the design of a rainwater harvesting system for pabal, india
DESCRIPTION
A feasibility study of implementing rainwater harvesting and a comparison of available systems.TRANSCRIPT
The Design of a Rainwater Harvesting System for
Pabal, India
Kieran James Cooke
MEng Civil Engineering
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences
Newcastle University
June 2009
-i-
Executive Summary The feasibility of rainwater harvesting (RWH) has been assessed for the Pabal district of
Maharashtra, India. It has been found that the most suitable system would be to implement
RWH on all domestic houses, with the rainwater satisfying the potable water demand of the
population of 3 000. This provision of water would reduce the current water shortages that have
been quantified through estimating the existing water supply and demand. These water
shortages have been found to be particularly large during Pabal’s six month dry season. A
simple system that utilises local skills and materials has been designed; consisting of metal
gutters and a concrete storage tank reinforced with bamboo. A Biosand Filter has also been
included in the design and has been estimated to be likely to improve the water quality to the
levels specified in World Health Organisation Drinking-water Guidelines. Likely changes in
precipitation and demand for water over the system’s ten year design life have been factored
into the design. The economic benefits of the RWH system, in terms of water quality and water
quantity, have been quantified and it has been shown that the proposed system is likely to be
economically viable.
-ii-
Table of Contents
1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1
1.1 Outline of project ..............................................................................................1
1.2 Background to the project .................................................................................1
1.3 Description of organisations involved in project ..............................................1
1.4 Description of Pabal..........................................................................................2
1.4.1 Current water supply situation ..................................................................2
1.4.2 Current water quality.................................................................................4
1.5 The scope and limitations..................................................................................4
2 Aims & Objectives....................................................................................................5
2.1 Aim....................................................................................................................5
2.2 Objectives..........................................................................................................5
3 Literature Review......................................................................................................6
3.1 Introduction to review.......................................................................................6
3.2 Catchment .........................................................................................................6
3.3 Conveyance.......................................................................................................7
3.4 Storage...............................................................................................................8
3.4.1 Sizing of the tank ......................................................................................8
3.4.2 Materials used .........................................................................................10
3.4.3 Comparison of above ground and underground tanks ............................10
3.4.4 Tank Components ...................................................................................11
3.5 Distribution .....................................................................................................12
3.6 Health implications of RWH...........................................................................13
3.6.1 Water quality...........................................................................................13
3.6.2 Insect vectors...........................................................................................14
3.7 Methods of improvement of water quality......................................................15
3.7.1 First flush system ....................................................................................15
3.7.2 Coarse filters ...........................................................................................16
3.7.3 Settlement in tanks ..................................................................................17
3.7.4 Treatment options....................................................................................17
3.8 Design processes .............................................................................................19
3.8.1 Available runoff ......................................................................................19
3.8.2 Calculating the demand for water ...........................................................20
-iii-
3.8.3 Required capacity of storage tank ...........................................................20
3.9 Community and management issues...............................................................21
3.10 Economics of RWH ........................................................................................21
3.11 Limitations and constraints of DRWH............................................................22
4 Proposed Methods Statement..................................................................................24
4.1 Scope of the work............................................................................................24
4.2 Programme of work.........................................................................................24
4.3 Required data ..................................................................................................24
4.3.1 Sociological.............................................................................................24
4.3.2 Economic.................................................................................................24
4.3.3 Hydrological............................................................................................25
4.3.4 Spatial......................................................................................................25
4.3.5 Water usage.............................................................................................25
4.3.6 Catchment data........................................................................................26
4.4 Design procedure ............................................................................................26
4.4.1 Calculation of demand ............................................................................26
4.4.2 Calculation of available runoff ...............................................................27
4.4.3 Tank.........................................................................................................28
4.4.4 Design of the conveyance system ...........................................................29
4.4.5 Water quality...........................................................................................30
4.5 Cost of system.................................................................................................31
4.6 Presentation of design .....................................................................................31
4.6.1 Design Report .........................................................................................31
4.6.2 Drawings .................................................................................................31
4.7 Contact with outside organisations .................................................................31
5 Method Statement ...................................................................................................32
5.1 Scope of design ...............................................................................................32
5.2 Details of buildings .........................................................................................32
5.2.1 Domestic houses .....................................................................................32
5.2.2 Non-domestic buildings ..........................................................................33
5.3 Meteorological conditions...............................................................................34
5.3.1 Current rainfall data ................................................................................34
5.3.2 Simulation of future climate ...................................................................35
5.4 Determination of the demand to be met..........................................................36
-iv-
5.4.1 Current demand.......................................................................................36
5.4.2 Future demand.........................................................................................37
5.5 Determination of the most appropriate RWH system.....................................37
5.6 Design of the storage tank...............................................................................38
5.7 Design of conveyance system.........................................................................39
5.7.1 Design rain storm ....................................................................................39
5.7.2 Gutter detailing........................................................................................40
5.8 Water Quality..................................................................................................41
5.8.1 Estimation of water quality parameters...................................................41
5.8.2 Calculation of water quality improvements due to storage of water ......41
5.9 Suitable materials ............................................................................................42
5.10 Equipment available locally............................................................................42
5.11 Geotechnical analysis......................................................................................42
5.12 Economic analysis...........................................................................................42
5.12.1 Valuation of water...................................................................................43
6 Design .....................................................................................................................45
6.1 Determination of most appropriate RWH system...........................................45
6.1.1 Current supply-demand balance..............................................................45
6.1.2 Annual rainwater harvesting potential of different options ....................46
6.2 Storage tank.....................................................................................................47
6.2.1 Sizing of storage tank..............................................................................47
6.2.2 Tank detailing..........................................................................................48
6.3 Conveyance system.........................................................................................53
6.3.1 Outline of conveyance layout..................................................................53
6.3.2 Design of roof gutters..............................................................................54
6.3.3 Transfer from roof gutters to storage tank ..............................................56
6.4 Water quality...................................................................................................57
6.4.1 Removal of debris ...................................................................................57
6.4.2 Water quality improvements due to storage............................................59
6.4.3 Filtration..................................................................................................59
6.5 Distribution .....................................................................................................62
6.6 Maintenance instructions for the villagers ......................................................63
6.6.1 Conveyance system.................................................................................63
6.6.2 Storage tank.............................................................................................63
-v-
6.6.3 Biosand filter...........................................................................................63
7 Discussion of the design .........................................................................................65
7.1 Assessment of the effectiveness of proposed water treatment........................65
7.2 Economic appraisal of RWH system ..............................................................66
7.2.1 Benefits of RWH.....................................................................................66
7.2.2 Costs of RWH .........................................................................................67
7.2.3 Calculation of payback period ................................................................68
8 Conclusions.............................................................................................................69
8.1 Overview of the design ...................................................................................69
8.2 Limitations of the design.................................................................................70
8.3 Recommendations for further work ................................................................70
9 References ...............................................................................................................72
Appendix A: Current water supply infrastructure...........................................................78
Appendix B: Meteorological Data ..................................................................................79
Appendix C: Raw water quality data ..............................................................................80
C1: Chemical water quality of rainfall........................................................................80
C2: Biological and microbiological water quality parameters of rainfall...................80
C3: Changes in water quality parameters due to roofing............................................81
Appendix D: Calculated runoff for different RWH options ...........................................82
Appendix E: Sizing of the storage tank for the current scenario ....................................83
Appendix F: Calculations................................................................................................85
Appendix G: Cost and benefits of RWH ........................................................................91
Appendix H: Bill of Quantities .......................................................................................92
-vi-
List of Figures Figure 1.1: Location of Pabal........................................................................................................ 2
Figure 1.2: Aerial image of dam near Pabal ................................................................................. 3
Figure 1.3: Dam near Pabal .......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3.1: Process diagram for a rainwater harvesting system.................................................... 6
Figure 3.2: Galvanised steel V guttering ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 3.3: Benefits of tank sizing................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3.4: DRWH underground tank in South Africa............................................................... 11
Figure 3.5: Marley rainfall leaf slide .......................................................................................... 17
Figure 3.6: Slow sand filter......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3.7: Rainfall intensity, cumulative rainfall availability and demand from a RWH scheme
in Bangladesh.............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4.1: The dimensions of the catchment area ..................................................................... 27
Figure 4.2: Comparison of the harvestable water and the demand for each month (for a site in
Biharamulo District, Kagera, Tanzania) ..................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.3 Predicted cumulative inflow and outflow from the tank (for a site in Biharamulo
District, Kagera, Tanzania) ......................................................................................................... 29
Figure 5.1: Ceramic tiled roof (background) and corrugated steel roof (foreground) ................ 32
Figure 5.2: Dimensions of a typical house in Pabal.................................................................... 33
Figure 5.3: Average monthly precipitation for Pune .................................................................. 34
Figure 5.4: Comparison of observed monthly precipitation and estimated monthly precipitation
for 2020....................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 6.1: Monthly runoff from Roof 1 and monthly potable water demand for 2020 scenario47
Figure 6.2: Monthly runoff from Roof 2 and monthly potable water demand for 2020 scenario47
Figure 6.3: Predicted inflow and outflow for Tank 1 for 2020 scenario..................................... 48
Figure 6.4: Predicted inflow and outflow for 2 for 2020 scenario.............................................. 48
Figure 6.5: Assumed position of water storage tank................................................................... 49
Figure 6.6: Plastic lined bamboo tank......................................................................................... 49
Figure 6.7: Bamboo reinforced concrete tank............................................................................. 50
Figure 6.8: Reinforcing details for bamboo-concrete water tank................................................ 51
Figure 6.9: Elevation and plan view of Tank 1........................................................................... 51
Figure 6.10: Elevation and plan view of Tank 2......................................................................... 52
Figure 6.11: Corrugated steel cover............................................................................................ 52
Figure 6.12: Direction of runoff from roofs................................................................................ 53
Figure 6.13: Effect of sloping gutter on distance between roof and gutter................................. 53
-vii-
Figure 6.14: Arrangement of guttering and downpipe................................................................ 54
Figure 6.15: Roof gutter dimensions for Roof 1......................................................................... 55
Figure 6.16: Roof gutter dimensions for Roof 2......................................................................... 55
Figure 6.17: Runoff patterns from clay and corrugated metal roofs........................................... 55
Figure 6.18: Guttering attachments for Roof 1 and 2................................................................. 56
Figure 6.19: Gutters to convey water from roof gutters to storage tank ..................................... 57
Figure 6.20: Inlet of gutters into tank ......................................................................................... 57
Figure 6.21: Coarse filter on tank cover ..................................................................................... 58
Figure 6.22: Principle of intermittent-use slow sand filter ......................................................... 60
Figure 6.23: Plan and cross section of slow sand filter............................................................... 61
Figure 7.1: Comparison for cumulative annual costs and benefits for proposed domestic RWH
system for Roof 1........................................................................................................................ 68
Figure 7.2: Comparison for cumulative annual costs and benefits for proposed domestic RWH
system for Roof 2........................................................................................................................ 68
-viii-
List of Tables
Table 3.1: Possible materials for storage tank and corresponding capacities .................10
Table 3.2: Methods for the prevention of mosquitoes in RWH......................................15
Table 3.3: Locations for coarse filters.............................................................................16
Table 3.4: Drainage Coefficients ....................................................................................19
Table 3.5: Runoff coefficients.........................................................................................19
Table 3.6: Unit cost of different types of tanks...............................................................21
Table 4.1: Unit costs to be used for storage tank ............................................................25
Table 4.2: Runoff coefficients.........................................................................................27
Table 4.3: Spreadsheet to be used to determine storage .................................................29
Table 4.4: Typical ks values ............................................................................................30
Table 5.1: Details of non-domestic buildings .................................................................34
Table 5.2: Projections for changes in precipitation for South Asia sub-region for the
period 2010-2039 ............................................................................................................35
Table 5.3: Unit demand and daily demand for institution types in Pabal’s core ............36
Table 5.4: Projections for % change in rural population of India...................................37
Table 5.5: Population projections for Pabal....................................................................37
Table 5.6: Values for constants for rainfall intensity-duration-frequency equation for
Bhopal, India ...................................................................................................................40
Table 5.7: Geometric characteristics of the most hydraulically efficient trapezoidal
cross-section....................................................................................................................40
Table 5.8: Estimation of chemical, biological and microbiological parameters for
rooftop runoff in Pabal ....................................................................................................41
Table 5.9: Size and densities of suspended particles ......................................................42
Table 5.10: Economic value of different grades of water during dry and wet season....43
Table 6.1: Recharge for the Pabal catchment..................................................................45
Table 6.2: Estimation of volume of water available to Pabal’s core from current water
supply infrastructure........................................................................................................45
Table 6.3: Current demand for water in Pabal’s core (based on 2005 population) ........46
Table 6.4: Calculation of annual runoff for different scenarios......................................46
Table 6.5: Estimated cumulative runoff and potable water demand for 2020................46
Table 6.6: Estimated daily domestic demands that can be met from RWH ...................47
Table 6.7: Design storm parameters ...............................................................................54
-ix-
Table 6.8: Number of rainy days each month .................................................................58
Table 6.9: Terminal settling velocities for particles........................................................59
Table 6.10: The effectiveness of BioSand filters ............................................................60
Table 7.1: Comparison of guideline values specified in the WHO Guidelines for
Drinking-Water Quality with the water quality of the runoff .........................................65
Table 7.2: Comparison of water quality of runoff and final water quality .....................65
Table 7.3: Benefits from Biosand Filter..........................................................................67
Table 7.4: Construction costs for RWH system for Roof 1 ............................................67
Table 7.5: Construction costs for RWH system for Roof 2 ............................................67
Table 7.6: Calculation of payback time ..........................................................................68
-x-
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank engINdia for providing me with the chance to complete this project and for
Engineers without Borders for facilitating initial communication between engINdia and myself.
I would like to thank the following people in particular for assistance in this project:
• Lara Lewington from Engineers without Borders for the information she gave me
following her visit to Pabal in March 2009
• Pooja Wagh of engINdia for answering my queries and putting me in contact with
people from Pabal
• Chetan Shenoy and Yogesh Kulkarni of Vigyan Ashram in Pabal for the information
they provided me with
I would also like to thank my supervisor Dr Cesar Mota, Lecturer in Environmental Engineering
at the School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, for the guidance he has given me
throughout my project.
-xi-
List of abbreviations
AGT Aboveground water storage tank
AR4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report
ARTI Appropriate Rural Technologies Institute, Pune, India
DRWH Domestic Rainwater Harvesting
EWB Engineers Without Borders UK
lcd Litres per capita per day
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
mins minutes
NGOs Non-governmental organisations
NTU Nephelometric turbidity unit
RWH Rainwater Harvesting
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UGT Underground water storage tank
UN United Nations
VA Vigyan Ashram
WHO World Health Organisation
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 1 -
1 Introduction
1.1 Outline of project A rainwater harvesting (RWH) system will be designed to help to alleviate the water shortage
problem currently experienced in the rural Indian village of Pabal. This water shortage is
typically between the months of February and May. However in recent years, this drought has
commenced as early as October if the monsoon season has been poor (EWB, 2008).
RWH can be defined as “the small-scale concentration, collection, storage and use of rainwater
runoff for productive purposes” (Jean-marc et al, 2007). It is specified in the project proposal
(EWB, 2008) that the RWH system that is designed must
• be low-cost, sustainable, easily maintainable and utilise locally available materials and
skills
• complement Pabal’s existing water sources and ensure reliability of the water supply
• take into account that water consumption increases with availability
1.2 Background to the project This project is being carried out at a time when the provision of safe and clean water to the
entire world’s population is high on the international political agenda. A number of initiatives
have been introduced in recent years to help achieve this aim.
Following a decade of major United Nations conferences and summits, in 2000 world leaders
agreed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are a set of agreed targets
set for 2015 to assist development in the world’s poorest countries. Target 7c of the MDGs is to
“ reduce by half the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and
basic sanitation” (UNDP, 2008). An improved water supply will also contribute to a number of
the other targets in Goal 1 (Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger) and Goal 3 (Promote gender
equality and empower women).
In 2002, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC) declared water as a human
right. This human right entitles everyone to “sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible
and affordable water for personal and domestic uses” (UNESC, 2002).
The provision of an improved water supply for the village of Pabal through RWH, will
contribute to the achievement of the MDGs as well as fulfilling the villagers’ basic human right
of water.
1.3 Description of organisations involved in project This project has been put forward by engINdia. engINdia is an organisation which aims to
“promote appropriate and sustainable engineering solutions in developing areas”
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 2 -
(www.engindia.net, accessed 08/11/2008). The organisation is currently focusing on the village
of Pabal, following a visit of six students to the village in the summer of 2005. Through
working with the villagers, the students developed an understanding of the challenges faced by
the village that could be solved through engineering solutions. One of these challenges was the
development of a RWH system.
This project is co-ordinated by Engineers Without Borders UK (EWB), which is a student led
charity focussing on “removing barriers to development using engineering” (www.ewb-uk.org,
accessed 08/11/2008). EWB connects students wanting to undertake projects in development
issues with NGOs who have technical problems which they are keen to solve.
The proposed solution for a RWH system would be trialled at Vigyan Ashram (VA). VA is
located within Pabal and develops rural technologies whilst providing training to young people
(engINdia, 2005). The institution consists of labs, workshops and classrooms and has fostered
an interest in technological development among the local population (engINdia, 2005).
1.4 Description of Pabal Pabal lies 80 miles east of Mumbai within the state of Maharashtra in India, as shown in Figure
1.1. The village has a total population of approximately 9 000, with the core (which has a radius
of about 2 kilometres) containing about a third of these (engINdia, 2005). The remainder live in
hamlets outside of the core and are mainly farmers.
Figure 1.1: Location of Pabal (http://maps.live.com, accessed 08/11/2008)
1.4.1 Current water supply situation
The current water supply infrastructure in Pabal is shown diagrammatically in Appendix A.
Wells are abundant and the primary source of water in the area. In addition to a significant
proportion of houses within the core having their own wells, there are also communal wells.
Water from these communal wells is pumped into a storage tank, of 70 000 litres, which is
situated on the top of the entrance arch to the village (engINdia, 2005). Water is piped from this
tank to peoples’ homes. All homes have a water supply however this supply is only available for
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 3 -
20mins each day (personal communication: Lara Lewington). During this time people fill up
barrels to provide water for the rest of the day. In the dry season (November - April) these wells
run dry and government tankers’ truck 12 000 litres of water per day into the village tank. This
water is frantically withdrawn from 6.45am on a first come first served basis and is emptied
within 20 minutes.
In an attempt to increase the water levels in the wells through greater groundwater recharge, a
dam has been constructed (Figures 1.2 & 1.3). Water is also pumped from the dam to a 170 000
litre storage tank which is located close to VA and is the point of highest elevation for an
approximate radius of 30km (personal communication: Lara Lewington). The Gran Panchayat
(the local council) is responsible for turning on the pump each morning to transfer the dam
water to the tank. The tank is completely filled up each morning, however due to the frequent
occurrence of power cuts in Pabal sometimes this is not possible. Water is then piped from the
tank, utilising the height difference, to the whole of Pabal’s core (personal communication:
Lara Lewington). Individual connections to the tank have a one-off connection cost of 3 000
Rupees and a 700 Rupee per year charge. Combined connections have a 1 200 Rupees one-off
charge (EWB, 2008).
Figure 1.2: Aerial image of dam near Pabal (http://maps.google.com, accessed 01/05/2009)
Figure 1.3: Dam near Pabal (EWB, 2008)
The provision of the dam has improved the supply of water to Pabal, but due to climate change
and other unforeseen events it is unsure how long it will last for (personal communication: Lara
Lewington). Furthermore, engINdia state in the project proposal for RWH that any additional
moves to help gain a more reliable and plentiful supply of water would be beneficial (EWB,
2008).
Currently the only RWH system that is being used in Pabal is the collection of rainwater in pots
and pans. This shows that the attitude of RWH is already present.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 4 -
1.4.2 Current water quality
engINdia during their visit in 2005 found the quality of the water being used in Pabal to be poor
(engINdia, 2005). Further evidence for the unsatisfactory water quality comes from the high rate
of water borne diseases in Pabal, with diarrhoea and gastrointestinal disease being the most
common reported ailments (engINdia, 2005). Despite these issues with water quality, water
from the dam and the wells is used for all purposes (personal communication: Chetan Shenoy).
Currently most water is consumed by the villagers with no treatment at all, apart from the
filtration that occurs as the water percolates through the soil. Some water is chlorinated and/or
boiled prior to consumption. Health problems can occur since neither chlorination nor boiling
reduces the mineral content of the water. Boiling is also a considerable fuel sink (engINdia,
2005). There are no plans for village wide chlorination and whilst ceramic filters are supposedly
available in the village, they are generally too expensive to purchase and maintain (engINdia,
2005 & EWB, 2008).
1.5 The scope and limitations Since one of the major problems facing Pabal is the lack of a reliable source of water, this
project has the potential to make a significant difference to the villagers of Pabal. However
dealing with the root cause of these water shortages is dependent on the state and federal
governments (engINdia, 2005). So it is important to recognise that a RWH system is a
temporary solution rather than the solution to the root of the problem. Interviews carried out by
the engINdia team with villagers, showed that the villagers were keen on technologies such as
RWH as they believed these technologies would make their home and professional lives easier
(engINdia, 2005). The engINdia team found a large variation between technologies in other
villages and that in Pabal (engINdia, 2005). This variation would cause a difference in need and
therefore it remains to be seen if the solution developed through this project will have potential
to be used elsewhere than just Pabal.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 5 -
2 Aims & Objectives
2.1 Aim The aim of the project is to design a rainwater collection and storage system for the village of
Pabal in India at either household or community level. This system should help to alleviate the
water shortage problems that Pabal is currently experiencing.
2.2 Objectives The objectives of the project are to:
• quantify the current supply and demand of water in Pabal, comparing the supply-
demand balance in the wet and the dry season
• determine the most suitable system for RWH in terms of which catchment surfaces to
use and whether RWH would be more appropriate at community or household level
• quantify the demand that RWH will be able to meet
• determine what water quality improvements for the runoff are necessary and design
appropriate water treatment to achieve these improvements
• decide the most effective way to harvest, store and deliver the rainwater water in a low-
cost manner whilst utilising local skills and materials
• quantify likely changes in precipitation and demand over the design life of the RWH
system
• determine the cost and the economic feasibility of the scheme by quantifying the
benefits
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 6 -
3 Literature Review
3.1 Introduction to review Literature clearly outlines the advantages of rainwater harvesting over other water resource
developments. RWH provides water close the point of use and when existing catchment
surfaces are used, RWH has fewer negative environmental impacts compared to other types of
development (GDRC, 2007). In terms of water quality, rainwater is comparatively good in
contrast to other sources (Feroze Ahmed, 1999). As the users often manage the RWH system,
they are more likely to exercise water conservation with RWH than with other types of
developments (GDCR, 2007). RWH systems can be built to meet almost any requirements,
with construction, operation and maintenance not being labour intensive (GDCR, 2007).
A RWH system is divided into the following components: catchment, conveyance, storage and
delivery, as shown in the process diagram in Figure 3.1. This literature review shall evaluate
each of these components in turn and then discuss other associated issues of health implications,
economics and the design procedure of RWH systems.
Figure 3.1: Process diagram for a rainwater harvesting system (Thomas et al, 2007)
3.2 Catchment Runoff can be collected from any surfaces within the catchment that are impermeable. In the
case of rainwater, these are most commonly roofs, land surfaces or rocks; with roofs of houses
being the most widespread (Thomas, 1998). Provided the houses are one storied, roof area is
usually not a limitation in design. There is typically between 12 and 22m2 of developable roof
area per person for house occupancies of six to 12 people (Twort, 2000).
Peters (2006) suggested that the most common types of roofing materials for RWH are
corrugated galvanised metals, concrete or clay tiles and asphalt-type or wooden shingles. The
quality of the runoff is dependent on the roof material; concrete, tiled and metal roofs give the
cleanest water (Feroze Ahmed, 1999). Runoff from thatched roofs is not suitable for potable
uses, as thatching and mud discolours and contaminates the water (Smet, 2003). A thatch roof
can be covered with polyethylene to reduce contamination and discolouration. However, this
sheeting can only be used for a single season and tends to degrade in the sunlight quickly (DTU,
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 7 -
2005). Some literature recommends avoiding the use of asbestos for RWH systems (GDRC,
2007) whilst others have concluded that it does not present any health risks (Smet, 2003).
Painting and coating of catchment surfaces should be avoided, but where they are required they
must be non toxic (GDCR, 2007).
Impermeable land surfaces such as paved surfaces, plastic sheeting and cemented surfaces can
provide large catchment areas, making them particularly suitable where there is a large demand
for non-potable water (British Standards Institute, 2008). Infiltration into the ground causes a
high rate of water loss from these catchments. This loss can be reduced by clearing or altering
vegetation covering, increasing the land slope or reducing soil permeability by soil compaction
(GDRC, 2007). Preventing entry of people and animals onto ground catchments through fencing
can reduce the contamination of the runoff (GDRC, 2007).
Regardless of which catchment surface is chosen, the potential runoff must be determined.
Peters (2006) used the following terms in determining this runoff potential:
• “theoretical potential: the total amount of precipitation in the catchment
• available potential: precipitation that can be collected on roofs or other specific
catchment areas
• practical potential: water that is collected in the storage tanks for consumption under
normal conditions (due to inadequate storage, not all the roofs being guttered etc)”.
3.3 Conveyance The function of the conveyance system is to transfer the rainwater collected on the catchment
surfaces to the storage tanks (GDRC, 2007). In rooftop harvesting the conveyance system
consists of gutters and downpipes. Gutters are open channels that carry water sideways under
the edge of the roof to a point just above the water tank. Downpipes are tubes that lead water
down from the gutters to the entrance of the water tank (Thomas & Martinson, 2007).
Twort (2000) recommended that local practise, experience and field tests are used to determine
the size and location of the guttering as well as a suitable allowance for gutter overspill.
Increasing the gradient of the guttering may reduce the cost and required size but can also
increase gutter overspill (Thomas, 1998). These water losses, which are common in climates
with intense rainfall periods, may be acceptable from a water harvesting perspective but can
cause serious damage as a result of erosion. Gutter overspill can be reduced through the
installation of a downward pointing metal sheet at the lip of the roof, known as a Splash Guard.
The off-shooting water hits the Splash Guard and flows vertically downwards into the gutter
(DTU, 2005).
Suitable materials for the guttering include timber, bamboo, plastic and cement based products.
Pesticides to prevent rotting in timber and bamboo should never come in contact with drinking
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 8 -
water, instead the guttering should be regularly replaced (Smet, 2003). The low pH of rainwater
can cause corrosion and mobilisation of metals, and so consequently only galvanised metals
should be used for guttering (GDRC, 2007 & Water Aid, 2007). Metal sheets bent to form a ‘V’
and suspended by galvanised wire stitched through the roofing material, as shown in Figure 3.2,
are a form of low cost guttering proposed by Water Aid (2007).
Figure 3.2: Galvanised steel V guttering (Water Aid, 2007)
Downpipes for roof catchments or pipes to transfer water from other catchments to the storage
tank must be sized correctly. Over-sizing can cause water quality problems, whilst leakages can
occur as a result of excessive pressure in under-sized pipes (British Standards Institute, 2008).
The strength of the pipes must be sufficient to resist bursting forces which are caused by the
pressure that pipes are subjected to in operation (British Standards Institute, 2008). If the
collection surfaces are land surfaces, BS 8515 recommends that the gutters should be sealed to
prevent the ingress of contaminated water from other sources.
3.4 Storage
3.4.1 Sizing of the tank
Since the tank accounts for a large fraction of the total cost of a RWH system (Mwenge Kahinda,
2007), the required capacity of the tank must be calculated accurately. Thomas (1998) suggested
that domestic RWH (DRWH) is unlikely to be affordable unless storage costs are kept below
US$ 15 per cubic metre. The capacity of the tank will depend on the proportion of the total
water demand that a RWH system meets. RWH can be:
• the sole source
• the main source (70% of water use, (Thomas & Martinson, 2007))
• only a wet season source
• only as a source for some water uses.
RWH as the sole source is very costly and often socially unacceptable. It should only be used
where there are no other feasible alternatives to RWH (Thomas et al, 2007). It is only possible
to use RWH as the sole source in locations of little seasonality and where the mean rainfall is
over 2 000 mm/year (Thomas & Martinson, 2007).
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 9 -
An alternative source is necessary when RWH is used as the main source of water. This source
could use the same storage tank as the RWH system (Thomas & Martinson, 2007). The costs of
alternative sources are often greater than RWH, as a result of larger economic costs and greater
walking and queuing times (Thomas & Martinson, 2007). Therefore if the RWH system meets
80% of annual consumption, the total annual cost of water supply from other sources is reduced
by 60% (Thomas & Martinson, 2007).
A wet season source normally meets all the water needs in the wet season and is suitable for
climates where there is one long rainy season (Smet, 2003 & Thomas and Martinson, 2007). A
storage capacity of between 3 and 10 days consumption is advised when RWH is acting a wet
season source (Thomas, 1998). Since poor rural women often are hungry, working in the fields
and looking after sick children during the wet season, having a water supply close to their home
is particularly advantageous during this season (Smet, 2003). Thomas & Martinson (2007)
suggested that for a monsoon climate with a 6-month dry season, RWH is only feasible as a wet
season source.
The literature generally recommends that RWH satisfies the potable water demand, where only
part of the total water demand can be met. (Smet, 2003 & Thomas and Martinson, 2007).
A measure of the storage capacity of the tank suggested by Thomas (1998) is the ratio of the
volume of the tank to daily water consumption; the lower the value of this ratio, the smaller the
cost of storage but the greater the seasonal dependence on other sources. Simulations carried out
by Peters (2006) used a criterion of it being acceptable that the tank runs dry not less than once
every 50 years. This would perhaps be an appropriate standard to use in the design of a RWH
system.
Figure 3.3: Benefits of tank sizing (Mwenge Kahinda, 2007)
Figure 3.3 shows that the benefit of a tank is not strictly proportional to its size. Doubling the
tank size less than doubles the demand that is satisfied, as a small tank is emptied more
regularly than a large one. Thomas (1998) suggested that multiple storage vessels are
advantageous over a single vessel. This is because multiple vessels allow communities to
engage with new technologies in easy stages, can spread the outlay for storage over a number of
years, minimises the consequences of a tank failure and can reduce guttering costs.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 10 -
3.4.2 Materials used
Materials that storage tanks can be constructed from and the corresponding suitable capacities
are outlined in Table 3.1. Twort (2000) recommended that tanks up to 800 litres can be made
from one piece of material and are transportable, whilst larger tanks are usually more
economical if constructed in situ.
Table 3.1: Possible materials for storage tank and corresponding capacities (Peters, 2006 & GDRC, 2007 )
Material Suitable capacity (litres)
Reinforced cast-in-situ concrete 32 000
Plastic 760 - 3000
Polyethylene 1000 - 2000
Metal 760 - 1900
Drums 170
Wooden barrels 130 -150
Peters (2006) stated that there is generally a large initial capital cost for constructing storage
tanks from concrete. Reinforced concrete tanks are favourable to those that are unreinforced as
they are repairable if they leak and can be rendered inside if poorly constructed (Twort, 2000).
Ashworth (2005) found that pathogenic removal was greater in concrete tanks compared to other
tanks. This was due to salts leaching from the concrete, causing a reduction in the pH and
therefore providing a less stable environment for pathogens.
Twort (2000) warned that plastic plates bolted together tend to fracture under the repeated
bending caused by the changing water levels. He also states that steel plates bolted together
often rust at the joints. The fracturing of plastic plates is unrepairable and the rusting of the steel
is hard to repair.
Despite the large capacity of polyethylene tanks, they are compact, easy to clean and have many
openings which can be fitted with connecting pipes (GDRC, 2007). Caution has to be taken with
tanks that are made from timber or bamboo, as the wood can become infested with termites,
bacteria and fungus (GDRC, 2007).
Another type of tank is ferrocement tanks. These consist of steel mesh and wire which are
covered on the inside and outside with a thin layer of cement (Brikké at al, 2003). These tanks
are one of the most economical types where the required skill to construct them is available or
can be trained (Twort, 2000).
3.4.3 Comparison of above ground and underground tanks
In addition to the materials and the number of tanks to use, the designer must also choose
whether to use underground (UGT) or aboveground tanks (AGT). Despite UGTs normally being
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 11 -
cheaper than AGTs (Thomas, 1998), literature on this topic has identified a number of problems
associated with UGTs compared to AGTs:
• they require a pump to extract the water.
• it is more difficult to notice and locate leakages
• they can become polluted due to groundwater seeping into the tank through a crack or
floodwater entering via the cover
• they can float out of the ground
• the danger of infants downing is greater
There is uncertainty in whether an UGT can rely on the soil for support and therefore be
constructed cheaply with thin unreinforced walls (Thomas, 1998). Mwenge Kahinda (2007)
suggested that an AGT should be used to collect rainwater from roofs, with an UGT being used
for all other catchments. An example of an UGT is show in Figure 3.4. The availability of space
and soil type should be considered in the decision of whether to use an UGT or AGT; for
example an AGT should not be built on expansive clays or sandy soils (Mwenge Kahinda,
2007). BS 8515 advised that AGTs are insulated and opaque to avoid algal blooms, freezing and
warming.
Figure 3.4: DRWH underground tank in South Africa (Mwenge Kahinda, 2007)
3.4.4 Tank Components
The cover of a tank acts as a barrier to mosquitoes, avoids animals and people falling in and
prevents algal growth through restricting sunlight. A cover can reduce the rate of pathogenic
reduction as strong sunlight has a bactericidal property (Thomas, 1998). One suitable cover is an
iron sheet supported by timber members (Handia, 2003). For UGTs the cover needs to be strong
enough to carry people and in some cases vehicles
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 12 -
BS 8515 recommended that tanks should have air vents that are screened and raised above the
surface flood level. BS 8515 also recommended the construction of an overflow tank to allow
excess water to be discharged during extreme rainfall events. This tank should be attached to the
storage tank by a pipe of equal or greater capacity than the inlet pipe to the tank and prevent
backflow. GDRC (2007) suggested the inclusion of an indicator of the amount of water in the
storage tank.
3.5 Distribution In some cases water is distributed in pipes to where it is required, whereas in other cases users
of the water collect it from the tank. For collection, a water lifting device is required for an UGT
whilst for an AGT either a tap or a water lifting device could be used (Warm et al, 2006).
Taps can break easily due to poor construction or lack of maintenance. Taps should be located
500 to 600mm above the floor of the tank to allow buckets to be placed underneath the tap
(Warm et al, 2006). It is not possible to extract the water below the level of the tap and therefore
such a tank has ‘dead storage’ (Warm et al, 2006). To eliminate this ‘dead storage’ the base of
the tank can be raised to 500mm above the ground level. However this causes sediments to be
extracted which prevents the water being used for potable uses.
Where a pump is chosen, Kerr (1989) recommended that hand pumps should be the first choice
in most cases. Hand pumps are capable of lifting enough water to meet the domestic water
demand of a small community (Mann & Williamson, 1993). The displacement pump is the most
suitable for rural communities as village craftsman are able to construct them (Mann &
Williamson, 1993). Hand pumps have the advantages of being capable of meeting the power
requirements from within the community and keeping the capital cost of pumping low (Hofkes,
1983).
Where hand pumps are not possible, mechanical pumps can be used. The pump drive can be
powered by either an electrical motor or a petrol engine. Electrical motors rely on a reliable
source of electrical power, whilst petrol engines only require a supply of petrol and lubricant
(Hofkes, 1983). However electrical motors require less maintenance and parts are more easily
obtainable than for petrol engines (Hofkes, 1983). The type of pump required depends on the
height that water must be lifted. If the height is less than 6 metres then a horizontal or vertical
direct-drive pump may be used, otherwise the pump must be submerged (Mann & Williamson,
1993).
Rope lifts for water are simpler to build than any type of pump (Mann & Williamson, 1993).
They rely on the rope being partly submerged in the water source and lifted over the pulleys at a
rate faster than the water is flowing down the rope (Mann & Williamson, 1993). Delivery rates
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 13 -
are 15 litres/min for hand driven lifts, with cycle powered lifts increasing the output by 50 to
100% (Kerr, 1989).
Buckets are perhaps the most successful water lifting device and can be used to lift the water
through the use of a windlass (Kerr, 1989). An adaptation of the standard bucket system is a
pulley system with a bucket on either end of the rope. A rope and bucket are suitable for lifting
water over a height of less than 15m (Brikké et al, 2003).
Using devices that are currently used locally will make maintenance and the acquirement of
spare parts easier and will cause the device to have greater user acceptance (Kerr, 1989). The
design of these devices must be simple to reduce the number of parts to the bare minimum and
therefore keep operation and maintenance as straightforward as possible (Kerr, 1989).
3.6 Health implications of RWH Mwenge Kahinda (2007) proposed that the health implications of RWH should be divided into
two aspects:
• concerns regarding water quality and possible direct implications due to contaminants
• the breeding of insect vectors in water storage tanks and health implications arising out
of it.
3.6.1 Water quality
In most climates only 2 litres of water is necessary for survival (Thomas, 1998), whilst in Pabal
the water consumption is 100-120 lcd (EWB, 2008). Therefore the volume of water that would
be required to meet drinking quality standards would be a small proportion of total consumption.
For the fraction of the water that is going to be used for drinking, there is some debate over
whether rainwater meets the international standards for drinking water. Mwenge Kahinda
(2007) reported that some studies have concluded that rainwater from rooftops generally meet
the guidelines, whilst others have concluded that chemical and/or microbial contaminants are
often present in level exceeding these guidelines. It is also important to compare the quality of
the rainwater with the alternative sources. Thomas & Martinson (2007) indicated that RWH
provides water that is as safe as that obtainable from protected point sources such as wells and
often has an improved taste compared to other point sources.
Contamination of rainwater can occur in the air, on the collection surface or in the water store.
The contamination which occurs in the air is negligible as there is no evidence that pathogens
are picked up and the absorption of acid gases is insignificant and well within acceptable limits
for humans (Thomas, 1998).
However the contamination occurring on the collection surface is significant and depends on
characteristics such as topography, the weather conditions, and the proximity to pollution
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 14 -
sources (Mwenge Kahinda, 2007). The level of contamination is also largely dependent on
whether the collection surface is a rooftop or the ground; with the ground being subject to
higher levels of microbial contamination (Mwenge Kahinda, 2007).
In the case of rooftop RWH, it is not the surface itself that causes the majority of the
contamination but what is on that surface, for example dust from soil, leaves from trees,
repellent insects and bird droppings (Mwenge Kahinda, 2007). This contamination can silt up or
deoxygenate water stores, discolour water and increase the risk of diarrhoeal diseases (Ashworth,
2005). There is also a suspicion that bird droppings can sometimes spread typhoid (Thomas,
1998). Contamination from collection surfaces is a particular problem in areas that have a dry
season, since material accumulates in the dry season and enters the system during the
subsequent rains.
The roofing material can also affect the water quality of the runoff. Yaziz et al (1989) found a
better quality runoff from galvanised iron roofs than concrete roofs. It was suggested that this
was due to more contaminants being deposited and entrapped on the concrete roof as a result of
its rougher surface. A similar finding was obtained by DTU (2005), but they suggested that the
difference in quality of the runoff was due to the sun’s rays having a sterilising effect on the
metal roof.
The roof can also alter the pH of the rainwater, but there are conflicting predictions on whether
it causes the rainwater to become more acidic and alkaline. Yaziz et al (1989) found that there
was an increase in pH and suggested that this was due to the build up of basic particles on the
roof surfaces. However experiments carried out by Efe (2006) found that the runoff from roofs
was acidic, but gives no suggested reason for this decrease in pH.
Mwenge Kahinda (2007) suggested that the level of contamination in the water store is
dependent on the type of water tank and the handling and management of the water. The tank
should be regularly cleaned; Environment Agency (2003) recommended at least twice a year
whilst Feroze Ahmed (1999) advised only once a year.
3.6.2 Insect vectors
Mosquitoes are of concern in RWH since they can cause diseases such as malaria (Mwenge
Kahinda, 2007). Adult mosquitoes can breed within tank or alternatively they can lay mosquito
larvae in the guttering which is then transported with the runoff into the tank (Thomas et al,
2007). Mwenge Kahinda (2007) proposed a number of measures to prevent mosquitoes, which
are detailed in Table 3.2.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 15 -
Table 3.2: Methods for the prevention of mosquitoes in RWH (Mwenge Kahinda, 2007)
Method Solutions
Prevention of mosquitoes breeding in the tank, by killing immature mosquitoes during larval stages
• use a biological control in depressions of the tank, such as Bacillus spareicus or Bacillus thuringiensis. These organisms contain proteins which are toxic to larvae of a variety of mosquito species.
• the use of chemicals such as kerosene oil and other well tested chemicals that disperse as a thin layer on the surface of the water. This causes the larvae and pupae to drown.
Prevention of mosquitoes breeding in the surroundings of the tank
• the growing of plants around the RWH site which repel mosquitoes.
• by tightly closing the tank to ensure there are no openings for the entry of mosquitoes
• the use of a screen (with hole size less than 1mm) to bar entry of mosquito larvae into the tank
• ensuring there is no stagnating water around the RWH site, as mosquitoes might use it to breed in
• gutters should allow the free flow of water, as mosquitoes may breed in the stagnant water
3.7 Methods of improvement of water quality
3.7.1 First flush system
To address the problem of debris collected over the dry season on roofs causing contamination
of the runoff, some literature suggests throwing away the initial runoff at the beginning of the
wet season (Thomas, 1998). This runoff is commonly known as the first flush. DTU (2005)
reported that this practise is particularly popular in Asian countries. The World Health
Organisation (2003) recommended that the first 20 litres of runoff per roof should be diverted
from the storage tank at the beginning of the wet season. However Martinson & Thomas (2004)
warned that the value of 20 litres has a large number of built in assumptions that may or may
not be true. They therefore suggest that this value is likely to considerably underestimate the
necessary volume of first flush for low-income countries. Martinson & Thomas (2004) instead
recommended that runoff should be diverted each time rainfall follows three dry days and that
the necessary volume of runoff to be diverted should depend on its turbidity. They suggested a
target turbidity of 20 NTU, since the turbidity will be further reduced in the tank due to
processes such as sedimentation.
Yaziz et al (1989) found that diverting the first flush decreased all the water quality parameters
that were tested, apart from lead and zinc concentrations. A negative relationship between the
intensity of the rainfall and the ‘wash out’ time period for pollutants was discovered. The
suggested reason for this relationship was that the cleaning process was more efficient at larger
rainfall intensities, due to the greater energy present in the raindrops (Yaziz et al, 1989). The
experiments also showed that diversion of 0.5mm of runoff was sufficient to reduce the faecal
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 16 -
coliform count to zero; although high levels of total coliforms and plate counts were still
detected.
Simple methods of diversion of the first flush exist such as manually diverting the runoff or
using a simple automatic system where water fills a chamber of a set size until it overflows
(DTU, 2005). There are also more complex methods such as the fixed mass system, which relies
on a mass of water tipping a bucket or seesaw, and the flow rate system which balances the rate
of water intake into a suspended hollow ball against its leakage (DTU, 2005). The simpler
systems tend to be more reliable and cheaper and therefore widely used in low-cost systems.
Some literature has concluded that there are no obvious benefits to separating the runoff of the
first flush (Handia, 2003 & Peters, 2006). Smet (2003) warned that most first flush systems fail
as they are not correctly operated and maintained. An alternative to removing the first flush is
thoroughly cleaning the roof at the beginning of the raining season (Ahmed, 2003).
3.7.2 Coarse filters Coarse filters reduce the amount of roof debris entering the water tanks (Ashworth, 2005).
These filters can be positioned in the gutter, in the downpipe or at the entrance to the tank itself,
with the tank entrance being the most common in very low cost systems (DTU, 2005). The
advantages and disadvantages of each location are reviewed in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Locations for coarse filters (Ashworth, 2005 & DTU, 2005)
Location Advantages Disadvantages Example of device
In the gutter
• Prevents the build up of leaves in the gutter and therefore reduces mosquito breeding and cleaning requirements of the gutter.
• Large risk of people falling whilst clearing and maintaining such devices.
• Can be expensive due to the large area that needs to be covered
In the downpipe • Low space requirement
• Difficult to access for cleaning
• Blockages are not obvious
Marley rainwater leaf slide (Figure 3.5) -
catches debris in the water through a mesh
screen filter
In the entrance to
the tank
• Simple and inexpensive installation
• Very visible
• Entrance to tank is prone to accidental (or deliberate) contamination
• Reduces possibility of any further filtration at the entrance to tank
Can be as simple as a cloth.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 17 -
Figure 3.5: Marley rainfall leaf slide (Ashworth, 2005)
Ashworth (2005) described first flush as having little benefit over coarse filters. BS 8515 gave a
set of criteria for a coarse filter:
• the filter should be water and weather resistant
• it should be removable and readily accessible for maintenance purposes
• have an efficiency of at least 90%
• should pass a maximum particle size of less than 1.25mm
3.7.3 Settlement in tanks
The storage of roof water will allow for settlement of protozoa cysts and other suspended
particles, pathogen die-of to WHO drinking water standards and considerable improvement in
the clarity of the water (Ashworth, 2005). Provided the temperature of the tank water is low and
substantial nutrient levels are not present, a storage time of two weeks can reduce bacteria
populations by 50 to 90% (Ashworth, 2005). This removal rate is dependent on the severity of
the population (Mann and Williamson, 1993).
To reduce resuspension of settled matter, the recommended minimum depth of the outlet above
the tank floor is not consistent across the literature. Ashworth (2005) specified 500mm whilst
BS8515 and GDRC (2007) recommended a distance between 100 and 150mm. Environment
Agency (2003) suggested some additional tank components. These included a smoothing inlet to
stop sediments being disturbed during heavy rainfall, a suction filter to prevent the uptake of
floating matter when water is extracted and an overflow trap to allow floating matter to be
skimmed off when water in the tank reaches a certain level. Other design considerations include
the tank having a sloped bottom to aid collection of settled matter and a sump and drain to
collect and discharge this debris.
3.7.4 Treatment options
The treatment of rainwater is not common as natural sedimentation and bacterial die-off during
storage is sufficient (Thomas, 1998). Furthermore, untreated roof runoff has been widely used
for drinking purposes for years with very few recorded serious health cases (Mwenge Kahinda,
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 18 -
2007). Where treatment of rainwater is necessary, for example where runoff is not from roofs, a
filter mechanism prior to the tank, treatment processes inside the tank and post-storage
treatment can be used.
Where filtration is used in RWH, the filter must have either a larger surface area or coarser
media than standard filters due to the large intensity of some storms (DTU, 2005). There are a
number of different types of filters that can be used, but in them all water percolates through
sand. In slow sand filtration (Figure 3.6) a layer of biological material builds up on the surface
of the sand which adds considerable biological cleansing to the mechanical filtering action
(Mann & Williamson, 1993). Rapid sand filtration uses coarser materials than slow sand
filtration and has a higher filtration rate but no biological action (Hofkes, 1983). The cleaning of
a slow sand filter is required much less frequently than a rapid sand filter, but is labour intensive
and requires the filter to be taken out of operation (Hofkes, 1983). The design of slow sand
filters are much simpler than rapid sand filters and can therefore be built with local materials
using local skills and labour (Hofkes, 1983). The complex operation of rapid sand filters makes
them unsuitable at the village scale, despite these filters requiring 40 to 50 times less land than
slow sand filters (Hofkes, 1983). Where the runoff is from hard ground surfaces Smet (2003)
advised the use of a filter consisting of a layer of sand overlying a gravel layer.
Figure 3.6: Slow sand filter (Huisman & Wood, 1974)
Chemical disinfection is the periodic addition of a disinfectant such as chlorine, chloramines
chlorine dioxide or ozone to the tank (Twort, 2000). Disinfection is well understood but requires
some management (Thomas, 1998 & Mwenge Kahinda et al, 2007). The complexity and high
cost of producing ozone described in Twort (2000) would make it unsuitable for low-cost
systems. Mann & Williamson (1993) recommended a contact time of 30 minutes for chlorine
and a residual of at least 0.3mg/l in the outflow from the tank. Suitable low cost storage for
disinfectants would be either a plastic or a metal drum. In the case of metal, it would be
necessary to coat the drum with bituminous paint to prevent corrosion (Mann & Williamson,
1993). A rubber delivery tube with a clamp or a tap can be used to dose the tank with the
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 19 -
disinfectant (Mann & Williamson, 1993). Bleaching powder which is readily available, cheap
and not dangerous could be used as an alternative to liquid chlorine (Hofkes, 1983).
In the case of rainwater from roofs, it is considered appropriate to leave any treatment to the
householder’s discretion (Thomas, 1998). This treatment can comprise of boiling, chlorination,
solar disinfection or the use of a candle filter. Despite boiling being resource intensive,
presenting a risk of accidental scalding and affecting taste, it is the easiest and most effective
way to ensure disinfection (Thomas, 1998 & GDRC, 2007).
3.8 Design processes
3.8.1 Available runoff
The runoff is calculated by the multiplication of the catchment area and the amount of rainfall.
Literature quotes rainfall in either daily, monthly or annual values generally over at least a 10
year period.
Not all the rainwater that lands on the catchment area reaches the tank. The main causes of loss
are evaporation from the catchment surface, the first flush after the dry season and in the case of
roofs, gutter overspill. Some literature quotes a single ‘efficiency figure’ to take account these
losses; for example Feroze Ahmed (1999) used 25% loss for evaporation and first flush. Other
literature deals with these water losses separately. Twort (2000) recommended 1mm is
subtracted from the daily rainfall to allow for evaporation of water from the roof. Some
literature uses a generalised efficiency value for gutter overspill, with the most common values
quoted being between 0.9 and 0.95 (Twort, 2005 & Peters, 2006). Other literature has published
runoff coefficients for roofs based on roofing material and layout (Tables 3.4 and 3.5).
Table 3.4: Drainage Coefficients (Environment Agency, 2003)
Roof type Run off co-eff
Pitched roof tiles 0.75 – 0.9
Flat roof smooth tiles 0.5
Flat roof with gravel layer 0.4 – 0.5
Table 3.5: Runoff coefficients (Smet, 2003)
Roofing material Run off co-eff (%)
Cement tiles 75%
Clay tiles <50% (dependent on production method)
Plastic and metal sheets 80-90%
Runoff coefficients for ground surfaces are quoted as being between 0.1 to 0.3, due to water
seepage into the ground. Paved surfaces have a value between 0.6 and 0.7 (DTU, 2005). Water
losses also occur when water passes through filters. The filter efficiency allows for such losses;
an efficiency of 90% is recommended by the Environment Agency (2003).
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 20 -
3.8.2 Calculating the demand for water Thomas & Martinson (2007) suggested that the demand for water from the storage tank varies
with the level of water in the tank. It has been found that demand is constant when the tank is
between one-third and two-thirds full, reduces when the tank is less than one third full and
increases when the tank is more than two-thirds full.
3.8.3 Required capacity of storage tank
Mass curve analysis appears to be a common method used in determining the necessary capacity
of the tank (Feroze Ahmed, 1999, Handia, 2003 & Smet, 2003). In a mass curve analysis the
cumulative runoff and the demand are plotted on the same axes (Figure 3.7). The maximum
difference between the runoff and demand indicates the necessary storage capacity of the tank.
Figure 3.7: Rainfall intensity, cumulative rainfall availability and demand from a RWH scheme in
Bangladesh (Feroze Ahmed, 1999)
When determining the available runoff, as well as taking into account the water losses discussed
in 3.8.1, the amount of water lost as a result of tank overspill must also be considered. This loss
will depend on size of the tank, the climate (climates with a long dry season will have the
largest overspill) and the pattern of extraction of water (Thomas & Martinson, 2007).
Alternative methods of calculating the required storage capacity are outlined in BS 8515. There
is a simplified approach where a consistent daily demand and an annual average rainfall depth
are assumed and the required storage capacity is obtained from published graphs. There is also
an intermediate approach, where 5% of the available runoff and annual non-potable water
demand are calculated and the tank capacity taken as the smaller of these values. The detailed
approach, used where there is large monthly variation in the demand or runoff, estimates the
storage capacity by constructing models of runoff and demand.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 21 -
3.9 Community and management issues RWH systems are most effective when implemented in conjunction with water demand
management through measures such as promoting the development of efficient and affordable
devices to conserve water (Handia, 2003 & GDRC, 2007). It is also important that the
community accepts the system and members of the community are able to maintain and operate
it (Handia, 2003).
There appears to be conflicting views about whether it is more effective to implement a RWH
system at community or household level. In recent years, there has been a shift towards more
community-based approaches which emphasise participation, ownership and sustainability.
Furthermore, NGOs are more committed to community rather than household technologies for
reasons of both equity and ‘economies of scale’ (Smet, 2003 & Thomas, 1998). Despite this,
household based systems are often considered as preferable to community ones as they avoid
the difficulty in organising the operational and maintenance of a shared water supply and the
arguments about who ‘owns’ the water (Thomas & Martinson, 2007). However as a
consequence of household based systems being privately owned, it is not easy to monitor water
quality or even the quality of installations (Thomas & Martinson, 2007). Where a community
based RWH system is chosen careful consideration must be given to the choice of the site, as
the cost of construction, utility and the lifetime of the system depend on the site (Machiwal et al,
2004).
3.10 Economics of RWH Thomas & Martinson (2007) suggested two possible economic thresholds for a RWH system; a
cost of US$ 100 for a system that will meet the bulk of a demand for 100 litres of clean water
per household per day or alternatively a threshold of 0.5 ¢ per litre of water delivered.
The unit costs of storage tanks obtained from various projects are presented in Table 3.6. These
costs appear to be much higher than the affordable cost of $15 per cubic metre of storage that
Thomas (1998) suggested. Where shuttering is required to construct the tank, it typically
accounts for a third of the cost and should therefore be reused wherever possible (Handia, 2003).
Table 3.6: Unit cost of different types of tanks (Brikké et al, 2003, Peters, 2006 & Mwenge Kahinda, 2007)
Type of tank Cost ($/m3)
Ferrocement tank 47
Underground concrete tank 60
Plastic tanks 38 - 135
Stand alone concrete tank 82 - 273
To asses the economic viability of RWH, Thomas & Martinson (2007) proposed that either the
payback time should be calculated or the cost compared to that of alternative technologies. The
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 22 -
payback time is a measure of the period it takes for the cumulative annual benefits to equal the
construction costs of the system. The annual benefit is usually just taken as the cost savings as a
result of RWH, as it is difficult to obtain a value for the benefits of having additional water. To
compare rival technologies, the cost to construct each technology to meet a particular service
standard is calculated. The comparison of alternative technologies is extremely time consuming
and often not possible (Thomas & Martinson, 2007).
3.11 Limitations and constraints of DRWH Despite the numerous benefits of RWH that have been highlighted in this literature review, as
with all water supply systems there are also limitations and constraints to RWH.
A study by DTU (2002) in the humid tropics found that on average only 61% of those surveyed
accepted rainwater as potable water (for drinking and cooking). This is compared to 90% who
viewed rainwater as suitable for non-potable uses such as clothes washing and bathing. This
finding suggests that RWH may be limited to only addressing the non-potable water shortages
in some situations.
A RWH system requires space; for example a 1 000 litre tank typically requires 0.75m2 (DTU,
2002). In some locations, in particular urban locations, space is severely limited and therefore
sufficient space for RWH is not available. In the same survey carried out by DTU (2002), 54%
of households questioned expected space limitations to effect their adoption of DRWH.
As has been highlighted in 3.6.1, roofs are widely agreed to introduce less contamination into
the rainwater than ground surfaces. Therefore in cases where suitable roofs are not available,
either because the roofs are not made of an appropriate material to allow runoff or the roofs are
flat, the success of RWH is limited.
As was described in 3.4.1, in nearly all cases RWH is not able to meet the domestic water
demand throughout the year. In most circumstances it is the roof area that is the limiting factor.
DRWH is particularly limited in climates that have a long dry season. In semi arid zones
DRWH is only viable if it is highly integrated with other water sources (Thomas & Martinson,
2007). A further limitation of DRWH in terms of its reliability is that the supply of water can be
severely compromised during droughts. DRWH is more prone to droughts than water supply
systems that rely on groundwater (Thomas & Martinson, 2007)
The availability of DRWH in developing countries, in particular in rural areas, is constrained by
an absence of relevant skills and components (Thomas & Kiggundu, 2004). Many potential
private DRWH users do not have the relevant skills and knowledge to implement DRWH for
themselves. With a lack of installers, who can advise on matters such as tank sizing, install the
components and provide some maintenance services, DRWH is commonly not an option for
these private users (Thomas & Kiggundu, 2004).
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 23 -
As with most methods of improving a community’s water supply, the main reason why DRWH
is often not implemented is due to a lack of financial resources (DTU, 2002). Due to DRWH
having a large initial large capital outlay but smaller maintenance costs compared to alternative
technologies, DRWH is often disregarded where this initial capital is not available (Worm et al,
2006). With the RWH industry being relatively young, components for a RWH system are often
more highly priced than they ought to be (Thomas & Kiggundu, 2004).
In many countries there is a lack of clear policy on the development of DRWH and no
institutional arrangements to support its development (DTU, 2002). Thomas & Kiggundu (2004)
suggested that this is due to ignorance amongst relevant professionals and DRWH not being
treated as generously as other water sources of comparable performance.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 24 -
4 Proposed Methods Statement
4.1 Scope of the work A rainwater harvesting system shall be designed for the village of Pabal in India. Suitable
catchment surfaces will be identified, conveyance and storage devices designed and appropriate
measures to improve water quality implemented.
The designed system shall provide inhabitants within the core of the village (a radius of
approximately 2 kilometres) with water throughout the year. The proportion of the total demand
that the RWH system will satisfy must be determined. This shall be based on the quantification
of the current water supply and the potential of RWH with respect to the total area of available
catchments.
4.2 Programme of work The design shall be completed by 2nd June 2009. Initially data will be collected from a variety of
sources, in order for an informed decision to be made of the most appropriate type of RWH
system for Pabal. A complete design will then be undertaken, including thorough checking to
ensure errors are identified. Finally a detailed design report shall be compiled to help engINdia
and the villagers of Pabal understand the design.
A proposed programme of work is shown as a Gant Chart in Appendix J.
4.3 Required data
4.3.1 Sociological
The total population of Pabal is 9 000 (engINdia, 2005), with a third of these living in the core
of the village.
The project proposal states that the construction of the RWH system should utilise local skills
and therefore information on the capabilities of the villagers must be gained. It will also be
necessary to know the amount of people available for labour and maintenance from within the
village. This information could be obtained from communication with the engINdia expedition
team and VA, as well as from available census data for the area.
4.3.2 Economic
The definition of ‘low cost system’ stated in the project proposal shall be defined as one that has
a construction cost of less than US$ 100 for every 100 litres of water it delivers to a household
per day.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 25 -
The unit costs for the storage tanks shall be assumed to be the values in Table 4.1. These values
have been taken from the lower end of the range of unit costs presented in 3.10. The costs for
the pipes, guttering and filters shall be taken from relevant manufacturers’ websites.
Table 4.1: Unit costs to be used for storage tank
Type of tank Cost ($/m3)
Ferrocement tank 47
Plastic tanks 40
Underground concrete tank 60
Stand alone concrete tank 90
4.3.3 Hydrological
Due to the variation in rainfall that Pabal experiences through the year, monthly rainfall values
shall be used rather than annual values. As was advised in 3.8.1, rainfall datasets used in the
design will be at least 10 years in length. In 3.4.1 it was stated that it was acceptable for the
storage tank to run dry every 50 years. It would therefore also be useful to obtain maximum and
minimum monthly precipitation values with a return period of 50 years.
It will be attempted to obtain this data from either the Indian Metrological Department
(http://www.imd.ernet.in/) or the Indian Water Portal (http://www.indiawaterportal.org/). If
neither of these sources is able to provide suitable data, a Professor of Hydrology at the Indian
Institute of Technology (IIT), Mumbai could be contacted or VA may have suitable rainfall
records. It would be useful to have data from two sources to increase the reliability of the data
that is used.
4.3.4 Spatial
To find suitable locations within Pabal for a RWH system, maps will be required. By having
access to topographic maps of the area, a location will be able to be chosen to utilise gravity in
the flow of water.
Maps will be attempted to be obtained from Survey of India. The most detailed topographic
map available is at a scale of 1:10 000 (http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in, accessed 05/12/2008).
‘Project Maps’ which are constructed specifically for a project and allow the scale and contour
interval can be stipulated are also available. Contact will be made with Survey of India to
determine which maps are available for Pabal and suitable maps will be purchased digitally.
4.3.5 Water usage
The project proposal states that the domestic water consumption is between 100 and 120 litres
per person per day (lcd) for the wet season, with the demand halving during the dry season.
With a more constant and reliable water supply, the domestic consumption in the dry season
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 26 -
would be expected to increase. Therefore a constant domestic demand throughout the year of
120 lcd shall be assumed.
In order to determine the proportion of the total demand that the RWH system should meet, the
quantity of water provided from existing sources must be estimated. This shall be done through
communication with Mr Yogesh Kulkarni, who is the Executive Director of VA, and Mr
Santosh Gondhalekar who was involved in the construction of the dam.
The project proposal also states that the business demand for water within the core of Pabal
(café, laundry, mechanic etc) is between 30 and 800 litres per day per business. It must be
decided whether the RWH system shall meet the business demands as well as the domestic
demand. This decision shall be based on the number of businesses and the current water
provision for these businesses. This information, along with typical demands for each business
type, shall be gained from Mr Kulkarni at VA.
4.3.6 Catchment data
In the project proposal it is stated that newly constructed structures within Pabal have
corrugated steel roofs. However the proposal does not indicate what proportion of buildings are
classed as ‘newly constructed’ and what roofing material the remainder of the buildings are
constructed from. To gain this information communication will be made with Mr. Yogesh
Kulkarni and engINdia.
Also through communication with Mr. Kulkarni, it is hoped that he will be able to suggest types
of roofs (institutional and private houses) suitable for RWH within Pabal. An approximation of
the number of suitable roofs and the dimensions and types (e.g. single pitched, double pitched
etc) of these roofs will also be requested through Mr Kulkarni. The location of the roofs will be
taken from the maps obtained as specified in 4.3.4.
Soil data for the Pabal area will be required to check that the soil can resist the load exerted on it
by the storage tank. This data would also be needed in the calculation of available runoff,
should ground surfaces be used as catchments. Soil data will be obtained from Geological
Survey of India (http://www.gsi.gov.in/).
4.4 Design procedure
4.4.1 Calculation of demand The daily domestic demand will be calculated by multiplying the demand per person (lcd) by
the size of the population being served by the system. The daily business demand, if it is
decided to include this demand, will be calculated by summing the demands of the individual
businesses. The total daily demand will be the combined total of the domestic and business
demands.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 27 -
4.4.2 Calculation of available runoff
The available runoff is the volume of water that can be extracted from the storage tank for
consumption.
The following losses of runoff shall be included in the design:
• runoff not landing on suitable catchments surfaces
• initial evaporative loss
• gutter overspill
• loss due to filter efficiency
• tank overflow
The area of each catchment shall be calculated by multiplying the width of the catchment (w) by
its length (L), as shown in Figure 4.1. These areas shall then be summed to gain a value for the
total catchment surface (A), as shown in Eqn 4.1.
A = ∑ (wL) Eqn (4.1)
Figure 4.1: The dimensions of the catchment area
The daily runoff (Qdaily) shall be calculated using Eqn 4.2, where d is the monthly rainfall depth
and days is the number of days in that month. It is therefore assumed that the monthly rainfall is
evenly distributed across the month.
Adays
dQdaily ×= Eqn (4.2)
Table 4.2: Runoff coefficients
Roofing material Run off co-eff (%)
Cement tiles 75
Clay tiles 40
Plastic and metal sheets 85
Ground surfaces 30
Paved surfaces 65
The daily runoff (Qdaily) shall then be corrected for initial evaporative loss, gutter overspill and
filter efficiency in the following ways:
w
L
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 28 -
• 1mm will be deducted for initial evaporative loss per roof for each day,
• a run-off coefficient (R), which is dependent of the roofing material (Table 4.2), shall be
used to allow for gutter overspill,
• one coarse filter shall be placed in each conveyance system and a filter efficiency of
90% assumed.
Using these allowances, the corrected daily runoff (Qcorrected) can be calculated using Eqn 4.3.
)(9.0 nQRQ dailycorrected −= Eqn (4.3)
The RWH system will exclude the first 20 litres of runoff from each roof at the beginning of the
wet season (May), in accordance with WHO guidelines stated in 3.7.1. This runoff must be
subtracted from the available runoff.
Due to the calculation method used in determining the necessary storage capacity (see 4.4.3),
none or very little runoff will overflow from the tank. Therefore no allowance will be made for
tank overflow in the calculation of the available runoff.
4.4.3 Tank
As highlighted in 3.4.1, a considerable percentage of the total cost of a RWH system comes
from the construction of the storage tanks. It is therefore important that the design method keeps
the storage costs to a minimum whilst still providing sufficient storage to meet the demand.
The level of demand that can be satisfied from RWH can be determined by comparing the total
available runoff over a year with the total annual demand of the RWH system. From this annual
demand, the monthly demand that can be met is calculated. This monthly demand will then be
plotted on the same axes as the monthly available runoff, as in the example shown in Figure 4.2.
Figure 4.2: Comparison of the harvestable water and the demand for each month (for a site in
Biharamulo District, Kagera, Tanzania) (DTU, 2008)
From this graph, the point in the year where the runoff equals the demand can be identified.
Assuming that the tank is empty just prior to this point, a graph of cumulative runoff and
cumulative demand can be plotted (Figure 4.3). This graph can then be used to calculate the
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 29 -
maximum required storage. A spreadsheet, as shown in Table 4.3, shall be produced to
summarise the data obtained from the graphs and calculate the required storage volume for each
month.
Figure 4.3 Predicted cumulative inflow and outflow from the tank (for a site in Biharamulo District,
Kagera, Tanzania) (DTU, 2008)
Table 4.3: Spreadsheet to be used to determine storage
Month Monthly
runoff (m 3)
Cumulative monthly runoff
(m3)
Monthly demand
(m3)
Cumulative monthly demand
(m3)
Difference between cumulative demand
and runoff (m3)
It must be checked that the ground can resist the imposed load due to the storage tank without
excessive deformations. The worst case load, which will occur when the tank is full of water,
shall be considered. The imposed load of the storage tank will consist of the self weight of the
tank and the load exerted by the water within the tank. The density of the material that the tank
is constructed from shall be taken from a database of material properties and the density of
water shall be assumed to be 1 000 kg m-3. Using the unit weight of the relevant soil type, the
increase in vertical and horizontal stress at regular soil depths shall be considered. This change
in stress shall be used to calculate settlements and the total increase in stress compared with the
strength of the soil.
4.4.4 Design of the conveyance system
The Rational Method shall be used to determine the required diameters for the pipes.
Considering a rainfall intensity for a storm with a return period of 50 years, the Rational
Formula (Eqn 4.4) shall be used to calculate the peak discharge (Qp). The head difference
between the catchment and the tank will be calculated using the elevations of the two points.
The pipe length will also be calculated. The head loss per unit length of pipe (Sf) will then be
determined.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 30 -
Qp = C i A Eqn (4.4)
Qp = Peak discharge (m3 hr-1)
C = run-off coefficient
i = rainfall intensity (m/hr)
A = catchment area (m2)
After the correct value of effective roughness (ks) has been selected from Table 4.4, HRS Charts
will be used to calculate the required diameter (D) of the pipes. It will be checked that the flow
is turbulent (Re> 4000) through Equation 4.5, as HRS charts are only valid for turbulent flow.
Table 4.4: Typical ks values (Chadwick & Morfett, 1998)
Pipe material ks (mm)
Brass, copper, glass, Perspex 0.003
Asbestos cement 0.03
Wrought iron 0.06
Galvanised iron 0.15
Plastic 0.03
Bitumen-lined ductile iron 0.03
Spun concrete lined ductile iron 0.03
µρDV=Re Eqn (4.5)
Re = Reynolds Number
ρ = density of water (1000 kgm-3)
D = diameter of pipe
V = velocity of flow
µ = dynamic viscosity of water (1 x10-3 kg/ms)
4.4.5 Water quality
Since a site visit will not be possible during the design of the RWH system, rainwater samples
will not be able to be collected from the site. This will prevent that the water quality parameters
of the rainfall and runoff being quantified and will mean that it will not be possible to assess
whether any improvements in water quality are necessary. Therefore, as a result of the literature
review, it shall be assumed that the water quality of the runoff meets the WHO Drinking Water
Guidelines as a result of
• the runoff passing through coarse filters
• natural sedimentation in the tanks
• the first 20 litres of runoff from each roof being excluded at the beginning of the wet
season.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 31 -
4.5 Cost of system The unit costs detailed in 4.3.2 shall be used to determine the total cost of the RWH system.
Economic analyses, such as calculation of payback time or comparison of the cost with
alternative technologies, shall not be undertaken due to lack of necessary information and time
constraints.
4.6 Presentation of design
4.6.1 Design Report
Within the design report the assumptions that have been used in the design shall be clearly
stated. This will allow engINdia, villagers and any other organisations which use the design to
understand the design criteria that have been used and therefore the capabilities and reliability of
the RWH system. The design shall also be clearly explained, step-by-step, to allow it to be
adapted if conditions in Pabal alter or if the system is adapted for use elsewhere.
In addition to describing the design, the report shall have a section to provide guidance on
operational and maintenance issues to the users/operators of the RWH system. This will help the
users/operators to make best use of the system and aid a longer operating life for the system.
4.6.2 Drawings
Where appropriate, technical drawings will be produced to aid the understanding of the design.
This will be particularly useful for members of the village who are illiterate or do not speak
English.
To make it clear what each drawing is showing, all drawings will be clearly labelled with an
appropriate title. Drawings will also be given a unique reference number so they can be referred
to in the design report.
4.7 Contact with outside organisations It is important to maintain good communication with contacts in Pabal throughout this project.
This will help to increase the sense of ownership that the local community has of the solution
and help them feel confident in the operation and maintenance of the RWH system. Furthermore
with Pabal changing at a very rapid rate (engINdia, 2005), regular communication will ensure
that the solution is appropriate and sustainable.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 32 -
5 Method Statement
5.1 Scope of design The scope of the design is as stated in the Proposed Method Statement. The system has been
designed for a design life of 10 years due to RWH being a temporary solution to Pabal’s water
shortages (see 1.5). The RWH system shall use rooftops as the catchment surfaces rather than
ground surfaces since this runoff is likely to be less contaminated than that from the ground (see
3.6.1). This design has focussed on the core of Pabal as this is the area of the metropolitan
district with the highest population density and where the problem with water shortages is the
greatest.
5.2 Details of buildings
5.2.1 Domestic houses
Typically 4 or 5 people share a house (www.engindia.net , accessed 19/03/2009) and therefore
an average household occupancy of 4.5 people has been assumed. Based on a population of 3
000 for the core of Pabal, it has been assumed that there are 667 houses within the core.
Approximately 50% of the houses in the core are of the traditional type, consisting of wooden
framed roofs with ceramic tiles on top (EWB, 2008). The majority of the remaining houses have
corrugated steel roofs with only a few richer households having flat concrete roofs (personal
communication: Lara Lewington). It has been assumed that houses with flat concrete roofs
make up 5% of the more modern constructed houses. Due to rainwater not draining off flat roofs
easily, these concrete roofed houses have not been included in the design for RWH. Hereafter
clay tiled roofs shall be referred to as Roof 1 and corrugated steel roofs as Roof 2.
Figure 5.1: Ceramic tiled roof (background) and corrugated steel roof (foreground) (Photo Credit: Lara
Lewington)
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 33 -
The typical dimensions of a room in a house in Pabal are 3 x 3.7m, with each house having on
average 1 to 2 rooms (www.engindia.net, accessed 19/03/2009). The height of the roof is
normally between 3.0 and 3.6m (www.engindia.net, 19/03/2009) with most houses being single
or double storey and the roof being double pitched (personal communication: Pooja Wagh).
However these details of houses are not consistent across Pabal; for example newly constructed
houses can be up to three or four storeys, the dimensions of rooms in houses for larger families
of 15 people or more are typically 3.0 x 6.0m and some houses can have up to 4 rooms
(www.engindia.net, accessed 19/03/2009). Despite these variations, a house with dimensions
shown in Figure 5.2 has been assumed. No information on roof overhang was available and
therefore in the calculation of available runoff, a conservative assumption of the roof overhang
being zero has been used.
Figure 5.2: Dimensions of a typical house in Pabal
5.2.2 Non-domestic buildings
Table 5.1 gives details of the non-domestic buildings that have been considered in terms of
RWH. Where information was not available, details have been assumed based on the
information that was known.
B
B
3.7m
0.3m
6.0m
3.3m
10°
Section A-A
A
3.0m
A A 7.4m
3.0m
3.7m
3.0m
Plan
0.3m
1.88m
Cross section of roof
Section B-B
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 34 -
Table 5.1: Details of non-domestic buildings (Personal communication: Lara Lewington)
Building Number Dimensions Detailing of roof
Shops and cafes 50 4.0 x 5.0m Single pitched (5°) corrugated steel roof
Hotels 2 15.0 x 20.0m Double pitched roof (10°) corrugated steel roof
Doctor surgeries 2 10.0 x 15.0m Single pitched (5°) corrugated steel roof.
Secondary school 1 15.0 x 30.0m Double pitched (10°) clay tiled roof
Primary school 2 10.0 x 25.0 m Double pitched (10°) clay tiled roof
5.3 Meteorological conditions
5.3.1 Current rainfall data
The monthly precipitation time series (1901-2002) obtained from the Indian Water Portal gave
an average annual rainfall of 1418 mm/yr. This was found to be inconsistent with values
obtained from other sources such as the World Weather Information Centre which quoted a
value of 722 mm/yr and from www.rainwaterharvesting.org which quoted a value of 782
mm/yr. A possible reason for this inconsistency was that the time series had been extrapolated
from a climate model rather than being from observed data. This time series was discarded but
due to insufficient time it was not possible to source an alternative monthly rainfall record.
Average annual monthly precipitation for Pune
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Ave
rag
e p
reci
pit
atio
n (
mm
)
Figure 5.3: Average monthly precipitation for Pune (data from www.rainwaterharvesting.org, accessed
04/04/2009)
Instead average monthly precipitation values for the city of Pune, which is approximately 30
miles from Pabal and the nearest location for which data could be sourced, has been used in this
design. This data is displayed in Figure 5.3 and the raw data is given in Appendix B. Based on
this data and information from the villagers, the wet season has been assumed to be from May
until October and the dry season from November to April.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 35 -
5.3.2 Simulation of future climate
The likely changes to water resources in Pabal due to climate change have been considered in
the design. These changes have been quantified using the projections for the sub-region of
South Asia given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4).
AR4 predicted likely increases in precipitation for the three month periods of March – May,
June – Aug and Sept – Nov (IPCC, 2007). The projection for Dec to Feb depends on the level of
emissions; A1F1, the highest future emission trajectory, predicts a decrease whilst B1, the
lowest future emission trajectory, predicts an increase (IPCC, 2007). AR4 also predicted
increases in the annual precipitation, in the inter-annual variability of daily precipitation in the
Asian summer monsoon and in the occurrence of extreme weather events such as intense
precipitation.
Table 5.2: Projections for changes in precipitation for South Asia sub-region for the period 2010-2039 (IPCC, 2007)
% change in precipitation (with reference to the baseline period of 1961 –
1990)
A1F1 B1
Dec, Jan & Feb -3 4
March, April & May 7 8
June, July & Aug 5 7
Sept, Oct & Nov 1 3
Since the design life of the RWH system is 10 years, projections for the climate in 2020 have
been considered. The projections from AR4 for the change in precipitation in the time slice
2010 – 2039, with the reference baseline period of 1961-1990, are quantified for the A1F1 and
B1 emission trajectories in Table 5.2. Due to B1 predicting the greatest increases in
precipitation, it is this emission trajectory that has been used in the design as the 2020 scenario.
The use of this trajectory shall increase the chance of the storage tank having sufficient capacity.
It is realised that the B1 trajectory may predict that a greater demand can be met from DRWH
than is possible and this must be made clear to the villagers.
The changes in precipitation over the period of 2010 to 2039 appear to be relatively linear
(IPCC, 2007). Since the time period of the current observed data (1981 – 2006) is reasonably
comparable to the baseline period used in AR4, 50% of the change stated in Table 5.2 has been
used to estimate the 2020 scenario. Assuming the % change for each three month period is
constant over each of the three months in that period, Figure 5.4 shows the estimates for
monthly precipitation in 2020 (See Appendix B for values).
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 36 -
Observed average monthly precipitation and estimated monthly precipitation in 2020
050
100150200250300350400
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Pre
cip
itatio
n (m
m)
Observed precipitation (1981 - 2006) Estimated precipitation (2020)
Figure 5.4: Comparison of observed monthly precipitation and estimated monthly precipitation for 2020
5.4 Determination of the demand to be met
5.4.1 Current demand
The 2005 population figure was the most recent that was available and therefore the current
demand shall be based on the 2005 population of 3 000. To encourage water conservation, a
domestic demand of 100 lcd has been used. Most households keep goats and/or chickens
(personal communication: Lara Lewington) and therefore the water demand for these animals
has also been accounted for. Typically a goat requires 4 litres per day and 100 chickens require
30 litres per day (HR Wallingford, 2003). Assuming on average each household keeps 2 goats
and 5 chickens, the water demand for this livestock will be 9.5 litres per day.
Table 5.3: Unit demand and daily demand for institution types in Pabal’s core (Twort, 2000 & HR Wallingford, 2003)
Type of business Unit demand Total demand
(l/day)
Hotels 250 l/day per bed 7 500
Schools 25 l/day per pupil and staff 7 300
Launderettes 12 m3/tonne of laundry 7 200
Shops, businesses, cafes etc
16 lcd (applied as a per capita allowance to the whole population)
48 000
Using the list of non-domestic institutions specified in Table 5.1 and unit demand figures, the
non-domestic demand has been quantified for each type of institution (Table 5.3). There are
three launderettes in the core of Pabal and since these use a considerable volume of water their
demand has been quantified separately from the generic ‘business’ demand. The unit demands
obtained from literature related to locations where there is a piped water system and waterborne
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 37 -
sanitation. Therefore these demands have been adjusted to account for the fact that Pabal uses
pour-flush toilets (www.engindia.net, accessed 02/04/2009)
5.4.2 Future demand
Due to national population growth, the number of people requiring water in Pabal’s core is
likely to increase. Furthermore as the area develops economically and socially, the domestic
demand per capita is expected to also increase. engINdia also predicts that the presence of VA
and an improved water supply will encourage people to migrate to Pabal’s core
(http://engindia.wikidot.com/population, accessed 04/04/2009).
Due to a large proportion of India’s population growth being predicted to occur in the cities, a
projection of growth of the rural population has been used to estimate the expected population
growth for Pabal. These projections have been obtained from the UN’s Population Division and
are shown in Table 5.4. To account for the migration to Pabal due to VA and the improved
water supply, an additional 7% population growth has been added onto these projections. The
estimated population of the core of Pabal at 5 year intervals is given in Table 5.5. It has been
assumed that the population growth will result in the average number of people per household
increasing to 4.8 and the number of houses in the core increasing to 744.
Table 5.4: Projections for % change in rural population of India (UN Population Division, 2007)
Year % change in rural population (compared to 2005)
2010 5.5
2015 9.7
2020 12.1
Table 5.5: Population projections for Pabal
Year Estimated population
2005 3 000
2010 3 375
2015 3 501
2020 3 573
The economic and social development of Pabal has been factored into the design by assuming
that the average domestic demand will increase to 120 lcd. This demand may be increased
further due to higher temperatures as a result of climate change but this factor has not been
included in the demand. The non-domestic demand in 2020 has been estimated by increasing
the current demand by 19.1% in accordance with the 19.1% population growth.
5.5 Determination of the most appropriate RWH system The volume of water that is available from the current water supply system in the core of Pabal
during a typical month of the wet and dry season has been estimated. To estimate the volume of
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 38 -
water available from the dam water tank, it has been assumed that the tank is filled to capacity
(170 000 litres) every day apart from two days per month when a power cut prevents the tank
being filled. The volume of water available from the wells is assumed to be insignificant during
the dry season due to negligible or zero groundwater recharge. In the wet season, the volume of
water available from the wells is quantified by the estimation of groundwater recharge over the
area of the core of Pabal (12.6 km2). Groundwater recharge is taken as the average difference
between the monthly precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. Since the supply of water
coming from government tankers is not sustainable, as there is no guarantee in the government
continuing this operation, this contribution to the water supply has been ignored. The supply of
water from the village tank has not been quantified separately since this supply comes from the
wells.
By comparing the volume of water available from this current supply and the total demand, the
demand that is currently not met has been determined. Three different options for RWH were
assessed to establish what proportion of this unsatisfied demand each option could meet. The
three options were:
• Option 1: all domestic houses would have their own RWH system to meet a proportion
of the domestic water demand.
• Option 2: the runoff from all non-domestic buildings would be collected in a communal
tank and used for domestic and/or non-domestic uses
• Option 3: all buildings in Pabal (domestic and non-domestic) would have a RWH
system where the runoff would be used for domestic and/or non-domestic uses
For each option the total available annual runoff was calculated by summing the area of all the
roofs and accounting for losses. Losses on the roof (due to spillage, leakage, infiltration,
catchment surface wetting and evaporation) were factored into the design by multiplying the
volume of rainfall by the runoff coefficient. The runoff coefficient for Roof 1 was taken as 0.55
and 0.85 for Roof 2. The runoff was also reduced by 10% due to the inefficiency of the coarse
filter and 20 litres per roof was subtracted from the runoff in May to make allowance for the
first flush system.
For the most feasible option, it was checked that this option was still viable using the estimated
precipitation and demand for 2020.
5.6 Design of the storage tank The method used for sizing the storage tank is the same as that stated in the Proposed Method
Statement. To determine the greatest required storage capacity, the required capacities based on
the demand and runoff for the current situation as well as for the 2020 scenario were considered.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 39 -
The fluctuation in demand with the water level in the tank described in 3.8.2 was not considered
in the design.
The use of ‘average rainfall’ data in the calculation of required capacity does not account for
storm events where the precipitation is larger than average. To account for this, as well as the
increase in the frequency of extreme rainfall events due to climate change, an additional 10%
capacity has been added on to the calculated storage capacities. Due to the difference in %
runoff from Roofs 1 and 2, the sizing of the storage tanks for these two types of houses has been
carried out separately. The storage tank for Roof 1 shall be referred to as Tank 1 and the tank for
Roof 2 as Tank 2.
5.7 Design of conveyance system
5.7.1 Design rain storm
The gutters have been designed to have the capacity to transfer the discharge from the most
severe storm that can reasonably be expected. The maximum discharge will occur for rainfall
intensity of duration equal to the time of concentration, where the time of concentration is “the
time required for a drop of water to travel from the most hydro-logically remote point in the
sub-catchment to the point of collection” (Gupta, 2007). The time of concentration has been
calculated using Kirpich’s formula (Eqn 5.1). Since for design purposes the minimum rainfall
duration is 15 mins, where Tc < 15 mins the value for rainfall duration has been taken as 15 mins.
385.0
1
77.00195.0 −
=∑= i
n
iiC SLT Eqn (5.1) (Gupta, 2007)
Tc = time of concentration (mins)
Li = overland flow length of ith stretch (m)
Si = average slope of the ith stretch of overland flow
n = number of stretches
The critical rainfall intensity has been calculated using the rainfall intensity-duration-frequency
relationship which is stated in Eqn 5.2. This relationship was developed by the Central Soil and
Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradum, India.
m
n
bD
KTi
)( += Eqn (5.2) (Jain et al, 2007)
i = rainfall intensity (cm/hr)
D = rainfall duration (hour)
T = return period (years)
K, n, b & m: constants
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 40 -
A return period of 3 years has been used, based on Parkinson & Mark (2006) recommending a
storm return frequency of 2 - 5 years for suburban residential districts in developing countries.
The constants used in Eqn 5.2 are specific for each catchment and depend on the local
metrological data. Values for the catchment of Bhopal, India have been used (Table 5.6).
Bhopal has an annual rainfall of 785mm (Gupta, 2007) and was therefore the most similar
location to Pabal for which values were available. Using the critical rainfall intensity, the
relevant runoff coefficient was applied to the Rational Formula (Eqn 4.4) to gain the critical
discharge for the gutters for Roof 1 and 2.
Table 5.6: Values for constants for rainfall intensity-duration-frequency equation for Bhopal, India (Jain et al, 2007)
K n b m
Bhopal 6.93 0.189 0.5 0.878
5.7.2 Gutter detailing
To determine the dimensions of the cross-section of the gutters, open channel flow was assumed
and Manning’s equation (Eqn 5.3) applied. The width and cross sectional area of the gutter
determine the volume of water the gutter can hold and the cost mainly depends on the perimeter
(Thomas & Martinson, 2007). Therefore in order to maximise the efficiency of the gutters, and
minimise the cost, dimensions have been chosen that maximise the width and the cross sectional
area for a given perimeter. For a trapezoidal section, the most efficient cross-section is shown in
Table 5.7. These relationships have been used in the determination of the most appropriate
dimensions of the guttering but have been rounded to the nearest 5mm for ease of manufacture.
For metal channels a value of 0.013 for Manning’s Coefficient has been used (Chow, 1985).
21
03
2SR
n
AQ
= Eqn (5.3) (Hamill, 2001)
Q = discharge (m3 s-1)
R = hydraulic radius (m)
n = Manning’s coefficient (s m-⅓)
S0 = slope of channel
A = channel cross-sectional area (m2)
Table 5.7: Geometric characteristics of the most hydraulically efficient trapezoidal cross-section (Hamill, 2001)
Area of flow (A)
Wetted perimeter
(P)
Hydraulic radius (R
= A/p)
Surface width (BS)
Hydraulic mean depth (DM = A/BS)
1.732D2 3.463D ½ D 2.309D 0.750D
x x
x
D
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 41 -
5.8 Water Quality
5.8.1 Estimation of water quality parameters
Since testing of rainwater from Pabal to determine its water quality has not been possible, water
quality parameters have been used from other studies. For the chemical composition of
rainwater, values published by Satsangi et al (1998) for the site of Gopalpura in India have been
used. Gopalpura is a rural site with similar levels of population density and proximity from
major town or cities as Pabal. A value for pH of the rainwater of 6.0-7.5 has also been taken
from Satsangi et al (1998). No data for biological water quality was available for a similar site
in India, so values have been used from the study carried out by Efe (2006) in a rural area of the
Delta State of Nigeria. Data from the study by Yaziz (1989), referred to in 3.6.1, has been used
to estimate the change in water quality parameters as a result of water coming into contact with
the roof. Yaziz (1989) carried out the study on corrugated iron roofs and concrete tiled roofs. It
shall be assumed that the effect on water quality of Roof 1 is the same as that of concrete tiled
roofs and the effect of Roof 2 the same as corrugated iron roofs. See Appendix C for details of
the data obtained from these studies. Table 5.8 estimates the water quality parameters of runoff
from Roofs 1 and 2.
Table 5.8: Estimation of chemical, biological and microbiological parameters for rooftop runoff in Pabal Rainwater Roof 1 Roof 2
pH 6.8 (a) 7.8 7.5 Turbidity (NTU) 4.7 (b) 58 24
Total solids (mg/l) 20 200 115 Total suspended solids (mg/l) 10 (b) 146 84 Total dissolved solids (mg/l) 10 (a) 50 31 Faecal coliforms (/100ml) 0 (b) 13 4 Total coliforms (/100ml) 0 (b) 75 46
(a) Satsangi et al, 1998 (b) Efe (2006)
5.8.2 Calculation of water quality improvements due to storage of water
To calculate the settlement of the suspended particles during the time that the water is stored in
the tank, Stoke’s law shall be applied (Eqn 5.4). The density and viscosity of water varies with
temperature (Parsons & Jefferson, 2006). Based on an average temperature of 25°C (see
Appendix B), the density and viscosity of water shall be taken as 996.96 kg m-3 and 0.9047 x
10-3 kg m-1 s-1 respectively (Parsons & Jefferson, 2006). In order for Stoke’s law to apply it
shall be assumed that the particles fall in a laminar flow field (Parsons & Jefferson, 2006).
Obviously the particle diameters and densities will vary in the runoff, but for the basis of the
calculations the values quoted in Table 5.9 shall be used.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 42 -
µρρ
18
)( 2dgv p
t
−= Eqn (5.4) Parsons & Jefferson (2006)
vt = terminal settling velocity (m s-1)
ρp = particle density (kg m-3)
ρ = density of water (kg m-3)
d = particle diameter (m)
µ = viscosity of water (kg m-1 s-1)
Table 5.9: Size and densities of suspended particles (Hendricks, 2006)
Type of particle Particle specific gravity Particle size (mm)
Sand, seeds 1.2 – 2.65 ≤ 0.2
Irregular particles – mostly organics 1.0 – 1.2 < 0.5
Silica, clay, silt mineral particles 2.65 < 1
5.9 Suitable materials Bamboo has been used in the design wherever feasible due to its availability in Pabal (personal
communication: Pooja Wagh). It has been assumed that due many of the buildings in Pabal
being constructed out of concrete, clay, timber, corrugated metal, stone and lime and mud bricks,
that these too are suitable materials that can be sourced locally.
5.10 Equipment available locally It has been assumed that equipment at VA will be available to be used in the construction and
maintenance of the RWH system. The equipment at VA which may be of use in the construction
of the RWH system includes cutting machines, soldering equipment and drawing tools
(www.vigyanashram.com, accessed 01/05/2009):
5.11 Geotechnical analysis In Pabal the soil comprises of medium black soils which tend to be clayey and fine grained and
are typically 6m deep (Survey of India, 2002 & Jain, 2007). The rock underlying this soil is
basalt (personal communication: Chetan Shenoy). With this soil and rock type, the load on the
ground due to the storage tank can be assumed to be considerably less than the strength of the
ground. Therefore no geotechnical analysis of the RWH system has been carried out.
5.12 Economic analysis
Contrary to 4.5, cost benefit analysis has been undertaken due to suitable economic information
being able to be sourced. The payback period of the RWH system has been calculated since
from literature this method appears to be the most common economic appraisal technique
advised for RWH. The payback period is defined mathematically in Eqn 5.5. To assess whether
the system is ‘low cost’ the criterion stated by DTU (2002) that in South Asia the payback
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 43 -
period should not exceed 2 years has been used. This is instead of the figure stated in 4.3.2 of
US$ 100 per 100 litres, which is not flexible to different sized RWH systems.
Payback period = Cost of construction Eqn (5.5) Annual benefit
The operational and maintenance costs of DRWH are small compared to the construction costs
(Thomas & Martinson, 2007) and therefore only the construction costs have been considered in
the calculation of payback period. Costs from similar projects have been used to obtain
estimates for the construction costs of storage, guttering and water treatment. All these costs
relate to the last 3 years and therefore inflation has not been factored in. An elasticity value of
0.8 (Rees, 2000) has been used to convert the cost of storage specified in other projects to an
estimate for the storage capacities specified in this design. Where costs have been converted
from Indian Rupees to US Dollars, the exchange rate of 21/05/2009 of 0.0210719 has been used
(www.xe.com, accessed 21/05/2009).
5.12.1 Valuation of water
The benefits of the RWH system have been quantified in terms of water quantity benefits (the
benefits of householders have an increased volume and reliability of water) and water quality
benefits (the benefits of householders having water of higher quality).
The cost of water from Government tankers during the dry season is 2 Rupees per 15 litres
(EWB, 2008). Therefore water during the dry season has been valued at 0.13 Rs (US$ 0.0027)
per litre. However due to the water shortages experienced in the dry season, a unit of water
obtained during the dry season would be expected to be of higher value than a unit in the wet
season. Water has been valued at 0.00054 US$/litre for the wet season, based on the estimation
by DTU (2002) that in monsoon climates water is valued approximately 5 times higher in the
dry season compared to the wet season.
Table 5.10: Economic value of different grades of water during dry and wet season (% values obtained from DTU (2002))
Dry season Wet season
Typical % of total value of water
Value (US$/month)
Typical % of total value of water
Value (US$/month)
Potable 43 8.62 28 2.25
Cooking, boiling etc 27 5.41 22 1.76
Washing, laundry & livestock
27 5.41 45 3.61
Cleaning, horticulture and building purposes
3 0.60 5 0.40
Based on current water consumption figures of 110 lcd in the wet season and 55 lcd in the dry
season, the current value of the total water per household per month is US$ 8.02 in the wet
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 44 -
season and US$ 20.05 in the dry season. Due to the water being of variable quality, water will
not have a constant value but instead its value will depend on its use. Using estimates for the %
value of different uses from DTU (2002), the value of water used for different uses in Pabal has
been quantified (Table 5.10).
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 45 -
6 Design
6.1 Determination of most appropriate RWH system
6.1.1 Current supply-demand balance
From Table 6.1, it can be determined that the average groundwater recharge over the wet season
is 133mm/month and that zero or negligible amounts of recharge occur over the months of the
dry season. Using this average value of recharge and accounting for the other sources of water,
an estimation of the volume of water that is available during the wet and the dry season in the
core of Pabal is given in Table 6.2.
Table 6.1: Recharge for the Pabal catchment (PE data from Indian Water Portal, 2009)
Month
Average rainfall (R) (mm)
Average potential evapotranspiration (PE) (mm)
R – PE (mm)
Zero recharge/recharge
Jan 1.7 6.11 -4.41 Zero recharge Feb 1.5 6.80 -5.3 Zero recharge Mar 0.6 7.39 -6.79 Zero recharge
Apr 9.8 7.70 2.1 Recharge
(insignificant) May 30 7.52 22.48 Recharge Jun 171 6.04 164.96 Recharge Jul 171.4 4.80 166.6 Recharge Aug 139.5 4.64 134.86 Recharge Sep 141.7 5.19 136.51 Recharge Oct 85.8 6.11 79.69 Recharge Nov 21.5 6.11 15.39 Recharge
Dec 7.4 5.87 1.53 Recharge
(insignificant)
Table 6.2: Estimation of volume of water available to Pabal’s core from current water supply infrastructure
Supply (m3/month)
Dry season (Nov – Apr) Wet season (May – Oct)
Supply from dam water tank 4 760 4 760
Town/private wells 0 2 212
Total 4 760 6 972
Comparing the domestic and non-domestic demands (Table 6.3) with the available water supply
(Table 6.2), it can be estimated that in the dry season the demand is 137% larger than supply (a
supply deficit of 6 511 m3/month) and in the wet season the demand is approximately 62%
greater than supply (a supply deficit of 4 299m3/month). This approximates to the supply
demand balance during the dry season being roughly two times more severe than in the wet
season. Annually the demand that currently cannot be met by the water infrastructure is 64 872
m3.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 46 -
Table 6.3: Current demand for water in Pabal’s core (based on 2005 population)
Monthly demand (m3/month) Annual demand (m3/yr)
Domestic 9 171 110 052
Non-domestic 2 100 25 212
TOTAL 11 271 135 264
6.1.2 Annual rainwater harvesting potential of different options
The available runoff for the three options described in 5.7 is shown in Table 6.5 (for monthly
runoff values see Appendix D). Comparing these runoffs with the current supply demand
balance shows that even if all the domestic and non-domestic buildings are used for RWH, only
13% of the demand that is currently not met could be satisfied.
Table 6.4: Calculation of annual runoff for different scenarios
Annual runoff (m 3/yr)
Option 1 (domestic houses) 6 940
Option 2 (non-domestic institutions) 1 397
Option 3 (domestic and non-domestic) 8 337
From Table 6.4 it can also be seen that the majority of the roof runoff comes from domestic
houses. Therefore the implementation of RWH on non-domestic buildings is likely not to be
economically efficient. Based on this, the most appropriate option is Option 1 where part of the
domestic demand is met by all houses having RWH. There are two possible alternatives for the
proportion of the domestic demand that could be met:
i) rainwater could be used as a potable water source (drinking and basic hygiene),
providing 5 to 7 litres per person per day throughout the year (Thomas & Martinson,
2007)
ii) rainwater could be stored and then used during the dry season when the water stress is
largest
Table 6.5: Estimated cumulative runoff and potable water demand for 2020
Current 2020
Roof 1 8.71 9.04 Estimated runoff (m3/yr)
Roof 2 13.47 14.00
Due to the poor water quality of the current water sources and the high storage cost of
conserving rainwater for the dry season, the potable water demand shall be satisfied. Table 6.5
shows the estimated runoff from Roof 1 and Roof 2 for the current situation and the 2020
scenario. Based on this available runoff, Table 6.6 indicates the daily domestic demand that
would be able to be met. This runoff should provide enough water to meet the potable water
demand, with any additional water being used for cooking and basic hygiene.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 47 -
Table 6.6: Estimated daily domestic demands that can be met from RWH
Current 2020
Roof 1 5.4 8.3 Daily demand (lcd)
Roof 2 5.2 8.0
6.2 Storage tank
6.2.1 Sizing of storage tank
It was found that the largest storage capacity was required for the 2020 scenario and therefore
the sizing of the tank shown here shall be for this scenario (the graphs for the current situation
are in Appendix E). Figures 6.1 and 6.2 show that for both Roof 1 and 2 the first month where
the runoff is greater than the demand is June. It shall therefore be assumed that the tank will be
empty at the end of May.
Comparison of monthly runoff from Roof 1 and monthly potable water demand (2020)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ayJu
ne July
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Monthly runoff Monthly demand
Figure 6.1: Monthly runoff from Roof 1 and monthly potable water demand for 2020 scenario
Comparison of monthly runoff from Roof 2 and monthly potable water demand (2020)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ayJu
ne July
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Monthly runoff Monthly demand
Figure 6.2: Monthly runoff from Roof 2 and monthly potable water demand for 2020 scenario
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 48 -
From predicting the inflow and outflow for Tanks 1 and 2 (Figures 6.3 and 6.4), it can be seen
that the largest storage requirement for both tanks occurs in October. Tank 1 will require 4.41m3
of storage whilst Tank 2 will require 6.81m3 of storage. Allowing for the fact that this capacity
is for ‘average’ conditions, the design capacities of Tank 1 and Tank 2 shall be 4.85m3 and
7.50m3 respectively. The inclusion of this additional capacity will mean that an overflow tank is
not necessary which shall save space and cost.
Comparison of cumulative monthly runoff from Roof 1 and potable water demand (2020)
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
10.00
June Ju
ly
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ay
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Cumulative monthly runoff Cumulative monthly potable water demand
Figure 6.3: Predicted inflow and outflow for Tank 1 for 2020 scenario
Comparison of cumulative monthly runoff from Roof 2 and cumulative monthly potable water demand (2020)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
June Ju
ly
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ay
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Cumulative monthly runoff Cumulative monthly potable water demand
Figure 6.4: Predicted inflow and outflow for 2 for 2020 scenario
6.2.2 Tank detailing
Due to the problems of UGTs outlined in 3.4.3 and the risk of an UGT undermining the
structure of the house, the storage tanks shall be AGTs. Despite the advantages stated in the
3.4.1 of multiple tanks compared to a single tank, a single tank shall be used since the tank will
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 49 -
only be storing a relatively small amount of runoff. This tank shall be placed at one end of the
building against the wall to minimise space and make the collection of water from the tank as
convenient as possible for the householders. The exact position of the tank will vary between
houses depending on the layout of each house. However for the basis of this design the tank
shall be positioned at the midpoint of wall which is 3.7m in width (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5: Assumed position of water storage tank
The local availability of bamboo makes it a suitable material to use in the construction of the
tank. In current practise, bamboo is used as a structural component for water tanks in two ways:
• treated bamboo poles are erected inside a plinth of cement and stones, with bamboo
strips being woven in-between the poles. The inside of the structure is lined with a
plastic film (a food grain polyethylene film) (Figure 6.6). This tank has been proposed
by ARTI (DTU, 2001).
• bamboo is used as reinforcement in the tank. The filler material can either be concrete
or mud. It was found by Martinson et al (2002) that mud expands under loading which
can crack the lining and cause leakages. The effect on water quality of having mud
lining is also questionable.
Figure 6.6: Plastic lined bamboo tank (DTU, 2001)
A concrete reinforced bamboo tank shall be used since concrete is more likely to be able to be
easily sourced than plastic and leakages are less common when concrete is used compared to
mud. Bamboo will be bent to form a cylindrical reinforcement cage (Figure 6.7), using heat at
3.7m
1.85m
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 50 -
the roof of the tank to bend the bamboo (Li et al, 2002). Bamboo strips will be used to tie the
reinforcement cage together. The tank should be placed on a 0.1m thick concrete base into
which the vertical bamboo poles should be cemented. To minimise dimensional change during
curing, species of bamboo that absorb little water such as Dendrocalamus giganteus or
Bambusa vulgaris schard (Ghavami, 2005) should be used if these are available locally.
Figure 6.7: Bamboo reinforced concrete tank
The outlet of the tank shall be a tap that is located 550mm above the base of the tank. This
should allow a bucket to be placed underneath the tap and be high enough from the base to
prevent resuspension of the settled matter (see 3.7.3). The water below the tap level will not be
able to be extracted but due to the additional 10% capacity, this ‘dead storage’ shall be included
in the total storage capacity of the tank.
Assuming a diameter of bamboo of 30mm (Ghavami, 2005), vertical bamboo poles should be
placed 50mm apart with 20mm cover on either side, as shown in Figure 6.8. The horizontal
bamboo poles should also be placed 50mm apart, with the lowest horizontal pole being 50mm
above the top of the concrete base. For the concrete, a mortar mix of 1:2 cement-sand ratio by
weight is advised (Li et al, 2002). The thick consistency of the mortar mix and the closeness of
the bamboo poles should mean that the mortar can be applied by hand using a technique similar
to plastering a wall. Therefore no formwork will be required.
Circular tanks shall be used since they will be easier to clean than rectangular tanks. The height
of the tank shall be limited to 1.5m to allow householders to easily lift the lid and to make
cleaning easier. With a height of 1.5m, the diameters of Tanks 1 and 2 shall be 2.03m and
2.53m respectively with corresponding volumes of 4.85 m3 and 7.54 m3. The cross sections and
elevations of the tanks are shown in Figure 6.9 and 6.10.
Bamboo folded by heat at the top of the tank
Bamboo strips used to tie bamboo poles together
0.1m
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 51 -
Figure 6.8: Reinforcing details for bamboo-concrete water tank
Figure 6.9: Elevation and plan view of Tank 1
30mm
20mm
20mm
50mm
0.07m
2.03m
2.03m
A A
Section A-A
1.5m
0.07m
2.53m
2.53m
A A 1.5m
Section A-A
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 52 -
Figure 6.10: Elevation and plan view of Tank 2
Assuming a simple hydrostatic pressure distribution in the tank, the imposed loads (the
hydrostatic force) on the walls of Tank 1 and Tank 2 will be 35.2 kN and 43.9 kN respectively.
The maximum resistance of the concrete (assuming the strength = 10 MPa) is approximately 40
000 kN (see Appendix F for details of calculations). Therefore it can be deduced that the tank is
extremely overdesigned, with the bamboo only there to support the concrete and not to provide
any tensile resistance.
A corrugated metal cover for the tank should be made to act as a barrier to mosquitoes, avoid
animals and people falling in and prevent algal growth. Corrugated metal has been chosen as it
is lightweight which will make it easier to take the cover off for tank maintenance. The metal
should be galvanised to reduce the corrosion of the cover. The cover should be sloped at ½ % to
allow rainfall to drain off it and have an overhang of 30mm from the outside walls of the tank
(Figure 6.11). The required diameter of the covers for Tank 1 and Tank 2 are 2.23m and 2.73m
respectively. To prevent the cover being blown off in the wind, the cover should be attached to
the walls of the tank through a hook and a piece of wire.
Figure 6.11: Corrugated steel cover
Most of the failures of bamboo-reinforced concrete water tanks are as a result of a lack of
reinforcement due to the decay of the bamboo (Vadhanavikkit & Pannachet, 1987). To halt the
decay of the bamboo, a chemical solution of potassium dichromate, copper sulphate and boric
acid should be applied to the bamboo through either a pressure pump or soaking prior to
construction of the tank. This preservation technique has been developed at ARTI and claims to
make the bamboo non-biodegradable, protect it from fungal and insect attack and improve the
lifespan of bamboo by up to 15 years. (www.arti-india.org, accessed 13/05/2009).
There is a chance that the bacterium Legionella pneumophila that causes Legionellosis could
colonise the water in the storage tank. The temperature of the water during the summer months
is likely to vary between 22°C and 38°C (see Appendix B for temperature data). The bacteria
0.03 m
Fixing cover to tank
Metal hook
Metal wire
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 53 -
can live in water between 20 and 50°C (with an optimal temperature of 35°C) and requires a
source of nutrients such as organic matter (WHO, 2005). This bacterium is transmitted to people
through the inhalation of small droplets of water containing the bacteria (HSE, 2008). The
bacterium’s growth is considerably increased where the water is stagnant (US Department for
Labor, 2008). Despite suitable temperature conditions and the likely presence of nutrients, the
risk of Legionellosis is considered to be low due to the cover reducing the chance of water
vapour leaving the tank and the regular withdrawal of water from the tank preventing the water
becoming stagnant.
Additional tank components of a smoothing inlet, a suction filter, an overflow trap and a sump
and drain, as described in 3.4.4., shall not be included in the design in an attempt to keep the
cost of the storage tank to a minimum.
6.3 Conveyance system
6.3.1 Outline of conveyance layout
Gutters must be included as part of the design of the RWH system, since during engINdia’s visit
to Pabal in 2005 it was found that only relatively few houses had guttering (EWB, 2008). To
maximise the collection of runoff, gutters shall be put on both sides of the roof of each house.
Figure 6.12: Direction of runoff from roofs
Figure 6.13: Effect of sloping gutter on distance between roof and gutter
It shall be assumed that the runoff on the roof is perpendicular to the length of the roof as shown
in Figure 6.12. In order to make the water flow faster and therefore provide the gutters with
extra water carrying capacity, the gutters shall be sloped towards the end of the building where
the tank is located. A further reason for having a sloping gutter is to reduce the occurrence of
pooling of water which could provide breeding sites for mosquitoes. As the gutter slopes, the
distance between the roof and the gutter shall increase (Figure 6.13). Therefore the gutter shall
be divided into three sections; the first two sections having a slope of ½ % and the third section
(nearest the tank) having a slope of 1% (Thomas & Martinson, 2007).
1.85m
6m
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 54 -
A gutter shall be also used to transmit the runoff from the roof gutter to the storage tank. The
use of a gutter rather than a pipe will make construction simpler and easier, since fittings would
be required to connect the pipe to the roof gutter. The overall layout of the conveyance system
will be as per Figure 6.14.
Figure 6.14: Arrangement of guttering and downpipe
6.3.2 Design of roof gutters
Bamboo is not a suitable material to use for the guttering as it only lasts for approximately one
rainy season due to rotting of the organic material and the porous surface provides an ideal
environment for the accumulation of bacteria (Ferdausi and Bolkland, 2000 & DTU, 2002).
Instead it is advised that the guttering is made out of metal. This metal should be galvanised to
prevent the corrosion and mobilisation of the metal. The widespread use of metal for roofing in
Pabal confirms its availability and acceptance. The easiest shapes to bend metal into are
trapezoidal and ‘V’ sections, but since ‘V’ shaped sections are easily blocked by twigs and
leaves (Thomas & Martinson, 2007), a trapezoidal section shall be used for the guttering.
Table 6.7: Design storm parameters
Parameter Value
Rainfall duration (mins)* 15
Rainfall intensity (cm/hr) 10.98
Roof 1 0.17 Critical discharge (l/s) Roof 2 0.29
* the time of concentration (Tc) > 15 mins, therefore the rainfall duration has been taken as 15 mins
The parameters of the design storm are given in Table 6.7. The most hydraulically efficient
trapezoidal cross-section that can transmit the critical discharge from Roofs 1 and 2 are shown
in Figures 6.15 and 6.16 respectively. For detailed calculations of the sizing of the cross
sections, see Appendix F. An additional 10mm have been added onto the depths calculated
Slope ½ % Slope 1 %
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 55 -
using Manning’s Equation to allow for inaccuracies such as the estimation of Manning’s n and
the averaging of the slope over the roof length.
Figure 6.15: Roof gutter dimensions for Roof 1 Figure 6.16: Roof gutter dimensions for Roof 2
The horizontal distance between the edge of the roof and the gutter must be such that the gutter
intercepts as much runoff as possible. The speed of runoff on the roof, and therefore the path the
runoff takes when it falls off the roof, depends on the roofing material. Runoff on a clay roof
doesn’t travel at high velocity and therefore tends to fall vertically from the edge of the roof,
whilst runoff from a corrugated metal roof follows a curve (Figure 6.17). Therefore the
centreline of the gutter for Roof 1 shall be in line with the edge of the roof and the centreline of
the gutter for Roof 2 shall be offset 20mm from the edge of the roof (Thomas & Martinson,
2007). The consideration of the flow path in the design will remove the need for a Splash Guard
which reduces runoff loss by causing the runoff to flow vertically into the gutter.
Figure 6.17: Runoff patterns from clay and corrugated metal roofs (adapted from Thomas & Martinson,
2007)
The method of attachment of the gutters to the building shall depend on whether the house has a
corrugated steel or clay roof. For Roof 2, holes can be made in the steel and galvanised metal
wire used to hang the gutter from the roof. This method of attachment will not possible for Roof
1 since the weight of the gutter, particularly when it’s full of water, may pull the tiles that the
gutter is hung from off the roof. With the walls of the house being made from reinforced
concrete, stone and lime or red brick and mortar and being typically 22cm thick (personal
communication: Lara Lewington), it should be possible for metal supports to be attached to the
walls to support the gutter. Whichever method of support is chosen, it is advised that the gutter
is supported at least every 0.3m along its length. The gutter attachment for both types of houses
is shown in Figure 6.18.
80mm
40mm
35 mm 40mm
40mm
30 mm
60mm
30 mm
30 mm
Runoff from clay roof
Runoff from corrugated metal roof
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 56 -
Figure 6.18: Guttering attachments for Roof 1 and 2
The slope of the gutter should cause all runoff to flow towards the end of the house where the
tank is located. However it is recommended that a piece of metal is soldered on to the gutter at
the end furthest away from the tank to ensure runoff does not flow out of the gutter.
At each point along the gutter where there is a change in slope a new piece of metal will have to
be used. To minimise leakage, these joints must be properly sealed either by soldering or using
a waterproof sealant such as bitumen or tape (Thomas & Martinson, 2007). It is expected that
soldering would be the most appropriate technique to use due to VA having soldering
equipment but this decision will be left to the villagers’ discretion. Each section of the gutter is
2m long, however if it is not possible to source sheets of metal 2m in length joins will have to
be made within each section as well.
6.3.3 Transfer from roof gutters to storage tank
Trapezoidal sections shall also be used for the gutters to transfer the runoff from the roof to the
tank. In order to transmit the critical runoff, the depths of these gutters need to be 8mm for Roof
1 and 10mm for Roof 2 (see Appendix F for calculations). These depths are considerably less
than for the roof gutters due to the larger slope between the roof and the storage tank (a slope of
approximately 50%). However for reasons of simplicity and to allow these gutters to be
soldered onto the roof gutters, the same dimensions as the roof gutters (Figures 6.15 and 6.16)
shall be used. In order for these gutters not to obstruct doors and windows, the RWH system
should be placed on the end of the house where it will cause the least obstruction. The layout of
these gutters is shown in Figure 6.19. If it is felt that supports for these gutters are required, then
the supports specified for the roof gutters for Roof 1 can be used. The gutters from both sides of
the house will meet at the centre of the cover of the storage tank. Water will be discharged into
the tank through an 80mm diameter hole in the cover of the storage tank (Figure 6.20).
Roof 2
20mm
Roof 1
Centre line of gutter in line with edge of
roof
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 57 -
Figure 6.19: Gutters to convey water from roof gutters to storage tank
Figure 6.20: Inlet of gutters into tank
6.4 Water quality
6.4.1 Removal of debris
The debris that is likely to have collected on the roofs must be removed from the runoff before
it enters the tank. As was described in 3.6.1 and 3.7.1, significant amounts of debris are likely
to be washed off the roof in the runoff at the beginning of the wet season. A first flush system
should be used to divert 20 litres of runoff at the beginning of the wet season (World Health
Organisation, 2003). This shall prevent this poor quality runoff affecting the water quality of
the water in tank.
The approach for determining the volume of runoff to divert that Martinson & Thomas (2004)
suggested (see 3.7.1) is not feasible for Pabal. Using this approach would require approximately
1.5mm of rainfall to be diverted each time rainfall is preceded by 3 dry days. It can be seen from
Table 6.8 that this would result in a considerable proportion of the rainfall for the month of Jan-
May and Oct–Dec being diverted (based on the number of rainy days < 7.5 in these months).
80mm
Storage tank lid
1.50m
1.85m
3.12m
Roof 2
1.5m
1.85m
3.01m
Roof 1
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 58 -
Approximately 20% of the annual rainfall falls during these months and therefore this approach
would significantly reduce the available runoff.
Table 6.8: Number of rainy days each month (based on 25 year average (1982 – 2006)) (www.rainwaterharvesting.org, accessed 03/04/2009)
Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
No. of rainy days
0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 2.2 9.6 12.2 9.8 7.9 4.7 1.2 0.4
Of the four different methods of diverting the first flush presented in 3.7.1, a manual system
shall be used. The disadvantage of a manual system, of having to rely on someone to move the
pipe to divert the flow, will be acceptable with the first flush system only being used once a year.
Furthermore, with use only once a year the cost of a more complex system cannot be justified.
The householder should simply lift the tank cover off and put a bucket, which has 20 litres
marked on, underneath the gutter. This first flush runoff should not be used for drinking but
could be used for non-potable uses such as laundry and bathing.
It is likely that it will not only be at the beginning of the wet season that considerable debris will
be transported in the runoff. Due to climate change resulting in more intense less frequent
rainfall events, it is probable there will be periods in the wet season where no rainfall occurs.
Such periods will allow debris to collect on the roof. To reduce the amount of debris that enters
the tank a coarse filter, as described in 3.7.2, should be placed in the opening of the tank cover.
This filter will not only act as a barrier to debris in the runoff but also to debris which could fall
into the tank through the opening and to insects such as mosquitoes. The filter (Figure 6.21)
should consist of a fine wire mesh with holes of approximately 1.2mm in diameter (Ashworth,
2005) and could be either brought or made by intertwining pieces of fine metal wire.
Figure 6.21: Coarse filter on tank cover
1.2mm 1.2mm
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 59 -
6.4.2 Water quality improvements due to storage
As was described in 3.7.3, the storage of the runoff in the tank shall reduce the concentration of
suspended solids and the concentration of microorganisms. The short settling time of the
particles in Table 6.9 suggest that the significant majority of the suspended particles shall be
removed as a result of storage. However the natural pathogenic die-off will be limited due to
the tank cover preventing UV radiation entering the tank.
Table 6.9: Terminal settling velocities for particles
Type of particle Terminal settling velocity
(mm s-1) Time required to settle to the bottom
(seconds)
Sand, seeds 22 68
Irregular particles – mostly organics
16 94
Silica, clay, silt mineral particles
996 1.5
6.4.3 Filtration
Filtration shall be used to reduce the levels of microorganisms in the water and further decrease
the concentration of suspended solids. A suitable low cost technique is the use of a sand filter.
From the comparison of rapid and slow sand filtration in 3.7.4, slow sand filtration has been
chosen due to:
• the biological layer improving microbial reduction
• the simpler design and less frequent cleaning of slow sand filters compared to rapid
sand filters
• the complex operation of rapid sand filters.
The slow sand filters will be implemented as stand-alone units to the RWH system at the
household level. This will allow the filters to treat water from other sources as well as from
RWH. Stand alone units will also mean that the filters do not have to be constructed at the same
time as the RWH system. This will allow the villagers to see if filtration of the rainwater is
necessary and also will help to spread the cost of the system over a longer period of time if
required.
Conventional slow sand filters rely on the continual flow of water to sustain the biological layer.
Based on a filtration rate of 0.1 m hr-1 (Parsons & Jefferson, 2006) and 45 litres of water being
filtered per day (10 lcd), the maximum cross sectional area to ensure the continual flow of water
would be 0.019m2. Constructing a filter of this cross sectional area would not be economically
viable. Therefore a slow sand filtration system that is designed to be used intermittently is more
suitable.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 60 -
In intermittently used slow sand filters the design is altered to account for the absence of the
continuous flow of water. The filter is designed so that once the water has been filtered it enters
a collector pipe on the base on the filter via holes. The collector pipe is then raised back up to
between 2 and 3cm above the sand level (Figure 6.22) to ensure that the water level is
maintained above the sand (Palmateer et al, 1998). This constant water level sustains the
biological layer by transferring oxygen between the air and the biological layer via diffusion.
This arrangement is often referred to as a Biosand Filter and was developed at the Dr D Manz
and the University of Calgary, Canada in the early 1990’s. Due to the relative recent
introduction of such filters, only limited studies into their effectiveness have been undertaken
(Table 6.10).
Figure 6.22: Principle of intermittent-use slow sand filter
Table 6.10: The effectiveness of BioSand filters
Removal Source
98.5% of E.Coli
Turbidity reduction from 6.2 to 0.9 NTU
Duke et al, 2006
95 – 98% reduction of E. Coli in a ripened filter
80 -90% virus reduction in a ripened filter
Stauber et al, 2006
97% reduction of faecal coliforms
83% reduction in total heterotrophic bacterial populations, 100% of Giardia cysts and 99.98% of Cryptosporidium oocysts when administered in concentrations varying from 10 - 100 times environmental pollution levels.
50 – 90% of organic and inorganic intoxicants
Palmateer et all, 1999
95-99% of zinc, copper, cadmium and lead
Approx 67% of iron and manganese
Fort Lewis College, 2008
The filter media shall consist of a fine sand layer, a layer of coarse sand/medium gravel and a
layer of coarse gravel. The coarse gravel layer shall promote the vertical flow of water into the
collector pipes. The coarse sand/medium gravel shall stop the fine sand from clogging the
2 – 3 cm
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 61 -
coarse gravel and the collector pipe. The grain size of the coarse sand/medium gravel should be
1-6mm and the grain size for the coarse gravel 6 – 15mm, with both layers being 5cm thick
(www.biosand.org,, accessed 17/05/2009). A grain size of approximately 0.2mm should be used
for the fine sand. It is important that sand of larger grain size is not used since this would make
the gap between the grains larger, resulting in less material becoming trapped. Smaller grain
sizes also provide a greater surface area for growth of microorganisms and adsorption to occur
on. It is also important that sand which is too fine is not used since this could clog the filter. The
sand should have preferably been screened (possibly using a metal mosquito mesh screen) and
should be washed and be organic free (Morgan, 1990 & CAWST, 2007). To avoid
contamination, this sand should not be taken from the beach, rivers or areas where the sand has
come into contact with animals or people. Filtration and biological activity in a slow sand filter
extends to approximately 0.5m below the sand surface (Twort, 2000 & Parsons and Jefferson,
2006) and therefore the thickness of the sand layer should be approximately 0.6m thick.
A concrete vessel with walls of approximately 50mm thick should be constructed to contain the
filter. A suitable mix for the concrete is 2 part Type 10 Portland cement, 3 part clean pea gravel
(6mm) and 2 part clean sand (FHCC, 2006). Concrete has been chosen instead of plastic since
concrete is more durable than plastic, it provides protection for the collector pipe by housing it
in the vessel and construction from concrete allows the household to be involved in the
construction which promotes a sense of ownership.
Figure 6.23: Plan and cross section of slow sand filter
Plan
Fine sand 0.2mm
Coarse gravel
Coarse sand/medium gravel
0.94m
0.5m
50mm
30mm
50mm
600mm
110mm
50mm
Cross-section
50mm
0.05m
0.7m
0.7m
Section A-A
A A
13mm
LID
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 62 -
Based on field and lab tests of the Biosand Filter, the most suitable flow rate to maximise filter
efficiency is 0.6 litres per minute (CAWST, 2007). This flow rate corresponds to when the
reservoir is full; as the water level drops, according to Darcy’s law the flow rate will decrease.
Using a filtration rate of 0.15 m/hr (Parsons & Jefferson, 2006), the required cross-sectional
area of the filter to achieve 0.6 litres/min is 0.24m2. Using a square cross section, the required
length of each side is 0.5m. Based on householders requiring potable water twice a day and 45
litres of water being filtered per household per day, the reservoir in the filter must have a
capacity of at least 25 litres. A depth of the reservoir (space above the sand layer) of 0.11m will
provide this capacity. Water can be poured into the filter and treated water collected
immediately. The details of the filter are shown in Figure 6.23.
To provide a flow rate of 0.6 litres per minute, the collector pipe should be 13mm in diameter
(FHCC, 2006). A PVC pipe should be used with holes every 20mm along the pipe made by saw
cuts or drilling. The pipe should be laid on the bottom of the filter in a circle with the holes
facing downwards.
A concrete lid should be constructed to be placed over the filter to prevent contamination of the
filter from the air/animals etc. A 15mm hole in the lid will allow water to be poured into the
filter without the lid needing to be removed. To avoid erosion of the sand when pouring water in,
a stone should be placed directing underneath the hole. This stone will reduce the velocity of the
water before it hits the sand.
The biological layer initially takes three weeks to reach maturity after the filter has been
constructed (CAWST, 2007). Therefore water obtained from the filter should not be used for
potable uses for the first three weeks of the filter’s operation. Biosand Filters have a typical
lifetime of 6 to 10 years (Jeuland & Whittington, 2009) and therefore a single filter should
hopefully last the complete design life of the RWH system.
6.5 Distribution After the quality of the water has been improved through settlement and filtration, it is
important that the householders use suitable practises to collect and store the water prior to
consumption. Failure to do so will risk recontamination of the water. One container should be
used to draw water from the RWH tank and pour this water into the filter whilst a separate
container should be used to collect the water from the filter. Both these containers should
• be durable, non-oxidising and easy to clean
• have a single opening that is less than 8cm in diameter (Mintz, 1995). This shall prevent
utensils or hands being put into the container since these could introduce contamination
• have a tightly fitting lid
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 63 -
The containers should also be cleaned (if possibly disinfected) frequently to remove any sources
of contamination. These guidelines are in addition to the more general considerations such as
making the container lightweight and easy to carry, inexpensive and made out of materials that
can be sourced locally. If householders feel that the water obtained from the filter is not clean
enough or contamination occurs during the transport/storage, then the water quality can be
improved by household treatment methods such as boiling and chlorination.
6.6 Maintenance instructions for the villagers
6.6.1 Conveyance system
Due to the gutters being open, it is likely that debris will collect in them. This debris could
block the flow of water causing the gutters to overflow and create pools of stagnant water that
could be used as breeding sites by mosquitoes. Therefore the householders should be instructed
to clear the gutters of debris regularly. The gutters are particularly likely to become clogged
with debris at the beginning of the wet season when the first rains wash the debris off the roof.
Householders must be made aware of the risks and necessary precautions of working at heights.
The gutters should also be checked regularly for leakages, particularly at the joints. Any
leakages that are found should be repaired as soon as possible to prevent loss of runoff. If a leak
occurs at a joint, then the joint should be re-soldered. For leaks not at joints, a waterproof
sealant or tape can be used.
6.6.2 Storage tank
Once a week any debris which has accumulated on the coarse filter should be removed. The
accumulation of debris is particularly likely at the beginning of the wet season. Once a month,
the tank cover should be lifted off and suspended matter on the surface of the water removed
using a sieve or a similar utensil. When the tank is empty or nearly empty (most probably
towards the end of May), matter that has settled to the bottom of the tank should be removed.
The tank should also be regularly checked to check that no algae are growing on the surface of
the water.
6.6.3 Biosand filter
To clean the filter the outlet should be blocked and the reservoir filled. The water should be
swirled around by hand which will cause the surface of the sand to be agitated. This will result
in the captured material being suspended in the standing water overlying the sand. This dirty
water should then be removed using a bucket and the process repeated as many times as
necessary to regain the desired flow rate. Cleaning the filter this way will cause fewer
disturbances to the biological layer compared to removing the sand and washing it. Therefore
there will not be a need to have multiple filters to allow the biological layer to regenerate after
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 64 -
cleaning. This method of cleaning stated has been taken from www.biosandfiler.org (accessed
19/05/2009).
Cleaning should only be carried out when the filter efficiency drops below the desired level
rather than as a matter of routine. Too frequent cleaning will cause the size of the pore spaces to
become too large to trap particles in the water and also causes the biological layer to be
disturbed more often than necessary.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 65 -
7 Discussion of the design
7.1 Assessment of the effectiveness of proposed water treatment Comparing the water quality of the runoff collected from the roofs (Table 5.8) with the WHO
Drinking-Water Guidelines (Table 7.1), it can be seen that the water quality parameters that
need to be reduced are turbidity and the concentrations of total and faecal coliforms.
Table 7.1: Comparison of guideline values specified in the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality (WHO, 2006) with the water quality of the runoff
Initial water quality of runoff Parameter WHO standard Roof 1 Roof 2
pH 6.5 - 8 7.8 7.5 Temperature (°C) 31 31 Turbidity (NTU) 5 58 24
Total solids (mg/l) 200 115 Total suspended solids (mg/l) 146 84 Total dissolved solids (mg/l) 600 50 31 Faecal coliforms (/100ml) 0 13 4 Total coliforms (/100ml) 0 75 46
Table 7.2: Comparison of water quality of runoff and final water quality
Initial runoff Improvements due to water
storage Improvements due to Biosand
Filter Parameter
Roof 1
Roof 2
% removal (a)
Roof 1
Roof 2
% removal (b)
Roof 1
Roof 2
Turbidity 58 24 80 11.6 5 85 1.74 0.7
Total coliforms (/100ml)
75 46 70 23 14 83 4 2.3
Faecal coliforms (/100ml)
13 4 70 4 1 97 0.1 0.04
(a) Assumed turbidity based on estimated settlement of suspended solids (6.4.2) and % pathogenic reduction taken from Ashworth (2005)
(b) % reductions taken as average values quoted in Table 6.12
The effectiveness of the proposed water treatment described in 6.4 can be assessed by
comparing the estimated final water quality (that from the Biosand Filter) (Table 7.2) with the
WHO Drinking-Water Guidelines (Table 7.1). This comparison shows that the water treatment
has successfully lowered the turbidity of the water to below the WHO guideline value. The
treatment has also been successful in reducing the concentration of faecal coliforms. On average
90% of the water samples taken from Roof 1 and 96% from Roof 2 would have no faecal
coliforms present. For a water supply that only serves a single household, WHO (2006)
classifies the quality of the water system as ‘excellent’ where more than 90% of the water
samples contain no E.coli (the most suitable indicator of faecal coliforms). However the
removal of total coliforms from the runoff is not as effective since significant concentrations of
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 66 -
total coliforms are likely to remain in the water despite the water treatment. Therefore some
household water treatment, such as current techniques of chlorination and boiling, may be
necessary in addition to the proposed water treatment specified in 6.4.
Despite it being stated in 3.7 that water treatment is commonly not required for rainwater used
for drinking, Table 7.2 shows that improvements in water quality from storage alone would be
unlikely to be sufficient. However the limitations of these estimates must be realised in terms of
the data for roof runoff being taken from sites other than Pabal and the effectiveness of the
treatment processes being estimated.
7.2 Economic appraisal of RWH system
7.2.1 Benefits of RWH
The water quantity benefits from the introduction of RWH will be:
• the RWH system will provide the households with a more continuous supply of water
than the current supply that is only available for 20 mins a day.
• the storage of the rainwater will increase the reliability of the water supply throughout
the year, particularly in the dry season.
• the harvesting of the rainwater will result in an increase in the total volume of water that
is available to the household.
Assuming the RWH system meets the potable water demand throughout the year, the value of
the potable water provided to each household in the wet and dry season will be US$ 2.25 and
US$ 8.62 per month respectively. Runoff from Roof 2 is likely to provide more water than is
required to meet the potable water demand. This additional water shall be valued at US$ 5.25
per year (based on there being an additional 2 lcd). This gives an annual water quantity benefit
of US$ 65.22 for RWH on Roof 1 and US$ 70.47 for Roof 2.
The water quality benefits will be as a result of the water gained from RWH being of higher
quality than the water obtained from current water supplies. With the water from RWH being
used for potable uses, it is likely that there will be a reduction in the number of cases of
waterborne diseases. For example Jeuland & Whittington (2009) found that a Biosand Filter
reduces cases of diarrhoea by between 20 to 60%.
For simplicity due to the most significant water quality benefits being from the Biosand Filter,
only these economic benefits have been included. Table 7.3 gives the estimated benefits per
household of having a Biosand Filter in terms of morbidity and mortality. These values have
been derived from Jeuland & Whittington (2009), which quoted the benefits for a household of
4 to 6 people in a typical developing country. The estimated benefits account for filter usage
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 67 -
declining by 1 – 5% each year (Jeuland & Whittington, 2009). The total; annual water quality
benefit will be US$ 86.40 per household.
Table 7.3: Benefits from Biosand Filter (taken from Jeuland & Whittington, 2009)
Benefits (US$/(household-month))
Morbidity 0.23
Mortality 0.74
7.2.2 Costs of RWH
The construction costs of the RWH system will comprise of the costs of storage, guttering,
coarse filter and the Biosand Filter. Tables 7.4 and 7.5 show the construction costs for the RWH
system for Roof 1 and 2 respectively.
Table 7.4: Construction costs for RWH system for Roof 1
Item Unit cost
(US$) Quantity
Total cost (US$)
Roof guttering 2.5/m (a) 12.0 m 30.00
Guttering from roof to tank 2.5/m (a) 3.01m 7.52
Coarse filter 14.75 (b) 1 14.75
Storage tank 125.00 (c) 1 125.00
Manufacturing and software costs 75.00 (d) 1 75.00
Transportation and delivery of filter media 15.00 (d) 1 15.00
Training of household in how to use it and health promotion
0.98 (d) 1 0.98
Biosand filter
TOTAL 90.98
GRAND TOTAL 268.25 (a) Martinson et al (2002) (b) www.rainwaterharvesting.org (accessed 21/05/2009) (c) Martinson et al (2002) & Rees (2000) (d) Jeuland & Whittington (2009)
Table 7.5: Construction costs for RWH system for Roof 2
Item Unit cost
(US$) Quantity
Total cost (US$)
Roof guttering 2.5/m 12.0 m 30.00
Guttering from roof to tank 2.5/m 3.12m 7.8
Coarse filter 14.75 1 14.75
Storage tank 200.00 1 200.00
Manufacturing and software costs 75.00 1 75.00
Transportation and delivery of filter media 15.00 1 15.00
Training of household in how to use it and health promotion
0.98 1 0.98
Biosand filter
TOTAL 90.98
GRAND TOTAL 343.53
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 68 -
7.2.3 Calculation of payback period
Table 7.6 shows the calculated payback period for the RWH system for Roof 1 and Roof 2. The
payback period for Roof 1 is less than the threshold of 2 years indicating that this system is
economically viable. RWH for Roof 2 is not as economically viable, since the payback period is
slightly greater than the threshold. However the payback period is only 3 months greater than
the threshold, which is not particularly significant over a design life of 10 years. Figures 7.1 and
7.2 show the comparison of the cost and cumulative annual benefits over the 10 year design life
for the systems for Roof 1 and Roof 2 (see Appendix G for actual costs and benefits).
Table 7.6: Calculation of payback time
Type of house Payback period (months)
Roof 1 21
Roof 2 27
Comparison of cumulative annual benefits and cost for domestic RWH in Pabal for Roof 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
US
$
Cost Benefits
Figure 7.1: Comparison for cumulative annual benefits and cost for DRWH system for Roof 1
Comparison of cumulative annual benefits and the cost for domestic RWH in Pabal for Roof 2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year
US
$
Cost Benefits
Figure 7.2: Comparison for cumulative annual costs and benefits for DRWH system for Roof 2
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 69 -
8 Conclusions
8.1 Overview of the design The aim of the project, to design a rainwater collection and storage system for the village of
Pabal in India, has been achieved. The proposed RWH system will not only help to alleviate the
current water shortages in Pabal but also reduce the high levels of waterborne diseases that
presently exist.
The water supply from current sources has been quantified and a large difference between the
availability of water in the wet season compared to the dry season has become evident. The
demand for water within Pabal’s core has also been quantified in terms of the domestic and non-
domestic demands. By comparing the current water supply with the demand for water the
imbalance between supply and demand has become clear, with demand being considerably
larger than the supply.
As a result of three options for RWH being considered, it was determined that the most feasible
system was for all houses in the core of Pabal to have RWH. It was therefore decided that the
most appropriate way to operate RWH was at the household level. The runoff available from
RWH is expected to be able to satisfy each household’s potable water demand.
Considering the construction materials already used in Pabal and the need for the RWH system
to be low cost and use local skills and materials, a simple system consisting of metal guttering
and a reinforced concrete bamboo tank has been designed. Water quality improvements of a
first flush system, a coarse filter and a Biosand Filter have been suggested. These methods of
water treatment are expected to cause the runoff to satisfy the WHO Drinking-water Guidelines
in most cases. The Biosand Filter has sufficient capacity to filter water from other sources as
well as that from RWH.
The RWH system has been designed for a lifetime of 10 years. Considering projections for
increased precipitation due to climate change and changes in the demand as a result of expected
population growth in Pabal, a likely 2020 scenario has been developed. It has been shown that
the proposed RWH system is likely to continue to be able to satisfy the potable water demand
for all households in 2020. The storage tank has been designed to have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the additional runoff expected in 2020.
The cost of the RWH system for houses with clay tiled roofs is estimated to be US$268 and for
houses with corrugated steel roofs US$344. The benefits in terms of greater water quantity and
improved water quality have been quantified and show the system to have an approximate
payback period of 2 years.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 70 -
8.2 Limitations of the design Due to not being able to obtain a reliable precipitation data series for the Pabal area, average
monthly precipitation values have been used in the design. It has therefore not been possible to
assess the inter-annual variability of precipitation and the associated probabilities of the
precipitation being higher or lower than the average values. So whilst future conditions in terms
of the climate and demographics have been considered and the tank designed with additional
capacity to that calculated the reliability of the RWH system cannot be quantified. This
introduces uncertainty into the success of the proposed system in terms of RWH not being able
to meet the potable water demand and/or the tank overflowing. To partly account for this fact,
conservative assumptions have been taken where appropriate.
This report has shown that in Pabal RWH only has the potential to meet the potable water
demand. This means that RWH can only partially reduce the water shortages that currently exist
in Pabal. Therefore whilst the development of RWH has many benefits, it is not the solution to
the water shortages on its own and must be part of a larger water infrastructure development and
water conservation programme.
This design has been completed purely as a desk study using information, where it was
available, from organisations with links to Pabal. Throughout the design, assumptions have been
made which may or not be accurate.
The author of this report has very limited knowledge of the social situation in Pabal. Therefore
if parts of the proposed system are found to be socially unacceptable or unlikely to be successful
within Pabal, the system should be altered accordingly.
In terms of this project contributing to the furthering of RWH as a concept, the contribution is
limited. This system has been specifically designed for Pabal and whilst the methodology used
may be able to be applied to other locations, the transferability of the design is limited. Also due
to the time constraints of this project, sufficient time has not been available to develop new
technologies for RWH. Instead technologies that are tried and tested have been adapted to
increase the chances of RWH being a success in Pabal.
8.3 Recommendations for further work The design should be thoroughly assessed by someone with more in-depth knowledge of Pabal
to allow any incorrect assumptions to be corrected. It should be clear how to correct the design
from the methodology that has been clearly stated.
Once any incorrect assumptions have been corrected, this design should be taken from a desk
study out into the field. The proposed RWH system should be explained to a sample of Pabal’s
residents to gain their views on the system and whether they think such a system would be a
success. This design should also be given to VA to determine whether they have the tools and
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 71 -
technical skills needed for the RWH system to be constructed. Water samples of roof runoff
should be taken and analysed using the water testing equipment at VA to establish whether the
proposed water treatment is necessary.
If it is decided to implement the RWH system, it is suggested that this should initially be done
on a small scale (2-5 houses). This would help to see if the system is feasible in practise and
allow the opportunity to make changes to the system before it is rolled out on a larger scale.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 72 -
9 References Agarwal, A. (1998), “Rainwater harvesting in a new age: When modern groundwater and river
exploration has reached its limits”, Proceedings of the Congress of Water – the key to socio-
economic development and the quality of life, Stockholm, pp 5-12.
Ashworth, J. (2005), “Roof collection and storage of rainwater for drinking”, Water
Management, Vol 158, pp183 – 189.
Bates, B.C., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Wu, S. and Palutikof, J.P. (2008), Climate Change and Water,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 210p.
Brikké, F. and Bredero, M. (2003), Linking technology choice with operation and maintenance
in the context of community water supply and sanitation: A reference document for planners
and project staff, World Health Organisation, Geneva, 142p
British Standards Institute (2008), BS 8515: Code of practise for installation of rainwater
harvesting systems, UK, 46p
Buzunis, B.J. (1995) “Intermittently Operated Slow Sand Filtration: A New Water Treatment
Process”, MSc Thesis, University of Calgary, Canada.
CAWST (2008), “Safe Water Storage”, http://www.cawst.org/index.php?id=120, (accessed
18/05/2009).
Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology [2007] “CAWST Technical Update”,
http://www.cawst.org/assets/File/Technical_Update_March_2007.pdf (accessed 01/05/2009)
Chadwick, A. and Morfett, J. (1998), Hydraulics in Civil and Environmental Engineering, 3rd
Edition, E & FN Spon, London, 600p.
Chow, V.T.E. (1985) Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw Hill, Singapore, 680p.
Cruz, R.V., Harasawa, H., Lal, M., Wu, S., Anokhin, Y. et al (2007), Climate Change 2007:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 976p.
Design Technology Unit (2002), “Very-low-cost domestic roofwater harvesting in the humid
tropics: Existing practise, The University of Warwick, 106p
Design Technology Unit (2002), “Very-low-cost domestic roofwater harvesting in the humid
tropics: constraints and problems, The University of Warwick, 38p
Design Technology Unit [2005] “DRWH Technology: Filters and Separators”,
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/research/dtu/rwh/technology1/technology_5/ (accessed
07/05/2009).
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 73 -
Development Technology Unit [2001] “Case Study 19: Plastic lined bamboo tanks in India”,
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/eng/research/dtu/pubs/rn/rwh/cs19/ (accessed 15/05/2009).
Duke, W.F., Nordin, R.N., Baker, D. & Mazumder, A. (2006) “The use and performance of
BioSand filters in the Artibonite Valley of Hati: a field study of 107 households”, Rural and
Remote Health, Vol 6, pp 570-592.
Efe, S.I. (2006), “Quality of rainwater harvesting for rural communities of Delta State, Nigeria”,
Environmentalist, Vol 26, pp 175 – 181.
EWB (2008), “Project Proposal: Rainwater Harvesting”.
engINdia [2006] “engIndia Final Report”,
http://www.engindia.net/1%20engINdia%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed 10/10/2008).
Environment Agency (2003), Harvesting rainwater for domestic use: an information guide,
Environment Agency, Bristol, 22p.
Ferdausi, S.A. and Bolkland, M.W. (2000) “Rainwater harvesting for application in rural
Bangladesh”, Proceedings of the 26th WEDC Conference: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene:
Challenges of the Millennium, Dhaka, pp 16-19.
Ahmed, M.F. (1999), “Rainwater harvesting potential in Bangladesh”, Proceedings of the 25th
WEDC Conference: Integrated Development for Water Supply and Sanitation, Addis Ababa, pp
363 – 365.
Fort Lewis College [2008] “Biosand Filter”
http://www.fortlewis.edu/academics/school_arts_sciences/physics_engineering/ewb_webpage/C
urrent%20Web%20Page%20Supporting%20Docs/BSF/Basic%20info%20on%20BSF.html
(accessed 18/05/2009).
Friends Who Care Charities Ltd [2006] “Biosand Filter – Information Sheet”,
http://www.friendswhocare.ca/BSF-FWC-%20Specifications.pdf (accessed 18/05/2009).
Ghavami, K. (2005), "Bamboo as reinforcement in structural concrete elements." Cement and
Concrete Composites Vol 27, pp 637-649.
Global Development Research Centre, [2007] “Rainwater Harvesting and Utilisation”
http://www.gdrc.org/uem/water/rainwater/rainwaterguide.pdf (accessed 10/11/2008)
Hamill, L. (2001), Understanding Hydraulics 2nd Edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke, 608p
Handia, L. Tembo, J. M. & Mwiindwa, C. (2003), “Potential of rainwater harvesting in urban
Zambia”, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Vol 28, pp 893 -896
Health and Safety Executive [2008] “Legionnaire’s Disease”
http://www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires (accessed 19/05/2009)
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 74 -
Hendricks, D.W. (2006) Water treatment unit processes: physical and chemical, CRC Press,
London, 1266p
Hofkes, E.H. (1983), Small Community Water Supplies; Technology of Small Water Supply
Systems in Developing Countries, John Wiley & Sons, The Netherlands, 442p
Huisman, L. & Wood, W.E. (1974), Slow Sand Filtration, World Health Organisation, Geneva,
120p
Keremane, G. B. (2005), Harvesting Rainwater, In: Water Encyclopaedia, Vol 1-5, pp 2:548 -
2.552, Lehr, J., Keeley, J. and Lehr, J. [editors], John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey
Indian Water Portal, [2009] “Monthly average potential evapotranspiration (1901 – 2002)”,
http://indiawaterportal.org (accessed 23/02/2009)
Jain, S. K., Agarwal, P. K., and Singh, V. P. (2007), Hydrology and Water Resources of India,
Springer, London, 1262p
Jeuland, M. and D. Whittington (2009), "Cost-benefit comparisons of investments in improved
water supply and cholera vaccination programs." Vaccine, Vol 27, pp 3109-3120.
Kerr, C. (1989), Community Water Development, Intermediate Technology Publications,
London, 279p
Lantagne, D.S., Quick, R. and Mintz, E.D. (2007), Household Water Treatment and Safe
Storage Options in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Implementation Practices, In:
Water stories: expanding opportunities in small-scale water and sanitation projects, pp 17:38-54,
Parker, M., Williams, A. and Youngblood, C. [editors], Woodrow Wilson International Centre
for Scholars, Washington DC
Zongjin, Y., Chun-Pong, L. and Tongxi, Y. (2002), "Laminate of Reformed Bamboo and
Extruded Fiber-Reinforced Cementitious Plate”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol
14, pp 359-365.
Machiwal, D.J., Madan, K., Singh, P.K., Mahnot, S. C., and Gupta, A. (2004), “Planning and
design of cost-effective water harvesting structures for efficient utilization of scarce water
resources in semi-arid regions of Rajasthan, India”, Water Resources Management, Vol 18, pp
219 – 235
Mann, H.T. and Williamson, D. (1993), Water Treatment and Sanitation, 3rd Edition,
Intermediate Technology Publications, Nottingham, 94p
Martinson, D. and Thomas, T. (2004), “Quantifying the first-flush phenomenon”, Proceedings
of 12th International Rainwater Catchment Systems Conference, New Delhi, pp 1-7.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 75 -
Martinson, D. B., Ranatunga, N.U.K. & Gunaratne, A.M.C.H.A (2002), “Reducing Rainwater
Harvesting System Cost”. Proceedings of the 28th WEDC Conference, Calcutta, pp 1-4
Martinson, D.B. (2007) “Improving the viability of roofwater harvesting in low-income
countries”, PHD Thesis, University of Warwick
Mintz, E., Reiff, F. and Tauxe, R. (1995) “Safe water treatment and storage in the home: A
practical new strategy to prevent waterborne diseases”, Journal of the American Medical
Association, Vol 273, pp 948 - 953
Morgan, P. (1990), Rural Water Supplies and Sanitation, Macmillan Education Ltd, London,
358p
Mwenge Kahinda, J., Taigbenu, A. E. and Boroto, J.R. (2007), “Domestic rainwater harvesting
to improve water supply in rural South Africa”, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Vol 32, pp
1050 -1057.
Occupational Health and Safety Administration, [2008] “Legionnaire’s Disease”,
http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/legionnaires/index.html (accessed 20/05/2009)
Pacey, A. and Cullis, A. (1989), Rainwater Harvesting: The collection of rainfall and runoff in
rural areas, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 100p
Palmateer, G., Manz, D., Jurkovic, A., McInnis, R., Unger, S. et al (1999), “Toxicant and
Parasite Challenge of Manz Intermittent Slow Sand Filter”, Environmental Toxicology, Vol 14,
pp 217- 225.
Parkinson, J. and Mark, O. (2006) “Urban Stormwater Management in Developing Countries”,
IWA Publishing, London, 218p.
Parsons, S.A. and Jefferson, B. (2006), “Introduction to Potable Water Treatment Processes”,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 179p.
Peters, E.J. (2006), “Rainwater potential for domestic water supply in Grenada”, Water
Management, Vol 159, pp 147 – 153.
Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations
Secretariat, [2008] “World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and World Urbanization
Prospects: The 2007 Revision”, http://esa.un.org/unup (accessed 06/05/2009)
Rees, D.G., Nyakaana, S. and Thomas, T.H. (2000), Very-low-cost roofwater harvesting in East
Africa, Warwick University, 71p.
Reese, D. (2008), Rainwater Harvesting: Technical Brief, Practical Action, Rugby, 12p
Anon [2008], “Rooftop Rainwater Harvesting”
http://www.rainwaterharvesting.org/downloads/rooftop_rwh.pdf (accessed 21/05/2009)
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 76 -
Satsangi, G.S., Lakhani, A., Khare, P., Singh, S.P., Kumari K.M. et al. (1998), “Composition of
rain water at a semi-arid rural site in India”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol 32, pp 3783-3793.
Smet, J. [2003] “Domestic Rainwater Harvesting” http://www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-
sheets/fact-sheets-htm/drh.html (accessed 20/11/2008)
Smethurst, G. (1988), Basic Water Treatment for Applications World-Wide, Thomas Telford,
London, 216p.
Staunber, C.E., Elliott, M.A., Koksal, F., Ortiz, G.M., DiGiano, F.A. et al (2006),
“Characterisation of the biosand filter for E. coli reductions from household drinking water
under controlled laboratory and field use conditions”, Water Science and Technology, Vol 54,
pp 1-7.
Survey of India, [2002] “India-Soils”, http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/soi_geo.html (accessed
19/02/2009)
Thomas, T. and Kiggundu, N. (2004) “Constraints to domestic roofwater harvesting uptake in
Uganda: An assessment”, Proceedings of the 30th WEDC International Conference: People
Centred Approaches to Water and Environmental Sanitation, Lao PDR, pp 450-453.
Thomas, T. (1998), “Domestic water supply using rainwater harvesting”, Building Research and
Information, Vol 26, pp 94-101.
Thomas, T.H. and Martinson, D.B. (2007), Roofwater Harvesting: A Handbook for
Practitioners, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Delft, 153p.
Twort, A.C. (2000), Water Supply, 5th Edition, London, UK, 608p.
United Nations Development Programme, [2008] “Millennium Development Goals”
http://www.undp.org/mdg (accessed 23/02/2009)
United Nations Economic and Social Council, [2002] “Substantive issues arising in the
implementation of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights; General
Comment no. 15”
www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a5458d1d1bbd713fc1256cc400389e94/$FILE/G0340229.pdf
(accessed 20/01/2009)
Vadhanavikkit, C. and Pannachet, Y. (1987) “Investigations of Bamboo, Reinforced Concrete
Water Tanks”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Rainwater Cistern Systems Conference,
Khon Kaen, Paper C13
Water Aid (2007), Technology Notes, Water Aid, London, 46p.
Whitehead, V. (2000), The Manufacture of Direct Action Handpumps for use with Domestic
Rainwater Harvesting Tanks, The University of Warwick, 28p.
Kieran J Cooke Design of RWH for Pabal June 2009
- 77 -
World Health Organisation, [2005], “Legionellosis”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs285/en/ (accessed 20/05/2009)
World Health Organisation (2006), Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Vol 1, Geneva, 595p
Worm, J., Hattum, T.V. and Kat-Reynen, C. (2006), Rainwater Harvesting for Domestic Use,
Agromisa Foundation, Netherlands, 84p
Yaziz, M. I., Gunting, H., Sapari, N. and Ghazali, A.W. (1989). “Variations in rainwater quality
from roof catchments”, Water Research, Vol 23, pp 761-765.
- 78 -
Appendix A: Current water supply infrastructure
Groundwater recharge
Private wells
Village well
Dam
Rainwater
170,000 litre storage tank
70,000 litre storage tank
12,000 litres per day tanked
(during dry season)
Pabal’s core & village
Pabal’s core & village
- 79 -
Appendix B: Meteorological Data
Table B1: Average monthly rainfall for a 25 year period (1982 – 2006) (www.rainwaterharvesting.org, accessed 04/04/2009)
Month Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Precipitation (mm) 1.7 1.5 0.6 9.8 30 171.0 171.4 139.5 141.7 85.8 21.5 7.4 781.9
Table B2: Monthly predicted precipitation for Pabal in 2020 (observed data from www.rainwaterharvesting.org & predicted changes from IPCC, 2007)
Month Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total
Average rainfall (based on 25 yr average: 1981 -2006) (mm) 1.7 1.5 0.6 9.8 30 171 171.4 139.5 141.7 85.8 21.5 7.4 781.9
Predicted % change in precipitation by 2020 (with reference to baseline period of 1961- 1990)
2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0
Predicted precipitation in 2020 (mm) 1.7 1.5 0.6 10.2 31.2 177.0 177.4 144.4 143.8 87.1 21.8 7.7 804.5
Table B3: Monthly minimum and maximum temperatures for Pune, Maharashtra (http://www.worldweather.org/066/c00535.htm, accessed 18/05/2009)
Month Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Min (°C) 11.4 12.7 16.5 20.7 22.5 22.9 22.0 21.4 20.7 18.8 14.7 12.0
Max (°C) 30.3 32.8 36.0 38.1 37.2 32.1 28.3 27.5 29.3 31.8 30.5 29.6
- 80 -
Appendix C: Raw water quality data
C1: Chemical water quality of rainfall The chemical composition of the rainwater was determined from water samples taken from tube
wells during the monsoon of 1996 at Golalpura, Agra in India. Table C1 shows the similarity
between Gopalpura and Pabal in terms of population density and distance to nearest major town
or city. The average chemical composition of the rainwater is given in Table C2.
Table C.1: Comparison of site for chemical composition with the site of Pabal (engINdia, 2005 & Satsangi et al, 1998)
Location Pabal Gopalpura
Population density (per km2) 716 825
Radial distance to nearest major towns or cities (km) 30 35
Table C.2: Concentration of ions in rainwater at Gopalpura, Agra (Satsangi et al, 1998)
Species Mean (µeq l-1) Mean concentration (mg/l)
F+ 28.99 0.55
Cl- 38.20 1.35
NO3- 42.85 2.66
SO42- 19.31 0.93
NH4+ 48.06 0.87
Ca2+ 152.60 3.05
K+ 3.52 0.14
Na+ 20.65 0.47
Mg2+ 94.25 1.15
HCO3- 43.78 2.67
HCOO- 4.35 0.20
CH3COO- 3.03 0.18
NB: The total dissolved solids (TDS) of the rainwater has been estimated by assuming that TDS
consists of calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides and sulphates
(WHO, 2006)
C2: Biological and microbiological water quality parameters of rainfall The biological water quality parameters have been estimated by using values obtained from a
study in the Delta State of Nigeria (Table C3) (Efe, 2006).
Parameter Value Temperature 0.7°C to 1.0°C lower than atmospheric temperature
Turbidity (NTU) 4.7 Total suspended solids (mg/l) 10
Faecal coliforms (/100ml) 0 Total coliforms (/100ml) 0
Table C3: Water quality parameters for rural communities of the Delta State, Nigeria (Efe, 2006)
- 81 -
C3: Changes in water quality parameters due to roofing Table C4 shows water quality parameters for runoff from galvanised-iron roof and concrete-
tiled roof for roofs in a university campus in Selangor, Malaysia. The water quality of the
rainfall relates to the same location and time period and therefore the change due to each roofing
material can be calculated.
Galvanised-iron roof Concrete tile roof Control (rainwater) Value Change Value Change
pH 5.9 6.6 + 0.7 6.9 + 1 Temperature (°C) 27.5 28.1 + 0.6 28.1 + 0.6
Conductivity (µs/cm) 13.7 97.0 + 83.3 135.2 + 121.5 Turbidity (NTU) 3.0 22 + 19 56 + 53
Total solids (mg/l) 24.0 119 + 95 204 + 180 Suspended solids (mg/l) 17.0 91 + 74 153 + 136 Dissolved solids (mg/l) 7.0 28 + 21 47 + 40
Faecal coliforms (/100ml) 0 4 + 4 13 + 13 Total coliforms (/100ml) 0 46 + 46 75 + 75
Table C.4: Comparison of water quality of rainwater and runoff from galvanised iron and concrete tiled roofs (Yaziz et al, 1989)
- 82 -
Appendix D: Calculated runoff for different RWH opt ions
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Average precipitation (mm) 1.7 1.5 0.6 9.8 30.0 171.0 171.4 139.5 141.7 85.8 21.5 7.4 781.9
Option 1 (Domestic houses) 15.1 13.3 5.3 87.2 253.5 1520.7 1524.3 1240.6 1260.1 763.0 191.2 65.8 6940.1
Option 2 (Non-domestic buildings) 3.0 2.7 1.1 17.5 52.5 305.8 306.5 249.5 253.4 153.4 38.4 13.2 1397.1 Runoff (m3/month)
Option 3 (Domestic and non domestic buildings
18.2 16.0 6.4 104.7 306.0 1826.5 1830.8 1490.0 1513.5 916.5 229.6 79.0 8337.2
- 83 -
Appendix E: Sizing of the storage tank for the current scenario
Comparison of monthly runoff from Roof 1 and monthly potable water demand (current)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ayJu
ne July
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Monthly runoff Monthly demand
Figure E.1: Monthly runoff from Roof 1 and monthly potable water demand for current situation
Comparison of monthly runoff from Roof 2 and monthly potable water demand (current)
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ayJu
ne July
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Monthly runoff Monthly demand
Figure E.2: Monthly runoff from Roof 2 and monthly potable water demand for current situation
From E.1 and E.2, it can be seen that the June is the first month when the runoff is greater than
the demand and therefore it can be assumed that the tanks are empty at the end of May.
- 84 -
Comparison of cumulative monthly runoff from Roof 1 and cumulative monthly potable water demand (current)
0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.009.00
10.00
June Ju
ly
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ay
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Cumulative monthly runoff Cumulative monthly potable water demand
Figure E.3: Comparison of inflow and outflow for Tank 1 for the current situation
Comparison of cumulative monthly runoff from Roof 2 and cumulative monthly potable water demand (current)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
June Ju
ly
Augus
t
Septe
mbe
r
Octobe
r
Novem
ber
Decem
ber
Janu
ary
Febru
ary
Mar
chApr
ilM
ay
Month
Vo
lum
e (m
3 )
Cumulative monthly runoff Cumulative monthly potable water demand
Figure E.4: Comparison of inflow and outflow for Tank 2 for the current situation
From Figures E.3 and E.4, it can be seen that the largest requirement occurs in October and is
4.99m3 for Tank 1 and 6.63m3 for Tank 2.
- 85 -
Appendix F: Calculations
- 86 -
Project: Design of RWH for Pabal Date: 09/05/2009
Title of calculation: Bamboo reinforced storage tank
Sheet no: 1 of 1
For Tank 1:
Hydrostatic force = (1.5/2) x 9.81 x 1000 x (Π x 2.03)/2 x 1.5
= 35.2 kN
Resistance of conc = 0.07 x (Π x 2.03)/2 x 1.5 x (10 x 103)
= 33 482 kN
For Tank 2:
Hydrostatic force = (1.5/2) x 9.81 x 1000 x (Π x 2.53)/2 x 1.5
= 43.9 kN
Resistance of conc = 0.07 x (Π x 2.53)/2 x 1.5 x (10 x 103)
= 41 728 kN
Calculate the required volume of concrete for Tank 1:
Vol of vertical bamboo = [((Π x 0.032)/4) x 1.5] x 132
= 0.140 m3
Vol of horizontal bamboo = ((Π x 0.032)/4) x (2.10 x Π) x 30
= 0.140 m3
Vol of conc for tank = [(Π x 2.172) – (Π x 2.032)]/4 x 1.5 – 0.140 – 0.140
= 0.41 m 3
Vol of conc for base = (Π x 2.172)/4 x 0.1
Calculate the required volume of concrete for Tank 2:
Vol of vertical bamboo = [((Π x 0.032)/4) x 1.5] x 164
= 0.174 m3
Vol of horizontal bamboo = ((Π x 0.032)/4) x (2.60 x Π) x 30
= 0.173 m3
Vol of conc for tank = [(Π x 2.672) – (Π x 2.532)]/4 x 1.5 – 0.174 – 0.173
= 0.51 m 3
Vol of conc for base = (Π x 2.672)/4 x 0.1
= 0.56 m 3
- 87 -
Project: Design of RWH for Pabal Date: 10/05/2009
Title of calculation: Calculation of critical runoff
Sheet no: 1 of 2 Title of calculation: Calculation of critical runoff
Sheet no: 2 of 2
For gutter from roof gutter � storage tank (Clay tiled roof)
Length of pipe in XY plane = ( ) 22 85.15.10.3 +−
= 2.38 m
Length of pipe in YZ plane = ( ) 22 085.15.10.3 +−
= 1.85 m
Length of pipe = 22 85.138.2 +
= 3.01 m
Change in head = 3.0 - 1.5
= 1.5 m
Head loss per unit length (s0) = 1.5 ⁄ 3.01
= 0.50
Calculate the duration of the critical rainfall event:
Roof gutter Along
the roof Section (1)
Section (2)
Section (3)
Roof gutter ���� storage
tank
Overland flow length
(m) 1.87 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.01
Slope 0.160 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.50
Duration
Time of conc (Tc) (mins)
0.06 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.06 0.83
For gutter from roof gutter � storage tank (Corrugated steel roof):
Length of pipe in XY plane = ( ) 22 85.15.10.3 +−
= 2.38 m
Length of pipe in YZ plane = ( ) 22 335.15.10.3 +−
= 2.01 m
Length of pipe = 22 01.238.2 +
= 3.12 m
Change in head = 3.0 - 1.5
= 1.5 m
- 88 -
Project: Design of RWH for Pabal Date: 10/05/2009
Title of calculation: Calculation of critical runoff
Sheet no: 2 of 2 Title of calculation: Calculation of critical runoff
Sheet no: 2 of 2
Head loss per unit length (s0) = 1.5 ⁄ 3.12
= 0.48
Calculate the duration of the critical rainfall event:
Roof gutter Along
the roof Section (1)
Section (2)
Section (3)
Roof gutter ���� storage
tank
Overland flow length
(m) 1.87 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.12
Slope 0.160 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.48
Duration
Time of conc (Tc) (mins)
0.06 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.06 0.83
Since Tc < 15 mins for both roof types, assume the critical rainfall event has a duration of 15 mins
Calculate the intensity of the critical rainfall event:
88.0
19.0
)50.025.0(
00.393.6
+×=i
i = 10.98 cm hr-1
Calculate the critical discharge:
The critical discharge will be calculated for half the roof area (1.87 x 6m) due to the roof being double pitched.
Corrugated steel roof: Qmax = 1.87 x 6 x 0.1098 x 0.85
= 1.05 m3 s-1
= 0.29 l s-1
Clay tiled roof: Qmax = 1.87 x 6 x 0.1098 x 0.5
= 0.62 m3 s-1 = 0.17 l s-1
- 89 -
Project: Design of RWH for Pabal Date: 11/05/2009
Title of calculation: Design of cross-section of roof guttering
Sheet no: 1 of 1 Title of calculation: Calculation of critical runoff
Sheet no: 2 of 2 For the most efficient trapezoidal cross-section to transmit the critical discharge the parameters are the Manning’s equation are:
Q (l/s) R (mm) n * So ** A (mm2) D (mm)
Metal 0.290 11.453 0.013 0.0067 908.887 22.908
Clay 0.170 9.375 0.013 0.0067 608.904 18.750
* this is the Manning’s Co-efficient for painted metal channels (Chow, 1985)
** So has been taken as the average slope across the three sections of guttering
D
b
a
Dba
Area
+=2
For the corrugated steel roof:
b = 2.309 x 22
= 51.8 mm
Area =908.9 = 222
8.51 ×
+a
a = 30.8 mm
For the clay tiled roof;
b = 2.309 x 18.8
= 43.4 mm
Area = 608.9 = 8.182
4.43 ×
+a
a = 21.4 mm
- 90 -
Project: Design of RWH for Pabal Date: 11/05/2009
Title of calculation: Design of cross-section of gutters from roof to tank
Sheet no: 1 of 1 Title of calculation: Calculation of critical runoff
Sheet no: 2 of 2 Corrugated steel roof:
Length of pipe in XY plane = ( ) 22 85.15.10.3 +−
= 2.38 m
Length of pipe in YZ plane = ( ) 22 335.15.10.3 +−
= 2.01 m
Length of pipe = 22 01.238.2 +
= 3.12 m
Change in head = 3.0 - 1.5
= 1.5 m
Head loss per unit length (s0) = 1.5 ⁄ 3.12
= 0.48
Using Manning’s equation and to find the most hydraulically efficient trapezoidal cross-section to transmit critical runoff: Q (l/s) R (mm) n So A (mm2) D (mm)
0.290 0.005 0.013 0.5900 168.987 9.878
Clay tiled roof:
Length of pipe in XY plane = ( ) 22 85.15.10.3 +−
= 2.38 m
Length of pipe in YZ plane = ( ) 22 085.15.10.3 +−
= 1.85 m
Length of pipe = 22 85.138.2 +
= 3.01 m
Change in head = 3.0 - 1.5
= 1.5 m
Head loss per unit length (s0) = 1.5 ⁄ 3.01
= 0.50
Using Manning’s equation and to find the most hydraulically efficient trapezoidal cross-section to transmit critical runoff: Q (l/s) R (mm) n So A (mm2) D (mm)
0.171 0.004 0.013 0.6000 112.875 8.07
- 91 -
Appendix G: Cost and benefits of RWH Table G.1: Comparison of costs and benefits of RWH system for Roof 1
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Construction Cost (US$) 272.96
Water quantity 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22 65.22
Water quality 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 Benefits (US$)
Total 151.62 303.24 454.86 606.48 758.1 909.72 1061.34 1212.96 1364.58 1516.2
Cost – Benefits (US$) 272.96 121.34 -30.28 -181.9 -333.52 -485.14 -636.76 -788.38 -940 -1091.62 -1243.24
Table G.2: Comparison of costs and benefits of RWH system for Roof 2 Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Construction 343.53
Water quantity 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47 70.47
Water quality 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 86.4 Benefits (US$)
Total benefit 156.87 313.74 470.61 627.48 784.35 941.22 1098.09 1254.96 1411.83 1568.7
Cost – Benefits (US$) 343.53 186.66 29.79 -127.08 -283.95 -440.82 -597.69 -754.56 -911.43 -1068.3 -1225.17
- 92 -
Appendix H: Bill of Quantities Table H1: Bill of quantities for RWH system for Roof 1
Item no. Item description Quantity
1. Guttering 1.1 Galvanised metal (0.09m width) 15.1m 1.2 Metal brackets 40
2. Storage tank
2.1 Chemically treated bamboo poles (1.7m high, 0.03m wide*) (for
vertical members) 132
2.2 Chemically treated bamboo poles (6.4m high, 0.03m wide) (for
horizontal members) 30
2.3 Bamboo strips (to tie reinforcement cage together)** 792 0.41 m3 (for
tank) 2.4
Low grade concrete of mortar mix of 1:2 cement-sand ratio by weight (can have strength > 10 MPa) 0.37 m3 (for
base)
2.5 Circular corrugated steel (slope of ½ % from centre): diameter:2.23
m 1
2.6 Wire and hooks 25 Tap 1
3. Biosand Filter 0.12 m3 (for
vessel) 3.1
Concrete (2 part Type 10 Portland cement, 3 part clean pea gravel (6mm) and 2 part clean sand) 0.25 m3 (for
lid) 3.2 Coarse gravel (grain size 6 – 15mm) 0.013 m3 3.3 Coarse sand/medium gravel (1 – 6mm) 0.013 m3 3.4 Fine sand (grain size ≈ 0.2mm) 0.15 m3 3.5 Large stone 1 3.6 PVC pipe (diameter: 13mm) 2.5m
Table H.2: Bill of quantities for RWH system for Roof 2
Item no. Item description Quantity
1. Guttering 1.1 Galvanised metal (0.12m width) 15.2m 1.2 Metal wire for hanging roof gutter 40 pieces
2. Storage tank
2.1 Chemically treated bamboo poles (1.7m high, 0.03m wide*) (for
vertical members) 164
2.2 Chemically treated bamboo poles (8.0m high, 0.03m wide) (for
horizontal members) 30
2.3 Bamboo strips (to tie reinforcement cage together)** 984 0.51 m3 (for
tank) 2.4
Low grade concrete of mortar mix of 1:2 cement-sand ratio by weight (can have strength > 10 MPa) 0.56 m3 (for
base)
2.5 Circular corrugated steel (slope of ½ % from centre): diameter =
2.73 m 1
2.6 Wire and hooks 30 2.7 Tap 1
- 93 -
Item no. Item description Quantity
3. Biosand filter 0.12 m3 (for
vessel) 3.1
Concrete (2 part Type 10 Portland cement, 3 part clean pea gravel (6mm) and 2 part clean sand) 0.25 m3 (for
lid) 3.2 Coarse gravel (grain size 6 – 15mm) 0.013 m3 3.3 Coarse sand/medium gravel (1 – 6mm) 0.013 m3 3.4 Fine sand (grain size ≈ 0.2mm) 0.15 m3 3.5 Large stone 1 3.6 PVC pipe (diameter: 13mm) 2.5m
* this height will allow the bamboo to be bent at the base and roof of the tank ** based on tying every 5th vertical bamboo pole to each horizontal pole