Selecting a series of storm events for a model-based assessment of combined sewer overflows

The hydraulic verification of combined sewer systems as well as the assessment of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) can be conducted using a hydrodynamic model. Unfortunately, long-term simulations with hydrodynamic models for the assessment of CSOs can cause unacceptably long computation times. Using...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Urban water journal Vol. 15; no. 5; pp. 453 - 460
Main Authors: Leimgruber, Johannes, Steffelbauer, David B., Krebs, Gerald, Tscheikner-Gratl, Franz, Muschalla, Dirk
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Abingdon Taylor & Francis 28.05.2018
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects:
Combined sewer overflows
Computation
Computer simulation
Initiatives
Mathematical models
Overflow
Parameters
Sewer systems
Storm events separation
Storms
Stormwater
stormwater management
urban drainage modeling
ISSN:1573-062X, 1744-9006
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The hydraulic verification of combined sewer systems as well as the assessment of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) can be conducted using a hydrodynamic model. Unfortunately, long-term simulations with hydrodynamic models for the assessment of CSOs can cause unacceptably long computation times. Using only a series of storm events instead of a precipitation continuum can reduce this time and enables parallel simulation of single storm events. We introduce a method to select this series of storm events. The method's parameters have been optimized to replicate the overflow volume of the continuous simulation and to minimize the overall computation time. This optimization revealed a generally applicable parameter set that results in series of storm events that are shorter than the precipitation continuum by 86.2-95.2% for the investigated cases. Additionally, the deviation of overflow volume between continuous simulation and series simulation ranges between only 0.1% and 4.1%.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1573-062X
1744-9006
DOI:10.1080/1573062X.2018.1508601