Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.

31-42 (2007) 31

AN OPTIMIZATION MODEL FOR URBAN SEWER SYSTEM

HYDRAULIC DESIGN

Huahn-Tyng Weng* and Shu-Liang Liaw

ABSTRACT
A gravity sewer system is a multi-stage multi-option system composed of a se-
ries of pipes and manholes. For each sewer pipe stage, there are several different
commercial pipe sizes available as options. A comparison of optimum design alter-
natives thus becomes very complex, due to the number of combinations of commer-
cial pipe sizes and slopes that must be evaluated in terms of hydraulics. Therefore, a
Sewer System Optimization Model (SSOM) for hydraulic designs is developed. The
model uses 0-1 mixed integer programming (MIP) and an efficient screening algorithm,
the bounded implicit enumeration (BIE) algorithm. The first consideration is to pro-
vide a set of design variables for urban sewer system design problems corresponding
to the various construction modes. A 73-manhole open-cut method model is tested.
The results indicate that this approach is more cost-effective than other previously
developed optimization models and techniques. As well, a practical sewer system
construction case in Taipei is selected, to compare with the traditional design approach.
The obtained design results show that the SSOM program, based on tunnel jacking
construction, can be used for this practical design. It has the effect of saving 12% on
piping and 40% on pumping heads during construction.

Key Words: a 0-1 mixed integer programming, Bounded Implicit Enumeration, com-
mercial standard diameter, multi-stage multi-option system.

I. INTRODUCTION for the selected layout (this requires the determina-

Taiwan has a goal to connect more households
to sewer systems. The government will allocate more
funding to expedite the building of the necessary ur-
ban sewerage infrastructure. Consequently, cost-ef-
fectiveness analysis becomes an important issue for
the optimal design of new sewer systems. The de-
sign principles and processes behind sewer systems
may be simple, but to design a real, least-cost, sewer
system is surely not an easy job for design engineers.
The job of designing a sewer system may be divided
into two phases: (1) the selection of the network
layout; and (2) the hydraulic design of the sewer pipes
*Corresponding author. (Tel: 886-2-27270567; Email:
tyng@ms14.hinet.net)
H. T. Weng is with the Sewerage System Office, Public Work
Department, Taipei City Government, Taipei, Taiwan 103, R.O.C.
S. L. Liaw is with the Graduate Institute of Environmental
Engineering, National Central University, Chungli,Taiwan 320,
R.O.C.
tion of discharge rates, pipe sizes, slopes, and piping
invert elevations) (Tekeli and Belkaya, 1986).
In practice, a sewerage project is produced by
manually generating a network layout that will meet
the needs of the population to be served, and fit the
street layout and the local topography in the sewage
tributary area. The available pipe sizes and slopes of
this specific layout must be evaluated in terms of
hydraulic design processes. The number of possible
design alternatives is always very huge and the pro-
cess for finding the optimal solution long. Obviously,
the results will also be limited by the engineer’s ex-
perience and intuition and only a very small number
of the alternatives can actually be evaluated. Some-
times the final design is deficient. There is no guar-
antee that it is the best design. The finding of an
optimal sewer system is not an easy job for engineers,
particularly with the large networks necessary for an
urban sewer system. The dependency on manual cal-
culation limits the evaluation of the alternatives. This
32 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2007)
has inspired many computerized optimization model
studies, which obviate the need for the time-consum-
ing computations necessary to find cost-effective
designs.
In the past three decades, computerized optimi-
zation models or screening algorithms have been
developed and discussed, such as Non-linear Program-
ming (Holland, 1966, Swamee, 2001); Linear Program-
ming (Deiniger and Su, 1973); Dynamic Programming
(Merrit and Bogan, 1973); Convex Separable Mixed
Integer Programming (Dajani and Hasit, 1974);
Linear Programming and Mixed Integer Linear Pro-
gramming (Wen and Kuo, 1982); Non-uniform state
Increment Dynamic Programming (NIDP) (Orth and
Hsu, 1984); Bounded Implicit Enumeration (BIE) (Liaw
and Lin, 1990, 1991; Weng et al, 2001); Heuristic
Approach (Charalambous and Elimam, 1990); GIS-
Based Approach (Agbenowosi, 1995; Greene et al.,
1999); etc. However, most of the previously devel-
oped optimization models were developed from the
traditional open-cut method base, so it is not practi-
cal to apply them to modern sewerage construction,
unless more complete optimization models which
consider different design variables that are respon-
sive to the various construction modes, are introduced.
In addition to the diversity of the design variables,
the selected construction method should be feasible.
On-site construction has become a key factor in the
design of urban sewer systems. That is to say, the
optimal hydraulic design needs to both satisfy the
hydraulic design criteria and to avoid construction
problems that occur in the real world.
According to past experience, in Taipei city sew-
erage system construction has encountered many un-
predictable on-site construction hindrances that can occur
during the construction of an urban sewer system when
the open-cut method is used in narrow urban streets.
For example there is insufficient construction space
for the smooth flow of traffic, the avoidance of exist-
ing underground obstructions, abnormal geological
conditions in the coverage layer, and so on, which may
cause serious delays in the implementation of house-
hold connections. To overcome existing hindrance
problems, most experienced engineers first decide on
the most appropriate construction methods that will
simplify the optimization model. Recently, for con-
struction in Taipei’s narrow urban streets, the tradi-
tional open-cut method has almost been completely
replaced by novel trenchless (non-dig) technologies,
for example, the Shield Driving Method, the Jacking
Method, or the Micro Tunneling Method. In this study,
the Sewer System Optimization Model (SSOM) uti-
lizing the Micro Tunneling method for the practical
sewer system construction case study in Taipei, is
introduced. The SSOM approach has already been
extensively discussed in another article (Weng et al.,
2002; Weng and Liaw, 2003). The obtained hydraulic
design was shown to be cost-effective, requiring only
the aid of a personal computer for the calculations. It
could become an essential tool for designing new ur-
ban sewer systems in Taiwan.
II. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE SEWER
SYSTEM OPTIMAL DESIGN PROGRAM
A sewer system generally takes advantage of
gravity to collect and transport sewage from houses
to a sewage treatment plant through a network of hy-
draulically designed sewer pipes. The sewer pipe-
network, the manholes, the pumping stations and other
related appurtenances are all connected. Once the lay-
out of a sewer network is determined, the main effort
of the sewer system optimal hydraulic design program
is to select the size and the slope of the sewer pipes
that best meet the design criteria and regulatory stan-
dards at a minimal cost. The fundamentals of the
SSOM programming can be described as follows,
1. Building the Basic Hydraulic Design Problem
Scheme
The design scheme of a branched sewer system
can be viewed as a serial multi-stage multi-option
problem (Liaw and Lin, 1991), in which each stage
represents a sewer pipe between two manholes or pump
stations. At each sewer pipe stage, there are several
options which are the different coupling of commer-
cially available pipe sizes (the standard diameters for
business) and the assigned piping slopes. For an ur-
ban sewerage design case, any existing on-site con-
struction problems must be previously considered and
hindrances avoided by selecting the appropriate con-
struction mode. Therefore, the design problem scheme
needs to consider a set of different design variables
that are also responsive to various construction methods.
Fig. 1 shows the basic hydraulic design problem scheme
of a fixed-layout sewer system for SSOM programming.
For example, a typical “stage i” shows, in the shad-
owed block, in Fig. 1, the associated {D ij, S ij} for a
selected construction mode case representing each
specific pipe size, Dij, corresponding to a minimal slope,
S ij, which is obtained by comparing the four slopes
associated with: (1) the minimal depth of cover; (2)
the maximal flow velocity; (3) the minimal flow ve-
locity of partial flow (Benson, 1985); and (4) the hy-
draulic force due to gravity (Orth, 1986; Liaw and
Lin, 1990).
In addition, for an optimal purpose, the associ-
ated values for D ij and Sij are then produced from the
sewer pipes cost-slope relationship curve. The fun-
damentals of the sewer pipes cost-slope relationship
curve are illustrated as follows.
 H. T. Weng and S. L. Liaw: An Optimization Model for Urban Sewer System Hydraulic Design 33

Fig. 1 The basic hydraulic design problem scheme for SSOM programming (Note: (1) Case#1, Case#2 and Case#3 indicate different
construction modes such as the open-cut method, trenchless technologies and so on, should be selected for an urban sewer design
cases and considered to avoid the hindrance of on-site construction problems; (2) Constraint#1, Constraint#2 and Constraint#3
indicate the response to the limitations for each stage, such as passing through a fixed elevation or designating the site of a pump-
ing station; (3) D ij indicates the commercial standard diameter of the j-th option of i-th stage; Sij indicates an optimal slope for the
specified diameter Dij, stage i = 1 ~ n and option j = 1 ~ m; (4) {Dij, Sij} indicates the associated values of Dij and Sij obtained from
a hydraulics process for one selected construction mode case; (5) Couples of the associated {Di1, S i1 }, {Di2, Si2}, ... and {di1, s i1},
{d i2, s i2}, ... for Case#1 and Case#2 respectively represent the associated {Dij , S ij} to respond to the different construction mode.)

2. The Resultant Sewer Pipes Cost-Slope Relation- Cost

ship Curve for Each Stage

Two fundamental hydraulic processes and equa-

tions are applied to the SSOM program to ensure that C1 D4
this associated {D ij, S ij} will be the correct associa- C4
C2
tion of the diameter and the slope for each stage in C3 D3
the optimization process:
D2

(1) Given a constant flow rate, Q, the minimum and D1

maximum feasible diameters of sewer pipe sizes
can be derived by using the “Continunity Equa-
tion” to calculate the minimum and maximum
flow velocities. The commercial standard
diameters, Dij, can be selected on the basis of what
is available commercially;
(2) Given a fixed upstream depth, “Manning’s For-
mula” can be used to determine the four designed
slopes, i.e., the partial flow slope, the minimum
velocity slope, the minimal slope of coverage, and
the maximal velocity slope. Through a procedure
comparing the design criteria and the minimized
cost, the optimal slope, S ij , one of the four de-
signed slopes, can be assigned to the selected D ij.
Therefore, the couple of D ij and S ij associated
with each stage can be figured out using the “Cost-
Slope relationship curve”, which can in turn give the
minimum cost for different commercial standard
diameters. The resulting relation for each stage, for
example, given four selected commercial standard
diameter options, is shown in Fig. 2 (Orth, 1986)
In Fig. 2, the broken lines represent the cost per
linear meter for four commercial pipe sizes, D 1, D 2 ,
D3 and D4, depending on the mean depth. The afore-
mentioned fluid formula defines the minimum slope
S4 S3 S2 S1 Slope
Fig. 2 The sewer pipe Cost-Slope relationship curve for each
stage (Note: (1) Given a constant flow-rate, Q, (M 3/sec);
(2) D 4 > D 3 > D2 > D 1, from maximum to minimum com-
mercial standard diameters, (meter); (3) S4 > S 3 > S2 > S 1,
the optimal slopes, (%); are assigned to D 4 > D 3 > D 2 >
D 1, respectively.)
for each pipe size for the given discharge. The con-
tinuous line indicates the cost-slope relationship. An
increase in the slope beyond the necessary minimum
results in greater depth and cost. It can be shown
that the minimum slopes for this set of pipe sizes will
be located on a unimodular curve (Orth, 1986).
Therefore, the possible minimum slope is selected for
each standard diameter during the optimization
process. This will be the optimal slope (S1, S2, S3, or
S 4). In this case, the associated {D 1 , S 1}, {D 2 , S 2 },
{D 3, S 3} and {D 4 , S 4} are produced as optimization
process options for each stage.
III. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SEWER
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION MODEL (SSOM)
Based on the principles illustrated in Fig. 1, the
34 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2007)
Sewer System Optimization Model (SSOM) is
developed. It is a 0-1 mixed integer nonlinear pro-
gramming model that can deal with the essentials of
the various construction methods by providing a set
of design variables for the hydraulic design of a prac-
tical urban sewer system. This approach is already
based on an open-cut construction mode with the pipe
diameter and excavation depth as design variables for
a 73-manhole case, which is used to illustrate the cost
of the SSOM approach. The results show that this
approach is more cost-effective compared to other
previously developed optimization models and
techniques. The SSOM approach saved 27 % over
the DDDP method and 3% over the AIT method re-
spectively (Wen and Shih, 1983; Orth and Hsu, 1984).
In this study, several assumptions are made: (1)
the sewer system is a branched gravity sanitary sewer
system; (2) a pumping station may be needed to lift
the hydraulic water-head; (3) the piping between any
two manholes lies along a flat surface; (4) the sewer
pipes are circular and of the same material; and (5)
the flow in a pipe is always full. Conditions for can-
didate maximum commercial standard diameters can
also be estimated using partially filled pipes.
Given the aforementioned design criteria and
assumptions, the established SSOM with 0-1 mixed
integer programming, is a nonlinear program with an
objective function for an optimal procedure to pro-
duce the minimum construction cost. Accordingly,
the objective function of SSOM can be established
subject to the limitation of several practical design
regulatory standards and additional hydraulic design
criteria, thus achieving the ultimate goal of cost-
effectiveness.
The objective of SSOM can be shown in Eq. (1),
which is the single cost equation to minimize the to-
tal cost Z including the costs of pipes Cost(D ij , S ij ,
Hupi), of manholes MHc (Hupi), and of pumping sta-
tions PSi (Q i, H i). In practice, the cost of sewer sys-
tems is estimated with a pre-established cost function.
For most cases, the total piping cost Cost(D ij, S ij ,
Hup i) can be shown with a function of pipe size ob-
tained from the associated {D ij , S ij } and digging
depths (inverted depths) Hupi, which will be affected
by pipe length, pipe material and construction mode
case considering the entire construction area. Total
manhole cost MHc (Hup i ) is a function of digging
depths, Hupi also, and pumping station cost is a func-
tion of the pumping heads H i in a flow-rate Q i if the
pumping station is needed.
In the set of constraints, Constraints (2-a) and
(2-b) are the 0-1 constraints for multi-stage multi-
option problems. Constraints (2-c) are constraints to
assure that the digging depth of each pipe will not
exceed the minimal and maximal coverage depth.
Constraint (2-d) requires that the size of a downstream
pipe should be no less than that of its upstream pipe.
In addition, there are some constraints to meet the
hydraulic design criteria,
Objective:
n m
MinZ = Σ Σ Cost(Dij, S ij, Hupi) Xij
i=1 j=1
n n
+ Σ MHc(Hupi) + iΣ
i=1 –1
PSi(Q i, H i) , (1)
Subject to:
Xij = 0, 1; i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ..., m, (2-a)
n
Σ
i=1
X ij = 1 , i = 1, 2, ..., n, j = 1, 2, ... , m, (2-b)
H min ≤ Hup i ≤ H max
H min ≤ Hdm i ≤ H max ; i = 1, 2, ..., n, (2-c)
D i – 1, j ≤ D i,j; i = 1, 2, ... , n, j = 1, 2, ... , m.
(2-d)
Note: D ij is the diameter of the j-th option of the i-th
stage; S ij is the optimal slope for a certain
diameter, H i and Q i are the pumping heads and
flow-rates of the i-th stage, X ij is the 0-1 vari-
ables for the jth option of ith stage if the option
is selected, X ij is equal to 1. H max and H min are
the maximum and minimum coverage depth
constraints for the entire sewer system. Hup i
and Hdm i are the digging depths (inverted
depths) of the upstream and down stream con-
nectors of the pipe at stage i.
IV. THE APPLICATION OF THE BIE
ALGORITHM TO AN EFFICIENT SSOM
In this configuration, the hydraulic design problem
can be solved with discrete optimization techniques.
The bounded implicit enumeration (BIE) algorithm
can effectively and efficiently solve serial multi-stage
multi-option optimization problems (Chang and Liaw,
1990). The flow chart of the BIE algorithm, used in
the SSOM model, is shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3 showing the tunnel jacking method is
different from the open-cut method. It requires, not
a trench dug along the piping line, but only the dig-
ging of a working-shaft. The main design variables
for the SSOM are thus the pipe sizes and the work-
ing-shaft depths. For each stage, or sewer pipe, the
minimal cost can be obtained by selecting the mini-
mal pipe diameter and the minimal working-shaft
depth for this stage. An actual sewer system con-
struction case in Taipei was selected as an example
 H. T. Weng and S. L. Liaw: An Optimization Model for Urban Sewer System Hydraulic Design 35

19
START 18
23 24 25 26 27 17 22 21 20
Data Input 16
15

Calculate the flow rate of manhole for a fixed system layout 14 32

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 13 31 30 29 28
34 66
Calculate the feasible diameters for each pipe
12 33 67
11 68
Calculate the system lower bound for each stage with
minimal pipe cost and shaft cose 10 69
9 70 63
Calculate the initial feasible solution 53 8 71 64
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 7 73 72 65
Design variables 6 62 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 54
(piping size & shaft Hydraulic Deisng: 5 93 90 88 87 86 85
BIE Algorithm depth) 1. Constrain with design 4 94 91 89
(search procedure
criteria and practical 95 96 97 3 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 76 75 74
and alternative
requirement 2 92
comparison) Results of hydraulic
and cost analysis 2. Hydraulic analysis 1
0
Data Output
Fig. 4 The Layout of a given fixed System
END

Fig. 3 The Flow Chart of the BIE algorithm used in the SSOM
on which to compare the differences between the prac-
tical traditional design approach and the SSOM
approach. The comparison showed that the SSOM
approach could find a cost-effective design. This
computer program written with FORTRAN language
includes one main process and six sub-processes. The
execution file occupies about 40 Kbytes on a Microsoft
FORTRAN Power-Station Compiler (version 4.1),
which means that sewer system design optimization
can easily be done using a personal computer.
V. CASE STUDY
A case study of a practical urban sewer system,
located within residential and commercial areas in the
eastern Taipei administrative areas, was selected.
Generally, sewer construction in Taipei must be car-
ried out along narrow urban streets, about 2.5 meters
below ground, to avoid the hindrances presented by
other types of piping or structures. The pipeline
between manholes could hardly be constructed by an
open-cut method, therefore, the tunnel jacking method
is adopted, which only digs a 2 meter diameter
starting working-shaft and a 1.5 meter diameter ar-
rival working-shaft for driving the tunneling pipeline
through under an underground obstructer. It is able
to overcome the construction problems encountered
using the traditional open-cut mode. The results of
the traditional design approach are shown in Fig. 4
and Table 1.
Figure 4 shows the layout of the given fixed sys-
tem which has a total of 98-manholes (97-pipes) and one
pumping station located at the No. 1 manhole. The out-
let of the network should be directed into an existing
manhole, as at No. 0 in Fig. 4, at a fixed piping invert
elevation of about 3.26 meters. The four types of com-
mercial piping sizes are φ300, φ400, φ500 and φ700 mm.
The maximun and minimum limitation velocity are 3 and
0.6 M/sec; the minimum and maximum coverage depth
are 2.5 meters and 9 meters respectively.
Table 1 shows the hydraulic calculation sheet
for the traditional design approach used in this case
study. At the manhole No. 1 in Table 1, the upstream
piping invert elevation (UCE) and downstream pip-
ing invert elevation (DCE) are “–1” and “+3.34”
meters, respectively. Therefore the No.1 pumping sta-
tion must be capable of lifting water-heads about
4.34 meters.
VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The same design criteria and constraints as for
the tradition design approach are accordingly utilized
in this case study. Table 2 presents the hydraulic
analysis results of the SSOM program.
1. The Comparison of Hydraulic Analysis Results
In Table 2, the results of the SSOM approach
with the upstream and downstream piping invert el-
evation of “+0.73” and “+3.36” meters respectively,
are shown meaning that the No. 1 pumping station
needs to a lift water-head only about 2.63 meters.
Compared with the tradition design approach, which
produced water-head lifting of about 4.34 meters in
Table 1, the SSOM approach demonstrates a water-
head lifting saved of about 40% from the traditional
design approach.
2. The Comparison of the Construction Cost
For the comparison of the construction cost, the
36 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2007)

Table 1 The Tradition Design Calculation Sheet

Manhole No. Flowrate Length Slope Diamete UCE DCE UGL DGL Velocit Remarks
from to (CMS) (M) (%) (mm) up (M) down (M) up (M) down (M) (M/S) drop(M)
No.19 No.18 0.0029 23 1.0 300 3.36 3.13 6.48 6.50 1.19
18 17 0.0059 26 1.0 300 3.13 2.87 6.50 6.55 1.19
17 16 0.0320 31 0.8 300 2.87 2.62 6.55 6.70 1.06
16 15 0.0320 43 0.8 300 2.62 2.28 6.70 6.85 1.06
15 14 0.0320 32 0.8 300 2.28 2.02 6.85 6.86 1.06
14 13 0.0320 32 0.8 300 2.02 1.76 6.86 6.70 1.06 0.10
13 12 0.0802 45 0.6 400 1.66 1.39 6.70 6.68 1.11
12 11 0.0802 43 0.6 400 1.39 1.13 6.68 6.68 1.11
11 10 0.0866 39 0.6 400 1.13 0.90 6.68 6.70 1.11
10 9 0.0866 30 0.6 400 0.90 0.72 6.70 6.46 1.11
9 8 0.0866 36 0.6 400 0.72 0.50 6.46 6.56 1.11
8 7 0.0866 41 0.6 400 0.50 0.25 6.56 6.80 1.11 0.10
7 6 0.1062 51 0.4 500 0.15 -0.05 6.80 7.02 1.05
6 5 0.1415 36 0.4 500 -0.05 -0.19 7.02 7.20 1.05
5 4 0.1475 36 0.4 500 -0.19 -0.33 7.20 7.35 1.05
4 3 0.1475 48 0.4 500 -0.33 -0.52 7.35 7.36 1.05 0.20
3 2 0.2036 51 0.3 700 -0.72 -0.87 7.36 7.23 1.32 No.1
No.2 No.1 0.2036 45 0.3 700 -0.87 -1.00 7.23 7.41 1.32 pump st.
No.1 No.0 0.2036 25 0.3 700 3.34 3.26 7.41 7.40 1.32 No. 0:
20 21 0.0024 33 1.2 300 3.83 3.43 6.26 6.30 1.30 existed
21 22 0.0024 22 1.2 300 3.43 3.17 6.30 6.48 1.30 manhole
22 17 0.0084 30 1.0 300 3.17 2.87 6.48 6.55 1.19
23 24 0.0060 27 0.8 300 3.83 3.61 6.76 6.80 1.06
24 25 0.0060 25 0.8 300 3.61 3.41 6.80 6.75 1.06
25 26 0.0092 23 0.8 300 3.41 3.23 6.75 6.70 1.06
26 27 0.0109 20 0.8 300 3.23 3.07 6.70 6.64 1.06
27 17 0.0177 25 0.8 300 3.07 2.87 6.64 6.55 1.06
28 29 0.0016 22 1.2 300 2.78 2.52 6.09 6.11 1.30
29 30 0.0046 27 1.2 300 2.52 2.20 6.11 6.49 1.30
30 31 0.0135 21 1.0 300 2.20 1.99 6.49 6.55 1.19
31 13 0.0202 23 1.0 300 1.99 1.76 6.55 6.70 1.19 0.1
32 30 0.0030 30 1.0 300 3.10 2.80 6.50 6.49 1.19 0.6
33 34 0.0042 34 1.0 300 3.17 2.83 6.38 6.40 1.19
34 30 0.0059 33 1.0 300 2.83 2.50 6.40 6.49 1.19 0.3
35 36 0.0040 40 0.8 300 3.97 3.65 6.65 6.64 1.06
36 37 0.0071 33 0.8 300 3.65 3.39 6.64 6.60 1.06
37 38 0.0099 32 0.8 300 3.39 3.13 6.60 6.65 1.06
38 39 0.0141 25 0.8 300 3.13 2.93 6.65 6.70 1.06 0.5
39 40 0.0217 21 0.8 300 2.43 2.26 6.70 6.75 1.06
40 41 0.0281 20 0.8 300 2.26 2.10 6.75 6.80 1.06
41 13 0.0281 42 0.8 300 2.10 1.76 6.80 6.70 1.06 0.1
42 43 0.0032 37 1.0 300 3.03 2.66 6.80 6.72 1.19
43 44 0.0032 40 1.0 300 2.66 2.26 6.72 6.70 1.19
44 45 0.0050 31 0.8 300 2.26 2.01 6.70 6.78 1.06
45 46 0.0050 34 0.8 300 2.01 1.74 6.78 6.84 1.06
46 47 0.0131 21 0.8 300 1.74 1.57 6.84 6.80 1.06
47 48 0.0161 20 0.8 300 1.57 1.41 6.80 6.70 1.06
48 49 0.0161 35 0.8 300 1.41 1.13 6.70 6.50 1.06
49 50 0.0161 30 0.8 300 1.13 0.89 6.50 6.60 1.06
 H. T. Weng and S. L. Liaw: An Optimization Model for Urban Sewer System Hydraulic Design 37

Table 1 The Tradition Design Calculation Sheet (Continues)

Manhole No. Flowrate Length Slope Diamete UCE DCE UGL DGL Velocit Remarks
from to (CMS) (M) (%) (mm) up (M) down (M) up (M) down (M) (M/S) drop(M)
No.50 No.51 0.0199 26 0.8 300 0.89 0.68 6.60 6.58 1.06
51 52 0.0199 20 0.8 300 0.68 0.52 6.58 6.70 1.06
52 7 0.0242 21 0.8 300 0.52 0.35 6.70 6.80 1.06 0.2
53 46 0.0081 21 0.8 300 2.81 2.64 6.90 6.84 1.06 0.9
54 55 0.0030 44 0.8 300 2.34 1.99 6.00 6.08 1.06
55 56 0.0030 40 0.8 300 1.99 1.67 6.08 6.15 1.06
56 57 0.0157 44 0.8 300 1.67 1.32 6.15 6.20 1.06
57 58 0.0157 21 0.8 300 1.32 1.15 6.20 6.25 1.06
58 59 0.0229 20 0.8 300 1.15 0.99 6.25 6.35 1.06
59 60 0.0312 28 0.6 400 0.99 0.82 6.35 6.38 1.11
60 61 0.0383 46 0.6 400 0.82 0.54 6.38 6.75 1.11
61 62 0.0446 23 0.6 400 0.54 0.40 6.75 6.80 1.11
62 6 0.0464 42 0.6 400 0.40 0.15 6.80 7.02 1.11 0.2
63 64 0.0079 39 0.8 300 2.48 2.17 6.04 6.00 1.06
64 65 0.0079 45 0.8 300 2.17 1.81 6.00 6.20 1.06
65 66 0.0127 17 0.8 300 1.81 1.67 6.20 6.15 1.06
66 67 0.0035 22 1.0 300 2.89 2.67 6.08 6.14 1.19
67 68 0.0084 32 0.8 300 2.67 2.41 6.14 6.20 1.06
68 69 0.0084 24 0.8 300 2.41 2.22 6.20 6.25 1.06
69 70 0.0084 34 0.8 300 2.22 1.95 6.25 6.15 1.06
70 71 0.0084 47 0.8 300 1.95 1.57 6.15 6.08 1.06
71 72 0.0084 33 0.8 300 1.57 1.31 6.08 6.20 1.06
72 59 0.0084 28 0.8 300 1.31 1.09 6.20 6.35 1.06 0.1
73 62 0.0017 33 1.2 300 1.70 1.30 6.75 6.80 1.30 0.9
74 75 0.0099 32 0.8 300 3.21 2.95 6.40 6.45 1.06
75 76 0.0186 34 0.8 300 2.95 2.68 6.45 6.40 1.06 0.1
76 77 0.0282 41 0.6 400 2.58 2.33 6.40 6.64 1.11
77 78 0.0282 22 0.6 400 2.33 2.20 6.64 6.70 1.11
78 79 0.0310 17 0.6 400 2.20 2.10 6.70 6.75 1.11
79 80 0.0387 23 0.6 400 2.10 1.96 6.75 6.80 1.11
80 81 0.0410 23 0.6 400 1.96 1.82 6.80 6.80 1.11
81 82 0.0432 28 0.6 400 1.82 1.65 6.80 6.90 1.11
82 83 0.0541 48 0.6 400 1.65 1.36 6.90 7.04 1.11 0.5
83 84 0.0606 21 0.6 400 0.86 0.73 7.04 7.20 1.11 0.5
84 3 0.0636 42 0.6 400 0.23 -0.02 7.20 7.36 1.11 0.7
85 86 0.0043 12 1.0 300 3.85 3.73 6.10 6.12 1.19
86 87 0.0043 16 1.0 300 3.73 3.57 6.12 6.14 1.19
87 88 0.0043 16 1.0 300 3.57 3.41 6.14 6.50 1.19
88 89 0.086 30 0.8 300 3.41 3.17 6.50 6.45 1.06
89 75 0.0086 27 0.8 300 3.17 2.95 6.45 6.45 1.06
90 91 0.0022 31 1.2 300 3.89 3.52 6.45 6.38 1.30
91 76 0.0043 28 1.2 300 3.52 3.18 6.38 6.40 1.30 0.6
92 76 0.0053 34 0.8 300 3.75 3.48 6.60 6.40 1.06 0.9
93 94 0.0022 26 1.2 300 3.91 3.60 7.00 6.90 1.30 0.5
94 81 0.0022 32 1.2 300 3.10 2.72 6.90 6.80 1.30 0.9
95 96 0.0084 28 0.8 300 2.68 2.46 7.34 7.30 1.06 0.9
96 97 0.0115 27 0.8 300 1.56 1.34 7.30 7.32 1.06 0.9
97 3 0.0177 33 0.8 300 0.44 0.18 7.32 7.36 1.06 0.9
Total cost = ΣUNIT PRICE * QUANTITY = 78,582,710 NT$
38 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2007)

Table 2 The SSOM Hydraulic Analysis Results

Manhole No. Flowrate Length Slope Diamete UCE DCE UGL DGL Velocit Cost
from to (CMS) (M) (%) (mm) up (M) down (M) up (M) down (M) (M/S) (NT$)
No.1 No.0 0.2036 25 0.39 0.5 3.36 3.26 7.41 7.4 1.04 4570253
No.2 No.1 0.2036 45 0.39 0.5 0.91 0.73 7.23 7.41 1.04 1125607
3 2 0.2036 51 0.39 0.5 1.1 0.91 7.36 7.23 1.04 1343644
4 3 0.1475 48 0.67 0.4 1.42 1.1 7.35 7.36 1.17 993605
5 4 0.1475 36 0.67 0.4 1.66 1.42 7.2 7.35 1.17 821465
6 5 0.1415 36 0.61 0.4 1.89 1.66 7.02 7.2 1.13 910442
7 6 0.1062 51 0.35 0.4 2.03 1.89 6.8 7.02 0.84 1044781
8 7 0.0866 41 0.23 0.4 2.16 2.06 6.56 6.5 0.69 864684
9 8 0.0866 36 0.23 0.4 2.24 2.16 6.46 6.56 0.69 780606
10 9 0.0866 30 0.23 0.4 2.31 2.24 6.7 6.46 0.69 739783
11 10 0.0866 39 0.23 0.4 2.4 2.31 6.68 6.7 0.69 816476
12 11 0.0802 43 0.2 0.4 2.48 2.4 6.68 6.68 0.64 880595
13 12 0.0802 45 0.2 0.4 2.57 2.48 6.7 6.68 0.64 1036226
14 13 0.0320 32 0.21 0.3 2.64 2.57 6.86 6.7 0.6 716583
15 14 0.0320 32 0.21 0.3 2.7 2.64 6.85 6.86 0.6 692706
16 15 0.0320 43 0.21 0.3 2.79 2.7 6.7 6.85 0.6 816964
17 16 0.0320 31 0.21 0.3 2.85 2.79 6.55 6.7 0.6 825171
18 17 0.0059 26 0.71 0.3 3.71 3.52 6.5 6.55 0.6 609555
19 18 0.0029 23 1.20 0.3 3.98 3.71 6.48 6.5 0.6 472627
20 21 0.0024 33 1.35 0.3 3.76 3.32 6.26 6.3 0.6 591842
21 22 0.0024 22 1.35 0.3 3.32 3.02 6.3 6.48 0.6 555922
22 17 0.0084 30 0.55 0.3 3.02 2.85 6.48 6.55 0.6 671526
23 24 0.0060 27 0.7 0.3 4.26 4.07 6.76 6.8 0.6 531482
24 25 0.0060 25 0.7 0.3 4.07 3.9 6.8 6.75 0.6 578130
25 26 0.0092 23 0.51 0.3 3.9 3.78 6.75 6.7 0.6 581227
26 27 0.0109 20 0.45 0.3 3.78 3.69 6.7 6.64 0.6 533784
27 17 0.0177 25 0.32 0.3 3.69 3.61 6.64 6.55 0.6 604543
28 29 0.0016 22 1.85 0.3 3.59 3.18 6.09 6.11 0.6 462567
29 30 0.0046 27 0.85 0.3 3.18 2.95 6.11 6.49 0.6 623924
30 31 0.0135 21 0.39 0.3 2.95 2.87 6.49 6.55 0.6 719619
31 13 0.0202 23 0.29 0.3 2.87 2.81 6.55 6.7 0.6 608185
32 30 0.0030 30 1.15 0.3 4 3.65 6.5 6.49 0.6 561662
33 34 0.0042 34 0.91 0.3 3.88 3.57 6.38 6.4 0.6 583287
34 30 0.0059 33 0.71 0.3 3.57 3.34 6.4 6.49 0.6 681116
35 36 0.0040 40 0.94 0.3 4.15 3.78 6.65 6.64 0.6 662262
36 37 0.0071 33 0.62 0.3 3.78 3.57 6.64 6.6 0.6 662846
37 38 0.0099 32 0.48 0.3 3.57 3.42 6.6 6.65 0.6 677563
38 39 0.0141 25 0.37 0.3 3.42 3.32 6.65 6.7 0.6 593871
39 40 0.0217 21 0.27 0.3 3.32 3.26 6.7 6.75 0.6 578288
40 41 0.0281 20 0.23 0.3 3.26 3.22 6.75 6.8 0.6 551378
41 13 0.0281 42 0.23 0.3 3.22 3.12 6.8 6.7 0.6 796170
42 43 0.0032 37 1.12 0.3 4.3 3.89 6.8 6.72 0.6 632082
43 44 0.0032 40 1.12 0.3 3.89 3.44 6.72 6.7 0.6 732288
44 45 0.0050 31 0.79 0.3 3.44 3.2 6.7 6.78 0.6 674998
45 46 0.0050 34 0.79 0.3 3.2 2.93 6.78 6.84 0.6 695322
46 47 0.0131 21 0.4 0.3 2.93 2.84 6.84 6.8 0.6 674338
47 48 0.0161 20 0.34 0.3 2.84 2.77 6.8 6.7 0.6 566087
48 49 0.0161 35 0.34 0.3 2.77 2.66 6.7 6.5 0.6 737038
49 50 0.0161 30 0.34 0.3 2.66 2.55 6.5 6.6 0.6 663671
 H. T. Weng and S. L. Liaw: An Optimization Model for Urban Sewer System Hydraulic Design 39

Table 2 The SSOM Hydraulic Analysis Results (Continues)

Manhole No. Flowrate Length Slope Diamete UCE DCE UGL DGL Velocit Cost
from to (CMS) (M) (%) (mm) up (M) down (M) up (M) down (M) (M/S) (NT$)
No.50 No.51 0.0199 26 0.29 0.3 2.55 2.48 6.6 6.58 0.6 650448
51 52 0.0199 20 0.29 0.3 2.48 2.42 6.58 6.7 0.6 570589
52 7 0.0242 21 0.25 0.3 2.42 2.37 6.7 6.8 0.6 607798
53 46 0.0081 21 0.56 0.3 4.4 4.28 6.9 6.84 0.6 452507
54 55 0.0030 44 1.15 0.3 3.5 2.99 6 6.08 0.6 683887
55 56 0.0030 40 1.15 0.3 2.99 2.53 6.08 6.15 0.6 759953
56 57 0.0157 44 0.35 0.3 2.53 2.38 6.15 6.2 0.6 875283
57 58 0.0157 21 0.35 0.3 2.38 2.31 6.2 6.25 0.6 592785
58 59 0.0229 20 0.26 0.3 2.31 2.25 6.25 6.35 0.6 565660
59 60 0.0312 28 0.21 0.3 2.25 2.19 6.35 6.38 0.6 750701
60 61 0.0383 46 0.18 0.3 2.19 2.11 6.38 6.75 0.6 834726
61 62 0.0446 23 0.28 0.3 2.11 2.05 6.75 6.8 0.63 639600
62 6 0.0464 42 0.31 0.3 2.05 1.92 6.8 7.02 0.66 890456
63 64 0.0079 39 0.57 0.3 3.54 3.32 6.04 6 0.6 652202
64 65 0.0079 45 0.57 0.3 3.32 3.06 6 6.2 0.6 777930
65 56 0.0127 17 0.41 0.3 3.06 2.99 6.2 6.15 0.6 530279
66 67 0.0035 22 1.05 0.3 3.58 3.35 6.08 6.14 0.6 462567
67 68 0.0084 32 0.55 0.3 3.35 3.17 6.14 6.2 0.6 669761
68 69 0.0084 24 0.55 0.3 3.17 3.04 6.2 6.25 0.6 577345
69 70 0.0084 34 0.55 0.3 3.04 2.86 6.25 6.15 0.6 703524
70 71 0.0084 47 0.55 0.3 2.86 2.6 6.15 6.08 0.6 817080
71 72 0.0084 33 0.55 0.3 2.6 2.42 6.08 6.2 0.6 702448
72 59 0.0084 28 0.55 0.3 2.42 2.26 6.2 6.35 0.6 641165
73 62 0.0017 33 1.74 0.3 4.25 3.68 6.75 6.8 0.6 591842
74 75 0.0099 32 0.48 0.3 3.9 3.75 6.4 6.45 0.6 581782
75 76 0.0186 34 0.31 0.3 2.9 2.8 6.45 6.4 0.6 772437
76 77 0.0282 41 0.23 0.3 2.8 2.71 6.4 6.64 0.6 943782
77 78 0.0282 22 0.23 0.3 2.71 2.66 6.64 6.7 0.6 585447
78 79 0.0310 17 0.21 0.3 2.66 2.62 6.7 6.75 0.6 559789
79 80 0.0387 23 0.18 0.3 2.62 2.58 6.75 6.8 0.6 601589
80 81 0.0410 23 0.17 0.3 2.58 2.54 6.8 6.8 0.6 625934
81 82 0.0432 28 0.27 0.3 2.54 2.47 6.8 6.9 0.61 734256
82 83 0.0541 48 0.42 0.3 2.47 2.27 6.9 7.04 0.77 884416
83 84 0.0606 21 0.52 0.3 2.27 2.16 7.04 7.2 0.86 601523
84 3 0.0636 42 0.58 0.3 2.16 1.91 7.2 7.36 0.9 843965
85 86 0.0043 12 0.89 0.3 3.6 3.49 6.1 6.12 0.6 380582
86 87 0.0043 16 0.89 0.3 3.49 3.35 6.12 6.14 0.6 484446
87 88 0.0043 16 0.89 0.3 3.35 3.21 6.14 6.5 0.6 508760
88 89 0.0086 30 0.54 0.3 3.21 3.05 6.5 6.45 0.6 645951
89 75 0.0086 27 0.54 0.3 3.05 2.9 6.45 6.45 0.6 639444
90 91 0.0022 31 1.47 0.3 3.95 3.49 6.45 6.38 0.6 571722
91 76 0.0043 28 0.89 0.3 3.49 3.24 6.38 6.4 0.6 613266
92 76 0.0053 34 0.76 0.3 4.1 3.84 6.6 6.4 0.6 583287
93 94 0.0022 26 1.47 0.3 4.5 4.12 7 6.9 0.6 502807
94 81 0.0022 32 1.47 0.3 4.12 3.64 6.9 6.8 0.6 669539
95 96 0.0084 28 0.55 0.3 4.84 4.69 7.34 7.3 0.6 541542
96 97 0.0115 27 0.43 0.3 4.69 4.57 7.3 7.32 0.6 594707
97 3 0.0177 33 0.32 0.3 4.57 4.46 7.32 7.36 0.6 678546
TOTAL NUMBER OF COMBINATIONS = 93312 TOTAL COST = 69,718,693 NT$
40 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2007)

Table 3 The comparison Results of the Traditional Design approach vs. the SSOM program
Items
Lifting water-heads (at
pump station of No. 1
manhole)
Computing the entire systern
cost with cost functions.
(Including the construction cost
of 97-pipes and 98-manholes
plus working-shafts)
Total construction cost
Tradition Design
SSOM program Compared Results
approach
SSOM saved of water
4.34 meters 2.63 meters lifting distance about 40%
The combined unit-price SSOM uses the combined
of th pipes: unit-price to accord with
φ300 mm = 10,060 NT$/M, the unit-price analysis of
φ400 mm = 11,320 NT$/M, tradition design.
φ500 mm = 114,720 NT$/M,
The unit-price The cost equation of the SSOM uses the cost
analysis approach: working-shaft: equation to regress from
cost = Σ unit-price Jacking-shaft (starting pit) the unit-price analysis with
*quantity Cws (s) = 32662 H + 67045 NT$ a higher linear relationship
R2 = 0.9966 coefficient (R2)
Arrival-shaft (arriving pit)
Cws (a) = 31097 H + 54017 NT$
R2 = 0.9957
78,582,710 NT$ 69,718,693 NT$ SSOM saved about 12%

SSOM adopts a series of cost equations based on the
practical unit-price analysis method that best suits the
bidding process of the tradition design, to get the
total construction cost. Moreover, in an actual case,
the obtained cost function must consider the combined
unit-prices for the different “pipe sizes” and the cost
equation for the “working-shaft depth”. These are
the two main design variables in SSOM when using
the novel trenchless (non-dig) technology.
In this case study, Eq. (3-a) ~ Eq. (3-c) showing
the three combined unit-prices, 10,060, 11,320 and
14,720 NT$/M, corresponding to the selected com-
mercial standard diameters φ300, φ 400 and φ500 mm
respectively, are used as the cost function of differ-
ent “pipe sizes”. The combined unit-price of the pip-
ing is obtained as follows:
φ 300 mm = 10,060 NT$/M piping, (3-a)
φ 400 mm = 11,320 NT$/M piping, (3-b)
φ 500 mm = 14,720 NT$/M piping, (3-c)
where φ 300 mm or φ 500 mm are the commercially
available standard diameters in millimeters.
As well, Eq. (4-a) ~ Eq. (4-b) show the two cost
equations for the starting and the arrival working-
shaft with the manholes cost, which have a higher
linear regression relationship coefficient (R 2) between
their cost of construction (Cws), (NT$) and the
working-shaft depth (H), (meters). For the working-
shaft, the cost function is: (including the manholes
cost)
Cws (s) = 32662H + 67045, R2 = 0.9966, (4-a)
Cws (a) = 31097H + 54107, R 2 = 0.9957, (4-b)
where
Cws (s) = the construction cost of the starting
working-shaft, (NT$/M), with 2
meters diameter.
Cws (a) = the construction cost of the arrival
working-shaft, (NT$/M), with 1.5
meters diameter.
H = the working-shaft depth, (meters),
Therefore, the computed total construction cost
for the tradition design approach is 78,582,710 NT$
and is 69,718,693 NT$ for the SSOM program. The
SSOM program saves about 12 % in piping and work-
ing-shaft costs.
Consequently, the comparison results of the tradi-
tional design approach vs. the SSOM program can be
shown in Table 3. It is clear that the SSOM program
demonstrates cost-effective hydraulic design. In
addition, in this 97-stage pipe case, it took the computer
only a few seconds to find the optimal design solution,
from a total of 93,312 combinations, using the BIE al-
gorithms with the SSOM. Considering the time saved,
SSOM is clearly a more efficient method for optimizing
huge municipal sewer system hydraulic design.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
In this study, a 0-1 mixed integer optimization
 H. T. Weng and S. L. Liaw: An Optimization Model for Urban Sewer System Hydraulic Design
model using the tunnel jacking construction mode,
was developed for branched gravity sewer systems
hydraulic designs. The Bounded Implicit Enumera-
tion (BIE) algorithm is used to develop the Sewerage
System Optimization Model (SSOM). The SSOM can
provide a set of varied options and constraints, from
which the designer can make a selection, based on
the practical requirements and construction
environment, to obtain the most optimal design for a
sewer trunk and a branched sewer system. The re-
sults generated are easy to understand and practical
to use, and usable by a personal computer, since the
memory-space required for programming is small,
making the method more convenient for design engi-
neers to evaluate optimal alternatives for decision
making. In the case study in Taipei City, the SSOM
was successfully used to produce a practical design
effective in terms of saving construction costs and
water-head pumping and for optimizing a huge mu-
nicipal sewer system hydraulic design speedily and
accurately. The traditional design approach can be
expected to be replaced by the SSOM approach, as
the latter is easy to input and more user friendly.
Therefore, the SSOM approach will become an ef-
fective tool, improving overall investment efficacy
and facilitating the household connection rate to sewer
systems in Taiwan.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many thanks to William Chung, Project Man-
ger of the CTCI Corporation of Taiwan, who contrib-
uted to the cost equations, and to Dr. Bi-Liang Lin,
Assistant Prof. of the Department of Civil Engineer-
ing at the Ming-Hsin University of Science and Tech-
nology of Taiwan, for his programming efforts
throughout the development of the model.
REFERENCES
Agbenowosi, N., 1995, “GIS Based Optimal Design
of Sewer Networks and Pump Stations,” Master
Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Benson, R. E., 1985, “Self-Cleaning Slope for
Partially Full Sewers,” Journal of the Environ-
mental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111,
No. 6, pp. 925-928.
Charalambous, C., and Elimam, A. A., 1990, “Heu-
ristic Design of Sewer Networks,” Journal
ofEnvironmental Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 6,
pp. 1181-1199.
Chang, S. Y., and S. L., Liaw, 1990, “Bounded Im-
plicit Enumeration for Wastewater- Treatment
Systems,” Journal of Environmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 116, No. 5, pp. 910-926.
41
Dajani, J. S., and Hasit, Y., 1974, “Capital Cost Mini-
mization of Drainage Networks,” Journal of the
Environmental Engineering Division, Vol. 100,
No (EE2), pp. 325-337.
Deininger, R. A., and Su, S. Y., 1973, “Modeling
Regional Wastewater Treatment Systems,” Wa-
ter Research, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.633-646.
Greene, R., Agbenowosi, N., and Loganathan, G. V.,
1999, “GIS-Based Approach to Sewer System
Design,” Journal of Surveying Engineering, Vol.
125, No. 1, pp. 36-57.
Holland M. E., 1966, “Computer Models of Waste-
water Collection System.” Ph.D. Dissertation,
Harvard University, at Cambridge, MA, USA.
Liaw S. L., and Lin B. L., 1991, “Optimization of
Sewer System, (II) Hydraulic Design,” Proceed-
ings of International Conference on Computer Ap-
plication in Water Resources, Tamkang University,
Taiwan, R.O.C., Vol. 2, pp. 77-84.
Liaw S. L., and Lin, B. L., 1990, “An Optimization
Model for Sewer System Layout and Design,”
Master Thesis, Tamkang University, Taiwan,
R.O.C.
Merrit, L. B., and Bogan, R. H., 1973, “Computer-
base Optimal Design of Sewer System,” Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 99, No. EE1, pp. 35-53.
Orth, H. M., and Hsu, C. L., 1984, “Computer aided
Design for Large Sewerage Systems,” Master
Thesis, A. I. T., Thailand.
Orth, H. M., 1986, Model-based Design of Water Dis-
tribution and Sewage Systems, 1nd Ed., John
Wiley and Sons, New York, U.S.A.
Swamee, P. K., 2001, “Design of Sewer Line,” Jour-
nal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No.
9, pp. 776-781.
Tekeli, T., and Belkaya, H., 1986, “Computerized
Layout Generation for Sanitary Sewers,” Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 4, pp. 500-515.
Wen, C. K., and Kuo, H. W., 1982, “The Comparison
and Application of Dynamic Programming
and Linear Programming in the Sewer System
Design,” Master Thesis, National Cheng kung
University, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Wen, C. K., and Shih, C. S., 1983, “Discrete Differ-
ential Dynamic Programming and Zero-one
Programming to Develop the Computer Program
for Optimal Sanitary Sewer system Design,”
Master Thesis, National Cheng Kung University,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Weng, H. T., Lin B. L., Yu, R. F., Lu P. C., and Liaw
S. L., 2001, “The Application of BIE Algorithm
to Optimize a Municipal Sewer Systems Hydrau-
lic Design Model,” Proceeding of the 14th Envi-
ronmental Planning and Management Conference
42 Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2007)

of CIEnvE, Taiwan, R.O.C. Novel Trenchless Technology,” Proceeding of

Weng, H. T., Lin B. L., and Liaw S. L., 2002, “The
Study of a Municipal Sewerage System Optimi-
zation Model,” Proceeding of the 15th Environ-
mental Planning and Management Conference of
CIEnvE, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Weng, H. T., and Liaw, S. L., 2003, “An Optimiza-
tion Model for Sewer Hydraulic Design Base on
IWA Asia-Pacific Regional Conference, Bangkok,
Thailand.
Manuscript Received: Jan. 27, 2005
Revision Received: Apr. 07, 2006
and Accepted: Apr. 24, 2006