a l l e d a " c o r r i d o r " around t h e t r i a l t r a -

jectory. The c o r r i d o r i s d e f i n e d by t h e i n p u t s t a t e s (crown e l e v a t i o n s

k = 1,2, ... a t t h e upstream end of t h e s t a g e ) and t h e o u t p u t s t a t e s (crown

elevations j = 1,2, ... a t t h e downstream end of t h e s t a g e ) . The t r a j e c t o r y

crown e l e v a t i o n s and a given s t a t e increment A ( d i s t a n c e between crown


S

e l e v a t i o n s ) a t t h e upstream and downstream ends of t h e s t a g e a r e k e p t i n

s t o r a g e s o t h a t they can b e used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e s t a t e s . For example, a

c o r r i d o r f o r a p i p e c o n n e c t i o n w i t h f i v e s t a t e s ( l a t t i c e p o i n t s ) a t b o t h ends

i s shown i n Fig. 4.1. The c o r r i d o r i s d e f i n e d by t h e crown e l e v a t i o n m a t r i x


i n which S, t h e middle crown e l e v a t i o n , r e p r e s e n t s t h e t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y .

I t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s must f a l l w i t h i n t h e a d m i s s i b l e

domain of t h e s t a t e space. The upper boundary of t h e domain i s d e f i n e d by

t h e r e q u i r e d minimum s o i l coverage of t h e sewers o r o t h e r more r e s t r i c t i v e

constraints. I f any e l e v a t i o n s do n o t s a t i s f y t h e minimum c o v e r depth

c r i t e r i a , t h e s t a t e s p a c e of t h e c o r r i d o r i s s h i f t e d down m a i n t a i n i n g t h e

improved t r a j e c t o r y . Likewise, t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s must n o t b e lower than t h e

lower boundary which i s d e f i n e d by t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e lowest sewer i n t h e

s y s t e m o r p r e f e r a b l y by o t h e r more r e s t r i c t i v e c o n s t r a i n t s s u c h a s t h a t imposed

by minimum sewer s l o p e s . The o p t i o n a l s o e x i s t s t o c o n s t r a i n any e l e v a t i o n a t

t h e upstream o r downstream end of a p i p e , by simply s e t t i n g A = 0. This r e -


s
s t r i c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d when s p e c i a l c o n t r o l d e v i c e s such a s s i p h o n s o r r e g u l a t o r s

a r e used i n t h e sewer system, o r f o r s p e c i f i e d system o u t l e t e l e v a t i o n .

For a s t o r m sewer s y s t e m , a complex network of c o r r i d o r s would b e

formed, i . e . a c o r r i d o r f o r t h e c o n n e c t i o n s between manholes a t each of t h e

stages. Once t h e c o r r i d o r i s e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l dynamic pro-

gramming approach i s a p p l i e d w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r s a t each s t a g e ( F i g . 4 . 2 ) .

The downstream crown e l e v a t i o n s a r e v a r i e d , and f o r e a c h of t h e s e , t h e

upstream crown e l e v a t i o n s a r e v a r i e d . The sewer s l o p e and s m a l l e s t commercial

p i p e d i a m e t e r s a t i s f y i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on f l o w , v e l o c i t y , and p r e c e d i n g

(upstream) sewer d i a m e t e r a r e computed f o r each i n p u t s t a t e t o t h e o u t p u t

state. S e l e c t i o n of t h e p i p e d i a m e t e r i s performed u s i n g one of t h e

45
To Fig. 4.5 o r 4 . 8

*For n o n s e r i a l approach t h i s i s t h e c o s t of sewer p i p e o r manhole;


f o r s e r i a l approach t h e c o s t of p i p e p l u s t h e c o s t of t h e upstream
manhole m f o r s t a t e k.
n

Fig. 4.2. DP Flow Chart Within C o r r i d o r


h y d r a u l i c methods and p o s s i b l y t h e r i s k component d i s c u s s e d r e s p e c t i v e l y i n

Chapters 5 and 6 . For each f e a s i b l e s e t of i n p u t and o u t p u t s t a t e s , a p i p e

d i a m e t e r e q u a l t o t h e l a r g e s t of t h e upstream p i p e d i a m e t e r s i s c o n s i d e r e d

first. I f t h e p i p e i s f u l l o r i f t h e v e l o c i t y exceeds t h e a l l o w a b l e

maximum v e l o c i t y , t h e n e x t l a r g e r commercial s i z e p i p e i s c o n s i d e r e d . Con-

v e r s e l y , i f t h e a l l o w a b l e minimum v e l o c i t y c o n s t r a i n t i s v i o l a t e d , t h e sewer

s l o p e i s t o o s m a l l and f o r t h e c u r r e n t o u t p u t s t a t e t h e n e x t i n p u t s t a t e i s

considered. The c o s t f o r t h e c u r r e n t o u t p u t s t a t e - o f t h e s t a g e i s computed

f o r each of t h e p o s s i b l e i n p u t s t a t e s . T h i s c o s t i s added t o t h e minimum

'cumulative c o s t upstream from t h e c u r r e n t s t a g e t h a t i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

t h e i n p u t s t a t e k. Thus, t h e r e c u r s i v e f u n c t i o n through s t a t e j of s t a g e n ,

i n which D and r a r e t h e d e c i s i o n and r e t u r n ( t h e c o s t of connection


n n
between t h e c u r r e n t i n p u t and o u t p u t s t a t e s ) , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; F'
n- 1(in-l) is

= )0.
t h e cumulative c o s t upstream of t h e c u r r e n t connections ; and F ~ ( S ~

T h i s c u r r e n t l y computed c o s t through s t a g e n a t t h e c u r r e n t downstream

s t a t e j i s compared t o determine whether i t i s l e s s t h a n t h e p r e v i o u s l y

computed minimum cumulative c o s t f o r s t a t e j . I f s o , t h e c u r r e n t cumula-

t i v e c o s t r e p l a c e s t h e previous minimum cumulative c o s t f o r s t a t e j a s a

b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r comparison.

T h i s procedure i s r e p e a t e d u n t i l a l l t h e f e a s i b l e i n p u t s t a t e s

connecting t o t h e output s t a t e j a r e considered. I n o t h e r words, t h e

s l o p e o r drop i n crown e l e v a t i o n of t h e s t a g e i s determined f o r t h e o u t p u t

s t a t e j , among a l l t h e f e a s i b l e i n p u t s t a t e s t o f i n d the. s t a t e k which

p r o v i d e s t h e minimum cumulative c o s t of g e t t i n g t o s t a t e j. This s t a t e k

and t h e a s s o c i a t e d c o s t s f o r s t a t e j a r e s t o r e d f o r l a t e r use i n t h e

o p t i m i z a t i o n procedure. A f t e r t h e minimum cumulative c o s t t o t h e o u t p u t

47
s t a t e j of t h e c u r r e n t s t a g e h a s been e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e n e x t o u t p u t s t a t e

of t h e same s t a g e i s c o n s i d e r e d . This procedure is repeated u n t i l t h e

minimum cumulative c o s t s t o each of t h e f e a s i b l e o u t p u t s t a t e s of t h e

s t a g e have been computed and s t o r e d .

T h i s a l g o r i t h m c o n t i n u e s downstream s t a g e by s t a g e u n t i l t h e DDDP

computations a r e performed f o r t h e l a s t s t a g e . There now e x i s t s a set of

minimum cumulative c o s t s f o r each s t a t e a t each s t a g e i n t h e system. A

trace-back i s now performed which b e g i n s a t t h e l a s t s t a g e , s e l e c t i n g 'the

o u t p u t s t a t e w i t h t h e minimum cumulative c o s t and moving upstream t o t h e

associated input state. T h i s procedure i s followed through s u c c e s s i v e up-

s t r e a m s t a g e s and a new t r a j e c t o r y i s formed u s i n g t h e s e l e c t e d s t a t e s of

each s t a g e . T h i s p r o c e s s i s c a l l e d an " i t e r a t i o n . " A new c o r r i d o r i s

formed based on t h e new t r a j e c t o r y and t h i s procedure i s r e p e a t e d beyond

some i t e r a t i o n i which produces c o r r i d o r s w i t h a sewer system d e s i g n of a

t o t a l system c o s t Fie No f u r t h e r i t e r a t i o n s w i t h t h i s s i z e of c o r r i d o r s

w i l l produce a r e d u c t i o n i n t o t a l system c o s t less t h a n a s p e c i f i e d

tolerance. A t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , t h e v a l u e of A is
S

reduced t o s e t up new c o r r i d o r s i n which t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s o r l a t t i c e

p o i n t s a r e spaced c l o s e r t o g e t h e r . These s m a l l e r c o r r i d o r s a r e formed

around t h e improved t r a j e c t o r i e s of t h e l a t e s t i t e r a t i o n . The i t e r a t i o n s

continue reducing A throughout t h e system a c c o r d i n g l y u n t i l a s p e c i f i e d


s
minimum A i s reached and l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n i s o b t a i n e d . A flow c h a r t
s
showing t h e DDDP p r o c e d u r e f o r sewer systems i s g i v e n i n F i g . 4.3.

The c r i t e r i o n used t o d e t e r m i n e d u r i n g t h e computations when t h e

magnitude of A s h o u l d b e reduced i s b a s e d on t h e r e l a t i v e change of t h e


S

minimum c o s t of t h e l a t e s t ( i - t h ) i t e r a t i o n , Pi, i.e.,

When t h e r a t i o i s e q u a l t o o r s m a l l e r t h a n a s p e c i f i e d v a l u e Er9 t h e i n c r e -

ment A i s reduced t o one-half o r any o t h e r d e s i r e d f r a c t i o n of i t s p r e v i o u s


s
Perform. DDDP computations
a c c o r d i n g t o s e r i a l (Fig. 4.8)
o r n o n - s e r i a l (Fig. 4.5) approaches

sewer system t r a j e c t o r i e s

Fig. 4.3. Flow Chart of Design O p t i m i z a t i o n Procedure f o r Sewer Systems


v a l u e and t h e n i t e r a t i o n s a r e resumed. This procedure i s repeated u n t i l A
s
is s m a l l e r than a s p e c i f i e d acceptable value. Obviously, a p p r o p r i a t e

s e l e c t i o n of t h e i n i t i a l v a l u e s of A can s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve t h e
S

e f f i c i e n c y of t h e DDDP.

There a r e t h r e e p o s s i b l e downstream boundary c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e

l a s t s t a g e of a s t o r m sewer system u s i n g DDDP. The f i r s t i s when t h e

downstream crown e l e v a t i o n of t h e system ( f i n a l o u t l e t ) must b e a t a

specific elevation, i.e., is a constant. I n t h i s case, the s t a t e incre-


N
ment f o r t h e downstream s t a t e o f t h e l a s t s t a g e N of t h e system i s z e r o .

The trace-back through t h e system f o r e a c h i t e r a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e minimum


.
c o s t crown e l e v a t i o n s of e a c h of t h e upstream s t a g e s s t a r t s a t t h e s p e c i f i e d

elevation of the f i n a l o u t l e t . The second p o s s i b l e downstream c o n d i t i o n


N
i s when t h e f i n a l o u t l e t can b e a t any e l e v a t i o n , i . e . , is not specified.
N
In t h i s case, A
s
(N) f o r t h e downstream s t a t e s f o r t h e l a s t s t a g e N of t h e

s y s t e m i s n o t zero. The trace-back through t h e e n t i r e sewer system f o r each

i t e r a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e minimum c o s t crown e l e v a t i o n s s t a r t s a t t h e

downstream e l e v a t i o n of t h e l a s t s t a g e of t h e system t h a t g i v e s t h e l e a s t

t o t a l c o s t f o r t h e system. The t h i r d p o s s i b l e downstream c o n d i t i o n i s t h a t

3 i s n o t f i x e d b u t r e s t r i c t e d w i t h i n a c e r t a i n r a n g e of e l e v a t i o n s , which
N
d e f i n e s t h e s t a t e s p a c e boundary f o r t h e l a s t s t a g e . Consequently, o n l y

t h o s e e l e v a t i o n s of t h e l a s t s t a g e t h a t f a l l w i t h i n t h i s r a n g e a r e

considered. However, i n a c t u a l computations, t h e l a t t e r two c o n d i t i o n s c a n

b e t r e a t e d a s t h e f i r s t by adding a n imaginary s t a g e N+1 c o n s i s t i n g of a p i p e

c o n n e c t i o n h a v i n g a s p e c i f i e d e l e v a t i o n f o r i t s o u t p u t s t a t e and s e t t i n g t h e

c o s t f o r t h i s imaginary s t a g e e q u a l t o z e r o .

4.3. N o n s e r i a l O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach and I t s L i m i t a t i o n s

The i n i t i a l approach used i n t h i s s t u d y t o r e p r e s e n t a d e n d r i t i c

sewer system f o r DDDP c o s t o p t i m i z a t i o n decomposes t h e sewer system i n t o a

main c h a i n w i t h b r a n c h e s connected t o i t . Each branch i s i n t u r n s i m i l a r l y


decomposed. The computations b e g i n a t t h e upstream end of t h e main c h a i n

and proceed dowllstream u n t i l a branch c o n n e c t i o n i s reached. This branch

i s t h e n c o n s i d e r e d , b e g i n n i n g a t i t s upstream end, i n a manner i d e n t i c a l t o

t h e main c h a i n , w i t h t h e branch o u t p u t i n terms of c o s t s , crown e l e v a t i o n s ,

and flow s e r v i n g a s i n p u t t o t h e main c h a i n . The procedure t h e n proceeds

downstream u n t i l a l l t h e b r a n c h e s and main sewers have been c o n s i d e r e d .

Each sewer and each manhole i n t h e system i s c o n s i d e r e d a s a s t a g e .

The manner i n which t h e s t a g e s a r e l i n k e d i s given by t h e i n c i d e n c e i d e n t i t y

which i s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t t h e o u t p u t from each s t a g e forms t h e i n p u t t o

t h e n e x t succeeding s t a g e . The downstream ( o u t p u t ) crown e l e v a t i o n of s t a g e

n must b e t h e same a s t h e upstream ( i n p u t ) crown e l e v a t i o n of s t a g e n+l


- -
given as S = S and S 2 S i n which t h e e q u a l s i g n a p p l i e s o n l y t o
n+l ny n n
manhole s t a g e s w i t h crowns of j o i n i n g sewers a l i g n e d . An example of t h e

s t a g e - s t a t e domains w i t h t h e c o r r i d o r , t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y , and s t a t e s p a c e bound-

a r i e s f o r a main o r a branch f o r t h e n o n s e r i a l approach i s shown i n F i g . 4.4.

A t t h e manhole where a branch j o i n s t h e main, t h e c u t s d i v i d i n g

t h e b r a n c h from t h e main a r e a t t h e downstream end of t h e manhole s t a g e .

Because o f i d e n t i c a l e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e s e c u t s , t h e o u t p u t e l e v a t i o n s of t h e

main and branch a r e e q u a l , S - which i s a l s o e q u a l t o t h e i n p u t


main 'branchy
e l e v a t i o n f o r t h e sewer main immediately downstream from t h e manhole. Ob-
-
v i o u s l y , through t h i s manhole s t a g e t h e r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n F
n- 1(Sn-l) in
Eq. 4.3 i n c l u d e s t h e minimum cumulative c o s t s of b o t h t h e main and b r a n c h e s .

A flow c h a r t showing t h e l o g i c f o r t h e n o n s e r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n

approach i s given i n Fig. 4.5. This f i g u r e t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e DDDP procedure

d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n ( F i g s . 4.2 and 4.3) i l l u s t r a t e s t h e non-

s e r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n d e s i g n model. D e t a i l s of t h e procedure have been re-

p o r t e d e l s e w h e r e (Mays and Yen, 1975) and a r e n o t r e p e a t e d h e r e . \

There a r e s e v e r a l l i m i t a t i o n s f o r t h i s n o n s e r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n

approach when a p p l i e d t o l a r g e sewer systems w i t h many l e v e l s of branching.


zS
Elevation
From Fig. 4 . 3

S t a r t a t upstream end of main


set n = l

Consider s t a g e n on main

Establish corridor f o r the stage


( d e f i n e d by i n p u t and o u t p u t s t a t e s )

Perform DP computations f o r t h i s s t a g e
w i t h i n c o r r i d o r , see Fig. 4 . 2

Manhole s t a g e I

I Yes

Perform DDDP computations g i v e n i n


t h i s e n t i r e flow c h a r t c o n s i d e r i n g
t h i s branch a s t h e main

V
To Fig. 4 . 3

Fig. 4 . 5 . Flow Chart f o r Each I t e r a t i o n of N o n s e r i a l Approach


F i r s t , t h e computer s t o r a g e r e q u i r e m e n t s become a major l i m i t i n g f a c t o r .
I

S t o r i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e v a r i o u s l e v e l s o f b r a n c h i n g , c o n n e c t i o n s of

b r a n c h e s t o o t h e r b r a n c h e s o r t o t h e main, e t c . which a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e

trace-back r o u t i n e r e s u l t s i n l a r g e s t o r a g e requirements. Pipe diameters f o r

each downstream s t a t e , upstream crown e l e v a t i o n i n d e x e s , s l o p e s , ground

s u r f a c e e l e v a t i o n s , e l e v a t i o n s o f t h e t r a j e c t o r i e s , d e s i g n f l o w s , e t c . must

a l l b e s t o r e d i n r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r l o c a t i o n s i n t h e system. These i n p u t

d a t a and computed i n f o r m a t i o n must b e s t o r e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p i p e o r

manhole s t a g e on t h e b r a n c h .

The l a r g e amount of computer t i m e r e q u i r e d i s t h e second d i s -

a d v a n t a g e o f t h e n o n s e r i a l ' approach when a p p l i e d t o l a r g e s y s t e m s . The

e x e c u t i o n time i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d b e c a u s e o f t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o

r e t r i e v e information i n a r r a y s . A l l o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n e x c e p t t h a t needed

f o r t h e DDDP s t a g e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e computation c o u l d b e s t o r e d on d i s c s

o r t a p e s ; however, t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e s computer t i m e .

The t h i r d l i m i t a t i o n is t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n programming. It i s

e v i d e n t from t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of what i n p u t and computed i n f o r m a t i o n must b e

s t o r e d f o r t h i s approach t h a t programming becomes a r a t h e r d i f f i c u l t t a s k

when s e v e r a l l e v e l s of b r a n c h i n g must b e c o n s i d e r e d . The manner i n which t h e

s y s t e m i s o p t i m i z e d o v e r a l s o r e s u l t s i n programming d i f f i c u l t i e s . Finally,

t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n d e f i n i n g a main c h a i n f o r even s m a l l networks i s a l s o a

l i m i t a t i o n o f t h i s approach.

An a l t e r n a t e method o f u s i n g t h i s n o n s e r i a l approach would b e t o

d i v i d e t h e sewer s y s t e m i n t o s e v e r a l s m a l l e r subsystems and compute t h e

minimum c o s t d e s i g n s f o r e a c h and t h e n combine them. However, b e c a u s e t h e

minimum of t h e sums i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e q u a l t o t h e sum of component mini-

m u m s , t h e r e s u l t of t h i s approach may v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y from t h e t r u e o p t i m a l .

A l s o , t h e computer time r e q u i r e d t o s o l v e s e v e r a l s m a l l e r systems would b e

i n c r e a s e d a s compared t o one l a r g e r system. Mays and Wenzel (1977) u s e an


example sewer s y s t e m t h a t f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e s t h e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e non-

s e r i a l approach and shows a d v a n t a g e s of t h e s e r i a l approach which i s

d e s c r i b e d below.

4.4. S e r i a l O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach

4.4.1. Network R e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r S e r i a l O p t i m i z a t i o n Approach

The p r e s c r i b e d l a y o u t of t h e sewer s y s t e m can b e r e p r e s e n t e d by

p r o p e r l y numbering t h e manholes (nodes) and i d e n t i f y i n g t h e c o n n e c t i o n s

between t h e manholes. For g r a v i t y flow s y s t e m s , sewers a r e g e n e r a l l y s l o p e d

towards low ground s u r f a c e e l e v a t i o n s . Hence, manholes l o c a t e d a t h i g h e r

ground e l e v a t i o n s u s u a l l y have sewer p i p e s c o n n e c t i n g them t o manholes a t

lower ground e l e v a t i o n s . This concept g i v e s rise t o a r a t h e r s i m p l e approach.

a s compared t o t h e n o n s e r i a l approach of r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e sewer network i n a

form s u i t a b l e f o r d i g i t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n i n t h e DDDP p r o c e d u r e .

Imaginary l i n e s c a l l e d i s o n o d a l l i n e s (INL) a r e used t o d i v i d e t h e

d e n d r i t i c sewer s y s t e m i n t o s t a g e s . These l i n e s a r e d e f i n e d such t h a t they

p a s s through manholes (nodes) which a r e s e p a r a t e d from t h e system o u t l e t by

t h e same number o f sewers ( l i n k s ) . Argaman e t a l . (1973) termed t h e s e a s

d r a i n a g e l i n e s ; however, i t i s f e l t t h a t " i s o n o d a l " b e t t e r d e s c r i b e s t h e i r

n a t u r e and o f f e r s l e s s chance f o r a m b i g u i t i e s and t h e r e f o r e t h i s term i s

used t h r o u g h o u t t h i s r e p o r t . An a r b i t r a r y s t a g e n i n c l u d e s a l l t h e p i p e s

c o n n e c t i n g upstream manholes on INL n and dowrlstream manholes on INL n+l.

F o r a s y s t e m w i t h N i s o n o d a l l i n e s and N - 1 s t a g e s , t h e manholes on any INL n

a r e c o n n e c t e d t o t h e s y s tern o u t l e t by N-n s e w e r s . The manholes a r e no

l o n g e r s t a g e s as i n t h e c a s e o f t h e n o n s e r i a l approach. The example s y s t e m

shown i n F i g . 4.6 i s used t o f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t . INL 6 p a s s e s

through a l l t h e manholes which a r e 5 p i p e - l i n k s upstream from t h e system o u t l e t .

The i s o n o d a l l i n e s d i v i d e t h e sewer s y s t e m i n t o - s t a g e s such t h a t

t h e two most upstream l i n e s form s t a g e 1. The s u c c e e d i n g s t a g e s proceed


(a) Street System with Elevation
Contours

let

(b) Layout and I s o n o d a l L i n e s

F i g . 4.6. I s o n o d a l L i n e s f o r a Simple Sewer System


downstream, each d e f i n e d by a d j a c e n t upstream and downstream i s o n o d a l l i n e s ,

n and n + l , f o r n = 1 , 2 , . . ., N where N i s t h e number o f s t a g e s i n t h e e n t i r e

system. T h i s c o n c e p t of s t a g e s i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 4.6 f o r a s i m p l e

s t r e e t system. The street s y s t e m and c o n t o u r s of e l e v a t i o n a r e shown i n

Fig. 4.6a. The manholes and c o r r e s p o n d i n g i s o n o d a l l i n e s f o r t h e l a y o u t a r e

superimposed on t h e s t r e e t s y s t e m i n Fig. 4.6b. The i s o n o d a l l i n e s a r e con-

s t r u c t e d s t a r t i n g a t t h e o u t l e t of t h e s y s t e m and p r o c e e d i n g u p s t r e a m , b u t

a r e numbered i n t h e r e v e r s e o r d e r , b e g i n n i n g a t t h e u p s t r e a m end of t h e

s y s t e m a s shown i n Fig. 4.6 f o r t h e example sewer system.

The l a y o u t d e s c r i p t i o n f o r t h e d i g i t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n i s accomplished

by t h e v e c t o r of c o n n e c t i v i t y which i s e a s i l y d e f i n e d f o r a network once t h e

isonodal l i n e s are established. The set o f manhole c o n n e c t i o n s f o r an

a r b i t r a r y s t a g e n i s d e f i n e d b y a v e c t o r of c o n n e c t i v i t y between manholes on

INL n and n+l. T h i s v e c t o r of c o n n e c t i o n s , g i v e n a s T


mn yrnn+l
, represents
t h e c o n n e c t i o n from upstream manholes m on INL n t o downstream manholes m
n n+l
on INL n + l . Shown i n F i g . 4.7 a r e t h e manhole c o n n e c t i o n s f o r an a r b i t r a r y

s t a g e n between INL n and n+l. T h i s m a t r i x h a s as many rows a s t h e number

of c o n n e c t i o n s from e a c h manhole m t o a l l t h e manholes on INL n+l.


n
C o n s i d e r i n g t h e s t a g e n i n F i g . 4 . 7 , f o r e a c h o f t h e t h r e e u p s t r e a m manholes,
1
m = 1, 2 , 3 , on INL n , t h e r e a r e f o u r p o s s i b l e d r a i n a g e c o n n e c t i o n s , one t o
n
.
e a c h downstream manhole (m = 1, 2 , 3 , 4). Each p o s i t i o n i n t h e v e c t o r of
n+l
c o n n e c t i v i t y , e i t h e r h a s a 1 i m p l y i n g c o n n e c t i o n o f t h e manholes o r a 0

i m p l y i n g no c o n n e c t i o n . For example, i n F i g . 4 . 7 , i f t h e c o n n e c t i o n of man-

holes m = 3 on INL n i s o n l y t o manhole m = 2 on INL n + l , t h e n T = 1,


n n+l 3,2
T = 0 , TjY3 = 0 , and T = 0.
391 394
More t h a n one manhole on INL n may have a c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e same

manhole on INL n + l a l l o w i n g f o r b r a n c h e s s o t h a t t h e tree t y p e ne,twork o f

a s t o r m sewer s y s t e m c a n b e d e f i n e d . A l s o e a c h manhole on INL n must have

a c o n n e c t i o n t 0 . a manhole on INL n+l. The t o t a l v e c t o r of c o n n e c t i v i t y Tn


d
TNI

TNI
a t any s t a g e n can b e d e f i n e d a s i n c l u d i n g a l l c o n n e c t i o n s (Tm
n ymn+l
f o r mn 1 , 2 , . . . , M n a n d m n + l = 1 , 2 , . . . , Mn+l) , w h e r e M n a n d M n + l a r e t h e t o t a l
!
number of manholes on INL n and n + l , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

I 4.4.2. System Components o f S e r i a l Approach

4.4.2.1 States - The i n p u t s t a t e v e c t o r a t e a c h s t a g e n of t h e s y s t e m i s


I
I
r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e sets of p i p e crown e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e downstream s i d e of

I
?
each manhole mn a l o n g INL n. The n o t a t i o n f o r t h e i n p u t s t a t e v e c t o r a t
manhole m on INL n i s Sm , i . e . , t h e t o t a l s t a t e v e c t o r f o r INL n h a s
n
I n
1 mn = 1 , 2 , ...,
M sets o f crown e l e v a t i o n s where M i s t h e number of manholes
n n
on INL n. For e a c h p o s s i b l e p i p e c o n s i d e r e d a t t h e s t a g e , t h e i n p u t states
L

I a r e d e f i n e d a s t h e s e t o f crown e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e upstream end of t h e p i p e .

I n o t h e r words, f o r t h e n o n s e r i a l approach t h e i n p u t s t a t e v e c t o r f o r s t a g e
i
n i s d e f i n e d by a s e t of crown e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e u p s t r e a m end of t h e p i p e ;

[ w h e r e a s , f o r t h e s e r i a l approach t h e i n p u t s t a t e v e c t o r c o n s i s t s of a s e t

of crown e l e v a t i o n s a t e a c h manhole on INL n . I n m a t r i x form t h i s ( a n b e

1 represented f o r each s t a g e a s

where e a c h p o s i t i o n i n t h e m a t r i x r e p r e s e n t s a set of crown e l e v a t i o n s (Eq.


I

4.2) on t h e downstream s i d e o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r u p s t r e a m manhole.

I The o u t p u t s t a t e s a r e t h e set of c r o w e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e uownstream


1
end of e a c h p i p e c o n n e c t i o n of an a r b i t r a r y s t a g e n. The n o t a t i o n f Ir t h e out-

p u t s t a t e v e c t o r c o n n e c t i n g manholes m and mn+l, on INL n and n + l r . s p e c t i v e l y ,


n
*
for m = 1 , 2 , . . . , Mn+l where Mn+l i s t h e t o t a l number of manholes
Sm n+l
n *mn+l
INL n+l. T h i s v e c t o r , Sn, can a l s o b e r e p r e s e n t e d i n m a t r i x form s i m i l a r

t o the input s t a t e s .

It should be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e o u t p u t s t a t e v e c t o r f o r a down-

s t r e a m manhole a t s t a g e n can have seve;;ll o r no p i p e s connecting t o i t from

t h e upstream manholes of s t a g e n. The i n p u t s t a t e v e c t o r f o r t h e succeeding

downstream s t a g e n + l a t t h e same manhole must have one p i p e l e a d i n g from t h e

manhole. T h i s allows each upstream manhole a t each s t a g e t o b e d r a i n e d t o

a manhole on t h e downstream i s o n o d a l l i n e .

4.4.2.2. Decisions - The independent d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e a t e a c h s t a g e i s t h e

drop i n t h e crown e l e v a t i o n from t h e upstream end t o t h e downstream end f o r

each p i p e c o n n e c t i o n i n t h e s t a g e . The p i p e d i a m e t e r s a l s o i n v o l v e a

d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e ; however, d i a m e t e r s depend d i r e c t l y upon t h e s l o p e and

maximum flow r a t e o r t h e r i s k model ( d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 5) s o t h a t t h e p i p e

d i a m e t e r i s n o t considered a s a n independent d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e . Slopes a r e

determined by t h e drop i n crown e l e v a t i o n s and p i p e l e n g t h , and maximum flow

r a t e i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e l a y o u t , s l o p e , and p i p e d i a m e t e r .

The n o t a t i o n f o r t h e s e t of p o s s i b l e drops i n crown e l e v a t i o n s

from upstream manhole m t o downstream manhole m on INL n and n + l i s


n n+l
D
m
. I n o t h e r words, D r e p r e s e n t s t h e s e t of p o s s i b l e drops i n crown
n *mn+l 19 2
e l e v a t i o n s a c r o s s a s t a g e n from manhole m = 1 on INL n t o manhole mn+l = 2
n
on INL n+l. The p o s s i b l e drops i n crown e l e v a t i o n s f o r t h i s p i p e connection a r e

shown i n Pig. 4.1 by t h e dashed l i n e s . I n the figure the input s t a t e s a r e the

crown e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e downstream s i d e of a manhole on INL n , and t h e o u t p u t

s t a t e s a r e t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e upstream s i d e of a manhole on INL n+l.

The t o t a l d e c i s i o n v e c t o r r e p r e s e n t s a l l p o s s i b l e d r o p s i n crown e l e v a t i o n s
from a l l of t h e M manholes on INL n t o t h e Mn+l manholes o n INL n+l s o t h a t
n
the t o t a l vector is D
rn
. I n m a t r i x form t h e t o t a l v e c t o r f o r each s t a g e
n 'mn+l
n can b e r e p r e s e n t e d a s

The drop i n crown e l e v a t i o n i s d e f i n e d a s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between

t h e upstream crown e l e v a t i o n ( i n p u t s t a t e ) and t h e downstream crown e l e v a t i o n

(output s t a t e ) . T h i s d e f i n e s t h e manner i n which an i n p u t s t a t e i s t r a n s -

formed i n t o an o u t p u t s t a t e by a d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e , which i n dynamic

programming terminology i s t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n f u n c t i o n (Eq. 4.1). More

s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n t h e s e r i a l approach f o r a p o s s i b l e p i p e c o n n e c t i o n between

manholes mn and m t h e transformation function i s


n+l '

4.4.3. DDDP S o l u t i o n Scheme f o r S e r i a l Approach

The DDDP procedure f o r each i t e r a t i o n s t a r t s a t t h e upstream end

of t h e s t o r m sewer system and proceeds downstream stage-by-stage as dis-

cussed i n S e c t i o n 4.2 and shown i n Fig. 4.3. Because of t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f

t h e s t a g e s , t h e y vary simply by v a r y i n g t h e i s o n o d a l l i n e s . Stage h is

d e f i n e d by t h e upstream and downstream INL n and n + l , whereas t h e n e x t

downstream s t a g e n + l i s d e f i n e d by INL n+l and n+2. A flow c h a r t showing


t h e l o g i c r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e sewer system f o r t h e s e r i a l approach f o r t h e DDDP

s o l u t i o n scheme i s given i n Fig. 4.8. T h i s flow c h a r t t o g e t h e r w i t h F i g s . 4.2

and 4.3 g i v e s t h e DDDP s e r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n model.

As shown i n Fig. 4 . 8 , a t a s t a g e n each of t h e downstream manholes

m - a r e v a r i e d , a N f o r each of t h e s e manholes, t h e upstream


n+l - ls*.*,Mn+l
manholes m = 1 . . M
n n
.
a r e varied. For each combination of upstream and

downstream manholes t h e v e c t o r of connections i s checked t o s e e i f t h e s e man-

h o l e s r e p r e s e n t a connection. I f t h e r e i s no connection ( i . e . ,
T = 01,
m,mn+l
t h e n t h e n e x t upstream manhole m +1 i s c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h e downstream manhole
n
m Also, i f t h e r e i s no connection and t h i s i s t h e l a s t upstream manhole
n+l '
(m = M ) , t h e n t h e n e x t downstream manhole m
n n n+l
+ 1 and t h e f i r s t upstream

manhole (m = 1 ) a r e considered. For each connection t h e c o r r i d o r i s formed


n
and DP computations a r e a p p l i e d a s shown i n Fig. 4.2 and d i s c u s s e d i n

S e c t i o n 4.2. The r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n f o r each p i p e t h a t r e p r e s e n t s a connection

(i.e., T = 1) a t stage n is
m
n smn+l

- ) = Min [ r , D ) + F (S 11 (4.8)
n' "rn m "-1 mn-l,mn
nsmn+l D
mn smn+l
mnsmn+l (Smn'mn+l nymn+l

where F,(S ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimum c o s t of t h e system t h a t i s connected


mn'mn+l -

todownstreammanholem throughupstreammanholem andwhereF0(S ) = 0.


n+l n "0 '"1
This r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n i s f o r o n l y one of t h e p o s s i b l e connections a t t h i s

stage. A r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n f o r t h e above o p t i m i z a t i o n procedure c o n s i d e r i n g

a l l t h e connections can b e r e p r e s e n t e d a s

F,(;~) = in 1 in [ 1:m , Dm )
n m n + ~(Smn mn+l n~ ~ n + l
Im D
m
n 'mn+l
I

2.9 . 8 y j a a s ' u o ~ 2 2 a u u o 2 adrd 103 l o p r l l o 2


uyqarm s u o y ~ o ~ n d u oda s mlojlad
t
f

s = T+um pue T = m 2as


for

where F ($ ) r e p r e s e n t s t h e minimum c o s t of t h e e n t i r e system i n c l u d i n g a l l


n n
p i p e s and manholes through s t a g e n , i . e . , t o t h e upstream of INL n+l.

4.4.4. Connection of S t a t e s a t Manholes

For t h e manholes on INL n+l which a r e connected by a p i p e from t h e

upstream, t h e c o n n e c t i o n of s t a t e s a c r o s s t h e manholes must b e determined

b e f o r e proceding t o t h e n e x t downstream DDDP s t a g e . T h i s procedure determines

t h e minimum t o t a l c o s t s f o r each of t h e s t a t e s on t h e downstream s i d e of

manhole m which a r e t h e i n p u t s t a t e s a t t h i s manhole f o r t h e n e x t down-


n+l
s t r e a m DDDP s t a g e . This i s done by v a r y i n g t h e s t a t e on t h e downstream s i d e

of t h e manhole, and f o r each of t h e s e , c o n s i d e r each s t a t e on t h e upstream

s i d e of t h e manhole which r e p r e s e n t s a crown e l e v a t i o n g r e a t e r t h a n o r e q u a l

t o t h e crown e l e v a t i o n on t h e downstream s i d e ( f e a s i b l e s t a t e s ) . A s e t of

s t a t e s on t h e upstream s i d e of t h e manhole e x i s t s f o r each upstream p i p e

t h a t connects t o t h e manhole s o t h a t t h e f e a s i b l e s t a t e w i t h t h e minimum c o s t

f o r each p i p e i s chosen. The procedure i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Fig. 4.9 f o r a Y

j u n c t i o n of p i p e s .

The sum of minimum c o s t s f o r each of t h e p i p e c o n n e c t i o n s j o i n i n g

t o t h e manhole i s t h e cumulative minimum c o s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e crown

e l e v a t i o n on t h e downstream s i d e of t h e manhole. The s t a t e s of each c o n n e c t i o n

on t h e upstream s i d e of t h e manhole having t h e minimum c o s t s f o r t h e s t a t e s on

t h e downstream a r e s t o r e d f o r l a t e r use i n t h e trace-back r o u t i n e . This


1
I
t
F e a s i b l e c o n n e c t i o n of
s t a t e s f o r downstream
Downstream s t a t e s of s t a t e of manhole.
p i p e connected t o
I u p s t r e a m man

_ _ _ _ - - - - -

Downstream s t a t e s which
a r e upstream s t a t e s f o r
n e x t DDDP s t a g e .

Downstream s t a t e s o f
p i p e connected t o
u p s t r e a m man

Manhole m
n+l

F i g . 4.9. C o n n e c t i v i t y o f S t a t e s a t Manhole J u n c t i o n s f o r S e r i a l
Approach
procedure i s r e p e a t e d f o r each o f t h e s t a t e s on t h e downstream s i d e of t h e

manhole, d e t e r m i n i n g t h e cumulative minimum c o s t f o r each s t a t e .

The above procedure f o r t h e c o n n e c t i v i t y of s t a t e s a t t h e manhole

i s e s s e n t i a l l y a dynamic programming procedure a t each downstream manhole

m having an upstream connection i n s t a g e n. However t h e r e i s no r e t u r n


nf 1
considered because t h e manhole c o s t i s computed along w i t h t h e downstream

p i p e i n t h e DDDP scheme. T h i s i s done because t h e manhole d e p t h , which

determines t h e c o s t , cannot b e computed u n t i l t h e downstream connecting p i p e

d i a m e t e r i s known. This procedure d i c t a t e s t h e manner i n which s t a g e n i s

l i n k e d t o s t a g e n f l through t h e manholes. This l i n k a g e i s c a l l e d t h e

i n c i d e n c e i d e n t i t y which r e l a t e s t h e o u t p u t from each s t a g e t o t h e i n p u t t o

t h e succeeding s t a g e .

4.4.5. Trace-Back Routine

A f t e r a DDDP i t e r a t i o n i s completed and t h e minimum c o s t a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h each of t h e f e a s i b l e o u t p u t s t a t e s of t h e l a s t s t a g e a r e e s t a b l i s h e d ,

t h e l e a s t - c o s t i s determined by comparing t h e s e minimum c o s t s f o r d i f f e r e n t

states. A trace-back r o u t i n e i s performed t o r e t r i e v e t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n

of t h e sewer system f o r t h i s i t e r a t i o n . The trace-back commences a t t h e

downstream end of t h e system proceeding upstream stage-by-stage. A t each

s t a g e t h e manholes on t h e downstream i s o n o d a l l i n e a r e v a r i e d , and f o r each

of t h e s e , t h e manholes on t h e upstream i s o n o d a l l i n e a r e v a r i e d . For each

combination of upstream and downstream manholes, t h e v e c t o r of c o n n e c t i v i t y

T
m
, i s checked t o s e e i f t h e s e two manholes r e p r e s e n t a connection of
n 'mn+l
t h e system l a y o u t . I f t h e s e manholes do n o t r e p r e s e n t a c o n n e c t i o n of

t h e l a y o u t , t h e n e x t combination of manholes i s c o n s i d e r e d . I f the

manholes do r e p r e s e n t a c o n n e c t i o n , t h e trace-back c o n t i n u e s by determin-

i n g t h e upstream s t a t e f o r a known downstream s t a t e j from t h e s t o r e d

i n d e x e s of upstream s t a t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each downstream s t a t e . Remember


t h e trace-back b e g i n s a t t h e system o u t l e t a t which t h e minimum c o s t s t a t e

(downstream) was computed. When t h e upstream s t a t e k a t manhole m i s found,


n
t h e downstream s t a t e s j f o r each connection t o t h i s manhole f o r t h e p r e c e d i n g

upstream s t a g e can b e found from t h e s t o r e d i n d e x of c o n n e c t i o n s a c r o s s manholes.

The tracb-back a t t h e l a s t two s t a g e s o f a system i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g . 4.10.

T h i s procedure i s r e p e a t e d f o r each c o n n e c t i o n of t h e l a y o u t a t t h e

s t a g e found by v a r y i n g t h e upstream and downstream manholes. Once a l l

c o n n e c t i o n s of t h e l a y o u t a t t h i s s t a g e have been c o n s i d e r e d , t h e n e x t up-

s t r e a m s t a g e i s c o n s i d e r e d and t h e procedure i s r e p e a t e d . Each t i m e t h e

s t a t e s a t t h e upstream and downstream ends of t h e p i p e s a r e determined, t h e

crown e l e v a t i o n s which r e p r e s e n t t h e improved t r a j e c t o r y a r e s t o r e d t o b e

used a s t h e t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y f o r t h e n e x t i t e r a t i o n of t h e a l g o r i t h m .

4.4.6. Advantages of S e r i a l Approach

A s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 4.3, t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l major l i m i t a t i o n s

t o t h e n o n s e r i a l o p t i m i z a t i o n approach when a p p l i e d , t o l a r g e sewer systems

w i t h many l e v e l s of branching. These l i m i t a t i o n s i n c l u d e t h e l a r g e computer

s t o r a g e requirements and d i f f i c u l t y i n programming. The s e r i a l approach,

on t h e o t h e r hand, r e q u i r e s l e s s s t o r a g e and c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y less computer

t i m e as well. This i s because t h e sewer system l a y o u t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by

t h e m a t r i x of c o n n e c t i v i t y T
m
, which i s a s i m p l e r and more g e n e r a l
n~ ~ n + l
method of s t o r i n g t h e r e q u i r e d i n ormation than i s employed i n t h e non-

s e r i a l approach, thereby f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e programming e f f o r t .

A f u r t h e r advantage i s t h e e a s e of d e f i n i n g t h e system f o r t h e

optimization. No m a t t e r how many l e v e l s of b r a n c h i n g t h e sewer system

may have, t h e s e r i a l approach always d e f i n e s t h e s t a g e s by use of t h e

isonodal lines. The s u p e r i o r i t y of t h e s e r i a l approach t o t h e n o n s e r i a l '

approach i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p a r e n t when l a r g e systems w i t h many l e v e l s of

branching a r e considered.
Chapter 5. CONSIDERATIONS OF RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES

Engineering designs a r e i n e v i t a b l y s u b j e c t t o u n c e r t a i n t i e s . The

d e s i g n of storm sewers i s no exception. T r a d i t i o n a l l y storm sewers a r e

designed using a d e t e r m i n i s t i c approach once t h e d e s i g n r e t u r n p e r i o d of

rainstorm i s established. A f t e r t h e design d i s c h a r g e i s e v a l u a t e d , t h e s i z e

of t h e sewer i s determined a s t h e s m a l l e s t p i p e t h a t can convey t h e design

discharge. No c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s given t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s and t h e i r e f f e c t

on sewer design. As mentioned i n S e c t i o n 2.2 and w i l l be e l a b o r a t e d f u r t h e r

l a t e r , t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s involved i n sewer design i n c l u d e hydrologic and

h y d r a u l i c u n c e r t a i n t i e s , u n c e r t a i n t i e s due t o c o n s t r u c t i o n and m a t e r i a l s ,

and u n c e r t a i n t i e s on c o s t f u n c t i o n s . I n t h i s c h a p t e r a method i s developed

t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e e f f e c t of u n c e r t a i n t i e s t o sewer design.

5.1. B a s i c Concepts and Theory

5.1.1. Risk Function

The f a i l u r e of a storm sewer can b e d e f i n e d a s t h e event i n which

t h e runoff o r loading Q which i s imposed on a sewer by a r a i n f a l l event


L
exceeds t h e c a p a c i t y , Q of t h e sewer. In o t h e r words, t h e r i s k of f a i l u r e
C,
i s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e event Q > Q ; i.e.,
L C

Risk = P(QL > Q )


C

Since both Q and Q i n Eq. 5 . 1 a r e non-negative q u a n t i t i e s , t h e


L C
p r o b a b i l i t y i n Eq. 5 . 1 i s e q u a l t o P [(Q /Q ) <
C L
11 ~ ~ )Hence
o r P [ l n ( ~ ~ </ 01.

Risk = P(Z < 0) (5.2)

i n which
By u s i n g t h e f i r s t o r d e r approximation of t h e ~ a ~ l o r s' es r i e s expansion (Ang

and Tang, 19 75, p. 193) t h e mean and. v a r i a n c e of Z a r e

and

-
i n which 5C, QL and "c, "L a r e t h e mean v a l u e s and c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

of QC and QL r e s p e c t i v e l y . The s u b s c r i p t 0 w i t h t h e p a r e n t h e s i s denotes t h a t

t h e q u a n t i t y w i t h i n t h e p a r e n t h e s i s i s e v a l u a t e d a t t h e mean v a l u e s of t h e

random v a r i a b l e s . It i s i m p l i c i t l y assumed i n Eq. 5.5 t h a t Q and QL a r e


C
s t a t i s t i c a l l y independent of each o t h e r .

Since Q and Q a r e u s u a l l y f u n c t i o n s of many random v a r i a b l e s a s


C L
w i l l b e d e t a i l e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of Z i s n o t

g e n e r a l l y e a s y t o determine. However, i t h a s been shown (Ang 1970; Yen and

Ang, 1971) t h a t f o r a r i s k l e v e l of o r l a r g e r , t h e r i s k is n o t sensi-

t i v e t o t h e t y p e of d i s t r i b u t i o n assumed. IIence, f o r s i m p l i c i t y , assuming

Z t o b e normally d i s t r i b u t e d , t h e r i s k i s

o r , from Eqs. 5.4, 5 . 5 and 5.6,

1
. (GL/CC)
Risk = $[-2
2 1/21
('QL + "c)

i n which $ ( x ) denotes t h e cumulative s t a n d a r d normal d i s t r i b u t i o n e v a l u a t e d

a t x. The v a l u e s of $ can be found i n AppendixA f o r n e g a t i v e v a l u e s of x

o r from t a b l e s i n s t a n d a r d s t a t i s t i c s r e f e r e n c e books (e.g., Benjamin and

C o r n e l l , 1970; Ang and Tang, 1975) f o r p o s i t i v e x. Note t h a t $(-x) = 1 - $ ( x ) .


A c t u a l l y , f o r s t o r m s e w e r s t h e r e a r e two d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of f a i l u r e

a s d i s c u s s e d by Yen and h g (1971). One i s t h e p r o p e r t y damage, t y p e f a i l u r e

which c a u s e s l o c a l f l o o d i n g b u t i n v o l v e s no f a i l u r e o r damage i n t h e sewer

s t r u c t u r e s o r change i n t h e f u n c t i o n i n g of t h e sewer system. Temporarily t h e

sewer i s i n c a p a b l e of conveying t h e e n t i r e s t o r m r u n o f f , r e s u l t i n g i n p r o p e r t y

damages such as f l o o d i n g of basements and lowlands and i n t e r r u p t i o n of t r a f f i c .

The o t h e r t y p e i s a c a t a s t r o p h i c f a i l u r e which i n v o l v e s damage t o t h e sewer

system such t h a t i t s proper functioning is no longer p o s s i b l e . The d e f i n i -

t i o n of f a i l u r e a s g i v e n i n E q . 5 . 1 e s s e n t i a l l y f o l l o w s t h e concept of t h e

p r o p e r t y damage t y p e f a i l u r e . It i s most u n l i k e l y t h a t a c a t a s t r o p h i c t y p e

f a i l u r e of a s t o r m sewer would happen b e f o r e t h e o c c u r r e n c e of t h e p r o p e r t y

damage t y p e f a i l u r e . However, under s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s when i t i s

n e c e s s a r y , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of c a t a s t r o p h i c t y p e f a i l u r e c a n a l s o b e s i m i l a r l y

e v a l u a t e d through a n a p p r o p r i a t e m o d i f i c a t i o n of Q i n E q . 5.1.
C

5.1.2. A n a l y s i s of Component U n c e r t a i n t i e s

Since Q and QC a r e b o t h , i n g e n e r a l , f u n c t i o n s of o t h e r random


L
v a r i a b l e s , a n a s s e s s m e n t of t h e i r mean v a l u e s and c o e f f i c i e n t s of v a r i a t i o n

i n terms of t h o s e of t h e component random v a r i a b l e s i s mandatory. Suppose

Q i s p r e d i c t e d by a m a t h e m a t i c a l model G which is a f u n c t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s

x
1
to x
j
. To a c c o u n t f o r any e r r o r i n t h e p r e d i c t i o n as a r e s u l t of t h e

model i d e a l i z a t i o n , a c o r r e c t i v e f a c t o r X w i t h mean h and c o e f f i c i e n t of

v a r i a t i o n 52 i s i n t r o d u c e d , such t h a t Q i s e x p r e s s e d as
X

Q = XG(xl,x2 ,....xJ. )

By a p p l y i n g t h e f i r s t o r d e r approximation f o r Q ,
and

i n which r
ij
i s t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n between x
i
and x
j
.
Assuming

t h a t a l l t h e x . ' s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y independent, and n o t i n g t h a t aQ/ax =


J j
( 8 ~ 1 8 (~a c) l a x j ) = ~ ( a ~ l a x . ~) , q 5.11
. can be s i m p l i f i e d as
J

The s p e c i f i c formulas t o e v a l u a t e t h e mean and c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n 'for

QL and QC depend on t h e mathematical model adopted f o r Q and Q as w i l l be


L C'
i l l u s t r a t e d l a t e r i n t h i s chapter.

5.1.3. Safety Factor

Conventionally, t h e sewer i s designed t o have a c a p a c i t y Q ex-


C
ceeding t h e nominally r e q u i r e d c a p a c i t y Qo. Thus, t h e s a f e t y f a c t o r may

be defined as

The v a l u e of Q i s t h e peak flow t h a t t h e sewer must c a r r y a s determined by


0

t h e h y d r o l o g i c and/or h y d r a u l i c a n a l y s i s , such a s t h e peak d i s c h a r g e com-

puted by u s i n g t h e r a t i o n a l formula f o r a given r e t u r n p e r i o d e q u a l t o t h e

expected p r o j e c t l i f e . The v a l u e of % is t h e expected v a l u e of t h e c a p a c i t y

of t h e sewer of a given diameter and s l o p e e v a l u a t e d by u s i n g one of t h e


flow formulas such a s t h e Darcy-Weisbach o r Manning f o r m u l a s .

5.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Rainstorm Runoff and Sewer C a p a c i t y

As shown i n E q . 5.12, t h e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e component u n c e r t a i n t i e s

of t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e Q and sewer c a p a c i t y Q
L C depends on t h e formulas used
t o compute Q and Q To i n t r o d u c e t h e methodology and f o r t h e s a k e of
L C*
b r e v i t y and c l a r i t y , t h e Manning formula i s a d o p t e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e sewer

c a p a c i t y , and t h e r a t i o n a l method i s a d o p t e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e .

The r e a d e r s h o u l d n o t i n t e r p r e t t h i s a d o p t i o n as an endorsement of t h e r a t i o n a l

formula.

5.2.1. U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Design D i s c h a r g e

The r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a , b e c a u s e o f i t s s i m p l i c i t y , i s t h e most com-

monly u s e d f o r m u l a t o e s t i m a t e t h e peak r u n o f f r a t e due t o r a i n f a l l . Through

t h e y e a r s much c r i t i c i s m h a s been l e v e l e d on t h e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a and most

of i t s drawbacks a r e well-known. R e c e n t l y many improved and s o p h i s t i c a t e d

f l o w s i m u l a t i o n methods have b e e n developed which a r e more s a t i s f a c t o r y t h a n

t h e r a t i o n a l formula (e.g., s e e Chow and Yen, 1 9 7 6 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , as

mentioned e a r l i e r , t h e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a i s a d o p t e d as an example f o r t h e s a k e

of s i m p l i c i t y and c l a r i t y ; o t h e r methods c o u l d a l s o b e u s e d i f d e s i r e d .

I f t h e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a , Q = CiA, i s u s e d , where C i s t h e r u n o f f

c o e f f i c i e n t , i i s t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y and A i s t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n a r e a ,

t h e v a l u e of Q i n E q . 5.13 can b e computed from


0

i n which i i s t h e r e f e r e n c e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y c o n v e n t i o n a l l y used t o
0

compute t h e d i s c h a r g e f o r t h e d e s i g n r e t u r n p e r i o d . The b a r r e p r e s e n t s ,

a s b e f o r e , t h e mean v a l u e of t h e v a r i a b l e .
The v a l u e of i n Eq. 5.7, which i s t h e e x p e c t e d v a l u e of t h e
L
maximum d i s c h a r g e d u r i n g t h e T y e a r e x p e c t e d s e r v i c e l i f e of t h e sewer, can

a l s o b e e s t i m a t e d u s i n g t h e r a t i o n a l formula. However, s i n c e t h e r a t i o n a l

formula r e p r e s e n t s o n l y an approximate model, a c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r X is


L
introduced. Thus, a p p l y i n g Eqs. 5.10 and 5.12 t o t h e r a t i o n a l formula, one

ob t a i n s

where Q Q, Q . and Q a r e t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s of v a r i a t i o n of t h e model cor-


L' 1 A
r e c t i o n f a c t o r , r u n o f f c o e f f i c i e n t , r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y and d r a i n a g e a r e a ,
-
respectively. The q u a n t i t y iTr e p r e s e n t s t h e e x p e c t e d maximum r a i n f a l l i n -

t e n s i t y d u r i n g t h e T y r sewer s e r v i c e l i f e and i t can b e e v a l u a t e d from t h e

r a i n f a l l intensity-frequency relationship using a return period equal t o

T yr.

5.2.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Sewer Capacity

The Manning formula i s

i n which n i s Manning's roughness f a c t o r ; A i s t h e flow c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a ;

R i s t h e h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s ; and S i s t h e f r i c t i o n s l o p e o f t h e flow. I n com-

p u t i n g t h e sewer c a p a c i t y , assuming g r a v i t y flow w i t h j u s t f u l l p i p e of

d i a m e t e r d, Eq. 5.17 can b e w r i t t e n a s


A p p l i c a t i o n of Eqs. 5.10 and 5.12 t o Eq. 5.18 y i e l d s

i n which

and
QC'
am, ", " "
Xm a c c o u n t s f o r t h e approximation a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e Manning f o r m u l a ,
and a r e t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s of v a r i a t i o n of Q

c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r , s l o p e , d i a m e t e r and r o u g h n e s s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
cY
t h e model

5.3. P r o c e d u r e t o E s t a b l i s h Risk-Safety F a c t o r R e l a t i o n s h i p

The b a s i c p r o c e d u r e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r c u r v e s f o r

a g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n i s t o u s e Eqs. 5 . 7 and 5.13 t o compute t h e r i s k and

safety factor. The d e t a i l s depend on t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g %, QL, Qc, n


QL'
and The f o l l o w i n g summary i s o n l y meant f o r r e f e r e n c e r a t h e r t h a n a
QC*
r i g i d r u l e , and t h e e n g i n e e r may a l t e r t h e p r o c e d u r e as t h e s i t u a t i o n d i c t a t e s .

For t h e d r a i n h g e b a s i n o r l o c a t i o n where t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r r e -

l a t i o n s h i p s are t o b e es t a b l i s h e d , t h e s u g g e s t e d p r o c e d u r e i s as f o l l o w s .
(a) S e l e c t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e models t o compute t h e sewer c a p a c i t y

and d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e .

(b) Perform an a n a l y s i s of u n c e r t a i n t i e s on t h e r a i n f a l l i n -

tensity. T h i s i n v o l v e s a s s e s s m e n t of u n c e r t a i n t i e s due

t o r e t u r n p e r i o d , d u r a t i o n , l i m i t e d r a i n f a l l r e c o r d and

data reliability. For each c h o i c e of r e t u r n p e r i o d and

duration the r e s u l t usually consists of a reference

r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y f o r t h e e v a l u a t i o n of Q i n Eq. 5.13
0

and a mean i n t e n s i t y , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of

v a r i a t i o n f o r t h e e s t i m a t i o n of and fi Alternatively,
L QL

75
i f i n p u t i s t h e sewer i n f l o w hydrograph, perform an

a n a l y s i s o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s on t h e hydrograph.

(c) Perform an a n a l y s i s of u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e d e s i g n

discharge. T h i s i n v o l v e s an assessment o f f a c t o r s , i n

addition t o the r a i n f a l l intensity, contributing t o the

u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e design discharge. I n o t h e r words,

t h i s s t e p i n v o l v e s t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e mean and c o e f f i -

c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n f o r each of t h e component f a c t o r s a f f e c -

t i n g t h e design discharge. The r e s u l t u s u a l l y c o n s i s t s of


-
a s e t of v a l u e s of Q and L? ( u s i n g , f o r example, Eqs.
0 , QL QL
5.14, 5.15 and 5.16) f o r t h e d u r a t i o n and r a i n f a l l

r e t u r n p e r i o d which i s s e l e c t e d a s e q u a l t o t h e expected

s e r v i c e l i f e o f t h e sewer.

(d) For an a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d p i p e s i z e a v a i l a b l e commercially,

perform an a n a l y s i s o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r t h e sewer c a p a c i t y .

This i n v o l v e s an a n a l y s i s of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e p i p e

s i z e , roughness, s t r a i g h t n e s s , c o n s t r u c t i o n r e l i a b i l i t y such

a s t h e s l o p e , and t h e model e r r o r . The v a l u e s of t h e mean

and c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n f o r t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e

sewer c a p a c i t y a r e determined f i r s t . The end r e s u l t c o n s i s t s

of t h e v a l u e s o f % and L?QC ( u s i n g formulas s u c h a s Eqs. 5.19

and 5.20) f o r t h e p i p e s i z e c o n s i d e r e d .

(e) Compute t h e r i s k u s i n g Eq. 5.7.

(f) Compute t h e s a f e t y f a c t o r u s i n g Eq. 5.13.

(g) The p a i r of v a l u e s f o r t h e r i s k and s a f e t y f a c t o r , computed

i n ( e ) and ( f ) , g i v e s one p o i n t of t h e r i s k - s a f e t y factor

curve.
(h) Repeat s t e p s ( d ) t o ( f ) f o r a d i f f e r e n t p i p e s i z e . This

w i l l g i v e a n o t h e r p o i n t on t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r curve.

Repeating t h i s p r o c e d u r e f o r o t h e r p i p e s i z e s w i l l g i v e

a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t s t o p l o t t h e curve f o r t h e s e l e c t e d

r a i n f a l l d u r a t i o n and d e s i g n p e r i o d .

(i) Repeat s t e p s ( c ) t o ( h ) f o r d i f f e r e n t r a i n f a l l d u r a t i o n s

h a v i n g t h e same d e s i g n p e r i o d . The r e s u l t s w i l l g i v e c u r v e s

f o r different durations. However, i t h a s been found t h a t

t h e e f f e c t of r a i n f a l l d u r a t i o n i s u s u a l l y s m a l l and t h e

p o i n t s h a v i n g d i f f e r e n t d u r a t i o n s b u t t h e same d e s i k n p e r i o d

can b e r e p r e s e n t e d by a s i n g l e curve.

(j) Repeat s t e p s ( c ) t o ( i ) f o r d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n p e r i o d s , t h e

r e s u l t s w i l l complete t h e s e t of r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r curves

f o r d i f f e r e n t expected sewer s e r v i c e l i f e p e r i o d s .

I n view of t h e amount of r e p e t i t i v e c c m p u t a t i o n s i n v o l v e d t o e s t a b -

l i s h the risk-safety f a c t o r c u r v e s , i t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t s u c h computations

a r e b e s t done on a d i g i t a l computer.

5.4. Development of Risk-Safety F a c t o r Curves

To i l l u s t r a t e t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l d e t a i l s i n t h e p r o c e s s of d e v e l -

o p i n g t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r c u r v e s , a d r a i n a g e b a s i n of 1 0 a c i n s i z e l o -

c a t e d i n Urbana, I l l i n o i s i s a d o p t e d a s an example. The d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e i s

computed by u s i n g t h e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a and t h e sewer c a p a c i t y by t h e Manning

formula.

5.4.1. A n a l y s i s of U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n R a i n f a l l I n t e n s i t y

The u n c e r t a i n t y i n r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y v a r i e s w i t h t h e d e s i g n

p e r i o d T and d u r a t i o n t of t h e r a i n f a l l and t h e l o c a t i o n and s i z e of t h e


d
drainage basin. For most d r a i n a g e b a s i n s i n t h e U.S. the relationship
between t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y , d u r a t i o n , and r e t u r n p e r i o d can b e e s t i m a t e d

from a N a t i o n a l Weather S e r v i c e a t l a s ( H e r s h f i e l d , 1 9 6 3 ) . ' T h e d r a i n a g e

b a s i n c o n s i d e r e d h e r e as a n example i s a 10-ac area a t Urbana, I l l i n o i s and

t h e f o l l o w i n g example computations are f o r T = 10 y r and t = 30 min.


d
I n most l o c a t i o n s t h e p o i n t r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y , i , can b e e x p r e s s e d

i n which a and b are c o n s t a n t s and m and k a r e c o n s t a n t e x p o n e n t s . Equa-

t i o n 5 . 2 1 r e p r e s e n t s t h e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e a n n u a l maximum

point r a i n f a l l intensity, i
a
. A t Urbana, b a s e d on t h e d a t a from H e r s h f i e l d

(1963) f o r r a i n f a l l d u r a t i o n from 5 min t o 2 h r and r e t u r n p e r i o d from 1

t o 100 y r s , a = 120, b = 27, m = 0.175 and k = 1. Hence,

i n which i i s i n i n . / h r , T i s i n y r , and t i n min.


d

5.4.1.1. E f f e c t of Design P e r i o d - I n o r d e r t o estimate t h e e x p e c t e d maxi-

mum d i s c h a r g e QL (Eq. 5.15) i t i s n e c e s s a r y f i r s t t o estimate t h e e x p e c t e d


-
maximum r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y , i f o r a s p e c i f i e d r a i n f a l l d u r a t i o n d u r i n g
T'
t h e e x t i r e s e r v i c e l i f e of t h e sewer. The v a r i a n c e of i f o r t h e d i s t r i b u -

t i o n e x p r e s s e d i n Eq. 5 . 2 1 w i t h 0 . 5 > m > 0 i s (Yen, 1975b)

The d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n t e n s i t y g i v e n i n Eq. 5.22 i s o b t a i n e d from l i m i t e d d a t a

and t h e r e f o r e t h e r e i s an u n c e r t a i n t y i n i t s s p e c i f i c a t i o n due t o a f i n i t e
l e n g t h of r e c o r d . S i n c e t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y whose d i s t r i b u t i o n i s b e i n g

c o n s i d e r e d c o n s i s t s of t h e l a r g e s t v a l u e s of t h e r e c d r d w h e t h e r t h e a n n u a l

maximum s e r i e s o r a n n u a l exceedance s e r i e s i s u s e d , i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o

assume t h a t t h e i n t e n s i t y i a c t u a l l y f o l l o w s a Type I extreme v a l u e (Gumbel)


T
distribution. The s u b s c r i p t T o f i i s t o emphasize t h a t e a c h v a l u e of t h e

i n t e n s i t y c o r r e s p o n d s t o a p e r i o d o f T y r as was e x p r e s s e d i n Eq. 5.15.

According t o Benjamin and C o r n e l l ( 1 9 7 0 ) , f o r Gumbel d i s t r i b u t i o n of i


T,
its expected v a l u e i n T y r is

i n which i i s t h e v a l u e of i g i v e n by Eqs. 5 . 2 1 o r 5.22 f o r t h e s p e c i f i e d -


0

T y r period. Hence, s u b s t i t u t i o n of Eqs. 5 . 2 1 and 5.23 i n t o Eq. 5 . 2 4

yields

The c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n of i ( a c c o u n t i n g o n l y f o r t h e e f f e c t of d e s i g n
T
p e r i o d T) i s 6
iT
= har(iT)/ qe Heaney (1971) showed t h a t V a r ( i T ) P- Var(i).

Therefore,

From Eq. 5 . 2 2 , m = 0.175, k = 1, a = 120 and b = 27. S u b s t i t u t i o n of t h e s e

v a l u e s i n t o Eqs. 5.25 and 5 . 2 7 y i e l d s = 3.40 i n . / h r and 6 = 0.160


T iT
r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r T = 10 y r and td = 30 min.
5.4.1.2. E f f e c t of d u r a t i o n - I n t h e r a t i o n a l formula, t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n -

s i t y i s assumed t o have a d u r a t i o n e q u a l t o t h e time of c o n c e n t r a t i o n of

t h e d r a i n a g e a r e a upstream of t h e d e s i g n l o c a t i o n . This assumption on

d u r a t i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o r r e c t and t h e e r r o r may b e considered i n t h e

modeling e r r o r l a t e r i n s t e a d of h e r e . Even i f t h e e r r o r of t h i s time-of-

c o n c e n t r a t i o n assumption i s d i s c o u n t e d , t h e r e s t i l l e x i s t s a p r e d i c t i o n

e r r o r f o r the duration. For t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p d e s c r i b e d

by Eq. 5.21,

-
The e f f e c t of e r r o r i n d u r a t i o n t on t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y iTcan be
d
o b t a i n e d through f i r s t o r d e r a n a l y s i s on and t h e n a d j u s t e d by a f a c t o r
a
- -
i / i y i e l d i n g t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n ,
a T 6id, as

i n which 6 i s t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n . o f t h e d u r a t i o n . For t h e
d
Urbana bas i n ,

Assuming t h a t t h e e s t i m a t e d d u r a t i o n can b e o f f by 6 = 12.5% and f o r


d
-
t = 30 min, t h e computed v a l u e s of 6 i s 0.049.
d id

5.4.1.3. E f f e c t of S i z e of Area - For a given r e t u r n p e r i o d and d u r a t i o n ,

t h e average r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y t e n d s t o d e c r e a s e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g s i z e of

area. For a s m a l l a r e a of 10 a c a s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s example, t h e e f f e c t

i s r e l a t i v e l y small. The e r r o r can be assumed a s 6 = 0.001.


iA
5.4.1.4. E f f e c t of Limited R a i n f a l l Record - Because of t h e l i m i t e d number

of y e a r s of r a i n f a l l r e c o r d a v a i l a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e v a l u e s i n t h e A t l a s

( H e r s h f i e l d , 1963), s t a t i s t i c a l u n c e r t a i n t i e s e x i s t i n t h e e s t i m a t i o n

procedure. The c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h e s e u n c e r t a i n t i e s t o t h e o v e r a l l uncer-

t a i n t y comes mainly from t h e e s t i m a t i o n of t h e i n t e n s i t y ia given i n t h e

Atlas. , The s t a t i s t i c a l u n c e r t a i n t y (measured by c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n )

of i
a
i s approximately e q u a l t o 6
ia
/& where N i s t h e number of y e a r s of

r e c o r d and 6
ia
i s t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n of i
a
. The corresponding

uncertainty i n iT due t o l i m i t e d r e c o r d may b e o b t a i n e d a s

For t h e example c o n s i d e r e d , from Eq. 5.23, V a r ( i a ) = 0.307 and i = 3.40


T
in./hr. Hence, f o r a 5 0 - y r r e c o r d , N = 50 and 6 = v5257/(J5) x 3.4) = 0.023.
ir

5.4.1.5. E f f e c t s Due t o E r r o r s i n I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n , Data Reading and Handling,

Interpolation - A v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e example i s i n a d e q u a t e f o r a

d e t a i l e d p r o b a b i l i s t i c a n a l y s i s of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s due t o t h e s e e r r o r s .

Hence, t h e g r o s s u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h i s group i s s u b j e c t i v e l y e s t i m a t e d t o b e

6 = 0.054.
ie

5.4.1.6. T o t a l Uncertainty i n R a i n f a l l I n t e n s i t y - This is g i v e n by t h e

c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

Hence, f o r t h e p r e s e n t example w i t h T = 1 0 y r and td = 30 min, Qi = 0.177.

5.4.2. A n a l y s i s of U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Design Discharge

Besides t h e r a i n f a l l i n t e n s i t y , t h e r e a r e o t h e r f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g

t o t h e u n c e r t a i n t y of t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e a s i n d i c a t e d i n Eqs. 5.15 and 5.16.


5.4.2.1. Runoff C o e f f i c i e n t - The w e i g h t e d r u n o f f c o e f f i c i e n t C i n t h e

r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a i s computed from

i n which a = a /A where A i s t h e t o t a 1 , a r e a of t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n and a is


j j j
t h e sub-area having a runoff c o e f f i c i e n t C T h e r e are t h r e e p o s s i b l e ways
j'
t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e two f a c t o r s , C. and a i n estimating the uncertainty i n
J j'
-
C. The f i r s t i s t o c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e r e i s no u n c e r t a i n t y i n a s o t h e un-
j'
certainty i n 7 comes s o l e l y from C T h i s may b e a p r e f e r r e d approach f o r
j'
w e l l d e f i n e d s u b - a r e a s s u c h as a t y p i c a l c i t y b l o c k . The s e c o n d way i s t o

c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e r e i s no u n c e r t a i n t y i n C so that a i s t h e o n l y con-
j j
tributor. T h i s a p p r o a c h i s h i g h l y i m p r a c t i c a l s i n c e C i s d i f f i c u l t t o de-

t e r m i n e p r e c i s e l y and e v e n f o r a p a r t i c u l a r l o c a t i o n C depends on r a i n f a l l

i n t e n s i t y and t i m e . A l s o , f o r a g i v e n l o c a t i o n t h e v a l u e of C changes w i t h

s e a s o n a l v a r i a t i o n a n d a l t e r n a t i o n of l a n d u s e . The t h i r d way i s t o a l l o w

f o r u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n b o t h C , and a
J j
. T h i s i s p e r h a p s t h e most common

approach as i n p r a c t i c e a d r a i n a g e b a s i n i s o f t e n s u b d i v i d e d i n t o c e r t a i n

p e r c e n t a g e s o f p e r m e a b l e , semi-permeable and impermeable areas, o r more

p r e c i s e l y , t h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f areas f o r r o o f s a n d b u i l d i n g s , r o a d s , d r i v e w a y s ,

p a t h s , lawns, woods, e t c . There i s u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p e r c e n t a g e

of area and C u s e d f o r e a c h c a t e g o r y . As t h e t h i r d a p p r o a c h i s s u i t a b l e

f o r most l o c a t i o n s t h i s a p p r o a c h i s a d o p t e d i n t h e example. Thus, by

a p p l y i n g a f i r s t - o r d e r a n a l y s i s t o E q . 5.32,
TABLE 5.1. Component E r r o r s f o r Runoff C o e f f i c i e n t s

Driveways and
Surf a c e sidewalks Roofs Streets

Range of C
* 0.75-0.85 0.75-0.95 0.70-0.95
j

i/
V a r i a b i l i t y of C
j
Prediction error

*Obtained from s t a n d a r d r e f e r e n c e s ; e . g . , Chow (1964, p. 14.8)

//Assume uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n over t h e r a n g e , s e e Appendix C f o r


formulas; v a r i a b i l i t y i n terms of c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

.
////In terms o f c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n , assume C v a r i e s uniformly
w i t h i n t h e middle t h i r d of t h e r a n g e , s e e ~ ~ ~ e a Cd fi oxr formulas
2
**s2Cj = (variability) + (prediction error)
Although t h e a ' s a r e somewhat dependent because they s h o u l d add up t o u n i t y ,
j
s t a t i s t i c a l independence among a l l C . ' s and a 's a r e assumed h e r e f o r s i m -
J j
p l i c i t y . B e s i d e s , t h e e f f e c t of dependence among a ' s w i l l diminish a s .j
j
becomes l a r g e . Suppose t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n c o n s i d e r e d i s a h i g h l y developed

a r e a c o n s i s t i n g of 40% r o o f s , 20% a s p h a l t s t r e e t s and 40% driveways and

sidewalks. The a n a l y s i s of u n c e r t a i n t i e s of t h e components c o n t r i b u t i n g t o

.Q i s summarized i n Table 5.1. The p r e d i c t i o n e r r o r f o r cc is subjectively


C j
and c o n s e r v a t i v e l y assumed t o b e 0.10. From t h e v a l u e s i n Table 5 . 1 and

E q s . 5.33 and 5.34, C = 0.825 and fiC = 0.071.

5.4.2.2. Drainage Basin Area - The e r r o r i n e s t i m a t i n g d r a i n a g e b a s i n a r e a

A comes mainly from two s o u r c e s : the uncertainty i n determining the

boundary of t h e d r a i n a g e b a s i n and t h e e r r o r i n measuring t h e a r e a . Usually

t h e a r e a i s determined from a map. To o b t a i n an i d e a on t h e magnitude of

t h i s p r e d i c t i o n e r r o r , 34 e n g i n e e r i n g s t u d e n t s were asked t o i n s p e c t a 3-sq

m i d r a i n a g e b a s i n a t Urbana, I l l i n o i s , and then determine t h e a r e a from a

US G e o l o g i c a l Survey 7.5-min map. The a v e r a g e e r r o r measured i n terms of

t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n was found t o b e 6 = 0.045. Hence, t h e


A1
c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g t h e e s t i m a t i o n u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h N p e r s o n s each making one independent p r e d i c t i o n i s approximately 6Al/fi.

Using 6 = 0.050 and assuming t h e a r e a i s e s t i m a t e d by one e n g i n e e r i n t h e


A1
p r e s e n t example, t h e p r e d i c t i o n e r r o r i n terms of c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

i s 0 . 0 5 0 1 f i = 0.050. The u n c e r t a i n t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e accuracy of t h e

map i s u s u a l l y s m a l l and i s assumed t o have a c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n of


2
0.001. Accordingly nA = (d.050 + 0 . 0 0 1 ~ )= ~0.050
~ ~ for A = 10 ac.

5.4.2.3. Model U n c e r t a i n t y - The c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r , AL, accounting f o r t h e

u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n t h e use of t h e r a t i o n a l formula t o model t h e r a i n f a l l - r u n o f f

relationship is rather d i f f i c u l t t o assess precisely. It i s w e l l known t h a t


t h e r a t i o n a l formula i s an approximation. Even i f t h e v a l u e s of C , i , and

A could b e determined p r e c i s e l y , t h e r a t i o n a l formula can only p r e d i c t t h e

peak runoff r a t e approximately because of t h e n o n l i n e a r e f f e c t s involved

i n t h e s u r f a c e runoff phenomenon. The r a t i o n a l formula may over o r under-

e s t i m a t e t h e peak runoff r a t e depending on t h e c o n d i t i o n s encountered. A


-
p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s summarized i n Appendix B g i v e s t h e v a l u e X = 1.0 and
L

5.4.2.4. U n c e r t a i n t y i n Design Discharge - With t h e v a l u e s of t h e mean and


/

c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n of X C, i , and A c a l c u l a t e d a s d e s c r i b e d above,
LJ
t h e t o t a l u n c e r t a i n t y i n t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e , i2 can b e computed u s i n g
QL'
Eq. 5.16. Correspondingly, and Q can b e computed u s i n g Eq. 5.15 and
L 0
-
Eq. 5.14. The computed v a l u e s of Q QL and i2 a r e 26.0 c f s , 28.1 c f s
0 , QL
and 0.281, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r t h e 10-ac Urbana b a s i n f o r 10-yr d e s i g n p e r i o d

and 30 min d u r a t i o n .

5.4.3. Analysis of U n c e r t a i n t i e s i n Sewer Capacity

Because sewer flows a r e unsteady and nonuniform, u n l e s s t h e

S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s a r e used t o g e t h e r w i t h r e a l i s t i c a l l y s p e c i f i e d i n i t i a l ,

upstream, and downstream c o n d i t i o n s , t h e sewer flow c a p a c i t y cannot b e

a c c u r a t e l y determined. Using t h e Manning formula, t h e e r r o r i n e s t i m a t i n g

t h e sewer c a p a c i t y i s expressed by Eq. 5.20. The f o u r parameters

contributing t o the uncertainty a r e evaluated as follows:

5.4.3.1. E f f e c t of P i p e Roughness - The u n c e r t a i n t y i n Manning's roughness

f a c t o r comes mainly from t h e slimming of t h e p i p e w a l l and v a r i a t i o n s i n

t h e s i z e and d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e s u r f a c e roughness. Other f a c t o r s , such

a s d e v i a t i o n of t h e sewer diameter from t h e nominal s i z e , have a n e g l i g i b l e

e f f e c t on t h e v a l u e of n. For most c o n c r e t e sewer p i p e s n ranges from 0.013


t o 0.017. Assuming a t r i a n g u l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n of n o v e r t h i s range w i t h peak

a t t h e mean = 0.015 and u s i n g t h e formula g i v e n i n Appendix C , t h e c o r r e s -

ponding c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n fi = 0.0553.
n

5.4.3.2. E f f e c t of Sewer Diameter - There a r e two major s o u r c e s of un-

c e r t a i n t y i n t h e sewer diameter. One i s t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r ' s t o l e r a n c e f o r

the pipe. The o t h e r i s t h e s i z e r e d u c t i o n due t o d e p o s i t i o n , which i s

t r a d i t i o n a l l y accounted f o r a s change of r e s i s t a n c e c o e f f i c i e n t and hence

n o t considered here. The t o l e r a n c e of a sewer p i p e depends on t h e m a t e r i a l

and t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r . Assuming a t o l e r a n c e of k1.0 i n . and a uniform d i s -


-
t r i b u t i o n over t h i s range f o r a 5 - f t p i p e , t h e mean d i a m e t e r d = 5.0 f t and

u s i n g t h e formula g i v e n i n Appendix C,
Od
= 0.578 ( 6 1 - 59)/(61 + 59)

= 0.0098. The v a l u e of fi would v a r y f o r sewers of d i f f e r e n t s i z e s and


d
materials. However, s i n c e t h e v a l u e i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l , = 0.010 may b e
nd
considered s a t i s f a c t o r i l y representing o t h e r conditions.

5.4.3.3. E f f e c t of Sewer Slope - U n c e r t a i n t i e s on sewer s l o p e come mainly

from sewer misalignment and crookedness of t h e p i p e a s w e l l a s s e t t l e m e n t ,

and a r e worse f o r s m a l l s l o p e s . A s l o p e w i t h a 6-in. drop i n 500 f t i s

n o t uncommon f o r f l a t l a n d a s i n c e n t r a l I l l i n o i s . Assuming an e r r o r of

+ 1 i n . f o r t h e 6-in. drop and a symmetric t r i a n g u l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n over

t h i s range of e r r o r , t h e e r r o r i s fiS = 0.068 f o r 5= 0.001.

5.4.3.4. E f f e c t of Equation E r r o r - Urban s t o r m f l o o d flows a r e h i g h l y un-

s t e a d y and nonuniform; hence, t h e u s e of Manning' s formula r e s u l t s i n addi-

tional uncertainty. A s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of t h e r e s u l t s on s t o r m sewer

d e s i g n by Yen and Sevuk (1975) i n d i c a t e s t h a t ym= 1.1. Assuming a t r i a n -

g u l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n of Am from 0 . 8 t o 1 . 4 w i t h t h e mode a t 1.1, g i v e s

am = 0'11.
!
I 5.4.3.5. T o t a l U n c e r t a i n t y i n Sewer Capacity - With t h e v a l u e s of mean and

c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n f o r X S , d, and n e v a l u a t e d f o r a 5 - f t d i a m e t e r
m'
c o n c r e t e p i p e i n Urbana, t h e sewer c a p a c i t y and t h e a s s o c i a t e d t o t a l un-

c e r t a i n t y can b e computed u s i n g Eqs. 5.19 and 5.20 a s TC = 78.6, c f s and

fi = 0.130, respectively. The computed r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n T a b l e 5.2.


Qc
I
!

1 5.4.4. C o n s t r u c t i o n of Risk-Safety F a c t o r Curves


- -
i Combining t h e v a l u e s of Q o , QL, QC, h n d fi estimated f o r t h e
QL Qc
1
example Urbana b a s i n f o r a r a i n f a l l of 30-min d u r a t i o n and 10-yr d e s i g n

1 p e r i o d and f o r a 5 - f t d i a m e t e r c o n c r e t e sewer p i p e ,

Risk = ( [ 1n(28.1/78e6)2 = ( (-3.674) = 0.00012


( 0 . 2 4 8 ~+ 0.130 )

from Eq. 5.7 and t h e corresponding s a f e t y f a c t o r SF = 78.6/26.0 = 3.02 from

Eq. 5.13. T h i s p a i r of v a l u e s c o n s t i t u t e s p o i n t A on t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r

curve a s shown i n Fig. 5.1.

To o b t a i n o t h e r p o i n t s f o r t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r c u r v e s , t h e above

p r o c e d u r e i s f i r s t r e p e a t e d f o r d i f f e r e n t p i p e s i z e s , keeping o t h e r condi-

t i o n s unchanged. Accordingly, 6c and Q


QC
w i l l change, l e a d i n g t o a s e t of

p o i n t s shown a s t r i a n g l e s i n Fig. 5.1. The e n t i r e p r o c e d u r e i s r e p e a t e d

a g a i n f o r a d i f f e r e n t d u r a t i o n , s a y 60 min, keeping t h e d e s i g n p e r i o d unchanged,

r e s u l t i n g i n a n o t h e r s e t of p o i n t s , shown a s open c i r c l e s i n F i g . 5.1. As

t h e e f f e c t of d u r a t i o n a p p e a r s t o b e s m a l l , t h e risk-SF r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r a

given d e s i g n p e r i o d may b e r e p r e s e n t e d by a s i n g l e curve a s shown by t h e

solid line.

The p r o c e d u r e can b e r e p e a t e d and curves f o r d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n

p e r i o d s can b e e s t a b l i s h e d . Such p l o t s have been shown e l s e w h e r e (Tang e t a l . ,


1975) and reproduced h e r e f o r T = 2 , 5 , 25, 50, and 100 y r a s F i g . 5.2. It
TABLE 5.2. U n c e r t a i n t i e s f o r an Example Sewer

Coef. of n2 2 2
+ "c)
Parameter M e an Variation

C 0.825 ' 0.071 8.2 6.4


i 3.40 i n . / h r 0.177 51.1 40.0
A 10.0 a c r e s 0.050 4.0 3.2
A, 1.00 0.15 36.7 28.7

Q, 28.1 c f s 0.248 100.0 78.3

2 2
Coef. of an2 /n2 an + "c)2
Parame t e r Me an Variation

78.6 c f s 0.130 100.0 21.7


c
Note: 1. a i s t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of t h e terms i n Eq. 5.20.
2. A n a l y s i s i s b a s e d on a 10-ac d r a i n a g e a r e a a t Urbana, Ill. w i t h
i ( i n . / h r ) = 120 T0*175/(27+td) u s i n g T = 1 0 y r and td = 30 min.
Safety Factor,
-Q, / Q,

w
I-'.
OQ

P
I-'.
V1
7;
I
cn
P,
t-h
n,
rt
CC

I-'
0
I
'4

H
I-'

C'
P

I-'.
I/)
-
Safety Factor = Qc/Q,

Y
P,
0
t-t
0
Y

i?
I-'
P,
=r.

P,
t-t

H
I-'
I-'
P

P.
m
i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e r e p e t i t i v e computations i n v o l v e d b e b e s t done on

a d i g i t a l computer.

5.5. U s e of Risk-Safety F a c t o r Curves f o r Design

I n using t h e risk-safety f a c t o r curves f o r design, t h e engineer

no l o n g e r needs t o determine t h e design r e t u r n p e r i o d a r b i t r a r i l y . The

c o n t r o l f a c t o r i s t h e l e v e l of p r o t e c t i o n s o u g h t e x p r e s s e d as chance of

f a i l u r e , i . e . , r i s k , f o r the expected l i f e of t h e p r o j e c t . The r e t u r n

p e r i o d becomes an i n t e r m e d i a t e r e f e r e n c e p a r a m e t e r which i s chosen t o b e

e q u a l t o t h e e x p e c t e d s e r v i c e l i f e of t h e sewer f o r convenience. This

p o i n t i s b e s t i l l u s t r a t e d by an example.

Suppose t h e s i z e of t h e s e w e r i s t o b e d e t e r m i n e d f o r t h e Urbana

b a s i n a l l o w i n g a r i s k of f a i l u r e of 2% f o r t h e 10-yr e x p e c t e d p e r i o d of

s e r v i c e of t h e sewer. Using t h e 10-yr c u r v e , t h e r e q u i r e d s a f e t y f a c t o r

is 1.9. To d e t e r m i n e Q from t h e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a as i s c o n v e n t i o n a l l y
0

done, i t i s n e c e s s a r y f i r s t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d u r a t i o n which i s assumed

e q u a l t o t h e t i m e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n . V a r i o u s f o r m u l a s and g r a p h s h a v e b e e n

p r o p o s e d t o estimate t h e t i m e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n and a l l h a v e s e v e r e l i m i t a -

tions. Using a r b i t r a r i l y t h e K i r p i c h f o r m u l a (Chow, 1964, p. 14.7) , which


may n o t b e v a l i d f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n c o n s i d e r e d , w i t h t h e b a s i n l e n g t h e q u a l

t o 1080 f t and ' a v e r a g e s l o p e of 0.001, t h e t i m e of c o n c e n t r a t i o n i s

e v a l u a t e d as

Hence, from Eq. 5.22 w i t h T = 10 y r and td = 24 min, i = 3.62 i n . / h r .


0

With C= 0.825 and A= 10 a c , Q i s computed u s i n g Eq. 5.14 as 29.9 c f s .

Accordingly, <
C
= SF x Qo = 1.9 x 29.9 = 56.9 cfs. The d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e

QC = Q C /A m = 5 6 . 9 1 1 . 1 = 51.6 c f s . Assuming c o n c r e t e p i p e w i t h roughness

n = 0.016 due t o slimming, t h e r e q u i r e d d i a m e t e r can b e computed from


E q . 5.18 a s 1 . 9 1 f t . Thus a c o n c r e t e p i p e w i t h a 2 f t nominal diameter

i s adopted.

Suppose t h e 2 - f t sewer was l a i d and i t was found l a t e r t h a t t h e

sewer could p o s s i b l y b e used f o r 50 y r i n s t e a d of 10 y r . For t h e 50 y r

expected l i f e , t h e r i s k i s h i g h e r than t h a t of 2% of t h e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n ,

and can b e c a l c u l a t e d from

(SF), ( Q C / ~ o ) a- qob
-=
(SF)b (QC /qolb Qoa

With SF = 1.43, from t h e 50-yr curve i n F i g . 5.2, t h e r i s k i s 0.12 f o r t h e

50-yr period.
Chapter 6. HYDRAULIC CONSIDERATIONS

Sewer f l o w s produced by r a i n s t o r m s v a r y r a p i d l y w i t h t i m e , and

t h e y are s u b j e c t t o dynamic e f f e c t s caused b y t h e s e w e r s and j u n c t i o n s .

P r e c i s e m a t h e m a t i c a l s i m u l a t i o n of s u c h u n s t e a d y f l o w s i n a network i s

d i f f i c u l t and r e q u i r e s e x t e n s i v e computer c a p a b i l i t y . I n t h i s chapter a

b r i e f t h e o r e t i c a l background i s f i r s t p r e s e n t e d and v a r i o u s r o u t i n g models

are reviewed. The r o u t i n g methods s e l e c t e d f o r u s e i n t h e d e s i g n models

are t h e n d i s c u s s e d . These methods r e f l e c t a b a l a n c e between a c c u r a c y of

r e s u l t s and computer time r e q u i r e d f o r l e a s t - c o s t sewer s y s t e m d e s i g n s .

6.1. Theore t i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s

Unsteady g r a v i t y f l o w s i n sewers c a n b e r e p r e s e n t e d m a t h e m a t i c a l l y

by a p a i r o f q u a s i - l i n e a r h y p e r b o l i c p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n s c a l l e d

t h e S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s :

i n which Q is. t h e d i s c h a r g e ; t i s t i m e ; x i s t h e d i s t a n c e a l o n g t h e s e w e r ;

A and h are t h e Lc r o s s s e c t i o n a l area and d e p t h above t h e i n v e r t (measured

n o r m a l t o x ) of t h e f l o w , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; 8 i s t h e a n g l e between t h e sewer

a x i s and a h o r i z o n t a l p l a n e ; S = s i n 8 i s t h e sewer s l o p e ; S is the


0 f
f r i c t i o n s l o p e ; g i s t h e g r a v i t a t i o n a l a c c e l e r a t i o n ; and B i s t h e momentum

f l u x c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r which i s o f t e n assumed e q u a l t o u n i t y . Complicated

as t h e y a p p e a r , t h e S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s a r e n o t e x a c t b u t p r o v i d e a good

a p p r o x i m a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of u n s t e a d y s e w e r f l o w (Yen, 1973b; 1 9 7 5 a ) . They

can b e s o l v e d n u m e r i c a l l y i f one i n i t i a l and two boundary c o n d i t i o n s a r e

specified. When t h e f l o w i s s u p e r c r i t i c a l , t h e two boundary c o n d i t i o n s


i

a r e f u r n i s h e d by t h e flow c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e upstream end of t h e sewer which

can h e o b t a i n e d through computations f o r upstream sewers and j u n c t i o n s .

When t h e sewer flow i s s u b c r i t i c a l , one boundary c o n d i t i o n i s g i v e n by an

upstream flow c o n d i t i o n whereas t h e second r e q u i r e s a flow c o n d i t i o n a t t h e

downstream end of t h e sewer. However, a t any i n s t a n t of t i m e t h i s down-

s t r e a m c o n d i t i o n i s unknown s i n c e i t depends on t h e f l o w c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e

downstream manhole and t h e sewers connected t o i t . The e f f e c t of t h e

downstream system on t h e flow i n a sewer i s c a l l e d t h e backwater e f f e c t .

One p o s s i b l e approach t o t h i s problem i s by s e t t i n g up t h e flow e q u a t i o n s

f o r a l l t h e sewers and j u n c t i o n s and s o l v e them s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . Such an

approach i s h i g h l y i m p r a c t i c a l because of t h e e x c e s s i v e computational

requirements involved. Hence, a l t e r n a t e s o l u t i o n methods must b e sought.

The s u c c e s s i v e o v e r l a p p i n g Y-segment scheme used i n t h e ISS model (Sevuk

e t al., 1973) i s one f e a s i b l e approach. I n t h a t s t u d y a method f o r

s e l e c t i o n s of sewer d i a m e t e r s i n a network based s o l e l y on h y d r a u l i c s h a s

been developed. F u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e S t . Venant

e q u a t i o n s t o sewer flows and s o l u t i o n methods can b e found i n Yen (1973a)

and Sevuk (1973) and i s n o t r e p e a t e d h e r e . It can b e concluded t h a t w i t h *

t h e p r e s e n t computer c a p a b i l i t i e s and numerical s o l u t i o n t e c h n i q u e s ,

a d o p t i o n of t h e complete S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s i n t o any of t h e l e a s t - c o s t

d e s i g n models developed i n t h i s s t u d y i s i m p r a c t i c a l . Various approxima-

t i o n s of t h e S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s have been used a s r o u t i n g models. Each

h a s advantages and d i s a d v a n t a g e s and i t s s u i t a b i l i t y depends on t h e

s p e c i f i c application. A g e n e r a l d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s e approximations i s

p r e s e n t e d , followed by a d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e r o u t i n g a n a l y s i s

adopted i n t h e d e s i g n models. The d i f f u s i o n wave approximation i s n o t

p r e s e n t e d because i t a l s o r e q u i r e s two boundary c o n d i t i o n s l i k e t h e

S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s .
6.2. Routing Methods

The S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s d e s c r i b e m a t h e m a t i c a l l y t h e p r o p a g a t i o n

of t h e f l o o d waves of t h e s t o r m r u n o f f s i n sewers, and hence r o u t i n g of t h e

flow u s i n g t h e s e e q u a t i o n s i s sometimes r e f e r r e d t o a s dynamic wave r o u t i n g .

Because of t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s o l v i n g t h e S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s v a r i o u s

approximations of t h e e q u a t i o n s have been proposed. From a h y d r a u l i c s

v i e w p o i n t , t h e s e approximations can b e c l a s s i f i e d a s shown i p F i g . 6.1.

Diffusion-Wave Approximation

Dynamic-Wave Model

Fig. 6 . 1 HYDRAULIC ROUTING SCHEMES

,
6.2.1. Steady Flow Approximations

A s shown i n Fig. 6 . 1 t h e s i m p l e s t among t h e d i f f e r e n t approxima-

t i o n s i s t h e kinematic wave approximation. Several versions e x i s t within

t h i s category. The most elementary of t h e s e v e r s i o n s i s e x p r e s s e d a s

w i t h Sf e s t i m a t e d by t h e Manning, Darcy-Weisbach, o r s i m i l a r formulas. No


a d d i t i o n a l e q u a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o c o n s e r v a t i o n of mass i s used. The r e s u l t

i s a s t e a d y uniform flow approximation. The r e q u i r e d sewer diameter can

then b e computed by u s i n g e q u a t i o n s l i k e Eqs. 3 . 1 o r 3.6. This

approximation h a s been termed s t e a d y flow methods i n S e c t i o n 3.1.1 and can

b e used w i t h i n p u t s c o n s i s t i n g of e i t h e r i n l e t c a t c h b a s i n hydrographs o r

merely i n l e t peak d i s c h a r g e s . The peak i n l e t and upstream sewer d i s c h a r g e s

a r e simply added t o g e t h e r g i v i n g no c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n

flow time i n t h e sewers. This no-time l a g v e r s i o n can a l s o b e a p p l i e d t o

t h e c a s e w i t h i n l e t hydrographs a s i n p u t i n s t e a d of merely peak d i s c h a r g e s .

However, because of t h e n e g l i g e n c e of p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n t times of occur-

r e n c e of peak d i s c h a r g e s from d i f f e r e n t sewer l i n e s and i n l e t s , t h i s

steady-flow, no r o u t i n g , no time-lag method t e n d s t o produce h i g h peak flows

a s t h e computation proceeds downstream and hence r e s u l t s i n over d e s i g n .

A c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement on t h e above v e r s i o n i s t o c o n s i d e r

t h e l a g time of t h e hydrographs due t o t h e t r a v e l time i n t h e sewers.

P r e c i s e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e sewer t r a v e l time i s a complicated m a t t e r and can

o n l y b e achieved through u s i n g dynamic wave r o u t i n g . However, a s i m p l e

approximation can e a s i l y b e o b t a i n e d by s h i f t i n g t h e sewer i n f l o w hydro-

graph w i t h o u t any d i s t o r t i o n by

i n which L i s t h e l e n g t h of t h e sewer and V i s a sewer flow v e l o c i t y . The

v e l o c i t y V can b e approximated by u s i n g t h e Manning formula assuming

just-full g r a v i t y p i p e flow
o r t h e Darcy-Weisbach f o r m u l a (Eq. 5 . 1 7 ) , o r b y

i n which Q i s t h e peak d i s c h a r g e .
Use of Eq. 6 . 6 i s p r e f e r r e d b e c a u s e i t
P
g i v e s a smaller v a l u e of V and h e n c e i s c l o s e r t o t h e a v e r a g e v e l o c i t y t h a n

b y Eq. 6.5. The sewer o u t f l o w i s t h e s h i f t e d h y d r o g r a p h , and t h e s e hydro-

g r a p h s f o r t h e s e w e r s f l o w i n g i n t o a j u n c t i o n o r manhole are added l i n e a r l y

t o t h e manhole d i r e c t i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h u s i n g a common t i m e s c a l e a c c o r d i n g

t o t h e c o n t i n u i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p (Eq. 3.9) t o produce t h e i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h

o f t h e downstream sewer. An example showing t h e l i n e a r c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e

h y d r o g r a p h s o f two i n f l o w i n g s e w e r s t o produce t h e i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h f o r

t h e downstream s e w e r i s shown i n F i g . 6.2. point-type junction with

i n s i g n i f i c a n t s t o r a g e capacity is i l l u s t r a t e d f o r s i m p l i c i t y . Since t h e

sewer f l o w c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n i s n o t c o n s i d e r e d i n any form, i n t h e hydro-

g r a p h s h i f t i n g as w e l l as t h e n o t i m e l a g v e r s i o n o f t h e s t e a d y f l o w method

t h e e f f e c t of s e w e r s t o r a g e i s c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d .

6.2.2. L i n e a r K i n e m a t i c Wave Approximations

A somewhat more complex k i n e m a t i c wave model u t i l i z e s a l i n e a r

s t o r a g e f u n c t i o n , u s u a l l y Eq. 3.2 o r i t s v a r i a t i o n s . This is coupled w i t h

Eq. 6.3 t o r e p r e s e n t t h e sewer f l o w . The l i n e a r s t o r a g e f u n c t i o n i s

a c t u a l l y a l i n e a r a p p r o x i m a t i o n of t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n (Eq. 6.1) and

t h e methods u s i n g t h i s approach c a n b e termed as l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave

methods from a h y d r a u l i c v i e w p o i n t . Again t h e f r i c t i o n s l o p e S i n Eq. 6 . 3


f
i s e v a l u a t e d b y u s i n g t h e Manning o r Darcy-Weisbach f o r m u l a s . Typical

examples of l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g are t h e Chicago Hydrograph, TRRL,

and ILLUDAS methods d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 3.1. The c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f sewer

s t o r a g e makes l i t t l e improvement i n t h e d e s i g n r e s u l t s a s compared t o t h e


Time, min Flow time i n sewer 1 = 1 5 min
I n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h s of s e w e r s Flow time i n sewer 2 = 1 0 min

Time, rnin
Outflow h y d r o g r a p h s of s e w e r s

Time, min
I n f l o w hydrograph f o r sewer 3

Fig. 6.2. S h i f t i n g o f Hydrographs f o r S t e a d y Flow Time


Lag Method
t i m e - s h i f t e d hydrograph v e r s i o n of t h e s t e a d y flow method (Yen and Sevuk,

1975) because a t d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e s t h e sewers a r e flowing n e a r l y f u l l .

6.2.3. N o n l i n e a r Kinematic Wave Approximations

B a s i c a l l y , t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g method u t i l i z e s

Eq. 6.3 t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e unsteady flow c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n (Eqs. 6 . 1 o r

3.12). The f r i c t i o n s l o p e S i n Eq. 6.3 i s e v a l u a t e d u s i n g t h e Manning


f
formula

o r t h e Darcy-Weisbach formula

i n which R i s t h e h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s and A i s t h e flow c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a

which i s a f u n c t i o n of R. The e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e i n e r t i a l and p r e s s u r e

terms i n t h e momentum e q u a t i o n (Fig. 6.1) e l i m i n a t e s one boundary c o n d i t i o n

requirement (namely, t h e downstream boundary c o n d i t i o n ) f o r n u m e r i c a l

s o l u t i o n of t h e p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n . This s i m p l i f i c a t i o n permits

t h e s o l u t i o n t o proceed i n t h e downstream d i r e c t i o n sewer-by-sewer in

sequence i n a c a s c a d i n g manner. Thus, i t c o n s i d e r a b l y r e d u c e s t h e r e q u i r e -

ments f o r computer s i z e and t i m e a s compared t o t h e dynamic wave model.

The i n c l u s i o n o f t h e unsteady flow c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n a l s o a c c o u n t s f o r

sewer s t o r a g e more r e a l i s t i c a l l y t h a n does t h e l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c approxi-

mation. However, e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e need of t h e downstream boundary

c o n d i t i o n a l s o e l i m i n a t e s t h e mechanism t o account f o r t h e downstream

backwater e f f e c t f o r s u b c r i t i c a l flows.
Even w i t h o u t s e r i o u s b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t s , t h e a c c u r a c y and a p p l i c -

a b i l i t y o f t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave a p p r o x i m a t i o n depends on t h e

numerical procedure used f o r s o l u t i o n . Various f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e numerical

s o l u t i o n schemes h a v e b e e n proposed t o s o l v e t h e h y p e r b o l i c p a r t i a l

d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n s which i n c l u d e t h e n o n l i n e a r dynamic wave, q u a s i - s t e a d y

dynamic wave, and k i n e m a t i c wave a p p r o x i m a t i o n s (Sevuk and Yen, 1973; P r i c e ,

1974; L i g g e t t and W o o l h i s e r , 1967). Sevuk and Yen (1973) have shown t h a t

f i r s t - and s e c o n d - o r d e r method of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a f o u r - p o i n t , non-

c e n t r a l , i m p l i c i t scheme a r e s u p e r i o r t o o t h e r f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e schemes i n

s o l v i n g u n s t e a d y open c h a n n e l f l o w problems i n c l u d i n g f l o w i n s e w e r s .

F r e a d (1974) a l s o s u g g e s t s t h e u s e o f t h e f o u r - p o i n t n o n c e n t r a l i m p l i c i t

scheme which p e r m i t s i n d e p e n d e n t l a r g e t i m e and s p a c e i n c r e m e n t s , A t and A X ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n t h e c o m p u t a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g i n s a v i n g s i n computer time.

T h e o r e t i c a l l y , t h e r e i s no wave a t t e n u a t i o n f o r n o n l i n e a r k i n e -

m a t i c models b e c a u s e t h e a t t e n u a t i o n mechanism i s e l i m i n a t e d by n e g l e c t i n g

t h e i n e r t i a l and p r e s s u r e t e r m s i n t h e momentum e q u a t i o n . However, s i n c e

some t y p e of f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e s o l u t i o n scheme i s u s e d , n u m e r i c a l e r r o r s

a r e inevitably introduced. Such n u m e r i c a l a t t e n u a t i o n o f t e n b e h a v e s i n a

manner s i m i l a r t o hydrodynamic a t t e n u a t i o n , making t h e wave a p p e a r t o b e

damped. Consequently, t h e use of a c o a r s e g r i d c r e a t e s t h e g r e a t e s t

a p p a r e n t a t t e n u a t i o n whereas a f i n e r g r i d r e d u c e s t h e n u m e r i c a l e r r o r and

hence t h e a t t e n u a t i o n e f f e c t .

S e v e r a l v a r i a t i o n s o f t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g

method h a v e b e e n proposed. A m o d i f i e d scheme h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d i n SWMM

f o r sewer f l o w r o u t i n g as d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 3 . 1 . Cunge (1969) proposed

a n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method b a s e d on t h e Muskingum method, i n which

a t r a d i t i o n a l l i n e a r h y d r o l o g i c s t o r a g e r o u t i n g method i s u s e d i n c h a n n e l

routing. By r e f e r r i n g t o t h e time-space c o m p u t a t i o n a l g r i d shown i n


F i g . 3 . 2 , t h e Muskingum r o u t i n g f o r m u l a can b e w r i t t e n f o r t h e d i s c h a r g e a t

x = ( i + l ) A x and t = ( j + l ) A t as

i n which

where K i s termed as t h e s t o r a g e c o n s t a n t h a v i n g a dimension of t i m e and X

is a f a c t o r e x p r e s s i n g t h e r e l a t i v e importance of inflow. Cunge showed

t h a t by t a k i n g K and A t as c o n s t a n t s , Eq. 6.9 i s a n a p p r o x i m a t e s o l u t i o n of

t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave e q u a t i o n s (Eqs. 6 . 1 and 6 . 3 ) . He further

d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t Eq. 6.9 can b e c o n s i d e r e d as a n a p p r o x i m a t e s o l u t i o n of a

modified d i f f u s i o n e q u a t i o n i f

and

i n which E: i s a " d i f f u s i o n " c o e f f i c i e n t and c i s t h e c e l e r i t y o f t h e f l o o d

peak which c a n b e approximated as t h e l e n g t h o f t h e r e a c h d i v i d e d by t h e

f l o o d peak t r a v e l t i m e through t h e r e a c h . Assuming K = A t and d e n o t i n g

a = 1-2X, Eq. 6.9 can b e r e w r i t t e n as


I n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l Muskingum method X and consequently a i s regarded a s

constant. I n t h e Muskingum method a s modified by Cunge, a i s allowed t o

v a r y according t o t h e channel geometry and i s computed a s

i n which B i s t h e s u r f a c e width of t h e flow and S i s t h e sewer s l o p e . The


0

v a l u e s of a a r e r e s t r i c t e d between 0 and 1 s o t h a t C C2, and C3 i n Eq.


1'
6.10 w i l l n o t be n e g a t i v e .

The Muskingum-Cunge method o f f e r s two advantages o v e r t h e

s t a n d a r d n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave methods. F i r s t , the s o l u t i o n is obtained

through a l i n e a r a l g e b r a i c e q u a t i o n (Eq. 6.9 o r Eqs. 6.13 and 6.14) i n s t e a d

of a p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l e q u a t i o n , p e r m i t t i n g t h e e n t i r e hydrograph t o be

o b t a i n e d a t s u c c e s s i v e c r o s s s e c t i o n s i n s t e a d of s o l v i n g f o r t h e flow o v e r

t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h of t h e sewer p i p e f o r each time s t e p a s f o r t h e s t a n d a r d


\

n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method. Second, because of t h e u s e of Eq. 6.14,

a l i m i t e d degree of wave a t t e n u a t i o n i s i n c l u d e d , p e r m i t t i n g a more

f l e x i b l e c h o i c e of t h e time and s p a c e increments f o r t h e computations a s

compared t o t h e s t a n d a r d k i n e m a t i c wave method.

6.3. S e l e c t i o n of Routing Methods

As d i s c u s s e d i n t h e preceding two s e c t i o n s , t h e computer r e q u i r e -

ments f o r t h e dynamic wave ( S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s ) and d i f f u s i o n wave

r o u t i n g methods make them u n s u i t a b l e f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n i n t o t h e l e a s t - c o s t

sewer system d e s i g n models. Among t h e o t h e r approximate methods of r o u t i n g ,

t h e o r e t i c a l l y t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave methods a r e t h e most a c c u r a t e

and s o p h i s t i c a t e d . From t h e view p o i n t of flow s i m u l a t i o n f o r e x i s t i n g

sewer systems, they a r e c l e a r l y s u p e r i o r t o t h e steady-flow and l i n e a r

k i n e m a t i c wave approximations. However, from t h e view p o i n t of sewer d e s i g n


and b e c a u s e of t h e d i s c r e t e s i z e s o f commercial p i p e s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t

t h e l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave and s t e a d y f l o w r o u t i n g methods may produce

similar d e s i g n s w i t h l e s s computer r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a n t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c

wave method. S i n c e t h e r e l a t i v e merits o f t h e s e s i m p l e r r o u t i n g approxima-

t i o n s have n o t been i n v e s t i g a t e d when i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n ,

they a r e investigated i n t h i s study. S p e c i f i c a l l y , f o u r r o u t i n g methods

are c o n s i d e r e d ; namely, t h e n o time l a g s t e a d y f l o w r o u t i n g method, t h e

hydrograph time l a g method, t h e s t a n d a r d n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method,

and t h e Muskingum-Cunge method.

6.3.1. No Time Lag S t e a d y Flow Method


I

I n t h e n o t i m e l a g v e r s i o n of t h e s t e a d y f l o w method t h e peak d i s -

c h a r g e s of t h e j o i n i n g sewers and t h e d i r e c t s u r f a c e i n f l o w a t t h e manholes

are s i m p l y added t o g i v e t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g s e w e r s .

For i n s t a n c e , i f t h e peak d i s c h a r g e s o f t h e two u p s t r e a m s e w e r s f l o w i n g

i n t o t h e manhole a r e Q and Q r e s p e c t i v e l y , and Q i s t h e d i r e c t manhole


P1 ~2' j
i n f l o w r a t e , t h e n t h e d e s i g n d i s c h a r g e f o r t h e downstream s e w e r o u t f l o w i n g

from t h e manhole , Qp33 is

A s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6.2.1, t h i s method i s t h e s i m p l e s t b u t t h e l e a s t

accurate. N e i t h e r t h e wave t r a n s l a t i o n time n o r t h e wave a t t e n u a t i o n i s

considered. I t t e n d s t o over-design t h e downstream s e w e r s and i s p r o b a b l y

u n s u i t a b l e f o r use i n p r a c t i c e except f o r very s m a l l systems. However,

t h i s method i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y b e c a u s e of i t s s i - m p l i c i t y and

b e c a u s e i t p r o v i d e s a s i m p l e means t o i l l u s t r a t e how r i s k components can

b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n of sewer s y s t e m s .
6.3.2. Hydrograph Time Lag Method

The hydrograph t i m e l a g v e r s i o n of t h e s t e a d y f l o w r o u t i n g method

h a s been d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n S e c t i o n 6 . 2 . 1 . The i n f l o w hydrograph of a

sewer i s s h i f t e d w i t h o u t d i s t o r t i o n by t h e sewer f l o w t i m e t e s t i m a t e d by
f
Eq. 6.4 t o produce t h e sewer o u t f l o w hydrograph. The sewer f l o w v e l o c i t y i s

approximated by Eq. 6.6. The o u t f l o w hydrographs o f t h e u p s t r e a m sewers a t

a manhole are added l i n e a r l y a t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t i m e s t o t h e d i r e c t man-

h o l e i n f l o w hydrograph t o produce t h e i n f l o w hydrograph f o r t h e downstream

sewer as s p e c i f i e d i n Eq. 3.9 and shown i n F i g . 6.2. The d i a m e t e r o f t h e

sewer can t h e n b e computed u s i n g Eq. 3 . 1 w i t h Q b e i n g t h e peak d i s c h a r g e of

t h e i n f l o w hydrograph.

T h e o r e t i c a l l y , s h i f t i n g of h y d r o g r a p h s a c c o u n t s f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y

t h e sewer f l o w t r a n s l a t i o n t i m e b u t o f f e r s no wave a t t e n u a t i o n . However,

b e c a u s e a c o n s t a n t t i m e i n c r e m e n t i s used i n t h e n u m e r i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s

o f t h e h y d r o g r a p h s i n t h e computer program, t h e peak f l o w may n o t o c c u r a t

an even m u l t i p l e of A t . T h e r e f o r e , through l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n w i t h i n any

A t , a n u m e r i c a l a t t e n u a t i o n may b e i n t r o d u c e d .

T h i s method i s s i m p l e , has' l i m i t e d computer r e q u i r e m e n t s and y e t

p r o v i d e s r e s u l t s which are g r e a t l y improved o v e r t h e no time l a g v e r s i o n

d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6.3.1. Yen a n d ' s e v u k (1975) h a s shown t h a t u s i n g t h i s

method r e s u l t e d i n a sewer s y s t e m d e s i g n which was v e r y s i m i l a r t o t h a t

o b t a i n e d through t h e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method.

6.3.3. N o n l i n e a r Kinematic Wave Method

The t h e o r e t i c a l background o f t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method

f o r sewer f l o w r o u t i n g h a s been b r i e f l y p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n s 6 . 1 and 6.2.3.

The b a s i c e q u a t i o n s u s e d i n t h e method and a d o p t e d i n t h i s s t u d y a r e


J
I

and
i

i n which t h e f l o w c r o s s s e c t i o n a l area A and h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s R are b o t h

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e flow d e p t h h. The i n i t i a l c o n d i t i o n f o r a sewer i s

d e f i n e d by t h e i n i t i a l b a s e f l o w from which t h e f l o w d e p t h and c o n s e q u e n t l y

A and R c a n b e computed by u s i n g ~ a n n i n g ' s f o r m u l a (Eq. 6.16) t o g e t h e r w i t h

t h e g e o m e t r i c e q u a t i o n s shown i n F i g . 3.1. The upstream boundary c o n d i t i o n

f o r e a c h sewer i s s p e c i f i e d by t h e i n f l o w hydrograph of t h e sewer, from

which A and R c a n b e computed a g a i n u s i n g Eq. 6.16. The j u n c t i o n c o n d i t i o n

i s t h e c o n t i n u i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p , , Eq. 3.9.

E q u a t i o n s 6 . 1 and 6.16 a r e s o l v e d n u m e r i c a l l y u s i n g a f o u r - p o i n t ,

n o n c e n t r a l , i m p l i c i t f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e scheme, p r o c e e d i n g sewer by sewer

i n t h e downstream d i r e c t i o n . W i t h i n e a c h sewer t h e f l o w f o r t h e e n t i r e

p i p e f o r a given t i m e is determined b e f o r e proceeding t o t h e next t i m e

step. Noting t h a t

Eq. 6 . 1 c a n b e r e w r i t t e n as

which i s t h e c o n t i n u i t y e q u a t i o n e x p r e s s e d i n a d i f f e r e n t form t h a n Eq. 3.12.

For p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d c i r c u l a r p i p e s ,
and using Manning's formula (Eq. 6.16)

1 - 4 9 S1/2 R2/3 BL5+


G(h) = 7
1 sin 0
o 3
sin
a (7-
- 111
2

- -0.196 s l / 2 d 5 / 3 ( 1 s i n a 213 [ 5
- 1 sin@
2 +
- @
n o @ )
sin - - (7 - 111 (6.21)
sin -
2

i n which t h e c e n t r a l a n g l e (Fig. 3.1)

By r e f e r r i n g t o t h e computational g r i d shown i n Fig. 3.2, t h e p a r t i a l de-

r i v a t i v e s i n Eq. 6.19 a r e approximated by forward d i f f e r e n c e q u o t i e n t s a s

(Sevuk and Yen, 1973)

The p a r t i a l d e r i v a t i v e s of t h e flow c r o s s s e c t i o n a l a r e a and d i s c h a r g e i n

Eqs. 6.17 and 6.18, r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e approximated by

and

S u b s t i t u t i o n of Eqs. 6.23 through 6.26 i n t o Eq. 6.19 y i e l d s t h e i m p l i c i t

f o u r - p o i n t forward d i f f e r e n c e e q u a t i o h
This e q u a t i o n i s n o n l i n e a r o n l y w i t h . r e s p e c t t o t h e unknown flow d e p t h

since B can both b e expressed i n terms of t h e


j+l
hifly j+l and Gi+ly
i+l, j+l
d e p t h (Eqs. 6.19 and 6.20) , and i t can r e a d i l y b e s o l v e d b y ' u s i n g ~ e w t o n ' s

i t e r a t i o n method.

6.3.4. Muskingum-Cunge Method

As d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6.2.3, t h e Muskingum-Cunge method (Eqs.

6.13 and 6.14) y i e l d s a s o l u t i o n of t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave e q u a t i o n .

It can a l s o b e c o n s i d e r e d a s an approximate s o l u t i o n of a modified d i f f u s i o n

equation. The r o u t i n g i s done through s o l v i n g an a l g e b r a i c e q u a t i o n (Eq.

6.13) i n s t e a d of a p a r t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a l ( o r f i n i t e d i f f e r e n c e ) e q u a t i o n .

The c o e f f i c i e n t a i n Eq. 6.13 i s computed by u s i n g Eq. 6.14 f o r each time

and s p a c e p o i n t of computation s i n c e t h e flow w i d t h B and c o n s t a n t K b o t h

change w i t h r e s p e c t t o time and space. The v a l u e s of K a r e computed by

u s i n g Eq. 6 . 1 1 w i t h t h e c e l e r i t y c e v a l u a t e d by

c = -aQ (6.28a)
aA

o r f o r a p a r t i a l l y f i l l e d p i p e u s i n g Manning's formula

sin @
I--
c = - 0.196 s1/2 d 2 / 3 ( 1 - s i n Q,
n o
-
Q, - 1 - cos@ Q, I

The i n i t i a l flow c o n d i t i o n i s computed from t h e s p e c i f i e d b a s e

flow a s i n t h e c a s e of n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method. The sewer system


i n f l o w s a r e d e f i n e d by t h e i n f l o w hydrographs a s f o r t h e upstream boundary

c o n d i t i o n of t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave method. With t h e d f s c h a r g e known

t h e flow d e p t h and o t h e r geometric p a r a m e t e r s can b e computed from t h e

geometric e q u a t i o n s g i v e n i n Fig. 3.1. The j u n c t i o n c o n d i t i o n used i s a g a i n

t h e c o n t i n u i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p , Eq. 3.9.

I n a p p l y i n g t h e Muskingum-Cunge method t o a sewer system, t h e

s o l u t i o n i s o b t a i n e d o v e r t h e e n t i r e time p e r i o d a t a flow c r o s s s e c t i o n

b e f o r e proceeding t o t h e n e x t c r o s s s e c t i o n . The s o l u t i o n t h e n proceeds down-

s t r e a m s e c t i o n by s e c t i o n , and then sewer by sewer, i n a c a s c a d i n g sequence.

I n s o l v i n g f o r t h e hydrograph a t a c r o s s s e c t i o n of a s e w e r , t h e computa-

t i o n a l procedure i s d e s c r i b e d a s f o l l o w s . A computation t i m e increment A t


1
i s determined a s t h e roundoff v a l u e e q u a l t o o r l e s s t h a n A X / C ~where c is
1
computed by u s i n g Eq. 6.28b w i t h @ c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e d e p t h e q u a l t o 0.6d.

This A t i s c o n s t a n t f o r a c r o s s s e c t i o n b u t can v a r y from s e c t i o n t o s e c t i o n .


1
The hydrograph a t t h e immediate upstream s t a t i o n , c r o s s s e c t i o n iAx, which

h a s been s t o r e d a t e v e r y A t t i m e i n c r e m e n t , i s now p a r a b o l i c a l l y i n t e r p o l a t e d
2
t o every A t and s t o r e d f o r f u t u r e comput-at-fons. Tn u s i n g Eq. 6.13 t o
1
compute t h e d i s c h a r g e: : :Q f o r c r o s s s e c t i o n ( i + l ) Ax a t s p e c i f i e d time tj+l,

a r e f e r e n c e t i m e K i s f i r s t computed by u s i n g Eq. 6.11 w i t h t h e c e l e r i t y c

e v a l u a t e d by Eq. 6.28b and @ c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e flow a t t h e t i m e tj+l - Atl

a t t h e same c r o s s s e c t i o n . Subsequently a can be computed u s i n g t h e v a l u e s

of B and Q a t t h e same time tj+l - A t


1
a t the cross section. The v a l u e of
j f o r t h e c u r r e n t s e c t i o n (i+l)Ax i s o b t a i n e d through l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n
Qi+l
f o r t h e t i m e tj+l - K from t h e p a r t of t h e hydrograph determined a t p r e v i o u s

t i m e s , whose o r d i n a t e s have been s t o r e d i n t h e computer a t a time i n t e r v a l

At1 The v a l u e s o f Q j and Qj+' are linearly interpolated for the t i m e s


i i
from t h e hydrograph of t h e immediate upstream s e c t i o n f o r
j+1 - and
which d i s c h a r g e v a l u e s have been s t o r e d a t a time i n t e r v a l A t This
1
c o m p u t a t i o n of Q!+~ i s r e p e a t e d f o r t h e t i m e i n c r e m e n t of A t u n t i l t h e
1+1 1
e n t i r e hydrograph f o r t h e c r o s s s e c t i o n i s o b t a i n e d . The computed hydro-

graph w i t h d i s c h a r g e v a l u e s a t A t a p a r t are t h e n p a r a b o l i c a l l y i n t e r p o l a t e d
1
t o y i e l d values at A t a p a r t and s t o r e d . Obviously, t h e computational
2
j+l
a c c u r a c y c a n b e improved i f a i s computed as t h e a v e r a g e v a l u e s of a' a
i i
and a' i n s t e a d of merely t h e l a s t . However, s u c h a v e r a g i n g would con-
i+l
s i d e r a b l y i n c r e a s e t h e computation t i m e and i s n o t a d o p t e d a t t h e p r e s e n t

s t a g e f o r t h i s stbdy.
C h a p t e r 7. DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN MODELS

I n p2evious c h a p t e r s d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n s have b e e n g i v e n of t h e

o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e , t h e r i s k and u n c e r t a i n t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , and t h e

v a r i o u s h y d r a u l i c models. The p u r p o s e of t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o b r i n g t o g e t h e r

t h e s e c o n c e p t s t o d e v e l o p t h e v a r i o u s l e a s t - c o s t sewer s y s t e m d e s i g n models

t h a t are l i s t e d i n T a b l e 7.1. The s e r i a l DDDP t e c h n i q u e i s t h e b a s i c

f o u n d a t i o n f o r e a c h of t h e s e d e s i g n models i n c o r p o r a t i n g v a r i o u s t y p e s of

r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e s w i t h and w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r i s k s . This chapter

p r e s e n t s e a c h of t h e s e models and d i s c u s s e s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e o p t i m i z a -

t i o n component w i t h t h e h y d r a u l i c a n d / o r r i s k components. A detailed

d i s c u s s i o n of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of each model t h r o u g h examples i s p r e s e n t e d

i n C h a p t e r 8.

TABLE 7.1. Least-Cost Sewer System Design Models

Routing Risk
Model Procedure Analysis
Designation Used Incorporated

A None No

B-1 Hydrograph Time Lag No

B-2 Kinemati c-Wave No

B-3 Muskingum-Cunge No

C None Yes

D Hydrograph Time Lag Yes

7.1. Design Models With

7.1.1. Model A - No R o u t i n g

The s i m p l e s t d e s i g n model i s Model A which i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e s e r i a l

DDDP p r o c e d u r e d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n s 4.2 and 4.4. The h y d r a u l i c component of

t h e model i s t h e n o time l a g s t e a d y f l o w approach which s i m p l y c o n s i s t s of

110
u s i n g ~ a n n i n g ' s f o r m u l a f o r f u l l - p i p e f l o w (Eq. 3.1) t o s e l e c t t h e smallest

commercial p i p e d i a m e t e r s a t i s f y i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on f l o w , v e l o c i t y , and

p r e c e d i n g ( i m m e d i a t e l y upstream) sewer d i a m e t e r s , e t c . ( g i v e n i n C h a p t e r 2 ) .

This s i z e s e l e c t i o n takes p l a c e f o r each f e a s i b l e s e t of i n p u t states

( u p s t r e a m crown e l e v a t i o n s ) and o u t p u t s t a t e s (downstream crown e l e v a t i o n s )

as shown i n F i g . 4.2. The sewer s l o p e i n Manning's f o r m u l a i s s i m p l y

computed as t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e u p s t r e a m and downstream crown e l e v a t i o n s

d i v i d e d by t h e p i p e l e n g t h , i . e . , f o r t h e c o n n e c t i o n of manholes mn and m
n+l
t h e s l o p e , So, i s

The peak i n f l o w f o r e a c h sewer i s computed as t h e sum o f a l l i n f l o w s f o r con-

n e c t i n g u p s t r e a m s e w e r s p l u s t h e d i r e c t i n f l o w f o r t h e manhole m a t t h e
n
u p s t r e a m e n d of t h e sewer b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d .

The i n p u t p a r a m e t e r s f o r o p t i m i z a t i o n c o n s i s t of t h e i n i t i a l t r i a l

t r a j e c t o r y , t h e number of l a t t i c e p d i n t s N and t h e i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t
P
As t o s e t up t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r , t h e r e d u c t i o n rate o f As f o r s u c c e s s i v e

i t e r a t i o n s , and t h e a c c e p t a b l e e r r o r f o r t h e t o t a l s y s t e m c o s t which

.
d e t e r m i n e s t h e minimum a l l o w a b l e s t a t e s p a c e i n c r e m e n t As . S e l e c t i o n of
min
t h e s e i n p u t p a r a m e t e r s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l i n C h a p t e r 8. The i n p u t

f o r t h e h y d r a u l i c s component i n c l u d e s ~ a n n i n g ' sr o u g h n e s s f a c t o r n , a l l o w a b l e

maximum f l o w v e l o c i t y , and peak d e s i g n i n f l o w rates a t e a c h manhole. Other

r e q u i r e d i n p u t i n c l u d e s t h e topography, network d e s c r i p t i o n , sewer l e n g t h s ,

and a l l o w a b l e minimum s o i l c o v e r above t h e crown of s e w e r s . The f l o w c h a r t s

f o r t h i s model can be s e e n i n F i g s . 4 . 2 , 4.3 and 4 . 8 , and t h e computer pro-

gram i s l i s t e d i n Appendix D.

7.1.2. Model B - I n c o r p o r a t i o n of Routing Techniques

The i n c l u s i o n of hydrograph r o u t i n g i n t h e model p e r m i t s a d v a n t a g e


t o b e t a k e n o f peak a t t e n u a t i o n and t h e t i m e s h i f t of peak p i p e f l o w s w i t h

r e s p e c t t o peak i n l e t f l o w s . T h i s r e s u l t s i n more complex models as

e x p l a i n e d below.

The DDDP c o m p u t a t i o n s o f t h e s e r i a l a p p r o a c h a t e a c h s t a g e of t h e

models w i t h r o u t i n g are e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same as d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r 4 w i t h

a few m o d i f i c a t i o n s f o r e a c h r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e . When a r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e i s

i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n , t h e r e i s an i n p u t hydrograph a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h e a c h i n p u t s t a t e k ( u p s t r e a m crown e l e v a t i o n ) f o r e a c h p i p e c o n n e c t i o n

at a stage. For a s e w e r h a v i n g n o o t h e r p i p e s c o n n e c t e d t o i t s u p s t r e a m

manhole t h e i n f l o w hydrograph a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e a c h s t a t e a t t h e u p s t r e a m

manhole m i s s i m p l y t h e i n l e t hydrograph o f t h a t manhole. For a sewer h a v i n g


n
o t h e r p i p e s c o n n e c t e d t o i t s u p s t r e a m manhole t h e p r o c e d u r e i s more c o m p l i c a t e d .

Assuming t h e DDDP c o m p u t a t i o n s f o r a sewer network h a v e b e e n performed through

s t a g e n-1 and t h e c o n n e c t i v i t y o f s t a t e s a t manholes on i s o n o d a l l i n e (INL) n

( F i g . 4.9) have b e e n d e t e r m i n e d , t h e n e x t s t e p b e f o r e c o n t i n u i n g t h e DDDP

computations f o r a pipe connection a t s t a g e n is t o determine t h e inflow

h y d r o g r a p h s f o r e a c h i n p u t s t a t e a t e a c h manhole on INL n . T h i s i s accomp-

l i s h e d f o r e a c h s t a t e a t a manhole m by a d d i n g t h e i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h s
n
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e c o n n e c t i n g u p s t r e a m s t a t e a t t h e manhole ( i . e . , with t h e

downstream crown e l e v a t i o n a t m f o r u p s t r e a m s t a g e n-1). This procedure is


n
shown s c h e m a t i c a l l y i n F i g . 7 . 1 and i s performed f o r e a c h i n p u t s t a t e a t t h e

u p s t r e a m manhole.

The peak i n f l o w f o r e a c h i n p u t s t a t e i s d e t e r m i n e d from t h e c o r r e s p o n d -

i n g i n f l o w hydrographs f o r t h e state. These p e a k > i n f l o w s f o r e a c h o f t h e i n p u t

s t a t e s a r e t h e n used i n t h e DDDP c o m p u t a t i o n as t h e d e s i g n i n f l o w s . As

d e s c r i b e d f o r Model A, ~ a n n i n g ' s f o r m u l a f o r f u l l p i p e flow (Eq. 3.1) i s u s e d

t o s e l e c t t h e s m a l l e s t commercial p i p e d i a m e t e r which c a n h a n d l e t h e peak

i n f l o w a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e a c h i n p u t s t a t e and s a t i s f i e s t h e d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s .
Q
manhole

Upstream crown e l e v a t i o n
(input s t a t e s k) a t
manhole f o r s t a g e n
----_
---
Kepresent c o n n e c t i o n
of s t a t e s a t manhole

Downs t ream
crown e l e v a t i o n s
f o r upstream
s t a g e n-1
I
Manhole m
n

I n f l o w hydrograph f o r each i n p u t s t a t e k t o s t a g e n

time Or time time

F i g . 7.1. Hydrographs f o r S t a t e s a t Manholes


A flow c h a r t f o r each i t e r a t i o n of t h e DDDP s o l u t i o n scheme when a

r o u t i n g procedure i s i n c l u d e d i s given i n Fig. 7 . 2 . The o v e r a l l o p t i m i z a t i o n

procedure i s t h e same a s shown i n Fig. 4.3. The DP computations w i t h i n each

c o r r i d o r a r e t h e same a s shown i n Fig. 4 . 2 .

Once t h e DP computations have been performed w i t h i n a c o r r i d o r , re-

p r e s e n t i n g a p i p e connection of manholes m and m a t the s t a g e , the


n n+l
minimum cumulative c o s t c o n n e c t i o n of upstream s t a t e s t o each downstream s t a t e

i n t h e c o r r i d o r and t h e d i a m e t e r s o f each c o n n e c t i o n a r e known. The n e x t

s t e p i s t o perform t h e r o u t i n g computations f o r t h e minimum cumulative c o s t

c o n n e c t i o n t o each o u t p u t s t a t e j a t t h e downstream end of t h e s t a g e w i t h i n

the corridor. The r e s p e c t i v e i n f l o w hydrggraph a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i n p u t

s t a t e t h a t h a s a c o n n e c t i o n t o t h e o u t p u t s t a t e j i s r o u t e d through t h e

pipe. Once t h e r o u t i n g computations a r e performed f o r each c o n n e c t i o n i n

t h e c o r r i d o r , t h e r e e x i s t s an o u t f l o w (downstream) hydrograph f o r each o u t p u t

s t a t e i n the corridor. I f t h i s i s t h e o n l y p i p e t h a t i s connected t o t h e

downstream manhole m i t s o u t f l o w hydrograph i s added t o t h e d i r e c t i n f l o w


n+l '
hydrographs f o r manhole m f o r each o u t p u t s t a t e . The r e s u l t i n g hydrograph
n+l
s e r v e s a s t h e i n f l o w hydrograph f o r t h e downstream c o n n e c t i n g p i p e from

manhole m (Fig. 7.1). I f t h e r e a r e o t h e r upstream p i p e s connected t o


n+l
manhole m each o u t f l o w hydrograph f o r each c o n n e c t i o n t o an o u t p u t s t a t e
n+l '
p l u s t h e d i r e c t i n f l o w hydrograph f o r manhole m a r e added. T h i s procedure
n+l
i s r e p e a t e d f o r each o u t p u t s t a t e . The new hydrographs f o r t h e o u t p u t s t a t e s

s e r v e a s t h e r e s p e c t i v e i n f l o w hydrographs f o r t h e downstream c o n n e c t i n g p i p e

f o r those s t a t e s . The p a r t i c u l a r hydrograph f o r an i n p u t s t a t e of a p i p e f o r

t h e n e x t downstream s t a g e n + l c o n n e c t i n g manhole m a t i t s upstream a r e


n+l
determined by t h e c o n n e c t i o n of s t a t e s a c r o s s t h e manhole a s shown i n F i g . 4 . 9 .

The computer program f o r d e s i g n Models B - 1 , B-2, and B-3 i s l i s t e d i n

Appendix E.
I+Um ~ ' '%d
f OL

a ~ o q u e mae y a i e J k qsea l o j sqdel201pdrl M O I J


-uy %uypuodsallos aqa pue ~ + uauyI Iepouosy uo
saIoquem s s o l s a saaea s 30 uoy ~ s a u u o sauyu-1aJaa P

m J E y aaeas anduy qayn


paaersosse qdel8olpLq ~ o ~ j mealasdn
u y %uysn
a J e a s andano p e a qayn paaeysosse adyd asos
mnmyuym qsea 103 suoyaeandmos Zuyanol U l O J l J d

I
sqdel2olpLq urealasdn a ~ y ~ a a d s aaqa
l mo13
y aaeas anduy qsea 103 s m I j u y yead auylalaaaa

tI

( s a ~ e a sa n d ~ n opue ~ n d u yLq pauyjap)


uoya3auuos s?qa 103 l o p y l l o s q s y I q e a s 3
t

G ~ = ' + ~ r n pue 1 ,

~ + pue
u
I
u s a u y ~Tepouosy
m

Lq pauyjap u a % e ~ lsa p y s u o
t

E'f 'ZrJ mold


7.1.2.1.. Model B-1: Hydrograph Time Lag Routing - The s i m p l e s t of t h e

t h r e e hydrograph r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s u t i l i z e d i s h y d r o g r a p h t i m e l a g g i n g d i s -

c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6.3.2. The d e s i g n model u s i n g t h i s r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e i s

r e f e r r e d t o a s Model B-1. Yen and Sevuk (1975) have shown t h a t t h i s r o u t i n g

t e c h n i q u e p r o v i d e s r a t h e r good r e s u l t s when a h i g h l e v e l of a c c u r a c y i s n o t

required. The f l o w c h a r t of t h i s r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e i s g i v e n i n F i g . 7.3.

The DDDP s o l u t i o n scheme f o r e a c h i t e r a t i o n i s t h e same a s t h a t d e s c r i b e d

above and shown i n F i g . 7.2 and t h e o v e r a l l scheme i n F i g . 4.3.


\

The r e q u i r e d i n p u t d a t a f o r Model B - 1 i n c l u d e s t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n

model i n p u t p a r a m e t e r s , t h e d e s i g n p a r a m e t e r s needed f o r Model A, and i n

a d d i t i o n , a d e s i g n d i r e c t i n f l o w hydrograph f o r each manhole i n t h e sewer

network. It should be pointed o u t t h a t i t is n o t necessary t o have an


i n f l o w hydrograph a t e a c h manhole. The i n p u t s f o r t h i s d e s i g n model a r e

f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r 8.

7.1.2.2. Model B-2: K i n e m a t i c Wave R o u t i n g - A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d r o u t i n g

t e c h n i q u e t h a t i s u s e d t o f o r m u l a t e d e s i g n Model B-2 i s t h e n o n l i n e a r

k i n e m a t i c wave method which h a s b e e n d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6.3.3. Because of

t h e s i m p l i f i c a t i o n s made i n t h e development of t h e p r o c e d u r e , n o downstream

flow c o n d i t i o n s are r e q u i r e d , and c o n s e q u e n t l y downstream b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t s

a r e n o t accounted f o r . O b t a i n i n g a downstream f l o w c o n d i t i o n f o r any r o u t i n g

procedure i n conjunction with t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n procedure is impossible because

i n t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e t h e s e w e r p i p e s f o r t h e downstream s t a g e s h a v e

n o t been designed. C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t would b e i m p o s s i b l e t o a c c o u n t f o r any


mutual b a c k w a t e r e f f e c t s c a u s e d a t t h e downstream e n d o f a s e w e r . The f o u r -

p o i n t n o n c e n t r a l i m p l i c i t f i n i t e - d i f f e r e n c e scheme d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6 . 3 . 3

i s adopted f o r t h e numerical computations. The DDDP s o l u t i o n scheme f o r e a c h

i t e r a t i o n i s t h e same as t h a t shown i n F i g . 7.2. A s i m p l i f i e d flow c h a r t f o r

t h e k i n e m a t i c wave method i s g i v e n i n F i g . 7.4. The f r i c t i o n s l o p e , S f , i s


From F i g . 7.2

Compute v e l o c i t y assuming p i p e
I i s f l o w i n g f u l l f o r t h e peak I
inflow using Eq. 6.6

+
II Compute s h i f t i n g t i m e , t f , f o r
i n f l o w hydrograph (Eq. 6.4) 1

S h i f t t h e i n f l o w hydrograph by t h e
computed t i m e t

To F i g . 7.2

Fig. 7.3. Flow Chart f o r Hydrograph Time Lag Routing


From Fig. 7.2

Compute i n i t i a l condi t i a n s
d e f i n e d by i n i t i a l b a s e f l o w -1
Advance t o n e x t time s t e p ,
t = t + A t I
$
From t h e i n f l o w hydrograph compute
flow c o n d i t i o n s a t upstream
boundary s t a t i o n
$.
Compute flow c o n d i t i o n s
a t i n t e r i o r s t a t i o n s and a t
downstream s t a t i o n

Consider n e x t
l a r g e r com-
mercial pipe
diameter
Ir
flow d e p t h computed
Yes
A

To Fig. 7.2

Fig. 7.4. Flow Chart f o r -Nonlinear Kinematic-Wave Routing


e v a l u a t e d u s i n g t h e Manning formula (Eq. 6.7). I n determining t h e pipe

d i a m e t e r , t o avoid computatilonal i n s t a b i l i t y when t h e p i p e i s flowing n e a r l y

f u l l , and a l s o i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t maximum p i p e flow o c c u r s a t about

0.94d, t h e maximum p i p e flow d e p t h i s a r b i t r a r i l y chosen a s 0.96d i n s t e a d of

d.

The i n p u t s f o r t h i s d e s i g n model i n c l u d e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e f o r

Model B-1 a s p e c i f i e d time i n c r e m e n t , A t , and an a l l o w a b l e maximum d i s t a n c e

increment Ax
max
. For example, i f Axmax i s s e t a t 400 f t and t h e p i p e i s

1000 f t l o n g t h e n i t i s d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e e q u i v a l e n t s e c t i o n s , each 333 f t

long. There would b e f o u r g r i d p o i n t s a l o n g t h e s p a t i a l a x i s o f t h e f i n i t e

difference grid.

7.1.2.3. Model B-3: Muskingum-Cunge Routing - The Muskingum-Cunge r o u t i n g

t e c h n i q u e i s used i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e t o formu-

l a t e d e s i g n Model B-3. The t e c h n i q u e h a s been d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 6.3.4.

Because t h i s i s a r e l a t i v e l y new r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e , a somewhat more d e t a i l e d

f l o w c h a r t of t h e computational procedure i s given i n F i g . 7.5. This pro-

cedure i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n component i n a manner s i m i l a r

t o t h a t f o r t h e p r e v i o u s two r o u t i n g procedures. The i n p u t d a t a f o r t h i s

model i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t of t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave approximation

e x c e p t t h a t a A t f o r t h e computational procedure i s n o t r e q u i r e d . As f o r

t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave approximation, t h e u s e r must s p e c i f y t h e allow-

a b l e maximum l e n g t h of p i p e s e c t i o n , Ax t h a t i s t o b e used i n t h e r o u t i n g
max '
of flow through each p i p e . However t h e p i p e s e c t i o n s a r e t r e a t e d i n a

d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t than i n t h e k i n e m a t i c wave procedure. For t h e Muskingum-

Cunge r o u t i n g , t h e e n t i r e i n f l o w hydrograph i s r o u t e d through t h e f i r s t

upstream s e c t i o n , then t h e outflow from t h a t s e c t i o n i s t a k e n a s t h e i n f l o w

t o t h e n e x t downstream s e c t i o n of t h e p i p e . This p r o c e d u r e c o n t i n u e s i n a

downstream manner f o r each s e c t i o n of t h e p i p e u n t i l t h e l a s t s e c t i o n o f


From Fig. 7.2

Compute time increment A t s o t h a t A t < Ax/c,


a t maximum c e l e r i t y which i s f o r d e p t h l d i a m e t e r
r a t i o of 0.6
I
4
Consider n e x t s e c t i o n of p i p e :
$
Increment t i m e t = t + At

$
I I
Compute d e p t h , h , of flow which s a t i s f i e s Manning's

1
j
formula f o r Qi+l a t p r e v i o u s time u s i n g ~ e w t o n ' s
I
i t e r a t i o n method and compute corresponding c e n t r a l
I I
I a n g l e , @; and w i d t h , B y of flow I
Compute t h e c e l e r i t y , c - aA

Compute t r a v e l time o v e r d i s t a n c e Ax, K = Axlc


w
1

2
Solve f o r a = KQ/S~(AX)B

I -
Determine d i s c h a r g e s a t t h e ~ r e v i o u ss t a t i o n 1
j and QY1 by l i n e a r i n t e r p o l a t i o n
I
Solve f o:r : Q u s i n g Eq. 6.13

To F i g . 7.2

Fig. 7.5. Flow C h a r t f o r Muskingum-Cunge Routing Technique


p i p e i s reached. The DDDP s o l u t i o n scheme i n c l u d i n g t h i s r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e

i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e shown i n F i g s . 7 . 2 , 4.2, and 4.3.

7.2 Design Models I n c o r p o r a t i n g Risks .

A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e c o n c e p t s r e q u i r e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g r i s k s

and u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n sewer d e s i g n and t h e development o f r i s k - s a f e t y factor

r e l a t i o n s h i p s used i n t h e r i s k model h a s b e e n g i v e n i n Chapter 5 . The

purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n i s t o i l l u s t r a t e how t h e r i s k component i s used i n

conjunction with the optimization. The l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n model w i t h o u t

r o u t i n g i s r e f e r r e d t o as Model C and i s d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 7.2.2. Such

a risk-based d e s i g n model a c c o u n t s f o r t h e c o s t i n t e r a c t i o n s o f t h e v a r i o u s
components of sewer systems i n o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n a t r a d e o f f between t h e

c o s t s o f i n s t a l l i n g t h e s y s t e m and p o t e n t i a l f l o o d damages. The a s s e s s m e n t

of e x p e c t e d damage c o s t i s d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n 7.2.1. I n a d d i t i o n t h e pro-

cedure s y s t e m a t i c a l l y accounts f o r t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s t h a t cannot b e avoided

i n sewer d e s i g n . This r i s k - b a s e d d e s i g n model i s t h e n e x t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e

t h e hydrograph t i m e l a g r o u t i n g component t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e t i m e s h i f t i n g

of hydrographs. T h i s d e s i g n model i s r e f e r r e d t o as Model D and i s d e s c r i b e d

i n S e c t i o n 7.2.3.

7.2.1. Expected Damage Costs

The r i s k a n a l y s i s i n Chapter 5 p r o v i d e s a n e s t i m a t e of t h e proba-

b i l i t y of o c c u r r e n c e of t h e s u r f a c e r u n o f f e x c e e d i n g t h e c a p a c i t y of a p i p e

s y s t e m d u r i n g t h e e x p e c t e d s e r v i c e l i f e of t h e p r o j e c t , i . e . t h e p r o b a b i l i t y

of " f a i l u r e . " I n o r d e r t o i n c o r p o r a t e r i s k s i n t o a d e s i g n model b a s e d on

an o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e , t h e c o s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h f a i l u r e o f t h e sewer

must b e e v a l u a t e d . This can t h e n b e added t o t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t and t h e

t o t a l c o s t minimized.

The e v a l u a t i o n of damage due t o s t o r m water f l o o d i n g i n an u r b a n

a r e a is not an,easy task. I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e a s i m p l e mechanism f o r e v a l u a -


t i n g e x p e c t e d damage c o s t s (sometimes c a l l e d r i s k damage c o s t s ) , an " a s s e s s e d

damage v a l u e " i s i n t r o d u c e d . T h i s i s d e f i n e d as t h e damage v a l u e a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h t h e a r e a d r a i n e d by a s p e c i f i c sewer i n t h e e v e n t t h a t i t s c a p a c i t y i s

exceeded. The e x p e c t e d damage c c s t , CD, i s t h e n computed a s t h e p r o d u c t of

t h e r i s k and t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e f o r t h e sewer, i . e . , f o r t h e sewer

c o n n e c t i n g manholes m and m
n n+l '

i n which (C )
F mn ,m n + l i s t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e i n t h e e v e n t of P(QL > QC)
due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y of t h e s e w e r o f d i a m e t e r d. The a s s e s s e d damage

v a l u e i s assumed t o b e t h e a v e r a g e damage w e i g h t e d o v e r a l l p o s s i b l e magni-

t u d e s of t h e f l o o d i n g a s w e l l a s t h e t i m e o f o c c u r r e n c e s of f l o o d i n g d u r i n g

the project service l i f e . It is introduced a s a f i r s t attempt a t incorporat-

i n g f l o o d damages i n a l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n model s o t h a t t h e e f f e c t of t h i s

a s p e c t of d e s i g n , which h a s p r e v i o u s l y been i g n o r e d , can b e d e m o n s t r a t e d ,

which i s done i n C h a p t e r 8.

The a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of an a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e i n v o l v e s con-

s i d e r a b l e judgement. Some d a t a on u r b a n f l o o d damage a r e a v a i l a b l e and can .


s e r v e as g u i d e l i n e s ( G r i g g e t a l . , 1974, 1975; Homan and Waybur, 1 9 6 0 ) . It

i s emphasized t h a t t h i s approach of a c c o u n t i n g f o r p o t e n t i a l f l o o d damages

i n t h e d e s i g n model i s o n l y a f i r s t s t e p . A s e c o n d p h a s e of t h i s s t u d y , OWRT

p r o j e c t B-098-ILL, i s d i r e c t e d i n p a r t a t t h e development of an improved

p r o c e d u r e f o r i n c o r p o r a t i n g r i s k s i n t o t h e d e s i g n model.

7.2.2. Model C - R i s k Component Without R o u t i n g

The r i s k - b a s e d l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n model w i t h o u t r o u t i n g h a s b e e n

p r e s e n t e d by Tang, Mays, and Yen (1975) u s i n g t h e n o n s e r i a l DDDP approach.

The c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e s i g n model u s i n g t h e s e r i a l a p p r o a c h i s v e r y similar

w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n s . The DDDP s o l u t i o n scheme i s

e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t shown i n F i g . 4 . 3 w i t h t h e DP c o m p u t a t i o n s shown i n F i g .
7.6. The major d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e DP c o m p u t a t i o n s w i t h and w i t h o u t t h e r i s k

component l i e s i n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of sewer s i z e s . With t h e r i s k compo-

n e n t , f o r e a c h d i a m e t e r c o n s i d e r e d f o r a f e a s i b l e s e t of s t a t e s t h e r e i s a n

i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t t o g e t h e r w i t h a c o r r e s p o n d i n g e x p e c t e d f l o o d damage c o s t .

The sum o f t h e s e c o s t s i s t h e t o t a l e x p e c t e d c o s t . The i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t


i1
i n c l u d e s t h e c o s t s of t h e p i p e and t h e c o n n e c t i n g u p s t r e a m manhole. The

c o s t which i s minimized i n t h e DDDP p r o c e d u r e i s t h e sum o f t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n

c o s t , CI, and t h e e x p e c t e d damage c o s t , CD, due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t sewer


I capacity.

I
I The d e c i s i o n v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e t h e d r o p i n crown e l e v a t i o n a c r o s s
i
t h e p i p e and t h e d i a m e t e r o f t h e p i p e . 'For e a c h p o s s i b l e ( f e a s i b l e ) drop

i n crown e l e v a t i o n , a d i a m e t e r of t h e p i p e i s s e l e c t e d which p r o v i d e s t h e

minimum t o t a l e x p e c t e d c o s t f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r d r o p b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . In

g e n e r a l , t h e c o s t o f i n s t a l l i n g a s e w e r p i p e of a s p e c i f i e d m a t e r i a l depends

on t h e p i p e s i z e and d e p t h of e x c a v a t i o n , i . e . , i n terms o f t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n

v a r i a b l e , CI = CI (S, D, d) . The amount of f l o o d damages i s r e l a t e d t o t h e

c a p a c i t y of t h e p i p e o r t h e s l o p e and d i a m e t e r which i n t u r n i s r e l a t e d t o

the optimization variable, i.e., C = C (S,D,d) as g i v e n i n Eq. 7 . 2 . The


D D
minimum t o t a l e x p e c t e d c o s t f o r t h e c o n n e c t i o n , which i s t h e r e t u r n i n t h e

r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n s (Eqs. 4 . 7 and 4 . 8 ) , is

I A f l o w c h a r t showing t h e r i s k c o m p u t a t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d i a m e t e r f o r

e a c h f e a s i b l e set of s t a t e s i s g i v e n i n F i g . 7.7. For e a c h p o s s i b l e d r o p


1
1
!
3 i n crown e l e v a t i o n , f i r s t a d i a m e t e r i s s e l e c t e d which s a t i s f i e s t h e p r e -

ceding (upstream) diameter c o n s t r a i n t . 14anning's f o r m u l a i s t h e n u s e d t o


i
L 1 compute t h e f u l l - f l o w p i p e c a p a c i t y , QC. The v e l o c i t y i s t h e n computed
From Fig. 4.8

Consider output state j of corridor

Consider input state k of corridor *


L

1 Compute slope from state k to state j (

[use risk model to select commercial pipe diameter and the


I minimum cumulative expected cost as shown in ~ i ~ 7.7
I
.' 1

+
Store cumulative expected cost, installation cost, damage cost
I sewer diameter, and k for state j I

Yes

Yes

To Fig. 4.8

Fig. 7.6. DP Computations within Corridor Considering Risks

124
u s i n g Eq. 6.5 and checked t o s e e t h a t i t s a t i s f i e s t h e v e l o c i t y c o n s t r a i n t s .

I f t h e minimum v e l o c i t y c o n s t r a i n t i s n o t s a t i s f i e d t h i s i s t h e l a s t

d i a m e t e r c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h i s p i p e e l e v a t i o n drop. C o n t r a r i l y , i f t h e maxi-

mum v e l o c i t y c o n s t r a i n t i s n o t s a t i s f i e d t h e n e x t l a r g e r commercial p i p e

s i z e is considered. The s a f e t y f a c t o r SF = 6C /Q 0 (Eq. 4.13) i s computed.

A c c o r d i n g l y t h e r i s k i s d e t e r m i n e d from t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r c u r v e s

( F i g . 5.2) knowing SF f o r t h e sewer d i a m e t e r under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The r i s k

i s s u b s e q u e n t l y u s e d i n Eq. 7.2 t o e v a l u a t e C which i n t u r n i s used i n


D
Eq. 7.3 t o o b t a i n r .
mn 'mn+l
. This procedure is repeated s y s t e m a t i c a l l y

c o n s i d e r i n g s u c c e s s i v e l y l a r g e r d i a m e t e r s t h a t s a t i s f y t h e c o n s t r a i n t s on

f l o w , v e l o c i t y , and p r e c e d i n g (upstream) d i a m e t e r s u n t i l t h e s a f e t y f a c t o r

i s g r e a t e r t h a n 6* o r t h e l a r g e s t commercially p i p e s i z e c o n s i d e r e d . The

c o m p u t a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e t h e n r e t u r n s t o t h e DP computations ( F i g . 7.6)

once a d i a m e t e r i s s e l e c t e d .

The r i s k p r o c e d u r e shown i n F i g . 7.7 and d e s c r i b e d above a l l o w s

t h e r i s k , P(Q > Q ), t o vary f r e e l y f o r d i f f e r e n t sewers. The o p t i m i z a t i o n


L C
p r o d u c e s n o t o n l y t h e least c o s t d e s i g n b u t a l s o s p e c i f i e s t h e a s s o c i a t e d

risks. Another approach p r e s e n t e d by Tang, Mays, and Yen (1975) i s t o

d e s i g n f o r a n a c c e p t a b l e maximum r i s k l e v e l , i . e . , e a c h sewer p i p e f o r a

c o n n e c t i o n i s d e s i g n e d f o r t h e same minimum s a f e t y f a c t o r . The a c c e p t a b l e

maximum r i s k l e v e l can v a r y f o r d i f f e r e n t c o n n e c t i o n s i n t h e network. This

p;ocedure can b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e r i s k model shown i n F i g . 7.7.

The i n p u t s f o r Model C i n c l u d e t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n model p a r a m e t e r s ,

ground s u r f a c e e l e v a t i o n s , d e s i g n i n f l o w s f o r e a c h manhole, p i p e l e n g t h s ,

Manning's roughness f a c t o r , c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r re-

l a t i o n s h i p , and a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s f o r each p i p e c o n n e c t i o n i n t h e

sewer network. The computer program f o r Model C i s l i s t e d i n Appendix D.

*A s a f e t y f a c t o r of 6 h a s b e e n a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d b e c a u s e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n
c o s t f o r t h e p i p e would b e s o h i g h t h a t t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d i a m e t e r would
n e v e r r e s u l t i n t h e minimum t o t a l e x p e c t e d c o s t .
S e t pipe cost
-
I Compute
- From F i g . 7.6

S e l e c t commercial p i p e d i a m e t e r s a t -
i s f y i n g upstream d i a m e t e r c o n s t r a i n t

full-flow pipe capacity


I

6,
and v e l o c i t y using1
Manning's f o r m u l a , Eq. 3.1 u i t h qC

c Computc s a f e t y f a c t o r , SF ijC/~O
I

Consider n c x t l a r g e r
commercial d i a m e t e r

+
Compute i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t of p i p e i n c l u d i n g u p s t r e a m
manhole m f o r s t a t e k

I
I
I D e t e m i n e r i s k from r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r (
I relationship
I
t
(compute expected damagc c o s t f o r
I ' t h e connection I
Icornpute cumulative e:pected cost
I j , apply r e c u r s i v e e q u a t i o n , Eg. 4.8 (

c o s t and a s s o c i a t e d r i s k and
d i a m e t e r wit11 c u r r e n t v a l u e e
f o r n e x t comparison

h a v i n g minimum cunlu-
l a t i v c expected c o s t

TO Pig. 7 . 6

Fig. 7.7. Flow Chart f o r Sewer Diameter S e l e c t i o n C o n s i d e r i n g R i s k s


7.2.3. Model D - R i s k Component With Hydrograph Time Lag R o u t i n g

Model C c a n b e e x t e n d e d t o i n c l u d e t h e hydrograph t i m e l a g r o u t i n g

component. The r e s u l t i s r e f e r r e d t o as Model D. The DDDP s o l u t i o n scheme

a t e a c h s t a g e i s shown i n F i g . 7.2 w i t h t h e DP c o m p u t a t i o n s u s i n g r i s k as

shown i n F i g . 7.6. The r i s k model shown i n t h e f l o w c h a r t i n F i g . 7.7

a p p l i e s t o t h i s d e s i g n model and t h e r o u t i n g scheme shown i n F i g . 7 . 3 a l s o

applies. The r e q u i r e d i n p u t f o r t h i s d e s i g n model i s similar t o t h a t f o r

Model C w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n of i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h s a t e a c h manhole. The com-

p u t e r program f o r Model D i s l i s t e d i n Appendix E.


C h a p t e r 8. EXAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF DESIGN MODELS

The p u r p o s e of t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f

t h e l e a . s t c o s t s e w e r s y s t e m d e s i g n models d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r .

I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f t h e models and a n

a p p r e c i a t i o n of t h e i r e f f e c t on t h e r e s u l t i n g d e s i g n two examples a r e pre-

sented. The f i r s t i s a h y p o t h e t i c a l example which i s u s e d p r i m a r i l y f o r a

sensitivity analysis. The s e c o n d example i s , a n a c t u a l s e w e r s y s t e m t a k e n

from ASCE (1969) Manual No. 37 and i s p r e s e n t e d t o f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e t h e

v a r i o u s models.

8.1. Model I n p u t P a r a m e t e r s

As d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e r 7 , e a c h of t h e models employs a n o p t i m i z a -

t i o n component. A p a r t i c u l a r model may a l s o employ a r o u t i n g a n d / o r a r i s k

component as w e l l . Each component r e q u i r e s c e r t a i n i n p u t i n f o r m a t i o n , and

t o a c e r t a i n e x t e n t , t h e r e s u l t s and t h e c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f i c i e n c y depend on

t h i s input data.

The DDDP p r o c e d u r e is u s e d i n a l l o f t h e models. The f o u r

o p t i m i z a t i o n d e c i s i o n p a r a m e t e r s a f f e c t i n g t h i s p r o c e d u r e a r e l i s t e d as

follows . ,

(a) The number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s , N , d e f i n i n g t h e number of


P
s t a t e s a t each end of a s y s t e m l i n k ; i . e . , t h e number o f

p o s s i b l e crown e l e v a t i o n s w i t h i n a c o r r i d o r a t each end

of a sewer.

(b) , which i s t h e d i s t a n c e
The i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t , A
s1
between p o s s i b l e crown e l e v a t i o n s a t e a c h e n d of a sewer

for the f i r s t iteration.

(c) The i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y used t o e s t a b l i s h t h e l o c a -

t i o n of t h e c o r r i d o r s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e s p a c e ( r a n g e of

p o s s i b l e crown e l e v a t i o n s ) f o r t h e f i r s t i t e r a t i o n .
(d) The r e d u c t i o n r a t e of t h e s t a t e i n c r e m e n t As f o r s u c c e s s i v e

i t e r a t i o n s which d e t e r m i n e s t h e c o r r i d o r w i d t h f o r subse-

quent i t e r a t i o n s .

I f a r o u t i n g component i s used a d d i t i o n a l p a r a m e t e r s may b e r e q u i r e d .

The n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e s t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f

b o t h a d i s t a n c e i n c r e m e n t , Ax, and a t i m e i n c r e m e n t , A t . The Muskingum-Cunge

procedure r e q u i r e s t h e s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a d i s t a n c e increment only, w h i l e t h e

hydrograph t i m e l a g r o u t i n g r e q u i r e s n o a d d i t i o n a l i n p u t d e c i s i o n p a r a m e t e r

specifications .
The r i s k component r e q u i r e s an a n a l y s i s o f u n c e r t a i n t i e s as

d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 5. This r e s u l t s i n a set of r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r curves

which i s t h e i n p u t r e q u i r e d by t h e r i s k component o f t h e d e s i g n models.

The c o n s t r a i n t s p e r t i n e n t t o t h e d e s i g n models a r e d i s c u s s e d i n

S e c t i o n 2.4. The c o s t f u n c t i o n s used i n t h i s s t u d y are Eq. 2 . 1 f o r t h e


J
s e w e r s and Eq. 2.2 f o r t h e manholes.

8.2. Example I

8.2.1. Sewer System D e s c r i p t i o n

Example I i s a branched s y s t e m used p r e v i o u s l y by Yen and Sevuk

(1975) c o n t a i n i n g 1 4 s e w e r s , 1 4 manholes and a s i n g l e f r e e - f a l l o u t l e t .

The l a y o u t and i s o n o d a l l i n e s d i v i d i n g t h e s y s t e m i n t o 6 s t a g e s and manhole

numbers a r e shown i n F i g . 8.1. The sewer l e n g t h s , ground e l e v a t i o n s and

s p e c i f i e d crown e l e v a t i o n s a t v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e 8.1.

The l a t t e r were i n c l u d e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e d e s i g n models can h a n d l e

t h e s i t u a t i o n where e l e v a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t s e x i s t a t a r b i t r a r y p o i n t s i n
\

t h e system. The Manning roughness f a c t o r n i s assumed e q u a l t o 0.0133

f o r a l l t h e sewers. I n t h i s example a minimum s o i l c o v e r d e p t h of 8 f t

i s u s e d a s w e l l a s minimum and maximum v e l o c i t i e s of 2 and 10 f p s ,

respectively.
129
i
i
1
TABLE 8.1. Example I Layout Data

Downstream
The i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h s a t t h e manholes a r e assumed t o b e s y m m e t r i c a l

t r i a n g l e s w i t h a b a s e flow. The n u m e r i c a l i n f l o w d a t a a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e 8.2.

With t h e e x c e p t i o n of Models C and D ( T a b l e 7.1) , any method can b e adopted

f o r d e v e l o p i n g t h e s e i n f l o w hydrographs. The r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r c u r v e s

used i n Models C and D were b a s e d i n p a r t on a n a n a l y s i s of t h e r a t i o n a l

method, i m p l y i n g t h a t t h i s was t h e method u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e peak i n f l o w s .

The h y d r o g r a p h s a l l h a v e a common t i m e s c a l e b u t t h e i n i t i a l rise t i m e

varies a s shown i n T a b l e 8.2 and F i g . 8.2.

It s h o u l d b e emphasized t h a t t h i s example i s h y p o t h e t i c a l . Its

purposes a r e t o demonstrate t h e v a r i o u s l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models and t o

i l l u s t r a t e t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e various i n p u t parameters.

8.2.2. O p t i m i z a t i o n Component P a r a m e t e r S e n s i t i v i t y

The p a r a m e t e r s used i n t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e which must b e

specified as input a r e l i s t e d i n Section 8.1. In order t o i l l u s t r a t e the

e f f e c t s of t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s on t h e minimum c o s t d e s i g n , t h e Example I

sewer s y s t e m i s d e s i g n e d u s i n g Model A w i t h d i f f e r e n t numbers of l a t t i c e

p o i n t s and i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t s , i . e . , f o r various i n i t i a l corridor

widths. The r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n T a b l e 8.3. In establishing the

v a l u e s f o r t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s i t must f i r s t b e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e y a r e

i n t e r d e p e n d e n t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r e f f e c t on t h e f i n a l d e s i g n and t h e

r a t e t h a t t h e models converge t o t h a t d e s i g n . F o r example, i f a s m a l l

c o r r i d o r w i d t h i s chosen i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h an i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y

which i s f a r from t h e o p t i m a l r e g i o n , a d d i t i o n a l i t e r a t i o n s a r e r e q u i r e d

t o move t h e t r a j e c t o r y i n t o t h e o p t i m a l o r n e a r - o p t i m a l r e g i o n . It i s

a l s o p o s s i b l e u n d e r s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t t h e model s o l u t i o n converges

t o a d e s i g n which i s f a r from t h e g l o b a l o p t i m a l (Mays and Yen, 1975).

The c o r r i d o r w i d t h , t h e number o f l a t t i c e p o i n t s of t h e c o r r i d o r ,
Time t

F i g . 8.2. D e f i n i t i o n of I n f l o w Hydrograph P a r a m e t e r s

TABLE 8.2. Example I I n f l o w Hydrograph D a t a

Base Time Baseflow Peak Flow


N and t h e s t a t e i n c r e m e n t , As, are i n t e r r e l a t e d ; i . e . , t h e c o r r i d o r w i d t h
P'
i s e q u a l t o (N -1)A and o n l y two of t h e s e p a r a m e t e r s can b e i n d e p e n d e n t l y
P s'
specified. A s m a l l i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h c a n b e produced by a combination

of a s m a l l number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s and a small i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t .

The e f f e c t of choosing a bad i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y c a n b e re-

duced i f a l a r g e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h , i.e. ,a l a r g e number of l a t t i c e

p o i n t s and/or a l a r g e i n i t i a l state increment, is used. I n essence, the

b e t t e r t h e i n i t i a l t r a j e c t o r y t h e smaller t h e r e q u i r e d number of l a t t i c e

p o i n t s and t h e i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t s , o r s i m p l y , t h e smaller t h e i n i t i a l

c o r r i d o r w i d t h which c a n b e used. S m a l l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t s w i t h many l a t t i c e

p o i n t s c a n b e used a l s o t o e s t a b l i s h a c o r r i d o r w i d t h . This can r e s u l t i n

improved convergence; however, i n c r e a s i n g t h e number o f l a t t i c e p o i n t s

i n c r e a s e s t h e computation t i m e . Computation t i m e can b e r e d u c e d by i n -

c r e a s i n g t h e r e d u c t i o n rate of t h e s t a t e i n c r e m e n t A a t each i t e r a t i o n ;
S

however, t o o l a r g e a r e d u c t i o n r a t e of A may c a u s e t h e model t o m i s s t h e


S

o p t i m a l r e g i o n t h u s n o t p r o v i d i n g t h e minimum c o s t d e s i g n . Choosing a

l a r g e i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t and a l a r g e r e d u c t i o n r a t e of A may b e
S

advantageous. However, when t h e i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t i s t o o l a r g e re-

s u l t i n g i n a l a r g e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h , u n n e c e s s a r y c o m p u t a t i o n s are

performed i n r e g i o n s o f t h e s t a t e s p a c e f a r from t h e o p t i m a l .

Because of t h e m u t u a l dependence of t h e above p a r a m e t e r s , t h e

f o l l o w i n g s t r a t e g y i s used. Based upon computer r u n s of s e v e r a l examples

u s i n g v a r i o u s r e d u c t i o n rates of A and t h e r e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s by Mays and


S

Yen (19 75) and Mays (19 76) , i t was concluded t h a t t h e b e s t r e d u c t i o n r a t e

of As i s 1 / 2 . A l s o , i n s t e a d of c o n t i n u o u s l y r e d u c i n g As u n t i l a minimum

s p e c i f i e d i n c r e m e n t i s r e a c h e d , t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e i s recommended:

a f t e r s e v e r a l s u c c e s s i v e r e d u c t i o n s of A a t t h e r a t e of 1 / 2 (e.g., after
s
f i v e i t e r a t i o n s ) , t h e n t h e s i z e of A i s i n c r e a s e d by some m u l t i p l e of i t s
s
c u r r e n t value. For t h e remaining i t e r a t i o n s A i s reduced a t a r a t e of 112
S

u n t i l t h e s p e c i f i e d minimum v a l u e i s reached. It s h o u l d b e k e p t i n mind

t h a t f o r As t o b e reduced a f t e r an i t e r a t i o n , t h e c o s t c r i t e r i o n , E q . 4.4,

must b e s a t i s f i e d . I t h a s been found t h a t a f t e r 5 i t e r a t i o n s , i n c r e a s i n g

t h e s t a t e increment, A t o a v a l u e of 2 o r 3 times i t s p r e s e n t v a l u e i s
s'
most s a t i s f a c t o r y . This procedure h a s r e s u l t e d i n good convergence t o a

minimum c o s t s o l u t i o n .

The r e s u l t s of s e v e r a l d e s i g n s f o r v a r i o u s example sewer systems

show t h a t t h e minimum-cost s o l u t i o n s normally have p i p e s l o p e s somewhat

p a r a l l e l t o t h e ground s u r f a c e s l o p e s . Choosing i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r i e s

having crown e l e v a t i o n s s u f f i c i e n t l y below t h e r e q u i r e d minimum s o i l cover

depth s o t h a t t h e top of t h e c o r r i d o r e i t h e r f o l l o w s o r i s c l o s e t o t h e

minimum s o i l cover depth l i n e i s a d v i s a b l e . A general guideline i n

s e l e c t i n g i n i t i a l crown e l e v a t i o n s a t t h e upstream and downstream s i d e of

each manhole i s

i n which Ed min i s t h e e l e v a t i o n corresponding t o t h e minimum cover depth


-
a t manhole m .
ny m'
i s t h e crown elevation for the i n i t i a l t r i a l trajectory
n
a t manhole m . N i s t h e number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s used; and As is the
n' P 1
i n i t i a l s t a t e increment s e l e c t e d . I n applying t h i s g u i d e l i n e t h e o p t i -

m i z a t i o n component computes t h e e l e v a t i o n of t h e t o p of t h e i n i t i a l

c o r r i d o r b a s e d on t h e p r e s c r i b e d v a l u e s of 5 ,N
mn P
and As .
If this
1
e l e v a t i o n exceeds E
d min
t h e v a l u e of 5m i s lowered by an i n t e g e r m u l t i -
n
p l i e r of As such t h a t t h e e n t i r e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r i s below E
d min'
1
I n o r d e r t o e v a l u a t e t h e s e n s i t i v i t y of t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r

w i d t h and t h e number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r t o d e s i g n s f o r
t h e Example I s y s t e m , t h e r e s u l t s o f i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s and computer execu-

t i o n t i m e l i s t e d i n T a b l e 8.3 a r e p l o t t e d i n F i g s . 8 . 3 and 8.4 f o r t h e

i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h s r a n g i n g from 2 t o 24 f t and f o r numbers of l a t t i c e

points, N , e q u a l t o 3, 5 , 7, and 9. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t f o r t h e r u n s
P
with N = 3 and 5, t h e maximum i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h s a r e l i m i t e d . This
P
is because f o r A 2 6 f t t h e r e e x i s t s i n t h e s y s t e m a t least one c o r r i d o r
S
1
which cannot s a t i s f y a l l of t h e d e s i g n cons t r a i n ts w i t h i n ' t h e f e a s i b l e s e t

of states.

I n o b s e r v i n g t h e t r e n d s o f t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t shown i n F i g .

8.3 i t i s seen t h a t t h e c o s t drops r a p i d l y w i t h i n c r e a s i n g i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r

w i d t h r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s used when t h e i n i t i a l

c o r r i d o r w i d t h i s l e s s t h a n t h e a v e r a g e drop of e l e v a t i o n o f t h e s e w e r s .

For'the s a k e of s i m p l i c i t y t h e a v e r a g e sewer e l e v a t i o n d r o p can b e e s t i -

mated as t h e nominal sewer drop,which i s computed as t h e dif,ference i n

e l e v a t i o n between t h e h i g h e s t manhole ground e l e v a t i o n on INL 1 and t h e

ground e l e v a t i o n a t t h e s y s t e m o u t l e t , d i v i d e d b y t h e number of sewers i n

between. For t h e example s y s t e m t h i s nominal sewer drop i s (421.2-400.0)/7

= 3.03 f t . When t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h i s g r e a t e r t h a n nominal sewer

drop t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t l e v e l s o f f and f l u c t u a t e s w i t h i n 1%of t h e com-

p u t e d minimum c o s t of 472,223 ( e x c e p t two p o i n t s f o r N = 5) w i t h no f u r t h e r


P
apparent trend. I n o t h e r words t h e computed i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t of t h e d e s i g n

depends mainly on t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h which s h o u l d b e chosen g r e a t e r

t h a n t h e a v e r a g e e l e v a t i o n drop of t h e sewer. The f l u c t u a t i o n of t h e com-

p u t e d system i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s i s due p a r t l y t o t h e f a c t t h a t d i s c r e t e

commercial p i p e s i z e s a r e u s e d and p a r t l y t h a t t h e DDDP p r o c e d u r e cannot

guarantee global optimality. For a g i v e n i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r width, t h e

and A
computed i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s v a r y randomly f o r t h e v a l u e s of N
P S1

used. Therefore, f o r a specified i n i t i a l corridor width, t h e preferred

number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s u s e d w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r i s d e t e r m i n e d by

137
'44 P!M JoP! 1103 ID! +!ul
Initial Corridor Width
Nominal Sewer Drop
0

Number of L a t t i c e
Points Within Lattice

I 2 3

Initial Corridor Width


Min. Soil Cover Depth

Fig. 8.4. V a r i a t i o n s of Computer E x e c u t i o n Time w i t h I n i t i a l


C o r r i d o r Width and Number of L a t t i c e P o i n t s
t h e computer e x e c u t i o n t i m e . A s shown i n P i g . 8.4, t h e e x e c u t i o n t i m e depends

mainly on t h e number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s f o r i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h s g r e a t e r

t h a n t h e n o m i n a l s e w e r d r o p , and f o r t h e example, a v e r a g e s a b o u t 1 . 2 s e c p e r

l a t t i c e point. I t can a l s o b e o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e e x e c u t i o n t i m e t e n d s t o

i n c r e a s e s l i g h t l y w i t h i n c r e a s i n g i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r width. Thus, i t c a n b e

concluded from t h e s e r e s u l t s and e x p e r i e n c e w i t h o t h e r examples t h a t an

i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r G i d t h of two t o f i v e t i m e s t h e n o m i n a l sewer d r o p w i t h 3 t o

7 l a t t i c e p o i n t s u s u a l l y p r o v i d e s .good r e s u l t s whereas u s i n g 9 o r more l a t t i c e

p o i n t s merely i n c r e a s e s , e x e c u t i o n t i m e w i t h o u t s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n

design. With t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h and number o f l a t t i c e p o i n t s chosen,

t h e v a l u e of i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t , A , can b e d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g l y .
S
1
Of c o u r s e i t s h o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e d e s i g n c o n s t r a i n t s w i l l h a v e some

e f f e c t b u t t h o s e u s e d i n t h 2 s example a r e t y p t c a l .

I n o r d e r t o v e r i f y t h e above c o n c l u s i o n on s e n s i t i v i t y t o tile o p t i -

m i z a t i o n i n p u t p a r a m e t e r s f o r more s o p h i s t i c a t e d l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models,

t h e Example I sewer s y s t e m was t e s t e d by u s i n g t h e o t h e r models l i s t e d i n T a b l e

7-1. The r e s u l t s f o r Models B-1, B-2, and B-3 which i n c o r p o r a t e r o u t i n g by

u s i n g t h e h y d r o g r a p h t i m e l a g , k i n e m a t i c wave, and Muskingum-Cunge methods ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y , are summarized i n T a b l e 8.4 and p l o t t e d i n F i g s . 8.5 and 8.6.

For a l l t h e s e models 7 l a t t i c e p o i n t s forming t h e c o r r i d o r w e r e u s e d , and

t h e maximum d i s t a n c e i n c r e m e n t f o r c o m p u t a t i o n s , a l o n g e a c h sewer was


Axmax'
800 f t . F o r Models B-1 and B-2 t h e r o u t i n g t i m e i n c r e m e n t A t was 1 2 0 s e c .

The Example I sewer s y s t e m was a l s o d e s i g n e d b y u s i n g Models C and D l i s t e d

i n T a b l e 7 . 1 i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e r i s k component, a g a i n u s i n g 7 l a t t i c e p o i n t s ,

and f o r a d e s i g n s e r v i c e p e r i o d of 25 y e a r s . The r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r c u r v e s

d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 5.4 f o r Urbana, I l l i n o i s a r e assumed a p p l i c a b l e t o t h i s

example. The l e a s t - c o s t s y s t e m d e s i g n s f o r Model C were performed u s i n g t h e

assumed a s s e s s e d damage c o s t s c a l e s g i v e n i n T a b l e 8.5 and t h e r e s u l t s are


TABLE 8.4. R e s u l t s f o r Example I Using Routing Components

Model B- 1 Model B-2 Model B-3


Hydrograph Time Lag Kinematic Wave Muskingum-Cunge

Initial. Ececu- Execu- Execu


Corridor Installation tion Installation tion Installation tion
*s
Width 1 Cost time Cost time Cost time
ft ft $ sec
5 $ sec $ sec

465,401 5.3 453,317 46.6

457,774 10.6 433,332 97.7


p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 8.6. The r e s u l t s f o r Model D u s i n g t h e a s s e s s e d damage

s c a l e A l i s t e d i n T a b l e 8 . 5 a r e summarized i n T a b l e 8.7. As c a n b e s e e n from

t h e s e two t a b l e s and from F i g s . 8.5 and 8 . 6 , t h e c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from

Model A on t h e e f f e c t s of t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h and t h e number of

l a t t i c e p o i n t s i n forming t h e c o r r i d o r (and h e n c e t h e m a g n i t u d e of t h e

s t a t - e i n c r e m e n t ) a p p l y t o t h e more s o p h i s t i c a t e d l e a s t - c o s t s y s t e m de-

s i g n models a s w e l l .

TABLE 8.5. H y p o t h e t i c a l A s s e s s e d Damage S c a l e s

However, a s shown i n F i g . 8 . 5 , t h e f l u c t u a t i o n of t h e s y s t e m

c o s t f o r d i f f e r e n t i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h s f o r Models B-2 and B-3 a r e

c l e a r l y more t h a n f o r Models A and B - 1 . A t f i r s t g l a n c e , such a p p r e c i a b l e

f l u c t u a t i o n s make i t l e s s c e r t a i n t h a t u s i n g a s e l e c t e d p a i r of i n i t i a l

c o r r i d o r w i d t h and number of l a t t i c e p o i n t s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s e l e c t e d

i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y would p r o d u c e a d e s i g n t h a t i s r e a s o n a b l y c l o s e

t o t h e g l o b a l optimum. A c t u a l l y , a c a r e f u l e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e r e s u l t i n g

d e s i g n s r e v e a l s t h a t t h e f l u c t u a t i o n s are caused m a i n l y b y changes i n t h e

s i z e of one o r two sewers. Because of t h e d i s c r e t e s i z e s o f commercial


TABLE 8 . 6 . R e s u l t s f o r Cxanple I Using ;lode1 C I J i t h Risk Coinponent
p i p e s , f o r a s m a l l system l i k e t h a t of Example I , t h e change of t h e s i z e

of one sewer may produce an a p p r e c i a b l e change i n t h e c0s.t. The c o s t

change i s p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e i f t h e sewer s i z e i s g r e a t e r t h a n 30 i n . ,

s i n c e 6 i n . s i z e increments would then b e used and t h e c o s t (computed by E q .

2.1) i n c r e a s e s more r a p i d l y w i t h p i p e s i z e . This i s indeed t h e c a s e f o r

t h e Example I system a s a l l t h e l a r g e c o s t f l u c t u a t i o n s a r e due t o t h e

change of a sewer from 36 i n . t o 42 i n . o r v i c e v e r s e . Nonetheless, i t i s

expected t h a t f o r a l a r g e sewer system t h e system c o s t would f l u c t u a t e

much l e s s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r width and number of l a t t i c e

p o i n t s used and t h e r e s u l t i n g d e s i g n would be reasonably c l o s e t o t h e

g l o b a l optimum.

TABLE 8.7. R e s u l t s f o r Example I Using Model D With Risk


and Hydrograph Time Lag Routing Components

Total Execution

23,229 551,842

21,183 551,610

21,071 551,450

24,307 560,194

21,342 551,512

21,071 551,450

21,315 551,526

24,253 560,340

21,649 551,471

21,410 551,518
8.2.3. Comparison of Example I R e s u l t s Using V a r i o u s Design Models

8.2.3.1. E f f e c t o f R o u t i n g o n Design - The s y s t e m c o s t s f o r t h e Example I

s e w e r s y s t e m d e s i g n e d by u s i n g t h e v a r i o u s models l i s t e d i n T a b l e 7 . 1 have

been p r e s e n t e d i n F i g s . 8 . 3 t o 8 . 6 and T a b l e s 8 . 3 , 8 . 4 , 8.6 and 8.7. A

comparison of t h e s e c o s t s p r o v i d e s some i n t e r e s t i n g and u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n .

As can b e s e e n i n F i g . 8.5 t h e models i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e r o u t i n g component

always p r o d u c e d e s i g n s w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l e l o w e r t o t a l c o s t t h a n t h e cor-

r e s p o n d i n g models w i t h o u t r o u t i n g . T h i s r e s u l t i s e x p e c t e d i n view of t h e

d i s c u s s i o n p r e s e n t e d i n S e c t i o n 6.3. The r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e c a n p h a s e t h e

u p s t r e a m and l o c a l i n f l o w hydrograph p e a k s s u c h t h a t t h e p e a k of t h e i r sum

i s less t h a n t h e sum of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l p e a k s .

Among t h e t h r e e r o u t i n g m o d e l s , t h e Muslcingun-Cunge method

u s u a l l y provides t h e b e s t r e s u l t s because i t p a r t i a l l y accounts f o r t h e

sewer s t o r a g e and t h e peak d i s c h a r g e a t t e n u a t i o n , whereas t h e hydrograph

time-lag s h i f t i n g method u s u a l l y produces h i g h e s t c o s t d e s i g n s . This

i n d e e d i s t h e c a s e a s c a n b e s e e n from F i g . 8.5. 13owever, t h e r e d u c t i o n

of s y s t e m c o s t between l l o d e l s B-3 and B - 1 i s o n l y a few p e r c e n t whereas

t h e computer e x e c u t i o n t i m e i s i n c r e a s e d by one o r d e r of magnitude ( P i g .

8.6). I n view of t h e f a c t t h a t none of t h e t h r e e r o u t i n g methods i s e x a c t

t h e l e a s t c o s t d e s i g n s h o u l d b e checked h y d r a u l i c a l l y (when e c o n o m i c a l l y

j u s t i f i e d ) u s i n g a more r e l i a b l e h y d r a u l i c model s u c h a s t h e I S S Model

(Sevuk e t a l . , 1973) and r e a d j u s t e d i f n e c e s s a r y .

The much s i m p l e r Model B - 1 a p p e a r s t o b e j u s t a s ~ u s e f u la s t h e s l i g h t l y

more a c c u r a t e Model B-3, w i t h t h e p r e f e r e n c e depending p r i m a r i l y on t h e

p a r t i c u l a r design s i t u a t i o n . C o n v e r s e l y , Model B-2 u s u a l l y p r o d u c e s a

d e s i g n v e r y c l o s e t o t h a t by Model B - 1 whereas t h e computer e x e c u t i o n t i m e

of t h e f o r m e r i s one o r d e r of magnitude h i g h e r . Consequently Model B-2

appears t o b e l e a s t useful. Moreover, i t s h o u l d b e emphasized t h a t t h e


q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s of t h e d e s i g n s u s i n g d i f f e r e n t models a r e a

f u n c t i o n of t h e s y s t e m s i z e and i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h s . T h e r e f o r e i t would b e

m i s l e a d i n g t o q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d i s c u s s c o s t s a v i n g s as a f u n c t i o n of d e s i g n

model b a s e d on one example.

8.2.3.2. H y d r a u l i c Design v s . Least-Cost Design - The d e s i g n s of t h e

Example I s e w e r s y s t e m u s i n g d i f f e r e n t l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models a r e swnmarized

i n T a b l e s 8.8, 8.9 and 8.10 g i v i n g t h e d i a m e t e r s , s l o p e s , and crown e l e v a t i o n s

of t h e sewers. The d e s i g n s p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s e t a b l e s a s examples were ob-

t a i n e d by u s i n g an i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h o f 6 f t w i t h 7 l a t t i c e p o i n t s t o

form t h e c o r r i d o r s .

S i n c e t h e Example I s y s t e m was u s e d by Yen and Sevuk (1975) f o r

t h e h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n of s e w e r s i z e s u s i n g t h e same i n f l o w h y d r o g r a p h s , i t

would b e i n t e r e s t i n g t o compare t h e i r r e s u l t s u s i n g t h e n o t i m e l a g , hydro-

g r a p h t i m e l a g , and n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g methods t o t h e r e s u l t s

of Models A, B-1, and B-2, respectively. The comparison i n d i c a t e s t h a t w i t h

t h e e x c e p t i o n of one s e w e r e a c h f o r t h e hydrograph t i m e l a g and n o n l i n e a r

k i n e m a t i c wave r o u t i n g s , a l l t h e s e w e r s i n t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n s a r e e q u a l

o r s m a l l e r than t h e corresponding sewers i n t h e h y d r a u l i c designs. Since

t h e s e w e r s i n t h e elcample h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n a r e g e n e r a l l y b u r i e d d e e p e r u n d e r

t h e ground s u r f a c e , c l e a r l y t h e t o t a l c o s t o f t h e s e w e r s y s t e m i s lower f o r

t h e l e a s t - c o s t design than t h e hydraulic design. However, t h e c o s t s f o r

t h e h y d r a u l i c d e s i g n s are n o t g i v e n h e r e b e c a u s e a f a i r comparison c a n n o t

b e made. I n Yen and S e v u k ' s d e s i g n s t h e r e are d r o p s s p e c i f i e d a t t h e e x i t s

o f c e r t a i n s e w e r s whereas i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y o n l y t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s

a r e s p e c i f i e d at these locations. The e x i s t e n c e of t h e d r o p s r e d u c e s t h e

s l o p e of t h e s e w e r s r e s u l t i n g i n l a r g e r d i a m e t e r s and h e n c e i n c r e a s i n g t h e

cost. However, i t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t even w i t h t h e same c o n s t r a i n t s , t h e

least-cost d e s i g n models would produce a l o w e r c o s t d e s i g n t h a n t h e hy-

d r a u l i c model.
TABLE 8.8. Least-Cost Designs of Example I Sewer
System w i t h o u t C o n s i d e r i n g R i s k s

Upstream
Crown E l e v a t i o n s
Isonodal Upstream Downstream Sewer Sewer
Line Manhole Manhole Upstream Downstream Slope Diameter
I f t fr in. I
Design Using Model A

Design Using Model B-1


TABLE 8.8. (Continued)

Upstream
Isonodal
Line
Upstream
Manh o l e
Downstream
Manhole I
Grown E l e v a t i o n s
Upstream
I
I Downstream
I1 Sewer
Slope
Sewer
Diameter

Design Using Model B-2

Design Using Model B-3


17Z 6ESOO.O 517 ' OTB OZ 'ET17 17 T: 1
1Z SSZTO'O Eg'L017 017'T$ S
17 Z 88ZT0'0 T8 'SO17 517 ' 0117 17
17 Z T8EOO'O 6E '9017 01 '8017 Z
8T: 6TSOO'O 6' 9017 OS ' 6017 Z Z
1Z T917T0'0 9'17017 0' 6017 1 T: Z
T:Z 1OETO'O 88 '017 OL 'LOB Z 17
9 9SSOO'O 69'017 08 '5017 Z E
LZ 8L1700.0 95'ZOV 6'9017 T Z
O LLTOO'O gS'ZO17 08'017 1 T:
9 ST600.0 SL ' 66 05'017 1 Z
9 1761700'0 9'L6 9S'ZOQ T: T: 17
817 L9Z00.0 8'17 6 09'L6 1 1 5
817 L6500'0 05"98 8'17 6 1 T: 9
a1eaS aSeuea 8ursn
TABLE 8.10. Least-Cost Designs of Example I Sewer System Using Model D

Upstream
Isonodal
Lint?
Upstream
Manhole
Downstream
Manhole
S Upstream

Using Damage S c a l e A
Downstream
sewer
Slope
Sewer
Diameter
in.

6 1 1 393.19 386.44 0.00511 48


5 1 1 397.60 393.19 0.00365 48
4 1 1 402.94 399.31 0.00362 36
2 1 403.50 398.94 0.01113 36
3 1 1 403.80 402.94 0.00123 36
2 1 406.45 402.94 0.00439 30
3 2 405.80 403.50 0.00605 36
4 2 407.70 404.38 0.01131 24
2 1 1 409.30 405.31 0.01246 24
2 2 409.50 406.45 0.00508 21
3 2 408.10 406.45 0.00367 27
4 3 410.45 406.25 0.01167 27
5 3 413.40 408.31 0.01106 24
1 1 4 413.20 410.45 0.00539 27

Using Damage S c a l e B
6 1 1 393.81 388.63 0.00393 42
5 1 1 397.60 393.81 0.00313 42
4 1 1 402.69 399.69 0.00300 36
2 1 403.50 400.44 0.00747 36
3 1 1 403.80 402.69 0.00159 30
2 1 406.25 402.75 0.00437 27
3 2 405.80 403.81 0.00523 36
4 2 407.70 403.88 0.01301 21 .
2 1 1 409.30 404.63 0.01461 21
2 2 , 409.50 406.25 0.00542 18
3 2 408.10 406.25 0.00411 24
4 3 410.45 405.81 0.01288 24
5 3 413.40 407.63 0.01255 21
1 1 4 413.20 410.45 0.00539 24

Using Damage S c a l e C
6 1 1 393.44 387.38 0.00459 42
5 1 1 397.60 393.44 0.00344 42
4 1 1 403.00 399.63 0.0033 7 30
2 1 403.50 400.44 0.00747 30
3 1 1 403.80 403.00 0.00114 27
2 1 406.57 403.81 0.00345 24
3 2 405.80 404.13 0.00441 30
4 2 407.70 404.31 0.01152 18
2 1 1 409.30 405.63 0.01148 18
2 2 409.50 406.70 0.00467 18
3 . 2 408.10 406.57 0.00339 21
4 3 410.63 406.69 0.01094 21
5 3 413.40 408.06 0.01160 18
1 1 4 413.20 410.63 0.00505 21
A s can b e s e e n from T a b l e 8 . 8 , w j t h r a r e e x c e p t i o n s , t h e sewer

s i z e s f o r Model A w i t h o u t r o u t i n g a r e e q u a l o r g r e a t e r t h a n t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g

s e w e r s d e s i g n e d by models w i t h r o u t i n g . This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y obvious f o r

downstream s e w e r s . Comparison between l l o d e l s C and D ( T a b l e s 8 . 9 and 8.10)

y i e l d s t h e same c o n c l u s i o n . However, t h e d e s i g n s by t h e t h r e e models

w i t h r o u t i n g a r e a l m o s t t h e same. T h e r e a r e no more t h a n two s e w e r s

d i f f e r e n t i n s i z e between any two of t h e d e s i g n s from Models B - 1 , 13-2,

and B-3. T h i s again i n d i c a t e s t h a t u n l e s s t h e hydrograph a t t e n u a t i o n e f f e c t

i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t , Models B-2 and B-3 inay n o t o f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t improvement

i n d e s i g n o v e r Model B - 1 w h i l e r e q u i r i n g c o n s i d e r a b l y more computer t i m e .

8.2.3.3. E f f e c t o f C o n s i d e r i n g R i s k s i n Design - Since the present study

p r o v i d e s t h e f i r s t models t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e r i s k component i n t o a l e a s t -

c o s t d e s i g n , i t i s o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t t o examine t h e e f f e c t o f r i s k s

on t h e d e s i g n . Presented i n Table 8.11 a r e t h e r i s k s f o r each of t h e sewers

i n t h e s y s t e m assuming a d e s i g n s e r v i c e l i f e o f 25 y e a r s f o r each o f t h e

d e s i g n s u s i n g t h e s i x models. Even though Models A and B do n o t i n c l u d e

t h e r i s k component i n t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e , t h e i m p l i c i t r i s k f o r

e a c h s e w e r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n s can b e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g

t h e same 25-yr risk-safety f a c t o r c u r v e a s employed i n t h e d e s i g n s u s i n g

Models C and D. The sewer c a p a c i t y , 6C i s c a l c u l a t e d b y u s i n g Manning's

f o r m u l a , Eq. 5 . 1 8 , w i t h S = S
0
. The s a f e t y f a c t o r i s t h e n computed a s
-
QC/Qo w i t h Q
0
-
- Qp
. S u b s e q u e n t l y t h e r i s k i s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h t h e 25-yr

risk-safety factor relationship. I f t h e s e r v i c e l i f e o f t h e sewers a r e

d i f f e r e n t , t h e computed r i s k s w i l l a l s o v a r y .

The d e s i g n s u s i n g Models C and D v a r y w i t h t h e d e s i g n s e r v i c e

l i f e and t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s . W i t h o u t s p e c i f y i n g t h e maximum

a c c e p t a b l e r i s k , Models C and D each p r o d u c e s a l e a s t - c o s t design together


TABLE 8.11. Risks A s s o c i a t e d w i t h Example I Designs Using Various Models

Is onodal Manhole Design Model


Line A B- 1 B- 2 B-3 . C D
u/s d/s Scale A Scale B Scale C Scale A Scale B Scale C
\

6 1 1 0.617 0.619 0.615 0.609 0.0192 0.264 0.617 0.0155 0.619 0.619
5 1 1 0.612 0.615 0.618 0.610 0.0367 0.612 0.612 0.0328 0.617 0.615

4 1 1 0.613 0.617 0.617 0.618 0.0111 0.215 0.613 1 0.0045


I
0.048 0.617

2 1 0.603 0.609 0.615 0.611 0.0177 0.050 0.603 0.0047 0.039 0.609

3 1 1 0.618 0.610 0.617 0.617 0.0055 0.085 0.619 0.0034 0.070 0.610

2 1 0.610 0.608 0.610 0.605 0.0116 0.103 0.610 0.0052 0.052 0.608

3 2 0.615 0.611 0.617 0.604 0.0151 0.022 0.615 0.0095 0.023 0.611

4 2 0.617 0.617 0.617 0.617 0.0041 0.059 0.617 .0.0041 0.059 0.617

2 1 1 0.619 0.619 0.619 0.619 0.0024 0.037 0.619 0.0024 0.037 0.619

2 2 0.614 0.163 0.614 0.614 0.0037 0.112 0.163 0.0029 0.095 0.163

3 2 0.617 0.617 0.617 0.617 0.0102 0.093 0.617 0.0069 0.069 0.617

4 3 0.615 0.616 0.616 0.611 0.0037 0.071 0.615 0.0032 0.057 0.816

5 3 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.614 0.0047 0.068 0.614 0.0047 0.068 0.617

1 1 4 0.619 0.618 0.618 0.618 0.0083 0.113 0.618 0.0074 0.113 0.618

Average 0.615 0.582 0.616 0.613 0.0110 0.140 0.582 0.0076 0.140 0.582

Note: u / s = upstream, d / s = downstream


w i t h a set of a s s o c i a t e d r i s k s f o r e a c h of t h e s e w e r s . This design is t h e

minimum c o s t d e s i g n among a l l t h e l e a s t - c o s t designs f o r d i f f e r e n t r i s k

levels f o r the specified project l i f e . Moreover, f o r a g i v e n a s s e s s e d damage

s c a l e , i f t h e e x p e c t e d sewer l i f e i s 50 y r i n s t e a d of 25 y r (used i n T a b l e s

8.9, 8.10, and 8.11) , the least-cost d e s i g n s would have l a r g e r p i p e s w i t h

h i g h e r i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s t o o f f s e t t h e i n c r e a s e i n e x p e c t e d damage c o s t s .

The e f f e c t of t h e r i s k component can p e r h a p s be more c l e a r l y s e e n

when c o s t f i g u r e s a r e examined. A s can b e s e e n from T a b l e 8.11, by comparing

t h e d e s i g n of Model A t o t h o s e by Model C , and Model B - 1 t o Model D ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y , t h e g e n e r a l e f f e c t of i n c l u d i n g t h e r i s k component i n d e s i g n i s

t o lower t h e r i s k s by i n c r e a s i n g t h e sewer c a p a c i t i e s (and hen(-e i n c r e a s i n g

t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s ) t o o f f s e t t h e e x p e c t e d damage c o s t s , s o t h a t t h e t o t a l

c o s t of t h e system i s minimized. The i n s t a l l a t i o n , e x p e c t e d damage, and t o t a l

c o s t s f o r t h e d e s i g n s u s i n g Models A , B - 1 , C and D a r e summarized i n T a b l e

8.12 f o r comparison. The damage c o s t s f o r Models A and B-1, which do n o t

i n c l u d e t h e r i s k component, were computed u s i n g t h e r i s k s d e t e r m i n e d i n T a b l e

8.11. I n f a c t , Models A and B-1 can b e c o n s i d e r e d r e s p e c t i v e l y a s e x t e n s i o n s

of Models C and D w i t h a n a s s e s s e d damage s c a l e e q u a l t o z e r o . Note t h a t

t h e r i s k v a l u e s f o r many of t h e s e w e r s f o r t h e Model C d e s i g n u s i n g damage

s c a l e C a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e o f t h e Model A d e s i g n , w i t h t h e a v e r a g e r i s k

b e i n g s l i g h t l y lower.

To d e s i g n a s e w e r s y s tem f o r a g i v e n d r a i n a g e a r e a t o s e r v e f o r

an e x p e c t e d p e r i o d , t h e h i g h e r t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s ( e . g. , Scale A

f o r Model C i n Table 8 . 1 1 ) , t h e s m a l l e r i s t h e r i s k of t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n .

However, i f t h e damage c o s t s a r e s m a l l ( e . g . , S c a l e C o f Model C o r Model

A i n Table 8.11), i t i s economically j u s t i f i e d t o u s e h i g h r i s k d e s i g n s ;

i.e., smaller pipes. T h i s can f u r t h e r b e i l l u s t r a t e d by comparing t h e

c o s t s f o r Model C o r D d e s i g n s l i s t e d i n T a b l e 8.12 u s i n g t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t
TABLE 8.12. Cost Comparison f o r Example I Designs

A s s e s s e d Damage S c a l e
Model Cost A B C

A Install $ 474,370 $ 474,370 $ 474,370


Damage 1,198,000 119,800 11,980
Tot a1 1,672,370 594,170 486,350

B-1 Install 433,016 433,016 433,016


Damage 1,154,000 115,400 11,540
Total 1,587,016 548,416 444,556

C I n st a l l 614,823 508,423 474,177


Damage 28,311 39,340 11,531
To t a l 643,134 547,763 485,708

D Install 530,379 457,465 433,016


Damage 21,071 45,163 11,537
Total 551,450 502,628 444,553

a s s e s s e d damage s c a l e s . A s t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s d e c r e a s e from S c a l e

A t o S c a l e C , b o t h t h e i n s t a l l a t i o d and t h e t o t a l c o s t s d e c r e a s e . Theore-

t i c a l l y , t h e e x p e c t e d damage c o s t s h o u l d a l s o b e d e c r e a s i n g m o n o t o n i c a l l y

if t h e p i p e s i z e s were c o n t i n u o u s . C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , t h e e x p e c t e d damage

c o s t would occupy a smaller p e r c e n t a g e of t h e t o t a l c o s t and t h e i n s t a l l a -

t i o n c o s t would occupy an i n c r e a s i n g p e r c e n t a g e . However, b e c a u s e of t h e

d i s c r e t e s i z e s o f commer c i a 1 p i p e s , there a r e fluctuations with respect

t o t h e g e n e r a l t r e n d of t h e e x p e c t e d damage c o s t as shown i n T a b l e 8.12

f o r Models C and D. T h i s a l s o means t h a t f o r any s e w e r i n t h e s y s t e m t h e

r i s k chosen b y t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n p h a s e may v a r y o v e r a w i d e r a n g e . Supposedly,

t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t f o r t h e Model A d e s i g n i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e c a s e of

t h e Model C d e s i g n w i t h z e r o a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s . Hence, t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n

c o s t f o r Model A d e s i g n s h o u l d b e s l i g h t l y l e s s t h a n t h a t f o r Model C u s i n g
a s s e s s e d damage s c a l e C. However, a s shown i n T a b l e 8.12, t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n

c o s t f o r t h e l a t t e r i s $474,177 whereas t h a t f o r Model A i s $474,370. The

r e a s o n of t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y i s t h a t DDDP does n o t g u a r a n t e e g l o b a l o p t i m a l i t y ;

and a s shown i n F i g . 8.3, t h e minimum i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t f o r Model A i s

a c t u a l l y around $472,000, which i s a b o u t one-half p e r c e n t lower t h a n t h e

v a l u e g i v e n i n T a b l e 8.12.

T a b l e 8.12 a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e of n o t a o n s i d e r i f i g

damage c o s t s i n d e s i g n . For example, comparing Models B - 1 and D u s i n g

S c a l e A , t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t f o r t h e Model B-1 d e s i g n i s $433,016 which

i s lower t h a n t h e $530,379 c o s t r e s u l t i n g from Model D. However, f o r t h e

25-yr d e s i g n s e r v i c e p e r i o d t h e e x p e c t e d damage c o s t a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e

Model B-1 d e s i g n i s $1,154,000 which i s c o n s i d e r a b l y h i g h e r t h a n $21,071

f o r t h e Model D d e s i g n . T h i s shows t h a t damage c o s t s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y

i m p o r t a n t when t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s a r e h i g h and when t h e e x p e c t e d

s e r v i c e l i f e i s long.

8.3. Example I1

To f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d e s i g n models a n o t h e r

s e w e r s y s t e m i s chosen a s Example 11. T h i s i s t h e sewer s y s t e m used t o i l l u s -

t r a t e t h e r a t i o n a l method i n ASCE (1969, p. 54) Manual No. 37 and i s f a m i l i a r

t o many e n g i n e e r s i n v o l v e d i n s t o r m d r a i n a g e d e s i g n .

8.3.1. Sewer System D e s c r i p t i o n

The l a y o u t of t h e Example I1 s e w e r s y s t e m i s r e p r o d u c e d i n F i g .

8 . 7 , and i t s i s o n o d a l l i n e s a n d manholes a r e shown i n F i g . 8 . 8 t o g e t h e r

w i t h t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g manhole n o t a t i o n u s e d i n F i g . 8.7.

The i n p u t d a t a f o r t h e s e w e r s y s t e m r e q u i r e d by t h e d e s i g n models

a r e summarized i n T a b l e 8.13. The Manning roughness f a c t o r n i s 0.013 f o r


c -

1
i
1

I
l

:
I
I
. .

1
I

1 ::
t

1. .:

I
I

I "

I
I

j
!

I
! ~

i . .
1 :

1 :
I
I
\ ,

I
i
c

I
~

j
< ,
TABLE 8.13. Example I1 Sewer System I n p u t Data

Isonodal Man110 l e Ground Downstream sewer Peak I n f l o w


Line Number Elev Manhole Length
ft Numb er ft

a l l t h e sewers. The peak i n f l o w s a r e i n p a r t t a k e n a s t h e d e s i g n flows calcu-

l a t e d i n Table X I 1 1 of ASCE (1969) Manual No. 37. However, i n t h a t t a b l e o n l y

t h e d e s i g n of L i n e A i n F i g . 8.7 i s g i v e n . The d i r e c t i n f l o w s f o r manholes

i n Lines B , C and D a r e computed u s i n g t h e r a t i o n a l formula. For d e s i g n

Models B and D w i t h r o u t i n g , a l l t h e manhole d i r e c t i n f l o w hydrographs a r e


i
assumed t o b e symmetric and t r i a n g u l a r i n s h a p e ( F i g . 8.2) w i t h a c o n s t a n t
i
b a s e flow Qb = 0 . 1 c f s , a b a s e time T = 2400 s e c and i n i t i a l r i s e t i m e

T = 0. Only t h e peak flow r a t e Q v a r i e s as given i n Table 8.13.


P
I n a d d i t i o n , i n t h e d e s i g n t h e minimum s o i l cover depth above t h e

sewer crown i s 3.5 f t . The a l l o w a b l e maximum sewer f l o w v e l o c i t y i s 10 f p s

and t h e minimum i s 2 f p s . For Models B and D, Axmax i s 400 f t and A t i s 120


I
sec. For a l l t h e models, t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h f o r t h e o p t i m i z a t i o n
p r o c e d u r e i s 12 f t w i t h 7 l a t t i c e p o i n t s (and h e n c e i n i t i a l s t a t e i n c r e m e n t

= 2.0 ft). The n o m i n a l sewer e l e v a t i o n drop i s (98.4 - 88.0) /6 = 1 . 7 f t which

i s c o n s i d e r a b l y smaller t h a n t h e i n i t i a l c o r r i d o r w i d t h u s e d . The r e d u c t i o n

rate of As i s 112.

Again o n l y commercial s i z e p i p e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e d e s i g n s . How-

e v e r , a minimum d i a m e t e r of 12 i n . i n s t e a d of 8 i n . i s used s i n c e t h i s c o n s t r a i n t

was imposed i n t h e ASCE d e s i g n . I n a p p l y i n g Models C and D ( T a b l e 7.1) t o

Example I1 s e w e r s y s t e m , f o r s i m p l i c i t y a c o n s t a n t v a l u e of $10,000 i s assumed

f o r t h e a s s e s s e d damage c o s t i n s t e a d o f a s c a l e t h a t v a r i e s w i t h sewer l e n g t h

f o r Example I.

8.3.2. Example I1 R e s u l t s

The r e s u l t s f o r t h i s exzmple i l l u s t r a t e t h e s a m e t r e n d s as shown

by Example I. The s e w e r s i z e s , s l o p e s and crown e l e v a t i o n s o f t h e l e a s t - c o s t

d e s i g n s u s i n g Models A and B are g i v e n i n T a b l e 8.14 and Models C and D i n

T a b l e 8.15. The t r a d i t i o n a l d e s i g n u s i n g t h e r a t i o n a l method as g i v e n i n

ASCE (1969) Manual 37 i s summarized i n .Table 8.16 f o r comparison. In

TABLE 8.14. Least-Cost Designs o f Example I1 Sewer System w i t h o u t C o n s i d e r i n g R i s k s

Upstream
Crown E l e v a t i o n s
Isonodal Upstream Downstream I Sewer Sewer
Line Manho l e Manhole Downstream Slope Diameter
f t in.
Design Using Model A
- -

, SL800'0
SL600'0
SLLOO'O
SL900'0
99L00'0
SZSOO'O
00800'0
Z9E000
SLLOO'O
6TZOO'O
00900'0

SL800'0
SL600'0
SLLOO'O
SL'7OO'O
05900'0
SZSOO '0
00800'0
t16EOO'O
SLLOO'O
9EZ000
OSSOO'O

SL800'0
SL 600'0
SLLOO'O
SL900'0
OS900'0
szsoo '0
00800'0
8LE00'0
SLL00'0
'7EZOO'O
00900 '0
TABLE 8.15. Least-Cost Designs of Example I1 Sewer System Considering
Risks

Upstream
Crown E l e v a t i o n s
Isonodal Upstream Downstream I Sewer Sewer
Line Manhole Manhole Upstream Downstream Slope Diameter
ft ft in.
Design Using Model C

Design Using Model D

TABLE 8.16. Design of Example I1 Sewer System a s Given i n ASCE Manual 37

Upstream
Isonodal
Line
Upstream
Manhole
Downstream
Manhole
/
I
Crown E l e v a t i o n s
Upstream Downstream
Sewer
Slope
Sever
Diameter
t h e Model C and D d e s i g n s t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a 1 u e . i ~$10,000 f o r e a c h sewer

as mentioned p r e v i o u s l y . It i s a l s o assumed t h a t t h e 25-yr r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r

c u r v e d e v e l o p e d i n S e c t i o n 5 , 4 f o r Urbana, I l l i n o i s i s d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o

t h i s example w i t h o u t a d j u s t m e n t . The r i s k s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e d e s i g n s u s i n g

t h e s i x l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models as w e l l a s t h e r a t i o n a l method d e s i g n a r e g i v e n

i n T a b l e 8.17. The i m p l i c i t r i s k s f o r t h e d e s i g n s o f Models A and B and t h e ASCE

d e s i g n a r e computed i n a manner as d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n 8 . 2 . 3 . 3 f o r Example I .

The i n s t a l l a t i o n , e x p e c t e d damage, and t o t a l c o s t s f o r t h e d e s i g n s a r e l i s t e d

i n T a b l e 8.18. The same i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t f u n c t i o n s (Eqs. 2 . 1 and 2 . 2 ) and

a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e u s e d i n Models C and D t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r i s k s l i s t e d

i n T a b l e 8 . 1 7 are u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x p e c t e d damage c o s t s f o r t h e d e s i g n s

of Models A , B and t h e ASCE r a t i o n a l method.

C o n s i d e r i n g i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s o n l y , i t i s a g a i n s e e n from T a b l e

8.18 t h a t any o f t h e r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s l o w e r s t h i s c o s t whereas t h e i n c l u -

s i o n of t h e r i s k component (Models C and D) i n c r e a s e s i t . By comparing t h e

i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t of t h e ASCE d e s i g n w i t h t h o s e f o r Models A o r B y i t i s

c l e a r t h a t t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models i n d e e d produce improved d e s i g n s . It

s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e t o t a l c o s t s and r i s k s ( T a b l e 8.17) a r e a l s o l o w e r

f o r t h e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n s t h a n t h e ASCE d e s i g n . Actually, the savings i n

i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t from t h e ASCE d e s i g n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y more b e c a u s e i n t h e

l a t t e r d e s i g n t h e 30 i n . and 36 i n . sewer f.rom INL 4 and 6 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ,

a r e f l o w i n g f u l l (Q /Q = 0.94 and 0.95, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) and t h e n e x t l a r g e r


c P
s i z e p i p e s s h o u l d have been used.

When t h e a s s o c i a t e d r i s k s are c o n s i d e r e d i n d e s i g n , t h e improve-

ment i n t o t a l c o s t and r i s k s of t h e d e s i g n i s e v e n more s i g n i f i c a n t as

d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e r e s u l t s o f Models C and D. I n t h i s example, Model D

p r o d u c e s a d e s i g n w i t h a 24% c o s t s a v i n g s o v e r t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e

p r e s e n t e d i n ASCE Manual 3 7 , and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g improvement i n t h e

p r o b a b i l i t y of f a i l u r e from 32% f o r t h e l a t t e r t o 3.25% f o r t h e former.

164
TABLE 8.18. Cost Comparison f o r Example I1 Designs

Execution Cost
Time $
Model Se c Installation Damage Total

A 5.4 69,062 32,714 101,776

B-1 11.3 67,001 28,768 95,769

B-2 198.2 67,036 31,383 98,419

B-3 151.5 66,107 36,533 102,264

C 14.2 79,904 2,452 82,356

D 18.4 75,900 3,580 79,480

AS CE - 70,087 34,700 104,787

The e f f e c t of t h e r i s k component i n d e s i g n i s a l s o s e e n by t h e

s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n damage c o s t s . It should be emphasized t h a t t h e

$10,000 a s s i g n e d damage v a l u e used i s a r b i t r a r y and t h a t t h e e f f e c t of t h e

r i s k component depends on t h i s v a l u e a s w e l l a s on t h e s e r v i c e l i f e of

t h e sewers. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e importance of i n c l u d i n g t h e r i s k concept i n

t h e design p r o c e s s i s i l l u s t r a t e d .

I n example I i n terms of sewer s i z e s , t h e d e s i g n s u s i n g t h e l e a s t -

c o s t d e s i g n models a r e very similar. This i s a l s o t h e c a s e f o r Example 11.

A c t u a l l y t h e d i a m e t e r s of t h e sewers a r e i d e n t i c a l f o r d e s i g n s u s i n g

Models B-1, B-2, and t h e ASCE r a t i o n a l method. However, because t h e cor-

responding sewers have d i f f e r e n t s l o p e s f o r d i f f e r e n t d e s i g n s , t h e i n s t a l l a -

t i o n c o s t s and a s s o c i a t e d r i s k s a r e d i f f e r e n t . Model B-3 produces a d e s i g n

which d i f f e r s from Models B - 1 and B-2 i n sewer s i z e s by o n l y one sewer: a

15-in. p i p e i n s t e a d of a 18-in. p i p e from INL 3 , r e s u l t i n g i n a lower

i n s t a l l a t i o n cost but higher risk. The Model A d e s i g n a l s o d i f f e r s from

Model B-1 d e s i g n by only one sewer s i z e : a 36-in. p i p e i n s t e a d of a 30-in.

from IM, 4, r e s u l t i n g i n a h i g h e r i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t .
I n t h i s example t h e hydrograph t i m e l a g r o u t i n g method used i n

Model B-1 r e s u l t e d i n t h e l o w e s t t o t a l c o s t d e s i g n as w e l l a s t h e l o w e s t

a v e r a g e r i s k and s h o r t e s t computer e x e c u t i o n t i m e among t h e t h r e e r o u t i n g

models. However, t h i s r e s u l t i s f o r a s m a l l , r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e s y s t e m and i t i s

m i s l e a d i n g t o draw g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s from i t . An o p ~ o s i t et r c n d h a s been

o b s e r v e d i n F i g . 8.5 f o r t h e more c o m p l i c a t e d Example I sewer system. For

t h e Example I1 s y s t e m a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e s i z e of one sewer o r ti significant

change of one s l o p e would b e enough t o change t h e r e l - a t i v e c o s t . Nevertheless,

the r e s u l t s f u r t h e r denonstrate t h a t f o r l e a s t - c o s t designs using routing

and u n d e r normal c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e h y d r o g r a p h t i m e l a g t e c h n i q u e i.s p r e f e r e d

b e c a u s e o f i t s r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t computer e x e c u t i o n t i m e .
Chapter 9 . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

S e v e r a l c o n c e p t s and t e c h n i q u e s h a v e been i n v e s t i g a t e d and

i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a s e t of l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h e

s i z e s and s l o p e s of t h e s e w e r s i n a network. The m a j o r c o n c e p t s are:

(a) The a p p l i c a t i o n of d i s c r e t e d i f f e r e n t i a l dynamic program-

ming (DDDP) as t h e b a s i s f o r f l e x i b l e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n

models. .

(b) The i n c l u s i o n of r i s k a n a l y s i s i n t h e d e s i g n p r o c e d u r e .

(c) The i n c l u s i o n of e x p e c t e d f l o o d damage c o s t s as p a r t

of t h e t o t a l p r o j e c t c o s t .

(d) The u s e of f l o o d r o u t i n g p r o c e d u r e s t o a c c o u n t f o r a t t e n u a -

t i o n and l a g o f i n - s y s t e m h y d r o g r a p h s .

9.1. Conclusions

With r e c e n t advancement i n computer c a p a b i l i t i e s , n u m e r i c a l

a n a l y s i s , and o p t i m i z a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s , improved methods f a r s u p e r i o r t o

t h e t r a d i t i o n a l methods f o r d e s i g n of s e w e r s y s t e m s c a n b e developed.

The f i v e l e a s t - c o s t d e s i g n models d e v e l o p e d i n t h i s s t u d y a r e examples of

s u c h improved new models. These f i v e models a l l are b a s e d on t h e DDDP

approach f o r o p t i m i z a t i o n b u t t h e y i n c o r p o r a t e d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s i n

d e c i s i o n making, i.e. , routing and/or design r i s k s , a s l i s t e d i n Table 7.1.

I n a p p l i c a t i o n t h e u s e r may s e l e c t a model t h a t i s most s u i t a b l e f o r a

particular situation.

The f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s c a n b e made b a s e d on t h e ex-

perience gained i n t h i s study.

(a) The u s e of DDDP t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s e r i a l a p p r o a c h d e s c r i b e d

i n Chapter 4 provides an e f f i c i e n t b a s i c t o o l f o r a l e a s t -
c o s t d e s i g n model f o r d e s i g n of s e w s r s y s t e m s . The d e s i g n

r e s u l t s i n c l u d e t h e crown e l e v a t i o n s and s l o p e i n a d d i t i o n

t o t h e diameter of t h e sewers.

(b) It i s p o s s i b l e t o a n a l y z e t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s i n v o l v e d i n

t h e d e s i g n p r o c e s s and t o summarize t h e i r e f f e c t i n terms

of t h e r i s k o r p r o b a b i l i t y of e x c e e d i n g t h e c a p a c i t y of a

sewer. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e r i s k can b e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e

d e s i g n of t h e s e w e r s . T h i s i s accomplisiled t h r o u g h t h e

e s t a b l i s l ~ m e n tof t h e r i s k - s a f e t y f a c t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r

t h e drainage a r e a considered a s described i n Chapter 5.

(c) By i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e r i s k s i n t h e d e s i g n , t h e e n g i n e e r no

l o n g e r n e e d s t o a r b i t r a r i l y choose t h e d e s i g n r e t u r n p e r i o d .

I n s t e a d , t h e e x p e c t e d s e r v i c e l i f e of t h e p r o j e c t i s f i r s t

determined. The models w i l l t h e n p r o c e e d a c c o r d i n g l y t o pro-

d u c e a d e s i g n t h a t g i v e s t h e l o w e s t t o t a l c o s t , and t h e

r e s u l t w i l l a l s o s p e c i f y t h e r i s k s of t h e s e w e r s f o r t h i s

least-cost design. The models c a n a l s o b e m o d i f i e d t o

design w i t h s p e c i f i e d expected s e r v i c e l i f e t o g e t h e r w i t h

maximum a c c e p t a b l e r i s k of f a i l u r e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d .

(d) PJith t h e r i s k s of f a i l u r e e v a l u a t e d , i t i s p o s s i h l e t o

i n c l u d e e x p e c t e d f l o o d damages a s p a r t of t h e t o t a l system

cost. The d e s i g n models t h e n p r o d u c e a d e s i g n which g i v e s

t h e b e s t trade-off between t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t and

e x p e c t e d damage c o s t . The u s e of s u c h d e s i g n models r e q u i r e s

a s an i n i t i a l s t e p t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t f l o o d damage c o s t s a r e

a n i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o r i and t h e r e f o r e must b e i n c l u d e d a s

p a r t o f t h e t o t a l system c o s t .
(e) I n c o r p o r a t i o n of f l o o d r o u t i n g i n t o t h e d e s i g n models

r e s u l t s i n a lowering of t h e c o s t of t h e sewer system.

T h i s i s mainly due t o t h e l a g e f f e c t I n which t h e peaks

of t h e i n l e t and in-system hydrographs are o u t of phase.

For l a r g e systems t h e a t t e n u a t i o n of t h e peaks may a l s o

become i m p o r t a n t . The o f t e n - u s e d method o f s i m p l y adding

r u n o f f peaks i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s e r v a t i v e y e t r e s u l t s

i n e x p e n s i v e d e s i g n s w i t h o u t r e d u c i n g t h e o v e r a l l r i s k as

i l l u s t r a t ' e d i n T a b l e 8.17. Normally, f o r d e s i g n p u r p o s e s ,

t h e hydrograph t i m e l a g p r o c e d u r e d e s c r i b e d i n S e c t i o n

6 . 3 . 2 and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o Models B-1 and D i s a d e q u a t e

and is recommended b e c a u s e i t r e q u i r e s v e r y l i t t l e computa-

t i o n t i m e and p r o v i d e s r e a s o n a b l e r e s u l t s . However, i n

sewer systems where hydrograph a t t e n u a t i o n i n t h e sewers i s

of g r e a t e r concern and t h e sewer s y s t e m i s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e ,

e i t h e r t h e n o n l i n e a r k i n e m a t i c wave o r Muskingum-Cunge

p r o c e d u r e s may b e u s e d , w i t h t h e l a t t e r p r e f e r r e d . More

s o p h i s t i c a t e d r o u t i n g t e c h n i q u e s s u c h as s o l v i n g t h e

S t . Venant e q u a t i o n s do n o t a p p e a r p r a c t i c a l f o r u s e i n

l e a s t-cos t d e s i g n a o d e l s b e c a u s e of t h e i r e x t e n s i v e com-

p u t e r requirements .
(f) S i n c e DDDP does n o t g u a r a n t e e a g l o b a l optimum, t o a

c e r t a i n d e g r e e , t h e d e s i g n s of t h e sewer systems depend on t h e

o p t i m i z a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s used i n t h e DDDP p r o c e d u r e ; namely,

t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e i n i t i a l t r f a l t r a j e c t o r y , t h e w i d t h of

the i n i t i a l corridor enclosing the t r i a l trajectory, the

number o f l a t t i c e p o i n t s w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r ( o r t h e i n i t i a l

s t a t e i n c r e m e n t w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r ) , and t h e r e d u c t i o n rate
of t h e s t a t e increment d u r i n g i t e r a t i o n s . '3ased on t h e

e x p e r i e n c e o b t a i n e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c z - , i t h a s been found

t h a t t h e c l o s e r t h e presupposed i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y i s

t o t h e t r u e o p t i m a l t r a j e c t o r y , the? b e t t e r t h e r e s u l t e d d e s i g n .

::ince t h e downstream s e w e r s a r e u s u a l l y more e x p e n s i v e

b e c a u s e t h e y a r e l a r g e r and b u r i e d d e e p e r t h a n t h e upstream

o n e s , c o n s e q u e n t l y o f t e n i t i s advantageous f o r t h e down-

s t r e a m s e w e r s t o u s e an i n i t i a l t r i a l t r a j e c t o r y w i t h

s t e e p e r s l o p e s t h a n ground s l o p e s . The p r e f e r r e d i n i t i a l

c o r r i d o r w i d t h i s two t o f i v e t i m e s t h e a v e a g e e l e v a t i o n

drop of t h e s e w e r s . I n a d d i t i o n t h e u s e of 5 o r 7 l a t t i c e

p o i n t s t o g e t h e r w i t h a r e d u c t i o n r a t e of t h e s t a t e i n c r e -

ment e q u a l t o 112 i s recommended.

3.2. gcommenda-s f o r Future Studies

The sewer s y s t e m d e s i g n models p r e s e n t e d i n t h i ~r e p o r t a r e o n l y

a f i r s t s t e p towards t h e g o a l of o p t i m a l d e s i g n f o r e n t i r e u r b a n d r a i n a g e

systems. Consequently m o d i f i c a t i o n , r e f i n e m e n t , and r a m i f i c a t i o n of t h e s e

models on t h e b a s i s of e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d t h r o u g h e x t e n s i v e f i e ! d a p p l i c a -

t i o n s a r e most d e s i r a b l e . The proposed d e s i g n models a r e c l e a r l y more

r a t i o n a l t h a n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l y used sewer d e s i g n methods. However, t h e i r

u s e r e q u i r e s a r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e s e v e r a l c o n c e p t s i n v o l v e d i n sewer

s j r s t e n Ccsign i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l ones s o t h a : f u l l a d v a n t a g e

can b e t a k e n of t h e c a p a b i l i t i e s of t h e d e s i g n models. C o n v e r s e l y , i n view

of t h e l i m i t e d manpower i n government d e s i g n o f f i c e s and e n g i n e e r i n g f i r m s ,

i t i s f i i l l y r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e r e i s an u r g e n t n e e d f o r t h e development of

a :1ser1s manual f o r :he d e s i g n model s o t h a t t h e maximum L e of t h e r e -

s u l t s of t h i s s t u d y \:an b e a c h i e v e d . T h i s manual s h o u l d 1 r o v i d e a c l e a r

171
g u i d e t o t h e u s e of t h e v a r i o u s models s o a s t o make i t a s e a s y a s p o s s i b l e

f o r t h e d e s i g n e n g i n e e r s t o o b t a i n r e s u l t s w i t h a minimum amount of e f f o r t

and i n v e s tmen t of t i m e .
Among t h e numerous p o s s i b l e f u t u r e s t u d i e s a s a r e s u l t of t h i s

i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s e r v e immediate a t t e n t i o n .

(a) S i n c e t h e c o s t of a sewer s y s t e m depends on t h e l a y o u t of

t h e s e w e r s , and e n g i n e e r s o f t e n do have a l i m i t e d d e g r e e of

freedom i n s e l e c t i n g t h e l a y o u t , i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o i n c l u d e

t h e layout s e l e c t i o n i n t h e optimization procedure. Such

a d e s i g n model w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e r i s k s and r o u t i n g

h a s been developed u n d e r t h e p a r t i a l s u p p o r t of t h i s

r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t (Mays, 1976) . E x t e n s i o n of Mays ' model

t o , i n c l u d e r o u t i n g and r i s k c a n s i d e r a t i o n i s b e i n g i n v e s t i -

gated.

(b) For t h e d e s i g n models p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t i n l e t hydro-

g r a p h s must h e i n d e p e n d e n t l y developed. It i s d e s i r a b l e t o

h a v e an o p t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e f o r g e n e r a t i n g them; i . e . , a

s u r f a c e h y d r o l o g y model i s needed. The u s e r s h o u l d have

t h e o p t i o n of p r o v i d i n g h i s own h y d r o g r a p h s o r u t i l i z i n g

t h e h y d r o l o g i c model.

(c) I n t h i s s t u d y t h e e f f e c t s of t h e h y d r a u l i c s and c o s t s of

a l l a p p u r t e n a n c e s and s p e c i a l s t r u c t u r e s i n a sewer s y s t e m

e x c e p t manholes h a v e been e x c l u d e d from c o n s i d e r a t i o n . For

example, i n - l i n e d e t e n t i o n r e s e r v o i r s a r e r e c e i v i n g i n c r e a s e d

a t t e n t i o n and t h e r e i s a n e e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s

and u s e i n d e s i g n .
(d) The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e l e a s t - c o s t design b v i o u s l y depends

on t h e reliability of t h e c o s t f u n c t i o n s of t h e sewer system

components. Publis!led i n f o r m a t i o n on s u c h c o s t Functi.ons

a r e meager and i n a d e q u a t e . G a t h e r i n g and s y s t e m a t i c

a n a l y s i s of t h e s c a t t e r e d d a t a a p p e a r e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e

s u c h a s E n g i n e e r i n g News-Records and i n f o r m a t i o n f r o o con-

t r a c t o r s s h o u l d b e c a r r i e d o u t t o p r o v i d e such f u n c t i o n s .

(e) The example r e s u l t s of Yodels C and D c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a t e

t h a t t h e a s s e s s e d damage v a l u e s due t o i n s u f f i c i e n t sewer

c a p a c i t y i s an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e l e a s t -

cost design. The damage v a l u e o b v i o u s l y v a r i e s w i t h t h e

amount of w a t e r d u r i n g t h e peak flow p e r i o d t h a t t h e sewer

cannot c a r r y . A t present considerable judgeme~ti s

r e q u i r e d i-n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a s s e s s e d *damage v&Lue. A

p r o c e d u r e i s needed t o e s t i m a t e damage c o s t s i n a more

w e l l d e f i n e d manner. T h i s t a s k i s b e i n g u n d e r t a k e n under

OWRT p r o j e c t B-098-ILL which i s t h e contin11,ld p h a s e of t h i s

research project .
(f) I n t h i s s t u d y t h e r i s k component h a s b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e

l e a s t-cos t d e s i g n models which h a v e n o r o u t i n g o r w i t h hydro-

graph time l a g . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o i n c o r p o r a t e

t h e r i s k component i n t h e d e s i g n models u s i n g o t h e r h y d r a u l i c

routing techniques.

(g) Although under normal c o n d i t i o n s t h e c o s t s of o p e r a t i o n and

maintenance c o n t r i b u t e l i t t l e t o t h e l e a s t-cos t desf gn of t h e

sewer s y s tem, under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e s e c o s t s may

Decome an i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r . Therefore, i n c l u s i o n of t h e s e

c o s t s i n t h e d e s i g n models s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d .
REFERENCES

Alan M. Voorhees & A s s o c i a t e s , I n c . , !I Sewer System C o s t E s t i m a t i o n Model,"


R e p o r t t o t h e B a l t i m o r e , Md. R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l , McLean, Va.
( a v a i l a b l e as PB 183981, from NTIS, Dept. of Comm., S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.) ,
Apr. 1969.

Am. S o c i e t y C i v i l Engrs. , "Urban Water Resources R e s e a r c h , " ASCE Urban


Water Resources Research Program R e p o r t , New York, S e p t . 1968.

Am. S o c i e t y C i v i l E n g r s . , and Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l F e d e r a t i o n , "Design


and C o n s t r u c t i o n of S a n i t a r y and S t o m Sewers," ASCE Manual No. 37,
New York, 1969.

Ang , A. H.-S., "Extended R e l i a b i l i t y B a s i s of S t r u c t u r a l Design Under Un-


c e r t a i n t i e s , " ~ n n a i sof R e l i a b i l i t y , P r o c . sAE/AIAA/ASME 9 t h
R e l i a b i l i t y and M a f n t a i n a b i l i t y Conf., Vol. 9 , pp. 642-649, 1970.

Ang , A. 13.-S., and Tang, W. H . , P r o b a b i l i t y Concepts i n E n g i n e e r i n g


P l a n n i n g and Design, Vol. I: B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s , John Wiley & Sons,
I n c . , New York, 1975.

Argaman, Y . , Shamir, U.,and S p i v a k , E . , " ~ e s i g no f Optimal Sewerage


Systems," J o u r . Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 99, No. EE5, pp. 703-716,
Oct. 1973.

Barlow, J. P., 11 Cost O p t i m i z a t i o n of P i p e Sewerage ~ ~ s t e m s P , "r o c e e d i n g s ,


I n s t i t u t i o n o f C i v i l E n g i n e e r s (London), Vol. 5 3 , p t . 2 , pp. 57-64,
J u n e 1972.

Benjamin, J. R . , and C o r n e l l , C. A . , P r o b a b i l i t y , S t a t i s t i c s and D e c i s i o n


f o r C i v i l E n g i n e e r s , McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1970.

B r a n d s t e t t e r , A . , "Comparative A n a l y s i s of Urban Stormwater ~ o d e l s , "


B a t t e l l e P a c i f i c Northwest L a b o r a t o r i e s , R i c h l a n d , Wash., Aug. 1974.

B r a n d s t e t t e r , A , , E n g e l , R. L . , and C e a r l o c k , D. B., "A Mathematical


Model f o r Optimum Design and C o n t r o l of M e t r o p o l i t a n Wastewater
Management Systems," Water R e s o u r c e s B u l l e t i n , Vol. 9 , No. 6 , pp. 1188-
1 2 0 0 , Dec. 1973.

Chow, V. T., e d . , Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New


York, 1964.

Chow, V. T., and Yen, B. C . , "Urban Stormwater Runoff -


Determinati'on of
Volumes and F l o w r a t e s , " Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Technology S e r i e s ,
EPA-60012-76-116, M u n i c i p a l Environmental Research L a b o r a t o r y , US EPA,
May 19 76 .
Chow, V. T. , Maidment, D. R., and Tauxe, G. W. , "Computer Time and Memory
Requirements f o r DP and DDDP i n Water Resources Systems A n a l y s i s , "
Water Resources R e s e a r c h , Vol. 11, No. 5 , pp. 621-628, O c t . 1975.

Cunge, J. A . , "On t h e S u b j e c t o f a Flood P r o p a g a t i o n Computation Method


(Muskingum ~ e t h o d , )I t J o u r . Hyd. R e s . , IAHR, Vol. 7, No. 2 , pp. 205-230,
1969.
D a j a n i , J . S. and Gemmell, R. S., "Economics of Wastewater C o l l e c t i o n Net-
works," R e s e a r c h Report No. 4 3 , Water R e s o u r c e s C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y o f
I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign, I l l i n o i s , 1971.

D a j a n i , J. S. and H a s i t , Y . , 11 C a p i t a l Cost M i n i m i z a t i o n of D r a i n a g e Net-


works," J o u r . Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 1 0 0 , No. EE2, pp. 325-337,
Apr. 1974.

D e i n i n g e r , R. A., "Systems A n a l y s i s f o r Water Supply and P o l l u t i o n ~ o n t r o l , "


N a t u r a l Resource Systems Models i n D e c i s i o n Making, Ed. by G. H.,
Toebes, Water R e s o u r c e s C e n t e r , Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , L a f a y e t t e , I n d . ,
1970.

F r e a d , D. L . , "Numerical P r o p e r t i e s of I m p l i c i t Four-Point F i n i t e D i f f e r e n c e
E q u a t i o n s o f Unsteady low," NOAA Tech. Memo NWS HYDRO-18, U.S.
N a t i o n a l Weather S e r v i c e , Mar. 19 74.

F r o i s e , S. , Burges , S . J. , and Bogan, R. :I.,"A Dynamic Programming Approach


t o Determine L e a s t Cost S t r a t e g i e s i n Urban Network Design," p a p e r
p r e s e n t e d a t ASCE S p e c i a l t y Conference on Water R e s o u r c e s P l a n n i n g and
Management, Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , P o r t C o l l i n s , C o l o r a d o , J u l y 9-11,
1975.

G r i g g , N. S . , Botham, L. H . , R i c e , L. R., Shoemaker, N. J . , and T u c k e r , L. S . ,


"Urban D r a i n a g e and Flood C o n t r o l P r o j e c t s , Economic, L e g a l and
F i n a n c i a l A s p e c t s , " R e p o r t No. 6 5 , E n v i r o n m e n t a l Resources C e n t e r ,
Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F o r t C o l l i n s , C o l o . , J u l y 1975.

G r i g g , iJ. S . , R i c e , L. R., Botham, L. I I . , and Shoemaker, W. J . , " E v a l u a t i o n


and I m p l e m e n t a t i o n of Urban D r a i n a g e and Flood C o n t r o l P r o j e c t s , "
R e p o r t No. 56, E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s o u r c e s C e n t e r , Colorado S t a t e Univer-
s i t y , F o r t C o l l i n s , Colo., J u n e 1974.

H a r l e y , B. M., P e r k i n s , F. E . , and E a g l e s o n , P. S . , "A Modular D i s t r i b u t e d


Model o f Catchment Dynamics ," R e p o r t No. 1 3 3 , R. M. P a r s o n s Lab f o r
Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., Dec. 1970.

Heaney, A. C . , 11 Space-Time T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s f o r L i v e Load Data," p a p e r p r e -


.
s e n t e d a t ASCE N a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r a l Eng Meeting, B a l t i m o r e , Fld. ,
Apr. 1971.

Heeps, D. P . , and R u s s e l l , G. M., "Independent Comparison of T h r e e Urban


Runoff Models," J o u r . Eiyd. D i v . , ASCE,Vol. 1 0 0 , No. HY7, pp. 995-1009,
J u l y 1974.

H e i d a r i , M a , 11A D i f f e r e n t i a l Dynamic Programming Approach t o W a t e r ( R e s o u r c e s


A n a l y s i s , " Ph.D. T h e s i s , Department of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , U n i v e r s i t y of
I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign, I l l . , 1970.

H e i d a r i , M . , Chow, V. T., K o k o t o v i c , P. U . , and M e r e d i t h , D. D . , " D i s c r e t e


D i f f e r e n t i a l Dynamic Programming Approach t o Water R e s o u r c e s Systems
O p t i m i z a t i o n , " Water Resources R e s e a r c h , Vol. 7 , No. 2 , pp. 273-282,
Apr. 1971.

l I e r s h f i e l d , D. M., " R a i n f a l l Frequency A t l a s o f t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s , f o r


D u r a t i o n from 30 Minutes t o 24 Hours and R e t u r n P e r i o d from 1 t o 100
Y e a r s , I 1 Tech. P a p e r No. 40, U.S. National. Weather S e r v i c e , 1963.
H o l l a n d , M. G., "Computer Models of Wastewater C o l l e c t i o n system^,'^ Water
Resources Group, Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , Cambridge, Mass., 1966.

iloman, A. G., and Waybur, 3. , "A S t u d y of P r o c e d u r e i n E s t i m a t i n g Flood


Damage t o R e s i d e n t i a l , Commercial, and I n d u s t r i a l P r o p e r t i e s i n
C a l i f o r n i a , " Report (SRI) P r o j e c t Nos. 1-2541 and 1-2880, S t a n d f o r d
Research I n s t i t u t e , Menlo P a r k , C a l i f . , Jan. 1960.

Huber, W . C., Heaney, J . P . , Medina, M. A., P e l t z , W. A . , Sheikh, I I . , and


Smith, G. F . , "Storm Water Management - Model u s e r ' s Manual Version 11,"
Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Technology S e r i e s EPA-67012-75-017, U.S. EPA,
Mar. 1975.

James F. MacLaren, L t d . , "Review of Canadian (Storm Sewer) Design P r a c t i c e


and Comparison of Urban H y d r o l o g i c Models ," Research R e p o r t No. 26,
Canada-Ontario Agreement Research Program f o r t h e Abatement of M u n i c i p a l
P o l l u t i o n , Canadian C e n t e r f o r I n l a n d W a t e r s , B u r l i n g t o n , O n t . , Oct.
1975.

K i r s h e n , P. H., and Marks, D. 8 . , "Screening Model f o r Storm Water c o n t r o l ,"


J o u r . Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 1 0 0 , No. EE4, pp. 807-820, Aug. 1974.

Liebman, J . C. , "A H e u r i s t i c Aid f o r t h e Design of Sewer ~ e t w o - r k,"


s Jour.
San. Eng. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SA4, pp. 81-90, Aug. 1967.

L i g g e t t , J. A., and W o o l h i s e r , D. A , , " D i f f e r e n c e S o l u t i o n s of Shallow-


Water E q u a t i o n s , " J o u r . Eng. Mech. D i v . , ASCE, Vol. 93, No. EM2,
pp. 39-71, Apr. 1967.

Lowsley, J r . , I. H., "An I m p l i c i t Enumeration Algorithm f o r Optimal Sewer


~ a ~ o u t ,Ph.D.
" T h e s i s , Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y , B a l t i m o r e , Md., 1973.

L. W . , I I Optimal Layout and Design of Storm Sewer Systems," PhaD.


T h e s i s , Dept. of C i v i l Eng., Univ. o f I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign,
I l l . , 1976.

.,
Mays, L. W and Wenzel,, Ii. G. , "A S e r i a l DDDP Approach f o r Optimal Design
of M u l t i - l e v e l Branching Storm Sewer Sys t e m s ," t o b e p u b l i s h e d i n
Water Resources R e s e a r c h , Apr. 1977.

Mays, L. W.,and Yen, B. C . , "Optimal Cost Design of Branched Sewer Systems,"


Water Resources R e s e a r c h , Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 37-47, Feb. 1975.

McPherson, M. B . , "lJrban Mathematical Modeling and Catchment Research i n


t h e U.S.A. , I 1 Tech. I\lemo. No. IHP-1, ASCE Urban Water Resources
Research Program, June 1975.

Meredith, D. D . , "Dynamic Programming w i t h Case S t u d y on P l a n n i n g and De-


s i g n of Urbana Water F a c i l i t i e s , " Sec. I X , T r e a t i s e on Urban Water
Systems, Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , pp. 590-652, J u l y 1971.

Merritt, L. B., and Bogan, R. B. , "Computer-Based Optimal Design of Sewer


Systems," J o u r . Env. Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 99, No. EE1, pp. 35-53,
Feb. 1973.
Metcalf & Eddy, I n c . , U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a , and Water Resources E n g i n e e r s ,
I n c . , "Storm Water Management Model," Vol. 1-4,. Water P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l
Research S e r i e s 11024 DOC, U.S. EPA, 1971.

P r i c e , R. K . , "comparison of Four Numerical Methods f o r Flood R o u t i n g , "


J o u r . Hyd. Div., ASCE, Vol. 1 0 0 , No. HY7, pp. 879-899, J u l y 1974.

Sevuk, A. S. , " ~ n teady


s Flow i n Sewer Networks ," Ph. D. T h e s i s , Dept . of
C i v i l Eng., Univ. of I l l i n o i s a t Urbana-Champaign, I l l . , 1973.

Sevuk, A. S. and Yen, B. C . , "A Comparative Study on Flood Routing ~ o m ~ u t a t i o n , "


P r o c e e d i n g s , I n t e r n a t i o n a l Symposium on R i v e r Mechanics, IAHR, Vol. 3 , pp.
275-290, Bangkok, T h a i l a n d , J a n , 1973.

Sevuk, A. S . , Yen, B. C. and P e t e r s o n , 11, G. E . , " I l l i n o i s Storm Sewer


System S i m u l a t i o n Model: U s e r ' s Manual," Research R e p o r t No. 73,
Water Resources C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s a t ~ r b a n a - C h a m p a i g n ,
I l l . ( a v a i l a b l e a s PB 227338 from U.S. NTIS, S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.),
Oct. 1973.

Tang, W . H . , Mays, L. W . , and Yen, B. C . , "Optimal Risk-Based D e s i g n of


Storm Sewer Networks ," J o u r . Env. Eng. Div. , ASCE, Vol. 101, NO.
EE3, pp. 381-398, June 1975.

T e r s t r i e p , M. L., and S t a l l , J . B . , "The I l l i n o i s Urban Drainage Area


S i m u l a t o r , ILLUDAS," B u l l e t i n 5 8 , I l l i n o i s S t a t e Water S u r v e y , Urbana,
I l l . , 1974.

T h o l i n , A. L. , and K e i f e r , C. J . , "The Hydrology o f Urban Runoff ,'I

T r a n s a c t i o n s , ASCE, Vol. 125, pp. 1308-1379, 1960.

Watkins, L. H . , "The Design of Urban Sewer System," Tech. P a p e r No. 55,


.
Road Research Lab. , Dept. of S c i . and Indus R e s e a r c h , G r e a t B r i t a i n ,
1962.

Watkins, L. H . , "A Guide f o r E n g i n e e r s t o t h e Design of Storm Sewer


Sys terns ," Road Note 35, Road Research Lab. , Dept. of S c i . and I n d u s .
R e s e a r c h , G r e a t B r i t a i n , 1963.

Yen, B . C . , "Methodologies f o r Flow P r e d i c t i o n i n Urban Drainage Systems,"


Research Report No. 72, Water Resources C e n t e r , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s
a t Urbana-Champaign, I l l . ( a v a i l a b l e as PB 225480 from U.S. NTIS,
S p r i n g f i e l d , V a . ) , Aug. 1973a.

Yen, B. C . , "Open-Channel Flow E q u a t i o n s R e v i s i t e d , " J o u r . Eng. Mech. D i v . ,


ASCE, Vol. 99, No. EM5, pp. 979-1009, Oct. 1973b.

Yen, B. C. , " F u r t h e r Study on Open-Channel Flow E q u a t i o n s , " Sonderf o r s -


c h u n g s b e r e i c h 80 Report No. SFB80/T/49, U n i v e r s i t y o f ICarlsruhe, West
Germany, Apr. 1975a.

Yen, B. C . , "Risk Based Design of Storm Sewers ," R e p o r t No. INT 1 4 1 ,


H y d r a u l i c s Research S t a t i o n , W a l l i n g f o r d , England, J u l y 19 75b.
Yen, B. C . , and Ang, A. H.-S., "Risks A n a l y s i s i n Design o f H y d r a u l i c
P r o j e c t s ," S t o c h a s t i c H y d r a u l i c s , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Symposium on S t o c h a s t i c H y d r a u l i c s , h e l d a t U n i v e r s i t y of P i t t s b u r g h ,
pp. 694-709, 1971.

Yen, B. C., and Sevuk, A. S . , " ~ e s i g no f Storm Sewer Networks , I t J o u r . Env.


Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol. 101, No. EE4, pp., 535-553, Aug. 1975.

Yen, B. C . , Tang, W. H . , and Mays, L. W . , " ~ e s i g n i n gStorm Sewers Using


t h e R a t i o n a l ~ e t h o d , "Water and Sewage Works, P a r t I i n Vol. 121,
No. 1 0 , pp. 92-95, Oct. 1974, P a r t I1 i n Vol. 121,' No. 11, pp. 84-85,
Nov. 1974.

Zepp, P. L. and Leary, A. , 1 1 A Computer Program, f o r Sewer Design and Cost


E s t i m a t i o n , I t R e g i o n a l ' P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l , B a l t i m o r e , Md. , ( a v a i l a b l e
a s PB 185 592, f ~ ~ ~ ' N T S I ps r, i n g f i e l d , Va. ) , 1969.
APPENDIX A

VALUES O F CUMULATlVE N O W DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION


APPENDIX B

MODEL ERROR FOR THE RATIONAL FORMULA

A c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y on s t o r m sewer r u n o f f s i m u l a t i o n models (Chow

and Yen, 1975) gave t h e peak d i s c h a r g e s i n c f s from t h e Chicago Oakdale

Avenue d r a i n a g e b a s i n f o r f o u r i n d e p e n d e n t r a i n s t o r m s as f o l l o w s :

Rainstorm May 1 9 , 1959 J u l y 2 , 1960 A p r i l 29, 1963 J u l y 7 , 1964

(1) Recorded 7.2

(2) ISS 7.4

(3) Rational 9.1

A c c o r d i n g l y , comparing t h e r a t i o n a l f o r m u l a t o t h e r e c o r d e d d a t a , t h e mean

v a l u e of A i s C(Co1.4)/4 = 1 . 0 5 . Var = ~ ( ~ 0 1 . 4 - 1 . 0 5 ) ~ / ( ~ - =1 )0.0459 and

t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n = & / ~ e a n = 0.205. Likewise,

comparing w i t h t h e ISS model, mean A = C(Co1.5)/4 = 1 . 0 2 ,


2
V a r = C(Co1.5-1.02) /(N-1) = 0.0243 and c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n = 6 1 ~ e a n=

0.153. Assuming t h e a v e r a g e of thes'e two g i v e s a n i n d i c a t i o n of t h e re-

l i a b i l i t y o f t h e r a t i o n a l method, i t f o l l o w s t h a t f o r t h e r a t i o n a l method
-
AL = 1 . 0 3 and c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n = (0.205+0.153)/2 = 0.176. However,

n e i t h e r t h e r e c o r d e d d a t a n o r t h e ISS model i s a b s o l u t e l y a c c u r a t e . More-

o v e r , t h e computed c o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n a c t u a l l y a c c o u n t s f o r more t h a n

t h e modeling e r r o r b e c a u s e o t h e r u n c e r t a i n t i e s s u c h as t h o s e due t o C and A,

and t o c e r t a i n e x t e n t i, are a l s o i n c l u d e d . I n view of t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s

e v a l u a t e d i n S e c t i o n 5.4.2, i t i s reasonably t o adopt Q = 0.15 w i t h


AL
APPENDIX C

STATISTICS OF FIVE SIMPLE DISTRIBUTIONS

C o e f f i c i e n t of v a r i a t i o n

b-a
6 = 0.578 -
b+a

b-a
6 = ' 0 . 4 0 8 --
b+a

Ax
a b
-
x = 0 . 3 3 3 (a+2b) 6 = 0.707 b-a
-
2b+a

b-a
6 = 0.707f-
b+2a
A
INPUTD
Reads i n p u t
(design) d a t a

Determines d e s i g n
flows i n each

manholes f o r

SATCON
Defines connection

\ of s t a t e s a c r o s s
Inanholes I
TRCBAK
Traceback r o u t i n e
f o r each i t e r a t i o n
o f DDDP

S u b r o u t i n e Flowchart of ILSSDl f o r Design Models A and C


I11 L SS\S 5555 IJ2 I
I L s s L 1 1 11
I L 5 5 0 0 1
I 1 SSSS ssss 0 D I
I s
111
L
L
LLLL
f
ssss
s
ssss
O D
0 0
UU
I
1
Ill

t* I L S S U l l l L L I I . I C I S S T U U H SLICK C I S I C h l MuOi.L I S US1 0 FOR C i S l G N l N G 6


C* S T ~ ~ M M S E H E R S ~ S T E M S ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ L A Y O U T S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ H O U T H
C* C U h S 1 DE R A T IUNS.
r*
~****9**********vnn*************b********~******b******************9

VARIARLES I N THE U P T I M I L A T I C N SCHEME Q

~*C******O********************b***********O*************************

+*01911*+++111***++**1IL************L*L***************************
*
WELCVINOL~MNUIJI I N O E X E 5 OF K ELFVAT 1UhS FRUM Ul>MNSrWEAfl*
M A ~ ~ U L ~ C R E L F V A T I ( ; N J T O U P S ~ K ~ A 6M
M A : r t l J L E H N U U N I ~ I ~ N [ , U A LL l h E IUJL. .
OIAYIKOLIHNUSJI ARL T l i i P I P E U I A H E I L U S .
FUNC(JsMUU.HNU1 A R E TtlE C O S T S A T b L k " I S T R E A I d E L E V A T I t I N J FOR
C C h N E C T I L t * T t 1 M N D F t O q U P S T R E A M WAR+iOLL MNU.
Q THIS I S C. C ~ I P U L A ~ I V L sur LF C O S T S FUK ALL
UPSTREAV CU:ihtCTlhl; P I P E S AND YANttLLES.
TCNINOLIHNU,MNOI I S T H k V t . C T u F CF C i J N . ~ t C T I V I T Y F U U N D A F T k R
O P T I ~ ~ I L A T I O N C V E R T H S~ E u t K t d t ~ h c f iA~ F T ~ H
EACH I l t H & T I U N .
f HJTUJJINDL+I .MNU.JJI I S T H E IldCCK O F UPSTREAM E L E V A T l G h S *

:
J A C R U S S TtiE MAlvHCLE q h D Oh I S U -
NCIDAL L l h t N I ) L + I T H A T R E F E R S Ti)
U P S T H E A N H A N H U L E PkU C h L I R A I I i A G E
:
L L l N i hOL.
F C U P I J J t M A N l ARE T h E UPSTHEAM ( A T HANHGLE MAN1 L O S T S FOR
C k U W N E L t k A l l C h S ;J.
*********:*
,.OSP,lNt NWRI

...... . .
NWH!T = 0
- -
UV 0.2
CALL IhPUTO
CALL FLCW
bIRITE61.13001
N D L T l = NOLT - I
+ + b * E + * b b 1 b * + O * P * * L 1 * * ~ * * * * b i L * * ~ * L ~ ~ ~ t
VARY I T E u P T l n N UF OODP O P T I P I L A T I O ~ Y
~~+*C*+**OCL*=***L+II********IE~**I**I~~
uu 500 I T E ~ = l . I O
I F 1 1TER E 5 1 OSTATE = * *OSTATE
IF(,OSTA~E.~L~ . U S M I N I GU T ? 5 1 0
CAI <T..C"

UU 4 U U h U L ' l r N U L 1 I
CALL PIPCLh(td3LrELHtITERl
I F I N O L . E L . h O L T I l 60 T O 4 1 0
CALL SATCLhlNULI
C.CnhT 1 h l l F
.
*+********4*****D********~****b**L***L********
C A L L TQACEBACK T C F l l i D W l h l Y U H C 3 S T D E S I G N
*+*****~****~***EI*~*L**o*E**LIII***o**I***~o*
C A L L TRCBAKI TLb5T. ITEX)
I F 1 I T E R . 0 - 1 1 LL I C 4 4 0
*****L*,bb00****8*l******.**.Ob*.**..***.*****************E**** .- - - .- -
T C O S T = MlNlf'U~i C U S T L F T H t S Y S T F Y U t 5-.-
C P I T E h l A TI; C d A H G t O S T A T t F b R T H t h i X T IT E R A I I - C & .
1 b h tuu T h l S ITER.
*
8 T C- S- T = Y ~ P ~ I M I I W CI:FT
I,ciAfI Gir-.
C F T H F <-.-.
-.
VCTFH -.. ---.-... -..
n F c I r N &ria . T d k P R E V I L I U S *
* cDwnC
= R E L A T l V t C H A h G E I N C O S T A L L U k E O FOP S J C C E S S I V E
'TLDA'l(lhS 6 t F h U k OSTATF IS f~b4Al2C.Fll-

C G h i 1 nruc
C O h T 1N U E
FOPMAT61HII
STCP
ba1=HW 0 3 L 0 0
4 fOO!L'9~~11?Jfl
(1-NIP'LJ = fld I 1 3'4 N l i l
INlNW W
I l f l N ' l = Y P51 0 0
fOCCL'9l3118'4
SOOL9'1131IU~
3CN l !VD3
4PUI I V n J 16-50
3PY II N 1 3 nsno
fN'IYIHPSd1d:W'V !Ofl99'1)311dR 6500
0 9 9 0 1 0'7 I 1 3V tHLV'IY)1)41 8530
ONH11=d 7 9 9 9 0 1 SO0
llNW'I=t4 5 1 9 0 0 9500
f i + l r ) u N = OYH 5500
f I Y I V I 1 = flYW 01590
I I Y ' I M f00S9'91311Ukl eg00
1 + IY = IIY ZSOO
l l l O N a l = l Y OOL 30 1500
l35f9'7131lMY OCOO
3PU IIF133 6530
3PU IIN113 U300
fI'NI3N10'fI1N)A3l39'I'Y 100C9*9)q11M* 1f00
NVAal=I cZ9 30 9300
1h')t:C' VVH 5300
I l O Y ' l = ' I 0 5 9 Ofl ff39
f00b9'r~)311M'4 e3d0
XWHA'UV'NIUAn3'7lVl50 f7f'19'91311MY 7300
ItJVW'IlOV'P313Y 17'lC9'917118Y 1COO
10719'413118Y 0f00
3
3
3
or C
OOf

+
+ '1ON 3 N 1 1 lVaqYfl51 Nfl IlNW 3 l O U Y 7 d UV3WlCdn
0 H11M $ K 0 1 1 3 3 N N 3 3 3 l Q l S S U d j? AVHWV 3 r l 5 1 l 3 V W ' f I N ~ ~ l f l V
33:jUfIS W7H4 S M O l j N I 31111~VVH 3 H l 3HV fNVW"10FI13tJ
1ON 3 N 1 1 l V f l 7 Y C I S I N n 5 1 N
fl W
e 3 x 7 ?~Y #~ 0 1 ~ I Y WW ~ I H ~ 4 1 ~ q3 d l1d 3 8 ~ f n ~ w ' l nl ~~ i d l
1ON q Y I 1 lV(17NTSI N 1 NVY 3 l O H h V H i f l
+ 3 0 1 5 WV3MlSVqflO I V f S N 0 1 1 V A 3 1 3 N Y P H 3 1 S l N l n d
+ 3 3 1 1 1 V l 3 1 C 0 I J 3 y 1 4fl q N 9 I l V A 3 1 3 3 H 1 3MV ( N V W ' l f l N l f l I # A
1-10N 3 N 1 1 l V i l l N 7 5 1
r M n nNW 7lflHNIW H V 3 H I S d f l 0 1 S133NND3 I V H L
+SON 3 N I l l V O 0 h P S I " 7 ONH 3 l f l Y Y V H j n ' I f l l S
+WV?HISdfl 3HP NO f S Y 3 1 1 V A 3 1 3 N " f l H 3 I S l K l f l d
r 3 3 1 1 1 V l 3 l f l O l W 3 W I 3 7 S N 0 1 1 Y A 3 1 3 7 U I qWV f O V d ' f l Y d ' l O N l d n k A
1flN 7 N I l l V O O V l S 1
f NO NVH 310HNVH 1V S Y C l I I V A 3 1 3 ClblfllH9 3 H l 3UV 14VH'lOY I A 3 1

* d l H S N 3 l l V l 7 H 81'1 3 V 3 A I ' I i V S
- Y ~ l N 3 H I NO4 S I N V I C h ' 7 3 2HV 2V17V ' 1 ~ 1 ~' 7 1 ~ q d l l '1VHdlV
1ON 3 Y I l l V O f l ' d f l S 1 N! S 7 l f l H V V h -17 H3VUflV 3W1 5 1 f l U N l t 4 H
11-LIFYI q v l i n s w v 1 \ daco 43
IJ'JUWIIV 3bI1, ' S l N I l l V O i l N 0 S I 3fl HqPAPU 1 V l r l 3H1 5 1 L l O N
SWflU1HHfl7 ' I S I l g V I < 4 9 1 31711VVl.' U3V 3 I V
( S l N ! n d 7 3 l l l V l l S N f l I I V A q l 3 Sh!Mn.tI) 41 n4PWflR 7 r ( l 5 1 A 3 1 3 N
N O I l V 7 l ~ l l d i 7 TIIL d f l l S fll t l H 7 l l W 3 4111 5 1 51111
S N n l I V A 3 1 1 YMQH7 N13M130 3 7 V t l < l O d Q b I l t 1 l K l H 1 5 1 N I H < l l
- 4 d l d l 4 3 V I YO4 Hld7fl W34n9 WflWlUlW 7 4 1 C I h l P A ! l 3
IlflHNVW V I V Z k D 1 1 V A 3 1 4 NqnH3 N3qYL2(1 I 7 F ! F I C I ( I 1 Y I S I J I V I C O
3 d l d V N 1 0 3 1 r O l l V A113'111A 3 1 R I < < I Y U I d H i l d l X V J l H 1 5 1 XVWA
H013V3 S S ? N H ~ S ~ . P~ V~ I N N V ~ 5 1 NV
Y S l U S7Ofl13N1 C =
nsrn nN z = ~ N ~ I I V N ) I S ~ i~u n w MI SI I ~ O O H

eooo
1000
9nnn
5000
Cnno
rnOo
z000
ZSOO
?SO0
- ..
+****~*~99**0*l*9*+*t*Q*b**OIb*4*~*h*O9*~e~*****8****4*8******~
. OSOO
+ VVU 4 0 ' l Y 3 k V = l t J l S d l l
e ) I 0 4 1 7 V d S 3 1 V l S 3 N I 3 3 O = l Y 7 1 r l 7 N Y q u 3 9 h 1 3 3 3HV Z N 3 1 1 1 A 3 1 3
+ V W ? ~ YH ~ I ~ a 3 M 9 U V H ? ~ ' I ~ I ' : v w r l 5 V 0 1 1 3 3 1 . V 7 7 ~ 1 ~ 1 I S S l l ~d O J
Y 3 3 H ? D l t 1 - l 1 I V I 4 V I l 1 7 0 1 N 3 S 1 d V 4 W I 5 4 ' l N'J 5 7 1 7 H N V H ANVA

I + ~ 3 r= 3 r
3 3 N Y ' l 3 N N = B n P P OZS 0 0
n = ar

0 roo
1 I00
9100
5100
%I00
E roo
2100
1100
0100
6003
BOO0
1000
9000
so00
fOOO
Eon0
2000
** C n H t ' l l l t CRllnN t L t b ' A 1 I ~ h S ('N IIIJSIHLAM S l u t UF MANIiflLL
MAh FO* T H t P ~ J S b l t l L t C C ~ N ; C ~ I L ~ kRhjM U P S l H t A M MANHULE
*
I U h U ) Ilh NUL-1.
~ * * @ * @ * * * * + + * * L * ~ ~ ? O O O * * L * * * O * ~ * * * * * L * O O * * * * * * * * ~ * * * B * * * * * * *
kLI(I1) ELVP'tJPlhrUL .MNUrPAh) '

560
J.
ZQ -
FfLL E L S 1 A l l N h U L ~ N k L t V ~ h ~ ~ t L t ~ T A T C , E L ~ I O q L L H ~ ~ L M A X U ~ h D L ~ M A N ~
0
DO 5 6 0 KK=2 h E L E V -
I F ( E L H ( 1 tKK1. L C .EL+( L q K K - 1 1 1 J E U KK 1 - -
I F 1 JEC. EQ .O) bhJ TO 5 9 0
I F ( J E 0 . L F . J F J l 4 h ) tlYMUPIh9LlMNUqMAN) r ELHI~,NNEL*JEQ)
I F l ? L O . L k . J L E H N l iC TO 5 9 0
JE 0
DO 2 7 0 J J U U a N Y E L t N N E E
JE JE * 1
XJE = JE
I F I J E O . NE m J J J C ) GOpTO 5 7 0
ELVPUPlhDLlM*UeMAN)
GO TO 5 7 5
ELkI1,NLLEVl XJ -
CONTlhUE
CON1 1 NUC
CLNT INUE
CONTINUE
CON11 NU
4??I!22S*************************************
***************v*****************************
RETURN
ElvD
.

0001 c SUBROUT I N E SATCUNINOL I


*t*+t*++r***LaLLI**OIb*****L***ObII**O********4*******************
c THIS SUSROUTIEIE UEI-INES THE C C N N ~ C T I V I T V A C R O S S THE M A W ~ O L E S
C h ISUNCDbL L l N t h U L + l FCP T H t N E X I U P T l M l L A T l O Y STAGE
*+ BETkEEN I h D L * I l h h U I N D L t Z , . ALSO C E F l h E L A k t THE CUSTSI
F C U P I J . ) r N A Y D I FOR LACH H A h h L L E L h I S L N J O B L L l h t ( h O L + l ) .
f
* T H E S t ARE THE UPSTREAM CCSTS F O R THE NEXT C P T I Y I L A r l U N STAGE-*
0002
0003 CDPMCNIAHEA2IPIPLIH.ClNF~T
0004 COPHCh/APEA4/FUllCtPIPFLC
0005 CCPYC~/ACE~~/GELEV.ELV~IC~~LVPUP~M~
0006 COPHCh/AREL6/PJTCJJ
0007 COHMON/AREAB/FCUP
0008 ' ~ l ~ t h P ~I P lL ~~H IhI J ~ ~ ~ ~ C I N F I ~ C . ~ )
OC09 D I ' F N S I b N F U N C l V v > r 5 ) v P I P F L C 1 10.31
0 0 10 CIPLhSICh G E L E V 1 1 U r 5 ) l ~ L V K I O l 1 0 ~ 5 1 ~ E L V H U P l I O ~ 5 ~ 5 ) e M N l l ~ J
0011 IhTEGEP*2 K J l C J J 1 1 0 ~ 5 ~ 9 )
0012 INTEGER*C T I I O e 5 r 5 1
0013 DIPEhSICV FCUPIVvS)
0014 ClMENflLN ELMANlL~YlrKMANl31
0015 NYEL hELCV/Z I
0016 KNOT = P h I h C L * l I
0017 h D L 1 Ih D L * 1
0018 I F 6 N k R I T . L P - 2 ) GO YC 9 0
0019 WRITEl6.61001 NULI
OCZO hRITEl6.b5001
0021 9 0 CChTlRUE
C ********+********~*************************4*****4********~****
0022 DO 5 0 0 ~~ANO=LIWNDT
C
*
***4****+*tO****Q8******************************************~**
*
0023
E REXT CCWPUTE t L E V A T K C f i S AT u C l w h S T k t A ~ 1 S 1 0 E OF '4ANHOLE MAhD
***********t*Q*************OO**********************************
E L M I D = E L V M I L ) ( I ~ D L +4I A
~ hDI
GO24 NhUD = 2
0025
0026
NDLN = 2OL
EL'4AXD
B *
G E L t V l N U L + l WAY01 CGVMIN -
002 7 CALL E L S T A T I ~ ~ U D ~ ~ E L ~ J , ~ ~ N E L , G ~ T A T E , E L M I O , E L M A N ~ E L M A X D , N D L N . U A N O
s r2I
0028 100 CONTlhUE
OG2 9 DO 1 2 5 J P - 1 4 h E L t V
0030 FCUPIJP.CAhD1 = 0.0
0031
0032 k:E:IY"'R( ~ O L )
0033 DO 4 0 0 P A h L = L s P h b T
0034 I F I T l h D L MANU * A N r ) Nt 1 ) GU YO 4 0 0
C ********I*e*.S***;O~~**e~OO*o******.*******~****1***********
c
c
* C U V P L I t L L E V A T I L N S AT LPSTPFAW S I U E CF PAPIHiLE, MAhO.
+ ~ + + * ~ * 1 + 8 2 * 1 4 8 ~ 1 8 * ~ I L ~ ~ Q E 4 1 0 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ * * * ~ * ~ * * ~ * * * * * * * * * ~
*
0035 ELMIDsn ELVPdP6hUL+lrMAhU,flAhUl
0036 hRUD 1
0037 NDLN 8 NOL L *
0038
0039
ELYAXU LELEV(hCL,Llf4AhD) CCVMlM -
CALL E L S I A I ~ ~ ~ I ~ U U ~ ~ ~ L ~ V ~ R ~ ~ ~ L , D S I A T E ~ E L P I O ~ E L P ~ N I E L M A X U ~ N D L N ~
S HANOI 1 I
0040 130 CChT 1 RUE
c e++e*~+@s+++*++d*~+8~**e*e*******~*~*****d****e*************
C
c 9
LUCK A T L A C H P u s s l r ~ LE~L ~ V A T ~ OON
UAPdHULt MAhC.
N o L Y ~ S T R E A MS I D E OF *
r I~IU 37V15 H O ~3 ~ 1 1
~VI'~I:OSI . r v ? h ~ S d f i kn S1lOUF.VW A ~ V A *
8 + 1 8 ~ 0 $ 0 ~ 6 b & & Q $ 1 ~ t B * d O 1 O t ~ h t ~ I 8 I * D h ~ Q t * 8 8 ~ * U ~ ~ I Q ~ ~ ~ * * ~ * * *

* e : + * l ~ O * 8 ~ $ * L ~ ~ L l l d * O * I ~ I * * 1 1 ) B * O * I I I * * * * * $ * ~ ? @ * ~ 4 ~ ~ I ~ I $ ~
I f l N l r ' I = O'JW COZ 7 0
~ 8 8 1 6 * 1 0 U ~ L O ~ I I L * ~ t * * * 8 ~ * ( 1 ~ O t ~ I ? f 1 * $ 1 b I O 8 * * 8 E ~ ~ ~ ~ $ * * * * ~ : 8 8 ~
+ 1 l N 27'415 Y 3 4 4'411 l V [ l r l Y L S I H'I3wJSI'"lO F.3 5 3 1 3 l i N V d AHVA 9
8 * 4 + ~ ~ 0 0 * B * ~ * * l * l ~ U I * * I * ~ t * * 6 * * * B * I ~ O * * O * * * * ~ * ~ 1 ~ * ~ * t ~ ~ 8 D ~ ~
q n u l 1un7 scoo
3E00
COO
ZEOO
IEOO
ocoo
6200
BZOO
L ZOO
9200
5203
+ZOO
EZOO
2200
1200
0 203
6 100
8103
LIOO
9100
S 100
'r100
El00
0 1 IN14 2100
1100
0100
6030
enoo
LO09
9003
SO00
90 0 0
coo0
H R V 'N ZOO0

2930
1 BOO
OF30
6LOO
BL30

-~ -
z = onvii
I + 1ON = V l O N
(OVVH'T~lflVIflJidA13 = OIWl3
O - (ONVH'14lCNlOIWAl3 = (CVVW l + l O ~ l I O I H A 1 3
3nN IJ N 3 3 OSC
oo? 01 09 ( 0 - 3~ - ( n 3 3 . i 3 r * n v v h 1 i + i ~ ~) r r o l r ~ l j ~
A 3 1 3 N ' l = Y 3 3 H 3 r OSE 0 0
3flNI I N 3 3 OOE
1 a ~ v ~ ~ r r 1 d n ~ ~ ~ r r ~ ? s (rn ~o 73q 1~q v1 3n1 1*nnn ~ v ~
OOF n l 03 t z m 11 ' I r n n N l d r

062
ORZ

OOZ

L SO0
9500
5 'roo
'rf 0 0

CSOO
LSOO
1 'roo
ou j~j n
Y33H30 = I W # l d f l V l O I t Y Y l d f l V l 3 ' 'H33430lj1
s s 0 1 os t o - o - 3 3 ! : r r , d n v r n , j l
~ Z l l I d f l ~ ' j P Z h ' l - 1 3 N ) ~=~- Y ~ 3O3 H 3 0
09 0 1 09 ID -3 dnrljl
1 n g ~ d n z d ~~ 1 3r ~r ~ l = r ndfIP
A313Ybl=X!d 0 9 3 0
001 = V3Mll
Od O d 0 9 10 - 0 3 ' B n U ~ ' d f i Z d ' 1 - l O b l l l 4 1
N Y N U ~ I = ~ ~ OL Z ~ 00
0 = NX41I
1 1 - 1 3 Y l Y 4 = NVNH
2.4 0 1 7 3 11: 0 3 ' 7 O N l J 1
0'0 IllXld~VlO
A313N8 1-31> 0 s 0 0
+O+L~9b*~~t+49~~++**9*4*O*********b****4******Q*d*~*3*~~~5~~*~~*~@
a 3>0UNVh S l d f l 1V 3 3 1 3 k V 1 3 W V 3 M l t d f l I S 3 9 H V l N 3 A 0 3 3 8 Oh 3kll'lON
a+8rat6+U4d+**1~a+**(i89*1B*******b**eb~****Q*4e**eU~~*~**UO~Qa*+*~
tnvdaiov)lS3uva = r ~ r iIC 3 3 -WOOW)JI 200
fflhhe1ONlHl1dld l d l d 2200
I h l d f l l l ( ! Y3ISV3d10 1200
1 6 ' Z l ~ 1 3NSISY3NIO 0200
~ ~ a s 1 0 ~ ~ s n s ~Y J InS V 1 ~ A I~
O ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ 6~1 333 ~ v ~
1 G 1 6 l d f l 3 j N31SY3WIO 8I00
I S 6 5 ' 3 1 I 1 Z+H3931NI L 100
16 ' 5 ' 0 1 l P r 0 1 r N 2 9 U 3 3 3 1 N I 9100
~ O I ) N W ~ ~ S l 'd ~I l d~AOl 3P
' 15'01 l @ I Y A 1 3 ' 1 ~ ' O lA 3 N!llSN3UIO 5100
1 5 ' 0 T l 3 1 3 d l d ' I S ' C ' 4 I J h : n i N31SN3WIO *TOO
t6bS'9TlHV10~lh'S'011A31j~ Z * u 3 3 3 1 N 1 I00
I S a 3 1l J ~ 1 3 ' l C ' 0 1 l Y l l d l d NOISN3H13 2'100
Z V 1 3 i l ' T V l 3 Z ' Z V H d l V ' I V H A l V /ZIVaWV/YJWd33 II 0 0
1301W / O I V 3 8 d / Y 3 U d ? 3 0100
SYSI H6IS3dV0/bV3dVIt43h'dO3 6000
d!l33/RV38V/Y3~d03 8090
rr31rd/9V3YI/N3Wd33 LOO0
N W ' Q ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ' O I W A ~ ~ ' A ~ ~ ~ ~ / S V ~ ~ V / N 9O0 W 9 0~ O ~
313AId'3Ynj/b~;~~/~3~433 5000
UV1C6A313d/EV3dV/Y3Wd33 5000
I'jN13'Wlld1d/ZV3YV/Y3WdD3 EOOO
II~IPN'NIWS~~N d AI 0 3 ' 1 1 0 h l B 3 1 V 1 5 0 ' X ~ 4 A ' Y V ' A 3 1 3 N / I V 3 U ~ / ~ ' 3 h d 0 3 ZOO0
da+ltb++++0ea*0e++*UO4*4d*****b*t****Q*****U*~***+~**~b1b:~~~@b~a~
a 1 3 d I d 3H1 S S W 3 V U911VA313 N1 d 7 h 3 1 V 7 1 5 1 3 3 3 H3V3 H331SYD3 9 1
e a o o r n ~ n 3 31.11 NI 1 - s ~ q 3 7n1r3n3 # V ? V l S N 9 3 3 l ~ ~ I V I S ~ n d l n o341 ~ Y I
a l e S A 3 1 3 YPI3W3 d V 3 M l S d f l l S 3 1 V l S 1 7 d N I 3 H I S31klVn 3 k l l l l O M d f l S S I H I
a+a++a+++ta~++04tO+a~9P~dB*4*~~*~****tLO***+******b~~ba4aau~*a~+a~
IH13'13NY'OIW13'flNW'flNY'lOR;ldPYOl3 3NIln018flS

2900
5903
E900
2900
1900
0900
6500
OSOO