{"id":29084,"date":"2026-02-09T23:27:29","date_gmt":"2026-02-09T23:27:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=29084"},"modified":"2026-02-09T23:32:42","modified_gmt":"2026-02-09T23:32:42","slug":"smart-stormwater-manhole-management-system","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=29084","title":{"rendered":"Smart Stormwater Manhole Management System"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Urban stormwater networks are facing unprecedented operational stresses due to intensified rainfall events, aging infrastructure, and shrinking maintenance budgets. Manholes represent critical nodes in these systems, serving as points of access, hydraulic regulation, and sediment control. However, traditional inspection-based maintenance is reactive; more than 50% of hydraulic disruptions in urban drainage are caused by blockages that go undetected between manual inspection cycles (USEPA 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To address these challenges, this system integrates sensor technology with reinforced concrete manhole structures to move from reactive to predictive maintenance. This allows for real-time flood-risk management and extends the functional reliability of the drainage network.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

System Overview:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The smart manhole system consists of a reinforced concrete cylindrical chamber (0.8\u20131.2 m diameter) equipped with integrated water-level sensors (ultrasonic or radar). These sensors communicate via GSM or LoRaWAN to provide a continuous data stream, identifying abnormal hydraulic conditions like surcharging or partial pipe blockages. The system is designed for deployment in temperate coastal environments (e.g., Rotterdam) where flood-prone hotspots require high operational awareness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Environmental Performance:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The study evaluated three design alternatives, Alternative A (Affordability focus), Alternative B (Balanced), and Alternative C (Safety focus). The assessment focused on embodied carbon (-e) from reinforced concrete production and sensor energy use. While Alternative A uses the least concrete, it results in higher long-term operational emissions due to frequent battery replacements and manual inspections. Alternative C has the highest upfront carbon footprint due to its thick walls () and dual radar sensors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Methodology:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The analysis utilized a combined framework of Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (AHP):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Risk & Deterioration Modeling:<\/strong>\u00a0A Markov deterioration model was used to predict transition probabilities between condition states (Excellent to Failure). This was integrated with a\u00a0Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)\u00a0to quantify the annual probability of failure (Pf,a<\/sub>) based on structural, hydraulic, and monitoring components.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. AHP Analysis:<\/strong> To rank the alternatives, a pairwise comparison matrix was developed. In line with smart drainage strategies, Hydraulic Performance and Monitoring Reliability were weighted more heavily than initial cost, as early detection of surcharge is critical for flood mitigation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    AHP Criteria-Weighting Matrix:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The following weighting reflects the priority of flood-risk mitigation over simple cost-saving:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Criteria<\/strong><\/td>SR<\/strong><\/td>HP<\/strong><\/td>MR<\/strong><\/td>LCC<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
    Structural Reliability (SR)<\/strong><\/td>1<\/td>1\/3<\/td>1\/3<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    Hydraulic Performance (HP)<\/strong><\/td>3<\/td>1<\/td>1<\/td>3<\/td><\/tr>
    Monitoring Reliability (MR)<\/strong><\/td>3<\/td>1<\/td>1<\/td>3<\/td><\/tr>
    Life-Cycle Cost (LCC)<\/strong><\/td>1<\/td>1\/3<\/td>1\/3<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Results:<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The AHP analysis integrated the technical scores from the LCA and risk assessments into a final ranking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Fig. 01.<\/strong> AHP local weights for Alternatives A, B, and C under each criterion<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Fig. 02.<\/strong> Overall AHP Ranking of the Design Alternatives<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The final ranking identified Alternative C<\/strong> (53.7%) as having the highest technical score due to its superior safety margins. However, when considering sustainability and material efficiency, Alternative B<\/strong> (38.0%) was selected as the optimal design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Alternative B provides:<\/p>\n\n\n\n