See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267039172

Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of

Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

6 172

2 authors, including:

Frank Joseph Wambura

Ardhi University
10 PUBLICATIONS   40 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AgMIP phase 1 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frank Joseph Wambura on 19 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar
es Salaam, Tanzania
Preksedis Marco NDOMBA*1 and Frank Joseph WAMBURA1
1
University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), Tanzania; Email*: pmndomba2002@yahoo.co.uk

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to report on reliability problems and modelling of Rainwater Harvesting
Systems (RHSs) for suburbs households. Although RHSs are believed to be alternative source of water
supply, little has been done by other researchers in analyzing the same in the Nilotic countries. The
case study is the area comprising the suburbs of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In this
study, two parameters of reliability analyses i.e. Reliability index and Demand Satisfaction level were
determined. Besides, they were modelled based on climatic, field measured physical and household
social status data by probabilistic approach using Direct Integration Method for representative house.
The climatic data used for the analyses are monthly rainfall data spanning for fifteen (15) years (i.e.
1988 to 2002) collected from the University of Dar es Salaam meteorological station, the nearby station
to the case study. Physical and social status data were obtained after carrying out multistage random
sampling starting with the sampling of the suburb and then representative households in the selected
suburb. The physical data inputs include storage tank sizes and roof areas. Social status data includes
household size and water demand pattern. This study showed that about 60% of the RHSs in the study
area are not reliable having reliability index less than 70% and has been attributed to poor design, for
instances provision of the systems without considering the stochastic nature of rainfall. Thirty percent
(30%) of all unreliable RHSs had been designed deterministically. The modelling outputs is presented
in a graphical formats so that one given data on household size, per capita water demand and roof area
would obtain the reliable size of the water storage tank. The research findings presented in this paper
could be applied in areas with similar socio-economic status and climatic condition.

Key words: Demand Satisfaction level, Reliability, Rainwater Harvesting System, Suburbs, Water
scarcity

1. INTRODUCTION

Reliability is defined as the probability that a given size of rainwater harvesting system will be
sufficient to supply the necessary amount of water (Ruslan, 2003). It is the fraction of time in a typical
simulation period that a tank has not run dry. The probability that a tank of a given size will be
sufficient to store all the water over a certain span of years is also important. Whatever the conditions, a
careful water management strategy is always a prudent measure. In situations where there is strong
reliance on stored rainwater, there is need to control or manage the amount of water being used so that
it does not dry up before it is expected (Ruslan, 2003). On the other hand demand satisfaction by the
rainwater harvesting system is the fraction of the demand the system manages to deliver (Thomas and
Martinson, 2007).

Rainwater harvesting can be broadly defined as the process of concentrating, collection and storing
rainwater for different uses at the same or later time in the same area where the rain falls or in another
areas during the later time (Mbilinyi et al., 2005). The term rainwater harvesting describes a wide range
of techniques which collect rainfall runoff for different uses, by linking a runoff-producing area with a
separate runoff- receiving area (Young et al., 2002).The performance of RHSs mathematical models
are generally based on ‘mass’ balance equation (Equation 1).

Ͳ ൑ ܸ௧ ൌ ሺܸ௧ିଵ ൅ ܳ௧ െ ‫ܦ‬௧ ሻ ൏ ܸ௦ ..................................................................... ................................................................ (1)

Where, Vt, is the volume of water in the tank at present, Vt-1 is the volume of water in the tank remained
from previous time step, Qt is the rainwater captured at present, Dt is the total consumption per month
and Vs is the volume of the tank.

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 73
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

At each time-step, the roof run-off belonging to that step is added to the volume (mass) in the tank and
the user’s draw-off is subtracted. Conditions and limits are applied to cover the three cases ‘tank
overflows’, ‘tank runs dry’ and ‘demand exceeds the water available’.

The computation of reliability requires knowledge of probability distributions of load and resistance, or
the performance function (Equations 2 or 3). This computation of reliability is called load -resistance
interference.
’
ܴ݈ܾ݈݁݅ܽ݅݅‫ ݕݐ‬ൌ ͳ െ ‫׬‬௧ ݂ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ݀‫………………………………………ݐ‬..........……............................................................... (2)
σೝబ ௙௔௜௟௨௥௘௠௢௡௧௛௦
ܴ݈ܾ݈݁݅ܽ݅݅‫ ݕݐ‬ൌ ቀͳ െ σ೙
ቁ ൈ ͳͲͲΨ …………............…....……….......................................................... (3)
భ ௠௢௡௧௛௦

The probability that the system will fail at time t can be referred to as failure distribution function, f (t)
is the probability density function of the variables t (i.e., for the time to failure). The method of direct
integration requires the probability density function of the load and resistance or the performance
function be known or derived. This information is seldom available in practice, especially for the joint
probability density function, because of the complexity of hydrologic and hydraulic models used in
design. In this study the method of direct integration was used in computation of reliability (Equation
3).

Changanyikeni is the Street with households having the problem of getting reliable municipal water
supply, so the residents depend mainly on rainwater harvesting and the supply from the trucks. The
truck water supply seems to be very expensive and thus not affordable to the poor. The only option is
therefore a reliable rainwater harvesting systems. At most the rainwater harvesting systems for
Changanyikeni households have been designed based on deterministic approach (mass curve analysis),
thus reliabilities of the systems were not considered.

The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to assess the existing systems in the case of reliability and
demand satisfaction level per household and then to develop RHS model/curves for assessing other
systems in the same area and proposing the reliable size of the system required.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1. Description of the Study Area

Figure 1: Location map of Changanyikeni in the Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 74
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Changanyikeni is located in the north-western part of Dar es Salaam about 7 km from Dar es Salaam
city centre. It comprises of five suburbs, which are Magharibi, Shuleni, Kati, Kizota and Mikongeni.
Temperature in the area has the average of 320C, with minimum and maximum temperatures of 240C
(especially in the months of June and July) and 330C, respectively. The area gets a lot of rain which
starts in the month of September and the highest rainfall in the months of April and May. It receives
Mean Annual Rainfall (MAR) of 1100 mm.

The terrain of Changanyikeni is moderate induration characterised by valleys and escapements. Land
use of Changanyikeni is mainly dominated by human settlements. Changanyikeni has about 1000
households and most of them have families with the average size of 7 people. These are medium
income earners. Changanyikeni gets unreliable water supply from Upper Ruvu Water Treatment Plant.
The residents depend mainly on rainwater harvesting and the supply from the trucks. Ground water
source has not yet been explored. The green cover of valleys in the southern part of the area can
provide more persuasion of the prospects of groundwater resource.

2.2. Data and Data Analysis

2.2.1 Data types and sources

Primary data used in the analyses were obtained from two visits in the study area. The households used
for analysis were selected using a multi-stage random sampling by William’s table of random numbers
(Williams, 1988). Most of the households in the area have incomplete rainwater harvesting systems
(they lacked storage tanks) Households having the complete rainwater harvesting systems (presence of
functioning collection, diversion parts and storage tank) were analysed. Only fourteen (14) households
in the selected area of study (Kizota suburb) had the complete systems. Data from the households were
household population, water consumption, roof area and volume/size of the rainwater storage tank. The
demand obtained from the households included all water uses (Table 1). Water consumptions for the
households were not the same throughout the week. It was observed that most of water is used during
weekends as most of the residents do their cleanliness. They use relatively less water in the weekdays.

The sizes (areas) of the roof range from 18.58 to 162.58 m2. The collection surface is the “footprint” of
the roof. In other words, regardless of the pitch of the roof, the effective collection surface is the area
covered by collection surface (product of length and width of the roof from eave to eave and front to
rear). Obviously, if only one side of the structure is guttered, only the area drained by the gutters should
be used in the calculation (Texas Water Development Board, 2005).

Rainwater storage tank size and volumes were measured from the site using tape measure and for
industrially manufactured tanks the sizes were read directly from tank walls prints. The storage tanks
types are cylindrical and rectangular. The volume of the tanks varies within the range of 8000 to 18000
litres.

The secondary data were monthly rainfall data. The authors are aware that shorter time intervals (i.e.
daily, weekly data) increase the accuracy of the results only slightly, but do increase the amount of
calculations considerably. This observation compares to one by Rahman (2000). Monthly rainfall data
of 15 years (1988 to 2002) was collected from nearby meteorological station, the University of Dar es
Salaam (Fig. 1 and Table 2).

The model/curves development required data as inputs or assumptions as the boundary conditions.
These data are water demand per household, roof area, rainfall data. The household water demands
considered were 60,120, 240, 420 and 600 L/ day. Roof areas of 18, 36, 63, 81, 108, 126, 162, 180, and
216 m2 were considered. Runoff coefficient of 80% was used due to assumptions that rainwater is lost
due to first flush water and leakages in the systems.

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 75
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 1: Summary of field survey of household data

Serial Number 11 14 01 08 10
Suburb KIZOTA KIZOTA KIZOTA KIZOTA KIZOTA
Household Number KAW/CGN 216 KAW/CGN 715 KAW/CGN … KAW/CGN 391 KAW/CGN 226
Population in the Household 6 people 3 people 6 people 15 people 19 people
Type of roof IRON SHEETS IRON SHEETS IRON SHEETS IRON SHEETS IRON SHEETS
Total Area 162.58 m2 136.57 m2 168.155 m2 192.03 m2 134.90 m2
Area with
Roof size Gutters 162.58 m2 136.57 m2 18.581 m2 96.02 m2 101.17 m2
Area without
Gutters 0 m2 0 m2 149.57 m2 96.01 m2 33.73 m2
Tank size volume 12000 litres 18000 litres 8000 litres 10000 litres 12000 litres
Uses of rainwater all domestic uses all domestic uses all domestic uses all domestic uses all domestic uses
Monday 220 litres 100 litres 200 litres 700 litres 400 litres
Tuesday 220 litres 100 litres 200 litres 700 litres 400 litres
Per Week Wednesday 220 litres 100 litres 200 litres 700 litres 400 litres
Water Thursday 220 litres 100 litres 200 litres 700 litres 400 litres
Consumpti Friday 220 litres 100 litres 200 litres 700 litres 400 litres
on
Saturday 320 litres 200 litres 400 litres 800 litres 800 litres
Sunday 320 litres 200 litres 400 litres 800 litres 800 litres
Average 248.57 litres 128.57 litres 257.14 litres 728.57 litres 514.28 litres
Per capita water consumption 41.429 L/cap/day 42.857 L/cap/day 42.857 L/cap/day 48.571 L/cap/day 27.068 L/cap/day

Note: The names of the household owners are withheld for the sake of research ethics adherence.

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 76
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 2: Statistics of the monthly rainfall data of UDSM meteorological station for the period
1988 to 2002
Statistics Value Unit
Number of values, n 180 -
Minimum values 0.0 mm
Maximum values 570.0 mm
Mean, µ 91.6 mm
Standard Deviation 98.8 mm
Coefficient of variation, CV=ı/µ x100% 107.8 %
Standard error of mean, SEM=ı/¥n x100% 7.4 mm

2.2.2 Reliability Index determination

The rainwater harvesting system was analyzed with the consideration of storage. Therefore this study
adopted the water balance technique (Equation 1) using monthly consumption and supply (Equation 4)
in determining the reliability of the existing rainwater harvesting system. The following were the
procedures adopted in the analysis. Run off from the roof, Qt: in m3/month; for each month in a year for
all years of the simulation period run offs were calculated using the rational formula (Equation 4). The
effect of evaporation from the tank was not incorporated in the equation as it was assumed to be
negligible for closed tank.

ܳ௧ ൌ ‫ ܥ‬ൈ ሺ‫ܫ‬௧  െ ‫ܧ‬௧ ሻ ൈ ‫…………………………………………………………………… ܣ‬....… (4)

Where, C is run off coefficient of the roof, it was assumed to be 0.8 (applicable for corrugated sheets
incorporating first flush losses and leakages). There is insignificant difference among the end results
for variation of this parameter in the range of 0.75 – 0.85 (Yusuf, 1999), It is the monthly rainfall in
mm/month, Et is evaporation from the storage tank (this was taken as zero because all the tanks were
covered at the top) in mm/month, A is the roof area in m2. The net volume of water in the tank at the
end of time (month) step, Vt is obtained by considering the mass balance of the inflow, remained
volume from previous time step and outflow using Equation 1. Simulation period was assumed to start
in September 1988 with zero initial storage in the tank. It should be noted that the storage in the tank
was not allowed to be negative and also overflow is allowed so volume of water in tank cannot be
greater than volume of the tank. Summary of volume of water in the tank for simulation period of 15
years for one representative household is presented in Table 3. The Direct Integration Method was used
in determination of reliability index. The number of months with zero volume (Vt = 0) of water in the
tank was counted as failures. From Table 3, the Sum of failure months and months in the simulation
period of 15 years are 43 and 168, respectively.

Using Equation 3, the reliability for household number KAW/CGN 216 is estimated as 74.40%. The
summary for reliability for all households used in the analyses is presented in Table 5.

2.2.3 Estimating Demand Satisfaction by the Rainwater Harvesting System

This is the average fraction of monthly demand the system manages to deliver. It was calculated by
taking the volume of water in the tank before consumption per demand of the particular month
(Equation 5). The volume before consumption is the sum of volume of water in the tank from previous
month (Vt-1) and rainwater captured in the present month (Qt).

ሺ௏೟షభ ାொ೟ ሻ
ܵ௧ ൌ ቂ ቃ ൈ ͳͲͲΨ ൑ ͳͲͲΨ ……..…………………………………………...……….............. (5)
஽೟

Average satisfaction, Savt for months from January to December for the same household was computed
by taking the ratio of the sum of satisfaction of similar months in the simulation period per total
number of the month. A summary of satisfaction level in percentage for each month in the simulation
period and the average satisfaction level for the case of KAW/CGN 216, household is presented in the
Table 4. The same procedure was used in determination of the average demand satisfaction level for all
household (Table 6).

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 77
 Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 3: The summary of water volume calculations in the tank for household number: KAW/CGN216

Household number: KAW/CGN 216 Population: 6 people

Storage tank 12 m3 Roof area 162.58 m2
Simulation period 15 years =180-12=168 months Consumption /day 41.429 L/day
Run off coefficient, C 0.8 Total consumption 7.5815 m3/month
Serial Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 monthly
month year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 average
Rainfall, It (mm) 237.5 62.7 40.3 20.4 34.2 12.7 11.0 96.6 0.0 191.6 106.2 5.5 121.5 97.4 74.1143
Jan 3
Qt(m /month) 30.9 8.2 5.2 2.7 4.4 1.7 1.4 12.6 0.0 24.9 13.8 0.7 15.8 12.7 9.4
3
Vt(m ) 12.0 12.0 9.7 7.1 6.9 0.0 5.8 8.9 0.0 12.0 6.2 5.1 12.0 7.1 7.5
Rainfall, It (mm) 0.2 28.6 16.6 18.9 51.4 114.2 93.0 91.6 0.0 122.8 37.7 0.0 176.2 81.7 59.5
Feb Qt(m3/month) 0.0 3.7 2.2 2.5 6.7 14.9 12.1 11.9 0.0 16.0 4.9 0.0 22.9 10.6 7.5
3
Vt(m ) 4.4 8.1 4.2 1.9 6.0 7.3 10.4 12.0 0.0 12.0 3.6 0.0 12.0 10.1 6.3
Rainfall, It (mm) 99.3 161.4 59.3 49.2 116.3 296.0 213.6 188.1 334.2 77.2 265.0 41.6 157.2 140.3 157.1
Mar 3
Qt(m /month) 12.9 21.0 7.7 6.4 15.1 38.5 27.8 24.5 43.5 10.0 34.5 5.4 20.4 18.2 20.6
3
Vt(m ) 9.8 12.0 4.4 0.8 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 9.5
Rainfall, It (mm) 177.5 237.3 24.5 264.9 365.0 570.0 231.8 181.9 217.2 361.5 229.3 180.2 213.8 461.1 265.4
Apr 3
Qt(m /month) 23.1 30.9 3.2 34.5 47.5 74.1 30.1 23.7 28.2 47.0 29.8 23.4 27.8 60.0 32.6
3
Vt(m ) 12.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 11.1
Rainfall, It (mm) 246.4 66.0 235.4 116.5 182.3 334.2 248.8 305.5 135.4 141.5 187.8 63.8 186.2 27.0 176.9
May 3
Qt(m /month) 32.0 8.6 30.6 15.2 23.7 43.5 32.4 39.7 17.6 18.4 24.4 8.3 24.2 3.5 24.5
3
Vt(m ) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 7.9 12.0
Rainfall, It (mm) 42.7 25.9 19.5 60.1 13.6 59.8 0.0 6.2 168.2 26.7 105.3 92.2 10.5 9.2 45.7
June Qt(m3/month) 5.6 3.4 2.5 7.8 1.8 7.8 0.0 0.8 21.9 3.5 13.7 12.0 1.4 1.2 6.3
3
Vt(m ) 10.0 7.8 7.0 12.0 6.2 12.0 4.4 5.2 12.0 7.9 12.0 12.0 5.8 1.5 8.8

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 78
 Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 3 (Continued)

Household number: KAW/CGN 216 Population: 6 people

Storage tank 12 m3 Roof area 162.58 m2
Simulation period 15 years =180-12=168 months Consumption /day 41.429 L/day
Run off coefficient,C 0.8 Total consumption 7.5815 m3/month
s/n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 monthly
month year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 average
Rainfall, It (mm) 60.4 4.0 12.4 24.9 12.4 74.9 9.0 7.0 6.0 9.7 31.4 53.8 12.7 53.1 26.6
July 3
Qt(m /month) 7.9 0.5 1.6 3.2 1.6 9.7 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.3 4.1 7.0 1.7 6.9 3.2
3
Vt(m ) 10.2 0.7 1.0 7.7 0.2 12.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.6 8.5 11.4 0.0 0.9 4.5
Rainfall, It (mm) 30.8 10.0 28.7 0.0 11.0 34.0 113.8 22.5 6.5 9.2 36.5 29.6 9.5 121.9 33.1
Aug 3
Qt(m /month) 4.0 1.3 3.7 0.0 1.4 4.4 14.8 2.9 0.8 1.2 4.7 3.8 1.2 15.9 3.4
3
Vt(m ) 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.8 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 7.7 0.0 9.1 2.8
Rainfall, It (mm) 29.6 42.8 26.3 9.7 14.3 16.8 24.0 7.8 0.5 25.1 56.8 41.2 7.1 0.0 21.6
Sept 3
Qt(m /month) 3.8 5.6 3.4 1.3 1.9 2.2 3.1 1.0 0.1 3.3 7.4 5.4 0.9 0.0 2.8
3
Vt(m ) 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 1.0 0.0 1.0
Rainfall, It (mm) 15.5 40.4 42.8 19.0 10.2 39.1 79.8 75.3 95.1 316.3 45.0 21.6 3.7 6.4 57.9
Oct 3
Qt(m /month) 2.0 5.3 5.6 2.5 1.3 5.1 10.4 9.8 12.4 41.1 5.9 2.8 0.5 0.8 7.5
3
Vt(m ) 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 2.9 4.8 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1
Rainfall, It (mm) 37.3 118.4 267.3 161.7 126.1 34.5 44.0 8.0 34.8 140.2 39.8 26.8 103.1 20.5 83.0
Nov Qt(m3/month) 4.9 15.4 34.8 21.0 16.4 4.5 5.7 1.0 4.5 18.2 5.2 3.5 13.4 2.7 10.8
3
Vt(m ) 0.0 10.1 12.0 12.0 8.8 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.7 12.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 4.8
Rainfall, It (mm) 173.2 156.4 66.2 124.3 67.3 30.0 147.0 88.6 0.0 281.8 22.0 266.1 154.5 73.8 117.9
Dec 3
Qt(m /month) 22.5 20.3 8.6 16.2 8.8 3.9 19.1 11.5 0.0 36.7 2.9 34.6 20.1 9.6 15.3
3
Vt(m ) 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 10.0 0.0 12.0 3.9 0.0 12.0 0.0 12.0 12.0 2.0 8.0

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 79
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 4: Summary of Satisfaction Level for each month in the simulation period for KAW/CGN 216
Household number: KAW/CGN 216 Population: 6 people

Storage tank 12 m3 Roof area 162.58 m2

Simulation period 15 years =180-12=168 months Consumption /day 41.42 L/day
Run off coefficient, C 0.8 Total consumption 7.581 m3/month
Serial Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Month savt (%)
year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Qt(m3/month) 30.89 8.16 5.24 2.65 4.45 1.65 1.43 12.56 0.00 24.92 13.81 0.72 15.80 12.67
Jan 3 87.30
Vt(m ) 12.00 12.00 9.66 7.07 6.86 0.00 5.85 8.92 0.00 12.00 6.23 5.13 12.00 7.10
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 21.79 100.0 100.0 0.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 0.03 3.72 2.16 2.46 6.69 14.85 12.10 11.91 0.00 15.97 4.90 0.00 22.92 10.63
Feb 3 90.60
Vt(m ) 4.44 8.14 4.24 1.95 5.96 7.27 10.36 12.00 0.00 12.00 3.55 0.00 12.00 10.15
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.00 100.0 100.0 67.72 100.0 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 12.92 20.99 7.71 6.40 15.13 38.50 27.78 24.47 43.47 10.04 34.47 5.41 20.45 18.25
Mar 3 98.00
Vt(m ) 9.78 12.00 4.37 0.77 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 71.37 100.0 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 23.09 30.86 3.19 34.45 47.47 74.14 30.15 23.66 28.25 47.02 29.82 23.44 27.81 59.97
Apr 3 100.00
Vt(m ) 12.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 99.66 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 32.05 8.58 30.62 15.15 23.71 43.47 32.36 39.73 17.61 18.40 24.43 8.30 24.22 3.51
May 3 100.00
Vt(m ) 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 7.93
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 5.55 3.37 2.54 7.82 1.77 7.78 0.00 0.81 21.88 3.47 13.70 11.99 1.37 1.20
June 3 100.00
Vt(m ) 9.97 7.79 6.95 12.00 6.19 12.00 4.42 5.22 12.00 7.89 12.00 12.00 5.78 1.55
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 80
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 4 (Continued)

Household number: KAW/CGN 216 Population: 6 people

Storage tank 12 m3 Roof area 162.58 m2

Simulation period 15 years =180-12=168 months Consumption /day 41.42 L/day
Run off coefficient, C 0.8 Total consumption 7.581 m3/month
Serial Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Month savt (%)
year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Qt(m3/month) 7.86 0.52 1.61 3.24 1.61 9.74 1.17 0.91 0.78 1.26 4.08 7.00 1.65 6.91
July 3 96.60
Vt(m ) 10.25 0.73 0.99 7.66 0.22 12.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 1.57 8.50 11.42 0.00 0.87
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 73.72 80.93 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.08 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 4.01 1.30 3.73 0.00 1.43 4.42 14.80 2.93 0.85 1.20 4.75 3.85 1.24 15.85
Aug 3 70.10
Vt(m ) 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 8.84 7.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.67 7.68 0.00 9.14
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 26.73 62.24 100.0 21.75 100.0 100.0 38.60 79.72 36.51 100.0 100.0 16.30 100.0
3
Qt(m /month) 3.85 5.57 3.42 1.26 1.86 2.19 3.12 1.01 0.07 3.26 7.39 5.36 0.92 0.00
Sept 3 57.70
Vt(m ) 0.00 4.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.38 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45 1.03 0.00
Satisfaction (%) 50.78 100.0 45.12 16.64 25.53 28.82 100.0 100.0 0.86 43.06 97.44 100.0 100.0 0.00
3
Qt(m /month) 2.02 5.25 5.57 2.47 1.33 5.09 10.38 9.79 12.37 41.14 5.85 2.81 0.48 0.83
Oct Vt(m3) 0.00 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.18 2.87 4.79 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.80
Satisfaction (%) 26.59 100.0 73.43 32.60 17.50 67.08 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 77.20 82.50 19.88 10.98
3
Qt(m /month) 4.85 15.40 34.77 21.03 16.40 4.49 5.72 1.04 4.53 18.23 5.18 3.49 13.41 2.67
Nov 3 80.30
Vt(m ) 0.00 10.15 12.00 12.00 8.82 0.00 5.32 0.00 1.73 12.00 0.00 0.00 5.83 0.00
Satisfaction (%) 63.99 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 59.19 100.0 51.51 100.0 100.0 68.28 45.98 100.0 35.17
3
Qt(m /month) 22.53 20.34 8.61 16.17 8.75 3.90 19.12 11.52 0.00 36.65 2.86 34.61 20.09 9.60
Dec 3 86.60
Vt(m ) 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 9.99 0.00 12.00 3.94 0.00 12.00 0.00 12.00 12.00 2.02
Satisfaction (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 51.47 100.0 100.0 22.85 100.0 37.74 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 81
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

2.2.4 Rainwater harvesting system modelling

The rainwater harvesting systems model was developed using the probabilistic approach. The model is
purposive for estimating storage tank sizes. The model was implemented in a spreadsheet environment
using Equations 1, 3 and 4. For each of the water demand, and at a particular roof area the volume of
the storage tank was varied and the corresponding values of reliability were recorded and used in
plotting the Tank Sizing Curves (Figures 2 a-b). The model development involved introduction of the
input data and assumptions in the spreadsheet environment and extraction of the data points to
represent the model in the curve/graphical format. The model result is represented in curves so that
they can be used by people who lack knowledge of hydrology and probability. The graphs were
developed for selected number of people using the system at the standard constant demand, for each
population the graph shows the relationship between reliability and size of the tank for various selected
roof area.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1. Reliability

The results from the analysis show that the reliability of the system depends on the amount of water
collected size of the storage tank and roof area (Table 5).
Table 5: Results of Reliability of Households in the study
Household Roof Area Storage Tank Water Consumption Reliability (%)
House Number population (m2) (L) (L/day)
KAW/CGN 216 6 162.58 12000 41 74.40
KAW/CGN 715 3 136.57 18000 43 98.81
KAW/CGN 6 18.581 8000 43 0.60
KAW/CGN 391 15 96.02 10000 49 5.36
KAW/CGN 226 19 101.17 12000 27 20.83

The reliability percentages vary from small storage sizes to larger ones. Based on the results for various
water demands, the water demand of 409.71 L/day per household achieved the highest reliability with
98.81% for the size of 18 m3 storage and the roof area of 136.57 m2. Water demand of 257.142 L/day
for storage size of 8 m3 and roof area of 18.58 m2 is the lowest percentage of reliability recorded with
0.60%.The household with the highest reliability had some additional characteristics like very large
storage tank and roof area in relation to the number of people living under the same roof, so its
reliability was raised due to little monthly demand from three (3) people living in the household.
However the household with lowest reliability percentage was due to presence of very small roof area
with gutters for rainwater conveyance and small volume of storage tank.

The household with water demand of 248.574 L/day showed reliability of 74.40% from the storage
tank of 12 m3 collecting water from 162.58 m2. At this household the increase of the storage tank up to
40 m3 raised the reliability to 97.62%, however, due to insufficient roof area the reliability did not
reach 100% but it rose up to 98.21% for storage of 47 m3. Roof area in most of the household is the
fixed parameter of the RHS, so the only parameter of the household that can be altered to achieve the
highest reliability is the storage tank. Although by just increasing tank volume is not the feasible
solution because the rainfall pattern also affects the rainwater collected.

3.2. Demand Satisfaction Level

The months of January to February had the lowest level of satisfaction for almost all analyzed
households (except for household with water demand of 248.574 L/day which had the satisfaction level
of 100% for about three quarter of the year) in comparison to the succeeded months; however the
month of September had the lowest level of satisfaction for all households (Table 6). This is explained
by little rainfall. In this month the supplementary supply of water for the household is needed in this
case.

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 82
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Table 6: Results of the Demand Satisfaction Level (%)

Time Household numbers
Months KAW/CGN KAW/CGN 216 KAW/CGN 226 KAW/CGN 715 KAW/CGN 391
d
January 14.00 87.30 39.40 100.00 25.60
February 11.30 90.60 34.90 100.00 20.60
March 29.80 98.00 71.50 100.00 53.00
April 49.70 100.00 92.20 100.00 78.00
May 34.10 100.00 91.20 100.00 66.50
June 8.70 100.00 53.50 100.00 19.40
July 5.00 96.60 17.00 100.00 9.20
August 6.30 70.10 17.10 100.00 11.50
September 4.10 57.70 11.10 98.70 7.50
October 11.00 64.80 25.30 95.90 19.30
November 15.70 80.30 42.10 100.00 29.40
December 22.40 86.60 57.70 100.00 40.80

3.3. Tank Sizing Curves

The tank sizing curves have the same pattern irrespective of particular demand and roof area (Figures 2
a-d). Given data on household demand, storage tank and roof area the reliability could be estimated
from the curves. As illustrated in Figure 2a below a household demand of 60 L/day with a roof area of
18 m2 and storage table of 5 m3 the reliability is about 50%.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 2 a-d: Relationships between reliability and tank size (Storage), demand and roof area (A)
(curves/models)

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 83
Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

The reliability analyses were done on five representative households at Kizota (one of the suburbs of
Changanyikeni). The data involved in the analyses were primary data (water consumption, storage tank
and roof area) and secondary data (rainfall data from UDSM meteorological station). Data were used in
the reliability analyses and modelling of the RHSs Tank sizing.

The analyses involved determination of reliability and demand satisfaction of the RHSs at household
level. Household RHSs reliabilities are comparable to field observations. From the analyses RWHSs
with high reliability (80% to 100%) are 20% of the total population of the RWHSs, with medium
reliability (40% to 79%) are 20% and low reliability (0% to 39%) are 60%. Therefore the resizing of
the rainwater storage tank (the only variable of RWHS which can still be altered without much cost
incurred) for at Changanyikeni is about 80% (low plus medium reliabilities) of all the systems.
Satisfaction levels were determined in order to know the variation of water level in the storage tank
throughout the year. The analyses suggest that in the months of January, February, July, August and
September, the residents of Changanyikeni should supplement their water storage tanks with water
from other sources like truck water supplies.

Tank sizing curves were developed to serve as reliability determination tool of the existing RHSs and
sizing of the reliable storage tank in the new design of the RHSs. However there are assumptions which
limit the application of the curves, these include climatic conditions (especially rainfall), water demand
(assumed constant value) and run off coefficient (assumed).

4.2 Recommendations

From the analysis and due to presence of other sources of water supply the reliability of the RWHSs of
70% is recommended. For unreliable tank, satisfaction level should be determined so as to know the
months requiring supplementary water supply. Researchers on RHS development are advised to
develop the Tank Sizing Curves(model) for various climatic regions, and draw the maps of reliability
of RWHS against rainfall for various roof areas and water demands so that even people without skills
of hydrology, can size the storage tanks of their systems.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the local government of Changanyikeni Street for their assistance in obtaining the
primary data from the households in the suburb of Kizota as well as the Department of Water
Resources Engineering of University of Dar es Salaam for availing the rainfall data from their
meteorological station.

6. REFERENCES

1. Mbilinyi B.P, Tumbo S.D, Mahoo H. F, Senkondo E.M and Hatibu N, 2005, Indigenous
knowledge as decision support tool in rainwater harvesting, Physics and Chemistry of the
Earth 30: 792 - 798
2. Rahman, M.M. and Yusuf, F.M.S., 2000, Rainwater Harvesting and the Reliability Concept,
8th.ASCE Specialty Concept on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability, pp. 26
3. Ruslan.H, 2003, “ Rainwater Harvesting: Reliability Analyses for Large Buildings: Factory,
Government and Commercial Complex”, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
4. Texas Water Development Board, The Texas manual on rainwater harvesting, Third edition.
2005, Texas Water Development Board.
5. Thomas, T.H. and Martinson, D.B., 2007, Roofwater Harvesting: A Handbook for
Practitioners, Delft, The Netherlands, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
(Technical Paper Series; no. 49). 160 p.
6. William Green, 1988, Five Digit Random Numbers generated in LIMDEP Version 5.1,
London, UK.
7. Young MD, Gowing JW, Wyseure, GC, Hatibu N, 2002, Parched thirst: development and

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 84
 Reliability of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Suburbs. A case study of Changanyikeni in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

validation of a process-based model of rainwater harvesting, Agricultural water management

55, 121 – 140.
8. Yusuf, F. M.S., 1999, Rainwater Harvesting Potential in Bangladesh, M.Eng thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering andTechnology,
Dhaka.

Nile Basin Water Science & Engineering Journal, Vol.3, Issue 3, 2010 85

View publication stats