Computational modeling demonstrates optimal sewer overflow storage sizing using water quality metrics in urban drainage systems, highlighting efficient pollution reduction over standard hydraulic...
Urban water systems are increasingly upgraded to withstand extreme weather events; however, existing studies often insufficiently address the necessity of localized pre-screening and the marginal utility of storage sizing. This study proposed an optimization framework to determine the optimal location and volume ( V ) of storage facilities based on long-term environmental benefits ( E ). Specifically, E was quantified as the reduction in downstream Non-Compliance Duration (NCD)—defined as the cumulative time during which Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) concentrations exceed the regulatory limit of 30 mg/L. Using a coupled drainage–river model for a case study in Jiujiang, China, initial scenarios demonstrated that situating storage near outlets with the highest pollutant loads yielded the greatest E , validating the pre-screening step. Furthermore, marginal utility analysis revealed a non-linear E - V relationship: the incremental volume effectiveness ratio (IVER, intuitively reflecting the days of compliance gained per cubic meter of added storage) peaked at a site-specific critical volume threshold before diminishing returns set in. Rather than relying on arbitrary sizing, the study demonstrated that by intersecting a targeted minimum effectiveness constraint with a marginal efficiency threshold (e.g., 80% of maximum IVER), an optimal facility volume can be systematically derived. Applying this framework to the Jiujiang case analytically identified an optimal storage volume of 1800 m 3 near outlet 228WS52, yielding a substantial 5-day reduction in NCD. This practical volume-effectiveness approach shifts the design focus from conventional hydraulic interception to direct water quality improvement, providing a globally transferable methodology for optimizing investments in diverse urban drainage systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: