Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Developing a New Decision Support
Framework for Sustainable Drainage Design
Jo-fai

1,2,3,
Chow

1,
Savić

Dragan

2,
Fort...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Developing a New Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Drainage Design

523 views

Published on

Poster for the 9th International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling, September 2012, Belgrade, Serbia.
(Best Young Researcher Award)

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Developing a New Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Drainage Design

  1. 1. Developing a New Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Drainage Design Jo-fai 1,2,3, Chow 1, Savić Dragan 2, Fortune David Netsanet 2 Mebrate and Zoran 1 Kapelan Introduction Challenges Summary The vulnerability of drainage systems and the importance of flood risk management have drawn increasing public attention following major flood events around the globe. Identifying the optimal combination of different SuDS techniques with regard to performance, social-environmental impact and cost: • The number of possible SuDS combinations can grow into hundreds and thousands depending on site characteristics. The traditional trial and error approach is not suitable. More sophisticated search methods based on computation intelligence such as evolutionary optimisation is recommended. • The proposed design will be checked and evaluated by various parties throughout a project cycle. It is important to provide a framework for consistent evaluation. The existing software tools are not sufficient for sustainable drainage design as they lack the emphasis on social impact and cost-benefit. We are developing new software tools that will allow drainage designers to determine optimal combinations of SuDS efficiently and will enable stakeholders to compare and evaluate best trade-off between water quantity, quality, amenity value and whole life costs. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have been proposed as better alternatives to conventional drainage systems. Compared to traditional pipe and storage networks, SuDS bring additional values such as treatment and biodiversity to the development site. Traditional Drainage Systems – Conveyance & Storage Sustainable Drainage Systems – Source Control & Treatment Figure 1 – examples of both conventional and sustainable drainage systems. SuDS in Drainage Models Several drainage software packages have already included SuDS modelling modules (e.g. WinDes and XPSWMM). This allows users to configure various SuDS components in their drainage models and to run simulations in order to determine the impact of different SuDS techniques on flooding, water quality as well as life cycle cost. Porous car park Swale Decision Support Framework A prototype decision support framework has been developed to look at changes in hydraulic performance (flow and storage), water quality (pollutants concentration) and costs (capital and operational expenditure) based on different SuDS techniques and sizes. Indicators for social impact will be implemented in the next phase of the project. In order to search for optimal solutions effectively, multi-objective evolutionary optimisation functionality has been implemented into this prototype using GANetXL (Savić, 2011). Users can choose and compare various drainage design options from the Pareto front with different trade-off between costs and system performance. Prototype SuDS Treatment Train Optimisation Framework Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 SuDS Technique Physical Dimension 1 Physical Dimension 2 Physical Dimension 3 Inflitration % (Side) Inflitration % (Base) SuDS Technique Physical Dimension 1 Physical Dimension 2 Physical Dimension 3 Inflitration % (Side) Inflitration % (Base) SuDS Technique Physical Dimension 1 Physical Dimension 2 Physical Dimension 3 Inflitration % (Side) Inflitration % (Base) 1 to 16 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 16 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 16 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 1 to 10 True Value Range Min. Max. 10 10 34 62 67 16 1 59 25 20 14 25 13 95 74 48 94 91 1 10 19 2 0 0 1 10 6 1 0 0 1 19 9 1 0 0 True Value 16 29 26 5 25 25 16 33 43 3 25 25 16 26 36 3 25 25 Description of KPI Infiltration Basin 11.9 21.4 3.7 16.8% 4.0% Pervious Pavements 23.6 15.3 1.0 3.5% 6.3% Stormwater Wetlands 25.7 29.0 1.7 23.5% 22.8% Optimisation Objectives and Penalty Function Description of Optimisation Objective Positive if the performance is better than defined targets WLC (CAPEX, OPEX and Land Value) Penalty as a results of contraints Hydraulics Costs Penalty Cost Type Maximise Minimise Avoid Graphical Outputs Objective Value -0.29% 719,093 40,951,441,427.47 Flow Rate at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train Value Peak Flow at Outlet (m3/s) Total Storage Required (m3) Time to Reach Peak Flow (min) Total Nitrogen Pollutant Total Phosphorus Concentration Total Suspended Solids at Outlet Hydrocarbons (mg/L) Heavy Metals Faecal Coliforms SuDS 1 WLC (£ at 2012 value) Whole Life SuDS 2 WLC (£ at 2012 value) SuDS 3 WLC (£ at 2012 value) Cost Total WLC (£ at 2012 value) 20 Inflow (Connection1) 18 2.73 6187 238 6.75 8.52 5.70 10.78 5.45 18.56 £175,620 £225,519 £317,955 £719,093 Hydraulics Outflow (Connection 1) -> Inflow (SuDS 1) Outflow (SuDS1) -> Inflow (Connection 2) Outflow (Connection 2) -> Inflow (SuDS 2) Outflow (SuDS 2) -> Inflow (Connection 3) Outflow (Connection 3) -> Inflow (SuDS 3) Final Outflow at Outlet 16 14 Flow (m3/s) Description Pond SuDS Key Performance Indicators Optimsation Optimisation Range Value 12 10 8 6 4 2 Peak Flow Constraint 0 0 50 100 Other Measurements Description of KPI Value SuDS 1 Total Surface Area (m2) 2 Surface Area SuDS 2 Total Surface Area (m2) SuDS 3 Total Surface Area (m ) Total Surface Area (m2) SuDS 1 Land Value (£ at 2012 value) 200 250 300 SuDS 2 Land Value (£ at 2012 value) SuDS 3 Land Value (£ at 2012 value) Total Land Value (£ at 2012 value) Storage Required at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train 254 359 743 1,357 £31,803 £89,861 £130,084 £251,747 Land Value 150 Duration (Minutes) 35 Storage (Connection 1) 30 Storage (SuDS 1) 25 Volume (m3) Optimisation Parameters, Range and True Values Storage (Connection 2) 20 Storage (SuDS 2) 15 Storage (Connection 3) 10 Background Calculations - Optimisation Contraints and Penalty Costs should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= is is is Quality 1 Storage (TOTAL) 0 50 100 Muskingum 150 200 250 300 Duration (Minutes) Pollutant Concentration (mg/L) Cost Summary £600,000 Total Nitrogen 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Heavy Metals Concentration (Inlet) Total Phosphorus Concentration (Regulation Targets) Concentration (Outlet) £500,000 £400,000 £300,000 £200,000 £100,000 £0 Total Suspended Solids Hydrocarbo ns SuDS1 CAPEX Flow Rate at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train SuDS2 OPEX (over 50 years) Land Value SuDS3 Whole Life Cost (over 50 years) Inflow (Connection1) 20 18 Outflow (Connection 1) -> Inflow (SuDS 1) Outflow (SuDS1) -> Inflow (Connection 2) Outflow (Connection 2) -> Inflow (SuDS 2) Outflow (SuDS 2) -> Inflow (Connection 3) Outflow (Connection 3) -> Inflow (SuDS 3) Final Outflow at Outlet 18 12 10 8 6 4 Final Outflow 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 10 8 4 2 0 50 100 Duration (Minutes) 150 200 250 Peak Flow Constraint 0 300 0 50 100 Duration (Minutes) Storage Required at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train 30 12 6 Peak Flow Constraint 0 300 Total Storage 30 150 200 250 300 Duration (Minutes) Storage Required at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train Storage (Connection 1) Outflow (Connection 1) -> Inflow (SuDS 1) Outflow (SuDS1) -> Inflow (Connection 2) Outflow (Connection 2) -> Inflow (SuDS 2) Outflow (SuDS 2) -> Inflow (Connection 3) Outflow (Connection 3) -> Inflow (SuDS 3) Final Outflow at Outlet Final Outflow 14 2 Peak Flow Constraint 0 Inflow (Connection1) 16 Flow (m3/s) Final Outflow 14 16 Total Storage Storage Required at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train Storage (Connection 1) 30 Total Storage Storage (Connection 1) 25 Storage (SuDS 1) 25 Storage (Connection 2) 20 Storage (Connection 2) 20 Storage (Connection 2) 15 Storage (SuDS 2) 15 Storage (SuDS 2) 15 Storage (SuDS 2) 10 Storage (Connection 3) 10 Storage (Connection 3) 10 Storage (Connection 3) Storage (SuDS 3) Storage (TOTAL) 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 5 0 300 Storage (SuDS 3) 50 100 Cost Summary Total Nitrogen Heavy Metals £600,000 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 £500,000 Total Phosphorus Concentration (Regulation Targets) Concentration (Outlet) Total Suspended Solids 200 250 0 300 Costs Final Pollutant Conc. Storage (TOTAL) 50 100 Heavy Metals £300,000 £200,000 £600,000 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 £500,000 Total Phosphorus £100,000 SuDS1 CAPEX Concentration (Regulation Targets) Concentration (Outlet) £0 OPEX (over 50 years) SuDS2 Land Value SuDS3 Whole Life Cost (over 50 years) Cost Summary Total Nitrogen Concentration (Inlet) Hydrocarbo ns Total Suspended Solids 150 200 250 300 Duration (Minutes) Pollutant Concentration (mg/L) £400,000 Storage (SuDS 1) Storage (SuDS 3) 0 Duration (Minutes) Pollutant Concentration (mg/L) Concentration (Inlet) 150 5 Storage (TOTAL) 0 Duration (Minutes) Final Pollutant Conc. Volume (m3) Storage (SuDS 1) 20 5 Costs Final Pollutant Conc. Pollutant Concentration (mg/L) Heavy Metals £300,000 £200,000 £600,000 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 £500,000 Concentration (Inlet) Total Phosphorus £100,000 SuDS1 CAPEX Concentration (Regulation Targets) Concentration (Outlet) £0 OPEX (over 50 years) SuDS2 Land Value SuDS3 Whole Life Cost (over 50 years) Somewhere in between: stakeholders to decide what is the best trade-off between two objectives. Cost Summary Total Nitrogen £400,000 Hydrocarbo ns The following tasks have been scheduled for the second phase of the project: • Quantifying and including more optimisation objectives for social impact. • Mutli-objective optimisation engine written in MATLAB codes with main focus on fast and parallel execution utilising both CPU and GPU. • Full integration with new drainage design software suites (e.g. XPDrainage) developed by Micro Drainage and XP Solutions. Key References Flow Rate at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train 20 Outflow (Connection 1) -> Inflow (SuDS 1) Outflow (SuDS1) -> Inflow (Connection 2) Outflow (Connection 2) -> Inflow (SuDS 2) Outflow (SuDS 2) -> Inflow (Connection 3) Outflow (Connection 3) -> Inflow (SuDS 3) Final Outflow at Outlet 16 Future Development Savić, D.A., Bicik J. and Morley M.S. (2011). GANetXL: A DSS generator for multiobjective optimisation of spreadsheet-based models, Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 26, 551-561. Flow Rate at Various Stages of SuDS Treatment Train Inflow (Connection1) 18 Least-cost option: runoff satisfies minimum design requirement. Figure 3 – Comparison of traditional and new approach. Settings Flow Calculation Method (Choose) 20 Hydrocarbo ns Amenity Description of KPI Hydraulics Performance Volume (m3) New, Integrated Approach – Balanced Emphasis Quality Amenity 9,358,715,432.56 23,744,725,994.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,848,000,000.00 0.00 No Constraint 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No Constraint No Constraint No Constraint 40,951,441,427.47 0 Cost 25 Quantity 50 50 50 100 100 100 40 40 40 allowed allowed allowed Penalty Cost Storage (SuDS 3) 5 Figure 4 – prototyping a new decision support framework for SuDS using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Flow (m3/s) In order to fill this gap, we decided to develop additional software features that will put more emphasis on social impact and will enable stakeholders to maximise multiple benefits. Quantity 2.5 5000 180 10 10 10 10 10 TOTAL Penalty Cost: Yet the existing software modules are not sufficient for sustainable drainage design as they mostly focus on water quantity and quality aspect. There is not enough emphasis on the amenity value and cost-benefit analysis. Traditional Approach – Main Emphasis on Water Quantity Level Flow (m3/s) Towards Sustainability Contraints should be <= should be <= should be >= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= should be <= Peak Flow at Outlet (m3/s) Total Storage Required (m3) Time to Reach Peak Flow (min.) Total Nitrogen Pollutant Total Phosphorus Concentration Total Suspended Solids at Outlet Hydrocarbons Heavy Metals (mg/L) Faecal Coliforms SuDS 1 - Dimension 1 (m) SuDS 1 - Dimension 2 (m) SuDS 1 - Dimension 3 (m) SuDS 2 - Dimension 1 (m) Physical SuDS 2 - Dimension 1 (m) Restrictions SuDS 2 - Dimension 1 (m) SuDS 3 - Dimension 1 (m) SuDS 3 - Dimension 1 (m) SuDS 3 - Dimension 1 (m) Use of infiltration at location 1 Infiltration Use of infiltration at location 2 Use of infiltration at location 3 Hydraulics Volume (m3) Figure 2 – using Micro Drainage’s WinDes to model SuDS for a typical site development drainage design. Description of KPI Other Controls Figure 6 – our vision: balanced emphasis on water quantity, quality and amenity for sustainable drainage design with whole life costing analysis. Total Suspended Solids Costs £400,000 £300,000 £200,000 £100,000 £0 SuDS1 CAPEX OPEX (over 50 years) SuDS2 Land Value SuDS3 Whole Life Cost (over 50 years) Most expensive option: runoff is further reduced at higher costs. Figure 5 – exploring and comparing different design options from optimisation Pareto front . Contact the Author The work presented here is part of author’s 4year industrial PhD research project. For more information, please contact the author: • Jo-fai Chow, STREAM Research Engineer • E-mail: jo-fai.chow@microdrainage.co.uk • Software by XP Solutions: http://www.xpsolutions.com/software/ Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, United Kingdom (www.exeter.ac.uk/cws) 2 Micro Drainage (an XP Solutions company), United Kingdom (www.microdrainage.co.uk) 3 STREAM Industrial Doctorate Centre for the Water Sector, United Kingdom (www.stream-idc.net) * Note: image courtesy of Micro Drainage and XP Solutions

×