Sizing the DRWH system

Usually, the main calculation when designing a DRWH system will be to

size the water tank correctly to give adequate storage capacity. The
storage requirement will be determined by a number of interrelated
factors. They include:
 local rainfall data and weather patterns
 roof (or other) collection area
 runoff coefficient (this varies between 0.5 and 0.9 depending
on roof material and slope)
 user numbers and consumption rates
The style of rainwater harvesting will also play a part in determining the
system components and their size.

There are a number of different methods for sizing system components.

These methods vary in complexity and sophistication. Some are readily
carried out by relatively inexperienced first-time practitioners; others
require computer software and trained engineers who understand how
to use this software. The choice of method used to design system
components will depend largely on the following factors:

 the size and sophistication of the system and its components

 the availability of the tools required for using a particular method
(e.g. computers)
 the skill and education levels of the practitioner / designer
Below we will outline 3 different methods for sizing RWH system
components.
Method 1 demand side approach
A very simple method is to calculate the largest storage requirement
based on the consumption rates and occupancy of the building.
As a simple example we can use the following typical data:

Consumption per capita per day, C – 20 litres

Number of people per household, n – 6
Longest average dry period – 25 days
Annual consumption = C x n x 365 = 43,800 litres

Storage requirement, T = (43,800 x 25) / 365 = 3,000 litres

This simple method assumes sufficient rainfall and catchment area

which is adequate, and is therefore only applicable in areas where this
is the situation. It is a method for acquiring rough estimates of tank size.
Method 2 – supply side approach
In low rainfall areas or areas where the rainfall is of uneven distribution,
more care has to be taken to size the storage properly. During some
months of the year there may be an excess of water, while at other
times there will be a deficit (see figure 1). If there is sufficient water
throughout the year to meet the demand, then sufficient storage will be
required to bridge the periods of scarcity. As storage is expensive, this
should be done carefully to avoid unnecessary expense.
Figure 1: Average rainfall for Biharamulo District

The example given here is a simple spreadsheet calculation for a site in

North Western Tanzania. The rainfall statistics were gleaned from a
nurse at the local hospital who had been keeping records for the
previous 12 years. Average figures for the rainfall data were used to
simplify the calculation, and no reliability calculation is done. This is a
typical field approach to RWH storage sizing.
Example
Site: Medical dispensary, Ruganzu, Biharamulo District, Kagera, Tanzania
(1997)

Demand:
Number of staff: 7
Staff consumption: 45 litres per day x 7 = 315 litres per day
Patients: 40
Patient consumption : 10 litres per day x 40 = 400 litres per day
Total demand: 715 litres per day or 21.75 cubic metres per mean month

Supply:
Roof area: 190m2
Runoff coefficient (for new corrugated GI roof): 0.9
Average annual rainfall: 1056mm per year
Annual available water (assuming all is collected) = 190 x 1.056 x 0.9 =
180.58m3
Daily available water = 180.58 / 365 = 0.4947 m3 / day or 494.7 litres
per day or 15.05 cubic metres per mean month

So, if we want to supply water all the year to meet the needs of the
dispensary, the demand cannot exceed 494.7 litres per day. The
expected demand cannot be met by the available harvested water.
Careful water management will therefore be required.
Figure 2: comparison of the harvestable water and the demand for each
month

Figure 2 shows the comparison of water harvested and the amount that
can be supplied to the dispensary using all the water which is
harvested. It can be noted that there is a single rainy season. The first
month that the rainfall on the roof meets the demand is October. If we
therefore assume that the tank is empty at the end of September we
can form a graph of cumulative harvested water and cumulative
demand and from this we can calculate the maximum storage
requirement for the dispensary.
Figure 3: showing the predicted cumulative inflow and outflow from the
tank. The maximum storage requirement occurs in April

Table 1 - shows the spreadsheet calculation for sizing the storage tank.
It takes into consideration the accumulated inflow and outflow from the
tank and the capacity of the tank is calculated as the greatest excess of
water over and above consumption. This occurs in April with a storage
requirement of 50.45 cubic metres. All this water will have to be stored
to cover the shortfall during the dry period.

Table estimation of tank capacity for a school building

Mont Rainfa Rainfall Cumulativ Demand Cumulativ Differenc
h ll harveste e rainfall (based e demand e
(mm) d (cubic harvested on total (cubic between
metres (cubic utilisatio metres) column 4
metres) n and 6
Oct 88 15.05 15.05 15.05 15.05 0.00
Nov 124 21.20 36.25 15.05 30.10 6.16
Dec 134 22.91 59.17 15.05 45.14 14.02
Jan 114 19.49 78.66 15.05 60.19 18.47
Feb 101 17.27 95.93 15.05 75.24 20.69
Mar 136 23.26 119.19 15.05 90.29 28.90
Apr 214 36.59 155.78 15.05 105.34 50.45
May 75 12.83 168.61 15.05 120.38 48.22
Jun 3 0.51 169.12 15.05 135.43 33.69
Jul 5 0.86 169.97 15.05 150.48

Calculations
Column (3):
Rainfall Harvested (m³) = (Average Rainfall (C2)*Roof Area*RC)/1000
Column (4):
Cumulative rainfall harvested (m³)
Column (5):
Demand = Calculated from the example above
Column (6):
Cumulative demand
Column (7):
Tank Size = max of [Column (4) – Column (6)+25]
Method 3 – computer model
There are several computer-based programmes for calculating tank size
quite accurately. One such programme, known as SimTanka, has been
written by an Indian organisation and is available free of charge on the
World Wide Web. The Ajit Foundation is a registered non-profit
voluntary organisation with its main office in Jaipur, India and its
community resource centre in Bikaner, India.

Further comments
These methods outlined above can be further refined where necessary
to use daily rainfall data. This is particularly important in areas where
rainfall is more evenly distributed and more sensitive calculations are
necessary.

Rainfall data can be obtained from a variety of sources. The first point of
call should be the national meteorological organisation for the country
in question. In some developing countries, however, statistics are
limited due to lack of resources and other sources are often worth
seeking. Local Water Departments or organisations, local hospitals or
schools are all possible sources of information.
In reality the cost of the tank materials will often govern the choice of
tank size. In other cases, such as large RWH programmes, standard sizes
of tank are used regardless of consumption patterns, roof size or
number of individual users.

Tank efficiency and the case for diminishing returns

On days when rainfall is heavy, the flow into a tank is higher than the
outflow drawn by water users. A small tank will soon become full and
then start to overflow. An inefficient system is one where, taken over
say a year, that overflow constitutes a significant fraction of the water
flowing into the tank. Insufficient storage volume is however not the
only cause of inefficiency: poor guttering will fail to catch water during
intense rain, leaking tanks will lose water, and an ‘oversize’ roof will
intercept more rainfall than is needed.

Storage efficiency (%) =100 x (1 - overflow / inflow) provided that

inflow<demand

System efficiency (%) = 100 x water used / water falling on the roof

In the dry season, a small tank may run dry, forcing users to seek water
from alternative sources. Unreliability might be expressed as either the
fraction of time (e.g. of days) when the tank is dry or the fraction of
annual water use that has to be drawn from elsewhere. A RWH system
may show unreliability not only because storage is small, but because
the roof area is insufficient. Figure 4 shows how reliability, expressed as
a fraction of year, varies with storage volume (expressed as a multiple of
daily consumption) for two locations close to the Equator and therefore
both with double rainy seasons.

Figure 4: Availability of rainwater supply as a fraction of the yearl

From this graph one can see that increasing storage size, and
therefore cost, gives diminishing returns. For example look at the left
hand column of each triplet (Kyenjojo with roof sized such that average
annual water demand is only 80% of average annual roof runoff).
Assuming a say 100 litres per day demand, shows that increasing
storage from 1 day (100 l) to 16 days (1600 l) raises the reliability from
31% to 78%, but storage has to be increased as high as 128 days (12,800
l) to achieve 99% reliability. Such high reliability is so expensive that it is
an unrealistic design objective for a DRW system in a poor country. In
any case, as we shall see below, users may change behaviour so as to
reduce the effective unreliability of their systems.

System features (that affect tank sizing)

An oversize roof slightly extent compensates for an undersize tank.
If users are able and willing to adjust their consumption downwards
during dry seasons, or when they find water levels in their tank lower
than average, tanks can be sized smaller.
‘Partial’ RWH systems, either where it is accepted that RW will not meet
needs throughout the year or where rainwater is only used to meet
specific water needs like cooking/drinking, can be built with surprisingly
small tanks.
The reliability level appropriate to the design of a RWH system rises
with the cost (in money, effort or even ill-health) of the alternative
source that is used when the tank runs dry.
Rainfall data
Rainfall is very variable, especially where annual precipitation is less
than 500mm. It also varies with location, so that data from a rain
gauging station 20km away may be misleading when applied to the site
of the RWH system. From the lowest to the highest quality of rainfall
data we can think of at least 6 categories:
  No numerical data available, but of course local people know
quite well the seasonality of precipitation and which crops will
grow (with what sort of water-stress failure rate).
 There is no numerical data, but RWH has been practised for long
enough locally for people to have a feel for what is an adequate
tank size.
 Only annual average rainfall is available, probably at a somewhat
distant recording point, plus local knowledge of seasonality.
 Monthly rainfall, averaged over at least 4 years, can be obtained.
 Actual monthly rainfall records for at least 4 years, and preferably
7 years, are available for the site or for a location sufficiently
nearby to give confidence or allow some systematic correction to
be applied.
 Daily rainfall data for a relevant location and lasting at least 4
years is available.
Daily data is adequate for all design methods except perhaps the
optimisation of gutters for which rainfall intensity data is useful (e.g. the
fraction of annual precipitation falling at a rate faster than say 1mm per
minute). Rainfall data can be expensive to purchase and is often hard to
locate even where it exists. Obviously methods of sizing tanks that
require as an input rainfall data of a sort that is not locally available
should not be used.