The integrated design process for ground leveling and

layout of rainwater pipe

Qiuxia Yang, Shan Du
Xian Du
Institute of Civil Engineering Xi’an University
WuHan Design &Research Institute of China
of Arachitecture & Technology
Coal Technology &Engineering Group
Xi’an, Chian
Wuhan, China
v88420802@yahoo.com.cn
whdx0128@163.com
Abstract—the optimal design of ground leveling is to find the ground leveling and layout of rainwater pipe system. This
elevation and slope for ground with minimal volume of paper is organized as following. In section II, we formulate the
filling-digging rock-soil. At the same time, we should consider problem, including the stepwise design problem and the
the balance between filling and digging. With the given slope in integrated design problem. In section III, we give the solution
ground leveling design, the aim of rainwater pipe layout is to techniques for our problem. Then a case study is illustrated in
calculate the optimal pipe diameter, pipe slope and buried depth section IV. The conclusion of this paper is given in section V.
to make the investment of layout pipe system minimal. Typically,
the design process is stepwise implemented with individual cost II. PROBLEM FORMULATION
minimal. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between
ground leveling and layout of rainwater pipe system and propose A. the optimal design for ground leveling
an integrated design for ground leveling and layout of rainwater Given the elevation function of original landform as
pipe network. With the united model, we get a global optimal following:
design scheme with minimal total cost. The illustrated example
in last part verifies the efficiency of our design process.
Z = f ( x, y )
Keywords-ground leveling; layout of rainwater pipe; integrated
design;stepwise design. Where x, y is the coordinates in horizontal plane, f is the map
surface of the original landform which is a nonlinear function.
I. INTRODUCTION
After the vertical design, the elevation of the ground is
In practice, before layout a rainwater pipe system, we need
to reform the original landform into required elevation and
slopes, i.e. ground leveling. Of course, a suitable designed H = H 0 + ax + by
elevation and slopes for ground can significantly reduce the
volume of rock-soil filling and digging in ground leveling. H 0 is the elevation for origin coordinates㧘aΥb is the
With the given slope of ground leveling, then the optimal slope in X-axis and Y-axis.
design for layout of rainwater pipe system is implemented [3].
Here, we call the design pattern that rainwater pipe layout is The difference between filling and digging can be
implemented after the ground leveling as stepwise design expressed as
process.
The investment of planning a rainwater pipe system Vc = ∫∫ ( Z − H ) dxdy
S
includes the cost of pipes itself and the cost of burying pipes.
When we layout the rainwater pipe system, for the limit of Here S is the horizontal area which is limited
buried depth, we need to choose a slope paralleling with with [ xmin , xmax ] × [ ymin , ymax ] .
ground leveling[4], which also can slightly reduce the cost of
burying pipes. In fact, the cost of pipes is influenced by the In practice design, we pursue the difference of filling and
slope of ground leveling also. As we know, the cost of pipe digging approaching to zero
depends on the diameter and the length of pipe [5]. With given
the designing flow and depth limit, we can choose thinner Vc → 0
pipes in a steep ground; but in a flat ground, we must choose
thicker ones to guarantee the require flow. Based on analysis Also the sum volume of filling and digging is
above, we can conclude that the slope of ground leveling
influences diameter choice of rainwater pipes, and further
influences the cost of layout of pipe system indirectly. Vs = ∫∫ Z − H dxdy
S
However, in the stepwise design process, the ground leveling
is implemented based on minimizing the volume of digging So the cost of ground leveling can be formulated as
and filling only.
In this paper, we propose an integrated design process to F1 = kVs
find the trade-off slope, which minimizes the total cost of

Fund project: Dynamic simulation and optimization of logistics in

metallurgical factory, Project numbers: X01257
978-1-61284-774-0/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
4702
k is the cost for unit rock-soil filling and digging in 10000 Here, H i , j is the average buried depth for pipe i-j, take
Yuan per m3.
value 0.5 × ( H i + H j ) .
Now we can sum the sub problem for ground leveling as:
Besides, there are some constraint conditions for above
“With the balance of filling and digging, find the optimal problem, listed as following
origin elevation H 0 , and the slopes in X-axis and Y-axis a,
• Diameter constraint:
b, make the cut-to-fill cost minimal”
Dę{300mm,350mm,̖̖,2000mm}

F1 = min ∫∫ k Z − H dxdy, s.t. Vc = 0 • Speed constraint: 0.75m/s < v, and v < 5m/s or 10m/s
H 0 , a ,b S for metal pipe

In practice, above problem is always deal with • Slope constraint: the minimal slope is 0.003 for
discretization method, which divides the original landform into D=300mm, and 0.001 for D=200mm
small grid, and assume the slopes in each grid is constant. • Buried depth constraint: 0.7m < H < 7m
B. the optimal design for layout of rainwater pipe C. integrated design
Given the partition of catchment area and the slope of Based on above two sub problems, now we formulate the
ground leveling, the purpose of rainwater layout is to find the integrated problem as
optimal combination for pipe diameter, pipe slope and the
buried depth to satisfy the drainage requirement, and make the Given the partitions of catchment area and the topology of
investment of pipe layout minimal. pipe system, find the optimal ground leveling design ( H 0 , a, b )
( xi , yi ) and layout for rainwater pipe ( Di , j , H i ) 㧘 make the total
investment cost is minimal.
Hi H = H 0 + ax + by
(xj , yj )
Di , j min F = min ( F1 + F2 )
⎛ m −1
⎞
hi
SLSH Li , j
hj = min ⎜ ∫∫ k Z − H dxdy + ∑ Ci , j Li, j ⎟
Hj H 0 , a , b , Di , j , Hi
⎝ S
i =1 ⎠

III. SOLUTIONS
+RUL]RQWDOOLQH For the discrete variables in above problem, such as
diameter, the target function and constraint function not
Figure 1. Side view of pipe i-j
continuous and not differentiable in feasible solution space.
As showed in Figure 1. , the investment of pipe layout can Most optimization methods for continuous variable are not
be formulated as following: suitable any more.
Traditionally, this kind of problem has two major solving
m −1 techniques. The first one is called round-integer method, which
F2 = min
Di , j , H i
∑C
i =1
i, j Li , j treat the discrete variable as continuous ones, and search the
optimal solution in a continuous solution space, and then round
the continuous solution into the nearest integer. This technique
Where Di, j is the diameter of pipe i-j, H i is the buried is straightforward but not the optimal solution for discrete
depth in endpoint i, Li , j is the length of pipe i-j, problem. The second technique is quasi-discretization method.
We firstly find the continuous solution, and then figure out the
Ci, j = f ( Di , j , H i , H j ) the price for pipe i-j in Yuan per 100 discrete solution around the continuous solution with some
meters, and m is the amount of pipes. heuristic search methods.
The length Li , j of pipe i-j can be calculated with IV. A CASE STUDY
We consider a 300m*300m original landform, and the
( x j − xi ) + ( y j − yi ) + ( H j − H i ) surface is described with the classical function “peaks” in
2 2 2
Li , j =
Matlab, showed in Figure 2.

And the price Ci, j = f ( Di , j , H i ) often is fixed with

empirical formula. For example, in literature [3], the price
function is expressed as

Ci , j = ( 5207 + 7649.12 Di , j 2.3489 ) + ( 33.58 + 3687 Di , j ) H i , j 3.0157

4703
 Q3 Q2 Q1

  

Q6 Q5 Q4

  
Figure 2. The original landform Figure 4. The partitions of catching area

A. Stepwise design process TABLE I. THE PARTITIONS OF CATCHING AREA

We take the filling-digging cost as k=18 Yuan/mt, and the Catching

calculate the ground level as Area Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6
(hm2)
H = -0.832+0.003X+0.003Y
Design
Flow 0.3633 0.6208 0.8169 0.3633 0.6208 0.3633
The difference between filling and digging is (m3/s)

Vs = 3.3361 × 10 4 m 3
We take the return period T=1a and the storm intensity
The cost is formula is

F1 = k × Vs = 6.005 × 10 4 Yuan 167 A1 (1 + C lg T ) 16.7

q= = L / (s ⋅104 m 24 )
(t1 + mt 2 ) c
(10t + 2t2 )0.784

here the runoff coefficient is C=0.6.

Figure 3. The leveling ground
The feasible pipe set is
{300,350,400,500,600,700,800,900,1000,1100,1200,1350,
1500,1650,1800,2000}mm
Then we take quasi-discretization method calculate the
optimal scheme. And the detailed result is showed in TABLE
II.
So the total cost of stepwise is F=F1 + F2 = 3.9031×105 Yuan.
B. Integrated design process
Also take the quasi-discretizaion method, we design
ground leveling and pipe layout in one-step as following:

We can find the slopes is a=0.003, b=0.003. The plane of ground is

Based on the slope given above, we design the optimal H = −2.5789 + 0.0109 X + 0.0067Y
layout for rainwater pipe. The partitions of catching area are
show in Figure 4. and TABLE I. The difference between filling and digging is

Vc = 1.9895 ×10−13 m3

The sum volume of filling and digging is

Vs = 8.5867 ×104 m3

4704
 And the cost of ground leveling is ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was financially supported by Fund project:
F1 = k × V = 1.5456 × 105 . dynamic simulation and optimization of logistics in
metallurgical factory(X01257)
And the optimal scheme for pipe layout is showed in
TABLE III. REFERENCE
[1] Yang QiuXia‫ ޔ‬Zhang YanQin. The optimization of site leveling [J].
By now, the total cost of integrated design scheme Geotechnical Investigation & Surveying 㧘 2009 㧘 (8):72-75 (in
is F = F1 + F2 = 2.4247 ×105 , which is smaller than the cost of Chinese)
the stepwise design process. [2] Yang,Q.X., “Design of Complex Pipeline for Site”[M].China Building
Material Industry Publishing House.
V. CONCLUSIONS [3] ZhouWangWen, Zhao HongBin. Theories and Calculations of Urban
Drainage Network [M]. BeiJing 㧦 China Architecture & Building
The slope of ground leveling affect the cost of PRESS (CABP) 2000. (in Chinese)
filling-digging and the cost of rainwater pipe layout. The [4] Zhu JiaSong 㧘 Gong JianYa 㧘 ZhenHao. Application of Genetic
integrated design process can make the total cost minimal. In Algorithm to Water Distribution System Design Optimization [J].
the illustrated example, we can find the stepwise design can Engineering Journal of Wuhan University㧘2003㧘Vol. 28 No. 3㧦
make sure the volume of filling-digging is minimal; however, 363-367
based on the given slope, the optimal pipe layout scheme will [5] Ding Wei. Calculation method for elevation ascertainment of irregular
site [J]. Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology㧘
not be one global minimal. In integrated design process, we 2001㧘Vol. 33 No . 2㧦59-61
search the slopes which make the sum costs minimal.
Although the volume of filling and digging increases, suitable
slopes reduce the cost of pipe layout dramatically. The saving
of pipe layout is larger than the cost of filling-digging increase,
so the total cost trends to smaller.

TABLE II. THE STEPWISE DESIGN RESULTS

Length Diameter Slope Flow rate Pipe elevation (m)

Pipe ID Average buried depth (m)
(m) (mm) (̟) 㧔m/s㧕 Start point End point

1~2 100 600 3.5 1.2849 1.3000 2.0501 1.6751

2~3 100 700 4.5 1.6132 2.0501 2.8994 2.4748

3~6 150 700 7.8 2.1228 2.8994 4.3164 3.6079

4~5 100 600 3.5 1.2849 1.3000 1.9501 1.6251

5~6 100 600 10.2 2.1958 1.9501 3.2725 2.6113

Cost F2=3.3026*105Yuan

TABLE III. THE INTEGRATED DESIGN RESULTS

Length Diameter Slope Flow rate Pipe elevation(m)

Pipe ID Average buried depth(m)
(m) (mm) (̟) 㧔m/s㧕 Start point Endpoint

1~2 100 600 3.5 1.2849 1.3000 1.2591 1.2796

2~3 100 700 4.5 1.6132 1.2591 1.4175 1.3383

3~6 150 800 3.8 1.6253 1.4175 1.7795 1.5985

4~5 100 600 3.5 1.2849 1.3000 1.1591 1.2296

5~6 100 600 10.2 2.1958 1.1591 1.6905 1.4248

Cost F2=8.7911*104Yuan

4705