![Sample our Earth Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5930/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Earth-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In urban areas facing water stress, rainwater harvesting is essential. This paper proposes a passive rainwater harvesting system as a viable alternative for ensuring a clean water supply. The study introduces an innovative and original design for rainwater harvest. The presentation of the system is performed by analysis of efficiency and reliability of the system analytically. The optimal storage volume is determined through a 22-year precipitation data analysis using the mass balance method, ensuring high efficiency. Payback periods for various consumptions and tank sizes are calculated, showing shorter periods compared to active systems since the proposed system does not use electrical energy. The results demonstrate that 350 m3 of storage volume can assure 99% efficiency when potable water consumption is 0.01 m3/person/day. The payback period of the system was calculated to be between 5 and 10 years. The proposed system can be considered as an appropriate rainwater harvest alternative for existing buildings.
Highlights
A novel and unique rainwater harvest system for existing buildings is proposed.
The introduced system is a passive system that does not use electricity.
The system has positive effects like thermal insulation on heat gains/losses.
The proposed system efficiency may be close to %100
Nomenclature
| Abbreviations | = | |
| NPW | = | Net present worth (€) |
| O&M | = | Operation and Maintenance |
| PBP | = | Payback period (Year) |
| PRHS | = | Passive rainwater harvesting system |
| RoC | = | Run-off coefficient |
| RWH | = | Rainwater harvest |
| SDG | = | Sustainable development goals |
| UN | = | United Nations |
| YAS | = | Yield After Spillage |
| YBS | = | Yield Before Spillage |
| Symbols | = | |
| A | = | Catchment area (m2) |
| CW | = | Price of water (€/m3) |
| CC | = | Cost of one cell (€/pcs) |
| CI | = | Cost of installation (€) |
| CT | = | Total storage cost (€) |
| D | = | Demand (m3/day) |
| G | = | Storage reliability (%) |
| n | = | Terms (years) |
| NC | = | Number of cells used on roof top (pcs) |
| N | = | Number of days analyzed (day) |
| r | = | Rate of interest (%) |
| OF | = | Over flow (m3) |
| S | = | Annual saving potential (€) |
| U | = | Number of days the tank cannot meet the desired demand (day) |
| = | Rainwater storage efficiency (%) | |
| V | = | Tank volume (m3) |
| Vi | = | Current water in the tank (m3) |
| W | = | Harvested water (m3) |
| Y | = | Water used (m3) |
| ΣY | = | Total use of rainwater (m3) |
| ΣD | = | Total water demand (m3) |
Acknowledgements
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [UU], upon reasonable request. The authors of the paper confirm that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report. We gratefully thank to Eng H. Cagdas Aslan for his valuable supports.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).