Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 26, pp 26563–26576 | Cite as

An integrated assessment of drainage system reconstruction based on a drainage network model

  • Zhenliang LiaoEmail author
  • Xianyong Gu
  • Jiaqiang Xie
  • Xin Wang
  • Juxiang Chen
Research Article


In order to mitigate urban flooding and combined sewer overflows, an integrated assessment method was proposed to identify the optimum reconstruction scheme of a drainage system by considering environment, economy, and society. The integrated assessment framework consisted of the drainage system model establishment, analytic hierarchy process theory, and regret value method. Five drainage system reconstruction schemes for Chaohu city were proposed in this study, and they were evaluated according to nine assessment factors by the integrated assessment method at the initial and future stages. The integrated assessment results show that setting up interceptive equipment for a combined drainage network is the optimal reconstruction scheme at both the initial and future stages of the life cycle. This means that an interceptive combined drainage network is better than a separate drainage network or setting up storage tanks in particular situations from a comprehensive perspective.


Drainage system Drainage network model Reconstruction scheme Comprehensive decision assessment 


Funding information

This study is financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 51578396 and grant no. 51778451), the National Key R&D Program of China (grant no. 2016YFE0123300), and the Key Project of Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission (grant no.17DZ1202100). We also thank the 111 Project (B13017) of Tongji University.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_5280_MOESM1_ESM.docx (5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 5124 kb)


  1. Artina S, Bolognesi A, Liserra T, Maglionico M (2007) Short communication: simulation of a storm sewer network in industrial area: comparison between models calibrated through experimental data. Environ Model Softw 22(8):1221–1228Google Scholar
  2. Baffaut C, Delleur JW (1989) Expert system for calibrating SWMM. J Water Res Plan Man 115(3):278–298Google Scholar
  3. Bisht DS, Chatterjee C, Kalakoti S, Upadhyay P, Sahoo M, Panda A (2016) Modeling urban floods and drainage using swmm and mike urban: a case study. Nat Hazards 84(2):749–776Google Scholar
  4. Brombach H, Weiss G, Fuchs S (2005) A new database on urban runoff pollution: comparison of separate and combined sewer systems. Wat Sci Tech 51(2):119–128Google Scholar
  5. Carter T, Keeler A (2008) Life-cycle cost-benefit analysis of extensive vegetated roof systems. J Environ Manag 87(3):350–363Google Scholar
  6. Casal-Campos A, Fu G, Butler D, Moore A (2015) An integrated environmental assessment of green and gray infrastructure strategies for robust decision making. Environ Sci Technol 49(14):8307–8314Google Scholar
  7. Chen H, Liao Z, Gu X, Xie J, Li H, Jin Z (2017) Anthropogenic influences of paved runoff and sanitary sewage on the dissolved organic matter quality of wet weather overflows: an excitation–emission matrix parallel factor analysis assessment. Environ Sci Technol 51(3):1157–1167Google Scholar
  8. Chou JS, Yeh KC (2015) Life cycle carbon dioxide emissions simulation and environmental cost analysis for building construction. J Clean Prod 101:137–147Google Scholar
  9. Chua LHC, Wong TSW (2010) Improving event-based rainfall-runoff modeling using a combined artificial neural network-kinematic wave approach. J Hydrol 390(1):92–107Google Scholar
  10. Crabtree RW, Ashley R, Gent R (1995) Mousetrap: modelling of real sewer sediment characteristics and attached pollutants. Wat Sci Tech 31(7):43–50Google Scholar
  11. Delporte C, Pujol R, Vion P (1995) Optimized lamellae settling for urban stormwater waste. Wat Sci Tech 32(1):127–136Google Scholar
  12. Elliott AH, Trowsdale SA (2007) A review of models for low impact urban stormwater drainage. Environ Model Softw 22(3):394–405Google Scholar
  13. Even S, Mouchel JM, Servais P, Flipo N, Poulin M, Blanc S, Chabanel M, Paffoni C (2007) Modelling the impacts of combined sewer overflows on the river seine water quality. Sci Total Environ 375(1–3):140–151Google Scholar
  14. Garsdal H, Mark O, Dørge J, Jepsen SE (1995) Mousetrap: modelling of water quality processes and the interaction of sediments and pollutants in sewers. Wat Sci Tech 31(7):33–41Google Scholar
  15. Ghobadi Y, Pradhan B, Sayyad GA, Kabiri K, Falamarzi Y (2015) Simulation of hydrological processes and effects of engineering projects on the karkheh river basin and its wetland using swat2009. Quatern Int 374:144–153Google Scholar
  16. Godfrey S, Hailemichael G (2017) Life cycle cost analysis of water supply infrastructure affected by low rainfall in Ethiopia. J Water Sanit Hyg De 7(4):601–610Google Scholar
  17. Gu X, Liao Z, Zhang G, Xie J, Zhang J (2017) Modelling the effects of water diversion and combined sewer overflow on urban inland river quality. Environ Sci Pollut R 24(26):21038–21049Google Scholar
  18. Gujer W, Boller M (1990) A mathemetical model for rotating biological contactors. Wat Sci Tech 22:53–73Google Scholar
  19. Gupta PK, Chauhan S, Oza MP (2016) Modelling surface run-off and trends analysis over India. J Earth Syst Sci 125(6):1–14Google Scholar
  20. Hamid A, Wallace L, Bell D (2001) City of Atlanta combined and separate sewer overflow control program meets the challenge of the 21st century. Proc Water Environ Fed 2001(16):579–593Google Scholar
  21. Hatt BE, Fletcher TD, Walsh CJ, Taylor SL (2004) The influence of urban density and drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of pollutants in small streams. Environ Manag 34(1):112–124Google Scholar
  22. Hellmers S, Manojlovic N, Palmaricciotti G, FroHle P (2016) Modelling decentralised systems for urban drainage and flood mitigation. J Applied Water Eng Res 5(1):61–69Google Scholar
  23. Hellström D, Jeppsson U, Kärrman E (2000) A framework for systems analysis of sustainable urban water management. Environ Impact Assessment Rev 20(3):311–321Google Scholar
  24. Kang H, Li X, Wang J, Zhang J (2016) Evaluating ecological vulnerability using the GIS and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method in Yan’an, China. Pol J Environ Stud 25(2):599–605Google Scholar
  25. Kumar R, Chatterjee C, Singh RD, Lohani AK, Kumar S (2010) Runoff estimation for an ungauged catchment using geomorphological instantaneous unit hydrograph (giuh) models. Hydrol Process 21(14):1829–1840Google Scholar
  26. Ji Z (1998) General hydrodynamic model for sewer/channel network systems. J Hydrol Eng 124(3):307–315Google Scholar
  27. Joyce J, Ruppert T, Ruppert T, Ruppert T, Imen S (2017) Developing a multi-scale modeling system for resilience assessment of green-grey drainage infrastructures under climate change and sea level rise impact. Environ Model Softw 90:1–26Google Scholar
  28. Lai E, Lundie S, Ashbolt NJ (2008) Review of multi-criteria decision aid for integrated sustainability assessment of urban water systems. Urban Water J 5(4):315–327Google Scholar
  29. Larsen TA, Gujer W (1997) The concept of sustainable urban water management. Wat Sci Tech 35(9):3–10Google Scholar
  30. Lázaro JM, Navarro JÁS, Gil AG, Romero VE (2015) A new adaptation of linear reservoir models in parallel sets to assess actual hydrological events. J Hydrol 524:507–521Google Scholar
  31. Liao Z, Chen H, Huang F, Li H (2015a) Cost-effectiveness analysis on lid measures of a highly urbanized area. Desalin Water Treat 56(11):2817–2823Google Scholar
  32. Liao Z, Zhang G, Wu Z, He Y, Chen H (2015b) Combined sewer overflow control with lid based on swmm: an example in Shanghai, China. Wat Sci Tech 71(8):1136–1142Google Scholar
  33. Lindholm OG (1975) Factors affecting the performance of combined versus separate sewer systems. Prog Wat Tech 2(7):265–276Google Scholar
  34. Mannina G, Viviani G (2009) Separate and combined sewer systems: a long-term modelling approach. Wat Sci Tech 60(3):555–565Google Scholar
  35. Matinzadeh MM, Koupai JA, Sadeghi-Lari A, Nozari H, Shayannejad M (2017) Development of an innovative integrated model for the simulation of nitrogen dynamics in farmlands with drainage systems using the system dynamics approach. Ecol Model 347:11–28Google Scholar
  36. Meng M, Wu Y, Gui Y (2011) Utilization of rainwater source in Shanghai. Water Purif Technol 30(5):43–47Google Scholar
  37. Nielsen PH, Raunkjær K, Norsker NH, Jensen NA, Hvitved-Jakobsen T (1992) Transformation of wastewater in sewer systems. A review. Wat Sci Tech 25(6):17–31Google Scholar
  38. Obropta CC, Kardos JS (2010) Review of urban stormwater quality models: deterministic, stochastic, and hybrid approaches. J Am Water Resour As 43(6):1508–1523Google Scholar
  39. Peng H, Liu Y, Wang H, Ma L (2015) Assessment of the service performance of drainage system and transformation of pipeline network based on urban combined sewer system model. Environ Sci Pollut R 22(20):15712–15721Google Scholar
  40. Qiu C, Hattori Y, Kaji M, Onodera M, Hitokoto M (2014) Development of a river flow forecast model by coupling a snow accumulation/melt model with a distributed run-off model. J Flood Risk Manag 7(1):89–99Google Scholar
  41. Quinn R, Dussaillant A (2014) Predicting infiltration pollutant retention in bioretention sustainable drainage systems: model development and validation. Hydrol Res 45(6):855–867Google Scholar
  42. Semadeni-Davies A, Hernebring C, Svensson G, Gustafsson LG (2008) The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: suburban stormwater. J Hydrol 350(1–2):114–125Google Scholar
  43. Thorndahl S, Schaarup-Jensen K, Rasmussen MR (2015) On hydraulic and pollution effects of converting combined sewer catchments to separate sewer catchments. Urban Water J 12(2):120–130Google Scholar
  44. Wang J, Da L, Song K, Li B (2008) Temporal variations of surface water quality in urban, suburban and rural areas during rapid urbanization in shanghai, China. Environ Pollut 152(2):387–393Google Scholar
  45. Wu H, Huang G, Meng Q, Zhang M, Li L (2016) Deep tunnel for regulating combined sewer overflow pollution and flood disaster: a case study in Guangzhou City. China Water-Sui 8(8):329Google Scholar
  46. Xie J, Chen H, Liao Z, Gu X, Zhu D, Zhang J (2017) An integrated assessment of urban flooding mitigation strategies for robust decision making. Environ Model Softw 95:143–155Google Scholar
  47. Xin D, Hao G, Zeng S (2017) Enhancing future resilience in urban drainage system: green versus grey infrastructure. Water Res 124:280–289Google Scholar
  48. Xue C, Yin H, Xie M (2015) Development of integrated catchment and water quality model for urban rivers. J Hydrol 27(4):593–603Google Scholar
  49. Xu H (2014) Area peak flow coefficient comprehensive frequency curve method and hydrologic analogy comparison of calculated peak flow. Water Conservancy Science and Technology and Economy 20(5):40–42Google Scholar
  50. Xu Z, Liao Z (2013) A systematic view is key: the successful case of Suzhou Creek rehabilitation. Environ Sci Technol 47(21):11936–11937Google Scholar
  51. Zhang W, Li T (2015) Particle size distributions in combined sewer overflows in a high-intensity urban catchment in Shanghai, China. Desalin Water Treat 56(3):655–664Google Scholar
  52. Zhou Q, Mikkelsen PS, Halsnæs K, Arnbjerg-Nielsen K (2012) Framework for economic pluvial flood risk assessment considering climate change effects and adaptation benefits. J Hydrol 414(2):539–549Google Scholar
  53. Zhou Q, Panduro TE, Bo JT, Arnbjergnielsen K (2013) Adaption to extreme rainfall with open urban drainage system: an integrated hydrological cost-benefit analysis. Environ Manag 51(3):586–601Google Scholar
  54. Zhou Q (2014) A review of sustainable urban drainage systems considering the climate change and urbanization impacts. Water-Sui 6(4):976–992Google Scholar
  55. Zoppou C (2001) Review of urban storm water models. Environ Model Softw 16(3):195–231Google Scholar
  56. Zyoud SH, Shaheen H, Samhan S, Rabi A, Al-Wadi F, Fuchs-Hanusch D (2016) Electronic offprint utilizing analytic hierarchy process (AHP) for decision making in water loss management of intermittent water supply systems. J Water Sanit Hyg De 6(4):534–546Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and Civil EngineeringXinjiang UniversityUrumqiChina
  2. 2.UNEP-Tongji Institute of Environment for Sustainable Development, College of Environmental Science and EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Yangtze River Water Environment (Ministry of Education)Tongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  4. 4.Shanghai Institute of Pollution Control and Ecological SecurityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.MOE Joint Lab for International Cooperation on Eco-Urban Design, College of Architecture and Urban PlanningTongji UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations