Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333

www.elsevier.com/locate/urbwat

Modelling the performance of rainwater collection systems: towards a

generalised approach
A. Fewkes *
Department of Building and Environmental Health, The Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK
Received 24 November 1999; received in revised form 19 April 2000; accepted 11 May 2000

Abstract
The collection of rainwater from roofs, its storage and subsequent use make a signi®cant saving in the use of potable water. This
paper investigates how spatial and temporal ¯uctuations in rainfall can be incorporated into behavioural models, which simulate the
performance of rainwater collectors. Temporal variations are considered at two di€erent time scales, that is daily and monthly
intervals. The ®rst model uses a daily time interval to model system performance. A set of rainwater collector performance curves for
®ve geographic locations is developed. From the location-speci®c curves, a set of average curves is determined which is shown to be
suciently accurate for estimating rainwater collector performance. The second model uses a larger time interval of one month. The
e€ect of daily ¯uctuations in rainfall is incorporated into this model using a storage operating parameter. Values of the parameter
were determined by matching the output from the daily model with that of the monthly model. Generally the rainwater collector
performance predicted by the monthly model using average values of the storage operating parameter is shown to correlate well with
the corresponding values determined using a daily time interval model. The monthly model provides a simple and versatile method
of modelling the performance of rainwater collectors. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Water conservation; Rainwater; Storage; Modelling; Simulation

1. Introduction and supply. The analysis is based upon queuing theory.

The collection of rainwater from roofs, its storage
and subsequent use is a simple method of reducing the
demand on both the public water supplies and waste
treatment facilities. Without extensive treatment the
rainwater is suitable for a range of uses such as WC
¯ushing, garden irrigation and clothes washing. The
capacity of the rainwater store is important both eco-
nomically and operationally.
McMahon and Mein (1978) identify three general
types of reservoir sizing models, namely; critical period,
Moran and behavioural models. Critical period methods
identify and use sequences of ¯ows where demand ex-
ceeds supply to determine the storage capacity. The se-
quences of ¯ows or time series used in this method are
usually derived from historical data. Moran related
methods are a development of MoranÕs (1959) theory of
storage. A system of simultaneous equations are used
with this method to relate reservoir capacity, demand
*
Fax: +44-115-9486438.
E-mail address: alan.fewkes@ntu.ac.uk (A. Fewkes).
Behavioural models simulate the operation of the res-
ervoir with respect to time by routing simulated mass
¯ows through an algorithm which describes the opera-
tion of the reservoir. The operation of the rainwater
collector will usually be simulated over a period of years.
The input data which is in time series form are used to
simulate the mass ¯ow through the model and will be
based upon a time interval of either a minute, hour, day
or month.
This investigation concentrates upon the use of
behavioural models to simulate the performance of
rainwater collectors. The main problem associated with
the modelling process relates to how the spatial and
temporal ¯uctuations in rainfall can be incorporated
into the model. Spatial variations in rainfall are incor-
porated into the model using rainfall time series from
di€erent UK locations. Temporal ¯uctuations in rainfall
are investigated using two behavioural models each with
di€erent time intervals.
The ®rst model uses a daily time interval, which ig-
nores ¯uctuations with a time scale less than a day, to
predict system performance for di€erent combinations
of roof area, demand, store volume and rainfall level. A

1462-0758/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 4 6 2 - 0 7 5 8 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 6 - 1
324 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333

set of curves is produced which enable the performance 

Dt ;
of rainwater collection systems to be predicted in dif- Yt ˆ min …1†
Vtÿ1 ;
ferent UK locations. The main limitation of this ap-
proach is the requirement for daily rainfall time series, 
Vtÿ1 ‡ Qt ÿ Yt ;
which can be both costly and dicult to manipulate. Vt ˆ min …2†
S ÿ Yt ;
The second method of modelling uses a larger time
interval of one month resulting in a more compact where Rt is the rainfall (m) during time interval, t, Qt the
model and economic data set. However, the coarser rainwater runo€ (m3 ) during time interval, t, Vt the
monthly time interval does not take into account rainfall volume in store (m3 ) during time interval, t, Yt the yield
¯uctuations with a time scale less than one month, from store (m3 ) during time interval, t, Dt the demand
which may result in an inaccurate prediction of system (m3 ) during time interval, t, S the store capacity (m3 ),
performance. The poor resolution of the monthly in- and A is the roof area (m2 ).
terval model compared to the daily model is countered The YAS operating rule assigns the yield as either the
by the introduction of a parameter, referred to as the volume of rainwater in storage from the preceding time
storage operating parameter. The short time scale ¯uc- interval or the demand in the current time interval
tuations of the daily model are in e€ect replicated in the whichever is the smaller. The rainwater runo€ in the
monthly model by the storage operating parameter. current time interval is then added to the volume of
Values of the parameter are selected so that the monthly rainwater in storage from the preceding time interval
model mimics the system performance predicted by the with any excess spilling via the over¯ow and then sub-
corresponding model using a daily time interval. This tracts the yield.
approach provides a simple and versatile method of The YBS operating rule is
modelling the performance of rainwater collectors which 
Dt ;
takes into account temporal ¯uctuations in rainfall. Yt ˆ min …3†
Vtÿ1 ‡ Qt ;

Vtÿ1 ‡ Qt ÿ Yt ;
2. Background and previous research Vt ˆ min …4†
S:
The generic con®guration of a rainwater collection The YBS operating rule assigns the yield as either the
system is illustrated in Fig. 1. Behavioural models have volume of rainwater in storage from the preceding time
been used by other researchers (Jenkins, Pearson, interval plus the runo€ in the current interval or the
Moore, Sun, & Valentine, 1978; Latham, 1983) to in- present demand whichever is the smaller. The rainwater
vestigate the performance of rainwater stores. Jenkins runo€ in the current time interval is then added to the
et al. (1978) developed a behavioural model and iden- volume of the rainwater in storage from the preceding
ti®ed two fundamental algorithms to describe the time interval before subtracting the yield and allowing
operation of the rainwater store. The yield after spillage any excess to spill via the over¯ow.
(YAS) operating rule is Jenkins et al. (1978) used the YAS algorithm and a
monthly time interval. The reliability or performance of
the rainwater store can be expressed using either a time
or volume basis. In either case, a reliability or perfor-
mance of 100% indicates complete security in provision
of service water. Latham (1983) used a behavioural
model but de®ned the reservoir operating algorithm in a
more general form:

Dt ;
Yt ˆ min …5†
Vtÿ1 ‡ hQt ;

…Vtÿ1 ‡ Qt ÿ hYt † ÿ …1 ÿ h†Yt ;
Vt ˆ min …6†
S ÿ …1 ÿ h†Yt ;
where h is a parameter between 0 and 1. If h ˆ 0, then
Fig. 1. Rainwater collection system con®guration. Rt ± rainfall (m) the algorithm is YAS and if h ˆ 1, the algorithm is YBS.
during time interval, t, Qt ± rainwater runo€ (m3 ) during time interval, Fewkes and Butler (2000) report the results of a
t, Mt ± mains supply make-up (m3 ) during time interval, t, Vt ± volume
preliminary mapping exercise which evaluated the ac-
in store (m3 ) during time interval, t, Yt ± yield from store (m3 ) during
time interval, t, Dt ± demand (m3 ) during time interval, t, S ± store curacy of behavioural models for the sizing of rainwater
capacity (m3 ), A ± roof area (m2 ). (Note: Duration of time interval, t collection systems using both di€erent time intervals and
can be hourly, daily or monthly.) reservoir operating algorithms applied to a compre-
 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333
hensive range of operational conditions. The prelimi-
nary analysis of their study indicated the hourly YAS
model could be used as a standard of comparison
against which other models could be compared and
calibrated. The YAS reservoir operating algorithm was
found to give a conservative estimate of system perfor-
mance irrespective of the model time interval and
therefore preferred for design purposes compared to the
YBS operating algorithm.
Di€erent combinations of roof area, store capacity
and demand were expressed in terms of two dimen-
sionless ratios, namely the demand fraction and storage
fraction. The demand fraction is given by, D/AR, where
D is the annual demand (m3 ), A the roof area (m2 ) and R
is the annual rainfall (m). The storage fraction is given
by, S/AR, where S is the store capacity (m3 ).
The detailed analysis undertaken by Fewkes and
Butler (2000) enabled constraints to be proposed for the
application of hourly, daily and monthly models ex-
pressed in terms of storage fraction. It was recom-
mended that hourly models should be used for sizing
small stores with a storage fraction below or equal to
0.01. Daily models can be applied to systems with
storage fractions within the range 0.01±0.125. Monthly
models were only recommended for use with storage
fractions in excess of 0.125. Generally, daily models can
be used to predict the performance of all stores except
small stores with a storage fraction less than or equal to
0.01.
Values of the parameter h were also determined for a
monthly model operating over a comprehensive range of
demand and storage fractions. The system performance
predicted by the monthly (h) model was found to cor-
relate well with corresponding values determined using a
daily YAS model over a range of demand fractions
likely to be encountered in practice. However, the results
of the study by Fewkes and Butler (2000) were based on
one geographic location and it was recognised that
further research was required to con®rm the results of
their study are generally applicable to other areas of the
UK.
3. The proposed behavioural model investigation
Research undertaken by Jenkins et al. (1978) and
Latham (1983) related to a limited range of volume
stores aimed at conserving an excess of 95% of house-
hold water. Previous work by Fewkes and Butler (1999)
considered a wide range of store volumes but was based
upon rainfall data collected from one geographic loca-
tion within the UK. The proposed research addresses
how both spatial and temporal ¯uctuations in rainfall
can be incorporated into the modelling process. The
spatial ¯uctuations in rainfall are incorporated, by using
rainfall data from ®ve di€erent sites within the UK. The
325
sites ranged from coastal to inland areas and were lo-
cated within the Midlands and Wales. The sites and
their average rainfall levels are summarised in Table 1.
Temporal ¯uctuations are considered at two di€erent
time scales, namely daily and monthly intervals. Initially
a daily time interval model using the YAS reservoir
operating algorithm was developed and secondly a more
computationally ecient monthly time interval model.
The short time scale ¯uctuations, that is daily variations,
are incorporated into this model using the general op-
erating parameter h. Values of the parameter h were
determined by matching the output from the daily
model with the monthly model. The matching of the
output from the models using the storage operating
parameter in e€ect enables the short time scale ¯uctua-
tions to be included in the model and provides a po-
tentially versatile method of modelling the performance
of rainwater collectors.
The objectives of this paper are summarised below:
1. Determine a generic set of curves using a YAS daily
time interval model, for a range of storage and de-
mand fractions which can be used to predict the per-
formance of rainwater collectors within the
geographical area de®ned by this study.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the generic daily time inter-
val rainwater collection system performance curves.
3. Incorporate the e€ect of daily ¯uctuations into a
monthly time interval model using the storage operat-
ing parameter h.
4. Determine a generic set of values of the parameter h,
for a range of store capacities and storage and de-
mand fractions which can be used, in conjunction
with a monthly time interval model, to predict the
performance of rainwater collectors within the geo-
graphical area de®ned by this study.
5. Evaluate the accuracy of a monthly time interval
model using generic values of the parameter h.
4. Development of the behavioural model
The con®guration of the rainwater collection system
is illustrated in Fig. 1. The rainwater collection sizing
(rcs) model consists of two parts:
(i) Provision of rainfall supply and usage demand
patterns or time series.
Table 1
Average annual rainfall levels of sites
Site Average annual rainfall (mm/yr)
Bredenbury 750
Newport 940
Nottingham 620
Rhymney 1600
Yns-y-Fro 1100
326 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333
(ii) Simulation of system operation.
For each of the ®ve sites (Table 1) investigated,
computer coded system simulation models were devel-
oped based upon both monthly and daily time intervals.
The general form of the reservoir operating algorithm
was used in the system simulation models as de®ned in
Section 2 (Eqs. (5) and (6)). Twenty years of either daily
or monthly historic rainfall time series (Walsh, 1999)
were used as input to the respective system simulation
models.
The demand component of the models was limited to
WC usage which accounts for approximately 30% of
potable household water usage in the UK (Department
of the Environment and Welsh Oce, 1992) and was
assumed to occur at a constant daily or monthly rate.
This assumption is reasonable because the demand time
series generated by WC usage does not exhibit excessive
daily or monthly variance (Fewkes, 1999). However, if
the demand from other domestic appliances such as the
washing machine was considered the demand patterns
would not be constant and the demand time series re-
quired.
The performance of the rainwater collection system is
described by its water-saving eciency (ET ) (Dixon,
Butler, & Fewkes, 1999). Water-saving eciency is a
measure of how much mains water has been conserved
in comparison to the overall demand of the WC and is
given by Eq. (7)
PT
Yt
ET ˆ PTtˆ1  100; …7†
tˆ1 Dt
where T is the total time under consideration.
5. The daily time interval model
In this section, a daily time interval model using a
YAS (h ˆ 0) reservoir operating algorithm is used to
model the water-saving eciencies of rainwater collec-
Fig. 2. The variation of water-saving eciency with location and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 0.25).
tors at each of the ®ve locations identi®ed in Table 1. At
each location the water-saving eciencies were modelled
for a range of store capacities and roof areas. The dif-
ferent combinations of roof area and store capacity are
expressed in terms of the demand fraction and storage
fraction (Section 2). The performance of rainwater col-
lection systems at each location was modelled with de-
mand fractions of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75
and 2.00 each with a storage fraction range of 0.005 to
0.4. The modelled system performances at demand frac-
tions of 0.25, 1.00 and 2.00 are illustrated in Figs. 2±4.
At a demand fraction of 0.25 (Fig. 2) the performance
curves predicted for each site are close together, almost
coalescing into a single curve. The modelled perfor-
mance of rainwater collectors at this demand fraction
appears therefore to be relatively insensitive to ¯uctua-
tions in daily rainfall patterns experienced at each lo-
cation. When the demand fraction is increased to 1.00
(Fig. 3) the performance curves are not so tightly
grouped indicating increased sensitivity to daily ¯uctu-
ations in rainfall patterns at the di€erent sites. The
performance curves at a demand fraction of 2.00 (Fig. 4)
begin to coalesce together again indicating an insensi-
tivity to site speci®c rainfall patterns.
The overall close proximity of the water-saving e-
ciency curves at each demand fraction ratio for each of
the ®ve sites suggested system performance could be
adequately represented by a set of average or generic
curves. The average water-saving eciency of a rain-
water collector at demand fractions of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75,
1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 each with a storage
fraction range of 0.005±0.4 is illustrated in Fig. 5.
6. The accuracy of the rainwater collection system
performance curves (daily time interval model)
The water-saving eciencies predicted by the average
curves (Fig. 5) for demand fractions of 0.25, 0.50, 1.00,
 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333 327

Fig. 3. The variation of water-saving eciency with location and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 1.00).

Fig. 4. The variation of water-saving eciency with location and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 2.00).

Fig. 5. Average variation of water-saving eciency with storage fraction and demand fraction.

1.50 and 2.00 each with a storage fraction range of
0.005±0.4 were plotted in turn against the correspond-
ing values predicted for each of the ®ve di€erent loca-
tions. For each of the 25 plots a straight line was ®tted
to the data points using linear regression. In each case
the intercept of the straight line was set to zero before
determining the gradient (m) of the straight line and the
coecient of determination (R2 ). The values of m and
R2 for each site and demand fraction are given in
Table 2.
328 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333

Table 2
The accuracy of average rainwater collection system performance curves (daily time interval model)

D/AR Bredenbury Newport Nottingham Rhymney Yns-y-Fro

m R2 m R2 m R2 m R2 m R2

0.25 0.998 0.997 1.006 0.975 0.996 0.986 0.998 0.99 1.002 0.994
0.5 0.993 0.996 1.012 0.99 0.991 0.996 0.998 0.995 1.006 0.997
1 0.986 0.996 1.014 0.998 0.987 0.997 1.008 0.992 1.005 0.999
1.5 1.006 0.998 1.016 0.998 0.988 0.999 0.99 0.995 1.001 1
2 1.008 0.998 1.004 0.998 1 1 1 0.971 0.999 1

In order to evaluate the accuracy of the water-saving
eciencies predicted using the average performance
curves arbitrary limits were imposed upon the values of
m and R2 . It was assumed the accuracy of the water-
saving eciencies predicted by the average curves would
be preserved within acceptable tolerances if the follow-
ing limits were observed:
1:11 P m P 0:89;
…8†
R2 P 0:9:
The limits of m result in average water-saving eciencies
within the boundaries of ‹10% compared to the per-
formances predicted by the location-speci®c curves.
Generally, the values of m and R2 are within the ranges
of 0.986±1.016 and 0.986±1, respectively. The analysis
suggests the average of generic performance curves can
be used to predict the water-saving eciencies of rain-
water collection systems within the boundaries of the
geographical area investigated.
7. The monthly model using the storage algorithm
parameter h
In this section, an alternative method of modelling
rainwater collection system performance is investigated.
Models for each of the ®ve sites using monthly time
intervals and appropriate values of the parameter h
(Section 2) are used to predict system performance. The
water-saving eciencies were modelled using monthly
(h) models for demand fractions of 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00,
1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 each with a storage fraction
range of 0.005±0.4. In each case, the value of the
parameter h was chosen whereever possible to predict
the water-saving eciency within 0.01% of the value
determined by the corresponding daily YAS model
(Section 5).
The variation of the parameter h, against storage
fraction for each site and demand fraction is illustrated
in Figs. 6±13.
With demand fractions of 0.25 and 0.5 (Figs. 6 and 7)
the curves for each site are closely grouped together and
demonstrate a characteristic skewed distribution with
the value of the parameter h, tending to zero as the
storage fraction increases. When the demand fraction is
increased to 0.75 (Fig. 8) the curves are again skewed
but are more loosely grouped for values of storage
fraction exceeding 0.2. At demand fractions of 1.00,
1.25, 1.50, 1.75 and 2.00 (Figs. 9±13, respectively) the
curve for Nottingham exhibits a skewed distribution
with the value of the parameter h tending to zero as the
storage fraction increases. However, for each of the

Fig. 6. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 0.25).
 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333 329

Fig. 7. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 0.50).

Fig. 8. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 0.75).

Fig. 9. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 1.00).

other four sites modelled the curves exhibit a di€erent closely grouped together within the storage fraction
characteristic shape with the value of the parameter h range 0.005±0.15.
tending to unity as the storage fraction increases. Gen- The curves exhibit two general regions of be-
erally, the curves for all demand fractions and sites are haviour, one where the curves for each geographic
330 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333

Fig. 10. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 1.25).

Fig. 11. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 1.50).

Fig. 12. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 1.75).

location are closely grouped together and another grouped together for storage fractions up to approxi-
where the grouping is less pronounced. At low demand mately 0.04 (Figs. 6 and 7). At larger demand frac-
fractions of 0.25 and 0.5, the curves are closely tions from 0.75 to 2.00 (Figs. 8±13) the curves remain
 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333
Fig. 13. The variation of parameter h with location and storage and storage fraction (D/AR ˆ 2.00).
closely grouped for storage fractions up to approxi-
mately 0.15.
Generally, the values of the parameter h at low
storage volumes range from 0.25 to 0.85 and the curves
are closely grouped, indicating as would be expected,
that the store is sensitive to temporal ¯uctuations in
rainfall. The values of the parameter h at higher storage
volumes would be expected to be less sensitive to tem-
poral and spatial ¯uctuations in rainfall because of the
damping e€ect by the store. The loose grouping of the
curves at higher storage volumes suggested that above a
limiting storage fraction the store becomes insensitive to
rainfall ¯uctuations with a time scale less than one
month and a larger band of values of the parameter h
will adequately describe the operation of the store. The
loose grouping of the curves is typi®ed at demand
fractions of 1.25 and above. The value of the parameter
h for Nottingham tends to zero whilst for the other lo-
cations h tends to unity.
Further investigation supported this argument. For
example, Nottingham (S/AR ˆ 0.4, D/AR ˆ 1.25, h ˆ 0),
water-saving eciency (ET ) ˆ 81.28% and when h ˆ 1,
ET ˆ 81.95%. Whilst for Bredenbury (S/AR ˆ 0.4, D/
AR ˆ 1.25, h ˆ 0), ET ˆ 79.44% and when h ˆ 1,
ET ˆ 79.51%. With a daily time interval model and h ˆ 1
the values of water-saving eciency (ET ) for Notting-
ham and Bredenbury were 80.91% and 80.47%, respec-
tively. Therefore in this particular case for both
Nottingham and Bredenbury the choice of a YAS or
YBS monthly time interval model would result in a
maximum di€erence in water-saving eciency (ET ) of
‹1% compared to the YAS daily time interval model.
The monthly time interval models at higher storage
volumes are therefore, relatively insensitive to the pa-
rameter h and consequently, as would be expected to
temporal variations in rainfall. Generally, at storage
fractions above 0.05 for demand fractions up to 0.5 and
at storage fractions above 0.15 for demand fractions
331
above 0.75 the monthly time interval model is relatively
insensitive to values of the parameter h. This general
®nding is supported by previous research, Fewkes and
Butler (1999), relating to the Nottingham area which
indicated monthly models were suciently accurate for
predicting the performance of rainwater collectors with
storage fractions in excess of 0.125.
The average variation of the parameter h against
storage fraction associated with each of the demand
fractions and the overall average curve for the complete
demand fraction range of 0.25±2.00 are illustrated in
Fig. 14.
The characteristic shape of the overall average curve
is interesting because for storage fractions exceeding
0.025 the variation in the parameter h is small. The
maximum value of h is 0.675 (S/AR ˆ 0.025) and the
minimum value 0.525 (S/AR ˆ 0.4). A possible approx-
imate method of sizing rainwater collection systems
using the monthly (h) model would be to use an overall
average value of h equal to 0.6.
8. The accuracy of a monthly time interval model using
average values of the parameter h
The accuracy of the water-saving eciencies pre-
dicted by the monthly (h) model using average values of
h (Fig. 14) was investigated using linear regression
analysis. The water-saving eciencies predicted by the
monthly (h) model were plotted against the corre-
sponding values predicted for each site using the ap-
propriate daily YAS model. For each plot, a straight
line was ®tted to the data points using linear regression
and the values of m and R2 determined (Table 3). In
each case the intercept of the straight line was set to
zero.
Overall the agreement between the water-saving e-
ciencies predicted by the monthly (h) model and the
332 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333

Fig. 14. Average variation of parameter h with storage fraction and demand fraction.

Table 3
The accuracy of a monthly time interval model using average values of the parameter h

D/AR Bredenbury Newport Nottingham Rhymney Yns-y-Fro

m R2 m R2 m R2 m R2 m R2

0.25 1.006 0.744 1.008 0.854 1.006 0.829 1 0.986 1.006 0.911
0.5 1.012 0.9 1.02 0.957 1.015 0.965 1.003 0.998 1.016 0.975
1 0.998 0.994 1.002 0.993 1.002 0.998 0.983 0.997 0.996 0.997
1.5 0.974 0.995 0.977 0.996 0.983 0.988 0.961 0.987 0.969 0.993
2 0.959 0.981 0.959 0.983 0.968 0.97 0.94 0.965 0.975 0.972

daily YAS model is very good as indicated by the large
proportion of correlation coecients exceeding 0.9.
There are three exceptions, which occur at a demand
fraction of 0.25 for the Bredenbury, Newport and
Nottingham sites.
The critical range for values of the parameter h occurs
within a storage fraction range of 0.005±0.15. The av-
erage variation of the parameter h against storage
fraction curves (Fig. 14) are closely grouped together up
to a storage fraction value of 0.15 with exceptions oc-
curring at demand fractions of 0.25 and 0.5. The di-
vergence of the average h curves at these demand
fractions probably accounts for the poor correlation
obtained at these values (Table 3).
The monthly (h) model using average values of h
provides a ¯exible and accurate method of predicting
water-saving eciency for the range of demand frac-
tions likely to be encountered in practice. When average
values of h are applied to low demand fractions inac-
curacies in predicting water-saving eciency occur but a
good approximation of system performance is modelled.
9. Conclusions
This study presents two behavioural models, which
simulate the performance of rainwater collection sys-
tems, one is based on a daily time interval and the other
a monthly time scale. The central theme of the inves-
tigation relates to the spatial and temporal ¯uctuations
in rainfall and their incorporation into the behavioural
models. Both models were used to predict system per-
formance, in terms of their water-saving eciency, for
di€erent combinations of roof area, demand, storage
volume and rainfall level. Initially, the general reservoir
operating algorithm used in behavioural models to
describe the operation of rainwater stores was re-
viewed. The model parameter h was de®ned and two
extreme reservoir operating conditions identi®ed,
namely yield after storage YAS when h ˆ 0 and YBS
when h ˆ 1.
The ®rst model used a daily time interval in con-
junction with a YAS (h ˆ 0) reservoir operating algo-
rithm to model the water-saving eciencies of rainwater
collectors at ®ve di€erent UK locations. The perfor-
mance curves for each location were closely grouped
together suggesting system performance was relatively
insensitive to daily ¯uctuations in rainfall at each site.
The close grouping of the water-saving eciency curves
at each site also suggested system performance could be
adequately represented by a set of average curves, one
for each demand fraction investigated.
The correlation between the water-saving eciencies
predicted by the average curves was good compared to
 A. Fewkes / Urban Water 1 (1999) 323±333
the corresponding values de®ned by the curves for each
of the individual sites. A set of generic performance
curves has therefore been produced which predict the
performance of rainwater collection systems within the
geographic boundaries de®ned by the sites investigated
within this study.
The second method of predicting rainwater collection
system performance used a more computationally e-
cient monthly time interval model. In the monthly
model the e€ect of daily ¯uctuations in rainfall was
approximated by the parameter h. The parameter h ef-
fectively absorbs the daily variations in rainfall and
enables the monthly model to replicate the performance
of the daily time interval model. Appropriate values of
the parameter h were determined by matching the per-
formance of the daily model with the monthly model.
The water-saving eciencies predicted by the monthly
(h) model using average values of the parameter h cor-
related well with the corresponding values determined
using a daily YAS model. The only exception occurred
at the lowest demand fraction investigated of 0.25.
Generally, a wide variation in values of the parameter
h was observed from each of the sites when the storage
fraction exceeded 0.15. However, the water-saving e-
ciencies predicted by the monthly model are not sensi-
tive to variations of the parameter h, when the storage
fraction exceeds 0.15. This is because the variations in
rainfall pattern are bu€ered by the increasing storage
volumes which are associated with storage fractions in
excess of 0.15. Consequently, the use of an average value
of h does not impair the accurate prediction of system
performance. An approximate method of sizing rain-
water collection systems using an overall average value
of h equal to 0.6 is also proposed although the accuracy
of this approach has not been investigated in this study.
The analysis described in this study has been based
upon a comprehensive set of rainfall data from ®ve
333
di€erent sites located within the Midlands and Wales,
including both coastal and inland areas. Further re-
search is required to con®rm the results are generally
applicable to other areas of the UK, which may expe-
rience similar levels of rainfall but di€erent daily pat-
terns. When this further work has been undertaken two
¯exible methods of assessing the performance of rain-
water collection systems within the UK using either
daily or monthly data will have been developed and
validated. The monthly model in particular represents a
computationally ecient method of determining the
performance of rainwater collectors. The parameter h
has been shown to be an e€ective means of enabling a
monthly model to replicate the behaviour of a daily time
interval model.
References
Department of the Environment and Welsh Oce (1992). Using water
wisely. London: HMSO.
Dixon, A., Butler, D., & Fewkes, A. (1999). Computer simulation of
domestic water reuse systems: investigating greywater and rainwa-
ter in combination. Water Science Technology, 38(4), 25±32.
Fewkes, A. (1999). The use of rainwater for WC ¯ushing: the ®eld
testing of a collection system. Building and Environment, 34(6), 765±
772.
Fewkes, A., & Butler, D. (2000). Simulating the performance of
rainwater collection systems using behavioural models. Building
Services Engineering Research and Technology, 21(2), 99±106.
Jenkins, D., Pearson, F., Moore, E., Sun, J. K., & Valentine, R. (1978).
Feasibility of rainwater collection systems in California. Contribu-
tion No. 173. Californian Water Resources Centre, University of
California.
Latham, B. G. (1983). The design of single-purpose reservoirs. MASc
thesis, University of Canada.
McMahon, T. A., & Mein, R. G. (1978). Reservoir capacity and yield.
Developments in water science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Moran, P. A. P. (1959). The theory of storage. London: Methuen.
Walsh, H. (1999). Private communication. Environment Agency.