© IWA Publishing 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1

182 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Tangki NAHRIM 2.0: an R-based water balance model for rainwater

harvesting tank sizing application

Y. C. Goh* and M. Ideris

Water Resources and Climate Change Research Centre, National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM), Seri
Kembangan, Selangor, Malaysia

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Tangki NAHRIM, a desktop application developed in 2008, is widely used for the calculation of optimal tank size for
rainwater harvesting in Malaysia. Here we present an overview of the updated version, Tangki NAHRIM 2.0 (TN2)
which was developed in the R computing environment. In TN2, a rainwater harvesting system is simulated using a
daily water balance model with rainfall input from a built-in database by adopting the yield-after-spillage (YAS)
convention. Proposed tank sizes are evaluated based on water saving and storage efficiencies. These results
are then visualised in charts showing the relationships between tank sizes and both efficiency measures to
help users select the optimal tank size based on their criteria of choice. A simulation was conducted based on
a typical Malaysian household for domestic non-potable use as a case study. A web-based GUI for TN2 was devel-
oped in R Shiny framework for the public. The GUI has the advantage of being accessible online from any device,
and will be able to facilitate the adoption of rainwater harvesting systems by the public at large.

Key words: green technology, rainwater harvesting, sustainability, sustainable urban water systems, water
conservation, water saving efficiency

Highlights

• Tangki NAHRIM is used for calculating optimal rainwater harvesting tank size in Malaysia.
• Tangki NAHRIM 2.0 (TN2) is the upgraded version.
• TN2 was developed in the R computing environment and is available as a Shiny web application.
• TN2 uses a daily water balance model which adopts the yield-after-spill (YAS) convention.
• The proposed tank sizes are evaluated according to water-saving and storage efficiencies.

Graphical Abstract

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
183 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

INTRODUCTION

Rainwater harvesting is a traditional method of water conservation that has seen a revived interest in
recent years due to water shortages caused by various factors such as population growth, water pol-
lution, drought, and climate change. Rainwater harvesting systems can reduce demand for treated
water by collecting water for non-potable use such as toilet flushing, gardening and general cleaning.
As a tropical country with abundant rainfall throughout the year, Malaysia is well-positioned to harness
this resource. However, the prohibitive cost of setting up a domestic rainwater harvesting system and the
relatively low water tariff have contributed towards its unpopularity with the general public in Malaysia.
Despite all these factors, rainwater harvesting has seen an increase in uptake, partly due to intermittent
water shortages especially in cities, increase of drought and water pollution incidents, heightened public
awareness about conservation of water resources, and enforcement by local governments.
The National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM), a government research institute
for water, has been tasked with research and development in rainwater harvesting in Malaysia to sup-
port the government’s initiative towards green technology (Shaaban & Huang 2007). The first Tangki
NAHRIM desktop application, which was developed by NAHRIM in 2008 using Visual Basic, is still
used by many in Malaysia to calculate and analyse optimal rainwater tank size (Hafizi Md Lani et al.
2018). The older application can calculate the reliability (known henceforth as water-saving effi-
ciency) of the proposed tank size, coefficient of rainwater utilization, storage efficiency and other
performance measures. Twenty-one years of daily rainfall data from 24 stations in Peninsular Malay-
sia are provided with the application, with an option for users to upload their own data for analysis.
However, the interface is outdated and the application is limited to the Windows desktop environ-
ment. Custom rainfall data upload has to adhere to a very specific and uncommon format. Tank
size calculation and selection process is tedious and not user-friendly. Moreover, the methodology
of the model is opaque with minimal description. Tangki NAHRIM 2.0 (TN2) is based on established
rainwater storage tank modelling methods. The simulation model was developed in the R computing
environment (R Core Team 2013) alongside a simplified web-based graphical user interface using the
R Shiny framework (Chang et al. 2019) for the public. The web application also includes built-in rain-
fall data from both Peninsular and East Malaysia. Thirty-two million population all over Malaysia
stand to benefit from this application, as well as people from all over the world, since custom rainfall
data can be used in this application. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the meth-
odology used to develop the TN2 rainwater harvesting model and present a case study for the
optimization of tank size based on an average household in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND

Mass balance model is the most commonly used method for simulating tank inflow, storage and out-
flow for tank storage optimization. A mass balance model typically includes a precipitation inflow
model, a behavioural model for water demand, a calculation module, and an evaluation module to
analyse the results of calculation (Campisano et al. 2017).
Jenkins et al. (1978) introduced the yield-before-spill (YBS) and yield-after-spill (YAS) models,
which assumed, respectively, that rainwater was used before (YBS) and after (YAS) excess rainwater
was released. The study evaluated system performance by temporal or volumetric reliability and con-
cluded that a monthly time interval would yield a lower performance for the YAS system than a daily
time interval.
Fewkes (1999) tested the validity of the YAS model by conducting field testing of a rainwater col-
lection system and comparing the measurements with results from the model. The comparison leads
to the conclusion that the YAS model, using a daily time-step, is able to reliably predict the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
184 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

performance of the rainwater collection system. Fewkes & Butler (2000), building upon the earlier
study, conclude that the accuracy of the model can be improved by simulating for different time inter-
vals depending on the storage fraction (storage/inflow). Mitchell (2007) applied similar methodology
and came to a similar conclusion; that is, the YAS operating rule is preferable due to its conservative
estimate, while the ratio of average demand volume divided by storage capacity can be used to assess
the long-term yield estimate of a simulation. Following up on the previous study, Mitchell et al. (2008)
conducted a sensitivity analysis for the storage behaviour model for urban stormwater and determined
that length of rainfall record, inter-annual variability of seasonal demand, and storage surface type are
the most sensitive parameters.

METHODOLOGY

The TN2 simulation model was written in R version 3.6.1 (R Core Team 2013). R is an open source
language for statistical computing that is popular among the scientific community. For public use, a
graphical user interface was developed in R Shiny (Chang et al. 2019) platform. The R script is avail-
able as Supplementary Material in this paper.
The legacy Tangki NAHRIM software was based on a simple daily water balance model. For TN2, a
similar methodology is adopted but is elaborated in detail in this paper. The model inputs are as fol-
lows: rainfall data, harvestable roof area, roof runoff coefficient, first flush depth, water demand, and
proposed tank capacity. These inputs are described in detail in the following sections.

Rainfall data

For rainfall input, daily time resolution was selected for simulation as it is sufficient for the calculation
of tank size and easy to obtain without sacrificing the accuracy of the analysis (Fewkes 1999; Liaw &
Tsai 2004; Mitchell 2007; Campisano & Modica 2015). For the Shiny web application, a daily rainfall
database for rainfall stations all over Malaysia was built. To select rainfall stations and data for the
database, an arbitrary criterion was set whereby the selected stations must have complete records
(365 or 366 records for leap years per year) for a minimum of 10 years, regardless of the continuity.
Years with incomplete data were excluded so that bias due to seasonal effects would not influence the
dataset. Thus, rainfall data from different stations used in tank size calculation may differ in terms of
data length. Rainfall data was acquired from the Drainage and Irrigation Department Malaysia (DID)
for the whole of Malaysia. The daily data from DID’s autologger starts from 1970 up to 2017, except
for 8 stations in Sarawak which started before 1970, with the earliest data starting from 1952. A total
of 694 stations were selected, which encompassed Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. Figure 1
shows the distribution of the selected stations in Malaysia.

Inflow calculation

The rainwater runoff volume is the collected rainwater after accounting for losses due to roof material
and first flush. First flush depth is a predetermined value to improve the quality of collected rainwater
by removing the roof debris by means of the initial downpour. The rainwater runoff is calculated using
a modified Rational method (Mitchell 2007; Khastagir & Jayasuriya 2010) which is described in
Equation (1):

Ri ¼ C  (Pi  F)  A (1)

where Di is the time interval, R is the rainwater runoff volume from the roof, C is the runoff coeffi-
cient, P is the rainfall depth, F is the first flush depth, and A is the area of roof catchment. The

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
185 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Figure 1 | Locations of selected rainfall stations in Malaysia.

default value for first flush is 1 mm, which diversion according to Doyle & Shanahan (2010) can pro-
vide relatively good quality roof runoff for the purpose of non-potable rainwater harvesting.

Water balance model

The water balance model simulates the inflow and outflow of rainwater from the storage by the
selected time interval. TN2 adopts the yield-after-spill (YAS) water balance model from Jenkins
et al. (1978) and Mitchell (2007). The YAS model assumes that rainwater was utilised after spillage
occurred from roof runoff inflow. The YAS model was chosen for its conservative estimate of yield
and subsequently its volumetric reliability (Fewkes & Butler 2000; Mitchell 2007). Equations (2)
and (3) for the YAS model are as follows:


Di
Yi ¼ min (2)
Vi1 þ Ri


S  Yi
Vi ¼ min (3)
Vi1 þ Ri  Yi

where Y is the rainfall volume yielded for the water demand, D is the water demand for the rainwater
harvesting system, V is the volume of active storage in the tank, and S is the tank storage capacity. The
water demand is assumed to be constant daily. The system is illustrated in schematic form in Figure 2.

Performance measures

The major performance measure of rainwater harvesting system is water-saving efficiency ( Jenkins
et al. 1978; Dixon et al. 1999; Mitchell et al. 2008). Water-saving efficiency is defined as the
amount of water demand fulfilled by the system compared to the total demand. This is categorized
as volumetric efficiency measure, which is determined by the amount or volume of water. Water-
saving efficiency can also be compared temporally (McMahon et al. 2006). Time-based water-
saving efficiency compares the amount of time steps over which the demand is fulfilled compared
to the total amount of time steps for the duration the system is (simulated to be) in use. In this
study, we also calculated the amount of days yield fulfilled demand.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
186 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Figure 2 | Schematic drawing of rainwater harvesting system (adopted from Fewkes & Warm 2000).

Equation (4) shows the formula for volumetric water-saving efficiency:

Pn
Yi
EWS ¼ Pni¼1  100 (4)
i¼1 Di

where n equals the total time interval in simulation. The water-saving efficiency can also be described
as the percentage of water demand met by the rainwater harvesting system. Low water-saving effi-
ciency means that rainwater yield is low compared to the demand. If the water-saving efficiency is
high; that is, yield equals demand most of the time, it means the rainfall amount is sufficient for
the demand, and the user can consider the possibility of increasing the water demand for other usages.
To assess tank sizes, Imteaz et al. (2011) assumed an optimization criterion whereby the cumulative
water savings approaches a constant value. This means that there is no significant water savings for
further increase of tank size due to other constraining factors such as rain volume, roof area and water
demand. However, water demand can be increased for other usages if the water-saving efficiency is
reasonably high.
Another less common measure of tank performance is the retention efficiency, known as storage
efficiency in TN2. Storage efficiency is described as the volume of runoff that is retained by the
tank with respect to the tank rainwater inflow volume (Campisano & Modica 2014), as described
in Equation (5):

 Pn 
QSi
ES ¼ 1  Pi¼1
n  100 (5)
i¼1 Ri

where QS is the spillage or overflow.

The proposed tank size was assumed to be efficient as the storage efficiency approaches unity or
overflow loss approaches zero (Imteaz et al. 2011). The storage efficiency can also be described as
the percentage of roof runoff which can be utilised and will not be lost to spillage. A low storage effi-
ciency indicates high spillage volume. In this case, the tank size or the water demand can be
increased.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
187 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

CASE STUDY

In order to test and demonstrate the performance of the model, a selected number of simulations were
run in R using the ‘tidyverse’ package (Wickham 2017). As the original Tangki NAHRIM software
was developed for the public, we decided to use a typical household in Malaysia as our case study
to determine the optimum tank size for a domestic residence. Running the tank storage simulation
model requires rainfall data, harvestable roof area, roof runoff coefficient, first flush depth, water
demand, and proposed tank capacity as input. Generally, rainfall data is site-specific, while roof
area and roof material (runoff coefficient) would be fixed for a residence. Only the water demand
and tank size can be adjusted to a certain extent. Therefore, in this case study, the simulation
model is run for a range of tank sizes to investigate the relationship with the performance measures.
This case study also assumes a single set of rainfall data, which is representative of the Klang Valley
region, which is the most densely populated region in Malaysia. The DID’s UiTM Shah Alam station
(station ID: 3014091) was selected for its complete and continuous 15 years rainfall data. The station
is located within the Klang Valley region in the midwest of Peninsula Malaysia, which, as with the rest
of Malaysia, experiences tropical climate. Figure 3 shows the annual rainfall variability, with a long-
term annual average of 2,378 mm. The monthly variation is shown in Figure 4 with peak rainfall in the
month of November due to North-East Monsoon, and a minor peak in April during the inter-monsoon
period. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the total number of rain and no-rain days for the station. Rain days
constitute slightly less than half of the total days for each respective month (except November) and
year. This trend shows the potential for rainwater harvesting in Malaysia.

Figure 3 | Annual rainfall for station 3014091 UiTM Shah Alam.

To be representative of an average household in Malaysia, we used the roof size of a typical terrace
house, which is 100 m2 (Shaaban & Huang 2007; Hashim et al. 2013). A first flush value of 1 mm was
used based on the suggestion by Doyle & Shanahan (2010). For runoff coefficient, comparison made

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
188 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Figure 4 | Long-term monthly average rainfall for station 3014091 UiTM Shah Alam.

Figure 5 | Average number of rain and no rain days for each month (3014091 UiTM Shah Alam).

for different roof types by Liaw & Tsai (2004) suggested that all types of roofs have similar coeffi-
cients, from which they suggested an average value of 0.82. For this case study, we adopted the
rounded value of 0.8 as the runoff coefficient.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
189 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Figure 6 | Total number of rain and no rain days for each year (3014091 UiTM Shah Alam).

The water demand considered in this case study is assumed to be for non-potable use, as it requires
minimal treatment to be reused. Assuming about 5 toilet flushes/day/capita (rounded value from
Campisano & Modica 2014) and 7 litres per flush, with an average household size of 4 (rounded
value from Department of Statistics Malaysia 2014), the total rainwater demand would be 140
litres/day. In addition to toilet flushing, general cleaning and garden irrigation could increase the
water demand up to 200 litres per day. The simulation was performed for tank sizes ranging from 1
to 10 m3 and water demand of 200 litres per day, which is the estimated average demand for a typical
household. The water demand was assumed to be constant every day including weekends. The tank
size range was assumed as such despite the fact that in practice, tank sizes of more than 1 m3 in an
average household would be challenging to place and aesthetically undesirable. However, as a theor-
etical demonstration, we assumed no limitation of space in the hypothetical average household.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The simulation for 200 litres per day of water demand produced the graph in Figure 7, which shows
the relationship between water-saving and storage efficiencies versus a range of tank storage
capacities. Increasing tank capacity increases both efficiency measures up to a point, beyond which
the increase offers diminishing returns whereby the volume of water saved (water-saving efficiency)
and runoff utilised (storage efficiency) increase marginally.
The water-saving efficiency curve shows that for a tank sized 3 m3 and above, more than 90% of
total water demand can be fulfilled by harvested rainwater. However, increment of tank size by
1 m3 beyond 3 m3 will save less than 10% of water from the total water demand for each increment.
Therefore, we assume that 3 m3 rainwater harvesting tank storage is the most optimal size for a typical
household in Malaysia, specifically in the Klang Valley region. However, a 3 m3 tank is huge for a den-
sely populated area like Klang Valley with its limited space. If the user chooses a more practical size,

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
190 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Figure 7 | Water-saving and storage efficiencies versus proposed tank sizes.

say, 1 m3, the rainwater harvesting system could still provide the household with 71.8% of the water
demand (equivalent to an average of 143.6 litres per day).
On the other hand, storage efficiency is quite low in general, with values ranging between 29.8% to
41.4%. For the most part, storage efficiency follows the curve of diminishing returns as the tank size
increases, which is similar to water-saving efficiency. As rainfall volume is fairly high, the low water
demand increases spillage and thus contributes towards the low storage efficiency for the range of
tank sizes. Even with the maximum proposed tank size of 10 m3, not more than half of roof runoff
was utilized by the user. To increase the storage efficiency, water demand has to be increased to
fully utilize the abundant rainfall volume. Figure 8 shows that for every tank size, the volume of spil-
lage far exceeds the yield. Nevertheless, spillage volume decreases as tank size increases. Storage
efficiency is a function of spillage and roof runoff volume, where decreasing spillage volume increases
storage efficiency. Meanwhile, yield volume increases with tank size up to a point, beyond which yield
volume shows no significant increase, which is consistent with the trend of water-saving efficiency.
A higher water demand would reduce the spillage and increase the yield volume.
In terms of temporal reliability, the number of days spillage occurred and the number of days rain-
water yield fulfilled demand were calculated and averaged by year. The results are shown in Figure 9.
The bar chart shows that the number of days yield fulfilled demand increases with tank size, ranging
from 252 days to 361 days per year, which is about 70% to 99% of days in a year. The curve of the
increase is similar to that of water-saving efficiency. Meanwhile, the average number of days spillage
occurred per year shows minimal decrease as tank size increases, ranging from 83 days to 68 days,
which is about 23% to 19% of days in a year. This stands in stark contrast with the volume of spillage
shown in Figure 8, where the volume of spillage is considerably higher than yield. This implies that
huge volume of spillage occurred in a short amount of time. This is in line with rainfall pattern in
the western part of Peninsular Malaysia, which is influenced by the intermonsoon seasons and charac-
terized by high intensity convective storms (Bakar et al. 2020).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
191 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

Figure 8 | Average annual volume of spillage and yield for each tank size.

Figure 9 | Average number of days per year with yield fulfilling demand and with spillage.

To visualise the percentage time the tank is at a certain volume for each proposed tank size, we
divided the tank volume into 5 classes. The classes start from ‘Empty’ and increase by a quarter of
tank volume to full (100%). We then calculate the number of days and percentage of time the tank

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
192 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

volume is at each class for each tank capacity. The results are shown in Figure 10. On the whole, as
tank size increases, the percentage time tank volume is at less than half full or empty decreases, while
percentage time tank volume is almost full (75% to 100%) increases. A larger tank size would be able
to capture more rainwater and store it for a longer time period than a smaller tank size, which would
overflow should a large volume of rainwater enter the system, and for which storage would be
depleted quickly owing to the water demand.

Figure 10 | Percentage time tank was filled with varying percentage of rainwater.

CONCLUSIONS

TN2 simulation model enables users to calculate the efficiency of a range of tank sizes based on sev-
eral site-specific parameters and user inputs, and subsequently determine the optimal tank size. Both
the web application for the public and R script for R users are able to streamline the calculation work-
flow and improve on user experience and the accuracy of the analysis compared to the old version.
The simulation model had been run successfully for a typical household in Malaysia for a range of
tank capacities. The results show that as tank size increases, the water-saving efficiency also increases
up to a point after which the increase of tank size will not increase water-saving efficiency signifi-
cantly. The storage efficiency also follows a similar trend, but is much lower in magnitude due to
high rainfall volume and limited water demand. Users can thus compare the benefits of each tank
size and select the most optimal tank size based on the water-saving and storage efficiencies. On
the whole, users can decide to prioritise whichever measure they are concerned with depending on
their requirements for the rainwater harvesting system.
Water savings and, consequently, cost savings are probably the most important criteria for most
users from the general public, as storage efficiency has no impact on financial savings. However, as
the water tariff is low and the capital cost for setting up a rainwater harvesting system is on the
high side in Malaysia, users should not expect a quick return on investment for the system. Instead,

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
193 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

a rainwater harvesting system can be used as protection against water shortages, be it from drought or
pollution, which is prone to happen in the Klang Valley in recent years.
The low storage efficiency in the case study, indicating high spillage volume for an average non-
potable water demand rainwater harvesting system, even for a relatively small roof area, suggests
an enormous potential for rainwater harvesting in Malaysia. Although the case study is for domestic
residence, TN2 can also be applied for large-scale institutional, commercial or industrial settings.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Future research should also study the relationship between water demand, rainfall volume, tank size
and the water-saving and storage efficiencies. In particular, storage efficiency is useful for determining
the amount of rainfall that will be converted into surface and stormwater runoff. Analysis of the sto-
rage efficiency curve can help achieve one of the objectives of a rainwater harvesting system, which is
stormwater attenuation. However, this objective is often overlooked as the general public is more con-
cerned with cost savings. As climate change looms and extreme weather events increase in frequency,
we have to look into solutions not just in terms of finance but also disaster risk reduction.
The water balance model could be verified with field measurements from a rainwater harvesting
system. The accuracy of the water balance model can be improved by using rainfall data and water
demand data with higher temporal resolution. Water demand data is likely to vary by days of the
week. In higher resolution, water demand data will reveal the temporal usage pattern. The built-in
rainfall database will be updated from time to time for the web application. With the countrywide
rainfall data, we could optimize rainwater harvesting by investigating the rainfall pattern. To assess
the impact of climate change on rainwater harvesting system performance, we could utilise rainfall
data from Global Climate Models. In order to meet the needs of the layperson or general public,
the simulation model could include a cost-benefit analysis component that can determine the maxi-
mum return of investment, which is the main reason for the general public’s adoption of the
rainwater harvesting system. Overall, the rainwater harvesting system is beneficial towards both econ-
omic and environmental betterment and the TN2 simulation model is able to support and contribute
towards both objectives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We acknowledge Datuk Haji Ir Ahmad Jamaluddin Shaaban for conceptualizing and developing the
original Tangki NAHRIM application. Thanks are due to Ir Mohd Zaki Mat Amin for securing the
funding for this programme. We are grateful to the Drainage and Irrigation Department Malaysia
(DID), particularly Ir. Hajah Bibi Zarina Che Omar, Director of the Water Resources & Hydrology
Division, for supplying the rainfall data for the whole of Malaysia.

FUNDING STATEMENT

This work was supported by Programme 2: Extension Study on the Impact of Climate Change on
Malaysia’s Water Resources (Phase 2) (Kajian Lanjutan Impak Perubahan Iklim ke Atas Sumber
Air Negara (Fasa 2)) of Government Development Expenditure for the Eleventh Malaysia Plan by
the Malaysian government.
We confirm that the funder had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpret-
ation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for
publication.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
194 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are available from an online repository or repositories. The rainfall dataset used
in this study is available from Water Resources & Hydrology Division, Drainage and Irrigation
Department Malaysia (DID). The source code for Tangki NAHRIM 2.0 application is available at
Github repository: https://github.com/ycgoh-nahrim/TangkiNAHRIM2.0 (licensed under GPL-3)
The online application can be accessed at Shinyapps.io web server: https://waterresources-nahrim.
shinyapps.io/Tangki_NAHRIM/.

REFERENCES

Bakar, M. A. A., Ariff, N. M., Jemain, A. A. & Nadzir, M. S. M. 2020 Cluster analysis of hourly rainfalls using storm indices in
Peninsular Malaysia. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 25 (7). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001942
Campisano, A. & Modica, C. 2014 Selecting time scale resolution to evaluate water saving and retention potential of rainwater
harvesting tanks. Procedia Engineering 70, 218–227.
Campisano, A. & Modica, C. 2015 Appropriate resolution timescale to evaluate water saving and retention potential of
rainwater harvesting for toilet flushing in single houses. Journal of Hydroinformatics 17(3), 331–346.
Campisano, A., Butler, D., Ward, S., Burns, M. J., Friedler, E., DeBusk, K., Fisher-Jeffes, L. N., Ghisi, E., Rahman, A., Furumai,
H. & Han, M. 2017 Urban rainwater harvesting systems: research, implementation and future perspectives. Water
Research 115, 195–209.
Chang, W., Cheng, J., Allaire, J. J., Xie, Y. & McPherson, J. 2019 shiny: Web Application Framework for R. Retrieved from
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny
Department of Statistics Malaysia 2014 Characteristics of Household 2010 (Updated: 29/1/2014) [Press release]. https://www.
dosm.gov.my/v1/images/stories/files/LatestReleases/population/Web_Release_Ciri_IR2010.pdf (accessed 17 July 2019).
Dixon, A., Butler, D. & Fewkes, A. 1999 Water saving potential of domestic water reuse systems using greywater and rainwater
in combination. Water Science and Technology 39(5), 25–32.
Doyle, K. & Shanahan, P. 2010 The Impact of First Flush Removal on Rainwater Quality and Rainwater Harvesting Systems’
Reliability in Rural Rwanda. In: World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010: Challenges of Change, (R. N.
Palmer (ed)). American Society of Civil Engineers, Providence, RI, pp. 465–474.
Fewkes, A. 1999 The use of rainwater for WC flushing: the field testing of a collection system. Building and Environment 34(6),
765–772.
Fewkes, A. & Butler, D. 2000 Simulating the performance of rainwater collection and reuse systems using behavioural models.
Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 21(2), 99–106.
Fewkes, A. & Warm, P. 2000 Method of modelling the performance of rainwater collection systems in the United Kingdom.
Building Services Engineering Research and Technology 21(4), 257–265.
Hafizi Md Lani, N., Yusop, Z. & Syafiuddin, A. 2018 A review of rainwater harvesting in Malaysia: prospects and challenges.
Water 10(4), 506.
Hashim, H., Hudzori, A., Yusop, Z. & Ho, W. 2013 Simulation based programming for optimization of large-scale rainwater
harvesting system: Malaysia case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 80, 1–9.
Imteaz, M. A., Shanableh, A., Rahman, A. & Ahsan, A. 2011 Optimisation of rainwater tank design from large roofs: a case
study in Melbourne, Australia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(11), 1022–1029.
Jenkins, D., Pearson, F., Moore, E., Kim, S. J. & Valentine, R. 1978 Feasibility of Rainwater Collection Systems in California.
Contribution No 173, Californian Water Resources Centre, University of California, Davis, CA, p. 65.
Khastagir, A. & Jayasuriya, N. 2010 Optimal sizing of rain water tanks for domestic water conservation. Journal of Hydrology
381(3), 181–188.
Liaw, C.-H. & Tsai, Y.-L. 2004 Optimum storage volume of rooftop rain water harvesting systems for domestic use. JAWRA
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(4), 901–912.
McMahon, T. A., Adeloye, A. J. & Zhou, S.-L. 2006 Understanding performance measures of reservoirs. Journal of Hydrology
324(1–4), 359–382.
Mitchell, V. G. 2007 How important is the selection of computational analysis method to the accuracy of rainwater tank
behaviour modelling? Hydrological Processes: An International Journal 21(21), 2850–2861.
Mitchell, V., McCarthy, D. T., Deletic, A. & Fletcher, T. D. 2008 Urban stormwater harvesting–sensitivity of a storage behaviour
model. Environmental Modelling & Software 23(6), 782–793.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 16 No 1
195 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.106

R Core Team 2013 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria, Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Shaaban, A. & Huang, Y. F. 2007 NAHRIM’s Experience in Rainwater Utilisation System Research. In: Proceedings of the
Colloquium on Rainwater Utilisation. NAHRIM, Selangor, Malaysia, pp. 39–48.
Wickham, H. 2017 tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’. Retrieved from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=tidyverse

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/16/1/182/836085/wpt0160182.pdf

by guest