The network's hydraulic performance before and after applying the optimal dimensions using SWMM
| RPs (years) . | Status quo . | RPs (years) . | Renovated project (optimization) . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T = 10 | Node flooding (No.) | 4 | T = 10 | Node flooding (No.) | 0 |
| Flooded area (%) | 17 | Flooded area (%) | 0 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (10–45) | Overflow volume (%) | 0 | ||
| T = 25 | Node flooding (No.) | 10 | T = 25 | Node flooding (No.) | 0 |
| Flooded area (%) | 23 | Flooded area (%) | 7 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (30–65) | Overflow volume (%) | (4–12) | ||
| T = 50 | Node flooding (No.) | 12 | T = 50 | Node flooding (No.) | 2 |
| Flooded area (%) | 31 | Flooded area (%) | 12 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (43–74) | Overflow volume (%) | (11–27) | ||
| T = 100 | Node flooding (No.) | 20 | T = 100 | Node flooding (No.) | 4 |
| Flooded area (%) | 43 | Flooded area (%) | 18 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (70–92) | Overflow volume (%) | (24–36) | ||
| RPs (years) . | Status quo . | RPs (years) . | Renovated project (optimization) . | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T = 10 | Node flooding (No.) | 4 | T = 10 | Node flooding (No.) | 0 |
| Flooded area (%) | 17 | Flooded area (%) | 0 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (10–45) | Overflow volume (%) | 0 | ||
| T = 25 | Node flooding (No.) | 10 | T = 25 | Node flooding (No.) | 0 |
| Flooded area (%) | 23 | Flooded area (%) | 7 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (30–65) | Overflow volume (%) | (4–12) | ||
| T = 50 | Node flooding (No.) | 12 | T = 50 | Node flooding (No.) | 2 |
| Flooded area (%) | 31 | Flooded area (%) | 12 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (43–74) | Overflow volume (%) | (11–27) | ||
| T = 100 | Node flooding (No.) | 20 | T = 100 | Node flooding (No.) | 4 |
| Flooded area (%) | 43 | Flooded area (%) | 18 | ||
| Overflow volume (%) | (70–92) | Overflow volume (%) | (24–36) | ||