Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hydrology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Research papers

Relevance of hydrological variables in water-saving efficiency of

domestic rainwater tanks: Multivariate statistical analysis
Leonardo Rosa Andrade a, Adelena Gonçalves Maia b,⇑, Paulo Sérgio Lucio c
a
Faculdades Integradas de Cacoal (UNESC), Rua dos Esportes, 1.038, INCRA, CEP 78.976-215 Cacoal, RO, Brazil
b
Civil Engineering Department, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), UFRN/CT/LARHISA, Cx. Postal 1524, Campus Universitário Lagoa Nova, CEP: 59072-970
Natal, RN, Brazil
c
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Department, UFRN, UFRN/CCET/PPGCC, Cx. Postal 1524, Campus Universitário Lagoa Nova, CEP: 59072-970 Natal, RN, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research investigated the relevance of four hydrological variables in the performance of a domestic
Received 12 August 2016 rainwater harvesting (DRWH) system. The hydrological variables investigated are average annual rainfall
Received in revised form 29 November 2016 (P), precipitation concentration degree (PCD), antecedent dry weather period (ADWP), and ratio of dry
Accepted 15 December 2016
days to rainy days (nD/nR). Principal component analyses are used to group the water-saving efficiency
Available online 21 December 2016
This manuscript was handled by A.
into a select set of variables, and the relevance of the hydrological variables in a water-saving efficiency
Bardossy, Editor-in-Chief system was studied using canonical correlation analysis. The P associated with PCD, ADWP, or nD/nR
attained a better correlation with water-saving efficiency than single P. We conclude that empirical mod-
Keywords:
els that represent a large combinations of roof-surface areas, rainwater-tank sizes, water demands, and
Rainfall regime rainfall regimes should also consider a variable for precipitation temporal variability, and treat it as an
Hydrological variables independent variable.
Principal components Ó 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Canonical correlation

1. Introduction Currently, the performance of domestic rainwater harvesting

Population growth in cities has a significant impact on the
quantitative and qualitative availability of fresh water resources,
requiring new approaches to water management in urban areas
(Palla et al., 2011). In some regions of the world, authorities are
adopting alternatives to meet the growing demand for fresh water,
including the use of rainwater, water reuse, and desalination.
The use of alternative water sources is very important for
managing water resources, and the use of rainwater is one measure
that has been adopted for water conservation, not only for domes-
tic use but also for industrial use (Khastagir and Jayasuriya, 2010;
Palla et al., 2012). Rainwater has been used to supplement other
water supplies in several parts of the world where the conven-
tional water supply system does not satisfactorily meet the needs
of the population (Liaw and Tsai, 2004). In Australia, government
officials offer incentives and subsidies to promote the installation
of rainwater utilization systems (Imteaz et al., 2012; Rahman
et al., 2012). In Brazil, public funding supported the installation
of more than 580,000 rainwater tanks in rural areas throughout
the country.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: leo.r.andrade@gmail.com (L.R. Andrade), adelenam@gmail.
com (A.G. Maia), pslucio@ccet.ufrn.br (P.S. Lucio).
(DRWH) systems is evaluated by reservoir water balance using
long-term rainfall time series (Ghisi et al., 2006; Ghisi et al.,
2007; Imteaz et al., 2012; Rahman et al., 2012; Mehrabadi et al.,
2013). These studies provide DRWH performance indices for differ-
ent rainwater tank sizes, roof-surface areas, and levels of demand.
However, these results are applied only in specific locations that
provided rainwater tank outcomes related to specific rainfall time
series. Other research has sought an empirical relationship
between the DRWH performance indices and some of the following
variables: rainwater tank size, roof area, demand, and a hydrolog-
ical variable (Eroksuz and Rahman, 2010; Rahman et al., 2012;
Hajani and Rahman, 2014b). The empirical models can also use
dimensionless index-like independent variables (Fewkes, 1999;
Khastagir and Jayasuriya, 2010; Liaw and Chiang, 2014a). However,
the equation that represents the relationship between the DRWH
performance indices and the independent variables only can be
applied in the region that provides the long-term time series data
used for analysis.
In empirical models, the main hydrological variable used is the
average annual rainfall (P), without incorporating variable repre-
senting the temporal variability of precipitation for a specific
region. This modeling method cannot therefore be extrapolated
across regions with variations in rainfall depending on the time
of year; for example, localities may have the same annual rainfall

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.027
0022-1694/Ó 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
164 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171
but different temporal variability, thereby producing different
rainwater tank efficiency.
According to Imteaz et al. (2012), many studies have used aver-
age annual rainfall data to model a DRWH system; however, in
areas of high inter-annual rainfall variability, analysis that consid-
ers long-term mean annual rainfall may not be useful. Imteaz et al.
(2013) evaluated the results of DRWH reliability in different areas
of Melbourne, Australia, and concluded that it is necessary to
change the traditional design practice of considering a single
annual rainfall value for rainwater-tank sizing, and the results of
these studies should vary if applied in places with different rainfall
intensities and patterns.
Palla et al. (2012) evaluated DRWH reliability in the different
climates of Europe and studied the effect of meteorological param-
eters such as antecedent dry weather period (ADWP), depth, and
intensity and duration of rainfall on the performance of DRWH sys-
tems. They concluded that ADWP was the most significant param-
eter correlated with DRWH performance indices.
The present study investigated the relevance of four hydrologi-
cal variables in the performance of DRWH systems with the intent
to evaluate each hydrological variable in terms of being able to be
used in empirical models. The hydrological variables investigated
are average annual rainfall (P), precipitation concentration degree
(PCD), antecedent dry weather period (ADWP), and ratio of dry
days to rainy days (nD/nR). With the exception of P, all other vari-
ables represent the temporal variability of precipitation. The
results of this research: (1) give support for the inclusion of hydro-
logical variables that represent the temporal variability of precipi-
tation in empirical models; (2) present a methodology for
analyzing the relevance of different variables in water-saving effi-
ciency of a DRWH system (methodology not unpublished, but not
previously applied in DRWH system analyses); and (3) introduce
the variable PCD, which has never been used before in DRWH sys-
tem analyses.
2. Material and methods
2.1. The behavior model
The present study was performed in 50 locations in the state of
Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (Fig. 1), all of them with 48-year data
series of daily rainfall, covering the same period from 1963 to
2010. All rainfall series data were provided by Agricultural
Research Corporation of Rio Grande do Norte State (Empresa de
Pesquisa Agropecuária do Rio Grande do Norte, EMPARN).
The system behavior analysis was performed with the water
balance simulation model using daily simulations. Yield before
spillage (YBS) and yield after spillage (YAS) models were developed
by Jenkins et al. (1978) and indicate different rules for reservoir
operations to carry out simulations. In the YBS model, after-
rainfall water has been added, demand is met, and spillage is com-
puted in the model. In the YAS model, demand is met after rainfall
water has been added to the reservoir and spillage has occurred.
Mitchell (2007) investigated the impact of the computational
time step, the computational operation rule (YAS and YBS), the ini-
tial volume of the reservoir, and the length of the simulation period
on the accuracy of the model. In the results of this study, the YAS
model was more accurate than the YBS model, regardless of the
computational time step adopted, and YAS model provided more
conservative efficiency values. However, the fact that the YAS
model provides a conservative estimate of system performance
was pointed out by another researcher (Fewkes, 1999) as a critique
of the model. Liaw and Tsai (2004) recommended the YBS model,
especially when there is a combination of a small reservoir and
large demand, because in these situations the water-saving effi-
ciency can be zero, preventing evaluation of the system.
In this study, the simulations were conducted with the YAS
model. The YAS model is based on the following equations (Eqs.
(1) and (2)):


Dt
Y t ¼ min ; ð1Þ
V t1 þ It


V t1 þ It  Y t
V t ¼ min : ð2Þ
C  Yt
where Yt is the volume that supplied the demand in the final time
interval t; Vt1 is the stored volume in the final time t  1; Vt is
the stored volume in the final time interval t (current time); It is
the water drained from the roof to the reservoir in the time interval
t; Dt is the total demand for water in the time interval t; and C is the
rainwater tank capacity.
The reservoir behavior was analyzed for water-saving effi-
ciency, according to Fewkes (1999), in Eq. (3):
PT
Yt
E ¼ PTt¼1  100: ð3Þ
t¼1 Dt
where E is the system’s water-saving efficiency to meet the demand
(%); Yt is the volume that supplied the demand in any time interval
t; Dt is the total water demand in the time interval t (daily demand);
and T is the total time (in days) of the series. The water-saving effi-
ciency is interpreted as a measure of the system’s quantitative per-
formance over the long-term simulation period (Palla et al., 2012).
To simulate the performance of a DRWH system, a daily water
balance simulation model was built in Visual Basic language for
Excel (Microsoft; Redmond, Washington, USA). For each locality,
a 48-year data series of daily rainfall was used. This sort of
approach with long-term rainfall data produces average water-
saving efficiency. For the current research, this approach is suffi-
cient, as we are investigating the relevance of a set of hydrological
variables in water-saving efficiency; the use of average outcomes is
adequate. It should be noted, however, that if the purpose of the
research is to indicate the degree of water-saving efficiency for
the system-user, it should be clarified that the results presented
are the average efficiency, and because of inter-annual rainfall
variabilities, is not certain to save the same amount of water every
year. Another alternative is to present the efficiency of rainwater
tanks under different climate conditions (i.e. dry, average, wet
years), as was done in Imteaz et al. (2012), Imteaz et al. (2013)
and Hajani and Rahman (2014a).
2.2. Scenarios
Simulations of DRWH systems were created for combinations of
hydrological conditions and system characteristics as follows: 50
rainfall regimes (with annual rainfall ranging from 477 to
1699 mm), four rainwater demand amounts (50, 100, 150, and
200 L day1), five rainwater-tank sizes (1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 m3),
and four roof-surface areas (50, 100, 150, and 200 m2). Diverse
combinations of demand, rainwater-tank size, and roof-surface
area generated 80 simulations for each of the 50 locations.
These scenarios were evaluated by a dimensionless index, pi
(Eq. (4)) defined using the variables: annual rainwater demand
(D), rainwater-tank capacity (C) and roof-surface area (A).
AC
p¼ ð4Þ
D5=3
The p results of 80 combinations of D, C, and A were divided
into four groups of equal size (20 elements), classified according
to the schema presented in Table 1.
 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171 165

Fig. 1. Location of the municipalities studied.

Comfort level 1 shows the best water-saving efficiency results, 2.3. Hydrological variables
once it represents the combination with higher tank capacities
and roof-surface areas with lower annual demand. There is no The hydrological variables investigated in this research are
physical meaning of this dimensionless index, but it can be used average annual rainfall (P), precipitation concentration degree
to analyze the different combinations of demand, rainwater-tank (PCD), antecedent dry weather period (ADWP), and ratio of dry
capacity, and roof-surface area and allow classification of these days to rainy days (nD/nR). Of all of these variables, P is the only
combinations in the functioning of the facility to meet demand. one that does not represent the temporal variability of precipita-
We consider that the comfort level 1 represents the situations in tion. For this reason, the variations in rainfall level in these loca-
which demand is met more easily. The comfort levels 2 and 3 are tions were characterized using the PCD, ADWP, and nD/nR.
able to represent situations with intermediate difficulty in meeting The PCD is defined as the degree to which the total annual rain-
the demand, and comfort level 4 represents the situations in which fall is distributed over 12 months. Li et al. (2011) studied the spa-
demand is hardly met. tial and temporal precipitation variability in Xinjiang, China; the
PCD indicated that the rainfall in Northern Xinjiang was more dis-
Table 1 persed within a year than that in Southern Xinjiang. Zhang et al.
Classification of comfort level by the p values (p0: 0th percentile; p25: 25th (2007) applied this index and analyzed the spatial and temporal
percentile; p50: 50th percentile; p75: 75th percentile; p100: 100th percentile). variability features across different regions of North China in the
P intervals Comfort level rainy season. The results showed that the precipitation over the
P75 < P 6 P100 Comfort level 1 eastern region of North China were more concentrated than in
P50 < P 6 P75 Comfort level 2 the western region and that low pressure from north of the
P25 < P 6 P50 Comfort level 3
Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to the Mongolian Plateau plays an important
P0 < P 6 P25 Comfort level 4
role in PCD.
166 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171

Table 2
Corresponding relationship between a and month.

Month January February March April May June July August September October November December
a 0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180° 210° 240° 270° 300° 330°

Calculation of the PCD assumes that the monthly precipitations
(rj) are vector quantities, with its origin in the Cartesian axis pole
and end in polar coordinates (rj, a), the a value obtained by
Table 2.
The PCD is the relationship between the resultant vector of
monthly precipitation vectors and annual precipitation and calcu-
lated using Eqs. (5)–(8):
X tion of standardized variables for the composition of the principal
P¼ rj ; ð5Þ
X
Rx ¼ r j  sin hj ; ð6Þ
X
Ry ¼ r j  cos hj ; ð7Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Rx2 þ Ry2
PCD ¼ : ð8Þ
P (Pannual, PCD, ADWP and nnDR ) with a second group that represents
where j represents the month (j = 1, 2, . . ., 12) in a year; rj represents
the average monthly rainfall in a month j; and hj is the azimuth of
the month vector j.
The annual PCD interval ranges from 0 to 1, with the maximum
value obtained when the total annual rainfall is concentrated in a
specific month, and the minimum value when the rainfall is evenly
distributed over the months during the year.
The ADWP is an important parameter in rainwater quality and
is defined as the average time value (in days) between the end of
one rain event and the beginning of another; the ADWP represents
the average number of dry days before a rainy day (Davis and
McCuen, 2005). The ADWP was used by Palla et al. (2012) to assess
the impact of hydrological characteristics on the performance of
rainwater utilization systems in regions with different climates.
The nD/nR index is defined as the average value of dry days for
each rainy day in the year, where nD is the number of dry days
and nR is the number of rainy days in the year. Campisano and
Modica (2012) used this index to compose a dimensionless
methodology for the optimal design of DRWH in Italy.
2.4. Statistical procedures
values k1, k2, . . ., kp and the corresponding eigenvectors a1, a2,. . .,
ap, through solution of Eq. (9),
jR  Ikj ¼ 0 ð9Þ
where I is the identity matrix; (4) elimination of components that
contribute little to the variance of the original data set; and (5)
use of matrices of eigenvectors as the factors in a linear combina-
components (Noori et al., 2010). For further details of this statistical
procedure, see Johnson and Wichern (2007).
2.4.2. Canonical correlation analysis
CCA was used in the present study in order to determine the
degree of association between a group of hydrological variables
the standard water-saving efficiency system, which will be repre-
sented by the principal components adopted. For this analysis,
we determined which of the hydrological variables are more rele-
vant for characterizing rainfall regimes in the analysis of a DRWH
system.
The objective of CCA is to build two new sets of canonical vari-
ables, U = aX and V = bY, which are linear combinations of the orig-
inal variables X and Y, so that the correlation between U and V is
maximized (Noori et al., 2010).
The random vectors X and Y represent the two groups of vari-
ables to be analyzed, of dimensions px1 and qx1, where it is
assumed that:
VarðXÞ ¼ A ð10Þ
VarðYÞ ¼ B ð11Þ
CovðX; YÞ ¼ C ð12Þ
CovðY; XÞ ¼ C0 ð13Þ
The construction of the matrix is shown in (14) below:

From each locality we have 80 water-saving efficiency results,

from the scenarios considered, and it was necessary to include a
dimensional reduction for the purpose of analyzing the influence
of hydrological variables on these results. A statistical procedure, ð14Þ
principal component analysis (PCA), was then designed to reduce
the sample space. In addition, canonical correlation analysis
(CCA) was used to find the influence of each hydrological variable
analyzed in the water-saving efficiency results, already reduced by
PCA. Both procedures (PCA and CA) were performed using R soft-
ware (R Development Core Team, 2012), and (specifically for From this matrix, a matrix q  q can be calculated by B1C0 A1C,
PCA) the package developed by Butts (2012). and the eigenvalue (k) can be considered as presented in Eq. (15):

ðB1 C 0 A1 C  kIÞb ¼ 0: ð15Þ

2.4.1. Principal component analysis
From the eigenvalues (k), we can find the canonical correlation
PCA transforms the original variables into a new set of variables pffiffiffiffi
of each pair of canonical variables that is equal to ki . The corre-
that are (1) linear combinations of the original variables, (2) uncor-
sponding eigenvectors b1, b2, . . ., br provide the variable coeffi-
related with each other, and (3) ordered according to the amount
cients Y for the construction of the canonical variable V, being
of variation in the original variables that can be accounted for by
V = bY. The vectors a1, a2, . . ., ar (a) are calculated with Eq. (16)
the new variables (Everitt and Hothorn, 2011). In mathematical
for the construction of the canonical variable U = aX:
terms, PCA involves the following steps: (1) standardization of
variables X1, X2, . . ., Xp, for having mean zero and unit variance; ai ¼ A1 Cbi : ð16Þ
(2) calculation of correlation matrix R; (3) determination of eigen-
 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171
The process is performed so that the pairs of canonical variables
are sorted in descending order, considering the first major canon-
ical correlation to the k-th highest canonical correlation.
Canonical loadings reflect the variance that a particular variable
shares with the group. The higher the canonical loadings, the more
important the variable is to derive the canonical statistical vari-
able. Canonical cross-loadings represent the correlations between
an original variable of a particular group and the canonical statis-
tical variable of the other group.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Rainfall pattern
In the study area, high spatial variability in the average total
rainfall and the temporal variability of the rainfall throughout
the year were observed (Fig. 2). The eastern region of Rio Grande
do Norte has the highest annual rainfall, and it is better distributed
throughout the year. Moving from east to west, the annual rainfall
decreases and becomes concentrated; the highest degree of con-
centration is shown in the central region of the state. In the west-
ern region of the state, there is a recovery in annual rainfall values
with better temporal distribution, especially in the southwest
region due to localities at higher altitude being subject to the oro-
graphic effect. The wide variety of rainfall patterns is due to the dif-
ferent weather systems acting in the region, with an emphasis on
the intertropical convergence zone and easterly wave disturbances.
Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of variables P, PCD, ADWP, and nD/nR.
167
The distribution pattern of the ADWP and nD/nR are similar,
since these data are used daily to establish the temporal variability
of rainfall, rather than to analyze the distribution of this rainfall
throughout the year, thus differing from the PCD.
3.2. System water-saving efficiency
The simulations were performed for 80 scenarios (including
diverse combinations of demand, rainwater-tank size, and roof-
surface area) for 50 municipalities. The water-saving efficiencies
are summarized in a boxplot (Fig. 3). In only six municipalities
the median values were higher than 80%. Most of the municipali-
ties present median values around 50% and 70%. Equador is the
only municipality with a median water-saving efficiency below
50%, since Equador has the lowest average annual rainfall
(478.4 mm) among all the studied locations associated with high
precipitation temporal variability. The differences in the water-
saving efficiencies obtained by each municipality happened
because of differences between the scenarios of demand,
rainwater-tank size, and roof area.
3.3. Principal component analysis
The principal components were generated from the efficiencies
of 80 cases with different combinations of roof-surface area,
demand, and rainwater-tank size. The results of the first two com-
ponents are shown in Fig. 4. The first component (PC1) captured
168 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171
Fig. 3. Water-saving efficiency range for each municipality.
93.86% of the data variance, the second component (PC2) captured
3.97%, and the third component (PC3) captured 1.10%.
In all the 80 combinations of D, C, and A, the differences
between water-saving efficiency results for each location occurred
due to the difference of daily rainfall series. These differences
accounts for the spatial variability of the PC’s. Analyzing the PC1
results, it is found higher values at the east, lower values in the
central area, and increase of PC1 at the west region. The spatial dis-
tribution pattern of the PC1 values are very similar to the pattern
distribution of the annual rainfall (Fig. 2), which reflects high inter-
ference by the annual rainfall values in the water-saving efficiency
system and, consequently, in the PC1 values.
The spatial variability of PC2 presents low values in the west
area and in the east coast, and high values in a specific area in
the east. This spatial distribution pattern is not similar to the other
hydrological variables (PCD, ADWP, or nD/nR), although we con-
sider that the spatial distribution of PC2 is related with the rainfall
temporal variability.
To choose the principal components that will be used for the
canonical correlation analysis, a preliminary analysis was carried
out with the first two principal components. Fig. 5 the axis ‘‘y”
presents the Pearson correlation coefficient between PC1 and the
water-saving efficiency results of each of the 80 scenarios; and
the axis ‘‘x” presents the Pearson correlation coefficient between
PC2 and the water-saving efficiency results.
In the combination belonging to comfort levels 2, 3, 4 and in
part of the combination for level 1, the correlations of water-
saving efficiencies are larger with PC1 than with PC2 (clear area,
Fig. 5). Even so, for seven combination of rainwater tank size, water
demand, and roof-surface area (comfort level 1), the PC2 presented
a larger correlation with water-saving efficiency than PC1 (fea-
tured area, Fig. 5.).
This research considered the PC’s that properly represent the
results of water-saving efficiency in order to reduce the 80
water-saving efficiency results in some PC’s. Using only PC1 would
not generate completely valid conclusions for comfort level 1. To
solve this challenge, the first two components were used in canon-
ical correlation analysis to define which of the hydrological vari-
ables shows better correlation with water-saving efficiency in
different situations of comfort levels. We highlight that PC1 is bet-
ter able to represent situations with higher and intermediate diffi-
culty in meeting the demand (comfort level 2, 3 and 4), and PC2
best represents situations in which demand is met more easily
(comfort level 1).
 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171 169

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of first and second principal components.

a high significance level (0.036). The canonical cross-loadings pro-

Fig. 5. Relationship between the correlations of the water-saving efficiency with
PC1 and PC2.
3.4. Canonical correlation analysis
CCA was performed with the set Y = PC1 and PC2, and two sets
of X, in analysis 1, X = (P, ADWP, nD/nR, PCD), and in analysis 2,
X = (ADWP, nD/nR, PCD); see Table 3.
In Analysis 1, the two pairs of U are relevant (significance level
<0.001), but in Analysis 2, only U1 was considered, because U2 has
vide a correlation between the original variables (P, ADWP, nD/nR,
and PCD) and the canonical variable V, created by linear combina-
tion of PC1 and PC2. Through cross-correlation analysis, in Analysis
1, we can analyze (for the bolded values) that for the first pair of
canonical variables, annual rainfall has the highest correlation with
V1, followed by PCD, ADWP, and nD/nR, and for the second pair of
canonical variables, PCD has the highest correlation with V2. When
only the rainfall variability indices were analyzed (Analysis 2), PCD
showed a higher correlation with the variable V1 (bolded value),
which represents the principal components. Analysis 1 confirmed
that annual rainfall is the most important hydrological variable,
followed by PCD, ADWP, and nD/nR. Analysis 2 verified that PCD
was the best indicator among the indices that represented rainfall
temporal variability.
Additional CCAs (Tables 4–6) were performed to verify whether
the use of a rainfall temporal variability index associated with
annual rainfall would increase its correlation with the system’s
water-saving efficiency, in different comfort situations. Higher
and intermediate difficulties in meeting demand are represented
by PC1; the situation of the facility to meet demand is represented
by PC2.
The canonical cross-loadings provide a simple correlation
between the original variable and the canonical variable Y, which
represents PC1 or PC2. Thus, in all cases the annual rainfall associ-
ated with another hydrological variable (PCD, ADWP or nD/nR) gen-
erated a correlation increase with the PC, which can be checked by

Table 3
Canonical correlation analysis of data (analyses 1 and 2).

Analysis 1 Analysis 2
X = (P, ADWP, nD/nR, PCD) X = (ADWP, nD/nR, PCD)
Canonical variables U1 U2 U1 U2
Canonical Correlation 0.984 0.946 0.974 0.367
Significance level <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.036
Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings Canonical loadings Canonical cross-
loadings
Canonical variables U1 U2 V1 V2 U1 U2 V1 V2
P 0.930 0.356 0.916 0.337 – – – –
ADWP 0.772 0.175 0.760 0.166 0.760 – 0.741 –
nD/nR 0.678 0.107 0.668 0.101 0.645 – 0.629 –
PCD 0.780 0.557 0.784 0.527 0.967 – 0.943 –
170 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171

Table 4
Canonical correlation analysis of data (Analysis 3).

Analysis 3: X = (P, PCD)

Y = PC1 Y = PC2
Canonical variables ations U1 U1
Canonical correlation 0.974 0.925
Significance level <0.001 <0.001
Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings
Canonical Variables U1 V1 U1 V1
P 0.953 0.928 0.327 0.303
PCD 0.785 0.764 0.601 0.556

Table 5
Canonical correlation analysis of data (Analysis 4).

Analysis 4: X = (P, ADWP)

Y = PC1 Y = PC2
Canonical variables U1 U1
Canonical correlation 0.949 0.594
Significance level <0.001 <0.001
Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings
Canonical U1 V1 U1 V1
P 0.978 0.928 0.509 0.303
ADWP 0.793 0.753 0.327 0.194

Table 6
Canonical correlation analysis of data (Analysis 5).

Analysis 5: X = (P, nD/nR)

Y = PC1 Y = PC2
Canonical variables U1 U1
Canonical correlation 0.944 0.468
Significance level <0.001 <0.01
Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings Canonical loadings Canonical cross-loadings
Canonical U1 V1 U1 V1
P 0.983 0.928 0.647 0.303
nD/nR 0.703 0.663 0.270 0.126

comparing the canonical correlation with the canonical cross-
loadings (bolded values). Annual rainfall has the highest correla-
tion with PC1, but PCD and ADWP also presented high correlations
with this component. For PC2, the PCD has the highest correlation,
and was more important than the annual rainfall in comfortable
situations.
Palla et al. (2012) evaluated the reliability of DRWH systems in
different climates of Europe and studied the effect of hydrological
parameters including ADWP, depth, and intensity and duration of
rainfall on DRWH system performance. They found that the depth,
intensity, and duration of rainfall were weakly correlated with sys-
tem performance, as shown by the corresponding coefficient deter-
mination of the regression analysis between each of these different
hydrological parameters and the water-saving efficiency and
detention time (time period during which water is stored in the
tank).The results indicate that the coefficient of determination
(R2) is generally greater than 0.80 for ADWP, about 0.50 for event
rainfall duration, about 0.20 for rainfall intensity, and lower than
0.20 for rainfall depth. The simulation that supports these results
was conducted by YAS model considering five main climate zones
(annual precipitation of less than 300 mm to approximately
1900 mm), roof-surface area of 100 m2, demand fraction (annual
water demand/annual inflow) equal to one, storage capacity ranges
between 0.4 and 150 m3, and storage fraction (S/Q, storage capac-
ity/annual rainfall) varying from 0.01 to 1. However, the regression
analysis was performed with a range of S/Q between 0.01 and 0.1,
which corresponds to a storage capacity smaller than 20 m3. Palla
et al. (2012) concluded that ADWP, that represents the temporal
rainfall variability, was the main hydrological parameter that
affected the system behavior, corroborating with our results.
4. Conclusions
Our study area covers 52,811 km2 with annual rainfall variabil-
ity ranging from 490 to 1640 mm where there is also high variabil-
ity in the rainfall temporal distribution patterns due to different
regional weather systems. Therefore, the conclusions reached can
be generalized for other areas with significant variability in
rainfall.
We concluded that empirical models that attempt to represent
a large combination range of roof-surface areas, rainwater-tank
sizes, levels of water demand, and rainfall variations should con-
sider a variable that represents the precipitation temporal variabil-
ity as an independent variable. For the study area, it is found that
the most influential hydrological variables are the average annual
rainfall and PCD, which should be used in empirical models. In
comfortable situations in terms of meeting the demand (low
demand and large rainwater-tank and roof-surface areas), the use
of PCD, as an independent variable, was more relevant than the
 L.R. Andrade et al. / Journal of Hydrology 545 (2017) 163–171
annual rainfall. However, these situations should consider the use
of the two variables concurrently.
Rainfall temporal variability is an important factor, and its rel-
evance in the analysis of the performance of a rainwater-tank sys-
tem should be studied. In certain situations, where there is low
variability in rainfall patterns, or even when there is substantial
variability in annual rainfall but a small variation in the rainfall
temporal distribution, such as in areas where the weather-
forming rainfall systems act across an entire area, it may not be
necessary to use temporal hydrological variables. However, this
possibility should be investigated, and this work presents a
methodology applicable for any region (nationally and internation-
ally) to make this evaluation.
The development of models for areas with homogeneous rain-
fall can be an alternative to reduce the number of hydrological
variables, as implemented in Liaw and Chiang (2014a) and Liaw
and Chiang (2014b). But even in these cases, prior use of temporal
hydrological variables would still be necessary to determine the
homogeneous areas. The use of appropriate hydrological variables
for the development of DRWH-system analysis models will result
in more efficient models that lead to higher system-user satisfac-
tion and greater diffusion of this technology.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Agricultural Research Corporation of Rio
Grande do Norte State (EMPARN) for providing the rainfall time
series data and the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal
de Nível Superior (CAPES) for providing a Master degree scholar-
ship to the first author.
References
Butts, C.T., 2012. yacca: Yet Another Canonical Correlation Analysis Package. R
package version 1.1. <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=yacca>.
Campisano, A., Modica, C., 2012. Optimal sizing of storage tanks for domestic
rainwater harvesting in Sicily. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 63, 9–16.
Davis, A.P., McCuen, R.H., 2005. Stormwater Management for Smart Growth.
Stormwater Quality. Springer Science, New York.
Eroksuz, E., Rahman, A., 2010. Rainwater tanks in multi-unit buildings: a case study
for three Australian cities. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 54 (12), 1449–1452.
Everitt, B., Hothorn, T., 2011. An Introdution to Applied Multicariate Analysis With R
(Use R!). Springer, New York.
Fewkes, A., 1999. Modelling the performance of rainwater collection systems:
towards a generalised approach. Urban Water 1, 323–333.
Ghisi, E., Montibeller, A., Schmidt, R.W., 2006. Potential for potable water savings by
using rainwater: an analysis over 62 cities in southern Brazil. Build. Environ. 41
(2), 204–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.01.014.
171
Ghisi, E., Bressan, D.L., Martini, M., 2007. Rainwater tank capacity and potential for
potable water savings by using rainwater in the residential sector of
southeastern Brazil. Build. Environ. 42, 1654–1666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2006.02.007.
Hajani, E., Rahman, A., 2014a. Reliability and cost analysis of a rainwater harvesting
system in peri-urban regions of Greater Sydney, Australia. Water 6, 945–960.
Hajani, E., Rahman, A., 2014b. Rainwater utilization from roof catchments in arid
regions: a case study for Australia. J. Arid Environ. 111, 35–41.
Imteaz, M.A., Rahman, A., Ahsan, A., 2012. Reliability analysis of Rainwater tanks: a
comparison between South-East and Central Melbore. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
66, 1–7.
Imteaz, M.A., Ahsan, A., Shanableh, H.A., 2013. Reliability analysis of rainwater tanks
using daily water balance model: variations within a large city. Resour.,
Conserv. Recycl. 77, 37–43.
Jenkins, D., Pearson, F., Moore, E., Sun, J.K., Valentine, R., 1978. Feasibility of
rainwater collection systems in California. In: Contribution N°. 173. California
Water Resources Center. University of California.
Johnson, R.A., Wichern, D.W., 2007. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis.
Pearson Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey.
Khastagir, A., Jayasuriya, N., 2010. Optimal sizing of rain water tanks for domestic
water conservation. J. Hydrol. 381, 181–188.
Li, X., Jiang, F., Li, L., Wang, G., 2011. Spatial and temporal variability of precipitation
concentration index, concentration degree and concentration period in
Xinjiang, China. Int. J. Climatol. 31, 1679–1693.
Liaw, C.H., Chiang, Y.C., 2014a. Dimensionless analysis for designing domestic
rainwater harvesting systems at the regional level in Northern Taiwan. Water 6,
3913–3933.
Liaw, C.H., Chiang, Y.C., 2014b. Framework for assessing the rainwater harvesting
potential of residential buildings at a national level as an alternative water
resource for domestic water supply in Taiwan. Water 6 (10), 3224–3246.
Liaw, C.H., Tsai, Y.L., 2004. Optimum storage volume of rooftop rain water
harvesting systems for domestic use. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 40, 901–912.
Mehrabadi, M.H.R., Saghafian, B., Fashi, F.H., 2013. Assessment of residential
rainwater harvesting efficiency for meeting non-potable water demands in
three climate conditions. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 73, 86–93.
Mitchell, V.G., 2007. How important is the selection of computational analysis
method to the accuracy of rainwater tank behaviour modelling? Hydrol.
Process. 21 (21), 2850–2861.
Noori, R., Sabahi, M.S., Karbassi, A.R., Baghvand, A., Taati Zadeh, H., 2010.
Multivariate statistical analysis of surface water quality based on correlations
and variations in the data set. Desalination 260, 129–136. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2010.04.053.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., Lanza, L.G., 2011. Non-dimensional design parameters and
performance assessment of rainwater harvesting systems. J. Hydrol. 401, 65–76.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.009.
Palla, A., Gnecco, I., Lanza, L.G., Barbera, P.La., 2012. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling Performance analysis of domestic rainwater harvesting systems
under various European climate zones. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 62, 71–80.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.02.006.
R Core Team, 2012. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
http://www.R-project.org/.
Rahman, A., Keane, J., Imteaz, M.A., 2012. Rainwater harvesting in Greater Sydney:
water savings, reliability and economic benefits. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 61,
16–21.
Zhang, T., Cheng, B., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., 2007. Temporal and Spatial Change
Characteristics of Precipitation Concentration Degree(PCD) and Precipitation-
Concentration Period(PCP) over North China in Rainy Reason. Plateau Meteorol.
26 (4), 843–853.